Differences of Perceptions of the Amount of School Bullying Between Students and Staff - Research Paper Example

This research study was designed to assess the social phenomenon of bullying between the and teachers. In spite of the fact that bullying became the most striking issue of the modern educational context, there were different attitudes shown towards peer victimization by teachers and students. The data for this study was collected on the basis of students and staff polling. In accordance with the results, the teachers and the students did not have many points in common in relation to their positive or negative answers considering bullying. The students were involved in bullying on their school playgrounds. Staff members more often discarded the potential situations of bullying.  Therefore, the study implied the necessity of anti-bullying strategies development and prevention of this socially intimidating phenomenon at school. Different forms of bullying could be emotional, moral and physical preventive factors for the feeling of safety at school and influence the levels of education and spoil friendly atmosphere of the educational process. There were numerous suggestions in this study concerning preventive strategies of bullying, developed on the basis of correlation of the results with the present studies in this field. Moreover, an interview-based approach in the studies focused on relations between the students and the staff, as well as in relation to their perceptions of violence and bullying at schools, is an efficient basis for further determination of social and communicative bounds within different schools. It is possible to suppose that there are numerous opportunities to remain a collaborative power in case the students and the staff realize the importance of their mutual interests and visioning of their current problems. Chapter 4: Results The study was focused on the following set of questions: verbal threats at school, cases of physical violence, alcohol or drug consumption, weapons at school and a gang activity. Research data was collected on the basis of the survey among the students and the teachers. In the result of the collected data it was seen that no vandalism, discrimination, as well as no stealing and smoking, occurred. This school implied more cruel forms of bullying, such as drugs and weapons presence in the hands of the students. The results of the study were illustrated by the answers to the following questions provided by 129 respondents from students and 32 respondents from school staff. The range of questions illustrated different representations of the issues connected with bullying, its prevention and post-reactions for it. In the result of the survey, both teachers and students reflected the presence of bullying at school. First of all, both male and female students confirmed that there were possible fights at school. The students were often arguing among each other. The most interesting fact was that some students were often beaten up by other students or are teased more often than other students. Therefore, it could be seen that both male and female students underlined the presence of a special group or victims of bullying. Moreover, the girls confirmed the presence of arguments or fights more readily than males do. What was important to note was that both males and females felt safe on the playgrounds and in cafeterias, hallways and school bathrooms, classrooms (more than 70%). Therefore, it can be seen that there were cases of bullying, but students feel safe at school in general. The students were aware of behavior they were expected to show (more than 70%). Fortunately, the students showed a lot of trust for their teachers and principals concerning the issue of school safety. The principles were too severe and strict in their rules of order and teachers were reliable to keep the order at school (69% and 18, 6% respectively). The next set of questions concerned verbal threats at school or cases of physical violence. There were no cases of verbal or physical violence at the school. No alcohol or drug consumption. But there were cases when students had weapons (96,9 %) at school and there was a gang activity (98, 4%) as well. Moreover, it was found out that no vandalism, discrimination occurred, as well as no stealing and smoking. This school implied more cruel forms of bullying, such as drugs and weapons presence in the hands of the students. There were two other subsections concerning staff survey. In these sections the questions about safety were asked. The teachers felt safe at school as well, but they have never heard of fights among their students. This fact was in the direct opposition with the students’ evidences of their possible fights and arguments. Moreover, the teachers claimed that they were readily listening to the problems of their students, but the students did not reflect this tendency. The teachers also confirmed the absence of physical and verbal threats imposed on their students, but they underlined the presence of gang activity on school grounds and students with weapons on school grounds. It was evident that there were different correlations between the perception of bullying among the staff and the students at school. The option of correlation method was used, because it was efficient in the processing of research and study data, which were based on investigating the ratio between two quantitative, continuous variables. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) refers to the measure of the strength of the association between the two variables. When the first step of calculating the correlation variable was made, a scatter plot in order to identify linearity between two variables was taken into account. There was a linear relationship between the questions and the answers. Thus, the independent (or explanatory) variable on the x-axis (horizontally) and the dependent (or response) variable was plotted on the y-axis (vertically). Further explanation of the variable was based on the following assumption: the closer the scatter of points was to a straight line, the higher was the strength of association between the variables. The Pearson r correlation for students and staff that responded Strongly Agree in the survey was -0.05, which meant that there was no correlation between the responses of the students and staff. Therefore, teachers and student did not agree upon different issues concerning bullying to the fullest extent. Moreover, the Pearson r for those responding “Agree” showed a correlation of 0.07 which revealed no correlation between students and staff. This index was even more troubling, because no students and teachers could find a common point between them. Nevertheless, in combination “Strongly Agree and Agree” the Pearson r showed a high correlation 0.59 between the responses of the Students and staff. There was the same high correlation for the combined answers for “Strongly Disagree” 0.84 between the students and the staff. The correlation for the combination of the “Strongly Disagree and Disagree” columns in the survey showed a high correlation 0.5 between the responses of the students and the staff. The