The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship

Volume 2 Number 2 Article 3

12-1-2013

A Synthesis of International School-based Bullying Interventions

Jennifer Goodman Texas A&M University–Commerce

Jessica Medaris Texas A&M University–Commerce

Kimberley Verity Texas A&M University–Commerce

Brittany Hott Texas A&M University–Commerce

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/josea

Part of the Special Education and Teaching Commons

Recommended Citation Goodman, Jennifer; Medaris, Jessica; Verity, Kimberley; and Hott, Brittany (2013) "A Synthesis of International School-based Bullying Interventions," The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship: Vol. 2 : No. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/josea/vol2/iss2/3

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship by an authorized editor of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Vol. 2, No. 2 Dec, 2013

A Synthesis of International School-based Bullying Interventions

Jennifer Goodman, Jessica Medaris, Kimberley Verity, and Brittany Hott Texas A&M University–Commerce

Bullying is a prevalent problem in school systems in the United States and abroad. This literature review focuses on elementary school-based bullying interventions for students published between 2005-2012. Ten studies reviewed included students from the first grade through the eighth grade from five countries. There were many common themes among successful bullying interventions including: (a) teacher training, (b) school-wide interventions, (c) social skills training in the classroom, (d) homework as a follow up to instruction, and (e) the incorporation of storybooks. Implications for practice and future research directions are shared. Keywords: bullying, intervention, interventions for bullying, literature review

Bullying is a prevalent problem in Merrell, 2001; Smith & Ananiadou, 2003). the United States school system and is One of the most recent definition comes continuing to grow. Students and parents from Rose, Monda-Amaya, and Espelage regularly question how and why bullying (2011), in which they created a three-part occurs in school settings. Teachers are often definition of bullying; first, for an act to be overwhelmed by its occurrence and are considered bullying there must be an unsure how to best address this pervasive imbalance of physical, social, or emotional problem. The term bullying has evolved power between the victim and the bully; within the last two decades. In 1994, second, the act of perpetration is systematic Batsche and Howard describe bullying as, “a with intent to cause emotional of physical form of aggression in which one or more harm to the victim; and third, victimization students physically and/or psychologically and/or perpetration is generally repeated harass another student over a period of over the course of days, months or years. As time”. A more complete definition of the definitions evolve, so do the prevalence bullying can be defined as, “repeated acts of rates of bullying within schools. aggression, intimidation, or coercion against There have been several studies a victim who is weaker than the perpetrator conducted in European countries, as well as, in terms of physical size, psychological the United States. Both show similar results /social power, or other factors that result in a to support the problem and progression of notable power differential” (Carney & bullying (Dinkes, Cataldi, Kena, & Baum,

THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP 2

2006; Lane, 1989; Nansel, Overpeck, Polla, decade (Garrity, Jens, Porter, & Stoker, Ruan, Simons-Morton, & Scheidt, 2001; 2002; Rose, Monda-Amaya, & Espelage, Stephenson & Smith, 1989). A 1984 study, 2011). Further, Rose, Monda-Amaya, and conducted by the National Association of Espelage (2011) estimate that 20% to 30% Secondary School Principals, revealed that of the student population experiences 25% of students surveyed stated that “one of bullying through either victimization or per- their most serious concerns was fear of petration. bullies” and 10% of those students could be There are many reasons for why victims of extreme bullying (Batsche & bulling occurs within the schools. One Knoff, 1994). A survey conducted in junior explanation for bullying that many re- high and high school students in 1992, by searchers agree on is that; bullies come from Hoover, Oliver and Hazier, asked the homes where parents prefer physical means question “Have you ever been bullied during of discipline, parents are hostile, rejecting, your school years,” in which 75% of and permissive, parents have poor problem respondents said “yes”. This same survey solving skills or the parents teach their discovered that 88% of students reported children to strike back at the least they had observed bullying and 77% provocation (Floyd, 1985; Greenbaum, reported being a victim of bullying during 1988; Loeber & Dishion, 1984). Olweus their school years (Hoover, Oliver, & (1991) reported that bullies are characterized Hazier, 1992). Bullying showed a 6% by impulsivity, a strong need to dominate increase to 19% in 1980 to 25% in 1992 others, and have little empathy with their (Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 1993). victims. In 1993, Olweus classified bullies Johnston, O’Malley, and Bachman (1993) into three categories: (a) aggressive bully, also found that in the 1992 school year 29% (b) anxious bully, and (c) passive bully. An of 8th graders surveyed were threatened aggressive bully usually displays violent without a weapon and 19% were threatened characteristics with the desire to dominate with a weapon at school. This evidence others. The anxious bully is generally a supports Olweus’ (1991) statement that provocative victim who has adopted bullying takes on more serious forms and bullying behaviors as a way to fight back occurs more frequently that it did 10-15 against a bully. The passive bully is often years ago. A national survey, conducted by less violent or aggressive and usually plays a Nansel et al. (2001), reveals that 30% of the supporting role to the aggressive bully. A school-age population experienced bullying more recent description of a bully, put forth as a perpetrator, victim, or provocative by Pontzer (2010), is one who identifies victim. In 2006, the National Center for bullies as those who exercise antisocial traits Educational Statistics documented that 28% (including a desire to socially dominate of adolescents reported being victimized others), a positive attitude towards violence, within a six-month period prior to being a deficient ability to empathize, a tendency surveyed (Dinkes, Cataldi, Kena, & Baum, to ascribe hostile meanings to an ambiguous 2006). There are reports that state that there situations, and impulsiveness. Given these may be a decline in juvenile violence descriptions, a bully would be easy to (Brener, Lowry, Barrios, Simon & Eaton, identify, however, Rose, Monda-Amaya, 2005; Dinkes et al., 2006). However, and Espelage (2011) find it difficult to evidence suggests that bullying victimiza- characterize or profile a bully because he or tion and perpetration have remained she may exhibit either negative (e.g., low relatively stable or increased over the last self-control, poor academic performance,

THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP 3

externalizing behaviors, alcohol abuse) or provocative victim. The passive victims desirable (e.g., classroom leader, popular, make up about 80% to 85% of the high spirited, active, engaged) personality victimized population and are described as: traits. (a) anxious, (b) insecure, and (c) appearing In addition to different types of to do nothing to provoke attacks and bullies, there are also different categories of appearing not to defend them. The passive bulling. The Department of Education and victim is lonely and abandoned at school, Early Childhood Development’s Building friendless, not aggressive, does not tease Respectful and Safe Schools (2010) others and is weaker than others. Parent identifies four different types of bullying: (a) interviews suggest that these children were physical bullying (b) verbal bullying (c) sensitive at a young age and have a closer, covert bullying and (d) cyber bullying. They more positive relationship with their parents. also put forth definitions for each type of On the other hand, the provocative victims bullying. Physical bullying includes: (a) are characterized as being hot-tempered, hitting, (b) kicking, (c) tripping, (d) pinching restless, anxious, and will attempt to and pushing, or (e) damaging property. retaliate when attacked (Olweus, 2003). Verbal bullying refers to name-calling, Rose, Monda-Amaya, and Espelage (2011) insults, teasing, intimidation, homophobic or explain that the provocative victim develops racist remarks, or verbal abuse. Covert bullying characteristics as a result of ex- bullying is harder to recognize as it can be posure to victimization. Others describe this carried out without the victim knowing. It is group of victims as having internalizing and designed to harm someone’s social re- externalizing behavior problems, being putation and/or cause humiliation. Covert reactively aggressive, maintaining poor in- bullying includes: (a) lying and spreading terpersonal relationships, or displaying a rumors, gossip, negative facial or physical negative demeanor (Kumpulainen et al., gestures, (b) playing jokes to embarrass or 1998; Marini et al., 2006; Nansel et al., humiliate someone, (c) encouraging others 2001). Avoidance and withdrawal behaviors to exclude someone, and (d) damaging are likely to occur in all victims of bullies someone’s social reputation or social acc- (Olweus, 2003). They may also possess or eptance. Along with the evolution of the develop character traits that have long-term Internet, cyber bullying has emerged and consequences and adversely affect their gradually increased in prevalence. Cyber social, emotional or academic development bullying can be overt or covert bullying (Rose, Monda-Amaya, & Espelage, 2011). It behaviors using digital technology. Ex- is evident that bullying and bullies are amples include: (a) harassment via mobile present in schools, thereby causing harm to phone, (b) setting up an offensive personal others. website, and/or (c) deliberately excluding Many students and parents question someone from social networking spaces. how bullying happens in school. Where are Cyber bullying can happen at any time being teachers when bullying is taking place and both public and private. why do other students not intervene? In the Bullies intimidate those who they early 1990’s, 60% of victims reported that believe cannot, or will not retaliate, or those school personnel respond poorly, respond with whom they have been successful at “sometimes or never,” or try to put a stop to bullying in the past (Batsche & Howard, the bullying only “once in a while or almost 1994). Olweus (2003) identified two types never” (Boulton & Underwood, 1992; of victims: the passive victim and the Hoover, Oliver & Hazler, 1992; Olweus,

THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP 4

1991). Stephenson and Smith (1998) stated of aggression among their students, or they two possible explanations for the lack of are overwhelmed by its prevalence. response to bullying from teachers within Pellegrini (2002) notes that teacher the school setting. The first explanation is awareness and concern is a necessary first that 25% of teachers feel that it is helpful to step. Teachers who are attentive to ignore the problem. The second explanation interpersonal aggression among their stu- is that the social skills and behaviors of the dents should help their fellow teachers victim may be such that the teachers are less become more aware. Teachers should be motivated to intervene. Bradshaw, Sawyer, well informed about the social dynamics op- and O’Brennan (2007) surveyed teachers, erating among their students. Teachers can school psychologists, guidance counselors acquire this information by being connected and students in 109 schools in a large to all of their students. Olweus (1993) calls Maryland public school setting. The results for teachers to closely supervise children’s show how school staff and students have an relationships during break times, to inter- apparent misperception of bullying. The vene “where there is only a suspicion that results of the survey indicated that 49% of bullying is taking place,” and to have students reported being bullied at least once, children internalize school rules that they do 41% reported frequent involvement in not bully, aid children who are bullied, and bullying. However, most staff (71.4%) include children who tend to be left out of estimated that fewer than 15% of students peer activities. Olweus recommends that were frequent victims. There is also teachers participate in social development evidence to suggest that teachers have a hard programs where problems concerning bull- time differentiating between bullying and ying and victimization are explored and typical student conflict. Research shows that discussed. teachers view physical threats or abuse more Olweus makes recommendations; severe than verbal or socio-emotional abuse however, bullying is still a persistent (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006). Conversely, problem in many schools. This paper aims to students rate the severity of emotional, gather research on specific bullying verbal, and physical abuse equally (Newman interventions in order to offer options and & Murray, 2005). These findings are knowledge to schools when choosing an important for developing effective bullying intervention program to implement. The interventions. Both the students and school goal of this study is to provide information staff need to be provided with a clear on specific bullying interventions, the definition of bullying. They also need to be materials used to implement the inter- taught how to identify all of the different ventions, measures, the outcome of the inter- types of bullying in order to successfully to ventions, and the effect size of the reduce the acts of bullying within schools. interventions. Another aim of this review is Rodkin and Hodges (2003) feel that to find out how many cited bullying teachers are a school’s most valuable re- interventions yielded a significant reduction source for combating bullying and victim- in bullying behaviors within schools. It ization. Successful teachers guide children would also be beneficial in future studies to toward higher levels of moral reasoning, find out which bullying interventions that show warmth, and anticipate interpersonal teachers and students find to be the most problems by knowing their students’ social effective. School administrators and teachers status, peer groups, friends, and enemies. should be able to use the information Contrastingly, teachers often seem unaware provided in this paper to make an informed

THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP 5

choice on which type of intervention pro- collected from peer-reviewed scholarly jour- gram would work best within their school in nals published from the years 2005 through order to reduce the amount of bullying 2012. All interventions discussed in other occurring. mediums, such as doctoral dissertations or edited books, were not included in the Method search due to their potential lack of Search Strategy empirical credibility and peer accountability. In this study, a comprehensive search The review includes interventions from the of databases was used to retrieve articles United States, Canada, Norway, and Finland that have reviewed bullying prevention (all of which were written in English). programs within the last eight years (2005- Studies reviewed include students from the 2012). Two online databases were used to first grade through the seventh grade, yet conduct this search: ProQuest Education interventions with school-aged children Journals and Academic Search Complete. based outside of the school were excluded Combinations of the following search terms from the review (such as at home or through were used: “antibully*,” “bully*,”and “inter- a community organization). vention*.” These terms were first used in the Studies included in the review are ProQuest Education Journals database, primarily designed to increase awareness where three articles were located from 2005, about bullying and/or reduce bullying two from 2009, three from 2011, and one behaviors in the school. The studies from 2012. In addition, the reference collected could address any role or roles sections of all of the selected articles were involved in the act of bullying (such as the searched for relevant studies that were not bully, a bystander, or the victim), while found during the computer-assisted database excluding studies that did not contain a search. The ancestral search retrieved two specific intervention being evaluated for its seemingly relevant studies. However, one effectiveness. In addition, studies were not study by Kilian and another by Ross and excluded that include the assessment of Horner did not include interventions. children who are considered “at risk” or Therefore, on Academic Search Complete have been diagnosed with disability. we searched for the author “Kilian” in add- However, none of the quantitative studies ition to the search terms “bully*” and “inter- collected for this review distinguished vention*.” This search yielded one result between these populations. from 2006, and this study met our search Study Characteristics criteria and was included in our review. The A coding spreadsheet was developed same search criteria were used to locate a for this review that included the number and relevant article published by Ross and demographics of participants (gender, age, Horner. The search also only yielded one and grade range), the geographical result (from 2009), and is also included in location(s) of the research, the design of the the review. Hence, ten total studies were study, the name of intervention that was included in this review. implemented, any other materials/surveys Article Criteria that were used in the study, outcome This study focuses on successful variables and measures used, a brief school-based bullying interventions for description of the procedure used in the children in elementary or middle school. In study, a brief description of the results and order to collect these relevant bullying conclusions of the study, and the research intervention programs, studies were only

THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP 6 database and search terms used to retrieve in the Project Ploughshares Puppets for the article. Peace (P4) Program. A total of seven intervention Many common themes were domi- programs, within ten articles were reviewed; nant throughout the successful bullying four from the United States, two from interventions. Most successful bullying Canada, two from the Pacific Northwest interventions included a pre and post-test region, one from Finland, and one from using some sort of measure (e.g., School Norway. Approximately 17,000 students and Environment Survey (SES), Teacher 1,400 school staff/teachers were included. Assessment of Student Behavior (TASB), Gender representation was not always Peer-Preferred Social Behavior subscale of consistently reported, but all of the studies the Walker-McConnell Scale of Social reviewed reported a grade-level range for Competence and School Adjustment). It is their participants. The child and adolescent important to establish a baseline in order to participants in these studies were either from measure improvement, or lack of throughout an elementary or middle school. any intervention. Results show that it is imperative to include the entire school in the Results designated bullying intervention program, so The search yielded several inter- that all staff and students are working ventions that are realistically implementable together in the same way to reduce bullying by teachers and administrators. The studies behavior. In order to achieve success, many collected were primarily de-signed to in- intervention programs include school staff crease awareness about bullying and/or training before any intervention is ever reduce bullying behaviors in school. A total implemented. In addition, the school will of ten studies were reviewed. Table 1 pro- provide students with a definition of what vides an overview of the intervention bullying means, how to identify bullying components. through observation, and the steps of how to The interventions reviewed in our report a bully or bullying behaviors. Not analysis include: (a) Project Ploughshares only do the successful interventions teach Puppets for Peace (P4) Program, (b) Step to the students about bullying behaviors, they Respect: A Bullying Prevention Program also teach students positive behaviors and Take a Stand, (c) Lend a Hand, (d) Stop social skills, as well as how to replace the Bullying Now Social Marketing Campaign, bullying behaviors with new behaviors. (e) Walk Away, Ignore, Talk it Out and Certain intervention programs have story- Seek Help (WITS) Primary Program (f) books, scripted lessons, and written manuals Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (New specifically designed to help teachers teach Bergen Project & New National Initiative the material on how to recognize, report and Against Bullying); (g) KiVa Anti-Bullying help children that are being bullied. When Program, (h) Project ACHIEVE Social teaching positive social skills, intervention Skills Program, and (i) Positive Behavior programs show that it is vital that the teacher Support (BP-PBS) Intervention Program. model, role play and reinforce the new and Seven of the eight interventions reviewed appropriate behaviors with the students, so provided effective bullying interventions they can be sure to understand and gener- that significantly reduced bullying alize the behaviors. A common way of behaviors. No significant effects were noted testing the student’s understanding of the

Table 1 Summary of Bullying Interventions Data Collection Study Participants Setting Outcome Summary Measurement Project 129 students Canada Pre and post No meaningful effects Ploughshares Grades 3-4 2 public performance Puppets for Peace (N=129, 69 elementary questionnaires (P4 Program) boys, 60 girls) schools

Beran and Shapiro (2005) Steps to Respect School staff: California, USA School Environment SES: Significant intervention effects 1296 Survey (SES), Teacher Brown, Low, 33 elementary Assessment of Student TASB: Significant intervention effects Smith and Teachers: 128 schools (50% Behavior (TASB), Haggerty (2011) suburban, 25% Student Survey, Steps SS: Significant intervention effects Students: 2,940 rural, 15% mid- to Respect: A Bullying sized cities, 10% Intervention Program small towns) (SS) Steps to Respect 1,126 students Pacific/Northwest Pre and post test teacher Bullying in intervention schools showed a Grades 4-6 6 elementary and student surveys, significant decline (p .01, d2.11). Victimization Frey, Hirschstein schools observation, classroom by bullying consistently declined. Stu-dents and Edstrom curricula, one on one who participated in the Steps to Respect pro- (2009) intervention gram across 2 school years showed no change

in Acceptance of Bullying/Aggression across four survey administrations. Mean levels of bullying, victimization, and destructive by- stander levels were significantly lower in the intervention group. Students in the intervention

group tended to be less accepting of bullying

and aggression. No group differences were found in student’s perceived bystander. (continued)

THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP 8

Table 1 (continued) Literature on Bullying Intervention Data Collection Study Participants Setting Outcome Summary Measurement Steps to Respect 1,126 students Pacific/Northwest Pre and post teacher A decline in bullying and argumentative Frey et al (2005) Grades 3-6 6 elementary ratings of peer inter- behavior increases in agreeable interactions schools action skill, pre and post and a trend toward reduced destructive student surveys of bystander behavior was witnessed. beliefs and behavior and

observational coding Walk Away, 432 Students Canada Pre and post scores on The average rates of peer victimization and Ignore, Talk it Grade 1 17 public measures of Social help seeking decreased linearly and then acc- Out, and Seek elementary Experiences Ques- elerated significantly over time. The average Help (WITS) schools tionnaire, Relationship rate of social competence decelerated over Primary Program Questionnaire and time, but not significantly, while rates of agg- teacher reports on the ression and internalizing increased linearly and Hoglund, Hosan, Early School Behavior then decelerated over time. WITS contributed and Leadbeater Rating Scale significantly to linear decreases in physical (2012) and relational victimization and increases in social competence and modestly to slower increases in aggression. WITS children show- ed greater declines in physical and relational

victimization until Grade 5 but then an accelerated rate of growth by the spring of Grade 6, greater increases in social competence and a slower rate of growth in aggression. (continued)

THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP 9

Table 1 (continued) Literature on Bullying Intervention Data Collection Study Participants Setting Outcome Summary Measurement KIVa program 8,237 students Finland Pre and post Self- Several positive trends could be noted from the grades 4-6 Reported Bullying and sample statistics. Substantial decreases oc- Ka¨rna¨ et al 78 schools Self-Reported curred in the intervention groups. Students in (2011) Victimization KiVa schools had a lower level of peer- reported victimization Stu-dents in KiVa schools were less victimized and bullied.

Project Students grade 3 Suburban school Pre and post behavior Overall results suggest that the school wide ACHIEVE - 6 and their district checklists, discipline Project ACHIEVE program is an effective tool program parents / guar- referrals, surveys, sus- to aide in the reduction in adverse behaviors. Kilian, Fish, and dians and pensions, standardized Decreases were found in bullying behaviors. teachers/staff test scores Maniago (2006)

Olweus Bullying 3,200 students Norway Pre and post test self Highly statistically significant reductions in Prevention Grades 5-7 bullying report self reported bully/victim behaviors. Clear Program 14 intervention reductions in general antisocial behavior, schools / 16 co- marked improvement of the ‘‘social climate’’ Olweus (2005) mparison schools of the class and at the same time, there was an The New increase in student satisfaction with school National life. Initiative against Bullying: 21,000 students, grades 4-7 100+ schools (continued)

THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP 10

Table 1 (continued) Literature on Bullying Intervention Data Collection Study Participants Setting Outcome Summary Measurement Bully Prevention Single subject Oregon, USA 1) Documentation of Implemented BP-PBS displayed overall reduc- in Positive design of 6 problem behavior that tion in the mean level of problem behavior per Behavior Support students within 3 Various includes physical or school day for all six students While there was (BP-PBS) elementary sch- elementary verbal aggression 2) an overall reduction in behavior problems, intervention ools that have Schools recorded victim re- there was also an increase in victim and by- program. implemented the sponses and 3) social stander "stop, walk, talk" responses. Positive Be- responses to problem Ross and Horner havior Support behavior from (2009) (PBS) Program bystanders.

Take a Stand, 65 students Massachusetts Post-intervention scores Student alleged they experienced fewer Lend a Hand Ages 8 to 14 USA on the Child-Adolescent bothersome peer interactions and felt better Vessey (2011) 11 elementary and Teasing Scale (CATS), about themselves (according to results from secondary schools Pediatric Symptom the CATS and PHCSCS). While parents Checklist (PSC), and (according to the PSC) noted no significant Piers-Harris Children’s changes. Self-concept Scale (PHCSCS)

THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP 11

bullying behavior and new social skills in implemented the KiVa program self- the successful intervention program is reported as being less victimized and bullied through homework and workbooks. Lastly, than students in the control schools. The in all studies reviewed, the intervention pro- KiVa intervention program also decreased grams were implemented very consistently. peer-reported bullying, but this effect did Interventions Overview not reach statistical significance. The KiVa KiVa anti-bullying program intervention had some positive effects on the The KiVa program, for grades 4–6, bystanders’ behaviors as well. Initially when includes twenty hours of student lessons (ten compared to the control school students, double lessons) given by classroom teachers students in KiVa schools had more anti- during one school year. The central aim of bullying attitudes and empathy. However, the lessons are to: (a) raise awareness of the by the end of the study, these intervention role that the group plays in maintaining effects had diminished, making the results bullying, (b) increase empathy toward statistically non-significant. At the post-test victims, and (c) promote children’s stra- assessment, KiVa school students reported tegies of supporting the victim and thus their having more self-efficacy for defending and self-efficacy to do so. The lessons involve well-being at school when compared to the discussion, group work, role-play exercises, control school students. and short films about bullying. As the Olweus bullying prevention program lessons proceed, class rules based on the The Olweus Bullying Prevention central themes of the lessons are Program works with interventions at three successively adopted one at a time. A unique different levels of implementation: school feature of KiVa is an anti-bullying computer wide, classroom-level, and individual-level. game included in the primary school An implementation essential to carrying out versions of the program. Support to this program is training. All school staff implement the program is given to teachers participated in a half to one-day training and schools in several ways. In addition to session. Teachers are expected to read two full days of face-to-face training, training materials, hold weekly classroom networks of school teams are created, meetings, and participate in regular teacher consisting of three school teams each. The discussion groups as well. network members meet three times during In the New Bergen Project, there the school year with one person from the were marked (and statistically significant) KiVa project guiding the network. reductions by 50% or more in self-reported Several positive trends can be noted bully/victim problems for the periods from the sample statistics. The biggest studied, with eight and twenty months of change took place in the mean of self- intervention, respectively. There were also reported victimization, for which a clear reductions in general antisocial substantial decrease occurred in the inter- behavior such as vandalism, fighting with vention group (from 0.741 to 0.485), with a the police, pilfering, drunkenness, and much smaller change in the control group truancy. Marked improvements were also (from 0.782 to 0.657). Intervention and seen in regards to various aspects of the control schools did not differ statistically on ‘‘social climate’’ of the class: improved the criterion variables. Compared with the order and discipline, more positive social control school students, students in KiVa relationships, and a more positive attitude to schools had a lower level of peer-reported schoolwork and the school. At the same victimization. Students in schools that time, there was an increase in student

THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP 12

satisfaction with school life. For the study, BP-PBS was implemented, and the comparison schools, there were very small students at the school displayed an overall or no changes in being bullied, and actually reduction in the mean level of problem an increase in the level of bullying other behavior per school day for all six students students by about 35%. tested (0.9 incidents, 72% decrease from In the New National Initiative baseline). Students were selected from each against Bullying, the percentage of bullied school based on their high levels of physical students in the first cohort of schools was or verbal aggression toward peers. While 15.2, while at follow-up one year later this there was an overall reduction in behavior percentage had been reduced to 10.3% (a problems, there was also an increase in relative reduction of 32%). The relative victim and bystander "stop, walk, talk" reductions for the two successive cohorts of responses. schools were very similar, both amounting Project ACHIEVE social skills program to 34%. Absolute reductions for these three The Project ACHIEVE social skills cohorts amounted to 4.9, 4.8, and 4.5 program is considered a cognitive-behav- percentage points, respectively. The relative ioral program and was designed for students reductions for the first three cohorts of in grades 3-6. Students are provided with a schools were 37%, 48% and 49%, respect- curriculum orientation, as well as, tangible tively. The absolute reductions amounted to reinforcers throughout the program. Teach- 2.1, 2.8, and 2.5 percentage points. ers and staff complete a training program Bully prevention in positive behavior that reviews program goals and the key support (BP-PBS) features of program content. Practice Bully Prevention in Positive Be- sessions (in addition to training) take place havior Support (BP-PBS) begins with a one- with all adults involved in the program. hour training seminar for all students. In this Parents are also provided with information seminar, students are taught the idea and about the mission of Project ACHIEVE. definition of "being respectful" to everyone The "Stop and Think" training process in the school, the importance of "stop, walk, includes assemblies, lectures, and videos. talk" when they come across inappropriate The five “Stop and Think” steps are as or "dis-respectful" behaviors, to emphasize follows: 1. Stop and Think, 2. Are you going the importance of students' good behaviors to make a Good Choice or a Bad Choice?, 3. when attending activities that are prone to What are your Choices or Steps?, 4. Do It!, inappropriate/disrespectful behaviors, and 5. Good Job! In this study, students were the proper way to respond to the three-step taught ten core skills over the course of the response (stop, walk, talk). Staff members school year. The core skills taught include are trained with a two-step process on BP- prerequisite skills, interpersonal skills, PBS curriculum. The first step is an problem-solving skills, and conflict resolu- interactive program download, and the tion skills. Each skill supported by the pro- second step is a one-hour workshop (which gram was modeled, practiced, and infused in includes collective techniques on how to the all students’ classes and in common respond when students engage and/or report areas. The overall results of the study occurrences). Aides in areas such as PE or suggest that the school wide Project the cafeteria (which are areas that are prone ACHIEVE Social Skill s Program is an to problems) receive an additional 30 min- effective tool to aide in the reduction of utes of training on how to effectively adverse behaviors. Bullying behaviors de- manage inappropriate behaviors. In this creased by 2,200% in 3rd grade, 94.7% in

THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP 13

4th grade, 78.6% in 5th grade, and 82.4% in assesses the school’s environment and estab- 6th grade. lishes school-wide bullying policies and Project ploughshares puppets for peace procedures, including the protection of (P4) program students reporting bullying and encouraging The P4 program is a 45 minute pre- socially responsible actions. Disciplinary sentation that utilizes puppets and a script to models are also set-up in order to encourage educate elementary school students about proportional, consistent actions aimed at bullying and conflict resolution. Within this stopping problems before they escalate. study, sixty-six students completed a Instruction in this program is delivered questionnaire before and after the P4 through teacher and student training, and program; the other sixty-three students includes one-on-one interventions and class- completed the same questionnaire twice be- room curriculum components. The Steps to fore viewing the performance. Three months Respect program comprises of a school- after the performance, all of the students wide program guide, staff training completed the questionnaire again. Less than (including a training manual and in-depth one-third of the students felt the show had training sessions), and classroom lessons for no impact on them, with 23% of these students in the third through sixth grade. students indicating that this was because Teachers, counselors, and administrators they were already knowledgeable about also receive additional training in how to bullying and strategies before the show took provide brief individual coaching sessions place. Chi-square results showed no for each participant in a bullying episode. significant increases in knowledge or skills Skill and literature based classroom lessons to deal with bullying. Students were not use cognitive-behavioral techniques in order better at differentiating between bullying to promote socially responsible norms and to and reciprocal aggression, and they did not foster social-emotional skill acquisition. report using more positive anti-bullying Typically instruction is delivered through strategies after the puppet show. However, ten semi-scripted skill lessons and the responses to open-ended questions on the incorporation of grade-appropriate literature questionnaire indicated that half of the units. The administration of classroom students reported feeling more confident in lessons is typically administered on a managing bullying after viewing the P4 weekly basis, but this administration can be program. modified depending on the school district or Step to respect: A bullying prevention researcher’s needs. Parents are also given a program scripted information overview and a take- Three of the studies reviewed in this home letter describing the Steps to Respect analysis used the Steps to Respect program program. as their primary intervention tool. All of the Significant intervention effects were studies in this review used a pre-test/post- present in all of three of the studies test format. Students and teachers both reviewed. In the study by Brown, Low, completed surveys in order to determine the Smith, and Haggerty (2011), their results effectiveness of the Steps to Respect indicated greater increases in school anti- bullying prevention program. The Steps to bullying policies and strategies, student Respect program is a school-wide bullying climate, and staff climate. Larger decreases intervention that includes instruction over in bullying-related problems were seen in anti-bullying procedures and rules for re- intervention schools relative to control porting bullying incidents. The program schools. The increase in the prevalence of

THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP 14

physical bullying perpetration was smaller accepting of bullying and aggression than in intervention schools, and there also was a those in the control group. No group reduction of 31% in the likelihood of differences were found in children’s Physical Bullying Perpetration in inter- perceived bystander responsibility, which vention schools relative to control schools. declined over time. Mean perceived diffi- No significant differences were found culty of responding assertively to bullying between intervention and control schools for was lower among intervention group nonphysical bullying perpetration, academic children than among their peers in the competency, or academic achievement. control group. Contrary to predictions, no Students from schools that implemented the group differences in self-reported aggression reviewed intervention reported higher mean or victimization were seen in this study. levels of student climate, a lower decline in In the last study reviewed (Frey, teacher/staff bullying prevention during the Hirschstein, Snell, & Edstrom, 2005), school year, and greater increases in student declines in bullying and argumentative bullying intervention, teacher/staff bullying behavior among intervention-group children intervention, and positive bystander behav- relative to control-group children were ior, when compared to students from control observed. Increases in agreeable interactions schools. and a trend toward reduced destructive In the study by Frey, Hirschstein, bystander behavior were also witnessed. and Edstrom (2009), bullying in intervention Students in the intervention group reported schools showed a significant decline across enhanced bystander responsibility, greater all of the time periods evaluated. The perceived adult responsiveness, and fewer significant overall decline in bullying is acceptances of bullying/aggression than attributable to changes in the behavior of those in the control group. Self-reported those who exhibited bullying behaviors aggression did not differ between the during the pre-test period. Victimization by groups. The results of these studies show bullying consistently declined over time as that Steps to Respect: A Bullying Prevention well. Confidence intervals show consistent Program is an effective instruction medium declines among those who previously for children in elementary schools. encouraged bullying, particularly after the Take a stand, lend a hand, stop bullying first year of program implementation. Non- now social marketing campaign bullying aggression in intervention schools The Take a Stand, Lend a Hand, also showed significant declines. Agreeable Stop Bullying Now Social Marketing interactions, contrary to predictions, did not Campaign is a bullying prevention program increase over time in the intervention involving twelve webisodes of bullying schools. Students who participated in the prevention training. In this study, approx- Steps to Respect program showed no change imately every two weeks (for a total of 24 in Acceptance of Bullying/Aggression weeks) a total of twelve sessions were across four survey administrations. As conducted with 65 students, ages eight to predicted, self-reports of victimization in fourteen, by a school nurse. Each session intervention schools declined over time. included a 30 minute support group and the Mean levels of bullying, victimization, and viewing of a Take a Stand, Lend a Hand, destructive bystander levels were signif- Stop Bullying Now episode. School nurses icantly lower in the intervention group than completed a training session before begin- in the control group. Children in the ning the campaign, and parental informed intervention group tended to be less consent was obtained for each student who

THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP 15

participated. Tip sheets were also admin- completed the WITS program. Program istered to parents and staff, and a celebratory estimates on quadratic changes were also party and awards were given to the students significant, but not meaningful for relational after the completion of the program. Lastly, victimization, social competence, and ag- a focus group with participating school gression. No program differences were nurses took place. According to surveys found for help seeking and internalizing completed after the intervention, students relative to the children in the comparison perceived that they experienced fewer group. Children who completed the WITS bothersome peer inter-actions and felt better program showed greater declines in physical about themselves overall, while parents and relational victimization until the fifth noted no significant changes. Focus group grade, but then an accelerated rate of growth results obtained from the participating by the spring of the sixth grade. Greater school nurses showed three central themes: increases in social competence were also feeling special, strength in numbers, and seen in children of the WITS program, and a lifting the veil. slower rate of growth in aggression. Rates of WITS primary program deceleration in help seeking and acceleration WITS stands for Walk away (and in internalizing were comparable across the seek help), Ignore it (and seek help), Talk it WITS and comparison children. out (and seek help), and Seek help. Before the intervention program took place, Discussion teachers and administrators took part in a The purpose of this literature review two-hour in-service training. In the first was to explore the outcome of bullying phase of this program, storybooks that focus intervention programs that are currently on a form of bullying and introduce kids to implemented in various elementary and WITS messages were presented to the middle schools. A total of ten articles were participants (432 children in the first grade). reviewed that contained eight intervention Program resource guides were administered programs, with one program reviewed three to teachers and administrators in order times in separate articles. The articles identify books with WITS themes, and the highlight implemented bullying inter- guides also included lesson plans with pre- ventions from the United States, Canada, reading and post-reading questions. Role- Pacific Northwest region, Finland and play and creative writing exercises are also Norway. Approximately 17,000 students and used to supplement the classroom storybook 1,400 school staff/teachers were included. lessons. The overall results of this study are The average rates of peer victim- consistent with previously published work. ization and help seeking decreased linearly Polanin, Espelage and Pigott (2012) and then accelerated significantly over time. constructed a study that encompassed The average rate of social competence bullying prevention programs, but also decelerated over time, but not significantly, included the secondary evaluation of while rates of aggression and internalizing bystander intervention behavior. The results increased linearly and then decelerated over yielded an overall significant treatment time. The WITS program contributed effect with no differentiation found between significantly to linear decreases in physical the United States and other countries. and relational victimization increases in We discovered that bullying is not social competence, and modestly to slower only prevalent in the United States, but increases in aggression in the children who across the nation as well. However, the

THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP 16

results from this study do suggest that in the elevation of awareness and imple- bullying intervention programs contribute to mentation. the overall decrease in bullying behaviors. Additional intervention research is clearly References warranted. Batsche, M. B., & Howard, M. K. (1994). Limitations Bullies and their victims: Understanding A number of limitations should be a pervasive problem in the schools. taken into consideration. First, this review School Psychology Review, 23, 165-175. only includes seven bullying intervention Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). programs. While there were three re- Preservice teachers’ responses to searchers participating in the study, we must bullying scenarios: Comparing physical, add that we consider having an unbiased verbal, and relational bullying. Journal collection of articles, yet prudence should be of Educational Psychology, 98, 219-231. used when translating the results. Beran, T. & Shapiro, B. (2005). Evaluation Additionally, only two databases were of an anti-bullying program: student searched and it is possible that articles were reports of knowledge and confidence to inadvertently missed. manage bullying. Journal of Education, Second, while this meta-analysis is 28(4), 700-717. to be considered quantitative, offering a high Boulton, J. J., & Underwood, K. (1992). level of significance, the studies reviewed Bully/victim problems among middle only included control groups. Therefore, the school children. British Journal of study is more reflective of an observational Educational Psychology, 62, 73-87. study. doi:10.111/j.2044-8297.1992.tb01000.x Last, the size of the study must again Brown, E. C., Low, S., Smith, B. H., be brought forth. While the importance and Haggerty, K. P. (2011). Outcomes from urgent need to implement bullying inter- a school-randomized controlled trial of vention programs across the nation has been steps to respect: a bullying prevention captured in this study, there are a number of program. School Psychology Review, 40, other bullying intervention programs that 432-443. may have not been included. Carney, A., & Merrell, K. (2001). Bullying Future Research in schools: Perspectives on Bullying in schools across the nation understanding and preventing and is rapidly rising. As concluded, great strides international problem. School have been made throughout to implement Psychology International, 22, 364-382. and hold those accountable for bullying Department of Education and Early intervention programs. The results of this Childhood Development. (2010). study, and many others previously pub- Building respectful and safe school lished, is to benevolently suggest future [electronic resource]: A resource for research. This study demonstrates that the school communities. Melbourne: incorporation of a bullying intervention Communications Division for the program can produce positive effects by Student Wellbeing Division, Department decreasing bullying behaviors. The issue at of Education and Early Childhood hand is much larger than the ten studies Development. reviewed. Future research, both quantitative Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E., Kena, G., & Baum, and qualitative, should be conducted to aid K. (2006). Indicators of school crime

THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP 17

and safety: 2006. Washington, DC: Kilian, J. M., Fish, M.C., & Maniago, E. B. Government Printing Office. (2006). Making schools safe: A system- Floyd, N. M. (1985). “Pick on somebody wide school Intervention to increase your own size?” Controlling student prosocial behaviors and enhance victimization. The Pointer, 29, 917. school climate. Journal of Applied Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., & Edstrom, School Psychology, 23, 1-32. L. V. (2009). Observed reductions in Kumpulainen, K., Rasanen, E., Henttonen, school bullying, nonbullying aggression, I., Almqvist, F., Kresanov, K., Linna, S. and destructive bystander behaviour: A (1998). Bullying and psychiatric longitudinal evaluation. Journal of symptoms among elementary school-age Educational Psychology, 101, 466–481. children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Snell, J. L., 705-717. Edstrom, L., MacKenzie, E. P., & Lane, D. A. (1989). Bullying in school: The Broderick, C. J. (2005). Reducing need for integrated approach. School playground bullying and supporting Psychology International, 10, 211-215. beliefs: an experimental trial of the steps doi:10.1177/0143034389103007 to respect program. Developmental Lober, R., & Dishon, T. J. (1984). Boys who Psychology, 41, 479-491. fight at home and school: Family Greenbaum, S. (1988). School bully and conditions influencing cross-setting victimization. Malibu, CA: National consistency. Journal of Consulting and School Safety Center. Clinical Psychology, 52, 759-768. Hoglund, W., Hosan, N., & Leadbeater, B. Marini, Z., Koruna, B., & Dane, A. (2006). (2012). Using your WITS: A 6-year Individualized interventions for ESL follow-Up of a peer victimization students involved in bullying and prevention program. School Psychology victimization. Contact, 32, 22-41. Review, 41, 193-214. Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Polla, R., Ruan, Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R., & Hazler, R. J. W., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of (2001). Bullying behaviors among US adolescent victims in the Midwestern youth: Prevalence and association with USA. School Psychology International, psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the 13, 516. doi: 10.1177/ American Medical Association, 285, 0143034392131001 2094-2100. Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Newman, D. A., Horne, A. M., & Webster, Bachman, J. G. (1993). Monitoring the C. B. (1999). Bullies and victims: A future study for goal for 6 of the national theme of boys and adolescent males. education goals: A special report for the Handbook of counseling boys and National Education Goals Panel. Ann adolescent males: A practitioner’s Arbor: University of Michigan’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Institute for Social Research. Newman, R., & Murray, B. (2005). How Ka¨rna¨, A., Voeten, M., Little, T., students and teachers view the Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., & seriousness of peer harassment: When is Salmivalli, C. (2011). A large-scale it appropriate to seek help? Journal of evaluation of the KiVa anti-bullying Educational Psychology, 97, 347-365. program: Grades 4–6. Child Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems Development, 82, 311–330. among school children: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention

THE JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPRENTICESHIP 18

program. In I. Rubin & D. Pepler (Eds.), Rose, C., Monda-Amaya, L., & Espelage, D. The development and treatment of (2011). Bullying perpetration and childhood aggression (pp.441-488). victimization in special education: A Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. review of the literature. Remedial and Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What Special Education, 32, 114-130. we know and what we can do. Oxford, doi:10.1177/0741932510361247 UK: Blackwell. Ross, S. W., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Bully Olweus, D. (2005). A useful evaluation prevention in positive behavior support. design, and effects of the Olweus Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Bullying Prevention Program. 42, 747-759. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 11, 389– Smith, P., & Ananiadou, K. (2003). The 402. nature of school bullying and the O’Moore, M. (2000). Critical issues for effectiveness of school based teacher training to counter bullying and interventions. Journal of Applied victimization in Ireland. Aggressive Psychoanalytic Studies, 5, 189-209. Behavior, 26, 99-111. doi: Stephenson, P., & Smith, D. (1989). 10.1002/(SICI)1098- Bullying in the junior school. Bullying 1337(2000)26:1<99::AID- in schools. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham AB8>3.0.CO;2-W Books. Pellegrini, A. (2002). Bullying, Vessey, J.A. (2011). Helping students with victimization, and sexual harassment disabilities better address teasing during the transition to middle school. andvbullying situations: a MASNRN Educational Psychologist, 37, 151-163. study. Journal of School Nursing, 27, Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., and Pigott, T. 139-148. D. (2011) A meta-analysis of school- doi:10.1177/1059840510386490 based bullying prevention programs’ effect on bystander intervention Author Notes behavior. School Psychology Review, 41, The authors appreciate the helpful 47-65. guidance and suggestions of our research Pontzer, D. (2010). A theoretical test of methods professor, Dr. Brittany Hott, Texas bullying behavior: Parenting, A & M University – Commerce. personality, and the bully/victim relationship. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 259-273. doi: 10.100y/s10896-009- 9289-5 Rigby, K. (2001). Health consequences of bullying and its prevention in schools. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp.175-195). New York, NY: Guilford. Rodkin, P., & Hodges, E. (2003). Bullies and victims in the peer ecology: Four questions for psychologists and school professionals. School Psychology Review, 32, 384-400.