Every order is original, expert-done, and screened for AI — full report on request.See how it works

Assignment questions
PsychologyDiscussion postGroup counseling

PCN 520 adolescent group opening and trust exercises

You are leading a group of adolescents referred for school, behaviour or substance use concerns. Describe an opening exercise and a trust-building exercise you might use with this group, and explain your choice.

Editorial process

Last reviewed · August 14, 2026

01

Two exercises doing two different jobs

The prompt is short and hides a distinction that decides the grade. An opening exercise is a structured way to start a session: it lowers the cost of speaking first, gives everyone an equal turn, and signals what kind of room this is going to be. A trust-building exercise does something different and riskier. It asks members to disclose, to rely on one another, or to take a small interpersonal risk, and it only works once basic safety exists. Describing two icebreakers answers half the question. Describe an opener that costs almost nothing — a one-word check-in, a rating of the week on a scale, a round where everyone names one thing they would rather not talk about today — and then a trust exercise that genuinely asks for something, and the difference between the two becomes the argument of your post. Say which stage of the group each exercise belongs to, and the rationale writes itself.

The population is doing work too. These adolescents are referred, not volunteers, and referral for school behaviour or substance use means some of them are there because a court, a parent or a principal said so. That changes what will land. Exercises that require immediate personal disclosure will meet resistance or performance; anything that looks like a test will be read as surveillance. Confidentiality has real limits with minors and mandated reporting, and a strong post says so before proposing an exercise that invites disclosure. Explain your choice in those terms: what developmental stage these members are at, what the referral route does to their willingness, how your two exercises manage the difference, and what you would do if a member refused to participate at all, because with an involuntary group that is a likely first session rather than an edge case. A planned response to refusal is itself evidence that you understand this population.

Likely learning objectives

Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.

  • 01
    Distinguish the purpose of an opening exercise from that of a trust-building exercise.
  • 02
    Adapt group technique to adolescent developmental stage and to involuntary referral.
  • 03
    Anticipate resistance as a predictable feature of a mandated group rather than a failure.
  • 04
    Explain the limits of confidentiality with minors before inviting disclosure.
  • 05
    Justify technique choices against recognised stages of group development.
Assignment instructionsQuoted verbatim

Read the full question

Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.

PCN 520 Grand Canyon Week 5 Discussion 2 Latest July 2016 Describe an opening exercise and a trust-building exercise you might use with this group. You are leading a group of adolescents referred because of school, behavior, and/or substance use. Describe an opening exercise and a trust-building exercise you might use with this group. Explain your choice. PCN 520 Grand Canyon Week 5 Discussion 2 Latest July 2016
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS Discussion Questions (DQ) Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words. Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source. One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words. I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses. Weekly Participation Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately. In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies. Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work). Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week. APA Format and Writing Quality Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required). Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation. I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition. Use of Direct Quotes I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly. As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content. It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source. LopesWrite Policy For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me. Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes. Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own? Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score. Late Policy The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies. Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances. If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect. I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension. As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading. Communication Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me: Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class. Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours. Grading Rubric Guidelines Performance Category 10 9 8 4 0 Scholarliness Demonstrates achievement of scholarly inquiry for professional and academic decisions. Provides relevant evidence of scholarly inquiry clearly stating how the evidence informed or changed professional or academic decisions Evaluates literature resources to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis. Uses valid, relevant, and reliable outside sources to contribute to the threaded discussion Provides relevant evidence of scholarly inquiry but does not clearly state how the evidence informed or changed professional or academic decisions. Evaluates information from source(s) to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Uses some valid, relevant, reliable outside sources to contribute to the threaded discussion. Discusses using scholarly inquiry but does not state how scholarly inquiry informed or changed professional or academic decisions. Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Little valid, relevant, or reliable outside sources are used to contribute to the threaded discussion. Demonstrates little or no understanding of the topic. Discusses using scholarly inquiry but does not state how scholarly inquiry informed or changed professional or academic decisions. Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/evaluation. The posting uses information that is not valid, relevant, or reliable No evidence of the use of scholarly inquiry to inform or change professional or academic decisions. Information is not valid, relevant, or reliable Performance Category 10 9 8 4 0 Application of Course Knowledge – Demonstrate the ability to analyze, synthesize, and/or apply principles and concepts learned in the course lesson and outside readings and relate them to real-life professional situations Posts make direct reference to concepts discussed in the lesson or drawn from relevant outside sources; Applies concepts to personal experience in the professional setting and or relevant application to real life. Posts make direct reference to concepts discussed in the lesson or drawn from relevant outside sources. Applies concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life Interactions with classmates are relevant to the discussion topic but do not make direct reference to lesson content Posts are generally on topic but do not build knowledge by incorporating concepts and principles from the lesson. Does not attempt to apply lesson concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life Does not demonstrate a solid understanding of the principles and concepts presented in the lesson Posts do not adequately address the question posed either by the discussion prompt or the instructor’s launch post. Posts are superficial and do not reflect an understanding of the lesson content Does not attempt to apply lesson concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life Posts are not related to the topics provided by the discussion prompt or by the instructor; attempts by the instructor to redirect the student are ignored No discussion of lesson concepts to personal experience in the professional setting and or relevant application to real life Performance Category 5 4 3 2 0 Interactive Dialogue Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts a minimum of two times in each graded thread, on separate days. (5 points possible per graded thread) Exceeds minimum post requirements Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts three or more times in each graded thread, over three separate days. Replies to a post posed by faculty and to a peer Summarizes what was learned from the lesson, readings, and other student posts for the week. Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts a minimum of two times in each graded thread, on separate days Replies to a question posed by a peer Summarizes what was learned from the lesson, readings, and other student posts for the week. Meets expectations of 2 posts on 2 different days. The main post is not made by the Wednesday deadline Does not reply to a question posed by a peer or faculty Has only one post for the week Discussion posts contain few, if any, new ideas or applications; often are a rehashing or summary of other students’ comments Does not post to the thread No connections are made to the topic Minus 1 Point Minus 2 Point Minus 3 Point Minus 4 Point Minus 5 Point Grammar, Syntax, APA Note: if there are only a few errors in these criteria, please note this for the student in as an area for improvement. If the student does not make the needed corrections in upcoming weeks, then points should be deducted. Points deducted for improper grammar, syntax and APA style of writing. The source of information is the APA Manual 6th Edition 2-3 errors in APA format. Written responses have 2-3 grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors. Writing style is generally clear, focused, and facilitates communication. 4-5 errors in APA format. Writing responses have 4-5 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Writing style is somewhat focused. 6-7 errors in APA format. Writing responses have 6-7 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Writing style is slightly focused making discussion difficult to understand. 8-10 errors in APA format. Writing responses have 8-10 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Writing style is not focused, making discussion difficult to understand. Post contains greater than 10 errors in APA format. Written responses have more than 10 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Writing style does not facilitate communication. The student continues to make repeated mistakes in any of the above areas after written correction by the instructor 0 points lost -5 points lost Total Participation Requirements per discussion thread The student answers the threaded discussion question or topic on one day and posts a second response on another day. The student does not meet the minimum requirement of two postings on two different days Early Participation Requirement per discussion thread The student must provide a substantive answer to the graded discussion question(s) or topic(s), posted by the course instructor (not a response to a peer), by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week. The student does not meet the requirement of a substantive response to the stated question or topic by Wednesday at 11:59 pm MT.

