The Model Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan has been updated to reflect Chapter 86 of the Acts of 2014, which amended G.L. The following bullying prevention and intervention programs, curricula. Research studies have found that school-based, anti-bullying prevention programs reduced bullying and victimization by an average of 20%. School Safety and Bully Prevention Act. Anti-bullying programs create safe learning environments. Bullying prevention tips from the Boomerang Project’s Link Crew and WEB programs in schools nationwide. Registered for a Conference? Sign In & Get Your. Skip to main content Home; The No Bully System BULLY PREVENTION PROGRAMS FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS i. SCHOOL-WIDE BULLY PREVENTION PROGRAMS DESIGNED. School-wide Bully Prevention Programs designed for use in Elementary Schools. Evaluation Studies Resource Fact Sheet Cost-Benefit Studies. Bullying Prevention Programs : Wise Owl Bully Stopper Kit : Wise Owl Bully Stopper Series DVD: $329.95. Practice: School- Based Bullying Prevention Programs. Evidence Ratings for Outcomes. Practice Description. Practice Goals. The growing awareness of the problem of bullying has led to the development of numerous antibullying interventions, as well as the passage of state and local laws and policies on bullying. These efforts aim to reduce bullying and victimization (being bullied). Some interventions aim to increase positive involvement in the bullying situation from bystanders or witnesses. Many definitions of bullying exist, but they often include the following aspects to distinguish bullying from other types of aggression or violence. The behavior stems from an intent to cause fear, distress, or harm. The behavior is repeated over time. There is a real or perceived imbalance of power between the bully and victim (Ferguson et al. Bullying can be physical (e. Implementing Bullying Prevention Programs in Schools: A How. Bullying prevention programs will also address the specific needs of. Bullying Prevention Programs May Have Negative Impact. School-based Bully Prevention Programs Dorothy L. Professor, Educational Psychology. School assembly programs and school shows that are fun and educational by bully prevention expert Richard Paul. Middle School Assemblies and Summer Camp programs are the best. Typically, individuals involved with bullying are classified as bullies, bully–victims, victims, or bystanders. Target Population School- based bullying prevention programs are implemented in school settings, where students report bullying as a significant problem. The most recent data in the United States covers the 2. Of these youth. Almost 1. About 1. 8 percent reported being the subject of rumors. Eight percent reported being pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on. More than 5 percent reported being excluded from activities. Five percent reported being threatened with harm. More than 3 percent reported being forced to do things they didn’t want to do. Almost 3 percent had property destroyed. Nine percent of students reported being cyberbullied. Across studies, the rates of students involved with bullying range from 1. Atria et al. 2. 01. Mishna et al. 2. 01. Practice Components. Typical types of interventions include the following (Limber 2. Misdirections” 2. Awareness- raising efforts. Efforts can consist of assemblies for students, parent meetings, or in- service training for teachers to make participants aware of the problem of bullying. While raising awareness is important, such efforts are insufficient to change cultural norms and bullying behaviors. School exclusion. These efforts include “zero tolerance” or “three strikes and you’re out”–type policies. When schools identify a student as a bully, that student is excluded from school. Research suggests that school exclusion interventions do not work: they can decrease the reporting of incidents because the sanctions are so severe, and through suspension or expulsion they negatively affect the students who are most in need of prosocial involvement at school. Therapeutic treatment for bullies. This approach might include classes in anger management or efforts to boost self- esteem and empathy. Again, these types of programs are unlikely to effectively address the problem of bullying because they are based on faulty assumptions about the motivating factors for most bullies. Moreover, if bullies are grouped for treatment, behavior may further suffer as students reinforce antisocial and bullying behavior. Mediation and conflict resolution. These programs are often used to help school staff address aggressive and violent behavior between students. However, these types of programs can backfire when used to resolve bullying situations, because they imply that both parties (bully and victim) are to blame. Moreover, these interactions may further victimize the target. Curricular approaches. Numerous curricula have been developed for use in schools. In general, these programs try to explain bullying and its effects, to teach strategies to avoid bullying or for intervening, and to build social cohesion among students. Many of these programs have been evaluated, and some have been found to be effective in improving desired outcomes (see Related Programs for a list of curriculum- based programs included on Crime. Solutions. gov). Comprehensive approaches. These approaches include classroom- based programs. They target the larger school community in an effort to change school climate and norms. They acknowledge the need for a long- term commitment to addressing bullying specifically, but they often do so as part of a larger violence prevention effort (Limber 2. These approaches need to be developed to address the needs of a particular school or community; simply dropping prefabricated programs into place rarely works (Seeley et al. Misdirections” 2. Practice Theory. While numerous antibullying programs have been developed, most “seem to be based on common- sense ideas about what works in preventing bullying rather than on specific theories of bullying” (Ttofi and Farrington 2. Ttofi and Farrington argue that more work must be done to develop and test theories of how antibullying programs can work. A review of childhood bullying literature by Liu and Graves (2. This framework considers the advantages stemming from bullying and sees it as a “tool for achieving social dominance—particularly in adolescence” (5. Ecological and socioecological theories. This framework focuses on the interactions between an individual and his or her social environment and considers how the closer and broader environments affect individual behavior. This framework attends to factors such as school policies, societal attitudes, and social norms. Cognitive and social–cognitive theories. This framework is influenced by theories of cognition and neurobiology. The framework considers individual characteristics, such as emotional dysregulation, impulsivity, and antisocial disorders. These factors can affect the ways in which individuals process information. Genetic and other biologic theories. This framework considers how biology (such as autonomic tone) and genetics (such as levels of hormones) influence aggression and violence. For example, Mishna (2. For information on program components that may affect the effectiveness of antibullying programs, please see “Other Information.”Meta- Analysis Outcomes. Meta- Analysis Methodology. Meta- Analysis Snapshot/tr> Literature Coverage Dates. Number of Studies. Number of Study Participants. Meta- Analysis 1. Meta- Analysis 2. Meta- Analysis 3. Meta- Analysis 1. Farrington and Ttofi (2. They included studies that concentrated on programs explicitly designed to decrease bullying in K–1. To facilitate a search for such programs, they used the following definition of bullying: “physical, verbal, or psychological attack or intimidation that is intended to cause fear, distress, or harm to the victim; and an imbalance of power, with the more powerful child (or children) oppressing less powerful ones” (2. This definition excludes the dimension of repetition that is often included in definitions of bullying. To be included, studies needed a comparison group. Farrington and Ttofi divided the eligible studies into four categories: a) randomized control trials, b) before and after quasi- experimental designs (QEDs), c) other QEDs, and d) age- cohort designs. The search included English and non- English studies, as well as published articles and unpublished manuscripts. The search covered literature available from 1. May 2. 00. 9. There was no sample size limitation. The researchers identified 8. Nine of these evaluations did not provide enough information to calculate effect sizes. The report includes descriptions of all the programs that were evaluated. No information on the racial/ethnic breakdown of the studies’ samples is provided; the authors provide information on the gender breakdown of individual studies, when that information is available. Evaluations were included of programs in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Czechoslovakia, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The measure of effect size used in this analysis is the odds ratio. The authors used a random effects model to calculate the weighted mean effect sizes. Because there was a significant difference between the weighted mean odds ratio effect sizes for randomly controlled trials (RCTs) and the other three designs, the effect sizes for bullying and victimization based on the RCTs were used for this review instead of the overall weighted mean odds ratio effect size. The number of participants in the RCTs totaled 1. They included studies of programs implemented in K–1. The measure of bystander intervention included intention to intervene, intention to stop bullying, direct intervention, or difficulty in responding assertively to a bullying situation. The researchers also included a measure of empathy for the victim, such as “feeling sad about students who are bullied” and “unpleasantness when another student is being bullied. To be included in the analysis, studies needed to include a control group. The authors searched five electronic databases and bibliographies of retrieved documents for English- language studies published or conducted between 1. They identified 1. No information is provided on the racial/ethnic or gender composition of the study participants. Programs were located in Western Europe and the United States. The authors used the standardized mean difference to determine effect sizes for each study using a continuous scale for outcome measures; all effect size metrics were bias corrected using Hedge’s small sample correction (g). The authors calculated logged odds ratio effect sizes for studies that used a categorical outcome measure (which were converted into a standardized mean difference). They used a random effects model for their analysis. To be included, studies had to use an experimental design or a pretest/posttest independent- groups design; the analysis excluded studies that used age cohort designs and QEDs with no pretest measure. The author searched 1. April 2. 00. 8, as well as the bibliographies of retrieved documents, and included English- language published (journal articles and book chapters) and unpublished (dissertations and reports) studies. The studies needed to include a measure of bullying or victimization. Samples could be as small as 2.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |