Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying
(USC Thesis Other)
Teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
1
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
by
Kammie Nobue Endo Hayashibara
______________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2017
Copyright 2017 Kammie Nobue Endo Hayashibara
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
2
DEDICATION
For Miya
I am hoping Mommy sets a good example in conveying a passion for education.
The more you learn, the more you can help others.
Love you always.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to thank God for providing me the opportunity to pursue this doctoral
degree. Next, my appreciation goes out to my Dad. Although you passed away over twenty years
ago, I know you are still watching over me every day. During my senior year in high school, I
still recall the day I showed you the letter I received from USC stating I was accepted into their
undergraduate program. I know you were proud, but conveyed I could not go. At the time you
were diagnosed with multiple myeloma cancer. Although it was heartbreaking not being able to
attend college on the mainland, I am grateful for the time I spent with you before your passing.
Knowing how much I wanted to be Trojan, I believe you helped me achieve this dream. Thank
you so much, Dad.
My family played an integral part in my quest for knowledge. My heartfelt appreciation
goes out to my husband and daughter who pitched in more so I could attend classes and study.
Thank you Chad for taking Miya to her activities, doing the laundry, grocery shopping, and
being Mr. Fixit. Mahalo nui for providing me the opportunity to go on staycations where I could
write my dissertation in a place where I was inspired. Thank you Miya for supporting mom
through this journey. A highlight for me was visiting your fourth grade classroom and seeing a
drawing on the wall with your goal of obtaining a doctorate some day. Fight on! My mom and
in-laws were there to provide assistance in taking care of Miya when I needed to study and
offered relief when I needed a vacation. Mahalo to Aunty Lena who was always there to offer
words of encouragement and advice. She made me see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Without friends, this educational endeavor would not be possible. Roxane, thank you for
being a cheerleader in my court since kindergarten. Carrie, words cannot express how grateful I
am for everything you have done for me both personally and professionally. Thank you to my
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
4
friends in Hawaii and California who have motivated me to go beyond. Special thanks to my
USC ohana who have broadened my views and supported me through major obstacles.
Specifically, Leslie, Keolani, and Dana, mahalo for always being there for me; you are an
inspiration. This program has not only expanded my knowledge, but also provided the
opportunity to meet such wonderful individuals I am grateful to call my friends.
Finally, thank you to USC’s faculty and staff that offered guidance and assistance these
past years. Mahalo to Dr. Alan Green, my tremendously supportive chairperson who knows how
to make everything better. You epitomize the words, “super cool professor.” Thank you to Dr.
Robert Keim for the knowledge you imparted and for genuinely caring about me as an
individual. Kamsahamnida to Dr. Ruth Gim H. Chung who served as a member on my
committee and made statistics fun. Also, I extend my gratitude to Dr. Patricia Tobey whose
feedback and presence on my committee were appreciated. Lastly, to all my professors at USC,
thank you for sharing your expertise and ideas. I am taking what I learned from each and every
one of you and applying it to my life both professionally and personally. By helping others, we
can truly make a difference in this world.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
Abstract 12
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 14
Statement of the Problem 15
Background of the Problem 16
Purpose of the Study 27
Conceptual Framework 28
Research Questions 33
Significance of the Study 34
Definitions of Key Terms 35
Organization of the Dissertation 37
Chapter 2: Literature Review 38
Hawaii State Department of Education (HIDOE) 39
Hawaii State Teachers Association (HSTA) 42
Prevalence of Cyberbullying 42
Effects of Cyberbullying 51
Teachers’ Perceptions of Cyberbullying 57
Legal Issues 67
Intervention and Prevention Strategies 74
Summary 83
Chapter 3: Methodology 85
Sample and Population 86
Instrumentation 87
Data Collection Procedure 89
Data Analysis 92
Summary 92
Chapter 4: Results 94
Preliminary Analysis 94
Research Question 1 98
Research Question 2 101
Research Question 3 108
Other Findings 112
Summary 167
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
6
Chapter 5: Discussion 174
Discussion of Findings 175
Implications for Practice 185
Future Research 190
Conclusions 193
References 196
Appendix: Cyberbullying Survey 214
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Alignment of Survey Protocol Items to Research Questions and Conceptual 91
Frameworks
Table 2. Demographic Variables for Survey Respondents 95
Table 3. Frequencies and Percentages for Workplace and Complex 97
Table 4. Frequencies and Percentages for Type of Teaching and Years of Experience 98
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Cyberbullying Statements 99
Table 6. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “School Assemblies Should Address 103
Cyberbullying” by Educational Background
Table 7. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Educational Background of 103
“School Assemblies Should Address Cyberbullying”
Table 8. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Students can Emulate the Behaviors of 104
Teachers” by Educational Background
Table 9. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Educational Background of 105
“Students can Emulate the Behaviors of Teachers”
Table 10. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Students’ Cyberbullying 106
at My School, I Would Do Nothing” by Educational Background
Table 11. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Students’ Cyberbullying 106
Away From School, I Would Do Nothing” by Educational Background
Table 12. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Educational Background of 107
“When Aware of Students’ Cyberbullying at My School, I Would Do Nothing”
Table 13. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Educational Background of 108
“When Aware of Students’ Cyberbullying Away From School, I Would Do
Nothing”
Table 14. Descriptive Statistics of Intervention Strategies to Address Cyberbullying 109
at School
Table 15. Descriptive Statistics of Intervention Strategies to Address Cyberbullying 111
Away From School
Table 16. Descriptive Statistics of Prevention Strategies 112
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
8
Table 17. One-Way Analysis of Variance of Confidence in Managing Cyberbullying 113
by Age
Table 18. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Age of Confidence in 114
Managing Cyberbullying
Table 19. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Schools Should Develop Policies on 115
Cyberbullying” by Age
Table 20. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Age of “Schools Should 116
Develop Policies on Cyberbullying”
Table 21. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “School Resources Should be Used to 117
Help Teachers Deal with Cyberbullying” by Age
Table 22. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Age of “School Resources 118
Should be Used to Help Teachers Deal with Cyberbullying”
Table 23. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Students’ Cyberbullying 119
Away from School, I Would Mediate / Problem Solve with Cyberbully and
Victim” by Age
Table 24. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Age of “When Aware 120
Students’ Cyberbullying Away from School, I Would Mediate / Problem
Solve with Cyberbully and Victim”
Table 25. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — 121
Increased Supervision in Certain Areas” by Age
Table 26. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Age of “Strategy to Reduce 122
Cyberbullying — Increased Supervision in Certain Areas”
Table 27. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — 123
Warn About Consequences for Cyberbullying” by Age
Table 28. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Age of “Strategy to Reduce 124
Cyberbullying — Warn About Consequences for Cyberbullying”
Table 29. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Cyberbullying Toughens Kids Up” 125
by Gender
Table 30. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Cyberbullying Prepares Students for Life” 126
by Gender
Table 31. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Students Should Receive Counseling to 126
Deal with Cyberbullying” by Gender
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
9
Table 32. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “I Have Made Sarcastic or Demeaning 127
Comments to Students in the Past” by Gender
Table 33. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Teachers’ Behavior Affects the Behavior 127
and Learning of Students” by Gender
Table 34. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Cyberbullying at School, 128
I Would Do Nothing” by Gender
Table 35. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Cyberbullying Away 128
From School, I Would Do Nothing” by Gender
Table 36. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — 129
More Specific School Policies” by Gender
Table 37. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — 130
Encourage Bystanders to Stand Up Against Cyberbullies” by Gender
Table 38. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — 130
Classroom Anti-Bully Lessons” by Gender
Table 39. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “My School Effectively Addresses 131
Cyberbullying” by Workplace
Table 40. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “My School 132
Effectively Addresses Cyberbullying”
Table 41. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “I am Concerned about Cyberbullying” by 133
Workplace
Table 42. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “I am 134
Concerned about Cyberbullying”
Table 43. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Schools Should Use Professional 135
Development Days to Train Staff About Cyberbullying” by Workplace
Table 44. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “Schools 136
Should Use Professional Development Days to Train Staff About
Cyberbullying”
Table 45. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Students Should Receive Counseling to 137
Deal with Cyberbullying” by Workplace
Table 46. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “Students 138
Should Receive Counseling to Deal with Cyberbullying”
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
10
Table 47. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Teachers Should Organize Classroom 139
Activities to Deal with Cyberbullying” by Workplace
Table 48. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “Teachers 140
Should Organize Classroom Activities to Deal with Cyberbullying”
Table 49. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Schools Should Discuss Cyberbullying 141
With Parents” by Workplace
Table 50. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “Schools 142
Should Discuss Cyberbullying With Parents”
Table 51. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Television and Other Media Should 143
Discuss Cyberbullying” by Workplace
Table 52. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on “Television and Other 144
Media Should Discuss Cyberbullying”
Table 53. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “In Comparison to Other Topics I 145
Want Covered in My Professional Development, Cyberbullying is Just as
Important” by Workplace
Table 54. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “In 146
Comparison to Other Topics I Want Covered in My Professional
Development, Cyberbullying is Just as Important”
Table 55. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “I Need Tools to be Prepared to Manage 147
Cyberbullying” by Workplace
Table 56. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “I Need Tools 148
to be Prepared to Manage Cyberbullying”
Table 57. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Students Can Emulate the Behaviors of 149
Teachers” by Workplace
Table 58. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “Students Can 150
Emulate the Behaviors of Teachers”
Table 59. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Cyberbullying at My 151
School, I Would Do Nothing” by Workplace
Table 60. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “When Aware 152
of Cyberbullying at My School, I Would Do Nothing”
Table 61. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Cyberbullying at My 153
School, I Would Talk With the Cyberbully” by Workplace
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
11
Table 62. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “When Aware 154
of Cyberbullying at My School, I Would Talk With the Cyberbully”
Table 63. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Cyberbullying at My 155
School, I Would Talk With the Victim” by Workplace
Table 64. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “When Aware 156
of Cyberbullying at My School, I Would Talk With the Victim”
Table 65. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Cyberbullying at My 157
School, I Would Mediate / Problem Solve with Cyberbully and Victim” by
Workplace
Table 66. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “When Aware 158
of Cyberbullying at My School, I Would Mediate / Problem Solve with
Cyberbully and Victim”
Table 67. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Surveys Should be Given to Students to 159
Ask Them About Their Experiences of Being Cyberbullied” by Years of
Experience
Table 68. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Years of Experience of 160
“Surveys Should be Given to Students to Ask Them About Their
Experiences of Being Cyberbullied”
Table 69. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — 161
Establish a School Cyberbullying Task Force to Develop Anti-Cyberbullying
Policies” by Years of Experience
Table 70. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Years of Experience of 162
“Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — Establish a School Cyberbullying
Task Force to Develop Anti-Cyberbullying Policies”
Table 71. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — 163
Increased Consequences” by Years of Experience
Table 72. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Years of Experience of 164
“Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — Increased Consequences” by Years
of Experience
Table 73. One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — 165
Warn About Consequences for Cyberbullying” by Years of Experience
Table 74. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Years of Experience of 166
“Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — Warn About Consequences for
Cyberbullying” by Years of Experience
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
12
ABSTRACT
In today’s society, adolescents experience an increasing access to technology. The usages of the
Internet and cell phones are commonplace for communication between peers. However, greater
access to digital media has both negative and positive aspects. One negative characteristic is
cyberbullying, the harassment of others through the use of electronic communication. While
there are studies of teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying, no studies exist on teachers’
perceptions of cyberbullying in Hawaii. Thus, the purpose of this quantitative study was to
examine Hawaii public school teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying, investigate if teachers’
educational background influences their perceptions about cyberbullying, and determine what
intervention and prevention strategies teachers agree would address cyberbullying. Participants
included over 200 public school teachers from elementary, middle, high and state level. The
primary method for data collection in this study was through an online and paper survey. A
quantitative analysis of teachers’ questionnaires was conducted to examine the results.
Descriptive statistics, frequency of responses, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) were employed to analyze the data. Findings
revealed over a third of participants agreed cyberbullying is a problem, and schools do not
effectively address this issue. Over half of respondents admitted their schools to do not have a
cyberbullying prevention program. The majority of teachers were concerned about
cyberbullying, realized students are affected by this problem, and would intervene if they knew
of a cyberbullying occurrence in school. However, many participants lack the confidence in
identifying and managing cyberbullying. In regards to schools’ role in addressing cyberbullying,
teachers supported counseling, partnering with parents, creating policy, and developing
community partnerships. Despite the lack of teacher training in cyberbullying, the results
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
13
indicated teachers would like to learn more on this subject. Subsequently, the majority of
participants stated they model positive behavior for students and realize their actions can affect
the behaviors of students. Nonetheless, over a quarter of teachers admitted to making sarcastic
and demeaning comments to students. For intervention and prevention measures, participants
supported increased parental and administrator involvement, and encouraging students to report
cyberbullying instances. Based on the findings of the present study, recommendations include:
providing professional development for faculty and staff on identifying and managing
cyberbullying, offering training for faculty and staff on social emotional learning, establishing
intervention and prevention strategies at schools, involving teachers, administrators, parents,
students, and community in addressing the problem of cyberbullying, and creating cyberbullying
legislation and policy at the state and school levels. Although this study contributes to the
growing body of knowledge on cyberbullying, more research is required. Future studies could
explore the effectiveness of existing prevention programs, investigate the perceptions of
students, administrators, and parents, and examine teacher training and professional
development. Moreover, a qualitative approach on teachers’ views of cyberbullying may provide
a deeper understanding of the issue. Finally, future research is needed on cyberbullying policies
across the globe. It is vital to understand the perceptions of teachers, as these individuals play an
integral part in the lives of students. Therefore, exploring teachers’ beliefs will assist schools in
developing programs to address the growing phenomenon of cyberbullying.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
14
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Cyberbullying among adolescents is a growing concern. This problematic behavior has
become an increased focus of parents, educators, and even President of the United States, Barack
Obama (Rowan, 2012; The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2011). Defined as a form
of harassment done through the use of electronic communication, cyberbullying is the intentional
and repeated use of technology to harm others (Beran & Li, 2005). Contributing to this
phenomenon is the increased knowledge of youth with technology and more importantly the
misuse of technology. More than 97% of youths in the United States are connected to the
Internet in some way (Tokunaga, 2010). As technology changes and access is easier to obtain, it
is likely there will be an increase in cyberbullying globally (Holfeld & Grabe, 2012). The
National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC, 2007) reported over a third of adolescents
experienced cyberbullying. Li (2006) stated because middle school is a time when aggression
increases in intensity and frequency, occurrences of cyberbullying often peaks during these years
(Burnham & Wright, 2012).
The problem of cyberbullying is important to address because it affects the physical,
emotional, social, and mental welfare of students. A consequence of not solving this problem
includes victims of cyberbullying being at risk for poor psychological-social adjustment (Li,
2006). All students are potential targets of cyberbullying aimed at inflicting hurt and
embarrassment on its unsuspecting victims (Beale & Hall, 2007). Combating this problem
requires the combined efforts of educators, students, parents, and community. Middle school is
the most appropriate time for systemic whole school programming to take place (Ockerman,
Kramer, & Bruno, 2014). The need for effective cyberbullying prevention is vital, given the
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
15
harmful and potentially devastating effects on youth (Guerra, Williamson, & Sadek, 2012). In
particular, teachers are crucial for cyberbullying intervention and prevention (Burnham &
Wright, 2012). Teachers’ beliefs affect their behaviors. Understanding teachers’ perceptions is a
primary first step in helping develop an awareness of cyberbullying and effective skills to
manage this phenomenon (Eden, Heiman, & Olenik Shemesh, 2013).
The issue of cyberbullying extends to many parts of the nation, including Hawaii.
Currently, one in four Hawaii middle school students reported being cyberbullied (State of
Hawaii Department of Health, 2013). Although cyberbullying may begin off-campus, the
situation may escalate onto school grounds. Teachers play a significant role in the lives of
students. Their presence can impact cyberbullying instances. This study focuses on Hawaii
public school teachers’ perceptions on cyberbullying. Understanding teachers’ beliefs are vital in
addressing the problem of cyberbullying and assisting students in prevention and intervention
efforts.
This chapter offers an overview of the issues related to cyberbullying. First, the statement
of the problem is presented. Next, the background of the problem is addressed through bullying
and cyberbullying definitions. Adolescents and technology are explored, including the increasing
access to electronic communication. Subsequently, this chapter provides a discussion on the
existence of cyberbullying with emphasis on why students cyberbully and perceived anonymity.
Following are the purpose of the study, conceptual framework, and research questions. Finally,
this chapter discusses the significance of the study and organization of the study.
Statement of the Problem
Cyberbullying is a growing concern in schools. A little less than half of adolescents in the
United States were victims of cyberbullying in 2012-2013 (NCPC, 2007). Moreover,
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
16
approximately one-fourth of middle school students in Hawaii reported experiencing
cyberbullying (State of Hawaii Department of Health, 2013). Although studies recognize the
importance of educators in the prevention of cyberbullying, minimal research has been done
focusing on in-service teacher perspectives (Sassu, 2006). Stauffer, Heath, Coyne, and Ferrin
(2012) report lack of research investigating teacher insights on cyberbullying. More specifically,
no study has been conducted of teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying in Hawaii. Teachers have
a vital role in addressing cyberbullying (Eden et al., 2013). Understanding teachers’ perceptions
is essential in order to help teachers develop skills to address cyberbullying in schools and assist
students (Stauffer et al., 2012).
Background of the Problem
This section provides background on the problem of cyberbullying. This dilemma is
crucial to address since approximately 42% of youth surveyed in 2012-2013 were victims of
cyberbullying (NCES, 2013b). First, information on bullying is highlighted since cyberbullying
is considered a subset of this aggressive behavior (Kowalski & Limber, 2007). Second, the many
definitions of cyberbullying are presented for consideration. Third, adolescents and technology
are addressed through increasing access to electronic communication and usage at home and
school. Fourth, this section discusses the existence of cyberbullying through reasons why
students cyberbully and perceived anonymity.
Bullying Definition
Aggressive forms of behavior are prevalent in many schools today. Bullying is a
multifaceted concept and major social issue throughout the world (MacKay, 2012). First,
background on the definition of bullying is presented. Next, the prevalence of bullying is
discussed followed by the connection to cyberbullying. This section reviews two studies that
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
17
examine teachers’ views and responses to bullying, and one study on bullying and behavioral
health. Investigating traditional bullying and teachers’ beliefs will provide insights into the scope
and nature of cyberbullying and teachers’ perceptions.
Many definitions for bullying exist. Defined as an intentional aggressive behavior,
bullying involves an imbalance of power that is repeated over time (Olweus, 1993). It is difficult
for the victim to defend himself or herself given this imbalance of strength or power (Espelage &
Swearer, 2003; MacKay, 2012). Traditional bullying encompasses physical, verbal, and indirect
abuse such as rumor spreading and social exclusion (Keith & Martin, 2005; Patchin & Hinduja,
2006). More specifically, bullying includes hitting, shoving, name-calling, threats, and teasing
(Bauman, 2008). Tokunaga (2010) defines bullying as negative actions intended to cause distress
or injury on another. Bullying is a long-standing violence, physical or mental, conducted by an
individual or group targeting another person who is not able to defend himself in a situation
(Roland, 1989). Although many definitions for bullying exist, they have one similar feature:
bullying is a subset of aggression (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Rivers & Smith, 1994). As this
section presented, there are various definitions for bullying. The majority report bullying is an
aggressive behavior involving an imbalance of power.
Bullying is prevalent in schools across the nation. This hostile conduct requires two
individuals: the bully who conducts the harassment (perpetrator), and the individual targeted by
the bully (victim) (Yilmaz, 2011). In 2013, approximately 22% of students ages 12-18 reported
being bullied at school (NCES, 2013a). In addition, a higher percentage of females than males
ages 12-18 were bullied. Contrarily, male students have a tendency to bully more than females
with the behavior peaking in middle school (Craig, Pepler, & Blais, 2007). The high number of
bullying instances led the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to identify
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
18
school bullying as a major health problem (Abrams, 2012). Additionally, bullying has
dramatically changed over the years (Rowan, 2012).
According to MacKay (2012), bullying is one of the symptoms of a deeper problem in
society, the deterioration of responsible and respectful human relations. This aggressive behavior
has transformed from the school grounds to cyberspace (Juvonen & Gross, 2008) A close link
between bullying and cyberbullying suggests that information obtained from bullying research
can be instrumental for studies of cyberbullying (Li, 2008). Specifically, reviewing teachers’
views of bullying will provide information into teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying, the focus
of this study. The following case studies offer further information on bullying.
Boulton (1997) researched teachers’ views on bullying, definitions, attitudes, and ability
to cope. The study emphasized the critical role teachers play in preventing and managing the
issue of bullying. The purpose of the research was to determine what behaviors teachers consider
bullying, teachers’ attitudes toward bullying, teachers’ self-beliefs about their ability to deal with
bullying, and need for professional development (Boulton, 1997). The sample included 138
teachers from schools in the North-West of England. Teachers worked in pre, junior, and high
schools. Ages ranged from 19-57 years. A questionnaire consisted of 40 questions and was
distributed in school staff rooms. Responses were collected within one week. Results indicated
teachers viewed bullying differently with some agreeing threatening behavior constitutes
bullying (75.4%) more than leaving someone out (47.8%). Teachers conveyed generally negative
attitudes towards bullying and were sympathetic towards victims, however sympathy decreased
with increasing length of service. Most of the teachers (98.6%) felt it was there responsibility to
prevent bullying in class and less responsible outside of school (46.3%). Regardless of length of
service, teachers were not confident in their ability to deal with bullying and over half wanted
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
19
more training. This study affirmed MacKay (2012) and Patchin and Hinduja’s (2006) definitions
of bullying. Boulton’s (1997) research is pertinent to this study since teachers’ perceptions of
bullying provides insight into teachers’ views of cyberbullying.
Similar to Boulton’s (1997) research on teachers and bullying, another study investigated
236 teachers in kindergarten to grade 12 (K-12) and their responses to bullying incidents and
effects of contextual and individual variables on responses (Yoon, Sulkowski, & Bauman, 2016).
Participants viewed streaming video clips showing physical, verbal, and relational bullying.
Individuals reported how they would respond to perpetrators and victims. The study consisted of
participants who were primarily female (78%) and White (83%). On average, teachers had 14
years of experience. Measures included teachers’ role in students’ mental health, hostile climate
scale, self-efficacy in managing challenging behavior instruments, and personal experience with
bullying. Included in the survey were three online streaming videos that depicted bullying
incidences. Teacher organizations were contacted and asked to post invitations to participate in
the study on their website and asked to send emails. Invitations were also posted on publicly
available listservs. Results indicated teachers were more likely to discipline bullies (46%) and
teach prosocial behavior (53%) in physical bullying than relational or verbal bullying.
Participants who were victimized by bullying in childhood were more likely to discipline bullies
than teachers who had different experiences with bullying in their youth (Yoon et al., 2016).
Male teachers were more likely than female teachers to involve adults when addressing bullies.
When teacher and student gender were the same, teachers were more likely to discipline bullies
as compared to when their gender differed. Furthermore, teachers were generally less likely to
discipline bullies of a different ethnicity than their own. Yoon et al.’s (2016) study found
teachers would be more inclined to discipline and address bullying if it were physical, rather than
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
20
relational or verbal. This points to the need for further investigation to determine if this applies to
cyberbullying since this form of aggression is not physical.
Next, research was conducted on social dominance, school bullying, and child health
(Halpern, Jutte, Colby, & Boyce, 2015). Existing literature was reviewed on the health impact of
early childhood subordination. An examination was made of children’s rights to protection and
who has an obligation to guard them from social harms. Results indicated early instances of
bullying increase lifetime physical and mental health problems (Mishna, Cook, Gadalla, Daciuk,
& Solomon, 2010). Marginalization of youth makes children susceptible to peer victimization
and bullying which could lead to stress, anxiety, loneliness, and depression. Children who
experience bullying report having more health issues such as insomnia, abdominal pains, and
headaches. Both physical and verbal bullying affects physical and psychological health.
Furthermore, the study found youth have a right to protection to pursue their future prospects
because they do not have the capacity to protect themselves. This right is known as a child’s
right to an open future (Feinberg, 1980). Court cases determined children have a right to an open
future even against parental values. Society determines children must attend school, thus
assigning the fiduciary responsibility of protecting them while on school grounds. Failure to
protect students can be morally equivalent to direct responsibility for harm (Halpern et al., 2015).
This study presented information on the negative effects of bullying on children. In addition, it
emphasized the role of society, specifically schools, in protecting children from maltreatment.
The moral and legal implications offered were applied to this study of cyberbullying.
In summary, many definitions of bullying exist. The underlying factor that constitutes
bullying is repeated aggressive behavior. This negative behavior takes a social emotional toll on
the welfare of adolescents. Data shows about one in four adolescents are bullied in school
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
21
(NCES, 2013a). Thus, teachers are vital to bullying management and prevention. The studies
found teachers are generally opposed to bullying behavior, but teachers with longer years of
service tend to be less sympathetic. The current study examined teachers’ views of cyberbullying
based on years of service. Understanding teachers’ views on bullying shed light on their
perceptions of cyberbullying.
Cyberbullying Definition
This section provides information on cyberbullying, which is the focus of this study. The
term cyberbullying is a subset or phenomenon of traditional bullying using electronic
communication (Gradinger, Strohmeier, & Spiel, 2010). Willard (2005) states cyberbullying
involves sending or posting cruel or harmful messages or images using the Internet or other
digital media. According to Li (2008), cyberbullying can relate to racial, gender, religious, and
cultural biases. First, definitions of cyberbullying are presented. Next, explicit use of technology
to cyberbully is discussed along with potential affects to cause more damage than traditional
bullying. Finally, a case study is explored on cyberbullying roles.
Cyberbullying has been described in numerous ways. The definition of cyberbullying has
continually evolved due to new and advancing technology and increased understanding of what
constitutes as cyberbullying (Rowan, 2012). Patchin and Hinduja (2006), pioneers of
cyberbullying research, state cyberbullying as ‘‘Willful and repeated harm inflicted through the
use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices” (p. 152). Kowalkski and Limber
(2007) explain this phenomenon as bullying through email, instant messaging, chat rooms,
websites, digital messages, or images sent to a cell phone. Denigrating messages can be sent to
victims, online public environments, or third parties (Mason, 2008). The intentional use of
information and communication to support hostile behavior are directed at an individual or group
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
22
resulting in repeated harm by continued exposure (Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010). Moreover,
cyberbullying is an aggressive act carried out by individuals or groups repeatedly against victims
who are incapable of defending themselves (Bauman & Pero, 2011; Williams & Cornell, 2006).
According to Patchin (2008), the definition of cyberbullying should focus on four components:
(1) the behavior is deliberate, not accidental; (2) the behavior is repeated, not just a one-time
incident; (3) harm occurs from the perspective of the target; and (4) it is executed by using
technology. This section presented several meanings of cyberbullying. Similar to the definition
of bullying by Tokunaga (2010), cyberbullying is aggressive behavior intended to inflict distress
on another. Providing a clear understanding of the definition of cyberbullying was essential to
this study.
Cyberbullying encompasses graphic forms of aggression. Technology promotes
behaviors that previous generations would deem offensive and rude (MacKay, 2012). For
example, sexting is a type of cyberbullying involving the transmission of nude or suggestive
photos (MacKay, 2012). Cyberbullying can entail the dissemination of sexually explicit photos
or graphics intending to embarrass victims (Schrock & Boyd, 2008). The use of electronic
communication to distribute pornography and partake in harassment, social exclusion, and
threatening behaviors is becoming more rampant with the increase in technology (Patchin &
Hinduja, 2009). Moreover, cyberbullying can inflict far more serious and lasting pain on its
victims than traditional face-to-face bullying (Goebert, Else, Matsu, Chung-Do, & Chang, 2011).
The power of cyberbullying stems from the anonymity associated with posting on the Internet
while using the computer as a disguise (Turbert, 2009). Therefore, cyberbullying can potentially
cause more damage than traditional bullying.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
23
According to Mason (2008) different cyberbullying roles exist. First, entitlement bullies
feel superior and believe they have the right to harass others who are different. Targets of
entitlement bullies are attacked because perpetrators feel they are inferior. Next, retaliators are
students who were bullied and are using the Internet to strike back. Victims of retaliators are
those who bullied others and are now the recipients of cyberbullying. Bystanders who are part of
the bullying problem support and encourage the bullies. These individuals may also watch from
the sidelines and refuse to assist the victim. Finally, bystanders who are part of the solution help
stop cyberbullying by supporting the victim (Trolley, Hanel, & Shields, 2006). Similar to
Bauman and Pero (2011) and Williams and Cornell (2006), Mason’s (2008) study covered the
various types of cyberbullying positions. However, Mason (2008) provides more categories and
in-depth information for each role. This information is important to the present study since terms
such as cyberbully, victim, and bystander were referenced for this research.
In conclusion, many definitions of cyberbullying exist with most referring to electronic
communication used to harass others. Additionally, technology may be used to send graphic or
sexually explicit photos via the Internet or cell phones. Similar to the bullying study by Halpern
et al. (2015), cyberbullying inflicts embarrassment or pain on victims. Various cyberbullying
roles exist such as perpetrators, targets, and bystanders. This section provided a foundation on
cyberbullying in which this study builds upon.
Adolescents and Technology
In today’s society, adolescents experience an increasing access to electronic
communication. This section provides information on technological advancement and the
frequency of usage by adolescents. Following is a discussion of locations where cyberbullying
takes place.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
24
The Internet and cell phones are common amongst youth and provide a convenient way
to communicate with peers (Yilmaz, 2011). Increasing advanced technologies such as social
networking sites, texting, and email allow communication to occur more frequently than ever
before (Stauffer et al., 2012). Holfeld and Grabe (2012) found 95% of students had access to
Internet at home and 69% owned a cell phone. Moreover, 76.7% of students owned a cell phone,
40% a Facebook account, and 10% a Twitter account (Ockerman et al., 2014). However,
technology can play a positive and negative role in the lives of children (Barak, 2005). One
negative aspect is cyberbullying, the use of electronic communication to harm others (Patchin &
Hinduja, 2006). Cyberbullying can pose as a significant danger to students (Stauffer et al., 2012).
Adolescents were victimized via online instant messaging, cell phones, social networking sites,
email, and chat rooms (Holfeld & Grabe, 2012; Burnham & Wright, 2012; Ockerman et al.,
2014). According to the studies presented, the majority of youth have access to the Internet and
almost three-fourths of students owned a cell phone. This increase in technology also presents a
cyberbullying risk for adolescents. Applying Mason’s (2008) study, victims of cyberbullies may
be targeted because perpetrators feel they are inferior. This area is important to the current study
since teachers must be aware of the increasing access youth have with technology.
Cyberbullying occurs in various places. According to Burnham and Wright (2012),
cyberbullying occurs more at home than at school, with fewer parents monitoring behavior and
greater technological access. When most adolescents have Internet access at home, electronic
communication is conducted largely with peers from school (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). Not only
off campus, but the use of electronic communication devices to bully others is a growing
problem in schools (Li, 2006). In 2009, approximately one in five students were cyberbullied at
school in the past year, with 55% of those students being repeatedly victimized within the past
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
25
30 days (Holfeld & Grabe, 2012). Li (2006) reveals over half of adolescents were cyberbullied
one to three times in the last year. This aggressive behavior will become more common wherever
technology is easily accessible to students, both at home and on school grounds. This
information is important to note as teachers’ awareness of the prevalence of cyberbullying in
schools can lead to prevention and intervention for victims.
According to the studies presented, youth today are exposed to electronic communication
almost on a daily basis. This accessibility to technology offers more opportunity for
cyberbullying occurrences. Both in school and off campus, harassment from digital media is
prevalent among adolescents. Knowing these realities of cyberbullying sets a stage for the
current study.
Existence of Cyberbullying
Cyberbullying among adolescents exists for various reasons. Similar to Mishna et al.’s
(2010) study with bullying, marginalization and peer victimization occur for different purposes.
This section discusses motives for cyberbullying. Following, perceived anonymity of
cyberbullying is addressed.
Adolescents report reasons for cyberbullying peers. Youth tormented others because, “I
don’t like them”, “for fun”, “others were doing it”, “view the victim as a loser”, and to
demonstrate power (Holfeld & Grabe, 2012, p. 403; NCPC, 2007, p. 3). Threats, name calling,
insults, gossip, misunderstandings, viewing others partaking in the behavior, and having nothing
to do were other causes for cyberbullying (Burnham & Wright, 2012; Guerra et al., 2012). Some
youth want to embarrass or hurt another’s feelings (Ockerman et al., 2014). Researchers even
suggest some students come to view cyberbullying as an expectation of high school (Goebert et
al., 2011). Over 50% of the teens surveyed believe perpetrators did not view their actions as a big
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
26
deal, feel the need to face severe consequences, or think they would get caught (NCPC, 2007).
These studies show adolescents who partake in cyberbullying are doing it intentionally to
denigrate victims. Many students do it out of boredom or emulate their friends’ aggressive
behaviors. Moreover, cyberbullies do not feel the need to face punishment for their actions.
Understanding the reasons youth cyberbully is crucial for this study because it provides a
foundation for teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying.
Cyberbullying allows perpetrators perceived anonymity, which could cause emotional
distress among its victims. Technology provides a screen for students to hide behind in which
they are not accountable for their actions (Beale & Hall, 2007). Because the Internet affords a
sense of anonymity, many youth feel they can say whatever they want (Li, 2006). Problematic to
this situation, cyberbullying may be challenging to monitor because it utilizes technology that is
difficult for parents and adults to readily access (Burnham & Wright, 2012). If individuals cannot
be identified for their behavior, the fear of being caught or punished is diminished. Almost 50%
of victims may not know the identity of the cyberbully (Kowalski & Limber, 2007). Perceived
anonymity allows cyberbullies to distance themselves physically and psychologically from
aggressive acts and consequences (Elledge et al., 2013). Cyber insults and threats can reach a
vast audience, be sent from any place and time, and remain indelible once they appear (Abrams,
2012). Victims cannot avoid or escape harassment because cyberspace knows no physical
boundaries (Elledge et al., 2013). MacKay (2012) states such behavior can have negative effects
on school climate and relationships. Because cyberbullying deeply affects youth, teachers,
administrators, and parents must be aware of current cyberbullying challenges (Wright,
Burnham, Christopher, & Heather, 2009). Unlike traditional bullying where victims can easily
identify their perpetrator (Bauman, 2008; Tokunaga, 2010), cyberbullying allows anonymity for
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
27
offenders. These sections are fundamental for this study in comprehending why cyberbullying
exists and the perceived anonymity of this issue.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine teachers’ perceptions of
cyberbullying. A focus of this investigation was teachers’ educational background and the
influence on perceptions of cyberbullying. Additionally, intervention strategies teachers utilize to
address cyberbullying occurrences were ascertained. Finally, prevention strategies teachers
believe would reduce cyberbullying in schools were explored.
Teachers play a crucial role in addressing the increasing problem of cyberbullying.
According to Pew Research Center (Lenhart, 2015), 92% of teens, ages 13-17, report accessing
the Internet daily with 24% stating they go online constantly. More than three-quarters of
adolescents have a smartphone (Lenhart, 2015). As technology changes and access is easier to
obtain, it is likely there will be an increase in cyberbullying globally. According to Stauffer et al.
(2012), cyberbullying is on the rise and cannot be ignored by school personnel. Off-campus
conduct creates a foreseeable risk of substantial disruption in the classroom (Abrams, 2012).
Cyberbullying exacts a physical and emotional toll that denies victims full enjoyment of the free
public education that state law provides (Abrams, 2012). Some states enacted cyberbullying
policies, but these measures depend on the personal commitment of educators in implementing
these initiatives. Educators may disregard cyberbullying instances originating off school
property. However, schools have the obligation to protect pupils from mistreatment by other
children (Abrams, 2012). Working together with parents and the community will assist schools
in preventing and addressing cyberbullying (Stauffer et al., 2012). Educators must address this
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
28
growing concern since the effects of cyberbullying are detrimental to the social emotional
welfare of students.
Teachers’ perceptions affect their opinions and behaviors. Comprehending teachers’
views is an initial step in developing an understanding of cyberbullying and acquiring effective
skills in dealing with this aggressive behavior (Eden et al., 2013). Teachers are in a prime
position to combat this problem (Lane, 2011). Therefore, the purpose of this study investigates
teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying.
