Julea's VPA powerpoint · 2019-09-24 · Planning • Form a “Bullying-Prevention Committee”...
Transcript of Julea's VPA powerpoint · 2019-09-24 · Planning • Form a “Bullying-Prevention Committee”...
Lessons Learnedfrom Research on a School
Bullying Prevention Program
Julea Posey, M.Ed. & Dewey Cornell, Ph.DOctober 2003
Steps to Success1) Careful Planning
2) Thorough Implementation
3) On-going
Evaluation
Any School, USA
Planning•Form a “Bullying-Prevention Committee”
• Include administration, colleagues, students, and community members
• Include both advocates and potential naysayers
•Invite school body to participate in planning:• Surveys, discussion groups, student leadership
• Provide training and on-going discussion opportunities for staff
•Decide on attainable and measurable goals:• “Reduce reports of student bullying by 20%”
• “Increase staff efforts to police bullying”
• “Improve school climate ratings”
General requirementAwareness and involvement by adults
School LevelSurvey to measure problemSchool-wide & Parent conferencesBetter supervision during recess & lunch
Class LevelClass rules against bullyingClass meetings addressing bullying
Individual LevelSerious talks with bullies and victimsSerious talks with parents of involved students
Implementation: Olweus Model
Implementation: Bully-Proofing Your School
• Emphasizes fostering a caring learning community
• Classroom lessons in:– Teasing– Sexual harassment– Avoiding victimization– Empathy and inclusion– Creative problem solving– Positive leadership
• Addresses bystander behaviors
• Includes intervention approaches with bullies, victims, and parents
Bonds & Stoker, 2000
On-going Evaluation• Action research is the deliberate effort to apply
evaluation findings to program implementation and improvement
• Consists of four main steps: – 1) designating measurable goals for a program initiative– 2) using valid and reliable measurements (e.g., self-report
surveys, teacher or parent surveys, observations, interviews, school records) to collect data
– 3) applying data findings – both positive and negative – to the program methodology, and
– 4) continuing to reapply these steps throughout the duration of the intervention
“Implementing a program without
planning and evaluation is similar to taking a
family vacation without a final destination or an
accurate map.
It is bound to lead to unmet expectations,
frustrating detours, and myriad other problems.”
- CEP Evaluation Toolkit
Action Research Rocks!
Applying Action Research • Suburban middle school; grades 6-8; approx. 450
students
• Staff concerned about students’ perception of school safety and school climate
• Initiated a school-wide anti-bullying initiative:– Formed a committee– Followed the Olweus model– Used Bully-Proofing Your School in Year 2– Had three anti-bullying assemblies a year– Increased teacher monitoring – Had one staff in-service each year– Included parents in the intervention – Used the YVP Peer Relations Survey
Peer Relations Survey• Administered each March: 2001 (pre-test), 2002
(Year 1 post-test), 2003 (Year 2 post-test)
• 39-item, Likert scale, self-report survey administered during homeroom
• Survey constructs:– Bullying and bullying victimization– Physical, verbal, and social peer aggression– Attitudes toward aggression– Student perception of teacher support– Intervention attitudes– Validity question
Year 1: Bullying VictimizationPercentage of Students Reporting
Being Bullied By Others
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Sev x Week Once a Week Once or Tw ice Never
Frequency
Perc
enta
ge
Pretest
Posttest
Frequent victimization dropped from 14.9% to 8.4% (a 45% decline)
Boys victimized more than girls; 6th graders more than 8th graders
Year 1: Bullying Victimization"I have been bullied in the past month."
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
6th Grade Boys 6th Grade Girls 7th Grade Boys 7th Grade Girls 8th Grade Boys 8th Grade Girls
Grade/Gender
Freq
uenc
y
PretestPosttest
Year 1: Bullying Victimization
Frequent victimization declined between pre-test and Year 1 posttest
"I have been bullied" Comparing Class of 2002 v. Class of 2003
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade
Grade
Freq
uenc
y
Class of 2003
Class of 2002
No significant change; 6-7% of students report frequent bullying
Year 1: Bullying OthersPercentage of Students Reporting To
Bully Others
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Sev x Week Once a Week Once or Twice Never
Fre que nc y
Perc
enta
ge
Pretest
Posttest
7th grade boys and girls showed an increase in bullying
Year 1: Bullying Others"I have bullied others in the past month."
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
6th GradeBoys
6th GradeGirls
7th GradeBoys
7th GradeGirls
8th GradeBoys
8th GradeGirls
Grade/Gender
Freq
uenc
y
Pretest
Posttest
Year 1: Bullying Others
Rates of bullying others increased for students in 7th grade at Year 1
"I have bullied others" Comparing Class of 2002 v. Class of 2003
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
1.5
1.55
6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade
Grade
Freq
uenc
y
Class of 2003
Class of 2002
• Physical Bullying - victimization increased. Greatest increase among boys, particularly at the 6th grade level
• Verbal Harassment - no change overall; 6th grade boys reported more verbal harassment than girls
• Social Exclusion - 25% increase in students reporting frequent exclusion (across grade levels and between genders)
• Attitudes Toward Aggression - no significant change
Year 1: Peer Aggression
Significant increase in student perception of teacher intolerance
Year 1: Teacher Involvement"Teachers here make it clear to students that
bullying is not tolerated."
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Neither Agreeor Disag.
Agree Strongly Agree
Student Opinion
Perc
enta
ge
Pretest
Posttest
No significant change in student perception of teachers stopping bullying
Year 1: Teacher Involvement"If I tell a teacher that someone is bullying me, the teacher
will do something to help."
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Neither Agreeor Disagree
Agree Strongly Agree
Student Opinion
Perc
enta
ge
Pretest
Posttest
25% fewer students think bullying is a problem; 40% still concerned
Year 1: Intervention Attitudes"Bullying is not a problem at this school."
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Neither Agreeor Disagree
Agree Strongly Agree
Student Opinion
Perc
enta
ge
Pretest
Posttest
In favor of more efforts to reduce bullying dropped from 74% to 58%
Year 1: Intervention Attitudes"I am in favor of more efforts to reduce bullying at this school."
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
StronglyDisagree
Disagree Neither Agreeor Disagree
Agree Strongly Agree
Student Opinion
Perc
enta
ge
Pretest
Posttest
Student Comments• Provide more monitoring: One student wrote, “at least one
teacher should be in the bathroom(s) and hallway(s).” Another wrote: “put cameras in the hallways, steps, or other unsafe places where there are not teachers to supervise.”
• Increase discipline for bullies: “If you see anything cruel or any name calling happening at school DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Some of the bullies absolutely do not care about [in-school suspension].”
• Offer more peer mediation and group activities: “I think we need to make peer mediation a bigger part of this school so kidsfeel comfortable.”
• Beware of student fatigue: “for those of us who don’t bully or don’t get bullied, you are wasting learning time by the redundant repetition of the same information.”
Year 2: Survey Overview• Bullying Victimization: Remained stable between
Year 1 & Year 2; Bullying victimization increased for 6th and 8th grade girls
• Bullying Others: Not significantly different from Year 1; 8th grade girls reported a significant increase in bullying others
• Peer Aggression: Remained stable between Year 1 & Year 2; Increased among 6th and 8th grade girls
• Student Attitudes Toward Intervention and Teacher Involvement: Stable. Approximately 60% of students wanted more efforts to reduce bullying.
Lessons Learned1) Garner staff-wide support (need consistent monitoring and
implementation across classrooms); Increase teacher supervision in high-bullying areas
2) Seek student leadership, suggestions, and feedback; Keep the program interesting and engaging; offer positive group activities
3) Use anti-bullying lessons regularly throughout school year
4) Focus efforts on higher risk students (6th grade victims, chronic bullies); Provide counseling and consistent consequences for bullying
Study Limitations• No comparison group or control conditions - hard to
attribute effects to bullying intervention or other changes in the school environment; Self-report measure may be biased
• Surveys were anonymous making it difficult to estimate if students were reporting accurately -- some students may have skewed overall results
• Raising awareness of bullying and victimization can influence reports of bullying on self-report measures
ReferencesBonds, M. & Stoker, S. (2000). Bully-proofing your school: A comprehensive
approach for middle school students. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Gottfredson, D.C. & Gottfredson, G.D. (2002). Quality of school-based prevention programs: Results from a national survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 3-35.
Gottfredson, D.C. & Wilson, D.B. (2003). Characteristics of effective school-based substance abuse prevention. Prevention Science, 4, 27-38.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do.Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Posey, J., Davidson, M., & Korpi, M. (2001). Character Education Evaluation Toolkit. Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.
Wilson, S.J., Lipsey, M.W., & Derzon, J.H. (2003). The effects of school-based intervention programs on aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 136-149.