Teacher Practices Aimed at Preventing School Bullying: A Comparative Analysis of Lithuania and Norway

Prevalence of school bullying in Lithuania and Norway

On a global scale, the prevalence of school bullying varies considerably. Although some studies have found a decreasing tendency in the prevalence of exposure to bullying, from 24.4% in 1994 to 4.9% in 2018 in a case from Denmark (Due et al., 2019), the phenomenon and its prevention still calls for more research.

The most recent large-scale quantitative survey conducted by the World Health Organisation on Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) using an anonymous self-report classroom-based questionnaire in 45 countries, showed that Lithuania continues to have a high percentage of pupils who are bullied in the 11-year-old, 13-year-old and 15-year-old age groups, while Norway ranks much lower than the HBSC average. An overview of the prevalence of bullying victimisation compared to the HBSC average is provided in Table 1.

Source: HBSC [Health Behaviour in School-aged Children]. (2020). Spotlight on adolescent health and well-being. In J. Inchley, D. Currie, S. Budisavljevic, T. Torsheim, A. Jåstad, A. Cosma, C. Kelly, Á.M. Arnarsson, & O. Samdal (Eds.), Findings from the 2017/2018 Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) survey in Europe and Canada. International report. Volume 2. Key data. Copenhagen: WHO. Downloaded from 9789289055017-eng (1).pdf

The prevalence of being bullied within the three age groups shows decreasing tendencies in Norway and the HBSC average. In Lithuania, the highest prevalence of being bullied is in the 13-year-old age group and lowest in the 15-year-old age group. More boys than girls are bullied in all age groups in Lithuania on average, with the exception of the 15-year-old age group, where the prevalence of being bullied is equal between girls and boys. However, slightly more girls than boys are being bullied in the 11-year-old age group in Norway. The HBSC study suggests that the prevalence of being bullied is different across age groups and gender, although the findings are not straightforward. Nevertheless, the data originating from the HBSC study, largely confirms the results of previous research that boys are involved in bullying, as both those who bully and those who are bullied, at higher rates than girls (e.g., Batsche & Knoff, 1994; Olweus, 1991, 1993; Pellegrini et al., 2010). The HBSC study also indicates that school bullying varies with age, yet other studies report contradictory findings. The results of some studies indicate that bullying victimisation decreases with age as pupils progress in their schooling (e.g., Batsche & Knoff, 1994), whereas other studies (e.g., Hymel & Swearer, 2015) show that bullying peaks during middle school (12 to 15 years of age) and tends to decrease by the end of secondary school. However, research suggests that bullying increases during school transition periods (i.e., between primary and middle school and between middle and secondary school), as youths negotiate new peer groups and use bullying as a means to achieve social dominance and peer affiliation in the new social context (e.g., Pellegrini et al., 2010).

The results of the HBCS study raise the question as to why there is a huge gap in the prevalence of being bullied between Lithuania and Norway. A partial explanation might be found by examining school bullying prevention on different levels of the EST.

Lithuania and Norway within a macrosystem context

In terms of the macrosystem, it is possible to compare a number of socioeconomic factors that could create a favourable climate for school bullying or, conversely, minimise the probability of school bullying in Lithuania and Norway. A study on social inequality and exposure to school bullying, conducted by Due et al. (2019), reveals that school bullying is most prevalent among pupils from lower socioeconomic groups. Moreover, a previous study, conducted by Due et al. (2009), indicates that adolescents who attend schools and live in countries where socioeconomic differences are larger are at higher risk of being bullied. This result confirms the HBSC findings that pupils in Lithuania are at higher risk of being bullied than pupils in Norway.

Neither the socioeconomic situation nor cultural characteristics of Lithuania and Norway were surveyed directly in the current study, however, a number of socioeconomic conditions in these two countries are briefly presented and compared. Firstly, there are large economic disparities between the two countries. The gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in purchasing power parties was 82 in Lithuania and 155 in Norway in 2018 (Eurostat, 2018a). Moreover, the employment rate in the 15–64 year age group in the fourth quarter of 2018 was slightly lower in Lithuania (72.9%) than in Norway (74.9%) (Eurostat, 2018b). In terms of life expectancy in absolute value at age 65 as a factor of society’s wellbeing, significant disparities were also observed. In Lithuania, the value was 14.5 for men and 19.7 for women, while in Norway it was 19.4 for men and 21.7 for women. Nevertheless, Lithuania had the highest tertiary education attainment level in the 30–34 year age group in EU28 (57.6%) (2018) (Eurostat, 2018c), while this level was slightly lower in Norway (50.6%). Moreover, the rate of early leavers (18–24 years) from education and training was lower in Lithuania (4.6%) than in Norway (9.9%) in 2018 (Eurostat, 2018d). In sum, Norway had better economic and social conditions, while Lithuania had a higher level of education indicators.

When comparing the developed and implemented policies and procedures to prevent school bullying in Lithuania and Norway, there are a number of differences in school bullying legislation. As provided for in paragraph 49 of the Law on Education of the Republic of Lithuania (L.R. Seimas, 2011), the teacher must ensure the pupil’s safety and a quality education, respect the pupil as a person and not violate the pupil’s legitimate rights and interests (L.R. Seimas, 2011). Moreover, changes have been made to Lithuanian legislation and since 1 September 2017, every learner must participate in a consistent and long-term preventive programme (L.R. Seimas, 2016). Consequently, all schools are required by law to implement and adopt a whole-school approach preventive programme, justified by empirical findings that have consistently confirmed that whole-school approach anti-bullying programmes in schools, classrooms and on the individual level, along with the involvement of parents and the wider community, are best suited to prevent or counteract the processes of school bullying (e.g. Limber et al., 2018; Olweus 1993, 2001, 2005, 2010; Smith, 2014; Ttofi & Farrington, 2009, 2011).

In Norway, the Education Act (1998, §9a-1) defines the general requirement that all pupils in primary and secondary schools have the right to a positive physical and psychosocial environment that promotes health, wellbeing and learning. The Norwegian Education Act (1998, §9a-3) also elaborates on how schools should actively and systematically work to promote a good psychosocial environment. In sum, Lithuanian and Norwegian legislation prescribes responsibility to educational institutions and their employees to ensure a safe learning environment for pupils, but uses different models to achieve this goal. Implementation of anti-bullying programmes has been established politically and financially in Lithuanian schools, while the Education Act (1998, §9a) provides this assurance to Norwegian schools or municipalities.

Finally, there is a significant time gap regarding implementation of the whole-school approach anti-bullying programme in the two countries. In Norway, the Bergen anti-bullying project (later renamed the OBPP) was launched in 1983 as part of a national campaign against bullying in schools, initiated by the Norwegian Ministry of Education (Olweus, 1991, 1993, 2005; Olweus & Limber, 2010). The results of the empirical evaluation of this project showed a marked reduction in pupil self-reporting of bully/victim problems. In the 1983–1984 evaluation, the relative reduction in the rate of pupils bullied was 62.0% (from 10.0% to 3.8%) and the reduction in the rate of pupils bullying was 33.0% (from 7.6% to 5.1%) after eight months of interventions (Olweus, 1991, 1993, 2005; Olweus & Limber, 2010). In Lithuania, the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Lithuania initiated implementation of the OBPP in 2008. During the first year of implementation, the number of pupils bullied in the first cohort (13 schools) decreased by 20.46%. Moreover, from 2008 to 2013, the number of pupils bullied from the first cohort decreased by nearly half (45.21%) (SPPC, 2013).

Whole-school approach anti-bullying programme as a mesosystem factor

The OBPP did not evolve as part of the school culture, but rather was developed in Norway and has since been adopted in schools in Norway, Lithuania and a few other countries (e.g., Iceland, Sweden, U.S.). In the current study, OBPP implementation and enforcement in Lithuania and Norway is linked to the mesosystem because on this level, both pupils, parents, and teachers cooperate with each other within the programme.

The primary goals of the OBPP are to reduce existing school bullying, prevent the development of new school bullying problems, and achieve better peer relations at school (Olweus, 1993). The OBPP is built on four key principles: 1) the main goal is to make school a safe and positive learning environment in which adults display warmth, positive interest and engagement, 2) there are clear boundaries for unacceptable behaviour, 3) there is a consistent use of non-physical, non-hostile but negative sanctions when rules are broken and, finally, 4) adults at school (and ideally at home) act with authority and are positive role models (Olweus, 1993, 2001; Kallestad & Olweus, 2003; Olweus & Limber, 2010). These principles have been translated into a number of specific measures on the school, classroom, individual and, in some contexts, community levels (Olweus, 1993, 2001; Olweus & Limber, 2010). OBPP measures on the school level consist of participating in staff meetings in which school bullying-related issues are discussed, participating in the Study and Supervision Group (SSG) in order to promote a whole-school approach to addressing bullying, organising and evaluating the Olweus survey results, playground supervision, and developing a holistic strategy and procedures/routines. OBPP measures on the classroom level include implementing and enforcing general class rules against bullying, classroom management, organisation of Olweus class meetings, implementing specific Olweus measures, and collaboration with parents. Meanwhile, OBPP measures on the individual level include actions taken on suspicion of bullying, intervention into bullying incidents, organisation of confrontational conversations with pupils involved in bullying and/or their parents, and follow-up on bullying cases. The teachers are directly involved in the implementation and enforcement of the programme (Kallestad & Olweus, 2003).

Teacher practices to prevent school bullying as a factor of the microsystem

The microsystem provides prohibited, encouraged and/or restricted opportunities for intellectual and social development through progressively more complex interaction in the environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). A school can therefore be regarded as a microsystem in which many factors that are unique to the school contribute to school bullying prevention. One of these factors may be teacher practices aimed at preventing school bullying.

Hong and Espelage (2012, p. 318) indicate that bullying prevention and intervention programmes are likely to show promising results if they include ecologically based components: (1) parent training/meetings, (2) improved playground supervision, (3) classroom management, (4) teacher training, (5) classroom rules, (6) a whole-school bullying policy and (7) cooperative group work.

Meanwhile, Gaffney et al. (2021) identify that a whole-school approach, anti-bullying policy, classroom rules, information for parents, informal peer involvement, work with bullied pupils, co-operative group work, and mental health approaches are significantly correlated with larger mean effect sizes for bullying perpetration outcomes in schools. Informal peer involvement and information for parents were significantly correlated with larger subgroup summary effect sizes for bullying victimisation in schools.

Teacher individual characteristics and school bullying prevention

A review of the academic literature highlights that teacher sociodemographic factors are important for understanding their practices aimed at preventing and intervening in school bullying (Boulton, 1997; Burger et al., 2015; Kallestad & Olweus, 2003; Olweus, 1993; VanZoeren & Low, 2018; Veenstra et al., 2014; Yoon et al., 2011; Yoon & Bauman, 2014; Yoon et al., 2016). The likelihood of a teacher intervening in bullying is influenced by a number of individual factors, such as the perceived seriousness of bullying, the teacher’s level of empathy towards the pupil being bullied and the teacher’s efficacy beliefs (e.g., VanZoeren & Weisz, 2018), confidence (e.g., Bradshaw et al., 2007), personal experience (e.g., Yoon & Bauman, 2014) and the demographic factors of gender and age (e.g., Burger et al., 2015; Green et al., 2008).

When it comes to gender, Boulton (1997, p. 231) recognised that both female and male teachers generally have negative attitudes towards bullying and towards pupils who bullied other pupil(s) and are generally sympathetic towards pupils who are bullied. Female teachers, however, express significantly more negative attitudes towards bullying than male teachers, although the difference is not considerable (Boulton, 1997). Later studies (e.g., Bauman et al., 2008; Burger et al., 2015; Yoon et al., 2011) also confirm that female teachers are more likely to take action in a bullying incident. The findings of Burger et al. (2015) on teachers from Austria and South Germany, Yoon et al. (2011) on teachers from South Korea and Bauman et al., (2008) on teachers from the U.S., all report that female teachers are more likely than male teachers to work with pupils who bullied. Green et al. (2008) found that female teachers are more likely than male teachers to rate bullying situations as dangerous.

When it comes to teaching grade, there is an assumption, that primary education teachers spend much more time with pupils and are more focused on social-emotional learning, while lower secondary education teachers are more focused on subject teaching and share responsibility with other teachers to secure the development of a positive learning environment in the classroom. However, no studies were found that address differences in school bullying prevention in primary and lower secondary education. The current study therefore aims to fill this gap.

Participants

Institutions responsible for the implementation of the OBPP, namely the Center of Psychology and Special Pedagogy in Lithuania and the Norwegian Research Centre AS, provided a list of Olweus schools (147 and 83 schools, respectively). All 147 Olweus-certified schools and schools that had completed the implementation process in Lithuania by December 2016 were invited to participate in the study, and 99 of them agreed. Meanwhile, the number of Olweus schools in Norway was limited through a probability (random) sampling technique, as this was a follow-up study. Following a two-stage cluster sampling during the first stage of the selection, 13 Olweus schools were randomly selected. During the second stage of selection, only those primary and lower secondary education teachers who worked within the OBPP and had the main responsibility for the securing a safe and good learning environment in the class, and who were referred to as contact teachers in Norway, were selected from the randomly selected 13 Olweus schools for the study.

