University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
TEACHERS AS BYSTANDERS: THE EFFECT OF TEACHERS’
PERCEPTIONS ON REPORTING BULLYING BEHAVIOR

by

Beth P. Uale

_____________________________________________________________

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

August 2010

Copyright 2010 Beth P. Uale

ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my family, especially…
to my husband Bode…for believing that I can accomplish anything I set my
mind to
to my children – Crichton, Andria, Justin and Travis…may they always
remember the value of education
to my late parents…who provided love and financial support
to my grandchildren…who I hope will aspire to reach their highest goals.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my committee chair, Dr. Melora
Sundt for the encouragement, support and gentle push to help me meet the deadlines
that made it possible for me to complete this dissertation. Without her inspired
guidance this dissertation would not have been possible.

I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Dominic Brewer and Dr.
Stuart Gothold for their valuable feedback and for encouraging me to share this work
with educators and legislators. I also want to express appreciation to my committee
members for making the dissertation proposal and final defense a positive and
rewarding experience.

In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Dennis Hocevar for generously giving of his
time to help me finish the statistical analysis. My heartfelt gratitude goes to the
members of the 2007 USC Hawaii Cohort who provided encouragement and
friendship through the entire process. Finally, I would like to thank my Father in
Heaven, my husband, my children and my friends for the spiritual and moral support
that gave me the confidence to accomplish this goal.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Abstract vii
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 26
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 38
Chapter 4: Analysis of the Data 53
Chapter 5: Discussion 86
References 108
Appendix: Survey Instrument 122

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Hawai‘i Youth Risk Behavior Survey (responses from students) 7
Table 2. Three categories of bullying behaviors 14
Table 3. Decision model (Latane & Darley) 27
Table 4. Participating Complex Areas (Hawai‘i State DOE) 55
Table 5. Participants by school position 58
Table 6. Participants by age group 59
Table 7. Ethnicity 60
Table 8. Actionable behaviors 62
Table 9. Behaviors you would report 64
Table 10. Age group, gender and reporting 67
Table 11. Actionable behavior by gender 68
Table 12. Reporting verbal abuse 70
Table 13. Reporting social abuse 71
Table 14. Who handles bullying behavior? 74
Table 15. People you would report to (top 4) 75
Table 16. Why you would report to that person/office 76
Table 17. Bullying strategies 78
Table 18. Top reasons why people are likely to intervene 80
Table 19. Barriers to reporting 81
Table 20. Findings related to the Bystander Theory 90

vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Students ages 12-18 who reported bullying problems at school 5
in 2005
Figure 2. O‘ahu Complex Areas (school districts) 56
Figure 3. Number of years in education 59

vii
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the role of educators as it relates to the reporting process
of bullying incidents. Since bullying behaviors have negative effects on student
health and educators have regular contact with students, this study looks at teacher
perceptions of bullying behaviors and how these perceptions influence the reporting
process. Using the theoretical framework of bystander behavior by Latane and
Darley (1970), the purpose of this study was to examine the teachers’ bystander
experience by: 1) looking at how teachers interpreted an incident as a problem – in
this case that was accomplished by examining the bullying behaviors teachers
considered “actionable”; 2) determining whether educators felt responsible for
dealing with bullying incidents by gathering data that revealed teacher reporting
habits regarding “actionable” behaviors; and 3) exploring available resources and
tools for intervention by examining the school climate, the personal characteristics of
the teacher and other influences on the reporting process.
Data for this study was collected through a questionnaire using educators
from public elementary and middle schools in the State of Hawai‘i. A total of 195
surveys were used for data analysis. The results found that teachers did not agree on
which behaviors should be reported. Gender differences were found regarding
which bullying behaviors teachers considered more serious. Physical and verbal
behaviors were considered more actionable than social behaviors.
Teachers’ views on the severity of verbal and social bullying behaviors did
not match their data on reporting. In many classrooms, verbal and social bullying

viii
often went unreported. Factors such as the location of the incident and the physical
state of the victim affected the intervention process.
Many teachers in Hawai‘i have not had formal training to handle bullying
problems. Some of the schools that participated in the study have school policies for
behavior, yet many of the teachers believe that the schools do not enforce these
policies.

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Bullying, defined by Olweus (1993) as repeated negative actions by one
person towards another (p. 98) and by Rigby (2008) as the systematic abuse of power
in interpersonal relationships (p. 22), is considered an international crisis and is one
of the most highly researched topics in education (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Over
20, 000 scholarly articles and books have been written on the subject since 1978
(Google Scholar). Indeed, incidents of bullying have been reported in homes, on
college campuses and in the workplace (Chapell, Hasselman, Kitchin, Lomon,
MacIver & Sarullo, 2006). But the most common site for bullying is the school
(Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler, Wiener, 2005; Akiba, LeTendre, Baker & Goesling,
2002).
To illustrate the severity of the problem, information is presented here
beginning with data from international sources. Following the international sources
is the data from resources within the United States and finally, the data available on
bullying in the State of Hawai‘i.

Background of the Problem
International Data
The problem of bullying is an international concern as evident through
published research findings from Norway, Finland, Israel, Great Britain, Canada,
Sweden, Japan and Australia (Akiba, LeTendre, Baker, Goesling, 2002;

2
Benbenishty, Astor & Zeira, 2003; Olweus, 1993; Rigby, 2003; Schafer, Korn,
Brodbeck, Wolke & Schulz, 2005; Salmon, James, & Smith, 1998; Khoury-
Kassabri, Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Green, 2007). Bullying behaviors affect 30-
40% of students both nationally and internationally from elementary school through
high school and beyond (Astor, 2002; Behre, 2001; Khosropour, 2001; Unnever &
Corneli, 2003; Olweus, 1993). Students from elementary school through high school
are affected by bullying behaviors, but the largest number of bullying incidents
occurs in the middle school grades (Astor, 2002; Behre, Astor & Meyer 2001;
Khosropour & Walsh, 2001; Unnever & Corneli, 2003; Eisenberg & Aalsma, 2005).
In 2004 the World Health Organization published selected key findings from
the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study showing that the percentage of
bullying (at least twice a month) ranged from 1% to 50% across all countries, regions
and age/gender groups. Bullying was found to be more prevalent among boys than
girls and increased slightly between 11 and 15 years of age (WHO, 2004). The
report is a good indicator to participating countries on how well their bullying
prevention programs are doing.
After the 2002 report (the reports are done every 4 years although the 2008
report is not yet available to the public), the PREVNet organization in Canada stated
on their website that Canada’s drop in ranking from the previous report showed that
countries such as Norway and England have made progress through national
campaigns to address bullying issues. Canadian children who died from bullying
raised their awareness of bullying problems for bullies and victims and sparked

3
interest in promoting prevention strategies (PREVNet, 2010). Canada’s renewed
interest in bullying prevention demonstrates the importance of international reports
such as the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study.

National Data
Although bullying is a problem for educators, it is not often addressed in U.S.
schools (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton, Scheidt, 2001). Initial
studies on bullying took place in countries such as Norway, Australia, and the United
Kingdom (Olweus, 1993; Rigby, 2003; Smith, Pepler & Rigby, 2004), however the
issue was not a major concern for the United States until the Columbine shootings in
1999 (Koch, 1998; Dake, Price & Telljohann; Gladden, 2002). The connection
between extreme violence and bullying became national news when the U.S. Secret
Service revealed that two thirds of the 37 different school shootings in the United
States were triggered by previous acts of bullying.
In March of 2010, the American public was again reminded of the impact of
bullying when 15 year old Phoebe Prince of Hadley, Massachusetts committed
suicide. The event happened in January of 2010, but news of the event spread across
various television stations, newspapers and magazines within two months. Due to
the fact that legal action was taken against the six high school students who were
accused of verbal bullying and threats of physical violence, wide-spread attention
was given to the fact that bullying continues to be a problem in our nation’s schools

4
(Smolowe, Herbst, Egan, Rakowsky & Mascia, 2010). Also important to this study
is the fact that verbal and social bullying has devastating effects on students.
According to Nan Stein, Senior Research Scientist at the Center of Research
on Women at Wellesley College, there is very little research on U.S. bullying. She
believes that more research must be done in the United States because strategies
developed in other countries, such as implementation of a nation-wide curriculum,
are not appropriate for America’s education system. Stein also criticized the use and
application of international data collection by American teachers because the studies
used predominantly homogeneous populations (Geffner, Loring, Young, 2001).
Abigail McNamee and Mia Mercurio (2008) report that “…half of all
children in the United States are bullied at some time in their lives; one in two is
victim on a regular basis.” In 1998, after the United States became a part of the
World Health Organization (WHO, 2010), one of the first studies on bullying the
United States surveyed 15,686 students in grades 6-10 from both public and private
schools across the country (part of the World Health Organization’s Health Behavior
in School-aged Children Survey). The data revealed that bullying was most
prevalent among 6
th
to 8
th
grade students. The report showed 29.9% of students were
involved in bullying behaviors and 13% bullied others. The percentage declined in
grades 9-10 (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton & Scheidt, 2001).
The National Center for Educational Statistics published a report on the
indicators of school crime and safety in 2007 (the most recent set of published
statistics). The indicators were compiled from national surveys taken by students,

5
teachers and principals. The type of behavior reported and the percentage of
students who were victimized by these behaviors are found in Figure 1 (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2007).

Figure 1. Students ages 12-18 who reported bullying problems at school in 2005

NOTE: "At school" includes the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and
from school. Types of bullying do not sum to total because students could have experienced more than
one type of bullying. In 2005, the unit response rate for this survey did not meet NCES statistical
standards; therefore, interpret the data with caution. Population size for students ages 12–18 is
25,811,000 in 2005 (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime
Supplement [SCS] to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2005).

Figure 1 shows the results of a survey taken by students, ages 12-18 who
reported selected bullying problems at school during the previous 6 months (prior to
the date of the survey in 2005), by the type of bullying. The results indicate 28% of
all students reported being bullied during the last half of 2005. Students ages 12-18

6
reported that 11% of them were targets of hate related words and 38% were targets
of hate-related graffiti. In 2005, 53 percent of students who had been bullied said
that the incidents occurred 1-2 times over a 6 month period; 25 percent experienced
bullying 1-2 times a month; 11 percent were bullied 1-2 times a week and 8 percent
were bullied almost daily. Data on the location of the bullying revealed that 79% of
the incidents occurred in school, 28% outside of school grounds, 8% on the bus and
5% elsewhere (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007).
Approximately 40% of public and private school teachers agreed that student
misconduct interfered with their ability to teach. On the elementary school level
79% of teachers and 88% of principals reported that they believed the school rules
were enforced by teachers and by the principal. On the secondary level 56% of
teachers and 86% of principals believed the rules were enforced by teachers and by
the principal (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007).

Hawai‘i State Data
Although a significant amount of the available research on bullying is
focused on international and mainland U.S. schools (Doll, Song, Siemers, 2004),
there are relatively few research-based studies that address bullying issues in
Hawai‘i’s schools (D’Amato, 1988, O’Donnell, 2003). The most recent statistics on
the behavior of middle school students from the Hawai‘i Youth Risk Behavior
Survey for Public Middle Schools published by the Curriculum Research &

7
Development Group from the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, College of Education
(Saka, 2008) revealed the following:

Table 1. Hawai‘i Youth Risk Behavior Survey (responses from students)

Health Risk Behavior (Middle School) %
Had someone try to hurt them by hitting, punching, or kicking them while
on school property during the 12 months before the survey
32.6
Had been hurt by having mean things said to them (things that hurt their
feelings) while on school property one or more times during the 12 months
before the survey
52.5
Had been hurt by having mean things said to them or about them (things
that hurt their feelings) on the Internet or email during the 12 months before
the survey
19.9
Had been harassed because someone thought they were gay, lesbian, or
bisexual during the 12 months before the survey
10.3
Strongly agree or agree that harassment and bullying by other students is a
problem at their school
67.8
Felt so sad or hopeless almost every day for two or more weeks in a row
that they stopped doing some usual activities during the 12 months before
the survey
26.1
Seriously thought about killing themselves during the 12 months before the
survey
17.5

Impact of Bullying
Mental Health Concerns
Bullying is a critical issue for the health of our youth both nationally and
internationally (Nansel, Craig, Overpeck, Saluja, Ruan, & the Health Behaviour in

8
School-aged Children Bullying Analyses Working Group, 2004). Data from
American research studies link bullying incidents with mental health concerns, anti-
social behavior and even suicide (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton,
Scheidt, 2001; Coloroso, 2003; Hazler & Carney, 2002). The National School
Safety Center states that, “school bullying affects the safety and social well-being of
the entire school community.”

Psychological Problems
Health issues associated with bullying include psychosomatic and
psychosocial problems, depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder and suicide
(Quiroz, Arnette & Stephens, 2006). Bully victims have higher chances of
developing new psychosomatic and psychosocial problems (Fekkes, Pijpers,
Fredriks, Vogels And Verloove-Vanhorick, 2006; Nishina, Juvonen & Witkow,
2005). A study that compared symptoms of students in 28 countries showed a
consistent and strong connection between bullying and physical or psychological
symptoms including headache, stomach ache, backache, feeling low, bad temper,
nervousness, difficulties in getting to sleep, dizziness, loneliness, feeling tired,
feeling left out, and feeling helpless (Due, Holstein, Lynch, Diderichsen, Gabhain,
Scheidt, Currie, and the Health Behavior in School-Aged Children Bullying Working
Group, 2005).
Another hazard associated with bullying is posttraumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) attributed to exposure to community violence, physical and sexual abuse,

9
disasters and war. High-risk populations have shown that 1 out of 3 young people
will develop PTSD. Often children with PTSD are not diagnosed early enough and
the problem continues with them into their adult life. This disorder causes students
to show low academic achievement, lower self-worth, anxiety, depression and
loneliness (Kataoka, 2008; Mynard, Joseph & Alexander 2000; Storch & Esposito,
2003).

Depression and Suicide
Victims of bullying often develop symptoms of depression. A recent study
on childhood depression revealed that nearly 3 million children and adolescents
suffer from depression including very young students. This disorder can be triggered
by various reasons including prolonged exposure to violence or physical or
emotional abuse. Left untreated, depression can lead to adolescent suicide since
students suffering from depression are 14 times more likely to commit or attempt
suicide (Koch, 1999).
Not only are bullying incidents associated with mental health concerns and
social adjustment issues (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton, Scheidt,
2001; Boulton & Hawker, 1997), but in many cases bullying behavior is also the
cause of teen suicide (Coloroso, 2003; Hazler & Carney, 2002). Although 40% of
adolescent deaths are caused by suicide, it is not clear what percentage of suicides
were the result of bullying (NEA, 2008). The most recent statistics from the
National Center for Educational Statistics show that suicide of 5-18 year olds totaled

10
1,471 between 2004 and 2005 (IES National Center for Educational Statistics, 2007).
Coloroso (2002) lists 13 specific cases of suicide due to bullying and comments that
hundreds of cases from around the world have been documented to prove the
connection between bullying behaviors and teen suicide.
Young people deal with depression, loss, frustration and rejection. Combined
with impulsivity due to adolescent hormones, these feelings can lead to suicide
(Hosannsky, 2004). In two recent international studies of over 5,500 children, the
results indicate that depression and suicidal ideation are associated with being bullied
for both boys and girls ages 9-15. Indirect bullying was found to be more of a
problem than direct bulling on health outcomes. Suicidal ideation in connect with
indirect bullying was more prevalent in girls than in boys (van der Wal, de Wit,
Hirasing, 2003; Kim, Koh & Leventhal, 2005).

Long-term Health Effects
Research on the long-term effects of bullying show that sometimes months or
years after a bullying incident occurs, emotional problems exist for both bullies and
victims. Studies found that the future emotional well being of students was related to
victimization (Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin & Patton, 2001). Findings show that
physical or relational aggression in grades 7-9 was found to increase the risk of
aggression for the next 1-2 years or later (Herrenkohl, Catalano, Hemphill &
Toumbourou, 2009). Additional studies found that the problem of depression often

11
continues into adulthood (Lund, Nielsen, Hansen, Kriegbaum, Molbo, Due and
Christensen, 2009).

Gender Issues
The effect of bullying on students’ mental health status was found to be most
prevalent in girls. Recent studies reveal that girls are commonly involved with
indirect forms of bullying such as verbal and social bullying including name-calling,
teasing and spreading rumors (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton &
Scheidt, 2001; Owens, Shute & Slee, 2000). Direct bullying is more prevalent
among males (Eisenberg & Aalsma, 2005). However, several studies have
confirmed that verbal abuse, social abuse and practical jokes are just as detrimental
to the students’ mental health and social wellbeing as physical abuse (Olweus, 1993;
Glascock, 2008; Owens, Shute & Slee, 2000; Espelage & Swearer, 2003).

Strategies
Several school strategies have been implemented to address bullying and most
include prevention programs such as the Olweus program that help students, faculty
and administrators develop social skills, citizenship and awareness of good behavior
(Olweus, 1993). School districts have set up comprehensive and effective student
conduct policies and prevention strategies using professional development and
encourage states and districts to maintain and report data (National Safe Schools
Partnership 2007). Some schools use teaching practices that reduce aggression by

12
promoting student engagement and positive work habits (Herrenkohl, Catalano,
Hemphill & Toumbourou, 2009). Other schools have reduced the size of the school
with positive results on student behavior (Devine, 2004).

Teacher Self-Efficacy and Intervention Skills
Many teachers fail to report bullying behaviors that happen in the classroom
due to personal feelings of inadequacy, a high tolerance level for bullying behaviors,
or often because the behaviors go unnoticed (Crothers and Kolbert, 2008; Naylor,
Cowie, Cossin, deBettencourt & Lemme, 2006). Teachers that view specific
bullying incidents as normative behavior are not likely to intervene (Kochenderfer-
Ladd & Pelletier, 2007). Studies show that the role of the teacher is a major factor in
preventing bullying behaviors and maintaining a positive atmosphere in the
classroom (Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler, Wiener, 2005; Dedousis-Wallace & Shute,
2009).
In order to prevent bullying problems from escalating, it is important to look
at teacher perceptions of reportable behaviors, the ability and self-efficacy of the
educator to deal with the problem, the availability of support systems and various
factors that may inhibit the teacher from reporting. This dissertation will focus on 1)
the teachers’ understanding of bullying behaviors and how those perceptions affect
the reporting process, 2) compare the behaviors that are considered actionable with
those that are actually reported, 3) observe the influence of the school climate on

13
reporting process and 4) determine whether the teachers’ perceived self-efficacy
interferes with reporting behaviors.

Drawing the Line
The problem of bullying affects more than 80 percent of all middle school
students (Bosworth, Espelage & Simon, 1999) yet several issues make it difficult to
control the undesired behavior. These barriers include a nebulous understanding on
behalf of educators as to where to draw the line regarding bullying behavior – for
example, some teachers view physical bulling as serious and worthy of
documentation, yet social and verbal abuse is not always reported (Dedousis-Wallace
& Shute, 2009; Evans, 2003). Barriers also include confusion regarding who is
responsible for reporting; school climates that may not promote student safety and
teacher support; a lack of teacher or staff training to deal with difficult situations;
and lastly a need for guidelines to determine appropriate interventions based on the
needs of individual schools (Astor, Benbenishty & Meyer, 2005).
Behaviors associated with bullying are usually listed under three main
categories: physical, verbal, and social. Table 2 lists some of the common terms in
each of these categories. Terms that may be less familiar to some readers are defined
in the list of terms towards the end of this chapter.

14
Table 2. Three categories of bullying behaviors

PHYSICAL VERBAL SOCIAL
Hitting
Kicking (not in self defense)
Locking students out/in
Mean gestures
Pushing
Sexual or physical
harassment
Stealing or destroying
another persons property
Homophobic Slurs
Intimidation
Name calling (frequent)
Put-downs
Racial slurs
Spreading
rumors/gossiping
Taunting
Teasing (repeated)
Threatening
Verbal harassment
Cyber-bullying
Hazing
Humiliation or
shaming
Ignoring
Inappropriate
notes/drawings
Mobbing
Ostracism
Punking
Rejecting
Note. List of bullying behaviors compiled using the following journals “School-wide intervention in
the childhood bullying triangle,” by A. McNamee & M. Mercurio, 2008. Childhood Education, 84:6;
“That's not teasing --That's Bullying: A study of fifth graders' conceptualization of bullying and
teasing,” by S. C. Khosropour & J. Walsh, 2001. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association (Seattle, WA, April 10-14, 2001); “Bullying and peer
victimization: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine,” M. E. Eisenberg & M. C.
Aalsma, 2005. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 88-91; “Research on school bullying and
victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here,” by D. L. Espelage & S. M.
Swearer, 2003. School Psychology Review, 32(2), 365-382.

Studies show that teachers differ on their perception of reportable behaviors.
In a study of UK teachers, 25% of them did not consider name calling, spreading
rumors, stealing and intimidation to be bullying behaviors (Naylor, Cowie, Cossin,
deBettencourt & Lemme (2006). Teachers in Canada consider physical aggression a
serious offense, yet verbal aggression and exclusion are not considered behaviors
worthy of intervention (Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler & Wiener, 2005).

15
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework that addresses the teachers’ role in the
intervention process is the bystander theory from Latane & Darley (1970). This
theory lists four main points of bystander behavior. The bystander must 1) notice the
event 2) interpret it as a problem 3) feel responsible for dealing with it 4) determine
the mode of intervention. If the bystanders in this situation are teachers, the four
stages could be modified to show that in order for a teacher to intervene the teacher
must 1) notice the bullying behavior; 2) interpret it as a problem that must be
addressed; 3) take responsibility for dealing with the problem and 4) determine how
to best handle the situation. Previous literature examined teacher reporting from the
perspective of recognizing and reporting bullying behaviors that focus on stages 1
and 2 of this theory – recognizing there is a problem and dealing with it.
The first area of focus for this study will be stage 2 – interpret it as a problem
or in this case determine where to draw the line on bullying behaviors that should be
reported. It is important that teachers and staff members have a clear understanding
of when to intervene. If teachers are uncertain on the nature or severity of the
behavior, bullying situations may be overlooked or ignored. Many teachers may not
see this as problem but it sets the standard for students on which behaviors a teacher
will tolerate (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Pelletier, 2008; Dedousis-Wallace & Shute,
2009).
The second area of focus will examine stage 3 – feel responsible for dealing
with the problem. Some teachers see bullying incidents that occur either in the

16
classroom or on campus, however they ignore the behavior or chose not to report it.
Sometimes this happens because teachers do not feel they are adequately training to
deal with the situation (Newman-Carlson & Horne, 2004).
The last area of focus will examine stage 4 – determining the mode of
intervention. In order for teachers to handle behavioral problems they must have the
necessary training or support. Teachers are expected to be competent in dealing with
difficult situations, yet reports show that often educators feel insecure about their
skills to handle certain behavioral issues (Crothers & Kolbert, 2008; Rigby &
Bagshaw, 2003). One area of focus in stage 4 will include a review of the school
climate to see if the support or lack of support from the counselors, administrators
and staff encourages or discourages reporting.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to examine three parts of teachers’ bystander
experience: (1) examine the ways in which teachers interpret an incident as a
problem by looking at which bullying behaviors teachers consider “actionable’; (2)
examine whether teachers feel responsible for dealing with the behavior based on
their decision to report or not to report; and (3) establish the mode of intervention
and look at barriers that may inhibit the intervention process including teacher
perceptions of school climate (support from counselors, administrators; school rules,
school culture) and personal characteristics. This study also explored the degree to

17
which those determinations and perceptions vary by age group, gender, position,
cultural affiliation and school location.
Since a large number of bullying incidents occur in the middle school grades
(Astor, 2002; Behre, Astor & Meyer, 2001; Khosropour & Walsh, 2001; Unnever &
Corneli, 2003; Eisenberg & Aalsma, 2005), the focus of this study will be on the
perceptions and reporting behaviors of 4th-8th grade teachers. Programs that
specifically help teachers know where to draw the line on reporting unacceptable
behaviors will be examined for their effectiveness on training teachers.
Recommendations will be made for teachers in Hawai‘i with respect to cultural
considerations and community influences.

Statement of the Problem
Bullying incidents occur most often in upper elementary and middle school
grade levels (Bosworth, Espelage & Simon, 1999). The topic of bullying has been
studied for years, yet the problem continues to exist. There are several documented
cases of bullying incidents that have generated health and self-esteem issues for both
victims and perpetrators. In some cases the health problems have persisted years
beyond the actual incident(s) (Nansel, Craig, Overpeck, Saluja, Ruan, & the Health
Behaviour in School-aged Children Bullying Analyses Working Group, 2004).
Aside from the victim(s) and the perpetrator (s) there are other people, known
as bystanders, who often witness or hear about bullying (Rigby, 2008; Levine,
Cassidy & Brazier, 2002; Stueve, Dash, O’Donnell, Tehranifar, Wilson-Simmons,

18
Slaby & Link). Bystanders in this case would include students, teachers, staff,
administrators and on some occasions parents or community members. When
bullying incidents occurs on school campuses, students who witness the event are
often the immediate bystanders. Teachers are usually the second largest group to
witness bullying behaviors on or near school campuses. Teachers should become
more active in reporting what they see and hear to reduce the impact of bullying.
Due to the fact that Hawai‘i has some unique issues such as an indigenous
population of Hawaiian students, a very diverse immigrant population, cultural
mores, and a sizeable disparity between public and private education, this study look
at the differences between school location and how these differences affect the
intervention process. Strategies and guidelines specific to bullying problems in
Hawai‘i schools will be offered along with a recommendation for further research on
this topic.

Research Questions
This study poses the following research questions:
1. What behaviors do 4
th
-8
th
grade teachers agree constitute bullying that
should be reported (DV)?
• Sub-question: How does their determination of “actionable” vary by
the teacher’s age group (IV), gender (IV), position at the school (IV),
cultural affiliation (IV), or school location (IV)?

19
2. Have teachers become aware of behaviors that meet their definition of
“actionable” but that they have not reported (DV)?
• Sub-question: How does the decision to not report vary by the
teacher’s age group (IV), gender (IV), school position (IV), cultural
affiliation/ ethnicity (IV), or school location (IV)?
3. To what extent do teachers attribute their decision not to report (DV) to
aspects of school culture (IV) [i.e. their perception about the support
teachers receive from school administration (IV), their perception of the
effectiveness of any school intervention (IV), and their concern about
their report being kept confidential (IV)]?
• Sub-question: How do these attributions vary by the teacher’s age
group (IV), gender (IV), position (IV), cultural affiliation (IV) or
school location (IV)?
4. To what extent do teachers attribute their decision not to report (DV) to
their own characteristics [i.e., lack of skill to effectively deal with the
situation, anxiety about confrontation].
• Sub-question: How do these attributions vary by the teacher’s age
group (IV), gender (IV), position (IV), cultural affiliation (IV) or
school location (IV)?

20
Significance of the Study
Bullying behavior affects student health, self-esteem, school climate, campus
safety, instructional time in the classroom and many other topics. The expectation is
that this study will benefit 4-8th grade teachers, counselors and administrators by: 1)
providing a better understanding of when, where and how teachers report incidents
of bullying; 2) uncover the reasons why teachers fail to report or intervene; and 3)
provide greater insight into appropriate strategies for teachers, students and
administrators. This study is also important for administrators to insure that clear
rules, procedures and support systems are in place for both teachers and students to
improve student behavior and school climate.
This study will also add value to the literature of bullying in the State of
Hawai‘i. Most of the scholarly works on bullying come from Norway, Australia and
England. Some studies have been done in the mainland U.S., however the data from
this study will look specifically at bullying and reporting as it applies to public
schools in Hawai‘i.

Methodology
Data collected for this study will be done through a questionnaire
administered to teachers of upper elementary and middle school students using both
in-person data collection and on-line data collection via Survey Monkey. The
schools selected for this survey include middle and low-income schools with strong
community influences from the Central and Leeward areas of O‘ahu. These schools

21
were selected based on the availability of administrators and teachers who were
willing to participate in the study.
The focus of the survey is to examine teacher perceptions of specific bullying
behaviors (severity levels); perceptions of individual intervention limitations
(bystander behavior); teacher competency (training and self-efficacy); perceptions of
administrators, co-workers, school counselors and other support staff; school climate
(tolerance level for bullying behavior; teacher/staff development strategies; rules and
procedures; support systems; and ethnic/cultural influences). Data results will be
quantitative. Approximately 300 surveys will be sent out with a 50% expected
return rate.
The expected generalizability of findings: the expected outcome is that most
teachers are not sure what behaviors should be reported and lack the necessary
support and/or skills to effectively deal with bullying incidents.

Limitations
Limitations for this study include the fact that the questionnaire used for data
collection was created specifically for the purpose of this report. It is reliable only as
far the measurements of the instrument are correct. Consideration will be given for
instrument validity by administering a sample survey to a group of teachers prior to
sending the questionnaire out to for data collection. The results of the questionnaire
are restricted to the experiences and opinions of teachers who voluntarily complete
the survey.

22
Delimitations
Due to time limitations concerning the collection of responses, the teachers
selected for the survey were not from a random sample. The collection of
questionnaire responses comes from selected elementary and middle schools on the
island of O’ahu. Some of the responses will be collected from the researcher’s
school of employment. The participants in this study may differ from teachers
working in mainland U.S. schools therefore the results may not be applicable or
relevant to teachers outside the State of Hawai‘i although teachers of minority and
low SES students may find some value in reading the conclusions.

Definition of Terms
Several terms will be used in this document that may not be familiar to all
readers. Following are definitions of terms that appear in the literature as they relate
to this study.
Bystander approach involves training groups of individuals such as teachers
and staff members on how to interrupt situations, developing the skills necessary to
resolve bullying incidents (Latane & Darley, 1970)
Cyber-bullying – on line harassment (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006)
Gossiping – Spreading negative information that may be true or false but not
complimentary or supportive to the victim (Coloroso, 2003)
Harassment – peer harassment can include name-calling, hitting and kicking,
rumors and social exclusion (Nishina, Juvonen and Witkow, 2005); sexual

23
harassment includes unwanted sexual comments and gestures (Ashbaugh & Cornell,
2008)
Hazing – Rituals to join a group, gang or sorority that include harassment,
abuse or humiliation (Hansen, 2004)
Homophobic slurs – using terms like “you’re so gay”, “that’s gay”, “fag,”
etc. offensive terms that are used often by middle school students (Thurlow, 2001)
Intimidation or cowing – making someone feel threatened or fearful (Rigby,
2003)
Mean gestures – includes making faces, using the middle finger, specific arm
movements that indicates an inclination to fight, raising one eyebrow (often used by
local people in Hawai‘i), evil eye, etc. (Smith, Cowie, Olafsson & Liefooghe, 2002)
Mobbing – group bullying; school children repeatedly ganging up on the
same victims (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Osterman & Kaukiainen, 1996)
Punking – a pre-planned prank to scare, embarrass or provoke the victim
(Phillips, 2007)
Put downs – negative comments or cynicism given in either a joking or
derogatory manner such as “Are you always so stupid or is today a special
occasion?” or “Are you brain-dead?” (Soutter & McKenzi, 2000)
Racial slurs – comments that attack a particular ethnic group (Leak, 1993;
Pentino, 1999)

24
Social exclusion - refusing to talk to or acknowledge another student;
purposely ignoring or ostracizing one or more people (Smith, Cowie, Olafsson &
Liefooghe, 2002)
Taunting – a sarcastic remark to make someone feel miserable or powerless
such as “scaredy cat,” “chicken,” or “I dare you.” (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan,
Simons, 2001)
Teasing – although considered by some to be harmless fun, others label it
bullying behavior if it the comments or verbal jabs anger the person receiving it
(Coloroso, 2003)

Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 includes the introduction, background of the problem, statement of
the problem, purpose of the study, research questions, the significance of the study, a
brief description of the methodology, assumptions, delimitations, limitations, and the
definition of terms.
Chapter 2 is a review of the literature as it relates to the framework of
bystander responsiveness. It addresses the teachers need to: 1) identify the behavior
as a problem; 2) decide whether to intervene or ignore the behavior; 3) work in a
school where the school climate encourages and supports reporting; and 4) know
how to handle the problem as a result of appropriate teacher and staff development
courses that are relevant and sensitive to the culture of the school.

25
Chapter 3 covers the methodology that will be used in the study, including a
review of the research questions, the research design, population and sampling
procedure, and information on the instrumentation used for data collection. Also
presented in chapter 3 are the procedures for data collection, the time line used for
collection and a brief overview of the types of tests used to analyze the data.
Chapter 4 is a detailed presentation of the data with charts and data analysis
results. Brief comments are made for each test outcome. Each research question is
listed in order with the data results immediately following. Sub-questions are also
addressed along with any significant data.
Chapter 5 is the discussion on the findings. The most significant findings are
linked to the theoretical framework to show how the data relates to the bystander
theory. Recommendations are made to help educators incorporate the findings to
improve the behavior in our schools. Those who wish to continue studying and
researching this topic should read the section on recommendations for future
research.

26
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In an effort to help educators and administrators improve school climate and
advance student health, the main purpose of this study is to determine whether
teacher and staff perceptions of bullying behaviors are barriers to reporting. Several
examples in the literature indicate that bullying behaviors such as verbal abuse,
social abuse and practical jokes are often ignored or tolerated by teachers and staff
(Rigby, 2008). One objective of this study is to uncover the reasons why teachers
fail to report certain bullying behaviors. Due to the fact that a large number of
incidents occur on school campuses, it is important to explore the teachers’
perspective concerning this dilemma as they have daily contact with students. Since
addressing the problem of bullying in the elementary and middle schools is critical to
the prevention of this international problem the literature presented is focused on
students and teachers in grades 4-8.
A second purpose of this study is to look at the areas that affect the reporting
process for teachers. Factors such as the teachers’ competence level in dealing with
behavior problems; support or lack of support from co-workers, staff, counselors and
administrators; school climate; tolerance level of bullying behaviors; and community
and cultural influences.
The following literature review will be organized according the 4 stages of
Latane and Darley’s theoretical framework of bystander behavior (1970). The four

27
stages are: 1) notice the event 2) interpret it as a problem 3) feel responsible for
dealing with it 4) determine the mode of intervention.
Special attention will be given to the 2
nd
, 3
rd
and 4
th
areas of the framework.

Table 3. Decision model (Latane & Darley)

Cycling 1) define the problem; 2) interpret the situation; 3) weigh the
reward and cost factors; 4) decide whether to act or ignore the
problem.
Blocking Rationalizing the severity of the problem to determine whether an
emergency actually exists.
Commitment Intervening in a situation is usually immediate once you decide to
act. A delayed response often leads to no response.

i) Notice the Event.
Teachers notice only a portion of the behavior issues that occur in the
classroom as many students wait to act out when the teacher is not looking (Doll,
Song & Siemers, 2004). It is important that teachers constantly monitor classroom
behavior to catch as many bullying behaviors as possible.

ii) Interpret It As a Problem.
Although many educators believe there is a disparity between the reporting of
verbal or social abuse vs. there is not much evidence to show why many of these
incidents are not reported, especially in upper elementary and middle schools.
Interpretation of the situation is a key component to bystander behavior. Latane and

28
Darley's theory suggests that people will often react to a situation based on the
actions and reactions of others present (Latane & Darley, 1970). They look at the
facial expressions and reactions of the people around them to determine the severity
of the behavior. If they see that others are not responsive they often react in the
same manner. If a bystander witnesses an event with no others present besides those
involved, the bystander is faced with tremendous pressure to shoulder the
responsibility of intervening, reporting or ignoring the behavior since there is no
witness to verify who was present at the time of the incident (Latane & Darley
1970).
Victims as well as teachers are not always sure whether incidents are serious
threats or practical jokes. For example, the recent practice of “punking” which was
made popular by the Aston Kutcher television series “Punk’d” is often considered
just an innocent way of having fun. Some people would consider punking (elaborate
practical jokes) to be one of the most malicious forms of bullying (Phillips, 2007).
Due to media influences, many students are exposed to violent or aggressive
behavior and are given the impression that put-downs, practical jokes and other
forms of bullying are acceptable behaviors (Lee & Kim, 2004).
Sometimes adults dismiss violent behavior as “boys will be boys” or “kids
will be kids” and fail to document incidents (Elinoff, Chapouleas, & Sassu, 2004).
Teachers often have difficulty dealing with pranks, verbal abuse, practical joking
because students claim they were just kidding or fooling around (Kowalski, 2007).
When behaviors involve physical harm or abuse, teachers are more apt to take

29
immediate action (Hazler, Miller, Carney & Green, 2001). Teachers are not always
aware of the long-term effects of non-physical bullying behaviors on students since
physical abuse has immediate consequences such as bodily injury but non-physical
effects are not as obvious (Kairys & Johnson, 2002; Dedousis-Wallce & Shute,
2009).
Teachers’ perceptions of bullying behaviors are not the same as student
perceptions. Most teachers feel that bullying is much less of a problem than students
do (Bradshaw, Sawyer, O'Brennan, 2007; Holt & Keys, 2004). If a teacher does not
acknowledge certain behaviors as bullying behaviors, such as mean jokes,
comments, punking, name-calling and put-downs, many incidents that occur within
the classroom may not be documented (Dedousis-Wallce & Shute, 2009).

iii) Feel Responsible for Dealing With It (Personal Responsibility).
Astor, Benbenishty & Meyer (2005) looked at stage 3, and discovered a
relationship between the location of the incident and teachers’ views about their
responsibility for dealing with the problem. They found that when bullying took
place in hallways, cafeterias, bus stops and other locations on campus outside of the
classroom, the teachers did not feel a sense of responsibility to intervene (Astor,
Benbenishty & Meyer, 2005).
The reward-cost element of Latane and Darley’s theory states that people
often decide whether to intervene based on their assessment of what rewards or costs
are involved. Some factors may include by-stander empathy; by-stander concern

30
over how the victim would react if they came face to face in the future; imminent
danger to themselves; time involved filing official reports or answering questioning
by authorities, etc. (Latane and Darley, 1970).

Knowing What to Report – Or Where to Draw the Line
According to Rigby, a leading researcher in the field of bullying, there is a
continuum of bullying severity. Some behaviors appear to be less severe than others,
although not all teachers know where to draw the line when it comes to reporting
behavior (Rigby, 2008; Doll, Song & Siemers, 2004). He admits that trying to
specify what constitutes the different degrees of severity is almost impossible.
Regardless of this problem, decisions must be made in order for teachers to know
how to handle different situations. For example, giving someone the “cold shoulder”
may be low on the severity chart, but excluding someone over a long period of time
is a serious offense (Rigby, 2008).
The topic of teacher perception directly relates to teachers deciding what
behaviors are dismissed as unimportant (Bradshaw, Sawyer, O'Brennan, 2007) and
deciding which behavioral issues should be reported and documented). Teacher
perceptions of how serious or how insignificant these behaviors are may prevent
them from reporting and from using appropriate intervention strategies (Naylor,
Cowie, Cossin, de Bettencourt & Lemme, 2006).

