That class was very lively.

In general, the students correctly predicted the very negative effects of bullying on victims (lifelong psychological scarring) and the fact that shy or quiet children were often targeted — those who couldn’t fight back or were afraid, especially among girls.

But they did not predict the high rate of later criminal behavior among bullies. Sometimes students got “leadership” and bullying mixed up. Nor did they predict the studies revealing that bullies of both sexes were quite often victimized, beaten, or denigrated in their own homes.

The interesting point for everyone was how much this problem preoccupied people in all countries. In some countries, students committed suicide when they did not do well enough in school to please their families or were shamed in front of fellow students. In other places, it was tied to dating and rivalries among girls.

One question to research was how to prevent or stop bullying. The students were very skeptical about the “conflict resolution peer groups” used in many high schools in the U.S. today. They were interested in the fact that such efforts existed here while in most countries the problem is ignored. However, they doubted that anything could be done.

Next year, I would like to invite a speaker from one of these groups to speak to the students. This was a very lively discussion and in addition to fluency practice, we learned a lot of new vocabulary and a lot about each other’s countries and culture.

Almost all the students remembered some positive experiences learning about friendship or loyalty or how to get along with others. But students from all nine countries, from Western Europe to Eastern Europe to Asia and Latin America, remembered incidents of bullying as they grew up.

They said it was rampant and were very shocked to hear that it had not been a major problem in past generations. Now it seems ubiquitous. Each student (sadly) gave examples of bullying and the worst seemed to be among girls. We practiced indirect speech and paraphrasing by having another student summarize what had just been said and we compared experiences.

This gave an interesting background for what most of my students did not at first understand: home schooling. Put in this context – as a possible reaction to bullying and other negative influences — the home schooling movement from Reading One became less completely strange to them.

How have you all handled discussions of bullying with your students?

All of these discussions gave the students a little taste of university courses on Media Studies. We made a list of the kinds of things people criticize in the press:

• news companies want to make profits and they like sensational stories (like the NorthStar story about coverage of the bombing suspect)
• sometimes they print things without being sure of the evidence
• they are too intrusive in people’s private lives, particularly politicians (Gennifer Flowers in the NorthStar story)
• they give too much time to stars and athletes
• they only talk about what’s good for their own country

What do yours students think of the press? Do these issues come up in class? How do you usually structure the discussions and activities?

We also discussed libel laws in different countries. In the U.S., if you are considered a “public figure” a libel verdict is very hard to prove since it is assumed that you put yourself forward and have to take the consequences of the “free market of ideas.” In other countries, the question of libel is more narrowly defined.

This was a very challenging listening for the students BUT I played only the first 7 minutes of the interview. Then I allowed them to read the interactive transcript provided by the program. We listened again and discussed the answers to my comprehension questions in groups. 

Here are the exercises I used.

The students really got into the discussion.

One student said he thought journalists were killed in some countries (including his own) because they told lies. Another student asked him why anyone would kill reporters because they told lies. It seemed more likely that they were telling a truth that powerful people didn’t want to hear.

Lots of silence after that exchange.

Some students defended censorship on the internet “because young people can be influenced to do bad things.” The idea of being able to “make up your own mind” and having access to information was discussed –“the right to know.” In a dictatorship, it doesn’t matter whether the average citizen is well-informed. In fact, it’s better for government control if they are not.

These discussions have been great for getting students to really engage with the language and use new words and expressions. What lessons have you created that got students’ interest?