Solutions for Bullying: Intervention Training for Pre-service Teachers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies show that teachers lack training and confidence when it comes to intervening effectively in bullying situations. The goal of this study is to respond to the needs of teachers for more formal training on bullying. A two-hour workshop on bullying was developed and offered to pre-service teachers completing a consecutive Teacher Education program in a central-Canadian University. Two parallel questionnaires, each consisting of simulated bullying incidents and standard intervention options, were developed, piloted with a group of experienced teachers, and then used to assess the effect of the workshop on teachers’ responses to the bullying. At pre-test, although three-quarters pre-service teachers in the sample (N = 66) had no formal training in bullying intervention strategies, their selected interventions were rated as consistently appropriate (i.e., restorative and relational) in nature. Study results revealed that pre-service teachers who participated in the workshop showed improved responses to the bullying scenarios, with the greatest improvements evidenced in their intervention with the children in bullying roles. With the growing legal and moral responsibility that educators have to protect their students from bullying, these findings add to accumulating evidence that training in bullying prevention and intervention should be mandatory for pre-service teachers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it