Japanese children’s perspectives on the


Peer support against bullying



Yüklə 3,09 Mb.
səhifə7/34
tarix29.09.2018
ölçüsü3,09 Mb.
#71527
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   34

2.4.2. Peer support against bullying

Cowie and Olafsson (2000) examined the effectiveness of peer support in a boy’s high school with high levels of aggression. Out of 420 high school pupils (all boys), 15 selected peer supporters received 16 hours trainings from an external facilitator, and occasionally supervision was given to peer supporters. Peer supporters provided peer counselling to their peers and also they offered appropriate support when peers were bullied. The questionnaires (The Olweus questionnaire, 1991) were administered to 300 pupils in November, and the following year June (7.5 month later after peer support activities), the same procedure was carried with 207 pupils. The participants were asked about their experience and views of bullying in school, and data were calculated by Mann-Whitney U-test.



Table 2.7: Percentage of boys who report being bullied and bullying others in Novembers and June

___________________________________________________________________

Percentage

November June Mann-Whitney U p ___________________________________________________________________

Been bullied ‘sometimes’ or

more this term 18 % 16 % 28934 NS

Been bullied ‘once’ or more

In the last 5 days 25 % 23 % 28837 NS

Bullied others ‘sometimes’

or more this terms 9 % 14 % 27488 NS

Bullied others ‘once’ or more

in the last 5 days 15 % 22 % 24961 .03



___________________________________________________________________

(Cowie & Olafsson, 2000)


From table 2.4, peer support activities did not have a strong influences on pupils’ bullying situations, on the contrary, there was an significant increase in the question ‘Bullied others once or more in the last 5 days’; (actually, the bulling rates had increased). The study indicates that the peer support programme had less impact on pupils’ behavioural changes in school with high levels of aggression. Interviews were conducted to potential users (other pupils) (n=15). Potential users were generally interviewed with 3 questions; 1) whether they knew the service, 2) whether they viewed it positively or negatively, and 3) whether would recommend it to another peer. The table below summarised their responses in the interviews.
Table 2.8: Potential users’ comments on the peer support service__________

Yes Don’t know No Info. lacking

___________________________________________________________________

Knew of service 9 0 6 0

Would use the service 8 3 3 1

Would recommend to a peer 13 1 1 0

___________________________________________________________________

(Cowie & Olafsson, 2000)


From table. 2.5, more than half potential users (8 out of 15) viewed the peer support service positively and would use the service. In addition, the majority of users mentioned that they would recommend it to another peer. In short, even though they may not use peer support services by themselves, still they believed peer support is beneficial and would recommend to others. In the study, also users were interviewed and asked the following 3 questions; 1) whether they found peer support helpful, 2) whether they felt safer now in school than they did before and 3) whether would recommend it to another peer. Table 2.6 showed the summary of users’ responses in the interviews.

Table 2.9: Users’ comments on the peer support service_______________

Yes Don’t know No Info. lacking

___________________________________________________________________

Found peer support helpful 5 1 1 0

Feel safer now 4 0 2 1

Would recommend to a peer 5 0 2 0

___________________________________________________________________

(Cowie & Olafsson, 2000)


As mentioned, this study did not show a clear decrease in bullying behaviours. However, in the interviews, most users agreed that peer support programme was helpful to them and made them feel safer. However, we must remember that the numbers were very small so broad generalisations cannot be made. Furthermore, it could be argued that research carried out by those who implemented the peer support service is less valid than that by more objective researchers. Although the sample is comparatively small the study’s findings seems to provide a meaningful description of the kind of aspects required to help service users, and how peer support programmes give effective service to users. The school was an extremely difficult case, which was under special measures and was eventually closed down. This was a unique opportunity to study peer support in difficult circumstances. In this study (Cowie & Olafsson, 2000), it highlights that users and potential user viewed the peer support programme as a useful service, even though implementation of peer support gave less influences on pupils’ bullying situations.
In the UK, Boulton (2014) conducted interviews on 99 lower secondary pupils aged between12-16 years (49 girls and 50 boys) to ask about their knowledge of the peer counselling services in their school. Interestingly, the majority of pupils (60%) failed to identify the service as something that existed to help them with school bullying. As Boulton reported, other studies (Cowie et al, 2002; Cowie & Olafsson, 2000) have similar findings that many children did not have clear views about what issues the peer support services could assist them with.
In Finland, Salmivalli (2001) examined the effectiveness of a peer-led intervention campaign against school bullying. The study used a questionnaire to ask pupils to evaluate the bullying situation and the peer-led campaign. The participants were 196 pupils (89 girls and 107 boys), aged 13-15 years old, and they were all Finnish-speaking 7th to 8th grade pupils from an upper-level comprehensive school. In this study, 8 peer counsellors, their local coordinator (a teacher) and Salmivalli planned the content of the anti-bullying campaign. Its core events of prevention campaign (e.g. playing short dramas, small group discussion, and the school news) were conducted during one week ‘Happy Face Week’. Also some activities took place after the week for attaining some continuity. The results showed the clear decline in self-reported bullying in total after the campaign, especially in 7th grade girls, there was a significant decline. In 8th grade both boys and girls, the study did not show the significant difference between before and after interventions, because the reported number of bullying seems to be comparatively small even before the interventions begin. The study also measured the mean scores and standard deviations of three types of attitudes; pro-bullying, anti-bullying and power attitudes. ‘Pro-bullying’ means pupils’ positive attitudes and feelings toward bullying issues. ‘Anti-bullying’ means pupils’ negative attitudes and feeling toward bullying issues. ‘Power’ means pupils’ reflections about self-perceived ability and willingness to have an effect on the bullying issues. The results showed that generally pupils’ anti-bullying attitudes outweigh their pro-bullying attitudes. However, it did not show significant difference before and after the intervention. In short, peer led interventions did not give strong impact on pupils attitudes and feeling toward bullying. In fact, pro-bullying attitudes among boys slightly increased after the interventions. There were gender differences and girls had a tendency to have more anti-bullying attitudes than boys did. Regarding the ‘Power’, girls significantly increased after the interventions, which mean that through the interventions, girls enriched their willingness to do something about bullying. Boys also slightly increased their scores on ‘power’, but there was no significant difference between before and after interventions.
Salmivalli concluded that one of the reasons why boys’ pro-bullying attitudes increased was that the peer supporters were all girls. It seems difficult for teenage boys to join the campaign and activities led by teenage girls. In this vein, Salmivalli quoted Cowie’s findings (2000) that boys prefer to ask male peer supporters for help rather than to ask female peer supporters. Also Cowie’s (2000) study indicated that in the most cases, peer supporters are approached by pupils of their own sex. As indicated in some studies above, girls have a tendency to have more anti-bullying attitudes than boys and this is reflected in the larger numbers of girls who volunteer to become peer supporters. Therefore, the campaign seemed to work more effectively among girls. Peer support as an anti-bullying strategy led to pupils’ satisfactions toward the peer support scheme but had less impact on the actual reduction of pupils’ problem behaviours (e.g. bullying). Further studies are required to deepen more details of benefits to school climate by the peer support programmes. Especially, it is necessary to explore, what aspects of the peer support programme make pupils feel it is beneficial to the school, and how studies can assess the programmes objectively.
More recently, peer support has played a significant part in the nation-wide KiVA intervention developed by Salmivalli and colleagues in Finland to counteract bullying.

KiVA is a research-based anti-bullying program that has been developed in the University of Turku, Finland, with funding from the Ministry of Education and Culture.



KiVA is a sought-after program and the most comprehensive schools (90%) are joined KiVA program. Well-designed peer support methods such as those used in KiVA educate students to take responsibility for their own actions and provide training in a range of interpersonal, social and conflict resolution skills. Although there are certainly limitations to the use of peer support schemes in tackling bullying, it is important to remember that they are not designed to prevent bullying but to support victims after the bullying has taken place (Kärnä et al., 2011).
In Italy, considering the importance of peers attitudes and behaviours in bullying situations, Menesini et al (2003) examined how a peer support programme (befriending) enhanced children’s responsibility to take action against bullying. The study was conducted in 2 Italian secondary middle schools and a befriending intervention was applied. The participants were collected from two secondary middle schools (age range 11-14 years). 9 classes (in total 178 pupils; 94 boys and 84 girls) were asked to be part of the experimental group. Also 5 classes (in total 115 pupils; 63 boys and 52 girls) were employed as the control group. Three to four pupils were selected as peer supporters for each class in the experimental group. Peer support activities were implemented for 1 school year, from October 1999 to May 1999. The type of peer support was basically ‘befriending’ and also the various activities (e.g. circle meetings) were organised. The study employed questionnaires to ask pupils about their behaviours in bullying situations and attitudes towards bullying, which classified pupils into mainly 5 groups; “bullies”, “bystanders”, “defenders of victims”, “victims” and “unclassified group”. The questionnaire surveys were conducted twice; between before (time 1) and after (time 2) peer support interventions. As to “bullies”, the study did not showed a clear decrease in the experimental group after befriending interventions (almost no change, but slightly decreased). However, in the control group, the number of bullies significantly increased after a year. In a sense, in the experimental group, the levels of bullying behaviours could remain stable due to befriending interventions. As Menesini et al (2003) mentioned, the research findings (e.g. Rigby, 1996; Morita et al, 1999) indicated a peak in being bullied around 11-13 years old and a tendency to decrease later on in general. Also Pellegrini and Long (2002) suggested that bullying and aggression seemed to increase with the transition from primary through middle school.
In summary, successful implementation of peer support in a range of countries indicates that it can adapt to different cultural situations. However, these countries are Western and it might be more difficult to integrate peer support into the Japanese context since their educational system is more hierarchical and there is a strong tradition of collective action towards the school community rather than an individual emphasis on personal well-being and positive relationships with peers. This possible cultural mismatch will be explored in the rest of the thesis. The implementation of peer support is often multi-dimensional, and it is difficult to generalise users’ and potential users’ benefits. From the findings, generally the implementations of peer support seems to help users and potential users to enrich their emotional developments, especially, pupils seem to strengthen their negative attitudes and feeling toward bullying. However, even though pupils strengthen their negative attitudes toward bullying, the studies often showed that peer support programmes had less impact on pupils’ behavioural changes. After the peer support interventions, pupils hardly showed their anti-bullying behaviours, and also the studies often did not show the clear decline in bullying incidents. In short, peer support programmes seem to have an impact on pupils’ capacity to help victims of bullying. Unfortunately, it seems to have less impact on the behaviour of children who bully. This is not surprising since the peer support systems are set up to help victims rather than to prevent bullying.
In terms of the effectiveness of peer support programme as anti-bullying strategies, the studies seemed to show the presence of a peer support did not bring a decline in bullying behaviours. However, the majority of users and potential users viewed peer support programme as useful and they addressed positive comments on the programmes. Even though some pupils and teachers addressed negative comments toward peer support programmes, generally their positive feedbacks outweighed their negative feedbacks.

2.4.3 The impact on school climate

Cowie (1998) explored not only pupils’ but also teachers’ views on peer support programme against bullying in primary and secondary schools. This was continued in subsequent studies where teachers’ perspectives were taken to be important. The participants were 42 pupils and 10 staff from 9 schools (2 primary and 7 secondary), and they were interviewed about their peer support scheme. More than 60% of peer supporters believed that peer support activities were having a positive impact on the whole schools, and pupils emphasised that school was becoming a place where it was more acceptable to talk about emotional and relationship issues. Also teachers believed that pupils become more open to disclose about bullying and found it more natural to take prosocial actions. Note, however, that these are perspectives rather than hard evidence for change. In addition, Naylor and Cowie (1999) found similar findings which majority of pupils and teachers (e.g. 87% of teachers, 75% of the peer supporters, and 40% other pupils) mentioned “caring school” as benefits to the school.


Smith and Watson (2004) conducted an evaluation of CHIPS (ChildLine in Partnership with school) programme, and found pupils’ and staffs’ positive feedbacks on peer support programme. Samples were 455 primary school and 379 secondary school pupils, which included 178 pupils who were peer supporters. Also 109 primary school staff and 95 secondary school staff answered questionnaires about peer support programmes. The results showed that overall, 72% of pupils and 94 % of staff felt it was a good idea to have the peer support service in school, while only 4% of pupils and no staff said it was not a good idea. Especially, a large number of peer supporter (90%) and users (84%) commented the peer support service was a good idea. When asked the question ‘Does the peer support help to prevent bullying in school’, 52% of staff and 43% of pupils answered that peer support scheme was helping to stop bullying, however, 45% of all participants were unsure, 11% of pupils and 3% of staff said no.
In summary, the research findings showed that a large number of pupils and school staff believe the peer support programme give positive impacts on school ethos. Although some studies seemed to show the presence of a peer support did not bring a decline in bullying behaviours. However, frequently pupils and staff mentioned that peer support scheme increased safety at school and/or their sense of safety at school. Also peer support scheme seem give impacts pupils on both psychological strength to take pro-social behaviours and pupils’ behavioural improvements. Especially peer support scheme help to pupils’ psychological developments (e.g. self-esteems) and these seem to improve peer relationships in classes and schools.


2.5 Evaluating the impact of peer support: studies in Japan

2.5.1 The indifference of bystanders (peers) to bullying

Regarding peers present in bullying situations, Morita et al (1999) measured the percentage of both “bystanders” who try to have nothing to do with bullying, and “pupils who intervene in bullying situation” in each grade amongst three nations; Japan, England and Holland. Morita and his colleagues (1999) conducted a large-scale questionnaire survey asking children about their views and experience of being bullied and bullying others. The participants were 2308 pupils (11 to 16 years old) in England, 1986 pupils (10 to 15 years old), and 6487 pupils (11 to 16 years old) in Japan. The percentage of “bystanders” and “pupils who mediate” were shown in the following figure 2.1 and figure 2.2.



Figure 2.2: The percentage of bystanders in bullying situations

(Morita et al, 1999)


Figure 2.3 : The percentage of pupils who intervene in bullying

(Morita et al, 1999)



From figure 2.1, in Japan, the percentage of bystanders gradually increased with age, and 15 year old made up the greatest proportion more than 60%. However, the effects do not appear to be very large or significant. In England and Holland, although they appear to show a similar tendency to Japan among Holland 14 year olds and English 15 year olds, the percentage of outsiders decreased slightly. Also, from figure 2.2, In Japan, the percentage of pupils who intervene in bullying, decreased with age and 15 years olds made up the smallest proportion around 20%. In England and Holland, they also gradually decreased, however, among 13 years old the percentage of pupils who intervene increased slightly. These findings showed that a substantial portion of pupils tend to be “bystanders” and also to have nothing to do with bullying. Especially in Japan, as pupils get older, they tend to not get involved in bullying situations. Both in England and Holland, although they appear to show a similar tendency to Japan, around 13 to 14 years old, their behaviours positively changed.
These findings suggested a possibility that peer support activities might have the potential to play a critical role to prevent escalation in pupils’ bullying behaviours, even if the implementation of peer support did not decrease the bullying incidents. Some studies (e.g. Fujikame, 2006; Menesini et al, 2003; Naylor & Cowie, 1999) mentioned in previous section, did not show a clear decrease in the bullying incidents nor strong impacts on pupils’ behavioural improvements. However, considering these situations (e.g. a peak in being bullied around 11-13 years old), those studies also might show the effectiveness of peer support against bullying. As to “bystanders”, the Menesini’s study (2003) showed a clear decrease of bystanders in the experimental group, whereas, bystanders in the control group increased. This seemed to show that peer support activities could give some positive impacts on bystanders, which bring behavioural changes and a decrease in the number of bystanders. Also as to “defenders” who defend victims of bullying, in both the experimental and control groups, there was no significant change, and the number of defenders remains stable after befriending interventions. Although in terms of the number of “defenders”, there were no differences between before befriending (time 1) and after befriending (time 2) in both the experience group and the control group, the study’s findings showed an interesting fact.
Among the experimental group, after the befriending interventions, defenders’ numbers changed from 22 (at time 1) to 21 (at time 2), which means there was not much difference in terms of numbers. However, only 45% (10 of 22) defenders at time 1, remained as defender at time 2, which means 55% (12 of 22) of defenders at time 1 moved into different groups at time 2 (11 of 12 moved to the unclassified group and 1 moved to bystander). More than half (11 of 21) of defenders at time 2, belonged to different groups at time 1; 9 came from the unclassified group and 2 came from the previous victim group. Similarly, in the control group, 55.6% (5 of 9) of defenders remained in the same group at time 2; 2 move to unclassified group and other 2 moved to bullies group.
In short, the members of the defenders actively changed their status not only in the experimental group but also in the control group. This may imply that children could strengthen their anti-bullying behaviours for some reason. From research findings, it seems that generally pupils’ anti-bullying attitudes outweigh their pro-bullying attitudes, and also pupils’ willingness to do something about bullying was to be enriched through the peer support interventions. This seems to raise further questions, why some pupils change their status as defender, and also what does make pupils to take actions against bullying behaviours. In fact, except Menesini’s study (2003), there seem to be no studies to deepen the knowledge of the defenders; why pupils change their defender status or changed to defender status in bullying situations. Also from peer support scheme’s viewpoints, it arise the questions, how does peer support help to activate pupils’ anti-bullying behaviours and how can peer support help to create caring peer network for keeping their anti-bullying behaviours.
The majority of users and potential users peer support viewed peer support programmes were valuable service for pupils and schools. However, as anti-bullying strategies, the implementation of peer support gave less influence on decrease of bullying behaviours and pupils’ behavioural improvements. This raises the question why the majority of users and potential users peer support viewed peer support programmes were valuable service for pupils and schools. One of the reasons for it seems that pupils can easily gain access to others’ helps or someone to talk about their distress. Morita and his colleagues’ study (1999), have reported on the apparent silence of bullied children. There are some cases in which those around the victims, such as parents and teachers, did not know that children were suffering bullying, until it became firmly obvious or the child attempts self-harm or suicide (Nakatsuka, 2014; Sakai, 2006 & 2005). Morita and colleagues’ study (1999), stated that 30% of English and 34% of Japanese children who were bullied did not say anything about it to another person.
Table. 2.10: Silence in bullied children

Country Japan England Holland Norway

Victims who did not say



anything about it to anybody 34 % 30 % 22 % 25 % _

(Morita et al, 1999)

It is difficult to conclude whether these data are higher than average or not. However, in cases where bullied children do not say anything about bullying, the problem seems to be more serious than among children who can talk to somebody about the bullying, mainly because prevention methods and support are not made easily available to them. Therefore, based on these results, it can be assumed that around one third of bullied pupils in each country may be experiencing serious bullying. The fact that they are reluctant to tell anyone indicates a lack of systems for supporting vulnerable children who may be made to feel ashamed of being bullied by their peers. Similarly in Norway, 25%, and in Holland, 22% of children who were bullied, had not said anything about bullying to another person. These results seem to indicate an international tendency to suffer bullying without telling anybody about the problem.
Mihara (2006) conducted a survey designed to investigate children’s support situations in a primary school in Japan. The study employed a questionnaire (with multiple choice answer) to ask 46 4th grade children (9-10 years old) about “When you are in trouble, to whom you tell about your problem”. Regarding this question, 96% of children answered “friends in the same grade”, followed by 59% in “parents”, 57% in “think alone”, 46% in “teachers”, 28% in older pupils and 13 % in “I do not know”. Also, the Cabinet office, government of Japan (2007) conducted a large scale survey about children’s views on their lifestyle throughout Japan (see the table 2.7). The participants were 3600 children aged 9 to 14 years old and they answered questionnaires (response rate of 59.5). When asked the question “When you are in trouble, to whom you tell about your problem”, 64% of children answered “mother”, followed by 58.7% in “friends of the same gender”, 29.5% in “father”, 18.7% in “teachers”, 17.1% in “sibling”, 9% in a relative, 6.8% in “different gender friends”, 6.1% in “older pupils”, and so on.


Yüklə 3,09 Mb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   34




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə