Implementing the KiVa antibullying program by the book or playing by ear : Evaluating the school-level prevalence and effectiveness of discussion methods
Suominen, Heli (2018-02-26)
Implementing the KiVa antibullying program by the book or playing by ear : Evaluating the school-level prevalence and effectiveness of discussion methods
Suominen, Heli
(26.02.2018)
Tätä artikkelia/julkaisua ei ole tallennettu UTUPubiin. Julkaisun tiedoissa voi kuitenkin olla linkki toisaalle tallennettuun artikkeliin / julkaisuun.
Turun yliopisto
Tiivistelmä
KiVa is a widely used antibullying program aiming to reduce and resolve school bullying cases. The program consists of universal actions targeted at the whole student body, and indicated actions that are meant for handling acute bullying cases. Indicated actions include antibullying discussions organised by an appointed KiVa team consisting of four school staff members, and there are two structured discussion methods to choose from Confronting and Non-Confronting, but some schools choose to use their own method.
Although the effectiveness of KiVa and many other antibullying programs have been closely studied on a program level, evaluating different discussion methods has remained rather untouched. This empirical study focuses on evaluating the prevalences and effectiveness of the discussion methods used by registered Finnish KiVa schools in 2011. The school-level data was gathered using Internet-based questionnaires, and it consists of entries from bullies, victims and KiVa teams in 735 elementary, middle and combined schools.
The most popular way of approaching the bullying case within elementary schools was using either of the KiVa discussion methods depending on the situation (32.1 %). In middle schools, the Confronting method was by far the most popular choice (44.7 %). Only a few percent of elementary, middle and combined schools counted on the Non-Confronting method; it was the least popular single method. The Kruskal-Wallis’ H-tests suggested that the school level and role of the assessors affected the evaluated effectiveness of the discussions: pupils and teachers rated differently, and younger pupils preferred other methods than their older peers. However, when comparing the relative effectiveness, the differences between the methods were marginal with few exceptions: According to data from the whole sample KiVa teams, the Confronting method was more effective than an unknown method. In addition, according to data from elementary school KiVa teams, the Confronting method was more effective than an unknown or the school’s own method. As the differences in methods’ effectiveness were not substantial, the results seem to indicate that, for the end result, systematicity in handling the cases is more important than the chosen discussion method.
Although the effectiveness of KiVa and many other antibullying programs have been closely studied on a program level, evaluating different discussion methods has remained rather untouched. This empirical study focuses on evaluating the prevalences and effectiveness of the discussion methods used by registered Finnish KiVa schools in 2011. The school-level data was gathered using Internet-based questionnaires, and it consists of entries from bullies, victims and KiVa teams in 735 elementary, middle and combined schools.
The most popular way of approaching the bullying case within elementary schools was using either of the KiVa discussion methods depending on the situation (32.1 %). In middle schools, the Confronting method was by far the most popular choice (44.7 %). Only a few percent of elementary, middle and combined schools counted on the Non-Confronting method; it was the least popular single method. The Kruskal-Wallis’ H-tests suggested that the school level and role of the assessors affected the evaluated effectiveness of the discussions: pupils and teachers rated differently, and younger pupils preferred other methods than their older peers. However, when comparing the relative effectiveness, the differences between the methods were marginal with few exceptions: According to data from the whole sample KiVa teams, the Confronting method was more effective than an unknown method. In addition, according to data from elementary school KiVa teams, the Confronting method was more effective than an unknown or the school’s own method. As the differences in methods’ effectiveness were not substantial, the results seem to indicate that, for the end result, systematicity in handling the cases is more important than the chosen discussion method.