Impact Of Bullying Experiences On Preservice Teachers Studying At University

Abstract

This research study describes the occurrence of bullying of preservice teachers within a university environment, the emotional impact of such behaviour and the challenges for universities in countering the behaviour. The study investigates preservice teachers’ knowledge of bullying; bullying behaviours towards others; and those directed at them; the emotional impact of bullying; and utilisation of sources of support. Predominantly quantitative methodologies are used for the collection of data, with some qualitative methods used, such as open-ended questions, to further bring meaning to the data. A modified questionnaire originally developed by the School of Psychology was distributed to ninety-five pre-service teachers from one campus of a multi-campus university in Australia. Results from the study indicate that 91 of the 95 students (96%) did experience some form of bullying behaviours in their lives; by the second year of university, 45% of this bullying was experienced at university. Bullying behaviours directed towards others were investigated, including, making jokes about others (29%), direct teasing of another (28%), and rude remarks directed against another (27%). Friends (55%), family (28%) and other university students (24%) were the main reported bullies towards the students, with teaching personnel (2%) not rated highly.

Keywords: Bullyingcyberbullyinguniversitypreservice teachers

Introduction

The impact of bullying in schools and workplaces continues to be at the forefront of the research literature, along with recommendations on anti-bullying approaches, usually by government agencies, to address the issue (Ybarra, Espelage, & Mitchell, 2014; Ciby & Raya, 2015; Hein, Koka, & Hagger, 2015). Less research has focused on the undergraduate years at university, especially related to pre-service teachers’ experiences of bullying while at university and the impact of this behaviour on their wellbeing. This may be an important omission, given the role teachers play in facilitating anti-bullying programs in schools.

Available studies of pre-service teachers have focused on perceptions, knowledge and attitudes about bullying and cyberbullying (Gorsek & Cunningham, 2014; Spears, Campbell, Tangen, Slee, & Cross, 2015) and the comparison of preservice teachers’ responses to cyber versus traditional bullying (Boulton, et al., 2014; Davis, 2015); yet few have focused on the reality of incidence and impact of bullying while at university.

Universities, schools and workplaces differ; universities offer an element of choice, freedom and increasingly flexible program delivery modes that set this period of time in an individual’s career apart from the earlier more restrictive school and work environments (Coleyshaw, 2010). The development of positive social relationships and sense of belonging while at university is also of importance, given its significant influence on student retention (de Souza & McLean, 2012), further supporting the need to investigate more fully the incidence and impact of bullying in preservice teacher education courses at university.

This study draws on the principles of the Quality of Life framework focused on ensuring all participants are able to live life to the fullest. Brown and Brown (2005) identify three major life domains that embody quality of life: being, focusing on individual attributes; belonging, relating to individuals and their environments; and becoming, an individual’s fulfilment of life’s goals (Burgess 2014, in Brown & Faragher, p. 66). Although much research in this area has focused on intellectual disability, the underlying principles of the QOL framework have applicability to all people and avenues of life, encompassing both objective and subjective dimensions.

Jokinen (2014) highlights the significant influence of social relationships in the lives of individuals and on all people and the impact this has on the quality of life experienced. Opportunities for choice and self-determination are also important and a necessary ingredient in being able to live life to the fullest, no matter the environment. These are important elements relevant to this research study of preservice teachers’ experiences and impact of bullying while at university; the QOL framework helps bring meaning to the study.

Literature Review

Problem Statement

Recent expectations of government and professional bodies requiring new teachers to be thoroughly informed about the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APSTs) have increased the pressure on universities to ensure pre-service teachers are classroom ready on the completion of their degree. Of further importance is the expectation that exiting pre-service teachers are cognisant of the values, ethical behaviours and characteristics that underpin the principles of the profession, including an ability to provide high quality teaching and safe, inclusive learning environments for all students.

Informal reports or anecdotal evidence of bullying experiences at university had raised concerns regarding the effect of these experiences on pre-service teachers’ health and wellbeing, while also highlighting the potential future impact of such behaviour on schools as these preservice teachers leave university to enter the profession. Emerging from these concerns was the development of the following research questions.

Research Questions

This research study was guided by the following questions:

• What is the nature and prevalence of bullying behaviours in a university teacher education program?

• How and to what extent do bullying behaviours impact on preservice teachers’ wellbeing and quality of life while at university?

• In what ways do bullying behaviours and experiences impact on the social and psychological wellbeing of preservice teachers?

• What strategies do preservice teachers employ to manage and or prevent bullying experiences while at university?

Purpose of the Study

The impetus for this research project stems from a need to establish a deeper understanding of the prevalence and forms of bullying behaviours within preservice teacher education programs.

Research Methods

This research study utilises predominantly quantitative methodologies for the collection of data. A modified questionnaire originally developed by the university’s School of Psychology department was distributed to 95 pre-service teachers from one campus of this multi-campus university in Australia. The students selected for the study were in their first (n=26), second (n=29), third (n=6) and fourth (n=34) year of study for a Bachelor of Education Primary (n=50) or a Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood and Primary) combined degree (n=43) and a Graduate secondary education course (n=2). The average age of students in the study was 21 years.

A comprehensive survey was utilised. The questionnaire included seven sections:

Preliminaries: involving personal details, excluded from this paper:

• About you (to gain information about the participant, including age, cultural heritage, university year level and degree)

• Bullying knowledge (to ascertain what the participant knew in the area)

Sections:

Section 1 : How you behave with others (investigating participants bullying behaviours towards others)

Section 2 : How others behave towards you (investigating bullying behaviour from others experienced by the participants)

Section 3 : About your use of technology (investigating the participants use of technology and accessing the Internet both at university and home)

Section 4 : Your activities in cyberspace (investigating participant cyberbullying behaviours

toward others)

Section 5 : Your experience in cyberspace (investigating cyberbullying behaviour from others experienced by the participants)

These sections provide a suitable framework for the presentation of results. There were 95 respondents. Some Level 3 results are not shown due to the low number of students involved.

Findings and Discussion

For all levels most bullied others at home (Level 1: 65%, Level 2: 52%, Level 4: 56%). After home, the next highest places Level 1 preservice teachers bullied others was during recreation activities (31%) and at work (27%). After home, Level 2 (38%) and Level 4 (47%) preservice teachers mainly bullied others at university, with 29% of Level 4 students also bullying others at work. For preservice teachers the highest percentage for those who were targeted to be bullied was a friend (Level 1: 77%; Level 2: 55%; Level 4: 56%) followed by a family member (Level 1: 69%; Level 2: 41%; Level 4: 50%). Twenty- four percent of Level 4 preservice teachers indicated that they bullied another university student.

Conclusion

This study sought to ascertain the extent and impact of bullying on preservice teachers while at university. From the data presented, there is little doubt that many preservice teachers do experience bullying while undertaking their studies as part of their teacher education course at university. Students displayed a surprising openness about their own bullying of others.

Overall, bullying in all its available forms, such as physical, verbal, cyber and more, is sufficiently widespread to warrant strict protocols at university and to ensure they are articulated clearly to students, especially in regards preservice teachers, considering the relatively high negative emotional impacts on some students. Of some concern is the finding that bullying of others by preservice teachers increases over the four years of the teacher education program. This requires further investigation, especially given the impact of such behaviour on the nature and effectiveness of the program in preparing preservice teachers for the profession. It also has implications for preservice teachers' overall quality of life while at university and the level of social connectedness experienced as they near completion of their program. Opportunities to learn within a safe and inclusive learning community is especially important given the role future preservice teachers will play in implementing educational programs specifically designed to educate children and young adults about bullying behaviours in schools. Although a variety of safety courses including bullying does exist and these are conducted at secondary schools as well as at this university and at other venues, a disappointing total of 38 of the 95 students (40%) stated they had not attended these; such initiatives aimed at the prevention of bullying need to be further encouraged.

