Technology-Based Bullying Intervention for Rural Schools: Perspectives on Needs, Challenges, and Design

Abstract

Bullying is a significant problem in the United States, with 26.7% of middle school students reporting bullying victimization. The majority of bullying programs are comprehensive, school-wide interventions that require significant resources for implementation, creating barriers and challenges for schools in rural and low-income communities. To increase access for these schools, we propose to translate a brief, bystander bullying intervention (STAC) into a technology-based format. Using consensual qualitative research (CQR), we aimed to understand the needs of school personnel and perceived challenges to program implementation to provide information on how to best serve middle schools in rural and low-income communities. We conducted interviews and focus groups with key school personnel at three middle schools in rural, low-income communities (N = 15). Participants indicated a strong interest in a technology-based bullying intervention and reported positive conditions for implementation including administrative support and technology-readiness. Participants identified program efficacy, flexibility of delivery, and parental involvement as important components of bullying prevention and identified implementation challenges, which included time, financial resources, and teacher buy-in. Perceived strengths of the STAC intervention included providing a clear definition of bullying, skills training and practice, and a certificate of completion. Feedback related to translating the intervention to a technology-based format included the use of virtual interaction and a hybrid virtual/in-person program, particularly for booster-sessions. Findings from this study support the need for the proposed technology-based STAC intervention and provide feedback on both the needs and challenges that need to be addressed for successful implementation in middle schools in rural and low-income communities.

Bullying is a significant problem in schools in the United States, with prevalence data indicating 20.2% of students aged 12-18 report being a target of bullying (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). Bullying peaks in middle school, with 26.7% of students reporting bullying victimization (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). Among middle school students, bullying victimization is associated with negative mental health risks including somatic symptoms (Hase, Goldberg, Smith, Stuck, & Campain, 2015; Rivers, Poteat, Noret, & Ashurst, 2009), depression, anxiety (Hase et al., 2015; Moore, Norman, Suetani, Thomas, Sly, & Scott, 2017; Rivers et al., 2009), suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts (Moore et al., 2017). Students who witness bullying as bystanders also report negative mental health outcomes including depression, anxiety (Midgett & Doumas, 2019; Rivers et al., 2009), and suicidal ideation (Rivers & Noret, 2013).

Bullying among Youth in Rural and Low-Income Communities

Rural youth and youth in low-income communities are particularly vulnerable to bullying. National data indicate students in rural areas report higher rates of bullying (23.8%) than those in urban areas (19.9%) (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). Further, students in households with the lowest income levels report the highest rates of bullying across income categories, with the lowest income levels ranging from 21.0-26.6% compared to 16.6-19.8% among higher income levels (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). Consistent with national prevalence data, a growing body of literature suggests that rural youth are at higher risk for bullying victimization than urban youth (Dulmas, Theriot, & Sowers, 2004; Leadbeater, Sukhawathanakul, Smith, Thompson, Galdstone, & Sklar, 2013). Specifically, among eighth grade students, 18% of students in rural schools reported being teased compared to 13% of students in urban schools. Similar patterns emerged for being excluded (15% vs 11%) and physical bullying (5% vs 3%) (Leadbeater et al., 2013). Further, in a study conducted with rural youth, 82% of students reported some form of bullying victimization in the past 3 months (Dulmas et al., 2004).

Further, research conducted with a nationally representative sample suggests that students in rural areas are also more likely to report bullying perpetration (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton, & Scheidt, 2001). Specifically, relative to students in urban areas, students in rural areas were 3-5% more likely to report bullying than their peers. Additionally, according to national statistics, students in households with the lowest income levels report the highest rates of consequences associated with bullying victimization, including negative effects on school work, relationships, feelings about oneself, and physical health (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). Similarly, among middle school students attending schools in low-income, rural communities, bullying victimization is associated with poor school relationships, negative school experiences (Evans, Smolowski, & Cotter, 2014), depression, and anxiety (Evans et al., 2013).

School-Based Bullying Programs: Challenges for Rural Schools

School-based prevention and intervention are essential for reducing bullying among middle school students as the majority of bullying occurs at school (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). Although research indicates comprehensive, school-based interventions are effective at decreasing bullying and improving socio-emotional outcomes for students (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011), the majority of bullying research has been conducted with urban youth and may not generalize to schools in rural communities (Smokowski, Cotter, Robertson, & Guo, 2013). Urban-rural differences may impact bullying prevalence rates, as well as the effectiveness of prevention strategies (Kawalski, Giumetti, & Limber, 2017). Further, the school system places multiple and competing demands on school personnel, (Reinke, Stormont, Herman, Puri, & Goel, 2011) and these demands may be greater in rural or low-income communities where rural staff may hold more than one position at a time (e.g., teacher-librarian or teacher-administrator) due to lower levels of funding (Leadbeater et al., 2013). Additionally, because rural areas have limited access to mental health services, rural schools may be relied on to be the mental health service provider (van Vulpen, Habegar, & Simmons, 2018).

