加拿大论文代写：剧情描述

Keywords:加拿大论文代写

剧情概述说明了什么Blum（2001）所说的关于愤怒；“学生生气是给人一种情感反应，他们认为自己有需要，这是不符合。愤怒…可以用来恐吓和威胁”的干预策略，采用允许'用尽言语愤怒而阻止他做任何伤害自己或其他人，为“无意义的对话可以在危机发生”（Blum，2001）。然后，他以冷静的方式提出了备选方案，并考虑到如何采取行动，同时了解每一行动进程可能产生的后果。一旦他选择了，他接受了一次采访，在那里他被鼓励去看看他的行为是如何影响自己和他人的。认识到他行为的方式已经不合适，在咨询人员的成员，他决定做点什么来弥补他所做的事和计划改变他的行为如果他觉得同样的未来。这是由一个“行动的其他的孩子不受身体和/或精神暴力和虐待的道德权利受到侵害的权利，随着每一个孩子都有被尊重的权利（19条，公约对孩子的权利，1989）。干预被用来支持这些权利，以及保护孩子的最佳利益（3条，公约对孩子的权利1989）随着员工是作为一个个体的尊重和他一样的人参与照顾孩子的能力处理权（第5、关于孩子的权利1989）。对员工的行为在道义上的干预也坚持'一'的权利，因为他是有尊严的对待，有机会表达自己的理由为自己的行为，他是被领导解决问题及时没有偏见（40条，公约对孩子的权利，1989）。在这种情况下，“A”试图推翻可接受的（道德上的）正确的行为标准，以便把他想要的东西强加给其他男孩；这是由于他由于迟到而无法控制自己的愤怒情绪所驱使的。工作人员坚持这些行为标准，沉着而坚定地认为，“A”能够认识到他的行为不可取，理解其原因，并制定一个行动计划，如果类似的感情再次浮出水面，他将修改自己的行为。对“A”的干预和随后的行动计划使该股能够继续为所有年轻人提供一个安全的环境。
加拿大论文代写：剧情描述
The scenario as outlined illustrates what Blum (2001) has to say about anger; “pupils who become angry are giving an emotional reaction to needs they perceive themselves to have, which are not being met. Anger…can be used to bully and intimidate.” The intervention strategy that was employed allowed ‘A’ to exhaust his verbal anger while preventing him from doing any harm to himself or other people, as “no meaningful dialogue can take place during the crisis” (Blum, 2001). He was then presented with alternatives in a calm way and given the choice of how to proceed while being made aware of the possible consequences of each course of action. Once he had chosen, an interview took place where he was encouraged to see how his actions had affected himself and others in a less than positive way. Having recognised that the way he had behaved had been inappropriate, in consultation with the member of staff, he resolved to do something to make amends for what he had done and made plans to modify his behaviour if he was to feel similarly in the future.The rights that are being infringed by ‘A’s’ actions are that of the moral right of the other boys to be protected from physical and/or mental violence and mistreatment, along with the right that every child has to be treated with respect (Article 19, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989). The intervention that was used supports those rights, as well as protecting the boys best interests (Article 3, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989) along with the right of the member of staff to be treated with respect as an individual and in his capacity as someone who is involved in looking after the child (Article 5, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989). The action of the member of staff during the intervention also morally upholds the rights of ‘A’, in that he is treated with dignity, given the chance to express his reasons for his actions and he is being led to address the issues promptly without prejudice (Article 40, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989). In the scenario, ‘A’ attempts to override acceptable (morally ‘right’) standards of behaviour in order to impose what he wanted upon the other boys; this was driven by his lack of control over his angry emotions due to being late. The member of staff upheld those standards of behaviour, calmly but firmly with the result that ‘A’ was able to recognise that his behaviour was not desirable, understand the reasons for it and to formulate a plan of action to modify his actions if similar feelings surfaced again. The intervention and subsequent plan of action for ‘A’ enabled the unit to continue to be a safe environment for all of the young people in their care.