References

1. Australian Government Office of Children’s eSafety Commissioner. (n.d.). Cyberbullying. Retrieved from: https://esafety.gov.au/esafety-information/esafety-issues/cyberbullying
2. Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APSTs) (2011). AITSL, Education Services Australia.
3. Bieber, K. E. (2013). Do students understand what researchers mean by bullying? Open Access Theses and Dissertations from the College of Education and Human Sciences. Paper 176.Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsdiss/176
4. Boulton, M. J., Hardcastle, K., Down, J., Forbes, J., & Simmonds, J. (2014). A comparison of preservice teachers’ responses to cyber versus traditional bullying scenarios: Similarities and differences and implications for practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 145-155.
5. Brown, R., & Brown, I. (2005). The application of quality of life. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities Research, 49(10), 718-27.
6. Bullying. No way! Safe Australian schools together. (2016). Safe and supportive school communities working group. Retrieved from: www.bullyingnoway.gov.au
7. Burgess, J. (2014). Enhancing quality of life. In R. Brown & R. Faragher, (Eds.) Quality of life and intellectual disability, New York, NOVA, p.66.
8. Carpenter, D. & Ferguson, C.J. (2009). The everything parent's guide to dealing with bullies: From playground teasing to cyber bullying, all you need to ensure your child's safety and happiness. Avon, USA, Adams Media, F+W Media Inc.
9. Ciby, M., & Raya, R.P. (2015). Workplace bullying: A review of the defining features, measurement methods and prevalence across continents. IIM Kozhikode Society and Management Review, 4(1)38-47.
10. Coleyshaw, L. (2010). The power of paradigms: A discussion of the absence of bullying research in the context of the university student experience. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 15(4), 377–86.
11. Cybersmart. Office of the eSafety Commissioner. Retrieved from: https://www.esafety.gov.au/education-resources/classroom-resources/cybersmart-access
12. Davis, C. L. (2015). A comparison of preservice teachers’ responses to bullying scenarios. Walden Dissertation and Doctoral Studies Collection, Walden University Scholarworks.
13. De Souza, M., & McLean, K. (2012). Bullying and violence: Changing an act of disconnectedness into an act of kindness. Pastoral Care in Education: An International Journal of Personal, Social and Emotional Development, 30(2), 165-180.
14. Dogruer,N. & Yaratan, H. (2014). Developing a bullying scale for use with university students. Social Behaviour and Personality: An International Journal 42(1), 81-92.
15. Elamé, E. (2013). Discriminatory bullying: A new intercultural challenge. New York, Springer.
16. Eliot, M., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2010). Supportive school climate and student willingness to seek help for bullying and threats of violence. Journal of School Psychology, 48(6), 533–553.
17. Gorsek, A. K., & Cunningham, M. (2014). A review of teachers' perceptions and training regarding school bullying. PURE Insights, 3(6). Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.wou.edu/pure/vol3/iss1/6
18. Hein V., Koka A., & Hagger, S. M. (2015). Relationships between perceived teachers’ controlling behaviour, psychological need thwarting, anger and bullying behaviour in high-school students. Journal of Adolescence, 42, 103-114.
19. Jokinen, N. (2014). Quality of life and older-aged adults. In Brown, R. & Faragher, R. (Eds.), Quality of life and intellectual ability. NOVA publishers, New York, NY.
20. Kids Helpline. (2016). Retrieved from: https://kidshelpline.com.au
21. McKenzie, K., Murray, K. R., Murray, A. L., & Richelieu, M. (2015). The effectiveness of university counselling for students with academic issues. Counselling & Psychotherapy Research, 15(4), 284-288.
22. Nielsen, M.B., Tangen, T., Idsoe, T., Matthiesen, S. B. & Magerøy, N. (2015). Post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of bullying at work and at school. A literature review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21, 17-24.
23. Ortega, R., Elipe, P., Mora-Merchan, J. A., Genta, M. L., Brighi, A., Guarini, A., Smith, P. K., Thompson, F., & Tippett, N. (2012). The emotional impact of bullying and cyberbullying on victims: A European cross-national study. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 342-356.
24. Olweus, D. (2010). Understanding and researching bullying: Some critical issues. In S. Jimerson, S., Swearer, & D. Espelage, (Eds.), The handbook of school bullying: An international perspective (pp. 9–33). New York: Routledge.
25. Piskin, M. (2010). Examination of peer bullying among primary and middle school children in Ankara. Education and Science, 35(156), 175–189.
26. Queensland Government. (2013). Bullying and cyberbullying facts. Retrieved from http://www.qld.gov.au/disability/children-young-people/bullying/facts.html
27. Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 564-575.
28. Rigby, K. (2012). Bullying in schools: Addressing desires, not only behaviours. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 339-348.
29. Sinkkonen, H-M, Puhakka, H., & Meriläinen, M. (2014). Bullying at a university: students' experiences of bullying. Studies in Higher Education, 39(1), 153-165.
30. Spears, B. A., Campbell, M., Tangen, D., Slee, P. T., & Cross, D. (2015). Australian pre-service teachers’ knowledge and understanding of cyberbullying: Implications for school climate. Special edition on School Climate and Cyberbullying. Les Dossiers des sciences de l'éducation.
31. Stallman, H. M. (2012). University Counselling Services in Australia and New Zealand: Activities, changes, and challenges. Australian Psychologist, 47(4), 249-89.
32. Swearer, S. M., Siebecker, A. B., Johnsen-Frerichs, L., & Wang, C. (2010). Assessment of bullying/victimization: The problem of comparability across studies and across methodologies. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 305-328), New York: Routledge.
33. Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277–287.
34. Verkuil, B., Atasayi, S., Molendijk, M. (2015). Workplace bullying and mental health: A meta-analysis on cross-sectional and longitudinal data. PLoS ONE, 10(8): e0135225.
35. Walton, G. (2011). Spinning our wheels: Reconceptualising bullying beyond behavior-focused approaches. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32,131-144.
36. Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2014). Differentiating youth who are bullied from other victims of peer-aggression: The importance of differential power and repetition. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(2), 293-300.