Process Evaluation of a Bullying Prevention Program. a Public School-Country Health Partnership -...

8/12/2019 Process Evaluation of a Bullying Prevention Program. a Public School-Country Health Partnership - Edmondson &

1/10

Process Evaluation of a BullyingPrevention ProgramA Public School County Health PartnershipLynne dmondsonandJohn Hoover

In this article, a process evaluation of school-based, violence intervention program is presented.The program w as modeled after bullying prevention programs described by Daniel O hveus (1993)whose compo nents were impleme nted to achieve student safety goals. The process evaluationinstrument used in this study was developed by rural Midw estern county he alth department andutilized to evaluate a bullying prevention program. The tool elicited teacher response reg ardingthree topics: perception of student behavior, reported implementation of curricular lessons,and resulting changes to the school atmosphere following program im plementation. Year tworespondents included thirty-two teachers who taught lessons and participated in other aspectsof their school-wide bu llying program with 631 students in four schools. Year three included 20teachers and 752 students. By year three, over 65 percent of responding teachers and socialworl^rs reported positive change in individual student behavior.

IntroductionThough teachers work with him daily, Tim thinksmore ahout fights than shidies. How can educatorslearn whether their work changes the response pat-terns of students like Tim? Students attend school tolearn, hut learning may or may not occur. Many bar-riers may hlock the efforts of educators to work w iththeir young charges (e.g., Barnes, Belsky, Broomfield,& Melhuish, 2006; Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, &Feinberg , 2005).It has long been recognized that student behavioraffects learning not only for directly involved stu-den ts, but also across classrooms (e.g., Kounin, 1970:Prothrow-Stith & Quaday, 1995) and campus-wide.Many mechanisn\s putatively drive the correlationbetween behavior and academ ics. However, the best,research-based guess is that the primary mediatingvariable is academic engagement, in the form of so-called academic learning time. Educator behaviorsand administrative arrangements that maximize

time on learning tasks tend to increase achievement,while those instructional performances that reducestudent engagement produce lower rates of gain(Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Of course,fear based on physical or psychological bullying alsoaffects learning. The effect of fear on learning proba -bly operates via the mechanism of arousal, where ithas been observed that high levels of stimulation, astranslated through student's internal explanations,inhibit learning {Pintrich Schunk, 2002).Via needs analysis in several Illinois districts, a lackof connection was observed between the way thatstudents treated one another in school and educa-tors' desires for pro-social responses. Over 70% offifth grade students in the county had been bulliedand another 70 />, with some overlap, reported bully-ing others. Only50%of stud ents indicated that theyfelt safe at school. {These data are ava ilable from thefirst author).

reclaiming children and yo uth 16:4 w inte r 2008 f pp. 25 33 25


2/10

In response to a principal's comment about b ullyingat her school, a needs assessment was conducted in5th grade classes in thirteen rural Midwestern ele-mentary schools. Four hundred and fifty-two stu-dents completed written surveys measuring opin-ions about various bullying behaviors and wherethey occur. Studen t's answers were based on behav-iors du ring the past mo nth at school. Vaux (1997)found over half of the respondents reported havingbeen bullied. Almost half of the studen ts reportedbeing teased abou t how they looked. Over half ofthe youth reported being purposely excluded. Halfof the respondents indicated that someone had hit,kicked, or punched them{8%frequently). Over halfof the fifth graders had never seen a teacher orschool official rescue a student from bullying orscold a student forit About quarter of respondentsdisagreed (some very strongly) with the statement, Overall, I feel safe at this school. (Data availableupon request).Given needs analysis findings, bullying preventionprogram was develop ed and offered to schools by arural Midwestern county health departm ent. On anindividual level, children were taught self-reliantstrategies and techniques for building empathy.

Another aspect of the project was to positivelychange the climate and culture of the school andclassroom. A community awareness campaignreached parents, professionals, and the general pub-lic and fostered recogrution that bu llying is a formofaggression.One particularly innovative aspect of this projectwas the involvement of the local health depar tmen t,members of wliich operated from the stance of theiroverall wellness mission. The second author ofthis paper was called in as a consultant and recom-mended a set of individual-, classroom-, and huild-ing-level practices consistent with Olweus's (e.g.,1993) recommendations; this work, originating inNorway, was the best documented program at thattime. The county health department's goal was toinstitute these recommendations in ways that metthe needs of students. The consultant held severalmeetings with planners and then with participantsas the program moved forward.One programmatic objective was to coordinate arelationship between health department program-ming and existing school programs. This was doneto set violence prevention within the broad context

Artbv Miriam D.Milo C omm unity SchoolMilo Alberta Canada.Used w ith permission.26 reciaiming chi ldren and youth


3/10

of overall healthandwellness,anapproach that hasreceived considerable support in the past decade(e.g., Rigby, 2001;U.S.Department of HealthandHuman Services, 2001).Thehealth departm enthadgrant funding and wasable toprovide an expertconsultant, m aterials,andprofessional supportstaff.Additionally, the needs assessment completed bythe health departm ent provided data helpfultoindi-vidual schools applying for grantsto fund schoolsocial workers.The Program

The bullying consultant recommended thatthepro-gram be developed aro und Olw eus's (1993) corefea-tures. The program, designed locally, was builtaround the following com ponents,alla ttributabletoOlweus's w ork:1.Successful bu llying prevention prog rams provideopportunitiesforawarenessandinvolvementonthe partof adults. This componentcan be com-pared toAUensworth's (1987;1997)comprehen-sive school health componen t: school, family,andcommunity involvement. Several features of theprogram were aimedatpromoting adult aware-ness and involvement. These features includedforminga school task force, training school staffand volunteers, networking with communityorganizations, and promoting the program

through com munity activitiesand themedia. Theidea that bullyingisnot acceptable was oneofthefirst messages promoted. Training and profes-sional development consisted of fostering anunderstandingofbullyingandits prevention.2.Aclimate survey was undertaken . Social workersguided this process by developing a climatesurvey checklistand implementingthechecklistduring a daylong observation at each school.Discrete observers posted withinandaroundtheschool recordedthenumberofnegative incidents

and general interaction patterns. These locationswere usually found to be theareasat adistancefrom classroom teacher supervision. Basedon theresultsof theobservations,hotspotsand timesplagued with bullying incidents were recom-mendedto beaddressed with better supervision.Better supervision during recessand lunchtimewas a third recommendationbyHoover (Hoover,1997; Hoover Oliver, 1996).3.A school conference day was held, describedIto students, faculty members, and staff] as an

anti-bullying day for students. County healthworkers implemented thisday as thekick-offfor peacemaker assemblies. Thiswas atime whenthe desirable behaviors w ere illustrated with role-plays, artwork, cheerleading, songs,andawards.4. Another program component consisted of class

rules agaiiist bullying. A recommendation wasmade to administrators and school task force(s)toreview school rulesandinclude rules addressingteasingand harassment.A recommended bully-ing prevention lesson helped studentstodevelopclass rules that addressed various aspects ofbullying, including teasing, physical fighting,exclusion,andbystander behavior.5. Class meetings allowed timeforpracticing g roupdecision makingandstrengthening problem solv-ing skills. Students should feel safe discussing

both positive and negative issues. Educatorsdiscouraged students from using real names.Inaddition, controversial issues were presentedanddebated. This develops further skill at non-violentconflict resolution (Dalai Lama, 1999).Anumberof schoolsinthe program used peer mediationasanother approach to work on issues in smallgroups, despitethefact that Olweus (1993) coun-sels against this appro ach.6. Olweus (1993) recommended serious talks withbullies and victims (c.f.. Hoover Oliver,

1996). Hoover and Oliver recommended Pika'sCommon Concern Modelas amethodof target-ing bullying problems. All counselors workingfor the target schools were provided Hoover'smanual, which contains a description of Pika'sapproach. In the first year of theprogram,anarrangementwasmadefora regional social serv-ice agency to provide services to studentsandparents fromthepilot school. Later,anumberofparticipating schools employed social workerswho could more adequately address this compo-nent. In later years, Pikas's approach has beendescribed as coinciding with what hasbecomeknown in North America as victim-offendermediation (Hoover Olsen , 2000).

7. The final component consistsofserious talks withparents of involved students (Olweus, 1993).Flyers were distributedasa proactive m easurebythe bullying prevention schools describing whatparents could d o about victim and bully behavior.School social workers and principals talked toparents of both victims and bullies. When thevolume 16 number4 winter 2008 < 27


4/10

school did not have a social worker, the teacherand principal played this role. A counselor net-working session highlighted two prominent con-cepts to include in talks with parents: physicalfighting is never an acceptable solution to a prob-lem between two people, and families of victimscan promote victim behavior by being tooemneshed and dependent.

An additional component incorporated by each ofthe participating county schools included the imple-mentation of social skills and anti-bullying educa-tion, using curriculum materials developed in coop-eration with county schools. Educators providedopportunities for kindergarten through eighth-grade students to develop skills for healthy interper-sonal relationships (social skill lessons). Lessonswere provided on anger management, empathybuilding, friendship-making, and interpersonalproblem-solving skills. Educators and project per-sonnel also addressed the potential negative conse-quences of teasing, bullying, and violence.School-level safety-advisory groups were organizedand made up of educators, representatives of thecounty health department, and parents. Advisorygroups at the local level (but supported by bothregional and national consultation) developedstrategic plans incorporating the above componentsinto each school s safety plan. The plans included avision statement and a time line. Funding from astate violence prevention program added neededcurricular and persormel resources.

Process EvaluationLevels of knowledge tend to be among the morestraightforward metrics in the assessment of vio-lence prevention efforts; this assessment can beaddressed via multiple-choice and short-answer for-mats.Another means of measuring the effectivenessof a program is via students behavioral and attitu-dinal self-reports, collected both qualitatively andquan titatively (e.g., throug h questionnaires ). In thecurrent investigation, educators administered ques-tionnaires (on a pre- and post-intervention basis) tofourth-, sixth-, and eighth-grade students (and theirteachers) at the participating and control schools.The process evaluation was developed to assist theschools, health department, and other communitypartners in achieving the goals of increased safetyand increased perceptions of safety. It was onemethod of getting feedback before the end of aprogram, at a point where attitudinal or behaviorchange may not be large enough to measuredirectly. Health department representatives wantedto create an evaluation that would measure theobjectives, demonstrating how well the programwork ed. Harinck and colleagues (1997) proposed avariation of process evaluation which reflects whatthe health dep artm ent needed to accomplish: forma-tive evaluation utilizes responses from intervenersand recipients to locate weaknesses and improveintervention. McDermott and Sarvela (1999)employed the termcontinuous qu lity improvementreference to essentially the sam edevelopment leffort.Gathering teacher-perception data is another appro-

Table 1 Student Behavior ReportEnd of Year 2 and Year 3School

1234

Positive Change inStudent Behavior fromPreviou s Year

Year 2yesyesyesyes

Year 3no

s omew ha tyes

Referral Rate*to PrincipalYear 2

23

2.12

Year 31.1

1.52.2

Number of TeachersResponding

Year 229183

Year 39145

rate of referrals; 2 Same; 3 Lower rate of referrals

28 ^ reclaiming children and you th


5/10

priate process approach. Teachers implementprogram s, they regularly interact w ith studen ts, andthey recognize environmental change (Olweus,1993). The teacher process evaluation was devel-oped because teach ers' perceptions and actions werecritical to pro gramm atic success.One challenge programmers faced was to replicatethe model, with fidelity to the original, in ways thatmet the needs of students in rural southern Illinois.Isaac and Michael (1995, p. 11) noted that imple-mentation evaluation seeks out discrepanciesbetween the plan and reality: keeps the programtrue to its design or modifies it approp riately. Onebarrier to replication was the inherent difficulty ofcoordinating this new violence prevention projectwith contemporaneously existing school programs.In order to overcome this barrier, the roles of partic-ipants needed to be clarified (school personnel,health d epartmentstaff and other community part-ners). Participants worked to overcome obstacleswhen they became convinced that programmingimproved students' behavior and achievement aswell as the quality of the school environment.

While it is important to know the answer to does it work, much m ore needs to beknown to assess program implementationand effectiveness. For example, what goodwou curriculum outcome measuresaccomplish if teachers reported dissatisfac-tion w ith a curriculum or said it was imprac-tical or impossible to implement in the class-

room? What if students reported significantcognitive gains but thought the informationwas unimportant and a waste of time?(O'Rourke, 1995, p. 34)The goal of process evaluation should not only be todetermine the basic impact of an intervention butwhether the intervention was properly implement-ed, how widely it was implem ented, and the qualityof the program. The evaluation should includeimplementation monitoring, quality assurance, andassessing the reaction of students, teachers, and par-ents to the program. This type of evaluation shoulddetermine which factors contributed to the pro-gram's success at each site (AUensworth etal.,1997).

MethodThe evaluation tool contained questions helpful fora reflective view of the program of the prior year inan effort to improve the next yea r's program. Thetool is Teacher Use of the ullying Prevention Project(Appendix A). The instrument was developed toassess teacher iise of the anti-violence curriculum.Via this instrument educators reported perceivedschool-climate changes and perception of how theproject was received by parents and students.Finally, we asked them to recommend changes tolessons. The evaluation was also a means to gatherstatistics required by the funding agency. Responseformats included yes/no, short answer, Likert-type and checklists. Space was included forfour open -ended (written) responses which elicited

Table 2. Lessons Taught End of Year 2 and Year 3School

1

2

3

4

Lessons Taught

Year 212

5-12 perteacher3-10 perteacher

5 perteacher

Year 35-8 perteacher

289-^0 perteacher0-10 perteacher

Lesson Prep Time

Year 220minutes

10-45minutes10-60minutes

20minutes

Year 315-30minutes

30minutes15-30minutes0-40minutes

Num ber ofStudentsYear 2

50

164

347

70

Year 3135

60

438

119

Number ofTeachersRespondingYear 2

1

9

15

3

Year 37

1

4

5

volume 16 number 4 winter 2008 O 29


6/10

suggestions for program modifications. Questionswere clustered under three categorical headings:student behavior, lessons, and school atmosphere.The questionnaire was m eant to be short and easy tocomplete, so it could not include all items the inves-tigators might have found useful, thus supervisorswere also interviewed. Determination of whetherfunding was well spent w as not included in the firstyear's survey. Motivating factors that contribute tostudent, staff parent, and community buy-in werenot explored. The questions do not clearly d eterminewhether or not or to what degree participants knewthe vision of the project. Flexibility of the projectwithin the school structure was addressed verballywith the school administrator, not via the processevaluation format.At the time the questionnaire was completed, fourschool districts, a total of four schools and one con-trol school, participated in the bullying preventionprog ram . Some of the schools had a large majorityof Anglo-American students, while other schoolshad m ore diverse populations. All of the teachers attwo schools and two to three teachers or socialworkers at the other two schools were invited toparticipate in the evaluation. The instrument wascirculated to approximately fifty-two participants,teachers, and counselors.The Bullying Prevention Process Evaluation yieldeda teacher perception of some program processes (seeTables 1,2 3;Jackson County Health Departm ent,2000). In year two, project staffers circulated the

instrument to approximately 52 teachers, 32 (62 )were completed and returned. In year three,20werereturned. In year two, 70 of the respondents per-ceived a positive change in student behavior sinceimplementation of the bullying prevention programand none (07o) of the respondents reported a higherrate of referrals to the principal since advent of theprogram. In year three, 65 perceived a change instudent behavior over the previous year and two ofthe four schools experienced a higher rate of refer-rals. Year-two respondents spent approximately2,880 hours total time teaching violence and bully-ing prevention lessons to 631 students, projected tothe target population these figures would be 5760hours and about 1200 students. In year three, 20respondents taught 752 students.At the end of year two , eighteen teachers (56 ofrespondents) believed that students in their chargevalued bullying prevention lessons. Three teachersnoted that the curriculum was less well receivedthan it might have been because lessons wereoffered during physical education periods. This wasnoted and changes were made the next year. Onedisappointing result from year two was that onlyfour teachers reported an increase in parentalinvolvement on the subject of school violence andbullying; however, in year three, eight teachersreported an increase in parental involvement.Table 1 provides results from section one of theteacher process evaluation on student behavior.Table2provid es results from section tw o, use of cur-riculum . Table 3 includes results from the section on

Table 3 Teacher Perception of School AtmosphereEnd of Year 2 and Year 3

School

1234

Totalfor Year 3

Ne w Policies &ProceduresYear 2

noyesnoyes

Year 3Climate Change

Year 2noye snoye s

Year 3

Change inStudent BehaviorYear 2

noye snoyes

Year 3

65

ParentalInvolvementYear 2

noyesnono

Year 3

40

Number of TeachersRespondingYear 2

29183

Year 3

20

3


7/10

effect of the bullying prevention program on schoolatmosphere. The program and objectives at eachschool varied slightly; this was reflected in educatorresponses.Asimilar questionnaire given to adminis-trators and counselors might have clarified the pic-ture. Perception of school-wide changes paralleledschool-wide adoption of new [anti-violence-based]policies and procedures, as well as structures foreliciting paren tal involvement. The process evalua-tion results, student pre/posttest data, climatesurveys, and interviews for each school completedthe evaluation package for this program.The psychometric properties of the questionnairewere not explored for this study. However, it mustbe noted that Olweus (1993) has discovered thatboth educators and students can provide reliableand valid retrospective data on the occurrence ofviolence (See also Jantzer, Hoover, Narloch, 2006).

ConclusionIn summary, this evaluation technique was repre-sentative of experiential perceptions of programimplementers, was not too intrusive, and providedthe information needed by programmers. There arenumerous examples of changes in the bullying pre-vention program engendered by these data. By yearthree, teachers became acutely aware of the conse-quences of negative student behaviors, so infrac-tions were more routinely referred to the principaland social worker (Table1).The first year of the pro-gram, trainers taught many of the lessons. In yeartwo,classroom teachers taug ht most ofthem.In yearthree, teachers and newly hired school social work-ers taught many of the lessons school wide; this mayaccount for the decreased num ber of responden ts inyear three (Table 2). Data in Table 2 indicate anincrease in the number of students served. Theresults regarding low parent participation (Table 3)in year two were noted and training and volun-teer/pa rticipation opportunities were offered to par-ents early in year three. Teachers indicated thatmany anti-bullying lessons were provided by thehealth department, so a variety of resources andactivity materials were purchased and a lendinglibrary was put into place for the four schools.Other changes occurred in the program in light ofprocess data. The scope of the program was expand-ed each year to meet faculty needs; The Bullyingr v ntion Manual created and provided by the

health department, was likewise expanded. Theprocess evaluation at the end of year three includedan opportunity to evaluate satisfaction with healthdepartment staff in the following areas: assistance,communication, events, time, knowledge, followthrough, and open-mindedness. Finally, each succes-sive year, the schools took more ownership of theirprogram s, evidenced by fewer requests for assistance.Process evaluations can be used to show the feasibil-ity of the intervention, to document that objectiveswere met, and to indicate that money was wellspent. Information gleaned guided improvementsand modifications in the program, as well as affect-ed allocation of staff time and funds. Utilizing bothprocess and outcome data can show a relationshipbetween curriculum exposure, school climate, andstudent outcomes. Student pre-test data from yearone compared to post-test data from year threeshowed that, consistent with the overall programgoal, feelings of safety were increased QacksonCounty Health Department, 2000). A sense of theefficacy achieved by students participating in theprogram was also illustrated. These results showedimproved attitudes such as recognition that bullyinghurts and an increase in reaching out behavior.This data supports the perception of a positive stu-dent behavior change by seventy percent of theteachers responding to the process evaluation ques-tionnaire (Jackson County Health Department, 1999,2000). Based on information reported in the processevaluations, it is evident that there was a large par-ticipation on the part of school personnel. Althoughmore infractions were reported, these were notaccompanied by reduced feelings of safety asoccurred with the control group Qackson CountyHealth Department, 2000). In conclusion, climateand culture of the classroom and school environ-ment was positively improved.Professional reflection sh ould be ongoing. Is there ahigher cost benefit if the time is spent: in refreshercourses, on task, in public relation, with profession-al networking, or at the com puter (Harinck, Smit, &Knorth, 1997)? It is the perspec tive of the evalua torthat the described process evaluation instrumentand results helped achieve an equitable approach toimplementing the program. The purpose of thisstudy was to focus on the Bullying PreventionProgram and how process evaluation helped refinethe program. As the program changes to reflect

volu me 16, num ber 4 win ter 2008 > 31


8/10

the process evaluation results, so the next processevaluation instrument changes to better assess moreaspects of the prog ram.

Lynne Edmondson, PhD, is associate professor at Alabama A M U niversity in the department of health, physical educationand recreation, Normal, Alabama. She has authored six otherviolence prevention publications. She can be contacted bye-mail: [email protected]

John H. Hoover, PhD, is interim associate dean of the Collegeof Education at St. Cloud State U niversity. He can be contact-ed bye-mail: [email protected]

R F R N SAUe nsworth, D., Law son, E., Nicholson , L., et al. (Eds). (1997).Schoolsan dhealth: Our nation's investment.Washington, DC: N ationalAcademy Press.Ailenswo rth, D., Kolbe, L. J. (1987). The comprehensive school

health program: Exploring an expanded concept.jiHirnalof SchooiHealth,57(10), 409-412.Barnes, J. B., Belsky, J., Broomfield, K. A., Me lhuish , E. (2006).Neighbourhood deprivation, school disorder, and academicachievement: Primary schools in deprived communities inEngland. International journalofBehaviouralDevelopment 30 , 127-136.Dalai Lama. (1999). Ethics for the new m illennium. New York:Riverhead Books.Fredric ks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C , Paris, A. H. (2004). Schoolengagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence.Revieio of Educational Research, 74,59-109.Harinck,F.J.H., Smit, M., Knorth, E.J.(1997). Evaluating child andyouth care programs.Child Youth CareForum, 26,369-383.Hoover, J. H. (1997). Set straight on bullies facilitator's guide.Blooniington, IN: National Educational Service.Hoover, J. H., :O liver, R. (1996).The bullying preventionhandbook:A

guide for principals, teachers, and counselors. Bloomington, IN:National Educational Service.

Hoove r, J. H., Olsen, G. (2001).Teasing andharassment:The framand scriptsapproachfor parents and teachers. Bloomington, INNational Educational Service.Isaac, S., Mich ael, W. B. (1995).Handbookinresearch andevaluat3rdEd.San D iego, CA: EdITS.Jackson County (IL) Health Department Data. (1997-2000).Unpublished data/ Available from the first author.Jantzer, A.M., Hoover, J. H., Narloch, R. (2006). The relation shipbetween school-aged bullying and trust, shyness and quality offriendships in young adulth ood: A preliminary research note.School PsychologyInternational 27 ,146-156.Kounin, J. S. (1970).Discipline and groupnmnagement in classrooNew York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.Luiselli,J.K., Putnam, R. R, Handler, M. W., Feinberg, A.B.(2005).Whole-school positive behavior support: Effects on studentdiscipline problems and academic performance.EducationalPsychology,25 , 183-198.Mc Derm ott, R. J., Sarvela , P. D. (1999).Health education evaluatioan d measurement: A practioner s perspective. New York: WMcGraw-Hill.Olw eus, D. (1993).Bullying at schoolWiatwe know and what we canOxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.Ofweus, D . (1996). Bui lying/v ictim problems at school: Facts andeffective intervention. Reclaiming Children Youth, 8,15-22.O'Rourke, T. W. (1995). Creating capacity: A research agenda forschool health education.Journalo fSchoolHealth, 65, 33-37.Pintrich,P.R., Schru nk, D . H. (2002).Motivation ineducation:Theresearch, and application (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NMerrili/Prentice-Hall.Prothrow-Stith, D., Quaday, S. (1995).Hidden casualties: The retionship between violence an dlearning. Washington, DC: NatioHealth Education Consortium Nationa l Consortium forAfrican Am erican Children , Inc.Rigby, K. (2001). Health conseque nces of b ullying and its preventionin schools. In J. Juvonen S. Graham (Eds.),Peer harassment ischool:The plighto fthe vulnerable and victimized(pp. 310-331). York: The Guilford Press.U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (200]). Youth violence:Areportofthe Surgeon General- executivesummary. RocMD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers forDisease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury pre-vention and Control; Substance Abuse and Mental HealthServices Administration, Center for Mental Health Service; andNational Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health.Vaux, A . (1997).Unpublished needs analysissurvey.Carbondale, IL. more information about the analysis and its interpretation, pleasecontact the first author.

32 < reclaiming chiidren and you th


9/10

Appendix ATeacher InstrumentSince implementation of the bullying/violence prevention program:Student Behavior1. Do you perceive a positive change in stud ent behavior verbal, physical, exclusion) in yourclassroom?Yes No2. Are referrals to the principal for discipline noticeably different than they were prior to BullyPrevention Program? Please compare current rate of referrals to last year around the same time).Higher rate of referrals Same Lower rate of referrals3. To what do you attribute the change?

Lessons4. How many bully/violence prevention lessons did you teach? Include anger managem ent, socialskills and conflict-resolution lessons.)5. How many of these lessons were provided or recommended by the bullying prevention coordinator?6. Average amount of time spent preparin g for each lesson: __^7 How much time, on average, is spent with class for a lesson and any accompanying activities?8. Overall, how well received was the curriculum by the students?.9. Did you enjoy using the lessons? Yes No

Why or why not?10.How many students were taught the lessons?.11.Grade level in which you now teach?School tmosphere12. As a result of the B ullying/Violence Prevention Program, my schoolhas: Check all that apply):

O New policies/procedures for disciplinary action.O Experienced a climate change.O Experienced a change in student behavior.O Continued teacher interest and participation in formal/informal discussions i.e. During lunchhour, before/after school and staff meetings.)O Increased paren tal involvement on the subject of school violence and bullying .O Experienced no change.O Other, Please list: ^ .

Thank you for completing this survey.Your help is greatly appreciated.

voium e 16 num ber 4 win ter 2008


10/10

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	eduardo-aguirre-davila
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Process Evaluation of a Bullying Prevention Program. a Public School-Country Health Partnership -...

Documents