102096 Researching Teaching and Learning

Assignment 2: Critical Analysis of Research

19025777 Jacinta McDowall

The ever increasing platform of interconnected technologies provide

opportunities for young people to interact both positively and negatively with
each other, which consequently creates an avenue for students to become
exposed to cyber bullying. This cross-cultural phenomenon requires new
research and understanding to ensure students wellbeing and safety are
maintained as cyber-safety is ‘essential for academic and social development’,
(Australian Government Department of Education, 2016).

In the article ‘Rates of cyber victimization and bullying among male Australian
primary and high school students’, Sakellariou, Carrol and Houghton (2012)
consider the prevalence of cyber bullying amongst Australian school students
and the complexity of the multidimensional phenomenon. This article will be
compared with the article ‘Predictors of Traditional and Cyber-Bullying
Victimization: A Longitudinal Study of Australian Secondary School Students’
(2014), in which Hemphill, Tollit, Kotevski and Heerde take a similar approach
but extend their study to include a comparison between traditional modes of
bullying and cyber bullying to establish a broader understanding of the
relevance and extent cyber bullying has on Australian students, as well as
considering the predictors of students risk factors to bullying. Both of these
studies use quantitative methodology across an extensive amount of student
participants, with only slightly differing approaches, and conclusions. In this
essay I will evaluate the research processes of both articles and analyze their
strengths and weaknesses in accordance to the relevance of their hypothesis.
Overall, both articles demonstrate a comprehensive overview into the rise of
cyber bullying among Australian students which is relevant information for
teaching and educational professionals.

Sakellariou et al.’s (2012) research aims to extend on the current global trend
of the rise in cyber bullying. Their research aims to identify the prevalence of
cyber bullying among Australian school students, to in-turn create national
awareness of the global phenomenon and encourage educational policies and
prevention strategies to be established. This concept is replicated in the study
by Hemphill et al. (2014), who research both traditional forms of bullying and
cyber bullying to gain a broader understanding of the predictors and relevance
of cyber bullying. Both studies conclude that cyber bullying is effecting
Australian students and the establishment of educational prevention programs
and teacher and parent awareness are essential in combating the modern
epidemic.

Both of the articles mentioned contain a thorough review of cyber bullying

relating literature and its prominence among school students. They both
demonstrate a comprehensive association with background information,
including existing case study results and statistical analysis to demonstrate a
well structured, thorough overview of current global cyber-bullying issues.

Quantitative methodology is used in both articles, having data collected in the

form of questionnaires with pre-set answers. This is an effective strategy to
easily and quickly gain responses off a large number of participants and reduce
the risk of maturation (Study.com, 2017). It is also a more reliable form of
research for this particular variable, as bullying figures amongst the adolescent
population may go unreported, thus a direct questioning approach is
considered more effective (Coe, Warning and Arthur, 2012). However, this type
of methodology also limits the extent to which participants can answer,
narrowing the results, where a qualitative approach may have given the
research more depth (Study.com, 2017). Sakellariou et al. (2012) use clear and
concise questions in their research using a six-point ‘Likert scale’, which include
questions prompting participants to examine how often they were victimized by
cyberbullying and how upset they were by it. Other questions asked
participants how often they were the perpetrators of cyber bulling, and how
upset they believe their victims were from the attacks. Many of the questions
used in the study originated from the Olweus Bully/Victim questionnaire
(Sakellariou et al. 2012. cite Olweus, 1986, 1989, 1996), which gives the
questionnaire validity, as the inclusion of academic sources present the
research as objective and un-bias (Coe, Warning and Arthur, 2012). Hemphill et
al. (2014) used a similar ‘Likert scale’ questionnaire, which again was based off
earlier research for validity, which in this case was from the Gatehouse Bullying
Scale (Hemphill et al. 2014, cite Bond, Thomas, Toumbourou, Patton, &
Catalano, 2000; Bond, Wolfe, Tollit, Butler, & Patton, 2007). A dichotomous
measure was used to identify the results of traditional and cyber bullying as
well as the risk and protective factors of the variable to broaden the research
and identify clear results for each category (Hart, C. 1998). Hemphill et al.
(2014) further validate their research by testing ‘student honesty’, drawing on
questions used in Communities That Care youth survey (Hemphill et al. 2014,
cite Arthur et al., 2002). Overall, both of these studies have used effective and
reliable data collection processes that help establish the prevalence of cyber
bullying amongst Australian students, however further exploration is required
to establish the depth of which cyber bullying is impacting on student psyche.

Both studies attempted to gain insight into the current student perspective of
cyber bullying, utilizing different methodological approaches to achieve this.
Sakellariou et al. (2012) used a massive 1530 participants in their study,
however their use of sampling was in fact narrow as they included only male
students from capital cities, thus limiting the depth of results. By only using
male representatives the research lacks a thorough investigation into the
student demographic, especially when considering previous research portrays
cyber bullying as more evident amongst female students (Sakellariou et al. cite
Noret and Rivers, 2006). Hemphill et al. (2014) sample both male and female
student participants from both private and public primary and secondary
schools, creating a more diverse and accurate sense of the wider student
population.

Herein, the research findings of both studies are explored. Both Sakellariou et
al. (2012) and Hemphill et al. (2014) analyze the perception of students
through the use of tables and statistics to present their findings in a form of
descriptive qualitative research. This is an effective tool to reduce the data to a
manageable form and allow the reader to comprehend the patterns and
implications that emerge during analysis (AECT, 2001). Sakellariou et al. (2012)
focus their results on the amount of cyber bullying attacks that are occurring to
or involving participants across different technological platforms e.g sms,
email, images and internet, across different year groups, ensuring the results
are not influenced by emotional language and remain statistically focused
(Hart, C. 1998). Where as Hemphill et al. (2014) focus their results on
participants background and emotional information to establish why certain
students are considered more at risk of becoming involved with cyber-bullying.
Both studies wanted to raise awareness of the increased risk of negative cyber
interaction amongst students, therefore it would have been worthwhile for
researches to expand on these findings and evaluate meaningful prevention
strategies. Overall, both studies show relevant approaches that explore the
prevalence of cyber-bullying amongst Australian students.

Both articles discuss the overall limitations of their research into cyberbullying,
recognising that there is a large variation of measurement and definition of this
particular topic. Sakellariou et al. (2012) acknowledge that figures may have
been underreported due to the fact that victims may be unaware that images
or other offensive material is actually being circulated about them. Hemphill et
al. (2014) also acknowledge that their study has limitations, in which they
admit the generic singular measurement used to establish the rates of
traditional and cyber-bullying victimization requires further in-depth and
sophisticated attention. Both studies could have benefited from including
information on the amount of time and access participants had to technology,
as well as their competence levels and included this in their results. Another
important issue which was not measured in either study was the behavior and
statistics of onlookers in the cyber-environment, as the greatest juxtaposition
between traditional and cyber bullying is the potentially limitless audience of
the cyber world and the speed in which information can be shared, which is
extremely relevant in effectively creating prevention strategies (Hong, Chien-
Hou, Hwang, Hu and Chen, 2013).

The implications for teaching practices and educational professionals are raised
in both research articles. Interconnected technologies are becoming more
regularly accessible and encouraged in Australian schools, which includes more
computer and internet based communication and programs across multiple
areas within the curriculum and education system. For example the long
standing paper based written examination, the National Assessment Program -
Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), will be converting to an online medium as of
2018 (NAP, 2016). Sakellariou et al. (2012) provide the conceptual definition of
cyber-bullying as ‘sending or posting harmful or cruel text or images using the
Internet or other digital communication devices’’, (Sakellariou et al., 2012, cite
Willard, 2003), and connect this statement with numerous statistics outlining
the high use of technology based access students have, including a statement
that 32% of Australian students admit to sending text messages during class
time (Sakellariou et al. 2012, cite Mathews, 2004). This rise in interconnected
technology has been acknowledged on a national scale in which the Australian
Institute for Teaching and School Leadership have included the following
professional standards for teaching: 2.6 Information and Communication
Technology (ICT), and, 4.5 Use ICT safely, responsibly and ethically, (AITSL,
2016). Multiple programs and government initiatives have been put in place to
assist victims of cyber bullying attacks including the Australian Cybercrime
Online Reporting Network, ReachOut.com, Bullying No Way! etc. as cyber
safety is essential in maintaining a safe and effective classroom environment.

In conclusion, both of the research articles presented in the essay have

demonstrated a key insight into the prevalence of cyber-bullying among
Australian Students. Both articles have revealed strikingly similar results that
emphasize the correlation between the rise in interconnected technologies and
the prevalence of cyber-bullying amongst students. Overall, these studies
demonstrate the importance of effective educational policies, teacher planning
and parental awareness that can play a role in the prevention of cyber-bullying
and the establishment of cyber-safety for students. It is evident that further
research into prevention strategies is required to thoroughly create a safe and
secure platform for students to interact with each other. Overall, both of these
research articles present the concept that with the expansion of technological
access, so to is there a need for the understanding and awareness of the
prevalence of cyber bullying on Australian students, and with this
understanding educational professionals, parents and peer-support can be
effectively minimise negative cyber interactions.

References

ACMA (2016). Retrieved from

http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engage-blogs/Research-
snapshots/Aussie-teens-online

AECT (2001). The Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and

Technology. Retrieved from
http://www.aect.org/edtech/ed1/41/41-01.html

AITSL (2016). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-
teachers/standards/list

Australian Government Department of Education (2016). Cyber Safety.

Retrieved from
https://www.education.gov.au/cybersafety-schools
Coe.R, Warning. M, Arthur. J. (2012). Research Methods and Methodologies in
Education. Sage Publications. London: UK

Hart, C. (1998). Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the social science

research imagination. 79 -108. Sage Publications. London: UK

Hemphill, S., Tollit, M., Kotevski A., Heerde, J. (2014). Predictors of Traditional
and Cyber-Bullying Victimization: A Longtiudinal Study of Australian Secondary
Students. 30 (15) 2567-2590. DOI: 10.1177/0886260514553636

Hong, J., Chien-Hou, L., Hwang, M., Hu, R., Chen, Y. (2013). Positive affect
predicting worker psychological response to cyber-bullying in the high-tech
industry in Northern Taiwan, 30, 307-314. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.09.011

National Assessment Program (2016). Retrieved from

https://www.nap.edu.au/online-assessment/naplan-online

Sakellariou, T., Carroll, A., Houghton, S. (2012). Rates of Cyber Victimization

and Bullying Among Male Australian Primary and High School Students. 33:533.
DOI: 10.1177/0143034311430374

Study.com (2017). Retrieved from

http://study.com/academy/lesson/using-surveys-to-collect-social-research-
data.html