Reality vs. Gestalt Therapy Research Assignment Paper
Based on your reading assignments in the Tan text, write a 5 page paper in which you:
1. Compare and contrast any 2 of the counseling theories discussed in the text.
2. Evaluate how, if at all, you might use information from these theories in biblical counseling. For instance, you may find a theory illuminates a particular human problem, and you think one of the techniques is helpful, as long as it is framed in light of faith and Scripture. Or you may find elements of the theory that are completely antithetical to Scripture and point out how it contradicts God's Word specifically.
3. Support your paper with biblical references, with scholarly support from at least one credible journal article or book, in addition to Tan and/or Myers and with critical thinking. Adhere to Turabian form/style. Be sure to review the grading rubric on the following page. DO NOT WRITE in first person.
Your paper must contain 5 pages in the body as a MINIMUM (not counting the cover page and sources cited page) and try to keep your paper below 10 pages. Avoid quoting long passages and simply refer to Scripture in this relatively short paper. If you quote a page of Scripture, you will be penalized because you won't have space to address the required topics thoroughly in only 5 pages.
 
Grading Rubric for Paper #2
Content/Topic
70 points possible • At least two references plus Scripture are incorporated into the paper (10 points) and one reference has to be from scholarly sources outside the course
• Theory#1 is described (15 points)
Helpfulness or harmfulness of the theory is expounded (10 points)
• Theory #2 is described (15 points)
Helpfulness or harmfulness of the theory is expounded (10 points)
• Theory #1 and #2 are compared and contrasted (10 points)
Grammar
10 points possible • Correct punctuation is used throughout the paper
• Words are spelled correctly
• The paper is free from run-on sentences, sentence fragments, and other syntax problems
• Consistent use of third-person, active voice verbs
• Consistent use of past tense when referring to historical figures
• Subjects and verbs agree in number
• Pronouns and antecedents agree in number and gender
Organization and Style
10 points possible • The paper possesses a well-organized and flowing style
• The introduction prepares the reader for the subject
• The body is composed of purposeful units that flow from one paragraph to the next and from section to section
• The conclusion brings the subject matter to an appropriate close
• Statements are clear and concise
• Writing is academic in nature and avoids being devotional, sermonic, or informal
Turabian Format
10 points possible • Correct cover page
• Correct font
• Correct font size
• Correct spacing between headings
• Correct page numbering
• Correct spacing in footnotes
• Correct margins
• Correct citation format in footnotes
• Correct citation format in Sources Cited page
• Correct citation of the same resource without an intervening footnote
• Correct use of short citations
• Correct spacing after a sentence
• Correct format in headings and subheadings
Iwant this paper to agree with William Glasser:Reality Therapy; because his Reality therapy has a basically positive view human nature and potrntial for change. I agree with his theory and his therapeutic technique. MY PERSONAL POINT. vs Gestalt Therapy(Fredrick Solomon Frits): To me Gestalt Therapy his therapeutic are too inpersonal his therapy focuses on more on experiential methods rather than mere verbal ones. His therapeutic methods I would not use. I want you to work around that point of view as if you were me in this final paper. Thank you..
Date Reality vs. Gestalt Therapy Introduction Dr. Williams Glasser in 1960 reacted against the current Freudian theory in his literature “Reality Therapy.” Later on, Williams repackaged a similar theory that was weary of pop psychology that considered everyone as a victim of someone else’s transgressions, thus denoting the manner in which Christians welcomed the therapy that touted personal responsibility. However, a critical review of Glasser’s theory establishes the lack of biblical standards that would be used in defining responsibility, with emphasis directed towards unfulfilled needs that address man’s fundamental problems. In other words, in as much as Glasser parts ways with the views of Freud, his theory fails to give a biblical representation to his counselees. On the other hand, the Gestalt theory takes consideration of the irreducible complexities of the existence of human beings, an aspect that is perceived as beyond the evidential scientific deductions. According to Gestalt’s psychology, learning is understood as a continuous process that enables human beings to gather objective pieces of information in a bid to fill in the gaps that make a whole. The illumination of the complete from incomplete parts remains Gestalts main point. The figure as detailed by this theory is perceived as the concept, and the ground believed to be the background of the idea. In consideration of these two approaches, this paper seeks to compare and contrast Dr. Williams Glasser’s counseling theories and that of Gestalt. Reality vs. Gestalt Therapy According to Glasser’s views, the nature of man is regarded as a product of evolution, and not the image of God. He consequently proposes particular genetically programmed needs that need to be met that include love, relationships, freedom, survival, fun, and power. On the other hand, Glasser exalts a simultaneous and extreme view of the element of man’s free will and a fixed-at-birth and deterministic manner that relates to others. Human misery as asserted by Glasser is a choice and an attempt to take control of circumstances in a bid to fulfill their basic needs. Comparatively, Gestalt’s therapy guides individuals in achieving a state of growth and maturity by primarily emphasizing on the element of self, with the ultimate goal being that each reaches a state of completion in his life upon maturity. This view varies from that of Glassier who concentrates on the nature of man as a product of evolution that fruits upon meeting particular programmed needs. On the other hand, man’s fundamental problem as viewed in Glasser’s theory is attributed to man’s psychiatric problems to two primary sources. One remains in the failure to satisfy and meet their needs, particularly about their human relationships. Secondly, the other is external control psychology. According to the Bible, the fundamental need of man remai...