The problem that gave rise to this study is that the management of school coexistence is currently based on punitive models that use sanctions and punishments to resolve conflict situations (Torrego, 2006; Dávila Balsera & Naya, 2023). In some cases, the procedures that structure and configure such management are not studied in depth.

Therefore, the central objective of this research was to characterize aspects of the management of school coexistence in public educational institutions in the city of Montería, through the lived experiences of the teaching directors and school counselors involved in the coexistence processes. It should be clarified that the management of school coexistence is considered a fundamental mediating component to efficiently and effectively face the conflict situations that arise in any educational community (Rioseco & Barría, 2021) and should focus on the analysis of the behaviors, experiences, expressions, emotions, and feelings of students, articulated with the regulations and their good attitude towards coexistence, in such a way that school violence or the elements related to it are reduced.

School coexistence is defined as «the action of living with others in the school context peacefully and harmoniously» (Ministerio de Educación Nacional [MEN], 2014, p. 25); Furthermore, it is conceived as a product of the interactions of the members of the educational community, which is structured as a group and dynamically, and changes over time as these interactions change (Rivera et al., 2017). This coexistence includes a continuous construction involving learning in conflict regulation, respect, and collective agreement in the face of different situations (Sandoval, as cited in Cantor, 2018). Coexistence is one of the four pillars of education, as expressed by Delors (1996): «learning to live together» (p. 16). Therefore, coexistence constitutes one of the most important aspects of school activities, complementing each other and academics to comprehensively educate the individual (Nova, 2021).

However, schools are a likely place for conflicts to arise; in these cases, teachers are the first to be called upon to mediate and help students according to each situation and the current regulations. However, the formulation of action plans to direct and organize all the necessary frameworks for an adequate school climate falls to school leaders (Molina, 2023). Thus, according to the MEN (2014), coordinators must promote and foster healthy coexistence and an appropriate climate in the educational institution, under the regulations, rights and duties, incentives, and other rules established in the Coexistence Manual. In this context, it is noted that coordinators generally manage many processes and pay more attention to academics, since educational institutions are measured by the results of external and internal tests, rather than by healthy coexistence. In this sense, the management of coexistence sometimes takes a back seat.

For their part, school counselors play a crucial role in managing school coexistence, as they provide different psychological approaches through which cases can be treated systemically and professionally, recognizing elements that act as protective factors related to comprehensive training (Soto, 2022). According to the MEN (2014), counselors must contribute to harmonious coexistence and promote effective communication and participation in the school community. From their role, they must include integration into institutional processes and application of psychosocial care protocols and routes, establishing timely alerts to develop comprehensive care strategies, and designing plans aimed at preventing psychosocial risks and social problems that affect students.

However, school counselors often lack the support of teachers, parents, and government agencies to monitor students or intervene in situations of social exclusion that warrant it. In addition, in Colombia, the ratio of students to counselors is 1:500, which means that each professional is assigned at least 500 students, and in many cases, this number is exceeded, which overloads them with work and makes it difficult to manage social distancing.

From this perspective, it is worth examining what happens to social actors such as the coordinator and the school counselor, who are part of the phenomenon under study and are protagonists of the educational dynamics and participants in the management of school coexistence. In the study of school coexistence, the focus is generally on teachers and students, and their actions within the coexistence processes are given less importance. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the perspective of the educational reality of teaching directors and school counselors regarding the management of school coexistence.

According to the MEN (2014), there are four relevant actions to manage coexistence in schools: prevention, attention, promotion, and monitoring of conflict situations, constituting the comprehensive care route for coexistence in schools. In particular, coexistence management is a relevant factor in the school context and refers to promoting and maintaining a stable, inclusive, and respectful environment. Its basic objective is to promote harmonious coexistence, cultivate life skills, and pay attention to and monitor problems to prevent conflicts from leading to violence in schools (Molina-Isaza & Nova-Herrera, 2023).

Violence in schools has become a widely studied topic (Galtung, 1998.; Cedeño, 2020), complex, and interesting (Herrera & Frausto, 2021), important at the state level and of concern to the educational community (Saucedo & Guzmán, 2018), It is generated by the inadequate resolution of conflicts due to differences and different positions that are not accepted by the parties (Galtung, 1998). This problem is common in schools, since there is always the possibility of conflict when interacting with others.

In Colombia, by 2023, 70% of students reported having experienced some type of violence at school (Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social, 2023). This index poses challenges to education, its management, and the institutions that drive the processes of coexistence in schools, including the actors involved in the educational reality under study.

Focus and design

Qualitative approach, with an interpretive phenomenological design. For Sandín (2003), this is a methodological task that aims at a deeper understanding of social and educational phenomena, the transformation of socioeducational situations and practices, decisionmaking, and the discovery and formation of an organized structure of knowledge. The fundamental purpose of this type of research, according to Duque and Aristizábal (2019), is that there is a tendency to focus on experiences that acquire a particular meaning, some of which are unusual and have a unique experiential value for those who experience them. In addition, qualitative methods and instruments offer a more comprehensive perspective on social phenomena that are relevant to reality and allow for deeper conclusions to be drawn (Alegre, 2022).

In other words, this study sought to interpret, from the experiences, thoughts, practices, and perspectives of school directors, coordinators, and school counselors, the management of school coexistence and the ways of managing school coexistence —analysis categories— (see Table 1).

Table 1

Categories and subcategories of analysis

Note. Based on Molina (2022).

Sample and participating actors

The sample of voluntary participants in the research consisted of six coordinating directors of education, all of them men, and six school counselors, five of them women, for a total of twelve people whose professions are related to the fields of administration, education, psychology, or related fields. According to Sandín (2003), this is an acceptable sample, since qualitative studies usually involve between five and twenty-five participants. The coordinating teachers and school counselors who participated in the interview met the following inclusion criteria 1) permanence in the educational institution for more than three years; 2) directs the coexistence and discipline of the institution within their functions; 3) willingness to provide the forms or documents necessary for the study; 4) the place where they work has the basic secondary and middle level; 5) willingness to respond to the interview. Regarding the exclusion criteria, only two were considered: 1) having less than three years in the institution and 2) not having among their functions, the care of coexistence (see Table 2).

Table 2

Sample of volunteer study participants

For a better understanding of the results, the ID identities were organized using distinctive letters and a sequential number as follows: 1) the first two identification units represent the position: Principal (DD), School Counselor (OE); 2) the third unit corresponds to the gender: male (M) or female (F); and 3) the fourth unit corresponds to a consecutive number of the respondents.

Data Collection Techniques and Instruments

The methodological approaches used in this study are based on the contributions of Creswell (cited in Sandín, 2003). Participants were asked to describe their experiences through an in-depth interview using a semi-structured questionnaire (see Table 3).

Table 3

Questions in each study subcategory

Figure

Note. Based on Molina (2022).

On the other hand, a qualitative content analysis was carried out, as it is a «research technique that aims to formulate, from certain data, reproducible and valid conclusions that can be applied to their context» (Krippendorff, 1980/1990, p. 28). The qualitative documentary review was applied to the formats and protocols used to deal with situations of conflict, indiscipline, or cases of pupils misbehaving and hindering an environment conducive to learning and social interaction, which are also evidence of systematic and progressive work to improve coexistence in the school.

Stages of the investigation

The development of the methodology was carried out based on what was proposed by Duque and Aristizábal (2019) (see Figura 1).

Figure 1

Stages of the interpretive phenomenological study

In the first phase, the focus was on the educational institutions and the principals and counselors to be interviewed. In the second stage, the central research questions were formulated: What are the characteristics of school coexistence management in public educational institutions inMontería? And what are the ways of managing school coexistence in public educational institutions in Montería? These determined the organization of the questionnaire questions, which were submitted to an expert for evaluation. The third stage focused on data collection, through a semistructured interview with school coordinators and counselors.

In the fourth step, the interviews were transcribed using different methods, and significant aspects were also noted. Subsequently, emerging themes or codes were identified, considering their importance and frequency in the responses, which were grouped according to their relationships (Hernández et al., 2014). A table was also created, bearing in mind the overarching themes and the themes grouped into subcategories according to their relationships. The emerging themes were derived from the data analysis, which prompted discussions and interpretations that contrasted with the frame of reference used in this study (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Management of school coexistence

This approach enriched the process and minimized bias in the data. Internal reliability, consistent with the first research objective, was demonstrated in the results obtained through data triangulation (Molina, 2022), which involved contrasting information and methods. These comparisons proved useful in limiting the impact of inappropriate extrapolations and hasty conclusions.

In the fifth stage, the results were written up, and narrated according to the emerging themes found, and some examples of the stories of the participating actors were captured. In the final stage, the contribution of the approach was evaluated and a phenomenological report of the results was presented.

The results of a qualitative study using phenomenological approaches are presented. The first finding relates to the general characteristics of a school coexistence management model in public educational institutions in the city of Montería; the second finding relates to the coexistence management procedures related to the management of conflict situations.

1. Characteristics of school coexistence management

The management of coexistence in schools was characterized by subcategories of analysis according to the perspective of school coordinators and counselors, who shared their experiences on the relevance of managing coexistence, preventing and addressing school conflicts, promoting healthy coexistence in schools, and monitoring school conflicts (see Tables 4, 5, 6 y 7).

Table 4

Relevance

FigureFigure

Table 5

Prevention

Table 6

Attention

Table 7

Promotion

Table 8

Monitoring

2. Coexistence management procedures related to the handling of conflict situations

By reviewing the documents of the formats used to deal with conflict situations, it is possible to verify actions demonstrating the management of coexistence within educational institutions through two defined procedures: 1) attention to school conflicts, and 2) monitoring of school conflicts.

Attention to school conflicts

The procedures for dealing with situations that affect coexistence in Colombia are based on the response path provided for in Law 1620 of 2013 y su Decree 1965 of 2013. This law presents three types of situations: Type I, Type II, and Type III. In educational institutions, Type I situations are generally handled in the classroom by teachers, who give a verbal warning; however, if the student recurs, the coordinator takes the case based on a prior report from the teacher. In addition, in the case of school violence, any teacher, principal, or counselor can reprimand students or mediate the conflict.

If conflicts remain unresolved and violence occurs through physical, psychological, or verbal aggression, if it is systematic, the conflicts will be addressed by the Coordination Team and referred to the School Counselor. If there is physical harm without disability or cyber-related harm, they become Type II situations and are referred to an appropriate government agency depending on the severity. In these cases, the Care Route Protocols will be considered following the law.

If the condition is a Type III situation, it is immediately referred to the government agencies responsible for the safety of children and adolescents. In this case, the following documentation must be provided: cohabitation situation forms, dialogue protocols, educational sanction forms, and disciplinary commitment forms. It should be noted that the names of each form vary from institution to institution, but their purpose is the same: to improve the student’s behavior. In terms of care, parents should be informed of the situation their children are facing, as they play a very important role in reinforcing positive behaviors at home (see Figura 3).

Figure 3

Procedimiento de atención

Note. Based on Molina (2022).

Monitoring school conflicts

The follow-up procedures are based on dealing with conflict situations; they differ from these in that the problem is reviewed periodically; generally, they deal with Type II and III situations. In addition, the intervention of the school counselor is more frequent and depends on the commitments made by students and parents, whose purpose is to guarantee the rights of children and adolescents through due process.

This process is characterized by two important aspects: first, the role of the principal and the school counselor in inquiring about their behavior, their daily life at school, and the situations they face in their family and social environment; in other words, the willingness to continuously monitor students with behavioral, emotional, or psychological difficulties so that they improve; second, the responsibility to keep forms or documents that demonstrate the monitoring of situations (see Figure 4).

Figure 4

Monitoring conflict situations

Note. Based on Molina (2022).

The documents used in this context are the Observer or Cumulative Record, the Monitoring Form, and the Conditional Enrollment Form. The Observer or Cumulative Record is designed to provide periodic or repeated descriptions throughout the year of the student’s academic and social life, throughout his or her stay at the institution. That is, it can accumulate information from several years, including monitoring, support, involvement, strengths and weaknesses, and in some cases, physical and psychological aspects; for example, height, weight, disability, etc. Another important aspect is that it contains relevant information about the parents or guardians, such as their details, occupation, and profession.

The follow-up forms specify the student’s repeat offenses and aspects such as commitments and the guardian’s signature to ensure due process. Conditional enrollment forms are the coordinator’s last resort since after the entire coexistence process, carried out with the school counselor in the company of the guardian or parent, this form is legalized under the provisions of the Coexistence Manual and with the support and decision of the Coexistence Committee. This form informs the guardian of the student’s behavior; if the inappropriate behavior continues, the conditional enrollment will be canceled.

When studying the management of coexistence in schools from the perspective of school principals and school counselors and after triangulating the information (Molina, 2022), it can be noted that the authors focus their studies on aspects that structure the management of coexistence. From this perspective, it can be noted that there are models of coexistence management that focus on addressing punitive, relational, and integrated conflict situations (Torrego, 2006). Sullivan (cited in Martín et al., 2003), in addition to the punitive, includes consequences and feelings.

For his part, Morales (2022) focuses on the management of coexistence on due process in a circle of dialogue that seeks to guarantee respect for human beings and their rights. However, the reality is that there is no defined model in educational institutions; management has limitationsthat depend on external agents and generally respond to sanctioning actions and the social environment and its problems, and not to a programmed or directed planning.

On the other hand, some authors frame the management of coexistence in aspects of promotion and prevention, which are generally characterized by being formative (Canchila and Pacheco, 2021; Briceño, 2024; Carvajal and Acebedo, 2019), and directed relating to being, ethics and values, the construction of peace, and citizenship.

Molina (2022), from the emotional approach, considers that the components of attention, promotion, prevention, and monitoring of conflict situations are not mutually exclusive, but rather complementary; she gives equal importance to all the processes that influence the management of coexistence to address conflict situations and reduce violence in schools.

Likewise, Saavedra (2024) explains that in addition to punitive and formative approaches, there are also managerial ones, that is, management actions in directing school coexistence, such as the application of the Plan, Do, Check, Act —PDCA— cycle (Lombana, 2016) ) and the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) model (Ortiz-Padilla et al., 2018), which seek to improve school coexistence systemically. Although educational institutions carry out activities with the same objective of mitigating violence, they are not always part of institutional plans, which shows a lack of management, given the absence of clear objectives and indicators, targets, and evaluation of their impact on school coexistence.

The following aspects define the management of coexistence in schools: 1) it includes elements of management, planning, implementation, evaluation, and monitoring that strengthen peaceful coexistence; 2) it is based on norms, rules, and laws that regulate student behavior and the interaction educational community; 3) it formalizes management procedures through documents to ensure due process; 4) it has goals, objectives, and indicators that continuously improve school coexistence; 5) it is flexible according to the coexistence needs of students and changes in the social environment; and 6) it has a defined approach: ethical-moral, socio-emotional, restorative justice, citizenship, and peace, conflict mediation, democratic participation or punitive and inclusive.

The management of school coexistence in educational institutions is more closely related to the attention and monitoring of school conflicts by school coordinators and counselors since conflict situations between students will always occur. However, it cannot be ignored that prevention and promotion are also important because they can save lives. While counselors and coordinators observe improvements in school climate, they lack indicators to corroborate this information. In addition, they lack clear statistics on the use of psychoactive substances among adolescents, bullying, classroom disruptions, inappropriate behavior, and disrespect for teachers, which demonstrates a lack of systematic understanding of the progress made in school coexistence. This progress is generally measured in terms of students’ reactions to the various activities carried out at school.

One of the management strategies directly related to resolving conflicts between students in educational institutions is the monitoring and follow-up of conflict situations. In conflict resolution, sanctions are still used as a correction, that is, they are punitive. However, other measures are taken to improve the fraternity between those involved in such situations, which is further strengthened through structured training in values, peace, citizenship, democratic participation, and interaction with others.

It’s worth noting that guidance goes hand in hand with school coordination. In the management of coexistence, these bodies complement each other in resolving conflict situations and helping students to complete their educational projects. Both coordinators and guidance counselors are aware of the importance of coexistence for the educational community; therefore, whenever necessary, they jointly develop various strategies, plans, and activities aimed at promoting healthy coexistence.

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest that could affect the publication.

For the qualitative research, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the principals, coordinators, and school counselors who were of legal age and who signed an informed consent form for the collection of data.

Alegre, M. A. (2022). Aspectos relevantes en las técnicas e instrumentos de recolección de datos en la investigación cualitativa. Una reflexión conceptual [Relevant aspects of data collection techniques and instruments in qualitative research. A conceptual reflection]. Población y Desarrollo, 28(54), 93-100. https://doi.org/10.18004/pdfce/2076-054x/2022.028.54.093

Briceño, C. E. (2024). Convivencia escolar. Perspectivas desde la orientación educativa [School coexistence: Perspectives from an educational orientation]. Tsafiqui, Revista Científica en Ciencias Sociales, 14(1), 7-25. https://doi.org/10.29019/tsafiqui.v14i22.1171

Canchila, O. L. & Pacheco, M. C. (2021). Convivencia escolar desde la pedagogía de paz: estrategia didáctica a través de la lúdica [School coexistence from a pedagogy of peace: a didactic strategy through play]. Assensus, 6(11), 108-117. https://revistas.unicordoba.edu.co/index.php/assensus/article/view/2716

Cantor, J. J. (2018). “Aula-ciudad”: una apuesta para pensar la convivencia y la ciudadanía en la escuela [“Classroom-City”: A challenge to thinking about coexistence and citizenship in schools]. Ciudad Paz-Ando, 11(2), 72-83. https://doi.org/10.14483/2422278x.13278

Carvajal, W. & Acebedo, M. J. (2019). La prevención del conflicto en la gestión de la convivencia en ambientes escolares [Conflict prevention in the management of coexistence in school environments]. Revista TEMAS, 3(13), 157-171. https://doi.org/10.15332/rt.v0i13.2340

Cedeño, W. A. (2020). La violencia escolar a través de un recorrido teórico por los diversos programas para su prevención a nivel mundial y latinoamericano [School violence through a theoretical overview of the various programs for its prevention worldwide and in Latin America]. Revista Universidad y Sociedad, 12(5), 470-478.

Dávila, P. & Naya, L. M. (2023). La “señal”, un objeto de la escuela disciplinada y de la pedagogía del silencio [The “signal,” an object of the disciplined school and the pedagogy of silence]. Cabás, Revista Internacional Sobre Patrimonio Histórico-Educativo, (30), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.35072/CABAS.2023.28.69.003

Decreto 1965 de 2013. (2013, October 7th). Presidencia de la República de Colombia. Diario oficial 48910. https://www.suin-juriscol.gov.co/viewDocument.asp?ruta=Decretos/1378136

Delors J. (1996). La educación encierra un tesoro [Education contains a treasure]. Santillana - UNESCO.

Duque, H. & Aristizábal, E. (2019). Análisis fenomenológico interpretativo. Una guía metodológica para su uso en la investigación cualitativa en psicología [Interpretive phenomenological analysis: A methodological guide for use in qualitative research in psychology]. Pensando Psicología, 15(25), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.16925/2382-3984.2019.01.03

Galtung J. (1998.). Tras la violencia, 3R: reconstrucción, reconciliación, resolución. Afrontando los efectos visibles e invisibles de la guerra y la violencia [In the aftermath of violence, the 3Rs: Reconstruction, reconciliation, resolution. Addressing the visible and invisible effects of war and violence] (T. Toda, Trad.). Gernika Gogoratuz.

Hernández, R., Fernández, C., & Baptista, P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación [Research methodology] (6.a ed.). McGraw Hill España

Herrera, O. & Frausto, M. (2021). Violencia escolar y mediación pedagógica en estudiantes de educación básica [School violence and pedagogical mediation in basic education students]. Revista Innova Educación, 3(2), 438-453. https://doi.org/10.35622/j.rie.2021.02.010

Krippendorff, K. (1990). Metodología del análisis de contenido. Teoría y práctica [Content Analysis Methodology: Theory and Practice] (L. Wolfson, Trad.). Paidós. (Obra original publicada en 1980).

Ley 1620 de 2013. (2013, March 20th). Congreso de Colombia. Diario oficial 48733. https://www.suin-juriscol.gov.co/viewDocument.asp?ruta=Leyes/1685356

Lombana, J. A. (2016). Construcción de un modelo de gestión de la convivencia escolar a partir de la danza como centro de interés en el colegio CEDID San Pablo de Bosa [Building a school coexistence management model based on dance as a focus at the CEDID San ​​Pablo de Bosa school] [Tesis de maestría, Universidad Libre]. Repositorio Institucional Unilibre. https://repository.unilibre.edu.co/handle/10901/8249

Martín, E., Fernández, I., Andrés, S., del Barrio, C., & Echeita, G. (2003). La intervención para la mejora de la convivencia en los centros educativos: modelos y ámbitos [Intervention to improve coexistence in educational centers: models and areas]. Revista para el Estudio de la Educación y el Desarrollo, 26(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1174/02103700360536446

Ministerio de Educación Nacional (MEN). (2014). Guía Núm. 49 Guías pedagógicas para la convivencia escolar Ley 1620 de 2013 - Decreto 1965 de 2013. MEN. [Guide No. 49 Pedagogical guides for school coexistence Law 1620 of 2013 - Decree 1965 of 2013. MEN.] https://contenidos.mineducacion.gov.co/ntg/men/pdf/Guia%20No.%2049.pdf

Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social. (2023, April 13). La violencia en entornos escolares es una verdadera epidemia [Violence in school environments is a true epidemic]. Boletín de Prensa, (118). https://www.minsalud.gov.co/Paginas/La-violencia-en-entornos-escolares-es-una-verdadera-epidemia.aspx

Molina, L. E. (2022). Modelo de gestión de la convivencia escolar basado en la inteligencia emocional para la resolución de conflictos en instituciones educativas públicas de Montería [A model for managing school coexistence based on emotional intelligence for conflict resolution in public educational institutions in Montería] [Tesis de doctorado, Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencia y Educación UMECIT]. Repositorio UMECIT. https://repositorio.umecit.edu.pa/entities/publication/8d37f247-b5fa-4162-a3f2-15e6bddf8e88

Molina, L. E. (2023). Desafíos actuales de la planificación educativa en Colombia [Current challenges of educational planning in Colombia]. Revista UNIMAR, 41(2), 184-202. https://doi.org/10.31948/Rev.unimar/unimar41-2-art11

Molina-Isaza, L. & Nova-Herrera, A. J. (2023). La inteligencia emocional, una oportunidad para la gestión de la convivencia escolar [Emotional intelligence, an opportunity for managing school coexistence]. Praxis, 18(1), 15-32. https://doi.org/10.21676/23897856.3878

Morales, J. A. (2022). Castigo y sanción en la familia y en la escuela. Retos de una educación sin castigos y de la crianza con amor [Punishment and sanction in the family and at school. Challenges of education without punishments and parenting with love] (2.a ed.). POEMIA

Nova, A. J. (2021). Políticas para la formación integral en la educación superior en Colombia [Policies for comprehensive training in higher education in Colombia] [Ponencia]. Congreso de Investigación y Pedagogía III Nacional II Internacional, Universidad Pedagógica Tecnológica de Colombia. https://repositorio.uptc.edu.co/items/a99af3ab-ae96-4582-ab07-627fded31891

Ortiz-Padilla, M. E., Barros-Moncada, M. C., Ariza-Ortiz, S. M., & Rubio-Castro, R. C. (2018). Gestión de la convivencia escolar: indicador de la calidad en la organización educativa [School coexistence management: an indicator of quality in the educational organization]. Opción, 34(18), 1097-1125. https://bonga.unisimon.edu.co/items/bdc8bfca-43bb-45ae-a475-aaaf707f5158

Rioseco, C. & Barría, R. (2021). Contribución de la dimensión relacional del Clima Social Escolar (CES) a la Convivencia Escolar para la No Violencia (CENVI), desde la percepción de estudiantes de segundo ciclo y enseñanza media en escuelas y liceos municipalizados de Estación Central [Contribution of the relational dimension of the School Social Climate (CES) to the School Coexistence for Non-Violence (CENVI), from the perception of second cycle and secondary school students in municipal schools and high schools of Estación Central]. Rumbos TS, 16(26), 167-190. https://dx.doi.org/10.51188/rrts.num26.573

Rivera, L. A., Torres, P. Y., & Hernández, P. R. (2017). Estrategia didáctica “escuela para la familia y familia para la escuela” desde el área de las ciencias sociales: Fortalecimiento de la convivencia en los estudiantes de la básica primaria de la institución educativa Cecilia de Lleras [Teaching strategy "school for the family and family for the school" from the area of ​​social sciences: Strengthening coexistence in primary school students at the Cecilia de Lleras educational institution] [Tesis de maestría, Universidad Santo Tomás]. Red Colombiana de Información Científica. https://redcol.minciencias.gov.co/Record/SantoToma2_f98abc702a9e8db6888ee350f4d29437

Saavedra, J. A. (2024). Políticas públicas de convivencia escolar en América Latina: una revisión sistemática desde las directrices PRISMA [Public policies on school coexistence in Latin America: a systematic review based on the PRISMA guidelines]. Discimus Revista Digital de Educación, 3(1), 39-68. https://doi.org/10.61447/20240601/art02

Sandín, M. P. (2003). Investigación cualitativa en educación. Fundamentos y tradiciones [Qualitative research in education: Foundations and traditions]. Mc-Graw Hill.

Saucedo, C. L. & Guzmán, C. (2018). La investigación sobre la violencia escolar en México: tendencias, tensiones y desafíos [Research on school violence in Mexico: trends, tensions, and challenges]. Cultura y Representaciones Sociales, 12(24), 213-245. https://doi.org/10.28965/2018-024-08

Soto, S. M. (2022). Orientador escolar y ambientes de convivencia: un tema para reflexionar [School counselor and living environments: a topic for reflection]. Memorias III Congreso Internacional de Educación, Artes y Humanidades 2022 (pp. 63-64). Universidad Francisco de Paula Santander.

Torrego, J. C. (coord.) (2006). Modelo integrado de mejora de la convivencia. Estrategias de medicación y tratamiento de conflictos [Integrated model for improving coexistence. Medication and conflict management strategies]. Editorial Graó.

Liliana Esther Molina Isaza: Principal investigator. Statistical data processing, writing materials and methods, obtaining results, analyzing and interpreting results, writing the introduction, methods, discussion, and conclusions.

The author prepared the manuscript, read it, and approved it.