Teacher victimization by students in China: A multilevel analysis

Abstract

The goal of this study is to examine individual-level and school-level predictors of teacher victimization (TV) by students in China based upon the multilevel socialecological framework. A sample of 1711 teachers (7-12th grade) from 58 schools from eight provinces in mainland China completed measures of teacher victimization (i.e., physical TV, verbal TV, social TV, cyber TV, sexual harassment, and personal property offenses) by students, school-wide bullying and disciplinary practices, and demographics. In the present sample, 25.1% of teachers reported that they experienced at least one of the six forms of victimization from students in the past school year.Prevalence of teacher victimization ranged from 4.0% (physical victimization) to 16.8% (social victimization). Male teachers were more likely to experience all forms of TV and homeroom teachers were more likely than non-homeroom teachers to experience social TV. Schools with fewer students, but higher number of teachers, also had higher levels of TV. Student bullying and punitive disciplinary practices at the teacher level were associated with higher levels of most forms of TV. Implications of these findings are discussed. K E Y W O R D SChinese schools, disciplinary practice, multilevel, teacher victimization

Teachers as targets of student bullying: Data from China and the United States

“…Boys were frequent perpetrators of verbal and physical bullying, whereas girls were frequent perpetrators of verbal and relational bullying. Yang et al (2019) investigated the prevalence of ETB in seventh to twelfth grade teachers in mainland China, including verbal (e.g., calling names), physical (e.g., pinching, tripping, and stealing), relational (e.g., challenging authority and spreading rumors), cyber, and sexual bullying (i.e., sexual harassment). Among both men and women, teachers reported experiencing relational and verbal bullying more frequently than other bullying behaviors.…”

“…Some studies categorized sexual harassment as bullying (Gerberich et al, 2011;B. Moon & McCluskey, 2020;Yang et al, 2019), whereas others did not (Bounds & Jenkins, 2018;Dong, 2010;McMahon et al, 2014).…”

“…Along with issues of scope, specific bullying behaviors are also categorized differently across different studies. Dong (2010) (Anderman et al, 2018; J. K. Chen & Astor, 2009;Dong, 2010;Gerberich et al, 2011;Tiesman et al, 2013;Yang et al, 2019) have studied the following categories of bullying: verbal, physical, relational, cyber, and sexual bullying, although not all studies included all subtypes. The current study attempted to collect data on all types of bullying included in prior studies in the United States and China, as well as incorporating questions on discriminatory bullying.…”

“…Fourth, Chinese legislation only regulates severe bullying behaviors conducted among students. In November 2016, Chinese government institutions issued a joint guideline for preventing bullying behaviors in elementary and middle schools (Wang, 2016). The guideline indicates that severe bullying behaviors, such as sexual assault, kidnapping, and robbery, are prohibited by law (The National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, 2015).…”

“…Consistent with the misperception that ETB is not a problem in China (W. X. Zhang et al, 1999), there is limited research regarding Chinese teachers being bullied by students. Only three empirical studies examined ETB with Chinese samples (J. K. Chen & Astor, 2009; Dong, 2010; Yang et al, 2019). Although they do not present empirical data, both Jiang and Jiang (2010) and Hu et al (2014) attempted to raise awareness of ETB in Chinese schools, challenging the myth that teachers cannot be bullied by students.…”