Bullying 2.0: Coping

Coping with cyberbullying

This study was done in Melbourne with about 600 schoolkids from government and independent schools. The authors gathered data on the frequency and characteristics of bullying they experience and what kinds of coping strategies students were using. They noticed differences in the prevalence of cyberbullying across gender and type of school.

The authors distinguish between active coping strategies like problem-solving and less ones, like distraction. (47)

Predictably, “Girls reported greater use of coping actions relating to seeking social support …and self-blame. In contrast, boys tended to use more coping actions that involved working hard to solve the concern, relaxing diversions, and physical activity” (50). It sounds like the gender patterns we see elsewhere. The authors also observed that the girls in independent schools (so, with a higher average household income and more access to ICTs) were the group with the highest reported cyberbullying victimization (53). But the other interesting thing about the gender divide that the authors point out is that, “For girls especially, the use of these technologies is likely to represent a central part of their social being, an important tool for friendships and peer group inclusion, and one that subsequently increases their likelihood of experiencing cyber-bullying problems.” (53) They cite research that shows girls talk more on their mobile phones and send more text messages than boys.

So I’d like to do further research into the experiences of girls with cyberbullying, and how it works in terms of the dynamics of social interaction among girls. Is there overlap between the perpetrators and victims of cyberbullying among girls, as there is among other groups who’ve been studied? How are girls being affected emotionally by cyberbullying? If ICT’s are so important to girls because of their tendency to be highly social, are the stakes even higher for them? How do the rates of cyberbullying-related suicide compare between boys and girls, for example? If we know a group of students is (even slightly) more vulnerable, don’t we have an obligation to target them with extra research and support?

The authors found that, “In general, an optimistic, relaxed, and active mode of coping tended to exemplify students in the current study who reported fewer cyber-bullying experiences” (54). This links with the Positive Psychology I’ve been reading in PPLE, by Martin Seligman. The big idea there is that building strengths is the best buffer against psychopathology. So we need to build our students’ emotional assets, accentuate the positive, and help them avoid getting caught in the cyberbullying cycle.

The authors propose developing in students “a specific coping skill set” to deal with cyberbullying:

• evaluate the benefits of remaining in or leaving online communities;

• identify the need to leave online situations;

• reflect on his or her own online behaviours;

• respond in an assertive, but not aggressive way; and

• know when and how to seek help from an adult.

                                                                        (55)

How practical! I want to make that a poster and hang it in my classroom.

References:

Lodge, J and Frydenberg, E. (2007). Cyber-Bullying in Australian Schools: Profiles of Adolescent Coping and Insights for School Practitioners. In The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist Volume 24 Number 1, pp. 45–58. Retrieved 14-3-11 at:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=frydenberg+cyberbullying&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

Seligman, M.E.P. (2002). Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positve therapy. In, Snyder, C.R. & Lopez, S.J. Handbook of positive psychology. p. 3-9.

Bullying 2.0: What about Freedom of Speech?

Free Speech and Cyberbullying

US states have different legislation around bullying, cyberbullying and free speech. This article outlines 3 Supreme Court decisions on students’ freedom of speech in general from the last few decades and several lower-court decisions that demonstrate a huge amount of variation in the law, particularly as it relates to off-campus activity.

Bullying occurring on-campus or at school events is within the school’s jurisdiction and full free speech rights are not applicable. In Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) the Supreme Court held that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.” (p.298). But schools have trouble enforcing clear policies on off-campus activity when there’s so much ambiguity in what’s punishable. With cyberbullying, “where” is it happening? It’s an electronic incident. What if it happens at home, with no use of school materials? So schools have figured out how to make those incidents considered on-campus, and therefore under school jurisdiction. One major precedent from pre-cyberbullying days that this article discusses is the Tinker v. Des Moines School District decision of 1969 (p. 297) that found that if the acts are substantially disruptive to the school environment, they will be considered “on-campus” and therefore punishable by the school. This “substantial disruption” language is still at the center of the legal debate around cyberbullying because it can be used as a way to punish off-campus activity, and obviously “most cyberbullying occurs off-campus.” (2006 study conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation , cited p. 290)

The authors also discuss the “true threat” doctrine (p.306) that says that anything that a reasonable person would think was a threat is not protected speech.

The article describes hypothetical scenarios and plays out how they would be judged in different states, depending on the laws there, concluding that, “In an effort to protect students’ First Amendment rights and shield school districts from potential lawsuits, state legislatures should enact cyberbullying legislation allowing school administrators to discipline students for on-campus cyberbullying but not off-campus conduct, unless the off-campus cyberbullying constitutes an objective threat of violence to students, teachers, or school administrators.” (320) The authors propose more parental involvement in children’s use of ICT, including use of parental control software and discussing internet usage with other parents. (316)

This article if from a law review, so it’s very reasonable and detailed, concerned with the minutiae of various cases. I haven’t read much legal writing, but this put my brain in a pretzel trying to figure out the relationship between morality and the law. To some extent, morals are embedded in any justice system—but the law requires perfect rationalism. So it forces these feelings, beliefs, values, etc. into a logical, reasonable framework.  Square pegs, round holes. And yet, if we didn’t have a basically shared morality, we wouldn’t have the justice system in the first place...discuss.

Reference:

Beckstrom, Darryn Cathryn (2008). State Legislation Mandating School Cyberbullying Policies and the Potential Threat to Students’ Free Speech Rights. Vermont Law Review [Vol. 33:283 2008] pp 283-321 Retrieved March 10, 2011 from:

Rlawreview.vermontlaw.edu/.../14%20Beckstrom%20Book%202,%20Vol.%2033.pdf

Bullying 2.0: Cyberbullies in Oz

Cyberbullying in Australia

This study explored the prevalence and impact of cyberbullying among young people in Australia and asked the participants to evaluate coping strategies they’ve used to deal with it, using an online survey with anonymous participants from all states and territories. The researchers noted several variations in the nature and prevalence of cyberbullying in different age/ gender demographics, particularly an interesting concentration of reported experiences of cyberbullying “during the period associated with the transition from primary school to high school” (54), and concluded that the issue should be given extra care and focus during those years.

They made a number of other observations, including that  “only a minority of victims are choosing to speak out to either adults or peers about their experience” (58). They linked this to perceived fears of having use of technology restricted by parents and teachers as a result of reporting cyberbullying (Campbell 2007; Rickwood et al. 2005; Smith et al. 2008, cited in this study p. 52). This suggests to me that further study should be done into coping strategies used by adults, and how well they’re working. What happens when we say, “no Facebook,“ etc? Doesn’t that enforce the idea that the digital universe is a place we can’t navigate safely? What other, more realistic responses can we make as parents and teachers that might work better to support students dealing with cyberbullying?

Fundamentally, as these researchers suggest, this issue is about emotional development and building positive relationships: “the dynamics between the role of bully and victim suggest to the authors that school and government interventions need to focus not only on cybersafety but also on the quality of peer relationships” (58).

Reference:

Price, Megan and Dalgleish, John (2010): " Cyberbullying: Experiences, impacts and coping strategies as described by Australian young people," Youth Studies Australia VOLUME 29 NUMBER 2 2010 pp 51-59. Retrieved on 7-3-11 at: 

Australia VOLUME 29 NUMBER 2 2010 pp 51-59. Retrieved 7-3-11 at:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_q=cyberbullying+australian&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=Dalgleish&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdtf=&as_sdts=5&hl=en

Bullying 2.0: Cyberbullying among Students with Disabilities

Cyberbullying and Developmental Disability

This study looked at the nature of cyberbullying in a sample of 114 students aged 12-19 with developmental disabilities; the researchers tentatively conclude that although cyberbullying is prevalent, “in general, students with developmental disabilities have a somewhat lower probability to become victimized and/or bully via the internet and cellphone than their peers” (150).  Like most studies of cyberbullying in mainstream populations, the results of this study “clearly indicate that there is a relationship between cyberbullying and emotional distress and psychological problems” (150), but not clearly to any greater or lesser extent than in non-disabled populations; this study does not make a comparison. Given the various educational challenges faced by disabled students, it would be helpful for counselors, teachers and parents to know if and how developmentally disabled students’ emotional responses to cyberbullying were any different from those of non-disabled students, so that attempts to address the issue might be tailored appropriately to meet the special needs of these students.  

Some interesting observations were made linking increased incidence of cyberbullying with higher IQ (149) and length of time spent online each day (150); also, in this sample, there was a strong and intriguing trend of “bully/victims,” students who are both perpetrators and victims of bullying (149). Yet the researchers were unable to make any major statement about cyberbullying in special education settings. Perhaps a comparative study of other special education settings would reveal greater patterns that could be useful for helping students to prevent cyberbullying in ways specific to special education.

I wonder if students with developmental disabilities in mainstream settings are more likely to be victims of cyberbullying than non-disabled students or than disabled students in special education settings?

Reference:

Didden, R. et al. (2009). Cyberbullying among students with intellectual and
developmental disability in special education settings. In Developmental Neurorehabilitation, June 2009; 12(3): pp. 146–15. Retrieved 3-3-11 at:

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17518420902971356

Bullying 2.0: Cyberbullying and Suicide...

...(or "cyberbullicide*"--did we need a cute nickname for that?)

*p207

Expanding on a variety of existing research that strongly links perpetrators and victims of “traditional” bullying with suicidal ideation, this study attempted to find links between bullying (with a particular focus on cyberbullying) and suicidal ideation or suicide attempts in a sample of American adolescents. The researchers found that “cyberbullying victims were 1.9 times more likely and cyberbullying offenders were 1.5 times more likely to have attempted suicide than those who were not cyberbullying victims or offenders” (216), which they concluded was a “small but significant variation found in suicidal thoughts and actions based on bullying and cyberbullying” (217).

As the researchers concede, this study did not span any significant period of time, but instead relied on students’ recollection on one day of their recent experiences, so it’s difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about cause and effect (i.e., cyberbullying specifically among all possible factors leading to suicidal ideation), but I think the results demonstrate enough likelihood of a correlation to compel further research and focused treatment of the issue by school leaders and parents—particularly (and this was a shock to me) because, “the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2007) reported that suicide was the third leading cause of death among adolescents in 2004.” (206)

I would want to know more about what other factors tend to combine with cyberbullying to result in suicidal thoughts and actions in young people, because as the researchers point out,  “it is unlikely that experience with cyberbullying by itself leads to youth suicide. Rather, it tends to exacerbate instability and hopelessness in the minds of adolescents already struggling with stressful life circumstances” (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009).”  Are there particular groups who show this link more strongly than others, who are more likely to experience cyberbullying and suicidal ideation--for example, students with a disability, students living in poverty, students with a particular cultural background? The researchers briefly noted for example some variation in the results between “white” and “non-white” respondents, but (as those two frankly simplistic demographic categories confirm), they acknowledge that a detailed analysis of the links among cyberbullying, suicide and race were beyond the scope of this study. 

Reference:

Hinduja, S. and Patchin, J.(2010). Bullying, Cyberbullying, and Suicide. In Archives of

Suicide Research, 14: 3, pp. 206-22. Retrieved 8-3-11 at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2010.494133

Lesson Plan Panic

Last week's STS tute was the first time I'd ever seen a lesson plan with all the numbers and codes and columns, and I literally couldn't read it--I didn't know how. So I had a pretty strong reaction to that, and didn't want to read it. It's amazing how powerful that fear-based shutting-down mechanism is. So Will I be allowed to be the kind of teacher I want to be? I admit I would like to be the kind of teacher who doesn't have to make documents like that, but I guess this is one way that I won't be allowed to be the kind of teacher I want to be. Maybe it's for the best; I can see that being so clearly on top of what your class is doing all the time and why would actually be very freeing and less stressful overall.

Front Seat Explosion

I thought you handled the explosion nicely in the conversation afterward, giving the student your time outside of class, showing him that the relationship mattered to you, and the student did well too. I was impressed that he apologized to you. When we split up in the tutorial into our HBDI categories and discussed how we might have handled it, I was surprised and pleased to hear others saying what I was thinking, but not brave enough to say—there might have been a way to laugh about the explosion when it happened, of course with good will and without humiliating the student. I think that expressing your surprise at his freak-out and gently laughing it off might have diffused some of the tension for everyone, including the student, who was just as surprised and very embarrassed. It would have let him know that you were okay, that he hadn’t hurt you too badly. Of course this would only work if amusement were an authentic reaction to his explosion. But wouldn’t good humor be a great way to respond to almost everything? Obviously, I’m not suggesting laughing like a fool at everything that challenges us, but cultivating the disposition I know I will need to stay happy in this job.

My learning style came out very strongly C and D. I’m sure this will affect my teaching style—it already affects everything else about my life. In this course, I’m struggling to strengthen the A and B sides—the digital literacy, the unit outlines with all their coding and columns, the standards and rubrics and bullet points. I understand and respect the value of being highly organized and prepared. But wow. It’s doesn’t come naturally. I want to be spontaneous and nimble in my actions, with my mind in big-picture-land, thinking about what issues motivate my students, what kind of theatre piece we can make or book we can read together, what they care about, what their lives are like, who they are and want to be, building quality relationships in the classroom. Maybe if I think about how A-B skills can promote that, I’ll be able to connect them more to MY motivations (What kind of teacher do I want to be?). For example, Meg talked in her lecture a few weeks ago about lack of access to technology and good ICT learning--and therefore lack of digital literacy--further disadvantaging already disadvantaged kids, I had a little “aha!” moment. Suddenly all of ICT, stuff that I had thrown squarely into the A-B zones, was C-D. Cool. 

Blog comments: James and Hannah

My first comment (on James's blog) is here: http://jamesgack.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/edfounds/#comment-9 

 

My second (Hannah's blog) is here: http://alongtheroadtolearn.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/education-foundations-module-a-janes-experience/#comment-7

References:

Campbell, C. and Sherington, G. 2003. ‘Residualisation’ and regionalism in the recent history of the Australian comprehensive high school. Paper presented at the conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. 

 

Connell, R. 2009. Good teachers on dangerous ground: towards a new view of teacher
quality and professionalism. Critical Studies in Education Vol. 50, No. 3, October 2009, 213–229

 

Kusché, C. and Greenberg, M. 2008. Brain Development and Social-Emotional Learning: An Introduction for Educators. Printed in The Eucator’s Guide to Emotional Intelligence and Academic Achievement, Elias, M. and Arnold, H., eds. Melbourne, Vic: Hawker Brownlow Education.

Seligman, M. 2002. Positive Psychology, Positive Prevention, and Positive Therapy.

 

STS Module C--Yay Rubrics!

We had parallel rubric conversations in STS and PPLE this week, looking at how we value and prioritize certain things in a rubric--even a single word can become very important in assessment. I loved the idea of sharing the rubric with the students, even revising it together in class, so everyone is clear about what to do in the assignment, and has participated in setting the standards. Transparency about how we do our jobs as teachers generates trust and empowers the students. The more authentic opportunities to include students in the design of their learning experience, the better. This is also an opportunity for emergent curriculum--appropriately adjusting the values of the rubric toward goals the students set for themselves will certainly shift the "what" of their learning. Love it!