A total of 1576 out of 1772 contact teachers in Lithuania and 82 out of 278 contact teachers completed an online self-assessment questionnaire. The response rate of teachers in Lithuania was 88.94% and in Norway, 29.5%.

Teacher age in the Lithuanian sample ranged from 23 to 72, with a mean age of 47.96 years (SD = 8.59), while teacher age in the Norwegian sample ranged from 25 to 64, with a mean age of 44.91 years (SD = 9.91). The teaching experience of the Lithuanian sample varied from one to 50, M = 24.21, SD = 9.61 and, in the Norwegian sample, from 2 to 40, M = 17.32, SD = 9.10. A few other characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 2.

Measures

Teacher practices within the OBPP were investigated by identifying the following measures, provided in Figure 1.

The responses to each item were estimated on a 5-point Likert scale, with response options varying from I do not do it to I do it very actively. The alpha coefficient of the internal reliability of the OBPP measures for the Lithuanian sample on the school level was .94 (N of item 15; M = 3.50, Skew = .12, Kurtosis = -.31), classroom was .94 (N of item 18; M = 3.96, Skew = -.50, Kurtosis = .98), and individual was .95 (N of item 18; M = 3.95, Skew = -.46, Kurtosis = 1.04), where SE of Skew = .06 and SE of Kurtosis = .12 for all variables. While for Norwegian sample, .80 (M = 4.01, Skew = -1.10, Kurtosis = 1.84), .78 (M = 3.96, Skew = .03, Kurtosis = -.71), and .91 (M = 4.32, Skew = .09, Kurtosis = -.99), respectively, where SE of Skew = .27 and SE of Kurtosis = .53 for all variables. The alpha coefficient of internal reliability in all scales was higher than .7, suggesting that all items in all three scales measured the same underlying attribute.

Procedures

In the current study, a non-experimental, cross-sectional survey design was applied. The study was carried out using a quantitative survey approach, by which data was anonymously collected through a standardised online self-administered questionnaire in March to June 2017 in Lithuania and January to February 2018 in Norway using Questback.

The researcher aligned the study with the statutory codes of ethics and carried out the professional ethical judgments and procedures of the study in accordance with the regulations of the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD). Permission to conduct the study was obtained and the researcher’s obligations to the NSD were strictly adhered to throughout the research process.

Data analysis

The results were analysed using the IBM SPSS-27 version. A descriptive analysis of the study and independent samples t-test were used to examine the differences between two independent samples (Pallant, 2016), namely between Lithuanian and Norwegian teacher practices aimed at preventing school bullying by applying the OBPP. The Cohen’s d was used for the effect size statistic, by which .2 indicated a minor effect, .5 a medium effect and .8 a significant effect (Pallant, 2016). To simultaneously test the effect of two independent variables (country and gender as well as country and teaching grade) on the dependent variable, a two-way between-groups analysis of variance was carried out. General assumptions for applying parametric techniques were verified. Normality was tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and although this assumption was violated, the rule that large enough sample sizes (e.g., 30+) should not cause any major problems was applied. Homogeneity of variance was tested by conducting Levene’s test for equality of variances as part of the t-test and analysis of variance analyses (Pallant, 2016).

Differences in teacher practices aimed at preventing school bullying and their country

An independent samples t-test was used to compare teacher practices aimed at preventing school bullying on the school, classroom, and individual levels of the OBPP as well as the whole programme for Lithuanian and Norwegian samples. The results are provided in Table 3.

Note: The data violated the assumption of equal variance for teachers’ practices at the school, classroom and all levels of the OBPP, therefore an alternative t-values when equal variances not assumed has been presented.

An analysis of means of teacher practices aimed at preventing school bullying by applying the OBPP revealed that Norwegian teachers more actively prevent school bullying by applying the OBPP than Lithuanian teachers. Lithuanian teachers are the least active in practices aimed at preventing school bullying on the school level of the OBPP, while Norwegian teachers are the most active in their practices aimed at preventing bullying on the individual level and the least active on the classroom level of the OBPP. An independent samples t-test indicated significant differences in the scores for Lithuanian and Norwegian teachers in their practices on the school and individual levels of the OBPP as well as the whole programme. Norwegian teachers are therefore more active in their practices within the OBPP aimed at preventing school bullying on the school and individual levels of the OBPP as well as the whole programme. Effect size statistics showed medium effects.

