University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The relationship between school factors and the prevalence of bullying amongst middle school students

(USC Thesis Other)

The relationship between school factors and the prevalence of bullying amongst middle school students

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 1
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL FACTORS AND THE PREVALENCE OF
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS

by

Stephen Jun Yoon

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2015

Copyright 2015 Stephen Jun Yoon

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 2

Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the following people. First, I would like to
thank my chair, Dr. Ruth Chung. Your guidance, feedback, and patience navigated me along the
way, step by step, especially when I hit those obstacles. I never thought I’d say this but you were
right when you said that “statistics can be fun”. You provided insight to this numbers game
called statistics and helped me to see the powerful implications of data analysis. I would also like
to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Mary Andres, Dr. Ginger Clark, and Dr.
Rocke DeMark for your time, feedback, and support.
I would like to thank Dr. Gabriela Mafi, Kelly McAmis, Dr. Eimi Garcia, Dr. Lorena
Sanchez, Connie Van Luit, Dr. Lila Jenkins, Christine Pflughoft, and Tracy Conway for your
continuous support throughout the writing process. You opened doors, helped me to make
connections to the wonderful staff at WestED, understood my timelines and deadlines, and made
accommodations for me to complete the dissertation. Thank you for allowing me to contribute to
your efforts to support high academic achievement and to create a safe learning environment for
students.
Lastly, I want to say thank you to my family. To my parents, Paul and Esther Yoon, who
continuously nagged me to finish the Ed.D. program. Yes mom and dad, I know 7 years is a long
time. To my children, Olive (5) and Katelyn (3) Yoon, for patiently waiting to play outside as
daddy finished one more paragraph. I can still hear their voices asking me if I’m working on
chapter 3 or chapter 4, and then telling me that the sun is going down. And to my wonderful wife
and soulmate, Lailah Yoon, for your continuous support and sacrifice. You were a single parent
for many a nights. You were right there with me from day 1, sharing with me in both anguish
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 3

and triumph. I absolutely could not have finished the program without you. I absolutely would
not have entered the program without you! I love you!

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 4

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2

List of Tables 6

Abstract 7

Chapter One: Introduction 8

Statement of the Problem 9

From Bullying to Cyber Bullying 10

Background of the Problem 11

Definition of Bullying 11

Types of Bullying 12

Factors Contributing to Bullying 12

Whole School Approach – A Response to Bullying 13

Theoretical Framework 15

Theory Overview 15

Social Ecological Systems Theory 15

Microsystems 17

Mesosystem 18

Exosystem 19

Macrosystem 19

Chronosystem 20

Four Frames Theory 20

Structural Frame 21

Importance of the Study 24

Chapter Two: Review of Literature 26

Introduction 26

Anti-Bullying Policies 29

A Whole-School Policy 30

Elements of Anti-Bullying Policies 30

Anti-Bullying Programs and Curriculum 32

School Involvement 33

Benefits of school involvement 34

Perceptions of School Safety 35

Summary of Literature Review 36

Purpose of the Study 38

Research Questions and Hypotheses 38

Chapter Three: Methodology 40

Introduction 40

Demographic Data 40

District Information 40

Participants in the Study 42

7
th
grade students 42

Instrument 43

California Healthy Kids Survey 43

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 5

CHKS measures 45

Reliability and Validity Indicators 47

Procedure 48

Data Analysis 49

Chapter Four: Results 51

Basis for Bullying 51

Analysis of Research Questions 53

Research Question 1 53

Research Question 2 53

Research Question 3 55

Research Question 4 57

Chapter Five: Discussion 60

Discussion of Main Findings 60

Relationship between demographic groups (i.e. sex, race) and their perceptions of
school safety. 60

Relationship between demographic groups (i.e. sex, race) and the prevalence of
physical, social, and cyber bullying. 61

Relationship between student connectedness, student-teacher relationships, student
involvement and school safety. 61

Relationship between student connectedness, student-teacher relationships, student
involvement and physical, social, and cyber bullying. 63

Implications 64

Limitations of the Study 66

Recommendations for Future Studies 68

Conclusion 69

References 71

Appendix A: Informed Consent Form 79

Appendix B: California Healthy Kids Survey 81

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 6

List of Tables
Table 1: Student Demographics 42

Table 2: Basis for Bullying and Frequency 51

Table 3: Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables 52

Table 4: Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Gender and Physical, Social, and Cyber
Bullying 54

Table 5: Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Race and Physical, Social, and Cyber
Bullying 55

Table 6: Summary of Student Connectedness, Student-Teacher Relationship, and Student
Involvement with Perceptions of School Safety 56

Table 7: Summary of Student Connectedness, Student-Teacher Relationship, and Student
Involvement with Physical Bullying 57

Table 8: Summary of Student Connectedness, Student-Teacher Relationship, and Student
Involvement with Social Bullying 58

Table 9: Summary of Student Connectedness, Student-Teacher Relationship, and Student
Involvement with Cyber Bullying 59

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 7

Abstract
The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the relationship of school factors
such as student connectedness, student-teacher relationships, and school involvement in relation
to the prevalence of bullying and perceptions of school safety amongst middle school students.
Participants included 3,219 7
th
grade students who completed the California Healthy Kids Survey
(CHKS) which measures resiliency, protective factors, and risk behaviors in students. The CHKS
is a statewide survey designed to help schools meet the directives and goals mandated for
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Hanson & Kim, 2007).
Findings indicated that male students reported higher perceptions of school safety than
female students. Although male students reported a higher prevalence of physical bullying,
female students reported a higher prevalence of social and cyber bullying. Student connectedness,
student-teacher relationship, and student involvement were important variables in predicting
perceptions of school safety. Student connectedness was also an important variable in predicting
physical, social, and cyber bullying. Student-teacher relationship was a predictor of social
bullying. Student involvement was a predictor of cyber bullying. The results of this study
provide direction for a whole school approach to create a positive school climate that addresses
school safety and bullying.

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 8

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The issue of bullying amongst school children has gained heightened attention both
internationally and in the United States in the past several decades (Carrera, DePalma, &
Lameiras, 2011). Since the late 1980’s and the 1990’s, countries including Japan, Great Britain,
Netherlands, Canada, Australia, and the United States increased the amount of research on the
topic because of the impact of bullying amongst school aged children (Olweus & Limber, 2010).
According to a survey conducted by Dan Olweus (2010), the leading researcher on bullying, 9%
of school aged children were identified as victims and 7% as bullies in a survey of over 130,000
Norwegian students. In the United States, 10.6% were identified as victims and 13% as bullies in
a survey of 15,000 middle school children. A recent study in Germany identified 17.4% of
students as victims and 10% as bullies (Richard, Schneider, & Mallet, 2011).
Although bullying is not a recent phenomenon, widespread concern due to recent events
captured through the media brought scrutiny to the long history of school bullying (Olweus &
Limber, 2010; Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2010). With increasing frequency,
newspaper articles have headlined school violence and teen suicide as a result of bullying, social
aggression, and cyber bullying (Yerger & Gehret, 2011). Bullying has been recognized globally,
as a serious and often neglected problem in schools that educators, parents, and politicians
currently face (Hopkins, Taylor, Bowen, & Wood, 2013).
More specifically, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that bullying rates
peak at grades 6
th
through 8
th
with approximately 40% of middle school students involved in
some form of bullying, as victim, bully, or as both the bully and victim at least once per week
(Domino, 2013). Based on national statistics, middle school bullying requires both immediate
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 9

attention and solutions because it represents the highest prevalence of physical bullying amongst
boys, relational bullying amongst girls, and the beginnings of cyber bullying for both gender.
Risk factors related to bullying and victimization
Bullying presents a significant problem affecting youth in American schools because it
has been associated with a number of risk factors affecting academic achievement, prosocial
skills, and psychological well-being (Domino, 2013; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). Bullying
has been linked to anger, aggression, violence, hyperactivity, and externalizing problems
contributing to delinquency, criminality, or other self-destructive patterns (Berger, 2007).
Victimization by peers has been linked to illnesses, school avoidance, isolation, poor academic
performance, mental health problems, increased fear and anxiety, suicidal ideations, elevated
levels of depression, and low self-esteem (Swearer, Espelage, Villancourt, & Hymel, 2010). For
both victims and perpetrators, these risk factors persist into adulthood.
Bullying has also been linked with fatal acts of aggression and school violence. Recent
examples include Columbine where two boys killed fifteen people, Santee where one boy killed
two and wounded thirteen, and Red Lake where one boy killed ten including himself. In all three
incidents, bullying victimization had been identified as a common factor among school shooters
(Olweus & Limber, 2010; Greif & Furlong, 2008). A study by the United States Secret Service
analyzed school shootings and found that 71% of shooters had been victims of bullying (Berger,
2007).
Statement of the Problem
Although bullying can occur anywhere, schools, particularly middle schools, provide an
optimal context to study this issue because it is the only setting where it involves participation
from nearly every adolescent (Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008). As middle school
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 10

students experience sudden changes biologically, developmentally, and socially, the frequency
and intensity of bullying often peaks during this time period (Li, 2007). The psycho-social
turbulence that adolescents experience during the middle school years provides the perfect
setting for educators to monitor the prevalence of bullying, implement whole school policies and
programs, and evaluate the effectiveness of these programs (Merrel et al., 2008).
Studies indicate both the short and long term risk factors that children experience from
bullying. These risk factors have lasting effects that carry into adulthood. According to Olweus
and Limber (2010) students who bully others are at considerable risk of engaging in troubling,
antisocial, and violent behavior. Students who are victimized are at risk of internalizing disorders
such as depression, anxiety, and poor self-esteem (Griffin & Gross, 2003; Farrington & Ttofi,
2009). The work of creating an anti-bullying school climate is primarily for the benefit of the
victim. However, just as importantly, it takes into consideration the sake of those who bully
others (Olweus & Limber, 2010).
From Bullying to Cyber Bullying
Although the field of research regarding traditional bullying is growing, the prevalence of
cyber bullying and its impact on middle school students is relatively new and inconclusive
(Tokunaga, 2010; Mishna, Cook, Gadalla, Daciuk, & Solomon, 2010). Unlike traditional
bullying, cyber bullying expands the dimensions of bullying because it is no longer limited to
schools and can occur regardless of time and location (Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Kowalski &
Limber, 2007). One study showed that 97% of adolescents spend on average of 2-4 hours on-line
each day, engaging primarily in social interactions (Mishna et. al., 2010). Although most used
technology responsibly, as high as one-third of students used it carelessly and inappropriately to
hurt, embarrass, or personally attack others (Bostic & Brunt, 2011; Sabella, Patchin, & Hinduja,
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 11

2013). Coupling the developmental level of middle school students and their access to
technology and social media, adolescents today have the ability to bully others in a manner that
has not been seen in prior generations.
Cyber bullying poses several dilemmas for school administrators because few are aware
that students are being harassed electronically. When school administrators are made aware,
authority issues may arise regarding justification to impose formal discipline (Li, 2007; Willard,
2007). To date, the majority of cyber bullying research has been conducted on small
homogenous samples (Mishna et al., 2010). Although inconclusive, studies indicate that girls
may be overrepresented as both victims and perpetrators of cyber bullying which resemble
findings that girls engage more with indirect types of social aggression (Kowalski & Limber,
2007).
Background of the Problem
Definition of Bullying
One of the earliest and largest, full scale study on school bullying was conducted by
Norwegian researcher, Dan Olweus in 1983. According to Olweus (1993), “a student is being
bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly, and over time, to negative actions on
the part of one of more other students.” Although definitions of bullying vary from one
researcher to the next, there is general agreement on several elements that define this term. The
first element is intent. It involves a physical, verbal, or psychological attack or intimidation that
is intended to cause fear, distress, or harm to the victim (Olweus, 1993; Tattum, 1989; Guerin &
Hennessy, 2002). The second element involves an imbalance of power such as a more powerful
child or children oppressing less powerful ones (Smith & Sharp, 1994; Guerin & Hennessy,
2002). The third element involves repetition with repeated incidents between the same children
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 12

over a prolonged period (Olweus & Limber, 2010; Farrington & Ttofi, 2009; Casas, Del Rey, &
Ortega-Ruiz, 2013). Based on a review of current literature, bullying can be defined as repeated
negative acts of aggression, intimidation, or coercion over time by one or more youths, with the
intent to harm the victim who is weaker physically, emotionally, socially, or psychologically,
making it difficult to defend himself or herself (Domino, 2013; Olweus & Limber, 2010; Greif &
Furlong, 2006; Merrell et al., 2008; Government Accountability Office, 2012).
Types of Bullying
According to the Government Accountability Report on School Bullying (2012), bullying
takes on a variety of forms such as direct or physical harm, verbal comments, social aggression,
and cyber bullying. Direct or physical aggression includes hitting, kicking, and shoving. Verbal
comments include name calling, making threats, and taunting. Indirect, relational, or social
aggression involves isolating victims from their peers or spreading rumors (Hampel, Manhal, &
Hayer, 2009). As students have increasing access to electronic devices, social media, and the
Internet, cyber bullying is emerging as the newest form of bullying (Wang et al., 2009). Cyber
bullying is defined as willful and repeated harm inflicted toward others using technology such as
text messages and the Internet to transmit harmful pictures and messages to threaten, embarrass,
or socially exclude (Mishna et al., 2010).
Factors Contributing to Bullying
School setting plays an integral part in understanding bullying. As students move from
elementary to secondary school settings, particularly middle school, a drastic difference occurs in
the level of adult supervision on campus (Swearer et al., 2010). Secondary schools often times
involve potentially larger campus size, increased student body, fewer connections with adults,
and various unstructured time segments such as break and passing periods. For many students,
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 13

less structure and supervision correlates with increased rates of bullying. For example, 20% of
middle school students often reported feeling unsafe in areas such as restrooms, playgrounds,
hallways, and lunchrooms for fear of being bullied (Hazler, Hoover, & Oliver, 1992).
Another factor in understanding school bullying involves both individual and peer
behavior. Students tend to look to other students for cues on responding to bullying, especially
because bullying is often seen as a group process (Hong & Espelage, 2012). Students who
condone the use of aggression are likely to be more aggressive and normalize aggression as
appropriate and acceptable behavior (Hunt, 2007). Aggressive students also affiliate with other
students who are aggressive and involved in bullying behavior (Espelage, Green, & Wasserman,
2007). According to one observational study, peer group members were involved in 85% of
bullying episodes either by drawing attention or joining in the aggression (Swearer et al., 2010).
By providing an audience, peer group members prolonged acts of bullying by laughing, watching,
and drawing attention to the event.
Bullying when it occurs in the presence of peers, becomes rather complex as it involves a
group process including the victim and the bully, along with bystanders. Bystanders can play a
variety of roles by staying neutral, assisting or encouraging the bully as a peer group member, or
standing up and supporting the victim (Barry et al., 2011). More often than not, bystanders
exacerbate rather than help the situation by supporting the behavior. In addition to student
responses, how adults intervene in such matters also impacts the group process. Adults can
intervene and address bullying or can ignore it when it occurs.
Whole School Approach – A Response to Bullying
Public concern regarding bullying in American schools spurred on legislative policies at
the local, state, and federal levels. The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) on American education
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 14

and accountability specifically identified school safety and acts of aggressive behavior as
benchmarking objectives for data collection and reporting (Merrell, et al., 2008). School districts
have responded by implementing anti-bullying policies and intervention programs to combat the
different types of bullying.
Schools are of particular interest for research and intervention because bullying during
the middle school years is considered to be one of the most serious and pervasive forms of
violence (Crothers & Levinson, 2004; Englander, 2012). Rather than targeting individual bullies
and victims, a whole school approach addresses the group process of bullying in a more
systematic fashion. A whole school approach entails anti-bullying policies, programs, and
curriculum such as professional development for teachers and staff, effective school policies to
foster school norms against bullying, parent education classes, and proactive school leadership
(Bostic & Brunt, 2011). School-wide curricular interventions provide an educational component
that seeks to increase awareness and change attitudes regarding the negative impact of bullying,
therefore decreasing incidents of bullying (Hunt, 2007). Anti-bullying policies determine the
procedures for reporting and responding to bullying incidents, a forum for parents, students, and
staff to share feedback regarding ways to improve the school climate, and committees to assess
the school’s progress (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Many middle schools have created extracurricular activities such as clubs and student
groups on campus to increase school engagement and connectedness, as well as to create a safe
school climate (Mehta, Cornell, Fan, & Gregory, 2013). Studies have shown that students with
an increased sense of school connectedness had lower levels of negative outcomes such as
bullying and social aggression. Students with lower sense of connectedness were significantly
more likely to be victims of bullying or involved in bullying (Hong & Espelage, 2012).
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 15

Theoretical Framework
Theory Overview
School culture includes organizational, instructional, and interpersonal dimensions. Urie
Bronfenbrenner’s Social Ecology Systems theory and Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s Four
Frames theory provide the lens to understanding bullying within the school setting. A positive
school culture that integrates academic achievement, mutual respect for one another, safety and
belonging, and shared norms and expectations functions as an important predictor for student
development and success (Leonard, 2011).
School culture, especially within the middle school context, consists of peer relationships
and its relationship to the school environment (Hong & Espelage, 2012). Developmentally,
adolescents turn to peer support and move toward autonomy away from their parents or
guardians. School environment plays an important role in shaping student beliefs and values
about bullying and safety. Factors such as rules and policies, anti-bullying and pro-social skills
programs, and the roles adults play as models in providing campus supervision and in responding
to bullying contribute to a safe learning environment (Bolman & Deal; Hong & Espelage, 2012).
Culture is then created within systems such as peer relationships and school environment and
reflected through the relationship between these systems.
Social Ecological Systems Theory
An ecological framework encompasses student interactions and transactions with their
family, school and community. Therefore student behavior can be understood within the
ecological framework (Hong, Cho, Allen-Mearers, & Espelage, 2011). According to Urie
Bronfenbrenner (1994), a developmental psychologist who established the ecological systems
theory, individuals are fixed in a multilayer and interconnected system that both directly and
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 16

indirectly influences the individual. Bullies and bullying victims all reside together in this
complex and interrelated system. They start from the center at the micro- level and move to
meso-, exo-, macro- and chronosystem levels. Adolescents who are engaged in school bullying
not only experience problems at school but throughout the various systems including family,
peer groups, and community (Hong & Espelage, 2012).
Brofenbrenner (1979) theorized that a developing individual is embedded by layers of
relationships, much like a matryoshka doll, also known as a Russian nesting doll. A matryoshka
doll is a set of wooden dolls of decreasing sizes that are placed inside the other. In
Brofenbrenner’s theory, the smallest doll or the innermost circle is called the microsystem. The
microsystem is the most personal system for the individual. The individual child has daily face to
face interactions with members of the microsystem. It includes relationships with significant
people like parents, friends and teachers. The developing child is also laterally connected in
cross-relationships between these settings called the mesosystem. Beyond this is the exosystem
which includes individuals who indirectly occupy the child’s development such as employers of
the child’s parents. Outside this system is the macrosystem which entails current cultural and
economic circumstances. The chronosystem encompasses all of the various levels of
relationships and life events and changes.
Students with a more precise understanding of the world around them are those who
develop properly through the various systems. This will be manifested in students’ grades, test
scores, and positive social interactions which all lead to positive futures such as promotion and
higher graduation rates (Leonard, 2011).

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 17

Microsystems
Microsystems include people and groups of people whom the developing child most
closely interacts with on a daily basis. It is within this system that has the most immediate and
significant influence on student development and bullying (Hong & Eamon, 2009; Hong &
Espelage, 2012). In the microsystem, the child is being constantly influenced and shaped by the
interactions with its members (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Specifically, three types of interactions
relevant to bullying at the middle school level are peer relationships, school connectedness, and
the school environment.
Peer relationships. Friendships and peer support are paramount in the lives of
adolescents. As children mature into adolescence, they strive for autonomy from their caregivers
and turn to their friends and peers for social support. Therefore, peer relationships significantly
affect victimization and perpetration of bullying. Negative peer relationships and lack of peer
support pose significant risk for bullying behavior (Hong & Espelage, 2012). Being rejected by
peers can lead to being a victim or demonstrating aggressive behavior. However, positive peer
relationships reduce the chances of being bullied and being the bully. The probability of being
bullied significantly decreases for teens with more friends and involved in strong social networks
(Hong & Eamon, 2009).
Peer group affiliation plays a significant role in encouraging or hindering bullying
behavior during adolescence. Teens that socialize with peers who bully others are more prone to
participate in the bullying behavior. Teens want to fit in and want to have a positive social
identity. When bullying behavior is advocated as the group norm, bullying prevails and increases
in frequency.
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 18

School connectedness. A myriad of studies establish that a student’s sense of school
connectedness reduces the risk of negative results. Students that were engaged in bullying and
peer victimization experienced less school connectedness. Connections to conventional, rule
conforming students and school officials support students to abstain from delinquent and
antisocial behaviors. Conversely, students who feel disengaged from these support systems are
more apt to be involved in school misconduct such as bullying and peer aggression (Hong &
Espelage, 2012).
Mesosystem
The mesosystem is made up of the interrelationships between two or more microsystems
(Bronfenbrenner, 1994). One such interrelationship is between student-teacher and student-
student relationships. Students regularly interact with teachers making these relationships an
essential component in contributing to the school culture. Due to their considerable role in the
school culture, teachers and school personnel can influence students’ relationships with their
peers as well as their perceptions of the school environment (Hong & Espelage, 2012).
Teachers may observe peer victimization directly in the classroom or on the school
campus during the school year. They play a vital role in helping students form healthy peer
relationships. However, many teachers are ill equipped to effectively handle peer relationship
problems and respond in a variety of ways ranging from an informal reprimand to indifference.
Teachers need to be supported by the school and informed of appropriate classroom management
strategies to help them become more active in preventing and intervening in peer victimization
(Hong & Eamon, 2009). The school to family relationship can also impact student to student
relationships. Parent and school collaboration can greatly alleviate or even prevent peer
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 19

victimization as well as the physical and psychological damage it can have on students (Barboza,
Schiamberg, Oehmke, Korzeniewski, Post, & Heraux, 2009).
Exosystem
The exosystem involves the environment outside of the immediate system encompassing
the student. These are things that do not directly involve the student but influences student
development. For example, if parents work long hours, this can influence the student’s behavior
by limiting their time to supervise their children, to develop attachments, and to positively
interact with their children. Studies have found that a lack of parental attachment and supervision
are associated with peer aggression in school (Hong & Eamon, 2009).
Though the exosystem is more proximal in context and does not directly include the
student, it can have significant impact on the student. Another example is with school policies
that impact the school’s climate and influence teacher and student behaviors. School policies that
include specific staff training on bullying and a student culture of discouraging peer
victimization, demonstrate how the exosystem level significantly affects individual students.
Macrosystem
The broadest level of influence on students is the macrosystem. Organizational, social,
cultural, and political contexts exist within this system (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). One such context
is a school’s culture. Another context that exists in the macrosystem are federal and state
legislation that affect school policy about bullying. In 2001, Congress passed the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. Title IV of the act specifically addresses the problem of violence in
schools. After the passage of the act, the majority of states have included bullying prohibition
and intervention into state legislation (Yeger & Gehret, 2011). There has been an implementation
of ‘zero-tolerance and anti-bullying policies’ throughout school districts across the nation. 44
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 20

states have passed legislation that requires schools to implement anti-bullying programs and
policies (Hong et. al., 2011).
Chronosystem
The chronosystem is the final system in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework. It
includes historical or economic events that remain consistent or changes over a life time. For
example a life change in a family such as a death or divorce can lead to negative results for
students.
Unlike in past generations, bullies today are actually popular, socially accepted, and
successful in school. Especially with the evolution of the digital age, bullying has advanced with
technology. A new mode of bullying and cyber bullying has been initiated. The Internet was
once used as a convenience and addition to daily life, a concept known as cyber utilization. With
a recent generational shift, the Internet has now become the primary mode of communication,
commerce, relationships, and recreation, a concept known as cyber immersion (Englander, 2012).
The number of 12- to 17- year old students who use the Internet has revolutionarily increased.
With the generational shift, there lacks adult knowledge and supervision online which lead to
optimal grounds for bullying (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). Whereas in past generations, bullying
was transparent and took more effort. With access to new technology, cyber bullying can occur
secretly, spreads exponentially, and can be saved for infinity (Li, 2005).
Four Frames Theory
The Four Frames theory developed by Lee Bolman and Terrance Deal (2003) is a
leadership framework which explores the foundations and symptoms of cluelessness in
organizations. “Reframing” means understanding through various perspectives and to think
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 21

about the same issue in multiple ways. Learning through various frames prevents being clueless.
Frames help navigate and work as tools for problem solving and execution.
The four frames have roots in managerial practice and can be used by school principals to
improve their performance. The structural frame concentrates on the architecture or design of the
organization. The human resources frame focuses on people and understanding their strengths,
weaknesses, and emotions. The political frame considers the organization as a competitive
playing field with limited resources, opposing interests, and power struggles for advancement.
The symbolic frame centers on matters of meaning and faith. Culture is placed as central in the
organization. Reframing is a powerful tool for producing new options and discovering effective
strategies.
Structural Frame
Schools and school districts operate in a manner similar to large businesses or
organizations. People work collectively toward a similar goal to generate a high quality product.
Likewise, educators work to provide a good education to students within a safe, learning
atmosphere. Unfortunately, schools and districts can also resemble dysfunctional organizations
through failures such as unsafe conditions, poor quality products, and low customer satisfaction
ratings. Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal (2003) provide the Four Frames theoretical framework
that analyzes organizations from Structural, Political, Symbolic, and Human Resources
perspectives. The Structural Frame is of particular interest because it emphasizes concepts such
as rules and policies, standard operating procedures, roles and responsibilities, goals and
objectives, and networks, all of which resonate with the school environment and how bullying is
or can be addressed.
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 22

Schools can address peer victimization utilizing the structural framework. A principal’s
action can be connected to systematic procedures, plans, and schedules. Supervision and
evaluation can be formally arranged to minimize problems and maximize performance. The
structural frame purports that a pattern of well thought out roles and relationships will also
produce an effective organization. Any problems and deficiencies can be corrected through
analysis and restructuring (Wasserstein-Warnet & Klein, 2000).
Authority. The most effective way of integrating all of the various individuals in the
organization is to designate a boss with formal authority. Principals and Assistant Principals as
bosses are responsible for keeping activities aligned with the goals of the school. They make
decisions, resolve conflict, solve problems, evaluate performance, and give feedback
(Wasserstein-Warnet & Klein, 2000).
Roles and responsibilities. There also needs to be a clear understanding of structure and
individual responsibilities of the organization. In an effective organization, every individual
knows who is most suitable for a task, what additional skills need to be developed, and how they
can come together to carry out diverse tasks. This provides a concrete framework for how people
work together in the organization (Wasserstein-Warnet & Klein, 2000).
Rules, policies, and standard operating procedures. Rules, policies, and standard
operating procedures ensure predictability and consistency. Rules lay out standard processes for
various tasks. This guarantees that similar situations are handled with consistency and not
subjectively (Perrow, 1986). Thus the rule sets a clear course of action that becomes automatic
(Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Standard operating procedures (SOP) give a comprehensive description of how a policy
is to be enacted. An effective SOP communicates who will perform the task, what materials are
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 23

needed, where and when the task will be performed, and how the task will be executed. SOP
decreases inconsistencies and discrepancies allowing for greater consistency. All this allows SOP
to provide direction and structure to train and correct.
Structural deficiencies. Using the lens of the Structural Frame, the issue of bullying can
be addressed through structural mechanisms such as vertical and lateral coordination, strategies
and goals, structural configurations, and teamwork and interdependence (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
However, when organizational problems such as bullying continue to arise, this can be attributed
to structural deficiencies and the solution may lie in restructuring the organization.
Gap versus overlap is one example of a structural dilemma. In the case of bullying, both
gap and overlap represent structural dilemmas because students either don’t report bullying to an
adult or feel a sense of frustration when they do report. When students experience bullying,
approximately 25-30% never report it to a school official (Eliot, Cornell, Gregory, & Fan, 2010).
Students are reluctant to report because they feel that teachers are either unconcerned or tolerant
of bullying behavior. Conversely, when victims report bullying, an overlap may occur if they are
referred from one school official to the next. Frustration grows as students perceive that their
incident with bullying is passed along rather than addressed. A policy and procedure gap exists
when goals, roles, and responsibilities are not clearly defined for teachers and administrators in
handling bullying, resulting in fewer reports despite its prevalence on campus.
Bronfenbrenner’s Social Ecological theory is a perfect complement to the gap dilemma.
At the microsystem level, staff members can play an important supportive role to both bullies
and victims by addressing the behavior. However, unless bullying is reported, adults on campus
may not know the extent of the problem and who is being directly affected. When staff members
take a vested interest in the lives of their students, trust is developed allowing for open
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 24

communication (Hong & Espelage, 2012). The quality of student to staff relationships also
impacts whether students report bullying at the mesosystem level. When students experience
positive interactions with adults on campus, they may be more apt to encourage their friends who
have been victimized to report bullying. Schools that encourage parent participation, value parent
feedback, and provide opportunities for involvement create a network of support to promote
prosocial behavior, increase safety perceptions, and reduce the prevalence of bullying (Lee &
Song, 2012; Leonard, 2011).
Importance of the Study
There are many types of adolescent bullying such as physical, verbal, relational or social,
and cyber bullying (Richard et al., 2011). Physical and verbal bullying are considered direct
types of bullying because there are clear evidences of aggressive behavior by the perpetrator.
Relational and social aggression such as social exclusion and spreading rumors, are considered
indirect types of bullying because the behavior is much more subtle and the perpetrator is not so
obvious. The prevalence of school bullying at the middle school level was as high as 40%, where
students were involved as the victim, bully, or both bully and victim (Domino, 2013). The
prevalence of cyber bullying for middle school students in the southwestern and northwestern
United States was 22% with 4% as bullies, 11% as victims, and 7% as both (Wang et al., 2009).
There are a number of risk factors for both victims and perpetrators. Students who are
victims of bullying often experience anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, social isolation,
psychosomatic problems, and suicidal ideations (Olweus & Limber, 2010). Some responded to
bullying through violent means either by taking their own lives or taking the lives of others
through school shootings. Students who perpetrate bullying on others have difficulty making
prosocial choices. Maladaptive social skills often led to substance abuse, criminality, and violent
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 25

behavior (Crothers & Levinson, 2004). For both victims and bullies, these risk factors carried
into adulthood.
Bullying has been increasingly recognized as a group process that involves bystanders
and accomplices in addition to the bully and victim (Richard et al., 2011). In addition to
addressing the issue on an individual level, bullying should be addressed systematically,
requiring a whole school approach involving parents, school staff, and the entire student body.
School factors such as anti-bullying programs, curriculum, and campus involvement impact the
school climate and can be utilized to address and reduce bullying (Domino, 2013).
Schools that maintain a positive climate work to decrease the prevalence of bullying,
increase student perceptions regarding school safety, and aim to keep students in school.
With the prevalence of bullying at the middle school level, this study is important because it
examines the role school factors play in the presence of bullying and perceptions of school safety.
Therefore, the purpose of the study is to examine the relationship of school factors such as
student connectedness, student-teacher relationships, and school involvement in relation to the
prevalence of bullying and perceptions of school safety amongst middle school students.

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 26

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
The purpose of the study is to examine the role of school factors such as student
involvement, student-teacher relationships, and school connectedness in the prevalence of
bullying. The study also examines the relationship between bullying and perceptions of school
safety amongst middle school students. The middle school setting is of particular interest because
of the high prevalence rate of bullying that takes place during this developmental period.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, nearly 40% of middle school students
play the role as bully, victim, or bully/victim (Domino, 2013).
The onset of cyber bullying during this developmental time period creates additional
complexities for school officials when addressing the issue of bullying. Students have at their
disposal, the ability to take pictures of unsuspecting victims in the restroom or locker room with
their cell phone, upload it on a social media site, and receive hundreds of comments or “likes”
within a matter of minutes. Approximately 24% of students reported that they had been cyber
bullied and 17% admitted to cyber bullying behaviors (Hinduja & Patchin, 2012). Alarmingly,
less than 5% of victims ever report cyber bullying to a school teacher or administrator (Bostic &
Brunt, 2011).
The following chapter examines bullying, social aggression, and cyber bullying within
the social ecological model developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner and the structural frame model
developed by Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal. The presence and prevalence of bullying can be
best described using the social ecological model as it explains the intricate interactions between
individuals and social networks. The structural framework, when coupled with the social
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 27

ecological model, helps to explain how a school’s climate is constructed when social interactions
are impacted by school policies and programs.
A social ecological systems approach posits that students involved in bullying participate
in complex and interrelated system levels that shape who they are. Individuals start at the center
and move out to these five levels of systems that surround him. The five systems, micro-, meso-,
exo-, macro-, and chronosystem, help to explain how students involved in bullying often
experience difficulties in other contexts such as the family, neighborhood, school, and peer group
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Hong & Espelage, 2012).
Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed that the inner layer called microsystem, has the most
direct influence on the individual. This system is composed of immediate settings such as the
home and school, where the individual encounters various relationships with friends, teachers,
and parents. The second layer, called mesosystem, involves the interactions between
microsystems such as communications between home and school and peer relationships within
the school setting. The third layer, called exosystem, is composed of external influences such as
the individual’s neighborhood and environment. The exosystem involves interactions between
two or more settings. However, the individual is only in one of the systems. For example,
adolescents that witness violence in the community or live in an unsafe neighborhood may
perpetrate bullying behaviors at school (Hong & Espelage, 2012). The fourth layer, called
macrosystem, acts as the prevailing culture or social structure. The macrosystem level includes
prevailing societal factors such as religion, cultural norms, politics, and economics conditions
(Leonard, 2011). Lastly, the fifth layer, called chronosystem, involves how these relationships
change or endure over time. Life or historical events such as a divorce or having to relocate as a
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 28

result of a parent losing his job may adversely affect children during a developmental time
period.
Using the social ecological systems model, school bullying occurs in relationship to
factors such as the individual, peer relationships, school environment, and the family (Harel-
Fisch, Walsh, Fogel-Grinvald, Amitai, Pickett, Molcho, Due, Gaspar de Matos, & Craig, 2011).
These factors influence or inhibit bullying behaviors that impact student perceptions of school
safety. School participation, involvement in campus groups and clubs, and connectedness to
teachers and peers not only contribute to school safety, but to academic achievement as well.
How students perceive their school environment and its norms will strongly impact whether they
behave productively or aggressively.
Schools and school districts operate in a manner similar to large businesses or
organizations. People work collectively toward a similar goal to generate a high quality product.
Likewise, educators work to provide a good education to students within a safe, learning
atmosphere. Unfortunately, schools and districts can also resemble dysfunctional organizations
through failures such as unsafe conditions, poor quality products, and low customer satisfaction
ratings. Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal (2003) provide the Four Frames theoretical framework
that analyzes organizations from Structural, Political, Symbolic, and Human Resources
perspectives. The Structural Frame is of particular interest because it emphasizes concepts such
as rules and policies, standard operating procedures, roles and responsibilities, goals and
objectives, and networks, all of which resonate with the school environment and how bullying is
or can be addressed.
Schools can address peer victimization utilizing the structural framework. A principal’s
action can be connected to systematic procedures, plans, and schedules. Supervision and
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 29

evaluation can be formally arranged to minimize problems and maximize performance. The
structural frame purports that a pattern of well thought out roles and relationships will also
produce an effective organization. Any problems and deficiencies can be corrected through
analysis and restructuring (Wasserstein-Warnet & Klein, 2000)
Anti-Bullying Policies
It is significant to note that peer groups are important among early adolescent students in
comparison to the younger students (Neal, 2007). Cliques and crowd affiliation increases
between the sixth and eighth grade (Crockett, Losoff, & Peterson, 1984). Relational aggression
peaks during this time as adolescent students mature and develop within their social networks.
They mention reputation and friendship as reasons for crowd affiliation making peer groups a
significant context for peer victimization (Brown, Eicher, & Petrie, 1986).
School bullying has become an issue of public concern and research efforts. Studies have
shown that chronic peer victimization is associated with negative academic, social and emotional
consequences. The harmful effects can transfer into adulthood and manifests itself in the form of
child abuse, hate crimes and domestic violence (Greif & Furlong, 2006). There are serious short
and long-term effects of bullying on student’s physical and mental health. Research on school
bullying has grown and along with it a variety of anti-bullying policies and intervention
programs (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009).
The United States government has even addressed the issue of bullying in schools within
the No Child Left Behind federal bill. This had led to 49 of the 50 states to implement effective
bullying prevention efforts to protect students (Yeger & Gehret, 2011). According to the United
States Government Accountability Office report (2012), educational agencies in California are
legally required to monitor school district’s bullying policies and have them align with federal
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 30

and state legislation. School districts are also required to adopt bullying policies and plans which
include a process for receiving and investigating bullying reports.
Recognition and legislation concerning the issue of bullying has encouraged a significant
variety of anti-bullying interventions in schools. Ttofi and Farrington (2011) studied 44 high-
quality school-based intervention programs and discovered that the programs reduced bullying
rates by 20-23%. Other anti-bullying programs have yielded reductions of 40-50% (Smith,
Salmivalli, & Cowie, 2012). These programs show that students 11 years and older should be
targeted rather than younger children.
A Whole-School Policy
A whole-school policy is a written document addressing bullying behavior. The
document establishes the school’s objectives concerning bullying behavior and lays out systems
and procedures to make sure that the school’s goals are effectively implemented, continued and
evaluated. The document is democratically created and maintained with school and community
members. The whole-school policy is central to any intervention programs offered in the school
(Smith, Ananiadou, & Cowie, 2003).
Elements of Anti-Bullying Policies
There are various elements of anti-bullying policies. In addition to a whole-school policy,
classroom rules play a vital role in bullying prevention, especially when the rules are of written
notice displayed in a deliberate and strategic place (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009; Smith et. al., 2012).
These rules should be collaboratively developed with teachers and students and establish the
manner in which students are expected to abide by. Classroom rules should cover both indirect
and direct forms of bullying and should be discussed regularly with students. In turn, teachers
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 31

should demonstrate consistent positive and negative consequences in regard to bullying and
reinforcing the rules (Limber, 2011).
David Farrington and Maria Ttofi (2009) posit that disciplinary methods play a major
contributing factor in decreasing bullying. Disciplinary approaches involve both punitive and
non-punitive methods for dealing with bullying situations. Punitive approaches typically focus
on firm disciplinary methods to punish the offense through consequences such as detentions,
suspensions, and expulsions. Other types of sanctions include verbal reprimand, meetings
involving parents, temporary removal from class, withdrawal of privileges, and school
community service (Smith et. al., 2012). The message to the bully is that what he or she did was
wrong and that it has to stop right now. Non-punitive approaches, also known as the no-blame
approach, revolve around the concept of restorative justice. The purpose of this approach is to be
informative, reflective, and supportive, focusing on the bully’s cognitive abilities to demonstrate
respectful behavior.
Teachers are more apt to address bullying behaviors that they observe if they believe it to
be a serious problem, feel empathy for the victimized student, believe that they play an important
role in reducing bullying, and that the intervention will be effective (Holt et al., 2013). A lack of
action against observed bullying is associated with group norms that condone bullying behavior,
a negative class climate and low student identification with the school and class atmosphere
(Scheithauer, Hess, Schultze-Krumbholz, & Bull, 2012). It is therefore, imperative for teachers
to be equipped and motivated in general and program-specific ways to be a force to combat
bullying (Holt et al., 2013).

