# data[].attributes.body
Useful reading

# data[].attributes.headline
Emotional Resilience: A Toolkit for Schools

# data[].attributes.subject
Emotional Resilience: A Toolkit for Schools

# data[].attributes.body
Useful resources and worksheets for introducing emotional literacy to the classroom

# data[].attributes.body
Resource for checking in with students, discussing emotions

# data[].attributes.body
Activity to awareness of different feelings and recognise when, how and who to ask for help

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PDF Snivel & Shriek Activity Sheet  (The Fly By Box).pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Article in TES, 2004 asking 'What is emotional intelligence?'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The term was first coined in the United States in 1995 by psychologists John Mayer and Peter Salovey, who defined it as the ability to perceive, access, generate and reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and intellectual growth.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 2 of a 3 part series exploring practical tips for decoding emotions in the classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Smarter About Feelings: Part Two

.
Part One introduced the idea of becoming smarter about feelings - and how that can help you (kids) get more of what you want... and less of what you don't want! In that article I promised that I'd also write more about emotions and the meaning behind our feelings. In Part One I also talked about the Know Yourself, Choose Yourself, Give Yourself "Six Seconds EQ Model." The next article in the series, Part Three, is called Getting Off the Trouble Train. This article is focused on the "Know Yourself" part: Noticing and understanding your feelings and reactions. Please share this with others - and also please let me know how you like the article, and tell Nicolas how you like the pictures! 🙂
For most of my life, I found feelings completely confusing. They seemed to happen by themselves, suddenly a feeling would arrive and take over. Now that I've learned more about emotional intelligence, feelings are more making sense to me, but sometimes I still find them confusing.

When you were little, did you ever read the book, Sometimes I'm Bombaloo? The girl in that story gets so incredibly angry she feels like she's turned into someone else. I guess everyone sometimes feels overwhelmed by big feelings. Sometimes by anger, but also by sorrow or fear or jealousy or guilt or a big mixed up ball of feelings all rolling together in a thunderstorm. Even excitement can become so big it seems to take over.

People sometimes call emotions like anger and fear "negative" or "bad" feelings, but I've come to see it a different way. Now I believe feelings are just part of us, and they're not good or bad. They're information and energy. What we do with that information and energy could be good or bad. It's like electricity: It's dangerous if you put a fork in the electrical outlet, it can even kill you. But that doesn't mean electricity is bad, it means we need to learn about it and to use it carefully.

Putting Your Toe In

One of the most important steps to learning more about your feelings is to make friends with them. I mean, if you're telling yourself your feelings are confusing and overwhelming and bad, then you are not going to be very patient learning about them.

When I was younger, I tried not to think about feelings because they scared me, I felt like they would overwhelm me. I remember in college I took an acting class, and my teacher, Marie, kept asking me how I was feeling. I was sad and scared because I was far away from the people I loved. One day I told her I didn't like thinking so much about feelings because I thought I might drown in all the feelings. She said, "I'm not asking you to jump into the water, just to put your toe in it."

That was a turning point for me. I experimented with Marie's advice, and I was surprised to learn that I could notice my feelings and tune into them without being overwhelmed by them. I could get closer to my own feelings instead of hiding from them. I could put my toe in the water and it was interesting, not dangerous. I still didn't understand feelings, but they were getting less scary.

Chess Moves

Do you ever play chess? For someone who doesn't know the rules, it's confusing. Why do some pieces go one step, and some jump, and some zoom around in diagonals or lines? If you didn't know any of the rules, it would be hard to play!

I was talking to a work friend named David Caruso about feelings, he said, "Feelings are like chess pieces, there are certain moves they make." This is a surprising idea: there is a logic to feelings. There are basic rules to learn about how they can move and change.

For example, here are three of the rules I've learned:

1. Emotions get more or less intense. Every basic emotion, such as joy or sorrow, fear or trust, can start out small and get bigger. A tiny bit of joy is peace. Add more and it's contentment. Add more to get happiness. More might be pleasure, then delight, then bliss. So imagine someone was feeling peaceful because everything was going well, and then she got even more good news... the feeling would get more intense. Of course, feelings can get less intense too. It's like a color wheel with all these shades and varieties of feelings.

2. Emotions combine. We usually have many feelings at one time. Maybe we're happy to be seeing friends, worried about a test, and sad about an argument... all at the same time! That makes it hard to sort out what we're feeling. Sometimes we name different combinations with a new word. For example, if I'm sad because something didn't go the way I wanted it to, and a little angry that happened, I could call that mixed feeling "disappointed."

3. Emotions focus our attentio n. We have feelings because something is happening - something inside us or something outside. For example, we have feelings when we think about a choice we've made. If we don't like what we've done there is something going on inside us, so we have a feeling to say "Hey! Notice this, you may have a problem!" That feeling could be called remorse (or guilt or disappointment in ourselves). We have feelings when we see something new and unusual; we could call that surprise or interest. The purpose of an emotion is to get our brains to pay attention to this news.

Emotions as Potions

Imagine you discover this beautiful wooden box carved all over with intriguing symbols. You open the box, and nestled in soft velvet are eight bottles. Each looks different, some are cut crystal sparkly and bright. Some are dark glass with complex swirling designs. Each bottle has a different color potion inside. These potions are the eight basic emotions.

There are around 3000 different words for feelings in English. Where do all those come from? Different researchers have their own theories about what emotions are basic, and what emotions are combinations. There was a scientist named Robert Plutchik who said there are eight basic emotions and they combine in many different ways. Plutchik said we have these emotions because they help us survive.

Here is my interpretation of the way the emotions help us:

You could draw the box with the eight bottles and decide the look and color of each emotion.

What color is Anger? How about Joy? What are their bottles like?

I imagine joy is in very sparkly bright bottle that seems to shine from inside.

The bottles come with a special dropper to release just a little of each one at a time. Imagine you open the bottles and combine drops of these emotions to make incredible potions. The different chemicals mix, changing colors - sometimes the colors stay bright and clear, sometimes they are swirling cloudy and confused. Sometimes sparks come flying out, sometimes a thick fog.

I've never seen a recipe book for this chemistry set, but here are some ideas of how different feelings could be a combination of the basic emotions:

Impatience

Anger (there is a problem) + Anticipation (looking ahead)

Worry

Fear (danger) + Anticipation (looking ahead)

Boredom

Disgust (rejection) + Sadness (loss) + Fear (risk)

Hope

Anticipation (looking ahead) + Joy (wants fulfilled)

Respect

Trust (accepting) + Joy (wants fulfilled) + Anticipation (looking ahead)

Disappointment

Sadness (loss) + anger (there is a problem)

Jealousy

Anger (there is a problem) + Disgust (rejection) + Fear (risk)

Loneliness

Sadness (loss) + Fear (risk) + Disgust (rejection)

While this might seem like a fantasy story about wizards, emotions really are chemicals. Like the imaginary box of potions, our brains and bodies produce these different chemicals. The chemicals combine in our bodies and they go into our blood, then they affect every single part of us. Emotions are part of your body's way of communicating with itself.

What is each guy feeling?

What basic emotions are in the recipe for each feeling?

Reacting to Feelings

One of the most important truths of emotional intelligence comes from learning the difference between feelings, thoughts, and actions.

Imagine your brother messes up your project, you are mad and you tell yourself, "my brother is a jerk" and you hit him.

Notice in that story there is a feeling, a thought, and an action. The three are related, but different. A feeling is just a feeling. The feeling doesn't create the thought or the action. The though, feeling, and action are influencing each other and they work together to make a problem. On the other hand, you could have the same feeling, the same thought, and a completely different action.

Why do you sometimes use problematic actions? While there are many ways of responding to each situation, most of us tend to use one reaction over and over. In a way, it feels good to get mad and hit. We do that, and we like something about it, and do it again. We KNOW that's not the best solution, but it seems to happen automatically. It's important to remember that behavior is not automatic, it's something we've learned by practicing.

If we've practiced, "when I feel angry, I hit," then we learn that pattern and we tend to use is over and over. Each of us tends to learn several patterns of reacting. For example, do you know someone who tends to "blow up" when they're mad? Or someone who usually gets very quiet when they're upset? Or someone who often leaves the room to get away from an uncomfortable situation?
How about you?
How do you usually react when you're sad? Do you tend to cry, or get mad and blame someone, or pretend not to be sad, or make a joke, or something else?

How do you usually react when you're mad? Do you hit, or say mean words, or get grouchy and prickly, or ____?

A pattern is your usual reaction. When (thought or feeling), I (how you usually react) .

For example...

When I think someone is not listening to me

I feel hurt .

Remember the "observing like a scientist" idea I wrote about in part one? Observe yourself as if you were a scientist studying you. For a few days, notice when you have a big feeling, and notice how you tend to react. Do you fight? Get quiet? Run away? Do you cover your feeling with another feeling? Over time, notice how there are some patterns you use over and over.

When you do find some of your patterns: congratulations! You're making great progress in being smarter about feelings.

Don't forget!

1. Emotions are energy and information. They combine, like potions, into many different feelings. They're not good or bad, but each one has a message - a message from one part of you to another part of you.

2. Thoughts, feelings, and actions are not the same.

Practice noticing the difference between Feelings, Thoughts, and Actions!

♥

©2010 Joshua Freedman, Six Seconds (www.6seconds.org). All Rights Reserved. Illustrations by Logoxid.

Thank you to Ayman Sawaf for the idea about the "drops" of feelings, to David Caruso for "Emotions Chess," and to Emma Freedman for the idea about the color wheel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emotional Literacy Article for Children: Decoding Emotions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Smarter About Feelings: Part Two . Part One introduced the idea of becoming smarter about feelings - and how that can help you (kids) get more of what you want... and less of what you don't want! In that article I promised that I'd also write more about emotions and the meaning behind our feelings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Effects of an Emotional Literacy Intervention for Students Identified with Bullying Behaviour

# data[].attributes.subject
Effects of an Emotional Literacy Intervention for Students Identified with Bullying Behaviour

# data[].attributes.body
Evaluation and review of a 12-week emotional literacy intervention programme

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

The effectiveness of a 12-week, small group emotional literacy (EL) intervention in reducing bullying behaviour in school was evaluated. Participants were 50 primary school pupils identified through peer nomination as engaging in bullying behaviours. The intervention was implemented in schools already engaged with a universal social and emotional learning initiative, including an anti-bullying component. Within schools, participants were randomly assigned to an intervention or a wait-list comparison group. Response to the intervention was found to be dependent on baseline levels of EL. Only children whose baseline level was low showed a significant reduction in peer-rated bullying behaviour. No effect of the intervention was detected on victimisation or adjustment scores, although positive changes in adjustment were associated with increased EL.

Keywords: emotional literacy, emotional intelligence, bullying, intervention, primary school

Introduction

Bullying in schools has become an issue of concern internationally ( Nansel, Craig, Overpeck, Saluja, & Ruan, 2004; Smith, Pepler, & Rigby, 2004). There are many definitions of bullying, but substantial consistency among western researchers in identifying bullying as a subset of aggression, which usually involves the following core characteristics: (1) intentional harm, (2) repetition over time and (3) occurring in a relationship where there is an imbalance of power ( Nansel & Overpeck, 2003; Olweus, 1999). These features are correspondingly frequently found in government guidance to schools, for example, in the United Kingdom (UK) bullying is defined as 'behaviour by an individual or group, repeated over time, that intentionally hurts another individual or group either physically or emotionally' ( Department for Education, 2011, p. 4). However, these features have been subject to criticism at a number of levels, and a range of arguments advanced for the adoption of a broader conceptual approach ( Carrera, DePalma, & Lameiras, 2011; Ellwood & Davies, 2010; Juvonen & Graham, 2004). Consistent with socio-ecological perspectives on the complex nature of the interactions between the individual, family, peer-group, school, community and culture ( Hong & Espelage, 2012; Swearer & Espelage, 2004) the importance of attending to the different meanings constructed and ascribed, in particular by pupils asked to respond to researcher's definitions, has been highlighted ( Carrera et al., 2011; Swain, 1998).

There is widespread recognition of the impact of bullying on children who are victims, as damaging to their psychological, social, academic and physical development ( Marsh, Parada, Craven, & Finger, 2004; Pellegrini, 2004). However, children who bully others also fare badly. They report elevated levels of depression, unhappiness at school and family conflict ( Oliver, Oaks, & Hoover, 1994). They have increased risk of associated emotional and behavioural problems ( Salmon & Smith, 1998), and may suffer from depression and from suicidal thoughts and intentions ( Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Marttunen, Rimpela, & Rantanen, 1999). Furthermore, children exhibiting bullying behaviours are at elevated risk of engagement in criminal behaviour in later life ( Olweus, 1991, 1993).

Despite the substantial evidence that there are negative consequences for children who engage in bullying, few interventions are designed for such children. The view that punishment is the most appropriate approach to children who bully has led to controversy over interventions that seek to adopt a more educative approach ( Smith, 2001), such as bringing together all pupils involved in a sequence of bullying events to elicit concern for others and to problem solve more acceptable ways of interacting in the future ( Pikas, 2002; Rigby, 2005). Frey et al. (2005) identify a need for studies to consider targeted interventions, rather than purely universal approaches. They question the extent to which schools provide intensive, individually-focused interventions for children who need more direct guidance. While universal supports available to all children are regarded as an essential basis in three-tiered public health prevention and intervention models ( Walker et al., 1996), it is also considered important for schools to be able to provide targeted interventions for children at risk. Indeed, response to such intervention is seen as playing a crucial role in the effective selection of children in need of third tier, individualised, intensive intervention ( Hawken, Vincent, & Schuman, 2008).

Some of the best known bullying intervention programmes incorporate universal and targeted interventions, for example, both the Olweus (1999) and the Steps to Respect ( Committee for Children, 2001) programmes include work with individuals involved in bullying as well as school-wide and classroom components. However, there are programmes where the focus is systemic and individual level intervention is not included, for example the PEACE Pack ( Slee, 2001) and the Sheffield Programme ( Smith Sharp, Eslea, & Thompson, 2004). Meta analyses of intervention effectiveness have indicated moderate outcomes, reflecting predominately positive changes in knowledge, attitudes and perceptions, although more rarely showing change in bullying behaviours ( Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). While Merrell et al. (2008) did not find any evidence of differential effectiveness by type of programme, Ttofi and Farrington (2011) found that programmes containing more elements were more likely to reduce bullying.

The present study reports the evaluation of a pilot implementation of a targeted bullying intervention within the tiered framework described by Walker et al. (1996). It was implemented in schools that were already using the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) Programme ( Department for Education and Skills, 2005) - a programme comprising professional development materials for teachers, curriculum materials for each grade, a whole school component involving policy presentations and posters and home-school activities. The SEAL programme addresses five themes, one of which is 'say no to bullying'. However, other themes focus more broadly on issues such as managing relationships, motivation and developing effective learning strategies, thus representing a more holistic approach to school improvement of the kind advocated by Galloway and Roland (2004) as preferable to a narrow focus on bullying behaviour. Within this context, the targeted intervention investigated in this study was selected on the basis of an analysis of what is known about children who engage in bullying behaviours that points to deficits in aspects of emotional intelligence.