Comprehensive, school-wide programs also require significant resources that pose barriers to implementation including additional demands on teachers, limited access to training, lack of funding, and little or no mental health professionals at the school (Reinke et al., 2011). Relative to urban schools, rural schools face additional challenges for accessing and implementing prevention programs including a lower tax base to fund programs, training costs inflated by transportation needs related to bringing expert trainers to the school, frequent staff turnover with limited resources to re-establish expertise, school closures, staff overload and burnout, and lack of program advocates and local expertise in bullying prevention (Leadbeater et al., 2013). Further, parents in rural communities recognize bullying as one of the primary emotional and behavioral challenges faced by their children and identify the lack of school programs as the main risk factor for placing youth at risk due to lack of services (van Vulpen, Habegar, & Simmons, 2018).

Using Technology to Increase Access and Reduce Barriers to Implementation

Understanding the unique needs of rural communities is essential to addressing inequities related to access and implementation barriers (Leadbeater et al., 2013). Technology-based interventions may be one way to increase access and reduce implementation challenges that are specific to rural communities (Leadbeater et al., 2013). National statistics indicate that 86% of middle school students have access to computers in school, with individual state access ranging from 78-100% (National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], 2015). Further, low-income students have similar access to computers at school when compared to middle-to-high income students (NAEP, 2015). Additionally, only 6% of schools do not meet federal connectivity marks for broadband capacity, although the majority of these schools are in rural areas (Riddell, 2018). Further, under The Telecommunications Act of 1996, eligible schools (i.e., rural and low-income) receive discounts ranging from 20% to 90% for telecommunications services, including internet access and broadband services (Congressional Research Service, 2019). Additionally, grants are available through the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to build broadband infrastructure in rural areas (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2018). Thus, the majority of rural schools and schools in low-income communities have access to the necessary computers and broadband to implement technology-based prevention programs.

Improving Access: The STAC Bullying Intervention

The STAC program is a promising approach for schools in rural and low-income communities as it is brief, easy to implement, and places a low demand on school personnel both in terms of cost and time required for implementation. Additionally, STAC focuses on training students to intervene when they witness bullying, which is important because approximately 70-80% of students report witnessing bullying as bystanders (Jones, Mitchell, & Turner, 2015) and bystanders’ actions can either encourage or discourage bullying behavior (Espelage, Green, & Polanin, 2012). Although bystander training is an important component of bullying intervention (Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2012), the majority of comprehensive bullying intervention programs do not focus on the role of bystanders (Gaffney, Ttofi, & Farrington, 2019). We selected the STAC program as the intervention for translation from an in-person to online delivery format because STAC is a brief program designed to reduces barriers for implementation, and it one of the few programs that focuses on training bystanders to intervene. Additionally, the STAC program is effective in reducing both bullying victimization and perpetration, as well as decreasing internalizing symptoms (Midgett & Doumas, 2019; Doumas, Midgett, & Watts, 2019) and increasing self-esteem (Midgett, Doumas, Trull, & Johnston, 2017 ) among students trained in the program.

STAC was designed for schools that do not have the resources to implement comprehensive, school-wide programs (Midgett, Doumas, Sears, Lunquist, & Hausheer, 2015; https://www.boisestate.edu/education-counselored/stac/). Further, STAC is a stand-alone bystander intervention designed to train students who witness bullying to intervene using the four STAC strategies: “stealing the show,” “turning it over,” “accompanying others,” and “coaching compassion.” The program is delivered by the school counselor and includes a 90-minute training followed by two 15-minute booster sessions. The training includes didactic and experiential (e.g., role-plays) components and booster sessions to reinforce learning and enhance skill acquisition.

The didactic component is comprised of an ice-breaker exercise, an audiovisual presentation, and hands-on activities to engage students in the learning process. The didactic component is designed to teach students about (a) the complex nature of bullying; (b) different types of bullying with a focus on spreading rumors, physical bullying, and name calling; (c) characteristics of students who bully, including the likelihood they have been bullied themselves; (d) reasons students bully including physical appearance and language; (d) negative associated consequences of bullying for students who are targets, perpetrator, and bystanders; (e) bystander roles and the importance of acting as a “defender;” and (f) the STAC strategies used for intervening in bullying situations. The four STAC strategies are described below.

“Stealing the Show.”

This strategy involves using humor or distraction to turn students’ attention away from the bullying situation. Trainers teach bystanders to interrupt a bullying situation to displace the peer audience’s attention away from the target and from the bullying situation so that other students do not join in or reinforce the bully.

“Turning it Over.”

This strategy involves informing an adult about the situation and asking for help. During the training, students identify safe adults at school who they perceive can be of help to them. Students are taught to always “turn it over” in the case of physical bullying, cyberbullying, or if they are unsure as to how to intervene. Additionally, trainers discuss the importance of immediate documentation of social media posts that are intended to humiliate or hurt students. Students are taught how to document evidence of cyberbullying to report it to school authorities such as the school counselor, vice-principal, or principal.

“Accompanying Others.”

This strategy involves the bystander reaching out to the student who was targeted to communicate that what happened is not acceptable, that the student who was targeted is not alone at school, and that the student bystander cares about them. Trainers teach students to approach a peer after they were targeted inviting them to spend time together. “Defenders” learn they can ask peers who were targeted if they would like to talk about what happened or they can implement this strategy indirectly by spending time with the student who was targeted communicating empathy and support.

“Coaching Compassion.”

This strategy involves gently confronting the student who bullies after a bullying incident to indicate that this type of behavior is unacceptable. Additionally, the bystander encourages the perpetrator to consider what it would feel like to be the target in the situation, thereby raising awareness and fostering empathy toward the target. Trainers teach bystanders to only implement “coaching compassion” when they have an established relationship with the perpetrator, if the student who bullied is in a lower grade, and/or if bystanders believe they will be perceived as having higher-status than the perpetrator.

The program also includes role-plays where trainers divide students into small groups to practice the STAC strategies. Role-plays include hypothetical bullying situations that students may encounter in rural, low-income communities. Example scenarios include: (a) “In the hallway, you overhear some girls talking about another girl’s clothes and hair. You hear them make fun of the girl telling her things like, ‘Can’t you afford a brush? Nice clothes’ with a sarcastic and mean tone. The girl looks pretty upset and does not say anything back; (b) “For the past few weeks you have noticed a group of boys who stand in the middle of the hallway and yell in another boy’s ear as he walks by. You also see that group of students slam his locker closed when he is trying to get things for class; (c) “You are hanging out with some friends after school waiting for the bus, looking through a social media app. One girl decided to friend request another girl from school that she does not like, and then posted mean comments on the girl’s pictures. This is not the first time you have seen this girl do something like this.”

Trainers conduct two bi-weekly, 15-minute booster sessions after the training. During these meetings, students discuss the types of bullying they observed, which strategies they used, and the effectiveness of these strategies. Trainers answer questions and facilitate brainstorming more effective ways to implement the STAC strategies, how to use more than one strategy to intervene, and, when appropriate, to work as a team to intervene during or after a bullying incident.

A pilot study evaluating the appropriateness of the STAC program conducted with students in rural, low-income communities indicates that students report increases in knowledge and confidence to intervene, using the STAC strategies to intervene when witnessing bullying post-training (Moran, Midgett, Doumas, Porchia, & Moody, 2019). Additionally, findings from a series of effectiveness studies on the school-wide implementation of the STAC program indicates middle school students in a low-income, semi-rural community reported decreases in bullying victimization (Authors, in press) and perpetration (Authors, 2020) from baseline to a 6-week follow-up. Further, findings from a randomized control trial in a rural, low-income community demonstrated that students trained in the program reported a decrease in depressive symptoms and passive suicidal ideation compared to students in a control group at a 6-week follow up (Authors, in press). Although the STAC intervention requires fewer resources for implementation relative to comprehensive, school-wide programs, because program delivery is in-person, the STAC intervention still requires a mental health professional, initial guidance by the program developer, and buy-in from the school to dedicate funding and staff development time to training for program implementation. Thus, although the STAC program increases access for schools in rural and low-income communities, implementation challenges still remain.

Perspectives from Key School Personnel

To further increase access and reduce implementation challenges, we aim to translate the in-person STAC intervention to a technology-based format (STAC-T). In order to develop the program to meet the unique needs of middle schools in rural and low-income communities, it is important to understand school needs, challenges and barriers for implementation, and feedback specific to translating the STAC program into a technology-based intervention. Because school personnel are ultimately responsible for adopting and implementing bullying interventions, understanding the perspectives of key school personnel (e.g., administrators, teachers, and counselors) is important to inform program development for school-based interventions. Few studies, however, have assessed school personnel’s perceptions of program needs and implementation challenges related to the delivery of bullying prevention programs in rural and low-income communities (e.g., Leadbeater et al., 2013). The limited data indicate that challenges for bullying prevention in rural schools include program costs and funding, bullying norms, and obstacles to parental engagement in bullying programs (Leadbeater et al., 2013). To date, however, we could find no studies specifically addressing school personnel perspectives related to implementing technology-based bullying programs in rural schools.

The Current Study

To increase access to bullying programs for schools in rural and low-income communities, we propose to translate a brief, bystander bullying intervention (STAC) into a technology-based format (STAC-T). The purpose of this study is to understand the perspectives of key school personnel on how to best serve schools in rural and low-income communities. To achieve this aim, we conducted interviews and focus groups with key school stakeholders (i.e., administrators, teachers, and school counselors) at three schools in rural, low-income communities (N = 15). The study had two objectives (a) to understand current practices, interest in a technology-based bullying intervention, school needs and challenges, and barriers to program access and implementation; and (b) to identify ways that the in-person STAC intervention could be translated into a technology-based format to meet the needs of schools in rural and low-income communities.

Methods

Participants

Participants were key school personnel (i.e., administrators, teachers, and school counselors) recruited from three public schools in rural, low-income communities in the Northwestern region of the United States. The three schools recruited for this study were Title 1 schools, with 53%, 69%, and 99% of the student population at the three schools being below the poverty line. We purposefully recruited three schools so that we would have both STAC naïve (e.g., schools that had no exposure to the STAC program) and non-naïve participants (e.g., schools that had implemented the STAC program). School counselors were provided with a rubric developed by the research team to identify key school personnel who demonstrated the following characteristics assessed by the rubric: (a) caring for students, (b) desire to be a positive influence on school climate, (c) approachable to students, (d) caring about addressing the problem of bullying, and (e) leadership qualities. For each item, school personnel were assessed on a 3-point scale, which included the ratings of “yes,” “somewhat,” to “no” for each item described above. School personnel who scored “yes” or “somewhat” on all inclusion criteria were eligible to participate. Four key personnel (i.e., administrators and teachers) from each school (n = 12) met these criteria, consented to participate in the study, and participated in a focus group. Of these 12 key personnel, 3 participants were administrators and 9 participants were teachers. Additionally, the school counselor from each school (n = 3) provided consent and participated in an individual interview. Of the 15 key school personnel, 86.7% were female and 13.3% were male. Participants ranged in age from 23-60 years old (M = 40.9, SD = 9.2), with reported racial backgrounds 93.3% White and 6.7% Hispanic.

