Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Components Implemented by Elementary Classroom and Specialist Teachers

Abstract

We investigated implementation fidelity of programmatic activities of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP) among 2,022 teachers, 88.5% female, from 88 elementary schools located in Pennsylvania. Results indicated that the majority of respondents had attended the school kick-off event, posted the rules in the classroom, and explained the rules to students. Receiving booster sessions and activities involving parental involvement were the least likely elements to have been performed. Logistic regression analyses revealed that teachers with confidence in their ability to implement the OBPP had completed all of the OBPP programmatic activities. Similarly, multiple regression analysis results revealed that teachers with self-efficacy to implement the OBPP implemented more components than respondents without self-efficacy. In addition, teachers with more OBPP experience were more likely to have completed individual-level activities. Our findings reveal that certain OBPP components are easier to perform than others and that implementer characteristics matter.

Teachers’ Self-efficacy in Preventing and Intervening in School Bullying: a Systematic Review

“…(2 studies) In one study, the selfefficacy of teachers was not connected to the time that the teachers actually spent on the implementation of the KiVa anti-bullying program (originally developed by Salmivalli and colleagues for schools in Finland) or the amount of lessons they gave on it (Swift 2016/Swift et al 2017). In the second study that addressed this topic, Cecil and Molnar-Main (2015) found that teachers with higher self-efficacy beliefs implemented the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program more extensively. When interpreting these results, it must be noted that each of these studies assessed a different form of self-efficacy.…”

Is There a Hole in the Whole-School Approach? A Critical Review of Curriculum Understanding in Bullying Research

“…Findings from the current research also indicate that while the bullying field as a tique (Bhaskar, 2016, p. 3), the strong idea of the whole-school approach (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009;Rigby & Slee, 2008;Ttofi & Farrington, 2011;Vreeman & Carroll, 2007) Farrington & Ttofi, 2009;Rigby & Slee, 2008;Ttofi & Farrington, 2011;Vreeman & Carroll, 2007) can be seen as perpetuating a narrow understanding of curriculum that is counterproductive to bullying prevention. Several of the programmes investigated in this study (Bonell et al, 2018;Cecil & Molnar-Main, 2015;Cross et al, 2018;Haataja et al, 2014) subscribe to this approach, and typically include anti-bullying policies, student curriculum, staff training, and engagement with parents and community.…”

“…In the programme category, understanding of curriculum can be described using three main themes. First, several studies emphasise teacher training for and student engagement with lessons on bullying (Cecil & Molnar-Main, 2015;Domino, 2013;Haataja et al, 2014;Low et al, 2014). It also discusses how teacher fidelity (Bonell et al, 2018;Cecil & Molnar-Main, 2015;Renshaw & Jimerson, 2012) and the scope of programming affect staff support.…”

“…First, several studies emphasise teacher training for and student engagement with lessons on bullying (Cecil & Molnar-Main, 2015;Domino, 2013;Haataja et al, 2014;Low et al, 2014). It also discusses how teacher fidelity (Bonell et al, 2018;Cecil & Molnar-Main, 2015;Renshaw & Jimerson, 2012) and the scope of programming affect staff support. Finally, studies across both subcategories (Cross et al, 2018;Low et al, 2014) emphasise curriculum delivery as time consuming, calling for engagement with students to design new interventions.…”

“…Drawing on Elgström and Hellstenius (2011), bullying research can also be seen as conveying a curriculum narrative. Many studies (Cecil & Molnar-Main, 2015;Fekkes et al, 2016;Haataja et al, 2014;Wurf, 2012) in the programme category advocate an evidence-based approach to bullying prevention. Wurf (2012), for instance, has claimed that "whole-school approaches have been internationally recognised as the best evidence-based method to reduce school bullying" (Wurf, 2012, p. 139).…”