02

Turn the brief into deliverables

  1. 01
    One opening exercise, described concretely enough to run.
  2. 02
    One trust-building exercise, distinct in purpose from the opener.
  3. 03
    A rationale for each choice tied to this specific group.
  4. 04
    Acknowledgement of confidentiality limits with referred minors.
  5. 05
    A plan for a member who declines to take part.
03

The group, the opener, the trust exercise, the rationale

01

Who is in this room

Characterise a referred adolescent group and what referral does to engagement.

02

The opening exercise

Describe a low-cost structured opener and what it is meant to establish.

03

The trust-building exercise

Describe an activity that asks members to take a measured interpersonal risk.

04

Why these two, for this group

Justify both choices against developmental stage and referral route.

05

Safety, confidentiality and refusal

Set out the limits of confidentiality and a response to non-participation.

04

Group stages and the evidence behind them

Recommended databases

  • StatPearls via NCBI Bookshelf
  • SAMHSA publications via NCBI Bookshelf
  • PsycINFO
  • World Health Organization
  • Your course text on group counselling

Search sequence

  1. 1.
    Read a current account of the stages of group development and note what belongs to each.
  2. 2.
    Look up group technique with adolescents specifically, not with adults.
  3. 3.
    Check guidance on substance use groups, since referral routes often run through them.
  4. 4.
    Find what the evidence says about resistance in mandated treatment groups.
  5. 5.
    Choose exercises only after the stage argument is settled, so the rationale is not retrofitted.
05

Reference shortlist

These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.

Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.

  1. 01

    Group Therapy

    StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023

    Sets out group stages, therapeutic factors and leader tasks that justify exercise choice.

  2. 02

    Substance Abuse Treatment: Group Therapy (TIP 41)

    SAMHSA, via NCBI Bookshelf · 2015

    Detailed guidance on running substance use groups, including engagement with referred members.

  3. 03

    Adolescent Mental Health

    World Health Organization · 2024

    Evidence on adolescent development and risk that grounds the age-appropriateness argument.

  4. 04

    Alcohol Use Disorder: Screening, Evaluation, and Management

    StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024

    Background on the substance use concerns that brought several members to this group.

06

Review before submission

Common mistakes

  • Proposing two icebreakers and treating the second as a trust exercise.
  • Choosing an exercise that requires deep disclosure in the first session of a mandated group.
  • Writing for a voluntary adult group and ignoring that these members were referred.
  • Leaving confidentiality unaddressed while proposing an activity that invites personal information.
  • Describing the exercises without explaining why either suits adolescents.
  • Assuming full participation, when refusal is the more likely opening move here.

Submission checklist

  • The two exercises serve visibly different purposes.
  • Each is described in enough detail that another counsellor could run it.
  • The rationale refers to adolescence and to involuntary referral.
  • Confidentiality limits are stated before disclosure is invited.
  • A response to refusal or resistance is included.
  • Sources are cited where technique or stage claims are made.

Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.

Written by

Aaron Bishop

MA, Education

assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines

Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.

Reviewed by

Dr. Nathan Cole

PhD, Rhetoric & Composition

Argumentation and thesis development

Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.

Want feedback on your plan before you draft?

Get help interpreting the brief, checking your evidence strategy, and strengthening your outline while keeping the work your own.

Get assignment guidance
Start your order