939193

research-article2020
JEAXXX10.1177/0272431620939193Journal of Early Adolescencevan Verseveld et al.

Special Issue Paper

Journal of Early Adolescence

Teachers’ Experiences
1­–27
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
With Difficult Bullying sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0272431620939193
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431620939193
Situations in the School: journals.sagepub.com/home/jea

An Explorative Study

Marloes D. A. van Verseveld1 , Minne Fekkes2,

Ruben G. Fukkink1,3, and Ron J. Oostdam1,3

Abstract
Although anti-bullying programs often include a component that focuses on
strengthening teachers’ abilities in identifying and addressing bullying, it is
not clear which bullying situations teachers find difficult to address and what
type of support is needed. In the current qualitative study, we investigated
what teachers considered difficult bullying situations, how they responded to
these situations, and which barriers they encountered. We used data from
individual in-depth interviews conducted with 38 Dutch elementary school
teachers. Qualitative analysis showed that teachers experienced difficulties in
(a) identifying bullying that happens out of sight, (b) estimating the seriousness
of a reported incident, (c) addressing persistent aggressive and bullying
behavior, and (d) finding solutions with parents to reduce bullying. Teachers
used a variety of strategies in their efforts to address these situations. The
results give insight into teachers’ needs regarding specific training and support
in anti-bullying programs and preservice teacher programs.

Keywords
teachers/teacher-adolescent relationships, bullying, peer relationships,
school context

1
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands
2
TNO, Leiden, The Netherlands
3
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Marloes D. A. van Verseveld, Centre for Applied Research in Education, Amsterdam
University of Applied Sciences, Wibautstraat 2-4 1091 GM Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Email: [email protected]
2 Journal of Early Adolescence 00(0)

Although a decline in the prevalence of bullying has been noticed in many

countries across Europe and North America in the past decade, bullying is
still a common problem in primary and secondary schools (Cosma &
Hancock, 2010; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
2017). School bullying is often defined as intentionally harmful behavior
from one student toward another, includes an imbalance of power between
the bully and the victim and happens repetitively (Olweus, 1993). The decline
in bullying behavior in schools is most probably related to the development
of anti-bullying programs and policies and their increased implementation in
practice (Evans, Fraser, & Cotter, 2014).
Most positive outcomes have been achieved with programs that are based
on the whole-school approach (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011; Vreeman & Carroll,
2007). These consist of multiple components, such as school-wide rules,
classroom curricula, teacher training, and indicated actions for students
involved in bullying situations (Ansary, Elias, Greene, & Green, 2015). These
programs are founded on the social-ecological framework of bullying that
takes the different contexts in which bullying occurs into account. The char-
acteristics of the child, family, peers, school professionals, and the complex
interplay between them, all influence the establishment and maintenance of
bullying behaviors together with culture and values and norms within these
contexts (Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2010).
Teachers play an important role in many programs aimed at reducing
school bullying. They are responsible for the implementation of most pro-
gram components (Crothers & Kolbert, 2004; Newman-Carlson & Horne,
2004; Salmivalli, Poskiparta, Athola, & Haataja, 2013), and need to ade-
quately identify and respond to bullying situations (Byers, Caltabiano, &
Caltabiano, 2011; Kochenfelder-Ladd & Pelletier, 2008; Migliaccio, 2015).
Teachers need to be aware of what bullying is, be knowledgeable about the
negative consequences of bullying for the victim, feel capable of handling
bullying situations, and know which strategies to use in such situations
(Kokko & Pörhölä, 2009; Oldenburg, Bosman, & Veenstra, 2016) In addition
to this, teachers need to be aware of the group process of bullying. Students
may not only be involved in a bullying situation as a victim or bully, but can
also be involved indirectly, for example, as an assistant of the bully, rein-
forcer of the bully, defender of the victim, or outsider (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz,
Björkqvist, Österman, & Kaukiainen, 1996).
Studies in several countries have demonstrated that teachers who possess
the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes, are more likely to intervene
(Begotti, Tirassa, & Maran, 2018; Frisén, Hasselblad, & Holmqvist, 2012;
Williford & Depaolis, 2016; Yoon & Bauman, 2014). Also, teachers who
actively stand against bullying have been associated with lower levels of
van Verseveld et al. 3

bullying in the classroom (Veenstra, Lindenberg, Huitsing, Sainio, &

Salmivalli, 2014). However, previous research also indicates that teachers are
not always well prepared for this task. For instance, teachers are not always
aware of bullying in the classroom (Demaray, Malecki, Secord, & Lyell,
2013; Marshall, 2012; Oldenburg et al., 2016; Wachs, Bilz, Niproschke, &
Schubarth, 2019), or do not always take bullying reports seriously (Bauman
& Del Rio, 2006). Furthermore, teachers lack the confidence to intervene in
bullying situations (Bauman & Hurley, 2008; Benítez, García-Berbén, &
Fernández-Cabezas, 2009; Bradshaw, Waasdorp, O’Brennan, & Gulemetova,
2013). Teachers who do not perceive bullying as a serious issue, or who
believe they do not have adequate skills, are less likely to intervene in bully-
ing situations (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006). Ignoring bullying can enhance
feelings of loneliness and isolation on the part of the victim. Also, by not
intervening, teachers implicitly condone the bullying, which may, in turn,
discourage victimized students from reporting bullying (Pepler, Craig,
Ziegler, & Charach, 1994), and discourage students who witness the bullying
to intervene (Burger, Strohmeier, Spröber, Bauman, & Rigby, 2015). In addi-
tion, teachers do not seem to know which strategies they should use (Hektner
& Swenson, 2012; Marshall, 2012). Although minimal research on teacher
responses in bullying situations have been conducted, some teachers choose
strategies that are not likely to be effective, such as advising victims to avoid
the bully or advising the victim to handle the bullying on their own (Troop-
Gordon & Ladd, 2015).
Most school-based anti-bullying intervention programs include some core
components to support teachers, such as staff training to address and prevent
bullying incidents; systematic assessment of bullying behavior; and anti-bul-
lying student lessons or lessons to promote students’ social-emotional com-
petencies (Ansary et al., 2015; Gaffney, Ttofi, & Farrington, 2019; Marshall,
2012). Teacher and staff training aim to increase teachers’ awareness of bul-
lying by providing information on what constitutes bullying or a model to
recognize bullying. These training sessions also aim to increase teachers’
responsiveness to bullying by offering them a model on how to respond to
acute bullying cases. Systematic assessment of bullying supports teachers in
identifying bullying incidents and in monitoring the effectiveness of the anti-
bullying efforts being implemented (Ansary et al., 2015). Student lessons
may support teachers because of the “learning by teaching” mechanism. By
teaching students about the mechanisms of bullying and by teaching them
skills to intervene when it occurs, teachers are expected to be strengthened in
their ability to deal with bullying as well. A study by Athola, Haataja, Kärnä,
Poskiparta, and Salmivalli (2012) showed that teachers felt more able to deal
with bullying behavior after participation in anti-bullying activities in which
4 Journal of Early Adolescence 00(0)

teaching students about bullying played a major role. Although these compo-
nents of anti-bullying programs can support teachers in their efforts to reduce
and prevent bullying, little is known about teachers’ own experiences with
identifying and addressing bullying behavior in their classes. More specifi-
cally, little is known about what teachers find difficult bullying situations and
how they deal with these situations in their classrooms. To provide teachers
with better support, we need to know what obstacles teachers encounter in
this area. Moreover, several studies have shown that novice teachers do not
feel well prepared to reduce bullying effectively (Begotti et al., 2018; Lester,
Waters, Pearce, Spears, & Falconer, 2018; Macaulay, Betts, Stiller, & Kellezi,
2019). Therefore, it is imperative to understand the particular challenges
faced by less experienced teachers in order to provide them the additional
training and support they need to combat bullying effectively.
In summary, previous research shows that teachers do not have sufficient
tools to reduce bullying effectively and beginning teachers, in particular, need
extra support. In addition, it is not well understood whether existing programs
are well adapted to the needs of teachers. In the present study, we, therefore,
aimed to investigate which bullying situations teachers consider “difficult”
and how they deal with these situations. Furthermore, we examined whether
background variables such as experience and previous anti-bullying efforts
are connected with teachers’ experiences related to difficult bullying situa-
tions. The results aim to provide an innovative insight into key characteristics
of difficult bullying situations from the teacher’s perspective. Insights gained
from this explorative study can subsequently serve as input for the develop-
ment or adjustment of anti-bullying programs that better meet the needs of
teachers. In our study, we aimed to answer the following research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): What do teachers consider difficult bullying

situations?
Research Question 2 (RQ2): What strategies do teachers use to deal with
these difficult bullying situations?
Research Question 3 (RQ3): What barriers do teachers encounter when
they use these strategies when addressing difficult bullying situations?

Method
Participants
For this study, we used interview data obtained from 38 Dutch elementary
school teachers ( X teaching experience = 12.1 years, SD = 9.69) from 36
classrooms in 21 schools. The sample comprised 25 teachers recruited in the
van Verseveld et al. 5

urban area of Amsterdam and 13 teachers recruited in smaller cities and rural
regions across the Netherlands. The urbanization level of schools varied
widely; teachers in urban schools reported more sociocultural and income-
related diversity in their student population compared with teachers in smaller
cities and rural areas.
Most teachers were female (72.5%) and had more than 10 years of teach-
ing experience (n = 25, 57.5%), reflecting the population of primary school
teachers in the Netherlands (Traag, 2018). Participating teachers were active
in each grade of elementary school: kindergarten (5%), Grade 3 (5%), Grade
4 (7.5%), Grade 5 (15%), and Grade 6 (30%), Grades 1 to 3 (27.5%), and
Grades 4 to 6 (10%).

Procedure
An open sampling procedure was used to recruit teachers for this study.
Teachers received an information letter about the goals and content of the
study and were made aware of the possibility of withdrawing themselves
from the study at any given time. Active consent was obtained from each
participant. Interviews were conducted individually between May and July
2016 by members of a research group, including the principal researcher and
five research assistants. The assistants were social science bachelor and mas-
ter students who received a 2-hr training session by the principal researcher
covering interview techniques (e.g., asking open questions, having a neutral
attitude and being aware of the extent to which questions may evoke socially
acceptable answers by teachers) and the introduction to an interview guide
for the structured interviews (Seidman, 2019). Research assistants were also
trained to ask clarifying questions, if necessary, to explore teachers’ experi-
enced difficulties in greater depth. The interviews lasted 60 minutes on aver-
age. Schools received a fee or a gift voucher for participating in the study.
Recorded interviews were anonymized and transcribed for analysis.

Design
As we aimed to gain familiarity with a relatively new phenomenon in this
field of research, we adopted a phenomenology approach as a research
design. Phenomenology is a qualitative research design aimed at exploring
individuals’ experiences of a concept of which there is little knowledge
(Creswell, 2014; Haradhan, 2018). This approach enabled us to make a first
exploration and description of the daily experiences, difficulties, and needs of
teachers regarding specific difficult bullying situations. As we investigated a
subjective phenomenon, we based our descriptions on how teachers define
6 Journal of Early Adolescence 00(0)

the concept of a difficult bullying situation. This information is also impor-

tant to understand teachers’ responses to bullying. For example, teachers with
normative beliefs about bullying are less inclined to intervene in bullying
situations (Hektner & Swenson, 2012).
A semi-structured interview guideline was developed, consisting of four
topics. After some opening questions to start a comfortable conversation (i.e.,
the role of the teacher in the school and their teaching experience), we asked
four main open-ending questions. The first question was how teachers defined
bullying. The second question concerned whether teachers had experienced a
difficult bullying situation in the last 3 months, and why they considered this
to be a difficult situation. In the third question, we asked teachers to describe
how they responded to this situation. The fourth question referred to whether
they experienced any barriers during their response. Finally, some inventory
questions were asked about what anti-bullying measures teachers have used
in the previous years.

Analysis
We conducted a thematic analysis of the data to identify what teachers expe-
rienced as difficult bullying situations and how they responded to these situ-
ations. Thematic analysis is a data-driven type of analysis that allowed us to
explore reoccurring themes, patterns, and concepts (Guest, MacQueen, &
Namey, 2012). To identify themes related to how teachers define bullying
and what difficult bullying situations teachers experienced, the principal
researcher coded sections of text. The research team, consisting of the princi-
pal researcher and three senior researchers, systematically compared sections
of text and marked similarities and differences between sections and then
refined the codes. This process resulted in 74 codes for how teachers defined
bullying. Most of the codes (65) could be related to the widely used bullying
definition of Olweus (1993) and have been categorized in the following
themes: (a) intention, (b) duration, and (c) an imbalance of power. The
remaining codes (nine) were categorized into the category “Other.” For RQ1,
we initially identified 28 themes, including themes as: “students’ reluctance
to report bullying” to “parents who disagree with anti-bullying interventions
of the teacher.” Several themes overlapped, resulting in a more compact cat-
egorization of 15 themes. For example, some themes were related to bullying
happening out of the teachers’ sight (i.e., in the hall, playground, or cyberbul-
lying) and were grouped into one theme “Bullying out of the teachers’ sight.”
Next, we combined these categories into four overarching themes and
compared categories to find relations between teachers’ experiences and
background variables, such as teaching experience or anti-bullying activities
van Verseveld et al. 7

in the school1. This process included constant comparisons between individ-

ual codes and across transcripts during the analysis. To investigate whether
there is a relationship between some background variables and the difficult
situations experienced by teachers, we compared teachers in different catego-
ries. Regarding the background variable “teaching experience,” teachers
were divided into five categories: 0 to 5 years, 6 to 10 years, 11 to 15 years,
16 to 20 years, and >20 years. Concerning the background variable “anti-
bullying methods,” teachers were asked whether they used one or more of the
following methods: (a) a screening questionnaire, (b) teacher or staff training,
(c) lessons for students, or (d) none of these methods. Next, we explored
whether the percentages of teachers in the categories “teaching experience”
and “anti-bullying methods” varied among teachers for each difficult situa-
tion experienced.
We used the whole-school approach as a heuristic framework (Ansary et al.,
2015; Espelage & Swearer, 2003) to help us categorize the strategies that teach-
ers mentioned to deal with difficult bullying situations. We categorized teach-
ers’ responses into four overarching categories: (a) responses involving
individual students, (b) responses involving a larger peer group, (c) responses
involving actors or places throughout the school, and (d) responses involving
the parents. Data were analyzed using the qualitative data analysis software
program MAXQDA (version 18.1.0; VERBI Software GmbH, 2018).