31
Who Should Handle the Problem?
Teacher, administrator and student perceptions differ in their definitions of
bullying behaviors as well as their understanding of who should take responsibility
to resolve the problem (Behr, Astor, Meyer, 2001). Sometimes teachers try to handle
a situation even if they feel they are not trained to deal with specific behavioral
problems (Crothers & Kolbert, 2008). Often the opposite is true, teachers may avoid
a situation because they do not feel qualified to handle the situation and rely on
counselors or administrators for assistance (Dake, Price, Telljohann & Funk, 2003).
In some schools teachers place the responsibility back on the students and have them
step out of the room or sit on the side to work out their own problems (Mishna,
Scarcello, Pepler, Wiener, 2005).
If a situation involves more services or time than a teacher is able to give,
often teachers turn control of the situation over to counselors or administrators. In
some cases however, administrators require that teachers handle issues that come up
in their classroom and encourage them not to ask for assistance due to lack of time
on behalf of the counselor or administration. This is often the case in large schools
that operate with counselors who deal with hundreds of students (Greenya, 2005).
Latane and Darley discuss Motivation and Perception in relation to bystander
behavior that states that one problem with by-stander perception is that individuals
face inner conflict when deciding whether to intervene. Sometimes they rationalize
that no emergency exists, allowing them to remain “guiltlessly aloof” (Latane
&Darley p. 85). If a teacher sees or hears verbal or social abuse and decides that

32
there is no emergency because there is no imminent danger, he or she may decide not
to intervene.

iv) Determine the Mode of Intervention (deciding what type of help is needed which
includes self-efficacy or evaluating whether one possesses the necessary skills to act
or intervene)
Many states in the U.S. have specific guidelines in place to address these
behaviors (Limber & Small, 2003; Koch). In 2007 the Department of Education for
the state of Hawai‘i issued a memo mandating that every school in the DOE system
implement an anti-bullying, anti-harassment and anti-discrimination program by the
year 2010 (Hawai‘i State DOE, 2007). It is important to explore the legal
requirements for each state and district and follow the guidelines for enforcing these
requirements.
When bullying behaviors occur in classroom settings, depending on the type
of behavior, the teacher may choose to ignore it or make a brief comment such as
“cut it out” (Holt & Keys, 2004). Another strategy teachers’ use is to talk to the
students involved in the situation and send a child or all involved parties out of the
room to either cool off or discuss and resolve their problems (McAdams, C. R. &
Schmidt, C., 2007).
Often the location of the bullying act prevents teachers from intervening.
Many teachers don’t feel it is their responsibility to handle problems that occur in
hallways, bathrooms, bus stops and other areas outside of their own classroom

33
(Meyer, Astor, & Behre, 2002). Sometimes problems occur in the home such as
verbal or physical abuse and a child may report it to the teacher (Webb & Vulliamy,
2001). The teacher then has to decide whether to get involved. This problem is
more of an issue in the middle school grades as evidence supports that elementary
teachers are more willing to intervene regardless of the location of the incident (Holt
& Keys, 2004; Riedel & Welsh 2008).

Reasons for the Behavior
Stage 4 of Latane and Darley helps teachers to decide on methods of
intervention. One of the deeper issues associated with bullying behavior is
uncovering the reason why a student acts out in the first place. Bullying behavior
often stems from problems with the perpetrators family, socio-economic status, the
community influence or peer pressure (Khoury-Kassabri, Benbenishty, Astor &
Zeira, 2004). Student’s who have self-esteem or self-worth issues often end up as the
bully or the bullied (Frisen, Jonsson Persson, 2007). Unless properly trained to
handle deeper issues, teachers may not be capable of using appropriate intervention
strategies (Coloroso, 2004, Olweus 1993).

Culture and Community
Uncovering the reasons why students display unacceptable behavior is an
important part of finding strategies for prevention. Students who have academic
struggles, family problems, or relationship problems are often the perpetrators or

34
victims of bullying (Bradshaw & Garbarino, 2004). Getting to the root of the
problems that cause students to display unacceptable behavior is an issue that most
teachers are not trained to do (Khoury-Kassabri, Benbenishty, Astor & Zeira, 2004,
Frisen, Jonsson Persson, 2007) Although it may be difficult for classroom teachers to
deal with the internal problems that bullies face, special counselors and specialist
from the Department of Education and the Department of Health are available to
assist with student needs (National Mental Health Information Center).
The influence of the community has a profound impact on student behavior.
Low SES communities often have a higher crime rate and therefore the students are
exposed too more violence in the community and in the home than students in upper
class neighborhoods (Margolin & Gordis, 2000). This exposure often causes stress,
hypersensitivity, aggression and violence (Bradshaw & Garbarino, 2004).
In low SES communities, there is often a concentration of one or two ethnic
groups. The teachers approach to discipline must also be aligned with the values and
social norms of the cultures represented. Community cooperation and cultural
sensitivity are important factors in determining appropriate intervention strategies
(Tillman, 2005).

School Climate
Teachers often handle bullying situations based on procedures outlined by the
school. If school policies and procedures are not clear the consequences are difficult
to enforce (Harlin, 2004). The school climate often determines student or teacher

35
willingness or unwillingness to report incidents (Lipson, 2001). Not all schools foster
a spirit of respect for others co-workers and students (Davidson, Demary, 2007).
The school climate relates to stage 3 of the bystander theory as school rules make it
much easier for students and teachers to get help if needed.
The school climate often fosters or discourages reporting. Students and
teachers who choose not to get involve may not feel safe reporting if they fear
retaliation from the perpetrator. Teachers who are not confident in handling a
situation may fail to report due to lack of support or perceived lack of support from
counselors or administrators (Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler, Wiener, 2005).

How School Climate Affects Reporting
Several studies have tried to measure the effects of school climate on the
reporting behaviors of teachers and students (Harlin, 2008; Davidson & Demary,
2007).
Many students are reluctant to report bullying incidents if they believe that
the information they report will not be kept confidential or they feel that nothing will
be done to rectify the situation (Newman, 2003). Teachers actually face the same
problem when they report a problem and their concerns are dismissed, tabled or they
are asked to handle the situation on their own (Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler, Wiener,
2005). Not all teachers have the necessary skills to handle difficult situations so they
need to know if they can turn to counselors, administrators or other resources for
help.

36
Teacher/staff Training
Limber (2004) found that the media attention in the United States after
Columbine drew attention to bullying. Intervention programs became more popular,
providing tips for addressing behavior in the classroom and improving climate. One
strategy that is discouraged by Rigby and others is to treat bullying as a conflict that
must be talked out. Since bullying is seen as an injustice, several bully experts
consider it unfair for bullies to view the victim as half of the problem. Peer
mediation or conflict resolution strategies are also considered inappropriate for
dealing with the problem (Rigby, 2008), since the victim should not be made to feel
that they were responsible for what happened.
If teachers are expected to deal with problems as discussed in stage 4 of
Latane and Darley, then they must receive appropriate training (Olweus, 1993). An
intervention or training program could help teachers understand how to handle
difficult situations, however, training programs involve not only teachers, they
involve the entire school (Fekkes, Pijpers & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2005). A change
in school climate to promote a healthy environment includes buy in from the
students, administrators and the entire school staff. Clear guidelines must be
established and behavioral issues must have a pre-determined course of action
(Coloroso, 2003)

37
Choosing an Intervention Program
Not all intervention programs deal with bullying in the same way. Schools
need to know how to choose an appropriate program and take measures to insure
faculty and staff demonstrate fidelity to the program (Smith, Pepler& Rigby, 2004).
A time period needs to be set to monitor and evaluate program effectiveness
(Halford, Borntrager, Davis, 2006). Some issues that may prevent schools from
resolving bullying issues include administrative resistance to a school-wide
intervention system and lack of available funding to train teachers and staff.

Conclusion
Many different factors contribute to the on-going problem of bullying. This
study is important as it seeks to emphasize the fact that teachers’ perceptions may
hamper the reporting process. This research seeks to determine whether teachers
know what to report, lack the skills to intervene or whether the school climate
interferes with the reporting process. Verbal abuse and practical jokes are just as
detrimental if not more detrimental to the victim than physical forms of bullying.
These more subtle forms of bullying have long term, life changing and even life
threatening consequences, yet are often overlooked or ignored in the classroom
because of teacher perception. Bullying, in whatever form it presents itself, whether
physical, verbal or social, should not be tolerated. Teachers need to look at the
number of times verbal abuse or ‘joking’ goes by without consequence within their
own classroom and find ways in which to address all forms of abuse.

38
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Bullying is an international crisis affecting more than 50% of all school
children in the United States with consequences to both victims and perpetrators
such as mental health issues, anti-social behavior and suicidal tendencies. Teachers
play a crucial role as observers of bullying behavior, however not all teachers have
the skills and/or support to handle incidents or may lack a clear understanding of
where to draw the line when reporting bullying behavior (Dake, Price, Telljohann &
Funk, 2003).
This study identifies specific variables that affect teacher perceptions about
reporting bullying behaviors. The data collected should help to establish teachers’
perspectives on “actionable” behaviors and will help to asses some of the reasons
why bullying continues to be a problem among upper elementary and middle school
students. According to Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler and Wiener, (2005), “Research is
lacking on teachers’ understanding of bullying and on factors that influence their
views and interventions.” The data collected from this research identified some of
the reasons for bullying behavior in school specifically for middle and low SES
schools on the island of O‘ahu.

39
Review of the Research Questions
This study poses the following research questions:
Research Question 1: What behaviors do 4
th
-8
th
grade teachers agree
constitute bullying that should be reported (DV)?
• Sub-question: How does their determination of “actionable” vary by
the teacher’s age group (IV), gender (IV), position at the school (IV),
cultural affiliation (IV) or school location (IV)?
Research Question 2: Have teachers become aware of behaviors that meet
their definition of “actionable” but that they have not reported (DV)?
• Sub-question: How does the decision to not report vary by the
teacher’s age group (IV), gender (IV), school position (IV), cultural
affiliation/ ethnicity (IV) or school location (IV)?
Research Question 3: To what extent do teachers attribute their decision not
to report (DV) to aspects of school culture (IV)? [i.e. their perception about
the support teachers receive from school administration (IV), their perception
of the effectiveness of any school intervention (IV), and their concern about
their report being kept confidential (IV)]
• Sub-question: How do these attributions vary by the teacher’s age
group (IV), gender (IV), position (IV), cultural affiliation (IV) or
school location (IV)?

40
Research Question 4: To what extent do teachers attribute their decision not
to report (DV) to their own characteristics [i.e., lack of skill to effectively
deal with the situation, anxiety about confrontation].
• Sub-question: How do these attributions vary by the teacher’s age
group (IV), gender (IV), position (IV), cultural affiliation (IV) or
school location (IV)?

Research Design
The research design used for the analysis was a quantitative quasi-
experimental study using a survey/questionnaire. In order to validate the findings the
data was compiled and analyzed using the SPSS computer program. The survey was
tested using Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency reliability. The
reliability test was done for the questions regarding teacher perceptions of actionable
behavior, cultural influences, and school climate. SPSS tests included a frequency
analysis t-test (e.g. is it true that teachers do not report behavior because they are not
sure what should be reported, etc.); ANOVA (the diversity or similarity of teacher
responses): and correlation (to see what variables are most likely to influence or
discourage reporting).

Statement of the Problem
To summarize the statement of the problem – bullying incidents occur most
often in upper elementary and middle school grade yet despite years of research, the

41
problem continues to exist (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Smith & Brain, 2000).
Documented cases of bullying incidents show a negative connection to health and
self-esteem issues for both victims and perpetrators. In some cases the health
problems persist long after the incident occurs (Coloroso, 2003).
Bystanders of school bullying include the students, teachers, staff, and
administrators. Teachers are often witnesses of bullying incidents, yet they are not
always sure which behaviors should be reported (Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler &
Wiener, 2005). In order to reduce the impact of bullying, teachers need to become
more active in reporting what they see and hear (Crothers & Kolbert, 2008).

Purpose of the Study
To summarize the purpose of the study, the goal of the research was to
examine three parts of teachers’ bystander experience: (1) examine the ways in
which teachers interpret an incident as a problem by looking at which bullying
behaviors teachers consider “actionable’; (2) determine if teachers feel responsible
for dealing with the behavior based on their decision to report or not to report; and
(3) establish the mode of intervention and look at barriers that may inhibit the
intervention process including teacher perceptions of school climate (support from
counselors, administrators; school rules, school culture) and personal characteristics.
The data analysis also examined the degree to which those determinations and
perceptions varied by age group, gender, position, cultural affiliation and school
location.

42
Since a large number of bullying incidents occur in the middle school grades
(Astor, 2002; Behre, 2001, Khosropour, 2001, Unnever & Corneli, 2003, Eisenberg
& Aalsama, 2005), the focus of this study will be on the perceptions and reporting
behaviors of 4th-8th grade teachers. Programs that specifically help teachers know
where to draw the line are briefly discussed. Recommendations for teachers in
Hawai‘i with respect to cultural considerations and community influences are found
in chapter 5.

Population and Sample
Recruitment for this study was done through the principals of the public
schools once permission was received by the Hawai‘i State Department of
Education. Recruitment letters (via snail mail), phone calls, emails and in person
visits were made by the PI (principal investigator) to encourage schools to
participate. Recruitment started on November 3, 2009 as soon as the IRB approval
was granted from the department of education and continued through November 30,
2009. Principals who were contacted by phone or in person received the same
information that was on the recruitment letter.
Measures were taken during the recruitment and consent process to safeguard
against potential coercion or the appearance of coercion. Once a principal declined
the invitation to participate, no further recruitment tactics were used. The surveys
were only distributed to willing participants.

43
The financial obligations incurred as a result of fielding the study included
stamps for letters of recruitment, gasoline for travel to different schools and
approximately $200.00 for Jamba Juice cards used as an incentive to participants
who took the survey outside of working/instructional time. The cost for incentives
was covered by the PI (principal investigator) and no fees were incurred by
participants. Teachers, counselors and administrators who wanted to participate were
eligible to receive a $5.00 Jamba Juice gift card if they took the survey during non-
instructional time. The cards were given to those who returned the survey, even if the
survey in the sealed envelope was incomplete. This option was only available to
those who return signed consent forms.
Data for this study was collected from faculty and staff members working at
approximately 21 upper elementary and middle schools from the Leeward and
Central areas of O’ahu. The participants were predominantly women and the ethnic
make up showed most of the teachers were Asian. Teachers from the Leeward
(west) side of the island work with populations ranging from 80-90 percent Hawaiian
students. Students from the Central schools (Pearl City and Honolulu areas) have a
mixed population including Polynesian, Oriental, Micronesian, Filipino and
Caucasian students.

Instrumentation
The data for this study was collected using a questionnaire developed by the
researcher and fellow cohort students working in the violence group at the USC

44
School of Education. Several of the questions on the survey were taken from Karla
Rhey’s survey (USC student) and the HARTT survey (both were previously
validated). Some questions were designed by the USC Ed.D cohort in Hawai‘i and
Los Angeles that were researching violence at the time of this study.
Other survey instruments were available such as the Rutter B2 scale (Place,
1987); the Olweus bully/victim questionnaire (Tobin& Irvin, 1996); the revised
Olweus bully/victim questionnaire (Kyriakides, Laouirou, and Lindsay, 2006;
Searchable Inventory, 2007); and the TCT Bullying Prevention Initiative Staff
Questionnaire (2007), but were not used for this study. There are several reasons
why a new quantitative survey was designed for the purpose of this study.
According to Patton (2000) “quantitative instruments….ask standardized questions
that limit responses to predetermined categories. This has the advantage of making it
possible to measure the reactions of many respondents to a limited set of questions,
thus facilitating comparison and statistical aggregation of the data” (p. 227).
Although a qualitative approach would answer some of the in depth questions that
may help to determine the fears, apprehensions or concerns of the teachers when
faced with bullying situations, a quantitative study will reach a larger number of
teachers and therefore provide significant data regarding the perceptions of bullying
behavior and teachers’ self-efficacy levels in dealing with these behaviors.
One reason for developing a new questionnaire is that many of the existing
surveys use student responses. There are various legal issues associated with using
student responses and specific legal requirements for obtaining permission for

45
administering both quantitative and qualitative surveys to minors. Since this survey
was focused on teacher responses, the questions were drawn from various existing
surveys and modified for use with teachers and faculty members.
Some of the variables explored in the survey included age differences, gender
difference, teacher training and self efficacy, school environment, teacher
perceptions of “actional” behavior, and ethnic and cultural considerations for
teachers and students. The importance of looking at these variables was to discover
if single or multiple factors or influences impact the reporting process.
A copy of the survey can be found in the appendix. There were a total of 23
questions and one comment box. The estimated time to complete the survey was 20
minutes although some participants stated that it took a little longer to complete
because they had to think through the question before answering. Several of the
questions had multiple parts and space to write in short answers or explanations.
Two of the most important questions used for data analysis are found below
as a sample of what the survey looked like (see the Appendix for a copy of the full
survey).
SECTION 6: Teacher Perceptions of Bullying
14. Please check the following behaviors you would MOST LIKELY
REPORT if it happened in your classroom (check all that apply).
Counselors/Administrators/Special Service workers may answer this as it
applies to incidents on campus.

! Cyber-bullying
! Frequent name calling
! Gossiping
! Harassment (sexual/physical/verbal)

46
! Hitting
! Homophobic slurs (e.g. gay, fag)
! Humiliation/shaming
! Inappropriate notes or letters
! Intimidation
! Kicking (not in self-defense)
! Locking students into (or out of) a room/closet/locker
! Mean gestures
! Punking
! Pushing
! Racial slurs
! Repeated put downs
! Social exclusion (refusing to talk to/acknowledge another student)
! Spreading rumors
! Stealing or destroying another student’s property
! Taunting
! Teasing
! Threatening
! Other (please specify) _____________

18. Which of the following comments do you believe to be true with respect
to SOCIAL ABUSE such as ignoring, intimidating, ganging up on students,
etc.: (check all that apply)

! I am more likely to report physical abuse than social abuse
! In my classroom social abuse is addressed and reported
! In my classroom social abuse is addressed but not usually reported
! I consider physical or verbal abuse to be much more serious than social
abuse
! I consider social abuse to be just as serious as physical or verbal abuse.
! In my school students are aware of the consequences of social abuse
! I am not aware of any school policies regarding social abuse
! Other (please specify)_________________________________________

Data Collection
Permission to conduct this study started with an application to the IRB office
(Institutional Review Board) at USC in August of 2009 through the on-line
application process available through the Citi and iStar websites. Approval from the

47
USC IRB office was granted on Friday, October 9, 2009. Permission to administer
the survey in the public schools was requested from the Hawai‘i State Department of
Education in September of 2009. The following forms were submitted to for the
process: 1) Application to conduct research; 2) Consent form; 3) Criteria for
research; 4) Statement of Non-release; 5) a copy of the survey (data collection
instrument); 6) a copy of the approval form from USC IRB office. Clearance from
the State of Hawai‘i IRB office was issued on November 3, 2009. As part of the
state requirements, a copy of the results must be issued to each participating school
as well as the department of education.
As part of the Department of Education rules for the state of Hawai‘i, no
principals were contacted prior to the IRB approval date from the state. No teachers
were allowed to participate in the survey without their principal’s consent. By
November 10, 2009 a total of 119 schools were invited to participate and over 300
hard copies of the survey were distributed. Only 21 schools actually participated
with a total of 195 completed surveys. In order to protect the privacy of the
participants, the participating schools will not be listed by school name, but will be
listed by the complex they belong to. The following complex areas participated the
study: ‘Aiea-Moanalua-Radford Complex; Campbell-Kapolei Complex Area;
Farrington Kaiser Kalani Complex; Honokaa Kealakehe Kohala Konawaena;
Kaimuki McKinley Roosevelt Complex; Leilehua Mililani Waialua Complex; and
the Pearl City Waipahu Complex.

48
Participants were required by the State of Hawai‘i to sign an informed
consent waiver prior to participating in the survey. The consent waiver was drafted
using USC consent requirements combined with requirements from the State of
Hawai‘i. Consent forms were submitted separately from the survey. As a
requirement of the Hawai‘i State DOE, consent forms were kept by the participating
schools.
The questionnaire was administered using both in-person data collection and
on-line data collection via Survey Monkey. Some of the participants were given the
survey in their boxes at school, others took the surveys at their school faculty
meeting, and still others used the electronic version of the survey to complete the
data input. If participants choose to take the survey home and mail it later, they
could do so, or they could utilize the option of taking the survey via Survey Monkey
through the internet so long there is a signed consent form by that participant. A
consent form was available as a hyperlink that could be downloaded from the
internet for those who chose to do the electronic version. The Hawai‘i State
Department of Education did not allow for click through consent via the internet.
Participation in the data collection process was purely voluntary. All surveys
were anonymous so there is no way to link the survey responses back to any
individual. No identifying information such as name, address or email address was
requested on the actual survey. There were no anticipated risks to participants other
than possibly a few questions that some chose not to answer. Participants were not

49
obligated to answer all of the questions. They were told they could skip questions or
quit the survey at any time.
The anticipated date to end the survey collection was December 21, 2009,
however, due to various factors, the collection date was extended to January 20,
2010. The compilation and analysis of the data started in December 21, 2009 and
continued through January 22, 2010. After the data was collected and analyzed, the
surveys were required to be kept safely locked in a file cabinet for a minimum of 5
years. After 5 years the surveys will be shredded. A copy of the final report to
Hawai‘i State Department of Education and participating schools is anticipated to be
mailed out in June of 2010.

Data Analysis
The data collected from teacher responses on the questionnaire was
categorized into four main categories: 1) do teachers know what behaviors should be
reported and if so which ones, and 2) do teachers fail to report “actionable” behavior;
3) Does climate affect report and 4) Does perceived self-efficacy affect the reporting
process. Subcategories analyzed will included age difference, gender difference
gender (of the teacher as well as perpetrator and victim), position at the school,
cultural affiliation, school climate as it relates to student behavior and guidelines and
procedures, and the location of the school. Results were analyzed using Statistical
Package for the Social Science (SPSS), a statistical analysis program.

50
The data results were predominantly quantitative although some of the
questions allowed for short written responses. The response questions were analyzed
and reported separately. The data analysis was conducted using the following tests
(in order by research question):
Research Question #1: What behaviors do educators agree constitute
bullying that should be reported? The data used to answer this was taken from
question #14 of the survey. The question read, “Please check the following
behaviors you would MOST LIKELY REPORT if it happen in your classroom
(check all that apply). Counselors, Administrators and Special Service workers may
answer this as it applies to incidents on campus.” From this list the a composite was
used to compare what the teachers believed were actionable behaviors with their
answers regarding whether they would or would not report specific behaviors.
The sub-question explored: How does their determination of “actionable”
vary by the teacher’s age group (IV) and by gender (IV)? ] The composite created
for research question 1 allowed for comparisons with the selected independent
variables. A Univariate Analysis of Variance test was used to calculate the results.
Cross tabs were also used to show reporting by gender.
Research Question 2: Have teachers become aware of behaviors that meet
their definition of “actionable” but that they have not reported (DV)? Again, the
composite was used along with UNOVA and chi-square cross-tabulations.
This sub-question explored: How does the decision to not report vary by the
teacher’s age group (IV), gender (IV), position at the school (IV), cultural affiliation

51
[ethnicity] (IV), or school location (IV)? Tests used for this question include a
Univariate Analysis of Variance test and a chi-square test.
Research Question 3 investigated: To what extent do teachers attribute their
decision not to report (DV) to aspects of school culture? A reliability test was
conducted using questions pertaining to school climate. After recoding the reversed
questions (those negatively worded on the survey), a reliability test was done to
create the Cronbach’s Alpha score. A Univariate ANOVA test was conducted using
a composite known as “climate” to analyze the interaction effect of climate on the
reporting process.
This sub-question investigated: How do these attributions vary by the
teacher’s age group (IV), gender (IV), position (IV), cultural affiliation (IV) or
school location (IV)? A Univariate ANOVA test was done to check for possible
correlations.
Research Question 4 asked: To what extent do teachers attribute their
decision not to report (DV) to their own characteristics? A reliability test was
conducted for question #9 of the survey regarding intervention and the individual’s
perception of their own self-efficacy to produce a Cronach’s Apha score. All twelve
subparts of survey question #9 were then computed into a composite titled
“intervene” used for the analysis of the variables listed in Research Question 4.
Question 4 sub-question; How does the perceived ability to handle a bullying
situation vary by the teacher’s age group (IV), gender (IV), position (IV), cultural
affiliation (IV) or school location (IV)? A Univariate ANOVA test was conducted

52
using the independent variables listed previously, combined with the composite
“intervene,” to see the effect on the reporting process.

Limitations
Limitations for this study include the fact that the survey instrument used for
data collection was created specifically for the purpose of this report. It is reliable
only as far the measurements of the instrument are correct. A copy of the survey was
administered to a sample group prior to the schools receiving hard copies or
electronic links to participate. The results of the questionnaire are restricted to the
experiences and opinions of teachers who voluntarily completed the survey.

Delimitations
Due to time limitations concerning the collection of responses, the teachers
surveyed were not from a random sample. The participant responses were from
selected elementary and middle schools on the island of O‘ahu and one school on the
island of Hawai‘i. Some of the responses were collected from the researcher’s
school of employment. The participants in this study may differ from teachers
working in mainland U.S. schools therefore the results may not be applicable or
relevant to teachers outside the State of Hawai‘i although teachers of minority and
low SES students may find some value in reading the conclusions.

53
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
This chapter presents information collected through a bullying survey given
to teachers, administrators and staff members in Hawai‘i’s public schools. The focus
is on the perceptions of those who work with students in grades 4-8. The data will
facilitate our understanding of teachers’ perceptions and how these perceptions affect
the reporting process. The survey was designed to answer the following four
research questions:
Research Question 1: What behaviors do 4
th
-8
th
grade teachers agree
constitute bullying that should be reported (DV)?
• Sub-question: How does their determination of “actionable” vary by
the teacher’s age group (IV), gender (IV), position at the school (IV),
cultural affiliation (IV) or school location (IV)?
Research Question 2: Have teachers become aware of behaviors that meet
their definition of “actionable” but that they have not reported (DV)?
• Sub-question: How does the decision to not report vary by the
teacher’s age group (IV), gender (IV), school position (IV), cultural
affiliation/ ethnicity (IV) or school location (IV)?
Research Question 3: To what extent do teachers attribute their decision not
to report (DV) to aspects of school culture (IV)? [i.e. their perception about
the support teachers receive from school administration (IV), their perception

54
of the effectiveness of any school intervention (IV), and their concern about
their report being kept confidential (IV)]
• Sub-question: How do these attributions vary by the teacher’s age
group (IV), gender (IV), position (IV), cultural affiliation (IV) or
school location (IV)?
Research Question 4: To what extent do teachers attribute their decision not
to report (DV) to their own characteristics [i.e., lack of skill to effectively
deal with the situation, anxiety about confrontation].
• Sub-question: How do these attributions vary by the teacher’s age
group (IV), gender (IV), position (IV), cultural affiliation (IV) or
school location (IV)?

Description of the Sample
Eight school complexes were recruited for the study. Seven of the
participating school complexes located on O‘ahu were recruited through letters
(USPS) requesting their participation for the data collection process. One
participating school was from the island of Hawai‘i and was selected because the
researcher knows the principal who agreed to contribute data for this study. Over
119 schools were asked to participate (including those used in the sample survey)
and just over 21 schools (about 18% of those invited to participate) were included in
the actual data collection process.

55
For the purpose of concealing the identity of the participants, the schools that
participated in the survey will be listed by complex. Table 4 lists the name of the
complex and the number of schools within the complex as well as the number of
schools that participated in the study.

Table 4. Participating Complex Areas (Hawai‘i State DOE)

DOE Complex Recruited for
Participation
Number of schools
within the complex
invited to participate
Number of
participating
schools within the
complex
‘Aiea-Moanalua-Radford Complex 20 3
Campbell-Kapolei Complex Area 12 1
Farrington Kaiser Kalani Complex 20 1
Honokaa Kealakehe Kohala Konawaena 1 1
Kaimuki McKinley Roosevelt Complex 25 3
Leilehua Mililani Waialua Complex 18 6
Nanakuli-Waianae Complex Area 8 4
Pearl City Waipahu Complex 15 2
Total N=119 N=21

The selection process was determined by the proximity of the O‘ahu schools
in relation to the researcher’s daily commute. Schools located in the Kahuku, Castle
and Kailua areas were not recruited for this study but were asked to participate in a
separate bullying study conducted by a fellow research student. Figure 2 shows the
location of each of the O‘ahu complex areas.

56
Figure 2. O‘ahu Complex Areas (school districts)

Complex area map from the Hawai‘i State Department of Education, 2009.

The data collection instrument was a survey available in hard copy format as
well as an electronic version accessible to participants through the Survey Monkey
website. Responses were collected from November 4, 2009 through January 4,
2010. At the end of the 9-week survey period, a total of 202 responses were
collected. Surveys lacking the information essential for data comparison were
eliminated bringing the total number of usable surveys to 195.

57
After the data was collected, the hard copies were separated by complex and
by individual school. Electronic surveys included participants from both the Central
and Leeward school districts but were not categorized as no information was
requested on the electronic survey that could identify the school or complex.
The survey consisted of 23 multiple-choice questions, eight of which
included various subparts with an additional section for comments. Where
applicable, questions included a space where written responses or comments could
be added. The survey questions were divided into nine categories: 1) Introduction;
2) Demographics, 3) Cultural Immersion; 4) Barriers/Facilitators to Reporting
Violence; 5) Authority (to Whom You Would Report); 6) Teacher Perceptions of
Bullying Behaviors; 7) Barriers/Facilitators to Reporting – Efficacy; 8) Reasons for
(Not) Reporting; 9) Environmental Characteristics; and 10) Conclusion (with space
for comments and responses). A copy of the survey instrument is located in the
appendix (Appendix A).
The breakdown of participation by gender shows that 73.1% (N=139) of the
participants were women and 28.7 % (N=56) and were men. The choices available
for the gender response included male, female and other. As a note, the majority of
the schools participating were elementary and middle schools. This may explain in
part why such a large percentage of the participants were women.
The participants in this study were teachers, administrators and staff members
who work with students in grades 4-8. As a policy of the Hawai‘i State Department
of Education, any teacher, regardless of the grade level they teach, must be allowed

58
the opportunity to take the survey – therefore several surveys were collected from
educators who work with students in grades K-3. For the purpose of this study, the
position of the participants was broken down into 4 main groups as indicated in
Table 5.

Table 5. Participants by school position

Position at the School Percent N
Teacher grades 4-8 64.6% 126
Assistant/Special service provider gr. 4-8 17.0% 33
Counselor/Administrator 13.8% 27
Teacher K-3 4.6% 9
Total 100% 195

Five age categories were used to determine the age of the participant: 20-24;
25-34; 35-44; 45-54 and 55+. Table 5 shows the breakdown of participants by age
group. The age of the participant was used as one of the independent variables for
each of the four research questions. Using the age category for the data analysis
rather than the number of years in education was recommended as a more accurate
measurement since teachers, administrators and special service providers may have
been employed elsewhere prior to becoming educators (D. Hocevar, personal
communication, January 29, 2010).

59
Table 6. Participants by age group

Age Group Percent N
20-24 7.3% 14
25-34 32.5% 62
35-44 29.8% 57
45-54 19.9% 38
55+ 10.5% 20
Total 100.0% 191

Information on the number of years as an educator was not important to this
study since the age of the participant was the chosen variable. Even though the data
from this section was not used in the analysis, the information collected could prove
helpful in clarifying the significant findings relating to age as an independent
variable.

Figure 3. Number of years in education
Number of years you have been working in education:
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
Series1 24.1% 20.5% 33.8% 18.0% 2.6% 1.0%
1-4 5-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40 +

60
The ethnicity question was divided into six category choices: American
Indian/Alaska Native; Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander; Asian,
White/Caucasian; Black or African American; and Hispanic or Latino. The
categories selected were those used by the National Census Bureau. An important
note regarding the Asian and Pacific Islander categories is based on the change in the
2000 National Census where this previously combined group was divided into two
separate categories: Asian; and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2008). This recent change is important to data collection conducted
in the state of Hawai‘i as there are distinct differences between the two ethnicities
such as cultural practices, achievement scores, employment rates, financial status and
various other topics. In Table 7 the breakdown of ethnicities illustrates that nearly
half of all of the participants who completed the survey were Asian or part Asian.

Table 7. Ethnicity

Ethnicity Percent N
Asian 49.2% 92
White/Caucasian 29.4% 55
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 25.1% 47
American Indian/Alaska Native 2.1% 4
Hispanic or Latino 1.6% 3
Black or African American 1.1% 2
Total N=187

61
The three ethnic groups with N<8 – American Indian/Alaska Native,
Hispanic/Latino, or Black/African American, were not used in the analysis where
ethnicity was the independent variable. Additionally teachers who indicated that
they belonged to more than one ethnic group were put into a category known as
“other” where ethnicity was used as the independent variable. The ethnic groups that
were used for comparison were Asian, White/Caucasian and Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. International concerns regarding bullying perceptions
were not addressed due to the fact that all foreign born teachers stated that they lived
in the United States for more than nine years.

Finding by Research Question
The following pages include the results of the data analysis presented in order
of the four research questions. To prepare the data for analysis, all hard copies of the
survey were transferred into Survey Monkey. Tools from the Survey Monkey
website that were used to organize the data include: cross tabs; filters; downloaded
analysis charts; and data transfers to excel for SPSS upload. SPSS tests used for
organization and analysis include: variable recode; variable computation (to prepare
composite variables); ANOVA; Univariate ANOVA; Reliability; Cross-Tab;
Frequency test; and Chi-Square. For test results that showed no significance, brief
mention is made concerning the relevance of the findings to the research questions.

62
Research Question 1
Research Question #1: What behaviors do educators agree constitute
bullying that should be reported? Table 8 displays the most likely and least likely
behaviors an educator would report, taken from question #14 of the survey. The
question read, “Please check the following behaviors you would MOST LIKELY
REPORT if it happen in your classroom (check all that apply). Counselors,
Administrators and Special Service workers may answer this as it applies to
incidents on campus.” The behaviors that ranked at the top of the list include
harassment, stealing/vandalism, threats and hitting. The behaviors least reported by
educators include punking, social exclusion and gossiping.

Table 8. Actionable behaviors

Most Likely % Least Likely %
Harassment 97% Punking 48%
Stealing/vandalism 96% Social Exclusion 44%
Threats 95% Gossiping 43%
Hitting 92%

The behavior at the top of the “most likely” list was harassment even though
it is considered verbal bullying rather than physical bullying (previously discussed in
chapter 1 and listed in Table 2). Another type of verbal bullying – threats, also
ranked in the top three most likely behaviors that teachers would report. All three of

63
the least reported behaviors fall under the category of social bullying (also listed in
Table 2).
Table 9 is a comprehensive list of the data collected in response to the same
question in Table 8, from question #14 of the survey. The behaviors are ranked by
the percentage of people who said they would report that specific behavior.
Participants were allowed to select as many from the list as they felt applied to their
individual reporting tendencies.
The list in Table 9 was extremely valuable to the data analysis as it was used
to address Research Question1 and 2 and the sub-questions for both regarding the
reporting process. From this list the number of actionable behaviors chosen by each
participant was put into a composite titled “action”. The composite was used to
compare what the teachers believed were actionable behaviors with their answers
regarding whether they would or would not report specific behaviors. This list also
reveals how teachers view the level of severity for each behavior. The rank order of
these behaviors, based on the survey results, links to the discussion in Chapter 2
regarding “drawing a line in the sand.” It also correlates with stage 2 of Latane and
Darley’s Bystander Theory where the perceived severity of the behavior influences
the teachers’ decision to intervene.

64

Table 9. Behaviors you would report

Behavior % of total N
Harassment (sexual/physical/verbal) 97.4% 189
Stealing/destroying student’s property 95.9% 186
Threatening 95.4% 185
Hitting 92.3% 179
Kicking (not in self-defense) 90.7% 176
Racial slurs 84.0% 163
Homophobic slurs (gay, fag, etc.) 76.3% 148
Intimidation 74.7% 145
Cyber-bullying 73.7% 143
Pushing 72.7% 141
Locking students in/out of a room, etc. 72.2% 140
Repeated put downs 71.6% 139
Frequent name calling 70.6% 137
Inappropriate notes/letters 69.1% 134
Taunting 68.0% 132
Humiliation/shaming 59.8% 116
Spreading rumors 56.2% 109
Mean gestures 55.2% 107
Teasing 54.6% 106
Punking 47.9% 93
Social exclusion 43.8% 85
Gossiping 42.8% 83
Total 194

65
Aside from cyber bullying which has only been an issue since about 1980
(Cassidy, Jackson & Brown, 2009), the social bullying behaviors ranked in the
bottom half of the list. Verbal and physical bullying behaviors ranked at top half of
the list. It is important to note that the behaviors listed are those that educators
believe they would most likely report. In the next few pages this information will be
compared with the data for the research questions dealing with the actual reporting
process.
Several of the participants wrote in comments in the response box for
question #14 (reportable behaviors) to help clarify their answers regarding which
behaviors they would report and why. The most important information from the
comments is summarized below:
1. Six people stated that they did not understand what punking was.
2. (All behaviors) “depending on the degree” ; more than 2x, I would report
it; intensity level would determine immediate referral; would report after
giving a warning.
3. “Gossiping/spreading rumors -would report after a warning or it if it were
excessive/repetitive.
4. Some of this really has to do with classroom management; some
(behaviors) can be handled on a regular basis as the classroom teacher.
5. “I would first attempt to stop behavior by counseling/conferencing with
student(s) involved. Report to others if behavior continues.
6. Anything that would diminish a students self esteem (should be reported).

66
The written responses from educators made it clear that merely checking the
box next to the behavior did not explain why teachers would or would not report
specific behaviors. Based on the responses, several educators believe that the
frequency and the severity of the action were more important factors in determining
whether an incident should be reported. An interesting detail regarding the added
responses to question #14 of the survey is that of 13 out of 14 were from female
educators. The fact that six people commented that they did not know what the term
“punking” may explain why “punking” ended up on the list of the three least
reported behaviors.

Research Question: Sub-question Age Group and Gender
The sub-question explored: How does their determination of “actionable”
vary by the teacher’s age group (IV) and by gender (IV)? The data was analyzed
using the SPSS Program version 16.0 (graduate student version for Macintosh). A
composite was created for “actionable” behaviors using the total number of
actionable behaviors each respondent checked off. Scores varied as each individual
was allowed to choose as many behaviors as they felt they addressed in their position
as a teacher, administrator or special service provider. The composite allowed for
comparisons with the selected independent variables.
The results were most significant by gender and age combined. A Univariate
Analysis of Variance test was used to calculate the results F(9, 181)=2.564,
MSE=20,861, p=.008. Looking at the mean score for all age groups revealed that

67
women of every age group reported more “actionable” behaviors than men. Using
the same composite for “action” the results of the Unova test are in Table 10, divided
by age group.

Table 10. Age group, gender and reporting

Age Group Gender Mean N =195
Female 10.364 11
Male 16.333 3
20-24
Total 11.643 14
Female 13.511 45
Male 8.4706 17
25-34
Total 12.129 62
Female 13.514 37
Male 12.15 20
35-44
Total 13.035 57
Female 12.75 28
Male 11.6 10
45-54
Total 12.447 38
Female 13.467 15
Male 13 5
55+
Total 13.35 20
Female 13.096 136 Total
Male 11.218 55

Additionally a cross-tab of reporting by gender revealed that 28% more men
than women considered physical abuse to be more severe than verbal abuse. About

68
23% more men than women said they would report physical abuse over verbal abuse.
Similarly, a cross-tab on social abuse revealed that 20% more men than women
consider physical abuse to be more severe than social abuse and 20% more men said
that they would report physical abuse over social abuse.
This data results suggests that male teachers are less likely to report verbal or
social bullying since they consider it less severe than physical bullying. Since verbal
and social bullying are associated with medical problems and in some cases suicide,
this information should be a concern or a catalyst for further research for
administrators who have male teachers on their staff. Although the rank order for
behavior separated by gender is somewhat similar, Table 11 shows the behaviors that
have the greatest difference in percentage between male and female educators for
specific behaviors.

Table 11. Actionable behavior by gender

Behavior Male Female Total % Total N
Homophobic slurs 65.5% (36) 80.6% (112) 76.3% 148
Repeated put downs 58.2% (32) 77.0% (107) 71.6% 139
Inappropriate notes/letters 56.4% (31) 74.1% (103) 69.1% 134
Frequent name calling 52.7% (29) 77.7% (108) 70.6% 137
Teasing 43.6% (24) 59.0% (82) 54.6% 106
Mean gestures 41.8% (23) 60.4% (84) 55.2% 107
Gossiping 32.7% (18) 46.8% (65) 42.8% 83

69
Differences in gender perceptions regarding the severity and reporting of
bullying behaviors is important to this study since the data revealed the gender of the
teacher is an important variable in the reporting process. The data from Table 10
shows the behaviors women consider significantly more severe than men. The
behaviors on the list include both verbal and social bullying. This chart coincides
with the information presented in the discussion following Table 10 regarding male
teachers’ views on the importance of reporting physical forms of bullying.

Research Question 1 Sub-question Other
How does their determination of “actionable” vary by the teacher’s position
at the school (IV), cultural affiliation (IV) and school location (IV)? After running a
Univariate Analysis of Variance test with each of the variables and the composite for
“actionable” behaviors the results showed no significance (ns).

Research Question 2
Research Question 2: Have teachers become aware of behaviors that meet
their definition of “actionable” but that they have not reported (DV)?

70
Table 12. Reporting verbal abuse

Those who believe verbal bullying is just as severe as physical or social *
Those who report verbal bullying – Chi-square cross-tabulation results
Do you report verbal abuse?
0 1 Total
Count 45 24 69 0
% within Verbal severe 62% 34.8% 100.0%
Verbal abuse is
just as severe
1 Count 56 71 127
% within Verbal severe 44.1% 55.9% 100.0%
Total Count 101 95 196
% within Verbal severe 51.5% 48.5% 100.0%

The data for reporting verbal and social abuse revealed that 62% of the total
number of participants said they were more likely to report physical vs. verbal
bullying in the classroom. Table 12 shows a comparison between those who said
verbal bullying is severe with the number of people who say they actually report
verbal abuse in their classroom. The results show that 65% (N=127/196) believe
verbal abuse is just as serious as physical or social abuse, however a chi-square
cross-tabulation revealed that only 49% (N=95/196) actually address and report
verbal abuse. The data exposes the fact that the teachers’ are aware of behaviors that
meet their definition of “actionable” yet incidents in the classroom are not always
reported. The perception of what teachers consider severe does not coincide with
their actions. There is insufficient information available from this survey to

71
determine with any degree of certainty why a teacher who believes that verbal
bullying is severe chooses not to report it.
Table 13 is similar to Table 12, but shows the comparison between those who
said social bullying is severe with the number of people who say they actually report
social abuse in their classroom. The results are similar to the Chi-square test for
verbal bullying behaviors. Compared to that of verbal abuse, only 55% (N=108/196)
said social abuse is just as serious as physical or verbal abuse, however 48%
(N=94/196) said that socially abusive behavior that occurs their classroom is
addressed but not usually reported. This strengthens the argument that social abuse
is considered less severe and less often reported.

Table 13. Reporting social abuse

Those who believe social bullying is just as severe as physical or verbal bullying *
Those who report social bullying – Chi-square cross-tabulation results
Do you report verbal
abuse?
0 1 Total
Social abuse is serious Count 59 29 88
% within Social serious 67.0% 33.0% 100.0%
Count 43 65 108
% within Social serious 39.8% 60.2% 100.0%
Count 102 94 196

Total
% within Social serious 52.0% 48.0% 100.0%

72
This cross-tab (similar to Table 12) shows that teacher perceptions of the
severity level when compared with the reporting of social bullying behaviors do not
match up. Some teachers said that social behavior problems were addressed within
their classroom, but not always reported. Since this study is primarily quantitative,
the question of “why” teachers choose not to report can only be answered in part by
the data collected from this survey.

Research Question 2 Sub-question
This sub-question explored: How does the decision to not report vary by the
teacher’s age group (IV), gender (IV), position at the school (IV), cultural affiliation
[ethnicity] (IV), or school location (IV)? A Univariate Analysis of Variance test
showed no significance (ns) when comparing both verbal and social reporting by age
group, gender, ethnicity or position. The location of the school using both a chi-
square test and a Univariate ANOVA for social reporting showed that both the West
and Central schools did not always report social abuse. For the West Coast schools,
the result was F(1, 194)=4.394, MSE=.246, p=.037 and for schools in the Central
area, the result was F(1, 194)=4.712, MSE=.246, p=.031. The decision not to report
verbal bullying yielded similar results. The test results were significant to the
location of schools for both West Coast school districts, F(1, 194)=4.729,
MSE=.245, p=.031as well schools in Central O‘ahu, F(1, 194)=4.634, MSE=.245,
p=.033.

73
This evidence suggests that both the West Coast and Central O‘ahu school
districts have social and verbal bullying incidents in the school that go unreported.
The next two research questions will attempt to answer the “why” of the discrepancy
between teachers’ perceptions and the reporting process. The data in the next two
research questions will look at the factors that interfere with the teachers’ ability to
deal with bullying issues.

Research Question 3
Research Question 3 investigated: To what extent do teachers attribute their
decision not to report (DV) to aspects of school culture? A reliability test was
conducted using questions pertaining to school climate. After recoding the reversed
questions (those negatively worded on the survey), the reliability test resulted in a
Cronbach’s Alpha score of .812 for a total of 12 school climate questions. A
Univariate ANOVA test was conducted using a composite known as “climate” to
analyze the interaction effect of climate on the reporting process. Although the
results showed no significance (ns), some valuable information came out of the data
concerning school climate. The results of the data are included in this report as it
helps to clarify the factors that affect school climate.
Various factors influence a teachers’ perception of the school climate. One
factor that impacts the school environment is the availability of support from the
administration and staff. Table 14 lists the top six answers to the question: “At my

74
school, the following people are responsible for handling bullying behaviors (check
all that apply).”

Table 14. Who handles bullying behavior?

Percent N (190)
School Counselors 96.8% 184
Classroom teachers 93.7% 178
Administration 92.1% 175
Specialists (psychologists, professionals) 40.5% 77
Students are encouraged to work
out their own problems
34.2% 65

Table 14 shows that the schools included in the study predominantly use
counselors, teachers and administrators to handle bullying problems. Only one third
of the participants said their school encourages students to resolve the problem. This
suggests that teachers are considered equally responsible for dealing with bullying
problems, placing them in a position of needing adequate information and training to
handle bullying incidents.
Educators need a clear understanding of whom they report to and why. Table
14 shows the top four authority figures selected on the survey followed by Table 15
which clarifies the reason for their choice.

75
Table 15. People you would report to (top 4)

Percent N
School Counselor 64% 125
Administration 57% 112
Co-workers 53% 104
Friends 42% 82

In the previous chart (Table 14), participants identified the people who dealt
with bullying behavior, but the data presented here relates to those who deal with the
actual reporting process. Table 14 posts the results for the following question, “How
likely are you to report bullying behavior (violence) to: 1) An official (CPS/Police);
2) An Administrator; 3) A School Counselor; 4) Co-workers; 5) Friends; 6) Family;
7) Clergy/church leader; 8) Psychologist or Psychiatrist; 9) Other (please specify).”
The selection of answers was a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Very unlikely to
Very likely. The top four answers show that the school counselors are often the ones
that educators go to when reporting an incident, followed by administrators.
Reporting an incident to co-workers or friends may be comforting for some people,
but it is not likely that any documentation of the incident takes place unless the same
incident is also reported to an authority figure.

76
Table 16. Why you would report to that person/office

Percent N
That is the place where faculty/teachers are asked to report 81.7% 156
I know and trust the person/staff 74.3% 142
The office/staff member has a good reputation for being helpful 56.5% 108
I know they will treat the information confidentially 53.9% 103
It’s convenient 31.4% 60

Table 16 shows the reason why people chose to report bullying to specific
people or groups. The most popular reason listed in table 15, “that is the place where
faculty/teachers are asked to report,” indicates that many people are aware of the
appropriate line of authority for reporting. Nearly three fourths of the participants
believed the people they chose to report to were considered trustworthy. Just over
half the participants felt that the main reason for their choice was due to the fact that
the person or office they reported to was helpful or that the information given would
be kept confidential.
Fundamental to the implementation of school-wide behavioral strategies is a
positive school climate, support from administration and staff, and clear guidelines
concerning reporting procedures. Question #22 of the survey asked participants, “
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding the
school or community where you work?” The data with positive responses included:
1) 76.9% of teachers believe that their school provides a safe environment; 2) 88.3%
believe there is a colleague at the school they could talk to if they have a problem; 3)

77
88.4% believe that the students in their class are friendly toward them; 4) 88% say
that students from different ethnicities or cultures are equally respected by the school
staff; and 5) 84.6% believe that reporting incidents to the appropriate school
authorities will help the victim. Negative responses revealed that: 1) more than 23%
of the participants believe their school does not provide a safe environment; 2)
36.5% believe that bullying is a problem at their school; 3) 50% say that teachers
make inappropriate comments about the students; and 4) 80.8% say that students use
language that is hurtful.
The data uncovered a mix of positive and negative factors relating to school
climate. More than one third of the educators maintain that bullying is a problem at
their school. Nearly a quarter of the educators believe their school environment is
not safe, half of all participants stated that teachers make inappropriate comments
about students and more than four out of five educators indicated that students say
hurtful things. The information from question #22 of the survey gives a more
accurate picture of the school climate in Hawai‘i and the environmental factors that
impact teachers.
The presence or absence of teacher/staff training for bullying prevention also
has an effect on the school climate, however, training programs require adequate
follow up to insure they are effective. Question #23 of the survey asked participants,
“What strategies have been implemented to address bullying at your school (check
all that apply)?” Table 16 displays the responses from participants regarding school

78
strategies at their respective schools. As noted at the bottom of the table, not all
participants answered the question.

Table 17. Bullying strategies

What strategies have been implemented to address bullying at your school?
(check all that apply)
Answer Options Response Percent N
School-wide policies that are closely enforced 59.7% 105
Teacher/staff training 55.7% 98
Implementation of a nationally recognized bullying
prevention program
25.6% 45
We have behavior program(s)/school policies but
they are not enforced
18.8% 33
None that I am aware of 13.1% 23
Other (see comments) 14
answered question 176
skipped question 19

Several people chose to comment below their choices on this question of the
survey. The comments for question 23 were compiled into 3 main categories.
Confusion on existing programs: we were made aware of bullying a couple of
years ago but it is not revisited annually; we talked about it in a staff meeting, but I
don't remember any official policies being set; not sure of exact policy/strategies;
behavior program is not always enforced; school-wide policies are somewhat
enforced.

79
Programs used: cultural values such as respect and aloha; guidance program;
VP covers Chapter 19 (Department of Education student conduct policy/Class A-D
offenses ) with all students class by class; counselors conduct lessons; DARE (police
sponsored program for drug awareness); Positive Behavior Support program;
technology teacher reviews cyber-bullying issues; Ronald McDonald assembly on
bullying; We are at the beginning stage of implementation of new programs for
teacher training and policies.
To sum up the data for question #23 of the survey – only 60% of all
participants believe their school has closely monitored policies in place. The
comments associated with this question bring out three main points: 1) several
schools do no have school polices to address bullying behavior; 2) if schools do have
policies, they are not made clear to faculty and staff; and 3) several schools do not
have adequate follow up to insure that school bullying policies are enforced.

Research Question 3 Sub-question
This sub-question investigated: How do these attributions vary by the
teacher’s age group (IV), gender (IV), position (IV), cultural affiliation (IV) or
school location (IV)? A Univariate ANOVA test was done to check for possible
correlations. The results of the analysis for each of the independent variables were
not significant (ns).

80
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked: To what extent do teachers attribute their
decision not to report (DV) to their own characteristics? A reliability test was
conducted for question #9 of the survey regarding intervention and the individual’s
perception of their own self-efficacy. The test resulted in a Cronbach’s Alpha score
of .903. All twelve subparts of survey question #9 were then computed into a
composite titled “intervene” used for the analysis of the variables listed in Research
Question 4.
The intent of the self-efficacy questions was to guide our understanding of
the characteristics of an individual. Table 18 lists some of the standard answers
given by participants regarding their perceived ability to intervene. Answers pertain
to the intervention of violent or bullying incidents both on and off campus.

Table 18. Top reasons why people are likely to intervene

Reason You Would Intervene %
If the victim is my friend 98% (192)
If I am related to the victim or the perpetrator 95% (186)
If I think the person is in physical danger 92% (179)
If I know the perpetrator 89% (174)
If the victim is a girl 85% (165)
If reporting would not place me in danger 84% (163)
N=195

81
Nearly all of the people who participated believe they would intervene if the
victim were a friend or relative despite other possible barriers such as perceived
ability to handle the situation. The majority of people felt a sense of responsibility to
help a victim that faces physical danger. A slightly higher percentage of people said
they would help female victims over male victims (helping male victims ranked
80%). Many people would evaluate a situation before intervening to make sure their
involvement would not place them in physical danger.
Table 19 is a combination of the responses to several questions indicating
why people would not report bullying or violence.

Table 19. Barriers to reporting

Top 9 barriers to reporting bullying/violence
Location of the incident 97% classroom
86% on campus
31% off campus
Knowing the perpetrator 54%
Fear of getting hurt 48%
Criticism from others 39%
Victim appears unaffected 39%
Fear of retaliation 39%
Information will not be kept confidential 32%
No one would follow up 29%
Nothing would happen to the perpetrator 28%

82
This chart is slightly different from that of Table 18 since the involvement
goes beyond intervention. The questions used for Table 19 asked if people who are
made aware of a bullying or violent incident would report the problem. When
comparing an individual’s perceived ability to intervene with the information given
on reporting tendencies, several conflicts were uncovered.
The first barrier on the list – that of location of the incident relates directly to
the literature presented in Chapter 2. The data for location revealed that the farther
away an incident takes place from a teacher’s classroom, the less likely it is that the
incident will be reported. The breakdown shows that 97% of teachers or educators
would report an incident that takes place in the classroom, but it drops to 86% if the
incident occurs elsewhere on campus and as low as 31% if it happens off campus.
More than half of the educators helping with this survey said they would
hesitate to report an incident if they know the perpetrator. This information alone
could possibly be the reason for a large number of unreported cases of violence.
Another factor relevant to this research is that almost 40% of all participants said that
they would not report an incident if the victim appears unaffected. As mentioned in
chapter 2, the effects of bullying and violence are not always evident through
physical or outward signs. The data from this table will be discussed in more detail
in Chapter 5 as it relates to the literature.
The last three items in Table 18 deal with confidentially and follow-up. The
fact that nearly one third of all survey participants were hesitant to report due to
these three factors should be a concern for school administrators and state

83
authorities. It is important to minimize the barriers to reporting in order for more
people to feel safe coming forward to the appropriate personnel.
Question 4a) How does the perceived ability to handle a bullying situation
vary by the teacher’s age group (IV), gender (IV), position (IV), cultural affiliation
(IV) or school location (IV)? A Univariate ANOVA test was conducted using the
independent variables listed previously, combined with the composite “intervene,” to
see the effect on the reporting process. Data analysis by gender, position, cultural
affiliation and school location were not significant (ns).

Conclusion
The major findings from the data collection and analysis will be summarized
by the topics covered in each research question.
Major topic for Research Question 1: What do teachers agree constitute
bullying that should be reported? The behaviors that ranked in the top 90
th
percentile
include: harassment; stealing/vandalism; threats; hitting; and kicking (not in self
defense). Although these were ranked at the top of the list, other bullying behaviors
ranked anywhere from 42.8% and 84% showing a wide range of viewpoints on the
behaviors teachers would report. The least reportable behaviors included: punking;
social exclusion and gossiping. Educators added comments to clarify that they
would report specific bullying behaviors depending on the severity of the incident
and the frequency of the behavior.

84
Looking at the teacher opinions of bullying behaviors by gender revealed that
for every age group, women said they would report more bullying behaviors than
men. Men were more inclined to report physical bullying. More male teachers than
women teachers considered verbal and social bullying to be less severe.
Major topic for Research Question 2: Do teachers fail to report what they
believe to be actionable behaviors? Teachers who believe that verbal and social
bullying is severe do not always report incidents that occur within their classroom.
Failing to report actionable behaviors was common to both the West Coast and
Central School Districts. Teachers are less likely to intervene or report incidents that
occur outside of their classroom.
Major topic for Research Question 3: How is the decision not to report
affected by school climate? Although the SPSS analysis showed no significance, the
survey revealed existing factors such as verbal disrespect, teachers who feel the
campus does not provide a safe environment and schools that consider bullying to be
a problem. Several teachers have not received bulling training and many schools do
not have school-wide policies or follow-up procedures in place.
Main topic for Research Question 4: How is the teachers’ decision not to
report affected by their own characteristics (feelings of self-efficacy)? Teachers
perceive that they would intervene in a situation where: a friend, relative,
acquaintance; or girl is involved. They would also intervene if the victim were being
physically threatened or if their involvement would not place them in harm's way.

85
Compared with their perception of their ability to intervene, the data shows
that the reporting process is negatively affected if: the teacher is a friend or relative
of the perpetrator; there is a fear of danger or criticism if they become involved; if
educators perceives that the victim appears unaffected; there is fear retaliation; or if
the educator feels that reporting would not help the situation. Another important
finding is that the incidents that occur on campus are less likely to be reported the
farther they are from the teachers’ classroom.
Chapter 5 will discuss the findings of the research in depth within the context
of the literature. Recommendations on how to help schools become more effective in
implementing bullying prevention will be offered and finally suggestions for future
research.

86
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
This chapter will first revisit the purpose of the study and restate the research
questions followed by a description of the sample population used to conduct this
study. Next is a summary of the findings presented in the order of Latane and
Darley’s theoretical framework of bystander behavior (1970) which served as a
guide for the research questions and for the construction of the bullying survey.
The next section is the conclusion with some final comments followed by
recommendations for educators, administrators, and school boards regarding possible
courses of action that can be implemented to reduce bullying incidents in schools.
Finally, suggestions for future research are offered to those who are interested in
further pursuing the topic of teacher intervention or bullying.
The purpose of the study was to examine three parts of teachers’ bystander
experience: (1) examine the ways in which teachers interpret an incident as a
problem by looking at which bullying behaviors teachers consider “actionable’; (2)
examine whether teachers feel responsible for dealing with the behavior based on
their decision to report or not to report; and (3) establish the mode of intervention
and look at barriers that may inhibit the intervention process including teacher
perceptions of school climate (support from counselors, administrators; school rules,
school culture) and personal characteristics. This study also explored the degree to
which those determinations and perceptions vary by age group, gender, position,
cultural affiliation and school location.