correlation between the students and staff that answered “never” in the survey was very high with a Pearson r value of 0.99. The correlation between the students and staff who answered “once per year” had a correlation of -0.28. The correlation between the students and staff who answered “once per month” had a Pearson r value of 0.51. The correlation between the students and staff who answered “once per week” had a Pearson r value of 0.43. The correlation between the students and staff who answered “Daily” had a Pearson r value of 0.49. Therefore, we could see that the students and the teachers showed different attitudes to the three main issues: vandalism on playgrounds (0% students, 74% by teachers), drug usage at school (0% students, 69% teachers). The highest percentage of students with weapons at school was acknowledged more by teachers (5% than by students 3.1 %).Therefore, we could see different attitudes to the vital issues, which were the means of violence: drugs, weapons, vandalism. Chapter 5 Overview of research study Nowadays bullying at school is the revelation of the forms of aggression shown by the students. These are different kinds of aggressive behaviors. On the basis of the survey data it is possible to claim that bullying is not only the process of intimidation or aggression, it is also cultivating of the means promoting negative behaviors or cultivation of those means (such as vandalism, drug usage, weapons at school grounds). Moreover, the most relevant definition for bullying is realization of intentional and repeated acts shown by means of physical, verbal, and relational forms in situations where a power difference is present (Olweus, 1993). The different forms of bullying were studied, such as physical violence, verbal threats, teasing. There are social, emotional and psychological problems, which may occur because of bullying. There was an evident participation of teachers and the principle in the preventive policies of bullying. They applied disciple rules and punished students when something bad happened. It was much better to involve bullying prevention approaches. It can be seen that such policies did not work as well. There were different indices of teachers’ and students’ perceptions of bullying. In spite of teachers’ readiness to listen to the problems of their students and to help them, the latter did not want to share their ideas with the teachers. There was a lack of cooperation among psychologists and other members of school staff. It was evident that the process of moral partnership among students and teachers was a complex task, because there was not high coefficient of correlation between the teachers and students on the issues of potential bullying, weapons at school, drugs usage and school vandalism. The results of the researchers are correlated with the findings of previous studies, where teachers reflected their unaware attitude towards bullying. Furthermore, the number of students, who experienced bullying, was greater than teachers thought. Therefore the main problem was teachers' inability to identify bullying behavior, prevent it and assist for further protection against such types of behavior. It was possible to justify teachers and their low percentage of total correlation between students’ answers because they could not apply the problem of social or physical bullying to the students of elementary school children. They were mainly concerned on grown up students. The hardest form of bullying for teachers to identify was hidden and covert form of it. Social attacks or moral prosecution of one group of students by another group of students was hard to identify for teachers. There was a confirmed level of teachers’ intervention in the process of bullying and very often these levels are really lower than teachers think. More than 50% of teachers were ready to help their students and intervene in order to decrease the levels of bullying. The students claimed that only 40% of them could entrust safety of their school in the hands of teachers. Therefore, it was clear that there was a low percentage of trust between the teachers and the students. There were various forms of bullying among students: from physical intimidation and beating to verbal threats. The students confirmed the facts of bullying, while the teachers were unable to identify all scaring situations of bullying in reality. Unfortunately, it was not identified the real involvement of school psychologists or other staff except teachers and principals and the role they played in prevention of bullying practices. Therefore, it is possible to assume on the basis of different studies that teachers were strongly influenced by their own attitudes and stereotypes concerning bullying. Very often they strongly disagreed with the facts of bullying because of their experience from the childhood and this fact prevented an objective evaluation of the situation of bullying at school. Further on it is relevant to correlate the variables with the results of previous researches and studies. There was no correlation between the responses of the students and staff (-0.05 variable). Therefore, teachers and student did not agree upon different issues to the fullest extent. The most intimidating factor about the absence of correlation between the answers of teachers and students was that teachers very often misinterpreted aggressive bullying as undisruptive physical activity and did not intervene. Moreover, the teachers did not see bullying at all. They failed to realize the hidden strategies of bullying and very often considered that there were no victims of bullying. There was the same negative attitude of students to show the presence of bullying. They did not confirm the presence of the bullying activity. Another low coefficient 0.07 indicating no correlation between students and staff implied that there was no common point between teachers and students. The difference of teacher’s and students’ perceptions of bullying and reactions towards this phenomenon can be explained by the absence of moral and emotional contact between teachers and students. Nevertheless, in combination “Strongly Agree and Agree” the Pearson r showed a high correlation 0.59 between the responses of the students and staff. Therefore, the potential possibilities of bullying presence of at school could be explained by mutual understanding of drugs and weapons presence among students. Therefore, teachers did not see the actual presence of these means of bullying among students, but the levels of students acknowledgement of these means was greater. Still, both students and teachers confirmed the presence of intimidating means of bullying among teachers and students. A high correlation was noticed between the students and the staff on the answer “Strongly Disagree” (0.84). Therefore, the absence of such kinds of bullying as stealing was denied. There was a high correlation between the “Strongly Disagree and Disagree” columns. Moreover, a Pearson r value indicated the answer “never” 0.99 which means that the options of safety at school, school playgrounds etc was very high for teachers and students. The frequency of occurrence of some kinds of bullying