Furthermore, five measures on the school and classroom levels and four measures on the individual level were analysed using an independent samples t-test in order to clarify which measures teachers used actively and which ones less actively. The results are provided in Table 4.

Note: The data violated the assumption of equal variance for teachers’ participation in the staff meetings, participation in the SSG, adult supervision and in the development of the holistic strategy and procedures/routines at the school level, teachers’ general class rules, classroom management at the classroom level as well as teachers’ follow-up of the bullying cases at the individual levels of the OBPP, therefore an alternative t-values when equal variances not assumed has been presented.

An independent samples t-test indicated significant differences in the scores of the Lithuanian and Norwegian teachers for all measures on the school and individual levels of the OBPP and two measures on the classroom level of the OBPP. Effect size statistics showed medium effects of teacher practices on the suspicion of bullying and their interventions in bullying incidents, slightly higher than medium effects of teacher practices in developing a holistic strategy and procedures/routines on the school level of the OBPP, applying specific Olweus measures on the classroom level, organising confrontational conversations and following up on bullying cases on the individual level of the OBPP. Finally, the significant effects were obtained for teacher practices with regard to participation in staff meetings and SSG, organising and evaluating adult supervision and organising the Olweus survey on the school level and organising the Olweus class meetings on the classroom levels.

Norwegian teachers participate more actively than Lithuanian teachers in staff meetings and SSG, in organising and evaluating the Olweus survey, in adult supervision, in the development of a holistic strategy and procedures/routines on the school level of the OBPP and in applying specific Olweus measures on the classroom level of the OBPP. Nevertheless, an analysis of the mean ranks showed a number of similar tendencies: both Lithuanian and Norwegian teachers are most active in adult supervision during recess (highest mean rank) and least active in the organisation and evaluation of the Olweus survey (lowest mean rank) on the school level of the OBPP. Both Lithuanian and Norwegian teachers actively participate in staff meetings (second rank), but Lithuanian teachers prioritise participation in SSG, while Norwegian teachers prioritise the development of a holistic strategy and procedures/routines (third rank).

Norwegian teachers are more active than Lithuanian teachers in responding to a suspicion of bullying, intervening in bullying incidents, organising confrontational conversations and following up on bullying cases on the individual level of the OBPP. An analysis of the mean ranks revealed that both Lithuanian and Norwegian teachers are most active in intervening in bullying incidents (highest mean rank) and least active in following up on bullying cases (lowest mean rank) on the individual level of the OBPP. Lithuanian teachers are more active in postvention (i.e., organisation of confrontational conversations), while Norwegian teachers are more active in prevention (i.e., on suspicion on bullying) (second mean rank).

Lithuanian teachers organise the Olweus class meeting on the classroom level of the OBPP more actively than Norwegian teachers. However, Norwegian teachers use specific Olweus measures (Olweus rules against bullying and Olweus bullying circle) more actively than Lithuanian teachers. An analysis of the mean ranks indicated that both Lithuanian and Norwegian teachers actively work to establish and maintain general class rules (highest mean rank) and provide sufficient classroom management (second mean rank). However, they are least active in collaborating with parents (lowest mean rank).

Differences in teacher practices aimed at preventing school bullying and their country, gender, and teaching grade

In order to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between teacher practices aimed at preventing school bullying by applying the OBPP and teacher gender, as well as teaching grade, a comparative study was carried out. The country variable was also included for checking whether there is a statistically significant difference between Lithuanian and Norwegian female and male teachers, and Lithuanian and Norwegian primary and lower secondary teachers. A two-way ANOVA, which simultaneously tests the effect of each of the independent variables on the dependent variable, was conducted. However, it was not possible to identify any interaction effect because independent variables had only two groups (Lithuanian and Norway; female and male; primary and lower secondary teacher). The results of teacher practices aimed at preventing school bullying by applying the OBPP and country and gender are presented in Table 5, while country and teaching grade are shown in Table 6.

Note: C = country, G = gender.

Note: C = country, T = teaching grade.

A two-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact of country and teacher gender, as well as country and teaching grade, on teacher practices aimed at preventing school bullying on the school, classroom, and individual levels of the OBPP as well as the whole programme. The interaction effects between country and gender, as well as between country and teaching grade groups, were not statistically significant. Nevertheless, when for controlling country variable, some statistically significant differences were obtained between teacher practices aimed at preventing school bullying and gender/ teaching grade. Female teachers were more active than male teachers within the OBPP on the classroom and individual levels as well as whole programme. Meanwhile, primary education teachers were more active than lower secondary education teachers within the OBPP on the classroom level.