Definition of Plagiarism
Plagiarism is an effort ( deliberate or inadvertent ) to derive advantage by the representation of another person’s work. without recognition of the beginning. as the student’s ain for the intents of fulfilling formal appraisal demands.
Recognised signifiers of plagiarism include
1. the usage in a student’s ain work of more than a individual phrase from another person’s work without the usage of citation Markss and recognition of the beginning ; 2. the summarising of another person’s work by merely altering a few plants or changing the order of presentation. without recognition ; 3. the usage of thoughts or rational informations of another individual without recognition of the beginning. or the entry or presentation of work as if it were the student’s ain. which are well the thoughts or rational informations of another individual ; 4. copying the work of another individual ;
5. the entry of work. as if it were the student’s ain. which has been obtained from the cyberspace or any other signifier of information engineering ; 6. the entry of coursework doing important usage of unattributed digital images such as graphs. tabular arraies. exposure. etc. taken from books/articles. the cyberspace or from the work of another individual ; 7. the entry of a piece of work which has antecedently been assessed for a different award or faculty or at a different establishment as if it were new work ;
8. a pupil who allows or is involved in leting. either wittingly or unwittingly. another pupil to copy another’s work including physical or digital images would be deemed to be guilty of plagiarism. 9. If plagiarism is suspected pupils will be required to provide an electronic transcript of the work in inquiry so that it may be subjected to electronic plagiarism sensing proving. Therefore pupils are required to maintain work electronically until after they receive their consequences as electronic sensing may be portion of the fact-finding procedure.
Beginning: Assessment Handbook 15f.
In subjecting this work I confirm I have read and understood the ordinances associating to plagiarism and academic misconduct that I signed when I submitted my Assessment Confirmation Form.
In subjecting this work I confirm I have read and understood the ordinances associating to plagiarism and academic misconduct that I signed when I submitted my Assessment Confirmation Form.
Human Growth and Development PortfolioI am detecting a 22 month old male child. who for this study I will name Tom. Tom lives with his Mum. Dad and older sister Molly who is 3 old ages of age and has merely started nursery. His Mum stays at place with the kids whilst Dad plants. Both parents are from Poland therefore gloss is their first linguistic communication. nevertheless their Mum explained to me that Molly is traveling to nursery to develop her English. She besides said that Tom was merely talking a small ; some words English and some Polish. I will be detecting Tom in his place. Detecting Tom – Week one
12. 10. 2012 word count: 991
I arrived at the level and was greeted by Tom’s female parent who took my coat and showed me around the level. Tom’s sister was sat feeding at the tabular array in the life room and Tom walked out of his sleeping room and looked at me. He stared at me and I said “hello” . he smiled and ran back in his sleeping room. Molly walked down the hall and smiled at me and spoke to Mum in Polish and Mum replied. she so galloped past me and sat on the floor with playthings. Mum told me that she had told Molly they had a visitant coming but they had to feign I was unseeable ; she said she hadn’t told Tom as he wouldn’t understand. Besides the anxiousness I was sing. I felt rather comfy in the level. the odor of rinsing pulverization was really familiar and I immediately warmed to the kids. It seemed as though they were waiting for me to prosecute and it felt foreign that I couldn’t. Mum encouraged the kids to play in their sleeping room as they were both stood looking at me.
Mum went into the kitchen and I crouched down in the corner of the sleeping room. I rapidly realised this wasn’t a great thought as they both presented me with playthings and giggled looking at each other. Molly passed me a Barbie and held another one and said. “This is dolly and you have adult male dolly” she so spoke in character through the Barbie and said. “Hello! ” I found it hard to deviate from playing with her. I said “hello” and passed it to Tom to promote them to play together. Molly continued to state. “This is dolly” seeking to go through her to me. She seemed somewhat frustrated that I was trying to deviate her attending off from me and I found it unnatural.
As kneeling down was pulling their attending I stood in the room access out the manner. Mum came in the sleeping room and set a children’s DVD of nursery rimes. Molly started leaping approximately ; Tom watched Molly and copied her jumping. They both smiled and kept looking at me. I smiled at them but was unsure of my facial looks because I didn’t want to look excessively accessible. I continued to happen it uncomfortable how much they seemed to supplication for my attending and I couldn’t respond decently. Molly so got out a box of Lego and brought it over to where I was stood. Tom followed and they started constructing the blocks together. They played nicely. taking it in turns ; I enjoyed watching them and felt at easiness that the attending was off me.