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 32

Anti-Bullying Programs and Curriculum
School-based anti-bullying initiatives are commonly, universal programs directed to the
entire student population. The goals of anti-bullying programs are to increase awareness about
bullying and to decrease bullying behaviors (Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2010).
Although currently, there is no anti-bullying program that has been shown to eliminate bullying,
studies have found significant reductions in bullying through diverse programs. Various
approaches may address different aspects of problems and may be effective with different
populations in the student body (Holt et.al., 2013).
Increasing research on bullying is showing that effective bullying prevention programs
should be established within a social-ecological framework. Individual student characteristics
should be addressed as well as the multiple contexts in which they are surrounded by. There are
several key features that make school wide programs effective. These include parent meetings,
firm disciplinary methods, classroom management, teacher training and cooperative learning
opportunities (Holt et. al., 2013).
At the classroom level, anti-bullying curriculum provides an educational component to
address bullying and socially aggressive behavior. Rather than solely addressing individual
behavior, anti-bullying curriculum focuses on utilizing peer group power to change the group as
a whole. For example, bystanders can perpetuate bullying through involvement either by
encouraging the behavior and giving attention to it. Bystanders can also perpetuate bullying
through non-involvement. They choose not to intervene or pretend to not notice bullying
behavior. By increasing awareness of the impact bullying has on students and the school climate,
the goal is to potentially shift attitudes so that students are less accepting of bullying behavior
and less willing to participate in it (Hunt, 2007; Salmivalli et. al., 2005). Curriculum materials
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 33

consist of various educational aids such as videos, role-playing activities, literature, moral
dilemma discussions, empathy training, and problem solving strategies and techniques (Smith et.
al., 2003).
School districts and administrators can train and build teacher capacity to better prevent,
detect, and intervene to reduce bullying. Teachers can integrate systematic social skills
instruction into the curriculum and facilitate purposeful dialogue about bullying (Radcliff &
Joseph, 2011). Teachers can also use cooperative group work to create a more positive classroom
climate (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009) to help build healthy and equitable relationships and to reduce
aggression (Bickmore, 2011). All of these strategies will help support and maintain a positive
school climate by decreasing bullying and increasing appropriate social interactions (Young,
Boye, & Nelson, 2006).
Teachers can also empower the students themselves to create a more peaceful school.
When given opportunities to take initiative and share responsibility for building peace, students
will actively participate to create more peaceful schools (Bickmore, 2010).
School Involvement
Social ecological theory contends that the student’s surrounding environment, both
immediate and distal, interact to mold development. The student also influences his or her
experience of these settings as well. Extracurricular activities are embedded within the school
setting and play a significant developmental role during adolescence. The ecological systems
theory provides a helpful framework to evaluate the impact of extracurricular activities on
adolescent development (Feldman & Matjasko, 2005).
Students are able to act out developmental tasks within the setting of extracurricular
activities. They begin to form their identity by associating themselves with others and
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 34

discovering preferences. When students belong to a constructive group, they are exposed to
positive values and norms. Through extracurricular activities, students can continue to shape
their development by getting to know themselves through observing others, interpreting their
own behaviors, building their sense of identity, and creating stronger peer group associations
(Feldman & Matjasko, 2005).
Researchers have found that in addition to the positive development of the adolescent,
extracurricular activities provide valuable social capital through additional friend and adult
support. Unlike the quick-paced schedule of the school day, time spent in afterschool
extracurricular activities allow more room to build personal relationships, mutual trust, and
commitment. Students have the opportunity to bond with peers with similar interests and interact
with adults from the school and community who provide support for the activity (Feldman &
Matjasko, 2005).
Extracurricular activities provide a beneficial setting for students outside of academics
that help them maintain connections with the school environment. These activities may give
students a place to develop additional skills and recognition beyond academic accomplishment.
For such students, extracurricular activities may be the only place they can achieve success
within the school context (Feldman & Matjasko, 2005).
Benefits of school involvement
There are considerable benefits of school involvement. Through extracurricular activities,
students are able to develop prosocial peer groups and foster a sense of belonging. Students also
build civic and political skills like teamwork and cooperation. Schools that offer many different
activities provide valuable resources that benefit students in various ways. Schools can support
clubs by having teachers serve as club advisors, allot rooms for clubs to meet in, supply materials
and even provide transportation for the club members (Stearns & Glennie, 2009).
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 35

Researchers of student development have also found that constructive and organized
activities are beneficial to adolescents because these activities contribute to the well-being of the
community and provide a sense of belonging in the community. It also helps students belong to a
socially respectable group, establish social networks with peers and adults and through the
activities, and experience and overcome challenges. All of these benefits facilitate and further
school engagement and achievement and prevent the development of harmful behaviors (Eccles,
Barber, Stone, & Hunt, 2003). Participating in school-based extracurricular activities increase
school participation and achievement. Students grow to have stronger emotional and social
connections to one’s school and leads to more positive long-term educational outcomes (Eccles
et al., 2003).
Perceptions of School Safety
The school climate determines if a student feels safe at school. When students feel safe at
school there is a higher level of commitment and academic success. They are also better
protected from harmful pressures and make good choices about their academic achievement
(Booren, Handy, & Power, 2011). Students who feel safe at school have a higher level of
engagement. Students who are connected and feel attached to the school are more likely to
observe school rules and abide by constructive social standards.
Student perception of school climate may not always be uniform. Students from the same
school can have different perceptions of school climate because of different experiences and
perspectives. Administrators and school staff need to recognize this and address students’
perceptions of safety and feelings of connectedness to the school. Students’ perceptions are
important realities that school officials can use to create safer school environments (Booren et.
al., 2011).
Strengthening perceptions of school safety is also imperative because it can serve as a
buffer against proximal negative influences on the student. Research has shown that middle
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 36

school students linked to bullying had fewer positive peer influences and caring parent-child
relationships. However, perceptions of a positive school climate served as a buffer to the
negative impact from peers in regard to bullying. When students felt attached to the school and
felt like they belonged, bullying behavior decreased (Goldweber, Waasdorp, & Bradshaw, 2013).
Research has also found that positive adult and student relationships influence student’s
perception of the school climate (Booren et. al., 2011). Students who feel safe at school believe
that teachers and other school staff are supportive and are more willing to seek their help for
bullying. Therefore, the perception of safety, belonging, and supportive teachers and staff are
foundational in bullying interventions (Goldweber et. al., 2013). Teachers can help create a
positive school climate to foster student engagement and achievement (Booren et. al., 2011).
Conversely, there are negative consequences when students feel unsafe and feel as
though they do not belong at school. Research indicates that students who perceive their school
as unsafe and unsupportive engage in bullying, thereby creating a culture of bullying (Goldweber
et. al., 2013). Disorganized and high-conflict schools intensify problem behaviors, decrease
academic achievement, and increase truancy.
When students perceive the school climate as being negative and antagonistic, they are
reluctant to seek help from school staff who are seen as apathetic or even tolerant of bullying.
However seeking help from schools is essential to the success of anti-bullying programs. School
staff cannot help with services or interventions if they are unaware that students are being bullied
(Eliot, Cornell, Gregory, & Fan, 2010).
Summary of Literature Review
Bullying, including the onset of cyber bullying, are problems that students are faced with
in today’s schools. Bullying or peer victimization takes form in physical, verbal, relational or
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 37

social aggression. Traditional definitions of bullying are characterized by a power discrepancy,
the intent to cause harm, and repetition of the harmful acts. Cyber bullying encompasses all three
of these elements and is defined as willful and repeated harm perpetrated through electronic
communication tools (Varjas, Henrich, & Meyers, 2009).
Research has shown that bullying behavior peaks in middle school. One theory
accounting for this peak is that the student is trying to reestablish a place in the social hierarchy
upon transitioning into a new school. Another theory is that a culture of bullying is created and
maintained in middle schools because students assume that bullying is accepted, tolerated, or
ignored by peers and adults (Varjas et. al., 2009).
It is imperative that school safety programs include interventions for creating supportive
and cooperative school environments. Schools need to encourage positive peer relationships as
well as support teachers to ensure positive classroom management for disruptive behaviors,
reinforce what proper behavior looks like, and implement consequences for violations of such
guidelines. Establishment and enforcement of rules improve school safety when they are fair,
appropriate, and consistent. When students do not feel that school rules are fair, student
misbehavior increases. Therefore it is important that all students perceive the school rules as fair.
An anti-bullying policy, in addition to “whole school” interventions which targets the entire
school rather than individual students or groups of students, needs to be in place (Hong & Eamon,
2012).
Anti-bullying programs can be designed to change the school climate so that bullying
behaviors are unacceptable and punishable, while positive behaviors are rewarded. Instead of
attempting to change an individual student or teacher, the goal should be to change the
environment of the school. Schools need to provide programs for students, equip teachers, and
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 38

change school policies. It is important that the school-wide approach not only concentrates its
efforts on decreasing aggressive behaviors but also developing positive behaviors. This approach
addresses school-wide efforts collaboratively and at a systems level (Horne & Staniszewski,
2003).
Purpose of the Study
Therefore, the purpose of the study is to examine the relationship of school factors such
as student connectedness, student-teacher relationships, and student involvement in relation to
the prevalence of bullying and perceptions of school safety amongst middle school students. The
study examines whether these school factors influence school climate to reduce rates of bullying,
cyber bullying, and social aggression during this particular developmental time period. The study
also examines the role that student involvement, student-teacher relationships, and student
connectedness plays to increase perceptions of school safety.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Research Question 1: Are there gender and racial group differences in their perceptions of
school safety?
Hypothesis 1: Both gender and racial groups will experience differences in their
perceptions of school safety.
Research Question 2: Are there gender and racial group differences regarding the prevalence of
physical, social, and cyber bullying at the middle school level?
Hypothesis 2: Both gender and racial groups will experience differences in the
prevalence of physical, social, and cyber bullying.
Research Question 3: Do student connectedness, student-teacher relationships, and student
involvement predict perceptions of school safety at the middle school level?
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 39

Hypothesis 3A: Students who are more connected to school will experience higher
perceptions of school safety.
Hypothesis 3B: Students who have stronger relationships with teachers will experience
higher perceptions of school safety.
Hypothesis 3C: Students who are more involved in school will experience higher
perceptions of school safety.
Research Question 4: Do student connectedness, student-teacher relationships, and student
involvement predict a prevalence of physical, social, and cyber bullying at the middle school
level?
Hypothesis 4A: Students who are more connected to school will experience a lower
prevalence of physical, social, and cyber bullying.
Hypothesis 4B: Students who have stronger relationships with teachers will experience
a lower prevalence of physical, social, and cyber bullying.
Hypothesis 4C: Students who are more involved in school will experience a lower
prevalence of physical, social, and cyber bullying.

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 40

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of the study is to examine the role of school factors such as student
involvement, student-teacher relationships, and student connectedness in relation to the
prevalence of bullying at the intermediate school level. The study also examines the relationship
between perceptions of school safety and incidences of bullying amongst middle school students.
In 2012, middle school teachers at Greenview District (pseudonym) participated in
completing the California School Climate Survey (CSCS). Much like the California Healthy
Kids Survey, WestEd created the CSCS to obtain anonymous, self- reported information about
student health and school safety from a staff or adult perspective. According to a report
published by the district covering the 2011-2012 academic year, 38% of teachers rated
harassment or bullying as a “moderate” or “severe problem” at school. Only 24% of teachers
perceived that schools provided “a lot” of harassment or bullying prevention instruction.
Although 96% indicated that “most” or “nearly all adults” at school ensured a safe and
supportive environment, less than half, at 46%, “strongly agreed” that their school was a safe
place for students. A little more than half of the adults, at 55%, felt that “nearly all” teachers
really cared about every student.
Demographic Data
District Information
Greenview District (GD) was established in 1965 and resides in an urban setting in
Orange County, California. It is the 3rd largest public school district in the county serving 47,960
students from Kindergarten through 12
th
grade. The district covers 28 square miles and serves
students from the local area along with parts of six surrounding cities such as Anaheim, Cypress,
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 41

Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, Stanton, and Westminster. With more than 5,000 employees, GD
operates 70 schools including 47 elementary schools, 10 intermediate schools, 7 high schools, 2
adult education centers, and 2 special education schools (www.ggusd.us, 2014).
According to the Report on the Conditions of Children in Orange County (2013), 39.6%
of students were identified as English Learners and 64.6% of students participated in the Free
and Reduced Lunch program. The racial breakdown of the total student population was 50%
Hispanic, 33% Asian, 13% White, 1% Black, and 3% Other.
There are a total of ten intermediate schools in GD. Intermediate schools are
comprehensive and consist of grades 7
th
and 8
th
. During the 2013-2014 school year, there were
7,498 students with 3,792 in 7
th
grade and 3,706 in 8
th
grade (www.ggusd.us, 2014).
I chose to conduct my research at Greenview District for several reasons. The first reason
was sample size. There were 3,792 students in 7
th
grade during the 2013-2014 school year. The
CHKS was administered to these students during June of 2014. The second reason was access to
the instrument, student data, and district personnel. Connections made with employees within the
district, particularly staff members and administrators in the Office of Student Services (OSS) as
well as other administrators at the intermediate schools, has allowed for access to resources, data,
and information in a timely manner. The third reason was variations in resources at each
intermediate school. Central office initiatives, services, and resources are fairly consistent at
every school. For example, all ten intermediate schools have the Boys and Girls Club operating
on their campus after school. Schools are also required to teach a school-wide cyber safety and
bullying lesson, usually conducted in an assembly type setting. Despite district wide uniformities,
variations exist amongst intermediate schools regarding anti-bullying policies, programs and
curriculum, and extracurricular activities. For example, some schools have anti-bullying policies
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 42

and rules explicitly written on several documents such as the website, identification cards, and
school planner whereas others are more implicit. Some schools have a specific curriculum
embedded into the regular school day whereas others do not.
Participants in the Study
7
th
grade students
The participants of the study were solely 7
th
grade students. The rationale for this was
that the California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) is administered to select grade levels. At the
intermediate level, the CHKS is administered solely to 7
th
grade students. Of the 3,241 7
th
grade
students, 3,219 students completed the CHKS survey. Regarding gender, there was a equal
distribution of male and female students. The majority of respondents were Hispanic, followed
by Asian, White, American Indian, African America, Pacific Islander, and mixed races. The
demographic breakdown pertaining to gender and race is listed on Table 1. The district services a
high percentage of low socio-economic families as 74% of the students participate in the Free
and Reduced Lunch program. A little more than half of the students, at 56%, are identified as
English Language Learners (www.ggusd.us, 2014).
Table 1
Student Demographics
Gender n %
Male 1620 50%
Female 1599 49.3%
Race/Ethnicity n %
Hispanic 1662 51.3%
Asian American 1034 31.9%
White 423 14.7%
American Indian 183 5.6%
African American 57 1.8%
Pacific Islander 51 1.6%
Mixed (two or more) Races 1135 35.3%

