Abstract
Zusammenfassung. In dieser Studie wird der Frage nachgegangen, ob Lehrkräfte auf unterschiedliche Mobbingarten unterschiedlich reagieren. Dazu werden Angaben von 1.996 Schülerinnen und Schülern aus Sachsen zu tatsächlich stattgefundenen Mobbingsituationen ausgewertet. Sie schätzten neben der dominierenden Mobbingform in der Situation die Reaktion ihrer Lehrkräfte auf die Situation, die gewählte Interventionsstrategie und den Interventionserfolg ein. Am häufigsten werden Fälle verbalen Mobbings berichtet, Cybermobbingfälle hingegen vergleichsweise selten. Die Jugendlichen berichten, dass die meisten Lehrkräfte in den Mobbingsituationen intervenieren, vor allem wenn es sich um Cybermobbing handelt. Aus ihrer Sicht sind Lehrkräfte besonders erfolgreich darin, Cybermobbing zu beenden. Unterstützend-kooperierenden Interventionsstrategien wird von den Schülerinnen und Schülern ein höherer Interventionserfolg bescheinigt als autoritär-strafenden und unterstützend-individuellen Strategien.
Abstract. Teachers can be key figures in stopping bullying. But how do they intervene in different forms of bullying, be it traditional bullying or cyberbullying? Are there differences in the likelihood that they will intervene, do they choose different intervention strategies, and are they more successful in stopping certain forms of bullying compared with others? There is scant information about these potential difference in the current literature and the few findings that do exist rely on hypothetical bullying scenarios. In the current study, 1,996 Grade 6 and 8 students from Germany (49.2 % female) were asked to report a bullying situation that had happened to them or one that they had witnessed happening to other students and in which a teacher was present. They were then asked to report how their teachers reacted in this situation. Students provided information on the form of bullying that predominated in the situation, on whether or not their teacher intervened, on the intervention strategies that the teachers chose, and on their teacher’s success in intervening. Data were analyzed using cross-tables and multilevel regression analyses. Results showed that students reported fewer incidents of cyberbullying (4.9 %); 12.3 % reported physical bullying and 22.1 % relational bullying. Students reported many incidents of verbal bullying (60.6 %). In 28.4 % of the recalled bullying situations, students said that teachers did not notice the incident, in 51.0 % the teachers intervened, in 9.8 % they just observed the situation, and in 10.8 % they ignored the bullying. The probability of intervention was high in incidents of cyberbullying (75.3 %) and low in verbal bullying (47.8 %). Teachers’ intervention strategies were condensed to three dimensions. From these three dimensions, supportive–individual strategies (e. g., talking to the students involved, supporting them emotionally) were used in 52.4 % of the incidents, authoritarian–punitive strategies (disciplining, threatening) in 28.4 %, and supportive–cooperative strategies (e. g., establishing actions at class/school level, including all students in the class) were used in 19.2 % of the situations. Students rated the success of supportive–cooperative interventions as higher than that of authoritarian–punitive intervention strategies. From the students’ perspectives, teachers were more successful in stopping cyberbullying than traditional forms of bullying. The results indicate that teachers should aim to be supportive and cooperative in order to stop bullying. Punishing and disciplining alone are less effective in stopping students from bullying. Teachers should be trained to work with the whole class when bullying occurs, to develop school-wide strategies, and to collaborate with external partners.
Literatur
(2008). Schule und psychische Gesundheit. Risikobedingungen für emotionale Auffälligkeiten von Schülerinnen und Schülern. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
(2017). Gewalt und Mobbing an Schulen. Wie sich Gewalt und Mobbing entwickelt haben, wie Lehrer intervenieren und welche Kompetenzen sie brauchen. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
(2016a). Die Genauigkeit des Lehrerurteils bei der Identifikation von an Mobbing beteiligten Schülerinnen und Schülern. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 63, 122 – 136.
(2016b). Ist das schon Gewalt? Zur Bedeutung des Gewaltverständnisses von Lehrkräften für ihren Umgang mit Mobbing und für das Handeln von Schülerinnen und Schülern. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 62, 841 – 860.
(2014). A comparision of preservice teachers’ responses to cyber versus traditional bullying scenarios: Similarities and differences and implications for practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 145 – 155.
(2007). Bullying and peer victimization at school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. School Psychology Review, 36, 361 – 382.
(2015). How teachers respond to school bullying: An examination of self-reported intervention strategy use, moderator effects, and concurrent use of multiple strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 191 – 202.
(2011). Teachers’ attitudes towards overt and covert bullying, and perceived efficacy to intervene. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 36 (11), 105.
(2013). Bullying and cyberbullying: Convergent and divergent predictor variables. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 580 – 587.
(2011). Pre-service teachers′ knowledge and attitudes regarding school-based bullying. Canadian Journal of Education, 34, 21 – 33.
(2013). Bullied children and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 132, 720 – 729.
(2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
(2013). Suicidal adolescents’ experiences with bullying perpetration and victimization during high school as risk factors for later depression and suicidality. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, 37 – 42.
(2017). Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World Journal of Psychiatry, 7, 60 – 76.
(1998 – 2017). Mplus User’s Guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
(2010). Telling is compelling: The impact of student reports of bullying on teacher intervention. Educational Psychology, 30, 283 – 296.
(2016).
Gewalt und Mobbing im Schulkontext und dessen Folgen für die Gesundheit . In L. BilG. SudecJ. BuckscA. KlockP. KoliW. Melzer (Hrsg.), Schule und Gesundheit. Ergebnisse des WHO-Jugendgesundheitssurveys ”Health Behavior in School-aged Children” (S. 222 – 245). Weinheim: Beltz-Juventa.(2015). Teacher characteristics and peer victimization in elementary schools: A classroom-level perspective. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 33 – 44.
(2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751 – 780.
(2015). Classroom- and school-level contributions to bullying and victimization: A review. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 204 – 218.
(2017).
Eine Systematik der Interventionsformen und -ziele bei Gewalt und Mobbing: Ergebnisse der Vorstudie . In L. BilW. SchubartI. DudziaS. FischeS. NiproschkeJ. Ulbricht (Eds.), Gewalt und Mobbing an Schulen. Wie sich Gewalt und Mobbing entwickelt haben, wie Lehrer intervenieren und welche Kompetenzen sie brauchen (S. 13 – 25). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkardt.(2015). Teachers’ victimization-related beliefs and strategies: Associations with students’ aggressive behavior and peer victimization. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 45 – 60.
(2015). The overlap between cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, 483 – 488.
(2019). Bullying intervention in schools: A multilevel analysis of teachers’ success in handling bullying from the students’ perspective. Journal of Early Adolescence, 39, 642 – 668.
(2004). Predicting teacher interventions in bullying situations. Education and Treatment of Children, 69, 27 – 35.
