{"id":2109,"date":"2015-03-10T20:12:58","date_gmt":"2015-03-10T12:12:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.appliedpsyj.org\/journal\/?p=2109"},"modified":"2015-03-11T16:51:55","modified_gmt":"2015-03-11T08:51:55","slug":"identification-evaluation-and-intervention-of-bullying-behaviors-in-secondary-and-elementary-school-teachers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.appliedpsyj.org.tw\/journal\/?p=2109","title":{"rendered":"Identification, Evaluation, and Intervention of Bullying Behaviors in Secondary and Elementary School Teachers"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jane Chiu<\/strong>
\nDepartment of Educational Psychology & Counseling National Pingtung University of Education
\nLi-Ly Chang<\/strong>
\nDepartment of Educational Psychology & Counseling National Pingtung University of Education<\/p>\n

Despite the recent surge of attention directed at bullying behaviors and the fact that accurate identification of bullying behaviors is the key to bullying prevention and intervention, little research has been done on teachers\u2019 identification of bullying behaviors and its relationship to follow-up evaluation and intervention. The aims of this study were: (1) to investigate teachers\u2019 identification of bully and non-bullying behaviors and its related factors (i.e., behavior and situation characteristics, and teachers\u2019 backgrounds); (2) to investigate teachers\u2019 evaluation on severity and likelihood of intervention, and its related factors (i.e., bullying identification, behavior and situation characteristics, and teachers\u2019 backgrounds); and (3) to explore teachers\u2019 perceptions of bullying intervention. The sample consisted of 175 elementary and secondary teachers selected from 18 schools using a purposive sampling method. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used. The \u201cBullying Situations Identification Instrument\u201d (Hazler, Miller, Carney, & Green, 2001) was employed to collect quantitative data, and a semi-structure interview was conducted to gather qualitative data. The results indicated that (1) teachers had difficulties in distinguishing bullying behaviors from non-bullying behaviors; (2) the characteristics of a given behavior and a given situation, the traits of victim, teachers\u2019 seniority\/age, teachers\u2019 undergoing bullying prevention training, and the relationship between bully and victim were all correlated with the teachers\u2019 identification of bullying and non-bullying behaviors; (3) teachers\u2019 evaluation of the severity of bullying and non-bullying behaviors were lower than their evaluation of the likelihood of intervention; (4) the teacher\u2019s gender, status (teachers vs. administrators), school level (elementary vs. secondary), seniority\/age, and teachers\u2019 undergoing bullying prevention training were all correlated with the teacher\u2019s evaluation on severity and likelihood of intervention; (5) when intervening in bullying situations, teachers usually dealt with the problems on a one-shot basis and were unable to design an intervention program or curriculum from a more comprehensive and holistic perspective.<\/p>\n

Keywords: bullying, bullying identification, bullying severity, bullying intervention<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jane Chiu Department of Educational Psychology & Co …<\/span> Read More →<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[143],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2109","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-143"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t