Week 3 Discussion.

Discussion Board Instructions:

For your main/initial discussion post, you will create a video (using Yuja) addressing the discussion prompt and provide a transcript of your video post. For your main post you will “Create a New Thread” so there is no need to label it as an initial post. Draw your classmates into your post by coming up with a creative subject line! When addressing the discussion prompt be original! Remember, each student brings a unique perspective to the discussion. When you address the prompts, not do so in a "Question and Answer" format (we know the questions you will be answering initially). Each initial video post will range from 2 to 4 in length. Post both the video and the transcript script together in the Week 3 discussion.

To create a video in Yuja please go to the Resource Tab in the Course. There is a handout that describes how to make a video.

To participate in this week’s discussion, you must review the following court case documents. Evaluate the circumstances related to the case and analyze various parties (defense and prosecution) perspectives.

Cases:

Jun 15, 1999: RUNYON v. SMITH

May 10, 2000: RUNYON v. SMITH

After you carefully review the above documents, for your main post discuss your thoughts and knowledge for the following questions:

How might the situation impact all parties (clients) involved?

How might this case influence mental health professionals, and their work with individual’s, couples, and families?

If you were this mental health professional, what steps might you have taken to reduce the risks associated with the case findings?

How might this case influence ethical decision-making and the mental health professions?

Be sure to provide and discuss the rationale for your responses while connecting the information with your current state of practices’ code(s) of ethics (rules and regulations), the national code of ethics (think about your week 1 assignment here).

You should use a range of scholarly literature to support your discussion. Citations and references must be in APA format and should be included in the transcript/response posts. See the grading rubric for more information.

You are expected to participate for a minimum of 4 days in the weekly discussion area. In addition, you are expected to respond to your professor’s and fellow students’ postings. To count as participation, responses need to be thoughtful; that is, they must refer to the week's readings, relevant issues in the news, information obtained from other sources, and/or ideas expressed in your professor’s and other class members’ postings. You can begin your response posts prior to your main discussion post. Please see the rubric for details about expectations.

Peer and Instructor Response: In order to receive full credit for your discussion board participation, you must respond to at least 3 individuals (peers and/or instructor) on at least 3 different days with substantive responses and support these responses with references. In order to create a continuous scholarly interaction, your peer/instructor responses must occur on separate days throughout the week. Please note that your peer responses can occur prior to your primary response to the discussion board prompt. See the grading rubric for more information

In addition, responses should reference the peer’s or instructor’s post in some way. Responses should add to the discussion by illustrating a personal experience with the topic; by asking follow-up questions after explaining what you found unclear or interesting about the peer’s/instructor’s post; or by building on examples provided.

In order to be eligible for full credit, main/initial posting for the discussion board are due on or before Day 3 of each week. Peer/instructor responses should be made throughout the week and at least three should be completed before Day 6 of each week.

Please review grading rubric below: 5325 Discussion rubric- Revised 2020.pdf