Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
29 October 2024 | Story André Damons | Photo Supplied
NRF Researchers 2024
First NRF rating: From top left: Dr Andronicus Akinyelu, Lecturer in the Department of Computer Science and Informatics, received his first Y2 rating, Dr Monique de Milander, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Exercise and Sport Sciences, obtained a C3 rating, while Dr Calvin D. Ullrich, Senior Lecturer in Interdisciplinary Theology: Historical and Constructive Theology, obtained a Y1 rating. Bottom left: Prof Maria Tsakeni, Associate Professor in the School of Mathematics, Natural Sciences, and Technology Education, Prof Matildie Wium, Associate Professor in the Odeion School of Music, and Dr Weldemichael Tesfuhuney, a senior lecturer in the Department of Soil, Crop, and Climate Sciences, all obtained a C2 rating.

The list of National Research Foundation (NRF)-rated researchers at the University of the Free State (UFS) is growing, with 22 researchers recently receiving their first NRF rating, and 14 others obtaining new ratings after re-evaluation. This list is expected to grow even more with results slowly filtering in.

Profs Jan van der Watt, Research Fellow in the Department of Old and New Testament Studies, and Felicity Burt from the Division of Virology and SARChI Research Chair in vector-borne and zoonotic pathogens, are the latest NRF B1 rated researchers. While this is Prof Van der Watt’s first NRF rating, Prof Burt has increased her NRF rating from B3 to B1. The UFS now has 10 B1 rated researchers.

In addition to the new rating of Profs Burt and Van der Watt, the UFS also boasts seven new C1 rated researchers, 14 new C2s, five new C3s, seven new Y2s and one Y1 and B3 rated researchers respectively.

Among the researchers who obtained their first NRF ratings are Dr Bimo Abraham Nkhata, Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Environmental Management; Dr Yolandi Schoeman, Senior Lecturer in the Centre for Mineral Biogeochemistry; and Dr Angélique Lewies, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, who has this year been nominated for the prestigious 2023/2024 NSTF-South32 Awards, popularly known as the “Science Oscars” of South Africa. Dr Nkhata obtained a NRF rating in the C2 category, while both Drs Schoeman and Lewies obtained a Y2 rating.

An honour to be among rated researchers

Other researchers who obtained their first NRF rating include Dr Monique de Milander, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Exercise and Sport Sciences, who obtained a C3 rating and Prof Maria Tsakeni, Associate Professor in the School of Mathematics, Natural Sciences, and Technology Education, who received a C2 rating.

Dr De Milander, a Kinderkineticist who works with the motor development of young children, says she was very surprised to obtain a C3 rating. “I feel honoured receiving this NRF rating. To know that other researchers are reading my work and finding it relevant. It takes a lot of dedication and patience, since this is an endurance race and not a sprint. You need to work many hours, read a lot of new articles and write the articles themselves.

“In addition, collecting the data is not always possible without the assistance of our students at the Department of Exercise and Sport Sciences as fieldworkers. I would like to acknowledge them because without them my research projects would not always be feasible. Furthermore, the publication process is also timeous, thus a lot of time elapses before you start to see the results of your work,” explains Dr De Milander.

According to her, the current project for her NRF rating is the assessment of motor development, attentional deficit hyperactive disorder, anthropometry and academic performance in low- and high-socio-economic primary school learners in Mangaung.

Prof Tsakeni, whose research focuses on the design and implementation of innovative instructional strategies and curriculum innovations in science classrooms, says she is honoured to be among the rated researchers. “The recognition motivates me to continue pushing myself to climb the ladder of rated researchers. The rating makes me feel affirmed to continue with my research work. I am grateful to the Faculty of Education, the UFS, and the NRF for giving me the opportunity and support.”

She would like to upscale the impact of her research by engaging in large-scale studies, international comparative studies, international collaborations, and one day, be a visiting scholar at some prestigious universities.

“The innovations in science classrooms include integrating inquiry-based practical work, education for sustainable development (ESD) and STEM education. The instructional strategies include inquiry-based learning and integrating educational technologies in the classrooms,” says Prof Tsakeni.

Recognition for long-term academic work

Newly C2 rated researcher, Dr Weldemichael Tesfuhuney, a senior lecturer in the Department of Soil, Crop, and Climate Sciences, says: “As an agrometeorologist by profession, I feel a profound mix of pride and motivation after receiving NRF-rating recognition for my long-term academic work.