Conceptual Framework
Theoretical or conceptual frameworks provide a point of reference or viewpoint (Imenda,
2014). Theory involves concepts that offer a systematic view of relationships between variables
to predict phenomena (Bayat & Fox, 2007). A theoretical framework refers to the theory that
guides the researcher and is the application of theory used to explain an event (Imenda, 2014).
When a problem cannot be researched in reference to one theory, a researcher may synthesize
existing viewpoints in literature to produce a conceptual framework. This model can be used in
place of a theoretical framework, which is an integrated way of seeing the problem (Liehr &
Smith, 1999). A conceptual framework brings together several related concepts to predict or
explain a given event or provide a broader understanding of a particular study (Imenda, 2014).
Conceptual and theoretical frameworks help the researcher see the variables and concepts in a
study, provide a general approach or methodology, and guide in data collection (Imenda, 2014).
This cyberbullying study employs both theoretical and conceptual frameworks.
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) provides a theoretical framework for this study.
Developed by Albert Bandura, SCT was created with an emphasis on the acquisition of social
behaviors (Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2014). An individual’s behavior is influenced through
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
29
self-monitoring, evaluation of one’s environmental social norms, and expected positive or
negative outcomes (Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977; Baranowski, Perry, & Parcel, 2002). The
theory purports learning happens in a social context and much of what is gained is through
observation. SCT has been applied to areas such as organizational behavior and mental and
physical health (Pajares, 1996). Social Cognitive Theory lies on three assumptions. First, triadic
reciprocity is the view that behavioral, personal, and environmental factors influence one another
in a bidirectional, reciprocal motion (Denler et al., 2014). A person’s behavior and responses to
occurrences in the environment are decided through reciprocal interaction between at least two
people in one’s environment (Bandura, 1986; Low & Espelage, 2013). For example, learning in
schools is shaped by factors within the academic environment, most notably reinforcement
experienced by the individual and others. Adolescents may model behaviors of teachers, parents,
and peers (Mouttapa, Valente, Gallaher, Rohrbach, & Unger, 2004). Furthermore, learning is
affected by students’ thoughts, self-beliefs, and understandings of classroom contexts. The
second assumption is people have the ability to influence their own behavior and environment in
a meaningful fashion (Bandura, 2001). SCT believes individuals can influence outcomes and
environment through self-reflection, foresight, and self-regulation (Denler et al., 2014). Finally,
the third assumption of SCT states learning can happen without an immediate change in behavior
or learning and demonstration of what was learned are two separate processes. The reason for the
distinction assumes that learning involves not only the attainment of new behaviors, but also
cognitive skills, knowledge, and other constructs. Students can learn but not demonstrate what
they learned until motivated to do so. The current study examined teachers’ behaviors,
specifically if teachers believe their actions affect the actions of students. This provided insight
into teachers’ perceptions on their conduct.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
30
Denler et al. (2014) reported when Bandura’s social cognitive theory, which implies
children learn through observation, is applied to television viewing, it would appear to indicate
children learn aggressive behaviors when seeing violence on screen. Along the same lines,
children observing positive behaviors on television may emulate those actions as well. When
youth see behavior modeled, they will accept it and use it when they determine appropriate. This
explains the need for positive role models on television. Moreover, Bandura’s theory of
behaviors suggests youth would have to identify with the characters on screen in order to model
pro-social or violent behaviors (Hoffner, 1996). Violent acts on television have more of an
impact on behavior than sports programming. Children who are exposed to violence on
television will behave aggressively whether or not they were predisposed to aggressive behaviors
(Denler et al., 2014). By extension, Smith (2002) reported Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory
was applied to a television programming in Tanzania to prevent the spread of HIV, unwanted
pregnancies, empower women in third-world countries, and promote literacy. Promoting
modeling and social learning, television executives in Tanzania created programs emphasizing
positive change. Prosocial behaviors are modeled in television shows and real-world connections
are presented (Smith, 2002). Social cognitive theory offers a basis for promoting answers to
some of the world’s most urgent issues. The present study investigated whether teachers model
positive behavior for students. This offered insight into participants’ actions and views on their
own behaviors.
Social Cognitive Theory provides a foundation for school interventions designed to
improve students’ learning. Youth should be provided with access to models of the knowledge,
skills, and behaviors they are expected to acquire (Denler et al., 2014). Teachers can model
behaviors and cognitive processes they want students to emulate. Moreover, teachers should
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
31
exhibit effective instruction, which includes verbal, coping, and cognitive strategies. Also,
teachers may assist students in developing self-efficacy and self-regulation of behaviors.
Students will become more active and effortful when they are confident in their ability to handle
tasks. Denler et al. (2014) note self-efficacy can be improved when students are exposed to peers
who face challenges and then are able over come them. Applying this to cyberbullying, teachers
are crucial in modeling appropriate positive behaviors for students to follow. If students see
teachers exhibiting empathy and respect, they may do the same. Next, teachers can build self-
efficacy in students by challenging youth to do well and encouraging progress. Third, teachers
can assist youth in developing self-regulation skills in order to prevent and deal with
cyberbullying. Self-regulatory learners seek assistance from others to remedy situations and
think before acting (Dembo & Eaton, 2000). Teachers may support students by enhancing these
intervention skills when faced with cyberbullying. The current study examined if teachers
believed students could emulate the actions of teachers and intervention measures teachers felt
most effective. This provided insight into the behaviors of teachers as well as intervention
strategies for addressing cyberbullying.
According to Li (2008), children’s behaviors are shaped through interaction with people
around them. These individuals include parents, teachers, and peers. Through interactions with
people, children develop meaning and the formation of habits. Vicarious learning plays a pivotal
role in a child’s learning process by observing other people’s behavior (Yang, 2012). Bandura
(1986) has long contended that the external environment contributes to the acquisition and
maintenance of aggression and other risk behaviors (Low & Espelage, 2013). Bullying online or
offline may result from experiencing aggressive antisocial behaviors at home or school (Li,
2008). Bullying is a learned social behavior that is repeated by a person when that behavior is not
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
32
addressed (Martins & Wilson, 2012). Social cognitive theory may assist in explaining the
phenomenon of victims or observers of cyberbullying who eventually become cyberbullies
themselves, through the process of social learning from direct experiences or vicarious
observations (Tokunaga, 2010). Teachers must be aware of their attitudes towards aggression
because they hold a key role in modeling appropriate social behavior to their students (Low &
Espelage, 2013). Social cognitive theory was selected for this study since teachers’ perceptions
may affect their behaviors. Understanding this theoretical framework would assist teachers in the
awareness of positive role modeling. Additionally, teachers could help students in building self-
efficacy and self-regulation skills in dealing with cyberbullying.
Stoudt (2007) documented the use of participatory action research (PAR) in studying
bullying in an all-male elite private secondary school on the east coast of the United States.
Comprised of mostly affluent, white, and heterosexual boys, this exclusive school hosted a
privileged student body that has not been socio-historically silenced (Stoudt, 2007). The author
uses PAR as a vehicle for potentially generating social responsibility among elite youth by
assisting them to critically identify violence in their school. Participatory Action Research is a
framework for utilizing the procedures and results of research to grow the necessary social
infrastructure for change. A strong awareness of values, power, and politics as well as
acknowledgement of the contributions of self are required in order to create safe spaces that are
less likely to promote privileged attitudes. In this study, the author asserted that violence within
the school was the result of relational dynamics rather than stereotypical bullying. Most students
experienced bullying not only as a victim, but observer, and perpetrator. Moreover, the school
itself promoted an environment of violence through its policies, curriculum, traditions, faculty
and administration. This research suggests privilege and knowledge are reproduced. To combat
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
33
this individuals must identity and address the ways power and politics influence the environment.
The current study explored teachers’ perceptions in regards to their behavior. Specifically,
research addressed if teachers made demeaning comments to students, believed their behavior
affects the behavior of students, and thought students can emulate the behavior of teachers. This
provided information on the behaviors of teachers and sets a foundation for needed training and
professional development.
Finally, the conceptual framework for this study encompassed past research from
Snakenborg, Van Acker, and Gable (2011), Stauffer et al. (2012), and Eden et al. (2013).
Previously noted in this chapter, these studies researched teachers’ perceptions as well as
intervention and prevention programs that involved schools, family, and community. These
studies provided a basis for the present research where teachers’ perceptions and views on
intervention and prevention strategies were investigated. An alignment of survey protocol items
to research questions and conceptual frameworks is presented in Chapter 3. The existence of a
conceptual framework will assist in providing a more comprehensive understanding of teachers’
perceptions of cyberbullying.
Research Questions
The aim of this study was to address the following research questions:
1. What are teachers’ perceptions about cyberbullying?
2. Do teachers’ educational background influence their perceptions about
cyberbullying?
3. What intervention and prevention strategies do teachers agree would address
cyberbullying?
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
34
Significance of the Study
Cyberbullying is a growing problem that cannot be ignored. Approximately 15-35% of
middle and high school students across the United States are victimized by cyberbullying
(Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). Given the phenomenal increase in adolescent Internet use and lack of
adult supervision online, there are many reasons for concern that cyberspace provides a fertile
ground for bullying (Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010). This
problem affects the social-emotional well being of students, negatively impacts adolescents, and
presents a challenge for administrators, teaches, and staff (Burnham & Wright, 2012; Hinduja &
Patchin, 2010). Teachers are crucial for cyberbullying prevention and intervention (Ockerman et
al., 2014). According to Abrams (2012), when parents fall short, the system may extend to public
entities such as schools to assist in addressing cyberbullying. Educators must be prepared to
appropriately confront cyberbullying instances when brought to their attention (Hinduja &
Patchin, 2011). MacKay (2012) believes adults can provide better role models of respectful and
responsible relationships and set high standards for youth to emulate. Teachers are key in
addressing the escalating crisis of cyberbullying.
The existing literature focuses on pre-service teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying,
(Sassu, 2006). A lack of research exists for in-service teachers and their views on this problem
(Stauffer et al., 2012). Furthermore, no study has been conducted on teachers’ perceptions of
cyberbullying in Hawaii. The present study contributes to the existing literature. Specifically,
teachers’ perceptions, the influence of educational background on teachers’ perceptions,
interventions, and prevention strategies were highlighted. This study extends the literature by
bridging the gap between pre-service and in-service teachers.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
35
Schools benefit from this research for the intervention and prevention of cyberbullying.
Administrators must be sure teachers understand the seriousness of cyberbullying and
consequences for this aggressive behavior (Beale & Hall, 2007). Research reveals prevention
programs at the school level have the strongest impact on cyberbullying (Couvillon & Ilieva,
2011). Providing training for staff affords teachers the opportunity to learn how to properly
address cyberbullying instances when brought to their attention. The information from this study
on teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying will provide administrators with data to determine the
professional development needs of its staff.
In addition, this study benefits schools by providing an understanding of teachers’
perceptions in regards to concern about and effects of cyberbullying on students. A positive
school climate contributes to the prevention of cyberbullying on campus (Hinduja & Patchin,
2014). Students need a safe and supportive environment in order to be successful in school
(Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, Elbertson, & Salovey, 2012). Teachers play an important role in
teaching social emotional competencies in students as well as how to positively engage in human
relationships (MacKay, 2012). Understanding teacher’s perceptions of cyberbullying and then
providing tools for addressing harassing behaviors, will ultimately contribute to a safer and more
supportive school environment for students.
Definitions of Key Terms
The following definitions are provided to ensure understanding of these terms throughout
the research.
Bullying. Intentional aggressive behavior involving the imbalance of power that is
repeated over time (Olweus, 1993). Negative actions intended to cause distress or injury upon
another (Tokunaga, 2010).
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
36
Bystanders who are part of the problem. These individuals support and encourage bullies
(Mason, 2008). They may also watch from the sidelines and refuse to assist the victim.
Bystanders who are part of the solution. Students who help stop cyberbullying and
provide assistance to the victim (Mason, 2008).
Cyberbullying. The intentional and repeated use of technology to harm others (Beran &
Li, 2005). Willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and
other electronic devices (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006).
Entitlement cyberbullies. Individuals who feel superior and believe they have the right to
harass others who are different (Mason, 2008).
Middle School. A school that educates students in grades 6 to 8 (Noah, 2012).
Preservice teachers. Prospective Kindergarten to Grade 12 teachers who are enrolled in a
teacher education program (Noah, 2012).
Retaliators. Students who were bullied and are using the Internet to strike back (Mason,
2008).
Social Emotional Learning. Emotional literacy that develops the skills of recognizing,
understanding, labeling, regulating, and communicating emotion (Siris, 2012).
Targets/Victims. Individuals who are attacked because bullies feel they are inferior and
on the receiving end of online social cruelty (Mason, 2008; Patchin & Hinduja, 2009).
Teachers. Kindergarten to Grade 12 teachers who are teaching in a classroom (Noah,
2012).
Victims of retaliators. Students who bullied others are now the recipients of
cyberbullying (Mason, 2008).
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
37
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 discussed the overview of the study including the statement of the problem,
background of the problem, purpose of the study, conceptual framework, significance of the
study, and definitions of key terms. Chapter 2 expands on Chapter 1 by providing a literature
review on areas significant to cyberbullying. Chapter 3 presents the methodology used to collect
information about the research questions, including instrumentation, data collection, and data
analysis procedures. Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses the
findings and limitations, implications for this study, and areas for future research.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
38
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This case study examined Hawaii public school teachers’ perceptions of and beliefs about
cyberbullying. In addition, the educational background of teachers and the influence that has on
their perceptions of cyberbullying was investigated. Also, intervention and prevention measures
deemed most effective by teachers was determined. This study is significant because
cyberbullying is a problem affecting a significant proportion of youth as they acquire and utilize
electronic communication (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013). According to Li (2006), cyberbullying is
an international epidemic and a meaningful proportion of youth are involved in this problem.
Cyberbullying may produce negative effects on the social-emotional well being of students
(Ybarra & Mitchell, 2007). Therefore, teachers can be powerful resources in the intervention and
prevention of cyberbullying (Chen & Wei, 2011). Educators need to be informed about
cyberbullying and the strategies required in addressing this problem in schools (Beale & Hall,
2007). Although cyberbullying is a growing concern, minimal research has been conducted on
teacher perceptions of cyberbullying (Huang & Chou, 2013).
The information for this literature review was obtained through articles from scholarly
journals and data from government websites. Searches were conducted using words such as
cyberbullying, teacher perceptions of cyberbullying, K-12, middle and high schools, impact of
cyberbullying, adolescents and cyberbullying, cyberbullying perceptions, bullying, and
cyberbullying prevention. This chapter provides a review of the literature concerning
cyberbullying. First, information on the Hawaii State Department of Education and Hawaii State
Teachers Association are given since its teachers are the focus of this research. Second, the
prevalence and effects of cyberbullying are presented. Third, teacher perceptions of
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
39
cyberbullying are investigated. Fourth, legal issues for schools are examined. Fifth, prevention
strategies are explored focusing on aspects such as parents, social emotional learning, teacher
training, and school administration.
Hawaii State Department of Education (HIDOE)
The focus of this study is on Hawaii public school teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying.
In order to investigate their beliefs, a background of the organization teachers work for is
presented. The following sections offer information on the Hawaii State Department of
Education (HIDOE). First, the mission of HIDOE is discussed followed by demographic
information. Next, school socio-economic factors and ethnic diversity are offered. Finally,
technology’s role in the organization is posed.
Providing a safe environment for students to achieve learning is a concern of many
school districts across the nation. The Hawaii State Department of Education’s mission is to
Serve the community by developing the academic achievement, character, and social-
emotional well-being of our students to the fullest potential. We work with partners,
families, and communities to ensure that all students reach their aspirations from early
learning through college, career, and citizenship. (HIDOE, 2012, p. 4)
A successful learner is self-regulated, engaged, and develops expertise (Rueda, 2011).
Engagement and motivation involves the degree to which students become immersed in a task
(Rueda, 2011). Teachers are crucial in ensuring the safety and social-emotional well being of
students. Successful students must feel secure in school in order to achieve academic success.
The Hawaii State Department of Education (HIDOE) consists of 255 schools,
approximately 180,000 students, and over 21,000 employees (HIDOE, Office of the
Superintendent, 2014). There are approximately 13,000 teachers, librarians and counselors
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
40
across the State (HIDOE, 2016b). Hawaii public schools represent the eighth largest school
district in the nation (NCES, 2010). Surrounded by the Pacific Ocean, Hawaii is the most
geographically isolated island archipelago on earth (State of Hawaii, Office of the Governor,
2010). Furthermore, Hawaii is the only state in the country that operates as a single State
Education Agency (SEA) and Location Education Agency (LEA) structure (State of Hawaii,
Office of the Governor, 2010). Schools are organized into 42 Complexes. Complexes are
grouped into 15 Complex Areas headed by Complex Area Superintendents.
HIDOE elementary, middle, intermediate, and high schools are located on six of
Hawaii’s eight major islands, spanning dense urban areas to rural populations that can only be
accessed by air transportation. Socio-economic backgrounds range from homelessness and
poverty to extreme wealth. Hawaii’s high immigrant population contributes to ethnic diversity.
Native Hawaiian and part-Hawaiian indigenous students comprise the largest ethnic group in
Hawaii public schools at 28%, followed by Filipinos at 21%. Among Hawaii’s students, 51% are
eligible for free-or-reduced lunch and 11% are English Language Learners (State of Hawaii,
Office of the Governor, 2010).
Technology is a major component in student learning for the Hawaii Department of
Education. The HIDOE’s Strategic Plan, Goal 3: Successful Systems of Support states, “DOE
facilities and technology systems meet 21
st
century education needs and standards in a fiscally
responsible and innovative way” (HIDOE, 2012, p. 23). Strategy 3A provides students and
employees with computer systems and broadband. In addition, HIDOE’s Superintendent Kathryn
Matayoshi signed the United States Department of Education’s Future Ready Pledge (HIDOE,
2014b). This initiative provides digital learning for every student in the nation. Hawaii began its
process of meeting this pledge by enacting a 1:1 device pilot, which equipped selected schools
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
41
with a MacBook Air laptop or iPad (HIDOE, 2014a). Although beneficial for learning, increased
access to technology and the Internet opens the door to cyberbullying.
According to the Hawaii State Department of Education, cyberbullying is not tolerated in
schools and warrants disciplinary action as noted in Chapter 19 (HIDOE, 2016a). Part of Hawaii
Administrative Rules, Chapter 19 addresses student misconduct, discipline, school searches and
seizures, reporting offenses, police interviews and arrests, and restitution for vandalism (State of
Hawaii Board of Education, 2001). Cyberbullying is a growing concern in Hawaii. The 2013
Hawaii Youth Risk Behavior Survey report 23.7% of middle school students and 15.6% of high
school students in Hawaii public schools were bullied electronically in the past 12 months (State
of Hawaii Department of Health, 2013). Another report stated 50% of teenagers in Hawaii are
cyberbullied either on the Internet or cell phones (Mendoza, 2010). A brawl involving hundreds
of teenagers from two high schools on the Leeward coast of Oahu resulted after online taunts
were communicated over social media (Gutierrez, 2015). In another case, football players on the
Big Island were kicked off the varsity team after posting derogatory photos on social media of
their rivals (Stewart, 2015).
In summary, HIDOE’s mission seeks to provide a safe environment for all students and
develop their social-emotional well-being. However, statistics show almost one-fourth of middle
school students report being cyberbullied. Teachers play a vital role in combating this problem.
Addressing the rising concern of cyberbullying requires understanding of teachers’ perceptions
so supports may be provided to combat this problem.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
42
Hawaii State Teachers Association (HSTA)
The participants in this study were teachers employed by HIDOE and members of the
Hawaii State Teachers Association (HSTA). HSTA is the sole union representing teachers across
the state of Hawaii. Established in 1971, its mission is to
support and enhance the professional roles of teachers, advocate teachers’ interests,
collaborate with all segments of the community to assure quality public education for
Hawaii’s youth, and promote human and civil rights to support and nurture diversity in
our multifaceted community. (HSTA, 2016, n.p.)
Each school nominates representatives to serve in the HSTA representative assembly. These
individuals meet once a month during the school year at district union meetings. The participants
in this study were HIDOE teachers and members of HSTA.
Prevalence of Cyberbullying
Adolescents spend a significant amount of time communicating with their peers as well
as strangers using social networking tools (Gross, Juvonen, & Gable, 2002). As of September
2009, 93% of American teens between the ages of 12 and 17 went online (Lenhart et al., 2010).
Studies show approximately one in four students will be cyberbullied and one in six students will
cyberbully others (Li, 2006; Wright et al., 2009). Younger adolescents, ages 12-13, are more
likely to report unkind behaviors on social networking sites than their older peers, ages 14-17
(Lenhart et al., 2011). According to Mishna et al. (2010), approximately 50% of junior high
school students experience cyberbullying. Although research suggests cyberbullying is more
prevalent in middle school, some studies show high rates involving 15-17 year olds (Ybarra &
Mitchell, 2004). Despite the conflicted age differences in the frequency of cyberbullying, it is
noted that older students have greater access to technology and tend to utilize it more often
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
43
(Lenhart, 2009). Additionally, Yilmaz (2011) reports more male than female students are
cyberbullied and also the perpetrators of harassment. The phenomenon of cyberbullying is
particularly destructive because of the ability to spread quickly to many individuals, be done
anonymously, and remain on the Internet for extended periods of time (MacKay, 2012).
Beran and Li (2005), two of the pioneers of cyberbullying research conducted a study of
432 students in grades 7-9 on cyber harassment experiences. The research was done in junior
high schools in Calgary, Canada. Schools were randomly selected and only those with parent
consent participated. A total of 193 boys and 239 girls took part in the study (Beran & Li, 2005).
Research assistants administered a 15-item survey to students in their classrooms. Questions
included types of technology used to harass students and information about the incidents.
Inquiries were made concerning the experiences with cyber harassment, emotional responses,
and connection between cyber harassment and other forms of harassment. Results indicated more
than two-thirds (69%) heard of cyber harassment occurrences and approximately one-fourth
(21%) were harassed several times. A few students (3%) said they cyber harassed others. Beran
and Li (2005) reported email, instant messaging, and the Internet were used to send insults, make
dares of sending naked photos, and convey death threats. Victims of harassment experienced
feelings of anger, sadness, and hurt. A majority of students who were cyber harassed were also
victims of another type of harassment.
A later study by Li (2006) also focused on the nature and extent of cyberbullying among
adolescents. The emphasis was on gender differences in cyberbullying instances. Male and
female perceptions of school climates were investigated. Participants were randomly selected
from three middle schools in a large Canadian city. A total of 264 students, grades 7-9,
completed the survey. The sample consisted of 134 females and 130 males, with 75.4% White
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
44
(Li, 2006). An anonymous survey consisting of 26 questions was distributed to students. Results
show one in four students were victims of cyberbullying. Approximately 17% of participants
bullied others using electronic devices. Furthermore, 53.6% of students reported they knew
someone being cyberbullied (Li, 2006). Examining gender differences revealed 22% of males
and 12% of females were cyberbullies. Approximately 25% of males and 25.6% of females
stated they experienced cyberbullying. Next, 62% of participants were cyberbullied one to three
times and 37.8% were victims of cyberbullying more than three times. Finally, only 64.1% of
students felt adults in schools tried to stop cyberbullying when informed. Females were more
likely than males to communicate to an adult they were cyberbullied. Only 30.1% of students
who were bystanders told an adult of the cyberbullying incidence (Li, 2006). The results of this
study indicated cyberbullying is becoming an increasingly serious problem for schools that
requires the attention of schools, parents, and the community. Similar to the previous study by
Beran and Li (2005), the findings for this research showed a comparable amount of students
being cyberbullied, but an increase in student percentages for students bullying others.
Juvonen and Gross (2008) conducted a study on bullying experiences in cyberspace. The
investigation looked at communication use online, prevalence of cyberbullying, risks associated
with repeated cyberbullying, and prevention strategies used by adolescents. Participants were
recruited through a teenage website. Adolescents were invited to complete a survey about teens’
experiences communicating with each other on the Internet. Upon completion, youth would be
entered in a drawing for an iPod or Amazon.com gift card. Parental consent was not required
since recruitment was done online and the survey was anonymous (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). The
sample contained 1454 youth between 12-17 years of which 75% were female. The survey
represented teens from all 50 states with the highest proportion from California (102) and New
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
45
York (100). The majority of the respondents (84%) attended public schools and most (94%) had
Internet access at home. Results show the majority of youth used the Internet for more than three
years. Approximately 72% of adolescents reported experiencing at least one incident of
cyberbullying and one fifth (19%) of those surveyed were victims of cyberbullying more than 7
times (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). The most prevalent forms of cyberbullying were insults and
name-calling. Contrarily to common assumptions of the anonymity of cyberbullying, the
research in this study revealed 73% of respondents knew the perpetrator (Juvonen & Gross,
2008). The vast majority of youth (90%) elected to not tell adults about cyberbullying
occurrences because they felt the need to learn to handle the problem individually (50%) and are
concerned that parents may restrict Internet usage (31%). Next, the study reported online
bullying experiences were independently associated with increased social anxiety. The most
common cyberbullying prevention tactics used by students include blocking the perpetrator’s
screen name (67%), changing their screen name (25%), and sending a warning to the cyberbully
(25%). Compared to the previous studies by Beran and Li (2005) and Li (2006) that were
conducted in Canada, this research took place in the United States and reported higher rates of
cyberbullying.
Mark and Ratliffe (2011) examined cyberbullying experiences of 247 middle school
students. The study focused on experiences with cyberbullying, use of different media, and
relationships among school type, gender, and grade level. Surveys were distributed to three
middle schools in Hawaii with students in grades 6-8. The majority of respondents were female
(70%) and Asian/Pacific Island descent (71%). The questionnaire contained 35 items based on
Beran and Li’s (2005) research. Classroom teachers at the middle schools distributed surveys to
students. Results indicated the majority of students (95%) had access to the Internet at home.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
46
More than half of respondents (54%) reported going online daily. Approximately one-quarter
(25%) of the females in this study stated they were cyberbullied. Data revealed females were
more likely to be involved in cyberbullying incidences than males (Mark & Ratliffe, 2011).
Next, findings showed there were no differences between public and private school as to the
frequency of cyberbullying incidences. However, there was a significant difference of
cyberbullying occurrences by grade level. Cyber victimization increased through each grade in
middle school. Mark and Ratliffe (2011) report types of technology used by youth include
MySpace, cell phones, instant messenger, and online games. Almost half of adolescents
responded that they did not know the identity of the cyberbully (48%). Students reacted with
anger (49%), sadness (44%), embarrassment (34%), and irritation (3%). The most common
reason for cyberbullying was retaliation for someone saying or doing something mean in person
or online (72%). Victims of cyberbullying found support from friends, parents, and teachers.
Finally, students believe parents were not aware of cyberbullying incidences as much as
teachers. A majority of students (83%) felt teachers would stop cyberbullying situations
immediately (Mark & Ratliffe, 2011). Conversely, a large percentage of students (80%) stated
they did not think their parents would stop cyberbullying instances if brought to their attention.
The research implies educators and parents must work together to identify and address issues
around cyberbullying. This study reported similar findings from research by Li (2006) in that
approximately one fourth of participants experienced cyberbullying. Whereas Yilmaz (2011)
found more males than females engaging in cyberbullying, this study revealed the opposite.
Moreover, almost half of participants in this study did not know the perpetrator of cyberbullying,
which is much less than the three fourths reported in the research by Juvonen and Gross (2008).
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
47
The study by Yilmaz (2011) explored Turkish students’ cyberbullying experiences and
the use of social networking tools. The participants included 756 students in grade seven from
eight different middle schools in Istanbul, Turkey. The survey consisted of 15 questions and was
administered in a classroom environment. The questionnaire was a combination of Li’s (2006)
Cyberbullying Experience Student Survey and Patchin and Hinduja’s (2009) Cyberbullying and
Online Aggression Survey (Yilmaz, 2011). The components of the survey included three
domains: demographic information, students’ cyberbullying experiences as perpetrators and
victims, and types of media used by perpetrators and victims. Results indicated 17.9% of
participants were cyberbullied and 6.4% self-reported they were cyberbullies (Yilmaz, 2011).
Moreover, 26.9% of youth were cyberbullied by schoolmates, 15.9% harassed by cyberbullies
outside of school, and 57.2% tormented by strangers. Moreover, 25.9% of students knew of
someone who was cyberbullied and 45.7% were bystanders to cyberbullying occurrences. The
most common harassment behavior was the posting of mean and hurtful messages online. Male
victims most frequently experienced cyberbullying while playing multi-player online games.
Female victims experienced cyberbullying most often through instant messaging (Yilmaz, 2011).
Almost 50% of the students believed if cyberbullying occurred in schools, adults would likely
attempt to stop the behavior if they were aware of it. This percentage is less than reported in
studies by Li (2006) and Mark and Ratliffe (2011). Yilmaz (2011) indicated 38.4% of students
who were cyberbullied reported the incident to a parent or teacher. This finding is contrary to
Juvonen and Gross (2008), which found more than 90% of youth would withhold the
information from adults.
Burnham and Wright (2012) discussed the prevalence of cyberbullying with middle
school students. The mixed-method study examined cyberbullying attitudes, beliefs, and
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
48
opinions. The 114 participants were students from low income and high-income families.
Students were in grades 7 and 8 from five middle schools in one school system. For the
qualitative study, twenty students participated in focus groups. The group interactions lasted 50
minutes. Written parental consent and verbal assent from students were received. Results
indicate the students felt they were more likely to be cyberbullied at home than at school
(Burnham & Wright, 2012). Overall, adolescents were frustrated with cyberbullying and would
seek help with cyberbullying concerns. In addition, youth see ineptness among teachers and
parents in dealing with cyberbullying issues. This finding supports the study by Mark and
Ratliffe (2011), where a majority of students did not feel parents were aware of cyberbullying
instances and would not be able to help the situation. Suggestions for teachers in addressing
cyberbullying include finding out the cyberbully, discovering where it occurs, warning students
about cyberbullying, offering students ways of dealing with cyberbullying, and bringing in
people who can help (Burnham & Wright, 2012).
Holfeld and Grabe (2012) studied middle school students’ perceptions and responses to
cyberbullying in Manitoba and North Dakota. The research investigated the prevalence of
cyberbullying behavior and adolescents’ experiences and responses to cyberbullying.
Participants included 665 middle school students in grades 7 and 8 from seven middle schools.
The majority of youth were predominantly White (80%). A paper and pencil survey was
administered to a regularly scheduled class under the supervision of the homeroom teacher.
Findings indicated approximately one in five students were cyberbullied in the past year and
55% of those students repeatedly victimized (Holfeld & Grabe, 2012). Female students were
more involved in cyberbullying than their male counterparts. This discovery is similar to Mark
and Ratliffe (2011), but contrary to Yilmaz (2011) where males participated in cyberbullying
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
49
more than females. Over half of students reported when they were cyberbullied (64%) and when
they witnessed a cyberbullying event (60%). Overall, adults and peers did not effectively assist
adolescents in reducing cyberbullying behavior. This finding is similar to previous studies by
Mark and Ratliffe (2011) and Burnham and Wright (2012). Results show that school personnel,
parents, and peers must be prepared to offer strategies to youth who are victims, perpetrators, or
bystanders of cyberbullying.
Elledge et al. (2013) examined whether student’s perceptions of teacher’s classroom
behavior influences frequency of cyberbullying and whether cyberbullying behavior is subject to
classroom influences. Data was gathered from a large cluster randomized trial of the KiVa anti-
bullying program in Finland between 2007-2009 (Salmivalli, 2010). The sample contained
16,634 students in 1,043 classrooms, in 146 schools in Finland. An online survey was
administered in school to students in grades 3-5 and 7-8. Results indicate the rates of
cyberbullying were low (4%) in the sample. Provictim attitudes were related negatively with
cyberbullying frequency. Cyberbullying occurred less in classrooms with higher provictim
attitudes. Students’ perceptions of teachers’ ability to intervene were associated with bullying
such as social exclusion and gossiping (Elledge et al., 2013). Cyberbullying and covert forms of
bullying may be more prevalent in classrooms where students consider teachers ability to
intervene as high. The occurrence of cyberbullying was much lower in this study than those done
in Canada and the United States (Li, 2006; Holfeld & Grabe, 2012).
Hinduja and Patchin (2013) discussed social influences on cyberbullying behaviors
among middle and high school students. Peers, parents, and educators’ influence on
cyberbullying behaviors were examined. During adolescence, socializing agents such as family
and friends influences behavioral choices. Participants included approximately 4,400 students in
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
50
grades 6-12 from 33 schools in the southern United States. The online survey was administered
in schools’ computer labs. Results indicated peers, parents, and educators have an impact on
cyberbullying behaviors of adolescents. Students who reported their friends had cyberbullied
others were much more likely themselves to admit they also engaged in cyberbullying. Next, the
researchers found when educators and parents communicate that cyberbullying behaviors are
inappropriate; youth are less inclined to participate in those behaviors (Hinduja & Patchin,
2013). Although previous research by Burnham and Wright (2012) reported students’ lack of
confidence in adults assisting with cyberbullying issues, this study showed parents and teachers
can have a positive impact.
Ockerman et al. (2014) explored the relationship between bullying and cyberbullying and
reported on the rates of technology use among middle school students. The study aimed to
increase the knowledge base concerning cyberbullying and contribute to the creation of
intervention and prevention strategies. Participants for this study included a convenience sample
of 352 students from two large Midwestern urban cities. Students were enrolled in grades 5-8
with ages ranging between 10 to 15 years. Students voluntarily participated in the research with
parental consent. The majority of participants were White (87.8%). The instrument used in this
study was the Revised Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument (RAPRI-BT), which employs a 6-
point Likert scale for students to respond (Ockerman et al., 2014). Results indicated low levels of
physical bullying reported by students who bully with highest confirmation for pushing or
shoving a student (39%). Traditional bullying victims report a higher rate (47%) of being pushed
or shoved by another student. The most frequent cyberbullying behaviors by perpetrators were
sending nasty jokes via instant chat (17.9%) and texting hurtful messages (13.2%).
Cyberbullying victims report name-calling via text (19%) and hurtful messages (12.9%) as the
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
51
most frequent cyberbullying behaviors. Researchers recommend counselors, administrators, and
families’ work together to develop whole-school systemic programming to reduce cyberbullying
(Ockerman et al., 2014). This finding is parallel to results from Holfeld and Grabe (2012) and
Hinduja and Patchin (2013) where all parties must be involved to address this problem.
Effects of Cyberbullying
Cyberbullying often leads to traumatic experiences with troubling consequences for
youth (Burnham & Wright, 2012; Casey-Cannon, Hayward, & Gowen, 2001). The impact of
cyberbullying on adolescents takes on various forms. Students report feeling frustrated, angry,
hurt, sad, embarrassed, confused, worried, depressed, scared, and suicidal when cyberbullied
(Beran & Li, 2005; Burnham & Wright, 2012; NCPC, 2007). Furthermore, cyberbullying can
abuse victims for sexual orientation, social isolation, race, ethnicity, physical or emotional
disability, obesity, small size, or lack of social skills (Abrams, 2012). Victims may suffer from
sleep disturbances, bedwetting, abdominal pain, and anxiety. Students who were cyberbullied
experienced perceived difficulties, emotional and peer issues, headaches, stomach pains,
difficulty sleeping, conduct problems, low prosocial behavior, and feeling unsafe at school (Eden
et al., 2013). Even a single occurrence of cyberbullying can relate to emotional distress (Juvonen
& Gross, 2008). These negative emotions have correspondingly been linked to interpersonal
violence, delinquency, suicidal ideation, assaultive conduct, substance abuse, and carrying a
weapon to school (Aseltine Jr., Gore, & Gordon, 2000; Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Ybarra,
Diener-West, & Leaf, 2007). Cyberbullying can obstruct development, schoolwork, and the well
being of students (Guerra et al., 2012). Additionally, school avoidance and reduced academic
achievement are negative effects of cyberbullying (Stauffer et al., 2012). On campus,
cyberbullying victims may not be able to fully concentrate in class due to the fear of an
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
52
anonymous perpetrator (Eden et al., 2013). Other effects include decreased student achievement
and motivation (Beale & Hall, 2007). Absences may increase to avoid the perpetrator and peers.