When they made a tower Molly said. “no coating. no finish” each clip they put a piece on and so said. “Finished! ” and they both clapped their custodies smiling. They did this several times. I noticed that Tom seemed relaxed and allow Molly take the lead when she wanted to. Molly so went to acquire a field day set and brought it back. Tom pretended to pour me a drink and passed me a cup ; I said “Thank-you” and pretended to imbibe. I pointed at Molly to promote him to go through it to her. Molly laid three home bases on the floor and pointed at one and said. “Play? ” I think Mum could see that I needed some aid deviating their attending so she encouraged Molly to travel back into her sleeping room and they put some books away. Tom rapidly ran back in his room following them.
Mum laid a field day cover and laid it down on the floor in the sleeping room and asked Molly to convey the field day set in at that place. Mum so changed Tom’s crisp. Molly fluctuated from Polish to English as she spoke. She so got out a fancy frock and showed me. stating “Look its Molly’s frock. ” Mum helped her put it on. Tom tugged at the box of fancy frock apparels and so Mum besides helped him into a skirt. They danced around the room together express joying. Molly kept whirling about and tittering and Tom copied her. I liked the manner Mum had no job with allowing Tom wear a skirt and it reminded me of my ain childhood when my younger brother would besides have on my frocks. ‘Wheels on the bus’ came on and Tom danced in forepart of the telecasting and they both did the arm gestures. Tom wiggled his rotter and stood right in forepart of the telecasting. Mum laughed and sat cross legged following to them.
Although the kids were rather active. the ambiance in the house was really unagitated and quiet. Mum’s presence was really peaceable and she spoke really softly. Molly climbed on to her bed. Mum went over and tickled her ; she giggled aloud. Tom still had his skirt on and continued to dance around the room. He so started to force a baby buggy with a doll in around the room ; he continued to watch the telecasting and wiggled his rotter watching with his oral cavity unfastened. He so tipped over the baby buggy and Saturday on the floor ; he held the back wheel and moved it like he was feigning to drive.
Molly so ran in to the hall and set on her places ; Tom followed her and copied her. Molly put a chapeau on and so put one on Tom’s caput. Mum laughed and helped Tom put his places on. She so tried to take off Tom’s skirt but he held on to it so she let him maintain it on. Tom so pottered back into his sleeping room where Molly was dancing. he joined in. Molly spun around with her eyes closed and so giggled looking at me. Tom copied her and stumbled backwards. Molly pulled Tom towards her and cuddled him and kissed his face. I wondered if Molly was ‘acting up’ because she was being watched by me. I questioned whether their behavior was wholly natural. End of observation.
Detecting Tom – Week four
02. 11. 2012 word count: 1. 025
When I arrived Tom ran out of his sleeping room and into his parents’ room. He climbed up on to the bed and turned around to look at Mum. smiling as if he knew she was traveling to respond. Mum said. “Hey. Tom” in a prophylactic mode yet smiling. She grabbed him playfully and tickled him ; he laughed aloud and squealed turn overing on his dorsum. He so climbed up on to the window sill. Mum spoke more severely to Tom ( in Polish ) I assumed she was inquiring him to either acquire down or be careful. Again Tom turned back and looked at Mum gingerly with a cheeky smiling. Mum told me she had felt ill for a twosome of hebdomads ; she seemed rather run down and a small stressed. However she was patient with Tom. Mum was sat following to him and had her manus on the window grip so he couldn’t unfastened it. Tom pointed out the window and looked astonished. Mum said. “Oooh ****” ( Polish ) Tom repeated the word and Mum nodded and smiled.
She explained to me that he had seen a motor motorcycle. she so pointed at assorted things out the window and said their names and Tom attempted to reiterate the words. Tom spoke in a deep voice and lodge his chest out. Mum laughed and told me she was indicating out the vehicles names. I wondered whether Tom was talking in a deep voice to copy person or whether he was seeking to be ‘manly’ . Tom so reached out to the window grip. Mum said. “Tom” steadfastly and took his custodies off. He did this several more times. Mum once more said his name and on the fourth clip Tom imitated Mum and shouted. “Tom! ” Mum started express joying and picked him up and sat him on the bed and tickled him once more. he laughed aloud and so climbed down and ran out into the hallway. Molly came out into the hall from her sleeping room and smiled at me. she so ran after Tom and they both went into the life room. Mum pulled out their tabular array and chairs and got out some paper for them.
Molly said. “We’re traveling to paint. you know? ” Mum laughed and sat them down with some pigment and cups of H2O. Tom picked up two pigment coppices and banged them on his paper and made howling sounds. He so struggled to pick up pigment on his pigment coppice and frowned as he brushed over the palettes of pigment. he tried to paint on the paper but nil stuck. he stamped his pess a few times. Molly soaked up more H2O on her pigment coppice and easy brushed her pigment coppice over the palettes. she seemed to cognize what she was making. possibly from painting at Nursery or retrieving what Mum or Dad had taught her. Tom seemed a batch more impatient and defeated and looked at Molly painting. somewhat glowering. He so leant over and painted on her paper.
She shouted out. “No Tom! ” But he had left no grade. merely a watery vilification. so she pulled her paper off and continued to paint. Mum turned around and said. “Hey. hey Tom. ” Tom continued to seek to paint and allow out noises of defeat ; Mum came over and tried to assist him use the pigment on his coppice. Molly said. “Mimi” and Mum drew a Mickey Mouse face on her piece of paper in pink. Molly held her paper and came over to me stating. “Look its Mimi. Mickey Mouse. you know? ” I laughed and wondered if Molly had heard person at Nursery stating. “you know” and was copying them as she had said it a few times and I hadn’t heard her say it before. Tom leant over and tried to paint on Molly’s Mickey Mouse. Molly squealed out and shouted. “No. Tom! ” Mum seemed to state them off as she spoke severely in Polish. nevertheless still remained composure. The kids seemed more agitated today and I wondered if Mum being sick had somewhat impacted their behavior. although Mum seemed to be fighting she was still unagitated with the kids.
I besides noticed that Mum and Molly spoke more in Polish than old hebdomads. I wondered if this was because they were more comfy in my presence. Mum drew a Mickey Mouse for Tom so he wouldn’t bother Molly any longer. She drew his Mickey Mouse in blue. possibly to state the difference between whose was whose. but I besides considered whether it was coloring material coded for ‘girl’ and ‘boy’ . He smiled and shouted. “Mimi! ” Molly and Tom both called out. “Mimi” they seemed to be in competition with each other of who could shout louder and laughed each clip they shouted. Tom so went around the tabular array on the opposite side to Molly and she prodded him playfully in his pot with the terminal of her pigment coppice. Tom giggled so she did it once more. she continued to make it and they both giggled more and more each clip. going really aroused.
Molly so climbed up onto a place at the dining room tabular array and asked Mum if she could hold her spines. Tom went over and peered up at the tabular array to see what Molly was making. Mum helped Tom into his place and brought over a sheet of spines. Molly began lodging them onto her paper but Tom struggled to skin his spines away. he made a fist and banged the paper doing grunting noises.
Mum went over once more and helped him skin them off. Tom struggled once more when Mum went back to the computing machine so he seemed to lose involvement and once more became more interested in Molly’s paper. Sing Tom fighting made me experience uncomfortable that I couldn’t assist him. Tom climbed down from the tabular array and ran into his sleeping room ; he peered up at the shelf of DVD’s. He shouted out. possibly in Polish. Mum came in the room and pointed at assorted DVD’s until he said yes. She put on a movie called ‘Pipi’ Tom danced around to the debut music and stood near to the screen jiggling his underside. End of observation.
In this essay I will measure my experience as an perceiver and depict the topographic point of observation in Social work. Finally. I will concentrate on gender development as my major subject of consideration. Initially. although I was a small discerning ; I came to happen the function of the perceiver a considerable challenge. Although in some ways I grew more comfy with certain facets of the exercising. I found a grade of uncomfortableness in the function I was to set about. I could associate greatly to the content of Quitak. N ( 2004 ) article. as I excessively struggled to happen my pess to derive the right balance in distance and engagement. I experienced feelings of guilt when the kids required my attending and learnt that I had to digest the anxiousness of non-intervention. Trowell and Miles ( 1991 ) say in relation to societal work. that due to the demands of the function. they at times have to be self-asserting ( cited in Quitak. 2004 ) . Therefore to be effectual. they must come to footings with the uncomfortableness this can connote. Mattinson ( 1975 ) cited in Quitak. N ( 2004 ) discusses this construct in footings of the ‘psychological distance’ frequently required.
Trowell and Miles ( 1991 ) cited in Quitak ( 2004 ) in footings of staying ‘actively positive’ ; retaining a physical distance. whilst leting one ego to go profoundly involved. When entering my observation afterwards. I found that the first things I recalled were from the first and last portion of the hr. plus what was unusual and stood out to me. Munro ( 1991 ) says that this is because we are seeking to keep onto consciousness of the milieus and the different ways in which people converse and interact. ( cited in Lefevre. 2010 ) . I recognised I was preoccupied with seeking to retrieve everything. On contemplation I realised that I should hold observed everything and so subsequently seek to place the most outstanding points. A farther distraction was Tom’s sister. Molly. who features to a great extent in my records. because her behavior was more emphasized. nevertheless. I was unable to chair her behavior in order to let Tom a more important function. Munro ( 1991 ) says that such challenges and breaks to memory are one of the grounds appraisals are frequently based on uncomplete or inaccurate information.
I was besides concerned on whether pre-determined prejudice would crawl in. as so. people’s values. civilization and old experiences will ever act upon how they interpret what they see ( Cox. 2005. cited in Lefevre. 2010 ) . Furthermore due to Tom non talking decently yet and the linguistic communication barrier it was harder for me to remember as I couldn’t prompt my memory with uneven sentences. Malekoff ( 1994 ) says that ideas and feelings of kids are frequently emotionally processed and conveyed through more direct agency. and body linguistic communication may supply of import hints as to how they feel ( cited in Lefevre. M. 2010 ) . This heightened my consciousness of non-verbal communicating and improved my capacity to analyze non- verbal behavior. Detecting kids over clip may assist to explicate what relates more to their general character and what might be a response to caretaking and environmental experiences.
What they convey through certain picks provides insight into their societal individuality and sense of ego and cultural norms. Plus their racial individuality may besides be revealed. A societal worker will necessitate to be unfastened to different societal and cultural experiences and see how a kid may be affected by different factors such as ethnocentrism. Self-awareness and apprehension of the impact of subjugation on racial individuality will be of import ( Robinson. 2007. cited in Lefevre. 2010 ) . Recent work on prejudice/identity development focuses on applications of intergroup theory to analyze the footing of societal classification and its effects. One development has been to look more by and large at children’s cognition of other states and nationalities ( Cowie et al. 2009 ) . I believe this could be really good for Tom in the hereafter. When watching the kids I questioned whether their behavior was altered by my presence ( see hebdomad one. lines 58-62 and hebdomad four. lines 109-110 ) .
The experience of being observed can arouse anxiousness and feelings of disempowerment due to possible fright of being judged or misunderstood. which can ensue in them acting otherwise. In relation to appraisals. it is of import to see how workers might impact the ascertained state of affairs ( Tanner and Turney. 2000 cited in Lefevre. 2004 ) . I understand that the move from observation to reading is complex and hence should continue with cautiousness. In conveying brooding attacks to child observations into societal work. a nexus is made ‘between cognition of human growing and development. experimental accomplishments and effectual societal work communicating with kids ( Luckock et al. 2006. p 39 ) . A image of a children’s universe. peculiarly their emotional experience. is created. which may include how they interact with and react to parents.
This may so be used to inform appraisal and attention planning. including the appraisal of disregard ( Tanner and Turney. 2000 ) . kid protection appraisals ( Fleming. 2004 ) . multidisciplinary appraisals for the household tribunals ( Youell. 2002 ) and the supervising of contact ( Hindle and Easton. 1999 ) . The argument about the wellness. safety and public assistance of kids became a preoccupation of authorities following the decease of Victoria Climbie in 2000 ( Youell. 2009 and Wilson. 1992 ) . It ‘can refer to both one’s ain and one’s partner’s look. with lack’ of expressiveness on either one’s portion seen as dissatisfying’ ( Hecht et al. . 1989 ) . Cultures vary in what is considered ‘appropriate channelling’ of emotions. For illustration in some cultural groups restraint of strong feelings is extremely valued. Social workers must ever see cultural factors when measuring people ( Robinson. 2007. Pg. 116-120 ) .
I considered cultural differences whilst detecting. Mum was ever really quiet and when I met Dad. he was besides quiet. Although I was cognizant that this may be their personalities. I considered if is in their civilization to be quiet ( see hebdomad one. line 49 ) . This experience has taught me that although it is imperative for practicians to be sensitive to the impact of our presence. it is critical non to bury that we must stay focused upon the aims set for the observation. From detecting Tom. I found myself peculiarly interested in his behavior in relation to his ‘gender role’ . I became drawn in to descrying which toys interested him. what he chose to have on and his general behavior. Piaget has shown how of import symbolization is to cognitive development. One of the many of import things kids must larn during their first old ages is what sex they are ; they learn that they are expected to act in different ways harmonizing to whether they are a male child or a miss. Learning to act “appropriately” for their sex involves larning their “gender identity” ( Davenport. 1992. pg. 275 ) .
I will be looking at theories of geting a sex-role. looking at ; biological factors. societal acquisition and cognitive development. The consequences of assorted surveies indicate that most kids begin to get their sex individuality from around 18 months. By 2 old ages they begin to place what sex other kids are. although they’re non excessively certain of their ain gender individuality until someplace between two and a half and three old ages ( Davenport. 1992. pg. 275 ) . Consequently. at 22 months. Tom should be get downing to place gender. but non his ain for another 7 or 8 months. Boys and misss differ in one chromosome brace ; this familial difference usually leads to differential production of endocrines. These endocrines lead to distinction of bodily features. such as the venereal variety meats. and may besides act upon encephalon growing and hence behavior forms ( Cowie et al. 2003 ) . Theories underscoring biological forces look for experimental grounds that links male endocrines with certain types of behavior ( Davenport. 1992 ) . Collaer and Hines ( 1995 ) cited in Cowie et Al. ( 2009 ) examined the grounds for the effects of sex endocrine abnormalcies on behavior over a scope of result variables.
They conclude that the grounds is strongest for childhood drama behavior ; in normal fetal development male sex endocrines seem to predispose male childs to go more physically active. They besides argue that the grounds is comparatively strong in two other countries: aggression and sexual orientation. Such effects are consistent with grounds that some sex differences appear early in life. Much research has shown males to be more aggressive. and that aggression begins at around 2 old ages ( Cowie et al. pg. 190-192. 2009 ) . Tom demonstrated behaviors of aggression ; see ‘observation hebdomad four’ ( lines 88-103 and 119 ) . This has been explained by the higher testosterone degrees than females.
However. it is possible that male childs are reinforced for acting sharply. and this makes them bring forth more testosterone ( Cowie et al. 2009 ) . Money and Ehrhardt ( 1972 ) carried out a survey to understand the consequence that the male sex endocrine. androgen has on misss. They examined misss who had been exposed to remarkably high degrees of androgen before birth. Compared with a matched group of misss who hadn’t. these misss and their female parents reported themselves to being ‘tomboys’ . However. Cowie et Al ( 2009 ) argue that because the parents knew of the hormonal abnormalcies. this could hold affected their behavior towards their kids.
While biological factors are likely of import in accounts of sex differences. they do non to the full explicate the procedure of sex-role designation. or explicate the fluctuations in sex functions in different societies ( Cowie et al. 2009 ) . Social Learning theoreticians claim that we get our gender functions by observation. modeling. and being reinforced for acting consequently. This implies a learning procedure. that societal factors are besides of import. For illustration it may be that female babes are spoken to more frequently than male childs. therefore pick up linguistic communication Oklahoman ( Davenport. pg. 276-278. 1992 ) . On contemplation. Tom’s Mum spoke more to Molly. although this may be because she was answering to her. An early attack to the acquisition of sex-role designation was that kids are moulded into sex-roles by the behavior of grownups. particularly parents and instructors ( Bandura. 1969 ; Mischel. 1970 ) . In its early version ( which Maccoby. 2000. calls ‘direct sociolization’ ) this theory suggests that parents and others reward sex-appropriate behavior in kids ( cited in Smith et al. 2009 ) . ( see hebdomad one. lines 45-47 and besides lines 40-1 and 56-57 ) .
Mum merrily helped Tom in to the skirt. although would so try to acquire it off. I wondered if this was because Mum was a spot loath to him have oning it. or even feared I may judge her. I besides considered if it would be different if Dad were about. Fagot ( 1978 ) studied kids ages 20-24 months in American places and found that misss were encouraged by their parents to dance. dress up and play with dolls. whereas male childs were encouraged to play with blocks and trucks. Conversely. Tom’s Mum did non deter him from playing with the baby buggy ( see hebdomad one. lines 51-54 ) a typical ‘girls toy’ . Furthermore Fagot ( 1985 ) found that nursery school instructors tend to honor ‘feminine’ types of behavior. in both male childs and misss. yet this does non forestall male childs prosecuting more in noisy. bare-knuckle drama. Nevertheless. many reappraisals have felt that this grounds has non been really convincing ( Golombok. and Hines. 2002 ; Maccoby. 2000. cited in Smith et al. 2009 ) . It may be that any differential behavior by parents is merely reacting to preexistent differences in male childs and misss behaviour ( Davenport. 1992 ) .
Indirect socialisation ( Maccoby. 2000 ) . supposes that kids observe the behavior of same sex theoretical accounts. and copy them. for illustration. male childs might copy the behavior of male figures on Television ( cited in Smith et al. 2009 ) . Television characteristics in every record. and Tom was ever really captive and on more than one juncture I noticed him copying what was acted or said ( see hebdomad one. line 52 ) . A study by Himmelweit et Al. ( 1958 ) looked for alterations in children’s behavior with the concern that force on telecasting may do kids more aggressive. and that many programmes portray stereotyped images of sex functions. Alternatively. others think that telecasting can be used to promote concerted behavior. or reduced stereotypic positions ( Greenfield. 1984. cited in Smith et al. 2009 ) .
This introduces influences on behavior that suggest the importance of cognitive factors. Social cognitive theory ( Bussey and Bandura. 1999 ) draws together the thoughts of both theories. They suggest kids monitor their ain behavior built on what is appropriate ; designation with equal group supervising their behavior in relation to how they expect same-sex equals might respond ( cited in Cowie et Al. 2009 ) . I didn’t acquire to see Tom interact with any male kids. I found Molly to be a great influence on his behavior ; i. e. see hebdomad one lines 21-22. 26 and 59.
I imagine this is because purportedly he has non yet identified himself as a male child and does non hold much. if any. contact with other male childs of similar age. Preference for same-sex equals seems to be a cross-cultural phenomenon. and one that increases through childhood into adolescence. Maccoby ( 1998. 200 ) has documented this. and argues that it is a cardinal factor in incorporating non merely cognitive and societal factors. but besides the biological factors impacting sex differences ( Cowie et al. 2009 ) .
Detecting Tom enabled me a great penetration into his universe. but has besides so taught me a batch about myself. deriving accomplishments of self-awareness and brooding pattern that I hope to convey to future pattern.
Bandura. A. 1969: Social Learning theory of identificatory procedures. In D. A Goslin ( ed. ) . Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Peter K. Smith. Helen Cowie and Mark Blades ( 2009 ) . Understanding Children’s Development. 4th erectile dysfunction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 186-194.
G C Davenport ( 1992 ) . An debut to Child development. London: Colins Educational. 275-291.
Money. J. and Ehrhardt. A. A. 1972: Man and Woman. Boy and Girl. Baltimore. Mendelevium: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Michelle Lefevre ( 2010 ) . Communicating with kids and immature people doing a difference. Bristol: The Policy Press. 147-169.
Judith Trowell and Gillian Miles. ( 1991 ) . The part of observation preparation to professional development in societal work. Journal of societal work pattern. 5 ( 1 ) . 50-56.
Natasha Quitak. ( 2010 ) . Troubles in Keeping the function of the perceiver. Journal of societal work pattern. 18 ( 2 ) . 247-253.
Lena Robinson ( 2007 ) . Cross-cultural kid development for societal workers an debut. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 116-120.
Kate Wilson. ( 1992 ) . The topographic point of kid observation in societal work. Journal of societal work pattern. 6 ( 1 ) . 37-47.
Biddy Youell. ( 2009 ) . Guide to emotional and behavioral wellness. Available: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. ccinform. co. uk/articles/2009/10/19/3614/guide+to+emotional+and+behavioural+health. hypertext markup language. Last accessed 27th Nov 2012.