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 43

Instrument
California Healthy Kids Survey
The primary source of data for this study is from the California Healthy Kids Survey
(CHKS) which measures variables such as school connectedness, student-teacher relationships,
school involvement, and safety perceptions. The CHKS is a statewide survey administered to
study resiliency, protective factors, and risk behaviors in students. It was mandated since the Fall
of 2003 by the California Department of Education, aligned with No Child Left Behind, and
funded by state Tobacco Use Prevention and Education (TUPE) grants (Hanson & Kim, 2007).
The CHKS is designed to help schools meet the directives and goals mandated for
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The Obama
administration released a blueprint for revising the ESEA in March 2010 which included using
data to improve student safety, health, and well-being.
The CHKS was developed from a theoretical framework based on research on resiliency
and human development. Students are asked to assess eleven environmental resilience assets
such as caring relationships, high expectations, and meaningful participation within various
contexts such as school, home, community, and peer interactions. The environmental assets
impact the level in which youth needs are met in areas such as safety, belonging, respect, and
meaning, thereby promoting positive outcomes and discouraging risky behavior (Hanson & Kim,
2007).
The CHKS is administered to students in Grades 5, 7, 9 and 11. It targets these grades
because these are transition years and studies have shown a correlation of transition year with
risk behavior such as Grade 9 being the first year of high school. Grades 5 and 7 are seen as
baseline years with generally lower levels of risk behaviors while research shows that students
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 44

who use alcohol or drugs have done so by the end of grade 11. These developmental differences
must be recognized to best implement programs that target each age group.
The CHKS encompasses learning and health-related indicators that are used to collect
data on student attitude, behavior, and experiences associated with school and learning. Some
key areas of focus are school connectedness, safety, violence, bullying and harassment, school
support systems, substance use, and physical and mental health. The survey confidentially
acquires data on student knowledge, attitude, experience, and perception on all of these topics.
The survey includes a general core set of questions plus supplementary modules covering
various topics. The Core module includes demographic data and questions in four priority areas
comprised of resilience, alcohol and drug use, tobacco use, and violence and school safety. There
are various Supplemental Modules available with additional survey questions on other relevant
issues such as safety and violence, social-emotional health, and gang risk awareness.
The CHKS identifies areas of student and school strengths and weaknesses. It presents
data-driven information to guide school efforts to improve climate, engagement, quality of
health, prevention, youth development programs, and support learning. The data found can also
be used to support issues from bullying to strengthening afterschool programs. State legislatures
and policymakers frequently cite CHKS data as a vital tool for school improvement as well as a
guide for the development of effective health, prevention and youth development programs.
WestED, producers of the CHKS, is a public research and development agency that
works with educators and communities with the goal of achieving equity and improving and
ensuring success for all students. WestED developed the Healthy Kids School Climate Surveys
to bridge the gap between research and practice to create safe and healthy environments for
students. The surveys are to be administered throughout school districts and it allows schools to
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 45

customize the surveys by choosing from various focus areas and creating new items of their own.
The Healthy Kids Survey collects the most comprehensive data regarding youth risk behavior
and resilience.
CHKS measures
The CHKS is a comprehensive health risk and resilience survey, consisting of 100
questions. Responses are bubbled in on an answer document based on self-reporting. The survey
is anonymous, voluntary, and confidential. Some of the questions listed in the 2013-2014 CHKS
were “At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult who really cares about me” and “At
school, I help decide things like class activities or rules.” These were five-item Likert scale
questions designed to gauge the level of personal connectedness between students and
staff/school. Another question was “During the past 12 months, how many times on school
property have you been pushed, shoved, slapped, hit, or kicked by someone who wasn’t just
kidding around?” Students responded to the single-item indicator of bullying victimization by
bubbling in “0 Times,” “1 Time,” “2 to 3 Times,” or “4 or More Times.”
Questions from the CHKS Core Module can be represented by eight summary measures
of school climate and student risk behavior (wested.org, 2014). After analyzing the survey, I
determined the measurement structure to four key factors. For the purposes of this study, the
measures I looked at were: school connectedness, student-teacher relationships, student
connectedness, and safety perceptions.
The conceptual model of the CHKS closely resembles the five levels of the Social
Ecological framework. For example, the microsystem analyzes student relationships with one
another as well as school connectedness. The mesosystem looks at how student interactions with
one another are impacted by student-teacher relationships. The quality of these interactions
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 46

influence behavior outcomes such as the degree of bullying victimization in the school
environment.
School connectedness. Student participants responded by self-report to nine items
measuring several aspects of their connectedness to school. Using the Likert-item format,
participants were asked questions such as: “I feel like I am a part of this school” and “I feel close
to people as this school.” Response options were: “Strongly Disagree,” “Disagree,” “Neither
Disagree Nor Agree,” “Agree,” or “Strongly Agree.”
Student-Teacher Relationship. Student participants responded by self-report to six
items measuring several aspects of their connections with adults on campus. Using the Likert-
item format, participants were asked questions such as: “At my school, there is a teacher or some
other adult who really cares about me” and “…who listens to me when I have something to say.”
Response options were: “Not At All True,” “A Little True,” “Pretty Much True,” or “Very Much
True.”
Student Involvement. Student participants responded by self-report to three items
measuring participation in school activities and positive school climate. Using the Likert-item
format, participants were asked questions such as: “I help decide things like class activities or
rules” and “I do things that make a difference.” Response options were: “Not At All True,” “A
Little True,” “Pretty Much True,” and “Very Much True.”
Safety perceptions. Student participants responded by self-report to one item measuring
safety perceptions at school. Using the Likert-item format, participants were asked a direct
question regarding safety: “How safe do you feel when you are at school?” and had indicated
“Very Safe,” “Safe,” “Neither safe nor unsafe,” “Unsafe,” or “Very unsafe.”

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 47

Reliability and Validity Indicators
Research shows that data collected from self-report questionnaires are essentially valid
when specific conditions are met. The California Healthy Kids Survey has been developed and
collected to meet these particular criteria (Johnston & O’Malley, 1985; Sussman, Dent, Burton,
Stacy, & Flay, 1995). The first condition that needs to be met is confidentiality and anonymity.
Studies have found that student self-report of sensitive behaviors are more accurate when privacy
is preserved. Confidential surveys given at the schools are more valid than telephone or personal
interviews performed at home when parents may be there (Johnson & O’Malley, 1985). The
anonymity criterion is maintained by the CHKS by adhering to a strict confidentiality protocol.
This includes reading out loud to students statements of confidentiality, not allowing students to
write names on surveys, not having proctors walk around the classroom as students are
completing their surveys, and collecting surveys in a sealed envelope.
During the 2010-11 period, WestEd (2011) conducted a measurement analysis of 117,683
CHKS surveys. Using Chronbach’s alpha coefficient, internal consistency estimates of the scales
were calculated for the overall sample, by grade (9
th
and 11
th
) and gender. The overall reliability
coefficient for school connectedness was 0.77. Perceived safety and positive learning
environment was 0.67 and 0.93, respectively.
Using the SPSS Statistics 21 program to analyze data from the 2014 CHKS survey,
reliability was determined using Chronbach’s alpha coefficient. The overall reliability coefficient
was .88 for student connectedness, was 0.86 for student-teacher relationships, and 0.73 for
student involvement. The overall reliability coefficient was 0.84 for physical bullying, 0.82 for
social bullying, and 0.73 for the basis for being bullied. There were no reliability scores for cyber
bullying and safety perceptions as both variables consisted of only one survey item question.
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 48

Procedure
The initial process was to complete the application to conduct research in the district as
found on the district’s website and to submit it to Eimi Garcia, Assistant Director of K-12
Educational Services. The application was approved by the Department of K-12 Educational
Services office.
During the month of May, 2014, all ten intermediate schools received a directive from the
Office of Student Services (OSS) at the District Office to administer the California Healthy Kids
Survey. The CHKS was to be administered solely to 7
th
grade students during the second week of
June, within a four day window. OSS generated the California Healthy Kids Survey Notification
and Withdrawal Form 2013-2014 School Year to pass out to all potential student participants
(Appendix A). This passive parent consent form provided notification to parents about the survey
along with an opportunity to withdrawal participation. The notification and withdrawal form was
written in four different languages including English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Korean.
The CHKS was administered and completed during the school day within one class
period. The survey took approximately 50 minutes to complete. Proctoring teachers were
provided directions for survey administration which included an introductory script. They were
also provided the Pledge of Confidentiality form to sign, pledging not to discuss, disclose,
disseminate, or provide access to survey data and identifiers. Teachers monitored students during
the survey to ensure privacy and confidentiality. On the Transmittal Envelope, they filled out all
requested consent and attendance information. At the end of the survey period, students placed
their answer sheet in the Transmittal Envelope. The teachers then sealed the envelope and turned
it in along with other materials to the school coordinator. The school coordinator returned all
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 49

materials to the Office of Student Services. No incentives were used to elicit participation at any
point.
Data Analysis
The California Healthy Kids Survey (Appendix B) is comprised of eight underlying
factors. For the purposes of this study, I will be conducting a factor analysis on four of the
factors by question items. According to the California Safe and Supportive Schools report
generated by WestEd (2011), CHKS question items were fitted a series of exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis models. Data analysis results suggest that the factors can be
analyzed to measure prevalence of bullying and safety perceptions at each intermediate campus
and district-wide.
I conducted data analysis using the SPSS Statistics 21 program to provide an overview of the
results of the study, including descriptive information such as the basis for bullying, preliminary
analyses, and analyses of the research questions. Research question 1 was analyzed using a two way
ANOVA. Research question 2 was analyzed using a two way MANOVA. Research question 3 was
analyzed using simultaneous multiple regression. Research question 4 was analyzed using three
simultaneous multiple regression.
Research Question 1: Are there gender and racial group differences in their perceptions of
school safety?
Hypothesis 1: Both gender and racial groups will experience differences in their
perceptions of school safety.
Research Question 2: Are there gender and racial group differences regarding the prevalence of
physical, social, and cyber bullying at the middle school level?
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 50

Hypothesis 2: Both gender and racial groups will experience differences in the
prevalence of physical, social, and cyber bullying.
Research Question 3: Do student connectedness, student-teacher relationships, and student
involvement predict perceptions of school safety at the middle school level?
Hypothesis 3A: Students who are more connected to school will experience higher
perceptions of school safety.
Hypothesis 3B: Students who have stronger relationships with teachers will experience
higher perceptions of school safety.
Hypothesis 3C: Students who are more involved in school will experience higher
perceptions of school safety.
Research Question 4: Do student connectedness, student-teacher relationships, and student
involvement predict a prevalence of physical, social, and cyber bullying at the middle school
level?
Hypothesis 4A: Students who are more connected to school will experience a lower
prevalence of physical, social, and cyber bullying.
Hypothesis 4B: Students who have stronger relationships with teachers will experience
a lower prevalence of physical, social, and cyber bullying.
Hypothesis 4C: Students who are more involved in school will experience a lower
prevalence of physical, social, and cyber bullying.

