Identify Problems and Solutions Bulling in Schools - Essay Example

Running Head: BULLYING IN SCHOOLS Bullying in Schools of the of the Bullying in Schools Part Bullying at school level is a problem across the world that results in the worsening of overall school climate and prevent students from learning in a protected environment. Bullying is considered to be an intricate behavior, and is difficult to define. According to a study, kids who were bullies are inclined to connect in delinquent or anti social behavior as grown up (age 22). In addition, kids who were victims of bullying in their childhood proved to be more prone to anxiety in their adulthood (age 24). Olweus (1999) documented that bullying is a common and damaging subset of aggression among children and created the first Bullying Prevention Program of its kind. Meanwhile, American research on bullying lagged behind other countries until the 1990s, when amid media exposure (Columbine and other schools); research began to explode over the next ten years and continues today (Limber 2004). The phenomenon of bullying deserves special attention by educators concerned with aggression prevention, and international literature needs to be included, as much American research is based on international studies. This review of literature includes international research and examines the issues with defining bullying, its prevalence and characteristics of the bully and victim, as well as current prevention methods used to combat bullying. Definition of Bullying There has been much disagreement in the literature regarding how bullying should be defined. Methods of implementation have been further exacerbated by the fact that the term bullying may not translate into the same meaning in other languages (Thompson, Arora, and Sharp, 2002). In a study by Smith, Cowie, Olafsson, and Liefoogie (2002), cartoon depictions of varying aggressive behaviors were used to identify different student perceptions about bullying across 14 countries. Results indicated the main differences were related to age and culture. Ages ranged from 8 to 14 years old. Younger children were able to discern between the two extreme behaviors of aggression and non-aggression, while older children recognized fighting, physical bullying, verbal and social exclusion within the cartoons. Cultural differences included more emphasis on physical aggression in England, while Spain placed more emphasis on social exclusion, and verbal aggression was the highest in Japan and Portugal. This study shows that in different countries children have different perceptions of what constitutes bullying. Whether or not the words hold an equivalent perception to the English word bullying, the example of aggressive activity that defines bullying is easily recognized by native speakers of other languages than English (Thompson et al, 2002). The review of literature appears to offer no standard definition in the United States. The broadest definition, given by the National Conference of State Legislatures, defines bullying as "including harassment, intimidation to varying degrees, taunting, and ridicule (Ferrell-Smith, 2003, p.3)." Causes and Effects of Bullying Most frequently, bullies in school target children who have unusual appearance for example use of spectacles and being overweight. The actual cause of bullying is a power imbalance among students (Miller 2007). Like, physically sturdy bullies will usually always choose victims who are physically weaker than themselves (“Bullying” 2007), and will not tend to ‘pick on’ other children who might retaliate. In addition, domestic problems such as abuse or neglect may manifest as bullying behavior, which the child uses as a coping mechanism. Many bullies believe this type of abusive behavior is normal because they experience it daily at home; children learn by example and mimic what they see. Sometimes bullying behavior can be caused by a need to gain acceptance within a peer group, or to gain attention from adults (“Bullying and Your Child”, 2004). Whatever the cause, bullies almost always have some underlying emotional reason for their behavior. Unfortunately, many child bullies do not ‘grow out of it’ and carry their abusive impulses through into adulthood. A public interest paper published by the American Psychological Association states that behavior of bullying is associated with different types of anti-social actions, such as destruction, shoplifting, hostility, and the use of alcohol and drugs. The effects of bullying can be both short and long-term, with some psychological scars often enduring for years (Lumsden, 2002). Pre-school children, not yet able to properly voice their concerns, will display symptoms that can be attributed as the effects of being bullied. These symptoms can include refusing to go to school, refusal to discuss how the day went and feigning illness. Crying for no apparent reason and reluctance to go certain places are also common effects. Between the ages of seven and sixteen years old, the symptoms and effects of bullying become easy to identify. While children this age are perfectly able to articulate themselves, sometimes they can decide to not to, because they are shamed, scared or fear further punishment. The huge fear and inner soreness that bullying causes can sporadically activate a violent and sudden outburst in sufferers when they get to their ‘hot point’ and just cannot take the agony any more. The sufferer may get dejected, depressed, and suicidal or even murderous (Lumsden 2002). Most research points to Olweus and his definition. Olweus (1999) characterized bullying as having three distinct characteristics: (1) It is aggressive behavior, (2) carried out repeatedly, and (3) occurs within a relationship that has an imbalance of power. Australian researchers Rigby and Slee (1999) define bullying as any aggressive act. English researchers Thompson, et al (2002) define bullying by measuring how often participants were targets of aggression such as threats or teasing, and comment that Olweus does not include motivation or intention in his definition of bullying. Still other researchers, Bjorkqvist and Osterman (1999) in Finland, distinguish among physical, verbal, relational, and indirect victimization. Although researchers have varying definitions of bullying, more studies need to be conducted to find a more inclusive definition across cultures. The Victim and Types of Victim Behaviors Olweus (1999) reported that typical victims are more anxious and insecure than other students, and also have a poor self-image and are more prone to depression. He also believes that victims come from sheltered families, and this tendency may serve as the cause and consequence of bullying. Olweus (1999) has distinguished between two types of victims: the passive victim (those that are submissive) and the provocative victim (those that are bullied and then become bullies). Smith (et al, 2002) explains that victims tend to have limited self-assertive skills and are likely to show signs of anxiety in social situations, which lead them to reward bullies by giving in to their demands. Smith further claims that certain responses by victims in bullying situations may contribute to the continuation of bullying. Ross (1996) notes that refusal to tell on the bully may further hinder any resolution for the victim. A study conducted by Salmivalli and Isaacs (2005) examined the relations among victimization and childrens self- and peer- perceptions. The researchers hypothesized that negative self- and peer- perceptions would increase the risk for adverse peer experiences. Participants were 212 Finnish children, ages 7-12, who were given peer report questionnaires over a four month period. Nominations were also given, and the children responded to questions on a Likert scale. Results were conclusive. Camodeca and Goossens (2005) found that victims scored the highest for sadness in their study regarding childrens emotions in bullying situations. Additionally, victims also scored high on aggression, but it was reactive aggression (whereas bullies had more proactive aggression). This suggests that bullies and victims have much in common; however, motivations are different. Part 2 Prevention First Solution Teachers can provide intervention within the classroom. However, their attitudes and characteristics may influence their responses to bullying situations. Yoon (2004) conducted a study to predict teacher interventions. Consideration in the planning of the study included the perceived seriousness of bullying, teacher level of empathy towards victims, and levels of teacher self-efficacy that would influence their level of involvement. Advantages and Disadvantages The researcher hypothesized that teachers who have more empathy toward victims and view bullying as serious will thus have more self-efficacy and will more likely intervene in bullying situations. Participants were 98 elementary school teachers enrolled in graduate level classes. The method implemented was three questionnaires which measured demographics, self-efficacy, and the bullying attitude questionnaire/vignettes. Items on the efficacy scale were revised to reflect teachers perceived ability to handle bullying situations (and thus tailored to fit the research objectives). The vignettes were also modified to reflect the objective of the study. Following the rating of the vignettes, teachers were asked to rate their feelings of empathy toward the victim, their likelihood to intervene, and their response to perpetrators in such situations. Results supported the hypothesis. Hence, teachers would be more likely to intervene in a bullying situation. However, teacher ratings regarding their intention to be involved did not correlate with their actual level of interventions. It is suggested that future studies must address this further with an examination of other teacher characteristics and other system constraints (such as lack of administrative support). This shows the gap between intention and actual intervention in bullying situations. Because the range does not correlate with intended intervention, the study shows that teachers view bulling situations across a broad spectrum and several personal characteristics (self-efficacy, empathy) further the degree to whether or not they will intervene. Second Solution Another study examined the Bully Busters (Newman-Carlson and Horne 2004) intervention program, an anti-bullying campaign geared toward elementary and middle school students. Participants were thirty middle school teachers, half of which served as the control group. The program consisted of seven training modules, with each focusing on specific goals. Training lasted three weeks, and Bully Buster support teams were assigned upon completion. The effectiveness of the program was evaluated by the use of four instruments given as a pre-test and post-test to both groups. As a result, four research questions with 22 null hypotheses were addressed, and findings included rejection of 19 of the 22 null hypotheses. Advantages and Disadvantages Results showed that the program was victorious in improving teachers understanding and use of intrusion skills, teachers self-efficacy, and self-efficacy linked to working with definite types of kids, as well as a lessening of classroom bullying as calculated by disciplinary referrals. Limits included multiple roles taken on by the authors of the research, suggesting the need for research to assess the effectiveness of the program across instructors. Another prevention project is the annual week of educational activities which promote the ending of name calling and bullying in schools. The GLSEN (2005) project predicted schools participating in this event would have decreased harassment. Prior to the first No Name-Calling Week (NNCW), 4443 individuals registered to receive information about the project, and 15 percent of that number completed online surveys The first NNCW took place on March 1-5, 2004. Participants included 413 schools throughout the nation, with the majority being elementary and middle schools. The highest levels of participation were the Midwest and Northeast. Participants purchased an educational kit that helped direct NNCW activities. Results were positive and the hypothesis was proven. Students surveyed also reported a decrease in harassment. There was not a decrease in other students intervening in harassment, one of the goals of the program. Results demonstrate a need for such programs in schools. In a different program DeRosier (2004) tracked school relations and school-based adjustment of children for one year. The learning examined the effectiveness of a generic communal skills intervention, Social Skills Group Intervention (S.S. GRIN). The goal of this project was to develop a generic social skills training intervention that could be applied to a wide variety of social problems. Participants in the study were 11 public elementary schools from Wake County Public Schools in North Carolina. Following two questionnaires, a total of 415 of the initial group were selected, based on the prerequisite criteria of being dislike by peers, bullied by peers and social anxiety. 18 children in each school (198 totals) were randomly assigned to a treatment group, and the remaining served as a control group. Results were concluded by subtracting pre and post treatment scores, and the hypothesis was proven. The childrens adjustment at pre and post intervention served as a function of participating in the S.S. GRIN. Adjustment changes included positive social self-perception, self-esteem awareness, and a decrease of social anxiety and depression. Part 3 Second Solution to the problem is something that really helps to further understand bullying is to agree upon a common definition of bullying and to specify what behaviors are being included in the terms. (Harris, 2005) This includes distinguishing bullies from other aggressive children as well as distinguishing victims of bullies from victims of other forms of aggression. (Smith, 2002) Although studies show that bullying is widespread and worthy of more examination, it is still in early stages of research in the United States. (Ferrell, 2003) Moreover, much of the instruments used to measure bullying do not take into account varying perceptions of the definitions of bullying in childrens minds. Research has also shown (Ross, 1996) that students are reluctant to bring their concerns to the attention of teachers. In effort to combat this, a more organized approach needs to be taken among teachers when handling school bullying. If there is not a current approach to bullying existing in a school, teachers will continue to have varying responses to handling bullying situations, based on their self-efficacy, intent, and empathy toward the victim. Teacher assessments need be given, and programs need to be developed to enhance teacher self-efficacy and knowledge about bullying. References Bjorkqvist, K. & Osterman, K. (1999) In P.K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 56-67). New York: Routledge. Boulton, M., Trueman, M., Flemington, I. (2002). Associations between secondary school pupils definitions of bullying, attitudes towards bullying, and tendencies to engage in bullying: age & sex differences. Educational Studies, Vol. 28, No. 4, 353-370. Retrieved February 24, 2006 from ERIC. Camodeca, M. & Goossens, F. (2005). Aggression, social cognitions, anger & sadness in bullies & victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46:2, 186-197. Retrieved February 24, 2006 from ERIC. DeRosier, Melissa E. (2004). Building relationships and combating bullying: Effectiveness of a school-based social skills group intervention. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 1 196-201. Retrieved February 24, 2006 from ERIC. Ferrell-Smith, F. (2003). School violence: Tackling the schoolyard bully: Combining policymaking with prevention. 21 pp. Denver, CO.: National conference of state legislatures. Retrieved February 10, 2006 from ERIC. Harris Interactive and GLSEN (2005) From teasing to torment: School climate in America, a survey of students and teachers. 99 pp. Retrieved February 10, 2006 from ERIC. Kosciw, Joseph G., Diaz, Elizabeth M, Colic, Danica M., and Goldin, R. (2005) No name-calling week project: Year one evaluation. GLSEN. Retrieved February 24, 2006 from ERIC. Limber, S. (2004). Implementation of the Olweus bullying prevention program in American schools: Lessons learned from the field. In D. Espolage & S. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools (pp. 351-363). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Lumsden, Linda. “Preventing Bullying. ERIC Digest.” The EducationalResources Information Center. Digest no. 155. U of Oregon, 2002. Miller, Karl. “Psychopathic Behavior: A Consequence of Bullying?”American Family Physician. 75.2 (2007): 252-257. Newman-Carlson, Dawn and Horne, Arthur M. (2004). Bully busters: A psychoeducational intervention for reducing bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of Counseling and Development, Vol. 82, 259-267. Retrieved February 17, 2006 from ERIC. Nishina, A., & Juvonen, J. (2005). Daily reports of witnessing and experiencing peer harassment in middle school. Child Development, Vol.76, No. 2, 435-450. Retrieved February 24, 2006 from ERIC. Ross, D. (1996). Childhood bullying and teasing. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Salmivalli, C. Isaacs, J. (2005). Prospective relations among victimization, rejection, friendlessness, and childrens self- and peer-perceptions. Child Development, 76, 1161-1171. Smith, P., Cowie, H. Olafsson, R. & Liefooghe, A. (2002). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and sex differences in a 14-country international comparison. Child Development, 73, 1119-1133. Thompson, D., Arora, T., Sharp, S. (2002) Bullying: Effective strategies for long-term improvement. New York: Routledge. Yoon, Jina S. (2004). Predicting teacher interventions in bullying situations. Education & Treatment of Children. 27.1, 37-46. Retrieved February 24, 2006 from Expanded Academic ASAP. Read More