The number of research examining the participation of instructors in anti-bullying efforts is increasing all the time. Because it assists with classroom management, subject matter instruction, and setting high standards for students, teachers’ involvement in bullying prevention is essential. Effective teacher management is required as part of an anti-bullying campaign. Instructors that include group activities in their classrooms make students feel more involved, which helps prevent bullying among students.
The amount of hatred and victimization among kids decreases when they are made aware of school regulations and access helpful individuals. Structured classrooms are ones in which rules are clearly stated and routinely implemented by the teachers. In general, better-structured schools resulted in increased student safety and fewer incidents of bullying and victimization. Creating a healthy school environment that fosters cooperation and mutual support has been shown to reduce bullying instances.
Research by De Luca and colleagues (2019) outlines the many methods schools might aid instructors in dealing with bullying at the school level. First and foremost, they state that when bullying happens, educators should respond in various ways. They may either intervene, watch the incident, ignore or belittle the bullying, or they could do none of these things (De Luca et al., 2019). If the suggestions are supported within their rules, educators may put these interventions into action and be sure that they will be protected while taking preventative measures into action. According to this article, the school’s involvement in the execution of protective legislation that can assist the implementation of the intervention is correct and well thought out (De Luca et al., 2019). According to the findings, one issue is that the publications utilized to support the assertions are out-of-date.
As of right now, only the United States has enacted legislation specifically targeting cyberbullying as a criminal offense in and of itself. In this post, we’ll take a look at the legal, regulatory, and best practices frameworks for combating cyberbullying in UK educational settings after briefly reviewing relevant literature (Bosworth et al., 2018). When it comes to fostering organizational justice in a company, motivation is an essential instrument. To the extent that schools encourage educators to enforce regulations and intervene in ways that eradicate bullying, Hall and Chapman (2018) give a paradigm comparable to what De Luca and colleagues (2019) proposed.
According to these writers, schools should consider the welfare of their educators, such as teacher protection, while suspending kids who display troublesome behaviors. This would allow educators to execute anti-bullying measures without fear of retaliation (Mahabeer, 2020). The article provides on-site research that demonstrates the need to protect and support educators while implementing classroom regulations. However, a notable drawback discovered is that the sample size was insufficient to reflect the majority of the population for the data utilized in the study.
Schools should give parents a chance to discuss bullying with their children. Several researchers, including Hale et al. (2019), believe that parents are essential characters in their children’s lives and have equal power in fostering change. So they should be encouraged to visit the school and speak with the pupils about the hazards of being bullied. Although van et al. (2019) disagree with this assertion, they propose that training is the most effective strategy.
Because it gives an alternate approach that schools might employ to involve parents in anti-bullying intervention, this article is essential to understanding the subject matter. The study is recent, and the data used to support this assertion has been gathered from current and diverse sources to do so (Hale et al., 2019). There is a restriction to the author’s approach in that he does not address parents who are not aware of bullying.
Implementation challenges include beginning the program after the school year, a lack of visual signals and posters, a lack of sufficient reinforcement for pupils, and the generalizability of scenarios outside of the classroom, among others. From the perspective of school stakeholders, this qualitative study was unusual. It employed focus groups to assess the components of the intervention that were effective and the unsuccessful elements (teachers, support staff, administrators) (Bosworth et al., 2018). Although just one urban primary school in Connecticut used PBIS, the results may not be generalizable to other schools with comparable or identical situations because the study only looked at PBIS implementation there.
Gaffney et al. (2019) investigated the anti-bullying intervention programs available and analyzed how the programs are implemented in different parts of the world. They determined that the United States is one of the countries with the most effective school-based anti-bullying programs globally. For example, no trap is a bullying intervention that employs a peer-led method to reduce bullying in the school environment. As a result, this program is inclusive. It may be implemented on children by teachers, parents, and community members, empowering them to become change agents by comprehending bullying and the relevant counteractive strategies (Gaffney et al.,2019). Because it has been peer-reviewed, the study has been validated, and no shortcomings have been discovered.
Graham (2016) emphasizes the importance of everyone participating in the fight against bullying in schools. Several negative physical health consequences, despair, and poor academic performance are described in the article as consequences of bullying on the victim.
Bullying prevention measures are also discussed in the report to guarantee that bullying is eliminated from schools. In addition to raising awareness about the negative consequences of bullying, encouraging parents and the wider community to join the fight against bullying, and establishing norms and expectations, some of the interventions highlighted include as follows: (Graham, 2016). Specifically, this article is beneficial for this study because it illustrates the treatments individuals may use to inspire people to fight against bullying by highlighting the negative consequences of bullying on those bullied.
When McMullen and colleagues (2010) published their study, the authors stated that an inclusive school system is necessary to ensure that the community is actively involved in school-based treatments. Also included is a community involvement strategy, which suggests that schools should have an inclusive structure that is not prejudiced to allow any interested citizen to participate in the school reform program (McMullen et al., 2020).
For example, these writers advocate that schools engage with the community by creating volunteer roles for persons who want to provide their services to the school at no expense to the institution (McMullen et al., 2020). This connection allows the school to teach people through inclusive training to assist in the fight against bullying by reporting incidents and preventing recurrence of the problem.
The article is essential for this research since it discusses one method through which the community might reduce bullying. According to the findings, a person’s neuroticism, together with his or her self-esteem, as well as his or her social and moral standards, all have a direct influence on bullying (Mahabeer, 2020). These findings show that personal and cultural values are related with both proactive and reactive violent behaviour in bullying, both for those who participate and those who do not engage. They do, however, underline that while aggressors engage in more proactive hostile activity, victims feel more reactive hostility.
It is possible that deaf pupils will have more difficulty adjusting to the normal school setting if their major mode of communication is not spoken language. They can also be viewed as different if they are using obvious hearing aids, communicating with others through sign language, or speaking in a distinctive voice (McMullen et al., 2020). All of these may contribute to DHH persons experiencing greater rates of bullying than their usually hearing peers. Communication issues may even cause victims to engage in less help-seeking behavior as a result of their experiences.
Menesini and Salmivalli (2017) explain bullying in-depth in this article by explaining its history and how it is seen as detrimental conduct. According to the pair, bullying is defined as an act of harassment, intimidation, or forceful deliberate action forced on persons who are deemed helpless by their peers. Three key ideas are presented, each of which distinguishes aggressive conduct from bullying behavior. In addition to repetition, there must also be a power imbalance and a specific goal. To establish the statistics on the reported bullying incidents, Menesini and Salmivalli (2017) used qualitative analysis to gather their information.
They examine information collected from surveys conducted by anti-bullying organizations, such as the Global School Health Survey. Given that the numbers utilized in this study are more than ten years old, there is a restriction to this analysis in that the data used is out of date.
A report by Van et al. (2020) describes how parents may become involved in preventing bullying at school. First and foremost, Van et al. (2020) indicate that parents may be trained in bullying prevention and can be used in the workplace. After that, because the authors recognize that the availability of parents might be a hindrance, they outline when this instruction can take place. It used to be difficult for people to describe and accept school bullying, but this has changed in recent decades.
One or a group of persons abuses their influence over another on a regular basis in the classroom. Direct or indirect, it can take many different forms and encompass a wide range of activities that have the potential to do great harm to the victim. As a result of a study revealing that 24% of Ukrainian schoolchildren are subjected to bullying, the United Nations launched its End Violence Against Children campaign to address the problem.
In addition, they propose that taking advantage of the parents meeting to educate parents about the dangers of bullying and effective countermeasures to combat bullying is an essential factor to consider (Van et al.,2020). Parent-focused seminars and training on how to cope with bullying when it occurs in their children’s lives are suggested as ways for parents to get engaged in bullying prevention. One of the most unusual aspects of this research is that it presents a practical strategy for involving parents in an anti-bullying intervention. According to employees, HPSF’s structural components contribute to a safer school climate with less opportunities for conflict behavior. This study indicates the potential for a lifestyle modification to have a beneficial (side) effect on conflict and bullying. Additional study is required to substantiate these observations.
Schools should raise awareness among educators, instructors, and community members about their roles and responsibilities in the battle against bullying. Teachers, for example, should be reminded that they are responsible for their kids at school meetings, which means that they should continually adhere to the anti-bullying policies and procedures that have been established (Karikari et al.,2020). In addition, the school can create posters or booklets to distribute to the general public, informing them on how to deal with bullying when they encounter it. According to the article, bullying should be reduced in schools, which includes a list of the roles schools should play.
This source is reputable since it has been peer-reviewed, and it is essential for this study because it presents a variety of tactics for increasing the battle against bullying. The study elucidates some of the implicit and explicit barriers to bullying prevention initiatives. For instance, bullying may be rather ambiguous since people prefer to view the issue through the lens of their own experiences and perspectives, so restricting their comprehension of other parties.
When bullying actions are discussed or reported, certain stakeholders’ viewpoints may be lost (Moreno et al., 2018). By and large, the findings support the use of multi-stakeholder initiatives to foster a more holistic understanding of bullying. Recommendations include avoiding reification of a select few’s opinions and perspectives and establishing a more open system of discussion among stakeholders to foster inclusiveness while tackling bullying.
Epstein et al. (2018) outline strategies for educators, families, and the wider community to eliminate bullying in schools. Communication, volunteerism, decision-making, and teamwork are just a few of the concepts discussed. The stakeholders mentioned above are expected to speak with kids about bullying in their respective environments (Epstein et al., 2018). Families are expected to inform their children about the consequences of bullying at home, to name just one example.
The same may be said for educators and members of the community as well (Bosworth et al., 2018). They are crucial in this research because they demonstrate how schools may include parents, instructors, and community members in the battle against bullying. The study’s findings indicate that there were 12 data points: four instances of verbal bullying, one instance of physical bullying, one instance of emotional harassment, and five instances of social bullying.
Meanwhile, the researcher defined individuals who are bullied as having low emotional health, low social adaptation, and no reaction to the bullying. The researcher predicts that future researchers will analyze bullying alongside other key study subjects and concepts in the discipline. As of now, only the United States has explicit laws that treat cyberbullying as a criminal crime in and of itself (Menesini et al., 2018). Cyberbullying will be briefly discussed in this article after a quick review of the literature, with an emphasis on the legal, regulatory, and good practice frameworks for combating cyberbullying within UK educational settings.
Bullying prevention strategies in schools have been designed and tested to determine their effectiveness in preventing bullying. On the other hand, according to Epstein et al. (2018), teachers either adopt these programs with lower quality over time or choose not to implement the innovation altogether. According to the study, the adoption of bullying prevention programs by teachers is related to principal support for anti-bullying activities. Furthermore, it has been discovered that teachers’ perceived amount of central support is positively connected with teachers’ self-efficacy when dealing with bullying (Dardiri et al., 2020).
To build effective anti-bullying campaigns in schools, it is critical to include the support of school administrators. According to Karikari et al. (2020), the first and most crucial step in bullying prevention is to eradicate the aspect of denial linked with bullying and put in place appropriate school regulations. A consistent approach emphasizing good behaviors, active instructor engagement, and a supportive environment are required. Anti-bullying programs entail the coordination of school-wide bullying interventions, which is the responsibility of school principals.
Principals have an important role to play in anti-bullying campaigns by coordinating program implementation among school stakeholders who are actively participating in training and executing the programs. They only offer seminars and training to the people who work for them. Planned activities are also organized and evaluated by them. They are also in charge of these activities (Dardiri et al., 2020). To give one example, Norway’s Zero program is a proven bullying prevention project that works throughout the entire school to eliminate bullying. Three lectures on bullying mechanisms, prevention, and intervention are delivered by school stakeholders as part of the Zero program during the school year. Gaffney et al. (2019) conducted previous research that found that having a healthy school atmosphere is connected with more minor bullying events in schools. School psychologists are active in enhancing the school’s atmosphere in a variety of ways, including teaching social conduct and facilitating talks about bullying.
Their responsibilities may include visiting classes to evaluate bullying prevention initiatives. School psychologists have been found to improve suitable social climates in classrooms through small group and whole-classroom conversations in various settings. Anxiety, emotional lability, emotional volitional instability, shyness, low self-esteem, inadequate claims, low focus of attention, and avoidance as a key technique for resolving conflict situations were found in children at risk of bullying by diagnostic procedures. This study’s findings confirmed the concept that children must develop skills to combat bullying, such as emotional stability, stability, calmness, and mental strength, to mention a few.
References
Bosworth, K., Garcia, R., Judkins, M., & Saliba, M. (2018). The impact of leadership involvement in enhancing high school climate and reducing bullying: An exploratory study. Journal of school violence, 17(3), 354-366. Web.
Dardiri, A., Hanum, F., & Raharja, S. (2020). The Bullying Behavior in Vocational Schools and Its Correlation with School Stakeholders. International Journal of Instruction, 13(2), 691-706. Web.
De Luca, L., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2019). The teacher’s role in preventing bullying. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1830. Web.
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S. B., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., & Williams, K. J. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Corwin Press.
Gaffney, H., Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2019). Examining the effectiveness of school-bullying intervention programs globally: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 1(1), 14-31. Web.
Graham, S. (2016). Victims of bullying in schools. Theory into Practice, 55(2), 136-144. Web.
Hale, R., Fox, C. L., & Murray, M. (2017). “As a parent, you become a tiger”: Parents talking about bullying at school. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(7), 2000-2015. Web.
Hall, W. J., & Chapman, M. V. (2018). The role of school context in implementing a statewide anti-bullying policy and protecting students. Educational Policy, 32(4), 507-539. Web.
Karikari, I., Brown, J. R., Ashirifi, G. D., & Storms, J. (2020). Bullying prevention in schools: The need for a multiple stakeholder approach. Advances in Social Work, 20(1), 61-81. Web.
Mahabeer, P. (2020). Novice teachers’ beliefs and fears on bullying in schools in South Africa. Koers: Bulletin for Christian Scholarship= Koers: Bulletin vir Christelike Wetenskap, 85(1), 1-15. Web.
McMullen, J. M., George, M., Ingman, B. C., Pulling Kuhn, A., Graham, D. J., & Carson, R. L. (2020). A systematic review of community engagement outcomes research in school‐based health interventions. Journal of School Health, 90(12), 985-994. Web.
Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2017). Bullying in schools: the state of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychology, health & medicine, 22(sup1), 240-253. Web.
Moreno, M. A., Suthamjariya, N., & Selkie, E. (2018). Stakeholder perceptions of cyberbullying cases: application of the uniform definition of bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62(4), 444-449. Web.
Van Niejenhuis, C., Huitsing, G., & Veenstra, R. (2020). Working with parents to counteract bullying: A randomized controlled trial of an intervention to improve parent‐school cooperation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 61(1), 117-131. Web.