Solutions for bullying: A workshop for pre-service teachers (Unpublished master’s thesis
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 appeals of pre-service teachers for more formal training on bullying, including prevention and intervention strategies. A two-hour PREVNet workshop that provides information on bullying, bullying prevention and bullying intervention is offered in four Canadian Teacher Education classes. Two unique questionnaires, each consisting of simulated bullying incidents in a school context and a set of teacher interventions, were developed, piloted with a group of experienced teachers, and used to assess the effect of the workshop on teachers ’ reported interventions in bullying situations. The results of a series of repeated measures ANOVAs reveal a marginally significant effect of the workshop on pre-service teachers ’ reported interventions (N = 66), with the greatest improvements revealed in participants ’ responses to children who bully. Additionally, pre-service teachers ’ interventions are consistently appropriate in nature, and generally more appropriate when they are asked to deal with incidents regarding victimized children who respond aggressively and victimized children who bully others, than with victimized children who respond passively to their bullying.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".