Background: Social and emotional (SE) skills play an important role in a person’s development, while a range of negative outcomes are associated with poor SE skills (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning [CASEL], 2013; 2015; Gresham & Elliott, 2008). The targeting of these skills in school-based programmes can produce positive outcomes (Durlak, Dymnicki, Taylor, Weissberg, & Schellinger, 2011). Get Up! Stand Up! (Version 2) (GUSU2) (National Educational Psychological Service, 2017) is a SE skills programme currently in use in Irish schools. However, to date, no substantial evaluation of GUSU2 has been conducted. CASEL outline a framework for such school-based programmes which identifies several essential elements, including being well-designed, addressing five SE competencies, offering support and training to facilitators and being offered over multiple years. Programmes which meet these standards are noted to be associated with a range of positive outcomes for participants.

Aim: This study aims to evaluate GUSU2 as a SE skills programme in the context of the CASEL framework. This study will consider the impact of GUSU2 on participants’ SE skills, whilst also considering the perspectives of the relevant stakeholders on GUSU2 and the training and support provided.

Methodology: A mixed-method, partially mixed sequential equal status design was used to evaluate GUSU2. Documentary analysis was conducted on the GUSU2 manual. Thematic analysis, using a combination of deductive and inductive analysis (Braun, Clarke, Hayfield, & Terry, 2018; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010) was conducted on data from four pupil focus groups involving 27 pupils and from seven semi-structured teacher interviews. Data collected by the school psychology service, using the Social Skills Improvement System-Rating Scales (SSIS-RS) (Gresham & Elliott, 2008), was analysed using a mixed between-within subjects’ analysis of variance and post-hoc t-tests to determine the impact of participating in GUSU2 compared to participants in a business-as-usual control group. Data included pre- and post-intervention measures of SE skills from 225 pupils in 14 schools, including three control schools consisting of 68 pupils. In addition to the full study sample, a lower ability sample (n = 37) were identified based on their pre-intervention scores and analysed accordingly.

Findings: There was a statistically significant increase in participants’ total standard scores in both the GUSU2 and business-as-usual groups in both the full study and lower ability samples. There was no significant interaction effect identified, suggesting that GUSU2 is as effective as the business-as-usual approach. However, qualitative analysis suggests that pupils engaged with the programme and demonstrated learning in several competencies. Analysis of the qualitative data indicates that several aspects of GUSU2 require further development to align with the CASEL framework. Several potential barriers to implementation and learning were identified, including a lack of ongoing external support, brief training, concerns over resources, pupil over-familiarity, and small school size.

Conclusions: Several implications from this evaluation are discussed, including areas for development within GUSU2 in relation to the CASEL framework, issues regarding programme fidelity and the collection of appropriate data. Suggestions for further research and policy are also made.

Cyberstalking is a new phenomenon that is facing our society. It is a poorly researched and widely misunderstood concept that is only now coming to the attention of researchers. There are numerous features of the internet that make it an attractive tool for harassment such as low cost, deliberately low regulation, ease of use, immediacy, potentially anonymous nature, law restrictions, widespread availability, stealth, insignificance of physical distance and victim depersonalisation. In this way a space has been opened up that allows individuals a forum to harass, intimidate and threaten others. The purpose of the research is to investigate the prevalence of cyberstalking in an Irish sample and to explore the possibility that cyberstalking should be viewed as an addictive disorder. A literature review of the small but growing body of research relating to cyberstalking was undertaken. In order to address the research question a survey questionnaire was devised so that the results assess aspects of cyberstalking behaviour that may be indicative of an addictive disorder. Email and social networking sites were the cyberstalking tools of interest in the study. 100 participants were recruited online through Email and Facebook to take part in the study. Participation consisted of completing the online questionnaire. The results were compared to the criteria for addictive disorders suggested by Goodman. The findings suggest that cyberstalking is indeed a pervasive problem in contemporary Irish society and some evidence supports the contention that it should be considered an addictive disorder. Furthermore, the results support a number of trends present in the cyberstalking literature. The conclusions drawn indicate that the phenomenon of cyberstalking deserves examination and that further and more extensive research is needed in the area to adequately address the issue.

The overarching aim of the thesis was to identify and explore a behavioural typology of the use of reactive and proactive aggression in a sample of 9-14 year-old English children and adolescents. To date, few studies have employed a person centred approach to investigate behavioural patterns of the use of both reactive and proactive aggression. Of these only two have investigated the behaviour of community, rather than specialised or clinical participant samples (Crapanzano, Frick and Terranova 2010; Mayberry and Espelage 2007). However, these two studies employed methods which raise questions regarding the reliability and/or generalisability of the results obtained. For example, neither study asked participants whether they had actually engaged in the behaviours of interest; rather they asked children to report on how likely they felt they were to react in the same way as described in a list of aggressive scenarios presented to them. As such the studies did not actually record engagement in aggressive behaviour, rather the participants’ perceived likelihood that they would behave in a certain way. Furthermore, neither study was conducted in the UK, leading to questions of generalisability between participant samples. Both research and school policy in England and Wales has focused on exploring the use of proactive forms of aggression (including bullying) in schools, and reactive aggression has to date been neglected. However, it is essential that we identify the prevalence and patterns of the use of both reactive and proactive forms of aggression as both are prevalent in schools and place children and adolescents at risk of harm. Employing a mixed methodological approach, a two-phased data collection procedure was followed to identify and explore a behavioural typology of the use of reactive and proactive aggression and differences in associated demographic, behavioural and socio-cognitive risk factors between the behavioural groups identified. In Phase 1, focus groups were conducted with 57 (20 males, 37 females) children and adolescents aged 9 – 18 years, in order to understand how they define terminology utilised across the research literature to describe acts of negative interpersonal behaviour. Across three data collection sites participants reported consistent definitions of the terms provided to them and differentiated between the terms aggression, violence and bullying. Social representations of the reasons they believed people engaged and avoided engaging in interpersonal aggression also emerged from their talk. These related to the role of taking the perspective, or empathising with others and the perception of a level of justification for certain types of behaviour, enacted under certain conditions. In Phase 2 a survey design was used to collect both qualitative and quantitative data from 658 children and adolescents aged 9-14 years (302 males, 356 females). The aim of Phase 2 was to identify a behavioural typology of the use of reactive and proactive aggression based on self-report data collected using a modified version of the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPAQ; Raine et al 2006). Once the behavioural subtypes were identified, associations between subtype and, involvement in bullying relationships, demographic (age and gender) and social-cognitive characteristics (empathy, perceived acceptance of behaviour and social representations of why people become involved in negative interpersonal interactions) were examined. Cluster analysis of the RPAQ data identified three distinct behavioural groups characterised by lower than the sample median use of both types of behaviour (Low Aggression: characterising 57.1% of the sample), Moderate-high reactive and Low-moderate proactive aggression (characterising 34.4% of the sample), and finally a group indicating frequent use of both reactive and proactive aggression (High Aggression: characterising 8.5% of the sample). The only age and gender related differences within the clusters were found in the low frequency aggression cluster. Specifically, there were a greater proportion of females compared to males in this cluster. The only age related difference found was a greater percentage of primary school children compared to 13-14 year olds in the Low aggression cluster. Group membership was found to be associated with self-reported bullying as measured by the Peer Victimization and Bullying Scale (Mynard and Joseph 2000). The High frequency aggression cluster contained a significantly higher percentage of those indicating being a bully or a bully-victim compared to the other two clusters. Whereas the Low frequency cluster contained a significantly higher percentage of those indicating not being involved in bullying compared to the other two clusters. However, reporting being a victim of bullying was not associated with any one of the three clusters. Of the socio-cognitive variables, a significant incremental increase was found in the perceived acceptance of both reactive and proactive aggression as the reported frequency of the use of both types of behaviour increased across the three behavioural groups (as measured by a modified version of the RPAQ; Raine et al 2006). Conversely, an incremental decrease was observed between the frequency of the use of aggression and reported affective empathy (as measured by the Basic Empathy Scale; Jolliffe and Farrington 2006), with a significant difference being found between the Low and High frequency aggression groups. No significant differences between the groups in self-reported cognitive empathy were found. Finally, participants were asked two open-ended questions relating to their perception of why people are ‘picked on’, or ‘pick on’ others. Thematic Analysis identified a number of social representations held across the participant sample, with a further content analysis identifying that there were no significant differences in the extent to which these representations were endorsed by the three behavioural groups. The findings of the current research have important implications for our understanding of the developmental pathways for the use of reactive and proactive aggression. They identify that both types of behaviour co-occur, suggesting that the risk factors for the development of these two types of behaviour may not be so distinct and/or the risk factors associated with each are likely to co-occur. Consequently, school behaviour policies need to include strategies for addressing both forms of aggression. Interventions to reduce/prevent this behaviour need to be designed to address the risk factors which are promoting the specific motivations of both reactive and proactive behaviour.

This study arises from two contextualised problems faced by the students at the Faculty of Applied Sciences (FAS) of a small university in Sri Lanka. These problems are: students’ lecture comprehension difficulties and limited oral language proficiency in their second language (i.e. English). The ideas developed in this study are based on the argument that dialogic lecturer student interaction, which enables students to take a more active role in discussions compared to the use of recitation scripts (questions-answers evaluations) developed in non-dialogic interactions, is likely to be beneficial for students’ content and language development. Although there have been studies at primary level, there has so far been little research into dialogic interaction in tertiary-level L1 Science classes, and none yet carried out in the L2 context. Therefore, this study investigates the extent of dialogic interaction practised at FAS, in conjunction with a thorough consideration of the factors that influence interaction between lecturers and students. This study, involving 30 students and 4 lecturers, was undertaken as a pioneer study in this context in Asia by analysing L2 lectures given at FAS. Data were collected from lecturer and student questionnaires, lecturer interviews, student group interviews, observations of 24 lectures and audio recordings. Of the observed lectures, a total of 12 from Biotechnology, Animal Physiology, Physics and Statistics were transcribed verbatim and analysed using an analytical framework, which was especially designed to analyse the FAS lecture discourse. This framework was also used to locate these lectures on a scale from monologic to dialogic. The study revealed the complexity of the perception-practice dynamic, and the multi-faceted sub-set of factors which influenced students’ and lecturers’ behaviour in class, and their perception of that behaviour. Students’ lecture comprehension problems and classroom interaction were influenced by their language proficiency, though the students considered the lecturers’ lecture delivery style to be more important than their own language proficiency. In this study it was revealed that a culturally embedded behaviour perpetuated by senior students, known as ragging (a kind of bullying), restricted the classroom interaction of the students. In terms of lecture delivery style, of all the observed lectures only two contained some interactional episodes in addition to monologic segments, while the others were found to be highly or mostly monologic. Students were also found not to be cooperating with lecturers in classroom interaction, despite stating a preference for learning through interaction. The students asked only very few questions in all the observed lectures, and answered in a limited number of lectures. The lecturers asked more knowledge testing questions than any other kind, while there were only a few concept development questions – the type which can help develop dialogic interaction. Overall, this investigation, which demonstrates the importance of combining studies of perception with detailed analysis of the discourse itself, indicates limited lecturer student interaction as well as a clear lack of dialogic interaction in English-medium Science lectures at this particular university. In addition, it is argued that the innovative analytical framework designed to analyse the lectures delivered in the English Medium Instruction (EMI) context of the present study can be useful for other lectures which are commonly delivered as monologic in both L1 and L2 contexts. Finally, it also stresses the importance of investigating the influence of cultural and behavioural factors, such as ragging, on classroom learning.