was equally admitted by the teachers and the students (“once per month” had a Pearson r value of 0.51; “once per week” had a Pearson r value of 0.43; “Daily” had a Pearson r value of 0.49). The most surprising tendency was that the students and the teachers showed different attitudes to the three main issues: vandalism on playgrounds (0% students, 74% by teachers), drug usage at school (0% students, 69% teachers). The highest percentage of students with weapons at school was acknowledged more by teachers (5% than by students 3.1 %). Attitudes and Perceptions This study was designed to distinguish between different attitudes and perceptions of bullying between the students and teachers. The social phenomenon of bullying was discarded by teachers more often than by the students. Consequently, it is necessary to shift the accents of bullying and make the school policies more focused on this social phenomenon, because preventive strategies are the most effective practices in preventing bullying practices. The students were more inclined to confirm that they were not afraid of physical or moral practices of bullying directed on socially disliked groups of students. There was a need to correlate misperceptions of teachers of different forms of bullying in such a way: supposing that a relatively large part of the staff reported having witnessed different forms of bullying, detection is not the only cause for lack of effective responses. It is better for the staff appear to train more on effective intervention approaches that are developmentally appropriate and strategies for mediating their attempts with children across the different developmental levels (O’Brennan, 2007). This study can be positioned as a large-scale study to examine different attitudes and perceptions of aggression and bullying at schools. The results of the study implied that school staff and psychologists should contribute much into professional development of social strategies for solving interpersonal problems and conflicts. The most important point was to find out a balance between social perception of bullying among teachers and students. Implications of the study Practical results of this study can be the following: to prevent the number of victims of bullying, to remove the option of weapons carrying by the students at schools; to decrease the levels of drug consumption; to develop social policies against bullying. The results of this study can be correlated with the following suggestion: schools can develop intervention/prevention strategies in order to reach agreement between teachers’ and students’ understanding of bullying that can help children (e.g., students) and adults (e.g., parents, teachers, principals, counselors, and other professionals) have a mutual understanding of bullying for developing a more effective bullying prevention and intervention programs (Bullying at school, 2003). The main objective of this study is to increase teachers’ awareness of options of bullying at school and develop preventive strategies by them. Limitations and Future Research It is relevant to underline the limitations of this study. Four basic limitations were underlined, the first of which was the number of respondents, which should be larger across teachers and students. Because of quantitative limitations of the study the results of the study could not show the average perception and attitudes for bullying of teachers and students of different age. The study samples were not applied for diverse population in diverse environment which is a limit of the external validity of the study. The input of students from different schools and locations was limited. Secondly, survey questions could have been misinterpreted by English Second Language students. Bias may be present in the sample because the students could have received the information differently in comparison with those students, who read the questions themselves. In the perspective a bilingual research assistant should be involved. The main differences between students and teachers and their perceptions of results can be seen in their attitudes towards weapons, drugs and verbal threats at school. Future research should develop a more reliable instrument that can differentiate between the students and teachers perceptions of bullying. Conclusion The divergence between the students’ and teachers’ perceptions of bullying was evident. It should be noted that despite the limitations this study might have, it provided new information regarding teachers’ and students’ perceptions of bullying. Both teachers and students agreed upon the presence of bullying at school. It should be noted that teachers were more concerned on evident types of bullying, while students were more aware of concealed forms of bullying. It is possible to underline the necessity of school based interventions for bullying in order to prevent social and emotional problems among students and teachers. The emphasis can be made on the fact that the results of the study indicated not only similarities, but also discrepancies between student and staff perceptions of bullying. As a result, there was a need to develop intervention of teachers in the process of bullying identification of teachers. If to collect and analyze data about reactions and perceptions of teachers and students with regards to bullying, it is possible to reduce misperceptions of bullying and school violence. Moreover, teachers should increase possibilities for improving effectiveness for dealing with bullying. These findings underline the necessity to address teachers’ personal experiences with and attitudes toward bullying. Their experiences may be a basis for predicting potential bullying and immediate identification of it. Teachers should have an opportunity to recognize different forms of bullying and negative outcomes of it on their students. Therefore, it is relevant to underline that school psychologists can intervene in the process of bullying prevention through educating and collaborating with families of students and teachers. The implementation of anti-bullying programs means determination of the engagement level of interest among students and teachers concerning bullying. Therefore, it is relevant to develop anti-bullying programs at schools and promote intervention policies directed on elimination of bullying practices. Prevention practices are more effective than post-bullying negative outcomes experienced both by the teachers and the students. With the help of this research it is possible to bridge the gap between students and teachers perceptions of bullying by implementation of informing strategies directed on bullying prevention. Practical implications of the study in relation to the recent developments in the research of bullying at school are a perfect basis for logical developments and inventions in this field. References Bradshaw, C. et al. Bullying and Peer Victimization at School: Perceptual Differences between Students and School Staff. School Psychology Review 36 (3) (2007): p. 361+. Bullying at school. 2003. Retrieved March 09, 2012 from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/documents/bullyingatschool.pdf Read More