6PSYC005W Assessment Brief
Module Title: Psychology of Counselling and Psychotherapy
Assessment Title: Comparing Two Counselling Approaches: A Critically Reflective Analysis of Theory, Evidence, and Personal Learning
Word Count: 3,500 words (maximum)
Submission Deadline: 13th April 2026, 1pm.
Submission Format: Word via Turnitin
Assignment Overview
In this final assignment, you will critically compare two counselling or psychotherapy approaches (choose from CBT, psychodynamic, or humanistic therapy). You will integrate this academic comparison with personal reflection on your learning, development, and evolving understanding of therapeutic work.
This assignment combines what would traditionally be an essay and a reflective report into one cohesive, critically reflective piece. You will not write a separate reflection section.
Instead, your personal learning should be woven throughout the assignment where relevant. This means that you will switch between third and first person for this assignment.
Learning Outcomes Assessed
By completing this assessment, you will:
- Demonstrate familiarity with key theories, perspectives, and frameworks in counselling and psychotherapy.
- Critically evaluate key counselling approaches using relevant research and debate.
- Appreciate the complexity of the counselling process, including client and therapist variables.
- Communicate ideas fluently in a format suited to academic and reflective work.
Suggested Structure
- Introduction (Approx. 300 words)
- Outline the purpose of the essay and your chosen approaches.
- Briefly explain how you will integrate reflection into your critical discussion.
- State why these two approaches interest you personally or professionally.
- Theoretical Foundations & Initial Impressions (Approx. 900 words)
- Present the core principles and assumptions of each approach.
- Compare how each model conceptualises psychological distress.
- Integrate reflection: What aspects of the theory do you connect with or find difficult? How do these ideas relate to your own values, assumptions, or experiences? Is there anything that has surprised you?
- Therapeutic Application & Practice (Approx. 900 words)
- Describe the therapeutic process and goals for each approach.
- Discuss how each model would approach a common issue (e.g. anxiety, trauma, relational difficulties).
- Integrate reflection: Which approach do you see yourself using in practice? What aspects of the therapeutic relationship or technique resonate with you, or not? Why? Go deeper by giving examples.
- Critical Evaluation & Evidence (Approx. 900 words)
- Critically evaluate both models using empirical research and academic critique.
- Consider limitations, debates, and contexts in which the approaches may (or may not) be effective.
- Integrate reflection: How did reading the evidence shift or confirm your views? What surprised or challenged you?
- Conclusion (Approx. 500 words)
- Summarise your comparative insights.
- Reflect on your learning journey: How has this assignment shaped your understanding of therapy and yourself as a learner or future practitioner?
- Suggest how this learning might influence your future development, training, or areas you wish to explore further.
Academic Integrity & AI Tools
You must declare any use of AI or digital tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Grammarly, Quillbot) in your final submission. At the end of your document, include a brief note on whether you used such tools and what you learned about their limitations or value. (This is not included in the word count.)
As a reminder, you should not use GenAI to generate original content for assessments. Please consult formal policy of GEN AI use here if unsure.
Guidance for Students Using Generative AI
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools can generate text, images, and videos, to support you in developing ideas, help in data analysis and coding, and more. While these tools offer exciting possibilities, it’s important to understand how to use them responsibly in your studies at the University.
There is a new page on the student hub where students can access the guidance and also a range of resources to help them understand the guidance and generative AI including an overview video and a set of frequently asked questions.
Key pointers
- GenAI can be used for non-assessed tasks and independent learning, but its use in assessed work must be disclosed.
- Students must include a statement at the top or bottom of their submission if they’ve used any AI-driven tools, specifying which tools and how they were used.
- Acceptable uses include grammar checks, keyword generation, outline planning, and concept explanation.
- Using GenAI to generate original content for assessments is prohibited and considered cheating unless an assessment design permits this.
- Students should be able to explain and justify their work if interviewed about their assignment.
- Specific restrictions on GenAI use may apply to certain subject areas or assignments.
- Misuse of GenAI constitutes academic misconduct and may result in penalties.
- The guidance emphasises the importance of academic integrity, proper attribution, and the learning process over sole reliance on AI-generated content
Sample Paragraph
One of the reasons I chose to explore psychodynamic therapy is its emphasis on the unconscious and early relational patterns, which I’ve found intellectually intriguing but also personally challenging. The model’s assumption that current behaviour is shaped by unresolved childhood experiences made me reflect on how I tend to dismiss past influences in favour of “fixing” the present, an orientation more aligned with CBT. Freud’s idea of transference, for example, initially felt abstract to me when I encountered this in the lecture, but reading contemporary accounts (e.g. Lemma, 2016) helped me see how this dynamic can unconsciously shape the client-therapist relationship. For example, I came to understand that psychodynamic therapy can useful in allowing past subconscious material to resurface in the client-therapist relationship.
In contrast, CBT’s structured, collaborative approach felt more familiar, perhaps because it aligns with the problem-solving mindset encouraged in education and everyday life. However, as I explored research suggesting CBT may be less effective for clients with complex trauma or attachment difficulties (e.g. Leichsenring et al., 2015), I began to question whether my preference was more about personal comfort than therapeutic fit. This insight deepened my appreciation for the complexity of therapy and the importance of therapist selfawareness.
FAQ’s
1) Which two approaches can I choose?
You must compare two from the permitted list (CBT, psychodynamic, humanistic).
2) Do I need to “pick a winner”?
No—aim for a balanced critical comparison, showing what each approach is useful for, where it struggles, and what influences “fit” (client presentation, context, therapist factors).
3) How do I integrate reflection without it turning into a diary?
Reflection should be specific and analytical: what you noticed in your learning, why it matters, how it links to theory/evidence, and how it might shape your future practice. Use first person when appropriate but keep it academically grounded.
4) Can I use headings / the suggested structure?
Yes— I recommend that you do. Headings help ensure you hit the rubric areas (theory, critique, reflective integration, structure).
5) How many sources do I need, and what kind?
Use a mix of core texts + peer-reviewed research (including at least some recent sources). Be careful of citing websites which aren’t peer-reviewed or blog sites. I suggest that you prioritise systematic reviews/meta-analyses where available, plus key critiques/debates. It is difficult to give an exact number with regards to sources but aim for 10+.
6) What counts as “evidence” for counselling approaches?
Empirical outcome research, process research (e.g., alliance), mechanism studies, qualitative research, and major debates (e.g., common factors vs model-specific).
7) Is first person allowed in an academic assignment?
Yes—because reflective integration is assessed. Still keep academic standards: clear argument, evidence, and referencing.
8) What referencing style should I use?
APA 7.
9) Can I use tables to compare approaches?
Please use words only.
10) What are common pitfalls that lose marks?
Examples:
- Two separate mini essays with little comparison
- Reflection bolted on rather than woven in
- Claims without evidence
- Too much description of theory; not enough critique
- Not linking reflection to reading/evidence
- Weak conclusion (no “what I learned / how I changed”)
11) Can I use AI tools, and what exactly must I declare?
Please follow Westminster AI guidance. You should not use GenAI to produce your work.
12) When/where do I submit and what file name should I use?
Please submit your work in Word format before the cut off deadline.
13) What support is available if I’m stuck?
Please reach out to your seminar leader, or Dr Christopher Lloyd (Module Leader).
Marking Grid 6PSYC005W
The Psychology of Counselling & Psychotherapy: Integrated Reflective Essay (3,500 words, maximum) Marking Rubric (100%)
| Criterion | 1st | 2.1 | 2.2 | 3rd | Fail |
| Knowledge
Ability to succinctly and accurately describe both chosen psychotherapeutic paradigms (CBT, psychodynamic or humanistic) and compare/contrast the theoretical and clinical rationale for therapeutic change. (Evidence use assessed under “Evidence Synthesis”.) |
Accurate, succinct, and genuinely comparative account of both paradigms. Clearly differentiates historical origins, core assumptions, aims, conceptualisation of distress, proposed mechanisms of change, therapist role, typical techniques, and clinical applications.
Terminology is precise; no material errors or unsupported generalisations. |
Mostly accurate description of both paradigms with integrated comparison across the key dimensions
(including mechanisms of change). Minor omissions or minor inaccuracies, but they do not undermine the overall account. |
Adequate description of both paradigms but comparison is uneven (e.g., one paradigm emphasised, or comparisons are list-like rather than integrated). Mechanisms of change and
clinical rationale are partially developed or clearer for one paradigm. Some assumptions or over-generalisations. |
Basic/superficial descriptions; limited comparative framing (often sequential summaries). Notable gaps (e.g., mechanisms of change, therapist role, applications) and/or several inaccuracies. | Major omissions and/or misunderstandings; little meaningful comparison; descriptions are largely inaccurate or incoherent. |
| Critical Appraisal
Capacity to offer a critical appraisal, including strengths and limitations of selected paradigms. Focus is on evaluating the paradigms themselves (assumptions, model of change, therapist–client relationship and power dynamics, fit for contexts and |
Insightful, balanced and well-justified critique of each paradigm. Engages with underlying assumptions and change model; evaluates strengths and limitations across scope, ethics and power, and cultural and contextual fit.
Judgements are clearly reasoned, appropriately nuanced, and show |
Sound critical evaluation with clear justification.
Considers more than one evaluative dimension (e.g., theory, clinical fit, and ethics and context), with generally balanced treatment of strengths and limitations. Some originality evident. |
Covers standard critiques but tends toward a “pros/cons list” with limited interpretation. Evaluation may rely heavily on a single dimension (often ‘evidence base’) with less conceptual critique of assumptions and change model.
Balance may be uneven.
|
Limited critical engagement;
assertions are often unexamined or loosely justified. Tends to repeat common claims without showing how/why they apply. Cultural, contextual and ethical considerations are minimal or absent. |
No meaningful critical appraisal, or critique is inaccurate or unsupported throughout. |
| populations), not only summarising the evidence base. | independence of thought. | ||||
| Evidence Synthesis
Range, quality, and synthesis: quality and quantity of research referred to, to support the argument; breadth/appropriateness of literature; accurate citation; and integration of evidence into a coherent case. |
Wide and appropriate range of peer‑reviewed empirical/theoretical sources. Evidence is synthesised (not just cited), critically evaluated (quality, limits, applicability), and used to support comparisons, appraisal, counterarguments, and reflection. Referencing is consistently accurate. | Good range of peer‑reviewed evidence; generally integrated into the argument with clear links to claims. Some critical evaluation of evidence quality and relevance; synthesis is mostly effective. | Some relevant academic sources but range and/or quality is limited (e.g., over‑reliance on a narrow set of studies and/or occasional inappropriate use of blog sites, websites or nonacademic sources). Integration is inconsistent (evidence sometimes ‘bolted on’). Critical evaluation is limited or superficial; synthesis is partial. | Thin/limited academic base; reliance on lecture notes, textbooks, or non‑academic sources. Minimal synthesis; little/no evaluation of evidence quality or relevance. | Little/no appropriate academic evidence; argument largely unsupported and/or sources are misused. |
| Reflective
Development
Demonstration of reflective thinking and capacity to reflect on own learning and development. |
Reflection is integrated (not bolted‑on), specific, and developmental:
shows what was learned, how thinking changed, and implications for future practice/learning. Demonstrates critical self‑awareness (assumptions, values, limits) and links reflection to literature and module content. |
Clear reflection on learning with depth and specificity. Links to theory/literature are mostly clear with attendance to developmental learning needs going forward. | Some reflection present but tends to be general (e.g., “I learned a lot”). Limited linkage to literature or to specific moments in learning; development points are present but vague. | Minimal reflection; largely descriptive of activities rather than learning (“what I did/read”). Little evidence of changed understanding or development planning. | Reflection absent, wholly generic, or unrelated to the task. |
| Argument Structure
Clarity and structure of argument; ability to effectively and concisely present |
Clear line of argument throughout with excellent signposting. Presents and weighs multiple perspectives and counterarguments appropriately. | Logical structure with clear progression. Acknowledges at least one alternative view and offers some weighing of positions. Generally | Argument is present but can be one‑sided and/or alternative views are stated rather than weighed. Structure is adequate but sometimes repetitive or list‑like; analysis is intermittent. Conclusion is present but may | Organisation impedes clarity; argument difficult to follow in places. Rarely engages with
alternative perspectives; |
Disorganised, unclear, and/or incoherent; does not sustain an argument. |
| different sides of an argument. | Paragraphs are purposeful and comparative; writing is concise and analytical. Strong conclusion that answers the question and synthesises implications. | concise and analytical, though may include some descriptive sections. Conclusion mostly synthesises. | summarise rather than synthesise. | frequent description with limited analysis. Weak or partial conclusion. | |
| Academic Presentation
Academic conventions (e.g., APA 7 as required), formatting, and proofreading. |
Consistently accurate referencing and academic style, polished expression, minimal errors, professional formatting. | Referencing largely accurate with minor inconsistencies. Generally clear writing with few errors. | Noticeable referencing/formatting issues but most sources traceable. Several errors in expression/grammar. | Frequent errors; missing/incorrect citations; presentation detracts from credibility and readability. | Referencing largely absent/incorrect; presentation seriously undermines the work. |
Make your 6PSYC005W psychology assignment easier with expert assistance
The post 6PSYC005W Psychology of Counselling and Psychotherapy Assessment Brief 2026 | UOW appeared first on Students Assignment Help UK.