I’ve got two events coming up, one sooner and one later.
This Friday, I’m doing the closing talk for Tamarack’s Grief Institute (which is on Thursday and Friday in Missoula, and available online too!).
This is late notice, as the end of day tomorrow (March 3) is the registration deadline. The whole Institute is worth attending. The fantastic Dr. Joyce Mphande-Finn kicks things off on Thursday morning. Then, the amazing Dr. Micki Burns takes over . . . and I’ll be bringing it home Friday afternoon. Check it out. Here’s a registration link:
This June, I have the incredible fortune of joining Dr. Jeff Linkenbach and the renowned Montana Summer Institute in Big Sky, Montana (and Livestream) from June 17-20. Here’s a description of what’s happening!
Reimagining Community Health:
Uncovering Positive Norms and & Activating Hidden
Protective Factors
In Big Sky, Montana and via Livestream: June 17-20, 2025
Join us at the 2025 Montana Summer Institute for three and a half transformative days dedicated to advancing community well-being. Through thought-provoking keynotes, interactive workshops, and engaging discussions, you’ll explore innovative strategies that leverage positive norms and amplify protective factors.
Learn to uncover hidden community strengths, identify untapped opportunities, and craft impactful communications that drive meaningful change. With insights from leading experts and experienced practitioners, you’ll gain practical tools to reimagine your approach to data, messaging, and the people you serve—all through a positive, effective frame.
Don’t miss this opportunity to expand your expertise, deepen your impact, and shape healthier, more resilient communities. For more information, visit www.montanainstitute.com
Is there any chance you will join us in June? It would be wonderful to have you there! Here is the Montana Discount Code to give $100 off the price: MSIMONT which would give $100 off registration
***********************
And here’s a fancy flyer for the Montana Summer Institute:
The following is an excerpt from a chapter I wrote with my colleagues Roni Johnson and Maegan Rides At The Door. The full chapter is in the Cambridge Handbook of Clinical Assessment and Diagnosis . . .
*********************************
The clinical interview is a fundamental assessment and intervention procedure that mental and behavioral health professionals learn and apply throughout their careers. Psychotherapists across all theoretical orientations, professional disciplines, and treatment settings employ different interviewing skills, including, but not limited to, nondirective listening, questioning, confrontation, interpretation, immediacy, and psychoeducation. As a process, the clinical interview functions as an assessment (e.g., neuropsychological or forensic examinations) or signals the initiation of counseling or psychotherapy. Either way, clinical interviewing involves formal or informal assessment. [For a short video on how to address client problems and goals in the clinical interview, see below]
Clinical interviewing is dynamic and flexible; every interview is a unique interpersonal interaction, with interviewers integrating cultural awareness, knowledge, and skills, as needed. It is difficult to imagine how clinicians could begin treatment without an initial clinical interview. In fact, clinicians who do not have competence in using clinical interviewing as a means to initiate and inform treatment would likely be considered unethical (Welfel, 2016).
Clinical interviewing has been defined as
“a complex and multidimensional interpersonal process that occurs between a professional service provider and client [or patient]. The primary goals are (1) assessment and (2) helping. To achieve these goals, individual clinicians may emphasize structured diagnostic questioning, spontaneous and collaborative talking and listening, or both. Clinicians use information obtained in an initial clinical interview to develop a [therapeutic relationship], case formulation, and treatment plan” (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2017, p. 6)
A Generic Clinical Interviewing Model
All clinical interviews follow a common process or outline. Shea (1998) offered a generic or atheoretical model, including five stages: (1) introduction, (2) opening, (3) body, (4) closing, and (5) termination. Each stage includes specific relational and technical tasks.
Introduction
The introduction stage begins at first contact. An introduction can occur via telephone, online, or when prospective clients read information about their therapist (e.g., online descriptions, informed consents, etc.). Client expectations, role induction, first impressions, and initial rapport-building are central issues and activities.
First impressions, whether developed through informed consent paperwork or initial greetings, can exert powerful influences on interview process and clinical outcomes. Mental health professionals who engage clients in ways that are respectful and culturally sensitive are likely to facilitate trust and collaboration, consequently resulting in more reliable and valid assessment data (Ganzini et al., 2013). Technical strategies include authentic opening statements that invite collaboration. For example, the clinician might say something like, “I’m looking forward to getting to know you better” and “I hope you’ll feel comfortable asking me whatever questions you like as we talk together today.” Using friendliness and small talk can be especially important to connecting with diverse clients (Hays, 2016; Sue & Sue, 2016). The introduction stage also includes discussions of (1) confidentiality, (2) therapist theoretical orientation, and (3) role induction (e.g., “Today I’ll be doing a diagnostic interview with you. That means I’ll be asking lots of questions. My goal is to better understand what’s been troubling you.”). The introduction ends when clinicians shift from paperwork and small talk to a focused inquiry into the client’s problems or goals.
Opening
The opening provides an initial focus. Most mental health practitioners begin clinical assessments by asking something like, “What concerns bring you to counseling today?” This question guides clients toward describing their presenting problem (i.e., psychiatrists refer to this as the “chief complaint”). Clinicians should be aware that opening with questions that are more social (e.g., “How are you today?” or “How was your week?”) prompt clients in ways that can unintentionally facilitate a less focused and more rambling opening stage. Similarly, beginning with direct questioning before establishing rapport and trust can elicit defensiveness and dissembling (Shea, 1998).
Many contemporary therapists prefer opening statements or questions with positive wording. For example, rather than asking about problems, therapists might ask, “What are your goals for our meeting today?” For clients with a diverse or minority identity, cultural adaptations may be needed to increase client comfort and make certain that opening questions are culturally appropriate and relevant. When focusing on diagnostic assessment and using a structured or semi-structured interview protocol, the formal opening statement may be scripted or geared toward obtaining an overview of potential psychiatric symptoms (e.g., “Does anyone in your family have a history of mental health problems?”; Tolin et al., 2018, p. 3).
Body
The interview purpose governs what happens during the body stage. If the purpose is to collect information pertaining to psychiatric diagnosis, the body includes diagnostic-focused questions. In contrast, if the purpose is to initiate psychotherapy, the focus could quickly turn toward the history of the problem and what specific behaviors, people, and experiences (including previous therapy) clients have found more or less helpful.
When the interview purpose is assessment, the body stage focuses on information gathering. Clinicians actively question clients about distressing symptoms, including their frequency, duration, intensity, and quality. During structured interviews, specific question protocols are followed. These protocols are designed to help clinicians stay focused and systematically collect reliable and valid assessment data.
Closing
As the interview progresses, it is the clinician’s responsibility to organize and close the session in ways that assure there is adequate time to accomplish the primary interview goals. Tasks and activities linked to the closing include (1) providing support and reassurance for clients, (2) returning to role induction and client expectations, (3) summarizing crucial themes and issues, (4) providing an early case formulation or mental disorder diagnosis, (5) instilling hope, and, as needed, (6) focusing on future homework, future sessions, and scheduling (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2017).
Termination
Termination involves ending the session and parting ways. The termination stage requires excellent time management skills; it also requires intentional sensitivity and responsiveness to how clients might react to endings in general or leaving the therapy office in particular. Dealing with termination can be challenging. Often, at the end of an initial session, clinicians will not have enough information to establish a diagnosis. When diagnostic uncertainty exists, clinicians may need to continue gathering information about client symptoms during a second or third session. Including collateral informants to triangulate diagnostic information may be useful or necessary.
See the 7th edition of Clinical Interviewing for MUCH more on this topic:
Author Note: As simple and naïve as this may sound, my new subversive social message and political metric is kindness. The social message is intentional kindness. Kindness everywhere; kindness as often as we can muster. The political metric is, “Who is acting with kindness?” Let kindness be our judge.
Occasionally in my life, I’ve seen the future. This moderately delusional belief is related to my love of prediction. Right now, I see tomorrow’s opportunities unfolding. I’m sharing my vision here as a strategy for nudging these opportunities forward. The future I’m seeing is all about, “A Declaration of Independence.”
You might view this post as political. I’m sure it is. That said, my intent is humanitarian. I want people to be treated with respect and compassion. Again, think of kindness.
Donald Trump has begun his presidency at a manic pace. This is a planned mania. He needs mania now, because his days are numbered; his days are numbered due to his age and the forthcoming midterm elections—when he could and should lose substantial power. He and his team can feel the clock ticking.
His mania is a confession of vulnerability. Approximately half the republican party lie in wait for their moment of emancipation . . . the moment to make their declaration of independence from Donald Trump.
************************************
Dear Moderate Republicans,
This is your moment.
Now is the time to seize the day.
You have an unprecedented opportunity for heroism.
I know you can feel and sense this opportunity. You’re too smart and savvy to be ignorant of political opportunity. You must know that now is the time for you to stand up and do what’s right and good for the country and for the world.
Heroism requires self-sacrifice; it involves risk. You cannot achieve hero status without engaging in risky, humanitarian, and possibly sacrificial acts.
But you have a rare heroic opportunity to benefit OTHERS while simultaneously benefiting YOURSELF. Yes, there is still risk.
The risk involves standing up to Donald Trump. And, while that is a risk, most of the country and most of the world are waiting and hoping for someone to emerge who represents wise leadership. You know it’s not Elon Musk or J.D. Vance. It could be you.
Risk is frightening. Risk is also invigorating. Incredibly invigorating.
But why take a risk when you can—in poker terminology—stand pat, take no risk, and continue to experience a modest gain from remaining a status quo supporter of Donald Trump.
Here’s why.
You know in your heart how good it will feel to honor what you know to be true. To live your life with a clear conscience; to look yourself in the mirror and say, “I did something amazing.”
If following your heart and conscience needs a nudge, here are a few actions you’ve been asked to lie about—to yourself and to the American people:
Allowing a vaccine-denier to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services, a Fox News analyst as Secretary of Defense, a potential Russian asset as Secretary of Intelligence, and a professional wrestling executive for Secretary of Education. You know America deserves better.
Replacing traditional federal oversight mechanisms (like Inspectors General) with Musk and his DOGE crew to cruelly eliminate what they judge to be waste in the federal system. You know the depth and breadth of Musk’s conflicts of interest. You know that giving him more power will not satiate his voracious hunger for even more power.
Ignoring the dangers of reaching out to Putin and turning our backs on Ukraine.
Pretending that creating a Gazan coastal resort to further the Trump/Musk empire is a just and viable road to peace in the Middle East.
Giving the go-ahead to illegal and unregulated mass deportations and the repopulating of an unaccountable Guantanamo Bay.
Acting as if the U.S. can unilaterally annex Canada, grab Greenland, and steal the Panama Canal.
Trusting that global tariff wars will improve relationships with our allies or reduce the cost of eggs.
And finally, you cannot give up your critically important constitutional responsibilities to rein in a power-hungry executive branch. The founding fathers created a system with separation of powers for times like these. Don’t let them down.
Now is the time to pick one or more of the preceding issues and stand firm in the face of the Donald Trump-Musk bloviating firestorm. You risk threats, name-calling, and manipulation; but, the majority of Americans (and global citizens) are waiting, hoping, and longing for YOU to step up and stand strong.
People will shower you with praise, affection, and much more power and attention than you’ll ever get by playing it safe as a quiet member of the Trumpian order.
By standing up for truth, you will be revered.
Honor your conscience. Be honest with yourself. Make Americans proud.
This post is for my Chinese friends, or my friends who speak Mandarin . . . or anyone who wants to read about the process of self-evaluation, the pain of self-reflection, and personal/professional growth.
Last year I was asked to participate as a psychotherapist for the One-Way Mirror Project. The project was inspired by the old and now classic “Three Approaches to Psychotherapy” videos. Not surprisingly, I was honored to be asked to participate, and said yes despite a number of challenging factors, including doing therapy late at night with a Chinese woman via Zoom. I share this because this post is about transparency and so I’m transparently beginning by making excuses for not being the best therapist I imagine myself to be.
Here’s the scenario: One session. Minimal pre-meeting information. Post-session viewing (by me) and commentary on my performance. One other therapist also met with the same client. I get to watch his session; he gets to watch mine. We then have a Zoom meeting to debrief and share our thoughts about our respective sessions (mine was in English; his was in Mandarin).
This was a super-interesting process.
Below, I’m sharing my written self-reflection comments. There’s also a video version . . . which is similar to, but not verbatim from, these notes. The comments are numbered sequentially.
I hope you enjoy this self-reflection/analysis. Thanks for reading.
John S-F – Commentary on His Session with Evelyn
My first reaction to watching this video of myself was embarrassment. I’m sharing this reaction because it’s true. I don’t want to pretend that I think this is a particularly good session.
That said, I also don’t think it was a particularly bad session. I did some things well, and some things less well. In this commentary I will try to describe: (a) what I’m doing (or trying to do), especially from different theoretical perspectives, (b) how Evelyn is responding, (c) what I’m doing well and what I’m doing that’s much less good.
In critiquing my own work, I’m also hoping to connect with all of you. Whether you’re a beginning student or an experienced professional psychotherapist, watching ourselves and hearing ourselves can be humbling and embarrassing. It’s natural for all of us to make mistakes and be imperfect . . . and in this session I do an excellent job of being imperfect😊. . . so much so that while watching the video, during several points I kept shouting at myself to “shut up!” So, that’s a glimpse into one thing I would change about MY behavior in this session. Although I’m okay with being imperfect, I’m not very comfortable with being as imperfect as I was in this session.
How I Work – 0:10 – This explanation has three main goals. First, I’m showing transparency, which is consistent with person-centered and feminist therapies. Second, I’m explaining the process of our session, which is a role induction designed to help clarify expectations. Third, I’m including an invitation for collaboration.
SFBT Opening Question – 1:30 – “If we have a useful meeting, what will we accomplish?” This is a goal-oriented question to help me be more aware of Evelyn’s vision of a successful session.
Evelyn’s Goal – 1:50 – Evelyn says she wants a “different perspective” of what she’s worried about.
JSF’s Goal – In a single session treatment, and maybe most therapy sessions, it’s best to begin with what the client wants. Evelyn’s goal is a “cognitive goal.” In this moment, I decide to go with George Kelly’s “Credulous approach to assessment,” which essentially means “believe the client.” That could be a variation of Carl Rogers’s assertion that we should “Trust the client, because the client knows what hurts and where to go.” JSF – Your goal is my goal, as long as it’s legal and healthy.”
What I Know – 2:25 – This is another effort to be like Carl Rogers and show transparency.
Feelings and Thoughts Around That – 3:00 – Here, I’m trying to prompt her to explore feelings and/or thoughts. She says, “So many worries overwhelming” and talks about not knowing what is overwhelming and then references social media, and four main issues/worries: (a) Fitness/body image/comparison, (b) feelings of unfairness related to gender issues, (c) she loves her partner, but “he is a man” (with sarcasm, implying he therefore cannot understand), (d) humiliation linked to breasts filling with milk involuntarily.
A Broad Summary/Paraphrase – I respond with an accurate summary of her four “feelings and thoughts”
“You can choose; I cannot” – 7:10 – Evelyn focuses on the inherent sex/gender unfairness as related to having a baby. In response, we discuss the burden of social responsibility and how she has internalized societal expectations around being a woman.
May I Share an Observation? – 8:30 – At this point, I try to be a mirror that reflects back to Evelyn what I’m experiencing as one of her positive attributes or strengths. When working across cultures, it’s especially important to be affirming of client strengths. I end this reflection using first-person pronouns—which is a language skill that Rogers used and called “Walking within” – 9:10
Evelyn Continues – 10:45 – to talk about feeling powerless and influenced by her age, generation, societal expectations, and then notes that she wants to “make peace with what she wants to be and what she can be.” The thought of having a baby is a particular trigger for her anxious thoughts and fears. – 11:15
An Intellectual Grasp – 12:15 – I observe that Evelyn has a good intellectual grasp of feminism and of her internalized expectations about how women should be.
A Reflection and SFBT Question – 12:35–13:29 – Using too many words, I finally get out a “Unique outcomes” question: “How have you dealt with internalized fears and conflicts before?”
I Love That Question – 13:35 – Evelyn reflects on a story from age 24 and provides examples of how she felt time running out, dated like crazy, was very brave, and fought back toward her goal of a loving relationship even after having her heart broken.
How did you manage? – 15:03 – I continue to pursue Evelyn’s pre-existing strengths and insights around, with a bit of a focus on what motivated her to “fight back.”
As a Good Therapist – 15:35 – Evelyn expresses motivation to be a good therapist and that requires expansive live experiences.
Anything Else Pull You – 16:54 – Evelyn shares an early fear of death, noting, after an anecdote, that her class presentation on death left her feeling “more lonely (or different) than ever.” – 17:54. [not psychoanalytic]
I Reflect – 18:30 – Being a better therapist and fear of death motivate her to live a life full of experiences.
Imagine self at end of life – 19:00 – Found someone I love and would like to have a child. I want to try it. That would complete my experience. – 19:30
Values vs. Anxieties – 19:55 – Still feel anxieties. “I have to carry a child” etc. . . walking within. Amplifying expectations so she can hear them.
That’s my barrier –
Fought those off those expectations before – 20:45 – And yet . . . you have fought off expectations before. What makes you think you will be a victim to those expectations in the future? Here, I’m trying to identify what CBT people might consider an “irrational” or “maladaptive” thought/belief that doesn’t have much evidence to support it. Also, exception. . .
Focus on the Physical/Somatic – 22:25 – Evelyn notes this task is “harder” and supports that with physical changes she’s experiencing with aging. . . and I interpret that as “Anticipatory grief” regarding her physical decline [this is likely death anxiety too]
Self-Disclosure – 23:40 – May I share something? “I have a 35-y/o daughter with similar issues.” [Too many words! Should have stopped when Evelyn laughed and put her hand to her face and then explored her initial reaction]. I finally get to “What’s your reaction?” [Late, but I got there]. She says . . . and this is potentially central to “one” therapy goal: “I feel, like, less lonely.” [Again, I should just stop there or repeat it back. . . or “What’s it like inside to feel less lonely?”].
Curious about what I could learn from her – 25:35 – I turn this around. Why? Because I want her to value herself as a source of wisdom.
When I share with my partner – 26:25 – She notes “he can relate” and that “men are limited.” [This could have been good transference exploration or Adlerian basic mistake]
Session shift to “so much feeling” – 27:16 – Evelyn is talking about her emotionality, I’m reflecting ok. More on unfairness, but notes BF is pretty accepting. I do a strength-based reflection, “Openness, strength, do not run from feelings!” This is a little CBT as I want her to “perceive” herself with more strengths to cope with her future challenges.
Thoughts about yourself? – 31:00 – I’ve been working on some CBT stuff and now am shifting back to the important self-evaluation process. Her response is constructive as she describes lots of planning she has already done for this coming year.
I want to hear out my fears – 32:10 – This is a great insight on her part. It prompts me to have her listen to her fears in the here and now. Evelyn responds [33:10] that she likes that question and explores, perhaps with a tiny bit of surprise, that her fears are not harsh, but more of a gentle reminder to not have regrets. [Here, I could and probably should have had her get deeper into here and now processing. “Let’s have you hear the gentle voice of your fear right now. What’s it saying to you? Say it as if you are the fear. Also, could have used repetition.]
Reflections and WW – I stay with the themes and use WW to keep bringing them back. Why? In part, desensitization. Hearing her anxiety-producing words in a potentially trusting/comforting setting can take some edge or power out of them [MCJ – 1924]. She says, somewhat conclusively, “Sounds like fear just wants me to get prepared and not critique.” [One thought, I could have been her child and asked her to tell me what she has learned.]
Evelyn asks JSF Q – 36:28 – This is one place where I fall off the rails. She asked me a question and my obnoxious, intellectual, professor-self emerges. . . for far too long. [I could have said, “I have some thoughts about that, but I’d like to hear yours first.”] Instead, JSF blah, blah, blah, and to compound the error, I do not check in on her reaction.
Evelyn continues exploring – 40:52 – She notes Yuval Harrare and feminism as a new way to resolve conflicts without war. I do manage to shift back to listening with a pretty good paraphrase: “Communication with your partner may be your best way to grow and develop and maintain your feminist identity through childbirth and your relationship.”
Evelyn recognizes perfect equality not possible – 42:35 – JSF “Love what you said. What do you think? How does it feel?” [2 Qs, boo, but my focus on her self-evaluation is still pretty solid.] I continue with “What’s your assessment of yourself and your communication skills?” I’m hoping she can express trust in her communication skills.
Non-violent communication as restraint – 46:00 – This is an interesting side road where E says, “Sometimes I just want to be violent and like a child” and notes that she prefers “emotionally charged communication.” She finds emotions and aggressive communication to be helpful. [Note: at this point I’m beginning to feel time pressure. No time to go deeper. If more sessions, I’d earmark this and close. Instead, I ask, “Is it ok to have both” (nonviolent and emotional communication) as a quick prompt toward integration.
Moving toward closing – 49:00 – I’ve lost track of time because of early tech problems. I’d like to think that’s my excuse for ending poorly. First, I begin a summary. This isn’t good. It’s MY summary . . . and I should be asking for HER summary before offering mine. I’m far too verbal. The content isn’t terrible.
Thank-you so much – 52:45 – She’s tracking time, and this should be it. I’m not. And do another disclosure and ask for her summary.
Tomorrow morning, from 7:30am-8:30am (Mountain time), I’ll be presenting for the online Friday Medical Conference at St. Patrick Hospital. It’s free. All you need to do is click on the link below a couple minutes before the start time and join in.
Just before the big news about our $9.4M gift from the Dennis and Phyllis J. Washington Foundation, I had a chance to sit with Flora McCormick as a guest on her very cool podcast, “Sustainable Parenting.” I’ve known Flora for at least 15 years, and she is a focused, dedicated, knowledgeable, kind, and EXCELLENT parenting educator. Talking with her was, as usual, fun and insightful.
In this podcast, we cover three big ideas about parenting. You’ll notice, as in the attached video clips below, Flora is very good at getting me to talk. . . and at zeroing in on what’s the most important information for parents.
The University of Montana Foundation and the Phyllis J. Washington College of Education have just issued a press release announcing a $9.4M grant from the Dennis and Phyllis Washington Foundation to support positive education at the University of Montana and throughout the state. I am humbled to hear of this amazing support and immensely grateful to Phyllis Washington and the Washington Foundation for their vision and generosity.
Specifically, these funds will support the educational journey of prospective Montana teachers and school counselors and will grow our efforts to address the emotional and behavioral health of Montana educators and students through positive education. As you may know, thanks to a previous grant from the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, I’ve been very involved in promoting the principles of positive psychology and education throughout Montana. I look forward to continuing my work with Montana teachers and administrators. This incredibly generous grant will deepen our support for current and future Montana educators, including professional school counselors. Together, we will work to improve the emotional and behavioral health of young people in Montana and beyond.
If you have questions, please reach out to the names and numbers listed in the official press release.
P.S.: Along with my thanks to the Washington Foundation, in keeping with the principles of positive psychology, I want to emphasize my gratitude to Dr. Dan Lee, Dean of the Phyllis J. Washington College of Education, and the extremely competent and capable team of Erin Keenan, Erin White, and Jason Newcomer from the University of Montana Foundation. Of course, many of you who receive this message are also on my gratitude list. I hope you can feel good feelings deep inside yourselves about your own contributions to creating a better future for Montana youth, educators, and schools. I look forward to working collaboratively with all of you in the future.
Sorry for all the posts, but apparently there’s lots happening in early 2025.
The big NEWS post won’t be until tomorrow.
As you know, on this Friday, January 10, I’ll be doing an online, two-hour workshop on Strategies for Integrating Traditional and Strengths-Based Approaches to Suicide for the Cognitive Behavior Institute.
I’m posting the workshop handouts here, in advance, for anyone interested.
If you’re an educator, you can sign up for the “Spring” version (starting in January) of our Happiness for Teachers course. This course has been very popular among teachers who have taken it. Here’s what one Montana educator emailed me first thing on January 1:
John, your course is fantastic! It absolutely exceeded my high expectations, and I find myself reflecting on and applying things I’ve learned all the time. There’s likely some recency bias, but I’m trying to think of another college course I have taken that is as meaningful and applicable for me. It has helped my overall happiness and well-being both personally and professionally, and it has given me the ideas and language to share with and support others (wife, children, students, coworkers, etc.). Thank you!
If you’re an educator or you want to share this information with an educator, read on for the details.
To Register
This semester, we have a reduced price for Rural Montana Educators: $95. We also have our usual extremely reduced price for Montana Educators for the Big Seven School Districts: $195. Either way, thanks to a grant from the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, the price is a bargain for 3 Grad Credits from the University of Montana.
Because we want to support teachers, our approach to grading is flexible. Teachers can select from one of three grading options.
Teachers can receive 3 graduate credits from the University of Montana – graded using a Credit/No Credit system. That means you need to complete enough course assignments to obtain 70% (you can do more). Then you will pass the course and receive the credits. Even if you get an NCR in the course, you can qualify for a pro-rated number of OPI credits based on your percentage completion.
Teachers can receive 3 graduate credits from the University of Montana – graded using a traditional “letter” grading system. Some school districts require a letter grade to count the course toward your payscale.
You can receive up to 48 OPI credits. This option is especially useful if you find you’re unable to complete at least 70% of the assignments. You can receive a pro-rated total of OPI hours . . . depending on how many hours of the course you complete.
How Much Work will the Course Be?
This is a graduate-level course, and so there’s a significant workload. If you can take the course for credit/no credit (see above), then you only need to obtain 70%, which makes the workload lighter.
At the ½ point in the course, we will ask all participants to inform us how they want to take the course (for credit/no credit; for a letter grade; for OPI hours). If you get ½ way through the course and you think you’re not going to pass (or get the grade you want), then you can take it for OPI hours. In the end, even if you get an NCR in the course, you can still qualify for a prorated number of OPI hours.
To complete the whole course, teachers need to complete the following assignments:
Initial and Final Happiness Assessments (20 points each; 40 points total): During the first and final days of class you’ll be given a link to a happiness assessment packet via Qualtrics. We’re collecting this data to support the grant we have that enabled us to offer you this course at a steep discount.
Active Learning Assignments (complete 10 of the 14 options available; 10 points each; 100 total points): These are short assignments designed to get you in the habit of incorporating happiness-related activities into your life. These assignments are graded pass (10 points) or not pass (0 points). To get your 10 points you need to complete the bare minimum of a thoughtful response.
Weekly Discussion Board Postings and Comments (30 posts; total 60 points): We want you to engage with each other on how you might apply what you’re learning in this course. To encourage this, you’re assigned to make two posts each week (30 total posts). We’d like you to make one post about the weekly course content (lectures and other assigned content) and one post commenting on the post of someone else.
Development of One Educational Lesson Plan (3-5 pages; 40 points): Pick a topic from class (e.g., savoring, gratitude, acts of kindness, etc.) and then write a lesson plan that you could potentially use in your educational setting. You DO NOT need to implement these lesson plans; the assignment is only to create them.
Live online or recorded final pub quiz (30 points, plus prizes): During the last Unit of class John Sommers-Flanagan will hold a live and synchronous open pub-style happiness trivia quiz. If you participate live you can win prizes. Whether you participate live or watch the recording, you can earn 30 points by turning in the answers to the 30 happiness trivia questions.
Substitute (or Extra) Credit (40 points): You can engage in 5 or more sessions of individual counseling with a Master’s student at the University of Montana. You can use these points to substitute for another assignment, or as extra credit.
How Much Time will This Course Take?
The video-recorded lecture component of the course takes about 45 hours to view.
If you complete the whole course, assignments outside of class will take approximately an additional 100 hours.
For the Fall, 2024 version of the course, there will be 15 weeks—although you’ll be working at your own pace. Assuming you worked at an even pace over the 15 weeks, anticipating about 10 hours a week for the course is a reasonable estimate.
Our Goals
We want to support teachers because we view them as unappreciated, underpaid, and highly stressed by the demands of their jobs. We have three objectives:
Offer a high quality and low-cost course to Montana teachers and other school personnel. The fee is $195 for 3-credits.
Focus the course content on emotional wellness—teachers can apply this content to themselves, and possibly also apply it in their classrooms.
By offering a 3-credit graduate course through the University of Montana, teachers may qualify for a salary bump.
Here are a couple of un-flashy memos describing the courses, just in case you want to download and share them. First, the Rural Educator section:
We have more good news for 2025. At long last, we’ve published a research article based on Dr. Dan Salois’s doctoral dissertation. Congratulations Dan!
This article is part of growing empirical support for our particular approaches to teaching positive psychology, happiness, and how people can live their best lives. As always, I want to emphasize that our approach is NOT about toxic positivity, as we encourage people to deal with the deep conflicts, trauma, and societal issues that cause distress — while also teaching strategies for generating positive affect, joyspotting, and other practices derived from positive psychology.
One of the big takeaways from Dr. Dan’s dissertation is that our happiness class format may produce physical health benefits. Also, it’s important to note that this publication is from early on in our research, and that our later research (currently unpublished) continues to show physical health benefits. Exciting stuff!
John Sommers-Flanagan 