87
The data for this study was collected through a survey designed by the
researcher and fellow cohort students from the University of Southern California’s
Rossier School of Education. The survey, designed on Survey monkey, was
administered both electronically and in hard copy format. The study was designed to
answer the following questions:
1. What behaviors do 4
th
-8
th
grade teachers agree constitute bullying that
should be reported (DV)?
• Sub-question: How does their determination of “actionable” vary by
the teacher’s age group (IV), gender (IV), position at the school (IV),
cultural affiliation (IV) or school location (IV)?
2. Have teachers become aware of behaviors that meet their definition of
“actionable” but that they have not reported (DV)?
• Sub-question: How does the decision to not report vary by the
teacher’s age group (IV), gender (IV), school position (IV), cultural
affiliation/ ethnicity (IV) or school location (IV)?
3. To what extent do teachers attribute their decision not to report (DV) to
aspects of school culture (IV)? [i.e. their perception about the support
teachers receive from school administration (IV), their perception of the
effectiveness of any school intervention (IV), and their concern about
their report being kept confidential (IV)]

88
• Sub-question: How do these attributions vary by the teacher’s age
group (IV), gender (IV), position (IV), cultural affiliation (IV) or
school location (IV)?
4. To what extent do teachers attribute their decision not to report (DV) to
their own characteristics [i.e., lack of skill to effectively deal with the
situation, anxiety about confrontation]?
• Sub-question: How do these attributions vary by the teacher’s age
group (IV), gender (IV), position (IV), cultural affiliation (IV) or
school location (IV)?
The sample population for this study was from the islands of O‘ahu and
Hawai‘i. Educators responded to a survey to compare the reporting tendencies of
teachers in Hawai‘i with the current literature on bullying problems in other states
and countries. The majority of the participants in this study were school teachers,
administrators and staff members working at public schools in the central and west
coast school districts on the island of O‘ahu.
One important fact about the school districts that participated in the study is
that the schools on the west coast have a long history of violence (State of Hawai‘i,
Department of the Attorney General, JJIS, 2010; Modell, 2002). Many of the
schools in the area are located in low SES communities. It is very possible that the
schools that participated in the study did so because the topic of bullying is a
problem at their school. It was valuable to this study that several schools from that

89
section of the island assisted with data collection in view of the fact that those
schools could possibly benefit from the results of the study.

Summary of Findings
The statistical analysis revealed nine significant areas for discussion. Four
are related to teachers’ perceptions and three are related to the teachers’ decision not
to report. The last two points for discussion are related to influences that impact the
reporting process such as the school climate and the presence or absence of
professional development for bullying prevention. Table 20 shows the findings
grouped in order of Latane and Darley’s theoretical framework of bystander behavior
(1970).
The first stage of the Latane and Darley’s theory addressed in the survey is
stage 2 of the framework – interpreting the situation as a problem, or in this case
determining which behaviors are considered “actionable.” The data revealed the
following: 1) not all teachers agree on which behaviors should be reported; 2)
physical and verbal bullying behaviors are considered more actionable than social
bullying; 3) women of all ages said they would report more “actionable” behaviors
than men; and 4) men consider physical bullying more severe than verbal or social
bullying.

90
Table 20. Findings related to the Bystander Theory

Latane and Darley’s
Bystander Theory
Finding
1) Notice the event This stage was discussed in the literature, but was not a
part of the data analysis.

2) Interpret it as a problem Teachers do not agree on which behaviors should be
addressed or reported.

Many teachers believe that certain bullying behaviors are
worthy of reporting only if they are consistent or severe.

Female teachers state they would report more bullying
incidents than men (perceived behavior).

Male teachers consider physical bullying more severe
than verbal or social bullying.

3) Feel responsible for
dealing with
Teachers who believe that verbal bullying is severe do not
always report incidents.

Teachers who believe that social bullying is severe do not
always report incidents.

Teachers feel responsible for incidents that happen in
their classroom, but their sense of responsibility
significantly decreases when the incident happens
elsewhere on campus and even less if the incident occurs
off campus.

Although teachers address bullying incidents in class,
bullying incidents are not always documented or reported.

4) Determine the mode of
intervention.
The connection here is vague as several questions such as
“who you would report to” and “situations in which you
are likely to intervene” as well as information on
reporting tendencies gave only some information about
how and when teachers would intervene. One thing we
do know from the data is that in some cases, such as
social behavior issues, the teachers chose not to intervene
or report even if they considered the behavior actionable.

91
First, not all teachers agree on which behaviors should be reported. The
responses collected from the survey encompassed a wide range of opinions
concerning teacher perceptions of “actionable” behaviors. A chart was created in
rank order based on the behaviors educators said they would report if the incident
occurred in their classroom. Some of the teachers chose only a few behaviors from
the list of options and some selected the entire list. Although five behaviors were
ranked in the top 90
th
percentile, every behavior on the list was selected by at least
40% of the participants showing that all of the behaviors were considered actionable
to some degree, demonstrating the diverse points of view of the participants.
The perception of reportable or “actionable” behaviors gives us a good look
at how teacher perspectives impact the reporting process. As stated in the literature
review in chapter 2, the reporting process is negatively affected if teachers dismiss
certain behaviors as insignificant (Elinoff, Chapouleas, & Sassu, 2004; Bradshaw,
Sawyer, O’Brennan, 2007). Although some bullying behaviors were considered less
“actionable” it would be problematical for educators and administrators to reach an
agreement on reporting only certain behaviors, for example only those that ranked in
the 80
th
or 90
th
percentile. The problem occurs when behaviors that may be
detrimental to student health are not considered by teachers to be worthy of
documentation – a point that was brought up in the literature by Dedousis-Wallace
and Shute (2009).
An important note is that several of the educators participating in this study
found it difficult to select certain behaviors without clarifying the circumstances that

92
would persuade them to report. The comments reflected that some behaviors
changed from tolerable to intolerable depending on the severity of the incident and
the frequency of the behavior. One problem created by waiting to report the
behavior until after it has escalated is insuring that sufficient documentation for
previous infractions is available to support the claim that the behavior was excessive
or frequent.
Second, physical and verbal behaviors are considered more actionable than
social behaviors. This point of discussion from the data analysis relates in part to the
literature on physical vs. non-physical bullying (Kairys & Johnson, 2002; Dedousis-
Wallace & Shute, 2009). Unfortunately the least important behaviors in the eyes of
educators are those related to social bullying (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006). If
educators in Hawai‘i believe that verbal bullying is considered more “actionable”
than social bullying (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006), it is likely they maintain this
viewpoint because they are unaware of the consequences of social bullying.
Third, the gender of the teacher was significant to the reporting process.
Women of all ages believe they would report more actionable behaviors than men.
One of the unexpected outcomes of this study was the SPSS result when comparing
the “actionable” behaviors by the gender of the teacher. The number of “actionable”
behaviors chosen by each teacher was used to run the analysis. For every age group
of women, the number of behaviors they considered worthy of reporting was
significantly higher than men. The reason for this became clear when the data
revealed the types of bullying men consider important.

93
According to the data collected from this study, a greater percentage of
women reported frequent name calling, social exclusion, taunting, repeated put
downs, gossiping, homophobic slurs, mean gestures, teasing and inappropriate notes.
Each of these behaviors falls under the category of social or verbal bullying. Since
the literature states that both verbal and social bullying can be just as detrimental to
student health (Kairys & Johnson, 2002) we again see the need for an awareness
program.
The question raised as a result of this discovery is – why do women tend to
report more of the verbal and social issues than men? Although various studies have
addressed learning differences between boys and girls (Martino, Lingard, Mills,
2004), relatively few studies address teachers’ perceptions of behavior by the gender
of teacher. A search of the available literature did yield some information on the
gender differences of the teachers’ perspectives.
One issue associated with gender is the student teacher interaction. In the
1970’s substantial research was conducted on gender differences. One study found
that when scolding boys, teachers use a harsh or angry tone. Additionally the study
found that female teachers were more likely to give warnings for bad behavior
whereas male teachers would intensely criticize (Good, Sikes & Brophy, 1973). One
study suggested that some teachers are more empathic toward children and are more
sensitive to the experiences they face (Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler and Wiener, 2005).
This could possibly be associated with the maternal inclinations of women.

94
A study on relationships revealed that both male and female teachers display
a more distant and conflicted relationship with male students. As the students get
older (beyond grade 4), the teacher’s relationship with the student (both male and
female students) becomes more distant, therefore students turn to peers for warm and
supportive relationships (Koepke & Harkins, 2008).
One of the few studies focused on teacher intervention by the gender of the
teacher looked at whether the gender of the teacher affects their attitudes about
different areas on campus. More female teachers identified unsafe or dangerous
areas that they prefer not to enter, for example some female teachers believed that
the cafeteria was unsafe so they chose not to go into that area of the campus. The
gender of the teacher also showed differences in moral reasoning and social–
conventional conflicts. For instance, male teachers hesitated to intervene in a fight
between girls for fear of legal and liability issues. More female teachers were
worried about the safety of the student, but also feared for their own safety. If they
believed the students could harm them because of the student’s size and strength
compared to that of the teacher, female teachers preferred to call for help (Meyer,
Astor & Behre, 2004). A clearer understanding of gender differences may help us to
find appropriate anti-bullying strategies.
In addition to teacher-student interactions, gender differences are evident in
the behavior of the students. One of the key studies from chapter 2 on bullying in
the United States found that girls tend to be more involved with in-direct bullying
behaviors (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton and Scheidt, 2001;

95
Owens, Shute and Slee, 2000). Girls are more prone to use verbal and social forms
of bullying such as gossiping, ostracizing and inappropriate notes/letters (Besag,
2006; Olweus, 1993). Female teachers may be aware of the intense nature of these
types of behaviors based on their own childhood experiences.
Fourth, men consider physical bullying more severe than verbal or social
bullying. According to the answers provided on the survey, men were more inclined
to report physical bullying and said they considered verbal and social bullying less
severe. This presents a major concern given that research based literature confirms
the devastating effects of verbal and social bullying (Owens, Shute and Slee, 2000;
Rigby, 2003). This suggests that teachers, particularly males, are not fully aware of
the long-term affects of this type of bullying.
The third stage of the framework – feel responsible for dealing with it, moves
us beyond teachers’ perceptions of what they would report to that of the actual
reporting process. This stage moves the bystander from the point of acknowledging
a problem to deciding that it is their personal responsibility to act (Latane and
Darley, 1970). A review of the findings indicates that: 1) teachers who believe that
verbal bullying and/or social bullying is severe did not always report incidents, 2)
there are various reasons why teachers would not report including the relationship to
the perpetrator, the location of the incident, fear of criticism or retaliation or a belief
that reporting would not help the situation.
First, teachers who believe that verbal bullying and/or social bullying are
severe do not always report incidents. Although several teachers stated that they

96
consider verbal and social bullying to be severe, the data showed they did not always
report incidents that happened in their classroom. Social bullying actually ranked
low on the list of reporting for more than one survey question. Some of the teachers
said that verbal and social bullying was addressed, but not reported. If verbal and
social bullying behaviors are associated with depression, decreased self-esteem, poor
school performance and other health related issues (Dake and Barnhart, 2004), it is
important that teachers document incidents within their control. As previously
discussed, the decision not to report may be attributed to the fact that teachers are not
aware of the long-term effects of this type of bullying.
The literature also states that verbal and social bullying causes long-term
psychological and emotional health issues (Coloroso, 2003). If more women than
men report verbal and social abuse, male teachers as well as educators and
administrators need training on the statistical differences in perceptions as well as
differences in the actual reporting process by gender. Adequate teacher and staff
training on bullying and the long-term effects of verbal and social abuse should be
implemented, school-wide policies established and administrators or designated staff
members assigned to monitor the reporting process.
Each of the research questions also had sub-questions that examined the
influence of variables such as gender, location of the school, school position, cultural
affiliation and age group on teacher perceptions and the reporting process. The
analysis revealed that both the West Coast and Central O‘ahu school districts failed
to report verbal or social behavior. This problem may exist in more of Hawai‘i’s

97
schools, however it would require that data be collected from schools on the east side
of the island, north shore and neighbor islands for an accurate analysis. Since
several of the schools in the sample population are located in communities with a
high crime rate and a history of bullying problems (State of Hawai‘i Dept. of
Attorney General, 2010), it is possible that reporting inclinations may differ in other
school districts.
Second, there are various reasons why a teacher would not report. Some of
the reasons may be answered in part by the survey questions on barriers to reporting.
According to the responses, the reporting process is negatively affected when the
perpetrator is a friend or relative of the teacher; when the teacher fears danger or
criticism for becoming involved; if it appears that the victim is not affected; if the
teachers fears retaliation; or if it seems as though reporting would not help the
situation. One more reason for not reporting discussed earlier in this chapter, is that
teachers usually do not report behaviors they consider insignificant.
The research findings of Astor (2005) and McNamee & Mercurio (2008),
brought out another barrier to reporting – the location of the incident. The research
states that often teachers do not feel incidents that happen in hallways, cafeterias, bus
stops and other locations on campus outside of the classroom are their responsibility.
According to participants’ comments regarding their sense of responsibility to
intervene in school bullying incidents – teacher involvement was fairly high if the
problem occurred in the teachers’ classroom. The involvement dropped slightly if
the incident occurred elsewhere on the school campus. When the problem took place

98
off campus, there was a dramatic decline in participation – only one third of the
teachers said they would get involved.
The fact that teachers feel less responsible when incidents happen outside of
the classroom (Astor, Benbenishty & Meyer, 2005), is an issue that needs to be
addressed by school policy. Who is responsible for these incidents if not the
teacher? If it is the staff member on yard duty, the counselor, or another individual,
it must be clear to all those who work at the school to insure the safety of the
students.
A key point worthy of mentioning at this stage of the discussion is the
discrepancy between educator perceptions and the actual reporting process. Teachers
perceive that they would intervene in a situation where: a friend, relative,
acquaintance; or girl is involved. They would also intervene if the victim were
physically threatened or if their involvement would not place them in harms way.
However when looking at the actual reporting process, they did not intervene as they
thought they would.
The fourth and final stage of the framework – determine the mode of
intervention, has to do with teachers or educators making the decision to handle the
problem on their own, reporting it to someone else or choosing to ignore the
situation. The following information was gathered from this study: 1) although
school climate had no statistical significance on the reporting process, the study
revealed climate issues that exist in Hawai‘i’s schools 2) a large number of Hawai‘i’s
teachers have not received anti-bullying training and 3) several schools do not have

99
closely enforced behavioral policies. In this stage of the theory, individuals must
decide whether they have the tools necessary to intervene. Some factors that help
teachers develop feelings of competency in dealing with these problems include anti-
bullying training, clear and enforced school policies, and support from people such
counselors and administrators.
First, while the school climate had no statistical significance on reporting
tendencies, the survey revealed several climate issues that exist in Hawai‘i’s schools.
The results of the survey found school climate problems known to foster bullying
behaviors and interfere with the reporting process (Meyer-Adams and Conner,
2008). The climate issues reported included verbal disrespect on the part of both
teachers and students, teachers who felt their campus did not provide a safe
environment, and teachers who believed that bullying was problem at their school.
Second, a large number of Hawai‘i’s teachers have not received anti-bullying
training. Without professional development strategies and guidelines to help
teachers when faced with bullying issues, school policies must in place or every
classroom will have a different set of standards. Based on the results of the study, it
is important for schools to have a clear and monitored bullying program in place
(Smith, Pepler and Rigby, 2004).
Third, many schools do not have closely enforced behavior policies or
follow-up procedures in place. A few of the responses indicated that although the
school has behavioral policies in place, only some of these policies are regularly
enforced. Schools that are successful at reducing bullying behaviors set the

100
atmosphere for positive behavior and in many cases have data to show a reduction in
violence.

Implications for Practice
From this study we have learned that many bullying incidents go unreported,
teachers lack a clear definition of what behaviors to report, and the type of bullying
that is most often dismissed is that of social bullying. It is evident by the results of
the survey that not all teachers know what bullying is and underestimate the impact
of specific bullying behaviors on student health and safety. Addressing the problem
can be done on multiple levels including the implementation of national laws and
policies, state level laws and policies and school level policies.
It is important to note that as of May 27, 2010, the state of Hawai‘i is one of
only seven states in the United States that has not passed anti-bullying laws
(www.bullypolice.org). Although there is limited data on the effectiveness of anti-
bullying laws and some controversy over how the laws are worded and implemented
(Temkin 2007; Limber and Small, 2003), the fact that so many states have turned
toward the aid of their state legislators to control the problem is a step in the right
direction. The data from this study confirms that leaders in Hawai‘i need to take
action. Educational leaders must advocate that lawmakers pass anti-bullying laws
specific to the needs of the state. Educators in Hawai‘i’s public schools also need to
be proactive in creating policies at the school level in order to reduce the number of

101
bullying incidents. Schools need to decide what is acceptable and what isn’t and
determine what will be done about it.
If adequate training were available with guidelines and pre-determined
consequences for specific behaviors it would help to solve the problem of reporting
by delineating the line in the sand. Comprehensive training concerning the health
issues associated with bullying would also help male teachers to see the significance
of dealing with verbal and social bullying issues. The recommendation therefore
would be to make sure that the training program selected emphasizes the importance
of addressing all three types of bullying behaviors and exactly how to handle these
behaviors no matter where they occur on the campus.
The most effective method of training teachers and staff includes the
implementation of a nationally recognized program to help educators understand
how to prevent bullying, encourage positive behavior and report unacceptable
behaviors when they occur. An example of this type of program is the Olweus
Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP), a well-known program proven to reduce
bullying behavior in schools by 45-50 percent. The change sometimes takes 1-3
years, however schools in Norway, England, Germany, South Carolina and
Philadelphia have statistics to verify the success of the program (Clemson Univ.
2009; U.S. Department of Justice).
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provides a Model
Program Guide available to help schools find a suitable program for their school
(U.S. Department of Justice). Based on empirical evidence, the programs are rated

102
in three categories – exemplary, effective or promising. The highest rating is defined
as, “Exemplary: In general, when implemented with a high degree of fidelity these
programs demonstrate robust empirical findings using a reputable conceptual
framework and an evaluation design of the highest quality (experimental).”
Exemplary prevention programs that deal with classroom climate and behavior
include:
• Early Risers ‘Skills for Success’ Program
• Fast Track
• Good Behavior Game (Early Elementary)
• Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT)
• PeaceBuilders
• Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS)
• Responding In Peaceful and Positive Ways (conflict resolution strategies)
Schools searching for prevention strategies may also want to look at the
“effective” and “promising” list of programs available on the U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Program website
(www2.dsgonline.com/MPG/ratings.aspx). Another source that provides
information on effective bullying training is ‘Blueprints for Violence Prevention’, a
project of the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University of
Colorado. Their staff reviews research on the effectiveness of violence prevention
programs and determines which programs are considered exemplary
(www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/index.html). There are also websites that offer

103
free information on bullying prevention strategies including “Stop Bullying Now”
(Davis, 2009), the American Medical Association and the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.
Most of the nationally acclaimed prevention programs come at a price and
given the economic situation in Hawai‘i and in other parts of the Unites States may
not be affordable for public schools at the present time. The current economic crisis
in the U.S. and the cutbacks to education make it difficult for schools and school
districts to consider programs that come with financial commitments. Before
dismissing the idea of implementing a bullying prevention program it is important to
weigh the advantages to schools if bullying prevention programs are put in place
prior to expensive programs that enhance test scores.
A growing concern for teachers is the amount of time it takes to deal with
discipline problems since it interferes with instructional time (Crothers and Kolbert,
2008; Public Agenda, 2004). For the past five to eight years NCLB mandates have
changed the focus of education. As a result, professional development for teachers
centered on boosting reading scores, writing scores and math scores (Borko, 2004).
However, if one fourth to one third or more of the class time is wasted on behavioral
issues, math and reading scores will see little improvement.
Recent studies have shown that behavioral policies, when appropriately
applied, actually raise test scores due to the fact that there are fewer disruptions, less
time spent on referrals, and more time for teaching (Muscott, Mann, LeBrun, 2008;
Freiberg, Huzinec & Templeton, 2009; Algozzine & Algozzine, 2009).

104
Administrators and educators need to see the value of spending money on bullying
prevention training as it will improve the classroom climate as well as restore time
for academic instruction.
Aside from placing new priorities on teacher development funding, another
possible solution is to create one or more state level positions that specifically deal
with anti-bulling training for public schools. These instructors could provide annual
or semi-annual visits to the schools to help them implement programs. Schools that
already have trained individuals may be able to develop their own programs, but
follow-up procedures are crucial to the success of the program. Bullying prevention
programs selected for Hawai‘i’s schools must be carefully selected to show respect
for cultural concerns and community influences.
Colleges can do more to prepare teachers on how to handle discipline in the
classroom. Money spent on anti-bullying programs should not be limited to
educators already in the field (in-service). Courses on how to deal with various
behavioral situations can be added to the requirements for teacher training and
preparation at the higher education level (pre-service) prior to awarding a teaching
degree.
The data from the survey shows a definite need for a well defined program
with suitable training, follow up and evaluation. It is critical that the program
adequately and appropriately address the problems of gender bias in perceptions as
well as the general feeling of social behaviors being less harmful. The discrepancy
on the reporting of incidents by gender uncovered in the current study should be an

105
area of concern for educators and administrators in Hawai‘i as well as a catalyst for
further investigation. The strategies implemented should be based on the needs of a
particular school.

Future Research
Future research in Hawai‘i should involve data collection from the north and
east side of O‘ahu as well as from the neighbor islands to provide an accurate picture
of what is happening in the public schools. This study did not adequately cover
community influences that may impact student behavior. Therefore research on the
influence of family and community as well as peer influences can aid the teacher and
counselors with the implementation of appropriate strategies. While this study
explored the teachers’ role in reducing bullying behavior, uncovering the reasons
why a student acts out is critical when looking at the big picture of why students
display inappropriate behavior. If the teacher has a better understanding of
individual students, strategies such as appropriate counseling for the student or the
family of the student may help to control the behavior.
Another area for study is the relationship between: 1) teachers and
administrators, 2) teachers and perpetrators (more research is needed to answer why
knowing the perpetrator is a barrier to reporting); 3) teachers and victims; 4) teachers
and student bystanders; 5) teacher and parent; and 6) teacher and counselors.
Several counselors involved with this study mentioned that the role of the counselor
is no longer intended to handle discipline. Counselors see the role of the teacher as

106
the primary disciplinarian. A study on what educators believe their role is in the
bullying process would be another important topic for qualitative research.
Information on teachers’ documentation procedures was not a part of this
study. Future researchers may want to use qualitative studies to find out more about
teachers’ views on the reporting process. Due to the quantitative nature of this study,
there were several small comments that helped to explain why people answered the
question the way they did, however the small boxes were not adequate to
comprehend the teacher feelings and opinions on the topic. Allowing the teachers a
chance to discuss the topic in a qualitative setting may increase our understanding of
the problem.

Conclusion
The role of the teacher as a bystander greatly affects student behavior in the
school setting. Teachers who fail to report incidents due to perceptual reasons or
other factors may be guilty of fostering an unhealthy environment for students. The
atmosphere set by the teacher affects the tolerance level for acceptable behavior and
impacts the reporting process. The stages for appropriate bystander action include:
the teacher or educational leader must witness the situation; view it as a problem;
take responsibility for dealing with it and apply the appropriate action or strategy to
resolve the issue. The tools given to the teacher through training, support and follow
through are extremely important to the reporting process.

107
As predicted, teachers do not agree on what behaviors to report and often
choose not report even if they believe the behavior is serious. One discovery was that
perception is not equivalent to action. Additionally, addressing a situation is not the
same as reporting and or documenting. Unfortunately, this leads to the fact that
behaviors known to cause mental health issues are not adequately addressed. The
“actionable” behavior chart created from the survey shows the need for teacher
training so that both male and female teachers are fully aware of the long term
affects of behaviors that may appear harmless.
It is important to minimize barriers that affect the reporting process such as
climate, self-efficacy, awareness, and support issues in order for more people to feel
safe coming forward to the appropriate personnel. Guidelines from administrators
regarding school and classroom policies are important to manage and reduce
bullying behaviors. Due to the fact that this survey was quantitative, only a small
amount of insight is available to uncover the reason behind the survey responses.
Also, the information gathered from the survey was self-reported so the data is
accurate only as far as the participants were forthright with their responses.
Bullying is a wide spread problem that must be dealt with on multiple levels.
Looking at this issue from the teachers’ perspective is only one way of addressing
the problem. Teachers should use this research and similar findings on this topic as a
guide to reduce the number of behavioral issues that take place within their
respective schools.

108
REFERENCES
Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., Baker, D. P. & Goesling, B. (2002). Student
victimization – National and school system effects on school violence in 37
nations. American Education Research Journal, 39(4), 829-853.

Algozzine, B. & Algozzine, K. (2009). Facilitating academic achievement through
schoolwide positive behavior support. Handbook of positive behavior
support, Springer US, 521-550.

Ashbaugh, L. P. & Cornell, D. G. (2008). Sexual harassment and bullying behaviors
in sixth-graders. Journal of School Violence, 7(2), 21-38.

Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R. & Meyer, H. A. (2005). Monitoring and mapping
students victimization in schools. Theory Into Practice, 43(1), 39-49.

Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., Marachi, R. Haj-Yahia, M. M., Zeira, A., Perkins-
Hart, S., Pitner, R. O. (2002). The awareness of risky peer group behaviors
on school grounds as predictors of students' victimization on school grounds:
Part I – elementary schools. Journal of School Violence, 1(1), 11-34.

Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., Zeira, A. & Vinokur, A. (2002). School climate,
observed risky behaviors and victimization as predictors of high school
student fear and judgments of school violence as a problem. Health
Education & Behavior, 29, 716-736.

Astor, R. A., Meyer, H. A., Benbenishty, R., Marachi, R. & Rosemond, M. (2005).
School safety interventions: Best practices and programs. Children and
Schools, 27(1), 17-32.

Bauman, S. & Del Rio, A. (2006). Preservice teachers’ responses to bullying
scenarios: Comparing physical verbal, and relational bullying. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 98(1), 219-231.

Behre, W J., Astor, R. A. & Meyer, H. A. (2001). Elementary and middle school
teachers reasoning about intervening in school violence – An examination of
violence-prone school subcontexts. Journal of Moral Education, 30(2), 131-
153.

Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A. & Zeira, A. (2003). Monitoring school violence:
Linking national, district, and school-level data over time. Journal of School
Violence, 2(2), 29-50.

109
Besag, V. (2006). Understanding girls’ friendships, fights and feuds: A practical
approach to girls’ bullying. Mc-Graw Hill Education: Berkshire, GBR.

Bond, L., Carlin, J. B., Thomas, L., Rubin, K. & Patton, G. (2001). Does bullying
cause emotional problems? A prospective study of young teenagers. British
Medical Journal 323, 480-484.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the
terrain. Educational Researcher, 33:3.

Boulton, M. J. & Hawker, D. S. (1997). Non-physical forms of bullying among
school pupils: a cause for concern. Health Education, 2, 61-64.

Bosworth, K. Espelage, D. & Simon, T. R. (1999). Factors associated with bullying
behavior in middle school students. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 19(3),
341-362.

Bradshaw, C., Sawyer, A., O'Brennan, L. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at
school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. School
Psychology Review, 36(3), 361.

Bradshaw, C. & Garbarino, J. (2004). Social cognition as a mediator of the
influence of family and community violence on adolescent development:
Implications for intervention. Annals of the New York Academy of Science,
1036, 85-105.

Bully Police USA (2010). http://www.bullypolice.org/

Burns, S., Maycock, B., Cross, D. and Brown, G. The power of peers: Why some
students bully others to conform. Qualitative Health Research, 18(12), 1704-
1716.

Cassidy, W., Jackson, M. & Brown, K. N. (2009). Students’ experiences with cyber-
bullying: Sticks and stones can break my bones, but how can pixels hurt me?
School Psychology International 30, p. 383.

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (n.d.). Blueprints for violence
prevention. University of Colorado at Boulder.
www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/index.html

Chang, F. J. (2008). Averting a labor shortage in the U.S. biomedical engineering
industry. Dissertation Proposal, Rossier School of Education, University of
Southern California.

110
Chapell, M. S., Hasselman, S. L., Kitchin, T., Lomon, S. N., MacIver, K. W.,
Sarullo, P. L. (2006). Bullying in elementary school, high school and
college. Adolescence, 41(164).

Clemson University (2009, September 23). Olweus Bullying Prevention Program.
Retrieved May 30, 2010 from http://www.clemson.edu/olweus/

Coloroso, Barbara (2003). The bully, the bullied, and the bystander. Harper Collins
Pub.

Crothers, L. & Kolbert, J. (2008). Tackling a problematic behavior management
issue: Teachers' intervention in childhood bullying problems. Intervention in
School & Clinic, 43(3), 132.

D'Amato, J. (1988). "Acting" – Hawaiian children's resistance to teachers. The
Elementary School Journal, 88(5), 529-544.

Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Telljohann, S. K. (2003). The nature and extent of bullying
at school. The Journal of School Health, 73(5), 173.

Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Telljohann, S. K. & Funk, J.B. (2003). Teacher perceptions
and practices regarding school bullying prevention. Journal of School
Health, 73(9), 347-355.

Dake, J. A. & Barnhart, M. H., (2004). Assessment of elementary school bullying in
Detroit schools. Pedagogy Symposium–Detroit Healthy Youth Initiative.
Detroit, MI. Convention Center, April 1.

Davidson, L. M. & Demaray, M. K. (2007). Social support as a moderator between
victimization and internalizing-externalizing distress from bullying. School
Psychology Review, 36(3), 383.

Davis, S. (2009). Comprehensive interventions. Retrieved May 30, 2010 from
http://www.stopbullyingnow.com/interven.html

Dedousis-Wallace, A. & Shute, R. H. (2009). Indirect bullying: Predictors of teacher
intervention, and outcome of a pilot educational presentation about impact on
adolescent mental health. Australian Journal of Educational &
Developmental Psychology, 9, 2-17.

Devine, J. (2004). The discourse on violence prevention: What are the implications
for smaller schools? Annals of he New York Academy of Sciences, 1036,
69-84.

111
Doll, B., Song, S., & Siemers, E. (2004). Classroom ecologies that support or
discourage bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in
American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and
intervention (161–183). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Due, P., Holstein, B. E., Lynch, J. Diderichsen, F., Gabhain, S. N., Scheidt, P.,
Currie, C. and the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children Bullying
Working Group (2005). Bullying and symptoms among school-aged children:
international comparative cross sectional study in 28 countries The European
Journal of Public Health 2005 15(2), 128-132

Eisenberg, M. E. & Aalsma, M. C. (2005). Bullying and peer victimization: Position
paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health,
36, 88-91.

Elinoff, M. J., Chapouleas, S.M. & Sassu, K. A. (2004). Bullying: Considerations
for defining and intervening in school settings. Psychology in the Schools,
41(8), 887-897.

Espelage, D. L., Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and
victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here. School
Psychology Review, 32(2), 365-382.

Evans. P. (2003). Teen Torment: Overcoming verbal abuse at home and at school.
Adams Media: Avon, MA.

Farrington, D. (1993). Understanding and Preventing Bullying. Crime and Justice,
17, 381-458. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1147555

Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., Fredriks, A. M., Vogels, T., Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P.
(2006). Do bulllied children get ill, or do ill children get bullied? A
prospective cohort study on the relationship between bullying and health-
related symptoms. Pediatrics 117(5), 1568-1574.

Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M. & Verloove-Vanhorick, S.P. (2005). Bullying: who
does what, when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in
bullying behavior. Health Education Research 20(1), 81-91.

Freiberg, H. J., Huzinec, C. A., Templeton, S. M. (2009). Classroom management –
a pathway to student achievement: A study of fourteen inner city elementary
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 63-80.

112
Frisen, A., Jonsson, A. & Persson, C. (2007). Adolescents' perception of bullying:
Who is the victim? Who is the bully? What can be done to stop bullying?
Adolescence, 42(168), 749.

Geffner, R., Loring, M., & Young, C. (Eds.) (2001). Bullying behavior: Research,
interventions, and prevention. New York, NY: Haworth Maltreatment &
Trauma Press.

Gladden, R. M. (2002). Reducing school violence: Strengthening student programs
and addressing the role of school organizations. Review of Research in
Education, 26, 263-299.

Glascock, J. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression on prime-time network
television. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 52(2), 268-281.

Good, T. L., Sikes, J. M. & Brophy, J.E. (1973). Effects of teacher sex and student
sex on classroom interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(1), 74-
87.

Goodman, R., Iervolina, A., Collishaw, S., Pickles, A. Y., Maughan, B. (2007).
Seemingly minor changes to a questionnaire can make a big difference to
mean scores: a cautionary tale. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric
Epidemiology, 42(4), 322-327.

Green, G. (2007). Bullying: A concern for survival. Education, 128(2), 333.

Greenya, J. (2005). Bullying: Are schools doing enough to stop the problem? CQ
Researcher, 15(5).

Halford, A., Borntrager, C., Davis, J. L. (2006). Evaluation of a bullying prevention
program. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 21(1), 91.

Hansen, B. (2004). Hazing. CQ Researcher, 14(1), 1-24.

Harlin, R. P. (2008). Bullying and violence issues in children's lives: Examining the
issues and solutions. Childhood Education, 84(6), 336

Hawai‘i Department of Education (2007). Harrassment/Bullying.
http://doe.k12.hi.us/harassment/index.htm

Hazler, R. J. (2000). When victims turn aggressors: Factors in the development of
deadly school violence. Professional School Counseling, 4(2).
http://web23epnet.com

113
Hazler R. J., Miller D. L., Carney J. V., Green S. (2001) Adult recognition of school
bullying situations. Educational Research, 43 (2), 133-146.

Hazler, R. J. & Carney, J. V. (2002). Empowering peers to prevent youth violence.
Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 41(2), 129.

Herrenkohl, T. I., Catalano, R. F., Hemphill, S. A. & Toumbourou, J. W. (2009).
Longitudinal examination of physical and relational aggression as precursors
to later problem behaviors in adolescents. Violence & Victims, 24, 3-19.

Holt, M. K. & Keys, M. A. (2004) Teachers' attitudes toward bullying. Article in
Bullying in American Schools, Espelage, D.& Swearer, S. M.

Hosansky, D. (2004). Youth Suicide. CQ Researcher, 14(6), 125-148.

Kairys, S. W., Johnson, C. F. & Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect (2002), The
Psychological Maltreatment of Children—Technical Report. Pediatrics,
109(4), 68.

Kataoka, S. (2008). Exposure to violence: a public health approach to intervening
with youth in schools. Psychiatric Times, 25(1), 20.

Khosropour, S. C., & Walsh, J. (2001). That's not teasing --That's Bullying: A study
of fifth graders' conceptualization of bullying and teasing. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association
(Seattle, WA, April 10-14, 2001).

Khosropour, S. C., & Walsh, J. (2001). The effectiveness of a violence prevention
program: Did it influence how children conceptualize bullying. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association (Seattle, WA, April 10-14, 2001).

Khoury-Kassabri, M., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A. (2005). The effects of school
climate, socioeconomics, and cultural factors on student victimization in
Israel. Social Work Research, 29(3), 165.

Khoury-Kassabri, M., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A. & Zeira, A. (2004). The
contributions of community, family, and school variables to student
victimization. American Journal of Community Psychology, 34(3-4), 187.

Kim, Y. S., Koh, Y. & Leventhal, B. (2005). School bullying and suicidal risk in
Korean middle school students. Pediatrics, 115, 357-363.

114
Koch, K. (1999). Childhood depression: Is it on the rise? CQ Researcher, 9(26),
593-616.

Koch, Wendy. (2007). Study: Bullies and bullied more likely hit by crime. USA
Today, Oct 17, 2A.

Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. & Pelletier, M. E. (2008). Teachers’ views and beliefs about
bullying: Influences on classroom management strategies and students’
coping with peer victimization. Journal of School Psychology, 46(4), 431-
453.

Koepke, M. F. & Harkins, D. A. (2008). Conflict in the classroom: Gender
differences in the teacher-child relationship. Early Education &
Development. 19(6), 843-864.

Kowalski, R. (2007). Teasing and bullying. In Cupack, W. R. & Spitzberg, The
dark side of interpersonal communication. Routledge.

Kyriakides, L., Kaloyirou, C. Y Lindsay, G. (2006). An analysis of the revised
Olweus bully/victim questionnaire using the Rasch measurement model.

Lassen, S. R., Steele, M. M., & Sailor, W. (2006). The relationship of school-wide
positive behavior support to academic achievement in and urban middle
school. Psychology in the Schools, 43(6), 701-712.

Latane, B. & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he
help? Meredith Corporation, N. Y., N.Y.

Leak, D. (1993). Ensuring racial, cultural harmony in the school. NASSP Bulletin,
77 (552), 33-36.

Limber, S. P. (2004). Implementation of the Olweus bullying prevention program in
American schools: Lessons learned from the field. In D. L. Espelage & S. M.
Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological
perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 351-363). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Limber, S. P. & Small, M. A. (2003). State laws and policies to address bullying in
schools. School Psychology Review 32(3), 445-456.

115
Lund, R., Nielsen, K. K., Hansen, D. H., Kriegbaum, M., Molbo, D., Due, P. &
Christensen, U. (2009). Exposure to bullying at school and depression in
adulthood: A study of Danish men born in 1953. The European Journal of
Public Health, 19(1), 111-116.

Margolin, G. & Gordis, E. The effects of family and community violence on
children. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 445-449.

Martino, W., Lingard, B., Mills, M. (2004). Issues in boys’ education: A question of
teacher threshold knowledges? Gender and Education, 16(4), 435-454.

McAdams, C. & Schmidt, C. D. (2007). How to help a bully: Recommendations for
counseling the proactive aggressor. Professional School Counseling,
December 1.

McNamee, A. & Mercurio, M. (2008). School-wide intervention in the childhood
bullying triangle. Childhood Education, 84(6).

Meyer, H. A., Astor, R. A & Behre, W. J. (2004). Teachers’ reasoning about school
fights, contexts, and gender: an expanded cognitive developmental domain
approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 45-74.

Meyer, H.A., Astor, R. A. & Behre, W. J. (2002). Teachers' reasoning about school
violence: The role of gender and location. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 27(4), 499-528.

Mishna, F., Scarcello, I., Pepler, D., Wiener, J. (2005). Teachers' understanding of
bullying. Canadian Society for the Study of Education, 28(4), 718-738.

Modell, J. S. (2002). Abuse and discipline: The creation of moral community in
domestic violence groups on the Wai‘anae Coast (Hawai‘i). Pacific Studies,
25(1/2), 173-202.

Muscott, H. S., Mann, E. L., & LeBrun, M. R. (2008). Positive behavioral
interventions and supports in New Hampshire. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 10(3), 190-205.

Mynard, H., Joseph, S. & Alexander, J. (2000). Peer-victimisation and posttraumatic
stress in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(5), 815-821.

Nansel, T. R, Overpeck, M, Pilla, R. S., Ruan, J., Simons-Morton, R., Scheidt, P.
(2001). Bullying behaviors among US Youth. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 285(16), 2094-2100.

116
Nansel, T. R., Craig, W., Overpeck, M.D., Saluja, G., Ruan, W. J. and the Health
Behaviour in School-aged Children Bullying Analyses Working Group
(2004). Cross-national consistency in the relationship between bullying
behaviors and psychosocial adjustment. Archives of Pediatric and
Adolescent Medicine. 158(8), 730-736.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, J. Simons-Morton, B., Scheidt, P.
(2001). Bullying Behaviors Among US Youth, Prevalence and Association
With Psychosocial Adjustment. The Journal of the American Medical
Association, 285(16), 2094-2100.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Institute of Education Sciences
(IES), in the U.S. Department of Education, and the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) in the U.S. Department of Justice,
2007http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2007/index.
asp

National Health Information Center. About Bullying.
http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/15plus/aboutbullying.asp

National Safe Schools Partnership (2007). Bridging the gap in federal law:
Promoting safe schools and improved student achievement by preventing
bullying and harassment in our schools.

Naylor, P., Cowie, H., Cossin, F., de Bettencourt, R., & Lemme, F. (2006).
Teachers' and pupils' definitions of bullying. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 553-576.

Newman, R. S. (2003). When elementary school students are harassed by peers: A
self-regulative perspective on help seeking. The Elementary School Journal,
103(4), 339-355.

Newman-Carlson, D. & Horne, A. M. (2004). Bully Busters: A psychoeducational
intervention for reducing bullying behavior in middle school students.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 259-267.

Nishina, A., Juvonen, J. and Witkow, M. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break my
bones, but names will make me feel sick: The psychosocial, somatic, and
scholastic consequences of peer harassment. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 34 (1), 37-48.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School. Blackwell Publishing.

117
O’Donnell, C. R. (2003). Culture, peers, and delinquency. Hawthorne Press,
Birmingham, N.Y.

Owens, L., Shute, R. & Slee, P. (2000). “Guess what I just heard!”: Indirect
aggression among teenage girls in Australia. Aggressive Behavior 26, 67-83.

Patchin, J. W. & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A
preliminary look at cyberbulling. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2),
148-169.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3
rd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Pentino, M. D. (1999). Racial harassment in Vermont public schools (Evaluative
report). Vermont Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on
Civil Rights.

Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Connolly, J. A. Yile, A. McMaster, L. and Jiang, D.
(2006). A developmental perspective on bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32,
376-384.

Phillips, D. (2007). Punking and bullying: Strategies in middle school, high school,
and beyond. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(2), 158-178.

Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L. & Clark, R. D. (1981). Emergency
Intervention. Academic press, N.Y., N.Y.

Place, M. (1987) The relative value of screening instruments in adolescence.
Journal of Adolescence 10(23), 227.

PREVNet (2010). Promoting Relationships and Eliminating Violence, Bullying in
Canada. Retrieved April, 24, 2010. Access:
http://www.prevnet.ca/Bullying/BullyingStatistics/tabid/122/language/en-
US/Default.aspx

Public Agenda (2004). Teaching interrupted: Do discipline policies in today’s
public schools foster the common good? Prepared by Public Agenda with
support from Common Good. www.publicagenda.org

Quiroz, H. C., Arnette, J. L., Stephens, R. D. (2006). Bullying In Schools: Fighting
the Bully Battle, Bullying Fact Sheet Series, National School Safety Center.

118
Results of the 2007 Hawai‘i Youth Risk Behavior Survey and Cross-Year
Comparisons, (2007). Curriculum Research & Development Group,
University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, College of Education.

Rhey, K. F. (2007). Sexual misconduct against K-12 students: Teachers’ perception
of incidents by school workers. Dissertation Proposal, Rossier School of
Education, University of Southern California.

Riedel, M. and Welsh, W. (2008). Criminal Violence: Patterns, causes and
prevention. 2
nd
edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of
Psychiatry, 48, 583-590.

Rigby, K. & Bagshaw, D. (2003). Prospects of adolescent students collaborating
with teachers in addressing issues of bullying and conflict in schools.
Educational Psychology, 23(5), 535-546.

Rigby, K. (2008). Children and bullying: How parents and educators can reduce
bullying at school. Wiley-Blackwell, Carleton, Victoria. Australia.

Saka, S. (2008). Results of the 2007 Hawai‘i youth risk behavior surveys and cross-
year comparisons. University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, College of Education
Curriculum Research & Development Group.

Salkind, N. J. (2005). Statistics for people who hate statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.

Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K. & Kaukiainen, A.
(1996). Bullying as a group process: participant roles and their relations to
social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, p. 1-15.

Salmon, G., James, A. & Smith, D.M. (1998). Bullying in schools: Self reported
anxiety, depression, and self-eseem in secondary school children. British
Medical Journal, 317, 924-925.

Saucier, D., Hockett, J. M., Wallemberg, A. S. (2008). The impact of racial slurs
and racism o the perceptions and punishment of violent crimes. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 23(5), 685-701.

119
Schafer, M., Korn, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Wolke, D. & Schulz, H. (2005). Bullying
roles in changing contexts: The stability of victim and bully roles from
primary to secondary school. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 29(4), 323-335.

Searchable inventory of instruments assessing violent behavior and related constructs
in children and adolescents: Revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire
(2007). Violence Institute of New Jersey at UMDNJ.

Smith, P. K., Pepler, D., & Rigby, K. (ed) (2004). Bullying in schools: How
successful can interventions be? Cambridge University Press.

Smith, P.K. & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of
research. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 1-9.

Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. R. & Liefooghe, A. P. D. (2002). Definitions
of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a
fourteen-country international comparison. Child Development, 73(4), 1119-
1133.

Smolowe, J., Herbst, D. Egan, M. W, Rakowsky, J. & Mascia, K. (2010, April 26).
Bullied to death? People, 73(16), 66-70.

Sourander, A., Jensen, P., Ronning, J. A., Elonheimo, H. Niemela, S., Helenius, H.,
Kupulainen, K., Piha, J., Tamminen, T., Moilanen, i. & Almqvist, F. (2007).
Childhood bullies and victims and their risk of criminality in late
adolescence. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(6), 546-
552.

Soutter, A & McKenzie, A. (2000). The use and effects of anti-bullying and anti-
harassment policies in Australian schools. School Psychology International.
21(1) 96-105.

State of Hawai‘i, Department of the Attorney General, JJIS (2010). Juvenile justice
data Wai‘anae, Nanakuli, and Kapolei, 2006-2008. [Unpublished data
provided by the Judiciary of the Family Court in the State of Hawai‘i].

Storch, E. A. & Esposito, L. E. (2003). Peer victimization and posttraumatic stress
among children. Child Study Journal, 33(2), 91-98.

Stueve A., Dash, K., O'Donnell L., Tehranifar, P., Wilson-Simmons, R., Slaby, R.
G., & Link, B. G . (2006). Rethinking the bystander role in school violence
prevention. Health Promotion Practice 7, 117-124.

120
Survey Monkey (2009). www.surveymonkey.com

TCT bullying prevention initiative staff questionnaire (2007). Colorado Trust.
www.bullyingprevention.org/repository//Key%20Questions%20PDFs/
community%20staff%20survey.doc

Temkin, D. (2007). Addressing social aggression in state anti-bullying policies.
Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, Penn Graduate School of
Education, www.urbanedjournal.org

Thurlow, C. (2001). Naming the ‘‘outsider within’’: homophobic pejoratives and
the verbal abuse of lesbian, gay and bisexual high-school pupils Journal of
Adolescence 24, 25–38.

Tillman, L. C. (2005). Mentoring new teachers: Implications for leadership practice
in an urban school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 4(4). 609-629.

Tobin, T. & Irvin, L. K. (1996). The Olweus bully/victim questionnaire: Evidence
and consequences regarding use in the United States. Reclaiming Children
and Youth: Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 5(1), 29-33.

Unnever, J. & Corneli, D. (2003). The culture of bullying in middle school. Journal
of School Violence, 2:2, pp. 5-27.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Best practices in bullying
prevention and intervention. Retrieved May 29, 2010 from
http://www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/HHS_PSA/pdfs/SBN_Tip_23.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice (n.d.). Office of Juvenile Justice model prevention
programs guide. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Retrieved May 30, 2010 from http://www2.dsgonline.com/MPG/Default.aspx

van der Wal, M. F., de Wit, C. A. M. & Hirasing, R. A. Psychosocial health among
victims and offenders of direct and indirect bullying. Pediatrics, 111, 1312-
1317.

Vreeman, R. C. & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based
interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
Medicine, 161(1), 78-88.

Webb, R. & Vulliamy, G. The primary teacher’s role in child protection. British
Education Research Journal, 27(1), 59-77.

121
Winter, L. & Sundt, M. Los Angeles Community College District Hart (Healthy
Advocacy Response Team) Survey. A survey created for the Los Angeles
Community College District.

World Health Organization (2004). Young people’s health in context: selected key
findings from the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children Study. Fact
sheet EURO/04/04 Copenhagen, Edinburgh, 3 June 2004.
http://www.euro.who.int/document/mediacentre/fs0404e.pdf

122
APPENDIX
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
The following questions are currently part of the questionnaire that will be given to
teachers. Modifications will be made to eliminate questions that may be too far
removed from the issue at hand. The Hawai‘i and California cohort students from
USC for the purpose of data collection on violence generated some of the questions
used for this survey.

Survey Instrument
SECTION 1: Introduction and Welcome
Research suggests that much violence in educational settings is under-reported. We
are interested in learning why people who may have knowledge of violence in
schools and colleges do not report it. We appreciate hearing your views. Your
responses are anonymous and there is no way for the researchers to link your identity
to these responses. The information below may help us to understand how teachers'
perceptions may vary. Knowing more about your views and experience can help
strengthen training and resources for teachers on this very important and difficult
subject.

Teachers in the Hawai‘i Department of Education must sign a written consent form
in order to participate. There are a total of 23 questions plus one comment box. The
survey should take you approximately 15-20 minutes to finish. You may quit the
survey at any time or skip any question you do not wish to answer. Your responses
are anonymous and there is no way for the researches to link your identity to these
responses. Your participation is voluntary. The extended deadline to complete the
survey is Thursday, January 20, 2010. Thank you for participating!

SECTION 2: Demographics
We'd like to know a little more about you. Please remember that we are not asking
for personally identifiable information, and we cannot trace your identity. Responses
will be discussed collectively not individually after the surveys are returned.

1. What is your gender? (select one)
! Male Female Other

123
2. Your age at the time of this survey: (circle one)
20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+
3. Your primary job/position at your school: (select one)
! Counselor/Administrator
! Teacher of students in grades 4-8
! Assistant teacher/Special Service provider grades 4-8
! Other (please specify) _______________________________

4. Number of years you have been an educator/administrator: (select one)
1-4 5-9 10-19 20-29 30-39
40 or more
5. If the United States is not your country of origin, how many years have you
lived in the United States?

Less than 1 year 4-6 years more than 9 years
1-3 years 6-9 years not applicable
6. What is your household's annual income?
! Less than $25,000
! $25,000 - $50,000
! $50,000 - $100,000
! Over $100,000

7. What is your ethnicity?
! American Indian or Alaska Native
! Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
! Asian
! White/Caucasian
! Black or African American
! Hispanic or Latino

124
SECTION 3: Cultural Immersion
The next set of questions will examine how family/culture impacts the decision to
report incidences of violence.

8. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
My family/culture has taught me to share my
feelings openly with authority when I need help.

My family/culture has taught me to be very
cautious when approached by people from other
ethnic communities.

I would go to a member of my family if someone
outside my family hurt me.

I have a clear sense of my cultural/ethnic
background and what it means to me.

I think a lot about how my life is affected by my
cultural/ethnic ancestry.

I feel like people are mean to me because of my
ethnic background.

SECTION 4: Barriers/Facilitators to Reporting Violence
For this section, we are interested in knowing if there are factors that would lead you
to, or prevent you from, reporting violence that you may witness or be aware of.

125
9. If I witness violence, I am LIKELY to intervene:

Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
a. If the victim is my friend
b. If the incident happens in my own neighborhood
c. If I think the person is in physical danger
e. If I am related to the person
f. If the victim is not well accepted by others
g. If I know the perpetrator
h. If reporting would not place me in danger
i. If the person instigating is well liked
j. if the victim is a girl
k. if the victim is a boy
l. if the perpetrator is a girl
m. if the perpetrator is a girl

10. If I witness violence, I am NOT LIKELY to intervene:

Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
a. If I think the person deserved it
b. If I disagree with person’s lifestyle
c. If the person instigating is NOT well liked
d. If I think it is none of my business
e. If I think someone else can handle the situation better
f. if the victim is a girl
g. if the victim is a boy
h. if the perpetrator is a girl
i. if the perpetrator is a boy

126
SECTION 5: Authority (to whom you’d report):
11. In order to encourage people to come forward when violence or bullying
occurs, please check the reason you would not (or did not) report an incident
(check all that apply).

! No one would believe me
! No one would follow up
! Nothing would happen to the person who caused the problem
! I don’t think it is appropriate to tell anyone campus
! Reporting a student’s behavior to others makes me feel guilty
! I am worried that the information would not be kept confidential
! It would take too much of my time
! I don’t know who to tell
! It is none of my business
! Fear of retaliation
! My culture or the culture of the perpetrator influenced my decision not to
report
! I did not believe the incident was that serious

12. How likely are you to report bullying behavior (violence) to:

Very
unlikely
Somewhat
unlikely
Somewhat
likely
Very
likely
a. An Official (CPS/Police)
b. Administrator
c. School counselor
d. Co-workers
e. Friends
f. Family
g. Clergy/church leader
h. Psychologist/Psychiatrist
i. Other

Other (please specify)________________________________________

127
13. Tell us why you would report to that person or office (check all that apply):
! That is the place where faculty/teachers are asked to report
! I know and trust the person/staff
! It’s convenient
! The office or staff member has a good reputation for being helpful
! I know they will treat the information confidentially
! I prefer not to tell anyone
! Other (please specify) ____________

SECTION 6: Teacher Perceptions of Bullying
14. Please check the following behaviors you would MOST LIKELY REPORT
if it happened in your classroom (check all that apply).
Counselors/Administrators/Special Service workers may answer this as it
applies to incidents on campus.

! Cyber-bullying
! Frequent name calling
! Gossiping
! Harassment (sexual/physical/verbal)
! Hitting
! Homophobic slurs (e.g. gay, fag)
! Humiliation/shaming
! Inappropriate notes or letters
! Intimidation
! Kicking (not in self-defense)
! Locking students into (or out of) a room/closet/locker
! Mean gestures
! Punking
! Pushing
! Racial slurs
! Repeated put downs
! Social exclusion (refusing to talk to/acknowledge another student)
! Spreading rumors
! Stealing or destroying another student’s property
! Taunting
! Teasing
! Threatening
! Other (please specify) _______________

128
15. At my school, the following people are responsible for handling bullying
behaviors (check all that apply):

! Classroom teachers
! Students are encouraged to work out their own problems
! School Counselors
! Administration
! Specialists (psychologists, professionals)
! I’m not sure
! Other (please specify) __________________________________

16. The following comments apply to me when confronted with a bullying
situation (check all that apply). Counselors/Administrators/Special Service
providers please answer as it applies to the school.

! I am likely to intervene if the behavior occurs in my classroom
! I am likely to intervene if the behavior occurs anywhere on campus
! I am likely to intervene if the incident occurs off campus
! I am likely to intervene if the victim came to me for help
! I am likely to intervene if I know the student
! I would most likely call on someone else to handle the situation
! I prefer not to intervene
! Intervening in student behavioral issues is not my responsibility
! Other (please specify) ___________________________________

17. Which of the following comments do you believe to be true with respect to
VERBAL ABUSE:

! I am more likely to report physical abuse than verbal abuse
! In my classroom verbal abuse is addressed and reported
! In my classroom verbal abuse is addressed but not usually reported
! I consider physical or social abuse to be much more serious than verbal
abuse
! I consider verbal abuse to be just as serious as physical or social abuse
! In my school students are aware of the consequences of verbal abuse
! I am not aware of any school policies regarding verbal abuse
! Other (please specify)_______________________________________

129
18. Which of the following comments do you believe to be true with respect to
SOCIAL ABUSE such as ignoring, intimidating, ganging up on students, etc.:
(check all that apply)

! I am more likely to report physical abuse than social abuse
! In my classroom social abuse is addressed and reported
! In my classroom social abuse is addressed but not usually reported
! I consider physical or verbal abuse to be much more serious than social
abuse
! I consider social abuse to be just as serious as physical or verbal abuse.
! In my school students are aware of the consequences of social abuse
! I am not aware of any school policies regarding social abuse
! Other (please specify)_________________________________________

SECTION 7: Barriers/Facilitators to Reporting - Efficacy
19. As a bystander of violence (sexual assault, bullying, cyber harassment,
domestic violence, child abuse, etc.), to what extent do you agree/disagree with
the following:

Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Everyone has a responsibility to prevent and
protect victims of violence.

I know how to report violence.
I trust that someone will resolve the situation if I
report it.

If I report violence, it will help the victim.
If I witness violence, I can intervene myself.
In most cases, physical evidence of violence can be
detected.

Many people witness violence but do not report it.
Most people are concerned about violence.
Most people have trouble defining violence.
Suspected violence is a reason to contact
authorities.

When I witnessed violence in the past, I reported it.

130
SECTION 8: Reasons for (Not) Reporting
20. As a BYSTANDER if you became aware of an incident (a sexual assault,
someone being bullied, cyber harassed, or being domestically abused, etc.), to
what extent would any of these factors make it easier or harder for you to
report:

Much Harder
Somewhat
Harder
No Impact
Easier
Somewhat
Easier
The offender faced prison time because of me
Alcohol and/or drugs were involved at the time of
the incident

Getting hurt (either physically or emotionally)
Criticism from others
My cultural beliefs and values
The victim does not appear to be suffering
I know the accused person very well
My identity would be kept confidential

21. To what extent do you agree/disagree with the following statement - People
DO NOT report violence due to…

Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
a. a general fear of getting involved
b. fear of being sued
c. fear of retaliation
d. fear they could be labeled as the abuser
e. fear they could be wrong or mistaken

131
SECTION 9: Environmental Characteristics
The following questions address the social climate of your school.
22. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements
regarding the school or community where you work?

Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
a) This institution provides a safe environment for
everyone.

b) Teachers and staff do not believe bullying is a
problem at our school.

c) Teachers use language that is hurtful.
d) Students use language that is hurtful.
e) I have heard teachers make inappropriate
comments about the students.

f) There is at least one colleague at this institution I
could talk to if I have a problem.

g) The students in my class are friendly toward me.
h) Students from different ethnicities or cultures
are equally respected by our school staff.

i) The police/authorities know how to handle
reports of violent acts in my community.

j) Reporting to the appropriate personnel will
benefit the victim.

k) I do not call on anyone in the school for help
because nothing will happen.

132
23. What strategies have been implemented to address bullying at your school
(check all that apply)

! Teacher/staff training
! School-wide policies that are closely enforced
! Implementation of a nationally recognized bullying prevention program
! We have behavior program(s)/school policies but they are not enforced
! None that I am aware of
! Other (please specify) ________________________________________

SECTION 10: Conclusion
This concludes the survey. Thank you for your time and for your part in advancing
the research on bullying and violence in today’s schools.

24. Feel free to write in comments or responses to this survey. Mahalo!

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The vortex of homophobic bullying: the reporting behavior of teachers

PDF

The influence of high school bystanders of bullying: an exploratory study

PDF

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

PDF

Physical aggression in higher education: student-athletes’ perceptions and reporting behaviors

PDF

Student willingness to report violence in secondary schools

PDF

Understanding the reporting behavior of international college student bystanders in sexual assault situations

PDF

Enhancing professional development aimed at changing teachers' perceptions of Micronesian students

PDF

Who do we tell? School violence and reporting behavior among native Hawaiian high school students

PDF

Teacher perception on coaching and effective professional development implementation

PDF

Culturally relevant pedagogy in an elementary school for indigent native peoples

PDF

Elementary principal perceptions of teacher to student bullying within classroom management practices

PDF

How teachers identify and respond to bullying: an evaluation study

PDF

Bystander behavior in relation to violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered high school students

PDF

Perceptions of Hawai`i TRIO Talent Search staff and target high school administrators of college access factors and project effectiveness

PDF

Investigating the promising practice of teacher evaluation in two California charter schools

PDF

The effects of peer helping on participants' perceptions of school climate, school connectedness, and school violence

PDF

Enacting ideology: an examination of the connections between teacher ideology, classroom climate, and teacher interpretation of student behavior

PDF

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

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying

PDF

Hawaii Board of Education's middle grade promotion policy: a policy implementation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Uale, Beth Piilani (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/06/2010

Defense Date 05/06/2010

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

Tag bullying,bystander behavior,elementary school teachers,Hawaii public schools,middle-school teachers,OAI-PMH Harvest,school climate,teacher perceptions

Place Name Hawaii (states), islands: Oahu (geographic subject)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora A. (committee chair), Brewer, Dominic J. (committee member), Gothold, Stuart E. (committee member)

Creator Email uale@usc.edu,ualeb001@hawaii.rr.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3178

Unique identifier UC1196428

Identifier etd-Uale-3792 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-364880 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3178 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Uale-3792.pdf

Dmrecord 364880

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Uale, Beth Piilani

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu