2001
DOI: 10.1300/j135v02n02_11
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Self-Efficacy in a New Training Model for the Prevention of Bullying in Schools

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
24
0
2

Year Published

2004
2004
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
24
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Research has shown that teachers' self-efficacy beliefs are linked to their classroom behavior and practices, improved student academic achievement, improved student attitudes towards school, and greater student self-efficacy (Brophy & Good, 1984;Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2000;Howard, Horne, & Jolliff, 2001;Miskel, McDonald, & Bloom, 1983;Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer, 2004). This relation is bi-directional; teachers feel more efficacious when their students do well and students do well when teachers feel more efficacious (Ross, 1988).…”
Section: Implications For Schoolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research has shown that teachers' self-efficacy beliefs are linked to their classroom behavior and practices, improved student academic achievement, improved student attitudes towards school, and greater student self-efficacy (Brophy & Good, 1984;Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2000;Howard, Horne, & Jolliff, 2001;Miskel, McDonald, & Bloom, 1983;Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer, 2004). This relation is bi-directional; teachers feel more efficacious when their students do well and students do well when teachers feel more efficacious (Ross, 1988).…”
Section: Implications For Schoolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Applying the leaving‐one‐out analysis results in statistically significant summary effect sizes varying between g = 0.095 (leaving out Limber et al, ) and g = 0.435 (leaving out Smith et al, ). Removing the study of Howard et al () and Newman‐Carlson and Horne () results in nonsignificant summary effect sizes. The impact of antibullying programs on teachers became negligible when the study of Limber et al () was removed from the data set, indicating that our findings related to teacher interventions seems to be influenced by the outcomes of this large‐scale study.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…After iteratively removing one study at a time, the summary effect sizes remained stable, varying between g = 0.445 (leaving out Howard, Horne, & Jolliff, ) and g = 0.625 (leaving out Schultes, Stefanek, Schoot, Strohmeier, & Spiel, ). These findings suggest that the meta‐analytic results on the determinants on teachers’ intervention are not heavily influenced by deviant outcomes of a single study.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bullying behaviors are learned and reinforced through different environmental contexts, that is, cultural, societal, school, familial, and individual. In examining how to change the cycle of aggression in schools, one factor that appears to be of great significance in reducing bullying is the quality of the relationship between the teacher and the child (Howard, Horne, & Jolliff, 2001;Pianta, 1999;Swearer & Doll, 2001). Children are in school for a large portion of their waking lives and are in constant contact with teachers who are models for their students (Bandura, 1986;Besag, 1989).…”
Section: Development Of the Bully Busters Programmentioning
confidence: 99%