“This acknowledgment validates my years of dedication in understanding the intricate relationship between meteorology and agriculture. It boosts my confidence and reaffirms my commitment to advancing my academic and research goals.

“Such recognition is a pivotal moment for me; it serves as a powerful reminder of the impact of my research on agricultural practices, particularly in addressing the challenges posed by climate change in arid and semi-arid regions.”

Dr Tesfuhuney, whose research deepens understanding of how meteorological patterns affect agricultural practices, making a significant contribution to the field of Agrometeorology, has established a robust research portfolio focused on the challenges of meteorology and agriculture in arid and semi-arid regions. He has spearheaded several long-term research initiatives, including In-field Rainwater Harvesting (IRWH) techniques, intercropping practices, micrometeorology, and crop modelling simulations, all aimed at improving crop productivity for smallholder farming communities in rural areas.

Currently, Dr Tesfuhuney is expanding his research on underutilised crops in the region, focusing on how these crops can help smallholder farmers adapt to the impacts of climate change while improving nutritional security.

Work on the right track

Dr Calvin D. Ullrich, Senior Lecturer in Interdisciplinary Theology: Historical and Constructive Theology, who obtained a Y1 rating, says though there is much talk in South African academia about the necessity of an NRF rating which is not always positive (at least in the broader humanities), the NRF does have its strengths.

“I think it pushes one to critically consider one’s work as a whole; to reflect on its current shape and to identify lacuna within a broader trajectory. There is something generative about this process in and of itself. Feelings of relief but also of affirmation then: a rigorous peer-review system which acts as a metric, according to which one might be able to say, ‘my work is somehow on the right track’ — I think there is certainly value in that.”

According to Dr Ullrich, pursuing your research and making critical interventions into your field, means the rating can follow as a necessary consequence. Research for him, he continues, like most academics, is deeply personal and exhilarating, and so acquiring the rating can also be seen as just another internal aspect of the research process as opposed to being contingent to it.

He has several research projects currently in the research pipeline including smaller writing projects relating to eco-phenomenology and eco-theology and political theology in South Africa. A larger project, scheduled to begin later next year and continuing for the next three years (2025-2028), involves a more intense investigation of the social dimensions of ‘affects’ and how this could be deployed within the specific social context of faith communities.

It’s humbling

For Prof Matildie Wium, Associate Professor in the Odeion School of Music, her first C2 rating is not only an honour for her contribution to her field, but also a humbling moment, because the experience of applying for a rating makes clear how much room remains for growth.

Her research has two main focus areas: (a) 20th-century South African art music, studied from an analytical-hermeneutic perspective, and (b) the musical practices and experiences of mid-19th-century female opera singers in London, studied by means of archival documents.

“I am currently working on converting conference papers I had delivered recently into articles, mainly on the South African art music side of my endeavours. There are papers about Mimi Coertse (in collaboration with my colleague Dr Albertus Engelbrecht), Hubert du Plessis’s Opus 24 (in collaboration with my past student Dr Melissa Gerber), and Michael Mosoeu Moerane’s tone poem Fatshe la Heso under development.

“I am also co-writing a paper analysing some items from ethnomusicologist Gerhard Kubik’s archive of Àló (Yoruba storytelling) with my colleague Dr Joseph Kunnuji,” says Prof Wium.

Dedication, resilience, and strategic focus

Dr Andronicus Akinyelu, Lecturer in the Department of Computer Science and Informatics, called his first Y2 rating incredibly rewarding as it reaffirms his hard work and perseverance have not been in vain. “It also serves as a great source of motivation for me to continue pushing boundaries and striving for excellence in my academic and research pursuits. I am deeply grateful to God for this achievement. I am delighted to have been successful. It is an important milestone in my academic journey,” he says.

According to him, achieving an NRF rating requires a combination of dedication, resilience, and strategic focus. It involves publishing high-quality research in top-tier journals, supervising postgraduate students, and contributing significantly as a first or corresponding author on various projects.

“My research spans multiple cutting-edge areas, including machine learning, deep learning, computer vision, medical diagnosis, sustainable agriculture, and responsible artificial intelligence (AI). Currently, I’m collaborating with international researchers to develop deep-learning techniques that predict treatment responses in cancer patients.

“This research has the potential to significantly advance personalised medicine by enabling more accurate and timely interventions. Additionally, I am deeply committed to promoting responsible AI by developing frameworks and models that prioritise ethics in AI systems,” says Dr Akinyelu.

Prof Vasu Reddy, Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research and Internationalisation says: “Congratulations to all our newly rated researchers. We are expecting more in the coming months as the results of applications slowly filter in. We are extremely proud of our rated researchers for the recognition they have received. This is in large part the result of their contribution to producing high-quality research. There are many benefits that accrue to our researchers who are rated, namely an investment in their scholarship, including UFS support, as well as opportunities to further enhance their academic trajectory.”

Other researchers who obtained their first NRF rating: 

  • Dr Ernie Langner (Department of Chemistry, C2)
  • Prof Danrè Strydom (Odeion School of Music, C3) 
  • Prof Lizemari Hugo (School of Nursing, Y2)
  • Prof V.R Clark (Director: Afromontane Research Unit, C1) 
  • Dr Clement Masakure (Department of History, C2)
  • Prof Mariette Reyneke (Department of Public Law, C2)
  • Dr Soumya Ghosh (Department of Genetics, C3)
  • Prof Patricks V Otomo (Department of Zoology and Entomology, C2)
  • Dr Tafadzwa Maramura (Department of Public Administration and Management, Y2)
  • Dr Yibeltal Terefe (Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, C3)
  • Dr Bianca Naude (Department of Political Studies and Governance, Y2)
  • Dr Andronicus Akinyelu (Department of Computer Science and Informatics, Y2)
  • Dr Sogo Abolarin (Office of the Dean: Natural Sciences, Y2)

Researchers who obtained a new rating after re-evaluation: 

  • Prof Carlien Pohl-Albertyn (Microbiology and Biochemistry, went from a C2 to C1 rating)
  • Dr Kate Law (International Studies Group, C1 previously Y1)
  • Prof Paul Fouche (Department Psychology, C1 previously C3)
  • Prof Michelle Engelbrecht (Centre for Health Systems Research & Development, went from C3 to C2)
  • Dr Joseph Sempa (Department of Biostatistics, C3 previously Y2)
  • Prof Oliver Nyambi (Department of English, went from Y1 to C1)
  • Dr Marianne Conradie-Bekker (Department of Chemistry, went from Y2 to C2)
  • Dr Marieka Gryzenhout (Department of Genetics, C1 previously C2)
  • Prof Martin Nyaga (Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) Unit, previously held a Y2 now a B3)
  • Prof Botma Visser (Plant Sciences, went from C2 to C1)
  • Prof Kobus Schoeman (Practical and Missional Theology, went from C3 to C2)
  • Prof Louise Van Den Berg (Nutrition and Dietetics, C3 to C2)
  • Prof Christoph Gauert (Geology, went from C3 to C2) 

News Archive

Inaugural lecture: Bullying in schools: Everyone’s problem
2005-06-03

Bullebakkery in skole: Almal se probleem
Bullying in schools: Everyone’s problem
Intreerede, 1 Junie 2005
Inaugural lecture, 1 June 2005
Corene de Wet


1.  Inleiding
Leerders hoor dikwels dat hul ouers en opvoeders opmerkings soos die volgende maak:
Might is right. It is good to be able to dominate others. To be dominated by others is shameful. You should never complain about ill-treatment by others. You should learn to take it. You should never sympathise with wimps. To be gentle and compassionate is to be weak (Rigby 1996: 80).

Dié opmerkings, wat impliseer dat bullebakkery deel van die grootwordproses is, word deur volwassenes vir wie leerders lief is en respekteer, geuiter. Dit het tot gevolg dat bullebakkery as aanvaarbare gedrag voorgehou word. Bullebakkery maak egter inbreuk op die kind se reg tot menswaardigheid, privaatheid, vryheid en sekuriteit. Bullebakkery het ’n invloed op die slagoffer se fisieke, emosionele, sosiale en opvoedkundige welstand. Fisieke gevolge sluit die volgende in: hoofpyne, bednatmaak, verlies aan eetlus, swak liggaamshouding en maagprobleme. Bullebakkery kan tot die volgende emosionele probleme by slagoffers lei: depressie, selfmoordneigings en selfmoord, gespannenheid, vrees, asook gevoelens wat geassosieer word met Post Traumatiese Stres – verwardheid, angstigheid, woede en hartseer. Sosiale gevolge van bullebakkery is onder andere sosiale isolasie en eensaamheid, slagoffers het probleme om met ander kinders en volwassenes te meng, en is/word baie skaam. Opvoedkundige gevolge sluit die volgende in: slagoffers is baie afwesig, onttrek hulle van sosiale aktiwiteite by die skool, hulle is bang om vrae in die klas te vra, verlies aan konsentrasie, steek dit weg as hulle nie werk verstaan nie as gevolg van die vrees dat hulle gespot sal word en onderprestasie sodat hulle nie as té slim voorkom nie.

Bullying has various short- and long-term consequences for the bully. Although bullies are often popular in their peer group, they are seldom able to conclude real friendships. They rarely do well at school. Educators do not like them. Bullying is sometimes the first stepping stone to juvenile crime and criminal activities. The bully abuses alcohol and drugs more readily than other children. Some of them come to school armed. Bullies are often anti-social adults; some of them abuse their children, marriage or life partners. Roland (2002:62-65) found that not only victims but also bullies have suicide thoughts and symptoms of depression more regularly than learners who are not involved in bullying. Zeelie (2002:280) writes that bullying is a “loss experience”, a “loss of safety, loss of self-esteem (they bully you, then you bully yourself). Bullies experience a loss of belonging and lose control over their own life.”

 The aim of this lecture is to report, against the background of a literature study on data from two studies on bullying in Free State secondary schools. In both of these, questionnaires were answered anonymously and the data treated confidentially. The first study involved an investigation into a group of Free State learners’ perceptions and experiences of bullying in their respective schools. The second study concentrated on Free State educators’ experiences, observations and perceptions with regard to bullying.

2.  What is bullying?
Research on bullying in schools was conducted for the first time more than thirty years ago by Dan Olweus in Norway. From the literature review, it seems that bullying is a problem not only in Nordic countries, but also in among others the USA, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, and Japan. Although research on bullying since the 1980s has led to various international publications, little has been published on the subject in South Africa.

Olweus (1994:9), the leading figure in research on bullying, defines bullying as follows: “a student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative action on the part of one or more students.” Olweus (1994:9) explains the term “negative action” as follows: “a negative action is when someone intentionally inflicts, or attempts to inflict injury or discomfort upon another”. A Dutch psychologist, Van der Meer (quoted by Limper 1998:1), gives the following definition: “Bullying is a systematic, psychological, physical or sexual act of violence by a pupil or a group of pupils with respect to one or more classmates, who are not (any longer) in a position to defend themselves.”

From the aforementioned definitions it is clear that bullying always includes the following three elements: the intentional use of aggression, an unbalanced relationship of power between the bully and the victim, and the causing of physical pain and/or emotional misery.

Although there are considerable similarities between bullying and other forms of aggression, bullying, according to De Haan (1997:1), has the following characteristics: the bully acts purposefully rather than accidentally. The aim of bullying is to get control over another person by means of physical or verbal aggression. Bullies attack without reason, except that they see victims as easy targets. Bullies are usually more popular among their peer group than children who are merely aggressive.

  The following common examples of bullying can be identified:
• Physical bullying includes punching, poking, strangling, hair pulling, beating, biting, excessive tickling and direct vandalism.
• Verbal bullying includes such acts as hurtful name-calling, persistent teasing, gossiping and racist remarks.
• Relational bullying occurs when the victim is deliberately excluded from activities.
• Emotional bullying includes terrorising, extorting, defaming, blackmailing, rating/ranking of personal characteristics such as race, disability or ethnicity, manipulating friendships, ostracising and peer pressure.
• Sexual bullying includes many of the above as well as exhibitionism, sexual positioning, sexual harassment and abuse involving actual physical contact and sexual assault.

3.   Die aard en omvang van leerderbullebakkery

   Die persepsie dat bullebakkery deel van die grootwordproses is, lei daartoe dat slagoffers onwillig is om hulle ouers en opvoeders te vertel dat hulle afgeknou word. Voorts blyk dit dat slagoffers weerwraak van die bullebak of selfs klasmaats, wat die onthulling as storieaandraery sal sien, vrees. Indien die afknouery erg is of oor ’n lang tydperk plaasvind, is die slagoffers bang dat dit hulle ouers sal ontstel, veral as hulle dink dat hulle ouers nie in staat sal wees om die situasie te verander nie. Kinders is soms onwillig om te erken dat hulle duur items of geld aan bullebakke gegee het. Ouers stel nie net akademiese nie, maar ook sosiale verwagtinge aan hulle kinders, gevolglik is geviktimiseerde kinders, wat verworpe en ongewild voel, onwillig om te erken dat hulle afgeknou word. Adolessente voel dikwels, in hulle strewe na groter onafhanklikheid, dat hulle in staat behoort te wees om die probleem self te hanteer. Voorts is die kind-ouer-/ leerder-opvoederverhouding gedurende adolessensie dikwels gespanne en is kommunikasiekanale nie na wense nie. Bullebakkery is soms so subtiel dat dit moeilik is om dit te verwoord. Daar bestaan voorts die siening by leerders dat opvoeders nie betrokke wil raak by bullebakkery nie.

Voorafvermelde faktore het tot gevolg dat baie ouers en opvoeders onbewus is van die vlakke van bullebakkery waaraan hulle kinders en/of leerders blootgestel word. Die volgende navorsingsresultate toon egter aan dat bullebakkery ‘n redelik algemene verskynsel in Vrystaatse skole is.

Vrystaatse leerders word die meeste aan direkte en die tweede meeste aan indirekte verbale teistering blootgestel. Slegs 29.2% van die leerders wat aan die navorsingsprojek deelgeneem het, was nog nooit aan direkte en 32.15% aan indirekte verbale teistering blootgestel nie. Byna die helfte van die leerders het aangedui dat hulle ten minste een keer per maand die slagoffers van direkte verbale teistering was. ‘n Relatief groot persentasie van die leerders (32.45%) is al deur mede-leerders te lyf gegaan; 11.21% van hulle is ten minste een keer per week deur mede-leerders geslaan en/of geskop, gestamp en/of op ’n ander wyse fisiek seergemaak. Direkte, fisieke aggressie is dan ook die derde mees algemene vorm van bullebakery waaraan die leerders blootgestel is.

Die plek waar die Vrystaatse leerders besonder weerloos teenoor bullebakke staan, is taxi’s. Hoewel slegs 31.86% van die respondente aangetoon het dat hulle met ’n taxi skool toe en terug pendel, beleef 29.64% van hierdié leerders taxi’s as óf baie onveilig óf redelik onveilig met betrekking tot bullebakkery. Die area op die skoolterrein waar die leerders die meeste aan bullebakkery blootgestel word, is die badkamers/toilette. Die area waar die meerderheid Vrystaatse leerders geborge voel, is hulle klaskamers – slegs 0.61% het aangetoon dat hulle “baie onveilig en bang” in hulle klaskamers voel; 59.55% het aangetoon dat hulle “baie veilig” daar voel.

From the research it is apparent that learners are usually bullied by members of the same gender. However, not only boys are guilty of physical harassment: several boys indicated that one or more girls injured them physically, a number of girls were injured by members of the same gender.  Some of the boys described in the open-ended question how they were kicked and beaten by other boys on a regular basis. One of them was kicked in the face regularly by his hostel roommate, he was too afraid to do something about it, because “his family was known for assaulting people”. Another boy mentions that the bullies regularly put sand in his mouth.

According to a grade 12 girl, learners are verbally bullied on a regular basis not only individually, but also as a group. She writes:

At our school there are these boys who are racists. They act mean against black people in our school. There is this particular group of boys in our Maths class. When the teacher is out they take a red pen and write on the projector and spray it with spirits. It looks like blood and they would say it is AIDS and my friends and I have it.

By contrast with the opinions of Banks (1997:1) and Olweus (1994:19, 23-25) that racial composition in schools does not influence bullying, it seems to play a role in some Free State schools, as is apparent from the above description. Besides this grade 12 girl, 25 respondents described explicitly racist incidents.

Slegs 4.91% van die opvoeder- en 16.22% van die leerderrespondente het aangetoon dat bullebakkery “glad nie” ‘n probleem by hulle onderskeie skole was nie. Dit moet gevolglik beklemtoon word dat opvoeders regsgeldig en moreel verplig is om dissipline te handhaaf en om te sien na die veiligheid van leerders wat aan hulle sorg toevertrou is. Volgens die Gedragskode van die Suid-Afrikaanse Raad vir Opvoeders (SACE s.a.:1) moet opvoeders alle redelike stappe neem om die veiligheid van leerders te verseker. Opvoeders moet ook kennis neem van Squelch (2000:53) se waarskuwing, naamlik dat skole bullebakkery nie as onbelangrik moet afmaak nie. Skoolhoofde of opvoeders kan aan nalatigheid skuldig bevind word indien bevind sou word dat hulle nie die nodige stappe geneem het om bullebakkery te voorkom en dissipline te handhaaf nie.
 
If victims of bullying are faced with school inaction, the criminal justice system should be considered. Police action should be seen as a last resort. It is therefore important for educators to honour their ‘in loco parentis’ obligations. It is thus encouraging to take note of the fact that 88.29% of the educator respondents indicated that they would intervene in cases of verbal bullying, while 89.71% of them would intervene if they saw learners being physically bullied. However, only 19.97% of the learners who were victims of bullying indicated that they were helped by educators or other adults from their respective schools.

Consistent with previous research, it was found in the present study that learners are reluctant to tell others, especially educators, that they are being victimised by bullies. Educators therefore need to acknowledge that they may have a credibility problem with many children when it comes to dealing satisfactorily with bully/victim problems. This can be remedied by demonstrating that educator intervention is much more likely to result in satisfactory outcomes for those learners they seek to help.  It is important that educator intervention does not make matters worse. This may require some educators to change their strategies. One promising strategy is to work closely with the learners who are prepared to cooperate with educators in countering bullying, for example by working with an anti-bullying committee of learners, who give support and credibility to the efforts of educators and counsellors.

Die bevindinge van die studie, wat lig werp op die gebrek aan vertroue by leerders in hulle opvoeders se vermoëns en/of bereidwilligheid om hulle by te staan in die stryd teen bullebakkery, het belangrike implikasies vir onderwyseropleidinginstellinge. Die belangrikheid van opleiding, hetsy aanvanklike of indiensopleiding, om opvoeders te bemagtig om bullebakkery te beveg, moet beklemtoon word. Opvoeders sukkel dikwels om te besluit of kinders besig is om mekaar af te knou, en of hulle slegs besig is om te speel en/of mekaar te terg. Die onvermoë van opvoeders om binne ‘n breukdeel van ‘n sekonde ‘n oordeel te vel, is een van die belangrikste redes waarom opvoeders dikwels nie bullebaksituasies in die kiem smoor nie. Voorts is daar ‘n persepsie onder sommige leerders dat opvoederintervensie die posisie van die slagoffer sal vererger. Opleiding is dus belangrik om opvoeders te help om ingeligte besluite te neem wanneer hulle konfliksituasies waarneem. Opleidingskursusse moet voornemende opvoeders met basiese beradingsvaardighede toerus sodat hulle in staat sal wees om die praktiese en emosionele aspekte van viktimisasie te hanteer.

 Attention will now be given to a topic that receives scant attention by researchers, namely, the fact that some learners bully their educators.

4.   Educator-targeted bullying

According to Pervin and Turner (1998:4) it could be argued that educator-targeted bullying and disruptive learner behaviour is the same thing. Fontana (1995:354) defines disruptive behaviour as “behaviour that proves unacceptable to the teacher”. Educator-targeted bullying can include the following: }

• Persistent, intentional, vigorous abuse of the educator.
• Swearing and/or mocking the educator.
• Knowingly ignoring the educator.
• Making personal comments about the educator.
• Damaging the educator’s property.

 Learners who indulge in educator-targeted bullying aim to undermine the educator’s confidence. In a study on educator-targeted bullying in Free State schools it was found that 24.85% of the respondents were physically abused by their learners, 33.44% were the victims of indirect verbal bullying, and 18.1% were at one time or another sexually harassed by their learners. These bullying actions should be seen as infringements of educators’ human rights (RSA 1996, art. 9-12), and in contravention of the Guidelines for the consideration of governing bodies in adopting of a code of conduct for learners (RSA, 1998: 11, 14). The aforementioned guidelines list the bullying of learners as one of the learner offences that may lead to either suspension or expulsion. Although these guidelines do not mention educator-targeted bullying, it could be argued that the forbidding of this, could mutatis mutandis be made applicable to educator-targeted bullying.
 
Pervin and Turner (1998:7) have found that victims of educator-targeted bullying have lowered their expectations (in terms of behaviour, co-operation and academic output) of learners who bully them. They warn that this lowered expectation may rub off on other learners who happen to be in the same class as the bullies. As a result of lowered educator expectations, classes containing learners who carry out educator-targeted bullying are less likely to be exposed to a variety of teaching methods, thereby reducing the scope for educators to carry out interesting lessons. Educators are reluctant to tell their colleagues that they are the targets of learner bullies. Educators who suffer from educator-targeted bullying should therefore be supported with some kind of mentoring system by their colleagues and principals. There should be an awareness among all role players – educators, principals, parents, learners and the Department of Education – that educator-targeted bullying does, in fact, take place. By raising awareness, it will be possible to improve morale in schools and reduce educator-targeted bullying. In their anti-bullying policies, schools should include a section on educator-targeted bullying, which may help to solve the problem.
 
However, educators are not the only victims of bullying; some of them are the bullies.

5.   Opvoeders wat leerders viktimiseer

Elke kind het die reg om onderwys in ‘n veilige skoolmilieu te ontvang. Hoewel dit opvoeders se verantwoordelikheid is om dié reg van leerders in stand te hou, blyk dit dat sommige opvoeders direk verantwoordelik gehou kan word vir die skending van kinderregte. Terwyl seksuele wangedrag deur diegene in gesagsposisies nog altyd ten sterkste afgekeur is, is dit nie altyd die geval met ander vorme van verbale en fisieke bullebakkery nie. Die geringskatting van dié vorm van opvoederwangedrag blyk uit die feit dat min bewyse in die literatuur gevind kon word oor navorsing wat handel oor opvoeders wat leerders treiter. Yoon (2004:38), Smith (2004:98) asook Parada, Marsh en Craven (2003:8) wys kripties daarop dat opvoeders wel hulle leerders kan afknou. Die feit dat geen verwysing na navorsing oor dié tipe bullebakkery in ‘n Suid-Afrikaanse konteks gevind kon word nie, beteken nie dat die Suid-Afrikaanse onderwysowerhede die tipe opvoederwangedrag goedkeur nie. Volgens die Suid-Afrikaanse Raad vir Opvoeders se Gedragskode (SACE s.a.:2) moet opvoeders

• Gesag met empatie uitoefen;
• Enige vorm van vernedering vermy, en hulleself van enige fisieke en psigologiese misbruike weerhou; en
• Hulle van seksuele teistering, hetsy fisiek of emosioneel, van leerders weerhou.

 Indien voorafgaande met die voorbeelde van wat bullebakkery is, vergelyk word, is die ooreenkomste duidelik. Daar kan dus gekonkludeer word dat die Suid-Afrikaanse Raad vir Opvoeders bullebakkery deur opvoeders verbied.
 
Individue is dikwels die beste bron van inligting oor hulle eie gedrag, want hulle weet waarom hulle sekere dade gepleeg het. Tog blyk dit dat selfevaluering, veral met betrekking tot aggressiewe gedrag, onderworpe is aan verskeie vooroordele – soos byvoorbeeld om ‘n sosiaal aanvaarbare antwoord te gee (Pakaslahti & Kelikangas-Järvinen 2000:178). Dit is dus kommerwekkend dat 55.83% van die opvoeders wat aan die navorsingsprojek deelgeneem het, aangedui het dat hulle al leerders verbaal geviktimiseer het; 50.31% van die respondente het aangedui dat hulle al leerders te lyf gegaan het. ‘n Klein persentasie van dié opvoeders, naamlik 6.13%, het genoem dat hulle ten minste een keer per maand skuldig was aan dade van seksuele teistering.

Sommige opvoeders is nie net direk nie, maar ook indirek verantwoordelik vir die teistering van leerders. Opvoeders sien dikwels sensitiwiteit en die negatiewe houding wat sommige leerders teenoor bullebakkery toon, as negatiewe karaktereienskappe. Opvoeders wat onverdraagsaamheid teenoor leerderslagoffers van bullebakkery se onvermoë om hulle situasie self te besleg toon, is instrumenteel in die vestiging van ‘n geweldskultuur in skole. Eerder as om sensitiwiteit en die vermoë om jouself van gewelddadige teenoptrede te weerhou as positiewe karaktereienskappe te beskou, word dit as die optrede van ‘n swakkeling afgemaak. Dié houding dra eerstens daartoe by dat leerders onwillig is om opvoeders in hulle vertroue te neem as hulle slagoffers van bullebakkery is. Tweedens kan dit gesien word as ‘n bevestiging van die wanpersepsie dat bullebakkery ‘n integrale deel van die grootwordproses  is.

6.   Concluding remarks

From this lecture, it has become evident that while some Free State educators and learners are the witnesses of incidences of bullying, others are the victims and/or perpetrators of direct and indirect verbal, as well as emotional, physical and sexual bullying. In a twenty-first century climate of increasing concern for the rights of individuals and groups, be they due to race, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation, the right of the learner to be educated, but also the right of the educator to educate without suffering from victimisation is entrenched in the South African Bill of Rights. Every educator and learner in South Africa has the right to life, equal protection and benefit of the law, of dignity, as well as of freedom and security of the person (RSA, 1996: art. 9-12). These rights will only be realised in a bully-free school milieu.

Om bullebakkery teen te werk is ’n omvattende anti-bullebakprogram, kollektiewe verantwoordelikheid en die vestiging van ’n omgeekultuur by skole en in die gemeenskap noodsaaklik. Onderwysowerhede, wetstoepassers, onderwysersopleidingsinstellings, opvoeders, ouers en leerders – die slagoffer, die bullebak en die klas- en/of skoolmaats (stille meerderheid) – is die belangrikste rolspelers in die stryd teen bullebakkery is. Dié rolspelers moet betrek word om -

• ’n bewustheid te skep oor die aard en omvang van bullebakkery;
• portuurgroepverhoudinge te verbeter;
• tussenbeide te tree om intimidasie te voorkom;
• duidelike reëls te ontwikkel om bullebakkery te voorkom; en
• (mede-)leerders en opvoeders te ondersteun en te beskerm.

Bronnelys

Banks R 1997. What should parents and teachers know about bullying? http://www.focusas.com/Bullying.html.

DeHaan L 1997. Bullies. http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/yf/famsci/ fs570w.htm.

Fontana D 1995. Psychology for teachers. Third edition. London: MacMillan Press.

Limper R 1998. The only way to combat bullying is cooperation between all those involved in school. http://ericcass.uncg.edu/virtuallib/bullying/1013.html

Olweus D 1994. Bullying at school. What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Pakaslahti L & Kelikangas-Järvinen L 2000. Comparing of peer, teacher and self-assessments on adolescent direct and indirect aggression. Educational Psychology, 20(2):177-190.

Parada  RH, Marsh HW & Craven R  2003. The beyond bullying program: an innovative program empowering teachers to counteract bullying in schools. Paper presented at NZARE AARE, Auckland, New Zealand, November 2003.

Pervin K & Turner A 1998. A study of bullying of teachers by pupils in an Inner London school. Pastoral Care, December: 4-10.

Rigby K 1999. Bullying in schools and what to do about it. Melbourne: The Australian Council for Educational Research.

Roland E 2002. Bulling, depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts. Educational Research, 44(1):55-67.

Republic of South Africa (RSA) 1996. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Act 108 of 1996. Available url.: http://www.polity.prg.za/html/govdocs/constitution/saconst.html?rebookmark+1.

RSA (Republic of South Africa) 1998. Guidelines for the consideration of governing bodies in adopting of a code of conduct for learners. Government Gazette 776, 15 May. Pretoria: Government Printer.

SACE (South African Council for Educators) s.a. Code of Conduct of the South African Council of Educators.  http://www.sace.org.za/Sace/code-ethics.jsp.

Smith PK 2004. Bullying: recent developments. Child and adolescent mental health, 9(3):98-103.

Squelch JM 2000. Discipline. Pretoria: CELP.

Yoon JS 2004. Predicting teacher interventions in bullying situations. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(1):37-45.

Zeelie DG 2002. Bully proofing your school – policy and programme formulation. In Gauteng Department of Education. Proceedings of the Third Educationally Speaking Conference. Warmbaths, May 2002. Johannesburg: Gauteng Department of Education.

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept