19th Annual UB Graduate School of Education Graduate Student Research Symposium
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
1 gostou•532 visualizações
"Research Highlights from the Alberti Center for Bullying Abuse Prevention" Presented by: Heather Cosgrove, Graduate Assistant with the Alberti Center; Michelle Serwacki, Graduate Assistant with the Alberti Center; and Bryan Blumlein, Graduate Student in the UB Graduate School of Education. April 5, 2012
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (19)
Destaque
Destaque (20)
Semelhante a 19th Annual UB Graduate School of Education Graduate Student Research Symposium
Semelhante a 19th Annual UB Graduate School of Education Graduate Student Research Symposium (20)
Mais de UB Alberti Center for Bullying Abuse Prevention
Mais de UB Alberti Center for Bullying Abuse Prevention (20)
Último
Último (20)
19th Annual UB Graduate School of Education Graduate Student Research Symposium
- 1. RESEARCH FINDINGS FROM THE ALBERTI CENTER FOR BULLYING ABUSE PREVENTION Heather Cosgrove, Michelle Serwacki, and Bryan Blumlein Moderator: Dr. Amanda Nickerson GSE Research Symposium April 5, 2012
- 2. Overview of Presentation About the Alberti Center for Bullying Abuse Prevention Needs Assessment Findings Development of School-Wide Bullying Prevention Program Guide Evaluation of the PREPaRE: School Crisis Prevention and Intervention Training Curriculum
- 3. About the Alberti Center for Bullying Abuse Prevention Amanda B. Nickerson, Ph.D.
- 4. About the Alberti Center Officially launched in July 2011 Benefactor: Jean M. Alberti, Ph.D. Director: Amanda B. Nickerson, Ph.D. Mission Statement: The Alberti Center for Bullying Abuse Prevention will reduce bullying abuse in schools by contributing knowledge and providing research-based tools to actively change the language, attitudes, and behaviors of Dr. Jean M. Alberti educators, parents, students, and
- 5. Needs Assessment Findings Heather E. Cosgrove
- 6. Purpose Identify current state of affairs in regards to bullying prevention and intervention in greater Buffalo region Implemented as part of the start-up phase for the Alberti Center for Bullying Abuse Prevention Find potential gaps in services and needs
- 7. Procedure Individual meetings Group meetings Needs Assessment Qualitative theme Quantitative survey identification
- 8. Quantitative Measure Adapted from the Survey of Bullying and Harassment Prevention and Intervention Strategies (Sherer & Nickerson, 2010) 31items assessing frequency of use of prevention/intervention strategies Levelof concern about different types of bullying Formal anti-bullying programming in schools Need for improvement in schools Conference interest and type preferences
- 9. Survey Results Type of Not Slightly Concerne Strongly Mean Bullying Concerne Concerne d Concerne d d d Physical 9 (5.5%) 70 (42.4%) 63 (38.2%) 20 (12.1%) 2.58 (.78) Verbal 1 (0.6%) 13 (7.9%) 63 (38.2%) 86 (52.1%) 3.44 (.67) Relational 2 (1.2%) 25 (15.2%) 77 (46.7%) 58 (35.2%) 3.18 (.73) Cyberbullyin 6 (3.6%) 22 (13.3%) 40 (24.2%) 93 (56.4%) 3.37 (.86) g Formal programs being used: Olweus Bullying Prevention Program Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Rachel’s Challenge
- 10. Survey Results Conference findings: Peerrelationships and bullying Parents and bullying Cyberbullying
- 11. Qualitative Themes Cost Effectiveness (and Funding) Empirically Supported Programming Investment of Staff/Parents Staff Development Parent/Community Education
- 12. Conclusions Strong concern for verbal, relational, and cyberbullying Common strategies: staff intervention and disciplinary consequences Student involvement and parent/education training used less Themes: more education, additional funding, access to resources Desire for events centering on peer relationships, cyberbullying, and parents and bullying
- 13. Action Items Education Resources Conferences Include Parents and Funding Peers
- 14. AVAILABLE AT: http://gse.buffalo.edu/albertic enter/resources/educators Additional resources available for Educators/Parents/Kids and Teens/Researchers: Understanding Bullying Measuring Bullying Social Emotional Learning and Bullying Prevention Dignity for All Students Act Bullying and Harassment Teaching Tools: Respect for Diversity and LBGTQ Youth Bullying and State Legislation Bullying and Suicide School Safety and Crisis Resources Cyberbullying Videos and Webisodes; informational and teaching tools
- 15. Development of School-Wide Bullying Prevention Program Guide Michelle L. Serwacki Bryan M. Blumlein
- 16. Increase Skill Awareness & Development Supervision Whole- Respond School Anti- Along Bullying Continuum Policy Bullying Include Collect Data Prevention Parents in Schools Hazler, R.J., & Carney, J.V. (2012) Critical characteristics of effective bullying prevention programs. In: Jimerson SR, Nickerson AB, Mayer MJ, Furlong M, eds. Handbook of school violence and school safety: International research and practice. 2nd ed. New York; NY: Routledge; 357-368. Rigby K. (2000). Effects of peer victimization in schools and perceived social support on adolescent well-being. Journal of Adolescence, 23(1):57-68. Ttofi, M.M., & Farrington, D.P., (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(1):27-56. Swearer, S.M., Espelage, D.L., Napolitano, S.A. (2009). Bullying prevention & intervention: Realistic strategies for schools. New York, NY US: Guilford Press.
- 17. Purpose To provide educators guidance on how to choose from the many bullying prevention programs available Need identified from focus groups from 2010 Alberti Center Symposium Focus on programs that reflect evidence-based practice Focus on programs that provide universal, school-wide support
- 18. Selection Criteria Be geared toward PreK- 12 students Include content focused mainly on bullying prevention alone or in combination with skills needed for social- emotional success Programs Be based on solid research and theory must… Include universal (school-wide) interventions Be researched and evaluated in the United States
- 19. Steps for Successful Implementation Needs assessment: identify nature and extent of the problem Select programs based on needs and feasibility Implement programs with fidelity Monitor and evaluate fidelity of implementation Evaluate program outcomes Use data to improve practice Mihalic, S.(n.d.). Implementation fidelity: Blueprints for Violence Prevention. Safe Schools Healthy Students (2010). Evidenced-based program home. Retrieved from http://sshs.promoteprevent.org/node/4789. Accessed March 9, 2012. Smith, D.J., Schneider, B.H., Smith, P.K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole-school antibullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33(4), 547-560.
- 20. Content of Guide Overview Selection of Programs Considerations in Selecting and Implementing Programs Programs Publisher/Author Website Targeted Grades/Ages Summary of program goals, curriculum, and materials Cost(s) Evaluations/Reviews of program from other organizations Empirical References References
- 21. Final Programs Included: Al’s Pals: Kids Making Healthy Choices Bully Busters Bullying Prevention in Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support Bullying-Proofing Your School Creating a Safe School Get Real About Violence Olweus Bullying Prevention Program Second Step: A Violence Prevention Curriculum Steps to Respect: A Bullying Prevention Program
- 22. AVAILABLE AT: http://gse.buffalo.edu/albertic enter/resources/educators Additional resources available for Educators/Parents/Kids and Teens/Researchers: Understanding Bullying Measuring Bullying Social Emotional Learning and Bullying Prevention Dignity for All Students Act Bullying and Harassment Teaching Tools: Respect for Diversity and LBGTQ Youth Bullying and State Legislation Bullying and Suicide School Safety and Crisis Resources Cyberbullying Videos and Webisodes; informational and teaching tools
- 23. Evaluation of the PREPaRE: Crisis Prevention and Intervention Training Curriculum Michelle L. Serwacki
- 24. School Crisis Prevention and Intervention revent and prepare for psychological trauma eaffirm physical health, security, and safety valuate psychological trauma rovide information nd espond to psychological needs and, xamine the effectiveness of prevention and intervention efforts
- 25. Training Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Crisis Prevention and Crisis Intervention and Recovery: Preparedness: The Roles of the School-based The Comprehensive School Crisis Mental Health Professional Team Two day training Full day training School crisis team members School-based mental health professionals, administrators, Format: professionals, and security educators *Workshops offered nationally by trainers and program authors Pre-test Manualized curriculum PowerPoint Role play activities Handouts Post-test Evaluation form
- 26. Rationale Crisis/Trauma Effective prevention or intervention: Increased Restored competence in child crisis academic and management emotional Increased functioning Knowledge in and Attitude toward crisis PREPaREmanagement Program Evaluation
- 27. Program Evaluation Final Sample Workshop 1 Workshop 1 Mental Evaluations: N= 515 Health Pre-Post Tests: N=760 Educators Workshop 2: Health Care Evaluations: N=505 Pre-Post Tests: N=1089 Missing Data Workshop 2 Excluded if missing pre or Mental Health post test Educators Missing data on pre-post knowledge items were Health Care assumed incorrect Safety Pairwise deletion used for Other missing data on attitude items
- 28. Participant Satisfaction Recommend trainers Recommend workshop All items on a 1-4 scale, with 1 meaning Able to apply skills/information strongly disagree and 4 meaning strongly agree Workshop increased my… Trainer facilitated participation Workshop materials faciliated… Workshop 1 (N=515,M= Trainer well organized 3.55, SD=.60) Materials well organized Workshop 2 Content clear and… (N=761, M=3.63, Objectives clearly stated SD=.65) 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
- 29. Evaluation: Workshop 1 Crisis Prevention and Preparedness Attitude Knowledge Significant Improvement Significant Improvement (t(742) =20.45, p < .001, d=.77 ) (t (759)= -33.10, p <.001, d=1.55 ) 5 10 9 8.26 4 3.79 8 3.32 7 3 6 5.32 5 2 4 3 2.09 1 0.65 2 1.69 0.57 1 0 0 PRE POST PRE POST MEAN SD MEAN SD
- 30. Evaluation: Workshop 2 Crisis Intervention and Recovery Attitude Knowledge Significant Improvement Significant Improvement (t (1017) =34.68, p<.001, d=1.10 ) (t (1087)= 42.88, p <.001, d=1.61 ) 13 4 3.7 12 11 10.53 2.99 10 3 9 8 7.29 7 2 6 5 4 1 0.77 3 0.49 1.99 2.03 2 1 0 0 PRE POST PRE POST MEAN SD MEAN SD
- 31. Future Directions Continued evaluation of training Current data collected from November 2009 though May 2011 Additional data to be added from June 2011- November 2011 Follow-up evaluation and support Implementation Barriers to implementation PREPaRE Edition 2 (2011) WS1: Crisis Prevention and Preparedness: Comprehensive School Safety Planning WS2: Crisis Intervention and Recovery: The Roles of School- Based Mental Health Professionals More information available at http://www.nasponline.org/prepare/index.aspx
- 32. Questions? Thank you for your attention and interest!
Notas do Editor
- Table 1 -Higher scores indicate greater concern for specific type of bullying (4-point scale 1->4) -Highest concern for Verbal Bullying followed by CyberbullyingTable 2 -Higher scores indicate more frequent implementation of the prevention/intervention strategy -Participants endorsed staff intervention (example question: “School staff talking with victims following incidents”) as being utilized most frequently. Staff are also more likely to contact parents of victims and bullies following incidents. Participants indicated that student-led interventions such as having students act as peer mentors or school welcomers are least likely to be seen in their school
- In terms of events, there was great interested in the topics of peer relationships and bullying, parents and bullying, and cyberbullying. Nearly 75% of respondents preferred a half-day format for conferences, and there was a preference for conferences to be held during the academic year, particularly in the fall.
- MICHELLE**mention authorship
- MICHELLEThere are some common guidelines that research supports for individualized bullying prevention efforts within schools-Collect dataunderstand nature and extent of the problemDevelop and implement effective whole-school anti-bullying policycontinuum recognizing complexity of behaviorsEmphasize skill developmentpersonal, social, and conflict resolutionIncrease awareness of bullying and preventionstudents, parents, and communityIncrease supervision or restructure “hot spots”(THE IDEA IS NOT THAT IF YOU CAN’T AFFORD A PROGRAM THAT YOU DO THESE THINGS; RATHER, THESE ARE GUIDELINES FOR ALL SCHOOLS TO HAVE; AND BULLYING PREVENTION PROGRAMS CAN ASSIST WITH/COMPLEMENT THESE EFFORTS. OriginalCollect reliable, valid data about the nature and extent of the problem in the school setting.Develop and implement an effective whole-school anti-bullying policy.Emphasize personal, social, and conflict resolution skill development.Increase awareness about bullying and how to prevent it by integrating this within the curriculum.Increase supervision or restructure “hot spots” where bullying is most likely to occur.Respond to incidents in a clear, fair, and appropriate manner within a continuum that recognizes the complexity of bullying behaviors.Reach beyond the school to include parents.
- BRYAN
- MICHELLEIn order to include a program in this guide, the program needed to:B)This excluded social-emotional learning programs such as the incredible years and promoting alternative thinking strategiesD) Primary prevention to promote wellness and prevent problems in the general student populationE)as evidenced by at least on peer-reviewed publication or comprehensive report
- BRYANSelecting a plan is not just a means to an end; it requires sufficient planning and monitoring Research based implementation Vs. Real world implementation Programs implemented by schools and community agencies are complicated by issues such aslimited capacity, insufficient preparation, or lack of readinessImplementation fidelityThe closeness between the implementation of the program and the original designprograms that were implemented with integrity and systematically evaluated reported the most positive outcomesSteps for Successful ImplementationCareful selection, planning, preparation and monitoring of intervention practices E.g. Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative used a needs assessment to identify the gaps in the school and community practice
- MICHELLE
- BRYAN-A quick overview of the progams that met all criteria-For additional information…
- MichelleFree download
- major effects the program is trying to produce include: Improving competence, providing school-based professionals with the information to best utilize their skill sets within a multidisciplinary team tailored to their school, and to maintain student mental health and academic functioning.
- (violence, threat, natural disaster, accidents, severe illness)
- **Add effect sizes!Mention demographic differences during presentationAttitudesAn exploration of the association of demographic factors with changes in attitude found a significant difference between participants reporting different occupations (F(4,729)=4.97, p=.001). Specifically, health professionals (nurses) reported significantly greater improvements in attitudes toward crisis prevention and preparedness than mental no other significant differencesWorkshop 1 participant responses across pre-tests and post-tests indicated significant increases in knowledge (t (759)= -33.10, p =.000; Pre-test M = 5.32 out of 10; SD = 1.69; Post-test M = 8.26 out of 10; SD = 2.09). There were no significant differences found between participants in knowledge gained of crisis intervention and prevention as a function of years spent in their current profession (F(3,749)=1.54, ns), amount of previous school crisis training (F(3, 747)=1.60, ns), or amount of previous school crisis training (F(3, 747)=1.60, ns). Furthermore, there were no significant effects found for the amount of knowledge gained based on the participants reported professions (F(4,742)=.826, ns). Interestingly, there were significant differences found in the amount of knowledge gained between graduate students and working professionals (t(704)=-2.94, p=.003), with working professionals gaining significantly more knowledge than students.
- **Add effect sizes!Mention demographic differences during presentationTable 4 offers descriptive statistics for the pre- and post- workshop questions asked of participants to assess their attitudes toward crisis prevention and preparedness. The overall mean attitude toward crisis intervention and prevention work increased significantly (became more favorable, t (1017) =34.68, p<.000 from the pre-test (M = 2.99 out of 4, SD = .77) to the post-test (M = 3.70 out of 4; SD = .49). An exploration of the association of demographic factors with changes in attitude found a significant relationshipbetween the amount of time spent in the current profession and gains in attitude (F(3,1004)=37.73, p=.000), with those reporting fewer years in the profession making significantly larger gains in attitude toward crisis prevention and intervention than those with more years. Similarly, graduate students reported significantly larger positive changes than other participants (t(925)=7.44, p=.000). Furthermore, there were significant differences found for gains in attitudes (F(3,994)24.06, p=.000) according to their previous experience with school crisis training. On average, those with 11 or more prior hours were significantly less likely to experience gains in attitudes than other participants. There were no significant effects found in difference of attitude change based on the participant’s reported occupation (F(4,997)=1.64, ns).Workshop 2 participant responses indicated significant increases in knowledge (t (1087)= 42.88, p =.000) from pre-test (M = 7.29 out of 13; SD = 1.99) to post-test (M = 10.53 out of 13; SD = 2.03). Results indicated that the relationship between the amount of time spent in the current profession and gains in knowledge (F(3,1072)=4.01, p=.007) was significant. One significant difference was found between groups in change in knowledge; those with 0 years in their current profession were more likely to experience a smaller gain in knowledge than those with 1-5 years (Mean difference= .77, p=.013). There were no significant differences between participants based on occupation [F(4,1064)=1.93, ns], amount of previous school crisis training (F(3,1062)=1.54, ns), or student status (t(987)=1.39, ns) in knowledge gains in crisis intervention.
- Is edition 2 2012 or 2011?2011Amanda- Is there any document detailing the differences between editions 1 and 2? I don’t think I’d have time to cover that in any depth here, but I’m curious in general.I CAN SEND YOU THE TRAINER RENEWAL THAT DETAILS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EDITIONS 1 AND 2, BUT THAT MAY BE MORE DETAIL THAN YOU WANT. A QUICK OVERVIEW OF DIFFERENCES IS THAT, IN RESPONSE TO OUR LIT REVIEW FROM THE PREPARE BOOK AND FROM TRAINER FEEDBACK, WE MADE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES:INCLUDED MORE ACTIVITIES/INTERACTION AND MULTIMEDIA (WE NOW HAVE MORE GRAPHICS ON SLIDES AND VIDEOS ARE USED IN WS 1)WS 1 HAS A GREATER EMPHASIS ON HOW THE MODEL FITS WITH OVERALL SCHOOL SAFETY AND CLIMATE ISSUES (HOW IT WORKS WITH OTHER PREVENTION INITIATIVES, NOT JUST “CRISIS,” PER SESPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS IN CRISIS PLANS NOW INCLUDED (E.G., CRISIS COMMUNICATION, MEMORIALS, PLANNING FOR CONTINUITY IF SCHOOLS CLOSED FOR LONG PERIOD OF TIME, ETC.)WE ADDED AN INTERVENTION IN WS 2 OF CLASSROOM MEETINGS (COMMUNICATING TO STUDENTS WHAT HAPPENED WITHOUT GOING INTO DEPTH ABOUT POSSIBLE CRISIS REACTIONS AS IS DONE IN PSYCHOEDUCATION)THOSE ARE THE MAIN THINGS I CAN THINK OF OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD; WE PROBABLY SHOULD COME UP WITH A DOCUMENT HIGHLIGHTING THE MAJOR CHANGES.