ED P 520

Dr. Rezaei

Research Article Critique

Wurf, G. (2012). High School Anti-Bullying Interventions: An Evaluation of Curriculum

Approaches and the Method of Shared Concern in Four Hong Kong International Schools.
Australian Journal Of Guidance And Counselling, 22(1), 139-149.

Article Summary

Introduction

Bullying is a world-wide epidemic that causes students all over the world to feel insecure

isolated, and in severe instances, commit suicide. Bullying is most common among adolescent-

aged students. This study looked at whole-school intervention programs versus grade-level

intervention programs versus no program. This study also looked at a combination of curriculum

and the Shared Concern intervention versus solely the use of the Shared Concern intervention.

Prior research has found whole-school anti-bullying programs as the best evidence-based

approaches to bullying intervention. The curriculum included the pre-test survey and the

discussion of its results, worksheets, class discussions, role-playing, cooperative learning

activities, and supplementary literature and videos. The Shared Concern method is a five-phase

model that involves teacher and counselor intervention, which is followed by monitoring. The

five phases include an initial talk with the students involved to solicit solutions. This is followed

by teacher support towards the bullied. The third phase involves a teacher-bully meeting where

the teacher ensures that the bully is no longer bullying. This is followed by a meeting with all

students involved where an agreement is made regarding the bullying. The final phase is a
follow-up meeting where the teacher makes certain that the bullying has stopped. The purpose

of this study was to analyze effective components of a whole-school versus a single grade-level

approach to anti-bullying interventions in four high schools in Hong Kong.

Assumption

The main assumption of the research article is that implementation of an anti-bullying

curriculum will reduce the instances of bullying in high school aged students. Anti-bullying

curriculums implemented school-wide are better than anti-bullying curriculums implemented at

one grade level, but either implementation is better than no implementation.

Participants

The participants for this study were 545 (pre-test) /549 (post-test) Year 7 (equivalent to

9th graders in the United States) students from twenty-one Year 7 classes located in four

international co-educational secondary schools in Hong Kong. All four schools had the same

administrative structures, localized British National Curriculum, and funding. Participants were

already organized in their Year 7 classes and completed the questionnaires and curriculum

interventions in said classes.

Measures

The study measured incidents of bullying using the secondary school, English version of

the Olweus (1991) self-report questionnaire. The questionnaire measured students’ frequency of

being left out or indirectly bullied, directly bullied, and taking part in the bullying of others.

Students completed the questionnaire twice throughout the year (once before the curriculum

implementation and once after the implementation). A checklist was created for teachers to

ensure and monitor their implementation of the interventions. The checklist asked teachers if
they had in fact implemented various components of the program, how instances of bullying

were reported, and for their personal opinion of the intervention curriculums.

Hypothesis

There were three hypotheses for this study. Gerald Wurf hypothesized that the use of a

whole-school approached intervention targeted at all students, in all high school grade levels,

would be more effective than interventions targeted at only one grade level (in this case Year 7).

The second hypothesis was that curriculum and mediation interventions (the Shared Concern

approach) targeted solely at Year 7 students would reduce bullying across the Year 7 cohort.

The final hypothesis was that bullying would be reduced across the Year 7 cohort with the use of

the Shared Concern method of mediation for reporting bullying.

Design

The study used a factorial, quasi-experimental design and incorporated a pre and post-

test. The study created non-equivalent control groups because random assignment was not

available. The groups were created out of the already existing Year 7 classes. There were four

schools that participated in the study, and each school was randomly assigned to one of the

following four conditions: Condition (a) Whole-school curriculum? intervention for all years,

Condition (b) Curriculum and Shared Concern intervention at Year 7, Condition (c) Shared

Concern intervention only at Year 7, or Condition (d) Control school. Commented [A1]: What is the difference between b and c?

Procedure

Students completed the pre-test questionnaire at the end of the students’ first term in Year

7. Students completed the same questionnaire as the post-test at the end of the students’ final

term in Year 7. Both times, the questionnaires were completed anonymously and confidentially
during class with standardized instructions under test conditions. Students answered questions

regarding the number of times they had been indirectly and/or directly bullied and bullied other

people in the last two or three months.

First, students completed the pre-test questionnaire. Next, students gathered in an

assembly and received feedback about the results from the pre-test questionnaire. During the

assembly, students were encouraged to get involved in the anti-bullying curriculum and activities

that would come in the weeks to follow. Next, teachers presented three lessons, led by videos

and accompanied with class discussions, to raise awareness of bullying and school solutions. In

the next week, students worked to identify types of bullying and strategies to combat the various

types of bullying. In the third week, students completed response worksheets and role-played

their responses. This was the protocol for the school assigned to Condition (a) and Condition

(b). The difference was that the school assigned to Condition (a) implemented the curriculum

across all grade levels while the school assigned to Condition (b) only implemented the

curriculum & Shared Concern? to Year 7 students. Commented [A2]: How did they compare the whole school
with year 7 only if they used a combo method in year 7 and a
“curriculum intervention only” method for the whole school?

For the school assigned to Condition (c), a briefing and packet of readings describing the

Shared Concern mediation technique were given to the school. Next, the technique was role-

played with the Year 7 coordinators. During the intervention period, two support meetings were

held for teachers to review the implementation of the Shared Concern Method.

Analysis

By providing students with an anti-bullying curriculum and an intervention methodology,

the instances of bullying in adolescent-aged students will decrease. The use of several schools

improves the validity of the results because the likelihood of a third variable explanation is
reduced. By assigning different schools to different conditions, it will show the strengths of

implementing the curriculum and intervention method to the entire school. The non-equivalent

control groups allow for the greatest control of extraneous variables. Even though random

assignment was not used, the students’ differences are less likely to be the reason for a change in

the instances of bullying because the groups were created somewhat randomly and without

regard to the purposes of this study.

Results

Based on several two-way repeated measures ANOVA tests, class composite bullying

levels were computed for each of the four conditions. The class composite bullying scores were

used as the dependent variable. Students at the school where the whole-school intervention was

implemented (Condition a) self-reported a major decline in the amount of bullying. The whole-

school intervention plan resulted in an overall 16% decline in bullying among Year 7 students.

Similarly, students at the school where curriculum and the Shared Concern intervention was

implemented in only Year 7 (Condition b) self-reported a significant decline (percent?)in the

amount of bullying in the post-test. Students with only Shared Concern intervention (Condition Commented [A3]: Why? Do they explain why?

c) and no intervention (Condition d) actually self-reported an increase in the instances of

bullying in the post-test. Four one-way ANOVAs were computed for each separate school, and

the findings confirmed these findings.

Discussion

The results supported the first and second hypotheses that school bullying can be reduced

with the use of multiple component interventions. The use of whole-school interventions were

more successful than the interventions in only Year 7, which can be attributed to the fact that a
lot of high school bullying occurs across grade levels. The third hypothesis was not supported

by the findings, and the instances of bullying actually increased when the use of the Shared

Concern meditation alone was implemented in only Year 7. The article explains that this might

be in part due to the fact that students’ failure to report bullying was not taken into consideration.

It is surprising that the reports from the teachers at the school where solely the Shared Concern

meditation was implemented in only Year 7 were positive and encouraging about the

effectiveness of the program. Overall, the whole-school approach and the use of multiple

component programs used to intervene and reduce the instances of bullying were more effective.

Limitations

There were several limitations discussed in the article. The starting level of bullying at

each school was different, so that might have influenced the ending level of bullying regardless

of the condition assigned to the various schools. The anonymous surveys pose a possible

limitation because people might not have been completely truthful in their answers. Another

possible limitation is the fact that composite school and class levels of bullying were computed,

but these composite levels might be too general and broad to show the true effectiveness at the

individual level. The final limitation rests in the fact that the level of parent involvement was not

systematically investigated even though this has been proven to be a vital component in the

success of anti-bullying curriculums.

Conclusions

The more components a school includes in an anti-bullying program, the more successful

the program will be. The results support the use of a whole-school approach when implementing

an anti-bullying curriculum. The use of school conferences/assemblies to raise awareness of

bullying, anti-bullying videos, and disciplinary methods/sanctions for bullying will reduce the

instances of bullying. Bullying interventions are more successful when bullying is addressed

across all years/grades, teachers are provided with training, parents are involved, and students are

encouraged to participate in the program. Schools and teachers can also improve classroom

management/classroom rules and class supervision and monitoring to increase the effectiveness

of bullying intervention programs.

Article Evaluation

Importance of Problem Investigated

The authors state the problem as a recurring phenomenon among adolescent-aged

students who bully one another for a variety of reasons. The study’s aim is to see how various Commented [A4]: good

curriculums and interventions can reduce bullying, which can be analyzed with the collection of

pre and post-test surveys on bullying. The study does not make a clear connection between the

bullying and its effects on students’ educational successes and achievements. Clearly, one could

assume that bullying leads to a student withdrawing and falling behind in classes, but this point

seems to be missing in the article. What does bullying do to a student? How is a student’s

academic success and achievement affected by bullying? What is the educational significance of

bullying? These questions are not explicitly answered in the article. Additional background

information on the topic of bullying such as statistics broken down by age, sex, etc. would have

made the importance of the problem clearer and more explicit. The author does do a good job of

operationally defineing what the term “bullying” means.

Review of Literature
 The review of literature is very comprehensive in that it covers all of the components

associated with the problem of bullying. The author first cites past findings about whole-school

approaches; stating that whole-school approaches are the best method for reducing the instances

of bullying. Then, the author moves into the actual definition and essential elements of student

bullying. The author identifies different forms and interpretations of bullying. The review

concludes with a brief summary of relevant literature and the reasoning for his study. He states

that the results are mixed, which is why he is conducting this research. All of the references are Commented [A5]: good

relevant to the problem under investigation and help to inform the reader of the study’s purpose.

The review of literature gives readers a glimpse into the world of educational bullying

research and makes it clear why additional research is needed. The mixed results from prior

research form a clear and theoretical rationale for the hypotheses that follow this section. The

study aims to look at varying levels of implementation and interventions. The author does an

excellent job of using this section to inform the reader and state the rationale for the study while

making connections between the various studies reviewed.

Hypotheses

The three hypotheses are clearly labeled and easy to find. The three hypotheses are

specific hypotheses to be tested and are clearly stated in a list of three items. Each hypothesis is

testable and states the expected relationship to the others. It is slightly confusing whether the

mediation intervention and the Shared Concern approach/method are the same. While the words Commented [A6]: Excellent that was my question too.

approach and method are synonyms, it would be clearer if the processes were labeled uniformly.

The first hypothesis looks at the whole-school versus only Year 7 while the second and third

both look at only Year 7 versus varying levels of interventions. The second hypothesis looks at a

combination of curriculum and mediation intervention (Shared Concern) while the thirds
hypothesis looks only at the use of mediation intervention (Shared Concern). The varying

conditions allow for the researcher to compare the levels of effectiveness. The term “bullying” is

operationally defined to make it clear what is meant for this study’s purposes. The different

interventions are also operationally defined to show readers what is meant by each term.

Participants

While random assignment of participants to conditions was not possible, the selection of

the participants based on existing class assignments and arrangements minimized possible

reactive arrangement threats from students knowing they are being observed. The assignment of

the participants offers the greatest control for extraneous variables as possible without a random

assignment of participants. This method of sampling is likely to be representative of a Year 7

(9th grade) high school population because it is not contrived. The sample literally is the target

population. Instead of looking at only randomly selected students, it looks at the entire

population, which provides an unbiased sample for this study. The study looks at twenty-one

Year 7 classes across four international secondary schools in Hong Kong, which equates to

roughly 545/549 students. The study used a wide range of students from different schools and

different classes, which is a large enough population to allow the results to be generalized to high

school students in general. The fact that the finding, curriculum, and administrative structures

were the same at all four schools also helps to eliminate possible confounding variables.

The study does a good job of describing the sample’s size, characteristics, and selection

process, which give readers a good sense of who the sample as well as target population are. The

study connects the sample to the population by literally creating the sample out of the target

population’s size and characteristics. The sample is not a contrived set of handpicked

participants. Instead, the sample consists of real students in real schools and class dealing with
real bullying. The sample is vital to the reliability and validity of the study as its findings

provide data that is representative of all adolescent-aged students.

The only critique with the sample is that Year 7 (9th grade) students are not the most

reliable sources when it comes to interpreting their feelings and experiences. This obviously

cannot be changed since the target population is high school aged students, but it is something to

take into consideration when analyzing and interpreting the data.

Instruments

The researcher does a good job of describing the survey and its scoring, but the actual

content of the content of the survey is left to one’s imagination. We can guess the types of

questions that the survey would have, but it is not clearly described in the article. Similarly, the

teacher checklist’s contents are not explicitly stated, which creates gaps in the information. The

purpose of the checklist is clear. While there are weaknesses associated with surveys and

checklists, both of these instruments are appropriate for measuring the intended variables.

There is no rationale for the selection of the measures used in this study, which make it

impossible to know why the researcher chose the survey he used. He makes a quick reference

about its origins, but the rationale behind that particular survey is not clear. There also is no

evidence presented to indicate that this study is appropriate for the Year 7 students. The surveys

and checklists’ validity is not discussed in the article, which makes it impossible to tell how valid

either is in measuring its intended variables. Similarly, the reliability of the survey nor the

checklist is discussed in the article, which lessens the likelihood that the type and size of the

reliability coefficients were taken into consideration. While this is an area where the researcher

may have elaborated a little more, the survey has been used in prior research.
 The fact that a survey and a checklist are the only pieces of data that the study is relying

on does pose issues to the reliability and validity of the study. How do we know if the survey

actually measures bullying? How do we know that the students took time to reflect and answer

accurately? How do we know that the teacher actually went through the checklist? Both the

survey and the checklist are subjective and subject to biases from the students and teachers.

Overall, the use of the surveys and checklist weaken the study’s validity and reliability.

Procedure and Design

The researcher does a great job of describing the design and procedures in sufficient

detail to allow for readers to follow and potential future researchers to replicate the study. The

various levels of implementation and interventions are explicitly stated step by step. The content

of the intervention curriculums is even described to give readers a full picture of the study’s

design and procedures. There is also a clear connection between the design/procedure and the

hypotheses. The hypotheses are all answered with by the structure and scaffolding of the grade

level implementation and combinations of interventions. The study has a fourth condition,

which serves as the control school where no interventions took place at any grade level.

The researcher comments that the study’s design “offers the greatest control of

extraneous variables when random assignment of subjects is not possible.” The researcher

admits that there are other possible extraneous variables, but the design allows for the most

control possible given the sample and nature of the study. Another strength that the researcher

presents is that the design of the study minimizes possible threats from reactive arrangements

because the students’ class arrangements and teachers were preexisting. Both of these are

strengths of the study in that confounding variables and reactive arrangements are minimized,

which makes the findings more reliable as well as valid.

Analysis

By evaluating the effectiveness of the various levels and approaches to anti-bullying

curriculums, it was possible to see which of the conditions worked best in reducing the instances

of bullying. By using a pre and post-test, the study was able to compare the two and measure the

decline (or rise) in bullying. The use of surveys slightly reduces the validity of the study because

students tend to rush though surveys and not give completely accurate answers, but the surveys

allowed for numerous students across four schools to be used as the sample.

Results

The design allowed for all three of the hypotheses to be tested. The results of the study

are appropriately descriptive, but somewhat confusing. It might have been clearer if the

researcher presented the findings of each condition independently instead of switching back and

forth. Condition (a) resulted in a 16% decline in overall Year 7 bullying, but there were no

inferential statistics presented on the three other conditions. If the researcher had presented

additional inferential statistics, readers would have been presented with a clearer idea of which

condition worked best. Additionally, the probability level, tests of significance, and degrees of

freedom were not specified in the article. Adding these may have also made the results section

more thorough, clear, and understandable.

There is one chart in the article to show the mean pre and post-test scores by the type of

intervention, which was a good visual to see which interventions helped and which hindered the

instances of bullying, but the bullying composite score numbers are meaningless. The article

never states what a bullying composite score of 4.9 means. How is a 4.7 and a 5.9 different?

How different are they? It is still helpful to see the pre and post-test for each of the inventions on
one chart, but it could have been better if the bullying composite scores were discussed and

defined in the text.

Discussion (Conclusions and Recommendations)

The discussion section of the article begins with a clear connecting discussion between

the various hypotheses and the corresponding results. The researcher offers suggestions and

explanations as to why the results did not support the third hypothesis. Instances of bullying

actually raised at the school where only the Shared Concern intervention was used in Year 7, and

the researcher supposes that this is because there is a failure to address issues for students who

no not report bullying instances to teachers/administrators. The researcher continues by

connecting each of the results to results obtained by other researchers. The first two findings

were consistent with prior research, but the third set of data was not consistent with prior

research findings.

Overall, the major findings of this study, which are consistent with prior research

findings, are that whole-school and multifaceted components work best when trying to combat

bullying in a high school setting. These findings and generalizations are consistent with the

results. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings suggest that anti-bullying

curriculums need to include a number of components and use the whole-school approach in order

to be successful at managing and preventing instances of bullying in high schools. The author

does a good job of drawing practical and appropriate conclusions about what an anti-bullying

curriculums should consist of.

The recommendations for future action are not explicitly stated, but can be inferred based

on the author’s statements of the study’s limitations. Future research needs to account for the
varying levels of bullying at each school before the interventions commences and possibly

change the use of anonymous questionnaires as a more personalized approach might be more

telling. Future research also needs to include a component about parents’ involvement in

countering bullying. The suggestions for future action are based on practical significance and

statistical significance. The suggestions made would help clarify and expand upon the findings

of this study.