A substantial correlation appears between cybervictims and loneliness among adolescents
(Şahin, 2012). The digital nature of cyberbullying creates a permanent record of negative
information that can affect students’ current and future psychological and emotional state, which
in turn can impact different aspects of behavior (Eden et al., 2013). MacKay (2012) states
cyberbullying is corrosive for bullies and bystanders as well, and one role sometimes transforms
into another. Suicides due to cyberbullying exemplify the magnitude of cyberbullying and
underline the need for immediate action (Burnham & Wright, 2012). Stauffer et al. (2012) affirm
cyberbullying may be potentially more harmful than traditional bullying. The psychosocial
impact is reported to be higher than traditional bullying (Campbell, Spears, Slee, Butler, & Kift,
2012; Schneider, O’Donnell, Stueve, & Coulter, 2012).
Youth cope with cyberbullying in different ways. Students report, “the best is not saying
anything, the worse is taking matters into your own hands and paying them back” (Burnham &
Wright, 2012, p. 7). Others felt it was not good to let it get to them, keeping it all inside, or
dealing with cyberbullying by themselves. A common thread was not continuing the
conversation. In a report by the NCPC, many teens asked the cyberbully to stop, used the
blocking feature to prevent further communication, or spoke with a peer (NCPC, 2007).
Adolescents will often seek support from friends before parents (Holfeld & Grabe, 2012; NCPC,
2007). In another study, Li (2006) found the vast majority of youth remained silent when
cyberbullied rather than inform adults. In 2011, only 26% of youth notified an adult of
cyberbullying (NCES, 2014). Students may be emotionally traumatized, think it is their fault,
fear retribution from the bully, or worry their online or cell phone usage will be restricted
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
53
(Feinberg & Robey, 2008). A study by the NCPC asserts that students did not feel cyberbullying
should be addressed in school, deeming school intervention (i.e., large assemblies) ineffective
(Guerra et al., 2012). Instead, youth should handle the situation on their own by blocking
cyberbullying messages, refusing to pass along offensive texts, and telling their peers to stop the
behavior (NCPC, 2007). Conversely, middle school students do request help from educators in
finding the perpetrator, determining where cyberbullying occurs, and dealing with this problem
(Burnham & Wright, 2012).
A study by Dempsey, Sulkowski, Nichols, and Storch (2009), examined differences
between peer victimization in cyber and physical settings and associated psychosocial
adjustment. In addition, investigation was done to determine if cyber victimization related to
depression and anxiety. Participants included 1,684 students between the ages of 11 and 16 years
from four public schools in the southern United States. Over half of the sample listed their
ethnicity as White (62%). The study employed the Victimization of Self (VS) portion of the
Revised Peer Experiences Questionnaire (RPEQ) (Dempsey et al., 2009). Students completed the
questionnaire during the first period classroom on the day of the survey administration. The
findings showed 14% of participants indicated they were victims of cyberbullying the past 30
days. A larger percentage of females (17%) reported being cyberbullied more than males (11%).
This is in alignment with studies by Mark and Ratliffe (2011) and Holfeld and Grabe (2012) that
found more females than males who were cyberbullied. Furthermore, cyberbullying was related
to social anxiety but not depression. Limitations of this study should be considered. Research is
needed to determine the direction of causality between cyber victimization and depression and
social anxiety using longitudinal designs (Dempsey et al., 2009).
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
54
Tokunaga (2010) conducted a critical review of research on cyberbullying victimization.
Aspects of this study entailed an integrative definition of cyberbullying, differences between
traditional bullying and cyberbullying, areas of convergence and divergence, and explanations
for the inconsistencies in literature. The method involved a search for peer-reviewed articles on
cyberbullying victimization published prior to June 2009 (Tokunaga, 2010). Electronic databases
were used such as EbscoHost, Lexis Nexis, JSTOR, and World-Cat. Findings reported 20-40%
of youth were victimized by cyberbullying. This aggressive behavior is not limited by age and
may appear from elementary to college. Cyberbullying victimization by gender produced
inconsistent findings. The majority of studies revealed that no particular gender is targeted. The
effects of cyberbullying resulted in student distress and frustration to serious psychosocial and
life problems. Tokunaga (2010) stated cyberbullying victims reported academic problems in
relation to the preoccupation with cyberbullying occurrences. Psychosocial issues and negative
moods resulted due to being cyberbullied. Depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, affective
disorders, and emotional distress were such examples. Furthermore, social problems may occur
such as detachment, hostility, and delinquency. Tokunaga’s (2010) study also addressed
strategies for dealing with cyberbullying. First, technological coping approaches included
employing strict privacy settings on Internet-based technologies, modifying usernames, and
changing email addresses. These strategies have success against Internet offenses such as online
obsessive relational intrusions. Second, passive strategies are not utilized as often to deter
cyberbullying. Only one in four victims said they would do nothing when cyberbullied (Patchin
& Hinduja, 2006). Approximately 15-35% of students confront cyberbullying by telling them to
stop (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). Also, rarely do children confide in parents about cyberbullying
occurrences (1-9%). This finding is similar to previous research that indicated students felt adults
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
55
were not effective in reducing cyberbullying (Mark & Ratliffe, 2011; Burnham & Wright, 2012;
Holfeld & Grabe, 2012).
A study by Bauman, Toomey, and Walker (2013) examined relationships among
depression, suicidal behaviors, bullying, and victimization experiences. The 1,491 participants
come from the 2009 Arizona Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS). YRBS is a part of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which monitors health risk behaviors in adolescents.
The surveys are conducted biennially at national, state, and local levels. Results indicated there
was a significant association between gender and depression with females 1.73 times more likely
to indicate they experienced depression than males (Bauman et al., 2013). This finding is
comparable to Tokunaga’s study, which noted psychosocial issues in students, however gender
association was not determined. Similarly, females reported considering suicide 1.73 times more
and having a suicide plan 1.63 times more than their male counterparts. Males were three times
more likely to cyberbully others. This finding parallels as far as grade levels are concerned, no
significant difference was present for depression, considering suicide, or making a suicide plan.
Students in grade 12 were most likely to experience and cause cyberbullying. Subsequently, a
direct association between cyber victimization and suicide attempt was not significant for males
or females after accounting for depression. However, a significant association between
cyberbullying and suicide attempts appeared for only males. According to Bauman et al. (2013) a
strong correlation between being cyber victims and cyberbullying others exist. Cyberbullying
may be more of a reciprocal behavior and less about a power differential. The researchers
suggest prevention and intervention programs should include both middle and high schools.
Van Geel, Vedder, and Tanilon (2014) researched existing studies on peer victimization,
cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents. Using meta-analysis, the purpose of the
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
56
study was to examine the relationships between peer victimization and suicide ideation or suicide
attempts. Sources for data included Ovid MEDLLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Articles
from 1910 to 2013 were sourced. A total of 491 studies were identified with 34 reporting on the
connection between peer victimization and suicide ideation containing 284,375 participants.
(Van Geel et al., 2014). Nine studies reported on the relationship between peer victimization and
suicide attempts, with 70,102 participants. Supporting this study is research by Bauman et al.
(2013), who discovered a significant link between suicide attempts and cyberbullying by males.
The results indicated peer victimization is related to suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among
children and adolescents. Also, cyberbullying was increasingly related to suicidal ideation in
comparison to traditional bullying (Van Geel et al., 2014). Peer victimization endangers children
and adolescents in suicidal ideation and suicide attempts. Schools should use evidence-based
practices to reduce cyberbullying.
Cyberbullying can play a role in adolescent depression. A literature review examined
interventions for 12-18 year-olds experiencing symptoms of depression due to cyberbullying
(Reed, Cooper, Nugent, & Russell, 2016). Searches were conducted from databases such as
ERIC, PsychIfo, and PubMed/MedLine. Information was gathered on interventions for the
effects of cyberbullying, cyber-aggression, and cyberbullying and depression. The synthesis of
literature revealed cyberbullying is on the rise and research focusing on interventions for this
phenomenon is limited. Findings indicate a positive relationship between cyberbullying and
depressive symptomology, but with limited intervention treatment (Reed et al., 2016). The
researchers emphasize the need for more evidence-based intervention programs for adolescents.
This finding parallels previous research that reported the need for scientific studies on
intervention programs (Bauman et al., 2013; Van Geel et al., 2014).
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
57
School administrators, teachers, parents, and communities are responsible for ensuring all
students have a safe environment in which to learn. Informed educators and parents should be
better prepared to educate, lead the fight against cyberbullying, and provide a safe place for
students when cyberbullying occurs (Burnham & Wright, 2012).
Teachers’ Perceptions of Cyberbullying
Teachers’ perceptions affect their beliefs and behaviors. Understanding teacher
perceptions is a first step in helping develop an awareness of cyberbullying and effective skills to
manage this phenomenon (Eden et al., 2013). If teachers do not perceive cyberbullying as a
problem, schools’ time and money are wasted when implementing prevention programs and
training. Teachers’ awareness coupled with commitment can reduce bullying by half (Eden et al.,
2013). Therefore, the support of teachers is critical when implementing school-based
interventions. Siris (2012) believes educators have a moral obligation to students in meeting
maximum cognitive potential, which includes social and emotional needs.
A study conducted by Li (2008) investigates preservice teachers’ perceptions on
cyberbullying. The teachers were enrolled in a two-year post-degree program at a Canadian
University. The study examined four areas: preservice teachers’ concern about cyberbullying,
preservice teachers’ confidence in managing cyberbullying, extent to which preservice teachers
are prepared to deal with cyberbullying, and to what extent do preservice teachers believe that
school commitment is important in addressing cyberbullying. A convenience sample of 154
preservice teachers in a teacher education program provided the data. A total of 26 items were
included in the survey, which contained demographic data and perceptions about cyberbullying.
Responses were on a 3-point Likert scale. With regards to preservice teachers’ concern about
cyberbullying, 31.9% reported cyberbullying is a problem in schools, 65% agree that children are
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
58
affected by cyberbullying, and 49.7% were concerned about cyberbullying (Li, 2008). Preservice
teacher confidence in addressing cyberbullying resulted in 13.1% agreeing they are confident in
identifying cyberbullying and 11.1% confident in managing cyberbullying occurrences. The
importance of school commitment in addressing cyberbullying received varied results. The
majority of preservice teachers believed that schools should develop policies on cyberbullying
(75.3%), discuss cyberbullying with parents (67.5%), and train staff about the problem (67.6%).
However, teachers were split in their opinions about acquiring teacher commitment through
curriculum development (46.1%), creating classroom activities (53.2%), or organizing school-
wide activities (53.1%). Finally, only 3.3% of preservice teachers agreed the University prepared
them for addressing cyberbullying. However, 44.4% of preservice teachers were interested in
learning more about this problem.
Yilmaz (2010) utilized the procedure from Li’s (2008) work to investigate the
perceptions of preservice teachers at seven Turkish universities. Participants included 163
preservice teachers enrolled in a four-year teacher education program. Approximately 54% of the
sample was female and 46% male (Yilmaz, 2010). All participants were enrolled in their last
year of the program. Similar to Li’s (2008) research, Yilmaz explored preservice teachers’
concern about cyberbullying, confidence in addressing cyberbullying, school commitment in
addressing cyberbullying, and preparation in dealing with cyberbullying. Gender differences in
regards to preservice teachers’ concern about cyberbullying and confidence to address it were
also examined. Yilmaz (2010) discovered 85.9% of preservice teachers believed cyberbullying
affected students and 77.3% were concerned about cyberbullying. More females (81.8%) than
males (72%) were concerned about cyberbullying (Yilmaz, 2010). About half of the respondents
felt confident in identifying cyberbullying (51.5%) and managing cyberbullying issues (48.5%).
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
59
Yilmaz (2010) noted males reported feeling more confident than females in identifying and
managing cyberbullying. Similar to Li’s (2008) research, the majority of preservice teachers in
the study by Yilmaz (2010) believed in the value of school policies (90.2%), training teachers
(88.3%), and reaching out to parents (85.3%). In addition, the participants supported
development of classroom activities (84%), curriculum (91.4%), school-wide activities (81%),
and counseling (79.1%). Finally, minimal preservice teachers (24.5%) reported the university
prepared them to address cyberbullying. The majority of preservice teachers (79.1%) were
interested in learning more about cyberbullying. This finding was higher than the participants in
the research by Li (2008).
Stauffer et al. (2012) examined high school teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying,
prevention, and intervention strategies. The study investigated 66 high school teachers’ beliefs in
the effects of cyberbullying on students, which intervening strategies teachers would use when
dealing with cyberbullying, and which prevention strategies would assist in decreasing
cyberbullying. Research took place in an urban high school in the Western United States. The
participants included 59% male and 41% female. The majority of questions used a 5-point Likert
scale, with three questions being open-ended. Regarding teachers’ beliefs for the effect of
cyberbullying, 4.62% agreed, “Cyberbullying toughens kids up,” 75.38% stated “Cyberbullying
has long-lasting negative effects,” and 7.69% believed “Cyberbullying prepares students for life”
(Stauffer et al., 2012). Results for intervening strategies show although teachers would address
cyberbullying if it happened at school, many were unsure as to how they should respond
(Stauffer et al., 2012). Likewise, previous research by Li (2008) and Yilmaz (2010) showed pre-
service teachers were not as confident in managing cyberbullying instances and would like to
learn more to address this problem. When cyberbullying occurs at school, teachers are more
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
60
likely to report the incident to school administrators. Stauffer et al. (2012) states when
cyberbullying happens outside of school, teachers were more likely to do nothing or ignore the
problem than if the situation occurred on campus. Teachers reported they were somewhat likely
to “Talk with the victim” or “Report the incident to a school administrator” (Stauffer et al.,
2012). However, educators believe students should be warned about consequences of
cyberbullying by parents not teachers or administrators (Stauffer et al., 2012). The third aspect of
this study encompassed teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of specific prevention
strategies in decreasing cyberbullying. Almost half (42%) of teachers believed prevention
programs are needed. The most helpful prevention strategies were increased parental
involvement, warning about consequences for cyberbullying, and increased consequences for
cyberbullying. The researchers reported administrators should be aware of teachers’ perceptions
to better prepare staff in monitoring and addressing cyberbullying incidences.
The study by Noah (2012) focused on middle school teachers’ knowledge of
cyberbullying, concerns about and confidence to address cyberbullying, and perceptions of their
role in preventing and responding to this issue. Research was done at a public middle school
within in a suburban district in the Western region of the United States. Interviews were
conducted with six middle school teachers and three school administrators. In addition, seven
school district policy documents were assessed for their incorporation of cyberbullying specific-
policies and procedures. The analysis of data produced five key results. First, teachers were
unaware of the prevalence of cyberbullying on campus. Next, teachers lack knowledge on the
school’s processes for addressing cyberbullying. Third, teachers have an assortment of
experiences in managing cyberbullying. Positively, teachers are more confident they can identify
and manage cyberbullying. This finding is contrary to research by Li (2008) and Yilmaz (2010),
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
61
which found pre-service teachers with minimal confidence in dealing with this phenomenon.
Finally, teachers see their role as crucial to preventing and responding to cyberbullying.
Recommendations included initiating a school wide cyberbullying assessment, providing
professional development on cyberbullying for teachers, creating cyberbullying policies and
procedures, and offering ongoing education (Noah, 2012). A suggestion for future research
focuses on the impact of professional development on teacher confidence to handle
cyberbullying.
Eden et al. (2013) presented teachers’ perceptions, beliefs and concerns about
cyberbullying. Like Yilmaz (2010), Eden et al. (2013) used the methodology of Li’s (2008)
study as the basis for examining perceptions of 328 teachers (88.4% female, 11.6% male) from
different types of schools and professional areas. A total of 50 schools in the central Israel area
were randomly selected. Teachers from elementary, middle, and high schools were randomly
recruited from different grade levels, content areas, and years of experience. Li’s questionnaire
was adapted from preservice teachers to in-service teachers and questions were added relevant to
research. The questionnaire consisted of 39 items with two major areas of teacher demographic
data and perceptions of cyberbullying in a global sense. Responses were on a 5-point Likert
scale. The survey included four indexes similar to Li’s (2008) study: teachers’ concern about
cyberbullying, teachers’ confidence in managing cyberbullying problems, teachers’ belief in
school’s commitment to deal with cyberbullying, and teachers’ belief in the importance of
learning about cyberbullying. Results indicated that most teachers agreed or strongly agreed (65-
72%) that cyberbullying is a problem in schools and they are concerned about cyberbullying
(Eden et al., 2013). The second index measuring teachers’ confidence in managing cyberbullying
problems showed only 20-38% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed they felt confident in
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
62
identify and managing cyberbullying. This finding was similar to research by Li (2008) and
Yilmaz (2010). The third index was teachers’ belief in the school’s commitment to deal with
cyberbullying. Most of the teachers (70-86%) agreed or strongly agreed the school has a
commitment to deal with cyberbullying. Eden et al. (2013) found several teachers believe
cyberbullying should be reported to the police while some suggested responsibility to school
boards. The fourth index examined teachers’ belief in the importance of learning about
cyberbullying. Over half of participants agreed or strongly agreed (65-68%) that cyberbullying is
an important issue and should be studied by teachers. This finding was comparable to the study
by Noah (2012), which found more professional development on this topic is required.
Graves (2013) did a qualitative case study exploring perceptions of middle school
digitally wise teachers and how they defined, recognized, handled, and prevented cyberbullying
in middle schools located in Southern Virginia. Participants included seven teachers with six
females and one male. All teachers had more than one year of teaching experience and were
adept with technology. The collection of data was done through open-ended surveys, interviews,
archival data, public records, and lesson plans. Data was coded and ten themes developed.
Results indicated digitally wise middle school teachers were confident in their ability to define
cyberbullying. Next, participants use multiple methods for preventing cyberbullying and
depended on students’ self-reporting cyberbullying instances. Nonetheless, teachers were not
certain of the prevalence of cyberbullying in their schools. This finding is similar to the study by
Noah (2012) where teachers were unaware of cyberbullying occurrences on campus. When
dealing with cyberbullying cases, teachers relied on past experiences to handle the situation.
Individuals felt empowered by district rules to address cyberbullying, yet desire further training
on how to effectively handle this concern (Graves, 2013). These findings were analogous to
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
63
research by Li (2008) and Yilmaz (2010) where additional training is needed. Implications for
this study were to offer training on cyberbullying to school staff members, conduct a school wide
assessment to determine knowledge of cyberbullying, and provide online access to cyberbullying
school data and resources.
Huang and Chou (2013) researched cyberbullying perspectives from Taiwanese teachers.
The authors conducted a national survey regarding Internet-related behaviors. A total of 2821
teachers participated in the study and opinions were collected through print anonymous
questionnaires distributed to schools by postal mail. The study consisted of three sections, which
included personal information, teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying, and teachers’ concerns
and practices in response to cyberbullying. A 4-point Likert format was used for outcomes.
Approximately 54.9% of respondents were male and 45.1% were female (Huang & Chou, 2013).
More than 99% of teachers held a bachelor’s degree and 41.5% had at least a master’s degree.
Workplace data showed participants were employed at elementary schools (53.6%) middle
schools (35.1%), and high schools (11.1%). The majority of teachers (92.1%) used computers
and Internet on a daily basis. With respect to teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying occurring at
school, 80.7% reported at least one teasing incident, 70.7% one threat or harassment, 66.3% one
rumor circulation, and 51.9% one occurrence involving posting an embarrassing picture or video
(Huang & Chou, 2013). Regarding perceptions on anonymity of cyberbullying, the majority
(81.7%) of teachers believed students would conceal their identity while cyberbullying victims.
Less than half (49.0%) of teachers felt they could identify cyberbullies. For teacher perceptions
of students’ responses to cyberbullying, less than half (44.8%) of teachers believed students
would seek help when cyberbullied and more than half (56.3%) felt students would hide the fact
they were cyberbullied. These findings are akin to previous research by Juvonen and Gross
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
64
(2008), which found students who were cyberbullied were not likely to report the incident to an
adult. However, teachers believed 60.7% of students who were bystanders to a cyberbullying
incident would report the occurrence to a teacher (Huang & Chou, 2013). Finally teachers’
concerns involved anxiety from their students experiencing cyberbullying. A majority of teachers
(94.5%) felt anti-bullying guidance is necessary and over half (70.7%) were worried about the
negative impact of cyberbullying. Even though only a small minority (12.6%) offered assistance
to students, the majority (87.9%) would take action if cyberbullying occurred. This finding is
supported by research from Stauffer et al. (2012) where teachers would intervene if
cyberbullying happened on school grounds.
Steinmetz (2013) studied students’ and teachers’ perceptions toward cyberbullying and
technology. The areas investigated consisted of cyberbullying and its relation to students’ sense
of belonging and social anxiety, and addressing cyberbullying in schools. The convenience
sample included 47 teachers and 53 students in grades 8-10 from central and northwestern Ohio
and northeastern Illinois. The self-reported online surveys consisted of open and closed-ended
questions. Findings indicate the majority of students had not been cyberbullied or cyberbullied
others in the past 30 days. This result is contrary to the study by Beran and Li (2005), which
reported one fourth of students were cyberbullied, but it did not specifically state within the past
month. According to Steinmetz (2013), more teachers than students reported hearing of
cyberbullying occurrences in the past 30 days. Next, seven of the nine students who were
cyberbullied in the past 30 days did not report the incident. Students who did tell someone were
most likely to tell a friend and least likely to tell a teacher. The majority of students found it
helpful in telling an individual they were cyberbullied. Positively, over 50% of students who
were bystanders to cyberbullying reported it to an individual (Steinmetz, 2013). This finding
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
65
supports the study by Huang and Chou (2013) in which teachers felt over half of bystanders
would report the incident to an adult. Next, students with access to technology were less likely to
experience social anxiety. Moreover, as students’ became more comfortable with technology, so
did their sense of school belonging. The study found teachers view the issue of cyberbullying
seriously and have a heightened awareness to aggressive acts. Addressing cyberbullying
produced differing results. Teachers supported peer mentors and education, while students
preferred talking to school administrators or teachers and enforcing laws.
DeSmet et al. (2015) researched secondary educators’ perceptions and practices in
addressing cyberbullying among adolescents. Participants were teachers, principals, and
counselors who worked with children ages 12-18 in a region consisting of 6 million inhabitants.
A total of 451 individuals from 147 schools took part in the study. The sample contained over
half women (66%) and subject teachers (61%). An online questionnaire was developed and
disseminated in 2013 to participants. The survey was adapted from the Handling Bullying
Questionnaire (HBQ) (Bauman, 2008). Results show educators would handle cyberbullying with
conversations with students, acquiring professionals for support, involving parents, and
providing advice to victims (DeSmet et al., 2015). However, male teachers did not view
cyberbullying as a problem, did not feel it was their responsibility to address the issue, and
ignored instances of cyberbullying. In some cases, the male educators blamed the victims for the
cyberbullying and told students to stand up for themselves. Four clusters of educators emerged in
the study: referrers (65%) who advised victims or sent them to professionals for assistance,
disengaged educators (14%) who mainly told victims to stand up for themselves and provided
the least support, concerned educators (12%) that least often ignored cyberbullying incidents,
and use all means educators (9%) who provided supportive advice to victims, talked to students
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
66
and contacted parents (DeSmet et al., 2015). The study concluded the majority of school
educators do not appropriately handle cyberbullying. This major finding is similar to that of
previous research that discovered teachers are ill prepared to deal with this growing concern (Li,
2008; Yilmaz, 2010; Graves, 2013). The researchers recommend the need for a customized
approach to cyberbullying training.
Sezer, Yilmaz, and Karaoglan Yilmaz (2015) investigated the awareness levels of
teachers in regards to cyberbullying. Measures include general awareness levels, issue of
personal cybersecurity, and precautions that can be taken. A snowball sample was used by
contacting one teacher from each of four educational branches in Turkey. Via email, four
teachers from each branch reached out to other teachers. A total of 184 teachers employed at
various provinces in Turkey served as participants. Among the group, 42.4% were male and
57.6% female. The Sensibility Scale On Cyberbullying was used in this research (Sezer et al.,
2015; Tanrikulu, Kinay, & Aricak, 2013). The findings of the sample group showed an average
level of awareness on cyberbullying in general. Male teachers have a relatively higher level of
awareness than females (Sezer et al., 2015). In addition, information technology teachers have
the highest awareness of cyberbullying while the lowest awareness group consisted of science
and technology, foreign language, mathematics, and social sciences teachers. Finally, the highest
average awareness of cyberbullying belongs to teachers who use the Internet approximately 10-
15 hours a week while the lowest are teachers who use the Internet less than one hour a week
(Sezer et al., 2015). This study’s findings were similar to Graves (2013) in which technologically
advanced teachers showed increased awareness of cyberbullying.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
67
Legal Issues
Most cyberbullying activities occur off school grounds, but the effects can cause
disruptions at school including physical confrontations on school property (Stauffer et al., 2012).
Teachers may not view cyberbullying as their responsibility if occurrences happen off campus.
Stauffer et al. (2012) indicated educators were more likely to ignore cyberbullying if it took
place away from school. Teachers are reluctant to take action when cyberbullying does not
happen in school (DeSmet et al., 2015). Furthermore, teachers and administrators must be careful
when disciplining speech that occurs outside of the classroom and ensure First Amendment
rights are protected (Beale & Hall, 2007; Lane, 2011; Stauffer et al., 2012). Many parents believe
their First Amendment rights allow cyberbullying and that teachers and administrators may not
impose sanctions (Siris, 2012). Fear of litigious parents often gives school officials second
thoughts about involvement and imposing discipline (Abrams, 2012). Additionally, teachers may
be apprehensive of parental and student retaliation for behaviors that do not occur on campus
(Lane, 2011; Stauffer et al., 2012). Thus, schools have the challenging task of addressing
cyberbullying while simultaneously protecting themselves from civil liability by not
overstepping their authority (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011).
Cyberbullying may occur off school grounds, but it impacts students across all settings.
The aftermath of cyberbullying appears on campuses the next day (Siris, 2012). President Obama
stated, “no child should be afraid to go to school in this country” (Abrams, 2012, p. 489). Lane
(2011) implied attempting to draw the line between off-campus and on-campus cyberspeech is
meaningless because of the borderless nature of the Internet. Thus, according to Abrams (2012),
when parents fall short, the system may extend to public entities such as schools to assist in
addressing cyberbullying. Educators may be held legally accountable for failing to respond
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
68
appropriately to cyberbullying (MacKay, 2012; Stauffer et al., 2012). Cyberbullying victims may
claim inadequate investigation procedures and punishment (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011; Lane,
2011). Therefore, educators must be prepared to appropriately address cyberbullying instances
when brought to their attention. The following sections discuss legal issues pertaining to
cyberbullying.
Siris (2012) examined out of school behaviors and principal’s responsibility in addressing
cyberbullying. As a principal, an increase of cyberbullying incidents was brought to the author’s
attention. Students from fourth grade reported experiencing cyberbullying. Educators are faced
with legal issues when relations with children deal with First Amendment rights involving
freedom of speech (Siris, 2012). The 1969 Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District, defined the constitutional rights of students in public
schools (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969). The case
involved a school that suspended students for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam
War. The Supreme Court stated when a student’s speech “interfered substantially” with the
school’s educational mission, a school might impose discipline (Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District, 1969). More than forty years later, Tinker is being
cited for disruptions on-campus caused by off-campus cyberbullying instances (Siris, 2012).
Parents of perpetrators believe off-campus behaviors should not be addressed at school.
Referring to Tinker, students’ First Amendment rights allow them these behaviors and educators
may not impose sanctions. However, principals have an obligation to ensure student achievement
and in order to meet this goal, students must feel safe by having social and emotional needs met.
According to Siris (2012), it is principals’ responsibility to address cyberbullying whether
behaviors happen on or off campus.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
69
In their research, Hinduja and Patchin (2011) reviewed the legal issues facing educators
when dealing with cyberbullying. Schools are confronted with addressing problematic behaviors
of students while trying at the same time protect themselves from civil liability by not
overstepping their authority. The study reviews several court cases and extracts information in
which educators can apply to prevention and response efforts. School administrators are reluctant
to get involved with cyberbullying cases for fear of legal liability, however inaction may be
construed as action. Court history demonstrates school personnel have a legal obligation and
moral duty to take action when harassment is brought to their attention (Shariff & Hoff, 2007).
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited segregation as well as outlawed harassment on the bases
of race, ethnicity, or religion in public places. Following, Title IX of the Educational
Amendment of 1972 proclaimed no person in the United States shall be excluded from
participation, denied benefits, or subjected to discrimination under an educational program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance (Hinduja & Patchin, 2011). Together, these two
pieces of legislation induce administrators to address discriminatory behaviors that violated the
civil rights of students or staff. In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999), school
officials were found responsible for failing to adequately respond to a sexual harassment
occurrence between students. School districts may be subject to private damages if they know of
civil rights violations and fail to protect students and take appropriate actions (Davis v. Monroe
County Board of Education, 1999). Next, Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District (1998)
was the first major case involving online harassment. A high school student was suspended after
creating a personal website denigrating school officials using vulgar but not threatening
language. The U.S. District Court ruled the student’s First Amendment rights were violated
(Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District, 1998). Similarly, the U.S. District Court for the
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
70
Western District of Washington found the school district overstepped its authority by suspending
a senior in high school for creating a personal web page from home with mock obituaries
(Emmet v. Kent School District, 2000). These two court cases remind administrators to be
cautious when intervening off-campus activities unless a material interference can be proven
(Hinduja & Patchin, 2011). Contrarily, there are many court cases such as J.S. v. Bethlehem
Area School District (2000), that allowed school districts the right to intervene when off-campus
speech is distinctly threatening to students and staff, thus disrupting the learning environment at
school. Another case found a student caused material disruptions of the day-to-day operations on
campus with his posting he created at his grandmother’s house. The student’s actions forced the
school to shut down its computer system for five days (Layshock v. Hermitage School District,
2010). According to Hinduja and Patchin (2011), U.S. courts are generally supportive of First
Amendment rights to free expression. However, certain instances are not protected and permit
intervention and discipline. These include actions that materially or substantially disrupt
learning, hinder with educational processes or school regulations, utilize school technology to
harass others, and endanger other students and violate their civil rights (Hinduja & Patchin,
2011). The primary intention of the law is to safeguard the vulnerable and uphold social order.
This study supports research by Siris (2012), whereby schools administrators should take action
against cyberbullying if it affects the well being of students.
Rowan (2012) discusses the need for cyberbullying legislation. Despite clearer
definitions of cyberbullying, the law has not sufficiently kept up with advancing technology. As
a result, disconnect between laws and cyberbullying occurrences may have tragic consequences
(Rowan, 2012). In September 2010, ten students around the United States committed suicide
after being bullied or cyberbullied (Badash, 2010). Although New York State passed general
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
71
bullying laws, it is one of several states that have yet to take a definitive stance on cyberbullying
(Hinduja & Patchin, 2012; Rowan, 2012). It is vital for States to pass specific legislation in order
to protect victims and establish consequences to deter cyberbullying (Rowan, 2012). Lane (2011)
noted Iowa Legislature passed an anti-bullying law in 2007 to provide students with a safe
school environment in which to learn. The statute’s definition of bullying encompasses bullying
via electronic media. However, questions remain regarding off-campus speech affecting behavior
in school.
Adding to Siris’ (2012) discourse above, Willard (2011) examined student online off-
campus speech assessing substantial disruption. United States federal courts recognized students
rights to free speech must be balanced with maintaining a safe learning environment in schools.
On January 17, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States denied writs of certiorari in three
student Internet speech cases: J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain School District, Layshock ex
rel. Layshock v. Hermitage School District, and Kowalski v. Berkeley County School (Willard,
2011). A writ of certiorari is defined as a Court refusing to review a case (Linzer, 1979). In each
circumstance, students posted hurtful messages while off campus and school administrators
disciplined the perpetrators for their behavior. Subsequently parents sued the school for violating
the students’ constitutional rights to free speech (Willard, 2011). More information on these
cases is provided below.
In the J.S. case, the Third Circuit applied the substantial disruption standard set out in
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and found the school failed to
show reasonable forecast of disruption (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
District, 1969). For Layshock, the Third Circuit court abandoned the use of Tinker substantial
disruption argument and determined the district violated the student’s free speech rights because
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
72
the district could not prove the hurtful communication occurred on campus so that it could be
regulated by the vulgar and offensive speech standard from Bethel School District v. Fraser (Erb,
2008). In the Bethel School District v. Fraser case, the Supreme Court upheld a school official’s
right to discipline a student for communicating a vulgar campaign speech during a student
assembly (Hafen, 1988). In Kowalski, the Fourth Circuit found the language of Tinker supported
the decision that public schools have a compelling interest in regulating speech that interferes
with or disrupts the work and discipline of school, including harassment and bullying (Willard,
2011). The court determined it was reasonably foreseeable that the speech would reach the
school and cause disruptions. The target of the speech avoided coming to school (Kowalski v.
Berkeley County Schools, 2011). Regardless of the origin of student speech, if the
communication could foreseeably jeopardize the delivery of instruction and interfere with
another student’s ability to obtain an education or raise concerns about student safety, school
officials must have the authority to formally respond (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent
Community School District, 1969; Willard, 2011). These findings are similar to other research
by Siris (2012) and Hinduja and Patchin (2011) in which schools should address cyberbullying
whether originating on or off campus if it creates a substantial disruption.
Abrams (2012) examined cyberbullying from classroom to courtroom and contemporary
approaches to protecting children in the digital age. Jamey Rodemeyer was a fourteen year-old
freshman at Buffalo, New York’s Williamsville North High School who was repeatedly
cyberbullied by classmates. Early that year, Jamey responded to a social media question,
“What’s one thing people don’t know about you?” He responded with, “How much I hate my
life. Maybe it’s because I’m bullied a lot.” “People would just keep sending me hate, telling me
that gay people go to hell,” he explained on YouTube (Abrams, 2012). In May 2011, Jamey
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
73
made a public service announcement for It Gets Better, a national project bringing together teens
bullied because of sexual orientation. However, in September, he posted “No one in my school
cares about preventing suicide, while you’re the ones calling me [gay slur, not quoted in the
media] and tearing me down.” “I always say how bullied I am, but no one listens. What do I have
to do so people will listen to me?” (Abrams, 2012). A few days later Jamey posted his final
message online and committed suicide in his backyard. Another teenager took his life with a
shotgun in 2005 after being taunted about his small size and was urged to kill himself by
cyberbullies. The victim’s mother stated, “If someone is picking on you in the school yard, you
can go home. When it’s on the computer at home, you have nowhere to go” (Meadows et al.,
2005). Ryan Halligan, a thirteen year-old middle school student in Vermont hanged himself after
being cyberbullied by students urging him to take his own life. In his last message, Ryan posted,
“Tonight’s the night,” and the reply came back, “It’s about time,” (Abrams, 2009). States may
mandate school districts adopt anti-cyberbullying policies. However these measures depend on
the daily implementation by administrators and schools (Abrams, 2012). Former Dean of
Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound, noted the life of the law is in its enforcement. Achieving
the purpose of a statute depends on the personal commitment of individuals (Abrams, 2012).
Furthermore, Abrams (2012) reports cyberbullying frequently involves two forms of
face-to-face actions that enjoy no First Amendment protection: assaults and true threats. The
Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect a physical assault, and violence
that produces harm is entitled to no constitutional protection (Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 1993). In
1969, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District upheld the First
Amendment rights of students to wear armbands in their schools as a peaceful and silent protest
of the Vietnam War. The court held that public schools may discipline student expression that
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
74
causes or reasonably threatens, (1) “substantial disruption or material interference with school
activities” or (2) “collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone”
(Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969). In Morse v. Frederick,
the Court upheld a suspension of a high school senior for displaying a large banner promoting
illegal drug use during a school event (Abrams, 2012). Without a safe environment, schools are
not able to achieve their mission of providing an education for students.
Teachers may be concerned with cyberbullies and parents who claim First Amendment
free speech protects statements, and that the school cannot impose discipline for messages sent
outside of campus. However, the case studies above show the Supreme Court’s First Amendment
decisions strengthen schools’ specific authority to discipline student expression, including
cyberbullying (Abrams, 2012). Abrams (2012) states in more than four decades since Tinker, no
disciplined student has ever won a Supreme Court case against the school district. Furthermore,
school districts should petition state legislatures to add policy whereby cyberbullying would not
have to occur on school property, take place during school hours, or be done using school
equipment for educators to take action, so long as the activity has an adverse effect on students
or the school (Beale & Hall, 2007).
