University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

How teachers identify and respond to bullying: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

How teachers identify and respond to bullying: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 1
Running head: HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING:
AN EVALUATION STUDY
By
Ruben F. Cortez
______________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2019
Copyright 2019 Ruben F. Cortez
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 2
Acknowledgements
This journey began when I was seven years old. My father, who worked in construction,
showed me his chapped, worn hands and told me I did not have to do the same kind of work as
him—that I could have a more rewarding career if I got a good education. And, with each phase
of education I’ve completed, I have reflected on that moment with my father. My parents helped
me understand the importance of faith a guiding force in one’s life—that faith should be
something that is lived, not just practiced. My journey through this program has been a way for
me to live that faith by effecting a positive change in the education field.
I could not have completed the hard work that went into this program without the loving
support of my family, and especially my wife, who supported me continually and encouraged me
when the days seemed long and the work (at times) frustrating. She listened to my thoughts and
helped me work through mental roadblocks. I am eternally grateful to her.
I am thankful, also, for the wonderful professors who have taught me over the duration of
this program. Each of them has helped me to grow intellectually and personally. I am especially
thankful for Dr. Lynch, who reminded me that the big picture is what is truly important; Dr.
Robles, who helped me realize the need to change the world so that marginalization ceases to
exist; and to Dr. Datta who, even in response to my crazy schedule and frustrations with the
research process, offered nothing but positive and encouraging words, reminding me that this
study should speak from my heart. I was also blessed to have so many supportive colleagues who
made this journey enjoyable.
I am also thankful for all the people in my professional and personal life who have taught
me the importance of holding fast to one’s dreams, no matter how difficult the journey. My
friends reassured me that I could complete this journey in the first place. They encouraged me to
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 3
enroll in this program and continually reminded me that the end was near, urging me not to give
up. I especially remember one friend who showed me that education can be transformative and
underscored the importance of humility and doing everything for the greater Glory of God (Ad
Majorem Dei Gloriam). She said often that we must lead with compassion and kindness, and
always Implement with Understanding (IWU). As this journey ends, the next one begins, I look
forward to being a Rogue Change Agent.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
Abstract 7
List of Tables 8
List of Figures 9
Chapter 1: Introduction 10
Introduction to the Problem in Practice 10
Organizational Context and Mission 11
Organizational Goal 13
Relevant Literature 13
Importance of this Evaluation 15
Description of Stakeholder Groups 16
Stakeholder Goals 17
Stakeholder Group for the Study 17
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 18
Methodological Framework 18
Definitions of Terms 19
Organization of the Project 19
Chapter 2: Literature Review 21
Conceptualizing Bullying 21
Types of Bullying 23
Bullying as a Social Construct 25
Perceptions of Bullying 26
Psychological Impact 29
The Impact of Bullying on Student Engagement and Academic Achievement 30
The Role of Bystanders 32
Bullying and Catholic Schools 36
Clark and Estes' (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework 37
Knowledge and Skills 38
Knowledge influences. 39
Factual knowledge. 39
Conceptual knowledge 40
Procedural knowledge 41
Metacognitive knowledge. 42
Motivation 43
Self-efficacy theory. 44
Teachers’ self-efficacy. 45
Teacher perceived cost. 47
Organizational Influences 49
Organizational culture and climate. 49
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 5
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context 51
Chapter 3: Methedology 55
Methodological Approach and Rationale 55
Participating Stakeholders 56
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale 56
Interview sampling (recruitment) strategy and rationale. 57
Explanation of Research Choices 57
Data Collection and Instrumentation 58
Interviews 58
Interview protocol. 58
Interview procedures. 59
Documents and Artifacts 59
Data Analysis 59
Credibility and Trustworthiness 60
Ethics 61
Chapter 4: Findings 63
Participating Stakeholders 64
Findings 65
Research Question 1 66
School policies. 66
Culture. 69
Research Question 2 71
Knowledge Influences 71
Factual knowledge: Definition of bullying 72
Conceptual knowledge: Identifying types of bullying 75
Procedural knowledge: Strategies for dealing with bullying 78
Metacognitive knowledge: Perceptions of bullying. 79
Motivation Influences. 84
Cost-value. 84
Self-efficacy. 85
Organizational Influences. 86
School climate. 86
Teachers' personal experiences. 87
Synthesis 88
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 6
Chapter 5: Recommendations 92
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 93
Knowledge Recommendations 93
Declarative knowledge solutions. 94
Procedural knowledge solutions. 95
Metacognitive knowledge solutions. 96
Motivation Recommendations 96
Self-efficacy. 97
Value. 98
Organization Recommendations 99
Cultural models. 100
Cultural settings. 101
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 102
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 102
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations 104
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 104
Level 3: Behavior 106
Critical behaviors. 106
Required drivers. 107
Organizational support. 109
Level 2: Learning 109
Learning goals. 109
Program. 109
Evaluation of the components of learning. 110
Level 1: Reaction 111
Evaluation Tools 112
Immediately following the program implementation. 112
Delayed for a period after the program implementation 113
Data Analysis and Reporting 113
Summary 115
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach Used 116
Future Research 117
Conclusion 118
References 120
Appendices 129
Appendix A: Stakeholder Descriptions 129
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 133
Appendix C: Evaluation of Program 136
Appendix D: Evaluation of Program (Quarterly) 139
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 7
Abstract
Bullying remains a problem in American schools. According to 2016 statistics from the National
Center for Education, one out of every five students reported being bullied and, of those students,
33% indicated they were bullied once or twice a month. Intervention from adults, and especially
teachers, can be effective in curbing bullying. However, researchers have shown that most
teachers do not notice bullying or fail to respond to it effectively. In this qualitative evaluation
study, the researcher examined how staff at St. Catholic School (a pseudonym for a Kindergarten
to Grade 8 Catholic school in the western United States) met their organizational goal of
providing a safe environment for students by reducing bullying. Using Clark and Estes’ (2008)
gap analysis model as the conceptual framework, the researcher evaluated teachers’
organizational performance and determined the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
influences that impacted teachers’ ability to identify and respond to bullying. Key findings from
this study were that teachers struggle to define bullying, and are better at identifying and
responding to overly aggressive bullying behavior than indirect bullying. In addition, in the
absence of clear anti-bullying policies, teachers in this study relied on past experiences when
determining how to deal with bullying behavior. As a result of this lack of formal training,
teachers in this study exhibited attitudes and perceptions that affected the strategies they used to
respond to bullying. This dissertation concludes with recommendations for developing a program
to provide training and support for teachers in order to increase their knowledge and
understanding of bullying, as well as developing formal school policies to help teachers respond
to bullying incidents.
Key words: bullying, education, teacher, intervention, identification
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 8
List of Tables
Table 1. Knowledge Influences 43
Table 2.Motivational Influences 49
Table 3. Organizational Influences 51
Table 4. Participating Stakeholders 65
Table 5. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 93
Table 6. Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations 97
Table 7. Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations 99
Table 8. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 106
Table 9. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for the Evaluation 107
Table 10. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behavior 108
Table 11. Evaluation of the Components of Learning from the Program 111
Table 12. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 112
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 9
List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework Interactions 53
Figure 2. External Outcomes 105
Figure 3. Mockup of Graphic to Show Growth 114
Figure 4. Mockup of Presented Data 115
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 10
Chapter 1: Introduction
The Problem in Practice
In this study, the researcher addressed the problem of bullying and teacher responses to
bullying in American schools. Bullying has been defined as an imbalance of power whereby a
more powerful person oppresses a less powerful person repeatedly, without provocation, over a
prolonged time (Farrington, 1993; Olweus, 1973). Despite numerous attempts to address the
problem of bullying in schools, its prevalence remains high: 31% of students in Grades 4 to 12
have reported being physically bullied, 12% have reported being cyberbullied, and 51% have
reported being verbally and socially bullied (Hymel & Swearer, 2015). According to National
Center for Education statistics, one in five students reported being bullied. Of these students,
33% indicated they were bullied once or twice a month (Gillette, Zhan, Wang, Zhang, &
Oudekerk, 2017). Though 87% of students reported witnessing bullying behavior, only 19%
reported coming to the aide of the victim (Howard, Landau, & Pryor, 2014). And, while 43% of
students who experienced bullying notified an adult about the incident, elementary school
teachers were less likely to intervene if the bullying was not physical (Gillette et al., 2017; Yoon,
& Kerber, 2003). This lack of intervention by peers and adults who witness bullying behavior
affects students’ sense of safety and their perception that both victims and bystanders collude in
and condone bullying behavior (Gini, Pozzoli, Borghi, & Franzoni, 2008).
Teachers seldom notice or respond to bullying incidents. When they do respond, their
responses appear to be ineffective (Yoon, Sulkowski, & Bauman, 2016). Teachers gave a range
of responses when asked about their use of particular anti-bullying strategies, ranging from
ignoring the behavior to sending bullies to the school principal. It appears that teachers receive
little clear direction on handling bullying incidents (Yoon et al., 2016). In fact, teachers tended to
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 11
rely on their own personal experiences, beliefs, and perceptions when deciding how to deal with
bullies or victims (Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler, & Wiener, 2005; Yoon et al., 2016). Most teachers
expressed that they felt they lacked the time, resources, and support to deal with bullying
incidents effectively (Mishna et al., 2005).
Despite a perception that bullying is not a problem in Catholic or Christian schools
because of their faith-based focus, bullying in schools is a universal problem, affecting both
public and private schools (Honey, 2015). In National Center for Education statistics, 28% of
public-school students reported being bullied, compared to 21% of private school students
(Council for American Private Education, 2015). In addition, despite evidence that the
prevalence of bullying is high in schools, responses to bullying are inconsistent and inadequate.
The failure to address the problem of bullying in American schools (especially ineffective
teacher responses to bullying) affects student academic achievement and results in personal
negative consequences for victims and bullies alike. Ongoing bullying in schools can result in a
school culture in which students feel less connected to each other and victimization is tacitly
condoned (Rigby, 2003).
Organizational Context and Mission
St. Catholic School (a pseudonym) is a Kindergarten to Grade 8 private school located in
a large metropolitan area in the western United States. The school is overseen by a diocesan
department of Catholic Schools, with school administrators responsible for fiduciary and
governance matters. The mission of St. Catholic School is to prepare students for life after
school, as well as preparing them to make a positive difference in the world. The school mission
lists teaching the whole child, supporting students academically, emotionally, physically and
spiritually. As a religious school, St. Catholic school community promotes core principles that
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 12
value each person as unique and valuable. St. Catholic School operates on a traditional 10-month
academic calendar that runs from late August to early June. The school seeks to serve mainly
members of local parishes and does not discriminate according to race, gender, ethnicity, or
religious affiliation. The school provides an academic curriculum based on Common Core
standards and includes a daily religion class. The school is coeducational, with multiple classes
per-grade, and employs both male and female teachers. Teachers at the school have a variety of
professional experience, ranging from less than three years to more than 15 years. Students come
from various areas of the community, with student demographics reflecting the wider
demographics of the area.
Along with its mission to teach the whole child, St. Catholic School strives to provide a
safe environment for students both in and outside of the classroom. Teachers promote positive
social behavior in religion classes and encourage students to treat each other with respect.
However, the prevalence of bullying incidents among students at St. Catholic School is a
problem, with teachers at the school contending with witnessed and reported bullying incidents.
Depending on the severity of the incident, teachers are instructed to respond in ways that range
from talking to students about their behavior to sending students to see the school principal. If
the incident is an ongoing problem, teachers use class time to speak with the students involved to
try and rectify the problem. Bullying incidents happen both in and outside of the classroom at St.
Catholic School. In the classroom, teachers typically give students a warning before any further
disciplinary action is taken. Currently, no formal anti-bullying program is in place at the school.
However, bullying is listed as one of many forms of harassment in the school’s harassment
policy. In this policy, the school’s process for reporting harassment is outlined, along with
consequences for students found to have initiated and engaged in harassment. However, the
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 13
policy contains no specific guidance as to how teachers should deal with bullying among
students. By addressing the problem of bullying at St. Catholic School, school staff will be able
to reduce unwanted behavior, creating a safer environment for student learning.
Organizational Goal
St. Catholic School’s organizational goal is to provide a safe learning environment for all
students by reducing bullying incidents. Currently, teachers spend a portion of their workday
dealing with bullying incidents that happen outside the classroom. Occasionally, teachers are
interrupted in their instruction by bullying incidents in the classroom. The school’s organization
goal is designed to help shift teachers’ focus in dealing with bullying away from reactive,
discipline-based responses to proactive, preventative responses.
Relevant Literature
Bullying is a problem in American schools, with teachers and school administrators
seeking ways to curb or eliminate its existence in and outside of classrooms. Students who are
involved in bullying suffer short and long term psychological harm (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpelä,
Rantanen, & Rimpelä, 2000). For these reasons, researchers have sought evidence-based
strategies with which to address bullying. For example, in a meta-analysis of intervention
approaches, Ttofi and Farrington (2011) identified 622 published articles or research studies
about strategies for dealing with bullying in schools. Often, bullying is labelled as an inevitable
childhood experience, or a problem that affects mainly the bully and victim. However, bullying
results in an atmosphere that is detrimental the school’s entire community (Lacey & Cornell,
2013).
In the United States, it is expected that schools should be safe and healthy environments
in which students can thrive academically and personally. Bullying in schools is a major threat to
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 14
that environment (Konishi, Hymel, Zumbo, & Li, 2010). As noted earlier in this dissertation, one
in five American students have been involved in some sort of bullying at school, either as a
victim, a bully, or a bully-victim (Holt & Espelage, 2007; Rose, Monda-Amaya, & Espelage,
2010). In addition to students who are involved in bullying directly, 87% of students have
reported that they have witnessed bullying behavior (Hawkins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001). At
schools where students perceive there is a high level of bullying, students also report lower
commitment to school and less involvement in extracurricular activities (Mehta, Cornell, Fan, &
Gregory, 2013). In the same vein, as student perceptions of the pervasiveness of bullying
increase at a school, student engagement and academic achievement diminish (Glew, Fan, Katon,
Rivara, & Kernic, 2005; Metha et al., 2013). Both victims and bullies experience psychological,
emotional and social problems that have potential long term negative consequences, including
poor academic achievement, behavioral problems in the classroom, higher drop-out rates, school
absenteeism, and suicide attempts (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Kaltiala-Heino, et al., 2000;
Kumpulainen & Räsänen, 2000; Swearer & Cary, 2003).
Staff at many schools have tried to address the problem of bullying through zero-
tolerance policies, with little success in curbing bullying behavior or incidences of victimization
(Cassidy, 2005; Gregory et al., 2010; Skiba & Knesting, 2001; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). In
many cases, students have responded to zero-tolerance programs by engaging in less overt forms
of bullying at school or on social media. In addition, most zero-tolerance disciplinary actions
have been designed with physical bullying or other types of overt bullying in mind, rather than
subtler types of bullying (Borgwald & Theixos, 2013). One reason for the emphasis on physical
bullying is the inability of many teachers to recognize covert forms of bullying. Most students
feel that teachers deal with incidents that students do not consider bullying, like horseplay, and
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 15
do not deal with incidents that students consider bullying, such as indirect bullying (Varjas et al.,
2008). In addition, students are less likely to report bullying when teachers fail to respond to
bullying effectively (Frisén, Holmqvist, & Oscarsson, 2008). Failure to address bullying in
American schools has negative effects on victims, bullies, and overall student academic
achievement. Equally important, continued bullying in schools can result in a culture in which
victimization in and outside of school is considered normal and acceptable. When school staff
address bullying beyond a disciplinary level, responding to the problem from various angles,
incidents of victimization can be prevented (Swearer & Cary, 2003).
Importance of the Evaluation
In this study, it was important for the researcher to evaluate the performance of the
organization in question (St. Catholic School) against its performance goal—that is, reducing the
incidence of bullying by providing a safe environment for all students. Even bystanders (students
not directly involved in bullying) are affected by bullying in schools. O’Connell, Pepler, and
Craig (1999) found that bystanders either become complacent contributors to bullying,
consenting to the behavior by their presence; reluctant participants who fear being targeted; or
occasional interveners who try to curb bullying or help victims. Bullying remains a pervasive
problem in schools, resulting in an imbalance of power between students in and outside of the
classroom (Kunishi et al., 2010). In the presence of unchecked bullying in schools and
classrooms, students must conform to marginalizing definitions of what is acceptable and what is
different—or risk becoming victims themselves (O’Connell et al., 1999; Swearer & Cary, 2003).
By evaluating the performance of St. Catholic School in reducing the incidence of bullying, the
researcher intended to gather data with which effective anti-bullying policies and training
programs can be designed and implemented. Areas of focus in this regard included teacher
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 16
perceptions of what constitutes bullying and how students and teachers can intervene in incidents
of bullying to curb bullying in the school.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The researcher identified three groups of stakeholders at St. Catholic School: teachers,
students, and parents. Students are one of the stakeholders who benefit from the organization.
Students are the reason for the organization’s existence and the target of the organization’s
mission and goals. In addition, the organization’s performance goal of reducing bullying should
have direct effects on student behavior. With this in mind, students should reap the most direct
benefits if the school reaches its performance goal—specifically, through healthier interactions
with their peers in and outside of the classroom. Teachers at St. Catholic School are the
stakeholder group with the most direct impact on how the organization’s mission and goals are
enacted. For this reason, teachers are the stakeholder group most integral to St. Catholic School
achieving its performance goal. Teachers should benefit from the school achieving its
performance goal by gaining time and resources currently spent dealing with problems
associated with bullying. Parents are the third stakeholder group at St. Catholic School. Parents
help support the organization in achieving its mission and goals. At the same time, parents
determine whether their children will remain at the school based on its ability to provide the
environment outlined in its mission and goals. Parents help the school achieve its performance
goal of providing a safe environment by supporting school policies related to the performance
goal. Parents should benefit from the school achieving its performance goal through children
who are happier with their overall school experience and possibly have better academic
performance.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 17
Stakeholders Goals
St. Catholic School has developed an organizational goal of providing a safe learning
environment for all students. Since bullying creates an atmosphere where students do not feel
safe, reducing bullying incidents would help the school achieve this goal. In order for the school
to reduce bullying, individual performance goals were established for each stakeholder group to
help achieve the organization’s performance goal. These goals were as follows: Teachers will
identify and respond to bullying incidents 100% of the time by May 2020; 100% of parents will
attend workshops on bullying and the role of bystanders to intervene in stopping bullying by
December 2019; and 100% of students will be able to identify aspects of bullying and exhibit
skills on ways to intervene to stop bullying by May 2020.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Joint efforts by each stakeholder group should contribute to St. Catholic School achieving
its overall organizational goal of reducing the incidence of bullying at the school. However, at
the outset of this research, it was important for the researcher to evaluate St. Catholic School
teachers’ current effectiveness with regard to their performance goal. Teacher responses to
bullying behavior can affect how victims and bullies behave in future (Yoon, 2004). In addition,
teachers are less likely to deal with bullying behavior when they are unsure of what constitutes
bullying or how they should intervene in bullying incidents (Mishna et al., 2005). Researchers
have found that teacher perceptions, experiences, and emotional responses are effective
predictors of the success of anti-bullying initiatives (Mishna et al., 2005). Therefore, teachers at
St. Catholic School were the stakeholders of focus in this study. The stakeholders’ goal was to
identify and respond to bullying incidents. It was assumed that failure to accomplish this goal
would result in continued bullying at the school. In turn, continued bullying in the school could
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 18
result in lower student engagement in the classroom and lower student enrollment figures, with
parents seeking safer environments for their children.
The Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
In this study, the researcher sought to evaluate the degree to which St. Catholic School
was meetings its goal of providing a safe environment for all students by reducing bullying
incidents. The researcher focused on stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and other
organizational influences related to achieving this organizational goal. A complete performance
evaluation of the organization would focus on all St. Catholic School stakeholders. Such an
analysis was beyond the scope of this research. Instead, teachers at the school were the
stakeholder group of focus in this study. On this basis, the researcher sought to answer the
following questions in this study:
1. To what extent is St. Catholic School meeting its organizational performance goal of
reducing bullying incidents?
2. What are the stakeholder knowledge, motivation and organizational elements related
to achieving this goal?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources to help achieve the stated goal?
Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework was used in this study to
understand and evaluate any discrepancy between the current performance of the organization in
question and its desired performance goals for key stakeholders. Qualitative data were gathered
and analyzed for this purpose. The current performance of St. Catholic School teachers was
assessed through document analysis, interviews, a review of relevant literature, and content
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 19
analysis. Research-based solutions were recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive
manner. In addition to Clark and Estes’ (2008) conceptual framework, an evaluation model was
used.
Definitions of Terms
Bully—someone who shows repeated aggressive behavior toward another person (Olweus,
1997).
Bystanders—a person who witnesses an incidence of bullying. A bystander may be a passive
onlooker or an active participant (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009).
Self-efficacy—an individual’s judgment of their capabilities to learn or perform a task (Pajares,
2009).
Student engagement—the state of being motivated and invested in the process of learning
(Mehta, Cornell, Fan, & Gregory, 2013).
Organization of the Project
This study is reported in five chapters. In this chapter, the researcher has outlined key
concepts and terminology relevant to bullying in schools and strategies to reduce bullying
behavior. The mission, goals and stakeholders of the organization being studied were introduced,
along with the conceptual framework for this study. In Chapter 2, the existing literature relevant
to the scope of this study is reviewed. Topics discussed include conceptualizations of bullying,
the psychological impact of bullying, the impact of bullying on student achievement and
engagement, and the role of bystanders in bullying. In Chapter 3, the effects of stakeholder
knowledge, motivations, and other organizational elements on bullying at the school are
examined, as well as the methodology used by the researcher to measure teacher effectiveness in
identifying and reporting bullying. In Chapter 4, data and results are assessed and analyzed. In
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 20
Chapter 5, solutions based on this data and other relevant literature are proposed for addressing
identified gaps in the organization’s performance, as well as an implementation and evaluation
plan for addressing these gaps.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 21
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The goal of St. Catholic School is to provide a safe learning environment for students.
Problems associated with bullying at the school have prevented school staff from achieving that
goal. Bullying affects all aspects of the school environment, from individual student responses to
bullying to schoolwide academic achievement. In this study, the researcher sought to examine
how bullying affected the ability of St. Catholic School staff to meet the goal of providing a safe
learning environment for students. In reviewing the literature on bullying, the researcher
identified six themes: different ideas of what constitutes bullying, the psychological impact of
bullying, the impact of bullying on student engagement and academic achievement, the role of
bystanders in bullying, how bullying impacts student safety, and bullying in Catholic Schools.
Within the relevant literature, researchers have examined these themes related to bullying in a
variety of settings (e.g., schools, workplaces, and other locations). However, the researcher’s
focus on conducting this literature review was on bullying in schools and its consequences.
Conceptualizing Bullying
Bullying has been labeled as one of the most common forms of violence in schools, with
20 to 25% of youth directly involved with bullying in some way, whether as a bully, a victim, or
a “bully-victim”—a person who bullies others and is also victimized by others (Menesini &
Salmivalli, 2017). Bullying takes many different forms: It can involve physical aggression, such
as hitting or pushing; verbal attacks, such as name-calling or teasing; and non-verbal attacks,
such as social exclusion (Juvonen & Graham, 2014). The purpose of these attacks is to intimidate
and gain power over another individual or group. For victims of bullying, ongoing victimization
occurs mainly as a result of the power the bully asserts over them, rather than the aggressive
behavior itself (Juvonen & Graham, 2014; Rodkin, Wang, & Logis, 2014).
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 22
The accepted definition of bullying has remained consistent over the past forty years,
with researchers and educators emphasizing that bullying involves an imbalance of power that is
exerted over another person or group. In schools, bullying behavior has been defined “as a form
of aggression in which a more powerful or dominant student (or group of students) repeatedly
humiliates a weaker student using methods that can range from physical assault to verbal teasing
to social ostracism” (Mehta et al., 2013, p. 45). Olweus (1994), a pioneering bullying researcher,
defined bullying as aggressive behavior that occurs repeatedly over a period of time,
distinguishing bullying behavior from other negative interactions between students. These
characteristics of bullying—the repetition of aggressive behavior and the continual assertion of
power over another student or group—result in a situation in which it becomes difficult for the
victim (or victims) to respond effectively (Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017).
Many students who engage in bullying derive satisfaction from feelings of control and
power over other people, even taking satisfaction in their victims’ distress (Banks, 1997). Indeed,
bullying does not occur among students who are seen as commanding similar levels of power
within their school (Olweus, 1994; Rigby, 2003). Olweus (1994) goes as far as to state that the
term “bullying” should not be used when two people are of equal strength, as bullying occurs
when the victim is somewhat helpless or is unable to defend themselves altogether. Ultimately,
bullying is about power. Researchers, educators and parents have tended to gauge the amount of
aggression a student exhibits in their bullying behavior. However, “the most conspicuous cases
of bullying and victimization are characterized, not by great discrepancies in aggression, but by
great discrepancies in psychological power, or social status” (Rodkin et al., p. 690). Even peers
view the relationship between bully and victim in terms of discrepancies of popularity and not of
aggression. It is true that bullies exhibit aggressive behavior more than victims. However, as a
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 23
result of the discrepancy in power and social status between bully and victim, the victim cannot
simply escalate their own aggressive behavior in order to avoid further victimization (Rodkin et
al., 2014). Although power underlines the negative relationship between bully and victim, bullies
exhibit their aggressive behavior in a range of ways. There is no one type of bullying, nor one
place where it occurs. The power asserted by bullies affects the climate and culture of a
classroom, forcing other students to conform to perceived norms (Hamarus & Kaikkonen, 2008).
There is a clear need for researchers to obtain a clearer picture of bullying in schools, including
types of bullying that occur in schools, how bullying manifests as a social construct, and how
student and teachers perceive bullying (Hamarus & Kaikkonen, 2008; Juvonen & Grahm, 2014;
Varjas et al., 2008).
Types of Bullying
Researchers have described different types of bullying behavior and ways in which
bullies assert power through aggression. For example, aggressive behavior can be direct or
indirect, involving non-verbal and verbal aggression (Juvonen & Grahm, 2014; Varjas et al.,
2008). Direct bullying is considered an open attack on the victim and can include non-verbal and
verbal behavior. In contrast, indirect bullying is less overt, involving social exclusion or
isolation, and often is non-verbal (Olweus, 1994). Direct non-verbal bullying can take the form
of hitting, kicking, pushing, throwing things, and other physical forms of aggression. Direct
verbal bullying may involve name calling, teasing, making fun of, threatening, and other
aggressive verbal assaults (Varjas et al., 2008). Students who bully utilize this type of direct
aggressive behavior as a means to establish or maintain social dominance in order to control their
peers’ behavior (Junvoen & Grahm, 2014). Indirect non-verbal bullying often takes the form of
ignoring, laughing, or walking away when someone tries to join a group. Indirect verbal bullying
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 24
most often involves spreading rumors about a person. Both types of bullying can serve different
functions. Direct bullying is often used to elicit the desired response from a victim, or to
intimidate them. Indirect bullying is used to shape the victim’s behavior (Junvoen & Grahm,
2014). Boys appear to engage in direct bullying more often than indirect bullying—however,
neither direct nor indirect bullying is exclusive to either gender, with researchers finding that
both boys and girls engage in direct and indirect bullying (Junvoen & Grahm, 2014; Mishna,
2004). In fact, non-verbal aggression has been identified as the most common type of bullying
behavior among both genders (Junvoen & Grahm, 2014; Mishna, 2004; Varjas et al., 2008).
Varjas et al. (2008) interviewed fourth grade to high school students in a southern urban
school district to determine their perceptions of bullying. One form of verbal, indirect bullying
identified by students in the study was relational bullying, which entails limiting a person’s
friendship with another person (or other people) or spreading rumors, with social exclusion the
desired effect. Relational bullying would be considered an indirect form of bullying since it
involves social exclusion. However, unlike other forms of social exclusion, relational bullying
attempts to restrict someone’s friendship circle through rumors or other verbal manipulation,
often drawing in students whom the victim considered friends (Mishna, 2004; Varjas et al.,
2008). Girls were more likely to engage in relational bullying than boys, whereas boys were
more likely to engage other types of bullying (Varjas et al., 2008). Older students are less likely
to engage in physical bullying and more likely to engage in relational bullying (Bauman & Del
Rio, 2006). This shift in bullying behaviors may occur because school staff tend to focus on
reducing physical bullying behaviors, with many teachers unaware of the extent of relational
bullying among students (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006).
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 25
Bullying as Social Construct
Bullies seek to assert power and control over other people—both individuals and groups
(Hamarus, & Kaikkonen, 2008; Varjas et al., 2008). By targeting victims on the basis of their
deviant behavior, bullies establish cultural norms in the school or classroom, with other students
conforming to those norms in order to avoid being targeted (Hamarus & Kaikkonen, 2008). Atlas
and Pepler (1998) identified characteristics of bullying by videotaping and audio recording
students aged six to 12 in a Toronto public school. They found that bullying behavior occurs
within a sociological context. Students maintain their social status by calling the victim different
names or making fun of behavior the bully deems deviant. In this way, bullies create cultural
norms within their class group, gaining control and power over what is deemed acceptable and
unacceptable among other students. In addition, bullying is performed in front of an audience in
order to reinforce dominance (Hamarus & Kaikkonen, 2008).
Hamarus and Kaikkonen (2008) noted that, when seeking to establish social dominance,
bullies engage in bullying in the classroom with the teacher present. Bullies use several strategies
to assert social dominance in the classroom. The first way is through silencing. When a student
who is being targeted answers a question or makes a comment in class, the bully (or bullies)
respond with laughter or by initiating some other kind of public humiliation. Soon, other students
recognize and mimic this public humiliation until the targeted student is effectively silenced.
Hamarus and Kaikkonen (2008, p. 340) termed this behavior a form of “secret communication”
whereby everyone in the classroom knows what is happening—except the teacher. By using this
strategy, the bully does not have to engage in overt bullying in order to achieve the desired
outcome (Hamarus & Kakkonen, 2008). The researchers also noted other covert strategies used
by bullies to establish social dominance, including misrepresentation and rituals.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 26
Misrepresentation is part of the secret communication used by bullies. Bullies may say
something to (or do something for) the targeted student that seems normal or even friendly on
one level. However, the targeted student and other students recognize the intent behind the action
(Hamarus & Kakkonen, 2008). Ritual is the bully’s repeated aggressive behavior towards their
victim. The bully repeats this behavior even when it is not necessary in order to gain social
dominance. Instead, ritual is used simply as a way to reinforce desired behavior, to intimidate
others, or to establish social constructs (Hamarus & Kakkonen, 2008).
Bullying is more than just a dyadic relationship between bully and victim. It is a social
phenomenon involving multiple layers and multiple players. Teenagers studied by Thornberg
and Knutsen (2011) viewed bullying as a way to raise one’s social status and to avoid social
exclusion or harassment from other individuals. The teenagers mentioned that bullying
sometimes occurred because of a bully’s perceived privilege or higher social status compared to
their victim, whose social standing might be lower than the bully’s because of race, gender, or
socio-economic status. Teenagers in the study identified the social atmosphere of a school as
relevant to bullying. Students reported that bullying behavior occurred because school staff were
lax in handling bullying or had poor policies in place to address bullying. In addition, some
teenagers felt that bullies were simply seeking to relieve the boredom of being at school
(Thornberg & Knutsen, 2011).
Perceptions of Bullying
Teachers and students have different perceptions of what types of behavior constitute
bullying; of where and when bullying happens; the seriousness of the bullying; and how much
responsibility the bully and victim share for the behavior. Amid these varying perceptions of
bullying, it is difficult for teachers to know how to respond to bullying in schools. Some students
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 27
feel that other students become victims because they are seen as different (Frisén et al., 2008;
Thornberg & Knutsen, 2011; Varjas et al., 2008). Students also report that other students are
victimized because they are somehow different from established norms at the school, whether in
terms of their clothing, speech, culture, behavior, or appearance (Thornberg & Knutsen, 2011).
Students tend to perceive difference as the main reason why some students are bullied more than
others. Students report that by being openly different, especially in terms of dress or behavior,
makes a person an easy target for bullying (Espelage & Asidao, 2001). The idea that victims are
easy targets because of their perceived differences can lead some students to feel that the victim
brings on the bullying themselves. Students in a middle school study stated that they felt victims
contributed to their own victimization through things they said or their behavior (Espelage &
Asidao, 2001). In another study, researchers identified several categories of victim blaming in
interviews with teenagers. These included deviant victims, whose behavior, dress or mannerisms
were different than the norm; irritating victims, whose behavior annoyed their peers in some
way; weak victims, who were perceived as physically or emotionally weak; mean victims, who
have done something to provoke revenge bullying; prior history victims, who have been bullied
before and are likely to be bullied again; and problematic family victims, who are bullied
because of some issue with the victim’s family (Thornburg & Knutsen, 2011).
Like students, many teachers also blame victims of bullying for their own victimization
(Mishna et al., 2005). Sometimes, a teacher’s intervention in bullying behavior is correlated to
the teacher’s perception of whether the bully’s aggression is a response to the victim’s own
deviant behavior (Mishna et al., 2005). Mishna et al. (2005) reported that teachers who viewed a
student as responsible for their own victimization were less likely to intervene. Likewise, in
another study, the researcher found that many teachers felt that certain students were victimized
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 28
because of their actions, behavior, or dress, and because they took no initiative in terms of
extracting themselves from the situation or ignoring the bully’s behavior (Rosen, Scott, &
DeOrnellas, 2017).
Teachers also tended to determine the severity of bullying based on the type of bullying
behavior, the type of students involved, or the age of the students involved. Teachers viewed
physical aggression as more serious than verbal aggression and were more likely to respond or to
aid the victim in these incidences (Mishna et al., 2005; Rosen et al., 2017). In part, teachers
perceived physical aggression as more serious than verbal aggression because they considered
that physical aggression resulted in more immediate harm to the victim (Mishna et al., 2005). In
contrast, many teachers view non-verbal bullying as part of the normal growing up process, and
overall less harmful than physical bullying (Rosen et al., 2017). Teachers also considered their
perception of the students involved in determining the severity of bullying behavior. If a teacher
reported a preconceived idea of characteristics a victim would exhibit (such as loneliness, low
self-esteem, lack of friends, and depressive behavior) and a student did not fit that criteria, the
teacher was less likely to view that student as a target of bullying. As a result, the teacher was
more likely to dismiss that student’s complaints (Mishna et al., 2005). Teachers also reported
that younger students were less likely to be able to handle aggressive bullying behavior, and
were more likely to aid younger victims as a result. The older the student, the greater the
likelihood that teachers would expect the student to protect themselves from the aggressive
bullying behavior (Rosen et al., 2017).
In sum, within the relevant literature, bullying is presented as involving an imbalance of
power whereby one person tries to dominate another. Bullying can be either direct or indirect and
involve verbal and non-verbal aggression. Central to bullying is defining what constitutes
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 29
deviant behavior in the classroom and which factors affect a student’s social status. For these
reasons, bullying is a social construct that affects all members of the social groups in which it
occurs. Unwittingly, many students and teachers perpetuate and condone bullying behavior
through their perceptions of bullying and characteristics of victims.
Psychological Impact
Often, physical harm to victims of aggressive bullying is obvious and may be relatively
straightforward to deal with (for example, through a visit to the school nurse). However, the
psychological effects of bullying extend can have lasting consequences for victims (Gini &
Pozzoli, 2009). In a longitudinal study, Kumulainen et al. (2000) tracked 1,316 students over a
seven-year period, starting at the age of eight. The authors chronicled the effects of bullying on
the students in their sample as they progressed in age. The researchers conducted the longitudinal
study three different times, with the second study conducted four years after the first, and the
third study conducted three years after the second study. Of the original 1,316 students who
participated in Study 1, 1,111 students responded to Study 3. The researchers reported that
students who had been categorized as victims of bullying at age eight were more likely to exhibit
psychiatric symptoms and difficulties in interpersonal relationships than students who became
victims at a later age. Students who were categorized as bully-victims showed the most
internalizing symptoms. Bully-victims’ involvement in bullying “predicted future psychiatric
deviance … when assessed seven years after assessment of bullying status” (Kumulainen et al.,
2000, p. 9).
In a study of 14 to 16 year-olds in Finland, students involved in bullying (either as bullies
or victims) were more likely to exhibit mental health problems. Girls were more likely to exhibit
psychosomatic symptoms and eating disorders, while boys were more likely to exhibit excessive
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 30
drinking behaviors and depressive symptoms—especially boys who were categorized as bully-
victims (Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2000). Students exposed to consistent bullying were more at risk
of psychosomatic complaints such as headaches, sleeping problems, abdominal pain, and anxiety
(Fekkes, Pijpers, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2004). Many psychological symptoms found to be
associated with bullying, especially depression and anxiety, were precursors to self-injurious
behaviors, including cutting, burning, biting, hitting, and skin damage by other methods (Klomek
et al., 2016). Victims of bullying who engaged in self-injurious behaviors seemed to self-harm as
a method of coping with their trauma (Klomek et al., 2016). Students who were victims of overt
verbal or relational bullying were most likely to engage in self-injurious behaviors and to report
suicidal ideation (Klomek et al., 2016). However, not all victims of bullying exhibited self-
injurious behaviors, even if they showed signs of depression and anxiety. The researchers posited
that these victims might have access to better support mechanisms at home (Klomek et al.,
2016). In sum, the literature shows that the impact of bullying includes psychological and
emotional distress. Teachers may overlook these effects when responding to bullying or when
considering how bullying affects those involved. However, prolonged and repeated exposure to
bullying is a risk factor for suicide. For this reason, teachers must take into account the
psychological and emotional effects of bullying on students (Klomek et al., 2016).
The Impact of Bullying on Student Engagement and Academic Achievement
Students are less engaged and involved in school when they are involved in bullying or
perceive that bullying is a common occurrence at their school. In turn, low levels of student
involvement and engagement may result in lower levels of achievement in reading and math
(Mehta et al., 2013). Using a sample of 25 Grade 9 students from every public high school in
Virginia, Mehta et al. (2013) examined the correlation between bullying and student
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 31
engagement. Students completed questionnaires regarding their perception of bullying at their
school and their level of school engagement. Questions relating to their own bullying
experiences were used to correlate this information with their perception of bullying at their
school. Students who perceived that bullying was common at their school also reported less of a
commitment to school and were involved in fewer extra-curricular activities, resulting in an
overall lower level of student engagement. The authors concluded that “when students perceive
that bullying and teasing is widespread in their school, they feel less safe and become less
engaged in their school experience” (Mehta et al., 2013, p. 6.). In a similar study, Glew et al.
(2005) used annual district surveys of a large West Coast public school district and added
questions about bullying and student perceptions of their school environment. Based on the
results of the survey and district data, the researchers showed that student absenteeism was
higher in schools where bullying was prevalent. In addition, students who were involved in
bullying incidents showed lower levels of concentration and lower academic achievement scores.
Glew et al. (2005) surmised that students who were victims or potential victims of bullying felt
more anxiety at school than their peers, resulting in difficulty concentrating and feeling unsafe at
school (which, in turn, could result in absenteeism).
In a study conducted in Canadian schools, Konishi et al. (2010) compared survey results
and student scores in Programme for International Student Assessment testing, which is used to
measure achievement in math and reading among a sampling of 15 year-olds in 41 countries. The
authors’ aim was to compare students’ academic achievement with principals’ perceptions of
bullying at their school. The study included approximately 26,000 students and 1,087 principals.
The authors showed a correlation between a principal’s perception of widespread bullying at
their school and lower levels of academic achievement in both math and reading. Indeed, in a
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 32
meta-analysis of 33 studies, researchers showed that students who identified as victims of
bullying achieved lower academic results. Among secondary students, this resulted in a lower
grade point average (Lacey & Cornell, 2013). In another study, in schools where students or staff
perceived bullying as commonplace, students scored lower results in standardized tests and were
more likely to drop out of school. The drop in academic achievement for students at schools
where bullying was perceived as prevalent was significant, even when other factors were taken
into account, such as student gender or minority status (Mehta et al., 2013).
Within the relevant literature, it is clear that bullying affects academic achievement
among targeted students. Even the presence of bullying on a school campus can affect overall
student academic achievement and school engagement (Mehta et al., 2013). For teachers and
school administrators, the implication is that bullying should be viewed as a global issue rather
than a series of isolated incidents. Educators should recognize the ripple effect of bullying on
other students (Mehta et al., 2013). Effective interventions to prevent bullying in schools should
be based on consideration of the role played by each person at the school in bullying incidents.
The Role of Bystanders
The most effective way to curb bullying in schools is bystander intervention, especially
by teachers (Fekkes et al., 2004). Bullying not only affects students who are involved in
incidents directly—bystanders are also affected. Atlas and Pepler (1987, p. 87) noted that
“observations on the playground and in the classroom indicate that peers are present during 85%
of bullying episodes, in various roles ranging from active participants to passive onlookers.”
While intervention can be effective in stopping bullying, observers seldom intervene in bullying
incidents. When asked about conditions that would encourage them to intervene in a bullying
incident, students reported they were more likely to intervene if the incident involved low levels
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 33
of aggression; if the student had a positive attitude toward the victim; and if the student believed
parents or teachers expected them to support the victim (Gini et al., 2008). When peers did
choose to intervene, other bystanders were more likely to view the victim as innocent. However,
when peers chose not to intervene, other bystanders were more inclined to perceive the victim as
creating their own problem. Bystander reactions to bullying also had a direct impact on a
school’s overall climate and student perceptions of safety (Gini et al., 2008).
Given the low rate of student intervention in bullying, as well as the effect of an overall
of climate non-intervention in contributing to bullying, intervention from teachers is needed in
order to change these dynamics and curb bullying (Burger, Strohmeier, Spröber, Bauman, &
Rigby, 2015). In one study, teenagers reported that bullying occurred in part because of poor
intervention practices, especially by teachers. The students felt that teachers did not care what
was happening or were unwilling to intervene (Thornberg & Knutsen, 2011). Students who feel
that teachers at their school will not or cannot help victims of bullying are less likely to seek help
from teachers. The result of this trend is that older students are less likely to report bullying to
teachers (Espelage & Asiado, 2001; Mishna, 2004). In another study, students felt teachers were
better at recognizing bullying among elementary than at the middle school students (Varjas et al.,
2008). From many students’ point of view, teachers deal with incidents that do not amount to
bullying, such as horseplay or joking around, and do not deal with incidents of actual bullying,
such as verbal and relational bullying (Varjas et al., 2008). Students also viewed teachers as
inconsistent in their responses to bullying, with some teachers seen as overreacting and others
seen as not taking bullying seriously (Varjas et al., 2008). In one study, students felt teachers
were likely to enact some type of disciplinary action for direct physical and verbal bullying 50%
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 34
of the time. However, when it came to indirect bullying, students felt teachers enacted
disciplinary action only 10% of the time (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006).
Within the relevant literature, a teacher’s own personal experience was one of the
strongest predictors of whether they would intervene in bullying among their students. In one
study, teachers who had experienced bullying as a child were more attuned to all forms of
bullying, especially indirect bullying (Mishna et al., 2005). However, teachers who reported
experiencing bullying themselves were more likely to discipline bullies and to involve other
adults in helping deal with the bully—but were less likely to assist the victim (Yoon & Bauman,
2016). Teachers who witnessed bullying as a bystander were more likely to respond to the victim
and elicit help from other adults in assisting the victim. Teachers who did not experience
bullying as a child were more likely to discipline the bully, assist the victim, and help from other
adults (Yoon & Bauman, 2016). Teachers were also more likely to discipline victims (i.e., to
scold victims for not standing up for themselves or for inviting the bullying behavior) when the
victim was of the same gender as the teacher. Teachers were less likely to discipline bullies if the
bully was of a different cultural or racial group (Yoon & Bauman, 2016). It is possible that
teachers’ past experiences of bullying stir feelings that affect how they respond to bullying.
In reviewing the role teachers play in bullying prevention, it is clear that competent
handling of bullying incidents by teachers is crucial in reducing bullying. When teachers do
respond to bullying, they succeed in stopping the bullying 49% of the time (Fekkes et al., 2004).
Many times, teachers are not aware that bullying is taking place, either because it is happening
outside the classroom or because teachers do not recognize that covert bullying is happening in
their classroom (Varjas et al., 2008). On the other hand, students in one study noted times when
they had reported bullying to a teacher and felt nothing had been done about it (Mishna et al.,
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 35
2006). Often, students are guided by their teacher on what is acceptable and unacceptable
behavior. When teachers intervene in bullying consistently, they send the message to students
that the behavior is unacceptable. When they fail to intervene, they tacitly condone bullying
(Yoon & Kebler, 2003). Within the literature, it is clear that bystanders play an important role in
intervening in bullying. Teachers are especially important in this research because of their
position of authority. Programs to curb bullying in schools should be designed to equip students
and teachers to intervene in bullying incidents.
Student Safety
Bullying in schools is more than just a disciplinary problem—it also affects students’
sense of safety at school. In one study, elementary students reported feeling relatively safe in
their classroom but not as safe on the playground (Beran & Tutty, 2002). The researchers
assumed that students felt safer in the classroom because they were less likely to be bullied there
due to supervision from their teacher. In another study, students expressed their desire for the
presence of more teachers in hallways and during recess in order to curb bullying incidents
(Varjas, et al., 2008). The fear of being victimized also affected students’ actions toward and at
school. Kindergarten students who experienced bullying had high levels of absenteeism and
exhibited more bouts of loneliness and difficulties making social connections. Other researchers
have also found that students who experience bullying are more likely to avoid school and
experience anxiety and depression (Fekkes, Pijpers, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2004). Fear of
victimization also affects students who are not involved in bullying directly. Many student
bystanders choose not to intervene in bullying for fear of retaliation. However, as bystanders
witness more and more bullying, they morally disengage from the behavior they witness and
accept it as inevitable, resulting in less intervention in or reporting of the behavior (Obermann,
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 36
2011).
In another study, students who felt that school administrators or teachers could not
effectively address bullying altered their behavior in response. Students who had been victimized
repeatedly and felt teachers could not help them adopted a survival approach to getting through
the school day (Espelage & Asiado, 2001). In the classroom, without teacher intervention,
students who are not victims may contribute to the victimization of another student through
isolation. This is done as it is easier to conform to the wants of the bully than trying to fight
against the bully (Hamarus & Kaikkonen, 2008).
Bullying and Catholic Schools
American parents perceive that bullying is less prevalent in Catholic schools. However, a
2016 national report showed that 19% of students in Catholic schools reported being bullied
compared to 28% of public school students surveyed. Actual levels of bullying in Catholic
schools may be higher than this figure as Catholic schools are not required to report bullying
statistics (Digest of Education Statistics, 2016). In one study in a large Catholic school district in
southern Ontario involving seven elementary schools and two secondary schools, researchers
found that 24% of students reported being bullied at least once a week, with five percent
reporting being bullied more than four times a week (Vaillancourt et al., 2008). In studies of both
public and Catholic schools, factors that affected the frequency of bullying included
demographic factors, but not school type (Nansel et al., 2001). While percentages may be lower
than public schools, bullying remains a problem in Catholic schools. There are also important
faith-based reasons for Catholic school teachers and administrators to address bullying among
their students. Catholic Church teachings identified Catholic schools as places where Christian
values and teachings are central to the mission of the school (The Sacred Congregation for
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 37
Catholic Education, n.d.). The Church places the integration of faith and culture as central to
Catholic schools, where students are to experience the realities of Christian practice and act as
examples for others of living a Christian life (The Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education,
n.d.). Indeed, Pope John Paul II expressed Catholic Schools’ mission as a community lived and
not just a concept taught (Celpka, n.d.).
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) present a multi-step process to improve organizational
performance. The first steps are to develop a clear organizational goal, and then to develop
performance goals that follow from that organizational goal. Once these goals are established,
Clark and Estes provide a framework for determining gaps between actual performance and
identified performance goals. These gaps are referred to as performance gaps, and can be
identified by examining three factors—knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
influences. Examining these factors shows how those influences can affect the attainment of
performance goals. Krathwohl (2002) categorized four dimensions associated with knowledge
and skill: Factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive. These four dimensions affect
people’s ability to achieve a performance goal based on the knowledge and skills needed to
attain that goal. Motivational influences can be broken down into two factors—self-efficacy and
expectancy value-theory. Both factors are linked to an internal view of ability. The last influence
on performance gaps is organizational. Clark and Estes (2008) divide these influences into
categories of process, resources or culture.
Each of these elements will be addressed in further detail below in terms of the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences of teachers at St. Catholic School in
achieving their performance goal (i.e., that 100% of teachers will identify and report bullying
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 38
incidents). In the first section, knowledge and skills influences will be examined, followed by
assumed motivational influences that affect teachers’ attainment of their performance goal. In the
last section, organizational influences on teachers and the achievement of their performance goal
are explored. Each of these assumed influences will then be examined further in Chapter 3.
Knowledge and Skills
One aspect of human agency involves forming intentions, which include developing
action plans and strategies to achieve attainment of those intentions (Bandura, 2001). In this
study, the researcher’s focus was to determine how teachers can reduce bullying through
identification and reporting. Knowledge is acquired through a process of learning. In turn,
change takes place through this process of learning (Alexander, Schallert, & Reynolds, 2009).
One influence that affects how teachers react to bullying is their acquired knowledge about
bullying. In turn, this knowledge affects their behavior toward bullying. When teachers deal with
behavior that causes social exclusion (like bullying), students might perceive an absence of
explicit intervention as condoning the exclusion (Yoon, 2004). Even teachers who make explicit
their intent to change their students’ behavior may resist engaging in learning that is necessary in
order to effect the change they desire. A person may oppose a learning opportunity if the
outcome requires too much perceived effort, or the chances of success are seen as too little, or
the rewards too small (Alexander et al., 2009). To change a person’s intentions and behavior, it is
important to have a learning process in which benefits of change are stated, and where a deeper
understanding of the problem is present (Deans for Impact, 2015; Yoon, 2005). Among teachers,
sustained application of bullying-related knowledge and skills results in increased action in
preventing and intervening in bullying incidents (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Boulton, 1997;
Craig, Henderson, & Murphy, 2000; Yoon, 2004).
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 39
Knowledge influences. In this section, knowledge influences are examined that may
affect teachers’ intent and action in intervening in or preventing bullying incidents. Four
knowledge categories affect a person’s learning—factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002). Factual knowledge includes basic elements that are needed to
understand a concept or a discipline, such as terminology, major facts, and discrete isolated
content elements. For teachers, factual knowledge of bullying would include understanding the
accepted definition of bullying and bullying behaviors. Conceptual knowledge is a more
complex organization of knowledge and includes concepts, processes and principles. A person
can use conceptual knowledge to relate basic elements of factual knowledge with other elements,
applying them to a larger picture to obtain a deeper understanding. Teachers will use their
conceptual knowledge to determine what might constitute bullying versus an isolated incident of
disruptive behavior. Teachers will also use their conceptual knowledge to understand the various
forms of bullying and their implications (Krathwohl, 2002). A person uses their procedural
knowledge to develop the skills needed to apply learning. Procedural knowledge involves
algorithms, procedures, and skills a person uses to accomplish specific goals (Krathwohl, 2002).
Teachers draw on procedural knowledge when they use skills or strategies they have already
acquired to intervene in bullying incidents. Metacognitive knowledge is a reflective process of
the learning process. It involves thinking about how one is thinking. Teachers dealing with
bullying utilize metacognitive knowledge when they decide whether or not to intervene
(Krathwohl, 2002). Teachers may exhibit a knowledge gap in any of these types of knowledge
with regards to bullying. However, factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge
gaps are the most common reasons for lack of intervention by teachers.
Factual Knowledge. Factual knowledge affects how well a teacher can identify bullying
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 40
incidents. Factual knowledge relates to terminology, definitions, and characteristics around a
concept or an event (Krathwohl, 2002). One factor that affects how a teacher will intervene in a
bullying incident is how they identify the incident (Boulton, 1997). Students have reported that
teachers are not effective in recognizing bullying, and often respond to incidents that students do
not consider bullying while failing to deal with actual bullying (Varjas et al., 2008). In one study,
teachers were more likely to respond to physical aggression between students, rating this
behavior as more distressing for students than relational or verbal aggression (Bauman & Del
Rio, 2006; Yoon et al., 2016). In part, teachers respond to physical aggression more often
because it is more obvious and easier to identify as a problem. In contrast, teachers may struggle
to identify relational bullying and its impact on students (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Yoon et al.,
2016).
Conceptual Knowledge. Conceptual knowledge affects a teacher’s intent to intervene in
bullying incidents. Teachers who possess factual knowledge about bullying may lack conceptual
knowledge of various aspects of bullying (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006). For example, most
teachers who participated in a survey did not view relational bullying (i.e., students socially
excluding another student) as bullying. On the other hand, students mentioned relational bullying
as a specific area teachers often failed to respond to (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Yoon, 2004). For
teachers, factual knowledge of bullying includes knowledge of relational bullying. However,
teachers can utilize conceptual knowledge to understand patterns associated with one type of
bullying in light of another type of bullying (Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual knowledge helps
teachers recognize the connection between types of bullying and student behavior (Krathwohl,
2002). School staff and student body understandings of bullying can affect how a student or
teacher deals with bullying, as well as the ability of teachers to recognize the effects of bullying
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 41
on students (Craig et al., 2000). Conceptual knowledge also helps teachers recognize the
interrelatedness between teacher behavior toward bullying and the number of bullying incidents
at their school (Krathwohl, 2002). Some teachers may not realize the frequency of bullying
incidents at their school, or that students perceive their teachers’ unwillingness to intervene as
tacit acceptance of bullying behavior (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Stockdale, Hangaduambo,
Duys, Larson, & Sarvela, 2002).
Procedural Knowledge. A teacher’s procedural knowledge can also affect their
willingness to intervene in bullying. For example, teachers may not feel they have the strategies
or skills needed to intervene. Procedural knowledge involves the skills, procedures, and
techniques used to accomplish a goal or to obtain an outcome (Krathwohl, 2002). Teachers are
especially likely to lack confidence in their ability to intervene in relational bullying (Bauman &
Del Rio, 2006; Craig et al., 2000). However, when teachers use appropriate actions to intervene
in a bullying incident, the effect of that incident is minimized and future incidents are less likely
to occur (Yoon & Kerber, 2003). In one survey, 85% of teachers said they would intervene in a
bullying incident—however, only 35% of elementary school students said their teachers
intervened in bullying incidents, and 60% of middle school students said their teachers
intervened only occasionally (Craig et al., 2000). When teachers do not intervene in bullying,
victims interpret their teacher’s inaction as an indication of their lack of caring or support (Yoon
& Kerber, 2003). Students who feel that their teacher does not care about (or is ineffective in)
responding to bullying are less likely to report bullying behavior. This trend is especially
important with regard to covert bullying, which teachers do not always recognize (Bauman &
Del Rio, 2006; Craig et al., 2000; Yoon & Kerber, 2003). By increasing teachers’ procedural
knowledge of skills and strategies to intervene effectively in bullying, it may be possible to
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 42
reduce the incidence of bullying (Boulton, 1997; Yoon & Kerber, 2003).
Metacognitive knowledge. Through metacognitive knowledge a person reflects on their
learning process and assess their progress toward their goals (Krathwohl, 2002). For teachers, the
metacognitive process also affects how they perceive bullying and their ability to change the
outcome of bullying incidents (Stockdale et al., 2002). Teachers; attitudes and perceptions
toward bullying affect their response to bullying (Boulton, 1997). Teachers will not respond to
incidents they do not regard as bullying, nor will they respond if they believe that the victim
invited the incident (Boulton, 1997). Metacognitive knowledge affects how a teacher will
approach a problem—specifically, based on how they have approached similar problems or seen
other people approach similar problems (Deans for Impact, 2015; Krathwohl, 2002). Researchers
have shown that when participants monitor their own thinking (e.g., by drawing on their
metacognitive knowledge), they can identify what they do and do not know in order to evaluate
their understanding more accurately (Deans for Impact, 2015). In Table 1, knowledge influences
that may prevent teachers from achieving the school’s organizational goal are shown, as well as
methods used in this research to assess teachers’ possible knowledge gaps in these areas.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 43
Table 1
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Teachers should understand
various types of bullying behavior
and how bullying manifests in and
outside of the classroom.
Conceptual Interview asking teachers to
define and explain bullying and
to give examples of bullying
behavior.
Teachers need better strategies for
dealing with bullying, especially
relational bullying.
Procedural Document analysis—examine
procedures already in place and
how teachers use them.
Teachers should be more aware of
their attitudes toward victims and
how their attitudes affect their
intervention.
Metacognition Interviews with teachers to
determine how they handle
situations with regards to the
victim, the bully, and
justifications for their approach.
Motivation
In this section, literature pertinent to motivational influences is reviewed, including how
those influences affect teacher motivation toward intervening in bullying behavior. Two
motivational theories are examined—self-efficacy theory and expectancy-value theory. A
teacher’s motivation strongly impacts whether they will intervene in a bullying incident. In fact,
a teacher’s motivation may predict their likelihood of intervening better than their knowledge or
skill (Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort, Peetsma, & Geijsel, 2011). Motivation is the internal state that
supports starting and completing a goal (Mayer, 2011). For teachers, motivation will affect how
hard they work to achieve an educational reform or outcome, as well as their persistence in
securing the success of that reform or goal (De Jesus & Lens, 2005). Three factors affect
motivation: Choice, persistence, and mental effort. Choice is a person’s decision to start
something; persistence is their decision to continue doing that thing, even when they encounter
difficulties; and effort is the amount of mental energy a person expends completing the task
(Mayer, 2011). Motivation will affect how competently a teacher feels they can perform a task or
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 44
complete a goal. A person who feels capable will be more engaged in a given task, as will a
person who highly values completing a task or achieving a goal (Eccles, 2006). Researchers have
shown that, when teachers are fully engaged with high fidelity toward implementing a bully
prevention program, the program is more effective (Hirschstein et al., 2007).
Two theories regarding a person’s motivation are self-efficacy theory and expectancy-
value theory. Self-efficacy is a person’s belief that they can perform a behavior and their
expectation that the behavior will have a successful outcome. Self-efficacy concerns a person’s
view of their own abilities (Eccles, 2006; Pajares, 2009). Pajares (2009) views self-efficacy as
the foundation of human motivation because one’s perception of one’s abilities touches every
aspect of one’s life. These perceptions, whether negative or positive, affect how we view our
success toward a positive outcome. Expectancy-value theory concerns a person’s perception of
efficacy and the value they assign to a given task (Eccles, 2006).
Self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy is a person’s belief system regarding their capabilities.
Using self-efficacy provides the incentive to either perform a task (where the expectation of
success is high) or to avoid the task (if the chance of success is low). A person’s self-efficacy
helps foster the perceived outcomes from any given endeavor, whether negative or positive
(Pajares 2009). Factors that affect a person’s self-efficacy are their mastery experience, vicarious
experience, social persuasions, and physiological reactions. Previous success in a similar
situation, a person’s perception that other people have struggled with and overcome a task, and
comparison to a successful peer can result in stronger self-efficacy. Self-efficacy affects not only
a person’s perception of their capabilities, but also their thinking. A person’s efficacy determines
whether they view a situation optimistically or pessimistically, or if their thinking is more erratic
or strategic (Bandura, 2000). Self-efficacy also affects behavior and the amount of effort a
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 45
person expends; the types of goals they choose; how long they choose to persevere with those
goals; and their resilience in the face of adversity (Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2009).
A person’s attributions also affect their self-efficacy. According to Anderman and
Anderman (2006), the attribution theory of motivation concerns factors that affect a person’s
efficacy. Anderman and Anderman use Weiner’s model of attribution, which has three
dimensions—locus, stability and control. Locus is a person’s perception of whether the cause of
an event is internal or external. A person who views their success or failure as based on their
ability has an internal locus. In contrast, a person who views their success or failure as based on
the difficulty of the task at hand has an external locus (Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
According to Weiner’s model, if success or failure is based on ability, attribution would be
stable, since the person’s ability should remain the same. However, if success or failure is
attributed to the difficulty of the task, attribution would be unstable, since the difficulty of a task
can change. The final attribution of control would determine the amount of control a person
perceives they have to change an outcome (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). These attributions
affect a person’s self-efficacy through their belief in their ability to affect the desired outcome
(Bandura, 2000).
Teachers’ self-efficacy. A teacher’s beliefs and attitudes toward bullying will affect how
that teacher responds to bullying behavior (Yoon, 2004). A problem occurs when a teacher does
not feel they are capable of changing bullying behavior or if they feel they do not have the skills
necessary to change bullying behavior. In determining teachers’ motivation, De Jesus and Lens
(2005) looked at factors related to lack of motivation among teachers. One factor they identified
was a feeling of hopelessness. According to De Jesus and Lens (2005), when a teacher has been
exposed to continual failures in an area, they begin to view that failure as stable and
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 46
uncontrollable. If their locus is internal, the teacher’s self-efficacy (for example, in handling
future bullying incidents) will be diminished (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Bandura, 2001;
Pajares, 2009). Thoonen et al. (2011) point out that, when teachers are unsure of their
capabilities, they are more apt to avoid risks and maintain their current attitudes than teachers
who feel capable. In her study on gendered harassment, Meyer (2008) found that most teachers
did not intervene in incidents of harassment because they were not sure how or when to do so, or
did not feel they had access to strategies needed to effect a positive outcome. Hirschstein et al.
(2007) noted that teachers were more likely to be involved in a one-on-one interaction with a
victim of bullying because they felt more able to help the student in that setting than in a setting
with other students. Thoonen et al. (2011) found that, when teachers engaged in professional
learning and professional development activities, they felt more capable and more fully engaged
in the classroom. This finding was also noted by Meyer (2008)—teachers surveyed in her study
felt that they would benefit from training, including on intervention strategies, in dealing with
gendered harassment.
As noted in the previous section, self-efficacy can be affected by a person’s vicarious
experiences and social comparisons. Teacher self-efficacy is negatively impacted when a teacher
perceives that their administrators do not handle problems adequately (for example, when a
student is harassing another student) or they see their colleagues making no effort to deal with
disruptive behavior (Hirschstein et al., 2007; Meyer, 2008). When teachers witness their
administrators or colleagues’ mishandling of harassment, the result is often a school culture of
what Bandura (2000) describes as negative collective self-efficacy. According to Bandura,
collective efficacy occurs when group members depend on each other and believe in the efficacy
of their group. On the other hand, negative collective efficacy can result in teachers feeling that
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 47
they are incapable of addressing bullying in their school (Bandura, 2000; Meyer, 2008).
Expectancy-Value Theory. Along with a person’s self-efficacy, motivation is also
affected by how much a person values a given task and feels the task will have a successful
outcome—that is, their expectancy value of the task (Eccles, 2006). Eccles points out that, while
self-efficacy may affect whether someone feels capable of completing a task, their perception
does not necessarily relate to motivation or engagement. For Eccles, the question of whether
someone feels the desire to complete a task is important as motivation. Eccles discussed the four
constructs that pertain to value. The first is intrinsic value—the enjoyment someone gets from
participating in a task. Intrinsic value is highest when the task is perceived as interesting or
meaningful. The second value is attainment value, or a person’s perception of what will be
gained through the task or goal, as well as the needs, personal interests, and personal values the
task will fulfill. Attainment value is important in developing a personal identity or self-image.
The third value is utility value, which is how the task or goal fits into a person’s overall goals
and plans. The fourth value is cost value. Cost value affects a person’s motivation based on their
perception of the cost of participating in the given task (e.g., time, effort, or self-worth).
Teacher Perceived Cost. Thoonen et al. (2011) found that, after self-efficacy, the value
teachers place on achieving a goal has the most impact on their motivation and engagement. De
Jesus and Lens (2005) also recognized the importance of teachers valuing the attainment of a
goal. However, they noted that a teacher’s motivation decreases when they do not feel capable of
success. Hircshstein et al. (2007) found that teachers were more faithful in implementing an anti-
bullying program if they perceived that the outcome would make a difference. In the same
manner, teachers who put forth more effort and demonstrated higher fidelity in implementing the
program also saw improved student behavior. While teacher effort and fidelity in implementing
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 48
the anti-bullying curriculum was uneven, the program did result in teachers putting forth greater
effort in coaching students who were bullied. Hircshstein et al. attributed this outcome to
teachers’ perception that the amount of effort they put into coaching resulted in better outcomes.
Meyer (2008) noted that many teachers perceived the cost of intervening in student harassment
as too high. Teachers who were motivated to enforce rules or policies to curb student behavior
soon gave up when they noticed that their colleagues were not enforcing the same rules and
policies.
Meyer (2008) noted that teachers admitted the effort required was not worth the feeling
of isolation that accompanied being the only teacher to enforce the policy. Teacher perceptions
of the seriousness of bullying incidents also affect how much effort they are willing to put into
intervening in the incident (Yoon, 2004). Meyer (2008) confirmed this, finding that teacher
perceptions of victims affected teacher interventions in bullying. In both cases, cost value was
tied to expectancy-value (Eccles, 2006). When teachers do not feel that a program or intervention
will affect the outcome of a situation (including when it comes to bullying), there is less chance
that they will intervene (Hircshstein et al., 2007; Meyer, 2008). In Table 2, assumed motivational
influences that may impact the teacher stakeholder group from achieving their organizational
goal are outlined. The table also includes the form of assessment that used to determine a
possible motivation gap.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 49
Table 2.
Motivational Influences
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Cost value—teachers should believe that the
effort put forth in intervening will have a
positive outcome.
Interview teachers about different scenarios
they feel would warrant intervention, and where
they feel they will be able to affect the outcome.
Self-efficacy—teachers need to believe that
they have the ability to intervene in bullying
incidents effectively.
In interviews, ask teachers to rate their ability to
handle scenarios involving various bullying
incidents or coaching of victims.
Organizational Influences
Organization Culture and Climate. Organizational culture affects how a person is
supposed to perceive, feel, and act in that organization (Schein, 2010). The culture of an
organization provides a setting of stability in which rules, policies, and actions can be established
and enacted (Lindahl, 2006; Schein, 2010). A simple definition of organizational culture would
be the way things are done—the philosophies, norms, beliefs, ceremonies and rituals that are
contained in that organization (Lindahl, 2006). While there are some differences of opinion on
what defines the climate of an organization, climate is generally defined as the feelings conveyed
by a group’s members (Schein, 2010), or the heart and soul of an organization (MacNeil, Prater,
& Busch, 2009). Where organizational culture can be viewed as comprising the values and
norms of the organization, climate can be viewed as the behavior of the organization, or how its
culture is acted out (MacNeil et al., 2009).
Inherent in the culture and climate of an organization are basic assumptions as to how
that organization views its world (Schein, 2010). Those assumptions include how members
should interact with each other; how members view what is reality and truth; relationships inside
and outside the organization; and members’ roles in the organization (Schein, 2010). Culture can
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 50
also be experienced differently by individuals and groups, which may result in the development
of sub-cultures (Lindahl, 2006; Schein, 2010). These sub-cultures can create a climate in which
different groups have different perceptions of aspects of organizational culture, leading to
varying behaviors in the organization (Lindahl, 2006). In organizations in which aspects of work
are individualistic, and where the individuals exercise independent discretionary judgement (as
in schools), varying perceptions of cultural norms and behaviors may also occur (Flores, 2004).
Organizational characteristics of culture and climate can have positive or negative effects on the
members of that organization (Flores, 2004; Lindahl, 2006; MacNeil et al., 2009; Schein, 2010).
In Table 3, assumed organizational influences that may impact the teacher stakeholder group
from achieving their organizational goal are outlined. The table also includes the form of
assessment used to determine a possible organizational gap.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 51
Table 3
Organizational Indicators
Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
Administrators must change their view
of bullying in the school from
something that is inevitable to
something that can be changed.
Interview with teachers:
1. What do you feel is the school’s
role in bullying?
2. As a school, what do you feel
are the current challenges for
teachers in dealing with
bullying?
Cultural Model Influence 2:
Teachers need a culture of cooperation
among colleagues so that they can
work together to curb bullying outside
the classroom.
Interviews with teachers (individually
and in grade levels):
1. If you were asked by your
principal to be on a committee
to address bullying what would
you recommend?
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Administrators need to use
professional development resources to
address the consequences of bullying
and make curbing bullying an
accountability measure.
Observation of artifacts including
schoolwide goals, policies, and use of
resources.
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
The conceptual framework for this study relates to teacher perceptions of what constitutes
bullying; how effective teachers feel they are at handling bullying; and how their school’s
climate and culture affect these perceptions. Through this framework, the researcher has brought
together elements outlined previously in isolation into a theory of how those influences interact,
resulting in a specific worldview that affects the ability of teachers in this study to meet their
goal (Maxwell, 2013). With this conceptual framework, the researcher moved beyond a
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 52
descriptive report of the literature, seeking instead to construct the framework used in this study,
including revealing the researcher’s own assumptions and beliefs about this topic (Maxwell,
2013).
Like many Catholic schools, St. Catholic School seeks to provide a safe environment in
which to educate the whole child—academically, emotionally, physically and spiritually. One
obstacle to that safe environment is bullying at the school. As noted previously, bullying affects
student academic achievement, feelings of safety, and emotional wellbeing (Klein & Konold,
2012; Mehta et al., 2013; Rigby, 2003). When it comes to bullying in schools and being able to
curb or stop bullying incidents, it is not surprising that teachers play a large role. Especially for
students in Kindergarten to Grade 8 settings, teachers are role models, authority figures,
facilitators and guides. In a self-contained class, teachers can spend up to six hours with a group
of students. In departmental settings, teachers can interact with students for several hours during
the day. Teachers are normally on the frontline of bullying incidents, dealing with incidents that
are brought to their attention by students or other staff members. For this reason, how teachers
deal with bullying incidents impacts how students perceive bullying (Atlas & Pepler, 1998;
Mishna, 2004; Mishna et al., 2005). But, since bullying is traditionally seen as a behavior issue
and not a pedagogical issue, teachers are seldom trained in identifying and dealing with bullying
incidents. Because of this, teachers rely on guidance from their school on how to handle these
situations. This interaction is shown in Figure 1.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 53
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework Interactions.
The larger circle in the figure represents the school as an organization. Like any
organization, the school’s mission and vision guide its beliefs and basic assumptions in terms of
how members should behave and what the organization considers important. These factors form
the organization’s culture and climate (Schein, 2010). In part, the mission of the staff at the
school is to foster the wellbeing of all students, promote students’ self-worth and respect in a
safe, caring environment. The inner circle in the figure represents teachers’ motivation in
reaching that goal which, in turn, is affected by the school’s culture and climate. For teachers, the
school’s vision and mission define how they view their purpose against the metric of student
success. In a similar way, the organization’s culture (for example, in terms of treatment of
students or handling of bullying incidents by administrators or teachers) informs teachers’
School
Beliefs and Values/ Basic Assumptions
Mission and Vision
Teachers will identify and report
bullying incidents 100% of the time
Teachers
Knowledge (conceptual, procedural,
metacognitive), skills, motivation (self-
efficacy, expectancy value)
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 54
response to bullying (Hirschstein et al., 2007). The school has no formal policy on bullying and
keeps no records of bullying incidents. School administrators also determine what type of
professional development teachers will receive, including with regard to bullying or procedures
for dealing with bullying. Teachers at the school receive no training or guidelines on identifying
or responding to bullying. Instead, teachers must rely on any relevant previous training they have
received or on their own personal experiences when determining how to respond to bullying
incidents. At the outset of this research, it was assumed that teachers’ motivation to respond to
bullying would be affected by their perceptions of how their actions align with school policies
and procedures, as well as administrator perceptions of appropriate responses to bullying and
support provided to teachers who respond to bullying. In turn, these factors should affect the
prevalence of bullying at the school.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 55
Chapter 3: Methodology
Methodological Approach and Rationale
Knowing that teachers have a unique opportunity to influence the knowledge, motivation
and behavior of their students, the researcher used a qualitative approach in this study to assess
and analyze the performance of teachers at St. Catholic School in achieving their organization’s
goal of reducing bullying. Researchers use qualitative research to understand a unique setting
and gain insight into the perspectives of participants involved in that setting (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015). Through this perspective, the researcher can understand how participants make meaning
of their experiences in that setting. In this study, the researcher sought to understand the meaning
(from the perspective of teachers at St. Catholic School) of reaching their performance goal.
Meaning was ascertained through the interpretation of multiple data collection sources, in a
process known as triangulation. Triangulation involves interviewing and observing participants
and analyzing documents in order to understand a phenomenon fully (McEwan & McEwan,
2003).
This type of research was chosen because qualitative research constructs meaning as
participants are engaged in their social worlds. Qualitative researchers are interested in how
participants interpret their experiences, how they construct their world, and the meaning they
attribute to those experiences (McEwan & McEwan, 2015). The participants for this study were a
group of Kindergarten to Grade 8 teachers at a suburban private Catholic school. As this study
included a small sample size of teachers, a qualitative study was suited to the researcher’s
objective of understanding of how St. Catholic School teachers’ beliefs and perceptions affected
their identification and responses to bullying. Through a qualitative study, the researcher allowed
teachers to discuss their experiences openly rather than choosing one of several set responses.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 56
The qualitative study provided opportunities for the researcher to ask follow-up questions to
clarify teachers’ understanding in more detail.
Participating Stakeholders
Joint efforts from all stakeholders contribute to the achievement of an organization’s
overall goal (in this case, reducing bullying behavior). On this basis, it was important to evaluate
St. Catholic School teachers’ current performance with regard to this goal. The teaching staff at
St. Catholic School consists of 30 full-time teachers, three part-time teachers, one Principal, an
Assistant Principal, a counselor and two paraprofessionals. There are two teachers per grade,
with the grades ranging from Kindergarten to Grade 8. In addition, other specialty teachers in
Spanish, art, math and language work at the school. Teachers are both male and female, with
varying levels of experience. Staff turnover is low, with only two teachers at the school having
worked there for less than two years.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1: Full-time Teachers
These teachers are more likely to observe bullying behavior in the classroom or deal with
students who are victims on a regular basis.
Criterion 2: Teachers who are involved in some type of supervision outside the classroom
Teachers who are involved in supervising students outside the classroom are more likely
to observe bullying behavior as it occurs and to deal with bullying incidents from students who
are not in their regular classroom. This allows them to act without a pre-set bias toward the bully
or victim.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 57
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
In developing a sampling strategy for a qualitative study, it is imperative that the
participants selected to fit the population that is relevant to the research (Johnson & Christensen,
2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Johnson and Christensen (2014) use the terms criterion-based
sampling and purposeful sampling to describe approaches to selecting participants. Participants
in a qualitative study are selected because they can provide information or insights relevant to
the purpose of the research (Johnson & Christensen, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). In this
study, the researcher used convenience sampling. Participants were members of the full-time
teaching staff employed at St. Catholic School. In addition, participants were teachers who
interacted with students for the entire school day, including supervising students for part of the
day.
Using a convenience sampling supported the conceptual framework chosen for this
study—teachers at St. Catholic School are typical of teachers who work in a Catholic elementary
school in that they have varying levels of education and experience in education and most have
worked only in Catholic schools. Like other Catholic schools, St. Catholic School staff receive
professional development training regarding student achievement and wellbeing. Kindergarten to
Grade 8 teachers at St. Catholic School are expected to meet the schoolwide goal of providing an
education that meets the needs of the whole child and provides a safe learning environment.
Explanation of Research Choices
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) discussed the importance of using interviews in a qualitative
study in order to determine how participants make meaning and view the world. In trying to
understand how knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affect teachers’ view of
bullying through the interview process, the researcher uncovered a deeper understanding of
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 58
teachers’ motivation and how their school’s culture affected their actions and decisions in
reporting or intervening in bullying incidences. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) also argued that the
interview process is a way for the researcher to find out about participants’ feelings, thoughts,
and intentions. By observing teachers’ behavior, the researcher was able to witness the results of
their thoughts and feelings—but not the intent behind their actions. Through the interview
process, the researcher probed deeper into why actions occurred, including why teachers opted
for a particular course of action at a particular time (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Interviews
Interview Protocol. The researcher used a semi-structured approach in interviews for
this study. This semi-structured approach included structured questions regarding background
information, which the researcher asked all respondents to answer. In addition, the interviewer
asked open-ended questions to get a better perspective of respondents’ particular world-view
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As the conceptual framework for this study related to teacher
perceptions of what constitutes bullying, their effectiveness at handling bullying, and how the
school climate and culture affected these perceptions, a semi-structured approach was selected.
Through open-ended questions, respondents were asked to explain their understanding of
bullying, how they handled bullying incidents, and how their experiences with bullying and the
school’s climate and culture affected their decision to intervene or not intervene in bullying. In
interviews, respondents may offer vague responses to certain questions (for example, as a result
of perceiving certain responses as safe or risky) or offer responses based on assumptions about
the type of answer the interviewer is seeking. For these reasons, the researcher used a semi-
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 59
structured approach to move respondents past general responses and into more specific responses
based on their individual experiences.
Interview procedures. In conducting interviews, it is important to be considerate of the
respondents’ time and respectful of their situation (Weiss, 1994). To this end, each respondent
was interviewed once and at a time most convenient for them. Interviews were informal as to
help respondents relax, making it easier to elicit more detailed responses (Meriam & Tisdell,
2016; Weiss, 1994). Interviews took place at the school in order for respondents to feel more
comfortable and to avoid the need for respondents to travel. Interviews were conducted after the
researcher’s initial collection of documents in order to determine what procedures and policies
respondents were currently acting under, as well as any common language or definitions used.
Documents and Artifacts
Public records are a way for the researcher to gain knowledge about an organization’s
policies and procedures or any other statements that organization leaders deem important
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). By viewing these documents before the interview process began, the
researcher gained an insight into the culture of St. Catholic School, as well as the conditions
under which respondents were expected to operate (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Public documents
examined in this study included faculty and parent handbooks. These documents were reviewed
to ascertain what current procedures and policies teachers used and acted upon.
Data Analysis
For interviews, data analysis began during data collection. Analytic memos were created
following each interview to document the researcher’s thoughts, concerns, and initial
conclusions about the data in relation to the conceptual framework and research questions. Once
all interviews had been completed, interviews were transcribed and coded. In the first phase of
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 60
analysis, open coding was used in order to look for empirical codes and apply priori codes from
the conceptual framework. In the second phase of analysis, empirical and priori codes were
aggregated into analytic and axial codes. In the third phase of data analysis, pattern codes and
themes were identified in relation to the conceptual framework and study questions. Documents
were analyzed for evidence consistent with the concepts in the conceptual framework.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) have noted that, in qualitative research, it is difficult to
capture an objective truth—however, they note that researchers can utilize strategies to ensure
the credibility and trustworthiness of their study. In this study, several of those strategies were
used. The first strategy used was triangulation, which involves using different methods of data
collection to validate other methods used. The first method of data collection used in this study
was the examination of documents regarding current policies and procedures relevant to staff
responses to bullying at St. Catholic School. The second form of data collection used was
interviews with teachers. Interviews were conducted with teachers who had worked in education
in general, and at St. Catholic School specifically, for different periods of time. Through this
approach, the researcher obtained participants’ perspectives on their own experience with
bullying, as well as how the school’s culture and climate affected staff intervention in bullying.
Another strategy used in this study was what Merriam and Tisdell (2016) have labeled
respondent validation. Through respondent validation, the researcher solicited feedback from
participants on preliminary or emerging findings. The last strategy used was an audit trail, which
allows the person reading a study to authenticate the researcher’s findings by examining at the
methods and experiences involved in the collection, recording, and interpretation of data
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 61
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In order to achieve an audit trail for this study, a journal was used to
record reflections, problems, or issues that arose during the data collection.
Ethics
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) discussed the ethical problems that can arise during research
studies. One area Merriam and Tisdell emphasize is the researcher’s responsibility to ensure that
no harm comes to participants in a study. This is done by developing procedures to protect the
participants, including requiring informed consent from participants, ensuring their privacy, and
fully disclosing details of the study to participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher
employed these procedures in this study. Each participant was told the purpose of the study and
the purpose of their participation in the study. Participants were then given a consent form to
sign, in which the same points were outlined and their right to withdraw from the study at any
time stated. Obtaining consent included informing participants that a recording device would be
used. Participants were told that their responses would remain confidential and their names
would not be used in the study. During the study, all recordings were kept on a password-
encrypted file and were deleted after the study was completed.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) also emphasize the importance of the trustworthiness of the
researcher in any qualitative study. The relationship between a researcher and the participants in
their study can affect participants’ ability to give informed consent or to give valid input
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study, the researcher had worked previously as an
instructional coach to two teachers who were interviewed, although the researcher’s interactions
with both teachers were non-supervisory and non-evaluative. The researcher does not work for
St. Catholic School directly, but is contracted through an outside company to provide coaching
services to schools in the diocese. In this role, the researcher has established a relationship with
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 62
teachers involved in this study but remains an outside observer at the school. The researcher has
also worked with the Principal of St. Catholic School in previous years. As an instructional
coach, the researcher has engaged in confidential conversations with staff at the school regarding
their professional practice. In this research, it was possible that interview participants would be
concerned that the researcher’s previous interactions with their principal could lead to the
disclosure of their responses. However, the researcher attempted to mitigate this concern by
thoroughly explaining to participants confidentiality measures used in this study.
Even though polices and regulations were in place to validate this study, the researcher’s
prior background and biases the researcher had the potential to impact the research (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). It is important that researchers address biases and experiences that may affect
how they collect and view data. First and foremost, the researcher is a Latino who grew up in a
predominately White neighborhood and attended a Catholic school with a predominately White
student body. Because of this, the researcher has experienced feelings of being an outsider and of
being different from his peers. Though the researcher has not experienced bullying as defined in
this study, the researcher has experienced being excluded for being culturally different. These
experiences have made it easier for the researcher to empathize with victims of bullying. The
researcher has also worked as an administrator in a Catholic school and dealt with students who
were bullied, as well as the challenges of implementing policies to curb bullying and change
teacher perceptions of bullying. These factors need to be considered when interviewing teachers
in this study so as to avoid assumptions regarding their motivation for identifying bullying or
taking specific actions.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 63
Chapter 4: Findings
The purpose of this study was to evaluate how well St. Catholic School is reaching its
organizational goal of providing a safe learning environment for students. An obstacle to meeting
this goal is the incidence of bullying among students at the school. Three stakeholder groups
were identified as involved in helping St. Catholic School achieve their organizational
goal—parents, students, and teachers. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on
all stakeholders at St. Catholic School, for practical purposes, the stakeholders of focus in this
study were teachers. Teachers were chosen as they have the most contact with students and the
way they identify and respond to bullying affects how students experience and perceive bullying.
To help provide a safe learning environment for all students, the stakeholder goal for teachers is
to be able to identify and respond to bullying incidents 100% of the time. As first responders to
bullying incidents, teachers will have the most direct impact on whether St. Catholic School
meets its organizational goal. Failure to meet this goal could result in continued bullying,
undetected bullying incidents, or an increase in bullying incidents if students feel teachers are not
addressing the problem properly.
Prior to the data collection process, KMO influences that would affect whether teachers
achieve their goal were studied. As previously stated, a qualitative approach was used for this
purpose, consisting of a convenience sampling of teachers at St. Catholic School and analysis of
documents pertinent to the study. The primary source of data collected to understand teacher
KMO influences and identify possible KMO gaps was teacher interviews. In addition, a topic of
analysis was policies and procedures teachers relied on and used to respond to bullying incidents.
For this reason, faculty and administrative handbooks were examined. The researcher sought to
answer the following questions in this study:
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 64
1. To what extent is St. Catholic School meeting its organizational performance goal of reducing
bullying incidents?
2. What are the stakeholder knowledge, motivation and organizational elements related to
achieving this goal?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources to help achieve the stated goal?
Participating Stakeholders
In Table 4, the gender of each participating teacher is outlined, as well as their years of
experience at St. Catholic School and their overall years of experience in education. Pseudonyms
were used in place of teachers’ actual names in order to preserve the anonymity of each
participant. Pseudonyms were used and any information that might be used to identify a
participant was excluded. St. Catholic School is a relatively small school. For this reason,
teachers are described in terms that are as general as possible.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 65
Table 4
Participating Stakeholders
Participant
(Pseudonym)
Gender Years at School Years in Education
Mary Female 8 15
Peter Male 6 12
Elizabeth Female 16 17
Anna Female 3 13
Andrew Male 4 15
Daniel Male 3 13
Hannah Female 4 4
Margaret Female 3 6
Martha Female 1 6
Esther Female 10 27
Abigail Female 7 15
Deborah Female 2 7
Joanna Female 11 14
Lydia Female 11 11
Findings
The findings of this study are discussed based on Clark and Estes’ (2008) knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences model, which was fully integrated into the conceptual
framework of this research. Through qualitative data analysis in the form of interviews coupled
with document analysis, the researcher connected their research findings to the research
questions for this study. In the process, the researcher examined how teachers’ KMO influences
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 66
affected their ability to identify and respond to bullying incidents. Through data analysis, the
researcher also identified KMO gaps that should be remediated for stakeholders and the
organization to meet their organizational goal. In this dissertation, findings are organized
according to the three research questions for this study. First, each research question is posed and
findings pertaining to that question are presented. Second, themes identified from those findings
are outlined. Lastly, themes are organized into a single section, in which details of the findings
are discussed in further detail. For each of these themes, raw data collected was analyzed and
connections to the inquiry’s conceptual framework were identified. Ultimately, the researcher’s
goal was to formulate inferences based on the themes presented.
Research Question 1
Through Research Question 1, the researcher inquired about the extent to which St.
Catholic School is meeting its organizational performance goal of reducing bullying incidents.
This question was answered by looking through the lens of assumed organizational influences.
These assumed organizational influences included the way school administrators viewed
bullying and the need for collaboration among teachers. Two themes that emerged from the
interviews and documents were that no explicit policy or guidance is in place for teachers in
terms of dealing with bullying, and that teachers made assumptions about the level of bullying at
the school.
School Policies.
One assumed organizational influence was that administrators must view bullying as
something that can be changed and not as a normal part of student behavior. In reviewing the
school’s faculty and parent handbooks, the researcher identified several references to
expectations regarding how students should treat each other. However, there was no explicit
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 67
policy on how and when teachers should respond to bullying incidents. The desire to create a
safe environment at the school is outlined in St. Catholic School’s parent handbook. The school’s
mission states, “Our school, in partnership with students and parents, strives to foster a safe,
nurturing environment that promotes mutual respect among all.” However, the only reference to
bullying in the parent handbook is the statement, “Harassment and bullying are unacceptable.” In
the faculty handbook, there is a section entitled “Commitment to the Student,” in which teachers’
responsibility to help students reach their “maximum potential” is described. No specific
guidelines for dealing with bullying are given. When policies on bullying are not clearly
understood within a school, teachers struggle to respond to bullying incidents consistently and
effectively (Meyer, 2008). A clear policy on bullying for teachers not only gives teachers
concrete guidelines to implement—it also gives teachers a sense that they are supported by their
administration in responding to bullying incidents (Farley, 2018).
The school’s lack of a formal policy on bullying was confirmed during interviews. None
of the 14 teachers interviewed could name a school policy on bullying specifically. Four teachers
expressed that the school had a zero-tolerance policy toward bullying; three teachers stated that
the school’s policy was to inform administrators of bullying incidents; and the remainder of
teachers admitted they did not know what the school’s policy was. For example, Anna, Margaret,
Elizabeth and Andrew said:
Well, I believe we have a zero, um … zero toleration of bullying, however, I think the
definition of bullying is the sticking point. Um, uh, with regards to just what people feel
is bullying. (Anna)
To my knowledge, it’s a zero tolerance. They [bullies] would go straight to
administration. (Margaret)
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 68
I’m not sure of the formal plan right now. And of course, escalate as needed. And tell the
Vice-principal, tell the Principal. Like if it’s something really bad, we just ...You know,
march them even—even into the office right then and there. (Elizabeth)
Yeah, the current policy on bullying. Um, it’s, it’s my understanding. Right? Bullying is
not tolerated. Um, there’s going to be, like, an intermediate intervention. (Andrew)
Teachers described what they thought the school policy was or what they assumed the policy
should be. The absence of a clear policy on bullying appeared to be one reason for teachers’
inconsistent intervention in bullying incidents. Researchers have shown that, when it comes to
effective intervention in bullying by teachers, two components can have a significant positive
impact—support from administrators and school policies (Farley, 2018; Meyer, 2008)
The St. Catholic School faculty handbook contained two pages of guidelines for
acceptable use of technology, including a sequence of consequences for students who failed to
meet those behaviors. This disparity not only highlights the lack of guidelines on bullying for
teachers at the school—it emphasizes what the school views as most important. Indeed, several
teachers commented that bullying was not a problem at their school, while at the same time
describing bullying issues they had dealt with. When discussing bullying at the school, Margaret
said, “I really don’t find the extremes of, I think what I’ve dealt with in the past. And I think that
they’re just within the realms of what a middle schooler kind of goes through.” Faced with a lack
of guidelines on responding to bullying, teachers relied on their own personal beliefs as to what
constitutes bullying, or simply assumed that bullying was not a problem at their school. In
addition, school administrators engaged in no formal tracking of bullying incidents and had no
system in place for students or parents to report incidents. This lack of formal reporting prevents
tracking of students who exhibit repeated bullying behavior. Most students report that bullying
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 69
happens in places and situations where there is little or no adult supervision (Espelage & Asiado,
2001). There is no system in place for students at St. Catholic School to report bullying incidents
anonymously.
Culture. The other assumed cultural influence is that collaboration among teachers is
required in dealing with bullying. Teachers readily stated that there was a culture of
collaboration at their school. However, it became clear in interviews that the lack of an outlined
policy meant there was no cohesive strategy or unified approach to dealing with bullying. When
an organization’s culture is experienced differently by members of that organization, subcultures
can emerge (Lindahl, 2006; Schein, 2010). Teachers at St. Catholic School perceived no urgency
among the school’s administrators with regard to dealing with bullying, as shown by the school’s
lack of an explicit policy on bullying or training for teachers. Instead, teachers were left to
develop their own understanding of bullying and how to handle bullying situations.
In interviews, some teachers implied or said explicitly that bullying was not a problem at
their school, with students and parents exaggerating the prevalence and seriousness of bullying.
Margaret said,
I’ll make a blanketed statement, that many parents, um, kind of buy-in to that, their child
is being bullied. It might be discomfort, or it might be exclusion, or it might just not be
friends that want or people that, other students that want to partake in activities with
them.
These teachers expressed a level of frustration that students at the school (or their parents)
complained about bullying. One teacher said that some students viewed any behavior they
objected to as bullying. Teachers who viewed bullying at the school as an overblown problem
also expressed less inclination to intervene in bullying incidents, or were more likely to blame
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 70
students for being victimized (for example, because of the student’s poor social skills, as
Margaret said). Lack of intervention by teachers due to a perception that bullying is not a
problem is consistent with research findings that teachers select interventions based on the
perceived seriousness of the incident (Lester et al., 2018). Hannah explained,
So, I feel like it’s a matter of perception of what exactly bullying is. Like there’s a
student in my class right now. He’s not my homeroom student, but he’s a student. And
any little thing ... You know, “Oh, this is the homework assignment for tonight.” Uh ...
Bullying. Bullying. Teachers bullying about making me do work.
For Hannah, this student’s flippant use of the term “bullying” was a justification for her
perception that bullying was not a problem at the school. She added, “You could, it just kinda
shows you how their concept of bullying is anything that’s ... Anything that’s they don’t want to
do that’s put on them.”
Another group of teachers primarily focused on a limited view of bullying which, in turn,
limited their perception of the occurrence of bullying at the school. When teachers are not given
clear advice (e.g., through policies, guidelines or discussions) on what constitutes bullying, they
tend to view bullying mainly as outward aggression (Farley, 2018). Teachers at St. Catholic
School viewed bullying as aggressive physical or verbal behavior. Teachers who defined
bullying through this narrow lens did not recognize bullying at the school. One of these teachers,
Martha, said, “I don't really think that I’ve witnessed some, what I would consider like of the
more severe sides of teasing.” Another teacher, Daniel, compared St. Catholic School to his
public-school experience, saying, “So, I don’t think our school has [bullying] for the most part.
Maybe, occasionally, but I haven’t heard or seen, uh, a dominant, a pattern of, of bullying at the
school.” Both these teachers had expressed the need to address bullying at the school—however,
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 71
they also implied that this was not a priority since bullying did not happen at the school. This
was despite teachers in almost all interviews citing times when students and parents reported
bullying. The belief that bullying did not happen at S. Catholic School led teachers to ignore
bullying behavior among their students.
Research Question 2
Using research Question 2, the researcher inquired about stakeholder knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences related to achieving the school’s organizational goal of
reducing bullying. In examining these influences, several themes were identified. First, teachers
had difficulty defining bullying and tended to focus on a student’s level of aggression or intent.
Second, teachers’ perceptions of bullying affected how they dealt with bullying. Third, teachers
relied mostly on their personal experiences of bullying in responding to and deal with bullying
incidents.
Knowledge influences. During this qualitative inquiry, the researcher sought to identify
knowledge elements that had an impact on interview respondents. The knowledge elements
viewed were factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge relates to
teachers’ understanding of the definition of bullying and what constitutes a bullying action. To
determine their factual knowledge, teachers were asked to define bullying. Conceptual
knowledge is the more complex organization of knowledge, including concepts, processes and
principles. Conceptual knowledge allows for relating basic elements of factual knowledge with
other elements in order to apply them to a larger picture and gain a deeper understanding
(Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual knowledge is how teachers determine what might be bullying
versus an isolated incident of disruptive behavior, and how they understand various forms and
implications of bullying. Participants’ conceptual knowledge was determined through questions
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 72
regarding their experience with bullying incidents and how they identified types of bullying.
Teachers’ procedural knowledge was determined by examining how they responded to bullying
incidents and the strategies they used to resolve issues. Finally, metacognitive knowledge is a
reflective element of the learning process—it involves thinking about how one is thinking. For
teachers dealing with bullying, metacognitive knowledge affects how they decide whether or not
to intervene (Krathwohl, 2002). Participants’ metacognitive knowledge was determined by
examining their perceptions of bullying and of students involved in bullying, in particular bullies
and victims. The following sections details findings related to each of these areas.
Factual knowledge: Definition of bullying. When defining bullying, teachers focused
most on a student’s consistency, or pattern of behavior, and their intent or purpose. Of the 14
teachers interviewed, nine used the terms “consistent,” “repetitive,” or “pattern” to describe
bullying behavior. When it came to intent, teachers used terms such as “intentional,”
“malicious,” “directed,” “targeted,” or “mean” to indicate that the bully’s actions were
purposeful. The teachers’ focus on intent and repetition was a way to distinguish between
bullying behavior and other types of behavior. Though teachers’ focus was on trying to
determine students’ motive, they missed the intent of bullying in general—as a way for a student
to gain power or control over another student (Mehta et al., 2013; Olweus, 1997). Only a few of
the teachers mentioned that bullying was about power or an imbalance of power. The teachers
who did mention power as part of bullying also indicated having been exposed to bullying
training. In clarifying what constituted bullying behavior, teachers also described behaviors that
were easily observable.
For example, teachers tended to use similar words to describe physical aggression, such
as “pushes,” “shoves,” “poking,” and “teasing.” For verbal aggression, they used the term
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 73
“making fun of”. But even these terms were qualified by the perceived severity of the actions.
Hannah discussed how she defined bullying behavior versus similar non-bullying behavior: “…if
it's continuous and it keeps going on and on. And it gets more severe …”. Another teacher,
Elizabeth, expressed the same idea as an indicator for bullying: “If there’s tears, okay ... that’s
pretty serious.” For both these teachers, the severity of the actions determined when they viewed
the aggressive behavior as bullying. The teachers relied on the visible outward pain of the victim
to determine the severity of the bullying, which would ultimately affect their intervention. Their
reliance on outward expressions of pain by victims to determine severity is contrary to the
literature, which shows that the most serious effects of bullying are internal (Gini & Pozzoli,
2009).
Though the way teachers defined bullying was similar in concept but varied in terms, the
consistent factor among teachers was their struggle to define bullying. Teachers often prefaced a
definition with some phrase that expressed their uncertainty, such as “I think,” or “I feel.” Some
teachers struggled to articulate their own statement. For example, Elizabeth said, “Yeah. They,
you know, as you’re about it, I was thinking about, um, one of the things, when they talk about
bullying, they always say, you know, it’s like a power thing.” Her statement exemplifies how
teachers try to reconcile their understanding with what they may have heard or learned
previously. However, even Elizabeth, in her statement on bullying, viewed power as trying to
control a situation—not as trying to exhibit power over another student. One teacher, Joanna,
after describing how she would define bullying, summed up her thoughts this way, “So a
definition I think is, I mean, me struggling with it as a teacher probably tells you a lot.” In this
way, Joanna expressed what other teachers felt. Teachers were asked early in interviews to
define bullying but, as interviews continued, they continued to define or redefine the term.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 74
Elizabeth’s following statements at different times within the same interview illustrate her
struggle to define bullying and where it happens:
Bullying usually happens outside of the classroom.
So, I mean, what’s—what’s a bully? Someone’s really mean. Really, like, doing things
like exclusion ... Or saying things that aren’t true. Oh, I don’t ... I mean, it could go on
and on.
I guess it does happen in the classroom.
Elizabeth begins by stating that bullying happens outside the classroom, having related that when
students bully, they are taken straight to the office. In her second statement, Elizabeth is
discussing her frustration with students who report behavior they consider bullying. She then
related an incident that happened in her classroom, which she was made aware of by a parent.
After describing the incident, she considered that it might, in fact, constitute bullying. Another
teacher, Margaret exhibited her struggle with the definition of bullying:
Um, there’s the physical side you know, legitimately someone putting their hands on you
or pushing you around. And then there’s kind of like the emotional, psychological side
where you’re being targeted, um, unjustly. Or what could be you know, something that
you have no control of, but someone is, is continually coming at you about that.
… it’s kind of hard to have a black and white definition.
And I think it’d be, um, like are they just, is it teasing or is it that? There’s so many
unknown factors.
In her first statement, Margaret is certain about what constitutes physical bullying, but less
certain about what constitutes indirect bullying. In her second statement, Margaret admits that
defining bullying is difficult, having tried to decide whether emotional teasing is bullying or just
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 75
“discomfort.” Margaret’s last statement came after discussing how students tease each other and
wondering if the teasing she described was bullying.
Teachers understood that bullying involved aggression and were able to confidently
define physical bullying—but, when it came to verbal or indirect bullying, their confidence was
lower. When teachers discussed incidents they had experienced, they often requalified how they
defined bullying. Teachers identified physical bullying more readily, consistent with the
literature that teachers are more accurate when identifying physical bullying and less accurate
with other forms of bullying (Farley, 2018).
Conceptual knowledge: Identifying types of bullying. One factor that affects how a
teacher will intervene in a bullying incident is how they identify the incident (Boulton, 1997). As
noted previously, teachers identified physical aggression as bullying more readily. In discussing
actions that they felt needed to be addressed right away, physical aggression was at the top of
their list. Teachers were more apt to comment on physical aggression when discussing their
concerns about bullying at their school. When it came to verbal bullying, teachers often qualified
bullying as consistent, mean, and intentional. Even when teachers related incidents of verbal
bullying, they qualified the severity as less than physical bullying. As Deborah stated,
Like, “Oh, he’s fine with it. He’s, like, laughing.” But, then it became, like, repetitive
and, “We’re gonna call you this name of, like, ‘shrimp’ or something.” And then, and
then it becomes that’s what he's known for and it’s ... It hurts his feelings. So, then it goes
to that, and I feel like the physical bullying of, like ... Is the highest severity because
you’re physically hurting someone and, you know, overpowering them.
For Deborah, there are two qualifiers to verbal taunting before she recognizes it as bullying. The
first is the repetition of the action, and the second is the severity of the action, or how much it
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 76
hurts a student’s feelings. There was also a lack of recognition that verbal bullying could be as
harmful as physical bullying. Indeed, when it came to verbal bullying, teachers indicated they
would be less likely to intervene until they saw a physical escalation. Again, this perception is
contrary to the literature, in which students reported non-physical types of bullying as the most
problematic (Varjas, 2008).
Though teachers discussed bullying incidents they had experienced, their narrow view of
bullying kept them from recognizing two types of bullying—relational bullying, which happens
in and out of the classroom, and covert bullying, which often happens in the classroom. In
discussing how he had seen student behavior change, Peter (who coaches girls) discussed female
students’ “mean girl” attitude:
The kids who aren’t as athletic or aren’t into the sports getting, like making fun of the
kids who are trying and wanting to participate, wanting to, like compete, wanting to like
try hard. This group is actually making fun of them for trying and caring.
One teacher, Anna, expressed her surprise that a friend might tease another friend: “Like I had a
student last year who, you know, said to another student who was his, his friend ... said, um,
‘Why don’t you go kill yourself?’ Like as a joke, I guess—”. For Anna, the idea that a friend
would say something so harmful was so unbelievable that she readily dismissed it as a joke. Both
these statements reinforce the idea that from students’ perspective, teachers deal with behavior
that is not bullying and do not deal with behavior that is bullying, especially relational bullying
(Varjas, 2008).
When it came to covert bullying in the classroom, where students silence other students
or exert power over other students, teachers mentioned that bullying happens most often outside
the classroom. Teachers felt that because of their presence, bullying does not happen in the
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 77
classroom or can be curbed easily. The reason for this is that teachers lack understanding of
bullying as involving more than overt actions. This is in line with evidence in the literature that
bullying in the classroom is often undetected by teachers as it takes on forms that are apparent to
students but not to their teacher (Hamarus & Kakkonen, 2008). While some teachers in this study
strongly denied that bullying occurred in their classroom, other teachers admitted they were not
aware of bullying in their classroom until they were told it was happening, usually by a parent.
As Deborah stated, “And then, she informed me that there was another ... That he ... Her son was
being bullied by another child within my class.” Another teacher, Abigail, also recognized that
bullying sometimes happened in her classroom after relating an incident that had happened the
day before. “And this other girl was like shocked, told her mom, her mom told us. So sometimes
they do it so quietly, I guess it does happen in the classroom.”
But even when teachers were made aware of covert incidents happening in the classroom,
their approach was to handle the incident on their own and most likely to just discuss the incident
with the students. Deborah expressed how she dealt with bullying that happened in the
classroom:
... when there is bullying happening within my classroom. I usually pull, like, both sides
involved. We have a discussion outside of the classroom.
Um, many times in the classrooms you’ll, you’ll see it where maybe a student, they don’t,
I don’t think it’s intentional, they’re not aware.
Deborah’s remarks underscore that she feels bullying is easily recognizable and she can identify
the parties involved. Teachers also felt that students and parents reported teasing as bullying too
often. Teachers commented that, when a student or a parent complained of bullying, it was most
often some type of teasing or being picked on by another student or students. While teachers
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 78
dismissed these incidents as non-bullying behavior, their descriptions of the complaints were
consistent with research indicating that teachers intervene in physical bullying more often than
indirect bullying (Bauman & Del Rio, 2007). It confirmed other researcher’s findings that
students felt teachers focused on actions that did not constitute bullying, such as pushing and
shoving, and not on actual bullying, such as verbal or relational bullying (Varjas et al., 2008).
Procedural knowledge: Strategies for dealing with bullying. Procedural knowledge can
affect a teacher’s likelihood of intervening if teachers do not feel they have the strategies or skills
needed to intervene. Procedural knowledge involves the skills, procedures, and techniques used
to accomplish a goal or to obtain an outcome (Krathwohl, 2002). Teachers can at times feel
unsure of how to intervene. Teachers at St. Catholic School used different approaches for
different types of bullying. When teachers encountered physical bullying, they would often enlist
the help of administrators or another teacher. In discussing physical aggression, teachers were
clear that they would take the responsible student straight to the school office and inform school
administrators. Hannah said,
For an example, a student continually using aggression. I mean if it’s the first, if a teacher
ever sees it, I think that should go straight to admin, and then there is a consequence. That
student has a suspension or, or what not.
When it came to verbal bullying, teachers took a less direct approach and would talk with the
students involved as their first step to determine the seriousness of the incident. Anna and
Deborah said,
You know, somebody was being mean, um, I probably would talk to the other student
and then try to get them to see ... how the other student was feeling. (Anna)
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 79
I will get to the bottom of it. I’ll talk with both the students, um, and we will proceed
forward. (Deborah)
Teachers varied in their approaches to verbal aggression. Some tried to resolve the incident
themselves, others informed the student’s parents, while others dismissed the incident and
monitored the students involved. If the bullying happened during physical education class, recess
or lunch (i.e., where teachers did not directly witness the incident), they were more likely to talk
to students and use a wait and see approach. If the incident was witnessed by the teacher
themselves, teachers were more willing to try and resolve the issue between the students. In
either case, the primary strategies used by teachers to resolve verbal bullying were
empathy—asking students to consider how the other person felt or how they would feel if they
were in the same situation—or prevention, in the form of speaking to the victim or class about
some type of coping skill.
Metacognitive knowledge: Perceptions of bullying. One of the knowledge influences
examined was how teachers understood the various types of bullying behavior and how they
manifested in and out of the classroom. As stated earlier, teachers focused their attention on
physically aggressive behavior such as pushing, shoving, hitting, or severe teasing. It was noted
previously that this type of bullying was easier to deal with, thus easier to focus on. However,
teachers also focused on this type of behavior because of their perception that this constituted
true bullying. This finding is consistent with the evidence in the literature of a perception among
teachers that physical aggression was worse than verbal aggression since physical aggression
produced more immediate harm (Mishna et al., 2005). Non-verbal bullying was viewed as being
part of the normal growing up process and though a concern, was overall viewed as less harmful
(Rosen et al., 2017). Both perceptions were evident among the teachers interviewed for this
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 80
study. Another finding regarding how teachers identify and respond to bullying is how they
perceive the bully and the victim. Teachers had a very specific view of a bully as a student with
low self-esteem, physically bigger than the victim, who had possibly learned the behavior from
home. Teachers felt that the reason someone bullied was to make themselves feel better or as a
transfer of feelings from somewhere else—possibly being bullied themselves. Anna said: “Like I
think they’re insecure, so they’re like trying to put the attention on somebody else, so they’re not
seen. I think they’re also hurting sometimes themselves, and so they want others to hurt as well.”
When examining this statement about bullies, there is some empathy exhibited by the
teacher in considering why the bully might act the way they do. There is also a perceived
detachment between the bullying behavior and the bully. For Anna, bullying is a symptom of a
deeper problem that the bully has little or no control over. Another teacher, Deborah, attributed
bullying behavior as a way for the student to hide themselves, “I think it's because they have ...
They see their own weakness and they want to prey on someone else that might be weaker and
feel better about themselves.” By characterizing a bully in this way, Deborah places the bully
and victim on the same level, in that they are both different from other students. There is also a
danger of normalizing the behavior of the bully by justifying the actions they take. Seeing
bullying behavior as a normal part of development is especially common among teachers of
younger grades and leads to less intervention on behalf of the teacher (Ladd & Pelletier, 2007).
In addition, teachers who believe that bullying is normal behavior in schools are less likely to
reprimand aggressors (Gordan & Ladd, 2015). Deborah and Anna’s perception of bullies as
someone experiencing psychological pain relates to their statements that they tend to discuss
bullying behavior with the bully as their primary approach to dealing with them. Hannah also
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 81
described bullies as engaging in normal adolescent behavior. Hannah described bullying at the
middle school level as part of the angst of middle school:
And so, a lot of the times, I think it’s perceptions of what they see and what they think is
cool or will make them look stronger, more intelligent, better for the moment. And then
also their own insecurities at this fragile age. Or maybe a lot of the time, I think it’s also
their own pain. Maybe something else is going on at home. Or maybe something else is
going on with another friend or their parents, and they’re taking it out on someone else ...
Taking out their anger. Taking out their resentment or ... On someone else, I would say.
Hannah implied that any student who is experiencing a rough patch was a potential bully. As
noted previously, teacher perceptions that bullying behavior is normal in schools leads to less
intervention from teachers. The problem with normalizing bully behavior is that teachers are less
likely to intervene, with lack of intervention can prompt more aggressive behavior as students
take their cue from the teacher (Toop-Gordon & Ladd, 2015). Hannah, Deborah and Anna’s
statements reflect the literature that teachers’ beliefs and expectations affect their evaluation of a
bullying situation (Yoon et al., 2016).
Though other teachers discussed one characteristic of bullying as its intentional nature,
teachers’ description of bullies and their motivations pointed to more of an intent to relieve
internal pain than to harm another student. This belief may explain why, outside of severe
physical aggression, the teachers’ strategy for handling bullying and bullies was to talk to them
and make them aware of their actions. Teachers felt that bullying behavior could be turned
around through this approach, since they viewed the behavior more as a cry for help than a
defiant behavior. This was consistent with literature in which researchers note that teachers tend
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 82
to see bullying as a product of the bully’s personal deficiencies—deficiencies that can be
remedied by learning social skills (Yoon et al., 2016).
When it came to victims, teachers also expressed a particular view of which students
were likely to be victims, and why. Teachers described typical victims as small in stature, with
poor social skills, and uncharacteristically different from their peers (meaning that their
differences made them stand out in a negative way). One teacher, Esther, described a typical
victim:
They don’t feel—they don’t seem to feel good about themselves. They don’t seem to
have a following of friends. Um, they’re easy [targets], they’re like that stray [cat], you
know. So, it’s easy to get them ‘cause they have no one to protect them.
Even teachers notice that victims of bullying are different than other students and imply that, if
victims were not different (or if they had friends) they would not be bullied. Another teacher,
Deborah, thought that students with unstable home lives were more vulnerable to bullying:
Um, I think often they might be ... Have a weaker sensibility or they have a harder time
with, um, brushing something off. Like, that's what I ... Maybe there’s something that has
happened where they haven’t been built up. Uh, the home life could be, uh, um, affected,
um, that they don’t have this strong, um, male character at home that’s building and
telling them ... Um, because I know specifically the child I’m thinking of doesn’t ...
There’s no father at home, so I think the mother takes on a lot of ... Saying, “It’s a lot for
me to do this with him and help build his, um, personality and just help him.”
Deborah noted that this particular student had struggled to “brush off” bullying incidents—again,
implying that victims control whether or not they are targeted. Another teacher, Margaret, felt
some students had a “victim mentality”—“So, you know not having that victim mentality, um,
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 83
finding it, a moment to kind of triumphant, be triumphant, move forward. Overcome something.”
Where teachers tended to separate bullying behavior from the student, they would often attribute
victim behavior to the student. Many teachers implied that victims just needed to be more social,
less different, and more resilient. Teachers were more likely to expect victims to extricate
themselves from their own predicament. Margaret said:
I think that’s what it is. Is that how well can they cope? How well do they deal with
disappointment? How well do they deal with rejection? How well do they deal with the
growing pains of, trying to figure out yourself in, in middle school?
Another teacher, Anna, mentioned that victims are easy targets and expanded on that
thought when describing victims, “Not somebody who’s well liked. Usually, it’s somebody who
maybe doesn’t have a lot of friends, or has something that’s very obviously, you know, a
characteristic they can pick on.” With this teacher’s statement, it would seem that victims would
be victims no matter the school environment.
There were several significant aspects of these findings. First, teachers’ identification of
victims as having greater social deficits than other students is consistent with other studies that
showed certain individual behaviors can affect the possibility of victimization (Fox & Bolton,
2005). In addition, the view that victims cause their own problems or can control their
victimization through increased social awareness creates a lack of empathy in the teacher for the
plight of the victim. One factor attributed to how likely a teacher will intervene in a bullying
incident is their level of empathy for the victim and when empathy is low teachers are less likely
to intervene (Craig et al., 2000). Just as with bullies, the other aspect of this finding is that
teachers set view of the characteristics of a victim keeps them from seeing other students who do
not fit these criteria as being victims. It also limits a teacher’s ability to identify other forms of
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 84
bullying, especially relational bullying which involves friends or students who had a previously
close relationship.
Motivation Influences. To determine teachers’ motivational influences, teachers were
asked a series of questions on how they felt about bullying. Teachers were asked how capable
they felt in dealing with bullying incidents, what they felt their school’s role in bullying was, and
what type of advice they would give a new teacher at their school. The purpose of these
questions was to elicit responses that would reveal teachers’ inner feelings.
Cost-value. Thoonen et al. (2011) found that, next to self-efficacy, the value teachers
placed on achieving a goal had the greatest impact on their motivation and engagement. De Jesus
and Lens (2005) also recognized the importance of the value a teacher ascribed to a particular
goal. However, they noted that, even when teachers value a goal highly, their motivation
decreases valued if they feel incapable of succeeding at that goal. Though teachers stated that
dealing with bullying was an important task for schools, most teachers expressed frustration with
students or parents who, in their mind over reported bullying. Teachers claimed that the term
“bullying” was overused by both students and parents, with students reporting bullying whenever
they felt someone was being mean to them. When teachers view bullying as a mere frustration,
the task of dealing with bullying incidents becomes overwhelming, and teachers are less likely to
respond (Meyer, 2008). When asked about how to deal with a student who says they were
bullied, Martha said:
… I’ll make a blanketed statement, that many parents, um, kind of buy-in to that, their
child is being bullied. At a time where it’s probably not to that extreme that we, that I
kind of perceive as what really bullying is.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 85
Here, Martha expressed her frustration, as well as how she qualified her view of bullying with
other people’s view of bullying. Martha’s views were consistent with previous researchers’
findings that a teacher’s motivation to handle a task is relative to their perception that the task
can be handled (Thoonen et al., 2011). The frustration of dealing with students and parents can
result in teachers like Martha feeling that addressing bullying at school is an impossible task.
Self-efficacy. A teacher’s beliefs and attitudes toward bullying will affect how that
teacher responds to bullying behavior (Yoon, 2004). A problem occurs when a teacher does not
feel they are capable of changing bullying behavior or if they feel they do not have the skills
necessary to change bullying behavior. To determine teachers’ self-efficacy, teachers were asked
how confident they felt in dealing with bullying and what might help them feel more capable.
When asked directly, all teachers stated that they felt confident in handling bullying. However,
teachers qualified their response to include the type of bullying they felt confident handling and
explained how support from someone else made them feel more confident. One teacher,
Elizabeth, said, “Oh, I mean, I’m pretty capable. You know, to recognize it. But, except when I
don’t hear it.” Elizabeth first expressed her confidence in handling bullying, then qualified it by
stating she felt confident in her ability to recognize bullying, before admitting that she cannot
recognize bullying if the behavior is not brought to her attention.
Another teacher, Anna, said, “I feel like I feel confident in that I can recognize when
there’s … issues. Definitely dealing with it, I look, if it’s really—like a really intense situation, I
often seek help from administration.” Similar to Elizabeth, Anna professed her confidence in
recognizing bullying and dealing with it, but then declared that she would want to seek help for
“intense” situations. After a pause, Anna added to her above statement, “Um, I just, I don’t ... Or
just even advice from other colleagues, because I don’t, sometimes I don’t want it to be just on
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 86
me, and I want to make sure I’m making the right decision.” What started out as a confident
answer to the question became one that revealed the teacher’s uneasiness and uncertainty over
her handling of bullying.
Organizational Influences. Organizational culture is the aspect of an organization that
affects how a person is supposed to perceive, feel, and act in that organization (Schein, 2010).
Culture provides a stable setting in which an organization’s rules, policies, and actions can be
established and enacted (Lindahl, 2006; Schein, 2010). The manner in which teachers perceive
the culture of their school, their interactions with other teachers, the policies and procedures
established, and the support of the administration will inform how teachers respond to bullying
(Meyer, 2008). To this end, the researcher sought to determine how teachers viewed the culture
of their school and the level of support they received in dealing with bullying.
School climate. When it came to the overall culture of their school, teachers expressed
that their school environment was welcoming, with regular collaboration among teachers and
staff. Teachers used terms such as “close,” “family,” “welcoming,” and “collaborative” to
describe their school’s culture. This was confirmed by teachers mentioning multiple times they
would seek out the advice of administrators or of another colleague in responding to bullying. In
fact, teachers mentioned either discussing bullying incidents with a colleague or going to an
administrator as one of their main strategies for handling bullying incidents. When reviewing the
school’s role in addressing bullying, teachers agreed it was something the school should involve
themselves with and that trying to stop bullying aligned with the school’s mission. Still, teachers
expressed the frustrations they felt in dealing with bullying. One teacher, Andrew, said, “I, I
mean it’s certainly like, like with teaching your Catholic faith, there’s only so much you can do
in the classroom if they’re getting a different message at home.” Andrew’s views are in line with
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 87
the assumed organizational influence that school staff should change their view of bullying from
something that is inevitable to something that can be curbed.
Teachers’ personal experiences. One of the goals of this study was to examine what
types of procedures and strategies teachers used to identify and respond to bullying. The
assumption was that teachers did not have set policies or strategies in place to address bullying.
While it was true that teachers did not report specific school policies or guidelines for dealing
with bullying incidents, teachers did have a set of beliefs that influenced their strategies. These
personal beliefs were often related to their personal experiences. Based on these personal
experiences, teachers decided how to deal with bullying incidents. Margaret discussed her
experience being bullied in high school and how her mom told her she would need to finish out
the school year but, in the meantime, she needed to find a way to deal with the situation until she
could be moved to another school the following year. This experience was evident in the way
Margaret handled bullying. In talking about victims, she said: “I don’t wanna shelter them …
Um, but like, how can we, not necessarily protect but empower.” Based on her experience, it is
not surprising that Margaret believes in the same technique she used to cope with bullying.
Another teacher, Daniel, mentioned that he was bullied in school and, even now,
remembered how it felt to be victimized. Daniel expressed he felt he was able to better recognize
bullying because of his experience. Daniel handled bullying in his classroom by trying to get the
bully to understand how their actions were affecting the victim. Daniel explained how he dealt
with a student who was bullying other students: “To help her, yeah. I would say, ‘Hey, if I did
that to you, would you enjoy that if, if someone bigger than you talked to you that way or pushed
you around? Would you enjoy that?’”. Deborah shared that she had experienced verbal abuse in
her childhood home, reflecting on the fact that she had been a victim of bullying. Deborah
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 88
explained that she understood how victims of bullying must feel, noting that her own experiences
had affected her strategy in dealing with students: “[In] a way that I feel like I’ve put myself in
the victim’s shoes of, like, I don’t want to hear the yelling or the [bullying]—like, making you
feel like you’re not worth anything.” Experiences with bullying behavior as mentioned by these
teachers directly affect their evaluation of bullying situations (Yoon & Bauman, 2016). When
teachers are relying on their own experience it was noted that teachers who were bullied are
more likely to discipline the bully but less likely to counsel the victim, where teachers who
experienced bullying as a bystander were more inclined to discipline the bully and involve
another adult and counsel the victim (Yoon & Bauman, 2016). Teachers who were bullied were
also more likely to recommend the development of social skills as a means for victims to handle
future bullying incidents as was seen with Margaret and Deborah.
Other teachers described similar experiences. It would be irresponsible to suggest that, if
teachers had access to clearer policies and guidelines on responding to bullying, they would not
employ strategies based on their own personal experience. However, that in the absence of clear
guidelines and policies, teachers rely on prior experience as their primary strategy in responding
to bullying—meaning there is no cohesive strategy in place at St. Catholic School for dealing
with bullying incidents.
Synthesis
As mentioned in a previous section, teachers at St. Catholic School were not sure of their
school’s policies on bullying. Most teachers assumed the school had a zero-tolerance policy.
However, in school handbooks, there is no mention of a zero-tolerance policy. Teachers offered
more confident responses to questions about dealing with physical aggression than indirect
bullying, which teachers mainly identified as verbal aggression. The only guidance given to
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 89
teachers through the school handbook and faculty handbook was one sentence, which stated that
bullying was not tolerated. In contrast, the faculty handbook contained two pages of guidelines
for acceptable use of technology. Not only does this disparity highlight the lack of guidelines for
teachers—it also emphasizes to teachers what school administrators view as most important.
This view was corroborated by several teachers, who commented that bullying was not a
problem at the school, even as they described bullying issues they dealt with. The other problem
identified with the lack of guidelines on bullying was that teachers relied on their own personal
beliefs in handling bullying, resulting in inconsistent responses to such incidents. The lack of
guidelines also affected teacher self-efficacy, as teachers felt less confident in dealing with some
types of bullying over others. When it came to teacher knowledge, teachers were able to identify
the most obvious aspects of bullying such as physical or aggression. With regard to indirect
bullying such as exclusion or relational bullying, only two teachers identified these behaviors as
bullying. The narrow definition of bullying given by teachers in this research may account for
their assertion that bullying was not a problem at their school, even though students had
complained to them of being bullied.
The way teachers in this research viewed bullies and victims pose several problems.
Teachers described bullies as students with low self-esteem, trying to cover up their own
insecurities, who may have been bullied before, and/or with family problems. Teachers were
willing to see a bully’s behavior as the result of outside influences and are more willing to
excuse the behavior as a result. Teachers will use an empathetic approach with bullies in an
attempt to change the bully’s behavior. In contrast, teachers viewed victims as small in physical
stature with poor social skills or differences that made them stand out in a negative way. This
belief led teachers to view victims as contributing to their own problems. Since teachers viewed
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 90
victims as responsible for their own victimization, teachers more often suggested coping skills to
these students, failing to deal with the situation proactively. The other problem with the narrow
view of victims and bullies demonstrated by teachers in this study is that it might prevent
teachers from identifying other students who might be bullies or victims, but not fit the teachers’
description. This approach would be a problem for identifying relational bullying in particular,
which often occurs among friends, or bullying focused on power rather than on intimidation.
This lack of accurate knowledge of types of bullying and characteristics of bullies or
victims led to two subcultures among teachers in this study. One subculture was teachers who
felt that students and parents overemphasized the problem of bullying. Teachers felt students
especially cited any type of problem with other students as bullying, or that students were too
hasty to describe any aggressive behavior as bullying. Perceived over reporting by students led
teachers to define strategies that involved quick responses to overt physical aggression which
could cause obvious harm, or to behavior that was directly witnessed by the teacher. Less
defined strategies varied from talking to students, a wait and see approach, or outright dismissal
of reported behavior. Teacher perceptions of over-reporting also contributed to a level of
frustration with students or parents who reported incidents the teacher had not witnessed. This
perception may also account for the tendency of teachers in this study to engage in victim
blaming. The other subculture identified among teachers in this study was the denial that
bullying was (or could be) a problem at the school. Even though teachers discussed instances of
indirect bullying and acknowledged those type of incidents, their focus was on bullying that
caused visible harm, such as crying—and for that reason, they did not perceive bullying as a
problem. The other contributor to this perception was the lack of detailed policies on bullying
from school administrators.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 91
Lack of clear policies also contributed to inconsistent strategies being used by teachers.
Almost all teachers felt the school had a zero-tolerance policy when it came to bullying, though
no such policy was shown in any school handbook. When it came to physically aggressive
bullying, teachers reported the incident to administration. However, if the bullying was verbally
aggressive (or what teachers termed “teasing”), teachers tended to talk to students and tried to
help students recognize the harm they were doing to another student through their actions.
Without clear guidelines on how teachers should treat bullying incidents, teachers tended to rely
on their personal experiences with bullying—either through previous teaching experiences or
being bullied themselves. Since teachers had different experiences, there was no cohesive effort
to identify and respond to bullying at the school. Teachers readily admitted their desire and need
for more guidance and training. Teachers felt capable of handling bullying when it was clear and
obvious to them that a particular behavior or incident constituted bullying. However, teachers
expressed less confidence in dealing with bullying that was ambiguous or that they had not
witnessed themselves, but had been brought to their attention by a student or parent. When
teachers were unsure about how to proceed, they tended to seek counsel from another teacher or
a school administrator.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 92
Chapter 5: Recommendations
In Chapter 4, the assumed influences affecting the problem of practice were analyzed
under the categories of knowledge, motivation, and organization. These KMO influences were
analyzed in order to determine how these influences affected the targeted stakeholders’ ability to
achieve their performance goal. Based on the analysis of qualitative interviews using priori and
empirical coding, the researcher was able to construct findings and categorize the findings into
general themes. In Chapter 5, findings described in Chapter 4 are expanded on and
recommendations provided for future practice and training. The implementation and evaluation
plan for this study was to provide support for the stakeholders of focus (i.e., teachers) to
accomplish the organizational goal. St. Catholic School’s organizational goal is to provide a safe
learning environment for all students by reducing bullying incidents. To accomplish this goal,
recommendations are made to address knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps of
teachers, who are the stakeholder group of focus for this study.
The main purpose of this study was to determine how well teachers at the school were
meeting their stakeholder goal of identifying and responding to bullying incidents. During the
interview process, several themes emerged that validated the assumed influences in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organization. In Chapter 5, findings from Chapter 4 are reviewed
with regard to the assumed KMO influences. Next, recommendations are presented for each gap,
based on validated assumed influences. Using Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World
Model, a plan for implementation and evaluation is presented based on these recommendations.
Next, the strengths and weaknesses of the overall study are outlined, along with areas for further
research.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 93
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Table 5 includes all assumed knowledge influences that have been validated through data
collection. The knowledge influences used to achieve the teachers’ goal were validated based on
the most common factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive influences that arose from
semi-structured interviews and the analysis of school documents.
Table 5
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Validated/
Not
Validated/
Partially
Validated
Principle and
Citation
Context-specific
Recommendation
Teachers need to understand
various types of bullying
behavior and how bullying
manifests in and out of the
classroom (declarative
knowledge).
V Information that is
learned
meaningfully and
connected to prior
knowledge is
stored more
quickly and
remembered more
accurately (Schraw
& McCrudden,
2006); how
individuals
organize
knowledge impacts
how they learn and
how they apply
what they know
(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Provide experiences that
help people make sense
of material rather than
focusing on
memorization (Schraw
& McCrudden, 2006);
provide learners with
factual knowledge
(Rueda, 2011). Provide
tasks that promote
selecting, organizing,
and integrating.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 94
Table 5 continued
Teachers need better
strategies for dealing with
bullying, especially relational
bullying (procedural
knowledge).
V Continued practice
promotes
automaticity and
requires less
capacity in
working memory
(Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006); provide
guidance,
modeling,
coaching, and other
scaffolding during
performance
(Mayer, 2011).
Provide time for
teachers to observe
models, then organize
and rehearse what they
learned, and finally
practice what they have
learned.
Teachers need to be more
aware of their attitudes toward
victims and how their
attitudes affect their
intervention in bullying
incidents (metacognitive).
V The use of
metacognitive
strategies
facilitates learning
(Baker, 2006).
Provide opportunities
for learners to engage in
guided self-monitoring
and self-assessment
(Baker, 2006).
Declarative knowledge solutions. Teachers at St. Catholic School had a narrow view of
what constituted bullying behavior, often focusing on overt behavior such as physical or verbal
aggression that resulted in visible harm. In their view, this would be considered direct bullying.
These views were contrary to the existing research on bullying, showing that the most common
type of bullying reported is indirect non-verbal aggression (Junvoen & Grahm, 2014; Mishna,
2004; Varjas et al., 2008). Researchers have also shown that bullying can be used to promote
social dominance, most often in the classroom, and that relational bullying can happen among
friends (Hamarus & Kakkonen, 2008; Varjas et al., 2008) Even though teachers related incidents
that would be identified as indirect or non-verbal bullying, teachers did not recognize these as
bullying incidents. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) pointed out that the way a learner organizes
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 95
information will impact how they learn and how they can apply their learning. Rueda (2011)
confirmed that how a person stores and perceives knowledge is important in increasing their
recall. Teachers should receive factual knowledge and opportunities to sort and organize that
knowledge with previous learning. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) also noted that, when
information learned this way is meaningful, it stored more quickly and remembered more
accurately. Teachers need to be provided with experiences that will help them make sense of
information and not just memorize facts and concepts.
Procedural knowledge solutions. Teachers in this study admitted that they were not sure
of exact procedures for dealing with bullying at their school. Instead, they relied on their own
personal or professional experience when dealing with bullying. For acts of physical aggression,
teachers were more confident about their approach, which often took the form of taking the
student to the office, informing an administrator, or contacting the child’s parent. When it came
to bullying reported by students or verbal bullying, teachers often spoke to the students involved
or to the class in general. When dealing with students who had been socially excluded, teachers
tended to talk with the victim to help them cope. The failure of teachers in this study to recognize
relational bullying and develop strategies to deal with it is a problem—relational bullying is the
one type of bullying that becomes more common as students get older (Bauman & Del Rio,
2006). In order to develop those skills and strategies, teachers need opportunities to practice
relevant skills and strategies in order to promote automaticity (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
During the acquisition phase, learners should receive modeling, coaching, and guidance (Mayer,
2011). Teachers need to observe the skills being used and modeled, and then have opportunities
to rehearse and practice their acquired skills.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 96
Metacognitive knowledge solutions. Teachers in this study reported a particular
perception of why students bully and why certain students are victims. Teachers generally
assumed that students bullied because of low self-esteem, in an attempt to hide their
inadequacies, or because of problems at home. Teachers viewed victims as loners who were
small in stature, socially awkward, or uncharacteristically different. Both these perceptions were
counter to evidence in the existing literature that students bully in order to obtain power and
social status, with all types of students vulnerable to victimization (Hamarus & Kaikkonen,
2008; Juvonen & Grahm, 2014; Varjas et al., 2008). These beliefs about bullies and victims
affected how teachers dealt with each group of students. Teachers were more likely to talk to
bullies in an attempt to elicit their empathy for their victim. In contrast, teachers talked about
how victims needed to learn how to cope better or develop better social skills. Their different
approaches to bullies and victims were consistent with the evidence in the existing research that
teachers often blame the victim for being bullied, and are less likely to intervene as a result
(Mishna et al., 2005; Rosen et al., 2017). According to Baker (2006), people learn better when
they use metacognitive knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge also allows learners to know when
and why to do something and is a key component in strategic problem solving (Rueda, 2011).
Teachers require opportunities to engage in guided self-reflection on ways they have dealt with
bullying incidents, and to participate in discussions of the reasoning behind their decisions.
Motivation Recommendations
Table 6 includes all assumed motivation influences that have been validated through data
collection in this study. Motivation influences used to achieve the teachers’ goal were validated
based on the motivational influences that arose most often in semi-structured interviews. The two
motivational theories focused on in this section are self-efficacy theory and expectancy-value
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 97
theory. A teacher’s motivation may be a stronger predictor of their likelihood of intervening in
bullying than their knowledge or skill (Thoonen et al., 2011). Motivation is the internal state a
person draws on in order to start and complete a goal (Mayer, 2011). For teachers, motivation
affects how much effort they expend trying to achieve an educational reform or goal, as well as
their persistence in determining the success of that reform or goal (De Jesus & Lens, 2005). In
Table 6, the validation of these influences on teachers’ motivation to achieve their goal is shown.
The table also includes recommendations to help bridge the gaps in teachers’ stated motivational
influences.
Table 6
Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Validated/
Not Validated/
Partially
Validated
Principle and
Citation
Context-specific
Recommendation
Cost value—teachers
must believe that the
effort put forth in
intervening will have a
positive outcome.
PV Higher expectations
for success and
perceptions of
confidence can
influence learning
and motivation
positively (Eccles,
2006).
Provide models who
are credible and
similar who have had
success.
Self-efficacy—teachers
must believe that they
have the ability to
intervene in bullying
incidents effectively.
V High self-efficacy
can influence
motivation
positively (Pajares,
2009).
Provide goal-directed
practice coupled with
frequent, accurate,
credible, targeted and
private feedback on
progress in learning
and performance
(Pajares, 2009).
Self-Efficacy. Though teachers expressed that they felt confident in dealing with
bullying, they also stated that they were sometimes unsure how to deal with bullying. Instead,
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 98
they relied on personal or past professional experiences to determine how to respond, or
consulted another staff member. Teachers also indicated that they felt the need for more training
or more explicit policies to help them deal with bullying better. Teachers’ approaches to bullying
were situational in nature. This could result in inconsistent responses to bullying, which is
counter to evidence in the existing research that consistent responses from teachers are important
in curbing bullying (Fekkes et al., 2004). Thoonen et al. (2011) pointed out that teachers who are
not sure about their capabilities are more apt to avoid risks and maintain their current attitudes
than teachers who feel capable. Meyer (2008) found that most teachers did not intervene in
gendered harassment because they were not sure how or when to intervene, or did not feel they
had access to the strategies needed to produce a positive outcome. Providing teachers with goal-
directed practice coupled with frequent, accurate, credible, targeted and private feedback on
progress in learning and performance will enhance their self-efficacy (Pajares, 2009).
Value. Teachers in this study felt that students and parents over reported bullying.
Teachers also felt that defining and identifying bullying were difficult to do. Their belief aligns
with evidence in the relevant research that students feel teachers do not always address behavior
they consider bullying, instead responding to behaviors that do not amount to bullying (Mishna
et al., 2006). Though teachers seemed to express a sense of futility in dealing with bullying, there
is evidence that consistent interventions and responses to bullying result in fewer incidents of
bullying behavior (Fekkes et al., 2004). Meyer (2008) found that many teachers perceived the
cost of intervening in bullying as too high. Hircshstein et al. (2007) found that teachers were
more faithful in implementing an anti-bullying program if they perceived the outcome of their
intervention would make a difference. To aid teachers in improving their sense of cost-value in
intervening in and responding to bullying, teachers should receive coaching from models who
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 99
are credible, similar to them, and have had success in the behavior being coached (Pajares,
2009).
Organization Recommendations
Table 7 contains all the assumed organizational influences that were validated through
data collection. The organizational influences used to achieve the teachers’ goal were validated
based on the motivational influences identified most often in semi-structured interviews.
Organizational influences are organized into two categories—cultural models and cultural
settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Organizational culture is the aspect of an organization
that affects how a person is supposed to perceive, feel, and act in that organization (Schein,
2010). Culture provides a stable setting in which rules, policies, and actions can be established
and enacted (Lindahl, 2006; Schein, 2010).
Table 7
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence
Validated/
Not Validated/
Partially
Validated
Principle and Citation Context-specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model
Influence 1:
Administrators must
change their view of
bullying in the school
from something that is
inevitable to something
that can be changed.
V Effective change
begins by addressing
motivation
influencers. This
ensures the group
knows why it needs
to change. Next,
organizational
barriers and
knowledge and skills
needs are addressed
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
Provide administrators
with examples of
schools that have
addressed bullying
and then review how
school staff currently
address bullying.
Identify gaps to
determine steps to
take in closing those
gaps.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 100
Table 7 (continued)
Cultural Model
Influence 2:
Teachers require a
culture of cooperation
among colleagues so
that they can work
together to curb bullying
outside the classroom.
PV Effective
organizations ensure
that organizational
messages, rewards,
policies and
procedures that
govern the work of
the organization are
aligned with or are
supportive of
organizational goals
and values (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Provide opportunity to
examine current
policies and
procedures to align
them with the school
goal so that all
teachers are working
from the same
framework.
Cultural Setting
Influence 1:
The administration
needs to spend some of
its professional
development money and
time to address the
consequences of
bullying and make
curbing bullying one of
its accountability
measures
V Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.)
needed to do their
job, and that if there
are resource
shortages, then
resources are aligned
with organizational
priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Provide additional
training for teachers in
dealing with bullying
and create a
framework where
school goals are
periodically assessed
to provide increased
accountability.
Cultural models. In the school’s handbooks, which are an indicator of what school
administrators deem important, there were no explicit policies for dealing with bullying. Indeed,
bullying was mentioned only briefly in the school’s handbook for parents, and was not
mentioned at all in the handbook for teachers. There was no training or professional development
provided to help teachers at the school learn how to better recognize and respond to bullying.
The more teachers perceive that their administrators view bullying as an important issue to deal
with, the more effort teachers will put into responding to bullying (Meyer, 2008). The culture of
a school as an organization, including how students are treated and how bullying incidents are
handled by administrators or other teachers, informs teachers how they should deal with bullying
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 101
(Hirschstein et al., 2007). Meyer (2008) found that both external and internal influences could
prevent teachers from intervening in bullying. For teachers to be more effective in dealing with
bullying, administrators need to show they value teachers intervening in bullying. Using
comparative models helps teachers develop self-efficacy. This is because participants see
themselves in comparative models and feel they can achieve the same success (Pajares, 2009).
Providing administrators with examples of schools where staff have addressed bullying
effectively should help administrators recognize the gaps in their own approach. Administrators
should also provide opportunities for teachers to examine whether current policies and
procedures align with school goals so that all teachers are working from the same framework.
Though this implementation plan is focused on helping teachers meet their performance
goal, it is also recommended that administrators educate parents on school policies and
procedures. Often, teachers do not intervene in bullying in part because they feel frustrated and
overwhelmed by the professional demands placed on them and the lack of administrative support
they receive in meeting those demands (Meyer, 2008). If parents are educated about policies on
bullying, they may be less likely to question a teacher’s handling of a particular situation. This
type of education can take place at the beginning of the year in parent-teacher meetings, and
through follow up discussions in weekly newsletters sent to parents. Another issue discussed by
teachers was over-reporting of bullying by parents and students. Along with educating parents on
policies, it would be beneficial to hold a series of training sessions for parents on characteristics
of bullying behavior and strategies to help their child respond if they witness bullying or are
victimized themselves.
Cultural settings. Teachers unanimously reported that they needed more training and a
clear-cut policy on dealing with bullying. Teachers also admitted that, when they did deal with
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 102
bullying incidents, they did not rely on any specific training or policies. Teachers also noted that
the recommendation they would make to their principal would be to provide training in
identifying and responding to bullying. How teachers deal with bullying incidents impacts how
students perceive bullying (Atlas & Pepler, 1998; Mishna, 2004; Mishna et al., 2005). Teachers
who view themselves as a competent educator also believe they have greater control over the
learning or teaching process, making them feel more competent to deal with bullying (De Jesus
& Lens, 2005). In addition, external accountability systems can be used to develop the
mechanics of internal accountability and organizational capacity (Norton, Grubb & Badway,
2005). To help teachers develop competence in identifying and responding to bullying,
administrators should provide additional training on this subject, and create a framework through
which school goals are assessed periodically to provide increased accountability.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
To address knowledge gaps among teachers, it is recommended that teachers are
provided with (1) experiences, such as vignettes and scenarios, or videos to help them understand
types of bullying, (2) time to observe and rehearse strategies learned, (3) opportunities to engage
in self-assessment, and (4) factual knowledge and organizing tasks to identify types of bullying.
To address motivational gaps, it is recommended teachers are provided with (1) models who are
credible and have had success in a similar goal and (2) goal-directed practice and frequent,
targeted feedback. To address organizational gaps it is recommended that (1) administrators are
provided with examples of schools where similar programs have been implemented successfully,
(2) teachers are provided with opportunities to examine and align current policies and practices
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 103
to desired goals, and (3) administrators provide teachers with additional training on bullying and
create a method of accountability to assist teachers in meeting their goal.
To ensure that St. Catholic School will meet its established goal, a program will be
designed to implement the above recommendations. The first part of the program will consist of
two full-day workshops given within two months of each other, with a focus on bullying
identification, behavior, response, and strategies for intervention. In between the two workshops,
teachers will meet in a professional learning community to discuss how to work collaboratively
to curb bullying incidents. The last component of this program will provide teachers with
coaching to observe current practices and provide feedback toward progress.
The implementation of the program will be evaluated using the Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick New World Model (2016). The first component of this model is to determine Level 4
results, which are used to project outcomes from a successful program. For St. Catholic School,
these outcomes would include fewer complaints of bullying and a stronger reputation as a safe
school. Next, Level 3 critical behaviors and leading indicators are used to define behaviors that,
if practiced consistently by teachers and reinforced by required drivers implemented by the
administration, would demonstrate success toward the desired outcomes. Level 2 learning goals
for teachers are then established. These indicate the type of learning needed by teachers to
develop their knowledge and skills. Finally, assessment of Level 1 reactions is outlined and the
overall effectiveness of the training evaluated.
To determine progress made by the program being implemented, evaluation tools will be
created addressing all four Levels of the Kirkpatrick New World Model (2016). This tool will be
given to teachers immediately following the workshop training and then again three months
after. The data collected from these evaluations will be analyzed to verify progress and to
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 104
determine what steps should be taken to ensure success. This data will be reported to
stakeholders using graphical representations for quick and easy dissemination of results.
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The mission of St. Catholic School is to prepare its students for their future lives, as well
as preparing them to make a positive difference in the world. The school proposes to do this by
teaching the whole child, academically, emotionally, physically and spiritually. The
organizational goal of St. Catholic school is to provide a safe learning environment for all
students so it can meet its mission. Bullying incidents at the school create an unsafe environment
in and out of the classroom, inhibiting student achievement and emotional growth. The goal of
teachers at the school as stakeholders is to identify and respond to bullying behavior 100% of the
time. If teachers are able to identify and respond to bullying incidents, the number of bullying
incidents should decrease, creating a safer learning environment for students.
The recommendations proposed in this dissertation will help St. Catholic School meet its
organizational goal by 1) increasing teacher knowledge of bullying, allowing teachers to better
identify bullying in and out of the classroom, 2) increasing teacher self-efficacy and value
expectancy, 3) enhancing collaboration between teachers and administrators, and 4) creating
policies and procedures to deal with bullying incidents more effectively.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
In Table 9, proposed Level 4 Results and Leading Indicators are shown based on
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s New World Model (2016). In Figure 2, expected external
outcomes when teachers reach their performance goal are illustrated. At the outset of this
research, teachers at the school provided anecdotal evidence that they had received complaints
from parents that their child was being bullied. It was expected that an increase in teacher
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 105
identification of and responsiveness to bullying would lessen the number of parental complaints
about bullying. At the outset of this research, St. Catholic School had a strong academic
reputation among the local community. A decrease in incidents of bullying at the school should
result in the school also having a strong reputation as a safe learning environment. With this in
mind, the final desired outcome of reducing the incidence of bullying at St. Catholic School was
for parents to list the school’s provision of a safe learning environment as one of its strengths in
yearly parent surveys.
Teachers and
administration receive
fewer complaints of their
child being bullied or of
teachers not responding
to bullying.
Parent
Complaints
Within the wider
community, the school is
seen as a having a safe
learning environment
where behavioral issues
are handled effectively.
Community
Reputation
Parents list a safe
learning environment as
one of the strengths of
the school.
Parent
Perceptions
Figure 2. External Outcomes.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 106
Table 8
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Fewer parent complaints
about school climate
Parent complaints Phone and email records
Better reputation in the
community
Community perceptions School review sites
More positive parent
perceptions
Parent feedback Parent surveys
Internal outcomes
Improved student
behavior
Checklist developed by
teachers
Teacher reports at staff meetings
Improved implementation
of policies
Checklist developed by
principal
Teacher evaluations
Teachers are dealing with
bullying incidents
Number of complaints by
students
Time teachers spend dealing with
bullying
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Kirkpatrick (2016) defines critical behaviors as specific actions that,
when performed consistently have the greatest impact on achieving desired outcomes and
bringing about targeted goals. In order for the stakeholder group in question (i.e., teachers at the
school) to meet their goal of identifying and responding to bullying incidents, teachers will need
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 107
to exhibit critical behaviors relevant to their goal. In Table 9, behaviors that have been identified
as critical to achieving this goal are listed.
Table 9
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for the Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Teachers attend
training in
identifying types of
bullying behavior.
Number of training
activities focused on
bullying.
Principal collects sign-
in sheets from trainer.
Beginning of year
and again within
two months from
first training.
2. Teachers review
current policies and
develop new policies
as needed.
Policies and
procedures reviewed
and included in staff
handbook.
Principal will track
changes made in
policies and procedures
and include them in
new staff handbook.
Beginning of the
year; review after
training and again
toward the end of
the year.
3. Teachers discuss
strategies to deal with
bullying in PLC
meetings.
Number of
discussions held on
strategies.
Professional learning
community leader will
deliver to principal
minutes of discussions.
Monthly.
4. Teachers address
bullying behavior in
and out of the
classroom on a
regular basis.
Teacher reports from
yard supervision, as
well as regular
opportunities for
discussion in
classroom.
Principal will create
reporting form and
conduct periodic
observations of
classroom lessons.
Quarterly.
Required drivers. Required drivers are the key to accomplishing the desired results of the
learning achieved from the training (Kirkpatrick, 2016). Required drivers are used to encourage,
reinforce, and reward critical behaviors (Kirkpatrick, 2016). In Table 10, required drivers are
outlined that will support teachers in the critical behaviors that will help them achieve their
desired goals. Teachers’ critical behaviors will be reinforced through outside coaching, aiding in
implementing strategies. The Principal of St. Catholic School will provide examples of other
schools where desired practices and policies have been implemented successfully. The practice
of critical behaviors will be encouraged by the external coach and the School Principal, who will
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 108
provide feedback on desired behaviors. The Principal will arrange opportunities to meet with
teachers from other schools who have implemented similar critical behaviors successfully. To
reward critical behaviors, the Principal will publicly acknowledge teachers’ group and individual
efforts.
Table 10
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing Critical Behaviors Supported
(1, 2, 3, etc.)
Reinforcing
Outside coaching for teachers
to aid in implementing
strategies.
Quarterly 1
Principal will provide
examples of other schools’
policies and procedures.
beginning of school year 1, 2, 4
Forms with guiding questions
for professional learning
communities and reporting.
Monthly 3, 4
Encouraging
Feedback and coaching. Monthly 1
Collaborative opportunities
with teachers from other
schools who have experience
with bullying.
Fall and spring 1, 4
Rewarding
Public acknowledgement of
teachers’ work in and out of
the classroom.
Monthly 1, 3, 4
Individual acknowledgement
of individual teachers.
Weekly 1, 3, 4
Monitoring
Principal reviews forms and
agendas from teacher
professional learning
communities meetings
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
Principal will conduct formal
and informal observations.
Weekly 1, 2, 3,4
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 109
Organizational support. The critical behaviors and required drivers are based on the
researcher’s assumption that recommendations at the organizational level have been met. To
support Critical Behaviors 1 and 2, the Principal will provide training for teachers on bullying, as
well as an opportunity for policies and procedures to be reviewed and revised as needed. To
support Critical Behaviors 3 and 4, the Principal will schedule a time for teachers to meet on a
regular basis and provide guidance and support on how to conduct professional learning
community meetings. To ensure the required drivers are in place, the Principal will provide
outside coaching for teachers, identify and contact other schools who are successful in meeting
similar goals, and establish methods and procedures for affirming and acknowledging teacher
progress.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following the completion of the recommended program, most notably
the training of teachers in identifying and responding to bullying, teachers will be able to:
1. Define the various types of bullying (D)
2. Identify how bullying manifests in and out of the classroom (D)
3. Recognize the difference between bullying and non-bullying behavior (C)
4. Understand the role teachers play in stopping bullying (A)
5. Value efforts to stop bullying (C)
6. Collaborate with other teachers in stopping bullying (D)
Program. The following program is intended to help the targeted stakeholders (that is,
teachers) reach the learning goals stated above. The first part of the program will consist of two
full-day workshops given within two months of each other, with a focus on bullying
identification, behavior, response, and strategies for intervention. During these workshops,
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 110
teachers will be given information about types of bullying and examples of bullying behavior.
Teachers will then identify bullying behavior in varying scenarios and conduct a gallery walk of
types and characteristics of bullying. Types of bullying behavior will be placed on chart paper
around the room. Teachers will visit each type of bullying behavior and list characteristics or
actions associated with that particular behavior. Teachers will also be informed of how bullying
affects students and classroom behavior, as well as the effects of teacher responses to bullying
behavior. Teachers will be exposed to schools where teachers have curbed bullying through
successful interventions. Next, teachers will practice and model various strategies to respond and
intervene in bullying scenarios. In between the two workshops, teachers will meet in a
professional learning community (PLC) in order to discuss how to work collaboratively to curb
bullying incidents. The last component of this program will provide teachers with coaching to
observe current practices and receive feedback toward progress.
Evaluation of components of learning. To apply these learning goals, teachers require
the knowledge, skills, and motivation needed to achieve their goals. To ensure that teachers are
meeting these learning goals, their progress in knowledge, skills, and motivation needs to be
evaluated. Evaluating the components of learning will also help the trainer check for
understanding and improve teacher efficacy. In Table 11, methods of evaluation to be used for
knowledge, skills, and motivation are outlined, as well as when the evaluation will occur.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 111
Table 11
Evaluation of Components of Learning from the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using gallery walk During training
Knowledge check for understanding using
think-pair-share
During training
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Role play using acquired strategies During training
Think-pair-share on responses to bullying
scenarios
At the end of training
Goal setting on next steps for teacher with
regards to response to bullying
At the end of training
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Discuss how bullying affects victims and how
teacher response changes bullying incidents
During training
Discussion and learning log by teachers on
value of teacher response
During PLC
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Feedback from teachers At the end of training
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Develop collaborative plan with other
teachers
During PLC
Goal setting with teachers During PLC
Level 1: Reaction
Kirkpatrick (2015) noted that the purpose of evaluating Level 1 reactions is to quickly
and efficiently determine how well a program or training session is working. This evaluation can
be formative (i.e., gathered during training) or summative (i.e., gathered at the end of training).
Through formative evaluations, learners’ comfort, engagement, and satisfaction are measured.
Summative reaction and feedback are used to evaluate how the learner feels about the training
overall, including presenter competency, relevancy, and application of content. In Table 12,
methods and tools that will be used to collect formative and summative Level 1 reactions are
listed.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 112
Table 12
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Observations by trainer at workshop During training
Meaningful questions about bullying and
application of strategies
During training
Pulse check During training
Relevance
Pulse check-discussion during workshop During training
Workshop evaluation After training
Customer Satisfaction
Workshop evaluation After training
Evaluation Tools
Immediately after program implementation. It is important to evaluate how participants
react to the training and how well they understanding and apply what they have learned
(Kirkpatrick, 2016). Immediately after the training, teachers will be evaluated to determine their
Level 1 and Level 2 reactions to the training. To do this, participants will be asked to complete
an evaluation tool for the training (Appendix C). This evaluation tool will provide feedback on
the quality of the training, the competence of the trainer, the quality of materials, the adequacy of
the venue, and an overall impression of the training. The evaluation tool will also provide
feedback on how confident teachers feel in applying what they learned. This will be done by
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 113
asking teachers to apply what they have learned to scenarios, and what part of the training they
will implement, by creating goals that can be measured in a three-month period.
Delayed for a period after the program’s implementation. Level 3 and Level 4 reactions
include applied behavior and desired results. As such, they cannot be evaluated immediately
after training (Kirkpatrick, 2016). To evaluate these two levels and re-evaluate the first two
levels, a second evaluation tool will be administered three months after the training to provide
ample time for the application of training (see Appendix D). Level 1 questions focus on how
valuable teachers see the training as being, while Level 2 questions focus on procedural
knowledge, asking teachers to apply knowledge to new scenarios. Level 3 questions will focus
on how well the teachers have applied their training. Level 4 questions will focus on how well
teachers met their stated goal and how the training has affected the school’s overall goal.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Data analysis and reporting are important components for evaluating the effectiveness of
training and intervention programs. The training program to be provided for teachers is intended
to help them acquire knowledge, develop skills, and assist in applying what they have learned to
practice. Teachers will be evaluated immediately after the training and then again three months
later. Data will be collected and analyzed then reported to stakeholders. The first reporting of
data will be to teachers and school administrators in order to demonstrate the progress made by
teachers as a result of the training. In Figure 2, a mockup of a graphic used to show growth is
shown.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 114
Figure 3. Mockup of Graphic to Show Growth.
The second reporting of data will show the effectiveness of training on teacher behavior
and will note changes that have occurred among teachers and in the school as a result of the
training. In Figure 3, a mockup of this data is shown.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 115
Figure 4. Mockup of Presented Data.
Summary
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Model was the framework used to plan,
implement and evaluate the recommendations for reducing bullying at St. Catholic School. Using
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 116
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) backward design approach, the first component identified was the Level 4
results, which would be obtained from a successful program to equip teachers to identify and
respond to bullying incidents. Next, Level 3 critical behaviors and leading indicators were
defined. If practiced consistently by teachers and reinforced through required drivers
implemented by school administrators, these indicators would demonstrate success toward the
desired outcomes. Next, Level 2 learning goals for teachers were established. These are designed
to indicate the type of learning needed by teachers to develop their knowledge and skills. Finally,
assessment of Level 1 reactions was outlined to ensure that teachers are engaged in the training,
and to measure the overall effectiveness of the training. To determine the effectiveness and
progress of the recommended program, evaluation tools were created. These evaluation tools will
be used immediately after the teacher training and then again three months after the initial
training. Next, data will be analyzed to verify progress and discern steps needed to ensure
success. Finally, data will be reported to stakeholders using graphical representations for quick
and easy dissemination of results.
Strengths and Weaknesses of this Approach
All methodological approaches have strengths and weaknesses. In the following section,
the strengths and weaknesses of the approach used in this study are outlined. Using Clark and
Estes’ (2008) KMO framework to identify gaps through assumed influences was appropriate for
this study. Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO framework assumes that multiple influences affect the
ability of an organization or stakeholder group to achieve a desired goal. In tackling a topic such
as bullying and how teachers identify and respond to bullying, examining influences from
multiple perspectives gives a fuller picture of the problem at hand. The use of Clark and Estes’
(2008) framework also provides multiple approaches for the organization in question, St.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 117
Catholic School, to address any gaps identified. When addressing how a stakeholder is meeting a
goal, leaders in many organizations tend to examine the problem from one perspective (e.g.,
solely from the perspective of stakeholder behavior). Often, organizational behavior that may be
hindering achievement of stakeholder goals is ignored through this approach. The KMO
framework mitigates this tendency. In the case of St. Catholic School, it was found that the
organization’s climate and culture did affect teachers’ perspectives and behavior. The use of a
case study involving a particular school and how its staff met their organizational goal was both
a strength and weakness in this research. By focusing on one school, the researcher gained a
better understanding of how the organization affected teacher behavior and how collective
teacher behavior affected the attainment of the organizational goal of providing a safe
environment for students with regards to bullying. However, as a result of this approach,
conclusions from this research cannot be generalized beyond this particular organization and
stakeholder group.
Future Research
In this study, the researcher focused on how teachers as a stakeholder group identified
and responded to bullying. There are several possibilities to conduct future research related to
this study. One influence studied in this research was how organizational culture affected teacher
behavior—in particular, how the organization’s policies emphasized or de-emphasized the
importance of addressing bullying. It would be interesting to conduct a comparative case study
involving multiple schools in order to compare schools where administrators emphasize the
importance of addressing bullying to schools without that emphasis. In the schools where
administrators emphasized the importance of addressing bullying, it is possible that teachers
would demonstrate better identification of and responses to bullying. Another area for further
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 118
research would be how teachers’ personal experiences of bullying affect how they respond to
bullying. In this study, teachers who admitted to being bullied at school (or while of school age)
seemed more inclined to focus on developing victims’ coping skills than addressing a bully’s
behavior. On this basis, it is possible that teachers who have personal experience of bullying,
either as a victim or bully, are more or less effective in responding to bullying than teachers with
no experience of bullying.
Conclusion
The problem of bullying in schools is challenging to address. Bullying is experienced by
a third of students directly and by almost all students indirectly. Bullying happens covertly,
through exclusion or ostracizing, and overtly, through physical and verbal aggression. Bullying
happens in and out of the classroom, when students are away from the supervision of
teachers—and even when teachers are present. Teachers respond to physical aggression more
often than other types of bullying because victims’ suffering is more obvious. However, the
greatest damage done by bullying goes unseen. Victims are left with psychological damage that
affects their physical and mental health beyond their school years. Bystanders are forced to
conform to and accept bullying behavior lest they be targeted, and educators and administrators
are left with students who are less engaged in school and underperform academically.
And yet, bullying persists in schools—not because teachers do not want to deal with the
problem, but because teachers do not know how to deal with the problem. Lack of understanding
and knowledge of bullying behavior makes recognition difficult for teachers. Lack of formal
training on how to effectively deal with bullying makes handling bullying incidents arduous. To
curb the incidence of bullying, teachers must be able to identify how it manifests and to respond
consistently as it happens. The message must be clear—bullying is unacceptable. However,
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 119
teachers need support in order to deliver this message effectively. And, like many social
problems, far-reaching changes are required to address the problem of bullying in schools.
Teacher responses to bullying must change, along with school administrator responses. Bullying
is not simply a problem faced by children—it is a problem that affects a school’s entire
community. For that reason, input from everyone in the school community is required in order to
curb and prevent bullying. Only then will bullying in schools be eradicated altogether.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 120
References
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A
topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176–192.
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attribution theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/.
Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. The Journal of
Educational Research, 92(2), 86–99.
Baker, L. (2006). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for metacognitively
oriented reading instruction. In Metacognition in literacy learning (pp. 83–102).: Routledge.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1–26.
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.
Borgwald, K., & Theixos, H. (2013). Bullying the bully: Why zero-tolerance policies get a
failing grade. Social Influence, 8(2-3), 149–160.
Boulton, M. J. (1997). Teachers’ views on bullying: Definitions, attitudes and ability to
cope. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(2), 223–233.
Burger, C., Strohmeier, D., Spröber, N., Bauman, S., & Rigby, K. (2015). How teachers respond
to school bullying: An examination of self-reported intervention strategy use, moderator
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 121
effects, and concurrent use of multiple strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51,
191–202.
Cassidy, W. (2005). From zero tolerance to a culture of care. Education Canada, 45(3), 40–44.
Clark, R. E., Estes, F., Middlebrook, R. H., & Palchesko, A. (2004). Turning research into
results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions, 43(1), 44–46.
Council for American Private Education. (2015, January). Federal Report Looks at Crime and
Safety in Schools. CAPE Outlook: Voice of America's Private Schools, 401, 1.
Craig, W. M. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and
aggression in elementary school children. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(1),
123–130.
Craig, W. M., Henderson, K., and Murphy, J. G. (2000). Prospective teachers’ attitudes toward
bullying and victimization. School Psychology International, 21(1), 5–21.
Deans for Impact (2015). The Science of Learning. Austin, TX: Deans for Impact.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Contemporary educational
psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
Espelage, D. L., & Asidao, C. S. (2001). Conversations with middle school students about
bullying and victimization. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2–3), 49–62.
doi:10.1300/J135v02n02_04
Flores, M. A. (2004). The impact of school culture and leadership on new teachers’ learning in
the workplace. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(4), 297-318.
Frisén, A., Holmqvist, K., & Oscarsson, D. (2008). 13 year olds’ perception of bullying:
definitions, reasons for victimization and experience of adults’ response. Educational
Studies, 34(2), 105–117.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 122
Gillette, L. M., Zhan, A., Wang, K., Zhang, J., & Oudekerk, B. A. (2017, May). Indicators of
School Crime and Safety. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017064.pdf
Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., Borghi, F., & Franzoni, L. (2008). The role of bystanders in students’
perception of bullying and sense of safety. Journal of School Psychology, 46(6), 617–638.
Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A
meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123(3), 1059–1065.
Glew, G. M., Fan, M. Y., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying,
psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. Archives of
pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 159(11), 1026–1031.
Goldweber, A., Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Examining associations between
race, urbanicity, and patterns of bullying involvement. Journal of youth and
adolescence, 42(2), 206–219.
Gregory, A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P., Shih, T., & Huang, F. (2010). Authoritative school
discipline: High school practices associated with lower bullying and victimization. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 483.
Hamarus, P., & Kaikkonen, P. (2008). School bullying as a creator of pupil peer
pressure. Educational research, 50(4), 333–345.
Hawkins, D., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer
interventions in bullying. Social development, 10(4), 512–527.
Hirschstein, M. K., Edstrom, L. V. S., Frey, K. S., Snell, J. L., & MacKenzie, E. P. (2007).
Walking the talk in bullying prevention: Teacher implementation variables related to initial
impact of the Steps to Respect program. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 3.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 123
Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and
bully-victims. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(8), 984–994.
Honey, Charles (2011, August 25). Catholic schools not immune to bullying. Retrieved from
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/25/catholic-schools-bullying_n_884389.html
Howard, A. M., Landau, S., & Pryor, J. B. (2014). Peer bystanders to bullying: Who wants to
play with the victim?. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 42(2), 265–276.
Hymel, S., & Swearer, S. M. (2015). Four decades of research on school bullying: An
introduction. American Psychologist, 70(4), 293.
Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2014). Bullying in schools: The power of bullies and the plight of
victims. Annual review of psychology, 65, 159–185.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpelä, M., Rantanen, P., & Rimpelä, A. (2000). Bullying at school—an
indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of adolescence, 23(6), 661–674
Kezar, A. (2000). Pluralistic leadership—bringing diverse voices to the table. About
Campus, 5(3), 6–11.
Kirkpatrick, J. (2015). An Introduction to the New World Kirkpatrick® Model. Newnan, GA:
Kirkpatrick Partners.
Klomek, A. B., Snir, A., Apter, A., Carli, V., Wasserman, C., Hadlaczky, G., ... & Brunner, R.
(2016). Association between victimization by bullying and direct self-injurious behavior
among adolescence in Europe: A ten-country study. European Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 25(11), 1183–1193.
Konishi, C., Hymel, S., Zumbo, B. D., & Li, Z. (2010). Do school bullying and student-teacher
relationships matter for academic achievement? A multilevel analysis. Canadian Journal of
School Psychology, 25(1), 19–39.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 124
Kump, B., Moskaliuk, J., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2015). Cognitive foundations of
organizational learning: Re-introducing the distinction between declarative and non-
declarative knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1489.
Kumpulainen, K., & Räsänen, E. (2000). Children involved in bullying at elementary school age:
Their psychiatric symptoms and deviance in adolescence: An epidemiological sample. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 24(12), 1567–1577
Lacey, A., & Cornell, D. (2013). The impact of teasing and bullying on schoolwide academic
performance. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 29(3), 262–283.
Lindahl, R. (2006). The role of organizational climate and culture in the school improvement
process: A review of the knowledge base. Educational Leadership Review, 7(1), 19–29.
MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on
student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73–84.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Mehta, S. B., Cornell, D., Fan, X., & Gregory, A. (2013). Bullying climate and school
engagement in ninth grade students. Journal of School Health, 83(1), 45–52.
Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2017). Bullying in schools: The state of knowledge and effective
interventions. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(1), 240–253.
Meyer, E. J. (2008). Gendered harassment in secondary schools: Understanding teachers’ (non)
interventions. Gender and Education, 20(6), 555–570.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 125
Mishna, F., Scarcello, I., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2005). Teachers’ understanding of
bullying. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 718–738.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001).
Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial
adjustment. JAMA, 285(16), 2094–2100.
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Digest of Education Statistics 2016. Retrieved
from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_205.20.asp
NBC News. (2018, February 13). Florida bill would pay for bullied students to go to private
school. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-bill-would-let-
bullied-students-go-private-school-n847096
Neves de Jesus, S. N., & Lens, W. (2005). An integrated model for the study of teacher
motivation. Applied Psychology, 54(1), 119–134.
O’Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and
challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22(4), 437–452.
Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention. European Journal
of Psychology of Education, 12(4), 495.
Östberg, V., Modin, B., & Låftman, S. B. (2018). Exposure to school bullying and psychological
health in young adulthood: A prospective 10-year follow-up study. Journal of School
Violence, 17(2), 194–209.
Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory
Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. The Canadian Journal of
Psychiatry, 48(9), 583–590.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 126
Rodkin, P. C., Hanish, L. D., Wang, S., & Logis, H. A. (2014). Why the bully/victim relationship
is so pernicious: A gendered perspective on power and animosity among bullies and their
victims. Development and Psychopathology, 26(3), 689–704.
Rose, C. A., Monda-Amaya, L. E., & Espelage, D. L. (2010). Bullying perpetration and
victimization in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education,
32(2), 114-130.
Rosen, L. H., Scott, S. R., & DeOrnellas, K. (2017). Teachers’ perceptions of bullying: A focus
group approach. Journal of school violence, 16(1), 119–139.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: John
Wiley & Sons.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2013). Information processing theory. In Information Processing
Theory (pp. 420–433)
Skiba, R. J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school
disciplinary practice. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2001(92), 17–43.
Stockdale, M. S., Hangaduambo, S., Duys, D., Larson, K., & Sarvela, P. D. (2002). Rural
elementary students’, parents’, and teachers’ perceptions of bullying. American Journal of
Health Behavior, 26(4), 266–277.
Swearer, S. M., & Cary, P. T. (2003). Perceptions and attitudes toward bullying in middle school
youth: A developmental examination across the bully/victim continuum. Journal of Applied
School Psychology, 19(2), 63–79.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 127
The Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education. (n.d.). The Catholic School. Retrieved from
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_
19770319_catholic-school_en.html
Thoonen, E. E., Sleegers, P. J., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T., & Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How to
improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and
leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 496–536.
Thornberg, R., & Knutsen, S. (2011, June). Teenagers’ explanations of bullying. Child & Youth
Care Forum, 40(3), 177–192.
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce
bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 7(1), 27–56.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the
United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent health, 45(4),
368–375.
Wheeler, D., & Sillanpa, M. (1998). Including the stakeholders: The business case. Long Range
Planning, 31(2), 201–210
Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., & Davis, C.
(2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same
thing?. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(6), 486–495.
Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Bellmoff, L., Lopp, E., Birckbichler, L., & Marshall, M. (2008). Missing
voices: Fourth through eighth grade urban students’ perceptions of bullying. Journal of
School Violence, 7(4), 97–118.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 128
Yoon, J. S., & Kerber, K. (2003). Bullying: Elementary teachers’ attitudes and intervention
strategies. Research in Education, 69(1), 27–35.
Yoon, J. S. (2004). Predicting teacher interventions in bullying situations. Education and
Treatment of Children, 27(1), 37–45.
Yoon, J., Sulkowski, M. L., & Bauman, S. A. (2016). Teachers’ responses to bullying incidents:
Effects of teacher characteristics and contexts. Journal of School Violence, 15(1), 91–113.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 129
Appendices
Appendix A:
Stakeholder Descriptions
Mary has worked in education for 30 years and has taught all grades, from pre-school to
college, in public and private schools. Mary has taught at St. Catholic School for eight years and
has held different positions at the school, including leadership roles. Mary has received no
specific training on how to respond to bullying. Instead, she has relied on her personal
experience as a teacher and as a mom in determining how to deal with any incidents that arise.
Peter has been a teacher for the past 12 years. He has taught several different subjects in
public and private schools. He has worked with students in some capacity for the past 25 years,
including in roles that involved no direct interaction with students. Peter has been at St. Catholic
School for six years, teaching two subjects. Peter received training in responding to bullying
through a previous position that required certification in dealing with adult and student
harassment. Through his work with students outside of school hours, Peter has more interaction
with students than most of the other teachers at St. Catholic School.
Elizabeth began her career in the business world and went to school at night to earn her
teaching degree. Elizabeth mentioned that she was reluctant to enter the education field. In fact,
she returned to business after receiving her degree and completing a practical placement at a
public school. After her family relocated, she worked as a substitute teacher for one year before
accepting her current position at St. Catholic School. Elizabeth has been at St. Catholic School
for 16 years and has taught different grade levels. Elizabeth has received no formal training in
responding to bullying. Instead, she has relied on books or guidance from school administrators
or counselors in dealing with bullying incidents.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 130
Anna has worked in education for 13 years and has taught in both public and private
schools. Anna has taught mainly middle school grades but has some experience teaching younger
grades. Anna has worked at St. Catholic School for the past three years. Anna noted that an
afternoon workshop at a faculty meeting on conflict resolution had helped her deal with bullying
among students. However, she admitted that she relied on her faith and the teachings of the
Church as her guide to dealing with students.
Andrew has worked in education for the past 15 years and has worked with high school
and elementary students. Andrew continues to teach high school students on a part-time basis.
Andrew has worked at St. Catholic School for four years and teaches several subjects. Andrew
mentioned that he had completed an online workshop on child abuse to meet diocese
requirements. He said this workshop had covered bullying, but mostly focused on child abuse
and mandatory reporting.
Daniel has taught in both public and private schools from kindergarten through high
school for the past 13 years. Daniel reported that he had worked with students from various
socio-economic backgrounds across the United States. Daniel has taught at St. Catholic School
for three years and teaches students from several grades. Daniel mentioned that he was bullied
when he was in school and uses that experience as the basis for his understanding of what
bullying is and how to deal with bullying incidents.
Hannah has worked in education for four years, all of them at St. Catholic School.
Hannah is undertaking a program to clear her teaching credentials through the local public school
district. Hannah noted that her personal and professional experience, as well as her own research,
had helped her deal with bullying among students.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 131
Margaret has worked in education for six years at high school and elementary levels, all
in Catholic schools. She has taught at St. Catholic School for three years. Margaret did not
mention that she had received any formal training in dealing with bullying. Instead, she drew on
her own experience with bullying in schools in identifying bullying and deciding how to
respond.
Martha has worked in education for six years, five of which were in public schools. 2019
was Martha’s first year at St. Catholic School. Martha described her faith as the main factor she
relied on in responding to bullying. Martha attended Catholic schools as a child, and noted that
her faith-based education had given her a particular lens with which to view (and respond to)
other people’s actions.
Esther has worked in different education settings for 27 years. She began her career
working with special education students and students with communicative disorders. Esther has
worked with students one-on-one and in classroom settings. She has worked at St. Catholic
School for 10 years. Esther feels that her extensive training in working with special education
students, as well as school counseling courses she has taken, have helped her deal with bullying
among students. Esther has created a quarterly curriculum from gathered resources which she
uses with students to address bullying.
Abigail has worked in education for 15 years. Prior to teaching, she worked in the
corporate world for a number of years. She has taught high school as well as elementary
students. Abigail has worked at St. Catholic School for five years and teaches students from
various grades. In dealing with bullying incidents and helping students move past problems with
other students, Abigail reported that she relies on her experience working with students.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 132
Deborah has worked in education for seven years, including five as a teacher’s assistant
while earning her teaching credentials. She has worked at St. Catholic School for two years.
Deborah works primarily with one grade. Deborah reported that her credential training had
prepared her for dealing with bullying incidents. In responding to bullying at the school, she felt
that she relied on her overall training in dealing with and understanding students.
Joanna has worked in education for 14 years and has taught at St. Catholic School for 11
years, all in the same grade. Joanna credits her ability to deal with bullying incidents and help
students who experience bullying to her overall professional experience.
Lydia has worked in education for 11 years, all of them at St. Catholic School. She has
taught multiple grades. Like Joanna, Lydia credits her ability to deal with bullying incidents to
her overall professional experience.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 133
Appendix B:
Interview Protocol
Research Questions
1. To what extent is St. Catholic School meeting its goal of reducing the incidence of
bullying?
2. What stakeholder knowledge, motivation and organizational elements are relevant to
achieving this goal?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences.
Introduction
I am a graduate student at the University of Southern California studying organizational
leadership and change. I would like to thank you for participating in this study. The purpose of
this interview is to understand the perspectives of teachers with regards to bullying at your
school. Your participation in this study is voluntary and you can stop the interview at any time
and skip any questions you wish. All your responses will remain anonymous. You will not be
named in any of the documents nor will anything be attributed to any specific person. Your name
or any identifiable characteristics will not be shared with anyone, nor will anything said during
this interview be shared or discussed with anyone else.
General Questions
1. What is your educational background?
2. How many years have you been teaching, and how many at St. Catholic School?
3. How would you describe the culture of the school?
4. What are the current policies of the school with regards to bullying?
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 134
5. What do you feel the school does well with regards to bullying and what do you feel can
be done better?
Knowledge Questions
1. How would you define bullying?
a. Would you give me examples of bullying behavior you’ve experienced at school?
b. Would you give me an example of bullying you’ve been told about by students?
2. When a student complains about being bullied, take me through the steps you go through
to handle those situations?
3. Can you tell me about a time you intervened that was a positive experience and why do
you feel it turned out positively?
4. Is there a situation you wish you would have handled better? What do you feel you could
have done better?
5. What do you feel are student complaints about the way teachers handle bullying?
6. Tell me how you would handle the following situations:
a. A student keeps pushing another student on the playground.
b. A group of girls calls Sarah names, starts rumors, and encourage others not to
talk to her.
c. A parent calls you to say that their son, Ryan, has been getting bullied all year.
They report that the boys take his book bag from him and they make jokes about
him when they see him in the hall or in the lunch room. He is now afraid to go to
school and won’t take the bus.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 135
Motivation Questions
1. How capable do you feel at addressing bullying? What do you think would make you feel
more capable? Or, what is it that makes you feel capable?
2. Are there cases or instances where you do not feel like you should intervene?
3. What experiences have you had as a teacher that affect the way you deal with bullying
situations?
4. In your opinion, why do you feel bullying is a problem in schools?
5. What advice would you give a new teacher in dealing with bullying?
Organization Questions
1. What do you feel is the school’s role in bullying?
2. If you were asked by your principal to be on a committee to address bullying, what would
you recommend?
3. As a school, what do you feel are the current challenges for teachers in dealing with
bullying?
4. How would you like your principal to deal with bullying?
5. What additional support or resources do you feel are needed to address bullying?
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 136
Appendix C:
Evaluation of Program
Please be as candid as possible as you answer the following questions:
Strongly
Agree (4)
Agree (3) Somewhat
Agree (2)
Disagree (1)
Program Management
1. The program was well
executed.
O O O O
2. The program was well
organized.
O O O O
3. The facilities were
conducive to adult learning.
O O O O
Presenter and Content
4. The presenter was well
prepared.
O O O O
5. The information was clearly
presented.
O O O O
6. The presenter responded
effectively to questions related
to the workshop topic.
O O O O
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 137
7. The content was presented
in an interactive and engaging
manner.
O O O O
8. The information is easily
transferable to my classroom
instruction.
O O O O
9. I would recommend this
workshop to fellow
colleagues.
O O O O
Check (a) one of the ratings
below:
Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor
Overall rating of the event
(presenter, content, materials,
delivery)
O O O O
What aspects of the event were most beneficial for you?
What, if any, modifications would you make to the event?

Read the following scenarios and identify the type of bullying that is occurring and possible
strategies you would use to address the incident.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 138
1) A trio of students regularly oblige a new student in school to give them his lunch. The
student in question does not report the situation, fearing reprisals.
2) An adolescent girl announces that her best friend was “stolen” by another girl, who set
her whole friendship group against her.
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 139
Appendix D:
Evaluation of Program (Quarterly)
Please be as candid as possible as you answer the following questions:
Strongly
Agree (4)
Agree (3) Somewhat
Agree (2)
Disagree (1)
Effectiveness of Program
1. The program has been
effective
O O O O
2. The program has changed
my practice.
O O O O
3. I feel better prepared to
handle bullying incidents
O O O O

HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 140

What Does Bullying Look Like?
Use the scenarios below to discuss what is happening in each scenario.
Scenario 1: Rukiya, usually an easy going and friendly student who loves to participate, has
started sitting in a corner in the back of the room and no longer participates in classroom
activities. Recently, you observed two students walking behind Rukiya whispering to each other
as they leave the classroom. Does this constitute bullying? Justify your answer.
Scenario 2: Judy, Phyllis, and Crissy are friends and are in Grade 8. Judy and Phyllis live in the
projects with their parents. All three girls ride the school bus home from school. Susan and Alisa,
both ninth graders, also ride the same bus. One day Sharon and Vicki start repeatedly calling
Judy and Crissy “ghetto,” making fun of their clothes and belongings. One day, Phyllis,
frustrated with the ongoing harassment of her friends, shouts at Sharon and Vicki, “Why don’t
you shut up and leave Judy and Crissy alone!”. Susan gets up and pushes Phyllis and says, “You
HOW TEACHERS IDENTIFY AND RESPOND TO BULLYING 141
shut up! Why do you hang out with those ghetto girls anyway?”. Does this constitute bullying?
Justify your answer.
Scenario 3: Today is the day that your students are presenting their posters at the conclusion of
their family culture projects. All students are supposed to stand up and talk about their culture
and what they put on their posters. When Anna talks about her family, someone in the back of
the room yells, “That’s creepy!”. Does this constitute bullying? Justify your answer.
Outcomes of Training
1. Give an example of how you have used the strategies learned.
2. How has the training affected your ability to handle bullying incidents?
3. What would help you be more effective in handling bullying incidents?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Bullying remains a problem in American schools. According to 2016 statistics from the National Center for Education, one out of every five students reported being bullied and, of those students, 33% indicated they were bullied once or twice a month. Intervention from adults, and especially teachers, can be effective in curbing bullying. However, researchers have shown that most teachers do not notice bullying or fail to respond to it effectively. In this qualitative evaluation study, the researcher examined how staff at St. Catholic School (a pseudonym for a Kindergarten to Grade 8 Catholic school in the western United States) met their organizational goal of providing a safe environment for students by reducing bullying. Using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model as the conceptual framework, the researcher evaluated teachers’ organizational performance and determined the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that impacted teachers’ ability to identify and respond to bullying. Key findings from this study were that teachers struggle to define bullying, and are better at identifying and responding to overly aggressive bullying behavior than indirect bullying. In addition, in the absence of clear anti-bullying policies, teachers in this study relied on past experiences when determining how to deal with bullying behavior. As a result of this lack of formal training, teachers in this study exhibited attitudes and perceptions that affected the strategies they used to respond to bullying. This dissertation concludes with recommendations for developing a program to provide training and support for teachers in order to increase their knowledge and understanding of bullying, as well as developing formal school policies to help teachers respond to bullying incidents.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The inconsistency of teachers reporting and intervening in bullying situations: an evaluation study

PDF

Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India

PDF

Increasing the number of minoritized teachers in the Apex public schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

Strengthening community: how to effectively implement a conflict resolution and peer mediation program on a secondary school campus: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

PDF

Fundraising in small health and human service nonprofit organizations: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Civic learning program policy compliance by a state department of higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Reforming student discipline policies in elementary schools: an improvement study

PDF

The racially responsive facilitator: an evaluation study

PDF

Equitable schooling for African American students: an evaluation study

PDF

Implementing standards-based grading in the era of common standards: an evaluation study

PDF

Affluent teens and school stress: an evaluation study

PDF

Advisor impact on student veterans at a post-secondary institution: an evaluation study

PDF

Access to standards-based curriculum for students with severe and multiple disabilities: an evaluation study

PDF

Online graduate-level student learning and engagement: developing critical competencies for future leadership roles: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Cortez, Ruben F. (author)

Core Title How teachers identify and respond to bullying: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/30/2019

Defense Date 05/01/2019

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

Tag bullying,education,identification,intervention,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monica (committee chair), Lynch, Douglas (committee member), Robles, Darlene (committee member)

Creator Email rfcortez@usc.edu,rubenfcortez@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-201184

Unique identifier UC11662679

Identifier etd-CortezRube-7693.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-201184 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CortezRube-7693.pdf

Dmrecord 201184

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Cortez, Ruben F.

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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