Describe how you would contextualize vicarious and secondary trauma. Describe risk factors of vicarious and secondary trauma.

/in /by

 

Vicarious trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder are closely related because the symptoms of each condition are similar. What distinguishes each condition from one another is how the trauma was experienced. For this Assignment, review Lt. Commander Malstrom’s experience with vicarious trauma in the media resources. As a starting point, think about how this individual who is trained military but a noncombatant could have mitigated his trauma. Using this as an example, complete the following assignment:

Please note that the military personnel in the media discuss graphic details of their combat experiences, which may be disturbing. Please consult your faculty if you experience trauma related to the media. If, after consultation, you feel you need further services, please contact the Walden Counseling Center.

The Assignment (2–3 pages):

Scenario:

You are a social worker assigned to a military installation and you are given the task of educating the following individuals (noncombatants) who are preparing to deploy in a combat zone on vicarious or secondary trauma:

  1. Healthcare providers—military physicians and nurses
  2. Air Force maintenance and logistics support personnel
  3. Military reporters

Then provide the following:

  • Describe how you would contextualize vicarious and secondary trauma.
  • Describe risk factors of vicarious and secondary trauma.
  • Identify strategies to avoid vicarious or secondary trauma.
  • Explain how you might encourage support if someone experienced vicarious or secondary trauma.
  • Describe the sensitivities a social worker would need to have in order to educate effectively these noncombatants.

Support your plan with at least two scholarly articles.

Explain the reply Nagel gives 4. Say whether you liked the reply and why Each of these should take you around a paragraph to answer.

/in /by

Purpose:  The purpose of this assignment is to give you practice in identifying arguments in a text, reconstructing them in your own words, and judging whether they are good or bad (Identify, reconstruct and evaluation arguments posed by philosophers) and to have you think about the philosopher Thomas Nagel, his times and methods (Identify a variety of ancient, modern and/or contemporary philosophers: Identify (A.)a variety of ancient philosophers (B.)Identify a variety of modern philosophers (C.)Identify a variety of contemporary philosophers). In doing this assignment, you will be practicing the skills necessary to identify a change in a topic in a debate, identify the correct response-reply pairs and, as always, think critically about new and interesting views.  Task: In Death, Nagel gives us replies to three objections to the stance that death is, in fact, evil. These objections are:  1. Can anything be bad for a person if it is not unpleasant to them? That is, are there any evils which are just merely the missing out on something? 1. In other words, for something to be bad for a person, they have to experience it. When we are dead, we aren’t experiencing anything, as it can’t be bad for us. 2. When we are dead, we don’t experience anything, there is no subject of the experience, so can we say that anything is good or bad for a person when they don’t exist? (and are not a fiction) 1. In other words, without experience, there is nothing good or bad, so death can’t be bad (or good) for the dead person. 3. Why is there a difference between nonexistence prior to birth and nonexistence after birth? We say that one ceasing to exist is bad but one never existing is neither. 1. Before we are born, we don’t exist, and after death, we don’t exist. There is no real difference between the two and yet Nagel claims that one is bad and the other is neither. For each of these Nagel defends his stance with an argument (one for each). Your task is to write a short paper (2-3 pages) explaining and evaluating one of these arguments. You need to:  1. Cite where you got your ideas/information (if they are not originally yours), not is a form of plagiarism 2. Explain the objection to Nagel’s stance 3. Explain the reply Nagel gives 4. Say whether you liked the reply and why Each of these should take you around a paragraph to answer. Each of them is worth 5pts. Since this is worth 20pts, this is worth 5% of your total grade.  Submission:  To submit this assignment, I only accept .pdf, .doc, .odt, and .docx. I do not accept .pages. You can find where to submit in the upper right of this screen. As for all assignments in this class, the standard is Times New Roman, 12pt font, double spaced, 2-3 pages (that is, at least a few words onto the second page to the bottom of the third).

Locate the author’s main argument. Summarize it as best as you can.  You will want to give your reader a sense of the number and type of “civilizations” the author sees the world being divided into (he does that a little later in the article.) Be sure to quote and cite as necessary.

/in /by

I am not too worried about formatting and do not require you to include a bibliography as we are dealing with only one essay, but I do want you to use footnotes for citation in Turabian style and include page numbers.

Here are some guide lines to help stay you on track:

  1. Locate the author’s main argument. Summarize it as best as you can.
  2. You will want to give your reader a sense of the number and type of “civilizations” the author sees the world being divided into (he does that a little later in the article.) Be sure to quote and cite as necessary.
  3. Locate his individual proofs (his sub arguments) in support of his thesis. Summarize the content of each of these arguments. Be sure to quote and cite as necessary.
  4. Locate and describe Brooks’ criticisms/critiques of Huntington’s work.
  5. Your conclusion should include a restatement of the argument and a brief informed assessment based on critical thing and supported by specific critiques such as Brooks.
  6. Please start work as early as possible. Read the article carefully. Same goes for prompt. Be sure to contact us early with any questions you might have so that we can help guide you. Recall you can ask for assistance from me and from your TAs. Be sure to look at announcements on blackboard to figure out to which TA you have been assigned.
  7. Recall I require you to use Turabian/Chicago style citation. I am less concerned about the format you use for the essay, but the citation must be Chicago Style footnotes. Bibliography not necessary in this case, as long as you do the footnote citations properly (first reference to article or reviews has to be a full citation.)
  8. Essay length should be around four pages, 12 point, double spaced, and same font throughout (please use either Times New Roman or Courier)

Describe an example experience of when you learned something new. Did it change your beliefs in some way? Or, did the experience not challenge your opinions very much?

/in /by

What does “reflection” mean? Connect course content and literature (theories and models) to personal response. Provide a thorough response and CITE references.

Question 1 options:

Question 2 (10 points)

Saved

What gets your “attention” during a learning experience? (The conceptual frameworks that will help you most with this question are from Fiddler and Marienau.) Provide a thorough response and CITE references.

Question 2 options:

Question 3 (10 points)

Describe the feedback loop. What is the difference between a positive and a negative feedback loop?  (theories from Korthagen and Vasalos). Provide a thorough response and CITE references.

Question 3 options:

Question 4 (10 points)

Why are you continuing your education at this point? (This question refers to the Korthhagen and Vasalos Onion Model). Provide a thorough response and CITE references.

Question 4 options:

Question 5 (10 points)

How would you describe yourself as a learner? How would you describe the learning experiences you had in the past? Connect course content and literature with personal response. Always CITE references.

Question 5 options:

Question 6 (10 points)

Describe an example experience of when you learned something new. Did it change your beliefs in some way? Or, did the experience not challenge your opinions very much? (This question comes from the David Kolb Acquisition model.)  Connect course content and literature with personal response. Always CITE references.

Question 6 options:

Question 7 (10 points)

When you learned something new during a job, did it involve an aspect of being a “team player”? How did the social relationships affect how you learned? (Kegan and Lahey theory). Provide thorough response. Connect course content and literature with personal response. Always CITE references.

Question 7 options:

Question 8 (10 points)

How do beliefs and opinions we already have affect how we see a situation? Provide thorough response. Connect course content and literature with personal response. Always CITE references.

Question 8 options:

This is where you need to cite the work from using 0ne of these theories

  • Sullivan & Rosen. 2008.PDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Kolb’s story – reflection and autosPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Fiddler & Marienau. Reflection frameworkPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Fiddler & Marienau.Events Model of learningPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Kolb The Three Phases of Reflection and the Self (Acquisiton Model)PDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Kolb Diagram 2. Focus, Abstract Concep’n, Greater ComplexityPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Kolb. Diagram 6.1 Theory of DevelopmentPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Kegan & Lahey. Development – Teams and LeadersPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Kegan & Lahey. Three Phases. Socialized, Self-Authoring, Self-TransformingPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Kegan & Lahey. Three Phases Part II. Subject and ObjectPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Korthagen & Vasalos. The Feedback LoopPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Korthagen & Vasalos. The Onion ModelPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Korthagen & Vasalos. Self-Transformation through Core QualitiesPDF document

 

  • Sullivan & Rosen. 2008.PDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Kolb’s story – reflection and autosPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Fiddler & Marienau. Reflection frameworkPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Fiddler & Marienau.Events Model of learningPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Kolb The Three Phases of Reflection and the Self (Acquisiton Model)PDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Kolb Diagram 2. Focus, Abstract Concep’n, Greater ComplexityPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Kolb. Diagram 6.1 Theory of DevelopmentPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Kegan & Lahey. Development – Teams and LeadersPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Kegan & Lahey. Three Phases. Socialized, Self-Authoring, Self-TransformingPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Kegan & Lahey. Three Phases Part II. Subject and ObjectPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Korthagen & Vasalos. The Feedback LoopPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Korthagen & Vasalos. The Onion ModelPDF document You have viewed this topic
  • Korthagen & Vasalos. Self-Transformation through Core QualitiesPDF document