Effectiveness of the FHaCE Up! Program on School Violence, School Climate, Conflict Management Styles, and Socio-Emotional Skills on Secondary School Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

School violence remains a ubiquitous problem internationally and become an important topic for effective intervention and empirical research. There is a great need for comprehensive anti-bullying programs which include intervention elements at multiple levels. The current research evaluated the effectiveness of FHaCE up! Program which combined multiple crucial elements including both students and teachers, specifically, focused on training social emotional skills and conflict management style that are fundamental abilities for children and adolescents to cope with peer conflict effectively. These attempts have important practical value for guiding future bullying prevention and intervention research.

There are several suggestions for the author's reference.

Please check the PDF document.

 

Effectiveness of the FHaCE up! Program- Comments and Suggestions for authors

 

School violence remains a ubiquitous problem internationally and become animportant topic for effective intervention and empirical research. There is a great needfor comprehensive anti-bullying programs which include intervention elements at multiple levels. The current research evaluated the effectiveness of FHaCEup! Program which combined multiple crucial elements including both students andteachers, specifically, focused on training social emotional skills and conflict management style that are fundamental abilities for children and adolescents to copewith peer conflict effectively. These attempts have important practical value for guiding future bullying prevention and intervention research.

 

There are several suggestions for the author's reference.

1. In line 35 ~ 38, one sentence represents too much information. It isappropriate to elucidate separately. ① Definition of aggressive behavior. ②Theintrinsic goal of the aggressive behavior. In addition, from the purpose or functionof aggression, there are two kinds of aggression, proactive and reactive aggression. Thecharacteristics described in the author's paper may represent only proactive aggressionrather than reactive aggression. Further, lack of problem solving skills was associatedwith reactive aggression. The author should fully explain what kind of aggressionor both was/were outcome(s) of untreated conflict.

 

2. The authors further suggested that adolescents with lower levels of social emotional skills were less likely to engage in prosocial behavior. Lack of prosocial behavior didn’t fully reflect an increase in aggression or school violence. In addition, the next sentence returned to the idea that aggression itself can evolve into bullying, but it didn’t address the potential harm of bullying. So we cannot grasp the heart of this paragraph.The author could readjust the logic of this paragraph to better conveythe meaning of the title “Untreated conflicts can lead to school violence”.

 

3. In line 44 ~ 45, the author mentioned that “the non-peaceful management of conflicts can not only interfere negatively at the individual and/or interpersonal level”. However, the negative consequences at interpersonal level were not fullyinterpreted in the last paragraph, only popularity was mentioned. For interpersonal level, the negative consequence should also include peer rejection, lack of friends andso on. So the author should elucidate the negative consequence of “non-peaceful management of conflicts” in the first paragraph from the individual andinterpersonal level, respectively, for better express the systemic negative effects of “non-peaceful management of conflicts”.

 

4. From the interpersonal level, the author expressed three points, which shouldbe: ①Outcome of negative school climate; ② The lack of teachers’ coping skills; ③The simple and rough way of school justice approach. I don't quite understandthelogic of the author’s argument and the relationship between these points. I hope theauthor could give us a brief introduction of this topic, and then expand your interpretation separately. In the next paragraph, the importance of school climate wasmentioned as well as the negative consensuses of bullying. On the whole, at theorganizational level, did the author want to show the role of reconstruction of school climate in the intervention? If that was the case, there are several point you needtofocus: ① Negative school climate may detrimental to the development of adolescents; ②Positive school climate can promote the development of adolescents; ③The lackof teachers coping strategies and ineffective school justice approach could contributeto the negative consequence. So, it’s essential to get a broad perspective and “gather multiple perceptions for the well-being of the school community” ? Perhaps due tomy lack of experience on understanding your meaning, please help me to clarifythelogical relationship between paragraphs.

 

5. In line 77, “importance” was not appropriate to match with “bullyingphenomenon”.

 

6. Most of these anti-bully programs were from Europe, however, there are alsosome excellent program of social emotional learning, such as “Second Step” inAmerica. The author could added it into your table.

 

7. In terms of the principles and objectives of this intervention program, it aimedto develop students' socio-emotional skills and conflict management styles andrestorative justice and peer mediation are also mentioned. Frankly speaking, I haven’t understood the relationship between these components. For my opinion, socio-emotional skills can be regarded as a premise for a collaborative management style of peer conflict, and restorative justice was a practice that helps individuals tointernalize these skills as well as improving their abilities and effectiveness in copingpeer conflict in daily life. The authors could outline these capabilities and their relationship to the corresponding practices so that the audiences could have a better understanding of the program's operational functions and intervention goals. Andthento introduce the intervention of teachers and school climate.

 

8. The author should add other more important demographic data such as raceand social economic status or parental education in Table 3.

 

9. The results were too simplistic. The author had already mentionedtheimportance of teachers in bullying prevention and intervention. The advantage andgreat value of this program was the specific intervention on teachers' coping skills. Although the authors mentioned the reason in your research limitations, whynot present the results of the effectiveness on teachers' intervention?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, we thank you for the assessment you have made of this work, and your time spent reviewing it. We also appreciate and are grateful for the clarity of the recommendations and suggestions that you indicate in your comments, to which we have paid special attention. With them we consider that this article was improved.

Please see the attachment for your perusal.

Yours sincerely,

Point 1: In line 35 ~ 38, one sentence represents too much information. It is appropriate to elucidate separately. ① Definition of aggressive behavior. ②The intrinsic goal of the aggressive behaviour. In addition, from the purpose or function of aggression, there are two kinds of aggression, proactive and reactive aggression. The characteristics described in the author's paper may represent only proactive aggression rather than reactive aggression. Further, lack of problem-solving skills was associated with reactive aggression. The author should fully explain what kind of aggression or both was/were outcome(s) of untreated conflict.

 

Response 1: We explained aggressive behavior as you recommended. We also clarified that both should be considered as peer violence, and can be tackle with conflict resolution estrategies (lines 34-39):

“Aggressive behavior can be understood, depending on its motivational underpinnings, as an impulsive reaction to a provocation (reactive aggression) or an aggression that is instrumentally driven to obtain certain benefits (proactive aggression) [4]. Considering that both forms of aggression “are not mutually exclusive and frequently co-occur” [5] (p.2), they can both be considered as peer violence and tackled by conflict resolution training”.

 

Point 2: The authors further suggested that adolescents with lower levels of social emotional skills were less likely to engage in prosocial behavior. Lack of prosocial behavior didn’t fully reflect an increase in aggression or school violence. In addition, the next sentence returned to the idea that aggression itself can evolve into bullying, but it didn’t address the potential harm of bullying. So we cannot grasp the heart of this paragraph.  The author could readjust the logic of this paragraph to better convey the meaning of the title “Untreated conflicts can lead to school violence”.

Response 2: We readjusted and developed more extensively the content of this paragraph following your recommendations (lines 39-61):

“Following this statement, aggressive reactions have been related to a lack of problem-solving abilities in adolescents with anger management issues [6]. Individuals with lower levels of emotional intelligence were more likely to use forcefulness and avoidance strategies in conflicts, rather than collaborative strategies [7], as this style necessitates a high concern for both oneself and others involved in the conflict [8]. Additionally, the tendency to engage in verbal or physical aggression in a conflict can be associated with a feeling of control over the situation, which causes adolescents to think the problem can be solved using violence [9].  For that reason, when aggressive behaviors are not tackled on time, they may be reinforced, and used to gain more power over others [10], which can lead to a spiral of events, as those "who prioritize public demonstrations of their social power, popularity, and status increase their aggressive behavior over time” (p.312). Furthermore, adolescents with lower levels of self-control, an important factor in anger management, are more likely to engage in violent and risky conducts rather than socially desirable behaviors [11]. It is widely considered that aggressive behaviors at school can increase the probability of bullying [12], a violent social phenomenon commonly defined as systematic, unprovoked, and contextualized abuse within an imbalance of power [13,14]. Regarding this phenomenon, there are several negative consequences that affect those involved at an interpersonal level. For instance, victims have higher risks of suffering from suicidal ideation and suicide attempts, depression and anxiety, psychosomatic problems, and psychosocial adjustment difficulties, among others [11]. Thus, it is convenient to tackle aggressive behaviors with conflict resolution strategies using a collaborative management style to prevent school violence”.

Point 3: In line 44 ~ 45, the author mentioned that “the non-peaceful management of conflicts can not only interfere negatively at the individual and/or interpersonal level”. However, the negative consequences at interpersonal level were not fully interpreted in the last paragraph, only popularity was mentioned. For interpersonal level, the negative consequence should also include peer rejection, lack of friends and so on. So the author should elucidate the negative consequence of “non-peaceful management of conflicts” in the first paragraph from the individual and interpersonal level, respectively, for better express the systemic negative effects of “non-peaceful management of conflicts”.

 

Response 3: We added information on this regard to readjust the importance to tackle aggressive behaviours in order to prevent school violence (lines 55-61):

“Regarding this phenomenon, there are several negative consequences that affect those involved at an interpersonal level. For instance, victims have higher risks of suffering from suicidal ideation and suicide attempts, depression and anxiety, psychosomatic problems, and psychosocial adjustment difficulties, among others [11]. Thus, it is convenient to tackle aggressive behaviors with conflict resolution strategies using a collaborative management style to prevent school violence”.

 

Point 4: From the interpersonal level, the author expressed three points, which should be: ①Outcome of negative school climate; ② The lack of teachers’ coping skills; ③The simple and rough way of school justice approach. I don't quite understand the logic of the author’s argument and the relationship between these points. I hope the author could give us a brief introduction of this topic, and then expand your interpretation separately. In the next paragraph, the importance of school climate was mentioned as well as the negative consensuses of bullying. On the whole, at the organizational level, did the author want to show the role of reconstruction of school climate in the intervention? If that was the case, there are several points you need to focus: ① Negative school climate may detrimental to the development of adolescents; ②Positive school climate can promote the development of adolescents; ③The lack of teachers coping strategies and ineffective school justice approach could contribute to the negative consequence. So, it’s essential to get a broad perspective and “gather multiple perceptions for the well-being of the school community” ? Perhaps due to my lack of experience on understanding your meaning, please help me to clarify the logical relationship between paragraphs.

 

Response 4: We readjusted and added information and references to explain better the content of this paragraph as you recommended. Firstly, we introduced that restorative justice approach keeps safer environments (positive climate) from line 65 to 68: “Therefore, it is recommended that the entire educational community gains extensive knowledge about the nature of conflicts and the ability to manage them peacefully to create a safer environment [17,18]. All of this is promoted by the restorative justice approach [19,20]”. Then, we introduced that a lack of teachers´ coping strategies can cause less safe environments from line 71 to 74: “Additionally, school coexistence issues can become more complex when teachers feel unable to manage students’ behaviors with punitive discipline, causing burn-out and professional malpractice, and leading to teachers abandoning their responsibility to maintain a safe and positive environment in school [24,25]”.

We carried on defending that restorative justice approach in schools can make safe and positive climate from line 75 to 83: “According to Payne and Welch [26], the use of punitive discipline when students misbehave, such as expulsion policies, threats, and other harsh sanctions, rather than a restorative justice approach, “not only fails to reduce school violence and misbehavior, but it may actually increase the frequency and intensity of these incidents”(p.66). Thus, a restorative justice approach in schools, based on awareness of one´s behavior and repairing the harm caused using social and emotional abilities, activates the school community´s understanding of conflict and empowers them to create a peaceful and positive climate [27]. Furthermore, this approach can also help to create a democratic and participatory school community [28]”.

 

Point 5: In line 77, “importance” was not appropriate to match with “bullying phenomenon”.

 

Response 5: We changed the word to “seriousness” (line 99).

 

Point 6: Most of these anti-bully programs were from Europe, however, there are also  some excellent program of social emotional learning, such as “Second Step” in America. The author could added it into your table.

 

Response 6: We included the program you recommended in table 1:

Name	Year1	Country	Participants	Variables
Second Step Program [35]	1996	USA	N= 966 6th grade (179) 7th grade (561) 8th grade (226)	Empathy, social problem solving, and anger management

 

Point 7: In terms of the principles and objectives of this intervention program, it aimed to develop students' socio-emotional skills and conflict management styles and restorative justice and peer mediation are also mentioned. Frankly speaking, I haven’t understood the relationship between these components. For my opinion, socio-emotional skills can be regarded as a premise for a collaborative management style of peer conflict, and restorative justice was a practice that helps individuals to internalize these skills as well as improving their abilities and effectiveness in coping peer conflict in daily life. The authors could outline these capabilities and their relationship to the corresponding practices so that the audiences could have a better understanding of the program's operational functions and intervention goals. And then to introduce the intervention of teachers and school climate.

 

Response 7: We readjusted the information regarding your recommendations from line 111 to 118: “However, it is unknown whether the socio-emotional skills that were taught were specifically focused on a collaborative management style for conflict resolution in order to reduce school violence. A double training, first in addressing certain socio-emotional skills to achieve a more collaborative conflict management style, and secondly implementing a peer-mediation conflict resolution program based on restorative school jus-tice could promote the internalization of the collaborative management style when coping with daily peer conflict, as it leads to awareness of the harm and focuses on re-pairing this [27,44,45]”.

Further, we described socio-emotional skills addressed to get collaborative management style from lines 129 to 144:

“Socio-emotional skills, considered very useful tools when facing various conflict situations, can reduce the impact of negative environments and enhance positive youth development [49]. Moreover, socio-emotional skills such as empathy have shown a negative relationship with the perpetration of bullying [50], and a positive as-sociation with the school climate and social adjustment [20]. Still, there is hardly any literature that evaluates the impact of conflict management styles on reducing school violence and improving the school climate or psychological school adjustment [9,45], as addressed in the present study. Nevertheless, there is a peaceful conflict management in the form of peer mediation, which uses a collaborative style to reduce school violence and can prevent bullying [51]. As the collaborative management style necessitates a high level of concern for both oneself and the other party involved in the conflict, it is the style that best meets the interests of both parties in a conflict [8]. Since self-assertion and willingness are required to cooperate with others, it is necessary to acquire communicative and social skills to actively listen as well as to assert one´s own needs or point of view [45]. Adolescents trained in problem-solving abilities can tackle daily peer conflict peacefully and stop using violence as strategy, improving the school climate [27,49]”.

 

Point 8: The author should add other more important demographic data such as race and social economic status or parental education in Table 3.

 

Response 8: We added some information regarding sociodemographic as you recommended in table 3:

Parents country of birth	85.6% Spain; 6.6% Latin America; 3.9% Europe; 3.1% Africa; 0.8% Asia	79.1% Spain; 8.4% Latin America; 5.6% Europe; 4.2% Africa; 2.7% Asia
Parents educational level	2.7% undergraduate; 39.8% Elementary graduate; 33.3% High School graduate; 24.2% College graduate	2.7% undergraduate; 35.4% Elementary graduate; 38% High School graduate; 20.9% College graduate; 0.3% loss data
Presence of both parents at home	77.3%	70%

 

 

Point 9: The results were too simplistic. The author had already mentioned the importance of teachers in bullying prevention and intervention. The advantage and great value of this program was the specific intervention on teachers' coping skills. Although the authors mentioned the reason in your research limitations, why not present the results of the effectiveness on teachers' intervention?

 

Response 9: We did several changes throughout the entire document to clarify that we didn´t measure teachers´ perceptions, as one of the limitations of this study (lines 434-436): “This could represent a major inconvenience regarding the previously mentioned bene-fits of educational interventions including both teachers and students [18,46,81]”.

We took teachers´ participation out of the abstract (line 21). 

However, we mentioned that tutor-teachers were involved during the intervention with their students as it took place during tutorial lessons (line 200): “while teachers were present and involved”.

 (Lines 381-388): “Additionally, tutor–teachers were involved during the first training activities, as they took place during tutorial lessons. This could explain the moderate effect on the school climate. Teachers were supporting students´ responses during the activities and collaborating to improve the understanding of each skill, which may empower participatory opportunities, a major factor in the school climate [74]. Teachers’ social support is also associated with emotional engagement, and strong emotional bonds can emerge between teachers and students, which is another major factor in the school climate [65,75]”.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, thank you for letting me review your article. 

The subject is totally pertinent because although we have been studying the phenomenon of bullying for years, we have not been able to put an end to this serious problem. Works based on interventions are necessary but complex to put into practice. Interventions such as those presented in your study are undoubtedly necessary.  

The summary is complete and gives a clear and coherent view of the content of the article, responding to the OMRC model. 

The introduction is well-supported, with up-to-date citations and a clear structure that leads appropriately to the research objective and hypotheses. 

Method: 

- Good characterization of the sample of adolescent participants. However, nothing is stated about the teachers (N=16) participants referred to in the abstract.  

- Instruments: It is not clear whether the Crombach's Alpha values included refer to the original instrument or to their data. If they refer to the validation results of the instrument, they should be included for the study sample. In case it is for the study participants, the scale validation results should be included. Complete the validity data for each scale, not only the reliability, but also the values of the model's ajute such as the RMSEA, CFI, GFI, ect.  Describe the sociodemographic variables evaluated. What instruments were used with the teaching staff, perhaps it would be better to remove the comment on their participation from the summary, since throughout the article there is no mention of their participation.

- Change the type of design to the section Design and data analysis, it does not go in the procedure.

- Adequate description of the analyses performed. 

Results: presented in a clear and coherent manner, the tables are adequate and clear. 

Discussion: adequate and the limitations of the study are established.  

It has been a pleasure to read your research, the article has a clear structure, which allows a fluid and intelligible reading. I only make small nuances that would improve what is already good work. My recommendation is to accept it with minor changes. 

 

Best regards, 

The reviewer. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

First of all, we thank you for the assessment you have made of this work and your time spent reviewing it. We also appreciate and are grateful for the clarity of the recommendations and suggestions that you indicate in your comments, to which we have paid special attention. With them we consider that this article is improved.

 

The changes made in the document have been highlighted in yellow. Below you can find our response to your comments.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Point 1: Good characterization of the sample of adolescent participants. However, nothing is stated about the teachers (N=16) participants referred to in the abstract.

 

Response 1:

First, we took teachers´ participation out of the abstract (line 21). 

Then, we did several changes throughout the entire document to clarify that we didn´t measure teachers´ perceptions, as one of the limitations of this study (lines 434-436): “This could represent a major inconvenience regarding the previously mentioned benefits of educational interventions including both teachers and students [18,46,81]”.

However, we mentioned that tutor-teachers were involved during the intervention with their students as it took place during tutorial lessons (line 200): “while teachers were present and involved”.

 (Lines 381-388): “Additionally, tutor–teachers were involved during the first training activities, as they took place during tutorial lessons. This could explain the moderate effect on the school climate. Teachers were supporting students´ responses during the activities and collaborating to improve the understanding of each skill, which may empower participatory opportunities, a major factor in the school climate [74]. Teachers’ social support is also associated with emotional engagement, and strong emotional bonds can emerge between teachers and students, which is another major factor in the school climate [65,75]”.

 

Point 2: It is not clear whether the Crombach's Alpha values included refer to the original instrument or to their data. If they refer to the validation results of the instrument, they should be included for the study sample. In case it is for the study participants, the scale validation results should be included. Complete the validity data for each scale, not only the reliability, but also the values of the model's ajute such as the RMSEA, CFI, GFI, ect.  Describe the sociodemographic variables evaluated. What instruments were used with the teaching staff, perhaps it would be better to remove the comment on their participation from the summary, since throughout the article there is no mention of their participation.

 

Response 2: Following your recommendation, we presented fit indices: chi-squared, RMSEA, CFI and IFI for each instrument, as well as their internal consistency:

Lines 255-260: “The confirmatory factor analysis showed optimal fit indices for chi-squared model (χ² = 2803.86, df =874) lower to 5 (χ²/df =3.2); RMSEA =.054 (confidence interval = .051-.057); CFI =0.86; IFI =.86. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for each factor was good for F1 (α = .81), F2 (α =.85), F3 (α =.81), F4 (α =.80), F5 (α =81), F7 (α =.85), and F8 (α =.88); and excellent for F6 (α = .91). The internal consistency of the whole instrument was excellent (α = .95)”.

Lines 268-272: “The confirmatory factor analysis showed optimal fit indices for the chi-squared model (χ² = 1270.66, df =341) lower to 5 (χ²/df =3.7); RMSEA =.063 (confidence interval = .059-.067); CFI =0.90; IFI =.90. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was excellent for F2 (α = .92); F3 (α = .91); F4 (α = .84); and poor for F1 (α = 0.52). The internal consistency of the whole instrument was excellent (α = .91)”.

Lines 279-283: “The confirmatory factor analysis showed fit indices for chi-squared model (χ² = 715.98, df =132) superior to 5 (χ²/df =5.2); RMSEA =.077 (confidence interval = .071-.084); CFI =0.80; IFI =.80. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for each factor was good for F1 (α = .82); acceptable for F2 (α = .77); and questionable for F3 (α = 0.64). The internal consistency of the whole instrument was acceptable (α = .79)”.

Lines 288-293: “The confirmatory factor analysis showed optimal fit indices for the chi-squared model (χ² = 53.88, df =26) lower to 5 (χ²/df =2.1); RMSEA =.035 (confidence interval = .015-.052); CFI =0.97; IFI =.97. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for each factor was questionable for F1 (α = .61), and acceptable for F2 (α = .72). The internal consistency of the whole instrument was acceptable (α = .70)”.

Lines 303-309: “The confirmatory factor analysis showed optimal fit indices for chi-squared model (χ² = 1431.71, df =695) lower to 5 (χ²/df =2.1); RMSEA =.037 (confidence interval = .033-.040); CFI =0.90; IFI =.90. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for each factor was poor for F7 (α =.58); questionable for F1 (α = .68), F3 (α = .68), F5 (α =.62), F6 (α =.64), F8 (α =.64) and F10 (α =.66); acceptable for F2 (α = .74), and F9 (α = .77); and good for F4 (α = .88). The internal consistency of the whole instrument was good (α = .85)”.

Lines 315-318: “The confirmatory factor analysis showed optimal fit indices for chi-squared model (χ² = 24.57, df =20) lower to 5 (χ²/df =1.2); RMSEA =.030 (confidence interval = .000-.061); CFI =0.99; IFI =.99. The internal consistency of the one-dimensionality of this instrument was good (α = .83), and the explained variance was 47.5%.”.

 

We also described the sociodemographic variables evaluated (lines 319-323): “Socio-demographic results were collected with an ad hoc questionnaire with optional responses added to the battery of instruments, in which sex, age, academic grade, country of birth, parents´ country of birth, parents´ educational level, academic achievement, use of social media and whether both parents were at home were collected, among other information”.

 

Point 3: Change the type of design to the section Design and data analysis, it does not go in the procedure.

 

Response 3: We changed the title to “Design and data analysis” and moved the type of design to it (lines 332-338):

“2.4. Design and data analysis

The research follows a quasi-experimental design, in which the schools were selected using non-probability convenience sampling. However, both schools were ran-domly allocated, one to the experimental group and the other to the control group, considering their similar sociodemographic characteristics as inclusion criteria: public school that only teaches middle and high school grades, with more than 25 students per class, located in the surrounding areas of Valencia”.

 

Point 4: Adequate description of the analyses performed.

 

Response 4: We developed and introduce more information regarding the analyses performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the program (lines 339-351).

“For the analyses, participants´ scores from the EG and CG in each of the evaluated variables were used. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the validity of each instrument was measured with EQS 6.4 computer program, using fit indices: χ2/df, RMSEA (IC), CFI, and IFI. Chi-squared (χ2) was used to clarify the homogeneity of the composition of the sample. The effectiveness of the FHaCE up! program was measured for each pair of variables using an ANCOVA test of repeated measures of ‘moment’ (T1 pre-intervention vs. T2 post-intervention) with ‘group’ (participants from the EG vs participants from the CG) to analyze the effectiveness of the intervention in reducing school violence, as well as adversarial and avoidant management styles, and im-proving school climate, collaborative style, empathy, social skills, and active listening. For significant results, eta-squared (2) was used to measure the size of the effect, introducing T1 as a covariate. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS Statistics for Windows, (IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Version 20, Armonk, NY: IBM Corp)”.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editor

In this manuscript, the authors evaluated the effectiveness of the FHaCE up! Program on School Violence, 2 School Climate, Conflict Management Styles, and Socio-3 Emotional skills on Secondary School students. Generally, the manuscript is well written and extends our knowledge in this field. However, there are several concerns that the authors must change for further consideration.

 

1.    FHaCE up! The program is better to merge in the last part of the introduction. I mean two parts of the introduction to be merged.

2.    the English of the paper has a good and acceptable level, except in a few cases.

3.    The discussion should be more coherent and needs to be rewritten.

4.    Some sentences are too long such as the second paragraph of the discussion.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

First of all, we thank you for the assessment you have made of this work and your time spent reviewing it. We also appreciate and are grateful for the clarity of the recommendations and suggestions that you indicate in your comments, to which we have paid special attention. With them we consider that this article is improved.

 

The changes made in the document have been highlighted in yellow. Below you can find our response to your comments.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Point 1: FHaCE up! The program is better to merge in the last part of the introduction. I mean two parts of the introduction to be merged.

Response 1: FHaCE up! The program is included at last part of the introduction as the second part merged from line 165.

Point 2: the English of the paper has a good and acceptable level, except in a few cases.

Response 2: We had an English native editor to review the article and made several changes through the whole article we attached.

Point 3: The discussion should be more coherent and needs to be rewritten.

Response 3: We rewritten some parts of the discussion as you recommended:

Lines 370-375: “The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the FHaCE up! program for reducing school violence and improving school climate in a sample of secondary school students. As recent meta-analyses show [1,46], the results of the present study have a strong effect size in reducing school violence, which confirms that tackling aggressive behaviors with social-emotional learning using a collaborative conflict management style can be a good preventive factor regarding school violence”.

We justified the results for school climate (lines 381-388): “Additionally, tutor–teachers were involved during the first training activities, as they took place during tutorial lessons. This could explain the moderate effect on the school climate. Teachers were supporting students´ responses during the activities and collaborating to improve the understanding of each skill, which may empower participatory opportunities, a major factor in the school climate [74]. Teachers’ social support is also associated with emotional engagement, and strong emotional bonds can emerge between teachers and students, which is another major factor in the school climate [65,75]”

We presented results for collaborative style (lines 400-403): “Furthermore, the study showed higher scores for collaborative management style, and lower scores for adversarial style, after the intervention, which may confirm that the program reinforces the collaborative style and tackles the aggressive behaviors commonly associated with the adversarial style [8,45,53]”.

We added (lines 416-421): “Differing from another type of program, in which teacher interventions reduce adolescents’ openness and their ability to solve their own conflicts [79], FHaCE up! program gives the responsibility to the students and increases the teachers´ trust in students ability to manage daily conflicts with peers. Furthermore, increasing opportunities for adolescents to solve their own conflicts can empower them and make them feel self-confident, which can also increase prosocial behaviors in the future [80]”.

 

Point 4: Some sentences are too long such as the second paragraph of the discussion

Response 4: As we had reviewed by an English native editor and made shorter sentences:

(lines 376-388): “The FHaCE up! program is based on a double training for students in conflict resolution strategies.  To achieve a collaborative conflict management style, the first training develops socio-emotional and communicative skills, and the second training is based on a peer-mediation program, as “in any mediation setting, identifying disputants’ conflict styles plays an important role in the process of empowering the parties to reach a successful resolution to their dispute” [73](p.20). Additionally, tutor–teachers were involved during the first training activities, as they took place during tutorial lessons. This could explain the moderate effect on the school climate. Teachers were supporting students´ responses during the activities and collaborating to im-prove the understanding of each skill, which may empower participatory opportunities, a major factor in the school climate [74]. Teachers’ social support is also associated with emotional engagement, and strong emotional bonds can emerge between teach-ers and students, which is another major factor in the school climate [65,75]”.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has carefully revised the questions I have raised, and the present paper is well structured and fully discussed now.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editor

I accept the manuscript for publication.

Regards

Arami