What limits the effectiveness of antibullying programs? A thematic analysis of the perspective of students.

Abstract

Objective: We used qualitative methods to explore the views of students regarding design and implementation factors limiting the effectiveness of the antibullying programs. Method: Using a purposeful strategy, we recruited 97 Grades 5 to 8 students from 12 demographically stratified schools. Interviewers conducted thirteen 45-min focus groups. Audio recordings were transcribed and coded thematically. Results: Three higher order themes emerged. First, students felt that antibullying presentations, posters, and activities sometimes failed to engage students. Antibullying communications that were boring, repetitive, negatively worded, or delivered by presenters lacking credibility were of limited value. Second, students felt that ineffective monitoring and consequences undermined antibullying programs. Students thought teachers failed to detect many bullying episodes, did not respond quickly enough when bullying was reported, adopted ineffective consequences, and failed to sustain helpful programs. Teachers who responded unfairly, were influenced by reputational biases, or dealt with students disrespectfully compromised antibullying interventions. Third, some students disengaged and pushed back by failing to attend to presentations, denying their involvement in bullying, discrediting programs and speakers, disrupting antibullying activities, and defiantly victimizing peers. Conclusions: Poor design and implementation may limit the outcome of antibullying programs. Pushback from a small group of students may have a negative influence on the responses of a wider group of peers. A negative response from students may reduce the commitment of the educators who implement antibullying initiatives. From the perspective of students, schools need to develop more engaging presentations, improve monitoring and supervision, develop more effective responses to bullying, and deal with students in an unbiased and respectful way.

Is There a Hole in the Whole-School Approach? A Critical Review of Curriculum Understanding in Bullying Research

“…Using curriculum theory as an analytical framework, this article suggests that new insights can be gained by outlining understandings of curriculum in bullying research. From a bullying perspective, teaching and learning in schools may be seen as competing demands (Cunningham, Mapp et al, 2016) offsetting efforts to prevent bullying (Roland, 2011). From a curriculum perspective however, such juxtaposing seems misplaced, as schools are increasingly expected to work on both social and academic outcomes.…”

“…The standard category is the only category not dominated by studies from North America. Taken together, it can be understood as highlighting moral standards (Iwasa, 2017) and professional conduct (Bibou-Nakou et al, 2012), through professional autonomy (Ullman, 2018) seen as adaptation (Cunningham, Mapp et al, 2016) and curricular alignment (Fenaughty, 2019). The category not only highlights curriculum as government policy and standards for addressing issues (Puhl et al, 2016), but also as a source of competing priorities that may undermine efforts to prevent bullying in schools (Roland, 2011).…”

“…Contrary to this assumption, approaches in the subject and standard categories emphasise teacher professionalism and adaptation in bullying interventions. Notable in this regard are Hawe et al (2015), who describe how teachers were "encouraged to adapt and embed these strategies into their teaching" (p. 2), and Cunningham, Mapp, et al (2016), who cite educators' perceptions that "failure to adapt the developmental level of anti-bullying activities limited their application across grades"(p. 467). This is (Vreeman & Carroll, 2007, p. 86)…”

Situationally Selective Activation of Moral Disengagement Mechanisms in School Bullying: A Repeated Within-Subjects Experimental Study

“…If teachers and playground supervisors fail to detect and promptly intervene in bullying, and if there are no effective consequences for the bullies, students will probably define this as a sign of poor and ineffective anti-bullying practice conducted by the authorities in school (Cunningham et al, 2016) that in fact makes room for bullying. According to a recent qualitative study examining how students understand and explain bullying (Thornberg and Delby, 2019), if they perceive that teachers and other school staff allow bullying to take place, then the lesson learned is that bullying is an accepted behavior at school and is not banned by school rules.…”

“…When there is a whole group of students engaged in bullying perpetration, or when those who are bullying are supported and cheered on by other students, it would seem reasonable to assume that an individual bully would be more inclined to interpret his or her bullying behavior as socially acceptable in school and that teachers and other school staff are therefore responsible for allowing it to happen. If such vivid, visible, and noticeable bullying can continue, students might perceive it as an instance of poor rule enforcement in which teachers and other school staff allow bullying to occur (Cunningham et al, 2016;Thornberg and Delby, 2019). This can be understood as the emergence of a "culture of bullying" that supports or encourages bullying behavior because students believe that "in most cases, neither their classmates nor their teachers would intervene to stop bullying" (Unnever and Cornell, 2003, p. 18).…”