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 51

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The following chapter provides an overview of the results of the study, including descriptive
information such as the basis for bullying, preliminary analyses, and analyses of the research
questions.
Basis for Bullying
Students were asked how often they were harassed or bullied for the following reasons
during the past twelve months. Students reported that they were bullied one or more times
primarily because of their race, followed by sexual orientation, gender, religion, then disability.
Although the predominant response was for “other reasons”, students were not asked to specify
or provide further detail. The basis for being bullied along with frequency is summarized in
Table 2.
Table 2
Basis for Bullying and Frequency
N 0 Times 1 Time 2 to 3 Times 4 or more Times
Disability 3100 89.8% 3.0% 1.3% 1.7%

Religion 3104 87.4% 4.5% 2.1% 1.8%

Gender 3099 87.3% 3.9% 2.1% 2.3%

Sexual Orientation 3097 85.4% 4.4% 2.5% 3.2%

Race 3091 76.4% 8.2% 4.7% 6.1%

Other Reasons 3094 74.6% 7.1% 5.9% 7.9%

Regarding other descriptive information, the majority of students reported that they never
skipped out on school while 31% reported that they skipped out of school one or more times (M
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 52

= 1.54; SD = .98). When asked to describe the grades they mostly received, 37.3% of students
reported that they received mostly A’s and B’s (M = 2.85; SD = 1.70).
Preliminary Analyses
Correlations
Pearson product correlation analyses were conducted to examine a general pattern of
relationships among the major variables in the study including student connectedness, student-
teacher relationship, student involvement, school safety, physical bullying, social bullying, and cyber
bullying. The correlations are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3
Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Student Connectedness --

2. Student-Teacher Relationship .49** --

3. Student Involvement .35** .48** --

4. School Safety -.41** -.34** -.24** --

5. Physical Bullying -.27** -.20** -.07** .36** --

6. Social Bullying -.17** -.14** -.07** .31** .59** --

7. Cyber Bullying -.15** -.09** -.01 .22** .36** .47**
Notes. 1. Student Connectedness; 2. Student-Teacher Relationship; 3. Student Involvement;
4. School Safety; 5. Physical Bullying; 6. Social Bullying.
*p<0.05. **p<0.01.
Student connectedness was positively correlated with student-teacher relationship (r = .49, p
= .001) and student involvement (r = .35, p = .001), but negatively correlated with school safety (r =
-.41, p = .001), physical bullying (r = -.27, p = .001), social bullying (r = -.17, p = .001), and cyber
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 53

bullying (r = -.15, p = .001). Student-teacher relationship was positively correlated with student
involvement (r = .48, p = .001), but negatively correlated with school safety (r = -.34, p = .001),
physical bullying (r = -.20, p = .001), social bullying (r = -.14, p = .001), and cyber bullying (r = -.09,
p = .001). Student involvement was negatively correlated with school safety (r = -.24, p = .001),
physical bullying (r = -.07, p = .001), and social bullying (r = -.07, p = .001).
School safety was positively correlated with physical bullying (r = .36, p = .001), social
bullying (r = .31, p = .001), and cyber bullying (r = .22, p = .001). Physical bullying was positively
correlated with social bullying (r = .59, p = .001) and cyber bullying (r = .36, p = .001). Social
bullying was positively correlated with cyber bullying (r = .47, p = .001).
Analysis of Research Questions
Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “Are there gender and racial group differences in their
perceptions of school safety?” In order to examine whether there was a significant difference by
sex and race in regard to perceptions of safety, a two way ANOVA test was conducted. Results
revealed an overall significance (F (1, 2811) = 5.62, p = .02). Further analysis revealed that male
students (M = 2.15, SD = .049) reported higher perceptions of school safety than female students
(M = 2.38, SD = .055). There was no statistical significance between race and perceptions of
safety.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “Are there gender and racial group differences
regarding the prevalence of physical, social, and cyber bullying at the middle school level.” In
order to examine whether there was a significant difference by sex and race in regard to a
prevalence of physical, social, and cyber bullying at the middle school level, a two way
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 54

MANOVA test was conducted. Results indicated that the overall model for sex was significant
[Wilks’ Lambda = .98, F(4, 2607) = 13.61, p < .001]. Subsequent univariate analysis revealed
that for physical bullying, there was a .07 difference in the means between male and female
students. Male students (M = 1.30, SD = .020) experienced a higher prevalence of physical
bullying than female students (M = 1.23, SD = .023). For social bullying, there was a .17
difference in the means between male and female students. Female students (M = 1.81, SD
= .051) experienced a higher prevalence of social bullying than male students (M = 1.64, SD
= .045). For cyber bullying, there was a .24 difference in the means between male and female
students. Female students (M = 1.48, SD = .047) experienced a higher prevalence of cyber
bullying than male students (M = 1.24, SD = .041). Mean scores and standard deviation is
summarized in Table 4.
Table 4
Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Gender and Physical, Social, and Cyber Bullying
Gender Physical Bullying Social Bullying Cyber Bullying
M SD M SD M SD
Male 1.30 .020 1.64 .045 1.24 .041

Female 1.23 .023 1.81 .051 1.48 .047

Results indicated that the overall model for race was significant [Wilks’ Lamda = .97,
F(20, 8647) = 3.97, p < .001). Further analysis indicated that Black/African American students
(M = 1.37, SD = .060) experienced the highest prevalence of physical bullying followed by
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (M = 1.28, SD = .058), American Indian/Alaska native (M =
1.26, SD = .032), mixed races (M = 1.26, SD = .012), White (M = 1.24, SD = .020), then Asian
(M = 1.19, SD = .013). There was no statistical significance between social bullying and race.
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 55

There was also no statistical significance between cyber bullying and race. Mean scores and
standard deviation is summarized in Table 5.
Table 5
Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Race and Physical, Social, and Cyber Bullying
Race Physical Bullying Social Bullying Cyber Bullying
M SD M SD M SD
American Indian or 1.30 .032 1.58 .069 1.28 .065
Alaska Native

Asian 1.19 .013 1.78 .028 1.42 .026

Black or African 1.37 .060 1.76 .130 1.41 .121
American

Native Hawaiian or 1.28 .058 1.77 .126 1.35 .117
Pacific Islander

White 1.24 .020 1.71 .044 1.34 .041

Mixed (two or more) 1.26 .012 1.74 .027 1.34 .025
Races

Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “Do student connectedness, student-teacher
relationships, and student involvement predict perceptions of school safety at the middle school
level?” To determine to what extent the independent variables of student connectedness, student-
teacher relationship, and student involvement were predictors of prevalence of perceptions of
school safety, simultaneous multiple regression was performed. The criterion variable used was
perception of school safety.
Results revealed an overall significance for the prediction model (F (3, 2873) = 238.90, p
< .001) with 20% of variability (R
2
= .20) accounted for. A summary of the regression model
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 56

(see Table 6) indicates that all three variables significantly contributed to the model. Student
connectedness, student-teacher relationship, and student involvement were all predictors of
perceptions of school safety.
Negative beta scores revealed an inverse relationship between the independent variables
and the dependent variable. Negative beta scores regarding perceptions of school safety actually
represented higher student connectedness, student-teacher relationships, and student involvement
scores because of directionality. For example, a survey item read, “How safe do you feel when
you are at school?” The responses began with A) Very safe, B) Safe, C) Neither safe nor unsafe,
D) Unsafe, and E) Very unsafe.
Table 6
Summary of Student Connectedness, Student-Teacher Relationship, and Student Involvement
with Perceptions of School Safety
Variables R
2
F B SE β p
Overall Model .20 238.899 .001

Student Connectedness -.389 .024 -.311 .001

Student-Teacher Relationship -.195 .027 -.152 .001

Student Involvement -.092 .023 -.076 .001

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 57

Research Question 4
The fourth research question asked, “Do student connectedness, student-teacher
relationships, and student involvement predict a prevalence of physical, social, and cyber
bullying at the middle school level?” To determine to what extent the independent variables of
student connectedness, student-teacher relationship, and student involvement predicted
prevalence of physical, social, and cyber bullying, three simultaneous multiple regressions were
performed, one for each of the specific types of bullying.
For the criterion variable of physical bullying, results revealed an overall significance for
the prediction model (F (3, 2777) = 83.22, p < .001) with 8.3% of variability (R
2
= .083)
accounted for. A summary of the regression model (see Table 7) indicates that all three variables
significantly contributed to the model. Student connectedness, student-teacher relationship, and
student involvement were all predictors of physical bullying.
Table 7
Summary of Student Connectedness, Student-Teacher Relationship, and Student Involvement
with Physical Bullying
Variables R
2
F B SE β p
Overall Model .083 83.218 .001

Student Connectedness -.123 .011 -.233 .001

Student-Teacher Relationship -.062 .012 -.116 .001

Student Involvement .028 .011 .056 .007

For the criterion variable of prevalence of social bullying, results revealed an overall
significance for the prediction model (F (3, 2788) = 30.08, p < .001) with 3% of variability (R
2

= .03) accounted for. A summary of the regression model (see Table 8) indicates that two of the
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 58

three variables significantly contributed to the model. Student connectedness and student-teacher
relationship were the best predictors of prevalence of social bullying. No significant relationship
was found between student involvement and social bullying.
Table 8
Summary of Student Connectedness, Student-Teacher Relationship, and Student Involvement
with Social Bullying
Variables R
2
F B SE β p
Overall Model .03 30.082 .001

Student Connectedness -.136 .025 -.118 .001

Student-Teacher Relationship -.113 .027 -.096 .001

Student Involvement .023 .024 .021 .339

For the criterion variable of prevalence of cyber bullying, results revealed an overall
significance for the prediction model (F (3, 2803) = 25.34, p < .001) with 2.6% of variability (R
2

= .026) accounted for. A summary of the regression model (see Table 9) indicates that two of the
three variables significantly contributed to the model. Student connectedness and student
involvement were the best predictors of prevalence of cyber bullying. No significant relationship
was found between student-teacher relationship and cyber bullying.

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 59

Table 9
Summary of Student Connectedness, Student-Teacher Relationship, and Student Involvement
with Cyber Bullying
Variables R
2
F B SE β p
Overall Model .026 25.336 .001

Student Connectedness -.169 .023 -.157 .001

Student-Teacher Relationship -.040 .026 -.037 .114

Student Involvement .069 .022 .066 .002

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 60

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship of school factors such as
student connectedness, student-teacher relationships, and student involvement in relation to the
prevalence of bullying and perceptions of school safety amongst middle school students. The
study examined whether these school factors influenced school climate to reduce rates of
bullying, cyber bullying, and social aggression during this particular developmental time period.
The study also examined the role that student involvement, student-teacher relationships, and
student connectedness play to increase perceptions of school safety. The results of the study
suggest that school factors such as connectedness to school and teachers as well as involvement
in school can be used as important variables to understand the prevalence of bullying and safety
perceptions. The following chapter provides a summary and discussion of the results as well as
theoretical and applied implications. Limitations for this study as well as possible directions of
future research will also be discussed.
Discussion of Main Findings
Relationship between demographic groups (i.e. sex, race) and their perceptions of school
safety.
This study sought to explore whether demographic groups experienced differences in
their perceptions of safety. It was hypothesized that both gender and racial groups would
experience differences in their perceptions of school safety.
According to the study, results indicated that male students reported higher perceptions of
school safety than female students. Student perception of school climate may not always be
uniform (Booren et. al., 2011). Students from the same school can have different perceptions of
school climate because of different experiences and perspectives. Administrators and school staff
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 61

need to recognize this and address students’ perceptions of safety and feelings of connectedness
to the school. Students’ perceptions are important realities that school officials can use to create
safer school environments.
Relationship between demographic groups (i.e. sex, race) and the prevalence of physical,
social, and cyber bullying.
This study sought to explore whether demographic groups experienced differences in the
prevalence of bullying. It was hypothesized that both gender and racial groups would experience
differences in the prevalence of physical, social, and cyber bullying.
According to the study, results indicated that male students reported a higher prevalence
of physical bullying than female students. However, female students reported a higher
prevalence of social and cyber bullying than their male counterpart. The results were consistent
with both the body of literature and national statistics in that boys represented the highest
prevalence of physical bullying and girls presented the highest prevalence of social bullying
during the middle school years. Although inconclusive, studies indicate that girls may be
overrepresented as both victims and perpetrators of cyber bullying which resemble findings that
girls engage more with indirect types of social aggression (Kowalski & Limber, 2007). Race did
not play a significant role in bullying.
Relationship between student connectedness, student-teacher relationships, student
involvement and school safety.
This study also sought to explore whether school factors such as student connectedness,
student-teacher relationships, and student involvement predicted higher perceptions of school
safety. It was hypothesized that students who are more connected to school, have stronger
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 62

relationships with teachers, and are more involved in school will experience higher perceptions
of school safety.
According to the study, results indicated an overall significance for the prediction model.
All three variables were predictors of school safety perceptions. Students who are connected and
feel attached to the school are more likely to observe school rules and abide by constructive
social standards. When students feel safe at school, there is a higher level of commitment,
engagement, and academic success. They are also better protected from harmful pressures and
make good choices about their academic achievement (Booren, Handy, & Power, 2011).
Consistent with the study, research has also found that positive adult and student
relationships influence student’s perception of the school climate (Booren et. al., 2011). Students
who feel safe at school believe that teachers and other school staff are supportive and are more
willing to seek their help for bullying. Therefore, the perception of safety, belonging, and
supportive teachers and staff are foundational in bullying interventions (Goldweber et. al., 2013).
In addition, researchers have found that extracurricular activities provide valuable social
capital through additional friend and adult support. Unlike the quick-paced schedule of the
school day, time spent in afterschool extracurricular activities allow more room to build personal
relationships, mutual trust, and commitment. Students have the opportunity to bond with peers
with similar interests and interact with adults from the school and community who provide
support for the activity (Feldman & Matjasko, 2005). Many middle schools have created
extracurricular activities such as clubs and student groups on campus to increase school
engagement and connectedness, as well as to create a safe school climate (Mehta, Cornell, Fan,
& Gregory, 2013).
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 63

Relationship between student connectedness, student-teacher relationships, student
involvement and physical, social, and cyber bullying.
This study sought to explore whether school factors such as student connectedness,
student-teacher relationships, and student involvement predicted a prevalence of physical, social,
and cyber bullying. It was hypothesized that students who are more connected to school, have
stronger relationships with teachers, and are more involved in school will experience a lower
prevalence of physical, social, and cyber bullying.
According to the study, results indicated that student connectedness was a common
predictor for all three types of bullying. Poor student-teacher relationship was also a predictor of
social bullying. Limited student involvement was a predictor of cyber bullying.
Studies continue to show that a student’s sense of school connectedness reduces the risk
of negative results such as physical and social bullying. Students that were engaged in bullying
and peer victimization experienced less school connectedness. Connections to conventional, rule
conforming students and school officials support students to abstain from delinquent and
antisocial behaviors. Conversely, students who feel disengaged from these support systems are
more apt to be involved in school misconduct such as bullying and peer aggression (Hong &
Espelage, 2012).
Student connectedness also includes the manner in which classroom rules are established.
Classroom rules should be collaboratively developed with teachers and students and include the
manner in which students are expected to abide by. Classroom rules should cover both indirect
and direct forms of bullying and should be discussed regularly with students. In turn, teachers
should demonstrate consistent positive and negative consequences in regard to bullying and
reinforcing the rules (Limber, 2011).
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 64

Student-teacher relationships did not serve to be a statistically significant predictor of
cyber bullying. One way to explain this lack of statistical significance may be due to the
evolution of the digital age from cyber utilization to cyber immersion (Englander, 2012). As the
generational shift continues to broaden the gap between adults and teenagers, a lack of adult
knowledge and supervision, by both teachers and parents, leads to optimal grounds for cyber
bullying (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). Whereas in past generations, bullying was transparent and
took more effort, with access to new technology, cyber bullying can occur secretly, spread
exponentially, and be saved for infinity (Li, 2005).
Cyber bullying poses several dilemmas for school administrators because few are aware
that students are being harassed electronically. When school administrators are made aware,
authority issues may arise regarding justification to impose formal discipline (Li, 2007; Willard,
2007).
Implications
Rather than targeting individual bullies and victims, a whole school approach is central to
any intervention program offered in school because it addresses the group process of bullying in
a more systematic fashion (Smith, Ananiadou, & Cowie, 2003). A whole school approach entails
anti-bullying policies, programs, and curriculum such as professional development for teachers
and staff, effective school policies to foster school norms against bullying, parent education
classes, cooperative learning opportunities, and proactive school leadership. School-wide
curricular interventions provide an educational component that seeks to increase awareness and
change attitudes regarding the negative impact of bullying, therefore decreasing incidents of
bullying (Hunt, 2007). Anti-bullying policies determine the procedures for reporting and
responding to bullying incidents, a forum for parents, students, and staff to share feedback
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 65

regarding ways to improve the school climate, and committees to assess the school’s progress
(Bolman & Deal, 2003).
As there are considerable benefits of school involvement, many middle schools, as a
result, have created extracurricular activities such as clubs and student groups on campus to
increase school engagement, student connectedness, and safe school climate (Mehta, Cornell,
Fan, & Gregory, 2013). Studies have shown that students with an increased sense of school
connectedness had lower levels of negative outcomes such as bullying and social aggression.
Students with lower sense of connectedness were significantly more likely to be victims of
bullying or involved in bullying (Hong & Espelage, 2012).
Through extracurricular activities, students are able to develop prosocial peer groups and
foster a sense of belonging. Students also build civic and political skills like teamwork and
cooperation. Schools that offer many different activities provide valuable resources that benefit
students in various ways. Schools can support clubs by having teachers serve as club advisors,
allot rooms for clubs to meet in, supply materials and even provide transportation for the club
members (Stearns & Glennie, 2009).
Teachers are more apt to address bullying behaviors that they observe if they believe it to
be a serious problem, feel empathy for the victimized student, believe that they play an important
role in reducing bullying, and that the intervention will be effective (Holt et al., 2013). When
teachers do not respond to observed bullying, this lack of action can generate perceptions that
condone bullying behavior, leading to a negative class climate and low student identification
with the school (Scheithauer, Hess, Schultze-Krumbholz, & Bull, 2012). It is therefore,
imperative for teachers to be equipped and motivated in general and program-specific ways to be
a force to combat bullying.
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 66

School districts and administrators can train teachers and build capacity to better prevent,
detect, and intervene to reduce bullying. Teachers can integrate systematic social skills
instruction into the curriculum and facilitate purposeful dialogue about bullying. Teachers can
also use cooperative group work to create a more positive classroom climate (Farrington & Ttofi,
2009) to help build healthy and equitable relationships and to reduce aggression (Bickmore,
2011). All of these strategies will help support and maintain a positive school climate by
decreasing bullying and increasing appropriate social interactions.
Limitations of the Study
There were several limitations of the study that is worthwhile to note. Although the
California Healthy Kids Survey is a commonly used tool to measure school safety and
prevalence of bullying by a large number of school districts within the state, it did not address
additional components of bullying such as parental monitoring and involvement, particularly as
it pertains to cyber bullying, as well as the multiple roles that students play in bullying such as
bully, victim, bystander, and victim as bully.
Although the field of research regarding traditional bullying is growing, the prevalence of
cyber bullying and its impact on middle school students is relatively new and inconclusive
(Tokunaga, 2010; Mishna, Cook, Gadalla, Daciuk, & Solomon, 2010). Unlike traditional
bullying, cyber bullying expands the dimensions of bullying because it is no longer limited to
schools and can occur regardless of time and location.
According to one study, 97% of adolescents spend on average of two to four hours on-
line each day, engaging primarily in social interactions (Mishna et. al., 2010). Although most
used technology responsibly, as high as one-third of students used it carelessly and
inappropriately to hurt, embarrass, or personally attack others (Bostic & Brunt, 2011; Sabella,
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 67

Patchin, & Hinduja, 2013). Coupling the developmental level of middle school students and their
access to technology and social media, adolescents today have the ability to bully others in a
manner that has not been seen in prior generations.
The CHKS includes one question regarding cyber bullying. Respondents were asked,
“During the past 12 months, how many times did other students spread mean rumors or lies
about you on the Internet (i.e., Facebook, MySpace, email, instant message)?” The one question
appears limiting especially as the evolution of bullying has branched off into the cyber space
realm, given the increased amount of time adolescents spend using technology. The vast majority
of questions focused primarily on physical bullying. There were no additional informational
questions regarding cyber bullying such as hours spent on the Internet, the use of social media,
and whether students sent hurtful messages using technology. The survey did not contain
questions pertaining to parent involvement and knowledge of student attitudes, behavior, and
language used in social media and the Internet.
In terms of bullying, the focus of the survey was to measure victimization, primarily.
Students were asked how safe they felt at school, how often they were harassed physically,
socially and verbally, whether they were a victim of cyber bullying, and the basis for why they
were being bullied. The survey did not ask questions regarding their role in harassing and
bullying others and whether they were both victim and bully on the school campus. There were
no questions regarding the role students played as a bystander and their involvement in a
bullying situation whether they ignored, watched, recorded, defended, or contributed to it.
Another limitation in the study revolved around practical versus statistical significance.
The CHKS is often used by a large number of school districts because of its reliability over time.
With a rather large database due to sample size, many of the data analysis models revealed an
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 68

overall significance. For example, a Pearson product correlation analysis revealed an overall
significance for all measured variables. Results indicated an overall significance between sex and
perceptions of school safety, race and physical bullying, student connectedness and physical,
social, and cyber bullying, student-teacher relationship and social bullying, and cyber bullying
and student involvement. Although statistically significant, most of the models revealed a low
percentage of accounted variability. For example, results revealed 1.2% of variability accounted
for between sex and perceptions of school safety. There was 2% of variability accounted for
between race and physical bullying. There was overall 2.6% of variability accounted for between
cyber bullying and student connectedness, student-teacher relationship, and student involvement.
Recommendations for Future Studies
One recommendation regarding the direction of future research would be to include the
role that parents play in the prevalence of bullying, particularly cyber bullying. Parental
monitoring and involvement exists within Bronfenbrenner’s microsystem because parents have
tremendous influence over the developing student and interact closely on a daily basis. Often,
because cyber bullying falls outside of the context of school, parents can play a pivotal role in
shaping norms and parameters for technology and social media usage. Parent involvement on
when children can use technology, length of time, the sites they access, and knowledge of who
they are interacting with are additional factors that can affect the prevalence of cyber bullying
during this age period. Parent interactions and involvement with their student’s school is an
example of Bronfenbrenner’s mesosystem. Parents and school staff can collaborate to address
and alleviate peer victimization.
Although student connectedness is a predictor of school safety and physical, social, and
cyber bullying, it is unclear whether this predictor is significant based on the quality of
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 69

connectedness. Another recommendation regarding the direction of future research would be to
determine if specific types of student connectedness would increase perceptions of school safety
and reduce the prevalence of bullying. It would be important to look at the factors of school
connectedness such as amount of time spent with a particular club, number of clubs that a
student is involved in, service oriented versus activity based, and formal versus informal
involvement with activities at school.
Conclusion
This study sought to contribute to the exploration of school factors affecting students at
the middle school level by investigating the relationships between independent variables such as
gender, race, school connectedness, student-teacher relationships, and student involvement with
dependent variables such as perceptions of school safety, physical, social, and cyber bullying.
The results of the study revealed that a student’s gender, more than their racial or ethnic
background, played a role in perceptions of safety. More specifically, male students reported
higher perceptions of school safety than their female counterpart.
Gender and race also played a part regarding physical, social, and cyber bullying. Male
students reported higher incidences of physical bullying, whereas female students reported
higher incidences of social and cyber bullying. Regarding race, African-American students
experienced higher prevalence of physical bullying over other races. Although the research on
cyber bullying is still inconclusive, these results were consistent with the body of research and
literature.
Student connectedness, student-teacher relationships, and student involvement were all
predictors of perceptions of school safety as well as physical bullying. Student connectedness
and student-teacher relationships were predictors of social bullying. Student connectedness and
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 70

student involvement were predictors of cyber bullying. These findings support the case for a
school wide approach to improve and sustain a positive school climate which should include
opportunities for students to develop collaborative norms in and out of the classroom, training
and professional development for teachers, and extracurricular activities to connect students to
the school culture and staff outside of the classroom setting. These findings should also pave the
way for future research regarding parental monitoring and involvement as factors for reducing
the prevalence of cyber bullying at the middle school level.

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 71

References
Anderson, C.S. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the research. Review of
Educational Research, 52(3), 368-420.
Archer, J. & Coyne, S. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 212-230.
Barboza, G., Schiamberg, L., Oehmke, J., Korzeniewski, S., Post, L., & Heraux, C. (2011).
Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: an ecological
perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 101-121.
Berger, K. (2007). Update on bullying at school: Science forgotten? Developmental Review,
27(1), 90-126.
Bickmore, K. (2011). Policies and programming for safer schools: Are “anti-bullying”
approaches impeding education for peacebuilding? Educational Policy, 25(4), 648-687.
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(3
rd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Booren, L. M., Handy, D. J., & Power, T. G. (2011). Examining perceptions of school safety
strategies, school climate, and violence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9(2), 171-
187.
Bostic, J. & Brunt, C. (2011). Cornered: An approach to school bullying and cyberbullying, and
forensic implications. Child Adolescent Psychiatric Clinic North America, 20, 447-465.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In International
Encylcopedia of Education (Vol. 3, 2
nd
. Ed. 1643-1647). Oxford: Elsevier.Oxford:
Elsevier
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 72

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and
Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, B., Eicher, S., & Petrie, S. (1986). The importance of peer group (“crowd”) affiliation in
adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 73-96.
Carrera, M. V., DePalma, R., Lameiras, R. (2011). Toward a more comprehensive understanding
of bullying in school settings, Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 479-499.
Casas, J., Del Rey, R., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2013). Bullying and cyberbullying: Convergent and
divergent predictor variables. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 580-587.
Crockett, L., Losoff, M., & Petersen, A. C. (1984). Perceptions of the peer group and friendship
in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 4(2), 155-181.
Crothers, L. & Levinson, E. (2004). Assessment of bullying: A review of methods and
instruments. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82(4), 496-503.
Derosier, M. & Newcity, J. (2005). Student’s perceptions of the school climate. Journal of
School Violence, 4(3), 3-19.
Domino, M. (2013). Measuring the impact of an alternative approach to school bullying. Journal
of School Health, 83(6), 430-437.
Eliot, M., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2010). Supportive school climate and student
willingness to seek help for bullying and threats of violence. Journal of School
Psychology, 48, 533-553.
Englander. E. (2012). Spinning our wheels: Improving our ability to respond to bullying and
cyberbullying. Child Adolescence Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 21, 43-55.
Eccles, J.S., Barber, B.L., Stone, M., & Hunt, J. (2003). Extracurricular activities and adolescent
development. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 865-889.
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 73

Espelage, D. L., Green, H. D. & Wasserman, S. (2007), Statistical analysis of friendship patterns
and bullying behaviors among youth. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 2007(118), 61–75.
Farb, A.F. & Matjasko, J.L. (2012). Recent advances in research on school-based extracurricular
activities and adolescent development. Developmental Review, 32, 1-48.
Farmer, T. & Xie, H. (2007) Aggression and school social dynamics: The good, the bad, and the
ordinary. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 461-478.
Farrington, D. & Ttofi, M. (2009). Reducing school bullying: Evidence-based implications for
policy. Crime and Justice, 38(1), 281-345.
Feldman, A.F. & Matjasko, J.L. (2005). The role of school-based extracurricular activities in
adolescent development: A comprehensive review and future directions. Review of
Educational Research, 75(2), 159-210.
Feldman, A.F. & Matjasko, J.L. (2007). Profiles and portfolios of adolescent school-based
extracurricular activity participation. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 313-332.
Galen, B. & Underwood, M. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression among
children. Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 589-600.
Goldweber, A., Wassdorp, T., Bradshaw, C. (2013). Examining associations between race,
urbanicity, and patterns of bullying involvement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
42(2), 206-219.
Goldstein, S., Young, A., & Boyd, C. (2008). Relational aggression at school: Associations with
school safety and social climate. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 37, 641-654.
Greene, M.B. (2008). Reducing school violence: School-based curricular programs and school
climate. The Prevention Researcher, 15(1), 12-16.
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 74

