Bullying: who does what, when and where? Essay

In this paper, bully was defined as a form of aggressive behavior or negative actions reoccurring over time amidst children who bully and those who are victimized (Fekkes, Pijpers, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2005). Further more than than, Fekkes et al. (2005) suggested boss around as a variant phenomenon involving not only the bullies and their victims, notwithstanding also the bystanders. former(a) problems talked by this look for include the negative impact hector has on childrens mental and physical wellness and the level of thing that is necessary for powerful noise strategies to be successful.The specific research questions posed investigated the extent to which children are tortuous in blustery behavior, the level of involvement of others (i. e. , teachers, parents, syndicatemates), and the specialty of current treatment strategies utilize to stop blustery behaviors. The purpose of the info presented by this research was to gather entropy and to utilize that information to compose tonic efforts in combating bullying in schools. Fekkes et al. (2005) presented a range of empirical literature to incarnate the need for this research.Studies by Williams et al. , (1996) Salmon et al. , (1998) and Forero et al. , (1999) were include to support the problem of negative health issues associated with bullying behaviors (as cited in Fekkes et al. , 2005). Studies by atlas vertebra and Pepler (1998) and Hawkins et al. (2001) supported the notion of bullying as a group phenomenon and the effectiveness of bystander intervention (as cited in Fekkes et al. , 2005). Participants in this chew over were 2766 children from 32 Dutch elementary schools.These children had participated in a longitudinal study on the effectiveness of an anti-bullying policy at schools. It is important to pull down that the data were collected prior to whatsoever implementation of the anti-bullying policy. In November 1999, children from 9 to 11 years old were administered a questionnaire in the classroom. The questionnaire addressed frequency of bullying behaviors, types of bullying behaviors, where bullying behaviors took place, who intervened to stop the bullying, and whether or not the interventions were successful.According to Liebrand et al. (1994), Mooij (1992), and Olweus (1994), this questionnaire was based on the Dutch version of the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire, a well-documented questionnaire that was apply in numerous studies on bullying (as cited in Fekkes et al. , 2005). employ statistical analyses to analyze the data from the questionnaires, Fekkes et al. (2005) name that alert bullying was prevalent at schools. somatic forms of bullying behaviors, such as contact or pushing, were found to be nigh typical of boys.Girls were found to initiate bullying behaviors that were relational in nature, such as isolation tactics and rumor spreading. bullyrag was found to take place on the playground as well as in the classroom. Nforme r(a) half of children beingness bullied did not report it to their teacher but did speak to their parents more or less it. A resembling finding was also reported by Whitney and metalworker (1993) (as cited in Fekkes et al. , 2005). Intervention attempts by teachers were found to have little effect, if any, on bullying occurrences. All of these findings provided the perspicacity unavoidable to recommend future intervention strategies.The preponderance of bullying behaviors among children in this age group was found to be accordant with the findings of akin(predicate) studies conducted cross-culturally. Fekkes et al. (2005) compared the findings of this study to others in Norway, the UK, Italy, and Germany. With regard to sex differences in bullying behaviors, Whitney and Smith (1993), Borg (1999), Junger-Tas and avant-garde Kesteren (1999) found similar results among the direct and collateral nature of bullying behaviors among boys and girls (as cited in Fekkes et al. , 2005 ).Olweus (1993a) found that levels of bullying were lower on playgrounds with more teachers present (as cited in Fekkes et al. , 2005). Consistent with Whitney and Smiths (1993) study and Rivers and Smiths (1994) study, teachers are not regularly told roughly incidents of bullying behaviors by victimized children (as cited in Fekkes et al. , 2005). Because so many of the findings of this paper were consistent with other studies, the next logical ill-treat for future researchers would be to systematically mingle the various aspects of this topic into an intervention simulation with a comprehensive approach.Fekkes et al. (2005) recommended many strategies to care such interventions. atomic number 53 such passport bring upd that teachers should create an environment in which children happen comfortable talking nearly their negative bullying experiences. Olweus (1993a) suggested the establishment of class rules aimed at minimizing bullying behavior (as cited in Fekkes et al. , 2005). Fekkes et al. further suggested that in addition to establishing class rules to minimize bullying behaviors, class watchword of the rules on a regular root word may aid in establishing an anti-bullying farming deep down that community.another(prenominal) affirmable criterion for future research may be to replicate the study with a young set of participants. Data collected from a younger age group may provide more insight into the early stages of bullying behaviors and early intervention strategies may aid in minimizing the prevalence of incidents of bullying in the higher elementary grades. Overall, I believe this study provided some precious insight with regard to prevalence of bullying behaviors without the aid of an established intervention program.One of the strengths of this study was its large number of participants as well as findings which were consistent in similar studies in other countries. much(prenominal) a large sample sizing provides for a clear snap shot of the pervasiveness of this problem. An special strength of this study involves its use of an vary version of the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire which has been used in many studies on bullying. Using such a well-documented tool lends to the consistence of the findings across multiple studies. Something that stood out to me was that on that point was no mention of effects of bullying behaviors on peer bystanders, positive or negative.I feel this was a point of accumulation because bystanders were referred to as having a certain item of power when taught effective intervention strategies Fekkes et al. , 2005). Another limitation I observed was the throttle age range of the participants. I feel that with younger participants, it may be possible to do comparison studies to try to collar just when bullying behaviors begin to come near within the social structure of the classroom. A final limitation of this study was its use of a quantitative design to address issues mor e qualitative in nature. Fekkes et al.(2005) state that the aim of the data presented was to provide insight on the topic. This may be more effectively accomplished by doing a current literature review on the prevalence of bullying behaviors and current intervention strategies. Fekkes et al. (2005) describe their current involvement in a project aimed toward development of anti-bullying policies within schools in the Netherlands. They also describe how this study will be used in that capacity. This paper being linked to such a project also raises questions for me about the integrity of the purpose of the study.