Emotional intelligence

In defining emotional intelligence a distinction is drawn in the literature between ability emotional intelligence and trait emotional intelligence and constructs that stem from different theoretical positions and are assessed in different ways ( Petrides & Furnham, 2000; Warwick & Nettelbeck, 2004). Ability emotional intelligence refers to actual emotion-related abilities and should be measured through maximum performance tests, as are used for the measurement of psychometric intelligence ( Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999). However, there are problems in the identification of correct responses for ability emotional intelligence, reflecting the inherently subjective nature of much emotional experience. More progress has been made, particularly with children, in the assessment of trait emotional intelligence (trait EI), or trait emotional self-efficacy ( Williams, Daley, Burnside, & Hammond-Rowley, 2009). Trait EI refers to 'emotion related self-perceptions and behavioural dispositions relating to the perception, processing, and utilisation of emotion-laden information' ( Mavroveli, Petrides, Sangareau, & Furnham, 2009, p. 259). Trait EI is assessed through self-report measures of typical performance on dimensions such as emotion perception (self and others), emotion regulation, relationship skills and empathy ( Petrides & Furnham, 2000).

The relevance of trait EI to behavioural issues in school has been suggested by a number of studies. Petrides, Sangareau, Furnham, and Frederickson (2006) investigated the relationship between trait EI and social behaviour in primary school as rated by peers and teachers. Pupils with high trait EI scores received more peer nominations for co-operation and leadership and fewer nominations for disruption, aggression, and dependence. Teachers rated high trait EI pupils higher on pro social descriptors and lower on antisocial descriptors, than pupils who had low trait EI scores. In 10 to 11-year-old primary school children, trait EI scores have also been found to correlate with self-reported measures of adjustment: positively with self-concept, and negatively with depression, anxiety, anger and disruptive behaviour ( Williams et al., 2009). Qualter, Whiteley, Hutchinson and Pope (2007) found that pupils who had low trait EI scores experienced greater adjustment difficulties in the transition between primary and secondary school. Secondary school pupils with high trait EI scores were found to be less likely than those with low scores to have unauthorised absences from school or to have had periods of exclusion from school due to rule violations ( Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004).

Children who engage in bullying behaviour

Consistent associations are reported between bullying and other behaviour problems, for example conduct problems ( Viding, Simmonds, Petrides, & Frederickson, 2009), and externalising ( Andreou, 2001) or arousal seeking behaviour ( Woods & White, 2005). In addition, bullying is frequently associated with peer problems and low levels of prosocial behaviours ( Arseneault et al., 2006; Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2000). Wolke et al. (2000) reported similar patterns of associations for both direct and indirect bullying in their 6-9 year old sample and, like Craig (1998), found that boys of this age were more frequent perpetrators of both types of bullying. Across childhood and adolescence higher 2levels of engagement by males in direct aggression is supported, but stereotypical attribution of higher rates of indirect aggression to females challenged, by meta analytic findings ( Archer, 2004; Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008), and the need to consider the relationship between gender and bullying in developmental and cultural context highlighted ( Carrera et al., 2011; Felix & Grief-Green, 2010). Archer (2004) reported that girls were only found to be more involved in relational aggression in samples above 11 years, where bullying was assessed using peer ratings. Boys were more likely to engage in physical bullying than girls cross all ages.

Gender considerations are also relevant to the relationship between bullying and socially skilled behaviours and cognitions ( Garandeau, Wilson, & Rodkin, 2010), where there are contradictory findings. Some have argued that children who bully are socially unskilled ( Crick & Dodge, 1999), but others report that they tend to fall into two groups: socially skilled, and socially unskilled ( Kaukiainen et al., 2002). However, socially skilled or unskilled behaviours represent the outcome of interactions between individual competencies and the social demands of situations ( Beauchamp & Anderson, 2010). Taking account of situational factors, the two groups identified by Kaukiainen et al. (2002) appear to map onto the distinction drawn by Olweus, (1993) between 'bully-victims' defined as children who bully others in some situations but are themselves bullied in others, and 'pure bullies' who bully others in some situations but are not themselves. It has been suggested that bully-victims may have a social skills deficiency that leads to engagement in highly emotional reactive aggression in response to real or perceived threats. Pure bullies, on the other hand, may be more cold and calculating, possess good social cognition, and engage in proactive aggression driven by anticipated rewards and controlled by reinforcement contingencies ( Sutton, Smith, & Swettenham, 1999). However, this individually-focused analysis may be overly simplistic. Aspects of the context, such as the role played by bystanders, can be crucial in creating a threatening or supportive environment ( Cowie, Hutson, Oztug, & Myers, 2008) and in delivering consequences contingent on bullying behaviour ( Cowie, 2009; Nickerson, Mele, & Princiotta, 2008).

In addition, so-called pure bullies may also exhibit emotion-related deficits. Gini (2006) found that children who bully did not have difficulties with a social-cognition task but were more ready to show moral disengagement mechanisms. Warden and Mackinnon (2003) found that bullies were less aware than pro-social children of the possible negative consequences of strategies they chose in problematic social situations. Such findings suggest that what bullies may lack, and what may differentiate them from pro-social children, is the ability to appreciate the emotional consequences of their behaviours on others' feelings, and to share in and empathise with the feelings of others ( Arsenio & Lemerise, 2001). In line with this perspective, a negative relationship has been found between bullying behaviour and empathy ( Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006). It seems therefore that for different groups of children who engage in bullying behaviours there is evidence of deficits on dimensions of emotional intelligence such as emotion perception, emotion regulation, and empathy ( Petrides & Furnham, 2000; Humphrey, Curran, Morris, Farrell, & Woods, 2007). However, intervention programmes designed to improve EI have not yet been applied to the problem of bullying.

Emotional literacy interventions

Analogous to the well established use of thinking skills programmes to teach the reasoning and other cognitive abilities assessed by traditional intelligence tests ( Adams, 1989; Dewey & Bento, 2009; Romney & Samuels, 2001), a number of emotional literacy (EL) programmes have been developed to teach knowledge and skills from the sampling domain of EI, such as those required to 'recognise, understand, handle and appropriately express emotions' ( Sharp, 2001). However the extent to which many of these EL programmes are rooted in emotional intelligence theory has been questioned by Zeidner, Roberts, and Matthews (2002) who found that few programmes were specifically designed to change EI. In addition, very few evaluation studies have actually used EI measures, instead improvements in EI have been inferred from outcomes predicted to be influenced by improved EI, such as reductions in aggressive behaviour ( Humphrey et al., 2007). It would seem important therefore that an evaluation of an EL intervention should both assess and target key components of the conceptual EI framework underpinning the programme.

The current study

The current study aimed to evaluate the effects of a targeted EL intervention on bullying behaviour, trait EI and behavioural adjustment. Given that some children who engage in bullying behaviours are themselves bullied, it was also considered important to investigate the effects of the intervention on victimisation. While it has been argued that different types of children who bully may benefit from an EL intervention, this may well depend on their pre-existing level of EL. Qualter et al. (2007) found that an EL intervention designed to counter negative effectives of transition from primary to secondary school was effective for pupils with low, but not high, baseline scores on trait EI. It was therefore hypothesised that an EL intervention based on the broad sampling domain of trait EI would produce a reduction in bullying behaviour and victimisation, but an increase in trait EI and adjustment, and that the intervention effect would be greater for those children whose EL scores were initially low. It was also hypothesised that reductions in bullying and victimisation and improvements in adjustment would be associated with increases in emotional intelligence and EL, particularly among children who had received the EL intervention. As bullying interventions have been reported to be more effective in primary schools ( Pepler, Smith, & Rigby, 2004; Smith, Ananiadou, & Cowie, 2003), it was decided to carry out this pilot study with pupils of primary school age.

In summary, the following hypotheses were investigated.

Bullying behaviours and victimisation will: (a) decrease for participants receiving the EL intervention, relative to those in a wait-list comparison group and (b) decrease more for intervention group participants initially scoring low on EL, than for those initially scoring high on EL.

Trait EI will: (a) increase for participants receiving the EL intervention, relative to those in a wait-list comparison group and (b) increase more for intervention group participants initially scoring low on EL, than for those initially scoring high on EL.

Indices of adjustment will: (a) improve for participants receiving the EL intervention, relative to those in a wait-list comparison group and (b) improve more for intervention group participants initially scoring low on EL, than for those initially scoring high on EL.

Reductions in bullying and victimisation, and improvements in adjustment, will be associated with increases in trait EI and EL scores, particularly in the intervention group.

Method

Participants

Fifty children aged 8-9 years were identified by a peer nomination measure of engagement in bullying behaviour. The threshold for selection of the intervention was set at identification by at least 10% of classmates, so children would be independently identified as presenting significant bullying behaviour by at least three of their classmates. On account of constraints on intervention group size, a maximum of seven children from each of the eight classes involved were recruited for this study. The children were randomly assigned to either an intervention or wait-list comparison group. Three children were withdrawn as parental consent was not available for participation in the intervention, and two were withdrawn during the intervention period because they moved out of the area. The 10% threshold level of peer nominations was substantially exceeded by most participants in each condition, (intervention group: M = 33.1, SD = 18.0, comparison group: M = 39.7, SD = 18.9).

The intervention and wait-list comparison groups were broadly equivalent across a range of demographic variables: gender, majority or minority ethnic group membership and attainment in English and mathematics. There were 22 children (18 boys and 4 girls) in the intervention condition and 23 (21 boys and 2 girls) in the wait-list comparison condition. The gender split reflects previous research on bullying in which boys are more identifiable as bullies as they tend to engage in direct bullying involving physical or verbal attacks ( Olweus, 1993). The intervention group comprised 68% White British children, 14% Black Caribbean and African, 9% Indian and 9% other minority ethnic and mixed heritage groups. The comparison group comprised 65% White British children, 23% Black Caribbean and African, 4% Indian and 9% other minority ethnic and mixed heritage groups. Information from school records indicated a representative spread of attainment in English and mathematics for pupils of this age within each group.

Eligibility for free school meals was collected as an index of socioeconomic status. In the wait-list comparison group 13% ( n = 3) of pupils were found to be eligible, a figure closely comparable with the percentage reported for primary schools nationally (14.5%, Hansard. 2007). However, none of the pupils in the intervention group were recorded by their schools as eligible for free school meals. None of the children in the study had legally ascertained special educational needs for which school district level provision was mandated. However, across both groups a number of children had recorded special educational needs at a lower level, necessitating additional action by their schools, sometimes with consultation or support form district special educational services. This was the case for 36% of the children allocated to the intervention group and 31% of those allocated to the comparison group. School-based interventions previously provided for these children had included small group circle time, anger management, and individual mentoring.

Procedure

Approval for the project was obtained from the university ethics committee, and from the school district in which the study took place, a suburban area of a large English town. Four primary schools were invited to take part in the study, and all agreed to do so. These schools were known by the first author to be actively engaged with a universal social-emotional learning programme which included an anti-bullying component. Each had two classes in each year group, with approximately 30 pupils per class. Parents of all children in these classes received a letter from their child's school informing them that two whole class assessment sessions would take place, advising them that the information would be made available to school staff for monitoring of bullying behaviour and giving them the opportunity to withdraw their child or to contact the first author for further information. No parent sought further information or opted to withdraw their child.

Whole class measures (Guess Who bullying and victimisation) were carried out by the first author in the classroom in the presence of the class teacher. The purpose of the activities was explained to the children in terms of helping schools promote positive relations and reduce bullying. The voluntary nature of their participation was explained to the children and assurances about anonymity provided in age-appropriate language. No child declined to participate. The importance of confidentiality was stressed and, following administration of the Guess Who measures, the first author and class teacher delivered a personal social and health education lesson focused on strategies for dealing with bullying.

Using the Guess Who bullying measure children eligible for the intervention were identified as described in the participants section. Within each school, participants were randomly assigned by coin toss to one of two groups: an intervention group, and a wait-list comparison group. Information about the intervention and its delivery in two phases was given to parents of these children. Active parental consent was required for the participation of each child in the programme and access to their school records. Three of the 50 parents from whom consent was sought declined to permit their child's participation.

The first author met with the children for whom parental consent had been obtained to explain the intervention and the study and to seek their consent for participation. No child declined to participate in the intervention. All children involved in the intervention and wait-list comparison groups also agreed to complete the other study measures and these were administered by the first author pre-intervention and post-intervention. Following the conclusion of the twelve-week intervention the first author again visited each classroom to re-administer the Guess Who bullying and victimisation measures.

Intervention

The targeted intervention described below was delivered in this study in the context of the active engagement of each of the four schools with the SEAL programme ( Department for Education and Skills, 2005), a national social and emotional learning initiative in the UK. Primarily, a universal preventative approach, the SEAL programme also provides some differentiated resources for small group work with children who need extra support. The programme addresses seven themes, including saying no to bullying, so the intervention described in this study was implemented against a background of whole school and class-based work on social and emotional learning and bullying. The importance of such congruence between novel targeted interventions and existing practice in schools has consistently been highlighted ( Elias, Zins, Gaczyk, & Weissberg, 2003; Weare & Gray, 2003).

The targeted intervention was a programme that involved the explicit teaching in small groups of EL skills taken from the Emotional Literacy Assessment and Intervention Ages 7-11 Pack ( Faupel, 2003). In order to facilitate the implementation of the programme by trained school staff, a scheme of work was written by (and is available from) the first author. The scheme focused on four sections of the above intervention: (1) Developing self-awareness, (2) Learning about self-regulation, (3) Enhancing empathy and (4) Improving social skills. There were three sessions on each theme, so the programme of weekly sessions required 12weeks to complete. For example, in the theme on developing self-awareness, the three sessions focused on recognising strengths, recognising and identifying feelings, and emotions and behaviour, respectively. Each session was delivered in school time and lasted 45-60 min. The scheme of work, although largely based on the EL Intervention ( Faupel, 2003), had a particular focus on behavioural and cognitive-behavioural elements: for example, the children were set weekly tasks to complete which involved noting linked behaviours, thoughts and feelings. There were two groups of five and two groups of six children and the main emphasis of the group sessions was on discussion, role-play and practical activities.

The intervention was delivered in school time by teaching aids, para-professionals who were permanent members of school staff. Their role in the schools involved supporting children's engagement and learning in the classroom and implementing small group interventions. Children in these schools were very used to participating teaching aid led small group work linked either to the national literacy and numeracy programmes or, as in this case, to the SEAL programme, so no particular explanation was needed for these group sessions. The children in each class who were not involved with the intervention remained with their class teachers, following their normal classroom curriculum. To promote integrity of implementation across schools, a two-hour training session was provided by the first author and attended by all school staff responsible for implementing the programme. The initial EL session was observed by the first author in each school and telephone consultations and drop-in support were provided throughout the study

Fidelity of implementation was assessed in two ways. Firstly, through discussion of a record completed by the school staff, to show how closely each session adhered to the lesson plan from the scheme of work. Secondly, through periodic observation by the first author, and scrutiny of pupil worksheets completed during the sessions. The first session was observed by the first author in all cases to establish that the staff could be relied on to implement the intervention. Feedback was also given on the sessions observed. A fidelity questionnaire was completed for each session in discussion with school staff, drawing on the records they had completed and on the worksheets completed by the pupils. A rating was given on a 5-point scale (from 1: very different from the plan to 5: exactly the same as the plan) to indicate how closely each session had been implemented according to the lesson plan from the scheme of work. A median fidelity of implementation score was calculated across all sessions, giving a score ranging from 1, which was considered poor, through satisfactory, good, and very good, to 5, which was considered excellent. Median session ratings were good for two of the four schools and very good for the other two. No session was rated lower than satisfactory.

Measures

Bullying and victimisation

Investigations into bullying behaviour typically use either self-report or peer nomination methods ( Cornell, Sheras, & Cole, 2006). Studies comparing these methods have found that children who engage in bullying typically report lower levels than peers who rate them ( Pakaslahti & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, 2000). To guard against such under-reporting the present study utilised a peer nomination method. The Guess Who peer assessment procedure used by Coie and Dodge (1988) was adapted, following Parkhurst and Asher (1992), to allow unrestricted nominations and use proportion scores. The bullying and victimisation items written for the Guess Who procedure by Nabuzoka and Smith (1993) were used. Children were asked to identify anyone in their class who fitted the following behavioural descriptors:

Bully: 'This person is a bully and often picks on other people or hits them, or teases them, or does other nasty things to them for no good reason'.

Victim: 'Someone who often gets picked on, or hit, or teased, or has nasty things done to them by other children for no good reason'.

The score for each child was the proportion of classroom peers who nominated them for each descriptor.

Emotional Literacy Assessment-Pupil Form ( ELA-PF) ( Faupel, 2003) is a self-report measure of EL for children aged 7-11 years, standardised in the UK. The pupil form contains 25 items mapped on to the components of EL as defined by Goleman (1996): self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy and social skills. This assessment is linked to the intervention implemented in this study and both focus on the same aspects of EL. A 4-point rating scale is used to indicate how true each item is for the pupil: very true, somewhat true, not really true or not at all true. In the current study, a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .63 was obtained. High and low EL groups were identified by splitting the scores at the median.

Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Child Form (TEIQue-CF) ( Mavroveli, Petrides, Shove, & Whitehead, 2008) is a multidimensional questionnaire designed for completion by children aged 8-12 years. The questionnaire contains 75 short statements (e.g. 'If I'm sad, I try to put on a happy face'), responded to on a 5-point Likert scale from completely disagree to completely agree. Items were designed to cover nine facets of trait EI: adaptability, affective disposition, emotion expression, emotion perception, emotion regulation, low impulsivity, peer relations, self-esteem and self-motivation. This measure therefore has a broader sampling domain of EI than the aspects covered by the EL measure (ELA-PF). In the current study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was .79.

Adjustment

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Self-Report Version ( SDQ) ( Goodman, 1997). The SDQ is a measure of adjustment and psychopathology for children and young people that is widely used in UK educational and clinical settings. The questionnaire contains 25 items organised into five scales (five items per scale): emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity and inattention, peer relationship problems and pro-social behaviour. Items are rated on a three-point scale as Not true, Somewhat true or Certainly true. Subscale totals are the sum of the scores for the 5 items (0-10). A Total Difficulties score is obtained from the sum of the four subscales: emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity and inattention, peer relationship problems. Originally designed for young people aged 11-16, there is evidence of sound inter- informant and test-retest reliability from 7 to 8 years old ( Mellor, 2004; Muris, Meesters, Eijkelenboom, & Vincken, 2004). In the current study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficients were 0.59 for the Total Difficulties Score and 0.78 for Pro-social Scale.

Design and analyses

The study utilised a pre-post comparison group design in which stratification by school was adopted to minimise group differences in school and neighbourhood factors and for reasons of feasibility of intervention delivery. With the exception of hypothesis 4, mixed between- and within-participants analyses were employed. Preliminary analyses established that the data did not violate the assumptions required for the analyses planned to test the study hypotheses.

The hypotheses that, relative to the wait-list comparison condition, a reduction in bullying behaviour and victimisation (hypothesis 1a) and an increase in trait EI (hypothesis 2a) would be found for the EL intervention condition, and that the hypothesised change in each case would be greater for those children whose EL scores were initially low (hypothesis 1b and 2b), were tested using three mixed analysis of variances (ANOVAs) with the peer-rated (Guess Who) bullying behaviour and victimisation scores, and the trait emotional intelligence ( TEIQue-CF) score as the dependent variables, Group (intervention or wait-list comparison) and EL (above or below the median on ELA-PF) as the between participants variables, and time (pre-intervention and post-intervention) as the within participants variable.

The hypothesis that, relative to the wait-list comparison condition, an improvement in adjustment would be found for the EL intervention condition (hypothesis 3a) and that the improvement would be greater for those children whose EL scores were initially low (hypothesis 3b), were tested using a mixed multivariate analysis of variance with the Total Difficulties and Pro-Social scores of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as the dependent variables, Group (intervention or wait-list comparison) and EL (above or below the median on ELA-PF) as the between participants variables, and time (pre-intervention and post-intervention) as the within participants variable. A correlational design was employed to test hypotheses 4. The predictions that reductions in bullying and victimisation scores on the Guess Who measure and improvements in adjustment, as assessed by the Total Difficulties and Pro-Social scores of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire would be associated with increases in emotional intelligence ( TEIQue-CF) and EL ( ELA-PF), particularly among children who had received the EL intervention, were tested using Pearson's correlation coefficients with the intervention and wait-list comparison group data.

Results

(1) Bullying behaviours and victimisation will: (a) decrease for participants receiving the EL intervention, relative to those in the wait-list comparison group and (b) decrease more for intervention group participants initially scoring low on EL than for those initially scoring high on EL.

The results of the data analyses are provided in , from which it can be seen that there was a significant three-way interaction effect between time, group (intervention or comparison) and EL (high or low). As such, main effects were not interpretable and simple effects (pre-post effects for each group based on EL category) were examined. Simple effect analyses for the Low EL group showed a statistically significant effect of the intervention on peer nominations of bullying: interaction between time and group F(1, 20) = 5.18, p = .03, η ² = .21. The effect size associated with this interaction is large, partial eta squared of .01 representing a small effect, .06 a moderate effect and .14 a large effect ( Cohen, 1988).

shows the mean differences in bullying scores of children with EL scores ( ELA-PF), below the median at pre-test. Engagement in bullying behaviour (Guess Who) decreased significantly from pre-test to post-test for those Low EL children who received the intervention, t(10) = 2.70, p = .02, but for those in the wait-list comparison group it did not significantly decrease, t(10)= −0.33, p = .75.

shows the mean differences in bullying scores of children with EL scores above the median. By contrast, the analyses for the High EL group did not show a statistically significant effect of the intervention F(1, 21)= 1.17, p = .29, η ² = .05. In this analysis, there was a significant main effect of time, F(1, 21) = 7.53, p = .012, η ² = .26 with scores tending to decrease, but not of group, F(1, 21) = 2.20, p = .15, η ² = .10.

shows the pre-intervention and post-intervention means and standard deviations of Victimisation scores (Guess Who) for children in the intervention and comparison group, scoring high and low on EL. Analyses of these scores indicated a significant main effect of time, F(1, 41)= 13.69, p = .001, η ² = .25, but not of group, F(1, 41) = 1.57, p = .22, η ² = .04, or EL category, F(1, 41) = 1.03, p = .32, η ² = .02 Neither the three-way interaction, nor any of the two-way interactions were significant. This result indicates that victimisation decreased over time irrespective of the child's initial EI score or their receipt of the intervention. The hypothesis of an intervention effect on victimisation was not supported.

Table 2.

(2) Trait EI will: (a) increase for participants receiving the EL intervention, relative to those in the wait-list comparison group and (b) increase more for intervention group participants initially scoring low on EL, than for those initially scoring high on EL

shows the pre-intervention and post-intervention means and standard deviations of trait emotional intelligence ( TEIQue-CF) scores for children in the intervention and comparison group, scoring high and low on EL. In the analysis of these scores, there was a significant main effect of EL category, F(1, 34) = 25.00, p = .000, η ² = .42, but not intervention group or time, F(1, 34) = 0.42, p = .52, η ² = .01, or time, F(1, 34) = 2.86, p = .10, η ² = .08. This result shows that children in the high EL category consistently score higher on the TEIQue-CF than children in the low EL category. However, the hypothesis of an intervention effect on emotional intelligence was not supported.

(3) Indices of adjustment will: (a) improve for participants receiving the EL intervention, relative to those in the wait-list comparison group and (b) improve more for intervention group participants initially scoring low on EL, than for those initially scoring high on EL.

In the Adjustment analyses, a doubly multivariate analysis was conducted to assess whether there was a difference in the amount of change on the Total Difficulties score and the Pro-Social score of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire between the intervention and wait-list comparison groups, and between the children who scored high and low on EL at pre-test. A significant multivariate effect was found for the main effect of EL category, F(2, 34) = 5.48, p = .009, η ² = .24, but not group, F(2, 34) = 0.97, p = .39, η ² = .06, or time, F(2, 34) = 0.24, p = .79, η ² = .01. Neither the three-way interaction, nor any of the two-way interactions were significant. This finding indicates that the high and low EL groups differ on the linear combination of the two adjustment variables.

Follow-up ANOVAs revealed a significant difference on the Total Difficulties score, F(1, 35) = 8.32, p = .007, η ² = .19, but the difference on pro-social behaviour did not reach the p < .05 criterion for statistical significance, F(1, 35) = 3.35, p = .076, η ² = .09. The pre-intervention and post-intervention means and standard deviations of the adjustment scores (Total Difficulties and Pro-social scale scores on the SDQ) for children in the intervention and comparison group, scoring high and low on EL can be found in . The ANOVA results indicate that children scoring in the low EL category experienced a higher level of adjustment related difficulties than those scoring in the high EL category, across time and intervention groups. The hypothesis of an intervention effect on the adjustment variables was not supported.

Hypothesis 4 Reductions in bullying and victimisation and improvements in adjustment will be associated with increases in trait EI and EL scores, particularly in the intervention group.

In both the intervention and wait-list comparison group changes over time in the EL, trait EI, and pro-social behaviour measures were highly correlated (see ). However it was only in the intervention group that increases in EL and trait EI were associated with decreases in children's self-reported adjustment difficulties. Likewise, it was only in the intervention group that increases in trait EI were associated with decreases in peer-reported engagement in bullying behaviour. Moderate, but non-significant, decreases in victimisation were associated with increases in EL and trait EI in the intervention group. By contrast, in the comparison group, increases in EL and trait EI scores tended to be associated with increases in victimisation, a statistically significant increase being found between victimisation and trait EI. It can be concluded that increases in emotional intelligence are associated with decreases in bullying behaviour and adjustment difficulties among children who received the EL intervention, but not those in the wait-list comparison group.

Table 3.

Discussion

This study was designed to evaluate the effects of an EL intervention for peer-identified pupils who bully in four schools where a universal social and emotional learning programme was already in place. A pre-post comparison group design with stratification by school was employed. Hypothesised effects of the intervention and interactions with initial levels of EL were tested for peer-reported engagement in bullying behaviour and levels of victimisation and for self-reported trait EI and adjustment measures. Hypothesised associations between changes in these variables were also investigated.

Key findings

The intervention was found to have a differential effect on pupils who bully, depending on their initial level of EL. Pupils whose EL score was low at the start of the intervention only showed significant reductions in bullying behaviour if they received the targeted EI intervention. Pupils whose EL score was high at the start of the intervention showed an overall decrease in bullying behaviour whether they were in the intervention or comparison group. While the effect size of these significant reductions in bullying behaviour was large, in contrast to the small effect sizes reported by meta-analyses in the field ( Merrell et al., 2008; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011), this is not surprising as effects in this study were assessed only for the children high on bullying behaviour at the outset who were identified for the intervention, not for all the children in the school. One interpretation of the pattern of findings obtained is that children with high EI were able to take advantage of the universal programmes being offered by the school and did not benefit further from a more intensive EI-focused intervention. By contrast children in the low EI group may have required the intervention offered by the more intensive and focused small group EL programme which was targeted on bullying.

This finding has a number of parallels in the EI literature with secondary aged pupils. Qualter et al. (2007) found a positive response on measures such as lateness to class by pupils with low EI, but not high EI, to a universal EL programme delivered in the first year of secondary school. In a different aspect of school life, Petrides et al. (2004) found that among pupils at risk of school drop out, those with low trait EI appeared particularly vulnerable. Hence among pupils with high cognitive abilities, there was little difference in academic attainment between those with high EI and those with low EI. However, among pupils with low cognitive abilities, those with high EI did significantly better academically than those with low EI.

The interaction effect found for bullying was specific to this variable and was not apparent on any of the other outcome measures. The specificity of the effect is somewhat surprising given the moderate associations reported in previous studies between these variables, for example between trait EI and peer-reported aggression ( Petrides et al., 2006), between peer reported bullying and the measures of adjustment used in this study ( Viding et al., 2009). However, it does at least suggest that the effect is unlikely to be due to factors such as greater tractability per se of problems experienced by pupils in the low EL category. Main effects of EL category were found, with pupils in high the EL category scoring higher on trait EI and lower on adjustment difficulties. These again are consistent with previous findings in the literature ( Mavroveli et al., 2009; Qualter et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2009).

When associations between change scores were examined, they were found in a number of cases to be of similar magnitude in both the intervention and the comparison group. It is likely that these associations between change scores on trait EI, EL and pro-social behaviour, primarily reflect their overlapping content domains. By contrast, the finding of significant associations in the intervention group only between decreases in adjustment problems and increases in trait EI or EL cannot be explained by the content or nature of the measures. However, as these measures all rely on self-report, there is the possibility that associated changes reflect factors such as increased positivity relating to the additional small group attention received through participation in the intervention. Such explanations cannot account for the finding of a significant association, in the intervention group only, between increases in self-rated trait EI and reductions in peer-rated bullying behaviour. While it is not possible to conclude that these changes are attributable to the EL content of the intervention, it does suggest that further research is warranted with larger samples to allow change processes models to be tested.

One puzzling result from the correlational analysis was the significant association found between increases in peer rated victimisation and trait emotional intelligence in the wait-list comparison group, particularly as the moderate, non-significant correlations between these variables in the intervention group were negative. It is possible that different processes are operating in the two groups. In the intervention group increases in emotional intelligence may have some protective function, whereas in the comparison group the experience of being victimised may stimulate the developing of coping strategies that are reflected in increased emotional intelligence scores. Again, further research with larger samples would be needed to test such hypothesised process models.

Limitations and future directions

A number of limitations of the study must be acknowledged. Given the nested nature of the design, of children within school-based groups, use of a multi-level analysis would have been desirable. This was precluded as only four schools were involved, so there were insufficient level 2 units ( Snijders & Bosker, 1999). As the sample was stratified by school, direct effects of school might reasonably be assumed to be equivalent across both intervention and comparison conditions. However, possible school by intervention interactions could not be investigated. Following on from the encouraging results of this small scale pilot study, further research using the larger samples required by a multi-level strategy would be necessary to adequately take account of the nested nature of the data.

In the between-groups design employed, there was sufficient power to detect moderate to large effects, and these are likely to be of most relevance to practice. However, the low sample size means that some potentially interesting, albeit small, effects may have been missed. The wait-list comparison group provided a control for the passage of time, but there was no control for the additional adult attention or the focus on bullying received by the intervention group. It is possible that children in the low EL category responded differentially to incidental aspects such as these, rather than to the content of the EL programme. It should also be acknowledge that, despite the efforts of school staff and researchers to frame engagement with the intervention positively, the particular focus on bullying with a subgroup of pupils carries a risk of stereotyping and associated counterproductive effects.

There were limitations also relating to the measures used. In a number of cases, the reliability coefficients were relatively low, namely the EL questionnaire and the total difficulties score of the measure of adjustment used. This may have resulted in attenuated correlations involving these variables and limited the detection of other hypothesised effects. The use of these self-report measures, given the age of the children involved, should be considered in future research. Assessment of adjustment in the study was limited to self report and some children may have selected socially desirable responses, rather than reflecting on their own behaviours. Given the modest correlations often found between child self-report and teacher reports, even on parallel measures, multi-method assessment is commonly recommended ( Stanger & Lewis, 1993; Wright & Torrey, 2001). Due to the timing of the intervention in the present study schools were unwilling to commit class teachers to completing the teacher version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, prior to and following the intervention period. The possible effects of common method variance in inflating the relationships between intervention group change scores on trait EI and the adjustment measures must be considered. It is worth noting that these correlations are similar in size to the correlation between self-reported trait EI and peer-reported bullying behaviour. Nonetheless, future research should seek to validate these findings using multi-method assessment approaches.

A further set of limitations relate to the variables included in the analyses. Although the focus in this study was on EI, there are clearly many other factors whose role in bullying behaviour in schools have already been demonstrated ( Hong & Espelage, 2012). In particular, important socio-cultural variables, such as gender, race, ethnicity and socio-economic status, while examined for the purposes of group matching, could not be included as independent variables in the analysis of this small sample. This is problematical in the light of the established significance in bullying research of gender ( Card et al., 2008), minority race and ethnicity status ( Vervoort, Scholte, & Oberbeek, 2010) and socio-economic status ( Due et al., 2009).

In relation to socio-economic status, it should be noted that the groups in this study were not successfully matched on socio-economic status as the intervention group did not contain any children who were eligible for free school meals, and it is not clear therefore whether the findings would apply to more economically disadvantaged groups of children. Future research should investigate the extent to which these variables moderate the relationship between bullying and EI. However, a comprehensive application of ecological systems theory to school bullying, ( Hong & Espelage, 2012) moves beyond the investigation of such associations, identifying a more significant role for structural inequality which may impact also at other levels. For example, the resourcing of schools in particular neighbourhoods is identified as a salient exosystem variable, while at the macrosystem level, school norms and culture may play a role in perpetuating inequality in relation to race, ethnicity, gender and socio-economic background. There is clearly a need in future research on the broader applicability of the findings to investigate associations with socio-cultural factors at a number of levels.

Implications for educators

The results caution against the adoption of a 'one size fits all' approach to targeted bullying interventions in schools. By contrast, in selecting children for interventions designed to develop knowledge and skills negatively associated with bullying behaviour, it is important to establish at the outset that the children have assessed deficits in these areas. It does not appear that children already performing at an average level stand to benefit from participation. The results of this study support the proposal by Brackett, Mayer, and Warner (2004) from a study of ability EI with college students that there may be some threshold level of EI needed for appropriate decision-making in social situations, above which further increases do not confer any further advantage.

This study provides evidence that for some children who bully, those with low EL, a targeted EL intervention can lead to a significant decrease in peer-reported engagement in bullying behaviour. A positive feature of the intervention was that it was delivered by in situ school personnel as is widely recommended ( Braswell et al., 1997). However caution must be exercised in generalising the results of the study to different school contexts. In all of the schools that participated a national universal social and emotional learning programme was already being implemented and the school personnel involved were experienced in working with small groups of children, albeit primarily on academic tasks. If the intervention was introduced in a school lacking a universal social and emotional learning programme which includes a component on bullying the same pattern of findings may well not be obtained. The focus in this study on individual level variables and targeted interventions is intended to complement the prevailing emphasis in ecological systems approaches on the implementation of universal programmes ( Pepler et al., 2004; Swearer & Espelage, 2004), but not to replace them. It does appear that for some children such targeted interventions are necessary, and can be successful provided they are indeed well targeted.

References

Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.

Committee for Children. Steps to respect. A bullying prevention program. Seattle: Committee for Children; 2001.

Cornell D. T., Sheras P. L., Cole J. C. M. Assessment of bullying. In: Jimerson S. R., Furlong M., editors. Handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2006. pp. 191-209.

Cowie H. Peer support challenges school bullying. In: Cefai E., Cooper P., editors. Promoting emotional education: Engaging children and young people with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Innovative learning for all. London: Jessica Kingsley; 2009. pp. 85-92.

Department for Education and Skills. Excellence and enjoyment: Social and emotional aspects of learning. London: Author; 2005.

Department for Education. Preventing and tackling bullying: Advice for headteachers, staff and governing bodies. London: Author; 2011.

Due P., Merlo J., Harel-Fisch Y., Damsgaard T., Holstein B. E., Hetland J., Lynch J. Socioeconomic inequality in exposure to bullying during adolescence: A comparative, cross-sectional, multilevel study in 35 countries. American Journal of Public Health. 2009;99:907-914. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.139303. [PMC free article]

Faupel A. Emotional literacy assessment and intervention ages 7-11. London: NFER Nelson; 2003.

Felix E. D., Greif-Green J. Popular girls and brawny boys: The role of gender in bullying and victimization experiences. In: Jimerson S. R., Swearer S. M., Espelage D. L., editors. Handbook of bullying in schools. An international perspective. New York, NY: Routledge; 2010. pp. 173-186.

Galloway D. M., Roland E. Is the direct approach to reducing bullying always best? In: Smith P. K., Pepler D., Rigby K., editors. Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004. pp. 37-53.

Garandeau C. F., Wilson T., Rodkin P. C. The popularity of elementary school bullies in gender and racial context. In: Jimerson S. R., Swearer S. M., Espelage D. L., editors. Handbook of bullying in schools. An international perspective. New York, NY: Routledge; 2010. pp. 119-136.

Goleman D. Emotional intelligence why it can matter more than IQ. London: Bloomsbury; 1996.

Hansard . Information on free school meals for maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools for January 2007: 3 Sep 2007: Column 1716 W. 2007. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070903/text/70903w0029.htm.

Juvonen J., Graham S. Research-based interventions on bullying. In: Sanders C. E., Phye G. D., editors. Bullying: Implications for the classroom. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press; 2004. pp. 229-255.

Marsh H. W., Parada R. H., Craven R. G., Finger L. In the looking glass: A reciprocal effects model elucidating the complex nature of bullying, psychological determinants and the central role of self-concept. In: Sanders C. S., Phye G. D., editors. Bullying: Implications for the classroom. Orlando, FL: Academic Press; 2004. pp. 63-109.

Olweus D. Bully/victim problems among school children: Some basic facts and effects of a school-based intervention program. In: Pepler D., Rubin K., editors. The development and treatment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1991. pp. 411-448.

Olweus D. Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell; 1993.

Olweus D. Sweden. In: Smith P. K., Morita Y., Junger-Tas J., Olweus D., Catalano R., Slee P., editors. The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. New York, NY: Routledge; 1999. pp. 7-27.

Pellegrini A. D. Bullying during the middle school years. In: Sanders C. S., Phye G. D., editors. Bullying: Implications for the classroom. Orlando, FL: Academic Press; 2004. pp. 177-202.

Pepler D., Smith P., Rigby K. Looking back and looking forward: Implications for making interventions work effectively. In: Smith P., Pepler D., Rigby K., editors. Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2004. pp. 307-324.

Salmon G., Smith D. M. Bullying in schools: Self-reported anxiety, depression and self-esteem in secondary school children. British Medical Journal. 1998;317:924-925. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7163.924. [PMC free article]

Sharp P. Nurturing emotional literacy. London: David Fulton; 2001.

Slee P. T. The PEACE pack: A program form reducing bullying in our schools. 3rd ed. Adelaide: Flinders University; 2001.

Smith P. K., Pepler D., Rigby K. Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.

Smith P. K., Sharp S., Eslea M., Thompson D. England: The Sheffield Project. In: Smith P. K., Pepler D., Rigby K., editors. Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004. pp. 99-124.

Snijders T. A. B., Bosker R. J. Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999.

Swearer S. M., Espelage D. L. Introduction: A social-ecological framework of bullying among youth. In: Espelage D. L., Swearer S. M., editors. Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004. pp. 1-12.

Vervoort M. H., Scholte R. H. J., Oberbeek G. Bullying and victimization among adolescents: The role of ethnicity and ethnic composition of school class. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2010;39:1-11. doi: 10.1007/s10964-008-9355-y. [PMC free article]

Weare K., Gray G. What works in developing children's emotional and social competence and wellbeing? Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills; 2003. (Research Report No. 456).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effects of an emotional literacy intervention for students identified with bullying behaviour

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The effectiveness of a 12-week, small group emotional literacy (EL) intervention in reducing bullying behaviour in school was evaluated. Participants were 50 primary school pupils identified through peer nomination as engaging in bullying behaviours. The intervention was implemented in schools already engaged with a universal social and emotional learning initiative, including an anti-bullying component.

# data[].attributes.headline
Helping Children Develop Emotional Literacy

# data[].attributes.subject
Helping Children Develop Emotional Literacy

# data[].attributes.body
Exercises that teachers and parents can use to help young children develop the ability to identify emotions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Developmental psychologists Myrna Shure and George Spivack have been champions of what they call interpersonal cognitive problem solving (ICPS), which was recently modernized to stand for "I can problem solve." Shure and Spivack have championed a strategy of focusing on key word pairs used in conversation in everyday social situations.

Build Feelings Vocabulary

Young children should be able to recognize and accurately label these feelings: sad, mad, happy, afraid, surprised, upset, worried, and proud. The best way to check for this ability is to show them pictures of these emotions, using flash cards or the pictures in picture books (such as Dr. Seuss books) and not focusing on the text. First, ask children about the feelings they see in the images. If they're correct, ask them how they know. Whether they're correct or not, point out the variety of ways feelings are shown-different aspects of faces (eyes, eyebrows, mouth, forehead) and postures.

Use Key Cognitive Word Pairs

In their research, Shure and Spivack identified key word pairs that are the building blocks of human relationships and problem solving. So much of our complicated, adult understanding stems from these basic distinctions:

is/is not

same/different

can/cannot, may/may not

and/or, else

some/all

before/after

if/then, might/maybe

why/because, what happened so that _____ happened next

They suggest that adults explicitly use this terminology when speaking with young children, as well as in activities intended to ensure they understand the meaning of these concepts.

Exploring Same and Different

Anyone familiar with Sesame Street has heard the lyrics, "One of these things is not like the others / One of these does not belong." This, of course, is a way of teaching same and different. And there are innumerable occasions every day when teachers and parents can help young children make the essential cognitive distinctions that these word pairs represent. Here are three useful classroom activities.

Picture Naming and Rhyming: You will need pictures of a cat, rat, bat, table, chair, and dog.Ask your class, "Who can tell us which pictures sound the same as cat?" Point to:

All the pictures that sound the same as cat

Some of the pictures that sound the same as cat

A picture that does not sound the same as cat

All the pictures that do not sound the same as cat

Using Alliteration: You will need pictures of a sock, table, book, bag, ball, and bat. Ask the students to look and listen for what the pictures have in common or how they are different. Then point to:

All the pictures that start with the same sound as book

Some of the pictures that start with the same sound as book

Some of the pictures that start with a different sound from book

Just Like Me: Tell the class that you're going to read a few statements to them. If the statement applies to them, they are to stand up next to their chair. If it does not apply, they are to remain seated. For example, if you say "Who has brown eyes?" all the children with brown eyes should stand up. Those children who don't have brown eyes should remain seated. Make the point that those who are standing share a characteristic that is the same, and those who are sitting have a characteristic that is different. After you have done some or all of the list below, make the point that the children all have things about them that are the same and they all have things about them that are different.

Read the following statements to the group. After each statement, all children should sit back down. Note that this can be repeated with increasing complexity by adding "and," "or," or "not" while adding related statements (e.g., "Stand if you do not have a dog and if you have a brother"). Doing so can promote both cognitive development and listening skills. Here's a "stand up" example list you can use with young children:

Have a pet at home

Have a sister

Like to read

Have ever been on an airplane

Live with a grandparent

Are x years old

Like broccoli

Speak more than one language

Like roller coasters

Have a birthday in February

Play soccer

We now realize now that these and the other skills described earlier all are part of emotional literacy, and we need to start building them in and out of school when our children are young, and continue thereafter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Helping Children Develop Emotional Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Developmental psychologists Myrna Shure and George Spivack have been champions of what they call interpersonal cognitive problem solving (ICPS), which was recently modernized to stand for "I can problem solve." Shure and Spivack have championed a strategy of focusing on key word pairs used in conversation in everyday social situations.

# data[].attributes.headline
'The People Currency: Practicing Emotional Intelligence' Video

# data[].attributes.subject
'The People Currency: Practicing Emotional Intelligence' Video

# data[].attributes.body
Discussing emotional intelligence and how it can be utilised to excel in the world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The People Currency: Practicing Emotional Intelligence | Jason Bridges | TEDxWabashCollege

# data[].attributes.headline
Mental Health and Social and Emotional Learning: Evidence, Principles, Tensions, Balances - Weare, K.

# data[].attributes.subject
Mental Health and Social and Emotional Learning: Evidence, Principles, Tensions, Balances - Weare, K.

# data[].attributes.body
This paper gives an overview of current evidence, practice and driving principles in mental health promotion and social and emotional education in schools, and explores some tensions, balances and debates in the field. It examines the evidence base for such work in terms of its impacts on learning, behaviour and mental and emotional well-being

# data[].attributes.headline
Developing mindfulness with children and young people: a review of the evidence and policy context - Weare, K.

# data[].attributes.subject
Developing mindfulness with children and young people: a review of the evidence and policy context - Weare, K.

# data[].attributes.body
This paper aims to explore the growing field of the teaching of mindfulness to young people, looking at its social and policy context, its applications, and other areas of work that it might support and within which it might fit

# data[].attributes.headline
Mindfulness in Schools: A Growing Movement

# data[].attributes.subject
Mindfulness in Schools: A Growing Movement

# data[].attributes.body
Information, potential benefits and evidence for mindfulness in schools

# data[].attributes.headline
The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Social and Emotional Competence in Relation to Student and Classroom Outcomes - Jennings & Greenberg

# data[].attributes.subject
The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Social and Emotional Competence in Relation to Student and Classroom Outcomes - Jennings & Greenberg

# data[].attributes.body
The authors propose a model of the prosocial classroom that highlights the importance of teachers’ social and emotional competence (SEC) and well- being in the development and maintenance of supportive teacher–student relationships, effective classroom management, and successful social and emotional learning program implementation