本研究旨在探究不同介入方式對於職前教師校園霸凌辨識能力之影響，包 含1.5 小時霸凌辨識訓練（第一組）、僅有定義（第二組）、定義與特徵要件檢 覈表（第三組）三種方式。研究對象為427 位職前教師，其皆參與前後測情境 式霸凌個案辨識問卷施測，以確認訓練介入成效。問卷資料主要經由混合模式 二因子變異數分析法分析。結果顯示：經介入後，第一組職前教師之霸凌情境 正確辨識得分顯著高於第二組、第三組、及控制組，效果量分別為.88、.82、.91； 同時第一組職前教師對霸凌情境之過分警戒類型的錯誤辨識得分顯著低於第 二組、第三組、控制組，效果量分別為-.95、-.59、-.90；而第二組、第三組、 控制組職前教師於霸凌情境正確辨識得分與過分警戒類型之錯誤辨識得分間 則未存有顯著差異。關於霸凌辨識，本研究發現僅提供書面霸凌定義與特徵並 無法收立竿見影之效，建議仍需透過霸凌防制專業訓練方可進一步提升其辨識 成效。

This study aimed to investigate whether different types of interventions could enhance preservice teachers’ ability to identify bullying incidents. Participants included 427 preservice teachers in Taiwan who were assigned to four groups. The first group received a 1.5-hour training on bullying identification; The second group was given a written definition of bullying and its features. The third group received a written definition with a checklist of three bullying characteristics. The fourth group, the control group, was not given information on bullying. Pretest–posttest designs were employed in this study. The results of the mixed-model two-way ANOVA analysis indicated that the preservice teachers in the first group had significantly higher correct identification scores than those in the second group (d = .88), the third group (d = .82), and the control group (d = .91). Moreover, those in the first group had significantly lower incorrect identification scores than those in the second group (d = -.95), the third group (d = -.59), and the control group (d = -.90). There was no significant difference among the correct and incorrect identification scores of the second group, the third group, and the control group. This study suggests that administrators and policymakers should provide bullying identification training for preservice teachers, rather than merely offer the definition and characteristics of school bullying.