Intervention and Prevention Strategies
Given the practical realties of the ways schools interact with youth and the importance of
preparing responsible citizens, schools are in prime position to combat cyberbullying (Lane,
2011). Addressing cyberbullying entails schools creating a safe, positive, and non-discriminatory
climate that fosters academic and social progress of students (MacKay, 2012). According to
Abrams (2012), schools’ commitment to protect students from cyberbullying should begin with
prevention curriculum in classrooms as well as gaining support from parents, school personnel,
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
75
and the community. Administrators can create a comprehensive sunlight plan for bringing
cyberbullying out of the shadows and to the attention of teachers, parents, and staff (Willard,
2005). The nation cannot expect to discipline or prosecute its way out of the cyberbullying
epidemic because the volume of instances is too large (Abrams, 2009). Policies such as safe
schools acts, zero-tolerance, and other public mandates sometimes hurt students by encouraging
schools to refer them to the juvenile justice system for offenses schools can handle themselves
(Petteruti, Walsh, & Velázquez, 2009). Ignoring or severe disciplining of the bully is not
recommended (Yoon & Barton, 2008). Keith and Martin (2005) state schools must be proactive
in decreasing cyberbullying opportunities and strictly enforce policies regarding appropriate use
of the Internet and cellular phones on campus. In addition, school policies should explicitly
prohibit peer harassment and mistreatment (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013). Prevention programs can
significantly decrease antisocial conduct but cannot be expected to reduce cyberbullying to zero
(Abrams, 2012). Educators need to be informed about cyberbullying, the forms it takes, and
strategies to combat it in their schools (Beale & Hall, 2007). Moreover, prevention programs and
intervention strategies will increase safety for students (Li, 2006). School personnel must be
aware of the various ways students are using technology, where cyberbullying takes place, and
teach safety measures (Beran & Li, 2005). In addition, strong principal leadership, shared
ownership between school and community, and upholding strict discipline for infractions are
necessary (Ockerman et al., 2014).
Parents
Since cyberbullying occurs more at home than at school, parents are crucial for
cyberbullying prevention and intervention (Bauman, Rigby, & Hoppa, 2008; Burnham &
Wright, 2012). Cyberbullying may appear intimidating to parents because it involves
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
76
technologies in which they are unfamiliar (Juvonen & Gross, 2008). However, adolescents
suggest parents restrict sites, monitor Internet usage, and understand prevention options. Almost
half of youth feel parents should tell their children cyberbullying is wrong, and report
occurrences to an adult (NCPC, 2007). Parents should discuss cyber victimization with their
children and encourage them to report incidences of cyberbullying (Keith & Martin, 2005).
Feinberg and Robey (2008) suggest parents communicate regularly with children about online
activities and Internet etiquette, consider developing a parent-child Internet use contract, be
cognizant of warning signs that their child is being bullied, and contact the school for assistance.
Parents should monitor technology usage and activities online both informally (active
participation in Internet exploration) and formally (establishing rules) (Hinduja & Patchin,
2013). In addition, parents should take cyberbullying behavior seriously since students who
believe they would be sanctioned by parents were less likely to engage in cyberbullying actions.
In order to properly guide children, parents must be literate on technology usage. Training for
parents on the technology and language of social media is recommended (MacKay, 2012).
Taking steps to learn more about social medial will open up the channels of communication
between parents and children.
Beale and Hall (2007) encourage parents to have a vital role in combating cyberbullying.
The best advice for students affected by cyberbullying is to get their parents and school
administrators involved as soon as possible and not attempt to handle the situation online or
suffer in silence. Since cyberbullying mainly occurs at home or off campus, parents play an
enormous role in addressing the problem (Wolak & Mitchell, 2000). Parents must support the
school’s efforts in addressing cyberbullying by adhering to the Acceptable Use Policy,
monitoring child’s usage of technology, and learn about intervention and prevention measures
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
77
(Beale & Hall, 2007). Most importantly for parents is encouraging their children to communicate
with them in the event someone makes them feel uncomfortable or threatened. Parents of
children cyberbullied should notify school officials immediately.
Both educators and parents must reinforce youth problem-solving skills, conflict
resolution, tolerance, respect, and empathy towards others (Burnham & Wright, 2012; Guerra et
al., 2012). “The education dealing with cyberbullying related issues should be a joint endeavor of
schools, families, communities, and the whole society” (Li, 2006, p. 167). Schools must engage
communities in changing attitudes and teaching principles of respect, empathy, inclusiveness,
and diversity (MacKay, 2012). Informed students, educators, and parents are key to educating
youth on cyberbullying, prevention, and techniques in handling this growing phenomenon.
Social Emotional Learning
Schools can find alternatives to helping children and families recognize the dangers of
cyberbullying behaviors. According to Dr. Marc Brackett, Research Scientist in the Department
of Psychology at Yale University, students need a safe, supportive, and empowering learning
environment to be successful in school, at home, and in friendships (Reyes et al., 2012). Many
times adults fail to nurture attitudes such as empathy and responsibility, skills essential in a civic
society (MacKay, 2012). Students K-12 require emotional literacy including developing the
skills of recognizing, understanding, labeling, regulating, and communicating emotions (Siris,
2012). Social emotional learning involves the combined efforts from all adults in education such
as parents, teachers, and administrators. Using student perceptions and knowledge of
cyberbullying is crucial to creating prevention strategies (Pelfrey Jr. & Weber, 2015).
According to Siris (2012), restorative justice intervention helps students recognize
behaviors that caused harm and holds them accountable for finding a way to right their wrong
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
78
which is not only allowable under law but in many cases preferable to harsh discipline. Schools
that value kindness, caring, and respect for all will serve our children well and help them enter
society with a great chance of leading productive lives (Siris, 2012). Thoughtful anti-
cyberbullying curricula can guide students on empathy and sensitivity (Abrams, 2012). Teaching
social emotional competencies are crucial in educating children on how to positively and
constructively engage in human relationships (MacKay, 2012). Student retreats, orientations, and
other meetings provide opportunities for social emotional learning (Pelfrey Jr. & Weber, 2015).
Children learn to be accountable by being treated with respect and given opportunities to make
decisions and learning by failures and successes.
Teacher Training on Cyberbullying
Social media has significantly altered the ways in which adolescents communicate.
According to MacKay (2012), there is an existing gap between younger and older generations in
regards to technology. Teachers are often unfamiliar with electronic communication tools and ill
equipped to assist cyberbullying victims and bullies (Eden et al., 2013). A study in Taiwan
reported new teachers received minimal Internet safety information during teacher training
(Chou & Peng, 2011). Teachers may feel powerless and helpless if they consider themselves
lacking the skills needed to address cyberbullying (DeSmet et al., 2015). Pre-service teachers
who may appear knowledgeable about technology, report limited training on safety (Eden et al.,
2013). According to Stauffer et al. (2012), approximately half of teachers surveyed were unsure
about implementing a formal cyberbullying program in their school and how to respond to
situations.
Schools must provide adequate information and training for educators to successfully
address cyberbullying. Majority of educators do not handle cyberbullying effectively (DeSmet et
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
79
al., 2015). Low perceived educator competence in handling cyberbullying suggest a need for
increased knowledge on cyberbullying (DeSmet et al., 2015). Disengaged staff require training
in not ignoring the situation and blaming the victim. Continuous professional development must
develop the skills of recognizing, understanding, and addressing cyberbullying (Beale & Hall,
2007; Siris, 2012). Awareness raising activities on cyberbullying were likely to reduce
cyberbullying occurrences and increase teacher competence (Akbulut & Çuhadar, 2011). A
comprehensive prevention plan includes policies and programs aimed at reducing cyberbullying
(Feinberg & Robey, 2008; Stauffer et al., 2012). According to Stauffer et al. (2012), current anti-
bullying programs show little effect in student behavior over time. Conversely, Abrams (2012)
declared anti-bullying curricula reduces incidences up to 50% in some schools. Teachers who are
trained and implement prevention programs experience greater reductions in cyberbullying
(Elledge et al., 2013).
School Administration
An article by Beale and Hall (2007) found administrators are key in prevention and
intervention of cyberbullying. One of the first steps for principals was to assess the level of
cyberbullying occurring both at home and school. To determine this, the authors suggested focus
groups, surveys, and class meetings. Collecting data on incident rates, locations of cyberbullying,
and times infractions occur assists administrators in targeting problem areas. School officials
must ensure teachers, staff, parents, and students clearly understand the seriousness of
cyberbullying and consequences in violating the rules regarding harassment, intimidation, and
other hostile behavior (Beale & Hall, 2007). Examples of prevention and intervention strategies
include providing student education such as integrating cyberbullying into the school curriculum,
ensuring school policies are created to address cyberbullying, and updating the school’s
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
80
acceptable use policy to specifically state what constitutes cyberbullying and prohibit the
behavior. Additionally, schools should provide parents with cyberbullying education and
encourage them to discuss the issue with their child. The local police department can be
contacted to speak with parents and students on proper usage of the Internet. Moreover, schools
should offer professional development for teachers and staff, establish a school wide
cyberbullying taskforce, coordinate with other schools in the district to provide consistent
cyberbullying messages, and create a school climate in which students feel safe in reporting
cyberbullying occurrences (Beale & Hall, 2007).
Feinberg and Robey (2008) highlighted strategies schools can use to combat
cyberbullying. First, administrators should incorporate cyberbullying into all school policies,
which include harassment, bullying, sexual harassment, and Internet and cell phone policies.
Clear definitions of cyberbullying should be determined. Next, assess the extent and perception
of cyberbullying in the school population. Provide training for staff, students, and parents on
cyberbullying. Research by Beale and Hall (2007) stated similar measures. Additionally, students
must be taught how to appropriately respond to cyberbullying, document threats, and recognize
harassing behaviors. Administrators and staff should investigate all reports of cyberbullying and
encourage students to communicate with the school if an event occurs. Support must be given to
student victims and perpetrators. Assistance such as counseling and mentoring should be
provided for targets of bullies. Behavioral interventions are needed for the bully. Finally,
safeguard both students and staff members from online harassment by working closely with
district legal counsel to address cyberbullying in school policies (Feinberg & Robey, 2008).
Couvillon and Ilieva (2011) reviewed school wide preventative programs and strategies
for dealing with cyberbullying. Like Feinberg and Robey (2008), research showed that
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
81
prevention programs at the school level have the strongest impact on cyberbullying. By
implementing a whole school approach to cyberbullying, it is hopeful that the benefits will carry
through students’ academic career. The authors reviewed recent research and Web-based
resources on existing prevention programs and offer recommendations for schools. Results
indicate a comprehensive school wide prevention program require three stakeholders: teachers,
parents, and students. The study presents multiple strategies for school use including clearly
defining and requiring compliance with the Internet use policies for students, enforcing rules and
communicating commitment to safety, collecting data of the extent of cyberbullying instances,
and defining consequences (Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011). Moreover, prevention measures should
be established such as cyberbullying curriculum, key personnel designated as the point of
contact, and response procedures. Cyberbullying training must be provided to all faculty and
staff. Students should be involved in peer-to-peer activities and communication with teachers.
Teachers can engage students in ongoing conversations about cyberbullying and utilize different
means of implementation through technology, classroom activities, community engagement, and
other resources. Finally, cooperation is required between schools, parents, and the community.
Stakeholders must be aware of resources and support (Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011). Following, the
focus of a prevention program should not entail restrictions and bans of digital tools, as students
will utilize technology outside of school grounds. Instead, attention should be given to the ethical
considerations when using technology and developing the ability to exercise socially responsible
behaviors. Teachers can model practices of digital citizenship. Consequences should be clearly
conveyed to students. Teachers can stay informed of the latest social environments as technology
quickly changes. Lastly, prevention cannot be a one-time event. Programs must be sustained in
schools to continually address the problem of cyberbullying.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
82
Snakenborg et al. (2011) discuss prevention and intervention programs at community,
school, and family levels. In their research, the authors’ purport the majority of the United States
has written legislation to address bullying. Schools establish procedures and policies prohibiting
electronic bullying. Lastly, the study presents anti-bullying curricula and other programs used as
intervention strategies. Keyword searches of social science databases such as Web of Science,
Academic Search Premier, Ovid, and ERIC resulted in no peer-reviewed empirical studies for
intervention and prevention of cyberbullying. Nonetheless, many approaches to combat this
problem have been advocated by States, schools, and parents. These programs fall into three
categories: (1) laws, rules, and policies regulating the use of media and establishing controls for
cyberbullying; (2) curriculum programs made for educating children on safe usage of the
Internet, how to deal with cyberbullying as well as consequences; and (3) technological
approaches to prevent cyberbullying (Snakenborg et al., 2011). First, Congress passed the
Protecting Children in the 21
st
Century legislation in 2008 that addresses cyberbullying.
Moreover, 44 states have anti-bullying legislation and a few developed specific cyberbullying
laws such as North Carolina, Missouri, Ohio, and Virginia. The Anti-Defamation League
developed a model to help states create cyberbullying legislation. Authorities agree schools must
develop polices to address this growing problem. Administrators can implement cyberbullying
curriculum that teaches students proper use of technology and ways to prevent cyberbullying.
Examples of programs include iSAFE, Cyber Bullying: A Prevention Curriculum, Sticks and
Stones: Cyberbullying, and Lets Fight It Together: What We All Can Do to Prevent
Cyberbullying. Nationally recognized programs consist of the Bullying Prevention Program and
Blueprint Violence Prevention Program. The most basic strategies taught to children involve a
four-step process called stop, save, block, and tell. First, students should be taught to not respond
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
83
to the cyberbully. Next, save any defamatory communication such as texts, emails, or pictures.
Third, block any further messages from the cyberbully by using blocking features on cell phones
or Internet. Last, students should inform a parent, teacher, or trusted adult about the
cyberbullying instances. Interestingly, there is little evidence in students reporting cyberbullying
behavior. This could be due to fear of retaliation by the perpetrators or parents restricting cell
phone or Internet usage (Snakenborg et al., 2011). This finding is similar to results of the study
by Juvonen and Gross (2008) where over 90% of students did not report being cyberbullied.
Besides prevention programs, school administrators should consider approaches such as
cooperative learning, peer mediation, and social skills development (Mason, 2008). Schools can
establish ways to identify students at risk for being cyberbullied. Administrators and teachers
must establish a culture where cyberbullying is not tolerated and social norms are reinforced.
Prevention strategies for cyberbullying cannot be initiated in isolation (Pelfrey Jr. & Weber,
2015). The thoughts and ideas of all parties related to the school such as teachers, counselors,
students, parents, community members, and law enforcement must be incorporated into a whole
school approach to addressing this growing dilemma.
Summary
This chapter discussed the literature on the prevalence of cyberbullying, effects of
cyberbullying, teacher perceptions of cyberbullying, legal issues, prevention strategies, and
theoretical framework. Teachers are in a unique position to combat cyberbullying since they are
the adults most proximal to and knowledgeable about school problems (Smith et al., 2008).
Although some educators feel cyberbullying does not produce long-lasting effects, studies show
cyberbullying is detrimental to the emotional well being of students and increases lifetime
mental and health problems (Feinberg & Robey, 2008; Halpern et al., 2015; Lane, 2011). Failing
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
84
to address cyberbullying may produce decreased life satisfaction, lower pro-social behavior,
increased emotional problems, and evoke negative reactions including suicide and violence
(DeSmet et al., 2015; Hinduja & Patchin, 2011). Moreover, students are not in a position to clear
up false accusations spread by a cyberbully or contain the damage to their reputations (Halpern
et al., 2015). Lane (2011) stated school personnel are the best line of defense against these
negative behaviors. Cyberbullying appears less in classrooms where teachers are perceived as
able to intervene (Elledge et al., 2013). Additionally, schools play a crucial role in tackling the
problem through classroom interventions, and working with victims, bullies, parents, and the
community (Eden et al., 2013). While parents can and should take steps to protect their child
from cyberbullying, in some cases it is not enough. Educators must partner with parents in
combating this problem (DeSmet et al., 2015; Lane, 2011). Teachers are in a position of
authority, responsible for monitoring student behavior, setting classroom rules, reinforcing
positive behavior, and imposing consequences for inappropriate behavior (Stauffer et al., 2012).
Eden et al. (2013) believe teacher concerns are moving in the direction of addressing the
issue of cyberbullying. Since teacher perceptions affect their behaviors, understanding their
beliefs is a first step in assisting educators in developing an awareness of cyberbullying.
Teachers’ mindfulness combined with commitment can reduce bullying by 50% (Boulton,
Trueman, Chau, Whitehand, & Amatya, 1999). Teachers’ roles in addressing cyberbullying can
assist in preventing emotional harm to students and educational disruption in schools (Lane,
2011). Teachers are a first line of defense against cyberbullying at schools through immediate
caring and consistent responses. Next, Chapter 3 offers information on the methodology for this
research.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
85
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the methodology of this study. The purpose of the study and
research questions is presented. Following are the main components of this methodology section:
sample and population, instrumentation, survey protocol, data collection procedure, and data
analysis. Finally, a summary of this chapter is presented.
The purpose of this research was to examine teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying.
Furthermore, the educational background and teachers’ perceptions were investigated. Finally,
interventions and prevention strategies was explored. The research questions developed for this
study were: What are teachers’ perceptions about cyberbullying? Do teachers’ educational
background influence their perceptions about cyberbullying? What intervention and prevention
strategies do teachers agree would address cyberbullying?
A quantitative methodology was selected for this study. The purpose of research is to
discover something new, make a contribution to a field of knowledge, or illuminate a societal
concern (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). In addition, research is a systematic collection and
analysis of data to address a question, deepens understanding to improve literacy education, and
provides opportunity to collaborate (Duke & Martin, 2011). According to Creswell (2013),
research designs are the plans and procedures for research. Quantitative methods involve testing
objective theories by examining the relationship among variables (Creswell, 2013; McEwan &
McEwan, 2003). Although previous studies on teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying included
both quantitative and qualitative research, the selected methodology for this cyberbullying study
was quantitative.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
86
The following sections discuss the methods of this study. Participants included a
convenience sample of Hawaii public school teachers who are union representatives. Next,
instrumentation is highlighted with surveys drawn from two previous cyberbullying studies by
Eden et al. (2013) and Stauffer et al. (2012). The procedure for this methods section explains the
use of an online survey program and dissemination. Finally, data analysis is discussed.
Sample and Population
The following paragraphs present detailed information on the sample and population. The
population consisted of Hawaii public school teachers who are union representatives. The
Hawaii State Teachers Association held periodic meetings with these individuals throughout the
school year. The sample contained teachers from elementary, middle, high, and state level who
attended these meetings. These teachers were the union representatives at their schools or
organizations. The survey was deployed to teachers at an appreciation meeting. Educators had
the option to complete the survey online or on paper. Over 200 responses were recorded. For this
research, key descriptive data on demographic characteristics provided information on
participants. Demographic data included gender, age, education, workplace, type of teaching,
and years of experience. Detailed information on descriptive data is presented in the next
chapter.
An anonymous online questionnaire through Qualtrics was generated. Paper surveys were
offered to participants if they did not have Internet access or preferred this method. Teachers
were informed participation was voluntary and no incentives were given. Participants were told
the nature of the study, asked to read the written instructions carefully, notified their data would
be used for research purposes, and how data will be securely stored (Huang & Chou, 2013). In
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
87
addition, the researcher appealed to participants’ altruistic nature in that responses will make a
difference in the lives of students.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation method selected was a survey. Two existing cyberbullying
questionnaires on teachers’ perceptions were used for this study. The surveys were modified to
develop one questionnaire for dissemination, along with the addition of several new questions.
The following discourse presents information on the surveys and their components.
Prior to creating the instrument, research was conducted on current cyberbullying
instruments. Berne et al. (2013) reviewed 61 publications containing 44 cyberbullying
assessment instruments. The purpose of the study was to provide a representative overview of
the current instruments designed to assess cyberbullying. The focus was placed on psychometric
properties of cyberbullying instruments such as validity and reliability. Almost half of the
instruments did not use the concept of cyberbullying but instead used terms such as Internet
harassment or electronic bullying. The authors may not have used the word cyberbullying but
claim their instruments do measure it. Results indicate that most of the instruments had limited
reports of validity and reliability. The study revealed further investigation is required for existing
cyberbullying assessments on validity and reliability as well as resolving the continuous changes
of cyberbullying concepts and definitions (Berne et al., 2013).
The first survey instrument, “Questionnaire for Teachers,” was from a research study by
Eden et al. (2013). The questionnaire was adapted and expanded from Li’s research instrument
on school cyberbullying for preservice teachers (Li, 2008). The survey included demographic
data, perceptions of cyberbullying, and personal experiences in relation to cyberbullying (Eden et
al., 2013). A 5-point Likert scale was employed and responses ranged from strongly disagree (1)
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
88
to strongly agree (5). According to Eden et al. (2013), the alpha coefficient was 0.88 for internal
reliability. The researcher of this study contacted Ms. Eden in Israel for more information and
approval to use the questionnaire, in which she consented. Ms. Eden emailed the original survey
questions to the researcher in this study and suggested the use of Google Translate to convert the
text from Hebrew to English. After the author of this study translated the information, the
questions were sent back in English to Ms. Eden for confirmation.
Stauffer et al. (2012) created the second survey instrument, “Teacher Questionnaire.” A
school district administrator and primary author designed the questionnaire. The measure was
part of a larger study done by the school district to identify teacher attitudes on bullying and
cyberbullying. The survey focused on teacher perceptions of the severity of cyberbullying in
schools, effect of cyberbullying on victims, where cyberbullying occurs, need for prevention
programs, effectiveness of prevention strategies, and the likelihood of taking action with a
variety of intervention strategies (Stauffer et al., 2012). The majority of questions utilized a 5-
point Likert scale and three were open-ended. Demographic inquiries focused on gender, years
of experience, level of education, grade level taught, and the type of students instructed. An
explanation of cyberbullying is provided. Although the survey contained questions on bullying,
for the purposes of this study, only select cyberbullying questions were employed. Information
on reliability and validity were not present in the study. The researcher in the current study
contacted Ms. Heath, one of the authors of the survey instrument. Ms. Heath approved the use of
the survey instrument and sent the original thesis.
The instrument for this study draws questions from the surveys of Eden et al. (2013) and
Stauffer et al. (2012). The survey was modified to meet the purpose of this research. Several
questions were removed from the original surveys to decrease the length and time for
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
89
completion. The questionnaire includes six demographic and thirty-one cyberbullying questions.
A 5-point Likert scale is employed. The inquiries focus on teachers’ perceptions of
cyberbullying, schools effectively addressing cyberbullying, effects of cyberbullying on students,
concern about cyberbullying, confidence in managing cyberbullying, schools’ commitment to
deal with cyberbullying, importance of learning about cyberbullying, behaviors of teachers, and
intervention and prevention strategies that would reduce cyberbullying in school. See Appendix
for cyberbullying survey.
Reliability was determined by Cronbach’s alpha for each measure. Cronbach’s alpha
calculates reliability of an instrument (Salkind, 2012). Internal consistency is exhibited when the
individual item scores vary consistently with the total scores on the test. The higher the score, the
more the instrument is consistent or measures one thing. The reliability of a measure signifies
how free it is from random error (Pallant, 2013). Scores range between 0 to 1, with the higher
score representing increased reliability. A minimum level of .7 is ideal. For this study,
Cronbach’s alphas were determined for the following questions: 1-32 = .835, 33-34 (a-h) = .907,
and 35 (a-n) = .936. These scores indicate the survey instrument used in this study was reliable
with figures exceeding .7.
Data Collection Procedure
A pilot study was conducted in Fall 2015. A convenience sample was drawn from the
University of Southern California’s EdD program. The two surveys were disseminated to a
University of Southern California Hawaii cohort. The total number of participants was 23.
Individuals came from various professional backgrounds including K-12, higher education, and
the military. The survey was deployed to graduate students via USC’s email. Qualtrics was used
to generate the anonymous questionnaire. The results indicate the Cronbach’s Alpha for Eden et
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
90
al. (2013) was .90 and Stauffer et al. (2012) section 1 = .90, section 2 = .67, and section 3 = .74.
For the purposes of this research, section 3 was utilized in the questionnaire.
Approval was sought from the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review
Board (IRB). Next, a request to conduct research was submitted to the Hawaii State Department
of Education’s Data Governance and Analysis Branch. In addition, approval was received from a
Director of the Hawaii State Teachers Association to attend meetings and disseminate the survey.
Following, the questionnaire was generated in Qualtrics, an online survey creation and
distribution package (Stauffer et al., 2012). The survey was tested for length and encoding errors.
The hyperlink generated by Qualtrics was shortened using tinyurl.com. The questions were
cross-referenced to the research questions and to key frameworks of this study (Table 1). The
frameworks were those of Li (2006), Snakenborg et al. (2011), Stauffer et al. (2012), Eden et al.
(2013), Bandura (1986), and Stoudt (2007). All questions besides the demographic inquiries
were on a 5-point Likert scale. The link to the survey was provided to teachers for completion of
the cyberbullying questionnaire. The survey was deployed at teacher union meetings across
Hawaii. The purpose of the study was explained to participants. Data gathered in Qualtrics were
uploaded to SPSS for statistical analysis. Data were stored and protected according to IRB
regulations and guidelines.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
91
Table 1
Alignment of Survey Protocol Items to Research Questions and Conceptual Frameworks
Item RQ1 RQ2 RQ3
Snakenborg et al.
(2011)
Stauffer et
al. (2012)
Eden et
al. (2013)
Bandura
(1986)
Stoudt
(2007)
1 X X X
2 X X X
3 X X X
4 X X X
5 X X X
6 X X X
7 X X X
8 X X X
9 X X X
10 X X X
11 X X X
12 X X X
13 X X X
14 X X X
15 X X X
16 X X X
17 X X X
18 X X X
19 X X X
20 X X X
21 X X X
22 X X X
23 X X X
24 X X X
25 X X X
26 X X X
27 X X X
28 X X X
29 X X X X
30 X X X X
31 X X X X
32 X X X X
33 X X X
34 X X X
35 X X
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
92
Data Analysis
A quantitative analysis of teachers’ questionnaires was conducted to examine the results.
The SPSS 15 package was employed for statistical analysis. The following research questions
were used to analyze the data.
1. What are teachers’ perceptions about cyberbullying?
The statistical technique in analyzing the data for this question was to run descriptive
statistics. Frequency of responses was used for survey questions 1-32.
2. Do teachers’ educational background influence their perceptions about
cyberbullying?
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to analyze data for this
question. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) test was done to determine
where significant differences existed between mean scores for educational
background. This inquiry aligned with questions 1-35 in the cyberbullying survey.
3. What intervention and prevention strategies do teachers agree would address
cyberbullying?
The technique to analyze the data for this question was to run descriptive statistics.
Frequency of responses was used for survey questions 33-35.
Summary
Chapter 3 provided a comprehensive explanation of the methodology for this study. A
quantitative approach was used to investigate Hawaii public school teachers’ perceptions of
cyberbullying. Areas of interest included teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying in schools,
educational background and the influence on teachers’ perceptions, and intervention and
prevention measures. An anonymous paper and online questionnaire was created in Qualtrics and
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
93
distributed to union representatives of the Hawaii State Teachers Association. Statistical analysis
was conducted for the data. Next, Chapter 4 discusses the results of this study in relation to the
research questions. Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the findings, limitations, implications, and
suggestions for future research.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
94
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The objective of this research was to examine teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying. The
study utilized a quantitative research design to determine teachers’ perceptions about
cyberbullying, if teachers’ educational background influences their perceptions of cyberbullying,
and what intervention and prevention strategies do teachers agree would address cyberbullying.
Through this research, other significant findings for teachers’ perceptions were discovered. First,
this chapter presents a preliminary analysis of the data. Second, descriptive statistics, statistical
analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) were performed
to obtain the objective of this study. Finally, the last section of this chapter provides a discussion.
The results of the data collected address the following research questions:
1. What are teachers’ perceptions about cyberbullying?
2. Do teachers’ educational background influence their perceptions about
cyberbullying?
3. What intervention and prevention strategies do teachers agree would address
cyberbullying?
Preliminary Analysis
This section contains the demographic information of participants. The variables included
gender, age, and educational background. Following are the percentages and frequencies for
workplace, complex area, type of teaching, and years of experience.
The population of this study was public school teachers who are union representatives for
their school or organization. The sample consisted of 223 participants (76.2% female, 23.8%
male). The ages ranged from 21 to 65 and over. However, approximately one-third of
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
95
participants were between 45-54 (32%) years of age, followed by 35-44 (22.5%) and 55-64
(19.8%) year olds. Educational background of teachers varied. Over half (56.1%) hold a master’s
degree. Other degrees included bachelor’s (35.9%), Doctor of Education (4.9%), and Doctor of
Philosophy (2.2%). The data regarding the demographic variables were gathered and reported in
Table 2.
Table 2
Demographic Variables for Survey Respondents
Variable n %
Gender
Female 170 76.2
Male 53 23.8
Age
Under 21 0 0.0
21-24 4 1.8
25-34 34 15.3
35-44 50 22.5
45-54 71 32.0
55-64 44 19.8
65 and Over 19 8.6
Educational background
Bachelor’s Degree 80 35.9
Master’s Degree 125 56.1
EdD 11 4.9
PhD 5 2.2
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
96
The workplace of participants included schools and state offices. Approximately one half
(49.6%) of the participants’ workplace was at an elementary school. The distribution for the
remaining participants is as follows: high schools 29%, middle/intermediate schools 15.6%,
combination middle/intermediate/high schools 1.8%, and state office 3.1%. Schools were
organized into Complex Areas headed by Complex Area Superintendents (State of Hawaii,
Office of the Governor, 2010). Almost one third (31.4%) were from Complex 1 and 2, which
were located in the largest city in Hawaii. Over a quarter (26.0%) were represented by Complex
13 and 14 that were situated on the second largest island in the state. These results are presented
in Table 3.
As seen in Table 4, over one half (58.5%) of participants were subject-matter teachers.
These teachers express and present subject matter in a comprehensible way (Even, 1993). Other
types of teaching included special education (18%), resource (11.5%), English language learner
(5.5%), and counselor (5.1%). Years of experience differed from less than six years (15.8%) to
more than 20 years (33.9%). The majority of participants reported 11-20 years of experience
(37.1%).
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
97
Table 3
Frequencies and Percentages for Workplace and Complex
Variable n %
Workplace
Elementary School 111 49.6
Middle/Intermediate School 35 15.6
High School 65 29.0
Combo Middle/Intermediate and High School 4 1.8
District Office 0 0.0
State Office 7 3.1
Other 2 0.9
Complex
Complex 1 42 18.8
Complex 2 28 12.6
Complex 3 13 5.8
Complex 4 14 6.3
Complex 5 14 6.3
Complex 6 8 3.6
Complex 7 12 5.4
Complex 8 2 .9
Complex 9 1 .4
Complex 10 8 3.6
Complex 11 5 2.2
Complex 12 7 3.1
Complex 13 27 12.1
Complex 14 31 13.9
Complex 15 2 .9
Complex 16 7 3.1
Complex 17 1 .4
Other 1 .4
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
98
Table 4
Frequencies and Percentages for Type of Teaching and Years of Experience
Variable n %
Type of teaching
Subject-Matter Teacher 127 58.5
Resource Teacher 25 11.5
Special Education Teacher 39 18.0
English Language Learner Teacher 12 5.5
Counselor 11 5.1
Administrator 0 0.0
Other 3 1.4
Years of experience
Less than 6 years 35 15.8
6-10 years 29 13.1
11-20 years 82 37.1
More than 20 years 75 33.9
Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked, “What are teachers’ perceptions about cyberbullying?”
Descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviations for cyberbullying statements are
summarized in Table 5. The average for “cyberbullying is a problem at my school” was 3.10,
representing neither agreed nor disagreed. Teachers’ perceptions for “my school has a
cyberbullying prevention program” and “my school effectively addresses cyberbullying” had
means of 2.56 and 2.81, which represented disagreement with these statements.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
99
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics of Cyberbullying Statements (N=226)
Statements n M SD
Cyberbullying is a problem at my school. 225 3.10 1.019
My school has a cyberbullying prevention program. 226 2.56 1.058
My school effectively addresses cyberbullying. 226 2.81 1.011
Children are affected by cyberbullying. 222 4.33 .925
Cyberbullying toughens kids up. 222 1.71 .866
Cyberbullying prepares students for life. 220 1.81 .922
Cyberbullying has long lasting negative effects. 221 4.33 .980
I am concerned about cyberbullying. 225 4.15 .780
I feel confident in my ability to identify cyberbullying. 224 3.23 1.07
I feel confident in my ability in managing cyberbullying. 224 2.79 1.026
If I knew of the existence of cyberbullying at a school, I would do something. 224 4.34 .728
Schools should develop policies on cyberbullying. 225 4.38 .697
Schools should use professional development days to train staff about cyberbullying. 225 4.00 .940
School Administrators should organize school-wide activities to deal with
cyberbullying.
225 4.11 .822
Committees should be formed in schools to look at the problem of cyberbullying. 225 3.78 .882
School assemblies should address cyberbullying. 225 4.07 .768
Surveys should be given to students to ask them about their experiences of being
cyberbullied.
225 4.20 .781
Students should receive counseling to deal with cyberbullying. 225 4.46 .582
Teachers should use a curriculum on cyberbullying to teach students. 225 3.63 .946
Teachers should organize classroom activities to deal with cyberbullying. 225 3.64 .886
School resources should be used to help teachers deal with cyberbullying. 225 4.03 .719
Schools should discuss cyberbullying with parents. 225 4.32 .577
Schools should link with community resources to deal with cyberbullying. 225 4.26 .667
Television and other media should discuss cyberbullying. 225 4.30 .651
My professional training has prepared me to deal with cyberbullying. 225 2.48 1.044
I want to learn more about cyberbullying. 225 3.85 .780
In comparison to other topics I want covered in my professional development,
cyberbullying is just as important.
225 3.64 .849
I need tools to be prepared to manage cyberbullying. 224 3.96 .794
I model positive behavior for my students. 223 4.40 .584
I have made sarcastic or demeaning comments to students in the past. 223 2.68 1.14
My behavior affects the behavior and learning of my students. 223 4.40 .702
Students can emulate the behaviors of teachers. 223 4.36 .634
Note: Response options: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree or disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly
agree
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
100
Next, the results for effects of cyberbullying on students are presented. Most participants
agreed, “children are affected by cyberbullying” with a reported mean of 4.33. Conversely, the
averages for “cyberbullying toughens kids up” and “cyberbullying prepares students for life”
were 1.71 and 1.81, representing strongly disagree and disagree. Similar means of 4.33 and 4.15
resulted for “cyberbullying has long lasting negative effects” and “I am concerned about
cyberbullying” respectively.
Following are scores for teachers’ perceptions on their ability to deal with cyberbullying.
The averages for teachers’ “confidence in ability to identify cyberbullying” was 3.23, signifying
neither disagree or agree. Teachers’ “confidence in ability to manage cyberbullying” was 2.79,
which indicated disagreement with this statement. The mean for “if I knew of the existence of
cyberbullying at a school, I would do something” resulted in 4.34, which participants agreed.
The majority of statements concerning schools’ roles in addressing cyberbullying showed
participants either agreed or neither agreed or disagreed. The means for schools should “develop
policies on cyberbullying” and “use professional development days to train staff” were 4.34 and
4.00 respectively. Support for “administrators should organize school-wide activities to deal
with cyberbullying” generated a mean of 4.11. Teachers neither agreed nor disagreed on
“committees should be formed in school to look at the problem of cyberbullying” with an
average of 3.78. The averages for subsequent statements all indicated agree: “school assemblies
should address cyberbullying” 4.07, “surveys should be given to students to ask about their
experiences of being cyberbullied” 4.20, and “students should receiving counseling to deal with
cyberbullying” 4.46. Statements involving teachers’ classroom roles in addressing cyberbullying
presented means of 3.63 and 3.64, signifying neither agreed or disagreed. The mean increased
slightly to 4.03 for “school resources should be used to help teachers deal with cyberbullying.”
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
101
The averages for addressing cyberbullying through external sources were as follows: “schools
should discuss cyberbullying with parents” was 4.32, “schools should link with community
resources to deal with cyberbullying” was 4.26, and “television and other media should discuss
cyberbullying” was 4.30, which indicated participants agreed with these statements.
The averages for professional development and training on cyberbullying were
calculated. The mean for “my professional development training has prepared me to deal with
cyberbullying” was 2.48, which signified participants disagreed with this statement. The
averages indicating neither agree or disagree resulted for “I want to learn more about
cyberbullying” at 3.85, and “in comparison to other topics I want covered in my professional
development, cyberbullying is just as important” at 3.64. The mean was 3.96 for “I need to tools
to be prepared to manage cyberbullying,” which showed support for this measure.
Finally, the means for participant behaviors are presented. The average for “I model
positive behavior for my students” was 4.40, which indicated teachers agreed with this statement.
In regards to making “sarcastic or demeaning comments to students in the past,” the mean was
2.68, which was between disagreed and neither agreed or disagreed. Scores for “teachers’
behavior affects the behavior and learning of students,” and “students can emulate the behaviors
of teachers” resulted in similar means of 4.40 and 4.36.
Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked, “Do teachers’ educational backgrounds influence their
perceptions about cyberbullying?” A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to
determine if statistically meaningful differences were apparent between educational background
and teachers’ perceptions. Participants were classified into four groups: bachelor’s degree (n =
80), master’s degree (n = 125), EdD (n = 11), and PhD (n = 5). Because of the large number of
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
102
teachers’ perceptions contained in the survey instrument, only significant findings with p <.05
were reported below.
Significant differences existed in teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying based on
teachers’ educational backgrounds. First, a significant difference existed between educational
background and the teachers’ perception of “school assemblies should address cyberbullying,”
F(5, 219) = 2.66, p = .024. Table 6 displays the results for this ANOVA. A post-hoc analysis
using Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) test was conducted to determine where
significant differences existed between mean scores for educational background. Gall, Gall, and
Borg (2005) states that Fisher’s LSD test is an appropriate measure to use when determining
where significant differences might exist between three or more mean scores. Post-hoc analysis
showed parallel differences between bachelor’s and EdD (p = .026) and bachelors and PhD (p =
.022). Participants with bachelor’s degrees (M = 4.00, SD = .599) rated “school assemblies
should address cyberbullying” lower than participants with EdDs (M = 4.55, SD = .522) and
PhDs (M = 4.80, SD = .447). No significant differences existed between bachelor’s and master’s
degrees (p = .825) and EdD and PhD (p = .532). Overall, the ANOVA showed there was
differences with “school assemblies should address cyberbullying” based on educational
background. Post-hoc indicated bachelor’s and doctorates with significant differences. These
findings are listed in Table 7.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
103
Table 6
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “School Assemblies Should Address Cyberbullying” by
Educational Background
Source of variation df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 7.545 1.509 2.655 .024
Within groups 219 124.455 .568
Total 224 132.000
Table 7
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Educational Background of “School Assemblies
Should Address Cyberbullying”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Educational
Background
(J) Educational
Background
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree -.024 .108 .825 -.24 .19
EdD -.545* .243 .026 -1.02 -.07
PhD -.800* .348 .022 -1.49 -.11
Master’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree .024 .108 .825 -.19 .24
EdD -.521* .237 .029 -.99 -.05
PhD -.776* .344 .025 -1.45 -.10
EdD Bachelor’s Degree .545* .243 .026 .07 1.02
Master’s Degree .521* .237 .029 .05 .99
PhD -.255 .407 .532 -1.06 .55
PhD Bachelor’s Degree .800* .348 .022 .11 1.49
Master’s Degree .776* .344 .025 .10 1.45
EdD .255 .407 .532 -.55 1.06
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
104
A one-way ANOVA was computed for teachers’ perceptions of “students could emulate
the behaviors of teachers” and educational background. The ANOVA represented in Table 8 had
significant findings, F(5, 217) = 2.31, p = .045. Fisher’s LSD was used to determine where
differences occurred. Fisher’s LSD revealed significant differences between bachelor’s degree
and EdD (p = .045) and master’s degree and EdD (p = .053). Teachers with EdDs (M = 4.73, SD
= .467) agreed more than those with bachelor’s degrees (M = 4.32, SD = .614) and master’s
degrees (M = 4.34, SD = .636) that “students can emulate the behaviors of teachers.” No
significant differences existed between bachelor’s and master’s (p = .795), bachelor’s and PhD
(p = .182), master’s and PhD (p = .202), and EdD and PhD (.950). These findings are presented
in Table 9.
Table 8
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Students can Emulate the Behaviors of Teachers” by
Educational Background
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 4.507 .901 2.307 .045
Within groups 217 84.794 .391
Total 222 89.300
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
105
Table 9
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Educational Background of “Students can
Emulate the Behaviors of Teachers”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Educational
Background
(J) Educational
Background
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree -.023 .090 .795 -.24 .19
EdD -.407* .201 .045 -1.02 -.07
PhD -.429 .320 .182 -1.49 -.11
Master’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree .023 .090 .795 -.19 .24
EdD -.383 .197 .053 -.99 -.05
PhD -.406 .318 .202 -1.45 -.10
EdD Bachelor’s Degree .407* .201 .045 .07 1.02
Master’s Degree .383 .197 .053 .05 .99
PhD -.023 .365 .950 -1.06 .55
PhD Bachelor’s Degree .429 .320 .182 .11 1.49
Master’s Degree .406 .318 .202 .10 1.45
EdD .023 .365 .950 -.55 1.06
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
An analysis of variance was conducted for “when aware of students’ cyberbullying at my
school I would do nothing” F(5, 218) = 2.586, p = .027 and “when aware of students’
cyberbullying away from school I would do nothing” F(5, 214) = 3.548, p = .004. Tables 10 and
11 summarize this information. The analysis produced significant findings at the .05 level or
less. A post-hoc analysis was done to determine where differences occurred. Fisher’s LSD
revealed no significant differences between educational background and the statement, “when
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
106
aware of cyberbullying at or away from my school, I would do nothing.” The results are
presented in Tables 12 and 13.
Table 10
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Students’ Cyberbullying at My School, I
Would Do Nothing” by Educational Background
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 6.040 1.208 2.586 .027
Within groups 218 101.848 .467
Total 223 107.888
Table 11
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Students’ Cyberbullying Away From School,
I Would Do Nothing” by Educational Background
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 11.250 2.250 3.548 .004
Within groups 214 135.709 .634
Total 219 146.959
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
107
Table 12
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Educational Background of “When Aware of
Students’ Cyberbullying at My School, I Would Do Nothing”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Educational
Background
(J) Educational
Background
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree .024 .098 .805 -.17 .22
EdD .362 .220 .101 -.07 .80
PhD .294 .350 .402 -.40 .98
Master’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree -.024 .098 .805 -.22 .17
EdD .338 .215 .117 -.09 .76
PhD .270 .347 .438 -.41 .95
EdD Bachelor’s Degree -.362 .220 .101 -.80 .07
Master’s Degree -.338 .215 .117 -.76 .09
PhD -.068 .399 .865 -.85 .72
PhD Bachelor’s Degree -.294 .350 .402 -.98 .40
Master’s Degree -.270 .347 .438 -.95 .41
EdD .068 .399 .865 -.72 .85
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
108
Table 13
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Educational Background of “When Aware of
Students’ Cyberbullying Away From School, I Would Do Nothing”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Educational
Background
(J) Educational
Background
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree .037 .115 .746 -.19 .26
EdD .376 .256 .144 -.13 .88
PhD .763 .408 .063 -.04 1.57
Master’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree -.037 .115 .746 -.26 .19
EdD .339 .251 .178 -.16 .83
PhD .725 .405 .074 -.07 1.52
EdD Bachelor’s Degree -.376 .256 .144 -.88 .13
Master’s Degree -.339 .251 .178 -.83 .16
PhD .386 .465 .407 -.53 1.30
PhD Bachelor’s Degree -.763 .408 .063 -1.57 .04
Master’s Degree -.725 .405 .074 -1.52 .07
EdD -.386 .465 .407 -1.30 .53
Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, “What intervention and prevention strategies do teachers
agree would address cyberbullying?” First, intervention strategies to address cyberbullying at
and away from school were determined. Next were the results of teachers’ perceptions for
prevention strategies. Descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviations for
intervention strategies to address cyberbullying at school are summarized in Table 14. The
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
109
averages for the following statements resulted in either agreed or strongly agreed for the
following interventions: “report incident to police or school counselor” 4.61, “report incident to
school administrators” 4.53, “talk with the victim” 4.17, “report incident to victim’s parents”
4.05, “report incident to cyberbully’s parents” 4.04, and “talk with the cyberbully” 4.00. Slightly
lower were means for “take away cyberbully’s privileges” 3.81 and “mediate/problem solve with
cyberbully and victim” 3.78. When asked if participants would do nothing if cyberbullying
“occurred at school,” the average response was 1.52, which was between disagreed and strongly
disagreed.
Table 14
Descriptive Statistics of Intervention Strategies to Address Cyberbullying at School
When aware of students’ cyberbullying at my school, I would n M SD
Other (Report to police, school counselor) 18 4.61 .608
Report incident to school administrators 224 4.53 .655
Talk with the victim 224 4.17 .776
Report incident to victim’s parents 224 4.05 .926
Report incident to cyberbully’s parents 224 4.04 .937
Talk with the cyberbully 224 4.00 .836
Take away cyberbully’s privileges 224 3.81 .975
Mediate / Problem solve with cyberbully and victim 224 3.78 .986
Do nothing 224 1.52 .696
Note: Response options: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree or disagree; 4 =
Agree; 5 = Strongly agree
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
110
Descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviations for intervention strategies
to address cyberbullying away from school are summarized in Table 15. The means for the
following statements resulted in either agreed or neither agreed or disagreed for the following
interventions: “report incident to police or school counselor” 4.40, “report incident to school
administrators” 4.22, “report incident to victim’s parents” 3.74, “talk with the victim” 3.74,
“report incident to cyberbully’s parents” 3.71, and “talk with the cyberbully” 3.61. These
numbers were all lower than the means for intervention strategies to address cyberbullying that
occur at school. “Mediate/problem solve with cyberbully and victim” was 3.44 and “take away
cyberbully’s privileges” was 3.25, signifying participants neither agreed or disagreed with these
interventions when cyberbullying took place off campus. The average for teachers would do
nothing if cyberbullying “occurred away from school” was 1.99, which represented disagreement
for this statement. Overall the means decreased for cyberbullying interventions away from
school compared to cyberbullying on campus. The exception was for the statement where
participants would do nothing, in which case the mean increased signifying participants
disagreed instead of strongly disagreed they would not take action if cyberbullying occurred off
school grounds.
Descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviations for teachers’ perceptions of
prevention strategies to reduce cyberbullying in schools are summarized in Table 16. The
averages for the following statements resulted in participants agreeing in the following
prevention strategies: police or school counselor involvement 4.55, increased parental
involvement 4.42, increased administrator involvement 4.32, and facilitate school climate
encouraging students to report cyberbullying 4.22. The same mean 4.21, appeared for increased
consequences and warn about consequences for cyberbullying. Teachers supported the strategy
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
111
to encourage bystanders to stand up against cyberbullying with a mean of 4.16. Moreover,
participants were in agreement for establishment of a social-emotional learning program 4.05,
more specific policies 4.01, classroom anti-bully lessons 4.01, and school-wide anti-bully
assemblies 4.00. The means were slightly lower for increased teacher involvement 3.95,
professional development seminars 3.87, establishment of a school cyberbullying task force to
develop anti-bullying policies 3.78, and increased supervision in certain areas 3.57.
Table 15
Descriptive Statistics of Intervention Strategies to Address Cyberbullying Away From School
When aware of students’ cyberbullying away from school, I would n M SD
Other (Report to police, school counselor) 20 4.40 .681
Report incident to school administrators 220 4.22 .826
Report incident to victim’s parents 220 3.74 .994
Talk with the victim 221 3.74 .885
Report incident to cyberbully’s parents 220 3.71 1.009
Talk with the cyberbully 221 3.61 .916
Mediate / Problem solve with cyberbully and victim 220 3.44 .966
Take away cyberbully’s privileges 220 3.25 .982
Do nothing 220 1.99 .819
Note: Response options: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree or disagree; 4 =
Agree; 5 = Strongly agree
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
112
Table 16
Descriptive Statistics of Prevention Strategies
The following strategies would reduce cyberbullying at my school n M SD
Other (police, counselors) 11 4.55 .522
Increased parental involvement 222 4.42 .680
Increased administrator involvement 222 4.32 .708
Facilitate school climate encouraging students to report cyberbullying 222 4.22 .622
Increased consequences for cyberbullying 222 4.21 .702
Warn about consequences for cyberbullying 222 4.21 .683
Encourage bystanders to stand up against cyberbullies 222 4.16 .747
Establish a social-emotional learning program 222 4.05 .794
More specific policies 221 4.01 .850
Classroom anti-bully lessons 222 4.01 .764
School-wide anti-bully assemblies 221 4.00 .820
Increased teacher involvement 222 3.95 .836
Professional development teacher seminars 222 3.87 .854
Establish a school cyberbullying task force to develop anti-bullying policies 222 3.78 .862
Increased supervision in certain areas 220 3.57 1.002
Note: Response options: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neither agree or disagree; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly
agree
Other Findings
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine if significant
differences were apparent between other independent variables such as age, gender, workplace,
and years of experience, and the dependent variable of teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying.
Significant findings with p <.05 are presented below.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
113
Age
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine if statistically
meaningful differences existed for teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying and teachers’ age.
Participants were classified into six groups: 21-24 years (n = 4), 25-34 years (n = 34), 35-44
years (n = 50), 45-54 (n = 71), 55-64 years (n = 44), and 65 and over (n = 19). Due to the high
volume of teachers’ perceptions in the survey instrument, only significant findings at the .05
level or less were reported below.
The following significant differences were found between age and “confidence in
managing cyberbullying” F(5, 214) = 2.358, p = .041. Table 17 summarizes the results for this
ANOVA. Fisher’s LSD test was done to determine where significant differences occur. Post-hoc
analysis showed differences between 35-44 years of age and 65 years and over (p = .003).
Participants between 35-44 (M = 2.48, SD = .995) did not feel as confident in their ability to
manage cyberbullying as those who were 65 years and over (M = 3.32, SD = 1.250). Results are
presented in Table 18.
Table 17
One-Way Analysis of Variance of Confidence in Managing Cyberbullying by Age
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 12.210 2.441 2.358 .041
Within groups 214 221.586 1.035
Total 219 233.795
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
114
Table 18
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Age of Confidence in Managing Cyberbullying
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Age (J) Age Mdiff (I-J) SE p Lower Bound Upper Bound
21-24 25-34 .676 .538 .210 -.38 1.74
35-44 1.020 .529 .055 -.02 2.06
45-54 .671 .523 .201 -.36 1.70
55-64 .709 .532 .184 -.34 1.76
65 and Over .184 .560 .742 -.92 1.29
25-34 21-24 -.676 .538 .210 -1.74 .38
35-44 .344 .226 .130 -.10 .79
45-54 -.005 .213 .981 -.42 .41
55-64 .033 .234 .888 -.43 .49
65 and Over -.492 .291 .093 -1.07 .08
35-44 21-24 -1.020 .529 .055 -2.06 .02
25-34 -.344 .226 .130 -.79 .10
45-54 -.349 .188 .066 -.72 .02
55-64 -.311 .212 .144 -.73 .11
65 and Over -.836* .274 .003 -1.38 -.30
45-54 21-24 -.671 .523 .201 -1.70 .36
25-34 .005 .213 .981 -.41 .42
35-44 .349 .188 .066 -.02 .72
55-64 .038 .197 .848 -.35 .43
65 and Over -.487 .263 .066 -1.01 .03
55-64 21-24 -.709 .532 .184 -1.76 .34
25-34 -.033 .234 .888 -.49 .43
35-44 .311 .212 .144 -.11 .73
45-54 -.038 .197 .848 -.43 .35
65 and Over -.525 .280 .062 -1.08 .03
65 and Over 21-24 -.184 .560 .742 -1.29 .92
25-34 .492 . .291 .093 -.08 1.07
35-44 .836* .274 .003 .30 1.38
45-54 .487 .263 .066 -.03 1.01
55-64 .525 .280 .062 -.03 1.08
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
115
Table 19 presents findings between age and “schools should develop policies on
cyberbullying” F(5, 215) = 2.421, p = .037. Fisher’s LSD was conducted to determine
differences. The post-hoc analysis revealed significant findings between the ages of 25-34 and
35-44 (p = .049), 35-44 and 55-64 (p = .001), and 45-54 and 55-64 (p = .053). Teachers between
25-34 (M = 4.44, SD = .561) and 55-64 (M = 4.61, SD = .579) agreed more than 35-44 year olds
(M = 4.14, SD = .833) that schools should develop policies on cyberbullying. Similarly,
participants between 55-64 (M = 4.61, SD = .579) supported schools in developing
cyberbullying policies more than 45-54 year olds (M = 4.36, SD = .660). These findings are
summarized in Table 20.
Table 19
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Schools Should Develop Policies on Cyberbullying” by Age
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 5.665 1.133 2.421 .037
Within groups 215 100.642 .468
Total 220 106.308
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
116
Table 20
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Age of “Schools Should Develop Policies on
Cyberbullying”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Age (J) Age Mdiff (I-J) SE p Lower Bound Upper Bound
21-24 25-34 .059 .362 .871 -.65 .77
35-44 .360 .356 .312 -.34 1.06
45-54 .143 .352 .685 -.55 .84
55-64 -.114 .357 .751 -.82 .59
65 and Over .026 .376 .944 -.72 .77
25-34 21-24 -.059 .362 .871 -.77 .65
35-44 .301
*
.152 .049 .00 .60
45-54 .084 .143 .557 -.20 .37
55-64 -.172 .156 .271 -.48 .14
65 and Over -.033 .196 .868 -.42 .35
35-44 21-24 -.360 .356 .312 -1.06 .34
25-34 -.301
*
.152 .049 -.60 .00
45-54 -.217 .127 .088 -.47 .03
55-64 -.474
*
.141 .001 -.75 -.19
65 and Over -.334 .184 .072 -.70 .03
45-54 21-24 -.143 .352 .685 -.84 .55
25-34 -.084 .143 .557 -.37 .20
35-44 .217 .127 .088 -.03 .47
55-64 -.256 .132 .053 -.52 .00
65 and Over -.117 .177 .511 -.47 .23
55-64 21-24 .114 .357 .751 -.59 .82
25-34 .172 .156 .271 -.14 .48
35-44 .474
*
.141 .001 .19 .75
45-54 .256 .132 .053 .00 .52
65 and Over .140 .188 .457 -.23 .51
65 and Over 21-24 -.026 .376 .944 -.77 .72
25-34 .033 .196 .868 -.35 .42
35-44 .334 .184 .072 -.03 .70
45-54 .117 .177 .511 -.23 .47
55-64 -.140 .188 .457 -.51 .23
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
117
A one-way ANOVA was conducted between age and the strategy of “school resources
should be used to help teachers deal with cyberbullying” F(5, 215) = 2.195, p = .056. These
results are in Table 21. Fisher’s LSD test was done to determine where significant differences
occurred. Post-hoc analysis reported differences between ages 55-64 and 35-44 (p = .005) and
45-54 (p = .017). Participants between 55-64 (M = 4.27, SD = .585) agreed more that school
resources should be used to assist teachers in dealing with cyberbullying than their counterparts
ages 35-44 (M = 3.86, SD = .857) and 45-54 (M = 3.94, SD = .700) Results are presented in
Table 22.
Table 21
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “School Resources Should be Used to Help Teachers Deal
with Cyberbullying” by Age
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 5.528 1.106 2.195 .056
Within groups 215 108.309 .504
Total 220 113.837
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
118
Table 22
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Age of “School Resources Should be Used to
Help Teachers Deal with Cyberbullying”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Age (J) Age Mdiff (I-J) SE p Lower Bound Upper Bound
21-24 25-34 -.309 .375 .411 -1.05 .43
35-44 -.110 .369 .766 -.84 .62
45-54 -.193 .365 .598 -.91 .53
55-64 -.523 .371 .160 -1.25 .21
65 and Over -.461 .390 .240 -1.23 .31
25-34 21-24 .309 .375 .411 -.43 1.05
35-44 .199 .158 .209 -.11 .51
45-54 .116 .148 .435 -.18 .41
55-64 -.214 .162 .188 -.53 .11
65 and Over -.152 .203 .456 -.55 .25
35-44 21-24 .110 .369 .766 -.62 .84
25-34 -.199 .158 .209 -.51 .11
45-54 -.083 .131 .529 -.34 .18
55-64 -.413* .147 .005 -.70 -.12
65 and Over -.351 .191 .068 -.73 .03
45-54 21-24 .193 .365 .598 -.53 .91
25-34 -.116 .148 .435 -.41 .18
35-44 .083 .131 .529 -.18 .34
55-64 -.330* .137 .017 -.60 -.06
65 and Over -.268 .184 .146 -.63 .09
55-64 21-24 .523 .371 .160 -.21 1.25
25-34 .214 .162 .188 -.11 .53
35-44 .413* .147 .005 .12 .70
45-54 .330* .137 .017 .06 .60
65 and Over .062 .195 .750 -.32 .45
65 and Over 21-24 .461 .390 .240 -.31 1.23
25-34 .152 .203 .456 -.25 .55
35-44 .351 .191 .068 -.03 .73
45-54 .268 .184 .146 -.09 .63
55-64 -.062 .195 .750 -.45 .32
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
119
The statement, “when aware of students’ cyberbullying away from school, teachers
would mediate with the cyberbully and victim” was analyzed with participants’ age. Table 23
displays the results of the ANOVA F(5, 210) = 2.191, p = .056). Fisher’s LSD presented
significant findings between the ages of 25-34 and 35-44 (p = .010), 55-64 (p = .018), and 65 and
over (p = .007). Participants 25-34 years old (M = 3.97, SD = .758) agreed more than 35-44 (M =
3.59, SD = 1.039), 55-64 (M = 3.84, SD = .927), and 65 and over (M = 3.47, SD = 1.264), that
they would problem solve with the cyberbully when aware of a cyberbullying occurrence away
from school. These findings are displayed in Table 24.
Table 23
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Students’ Cyberbullying Away from School, I
Would Mediate / Problem Solve with Cyberbully and Victim” by Age
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 10.086 2.017 2.191 .056
Within groups 210 193.354 .921
Total 215 203.440
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
120
Table 24
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Age of “When Aware Students’ Cyberbullying
Away from School, I Would Mediate / Problem Solve with Cyberbully and Victim”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Age (J) Age Mdiff (I-J) SE p Lower Bound Upper Bound
21-24 25-34 -.353 .507 .487 -1.35 .65
35-44 .208 .499 .677 -.78 1.19
45-54 -.029 .494 .953 -1.00 .94
55-64 .174 .502 .728 -.81 1.16
65 and Over .395 .528 .455 -.65 1.44
25-34 21-24 .353 .507 .487 -.65 1.35
35-44 .561* .215 .010 .14 .99
45-54 .324 .202 .110 -.07 .72
55-64 .527* .220 .018 .09 .96
65 and Over .748* .275 .007 .21 1.29
35-44 21-24 -.208 .499 .677 -1.19 .78
25-34 -.561* .215 .010 -.99 -.14
45-54 -.238 .181 .190 -.59 .12
55-64 -.034 .201 .866 -.43 .36
65 and Over .186 .260 .474 -.33 .70
45-54 21-24 .029 .494 .953 -.94 1.00
25-34 -.324 .202 .110 -.72 .07
35-44 .238 .181 .190 -.12 .59
55-64 .204 .187 .277 -.16 .57
65 and Over .424 .249 .090 -.07 .92
55-64 21-24 -.174 .502 .728 -1.16 .81
25-34 -.527* .220 .018 -.96 -.09
35-44 .034 .201 .866 -.36 .43
45-54 -.204 .187 .277 -.57 .16
65 and Over .220 .264 .406 -.30 .74
65 and Over 21-24 -.395 .528 .455 -1.44 .65
25-34 -.748* .275 .007 -1.29 -.21
35-44 -.186 .260 .474 -.70 .33
45-54 -.424 .249 .090 -.92 .07
55-64 -.220 .264 .406 -.74 .30
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
121
Table 25 displays the ANOVA for age and “increased supervision in certain areas,” a
strategy to reduce cyberbullying. Significant findings were discovered F(5, 210) = 3.513, p =
.005). Fisher’s LSD was conducted to determine where differences took place. The post-hoc
analysis revealed significant findings between the ages of 25-34 and 35-44 (p = .029), 35-44 and
45-54 (p = .016), and 35-44 and 65 and over (p = .003). Participants between 25-34 (M = 3.61,
SD = 1.029), 45-54 (M = 3.57, SD = .882), and 65 and over (M = 3.94, SD = .983) agreed more
than 35-44 year olds (M = 3.12, SD = 1.130) that increased supervision is a strategy to reduce
cyberbullying. These findings are summarized in Table 26.
Table 25
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — Increased Supervision
in Certain Areas” by Age
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 16.745 3.349 3.513 .005
Within groups 210 200.214 .953
Total 215 216.958
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
122
Table 26
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Age of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying —
Increased Supervision in Certain Areas”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Age (J) Age Mdiff (I-J) SE p Lower Bound Upper Bound
21-24 25-34 .144 .517 .781 -.88 1.16
35-44 .628 .508 .218 -.37 1.63
45-54 .185 .502 .713 -.81 1.17
55-64 -.134 .510 .794 -1.14 .87
65 and Over -.194 .540 .719 -1.26 .87
25-34 21-24 -.144 .517 .781 -1.16 .88
35-44 .484* .220 .029 .05 .92
45-54 .041 .207 .844 -.37 .45
55-64 -.278 .226 .221 -.72 .17
65 and Over -.338 .286 .238 -.90 .23
35-44 21-24 -.628 .508 .218 -1.63 .37
25-34 -.484* .220 .029 -.92 -.05
45-54 -.443* .182 .016 -.80 -.08
55-64 -.761* .204 .000 -1.16 -.36
65 and Over -.822* .269 .003 -1.35 -.29
45-54 21-24 -.185 .502 .713 -1.17 .81
25-34 -.041 .207 .844 -.45 .37
35-44 .443* .182 .016 .08 .80
55-64 -.319 .190 .095 -.69 .06
65 and Over -.379 .258 .144 -.89 .13
55-64 21-24 .134 .510 .794 -.87 1.14
25-34 .278 .226 .221 -.17 .72
35-44 .761* .204 .000 .36 1.16
45-54 .319 .190 .095 -.06 .69
65 and Over -.061 .274 .825 -.60 .48
65 and Over 21-24 .194 .540 .719 -.87 1.26
25-34 .338 .286 .238 -.23 .90
35-44 .822* .269 .003 .29 1.35
45-54 .379 .258 .144 -.13 .89
55-64 .061 .274 .825 -.48 .60
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
123
Table 27 presents the ANOVA findings for age and “warning about consequences,” a
strategy to reduce cyberbullying, There was a significant effect F(5, 212) = 3.480, p = .005).
Post-hoc analysis demonstrated differences appeared between the ages of 35-44 and 45-54 (p =
.023), 55-64 (p = .002), and 65 and over (p = .001). Additionally, significant differences existed
for ages 65 and over and 25-34 (p = .017), and 45-54 (p = .051). Participants 45-54 (M = 4.24,
SD = .550), 55-64 (M = 4.40, SD = .695), and 65 and over (M = 4.58, SD = .507) agreed more
than 35-44 years old (M = 3.96, SD = .841) that warning about consequences for cyberbullying
is a strategy to reduce this problem. Likewise, 65 and over (M = 4.58, SD = .507) supported this
strategy more than 25-34 (M = 4.12, SD = .600) and 45-54 (M = 4.24, SD = .550). These
findings are displayed in Table 28.
Table 27
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — Warn About
Consequences for Cyberbullying” by Age
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 7.651 1.530 3.480 .005
Within groups 212 93.216 .440
Total 217 100.867
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
124
Table 28
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Age of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying —
Warn About Consequences for Cyberbullying”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Age (J) Age Mdiff (I-J) SE p Lower Bound Upper Bound
21-24 25-34 -.121 .351 .730 -.81 .57
35-44 .041 .345 .906 -.64 .72
45-54 -.243 .341 .477 -.91 .43
55-64 -.395 .347 .255 -1.08 .29
65 and Over -.579 .365 .114 -1.30 .14
25-34 21-24 .121 .351 .730 -.57 .81
35-44 .162 .149 .279 -.13 .46
45-54 -.122 .140 .386 -.40 .15
55-64 -.274 .153 .075 -.58 .03
65 and Over -.458* .191 .017 -.83 -.08
35-44 21-24 -.041 .345 .906 -.72 .64
25-34 -.162 .149 .279 -.46 .13
45-54 -.284* .124 .023 -.53 -.04
55-64 -.436* .139 .002 -.71 -.16
65 and Over -.620* .179 .001 -.97 -.27
45-54 21-24 .243 .341 .477 -.43 .91
25-34 .122 .140 .386 -.15 .40
35-44 .284* .124 .023 .04 .53
55-64 -.152 .128 .237 -.41 .10
65 and Over -.336 .172 .051 -.67 .00
55-64 21-24 .395 .347 .255 -.29 1.08
25-34 .274 .153 .075 -.03 .58
35-44 .436* .139 .002 .16 .71
45-54 .152 .128 .237 -.10 .41
65 and Over -.184 .183 .316 -.54 .18
65 and Over 21-24 .579 .365 .114 -.14 1.30
25-34 .458* .191 .017 .08 .83
35-44 .620* .179 .001 .27 .97
45-54 .336 .172 .051 .00 .67
55-64 .184 .183 .316 -.18 .54
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
125
Gender
The following significant differences were discovered for gender and teachers’
perceptions of cyberbullying. Participants were classified into males (n = 53) and females (n =
170). First, there was a significant difference in the scores between males (M = 1.94, SD = .818)
and females (M = 1.64, SD = .868) for the teachers’ perception of “cyberbullying toughens kids
up,” p = .025. These results suggest females strongly disagree more than males with the
statement that cyberbullying toughens kids up. Results are presented in Table 29. ANOVAs were
run as a matter of convenience. Mathematically, F and t are related where v2 is the denominator
degrees of freedom (Chan, 2012). The F test (ANOVA) and the t test produce identical results
when doing significance testing.
Table 29
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Cyberbullying Toughens Kids Up” by Gender
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 1 3.733 3.733 5.091 .025
Within groups 217 159.143 .733
Total 218 162.877
Next, Table 30 summarizes findings between gender and “cyberbullying prepares
students for life.” Significant interaction took place for males (M = 2.15, SD = .937) and females
(M = 1.70, SD = .892), p = .002. Similar to previous analysis, these results suggest females
disagree more than males that cyberbullying prepares students for life.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
126
Table 30
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Cyberbullying Prepares Students for Life” by Gender
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 1 8.036 8.036 9.860 .002
Within groups 215 175.218 .815
Total 216 183.253
Significant results were found for “students should receive counseling to deal with
cyberbullying” and the independent variable of gender. Differences existed between males (M =
4.30, SD = .696) and females (M = 4.51, SD = .525), p = .022. These results suggest females
agree more than males that students should receive counseling to deal with cyberbullying. These
findings are listed in Table 31.
Table 31
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Students Should Receive Counseling to Deal with
Cyberbullying” by Gender
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 1 1.729 1.729 5.326 .022
Within groups 220 71.406 .325
Total 221 73.135
Table 32 presents findings between gender and the statement, “I have made sarcastic or
demeaning comments to students in the past.” Significant differences took place for males (M =
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
127
3.08, SD = 1.141) and females (M = 2.55, SD = 1.123), p = .004. Similar to previous analyses,
these results suggest females made less sarcastic remarks than males.
Table 32
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “I Have Made Sarcastic or Demeaning Comments to Students
in the Past” by Gender
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 1 11.071 11.071 8.712 .004
Within groups 218 277.015 1.271
Total 219 288.086
Significant results were discovered for “teachers’ behavior affects the behavior and
learning of students” by gender. Differences existed between males (M = 4.25, SD = .806) and
females (M = 4.46, SD = .647), p = .048. These results suggest females agree more than males
that the behaviors of teachers affect the behavior and learning of students. These findings are
listed in Table 33.
Table 33
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Teachers’ Behavior Affects the Behavior and Learning of
Students” by Gender
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 1 1.873 1.873 3.953 .048
Within groups 218 103.308 .474
Total 219 105.182
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
128
Significant differences occurred for gender and “when aware of students’ cyberbullying
at and away from my school, I would do nothing.” Tables 34 and 35 present this information.
The analysis produced significant differences for cyberbullying at school between males (M =
1.72, SD = .907) and females (M = 1.46, SD = .598), p = .018; and cyberbullying away from
school with males (M = 2.21, SD = .936) and females (M = 1.90, SD = .767), p = .017. These
results suggest females strongly disagree more than males they would do nothing if aware of
cyberbullying at and away from school.
Table 34
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Cyberbullying at School, I Would Do
Nothing” by Gender
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 1 2.695 2.695 5.761 .017
Within groups 219 102.463 .468
Total 220 105.158
Table 35
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Cyberbullying Away From School, I Would
Do Nothing” by Gender
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 1 3.763 3.763 5.733 .018
Within groups 215 141.122 .656
Total 216 144.885
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
129
An analysis was conducted to compare more “school policies” as a strategy to reduce
cyberbullying for males and females. There was a significant difference in the scores between
males (M = 3.81, SD = .921) and females (M = 4.08, SD = .815), p = .041. These results suggest
females agree more than males that additional school policies would reduce cyberbullying. These
results are presented in Table 36.
Table 36
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — More Specific School
Policies” by Gender
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 1 3.001 3.001 4.239 .041
Within groups 216 152.925 .708
Total 217 155.927
Significant results were discovered between “encourage bystanders to stand up against
cyberbullies” and gender. Differences existed between males (M = 3.94, SD = .770) and females
(M = 4.22, SD = .725), p = .017. These results suggest females agree more than males that
encouraging bystanders to stand up against cyberbullies is a strategy to reduce cyberbullying.
These findings are listed in Table 37.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
130
Table 37
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — Encourage Bystanders
to Stand Up Against Cyberbullies” by Gender
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 1 3.138 3.138 5.792 .017
Within groups 217 117.583 .542
Total 218 120.721
Table 38 presents findings between gender and “classroom anti-bully lessons” as a
strategy to reduce cyberbullying. Significant differences took place for males (M = 3.81, SD =
.735) and females (M = 4.08, SD = .763), p = .026. Similar to the previous strategy mentioned in
Table 28, these results suggest females agree more than males that classroom anti-bully lessons
is a strategy to reduce cyberbullying.
Table 38
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — Classroom Anti-Bully
Lessons” by Gender
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 1 2.864 2.864 5.008 .026
Within groups 217 124.095 .572
Total 218 126.959
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
131
Workplace
Significant differences were discovered for workplace and teachers’ perceptions of
cyberbullying. Participants were classified into the following groups: elementary school (n =
111), middle or intermediate school (n = 35), high school (n = 65), combination middle,
intermediate, and high school (n = 4), and state office (n = 7). A one-way ANOVA determined a
significant difference between workplace and teachers’ perceptions that their schools “effectively
addresses cyberbullying” F(5, 218) = 2.288, p = .047. Table 39 contains the results. Fisher’s
Least Significant Difference was utilized to determine significant interactions. Post-hoc analysis
showed significant differences between elementary and middle or intermediate (p = .016) and
high school (p = .013). Participants in middle and intermediate (M = 2.57, SD = .917) and high
schools (M = 2.65, SD = .926) disagreed more than elementary participants (M = 3.04, SD =
1.078) that their schools effectively address cyberbullying. These findings are displayed in Table
40.
Table 39
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “My School Effectively Addresses Cyberbullying” by
Workplace
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 11.242 2.248 2.288 .047
Within groups 218 214.253 .983
Total 223 225.496
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
132
Table 40
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “My School Effectively Addresses
Cyberbullying”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Workplace (J) Workplace
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Elementary Middle/Inter .465* .192 .016 .09 .84
High School .390* .155 .013 .08 .70
Combo Middle/Inter/High .786 .505 .121 -.21 1.78
State Office .465 .386 .230 -.30 1.23
Middle/Inter Elementary -.465* .192 .016 -.84 -.09
High School -.075 .208 .720 -.48 .33
Combo Middle/Inter/High .321 .523 .540 -.71 1.35
State Office .000 .410 1.000 -.81 .81
High School Elementary -.390* .155 .013 -.70 -.08
Middle/Inter .075 .208 .720 -.33 .48
Combo Middle/Inter/High .396 .511 .439 -.61 1.40
State Office .075 .394 .850 -.70 .85
Combo
Middle/Inter/High
Elementary -.786 .505 .121 -1.78 .21
Middle/Inter -.321 .523 .540 -1.35 .71
High School -.396 .511 .439 -1.40 .61
State Office -.321 .621 .605 -1.55 .90
State Office Elementary -.465 .386 .230 -1.23 .30
Middle/Inter .000 .410 1.000 -.81 .81
High School -.075 .394 .850 -.85 .70
Combo Middle/Inter/High .321 .621 .605 -.90 1.55
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
133
A one-way ANOVA was conducted for workplace and teachers’ “concern about
cyberbullying” F(5, 217) = 2.889, p = .015. These results are in Table 41. Fisher’s LSD test was
done to determine where significant differences occurred. Post-hoc analysis reported differences
between elementary and middle or intermediate (p = .012) and state office (p = .010). Significant
differences occurred with middle or intermediate and high school (p = .008), and high school and
state office (p = .007). Teachers from middle or intermediate school (M = 4.46, SD = .561) and
state office (M = 4.86, SD = .378) had higher means than elementary (M = 4.08, SD = .718).
Similarly, middle or intermediate school participants (M = 4.46, SD = .561), as well as state
office (M = 4.86, SD = .378) had higher means than high school (M = 4.03, SD = .883). The
results suggest teachers from middle or intermediate schools and state offices are more
concerned about cyberbullying than elementary and high schools. These findings are presented
in Table 42.
Table 41
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “I am Concerned about Cyberbullying” by Workplace
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 8.372 1.674 2.889 .015
Within groups 217 125.745 .579
Total 222 134.117
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
134
Table 42
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “I am Concerned about
Cyberbullying”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Workplace (J) Workplace
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Elementary Middle/Inter -.375* .148 .012 -.67 -.08
High School .051 .119 .669 -.18 .29
Combo Middle/Inter/High .082 .387 .833 -.68 .85
State Office -.775* .297 .010 -1.36 -.19
Middle/Inter Elementary .375* .148 .012 .08 .67
High School .426* .160 .008 .11 .74
Combo Middle/Inter/High .457 .402 .256 -.33 1.25
State Office -.400 .315 .206 -1.02 .22
High School Elementary -.051 .119 .669 -.29 .18
Middle/Inter -.426* .160 .008 -.74 -.11
Combo Middle/Inter/High .031 .392 .938 -.74 .80
State Office -.826* .303 .007 -1.42 -.23
Combo
Middle/Inter/High
Elementary -.082 .387 .833 -.85 .68
Middle/Inter -.457 .402 .256 -1.25 .33
High School -.031 .392 .938 -.80 .74
State Office -.857 .477 .074 -1.80 .08
State Office Elementary .775* .297 .010 .19 1.36
Middle/Inter .400 .315 .206 -.22 1.02
High School .826* .303 .007 .23 1.42
Combo Middle/Inter/High .857 .477 .074 -.08 1.80
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
135
The following significant differences were discovered between workplace and the
teachers’ perception of “schools should use professional development days to train staff about
cyberbullying” F(5, 217) = 4.212, p = .001. Table 43 summarizes the results for this ANOVA.
Fisher’s LSD test was conducted to find significant interactions. Post-hoc analysis showed
differences between elementary and middle or intermediate (p = .037), elementary and state
office (p = .003), middle or intermediate and high school (p = .034), and high school and state
office (p = .003). In addition, significant differences were found for combination
middle/intermediate/high and elementary (p = .042), middle or intermediate (p = .007), high
school (p = .053), and state office (p = .001). Participants from state office (M = 5.00, SD = .000)
and middle school (M = 4.31, SD = .718) agreed more that schools should use professional
development days to train staff on cyberbullying than those from elementary (M = 3.95, SD =
.866), high school (M = 3.91, SD = .980), and combination middle/intermediate/high (M = 3.00,
SD = 2.309). Also, middle and high schools supported this strategy more than combination
middle/intermediate/high schools. These results are presented in Table 44.
Table 43
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Schools Should Use Professional Development Days to Train
Staff About Cyberbullying” by Workplace
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 17.338 3.468 4.212 .001
Within groups 217 178.662 .823
Total 222 196.00
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
136
Table 44
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “Schools Should Use Professional
Development Days to Train Staff About Cyberbullying”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Workplace (J) Workplace
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Elementary Middle/Inter -.369* .176 .037 -.72 -.02
High School .038 .142 .790 -.24 .32
Combo
Middle/Inter/High
.945* .462 .042 .04 1.86
State Office -1.055* .354 .003 -1.75 -.36
Middle/Inter Elementary .369* .176 .037 .02 .72
High School .407* .190 .034 .03 .78
Combo
Middle/Inter/High
1.314* .479 .007 .37 2.26
State Office -.686 .376 .069 -1.43 .05
High School Elementary -.038 .142 .790 -.32 .24
Middle/Inter -.407* .190 .034 -.78 -.03
Combo
Middle/Inter/High .908 .467 .053 -.01 1.83
State Office -1.092* .361 .003 -1.80 -.38
Combo
Middle/Inter/High
Elementary -.945* .462 .042 -1.86 -.04
Middle/Inter -1.314* .479 .007 -2.26 -.37
High School -.908 .467 .053 -1.83 .01
State Office -2.000* .569 .001 -3.12 -.88
State Office Elementary 1.055* .354 .003 .36 1.75
Middle/Inter .686 .376 .069 -.05 1.43
High School 1.092* .361 .003 .38 1.80
Combo
Middle/Inter/High
2.000* .569 .001 .88 3.12
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
137
A one-way ANOVA was run for workplace and the teachers’ perception of “students
should receive counseling to deal with cyberbullying” F(5, 217) = 2.265, p = .049. These results
are in Table 45. Fisher’s LSD test was done to determine where significant differences occurred.
Post-hoc analysis reported differences between middle or intermediate and high school (p =
.040). Additionally, significant findings showed for state office and elementary (p = .014), high
school (p = .005), and combination middle/intermediate/high (p = .036). Teachers from middle
or intermediate school (M = 4.60, SD = .553) agreed more than high school (M = 4.35, SD =
.623) that students should receive counseling to deal with cyberbullying. Participants from state
office (M = 5.00, SD = .000) strongly agreed more than elementary (M = 4.45, SD = .536), high
school (M = 4.35, SD = .623), and combination middle/intermediate/high (M = 4.25, SD = .957)
for counseling. These results are presented in Table 46.
Table 45
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Students Should Receive Counseling to Deal with
Cyberbullying” by Workplace
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 3.642 .728 2.265 .049
Within groups 217 69.784 .322
Total 222 73.426
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
138
Table 46
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “Students Should Receive
Counseling to Deal with Cyberbullying”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Workplace (J) Workplace
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Elementary Middle/Inter -.145 .110 .188 -.36 .07
High School .101 .089 .258 -.07 .28
Combo Middle/Inter/High .205 .289 .479 -.36 .77
State Office -.545* .221 .014 -.98 -.11
Middle/Inter Elementary .145 .110 .188 -.07 .36
High School .246* .119 .040 .01 .48
Combo Middle/Inter/High .350 .299 .244 -.24 .94
State Office -.400 .235 .090 -.86 .06
High School Elementary -.101 .089 .258 -.28 .07
Middle/Inter -.246* .119 .040 -.48 -.01
Combo Middle/Inter/High .104 .292 .723 -.47 .68
State Office -.646* .226 .005 -1.09 -.20
Combo
Middle/Inter/High
Elementary -.205 .289 .479 -.77 .36
Middle/Inter -.350 .299 .244 -.94 .24
High School -.104 .292 .723 -.68 .47
State Office -.750* .355 .036 -1.45 -.05
State Office Elementary .545* .221 .014 .11 .98
Middle/Inter .400 .235 .090 -.06 .86
High School .646* .226 .005 .20 1.09
Combo Middle/Inter/High .750* .355 .036 .05 1.45
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
139
Table 47 presents an ANOVA which communicates significant differences for workplace
and “teachers should organize classroom activities to deal with cyberbullying” F(5, 217) = 3.451,
p = .005. Due to the results, Fisher’s Least Significant Difference was run to determine
significant interactions. Post-hoc analysis showed significant differences between elementary
and high school (p = .003) and state office (p = .040), middle or intermediate and high school (p
= .017), and high school and state office (p = .002). Participants in elementary (M = 3.74, SD =
.700) agreed more than high school (M = 3.34, SD = .889) and agreed less than state office (M =
4.43, SD = .787) that teachers should organize class activities to deal with cyberbullying.
Following, middle or intermediate (M = 3.77, SD = 1.114) agreed more than high school, and
high school agreed less than state office on this issue. Results appear in Table 48.
Table 47
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Teachers Should Organize Classroom Activities to Deal with
Cyberbullying” by Workplace
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 12.784 2.557 3.451 .005
Within groups 217 160.794 .741
Total 222 173.578
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
140
Table 48
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “Teachers Should Organize
Classroom Activities to Deal with Cyberbullying”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Workplace (J) Workplace
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Elementary Middle/Inter -.035 .167 .834 -.36 .29
High School .398* .135 .003 .13 .66
Combo Middle/Inter/High .236 .438 .590 -.63 1.10
State Office -.692* .336 .040 -1.35 -.03
Middle/Inter Elementary .035 .167 .834 -.29 .36
High School .433* .180 .017 .08 .79
Combo Middle/Inter/High .271 .454 .551 -.62 1.17
State Office -.657 .356 .067 -1.36 .05
High School Elementary -.398* .135 .003 -.66 -.13
Middle/Inter -.433* .180 .017 -.79 -.08
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.162 .443 .716 -1.04 .71
State Office -1.090* .342 .002 -1.77 -.42
Combo
Middle/Inter/High
Elementary -.236 .438 .590 -1.10 .63
Middle/Inter -.271 .454 .551 -1.17 .62
High School .162 .443 .716 -.71 1.04
State Office -.929 .540 .087 -1.99 .13
State Office Elementary .692* .336 .040 .03 1.35
Middle/Inter .657 .356 .067 -.05 1.36
High School 1.090* .342 .002 .42 1.77
Combo Middle/Inter/High .929 .540 .087 -.13 1.99
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
141
A one-way ANOVA was conducted for workplace and the teachers’ perception of
“schools should discuss cyberbullying with parents” F(5, 217) = 3.472, p = .005. These results
are in Table 49. Fisher’s LSD test was done to determine significant differences. Post-hoc
analysis reported differences between combination middle/intermediate/high and elementary (p =
.015), middle or intermediate (p = .042), and high school (p = .005). Moreover, significant
differences occurred with state office and elementary (p = .012), middle or intermediate (p =
.048), and high school (p = .003). Teachers from combination middle/intermediate/high (M =
5.00, SD = .000) strongly agreed that schools should discuss cyberbullying with parents more
than elementary (M = 4.31, SD = .586), middle or intermediate (M = 4.40, SD = .553), and high
school (M = 4.18, SD = .527). Similarly, state office (M = 4.86, SD = .378) agreed more on this
statement than elementary, middle or intermediate, and high school. These results are presented
in Table 50.
Table 49
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Schools Should Discuss Cyberbullying With Parents” by
Workplace
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 5.362 1.072 3.472 .005
Within groups 217 67.033 .309
Total 222 72.395
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
142
Table 50
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “Schools Should Discuss
Cyberbullying With Parents”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Workplace (J) Workplace
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Elementary Middle/Inter -.091 .108 .400 -.30 .12
High School .124 .087 .154 -.05 .30
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.691* .283 .015 -1.25 -.13
State Office -.548* .217 .012 -.98 -.12
Middle/Inter Elementary .091 .108 .400 -.12 .30
High School .215 .117 .066 -.01 .45
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.600* .293 .042 -1.18 -.02
State Office -.457* .230 .048 -.91 .00
High School Elementary -.124 .087 .154 -.30 .05
Middle/Inter -.215 .117 .066 -.45 .01
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.815* .286 .005 -1.38 -.25
State Office -.673* .221 .003 -1.11 -.24
Combo
Middle/Inter/High
Elementary .691* .283 .015 .13 1.25
Middle/Inter .600* .293 .042 .02 1.18
High School .815* .286 .005 .25 1.38
State Office .143 .348 .682 -.54 .83
State Office Elementary .548* .217 .012 .12 .98
Middle/Inter .457* .230 .048 .00 .91
High School .673* .221 .003 .24 1.11
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.143 .348 .682 -.83 .54
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
143
The ANOVA represented in Table 51 showed significant findings for workplace and
“television and other media should discuss cyberbullying” F(5, 217) = 2.433, p = .036. Fisher’s
LSD test was conducted to determine where significant differences occurred. Post-hoc analysis
showed differences between elementary and combination middle/intermediate/high (p = .022)
and state office (p = .016). Significant differences occurred with high school and combination
middle/intermediate/high (p = .020) and state office (p = .014). Participants from elementary (M
= 4.25, SD = .582) agreed less than combination middle/intermediate/high (M = 5.00, SD = .000)
and state office (M = 4.86, SD = .378) that television and other media should address
cyberbullying. Likewise, the mean for high school (M = 4.23, SD = .702) was less than
combination middle/intermediate/high and state office. Results suggest combination
middle/intermediate/high and state office participants support media awareness of cyberbullying
more than elementary and high school participants. These results are shown in Table 52.
Table 51
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Television and Other Media Should Discuss Cyberbullying”
by Workplace
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 4.930 .986 2.433 .036
Within groups 217 87.940 .405
Total 222 92.870
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
144
Table 52
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on “Television and Other Media Should Discuss
Cyberbullying”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Workplace (J) Workplace
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Elementary Middle/Inter -.117 .124 .345 -.36 .13
High School .024 .100 .812 -.17 .22
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.745* .324 .022 -1.38 -.11
State Office -.603* .248 .016 -1.09 -.11
Middle/Inter Elementary .117 .124 .345 -.13 .36
High School .141 .133 .293 -.12 .40
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.629 .336 .063 -1.29 .03
State Office -.486 .264 .067 -1.01 .03
High School Elementary -.024 .100 .812 -.22 .17
Middle/Inter -.141 .133 .293 -.40 .12
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.769* .328 .020 -1.42 -.12
State Office -.626* .253 .014 -1.13 -.13
Combo
Middle/Inter/High
Elementary .745* .324 .022 .11 1.38
Middle/Inter .629 .336 .063 -.03 1.29
High School .769* .328 .020 .12 1.42
State Office .143 .399 .721 -.64 .93
State Office Elementary .603* .248 .016 .11 1.09
Middle/Inter .486 .264 .067 -.03 1.01
High School .626* .253 .014 .13 1.13
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.143 .399 .721 -.93 .64
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
145
A one-way ANOVA was run for workplace and the teachers’ perception of “in
comparison to other topics I want covered in professional development, cyberbullying is just as
important” F(5, 217) = 3.061, p = .011. These significant findings are in Table 53. Fisher’s LSD
test was done to determine where differences occurred. Post-hoc analysis reported significant
differences between state office and elementary (p = .005), middle or intermediate (p = .021),
high school (p = .001), and combination middle/intermediate/high (p = .040). Participants from
state office (M = 4.57, SD = .535) agreed more than elementary (M = 3.65, SD = .749), middle
or intermediate (M = 3.77, SD = .808), high school (M = 3.51, SD = .904), and combination
middle/intermediate/high (M = 3.50, SD = 1.915) that in comparison with other topics,
cyberbullying is just as important for professional development. Table 54 provides the results.
Table 53
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “In Comparison to Other Topics I Want Covered in My
Professional Development, Cyberbullying is Just as Important” by Workplace
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 10.496 2.099 3.061 .011
Within groups 217 148.805 .686
Total 222 159.300
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
146
Table 54
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “In Comparison to Other Topics I
Want Covered in My Professional Development, Cyberbullying is Just as Important”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Workplace (J) Workplace
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Elementary Middle/Inter -.126 .161 .434 -.44 .19
High School .138 .130 .289 -.12 .39
Combo Middle/Inter/High .145 .422 .730 -.69 .98
State Office -.926* .323 .005 -1.56 -.29
Middle/Inter Elementary .126 .161 .434 -.19 .44
High School .264 .174 .130 -.08 .61
Combo Middle/Inter/High .271 .437 .535 -.59 1.13
State Office -.800* .343 .021 -1.48 -.12
High School Elementary -.138 .130 .289 -.39 .12
Middle/Inter -.264 .174 .130 -.61 .08
Combo Middle/Inter/High .008 .427 .986 -.83 .85
State Office -1.064* .329 .001 -1.71 -.41
Combo
Middle/Inter/High
Elementary -.145 .422 .730 -.98 .69
Middle/Inter -.271 .437 .535 -1.13 .59
High School -.008 .427 .986 -.85 .83
State Office -1.071* .519 .040 -2.09 -.05
State Office Elementary .926* .323 .005 .29 1.56
Middle/Inter .800* .343 .021 .12 1.48
High School 1.064* .329 .001 .41 1.71
Combo Middle/Inter/High 1.071* .519 .040 .05 2.09
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
147
Table 55 presents an ANOVA which communicates significant differences for workplace
and the teachers’ perception of “I need tools to be prepared to manage cyberbullying” F(5, 216)
= 3.745, p = .003. Due to the results, Fisher’s Least Significant Difference was run to determine
significant interactions. Post-hoc analysis showed significant differences between state office
and elementary (p = .030) and high school (p = .045). Participants in state office (M = 4.57, SD =
.787) agreed much more than elementary (M = 3.92, SD = .772) and high school (M = 3.95, SD
= .799) that they need tools to be prepared to manage cyberbullying. Results are displayed in
Table 56.
Table 55
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “I Need Tools to be Prepared to Manage Cyberbullying” by
Workplace
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 11.060 2.212 3.745 .003
Within groups 216 127.576 .591
Total 221 138.635
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
148
Table 56
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “I Need Tools to be Prepared to
Manage Cyberbullying”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Workplace (J) Workplace
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Elementary Middle/Inter -.168 .149 .261 -.46 .13
High School -.036 .120 .763 -.27 .20
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.083 .391 .833 -.85 .69
State Office -.654* .300 .030 -1.24 -.06
Middle/Inter Elementary .168 .149 .261 -.13 .46
High School .132 .161 .414 -.19 .45
Combo Middle/Inter/High .086 .406 .833 -.71 .89
State Office -.486 .318 .128 -1.11 .14
High School Elementary .036 .120 .763 -.20 .27
Middle/Inter -.132 .161 .414 -.45 .19
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.046 .396 .907 -.83 .73
State Office -.618* .306 .045 -1.22 -.02
Combo
Middle/Inter/High
Elementary .083 .391 .833 -.69 .85
Middle/Inter -.086 .406 .833 -.89 .71
High School .046 .396 .907 -.73 .83
State Office -.571 .482 .237 -1.52 .38
State Office Elementary .654* .300 .030 .06 1.24
Middle/Inter .486 .318 .128 -.14 1.11
High School .618* .306 .045 .02 1.22
Combo Middle/Inter/High .571 .482 .237 -.38 1.52
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
149
Significant differences were found between teachers’ perceptions for “students can
emulate the behaviors of teachers” and workplace F(5, 215) = 3.349, p = .006. Table 57
summarizes the results for this ANOVA. Fisher’s LSD test was conducted to find significant
interactions. Post-hoc analysis showed differences between high school and elementary (p =
.002), combination middle/intermediate/high and elementary (p = .007), and state office (p =
.021). Teachers from high school (M = 4.15, SD = .643) agreed much less than elementary (M =
4.45, SD = .601), combination middle/intermediate/high (M = 5.00, SD = .000), and state office
(M = 4.71, SD = .488) that students can emulate the behaviors of teachers. These results are
shown in Table 58.
Table 57
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Students Can Emulate the Behaviors of Teachers” by
Workplace
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 6.183 1.237 3.349 .006
Within groups 215 29.392 .369
Total 220 85.575
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
150
Table 58
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “Students Can Emulate the
Behaviors of Teachers”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Workplace (J) Workplace
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Elementary Middle/Inter .067 .119 .574 -.17 .30
High School .296* .095 .002 .11 .48
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.550 .309 .077 -1.16 .06
State Office -.265 .237 .265 -.73 .20
Middle/Inter Elementary -.067 .119 .574 -.30 .17
High School .229 .129 .077 -.03 .48
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.618 .321 .056 -1.25 .02
State Office -.332 .252 .190 -.83 .17
High School Elementary -.296* .095 .002 -.48 -.11
Middle/Inter -.229 .129 .077 -.48 .03
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.846* .313 .007 -1.46 -.23
State Office -.560* .242 .021 -1.04 -.08
Combo
Middle/Inter/High
Elementary .550 .309 .077 -.06 1.16
Middle/Inter .618 .321 .056 -.02 1.25
High School .846* .313 .007 .23 1.46
State Office .286 .381 .454 -.47 1.04
State Office Elementary .265 .237 .265 -.20 .73
Middle/Inter .332 .252 .190 -.17 .83
High School .560* .242 .021 .08 1.04
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.286 .381 .454 -1.04 .47
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
151
A one-way ANOVA was done for workplace and “when aware of cyberbullying at my
school, I would do nothing” F(5, 216) = 2.223, p = .053. These significant findings are in Table
59. Fisher’s Least Significant Difference test was done to determine where differences occurred.
Post-hoc analysis reported significant differences between elementary and middle or
intermediate (p = .019), and high school (p = .012). Participants from elementary (M = 1.39, SD
= .509) disagreed more than middle or intermediate (M = 1.71, SD = .970), and high school (M =
1.66, SD = .756), that when aware of cyberbullying in school, they would do nothing. Table 60
provides the results.
Table 59
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Cyberbullying at My School, I Would Do
Nothing” by Workplace
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 5.160 1.032 2.223 .053
Within groups 216 100.268 .464
Total 221 105.428
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
152
Table 60
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “When Aware of Cyberbullying at
My School, I Would Do Nothing”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Workplace (J) Workplace
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Elementary Middle/Inter -.315* .134 .019 -.58 -.05
High School -.271* .107 .012 -.48 -.06
Combo Middle/Inter/High .141 .347 .685 -.54 .82
State Office -.181 .266 .497 -.70 .34
Middle/Inter Elementary .315* .134 .019 .05 .58
High School .044 .144 .759 -.24 .33
Combo Middle/Inter/High .456 .360 .207 -.25 1.17
State Office .134 .283 .635 -.42 .69
High School Elementary .271* .107 .012 .06 .48
Middle/Inter -.044 .144 .759 -.33 .24
Combo Middle/Inter/High .412 .351 .242 -.28 1.10
State Office .090 .271 .740 -.44 .62
Combo
Middle/Inter/High
Elementary -.141 .347 .685 -.82 .54
Middle/Inter -.456 .360 .207 -1.17 .25
High School -.412 .351 .242 -1.10 .28
State Office -.321 .427 .452 -1.16 .52
State Office Elementary .181 .266 .497 -.34 .70
Middle/Inter -.134 .283 .635 -.69 .42
High School -.090 .271 .740 -.62 .44
Combo Middle/Inter/High .321 .427 .452 -.52 1.16
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
153
Table 61 presents an ANOVA which display significant differences for workplace and
the teachers’ perception of “when aware of cyberbullying at my school, I would talk with the
cyberbully” F(5, 216) = 3.015, p = .012. Due to the meaningful results, Fisher’s Least Significant
Difference was run to determine significant interactions. Post-hoc analysis showed significant
differences between elementary and middle or intermediate (p = .005) and high school (p =
.002). Participants in elementary (M = 4.19, SD = .710) agreed more than middle or intermediate
(M = 3.74, SD = 1.024) and high school (M = 3.80, SD = .870) that when aware of cyberbullying
at their school, they would talk with the cyberbully. Results are displayed in Table 62.
Table 61
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Cyberbullying at My School, I Would Talk
With the Cyberbully” by Workplace
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 10.045 2.009 3.015 .012
Within groups 216 143.937 .666
Total 221 153.982
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
154
Table 62
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “When Aware of Cyberbullying at
My School, I Would Talk With the Cyberbully”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Workplace (J) Workplace
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Elementary Middle/Inter .456* .160 .005 .14 .77
High School .391* .128 .002 .14 .64
Combo Middle/Inter/High .191 .416 .646 -.63 1.01
State Office -.095 .318 .766 -.72 .53
Middle/Inter Elementary -.456* .160 .005 -.77 -.14
High School -.065 .173 .708 -.41 .28
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.265 .432 .540 -1.12 .59
State Office -.550 .339 .106 -1.22 .12
High School Elementary -.391* .128 .002 -.64 -.14
Middle/Inter .065 .173 .708 -.28 .41
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.200 .421 .635 -1.03 .63
State Office -.486 .325 .136 -1.13 .15
Combo
Middle/Inter/High
Elementary -.191 .416 .646 -1.01 .63
Middle/Inter .265 .432 .540 -.59 1.12
High School .200 .421 .635 -.63 1.03
State Office -.286 .512 .577 -1.29 .72
State Office Elementary .095 .318 .766 -.53 .72
Middle/Inter .550 .339 .106 -.12 1.22
High School .486 .325 .136 -.15 1.13
Combo Middle/Inter/High .286 .512 .577 -.72 1.29
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
155
Similar to teachers’ perceptions for talking to the cyberbully, significant findings were
discovered for talking with the victim. Table 63 presents an ANOVA which displays significant
differences for workplace and the teachers’ perception of “when aware of cyberbullying at my
school, I would talk with the victim” F(5, 216) = 2.454, p = .035. Fisher’s Least Significant
Difference was done to determine significant interactions. Post-hoc analysis showed significant
differences between elementary and middle or intermediate (p = .003), and middle or
intermediate and high school (p = .032). Teachers in elementary (M = 4.27, SD = .676) and high
school (M = 4.17, SD = .675) agreed more than teachers in middle or intermediate (M = 3.82, SD
= 1.114) that when aware of cyberbullying at school they would talk with the victim. These
findings are reported in Table 64.
Table 63
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Cyberbullying at My School, I Would Talk
With the Victim” by Workplace
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 7.066 2.454 .035
Within groups 216 124.362
Total 221 131.428
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
156
Table 64
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “When Aware of Cyberbullying at
My School, I Would Talk With the Victim”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Workplace (J) Workplace
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Elementary Middle/Inter .449* .149 .003 .16 .74
High School .103 .119 .384 -.13 .34
Combo Middle/Inter/High .023 .386 .953 -.74 .78
State Office -.156 .296 .599 -.74 .43
Middle/Inter Elementary -.449* .149 .003 -.74 -.16
High School -.346* .161 .032 -.66 -.03
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.426 .401 .289 -1.22 .36
State Office -.605 .315 .056 -1.23 .02
High School Elementary -.103 .119 .384 -.34 .13
Middle/Inter .346* .161 .032 .03 .66
Combo Middle/Inter/High -.081 .391 .836 -.85 .69
State Office -.259 .302 .391 -.85 .34
Combo
Middle/Inter/High
Elementary -.023 .386 .953 -.78 .74
Middle/Inter .426 .401 .289 -.36 1.22
High School .081 .391 .836 -.69 .85
State Office -.179 .476 .708 -1.12 .76
State Office Elementary .156 .296 .599 -.43 .74
Middle/Inter .605 .315 .056 -.02 1.23
High School .259 .302 .391 -.34 .85
Combo Middle/Inter/High .179 .476 .708 -.76 1.12
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
157
Table 65 presents an ANOVA that contains significant differences for workplace and the
teachers’ perception of “when aware of cyberbullying at my school, I would mediate/problem
solve with the cyberbully and victim” F(5, 216) = 2.291, p = .047. Fisher’s Least Significant
Difference was run to determine significant interactions. Post-hoc analysis showed significant
differences between elementary and high school (p = .004). Participants in elementary (M =
3.96, SD = .938) agreed more than high school (M = 3.80, SD = .870) that when aware of
cyberbullying at their school, they would mediate/problem solve with the cyberbully and victim.
Results are displayed in Table 66.
Table 65
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “When Aware of Cyberbullying at My School, I Would
Mediate / Problem Solve with Cyberbully and Victim” by Workplace
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 5 10.861 2.172 2.291 .047
Within groups 216 204.761 .948
Total 221 216.622
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
158
Table 66
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Workplace of “When Aware of Cyberbullying at
My School, I Would Mediate / Problem Solve with Cyberbully and Victim”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Workplace (J) Workplace
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Elementary Middle/Inter .287 .191 .134 -.09 .66
High School .441* .152 .004 .14 .74
Combo Middle/Inter/High .714 .496 .151 -.26 1.69
State Office -.036 .380 .924 -.78 .71
Middle/Inter Elementary -.287 .191 .134 -.66 .09
High School .153 .206 .457 -.25 .56
Combo Middle/Inter/High .426 .515 .408 -.59 1.44
State Office -.324 .404 .424 -1.12 .47
High School Elementary -.441* .152 .004 -.74 -.14
Middle/Inter -.153 .206 .457 -.56 .25
Combo Middle/Inter/High .273 .502 .587 -.72 1.26
State Office -.477 .387 .220 -1.24 .29
Combo
Middle/Inter/High
Elementary -.714 .496 .151 -1.69 .26
Middle/Inter -.426 .515 .408 -1.44 .59
High School -.273 .502 .587 -1.26 .72
State Office -.750 .610 .220 -1.95 .45
State Office Elementary .036 .380 .924 -.71 .78
Middle/Inter .324 .404 .424 -.47 1.12
High School .477 .387 .220 -.29 1.24
Combo Middle/Inter/High .750 .610 .220 -.45 1.95
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
159
Years of Experience
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine if statistically
meaningful differences existed for teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying and years of
experience. Participants were classified into four groups: fewer than 6 years (n = 35), 6-10 years
(n = 29), 11-20 years (n = 82), and more than 20 years (n = 75). Due to the high volume of
teachers’ perceptions in the survey instrument, only significant findings at the .05 level or less
were reported below.
The following significant differences were discovered between years of experience and
“surveys should be given to students to ask them about being cyberbullied” F(3, 216) = 3.233, p
= .023. Table 67 summarizes the results for this ANOVA. Fisher’s LSD test was done to
determine where significant differences occur. Post-hoc analysis showed differences between
less than 6 years and 11-20 years (p = .014), and 11-20 years and more than 20 years (p = .009).
Participants with fewer than 6 years (M = 4.40, SD = .651) and more than 20 years (M = 4.34,
SD = .763) agreed more than participants with 11-20 years of experience (M = 4.01, SD = .839)
that surveys should be given to students to ask them about their experiences of being
cyberbullied. Results are presented in Table 68.
Table 67
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Surveys Should be Given to Students to Ask Them About
Their Experiences of Being Cyberbullied” by Years of Experience
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 3 5.810 1.937 3.233 .023
Within groups 216 129.390 .599
Total 219 135.200
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
160
Table 68
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Years of Experience of “Surveys Should be Given
to Students to Ask Them About Their Experiences of Being Cyberbullied”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Years of
Experience (J) Years of Experience
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Fewer than 6 years 6-10 years .262 .194 .179 -.12 .65
11-20 years .388* .156 .014 .08 .70
More than 20 years .062 .159 .696 -.25 .38
6-10 years Fewer than 6 years -.262 .194 .179 -.65 .12
11-20 years .126 .167 .453 -.20 .46
More than 20 years -.200 .170 .240 -.53 .13
11-20 years Fewer than 6 years -.388* .156 .014 -.70 -.08
6-10 years -.126 .167 .453 -.46 .20
More than 20 years -.326* .124 .009 -.57 -.08
More than 20 years Fewer than 6 years -.062 .159 .696 -.38 .25
6-10 years .200 .170 .240 -.13 .53
11-20 years .326* .124 .009 .08 .57
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
161
A one-way ANOVA was computed for “establishing a school cyberbullying task force to
develop anti-cyberbullying policies” and years of experience. The ANOVA represented in Table
69 had significant findings, F(3, 213) = 2.70, p = .047. Fisher’s LSD determined where
differences occurred. Post-hoc analysis revealed significant differences between 11-20 years of
experience and more than 20 years (p = .006). Teachers with more than 20 years (M = 3.96, SD
= .841) agreed more than 11-20 years (M = 3.58, SD = .864) that the establishment of a task
force is a strategy to reduce cyberbullying. These findings are presented in Table 70.
Table 69
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — Establish a School
Cyberbullying Task Force to Develop Anti-Cyberbullying Policies” by Years of Experience
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 3 5.822 1.941 2.702 .047
Within groups 213 152.998 .718
Total 216 158.820
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
162
Table 70
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Years of Experience of “Strategy to Reduce
Cyberbullying — Establish a School Cyberbullying Task Force to Develop Anti-Cyberbullying
Policies”
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Years of
Experience (J) Years of Experience
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Fewer than 6 years 6-10 years .036 .215 .868 -.39 .46
11-20 years .277 .171 .108 -.06 .61
More than 20 years -.102 .174 .560 -.45 .24
6-10 years Fewer than 6 years -.036 .215 .868 -.46 .39
11-20 years .241 .186 .196 -.13 .61
More than 20 years -.137 .188 .466 -.51 .23
11-20 years Fewer than 6 years -.277 .171 .108 -.61 .06
6-10 years -.241 .186 .196 -.61 .13
More than 20 years -.379* .137 .006 -.65 -.11
More than 20 years Fewer than 6 years .102 .174 .560 -.24 .45
6-10 years .137 .188 .466 -.23 .51
11-20 years .379* .137 .006 .11 .65
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
163
The ANOVA represented in Table 71 had significant findings for “increased
consequences,” a strategy to reduce cyberbullying, and years of experience F(3, 213) = 3.233, p
= .023. Results of Fisher’s LSD post-hoc tests revealed differences between fewer than 6 years
of experience and more than 20 years (p = .004), and 11-20 years and more than 20 years (p =
.036). Teachers with more than 20 years of experience had a greater mean and standard deviation
(M = 4.38, SD = .615) than teachers with fewer than 6 years (M = 3.97, SD = .857) and 11-20
years (M = 4.15, SD = .654). The statistics suggest that teachers with more than 20 years of
experience agree more that a strategy to reduce cyberbullying is increased consequences than
teachers with less than 6 and 11-20 years of experience. These results are presented in Table 72.
Table 71
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — Increased
Consequences” by Years of Experience
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 3 4.652 1.551 3.233 .023
Within groups 213 102.168 .480
Total 216 106.820
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
164
Table 72
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Years of Experience of “Strategy to Reduce
Cyberbullying — Increased Consequences” by Years of Experience
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Years of
Experience (J) Years of Experience
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Fewer than 6 years 6-10 years -.314 .176 .075 -.66 .03
11-20 years -.177 .140 .209 -.45 .10
More than 20 years -.412* .142 .004 -.69 -.13
6-10 years Fewer than 6 years .314 .176 .075 -.03 .66
11-20 years .138 .152 .366 -.16 .44
More than 20 years -.098 .154 .526 -.40 .21
11-20 years Fewer than 6 years .177 .140 .209 -.10 .45
6-10 years -.138 .152 .366 -.44 .16
More than 20 years -.235* .112 .036 -.46 -.02
More than 20 years Fewer than 6 years .412* .142 .004 .13 .69
6-10 years .098 .154 .526 -.21 .40
11-20 years .235* .112 .036 .02 .46
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
165
A one-way ANOVA was computed for participants’ years of experience and “warning
about consequences” for cyberbullying F(3, 213) = 5.366, p = .001. The findings from the
ANOVA are displayed in Table 73. Due to the significant results, Fisher’s LSD test was run.
Significant differences occurred between 11-20 years and more than 20 years of experience (p =
.010). The mean was larger for more than 20 years of experience (M = 4.44, SD = .577) than 11-
20 years (M = 4.16, SD = .641). The results suggest participants with more than 20 years of
experience agree more than those with 11-20 years that a strategy to reduce cyberbullying is
warning about consequences. The results are presented in Table 74.
Table 73
One-Way Analysis of Variance of “Strategy to Reduce Cyberbullying — Warn About
Consequences for Cyberbullying” by Years of Experience
Source df SS MS F p
Between groups 3 7.084 2.361 5.366 .001
Within groups 213 93.736 .440
Total 216 100.820
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
166
Table 74
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) on Years of Experience of “Strategy to Reduce
Cyberbullying — Warn About Consequences for Cyberbullying” by Years of Experience
95% Confidence Interval
(I) Years of
Experience
(J) Years of
Experience
Mdiff
(I-J) SE p
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Fewer than 6 years 6-10 years -.264 .168 .118 -.60 .07
11-20 years -.246 .134 .068 -.51 .02
More than 20 years -.524* .136 .000 -.79 -.26
6-10 years Fewer than 6 years .264 .168 .118 -.07 .60
11-20 years .018 .145 .901 -.27 .30
More than 20 years -.260 .147 .080 -.55 .03
11-20 years Fewer than 6 years .246 .134 .068 -.02 .51
6-10 years -.018 .145 .901 -.30 .27
More than 20 years -.278* .107 .010 -.49 -.07
More than 20 years Fewer than 6 years .524* .136 .000 .26 .79
6-10 years .260 .147 .080 -.03 .55
11-20 years .278* .107 .010 .07 .49
Note: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
167
Summary
Chapter 4 presented the results of the study through answering the posed research
questions. The following offers a summary of findings for the preliminary analysis and research
questions. First, the preliminary analysis showed out of the 223 participants, 76.2% were female,
32% were between the ages of 45-54, and 56.1% hold a master’s degree. Moreover, 49.6% of
participants are from an elementary school and 31.4% worked in the highest populated city of
Hawaii. Finally, the largest group of participants was subject matter teachers at 58.3% and 37.1%
of the sample taught for 11-20 years.
Research question 1 asked, “What are teachers’ perceptions about cyberbullying?” The
results of the analysis cover various aspects of cyberbullying from the perspective of the teacher
respondents. Overall, the results suggested less than half of teachers feel cyberbullying is a
problem in their schools. However, over a third noted their schools do not effectively address
cyberbullying and almost half do not have a prevention program. The majority of respondents
agreed children are affected by cyberbullying, teachers are concerned about cyberbullying, and
cyberbullying has long lasting negative effects. Next, almost all participants agreed they would
do something if they knew of a cyberbullying occurrence at school. However, less than half of
teachers felt confident in identifying or managing cyberbullying.
A variety of responses were given concerning schools’ role in addressing cyberbullying.
An overwhelming majority of participants felt students should receive counseling to deal with
cyberbullying, schools should discuss cyberbullying with parents, schools should develop
policies on cyberbullying, schools should link with community resources to address
cyberbullying, and television and other media should discuss this issue. Although not as popular
as the previous strategies, many teachers also supported these measures to address cyberbullying:
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
168
surveying students, school assemblies, using school resources to help teachers deal with
cyberbullying, administrators organizing school-wide activities, and professional development
on cyberbullying. Not as favored were forming committees to look at the problem of
cyberbullying, teachers organizing classroom activities and using curriculum to address
cyberbullying.
Following are the results for teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying on training and
professional development. A majority of participants disagreed their professional training
prepared them to deal with cyberbullying. Teachers indicated they need tools to address this
problem, would like to learn more about cyberbullying, and feel in comparison to other
professional development topics, cyberbullying is just as important to learn.
Finally, teachers’ behaviors were investigated. The majority of participants stated they
model positive behavior for students, agreed their behavior affects the behavior and learning of
students, and students can emulate the behaviors of teachers. In contrast, almost a third of
participants admitted they made sarcastic and demeaning comments to students in the past. These
findings will be discussed in relation to the literature in Chapter 5.
Research question 2 stated, “Do teachers’ educational background influence their
perceptions about cyberbullying?” A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine significant
differences, with p < .05, between teachers’ perceptions and educational background. Following,
Fisher’s LSD was run to find significant interactions. The results indicated participants with
doctorates (EdD and PhD) agreed more than participants with bachelor’s degrees that school
assemblies should address cyberbullying. In addition, teachers with EdDs agreed more than those
with bachelor’s and master’s degrees that students can emulate the behaviors of teachers. Finally,
although the ANOVA produced significant findings with p < .05 for educational background and
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
169
the teachers’ perception of when aware of cyberbullying at or away from school I would do
nothing, Fisher’s LSD revealed no significant differences. No other studies have examined the
differences between educational background and teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying. These
findings will be aligned with the existing literature in the next chapter.
Research question 3 asked, “What intervention and prevention strategies do teachers
agree would address cyberbullying?” Findings were uncovered for teachers’ perceptions of
intervention strategies at and away from school, as well as prevention measures they would take
to address cyberbullying. First, differences existed between interventions occurring at school and
away from school. Teachers would address the problem more if the cyberbullying occurrence
happened on campus versus away from school. Participants indicated they would be more
inclined to talk with the cyberbully and talk with the victim if the occurrence happened at school
rather than away from school. Moreover, teachers agreed more they would report the incident to
the parents of the cyberbully and victim if cyberbullying happened at school versus when
cyberbullying arose outside of school grounds. A little over half of participants agreed if
cyberbullying arose in school, they would take away the cyberbully’s privileges and problem
solve with the cyberbully and victim. Nevertheless, less than half of teachers would do the same
if cyberbullying took place away from school. The highest rated intervention strategy was
reporting the incident to school administrators for occurrences on and off campus. Also,
participants were given the opportunity to comment on other intervention strategies not listed. It
was worth noting police and counselors were mentioned as methods to address cyberbullying.
Teachers’ perceptions on cyberbullying prevention strategies were investigated in this
study. Participants supported increased parental involvement, followed by increased
administrator involvement, and facilitate school climate encouraging students to report
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
170
cyberbullying. Next were warn about consequences, increased consequences, establish classroom
anti-bully lessons, and more specific policies. Over three fourths of participants supported these
prevention measures: schools should encourage bystanders to stand up against cyberbullies,
school-wide anti-bullying assemblies, increased teacher involvement, and social-emotional
learning programs. Less favorable prevention strategies were professional development for
teachers, school cyberbullying taskforce to develop anti-bullying policies, and increased
supervision in certain areas. Similar to the intervention results, police and counselors were added
by participants as prevention strategies.
Finally, other significant findings were discovered by running a one-way ANOVA
between independent variables such as age, gender, workplace, and years of experience with
teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying. To determine where specific differences occur, Fisher’s
LSD was run for findings with p < .05. First, significant results were discovered between
teachers’ perceptions and age. Younger participants between the ages of 35-44 did not feel as
confident in their ability to manage cyberbullying as those who were 65 and older. Teachers who
were 25-34 and 55-64 agreed more than 35-44 year olds that schools should develop policies on
cyberbullying. Similarly, ages 55-64 supported this measure more than 45-54 year olds.
Participants between 55-64 favored school resources should be used to assist teachers in dealing
with cyberbullying more than 35-44 and 45-54 year olds. Younger teachers ages 25-34 agreed
more than 35-44, 55-64, and 65 and over that they would problem solve with the cyberbully and
victim when aware of a cyberbullying occurrence away from school. When asked about
increased supervision as a strategy to reduce cyberbullying, participants 25-34, 45-54, and 65
and over supported this approach more than ages 35-44. Ages 45 and over agreed more than 25-
44 year olds on warning about consequences as a strategy to decrease cyberbullying.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
171
Next, significant findings were found for gender and teachers’ perceptions. Females
disagreed more than males with the statements cyberbullying toughens kids up, and prepares
students for life. Females agreed more than males that students should receiving counseling to
deal with cyberbullying, and the behavior of teachers affect the behavior and learning of
students. More males than females have made sarcastic or demeaning comments to students in
the past. Females strongly disagreed more than males they would do nothing if aware of
cyberbullying at and away from school. Finally, more females than males agreed specific school
policies and anti-bully lessons would reduce cyberbullying, and schools should encourage
bystanders to stand up against cyberbullying.
Teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying and workplace showed significant findings.
Participants from middle and high school disagreed more than elementary that their schools
effectively address cyberbullying. Middle school and state office participants showed more
concern about cyberbullying than elementary and high schools. Participants from state office and
middle school agreed more that schools should use professional development days to train staff
on cyberbullying than those from elementary, high school, and combination
middle/intermediate/high. Also, middle and high school supported training more than
combination middle/intermediate/high school. Next, it was found that teachers from middle
school agreed more than high school that students should receive counseling to deal with
cyberbullying. Similarly, teachers from state offices strongly agreed to this strategy more than
those from elementary, high school, and combination middle/intermediate/high. Elementary and
middle school participants agreed more than high school that teachers should organize classroom
activities to deal with cyberbullying, but agreed less than state office on this issue. Following,
teachers from combination middle/intermediate/high and state office agreed more than
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
172
elementary, middle, and high that schools should discuss cyberbullying with parents. In regards
to television and other media should address cyberbullying, combination
middle/intermediate/high and state office participants support this strategy more than elementary
and high schools. State office teachers agreed more with the importance of professional
development for cyberbullying than teachers from all other workplaces. Additionally, state office
teachers agreed much more than elementary and high school that they need tools to better
prepare them to deal with cyberbullying. Elementary, combination middle/intermediate/high, and
state office support the statement that students can emulate the behaviors of teachers more than
participants from high school. Participants from elementary disagreed more than middle or high
that when aware of cyberbullying in school, they would do nothing and agreed more that they
would talk with the cyberbully. Also, teachers from elementary and high agreed they would talk
with the victim more than teachers from middle and intermediate schools. The strategy of
mediation between cyberbully and victim reported results showing elementary agreed more with
this method than middle or high.
Significant findings were discovered between years of experience and teachers’
perceptions. Participants with fewer than 6 and more than 20 years agreed more than participants
with 11-20 years that surveys should be given to students to ask them about their experiences of
being cyberbullied. Subsequently, teachers with more than 20 years supported more than those
with 11-20 years of experience the establishment of a task force and warning about consequences
as strategies to reduce cyberbullying. Similarly, participants with more than 20 years agreed
more with increased consequences for cyberbullying than participants with less than 6 years and
11-20 years.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
173
In summary, Chapter 4 provided a detailed analysis of the findings for this study. Results
focused on teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying, teachers’ perceptions and educational
background, intervention and prevention strategies, and other significant findings for
cyberbullying. The results led to key findings on teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying. First, a
third of teachers agreed cyberbullying is a problem in schools. Second, schools are not
effectively addressing cyberbullying and do not have prevention programs. Third, teachers are
concerned about cyberbullying and believe this problem affect students. Fourth, teachers lack
confidence in identifying and managing cyberbullying. Fifth, participants feel their teacher
training did not prepare them to deal with cyberbullying and request more professional
development. Sixth, although the majority of teachers agree their behavior affects the behavior
and learning of students, and students can emulate the behaviors of teachers, a fourth of
respondents agreed they made demeaning comments to students. Finally, teachers support
schools’ role in addressing cyberbullying and indicate specific intervention and prevention
strategies in response. Chapter 5 provides a discussion of these results, limitations, implications
for practice, and suggestions for future research.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
174
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
In today’s society, adolescents experience an increasing access to technology. The usages
of the Internet and cell phones are commonplace for communication between peers. However,
greater access to digital media has both negative and positive aspects. One negative characteristic
is cyberbullying, the harassment of others through the use of electronic communication (Li,
2008). Approximately 42% of youth surveyed in 2012-2013 were victims of cyberbullying
(NCPC, 2007). Teachers have a vital role in addressing this problem (Eden et al., 2013).
Understanding teachers’ perceptions and beliefs regarding cyberbullying is essential in order to
help develop skills to address cyberbullying in schools and assist students (Stauffer et al., 2012).
While there are studies of teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying, no research exists on teachers’
perceptions of cyberbullying in Hawaii. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine Hawaii
public school teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying.
This study examined teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying, investigated if teachers’
educational background influences their perceptions about cyberbullying, and determined what
intervention and prevention strategies teachers agree would address cyberbullying. Moreover,
other significant findings with p < .05 between teachers’ perceptions and independent variables
not noted in the initial research questions were discovered and discussed. A quantitative study
was employed, which utilized descriptive statistics, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA),
and Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD). The present study was formulated to answer the
following research questions:
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
175
1. What are teachers’ perceptions about cyberbullying?
2. Do teachers’ educational background influence their perceptions about
cyberbullying?
3. What intervention and prevention strategies do teachers agree would address
cyberbullying?
To answer these questions, data was collected from teachers’ union representative meetings
across the state of Hawaii. Online and paper surveys were disseminated to participants and SPSS
was used for statistical analysis. This chapter provides a discussion of the findings including
limitations of the study, implications for practice, and suggestions for future research.
Discussion of Findings
The following section contains a discussion of the findings for this study. Specifically,
four areas are highlighted: teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying, teachers’ perceptions and
educational background, interventions and prevention strategies, and other findings. Each theme
describes the findings, provides discussion, and links to existing literature. Finally, limitations
for this research are presented.
Teachers’ Perceptions of Cyberbullying
Findings were discovered for teachers’ perceptions of the following areas: cyberbullying
at schools, effects of cyberbullying, teachers’ confidence in managing cyberbullying, schools’
roles in addressing cyberbullying, training and professional development, and behaviors of
teachers. The following sections provide a discussion for these areas.
First, results of the descriptive statistics indicated that over a third of participants agreed,
“cyberbullying is a problem” at their schools. Previous research indicating cyberbullying was an
issue in schools supports the present study. Between 65-72% of teachers surveyed agreed
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
176
cyberbullying is a dilemma on campus (Eden et al., 2013). Furthermore, participants felt their
schools do not effectively address cyberbullying. To date, no other studies examine teachers’
perceptions on the handling of cyberbullying instances on campus. Finally, over half of
participants noted their schools do not have a prevention program. Although no previous
research examined teachers’ perceptions on existing prevention programs, studies have shown
many approaches have been advocated through the establishment of laws, policies, curriculum,
and technological advances. Over 44 states have anti-bullying legislation and a handful such as
North Carolina, Missouri, Ohio, and Virginia created specific cyberbullying laws (Snakenborg et
al., 2011). However, research has found no peer-reviewed empirical studies on intervention and
prevention programs for cyberbullying. The findings that cyberbullying is a problem in schools,
and schools do not effectively address this issue could be due to the lack of prevention programs
on campus, which was indicated by respondents. If intervention and prevention strategies are
non-existent in schools, teachers may face increasing challenges in dealing with this problem.
Next, teachers’ perceptions and the effects of cyberbullying found the majority of
participants are “concerned about cyberbullying” and believe children are affected by this
phenomenon. Even though previous research has shown teachers are concerned about
cyberbullying (Eden et al., 2013; Li, 2008; Yilmaz, 2010), the present study’s percentages were
significantly higher. Stauffer et al. (2012) found approximately 75% of participants believed
cyberbullying has long lasting negative effects. The present study showed a greater percentage
for this perception than previous research. With regard to teachers’ perceptions for cyberbullying
toughens kids up and prepares students for life, previous research indicated these views were
representative of a small percentage of respondents (Stauffer et al., 2012). This study supports
those findings and reports an even smaller number of teachers who agreed with those statements.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
177
These findings suggest Hawaii participants may be more concerned and empathetic to
cyberbullying occurrences than respondents in previous studies.
Following, results for teachers’ confidence in managing cyberbullying discovered almost
all participants agreed they would “do something” if cyberbullying happened at school. In
contrast, less than half of the respondents felt confident in identifying cyberbullying and only
one fourth were confident in managing cyberbullying. Previous research supports the present
study by indicating teachers would do something if they knew of cyberbullying happening at
school (Stauffer et al., 2012). The body of research on confidence in identifying and managing
cyberbullying showed less than half of teachers agreed that they were confident in identifying
and managing this problem (Eden et al., 2013; Li, 2008; Yilmaz, 2010). The results of the
current study imply participants would address cyberbullying if they knew it was happening,
which supports the previous finding that the majority of respondents were concerned about
cyberbullying. If teachers’ confidence is limited in identifying and managing cyberbullying, they
may avoid the issue or handle the situation inappropriately. Lack of assurance by teachers could
be due to limited or no professional development and training on cyberbullying.
Regarding the roles schools have in addressing cyberbullying, results indicate
participants supported counseling, discussions with parents, instituting cyberbullying policies,
and linking with the community. Least favorable roles were those impacting the teachers’
classroom such as utilization of curriculum and organizing activities to address cyberbullying.
Previous research showed most teachers (70-86%) agreed schools have a responsibility in
dealing with cyberbullying for the measures listed above (Eden et al., 2013). The present study
indicated a range of percentages slightly lower and higher than previous research (54-96%). The
lack of support for addressing cyberbullying in classrooms could be owed to the increasing
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
178
responsibilities of teachers across the state. Participants may feel counselors, administrators,
parents, and communities must also contribute to decreasing this problem.
Results for teachers’ perceptions on training and professional development indicated an
overwhelming majority of participants felt their teacher training did not prepare them to address
cyberbullying. Despite this occurrence, many would like to learn more about cyberbullying and
how to deal with this problem. Research supports the present study that a minimal percentage of
participants agreed their professional training prepared them to deal with cyberbullying (Li,
2008; Yilmaz, 2010). In addition, previous research showed over half of participants agreed
cyberbullying is an important issue and should be studied by teachers (Eden et al., 2013). This
supports the present study that teachers need tools to address cyberbullying and would like to
learn more about this topic. Participants in the current study who did not graduate from college
within the past several years may not have been privy to cyberbullying prevention or training.
These respondents as well as those requesting additional training see the importance for this type
of professional development. Teachers recognize cyberbullying is a growing problem that
requires their attention.
Lastly, results for the behaviors of teachers indicated the majority model positive
behavior for students. Moreover, participants agreed their “behaviors affect the behaviors and
learning of students” and “students can emulate the behaviors of teachers.” Although most
participants supported the positive behaviors of teachers as their actions can affect students, over
a fourth made “sarcastic and demeaning comments to students in the past.” This incongruity may
be a result of teachers feeling the need to respond in a similar fashion in order to gain students’
respect. Acceptance however, my come at a heavy price if students mimic the behaviors of
teachers and convey demeaning comments to classmates. Previous research indicates children’s
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
179
behaviors are shaped through interaction with people around them (Li, 2008). Schools itself can
promote violence through its faculty and administration (Stoudt, 2007). Social Cognitive Theory
provides a basis whereby youth should be provided with model behaviors in which they are
expected to acquire (Bandura, 1986; Denler et al., 2014). Teachers who make demeaning
remarks to students may foster students behaving the same way towards others. Teachers are in a
prime position to model actions they wish students to follow.
Teachers’ Perceptions and Educational Background
Significant findings were discovered between teachers’ perceptions and educational
background. Results from the ANOVA and Fisher’s LSD indicated teachers with doctorates
agreed more than teachers with bachelor’s degrees that “school assemblies should be used to
address cyberbullying.” This discovery may be due to the low number of teachers with
doctorates in this study (less than 10%) compared to the majority of participants with bachelor’s
and master’s degrees (over 90%). Also, those with doctorates may have more years of experience
teaching and hold different views on the effectiveness of school assemblies. Next, participants
with doctorates, specifically EdDs, agreed more than those with bachelor’s and master’s degrees
that “students can emulate the behaviors of teachers.” This finding may be due to the additional
knowledge gained by those who enroll in a doctoral program. The researcher for this study
acquired new behavioral skills and became more empathetic after completing doctoral courses.
Finally, the ANOVA revealed significant findings for the teachers’ perception of “when aware of
cyberbullying at or away from school I would do nothing;” however, further analysis by Fisher’s
LSD, produced no significant differences. While existing research focused on teachers’
perceptions, no other studies examined the differences between teachers’ perceptions and
educational background.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
180
Intervention and Prevention Strategies
Regarding teachers’ perceptions for intervention and prevention strategies, the data
revealed the following discoveries. First, results indicated the majority of participants supported
“reporting incidences to administrators” and most would “do something if aware of
cyberbullying happening on school grounds.” Additionally, teachers would enlist intervention
strategies more if the cyberbullying incident happened at school rather than away from campus.
Because administrators, specifically Vice-Principals in Hawaii handle student offenses, teachers
may be further inclined to immediately hand over the cyberbullying problems to these
individuals. Previous research showed when cyberbullying occurs at school, teachers favor
reporting the incident to administrators (Stauffer et al., 2012). The present study supports this
research. Following, studies have shown when cyberbullying happens outside of school, teachers
were more likely to do nothing or ignore the problem (Stauffer et al., 2012). The findings in this
study do not support previous research, as the majority of participants in this study would do
something if cyberbullying occurred off campus. However the percentages are lower than if
cyberbullying took place on school grounds.
Next, over three fourths of participants supported cyberbullying prevention measures.
Research has shown over half of teachers believed prevention programs are needed (Stauffer et
al., 2012). Therefore, findings suggest the present study’s participants support prevention
measures more than existing research. This could be due to the previous result found in this
research that many schools did not have a prevention program. In addition, relevant curriculum
to address cyberbullying may be non-existent in schools. Furthermore, the prevention strategies
teachers supported the most for the current study included increased parental involvement, more
action from administrators, and encouraging students to report cyberbullying. These results are
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
181
not consistent with existing literature, which indicates teachers believe the most helpful
prevention strategies were increased parental involvement, warning about consequences, and
increased consequences. The teachers in this study may not have ranked warning about
consequences and increased consequences as high as participants in previous research because
Hawaii already has a statute for bullying offenses called Chapter 19 (State of Hawaii Board of
Education, 2001). Additionally, the current study’s participants may feel punishments such as
suspension reflected in Chapter 19, are not the remedy for this problem. Thus, the present study’s
findings could reflect teachers’ perceptions that prevention measures should encompass a whole
school and community approach in addressing the issue of cyberbullying.
Other Findings
Results of the ANOVA and Fisher’s LSD found significant differences between teachers’
perceptions and age, gender, workplace, and years of experience. First, in regards to age,
younger participants were not as confident in managing cyberbullying than participants ages 65
and older. As noted in the previous section, this could be due to lack of experience and
knowledge in dealing with cyberbullying. Both 25-34 and 55-64 year olds supported the
development of policies on cyberbullying more than those ages 35-54. Although there are rules
outlining consequences for cyberbullying in schools, there is no other statewide formal policies
or procedures for teachers to follow in Hawaii. In addition, participants 55-65 years of age
supported the strategy for school resources should be used to assist teachers in dealing with
cyberbullying more than 35-54 year olds. This may be due to less experience with social media
and technology for this age group. The need for resources in dealing with this relatively new
form of bullying may be required for these teachers. Younger teachers ages 25-34 were more apt
to problem solve with the cyberbully and victim when the occurrence took place outside of
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
182
school than those ages 35-44 and 55 and older. This younger group of teachers appears to be
more willing to step in for cyberbullying occurrences outside of school grounds. Perhaps this is
due to a more altruistic nature and concern for their students. In addition, younger teachers may
be more comfortable and familiar with social media than their older counterparts. All age groups
except 35-44 favored increased supervision. The majority of participants may feel their schools
require more security, especially in common areas where students may feel unsafe such as
cafeterias, restrooms, hallways, playgrounds, and stairwells. Finally, participants ages 45 and
over agreed more than younger participants 25-44 on warning about consequences as a strategy
to decrease cyberbullying. This could be due to teachers in older age groups who experienced
traditional methods of discipline when they were attending school. Many may hold the opinion
what was good for them, is good for their students. While the field of research has focused on
teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying, no other studies have examined the relationship between
teachers’ perceptions and age.
Next, the study’s findings for teachers’ perceptions and gender are discussed. Overall,
females disagreed more than males that “cyberbullying toughens kids up,” “prepares students for
life,” and they would “do nothing if cyberbullying occurred at or away from school.” Moreover,
females more than males support strategies to reduce cyberbullying. Consequently, males more
than females made demeaning comments to students. Previous research on gender differences
with regard to teachers’ perceptions supports this study. Research has shown females were more
concerned about cyberbullying than males (Yilmaz, 2010). Although previous studies showed
males have a relatively higher level of awareness of cyberbullying than females (Sezer et al.,
2015), male teachers did not consider cyberbullying a problem, did not feel it was their
responsibility to address the issue, ignored instances of cyberbullying, and blamed the victim
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
183
(DeSmet et al., 2015). Therefore, the present study supports previous research in regards to
females exhibiting more concern and empathy about cyberbullying than males.
The ANOVA and Fisher’s LSD indicated significant differences for teachers’ perceptions
of cyberbullying and workplace. Teachers from middle and high schools disagreed more than
elementary that their schools effectively address cyberbullying. This could be due to the higher
prevalence of cyberbullying in middle and high schools than elementary. Because aggression
increases during middle school years, cyberbullying often peaks at this time (Li, 2006; Burnham
& Wright, 2012). Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) state although studies suggest cyberbullying occurs
more in middle school, some research found escalating rates in high schools. Furthermore,
middle school participants showed more concern about cyberbullying and supported professional
development on this growing problem than participants from elementary and high schools.
Additionally, teachers from middle school agreed more than high school that counseling is
needed as well as “teachers should organize classroom activities to deal with cyberbullying.”
According to Mishna et al. (2010), approximately 50% of junior high school students experience
cyberbullying. Furthermore, male students have a tendency to bully more than females with the
behavior peaking in middle school (Craig et al., 2007). The findings of the present study suggest
middle school teachers disagreed that their schools effectively address cyberbullying. Perhaps
that is why middle school teachers in the present study exhibited concern for cyberbullying and
supported the following measures more than other workplaces: professional development,
counseling, and organizing classroom activities to address cyberbullying. Additionally, middle
school teachers may express more concern because of the developmental nature of middle school
students. No other research has examined the connection between teachers’ perceptions and
workplace.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
184
Lastly, significant results appeared between teachers’ perceptions and years of
experience. Teachers who worked less than 6 years and more than 20 agreed more than those
who were employed between 11-20 years that surveys should be given to students to ask them
about cyberbullying experiences. The lack of support by teachers with 11-20 years of experience
could be due to an increasing number of surveys required by schools, districts, and state level on
various initiatives. Those teachers may be exhausted from an over abundance of surveys to
complete. Following, teachers with more than 20 years of experience supported the
“establishment of a task force” and “increased consequences” more than those with 11-20 years
of service. The reasoning behind these findings may be a result of teachers’ past experiences of
when they attended school or what they learned in their teacher preparation programs. No other
studies examined the relationship between teachers’ perceptions and years of experience.
Limitations
The present study has several limitations. First, the study was limited to participants who
were teachers’ union representatives and may not fully illustrate all K-12 teachers across the
state. Second, the study was limited to teachers who voluntarily agreed to participate. Surveys
were disseminated to six islands in Hawaii. Due to geographic limitations, the researcher was not
able to travel to all islands to address participants and deploy the survey. The researcher deferred
the task of disseminating surveys to union directors on neighboring islands. Therefore, the
responses decreased or increased according to the directors’ message to participants for
completion of the survey. Third, there was a limited amount of time to conduct the survey since
union representative meetings occurred only several times throughout the year. Fourth, the
majority of participants were females so the male population was underrepresented. The results
may have been different if an increased number of males participated in the study. Fifth, almost
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
185
half of respondents were from elementary schools. Results may have been different if more
middle and high school teachers participated. Finally, utilization of only a survey method
presented a limitation. Future studies should employ the use of qualitative measures to gain a
better understanding of teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying.
Implications for Practice
Many studies exist on the impact of cyberbullying on students. However, there is limited
research on teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying in K-12 schools. The findings in the present
study build upon the existing literature regarding teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying. The
study informs the practice for teachers and administrators in the field of education. The results
gathered have five implications for future practice. The first recommendation is providing
professional development for faculty and staff on identifying and managing cyberbullying as
well as offering student support. The second recommendation is affording training for faculty
and staff on social emotional learning. The third recommendation is establishing intervention and
prevention strategies at schools. The fourth recommendation is involving teachers,
administrators, parents, students, and community in addressing the problem of cyberbullying.
The final recommendation is creating cyberbullying legislation and policy at the state and school
levels.
The first recommendation for practice is providing professional development on
cyberbullying for faculty and staff. Specifically, training should be given on identifying and
managing cyberbullying. In addition, teachers need information on supporting students. This
addresses the findings that less than half of teachers did not feel confident in handling
cyberbullying and less than one fourth felt confident in managing cyberbullying. In the present
study, younger participants were not as confident in managing cyberbullying than those ages 65
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
186
and older. Perhaps this lack of confidence was due in part to limited teacher training on
cyberbullying, which was indicated in the findings of this research. The majority of participants
in this study indicated they would like to learn more on how to address this problem.
Specifically, teachers from middle schools more than other workplaces agreed professional
development is needed to deal with this concern. Previous research indicated the majority of
educators do not appropriately handle cyberbullying (DeSmet et al., 2015). Studies recommend
the need for a customized approached to cyberbullying training. According to Beale and Hall
(2007), schools should offer continuous professional development for teachers and staff to foster
the skills of recognizing, understanding, and addressing cyberbullying (Beale & Hall, 2007;
Siris, 2012). Similarly, Akbulut and Çuhadar (2011) state awareness raising activities on
cyberbullying would increase teacher competence (Akbulut & Çuhadar, 2011). Research
suggests teachers desire further training on how to effectively handle this issue (Graves, 2013).
While professional development should be provided to all grade levels, additional targeted
training must be given to middle schools. Since previous research indicated cyberbullying peaks
during middle school (Li, 2006), those years are the most appropriate time for systemic whole
school programming to take place (Ockerman et al., 2014). Training will provide teachers the
opportunity to learn how to properly address cyberbullying instances when brought to their
attention (Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011). Furthermore, prevention and intervention strategies should
be linked to curriculum and evidence-based practices. Thus, professional development will
contribute towards increasing teachers’ confidence in identifying and managing cyberbullying.
The second recommendation for practice requires teacher training in social emotional
learning with an emphasis on empathy. This speaks to the finding that over a fourth of
participants made sarcastic and demeaning comments to students in the past. More males than
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
187
females made derogatory comments to students. Although the vast majority of participants in the
present study realized their behaviors affect the behaviors and learning of students, the need for
professional development on social emotional learning is vital for teachers that admitted they
make derogatory remarks to students. Moreover, many teachers in the present study agreed
“students can emulate the behaviors of teachers.” A significant finding showed that participants
with doctorates, specifically EdDs, agreed students emulate the behaviors of teachers more than
those with bachelor’s or master’s degrees. Training on social emotional skills is imperative as the
bulk of teachers held bachelor’s or master’s degrees. Many times adults fail to nurture attitudes
such as empathy and responsibility, skills essential in a civic society (MacKay, 2012). Negative
behavior in the form of demeaning comments can take a social emotional toll on the welfare of
adolescents (Halpern et al., 2015). Thus, teachers play a crucial role in teaching social emotional
competencies to students as well as how to positively engage in human relationships (MacKay,
2012). According to Hinduja and Patchin (2014), a school climate that is positive contributes to
cyberbullying prevention. Students need a safe, supportive, and empowering learning
environment to be successful in school, at home, and in friendships (Reyes et al., 2012).
Furthermore, students will benefit from emotional literacy through acquiring skills of
identifying, understanding, regulating, and communicating emotion (Siris, 2012). Professional
development should be connected to researched based curriculum that focuses in this area.
Therefore, training on social emotional learning and the importance of empathy will address the
findings of teachers degrading students and students emulating the behaviors of teachers.
The third recommendation for practice is for the establishment of interventions and
prevention measures at schools. This speaks to the finding that schools do not effectively address
cyberbullying. In comparison to elementary school participants, more middle school teachers
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
188
disagreed their schools effectively addressed cyberbullying. Additionally, implementing
strategies to combat cyberbullying will address the finding that over three fourths of participants
agreed prevention programs are needed. Teachers are essential for cyberbullying intervention
and prevention (Burnham & Wright, 2012; Chen & Wei, 2011; Ockerman et al., 2014). Guerra et
al. (2012) state the need for effective prevention measures for cyberbullying is critical, given the
potentially harmful effects on students. Studies show prevention programs in schools make the
strongest impact on cyberbullying and anti-social behavior (Abrams, 2012; Couvillon & Ilieva,
2011). Therefore, establishment of intervention and prevention strategies must be instituted in
schools such as the formation of rules and policies regulating media use, implementation of
curriculum programs addressing cyberbullying, supports for students, and technological methods
to prevent cyberbullying (Snakenborg et al., 2011).
The fourth recommendation for practice is implementing intervention and prevention
strategies that involve all parties coming together to address cyberbullying. Teachers cannot face
this problem alone. Administrators, students, parents, and community members must be active
participants. This is in alignment with the findings of this study that teachers support a multitude
of intervention and prevention strategies including: increased administrator involvement,
counseling, encouraging students to report cyberbullying, more parental involvement, and
partnering with the community. Abrams (2012) states schools’ commitment to address
cyberbullying should begin with garnering support from parents, personnel, and the community.
Furthermore, researchers suggest administrators, teachers, counselors, and families collaborate in
developing a whole-school system approach to reducing cyberbullying (Ockerman et al., 2014).
Administrators can lead the way in establishing a comprehensive plan for bringing cyberbullying
out of the shadows and to the attention of teachers, parents, and staff (Willard, 2005). Eden et al.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
189
(2013) suggest schools work with parents and community in tackling this problem. Next,
counseling and mentoring support must be provided for victims, bullies, and bystanders
(Feinberg & Robey, 2008). Beale and Hall (2007) suggest creating a school climate where
students feel safe in reporting cyberbullying instances. Also of critical importance is the role of
parents. Studies have shown students are more likely to cyberbully if there is a lack of parental
monitoring of online usage (Vandebosch & Cleemput, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Since
cyberbullying occurs more off campus than at school (Burnham & Wright, 2012), parents must
be aware of their child’s electronic communication. Previous research found when parents
communicate that cyberbullying behaviors are inappropriate; youth are less inclined to
participate in those behaviors (Hinduja & Patchin, 2013). Finally, shared responsibility with the
community is necessary in preventing cyberbullying (Ockerman et al., 2014; Stauffer et al.,
2012). The results of a study by Li (2006) indicate cyberbullying is becoming an increasingly
serious problem that requires the attention of not only schools and parents but also the
community as a whole. Community stakeholders must be aware of this growing concern and
provide resources and support (Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011). Therefore, intervention and prevention
strategies require the involvement of schools, parents, and community in addressing the growing
problem of cyberbullying.
The last recommendation for practice is the enactment of cyberbullying legislation and
policies by the State of Hawaii and Hawaii State Department of Education. This addresses the
finding that participants want more specific policies that would help reduce cyberbullying in
schools. Other than Chapter 19 in the Hawaii Administrative Rules, no formal policy within the
State or HIDOE exists (State of Hawaii Board of Education, 2001). Moreover, Chapter 19 only
pertains to offenses and punishment; no strategies for intervention and prevention are noted. The
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
190
HIDOE website has a page dedicated to bullying, but contains minimal information on
cyberbullying. State laws on cyberbullying should be passed by the legislature. Already a
handful of states across the nation such as North Carolina, Missouri, Ohio, and Virginia enacted
cyberbullying legislation (Snakenborg et al., 2011). Furthermore, Iowa passed an anti-bullying
law that encompasses electronic media (Lane, 2011). California’s Governor passed a bill in
September 2016, which expands the definition of cyberbullying to include cyber sexual bullying
and using videos to harass or humiliate others (Bollag, 2016). California public schools consider
cyberbullying an expellable offense. Authorities feel schools should develop policies to address
this growing concern. Therefore, lawmakers must establish cyberbullying policies to provide
students a safe environment in which to grow and learn. In addition, since Hawaii encompasses
one school district, the Hawaii State Department of Education’s Office of Strategy, Innovation,
and Performance and the Office of Curriculum, Instruction and Student Support should work
towards establishing statewide policy and procedures in addressing cyberbullying across all
schools.
Future Research
The present study focused on teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying in Hawaii public
schools. Specifically, the following areas were explored: teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying,
teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying and educational background, and intervention and
prevention strategies. The current research is a starting point in a study of a phenomenon that is
increasing each year. Based on the results, the following five areas should be considered for
future research.
First, although numerous school wide prevention programs are in existence (Couvillon &
Ilieva, 2011), there are no peer-reviewed empirical studies for intervention and prevention
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
191
systems for cyberbullying (Snakenborg et al., 2011). In depth research and evaluation of current
cyberbullying prevention programs is required to determine the effectiveness of these strategies.
With many companies marketing their anti-cyberbullying curriculum, future studies should
investigate the relevance and reliability of these products. This effort will save time and funding
for school districts. Moreover, this study found the majority of participants supported the
implementation of cyberbullying prevention measures. Specifically, teachers desired increased
parent and administrator involvement as well as counseling for students. The current study did
not examine how to reach these initiatives. Future research on prevention can focus on strategies
to improve parent and administrator participation as well as effective counseling methods to
assist students.
Next, the current study focused on teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying in Hawaii.
Future research should explore the perceptions of students, administrators, and parents in the
State as no other study has yet to be conducted. First, given that over 90% of teens have access to
the Internet, there is cause for concern of increased cyberbullying instances (Lenhart et al.,
2010). Furthermore, studies show a third of students were victimized by cyberbullying across the
nation (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). The benefit of research on student perceptions will provide
schools with vital information to address this problem. Next, administrators are crucial to the
prevention of cyberbullying (Beale & Hall, 2007). These individuals can set forth policies and
garner support from staff, students, and parents (Feinberg & Robey, 2008). Future research on
administrator perceptions will provide much needed information on views held by this group.
Lastly, since cyberbullying occurs more off campus than at school, parents play an important
role in combating this issue (Bauman et al., 2008; Burnham & Wright, 2012). Researching
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
192
parents’ perceptions on cyberbullying would be beneficial in determining their roles,
responsibilities, and commitment to facing this dilemma.
The present study discovered the need for teachers’ professional development on
cyberbullying. According to Beale and Hall (2007) and Siris (2012), professional development
must assist in developing skills to identify, comprehend, and tackle cyberbullying. Future
research can explore various aspects for training. First, investigation of teacher preparation
programs should be done to determine if and what types of cyberbullying training is covered in
their coursework. Eden et al. (2013) found pre-service teachers who may appear technology
savvy, report having limited training on safety. Second, a comparison study could be conducted
on existing cyberbullying professional development programs for schools. Third, investigation
on teachers’ perceptions after training would reveal if confidence levels increased for their
ability to identify and manage cyberbullying occurrences. The present study found teachers lack
of confidence in these areas. Fourth, further research could determine if rates of cyberbullying
decrease in schools after implementation of professional development training.
Additionally, the present quantitative study provided a breadth of information on
teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying. Future studies could incorporate a qualitative
methodology that provides a depth of responses. A qualitative analysis of teachers’ perceptions
would be beneficial in disclosing experiences in dealing with cyberbullying including reactions,
responses, and beliefs. Face to face interactions with participants in a school setting may provide
a clearer understanding of the problem. Data generated through qualitative measures would offer
more detailed information on the predicament of cyberbullying, teachers’ confidence in
addressing this concern, as well as what intervention and prevention strategies they feel most
appropriate for their schools.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
193
Finally, future research should investigate worldwide policies addressing cyberbullying.
Specifically, studies on the prevalence of cyberbullying and global initiatives should be
considered. Beran and Li (2005) found over a fourth of students in a Canadian middle school
experienced cyberbullying. In another Canadian study by Li (2006), over 50% of students knew
of someone being cyberbullied in their school. Contributing to an increase in cyberbullying,
Eden et al. (2013) stated Israel is a world leader in the use of social media, and Israelis are
heading other countries with web usage per month. In Taiwan, students utilized instant message
as the dominant method to cyberbully others (Huang & Chou, 2013). Future researchers could
explore policies and regulations other nations around the world are enacting. As cyberbullying is
not just a local or national problem, investigating what other countries are doing to curb this
issue would be beneficial for all.
Conclusions
The aim of this quantitative study was to determine teachers’ perceptions of
cyberbullying. Findings revealed over a third of participants agreed cyberbullying is a problem,
and schools do not effectively address this issue. Furthermore, over half of respondents admitted
their schools to do not have a cyberbullying prevention program. Although teachers were
concerned about cyberbullying, realize students are affected by this problem, and would
intervene if they knew of a cyberbullying occurrence in school; many participants lack the
confidence in identifying and managing cyberbullying. In regards to schools’ role in addressing
cyberbullying, teachers supported counseling, partnering with parents, creating policy, and
developing community partnerships. Despite the lack of teacher training in cyberbullying, the
results indicated teachers would like to learn more on this subject. Subsequently, the majority of
participants stated they model positive behavior for students and realize their actions can affect
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
194
the behaviors of students. Specifically, teachers with doctorates agreed more than those with
bachelor’s and master’s degrees that students can emulate the behavior of teachers. Nonetheless,
over a quarter of teachers admitted to making sarcastic and demeaning comments to students.
Next, participants supported intervention and prevention measures. In particular, increased
parental and administrator involvement, and encouraging students to report cyberbullying
instances were favored.
Based on the findings of the present study, recommendations include: providing
professional development for faculty and staff on identifying and managing cyberbullying,
offering training for faculty and staff on social emotional learning, establishing intervention and
prevention strategies at schools, involving teachers, administrators, parents, students, and
community in addressing the problem of cyberbullying, and creating cyberbullying legislation
and policy at the state and school levels. Although this study contributes to the growing body of
knowledge on cyberbullying, more research is required. Future studies could explore the
effectiveness of existing prevention programs, investigate the perceptions of students,
administrators, and parents, and examine teacher training and professional development.
Moreover, a qualitative approach on teachers’ views of cyberbullying may provide a deeper
understanding of the issue. Finally, future research is needed on cyberbullying policies across the
globe.
In conclusion, it is vital to understand the perceptions of teachers, as these individuals
play an integral part in the lives of students. Therefore, exploring teachers’ beliefs will assist
schools in developing programs to address the growing phenomenon of cyberbullying. With the
rising use of technology, the opportunity for cyberbullying intensifies. Cyberbullying is
detrimental to students’ social, emotional, and academic well-being. It is the hope of the
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
195
researcher that educators, students, parents, policy makers and communities come together in
addressing this problematic behavior.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
196
REFERENCES
Abrams, D. (2009). A coordinated public response to school bullying. In M. R. Dyson & D. B.
Weddle (Eds.), Our promise: Achieving educational equity for America’s children (pp.
399–423). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Abrams, D. (2012). Cyberbullying from classroom to courtroom, panel 1 — Cyberbullying in the
courtroom: Law, litigation, and the first amendment. Albany Law Journal of Science and
Technology, 22(3), 481-501.
Akbulut, Y., & Çuhadar, C. (2011). Reflections of preservice information technology teachers
regarding cyberbullying. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 2(3), 67–76.
Aseltine Jr., R. H., Gore, S., & Gordon, J. (2000). Life stress, anger and anxiety, and
delinquency: An empirical test of general strain theory. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 41(3), 256-275.
Badash, D. (2010, October 1). September’s anti-gay bullying suicides — There were a lot more
than 5. Retrieved from http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/septembers-anti-
gay-bullying-suicides-there-were-a-lot-more-than-5/discrimination/2010/10/01/13297
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1–26.
Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral
change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(3), 125–139.
Barak, A. (2005). Sexual harassment on the internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23(1),
77–92.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
197
Baranowski, T., Perry, C. L., & Parcel, G. S. (2002). How individuals, environments, and health
behavior interact. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & F. M. Lewis (Eds.), Health behavior and
health education: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.) (pp. 165–184). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bauman, S. (2008). The role of elementary school counselors in reducing school bullying. The
Elementary School Journal, 108(5), 362–375.
Bauman, S., & Pero, H. (2011). Bullying and cyberbullying among deaf students and their
hearing peers: An exploratory study. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(2),
236–253.
Bauman, S., Rigby, K., & Hoppa, K. (2008). US teachers’ and school counselors’ strategies for
handling school bullying incidents. Educational Psychology, 28(7), 837–856.
Bauman, S., Toomey, R. B., & Walker, J. L. (2013). Associations among bullying,
cyberbullying, and suicide in high school students. Journal of Adolescence, 36(2), 341–
350.
Bayat, M., & Fox, W. (2007). A guide to managing research. Cape Town: Juta.
Beale, A. V., & Hall, K. R. (2007). Cyberbullying: What school administrators (and parents) can
do. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(1), 8–
12.
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for an old behavior.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 265–277.
Berne, S., Frisén, A., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Naruskov, K., Luik, P., &
Zukauskiene, R. (2013). Cyberbullying assessment instruments: A systematic review.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(2), 320–334.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
198
Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District, 30 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (1998).
Bollag, S. (2016, September 21). Students who cyberbully using sexting and video can be
expelled under bills signed by governor. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-students-
who-cyberbully-using-sexting-1474489610-htmlstory.html
Boulton, M. J. (1997). Teachers’ views on bullying: Definitions, attitudes and ability to cope.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(2), 223–233.
Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M., Chau, C., Whitehand, C., & Amatya, K. (1999). Concurrent and
longitudinal links between friendship and peer victimization: Implications for befriending
interventions. Journal of Adolescence, 22(4), 461–466.
Burnham, J., & Wright, V. (2012). Cyberbullying: What middle school students want you to
know. Alabama Counseling Association Journal, 38(1), 3–12.
Campbell, M., Spears, B., Slee, P., Butler, D., & Kift, S. (2012). Victims’ perceptions of
traditional and cyberbullying, and the psychosocial correlates of their victimization.
Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 17(3-4), 389–401.
Casey-Cannon, S., Hayward, C., & Gowen, K. (2001). Middle-school girls’ reports of peer
victimization: Concerns, consequences, and implications. Professional School
Counseling, 5(2), 138–148.
Chan, W. P. (2012, August 25). [Phil Chan]. Relationship between t-distribution and the F-
distribution. [Video File]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr3VaQXORo8
Chen, J., & Wei, H. (2011). The impact of school violence on self-esteem and depression among
Taiwanese junior high school students. Social Indicators Research, 100(3), 479–498.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
199
Chou, C., & Peng, H. (2011). Promoting awareness of Internet safety in Taiwan in-service
teacher education: A ten-year experience. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(1), 44–
53.
Couvillon, M. A., & Ilieva, V. (2011). Recommended practices: A review of schoolwide
preventative programs and strategies on cyberbullying. Preventing School Failure:
Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55(2), 96–101.
Craig, W., Pepler, D., & Blais, J. (2007). Responding to bullying: What works? School
Psychology International, 28(4), 465–477.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 US 629 (1999).
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473–490.
Dempsey, A. G., Sulkowski, M. L., Nichols, R., & Storch, E. A. (2009). Differences between
peer victimization in cyber and physical settings and associated psychosocial adjustment
in early adolescence. Psychology in the Schools, 46(10), 962–972.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2014). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
https://declara.com/content/YamZMOZ1
DeSmet, A., Aelterman, N., Bastiaensens, S., Van Cleemput, K., Poels, K., Vandebosch, H., &
De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2015). Secondary school educators’ perceptions and practices in
handling cyberbullying among adolescents: A cluster analysis. Computers & Education,
88, 192-201.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
200
Duke, N. K., & Martin, N. M. (2011). 10 things every literacy educator should know about
research. The Reading Teacher, 65(1), 9–22.
Eden, S., Heiman, T., & Olenik Shemesh, D. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions, beliefs and concerns
about cyberbullying. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), 1036–1052.
Elledge, L. C., Williford, A., Boulton, A. J., DePaolis, K. J., Little, T. D., & Salmivalli, C.
(2013). Individual and contextual predictors of cyberbullying: The influence of children’s
provictim attitudes and teachers’ ability to intervene. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
42(5), 698–710.
Emmet v. Kent School District, 92 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (2000).
Erb, T. D. (2008). A case for strengthening school district jurisdiction to punish off-campus
incidents of cyberbullying. Arizona State Law Journal, 40, 257–287.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What
have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3), 365–
384.
Even, R. (1993). Subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: Prospective
secondary teachers and the function concept. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 24(2), 94–116.
Feinberg, J. (1980). The child’s right to an open future. In W. Aiken & H. LaFollette (Eds.),
Whose child? (pp. 124-153). Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.
Feinberg, T., & Robey, N. (2008). Cyberbullying. Principal Leadership, 9(1), 10–14.
Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (2005). Applying educational research: A practical guide
(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
201
Goebert, D., Else, I., Matsu, C., Chung-Do, J., & Chang, J. Y. (2011). The impact of
cyberbullying on substance use and mental health in a multiethnic sample. Maternal and
Child Health Journal, 15(8), 1282–1286.
Gradinger, P., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2010). Definition and measurement of cyberbullying.
Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 4(2), 1–12.
Graves, T. N. (2013). Bridging the divide: A case study investigating digitally-wise teacher
perceptions of middle school cyberbullying (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Liberty
University, Lynchburg, VA.
Gross, E. F., Juvonen, J., & Gable, S. L. (2002). Internet use and well-being in adolescence.
Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 75–90.
Guerra, N. G., Williamson, A. A., & Sadek, S. (2012). Youth perspectives on bullying in
adolescence. Prevention Researcher, 19(3), 14–16.
Gutierrez, B. (2015, November 19). Police presence high day after big brawl. Hawaii News Now.
Retrieved from http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/30565138/four-arrested-after-big-
brawl-near-kapolei-high
Hafen, B. C. (1988). Hazelwood School District and the role of first amendment institutions.
Duke Law Journal, 1988(4), 685–705.
Halpern, J., Jutte, D., Colby, J., & Boyce, W. T. (2015). Social dominance, school bullying, and
child health: What are our ethical obligations to the very young? Pediatrics, 135 (Suppl.
2), S24–S30.
Hawaii State Department of Education. (2012). Strategic plan, 2011-2018. Honolulu, HI:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/
Advancing%20Education/StrategicPlan.pdf
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
202
Hawaii State Department of Education. (2014a). Future reading learning. Honolulu, HI: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/
StudentLearning/Future-Ready/Pages/default.aspx
Hawaii State Department of Education. (2014b). United States Department of Education, Future
Ready District Pledge. Honolulu, HI: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/FRL/FRLpledge.pdf
Hawaii State Department of Education. (2016a). Internet safety. Honolulu, HI: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/BeyondTheClassroom/SafeSchools/
AntiBullyingWork/Pages/Internet-safety.aspx
Hawaii State Department of Education. (2016b). Job opportunities. Honolulu, HI: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/ConnectWithUs/Employment/
JobOpportunities/Pages/home.aspx
Hawaii State Department of Education, Office of the Superintendent. (2014). 2014
Superintendent’s annual report. Honolulu, HI: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/State%20Reports/SuptReport2014.
pdf
Hawaii State Teachers Association. (2016). About us. Honolulu, HI: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.hsta.org/who-we-are/about-us/
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization: School
violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89–112.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide
Research, 14(3), 206–221.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
203
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2011). Cyberbullying: A review of the legal issues facing
educators. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth,
55(2), 71–78.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012). State cyberbullying laws: A brief review of state
cyberbullying laws and policies. Retrieved from http://cyberbullying.org/state-
cyberbullying-laws-a-brief-review-of-state-cyberbullying-laws-and-policies
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2013). Social influences on cyberbullying behaviors among
middle and high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 711–722.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2014). Cyberbullying identification, prevention, and response.
Retrieved from http://cyberbullying.org/Cyberbullying-Identification-Prevention-
Response.pdf
Hoffner, C. (1996). Children’s wishful identification and parasocial interaction with favorite
television characters. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40(3), 389–402.
Holfeld, B., & Grabe, M. (2012). Middle school students’ perceptions of and responses to cyber
bullying. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(4), 395–413.
Huang, Y., & Chou, C. (2013). Revisiting cyberbullying: Perspectives from Taiwanese teachers.
Computers & Education, 63, 227–239.
Imenda, S. (2014). Is there a conceptual difference between theoretical and conceptual
frameworks? Journal of Social Sciences, 38(2), 185–195.
J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District, 757 A.2d 412 (Pa. Cmwlth) (2000).
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds? — Bullying experiences in
cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496–505.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
204
Keith, S., & Martin, M. E. (2005). Cyber-bullying: Creating a culture of respect in a cyber world.
Reclaiming Children and Youth, 13(4), 224–228.
Kiriakidis, S. P., & Kavoura, A. (2010). Cyberbullying: A review of the literature on harassment
through the internet and other electronic means. Family & Community Health, 33(2), 82–
93. doi:10.1097/FCH.0b013e3181d593e4
Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools, 652 F. 3d 565 (2011).
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S22–S30.
Lane, D. K. (2011). Taking the lead on cyberbullying: Why schools can and should protect
students online. Iowa Law Review, 96(5), 1791–1811.
Layshock v. Hermitage School District, 593 F. 3d 249 (2010).
Lenhart, A. (2009). Teens and mobile phones over the past five years: Pew Internet looks back.
Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2009/08/19/teens-and-mobile-phones-over-the-past-five-
years-pew-internet-looks-back/
Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media & technology overview 2015. Washington, D.C.: Pew
Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-
media-technology-2015/
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith, A., Purcell, K., Zickuhr, K., & Rainie, L. (2011). Teens,
kindness and cruelty on social network sites: How American teens navigate the new
world of digital citizenship. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/11/09/teens-kindness-and-cruelty-on-social-network-
sites/
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
205
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media & mobile internet use
among teens and young adults. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2010/
PIP_Social_Media_and_Young_Adults_Report_Final_with_toplines.pdf
Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology
International, 27(2), 157–170.
Li, Q. (2008). Cyberbullying in schools: An examination of preservice teachers’ perception.
Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La Revue Canadienne De
L’apprentissage Et De La Technologie, 34(2), 75–90.
Liehr, P., & Smith, M. J. (1999). Middle range theory: Spinning research and practice to create
knowledge for the new millennium. Advances in Nursing Science, 21(4), 81–91.
Linzer, P. (1979). The meaning of certiorari denials. Columbia Law Review, 79(7), 1227–1305.
Low, S., & Espelage, D. (2013). Differentiating cyber bullying perpetration from non-physical
bullying: Commonalities across race, individual, and family predictors. Psychology of
Violence, 3(1), 39–52.
MacKay, A. W. (2012). Respectful and responsible relationships: There’s no app for that (The
Report of the Nova Scotia Task Force on Bullying and Cyberbullying). Halifax, Canada:
Nova Scotia Task Force on Bullying and Cyberbullying. Retrieved from
http://antibullying.novascotia.ca/taskforce
Mark, L., & Ratliffe, K. T. (2011). Cyber worlds: New playgrounds for bullying. Computers in
the Schools, 28(2), 92–116.
Martins, N., & Wilson, B. J. (2012). Social aggression on television and its relationship to
children’s aggression in the classroom. Human Communication Research, 38(1), 48–71.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
206
Mason, K. L. (2008). Cyberbullying: A preliminary assessment for school personnel. Psychology
in the Schools, 45(4), 323–348.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not,
and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Meadows, B., Bergal, J., Helling, S., Odell, J., Piligian, E., Howard, C., & Hochberg, L. (2005).
The web: The bully’s new playground. People, 63(10), 152–156.
Mendoza, J. (2010). Cyber bullying affects 1 in 2 Hawaii teens. Hawaii News Now. Retrieved
from http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/13516322/cyber-bullying
Mishna, F., Cook, C., Gadalla, T., Daciuk, J., & Solomon, S. (2010). Cyber bullying behaviors
among middle and high school students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(3),
362–374.
Mouttapa, M., Valente, T., Gallaher, P., Rohrbach, L. A., & Unger, J. B. (2004). Social network
predictors of bullying and victimization. Adolescence, 39(154), 315–335.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Characteristics of the 100 largest public
elementary and secondary school districts in the United States: 2008-2009. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/100largest0809/tables/table_a01.asp?referrer=report
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013a). Fast facts: Bullying. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=719
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
207
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013b). Student reports of bullying and cyber-bullying:
Results from the 2013 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization
Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015056.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2013.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014042.pdf
National Crime Prevention Council. (2007). Teens and cyberbullying. Gambrills, MD: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.ncpc.org/resources/files/pdf/bullying/
Teens%20and%20Cyberbullying%20Research%20Study.pdf
Noah, T. O. (2012). Middle school teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Ockerman, M. S., Kramer, C., & Bruno, M. (2014). From the school yard to cyber space: A pilot
study of bullying behaviors among middle school students. RMLE Online: Research in
Middle Level Education, 37(6), 1–18.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bully/victim problems among school-children: Long-term consequences and
an effective intervention program. In S. Hodgins (Ed.), Mental disorder and crime (pp.
317–349). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
66(4), 543–578.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
Patchin, J. W. (2008). Defining cyberbullying. Retrieved from http://cyberbullying.org/defining-
cyberbullying/
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
208
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.
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and
responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pelfrey Jr., W. V., & Weber, N. L. (2015). Student and school staff strategies to combat
cyberbullying in an urban student population. Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children and Youth, 59(4), 227–236.
Petteruti, A., Walsh, N., & Velázquez, T. (2009). The costs of confinement: Why good juvenile
justice policies make good fiscal sense. Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute.
Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/
09_05_rep_costsofconfinement_jj_ps.pdf
Reed, K. P., Cooper, R. L., Nugent, W. R., & Russell, K. (2016). Cyberbullying: A literature
review of its relationship to adolescent depression and current intervention strategies.
Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 26(1), 37–45.
Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. A., & Salovey, P. (2012). The
interaction effects of program training, dosage, and implementation quality on targeted
student outcomes for the RULER approach to social and emotional learning. School
Psychology Review, 41(1), 82–99.
Rivers, I., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Types of bullying behavior and their correlates. Aggressive
Behavior, 20(5), 359–368.
Roland, E. (1989). A system oriented strategy against bullying. In E. Roland & E. Munthe
(Eds.), Bullying: An international perspective (pp. 143–151). London: David Fulton.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
209
Rowan, M. (2012). When words hurt more than “sticks and stones”: Why New York State needs
cyberbullying legislation. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 22(3), 645–
674.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Şahin, M. (2012). The relationship between the cyberbullying/cybervictmization and loneliness
among adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(4), 834–837.
Salkind, N. J. (2012). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Excel 2010 edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
15(2), 112–120.
Sassu, K. A. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of bullying: An investigation of reported
characteristic behaviors and the likelihood of intervention in response to overtly and
relationally aggressive behavior (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Schneider, S. K., O’Donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Coulter, R. W. (2012). Cyberbullying, school
bullying, and psychological distress: A regional census of high school students. American
Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 171–177.
Schrock, A., & Boyd, D. (2008). Online threats to youth: Solicitation, harassment, and
problematic content. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Berkman Center for Internet
& Society.
Sezer, B., Yilmaz, R., & Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G. (2015). Cyber bullying and teachers’
awareness. Internet Research, 25(4), 674–687.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
210
Shariff, S., & Hoff, D. L. (2007). Cyber bullying: Clarifying legal boundaries for school
supervision in cyberspace. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 1(1), 76–118.
Siris, K. (2012). Out of school behaviors: A principal’s responsibility? Albany Law Journal of
Science and Technology, 22(3), 605–610.
Smith, D. (2002). The theory heard “round the world.” Monitor on Psychology, 33(9), 30–32.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385.
Snakenborg, J., Van Acker, R., & Gable, R. A. (2011). Cyberbullying: Prevention and
intervention to protect our children and youth. Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children and Youth, 55(2), 88–95.
State of Hawaii Board of Education. (2001). Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 8, Chapter 19.
Honolulu, HI: Author.
State of Hawaii Department of Health. (2013). Hawaii youth risk behavior survey. Retrieved
from http://health.hawaii.gov/school-health/health-survey/
State of Hawaii, Office of the Governor. (2010). Race to the Top application. Honolulu, HI:
Author. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-
applications/hawaii.pdf
Stauffer, S., Heath, M. A., Coyne, S. M., & Ferrin, S. (2012). High school teachers’ perceptions
of cyberbullying prevention and intervention strategies. Psychology in the Schools, 49(4),
352–367.
Steinmetz, J. (2013). Cyberbullying and the digital divide: Student and teacher perceptions and
reactions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
211
Stewart, C. (2015, October 15). 6 Honokaa students released from football team after derogatory
post. West Hawaii Today. Retrieved from http://westhawaiitoday.com/news/local-
news/6-honokaa-students-released-football-team-after-derogatory-post
Stoudt, B. G. (2007). The co-construction of knowledge in “safe spaces”: Reflecting on politics
and power in participatory action research. Children, Youth and Environments, 17(2),
280–297.
Tanrikulu, T., Kinay, H., & Aricak, O. T. (2013). Cyberbullying sensibility scale: Validity and
reliability study. Trakya University Journal of Education, 3(1), 38–47.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of
research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 277–287.
Trolley, B., Hanel, C., & Shields, L. L. (2006). Demystifying and deescalating cyber bullying in
the schools: A resource guide for counselors, educators and parents. Bradenton, FL:
Booklocker. Retrieved from http://assets.booklocker.com/pdfs/2631s.pdf
Turbert, K. (2009). Faceless bullies: Legislative and judicial responses to cyberbullying. Seton
Hall Legislative Journal, 33(2), 651–692.
Vandebosch, H., & Cleemput, K. V. (2007). Television viewing and obesity among pre-school
children: The role of parents. Communications, 32(4), 417–446.
Van Geel, M., Vedder, P., & Tanilon, J. (2014). Relationship between peer victimization,
cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. JAMA
Pediatrics, 168(5), 435–442.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
212
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2011, March 10). Background on White House
Conference on Bullying Prevention. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/10/background-white-house-
conference-bullying-prevention
Willard, N. (2005). Educator’s guide to cyberbullying: Addressing the harm caused by online
social cruelty. Retrieved from http://breitlinks.com/safeonline/printResources/
EducatorsGuideToCyberbullyingAddressingTheHarm.pdf
Willard, N. (2011). Student online off-campus speech: Assessing substantial disruption. Albany
Law Journal of Science and Technology, 22(3), 611–643.
Williams, F., & Cornell, D. G. (2006). Student willingness to seek help for threats of violence in
middle school. Journal of School Violence, 5(4), 35–49.
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 47 (1993).
Wolak, J., & Mitchell, K. J. (2000). Youth internet safety survey. Durham: University of New
Hampshire, Crimes Against Children Research Center.
Wright, V. H., Burnham, J. J., Christopher, T. I., & Heather, N. O. (2009). Cyberbullying: Using
virtual scenarios to educate and raise awareness. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 26(1), 35–42.
Yang, Y. C. (2012). Building virtual cities, inspiring intelligent citizens: Digital games for
developing students’ problem solving and learning motivation. Computers & Education,
59(2), 365–377.
Ybarra, M. L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. J. (2007). Examining the overlap in internet
harassment and school bullying: Implications for school intervention. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41(6), S42–S50.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
213
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Youth engaging in online harassment: Associations with
caregiver–child relationships, internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal of
Adolescence, 27(3), 319–336.
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2007). Prevalence and frequency of internet harassment
instigation: Implications for adolescent health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(2), 189–
195.
Yilmaz, H. (2010). An examination of preservice teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(4), 263–270.
Yilmaz, H. (2011). Cyberbullying in Turkish middle schools: An exploratory study. School
Psychology International, 32(6), 645–654.
Yoon, J. S., & Barton, E. (2008). The role of teachers in school violence and bullying prevention.
In T. W. Miller (Ed.), School violence and primary prevention (pp. 249–275). New York,
NY: Springer.
Yoon, J., Sulkowski, M. L., & Bauman, S. A. (2016). Teachers’ responses to bullying incidents:
Effects of teacher characteristics and contexts. Journal of School Violence, 15(1), 91-113.
doi:10.1080/15388220.2014.963592
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
214
APPENDIX
CYBERBULLYING SURVEY
Dear Educator,
Thank you for participating in this cyberbullying survey. This is an anonymous questionnaire.
The results are strictly for the purposes of research. Cyberbullying: Includes sending offensive,
rude, or insulting messages, videos, or pictures through: text messaging, e-mail, instant
messaging, blogs, social networking websites, or other electronic mediums (Stauffer et al.,
2012).
Demographic Information
Gender: Male
Female
Age: Under 21
21-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
Education: Bachelor’s Degree
Master’s Degree
EdD
PhD
Other
Workplace: Elementary school
Middle/Intermediate School
High school
Combo Middle/Intermediate High school
District Office
State Office
E-School
Other
Complex Area: Farrington-Kaiser-Kalani
Kaimuki-McKinley-Roosevelt
Aiea-Moanalua-Radford
Leilehua-Mililani-Waialua
Campbell-Kapolei
Nanakuli-Waianae
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
215
Pearl City-Waipahu
Castle-Kahuku
Kailua-Kalaheo
Hilo-Waiakea
Kau-Keaau-Pahoa
Honokaa-Kealakehe-Kohala-Konawaena
Baldwin-Kekaulike-Maui
Hana-Lahainaluna-Lanai-Molokai
Kapaa-Kauai-Waimea
District Office
State Office
Other ___________________
Type of Teaching: Subject-matter teacher
Resource Teacher
Special Education teacher
English Language Learner teacher
Counselor
Administrator
Other
Teaching Experience: Fewer than 6 years
6–10 years
11–20 years
More than 20 years
Please state how much you agree with the following statements. Select from 1-5, where 1 states
you strongly disagree and 5 states you strongly agree.
1. Cyberbullying is a problem at my school.
2. My school has a cyberbullying prevention program.
3. My school effectively addresses cyberbullying.
4. Children are affected by cyberbullying.
5. Cyberbullying toughens kids up.
6. Cyberbullying prepares students for life.
7. Cyberbullying has long lasting negative effects.
8. I am concerned about cyberbullying.
9. I feel confident in my ability to identify cyberbullying.
10. I feel confident in my ability in managing cyberbullying.
11. If I knew of the existence of cyberbullying at a school, I would do something.
12. Schools should develop policies on cyberbullying.
13. Schools should use professional development days to train staff about cyberbullying.
14. School Administrators should organize school-wide activities to deal with
cyberbullying.
15. Committees should be formed in schools to look at the problem of cyberbullying.
16. School assemblies should address cyberbullying.
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
216
17. Surveys should be given to students to ask them about their experiences of being
cyberbullied.
18. Students should receive counseling to deal with cyberbullying.
19. Teachers should use a curriculum on cyberbullying to teach students.
20. Teachers should organize classroom activities to deal with cyberbullying.
21. School resources should be used to help teachers deal with cyberbullying.
22. Schools should discuss cyberbullying with parents.
23. Schools should link with community resources to deal with cyberbullying.
24. Television and other media should discuss cyberbullying.
25. My professional training has prepared me to deal with cyberbullying.
26. I want to learn more about cyberbullying.
27. In comparison to other topics I want covered in my professional development,
cyberbullying is just as important.
28. I need tools to be prepared to manage cyberbullying.
29. I model positive behavior for my students.
30. I have made sarcastic or demeaning comments to students in the past.
31. My behavior affects the behavior and learning of my students.
32. Students can emulate the behaviors of teachers.
33. When aware of students’ cyberbullying at my school, I would
a. Do nothing
b. Talk with the cyber bully
c. Talk with the victim
d. Take away cyberbully’s privileges
e. Mediate / Problem solve with cyberbully and victim
f. Report incident to cyberbully’s parents
g. Report incident to victim’s parents
h. Report incident to school administrators
i. Other (please specify)
34. When aware of students’ cyberbullying away from school, I would
a. Do nothing
b. Talk with the cyberbully
c. Talk with the victim
d. Take away cyberbully’s privileges
e. Mediate / Problem solve with cyberbully and victim
f. Report incident to cyberbully’s parents
g. Report incident to victim’s parents
h. Report incident to school administrators
i. Other (please specify)
35. The following strategies would reduce cyberbullying at my school.
a. Increased supervision in certain areas
b. More specific school policies
c. School-wide anti-bully assemblies
d. Facilitate school climate encouraging students to report cyberbullying
e. Establish a school bullying task force to develop anti-bullying policies
f. Encourage bystanders to stand up against cyberbullies
g. Classroom anti-bully lessons
TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING
217
h. Professional development teacher seminars
i. Increased consequences for cyberbullying
j. Warn about consequences for cyberbullying
k. Establishment of a social-emotional learning program
l. Increased teacher involvement
m. Increased administrator involvement
n. Increased parental involvement
o. Other (please specify) _____________________
Thank you for completing this survey.
Your feedback is appreciated!
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
In today’s society, adolescents experience an increasing access to technology. The usages of the Internet and cell phones are commonplace for communication between peers. However, greater access to digital media has both negative and positive aspects. One negative characteristic is cyberbullying, the harassment of others through the use of electronic communication. While there are studies of teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying, no studies exist on teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying in Hawaii. Thus, the purpose of this quantitative study was to examine Hawaii public school teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying, investigate if teachers’ educational background influences their perceptions about cyberbullying, and determine what intervention and prevention strategies teachers agree would address cyberbullying. Participants included over 200 public school teachers from elementary, middle, high and state level. The primary method for data collection in this study was through an online and paper survey. A quantitative analysis of teachers’ questionnaires was conducted to examine the results. Descriptive statistics, frequency of responses, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) were employed to analyze the data. Findings revealed the majority of teachers were concerned about cyberbullying, realized students are affected by this problem, and would intervene if they knew of a cyberbullying occurrence in school. However, many participants lack the confidence in identifying and managing cyberbullying. In regards to schools’ role in addressing cyberbullying, teachers supported counseling, partnering with parents, creating policy, and developing community partnerships. Despite the lack of teacher training in cyberbullying, the results indicated teachers would like to learn more on this subject. Subsequently, the majority of participants stated they model positive behavior for students and realize their actions can affect the behaviors of students. ANOVA results indicate significant differences where males made more demeaning comments to students than females. For intervention and prevention measures, participants supported increased parental and administrator involvement, and encouraging students to report cyberbullying instances. Based on the findings of the present study, recommendations include: providing professional development for faculty and staff on identifying and managing cyberbullying, offering training for faculty and staff on social emotional learning, establishing intervention and prevention strategies at schools, involving teachers, administrators, parents, students, and community in addressing the problem of cyberbullying, and creating cyberbullying legislation and policy at the state and school levels. Although this study contributes to the growing body of knowledge on cyberbullying, more research is required. Future studies could explore the effectiveness of existing prevention programs, investigate the perceptions of students, administrators, and parents, and examine teacher training and professional development. Moreover, a qualitative approach on teachers’ views of cyberbullying may provide a deeper understanding of the issue. Finally, future research is needed on cyberbullying policies across the globe. It is vital to understand the perceptions of teachers, as these individuals play an integral part in the lives of students. Therefore, exploring teachers’ beliefs will assist schools in developing programs to address the growing phenomenon of cyberbullying.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Middle school teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying
PDF
Best practices general education teachers implement to foster a positive classroom environment
PDF
Understanding the teachers' perception of impeding bullying in the middle school classroom
PDF
A case study of promising practices of anti-cyberbullying efforts in a middle school
PDF
Teachers as bystanders: the effect of teachers’ perceptions on reporting bullying behavior
PDF
Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students
PDF
Home and school factors and their influence on students' academic goal orientation and motivation
PDF
Leveraging social-emotional learning to improve school climate, mental health, and student achievement in K-12 student populations
PDF
Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions
PDF
Perceptions about and strategies for African American speakers of Ebonics
PDF
Teachers’ perceptions of student behavior and relationship quality: an exploration of racial congruence and self-identity development
PDF
Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement
PDF
Exploring classroom strategies used by child development student-teachers working with children at risk for reactive attachment disorder
PDF
Teacher perceptions of evaluation policy in Hawaii
PDF
The relationship of teachers' parenting styles and Asian American students' reading motivation
PDF
A qualitative examination of PBIS team members' perceptions of urban high school teachers' role in implementing tier 2 schoolwide positive behavior supports
PDF
Perceptions of academic advisors of the impact of over involved parents on the advisor-student relationship at a liberal arts unit of a 4-year research university
PDF
Perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on historic failure of English language learners on standardized assessment
PDF
Teacher as nurturer: perceptions of elementary teachers integrating social and emotional learning practices
PDF
Digital literacy: teacher pedagogy and practices among upper elementary students with growing interest in social media
Asset Metadata
Creator
Hayashibara, Kammie Nobue Endo
(author)
Core Title
Teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
01/12/2017
Defense Date
11/08/2016
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
bullying,cyberbullying,education,Hawaii,K-12,OAI-PMH Harvest,social emotional learning,teachers' perceptions
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Green, Alan G. (
committee chair
), Chung, Ruth Gim H. (
committee member
), Tobey, Patricia (
committee member
)
Creator Email
emailkam@yahoo.com,knhayash@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-325859
Unique identifier
UC11214661
Identifier
etd-Hayashibar-4970.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-325859 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Hayashibar-4970.pdf
Dmrecord
325859
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Hayashibara, Kammie Nobue Endo
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
bullying
cyberbullying
education
K-12
social emotional learning
teachers' perceptions