Please no plagiarism and make sure you are able to access all resource on your own before you bid. One of the references must come from Flamez, B. & Sheperis, C. J. (2015) and/or Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Sommers-Flanagan, R. (2007). You need to have scholarly support for any claim of fact or recommendation regarding treatment. APA format also requires headings. Use the prompt each week to guide your heading titles and organize the content of your initial post under the appropriate headings. Remember to use scholarly research from peer-reviewed articles that is current. I have also attached my discussion rubric so you can see how to make full points. Please follow the instructions to get full credit for the discussion. I need this completed by 01/16/19 at 5pm.
Discussion – Week 8
Risk and Protective Factors
Violence, aggression, and bullying continue to be major problems among contemporary children and adolescents. As a counselor you must consider the following questions: a) What factors increase the risks for violence and aggression? and b) What protective factors reduce the risks for violence and aggression? The risks for violence include, but are not limited to, child abuse, disconnection to family, and cultural influences. Protective factors that help to mitigate aggression and violence include connectedness to family and community, success in school, and emotional stability. In addition to increasing your knowledge of the propensity of violence, consider a counselor’s role in helping children, adolescents, and families experience and enact violence less often.
For this Discussion, consider the myriad cultures in your community and throughout the world. Using the Learning Resources, Walden Library, and reputable sources on the Internet, select a culture and consider the risk factors that might influence violence and aggression within that culture. Consider the protective factors that may help to mitigate violence and aggression within that culture.
With these thoughts in mind:
Post by Day 4 a brief description of the culture you selected. Then, explain one way this culture may influence risk factors for violence and aggression and why. Be specific. Finally, explain two protective factors you might introduce to family systems in that culture that may reduce or prevent violence and aggression and justify your selection. Be specific and justify your response with evidence-based research.
Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the Learning Resources.
Bottom of Form
Required Resources
Readings
- Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Sommers-Flanagan, R. (2007). Tough kids, cool counseling: User-friendly approaches with challenging youth (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
o Chapter 5, “Behavioral, Cognitive, and Interpersonal Change Strategies”
- Copeland-Linder, N., Lamber, S. F., & Ialongo, N. S. (2010). Community violence, protective factors, and adolescent mental health: A profile analysis
. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39(2), 176–186.
© 2010 by TAYLOR & FRANCIS INFORMA UK LTD. Reprinted by permission of TAYLOR & FRANCIS INFORMA UK LTD. via the Copyright Clearance Center.
- Howard, K. A. S., Budge, S. L., & McKay, K. M. (2010). Youth exposed to violence: The role of protective factors . Journal of Community Psychology, 38(1), 63–79.
© 2010 by JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. Reprinted by permission of JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. via the Copyright Clearance Center.
- Liu, J. (2011). Early health risk factors for violence: Conceptualization, evidence, and implications . Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(1), 63–73.
© 2011 by ELSEVIER SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY JOURNALS. Reprinted by permission of ELSEVIER SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY JOURNALS via the Copyright Clearance Center.
Media
- Laureate Education (Producer). (2011). Aiden Carter reverse timeline [Interactive media].
Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu
o Transcript
Optional Resources
- Aspy, C. B., Oman, R. F., Vesely, S. K., McElroy, K., Rodine, S., & Marshall, L. (2004). Adolescent violence: The protective effects of youth assets. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82(3), 268–276.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
- Crothers, L. M., & Levinson, E. M. (2004). Assessment of bullying: A review of methods and instruments. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82(4), 496–503.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
- Newman-Carlson, D., & Horne, A. M. (2004). Bully busters: A psychoeducational intervention for reducing bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82(3), 259–267.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
| Exemplary |
Proficient |
Progressing |
Emerging |
| Element (1): Responsiveness: Did the student respond to the main question of the week?
9 points (28%)
|
Posts exceed requirements of the Discussion instructions (e.g., respond to the question being asked; go beyond what is required [i.e., incorporates additional readings outside of the assigned Learning Resources, and/or shares relevant professional experiences]; are substantive, reflective, and refers to Learning Resources demonstrating that the student has considered the information in Learning Resources and colleague postings).
9 points |
Posts are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. Posts respond to the question being asked in a substantive, reflective way and refer to Learning Resources demonstrating that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and colleague postings.
7–8 points |
Posts are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. Posts are not substantive and rely more on anecdotal evidence (i.e., largely comprised of student opinion); and/or does not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered Learning Resources and colleague postings.
4–6 points |
Posts are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions; miss the point of the question by providing responses that are not substantive and/or solely anecdotal (i.e., comprised of only student opinion); and do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered Learning Resources and colleague postings.
0–3 points |
| Element (2): Critical Thinking, Analysis, and Synthesis: Is the student able to make meaning of the information?
9 points (28%)
|
Posts demonstrate the student’s ability to apply, reflect, AND synthesize concepts and issues presented in the weekly Learning Objectives. Student has integrated and mastered the general principles, ideas, and skills presented. Reflections include clear and direct correlation to authentic examples or are drawn from professional experience; insights demonstrate significant changes in awareness, self-understanding, and knowledge.
9 points |
Posts demonstrate the student’s ability to apply, reflect OR synthesize concepts and issues presented in the weekly Learning Objectives. The student has integrated many of the general principles, ideas, and skills presented. Reflections include clear and direct correlation to authentic examples or are drawn from professional experience, share insights that demonstrate a change in awareness, self- understanding, and knowledge.
7–8 points |
Posts demonstrate minimal ability to apply, reflect, or synthesize concepts and issues presented in the weekly Learning Objectives. The student has not fully integrated the general principles, ideas, and skills presented. There are little to no salient reflections, examples, or insights/experiences provided.
4–6 points |
Posts demonstrate a lack of ability to apply, reflect, or synthesize concepts and issues presented in the weekly Learning Objectives. The student has not integrated the general principles, ideas, and skills presented. There are no reflections, examples, or insights/experiences provided.
0–3 points |
| Element (3): Professionalism of Writing: Does the student meet graduate level writing expectations?
5 points (16%)
|
Posts meet graduate-level writing expectations (e.g., are clear, concise, and use appropriate language; make few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; provide information about sources when paraphrasing or referring to it; use a preponderance of original language and directly quote only when necessary or appropriate). Postings are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
5 points |
Posts meet most graduate-level writing expectations (e.g., are clear; make only a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; provide adequate information about a source when paraphrasing or referring to it; use original language wherever possible and directly quote only when necessary and/or appropriate). Postings are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
4 points |
Posts partially meet graduate-level writing expectation (e.g., use language that is unclear/inappropriate; make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; provide inadequate information about a source when paraphrasing or referring to it; under-use original language and over-use direct quotes). Postings are at times less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
2–3 points |
Posts do not meet graduate-level writing expectations (e.g., use unclear/inappropriate language; make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; do not provide information about a source when paraphrasing or referring to it; directly quote from original source materials or consistently paraphrase rather than use original language; or are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints).
0–1 points |
| Element (4):
Responses to Peers: Did the student respond to peer posts and contribute professionally?
9 points (28%)
|
Responds to two or more peers in a manner that significantly contributes to the Discussion.
9 points |
Responds to one or more peers in a manner that significantly contributes to the Discussion.
7–8 points |
Responds to one or more peers in a manner that minimally contributes to the Discussion.
4–6 points |
Does not respond to any peer posts.
0–3 points |
| |
32 points
100% |
25–28 points
78–88% |
14–21 points
44–66% |
0–10 points
0–31% |
© 2015 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 2 of 3
Case 15: Borderline Personality Disorder in Gorenstein and Comer (2014), and Borderline Personality Disorder in Sneed et al., . (2012). Please also read the Rizvi, et al. (2013), “An Overview of Dialectical Behavior Therapy for Professional Psychologists,” Harned, et al. (2013), “Treatment Preference Among Suicidal and Self-Injuring Women with Borderline Personality Disorder and PTSD,” Miller (2006), “Telehealth Issues in Consulting Psychology Practice,” and Luxton, et al. (2011), “mHealth for Mental Health: Integrating Smartphone Technology in Behavioral Healthcare” articles.
