A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE NATURE, PREVALENCE, AND PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING BASED ON STUDENT AND ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES

By Troy D. Harcey

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION at EDGEWOOD COLLEGE 2007

3316302 Copyright 2007 by Harcey, Troy D. All rights reserved

2008

3316302

 Copy righted by Troy D. Harcey, 2007

ii

DEDICATION The opulence of insight held herein is humbly dedicated with unabashed gratitude to my wife Megan, and my two sons Maxwell and Aiden. Their limitless affection and support give unquestioned credence to my raison dtre. It is their collective and natural aplomb that anchored me throughout the doctoral sojourn. It is my earnest desire that the merit of this scholarly research earns the plaudits of my heroesMegan, Maxwell, and Aiden.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Let us move on, and step out boldly, though it be into the night, and we can scarcely see the way. Charles B. Newcomb www.cybernation.com (March 4, 2007)

The scholarly research detailed in the upcoming pages embraces evolving phenomena and the expected de rigueur of a technologically savvy populous that, perhaps unequivocally, represents the collective zeitgeist of the modern era. Our contemporary kaleidoscope of instantaneous change, hyper-speed evolution, and unparalleled renovation can leave even the most grounded of individuals a bit nonplussed. The aforementioned change begs for guideposts, a tranquil harbor for respite, a lighthouse, and a moral and ethical compass to help facilitate ones safe passage on this enigma-like journey. I am fortunate to have a phalanx of ardent supporters whose collective encouragement, sophistication, compassion, selfless benevolence, and levity bolstered my resolve and conviction to toe the finish line on a doctorate in educational leadership. The following individuals have proven to be instrumental in my life; in one form or fashion each has esoterically served as a guidepost, a tranquil harbor, a lighthouse, and a moral and ethical compass. I would be remiss if at the genesis of my acknowledgements I failed to mention the full quiver of stalwart professionals I work alongside in the School District of La Crosse. It can be extremely difficult to ingratiate ones self while simultaneously being a neophyte administrator and embracing doctoral studies. That said, my colleagues demonstrated their true colors via their myriad supportive comments and actions.

iv

Mr. Roger D. Fish and Mr. Al Studden served as the administrative team principal and associate principal respectivelyat Logan Middle School, La Crosse, Wisconsin, for more than two decades. Their experiential knowledge in the field of education is a rare treasure that I have been fortunate to tap. I thank you both for your patience with me and my incessant inquiries. You have both taught me more than I had any right to expect. A tremendous debt of gratitude is owed to both of you. Mrs. Kathie Tyser, the Associate Superintendent of Instruction for the School District of La Crosse, boldly embraced her role as my in-district doctoral mentor. Mrs. Tyser provided detours to the potentially nefarious and stygian pitfalls that can shackle a rookie administrator to repeated errors and frequent logistic faux pas. Mrs. Tyser is process oriented, pragmatic, erudite, and judicious. Mrs. Tysers guidance provided a buttress for this enlightening journey. The following group of educational professionals epitomize sophistication, passion, wit, compassion, leadership, scholarly exploration, and approachabilityeven with a fawning sycophant like me: Dr. Peter Burke, PhD. Edgewood College; Dr. Henry St. Maurice, PhD. University of WisconsinStevens Point; Dr. Steven Koch, PhD. Edgewood College; Dr. John Kammerud, EdD. Edgewood College; and Robert and Ruth Koskela, Edgewood College. Finally, I want to acknowledge Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Joseph Harcey. My mother Susan I. Harcey, and my father, the late Daniel J. Harcey, had/have aspirations and celestial hopes for their children. Mom, Dad, please know that you have always been my guideposts, my tranquil harbor for respite, my lighthouse, and my moral and ethical compass on this enigma-like journey. You are my cherub-like ambassadors.

ABSTRACT Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication technologies such as e-mail, cell phones and pager text messages, instant messaging (IM), defamatory personal Web sites, and defamatory personal polling Web sites, to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group that is intended to harm others (Belsey, 2004). The purpose of this study is to examine adolescent students (6th 8th grade) and middle school/junior high principals perceptions regarding the nature, prevalence, and impact of cyberbullying. The data collected is utilized as comparative data. The participants provided information that shed scholarly light on the phenomenon of cyberbullying. Implications of study findings are discussed and recommendations for future research are suggested.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication Acknowledgements Abstract Table of Contents List of Tables Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Contextual Orientation Theoretical Model Problem Statement Research Questions Significance of the Study 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction/Topic Review Definition of Terms 3 METHODOLOGY Participants Data Collection and Analysis 4 RESULTS Information and Communication Technology Utilization Prevalence of Cyberbullying Administrative Survey Instrument and Participants 1 1 3 3 5 5 7 6 15 20 21 22 24 28 35 47 iii iv vi vii ix

vii

FINDINGS, DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS Discussion of Findings Nature and Prevalence of Cyberbullying Student Reporting Intervention and Prevention Strategies Recommendations for Future Study

56 56 63 66 67 68 74 84 85 86 88 106 108 117

References Appendices A. Student Participant Consent Form B. Parent/Guardian Consent Form C. Web Based Student Cyberbullying Survey D. Proctor Instructions for Student Cyberbullying E. Web Based Middle Level Administrator Cyberbullying Survey F. E-mail Correspondence with AWSA Endorsement G. Approval Letter: Edgewood College Human Participant Review Board H. Approval Letter: School District of La Crosse Research and Development Committee I. Student Blogs: Public Schools, Parent(s)/Guardian(s)More Than a Pit Stop on the Information Super Highway by Troy D. Harcey

119

120

121

viii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Title of Table Characteristics of Bullies Based on Consensus of Literature Characteristics of Victims Based on Consensus of Literature Surveyed Students Middle School, Grade, and Gender Location of Computers with Internet Access in Residence Frequency of Internet Utilization Activities Employed While Utilizing Internet Identified Personal Cell Phone Features Text Messaging Frequency Victims Identification of Cyberbullying Form Location of Cyberbullying Victimization Cyberbullying Impact on Victims Victims Reporting of Cyberbullying Experience Rationale for Non-Action by Cyberbullying Victims Cyberbullying Characteristics Students Perspectives Regarding Cyberbullying Reduction Wisconsin Administrator Responses Regarding Significance Wisconsin Administrator Responses Regarding Prevalence Most Frequently Utilized Interventions for Cyberbullying Most Effective Interventions for Cyberbullying 11 13 26 30 31 33 34 35 37 38 40 42 43 45 46 49 51 52 54

ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Contextual Orientation divagirl: Hey, loser, watch your back. surferchick: What r u talking about? divagirl: Why dont you kill yourself while u r ahead? surferchick: Why cant you just leave me alone? divagirl: Ugly girls like you need to be put in their place. How to Fight the New Bullies Parade Magazine (Wiseman, 2007, p. 6) Wading through the often murky and turbulent waters of transescent development can leave parents or guardians in want, and need, of a proverbial assistive hand. One natural nexus embedded within American society between parent(s)/guardian(s) and their child(ren) is public education. Thus, when global trends or phenomena embed themselves in popular cultureand as a result influence our transescent learnerspeople (i.e. not only parents and guardians, but also laypeople in the community, private entities, political pundits, etc.), frequently look to public school professionals to graciously enlighten the collective whole on the vexing inquiries found bubbling at the surface. Perhaps no issue is more incommodious to contemporary educational practitioners, parents or guardians, and to adolescents themselves than peer-to-peer bullying. While scholarly research on the topic of bullying in the United States is still in its relative infancy (formidable research on the topic began in the early 1980s), the research does reveal that perhaps no other issue is more aligned, engrossed, implanted, and associated with public education than the historic schoolyard bully. Bullying, the repeated exposure over time to negative actions on the part of one or more persons

(Olweus, 1987), is a topic, which has in recent years gained considerable attention from mainstream American society. The bullying phenomenon became increasingly pertinent to the general public after being linked as an associated factor to extreme school violence as well as psychological, social, academic, and health problems in children (Butler, 2005). The research on more traditional face-to-face bullying reveals that a very real, very menacing problem exists. Olweus (1993) estimated that nearly 160,000 students skip school every day because they fear being attacked or intimidated by other students (p. 12). According to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry bullying is a common experience for many adolescents. As many as half of all adolescents are bullied at some time during their middle school years, and at least 10% are bullied on a regular basis (AACAP, 2004). Today, in the 21st Century, student-to-student bullying has morphed, transformed, and sprouted a new vein; a more invasive and insidious form of bullying has emerged. The evolution and accessibility of modern technologies have made it easier for bullies to gain access to their victims. This new form of bullying has widely become known as cyberbullying. Belsey (2004) offers this definition of cyberbullying: Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication technologies such as e-mail, cell phones and pager text messages, instant messaging (IM), defamatory personal Web sites, and defamatory personal polling Web sites, to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group that is intended to harm others. (Belsey, 2004, p. 8).

It is no longer arbitrary or egregious to believe that modern technological advancements have become pragmatic collaborators in the bullying arena. Theoretical Model This research study surveyed 394 middle school students (ages 11 14) from three contemporary middle schools, Logan Middle School, Longfellow/SOTA II Middle School, and Lincoln Middle School, in La Crosse, Wisconsin, regarding the nature, prevalence, and perceptions currently held regarding cyberbullying. Each school represents a culturally, ethnically, and socio-economically diverse population of students. This study also surveyed 96 middle level, public school administrators throughout the State of Wisconsin. The student and administrator survey instruments employed are an amalgamation of myriad perspectives and surveys already established (Olweus, 1994; Dake, 2002; Haag-Granello & Wheaton, 2004; Stys, 2004; Li, 2005; Willard, 2006). The student surveys were completed online (via SurveyMonkey) after consent forms were completed by both the individual student and their parent or guardian. The data collected as a result of the student surveys were utilized as comparative data to the information gleaned from a second survey intended for middle-level principals in the State of Wisconsin. The administrator survey elicited school leader perceptions, insights, and knowledge regarding cyberbullying. The administrative participants provided valuable insights and supplied a state-wide perspective. Problem Statement Todays adolescents (11 14-year-olds), are truly digital natives having been exposed, and to some degree immersed, in a technological tsunami. Alternatively, many contemporary adults (administrators) are digital immigrants, exploring a world that is at

times intimidating and foreign. Previously completed studies have illuminated the concern that many parent(s)/guardian(s) are oft times unaware, and/or under estimate, the amount of bullying their child is experiencing (Ziegler & Rosenstein-Manner, 1991). Thus, cyberbullying is often taking place via communication pathways that are relatively unfamiliar, unexplored, or simply unknown to adults. The metaphoric partitions that are created via the technological chasm inhibit fundamental understandings from formulating. The prevalence of cyberbullying appears to be increasing in number and severity. Researchers Hinduja and Patchin (2006) completed a study of nearly 1,500 Internet-using adolescents and found that over one-third of youth reported being victimized online and over 16% of respondents admitted to cyberbullying others. Over 12% of the cyberbullying incidents included physical threats, and 5% of the respondents reported being scared for their safety. A corroborating 2004 survey by i-Safe America of 1,556 students from grades 6 to 8 found that 42% had been bullied online and 35% had been threatened. Additionally, it was found that 53% of the students have said hurtful things to others online. When other forms of cyberbullying are factored in (i.e. text messaging, defamatory Web and polling sites, IM, e-mails, blogs, etc.), one can delineate that issues do exist. Cyberbullying adds a new thread of harassment that impacts a significant portion of adolescents today. Adolescents are utilizing electronic technology to harass other students, spread vicious rumors, and in some cases engage in threats of various types of physical violence. A fundamental goal of the study was to add educationally significant information to the nascent research on the cyberbullying phenomenon.

Research Questions 1. What is cyberbullying? 2. How is cyberbullying distinct from physical bullying? 3. How prevalent and pervasive (according to survey responses) is cyberbullying for middle school students in Wisconsin? 4. Of those students who identify with cyberbullying, how many actually reported the incidents to parents or guardians, teachers, administrators, or police? 5. What interventions are utilized by the aforementioned adults when reports are submitted? 6. What interventions are reported as being most effective by students and adults? Significance of the Study The value of scholarly research to uncover the insidious nature, prevalence, and various perceptions of cyberbullying in La Crosse is immeasurable. Currently, a paucity of research on the topic of cyberbullying exists, and the topic is becoming more than just a noteworthy concern for the School District of La Crosse and the La Crosse community. New information surfaces daily indicating that adolescent bullying has gone digital; this research study has assisted in more accurately and fully conceptualizing this everexpanding phenomenon. The purpose of the present study was to conduct an investigation on cyberbullying that would be pliable, timely, and relevant for school practitioners; a summation of pragmatic information, which can be accessed as a reference with ease and common

understanding. Much of what has been reported in the popular press has been aptly defined as a description of individual cases versus actual scholarly research. The study detailed herein garnered adolescent students (6th 8th grade) and middle school/junior high principals perceptions regarding the nature, prevalence, and impact of cyberbullying. Embedded within the larger umbrella goals are the particulars that make this study purposeful for educational practitioners; essentially a step up from the dramatization, staging, and embellishments that can be found in some forms of mainstream media. Those particulars include a working definition of cyberbullying and how the new permutation differs from physical bullying; the prevalence of cyberbullying according to survey respondents (this inherently includes the accessibility of communication and information platforms that work as the medium for cyberbullying and the frequency of utilization); victim reporting resources and potential inhibitions toward reporting; and the interventions being utilized/suggested by both students and middle level/Jr. high administrators. The following will delve into these relevant elements of the cyberbullying phenomenon, along with additional findings of the study, and outline their implications. It is the researchers genuine desire that the combination matrix of results has created a greater awareness regarding cyberbullying intricacies and as a result will empower the School District of La Crosse to investigate stopgap, preventative, and informational measures to assist building-level practitioners effectively deter the latest toxic element impacting our transescent students.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Bullying, the repeated exposure over time to negative actions on the part of one or more persons (Olweus, 1987), is a long-standing phenomenon that has virulently impacted some school-age children. Increasingly, analytic studies and literary works have ardently detailed how many students are purposefully and systematically harassed and harangued by other children, and one need not look with any great diligence to find adults who have all-to-familiar experiences to share regarding their own bullying experiences while in school. While many are generally familiar with the generic concept of bullying, it was not until fairly recentlyin the early 1970sthat efforts were made to systematically study the phenomenon (Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, 2002). For many years, bullying investigation and scholarly research on the topic of bullying was largely conducted in Scandinavian countries. More recently, however, bullying among school children has received considerable public and research attention in countries such as England, Scotland, Ireland, Japan, Germany, Australia, Canada, and the United States (University of Colorado, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, 2002). Professor, author, and pre-eminent researcher Dan Olweus is widely credited as being a pioneer in the field of student-to-student bullying research. Olweus began his intensive multi-country studies in 1982 as a reaction to a newspaper report that three 10 14-year-old Norwegian boys had committed suicide after being repeatedly harassed by other classmates. The research results initiated much discussion about the nature of

bullying, characteristics of bullies and victims of bullying, potential causative factors associated with bullying, and potential measures parents and schools can take to prevent bullying from becoming a malevolent element in the school environment. While several Scandinavian countries were deeply steeped in bullying research during the early 1980s within their public schools, the United Statesat least initially did not place a high value on investigating, in the form of scholarly research, bullying until extreme physical violence erupted, the likes of which we saw in Littleton, Colorado; Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; and Pearl, Mississippi, in the late 1990s (Voors, 2000). Upon fervent investigation, each of the highly publicized, highly scrutinized examples of school violence revealed a common thread. Most of the perpetrators were targets of chronic peer abuse and harassment (Voors, 2000). While not all bullying leads to extreme violence, bullying may lead to a pernicious array of potentially negative effects. In the United States, the recognition of bullying as a national concern has resulted in such measures as legislative action and financial support for anti-bullying campaigns. Although cyberbullying is truly in an embryonic stage compared to more familiar face-toface bullying, anti-bullying programs across North America are adding cyberbullying information. The federal government, for instance, recently added information about cyberbullying, and its effects on contemporary youth, to the $3.2 million Stop Bullying Now! campaign that was launched in 2005 (Ascione, 2006). Cyberbullying has also been added as a topic in many Internet safety courses, such as the free lessons from i-Safe America Inc. I-Safe America Inc., a non-profit Internet safety foundation for K-12 students, conducted an online survey of 1,500 children in grades 4-8 in 2005. The study

revealed that 42% of the students surveyed said they were bullied while online. Thirtyfive percent indicated they were threatened online, and another 21% reported they received mean or threatening e-mail or instant messages. Additionally, it was found that 53% of the students surveyed had said hurtful things to others while online (www.iSafe.org, 2006). Bullying itself is certainly not a new phenomenon, but contemporary technologywith its wide accessibility and ease of useallows students to take bullying to a new and more insidious level. Cyberbullies are more likely to do or say things online that they normally would not in person, because electronic means of communication provide invisibility (Willard, 2006). Research results, gleaned via the Pew Internet and American Life Project, revealed 74% of teens now use instant messaging as a primary form of communication. The value of research to reveal the nature of cyberbullying in the United States is considerable. Although a substantial amount of research on school bullying has amassed since Olweus pioneering work beginning in the 1970s (Olweus, 1987, 1993, 1994, 2003), a relative dearth of information has focused on cyberbullying. The long-term consequences of traditional bullying have been documented; children who are bullies tend to, as adults, have children who are bullies, and the victims of bullying tend to have children who are likewise victimized (Farrington, 1993). Additionally, it has been noted that the negative effects may be pervasive for bullies and victims, both of whom are at risk of emotional, social, and psychiatric problems that may persist into adulthood (Nansel et al., 2001; OConnell, et al., 1999). Ultimately, studies have identified the impact of bullying in myriad areas of young adolescents livesacademic, social, emotional, and physical health (Craig, 1998; Crick & Bigbee, 1998). Research has

indicated that victims of bullying tend to be less accepted by their peers, more insecure and withdrawn (Hodges & Perry, 1999; Hugh-Jones & Smith, 1999), and tend to suffer more from depression (Pellegrini, 1998). Meanwhile, research has revealed that the traditional schoolyard bullies are more often chronologically older than their victims; additionally, the bullies tend to be physically stronger (Ziegler & Rosenstein-Manner, 1991), and demonstrate overt problems such as delinquency (Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus). Table 1 and Table 2 are summative examples of the impacts of bullying on students (Dake, 2002).

10

Table 1 Characteristics of Bullies Based on Consensus of Literature

Bullies are more likely to: Suffer symptoms of depression

Reference(s) Slee, 1995b; Salmon et al., 1998; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpel, Marttunen, Rimpel, & Rantanen, 1999; Kumpulainen et al., 1999; Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpel, Rantanen, & Rimpel, 2000; Luvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000; Owens, Slee, & Shute, 2000; Rigby, 2000; Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin, & Patton, 2001; Espelage, Bosworth, & Simo, 2001; Haynie, Nansel, Eitel, Crump, Saylor, Yu, & SimonsMorton, 2001; Kumpulainen et al., 2001 Kaltiala-Heino et al., 1999 Kumpulainen et al., 2000; Kumpulainen et al., 2001 Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2000 Forero et al., 1999; Baldry & Farrington, 2000; Berthold & Hoover, 2000; Nansel et al., 2001 Baldry & Farrington, 2000; Nansel et al., 2001 Rigby & Cox, 1996; Baldry & Farrington, 2000; Berthold & Hoover, 2000

Experience suicidal ideation Suffer from psychiatric problems

Suffer from eating disorders Engage in substance abuse

Engage in fighting behaviors Engage in criminal misconduct (vandalism, stealing, weapon carrying) Engage in academic misconduct (cheating, skipping school) Engage in misconduct (comprised of several items that span criminal and academic) Have friends who are bullies

Rigby & Cox, 1996; Berthold & Hoover, 2000

Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999; Wolke et al., 2000; Haynie et al., 2001; Espelage et al., 2001 Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000

11

Table 1 continued Characteristics of Bullies Based on Consensus of Literature

Have friends who are large in size

Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000

Perceive friendship making as easy Nansel et al., 2001 Begin dating earlier than other children and at more advanced levels Be physically and socially aggressive toward dating partners Have authoritarian style parents Have parents who use punitive forms of discipline Less responsive and less supportive parents Poor parent-child communication Lack adult role models Come from harsh home environments Connolly, Pepler, Craig, Taradash, 2000

Connolly, Pepler, Craig, Taradash, 2000

Baldry & Farrington, 2000 Baldry & Farrington, 2000

Baldry & Farrington, 2000; Haynie et al., 2001

Berthold & Hoover, 2000 Espelage et al., 2001 Schwartz, Dodge, Petit, & Bates, 1997; Duncan, 1999; Schwartz, Dodge, Petit, and Bates, 2000; Shields & Cicchetti, 2001 Shields & Cicchetti, 2001 Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Juvonen et al., 2000; Schwartz, 2000; Nansel et al., 2001 Haynie et al., 2001

Suffered child abuse Lower academic achievement

Lower school adjustment (doing well on schoolwork, following rules, doing homework) Lower school bonding (desire to do well at school, being happy at school, taking school seriously)

Haynie et al., 2001; Natvig et al., 2001

Note: The data in Table 1 adapted from School Bullying Prevention Activities: Teachers and Principals Perceptions and Practices, by J. Dake, 2002, Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI No. 3071988).

12

Table 2 Characteristics of Victims Based on Consensus of Literature Victims are more likely to: Suffer symptoms of depression Reference(s) Slee, 1995b; Salmon et al., 1998; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpel, Marttunen, Rimpel, & Rantanen, 1999; Kumpulainen et al., 1999; Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpel, Rantanen, & Rimpel, 2000; Luvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000; Owens, Slee, & Shute, 2000; Rigby, 2000; Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin, & Patton, 2001; Espelage, Bosworth, & Simo, 2001; Haynie, Nansel, Eitel, Crump, Saylor, Yu, & SimonsMorton, 2001; Kumpulainen et al., 2001 Kaltiala-Heino et al., 1999 Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Forero, McLellan, Rissel, & Bauman, 1999; Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Juvonen et al., 2000; Nansel et al., 2001 Boulton & Smith, 1994; Sharo, 1996; Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Paquette, 1999; Andreou, 2000; Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Juvonen et al., 2000; OMoore & Kirkham, 2001 Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Salmon et al., 1998; Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2000; Owens et al., 2000; Rigby, 2000 Kumpulainen et al., 2000; Kumpulainen et al., 2001 Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2000 Dodge, Coie, Pettit, & Price, 1990; Boulton & Smith, 1994; Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Ray, Cohen, Secrist, & Duncan, 1997 Bond et al., 2001

Experience suicidal ideation Suffer feelings of loneliness

Have low self-esteem

Suffer from anxiety

Suffer from psychiatric problems

Suffer from eating disorders Be less popular than other children

Perceive friendship making as difficult

13

Table 2 continued Characteristics of Victims Based on Consensus of Literature Spend a lot of time alone Have parents who allow few opportunities to control social circumstances (intrusive demandingness) Have less responsive and less supportive parents Have a parent-child relationships marked by intense closeness Have parents who are more involved in school activities Come from harsh home environments Boulton, 1999; Forero et al., 1999 Ladd & Ladd, 1998

Ladd & Ladd, 1998; Haynie et al., 2001

Ladd & Ladd, 1998

Haynie et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001

Schwartz, Dodge, Petit, & Bates, 1997; Duncan, 1999; Schwartz, Dodge, Petit, & Bates, 2000; Shields & Cicchetti, 2001 Shields & Cicchetti, 2001

Have suffered child abuse

Experience physical health Williams et al., 1996; Rigby, 1999; Kaltialaproblems (sleep problems, bed Heino, 2000 wetting, headaches, stomach aches, neck, shoulder, or back pain, fatigue) Have problems with school adjustment (doing well on school work, following rules, doing homework) Have problems with School bonding (desire to do well at school, being happy as school, taking school seriously) Have greater rates of absenteeism Haynie et al., 2001

Haynie et al., 2001

Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Juvonen et al., 2000

Note: The data in Table 2 adapted from School Bullying Prevention Activities: Teachers and Principals Perceptions and Practices, by J. Dake, 2002, Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI No. 3071988).

14

Definition of Terms The literature review revealed, among other revelations, that topic-specific vernacular is deeply entrenched and broadly utilized when discussing cyberbullying. Cyberbullying can be accomplished via myriad electronic platforms; defining particular terms associated with the various platforms will enhance a common language and ultimately understanding of the study in general. Blogs Blog, short for Web log, is a Web page that serves as a publicly accessible personal journal for an individual. Typically updated daily, blogs often reflect the personality of the author. Currently, the most utilized blog sites include MySpace.com, LiveJournal.com, and Xanga.com (Webopedia, 2006). Bully The term bully applies to the behavior of anyone who mistreats another human being by using physical strength, authority, technology, or social or intellectual leverage (Voors, 2000). Bullying A person is being bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more persons. There must also exist a real or perceived imbalance in power or strength between the bully(ies) and the person(s) being bullied (Olweus, 1994). Chat Rooms Chat rooms are Web sites, which allow for synchronous (real time) communication between two or more users. Users enter a chat room under a

15

screen name, a name which they can then utilize to represent themselves, and allows them to converse about any topic (Webopedia, 2006). Cyberbullying Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication technologies such as e-mail, cell phones and pager text messages, instant messaging (IM), defamatory personal Web sites, and defamatory personal polling Web sites, to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others (Belsey, 2004). Cyberspace The term cyberspace is a metaphor for describing the non-physical terrain created by computer systems. Online systems, for example, create a cyberspace within which people can communicate with one another (via email, blogs, etc.). Like physical space, cyberspace contains objects (files, mail messages, graphics, etc.) and different modes of transportation and delivery. Unlike real space, though, exploring cyberspace does not require any physical movement other than pressing keys on a keyboard or moving a mouse (Webopedia, 2006). Denigrations Sending or posting untrue or cruel statements (Willard, 2006). Disinhibition Possess little or no restraint on cyber messages sent to others; will do/say things in cyberspace that one is unlikely to do or say in person (Webopedia, 2006).

16

Electronic Mail (E-Mail) Electronic mail refers to the transmission of messages over electronic communication networks. These messages can be typewritten content or files of text, images, audio, or video (Webopedia, 2006). Flame A searing e-mail or newsgroups message in which the writer attacks another person in overly harsh, and often personal, terms (Webopedia, 2006). Instant Messages (IM) Instant Message is a type of communications service that enables you to create a kind of private chat room with another individual in order to communicate in real time (synchronous) over the Internet, analogous to a telephone conversation but using text-based, not voice-based, communication. Typically, the instant messaging system alerts you whenever somebody on your private list is online. You can then initiate a chat session with that particular individual (Webopedia, 2006). Internet Protocol (IP) Internet Protocol (IP) specifies the addressing scheme. Most networks combine IP with a higher-level protocol, which establishes a virtual connection between a destination and a source. IP by itself is something like the postal system. It allows you to address a package and drop it in the system, but there's no direct link between you and the recipient (Webopedia, 2006).

17

ISP The Internet Service Provider (ISP) is a company that provides access to Internet. For a monthly fee, the service provider gives you a software package, username, password and access phone number. Equipped with a modem, users can log on to the Internet and browse the World Wide Web, and send and receive e-mail (Webopedia, 2006). Middle School Students Students who are in sixth through eighth grade. Relational Bullying Relational bullying is a term used to describe psychological (social/emotional) aggression between people in relationships. Relational aggression is a form of aggression where the group is used as a weapon to assault others and others relationships. It uses lies, secrets, betrayals and a host of other tactics to destroy or damage the relationships and social standing of others (Wikipedia, 2006). Small Text Messages (SMS, EMS, MMS) Small text messages refer to text messages sent to and from a mobile phone, fax machine and/or IP address (sent from a computer to a mobile phone). Small text messages must be no longer than 160 characters and contain no images or graphics. Another option, Enhanced Messaging Service (EMS), is similar to small text messaging but with an array of more advanced options for the users. Finally, Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) allows users to send mobile-to-mobile messages with

18

various options/combinations of text, sounds, images, and video (Webopedia, 2006). Voting/Polling Booths Various Web sites have been dedicated to allowing users to create online voting or polling booths to rate others on certain attributes. They can create these booths on the polling Web sites themselves or link them back to a personal Web site, perhaps a slanderous bullying Web site. Bullies have been known to establish polls asking for people to vote on which student at their school is the ugliest, most overweight, dumbest, etc. While many of these sites do have strict policies against abuse of the polls, with a clear abuse reporting system established, many of the pages are not regulated by Web site creators (Belsey, 2004). Web Sites A Web site is a position (or location) on the World Wide Web. Web sites generally contain a home, which is the first document users see when they enter the site. The site may also contain additional documents and files. Each site is owned and managed by an individual, company or organization. Web sites are generally published on an Internet Service Provider (ISP), the most prolific hosts include Netscape Navigator and Microsofts Internet Explorer (Webopedia, 2006).

19

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Research and Methodology A literature review of cyberbullying indicates that a relative paucity of scholarly information exits regarding this embryonic phenomenon. While cyberbullyingand the associated researchis in its early stages, the immediate negative impacts cyberbullying can have on our middle level learners are well developed. Cyberbullying is beginning to gain more wide spread attention; yet little research (in fact, none that I could ascertain), studies both transescents perspectives (i.e. the reality of cyberbullying) and school administrators perspectives (i.e. the perception of reality). This study investigated the nature, prevalence/incidence, and impacts of cyberbullying as viewed by middle school students in one school district, the School District of La Crosse. Having garnered that information, this researcher parlayed the data as a foundation for data gleaned from surveys focused on contemporary middle-level principals in the state of Wisconsin. The two sets of data have provided valuable insights and will undoubtedly assist in addressing the overall research inquiries. The following questions drove this study: 1. What is cyberbullying? 2. How is cyberbullying distinct from physical bullying? 3. How prevalent and pervasive (according to survey responses) is cyberbullying for middle school students in Wisconsin? 4. Of those students who identify with cyberbullying, how many actually reported the incidents to parents or guardians, teachers, administrators, or police?

20

5. What interventions are utilized by the aforementioned adults when reports are submitted? 6. What interventions are reported as being most effective by students and adults? Cyberbullying does not occur in a vacuum; thus the issue has become more than just a noteworthy concern for the School District of La Crosse and the La Crosse community. The results from other studies and anecdotal evidence from La Crosse indicate that adolescent bullying has gone digital and further research is warranted to probe into this ever-expanding phenomenon. Additionally, it was hypothesized that this research study would reveal a significant discrepancy between the actual amount (prevalence) and impact of cyberbullying indicated by the surveyed students, and what the aforementioned adults perceive is the extent of the problem. The combination of results has created a greater awareness regarding this still nascent phenomenon in the School District of La Crosse. Participants The student survey research was conducted in three middle schools (Logan, Lincoln, and Longfellow/SOTA II), in the School District of La Crosse. School principals were contacted to determine their interest in participating in this study; all principals (N = 3) agreed to participate. Parental and student consent forms were distributed to the schools (see Appendices A and B). The sample of students was Caucasian (69%), Southeast Asian (21%), African American (5%), Hispanic (3%), and approximately 2% Other.

21

To obtain multiple perspectives, in addition to the middle level students surveyed, Wisconsin middle-level building principals were also surveyed via an online survey. To prompt a more significant return rate, contact and affirmed verbal permission was garnered from the Association of Wisconsin State Administrators (AWSA) President, Mr. Tom Beattie, in support of this research study. This researchers lofty goal was to solidify a 60% return rate for both the student and administrator survey. In an effort to secure a significant participation rate this researcher also pre-contacted middle-level administrators via telephone or e-mail correspondence. The goal of a 60% participation rate was also established due to the fact that questionnaires directed to educators generally can be expected to yield a higher percentage of replies than questionnaires mailed to samples of the general population. The response rate is higher for an educational questionnaire because it usually is targeted at a homogeneous group, and this makes it possible to prepare a specific appeal for participation that is likely to be effective (Gall, Gall, et al., 2003). While this survey is salient to many in the field of education, this researcher was only able to secure a 30% return rate from Wisconsin middle-level and Jr. high administrators. Data Collection and Analysis The student and administrator surveys were distributed and collected electronically (Web based); SurveyMonkey provided the survey platform and data collection and management tool utilized for both student and administrator responses. This researcher had utilized SurveyMonkey previously for research; the various components of SurveyMonkey lend itself well to a compilation and management of data. Both the student and the administrator surveys utilized a combination of forced selection,

22

multiple choice, and Likert scale formats while still allowing for individual written responses in some categories (qualitative information). One survey focused specifically on perspectives and experiences relevant to middle-level students; while the administrative survey addressed those experiences and insights associated with their professional position. Questionnaires cannot probe deeply into respondents beliefs, attitudes, and inner experience. Once the questionnaire was distributed (in this case opened), it was not possible to modify the items, even if they were unclear to some respondents (Gall, Gall, et al., 2003). Remaining mindful of the potential pitfall, this researcher utilized pilot samples of both survey instruments in an effort to solidify survey reliability and validity. Each survey was pilot tested with representative sample groups; on two days in early October 2006, a convenience sample of 81 sixth, seventh and eighth grade students from Logan Middle School, La Crosse, Wisconsin, were administered the student survey, and feedback was received. Additionally, a convenience sample of five School District of La Crosse personnel reviewed the administrator survey, and they too provided feedback and purposeful insight to help ensure the student and administrator survey questions addressed the research questions focused within this study (see Appendices C and E). Ultimately, the multiple tiers of information avenues embedded within this research study (i.e., contemporary literature review, student online survey, and administrator online survey) served to effectively meld perspectives around the cyberbullying phenomenon. The main idea was to triangulate or establish converging lines of evidence to make findings as robust as possible (Green, Camilli, et al., 2006).

