| Course | INHE 2002 Introduction to Health and Wellness Coaching |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 10 |
| Paper type | Peer critique |
| Length | About 460 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion reply, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Integrative Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for INHE 2002 Week 10
Week 10 Discussion: Peer Critique of a Coaching Write-Up
Did the Coaching Stance Survive the Pressure Points? A Peer Critique of a Classmate's Client Scenario, Marking Where It Held as Carefully as Where It Slipped
Where the Stance Held
Tasha, I read your Week 7 scenario with one question in mind: did the coaching stance hold at the moments where it was most likely to slip? Your client, a 45-year-old nurse who wants to cut back on energy drinks during night shifts, gives you three pressure points, and I want to mark the places where you held as carefully as the places where you did not.
The first pressure point is when she says, "My charge nurse says I'm addicted." You did not agree or disagree. You reflected: "That word stung." That kept the conversation on her experience rather than on a label, and her next answer opened up about how tired she is on her third night in a row. Reflecting the feeling behind a remark, rather than its content, is one of the moves that helps clients feel understood (Miller & Rollnick, 2013).
The second pressure point is when she asks how much caffeine is safe. You offered the general guidance with her permission and then asked what she wanted to do with it. That matches the line our course has drawn between sharing information and choosing for the client (National Board for Health and Wellness Coaching [NBHWC], 2023).
Where the Stance Slipped
The first slip is in the goal section. Her words were "I want to stop needing three cans to get through the night." Your goal reads "Client will reduce energy drinks to one per shift and replace the others with water." The goal is specific and measurable, which I think you were aiming for, but "one per shift" and "water" do not appear anywhere in her words. Your write-up does not show her choosing either. If she chose them in the session, adding that turn would fix this. If you chose them, the goal has moved from her to you.
The second slip is in your closing paragraph, where you write that the client "needs to understand the health risks before change will last." That sentence treats her change as depending on information you supply. Earlier in your write-up she showed she already knows the risks; she named two of them herself. Reviews of coaching describe the client as the source of direction (Wolever et al., 2013), and this sentence reverses that.
One Item That Would Settle It
The question both slips raise is the same: who chose "one per shift"? If you can add the exchange where she named that number, both the goal and the closing would read very differently. Could you add it, or say plainly that it was your suggestion and how she responded?
References
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
National Board for Health and Wellness Coaching. (2023). Health and wellness coach scope of practice. https://nbhwc.org/scope-of-practice/
Wolever, R. Q., Simmons, L. A., Sforzo, G. A., Dill, D., Kaye, M., Bechard, E. M., Southard, M. E., Kennedy, M., Vosloo, J., & Yang, N. (2013). A systematic review of the literature on health and wellness coaching: Defining a key behavioral intervention in healthcare. Global Advances in Health and Medicine, 2(4), 38-57. https://doi.org/10.7453/gahmj.2013.042
What the INHE 2002 Week 10 instructions ask for
Peer critique assignments in a coaching course ask students to review a classmate's coaching write-up and give feedback. Prompts usually ask students to identify strengths and areas for growth, often using a specific lens such as client-centeredness, scope or goal ownership. A reply of a few hundred words is typical. Instructors look for critique focused on the coaching itself. Replies that praise generally, or that correct the classmate's writing style, tend to earn less than replies that apply one clear question to the whole write-up, mark strengths and slips with equal care and suggest a concrete fix. Some prompts specify which assignment of the classmate's to review.
How this INHE 2002 Week 10 example is built
The critique opens by stating its single question and the scenario under review. A section on where the stance held quotes two moments from the classmate's write-up, the reflection of the client's feeling and information offered with permission, and links each to course sources. A section on where it slipped quotes the client's words beside the written goal to show the mismatch, then quotes the closing sentence and sets it against the client's own earlier statements. A final section names one question that would settle both slips and asks the classmate to add the missing exchange or say whose idea the number was. The critique quotes the classmate's write-up directly at every point it praises or questions, so the classmate can find each passage. It runs a little over four hundred words.
Where the marks sit in the INHE 2002 Week 10 rubric
Instructors generally reward critique organized around one question, which keeps feedback coherent. Marking strengths with the same care as slips earns a substantial share, because it shows fair reading. Quoting the client's words beside the written goal is often the strongest move, since it lets the classmate see the problem without being told. Connecting both slips to a single underlying question shows analysis. A concrete, answerable request at the end makes the critique useful. Respectful, direct language throughout is part of the grade, and accurate citations to motivational interviewing, scope and coaching sources support the judgments. Direct quotation from the classmate's work at every point, positive and negative, is a sign of careful reading that instructors credit.
Common INHE 2002 Week 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Pick one question about coaching stance before you read your classmate's work. Mark the moments where it held and quote them. Then mark where it slipped and quote those too, ideally beside the client's own words. Look for whether several slips share a cause. End by asking for one specific addition or clarification. Keep your tone collegial. When your feedback keeps sliding toward praise or correction, a sample reply for your classmate's write-up can show a middle path. Quote your classmate's own words at each point so they can find what you mean.
Get a INHE 2002 Week 10 example written to your instructions
Send the critique prompt, the rubric and the piece your section assigned for review, and the desk returns a finished INHE 2002 critique inside 24-48 hours, free the first time. Where the classmate's work is not shareable, the sample is built on an illustrative write-up, and the quoting pattern and the balance it strikes carry across unchanged.
More INHE 2002 papers and BS in Integrative Health samples
- INHE 2002 Week 1: Coaching Definition Post
- INHE 2002 Week 2: Scope Memo
- INHE 2002 Week 3: Listening Self-Assessment
- INHE 2002 Week 4: Session Transcript
- INHE 2002 Week 5: Goal-Setting Plan
- INHE 2002 Week 6: Declining the Answer Post
- INHE 2002 Week 7: Client Scenario
- INHE 2002 Week 8: Referral Scenario
- INHE 2002 Week 9: Coaching Plan
- INHE 2002 Week 11: Reflection
- INHE 2001 Week 10: Evaluation Plan
- INHE 1005 Week 10: Position Paper
INHE 2002 Week 10 questions, answered
Where can I find a free INHE 2002 Week 10 sample paper?
It is printed in full here, judging a night-shift nurse scenario by whether the coaching stance held.
What question does the critique ask?
Whether the coaching stance survived the pressure points in the write-up.
Where did the stance hold?
In reflecting the client's feeling and offering caffeine guidance with permission.
What was the first slip?
A goal of one drink per shift that does not appear in the client's words.
How does the critique end?
By asking who chose "one per shift" and whether that exchange can be added.