Creative and Metacognitive Strategies in Anti-Bullying Programs: A Systematic Review

Abstract

In a global context marked by an increase in acts of aggression in schools, it is essential to focus on discovering new theoretical benchmarks and practical strategies for prevention and intervention in such situations. This article, evidence of this concern, aims to identify (1) how common school anti-bullying programs are that integrate creativity and metacognition processes, (2) what the theoretical background is that justifies the application of these tools in anti-bullying programs, and (3) what the elements of methodology and the evaluation criteria and methods are that have been applied in these programs. We conducted a rigorous analysis, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), of articles identified in the Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, PsychoNet, and Eric Gov. Out of the total 203 articles identified that met the inclusion criteria, only 11 were finally selected. Analyzing the training/teaching, learning, and evaluation methods proposed in the programs in the 11 articles, we synthesized and developed a theoretical model that highlights how creative and metacognitive processes contribute to cognitive and behavioral dynamics when addressing bullying. This holistic approach could provide policymakers, researchers, administrators, principals, and teachers with a theoretical framework for developing and implementing practical and effective interventions against bullying in schools.

1. Introduction

Despite almost five decades of theoretical and practical attention, bullying continues to pose a major concern in educational settings. Recent data provided by the Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) report for 2021–2022 show that a significant number of children in Europe, Central Asia, and Canada are affected by bullying. According to the survey, around 11% of students said that they had been bullied at school, with the most common forms of bullying manifesting as physical, verbal, or relational aggression. Bullying was also found to differ by gender, with boys being more likely to engage in physical aggression. At the same time, girls tend to engage in relational aggression in the form of social exclusion (Cosma et al., 2024).

Olweus (1993) considers that “A student is bullied or victimized when he or she is repeatedly exposed over time to negative actions by one or more other students” (p. 9); this author also highlights three key elements—intention, repetition, and a power imbalance—to differentiate between bullying and other types of student-on-student violence. Following an increased understanding of the causes that generate, sustain, and amplify bullying, interventions tend to target both systems and individuals in schools to create safer and improved learning environments (Juvonen & Graham, 2001). Yet, while prevention could be even more important than intervention, the literature on bullying lacks a clear distinction between prevention and intervention programs.

Prevention in the form of effective educational measures may be preferable to an intervention, as it focuses on creating a positive academic environment/climate, while discouraging bullying in its incipient/onset form. An effective preventive strategy may reduce the frequency of bullying incidents while optimizing school performance and relationships with others (Hymel & Swearer, 2015; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Intervention, on the other hand, is reactive and involves the identification and improvement of negative behaviors carried out by the bullying individual (Espelage & Swearer, 2010).

One of the best-known prevention models is that of Walker et al. (1996). The authors proposed a conceptual model for school-based programs whereby prevention and intervention are not distinct or mutually exclusive dimensions but, rather, offer different types of programs that are used for achieving specific prevention goals and outcomes (Walker & Shinn, 2002). However, this field is constantly evolving. Interdisciplinary prevention teams provide evidence of the effectiveness of innovative methods and strategies in the field of bullying, all contributing to the balanced development of young people and ensuring personal and citizenship skills.

Prevention and intervention strategies must be interconnected and coordinated at the school level, covering four levels of behavioral support: school, specific contexts, classrooms, and individual students. If prevention fails at one level, intervention at the next level becomes necessary (Akpan & Notar, 2016). Due to the widespread nature of bullying, numerous prevention and intervention programs have been developed and implemented based on a variety of competencies and skills. There are many levels of intervention in combating bullying (Akpan & Notar, 2016), and many systematic reviews and meta-analytic studies (Gaffney et al., 2021) have sought to identify their degree of effectiveness regardless of the methods and techniques used. Our study focused particularly on identifying those prevention programs that use methods that stimulate the formation of creative and metacognitive skills necessary for the context of the 21st century.

1.1. Creativity as a Buffer Against Aggressive Behaviors

Creativity as a skill involves applying divergent thinking to identify and reflect on new possible solutions to unusual situations or problems (Guilford, 1969; Ilyin, 2011, 2014). Within the learning sphere, creative processes require democratic contexts, interactive student-centered activities, and educators who encourage their students to learn through their experiences and be responsible for their actions (Dwiningrum & Wahab, 2020). Yet, in the 21st century, learning is important not only in the school context but also in the social sphere, with an emphasis on learning through communication, collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking (Kassim, 2019; Haseeb, 2018; E. Zimmerman, 2018).

From a pedagogical perspective, it is important to explore how creative strategies can be used to develop a school learning context and how activities can be integrated into specific bullying prevention and intervention programs. The designing of creative strategies by the teacher, as well as the creation of learning contexts, becomes a priority. One such model is the creative strategy learning model (Kassim, 2019), which integrates the terminology of strategic and creative thinking. This model emphasizes systematic teaching processes that help students cognitively strategize their learning with the aim of improving their learning performance and increasing their creativity.

In the past, teachers tended to discourage creativity among students, as this was associated with nonconformity (Cropley, 1992; Dawson, 1997; Scott, 1999) and perceived as impulsive and disruptive classroom behavior (Beghetto, 2007; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009; Westby & Dawson, 1995). Yet, more recent studies show that creative ability drives individuals to adapt to new situations and identify possible solutions (Beghetto, 2007).

The ability to be creative also plays an important role in reducing bullying (Komalasari, 2011). Some studies highlight the direct negative relationship between openness, including creativity, and bullying. As such, individuals with increased openness to experience may be at lower risk of becoming bullies or cyberbullies (Escortell et al., 2020). Moreover, children with higher openness (and implicitly, with greater creativity) provide different interpretations to emotional experiences, thereby becoming more competent in anticipating the associated emotions and consequences of certain behaviors (Barford & Smillie, 2016). As such, it could be inferred that creative people are more adept at identifying multiple interpretations for the same behaviors and can, in turn, adopt a range of reactions while carefully analyzing the outcomes.

Self-efficacy has also been linked to creativity (Bray et al., 2020; Fletcher et al., 2023; Lee & Portillo, 2022; Mathisen & Bronnick, 2009; Rizzi et al., 2020; Sagone & De Caroli, 2016; Sagone et al., 2020). Indeed, self-efficacy helps the brain solve complex real-world problems, making students more confident in their ability to succeed outside the school setting in daily, dynamic, and uncertain life events and environments (Bandura et al., 1996; Beghetto, 2006; Hennessey, 2017; Royston & Reiter-Palmon, 2019; Yates & Twigg, 2017). As such, there is a need for developing and implementing tools for improving self-efficacy and resilience among students in line with the need for identifying novel methods for cultivating student creativity (Álvarez-Huerta et al., 2021; Coleman et al., 2020; Genco et al., 2012; Kim, 2011; Sawyer, 2015; Sola et al., 2017; Van Broekhoven et al., 2020).

Researchers argue that teachers should encourage students to apply this skill in different situations (e.g., Torrance, 1977). This involves teachers using creative strategies to familiarize students with new perspectives on addressing problems at school or in their personal lives, making them original and flexible. At the same time, teachers may develop biases against students who exhibit creativity (Aljughaiman & Mowrer-Reynolds, 2005; Westby & Dawson, 1995) or who may have an insufficient understanding of creativity (Schacter et al., 2006; Seo et al., 2005).

Creativity may be perceived as a dynamic structure and can be related to a person, process, place, or outcome (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009; Plucker et al., 2004). From an educational point-of-view, developing creative attitudes in students can be achieved through a range of learning contexts that (1) incorporate associations and analogies, transform ideas, and require analysis; (2) stimulate curiosity and a positive approach to problems and ideas; (3) enhance openness to different thoughts and outlooks; (4) increase assertiveness regarding expressing feelings and providing and accepting criticism regarding differences between students; (5) encourage proactive attitudes among students for the benefit of themselves and others (at school, among friends, and within the family setting); and (6) implement positive actions in situations that are misdefined and uncertain (Szmidt et al., 1996).

To develop these components of creativity, it is necessary to encourage students to transition from the simple application of critical thinking (i.e., the cognitive component) to the application of affective and action resources. People are inherently creative, yet in their interactions with others, they tend to alter and diversify their behaviors and experiences. From this perspective, the process of co-creation determines the advantages of formulating different alternatives for problem solving. Such co-creation entails various interdisciplinary approaches and is related to both co-design and open innovation. While it is described in numerous practical applications, it lacks a fixed framework or plan. Specifically in the educational field, reference is made to collective creativity, i.e., creative activities that stem from the collaboration and individual contribution (Durugbo & Pawar, 2014; Füller et al., 2011; Parjanen et al., 2012). Thus, the creation of co-creation tools, as well as conceptual clarity, becomes necessary (Payne et al., 2007; Roser et al., 2009; Schrage, 1995).

1.2. Metacognition Buffer Against Aggressive Behaviors

Metacognition is considered a key competency of the 21st century, with an increasing indication of its key role in academic achievements and learning processes (Anthonysamy et al., 2024; Azevedo, 2020). Analysis of the various definitions that are presented in the literature reveals the introspective and reflective nature of metacognitive processes. The shift from educational implications to a more comprehensive configuration of the metacognitive domain allows it to be defined as “awareness of the skills, strategies, and resources necessary for effective task completion and the ability to apply self-regulatory processes to ensure successful completion” (PP, 2008, pp. 3–4). Furthermore, Gombert (1990) argues that the role of metacognition is configured as the conscious reorganization of “introspective knowledge about one’s own cognitive states and processes” and “the individual’s ability to deliberately control and plan their cognitive processes to achieve a specific goal or objective” (p. 117).

According to classical theoretical models (Brown, 1987; Schraw & Dennison, 1994), metacognition can be conceptualized through two dimensions: knowledge of cognition and control skills. The process between the two components was explained in a comprehensive model by Nelson and Narens (1990). Thus, awareness of thoughts and regulation of cognition—that is, the transition from the object level to the meta-level—occurs through continuous self-observation and monitoring of cognitions about oneself and the socio-cognitive context in which they are activated. Regarding the regulatory role of metacognition, we can mention B. J. Zimmerman and Moylan (2009) and Pintrich (2002), who developed a socio-cognitive model involving metacognition as a cross-cutting element of self-regulation, covering cognitive, motivational, and affective dimensions. Over time, the concept of self-regulation has expanded to include processes of awareness of thoughts and emotions, along with their adjustment through self-monitoring and control (Conn et al., 2018; Larson & Gerber, 1987). More current perspectives (Code, 2020; Pintrich & García, 1993; B. J. Zimmerman, 2000) present metacognition in direct association with self-determined behaviors that support the agentic capacity of individuals, especially regarding proactivity and taking control of the self. Thus, the term metacognition refers to a process that is preceded by intentions, values, and other dynamogenic factors that facilitate reflection, followed by the regulation of cognitions and behaviors.

These theoretical aspects may be of interest to the present investigation, as we may wonder what strategies for awareness of one’s own cognitions and self-control can be included in educational programs that aim to reduce rates of dysfunctional behaviors. These research questions are also supported by a series of previous studies which have examined metacognition in the context of cognitive perspectives in human behaviors. For example, Dodge and Schwartz (1997) argue that metacognition plays an important role in managing aggressive and violent attitudes, and may help buffer aggressive impulses and reactions, by creating a metacognitive awareness of one’s own thoughts and emotions, while developing strategies for regulating them. Moritz et al. (2019) discuss metacognitive therapy schemes as a means for working with individuals who suffer from anxiety, depression, or attention disorders. Metacognition can be trained to become more aware of negative thoughts and monitor relationships between thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. The regulatory component is also relevant when it is perceived as a restraining factor, especially in cases of rumination and unpleasant emotional states. As such, enhancing the individual’s metacognitive capacity could help improve cognitive flexibility, identify dysfunctional thinking patterns, and practice strategies for controlling the flow of negative beliefs, such as excessive worrying. More recent studies (e.g., Strand et al., 2024) provide evidence as to the determining role of metacognitive beliefs in ameliorating dysfunctional attitudes and negative thoughts among adolescents with depressive symptoms.

Training of the metacognitive component also appears to be a promising avenue for reducing aggressive acts in adolescents. Metacognitive beliefs and cognition-related knowledge, and their role in behavioral and emotional regulation, have been analyzed in therapy for dealing with anger problems and aggression tendencies among adolescents and young adults, as they can regulate thoughts as a way of managing oneself in tense situations (Gini et al., 2019; McLoughlin et al., 2022; Mariani et al., 2015). Moreover, in the context of problematic behaviors, some studies on intervention programs investigate the impact of developing metacognitive awareness or behavioral regulation processes that comprise self-reflection and self-control (Cheruvalath & Gaude, 2023, 2024; Donohoe, 2007). Furthermore, Khanolainen and Semenova (2023) discuss the importance of increasing awareness of bullying, including its forms of manifestation and negative impacts, as well as the relevance of self-monitoring thoughts in emotionally tense situations. Self-regulation has also been studied alongside coping strategies that are applied by adolescents following online intimidation or cyberbullying. Nacimiento Rodríguez and Mora-Merchán (2014), for example, highlight metacognition as a process of consciously selecting, planning, and applying coping strategies; in their study, subjects who achieved higher scores in a metacognitive activity reported fewer aggressive tendencies. These results are in line with Baird et al. (2010), who found that adolescent females with higher cognitive control reported lower sensitivity to aggressive behaviors from peers, such as hostility or manipulation.

Considering the theoretical implications of creativity and metacognition in managing dysfunctional situations and in line with research findings that highlight the potential of creative and metacognitive strategies in the context of discussions about aggression, it would be interesting to analyze educational programs that focus on these two skills. The findings could offer new interdisciplinary perspectives for designing a conceptual model that can provide guidance in choosing combinations of strategies to prevent bullying. It would also be interesting to select them based on their effectiveness, categorize them according to the skills they develop, and apply them in a personalized way in the classroom with students or in counseling schemes with victims and bullies.

2. Research Aims

The current study is based on the premise that creativity and metacognition have been unjustly overlooked in bullying prevention programs. We therefore performed a systematic review of such programs, based on the PRISMA method, to identify how the aforementioned processes have been approached and applied. In other words, our study aims to investigate how, and with what effects, creativity and metacognition have been used as tools in anti-bullying programs. More specifically, the study intends to (1) explore the theoretical background that provides the foundation for the methodological tools used in educational programs; (2) analyze the occurrence of programs that combine both concepts in anti-bullying programs; (3) investigate the programs from a methodological perspective; and finally, (4) evaluate the effectiveness of these programs, taking into account the relevance of the methods and the context of the categories of participants.

In line with the purpose of the paper and the related research objectives, we have established four questions to ensure clarity and rigor in the literature review:

• What is the theoretical background that justifies the application of these tools in anti-bullying programs?
• How common are school anti-bullying programs that integrate creativity and metacognition mechanisms?
• What are the elements of methodology applied in anti-bullying educational programs that use creative and metacognitive strategies?
• What evaluation methods are applied in these programs, and what is the effectiveness of these programs?

3. Methods

During the period of January–March 2024, we conducted a systematic search of the literature following predetermined steps according to the PRISMA procedure. These were as follows: identifying keywords and search terms and searchable databases, establishing eligibility and exclusion criteria for evaluating the title and abstracts of papers, analyzing all articles we had access to from the databases and eliminating papers that did not meet the inclusion criteria, and finally, reporting the main findings after analyzing the publications relevant to the set objective. The PRISMA procedure and the inclusion and exclusion criteria are explained in detail later in the text.

We note that this review was not registered in PROSPERO, as that database is known to be limited to reviews in the fields of health and biomedicine. Moreover, some authors (e.g., Booth et al., 2020) have identified limitations of this database, including delays in the appearance of certain works and a lack of transparency in some registered records. The process of selecting and including studies adhered to updated standards of rigor, clarity, and replicability proposed by Page et al. (2021), in line with the reporting principles developed by Moher et al. (2009). Throughout the search and selection process, we consistently referred to the research questions and the inclusion and exclusion criteria. To minimize potential bias, two authors independently reviewed all articles considered for inclusion, and no disagreements were recorded.

3.1. Search of the Literature

To identify papers in line with the proposed aim, the following keywords were introduced: “((bullying prevention) OR (anti-bullying) OR (anti-bullying) OR (anti-bullying) OR (bullying)) AND ((creativity) OR (creative thinking) OR (metacognition) OR (metacognitive))”. We focused on searching in databases known to the field of education and psychology; thus, we entered keywords in the following databases: the Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, PsychoNet, PsychNET, and ERIC. We did not limit the search to specific characteristics but set the search to include all possible options—except in Web of Science, where the search was limited to the specified topic. We also used Google Scholar as an additional source, where the search of the literature was based on a combined ranking algorithm that considers the number of citations and keywords in each article (Moher et al., 2009). We used the same keywords as for the other databases and scanned the first ten pages of all source records.

3.2. Establishing Eligibility Criteria

The following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) quantitative and qualitative studies, (2) studies with a specific focus on school-based anti-bullying programs that integrate creativity and/or metacognition, (3) studies that measured and achieved anti-bullying program outcomes, (4) peer-reviewed articles published in a scholarly journal, (5) studies that were written and published in English, and (6) studies published by the end of 2023. The following exclusion criteria were also applied: (1) studies that examined attitudes and perceptions regarding the anti-bullying program rather than its actual outcomes; (2) studies that focused solely on cyberbullying, without any elements of school bullying; (3) studies that focused on kindergarten bullying; (4) studies that focused on clinical/educational treatment for bullying victims; and (5) publications where the complete manuscript was unavailable.

3.3. Study Selection and Data Extraction

A range of information was extracted and used to categorize and extract results relevant to the research questions. For each of the included articles, we analyzed a series of data: general information about the authors, title, year of publication of the article, journal in which the article was included, and the purpose of the study, as well as perspectives that constituted the theoretical underpinning and elements of the curricular approach of the two main concepts that are the subjects of our study. These elements were analyzed and organized into sections by two researchers from the author team, anonymously, in a two-step process. The results were then presented descriptively in the following sections.

4. Results of the Literature Search

The initial database searches yielded 203 results; 170 publications were then eliminated after removing duplicates and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria to the titles and abstracts. After undergoing full-text analysis, 22 of the remaining 33 publications were also removed, as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. As such, a total of 11 publications were included in this review (Figure 1). The extracted insights in line with the research questions are summarized in

Table 1. Overview of training and educational methods applied in anti-bullying programs.

Authors	Themes	Participants (N)	Methods, Techniques	Means of Learning	Skills	Methods of Evaluation
1. Evgin and Bayat (2020)	Bullying phenomenon Awareness and recognition of emotions Bullying identification Developing empathy Improving problem-solving skills Developing social skills Emotional self-regulation Increasing awareness of bullying	N = 72 students, 7th grade (12–13 years)	Role playing Improvisation Brainstorming Photographic Memory technique	Dull image Behavior list Information cards Role writing	Problem solving Empathy Awareness of bullying Social and emotional skills Self-efficacy	Traditional Peer Bullying Scale (TPBS) Inventory for Children (PSIC) Problem Solving Empathy Index for Children Observation Evaluation of the content of activities Email Data collection form Tracking: self-reflective
2. Goodwin et al. (2019)	Understanding bullying The role of observation Developing empathy Preventing intervention in bullying	N = 50 students (12–15 years)	Viewed a one-act scripted performance based on a schoolyard bullying incident Interactive slideshow presentation Involving students in proposing prevention strategies	Interactive theater Interactive presentations Worksheet Slides-visual resources (diapositive)	Empathy Problem-solving Awareness of bullying social and emotional skills Teamworking	Observation Group interview to explore students’ experiences of the interactive theater-based workshop Students’ reports
3. Fokides (2017)	Digital Storytelling	N = 24 students 4th grade (9–10 years)	Digital Storytelling Presentation of the stories Collectively developed story Development of the final story Short essays	Story maker Software tool for the development of their digital stories Student scenario Students’ story	Creative thinking Collaborative Communicative Flexibility Taking the initiative and leadership Problem-solving skills Digital skills	Evaluation of the digital stories Evaluation of students’ essays
4. Hughes et al. (2019)	Hands-on creative activities and the use of digital technologies by utilizing maker pedagogy (STEAM)	N = 2 students 6th grade (11–12 years)	Digital design Photography/videography technique Maker digital poster E-textile	App PicCollage for digital poster-making App Word Swag for button-making iPad Air for photography/videography Piktochart to create infographics based on bullying statistics E-textile components to create a wearable Circuits to “highlight” and spread messages of positivity	Digital literacy Ability to troubleshoot Problem-solving Creative and expressive skills through digital design and art Critical thinking	Assessment of creativity Technical skills and understanding of bullying based on digital and physical works created by students Observation
5. Warwick and Purdy (2019)	Cartoons with many common forms of bullying and cyberbullying	N = 90 children (6–7 years and 10–11 years)	Cartooning Focus group Definition of bullying Illustration with stick figures	16 new cartoons were created (covering many common forms of bullying and cyberbullying)	Awareness of bullying Critical reflection Understanding bullying behaviors	Focus group Evaluation of cartoons and definitions
6. Mariani et al. (2015)	Student Success Skills classroom Guidance program	N = 336 (age 10)	Classroom lessons Booster sessions using “tell–show–do” format		Prosocial Behaviors Bullying behaviors Engagement in school success skills Perceptions of classroom climate	The comparison between the treatment group and the comparison group, quantitative evaluation
7. Khanolainen and Semenova (2023)	Artmaking and creative engagement components of arts-based research	N = 35 students (13–16 years)	Story completion Graphic elicitation	Set of six graphic vignettes: traditional vignettes, narrative inquiry, and graphic elicitation	Students’ perceptions and experiences of bullying and cyberbullying	Exploratory and diagnostic study Follow-up interviews In-depth interviews Story completion Sensitive research
8. Saibon et al. (2017)	Creative and fun pedagogy approach	N = 234 (14–16 years)	Sculpture performance Storytelling Rhyme and dance Mannequin/puppet act Dialog and spontaneous role play, Videos Coloring Matching and making paper Collage activities Game mode		Creativity components: Fluency Flexibility Originality Elaboration Knowledge of bullying among students	Quantitative method with support Qualitative approaches utilizing quasi-experiments design. It was used The Student Bullying Knowledge Level (TPBL) questionnaire Pre-test and post-test, which 25 items that examine student knowledge about bullying behaviors and structured interviews were also conducted on seven students
9. Leff et al. (2020)	Peer bullying fact norms supporting bullying Prosocial behavior Power of the observer Problem-solving steps Empathy Perspective taking	N = 1990 students	Interactive experience/learning video inspiration 3D movie Audio experience	Handheld devices	Knowledge of bullying facts, norms supporting bullying vs. Prosocial behavior, attitude about role of the observer, knowledge of social problem-solving steps, understanding empathy perspective taking	Student self-reported Data pre-, post-, and during the interactive quiz show, 3 pilot studies totaling 1990 students 13 pre- and post-assembly questions
10. Lyngstad et al. (2022)	Role play with themes: Meeting, Voices in the head, Hot seats, Image theater, ‘Letters’, A meeting with teacher-in-role, the exercise deals with bullying out of role	N = 95 students, 16 years	Drama workshops Role play		Understanding of the complexity within the situation, to deal with being themselves and in role, skills of observing others in different roles Able to experience the bullying from different perspectives (teachers, students, parents). Skills to cope with their insecurity or to show resistance, being more active, and taking initiative, able to show their empathy and care	Observation of the process Drama, The assessment choices are called the Four Corners, four alternative responses To every statement, one response placed in each corner Short questionnaire after the drama workshop
11. Donohoe and O’Sullivan (2015)	The Bullying Prevention Pack (BPP)	N = 231 male primary school pupils N = 13 teachers -junior infants to first class (5–7 years) and the senior (8–12 years)	Bullying role play, Onlooker role play, the strategy of using the popular student instead of the defender -role play-Defending with Confidence, Confident Behaviors Exercise, Group discussions	Contract to prevent bullying in their school	enhanced learner knowledge of the topic of bullying and the use of role play, and the development of vocabulary specific to bullying	Monthly check-ups by the class teacher, follow-up sessions

.

Analysis of the Anti-Bullying Programs in the Included Publications

In the 11 articles that were included in this review, we analyzed the anti-bullying programs from the following perspectives: (1) research design, i.e., the program’s aims and objectives; (2) program framework, i.e., the inextricably intertwined teaching and learning; and (3) program evaluation. To do so, we conducted a narrative analysis of the included programs in line with the following structure:

(a)

Creativity and metacognition theoretical background in the anti-bullying programs;

(b)

Creative and metacognitive tools in the anti-bullying programs;

(c)

The educational training methodology applied in these anti-bullying programs;

(d)

Tools for evaluating the outcomes of these anti-bullying programs.

a. Creativity and metacognition theoretical background in the anti-bullying programs. To further understand how creativity and metacognition can contribute to the development of skills and competencies that can help in bullying situations, we analyzed the theoretical concepts that were applied in the reviewed publications. The following three underlying concepts of theoretical models were extracted from our analysis: (1) innovative pedagogies (Averill & Major, 2020), which were used in relation to the learning results (i.e., knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values) that are needed for today’s students to thrive and shape the world, while creating and contributing to a better future (innovative pedagogies were also seen in relation to how instructional systems can effectively develop such pedagogies); (2) creative pedagogies, which focus on the teacher’s ability to transform the classroom into a creative learning environment using imaginative approaches (Cremin et al., 2006; Dineen & Niu, 2008; Saibon et al., 2017); and (3) co-creation, which is defined from an interdisciplinary perspective and is related to co-design or open innovation (Payne et al., 2007; Roser et al., 2009).

One of the pedagogical perspectives used in the foundation of educational programs refers to creative pedagogy, a concept that was first introduced by Aleinikov (1989). The use of creative pedagogy in educational settings is related to positive learning outcomes and to actively engaging students in the learning process. As students learn to actively inquire, discuss, and even argue about the learned topics, they can transform knowledge into practice, using fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration skills. The second perspective that stands out in the studies identified concerns metacognitive pedagogy (Mevarech & Kramarski, 2014) regarding developing higher cognitive abilities, such as awareness of one’s own thoughts and managing them. In the studies analyzed, this perspective highlighted learning contexts focused on methods that stimulate the ability to reflect, anticipate consequences, retrospectively analyze events that caused negative thoughts, or train cognitive regulation skills (e.g., the studies by Warwick & Purdy, 2019; Evgin & Bayat, 2020; Goodwin et al., 2019; Lyngstad et al., 2022).

In our review of the publications, two additional concepts also stood out: (1) scientific edutainment and (2) the behavioral system model. These educational perspectives have been reinterpreted in the context of the issue of bullying, with researchers attempting to develop intervention programs that combine innovative elements, with the aim of achieving bullying prevention through the development of creative and metacognitive skills among the participants. For example, Evgin and Bayat (2020) applied the behavioral system model in their study to reduce bullying through the creative drama method and, through an intervention strategy of valuing active participation, address the stress experienced by the students, identify risk factors, systematically structure intervention programs, and facilitate a multidisciplinary approach to bullying prevention.

Leff et al. (2020) developed an educational intervention inspired by the scientific edutainment paradigm. This concept aims to integrate technology for recreational and formative purposes to provide innovative, engaging, and digitally complex educational programs. The term edutainment refers to the interaction between education and entertainment and is applied by educators for developing and promoting new skills. A similar approach was used by Saibon et al. (2017) in their development of the 2Bs program “I’m a Buddy, not a Bully.” In this intervention program, designed for adolescents, the authors integrated didactic strategies that were related to creative pedagogy. This new educational perspective aimed to apply imaginative methods that emphasize the creativity dimension of the educables by stimulating divergent thinking, openness to problem solving, recalibration of failure, and transformation of negative outcomes by changing the view of the lived experience. These dimensions ultimately facilitate the assimilation of psychological mechanisms that mitigate the impact of a bullying episode.

b. Creativity and metacognition tools in anti-bullying programs. The programs that proposed a more pronounced metacognitive approach (Donohoe & O’Sullivan, 2015; Khanolainen & Semenova, 2023; Mariani et al., 2015) focus on developing self-awareness in relation to others in simulated bullying situations or through retro-perspective and reflections of past experiences. Some programs harnessed metacognitive training to rationalize and effectively manage cognitive control in sensitive situations, thus promoting metacognition as a component that adjusts socialization skills and improves the capacity for healthy relationships.

For example, Mariani et al. (2015) proposed the student success skills (SSS) program, aimed at developing social skills and the assimilation of coping strategies, as a means for optimizing positive social interactions, combating the frequency of bullying, and involving students in activities that improve the social climate in the classroom. Regarding the structure and content of the program, an exclusive focus was not placed on metacognitive elements; yet, the authors did integrate metacognition among the three basic skills of the program: social problem solving, decision-making, and collaboration. Metacognitive skills, as a developmental premise, can be applied to set goals, monitor progress, and improve memory capacity. Closely related to the procedural component of metacognition, the authors considered the development of self-regulatory capacity: the ability to self-direct and regulate cognitive processes such as attention, motivational regulation, and negative emotions (i.e., anger management). Thus, metacognitive skills were targeted as a tool for emotional, cognitive, and motivational self-regulation and for self-reflection and monitoring—in the pursuit of goals that involve a diagnosis of one’s own strengths and self-observations of progress in improving their interpersonal skills.

To develop the metacognitive awareness capacity, some programs (e.g., those of Donohoe & O’Sullivan, 2015; Khanolainen & Semenova, 2023) proposed activities that aimed to assimilate a conscious vocabulary among participants when interpreting experiences or perspectives—as a victim, observer, or aggressor—to achieve a more comprehensive and profound view of the self and of the different instances in which one may find oneself at any given moment. In addition to the skills that were proposed for achieving such development, we can also identify aspects of the program’s content that have a strong metacognitive approach, including (1) awareness of one’s own thoughts, (2) self-management of cognitions and emotions (Mariani et al., 2015), (3) self-awareness, and (4) reflection with reference to cognitive empathy (Khanolainen & Semenova, 2023).

We also examined the creativity processes that the intervention programs aimed at instilling in the participating students; for this dimension, the analyzed articles revealed diverse components such as spontaneity, multilateral thinking, problem solving, and reinterpretation. In cases of bullying, such skills encourage adaptation and openness to a positive solution in aggressive situations, especially among victims and observers. In this context, it is important to highlight that creativity is one of the five cross-curricular thinking skills and personal capabilities that have been introduced into the scholar curricula (Warwick & Purdy, 2019). The programs analyzed in this review and that relate to creativity were found to emphasize a range of aspects, including the (1) practice of divergent thinking, (2) analysis of simulated or lived situations, (3) changing of perspectives in each instance (victim, observer, or aggressor), and (4) analysis of each view through an empathic approach. As a relevant dimension of anti-bullying programs, creativity requires new ways of thinking, the acceptance of uncertainties, and a willingness to accept failure (Saibon et al., 2017).

When examining the content of the reviewed publications, creative responsiveness was encouraged in situations of bullying, including (1) understanding the repercussions of bullying (Evgin & Bayat, 2020; Leff et al., 2020; Warwick & Purdy, 2019); (2) diversity, spontaneity, and originality in identifying solutions (Fokides, 2017; Saibon et al., 2017); (3) training non-stereotypical thinking related to bullying behaviors (Goodwin et al., 2019; Lyngstad et al., 2022); and (4) civic competencies (Hughes et al., 2019). In particular, the program that was developed by Saibon et al. (2017) stands out for its rigorous structure, including elements of imagination that were developed as a component of creativity. These include the following: (a) fluency, i.e., generating new ideas based on the concept of friendship and trust in those who are close to them; (b) flexibility, i.e., changing perspectives through theatrical means (with puppets, for example) to understand the role of the victim, the observer, and the aggressor; (c) originality, i.e., transforming into something new, such as the roleplay of bullying situations; and (d) elaboration, i.e., using roleplay to illustrate the implications of bullying on the emotional, social, and cognitive dimensions of both the victim and the bullying individual.

c. The educational training methodology applied in these anti-bullying programs. In this section, we address the didactic strategies and educational content that were covered in the analyzed publications. When discussing didactic strategies, it is important to consider the procedural structure regarding the approach to educational intervention. In other words, what is the optimal mix and organization of the available methods and resources, in line with the previously established content and objectives? Broadly speaking, we observed several strongly articulated strategies between the learning tasks related to the participants and the methods and techniques that allow their direct involvement in the proposed activities (Table 1).

Understanding the training or educational methodologies in the reviewed intervention programs is of the utmost importance since it conveys which resources were utilized, including the methods and timeframes, and how they were articulated in relation to the programs’ goals and objectives. In our analysis, we found educational methods that were based on metacognitive strategies, such as classroom lessons, booster sessions using the tell–show–do format (Mariani et al., 2015), story completion, and graphic elicitation (Khanolainen & Semenova, 2023). We also found educational methods that were based on a large variety of creative techniques, including roleplay, improvisation, brainstorming, and photographic memory techniques (Evgin & Bayat, 2020); interactive slideshow presentations, viewing bullying scenarios, and proposing prevention strategies (Goodwin et al., 2019); digital storytelling, presenting the stories, collectively developing stories, and writing short essays (Fokides, 2017); digital design, photography/videography techniques and creating digital posters and e-textiles (Hughes et al., 2019); cartooning, focus groups, and illustrations with stick figures (Warwick & Purdy, 2019); making sculptures, storytelling, dance, mannequin/puppet shows, dialog and spontaneous roleplay, videos, coloring, and collage activities (Saibon et al., 2017); interactive experience/learning video inspirations, 3D movies, and audio experiences (Leff et al., 2020); drama workshops and roleplay (Lyngstad et al., 2022); and onlooker roleplay with the involvement of popular students in the role of defender, roleplay defending with confidence, the confident behaviors exercise, and group discussions (Donohoe & O’Sullivan, 2015).

At the teaching methodology level, we found a stronger tendency toward the use of creative strategies regarding teaching methods, materials, and the structuring of the learning activities. Moreover, the researchers’ chosen methodology employed in their studies emphasizes carefully selected content in relation to the topic of bullying. This could be explained by our analysis of the specific age groups who were to participate in the developed programs, as all activities were designed for school students, especially teenagers. As such, digital or multisensory materials tended to be employed as a means for enhancing participation by appealing to this generation.

The “Free2B program”, developed by Leff et al. (2020), applies principles of scientific edutainment aimed at facilitating educational activities by involving educators in innovative programs that combine science and technology. The related activities constituted multisensory experiences for the participating students. The program also entailed the testing of the participants’ pre- and post-intervention knowledge related to bullying by using interactive handheld digital devices; the intervention entailed the broadcasting of a 3D movie that highlights the negative effects of different forms of aggression (i.e., physical, verbal, relational, and cyber). The role of the observer was especially highlighted, and the observer was perceived as someone who can mitigate the phenomenon through empathy and initiative toward both the victim and the aggressor.

Similarly, other programs combined art and technology-based techniques, integrating the concept of creative and entertaining pedagogies. The 2Bs program, “I’m a Buddy not a Bully” (Saibon et al., 2017), aimed at improving knowledge about bullying among 14–16-year-old participants. Dissemination of knowledge about the phenomenon of bullying was realized through a wide range of creative activities such as music, sculpture, poetry, acting, dance, and collage. The program was also complemented by play activities, interactive assessments, and puppet shows, illustrating various dimensions and characteristics of bullying.

Other programs focused exclusively on artistic techniques. In this category, we note the program that was developed by Khanolainen and Semenova (2023); their basic concept was depicted as a multidimensional tool that aimed to creatively develop a visual story from classic vignettes, narrative inquiry, and graphic elicitation. The proposed activities integrated the presentation of graphic vignettes/pictures or comics that convey a problematic or sensitive situation, combined with incomplete contexts related to bullying and cyberbullying. The succinct, nondetailed contextual frameworks, both in text and graphics, were designed to offer more space in which the participants can creatively develop responses. The content of the vignettes referred to specific characteristics of bullying and cyberbullying, including harassment, denigration, identity usurpation, exclusion, and abduction/abrupt departure. Participants were asked to interpret the images in words and then complete the images through drawing to identify and offer solutions. An additional stage in this program involved the verbal deliberation of experiences and perceptions of aggression in a dual (perpetrator–victim) juxtaposition.

Elements of creative digital methodologies were identified in works that included educational material in the form of digital visual representations, such as creating cartoons and illustrations (Warwick & Purdy, 2019), as well as digital posters, collages, and photo/video compilations, using apps such as PicCollage, WordSwag, and iPad Air (Hughes et al., 2019). Theatrical techniques were found to be another prevalent component among the reviewed anti-bullying educational programs. Goodwin et al. (2019), for example, designed and implemented a drama and interview-based workshop to examine adolescents’ experiences of bullying and defense strategies in bullying situations. Broadly, after being exposed to a one-act drama, focus groups were held. Following the intervention, students reported a higher awareness of the bully’s position, which demonstrates an understanding of the complexity of bullying.

By focusing on the role of the bully, the program aimed at presenting a more comprehensive picture of bullying, providing students access to a more detailed understanding of behavioral patterns and factors that lead to the initiation of aggressive acts while providing knowledge about bullying prevention strategies. Inspired by the behavioral system model, Evgin and Bayat (2020) designed a nine-session structure that includes various theater strategies such as roleplaying, improvisation, dull image, role writing, photographic memory techniques, and information cards. By involving the participants in activities that entail drama techniques, the researchers aimed to develop empathic capacity among the participants while improving their problem-solving skills in relation to bullying and victimization. Finally, our review shows that the timeframes of these educational interventions greatly varied and included 45–90 min of classroom lessons, two-hour weekly sessions, two-and-a-half-hour weekly sessions over four weeks, and even interventions of up to two months in duration.

d. Tools for evaluating the outcomes of these anti-bullying programs. Evaluations of the programs’ outcomes in the reviewed publications were conducted based on methods, instruments, expected results, and type of outcome (decreasing/understanding bullying), as seen in

Table 2. Methods for Evaluating the Outcomes of Anti-Bullying Programs.

Study	Type of Study	Methods	Outcomes	Type of Outcome
1. Evgin and Bayat (2020)	Quantitative quasi-experimental study with pre-post test and control group	Observation Evaluation of the content of activities Email tracking Data collection	Problem-solving skills Empathy skills Awareness of bullying skills Social and emotional skills Self-efficacy skills	Understanding bullying Decreasing bullying
2. Goodwin et al. (2019)	Qualitative	Observation Group interview	Empathy skills Problem-solving skills Awareness of bullying skills Social and emotional skills Teamworking skills	Understanding bullying
3. Fokides (2017)	Qualitative pilot study		Creative thinking Collaborative skills Communicative skills Flexibility Taking initiatives and leadership Problem-solving skills digital skills	Understanding bullying
4. Hughes et al. (2019)	Qualitative case study that focused on two students	Observation Assessment of creativity Technical skills and understanding of bullying based on digital and physical works created by students	Digital literacy skills Ability to troubleshoot Problem-solving skills Creative and expressive skills through digital design and art Critical thinking	Understanding bullying
5. Warwick and Purdy (2019)	Qualitative	Focus group Evaluation of cartoons and definitions	Awareness of bullying skills Critical reflection Understanding bullying behaviors	Understanding bullying
6. Mariani et al. (2015)	Quantitative	The comparison between the treatment group and comparison group Quantitative evaluation	Prosocial behaviors Bullying behaviors engagement in school success skills Perceptions of classroom climate	Understanding bullying Decreasing bullying
7. Khanolainen and Semenova (2023)	Qualitative	Exploratory and diagnostic study Follow-up interviews Individual discussions and interview Story completion, sensitive research	Students’ perceptions and experiences of bullying and cyberbullying	Understanding bullying
8. Saibon et al. (2017)	Mixed mostly quantitative and qualitative approaches (7 interviews)	Quantitative method with the support of qualitative approaches utilizing quasi-experimental design	Creativity components: fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration Knowledge of bullying among students	Understanding bullying
9. Leff et al. (2020)	Mixed-quantitative Qualitative-focus group	3 pilot studies totaling 1990 students 13 pre- and post-assembly questions	Immediate outcomes: knowledge of bullying facts, norms supporting bullying vs. prosocial behavior, attitude about the role of the observer, knowledge of social problem-solving steps, understanding empathy, and perspective taking	Understanding bullying
10. Lyngstad et al. (2022)	Qualitative case study—observations and open-ended questions	Observation of the process drama	Understanding the complexity within the situation, to deal with being themselves and in role, skills of observing others in different roles Able to experience bullying from different perspectives (teachers, students, parents), skills to cope with their insecurity or to show resistance, being more active, and taking initiative, able to show their empathy and care	Understanding bullying
11. Donohoe and O’Sullivan (2015)	Mixed	Monthly check-ups by the class teacher Follow-up sessions	Enhanced learner knowledge of the topic of bullying and the use of role play, the development of vocabulary specific to bullying	Understanding bullying

. In general, two major effects were seen: understanding bullying and reducing bullying behaviors. From this perspective, programs that helped students understand the meaning of bullying were mainly described in qualitative studies such as those by Fokides (2017), Goodwin et al. (2019), Hughes et al. (2019), Khanolainen and Semenova (2023), and Warwick and Purdy (2019); a mixed-methods approach can be seen in Saibon et al. (2017).

Applying a qualitative approach offers several advantages: (1) a focus is placed on understanding the experiences rather than on quantifying the change; (2) this approach enables in-depth exploration of the bullying phenomenon in the natural setting in which it takes place (i.e., the school); (3) this approach can be adapted to the context; (4) this approach allows an understanding of the participants’ subjective experiences; and (5) this approach provides the possibility of observing and understanding the complexity of the involved demeanor and processes. Qualitative studies achieved changes in knowledge about bullying (Fokides, 2017; Goodwin et al., 2019; Hughes et al., 2019; Khanolainen & Semenova, 2023; Lyngstad et al., 2022; Warwick & Purdy, 2019) by addressing a range of topics, including the following: (1) bullying and definitions of violence; (2) the bullying individual’s relationship with violence and bullying; (3) definitions of peer bullying; (4) roles in bullying; (5) normal peer evaluation and differences in bullying conduct; (6) causes and types of bullying; (7) characteristics of bullies and their families; (8) outcomes of bullying attitudes; and (9) tips for dealing with bullying. Changes following the intervention were also observed regarding proactive attitudes, involvement in classroom activities, and bullying prevention through proposed strategies (Goodwin et al., 2019).

Many of the observed changes were related to a large range of skills, including (1) empathy toward the victims; (2) problem solving; (3) awareness and recognition of one’s own emotions; (4) identifying types of maladaptive conduct, as well as the causes and understanding of the complexity of bullying—from the perspective of both the bully and the observer—and its underlying causes (Fokides, 2017; Goodwin et al., 2019; Lyngstad et al., 2022); (5) self-reflexive skills in a bullying situation, including how to react (Fokides, 2017); (6) the underlying causes of bullying (Lyngstad et al., 2022); (7) the medium and long term effects of bullying and sublimating negative traits uniquely and creatively (Hughes et al., 2019); and (8) prosocial skills, including empathy and how to communicate in bullying situations (Khanolainen & Semenova, 2023).

On the other hand, programs that led to a decrease in bullying behaviors were primarily described in quantitative studies (Donohoe & O’Sullivan, 2015; Evgin & Bayat, 2020; Mariani et al., 2015). These studies experimentally demonstrated the effectiveness of anti-bullying intervention programs, which led to reduced exposure to threats, suppression, physical bullying, and verbal bullying among students in the experimental group.

An additional aspect that should be considered in relation to the evaluation of the programs is the type of outcome achieved, i.e., skills and/or competencies. Broadly speaking, skills are the concrete knowledge or techniques that a person can apply in specific situations to perform a certain task. These can be acquired through education, practice, or experience and are usually measurable. Competencies, on the other hand, are a broader concept and include skills, knowledge, and attitudes. Competence refers to a person’s ability to use their skills effectively in a given context to achieve results. In addition to technical execution, it also refers to how a person applies skills in practical situations, often with some degree of responsibility and autonomy. In the publications reviewed in this study, five different types of skills were addressed, including (1) socio-emotional skills such as empathy, collaboration, communications, coping in situations of insecurity, authenticity, taking initiative and leading, supporting others in vulnerable situations, experimenting in and adapting to different social roles (teachers, students, and parents), and teamwork; (2) language skills such as formulating and using specific vocabulary in bullying situations and employing digital literacy skills; (3) cognitive skills, including perceptions of the classroom climate, observing others in different roles, understanding the complexity of the situation, comprehending bullying behaviors, acquiring knowledge about bullying, recognizing norms that support bullying, developing the ability to solve social problems, developing digital skills, becoming aware of bullying, and instilling knowledge about bullying in students; (4) creative skills, as well as expressive skills, conveyed through digital design and art, creative thinking, fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration; and (5) metacognitive skills, including critical reflection and thinking, problem solving, self-efficacy, and success. Finally, our review indicates that the most consistent results were seen in the sphere of socio-emotional and cognitive skills, although the strategies that were applied in the various programs stemmed from the spheres of creative pedagogy, fun pedagogy, and maker pedagogy.

5. Discussion

The purpose of this paper was to investigate the concepts of metacognition and creativity associated with bullying behaviors. More specifically, we focused our attention on analyzing intervention programs aimed at students that sought to develop creative and metacognitive skills as strengths in behaviors that prevent and combat school bullying. Following the PRISMA procedure, we included 11 articles in the systematic review. The examination of the papers was carried out with four research objectives in consideration. First, we examined the theoretical foundations that justified the choice of anti-bullying applications and tools within the programs. Second, we focused on analyzing the frequency of use of creative and metacognitive strategies. A thorough examination of how these strategies were integrated was the next point in our work. Finally, we turned our attention to evaluating the effectiveness of these intervention programs focused on metacognition and creativity and, more specifically, the impact that they have demonstrated.

Regarding the first research question, we found that the anti-bullying programs included in our review are largely based on the idea of innovative pedagogy and integrate concepts from different fields. However, there is little consensus on the definition of this term. As Smith (2011) noted, defining innovation in pedagogy is a “vague and slippery” task. The concept of pedagogical innovation, closely linked to innovative and creative teaching, refers to the process of promoting creative learning by implementing methods, tools, and content that enhance students’ learning experiences and harness their creative potential (Ciolan et al., 2021; Ferrari et al., 2009). The term innovative pedagogy is increasingly used in relation to learning outcomes—such as knowledge, skills, responsibility, autonomy, attitudes, and values—that prepare students to thrive in a complex world. Applying new pedagogical perspectives to the issue of bullying offers promising opportunities for restructuring educational interventions. In this sense, we can say that adopting this vision is consistent with current demands for restructuring the trajectory of students’ learning experiences. Man et al. (2022) argued this point after analyzing data provided by the 34 OECD partner countries following the 2018 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) report. The authors emphasized the need for interdisciplinary programs that focus primarily on students’ attitudes toward bullying. These suggestions are also implemented in the programs we investigated. The approaches emphasize the importance of impactful learning experiences, shaped by environmental and contextual factors, as well as the strategies used—factors that can influence attitudes and perceptions of bullying as a real and urgent problem. Such pedagogical innovations aim to transform knowledge into practice by promoting the development of skills, such as creativity and metacognition, through interactive and immersive experiences that encourage civic engagement and self-awareness.

Following the thread of our analysis, the next two objectives focused on the methodology applied in educational programs. We looked at how common these are regarding frequency, as well as their specific characteristics. The analysis conducted in this systematic review indicates that bullying prevention programs integrating metacognitive elements generally emphasize reflective skills and increase self-awareness regarding the bullying phenomenon. Although self-regulation is also addressed, it tends to receive less attention. Previous research has demonstrated that metacognitive processes, such as reflection, awareness, and self-regulation, can modify thought patterns (e.g., Cécillon et al., 2024; Strand et al., 2024; Thingbak et al., 2024). These findings suggest that metacognitive components may play a key role not only in shaping attitudes toward victims and perpetrators but also in influencing the wider social environment—including families, schools, peers, and communities—potentially contributing to a reduction in bullying behaviors (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Espelage & Swearer, 2004). Strengthening awareness, reflective processing, and self-regulation could therefore support bystanders and other members of the school community in recognizing the severity of bullying incidents and intervening more effectively.

Furthermore, creativity can be conceptualized from two complementary perspectives: first, as creative pedagogy, which uses innovative methods to enhance student engagement, and second, as a set of skills cultivated in students themselves. The creativity-based programs examined in this review emphasized both dimensions: teaching creatively (using drama, storytelling, and digital tools) (Lyngstad et al., 2022; Fokides, 2017; Hughes et al., 2019) and teaching for creativity (developing students’ abilities in problem solving, divergent thinking, and spontaneity) (Fokides, 2017; Goodwin et al., 2019; Evgin & Bayat, 2020; Leff et al., 2020). This dual focus suggests that creativity-oriented approaches have the potential not only to make learning more engaging but also to equip students with the cognitive flexibility needed to navigate and respond to complex social situations such as bullying.

Although the approach of the two highlights the innovative and integrated nature of teaching, it can be observed that most anti-bullying programs have included creativity much more frequently and explicitly than metacognition. The creative activities, such as roleplaying, interactive theater, digital storytelling, cartooning, game modding, or artistic activities (story completion, sculpture performance, dance, mannequin/puppet act), were frequently used to stimulate student engagement and enable them to understand the different perspectives involved in bullying situations (Warwick & Purdy, 2019; Fokides, 2017; Saibon et al., 2017; Lyngstad et al., 2022). On the other hand, metacognitive components were addressed in four studies (Warwick & Purdy, 2019; Evgin & Bayat, 2020; Goodwin et al., 2019; Lyngstad et al., 2022) through activities involving reflection, observation, and perspective-taking. This shows that these components are not systematically integrated as a teaching strategy. This discrepancy suggests the need for a more explicit implementation of metacognition in anti-bullying educational programs to support the development of students’ self-analysis, self-reflection, and self-regulation skills. The methods used highlight the potential of creative and metacognitive abilities, but prospects related to metacognition can be further enhanced. Some research (e.g., that of Gini et al., 2019; Cheruvalath & Gaude, 2023; Nacimiento Rodríguez & Mora-Merchán, 2014) provides relevant evidence on the integration of reflective capacity and the training of victims’ cognitive regulation skills in cases of distress or more complex situations such as rumination, low self-esteem, or anxiety after episodes of bullying.

In the end, in line with the last research question, our analysis revealed differences related to research design. Six of the included publications were qualitative (Fokides, 2017; Goodwin et al., 2019; Hughes et al., 2019; Khanolainen & Semenova, 2023; Lyngstad et al., 2022; Warwick & Purdy, 2019), whereas five used quantitative or mixed-methods approaches (Donohoe & O’Sullivan, 2015; Evgin & Bayat, 2020; Leff et al., 2020; Mariani et al., 2015; Saibon et al., 2017). The qualitative studies primarily explored conceptual understanding—such as how students define bullying, the perceived roles of support systems (e.g., teachers, peers, parents), and the psychosocial consequences of bullying—providing rich insights into students’ experiences and perceptions. In contrast, the quantitative and mixed-methods studies focused more on outcome measures, with most reporting a measurable decrease in bullying incidents following program implementation. This convergence of findings strengthens confidence that creative and metacognitive approaches are associated with meaningful improvements, though causal claims must be made cautiously given the limited number of randomized controlled studies.

Broadly speaking, these results align with previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which have consistently demonstrated that bullying prevention programs contribute to reductions in bullying behavior (e.g., those of Evans et al., 2014; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). However, the present review advances this body of work by moving beyond the question of whether such interventions are effective to explore why and how they work. While earlier reviews primarily assessed program outcomes or the effectiveness of specific behavioral or cognitive–behavioral strategies, this study offers an integrative explanatory model that situates creativity and metacognition as interdependent mechanisms driving change. By synthesizing findings across diverse methodological traditions and intervention types, the current review identifies reflective awareness, self-regulation, and creative engagement as foundational processes that enable the internalization of prosocial values and the transfer of learning across contexts. This perspective shifts the focus from short-term behavioral modification toward a deeper understanding of the cognitive and imaginative capacities that sustain long-term empathy, agency, and social responsibility. In doing so, this review provides a novel conceptual bridge between educational psychology and creativity research, positioning the integration of metacognitive and creative pedagogies as a distinctive, evidence-informed direction for future anti-bullying interventions.

Our study has several important limitations. First and foremost, the very small number of studies ultimately included in the review (n = 11) substantially limits the breadth of the evidence base and reduces the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn. Accordingly, the findings should be interpreted with caution and should not be generalized to all anti-bullying programs; any policy or practice implications should be considered preliminary. Second, many of the included studies relied on self-reported data, which may be subject to social desirability bias, and several used small or convenience samples, further constraining the generalizability of the findings. In addition, the limited number of randomized controlled trials among the reviewed studies restricts the strength of causal inferences. Third, the review did not quantify the magnitude of program effects using meta-analytic techniques; rather, it focused on description, comparison, and conceptual synthesis. Finally, we did not examine in depth how cultural context might influence program implementation and outcomes—an issue that future research should address through cross-cultural designs and culturally sensitive measures. Despite these limitations, the review offers a preliminary conceptual framework for integrating creative and metacognitive strategies into anti-bullying programs and underscores the need for larger, more rigorous, and culturally diverse studies to strengthen the evidence base.

6. Conclusions, Practical Implications, and Future Research

Although there are an extensive number of publications in the literature on bullying and related prevention and intervention programs in schools, it remains important to clarify which skills should be prioritized and developed to reduce students’ engagement in harmful behaviors (Amadori et al., 2023). In the systematic review presented in this study, we focused on two 21st-century skills: creativity and metacognition. While their contributions to teaching and learning are well documented, evidence regarding their impact on bullying prevention is still limited and warrants further investigation. Educators and researchers may therefore wish to explore the integration and evaluation of metacognitive strategies and creative approaches in anti-bullying programs to better understand their potential benefits.

Over the past two decades, the field of creative pedagogies and teaching for creativity has grown substantially, producing a growing body of empirical research and conceptual frameworks. This review contributes by drawing attention to how creative and metacognitive approaches might be combined to support bullying prevention. These insights could guide teachers, administrators, and policymakers in developing educational practices that foster students’ reflective and creative capacities. However, given the current evidence base, any implications for practice or policy should be viewed as tentative and used primarily to inform future program design and research rather than to prescribe broad interventions.

Finally, fostering creativity and metacognition in anti-bullying programs has the potential to enrich students’ learning experiences, encourage active engagement, and promote a more supportive school climate. Future initiatives could examine how these approaches function across different cultural and institutional contexts and assess their long-term effects on school climate, peer relationships, and the prevalence of bullying behaviors. Through the systematic analysis conducted, we found that there are no integrative conceptual models which aim to create an explanatory theoretical framework for how innovative pedagogical approaches leverage the use of a methodology that integrates creative and metacognitive strategies. The existence of such a framework allows for the design, implementation, and adaptation of prevention and intervention practices by different institutions, included in anti-bullying programs.

Building on the findings of this review, future programs could experiment with restructuring strategies that integrate creative approaches and metacognitive skill development. The evidence synthesized here may serve as a foundation for developing a conceptual framework in which metacognition and creativity are considered fundamental components of anti-bullying programs for students of different ages (see Figure 2). Such a framework could guide both the design of new interventions and the refinement of existing ones, while providing a basis for future empirical studies to evaluate their effectiveness across diverse educational contexts.

At the same time, the proposed conceptual framework should be analyzed from two perspectives: the theoretical perspective (which clarifies the unified integration of creative and metacognitive strategies in approaches associated with innovative methodology and the constructivist approach) and the practical perspective (which requires operationalizations of the concepts at the level of prevention and intervention practices in anti-bullying programs). Both perspectives can facilitate new themes for interdisciplinary research, the development of content to inform educational policy decisions at the institutional level, and the creation of methodological guidelines for teachers involved in implementing educational programs or projects that integrate anti-bullying prevention or intervention activities.

According to this conceptual framework, anti-bullying programs may benefit from being informed by constructivist learning theory, which views students as active participants in the learning process and educators as facilitators who support the discovery and integration of meaning into cognitive structures. This interpretation aligns with patterns identified across the reviewed studies, several of which emphasized participatory and experiential learning processes that engage students actively in understanding and addressing bullying. Two central theoretical and practical dimensions emerging from this review are creativity and metacognition, which appear to work synergistically. In several studies, creative and reflective activities were implemented together, suggesting that this combination may promote self-awareness, empathy, and collaborative problem solving. Creativity may help students generate diverse and original solutions to challenging situations, whereas metacognition involves awareness of emotions and thoughts, fostering self-regulation and reflection. Based on the reviewed evidence, these two dimensions seem to complement one another and may help students approach bullying situations in more thoughtful and constructive ways.

Creativity, which is often described as a dynamic and context-dependent construct (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009; Plucker et al., 2004), may be enhanced through pedagogies that encourage problem solving (activities such as improvisation, investigation, case studies, collaborative projects, and campaigns promoting respect, diversity, and tolerance), spontaneity and expression (creative writing, roleplaying, forum theater, or techniques from the theater of the oppressed such as rainbow of desire or invisible theater), and personal expression (through art, music, video, or podcasts), as well as multidimensional and divergent thinking (scenario analysis, idea generation exercises, and socio-emotional activities that encourage perspective-taking and empathy). Teaching for creativity might also involve designing curricula that provide safe, inclusive spaces where students feel free to experiment, explore, and collaborate (Maor, 2025). Although the specific approaches varied, several studies indicated that such student-centered environments can enhance engagement and support moral reflection, potentially enabling students to generate and test innovative responses to bullying-related challenges.

The reviewed studies also suggest that metacognitive processes play a role in bullying prevention. Self-reflection, self-monitoring, and self-assessment appear to support cognitive, emotional, and behavioral regulation. Program elements could include helping students identify different forms of bullying, practice coping strategies after incidents, resolve peer conflicts, and strengthen empathic communication and civic competencies. Overall, the findings indicate that metacognitive strategies may enhance students’ ability to regulate emotions and behavior, though the evidence remains limited and should be interpreted cautiously.

Learning contexts inspired by constructivist principles may provide opportunities for experimentation, analysis, and emotional expression, thereby reinforcing student-centered learning. The reviewed evidence suggests that such contexts can help students reflect on their experiences and consider social issues from multiple perspectives, which may contribute to empathy and critical awareness. Innovative approaches, such as formative analytics, teachback, place-based learning, and citizen inquiry (Herodotou et al., 2019), could be further explored as frameworks that promote metacognitive engagement within anti-bullying programs. Creative and metacognitive tools—such as drama, storytelling, digital media, and cartoons—offer flexibility and may allow programs to be tailored to participants’ needs, providing authentic contexts in which to practice these skills. Overall, this conceptual framework is grounded in the reviewed evidence and should be viewed as a tentative synthesis that may guide future theoretical development and program design.

Finally, the findings of this review suggest that future research could examine how metacognitive awareness and self-regulation interact with creativity to enhance resilience, behavioral control, and prosocial behavior among both victims and perpetrators of bullying. Programs developed within this conceptual framework may benefit from co-creative processes involving interdisciplinary teams—teachers, school counselors, researchers, NGOs, and other stakeholders—to ensure contextual relevance and effective implementation.