Greif, J. & Furlong, M. (2006). The assessment of school bullying. Journal of School Violence,
5(3), 33-50.
Griffin, R. & Gross, A. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and future
directions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 379-400.
Guerin, S. & Hennessy, E. (2002). Pupils’ definitions of bullying. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 17(3), 249-261.
Hampel, P., Manhal, S., & Hayer, T. (2009). Direct and relational bullying among children and
adolescents: Coping and psychological adjustment. School Psychology International, 30,
474-490.
Harel-Fisch, Y., Walsh, S.D., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Amitai, G., Pickett, W., Mocho, M., et al.
(2011). Negative school perceptions and involvement in school bullying: A universal
relationship across 40 countries. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 639-652.
Hazler, R. J., Hoover, J. H., & Oliver, R. (1992). What kids say about bullying. The Executive
Educator, 14, 20 . 22.
Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. (2012). School-based efforts to prevent cyberbullying. The Prevention
Researcher, 19(3), 7.
Holt, M., Raczynski, K., Frey, K., Hymel, S., & Limber, S. (2013). School and community-based
approaches for preventing bullying. Journal of School Violence, 12(3), 238-252.
Hong, J. & Eamon, M. (2012). Students’ perceptions of unsafe schools: An ecological systems
analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21, 428-438.
Hong, J. & Espelage, D. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in
school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 311-322.
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 75

Hong, J., Cho, H., Allen-Mearers, P., & Espelage, D. (2011). The social ecology of the
Columbine high school shootings. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 861-868.
Hunt, C. (2007). The effect of an education program on attitudes and beliefs about bullying and
bullying behaviour in junior secondary school students. Child and Adolescent Mental
Health, 12, 21–26
Juvonen, J. & Gross, E. (2008). Extending the school grounds?—bullying experiences in
cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496-505.
Kowalski, R. & Limber, S. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of
Adolescent Heath, 41, 522-530.
Leonard, J. (2011). Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory to understand community
partnerships: A historical case study of one urban high school. Urban Education, 46(5),
987-1010.
Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers in
Human Behavior, 23, 1777-1791.
Limber, S. (2011). Development, evaluation and future directions of the Olweus bullying
prevention program. Journal of School Violence, 10(1), 71-87.
Loukas, A. & Murphy, J. (2007). Middle school student perceptions of school climate:
Examining protective functions on subsequent adjustment problems. Journal of School
Psychology, 45, 293-309.
Merrell, K. & Isava, D. (2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A
meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(1), 26-42.
Metha, S.B., Cornell, D., Fan, X., & Gregory, A. (2013). Bullying climate and school
engagement in ninth-grade students. Journal of School Health, 83(1), 45-52.
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 76

Mishna, F., Cook, C., Gadalla, T., Daciuk, J., & Solomon, S. (2010). Cyber bullying behaviors
among middle and high school students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(3),
362-374.
Neal, J. (2007). Why social networks matters: A structural approach to the study of relational
aggression in middle childhood and adolescence. Child Youth Care Forum, 36, 195-211.
Olweus, D. & Limber, S. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination of the
Olweus bullying prevention program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(1), 124-
134.
Orpinas, P., Horne, A., & Staniszewski, D. (2003). School Bullying: Changing the Problem by
Changing the School. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 431-444.
Patchin, J. & Hinduja, S. (2012). School-based efforts to prevent cyberbullying. The Prevention
Researcher, 19(3), 7-9.
Perrow, C. (1986). Economic Theories of Organization. Theory and Society, 15(1/2), 11-45.
Radliff, K. & Joseph, L. (2011). Girls just being girls? Mediating relational aggression and
victimization. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth,
55(3), 171-179.
Richard, J., Schneider, B., & Mallet, P. (2011). Revisiting the whole-school approach to bullying:
Really looking at the whole school. School Psychology International, 33(3), 263-284.
Sabella, R., Patchin, J., & Hinduja, S. (2013). Cyberbullying myths and realities. Computers in
Human Behavior, 29, 2703-2711.
Salmivalii, C., Kaukiainen, A. & Voeten, M. (2005). Anti-bullying intervention: Implementation
and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 465-487.
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 77

Scheithauer, H., Hess, M., Schultze-Krumholz, A., & Bull, H. (2012). School-based prevention
of bullying and relational aggression in adolescence: The fairplayer.manual. New
Directions for Youth Development, 133, 55-70.
Smith, P. & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of research.
Aggressive Behavior, 26, 1-9.
Smith, P., Ananiadou, K., & Cowie, H. (2003). Interventions to reduce school bullying. Can J
Psychiatry, 48(9), 591-599.
Smith, P., Salmivalli, C., & Cowie, H. (2012). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce
bullying: a commentary. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8, 433-441.
Stearns, E. & Glennie, E. (2009). Opportunities to participate: Extracurricular activities’
distribution across and academic correlates in high schools. Social Science Research, 29,
296-309.
Swearer, S., Espelage, D., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about school
bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 38-47.
Tattum, D.P. (1989) Violence and aggression in schools. In D.P. Tattum & D.A. Lane (Eds.),
Bullying in school (pp.7-19). Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Tharpa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school
climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357-385.
The Orange County Children’s Partnership. (2013). The 19
th
annual report on the condition of
children in Orange County. Fullerton, California: Berelowitz, M.G. (Ed.).
Tokunaga, R. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of
research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277-287.
BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 78

United States Government Accountability Office. (2012). School bullying: Extent of legal
protections for vulnerable groups needs to be more fully assessed (GAO-12-349).
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Varjas, K., Henrich, C. & Meyers, J. (2009). Urban middle school students’ perceptions of
bullying, cyberbullying and school safety. Journal of School Violence, 8, 159-176.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R., & Nansel, T. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United
States: Physical, verbal, relational and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368-375.
Wasserstein-Warnet, M.M. & Klein, Y. (2000). Principals’ cognitive strategies for changes of
perspective in school innovation. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School
Organisation, 20(4), 435-457.
Yerger, W. & Gehret, C. (2011). Understanding and dealing with bullying in schools. The
Educational Forum, 75(4), 315-326.
Young, E., Boye, A.,& Nelson, D. (2006). Relational aggression: Understanding, identifying and
responding in schools. Psychology in the Schools, 43(3), 297-312.

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 79

APPENDIX A
Informed Consent Form

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 80

BULLYING AMONGST MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS 81

APPENDIX B
CALIFORNIA Healthy Kids SURVEY
Core Module
Middle School Questionnaire
2013-2014

Next, we would like some background information about you.

4. What is your sex?
A) Male
B) Female

6. Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin?
A) No
B) Yes

7. What is your race?
A) American Indian or Alaska Native
B) Asian
C) Black or African American
D) Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
E) White
F) Mixed (two or more) races

10. During the past 12 months, how would you describe the grades you mostly receive in school?
A) Mostly A’s
B) A’s and B’s
C) Mostly B’s
D) B’s and C’s
E) Mostly C’s
F) C’s and D’s
G) Mostly D’s
H) Mostly F’s

11. During the past 12 months, about how many times did you skip school or cut classes?
A) 0 times
B) 1-2 times
C) A few times
D) Once a month
E) Once a week
F) More than once a week
Stephen
Yoon

82

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree
Neither
Disagree
Nor
Agree

Agree

Strongly
Agree
13. I feel close to people at this school. A B C D E
14. I am happy to be at this school. A B C D E
15. I feel like I am part of this school. A B C D E
16. The teachers at this school treat students fairly A B C D E
17. I feel safe in my school. A B C D E
18. I try hard to make sure that I am good at my
schoolwork.
A B C D E
19. I try hard at school because I am interested in my
work.
A B C D E
20. I work hard to try to understand new things at school. A B C D E
21. I am always trying to do better in my schoolwork A B C D E

Please mark on your answer sheet how TRUE you feel each of the following statements is about
your SCHOOL and things you might do there.

At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult…

Not At All
True
A Little
True
Pretty
Much True
Very Much
True
22. who really cares about me.
23. who tells me when I do a good job.
A B C D

24. who notices when I’m not there. A B C D
25. who always wants me to my best. A B C D
26. who listens to me when I have something to say. A B C D
27. who believes that I will be a success. A B C D

At my school,…

Not At All
True
A Little
True
Pretty
Much True
Very Much
True
28. I do interesting activities. A B C D
29. I help decide things like class activities or rules. A B C D
30. I do things that make a difference. A B C D

Next are questions about violence, safety, harassment, & bullying on school property.

71. How safe do you feel when you are at school?
A) Very safe
B) Safe
C) Neither safe nor unsafe
D) Unsafe
E) Very unsafe

Stephen
Yoon

83

During the past 12 months, how many times on school property have you…

Happened on School Property

0 Times

1 Time
2 to 3
Times
4 or More
Times
73. been pushed, shoved, slapped, hit or kicked by
someone who wasn’t just kidding around?
A B C D
74. been afraid of being beaten up? A B C D
75. been in a physical fight? A B C D
76. had mean rumors or lies spread about you? A B C D
77. had sexual jokes, comments, or gestures made to you? A B C D
78. been made fun of because of your looks or the way
you talk?
A B C D
79. had your property stolen or deliberately damaged, such
as your car, clothing or books?
A B C D
80. been offered, sold, or given an illegal drug? A B C D
81. damaged school property on purpose? A B C D
82. carried a gun? A B C D
83. carried any other weapon (such as a knife or club)? A B C D
84. been threatened or injured with a weapon (gun, knife,
club, etc.)?
A B C D
85. seen someone carrying a gun, knife, or other weapon? A B C D
86. been threatened with harm or injury? A B C D
87. been made fun of, insulted, or called names? A B C D

During the past 12 months, how many times on school property were you harassed or bullied for any of
the following reasons? [You were bullied if you were shoved, hit, threatened, called mean names, teases,
or had other unpleasant physical or verbal things done to you repeatedly or in a severe way. It is not
bullying when two students of about the same strength quarrel or fight.]

0 Times

1 Time
2 to 3
Times
4 or More
Times
88. Your race, ethnicity, or national origin A B C D
89. Your religion A B C D
90. Your gender (being male or female) A B C D
91. Because you are gay or lesbian or someone thought
you were
A B C D
92. A physical or mental disability A B C D
93. Any other reason A B C D

94. During the past 12 months, how many times did other students spread mean rumors or lies about you
on the internet (i.e., Facebook™, MySpace™, email, instant message)?
A) 0 times (never)
B) 1 time
C) 2-3 times
D) 4 or more times

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the relationship of school factors such as student connectedness, student-teacher relationships, and school involvement in relation to the prevalence of bullying and perceptions of school safety amongst middle school students. Participants included 3,219 7th grade students who completed the California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) which measures resiliency, protective factors, and risk behaviors in students. The CHKS is a statewide survey designed to help schools meet the directives and goals mandated for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Hanson & Kim, 2007). Findings indicated that male students reported higher perceptions of school safety than female students. Although male students reported a higher prevalence of physical bullying, female students reported a higher prevalence of social and cyber bullying. Student connectedness, student-teacher relationship, and student involvement were important variables in predicting perceptions of school safety. Student connectedness was also an important variable in predicting physical, social, and cyber bullying. Student-teacher relationship was a predictor of social bullying. Student involvement was a predictor of cyber bullying. The results of this study provide direction for a whole school approach to create a positive school climate that addresses school safety and bullying.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A family affair: the role of parenting style, parental supervision, and family composition as explanatory factors for bullying

PDF

The vortex of homophobic bullying: the reporting behavior of teachers

PDF

The relationship between parenting styles, career decision self-efficacy, and career maturity of Asian American college students

PDF

Exploring the relationship between academic achievement and classroom behavior of Asian American elementary school students

PDF

Understanding the teachers' perception of impeding bullying in the middle school classroom

PDF

Relationships between academic and psychosocial skills of community college students

PDF

Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students

PDF

Exploring the prevalence and mitigating variables of secondary traumatic stress in K-12 educators

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying

PDF

Teachers as bystanders: the effect of teachers’ perceptions on reporting bullying behavior

PDF

Psychosociocultural predictors of help seeking among Latino community college students

PDF

The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students

PDF

Examining the relationship between Latinx community college STEM students’ self-efficacy, social capital, academic engagement and their academic success

PDF

The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students

PDF

School social dynamics as mediators of students personal traits and family factors on the perpetration of school violence in Taiwan

PDF

What motivational factors influence community college students' tendency to seek help through math tutoring?

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions of student behavior and relationship quality: an exploration of racial congruence and self-identity development

PDF

Factors that contribute to high and low performing Vietnamese American high school students

PDF

Promising practices of anti-bullying: safe and supportive environments for all students

PDF

Factors contributing to the civic engagement of rural community college students

Asset Metadata

Creator Yoon, Stephen Jun (author)

Core Title The relationship between school factors and the prevalence of bullying amongst middle school students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 09/03/2015

Defense Date 08/26/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag bullying,Middle school students,OAI-PMH Harvest,school factors

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth (committee chair), Andres, Mary (committee member), Clark, Ginger (committee member)

Creator Email yoons@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-174849

Unique identifier UC11273521

Identifier etd-YoonStephe-3868.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-174849 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-YoonStephe-3868.pdf

Dmrecord 174849

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Yoon, Stephen Jun

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA