Preventing bullying of students with special educational needs through dialogic gatherings: a case study in elementary education

The paper addresses the global challenge of school violence, affecting one in three students worldwide, and highlights that students with special educational needs (SEN) are at higher risk of bullying and victimization. The introduction reviews evidence of heightened vulnerability among students with SEN due to perceived differences and reduced opportunities for peer interaction, and underscores the concept of disablist bullying. It situates dialogic, interaction-focused educational actions—specifically dialogic gatherings (DG), identified as Successful Educational Actions (SEAs)—as promising for improving social cohesion and safe climates. While DGs have documented benefits for learning and inclusion, their specific potential to prevent bullying in mainstream elementary settings and for SEN students had not been examined. The study aims to explore whether and how DGs using research-informed texts can improve peer relationships, create safe environments among students with and without SEN, and protect SEN students from bullying.

The literature review covers: (1) School violence and bullying definitions, prevalence, and impacts, noting high exclusion rates linked to daily bullying and the necessity of safe school environments; (2) Elevated risks for students with SEN, including greater exposure to physical, verbal, emotional, and sexual abuse, as well as isolation and fewer peer interactions in mainstream settings; (3) The role of inclusive learning environments that prioritize egalitarian dialogue and community involvement in preventing violence, with evidence that collective norm-setting and whole-community participation reduce school violence; (4) Successful Educational Actions (SEAs), including the Dialogic Model of Prevention and Resolution of Conflicts and Dialogic Gatherings (DG), which have improved interpersonal relations, communicative competence, and social cohesion across contexts, including special education. Prior studies show DG can raise awareness of violence and foster inclusive, secure classroom climates, but their specific use for preventing bullying in mainstream schools for SEN students remained underexplored.

Design: Qualitative case study (Yin, 2018). Research questions: (1) How can Dialogic Gatherings (DG) using research-informed texts contribute to improving peer relationships and creating safe environments among students with and without SEN in an elementary school? (2) To what extent can this environment protect students with SEN from bullying? Setting and participants: Conducted May–June 2022 in a public school in a low socioeconomic area in the Basque Country (Spain), serving ages 2–12 and culturally/linguistically diverse (39% migrants, families from 28 countries). Two fourth-grade classrooms (Groups A and B) were selected due to higher conflicts and more SEN students. Total participants: 51 (43 students aged 10–12; five identified with SEN; two classroom teachers; three additional staff—the principal, special education teacher, school counsellor; and four parents participating in DG sessions). SEN profiles included communication/dependence needs, personality disorder, severe intellectual/physical disabilities, mild intellectual disability with communication difficulties, ADHD with behavioural challenges. Intervention and materials: DG implemented rigorously in collaboration between teachers and researchers. Each DG ~90 minutes. Texts were research-informed dissemination articles from Kaiera: (1) based on Palikara et al. (2021) on school belonging, emotional well-being, and loneliness; (2) an adaptation of Navarro et al. (2018) on friendship as a protective factor against bullying, including illustrative scenarios. DGs followed dialogic principles: students sit in a circle; equitable participation; arguments based on validity, not power; students bring selected excerpts linked to personal experiences. To ensure equitable participation, SEN students prepared in advance with the special education teacher (two preparatory sessions to read/underline and draft contributions). Data collection: Four classroom observations (two per group) of DG sessions (video recorded). Five post-implementation focus groups (~30 minutes each): four with students (two per class; with/without SEN) and one with staff (two classroom teachers, special education teacher, counsellor, principal). Focus groups explored experiences of bullying, SEN vulnerabilities, and protective factors. Ethics: Approved by University of Deusto Ethics Committee (ETK-45/21-22). Informed consent obtained; pseudonyms used; data stored securely; confidentiality assured. Study part of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation project CHILDPRO (PID2020-115581RB-100). Analysis: Verbatim transcription and inductive thematic analysis (Clarke & Braun, 2017). Themes identified: (1) Raising awareness of violent behaviours; (2) Importance of reading evidence-based texts about friendship; (3) Fostering safe inclusive learning environments; (4) Sustainability over time. Data were also categorized using Communicative Methodology into exclusionary (barriers) and transformative (elements overcoming barriers) dimensions.

- Data volume: 863 utterances analyzed; 90% coded as transformative dimensions; 10% as exclusionary (barriers). - Theme 1: Raising awareness of violent behaviours and challenging them. Students reflected on their own actions and the influence of peers with violent attitudes. Example: Brian (SEN; ADHD, mild ID) recognized peer pressure to misbehave and expressed intent to change; classmates encouraged non-violent, respectful behavior. Students learned to distinguish true friends from peers exhibiting violent behaviors. - Theme 2: Importance of research-informed texts about friendship. Reading evidence-based texts (Kaiera) helped students identify aggressor behaviors and adjust their own, reducing the attractiveness of violence. Students connected text scenarios to real experiences (e.g., intervening when witnessing mockery) and emphasized the role of supportive friends in ending bullying. - Theme 3: Fostering safe, inclusive learning environments. Students reported feeling safer after DGs due to strengthened friendships and protective peer networks. Notable cases: Noa (SEN) moved from isolation to inclusion after peers began to play and interact with her; Martin (SEN) ceased self-harming in the playground when peers engaged him; Rachel (SEN; communication difficulties) participated in class for the first time during DG and increased socialization temporarily. Teachers observed improved cohesion (“we are Group A”) and greater awareness of including peers with SEN. - Theme 4: Sustainability over time (exclusionary dimension). Some positive changes waned after DGs ended; for example, Rachel’s increased social engagement diminished after two weeks. Staff suggested maintaining DGs throughout the year to sustain benefits. - Overall effects: Increased awareness of violent vs. non-violent relationships; redefinition of friendship to exclude violent behaviors; enhanced sense of safety and belonging; strengthened bystander intervention and solidarity; improved participation and self-regulation among some SEN students.

The findings indicate that DGs create inclusive, dialogic spaces that enable students to reflect on and address school violence, aligning with prior evidence that dialogic interventions improve social cohesion and safe climates. By engaging with research-informed texts and sharing personal experiences, students reduced the attractiveness of violent behaviors, prioritized non-violent friendships, and built supportive peer networks—key protective factors against bullying, especially for SEN students. The DG framework facilitated equitable participation, enabling students with SEN to voice opinions and be recognized by peers, which contributed to inclusion and reduced isolation. These outcomes are consistent with preventive socialization theory linking reduced attractiveness of violence with preference for non-violent relationships and with research emphasizing the protective power of positive peer relationships. However, sustaining gains requires continued implementation; without ongoing DGs, some improvements receded, highlighting the need for long-term application within a whole-school dialogic model.

Dialogic gatherings (DG) in two mainstream elementary classrooms fostered safer, more inclusive environments and benefited students with and without SEN. Through evidence-based readings and egalitarian dialogue, students redefined friendship to exclude violence, increased awareness of bullying dynamics, built protective peer networks, and reported feeling safer and more supported. SEN students showed increased participation, reduced isolation, and, in some cases, improved self-regulation and prevention of self-harm through peer inclusion. DGs thus show promise as a successful educational action for bullying prevention and inclusion. Future work should examine sustained, school-wide implementation over time, use pre–post designs including playground observations, and explore transferability and adaptations to other contexts (e.g., special education) and diverse student needs.

- Small sample and case study design with limited number of sessions; findings cannot be generalized. - Observed positive impacts tended to be sustained only during the period DGs were conducted; some gains diminished afterward, indicating issues of sustainability over time. - Absence of pre–post quantitative measures and playground observations limits ability to assess changes in relationships and behaviors beyond DG sessions. - Future research should explore long-term, school-wide implementation, include additional observation contexts, and assess transferability to other settings and student profiles.