Anti-bullying Research Programs in Kindergartens and High Schools Conducted at the University of Gadjah Mada (UGM), Yogyakarta, Indonesia: 2010–2017

Abstract

This chapter reviews a series of six research studies piloting an Anti-Bullying program, Creating Friendly Classroom, conducted in kindergartens, and five research studies in high schools piloting a different Anti-Bullying program, Positive Peer Project, by students at the University of Gadjah Mada (UGM) in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. A survey of the instances of bullying in kindergartens in 2010 in Sleman, Yogyakarta, and another survey of Sleman high schools in 2014 highlighted the desperate need for intervention programs to prevent bullying. UGM, under the leadership of Professor Amitya Kumara, Head of the Psychology Department, gathered teams of psychology student researchers to conduct the programs. The kindergarten programs were sequential and built on each research finding while the high school programs were conducted simultaneously in different high schools to compare the most effective approach. A variety of research tools was used to determine the overall effectiveness of the Anti-Bullying programs in creating changes. In kindergartens, the influences of the program included ‘improvements in the classroom climate’, and the ‘competence of teachers in building safe and comfortable classrooms’; children’s aggressiveness was reduced and their prosocial behaviour increased. In high schools, the Lentera Sahabat program (role-play method) was found to be the most effective in assisting students to develop skills in guiding role-playing sessions with the aim of preventing their peers from being bullied. Two complete papers, one from the Creating Friendly Classrooms research (Appendix 9) and one from the Positive Peer Project (Appendix10) are included to further clarify the research methods and findings.

Appendices

Appendix 1 (Bahasa Indonesian)

Appendix 2 (English)

Appendix 3

Appendix 4

Appendix 5

Appendix 6

Appendix 7

Appendix 8

Appendix 9

The Effect of Implementing the “Creating Friendly Classroom” Program in Reducing Aggressiveness in Kindergartens

• Dinni Asih Febriyanti &
• Amitya Kumara 

1. Faculty of Psychology, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta,, Indonesia

   Dinni Asih Febriyanti & Amitya Kumara

2012

Abstract

Aggressiveness in kindergarten classes causes a number of negative impacts that need to be prevented and treated. To treat aggressiveness, it not only needs individual treatment but also environmental changes. “Creating A Friendly Classroom” Program adapted from “The Anti-Bullying and Teasing Programme for Preschool Classroom” (Sprung, B., Froschl, M., & Hinitz, B., 2005) book is one approach to handling the environment.

This study is a follow-up to test the effectiveness of the ‘Friendly Classroom’ program in reducing aggressiveness in kindergarten classes. This research was conducted on the recommendation of previous researchers, and added a control group to the experimental group in their studies while modifying the program to adjust to the school’s situation. The study was conducted with a quasi experimental design, untreated control group with pretest and posttest. This study involved two kindergartens in Sleman. Analysis of the data using median test shows students’ aggressiveness in the experimental group after the implementation was lower than the prior condition.

Keywords Creating Friendly Classroom Programme, Implementation, Aggressiveness

Introduction

Social relations in particular making friends is a means by which children learn about social norms, social skills (Boivin, 2005), how to solve problems with others and how to put oneself in someone else’s place (Papalia, et al., 2004). When faced with the problem of friendship, some children can demonstrate good problem solving, while others may use aggression to solve problems. Children who solve problems by behaving aggressively are confident that they will get what they want (Honig, 2009).

Aggressiveness among early age children has several negative impacts. Impacts experienced by victims can appear as a physical syndrome, emotional problems, academic impact or school problems (Glew, Fan, Katon, 2005; Sprung, Froschl, and Hinitz, 2005). A child who show aggressiveness might show even harder violence when they go to higher education (Sprung, Froschl, and Hinitz, 2005). Therefore these negative effects, and aggressiveness among children should be prevented.

Theory

Aggressiveness is defined as a variety of behaviors intended to harm others, causing others to be sick or injured (Keenan and Evans, 2009). The intention aspect of the aggressiveness in children is still a contradiction because of the difficulty to observe the intention in aggressiveness carried by children. Therefore, the definition of aggressiveness in children is more focused on the behavior that can be observed (Cavell, 2002). In clinical psychology, aggressiveness with a certain onset and duration is labelled as conduct disorder (Anderson and Dill, 2000). Aggressiveness which is characterized by recurrent intensity by the stronger party to the weaker party is called bullying behavior (Olweus, 1993).

Aggressiveness consists of physical aggressive behavior, verbally aggressive behavior, and psychological aggressive behavior (Keenan, 2009; Papalia, et al, 2004). Olweus (1993) provides the same forms of behavior between bullying and non-bullying aggressiveness. They consist of saying nasty and hurtful things, or mocking a person, ignoring or excluding someone from a group of friends, hitting, kicking, pushing, or threatening someone, spreading lies or rumors about someone to make other people not like them.

Based on the description of the definitions and forms of aggressiveness, it can be concluded that aggressiveness is a behavior that causes pain to others and can take the form of physical aggressive behavior, verbally aggressive behavior, aggressive behavior associated with the exclusion, and indirect aggressive behavior.

The occurrence of aggressiveness can be explained by three theoretical approaches (Myers, 2008). They are: (1) biological approach; that aggressiveness arises because impulse instinct to defend themselves as well as genetic influences that affect the temperament of individuals, (2) the approach that sees that aggressiveness is a response to the frustration experienced by someone when the need cannot be met by either (3) approach which considers that aggressiveness is a learned behavior.

Learned behavior is the most suitable approach to explain aggressiveness in early childhood. Research shows children in early childhood environments that show greater aggressiveness provide stimulus to cause such aggressiveness. This environment may be the family environment, school, friends, and mass media (Brezina, et al, 2001; Keenan, 2002, Slotsve, et al 2008; Wood, et al, 2002). Parents with low economic capacity and poor parenting styles being predictors of the emergence of aggression in children (Barker, et al, 2008). The school environment’s situation also influences the occurrence of aggressiveness through classroom discipline with punishment, the quality of the instruction, classroom arrangement disorganization, and the social structure of students associated with antisocial behavior (Allen, 2010; Castello, Gotzens, Badia, & Genovard, 2010).

The role of the environment in influencing the development and establishment of children’s behavior can be described using the microsystem structure of Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecology theory (Berns, 2007). Parents act as child’s first teacher in a family environment where children learn about safety, hazards, things that are true, and things that are wrong in their environment (Sprung et al, 2005). The school environment, as the child’s next socialization environment allows children to improve social cognitive abilities that later influence the decreasing possibility of aggressive behavior in children (Werner, et al, 2006). Parents’ cooperation with schools can support the optimal development of cognitive and language abilities of children, increase interest in school and achieving lesson comprehension (Chang, Park, and Kim, 2009; Olatoye and Ogunkola, 2008; Senechal and LeFevre, 2002).

The ‘Creating Friendly Classroom’ Program

The “Creating Friendly Classroom” Programme is adapted from The Anti-Bullying and Teasing Programme (Sprung et al, 2005) which aims to encourage teachers to create a comfortable and safe environment. Implementation of this program emphasizes four teachers’ precedents, the forms of behavior that is expected by teachers in the classroom for later viewing, and showing exemplary students how to behave with fellow students. The four teachers’ precedents consist of:

• a. Check: check that the child is in good condition

• b. Stop: stop the events that are considered disturbing to one or more students

• c. Invite: invite a student who was alone to play together

• d. Say: that student can report to an adult if they are need help.

In addition to the four teachers’ precedents, the programme contains Six Class Strategies which are forms that can be utilized to transfer teacher’s moral value to the student. The six classes strategies are:

• a. Circle Time, can be used as a time to solve problems, work together, bring ideas, or discuss happenings.

• b. “Lets Calm Down” Corner, a corner in the class that is used by a child to calm down and regulate emotions when children need a break from classroom activities.

• c. “Let’s Work it Out” Table, a place or a table to learn negotiation skills and solve problems when there is a dispute between students.

• d. Drama area is the vehicle where children can demonstrate the story in order to learn to empathize and to practice goodness.

• e. Block play area, where children learn math, science, social sciences, as well as learn about togetherness, sharing, respect for property of others, and how to resolve conflicts

• f. Play area in the environment outside the classroom is where children learn to play together and develop an attitude to play by the rules (fair play).

Key principles in a program of The Anti-Bullying and Teasing for Preschool Classroom are to address the emergence of aggression in the kindergarten classroom. The teacher shows four behaviors in the hopes that students will model and perform the same behavior when faced with a similar situation among themselves. In addition to the four teachers’ precedents, the six class strategies also contain a model strategy that can be applied when the class shows the occurrence of aggressive or violent behavior.

This study is a continuation of research as well as part of a joint research of the same program with modifications and changes based on previous research recommendations. Based on these recommendations, in the current study researchers modify the composition of the activities to be implemented in the classroom; this program consists of seven activities as follows:

• 1. Let’s help each other at home and school

• 2. Rules for creating a classroom environment and friendly play

• 3. Stories and charts on “Same and Different”

• 4. Creating a family book

• 5. Sharing information about family

• 6. Collage of our favorite foods

• 7. The project is made in the work of the class

As part of the program, in this study researchers also include the parents’ involvement which occurs through a parent notification letter and a communication book that covers what students are learning in class and contains ideas about activities that can be done at home to complement the class activities. This study aims to determine the effect of implementing the “Creating Friendly Classroom” Programme in the decline of aggressiveness in kindergarten classes. The hypotheses proposed in this study are:

• Ho1: The implementation of the “Creating Friendly Classroom” Programme influences a decrease in aggressiveness of students in kindergarten.

• Ho2: Aggressiveness of students in the experimental group after the implementation of the “Creating Friendly Classroom” Programme is lower than prior to implementation.

Method: Participants

This study involved two kindergartens. The subjects of this study were students of first-year kindergartens in which teachers received training in “Creating a Friendly Classroom Programme” (as the experimental group) and students of a first-year class in another kindergarten where teachers, as the control group, did not receive the training. Selection of schools as a control group and experimental group occurred using the criteria established by the survey in previous studies. In the incidence of bullying and aggression bullying had happened at those schools which did not received the implementation of The Anti-Bullying and Teasing Program for Preschool Classroom’, and had previously expressed willingness to participate in the study.

The research planned to target students with high aggressiveness. To avoid the occurrence of basal effect, students who showed no aggressiveness (aggressiveness pretest frequency = 0) are not included as subjects. The subjects of the experimental group were 25 pupils, whereas in the control group there were 17 children.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable in this study was the aggressiveness of students in the kindergarten classroom. Operational definition of aggressiveness are all forms of verbal aggressive behavior (saying evil and hurtful things to friends, ridicule, yelling, and calling friends with nasty epithets): physical aggressive behavior (hitting, kicking, pushing, crashing, using threatening gestures), alienating aggressive behavior (leaving the group on purpose, completely ignoring child, excluding from groups with words and movements) and indirect aggressive behavior (any form of aggressive behavior in which a child encourages others to harm the victim), all of which have been observed in kindergarten.

Manipulation

Manipulation in this study is the implementation of “Creating Friendly Classroom” Programme which was adapted from “The Anti-Bullying and Teasing Book for Preschool Classrooms” Community theme (Sprung, Froshl, and Hinitz, 2005).Implementation was carried out by the teacher. Implementation of the program is accompanied by the involvement of parents through letters and a communication book which contains a description of students activities and suggested activities for parents to do at home to support the programs implementation in the classroom. The control group were not subjected to any treatment during the study period however, they received training after the study ended.

Research Design

This study used a quasiexperimental untreated control group design with pre-test and post-test (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002). In this design there is one control group and one experiment group where each subject receives a measurement derived from a series of observations that illustrate the condition before (as a pretest) and a series of observations afterwards to get a picture after the implementation of the program conducted by the teacher (as posttest).

Measurement

Measurements were made by counting the frequency of aggressive occurrences by students through a series of observations with time sampling approach used as the method of recording events (Sunanto, 2005). Because the school only allowed researchers to use two observers, the frequency used as the data is the agreement frequency (number of aggressive occurrence) of both observers (Irwin and Bushnell, 1980). Each pretest and posttest observation is planned for seven times during seven days. The measuring instrument used was the Aggressiveness Observation Guide which was compiled and adapted from Bullying Variable Observation Guide by Dinardinata (2011).

Data Analysis

The results were analyzed with median test techniques. The median test is a statistical technique used to test the significance of differences between two medians which are derived from two groups of frequency data (Siegel, 1956). Analysis of pretest data of the experimental and control groups showed that the initial conditions of both groups were equal. Analysis of the results was carried out by comparing pretest data and post test data of the experimental group to determine whether a difference occurred as the result of a given manipulation.

Research Procedure

Preparations

• 1. Request permission to:

• a. Previous researcher to continue research and use measuring instruments by considering the recommendations of previous researchers.

• b. Researchers’ influence the Program to Create Friendly Classrooms by Teachers Creating a Safe and Comfortable Classroom”. Request permission is linked to the joint research between researchers “Effect of Classroom Teachers in Courses Creating Safe and Convenient Classrooms”. Manipulation in this study, namely the implementation of “Creating Friendly Classroom Programs” is given to subjects (students in Kindergarten) after the subject classroom teachers have the skills to implement the program.

• c. The school to do research on-site.

• d. Parents of students signing the informed consent to indicate they are willing to participate and allow their children to engage in research.

• 2. Adjustment activities in the community theme of the book “The Anti-Bullying and Teasing Program for Preschool Classroom” with daily classroom activities and school environmental situations through discussions with the teacher.

• 3. Preparation of programme’s kit.

• 4. Coaching for prospective observers in order that the candidate observers have the same understanding of the items of observation and how to use observation guide. The researcher trained the observer with a video that contains footage showing the behavior of students in the classroom. Based on the coaching process the results obtained interrater reliability of the observer on the Observation Guide Variable Aggressive-Bullying events for 0.83 so that the observers were judged to have a consensus on the items in the observation guide. Interrater reliability value can be classified as that which is above the value of 0.7 (Bresciani, et al, 2009).

Research Implementations

• 1. Pretest measurements in the control group and experimental group.

• 2. Briefing to the teacher preparation program implementation

• 3. Program implementation by classroom teachers.

• 4. Measurement results of the intervention (posttest). These activities are conducted after the program finishes: all activities are implemented in the classroom.

Follow-up, Dissemination and Training for Control Group

One month after the posttest period, researchers conducted follow-ups to determine the development conditions of the aggressiveness of students in both groups. Researchers also planned dissemination of research results to parents and teachers. For accountability, researchers also gave the training program “Creating Friendly Classroom” to teachers in the control group so they can implement the program independently in class.

Results

The study began with pretest data collection from experimental and control group. Observation of the pretest data collection carried out on July 12, 2011 until July 20, 2011. The duration of observations in the classroom was 30 minutes as a setting of learning activities, adjusted for the estimated duration of the implementation of seven activities. After a series of observations of the pretest data collection was completed, training for the “Creating Friendly Classroom” Programme was carried out. Training continued with the briefing and preparation of the implementation of programs in which researchers and teachers agree on the schedule of implementation. They also agree on the technical implementation of the seven activities and explain the use of equipment in the implementation of the program.

Implementation phase of the program carried out for seven days, on 25 to 29 July2011, and 3–4 August 2011. At this time, teachers implemented classroom activities and begin to integrate planting four precedence behaviors and six classroom strategies in interacting with students. Each activity was carried out in one day for about 30–45 minutes. Four teachers’ precedence behaviors and six classroom strategies are the core of solutions to reduce the aggressiveness of the students in the kindergarten classroom. After the implementation phase, the research continued with the observation data to capture students’ posttest aggressiveness on 8–12 August and15 to 16 August.

Statistical Analysis

Pretest and posttest data obtained were then analyzed using the median test (Siegel, 1956). In the study planning, data to be analyzed was from students who have high level of aggressiveness in the classroom. Benchmarks for classifying categories of students’ aggressiveness were obtained through the determination of the median value as a divider between the group with high aggressiveness and low aggressiveness. This category was then matched with teachers’ assessment of student aggressiveness in her class through interviews. To obtain the median value as a category boundary, the experimental group pretest data was coupled with the control group pretest data to determine the median value. The median value obtained was 2. Students with a total frequency of aggression ≤ 2 classified in categories of low aggressiveness, while the student with total aggressiveness> 2 classified in categories of high aggressiveness. Based on the interviews, teachers assess the aggressiveness of the students in class A this year can still be categorized as “normal” and better than A class students in previous years. Therefore, although the statistics are based on the median, students can be divided into categories of high and low aggressiveness, in general students include having a low level of aggressiveness.

