Different Approaches to Address Bullying in KiVa Schools: Adherence to Guidelines, Strategies Implemented, and Outcomes
- PDF / 432,148 Bytes
- 12 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 89 Downloads / 153 Views
Different Approaches to Address Bullying in KiVa Schools: Adherence to Guidelines, Strategies Implemented, and Outcomes Obtained Eerika Johander 1
&
Tiina Turunen 1 & Claire F. Garandeau 1 & Christina Salmivalli 1,2
Accepted: 14 October 2020 # The Author(s) 2020
Abstract We examined the extent to which school personnel implementing the KiVa® antibullying program in Finland during 2009–2015 systematically employed the program-recommended approaches (confronting or non-confronting), used one or the other depending on the bullying case (case-specific approach), or used their own adaptation when talking to perpetrators of bullying, and whether they organized follow-up meetings after such discussions. In addition to investigating adherence to program guidelines, we tested how effective these different approaches were in stopping bullying. Finally, we tested the contribution of follow-up meetings and the number of years KiVa had been implemented in a school to the effectiveness of the interventions, using reports from both school personnel and victimized students. The data were collected annually across 6 years via online questionnaires and included responses from 1221 primary and secondary schools. The school personnel were more likely to use the confronting approach than the non-confronting approach. Over time, rather than sticking to the two program-recommended approaches, they made adaptations (e.g., combining the two; using their own approach). Two-level regression analyses indicated that the discussions were equally effective, according to both personnel and victimized students, when the confronting, non-confronting, or a case-specific approach had been used. The discussions were less effective when the personnel used their own adaptation or could not specify the method used. Perceived effectiveness was higher in primary school and when follow-up meetings were organized systematically after each intervention, but unrelated to the number of years KiVa had been implemented. Keywords KiVa antibullying program . Indicated actions . Bullying . Intervention . Long term . Implementation fidelity . Outcome . Confronting . Non-confronting . Follow-up
Over the past decades, growing awareness of the negative outcomes of school bullying (Reijntjes et al. 2010) has in many countries led to normative regulation, such as schools being required to have a policy, or an action plan against bullying (Salmivalli 2018). School personnel are thus faced with a demand to do something to address bullying. At the same time, numerous antibullying programs have been developed and evaluated in different parts of the world (Gaffney et al. 2019). Such programs often combine preventive actions (such as student lessons or improved supervision) with targeted interventions (i.e., procedures for intervening
* Eerika Johander [email protected] 1
INVEST Research Flagship, Department of Psychology and Speech-Language Pathology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
2
Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China
in actual bullying cases, such as discussi
Data Loading...
