| Course | INHE 2002 Introduction to Health and Wellness Coaching |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 7 |
| Paper type | Client scenario |
| Length | About 590 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Integrative Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for INHE 2002 Week 7
Committed on Monday, Retreating by Friday: A Client Scenario Reading Ambivalence as Information About Two Priorities Not Yet Side by Side
Student Name
Walden University
INHE 2002: Introduction to Health and Wellness Coaching
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Committed on Monday, Retreating by Friday: A Client Scenario Reading Ambivalence as Information About Two Priorities Not Yet Side by Side
The Scenario
Marcus, a 52-year-old bus mechanic in a fictional coaching case, came to coaching wanting to "get back in shape before my daughter's wedding in June." In the first session he committed to joining a gym near the depot and going three mornings a week before his 7:00 a.m. shift. In the second session, two weeks later, he said he had gone once, that the gym was "not for people like me," and that maybe he should just "wait until after the wedding." In the third session he said he wanted to try again, then said he did not see how. The assignment asks how a coach should read this pattern.
Ambivalence as Information
A common response is to treat Marcus as unmotivated and to push harder, or to fix the plan by suggesting a different gym. Both treat the reversal as a problem to solve. Motivational interviewing describes ambivalence as a normal stage of change in which a person holds reasons for and against at the same time, and treats it as something to explore rather than overcome (Miller & Rollnick, 2013). Read that way, each of Marcus's reversals tells the coach something.
What Each Reversal Says
The first commitment, three mornings before a 7:00 a.m. shift, says the wedding matters enough for him to offer a large change quickly. The second session's retreat, "not for people like me," says something about how he felt in the gym, perhaps out of place among younger members, which is a different obstacle from time or effort. "Wait until after the wedding" says the wedding is both the reason to change and a source of pressure. The third session's "I want to, but I don't see how" is the clearest statement of ambivalence: wanting and not seeing a way, both true at once.
Taken together, the reversals suggest two priorities Marcus has not yet put next to each other: looking and feeling better for his daughter's wedding, and not feeling exposed or judged while he gets there. The original plan served the first and ignored the second.
How the Coach Responds
Instead of offering a new plan, the coach reflects both sides back: "Part of you really wants to feel good at the wedding, and part of you felt out of place at that gym. Both of those matter." The coach then asks Marcus which of the two he wants to start from. A coach who explores both sides before planning gives the client a chance to resolve the conflict himself, which motivational interviewing treats as more durable than a plan the coach supplies (Miller & Rollnick, 2013).
If Marcus says the wedding matters most, the next question might be what kind of activity would feel comfortable. If he says feeling out of place matters most, the session might explore that before any plan. Either way, the plan that follows is his. The transtheoretical model would place Marcus between contemplation and preparation, moving back and forth, which is common and is not failure (Prochaska & Velicer, 1997).
What the Coach Does Not Do
The coach does not tell Marcus he is making excuses, suggest he lacks willpower, or treat the wedding as a deadline to push against. Coaching relationships rely on clients' trust that their conflicting feelings will be heard, and reviews of health coaching describe this client-centered stance as central to the practice (Wolever et al., 2013).
References
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12(1), 38-48. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38
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
INHE 2002 Week 7 instructions, in plain terms
Client scenario assignments present a written case and ask students to explain how a coach would respond. This week's scenarios usually involve ambivalence, a client who wants to change and also does not. Prompts ask students to interpret the client's statements, identify the coaching approach and write out or describe the coach's response, often using motivational interviewing concepts. Instructors look for responses that treat ambivalence as normal and informative. Papers that label the client resistant or unmotivated, or that respond by redesigning the plan for the client, generally earn less than those that explore the conflict with the client before any planning begins.
How this INHE 2002 Week 7 example is built
The paper sets out the fictional scenario across three sessions. A section names the common wrong response and introduces ambivalence as a normal stage, citing motivational interviewing. The next section reads each of the client's four statements for what it reveals, then combines them into two unspoken priorities. The coach's response follows, a reflection that holds both sides and a question about where to start, with two possible directions depending on the answer and a stages-of-change reference. A final section lists what the coach does not do and links that restraint to the client-centered stance described in coaching reviews. The client is fictional, and every statement attributed to him is quoted so the reading of each reversal can be checked against his words. The coach's reflection is written out in full, as it would be said in session.
INHE 2002 Week 7 rubric: what earns full marks
Instructors generally reward reading ambivalence as information, and the section that interprets each reversal secures the main share. Combining the statements into two priorities shows synthesis. A response written as an actual reflection, holding both sides, earns substantial credit because it demonstrates the skill, not just the concept. Offering branches depending on the client's answer shows the coach is following rather than leading. Naming what the coach avoids, such as calling the client's reasons excuses, shows awareness of common mistakes. Accurate use of motivational interviewing, stages of change and coaching review sources supports the analysis. Writing the coach's reflection out word for word, rather than describing it, is often decisive in this assignment.
INHE 2002 Week 7 help: mistakes that cost marks
List each thing the client said or did, in order. For each one, ask what it tells you about what the client cares about, not what is wrong with them. Look for two priorities pulling in different directions. Write a reflection that names both without choosing between them. Then ask the client which they want to start from. Avoid redesigning the plan yourself. If your responses keep trying to solve the client's ambivalence, we can work through a sample scenario with you. Read your reflection aloud to check that it does not quietly take one side.
Get a INHE 2002 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send the scenario file and the rubric your section grades against, and one worked INHE 2002 response comes back inside 24-48 hours, the first sample free. If the case your classroom set differs from the one described here, the sample is written to yours, since this analysis only works when it is about the client on your page.
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 8: Referral scenario
- INHE 2002 Week 9: Coaching plan
- INHE 2002 Week 10: Peer critique
- INHE 2002 Week 11: Reflection
- INHE 2001 Week 7: Teaching Plan
- INHE 1005 Week 7: Source Evaluation
INHE 2002 Week 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free INHE 2002 Week 7 sample paper?
Read it here: a bus mechanic's reversals before a family wedding, interpreted as information.
What is ambivalence in coaching?
Wanting to change and not wanting to at the same time, which motivational interviewing treats as normal.
What two priorities does the client have?
Feeling good at his daughter's wedding and not feeling out of place while getting there.
How does the coach respond?
With a reflection that holds both sides, then a question about where the client wants to start.
Is the client failing?
No. Moving between contemplation and preparation is common.