Procedures

Participant recruitment and individual interviews and focus groups occurred during the fall of 2019 and spring of 2020. All research procedures were approved by the University Institutional Review Board and by the School District or Administration. We utilized a purposeful sample to recruit participants, which is a common procedure for qualitative research including for CQR (Hays & Woods, 2011). The researchers provided the school counselor from each school with a rubric and email script describing the pupose and procedures of the study. The school counselor used the rubric to identify and contact key school personnel and then used the script to invite them to participate in the study. The school counselor at each school coordinated times for the individual interviews and focus groups. Although school counselors were involved in the recruitment process, they were not part of the data collection and did not have access to participants’ responses. The interview faciliatiors conducted informed consent and collected demographic information from participants immediately prior to individual interviews and focus groups. The team utlized three individual interviews and three focus groups to gather depth and breadth of potential themes across various stakeholders. Individual interviews were chosen for school counselors because they are the primary contact for implementation of bullying curriculums in schools. Focus groups with other school stakeholders (e.g., administrators and teachers) allowed for general themes to emerge with regards to purchasing, accessing, and delivering a bullying program from multiple viewpoints. The school counselors scheduled 60-minute focus groups either during school or immediately after school. The school counselors participated in 45-minute interviews during school time. The interview protocol was the same for individual interviews and focus groups. Study participants received a $50 gift card for participation.

Data collection

Data were collected through face-to-face individual interviews and focus groups. The interviews and focus groups were conducted by the PI and a master’s level graduate student. The participants in two schools did not have any prior knowledge of the STAC training. STAC had been implemented at the third school and all but one of the participants were at the school at that time. Although some personnel were familiar with the STAC program, the program was presented in the same way to participants at all three schools. The researchers presented the slideshow used to train students in the program. The researchers presented each section of the training, describing the didactic content, experiential activities, role-plays, and booster sessions. Then, the facilitators utilized a semi-structured protocol asking school personnel to provide information on how to best serve rural schools, including (a) current practices, (b) school needs and interest in a technology-based, bullying intervention, (c) challenges and barriers to use, and (d) feedback regarding the translation of the STAC intervention to a technology-based format (see the Appendix for the interview questions). The team followed Hill et al.’s (2005) recommendations to develop a detailed semi-structured protocol while also allowing the facilitators to respond spontaneously to participants to help them explore their preferences and experiences with bullying programs and translating a program online in greater depth. All individual interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and the lead analyst utilized NVivo to analyze the data.

Analytic team

The analytic team was comprised of a faculty member who served as lead analyst, two master’s in counseling students, and a faculty member who served as the external auditor. One of the master’s students conducted the individual interviews and co-conducted the focus groups with the PI. The PI is experienced in qualitative research and the master’s student who conducted the interviews and co-conducted the focus groups was trained by reading articles about implementing CQR procedures and conducting and receiving feedback on two audio-recorded pilot interviews utilizing the interview protocol. Both master’s students had previous experience employing CQR methodology. The lead data analyst and the external auditor were faculty members with expertise in qualitative research. The lead analyst and the two master’s students analyzed the data. The lead analyst provided the students with relevant literature on CQR methodology, established a coding protocol prior to analysis, and lead coding discussions throughout the data analysis process. During the coding meetings, individual analysis processes were discussed as the lead analyst and two master’s students generated the different domains and core ideas.

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using CQR methodology (Hill et al., 2005). CQR is a rigorous methodological approach that utilizes elements from phenomenology, grounded theory, and comprehensive process analysis (Hill et al., 2005). A master’s student who participated in facilitating the individual interviews and focus groups transcribed the data verbatim. Interview data were de-identified. As recommend by Hill et al. (2005), the data analysts discussed their assumptions and expectations prior to analyzing the data. The consensual process began with each team member developing initial domains and core ideas individually. Next, the team met three times over a 10-week period to arrive at a consensus about domains, core ideas, and frequency categories supported by participant quotations as suggested by Hill et al. (2005). During the first meeting, each analyst shared initial domains followed by each team member commenting and voicing agreement or disagreement. Analysts relied on participants’ quotes to resolve disagreements. Analysts discussed emerging core ideas as they talked about each domain and reached consensus on an initial set of domains and core ideas. Analysts repeatedly referred back to the raw data and engaged in cross-analysis to move into a higher level of abstraction (Hill et al., 2005).

Next, the external auditor reviewed the raw data and domains, core ideas, and cross-analysis. The auditor provided the team with feedback, which included “big-picture thinking,” offering alternative ways of conceptualizing (Hill et al., 2005, p. 17). The analysts met to discuss and incorporate the auditor’s feedback and obtain consensus for final domains and core ideas. The semi-structured interview protocol provided a focused response across all participants and the analysts created six general domains. Hill et al. (2005) identified a general domain as one that includes quotes from all but one participant. Each of the six domains had a quote from every interview.

Results

The team agreed on six domains with 19 supporting core ideas (see Table 1). Domains include (a) bullying prevention strategies school personnel currently utilize, (b) school support, infrastructure, and need for a technology-based program, (c) conditions for implementation, (d) challenges and obstacles, (e) STAC program strengths, and (f) considerations for translating the program from an in-person to an online training.

Table 1.

Domains and Core Ideas

Domain	Core Ideas
Bullying Prevention Strategies	Brief staff trainings are implemented a the beginning of the academic year School counselors educating students through the context of the classroom setting There are systems in place for students to report bullying School personnel indicated that they observe peers supporting students and that peer involvement is an important component of bullying prevention and intervention
School Support, Infrastructure, and Need for a Technology-Based Program	School personnel indicated they experience administrative support at their school Schools have the necessary technology for online program implementation School personnel spoke about the deed for a technology-based bullying intervention program
Conditions of Implementation	Proof of efficacy is necessary for program adoption Time flexibility is an important component for program implementation School personnel indicated parent involvement is desirable
Challenges or Obstacles	School lack the financial resources to adopt expensive programming Time constraints are an obstacle to program implementation Teacher buy-in is necessary for schools to successfully implement programs
STAC Program Strengths	Providing students with strategies to intervene on behalf of targets of bullying is a strength of the STAC program Having students actively practice utilizing these strategies across different scenarios is helpful to student learning Providing students with a certificate of completion is a desirable component of the STAC program
Program Translation Considerations	Consider hybrid approach where there are opportunities for face-to-face interactions Retain some type of live interaction where students can interact with each other and adults at school to share their experiences Provide students with virtual interaction that is stimulating and engaging Retain boosters to reinforce knowledge

Domain 1: Bullying Prevention Strategies

Participants spoke about bullying prevention and intervention strategies they currently utilize to address the problem of bullying at their school. In particular, school personnel spoke about staff trainings, educating students, and student reporting. School personnel also spoke of observing peers supporting students and the importance of peer involvement. When discussing staff trainings, a school counselor indicated, “We have a district policy that all staff is trained at the beginning of the year, it’s quite a brief training. It’s either presented by a counselor or administration in a staff meeting.” Participants also talked about several ways in which school counselors and teachers educate students about bullying. For example, a school counselor shared, “This year the counselors are actually going into classrooms and talking about bullying, which has been really good…Because then, when I have a student come to me and say I’m being bullied, I can talk to them about bullying again and reference the class time.” School personnel also talked about the importance of students reporting bullying and that they have systems in place for students to report bullying. A teacher stated, “we have incident reports at our school, so um that the kids can fill out at any time that they feel they need to.” Additionally, participants also talked about observing peers support targets of bullying and the importance of students being engaged in bullying intervention. For example, a school counselor shared, “I see that we have our students who…stand up for other students and … naturally are drawn to that role. I have seen how that really helps less confident students gain confidence and gain friendships. I think that’s huge, to have peer support.” Another school counselor indicated, “I think the more things that come from their peers I think it, the better it works.” One participant, expressing a divergent view, raised a concern related to peer intervention and stated, “I showed [a video] to my students about how they can appropriately address bullying and then a lot of the kids are like ‘well we’re kind of embarrassed to do that or I feel uncomfortable.’”

Domain 2: School Support, Infrastructure, and Need for a Technology-Based Program

Participants spoke about administrative support and schools being technology-ready as positive conditions for implementation of an online bullying program. Additionally, participants spoke strongly about a need for a technology-based bullying intervention program. Participants also spoke about administrators being supportive of bullying program implementation. For example, one school counselor shared, “I think our district is really good about trying to figure out what do we need to do differently, what do we need to get, how can we get it, and where can we write a grant [to obtain needed programs].” Participants also shared their schools have the necessary technology available to implement online programs. An administrator shared, “As far as our ratio of computers, we’re almost 1-to-1 so we’re getting close, our bandwidth is fine.” Another administrator stated, “Our district does a good job of getting us the technology that we need and continuing to provide us with technology that we need.” However, one participant did raise a concern about schools having enough computers and stated, “We’re not a 1-1 school no matter what anyone tells you. Just telling you that right now. Are we getting closer, are we trying to do that better? Yes … I think we have enough technology that we can make it happen.” Finally, when participants were asked if they would adopt a brief, technology based bullying prevention program that teaches students to intervene in bullying situations, there was unanimous agreement. For example, a school counselor stated, “100%, I see a definite need here.”

Domain 3: Conditions of Implementation

School personnel talked about proof of efficacy, time flexibility, and parent involvement as important conditions for program implementation. A school counselor stated, “I think you always need some kind of follow up, to see if the program is being effective.” In addressing time flexibility, a teacher shared, “You could leave it up to the teacher’s discretion…, if you want to do it all in 90 minutes because that’s what you’ve got time for vs. doing 15 mins every day for a week or whatever.” Finally, school personnel shared it would be helpful to them to have parent involvement. A school counselor spoke, “I want to see something I can give to parents. Here’s what your kids are learning, here’s something for you as a parent of a child who is struggling with this. Here is what we can do to help.” One participant cautioned however, that student response to the program will impact implementation and stated, “If they [teachers] try and implement [the program] and kids aren’t responding to it, then I think word will spread that ‘oh, nope this is just not a good program.’”

Domain 4: Challenges or Obstacles

School personnel indicated that financial resources, time constraints, and teacher buy-in can pose challenges or obstacles to program adoption and implementation. Participants reported that financial concerns are a major consideration. For example, a teacher indicated “I mean the only thing I can think of with administration would be money, you know as long as they can afford it they would [adopt the program].” Further, along with financial resources, participants indicated time constraints as another significant challenge or obstacle. This concern is reflected in this teacher’s comment, “Time, absolutely time because although I know it’s very, very important, I’m a math teacher. … They rank me as test score and things like that, if my kids are failing my class, that kind of stuff. So, although I know that other things are important and I try to do as much as I can, my responsibility is math. So, that’s one of the things, it’s time.” Although time constraints emerged as a core idea, one participant did indicate feeling fortunate to have the time available to implement bullying programming and stated, “I think the biggest one is time, and we have the beauty of having an advisory period every day except for Mondays because we have our early release on Monday….But, I feel lucky that we have that time to that we could fit it in.” A school counselor, in discussing teacher buy-in stated, “Sometimes I’ve experiences push back from some teachers that’s counteractive… administration is really good with pushing forward anyway.”

Domain 5: STAC Program Strengths

Participants indicated that STAC program strengths included providing students with strategies to intervene on behalf of targets of bullying, having students actively practice utilizing these strategies across different scenarios, and providing students with a certificate of completion. When talking about program strengths, a school counselor shared, “definitely an emphasis on solutions and tools that kids could use that they could walk away knowing that is there [when] confronted with a bullying situation. That they know what to do. They can actually have a clear plan headed into [the situation] so they feel more confident.” Another school counselor indicated, “I like that they are practicing the scenarios so that they have an idea what to do if that happens or something similar happens, absolutely good.” School personnel also indicated that it is important to provide students with a certificate after completing the training. A school counselor spoke, “[I] think that it gives them power and a commitment because they don’t have an opportunity to sign a lot of things and to be able to commit to something themselves. And, I know that kids this age really want that independence to make a decision for themselves, so I really like that.” A participant, however, did offer constructive criticism about the program and stated, “[I] think a clear picture on how we define bullying and what it looks like [would be helpful]. I know there’s a lot of overuse of the word.”

Domain 6: Program Translation Considerations

Participants offered feedback for translating the STAC program from an in-person program to a technology-based format. School personnel talked about considering a hybrid approach, retaining some type of live interaction, providing students with virtual interaction that is stimulating and engaging, and retaining boosters. For example, when considering in-person interaction, a teacher shared “Having that connection with a person just adds more value to it. So, yes, videos on how you can use the STAC strategies and stuff like that I find that great because then kids can visually see, ‘oh okay that’s how they use that strategy,’ ‘that’s how they did this.’ So, that online piece I think is great. But, I feel like there needs to be a human piece too, kind of thing. Human connection.” One participant, however, expressed having concerns about an online program and stated, “I think with stuff like this, when they’re in the small groups and they’re having those [live] interactions, that’s really important to them, not quite sure I can see that on an online program.” In addressing virtual interactions, a school counselor shared, “definitely videos, again and then being able to have a scenario and then having to pick which STAC strategy [to use] and [have that] demonstrated, so they could get practice…. seeing it in action and being able to identify.” Participants also spoke about the importance of booster sessions in terms of providing a follow-up for students to retain knowledge. A teacher stated, “I think that’s good so the kids don’t just like learn about it one day and then never think about it again. I think it’s good to have that recurring.” Another teacher suggested “I think it would be easy just to have a google form…you could either post a situation and how you would respond to it, or you could have kids send [it] in when they did see something and how they responded that day.”

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to extend the literature regarding needs and challenges related to bullying prevention in middle schools in rural and low-income communities to inform the development of a technology-based bullying intervention program. We were particularly interested in understanding strategies used for addressing bullying, interest in adopting a technology-based bullying intervention, bullying prevention needs, and challenges related to program access and implementation. We were also interested in identifying ways a brief, in-person bystander bullying intervention, STAC, could be translated into a technology-based format to meet the needs of middle schools in rural and low-income communities. Qualitative analysis of individual interviews and focus groups with key school personnel from three middle schools in rural, low-income communities resulted in six domains based on 19 core ideas. Overall, findings suggested that school personnel believe there is a need for cost-effective bullying prevention programs, that schools have the interest and necessary infrastructure to implement a technology-based bullying intervention, and that school personnel are interested in a technology-based bullying prevention program that focuses on training bystanders to intervene when they observe bullying.

Findings from the interviews and focus groups provided information regarding current bullying prevention strategies used in rural, low-income schools. These strategies include implementing staff trainings, educating students, and providing procedures for students to report bullying behaviors. Although none of the schools in this study were implementing a comprehensive, school-wide bullying prevention program, the strategies identified are common components of these programs (Gaffney et al., 2019). Additionally, although school personnel spoke about witnessing students intervene on behalf of bullying targets and the importance of bystander intervention, participants did not report the use of bystander training as part of their bullying prevention strategies. The lack of formal bystander training is not uncommon, with research indicating that even comprehensive, school-wide programs usually do not include a bystander component (Gaffney et al., 2019). Findings from this study suggest there is a gap between what school personnel believe is an important component of bullying prevention (i.e., bystander intervention) and the training of those skills within current bullying prevention strategies.

Participants unanimously agreed that they have a strong need for bulling programming and talked about strengths, implementation conditions, and challenges related to implementing a technology-based bullying program. Consistent with national statistics indicating rural schools have access to the technology necessary for online program delivery (NAEP, 2015; Riddell, 2018), participants confirmed the technology-readiness of their schools. Participants also shared their perception that school administrators would support a technology-based bullying program. This finding is particularly important as supportive school leadership can be instrumental in making a program a priority within the school (Han & Weiss, 2005). Additionally, administrative support for anti-bullying programs helps shape school norms and is inversely related to rates of bullying perpetration (Low & Van Ryzin, 2014). In terms of challenges, participants identified financial resources as the primary obstacle to program adoption and implementation. This finding parallels research on bullying prevention in rural communities identifying cost as a barrier to program implementation (Leadbeater et al., 2013). Additionally, national statistics indicate the number one barrier to implementing educational technology is that school districts do not have the funding (Statistia, 2018). Participants identified other challenges including time constraints and teacher buy-in, as well as conditions for implementation including program efficacy and flexibility of delivery. These findings are consistent with research suggesting financial resources, acceptability to teachers, program effectiveness, and program flexibility and adaptability are all necessary conditions for sustainability of the implementation of school-based mental health programs (Han & Weiss, 2005). Finally, participants identified parental involvement as a condition for program implementation. This finding aligns with research on cyberbullying prevention, indicating teachers believe an important prevention strategy is involving parents (Stauffer, Heath, Coyne, & Ferrin, 2012).

Finally, school personnel discussed STAC program strengths, as well as considerations for translating the program online. School personnel identified providing students with strategies and practice opportunities to intervene as “defenders” across different scenarios as strengths of the STAC intervention. The STAC intervention was designed to teach students specific skills and provide students with opportunities to practice those skills, as skills practice reinforces learning (Bennett-Levy, McManus, Westling, & Fennell, 2009). In terms of translating the STAC program online, school personnel talked about a hybrid approach, retaining some type of live interaction, and providing students with virtual interaction that is stimulating and engaging. This feedback is consistent with research that indicates successful school-based interventions need to include material designed to engage adolescents (Wagner, Tubman, & Gil, 2004) and understanding the motivating elements of technology-based interventions, including program content, length, and interactivity, is important in promoting behavior change (Lehto & Oinas-Kukkonen, 2011).

Limitations

This study adds to the literature by furthering our understanding on the current practices, needs, and challenges to program access and implementation of a technology-based bullying program in rural and low-income schools. However, certain limitations must be noted. Participants were recruited from three schools in rural and low-income areas from one state in the Northwestern region of the United States. Although participants were recruited from three different counties to increase generalizability, school personnel from different regions of the country may have a different perspective regarding the issues investigated in this study. Further, the majority of participants identified as White, which further limits the generalizability of the study. Additionally, it is possible that social desirability was a factor influencing school personnel to speak about STAC program strengths and the interest in a technology-based bullying intervention as participants were aware the researchers were translating the STAC program to a technology-based format. Finally, teachers and administrators participated in the focus groups together. Therefore, it is possible that power differentials between teachers and administrators could have impacted some of the teachers’ responses to align with the expectations of their administrator participating in the group.

Implications

Rural and low-income schools have unique needs and challenges that must be considered in creating an effective, sustainable intervention for schools in these communities. This study has important implications for the development of a technology-based bullying intervention that addresses these challenges and facilitates program implementation for schools in rural and low-income communities. First, findings suggest that there is a need for a brief, technology-based bystander bullying prevention program and that schools have the technology, both in terms of computers and bandwidth, for implementation. Findings also indicate there is administrative support for implementing school-based bullying prevention. Because principals make the decision for adopting new programs for their school (Hallinger & Heck, 1996), feedback identifying principal buy-in is encouraging and suggests that administrators are willing to advocate for bullying prevention programs for their schools. Program cost, however, was identified as a significant barrier to adopting bullying programming. Program cost considerations are particularly important in rural schools as they face significant financial challenges due to a lower tax base to fund programs relative to urban schools (Leadbeater et al., 2013). Further, sufficient resources must be available for successful program implementation and sustainability (Hans & Weiss, 2005). Thus, program developers must design technology-based program to be low cost when considering access to schools in rural and low-income communities.

Findings from this study also suggest that although administration buy-in may be present, teacher buy-in may pose a challenge and needs to be addressed for successful program implementation. Participants identified program flexibility as a necessary condition for program implementation and time constraints as a potential barrier. Teachers’ perceptions of program acceptability are dependent on several factors including the type of intervention strategies used in the program, the amount of time required to implement the program, and the reported effectiveness of the program (Kealey, Peterson, Gaul, & Dinh, 2000). Because classroom circumstances change across the school year and each new year brings a new set of students with different strengths and needs, teachers must be able to adapt program implementation so that it is appropriate for changing circumstances and diverse classrooms (Han & Weiss, 2005). Thus, in order to increase teacher buy-in, a technology-based program should be designed in short modules so that school personnel can customize implementation to suit the needs of their particular school or classroom circumstance. Additionally, the program should be brief to reduce overall implementation time.

School personnel also identified program efficacy as an essential condition for program implementation. A basic requirement of a sustainable school-based mental health programs is selecting a program that has demonstrated efficacy in impacting emotional and behavioral functioning (Han & Weiss, 2005). The effectiveness of the STAC program is supported by several research studies demonstrating program efficacy in improving socio-emotional consequences associated with bullying (Watts, Doumas, & Midgett, 2019; Doumas et al., 2019; Midgett et al., 2017; Midgett, Doumas, & Trull, 2017) and deceasing bullying perpetration (Authors, in press; Midgett, Doumas, Trull, & Johnson, 2017). Additionally, findings from this study indicated school personnel believe bystander behavior is an important component of bullying prevention. Because students indicate they lack knowledge regarding how to intervene (Forsberg, Samuelsson, & Thornberg, 2014; Hutchinson, 2012), providing students with specific skills to use when they witness bullying is an important component of bullying programing. Further, school personnel in this study identified the strategies used in the STAC program as important intervention components. Thus, findings from this study suggest that the technology-based STAC program will be well-positioned for adoption and implementation at rural and low-income middle schools.

Finally, findings from this study have implications for the translation of the in-person STAC program to an online-platform. Specifically, participants indicated the program needs to be interactive in nature to keep students engaged. For example, rather than presenting didactic information in a text-based format, program elements including interactive “game-like” activities should be used. Students can also select customized avatars as they move through virtual role-plays, practicing skills to intervene across different bullying scenarios. Feedback from participants also suggested considering a hybrid program that might include in-person booster sessions for skills practice. Researchers have demonstrated that community connections and trust are important factors in building relationships with mental health providers in rural settings (McNichols, Witt, & Gatewood, 2016). Therefore, in addition to translating booster sessions to a technology-based format, it may also be important to provide an in-person format so that school personnel could select the delivery modality that is best suited for the needs of their school. Findings also indicated that parental involvement is important. Although the in-person STAC program does not include a parent-based intervention component, a parent module can be developed for the technology-based STAC program. This could be in the form of an electronic brochure providing information to parents about the STAC program and what their students are learning, as well as tips for parents that they can use to support their children in intervening in bullying using the skills trained in the STAC program. Providing parents information in this way may also help reduce obstacles to parental involvement in bullying prevention identified in prior research on challenges for rural schools (Leadbeater et al., 2013).

Conclusion

Bullying is a significant problem for schools in rural and low-income communities. School personnel in these communities face multiple and competing demands on their time and have limited access to training, funding, and mental health professionals at the school. Findings from this study support the need for the proposed technology-based STAC intervention, suggesting middle school personnel have the interest and ability to adopt a technology-based bullying intervention. This study provides support for the development of a technology-based bystander bullying intervention and provides information that can be used to address challenges and meet the unique needs of schools in rural and low-income communities for successful and sustained program implementation.

Public Health Significance: Bullying is a significant public health problem for middle school students, particularly in rural and low-income communities. School personnel indicate there is a need for a brief, low cost, easy to disseminate bullying intervention that includes bystander training. A technology-based brief, bullying bystander intervention may meet the unique needs of schools in rural and low-income communities by increasing access and decreasing barriers for successful and sustained program implementation.

Appendix

Interview Protocol

1. National statistics show that about 1-5 students report being bullied, and that bullying escalates in middle/junior high school. Could you please talk about how you perceive your school compares to these norms?

2. Please discuss approaches you have utilized to address bullying at your school?

3. Please talk about bullying intervention programs you have implemented? What did you like about the program? What were some challenges?

4. How do you feel about training students to intervene in developmentally appropriate ways on behalf of targets of bullying?

5. What are some barriers that may prevent you from adopting or implementing a bullying intervention program at your school?

6. Are there other barriers you can think related to school administration or school boards that might prevent your school from adopting or implementing a bullying intervention at your school?

7. Are there any barriers you can think of specific to technology-based interventions?

8. Please talk about your school’s capacity to implement a technology-based intervention? This includes computer access, headphones, and bandwidth to run videos online? Do you think you will have more equipment or capacity in the future?

9. Please discuss any technology-based program you have implemented at your school. What have you liked about them? What have you perceived as challenges?

10. If you have implemented technology-based programs, how much time have you devoted to implementation?

11. What would be the ideal amount of time devoted to implementation?

12. What would you want to see included in a technology-based brief, bullying bystander intervention program?

13. Would you adopt a brief, technology-based bullying intervention program that teaches students to intervene in bullying situations? If no, why not?

<<Participants will be walked through the original STAC program and asked the following questions about each part of the STAC program>

1. What do you like about the STAC program? What don’t you like?

2. What information, if any, do you think is missing from the program?

3. Did the activities make sense to you? Which ones would you keep? For the ones that you would keep, what ideas do you have for translating them to an online program?

4. In terms of the didactic content, what do you think is most relevant for your school and what suggestions do you have for translating the content from an in-person to an online training?

5. What are your suggestions for translating the four STAC strategies online?

6. Do you think the role-plays are realistic? What are your suggestions for translating the role-plays online?

7. Did you like the conclusion of the training where students sign a petition and receive a certificate? If you liked it, how would translate the parts you like from a face-to-face to online?

8. Do you think booster sessions are important? If so, how would you translate these from a face-to-face to online?

9. Now that you have an understanding of the STAC program, are there any barriers you can think of in terms of schools adopting this program?

10. What would be the best way to implement? For example, during a specific class during class time? As one module or more modules? As homework? What about the boosters?

11. In terms of length of the program, do you think it would be easier for schools to implement the program as a 45-minute training, 75-minute training, 90-minute training, or would it be best to implement as 2, 30 minute segments or 3 30 minute segments? Other ideas?

12. Do you have any additional suggestions for translating the STAC program from an in-person to an online program?