Proactive and Preventive Student Welfare Activities in Finnish Preschool and Elementary School: Handling of Transition to Formal Schooling and a National Anti-Bullying Program as Examples

Prerequisites and effects of proactive and preventive psycho-social student welfare activities in Finnish preschool and elementary school were of interest in the present thesis. So far, Finnish student welfare work has mainly focused on interventions and individuals, and the voluminous possibilities to enhance well-being of all students as a part of everyday school work have not been fully exploited. Consequently, in this thesis three goals were set: (1) To present concrete examples of proactive and preventive psycho-social student welfare activities in Finnish basic education; (2) To investigate measurable positive effects of proactive and preventive activities; and (3) To investigate implementation of proactive and preventive activities in ecological contexts. Two prominent phenomena in preschool and elementary school years—transition to formal schooling and school bullying—were chosen as examples of critical situations that are appropriate targets for proactive and preventive psycho-social student welfare activities. Until lately, the procedures concerning both school transitions and school bullying have been rather problem-focused and reactive in nature. Theoretically, we lean on the bioecological model of development by Bronfenbrenner and Morris with concentric micro-, meso-, exo- and macrosystems. Data were drawn from two large-scale research projects, the longitudinal First Steps Study: Interactive Learning in the Child–Parent– Teacher Triangle, and the Evaluation Study of the National Antibullying Program KiVa. In Study I, we found that the academic skills of children from preschool–elementary school pairs that implemented several supportive activities during the preschool year developed more quickly from preschool to Grade 1 compared with the skills of children from pairs that used fewer practices. In Study II, we focused on possible effects of proactive and preventive actions on teachers and found that participation in the KiVa antibullying program influenced teachers‘ self-evaluated competence to tackle bullying. In Studies III and IV, we investigated factors that affect implementation rate of these proactive and preventive actions. In Study III, we found that principal‘s commitment and support for antibullying work has a clear-cut positive effect on implementation adherence of student lessons of the KiVa antibullying program. The more teachers experience support for and commitment to anti-bullying work from their principal, the more they report having covered KiVa student lessons and topics. In Study IV, we wanted to find out why some schools implement several useful and inexpensive transition practices, whereas other schools use only a few of them. We were interested in broadening the scope and looking at local-level (exosystem) qualities, and, in fact, the local-level activities and guidelines, along with teacherreported importance of the transition practices, were the only factors significantly associated with the implementation rate of transition practices between elementary schools and partner preschools. Teacher- and school-level factors available in this study turned out to be mostly not significant. To summarize, the results confirm that school-based promotion and prevention activities may have beneficial effects not only on students but also on teachers. Second, various top-down processes, such as engagement at the level of elementary school principals or local administration may enhance implementation of these beneficial activities. The main message is that when aiming to support the lives of children the primary focus should be on adults. In future, promotion of psychosocial well-being and the intrinsic value of inter- and intrapersonal skills need to be strengthened in the Finnish educational systems. Future research efforts in student welfare and school psychology, as well as focused training for psychologists in educational contexts, should be encouraged in the departments of psychology and education in Finnish universities. Moreover, a specific research centre for school health and well-being should be established.

Implementing The KiVa Antibullying Program: What Does It Take?

There is variation in how teachers and schools implement bullying prevention programs. Although this variation has been discussed, there has been little empirical research concerning the relationship between implementation fidelity and program outcomes. This thesis contains three studies, each of them in the context of implementing the KiVa antibullying program, and examines teachers’ actions in preventing and intervening in school bullying. The first aim of this thesis is to examine implementation degree of the KiVa curriculum and its’ association with reductions in victimization and bullying perpetration (Study I). The second aim is to clarify why teachers displayed different degrees of adherence to the KiVa curriculum during a school year (Study II). Thirdly, it is investigated whether recognizing victimization can be difficult for school staff (Study III). In addition to these peer-reviewed studies, the thesis includes a qualitative analysis (unpublished) of the teachers’ open answers concerning their implementation experiences. The data were collected from elementary school teachers (Studies I–II; the unpublished study), elementary school students (Study I), and students on the elementary and middle school levels (Study III) during the evaluation of the effectiveness of KiVa antibullying program between 2007 and 2009. The findings demonstrate that a larger reduction in victimization can be achieved in classrooms where teachers display higher levels of adherence to the KiVa curriculum and invest more time for preparing the lessons. Bullying perpetration, however, was not equally affected by the level of curriculum implementation. With respect to the implementation process over one year, there was significant variation between individual teachers’ activity—ranging from systematic and high implementation to declining delivery from lesson to lesson. The sustained actions (high and moderate levels of implementation) were premised on principal support for antibullying work. Lesson preparation was associated with keeping implementation high throughout the school year. The findings also implied that the belief in the effectiveness of the program is important for a higher implementation degree at starting point of the process. Finally, there are severe flaws in teachers’ ability to identify students who are victimized. As it turns out, it is possible that only one-fourth of chronically victimized students are helped by the school staff. Especially when the victims are middle-school-aged girls, when they bully others themselves, or when they do not tell adults about bullying, reaching out for them is difficult. Implementation and dissemination of research-based interventions will take a good deal of time and effort. The findings demonstrate that active implementation is important for improving program outcomes. They also show how implementation can be sustained—there are both individual and interpersonal factors that facilitate or inhibit high-quality implementation. Thus, implications for future research regarding the implementation of school-based programs are suggested.