The methods of shared concern: A positive approach to bullying in schools
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Method of SharedConcern: A Positive Approach to Bullying in Schools by Ken Rigby Victoria, AU: Australian Council for Educational Research, 2011, 152 pages. ISBN: 9781742860077 (paperback) Fuelled by news media coverage of school violence, the topic of bullying has enjoyed tremendous attention in educational scholarship, professional development for pre-service and in-service teachers, and school administration over the past several years. Articles, books, programs, policies, scholarly articles, and experts abound. Arguably, bullying has become an over-researched topic. As one school administrator told me a few years ago, the last thing schools need is yet more research on When I received Ken Rigby's The Method of Shared Concern: A Positive Approach to Bullying in Schools (2011), I viewed it with a healthy dose of skepticism, despite knowing that Rigby is one of the world's foremost researchers on The Method of Shared Concern describes a multistage process by which a trained practitioner interviews suspected bullies and targets of Individual interviews lay the groundwork for eventually bringing all parties together to propose solutions that are offered by the students rather than imposed upon them by the practitioner. Rigby argues that the emphasis of anti-bullying efforts must be to promote positive interpersonal relationships (p. xiii). Based on a program developed by Swedish psychologist Anatol Pikas, the method is employed in several Anglo-Western countries around the world, including Canada. The book is not aimed toward scholars, but rather toward teachers and school counsellors. It is written in clear, accessible language, and is organized usefully into three broad sections. Part 1 explores what is generally meant by terms whose meanings are often taken for granted, such as bullying. Rigby suggests that bullying is a systemic and intentional abuse of power in interpersonal relationships. He cites Canadian scholars Debra Pepler and Wendy Craig, whose work explores the notion of bystanders. Pepler and Craig received a New Initiatives grant through the federal government's Networks of Centres of Excellence to create a national and interdisciplinary anti-bullying initiative called Promoting Relationships and Eliminating Violence (PrevNet.ca). Broadly put, they assert from their research that most students who witness bullying do not intervene. Like Pepler and Craig, Rigby focuses on fostering healthy interpersonal communication and dynamics. The second section of the book describes how the method works. Specifically, Rigby outlines the purpose of individual meetings and how they should unfold, and the possible pitfalls that could undermine success. For example, instead of teaching and preaching, practitioners should strive to learn how the suspected bully views the situation. Doing so requires employing skills of active listening, such as asking questions that clarify and probe, and paraphrasing to confirm understanding. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».