Prevention Science

, Volume 18, Issue 7, pp 828–838 | Cite as

Classrooms in Peace Within Violent Contexts: Field Evaluation of Aulas en Paz in Colombia

  • Enrique ChauxEmail author
  • Madeleine Barrera
  • Andrés Molano
  • Ana María Velásquez
  • Melisa Castellanos
  • Maria Paula Chaparro
  • Andrea Bustamante


Classrooms in Peace (Aulas en Paz) is an elementary school-based multicomponent program for prevention of aggression and promotion of peaceful relationships. Inspired by international programs and socio-emotional research, it includes (1) a classroom universal curriculum, (2) parent workshops and home visits to parents of the 10% most aggressive children, and (3) extracurricular peer groups of two aggressive and four prosocial children. Activities seek to promote socio-emotional competencies such as empathy, anger management, creative generation of alternatives, and assertiveness. A 2-year quasi-experimental evaluation was conducted with 1154 students from 55 classrooms of seven public schools located in neighborhoods with the presence of youth gangs, drug cartels, and high levels of community violence in two Colombian cities. Despite several implementation (e.g., about half of the activities were not implemented) and evaluation (e.g., randomization problems, large number of missing data, and changes between treatment and control groups) challenges, positive results were found in prosocial behavior and in reduction of aggressive behavior, according to teacher reports, and in assertiveness and reduction of verbal victimization, according to student reports. Furthermore, implementation cost (25 US dollars per student per year) was very low compared to other programs in developed countries. This study shows that the Classrooms in Peace program has an important potential to generate positive results and highlights the challenges of implementing and evaluating prevention programs in highly violent environments.


Aggression Socio-emotional competencies Citizenship competencies Bullying Colombia 



We are very grateful to the Manuelita S.A. and its affiliated Harold Eder Foundation for financing the current study. We also thank the non-governmental organization Convivencia Productiva for leading the implementation of the program and for providing support during the data collection process. A substantial part of the writing of the article was made possible by a Georg Forster Fellowship granted to the first author by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Germany. The second author was financed by a full scholarship by Colciencias. We are very thankful to Diana Andrade, Martha Isabel Cerón, Ana Lucía Jaramillo, Manuela Jiménez, José Fernando Mejía, Juan Jacobo Ospina, Mariajosé Otálora, and Álvaro Valencia for their crucial participation in the design and implementation of the evaluation. We really appreciate the careful reading and insightful suggestions by Guest Editor Dr. Nancy Guerra, Editor-in-Chief Dr. Catherine Bradshaw, and the two anonymous reviewers. We would like to specially thank all the students, teachers, principals, school coordinators, school psychologists, college students, volunteers, and research assistants who participated in this study. We would like to dedicate this paper to the memory of Anna King, whose strong convictions about the need for socio-emotional development helped bring Aulas en Paz to thousands of children, their teachers, and their families.

Author’s Contributions

Chaux, Barrera, Castellanos, and Chaparro designed the evaluation. Analyses were conducted by Chaux, Barrera, Molano, and Velásquez. Drafts of the manuscript were written by Chaux, Barrera, Molano, and Velásquez. The other authors were part of the evaluation team and helped in the writing of the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


The study was funded by the private group Manuelita S.A. and its affiliated Harold Eder Foundation. A substantial part of the writing of the article was made possible by a Georg Forster Fellowship granted to the first author by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Germany. The second author was financed by a full scholarship by Colciencias.

Conflict of Interest

As potential conflict of interests, we declare that some of the authors of this manuscript (Chaux, Velásquez, Castellanos, Chaparro, and Bustamante) were part of the team that designed the Classrooms in Peace (Aulas en Paz) program and that the first author (Chaux) was the leader of that team.

Ethical Approval

All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.

Informed Consent

Written consents were obtained from parents of all students who participated in the study as well as from all teachers who participated.

Supplementary material

11121_2017_754_MOESM1_ESM.docx (38 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 38 kb)


  1. Arnold, M. E., & Hughes, J. N. (1999). First do no harm: Adverse effects of grouping deviant youth for skills training. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beets, M. W., Flay, B. R., Vuchinich, S., Snyder, F. J., Acock, A., Li, K.-K., Burns, K., Washburn, I. J., & Durlak, J. (2009). Use of a social and character development program to prevent substance use, violent behaviors, and sexual activity among elementary-school students in Hawaii. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 1438–1445.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Foster, E. M., Greenberg, M. T., Lochman, J. E.,… & Pinderhughes, E. E. (2004). The effects of the Fast Track program on serious problem outcomes at the end of elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(4), 650-661.Google Scholar
  4. Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Greenberg, M. T., Lochman, J. E., McMahon, R. J., & Pinderhughes, E. (2010). The effects of a multiyear universal social–emotional learning program: The role of student and school characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradshaw, C. P., Rodgers, C. R. R., Ghandour, L. A., & Garbarino, J. (2009). Social–cognitive mediators of the association between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castellanos, M., & Chaux, E. (2010). Informe de evaluación de impacto del Programa Aulas en Paz. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes. Ministerio de Educación Nacional. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  7. Chaparro, M. P., & Chaux, E. (2009). Instrumento multiusos para conformación de grupos heterogéneos. Bogotá: OIM. Universidad de los Andes. Unpublished document.Google Scholar
  8. Chaux, E. (2009). Citizenship competencies in the midst of a violent political conflict: The Colombian educational response. Harvard Educational Review, 79, 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaux, E. (2012). Educación, convivencia y agresión escolar. Bogotá: Ediciones Uniandes. Taurus, Santillana.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chaux, E., Molano, A., & Podlesky, P. (2009). Socio-economic, socio-political and socio-emotional variables explaining school bullying: A country-wide multilevel analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 520–529.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaux, E., Arboleda, J., & Rincón, C. (2012). Community violence and reactive and proactive aggression: The mediating role of cognitive and emotional variables. Revista Colombiana de Psicología, 21, 233–251.Google Scholar
  12. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). Initial impact of the Fast Track prevention trial for conduct problems: I. The high-risk sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(5), 631.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2002). Evaluation of the first 3 years of the Fast Track prevention trial with children at high risk for adolescent conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Consejo Ciudadano para la Seguridad Pública y la Justicia Penal (2016). Caracas, Venezuela, the most violent city in the world. Retrieved from:
  15. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Bono, E. (1970). Lateral thinking: A textbook of creativity. London: Ward Lock Educational.Google Scholar
  17. de Bono, E. (1985). Six thinking hats. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  18. Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755–761.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science, 250, 1678–1683.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: a meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432.Google Scholar
  21. Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–697.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ennis, R. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9–26). New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  23. Farrington, D. P. & Ttofi, M. M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6. doi: 10.4073/csr.2009.6.
  24. Foster, E. M. (2010). Costs and effectiveness of the Fast Track intervention for antisocial behavior. The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 13, 101–119.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. García, S., Maldonado, D., Perry, G., Rodríguez, C., & Saavedra, J. E. (2014). Tras la excelencia docente. Cómo mejorar la calidad de la educación para todos los colombianos. Bogotá: Fundación Compartir.Google Scholar
  26. Gordon, T. (1970). Parent effectiveness training: The no-lose program for raising responsible children. New York: P.H. Wyden.Google Scholar
  27. Gorman-Smith, D., Henry, D. B., & Tolan, P. H. (2004). Exposure to community violence and violence perpetration: The protective effects of family functioning. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 439–449.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Guerra, N., Huesmann, R., & Spindler, A. (2003). Community violence exposure, social cognition and aggression among urban elementary school children. Child Development, 74, 1561–1576.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Han, K., Ku, J., Kim, K., Jang, H. J., Park, J., Kim, J. J., Kim, C. H., Choi, M. H., Kim, I. Y., & Kim, S. I. (2009). Virtual reality prototype for measurement of expression characteristics in emotional situations. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 39, 173–179. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2008.12.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hanish, L. D., Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (2004). The expression and regulation of negative emotions: Risk factors for young children’s peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 335–353.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hirano, K., Imbens, G. W., Rubin, D. B., & Zhou, X. H. (2000). Assessing the effect of an influenza vaccine in an encouragement design with covariates. Biostatistics, 1, 69–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones, S. M., & Molano, A. (2016). Seasonal and compositional effects of classroom aggression: A test of developmental-contextual models. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15, 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Justicia-Arráez, A., Pichardo, C., & Justicia, F. (2015). Efecto del programa Aprender a Convivir en la competencia social y en los problemas de conducta del alumnado de 3 años. Anales de Psicología, 31, 825–836. doi: 10.6018/analesps.31.3.185621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa anti-bullying program: Grades 4-6. Child Development, 82, 311–330. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01557.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lange, A., & Jakubowski, P. (1980). Responsible assertive behavior: Cognitive, behavioural procedures for trainers. Champaign: Research.Google Scholar
  37. Little, T. D., Jorgensen, T. D., Lang, K. M., & Moore, E. W. (2014). On the joys of missing data. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39, 151–162. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jst048.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  39. Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (2011). Methods matter: Improving causal inference in educational and social science research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Musher-Eizenman, D. R., Boxer, P., Danner, S., Dubow, E. F., Goldstein, S. E., & Heretick, D. M. L. (2004). Social-cognitive mediators of the relation of environmental and emotion regulation factors to children’s aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nelsen, J. (2006). Positive discipline. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  42. Orue, I., Bushman, B. J., Calvete, E., Thomaes, S., Orobio de Castro, B., & Hutteman, R. (2011). Monkey see, monkey do, monkey hurt: Longitudinal effects of exposure to violence on children’s aggressive behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 432–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Patterson, G. (1976). Families: Applications of social learning to family life. Champaign: Research.Google Scholar
  44. Patti, J., & Cepeda, A. (2007). Citizenship competencies in Colombia: Learning from policy and practice. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 25, 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ramos, C., Nieto, A. M., & Chaux, E. (2007). Aulas en Paz: Preliminary results of a multi-component program. Interamerican Journal of Education for Democracy, 1, 36–56.Google Scholar
  46. Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Friedman, T., & Lietz, P. (2011). ICCS 2009 Latin American Report. Civic knowledge and attitudes among lower-secondary students in six Latin American countries. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). ACER. Nfer. Università degli Studi Roma Tre.Google Scholar
  47. Schwartz, D., & Proctor, L. J. (2000). Community violence exposure and children’s social adjustment in the school peer group: The mediating roles of emotion regulation and social cognition. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 670–683.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical analyses. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  49. Singer, J., & Willett, J. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Slaby, R. G., & Guerra, N. G. (1988). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders: 1. Assessment. Developmental Psychology, 24, 580–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Social and Character Development Research Consortium (2010). Efficacy of schoolwide programs to promote social and character development and reduce problem behavior in elementary school children (NCER 2011-2001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  52. Tremblay, R. E., Pagani, L., Mâsse, L. C., Pagani, F., & Pihl, R. O. (1995). A bimodal preventive intervention for disruptive kindergarten boys: Its impact through mid-adolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 560–568.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Tremblay, R. E., Mâsse, L. C., Pagani, L., & Vitaro, F. (1996). From childhood physical aggression to adolescent maladjustment: The Montreal prevention experiment. In R. D. Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Preventing childhood disorders, substance abuse, and delinquency (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks: Banff International Behavioral Science Series, Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Velásquez, A.M. (2005). Desarrollo de la asertividad: Comparación entre dos intervenciones pedagógicas. Master’s Thesis in Education. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes.Google Scholar
  55. Velásquez, A. M., & Chaux, E. (2005). AVC–agresión, violencia & competencias. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes. Unpublished document.Google Scholar
  56. Walker, P., Selman, R., & Snow, C. (2008). Voices reading. Columbus: Zaner-Bloser.Google Scholar
  57. Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Preventing conduct problems and improving school readiness: Evaluation of the incredible years teacher and child training programs in high-risk schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 471–488.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Yeager, D. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2013). An implicit theories intervention reduces adolescent aggression in response to victimization and exclusion. Child Development, 84, 970–988. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhai, F., Raver, C. C., & Jones, S. (2012). Academic performance of subsequent schools and impacts of early interventions: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial in Head Start settings. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 946–954.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrique Chaux
    • 1
    Email author return OK on get
  • Madeleine Barrera
    • 1
  • Andrés Molano
    • 1
  • Ana María Velásquez
    • 1
  • Melisa Castellanos
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maria Paula Chaparro
    • 1
    • 3
  • Andrea Bustamante
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Universidad de los AndesBogotáColombia
  2. 2.Concordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.University of MissouriSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations