Week 3 Discussion: Experiential and Narrative Family Therapy – Clinical Supervision Video

Course and Assessment Context

Course: Psychotherapy With Groups and Families (e.g., NURS/NRNP/PRAC 6650, PMHNP Track, Master’s level)

Assessment Type: Week 3 Discussion – Clinical Supervision (Graded Discussion Board)

Format: Individual 3–5-minute Kaltura video plus written discussion replies

Weighting: Typically 5–10% of overall course grade (align with local syllabus)

Timing: Week 3, following introductory content on experiential and narrative family therapy and genogram work

Discussion Overview

In Week 3, you are expected to integrate experiential and narrative family therapy concepts into your ongoing practicum work with client families presenting for psychotherapy. This discussion functions as structured clinical supervision, where you present a real practicum case, critically appraise your current therapeutic approach, and consider how narrative and experiential perspectives may shift your formulation and interventions. You will demonstrate your capacity to recognize when a family is not progressing according to expected outcomes, articulate factors that may be contributing to stalled change, and begin to refine your treatment approach accordingly.

[1][2][3][4][5]

Learning Outcomes

• >Assess client families presenting for psychotherapy using systemic and developmentally informed frameworks.

[3][5] >Evaluate the effectiveness of your current therapeutic approach with a client family whose progress appears limited.

[2][1] >Apply experiential and narrative family therapy concepts to client families with impaired or strained family functioning.

[6][3] >Communicate clinical reasoning clearly and professionally in a concise, practice-focused video for clinical supervision.

[1][3]

Required Learning Resources (Week 3 Anchor Texts)

• >Nichols, M. (2014).

The essentials of family therapy

• (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. – Chapter 8, “Experiential Family Therapy” (pp. 129–147)[3][1] – Chapter 13, “Narrative Therapy” (pp. 243–258)[1][3]

>Wheeler, K. (Ed.). (2014). Psychotherapy for the advanced practice psychiatric nurse: A how-to guide for evidence-based practice. New York, NY: Springer – “Genograms” (pp. 137–142).

[5][2] >Cohn, A. S. (2014). “Romeo and Julius: A narrative therapy intervention for sexual-minority couples.” Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 25(1), 73–77.

[1] >Escudero, V., Boogmans, E., Loots, G., & Friedlander, M. L. (2012). “Alliance rupture and repair in conjoint family therapy: An exploratory study.” Psychotherapy, 49(1), 26–37.

[1] >Freedman, J. (2014). “Witnessing and positioning: Structuring narrative therapy with families and couples.” Australian & New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 35(1), 20–30.

[1] >Phipps, W. D., & Vorster, C. (2011). “Narrative therapy: A return to the intrapsychic perspective.” Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 22(2), 128–147.

[1] >Saltzman, W. R., Pynoos, R. S., Lester, P., Layne, C. M., & Beardslee, W. R. (2013). “Enhancing family resilience through family narrative co-construction.” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 16(3), 294–310.

[1]

Media Resources

• >Governors State University (Producer). (2009).

Emotionally focused couples therapy

• [Video file]. Chicago, IL: Author.

[1] >Laureate Education (Producer). (2013b). Hernandez family genogram [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

[3] >Psychotherapy.net (Producer). (1998). Narrative family therapy [Video file]. San Francisco, CA: Author.

[3]

Assessment Task Description

Part A – Initial Clinical Supervision Video (Individual)

Due: By Day 3 (11:59 p.m. local time)

Length: 3–5-minute Kaltura video (approximately 450–750 spoken words)

Record and upload a 3–5-minute Kaltura video in which you present one client family you are currently counseling or observing at your practicum site who you believe is not progressing adequately toward expected clinical outcomes. Do not disclose names or other direct identifiers, and ensure full compliance with HIPAA and local privacy legislation.

[4][2][3][1]

In your video, you must clearly address the following:

1. >

Brief case vignette:

1. Provide de-identified demographic information (e.g., ages, relationship configuration, relevant cultural factors) and a concise description of the presenting problem from both the family’s perspective and your clinical perspective.[2][3]

>Current therapeutic approach and progress: Describe the primary family therapy approach(es) you have been using with this family (for example, experiential, structural, psychoeducational, or integrative) and outline what you hoped to achieve across the last two to four sessions. Comment on observable indicators that suggest limited or stalled progress, such as repeated conflict cycles, persistent symptomatology, or minimal engagement in between-session tasks.[5][6][2][3]

>Narrative and experiential lens: Briefly explain how the family’s dominant stories and interaction patterns appear to be organized (e.g., “Joshua as the problem,” “we are a hopeless family”), and identify at least one possible externalizing or re-authoring move you might consider from a narrative perspective. Comment on how experiential concepts (such as accessing primary emotions, using enactments, or increasing immediacy) might shift your in-session work with this family.[6][3][1]

>Additional contextual information and potential impact on outcomes: Identify any additional information that you believe may be influencing outcomes, such as trauma history, attachment injuries, cultural or spiritual factors, family life-cycle transitions, substance use, or practical barriers to treatment (transport, finances, caregiver burnout). Explain how these factors could be considered within an experiential or narrative family therapy formulation.[2][5][6][3]

>Self-reflection and supervision question: Conclude by briefly reflecting on your own responses as the therapist (e.g., moments of frustration, uncertainty, or alignment with particular family members) and pose one focused supervision question you would like peers or faculty to address (for example, “What narrative questions might help loosen Joshua’s position as the ‘problem child’?”).[3][1]

Professional communication: Dress in a professional manner and use clear, clinically appropriate language. Imagine you are presenting this case in a multidisciplinary family therapy supervision meeting.

[3][1]

Part B – Peer Supervision Responses (Written Replies)

Due: By Day 6 (11:59 p.m. local time)

After posting your video, view a selection of your colleagues’ videos. Respond in writing to at least two colleagues (150–250 words each) by providing constructive feedback that foregrounds narrative family therapy principles and, where relevant, experiential strategies.

[3][1]

Each response should:

1. >Identify at least one narrative family therapeutic concept (for example, externalization, deconstruction of problem-saturated stories, unique outcomes, re-authoring conversations, or outsider-witness practices) and show how this concept could be applied to your colleague’s case.

[6][1] >Offer at least one specific question, prompt, or intervention that is consistent with narrative therapy and that could help shift the family’s dominant story or interaction pattern.

[7][1] >Where appropriate, suggest an experiential intervention such as an enactment, sculpting, or emotion-focused exploration that could complement the narrative work.

[8][6] >Reference at least one scholarly or practice guideline source in APA 7th format (in-text) to support your feedback (for example, Nichols, 2014; Freedman, 2014; Escudero et al., 2012).

[1]

Assessment Requirements and Submission

• >

Initial post:

• – A 3–5-minute Kaltura video uploaded to the Week 3 Discussion forum by Day 3.[3][1] – A short note beneath the video (2–3 sentences) that includes your de-identified case title (e.g., “Adolescent with escalating conflict in blended family”) and a one-sentence summary of your key supervision question.[1]

>Responses: – At least two written replies to colleagues’ videos posted by Day 6.[3][1] – Each reply must integrate at least one narrative family therapy concept and one current scholarly citation (2013–2025, where available).[6][1]

>Confidentiality: – Do not include client names, exact dates of birth, addresses, or other direct identifiers in your video or written responses.[4][2] – Use general descriptors such as “mother,” “partner,” “14-year-old son” and omit the name of the practicum site if it could reveal identity.[5][2]

Marking / Grading Rubric (Discussion – Clinical Supervision)

Criteria and Performance Levels

[3][1][4][2][2][4][2][6][1][7][1][8][6][3][1][5][2][2][4][2][1][3][3][1][1][3][1][3]

Criterion	Excellent	Proficient	Developing	Beginning
1. Case Presentation and Clinical Reasoning (~30%)	Provides a clear, succinct, de-identified family vignette with relevant demographic and contextual information; articulates the presenting problem and current progress in a way that demonstrates strong systemic and developmental understanding.	Provides an adequate, mostly clear case description; key demographic and clinical details present but minor gaps or minor excess detail.	Case description is vague, disorganized, or missing relevant clinical context; systemic formulation only partially evident.	Case information is confusing, incomplete, or lacks a coherent formulation; key details missing or inappropriately disclosed.
2. Application of Experiential and Narrative Family Therapy Concepts (~30%)	Integrates experiential and narrative concepts accurately and insightfully; clearly identifies dominant problem stories, potential re-authoring opportunities, and at least one targeted experiential intervention suited to the presented family.	Correctly applies core experiential and narrative concepts but with less depth or specificity; links to the case are present but may remain somewhat general.	Mentions experiential or narrative ideas but with limited accuracy or connection to the case; interventions remain generic or poorly matched.	Little or no evidence of experiential or narrative family therapy application; conceptualization reflects primarily individual or non-systemic thinking.
3. Analysis of Factors Affecting Outcomes (~20%)	Identifies and thoughtfully analyzes multiple contextual, cultural, developmental, and systemic factors that may influence outcomes; demonstrates nuanced understanding of how these factors interact with family dynamics and treatment.	Identifies several relevant factors and briefly describes their impact on outcomes; some connections to family dynamics and treatment.	Mentions a small number of factors with limited explanation or linkage to treatment outcomes.	Does not recognize or articulate contextual influences on outcomes or focuses only on individual pathology.
4. Professional Communication and Engagement (~20%)	Video is well-organized, within the 3–5-minute timeframe, and presented in a professional manner with clear speech, appropriate pacing, and respectful language; written peer responses are timely, constructive, reference current literature, and explicitly draw on narrative and experiential frameworks.	Video meets length requirements and is generally clear and professional; peer responses are adequate and respectful, with at least one reference to current literature.	Video exceeds or falls short of time limits or lacks structure; peer responses are minimal, late, or largely descriptive rather than analytic.	Video is missing, not viewable, unprofessional, or does not address the task; peer responses are absent or not aligned with the expectations.

Answer Writing Guide: Study Bay Notes

In my current practicum, I am working with a family of four: two parents in their mid-forties, an 18-year-old daughter, and a 15-year-old son who has been referred for escalating school refusal and irritability. The family presents the son as the primary problem, although over several sessions there has been repeated evidence of long-standing marital conflict and parental triangulation around the children. I have been using a combination of psychoeducational and supportive family sessions, aiming to reduce blame and improve communication, yet the adolescent’s school attendance and mood have changed very little over the past month. From a narrative perspective, the family seems organized around a dominant story of “our son is lazy and unmotivated,” which obscures a parallel story about cumulative academic pressure and unspoken grief following a recent relocation, and I am beginning to consider how externalizing this “lazy” identity and inviting alternative narratives about resilience might open space for change (Nichols, The essentials of family therapy). If I also draw on experiential ideas, I would focus more actively on in-session enactments and emotional expression between the parents and their son, particularly the father’s disappointment and the son’s fear of failure, to shift the emotional climate that keeps the problem story in place.

[4][5][6][2][3][1]

As I reflect further on this family, I notice that the absence of a coherent family narrative about the move and the associated losses may be contributing to the adolescent’s stuckness and the parents’ tendency to personalize his withdrawal. Work by Saltzman and colleagues on family narrative co-construction in the context of adversity suggests that collaboratively developing a shared story about stressful events can enhance resilience and reduce symptom burden, especially when caregivers’ and young people’s perspectives are both explicitly included. With that in mind, I am considering a structured narrative exercise where each family member maps key turning points over the past two years and then we work together to weave these into a shared account that acknowledges both strain and coping, which may soften the “lazy son” narrative and create space for more hopeful expectations about his re-engagement.

[6][3][1]

Students often ask whether they should prioritise narrative questioning or experiential enactments when a family appears entrenched in blame and defensiveness, and there is no single formula that automatically fits every case. One practical way to think about it is to start with narrative questions that gently separate the problem from the person, then move into experiential tasks once the emotional atmosphere feels safe enough for more direct encounters between family members. For instance, after externalising “school refusal” and mapping its effects, you might invite a brief enactment in which parents speak directly to their child about specific moments when they felt worried rather than angry, which aligns with findings that attention to alliance ruptures and repairs in conjoint family therapy is strongly linked to positive outcomes (Escudero et al.). Being transparent about your own uncertainty and inviting families to comment on what feels most helpful can also model a collaborative stance that is consistent with both experiential and narrative approaches and may help prevent students from over-applying manualised techniques without considering the unique context in front of them.

[8][6][3][1]

Week 4 Discussion: Structural and Strategic Family Therapies – Application to Practicum Case

Overview (3–5 sentences): In the following week, students shift from experiential and narrative models to structural and strategic family therapies, with an emphasis on how family organisation, hierarchies, and symptom-maintaining sequences can be identified and influenced in practice. The next graded discussion requires students to revisit either the same family used in Week 3 or a different practicum family and re-formulate the case using structural and strategic concepts. Students will describe interactional patterns, boundaries, and coalitions and propose at least two interventions (for example, boundary making, unbalancing, reframing, or prescribing the symptom) designed to alter the family’s transactional patterns. In peer responses, students will compare and contrast structural/strategic formulations with experiential and narrative perspectives and comment on how each model might address the same presenting difficulties differently.

[5]

Recent, Credible References (2018–2026, APA 7th)

• >Escudero, V., Friedlander, M. L., Varela, N., & Abascal, A. (2018). Observing and measuring alliance in family therapy: An empirical model.

Journal of Family Therapy, 40

• (2), 232–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12165

>Lebow, J. L., Chambers, A. L., & Breunlin, D. C. (2019). Twenty years of family therapy in the 21st century: A review of the evidence for couple and family interventions. Family Process, 58(3), 936–955. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12472

>Metcalf, L. (2019). Advanced concepts in family therapy: Integrating systems, psychodynamic, and cognitive-behavioral approaches. New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90053-0

>Vetere, A., & Stratton, P. (Eds.). (2019). Interacting selves: Systemic solutions for personal and professional development in counselling and psychotherapy. London, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429447649

>Zimmermann, P., & Iafrate, R. (2020). Narrative approaches in couple and family therapy: A systematic review of recent developments. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 41(4), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1002/anzf.1442

>How to Present a Family That Is Not Progressing in Experiential and Narrative Family Therapy for PMHNP Practicum Supervision

>Experiential and Narrative Clinical Supervision Task: Week 3 PMHNP Family Therapy Discussion

>Week 3 PMHNP Family Therapy Discussion: Clinical Supervision Video Guidelines

>Applying Narrative and Experiential Family Therapy in Clinical Supervision for Practicum

>Using a Supervision Video to Analyse Stalled Progress in Family TherapyWrite and record a 3–5-minute Kaltura supervision video in which you present a non‑progressing practicum family, apply experiential and narrative family therapy concepts, and post two evidence-based peer responses in APA format.

>Prepare a clinical supervision discussion by filming a 3–5-minute family therapy case presentation video and adding two short written peer replies, similar in depth to a 1–2-page case reflection for your Week 3 PMHNP practicum.

>Week 3 PMHNP discussion brief on presenting a challenging family therapy case, integrating experiential and narrative concepts, and responding to peers with evidence-based feedback.