Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reducing bullying among students has become a major goal of schools in modern world, yet little progress is being made and bullying is said to be a growing problem. Several metanalyses of research on school anti-bullying programs have shown that these programs have little benefit and often make problem worse. The purpose of this article is to explain reason for unimpressive results of our anti-bullying efforts: we have been taking a legal/law enforcement approach to problem rather than a scientific/psychological approach.April 20, 2013 marked 14th anniversary of Columbine shooting, event that woke our nation to problem of bullying. Since then, almost all of our 50 states have passed school anti-bullying laws, holding schools responsible for getting rid of bullying. The US Dept. of Education has declared that school funding will be cut for schools that don't address every complaint of bullying. This development has been a great boon for government bureaucracy, for purveyors of anti-bullying programs, as well as for school mental health professionals, whose positions are often first to be cut when school funds are limited. In order to comply with laws, schools need these services more than ever.School administrators have been as eager as rest of population to have anti-bullying laws enacted. However, these laws have put schools in a bind. How can they comply with requirement to eliminate bullying when research has been showing consistently that most highly regarded anti-bullying programs are not particularly effective? In Dec. 2004 issue of School Psychology Review, a team of researchers led by Canadian School Psychologist David Smith published a study on whole-school anti-bullying programs (Smith, J., Schneider, B, Smith, P., Ananiadou, K., 2004). They had conducted a metanalysis of published research on whole-school antibullying programs to see how they were working. They discovered that 86 percent of published studies showed that anti-bully programs had no benefit or made problem even worse. Only 14 percent of published studies showed that program produced a minor reduction in bullying. Not one program produced a major reduction. Subsequent metanalyses by Vreeman and Carroll (2007), Merrell and Isava (2008), and Ttofi, Farrington and Baldry (2008) have had similar lackluster findings. Oddly, when these researchers find that most intensive programs resulted in a reduction of 20-23 percent, they consider it a great success. The bar for success in bullying prevention is apparently very low.The most highly revered and widely used bullying prevention program is Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP), often referred to as the gold standard. This is a highly time-and-energy-intensive program that requires everyone in school community to be involved in combating bullying. The most massive study ever conducted on OBPP (or any bullying prevention program) was completed in December, 2011, at a cost of $19 million dollars and paid for by Highmark Foundation in Pennsylvania. After two years of rigorous implementation, results were a mere 12 percent reduction in number of students who said they were bullied twice or more per month (Schroeder, et.al, 2012). The study did not even report on children who are bullied daily, population that should be focus of concern, for these are kids who are truly suffering. Assuming, though, a 12 percent across-the-board reduction in number of children who are bullied, what do we tell parents of 88 percent of children who were not helped by world's most highly revered program?Some researchers have hailed as successful programs that resulted in an increase in bullying because there was a somewhat higher increase in bullying in control schools. One such study was of Positive Behaviors and Interventions (PBIS), conducted by Johns Hopkins University, at expense of $13 million (Grens, K. …
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
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 ».