Content uploaded by Andrew J. White
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrew J. White on Sep 14, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White]
On: 01 August 2012, At: 01:18
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational Psychology: An
International Journal of Experimental
Educational Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20
Evaluation of a core team centred
professional development programme
for building a whole-school cooperative
problem solving approach to conflict
Andrew Jonathan White
a
b
, Eleanor H. Wertheim
b
, Elizabeth
Freeman
c
& Margot Trinder
c
a
Psychology, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
b
School of Psychological Science, La Trobe University, Melbourne,
Australia
c
Department of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne,
Australia
Version of record first published: 25 Jul 2012
To cite this article: Andrew Jonathan White, Eleanor H. Wertheim, Elizabeth Freeman
& Margot Trinder (2012): Evaluation of a core team centred professional development
programme for building a whole-school cooperative problem solving approach to conflict,
Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology,
DOI:10.1080/01443410.2012.708321
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2012.708321
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
Evaluation of a core team centred professional development
programme for building a whole-school cooperative problem
solving approach to conflict
Andrew Jonathan White
a,b
, Eleanor H. Wertheim
b
*, Elizabeth Freeman
c
and Margot
Trinder
c
a
Psychology, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany;
b
School of Psychological
Science, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia;
c
Department of Education, University
of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
(Received 27 January 2012; final version received 28 June 2012)
This study evaluated a professional learning approach using a core team (CT)
model to assist primary (elementary) schools to develop whole-school collabora-
tive conflict resolution processes. Thirteen schools were matched and randomly
assigned to the enhancing relationships in school communities programme
(n = 10) or a non-programme control group (n = 3). Programme schools provided
a core (professional learning) team, who attended professional learning days,
and disseminated programme content throughout their schools. Programme
schools also received one full school staff workshop. After one year, CT partici-
pants were more likely to apply a collaborative conflict resolution model to
problem scenarios and report greater knowledge and skills compared to non-pro-
gramme-school control participants. Compared to the non-programme control
group, non-core team programme school staff described using more cooperative
approaches to handling conflict, especially when they had received more profes-
sional development from their CT. Programme school teachers taught more
hours conflict resolution curriculum, and increases in hours taught by pro-
gramme (but not control) teachers were associated with teacher reported
increases in student understanding and use of cooperative methods. Patterns also
supported a role of self-efficacy in implementation. The potential usefulness of a
CT professional learning model for assisting schools to develop cooperative
conflict resolution approaches was supported.
Keywords: conflict resolution; education; core team; program evaluation; social
and emotional learning
This paper reports on a professional development (PD) programme designed to
assist schools in developing better teacher and student understanding and skills for
addressing interpersonal conflict and to support practice of cooperative problem
solving skills throughout the school community. The approach taken and evaluated
involved professional learning (core) teams attending four full-day workshops over
a one-year period, with other staff in the school attending one full-day workshop.
Schools play a key role in promoting children’s social and emotional develop-
ment (Pasi, 2001) and the inclusion of social emotional learning programmes, such
*Corresponding author. Email: e.wertheim@latrobe.edu.au
Educational Psychology
2012, 1–23, iFirst Article
ISSN 0144-3410 print/ISSN 1469-5820 online
Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2012.708321
http://www.tandfonline.com
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
as conflict resolution, in school curricula have been shown to foster child psycho-
logical health and academic learning (Calkins, Graziano, & Keane, 2007; Johnson
& Johnson, 1989, 1996; Zins, Bloodworth, Weissberg, & Walberg, 2004). Conflict
resolution programmes aim to enhance skills needed for problem solving, empathy
and acceptance of diversity (Pasi, 2001) and include interpersonal skills, such as lis-
tening to and getting along with others, that have been associated with academic
outcomes (DiPerna & Elliott, 1999). School communities that learn to cooperatively
manage conflict can help students achieve socially and academically (Jones, 2004).
Conflict resolution theory
The programme studied here derived from psychological theories of conflict and its
resolution, including two interlinked models: Deutsch’s (1973) theory of coopera-
tion and competition and Pruitt and Rubin’s (1986) dual concern model. According
to Deutsch’s theory, two main orientations to conflict strongly influence conflict
dynamics: cooperation and competition. The theory posits that the form of social
behaviour engaged in will influence others in a social interaction (Deutsch, 1973;
Deutsch, Coleman, & Marcus, 2006). Therefore, if one party approaches a negotia-
tion competitively, the other will tend to compete in return. Similarly, cooperative
behaviours tend to produce cooperative responses.
Individuals generally compete vs. cooperate based on how they conceptualise
conflict. Deutsch (2006) has argued that conflict, by definition, involves an interde-
pendence of goals, such that attainment of one party’s goal will influence attainment
of another’s goal. With negative goal interdependence, the more one party gains (or
is likely to gain), the less the other party gains, for example, where two people
argue over dividing the last piece of pie. With positive goal interdependence, the
achievement of one party’s goals helps the other to achieve their goals; for example,
instead of arguing over the pie, the parties bake more, addressing everyone’s goals.
By reframing the conflict as a mutual problem with the possibility of win-win solu-
tions, parties are more likely to cooperate.
Pruitt and Rubin’s (1986) Dual concern model further suggests that conflict
styles are influenced by the level of concern negotiators have for their own out-
comes and those of other parties. Five conflict styles are mapped according to levels
of both self-concern and other-concern: contending, yielding, avoiding, compromise
and integrative problem solving. Integrative, or cooperative, problem solving seeks
to understand and address the concerns and needs of all parties (self- and other-
concern), by finding creative ways to address cooperatively those needs and achieve
a win-win solution (Fisher & Ury, 1986).
Empirical findings suggest that cooperative problem solving approaches aimed
at addressing all parties’ concerns without simply yielding do result in higher value
joint outcomes for both parties (Davidson & Wood, 2004; De Dreu, Weingart, &
Kwon, 2000). Furthermore, use of cooperative conflict resolution is associated with
greater psychological health (Johnson & Johnson, 1989).
Con
flict resolution in school communities
Despite evidence that cooperative problem solving is usually preferable, research
suggests it is not the most common strategy used when managing conflict, including
in school communities (Johnson, Johnson, & Dudley, 1992; Smith, Inder, & Rat-
2 A.J. White et al.
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
cliff, 1995; Trinder et al., 2010). Schools often need to manage student–student, stu-
dent–teacher, teacher–teacher and parent–teacher conflict. The role of teachers,
therefore, means that they can be involved in conflict either as a primary party or,
often, as the third party when students or others in the school community disagree
and teachers attempt to assist. The ways in which teachers commonly respond to
conflict reflect approaches in the broader community. These can include quickly
proposing a solution, acting as an arbitrator who makes a decision for students
about what they ‘should do’ (Johnson et al., 1992); playing the role of disciplinar-
ian when students have broken school rules or avoiding the conflict, sometimes tell-
ing students to ‘sort it out’ themselves (Stevahn, Munger, & Kealey, 2005). While
understandable in the busy life of schools, these responses are unlikely to have
long-lasting positive outcomes, since students do not learn for themselves skills
needed to resolve conflict effectively and cooperatively, and it is likely teachers will
be faced repeatedly with similar disputes.
An alternative approach to handling interpersonal disagreements within schools
is to develop a whole school approach in which teachers and students learn cooper-
ative methods for handling conflict, the school develops policies and procedures to
support these skills, and the approach is applied in a whole school manner (Stevahn
et al., 2005; Trinder et al., 2010; Wertheim, Freeman, et al., 2006). To achieve this,
teachers and students can learn cooperative methods for solving conflict, and teach-
ers can model cooperative problem solving, acting as mediators between parties or
‘coaches’ who assist students to apply the ideas in practice (Johnson & Johnson,
2004; Trinder, 2006).
PD in schools
The aim of the current study was to examine outcomes of a PD programme in pri-
mary (elementary) schools designed to support the development of cooperative
whole-school processes for managing confl ict. The programme provided teachers
with PD in cooperative problem solving approaches and encouraged them to teach
students those skills and to apply them in practice. The PD approach taken was
informed by existing research into factors affecting programme implementation.
Although numerous useful programmes are offered to schools, including through
PD processes, there is ample evidence that most are not well implemented (Elias,
Bruene-Butler, Blum, & Schuyler, 2000; Miller & Leyden, 1999; Walker, 2004),
and implemented programmes often are not maintained over time (Deutsch et al.,
2006; Johnson et al., 1992). Two important factors proposed to facilitate implemen-
tation of new initiatives in schools are school leadership support of the programme
(Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Ertesvåg, Roland, Vaaland, Størksen, & Veland, 2010;
Gager & Elias, 1997; Han & Weiss, 2005) and the use of professional learning
teams, or ‘core’ teams, to implement initiatives (Gager & Elias, 1997; Ishler, John-
son, & Johnson, 1998). Professional learning teams are focused on encouraging an
active interchange of ideas, as opposed to passive learning, and on overcoming iso-
lation of individual teachers (Hadar & Brody, 2010). Involvement of leaders within
a core team (CT) aims to overcome the problems of initiatives failing because no
one with authority takes sustained responsibility for implementing the initiative.
CTs may be an effi cient way to provide PD to a limited number of teachers, who
then can disseminate throughout the school their new knowledge and skills.
Educational Psychology 3
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
Furthermore, adequate PD for school staff is needed, particularly in areas like
conflict management, where teachers often need to develop their own skills so that
they can model cooperative processes, mediate issues and assist students, when
incidents arise, to put the skills into practice (Batton, 2004; Elias, Zins, Craczyk, &
Weissberg, 2003; Girard & Koch, 1996). Greater contact hours and programme
duration have been found to assist effectiveness of PD (Garet, Porter, Desimone,
Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007), while
time for planning and on-site support from experts for implementation also appear
to be helpful (e.g. Bond, Glover, Godfrey, Butler, & Patton, 2001). The literature
on effective programme implementation informed the development of the interven-
tion evaluated in this study.
Enhancing Relationships in School Communities (ERIS)
Enhancing Relationships in School Communities (ERIS) is a PD programme
designed to assist primary schools to enhance relationships among teachers, students
and parents in school communities. The first ERIS programme took place in 2005
with an aim to build the capacity of teachers and students to effectively manage
conflict (Trinder et al., 2010). A PD programme was built around professional
learning for CTs that comprised 3–5 school representatives including principal or
assistant principal. Because of the practical constraints of releasing all school staff
to undertake extended PD to develop new skills, the CTs were offered PD and
given the role of disseminating programme material in their school, providing PD
opportunities to fellow staff and encouraging broad adoption of the programme
throughout the school (Trinder et al., 2010).
The programme was designed to help schools develop a cooperative problem
solving conflict resolution (CR) approach using the methods of Wertheim, Love,
et al. (2006); Littlefield, Love, Peck, & Wertheim, 1993), which combines Deu-
tsch’s (1973) and Pruitt and Rubin’s (1986) theories (described earlier) with the
applied approach of the Harvard negotiation model (Fisher & Ury, 1986). The
core of the CR model (see Figure 1) involves initially identifying the parties and
the issues involved, and setting the scene for cooperation by making explicit
statements about the possibility of achieving a win-win solution meeting all par-
ties’ important interests. The interests (needs, wants, fears and concerns) of both
parties are identified and then a range of options are generated to meet the inter-
ests of both. Finally, parties agree on an optimal package of options achieving a
win-win integrative solution, addressing all parties’ needs. This core CR model
has since been labelled the SIB model (Setting the scene for cooperation, Identi-
fying interests and Brainstorming options) (Wertheim, Freeman, Trinder, & Mac-
Naughton, 2009).
The ERIS programme participants were also taught associated skills such as
how to listen to and empathise with the interests of all parties and they were given
opportunities to role play and apply the concepts to negotiating, mediating and
coaching students to use the model themselves (Wertheim, Love, et al., 2006). The
professional learning about conflict resolution included helping teachers build an
awareness of social justice issues when addressing differences between individuals
from different cultural backgrounds, as recommended by researchers such as Jones
(2004). Staff were encouraged and supported to implement the ideas through a par-
allel CR curriculum and through classroom, playground and staff interactions.
4 A.J. White et al.
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
In the first ERIS project, researchers worked with 12 schools over 18 months.
CT teachers attended workshops at which they received PD on using the CR model,
and had planning time to discuss programme implementation. Within their schools,
CTs generated their own ideas about how to best implement the programme and
four in-school visits allowed CTs to work collaboratively with ERIS consultants to
discuss progress and to explore and generate solutions to challenges encountered
while implementing ERIS. Resources to help disseminate ERIS material to other
staff and students were provided throughout the programme to the CT.
The initial ERIS programme was evaluated by comparing a full intervention
condition, whose CT received seven days of PD over 18 months, to a partial inter-
vention in which CTs received two days of PD. Both groups received four school
visits. Findings at post-programme suggested that full intervention schools had
made more gains, including increasing CR skills and understanding, integrating
ideas into policy and practice and teaching more CR curriculum to students (Trinder
et al., 2010). CT members in the full intervention schools made most gains in areas
such as reported confidence in handling conflict across a range of contexts and
researcher ratings of the CT members’ reports of how they would handle specific
conflict scenarios. These results suggest that the longer version of the ERIS pro-
gramme is more effective, however, there is a need for developing better methods
Figure 1. Core conflict resolution model (SIB model). Wertheim et al. (2009).
Educational Psychology 5
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
for disseminating ideas to non-core team (NCT) school staff and for an evaluation
of the effectiveness of CT dissemination of information and skills through their
school.
Aims of this study
The current study reports on a modified version of the ERIS PD programme con-
ducted with a new group of 10 schools. Outcomes from these programme schools
were compared to three non-programme schools (randomly assigned within demo-
graphic groupings). Based on the outcomes of the original ERIS programme, modi-
fications included supplementing the CT PD with a full staff workshop for all staff
early in the programme, to encourage full school engagement and provide initial
skills development.
The current study reports on outcomes at one year (after five days of PD) into
the 18-month programme to examine what changes, if any, took place among
teachers and their perception of students’ conflict resolution understanding and
skills. Interim programme assessments are an important element of school-based
projects, since they help to inform modifications to programmes (Elias et al.,
2000) and highlight factors associated with greater progress. One-year outcomes of
the ERIS programme were considered important in and of themselves because they
may more closely approximate the amount of time schools are able to commit to
new programmes. Questionnaires were administered pre-programme (T1) and after
one year (T2) to evaluate programme outcomes, comparing three groups. Two
groups were from programme schools: CT members and NCT teachers (the teach-
ers at programme schools who were not CT members) were compared to assess
the extent that NCT teachers made gains based on a single workshop and CT
input. A final control group was teachers from non-programme schools who were
only provided with ERIS materials but no PD and who completed questionnaires
at parallel pre and post time points (to control for retesting and receipt of
materials).
Research questions
Two sets of research questions were explored. The first set addressed differences
between CT members, NCT programme participants and non-programme participant
groups at the end of the evaluation period including:
• RQ1: How do CT and NCT participants compare to non-programme teachers
in reports of knowledge and skills in CR, and confidence in their ability to
effectively resolve conflict in schools?
• RQ2: How do CT and NCT participants compare to non-programme teachers
in use of a cooperative CR model and negotiation style in response to student
conflict scenarios?
• RQ3: To what extent is CR curriculum taught to students by CT and NCT
programme teachers, compared to non-programme teachers, and what are tea-
cher perceptions of student understanding and use of cooperative conflict reso-
lution approaches?
6 A.J. White et al.
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
At mid-programme, it was expected that CT participants would score highest
and control school teachers lowest in each of these areas. This expectation reflected
CT participants receiving the greatest amount of PD directly from the researchers.
The second set of research questions pertained to the usefulness of the CT pro-
cess. Even though researchers have encouraged the use of this approach (Gager &
Elias, 1997; Ishler et al., 1998), the way CTs operate to bring about change is not
completely clear. One important element theoretically is that the CT initiates
changes in schools. Since evidence of this process taking place would include CTs
meeting regularly between ERIS contacts, acting as ERIS representatives on school
committees and integrating ERIS ideas into school practises, these activities were
monitored. In addition, the CT was expected to support fellow staff to become
skilled when implementing the programme. Since many staff do not typically use
cooperative conflict resolution approaches (Stevahn et al., 2005; Trinder et al.,
2010), the expectation was that they would need support to learn new skills and to
implement them well. If the CT approach works, one would expect that when CT
members offered more PD in their school that NCT staff in that school would have
a better understanding of a cooperative conflict resolution approach and be able to
apply it to relevant contexts. These assumptions were addressed by the following
research questions:
• RQ4: To what extent is CT dissemination of CR material associated with
NCT reports that the ERIS programme helped to develop their CR knowledge
and skills?
• RQ5: Is CT dissemination of CR material correlated with NCT participants’
reported use of the CR model and their use of a more integrative (win-win)
conflict negotiation style when responding to conflict scenarios?
• RQ6: Is CT dissemination of CR material related to the time spent implement-
ing the CR curriculum by NCT teachers?
• RQ7: Is CT dissemination of CR material to staff and the number of PD
workshops they attend associated with gains for CT staff themselves?
Method
Participants
Principals and teachers from State, Catholic and Independent schools in Melbourne,
Australia, were invited through University and education system networks to partici-
pate in the 18-month ERIS programme consisting of PD workshops and in-school
visits.
In their application forms, schools reported the percentage of students receiving
an education maintenance allowance (EMA), a means tested education-related gov-
ernment payment for low-income families. Thirteen school applications were clus-
tered into three types (small, medium and large percentage students receiving
EMA) and one school was randomly allocated from each group to a non-
programme control group (total three schools). The remaining 10 schools formed
the programme school group. Principals were responsible for forming CTs and
selecting staff with an interest in the programme and sufficient time to attend
workshops and coordinate dissemination of programme material.
Educational Psychology 7
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
The 13 schools ranged in school size from 137 to 840 students (M = 340.39,
SD = 195.26) and staff numbers ranged from 12 to 70 (M = 29.08, SD = 15.67). A
T1 questionnaire was completed by 307 staff members (response rate = 79%). In
total, 171 participants completed both T1 and T2 questionnaires and of these 33
were CT participants, 109 were NCT participants and 29 were control school
participants.
Measures
Questionnaires (choice of online or hard copy) were administered to participants
pre-programme (T1) and after 10 months (T2). Demographic information was
obtained at T1.
Conflict resolution approach
Participants were presented with a scenario involving a student–student conflict on
yard duty and asked to describe in detail how they would respond to it. Two scor-
ing methods were used:
(1) Application of the CR model. Responses were scored for presence of five
components of Wertheim, Love, et al.’s (2006) CR model: defining the issue,
setting the stage for cooperation, understanding both parties’ interests, brain-
storming options and agreeing on a win-win solution. Two psychology grad-
uate students independently rated all responses. Interrater reliability was
satisfactory, Kappa = .76, p<.001 and 95% CI (.72, .81). Scores were
summed, with higher scores indicating greater use of the steps of the model.
Cronbach’s alphas were satisfactory for a 5-item scale, .62 (T1) and .79
(T2).
(2) Conflict negotiation style. Scenario responses were also rated using an adap-
tion of the conflict strategies theory scale (Stevahn, Johnson, Johnson, &
Schultz, 2002) which has shown good predictive ability (Stevahn et al.,
2002; Trinder, 2006). All non-integrative approaches (forcing, withdrawing,
smoothing or compromising) were scored 0 and cooperative and integrative
negotiation approaches were scored 1. Interrater reliability was satisfactory,
Kappa = .93, p < .001 and 95% CI (.86, 1.00).
Impact of prior PD or ERIS programme on knowledge and skills
At T1, participants rated how much previous PD had helped to develop their
knowledge and skills in CR. At T2, control school participants rated how much any
PD, and programme schools how much the ERIS programme in 2008, had helped
develop those areas. Items were rated from 1 (not at all)to5(very much so). Nine
questions assessed the degree PD (or ERIS) had helped them, for example, to
develop ‘skills in effective conflict resolution’. Cronbach’sT1a = .76 and T2
a = .98.
8 A.J. White et al.
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
Participants’ perceptions of their knowledge and skills in CR
At both time points, participants rated from 1 (not at all)to5(very much so) ‘how
knowledgeable do you believe you are about effective strategies for resolving con-
flict in schools?’ and a parallel question asking ‘how skilled’ they believed they
were; T1 intercorrelation = .85 and T2 r = .87. The items were summed and aver-
aged.
Teacher implementation of CR curricula
At T1 and T2, teachers indicated the number of hours they had spent teaching CR
curricula to students in each term of the preceding year, number of sessions taught
and average length of sessions (in minutes). Number of hours taught was
calculated.
Student understanding and use of CR concepts
Two 9-question scales assessed participant beliefs that their students understood and
used each step of the CR model. Responses were rated from 1 (they have not yet
been taught the concept)to5(very well). At T1 Cronbach’s was .93 for under-
standing, .94 for using and .96 for the scales combined (T2 combined a = .97).
Percentage CT attendance
At each CT workshop, attendance was recorded. After accounting for any changes
in CT group size, a percentage attendance score for each school was calculated by
dividing each CT’s actual workshop attendance by the CT’s total possible
attendance.
Field notes
Field notes were recorded during two in-school visits when ERIS consultants
met with CT members to discuss and assist with their implementation efforts.
Information was collected about frequency of CT meetings, number and length
of sessions that CT members held with NCT staff to disseminate ERIS material
in CR, and whether CT members represented ERIS on relevant school commit-
tees.
Procedure and programme description
Relevant ethics approvals were received. After schools were allocated to condi-
tion and the CT met initially with two ERIS team members, a representative of
each school received the school’s choice of code-numbered (for anonymity) hard
copy questionnaires for teachers to complete and return, or an online survey
link.
Programme schools then participated in the first year of the ERIS programme.
Throughout the year, the CTs attended CT PD on four days and received two fur-
ther in-school support visits from ERIS coordinators. In addition, CT and NCT staff
from each programme school attended a whole school PD day of which half was
Educational Psychology 9
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
focused on the ERIS CR concepts and skills. Table 1 summarises CR topics cov-
ered in CT and whole school workshops. Time was allocated at each CT workshop
to allow CTs to reflect on ERIS material and to plan how to embed it into school
practice to ensure a whole school approach. Schools were given access, via hand-
outs and a website, to materials to support their teaching NCT staff the skills that
the CT had learned.
Control schools were posted ERIS materials but given no workshops or support.
These schools were offered a PD workshop after all final data were collected.
Participants completed questionnaires (online and hardcopies were made avail-
able) pre-programme (T1) and again after 10 months, i.e. one school year (T2) of
Table 1. Summary of ERIS programme content delivered during workshops
Workshop Content and activities
CT
Workshop1
Fundamentals of constructive conflict resolution. Identifying and
responding to conflict; roles. A broad CR model: defining conflict,
approaches to conflict (competitive, cooperative; and avoiding, contending,
conceding, compromise, creative problem solving), interests vs. positions
and components of a creative problem solving approach. Interactive
activities. Planning time
Whole school
day
Whole school approach to resolving conflicts. Overview of a whole school
approach. Constructively addressing differences, awareness of cultural
diversity and overview of relevant research. Introduction to the (briefer)
SIB CR model. Activities included identifying typical conflicts in schools
and typical teacher responses; enacting and evaluating scripts for applying
the model as a party, facilitator, or coach assisting a single student.
Introduction to the CR curriculum. Planning time
CT Workshop
2
Deepening use of the CR model. Using the model as a tool for general
problem solving, practice applying the ideas to a relevant problem/issue,
considering cultural differences and social justice when applying the CR
model.
Understanding and fostering change processes in schools. Recognising
potential impact of ERIS changes, identifying factors promoting
implementation (reducing resistance) and planning implementation
CT Workshop
3
Whole school implementation. Principal and CT member from ERIS Phase
1 full-programme school describing their school’s ERIS process and
outcomes
Applying the SIB CR model. Identifying opportunities to use the SIB CR
model and practice applying it; role plays of student-related conflict
scenarios in different roles (negotiator, mediator), observer feedback.
Planning time
CT Workshop
4
A whole school approach. Principal from another Phase 1 school describing
that school’s implementation process and outcomes
Dealing effectively with multiple viewpoints. Good listening, listening for
interests and asking questions (open vs. closed questions). Exercise
practising listening to contrary views, observer feedback. Applying the CR
model to a relevant contentious staff issue; using the SIB CR model.
Brainstorming options and acting as a facilitator using the model. Planning
time
10 A.J. White et al.
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
participation. Participants were eligible for a prize draw if they completed all ques-
tionnaires.
Data analyses
Results are based on the sub-sample that completed both T1 and T2 questionnaires.
Attrition analyses were conducted to determine whether group differences existed
on T1 measures between T2 completers and non-completers.
As data were non-normally distributed, not amenable to transformation, and
sample sizes differed between groups, non-parametric tests were conducted. Krus-
kal–Wallis tests evaluated differences among control, NCT and CT groups and
Mann–Whitney U tests evaluated post hoc pairwise comparisons using the Bonfer-
roni approach. Effect sizes (r) were considered 0.1 = small, 0.3 = moderate and
0.5 = large effect (Cohen, 1988). Spearman’s rho (r
s
) correlation coefficients (non-
parametric) were used to describe relationships between ERIS outcome measures,
CT attendance at workshops and time CTs spent disseminating ERIS material to
teachers within their school.
Results
Preliminary analyses
Missing data
Missing values for individual items from scales were imputed using mean substitu-
tion (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Three cases were excluded due to incorrect code
numbering.
Attrition
Completers were participants who completed questionnaires at both time points
and non-completers those who completed only the T1 questionnaire. A Mann–
Whitney U test revealed non-completers’ T1 ratings of their students’ understand-
ing of CR concepts were significantly higher than completers, U = 7035.00, z = –
2.01, p = .04 and r = .12, however the effect size was small. In addition, schools
differed in the proportion of completers vs. non-completers, U = 7553.50, z = -4.61,
p = .001 and r = .27. All other demographic or dependent variables showed no sig-
nificant differences between completers and non-completers in T1 questionnaires
(p > 0.10).
Demographic information
Of 171 participants completing both T1 and T2 questionnaires, 88% were female.
Of these, 126 (112 female and 12 male) respondents indicated at T2 that it had
been either their partial or main role to teach students during the year. Within the
sub-sample who had taught during the year, most were teachers (90% teachers;
2.4% school support officers, teacher aides or librarians; 2.4% principals or assistant
principals and 5.6% grade level coordinators). Participants indicated they had spent
an average of 7.05 years (N = 166, SD = 5.40) in their current school.
Educational Psychology 11
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
Table 2. One year group differences.
Control schools NCT CT
Variables Md 75th %ile n Md 75th %ile n Md 75th %ile n v
2
Post hoc Mann–Whitney test
CRM steps 1.00 2.00 29 2.00 5.00 103 6.00 8.00 31 23.33
⁄⁄
CT>NCT>Control
Conflict strategy .00 .00 29 .00 .00 103 .00 1.00 31 24.14
⁄⁄
CT>NCT = Control
ERIS or PD helped you with CR 2.06 3.17 16 2.39 3.36 102 4.00 4.22 29 36.65
⁄⁄
CT > NCT = Control
Perceived K&S in CR 4.00 4.00 28 4.00 4.00 102 4.00 4.50 30 7.82
⁄
CT > NCT = Control
Hours teachers taught CR .00 7.50 24 8.00 18.50 62 11.00 22.00 15 11.29
⁄
CT = NCT > Control
Students understand CR 2.00 3.00 28 2.67 3.14 98 3.11 3.89 28 9.34
⁄⁄
CT > NCT = Control
Students use CR 1.89 2.28 28 2.28 2.67 98 2.67 3.22 29 8.64
⁄
CT > NCT = Control
Note: K&S = knowledge and skills.
⁄
p < .05;
⁄⁄
p < .01 and df = 2.
12 A.J. White et al.
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
Differences between groups
Kruskal–Wallis tests revealed that at T1, there were no differences among
control school, NCT and CT groups that approached significance on any of
the measures (v
2
< 2.85,p>.24). In contrast, there were group differences on
many measures after one year of engagement in the ERIS programme (see
Table 2).
Application of the CR model
Regarding steps of the CR model used when responding to the conflict scenario,
NCT participants used more steps than control school respondents, p = .01 and
r = .22, and CT participants used more steps than both NCT, p = .001 and r = .31
and control school participants, p = .001 and r = .57. Effect sizes were moderate to
large.
Conflict negotiation style
Group differences also emerged in the use of integrative conflict strategies when
responding to conflict scenarios. The CT group used more integrative conflict strate-
gies than NCT, p = .001 and r = .35, and control school participants, p = .001 and
r = .49, a large effect size. Differences between groups were not clearly reflected by
median scores but were reflected at the 75th percentile scores (see Table 2). No
other significant differences were found between groups.
ERIS or PD helped you with CR
Groups differed in the extent to which participants reported that PD received (con-
trol school respondents) or the ERIS programme had helped develop their knowl-
edge and skills in CR. The CT participants reported greater CR knowledge and
skills development than NCT participants, p = .001 and r = .50, a large effect size.
No differences were found between NCT and control school groups, p = .21 and
r = .12. All groups rated CR PD received as helpful, with a median of 4 being half
way between somewhat helpful (3) and a maximum score of very much so (5);
100% of CT and 89% of NCT rated ERIS as at least somewhat helpful.
Perceived knowledge and skills in CR
Groups differed in perceptions of their CR knowledge and skills; CT participants
perceived greater CR knowledge and skills than NCT participants, p = .01 and
r = .21, and control schools, p = .01 and r = .21. Effect sizes of post hoc analyses
were small and differences between groups were reflected only at the 75th percen-
tile scores. The NCT and control groups did not differ significantly (with both
reporting moderately high skills and knowledge).
Hours of CR taught to students
Of participants who reported a teaching role, significant group effects were found
on reported hours CR curriculum taught (Table 2). Post hoc tests revealed no signif-
icant differences in hours taught between CT and NCT teachers, p=.61. Non-pro-
Educational Psychology 13
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
gramme teachers taught significantly less CR than NCT teachers, p = .002 and
r = .34 (medium effect).
Student understanding and use of CR
Group differences were found in staff members’ perceptions of their students’
understanding and use of cooperative CR concepts. The CT group exceeded the
control group in reports that students understood, p = .004 and r = .39, and used,
p = .004 and r=.39, cooperative CR concepts. The CT group also exceeded NCT
group in reports that students understood, p = .02 and r = .22, and used, p = .02 and
r = .21, CR concepts. However, no significant differences were found between NCT
and control school respondents.
To examine effects of ERIS CR taught to students, T2–T1 difference scores for
hours taught were correlated with T2–T1 difference scores for student CR under-
standing and use. Increased CR taught related to significant increases in student CR
understanding and use combined scores for programme teachers, r
s
= .47, n = 85 and
p < .0005 (NCT r
s
= .44, n = 70, p < .0005, CT r
s
= .57, n = 15 and p = .03), but not
control teachers, r
s
= .16, n = 26 and p = .43. Use and understanding scores analysed
separately yielded the same patterns.
CT activities and outcomes
Field notes from in-school visits indicated that in six programme schools CTs were
represented on relevant school decision-making committees such as student well-
being committees and leadership teams. Six schools reported holding formal CT
meetings ranging from one per school term to weekly and CT members from six
schools reported holding professional learning meetings with staff to disseminate
ERIS material, with total time ranging from 30 to 410 min. Three schools reported
providing ERIS information to parents. Seven schools reported the CR curriculum
had been integrated into school practice; most often this involved staff on yard duty
Table 3. Intercorrelations between CT ERIS activities and T2–T1 difference scores on
outcome measures for NCT group (displayed in upper diagonal) and CT group (lower
diagonal).
Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Time CT taught staff CR – .50
⁄
.04 .43
⁄⁄
.08 .28
⁄⁄
.43
⁄⁄
2. CT % attendance at workshops .50
⁄
– .23 .36
⁄⁄
.32
⁄⁄
.22
⁄
.23
⁄
3. Hours teachers taught students CR
a,b
.34 .45
⁄
– .26
⁄
.34
⁄⁄
.05 .02
4. ERIS/PD helped you CR
b
.51
⁄⁄
.39
⁄
.05 – .10 .24
⁄
.29
⁄⁄
5. Perceived K&S in CR
b
.11 .10 .10 .05 – .07 .15
6. CRM steps
b
.55
⁄⁄
.19 .20 .30 .18 – .47
⁄⁄
7. Conflict strategy
b
.52
⁄⁄
.15 .20 .13 .36 .73
⁄⁄
–
Note. K&S = knowledge and skills; the sample size for each correlation varies and for NCTs ranges
from 69 to 100 and for CTs ranges from 19 to 30.
a
All correlations involving these variables are only among teachers who taught during the programme
period and blank hours taught in T2 submitted questionnaires were coded as 0 h taught.
b
T2–T1 difference score.
⁄
p < .05;
⁄⁄
p < .01.
14 A.J. White et al.
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
using the CR model when helping students manage conflict, with support materials
developed by the CT available on site (such as cards or memory prompts in yard
duty folders).
The percentage CT attendance at ERIS workshops ranged from 50 to 87 per
cent attendance across all programme schools. CTs who attended more PD work-
shops also taught more CR to staff in their school (r
s
= .50 and p<.001). As Table 3
displays, greater school CT attendance and number of hours the CT spent teaching
NCT staff were associated with greater improvements in NCT staff (T2 minus T1
change scores) on use of cooperative conflict steps and an integrative negotiation
style in scenario responses, and NCT reports of how much ERIS helped them in
the area of conflict resolution. CT workshop attendance was also associated with
increases in NCT perceived CR knowledge and skills. However, CT attendance or
dissemination did not relate to increases in hours of CR curriculum taught in class-
rooms.
Regarding CT outcomes, attendance at PD workshops was associated with more
hours teaching CR to students and greater perceptions that ERIS had helped
improve skills. Greater CT time spent teaching staff CR was also associated with
T1 to T2 increases in the extent to which CT members applied the CR model to a
problem scenario and an integrative conflict strategy in conflict scenarios; and CT
reports that the ERIS project (compared to previous PD) helped with their conflict
resolution development.
Among NCT participants, increases in teacher report that the ERIS programme
had helped develop their CR knowledge and skills and increases in the perception
of their knowledge and skills in CR were correlated with increases in the number
of hours that they reported teaching CR curriculum to students.
Qualitative descriptions of school outcomes
Schools were encouraged to implement the ERIS programme at a whole school
level to meet their specific needs, which resulted in a variety of applications.
Descriptions follow of the two schools whose group scores were highest on quanti-
tative outcome measures.
One Catholic school’s CT consisted of their student well-being team (principal,
student well-being coordinator, religious education coordinator and two other class-
room teachers). The CT met fortnightly and planned a whole-school approach and
school leaders were active in promoting the ERIS programme in the school. The
CT held three PD sessions with non-core staff where they practised using the CR
model by discussing and role-playing conflict scenarios (using scenarios and
resources provided to the CT by the ERIS team during PD sessions). Similar tech-
niques were subsequently used to help students understand and use the model.
School staff discussed how to make the ideas accessible to students at all develop-
mental levels and how to ensure that staff and students used a consistent language
around conflict resolution. A consistent approach to handling disputes on yard duty
(playground) was instituted and staff members were each given a copy of the CR
model to refer to when disputes arose.
A public school in which teacher outcomes on quantitative measures were also
strong reported high levels of programme implementation and dissemination in the
classroom and on the playground. The school had an active CT that met weekly,
held two formal PD sessions with staff and ensured that topics related to ERIS were
Educational Psychology 15
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
regularly raised at staff meetings. The CT members helped NCT staff to practise the
CR model through role plays. In classrooms, teachers taught the ERIS curriculum
and used role plays to illustrate how students could apply the model to manage con-
flicts. Adoption of the ERIS CR approach to handling conflict throughout the
school was attributed to integrating the CR model into the school curriculum, regu-
lar discussions about the CR model at whole school assemblies, prompting students
to consider the SIB model when disputes arose (e.g. asking students, ‘Who would
be able to tell me what’s the first step?’), and support from the principal, who pro-
vided time to assist staff with any particularly challenging conflicts.
Discussion
In this study, we assessed the effectiveness of a PD approach for supporting collab-
orative conflict resolution processes that used a CT model of dissemination, supple-
mented by a full day workshop for NCT staff. Our results partially supported the
effectiveness of this PD approach. At post-assessment NCT teachers and CT teach-
ers, compared to control teachers, reported teaching more conflict resolution curric-
ula in their classrooms and these teachers were rated by researchers as having a
more collaborative conflict resolution approach to student conflict situations
(assessed in scenarios). Qualitative descriptions suggested that the ideas were being
used to manage day-to-day student disputes, supporting the idea that the ERIS
approach was being implemented. The effectiveness of a CT approach was also sup-
ported by findings that when CTs provided more PD to their staff and attended
more ERIS PD themselves, NCT staff in their schools made greater gains in their
reported use of elements of a cooperative conflict resolution approach. However, on
several indices, such as post-programme perceived conflict resolution knowledge
and skills of self and students, only the CT members exceeded control teachers at
post programme.
Findings related to teacher PD
Our results suggested that, after one school year of participation in the ERIS pro-
gramme, CT members in programme schools scored higher than other groups on
most measures. They scored higher on use of a creative problem solving
approach to conflict and were more likely to report they would respond to con-
flict using methods reflecting a cooperative problem solving negotiation style. CT
members also perceived they had gained greater knowledge and skills to effec-
tively manage conflict and indicated that the ERIS programme had helped
develop their conflict handling ability and their students’ abilities to a larger
extent than other groups (the non-programme school participants rated prior PD
instead of the ERIS programme). Finally, CT participants, compared to other
groups, indicated that the students with whom they worked (either in a classroom
or in other contexts) better understood and used conflict resolution concepts
related to achieving win-win cooperative agreements. These findings support the
effectiveness of the ERIS programme in assisting CT staff to develop skills and
knowledge. Given that CT members represented school leaders, such as princi-
pals, assistant principals and student welfare coordinators, who set the tone for a
school and often deal with the most difficult conflict situations, building their
capacity is of particular benefit.
16 A.J. White et al.
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
In addition, the NCT teacher group taught more CR curriculum and was rated
as using more elements of a cooperative conflict resolution approach in student con-
flict scenarios than control teachers. Almost 90% of NCT respondents reported
ERIS to be at least somewhat helpful in building their conflict resolution capacity
across a range of areas, such as in addressing conflict and negotiation situations,
and in making changes to curriculum. However, their knowledge was not as devel-
oped as in CT staff and as a group they did not report the ERIS programme had
helped to develop their own CR knowledge and skills or their students’ skills sub-
stantially more than the control group.
Although the NCT group as a whole did not report greater student use and
understanding of cooperative CR approaches than control group teachers, those
NCT teachers who reported increases in teaching CR curriculum reported student
gains in student understanding and use of a cooperative approach to conflict resolu-
tion. Since this was not the case for control teachers, it suggests that when pro-
gramme teachers did implement the ERIS curriculum, they viewed it as having
positive effects on student outcomes.
Overall, at one school year into the 18-month programme, there were promising
gains for CT members, with more limited gains for NCT members. However,
schools varied in the level of priority ERIS had been given in the school, and on
how completely they had engaged with the ERIS programme and made efforts to
disseminate it in the school over the assessment period.
Predictors of dissemination and implementation
Schools that scored as benefiting most from the ERIS programme, such as those
described in the qualitative outcomes, adopted a whole-school approach to imple-
menting the programme. Common strategies amongst these schools included the
development of a whole school policy for staff to use the SIB model in the context
of disputes in the playground, the provision to NCT staff of PD such as in staff
meetings, teaching the skills to students through CR curriculum and informing par-
ents about programme-related ideas.
The role of CT dissemination
An important aim of this study was to examine how successfully CTs carried out
their roles disseminating programme material to develop fellow teachers’ knowl-
edge, skills and motivation. There was substantial variation between schools in how
actively CTs disseminated information. As predicted, when CTs spent more time
disseminating CR material in their school and also when CTs more consistently
attended ERIS workshops, NCT staff in those schools demonstrated better out-
comes. For example, following more active CT involvement, NCT teachers reported
viewing the ERIS programme as more helpful in developing knowledge and skills
and the NCT participants’ understanding and use of a cooperative problem solving
approach to conflict were independently rated more highly. These findings support
the effectiveness of the CT approach to PD when the programme is given priority
in a school through CTs actively passing on knowledge and skills to fellow staff.
It should be noted that CT dissemination of material to NCT staff was not asso-
ciated with greater implementation of CR curricula by NCT teachers in classrooms.
Rather, CT teaching of fellow staff was associated with NCT staff demonstrating a
Educational Psychology 17
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
better understanding of how to approach conflict using a cooperative integrative
approach and greater self-reported benefits from the programme. It is likely that
these outcomes led to higher quality teaching of the curriculum, although that was
not assessed. In fact, although those staff, across all schools, who self-reported
teaching CR curriculum material to their students reported gaining more from the
ERIS programme, they did not necessarily show greater application of cooperative
problem solving when assessed via student conflict scenarios (see Table 3). These
findings point to the importance of ensuring that staff who implement curricula are
indeed well skilled prior to doing so, whether through researcher- or CT-led PD.
There were also several benefits for CT members who spent more time in dis-
seminating CR material. They were more likely to report having gained more from
the ERIS programme and to have received higher scores on using a cooperative
problem solving approach to conflict. Teaching the material may have helped con-
solidate understanding for those CT members or alternatively their strong skill
development motivated them to pass on the new knowledge. Furthermore, greater
CT workshop attendance was associated with more CT dissemination of CR mate-
rial suggesting that dissemination may be encouraged by workshop attendance.
These findings on the importance of attending PD sessions and making efforts to
disseminate information could be communicated to participants during programmes,
to encourage engagement in CT professional learning opportunities and sharing the
knowledge with other staff in their schools.
In summary, CTs do seem to have the potential to disseminate knowledge and
skills in a productive way in schools. Although previous researchers have observed
CTs can be useful in promoting better outcomes (Bond et al., 2001), our study fur-
ther examined empirically whether CT dissemination of skills and concepts in con-
flict resolution result in better outcomes for fellow staff and themselves. The
findings support the idea that CTs can be used to pass on knowledge, gained during
PD workshops, to their colleagues, who in turn can achieve positive changes in
skills and knowledge. Nonetheless, the current findings suggest that further research
is needed to improve the effectiveness of this process.
Self-efficacy in dissemination and implementation
Thus far in the discussion, teacher self-reported increases in knowledge and skills
have been assumed to represent increases in those capacities. While teacher reports
may indeed represent actual gains, self-reported capacities could also reflect self-
efficacy beliefs.
From a self-efficacy perspective, CT participants reported increasing their self-
efficacy related to cooperative conflict resolution capacities. Furthermore, CT partic-
ipants who reported greatest self-efficacy gains also provided more PD to fellow
staff in their school. Regarding NCT teachers, those with greatest increases in self-
efficacy taught the most CR curriculum to their students. Increases in self-efficacy
more strongly predicted increases teaching CR curriculum than did researcher rat-
ings of teacher knowledge and skills. These patterns support the role of an increase
in self-efficacy in encouraging participants of PD to translate their learning into
practice. The role of self-efficacy as a mediator in PD is worth developing in future
research.
18 A.J. White et al.
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
Limitations and strengths
Study limitations include the self-report nature of most data without direct observa-
tion of student and teacher behaviour. Our measure of CR model application was
based on a hypothetical scenario, so how (and when) the model is applied to actual
conflicts requires further research attention. In addition, rather than having teachers
rate the CR abilities of their own class, reporting bias could be minimised by
obtaining independent measures of student behaviour.
The types of analyses possible in this sample were limited by skewed distribu-
tions, not assisted by transformations. Future research with larger samples could use
methods such as hierarchical linear modelling to examine differences between types
of school based on size and demographic characteristics. For example, the larger
schools in our study reported that dealing with many staff and structures within the
school created challenges for implementation. A mixed model could be used to
assess how specific factors limit and enable the success of a CT dissemination
approach, for example, whether school size and CT composition exert an influence.
Evaluation was also focused mostly on curriculum implementation, rather than inci-
dental teaching in class and yard duty, which also took place. Timing of the second
questionnaire coincided with end-of-year report writing resulting in more attrition
than hoped; however, except for confidence in their CR knowledge and skills
(which suggested that teachers who thought they already knew the material tended
not to persist), the final sample was similar to the initial one. It should be noted,
however, that sample size (and the quantitative nature of the study) is larger than in
many prior studies and quantitative findings were supplemented with information
from field notes.
Future research directions
Consistent with the findings of previous research studies (Ertesvåg et al., 2010; Firth
et al., 2008; Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2005), the current outcomes suggest that
successful implementation of whole school initiatives requires a commitment and
investment of time from a school, strategically focused on building the individual
and collective knowledge and skills. A well-positioned CT, with authority and credi-
bility to coordinate action and integration of the programme in the school, shows
potential in school-wide implementation efforts, although further research is needed
into how to ensure CT effectiveness. Future research should build on this study’s
findings to examine specific barriers and facilitators of programme implementation.
Feedback from participants and our observations suggested that particular school
characteristics appeared to have an impact on rate of change, such as greater history
of change attempts and leadership changes, leadership styles, school size, high staff
turnover, and competing time pressures, such as timing of other major school evalu-
ations or change processes. The development of a strategic focus in each school
appears important if schools are to avoid what Fullan (2010) has described as ‘blind
urgency’ where staff can become overwhelmed and discouraged by pressure to
make changes. These factors need to be systematically explored and addressed in
future studies and point to a need for ongoing support of schools and realistic
expectations of time frames for whole school adoption of new approaches.
A CT professional learning approach coupled with some direct PD for the full
school staff was used in this study. We had hoped that adding a full-day PD work-
Educational Psychology 19
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
shop for all staff very early in the programme would motivate staff and leads to
quicker uptake of the programme and knowledge and skills development. Although
we generally received positive evaluations at the end of the full school PD day, the
strategy of offering a workshop early in the project may not have been as impactful
as hoped. It became clear that CTs took some time to understand and embrace the
CR concepts they were learning, so the full school workshop may have preceded
CTs’ capacities to support their school soon after that day. Also, some teachers who
implemented conflict resolution curricula after the PD workshop may have been
only partly skilled to do so. Waiting for CTs to provide further PD prior to teaching
students may have enhanced quality curriculum implementation, although that needs
to be balanced with ensuring motivation is high enough to promote initiating the
new curricula. Future research should address timing of different components of the
intervention programme and relative effectiveness of different formats (e.g. full PD
days for staff at different points in the programme vs. more closely working with
sub-groups within schools) over time. The aim is to develop time and cost-effective
approaches that have the potential to disseminate skills and knowledge efficiently
and effectively to large numbers of schools.
Preliminary student data suggest that ERIS curriculum resulted in gains in
understanding of cooperative conflict resolution (Hutton, 2010), and our qualitative
feedback suggested that this knowledge supported teacher attempts to apply the CR
approach in the playground, where skills become embedded. However, future
research needs to address observed outcomes for students. Furthermore, student
feedback about the effectiveness of being taught the new conflict resolution pro-
cesses would inform future programme development.
Our findings provide some support for dose-response effects in CR PD. Dose-
response models examine how the number of sessions relates to outcomes and how
many sessions are needed for optimal, or sufficient, outcomes (Howard, Kopta, Kra-
use, & Orlinsky, 1986; Maracy & Dunn, 2011). Dose-response effects were sup-
ported in outcomes of the original ERIS programme, when the full ERIS
programme resulted in more positive outcomes than a partial programme (Trinder
et al., 2010). Dose-responses effects can also be assessed through associations
between attendance and outcomes (Maracy & Dunn, 2011). Our study showed that
greater CT attendance at workshops predicted better school outcomes. Similarly,
when CTs delivered more PD sessions, NCT staff outcomes were more positive.
These findings support a dose-response effect, which should be more systematically
explored in future.
Conclusions
The major aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a CT PD approach
to implementing social emotional learning programmes focused on cooperative con-
flict resolution in primary schools. The end of year one outcomes of the modified
ERIS programme lend some support to the use of CTs to disseminate programme
content and suggest that school communities engaged with the cooperative conflict
resolution curriculum offered. Considered as a whole, it appears that PD workshops
were quite effective in developing conflict resolution knowledge and skills of CT
groups from participating schools. Furthermore, the programme appears to have
facilitated schools teaching students relevant curriculum and, particularly when CT
members provided PD to fellow staff, the programme assisted NCT teachers to
20 A.J. White et al.
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
develop a deeper understanding of a cooperative conflict resolution process. Find-
ings provide some support for a CT approach to PD in schools and were theoreti-
cally consistent with a role of self-efficacy beliefs in assisting to translate PD into
practice. Fostering respectful relationships in complex and diverse communities is,
however, not a simple undertaking and further research is needed to develop the
most effective methods for providing PD in this field.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Glenda MacNaughton, Karina
Davis and Prasanna Srinivasan who helped to design, plan and deliver material at ERIS
workshops and Anne Farrelly and Jo Hutton, whose assistance ensured that workshops ran
smoothly. The authors also thank Margot Prior for her helpful comments on an earlier draft
and all schools who participated in the study. This study was supported by an Australian
Research Council Linkage Grant (LP0776747), Scanlon Foundation, the Australian
Psychological Society, Haig St Primary School Heidelberg and St Anthony’s Primary School
Alphington.
References
Batton, J. (2004). Commentary: Considering conflict resolution education: Next steps for
institutionalization. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22(1–2), 269–278.
Bond, L., Glover, S., Godfrey, C., Butler, H., & Patton, G.C. (2001). Building capacity for
system-level change in schools: Lessons from the Gatehouse Project. Health Education
and Behavior, 28(3), 368–383.
Calkins, S.D., Graziano, P.A., & Keane, S.P. (2007). Cardiac vagal regulation differentiates
among children at risk for behavior problems. Biological Psychology, 74(2), 144–153.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
IN: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Davidson, J.S., & Wood, C.D. (2004). A conflict resolution model. Theory into Practice, 43,
6–13.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Weingart, L.R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on inte-
grative negotiation: A meta-analytical review and test of two theories. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 78, 889–905.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Deutsch, M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch, P. Coleman, & E. Marcus
(Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 23–42). San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Deutsch, M., Coleman, P.T., & Marcus, E.C. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of conflict resolu-
tion: Theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
DiPerna, J.C., & Elliott, S.N. (1999). Development and validation of the academic compe-
tence evaluation scales. [Empirical Study]. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17
(3), 207–225.
Durlak, J., & DuPre, E. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influ-
ence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 327–350.
Elias, M., Bruene-Butler, L., Blum, L., & Schuyler, T. (2000). Voices from the field: Identi-
fying and overcoming roadblocks to carrying out ograms on social and emotional learn-
ing/emotional intelligence. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11
(2), 253–272.
Elias, M., Zins, J., Craczyk, P., & Weissberg, R. (2003). Implementation, sustainability, and
scaling up of social-emotional and academic innovations in public schools. School Psy-
chology Review, 32(3), 303–319.
Ertesvåg, S., Roland, P., Vaaland, G., Størksen, S., & Veland, J. (2010). The challenge of
continuation: Schools
’ continuation of the respect program. Journal of Educational
Change, 11(4), 323–344.
Educational Psychology 21
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
Firth, N., Butler, H., Drew, S., Krelle, A., Shef field, J.K., Patton, G.C., & Tollit, M.M.
(2008). Implementing multi-level programmes and approaches that address student well-
being and connectedness: Factoring in the needs of the schools. Advances in School
Mental Health Promotion, 1(4), 14–24.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1986). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in.
London: Business Books.
Fullan, M. (2010). Positive pressure. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hop-
kins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 119–130).
Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
Gager, P., & Elias, M. (1997). Implementing prevention programs in high-risk environments:
Application of the resiliency paradigm. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67(3),
363–373.
Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. Ameri-
can Education Research Journal, 28(4), 915–945.
Girard, K., & Koch, S.J. (1996). Conflict resolution in the schools: A manual for educators.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hadar, L., & Brody, D. (2010). From isolation to symphonic harmony: Building a profes-
sional development community among teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion, 26, 1641–1651.
Han, S.S., & Weiss, B. (2005). Sustainability of teacher implementation of school-based
mental health programs. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(6), 665–679.
Howard, K.I., Kopta, S.M., Krause, M.S., & Orlinsky, D.E. (1986). The dose–response rela-
tionship in psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 41, 159–164.
Hutton, J. (2010). The effectiveness of the Wise Ways to Win conflict resolution program
among primary school children (Unpublished Masters Thesis, La Trobe University, Mel-
bourne, Australia).
Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional
development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes and efficacy.
Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10), 1–28.
Ishler, A.L., Johnson, R.T., & Johnson, D.W. (1998). Long-term effectiveness of a statewide
staff development program on cooperative learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14
(3), 273–281.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1996). Conflict resolution and peer mediation programs in
elementary and secondary schools: A review of the research. Review of Educational
Research, 66(4), 459–506.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (2004). Implementing the ‘teaching students to be
peacemakers program’. Theory into Practice, 43(1), 68–79.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., & Dudley, B. (1992). Effects of peer mediation training on ele-
mentary school students. Mediation Quarterly, 10,89–99.
Jones, T. (2004). Conflict resolution education: The field, the findings, and the future. Con-
flict Resolution Quarterly, 22, 233–267.
Littlefield, L., Love, A., Peck, C., & Wertheim, E. (1993). A model for resolving conflict:
Some theoretical, empirical and practical implications. Australian Psychologist, 28(2),
80–85.
Maracy, M., & Dunn, G. (2011). Estimating dose–response effects in psychological treatment
trials: The role of instrumental variables. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 20,
191–215.
Miller, A., & Leyden, G. (1999). A coherent framework for the application of psychology in
schools. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 398–400.
Pasi, R. J. (2001). Higher expectations: Promoting social emotional learning and academic
achievement in your school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B.J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L.P. (2007). What makes profes-
sional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American
Education Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.
22 A.J. White et al.
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
Pruitt, D.G., & Rubin, J.Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement (1st
ed.). New York, NY: Random House.
Smith, A.B., Inder, P.M., & Ratcliff, B. (1995). The nature and context of students’ conflicts.
New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 30, 103–117.
Stevahn, L., Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Schultz, R. (2002). Effects of conflict resolu-
tion training integrated into a high school social studies program. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 142(3), 305–331.
Stevahn, L., Munger, L., & Kealey, K. (2005). Conflict resolution in a French immersion
elementary school. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(1), 3–18.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Trinder, M. (2006). Evaluating the effectiveness of short and longer term professional devel-
opment in cooperative conflict resolution for primary school staff (Unpublished Masters
Thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne).
Trinder, M., Wertheim, E., Freeman, E., Sanson, A., Richardson, S., & Hunt, S. (2010).
Comparison of the effectiveness of two forms of the Enhancing Relationships in School
Communities program for promoting cooperative conflict resolution education in primary
schools. Journal of Peace Education, 7,85–105.
Walker, H.M. (2004). Commentary: Use of evidence-based interventions in schools: Where
we’ve been, where we are and where we need to go. School Psychology Review, 33(3),
398–408.
Wertheim, E., Freeman, E., Trinder, M., & MacNaughton, G. (2009). New developments
and lessons learned from the Enhancing Relationships in School Communities project.
The Australian Community Psychologist, 21,62–75.
Wertheim, E., Freeman, E., Trinder, M., & Sanson, A. (2006). Lessons drawn from the
enhancing relationships in school communities project. The Australian Community Psy-
chologist, 18(2), 71–81.
Wertheim, E., Love, A., Peck, C., & Littlefield, L. (2006). Skills for resolving conflict (2nd
ed.). Melbourne: Eruditions.
Zins, J.E., Bloodworth, M.R., Weissberg, R.P., & Walberg, H.J. (2004). The scientific base
linking social and emotional learning to school success. In J.E. Zins, R.P. Weissberg,
M.C. Wang, & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional
learning: What does the research say (pp. 3–22). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Educational Psychology 23
Downloaded by [UB Mannheim], [Andrew White] at 01:18 01 August 2012
