Poor BoBo! - Julie

One would usually consider the benefits of using a 2 for 1 approach for "increasing moral and social development while contributing to academic learning within the same lesson plan." (Nucci, 2009) However, let's look at the flip side of this concept when this "2 for 1" approach is applied by an adult, whose lesson plan shows that bullying/harming BoBo, or any person, is considered the social norm. From a child's perspective, observing an adult/authoritative figure display violent behavior gives children the false impression that hitting, kicking and abusing others is morally and socially acceptable behavior. Let us remember that as educators and parents, we are our childrens' primary teachers in social and academic settings; therefore, we must be cognoscente of how our actions can be perceived as socially acceptable. In addition, youngsters tend to imitate behavior, as they have shown in the BoBo study.

One may argue that it is natural 'child's-play' to hit BoBo, because the bat/weapon was located in the classroom. Then again, the study proved that the children who were not exposed to the violent behavior chose not to harm BoBo.

I believe this study shows the following:
1. By exposing children to aggressive behavior, it empowers them to bully and persecute others.
2. Children learn by watching the example of others. Unfortunately, in this scenario, the adult, with whom the children relied on for defined rules and expectations, set a poor example of negative behavior; therefore, the children in the study believed that they would not break rules or act unfairly by harming BoBo.

In order for schools to incorporate the findings of this study into their social-emotional curriculum, a zero-tolerance policy for bullying must be implemented. The results of this study lead to the conclusion that by removing exposure to violence, negative behavior can be avoided.

Children learn by doing and by example; therefore, it is imperative that school administrators take measures to prevent exposure of bullying to eliminate potential student attraction to hitting, kicking and verbally abusive language.

We, as future school counselors, must be aware of our attitudes and consider how we consistently address negative behavior of students, since teenagers are keen observers. Should school authorities discourage violence and reward students who demonstrate kindness and cooperation instead of violence, others have the opportunity to make better choices when confronted with a conflicting situation at school.

Let's just hope that the children who were exposed to the negative behavior in the experiment have grown into well-adjusted adults. I would hate to live next door to them if that were not the case!