Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    Observations of Bullying in The Classroom

    Uploaded by

    Andreea Nucu

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Observations of Bullying in The Classroom

    Uploaded by

    Andreea Nucu
    40 views14 pages

    Original Title

    Observations of Bullying in the Classroom

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    40 views14 pages

    Observations of Bullying in The Classroom

    Uploaded by

    Andreea Nucu

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 14
    Observations of Bullying in the Classroom RONA S. ATLAS DEBRA J. PEPLER York University ABSTRACT The prevalence and nature of bullying was assessed on the basis of observations of children’s interactions Jn the classroom. This study was based on a systemic-develop ‘mental model of bullying and victimization. Participants were ddraven from I public school in metropolitan Toronto. Twenty- seven children (19 boys, 8 girls) identified by teachers as aggressive and nonaggressive were targeted for filming. The 27 idren were identified from the total number of students (Y= 190) in the 8 classrooms. There were 60 bullying episodes ‘observed from 28 hr of video and remote audio recordings of ‘classroom observations. Bullying occurred (wie every hour in the classroom and was short in duration, The boys and giels bollied at the same rate. Peers were involved in some capacity (fom actively participating to passively onlooking) In 85% of les. Results suggest that bullying unfolds in 2 peer context in the classroom and is related to the type of classroom activity and individual characteristics of children Involved in bullying conflicts. Brine ts set become he oes of psscolos cal research (Olweus, 1991, 1993; Pepler & Craig, 1995; Stephenson & Smith, 1989; Tatum, 1989; Ziegler & Pepler, 1993). Studies indicate that a large proportion of children ae involved in bullying at school (Besag, 1989, Olweus, 1991, 1993: Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988; Tattum, 1989; Ziegler & Pepler). Between 7% and 34% of schoo! aged children are involved in bullying occasionally during the school term in both the capacity of bullies and victims of bullying (Besag. 1989; Olweus, 1987; Perry et al: Roland, 1989; Stephenson & Smith; Yates & Smith, 1989; Ziegler & Pepler) The resuls of survey data indicate that bullying is pervasive in the schoo! mili (Ohweus, 1991 Perry et al.: Stephenson & Smith; Ziegler & Pepter). To date, much of the esearch on bullying has relied on self report data, teacher report data, and peer nominations. which may be of limited value in assessing situational var ables that influence bullying (Olveus, 1978, 1991: Perry et al: Roland, 1989; Stephenson & Smith). Tn contrast, We used naturalistic observations of bullying in the classroom with video cameras and remote micro phones (Pepler & Craig, 1995). Observations in the present study comprised naturally occurring bullying interactions in 86 the classroom. Our research makes a unigue contribution by assessing the prevalence and the nature of naturally ovcur- ring bullying interactions in the classroom. In this study, we adopted a systemic-developmental ‘model of bullying and vietimization. A systemic-develop- mental framework incorporates the assessment of a wide array of factors that may contribute to the development of aggressive behavior: individual factors, interindividual imeraction, social relations, and cultural and ecological conditions (Cairns & Caims, 1991). This theoretical per- spective requires an integration of individual difference, social-interactional, and ecological perspectives. Bullying behavior is an interaction that occurs between an individual bully and victim and unfolds within a social ecological con text. The bullying interaction is influenced by a number of Factors: (a) the individual characteristies of the bully and vietim. (b) the dyadic interactional processes between the individual bully and victim, (c) the presence of peers and teachers, and (d) the context in which bullying behavior unfolds. Although individual characteristics of the child play an important role in the development of bullying behavior, both dyadic interactional processes between the individual bully and victim and the broader social context in, which bullying occurs are equally important to our under- standing of bullying interactions (Cairns & Cairns; Coie & Jacobs, 1993), With an increased understanding of the characteristics of bullies and victims, the nature of their interactions (dyadic features), and the social context in which bullying occurs, Wwe are better equipped to address the problem of bullyin Within our schools and in the larger society (Cairns & Cairns. 1991; Coie & Jacobs, 1993). Within the context of the present study. we examined the prevalence and the nature of bullying in relation to individual char: bullies and vietims (gender and aggressiveness) within bul lying episodes in the classroom. We also studied the char acteristics of the bully-vietim dyad, specifically assessing xeristis of Address correspondence and requests for reprints to Debra J repler LaMlarsh Research Centre on Violence and Conflict Res lion, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Narth York, Ontari, Canada, M31 1P4 November/December 1998 [Vol. 92(No. 2)} the physical power imbalance between the bully and the victim. Finally, we examined the social ecological factors that comprised the frequency and nature of peer and teacher involvement and the structure within the classroom in which bullying interactions occurred. Bullying isa form of aggressive behavior with an imbal- ance of power; the dominant person(s) intentionally and repeatedly causes distress by tormenting or harassing anoth- er less dominant person(s) (Besag, 1989; Olweus, 1991; Roland, 1989; Smith, 1991; Smith & Thompson, 1991; ‘Stephenson & Smith, 1989; Tattum, 1989). This aggressive behavior can be expressed physically (e-., kicking, hitting) or verbally (e.g., name calling); it can be direct or indirect (Olweus, 1978, 1991, 1993). Direet bullying refers to open attacks on the victim—kicking, pushing, hitting, teasing, taunting, mocking, and threatening and intimidating (Far. rington, 1993; Olweus, 1991). Indirect bullying refers to social isolation, social ostracism, exclusion, and nasty gos- sip (Olweus, 1991, 1993; Roland, 1989). Indirect bullying involves manipulating the social status of an individual within his or her peer group by changing the way others perceive and respond to that individual (Bjorkqvist, Oster- man, & Kaukianinen, 1992; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Pel- tonen, 1988) ‘These forms of indirect or psychological bullying include telling false stories about others, saying bad things behind people's backs, telling others not to be someone’s friend, and trying to persuade others to dislike a certain person (Bjorkgvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukianinen, 19922; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz et al.. 1988). In the case of social exclusion and nasty gossip. the aggressor remains anonymous often by manipulating others to attack the vie tim; it is unlikely that the aggressor is retaliated against (Bjorkqvist etal, 1992b). For more details on the definition of bullying and bullying behaviors, see Appendix A. ‘The first variable that must be considered within a sys- temic-developmental framework for bullying is the individ- ual. The work of Olweus (1991), based within a personal ty perspective, has been fundamental in identifying the characteristics of bullies and victims. Olweus (1993) described boys who bully as having an aggressive personal: ity style combined with physical strength, Male victims, on the other hand, were characterized as being physically weak and timid and having an anxious personality style (Olweus, 1993). Gender is another individual factor that relates to bullying interactions. On self-report questionnaires, boys tare more likely than girls to acknowledge that they have bullied others (e.g., Roland, 1989; Ziegler & Pepler. 1993) ‘That finding is consistent with the traditional view that males are more aggressive than females (Maccoby & Fack- lin, 1974). Recently, researchers have questioned the strength of gender differences in aggression (e.g., Hyde, 1984). When forms of aggression, other than physical aggression are examined, gender differences are less pro- nounced (Bjorkqvist. Lagerspetz, & Kaukianinen, 1992; Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Kaukianinen, 1992; Roland, a7 1989). In playground observations of a wide range of bully- ing behaviors, boys and girls engaged in bullying at the same rate (Craig, 1993). There does not appear fo be a gen- der difference in the prevalence of victimization (Ziegler 8 Pepler). There is, however, a gender difference with respect to the type of aggression one is exposed to: Girls are more likely to be victimized by indirect and subtle forms of bul- lying than boys are (Whitney & Smith, 1993). There is need fo expand our understanding of individual factors as they relate to bullying interactions The second variable that needs to be considered within the systemic-developmental framework is the dyadic rela- tionship between the bully and the victim. The most salient feature within this dyad is the power imbalance between the bully and the victim. Research on bullying highlights the im- portance of a power imbalance between an individual bully ‘and victim: the bully always has more power than the victim, ‘and the victim is unable to defend himself or herself under those circumstances (Besag, 1989; Olweus. 1991, 1993 Roland, 1989). The presence of a power imbalance distin ‘guishes bullying from other forms of aggressive behavior (Olweus, 1993). Olweus (1993) purported that an interac tion is not considered bullying when students of approxi- mately equal physical and psychological strength are fight ing. The bully’s power over the victim may derive from relative individual characteristics (e.g., strength, size) or from the alignment of others within the social context (e.g.. peers aligning with the bully: Craig, 1993), ‘The third variable in the theoretical model comprises the social ecology of bullying. That extends the focus beyond the interaction between the bully and the victim to include other individuals (e.g. peers and teacher) and the structure of the social context in the classroom. Bullying affects the immediate players and also has consequences for peers who are either actively involved or who witness the interaction (Olweus, 1978; Tattum, 1989). Ageression usually arises within a group context and may be influenced by the group (DeRosier, Cillessen, Coie. & Dodge, 1994; Hartup, 1983), Observational research on bullying on the playground revealed that peers were present in 85% of the bullying episodes and only intervened to stop bullying in 11% of those episodes (Craig, 1993). Peers may inadvertently rein- force the behavior by not reprimanding the bully, or they ‘may be drawn into the interaction to participate actively (Craig, 1993; Olweus, 1978; Tattum, 1989). On the play- ground, peers were actively involved in two thirds of the bullying episodes (Craig, 1993), suggesting that peers may be pressured to get involved in the interaction for fear that they too may be victimized (Tattum, 1989). Further, peers who witness bullying may experience considerable discom. fort (Ziegler & Pepler. 1993). A survey assessing the level of bullying in Toronto schools indicated that 61% of stu ‘dents sampled reported that witnessing bullying is unpleas- ant; approximately 33% of peers reported that they could join in and bully another student (Ziegler & Pepler). Peer involvement may be a salient factor that perpetuates and 88 sustains bullying interactions whether or not peers become active participants From a social ecological perspective, the assessment of ballying must also include the role of the teacher in bully interactions. Surveys indicate that teachers are generally unaware of bullying and may do very litle to intercede (Besag, 1989; Olweus, 1991; Smith, 1991: Ziegler & Pepler, 1993), Ziegler and Pepler found that 47% of vietimized pri- ‘mary school students reported that they had told a teacher. Vietimns of peer abuse may not be inclined to report attacks to their teacher because they fear reprisal from their aggre: sors or they blame themselves (Smith; Besag). Twenty-eight percent of victimized primary students reported that they had not told a teacher or a parent about being victimized at school (Ziegler & Pepler). Smith referred to bullying as the “silent nightmare” because there isa code of secrecy where: by victimized students and witnesses to bullying do not report the act. Yates and Smith (1989) found that only 15 out Of ST students who had been bullied told their teachers or school counselors about the incident. Even when teachers are aware of bullying, they may do very litle to intercede Self-teport questionnaires revealed that approximately 440% of students in the primary grades responded that teach- ers intervene to stop bullying only “once in a while or almost never” (Olweus, 1993), suggesting that teachers may do litle to intervene. Besag (1989) suggested that teachers, or adults in the school community may not know how to solve the problem. Also, bullying is a covert activity that is kept from the view of adults (Smith, 1991). As result, itis difficult for adults to achieve a comprehensive understand: ing of the factors that influence the incidence and nature of bullying behavior. Finally, according to the theoretical model, the structure of the social context may be critical in examining bullying. The school playground is the location where bullying is most likely to occur, followed by the classroom and hall ways (Olweus, 1993; Stephenson & Smith, 1989; Whitney & Smith, 1993; Ziegler & Pepler, 1993). Bullying tends to lake place in relatively unsupervised areas such as the play~ ground; teachers and adults may have difficulty understand ing the extent of the problem (Craig & Pepler, 1997: Olweus, 1993), Craig and Pepler’s (1996) playground ‘observations revealed that adults were in close proximity to only 17% of the bullying episodes. In the Toronto survey, 50% of students and 39% of teachers acknowledged that bullying occurs in the classroom (Ziegler & Pepler). In Eng- land, 30% of elementary and middle school students report- ed being bullied in the classroom (Whitney & Smith). The presence of the teacher in the classroom may do little to deter children from bullying. Given that the intensity of teacher supervision may vary by the structure of the learning activity within the class= oom, this ecological factor may also relate to the incidence of bullying. In the present study, classroom structure refers to the amount of teacher supervision or teacher-student interaction. Teacher-led tasks, by definition, are highly ‘The Journal of E tional Research supervised with a great deal of teacher-student interaction or teacher directive (Houston-Stein, Friedrick-Cofer, & Susman, 1977). In contrast, group and solitary tasks allow students to work more independently with less direct super= Vision than teacher-led tasks. Children in less structured Classrooms were more aggressive than those in highly struc tured classrooms (Houston-Stein et al.) In this study, we examined three types of structure: teacher-led tasks, group tasks, and solitary tasks. The structure ofthe learning activ ity in the classroom has been shown to influence children's behavior (Houston-Stein etal) In summary, the theoretical model suggests that a wide array of variables influence bullying behavior, To date empirical work on bullying has relied exclusively on self peer-, and teacher-report methods (Olweus, 1978, 1993 Perry et al, 1988; Roland, 1989: Stephenson & Smith 1989). There are no naturalistic observations of bullying in the classroom to verify those reports. Although the methods indicate the occurrence of bullying, they may be of limited value in assessing the confluence of individual, dyadic interactional, and social ecological factors that influence bullying interactions in the classroom. From a theoretical perspective, bullying must e studied not only as an indi vidual characteristic but also as a dyadic interactional process that generally occurs within the context of the peer ‘group and the broader social context in which it unfolds (Craig, 1993; Olweus. 1991, 1993). Observations of natu- rally occurring bullying interactions may provide insights, beyond those of self-report, validate some aspects of self- reports, and extend our understanding of behavior patterns ‘that may not be apparent through sell-reports. In this study, we examined bullying in the classroom by ‘observing children’s classroom interactions. Observations of naturally occurring bullying interactions with video cameras and remote microphones provide a research tool to gain access into a world not normally privy (© adults (Pepler & Craig, 1995). That observational research permi ment of individual characteristics of bullies and vietims, fea tures ofthe dyadic interaction between the bully and the: tim, and social ecological factors such as peer and teacher involvement and the structure of the environment in which bullying behavior occurs. Our use of naturalistic observations. allowed us to see bullying behavior in natural setting (for a more detailed review of the method see Pepler & Craig); external validity for the observations is relatively high (Our primary objective in the present study was to exam ine the prevalence and nature of bullying interactions in the classroom. A secondary objective of the present study was to describe the individual characteristics of children involved in bullying interactions, dyadic features of the interaction, and social ecological factors related to bullying within the classroom, Method (ur research is an extension of 2 naturalistic study on peer relations of aggressive and nonaggressive children November/December 1998 [Vol. 92(No. 2)] ‘observed on the playground and in the classroom. Survey and observational data were collected on teacher-identified aggressive, nonaggressive, and comparison children. The previous study focused on the frequency of prosocial and antisocial behavior patterns on the playground and in the Classroom to assess the effectiveness of a social skills train- ing program (Pepler, Craig, & Roberts, 1998; Roberts, Pep- ler, & Craig, 1998). In the present study, we focused specif- ieally on the nature of bullying and victimization within the classroom context. In addition, we coded bullying from the Videotaped observations of children’s interactions in the classroom, Participants Participants inthe present study included all children who were observed in bullying interactions on 28 hr of videotape of clastoom observations drawn from the previous study Participants comprised students from one public schoo! in metropolitan Toronto: they were from low- to middle income families and ethnically diverse backgrounds. “The focal children filmed in the previous peer relations study included 17 aggressive children (12 boys and 5 girls) aged 6-12 and 17 nonaggressive children who were nomi- nated by teachers and matched on age, gender, and ethnici- ty, Observations were filmed in eight classrooms—fve pri- mary classrooms (Grades 1-3) and thre junior classrooms (Grades 4-6), The average number of children per class room was 24 and ranged from 17 to 32. There were 190 children (98 boys and 92 girls) inthe eight classrooms in ch the focal children were filmed. Each focal child was filmed inthe classroom for Ib. The sample in the present study included all focal chil

    You might also like