Train the trainer

MARC has also developed a Train the Trainer Faculty Training program that prepares professionals to train their colleagues about bullying and cyberbullying prevention. This training is designed to deliver an even more in-depth understanding of bullying and cyberbullying than traditional faculty trainings.

Large group presentations and interactive assemblies

Large group student presentations are offered for students K-12. All presentations are developmentally appropriate, grade-specific, and discuss bullying and cyberbullying in practical ways. The focus is on helping students understand the issues, develop the skills necessary to combat bullying and cyberbullying, and how to treat their peers, even those who are not their friends, with respect and civility.

Presentations for kindergartners and first graders are about 20–25 min long and introduce students to the concept of bullying, better understood at this age as being mean to someone on purpose. The focus is also on how bullying can make people feel and exploring the difference between physical and verbal bullying. The idea of being mean online is briefly introduced. The presentation ends with a practical, concrete discussion of how to be a good friend to everyone, how to help victims of bullying, and how to get help from adults when necessary.

For older elementary aged students in grades 2–4, the presentation is about 30–35 min. This presentation builds on the ideas introduced to younger students with a more in-depth focus on cyberbullying and other digital behaviors. Students are provided with detailed information about how to tell the difference between bullying/cyberbullying and other common social problems like conflict, drama, and teasing. The different roles students play in bullying (i.e., bully, victim, bystander, and egger, a word used by MARC to describe students who may inadvertently support bullying by laughing along, spreading rumors, etc.) are identified and discussed. Tips for helping classmates and oneself are offered with a focus on the low risk strategies students can use to combat bullying.

Presentations for students in the 5th and 6th grades are about 45 min long and continue to build on concepts presented to younger students. Specifically, the presentation goes into great detail about digital aggression and cyberbullying in addition to general information about bullying and peer aggression. Students are introduced to the concept of relational aggression, peer behaviors designed to show contempt for others and create social problems and emotional distress for its victims. The negative consequences of these behaviors are discussed and emphasis is placed on understanding that these behaviors, while not considered bullying/cyberbullying, can have devastating impacts for students. The role of social media in students’ lives and the importance of protecting privacy online are discussed. Students are provided concrete ways that they can use different avenues, e.g., the arts, athletics, and peer support, to combat bullying and offered tools and tips for helping themselves and others to deal with challenging peer behaviors online and in person.

Programs for older middle school and secondary students typically run about 55 min. Building on concepts introduced in earlier grades, these presentations go into great detail about cyberbullying and other digital problems. Common pitfalls of communicating online are discussed. Students are asked to think critically about the unique characteristics of digital communications and why they can lead to problems with peers. Misinterpretations, the use of anonymous apps, and the tricks our minds play to make us think online communication is private are presented with the use of real life examples. Students are asked to think deeply about how online behaviors can impact themselves and their classmates. Students in high school are pushed to think of the long-term impacts of online behaviors on their future opportunities. Sexting, the electronic distribution of nude or seminude images, is discussed. The rules and laws regarding these behaviors are introduced. Students are pushed to think about other negative consequences of these behaviors (i.e., negative emotional responses) and the reasons students report engaging in such behaviors (i.e., pressure from romantic partners). Rules and laws regarding bullying and cyberbullying in Massachusetts are presented. The presentation concludes with concrete, positive strategies for dealing with bullies at school and online.

Small group peer leadership training

For students in grades 5–12, MARC offers the option to have small student groups trained by experienced graduate and undergraduate students. These trainings are designed to help students identify and label what they view as the most important social issues going on in their schools, and to work with them to develop, and eventually implement, student-led programming in their own community. These sessions start by educating the student trainees and then these students, working in small groups facilitated by MARC students, are led through a process of identifying issues of concern, and then grouping and organizing their concerns into categories (e.g., people talking about each other, rumors being spread online, and people telling others’ secrets could be reduced to “problems with rumors and gossip”). After the categories of problems are established, the groups then brainstorm about solutions and programs to address them. These solutions and programs are developed, chosen, and implemented by students, which is the source of their power. Ultimately, student groups leave with action plans that discuss what program they want to implement, the resources and possible obstacles to implementation, and the roles of the students and their faculty advisors. Some examples of programs include students creating presentations and plays to be delivered to younger peers; implementing “pay it forward” and “small acts of kindness” campaigns at their schools; and forming action-oriented student groups dedicated to combating bullying.

Student contests

In an effort to encourage the recognition and promotion of positive peer behaviors, the Center also runs annual contests for primary and secondary grade students. Contests for 3rd–5th grade students ask age-appropriate questions, and students respond by making posters or writing poems. Examples of questions asked are:

● Third Grade: Has a friend ever helped you when someone else was being mean, or just when you felt badly? How did they help you?

● Fourth Grade: How do teachers help kids who are being bullied? Does it help to talk to a teacher?

● Fifth Grade: How would you teach younger kids about the best and most positive ways to use social media? What mistakes would you advise them to avoid?

Secondary grades write, direct, film, and edit Public Service Announcements on a chosen topic. All entries are judged by MARC staff and students, and winners are invited to visit campus for Award Ceremonies (for younger students) and the Youth Summit (for older students). The Youth Summit also serves to recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of students all over Massachusetts in bullying and cyberbullying prevention.

Eighty-four educators attended two separate “Train the Trainer” workshops in November and December 2013. The gender ratio of the participants at the training was 24%–76%, with female participants in the majority. Most participants were between 31 and 40 years old (n = 34; 42%); followed by the age group 41–50 years (n = 17; 21%), and then that of 51–65 years (n = 15; 18.5%).

Participants completed a questionnaire before and after the training (a within-subjects’ pre- and post-test design), which enabled a comparison of expectations for the training to the achievement of those expectations. The posttest included semistructured questions that allowed for the gathering of qualitative data about participants’ experiences.

Table 8.1 shows the results of the comparison between expectations and outcomes. Overall, the training modestly exceeded expectations, with subjects reporting they had gained knowledge beyond their initial expectations. The largest positive differences were for subjects who wanted to learn more about cyberbullying, to learn to differentiate between bullying and other behaviors, to learn information related to specific problems occurring in their schools, to learn how to recognize early signs of cyberbullying problems, and to learn how to help resolve problems. To varying degrees, the content did not meet expectations regarding information on helping parents deal with bullying, providing information on helping students resolve incidents of cyberbullying, understanding how cyberbullying impacts school climate, and learning how to help students make more mature decisions (see Table 8.1).

For 64% of respondents (53 out of 83), this was not their first experience with a bullying prevention program. Generally, MARC’s training received excellent marks. Participants were generally much more satisfied with the training than they had been with past programs. The trainer’s preparedness, organization of material, and quality of information provided received the highest ratings (see Table 8.2).

Interestingly, only 55% of the respondents believed that they were in general more prepared on the topic by the end of the workshop. This might be explained by the qualitative data gathered, including open-ended questions in the self-report questionnaire; notably, 22% of the participants felt they needed more time to digest the high volume of information they received at the training; 33% of the participants also reported a desire for even more practical content.

In-service faculty training

MARC does its best to take advantage of the limited time available for teacher training, and many schools where we train teachers also engage MARC for periodic telephone consultation and support. Fortunately, even while teachers acknowledge their need for more ongoing training, they also report that the in-service trainings were relevant and useful. Qualitative information gathered has included the following comments:

It is notable that answers to open-ended questions tend to focus on the two distinctive characteristics of the MARC faculty training: the emphasis on data and research (versus unsubstantiated beliefs or abstract theory) and the practical strategies for dealing with antisocial behaviors. It seems that even though these are one-time trainings, they do appear to meet many (if not all) of the teachers’ needs.

As part of other ongoing outcomes research, pre- and post-test data were collected from a group of 22 middle and high school teachers, nurses, and guidance counselors from a small secondary school in Massachusetts. They were trained during a professional development in-service in 2012. Questions for the pre- and post-test were created, based on the factual concepts in the training curriculum. Items were multiple choice and designed to detect increase in knowledge. Overall, data showed that knowledge about bullying and cyberbullying increased significantly after the faculty training, from a mean score of 7.09 on the pretest to a mean of 11.05 on the posttest. A paired t-test showed that the difference between conditions was significant (t = 10.89, df = 21, and p < 0.0001). The difference showed that participants improved their scores by an average of four correct answers following the faculty training.

In addition to the evaluation of faculty programs, we conducted an evaluation of several assemblies held for 6th & 7th graders at a middle school in Massachusetts. The school volunteered to participate in the evaluation, and the analysis involved anonymous, self-report, pre- and post-test questionnaires on the prevalence and patterns of students’ online activities posing risk (e.g., having own cell phone, playing games online, using SNS sites, chat with people who they know and don’t), whether they feel their school is responsive in helping to stop bullying and cyberbullying, if they ever experienced online embarrassing activities, who they spoke to about a bullying or cyberbullying incident, their perception of frequency of bullying and cyberbullying among their peers, whether they discussed online safety issues (such as being private online, predators online etc.) with adults, their practical knowledge on what students can do for each other in a bullying situation, their legal knowledge on activities widespread among the youth (e.g., video sharing and downloading), their perception of being safe in cyberspace (i.e., less likely be punished due to violation of law), and what they personally liked to see in an antibullying school program (Table 8.3).

Attrition was low between the pretest and posttest (only 12 out of 380 pretest subjects failed to complete the posttest). The posttest was conducted within 2–3 weeks after the assembly was held.

One interesting finding concerned students’ preferences for reporting a bullying or cyberbullying incident. In a multiresponse question we asked “Have you ever spoken to someone about an incident of bullying and cyberbullying? If yes, indicate who you decided to speak with.” The pretest revealed their marked preference for discussing bullying and cyberbullying incidents with their parents and peers, regardless of whether they were the target or a bystander. Students’ roles were identified by asking whether they witnessed something written online or in a text message that may have been embarrassing to them or someone else. Almost two-thirds of targets and almost half of bystanders preferred discussions with parents, and more than half of targets and one-third of bystanders preferred discussions with peers.

Participants were somewhat less interested in reporting bullying and cyberbullying to other trusted adults (e.g., counselor, relative). In general, students indicated a stronger preference for talking to school adults when they were the target. The content of MARC student programming consistently emphasizes the positive actions that bystanders, witnesses, friends, and peers can take in reporting bullying and helping targets; possibly because of this, the posttest results detected change in reporting preferences. A few weeks after the assembly, the respondents indicated an increased willingness to discuss bullying and cyberbullying with all possible parties, especially when they were bystanders of cyberbullying incidents. The proportion of students agreeing that they would talk to parents, peers, and adults at school if they witnessed someone being mean online or through text messaging to someone else all increased between the pre- and post-test (Fig. 8.1).

Why did willingness to report increase, particularly to school personnel? MARC’s trainers stress the importance of school climate and how significantly a bullying/cyberbullying incident can impact the entire community. In other words, they emphasize that the actual impact of such an incident or engaging in other negative peer behaviors can be very broad, despite the fact that it may only affect a few persons directly. It is possible that, after the presentation, students better understood the significance of involving other community members (such as teachers or other school staff) in the management of bullying and conflicts. Another possibility is that when students witness their teachers learning alongside with them during the programming, that colearning experience may increase their comfort in reporting to them (Table 8.4).

Factors that showed little or no change included participants’ understanding of the conceptual elements of bullying; however, there were high levels of understanding already present in the pretest (“bullying is when a person/group uses power to hurt another person repeatedly”: + 1.2%).

Qualitative data suggested that the program was met with a predominantly positive response. Not only did the students absorb new knowledge, but they were also successfully mobilized; MARC student presenters increased their interest in the topic and gave inspiring advice. The students seemed most appreciative of the detailed understanding they gained about digital behaviors and cyberbullying. They highlighted the easy-to-follow, practical advice as one of the most helpful parts of the presentation.

Some negatives were mentioned, notably, the methodological shortcomings of the student assembly, such as insufficient interactivity or group work, and that they wanted to hear more about how to stop bullying.

Students frequently referenced their gains in knowledge about how to best handle bullying and cyberbullying situations as they encounter them. Humorously, one student wrote, “I find this a refreshment from all those dumb strategies that only work in musicals.” Another student said, “Finally, not some dumb, ‘go be friends with the bully’ presentation” [sic].

Advisory curriculum for grades 6–12

This curriculum is designed to be used in short periods of time, e.g., 20-min segments–herefore, it can be used during Advisory Periods (which vary in length but can be quite short). It is a discussion-based curriculum, where videos of older students bringing up social issues are then discussed among the class, with the use of a Teacher’s Guide that underscores main points and poses helpful discussion questions. A pilot study of the curriculum was conducted between April and June 2013. Forty-eight schools in Massachusetts agreed to complete the Lesson Plans and record all required data. By the end of the pilot, 48 faculty and staff had taught 123 lessons. Almost two-thirds (64%) identified themselves as classroom teachers, and 18% were counseling staff. Other categories included administrators, librarians, resource officers, secretaries, and substitute teachers.

To measure efficacy, both students and teachers were asked if the students had learned something new during the lesson. In addition, teachers were asked how engaged the students were, and if the lesson plan had stimulated a vigorous discussion between students. Both students and teachers used a five-point rating system (from 1 “completely unengaged” to 5 “completely engaged”). Across all lessons, the curriculum scored highest for stimulating engagement and discussion (mean score was 3.65 out of 5 or 73%). The average scores for increased understanding and learning were somewhat lower (60.4% by the students, and 45% by the teachers). It is interesting that students regarded their own learning as greater relative to teachers’ ratings. This gap underscores the difficulty in estimating learning when it comes to social and emotional concepts. More than one teacher in this study expressed surprise at how much the students felt they had learned through the class discussion.

High school cyberskills’ curriculum

The premise of this Curriculum is that helping students understand how digital technology can filter or skew information can help them avoid inadvertent social conflict. Lesson plans also address related issues such as the impact of cyberbullying and what effective policies and interventions might look like. During the fall of 2010, a pilot program was launched to systematically evaluate the potential impact of the High School Cyberskills’ Curriculum. This evaluation study used a within-subjects’ pre- and post-test design. Students were tested on their knowledge prior to engaging with the Curriculum, and then retested afterward. The study sample consisted of 1444 children in grades 9–12 from five different schools who were given the lessons in one of their classes. This study directly measured any change in students’ knowledge about digital information skills following the implementation of the curriculum.

Across grades 9–12, six general topics were examined: General knowledge about social networking; knowledge about privacy limitations within social networking; general knowledge about cyberbullying and cyberbehaviors; Internet-based scams, theft, and phishing; cookies, behavioral tracking, and targeted advertising; laws about making and using video/audio recordings. Every topic and grade level studied resulted in statistically significant differences between Time 1 (the pretest) and Time 2 (postcurriculum) levels. A few individual lessons showed no significant difference between the two times. Students significantly increased their general knowledge about social media, the limitations about privacy within social networking, the difference between cyberconflict versus cyberbullying, and ways to combat cyberbullying.