Analysis of the results of research carried out by comparing the experimental group posttest data with the experimental group pretest data. Both data are combined and sequenced to obtain the median value. The median value obtained is 0.5.

Furthermore, pretest data were divided into 2 groups, groups of students with frequency of less aggressiveness than the median value (total frequency <0.5) and the class of students with a frequency of more aggressiveness than the median value (total frequency> 0.5), as well with posttest data. The formula used in calculating the median test are:

	Notes:
	χ2: Value of X2 A: Number of subject on experiment groups with frequency more than the median (>0,5) B: Number of subject on control groups with frequency more than the median (>0,5) C: Number of subject on experiment groups with frequency less than the median (<0,5) D: Number of subject on control groups with frequency less than the median (<0,5) N: Number of all subject (A+B+C+D)

The calculations with this formula were obtained by calculating χ² = 46.08. Χ² large count is then compared with the value of χ² table (df = 1). Value of χ² table for df= 1 with a significance of 5% = 3.84 while the significance of 1% = 6.64. The results of χ² count is greater than the χ² table, so that Ho is rejected or there are differences in aggressiveness among students in the experimental group before and after program implementation.

Researchers conducted follow-up study to re-observe the aggressiveness of students in the experimental group and control group. The follow-up was aimed to determine the changes of the aggressiveness of the students after the implementation within a specified period. Changes in the aggressiveness of the students at this stage of pretest and posttest until follow-up are depicted in Fig. 5.6.

Fig. 5.6

Overview of pretest-posttest condition to follow-up aggressiveness of experimental group students

Based on Fig. 5.6 the posttest condition (pointer ■) indicates the aggressiveness of students in the experimental group is much lower than the pretest conditions (pointer ♦) illustrating that the aggressiveness of students decreased following the implementation of the program. After a month, follow-up conditions (pointer▲) indicate the general aggressiveness of students in the experimental group are not much different than the posttest condition, except for a few students who returned to aggressive behaviours.

Figure 5.7 shows that the posttest condition (pointer ■) of aggressiveness of students in the control group are similar with the condition of the aggressiveness of these students at pretest phase (♦ pointer). After a month follow up conditions (pointer ▲) indicate the general aggressiveness of these students were not much different than they were in the pretest and posttest.

Fig. 5.7

Overview of pretest-posttest condition to follow-up aggressiveness control group students

The involvement of parents (parent involvement) in the implementation of programs in schools through the provision of communication book is presented in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6 Communication book return percentage

Discussion

The results of data analysis accepts the hypothesis of influencing a decrease between the aggressiveness of students before and after implementation of the “Creating Friendly Classroom” programme by teachers in the experimental group. Aggressiveness of the experimental group students after the implementation of the program is lower than before implementation.

Initial conditions in which almost all students in both groups categorized on low aggressiveness can be associated with the assessment of teachers both in the control group and experimental groups that the students of class A in this new school year seems to have the ability to adapt much better than the previous year. The school also indirectly helps students with limited adaptation outside of class and the teacher will approach these students to play an active role as a friend to help meet the needs of other students in the class. This approach may help students feel comfortable in class. The higher the perception of students that their teacher is a wonderful companion, the lower the tendency is to hurt your friends, especially as a way to attract the teacher’s attention (Yurtal, Bilqic, 2009).

Conditions of low aggressiveness students can also be seen from the background of parents and families of students in class this year, most of whom are drawn from the socio- economic middle and middle to upper level with undergraduate education. Economic and educational level of parents that influence parenting as applied to their children contributed to the emergence of aggressive children (Barker, et al, 2008).

Concerns that children with low aggressiveness are at risk of becoming victims of another party’s aggressiveness needs to be addressed by incorporating training of assertiveness. Children need to be equipped with assertiveness skills or abilities to position themselves, express opinions, and demonstrate personal interests when in conflict situations (Ames, 2008). All of these capabilities are part of the coping behavior of individuals that are required to avoid the tendency to become a victim (Andreou, 2001). It is expected that, although the level of aggressiveness of children is low, with good assertiveness skills a child can defend themselves in situations that place them as possible victims of the aggressiveness of the other party.

Researchers acknowledge the limitations related to measurement procedures that occur in this study. Aggressiveness contains components of intention or tendency which in children is more difficult to observe than in adults. Hence the concept of aggressiveness in children is more focused on the behavior being observed (Cavell, 2002). Based on this argument, researchers use observational methods to measure the aggressiveness of research subjects. Limitations that may occur is a tendency that aggressiveness did not materialize due to the behavior of the control environment. This possibility can occur in class A students given the family background and treatment of a better school than the force in previous years.

The Creating Friendly Classroom Programme has important components; four teachers’ precedence behaviors and six classroom strategies implemented through seven collective activities. The theory of social constructivism view of collective activity in the classroom is an effective approach to learning because of factors influenced by the distribution of cognitive labor, reciprocal teaching, voicing ideas, and expressing thoughts (Palincsar, 1998). When children play with friends, they also learn to make friends and get to know the rules. This process can enhance children’s cognitive social skills that has been associated with decreased emergence of aggressiveness (Werner, et al, 2009). This indication can be seen in the implementation of the project activity classes that encourage students to actively cooperate with each other so that the work is completed sooner. Conditions that occurred in the experimental group were less apparent in the control group because the learning activities there used an individual approach in which teachers encouraged the child to finish the task, which turned out to ignite the struggle and mock a friend who had not completed the work.

Implementation results in line with expectations and hypotheses in this study cannot be separated from the success of the research training program “Creating Friendly Classroom” Programme to improve the competence of teachers (Sari, B. N. 2011). The results showed an increase in competency, knowledge and skills of teachers in the experimental group who became supporters of the successful implementation. Based on measurements by using a checklist adherence to the experimental group of teachers, others can implement the program procedures in accordance with that or the module guide. Effect of implementation is also reflected in the results of four research studies (Sari, H. I. P., 2011) which showed increased prosocial behavior of students in the experimental group.

In addition to the teacher’s role, the successful implementation was also supported by the active parents’ involvement. The communication book returns show 79.49% of parents returned the communication book, and 54.84% of them reported carrying out activities in the home according to the recommendations given by the researcher. This condition shows that the programme implementation in school is supported by parents. Parental support which is consistent with the treatment received by children in schools can optimize the educational goals and the children’s lessons they are learning (Senechal and LeFevre, 2002)

There are some things that support the implementation of the research process:

• 1. Cultural situation of the school environment that is open and enthusiastic with the program which is brought to them by the researcher.

• 2. Teachers’ enthusiasm to actively provide input and assist researchers in communicating with parents.

The obstacles found in the study are:

• 1. Teachers’ difficulties in choosing the time for implementation of some activities.

• 2. Limitations of researchers to measure parental treatment of children at home

Conclusion

The result of this research shows that implementation of the “Creating Friendly Classroom” Programme by teachers in the experimental group may decrease the aggressiveness of kindergarten students.

Recommendations

Some of the things suggested to be done for program development and further research are:

• 1. Develop a program “Creating Classroom Friendly” by adapting the themes later in the book The Anti-Bullying and Teasing after the theme Community Classroom.

• 2. Consider more deeply the ways to control the external factors that can affect the results of research, such as the treatment of parents to their students at home, and how to measure parental involvement at home in the implementation of a program that takes place in schools.

• 3. Consider the preparation and use of scales or other measuring devices that reveal the aggressiveness of children not only at the level of behavior, but also the tendency or inclination to aggressiveness.

Appendix 10

Validation Module “Sharing” for Facilitators of Anti-bullying Program in Senior High School Students

• Wenny Hikmah Syahputri &
• Amitya Kumara 

1. Faculty of Psychology, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, , Indonesia

   Wenny Hikmah Syahputri & Amitya Kumara

2014

Abstract

Peers have significant role to prevent bullying in senior high schools’ students. Peer facilitators are expected to have knowledge of anti-bullying and skills to deliver that information. However, there are still many senior high school students who do not have it. The purpose of this study is to examine the module “SHARING” to improve knowledge of anti-bullying and presentation skills anti-bullying. The design used in this study was the one group pretest - posttest design (Shadish, Cook, Campbell, 2002). Quantitative analysis was conducted through statistical test using Paired t-test. The result showed that there is significant improvement between pretest and posttest knowledge of anti-bullying (t = − 6.254, p <0.01), as well as presentation skills of anti-bullying (t = −17.872 , p < 0.01) in the study subjects . The conclusion is that the module “SHARING” can improve students’ knowledge of anti-bullying and presentation skills of antibullying.

Keywords Anti-bullying, Peer facilitators, Senior high school students

Bullying has become a serious problem for high school students. Its prevalence among High Schools (SMA) in Yogyakarta city was revealed by several researches. Results of case study research by Argiati (2010) on High School students in Yogyakarta showed that 78 from 113 students (69.3%) said that they have been bullied in school by friends, teachers and even parents. This research also found that 71.68% of bullying was done by schoolmates. Similar results were also mentioned by Gustina (2011) who conducted research on 250 high school students in Yogyakarta that 46.4% among them were bullying victims.

A survey held by Aryuni, Johan, PoEh, and Syahputri (2013) on 739 students of public high school in Yogyakarta city mentioned that 100 students felt that they had been bullied in school in the past one year while 396 students confessed to witnessing school bullying. All of those results indicating the prevalence of bullying among high school students in Yogyakarta. Survey results by Sadarbully Community (2013) also mentioned that 87 respondents among 110 Yogyakarta high school students involved as subjects were uncertain of what bullying really is. Most of respondents interpreted bullying as physical violence that commonly occurs among boy students. While they were unaware of bullying characteristics, they would not be involved in bullying prevention.

Olweus (1991) defined that bullying happens when negative actions are repeatedly done by students toward another one or more, such as intentionally wounding or put others in uncomfortable condition by implying aggressive behavior through words (verbal bullying), for example threat, ridicule, tease, or attributing nickname as abuse. Other negative actions were beating, pushing, kicking, pinching, or physically restraining others. Beside, these actions could also be done without words or physical contact, but through facial expression or body language, rumor spreading, or ostracize from the community.

Olweus & Limber (in Losey, 2009) identified various group mechanisms on bullying considered as peer risk factor including social negative influence contagion, poor prevention to prohibit bullying, lack of individual responsibility and eventually, able to reverse opinion toward bullying victims. Bullying behavior tends to be contagious to peers who witness and enjoy the bullying. Those who commit bullying will get sense of enforcement for such behavior while peer witnesses laugh and let it happen.

Based on previous explanation, teenagers are prone to risk in being or becoming bullying victims. Peer groups have large influence toward teenagers’ opinion and judgment about their behavior (Papalia & Olds, 2001). Besides, teenagers tend to have unstable emotional characteristic resulting in adolescents who commit bullying due to peer groups influence and intense provocation. Teen phase is considered as the moment for one’s true-self quest and also self-image establishment. According to Erikson (in Papalia & Olds, 2001) self identification was a process to be a unique person which play important role in one’s life. During this process, teenagers are very sensitive for others opinion, compliment or critics, therefore teenagers are unable to face negative stimulants from their surroundings such as bullying. Bullying as negative stimulant from friends are existence-threatening matter due to the importance of peer conformity. Therefore, teenagers are prone to be bullying victims.

There are side effects of bullying, both for short and long term. Olweus (1993) mentioned that short-term effects for those who perform bullying were ADD symptoms, depression and OCD (Kumpulainen in Smokowski & Kopasz 2005), and also regarding violence as a positive thing. It also explained that teenage students who perform bullying were predictably to commit crime as adult. Bullying performer also tend to be underachiever with lower work performance (Smokowski & Kopasz 2005). A study by Robert (in Smokowski & Kopasz 2005) showed that by the age of 30 years, bullying performers were more prone to be criminal or violate traffic law compared to same age respondents without bullying history. Meta-analysis study by Ttofi, Farrington & Losel (2012) showed that school bullying was significantly related to future aggressive behavior and crime.

Gustina (2011) mentioned that high school students with bullying experience had higher depression rate than those without bullying. While Alika (2012) also mentioned that teenager involved in bullying, the performer as well as victim, had higher drop-out rate compared to those who hadn’t since bullying could attenuate their focus on school tasks resulting in poor academic achievement. Bullying victims later in the future would find difficulties to optimize their potential (Smokowski & Kopasz 2005), had lower self-esteem compared to those who were not victims (Olweus, 1993), and also affected their personal relationships during adulthood (Gilmartin in Smokowski & Kopasz 2005).

Olweus (2010) mentioned that prevention before event was compulsory in order to help the victims and also to create a conducive school atmosphere. Several researchers propose intervention for six years to completely prevent bullying through school transformation, information sharing about bullying, penalty as consequences for bullying performer, and psychoeducation for witnesses (Hong & Dorothy, 2012).

Smith & Thompson (2011) divided bullying strategy treatment into three parts which their effectivity was based on national survey in schools throughout England during 2008–2010. First part was proactive strategy by school approach to reduce bullying behavior (for example through school system where parents and community surrounding school were involved, curriculum approach, etc). Second, peer groups support as bullying prevention and response. Third part was reactive strategy which performed against direct bullying incident. Intervention to prevent adolescent bullying was also conducted through peer-groups approach for their higher acceptability, popularity, and also since friendship was important part of most teenage life (Espelage, in Hong 2012). Besides, peer-groups mostly become reference and main information sources for teenagers on perception and life-style attitude (Papalia & Olds, 2001).

Peer group involvement during anti-bullying intervention was considered based on domination of modeling learning method in teenagers according to social cognitive theory (Rice & Dolgin, 2008). Bandura (in Rice & Dolgin, 2008) mentioned that modeling was the main concept of social cognitive theory; consisting of behavior transformation, cognitive and affection which formed through observing others. Teenagers duplicate each other’s behavior. Teenagers, actively involved as information-sharing agent in bullying intervention, were based on empirical evidence on how wide the influence of peer group on teenagers and their learning characteristic of modeling.

Bandura (1986) explained about human behavior in frame of triadic reciprocality between behavior, environment and personal factor. He showed that the environmental factor was affected by person and behavior. Personal factor in triadic reciprocal causation was individual cognitive aspect. In order to reduce bullying behavior, environmental aspect was school. To create safe and comfortable school without bullying, personal (cognitive) factor played important part toward environment (school), while peer group was also one of personal aspect included. Dominant characteristic of teenagers was to replicate others’ behavior. Peer attitude and behavior that disagree with bullying will eventually transform other students’ behavior in the school environment. A decrease in bullying behavior will create a safe and comfortable school on its own. It can be concluded from the above explanation that peer groups may perform as agent of change in order to create safe and comfortable school without bullying.

Several researches showed peer-mediator-involvement intervention program effectively reduce bullying. Elinoff held an experimental program using peer approach called Friends Against Bullying (FAB), proofed to reduce bullying in school. In this research, peers performed as mentors received training about bullying and how to share information regarding bullying to their friends. Training for the mentor supporting successful intervention, was indicated by a decrease in bullying prevalence and bullying victims in schools. Generally, this peer-approach program was accepted by students who were pleased to be involved.

A research by Salmivalli (in Dake, Price & Telljohann, 2003) mentioned that training of peer-trainer was important as part of fight against bullying. Another research to test intervention through peer-trainer was proven to reduce bullying and cyber-bullying in Italy (Palladino et al., 2012). In this research peer-trainers were introduced to the method focused on communication skill, empathy, coping strategy, and social skill in real and virtual interaction (Palladino et al., 2012). Based on those parameters, peer-trainers delivering an anti-bullying program were expected to be sufficient by two ways: anti-bullying information and communication skills on how to transfer it. Nevertheless, a survey on high school students showed their lack of awareness as well as information regarding anti-bullying and proper training provisioning for students to be an anti-bullying mentor was inadequate.

Module that was compiled in present research aimed to increase knowledge regarding anti-bullying and to train on how to present anti-bullying information. According to Supratiknya (2011), presentation commonly utilized for information and knowledge transfer to the audience. This method was suitable for large groups who were considered able to accept given information, using visual supporting aids for explanation, with more time and cost-efficient benefit. Information supplied through presentation was easy to learn by students which related to the learning process previously conducted in class.

Observational learning, which focused on learning through observation, was used as an approach to compile module concept. Previous research mentioned that observational learning method is able to gain expected response according to presented modeling. Talita, Tanja, Gert, & Huub (2011) research showed that observational learning method was able to increase creativity, especially on visual art domain, which suggesting that this method was feasible to help learning new information, in the form of knowledge or skill.

Facilitators as “model” were observed by subjects who learn on how to share information using presentation method. Through presented “model”, subjects were subjected to observational learning process. In social cognitive learning theory (Bandura, 1986), observational learning through modeling consist of attention, retention, production, and motivation.

In attention process, subject’s attention was directed to a model behavior which needs to be developed, using clear and interesting material, emphasized on important parts, or by demonstrated activity. Presented model need to be interesting toward observer. Second process was retention which cognitively organizing through rehearsing, coding, and transforming modeled information to preserve in material. Third process was production where coded symbolic concept was translated into kein overt behavior. While during the motivation process, observers were motivated to replicate the model, due to beliefs that copying model would support them with a sense of enforcement. Enforcement on particular behavior was able to motivate observer to perform action. Motivation method designed in the module was incentive motivation, where observers were motivated to perform such actions that were beneficial for them.

The present study module was called “SHARING” that stands for Sahabat Perangi Bullying (Friends against Bullying). This research aimed to validate whether the “SHARING” module was able to increase knowledge and presentation skill regarding anti-bullying; and also expected to benefit education institution which would apply peer-groups approach to prevent bullying in schools. Proposed hypothesis SHARING training module was useful to increase knowledge and presentation skills regarding anti-bullying for research subjects.

The Method

The design used in this study was the one group pretest - posttest design (Shadish, Cook, Campbell, 2002). The dependent variable in this study is the knowledge of anti-bullying and presentation skills in anti-bullying.

Knowledge of anti-bullying was measured through a test which is based on material from Bully Buster Program by Newman and Horne (2004) which includes: 1) increasing awareness of bullying, 2) recognizing the bully, 3) recognizing the victim, 4) taking charge: interventions for bullying behavior, 5) assisting victims: recommendations and interventions. Each section consists of 4 questions for a total of 20 questions in the test of knowledge about anti-bullying.

Presentation skills of anti-bullying were measured through a rating scale of observation using an inter-rater. The observation guide was compiled by aspects of verbal communication and non-verbal communication of the Books et al, (1980). Verbal communication skills consist of: 1) Using the introduction or opening with a draw (example: start with storytelling, start a conversation by asking, mentioning the general picture messages to be delivered), 2) articulation is clear and understandable, 3) easy voice to hear by the audience, 4) gives the assertion (a case, and the repetition of the important points, etc.), 5) high-low tone of voice (not monotone), 6) Using humor in presenting the material. Non-verbal communication skills consist of: 1) eye contact (pay attention to all the audience), 2) the appropriate gestures to attract attention (pointing in the direction of the slide, hand gestures, etc.), 3) the right facial expressions, 4) shows current enthusiasm when delivering the material.

The assessments used observation, the rating scale consisted of 10 statements with items of choice 1 to 5 (1 = very poor to 5 = very good). The scale consisted of 6 items, verbal communication skills and 4 items non-verbal communication skills. Observed behavior is the skill in presentations made by the subject, ie skills in verbal and non-verbal communication. Reliability used in this presentation is the observation skills of inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability using two or more researchers who will observe the same thing then the observation correlated. The correlation will result in inter-rater reliability coefficient that indicates how close the vote held by two researchers (Hayes, 2000). The results of the analysis using SPSS.17 showed reliability of 0.702.

The Location and the Subjects

This research was conducted at SMAN Y Yogyakarta. Subjects were students of SMAN Y Yogyakarta totaled 15 students. As for how to get through the recruitment of subjects conducted by the researcher. Furthermore, researchers make the selection based on participants with regard to curriculum vitae; communication skills based on the experience of the participants. Participants were asked if they were willing to engage during the study. Subjects were included in this study were willing to sign and execute the Agreement related to the treatment given during the study.

The Intervention

This study used treatment based modules compiled with methods of observational learning or learning through observation, Social Cognitive theory by Bandura (1986). The module “SHARING” was composed of two components, namely the material on bullying and material of verbal and non-verbal communication. The material used in the study of bullying is based on the modification and adaptation of the Bully Buster Program (BBP) (Newman & Horne, 2004). While the material verbal and nonverbal communication by Book et al. (1980).

The module was validated with a content validity approach, which is estimated by testing the validity of the content of the test with rational analysis and assessment (professional judgment) of individuals who are considered experts in their fields (Supratiknya, 1998). Professional judgment over SHARING module has been obtained from psychologists who have proven expertise in the preparation of the blue print of training in the field of educational psychology.

The Results

Based on the results of normality test with SPSS 17. To the knowledge anti-bullying KS-Z 0.607 with p> 0.05 KS-Z meanwhile presentation skills with the value 0.649 P> 0.05 means that the data distribution is normal in the group of study subjects. Based on this conclusion, then test the hypothesis by using a paired t-test analysis can proceed.

The collected data were analyzed quantitatively. The statistical test used is the paired t-test with SPSS 17. Hypothesis test results are described in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7 Summary of hypothesis test

Table 5.7 shows the differences in pretest and posttest knowledge of anti-bullying t = −6.254; with p <0.01. The conclusion is that there is a significant increase in the subjects’ knowledge of anti-bullying between before and after training. Meanwhile, differences in pretest and posttest presentation skills demonstrating the value t = −17.872 with p <0.01. This shows there is a significant improvement on the subject presentation skills before and after training. Paired t-test results of this test indicate that this hypothesis is accepted, the training “SHARING” to improve knowledge and skills of anti-bullying presentation of material by the subjects of the research.

The Discussion

This research hypothesis was accepted where SHARING training module was useful to increase knowledge and presentation skills regarding anti-bullying by the research subjects. The learning process presented in the SHARING module introduced the subjects to experience several aspects affecting paying attention process, in which the facilitator observed that the model was considered able to gain the subjects’ attention. The facilitator was an educational psychologist experienced in psycho-education regarding anti-bullying and also facilitator trainings on teenage groups, therefore the presentation was easier to understand by subjects. Assessors unanimously gave score 5 (very good) to facilitator on articulation aspect during presentation, while score 4 (good) was given on interaction aspect as well as on how facilitator motivating the audience. Evaluation result on facilitator performance showed that overall subjects expressed on how the facilitator deliver presentation in interesting manner (Attachment 2 on Training Evaluation Recap) which indicates the model presented through facilitator performance was well-delivered and able to gain subjects’ attention.

Video and games utilization in the training module was also considered as subjects’ attention stimulant as observer. Assessor gave score 5 (very good) on observation result based on subjects’ enthusiasm and attention paid toward materials and instructed activity. The enthusiasm was expressed through subjects’ favorable observing presentation and their excitement during interactive session, as well as their reaction to perform facilitator instruction.

During retention, in the end of the session, subjects symbolically representing information gained from facilitator and verbal coding on worksheet diary I and diary II by answering questions on what information accepted during session. Besides, before the session ended, the facilitator then asked the audience to review the information recently presented so that they could repeat information given by facilitator. Overall, subjects showed they were able to rewrite given information (Attachment 2. Recap on Diary 1 and Diary 2) indicating the diary worksheet method in SHARING module facilitated subjects to symbolically represent given information.

Production process was related to the produced behavior after model observation. In the module, this process was held during sharing session 1, 2, and 3. All of audiences were active during simulations on how to perform presentation according to the concept delivered by facilitator during modeling. Assessor gave score 5 (very good) on tasks execution during simulation, indicating subjects were able to perform overt behavior based on presented symbolic concept, showed by laptop utilization and movie presentation.

During simulation, subjects were given opportunity to observe their peer performing simulation (learning model). The learning model was modeling through exposing observer as a model with lack of performance trying to learn skills, where subjects went through a thinking process comparing modeling by facilitator to their peer. Presentation simulation ended by feedback from facilitator on subjects’ performance as well as their peer (learning model). Subjects were given a score sheet to evaluate their friends doing presentation simulation, so that all of subjects were supposedly able to observe their peers on the simulation. A research by Hebert and Landin (in Hutomo, 2011) proved that listening to the feedback from instructor to the model or observer would increase performance, considering learning model participants had similar performance which improved after feedback on their own skill practice. Through the learning model, observers experienced enhanced cognitive effort while watching the learning model receive feedback better, than observing correct model. They need to concentrate on information error when they watch somebody’s learning and getting feedback.

This process affected subjects while they responded to the presentation as well as during the posttest. The effect was reflected by differences in pretest and posttest responses. In the pretest results, subjects delivered anti-bullying information in undirected manner; starting the presentation without introduction, mentioned invalid anti-bullying information due to false opinion regarding bullying. There were subjects who said that bullying had a positive effect. After training, during posttest, subjects were able to use the information sharing technique used by facilitator from the learning process, such as presentation opening by proposing questions to gain audience attention and prepare them to listen to the information delivered.

Learning motivation also became an influencing factor on the increase of subjects’ anti-bullying presentation knowledge and skills. This method was facilitated in the SHARING module through direct motivation. The facilitator mentioned the negative impact on the non-existence of anti-bullying prevention. Previously, subjects commonly felt that bullying was a common thing and had no impact on the victims. After correct bullying explanation, subjects were inspired to help bullying victims through preventing their friends from becoming bullying performer, and they were also motivated to share bullying information to their friends who were unaware of such information. Facilitator gave enforcement that subjects were agents of change in their community to prevent bullying, that they were individuals able benefit others, while it was also beneficial for themselves. This form of motivation was called incentive motivation. According to Bandura (1986), one would perform particular act beneficial for oneself.

This present study did not perform manipulation check to quantitatively measure attention, retention, production, and motivation of the subjects during training. Therefore, quantitative results on how the four observational learning processes affected subjects to increase anti-bullying knowledge and presentation skill, was unknown.

The Conclusions and the Suggestion

Based on the results of the study and discussion of exposure it can be concluded that the module “SHARING” can improve knowledge of anti-bullying and presentation skills of anti-bullying on peer facilitators. Increased knowledge and skills of anti-bullying presentations for peer facilitators are expected to implement bullying prevention programs in schools, especially in senior high school students.

Researchers suggest further studies to try out this module by adding quantitative manipulation checks to four observational learning processes so that data can be used as the evaluation and consideration of revisions to the material compiled in modules SHARING. This module can be developed with training materials to enhance the monitoring of implementation after training, so that the process of observational learning can be met. In addition, for further testing to develop modules SHARING with more use of the medium of film or video that matches the theme of bullying in the learning process, as well as recording the activity that is then evaluated with simulated participants in the discussion process as a learning process of modeling. The results showed that presenting visual media is considered able to draw attention to the subject of modeling. Thus the SHARING training module will be able to provide a more optimal impact.