PCN 520 Week 6 DQ 2: skills for challenging group situations
A group counselling discussion post identifying the leader skills you need to acquire or refine to handle challenging situations in groups, and setting out a concrete plan for developing them.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 7, 2026
The question is about you, not the group
The question is about you, and that is the distinction most posts lose in the first paragraph. It asks what skills *you* need to acquire or refine, not what challenging situations look like or how a member who monopolises the room should be handled. A post that catalogues difficult members has described the problem and never reached the question. Name two or three skills you do not yet have or do not yet trust, say what happens when you are without them, and the self-assessment the prompt is asking for is already done. Being specific about a gap is not a confession; in a counselling programme it is the demonstration of self-awareness the whole discussion exists to elicit. Naming what you are still uncertain about is also more useful to your classmates than a post asserting that you handle difficult members well.
Skills and strategies are not the same thing, and the prompt asks for skills. A strategy is what you would do about a situation; a skill is something you can practise and get measurably better at, and the group leadership literature names them precisely. Blocking is stopping harmful behaviour without attacking the person doing it. Cutting off is ending a member's contribution when it has stopped serving the group. Drawing out is bringing in a silent member without exposing them. Linking is connecting one member's disclosure to another's so the group works rather than the leader. Immediacy is naming what is happening in the room as it happens. Choosing from a named vocabulary makes your answer legible to a marker who is looking for exactly that. Using the terms the course text uses also lets you say precisely which part of a skill you have and which part you do not.
The harder skills to admit to are the internal ones, and they are the ones this prompt rewards. Tolerating silence rather than filling it. Tolerating your own anxiety when a group turns on you or on each other. Not rescuing a member whose distress is the work rather than an emergency. Distinguishing conflict that is productive from conflict that is harm. These are not techniques you can perform on cue; they are capacities that develop, which is precisely why the second half of the question — how you would work on them — is answerable for them at all. A post that names one technical skill and one internal one is doing something more interesting than a post that names three techniques. Admitting one of these is also the part of the post a classmate is most likely to respond to, because it is the part they recognise.
*How can you work on developing these skills?* wants a plan, and the answer everyone gives is more practice. Practice alone does not develop a skill you cannot yet see yourself failing at, which is why the professional answer is practice with feedback. Co-leading with a more experienced leader and debriefing after each session. Supervision where you bring a specific moment rather than a general impression. Recording sessions, with consent, and watching for what you did in the ten seconds after the difficult thing happened. Structured role-play where a peer is briefed to be difficult in one particular way. Each of those is checkable, and each attaches to a skill rather than to competence in general. Attaching a timeframe to each mechanism, even a rough one, turns the answer from a list of good ideas into something you could be held to.
Two things keep this post inside what a discussion board can carry. First, tie each skill to a specific challenging situation rather than to groups generally: the skill you need for a member who will not stop talking is not the skill you need for a group that has gone silent, and saying which is which shows you have distinguished them. Second, the prompt points at a specific media source, so reference what you actually saw — a moment, a leader's response, something you would have done differently. That reference is what separates a post written after watching the material from one assembled from a textbook, and a marker reading twenty of these can tell the difference immediately. One remembered moment, described in two sentences, is worth more here than a paragraph of general reflection on group leadership.
Challenging situation | The skill it demands | How you would develop it |
|---|---|---|
A member who monopolises | Cutting off without shaming | Role-play with a briefed peer; script the phrasing |
A member who stays silent | Drawing out without exposing | Co-lead and debrief; agree a signal with your co-leader |
Advice-giving instead of sharing | Linking, and redirecting to process | Review a recording for missed linking opportunities |
Hostility toward the leader | Immediacy, and tolerating your own anxiety | Bring the specific moment to supervision |
The group scapegoats a member | Blocking, and protecting without rescuing | Study the intervention, then rehearse the first sentence |
A member in acute distress | Judging emergency against work | Agree criteria in advance with your supervisor |
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Assess your own group leadership skills against named competencies.
- 02Distinguish a leadership skill from a strategy for handling a situation.
- 03Identify the internal capacities that group work demands.
