School Counselors' Perceived Self-Efficacy for Addressing Bullying in the Elementary School ...

137 Pages·2009·0.48 MB·English

School Counselors’ Perceived Self-Efficacy for
Addressing Bullying in the Elementary School Setting

Angela L. Charlton

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

Counselor Education

Dr. Pamelia E. Brott, Chair

Dr. Norma L. Day-Vines

Dr. John F. Eller

Dr. Kenneth E. Hinson

March 30, 2009
Falls Church, Virginia

Keywords: Elementary School Counselors, Self-Efficacy, Bullying Interventions
School Counselors’ Perceived Self-Efficacy for
Addressing Bullying in the Elementary School Setting

Angela L. Charlton

(ABSTRACT)

Bullying is a major issue facing school systems today. It is important to explore the
extent to which school counselors feel confident in providing interventions to address bullying.
This research study is designed to fill a gap in the current school counseling literature regarding
our understanding of school counselors’ self-efficacy to address bullying in elementary schools.
The following research questions will guide the study:
1. What is the elementary school counselor’s perceived self-efficacy for providing
bullying interventions in an elementary school setting, as measured by the Counselor
Self-Efficacy and Bullying Interventions Scale (CSBI)?
2. What is the elementary school counselor’s perceived self-efficacy regarding his or her
counseling skills as measured by the Counseling Self-Estimate Inventory (COSE)?
3. To what extent are (a) years of experience in the field, (b) years of training, (c)
bullying-intervention training in graduate school, and (d) participation in professional
development activities and/or in-services predictive of a counselor’s self-efficacy for
providing bullying interventions?
Responses from 126 elementary school counselors employed at a large suburban school
district in the Mid-Atlantic region were used to explore overall counselor self-efficacy and
counselor self-efficacy related to bullying interventions. The Counseling Self-Estimate Inventory
(COSE; Larson et al., 1992), and Counselor Self-Efficacy and Bullying Interventions Scale
(CSBI adapted from King et al., 1999) were the instruments used to answer the research
questions. Participants reported a high (M =185) overall self-efficacy as well as a high (M =
71.2) self–efficacy for providing bullying interventions. However, only one variable, years of
experience, was found to significantly predict efficacy expectations (B = 0.25, p <.01) and
outcome values (B = 0.21, p <.05); none of the variables were found to significantly predict
outcome expectations (r-squared=0.06, n.s).
iii

DEDICATION

This document is dedicated to my family. Thank you all for your love and support and for
believing in me. I want to thank my mom and dad, who always made me feel like I could
accomplish and be anything that I wanted to be. To my mom, Annie, the greatest woman I know,
you are my best friend and you are always there for me to lean on. I hope that one day I can be
half the woman you are. To my dad, Byron, the greatest and smartest man I know. Thank you for
always being my other best friend and for being there for me. And to my cousin, Cheryl, thank
you for setting such high standards and for being such a great role model. I always wanted to be
like you! Corey, I want to thank you for always believing in me and encouraging me when I
didn’t believe in myself. Thank you for your love and support all these years.
To my son, Khiorie, the most important person in my life, I love you! I hope that my
accomplishments and perseverance will inspire you to fulfill all of your dreams and to never let
anything stop you from accomplishing them. You’re going to do “great things”!
To my friends Talisha, Stacey, Wanda, Jayma, Lisa, and Claudia, thanks for always being
in my corner and for your words of encouragement. I would also like to thank Carol for her
support.
I would like to thank God for making all things possible.
iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the chair of my committee, Dr. Pamelia Brott. Thank you for your
support through this endeavor. I want to also thank you for your time, especially the countless
hours you spent with me during our work sessions.
Dr. Norma Day-Vines, thank you for agreeing to be a part of my committee and for your
support and encouragement.
Dr. John Eller, I would also like to thank you for serving on my committee and for your
support and encouragement.
Dr. Kenneth Hinson, thank you for support, pushing me when I needed it, and throwing
me a “life-line” when I needed one.
Dr. Lidi Hruda, thank you so much for your support and expertise. I truly could not have
done this without you. You are fantastic!
Virginia Sowers, the APA guru, thank you for helping me.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES viii

I INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………….......... 1
Statement of the Problem 3
Purpose of the Study 4
Research Questions 4
Definitions and Terms 5
Summary 6
II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ……………………………………………….. 7
Bullying 8
Definition of Bullying 8
Types of Participants 9
The bully 9
The victim 11
The bystander 12
Prevalence and Consequences of Bullying 12
School-Based BullyingPrevention Programs 13
Olweus BullyingPrevention Program 16
Bully Proofing Your School 17
Second Step 18
Resolving Conflicts Creatively 19
BullyProof 20
Professional School Counseling 21
Professional School Counseling Program 22
The Professional School Counselor 25
Effectiveness of Intervention Programs 26
vi

Self-Efficacy 27
Development of Self-Efficacy 28
Counselor Self-Efficacy 30
Measures of Self-Efficacy 31
Summary 33
III METHODS AND PROCEDURES…………………………………………………. 35
Methods 35
Participants 36
Instrumentation 36
Counseling Self-Estimate Inventory (COSE) 37
Reliability and validity 38
King Instrument 39
Reliability and validity 40
Demographic Information 41
Data Collection Procedures 41
Data Collection 42
Data Analysis 44
Summary 44
IV RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………. 45
Participants 45
Cross Tabulations 48
Counselor Self-efficacy for Bullying Interventions 53
Efficacy Expectations 56
Outcome Expectations 57
Outcome Values 58
Overall Instrument 59
Counseling Self-Estimate Inventory (COSE) 60
Microskills 61
Process 63
Difficult Client Behaviors 64
Cultural Competence 65
Awareness of Values 67
Total COSE 68
vii

Associations Between CSBI andCOSE 69
Variables Predictive of Self-Efficacy 72
Associations Between Independent and Dependent Variables 73
Multiple Regression Analysis 74
Summary 76
V DISCUSSION......................................................................................................……. 78
Interpretation of Results 78
School Counselor Self-efficacy for Providing Bullying Interventions 79
School Counselor Self-efficacy for Counseling Skills 80
Factors Predictive of Counselor’s Self-Efficacy for Providing Bullying 81
Interventions
Limitations of the Study 82
Implications for Elementary School Counselors 83
Implications for Counselor Educators 84
Implications for Research 85
Summary 86
REFERENCES 88
APPENDICES 98
Appendix A: COSE 98
Appendix B: King Instrument (Adolescent Suicide) 104
Appendix C: COSE and CSBI 109
Appendix D: Invitation to Participate to Panel of Experts 123
Appendix E: Approval Letter from Fairfax County Public Schools 124
Appendix F: Approval Letter from Virginia Tech 125
Appendix G: Invitation to Participate 126
Appendix H: Informed Consent for Participants 127
Appendix I: E-mail to Encourage Participation 128
viii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Program Criteria of Selected Comprehensive Bullying Prevention Programs ........15
Table 3.1 Items Contributing to the COSE Subscales .............................................................39
Table 3.2 Items Contributing to the King Subscales ...............................................................41
Table 4.1 Participant Characteristics .......................................................................................47
Table 4.2 Participant Educational Level and Employment Status ...........................................48
Table 4.3 Years of Experience and Level of Education ..........................................................49
Table 4.4 Years of Experience and Bullying Intervention Training in Graduate School ........50
Table 4.5 Years of Experience and Participation in Professional Development Activities/In-
services......................................................................................................................51

Table 4.6 Level of Education and Bullying Intervention Training in Graduate School ...........51
Table 4.7 Level of Education and Participation in Professional Development Activities/In-
services......................................................................................................................52

Table 4.8 Bullying Intervention Training in Graduate School and Participation in Professional
Development Activities/In-services ..........................................................................52

Table 4.9 Factor Loadings of Counselor Self-Efficacy and Bullying Intervention Items onto
Rotated Factors .........................................................................................................55

Table 4.10 Descriptive Statistics for Efficacy Expectations Subscale ........................................57
Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics for Outcome Expectations Subscale .......................................58
Table 4.12 Descriptive Statistics for Outcome Values Subscale ................................................59
Table 4.13 Descriptive Statistics for Counselor Self-Efficacy and Bullying Interventions ......60

Table 4.14 Counselor Self-Estimate (COSE) Inventory: Microskills .........................................62
Table 4.15 Counselor Self-Estimate (COSE) Inventory: Process ..............................................64
Table 4.16 Counselor Self-Estimate (COSE) Inventory: Difficult Client Behavior ...................65
Table 4.17 Counselor Self-Estimate (COSE) Inventory: Cultural Competence ........................66
ix

Table 4.18 Counselor Self-Estimate (COSE) Inventory: Awareness of Values .........................67
Table 4.19 Total (COSE) Instrument ..........................................................................................68
Table 4.20 Matches and Mismatches between Total Scores on CSBI and COSE ......................69
Table 4.21 Matches and Mismatches between CSBI Efficacy Expectations and
COSE Dimensions ...................................................................................................70

Table 4.22 Matches and Mismatches between CSBI Outcome Expectations and
COSE Dimensions ...................................................................................................71

Table 4.23 Matches and Mismatches between CSBI Outcome Values and................................72
COSE Dimensions
Table 4.24 Correlational Matrix .................................................................................................74
Table 4.25 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Total CSBI .....................................74
Table 4.26 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Efficacy Expectations (CSBI) ........75
Table 4.27 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Outcome Expectations (CSBI) .......76
Table 4.28 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Outcome Values (CSBI) ................76
1

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

One of the most prevalent issues facing school personnel today is school violence and the
threat of this behavior to a safe school environment. Between 1997 and 1998, several school
shootings occurred across the United States from Paducah, Kentucky, to Littleton, Colorado,
resulting in 40 deaths (Macallair, 1998). The most frequent motivation for these shootings was
revenge for being bullied (Dedman, 2000). As a result, there have been recent changes in federal,
state, and local statutes regarding school safety (Garrity, Jens, Porter, Sagar, & Short-Camilli,
1997). According to the Ferrell-Smith (2004), 16 states have passed anti-bullying laws since
1999 that define bullying, establish policies that prohibit this behavior, and ensure that parents
and students are aware and have a clear understanding of this policy.
Bullying is the repeated, unprovoked aggressive behaviors that can be either physical or
psychological and include verbal harassment, gestures, and exclusion, or simply pressure to
conform in which there is an actual or perceived power imbalance between the bully and the
victim (Bently & Li, 1995; Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Olweus, 1991; Veenstra et al., 2005).
Bullying was once thought of as a harmless behavior or a “rite of passage”; however, it is now
known to have long-term effects for both the bully and the victim (Dedman, 2000). Brewster and
Railsback (2001) report that 16,000 students are absent from school daily due to fear of an attack
or intimidation by a bully, 7% of eighth graders stay home at least once a month because of
bullies, and 20% of students are scared throughout much of the school day. Brewster and
Railsback further suggest that these percentages underestimate actual occurrences of bullying.
Many students do not report bullying because they believe adults are unsympathetic and rarely
try to stop bullying even when they are informed (Limber, 2002). As a result, victims feel that
this lack of action creates an environment in which bullying is accepted. According to the U.S.
Departments of Education and Justice (2000), bullying is probably the most rampant and
underreported problem facing the nation’s school systems.
A number of initiatives have been undertaken to address this threat to students and a safe
school environment. Federal, state, and local governments have responded to this issue by
instituting policies and procedures that directly address bullying in schools. The federal
government specifically addresses bullying through the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)