CHALLENGES EDUCATORS ENCOUNTER IMPLEMENTING ANTIBULLYING PROGRAMS IN CLASSROOMS

CHALLENGES EDUCATORS ENCOUNTER IMPLEMENTING

ANTIBULLYING PROGRAMS IN CLASSROOMS

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Bullying is a growing concern within schools across the world (Bradshaw, 2015).

Olweus, developed a program in 1983 to address bullying in schools after three

adolescent boys died of suicide due to severe bullying (Olweus & Limber, 1983). In the

mid-1990s Olweus and Limber began evaluating and implementing the program at

Clemson University in South Carolina, United States (Limber et al., 2018). The study

involved 18 middle schools, which showed a significant decrease in boys’ and girls’

reports of bullying others and being bullied (Limber et al., 2018). A similar study was

conducted in Philadelphia among 12 elementary schools which yielded substantial

reductions in self-reported bullying and adults observing bullying (Hazelden Foundation,

2016).

After the Columbine shooting in Colorado in 1999, bullying has been studied

more in-depth, and many antibullying programs have been created (see Cunningham et

al., 2016; Goldstein, 2013). Some of these programs include "Don't Laugh at Me" -

Operation Respect, The Bully Free® Program (Beane et al., 2008), The Bullying Project

Curriculum, Utterly Global - Stand up, Speak out ... End Bullying, Bullying, Ignorance is

No Defense, Steps to Respect (Committee for Children, 2001), and The Colorado Trust.

My study addressed the barriers and challenges teachers face in the classroom when

implementing the antibullying program during bullying situations. The goal was to

identify the barriers and challenges from the teachers’ perception in the middle schools in

central North Carolina.

Potential social implications for the research include providing an avenue for

understanding of barriers, challenges, strengths, and weaknesses regarding the

antibullying programs discussed from the teacher’s point of view. This could allow

administrators, counselors, other staff members, parents, and community members to

know to assist and address the barriers and challenges to implementing the programs

properly.

This chapter introduces this study, including background information of the

literature previously researched in this area, the problem statement, the purpose of the

study, research questions and the conceptual framework for this study, the nature of the

study, definitions related to the importance of this study, assumptions, scope and

delimitations, limitations, and significance for this study.

Background

Several researchers describe bullying as a subtype of aggressive behavior which is

deliberate and aims to harm and gain power over the victim; bullying occurs repeatedly

over time and can include physical, verbal, and social abuse (Barnes et al., 2012; Hornby,

2016; Rosen et al., 2016; Ybarra et al., 2019). As bullying continues to be an ongoing

issue in schools today, the following areas of bullying within schools regarding behavior

are important: aggression and victimization, school policies, classroom management,

interventions and strategies, teachers’ roles, and responsibilities, bullying programs, and

professional development. These areas represent key components in the research when

talking with teachers regarding their perspectives on bullying. Cunningham et al. (2016)

conducted a study from one moderate-sized Canadian community incorporating private

and public-school teachers from Pre-K to eighth grades and their limits with

implementing antibullying programs. Their study provided key background regarding

bullying in school. Letendre et al. (2016) provided information gathered from teachers,

staff, and administration about struggles with implementing antibullying programs in an

urban school in Connecticut. Focus groups were used to understand the factors that

contribute to successful implementation and areas that need to be modified to fit the

students, school, and community (Letendre et al., 2016); however, the teacher participants

were from the elementary school instead of middle school. Even though bullying is still

present, limited research on the implementation process of these programs at the middle

school level is limited.

Within the past 5 years, several studies have explored the where, how, and what of

bullying and bullying policies. Waters and Mashburn (2017) provided an investigation

using surveys of middle school teachers’ perceptions of bullying, where bullying occurs

in schools, and how to prevent bullying and stress the importance of antibullying policies

within the school. Bradshaw (2015) performed a synthesis of information regarding

various studies examining the efficacy of bullying prevention programs. Bradshaw

reported that the need lies with acceptability, fidelity, and sustainability of the current

programs in middle schools. Bradshaw’s findings are intended to inform public policy

and public health related to preventing bullying which will assist teachers by breaking

down the barriers and challenges of implementation. Students reported that aggressive

incidents commonly happen in the classroom, the lunchroom, and hallways (Rosen et al.,

2016; Ybarra et al., 2019); therefore, teachers may be in the best position to identify the

risk and consequences involving bullying (Rosen et al., 2016). Subsequently, the trends I

discovered from the perceptions of middle school teachers in North Carolina could

identify ways to improve antibullying programs.

Espelage (2013) discussed why antibullying programs are failing in the United

States. She focused on social-emotional learning and how it has adapted around youth

behaviors and the prevention of those behaviors. Espelage’s work identified one of the

many approaches used to understand and then prevent bullying.

Some research revolved around interventions for teachers, schools, and

communities and the importance of professional development (see Bradshaw et al., 2013;

Brown, 2014; Hornby, 2016; Letendre et al., 2016; Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017; Yoon &

Bauman, 2014; Yoon et al. 2016). Many of the strategies were regarding teachers

involved in the policies at their school, but they needed more training and understanding

of the school policy bullying programs (Bradshaw, 2013; Hornby, 2016; Horton, 2018;

Lester & Maldonado, 2013 & 2014; Letendre et al., 2016; Studer & Mynatt, 2015). Other

conclusions were a great need for professional development for both teachers and

professional staff. The importance of staff development and school policies within the

bullying programs helps reduce all types of bullying among middle school students

(Bradshaw, 2013; Wojcik & Helka, 2018).

Brown (2014) interviewed teachers in the Southern part of the United States and

found 30% were not aware of the school system's bullying policies. Along with that, the

policies needed review and to be discussed more often. Further professional development

was also needed in that area. Phillips (2014), Uzoma (2019), and Blust (2016) found

similar results in other areas of the country with teachers’ perspectives of bullying in the

classroom. More professional development and understanding of the school policy was

greatly lacking. Lester and Maldonado (2013, 2014) explored and interviewed teachers’

perspectives of bullying in the classroom in Florida in 2013 and Tennessee in 2014. The

participants believed the antibullying program needed to be updated and that the roles and

responsibilities of those involved needed clarification. Additional conclusions were the

antibullying program needed to be updated to clarify the role and responsibilities of the

teachers and other school stakeholders. This study also indicated a need for a possible

educational policy change. Rosen et al. (2016) focused more on teacher perspectives on

bullying with peer aggression and victimization. The teachers paid more attention to the

physical or verbal part of bullying and were less focused on helping the victim in the

bullying situation. Teachers felt students should stand up for themselves to prevent further

bullying. If a teacher’s belief is the victim is responsible for their behavior toward bullies,

then it is less likely that teachers will respond and have empathy during the bullying

(Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017; Rosen et al., 2016). Classroom management is a

significant factor in reducing bullying and aggression and creates a safe learning

environment (Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017; Studer & Mynatt, 2015). Teachers play a

major role in classroom management and safety (Yoon & Bauman, 2014; Yoon et al.,

2016).

The literature also has research regarding the students’ point of view about bullying

(e.g., Chalamandaris et al., 2017; Ybarra et al., 2019) in which students provide many

strategies of intervention and how they, as students, see the importance of teachers’ roles

and responsibilities in reducing bullying (Lester & Maldonado, 2013; Wojcik & Helka,

2018; Yoon et al., 2016).

Much of the background literature discussed is from different points of view,

either students or teachers’ perception of bullying, or their attitudes about bullying. The

importance is the literature provides information about interventions and suggestions;

however, the purpose of this study is to learn from the teachers’ struggles they have with

the antibullying programs and how they can be used in their respective classrooms. The

literature doesn’t define this point.

Problem Statement

Bullying is a growing concern within schools across the world (Bradshaw, 2015;

Ybarra et al., 2019). Teachers can be the key to addressing bullying by implementing

antibullying programs as a foundation for students (Ybarra et al., 2019). A study

conducted of teachers in Canada exposed some barriers and challenges they are facing

concerning effectiveness in implementing antibullying programs including lack of

training, difficulty detecting bullying, a lack of time to implement the program, and an

inability to successfully sustain programs (Cunningham et al., 2016). It is unexplored

how or why barriers and challenges affect the implementation of antibullying programs in

middle schools with limited research from the perspective of the teachers (Bradshaw et

al., 2013; Brown, 2014; Waters & Mashburn, 2017) which have made the progression of

these programs difficult. Most of the research focuses either on student input, data from

other countries, or victimization of students; rather than information strictly from

teachers’ perspectives of barriers and challenges (see Cunningham et al., 2009;

Cunningham et al., 2016; Letendre et al., 2016). Additional research (e.g., Chalamandaris

et al., 2017) focused on a specific type of antibullying program concerning its issues with

implementation in the school. However, it focused on the student’s input of barriers and

challenges regarding a specific program rather than the teacher’s input. Other research

(see Bradshaw et al., 2013; Letendre et al., 2016) provided feedback from all school

personnel, staff, teachers, and administration in urban areas implementing antibullying

programs and the struggles they face only at their school. One result (e.g., Letendre et al.,

2016) was to get the parents more involved in school to understand the teachers' language

to provide some leveling of training to the parents. The literature presents a lack of

understanding of the barriers and challenges encountered by middle school teachers who

use antibullying programs in the classroom setting. There is research around interventions

and teachers’ attitudes toward bullying and violence within the school to generate

strategies; however, it does not address teachers’ barriers and challenges to

implementation, which is the purpose of this study.

A study by Barnes et al. (2012) based out of Australia focused on the invisible

issues in facing interventions using a quantitative study concerning covert bullying within

the school and the invisible issues within school policy. Covert bullying, as stated by

Barnes et al., relates to behaviors that are nonphysical, subtle, disguised or hidden, but

cause emotional distress and damage self-esteem, relationships, and social status. Overt

bullying refers to physical punching, direct face-to-face encounters, kicking, teasing,

which observers perceive to be aggressive, deliberate, and harmful. From these results,

70% of the participants agreed staff needs more training. Of the 400 teachers or staff who

participated, 30% understood covert bullying or knew how to manage it within the school

(Barnes et al., 2012) but the school policies did not address covert bullying, only overt bullying.

Furthermore, 10% of the participants felt their strategies were effective in reducing covert

bullying (Barnes et al., 2012).

Marshall et al. (2009) provided information about 30 middle school teachers’

perceptions, experiences, and in-depth responses to bullying regarding violence in the

schools. The results developed a way to analyze teachers’ responses to bullying, which

was helpful for their school district. But again, this only addressed responding to the

bullying and not how to implement the program because of the bullying.

A collection of 20 years of research of what is known and how to progress

regarding antibullying programs in schools provided information on research efforts on

bullying and victimization in American schools is an overview of major insights gained

from 1980 to 2003 (Espelage et al., 2003). Several arguments in this article are examined,

including the influence of peer ecology on bullying, assessing school climates where

bullying occurs, research from longitudinal and multivariate on bullying, exploring

implementation issues of school-wide bullying prevention programs, reviewing laws and

policies, and challenging researchers to reach a consensus on bullying research.

There is limited research from the teacher’s perspective on the implementation of

antibullying programs in general. The understanding of barriers and challenges will assist

in minimizing bullying behaviors while providing an opportunity to instill positive

outcomes in middle school settings which will need to be further researched.

Purpose

The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was to explore the

experiences of teachers in implementing an antibullying program in the classroom.

Continued research regarding barriers and challenges from teachers’ standpoint presented

from previous research (e.g., Brown, 2014; Lester & Maldonado, 2013, 2014; Uzoma,

2019) needs to be addressed to discover how to effectively implement the programs in

each school throughout the United States.

Hirschstein et al. (2007) discussed how using a specific program, called Steps to

Respect, was used to observe students and teachers trying to implement this bullying

program. The research provides insight on teachers’ difficulty in implementing the

program consistently, and the data is collected from two suburban districts in the Pacific

Northwest of the United States. The importance and purpose of this study helped me to

define my study of barriers and challenges of implementation of antibullying programs in

middle schools.

A qualitative phenomenological method was used to gather experiences from the

teachers in various middle schools across central North Carolina, in the United States.

This approach involved two focus groups so I could gather the data by using qualitative

questions for each focus group discussing barriers and challenges they face trying to

implement antibullying programs in their classroom during bullying situations. Based on

the research question, a qualitative approach, through focus groups, was the best way to

get the most effective feedback and generate responses through the collaboration with

peers. Using a qualitative approach outlined interests, recognize strengths, and emphasize

barriers and challenges from a collection of peers collaborating to provide their personal

experiences. This qualitative phenomenological study explored the attitudes, opinions,

and experiences of bullying social situations. The two focus groups examined the

teachers’ knowledge to develop ideas within the group’s dynamic (see Ravitch & Carl,

2016). The resolution is to find the barriers and challenges teachers face when

implementing antibullying program initiatives in the classroom settings when dealing

with bullying situations.

Research Question

RQ1. What are the barriers and challenges teachers experience in

implementing antibullying programs in the classroom setting?

Conceptual Framework

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory of development is a

framework regarding the risk and protective factors with the involvement of school

bullying during childhood and adolescence (Espelage, 2014). The model has also been

called the social-ecological model, which focuses on understanding how children’s

characteristics interact with environmental settings to promote or prevent victimization

and perpetration (Espelage, 2014). This framework related to the research study regarding

antibullying programs and what challenges the teachers face. An example would be

teacher or staff perceptions of the school environment and opportunities for professional

development around bullying, school violence, or school climate (Espelage, 2014). This

qualitative phenomenological method of inquiry was a design of gaining an

understanding of barriers and challenges from the teachers. This social-ecological theory

approach helped me address the risks and protective factors with school bullying in

childhood and adolescence (see Espelage, 2014). Yoon and Bauman (2014) discussed

another aspect of the social ecology of bullying regarding teacher responses to bullying

and their role in improving bullying behaviors. A theory of planned behaviors to

understand teachers’ actions in bullying incidents. As behaviors are guided by intentions,

this theory looked at teacher responses and attitudes to bullying as a predictor of their

behavior in response to bullying situations.

Allen (2010) gave an informational review of research exploring issues of

classroom management, bullying in the classroom, and teacher practices from a

socialecological perspective. Allen’s goal was to see if there is a link between classroom

management, bullying, and teacher practices in which she found several connections, but

further research needs to be explored. Bullying has a multitude of factors to make it

present. One of those factors is classroom management by teachers and responding

inappropriately to students’ behavior. As stated earlier, Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)

ecological systems theory identified the risk and protective factors with the involvement

of school bullying during childhood and adolescence (Espelage, 2014); it would be right

to say that if teachers cannot manage students’ behavior, then those risk factors for

bullying will increase.

Nature of the Study

This qualitative phenomenological research was designed to address the

theoretical population of teachers across the country in rural areas teaching middle school

academia. However, I used a group of volunteers of eight middle school teachers in

central North Carolina as the population sample target (see Trochim, 2006). The sample

frame is from various middle schools, with up to two participant teachers from each of

the schools for a total of 10 to 14 teachers. If needed, we will use all ten schools in the

district to gather the required data for the study. The schools are in central North Carolina.

The sample included female and male middle school teachers from different subject areas

and of different teaching experience. Recruiting included gaining permission from the

administrators of two NC teacher websites to post on the websites to obtain participants

by presenting the research study as a flyer for teachers to volunteer as participants. I used

a qualitative approach using two focus groups to collect data on barriers and challenges

teachers encounter when implementing the antibullying program in the classroom as well

as the teachers’ strengths from the several middle schools across central North Carolina in

the United States. I examined the teachers’ perspective of barriers and challenges to

implementing antibullying programs in middle schools. The research provided an avenue

for understanding of barriers, challenges, strengths, and weaknesses regarding the

antibullying programs from the instructor’s point of view. This can provide

administrators, counselors, other staff members, parents, and community members

knowledge on how to assist and address the barriers and challenges to proper

implementation of the programs.

The primary source of data was the responses of the teachers’ experiences to the

structured focus group questions I asked. The structured questions were completed in

focus groups with licensed teachers with at least 3 years of teaching experience in the

middle school setting. There were two focus groups containing four middle school

teachers, from the middle schools in central North Carolina. The middle school teachers’

responses to the research questions addressed the barriers and challenges for teachers in

the implementation of antibullying programs within the classroom setting. A list of

additional questions associated with antibullying programs and the struggle of

implementation within the classroom was addressed within the two focus groups for

further data. I used thematic analysis to identify, define, and code the themes into

categories for analysis with some themes linked to supporting quotes.

Secondary sources of data were from data collected and located in Bullying

Prevention and Intervention Plan from Public Schools (Pearson, 2012) and data collected

from the schools on bullying.

Definitions

Aggression: Aggressive behaviors show a lack of compassion due to the bully's

inability to recognize emotions; however, they are often proficient at reading and

analyzing the social cues of others and is perceived as an unpremeditated reaction to an

event (Studer & Mynatt, 2015; Ybarra et al., 2019).

Antibullying Program: The Olweus Bullying Prevention, a multilevel,

multicomponent school-based program designed to prevent or reduce bullying in

elementary, middle, and junior high schools (students ages 6 to 15 years old). The

program attempts to restructure the existing school environment to reduce opportunities

and rewards for bullying (Olweus, 1994).

Bullying: A subtype of aggressive behavior, which is deliberate, aim to harm and

gain power over the victim, which can include physical, verbal, and social abuse, and

repeatedly occurs over time (Barnes et al., 2012; Hornby, 2016; Rosen et al., 2016;

Olweus, 1994; Ybarra et al., 2019).

Assumptions

The assumptions for this study included that the participants would be honest in

responding to the questions of their experiences during the focus groups as they are the

only sources of primary data. The next assumption was that the participants have

experiences of barriers and challenges of implementing an antibullying program within

the classroom. The third assumption was there is an adequate number of participants to

describe their experiences with enough detail as data for this study.

Scope and Delimitations

The first delimitation was the participants (teachers) were only those who were

middle school teachers and have had bullying in their classroom. No other social group

was included in this study. The focus of this study was on a specific population,

transferability increased by providing complete details of the methodology implemented

in this study. In this aspect, researchers in the future may replicate the method for use

within another population.

Limitations

Focus groups have advantages and disadvantages for their use. Ravitch and Carl

(2016) provided numerous examples of advantages and disadvantages to use focus groups

for this design. One key limitation is the reluctance to share their experience and

perspectives in a group format. The structure and grouping of the participants can affect

the collection of data. An example is principals or administration who are grouped with

teachers. Participants are less likely to provide their full experiences and hinder the

gathering of data.

Additional limitations of this research included recruiting the necessary

participants from each of the middle schools for quality focus groups. The goal for this

research was 14 total participants; however, a limitation was only eight teachers

participated overall. Barriers included all participants were at home during the focus

groups due to the global pandemic and the focus groups were facilitated via video

conferencing. A barrier could be my not asking the questions in the manner to gain the

full data needed for this research, or the limited number of questions prepared for the

focus groups. Using the same focus group questions for both groups had the potential to

be a barrier due to the inability to adjust the questions for the second group. Personal bias

may be a limitation due to self-reporting the experiences of the teacher's encounter.

Further, a limitation could be of no updated material from the participating middle

schools to incorporate from the 2012 Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan

Handbook. Finally, the grade levels are limited to sixth through eighth grade teachers.

Significance

This qualitative research filled a gap by focusing on the challenges educators face

when implementing an antibullying program in middle schools in North Carolina in the

United States. According to Cunningham et al. (2016), the barriers and challenges faced

by middle school teachers when implementing antibullying programs are under

researched. The results from the data collected may provide insight into teachers’ barriers

and challenges to assist in overcoming struggles of implementation and sustainability of

the antibullying programs (see Cunningham et al., 2016; Letendre et al., 2016; Lester &

Maldonado, 2013). The results may strengthen the comprehension of administrators when

establishing professional development for all middle school teachers striving for a safer

environment for children by minimizing bullying behaviors to provide positive outcomes.

This understanding of barriers and challenges can lead to improving the sustainability of

antibullying programs and improving safety and security within school settings (Espelage

et al., 2014). The research may lead to opportunities for positive behavior change within

children of all ages, enhancing their development and understanding of relationships

among people to improve society. Further expanding on the developing interests of

community stakeholders and administration to create a climate of improving the school,

community, and all those involved can be a key improvement to the implementation of

antibullying programs (Espelage et al., 2014).

Gaining vast comprehension of prevention and intervention measures (Milsolm

and Gallo 2006), knowledge, and understanding of detecting bullying (Strohmeier and

Noam 2012), as well as learning bullying characteristics (Smith and Ananiadou 2003),

can assist schools, classrooms, students, parents, and teachers in reducing aggressive

behavior in children. This can also play a key role in eliminating the barriers and

challenges teachers face in the classroom with implementation.

Summary

Bullying in schools is severe and prevalent (Uzoma, 2019). A gap in the literature

remains concerning understanding the barriers and challenges teachers face when

implementing an antibullying program in the classroom. The information in this chapter

sets the stage for the current world problem of bullying in schools. As stated throughout

this section, the importance is gaining an understanding of the barriers and challenges

teachers face and how to use those experiences to benefit and hopefully provide positive

social change within the school district central North Carolina. Teachers' perception in

relation to their barriers and challenges of implementing the bullying programs in the

classroom has not been explored thoroughly. In this study, several middle school teachers'

experiences will be analyzed to enhance the literature on this topic. Therefore, a

qualitative phenomenological study is used to investigate these perceptions, experiences,

barriers, and challenges.

Chapter 2 is comprised of the literature search strategy, conceptual framework,

and key concepts and further identifies the gap in the literature and expand the basis for

this study. Chapter 3 consists of the methodology and encompasses the research design

and rationale, the role of the researcher, participant selection, recruitment, and

instrumentation, data analysis plan, and ethical procedures. Chapter 4 involves the

setting, demographics, data collection and analysis, evidence of trustworthiness, and

results. Finally, Chapter 5 consists of the interpretation of findings, limitations of the

study, recommendations, implications, and conclusion.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Bullying is a growing concern within schools across the world (Bradshaw, 2015;

Wojcik and Mondry, 2018; Blust, 2018). Olweus developed a program in 1983 to address

bullying in schools after three boys committed suicide. In the 1990s, he continued

working on the project to implement and evaluate the program in the United States (The

Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, 2005). After the Columbine shooting in Colorado

in 1999, bullying has been studied more in-depth, and many antibullying programs are in

action across the United States (Goldstein, 2013; Sims-Jones, 2017). This study addresses

the barriers and challenges teachers face in the classroom during bullying situations when

implementing the antibullying program adopted by the school district. The goal was to

identify the barriers and challenges from the teachers' perception in the middle schools in

central North Carolina. Educators can be the key to addressing bullying by implementing

antibullying programs as a foundation for students.

The literature presents a lack of understanding of the barriers and challenges

encountered by middle school teachers who use antibullying programs in the classroom

setting (Blust, 2016; Cunningham et al., 2016; Dake et al., 2003; Marshall et al., 2009;

Sims-Jones, 2017). There is research around interventions and teachers' attitudes toward

bullying (see Byers et al., 2016; Yoon and Bauman 2014) and violence within the school

to generate strategies; however, the research does not address teacher's barriers and

challenges to implementation which is the purpose of this study. The literature provides a

wide range of information relating to the definition of bullying (e.g., Salkind 2008),

violence and aggression concerning bullying (e.g., Esplage et al., 2014; Gaffney et al.,

2019; Menesini and Salmivalli 2017), students' perspective and input of bullying (e.g.,

Chalamandaris et al., 2017), victimization of students (e.g., Garandeau et al., 2016), data

from other countries (e.g., Cunningham et al.; 2016, Hornby 2016; Horton, 2019), or

input from school personnel, staff or administration in urban areas (e.g., Bradshaw et al.,

2013; Letendre et al., 2016; Lester and Maldonado, 2013). However, there is limited

information on the specifics of barriers and challenges for teachers in the classroom

(Blust, 2016; Cunningham et al., 2016; Dake et al., 2003; Marshall et al., 2009;

SimsJones, 2017). The literature presented in this study is to explain the importance and

need to understand the problems associated with bullying in the classroom entirely.

In this literature review I aimed to synthesize the literature on school bullying, the

overall view of bullying prevention programs within the world, classroom management as

it pertains to bullying, and the importance of teacher training; to see where that stands

with teachers' barriers challenges implementing bullying prevention programs. The

chapter also includes the conceptual framework I used to guide the study. I define key

terms and concepts. Other topics are school policies, victimization and violence,

administrators and staff input, and essential tools for successful bullying prevention

programs. The chapter begins with an overview of my literature search strategies.

Literature Search Strategies

The research was conducted using the following databases and search engines to

conduct the literature search: PsycINFO, PsychARTICLES, PsycBOOKS, PsycEXTRA,

SAGE Journals, Science Direct, Google Scholar, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses

Global, and SAGE Knowledge. The list of keyword searches were teacher perceptions,

bullying, adolescents, middle school, violence, bullying in schools, educators, barriers,

challenges, school bullying programs, antibullying programs, phenomenological study,

school policies, teachers’ barriers and challenges, implementation of bullying programs,

ecological systems theory, Bronfenbrenner, and understanding bullying. When conducting

my literature search, only a few recent articles were found regarding the implementation

of antibullying programs or barriers and challenges for teachers. Recent and relevant

dissertations from Walden University were used to assist with the literature review along

with current research of journal articles that came from the Google Scholar search engine.

From my review of the literature, few researchers have addressed the barriers and

challenges of teachers when implementing an antibullying program in the classroom. In

the literature review, I explored the problem of bullying programs, the efficacy and

efficiency of bullying programs, the policies of schools across the globe, lack of training

for teachers, and the unidentified idea of implementing the bullying programs in the

classroom and its progress as well as various other problems with bullying prevention

programs. Topics also in this literature review are definitions of covert and overt bullying,

victimization, antibullying programs, violence, and aggression, students' perception of

bullying, teachers' roles and attitudes toward bullying, classroom management regarding

bullying, and Administration perspectives of bullying. Also, I examined the conceptual

framework for the present study and methods used.

Conceptual Framework

Bronfenbrenner's (1979) ecological systems theory of development is a

framework regarding the risk and protective factors with the involvement of school

bullying during childhood and adolescence (Espelage, 2014). The model has also been

called the social-ecological model, which focuses on understanding how children's

characteristics interact with environmental settings to promote or prevent victimization

and perpetration (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Espelage, 2014). This framework related to my

research study regarding antibullying programs and what challenges teachers face. An

example would be teacher or staff perceptions of the school environment and

opportunities for professional development around bullying, school violence, or school

climate (Espelage, 2014). A qualitative phenomenological method of inquiry was used to

gain an understanding of barriers and challenges from the teachers in the classroom

setting. This social-ecological theory approach helped address the risks and protective

factors with school bullying in childhood and adolescence (see Bronfenbrenner, 1979;

Espelage, 2014). Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory of human development has five

levels: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem. This

model emphasizes the importance of the developing person in his/her environment.

Bronfenbrenner was interested in the human development of children within their natural

environment, not in controlled or artificial situations (Salkind, 2019). Each of the levels

defined is structured to fit within one another. The first level is the microsystem, which

reflects the live setting that contains the person. This system also changes throughout the

day as settings in our environment change. This level has three dimensions: physical

space and activities, people and their roles, and interaction between the people. The

second level is the mesosystem, which focuses on the relationship between the different

settings the person is in during different times of development. This system focuses on

interrelations among the microsystems.

The third level is the exosystem. This system is a specific set of social structures

that do not involve the person but still impact their development by influence or

determines what goes on in the microsystem of the developing person (Bronfenbrenner,

1979). An example could be the teacher's lounge or grandma's house; it is an indirect

impact on their development. The fourth element is the macrosystem. This level consists

of all the items from all three levels; additionally, the general philosophy or culture

orientation of which the person lives (Salkind, 2019). This system displays the

importance of the role in our social world and its influence on us (Salkind, 2019). The

final level of this model is described as chronosystem (Espelage, 2014). This system

reflects the consistency or change of the person, like life events, and the transformation of

the environment, like family structure changes throughout life. Some studies have shown

when these life changes occur, and this may result in adverse outcomes in youth like peer

aggression (Espelage 2014; Hornby 2016; Huang et al, 2018; Ybarra et al., 2019).

Allen (2010) presented an informational review of research exploring issues of

classroom management, bullying in the classroom, and teacher practices from a

socialecological perspective. Her goal was to see if there is a link between classroom

management, bullying, and teacher practices in which she found several connections, but

further research needs to be explored. Bullying has a multitude of factors to make it

present. One of those factors is classroom management by teachers and responding

inappropriately to students' behavior in contributing to adding labels of behavior to

students (Wojcik & Mondry, 2018). An application of Bronfenbrenner's (1979) ecological

systems theory regarding the risk and protective factors with the involvement of school

bullying during childhood and adolescence would be to say that if teachers cannot

manage students' behavior, then those risk factors for bullying will increase.

Hornby (2016) examined the ecological approach as it refers to bullying

interventions in middle schools. He provides examples of strategies and interventions at

the teacher level, school level, community level, and society level. From the ecological

approach from Bronfenbrenner, and because bullying is impacted by influences of the

exosystem, which again indirectly impacts the person's life, effective bullying prevention

strategies and interventions are needed at each level of the ecological approach to

reducing bullying (Hornby, 2016). Teachers play a significant role in preventing bullying

in the classroom. Strategies would include implementation of classroom principles on

respectful relationships, which would include rules on unacceptable bullying, modeling

relationship skills, and assertive behaviors of nonviolent conflict resolution and learning

to be active listeners and effective problem solvers (Hornby, 2016).

To adequately explain and organize the present phenomenological study's

findings, a framework that addresses the interaction between environment, experiences,

behavior, and both direct and indirect influences was necessary. Further, the data obtained

regarding the teachers' barriers and challenges of implementing bullying programs will

add to the development of ecological systems theory due to the sufficient exploration and

environment examined.

Literature Review Related to Key Variables and Concepts

In the literature evaluation, I reviewed the available literature dealing with the

variations in the definition of bullying and violence and aggression. Additional concepts

including students' perception of bullying, teachers' roles, and attitudes toward bullying

along with administrations perceptions of bullying in the school, teachers' barriers and

challenges within other countries, assessing the various approaches of intervention

methods and strategies through the viewpoints of other researchers and finally, addressing

bullying prevention as social change.

A study conducted of educators in Canada exposed some barriers and challenges

they are facing concerning effectiveness in implementing antibullying programs

including a lack of training, an inability to detect if there is bullying, a lack of time

allowed to implement the program, and an inability to sustain successfully (Cunningham

et al., 2016). It is not known how or why these barriers and challenges affect the

implementation of antibullying programs in middle schools, and research from teachers'

perspective is limited (Blust, 2016; Bradshaw et al., 2013; Brown, 2014; DeOrnellas &

Spurgin, 2017; Sims-Jones, 2017; Waters & Mashburn, 2017), which have made the

progression of these programs difficult.

The literature presents a lack of understanding of the barriers and challenges

encountered by middle school teachers who use antibullying programs in the classroom

setting. There is research around interventions and educators' attitudes toward bullying

and violence within the school to generate strategies; however, it does not address

educator's barriers and challenges to implementation, which is the purpose of this study.

There is limited research from the teacher's perspective on the implementation of

antibullying programs in general. The understanding of barriers and challenges will assist

in minimizing bullying behaviors while providing an opportunity to instill positive

outcomes in middle school settings, which will need to be further researched.

Bullying

In 1982, a significant change took place regarding bullying (Olweus, 1993). Three

adolescent boys in Norway committed suicide due to severe bullying by peers which

began a reaction of the public and began a campaign against bullying/victim problems in

the Norwegian countries (Olweus, 1993). Bullying, as defined by Olweus (1993), is when

a student is exposed repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or

more other students. The meaning of a negative response was as when someone

intentionally inflicts or attempts to inflict injury or discomfort upon another. This is

implied as aggressive behavior (Olweus, 1993). Researchers (e.g., Cornell & Limber,

2015; Hymel & Swearer, 2015; Letendre et al., 2016; Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017;

Studer & Mynatt, 2015) provided three characteristics to define bullying since it is a

broad concept and can be controversial within its meaning. These characteristics include

(a) intentional aggression, (b) a power imbalance between aggressor and victim, and (c)

repetition of the aggressive behavior (Olweus, 1993). Another research study describes

bullying as a subtype of aggressive behavior that is a deliberate and repeated act by a

person who has more power than the victim, which includes physical, verbal, and social

abuse (Ybarra et al., 2019). Bullying is a repeated act and has a strong imbalance of

power over another person. Rosen et al. (2017) completed a research study of a teachers'

perception of student aggressors and victims. The study took a different look at bullying

and determined to bully is a subtype of aggressive behavior. It was also stated for the

conduct to be considered bullying, conditions must be met: the action aims to harm the

victim, the action continues over time, and the bully possesses greater power than the

victim. This definition of bullying falls with many researchers and how it can show

prevalence in schools.

The state of North Carolina defines bullying behaviors in the General Statutes,

Article 29C, under School Violence Prevention, Section 115C-407.15 Bullying and

harassing behavior as

Any pattern of gestures or written, electronic or verbal communications, or any

physical act or any threatening communication, that takes place on school

property, at any school-sponsored function, or on a school bus, and that (1) places

a student or school employee in actual and reasonable fear of harm to his or her

person or damage to his or her property; or (2) creates or is certain to create a

hostile environment by substantially interfering with or impairing a student's

educational performance, opportunities, or benefits.

Article 29C also goes on to define a "hostile environment" and what the bullying and

harassing behaviors would include but not limited to,

Acts reasonably perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived

differentiating characteristics, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national

origin, gender, socioeconomic status, academic status, gender identity, physical

appearance, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, developmental, or sensory

disability, or by association with a person who has or is perceived to have one or

more of the following characteristics. (b) no student or school employee shall be

subjected to bullying or harassing behavior by school employees or students. (c)

no person shall engage in any act of reprisal or retaliation against a victim,

witness, or a person with reliable information about an act of bullying or

harassing behavior. (d) a school employee who has witnessed or has reliable

information that a student or school employee has been subject to any act of

bullying or harassing behavior shall report the incident to the appropriate school

official. (e) a student or volunteer who has witnessed or has reliable information

that a student or school employee has been subject to any act of bullying or

harassing behavior should report the incident to the appropriate school official.

(2009-212, s. 1; 2009-570, s.39.) Section 115C-407.17 Prevention of school

violence. Schools shall develop and implement methods and strategies for

promoting school environments that are free of bullying or harassing behavior.

(2009-212, s. 1; 2009-570, s. 39.)

The struggling concern is if there is a general statue in the state of North Carolina

defining the importance of bullying and harassing behavior and stating that each school

administrative unit shall adopt a policy prohibiting bullying and harassing behavior as

well as implement it in the school; how are students still being bullied in many middle

schools across the state? The goal is to gain that understanding from the teachers' who

interact with the students the most.

Violence and Aggression

As stated earlier, bullying is a subcomponent of aggressive behaviors (Rosen et

al., 2017), and violence is a subcomponent of aggression; however, a students' perception

of aggression is viewed as less severe in some instances than bullying itself (Ybarra et al.,

2019). What was considered typical by this group of students was verbal and emotional

victimization. A definition of aggression is "just like anger" as posed by a student and

bullying as "a deliberate attack" (Ybarra et al. 2019). When discussing aggression,

violence, and bullying from students' perspective, bullying is far worse than any

aggression towards each other. A typical bully usually will hold a negative opinion of

others, has difficulty resolving problems, and the family can be hostile, struggling with

poor parenting styles and authoritarian discipline flairs. The bullies who observe these

aggressive acts also positively view violence and model their need for power and

enjoyment in hurting others (Studer and Mynatt, 2015). Aggressive behaviors also show a

lack of compassion due to the bully's inability to recognize emotions; however, they are

often proficient at reading and analyzing the social cues of others (Studer and Mynatt,

2015). That specific ability relates to being able to choose the most vulnerable student

and have the talent to encourage others to join in the negative behaviors (Studer and

Mynatt, 2015). As stated earlier by a student, bullying is "a deliberate attack," which says

something about how persuasive bullying is in our classrooms and schools. Menesini and

Salmivalli (2017) provided knowledge and interventions with antibullying programs

concerning violence, risk factors, and outcomes of bullying and victimization. This is a

literature study of effective interventions in middle schools and conveys essential tools

needed for teachers about violence and risk factors.

Students' Perception of Bullying

Ybarra et al. (2019) provided an updated view from students on their version of

their definition of bullying and aggression. The students' agreed it was physical, mental,

and verbal victimization, an imbalance of power, bias and discrimination, repeated

behaviors, lack of fairness, and the level of seriousness characterized as severe.

Chalamandaris et al. (2017) provide information from a student's perspective regarding

how teachers implement antibullying programs and what challenges they see using a

specific antibullying program. This article is helpful but limited since it is from the

student's viewpoint and not the teachers; however, it is a starting point of barriers and

challenges that could assist teachers with implementation. Students in previous research

(Milsom and Gallo, 2006) from a national study in 2001, 30% of the 15,600 students

asked reported being bullied. It also reports males are more frequently involved in

bullying or being bullied than females, which that statistic has not changed much over the

past 20 years (Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017; Ybarra et al., 2019). Students are still

experiencing the same types of bullying, both covert and overt (Barnes et al., 2012;

Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017; Ybarra et al., 2019), whether in or outside the classroom.

Although the research on the student's perspective provided relevant information on how

and why these programs are not being as productive, it does not address the teachers'

perceptions of how and why these programs are not implemented well in the classroom

setting. Strohmeier & Noam (2012) report one avenue educators can prevent bullying, in

the long run, would be to apply whole school evidenced-based programs that entail the

school to engage in a development project to change the practices and culture in the

school over time.

Teachers' Role and Attitudes

The role of the educator regarding bullying programs is essential to positive

outcomes within the programs (Letendre et al., 2016). The role of teachers and schools is

to provide the students with a high quality education, social skills, and helping them

succeed (Lester and Maldonado, 2013). The role of the teacher is to work with the

administration and counselors collaboratively to develop a plan of action that will yield

positive results of decreased bullying (Lester and Maldonado, 2013).

One of the leading roles researched is effectiveness, and skillful classroom

management is the most helpful anti-bullying strategy as well as additional training and

understanding of how to intervene effectively in a bullying situation (Yoon et al., 2016).

Additionally, the teachers' role is to provide sensitive responses to students'

socialeconomic needs was a predictor of bullying situations (Yoon et al., 2016). One big

key to the teachers' role and attitude is their personal experiences with bullying situations

as a youth. They are more likely to affect their estimation of bullying situations and their

responses to the bullies and victims (Yoon et al., 2016).

In other research (Rosen et al., 2017; Yoon & Bauman, 2014), a significant role

for teachers needed more knowledge of bullying to be effective. It also went on to say

teachers' responses to the bullying situation and behaviors affect the bullying behavior of

the students. A critical role for the teachers in the implementation of the bullying

interventions and contribute primarily to the overall school climate (Rosen et al., 2017).

Classroom management (Yoon et al., 2016) plays a role in the effectiveness of bullying

interventions and reducing bullying behavior. Allen (2010) researched this specific area

of classroom management as it relates to bullying behaviors. Allen (2010) gives an

informational review of research exploring issues of classroom management, bullying in

the classroom, and teacher practices from a social-ecological perspective. Her goal was to

see if there is a link between classroom management, bullying, and teacher practices in

which she found several connections, but further research needs to be explored. Bullying

has a multitude of factors to make it present. One of those factors is classroom

management by teachers and responding inappropriately to students' behavior.

Administration Reflections of Bullying

Bradshaw et al. (2013) provided a nationwide quantitative study of teachers and

professional staff of 5000 National Education Association members on their perception of

bullying and the need for additional training on bullying and school wide policies. This

study concludes that teachers were involved in the policies at their school but needed

more training on cyberbullying, bullying related to sexual orientation, gender issues, and

racial issues. Other conclusions were that there is also a great need for professional

development for both teachers and professional staff. The importance of staff

development and school policies within the bullying programs help reduce all types of

bullying among middle school students. Brown (2014) provided information in which the

school system's policies needed to be reviewed and discussed more often, and further

professional development in the area was a significant problem.

The increased amount of staff connectedness was associated with greater comfort

with intervening in bullying situations. Also, having resources about bullying, training on

the school's bullying policy, and being involved with bullying prevention efforts

significantly improved the area of intervening by staff members (Lindstrom Johnson,

2018; O'Brennan et al., 2014).

An overall view would be to say the perception of bullying by the administration

and staff is just as essential and vital to the school climate as the teachers' perception.

Collaboratively working together to reduce overall bullying in the school system is

imperative (Letendre et al., 2016).

Teachers' Perceptions of Barriers from other Countries

Many other countries, for example, Finland, Turkey, Australia, England, and

Canada, have worked to develop and understand how bullying affects their school

systems in their countries (Cunningham et al., 2016; Goryl et al., 2013; Hymel et al.,

2014; Smith & Ananiadou, 2003; Wojcik & Helka, 2019). There are other countries ahead

of the United States regarding bullying in the schools, but the researchers listed above

provided the most recent information for this study. Cunningham et al. (2016) provided

valuable information from the teachers' perspective on the difficulty of implementing

antibullying programs in Canada. The researchers' purpose was to understand the factors

limiting the effectiveness of the antibullying programs in middle schools. This study is

similar to the current research to understand the limits of efficiency and evaluate a

comparison of those factors to develop social change.

Hymel et al. (2014) focused on the group phenomenon of bullying and the effects

in the school environment, family, community, and society. Goryl et al. (2013) focused on

the teachers' understanding and attitudes toward bullying in Australia. This study focused

on the teachers' view of bullying, and better understood the policy and procedures to help

manage to bully. Another study from Australia (Barnes et al., 2012) focused on the

different types of bullying being covert and overt bullying. Their challenges were

interventions and how to stop both types of bullying in the school system. Part of the

issue is not a clear understanding of their school policy, not enough knowledge of the

program, not enough knowledge of what bullying is, their personal experiences with

bullying as a child, and not knowing when to intervene when bullying happens to their

students. The continued research is to gain an understanding of bullying programs and

how to provide a positive climate for children.

Students' perceptions (e.g., Ybarra et al., 2019) on school bullying and teachers'

perceptions (e.g., Cunningham et al., 2016) collaborated may help determine the

effectiveness of these school-based bullying prevention programs in the United States.

Numerous research provided interventions strategies and ideas (e.g., Brown, 2014;

Letendre et al., 2016; Milson & Gallo, 2005; O'Brennan et al., 2014; Rosen et al., 2017;

Studer & Mynatt, 2015; Uzoma, 2019; Ybarra et al., 2019), the list goes on and on. There

are also several key components from these researchers about interventions to reduce

bullying. The components mentioned often are teachers' lack of knowledge or

understanding of bullying (e.g., Uzoma, 2019; Yoon & Bauman, 2014; Yoon et al., 2016),

further training of how to manage bullying situations (e.g., Brown 2014; Bradshaw et al.,

2013; Milsom & Gallo, 2003; Uzoma, 2019), calling on family and communities to assist

in reducing students' behaviors (DeOrnellas & Spurgin, 2017;

Hornby, 2016), changing school environments (Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017; Studer &

Mynatt, 2015) and collaboration with staff and administration to help outside the

classroom (Letendre et al., 2016).

Summary and Conclusion

The literature review has provided a synthesis of background information of

perspectives of bullying from teachers, students, administration and staff members,

definitions of bullying and factors related to it, interventions, and the struggle with those

interventions not only in the United States but throughout other countries as well and the

conceptual framework associated with this study.

Regarding the definition of bullying, the researchers in this study all agreed and

reported the same characteristics of imbalance of power, repeated behaviors, and intent to

hurt someone else. The interventions suggested to the idea of bullying related to the

teachers' lack of knowledge of bullying, lack of professional training, and a need for

collaboration of all school personnel, family, and community to change bullying in the

school. Although the current study focuses on the teachers' perception of challenges to

implementation of these programs, I learned from the literature, the students' perspective

is just as vital and important to reduce bullying (Ybarra et al., 2019) and gain a better

understanding from the students' view will help to minimize challenges for the teachers.

The present study addressed the gap in the literature of challenges encountered by

teachers by generating other aspects and factors that all relate to the teachers' challenges

of implementation of programs in the classroom. The elements of gaining additional

knowledge of bullying, having further training of professional development throughout

the year, classroom management, understanding bullying behaviors and how to intervene,

and gaining knowledge of the school policy and antibullying program within the school

and how to implement it in the classroom are some of the factors presented. Additional

information that is beneficial to the success of the reduction of bullying in middle schools

comes from the students themselves. Many programs have been developed and are

implemented in schools across the United States and globally. However, continued

bullying, especially in the middle school setting, is what this current study addresses.

This study focused on an area in central North Carolina, where bullying continues in

middle schools daily. A Bullying Prevention Handbook is provided in the schools, and the

school counselor oversees any issues with bullying. When bullying happens in the

classroom, the teacher is the first to recognize, stop, and redirect the behavior. Here is

where the gap in the literature comes into play in which one article was found out of

Canada to find out what limitation's teachers are having to effectively implement the

prevention of bullying in the classroom (Cunningham et al., 2016). Chapter 3 offers an

extensive deliberation on the type of exploration method used for this study. This

exploration will consist of a conceptual tradition of analysis, study sample, and

population, the method of data collection and the procedures and instruments, data

management procedures, problems of bias and ethical deliberations, researcher's role,

duty, and prejudice, participants' bias, and finally protections for the participants.

Chapter 3: Research Method

Bullying is a growing concern within schools across the world (Bradshaw, 2015).

Educators can be the key to addressing bullying by implementing antibullying programs

as a foundation for students. The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study was

to explore the experiences of middle school teachers in North Carolina implementing an

antibullying program in the classroom. Continued research regarding barriers and

challenges from teachers' standpoint presented from previous research (e.g., Brown,

2014; Lester & Maldonado, 2013, 2014) needs to be addressed to discover how to

effectively implement the programs in each school throughout the United States. A study

conducted of teachers in Canada exposed some barriers and challenges they are facing

about effectiveness in implementing antibullying programs include lack of training,

harder to detect if bullying, the time allowed to implement the program, and inability to

sustain the program successfully (e.g., Cunningham et al., 2016). It is not known how or

why these barriers and challenges affect the implementation of antibullying programs in

middle schools, and research from teachers' perspective is limited (Bradshaw et al., 2013;

Brown, 2014; Waters & Mashburn, 2017) which has made the progression of these

programs difficult. Most of the research has focused either on student input, data from

other countries, or victimization of students rather than on teachers' perspectives of

barriers and challenges (Cunningham et al., 2009; Cunningham et al., 2016; Letendre et

al., 2016).

To address the research problem and answer the research question, I used a

qualitative phenomenological method to gather the relevant data and performing data

processing and analysis of themes. The details of the method and the study design are

provided in this chapter. This chapter includes a description of the research design and

rationale, the role of the researcher, methodology, participant selection, instruments,

measures of recruitment, participation and data collection, data analysis plan, issues of

trustworthiness, ethical procedures, and a summary.

Research Design and Rationale

This study was a qualitative phenomenological study of the barriers and

challenges of educators to implement an antibullying program in the classroom. The

phenomenon explored was the teachers' perceptions of their challenges and barriers when

implementing the antibullying program in middle school classrooms in central North

Carolina as well as their recommendations for how to improve the classroom situation,

program, and procedures. The research question (RQ1) was as follows:

RQ1. What are the barriers and challenges teachers experience in implementing

antibullying programs in the classroom setting?

I determined that the qualitative phenomenological design was the most effective

design to answer the research questions. A qualitative phenomenological method was

used to explore the experiences of teachers from various middle schools across central

North Carolina, in the United States. This approach used two focus groups and I asked

qualitative questions for each focus group, discussing barriers and challenges they face

trying to implement antibullying programs in their classroom during bullying situations,

to collect data. Based on the research question, focus groups provided the most effective

feedback. In comparing focus groups and interviews, Nyumba et al. (2018) explained that

interviews are a more direct one-on-one dialogue with the participants, whereas, in focus

groups, the researcher is the facilitator of the group discussion and the researcher’s role is

peripheral role rather than direct. Using a qualitative approach allowed me to identify

interests, recognize strengths, and emphasize barriers and challenges from a collection of

peers collaborating to provide their personal experiences. In this qualitative

phenomenological study I explored the attitudes, opinions, and experiences of teachers

regarding implementing an antibullying program in the classroom setting. The two focus

groups were used to examine the teachers' knowledge to develop ideas within the group's

dynamic (see Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The purpose is to identify the barriers and

challenges faced by teachers in classroom settings when dealing with bullying situations.

I considered a quantitative or mixed methods approach with this study; however, a

quantitative study would not have allowed me to explore the personal and unique

descriptions of the participants’ experiences. A qualitative approach using focus groups

was needed to gain a deeper understanding of the teachers' experiences (see Lester and

Maldonado, 2013).

A qualitative approach is selected when the data collected involve lived

experience, narratives, perceptions, and other observational data that may not be visibly

measured (Uzoma, 2019). I selected the qualitative phenomenological design based on

the need to explore participants’ lived experiences and their perception of those

experiences (Burkholder et al., 2016). Phenomenology focuses directly on lived

experiences and perception and can deepen the understanding of why people react and

respond in particular ways (Burkholder et al., 2016).

In selecting a phenomenological design, the focus is on transcending the

individuals' reporting experience into patterns and themes (Burkholder et al., 2016).

Phenomenology was the correct design for the current study is due to the importance of

inclusive inquiry of the lived experience of the participants using focus groups (see

Moustakas, 1994). The research question aligns with the phenomenological design.

Phenomenology requires gathering people's perceptions based on their own words

(Burkholder et al., 2016).

Ethnography is describing different aspects of a culture and how that culture

influences behavior over a prolonged period (Burkholder et al., 2016). Bullying is more

about behavior more than a culture; therefore, the ethnographic design was rejected. The

case study method involves examining an issue in a specific location and using multiple

sources (Burkholder et al., 2016). My study addressed multiple locations and focused on

teachers' experiences, so the case study approach was not appropriate. Grounded theory

was not appropriate to this study because there was no need to develop a theory, and

narrative analysis is inappropriate because there was no need for qualitative data

presented in a story (see Burkholder et al., 2016). My study addressed human experience

from a small group of participants who are not bound by time or location (see Burkholder

et al., 2016). In conclusion, phenomenology was the most appropriate method to examine

the experiences of the participants and answer the research question.

Role of the Researcher

The role of the researcher is to gather, organize, and analyze perceptions from the

participants who experienced the phenomenon (Burkholder et al., 2016). This study's

primary focus was the need to understand from an educators’ perspectives, not students’,

why antibullying programs are not effective in the middle school setting. When reading

through the literature, I was surprised to find limited information from the teachers’

perspective concerning the implementation of school antibullying programs. My role as

the researcher was to explore the effectiveness of bullying programs in middle schools

through each participant’s lived experiences. My role was the primary instrument for

gathering and analyzing the focus groups' data. The data was hand coded per Gibbs and

Taylor's (2010) epoche data analysis process and Groenewald's (2004) method of analysis

to avoid researcher bias in the collection and analysis of participants' responses from the

focus groups.

Additionally, records were kept of the reflections, ideas, and thoughts about

possible connections among data and the participants. I conducted a review of responses

by the participants and review my conclusions to ensure bracketing of my experience (see

Burkholder et al., 2016). Bracketing is important to keep the participants' perceptions

intact and the researcher’s perceptions separate (Burkholder et al., 2016).

Managing Bias

In any research, some amount of bias will be present. However, one way to

eliminate bias is to ensure that none of the research participants are relatives, personal

friends, members of the researcher’s social network, or individuals who have professional

relationships with the researcher (Burkholder et al., 2016). Participants may be prone to

change their answers based on the researcher’s or colleagues' perceptions of bias.

Strategies to prevent researcher bias include avoid leading the participant with facial

expressions or gestures or questions that imply a perspective the researcher may want

them to share (Burkholder et al., 2016). Pushing the participants to continue answering

when they do not want to or sharing a personal story with the participants is also a way of

introducing bias (Burkholder et al., 2016).

Incentives

Participation was voluntary for this study; however, a $10 gift card was offered as

a token of appreciation for the participants' time and experiences provided. A further

incentive was their valued contribution of lived experiences to provide a better

understanding of their challenges in reducing bullying in the middle school setting.

Results will be shared with the participants and study site schools after the study is

published.

Methodology

Participant Selection Logic

The target population in this research was volunteer middle school educators from

Grades 6 through 8 in central North Carolina. The sample frame is from various middle

schools, for a total of eight total teachers. The recruitment for participants was limited,

having only eight participants. I used schools in central North Carolina to gather the

required data for the study.

The sample included female and male middle school teachers from different

subject areas and a range of years of service. This study as not dependent on an equal

number of male and female participants. Participation criteria included being a middle

school teacher with at least 3 years of experience from Grades 6 through 8 who have

experience with bullying in their classroom. Recruitment included emailing the

administrators from two websites, NC Teachers United and NC Teachers for Change. A

seven-question intake questionnaire was provided in the email for volunteers to be

recruited for the study. I split the teachers into two focus groups randomly so no teacher

from the same school will be in the same focus group. The focus groups consisted of

males and females from different academic disciplines and grade levels.

Instrumentation

Participants were ensured the opportunity to reflect and share their lived

experiences of the research topic. Providing this centered on developing and applying

pertinent questions to obtain the core of the participant's experience (see Mustakas, 1994).

This instrument of open-ended questions (Appendix A) allowed me to vary questions and

explore answers to generate rich complex ideas and lived experiences from each

participant. The focus group questions were designed to gather data on a personal

experience level and seek to understand the barriers and challenges of each participant

teacher. As a qualitative study, follow up questions and probe questions are additional

tools used to assist the participants in fully sharing their experience as a further collection

of relevant data (Ravitch and Carl, 2016).

Content Validity

Content validity is vitally important to ensure the focus group questions will elicit

the data necessary to answer the research questions. In conducting the focus group

discussions, a focus group protocol (Appendix B) was used along with the audiotape of

the focus group discussions to ensure the validity of the data collected. No additional

follow up questions were asked for collection of more relevant data. All the focus group

questions and focus group protocol were subjected to an expert review for improved

credibility of the focus group composed of my dissertation committee. The review

evaluated the focus group protocol, the structure, content, and wording of the items, along

with the questions, for the appropriateness of the study. The expert review feedback is the

basis for modifications to the focus group questions and focus group protocol. The

validity in qualitative research is a process that takes techniques and methods to achieve

the goal (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection

Recruitment

Recruitment included gaining permission from the administrators from two websites, NC

Teachers United and NC Teachers for Change to use those websites to elicit volunteers of

male and female willing to provide their experiences, barriers, and challenges of

implementing antibullying programs in the classroom. When conducting the recruitment

process for the participants, the researcher provided a flyer of the study on the two

websites for the teachers to volunteer as participants from various middle schools. A

seven question intake questionnaire (Appendix A) was provided in an email sent to the

volunteers recruited for the study. Exclusion criteria was determined by less than three

years of experience teaching middle school and incomplete intake form. Part of the

recruitment process, virtual focus groups were needed, was a protocol for the participants

to adhere to for confidentiality purposes.

Participation

The participant's identity and the identity of the school was labeled using letters to

identify the school and numbers to identify the participants. When conducting the focus

group discussions, a focus group protocol was used as a guide. The sampling strategy was

a purposeful random sampling of eight participants for this study. This type of sampling

strategy was chosen because of the flexible nature, which allows the researcher to

purposefully select the participants who have the necessary experiences in relation to the

phenomena being explored (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The focus groups had both male

and/or female represented from the middle schools.

Data Collection

The researcher facilitated and collected the data at both focus group discussions.

Each focus group discussion lasted between one and one and a half hours, depended on

the comfortability and willingness of the participants providing their experiences,

barriers, and challenges. The researcher presented the questions and had the discussions

digitally recorded to maximize engagement during the focus group discussion. As a result

of COVID-19, the focus groups were conducted virtually using Google Meet and

Doxy.Me. Part of the recruitment process, if virtual focus groups are needed, is a protocol

for the participants to adhere to for confidentiality purposes. The researcher recorded the

focus group discussions using the same process if in person.

After the focus group questions were complete, and the participants have no other

experiences, barriers, or challenges to share, the focus group discussion ended. The

researcher thanked all the participants for their time, valued experiences, and willingness

to participate in the study, and provided each participant with a $10 gift card. Reassurance

to the participants of their identity and the identity of the school remained unidentifiable

by using letters to identify the school and numbers to identify the participants. The

researcher may share results with participants to be determined later.

No follow up procedures took place after the focus groups were completed. The

saturation of data collected in the focus group discussions was the participants reporting

the same types of experiences for the questions presented.

Data Analysis Plan

The research was a qualitative methodology of a phenomenological design. The

researcher used an approach based on thematic analysis utilizing semi structured

questions related to the research questions to explore the participants’ responses. This

investigation emphasized the subjective recollection of the lived experiences of barriers

and challenges from teachers who are implementing antibullying programs in the

classroom. Groenewald (2004) refers to qualitative data analysis as explicit instead of

analysis by examining the data as a whole unit instead of breaking into parts. Groenewald

(2004) describes five steps for the explicitation process. (1) Examine the data as a whole

unit getting participants' perspectives. (2) Extract units of meaning from each participant.

(3) Cluster the meanings into themes. (4) Summarize and validate each participant

interview and modify it if needed. (5) Extract general and unique themes from all the

interviews and make a merged summary from where the themes emerged.

Using Groenewald’s (2004) approach, the data was collected in two focus group

discussions using semi structured questions related to the research questions for this study

to explore the participants’ responses. A focus group protocol (Appendix D) was used as a

guide for each focus group. It was digitally voice recorded using an Olympus digital

recorder and from the Google Meet platform. Groenewald’s second step of obtaining

meaning from each participant's experience was to provide valued data of emerging ideas

and phrases. Each focus group discussion was transcribed using MAXQDA software,

referring to Kuckartz and Radiker (2019) codebook. The researcher read and reread the

transcripts to begin the coding process. The researcher analyzed the data referring to the

single research question for this study of teachers describing their experiences,

challenges, and issues of bullying program implementation using MAXQDA computer

software to code the data using Kuckartz and Radiker (2019), Saldana (2016), and Taylor

and Gibbs (2010) data analysis process. The third step of Groenewald’s approach was to

gather the data coding with phrases, words, or emerging ideas representing a meaning or

identifying keywords used by the participants related to the questions and research

questions. Participants were validated for their experiences expressed. The final step was

categorizing emerging themes linked to quotes from the participants (Nyumba et al., 2018

and Rubin & Rubin, 2012). After the first focus group discussion was completed, a

preliminary analysis of meaning was extracted to identify themes or new findings that

enhanced future observations in the second focus group discussion.

The epoche process steps was used to avoid personal bias and prejudice of the

participants’ responses in answering the questions (Moustakas, 1994). As humans are the

primary instrument of collection for this study, they are particularly prone to some degree

of the process. The design of the process is to set aside prejudgments, biases, and any

preconceived ideas about things, to allow for new knowledge, events, things, and people

to enter as new.

Issues of Trustworthiness

Credibility

Trustworthiness, when discussing research, is the ability to be reliable for honest and

accurate research. The validity of the research falls in this category. To be transparent

with the process, documenting how the themes emerged, and being specific within the

coding and interpretation of the analysis of the data makes the research valid and truthful

(Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

The researcher, as the lone ethnographer, may consult with participants for follow

up in a way to validate the findings (Saldana, 2016). A way to check the trustworthiness is

to code as the data is transcribed, keep a reflective journal on the research, and check

your interpretations with the participants themselves (Saldana, 2016).

Transferability

Transferability or external validity is when the emerging themes are linked back to

the participants during the focus group discussions. Participants who engaged in the study

were ensured their confidentiality was certain and could share their experiences candidly

and without fear of being identified. Dependability of the research with an assurance of

the use of a review process, discussions, and observations was documented after each

focus group and kept in a research study journal.

Confirmability

Confirmability of the research suggests specific structured reflexivity exercises be

conducted throughout the research process (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Finally, the data is

kept in a protected database and will be discarded after ten years.

Ethical Procedures

Ethical values are a vital part of the foundation of a research study. Within this current

study, ethical procedures start with gaining access to the participants. Permission was

obtained by the administrators from two websites, NC Teachers United and NC Teachers

for Change to use those websites to gain participants. All the participants completed an

informed consent (Appendix B) not only as a requirement by the Institutional Review

Board but also as protection for the participants. All participants completed a consent

form and emailed the researcher “I consent” (Appendix B) from Walden University

Institutional Review Board (IRB) to participant in the study. All participants and the

middle schools will remain confidential to reduce any discrimination or retaliation. To

maintain the privacy of the participants and the schools involved, no names of the

participants or the schools were recorded; however, gender, years of experience, and class

taught were recorded as needed for the inclusion of the recruitment criteria.

Due to COVID-19, virtual focus groups were conducted using the platform

Google Meet or Zoom. A confidentiality protocol was in place to secure participant's

information and the data collected during the focus groups. The same consent form

(Appendix B) was completed, and the participants emailed researcher “I consent” to

participate in the study.

All participants were able to attend at the designated time via GoogleMeet and

DoxyMe platforms. Each participant was invited to the platform as part of the

participation.

All data was received by the researcher at each focus group. The researcher has

kept the data gathered from the focus groups in a secure location, and the researcher has

the only access to the data. The data will remain secure for five years, and then data will

be destroyed.

Summary

The purpose of this research was to explore the perceptions of teachers’

experiences, barriers, and challenges associated with the implementation of bullying

programs in the classroom. This section described the approach and procedures that was

used in this study. The chapter also presented the methods in the data collection and

interpretation, including the research design and rationale, the role of the researcher,

methodology which includes participant selection, instruments, measures of recruitment,

participation and data collection, data analysis plan, issues of trustworthiness, and ethical

procedures.

Two focus groups were facilitated by the researcher for data collection recruiting

eight middle school teachers. MAXQDA was used to transcribe, code, and analyze the

phenomenological data. The findings were validated with numerous sources of data, rich

accounts, and transcript review. Chapter 4 presents data analysis and the results of the

inquiry.

Chapter 4: Results

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the experiences of middle

school teachers in North Carolina implementing an antibullying program in the

classroom. To enhance my understanding of this phenomena explored by this purpose and

research question, I conducted two focus groups of four participants in each group for a

total of eight participants. All the participants met the requirements of inclusion, engaging

the focus group protocols specified in Chapter 3 (see Appendix C). After transcribing

each focus group with MAXQDA program and reviewed by myself, I began a thorough

analysis of the data, which will be described in detail in the sections in this chapter. Using

Groenewald!s (2004) approach for the phenomenological data analysis, the collective

core of the experiences of the participants emerged categories and subcategories which

then developed into multiple themes linked to quotes from the participants which

responded to and answered the research question.

In this chapter, I will present the categories and emergent themes. I will provide

information about the setting, the demographics, the data collection process, and analysis,

discuss the evidence of trustworthiness, and conclude with the results of this study. I will

finalize the chapter with a summary of the answers to my research question and provide a

transition to Chapter 5.

Setting

As described in detail in Chapter 3, I was able to conduct two focus groups

consisting of four teachers in each group from the privacy and security of using a remote

videoconferencing platform, GoogleMeet in a separate room in my home for privacy and

confidentiality for the participant. The participants were also in a private, separate room

in their home during the focus group. Both focus groups were recorded from the

GoogleMeet platform as well as using Olympus digital recorder. After receiving the

informed consent document by email prior to the focus groups, all participants agreed to

have the focus group recorded to ensure accuracy of the gathered data, providing me the

opportunity to focus on each participant as they shared their experiences. Each participant

understood they could withdraw from participation in this study at any time. No

participants expressed any discomfort or concern throughout the focus group process.

A circumstance that must be noted is that these focus groups were conducted

during the COVID-19 pandemic that necessitated a mandatory stay-at-home order

throughout the United States, which meant that all participants were at home when the

focus groups were conducted. Additionally, because the stay-at-home order affected

almost everyone, some participants may have had members of their family in the home

during the focus group interviews; however, all the participants were successful in

participating in the focus group in private. None of the participants expressed any

concerns. The focus groups were conducted without interruption.

Demographics

The participant population for this study were eight middle school teachers

located in the central part of North Carolina. Participants included middle school teachers

with experience of 5 years and beyond and teaching in a variety of academic classroom

settings from three different middle schools in central North Carolina.

To safeguard the privacy of the participants, no names or school names were

recorded, however, gender, class taught, and years of experience was recorded to meet the

inclusion requirements to participate. Participants consisted of three males and five

females all having 5 years plus experience as a middle school teacher. Participants were

two Physical Ed teachers, one English Second Language/French teacher, two

Drama/Speech, Language Arts teachers, one Art teacher, one Special Education teacher,

and one Math teacher. The teachers came from three different middle schools which are

in central North Carolina

The eight participants participated in two focus groups consisting of four teachers

each. Semi structured questions were addressed during the focus groups and each

teachers"!responses were recorded. I asked the first question; however, the teachers just

began talking and telling their experiences, so not all the questions needed to be asked as

the teachers responded with experiences that associated with the questions.

Data collection was achieved through GoogleMeet videoconferencing for the first

focus group and Doxy.Me for the second focus group. The first group lasted 1 hour and

38 minutes and the second focus group lasted 1 hour and 5 minutes. Both focus groups

were recorded using GoogleMeet recording function, Doxy.Me recording function, and

Olympus digital recorder. No variations in data collection were encountered that was

presented in Chapter 3.

There were a few unusual circumstances that occurred during the study. One

circumstance developed while trying to gain participants for the study. In Chapter 3, the

original plan was to use the school districts email addresses for potential participants. No

teacher responded from the 105 emails sent out. I returned to the IRB for approval to use

a different avenue to gain participants. I emailed administrators from two websites, NC

Teachers United and NC Teachers for Change to use those websites to gain participants. I

was able to obtain eight teachers who responded from these websites to participate in this

study.

The other unusual circumstance during this study was the COVID-19 pandemic

which restricted individuals to remain at home under stay-at-home orders throughout the

United States. Due to this, all the data was collected via teleconference and at times,

which resulted in sporadic and momentary time lapse and had to repeat questions or have

participant restate their response. Being unable to detect these fluctuations, even when

lasting only a few moments, added to the difficulty to accurately discern the words stated

by the participant. To verify the accuracy of the participants responses, I restated what I

heard from the participants and allowed for clarification from the participant.

Data Analysis

I approached the responsibility of data analysis using Groenewald!s (2004)

approach for the phenomenological data analysis of examining the whole unit instead of

breaking into parts. I began by listening to the audio files of the focus groups three times.

I used MAXQDA to transcribe word for word while listening simultaneously to the audio

file recordings which allowed for me to correct any errors but also fully hear the

teachers"!experiences again. During this process, I engaged in epoche and journaling any

assumptions, biases, or added beliefs (Moustakas, 1994). This allowed me to remain

aware of the ethical standards and responsibility to the study.

Coding Procedures

This study yielded a large amount of data of numerous experiences. Using the

MAXQDA software, I found it easiest to code each of the questions from the two focus

groups. After rereading the transcriptions again, I color coded key words and phrases as

categories that stuck out from each of the teachers"!experiences under each question

asked. I combined liked words or phrases together showing the consistent repetitiveness

which transitioned into subcategories.

At this stage, I went to handwritten mapping or a tree diagram of the categories

and subcategories. The diagram consisted of the research question at the top, branching

into eight categories or branches, which broke into branches of two to three

subcategories. This emerged into themes and at times quotes pertaining to those themes.

The tree diagram was used to provide a visual for me of the key words and phrases from

the teachers"!experiences. The eight categories are what emerged from the semi

structured questions asked in the focus groups: Administration, classroom management,

counselors, how often, making it better, parents, professional development, and programs.

Following Groenewald!s (year) method of examining the data as a whole unit instead of

breaking it into parts, seeing the participants"!perspective, extracting the units of

meaning, clustering the meanings into themes, summarizing the participants experiences

to extract general and unique themes from all the participants to make a combined

summary of where the themes emerged is presented by developing the tree diagram to

show the categories and subcategories. This turned into Table 1.

Themes

The research question for this study asked participants to describe their barriers

and challenges when implementing antibullying programs in the classroom by describing

their experiences. After reflecting on the teachers"!experiences, four themes emerged that

were consistent within both focus groups: (a) relationships are crucial with students, (b)

lack of training, (c) lack of consistency from administration, and (d) no programs in

place. The components that comprised and encompassed these themes were from the

eight categories previously listed.

Theme 1: Relationships are Crucial with Students

This theme was by far the most repeated statement within the experiences the

teacher!s conveyed was building relationships with the students. All eight teachers agreed

that relationships with students is one of the main keys to help reduce bullying whether it

is in managing the classroom or outside the classroom. One teacher reported, #Making

those connections, for the students to see the teachers as approachable, acknowledging

the students around the campus and in the community make a big difference regarding all

the students. Letting the students see the teacher as people and the teacher see the student

as people help foster a positive relationship overall.”

Many teachers report bullying happening daily, but it also depends on the class, the

teacher, and the location of the class for bullying to be often or rare. All the teachers

agreed that the Physical Ed (PE) class has the highest amount of bullying going on due to

not being a choice for the student, issues with body type and development, and the

comfort level for most kids. This is where building relationships is important but difficult

to do at times. One of the PE teachers stated $I deal with bullying by calling the kid out

and saying to them, hey, that!s not respectful, that!s not dignified. We don!t do that to

people.” The other PE teacher was also familiar with bullying, stating $Dealing with the

locker room is tough. When I!m not looking, that!s when it depends on the definition, and

it could be tiny or could be something big and it also depends on the people.” These are

two key areas in which building relationships with students is highly important and

crucial to reduce bullying situations.

Theme 2: Lack of Training

The second most repeated component is training or lack of training when it comes

to learning how to manage bullying situations in the classroom and as a bystander.

Teachers reported minimal training and two of the eight reported never being trained at

all as part of professional development. A teacher expressed $I don!t know what the

training would be on how to try and help me make a connection with a kid.” Another

teacher stated, $Know how to be the bystander who steps in effectively. That would be

super helpful.” Another expressed, $If two kids are bullying each other, I!d like to know

that I have something in my toolbox to pull out and use whether they respect me or know

me, but I!m just walking down the hall and they are misbehaving.” A teacher with over 10

years of experience stated, $It is very difficult to combat it when we aren!t really trained

to know what to look for.”

Teachers reported having programs in the past but with little to no training on how to

handle situations or manage events that occur. Without training, teachers expressed

having to be creative within their class and create their own version of managing bullying

situations. Teachers reported when they would have training or professional development,

they could not remember what to do because it!s not always consistent year to year with

bullying in classrooms. A teacher expressed, $the training needs to be made of realistic

situations.” While another teacher stated, $It is a judgement call, but I think I could do

it.” Teachers reported the training, when it would happen, never had follow through or

follow up trainings as a continued assistance. Teachers reported that training only

happened once. All eight teachers stated wanting more training yearly and more than just

one but training that had someone to reference for assistance and follow up trainings to be

fully aware and comfortable to address these situations. Classroom management is also a

part of this sections and the importance of managing the class relies heavily on training.

All the teachers agreed that classroom management involves building relationships and

connections, having consistency, being creative within your classroom environment to

manage situations, and training to gain skills. Classroom management encompasses all

these themes, but the themes must come first to maintain classroom management.

Theme 3: No Programs

The idea of an antibullying program in a school was developed in the effort to

prevent bullying situations from turning into mass shootings at schools (citation). All

eight teachers reported no current program in place at their school or their perspective is a

lack of awareness of the current program. Teachers reported having to be creative in their

individual classrooms on how to handle bullying. However, some teachers also stated

they use the counselors heavily for assistance with difficult kids and talk with their

colleagues and observe how they may handle a situation. One teacher stated, $I use

what!s called the six pillars-citizenship, respect, character, and a few others but I

incorporate it into my curriculum.” Another teacher responded that $Programs are

inauthentic. It!s more for show and it!s like checking a box.” Another teacher stated,

$They feel very inauthentic, the kids see right through them, and don!t feel like we are

doing any good. No one is taking it seriously and just checking the box.” Six teachers

agreed, but the Language Arts teacher stated, $Part of the problem is really

administration, teachers, and counselors, I don!t think they know what to do. I mean I

don!t think there is anything out there that really works.” A PE teacher stated, $We are

trying to reinvent the wheel or use a different slogan that we are trying to do.” It was

consistent from all the teachers that they rely heavily on the counselors to assist them in

the classroom or hallway with a bullying situation. One of the PE teachers stated the

counselors are very hands on in the classroom if there is a difficult with students.

Theme 4: Lack of Consistency From Administration

When discussing any issues with administration, the teachers did not hesitate to

express their views and concerns which was the inconsistency within the administration

regarding bullying programs or assistance helping teachers with the bullying situations.

One teacher said, $Administration is addressed about programs or even training and

bringing to their attention certain situations or events of bullying and the administration

don!t address it.” Another stated, $Its frustrating as a teacher to not be taken seriously

when we are the one who lives with these kids 8 hours a day.” Several other teachers

agreed, with one replying, $Again and again we are not supported. At the same time, it!s

like what do we do? Let the kids run the show? We need support when we bring these

issues to administrations attention, but we don!t.” The importance of support from the

administration is a vital part of teacher morale and an understanding from the teachers

that the administration is supportive and will address these concerns and provide relief.

All the teachers reported on many incidents of inconsistency with administration turnover

and lack of communication within the administration regarding programs or training

follow through. The teachers expressed frustration about the limited support and relying

on colleagues for help and feeling trapped as the teacher because they still must teach the

kid. According to one participant, “the problem is money. They have money to have the

program once and have no follow up because they can!t afford to bring it back in, so I

guess you need to find a good program that don!t cost or is cheap.”

When there is limited support and backing, the teachers report frustration, burn out, and

low morale.

Discrepant Cases

As a phenomenological exploration of my participants"!lived experiences with the

phenomena that were explored in this study, I recognized the importance and value of

each participant!s experience, regardless of the extent of their academic classroom setting.

I approached the analysis of all the data with the same epoche, no matter what area of

academia the participants"!experiences might have been. Even though the participants

were from different fields of academics, the experiences echoed across all participants.

Evidence of Trustworthiness

Credibility

Credibility was stablished in this study through the accurate representation of

experiences from each participant being explored. This ensured for full transparency with

the process, ensuring the principle of meaning derived from their narratives depicted each

participant!s unique personal accounts making the data valid and truthful (Ravitch and

Carl, 2016). I asked for clarification to fully understand the participant!s meaning and

verify what they were sharing. At times, I!d ask a follow up question for clarification or

say back to them what I heard them saying. Whenever inaccuracies were stated, I

immediately had the participant clarify and then I followed up again with verification by

repeating what I heard the participant share.

Transferability

The transformation of the participants"!lived experiences into descriptions of rich

data emerge into themes and are linked to the participants experiences during the focus

groups is achieving transferability. The participants were assured confidentiality, and all

shared their experiences candidly and without fear of identification. Random sampling

strengthened my ability to include participants from varied schools, different levels of

experience and academia, yielding data that was representative of a broader impression of

experiences with the phenomena that were explored in this study.

Dependability

I engaged in epoche, self reflection of my assumptions and bias to create an

accurate account of the process throughout the research process. I demonstrated

dependability in my research by maintaining journaling and memo writing. I manually

transcribed the data to ensure accuracy of what the participants shared. I manually coded

the categories and themes using a tree diagram and flowchart to accurately represent the

participants lived experiences.

Confirmability

Confirmability was achieved by the accurate representation of the experiences

explored, the data that was collected, how the data was interpreted, and the presentation

of the findings. It was crucial to maintain an awareness of my biases as the researcher

throughout the process. Continuing with reflexivity by maintaining journals, memos, and

the obligation to use epoche.

Results

The research question for this study focused on teachers’ experiences of their

challenges and barriers of implementing antibullying programs in the classroom. The

conceptual foundation for this studying is Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory of

development. This is a framework regarding the risk and protective factors with the

involvement of school bullying during childhood and adolescence (Bronfenbrenner, 1979

and Espelage, 2014). The model has also been called the social-ecological model which

focuses on understanding how children’s characteristics interact with environmental

settings to promote or prevent victimization and perpetration (Espelage, 2014). This

framework relates to the research study regarding anti-bullying programs and what

challenges the teachers face. An example was a teachers’ perceptions of the school

environment and opportunities for professional development around bullying, school

violence, or school climate (Espelage, 2014). Using this qualitative phenomenological

method of inquiry, I gained an understanding of barriers and challenges from the teachers.

This social-ecological theory approach addressed the risks and protective factors with

school bullying in childhood and adolescence from the experiences shared by the

participants (Espelage, 2014).

The experiences provided by the eight participants represents a clear

understanding from a teachers’ perspective the barriers and challenges teachers face with

implementation of antibullying programs in the classroom. The categories and themes are

interwoven with knowledge that can be expressed in quotes from the participants of their

experiences.

Table 1 provides a breakdown of the barriers and challenges from the teachers’

experiences provided from the data. These barriers and challenges are the foundation for

the four emerging themes.

Table 1

Barriers and Challenges from Participants’ Shared Experiences

Categories

Barriers & Challenges

Administration

No consistency. No follow through. No support with parents. No

engagement. No community support. Unable to gain info from Elem.

teachers. No money for programs.

Classroom Mgmt.

Relationships. Staying engaged. Managing classroom setting. Try to keep

positive. Needing tools to prevent bullying. Need buy in from students.

Passion. Positive curriculum.

Counselors

Hands on. Relationships. Not enough counselors for the number of

students.

How often is

Bullying

Depends on class size. It's daily in the hallway. Daily in P.E.

Making it Better

Relationships. Consistency. Focusing on the positive. Passion. Being clear

and firm. Driving it home from the beginning. Needs buy in. Need to

Care. Involve the kids in development of programs.

Parents

No involvement. Reactions to bullying situations.

Prof. Development

Lack of Training. No follow through with training. No consistency. No

support from admin. Needing tools to stop bullying.

Programs

Inauthentic programs. No programs/lack of awareness. Don't know what

to do with a program. No support from admin. No follow thru with

programs.

Participants shared their experiences of the school environment and building relationships

with the students, professional development, classroom management, lack of help and

consistency from the administration, and dealing with parents and how to handle bullying

situations in their classroom or hallway.

Four themes emerged from the data, but the two big standouts from the experiences

shared by the teachers were the need to have relationships with the students and the need

for professional development around managing bullying.

One example all the teachers agreed on was the need to build relationships with

the students. The French teacher stated, “Making connections with our students is super

critical. But also, the students need to see us as approachable in some fashion otherwise

those connections don’t get made. Acknowledging them around the school and

community makes a big difference to our students. By letting them see us as people and

we see them as people that really helps foster a positive relationship overall.”

All participants reported the need to be creative in their individual classrooms to

manage bullying when it arises on any given day. Some teachers reported struggling with

that but relied heavily on the counselors and their colleagues to help them out.

Participants also agreed that classroom management was vital to managing bullies which

goes along with building the positive relationships and proper training to be confident in

these areas. Various teachers from both focus groups made the following statements as a

need of beneficial information as a teacher. One PE teacher stated, “Training is a major

roadblock” in all avenues including “bystander training and for the training to be

realistic.” Another teacher stated, “Knowing how to be that bystander that steps in

effectively would be super helpful.” The Language Arts teacher reports, “I’d like to have

something in my toolbox to pull out whether they respect me or not or know me or not.”

Yet another stated, “It’s really hard to combat when we aren’t really trained to know what

to look for in regard to more self-stuff.” The special education teacher stated, “I may have

training but don’t use it that year with my students and then the next year I need it but

don’t know what to do because I can’t remember the training.”

Additional data relating to the need for training was shared by the participants of

their experiences with the administration and the lack of consistency or support.

Participants shared experiences in which they brought concerns to the administration

about bullying and weren’t taken seriously or they didn’t address it with the student or

parents. Participants shared their experiences about feeling frustrated and they felt they

had to rely on colleagues for help or ideas to address bullying in their classrooms. One

teacher stated, “It’s frustrating as a teacher to not be taken seriously when asking for

assistance when we are the ones who are with these kids eight hours a day.” Another

reports, “Lack of consistency with the administration makes a big difference in what our

bullying program looks like.” The science teacher states, “Be trained. Be involved,

communicate. Have meetings about it. Talk to the students about it. The more

communication and training the better. Have a zero tolerance to bullying but also zero

tolerance to kids being mean and nasty in the classroom and to carry a more positive

learning environment in general, will get respect to respect others.”

Another category that emerged and was touched on briefly by the participants was

parents’ perspective on bullying in the school and how much they are involved. This

concept although single in nature, relates with the category of lack of administration

support. Participants reported when addressing bullying situations with the administration

for help, the administration may or may not reach out to the parents; and when they do,

don’t support the teacher and the issue with bullying. The speech and drama teacher

reports, “If I the teacher go in and say I just heard from another teacher that these two

kids aren’t supposed to be together in the same class and they are in the same class, and

it’s a disaster. I need them switched. Nothing happens. But, if the parents of one of the

kids come in and say the other kid is not supposed to be with my child, I want he/she

removed. It’s done. Just that fast.” French teacher stated, “Parents involvement is critical

to any type of program. If you can get the parents engaged in the program and the

process, but as far as how they would get that done that really depends on the

demographics of the school. It’s kind of a catch 22 thing and can be very tricky.” Art

teacher stated, “Parents have way too much power in some capacities and that’s very

difficult because it undermines a lot of us professionally.” Another teacher stated,

“Parents come into the school and complain. Boom! There’s a schedule change on the

dot. It’s frustrating and hurtful to teachers because it’s like our admin aren’t standing up

for us but they are going to please the stakeholders.”

One key question that summarized a lot of the data was “what the participants

could do to make it better?” Each participant made a statement and provided an

experience to what they can do to make schools better, the system better, and reduce

bullying. All participants agreed that building good relationships with the students is the

number one key. All the teachers participated in providing input. Table 2 links the

categories and themes to the quotes listed below.

One teacher report, “I think it’s important to be visible often whether the hallway,

at assemblies, we need to be visible, so the kids know who we are whether they are on

your team or in your class.” Another states, “Rather than saying antibullying, we need to

say what is the expected behavior? How are we civil to each other? Not you are a bully,

and we are going to fix it. But how do we all treat each other civilly? Celebrating

diversity and understand not everyone learns the same way.” Another states, “Focusing

on the positive things and making your curriculum for the program a positive outlook on

life.” One of the PE teachers stated, “If you drive it home from the beginning, the process

will work better and stay on them from the beginning. You can’t be lack and it needs to be

implemented from day 1.” Another added, “Involving the kids when coming up with a

program.” Another responded, “Would be nice to have the community involved with

bullying stuff because kids are bullied outside the school and in the community as well.”

Science teacher responded, “I try to be a good example. I try to demonstrate respect. I’m

clear and firm with the students.” A PE teacher stated, “Passion! Passion! Some who

cares about the program and not just adding it to their resume. I think it’s important to call

a kid out when they are being a bully. I want to find out what’s going on with this kid.”

Another commented, “The passion the person (teacher) has to bring it in. Morale can be

turned around if you have a positive attitude and care that they want to be there.” Another

commented, “We have to build rapport five days a week and that’s what’s missing with

remote learning. We don’t have the consistency, more difficult to build trust. Where at

school, they know us and know our expectations.” Another stated, “Some type of

program in place proactively to teach the teachers how to use it and it’s in place in case

something occurs. I’d do a program approach or use a book. The training would be how

do you know the difference between bullying and friendly teasing? How do you know?

How do we make the kids feel ok to report it? How do we make them feel comfortable to

tell us what’s going on? Maybe not using the word ‘bullying’. Use words like teased or

harassed instead of bullying. It still would need to be reported.” Another commented,

“We don’t have any programs that I know of. We have had some in the past that only last

for a short while and don’t have follow through or continued training to know how to

implement properly.”

Table 2

Quotes/experiences shared relating to the themes

Themes

Quotes/ Experiences

Relationships

are critical

with students

“It depends on the environment. Positive classroom management is the key.”

"Making those connections, for the students to see the teachers as approachable, acknowledging the

students around the campus and in the community make a big difference regarding all the students.

Letting the students see the teacher as people and the teacher see the student as people help foster a

positive relationship overall.”

"I deal with bullying by calling the kid out and saying to them, hey, that!s not respectful, that!s not

dignified. We don!t do that to people.”

"Dealing with the locker room is tough. When I!m not looking, that!s when it depends on the definition,

and it could be tiny or could be something big and it also depends on the people.”

“We have to build rapport five days a week and that’s what’s missing with remote learning. We don’t

have the consistency, more difficult to build trust. Where at school, they know us and know our

expectations.”

Lack of

Training

“It’s very difficult to combat it when we aren’t really trained to know what to look for.”

“If two kids are bullying, I’d like to know that I have something in my toolbox to pull out and use

whether they respect me or know me, whether in my classroom or walking down the hall.”

I don!t know what the training would be on how to try and help me make a connection with a kid.”

"Know how to be the bystander who steps in effectively. That would be super helpful.”#

"It is very difficult to combat it when we aren!t really trained to know what to look for.”#

“the training needs to be made of realistic situations.”

“It’s a judgement call but I think I could do it.”

“I may have a training but don’t use it that year with my students and then the next year I need it but

don’t know what to do because I can’t remember the training.”

Lack of

consistency &

support from

Administration

“Administration pleases the parents instead of supporting or backing us when an issue arises.”

“We get no support when it comes to addressing issues and are not taken seriously.”

“Be trained. Be involved. Communicate. Have a meeting about it. Talk to the students about it. The more

the communication the better. Have a zero tolerance for bullying.”

"Administration is addressed about programs or even training and bringing to their attention certain

situations or events of bullying and the administration don’t address it.”

"Again and again we are not supported. At the same time, it!s like what do we do? Let the kids run the

show? We need support when we bring these issues to administrations attention, but we don!t.”#

"The problem is money. They have money to have the program once and have no follow up because they

can!t afford to bring it back in, so I guess you need to find a good program that don!t cost or is cheap.”

“Lack of consistency with the administration makes a big difference in what our bullying program looks

like.”

“Parents have way too much power in some capacities and that’s very difficult because it undermines a

lot of us professionally.”

“Parents come into the school and complain. Boom! There’s a schedule change on the dot. It’s frustrating

and hurtful to teachers because it’s like our admin aren’t standing up for us but they are going to please

the stakeholders.”

Lack of "I use what!s called the 6 pillars-citizenship, respect, character, and a few others but I incorporate it into

Programs my curriculum.”#

“Programs are inauthentic. It’s more for show and it’s like checking a box.”

"They feel very inauthentic, the kids see right through them, and don!t feel like we are doing any good.

No one is taking it seriously and just checking the box.”#

"Part of the problem is really administration, teachers, and counselors, I don!t think they know what to do.

I mean I don!t think there is anything out there that really works.”#

"We are trying to reinvent the wheel or use a different slogan that we are trying to do.” "Passion!

Passion! Someone who really cares about the program is what!s needed.”#

“Parents involvement is critical to any type of program. If you can get the parents engaged in the program

and the process, but as far as how they would get that done that really depends on the demographics of

the school. It’s kind of a catch 22 thing and can be very tricky.”

“Some type of program in place proactively to teach the teachers how to use it and it’s in place in case

something occurs. I’d do a program approach or use a book. The training would be how do you know the

difference between bullying and friendly teasing? How do you know? How do we make the kids feel ok

to report it? How do we make them feel comfortable to tell us what’s going on? Maybe not using the

word ‘bullying’. Use words like teased or harassed instead of bullying. It still would need to be reported.”

“We don’t have any programs that I know of. We have had some in the past that only last for a short while

and don’t have follow through or continued training to know how to implement properly.”

The eight categories intertwine with the core themes to answer the research question of

teachers’ barriers and challenges implementing antibullying programs in their classroom.

Summary

The research question was designed to gain an understanding through the

participants experiences their challenges using antibullying programs in the classroom.

The participants’ responses generated rich, passionate, and definitive data about their

lived experiences with the phenomena. My interpretation of data through the application

of Groenewald!s approach of analysis yielded four core themes from the eight categories

generalized among all participants experiences. Accentuating each participant experience

with respect, clarity of information their experiences, and active listening, the

participants’ descriptions of their experiences enhanced my understanding of their

barriers and challenges within the classroom.

In chapter 4, I provided an overview of the setting and conditions of this study. I

presented demographics of the participants, detailed my data collection process, and

discussed my data analysis. I discussed the evidence of trustworthiness, credibility,

transferability, dependability, and confirmability of this study. In presenting the results, I

broke down the data into 8 categories which emerged four themes relating to the research

question through my interpretation of the data. Finally, I summarized the answer to the

research question that was obtained by my interpretation of the data.

In chapter 5, I reiterate the purpose and nature of the study, interpret my findings

through descriptions and referring to the literature in chapter 2 and in the conceptual

framework for the study, provide limitations of the study and recommendations for future

research. Provide implications of positive social change and describe the impact from this

study and conclude by sharing the soul and importance of this study’s data and why it

matters.

Chapter 5: Summary, Interpretations, and Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to explore teachers’ experiences of their challenges

and barriers of implementing antibullying programs in their classroom. To explore this, I

completed two focus groups of four teachers each with experience over 3 years and in any

academic area to yield a diverse sampling. Their detailed, rich responses to the research

question regarding their experiences with the phenomena provided data in which four

core themes emerged. The four themes of (a) relationships are critical with students, (b)

lack of training, (c) no programs, and (d) lack of consistency from administration helped

clarify the basis of their collective experiences.

Each participant shared their experiences and perspectives of barriers and

challenges in implementation of antibullying programs. All eight participants agreed that

building positive relationships with students is critical in reducing bullying situations in

the school setting. This study further revealed essential components from a teachers’

perspective how to reduce bullying in a classroom setting. The analysis of the data

yielded four core themes that enhance the participants experiences of their barriers and

challenges with bullying programs in a school setting.

Interpretation of the Findings

The literature has shown a lack of understanding of barriers and challenges of

middle school teachers within the classroom setting (Blust, 2016; Cunningham et al.,

2016; Dake et al., 2003; Marshall et al., 2009; Sims-Jones, 2017). Researchers have

described interventions (see Byers et al., 2016; Yoon & Bauman 2014) but the literature

does not address teachers’ barriers and challenges with bullying programs in their

classroom. The gap in the literature confirmed the need for this research as it extends the

knowledge of the barriers and challenges teachers face with bullying in and out of the

classroom setting and what can be done to make it better for the teacher. These barriers

and challenges comprise of all eight participants agreeing they have not had proper

training when it comes to bullying situations whether in their room or within the school

campus and stated there are no programs within their school to use or implement

regarding bullying situations.

Additionally, all eight participants reported they rely heavily on the school

counselors for support but lack that support from the administration. The limited specific

information of barriers and challenges for teachers in the classroom in the literature (see

Blust, 2016; Cunningham et al., 2016; Dake et al., 2003; Marshall et al., 2009;

SimsJones, 2017) and the data from this study, help to bring the gap of knowledge and

understanding together.

Further, mentioned in the literature review, numerous researchers (e.g., Brown,

2014; Letendre et al., 2016; Milson & Gallo, 2005; O'Brennan et al., 2014; Rosen et al.,

2017; Studer & Mynatt, 2015; Uzoma, 2019; Ybarra et al., 2019) provided interventions

or ideas to reduce bullying. The research studies had similar components that correlate

with the themes found in this research study including (a) further training of how to

manage bullying situations (Brown 2014; Bradshaw et al., 2013; Milsom & Gallo, 2003;

Uzoma, 2019), (b) calling on family and communities to assist in reducing students'

behaviors (DeOrnellas & Spurgin, 2017; Hornby, 2016), (c) changing school

environments (Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017; Studer & Mynatt, 2015) and (d)

collaboration with staff and administration to help outside the classroom (Letendre et al.,

2016).

While the literature presented interventions to reduce bullying, it lacked the

research of the barriers and challenges from a teachers’ perspective. The results found in

my study show the need for relationships with students is a vital component to reduce

bullying in the classroom or anywhere on school campus. A participant reported, “Making

connections with the students is super critical. But the student also needs to see us as

approachable, otherwise those connections don’t get made.” Another participant stated,

“It depends on the environment. Positive classroom management is the key.”

The lack of training to fully understand bullying is limited or nonexistent in some

middle schools. A participant expressed, “It’s very difficult to combat it when we aren’t

really trained to know what to look for.” Another stated, “If two kids are bullying, I’d like

to know that I have something in my toolbox to pull out and use whether they respect me

or know me, whether in my classroom or walking down the hall.”

The lack of consistency and support from the administration is another big key

component to reduce bullying throughout the school campus. The previously published

literature does not touch on the consistency or support from administration as an issue but

more of their view about bullying. This research shows the importance of support and

consistency from the administration as a key component in reducing bullying from a

teachers’ perspective. An English teacher stated, “Administration pleases the parents

instead of supporting or backing us when an issue arises.” Another teacher stated, “We

get no support when it comes to addressing issues and are not taken seriously.” A science

teacher replied: “Be trained. Be involved. Communicate. Have a meeting about it. Talk to

the students about it. The more the communication the better. Have a zero tolerance for

bullying.”

Finally, the lack of programs was a key component. Teachers provided

information from past programs they have experienced but the lack of awareness of

current programs in their respected school was also a big component. However, the

literature does not describe any school without a program in place. This component is

probably the most important of all. Without a program to follow or be able to assist a

teacher during situations connects the reasons for the other themes that emerged.

Teachers’ perspective was that no programs were in place at the time of this study and

furthermore, teachers rely heavily on the counselors to take over in bullying situations. It

would seem to say without a program to begin with, these teachers must make a daily

judgement call to manage their classroom and rely heavily on one to three counselors for

the whole school. The findings show the teachers want the training to gain more

classroom management daily as well as have tools to address bullying at any point while

on the school campus.

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory focuses on risk and protective

factors with involvement with school bullying during childhood and adolescents. This

theory, also called the social-ecological model, focuses on understanding how children's

characteristics interact with environmental settings to promote or prevent victimization

and perpetration (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Espelage, 2014). The findings showed great

concern from the teachers’ perspective of kids who are bullying others could have been

doing it in the elementary grades as well and with not knowing that knowledge leads to

further bullying episodes with a lack of training and understanding on how to help the

student. A few participants stated if they knew more about the child and their behaviors in

elementary school, they could prevent bullying in the middle school and possibly provide

help to the student but also have the support from the administration to not link certain

students together. This represents one of the categories of classroom management which

corresponds with the theme of lack of training.

Summary of Findings

Each of the four themes, were derived from eight categories: administration,

classroom management, counselors at school, how often is bullying, parents’ perspective,

professional development, programs, and what to make it better. The experiences

provided by the eight participants represents a clear understanding from a teachers’

perspective the barriers and challenges teachers face with implementation of antibullying

programs in the classroom. The categories and themes are interwoven with knowledge

that can be expressed in quotes from the participants of their experiences.

Table 1 located in chapter 4 provide a breakdown of the barriers and challenges

from the teachers’ experiences provided from the data. These barriers and challenges are

the foundation for the four emerging themes. From these categories, four themes

emerged, relationships are critical with students, lack of consistency and support from

administration, lack of training, and no programs available in the school or the teachers

lacking awareness of present programs in the school. Table 2 located in chapter 4 provide

the teachers’ experiences of quotes with the desired theme. From the categories, four

themes emerged, relationships are critical with students, lack of consistency and support

from administration, lack of training, and no programs available in the school.

Teachers provided recommendations on How to Make it Better from the teachers’

perspective with bullying in the middle school. The list below provides those

recommendations of quotes and experiences to make the school system better for the kids

and teachers.

Participants had the following ideas on how to make things better

We need to be visible, so the kids know who we are whether we have them in

class, in the grade or not.

The idea of teachers connecting and being able to help each other in bullying

situations.

Focus on the positive things and making the curriculum for the programs a

positive outlook on life.

Making and keeping relationships and connections with the students.

Consistency is very important and building on what we have and build upon it

instead of starting over with something new and having no follow through.

Start from day 1 and drive the process home without lack.

Involve the students in the building of the program.

Involve the community in the program to ensure consistency in all areas.

Passion! You must care about the program and what you are doing.

Be clear, firm, and realistic with the students.

Limitations of the Study

The nature of data gathering for a qualitative study requires self-report from the

participants which may provide information that is unintentional or intentionally biased

or influenced by social desires or interactions by pushing the participant to continue to

answer or through body language and gestures (Burkholder et al., 2016). The assumption

the participants shared their experiences openly and truthfully without reservation of the

other participants in the focus group. Additionally, gaining the participants with the

school email and with the permission of the superintendent shown to be a disheartened

stop to the progress and I had to change the course of obtaining participants by means of

social media websites. The limitation also made it to where not all participants were from

the same school or school district and the lack of awareness from those participants of

programs currently in the school. This was also a difficult challenge as the school year

was ending from remote learning due to Covid-19 Pandemic.

The research was also conducted during a world pandemic making the focus

groups via remote using Google Meet which seemed to be easier as the participants did

not have to leave their homes to travel or worry about childcare if needed. However, with

this pandemic, it is impossible to know the limitations which may have resulted. As the

focus groups were through Google Meet video conferencing, the difficulty with the

technology and the inability to hear and articulate the participants affected the accuracy of

the recordings and the transcriptions in minor ways.

The diversity of the participants was limited as majority of participants

were

Caucasian, however, two were Hispanic decent and the gender of the teachers were five

females and three males. This does not represent the diversity of the state of North

Carolina or the student body within the school districts. Although, each participant

exceeded in five or more years’ experience with majority of them having close to twenty

years in the middle school teaching field.

Another limitation to the study was the use of the full MAXQDA program. The

program was beneficial for transcribing and exporting the information into excel

spreadsheet, however, there was no way to contact for technical support or questions with

the program due to the origin being in Germany and not English speaking. The inability

to use the program fully resulted in not gaining the accessibility the program had to offer

with this research study.

Finally, my inexperience as a qualitative researcher and my individual collection

of biases must be noted as a potential limitation. As the participants provided their

experiences it was difficult to not be bias and on their side of how they see their

classroom and the struggles they endure daily. The struggle as an inexperienced

researcher is to not get pulled into the participants’ experiences and focus more on the

factual understanding of the experiences given.

Recommendations

The data generated in this study provided insight into the barriers and challenges

of teachers’ implementing antibullying programs in the classroom. This expands the

knowledge and understanding of the continuation of bullying in middle schools. As

previously stated, the How to Make it Better list provides recommendations to improve

the bullying behaviors in the middle schools and additional research exploring bullying

with schools who have set programs with schools that do not, compare teachers’ and

students’ perspective of bullying, completing a quantitative study of the same questions

asked to administration then compare the findings with this study, and expanding this

research to across the United States and all regions not just in North Carolina, are just

some ways to expand on this research.

Implications

Positive Social Change

As with any research, it is impossible to know the positive social change that may

result, however, my hope as my ultimate goals is that this will provide understanding to

the administration in school districts of the importance of the teachers’ perspective of

bullying in their classroom and the challenges they face daily. My hope it that this

research will also encourage other researchers to continue looking for positive

implementations to reduce bullying in all schools across the United States and the world.

As a soon to be educator, the positive social change in relation to this study as I pursue

education at a higher level is to remember the experiences provided by these middle

school teachers and how they continue to strive daily to have positive and creative

learning environment as they are there for the student to provide educational foundation.

Creating this same type of environment to higher level students, passing on the positivity

within the society creates the change to improve the world today.

Conclusion

The understanding of bullying has many variables that can be added to it, violence and

aggression, students’ perspective of bullying, the many different types of bullying

programs, teachers’ role, and attitudes with bullying to name only a few. Much of the

literature was devoted to students’ perspective of bullying (Ybarra et al., 2019;

Chalamandaris et al., 2017; Milsom & Gallo, 2006; Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017). The

purpose of this research was to focus on the teachers’ perspective of bullying and

implementation of antibullying programs in their classroom. To manage bullying in the

school system, it is a collaborative approach with teacher, student, parent, family,

administration, faculty, and community. As a teacher stated, “It takes a village to be the

most productive.”