23

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Presentation of Findings Participants The information within this chapter is a summation of the data collected and the analytical treatments employed for this study. This research was conducted on two tiers; one tier utilized a survey to collect information from middle school students in the School District of La Crosse (La Crosse, Wisconsin), and another tier utilized a survey to collect information from public middle and Jr. high school administrators throughout the State of Wisconsin. The student survey research was conducted in three middle schools (Logan, Lincoln, and Longfellow/SOTA II), in the School District of La Crosse. Each of the three middle school principals in La Crosse (of which this researcher represents one of the principals) was contacted and agreed to enter an accord to participate in exchange for data and findings that relate to their students, and possible presentations for their staff and parent organizations. Sixteen hundred student and parental consent forms (see Appendices C and D) were distributed to each of the middle school principals between October 2, 2006, and November 30, 2006. The principals distributed the consent forms via various methods (e.g., parent/teacher conferences, mailings, monthly newsletters, direct distribution to students in the classroom, and direct distribution to parents and guardians during anecdotal face-to-face contacts). The sample group consisted of 394 students in grades 6 through 8; the students ages ranged from 11 to 14 years old. At the time of the consent

24

form distribution, Longfellow/SOTA II Middle School had a student population of 638; Logan Middle School had a student population of 483; and Lincoln Middle School had a student population of 405, for a total student population of 1,526 middle school students (grades 6 through 8). Of the students who returned completed consent forms, 394 completed the survey (a consent rate of 26%). Longfellow/SOTA II Middle School had 97 of 638 students complete the survey (15% consent rate). Fifty-three percent of the Longfellow/SOTA II student participants are females and 47% are males. Of the students represented from Longfellow/SOTA II Middle School, 29 (30%) are sixth graders, 33 (34%) are seventh graders, and 35 (36%) are eighth graders. Logan Middle School had 236 of 483 students complete the survey (49% consent rate). Fifty-seven percent of the Logan Middle School student participants are female and 43% are male. Of the students represented in the survey from Logan Middle School, 55 (23%) are sixth graders, 73 (31%) are seventh graders, and 107 (46%) are eighth graders. Lincoln Middle School had 61 of 405 students complete the survey (15% consent rate). Fifty-three percent of the Lincoln Middle School student participants are female and 47% are male. Of the students represented in the survey from Lincoln Middle School, 10 (16%) are sixth graders, 20 (33%) are seventh graders, and 31 (51%) are eighth graders. The number of participants in the student sample by demographic marker is represented in Table 3.

25

Table 3 Surveyed Students Middle School, Grade, and Gender Long./SOTA II School Population Sample Population Female Male Sixth Graders Seventh Graders Eighth Graders 638 97 (15%) 51 (53%) 46 (47%) 29 (30%) 33 (34%) 35 (36%) Logan 483 236 (49%) 133 (57%) 102 (43%) 55 (23%) 73 (31%) 107 (46%) Lincoln 405 61 (15%) 32 (53%) 29 (47%) 10 (16%) 20 (33%) 31 (51%) Totals 1,526 394 (26%) 216 (55%) 177 (45%) 94 (24%) 126 (32%) 173 (44%)

Note. (N = 394) One student from Logan Middle School elected to not answer this question. Thus, while the total participation from Logan Middle School is 236, only 235 are accounted for by grade level delineation.

Along with the 394 middle level student participants from the School District of La Crosse, La Crosse, Wisconsin, this research study also included data from middle level and Jr. high building administrators throughout the state of Wisconsin. To encourage participation this researcher utilized professional organization affiliations to garner support. From October 25th - 27th, 2006, the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators (AWSA) annual conference was held in La Crosse, Wisconsin. This researchers cyberbullying study was included as a mini-session discussion topic at the conference. At that time, the genesis and plans for the research were discussed with middle-level principals throughout the State of Wisconsin; the mini-session included a notice to be mindful of the online survey that would be sent to each administrators school e-mail address. Additionally, this researcher enlisted the support of the AWSA

26

organization through an official endorsement from Mr. Tom Beattie, Executive Director of AWSA. All respondents gave consent to participate in this survey through the online response system. A total of 319 middle level and Jr. high administrators were contacted through their individual work e-mail addresses. The e-mail correspondence included a written endorsement from Mr. Tom Beattie, Executive Director of AWSA, and brief explanation of the study being conducted and the process for completing the online survey (See Appendix F). Of the 319 administrators contacted, 96 throughout the State of Wisconsin agreed to participate and completed the online survey (30% response rate). Data collection for both surveys was collected via the SurveyMonkey website. SurveyMonkey provides a format for researchers to create original surveys online and disseminate the survey to a wide audience via electronic mail. The student surveys were launched at each of the three buildings on October 2, 2006. The completion of the surveys was facilitated by each building principal with the assistance of building personnel working as on-site proctors. Each proctor was supplied with introductory comments and definitions to help ensure consistency and understanding (See Appendix D). Each of the three school administrators completed the survey process by November 30, 2006. The survey instruments employed for this study were an amalgamation of myriad researchers original works (Olweus, 1994; Dake, 2002; Haag-Granello & Wheaton, 2004; Stys, 2004; Li, 2005; Willard, 2006). The student survey (Appendix C) included 42 fixed response items with six of the questions (#4, #9, #12, #14, #18, and #21 ) offering an other category in which the respondents could identify other possibilities that were

27

not listed. The questions were structure to measure various components regarding cyberbullying including access to Internet and cellular phone access, location of technology access within the home setting, frequency of information and communication technologies such as the Internet and cellular phones, types of cyberbullying experienced, reactions to cyberbullying as a witness, victim, or bully, various impacts of cyberbullying, purposeful interventions, and recommendations for school officials. The cyberbullying definition utilized for both the student and the administrator online survey is from Bill Belsey; Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication technologies such as e-mail, cell phones and pager text messages, instant messaging (IM), defamatory personal Web sites, and defamatory personal polling Web sites, to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group that is intended to harm others. (Belsey, 2004, p. 8). Information and Communication Technology Utilization This researcher felt it necessary to ascertain the prevalence of information and communication technology utilization within the representative student sample group. This included access to information and communication devices such as cellular telephone and computers with Internet applications. Of the students surveyed, 92.6% (N = 361) indicated the availability of a computer with Internet access in their residence. Table 4 details the percentage of the sample group who indicated they have Internet access in the home, and more specifically where in the home the Internet can be accessed. Computers were reported to be predominately in the living or family room (45.6%). Particularly noteworthy,

28

however, is the fact that 17.9% (N = 70) of the respondents indicated having a computer with Internet access in their bedroom, and another 10.5% (N = 41) had Internet optioned computers in their brother or sisters room. In addition to the fixed response options reported in Table 4, there were 148 open-ended responses provided by survey respondents. Fifty-five of the 148 responses specifically identified a computer room or office within the residence. Three examples responses were; In my stepdads office. In my house we have a special computer room. In the office at my house. Forty-nine of the 148 responses specifically identified the basement as the location of their computer with Internet access. Three example responses were; Our computer is in the basement. Our backroom in the basement. In the den in the basement. Finally, a smattering of diverse locations (e.g., lofts, hallways, front porches, etc.), were identified within the remaining forty-four open-ended responses, but none were identified with any significant degree of frequency.

29

Table 4 Location of Computers with Internet Access in Residence Total Respondents In my bedroom In my brother or sisters room In my parents/guardians room In the kitchen In the living or family room I do not have a computer in my home I do not have a computer with Internet Access at my house Other 70 (390) 41 (390) 42 (390) 29 (390) 178 (390) 11 (390) 29 (390) Total Percentage 17.9% 10.5% 10.8% 7.4% 45.6% 2.8% 7.4%

148 (390)

37.9%

Note. (N = 390) Four students selected to skip this question. One-hundred forty-eight students selected open ended responses. Percentages exceed 100% due to the fact that myriad respondents had multiple computers with Internet access within their residence.

In an effort to crystallize the nature and prevalence of cyberbullying, it was fundamentally imperative to ascertain the extent to which survey participants utilized technological media. Participants were asked to indicate how many hours (on average) they spent on the Internet either in chat rooms, interactive gaming rooms, instant messaging (IM), e-mailing, visiting a blog (e.g., MySpace, Xanga, Facebook, LiveJournal, etc.), or on a personal Web page. Table 5 details the frequency of Internet utilization. In general, 19.5% of the participants (N = 76) indicated that they utilize the Internet for one hour each day; 15.4% (N = 60) utilized the Internet for two hours each day; 14.4% (N = 56) utilized the Internet

30

for more than two hours each day; meanwhile, another 14.4% (N = 56) indicated that they do not utilize the Internet. Table 5 Frequency of Internet Utilization Total Respondents One hour each day Two hours each day More than two hours each day A couple of hours a month One hour a week A couple of hours a week None 76 (391) 60 (391) 56 (391) 39 (391) 26 (391) 78 (391) 56 (391) Total Percentage 19.5% 15.4% 14.4% 10.0% 6.7% 20.0% 14.4%

Note. (N = 391) Three students skipped this question.

Identifying the amount of time the survey respondents spent accessing the Internet naturally guided the research toward the inquiry pertaining to the actual applications being employed while on the Internet. With 49.3% of the respondents (N = 192), nearly half of the survey sample group, indicating that they spend one or more hours on the Internet daily, it was appropriate and necessary to delineate what technological applications the respondents are actually utilizing. Table 6 outlines the major applications the surveyed sample group identified. Several applications were used, however, respondents indicated that playing games 57.8% (N = 225) and instant messaging (IM) 48.6% (N = 189) were the two applications most routinely used. Completing school work was identified by 46% (N = 179) as

31

an activity they participated in while accessing the Internet. Another 29% of respondents (N = 113) indicated that they spent time reading or writing in blogs (online journals such as MySpace, Xanga, Facebook, LiveJournal, etc.). Talking with friends in chat rooms was identified by 25.2% (N = 98) of the surveyed sample as an activity they spent time participating in while on the Internet. In addition to the fixed response options reported in Table 6, there were 84 open-ended responses provided by survey participants. A vast majority (92%, N = 77) of the 84 responses specifically identified utilizing multi-search engines, listening to music or watching videos, or accessing commercial Web sites. Three examples responses were; I like shopping on ebay and stuff. I spend a lot of time searching different sites on Google. Yahooto read articles, listen to music, and watch videos.

32

Table 6 Activities Employed While Utilizing Internet Total Respondents Total Percentage School work Games Reading or writing in blogs (on-line journals such as MySpace, Xanga, Facebook, LiveJournal, etc.) Talking with friends in chat rooms Instant messaging (IM) Other 179 (389) 225 (389) 113 (389) 46.0% 57.8% 29.0%

98 (389) 189 (389) 84 (389)

25.2% 48.6% 21.6%

Note. (N = 389) Five students skipped this question. Eighty-four students selected open ended responses. Percentages exceed 100% due to the fact that respondents utilized multiple Internet applications.

Another prominent access point of information and communication technology is the contemporary cellular phone. The sample group respondents indicated that 44.1% (N = 172) owned their own cell phone. Additionally, survey respondents indicated various features available on their cell phones. As illustrated in Table 7, results reveal that 33.9% (N = 59) of respondents have personal cell phones with text messaging capabilities. Another 21.8% (N = 38) of survey respondents have personal cellular phones with both text messaging and photo capabilities. Finally, 31% (N = 54) indicated that their personal cell phone had myriad features including text messaging, photo capabilities, Internet access, and video playing options.

33

Table 7 Identified Personal Cellular Phone Features Total Respondents Text messaging Text messaging and photo capability Text messaging, photo capability, and Internet access Text messaging, photo capability, Internet access, and video playing options 59 (174) 38 (174) 23 (174) Total Percentage 33.9% 21.8% 13.2%

54 (174)

31.0%

Note. (N = 174) Two-hundred twenty students did not answer this question, indicating that they do not currently have a cellular phone.

Although (as reflected in Table 7), the contemporary cellular telephone affords users a cornucopia of multi-media options, for the purpose of this research the technological medium of cellular phones was measured in terms of frequency of text messaging conducted by the sample group. Research results indicated that 52.9% (N = 101) of the respondents did not utilize the text messaging capabilities on his or her personal cell phone. Results also illustrate that 13.1% (N = 25) of respondents sent less than five text messages per day, and 11.5% (N = 22) sent more than five text messages per day. Examined collectively, the research sample group indicated that slightly more than 47% were utilizing text messaging to some degree. Comparatively, research conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life Project in July 2005 found that 33% of teens (age 12-14) used text messaging (or texting) options on their cell phone (Lenhart, et al., p. ii).

34

Table 8 Text Messaging Frequency Total Respondents Total Percentage None, I do not use text messaging on my cell phone Less than five each day More than five each day Less than five each week More than five each week 101 (191) 25 (191) 22 (191) 25 (191) 18 (191) 52.9% 13.1% 11.5% 13.1% 9.4%

Note. (N = 191) Two-hundred and three students did not respond to this question indicating that they did not own a personal cellular phone.

Prevalence of Cyberbullying In order to determine the prevalence and pertinence of cyberbullying based on the survey sample groups, a series of eleven questions from the student survey (#10 - #14, and #19, #22, #24, #28, #29, and #40), and four questions from the administrator survey (#3, #4, #6, and #8) were specifically crafted. The following information details the responses for each series of questions. When survey participants were asked if they had ever been bullied or picked on through e-mail, blogs (e.g., MySpace, LiveJournal, Facebook, Xanga, etc.), cell phone text messaging, online chat or game rooms, or a personal Web page, nearly a third, 31.5% (N = 123) indicated affirmatively that they had been bullied or picked on via the preceding electronic avenues. Furthermore, 33.9% of respondents (N = 133) reported being sometimes or often afraid or worried about being cyberbullied.

35

Cyberbullying can take on many forms; the spectrum can run the gamut from being ostracized and ignored (e.g., intentionally left of or removed from a buddy list), to demeaning and hurtful name calling, to having unflattering or revealing pictures uploaded to the Web, to being physically endangered (e.g. having your personal safety threatened). Table 9 details the responses gleaned from those reporting being a victim of cyberbullying (31.5%, N = 123), regarding the form or manifestation of the cyberbullying activity. The most prominent form of cyberbullying, as indicated by the survey respondents, was identified as being called names (82.1%, N = 101). Another 55.3% (N = 68) identified being made fun of; 47.1% (N = 58) experienced rumors spread about them; 43.1% (N = 53) were picked on; 42.3% (N = 52) were ignored; 17.1% (N = 21) were physically threatened, and 8.9% (11) had pictures posted without their permission. In addition to the fixed response options reported in Table 9, there were nineteen open-ended responses provided by survey participants. While the vast majority of the open-ended responses could have been adequately categorized within the fixed response options, four student example responses include: Black mailed me by stealing my password to AOL IM. They wanted to me to meet them somewhere so they could get to know me. There were a lot of people I was talking to and they said I did stuff that I did not do, then told my best friends and then I lost like all of my friends.

36

I was being sworn at and being asked to join things I didnt want to do. It merits mentioning that of those survey respondents who identified themselves as being a victim of some form of cyberbullying, 14.1% declared that, as a result of the cyberbullying exposure, they were scared for their personal safety. Table 9 Victims Identification of Cyberbullying Form

Total Respondents I was called names I was made fun of I had pictures posted without my permission I was ignored I was disrespected I was picked on Rumors were spread about me I was threatened physically 101 (123) 68 (123) 11 (123)

Total Percentage 82.1% 55.3% 8.9%

52 (123) 46 (123) 53 (123) 58 (123) 21 (123)

42.3% 37.4% 43.1% 47.1% 17.1%

Note. (N = 123) Nineteen students selected open ended responses. Percentages exceed 100% due to the fact that respondents were asked to select all the options that were true of him or her.

According to survey respondents a significant venue (or medium) for the occurrence of cyberbullying (63.4%, N = 78) is via computerwith Internet accessInstant Messaging (IM). The synchronous or immediate communication avenues via programs such as ICQ, AOL, MSN, and Yahoo! Messenger that

37

instant messaging provides, is one reason why it is saturated with adolescent users who desire real time connections. Bill Belsey, has referred to todays generation as the Always On (AO) generation and communication pathways such as e-mail are simply too slow (Belsey, 2004). Another 42.3% of respondents (N = 52) in this study identified chat rooms as the location where they experienced cyberbullying. Additionally, 37.4% (N = 46) identified blog sites (e.g., MySpace, LiveJournal, Facebook, Xanga, etc.). Interestingly, the least identified fixedresponse option for where the cyberbullying took place was the cell phone. Only 13.8% of the respondents who identified they were the victim of cyberbullying indicated it was via cell phone. Table 10 describes cyberbullying victimization by location.

Table 10 Location of Cyberbullying Victimization (N = 123)

Total Respondents E-mail Chat room(s) Cell phone (text messaging) Computer Instant Messaging (IM) Blog site (e.g. MySpace, Xanga, Facebook, LiveJournal, etc.) Other 39 (123) 52 (123) 17 (123) 78 (123) 46 (123)

Total Percentage 31.7% 42.3% 13.8% 63.4% 37.4%

35 (123)

28.5%

Note. Thirty-five students selected open ended responses. Percentages exceed 100% due to the fact that respondents were asked to select all the options that were true of him or her.