- 04Design a development plan built on feedback rather than repetition.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
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. Name: Assignment Rubric Grid View List View Excellent Good Fair Poor Summarize your interpretation of the frequency data provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, and family income from prior month. 32 (32%) – 35 (35%) The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, a summary of the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values in describing intervals that sufficiently provides an analysis that fully supports the categorization of each variable value. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 28 (28%) – 31 (31%) The response accurately summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response accurately explains the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response accurately explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and explains extreme values in describing intervals that provides an analysis which supports the categorization of each variable value. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 25 (25%) – 27 (27%) The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and inaccurately or vaguely explains extreme values. An analysis that may support the categorization of each variable value is inaccurate or vague. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 0 (0%) – 24 (24%) The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values, or it is missing. An analysis that does not support the categorization of each variable values is provided, or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the areas described, or it is missing. Summarize your interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, race and ethnicity, currently employed, and family income from prior month. 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) The response accurately and clearly summarizes in detail the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response accurately and clearly evaluates in detail each of the variables presented, including an accurate and complete description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) The response accurately summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response accurately explains evaluates each of the variables presented, including an accurate description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response inaccurately or vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate or vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate and vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data, or it is missing. Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. Total Points: 100 Name: Assignment Rubric
What this discussion post has to contain
- 01The skills you need to acquire or refine, identified as your own gaps.
- 02The challenging situations those skills would address.
- 03A plan for how you would develop each skill.
- 04Engagement with the assigned media on challenges facing group leaders.
From naming the gap to a plan with feedback in it
Name the gap, not the problem
State which skills you do not yet have or do not yet trust, and what happens without them.
Use the vocabulary of leader skills
Blocking, cutting off, drawing out, linking and immediacy, chosen deliberately.
Include an internal capacity
Tolerating silence, tolerating your own anxiety, or not rescuing a distressed member.
A development plan with feedback in it
Co-leading and debriefing, supervision on a specific moment, recorded review, briefed role-play.
Anchor it in what you watched
A moment from the assigned media, and what you would have done differently.
Taking the skill vocabulary from the right place
Recommended databases
- The course text on group counselling
- APA reference works and practice literature
- PubMed and PsycINFO
- Professional association practice guidance
Search sequence
- 1.Take the skill vocabulary from the course text first, since the marker is reading against it and inventing your own terms costs you the recognition.
- 2.Then look for research on what leader behaviours actually change group outcomes, so the skills you name are the ones with evidence behind them.
- 3.Search for supervision and feedback methods specifically, because the development half of the question needs mechanisms rather than intentions.
- 4.Check a reference definition for any term you use loosely, particularly for skills whose everyday meaning differs from their technical one.
Practitioner accounts and group process evidence
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.
- 01
Keys to great group therapy
Monitor on Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2019
Practitioner accounts of managing conflict in groups, including the leader modelling a nondefensive response and bringing conflict into the open rather than smoothing it. Useful for the internal-capacity half of the post, where the skill is tolerating something rather than doing something.
- 02
Modeling cohesion change in group counseling: The role of client characteristics, group variables, and leader behaviors
Journal of Counseling Psychology, via PubMed · 2020
Evidence that leader behaviour measurably changes group cohesion, including the finding that heavy structuring without facilitating emotional sharing left cohesion lower. It gives your chosen skills an outcome to point at rather than resting on the claim that they are important.
- 03
It's complicated: Using group member process-feedback to improve group therapist effectiveness
Psychotherapy, via PubMed · 2018
Feedback from group members as a mechanism for improving leader effectiveness. This is directly usable in the development half of the post, because it is a route to improvement that does not depend on your own perception of how a session went.
- 04
APA Dictionary of Psychology
American Psychological Association · 2024
The entry for group counselling, distinguishing it from group psychotherapy and naming the leader's function within it. Worth checking before writing, since the two terms are often used interchangeably and this course sits on one side of the distinction.
Before the post goes to the discussion board
Common mistakes
- Cataloguing difficult group members instead of assessing your own skills.
- Naming strategies for situations when the prompt asks for skills.
- Listing skills without saying which situation each one is for.
- Answering the development question with more practice or more experience.
- Omitting supervision, co-leading and recorded review, which are the actual mechanisms.
- Claiming competence in everything, which is not what a self-assessment is for.
- Ignoring the internal capacities, which are the harder and more interesting half.
- Writing with no reference to what the assigned media actually showed.
Submission checklist
- Two or three specific skills are named as your own gaps.
- At least one is a technical skill and one an internal capacity.
- Each skill is tied to a specific challenging situation.
- The development plan names a mechanism, not a quantity of practice.
- At least one mechanism involves feedback from another person.
- The assigned media is referenced concretely.
- The post is a self-assessment rather than a description of group problems.
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.