Results
When asked how they defined bullying, the majority of the teachers (71%)
reported that bullying is characterized by systematic negative behavior
toward a specific student. Examples given by teachers are “repeated,” “over
a long period,” or involves “continued negative behavior.” Second, teachers
see a distinction between “teasing” and “bullying” (45%) and identify bully-
ing as a situation in which the victim experiences the behavior as negative or
harmful. Third, teachers defined bullying when there is an intent on the part
of the bully to hurt someone (21%). Fourth, a small proportion of the teachers
mentioned that bullying is not something that happens solely between a bully
and a victim, but that multiple students are involved in such a situation (5%),
or that bullying is about physical aggression (5%). The majority of the teach-
ers (71%) mentioned two or three of the above characteristics.
Of all 38 teachers, 21% had 0 to 5 years of teaching experience, 21% 6 to
10 years, 24% 11 to 15 years, 3% 16 to 20 years, and 29% had more than 20
years of teaching experience. Information about the number of years of teach-
ing experience was missing for one teacher. The majority of the teachers
(92%) indicated that they used several methods in the school to prevent and
8 Journal of Early Adolescence 00(0)

reduce bullying behavior. Teachers reported using self-report questionnaires

to identify bullying and victimization (40%), a bullying prevention training
for teachers (24%), and student lessons about bullying (29%). None of the
participating teachers used a structured anti-bullying program, such as a
whole-school program, to prevent and reduce bullying.

What Do Teachers Consider Difficult Bullying Situations?

Our RQ1 focused on what teachers find difficult bullying situations. Thirty-
two teachers reported a bullying situation that they considered to be difficult.
From this, four themes emerged: (a) identifying bullying behavior that hap-
pens out of sight, (b) estimating the seriousness of a bullying incident, (c)
addressing persistent bullying behavior, and (d) finding solutions with par-
ents to reduce bullying behavior (see Table 1).
Six teachers reported that they did not experience any difficult bullying
situations. There was no relation between teachers who did not experience
any difficult bullying situations and their teaching experience or anti-bully-
ing methods in place when compared with teachers who did experience dif-
ficulties. Below, we will only discuss those teachers who have experienced
difficulties in dealing with bullying situations and do this separately for each
theme.

Identifying bullying behavior. Teachers reported difficulties in identifying bully-

ing behavior. In some cases, this was caused by students’ reluctance to report
bullying. In most cases, however, teachers experienced difficulties because
bullying occurred at out-of-sight locations, such as in the hallway, during
physical education, or after-school care. A separate category of bullying that
happens out of sight is bullying in digital app groups. Teachers only became
aware of this type of bullying when the incident had already escalated:

This [incident] escalated in the WhatsApp group on Monday evening. [Students

were] blocked and such. So they entered the classroom on Tuesday morning in
a very bad mood. They were all angry, and a big physical fight occurred. I had
to solve this, and that was difficult. I started a classroom discussion, and it
turned out that at least ten children were aware of the conflict and that this had
already been going on for weeks. (R10, Grade 4)

As for students’ reluctance to report bullying, teachers think this is because

they are afraid of reprisals from the perpetrator. This reluctancy applies not
only to students who are being bullied but also to classmates who witness the
bullying:
van Verseveld et al. 9

Table 1. Teachers’ Experiences With Difficult Bullying Situations (N = 32).

Themes (number of
teachers) Subthemes (number of quotes)
Identifying bullying (14) Bullying in WhatsApp groups of which the teacher is
not a member to monitor students (7)
Bullying out of the teacher’s sight: in the hall, at PE, and
during after-school-care (6)
Students are reluctant to report bullying behavior to
the teacher (4)
Estimating seriousness Students over-report victimization (5)
of bullying (11) Conflicting stories of involved students (5)
Determining whether a situation can be defined as
bullying behavior (4)
Denial of suspected perpetrators when confronted
with the incident (3)
Addressing persistent Bullying behavior by short-tempered students (14)
bullying (21) Improving the situation of victimized students (9)
Finding solutions with Parents and teachers disagree on preferred
parents (13) intervention (8)
Parents’ denial of their child’s involvement as a
perpetrator (4)

Note. PE = physical education.

Teachers reported on several themes and sub-themes: numbers, therefore, do not add up to
the total number of N = 32.

They [the classmates] did not dare to report the incident either. There is a
chance that you will be scolded via the group’s digital app because we had not
made any agreements about it yet. So that was not safe for students, and that
was probably the problem. (R17, Grade 6)

Of the eight teachers with 0 to 5 years of teaching experience, half

(n = 4) have indicated difficulties in identifying bullying. Of the 21 teachers
with more than 10 years of teaching experience, less than one third experienced
these difficulties. These data suggest that novice teachers experience difficul-
ties in detecting bullying more often than experienced teachers. Furthermore,
we found no link between anti-bullying methods used by teachers and the dif-
ficulties experienced in identifying bullying behavior: of the 15 teachers who
used a screening questionnaire, almost half (47%) had difficulties in this area.
Of the nine teachers who participated in a teacher or staff training, 44% reported
difficulties, and of the 12 teachers who implemented student lessons, more than
one third (33%) reported difficulties in identifying bullying.
10 Journal of Early Adolescence 00(0)

Estimating the seriousness of a bullying incident. Teachers reported four factors

that complicated estimating the seriousness of bullying incidents: students’
over-reporting victimization, receiving conflicting explanations, perpetra-
tors’ denial of bullying, and difficulties in determining whether a situation
can be defined as bullying. Particularly in situations where teachers had not
witnessed the bullying incident themselves, they struggled to determine
whether students were not over-reporting bullying, possibly as a result of
misperceiving teasing behavior or a single conflict as bullying: “He saw
everything as bullying behavior” (R6, Grade 6), or “She experiences that she
is being bullied very quickly. She will come and tell me: they bully me, and I
cannot play with them” (R37, Grade 5). Teachers indicated that students who
over-reported victimization were often the ones that are easily offended, or
that bully themselves, for example:

It is like: “Is this bullying or ‘just’ fighting on the football field?” He [the
victim] says, “I am being bullied all the time; they always pick on me.” And I
wonder: “Is that the case? Or is it just in the moment that he says something
like that?” He often feels victimized, but whether that is going on is always
subjective. I think: he is a perpetrator just as well, or how do you say it . . .
Interviewer: bully? Teacher: I would not say bully, but rather a child who has
difficulties in controlling his emotions and quickly beats or kicks other children
as well. (R32, Grade 1/2)

Teachers furthermore identified the conflicting stories that they receive

from different students as a complicating factor in estimating the seriousness
of the bullying incident. Students blaming each other for starting the incident,
for example, makes it difficult for teachers to determine what has happened.
Teachers also suspected that alleged bullies give socially desirable answers or
deny their role in the incident when being asked details of the bullying
incident.
Finally, teachers did not always know when a situation can be defined as
bullying behavior, or what behavior they should pay attention to when esti-
mating the seriousness of an incident. For example:

Boys in my classroom are talking about pranking all the time. Pranking, it
seems to be another thing on social media, dissing each other. Where do you
draw the line? When is it still funny, and when do you call it bullying? (R17,
Grade 6).

Half of the teachers with 0 to 5 years of teaching experience (four out of

eight) experienced difficulties in estimating the seriousness of a bullying situ-
ation, while a quarter of teachers with >10 years of teaching experience (6
van Verseveld et al. 11

out of 21) experienced these difficulties. Again, these results seem to indicate
that novice teachers experience more difficulties in this area. Regarding the
use of anti-bullying methods, we found that 40% of the teachers who used a
screening questionnaire had difficulty estimating the seriousness of a bully-
ing incident. For all teachers who participated in a teacher or staff training,
this was 22%, and for all teachers who taught anti-bullying student lessons,
this was 25%. These results suggest a relation between the use of a screening
questionnaire and perceived difficulties in estimating the seriousness of bul-
lying behavior.

Addressing persistent bullying behavior. More than half of the teachers reported
difficulties in effectively addressing persistent bullying, particularly when the
bullying was attributed to trait-like behavioral problems exhibited by the bully-
ing child. Such children were often described by teachers as “short-tempered”
(R14, Grade 4/5/6), “losing their temper easily” (R19, Grade 4), and “easily
provoked or distracted” (R26, Grade 4/5/6). The teachers reported that the
resources in the school to respond to these students were inadequate. Teachers
indicated that they do not have enough time to intervene every time such a
student shows aggressive behavior. For example, “As soon as I have turned my
back, he says quickly to a fellow student ‘you are a loser’ (R38, Grade 6).” Four
of these teachers attributed persistently negative and angry behavior to the
diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or complex,
multifaceted problems, such as the diagnosis of multiple disorders. In five
cases, these students were bullied by peers as well (i.e., bully-victims).
Teachers furthermore reported difficulties in improving the situation of
victimized students who are being bullied for a prolonged period. According
to teachers, these students fall outside the group because they display socially
unskilled behavior (e.g., withdrawn, dominant, or aggressive behavior), or
because they have specific physical features (e.g., floppy ears, overweight)
that differ from most students in the group, making them an easy target to
bully. In three cases, teachers linked the socially unskilled behavior of stu-
dents to the diagnosis of autism, pervasive developmental disorder not other-
wise specified (PDD-NOS), or ADHD. The following quote illustrates that
teachers sometimes feel powerless in these situations:

We had a child with a combination of PDD-NOS and ADHD. He was diagnosed

with this disorder in Grade 1. We saw it getting worse every school year,
despite attempts to improve the situation. In Grade 2, we identified some
problems; in Grade 3, he no longer had any friends, and he was no longer
invited to peers’ birthday parties, and in Grade 5 he was rejected by all his
classmates. (R13, Grade 5)
12 Journal of Early Adolescence 00(0)

Half of the teachers with 0 to 5 years of teaching experience (four out of

eight) and two thirds of teachers with >10 years of teaching experience (14
out of 21) reported experiencing difficulties with addressing persistent bully-
ing. There seems to be no difference in this area between teachers with little
or much teaching experience. There was no clear difference either between
the type of anti-bullying methods used by teachers and their experienced dif-
ficulties in addressing persistent bullying behavior. The majority of teachers
who used a screening questionnaire (60%) or carried out student lessons
(58%) experienced difficulties in this area. Almost half of the teachers (44%)
who participated in training also reported difficulties.

Finding solutions with parents. Teachers experienced difficulties in agreeing on

solutions to reduce existing cases of bullying with parents, mentioning par-
ents’ disagreement with teacher interventions, and parents’ denial of their
child’s role in bullying situations as complicating factors. Some teachers dis-
agreed with parents when discussing an intervention with parents:

We told these parents: “Maybe [name boy] is better off in another group; he
might have more friends in that group.” But parents did not like that. So . . . I
think that this boy might need extra guidance, but the problem is that the
parents do not give permission to do that. (R24, Grade 1/2/3)

This disagreement was the result of discrepancies between the teacher’s view
on bullying and that of the parents. For example, one teacher addressed recur-
rent swearing of a student toward a classmate with his parents to reduce such
behavior, but these parents were not convinced that swearing is a bad thing
(R37, Grade 5).
In some cases, parents made it clear to teachers that they expected a spe-
cific intervention strategy from them:

The parents wanted us to punish these children [perpetrators of their child]

openly and demanded that we would cooperate (otherwise the parents would
report it to the authorities). (R34, Grade 4)

Teachers indicated that these parents were often angry with them or at the
school, as a result of which no mutual agreement on teacher interventions
could be reached. Teachers further indicated that parents did not believe the
teacher when they told them their child was bullying other children:

I cannot get it into the mother’s head that it is her son who is almost always the
one who starts [the incident]. (R21, Grade 4)
van Verseveld et al. 13

or:

The parents of [name boy] do not recognize their child in this story and do not
want to act on it. That is very difficult. (R25, Grade 1/2/3)

The difficulty for teachers was that parents do not take them seriously
when they raise this issue and that parents themselves are sometimes part of
the problem, and teachers find this difficult to discuss with parents, even
when they do this together with a behavioral specialist in the school. For
example: “An unsafe home environment, or psychological problems in the
child . . . When you report these kinds of issues to the parents, they immedi-
ately go into a defensive mode” (R15, Grade 2–6).
Five out of eight teachers with little teaching experience (0–5 years) indi-
cated having difficulties finding solutions with parents. Seven out of 21
teachers with relatively much teaching experience (>10 years) indicated to
experience these difficulties. These results seem to indicate that less experi-
enced teachers have somewhat more difficulty with this. Furthermore, our
results indicate no clear pattern between the type of anti-bullying method and
the extent to which teachers experienced difficulties in finding solutions with
parents. While 40% of all teachers who used a screening questionnaire and
44% of all teachers who participated in teacher or staff training reported dif-
ficulties, this was 33% for all teachers who taught student lessons.

What Strategies Do Teachers Use and Which Barriers Do They

Encounter?
RQ2 and RQ3 of our study involved how teachers deal with the difficult bul-
lying situations that they experienced and the barriers they encounter. From
this data, four levels of action surfaced at which strategies are used: strategies
involving (a) individual students who are directly involved in the bullying
situation, (b) all students in the classroom, (c) colleagues, or measures through-
out the school, and (d) parents. In total, 28 teachers reported strategies to deal
with difficult bullying situations. Table 2 shows the level of action and the
specific strategy employed for each type of bullying situation identified.

Identifying bullying behavior. Instead of systematically monitoring bullying to

identify such behavior, the majority of the teachers used strategies to prevent
incidents that were difficult to identify, such as bullying in the group’s digital
group app or outside the classroom, and reluctance in reporting bullying.
Most teachers used strategies focused on all students in the classroom, such
as discussing the incident, discussing students’ reluctance to report bullying,
 14
Table 2. Teachers’ Strategies to Deal With Difficult Bullying Situations on Four Intervention Levels (N = 28).
Intervention level (number of quotes)
Themes (number of
teachers) Individual students Class School Parents

Identifying bullying (12) Supporting victims (6) Discussing incident (7) Involving behavioral Talking about incident (6)
Monitoring victims (2) Making agreements (3) specialist (2) Making agreements (2)
Talking to bully (1) Promoting social behavior (2) Consulting with
Transferring victim (1) playground
supervisors (1)
Referring to school
principal (1)
Estimating seriousness Verifying incident (5) Discussing incident (1)
of bullying (6) Monitoring students (2)
Supporting victims (2)
Blaming victims (2)
Disciplining bully (1)
Addressing persistent Confronting bullies (11) Teaching anti-bullying Consulting colleagues (1) Talking about incident (3)
bullying (16) Finding solutions with bullies (3) lessons (3) Improving playground Making agreements (1)
Linking buddy to victims (2) Discussing incident (3) supervision (1) Informing parents (1)
Providing social skill training for Making agreements (1) Discussing incident in
victims (2) Making students co- special care team (1)
Supporting victims (3) responsible for classroom
Monitoring victims (1) climate (1)
Finding solutions with Explaining relevance (1) Developing anti-bullying Continuing dialogue (1)
parents (3) policies (1) Communicating school-
wide anti-bullying
policy (1)

Note. Teachers reported on several themes and intervention levels: numbers, therefore, do not add up to the total number of N = 28.
Journal of Early Adolescence 00(0)
van Verseveld et al. 15

making agreements on possible student actions in these situations, and pro-

moting pro-social behaviors. For example, teachers discussed the use of the
digital app group by asking students questions like “For which purposes do
we want to use the digital group app?” (R17, Grade 6). Teachers also made
agreements with students on how to use this app group by letting them think
about solutions and agreements and by guiding students toward clear and
concise agreements. Another classroom strategy involved promoting pro-
social behavior among students, for example, by giving students rewards for
social interactions with their classmates.
Teachers also used strategies at the level of individual students by moni-
toring former victimized students, supporting these students, and transferring
a student to another group. For example, one teacher created a support group
of peers around the victim to prevent future bullying. Other strategies were
related to incidents that had escalated. In these situations, teachers involved
other adults, such as parents (e.g., talking with parents about the incident and
solutions), and colleagues (e.g., behavioral specialist, playground supervi-
sors, and the school principal).
Barriers encountered by teachers were related to an experienced lack of
skills to prevent out-of-sight bullying situations adequately:

I am at a loss as to what to do, you know . . . This social media bullying happens
at home, and they bring it into school. (R12, Grade 6)

and:

This is why it [the bullying] is so intangible. (R2, Grade 6)

They also expressed uncertainty in deciding on an appropriate and effec-

tive course of action, for example:

How do you create a safe environment so that students open up? I just did not
succeed. (R12, Grade 6)

Estimating the seriousness of a bullying incident. The majority of the teachers

attempted to verify what had happened by talking with individual students.
Where teachers suspected students of over-reporting peer victimization, they
tried to convince the victim to adjust their behavior (e.g., “What can you
change in your behavior?” R32, Grade 1/2). This concerned cases where stu-
dents were thought to provoke the bullying, for example, by showing domi-
nant behaviors toward other students. Teachers reported feeling unsure of this
approach, because in one case, the bullying returned, and in another case, the
16 Journal of Early Adolescence 00(0)

student who was being bullied left the school. Some teachers indicated that
they took self-reported victimization seriously at any time because this expe-
rience could be harmful to these students when ignored by the teacher. These
teachers increased their observations of these students, listened to, and sup-
ported these students. For example, one teacher would ask these students to
think about solutions and also monitored whether students acted on it.
In cases where students reported conflicting stories about the bullying
situation, teachers responded by firmly disapproving of the bullying behavior
in general, regardless of which student was responsible for instigating it:

I am sorry, but it is no excuse to say, “What he did is much worse,” what you
did is incredibly stupid too . . . I just try to make it clear to these students that I
really do not like negative behavior by getting really angry. At the same time, I
emphasize that it is the behavior I disapprove of, not the child himself. (R26,
Grade 4/5/6)

Other teachers responded to conflicting stories by applying measures that

they believed would most likely be appropriate to the situation, such as disci-
plining the supposed bully. Barriers that teachers experienced were related to
doubts about whether they had given disproportionate consequences to the
bully or have done too little to stop the bullying.

Addressing persistent bullying behavior. Regarding addressing persistent bully-

ing behavior, the majority of the teachers used strategies at the level of indi-
vidual students who were involved in the actual bullying situation. Where
bullying behavior initiated by short-tempered students was concerned,
teachers mainly confronted these students with the impact of their negative
behavior on other students. Here, teachers indicated that they mainly sup-
press such unwanted behavior without addressing the underlying problem,
because this type of student tends to provoke peers at every moment that
teacher supervision is absent. Some teachers reported that strategies aimed
at suppressing negative behavior were not sufficient to reduce the behavior.
For instance, a teacher reported that a student was insensitive to the disci-
plinary measures taken:

I do not think this can be solved in school. You can do your best to put him in
that [a safe] group; I have to say, he is doing a bit better. I also think this
because peers get to know him a little better. But yeah, I just got another
complaint, I mean, he was teasing because he keeps making animal sounds
towards a girl, and she comes to me to complain, and you can see him laughing
broadly. I think it takes more than having conversations about negative behavior
in the classroom, which is sufficient for most students. (R31, Grade 3/4)
van Verseveld et al. 17

Regarding improving the situation of victimized students who are being

bullied for a prolonged period, teachers tried to find solutions together with
the bully and the victim. Also, teachers reported having good experiences
with giving support to victims by linking them to a buddy. Other strategies
involved monitoring the situation together with parents and making clear
agreements with them.
Teachers also used classical strategies to address persistent bullying by
discussing the incident with all students and providing student lessons about
bullying, a psychophysical training to gain confidence, and lessons to
improve the social environment in the classroom.

Finding solutions with parents. Only a few teachers mentioned strategies to

address the issue of finding solutions with parents, and these occurred mainly
at the level of the school and during individual conversations with parents.
Regarding parents’ disagreement with the type of intervention proposed, one
teacher indicated that it helped to present parents with a clear intervention
plan for their child and to communicate clearly with parents what expecta-
tions they had of them.
Teachers also experienced barriers in applying strategies to find solutions
with parents. In two cases, teachers felt embarrassed when they had to point
out that parents were part of the problem and consequently avoided a conver-
sation with parents about this topic. Instead, these teachers focused on improv-
ing school interventions to reduce bullying. Other barriers were related to
coping with parents who responded defensively or angrily when discussing
planned interventions, or how to cope with feelings of failure when parents
decided to handle the situation differently. One teacher, for example, indicated
that parents decided to transfer their child to another school, which made her
doubt whether she had handled the situation appropriately.

Discussion
In the present study, we aimed to investigate which bullying situations teachers
find difficult to handle, what strategies they use to deal with these situations,
and what barriers they encounter in doing so. We found that the vast majority
of the teachers in this study indeed experienced recurrent difficult bullying situ-
ations. We were able to classify these difficulties in four categories as follows:
(a) identifying bullying behavior, (b) estimating its seriousness, (c) addressing
persistent bullying behavior, and (d) solving bullying together with parents.
Teachers responded to difficult bullying situations in distinct ways.
Regarding the first category, that is, the difficulty in identifying bullying, we
found that very few teachers used strategies or instruments to screen
18 Journal of Early Adolescence 00(0)

for bullying behavior. Instead, they used strategies at the classroom level,
discussing bullying generally to prevent future bullying. For the second cat-
egory, that is, estimating the seriousness while not getting clear information
from students, we uncovered that teachers intervened based on the informa-
tion they received, even if they were not sure of the situation. Regarding the
third category of difficult situations, that is, addressing persistent bullying
behavior, we found that teachers kept trying to suppress the negative behav-
iors of the perpetrators. Finally, concerning the fourth category, that is, solv-
ing the bullying problems with parents who showed resistance toward how
the teacher handled bullying, most teachers lacked strategies that helped
them respond to this situation.
The findings of our study also indicate that teachers experienced specific
barriers in each of these four domains. A substantial proportion of the teach-
ers reported feelings that are related to a low level of self-efficacy, that is,
uncertainty as to whether they dealt with these situations appropriately.
Concerning the first, identifying bullying and estimating its seriousness, the
difficulty for teachers was that the bullying happens out of their sight and that
students involved tend to report conflicting information. For the situations
regarding persistent bullying behavior, teachers experienced a lack of skills
and time to deal with children involved in continual bullying situations or to
deal with multiple problems. Regarding situations dealing with parents, an
important barrier for teachers was that they did not know how to solve the
situation when parents disagreed with the teacher’s solution.
While previous research has indicated that teachers doubt their efficacy
for handling bullying (Begotti et al., 2018; Lester et al., 2018; Macaulay
et al., 2019), the current study provides a more in-depth look at the challenges
teachers face that contribute to their feelings of low self-efficacy. Our find-
ings indicate that teachers have difficulty identifying and estimating the seri-
ousness of bullying situations, are in line with previous studies that showed
teachers to feel inadequately prepared to handle a variety of bullying situa-
tions (Marshall, 2012; Oldenburg et al., 2016). For instance, several studies
found a discrepancy between bullying reported by students and bullying
reported by teachers and concluded that teachers are not always able to iden-
tify bullying cases (Bradshaw, Sawyer, & O’Brennan, 2007; Demaray et al.,
2013; Rupp, Elliott, & Gresham, 2018). Our findings add to this observation
by showing that teachers especially experience difficulties identifying and
estimating bullying when incidents happen out of their sight.
Previous studies have shown that teachers find it difficult to support the
unique needs of students with emotional and behavioral difficulties (State,
Simonsen, Hirn, & Wills, 2019; Stefan, Rebega, & Cosma, 2015; Taylor &
Smith, 2019). Our findings highlight that this is also the case in bullying
van Verseveld et al. 19

situations. Teachers in our study experienced a lack of skills that would help
them provide a structural solution for students who bully and who addition-
ally have other emotional and behavioral difficulties. Moreover, our study
showed that teachers experienced difficulties in finding agreement with par-
ents on handling bullying situations. Previous research has shown that par-
ents sometimes have different views on what bullying constitutes (Stives,
May, Pilkinton, Bethel, & Eakin, 2019). Our findings substantiate this and
indicate that finding a solution for a bullying situation together with the par-
ents is certainly not self-evident.
A noteworthy observation in this study is that, when asked to define bul-
lying, none of the teachers explicitly mentioned the imbalance of power
between the bully and the victim, despite this characteristic being part of
Olweus’ (1993) widely adopted definition of bullying. Moreover, only two
teachers mentioned the group process, in which students who witness the
incident influence the bullying process, meaning that even teachers who had
access to preventive anti-bullying training did not mention this process.
Teachers also reported difficulties in determining whether an incident should
be considered a bullying situation, indicating a lack of knowledge of what
bullying constitutes. This finding is in line with Oldenburg et al. (2016), who
showed that teachers who had participated in the KiVa anti-bullying program
did not always have a clear understanding of what bullying is.
Another notable finding was that some teachers normalized bullying by
stating that they understood why some children were being bullied. As a
result, they advised these students to adjust their behavior. This attitude and
intervention strategy is undesirable, as it can lead to emotional distress and
harm the victim’s mental health (Reijntjes, Kamphuis, Prinzie, & Telch,
2010; Troop-Gordon, 2015). It also needs to be recognized that self-reported
victims who do not report all the characteristics of being bullied (i.e., repeti-
tion, power imbalance) also have psychosocial problems compared with non-
victimized youth (Ybarra, Espelage, & Mitchell, 2014), and should, therefore,
be treated as a serious case by teachers. It is striking that despite anti-bullying
methods and national law to reduce bullying, there are still teachers who do
not seem to take bullying seriously. Our findings suggest that there is a need
for more awareness among teachers about the prevalence of bullying and the
negative consequences for victimized students.
We also looked into the relationship between used anti-bullying methods
and teachers’ experienced difficulties. Our findings showed that teachers who
have little teaching experience seem to experience more difficulties than col-
leagues with more than 10 years of teaching experience. This finding is in
line with findings of previous studies that novice teachers feel not well pre-
pared to reduce school bullying (Begotti et al., 2018; Lester et al., 2018;
20 Journal of Early Adolescence 00(0)

Macaulay et al., 2019), and shows the specific circumstances in which these
teachers experience these difficulties, such as identifying bullying incidents,
estimating the seriousness of an incident, and in finding solutions together
with parents. Also, our study showed that, overall, there was no link between
the anti-bullying methods teachers used and the extent to which they experi-
enced difficulties. A possible explanation for this finding is that the teachers
in our study did not receive sufficient support from these specific methods.
However, due to the small number of teachers, these results should cautiously
be interpreted. Future research could investigate this more extensively.
Follow-up research could also focus on whether specific anti-bullying com-
ponents or programs are beneficial for teachers and reduce their perceived
difficulties.

Strengths and Limitations

Our findings provide insight into teachers’ real-life experiences. Little was
known about the situations that teachers deal with in regard to bullying.
These insights are, therefore, a particular strength of the study. Such informa-
tion is important because it helps us identify those areas where teachers need
to be strengthened in their anti-bullying strategies. Another strength of our
study is that we interviewed a substantial number of teachers, which enabled
us to collect data concerning a wide variety of bullying situations.
A possible limitation of this study is that teachers’ answers may be biased
as a result of self-reported behavior. People generally tend to present them-
selves favorably, and this may have resulted in a self-presentation bias
(Kopcha & Sullivan, 2007). Although the teachers in our study did report the
difficulties they experienced, this outcome may still be an underestimation of
the difficult situations they experience with bullying. Future research could
investigate to what extent the experiences of the teachers in our sample can
be generalized to a broader population of teachers.
Furthermore, our findings on the relation between anti-bullying methods
and experienced difficult bullying situations are based on general reports
concerning the anti-bullying methods that were available for teachers at the
time of the interviews. As we did not collect data on the extent to which
teachers have implemented these methods, we were not able to relate the
level of implementation to the extent to which teachers experienced difficult
bullying situations.
Finally, due to the qualitative nature of this study and the selective sample
of teachers, our findings cannot be generalized to the whole population of
teachers. Teachers were able to sign up for the interviews. This procedure
may have resulted in a biased sample in which only teachers who like to talk
van Verseveld et al. 21

about bullying were included. This selective sample may have influenced our
conclusions about how teachers perceived bullying situations and what teach-
ers do to deal with these situations.

Practical Implications
Our findings show that teachers experienced difficulties in identifying bully-
ing cases, indicating that they need access to good and manageable screening
tools to detect bullying. Peers are usually present in cases of bullying
(Hawkins & Pepler, 2001) and should be viewed as valuable sources of infor-
mation in assessing bullying behavior. Multi-informant methods in which
self-reports and peer-reports are combined and social network analysis in
which teachers gain insight into students’ relations could, therefore, be useful
for teachers (Huitsing & Monks, 2018; Huitsing & Veenstra, 2012; Hymel &
Swearer, 2015; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2001).
Another way to support teachers in identifying bullying is to strengthen
their skills in identifying and estimating bullying through training. Teacher
training should focus on providing knowledge on what bullying constitutes
and skills on how to talk with students to find out about bullying incidents in
a constructive way. Yoon and Bauman (2014) have shown that that teacher
training that includes a component about understanding the seriousness and
consequences of bullying helps teachers address bullying behavior in schools.
Our finding that teachers experienced a lack of skills and time to address
persistent bullying also stresses the importance of teacher training and preser-
vice teacher training. Such training should focus on teachers learning the strate-
gies to support students with multiple problems. Another strategy is to provide
teachers with additional structural support from the school, for example, from
behavioral specialists or school nurses, who are more adequately equipped to
deal with problematic student behavior (Fisher, Cassidy, & Mitchell, 2017).
Finally, teachers can be supported in working with parents to prevent and
reduce bullying. Teachers can benefit from conversation techniques as part of
a teacher training course or from structured protocols that guide them in dif-
ficult conversations with parents. Another strategy would be to enhance the
school support system in this regard, by providing a clear school-wide
response to bullying among teachers and administrators and communicating
this message to all parents.
Furthermore, it is vital to invest in the preservice training of teachers so
that they are well prepared to address bullying right from the start of their
careers. Courses on identifying and addressing bullying through evidence-
based programs and teacher training should be incorporated into the regular
curriculum of preservice teacher education.
22 Journal of Early Adolescence 00(0)

Implications for Future Research

Future studies can focus on the development and effectiveness of teacher
components of anti-bullying programs (i.e., screening tool, training, guide-
lines) to strengthen teachers’ abilities to address bullying. Further research
could evaluate how teacher training increases teachers’ levels of self-efficacy
to intervene in difficult bullying situations, such as addressing bullying
behavior with students who show social-emotional problems.
It is also valuable to carry out qualitative research into the good practices
of teachers dealing with bullying behavior. As there is still little knowledge
on what practices are effective, follow-up research could focus on difficult
bullying situations and which strategies students and teachers consider being
effective in reducing bullying.

Conclusion
This study has provided insight into the specific difficulties teachers expe-
rience in identifying and reducing bullying behavior. As bullying usually
happens out of sight from teachers, they are often not aware of the bullying
behavior until it escalates, or a student or parent comes to school to report
it. In addition, teachers often experience a lack of knowledge about the
nature of bullying and lack the skills and time to deal adequately with
children involved in persistent bullying. Teachers also experience difficul-
ties in dealing with parents who do not agree with their solutions to bully-
ing at school.
A strategy that follows from our results is providing teachers with a sys-
tematic screening tool do detect bullying behavior at an early stage (e.g., at
the beginning of the academic year). Such a tool should provide teachers with
detailed protocols to deal with students (at risk of being) involved in bullying
situations. Our results also indicate that teachers may benefit from both pre-
service and in-service training to tackle bullying in their classrooms. Such
training should address the characteristics of bullying, the group process that
is involved, and it should give them tools to deal with bullying, such as pro-
tocols for specific bullying contexts (i.e., dealing with multi-problem behav-
ior or parents with a different view on bullying behavior and solutions).
Novice teachers, in particular, seem to need professional support through
training and the use of an anti-bullying method.

Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Eline van Batenburg (Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences) for
comments on the manuscript.
van Verseveld et al. 23

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Dutch
National Scientific Foundation, grant number 2014-01-110PRO.

ORCID iD
Marloes D. A. van Verseveld https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4859-6192

Note
1. The code tree can be requested from the first author.

References
Ansary, N. S., Elias, M. J., Greene, M. B., & Green, S. (2015). Guidance for schools
selecting antibullying approaches: Translating evidence-based strategies to con-
temporary implementation realities. Educational Researcher, 44, 27-36.
Athola, A., Haataja, A., Kärnä, A., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). For chil-
dren only? Effects of the KiVa antibullying program on teachers. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28, 851-859.
Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). Preservice teachers’ responses to bullying scenar-
ios: Comparing physical, verbal, and relational bullying. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98, 219-231.
Bauman, S., & Hurley, C. (2008). Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about bullying: Two
exploratory studies. Journal of School Violence, 4, 49-61.
Begotti, T., Tirassa, M., & Maran, D. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ intervention in
school bullying episodes with special education needs students: A research in
Italian and Greek samples. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 15, 1-13.
Benítez, J. L., García-Berbén, A., & Fernández-Cabezas, M. (2009). The impact of a
course on bullying within the pre-service teacher training curriculum. Electronic
Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7, 191-208.
Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2007). Bullying and peer vic-
timization at school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff.
School Psychology Review, 36, 361-382.
Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., O’Brennan, L. M., & Gulemetova, M. (2013).
Teachers’ and education support professionals’ perspectives on bullying and pre-
vention: Findings from a national education association study. School Psychology
Review, 42, 280-297.
24 Journal of Early Adolescence 00(0)

Burger, C., Strohmeier, D., Spröber, N., Bauman, S., & Rigby, K. (2015). How
teachers respond to school bullying: An examination of self-reported interven-
tion strategy use, moderator effects, and concurrent use of multiple strategies.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 191-202.
Byers, D. L., Caltabiano, N. J., & Caltabiano, M. L. (2011). Teachers’ attitudes
towards overt and covert bullying, and perceived efficacy to intervene. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 105-119.
Cosma, A., & Hancock, J. (2010). Bullying victimisation. Trends: 2002-10. Retrieved
from http://www.hbsc.org/publications/factsheets/Bullying-victimisation-english.
pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Crothers, L. M., & Kolbert, J. B. (2004). Comparing middle school teachers’ and
students’ views on bullying and anti-bullying interventions. Journal of School
Violence, 3, 17-32.
Demaray, M. K., Malecki, C. K., Secord, S. M., & Lyell, K. M. (2013). Agreement
among students,,’ teachers,,’ and parents’ perceptions of victimization by bully-
ing. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 2091-2100.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimiza-
tion: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology
Review, 32, 365-383.
Evans, C. B., Fraser, M. W., & Cotter, K. L. (2014). The effectiveness of school-
based bullying prevention programs: A systematic review. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 19, 532-544.
Fisher, K., Cassidy, B., & Mitchell, A. M. (2017). Bullying: Effects on school-aged
children, screening tools, and referral sources. Journal of Community Health
Nursing, 34, 171-179.
Frisén, A., Hasselblad, T., & Holmqvist, K. (2012). What actually makes bullying
stop? Reports from former victims. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 981-990.
Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness
of school-bullying prevention programs: An updated meta-analytical review.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 111-133.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Haradhan, M. (2018). Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and related
subjects. Journal of Economic Development, 7, 23-48.
Hawkins, D. L., & Pepler, D. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions
in bullying. Social Development, 10, 512-527.
Hektner, J. M., & Swenson, C. A. (2012). Links from teacher beliefs to peer vic-
timization and bystander intervention: Tests of mediating processes. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 32, 516-536.
Huitsing, G., & Monks, C. P. (2018). Who victimizes who and who defends whom? A
multivariate social network analysis of victimization, aggression, and defending
in early childhood. Aggressive Behavior, 44, 394-405.
van Verseveld et al. 25

Huitsing, G., & Veenstra, R. (2012). Bullying in classrooms: Participant roles from a
social network perspective. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 494-509.
Hymel, S., & Swearer, S. M. (2015). Four decades of research on school bullying.
American Psychologist, 70, 293-299.
Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2001). Self-views versus peer perceptions of
victim status among early adolescents. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer
harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 105-124).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kochenfelder-Ladd, B., & Pelletier, M. E. (2008). Teachers’ views and beliefs about
bullying: Influences on classroom management strategies and students’ coping
with peer victimization. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 431-453.
Kokko, T. H., & Pörhölä, M. (2009). Tackling bullying: Victimized by peers as a
pupil, an effective intervener as a teacher? Teaching and Teacher Education, 25,
1000-1008.
Kopcha, T. J., & Sullivan, H. (2007). Self-presentation bias in surveys of teach-
ers’ educational technology practices. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 55, 627-646.
Lester, L., Waters, S., Pearce, N., Spears, B., & Falconer, S. (2018). Pre-service
teachers: Knowledge, attitudes, and their perceived skills in addressing student
bullying. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 30-45.
Macaulay, P. J., Betts, L. R., Stiller, J., & Kellezi, B. (2019). “It’s so fluid, it’s devel-
oping all the time”: Pre-service teachers’ perceptions and understanding of cyber-
bullying in the school environment. Educational Studies, 1-17. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03055698.2019.1620693
Marshall, M. L. (2012). Teachers’ perceived barriers to effective bullying interven-
tion (Doctoral dissertation). Atlanta: Georgia State University.
Migliaccio, T. (2015). Teacher engagement with bullying: Managing an identity
within a school. Sociological Spectrum, 35, 84-108.
Newman-Carlson, D., & Horne, A. M. (2004). Bully Busters: A psychoeducational
intervention for reducing bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 82, 259-267.
Oldenburg, B., Bosman, R., & Veenstra, R. (2016). Are elementary school teachers
prepared to tackle bullying? A pilot study. School Psychology International, 37,
64-72.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). PISA 2015 results
(volume III): Students’ well-being. Paris, France: Programme for International
Student Assessment, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Ziegler, S., & Charach, A. (1994). An evaluation of an
anti-bullying intervention in Toronto schools. Canadian Journal of Community
for Mental Health, 13, 95-110.
Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization
and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 244-252.
26 Journal of Early Adolescence 00(0)

Rupp, S., Elliott, S. N., & Gresham, F. M. (2018). Assessing elementary students’
bullying and related social behaviors: Cross-informant consistency across school
and home environments. Children and Youth Services Review, 93, 458-466.
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A.
(1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social
status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1-15.
Salmivalli, C., Poskiparta, E., Athola, A., & Haataja, A. (2013). The implementa-
tion and effectiveness of the KiVa anti-bullying program in Finland. European
Psychologist, 18, 79-88.
Seidman, I. (2019). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
State, T. M., Simonsen, B., Hirn, R. G., & Wills, H. (2019). Bridging the research-
to-practice gap through effective professional development for teachers working
with students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders,
44, 107-116.
Stefan, C. A., Rebega, O. L., & Cosma, A. (2015). Romanian preschool teachers’
understanding of emotional and behavioral difficulties: Implications for design-
ing teacher trainings. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 36, 61-83.
Stives, K. L., May, D. C., Pilkinton, M., Bethel, C. L., & Eakin, D. K. (2019).
Strategies to combat bullying: Parental responses to bullies, bystanders, and vic-
tims. Youth and Society, 51, 358-376.
Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can
be done about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice.
Educational Researcher, 39, 38-47.
Taylor, G. G., & Smith, S. W. (2019). Teacher reports of verbal aggression in school
settings among students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 27, 52-64.
Traag, T. (2018). Leerkrachten in het basisonderwijs [Teachers in primary educa-
tion]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.
Troop-Gordon, W. (2015). The role of the classroom teacher in the lives of children
victimized by peers. Child Development Perspectives, 9, 55-60.
Troop-Gordon, W., & Ladd, G. W. (2015). Teachers’ victimization-related beliefs
and strategies: Associations with students’ aggressive behavior and peer victim-
ization. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 45-60.
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to
reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 7, 27-56.
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Huitsing, G., Sainio, M., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). The role
of teachers in bullying: The relation between antibullying attitudes, efficacy, and
efforts to reduce bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 1135-1143.
VERBI Software GmbH. (2018). Professional software for qualitative and mixed
methods research. Available from https://www.maxqda.com/
Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based inter-
ventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161,
78-88.
van Verseveld et al. 27

Wachs, S., Bilz, L., Niproschke, S., & Schubarth, W. (2019). Bullying intervention
in schools: A multilevel analysis of teachers’ success in handling bullying from
the students’ perspective. Journal of Early Adolescence, 39, 642-668. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0272431618780423
Williford, A., & Depaolis, K. J. (2016). Predictors of cyberbullying intervention
among elementary school staff: The moderating effect of staff status. Psychology
in the Schools, 53, 1032-1044.
Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2014). Differentiating youth who
are bullied from other victims of peer-aggression: The importance of differential
power and repetition. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 293-300.
Yoon, J., & Bauman, S. (2014). Teachers: A critical but overlooked component of
bullying prevention and intervention. Theory into Practice, 53, 308-314.

Author Biographies
Marloes D. A. van Verseveld is a PhD candidate at the Center for Applied Research
in Education of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences in Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Minne Fekkes is a senior research associate at TNO Child Health in Leiden, The
Netherlands.
Ruben G. Fukkink is professor of educational sciences at the Amsterdam University
of Applied Sciences and professor by special appointment of child care at the
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ron J. Oostdam is professor of Learning and Instruction at both the University of
Amsterdam and the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. He is also director of
the Center for Applied Research in Education (CARE) at the Amsterdam University
of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands.