Teacher responsibility: the case for examining second-level teacher’s duty of care relative to bullying among young people in Ireland.

Author(s):

Sinead Kane(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)

Format:

Paper

Session Information

ERG SES H 01, Challenges in Education

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-23

11:00-12:30

Room:

OB-E1.17 (ALE 1)

Chair:

Ninetta Santoro

Contribution

Bullying is prevalent in our society and has serious detrimental effects on students. Bullying in schools has received attention in research since the 1970’s when Olweus began to study the issue in Norway. Attention was paid to bullying in Ireland in the 1980’s (O’Moore and Hillery, 1989). A huge amount of bullying occurs because of a lack of tolerance for diversity (O’Higgins Norman et al. 2010). According to Smith and Sharp (1994), being different or being vulnerable, are risk factors for being bullied. In addition, “children with special educational needs, often with a physical disability or mild/moderate learning difficulties, are especially at risk of being bullied” (Smith and Sharp, 1994, p.8). The effects of bullying are wide ranging and can even result in suicide. Studies have shown that victims of bullying are more likely than their peers to have suicidal thoughts and suicidal attempts (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). Central to stopping bullying in schools are teachers (Rigby, 2002). Teachers must be well equipped to handle bullying because failure to effectively and consistently intervene could actually make teachers part of the problem (Olweus, 1993). Failure to intervene could simply stem from a lack of understanding of what bullying is and what to do about it. Teacher’s effectiveness of addressing bullying may also be related to their self-efficacy. Bandura (1977) defined self-efficacy as the belief that one can perform a behaviour successfully. When a person has something to accomplish, does that person believe he/she has the ability to achieve that goal? Self-efficacy greatly impacts peoples’ responses to an issue, including what they select to do and the level of effort they take to perform those tasks. A key factor of self-efficacy is locus of control. Bandura (1997) stated a person’s perceived capabilities are regulated by his or her alleged control of events. In turn, the perceived self-efficacy affects human functioning, such as cognition, motivation and mood. Perception drives motivation and subsequent action. Teachers’ experiences, perceptions, thoughts or past actions may potentially color their opinions on bullying and how they perceived their ability or self-efficacy to deal with it. In Ireland, there has been a large amount of research done concerning school bullying. However, missing from the discussion is how teachers understand their duty of care towards young people relative to bullying inside and outside of school. The purpose of the paper is to contribute to the literature on school bullying by opening up the discussion concerning teachers’ perceptions of their duty of care towards young people.

Method

The research method utilised for this work was a qualitative case study to explore teacher perceptions of their duty of care relative to bullying. 30 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Use of the case study design necessitates using a bounded system. A bounded system is the case to be studied and could be a person, a small group of individuals who share an experience, an event, or any number of other scenarios where the researcher is able to limit the focus of the study and define what will be studied (Merriam, 2009). This study’s bounded system second-level teachers in Ireland. The case study approach allowed collection of detailed data that provided a more in-depth look teachers’ understanding of their duty of care relative to bullying. The study is significant for researchers, as it provides insight from the largely unexplored views of second-level teachers in Ireland. Insights gained from this case study provides a better understanding of what teachers know and do not know about their duty of care inside and outside of school relative to bullying. To that end, this study has far-reaching, potentially global implications in understanding and decreasing the bullying problem in schools. Because little qualitative research of this nature exists, especially of second-level teachers, this study will provide a base for future studies. No qualitative study concerning teacher’s perceptions of their duty of care relative to bullying exists in Ireland. Research Questions Teachers play an extremely important role in stopping bullying (Rigby, 2002). Teachers are the frontline defenders and will ultimately be responsible for knowing and applying a school anti-bullying policy. The following questions guided this study: 1. What do teachers know about bullying? 2. What are teachers’ perceptions of their duty of care relative to bullying inside and outside of school? 3. Does a gap exist between policy and implementation? Why or why not? 4. How can the current intervention/prevention policy be more effective?

Expected Outcomes

Little qualitative research exists that provides an in-depth look at bullying and bullying policies through the perceptions of teachers in Ireland. It is important that second-level teachers in Ireland understand their duty of care and how it relates to bullying among young people inside and outside of school to enable them to properly identify and intervene. Lacking in Ireland is meaningful data of teachers’ understanding of bullying. Since the teachers’ role is important in the combat against bullying it only makes sense to capture their thoughts in order to help make future anti-bullying policies more effective. In conclusion, the author believes that this paper brings a new perspective to the discussion on the prevention and management of bullying in Irish schools. Through an extensive literature review this researcher was able to clarify the important role that second-level teachers have in relation to the issue of bullying and how important it is to gain their perceptions about their duty of care towards children. The author calls for policymakers to invest in qualitative research to gather meaningful data on teachers’ perceptions of their duty of care relative to bullying among young people inside and outside of school.

References

• Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage. • Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Cambridge: Polity Press. • Gilligan, C. 1982 In a Different Voice, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. • Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14(3), 206–221. • Kilkelly, U. (2008) Children's Rights in Ireland: Law, Policy and Practice, 2008. Dublin:Tottel Publishing. • Lee, C. (2006). Exploring teacher’s definitions of bullying. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 11(1), 61–75 • Noddings, N. (1984) Caring, a feminine approach to ethics & moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press. • Noddings, N. (1989) Women and evil. Berkeley: University of California Press. • Noddings, N. (2002) Starting at Home: Caring and Social Policy. Berkeley, CA: University of CA Press. • Noddings, N. (1998) Philosophy of Education, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. • Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. Malden, MA: Blackwell. • O’Higgins Norman, J., Goldrick, M. and Harrison, K. (2010) Addressing Homophobic Bullying in Second Level Schools. Dublin. The Equality Authority. • O’Higgins-Norman, J. & Connolly, J. (2011) Mimetic theory and scapegoating in the age of cyber-bullying: the case of Phoebe Prince, Pastoral Care in Education, 29, 287–300. • O'Higgins Norman, J. (2011). Sociology of Education. Selected chapter in B. Walsh. Education Studies. Dublin. Gill and McMillan. • O'Higgins Norman, J (ed.) At the Heart of Education, School Chaplaincy and Pastoral Care, Dublin: Veritas, 2004. • O’Moore, A.M., Hillery, B. (1989). Bullying in Dublin Schools. The Irish Journal of Psychology 10: 426-441. • O’Moore, M. (2000) Critical issues for teacher training to counter bullying & victimisation in Ireland, Aggressive Behaviour, 26, 99–111. • Pugh, A.J. (2014). “The Theoretical Costs of Ignoring Childhood: Rethinking Independence, Insecurity and Inequality.” Theory and Society. January 2014, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 71-89. • Rigby, K. (2002). A meta-evaluation of methods and approaches to reducing bullying in preschools and early primary schools in Australia. Canberra, Australia: National Crime Prevention, Attorney General. • Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48(9), 583–590. • Rosaldo, R. (1989) Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis, Boston: Beacon Press. • Smith, P.K. & Sharp, S. (eds.) (1994). School Bullying: Insights and Perspectives. London: Routledge. • Thomas, C. 1993 ‘De-constructing Concepts of Care’, Sociology 27 (4): 649–69.

Author Information

Sinead Kane (presenting / submitting)

National Anti-Bullying Research and Resource Centre

School of Edcuation

Co. Cork

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.