38

In addition to the fixed response options reported in Table 10, there were thirty-five open-ended responses provided by survey participants. While the vast majority of the open-ended responses could have been categorized within the fixed response options, 26% of the open-ended responses identified online gaming as a location for cyberbullying. Three response examples include: A game that you can talk to other people on. Kind of like a chat room, but the game doesnt revolve around talking to others. An online game called Runescape. Game talk. A fundamental inquiry embedded within this study is the impact the cyberbullying experience had on the victims and how the victims actually felt about the cyberbullying they experienced. Table 11 portrays how survey respondents victimized by cyberbullying felt about the experience. Each respondent who identified with being cyberbullied was asked to select all options that were true for him or her. The majority of respondents indicated that they felt either angry (46.0%, N = 88), hurt (39.9%, N = 77), or sad (39.4%, N = 76). Additionally, 16.6% (N = 32) indicated they felt threatened. Interestingly, 38.9 % (N = 75) of the respondents reported that the cyberbullying did not bother him or her, or they thought it was no big deal.

39

Table 11 Cyberbullying Impact on Victims (N = 193)

Total Respondents I felt angry I felt embarrassed I felt sad I felt hurt I felt irritated I felt threatened The bullying did not bother me/ it was no big deal 88 (193) 32 (193) 76 (193) 77 (193) 70 (193) 32 (193) 75 (193)

Total Percentage 46.0% 16.6% 39.4% 39.9% 36.3% 16.6% 38.9%

Note. Percentages exceed 100% due to the fact that respondents were asked to select all the options that were true of him or her. Nineteen students skipped this question, while another 182 indicated that they have not witnessed or been a victim of cyberbullying.

As expected, many individuals in the sample group did not identify themselves as victims of cyberbullying. In fact, over 60% of the student sample group repeatedly indicated that they had not been the victim of cyberbullying. That said, 19.3% (N = 75) indicated that they had bullied another person through e-mail, blogs (e.g., MySpace, LiveJournal, Facebook, Xanga, etc.), cell phone text messaging, online chat or game rooms, instant messaging, or a personal Web page. The vast majority of those identifying themselves as cyberbullies, indicated that they bullied others via name calling (44%, N = 53) and/or ignored someone (40%, N = 49), which aligns with the previously documented victims comments about the types of cyberbullying respondents endured. Of those identifying themselves as having cyberbullied someone (N = 75), the vast majority (55%, N =

40

41) indicated that they acted as they did to get back at the victim; another 12% indicated they wanted to teach the victim a lesson. The accurate, timely, and transparent communication by cyberbullying victims to appropriate support people has been brought to question in various publications (Belsey, 2004; Swartz, 2005; Willard, 2006; Smith et al., 2007). Table 12 describes victim reporting of cyberbullying experiences. Over 71.5% (N = 88) of the study respondents, who identified themselves as having been the victim of cyberbullying, indicated that they chose to tell a friend about the situation. Of those students who said that they reported cyberbullying, 48.8% (N = 60) chose to report to parents or guardians. Another 30.9 % of respondents (N = 38) told a brother or sister; 21.1% reported to an adult at school (e.g., counselor, teacher, school police officer, principal, etc.). Interestingly, 34.1% of the respondents (N = 42) did not tell anyone. Nearly 3% indicated that they returned the cyberbullying right back. Of those students reporting the cyberbullying incident to an adult, 15.9% indicated the situation improved either a little or a lot. Furthermore, 6% of the student respondents indicated that after reporting the cyberbullying to an adult the situation did not improve, or in fact it got worse.

41

Table 12 Victims Reporting of Cyberbullying Experience (N = 169)

Total Respondents I did not tell anyone I told a friend I told my parents I told my brother/sister I told an adult at school (e.g. counselor, teacher, principal, school police officer, etc.) 42 (123) 88 (123) 60 (123) 38 (123) 26 (123)

Total Percentage 34.1% 71.5% 48.8% 30.9% 21.1%

Note. Percentages exceed 100% due to the fact that respondents were asked to select all the options that were true of him or her. Two-hundred-seventy-one indicated that they have not witnessed or been a victim of cyberbullying.

Many students are not reporting to adults because they may be embarrassed about being bullied, and they think they can handle it on their own. Additionally, a lot of kids do not tell adults because they view that as an enhanced penalty; not only were they the victim of cyberbullying, adultsin an effort to protect the studentwill often take away or limit access to the cell phone or computer privileges (Rangel, 2006). Table 13 displays the results detailing the rationale student respondents reported for neglecting to report their cyberbullying experiences. As previously mentioned, being afraid (27.6%, N = 34) and worrying about his or her technology accesses being taken away or restricted (26%, N = 32) were two of the most prevalent rationale documented. However, a noteworthy contingent also indicated that they felt reporting the cyberbullying would not have made a

42

difference (35%, N = 43). In fact, 25.2% (N = 31) felt that if they reported it would make the bullying worse; another 14.7% (N = 18) did not report the cyberbullying incident for fear it would cost them their friends. The majority of respondents (56.1%, N = 69) indicated that they did not report the cyberbullying incident because his or she did not believe it was a big deal.

Table 13 Rationale for Non-Action by Cyberbullying Victims (N =123) Total Respondents I was afraid I was worried that my Internet or cell phone access would be taken away or restricted I did not want to get in trouble I did not know who to talk to about the situation I felt it would not have made a difference I did not want to lose my friends I thought that if I told, it would make the bullying worse I did not think it was that big of deal 34 (123) 32 (123) Total Percentage 27.6% 26.0%

30 (123) 18 (123)

24.4% 14.6%

43 (123)

35.0%

18 (123) 31 (123)

14.7% 25.2%

69 (123)

56.1%

Note. (N = 123) Percentages exceed 100% due to the fact that respondents were asked to select all the options that were true of him or her.

The student respondents were also able to supply insightful information pertaining to several cyberbullying characteristics. Various reports in the popular press have postulated that cyberbullying is more easily carried out due in large

43

part to the general anonymity of the interaction, the perceived lack of consequences, the lack of intimacy as the cyberbully does not immediately witness the victims physical reactions, etc. The information in Table 14 sheds purposeful light on many of the aforementioned postulates. A significant portion of the student respondents (64.5%) reported that it is either somewhat, often, or always easier to bully others over the Internet or through cell phone text messaging than in real life face-to-face situations. Additionally, another 45.1% of student respondents revealed that they felt it is less hurtful to cyberbully because the harassment is not being carried out directly in person (to their face). Nearly one-third of the survey sample felt that they can say just about anything on the Internet or through cell phone text messaging without serious consequences (without getting caught). Over 22% of the student respondents reported they sometimes, often, or always fear reporting cyberbullying incidents to their parents because they will take away her or his computer or cell phone. This despite the over 44% of students who reported that cyberbullying is sometimes, most of the time, or absolutely scarier than face-to-face bullying. Additionally, over half of the sample group felt that cyberbullying was somewhat, often, or absolutely just as common as face-to-face bullying in their school. Interestingly, and perhaps sadly, 28.3% of the student respondents indicated that the students being victimized via cyberbullying deserve what was happening to them.

44

Table 14 Cyberbullying Characteristics % (N = 383)

Item
No/ Never Not Really/ Hardly Sometimes/ Somewhat Often/Most of the Time Always/ Absolutely

It is easier to bully people over the Internet or through cell phone text messaging than in real life faceso-face situations. It is less hurtful to cyberbully because you are not doing it in person (to their face). Cyberbullying is a problem in our school. Cyberbullying is scarier than faceto-face bullying. I feel that I can say just about anything on the Internet or through cell phone text messaging without serious conseqences (without getting caught). Cyberbullying is just as common as face-to-face bullying in the school. I fear reporting cyberbullying to my parents because they will take away my computer or cell phone. The people who are cyberbullied deserve what is happening to them.

21.4% 14.1%

32.4%

19.3% 12.8%

36.3% 18.5%

24.0%

12.5% 8.6%

19.3% 36.3%

30.3%

8.1%

6.0%

24.9% 30.6%

30.1%

6.8%

7.5%

40.9% 27.7%

18.1%

8.5%

4.7%

17.9% 29.0%

33.2%

12.7% 7.3%

55.7% 22.0%

10.6%

6.2%

5.4%

42.1% 29.6% 21.5%

3.4% 3.4%

Note. (N = 383) Eleven students skipped this question.

45

The student survey sample was prompted to share their thoughts as to measures and/or actions school personnel could focus on in an effort to prevent or reduce the occurrences of cyberbullying incidents. It is clear that students want school personnel to stay away from their cell phones. Only 7.5% (N = 19) of the student respondents felt that banning cell phones from school property would be an effective cyberbullying reducing measure. Meanwhile, holding a school-wide assembly to inform the collective student body and address the cyberbullying phenomenon (31%, N = 78), and blocking inappropriate Web sites and e-mail from school (23.8%, N = 60), were the most highly regarded measures according to the survey results. Table 15 displays all of the results.

Table 15 Students Perspectives Regarding Cyberbullying Reduction Total Respondents Establish clear rules against cyberbullying Hold a school-wide assembly Block inappropriate Web sites and e-mail from school Dont allow cell phones on school property Have more severe consequences for students who cyberbully others Take more time in classes to talk about cyberbullying issues 30 (252) Total Percentage 11.9%

78 (252) 60 (252)

31.0% 23.8%

19 (252)

7.5%

32 (252)

12.7%

33 (252)

13.1%

Note. (N = 252) One-hundred forty-two students skipped this question.

46

Administrative Survey Instrument and Participants Middle school/Jr. high principals throughout the State of Wisconsin were contacted via e-mail correspondence to determine their interest in participating in this study. Wisconsin middle-level building principals were surveyed via an online survey employing SurveyMonkey application tools. To prompt a more significant return rate, contact and affirmed verbal permission was obtained from the Association of Wisconsin State Administrators (AWSA) President, Mr. Tom Beattie, in support of this research study. This researchers goal to solidify a 60% return rate for both the student and administrator survey was not realized. Myriad contacts including but not limited to faceto-face and small group discussions at the Association of Wisconsin State Administrators conference (2006) hosted in La Crosse, Wisconsin and multiple followup electronic communications with survey non-respondents, the researcher was able to obtain a 30% (N = 96) consent rate from administrative random sample participants. Questionnaires directed to educators generally can be expected to yield a higher percentage of replies than questionnaires mailed to samples of the general population. The response rate is higher for an educational questionnaire because it usually is targeted at a homogeneous group, and this makes it possible to prepare a specific appeal for participation that is likely to be effective (Gall, Gall, et al., p. 230). The timeliness and saliency of the study prompted 30% participation among the potential administrative general sample. The launch date for the administrator survey was December 1, 2006, with its close date as January 5, 2007.

47

Having gleaned middle level students responses, it was apropos to ascertain the prevalence and potential interventions associated with cyberbullying as viewed by frontline administrative practitioners. Ninety-six middle level and Jr. high administrators completed the online survey. The survey consisted of thirteen questions; nine questions were constructed as fixed response only, 2 were constructed as a combination of fixed response and qualitative (open ended); and 2 questions were constructed strictly as open ended. The administrative responses assisted in more comprehensively addressing this studys research questions number three through six. Those questions are as follows: 3. How prevalent and pervasive (according to survey responses) is cyberbullying for middle school students in Wisconsin? 4. Of those students who identify with cyberbullying, how many actually reported the incidents to parents or guardians, teachers, administrators, or police? 5. What interventions are utilized by the aforementioned adults when reports are submitted? 6. What interventions are reported as being most effective by students and adults?

Table 16 depicts the administrative sample groups collective perspectives regarding the extent of face-to-face (in person) bullying in U.S. middle/Jr. high schools, and within each administrators own building. Additionally, the same queries were posed in regard to cyberbullying. It is not surprising that building administrators felt both faceto-face bullying and cyberbullying were not as significant a problem in their own school buildings as in the larger arena of the United States. Interestingly, 95.8% (N = 92) of the building administrators reported that in person, face-to-face bullying was either a

48

moderate or significant problem in his or her school; meanwhile, 87.5% (N = 84) of the building administrators reported that cyberbullying was either a moderate or significant problem in his or her school.

Table 16 Wisconsin Administrator Responses Regarding Significance % (N = 96)

Dont Know/ No Opinion Not a Problem A Moderate Concern A Significant Problem

Item

% (N)

% (N)

% (N)

% (N)

In your opinion, to what extent is face-to-face (in person) bullying among middle-level students an issue in U.S. middle/Jr. high schools? To what extent is face-to-face (in person) bullying an issue in your middle/Jr. high school?

1 (1)

0.0 (0)

53.1 (51) 45.8 (44)

0.0 (0)

4.2 (4)

75 (72) 20.8 (20)

In your opinion, to what extent is 6.2 (6) cyberbullying among middle-level students an issue in U.S. middle/Jr. high schools? To what extent is cyberbullying among middle-level students an issue in your middle/Jr. high school?
Note. (N = 96)

1 (1)

61.5 (59) 31.3 (30)

0.0 (0)

12.5 (12) 76 (73) 11.5 (11)

The relatively miniscule difference between administrators concerns regarding in person, face-to-face bullying versus the more embryonic cyberbullying phenomenon may be an indication that cyberbullying is becoming more prominent, or perhaps that building level practitioners are becoming increasingly aware of cyberbullying issues in general. However, while overall

49

awareness of cyberbullying as a concept may account for the notable percentage of administrators who believe cyberbullying is a moderate or significant concern, the concern does not necessarily translate into large percentages of cyberbullying incidents being addressed by administrators. Table 17 shows administrator responses of the prevalence of bullying. Intriguingly, the average number of face-to-face bullying incidents reported in a month is substantially more than the number of cyberbullying incidents reported in a month. For example, 55.2% (N = 53) of principal respondents reported they have between 6 and twenty or more face-to-face bullying incidents reported in an average month, as compared to 8.3% (N = 8) reporting they have between 6 and 15 cyberbullying incidents reported in the average month. Furthermore, 58% (N = 55) reported they have had twenty or more face-to-face bullying incidents reported in the last 2 years, whereas only 6% indicated they had a similar volume of cyberbullying reports during the last two years. The disparity may be accounted for by the fact the most cyberbullying is not taking place within the brick and mortar school building or with school technology, but rather outside of the schools immediate purview. Additionally, as documented previously, a substantial percentage of students who were cyberbullied either did not report, or select to report to a friend or a sibling. The decision to report to someone other than school personnel would negatively affect the likelihood that an administrator would be made aware of the situation.

50

Table 17 Wisconsin Administrator Responses Regarding Prevalence of Bullying % (N = 96)

0-1 % (N) 2-5 % (N) 6-10 % (N) 11-15 % (N) 16-20 % (N) 20+ % (N)

Item

Avg. number of faceto-face bullying incidents reported in a month Avg. number of cyberbullying incidents reported in a month Estimated number of face-to-face bullying incidents reported in the last two years Estimated number Of cyberbullying Incidents reported In the last two years
Note. (N = 96)

9 (9)

38 (36)

36 (34)

7 (7)

7 (7)

3 (3)

65 (62) 27 (26)

6 (6)

2 (2)

0.0 (0)

0.0 (0)

0 (0)

3 (3)

19 (18) 10 (10) 10 (10)

58 (55)

16 (15) 48 (45)

21 (20)

5 (5)

4 (4)

6 (6)

The most utilized interventions when cyberbullying incidents were reported to the building administrator, as reported by the administrative sample group (N = 96), were conferencing with the bully (93.8%, N = 90), conferencing with the victim (92.7%, N = 89), contacting parents (85.4%, N = 82), referring to counselors (70.8%, N = 68), and conferencing with parents (65.6%, N = 63). Referring cyberbullying incidents to peer mediation councils (12.5%, N = 12), inschool/out-of-school suspensions (33.3%, N = 32), assigning a detention (36.5%,

51

N = 35), and referring to police for potential citations/charges (37.5%, N = 36) were the least utilized intervention methods for reported cyberbullying incidents. Table 18 shows administrators most utilized interventions when cyberbullying was reported to them.

Table 18 Most Utilized Interventions for Cyberbullying Incidents as Reported by Wisconsin Administrators (N = 96) Total Respondents Conference with victim Conference with bully Refer to counselors Contact parents Conference with parents Refer to police (for info.) Refer to police (for potential citation/charges) Assign detention Suspension (in-school/out-ofschool) Refer to a peer mediation style council Other 89 (96) 90 (96) 68 (96) 82 (96) 63 (96) 47 (96) 36 (96) Total Percentage 92.7% 93.8% 70.8% 85.4% 65.6% 49.0% 37.5%

35 (96) 32 (96)

36.5% 33.3%

12 (96)

12.5%

31 (96)

32.3%

Note. (N = 96). Percentages exceed 100% due to the fact that administrative respondents were asked to select all the options that were true for him or her.

In addition to the fixed response options reported in Table 18, there were 31 open-ended responses provided by survey participants. While the vast majority

52

of the open-ended responses could have been categorized within the fixed response options, 32.3% of the open-ended responses identified revoking email/Internet/technology privileges from the offending student(s) if the incident(s) originated at the school house. Another 16.1% of the open-ended responses identified restitution as an intervention utilized. Compellingly, 29% of the open-ended responses revealed that the administrator had yet to deal with a cyberbullying issue, or if the issue originated outside of school, they would not or could not address the situation. Three example responses include: Incidents that happen totally outside of school are most often dealt with by police and we do not get involved. Students usually do not receive detentions or suspensions for incidents that occur outside of the school. If it happens between two students outside of school, there is nothing we have to do. It should be a police matter if anything, we cant be expected to always be responsible for students actionsespecially outside of school. Our counselor will talk with students if called by a parent. Too many other things to do. Table 19 represents an interesting comparison as the surveyed administrators were not prompted to share the most utilized interventions when cyberbullying incidents were reported as in Table 18, but rather which interventions have proven most effective. Making contact with parents (and in some cases actually convening with the parents), proved far and away the most identified effective intervention strategy when addressing cyberbullying

53

incidents. Fifty-four administrative respondents (58.1%) identified contacting parents as the most effective intervention strategy. Conferencing with the bully and the victim (not necessarily together) was identified as the second most effective strategy (47.3%, N = 44). Ironically, the fourth most utilized strategy, referring to counselors, was only identified by seven (7.5%) of the administrators as an effective intervention strategy for cyberbullying incidents.

Table 19 Most Effective Cyberbullying Interventions as Reported by Wisconsin Administrators (N = 96) Total Respondents Conference with bully/victim Contact with parent(s) Refer to counselors Police (SRO, SLO, PLO) intervention 44 (93) 54 (93) 07 (93) 22 (93) Total Percentage 47.3% 58.1% 7.5% 23.7%

Note. (N = 93). Three administrators skipped this question. Percentages exceed 100% due to the fact that administrative respondents open-ended responses at times consisted of multiple effective interventions.

Several of the administrators open-ended responses speak generally about the importance, relevance, or purpose of incorporating parents during the intervention process. Examples include the following: Parental notification is the key. It seems when parents are aware of what their child is doing on the Internet, they get more involved in monitoring the activities.

54

Reporting to, and gaining the support of, parents is critical to success as they may begin to more closely monitor their childs computer use at home. I find that working with parents goes a long way in helping to dispel any additional problems. Often times, it provides me an opportunity to educate parents about the impact instant messaging is having on students safety in the schoolhouse. Not all administrators felt parent contact and involvement was a miracle cure when addressing cyberbullying concerns in a meaningful way. Counterpoints peppered the open-ended response. Two posited positions included: Parents arent much help. Its hard to stop because it is being done outside of school. I have to try to stop the overflow into the school. This is more challenging, bringing in parents. Parents do not seem to take this as seriously. Without being able to attach school consequences you have to rely on the understanding of the families as it relates to the seriousness of cyberbullying. This chapter reviewed findings from both the students and administrators surveys. The following chapter will hone in on critical discussion items and detail recommendations.

55

CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS, DISCUSSION, & RECOMMENDATIONS Discussion of Findings Discussion The purpose of the present study was to conduct an investigation on cyberbullying that would be pliable, timely, and relevant for school practitioners and a summation of pragmatic information that can be accessed as a reference with ease and common understanding. Much of what has been reported in the popular press has been aptly defined as a description of individual cases versus actual scholarly research. The study detailed herein garnered adolescent students (6th 8th grade) and middle school or junior high principals perceptions regarding the nature, prevalence, and impact of cyberbullying. Embedded within the larger umbrella goals are the particulars that make this study purposeful for educational practitioners; essentially a step up from the dramatization, staging, and embellishments that can be found in some forms of mainstream media. Those particulars include (a) a working definition of cyberbullying and how the new permutation differs from physical bullying; (b) the prevalence of cyberbullying according to survey respondents (this inherently includes the accessibility of communication and information platforms that work as the medium for cyberbullying and the frequency of utilization); (c) victim reporting resources and potential inhibitions toward reporting; and (d) the interventions being utilized/suggested by both students and middle level/Jr. high administrators. The following will delve into these relevant elements of the cyberbullying phenomenon along with additional findings of the study and outline their implications.

56

The survey sample group of students and administrators was a simple random sample in that each student and administrator was afforded an equal opportunity to participate. Yet, if more than 20 percent of respondents are missingwhich was the case for both the student and administrative surveysthe researcher must question whether the sample from whom the data was obtained may no longer be representative of the population which the study was to be generalized (Gall, et al., 2003). Each building administrators support and communication of expectations may account for the variances in student population participation from each of the middle schools. Conceivably the initial attention and information distribution efforts impacted the overall participation for each of the middle schools where student input was gathered. As previously mentioned, this researcher is also one of the principals of a middle school at which the survey instrument was utilized. This researchers school embraced a dedicated and persistent effort toward communicating apposite information and obtaining the necessary participation permission forms from students and their parents or guardians. Perhaps variances in approach at each building are the reason that 49% of the survey sample originated from one school and significantly less in each of the sister schools. The gender distribution of the student sample (55% female, 45% male) may be initially noteworthy as well, however the percentages do proportionally align with the School District of La Crosses current overall student demographic landscape. Similarly, eighth grade students represent 44% of the student respondents while seventh grade was 32%, and sixth grade was 24% of the sample total. These percentages also align with the current district grade level student populations as La Crosse is a declining enrollment

57

district. Thus, the representative percentages are proportionate to current School District of La Crosse demographics. The 30% response rate from the 319 middle level or Jr. high school administrators can be accounted for by various factors. The professional organization endorsement from Mr. Tom Beattie (personal communication, November 9, 2006) was attached to a personal e-mail and a user friendly link to the survey for ease of use purposes. Additionally, the survey was scaled down to ensure the often hectic and time starved daily agenda many middle level principals keep was taken into consideration. Shortly after the initial e-mail correspondence was sent to each administrator, this researcher sent a follow-up e-mail in an effort to simultaneously inspire non-respondents to participate in the survey and thank those administrators who had already responded. Through the combination of those efforts and other ancillary supports, this researcher was able to glean a 30% response rate from Wisconsin middle-level or Jr. high school administrators. In order to duly investigate the nature, prevalence, and impact of cyberbullying the study needed to employ a working definition of cyberbullying. Following extensive literature review, this researcher found Belseys (2004) definition of cyberbullying the most applicable: Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication technologies such as e-mail, cell phones and pager text messages, instant messaging (IM), defamatory personal Web sites, and defamatory personal polling Web sites, to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group that is intended to harm others (Belsey, 2004, p. 8).

58

Though cyberbullying shares basic elements with more traditional face-toface bullying in that a power imbalance exists within the relationship, cyberbullying is distinct in several unique ways. The relative anonymity provided for cyberbullies via technological media often leaves a victim nonplussed about exactly who his or her harasser is. Not knowing who the tormentor is can make the bullying even more painful, particularly to an already insecure adolescent (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Furthermore, cyberbullies embarrassing, degrading, and hurtful messages can be disseminated to exponentially larger audiences easily and instantaneously with modern technological advances. With the simple keystroke, cyberbullies can upload malicious and nefarious text (through SMS, EMS, or MMS), static pictures, or video clips to local as well as global audiences. Additionally, the cyberbullies themselves may receive little feedback regarding their actions and are seldom forced to take responsibility for their actions (Erb, 2006). Finally, unlike more traditional face-to-face bullying that may occur on the school bus, in the hallways, or on the playground, cyberbullying victims are often being targeted in what used to be the protection of their own home. The insidious nature of cyberbullying is spotlighted by the fact that an adolescent can be victimized while in the pseudo security of their residence. With the aforementioned in mind, many adultsparents/guardians and educational practitioners alikeglibly suggest to victims of cyberbullying that she or he should simply unplug the computer or turn off the cellular phone. Research has revealed that adolescent cyberbullying victims are not necessarily embracing such a flash-of-the-obvious solution to

59

technological denigration. A generic cease and desist approach is being viewed by some transescents as an amputation from their social peer groupeven if members of that group are bullying them (Belsey, 2004; Erb, 2006; Patchin and Hinduja, 2006). This revelation may indicate that middle level students would prefer to be bullied than to be severed from their peer groups. With a standard working definition of cyberbullying solidified, it was critical to establish the student sample groups exposure to, and utilization of, information and communication technologies as they are the venue for cyberbullying experiences (these include cellular telephones and computers with Internet applications). The results revealed that the technological immersion our students are experiencing is fairly universal. The sample group was found to have substantial access to communication and information technologies. Research originating from the Pew Internet and American Life Project in July 2005 found that 87% of teens (age 12-14) use the Internet, up from 73% in 2000. Additionally, it was reported that 32% of teens (age 12-14) have personal cell phones (Lenhart, et al., p. 26). Comparatively, over 92% of the student sample reported having a computer with Internet access in the home, and another 44% own their own cell phone. These findings indicated that the sample population was substantially exposed to technology. Despite the deluge of popular reports that computers with Internet access should be kept in high traffic areas of the home (e.g., kitchen, family room, or living room), nearly one-third of the student respondents indicated that their computer is located in her or his bedroom, or in their brother or sisters bedroom.

60

Additional open-ended responses from students indicated other relatively secluded, or potentially low traffic, areas of the house where the computer with Internet access is kept (e.g., in the basement). The collective efforts of parents or guardians, educational practitioners, and other concerned adults are necessary to ensure the advantages of our technology are realized. That said, parents or guardians can no longer look around with incredulity at the cyberbullying incidents without taking at least a modicum of action. Placing technology in the hands of transescent students in relative seclusion is simply negligent conduct. Computers with Internet access must be placed in high traffic areas of the residence. Simply having access to information and communication technologies does not necessary equate to cyberbullying exposure. In an effort to help crystallize the potential exposure to cyberbullying experiences, respondents shared the amount of time spent (averages) accessing the Internet. The Pew Internet and American Life Project in July 2005 found that 43% of younger teens (aged 12-14) utilize the Internet once a day or more. (Lenhart, et al., 2005). Our sample group revealed that nearly 35% spent 1 to 2 hours a day on the Internet, while another 14% indicated they spend more than 2 hours a day on the Internet. Playing games and instant messaging (IM) were the two individual activities the majority of the sample identified as having most routinely experienced while accessing the Internet. Additionally, the study found that nearly half of the respondents reported that completing homework was a significant activity. Much of the online activity can be generalized under the concept of

61

communicating with others as both reading or writing in blogs (e.g., MySpace, Xanga, LiveJournal, etc.), and talking with friends in chat rooms were identified by more than a one quarter of the respondents respectively. This is not a surprising finding when one couches the information contextually. Adolescents today are truly digital natives as they have grown up in technological immersion relatively speaking. Their Internet ready world is easy to access and utilize, inexpensive or at times completely free of charge, and perhaps the most attractive features are the various modes of technology that allow communication to occur synchronously. The tsunami of technology engulfing youth includes both Internet access via computer systems and the seemingly omnipresent cellular telephone. As previously documented, 44% of the student respondents own their own cell phone. While 31% of the respondents with cellular phones indicated that their phone has text messaging, photo capabilities, Internet access, and video playing options (all potential avenues for cyberbullying), to determine a frequency of utilization that was purposeful for this study, respondents were asked to simply identify the number (on average) of text messages sent on a daily basis. Nearly 12% of respondents reported sending five or more text messages daily. This information once again raises awareness that contemporary middle level students are utilizing various forms of technology to interact with others like never before in human history. The technology accessed by todays 11 14-year-old student is truly unprecedented. Parent(s)/guardian(s) and educational leaders must remain cognizant of the fact that we are collectively embarking on all new territory.

62

Nature and Prevalence of Cyberbullying Researchers Hinduja and Patchin (2006) completed a study of nearly 1,500 Internet-using adolescents and found that over one-third of youth reported being victimized online, and over 16% of respondents admitted to cyberbullying others. Over 12% of the cyberbullying incidents included physical threats, and 5% of the respondents reported being scared for their safety. A corroborating 2004 survey by i-Safe America of 1,556 students from grades 6 to 8 found that 42% had been bullied online and 35% had been threatened. The aforementioned reputable studies provided insights and potential guideposts for the results of this study. Over 31% of the student participants (nearly one-third) in this study indicated they have been victimized through cyberbullying. Furthermore, slightly more than one-third of the respondents reported being sometimes or often afraid/worried about being cyberbullied. Of particular interest, slightly more than 17% of the respondents identifying themselves as victims of cyberbullying indicated they were physically threatened. The vast majority of cyberbullying victims reported they were called names (82%), were made fun of (68%), and/or had rumors spread about them (47%), which corroborates the relational and verbal tendencies associated with harassment via an electronic medium, and the developmental maturity of adolescents. The clandestine nature of the more covert relational bullying in collaboration with the relative anonymity of cyberbullying supports these findings.

63

The severity and impact of cyberbullying are certainly of interest to educational practitioners. The lack of prior research on cyberbullying makes it difficult to assess the long-term ramifications of cyberbullying specifically. However, many parallels can be reasonably drawn to more traditional face-to-face bullying (Olweus, 1993; Borba, 1999; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Students in this study who experienced cyberbullying reported feeling angry, hurt, sad, and irritated. Those feelings can induce or exacerbate feelings of insecurity, isolation, and embarrassment within a middle-level student. While the vast majority of cyberbullying is relational in nature as opposed to physically confrontational, cyberbullying victims did report having viable concerns. Research completed by Leishman (as cited in Stys, 2004), posited that the impact of electronic bullying may be more pronounced due to its stealth-like nature. Additionally, researchers Hinduja and Patchin (2006) spotlight that while the specific impact of bullying has been studied in some length, bullying that takes place via electronic means has been largely neglectedperhaps because of the unique environment in which it occurs, or the specific nonphysical manner in which it is typically perpetrated (p. 4). The results of this study indicate that further research in the area of cyberbullyings impact (on both the victim and the bully) in terms of the emotional, physical, and pro-social ramifications is appropriate. Student participants reported that instant messaging, chat rooms, and email were the most prevalently utilized media for cyberbullying experiences. This finding is not unforeseen considering these were also the media which were utilized most often by the survey sample participants (a directly proportional

64

relationship). Of those media identified as being proverbial hotbeds for cyberbullying, instant messaging far outdistanced itself from both chat rooms and e-mail. For contemporary transescents, being connected to ones peer group means being online often. Increasingly it means being online synchronously, in real-time or at the very same time as his or her peers (Belsey, p. 7). Instant messaging provides adolescents with the synchronous connection they are seeking. Instant messaging can be facilitated through programs such as AOL, ICQ, MSN Messenger, or Yahoo! Messenger, which are all currently extremely popular with 11 - 14-year-olds. The results of another survey, commissioned by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and Cox Communications (as cited in Jackson, 2006), revealed that nearly half of parents surveyed do not know about their kids online activities. Parents often do not know how to check e-mail content, buddy lists, blogs, chatrooms or instant messages. The report went on to say that 57% of parents are unfamiliar with common chat lingo like BRB (be right back), LOL (laughing out loud), and POS (parent over shoulder). The ostrich in the sand rationale will not be a viable excuse any longer. Parent(s)/guardian(s) must be willing to prepare their child(ren) for their future; this may come at the cost of the parent/guardians comfort level.

Student Reporting It is difficult for parent(s)/guardian(s) and building level practitioners to effectively address cyberbullying issues if those being cyberbullied do not report

65

in a timely, accurate, and honest manner. Of those students identifying themselves as having been the victim of cyberbullying, an overwhelming majority chose to report the incident to a friend. Additionally, far too many (slightly more than onethird) of those student respondents who identified with being cyberbullied told no one. Interestingly, the least selected venue for reporting cyberbullying incidents was school personnel. This finding may be evidence that students simply do not trust or believe that reporting to school officials will reap the benefits they are seeking. While a lack of reporting to school personnel may be reflective of myriad ancillary factors, it has been found that many students will neglect reporting to adults because they may be embarrassed about the cyberbullying incident and they believe they can handle it on their own. Rangel (2006) posited that many adolescents do not tell adults (particularly school staff) because they view that as an enhanced penalty; not only are they the victim of cyberbullying, adultsin an effort to protect the studentwill often limit or outright take away access to cell phones or computer privileges. Sadly, more than one-third of the students who identified themselves as being a victim of cyberbullying did not report because they felt it would not have made a difference. Perhaps this is evidence of a real or perceived apathy or callousness on adults behaves (parents and school personnel alike). Finally, some students indicated they did not report because they did not know who to talk to about the situation. The nebulous nature of cyberbullying may be leaving victims a bit perplexed as to which realm of authority this concern falls under. It is possible that many cyberbullying victims are confused and frustrated by a lack

66

clearly articulated options for reporting online or cellular harassment. This study did reveal that students are generally telling those who are not necessarily in a position to help terminate the cyberbullying experience. Victims are sharing their experiences with friends and brothers/sisters; while reporting to a friend or sibling may afford an emotional outlet and some cursory support, neglecting to share with an adult may only prolong the frustration, self doubt, and embarrassment associated with cyberbullying victimization.

Intervention and Prevention Strategies Student respondents supported school-wide assemblies as a positive intervention to help reduce or prevent cyberbullying. In addition to educational assemblies, student respondents indicated that blocking inappropriate Web sites and e-mail from school was a positive action. Administrative respondents identified conferencing with both victim and bully (not necessarily together), contacting parents, and conferencing with parents as the most utilized response to cyberbullying reports. The fourth most utilized intervention was identified as referring the incident to counselors. Ironically, referring the incident to counselors was also identified as one of the least effective interventions by the building administrators. Via the open-ended responses, some administrators identified their concern or conundrum when dealing with issues at school that came to fruition outside of the building. Additionally, many administrators identified continuing education for parent(s)/guardian(s) as an effective and still much desired element in the prevention of cyberbullying incidents.

67

Recommendations for Future Study The current study supplied results which indicate the cyberbullying phenomenon is becoming much less a random phenomenon and much more a mainstay in the lives of middle level students, and as a result their parents or guardians and those who are charged with their education. Although research on this phenomenon is at an embryonic stage, this study provides general insight that can be purposeful for educational practitioners. It must be stated that this study only skims the surface of this nascent issue. Further study is recommended in order to more fully comprehend the complete spectrum of cyberbullying concerns. A comprehensive study pertaining to the roles gender, race, and ethnicity descriptors play in cyberbullying may help establish a phalanx of information that could reveal purposeful insights. Additionally, intricacies related to individual family factors should be considered in any future study. For example, any viable corollary evidence that can be obtained indicating that specific child rearing styles, the modeling of aggressive behavior, the level of technologic savvy of the parents or guardians, and/or the socioeconomic status of the family influences cyberbullying tendencies within adolescents would be valuable. The limited body of research surrounding the cyberbullying phenomenon has focused on the students utilizing the technology, and to a lesser extent the natural nexus to school personnel charged with providing educational opportunities and security for students. A glaring void in the limited body of research on this topic surrounds the myriad perspectives of other critical and influential individuals. Future study should

68

strive to secure the input of parent(s)/guardian(s), law enforcement personnel, community leaders, and community laypeople regarding cyberbullying. Several focus group study possibilities would be appropriate for the continued research of this reprehensible form of harassment. A broader spectrum of viewpoints would assist in providing a well-rounded and comprehensive knowledge pool from which recommendations and purposeful action could flourish. The pachyderm in the living room for educational leaders is the legal ambiguity surrounding cyberbullying and First Amendment rights of students. As revealed by many of the responses collected via the middle/Jr. high school administrator survey, the vast majority of cyberbullying issues begin off of school grounds; yet, the results or fallout from cyberbullying can manifest in inappropriate student behaviors within the brick and mortar school setting. Thus, further research should spotlight the chasm that has been revealed as a result of the cyberbullying phenomenon. Cyberbullying exacerbates the strife some middle level practitioners are experiencing as the inevitable march of change rapidly outpaces the established pillars or frameworks that work as buttresses for the democratic foundations we have established in public education and our legal systems. In some instances, as with our current resource push via the knowledge now, information saturated environment enveloping us, public education and current legal decisions may seem beyond slowthey may appear inert. Yet, public educationhandholding with other institutionsis expected to hurdle the arcane information of yesterday and prepare our youth for a productive adulthood with a proclivity for not only civility and compassion for his/her fellow human, but also a technological savvy that enables each

69

budding intellectual to locate, analyze, and apply information in a seamless and efficient manner. Cyberbullying scenarios have created a lattice of legal and educational considerations. Thus, some complex legal considerations have become pragmatic collaborators with education on this journey of technological advancement. Ultimately, the delicate balance is to maximize technological benefits and ensure parent(s)/guardian(s), students, and educators recognize the potential pitfalls of our modern technology. Thus, from a frontline practitioner viewpoint, more research must address the fundamental concern revolving around each students personal speech conducted via technological medium, and how public school officials may respond to speech that may be deemed inappropriate (see Appendix I). Future studies should also critically examine the most utilized and most effective approaches for school based intervention; they may not be one in the same. While this study merely scratched the surface in terms of intervention applicability and success, it did raise a question as to the efficacy of some intervention strategies. For example, the fourth most utilized strategy, identified as referring the incident and individuals involved to school counselors, was only recognized by seven of the ninety-six administrators as an effective intervention strategy for cyberbullying incidents. This discrepancy is certainly fodder for a more in-depth analysis. Why are building level practitioners utilizing any given strategy with regular frequency when it appears the strategy may not be yielding desired results? The ever-evolving nature of information and communication technology has aided and abetted the cyberbullying phenomenon. The ceaseless advent, ease of use, and

70

ubiquitous nature of technology have melded to provided avenues for students to take harassment and degradation from the playground, hallways, and buses to personal cellular phones and computers with Internet access. This study revealed that the social ill of cyberbullying is real. Furthermore, cyberbullying is a prevalent concern for middle level students and building administrators. Sadly, the results also indicated that far too many transescents do not report cyberbullying incidents to those who are most readily in a position to help reduce or eliminate the harassment. Future studies should delve more directly into victim reporting resources and the cornucopia of reasons why victims are reluctant to report. While diligent work must still be done in the future to learn more about this phenomenon and to educate all stakeholders, the following practical suggestions may help begin the process. While is may appear to be a overstated flash of the obvious, perhaps the most important recommendation one could afford a parent/guardianor a building level practitionerto effectively respond to the cyberbullying phenomenon is to become more intricately involved in the technological lives of young people. Trite as that may seem, the results of genuine involvement may do more than just help adults understand what transescents are experiencing. When youth realize that adults can and will respond effectively to reports of cyberbullying, they are more inclined to seek adult assistance (Willard, 2007). Meanwhile, for extra surveillance parent(s)/guardian(s) can employ both filtering and monitoring software; however, perhaps like so many potentially contentious issues with adolescents, often the most purposeful approach is to facilitate an honest and open dialogue based on the articulation of well establish expectations.

71

In the school house, it is critical that school districts have Acceptable Use Policies (AUP) for technology in place. Most schools have well reasoned policies that address the appropriate utilization of school owned technologies. Contemporary policies should have specific vernacular addressing cyberbullying. For school personnel, the more daunting hurdle is that most cyberbullying does not occur on or with school property, but rather off-campus. The legal standard supporting formal disciplinary action of off-campus speech is contextually shackled by substantial and material disruption or threat of disruption as school (see Appendix I). School personnel must consistently communicate clear messages about the proper and appropriate use of technology. Additionally, school leaders must recognize that they inherently play a pivotal role in educating parents about the nature, prevalence, and impact of cyberbullying. The evolution of technological advancements happens at a breakneck pace. It is daunting for those in the field to stay abreast of the incessant changes. That said, on-going informational sessions for parents would empower them to make purposeful and informed decisions regarding their childs technology utilization. The goal must be to infuse technology advancements to positively impact the greater good. Cyberbullying is a vexing issue that is borne out of a combination of various elements. To address cyberbullying, school leaders must champion a message of knowledge, skills, and values about positive technology choiceschoices that are simultaneously safe, respectful, and responsible. Criminologist and researcher Justin Patchin (personal communication, December 20, 2006), stated that the goal for school leaders must be to ensure they are aware of how cyberbullying can be a significant issue

72

for many of their students. That awareness will enable well-intentioned school leaders to formulate policy and programming that will benefit students and parents alike. As this study has revealed, cyberbullying is an important topic in our advancing technological world. This study represents a small step on what is sure to be a lengthy journey as we seek to understand this budding phenomenon.

73

REFERENCES Alexander, K, & Alexander M. D., (2001). American public school law (5th ed.). Connecticut: Wadsworth Group.

American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. (March, 2001). Bullying. Retrieved July 26, 2004, from http://www.aacap.org/publications/factsfam/80.htm

Ascione, L. (2006). Programs aim to stop cyberbullying. eSchool News. Retrieved May 11, 2006, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/pfshowStory.cfm

Barone, F. J. (1997). Bullying in school: It doesnt have to happen. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1).

Belsey, B. (2004). Cyberbullying: An emerging threat to the always on generation. Retrieved February 27, 2006, from http://www.cyberbullying.ca/pdf/feature

Beran, T. & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for an old behavior. Educational Computer Research, 32(3), 265-277.

Borba, M. (1999, October). What to do if your child is teased or bullied. Retrieved June 11, 2004, from http://www.presidioninc.com/newsletter/

74

Brooks, L. W., Corder, G. W., & Marshall, I. H. (2006). Internet bullying. Principal Leadership, 6(9), 52-56.

Butler, D. W. (2005). Type, prevalence, seriousness and intervention: What teachers believe about student bullying (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Southern University, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66, 166.

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (2002). Blueprints for violence prevention, book nine: Bullying prevention program. Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado.

Chaker, A. M. (2007, January 24). Schools act to short-circuit spread of cyberbullying. The Wall Street Journal, pp. D1, D4.

Craig, W. M. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 123-130.

Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multi-informant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337-347.

Cybernation.com (2007). Available at: http://www.cybernation.com/quotationcenter

75

Dake, J. A. (2002). School bullying prevention activities: Teachers and principals perceptions and practices. Dissertation Abstracts International. (UMI No. 3071988)

Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., & Telljohann, S. K. (2003). The nature and extent of bullying at school. Journal of School Health, 73(5), 173-180.

Darden, E. C. & Ward A. W. (1999). Legal issues & education technology: A school leaders guide (Report No. 0-88364-22-0). Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED444226).

Davis, S. (2006, March). Stop bullying now! Paper presented at the Office of Continuing Education and Extension, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI.

Davis, S. (2003). Schools where everyone belongs: Practical strategies for reducing bullying. Wayne, ME: Stop Bullying Now.

Erb, T. (2006). Cyberbullying: A growing threat to young adolescent well-being. Middle School Journal, 38(2), 2.

76

Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry and N. Morris (Eds.) Crime and Justice, Vol 17, (pp. 381-458). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Frangiosa, C. D. (2004). The impact of the Internet on school district liability. National Business Institute Seminar: Hot topics in managing and avoiding school liability in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA: Author.

Frinkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., & Wolak, J. (2000). Online victimization: A report on the nations youth (Report No. 98-MC-CX-K002). Alexandria, VA: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED442039)

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Green, J. L., Camilli, G., & Elmore, P. B. (2006). Handbook of complementary methods in education research. Washington, D.C: American Educational Research Association.

Haag-Granello, D. & Wheaton, J. E. (2004). Online data collection: Strategies for research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, 387-393.

77

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2006, December). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Paper presented at the meetings of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Chicago, IL.

Hodges. E.V.E., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents and consequences of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 677-685.

Hugh-Jones, S., & Smith, P. K. (1999). Self-reports of short- and long-term effects of bullying on children who stammer. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 141-158.

Jackson, C. (2006). E-bully. Tolerance.org: Fight hate and promote tolerance. Retrieved August 17, 2006, from http://www.tolerance.org/teach/magazine/features

Keith, S., & Martin, M. E. (2005). Cyber-bullying: Creating a culture of respect in a cyber world [Electronic version]. Crisis Prevention, 4, 224-228.

Leishman, J. (2002). Cyber-bullying. In L. Selick and A. Hancock (Producers0

Lenhart, A., Madden, M. & Hitlin, P. (2005, July). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, D.C.

78

Li, Q. (2005, April). Cyberbullying in schools: Nature and extent of Canadian adolescents experience. Paper presented at the annual conference of AERA, Montreal, Canada.

Milsom, A., & Gallo, L. L. (2006). Bullying in middle schools: Prevention and intervention. Middle School Journal, January 2006, 12-19.

Mishna, F. (2004). A qualitative study of bullying from multiple perspectives. Children & Schools, 26(4), 234-247.

MySpace.com. (2006). The official school administrators guide to understanding MySpace and resolving social networking issues [Brochure]. Los Angeles, CA: Author.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA, 285, 2094-2100.

National I-Safe Survey. (2004). National I-Safe survey: Over half of students are being harassed online. Retrieved February 13, 2006, from http://www.isafe.org

79

OConnell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437-452.

Olweus, D. (1987). Schoolyard bullying: Grounds for intervention. School Safety, 6, 411.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35, 1171-1190.

Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and interventions. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(4), 495-510.

Olweus, D. (2003). A profile of bullying at school. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 12-17.

Patchin, J. W. & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 148-169.

Pellegrini, A. D. (1998). Bullies and victims in school: A review and call for research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 165-176.

80

Rangel, D. (2006). Stopping school violence: The complete guide for parents and educators on handling bullying. Retrieved August 17, 2006, from http://stoppingschoolviolence.com/book_and_reports.html

Street Law & The Supreme Court Historical Society: Landmark Supreme Court Cases (2005). The Internet, schools, and symbolic speech: A jigsaw activity. Retrieved November 4, 2005, from http://landmarkcases.org/tinker/activity.html

Stys, Y. (2004). Beyond the schoolyard: Examining electronic bullying among Canadian youth. Unpublished masters thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Smith, P., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., & Tippett, N. (2006, July). An investigation into cyberbullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age and gender in cyberbullying. A report to the Anti-Bullying Alliance, Goldsmiths College, University of London.

Swartz, J. (2005, March 7). Schoolyard bullies get nastier online: Hurtful messages can his kids any time, anywhere. USA TODAY, pp. A1, D1.

University of WisconsinEau Claire, News Releases (2006, March 14). Adolescent bullies move to cyberspace, researchers find. Retrieved May 12, 2006, from http://www.edu/newsreleases

81

U.S. Department of Eucation (2000). Parents guide to the Internet (Report No. MIS2000-6609). Washington, DC: (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED456839).

Voors, W. (2000). Bullying: Changing the course of your childs life. Center City, MN: Hazelden.

Webopedia. (August 13, 2006). Available at: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/c/chat.html

Wikipedia. (August 13, 2006). Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_aggression

Willard, N. E. (2006). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social aggression, threats, and distress. Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use.

Willard, N. E. (2006). Cyberbullying: What educators need to know to combat online cruelty. Education Week, 25(30), 41-43.

Wiseman, R. (2007, February 25). How to fight the new bullies. Parade, 36, 6-9.

82

Ziegler, S., & Rosenstein-Manner, M. (1991). Bullying at school: Toronto in an international context. Toronto: Toronto Board of Education, Research Services.

83

APPENDIX

84

Appendix A: Student Participant Consent Form Student Participant Consent Form In order for you (as a student) to participate in a research study, the researcher(s) must first have your permission to allow them to include your responses in the research findings/results. To receive your permission, please read the statements written below. If you agree with the statements and want to participate, simply complete (fill out) the information below; if you would like to participate please be sure to sign and date this permission form. If you have any questions about the research study, please feel free to contact me, Mr. Troy D. Harcey (Principal, Logan Middle School) at the number I have provided at the bottom of the page. Please return this form to your teacher by Friday, November 17th. Notice: If you have been directly or indirectly involved with any form of bullying (past or present), completing the survey has the potential for resurfacing uncomfortable feelings and/or memories. Please know that each school currently has various resources (i.e. school counselors, psychologists, and social workers) to support, guide, and advise you. You can ask questions and receive support. Thank you! Please read the statements written below. If you agree with the statements then sign and date below. 1. I understand that I have been asked to participate in a research study conducted by a graduate student at Edgewood CollegeMr. Troy D. Harceywhich focuses on the concept of cyberbullying. 2. I am aware that I can ask questions about the study before I participate. 3. I am aware that if I agree to participate in the research study that I will be asked to complete an online survey about my experiences and/or observations concerning cyberbullying. 4. I am aware that I do not have to be in the study and that even if I start to participate, I can stop at any time. 5. I am also aware that my specific responses will be kept secret and they will not be shown to anyone, not even my teachers or parents. Only the research team from Edgewood College will know what I say on the questionnaire.
Name (please print): _____________________________________ Signature: _____________________________________________ Grade: ______________ School: _________________

Date: _________________________________________________

Thank You! Researcher: Mr. Troy D. Harcey Principal, Logan Middle School Work Phone Number: (608) 789-7750

85

Appendix B: Parent/Guardian Consent Form Parent/Guardian Consent Form Dear Parent(s)/Guardian(s): My name is Mr. Troy D. Harcey, and I am currently serving as principal at Logan Middle School. Additionally, in an effort to model continuous learning and improvement, I am a doctoral student at Edgewood College (Madison, WI). Through my graduate program at Edgewood, I am initiating a research study that investigates the nature, prevalence, and perceptions of students (and middle-level administrators throughout Wisconsin) regarding the concept of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying can be defined as sending or posting harmful or cruel text or images (pictures) using technologies such as e-mail, cell phones and pager text messages, instant messaging (IM), personal Web sites, polling Web sites, and blogs (i.e. MySpace, LiveJournal, Facebook, Xanga, etc.), to deliberately and repeatedly attempt to harm others. Cyberbullying can take many forms. For example, if someone is posting rumors and/or lies about others, teasing, name-calling, insulting and/or writing harmful and hurtful jokes, posting inappropriate pictures of others, making threatening comments, or even deliberately ignoring others, those can all be considered cyberbullying. My hope is that this research study will lead to a better understanding of how modern technological advancements may be utilized by adolescents in addressing contemporary peer interactions and conflict scenarios. During one class session in November, I will ask student participants from Logan Middle, Longfellow/SOTA II, and Lincoln Middle to complete a confidential, Internet based survey inquiring about their experiences and/or observations around the concept of cyberbullying. Your students responses will not be identified by name and I will not use information from school records. The anonymity of each student will be held in the highest regard. That said, please know that if your student has been directly or indirectly involved with any form of bullying (past or present), completing the survey has the potential for resurfacing uncomfortable feelings and/or memories. Thus, each school currently has in place various resources (i.e. school counselors, psychologists, and social workers) to support, guide, and advise students. This study has been officially approved by your childs principal, the School District of La Crosse Research and Development Committee, Edgewood Colleges Doctoral Review Committee, and the Human Participant Review Board at Edgewood College. Upon completion of the research study, a complete report detailing the findings will be available to interested parents/guardians in each of the middle school libraries. Please complete the form at the bottom of this letter and return it to your childs teacher by Friday, November 17th, 2006.

86

Allow me to express my genuine appreciation for your commitment to education and cooperation in this important research. If you would like to receive more information about the study, please feel free to contact me directly at Logan Middle School.

Sincerely,

Mr. Troy D. Harcey Principal, Logan Middle School Doctoral Candidate Department of Education Edgewood College School Name (Please Circle): Logan Longfellow/SOTA II Lincoln

Students Name (or Students Names): _______________________________________ Please place a check by the desired response. _____ I grant permission for my student to participate in the cyberbullying research study being conducted by Troy D. Harcey. _____ I DO NOT grant permission for my student to participate in the cyberbullying research study being conducted by Troy D. Harcey. Signature of parent/guardian: ________________________ Date: __________________ Please return to your childs teacher by Friday, November 17th, 2006. Thank You!

87

Appendix C: Web Based (SurveyMonkey) Student Cyberbullying Survey

1. Cyberbullying Survey--Logan Middle School The purpose of this survey is to discover different ways that students use technological equipment (e.g. computers, cell phones, etc.), to harass and/or bully others. Please know that this survey is completely private, confidential, and anonymous. You are not to identify youself in any way. This survey is seeking information from students about cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is defined as sending or posting harmful or cruel text or images (pictures) using technologies such as e-mail, cell phones and pager text messages, instant messaging (IM), personal Web sites, and blogs (e.g. MySpace, Facebook, LiveJournal, Xanga, etc.), to deliberately and repeatedly attempt to harm others. Cyberbullying can take many forms. For example, if someone is posting rumors and/or lies about others, teasing, name calling, insulting and/or writing harmful and hurtful jokes, posting inappropriate pictures of others, making threatening comments, or even diliberately ignoring others, those can all be considered cyberbullying. Please answer each question as honestly as you possibly can. Thank you!

Next >>

88

Cyberbullying Survey-- Logan Middle School

2. Cyberbullying Survey--Middle Schools Cyberbullying Survey

Exit this survey >>

1. Are you a boy or a girl? Girl Boy

2. What grade are you in? 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade

3. Which middle school do you attend? Lincoln Longfellow/SOTA II Logan

4. Please identify where you have computers with Internet access in your home (please check all that apply to you). In my bedroom In my brother or sister's room In my parent(s) or guardian(s) bedroom In the kitchen In the living room or family room

89

I do not have a computer in my home I do not have a computer with Internet access at my house. Other (please specify)

5. How many hours (on average) do you spend on the Internet either in chat rooms, interactive gaming rooms, instant messaging (IM), emailing, on a blog (e.g. MySpace, Xanga, etc.), or on a personal Web page? One hour each day Two hours each day More than two hours each day A couple of hours a month One hour a week A couple of hours each week None

6. Do you currently have your own cell phone? Yes, I have a cell phone. No, I do not have a cell phone.

7. If you do have a cell phone, what are the "features"? Please select from the menu below. If you do not have a cell phone, please skip to question #9.

90

My cell phone has...

8. If you do have a cell phone, how many (on average) text messages do you send on your cell phone? If you don't have a cell phone, continue to question #9. None, I do not use text messaging on my cell phone. Less than five each day. More than five each day. Less than five each week. More than five each week.

9. When you spend time on the Interent, what do you spend the most time doing? (Please check all of the responses that are true for you.) School work Games Reading or writing in blogs (online journals such as MySpace, Xanga, Facebook, LiveJournal, etc.) Talking with friends in chat rooms Instant messaging (IM) Other (please specify)

10. Have you ever been bullied or picked on through e-mail, blogs (e.g. MySpace, LiveJournal, Facebook, Xanga, etc.), cell phone text

91

messaging, online chat or game rooms, or a personal Web page? Yes No

11. How often are you afraid or worried about being cyberbullied? Never Sometimes Often Always

12. If you have been a victim of cyberbullying, what form did it take? (Please check all the options that are true for you.) I was called names I was made fun of I had pictures posted without my permission I was ignored I was disrespected I was picked on Rumors were spread about me I was threatened physically I have not been a victim of cyberbullying Other (please specify)

92

13. If you have been a victim of cyberbullying, were you ever scared for your safety? I was scared for my personal safety. I was not scared for my personal safety. I have not been a victim of cyberbullying.

14. If you have been a victim of cyberbullying, where did the cyberbullying take place? (Please check all the options that are true for you.) E-mail Chat room(s) Cell phone (text messaging) Computer instant messaging (IM) Blog site (ex. MySpace, Xanga, Facebook, LiveJournal, etc.) I have not been a victim of cyberbullying Other (please specify)

15. If you have witnessed or been victimized by cyberbullying, how did it make you feel? (Please check all the options that are true for you.) I felt angry

93

I felt embarrassed I felt sad I felt hurt I was irritated I felt threatened The bullying did not bother me I thought it was funny/no big deal I have not witnessed or been a victim of cyberbullying.

16. If you have been the victim of cyberbullying, what did you do about it? (Please check all options that are true for you.) I did not tell anyone. I told a friend. I told my parent(s)/guardian(s). I told my brother and/or sister. I told an adult at school (e.g. counselor, teachers, school police officer, principal, etc.). I joined in the bullying (I returned the bullying by bullying back). I have not witnessed or been the victim of cyberbullying.

17. If you were cyberbullied, and you reported it to a parent/guardian or an adult at school, did the situation improve? After reporting (telling an adult), the situation improved a little bit.

94

After reporting (telling an adult), the situation improved a lot. After reporting (telling an adult), the situation did not improve. After reporting (telling an adult), the situation got worse. I have not been cyberbullied. I did not report (tell and adult about) the cyberbullying.

18. If you have been a victim of cyberbullying, and you did not do anything about it, what was the reason? (Please check all the options that are true for you.) I was afraid. I was worred that my Internet or cell phone access would be taken away or restricted. I did not want to get in trouble. I did not know who to talk to about the situation. I felt it would not have made a difference. I did not want to lose my friends. I thought that if I told, it would make the bullying worse. I did not think it was that big of a deal. I have not witnessed or been victimized by cyberbullying. Other (please specify)

19. Have you ever bullied another person through e-mail, blogs (e.g. MySpace, LiveJournal, Facebook, Xanga, etc.), cell phone text

95

messaging, online chat or game rooms, or a personal Web page? Yes No

20. If you have bullied others through the use of technology such as e-mail, blogs, chat rooms, cell phone, etc., what did you do? (Please check all the options that are true for you.) Called names Made fun of someone I posted picutes of someone else. Ignored someone Disrespected someone Picked on someone Spread rumors about someone Threatened someone I have never cyberbullied anyone.

21. If you have cyberbullied others, why did you do it? To teach the victim a lesson. To "get back" at the victim. Just to have some fun. To make the victim afraid.

96

To make the victim "tougher" or "stronger." I have not cyberbullied anyone. Other (please specify)

<< Prev

Next >>

Cyberbullying Survey-- Logan Middle School

3. Cyberbullying Survey

Exit this survey >>

For questions 21 - 40, please respond by indicating how "true" the statment is for you. The following questions reflect your opinion.

22. It is easier to bully people over the Internet or through cell phone text messaging than in "real life" face-to-face situations. No/Never Not Really/Hardly Sometimes/Somewhat Often/Most of the time Always/Absolutely

23. It is less hurtful to cyberbully because you are not doing it in person (to their face). No/Never

97

Not really/Hardly Sometimes/Somewhat Often/Most of the time Always/Absolutely

24. Cyberbullying is a problem in our school. No/Never Not really/Hardly Sometimes/Somewhat Often/Most of the time Always/Absolutely

25. Cyberbullying is scarier than face-to-face bullying. No/Never Not really/Hardly Sometimes/Somewhat Often/Most of the time Always/Absolutely

26. School employees (e.g. counselors, teachers, principals, etc.), can't do anything to help stop cyberbullying because it often takes

98

place outside of school. School employees can't do anything to help School employess usually can't do anything to help School employees can sometimes help School employees most often can't do anything to help Always true, sshool employees can't do anything to help

27. I feel that I can say just about anything on the Internet or through cell phone text messaging without serious consequences (without getting caught). No/Never Not really/Hardly Sometimes/Somewhat Often/Most of the time Always/Absolutely

28. Cyberbullying is just as common as face-to-face bullying in the school. No/Never Not really/Hardly Sometimes/Somewhat Often/Most of the time Always/Absolutely

99

29. I am worried about being cyberbullied. No/Never Not really/Hardly Sometimes/Somewhat Often/Most of the time Always/Absolutely

30. I have visited Web sites or blogs (e.g. MySpace, Facebook, Xanga, etc.), to read or view mean things others have posted or written. No/Never Not really/Hardly Sometimes/Somewhat Often/Most of the time Always/Absolutely

31. Because of screen names and other similar features, it is difficult to know who the person is that is doing the cyberbullying. No/Never Not really/Hardly Sometimes/Somewhat

100

Often/Most of the time Always/Absolutely

32. I fear reporting cyberbullying to my parent(s)/guardian(s) because they will take away my computer or cell phone. No/Never Not really/Hardly Sometimes/Somewhat Often/Most of the time Always/Absolutely

33. If you report cyberbullying to adults it will help stop the bullying. Reporting the situation to adults always helps. Reporting the situation to adults usually helps. Reporting the situation sometimes helps. Reporting the situation usually does not help. Reporting to adults does not help at all.

34. Nobody can do anything to stop cyberbullying. True Often true

101

Sometimes true Not really true Never true

35. My parent(s)/guardian(s) know exactly what I do online and/or with my cell phone. No/Never Not really/Hardly Sometimes/Somewhat Often/Most of the time Always/Absolutely I do not go online or use a cell phone.

36. It is worse to hit or punch a person than to send them a hurtful email, instant message, or text message. No/Never Not really/Hardly Sometimes/Somewhat Often/Most of the time Always/Absolutely

102

37. People should be allowed to say whatever they like about others on their personal Web sites and blogs. No/Never Not really/Hardly Sometimes/Somewhat Often/Most of the time Always/Absolutely

38. It is easier to make friends online than in person. No/Never Not really/Hardly Sometimes/Somewhat Often/Most of the time Always/Absolutely

39. The people who are cyberbullied deserve what is happening to them. No/Never Not really/Hardly Sometimes/Somewhat Often/Most of the time Always/Absolutely

103

40. I am concerned about being cyberbullied in the future. No/Never Not really/Hardly Sometimes/Somewhat Often/Most of the time Always/Absolutely

41. I have more online friends than I do "real life" friends. No/Never Not really/Hardly Sometimes/Somewhat Often/Most of the time Always/Absolutely

* 42. What can schools do to prevent and reduce cyberbullying? Please share your thoughts and suggestions. Please select the best option below. Options

<< Prev

Next >>

104

Cyberbullying Survey-- Logan Middle School

Exit this survey >>

4. Thank you for participating! You have completed the cyberbullying survey. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Your responses will help make your school a better place for everyone. Thanks again!

<< Prev

Done >>

105

Appendix D: Proctor Instructions for Cyberbullying Survey CYBERBULLYING SURVEY (Proctor Instructions) To ensure that the survey results are as valid and reliable as possible, it is critical that each proctor administer the survey in a uniform manner (i.e. the surveys are delivered with the same directions, definitions, explanations, format, etc.). Please be sure that students understand the directions and how to correctly mark answers. Specific directions for the survey begin below. Be sure to review the survey and survey directions in advance. Information that is only for you and is not to be read aloud is printed in this type style. The directions you are to read aloud to the students are preceded and are printed in bold type. by DIRECTIONS FOR ADMINSTERING THE CYBERBULLYING SURVEY Check to be sure that each student is logged on to the appropriate site and has found the cyberbullying survey for your school (proctor will input password at this time). In order to respect student autonomy, it is important that each student has his or her own space to complete the survey. You are about to take an anonymous online survey regarding cyberbullying. Anonymous means that no one will know how you answer each question. So, you will not be typing your name into this survey. It is very important that you answer carefully and honestly. Your truthful responses will help ensure accurate results. As proctor, you may need to explain the preceding paragraph. Please do so by explaining that honest responses will help us better understand what cyberbullying is all about. Fake or untrue responses will only hinder the process. We want our data to reflect actual issues, concerns, or experiences regarding cyberbullying. Before we begin, we must first define/explain the term cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is defined as sending or posting harmful or cruel text or images (pictures) using technologies such as e-mail, cell phones, instant messaging (IM), personal Web sites, and social networking sites (e.g. MySpace, Xanga, Facebook, LiveJournal, YouTube, etc.), in an attempt to harm or intimidate others. A student is being cyberbullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time to negative actions on the part of one or more people. Cyberbullying can take many forms. For example, if someone is (1) Telling lies or spreading rumors about another person using a cell phone or computer technology (2) Teasing, calling names, or insulting another person using cell phone or computer technology (3) Posting hurtful jokes or inappropriate pictures of someone while using cell phone or computer technology

106

(4) Making threats (e.g. You better watch your back, Im going to beat you up.) while using cell phone or computer technology (5) Writing mean messages about others or rating others on social networking sites like MySpace, Xanga, LiveJournal, and Facebook. Cyberbullying can be many things. However, we do not call it cyberbullying when the teasing is done in a friendly and playful way between friends. Add any clarification necessary; however, remain succinct and ensure the students that many of their questions will be answered quite naturally as they progress on the survey. Now we will complete the online cyberbullying survey. Again, your honesty is critical as you complete the survey. You may begin.

107

Appendix E: Web Based (SurveyMonkey) Middle Level Administrator Cyberbullying Survey

Middle Level Administrator Cyberbullying Survey

1. Middle Level Administrator Cyberbullying Survey

Exit this survey >>

The purpose of this survey is to discover the prevalence of bullying (face-to-face) and a new permutation known as "cyberbullying" in Wisconsin middle/Jr. high schools. In addition, the survey will inquire as to interventions that you have found to be effective. This survey is seeking information from middle-level administrators about cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is defined as sending or posting harmful or cruel text or images (pictures) using technologies such as email, cell phones and pager text messages, instant messaging (IM), personal Web sites, and blogs (e.g. MySpace, Facebook, LiveJournal, Xanga, etc.), to deliberately and repeatedly attempt to harm others. Cyberbullying can take many forms. For example, if someone is posting rumors and/or lies about others, teasing, name calling, insulting and/or writing harmful and hurtful jokes, posting inappropriate pictures of others, making threatening comments, or even diliberately ignoring others...all of these can all be considered cyberbullying. Your experiences and perceptions as a school leader will certainly shed valuable light on the cyberbullying issue. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to assist with this research study. Thank you!

Next >>

108

Middle Level Administrator Cyberbullying Survey

2. Middle Level Administrator Cyberbullying Survey

Exit this survey >>

1. In your opinion, to what extent is face-to-face (in person) bullying among middle-level students an issue in U.S. middle/Jr. high schools? Don't know/No opinion Not a problem A moderate A significant concern problem

2. To what extent is face-to-face (in person) bullying an issue in your middle/Jr. high school? Not a problem A moderate A significant concern problem

3. In your opinion, to what extent is cyberbullying (harassment utilizing Internet applications, cellular phones, and other communication technologies) among middle-level students an issue in U.S. middle/Jr. high schools? Don't know/No opinion Not a problem A moderate A significant concern problem

109

4. To what extent is cyberbullying among middle-level students an issue in your middle/Jr. high school? Not a problem A moderate A significant concern problem

5. In an average month, how many face-to-face (in person) bullying incidents are reported to you (please include associate principal, dean of students, and/or school resource officers if you have them)? 0-1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 More than 20

6. In your estimation in an average month, how many cyberbullying incidents are reported to you (please include associate principal, dean of students, and/or school resource officer if you have them)? 0-1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 More than 20

110

7. In your estimation, how many in-school, face-to-face bullying incidents have you dealt with in the last two academic school years (please include associate principal, dean of students, and/or school resource officer if you have them)? 0-1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 More than 20

8. In your estimation, how many cyberbullying incidents have you dealt with in the last two academic school years (please include associate principal, dean of students, and/or school resource officer if you have them)? 0-1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 More than 20

111

9. What interventions do you utilize most often when face-to-face bullying incidents are reported directly to you? (Please check all that apply.) Conference with victim Conference with bully Refer to school counselors Contact student(s)' parents/guardians (phone/e-mail/letter) Conference with student(s)' parents/guardians Refer to police or school resource officers (for information) Refer to police or school resource officers (for potential charges/citations) Assign detention Assign suspensions (in-school/out-of-school) Refer to a 'peer mediation' type council Other (please specify)

10. What interventions do you utilize most often when cyberbullying incidents are reported directly to you? Conference with victim Conference with bully Refer to school counselors Contact student(s)' parents/guardians (phone/e-mail/letter)

112

Conference with student(s)' parents/guardians Refer to police or school resource officers (for information) Refer to police or school resource officers (for potential charges/citations) Assign detention Assign suspensions (in-school/out-of-school) Refer to a 'peer mediation' type council Other (please specify)

11. Of the interventions you have utilized when face-to-face bullying incidents are reported directly to you, in your opinion, which interventions have proven most effective?

113

12. Of the interventions you have utilized when cyberbullying incidents are reported directly to you, in your opinion, which interventions have proven most effective?

114

13. If follow-up inquiries would help illuminate your responses to this survey, would you be willing to receive a follow-up phone call? Yes No

<< Prev

Next >>

115

Middle Level Administrator Cyberbullying Survey

3. Middle Level Administrator Cyberbullying Survey

Exit this survey >>

I would like to thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to share your experiences while addressing the questions within this survey. Your input is tremendously appreciated. Thank you!

<< Prev

Done >>

116

Appendix F: E-mail Correspondence with AWSA Endorsement Cyberbullying is a budding issue that is gaining formidable attention in the mass media and in schools across our state and country. There is currently a relative paucity of formal research on the topic. That said, please take a few moments to complete the brief online survey detailed below and support the scholarly research being conducted by Mr. Troy D. Harcey. We believe the research will have meaning and purpose for middle-level administrators throughout Wisconsin. --Mr. Tom Beattie, Executive Director AWSA Dear Colleague, My name is Troy D. Harcey and I am the Principal at Logan Middle School in La Crosse, WI. In addition to my role as principal, I am also a doctoral student at Edgewood College in Madison. As part of my graduate program, I am working on a research study that looks at bullying in general and cyberbullying specifically. If you were able to attend this year's AWSA conference in La Crosse, you may have heard about the research I am conducting via some of the breakout sessions. Cyberbullying is a relatively new term for many of us. With all of the technology that contemporary students have access to, they also have more avenues to bully and harass one another than they ever did in the past. Cyberbullying can be defined as sending or posting harmful or cruel text or pictures using a computer, cell phone, or pager to deliberately attempt to harm others. As a principal, perhaps you have met with students regarding cyberbullying issues such as, but certainly not limited to: posting rumors and/or lies about others, writing harmful and hurtful jokes, posting inappropriate pictures, and/or making threats and intimidating comments about others on platforms such as MySpace, Xanga, Facebook, AIM, or cell phone text messaging. My hope is that this research study will lead to a better understanding of how current technology is used by middle-level students to address peer interactions and conflict. As part of my research project, I am asking that you, as a building leader, complete a short online survey (the survey contains fewer than 15 questions and will take approximately five minutes to complete). The survey is being sent specifically to our colleagues (middle level/Jr. high administrators) throughout the state of Wisconsin. Please know that the research has been approved by Edgewood College's Review Committee and has been endorsed by Mr. Tom Beattie, Executive Director of our professional organization, AWSA. Upon completion of the research study, a published copy will be available through Edgewood College; in addition any one of you can contact me directly in La Crosse. I respect the fact that you have a very busy schedule. I want to thank you in advance for taking a few precious moments to thoughtfully complete the survey...and help us all more fully understand the new permutation of student-to-student harassment.

117

In order to participate in the survey, please access: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=500082591257 Thank you for your cooperation with this important project. If you would like additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (608) 789-7750. Sincerely,

Troy D. Harcey Principal, Logan Middle School Doctoral Candidate Department of Education Edgewood College

118

Appendix G: Approval Letter from Edgewood College Human Participants Review Board

119

Appendix H: Approval Letter from School District of La Crosse Research and Development Committee

120

Appendix I: Student Blogs: Public Schools, Parent(s)/Guardian(s)More Than a Pit Stop on the Information Super Highway, by Troy D. Harcey Introduction Wading through the oft times murky and turbulent waters of transescent development can leave parent(s)/guardian(s) in want, and need, of a proverbial assistive hand. The natural nexus embedded within our society between parent(s)/guardian(s) and their child(ren) is public education. Thus, when global trends embed themselves in popular cultureand as a result influence our transescent learnerspeople (i.e. not only parents and guardians, but also laypeople in the community, private entities, etc.), frequently look to public school professionals to affably enlighten them on the vexing inquiries found bubbling at the surface. An issue arises when the inevitable march of change rapidly outpaces the established pillars or frameworks that work as buttresses for the democratic foundations we have established (i.e. public education, our legal system, etc.). In some instances, as with our current resource push via the knowledge now, information saturated environment enveloping us, public education and current legal decisions may seem beyond slowthey may appear inert. Yet, public educationhandholding with other institutionsis expected to hurdle the arcane information of yesterday and prepare our youth for a productive adulthood with a proclivity for not only civility and compassion for his/her fellow human, but also a technological savvy that enables each budding intellectual to locate, analyze, and apply information in a seamless and efficient manner. Herein lies the rub. The mechanism most abundantly accessed for information and the format with a current toehold on technological literacyis the Internet. While the Internet can be an extremely powerful learning tool for middle-level learners, it would

121

be naively altruistic to believe the Internet is not without its shortcomings. The purpose of this paper is simply to take a single step toward informing educational professionals so they, in turn, can help parents/guardians leap the chasm, the ever-widening divide, (what I like to call the esoteric hole) between their knowledge of Internet activities and what their child(ren) is experiencing on the Internet. I digress; obviously the Internet provides an ocean of information and possibilities, an attempt to address more than one aspect would be a practice in futility. Thus, this paper will focus in a broad sense on Web logs (a.k.a. Blogs), and specifically on transescent utilization of blogs, which have supplanted yesteryears diaries and late night telephone calls as the adolescents preferred medium for communication. In order to make the findings and recommendations of my research more palatable, I will plot a course throughout the paper, which will include: a brief history of blogging; some precedent setting course cases that bear relevance when discussing the public school/student blogger lattice; pressing concerns for adolescent utilization of blogs; and finally, I will supply recommendations that educational professionals can share with parent(s)/guardian(s) as they guide their childs(rens) appropriateand safetravel on the information superhighway. Bloggings Brief, Yet Brilliant History Chances are, if you have spent any significant amount of time surfing the Web, you have (knowingly or not) been exposed to a blog. A blog, in simplest terms, is generally a one-page Website that resembles an online diary that can be updated regularly by posting chronological entries. The blog has been likened to an online journal, which unlike regular sites, has become quite simple to navigate. Todays blog is no more

122

difficult to use than Word Perfect or Microsoft Word. An individual can literally set up a blog in a matter of minutes, and subsequently post entries in as little as minutes per day. Blogs are the latest connective thread for adolescent communication. Internet pundits have utilized blogs since the late 1980s. However, blogs have only recently become a mainstream communication tool for diverse populations, including middlelevel students, in the last several years. Besides the allure of the most popular blogging sites (MySpace.com, Xanga.com, LiveJournal.com, etc.) being primarily free, they also afford participants more than straight text options. Bloggers today enjoy hyperlinks to myriad sites, and many specialize in incorporating other forms of media such as images (many bloggers are taking photos of themselves and/or friends) and video. These collective elements have effectively melded personal Web pages and updated, userfriendly technologies. It is no wonder that any novice surfer can find a virtual cornucopia of blog types including, but certainly not limited to: news and political, personal (the type this paper will predominately focus on), topical, health, literary, travel, research, legal, media, religious, educational, business, advice, spam blogs, and on and on in a venue that seems to be limited only by the boarders of imagination. Currently, according to a recent study conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, close to one in five online teens between the ages of 12 and 17about four million peoplehave created and maintain a blog, a trend no doubt inspired by the availability of free, easy-to-use services. An ancillary by-product of blogging is the unveiling of thoughts, emotions, personal information, etc., that can expose children to a virtual cornucopia of negative issues. Teens are doing more than just describing their heart-felt emotions. Many are

123

posting provocative pictures, berating and threatening one another, school staff, etc., sharing drinking and drug experimentation and/or abuse epithets, and otherwise divulging real or embellished personal experiences that may lead to undesired attention and potential school based and/or legal ramifications. Potential Issues The rapid increase in teen utilization of blogs has created a mesh of legal and educational considerations. Thus, some complex legal considerations have become pragmatic collaborators with education on this journey of technological advancement. Ultimately, the delicate balance is to maximize bloggings potential benefits and ensure our parent(s)/guardian(s), students, and educators recognize the potential pitfalls of bloggings ubiquitous nature. One fundamental concern revolves around each students personal speech and how public school officials may respond to speech that may be deemed inappropriate. Various court decisions have established parameters/boundaries for regulating student speech by discerning if the speech took place on or off of school property. The conundrum with blogs (and the Internet in general) is that the physical location is nebulous; the location can simultaneously be within the brick and mortar school building, and in a students private residence. Obviously, the advent and proliferation of the Internet has complicated the analysis of restrictions regarding student speech. The various effects that student-created speech (on or off campus) may have in the school environment can be serious. That said, the compendium of current situations requires school personnel to be mindful of potential needs to restrict and/or regulate student speech that is not only physically created on school grounds (using school

124

property), but also some speech created off campus on blogs. Case in point, when the audience isor becomesother school students and/or the schools personnel, the speech may be deemed as on campus as concluded in J.S. ex rel H.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District, 807 A.2d 803, Pa. (2002); the case will be illustrated later in this paper. In scenarios where the off-campus speech in question is merely offensive, and not alleged to pose a true threat to the safety of students/staff, or to cause the school district to reasonably fear substantial disruption at school, the school district may not discipline the student who created the speech without violating the students First Amendment rights. For example, in Flaherty v. Keystone Oaks School District, 553545 W.D. Pa. (2003), the courts concluded that discipline for an abusive, offensive, harassing or inappropriate expression [posted by the student on a web message board about his schools volleyball team] that occurred outside of school premises and was not tied to a school related activity was inappropriate. Ultimately, the courts have consistently held that where there is no evidence of a true threat, a substantial disruption, or even a substantial reason to anticipate a disruption, school districts may not restrict or punish a students off-campus, personal Web site (blog) containing criticism of the school. However, where student speech created via a blog posting (again referring to off campus) has a profound impact on the educational environment of the school, that speech can be restricted, or the student can be disciplined, without infringing on his/her First Amendment rights. Obviously, myriad intricacies impact the decisions emanating from the courts. The following section will delve more deeply into the mire!

125

Pertinent Questions and Associated Cases A variety of cases, while not directly related to student created blogs, can be utilized as guideposts for the quagmire of questions that may result as the issues surrounding student blogs continue to expand; at this time teens utilizing blog sites are expanding exponentially. (According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project nearly 175,000 new blogs are created daily.) As previously mentioned, perhaps most poignant are cases surrounding the delicate balance necessary when students free speech rights are seemingly pitted against the schools obligation to maintain a safe and appropriate learning environment. It is noted that students, both on and off campus, have First Amendment rights, and according to the Supreme Court, public school students dont shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). In this particular case, the Court said that students had a First Amendment right to wear black armbands to class in protest of the Vietnam War. The Tinker case also created a metaphorical litmus test for future action by stating that while students do have free speech rights, those rights can be limited when the speech materially disrupts class work or invades the rights of others. This rule is commonly referred to as Tinkers material disruption standard. Additionally the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 108 S.Ct. 562 (1988) case established that schools may regulate the content of school-sponsored products (in this particular case it was the school newspaper). Another landmark case, Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478

126

U.S. 675, 683, 106 S.Ct. 3159, 3164 (1986), spotlights critical elements related to prohibited student speech. In Bethel v. Fraser the Courts decision stated that a school can prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse while you are on campus, (upholding the suspension of a high-school student for a student government nomination speech), including the use of obscene, profane language and gestures. While the Bethel case was on-campus it is vital for school administrators, parent(s)/guardian(s), and student bloggers to recognize that their personally created, off-campus blogs are not untouchable. While the Supreme Court has not yet addressed off-campus censorship associated with blogs, some lower courts have applied the Tinker material disruption standard in cases concerning personal Web sites of students. An applicable example is in Beussink v. Woodland School District, 30 F.Supp.2d 1175, E.D.Mo. (1998), in which a federal court applied Tinkers material disruption standard when considering a students Web site that used vulgar language to criticize his public school and its professional staff. The site was created on the students personal computer and Internet connection. The court decided that the Tinker material disruption test applied since a classmate viewed the site at school. However, the student was later vindicatedsince there was no material disruption, the court decided that the students First Amendment rights were violated. However, in J.S. ex rel H.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District, 807 A.2d 803, Pa. (2002), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that despite the fact that the students Web site was not created at school, the Tinker test applied because the site was directed at a specific school and its staff. Additionally, the site was brought onto the school

127

campus and accessed. The court held that the public schools punishment of a student for his off-campus Web site, which included an image of a teachers face morphing into Hitler, an image of the same teacher with a decapitated head dripping with blood, and a request that visitors contribute $20 for a hit man, was justified under the material disruption standard. Blogging Dangers Blogging sites like MySpace.com (currently the most utilized blogging site) open the door for middle level students (and many, many others) to freely express themselves, which can be extremely liberating. That liberation can lead to more than your garden variety issues when expressed on the Internet. While some negligible security measures are available to bloggers, many transescents disregard enacting the options for greater privacy and thus, everything they post on a blog is public. Many middle school students naively believe that only their friends can view the contents of their blogs. Many early-teen bloggers are sharing information that can put them at grave risk. A novice computer user can quickly log on to the Internet, find a student blog, andif the student was not appropriately cautious with personal informationdiscover the school the student attends, their first/last name, home address, home and/or cell phone numbers, photos, personal interests, where they like to hang out, etc. Parent(s)/guardian(s) and school personnel have a fiduciary (trustee) responsibility to ensure that students understand the potential ramifications of sharing too much information online. These services also attract online predators, harassers, scam artists, cyberbullies, and countless other categories of dodgy characters. It has been estimated that

128

approximately 50,000 predators may be trolling the Internet at any given moment, and student created blogs may act like online shopping catalogs complete with pictures and necessary contact information. I am certainly not advocating that student blog services be terminated; I am however, imploring active participation and education for parent(s)/guardian(s), students, educational professionals, etc., on the necessary safe guards to Internet utilization. Based on the research and personal experiences I have encountered as a public school administrator, I can attest that many student bloggers lack a vision of the potential hazards. Some middle level learners have demonstrated that in their own minds, they are sitting in the comfort of their home, and they have a sense of privacy, which they really do not have at all. Carelessness with personal information may be a garden-variety concern for previous generations of adolescents. However, it becomes increasingly troublesome when shared on a medium the circles the globe. Adolescent bloggers need to be made aware that they have absolutely no reasonable expectation of privacy while utilizing unsecured blogging sites. Amanda Lenhart, co-author of the Pew Study states, Certainly there are many teens who are savvy with this stuff and understand the risks, but there are many more that dont. Its the role of adults to remind kids that this is a public space. What is a Parent/Guardian to Do? Parents/guardians have a tremendous challenge before them. Technology is advancing at a breakneck pace. In order to stay connected with advancementsand subsequently with their adolescent child who will no doubt be exposed, in one form or another, to technologyadults will need to roll up their sleeves and get their hands a bit

129

dirty. This paper has been focusing on Internet blogging, however, I could easily be detailing cell phones, iPods, the BlackBerry, IM jargon, etc. Whatever the technology, the digital world can create barriers, or partitions, between and among family members. To help students recognize the potential of Internet blogging home and school must hold hands, send a consistent and accurate message, and be diligent in revisiting the message. What follows is a blend of recommendations as supplied by wiredsafety.org., getnetwise, safeteens.com, and the FBI parent(s) guide:

A good first step is simply to ask your student about the types of online activities he/she may be engaged inapproach your student in a supportive manner

If a teen has a blog, parents should also ask to see the site. It should be noted that simply viewing the site without discussing the issues with an adolescent first may be viewed by the teen as a violation of privacy

From a safety perspective, parents should focus on how their teen shares information (particularly personal information; name, phone numbers, address, where they attend school, etc.), and how the teen handles contact from strangers

Instruct teens never to agree to a face-to-face meeting with an online stranger Make rules for Internet use! Establish clear ground rules for Net use Learn about parental controls, filtering software, and decide if their implementation is appropriate for your home computer

Keep home computer(s) in high-traffic areas. The last place a computer should be is in an adolescents bedroom

130

Pay attention to any red flags (i.e. the child receives any offensive e-mails, chat requests, etc.)

Get help and ask questions! It is possible to search history on your computer. If you believe your child is engaged in dangerous activity, it is your responsibility to obtain assistance so you can learn how to search the sites your child has been utilizingsome parents may chose to install monitoring software

Conclusion The courts are slowly grappling with the infusion of new technologies (blogs) into mainstream America, and only incrementally in the context of school district liability. In many cases, existing precedent does not easily apply to blogs and has to be adapted in order to suggest the course of legal action. Historically, public schools have been entrusted and challenged to muddle through the metamorphosis of evolving technologies. In preparation for a more developed legal regime into which the Internet and student blogs might fall, school professionals should endeavor to educate parent(s)/guardian(s) on a consistent basis.

131