Upload
trinhnga
View
239
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
KiVa: A research-based antibullying program
Professor Christina Salmivalli
University of Turku, Finland
2
Bullying
• A widely used definition: Systematic aggressive
behavior against a person who finds it difficult to
defend him/herself against the perpetrator(s)
– Repeated attacks and power differential are
central features
Bullying takes many forms
• Verbal (name-calling, mocking or ridiculing)
• Physical (pushing, shoving, hitting)
• Indirect (manipulating other group members so that
they start avoiding the victim, spreading rumors,
excluding the victim from the group).
• Can also happen online (cyberbullying)
Bullying
• Rather than consisting of single attacks, bullying
represents a rather stable relationship further
embedded in the larger peer setting
• Universal phenomenon; about 10% of children
and adolescents worldwide are systematic
victims
4
5
KiVa antibullying program
• School-based program for bullying prevention and
intervention
• The meaning of ”KiVa”
• Developed at the University of Turku with funding
from the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture
– Program co-leaders: Professor Christina Salmivalli
and PhD Elisa Poskiparta
• In Finland, now used by 90% of schools providing
comprehensive education (basic education, grades
1-9)
Background of KiVa
• Bullying as proactive, goal-oriented aggression
• What is the function of bullying?
6
7
The social architecture of bullying
• Bullying can be a strategy to gain status and
power in the peer group...
• …and it is often succesful
bullies are perceived as popular (Caravita,
DiBlasio, & Salmivalli, 2008)
bullying helps to maintain status (Juvonen &
Galvan, 2008)…
…and to increase status over time (Cillessen &
Borch, 2004)
8
• By choosing victims who are submissive,
insecure of themselves, physically weak and in
a low-power, rejected position in the group...
• ... the bullies can repeatedly demonstrate their
power and renew their high-status position
without being confronted
The social architecture of bullying
9
• The power demonstrations need witnesses
– in most bullying incidents, a group of peers is
present
The social architecture of bullying
10 10
defenders of the victim
outsiders
assistants of the bully
victim
reinforcers of the bully
12%
8%
20%
7%
17%
24% bully
• Participant roles in bullying (Salmivalli et al.,
1996)
The social architecture of bullying
11
The behavior of onlookers does matter
• Individual effects: short and long term
– the defended victims are better adjusted than the
undefended ones (Sainio, Veenstra, Huitsing, &
Salmivalli, 2010)
– the most negative memory related to bullying is
often ”no-one cared” (Teräsahjo & Salmivalli,
2000)
12
The behavior of onlookers does matter
• Classroom effects:
– More frequent bullying in classrooms where bullies are reinforced by many students (Salmivalli, Voeten & Poskiparta, 2011)
13
In order to reduce bullying...
• Influencing the behavior of bystanders can reduce the
rewards gained by the bullies and consequently, their
motivation to bully in the first place
• However, the victims need to feel that they are heard and
helped by the adults at school
• The bullies need to be confronted for their unacceptable
behavior
14 14
An anti-bullying program should
include...
• ...something for all students
→ universal actions
• ...something for bullies and victims in particular
→ indicated actions
15
KiVa antibullying program
• Special characteristics:
– Both universal and indicated actions
– An exceptionally large amount of materials &
concrete tools (not merely a ”philosophy”)
– Utilizing virtual learning environments
– Influencing the whole group
• KiVa is more systematic than most existing
anti-bullying programs
• Strong evidence of effectiveness
• European Crime Prevention Award, 2009
• Three national awards (2008, 2010, 2011, 2012)
• Social Policy Award for the Best Article, Society
for research on Adolescence, 2012
• Ongoing evaluations outside of Finland
– The Netherlands, the US (Delaware), Wales,
Estonia, European school at Luxembourg, Italy
16
KiVa antibullying program
KiVa™ Bullying prevention is a team effort
17
Pupils Everyone is responsible
for putting an end to bullying
KiVa™ Team Responsible for tackling bullying and ensuring long-term success
Parents Supporting KiVa™
implementation and extending the reach to
everyday life
Teachers Rising awareness, providing self-efficacy, and strategies to respond constructively
Contents of KiVa
Universal actions
• Student lessons
• Computer games
• Parents’ guide and back-
to-school night
• Posters, vests
• Annual surveys
– students
– staff
Indicated actions
• Tackling the cases
coming to attention
– KiVa team
– classroom teacher
18
Universal actions
19
Universal actions
• Commitment & coordination at the school level
• Signaling that ”we are a KiVa school”
– visible vests for teachers supervising recess time
– posters
• Student online survey (annual)
– Automatic feedback to schools
20
Universal actions – student lessons
and computer game
• Three units, appropriate for different grade
levels/students of different ages: Unit 1, Unit 2,
Unit 3
21
22
The aims of the student lessons [and
computer game]
Enhancing...
• awareness of the role bystanders play in the
bullying process
• empathic understanding of the victim’s plight
Providing...
• safe strategies to support and defend the
victimized peers → self-efficacy for defending
23
24
Teacher’s manual – student lessons
25
Activities included in student lessons
Learning by doing …
26
27
– Repeating & testing of what has been learnt during the lessons – ”I KNOW”
– Learning to take action – ”I CAN” Students go around in a virtual school and come to
challenging situations (being bystanders of bullying) where they have to decide what to say and do
– Motivation – ”I DO” Students reflect on their own behavior (how they
have done with following the KiVa rules) and get feedback
KiVa games and KiVa Street are closely connected to student lessons
Virtual learning environments connected to
student lessons
Supporting the lessons Rehearsal – Additional material – Excercises – Motivation
28
29
KiVa computer game; Unit 2
Parents’ involvement
• Information leaflet for parents (www)
– Print and send to each home
– Kiusaamise vastu: translation?
• Back-to-school night
30
31
To remind about KiVa...
• Posters
• Highly visible vests for
recess supervisors (in
Finland, teachers)
Indicated actions: tackling the cases of
bullying coming to attention
32
33
KiVa team
• In each school implmenting the KiVa program, there
is a KiVa team
• Three or more adults from among the school
personnel, for instance :
– a principal, a teacher, a school social worker
– 2 X teacher, a special education tacher
– a principal, a teacher, a school nurse
34
The role of the KiVa team
• Tackling cases of repeated bullying in
collaboration with the classroom teacher
• Documenting bullying cases
35
Which cases should be directed to
KiVa team?
• SCREENING based on the definition of bullying
• Cases not directed to the team (e.g., a conflict
or fight between students): ”treatment as usual”
• Cases directed to the team
– A procedure with several steps
Which cases are directed to the KiVa
team?
• Main criteria:
– is this offensive/abusive?
– is this repeated, or is there a fear of repetition?
– The form of bullying (whether physical, verbal,
indirect, cyber) is NOT relevant for making the
decision
36
Finnish evaluation of KiVa (2007-2008)
• SCREENING: An average of 9,24 cases/school,
range 1-55 (!)
• 60.5% of these cases were directed to KiVa team,
an average of 5,6 cases/school
• Other cases were typically
– Fight or argument 59%
– Misunderstanding 11%
– Single aggressive incident 30%
• When reported to school personnel
• Frequency Percent Valid% Cumulative%
• August 15 2.8 3.1 3.1
• September 117 21.9 24.2 27.3
• October 85 15.9 17.6 44.9
• November 4 84 15.7 17.4 62.3
• December 5 27 5.1 5.6 67.9
• January 42 7.9 8.7 76.6
• February 7 30 5.6 6.2 82.8
• March 36 6.7 7.5 90.3
• April 29 5.4 6.0 96.3
• May 18 3.4 3.7 100.0
• Total 483 90.4 100.0
Reports to schools every month; most of
them in September-October
60,5% 39,5%
The procedure
for tackling the
cases of bullying
coming to attention
(p. 135 in Teacher’s
manual)
Confronting and nonconfronting
approaches
• Confronting
– E.g., Olweus’ view about intervening in bullying
Making it clear that the child has misbehaved –
need to change
• Nonconfronting
– Pikas: The method of shared concern; Maines &
Robinson: No blame approach
Creating a ”shared concern” of the child who has
been bullied; blaming the bully/ies not necessary
40
Confronting approach (C)
• ” We know that you have been involved in bullying Amanda for
quite some time. Nasty rumours have been spread about her
and she has received hurtful messages on her facebook wall.
This must stop immediately.
• GOAL 1: To make it clear that adults know about the
bullying and do not tolerate it.
• ”What are you going to do about this?”
• GOAL 2: To make the child committed to changing his/her
behavior
• ”Okay, this sounds good. We’ll meet again next week and see
how it has been going”
• GOAL 3: To make it clear that the situation is being
followed
41
Nonconfronting approach (NC)
• ”We are really concerned about your classmate Amanda who
has been bullied. Nasty rumours have been spread about her
and she has received hurtful messages on her facebook wall.
This must stop immediately.
• Amanda must feel bad don’t you think?”
• GOAL 1: Shared understanding that Amanda is not feeling
well
• ”Is there anything you could do about it?”
• GOAL 2: To make the child suggest some way(s) to make
Amanda feel better
• ”Okay that sounds great. Try that, and we’ll meet again in a
week and hear how it has been going”
• GOAL 3: To make it clear that the situation is
being followed
42
The two approaches
NONCONFRONTING
• Bullying
– Stopped 74.9%
– Decreased 22.3%
– Remained the same 2.2%
– Increased 0.6%
CONFRONTING
• Bullying
– Stopped 83.5%
– Decreased 14.9%
– Remained the same 1.5%
– Increased 0%
43
IN PRIMARY SCHOOL GRADES,
NO DIFFERENCE IN EFFECTIVENESS
Comparing the two approaches: The
proportion of cases in which bullying had
stopped completely
Which approach
(confronting/nonconfronting) have
schools chosen?
• Now, during broad rollout of the program,
Finnish schools choose which approach they
use
– most schools have chosen the confronting
approach
• Different approaches in different countries
– Netherlands: nonconfronting
– Delaware: confronting
– Wales: schools make the choice by themselves
45
Evidence of effectiveness
46
Evidence of effectiveness
In Finland
• Randomized controlled trial 2007-2009
– 117 intervention and 117 control schools
– >30,000 students (grades 1–9, 7–15 year old)
• First year of nationwide implementation (2009-2010)
– 880 Finnish schools (cohort longitudinal design)
– ~150,000 students (grades 1–9)
• Monitoring based on annual survey (2009–
47
RCT: Grades 1–9
• Odds of being bullied and bullying others (at
least 2 or 3 times a month) was 1.3 times
higher for a control school student
– ~ 20% reduction in victimization and bullying
– Effects larger in primary school
Kärnä et al. (2010; 2012)
KiVa…
• influenced multiple forms of victimization,
including verbal, physical, and online victimization
49
Salmivalli et al. (2010)
Changes in being bullied by different forms
during one school year: RCT, grades 4 to 6
Nationwide trial 2009-2010 Kärnä et al. (2011)
Odds 1.22
Odds 1.18
The effects are practically significant
• “In the Finnish student population of around
500,000 students, the reductions would have
amounted to about 7,500 bullies and 12,500
victims during one school year.” (Kärnä, 2012).
52
KiVa…
• decreased in reinforcing and assisting the bully
• Influenced children´s antibullying attitudes,
efficacy, and effort to defend the victims
• Increased empathy toward victimized
53
Kärnä et al. (2010; 2012)
KiVa also Influenced…
• children’s perceptions on their teachers’
attitudes and how well the teacher is able to do
to reduce bullying
• teachers self-evaluated competence to tackle
bullying, and teacher perceptions of bullying.
(Ahtola et al. 2012; Veenstra et al. work in progress)
Mediators of the KiVa effects
55
KiVa starts
Succesful changes in…
• antibullying attitudes
• empathy towards victimized students
• students perceptions on bystander responses and teacher attitudes
Reductions in bullying
Saarento, S., Boulton, A., & Salmivalli, C. (work in progress; grades 4–6)
Additionally KiVa…
• reduced students’ anxiety and depression
and had a positive impact on their
perceptions of peer climate (Williford et al, 2011)
• had positive effects on school liking and
academic motivation
• Improved students’ well-being (Salmivalli, Garandeau & Veenstra, 2012)
56
KiVa indicated actions are effective
• The proportion of cases handled by the school
team in which bullying…
– Stopped completely 79.4%
– Decreased 18.5%
– Remained the same 1.9%
– Increased 0.3%
(Asked from the victims in the follow-up discussion)
Garandeau et al. (under review). Tackling acute cases of bullying:
Comparison of two methods in the context of the antibullying program
References
• Ahtola, A., Haataja, A., Kärnä, A., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli,
C. (2012). For children only? Effects of the KiVa antibullying
program on teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6),
851–859. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.006
• Garandeau, Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (under review).
Tackling acute cases of bullying: Comparison of two methods
in the context of the KiVa antibullying program.
• Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C.
(2010). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa anti-bullying
program. Child Development.
• Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T., Alanen, E., Poskiparta, E., &
Salmivalli, C. (2012). Effectiveness of the KiVa antibullying
program: Grades 1-3 and 7-9. Journal of Educational
Psychology.
58
• Kärnä, A., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). Going to
scale: The effectiveness of KiVa antibullying program during
the first year of nationwide implementation. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology
• Salmivalli, C., Kärnä, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2011).
Counteracting bulllying in Finland: The KiVa program and its
effects on different forms of being bullied. International Journal
of Behavioral Development.
• Salmivalli, C., Garandeau, C. F., & Veenstra, R. (2012). KiVa
anti-bullying program: Implications for school adjustment. In A.
M. Ryan & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships and
adjustment at School. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub.
• Williford, A., Boulton, A., Noland, B., Little, T. D., Kärnä, A., &
Salmivalli, C. (2011). Effects of the KiVa anti-bullying program
on adolescents’ depression, anxiety, and perception of peers.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.