Literature DB >> 16953962

Teachers' and pupils' definitions of bullying.

Paul Naylor1, Helen Cowie, Fabienne Cossin, Rita de Bettencourt, Francesca Lemme.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Comparison of teachers' and pupils' definitions of bullying is important for considering the implications for reports of its incidence in schools, for the study of developmental trends in children's and adolescents' perceptions of the phenomenon and for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions designed to combat bullying. AIMS: To investigate the effects of gender, teacher/pupil status and, for pupils, bullied/non-bullied (target/non-target) status and age on the definition of bullying. SAMPLES: Teachers (N=225: 158 women, 67 men) and pupils (N=1,820: 466 boys, 460 girls were 11-12 years old, year 7, and 415 boys, 479 girls were 13-14 years, year 9) in 51 UK secondary schools participated in a questionnaire survey. A total of 557 of the pupils (117 girls and 117 boys aged 11-12 years, and 197 girls and 126 boys aged 13-14 years) reported that they had been bullied at some time in their present school.
METHODS: Written questionnaire responses to the question, 'Say what you think bullying is' have been content analysed to derive two sets of categories, one of bullying behaviour and the other of effects of bullying on the target.
RESULTS: Regarding both bullying behaviour and the effects of bullying on the target, teachers - by comparison with pupils - have been found to express more comprehensive ideas in their definitions. Specifically, pupils compared with teachers are more likely to restrict their definitions to direct bullying (verbal and/or physical abuse) and are less likely to refer to social exclusion, a power imbalance in the bully's favour and the bully's intention to cause the target hurt or harm and to feel threatened. Analysis of definitions on the bases of sex, pupil age and target/non-target status show that: targets are more likely than non-targets are to refer to the bully's physically and verbally abusive behaviour, and for Year 7 compared with Year 9 pupils, to suggest that bullies socially exclude targets; girls are more likely than boys are to mention verbal abuse and the effects on the target of 'Feels hurt/harm', but boys are more likely than girls are to construe bullying as involving repetition; older pupils are more likely than younger ones are to refer to a power imbalance in the bully's favour but, for bully targets, younger ones compared with older ones are more likely to invoke the idea of social exclusion in their definitions.
CONCLUSIONS: The most important implication of the findings of this study that there are important differences between teachers' and pupils' definitions of bullying is that teachers need to listen carefully to what pupils have to say about bullying and work with and help them to develop their conceptions of the phenomenon. Some teachers, too, need to develop their conceptions of bullying.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16953962     DOI: 10.1348/000709905X52229

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Educ Psychol        ISSN: 0007-0998


  12 in total

1.  A peer victimisation scale based on a behavioural consequences measurement strategy.

Authors:  Jiyang Han; Jing Xia; Qiang He; Yun Shao; Yuhua Zhan; Guo Liu; Xumei Wang
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 1.858

2.  Improving the School Context of Early Adolescence through Teacher Attunement to Victimization: Effects on School Belonging.

Authors:  Kate E Norwalk; Jill V Hamm; Thomas W Farmer; Kathryn Barnes
Journal:  J Early Adolesc       Date:  2015-06-15

3.  Traditional versus internet bullying in junior high school students.

Authors:  Rosa Gofin; Malka Avitzour
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2012-11

4.  Profiles of internalizing and externalizing symptoms associated with bullying victimization.

Authors:  Meridith Eastman; Vangie Foshee; Susan Ennett; Daniela Sotres-Alvarez; H Luz McNaughton Reyes; Robert Faris; Kari North
Journal:  J Adolesc       Date:  2018-03-21

5.  Victimization and bullying among 8-year-old Finnish children: a 10-year comparison of rates.

Authors:  Päivi Santalahti; Andre Sourander; Minna Aromaa; Hans Helenius; Kaija Ikäheimo; Jorma Piha
Journal:  Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry       Date:  2008-04-09       Impact factor: 4.785

6.  Parenting style influences bullying: a longitudinal study comparing children with and without behavioral problems.

Authors:  Khushmand Rajendran; Edyta Kruszewski; Jeffrey M Halperin
Journal:  J Child Psychol Psychiatry       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 8.982

7.  Cross-informant agreement about bullying and victimization among eight-year-olds: whose information best predicts psychiatric caseness 10-15 years later?

Authors:  John A Rønning; Andre Sourander; Kirsti Kumpulainen; Tuula Tamminen; Solja Niemelä; Irma Moilanen; Hans Helenius; Jorma Piha; Fredrik Almqvist
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  2008-07-05       Impact factor: 4.328

8.  The Role of School Context in Implementing a Statewide Anti-Bullying Policy and Protecting Students.

Authors:  William J Hall; Mimi V Chapman
Journal:  Educ Policy (Los Altos Calif)       Date:  2016-03-18

9.  Understanding and defining bullying - adolescents' own views.

Authors:  Louise Persson; Curt Hagquist; Lisa Hellström
Journal:  Arch Public Health       Date:  2015-02-02

10.  Depressive Symptoms Prospectively Predict Peer Victimization: A Longitudinal Study Among Adolescent Females.

Authors:  Danielle M Morabito; Kreshnik Burani; Greg Hajcak
Journal:  Child Psychiatry Hum Dev       Date:  2021-01-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.