University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Middle school teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying

(USC Thesis Other)

Middle school teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CYBERBULLYING by Tolulope Omolara Noah 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 August 2012 Copyright 2012 Tolulope Omolara Noah ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank God for seeing me through this dissertation process from commencement to completion. The words of Philippians 4:13 (“I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me”) became much more real to me through this process as I learned to depend on Him for the strength and motivation to keep reading and writing. Thank you, Jesus! I would also like to thank my chair, Dr. Patricia Burch, for her dedication and support throughout the research and writing process. Thank you for being a critical thought partner and for providing ongoing assistance as I developed and polished my study. In addition, I would like to thank my dissertation committee members, Dr. David Dwyer and Dr. Lauren Anderson, for their wisdom and guidance. Dr. Dwyer, thank you for believing in the relevance of my study and for helping me to refine it. Dr. Anderson, thank you for being my cheerleader and a pillar of support. Your thorough feedback helped me to strengthen my study and examine it from a more critical stance. Finally, I would like to thank my family, friends, and colleagues. To my mother and my sisters (Yewande and Olamide), I want to say thank you for your love and for reminding me to stay balanced even in the midst of all the work. To my friends, I want to say thank you for your prayers and words of encouragement. To my colleagues, I want to say thank you for your flexibility and encouragement as I tried to balance full-time teaching with this full-time program. I could not have succeeded in this challenging endeavor without all of you. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. ii! LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... vii! ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. viii! CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................1! Teenagers and Technology ...........................................................................................2! Technology in Schools ..................................................................................................4! Federal Policies about Educational Technology .......................................................5! Technology Expectations for Teachers .....................................................................5! Teachers’ Access to and Usage of Technology ........................................................8! Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology Preparation .................................................10! Traditional Bullying ....................................................................................................11! The Nature of Cyberbullying ......................................................................................13! Cyberbullying: Current Definitions ........................................................................14! Media for Cyberbullying .........................................................................................15! Forms of Cyberbullying ..........................................................................................16! The Online Disinhibition Effect ..............................................................................17! Student Reporting Practices ....................................................................................20! Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................20! Purpose of the Study ...................................................................................................21! Importance of the Study ..............................................................................................22! Definitions of Key Terms ...........................................................................................24! Organization of the Study ...........................................................................................24! iv CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................26! Prevalence and Impact of Bullying .............................................................................26! Perceptions of and Reactions to Bullying ...................................................................31! Students’ Perceptions and Reactions ......................................................................31! Teachers’ Perceptions and Reactions ......................................................................38! Comparative Studies on Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions ...............................44! Prevalence and Impact of Cyberbullying ....................................................................51! Perceptions of and Reactions to Cyberbullying ..........................................................59! Students’ Perceptions and Reactions ......................................................................59! Teachers’ Perceptions and Reactions ......................................................................66! The School’s Role in Cyberbullying ...........................................................................70! School-Based Prevention and Intervention Strategies ............................................70! Legal Issues .............................................................................................................74! Theoretical Framework ...............................................................................................75! Figure 1: Clark and Estes’ (2008) Process Model ......................................................76! Knowledge and Skills Causes .................................................................................77! Motivation Causes ..................................................................................................77! Organizational Causes ............................................................................................78! Summary .....................................................................................................................79! CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .......................................................................81! Sample and Population ...............................................................................................82! Instrumentation ...........................................................................................................83! Data Collection ...........................................................................................................89! Teacher Interviews ..................................................................................................91! School Leader Interviews .......................................................................................92! Documents ..............................................................................................................92! Data Analysis ..............................................................................................................93! Summary .....................................................................................................................94! v CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS .......................................................................................95! School Demographics .................................................................................................96! Teacher Portraits .........................................................................................................97! Linda .......................................................................................................................98! Rebecca .................................................................................................................100! Jenny .....................................................................................................................101! Sarah .....................................................................................................................103! Karen .....................................................................................................................104! Leah .......................................................................................................................105! School Leader Portraits .............................................................................................106! Steven ....................................................................................................................107! Mia ........................................................................................................................108! Julie .......................................................................................................................108! Research Question One Results ................................................................................109! Characteristics of Cyberbullying ..........................................................................109! Tools Used for Cyberbullying ..............................................................................113! Causes of Cyberbullying .......................................................................................114! Effects of Cyberbullying .......................................................................................115! Prevalence of Cyberbullying .................................................................................116! School Procedures .................................................................................................119! Discussion of Results for Research Question One ...............................................130! Research Question Two Results ...............................................................................132! Discussion of Results for Research Question Two ...............................................135! Research Question Three Results .............................................................................135! Concern .................................................................................................................136! Confidence ............................................................................................................137! Obstacles ...............................................................................................................140! Discussion of Results for Research Question Three .............................................141! Research Question Four Results ...............................................................................143! Responding to Cyberbullying ...............................................................................144! Prevention and Intervention ..................................................................................148! Discussion of Results for Research Question Four ...............................................153! Summary ...................................................................................................................154! CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................156! Findings ....................................................................................................................159! Knowledge of Cyberbullying ................................................................................159! Experience Managing Cyberbullying ...................................................................160! Confidence Concerning Cyberbullying ................................................................161! Role in Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying .........................................162! Limitations ................................................................................................................163! Implications for Practice ...........................................................................................164! Recommendations for Future Research ....................................................................168! Conclusion ................................................................................................................170! vi REFERENCES .............................................................................................................172! APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................180 Appendix A: Teacher Semi-Structured Interview Protocol ......................................180! Appendix B: Email Asking for Permission to use Survey Instrument .....................183! Appendix C: Email Asking for Permission to use Scenarios ...................................184! Appendix D: Principal Plus Semi-Structured Interview Protocol ............................186! Appendix E: Recruitment Letter ...............................................................................188! Appendix F: Faculty & Staff Member Information Sheet ........................................189! Appendix G: Interested Participant Form .................................................................191! Apepndix H: Innstitutional Reveiw Board (IRB) Approval Letter ..........................192! vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Prevalence and Impact of Cyberbullying .........................................................58! ! Table 2: Triangulation of Data Sources...........................................................................90 Table 3: Demographics of Teacher Participants .............................................................98! ! Table 4: Demographics of School Leader Participants .................................................107! ! viii ABSTRACT The prevalence of digital technology amongst today’s youth has expanded the ways in which they can interact with each other. One negative form of interaction that has emerged is cyberbullying, where youth bully each other through digital and online tools. While several studies have examined students’ and preservice teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying, there is a critical gap in the research literature about inservice teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying. Thus, the aim of this exploratory research study was to investigate middle school teachers’ knowledge of cyberbullying, their experiences managing cyberbullying, their concerns about and confidence to address cyberbullying, and their perceptions of their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. The study was conducted at a public middle school (6 th -8 th grade site) within a suburban school district in the Western region of the United States. A qualitative case study approach was employed. In-depth interviews were conducted with six middle school teachers and three school leaders at the middle school using semi-structured interview protocols. The data from the interviews was read and coded to identify the predominant themes. In addition, seven school/district policy documents were analyzed for their inclusion of cyberbullying-specific policies and procedures. The data from the teacher interviews, school leader interviews, and document analysis resulted in five key findings. First, teachers lack knowledge of the prevalence of cyberbullying on campus. Second, teachers lack knowledge of the school’s procedure for handling cyberbullying. Third, teachers have had varied experiences managing cyberbullying. Fourth, teachers are more confident that they can identify cyberbullying than manage it. Lastly, teachers perceive ix themselves as having a definite role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Based on these findings, the following five recommendations for practice were made: conducting a school-wide cyberbullying assessment, providing cyberbullying professional development/training to teachers, developing a comprehensive cyberbullying procedure, including cyberbullying-specific policies in the school/district policy documents, and providing ongoing education about cyberbullying. Future research should be conducted about the impact of cyberbullying training/professional development on teachers’ confidence to address cyberbullying and teacher practices as they pertain to educating students about cyberbullying. In addition, a comparative study should be conducted to examine the knowledge, perceptions, and experiences of teachers, students, school leaders, and parents in relation to one another. 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Technology has transformed the way today’s youth interact with each other and the world around them. No longer is interaction with family members and friends limited to face-to-face meetings or phone conversations; today’s youth also interact with others via instant messages, chatrooms, social networking websites, text messages, video games, and blogs (Bryant, Sanders-Jackson, & Smallwood, 2006; Montgomery, 2009). The permeation of technology into modern culture is even reflected in the English lexicon. Teenagers “Google” information, “Facebook” new acquaintances, and post “tweets” to give others a quick update on what they are doing. Today’s digital generation is comfortable with and regularly uses multiple forms of technology, including cell phones, computers, and other media devices (Montgomery, 2009). The proliferation of technology amongst youth is perceived as a double-edged sword; while such tools provide new opportunities for learning and interaction, they can also pose threats to personal safety (Beale & Hall, 2007; Montgomery, 2009). One emerging threat amongst adolescents is digital bullying, or cyberbullying. Hinduja and Patchin (2009) define cyberbullying as “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices” (p. 5). The issue of cyberbullying has important implications for teachers and school officials. While several studies examine students’ experiences with and perceptions of cyberbullying, little is known about teachers’ perceptions of the issue. This study aimed to examine inservice teachers’ knowledge of cyberbullying, their experiences managing cyberbullying, their 2 concerns about and confidence to address cyberbullying, and their perceptions of their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. This chapter provides an overview of the factors related to the issue of cyberbullying. First, it explores the role of technology in the lives of today’s youth, and how teachers in schools are using technology. Next, this chapter provides a discussion of the nature of traditional bullying. Subsequently, this chapter explores the nature of cyberbullying, including a discussion of the media that is used for cyberbullying purposes, the different forms that cyberbullying can take, and students’ reporting practices when instances of cyberbullying arise. Teenagers and Technology The Pew Internet and American Life Project, a division of the Pew Research Center, conducted many national surveys about the use of technology amongst American teens. In 2009, they conducted a survey entitled “Teens and Mobile Phones” in order to assess teenagers’ access to and use of cell phones. They found that 75% of 12-17 year- olds owned a cell phone, with 83% using it to take pictures, 64% using it to share pictures, and 60% using it to play music (Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purcell, 2010). There were no major demographic differences in terms of the gender or race of teenagers who owned cell phones. The only exception was socioeconomic status, where teenagers from wealthier families were more likely to own cell phones than those from lower income families. The survey results also revealed that text messaging is popular amongst teens and has become the most common method for contacting friends (Lenhart, Ling, et al., 2010). According to the survey, 72% of teenagers text messaged, with 54% sending 3 text messages every day. Of those, 50% sent 50 or more text messages a day, and 33% sent 100 or more text messages per day (Lenhart, Ling, et al., 2010). As with cell phone ownership, the only significant demographic difference was that teenagers from higher income households were more likely to engage in text messaging than those from lower income households. The “Teens and Mobile Phones” survey demonstrates that cell phones are a major medium through which American teenagers interact with each other. Computer and Internet access amongst teenagers is also high. In 2009, the Pew Internet and American Life Project published a report entitled “Social Media & Mobile Internet Use Among Teens and Young Adults,” which summarized their findings about teenagers’ access to and use of computers, the Internet, and social media. They found that 69% of 12-17 year-olds had a computer and 93% of teenagers had access to the Internet, with 63% going online every day (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010). In terms of demographics, teenagers from higher income families were more likely to have their own computers compared to teenagers from lower income families, and White teens were more likely to go online frequently compared to Hispanic and African American teens. Of those who had access to the Internet, 8% used Twitter, 14% blogged, and 73% used social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010). Of those who used social networking sites, 37% sent messages though the social networking sites, 86% posted comments on friends’ walls and pages, and 83% posted comments on friends’ pictures. In addition to using the Internet for social activities, teenagers also reported going online to obtain news (62%), purchase items like music and books (48%), and obtain health or fitness information (31%) (Lenhart, Purcell, et al., 4 2010). One demographic difference that arose in terms of teenagers’ usage of the Internet was that teenagers from lower income families were more likely to blog, use social networking sites, and obtain health information online than those from higher income families. In addition, White teenagers and those from higher income families were more likely to use the Internet to obtain news. Furthermore, teenagers from higher income families were more likely to make online purchases. There were no significant demographic differences with regard to the use of Twitter. Like cell phones, the Internet has become an important tool through which teenagers communicate and engage with others. Teenagers also use a range of other media devices. In 2009, 79% of 12-17 year- olds had portable music devices, like an iPod or other type of MP3 player (Lenhart, Purcell, et al., 2010). Teenagers from wealthier families were more likely to own portable music devices than those from lower income families. In addition, 80% of teenagers had a home gaming system like the PlayStation or Wii, and 51% had portable gaming systems like the Gameboy (Lenhart, Purcell, et al., 2010). The only significant demographic difference was that boys were more likely to own home and portable gaming systems than girls. Today’s youth have been designated as “digital natives” due to their familiarity with and frequent use of technology (Prensky, 2001). However, this level of technology usage is not reflected in schools. Technology in Schools While technology has changed the way today’s youth engage with others and the world around them, it has yet to fully transform the way education works (Collins & 5 Halverson, 2009). According to Collins and Halverson (2009), “there are deep incompatibilities between the demands of the new technologies and the traditional school” (p. 6). The following sections review federal policies related to educational technology, the technology expectations for teachers as outlined in the teaching standards, teachers’ access to and usage of technology, and teachers’ perceptions of how they were prepared to utilize technology. Federal Policies about Educational Technology Embedded in the No Child Left Behind Act was the Enhancing Education Through Technology Act of 2001 (EETT), which aimed “to improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in elementary schools and secondary schools” (No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2002). This is currently the only recurrent policy of its kind that provides federal funding for technology in schools (Nagel, 2010). In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education released the National Education Technology Plan (NETP), which emphasizes “applying the advanced technologies used in our daily personal and professional lives to our entire education system to improve student learning, accelerate and scale up the adoption of effective practices, and use data and information for continuous improvement” (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, 2010). In particular, the NETP focuses on fully integrating technology into the following five areas: learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity. Technology Expectations for Teachers According to the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP), teachers are expected to use different types of technology to engage students in learning, 6 assess student learning, and communicate progress to students and their families (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing [CCTC], 2009). These expectations are also set forth by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), which accredits 660 education programs at colleges and universities nationwide. According to NCATE’s professional standards, accredited institutions should “prepare candidates who can integrate technology into instruction to enhance student learning,” and graduates from accredited institutions should “be able to integrate technology into instruction effectively” (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2008, p. 4). In addition to the standards set forth by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) and NCATE, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) developed the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T), which are organized into the following five categories: • Standard 1: Facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity • Standard 2: Design and develop digital-age learning experiences and assessments • Standard 3: Model digital-age work and learning • Standard 4: Promote and model digital citizenship and responsibility • Standard 5: Engage in professional growth and leadership (International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2008) Unlike the CSTP and the professional standards outlined by NCATE, the NETS-T standards do not focus only on teachers utilizing technology in their instruction; they also focus on teachers’ modeling and teaching students how to use technology appropriately. Of particular interest to the current study is NETS-T Standard 4, “Promote and model digital citizenship and responsibility,” which states that, “Teachers understand local and 7 global societal issues and responsibilities in an evolving digital culture and exhibit legal and ethical behavior in their professional practices” (ISTE, 2008). NETS-T Standard 4 is further divided into the following substandards: • Substandard A: Advocate, model, and teach safe, legal, and ethical use of digital information and technology, including respect for copyright, intellectual property, and the appropriate documentation of sources. • Substandard B: Address the diverse needs of all learners by using learner-centered strategies providing equitable access to appropriate digital tools and resources. • Substandard C: Promote and model digital etiquette and responsible social interactions related to the use of technology and information. • Substandard D: Develop and model cultural understanding and global awareness by engaging with colleagues and students of other cultures using digital-age communication and collaboration tools. (ISTE, 2008) Yang and Chen (2010) conducted a study that examined teachers’ beliefs about NETS-T Standard 4. The participants in the study were 87 preservice and inservice teachers who were enrolled in an online Multimedia and Internet for Educators course at a northeastern university. The researchers posted a question on the course’s threaded discussion board, which asked the teachers to share issues that they think should be considered when utilizing technology in education. Teachers’ posted responses to this question were then analyzed and grouped according to the substandard of NETS-T Standard 4 that they addressed. In total, 299 responses were collected, and many of them addressed multiple substandards. In fact, 70.2% of teachers’ responses were related to Substandard A, 14.7% were related to Substandard B, 41.8% were related to Substandard C, and 35.8% were related to Substandard D. The teachers’ responses typically addressed plagiarism (related to Substandard A), students’ limited access to technology at home (related to Substandard B), cyberbullying (related to Substandard C), and how technology can both enhance and limit students’ ability to socialize and communicate with others 8 (related to Substandard D). Yang and Chen (2010) concluded that examining teachers’ beliefs about NETS-T Standard 4 is essential because it informs their practices and their willingness to address digital citizenship and responsibility in their teaching. Teachers’ Access to and Usage of Technology In 2009, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) conducted a survey of 4,133 full-time teachers nationwide to determine what types of technology were available to public elementary and secondary school teachers and how they were being utilized. The response rate was 64%, and it included representation from K-12 teachers in all 50 states. The survey indicated that 99% of teachers either had computers in their classrooms or could bring computers into their classrooms, and that 95% of those computers had Internet access (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2010). In addition to computers, teachers reported having access to other types of technological devices, such as document cameras and interactive whiteboards. Those with access reported “sometimes or often” using the following types of devices: LCD projectors (72%), digital cameras (49%), and iPod/MP3 players (36%) (NCES, 2010). The tasks that teachers utilize technology for are limited in nature. According to the NCES (2010) survey, teachers used technology “sometimes or often” for the following tasks: grades (92%), attendance (90%), and administering assessments (61%). In addition, teachers used the following types of software “sometimes or often” to deliver instruction or complete administrative tasks: word processing software (96%), student record software (80%), presentation software (63%), graphics and image editing software (40%), simulation programs (33%), drill/practice programs (50%), the Internet (94%), 9 blogs and wikis (16%), and social networking sites (8%) (NCES, 2010). The statistics demonstrate that “although many teachers are using technology for numerous low-level tasks (word processing, Internet research), higher level uses are still very much in the minority” (Ertmer, 2005, p. 26). High-level uses of technology tend to be constructivist in nature, employing student-centered approaches (Ertmer, 2005). It is evident that teachers are not maximizing the potential of available technology or using it in ways that reflect student usage. While many teenagers use technology to interact with others (e.g., social media sites, text messaging, and instant messaging), such uses of technology are absent from most school settings. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) assert that the four main factors that contribute to teachers’ limited usage of technology are their knowledge, self-efficacy, pedagogical beliefs, and culture. The first factor, knowledge, refers to teachers’ understanding of the technology tools and software and how to use them in conjunction with their content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Mishra and Koehler (2006) refer to this integration of content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge as technological pedagogical content knowledge, or TPCK. The second factor, self-efficacy, refers to teachers’ confidence using technology. The third factor, pedagogical beliefs, refers to teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning, and the value that they place on technology. The final factor, culture, refers to the support that teachers receive from their school to utilize technology in their curriculum (Ertmer & Ottenbreit- Leftwich, 2010). Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) explain that all four factors must 10 be considered in order to facilitate change in teachers’ understanding and effective usage of technology. Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology Preparation Teachers’ perceptions about what prepares them to integrate technology into their instruction are also of concern. According to the NCES (2010) survey, only 25% of teachers felt that their undergraduate teacher education program prepared them (to a moderate or major extent) to integrate technology into their curriculum. Furthermore, only 33% of teachers felt that their graduate teacher education program prepared them to integrate technology. Sixty-one percent of teachers reported that professional development prepared them to integrate technology into their curriculum, and 78% attributed their ability to independent learning (NCES, 2010). The perceptions of teachers differ greatly from the perceptions of teacher education programs. In 2006, NCES conducted a survey of teacher education programs for initial licensure, in order to determine how they prepare teachers to utilize educational technology. The surveys were sent to 2,512 institutions, with a response rate of 95%. The teacher education programs reported that they prepared their preservice teachers (to a moderate or major extent) to do a variety of tasks using technology, including enhancing their classroom instruction (97%), assessing student learning (66%), and designing interventions (66%) (NCES, 2007). Furthermore, 67% of the teacher education programs strongly agreed that their graduates were prepared to integrate technology into their instruction, and 32% somewhat agreed (NCES, 2007). 11 There is clearly a discrepancy between the level of technology preparation declared by teacher education programs and how prepared teachers actually are once they are in the classroom. The way in which teacher education programs prepare teachers in the area of technology has important implications for how they develop proficiency with integrating technology into their curriculum. In addition, it has important implications for how teachers are prepared to manage the ethical dilemmas related to students’ use of technology (Kafai, Nixon, & Burnam, 2007). This includes issues such as cyberbullying. Traditional Bullying Traditional, or face-to-face, bullying is defined as “intentional, repeated, negative (unpleasant or hurtful) behavior by one or more persons directed against a person who has difficulty defending himself or herself” (Olweus & Limber, 2010, p. 125). There are two main forms of traditional bullying: direct bullying and indirect bullying (Olweus, 1996; Olweus & Limber, 2010). Direct bullying involves physical aggression (such as hitting and punching) and verbal aggression (such as being teased or being called names) (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Slonje & Smith, 2008). Indirect bullying involves relational aggression (such as spreading rumors) and exclusion (such as ignoring or purposely excluding others) (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Olweus, 1996; Olweus & Limber, 2010; Slonje & Smith, 2008). Boys tend to engage more often in direct bullying, while girls tend to use indirect bullying methods (Olweus, 1996). Espelage and Swearer (2003) explain that students engage in bullying through various roles: bully, victim, bully-victim, and bystander. According to Olweus (1996), bullies are typically aggressive and impulsive. Male bullies also tend to be physically 12 strong. Olweus (1996) further asserts that there are three main reasons bullies (particularly males) tend to engage in bullying. First, they have a desire to exert power over others. Second, bullies may have hostile feelings that “may make them derive satisfaction from inflicting injury and suffering upon other individuals” (Olweus, 1996, p. 269). Third, students may engage in bullying because they obtain a benefit from their behavior, such as tangible items (like money) or social benefits (like increased status). Victims of bullying also tend to have specific characteristics. Olweus (1996) distinguishes between two types of victims: passive/submissive victims and provocative victims. According to Olweus (1996), passive/submissive victims tend to be insecure and have low self-esteem and few friends. Provocative victims tend to exhibit behaviors that are irritating to their peers (e.g., being hyperactive); in effect, they tend to draw negative attention to themselves (Olweus, 1996). The last two roles are bully-victim and bystander. Bully-victims are students who bully others and who are bullied themselves (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Bystanders refer to “those who were not directly involved, but who witnessed the bullying as it occurred” (Carney & Merrell, 2001, p. 365). According to Rigby (2004), there are five main theories used to explain why students in engage in bullying behaviors and which also inform bullying prevention and intervention methods. The first theory, Bullying as the Outcome of Individual Differences, views bullying as an issue of power in which a person with more physical or psychological power aims to dominate one with less. Prevention and intervention methods that ascribe to this theory focus on identifying students who are likely to bully others and changing their behavior (Rigby, 2004). The second theory, Bullying as a 13 Developmental Process, views bullying as a “natural developmental process” (Rigby, 2004, p. 291). Prevention and intervention strategies that ascribe to this perspective focus on helping teachers to develop strategies that are geared towards students’ particular levels of development. The third theory, Bullying as a Socio-cultural Phenomenon, views bullying as a result of cultural differences, such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status. Prevention and intervention strategies that ascribe to this perspective focus on utilizing a curriculum that addresses cultural issues and encourages tolerance. The fourth theory, Bullying as a Response to Peer Pressures within the School, views bullying as a group process in which students engage in bullying due to peer pressure or group allegiance (Rigby, 2004). Prevention and intervention strategies that ascribe to this perspective focus on identifying and working with the groups that are bullying others. The final theory, Bullying from the Perspective of Restorative Justice, views bullying as a result of the character of the child, and emphasizes the role of the family and school in helping the child to develop more appropriate expressions of their feelings and more appropriate views of their peers. Prevention and intervention strategies that ascribe to this perspective focus on helping bullies to foster positive relationships with their peers. Rigby (2004) asserts that no one theory of bullying takes precedence, and that each theory has strengths and limitations that should be considered when determining how to address bullying in schools. The Nature of Cyberbullying According to Montgomery (2009), teenagers’ “engagement with digital media is ushering in a new set of behaviors, values, and expectations that this generation will carry 14 with them into adulthood” (p. 8). One behavior that is of concern is cyberbullying, which is also referred to as electronic bullying, digital bullying, and cyber harassment (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). The sections that follow provide an overview of the nature of cyberbullying, including current definitions of cyberbullying, media used for cyberbullying purposes, forms of cyberbullying, the online disinhibition effect (a theoretical framework for understanding why students may engage in cyberbullying), and students’ reporting practices. Cyberbullying: Current Definitions Cyberbullying is defined in different ways in the research literature. Li (2006) defines cyberbullying as “the use of electronic communication devices to bully others” (p. 2). Vandebosch and Van Cleemput (2008) explain that, in order for a practice to be considered cyberbullying, it must meet the following three criteria: “be intended to hurt (by the perpetrator) and perceived as hurtful (by the victim); be part of a repetitive pattern of negative offline or online actions; and be performed in a relationship characterized by a power imbalance” (p. 499). Smith et al. (2008) reflect some of these same ideas in their interpretation of cyberbullying, which is defined as “an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself” (p. 376). Despite these slight differences in definition, the core concept is the same: cyberbullying involves repeated bullying and harassment through online and digital means. Instances of cyberbullying and their tragic effects have been increasingly reported in the media. In 2003, 13-year-old Ryan Patrick Halligan killed himself after being 15 bullied at school and receiving instant messages accusing him of being gay (Associated Press, 2007). In 2006, Megan Meier hung herself after receiving insulting and hateful messages on her MySpace page from a fictitious boy named “Josh Evans” (Maag, 2007). Lori Drew, the mother of one of Meier’s former friends, created the fake character and MySpace page for “Josh Evans” in order to find out what Meier thought of her daughter. Drew used the page to gain the trust of Meier and later turned on her, posting hateful messages like, “The world would be a better place without you.” In January 2010, Phoebe Prince, a 15-year-old high-school student, hung herself after being cyberbullied for months via text messages and Facebook (Canning, Goldman, & McCarthy, 2010). In September 2010, 18-year-old Rutgers University student, Tyler Clementi, jumped off the George Washington Bridge after his roommate secretly recorded him having intimate relations with another man and posted the video online (Friedman, 2010). These and other news reports indicate that cyberbullying is a real phenomenon in the digital age. Media for Cyberbullying A variety of tools are used for cyberbullying purposes, including phone calls, text messages, email, picture/video clips, instant messages, websites, and chatrooms (Smith et al., 2008). Studies have found that certain tools are used more often than others. The most common tools used for cyberbullying are instant messages (Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Mishna, Cook, Gadalla, Daciuk, & Solomon, 2010; Smith et al., 2008), email (Slonje & Smith, 2008), phone calls (Smith et al., 2008), text messages (Smith et al., 2008), and social networking sites like MySpace (Wright, Burnham, Inman, & Ogorchock, 2009). Some studies have also identified gender differences regarding the type of media used for 16 cyberbullying purposes. For example, girls are more likely to be victims of email cyberbullying than boys (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Slonje & Smith, 2008), and boys are more likely to engage in text message bullying (Slonje & Smith, 2008). Forms of Cyberbullying Like traditional bullying, cyberbullying can take on many forms. Willard (2005) identified eight forms of cyberbullying and defined them as follows: • Flaming: Online fights using electronic messages with angry and vulgar language. • Harassment: Repeatedly sending nasty, mean, and insulting messages. • Denigration: “Dissing” someone online. Sending or posting gossip or rumors about a person to damage his or her reputation or friendships. • Impersonation: Pretending to be someone else and sending or posting material to get that person in trouble or danger or to damage that person’s reputation or friendships. • Outing: Sharing someone’s secrets or embarrassing information or images online. • Trickery: Talking someone into revealing secrets or embarrassing information, then sharing it online. • Exclusion: Intentionally and cruelly excluding someone from an online group. • Cyberstalking: Repeated, intense harassment and denigration that includes threats or creates significant fear (p. 1). Like traditional bullying, the eight forms of cyberbullying involve verbal aggression, relational aggression, and exclusion. However, cyberbullying does not involve physical aggression, since it is executed through digital and online means and can be done anytime and anywhere though the use of technology: The typical schoolyard bully, whose torment of students would stop when the final bell rang, now has new forums to carry out this behavior. The cyberbully has almost limitless time to harass, degrade, and assert control over his or her victims. (Kite, Gable, & Filippelli, 2010, p. 159) Furthermore, cyberbullying involves a larger audience than traditional bullying since mean messages, embarrassing pictures, and the like can easily and quickly be shared 17 through digital tools (Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Slonje & Smith 2007). Shariff (2005) also notes that online, “hundreds of perpetrators can get involved in the abuse” (p. 470). Several studies have also found significant relationships between cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Traditional bullies are more likely to be cyberbullies (Junoven & Gross, 2008; Li, 2007; Smith et al., 2008), and students who are victims of traditional bullying are more likely to be victims of cyberbullying (Li, 2007; Smith et al., 2008). Li (2007) suggests the following: This close link between bullying and cyberbullying highlights a significant issue to be considered when dealing with cyberbullying issues and working on prevention programs. This calls for a holistic design of prevention programs that considers bullies, cyberbullies, as well as their victims as an integrated whole. Another implication of this result is that the effective strategies for combating bullying may also be effective in fighting cyberbullying (p. 446). The Online Disinhibition Effect One framework for understanding why people engage in cyberbullying is known as the online disinhibition effect. Suler (2004) defines this as the tendency of people to “say and do things in cyberspace that they wouldn’t ordinarily say and do in the face-to- face world” (p. 321). He identifies two types of the online disinhibition effect: benign disinhibition (which involves people sharing personal information with others) and toxic disinhibition (which involves people engaging in mean or inappropriate activities, such as being rude, threatening others, or visiting violent sites). Suler (2004) also identifies six factors that contribute to the online disinhibition effect: dissociative anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity, solipsistic introjection, dissociative imagination, and minimization of status and authority. 18 The first factor, dissociative anonymity, refers to the idea that people can be whoever they want to be online, revealing as much or as little of their true identities as they wish (Suler, 2004). According to Kowalski and Limber (2007), “the ability to hide behind fake screen names or to steal someone else’s screen name and communicate as that person provides people with the opportunity to communicate things they would be reticent to say to another’s face” (p. 27). Cassidy, Jackson, and Brown (2009) studied the cyberbullying experiences of 365 6th-9th grade students, and found that 52% lied about their age while online, 33% assumed a different personality, 23% participated in activities that they would not typically do in real life, and 15% pretended to be someone else. In addition to remaining anonymous or hiding their true identities, people may disassociate their online actions from themselves. Suler (2004) explains: When people have the opportunity to separate their actions online from their in- person lifestyle and identity, they feel less vulnerable about self-disclosing and acting out. Whatever they say or do can’t be directly linked to the rest of their lives (p. 322). The second factor of the online disinhibition effect, invisibility, refers to the idea that, since people cannot see each other, hear each other, or observe others’ body language through digital media, they are less likely to inhibit themselves based on others’ feelings (Suler, 2004). Kowalski and Limber (2008) also affirm this by explaining that the inability to view others online may make cyberbullies think that they are not hurting their victims. A third factor that is related to invisibility is asynchronicity, which refers to the idea that, since digital and online communication does not occur in “real time,” people do not often get the immediate responses that they would typically get in face-to- 19 face situations. Therefore, they may be more likely to do or say things that they would typically suppress once receiving a response from someone (Suler, 2004). The fourth factor of the online disinhibition effect is solipsistic introjection, which is the idea that people create mental images of what they believe the people they are interacting with online are like, and come to view them not as actual people, but as “imaginary characters” within the digital world (Suler, 2004). Related to this is the fifth factor, dissociative imagination, where people come to view the digital world as a separate, “make-believe dimension” that is free of the rules that apply in the real world (Suler, 2004). Li (2006) explains that “unlike face-to-face bullying, people often feel that cyberspace is impersonal and they can therefore say whatever they want” (p. 2). The final factor that contributes to the online disinhibition effect is the minimization of status and authority (Suler, 2004). This means that, online, a person’s status (class) is invisible as are many additional characteristics that would denote authority, or power. Suler (2004) explains: Everyone- regardless of status, wealth, race, or gender- starts off on a level playing field. Although one’s identity in the outside world ultimately may shape power in cyberspace, what mostly determines the influence on others is one’s skill in communicating (including writing skills), persistence, the quality of one’s ideas, and technical know-how (p. 324). In sum, the six aspects of the online disinhibition effect (such as anonymity and the lack of status and authority) may encourage adolescents to engage in activities that they would typically be inhibited to do in person. This includes harmful activities like cyberbullying. Teenagers who are engaging in aggressive acts behind the veil of a cell 20 phone or a computer screen may not consider that their actions have consequences in the real world. Student Reporting Practices A disturbing trend within the research literature is that, when cyberbullying occurs, students seldom report it to adults (Hoff & Mitchell 2009; Junoven & Gross, 2008; Li, 2006; Li, 2007; Mishna et al., 2010; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008; Wright et al., 2009). In addition, females are more likely to report cyberbullying than males (Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Li, 2006). The rate of students reporting cyberbullying to teachers and other school officials is especially low, with estimates ranging from 0% to 16.7% (Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Slonje & Smith, 2008). Reasons for this phenomenon include students’ feeling that teachers lack knowledge about cyberbullying and do not know how to help them with it (Agatston, Kowalski, & Limber, 2007; Cassidy, Jackson, & Brown, 2007; Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Wright et al., 2009). There have been mixed findings with regard to whether or not victims of cyberbullying know the identity of their aggressors, with some studies reporting that many victims do not know their aggressors (Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Li, 2007), and other studies reporting that most victims do (Junoven & Gross, 2008; Mishna et al., 2010). However, victims often feel even more powerless and fearful when they do not know who the perpetrator is (Hoff & Mitchell, 2009). Statement of the Problem Although many teachers and school officials are aware of traditional bullying, cyberbullying is often overlooked in the discussion of bullying (Beran & Li, 2005). 21 According to Hinduja and Patchin (2009), “there exists a great disconnect between what youth are doing in cyberspace and what adults know about what youth are doing in cyberspace” (p. 182). The research literature indicates that the prevalence of cyberbullying is as high as 58% (Beran & Li, 2005), and that cyberbullying can affect students in many ways, including creating additional stress, lowering their self-esteem, and creating feelings of anger and sadness (Beran & Li, 2005; Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Mishna et al., 2010; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010). The research literature also indicates that students do not perceive teachers as being knowledgeable about cyberbullying or ways to address it (Agatston et al., 2007; Cassidy et al., 2007; Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Wright et al., 2009). The few studies conducted about preservice teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying indicate that they do not feel adequately prepared to address cyberbullying (Li, 2008; Yilmaz, 2010). Very little is known in the research literature about inservice teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying. According to Yilmaz (2010), “teachers’ perceptions and beliefs play an important role in teaching and in their teaching practices with regard to developing and managing skills and knowledge about cyberbullying” (p. 264). This study aimed to examine inservice teachers’ knowledge of cyberbullying, their experiences managing cyberbullying, their concerns about and confidence to address cyberbullying, and their perceptions of their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Purpose of the Study This study utilized qualitative methods in order to gather data about teachers’ knowledge, experiences, concern, confidence, and perceptions pertaining to 22 cyberbullying. Individual interviews were conducted with six inservice teachers who teach at a public middle school. The transcribed interview data was coded and grouped into major categories. Then, the coded notes were examined further to identify any predominant themes/trends. The aim of this study was to address the following four research questions: 1. What do middle school teachers know about cyberbullying? 2. What experiences have middle school teachers had managing cyberbullying? 3. How concerned are middle school teachers about cyberbullying, and how confident are they that they can address it? 4. How do middle school teachers perceive their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying? Importance of the Study Cyberbullying is a new phenomenon in the digital age, and the research on this topic is very limited. While several studies have examined cyberbullying within the context of student perceptions and experiences, only two studies to date have examined how teachers perceive cyberbullying. Furthermore, these two studies only focused on preservice teachers. This study aimed to bridge a gap in the literature by examining inservice teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of cyberbullying, their experiences managing it, and their concern about and confidence to address it. Teachers may be working with students who are victims and/or perpetrators of cyberbullying, and they can play a significant role in educating students about 23 cyberbullying and equipping them with the tools to properly address it. They can also serve as advocates for victims. According to Hinduja and Patchin (2007), “victims who are confident that a teacher or school administrator will take their experience seriously will feel more comfortable confiding in that person instead of potentially taking matters into their own hands” (p. 106). Additionally, a growing concern in education today is the importance of preparing students for the 21 st century (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; North Central Regional Educational Laboratory [NCREL], 2003; U.S. Department of Education, 2006). This includes students’ developing technological literacy (NCREL, 2003). According to the National Educational Technology Standards for Students, one of the core areas that students must develop an understanding of is digital citizenship (International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2007). Ribble, Bailey, and Ross (2004) define digital citizenship as “the norms of behavior with regard to technology use” (p. 7). Proper etiquette and communication are two of the behaviors that characterize digital citizenship (Ribble, Bailey, & Ross, 2004). Students must learn how to be responsible users of technology who can appropriately interact with people in the digital world. They must also understand that their online and digital communication is powerful, lasting, and may have unforeseen consequences. Mason (2008) explains that “cyberspace holds tremendous promise for creating a connected world. However, this connection cannot occur if online freedom is not balanced with personal responsibility” (p. 342). The findings of this study are used to propose recommendations for the redesign of school- 24 based and district-level professional development/teacher training around the issues of cyberbullying and digital citizenship. Definitions of Key Terms The following terms are used throughout this study: Cyberbully: “A person who uses electronic means to cause emotional harm to another person” (Ahlfors, 2010, p. 516). Cyberbullying: “Willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices” (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009, p. 5). Digital citizenship: “The norms of behavior with regard to technology use” (Ribble, Bailey, & Ross, 2004, p. 7). Inservice teachers: Full time K-12 teachers who are teaching in a classroom. Middle School: A public school that educates students in grades 6-8. Perpetrator(s): The individual or group that electronically bullies others (Kowalski & Limber, 2007). Preservice teachers: Prospective K-12 teachers who are enrolled in a teacher education program. Victim: “The person who is on the receiving end of online social cruelty. Also known as the ‘target’” (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009, p. 188). Organization of the Study Chapter One provided an overview of the nature of this study, including the problem, purpose, and research questions that were examined. Chapter Two builds on 25 Chapter One by providing a review of the literature on major topics that are pertinent to this study and the theoretical framework that was utilized. Chapter Three describes the methodology used to gather data about the research questions, including the instrumentation, data collection procedures, and data analysis procedures. Chapter Four presents the results and discusses the findings of this study. Finally, Chapter Five provides a discussion of the implications of this study, its limitations, and areas for future research. 26 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW Digital and online technologies are staples in the lives of today’s youth. These technologies provide youth with increased access to information and people (Gomez, Sherin, Griesdorn, & Finn, 2008). While the proliferation of technology holds much promise, there is also some apprehension regarding its use. Of growing concern is the issue of cyberbullying, where students are bullied and harassed through online and digital means (e.g., cell phone text messages, online instant messages, social networking websites, etc.). This chapter provides a review of the literature pertaining to bullying and cyberbullying. First, the prevalence and impact of bullying is discussed. Next, students’ and teachers’ perceptions of and reactions to bullying are examined. The research literature on cyberbullying is then presented, with an emphasis on the prevalence and impact of cyberbullying, students’ and teachers’ perceptions of and reactions to cyberbullying, and the school’s role in cyberbullying. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the theoretical framework used for this study. Prevalence and Impact of Bullying Traditional bullying is commonplace in many schools and has been known to result in a range of negative effects for victims. This section reviews three studies that examined both the prevalence and impact of bullying on students’ emotional and psychological health, and one study that focused on the impact of bullying on students’ academic achievement. Through examining the prevalence and impact of traditional bullying, insights can be gained about the scope and impact of cyberbullying. 27 Borg (1998) conducted a large-scale study to examine the impact of bullying on the emotional and behavioral reactions of bullies and victims. The participants for the study included 6,282 students from 50 randomly selected primary and secondary schools in the Mediterranean country of Malta. The students were between the ages of 9 and 14+, and they spanned six grade levels. In terms of gender, 50.3% of the students were female and 49.7% were male. A questionnaire was administered to the students eliciting information about their experiences with and reactions to bullying both as a bully and as a victim. Demographic information was also obtained through the questionnaire. With regard to their role in bullying, 3,071 students identified themselves as bullies, and 3,801 students identified themselves as victims. These numbers indicate that some students experienced both of these roles. Victims of bullying reported a range of emotional reactions including vengeance (38.3%), anger (37.1%), self-pity (36.5%), indifference (24.7%), and helplessness (24%) (Borg, 1998). Bullies reported feeling sorry (49.8%), indifferent (40.6%), and satisfied (20.9%) (Borg, 1998). With regards to behavioral reactions to bullying, victims reported a range of reactions including doing nothing (31%), seeking parental help (29.6%), sharing what happened with their best friend (27.4%), seeking the help of one or more teachers (22.4%), seeking the help of multiple friends (17.2%), seeking the help of a friend (14.9%), seeking the help of the head of the school (14.5%), or responding in some other manner (14.6%) (Borg, 1998). Borg (1998) found several significant trends with regards to the level of schooling and gender of the students. One trend was that more secondary school victims felt angry and vengeful in response to being bullied while more primary school victims felt self-pity 28 and helplessness. Another key trend was that more secondary school bullies were satisfied and indifferent about their behavior while more primary school bullies felt sorry for their behavior. Furthermore, male victims tended to feel more angry and vengeful while female victims tended to feel self-pity and helplessness. With regards to reactions to bullying, Borg (1998) found that male and secondary school victims tended to do nothing or seek help from a friend while female and primary school victims tended to tell their best friend and seek help from their parents. The fact that such a large percentage of victims in Borg’s (1998) study felt vengeance as a result of bullying is of concern because it suggests that many victims consider retaliating against their aggressor. Some students may choose to retaliate in inappropriate and harmful ways. Furthermore, the fact that many bullies in Borg’s (1998) study felt indifferent about their behavior and that many victims did nothing in response to bullying suggests the need for targeted intervention both for bullies and victims. In another study, Roland (2002) examined the relationship between bullying, depression, and suicidal thoughts. The sample for the study included 2,088 students from 44 randomly selected secondary schools in Norway. A questionnaire was administered to the students, with a response rate of 85%. On the questionnaire, students were provided with a definition of bullying, and they were asked to report how often they had experienced bullying (whether as a bully or as a victim). They were also asked to report whether they had experienced emotional problems (such as depressive symptoms, suicidal thoughts, or other mental problems). With regards to the prevalence of bullying and victimization, 63 students identified themselves as bullies, 91 students were victims, 29 20 students were bully/victims, and 1,914 were neutral (i.e., they had not participated in bullying). The major finding of Roland’s (2002) study was that bullies and victims had more depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts than neutral students. Furthermore, victims of bullying had higher mean scores in depressive thoughts than bullies, and female students had higher mean scores in depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts than male students. Roland’s (2002) study indicates that there is a relationship between bullying, depressive symptoms, and suicidal thoughts, and it suggests that these negative impacts may not only be limited to victims. Similar to Roland (2002), Klomek, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, and Gould (2007) studied the relationship between bullying, depression and suicide. They utilized a questionnaire that included questions related to demographics, depression, suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, and the frequency of bullying victimization and perpetration both in and away from school. The population for this study included 2,341 9 th -12 th grade students from a convenience sample of five public high schools and one private all-boys school in New York. With regards to the prevalence of bullying amongst students, Klomek et al. (2007) found that roughly 20% of students were victims of bullying in school and 10.4% were victims of bullying outside of school, with roughly 9% being frequent victims of bullying. In addition, approximately 25% of students bullied others in school and approximately 15% bullied others outside of school, with 13% bullying others frequently. Boys were more likely to be bullies than girls (both in and outside of school) (Klomek et al., 2007). The major finding of Klomek et al.’s (2007) study was that students who frequently experienced bullying as victims or as perpetrators were much 30 more likely to have depression, suicidal thoughts, or to have attempted suicide. This correlates with Roland’s (2002) study, which found that both bullies and victims had more depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts than students who had not experienced bullying. In addition, Klomek et al. (2007) found that students who infrequently experienced bullying as victims or as perpetrators were more likely to have depression and suicidal thoughts as well. Both Klomek et al.’s (2007) study and Roland’s (2002) study suggest that bullying can have a very negative impact on students’ mental health. Unlike previous studies which focused on the impact of bullying on students’ psychological and emotional health, Junoven, Wang, and Espinoza (2011) examined the relationship between bullying victimization and poor academic performance during the course of middle school. This 3-year, longitudinal study was conducted with approximately 1,535 sixth graders from 11 public and urban middle schools in Los Angeles. Two measures were used to determine bullying victimization. At the beginning of each fall and spring semester from 6 th -8 th grade, the students completed the Peer Victimization Scale, a survey that measured students’ self-perceived bullying victimization. Each semester, students also nominated peers whom they perceived as victims of physical, verbal, and social (or relational) bullying. Two other measures that were used to determine academic achievement were students’ grade point average (GPA) in four core courses (math, science, English, and social studies) and teacher reports of students’ academic engagement as reported in the Teacher Report of Engagement Questionnaire. Junoven et al. (2011) found a strong correlation between bullying victimization and low GPA. They also found that there was a strong correlation between 31 bullying victimization and low academic engagement (Junoven et al., 2011). These findings were consistent both for students who perceived themselves as victims of bullying and students who were identified by their peers as victims of bullying. Junoven et al.’s (2011) study suggests that bullying victimization is strongly related to academic achievement and that it should be considered when examining issues pertaining to the academic achievement of middle school students. Like Klomek et al.’s (2007) study, Junoven et al.’s (2011) study highlights that bullying may be associated with a variety of negative impacts (including poor mental health and lower academic achievement). These four studies suggest that students experience bullying in multiple roles (i.e., bully, victim, bully-victim, and bystander). The studies also suggest that bullying has a negative impact on students’ psychological health, emotional wellbeing, and academic achievement. The current study examined teachers’ knowledge of cyberbullying within the context of their knowledge of and experiences managing traditional bullying. Teachers’ knowledge of the prevalence and impact of traditional bullying may inform their understanding of the prevalence and impact of cyberbullying. Perceptions of and Reactions to Bullying The way in which people perceive and respond to bullying may inform their perceptions of and reactions to cyberbullying as well. The following sections examine studies pertaining to students’ and teachers’ perceptions of and reactions to bullying. Students’ Perceptions and Reactions Oliver and Candappa (2007) examined students’ perceptions of methods of responding to bullying, such as telling friends, parents, teachers, or other adults. The 32 study was conducted with Year 5 primary students and Year 8 secondary students in London, and it encompassed two phases. During the first phase of the study, focus groups were conducted with 230 Year 5 and Year 8 students from 12 primary and secondary schools. In the focus groups, students shared how they would respond to a variety of bullying scenarios. The responses from the focus group were used to inform the second phase of the study, during which a questionnaire was administered to all of the Year 5 and Year 8 students from the 12 schools. In total, 953 students completed the questionnaire, with a response rate of 78.5%. The majority of the students who completed the survey (82%) were secondary students, while the remainder (12%) were primary students. One finding of Oliver and Candappa’s (2007) study was that students viewed bullying as encompassing a range of behaviors including name calling, social isolation, and physical abuse (e.g., hitting, pushing, etc.). Furthermore, students identified five main responses to bullying. The first response, standing up for oneself, was perceived as being the most effective response to bullying, and was advocated by 72% of primary students and 61% of secondary students. The second response, telling friends, was also perceived as being beneficial because friends can help to prevent bullying and can be supportive in dealing with it. In total, 68% of primary students and 71% of secondary students advocated telling friends about bullying. The third response, telling parents, elicited mixed feelings. Amongst primary students, 78% said that they would tell their mothers about bullying and 70% said that they would tell their fathers. Secondary students, however, were less likely to report bullying to their parents. In fact, only 58% of 33 secondary students reported that they would tell their mothers about bullying, and 44% said that they would tell their fathers. While students perceived their parents as being helpful in terms of listening and being supportive, they also expressed concern that their parents may overreact to the situation. The fourth response, telling teachers, was perceived as involving the most risk due to concerns that teachers may not believe them, and fear that the bully may retaliate. While 51% of primary students expressed that they would be comfortable telling a teacher about bullying, only 31% of secondary students felt the same way. The last response to bullying involved telling other adults (such as counselors) or reporting bullying to confidential agencies (such as telephone helplines that are focused on bullying). Thirty-nine percent of primary students and 15% of secondary students expressed that they would report bullying to an external, confidential agency. Oliver and Candappa’s (2007) finding that students (especially those in the upper grades) are hesitant to report bullying to teachers is of particular interest to this study. It points to the need to examine how teachers perceive and respond to instances of bullying, which may provide insight into their responses to cyberbullying as well. In another study, Carney (2008) examined students’ perceptions of bullying- related trauma. Ninety-one sixth-grade students from a rural middle school in the Midwest participated in the study, and three forms of instrumentation were used. The first tool, the School Bullying Survey, included demographic questions, a definition of bullying, and four questions regarding how often students had been victims or witnesses of bullying and the type of bullying that it was. Of the 91 students surveyed, 38% reported that they had been victims of bullying (17% almost every day, 3% several times 34 per week, 40% once a week, and 40% only once or twice). In addition, 75% of students reported that they had witnessed bullying (16% almost every day, 20.5% several times per week, 48.5% once a week, and 15% only once or twice). With regards to the type of bullying they had seen or received, 80% reported direct bullying (46% physical, 34% verbal), and approximately 20% reported indirect bullying (Carney, 2008). The other two methods of instrumentation utilized in this study were a bullying scenario and the Impact of Event Scale. The bullying scenario presented students with a fictional account of bullying that incorporated both physical and verbal aggression. Students were asked to read the scenario and report how they would respond if they were the victim in the scenario. The Impact of Event Scale (IES) was a 15-item tool that measured students’ level of trauma. Students completed the IES after reading the scenario, and they responded to it as if they were the victim from the scenario. The bullying scenario and the IES were used to determine the correlation between bullying victimization and trauma. Carney (2008) found that students believed they would experience a high level of trauma if they were the victims in the bullying scenario. Furthermore, Carney (2008) found that repeated exposure to bullying correlated with higher levels of trauma. Carney’s (2008) findings highlight that bullying-related trauma may have an impact on not only victims, but on bystanders as well. It also suggests the importance of schools’ developing adequate bullying prevention and intervention strategies in order to help students appropriately manage trauma. Another study which examined students’ perceptions of bullying was conducted by Varjas et al. (2008). Thirty 4 th -8 th grade students from an urban school district in the 35 southern region of United States participated in semi-structured interviews that elicited their perceptions of the following five topics: what bullying entails, the characteristics of bullies and victims, bullies’ motivation for bullying others, reactions to bullying, and prevention strategies. Varjas et al. (2008) found that students perceived bullying as being physical, verbal, and relational in nature. This was similar to Oliver and Candappa’s (2007) study where students perceived that bullying could be manifested in the same three ways. Students in Varjas et al.’s (2008) study also perceived that girls tended to engage in relational bullying, and that boys tended to engage in physical bullying. In addition, students explained that some behaviors that adults perceive as bullying (such as teasing and horseplay) are not actually bullying (Varjas et al., 2008) In terms of the characteristics of bullies and victims, Varjas et al. (2008) found that students perceived bullies and victims as having a “difference from the norm” in terms of their behavior, intellect, or physical appearance (p. 108). In particular, they perceived victims as having an unusual appearance in terms of their clothing. With regards to motivation, students perceived bullies as being motivated by a desire to make themselves feel good or to exert power over another person (Varjas et al., 2008). In terms of reactions to bullying, Varjas et al. (2008) found that students had a range of perceptions. First of all, they perceived teachers as being ineffective in accurately identifying bullying and responding to incidences of bullying in an adequate and efficient manner. This correlates with Oliver and Candappa’s (2007) finding that students perceived telling teachers about bullying as being the most risky method of responding to bullying. Secondly, students in Varjas et al.’s (2008) study perceived that bystanders 36 tended to act in different ways depending on the situation. They reported that bystanders would help the victim if they were friends of the victim, support the bully if they did not like the victim, or ignore the situation if they did not know the victim. Finally, with regards to prevention methods, students perceived that bullying would decrease with increased teacher supervision in places where bullying tends to occur (e.g., bathrooms and lunchrooms), and through intervention in initial bullying incidents (Varjas et al., 2008). In another study, Tenenbaum, Varjas, Meyers, and Parris (2011) examined the coping strategies that victims of bullying use, and their perceptions of the effectiveness of those strategies. The participants in this study were 102 4 th -8 th grade students from an elementary school and a middle school in the southeastern United States. All of these students were victims of bullying. Interviews were conducted with the students using focus groups that were organized according to gender and grade level. Tenenbaum et al. (2011) found that students used a range of coping strategies that could be categorized as problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping. Problem-focused coping strategies referred to those in which the victim tried to address the problem directly. Emotion- focused coping strategies referred to those in which the victim tried to manage the feelings that resulted from their bullying experiences. The problem-focused coping strategies that students reported using included standing up to the bully (mentioned 13 timed) and self-defense (mentioned 29 times). The emotion-focused coping strategies that students reported using included reducing stress by employing calming strategies, acting out, or retaliating (mentioned 65 times); trying to stay focused on the positive (mentioned 37 8 times); and blaming oneself (mentioned 5 times). Students also utilized coping strategies that were considered to be both problem-focused and emotion-focused in nature. These included seeking social support from friends and adults (mentioned 45 times), distancing oneself from the bully (mentioned 39 times), and internalizing their feelings by keeping the bullying incidents and their emotions to themselves (mentioned 37 times). Tenenbaum et al. (2011) found that students primarily relied on problem-focused strategies to cope with bullying. They also found that students perceived strategies that involved reporting bullying to teachers or other adults as being ineffective due to adults not always believing them or the prospect of the bullying getting worse as a result of the bully finding out that it was reported. This corroborates Oliver and Candappa’s (2007) finding that students are hesitant to report bullying to teachers and Varjas et al.’s (2008) finding that students perceive teachers as being ineffective in identifying and responding to bullying. Tenenbaum et al. (2011) also found that students perceived the strategies of standing up to the bully and showing emotion to be ineffective. This finding is contrary to Oliver and Candappa’s (2007) study where students perceived standing up to the bully as being the most effective response to bullying. In Tenenbaum et al.’s (2011) study, responding to bullying situations using physical means was perceived as being both ineffective and effective due to the possibility that it could stop the bullying, but also get the victim in trouble. Likewise, the strategy of reducing stress by employing calming strategies, acting out, or retaliating was perceived as both ineffective and effective because while it may help to reduce stress, it may also result in the victims behaving like 38 bullies themselves. The only strategy that students perceived to be successful in Tenenbaum et al.’s (2011) study was seeking social support. This was similar to Oliver and Candappa’s (2007) finding that students perceived telling friends as being an effective response to bullying due to the support which friends can provide. The results of these studies indicate that students understand the different forms that bullying can take (Oliver & Candappa, 2007; Varjas et al., 2008). These studies also indicate that students do not perceive the strategy of reporting bullying to teachers as being effective (Oliver & Candappa, 2007; Tenenbaum et al., 2011). Furthermore, they do not perceive teachers as being effective in identifying and responding to bullying (Varjas et al., 2008). Teachers’ Perceptions and Reactions Examining teachers’ perceptions of bullying is essential in order to understand how they respond to bullying and why they respond in those ways. In one study, Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler & Wiener (2005) examined teachers’ perceptions of bullying and the factors that influence their responses to it. For the first part of the study, a bullying survey was administered to 4 th and 5 th grade students at four public schools in order to identify the students who perceived themselves as being frequent victims of bullying. Seventeen children were identified as frequent victims. For the second part of the study, interviews were conducted with the teachers of these victims. In total, thirteen teachers were interviewed about their reactions to the students who identified themselves as victims of bullying, and their perceptions of various aspects of bullying. Mishna et al. (2005) state several key findings. First, teachers were only aware that 7 of the 17 students 39 were being bullied. Secondly, while teachers defined bullying as incorporating a power imbalance and negative intent, they did not identify repetition as a key characteristic (as the research literature often does). Mishna et al. (2005) also found that five key factors influenced teachers’ responses to bullying, including how serious they considered the incidents to be, whether the victim played a hand in their victimization through displaying provocative behavior, whether the victim matched their conception of what a typical victim is like, whether the teacher felt empathy for the child, and whether the school climate supported teachers in addressing bullying. Another key finding was that teachers perceived students as being subjective in their determination of what constitutes bullying, and, thus, did not always qualify instances that the students called bullying as being bullying. Finally, Mishna et al. (2005) found that teachers perceived physical bullying as being more harmful than indirect bullying and that they desired additional training in addressing bullying. Mishna et al.’s (2005) study suggests that teacher perceptions play a significant role in their identification of bullying incidents amongst students, and in their responses to such incidents. In another study, Bauman and Del Rio (2006) examined preservice teachers’ perceptions of physical, verbal, and relational bullying using a tripartite study. During the first phase of the study, 82 preservice teachers from a teacher education program at a southwestern university in the United States completed a questionnaire that included six vignettes about bullying. Two vignettes described instances of physical bullying, two vignettes described instances of verbal bullying, and two vignettes described instances of relational bullying. For each vignette, the preservice teachers responded to three Likert 40 scale questions where they rated how serious the situation was, how upset and sympathetic they would feel, and how likely they were to intervene. Two additional, open-ended questions were included where preservice teachers described how they would respond to the bully and the victim. For the second phase of the study, 140 other students from the same teacher education program at the same university completed a survey where they ranked the seriousness of the same six vignettes from 1 (most serious) to 6 (least seriousness). For the third phase of the study, 36 authors of publications about bullying completed an online survey in which they rated how serious the six vignettes were using a 5-point Likert scale, and then explained the criteria on which they based their decisions. Bauman and Del Rio (2006) found that preservice teachers perceived relational bullying as being less serious than physical and verbal bullying, whereas the expert authors perceived all three forms of bullying as being serious. In addition, preservice teachers felt less sympathy towards victims of relational bullying, and they were less likely to intervene in situations involving relational bullying. Furthermore, the preservice teachers’ responses towards bullies and victims involved in relational bullying would be less severe than their responses towards those involved in physical or verbal bullying. Bauman and Del Rio’s (2006) finding that preservice teachers perceive physical bullying as being the most serious corroborates Mishna et al. (2005)’s finding and suggests that both preservice and inservice teachers may not comprehend the severity and impact of relational bullying. 41 Like Bauman and Del Rio (2006), Bauman, Rigby, and Hoppa (2008) also examined teachers’ perceptions of bullying by utilizing a hypothetical bullying scenario. The study was conducted in the United States, and it utilized a web-based, password- protected qualitative survey as the primary method of data collection. In the survey, participants were presented with a bullying scenario that incorporated both direct and indirect bullying. They were then asked to respond to a 22-item Likert-scale survey where they rated how likely they were to utilize different responses to the bullying incident on a scale of 1 (“I definitely would not”) to 5 (“I would definitely would”). Bauman et al. (2008) based the items on the Likert-scale survey on what they had identified in the research literature as the five most common responses to bullying: ignoring the situation, using punitive methods to discipline the bully, working with the victim, eliciting help from other adults (teachers, counselors, administrators), and using non-punitive, educative methods to work with the bully and victim. The survey was shared with prospective participants through email listservs and personal contacts. In total, 735 K-12 teachers and school counselors from all 50 states completed the survey. Of those who completed the survey, 58% worked at schools that had an anti-bullying policy, 31% worked at schools that had an anti-bullying program, and 69% had received anti-bullying training. Amongst those who had anti-bullying training, 2% received it through their preservice teacher education program, 35% received it through inservice programs at their school, 12% received it through their graduate program, 47% received it through workshops and conferences, and 4% received it in another manner. 42 Bauman et al. (2008) found that, overall, teachers and counselors were most likely to respond to bullying by disciplining the bully, eliciting help from other adults, and working with the bully in a non-punitive manner. They were least likely to ignore the situation. When the responses of teachers and counselors were considered separately, several significant differences arose. First, counselors were more likely than teachers to work with the victim, work with the bully (in a non-punitive fashion), and elicit help from other adults, while teachers were more likely than counselors to discipline the bully and ignore the bullying situation (Bauman et al., 2008). Another significant trend of Bauman et al.’s (2008) study was that teachers who worked at schools that had anti- bullying policies were less likely to ignore bullying situations and more likely to elicit help from other adults. Likewise, teachers who worked at schools that had anti-bullying programs and teachers who had received bullying training were less likely to ignore bullying situations. This suggests that such anti-bullying policies, programs, and professional development may encourage teachers to actively respond to bullying rather than simply ignoring it. In yet another study, Marshall, Varjas, Meyers, Graybill, and Skoczylas (2009) utilized qualitative methods to examine teachers’ perceptions of bullying. Individual interviews were conducted with 30 fourth through eighth grade teachers from an urban school district in the United States. Particular emphasis was placed on the teachers’ experiences with bullying and their perceptions of ways to respond to bullying. Marshall et al. (2009) developed a four-part model to categorize and analyze the teachers’ responses during the interviews. The first category, Constructive-Direct, referred to 43 teacher responses that directly addressed the students involved in the bullying incident (bully and/or victim) and were intended to educate the students without punishing them. Teachers whose responses were classified as Constructive-Direct reported that they spoke with the bully and/or victim privately, addressed inappropriate behaviors directly while providing reminders of appropriate behaviors, protected the victim by ensuring that he/she was not partnered with the bully for classroom tasks and assignments, had the bully apologize for his/her behavior, and shared their own personal experiences with bullying with students in order to help them relate to the victim. The second category, Constructive-Indirect, referred to instances where the teacher elicited the help of another person (e.g., another teacher, counselor, or parents) to address the bullying in a manner intended to be educational and non-punitive. Teachers whose responses were classified as Constructive-Indirect reported that they had the students involved in the bullying incident speak with a counselor, discussed the situation with other teachers to learn about the students who were involved, and contacted the parents of the students. The third category, Punitive-Direct, referred to teacher responses that directly addressed the bully in a disciplinary manner. Teachers whose responses were classified as Punitive-Direct reported that they expelled the bully from the classroom for a period of time, administered a negative consequence to the bully (e.g., detention), yelled, or physically intervened by placing themselves between the bully and victim. The final category, Punitive-Indirect, referred to instances where the teacher sent the bully to another individual for disciplinary purposes. Teachers whose responses were classified as Punitive-Indirect reported that they contacted the parents of the bully and sent the bully to 44 an administrator. Marshall et al. (2009) found that teachers have a wide range of responses to bullying. This corroborates Bauman et al.’s (2008) finding that teachers are likely to respond to bullying in a variety of ways, including disciplining the bully, eliciting help from other adults, and working with the bully in a non-punitive fashion. One limitation of the study was that Marshall et al. (2009) did not specify how many teacher responses fell within each category. These studies suggest that teachers may perceive each form of bullying differently and that they react in different ways. The studies by Mishna et al. (2005) and Bauman and Del Rio (2006) suggest that teachers perceive physical bullying as being of highest concern compared to verbal and relational bullying. Moreover, the studies by Bauman et al. (2008) and Marshall et al. (2009) suggest that teachers have a range of responses to bullying. Comparative Studies on Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions In addition to studies that focused exclusively on either students’ or teachers’ perceptions of bullying, a series of comparative studies have examined the perceptions of both parties concurrently. The following section examines four studies that compared the perceptions of students and teachers in relation to their understanding of bullying and their suggested prevention and intervention strategies. Crothers and Kolbert (2004) conducted a study that compared students’ and teachers’ perceptions of bullying prevention and intervention strategies. The participants in the study were 285 6 th -8 th grade students and 37 teachers from a middle school in the southwest region of Pennsylvania. For the first phase of the study, quantitative methods 45 were employed. A Likert-scale survey was administered to the students and teachers where they rated the effectiveness of a variety of common bullying intervention strategies from the research literature on a scale of 1 (least helpful) to 3 (most helpful). The survey also included additional items related to the prevalence of bullying and how often students ask for and receive support from teachers in addressing bullying. For the second phase of the study, a sample of nine teachers was selected to participate in interviews about the differences in students’ and teachers’ responses on the survey. Crothers and Kolbert (2004) found that teachers reported higher rates of bullying than students and that they reported higher incidences of students’ requesting teacher help and teachers offering support. Teachers primarily attributed these differences in students’ and teachers’ perceptions to students’ limited understanding and awareness of bullying. Crothers and Kolbert (2004) also found that students and teachers differed in terms of their perceptions of which bullying intervention strategies were most effective. Teachers perceived the following three bullying intervention strategies as being most effective: talking with someone about bullying, teaching students how to address bullies, and reporting bullying to adults. Students, by contrast, perceived these three strategies as being most effective: increasing teachers’ awareness of bullying in the classroom, teaching students how to address bullies, and reporting bullying to the parents of both the bullies and the victims (Crothers and Kolbert, 2004). The fact that students did not perceive reporting bullying to teachers as being an effective bullying strategy corroborates the findings in the studies conducted by Oliver and Candappa (2007), Varjas et al. (2008), and Tenenbaum et al. (2011). Furthermore, the finding that both teachers 46 and students perceived the strategy of students being taught how to address bullies as being effective has significant implications for schools aiming to develop a comprehensive approach to bullying intervention. With regards to ineffective bullying intervention strategies, both the teachers and students in Crothers and Kolbert’s (2004) study noted that having bullies and victims collaborate on tasks and utilizing books and role-plays to teach students about bullying were ineffective strategies. The strategy of ensuring that the bully is not partnered with the victim for tasks was also perceived as a beneficial response in Marshall et al.’s (2009) study. Teachers in Crothers and Kolbert’s (2004) study also perceived the strategy of having victims determine punishments for bullies as being ineffective, while students perceived the strategy of creating anti-bullying school rules as being ineffective. Unlike Crothers and Kolbert’s (2004)’s study, which focused on prevention and intervention strategies, Naylor, Cowie, Cossin, de Bettencourt, and Lemme (2006) conducted a comparative study that examined how students and teachers define bullying. In total, 1,820 Year 7 and Year 9 students (aged 11-14) and 225 teachers from 51 secondary schools in the United Kingdom participated in the study. All of the schools had anti-bullying peer support programs in place. The participants completed separate questionnaires that included the following open-ended question: “In the space below, please say what you think bullying is” (Naylor et al., 2006, p. 558). Students’ and teachers’ responses to this question were analyzed to determine the inclusion or exclusion of the following six elements: physical abuse, verbal abuse, social exclusion, imbalance of power between the bully and victim, repetitive bullying behavior, and the intention to 47 cause harm. All six of these elements are commonly included in definitions of bullying within the research literature. In addition, students’ and teachers’ responses were analyzed for their inclusion or exclusion of the effects of bullying on the victim (i.e., feeling hurt or threatened). Naylor et al. (2006) found that there were significant differences between students’ and teachers’ conceptions of what bullying is. Teachers’ definitions of bullying mentioned the six elements in the following quantities: physical abuse (75.6%), verbal abuse (59.1%), social exclusion (12.9%), imbalance of power between the bully and victim (70.7%), repetitive bullying behavior (17.8%), and the intention to cause harm (24.9%). The frequent references to power imbalance and negative intent, and the limited references to repetition were also reflected in Mishna et al.’s (2005) study. By comparison, students’ definitions of bullying mentioned the six elements in the following quantities: physical abuse (65.2%), verbal abuse (59.6%), social exclusion (5.3%), imbalance of power between the bully and victim (40.5%), repetitive bullying behavior (7.9%), and the intention to cause harm (3.9%) (Naylor et al., 2006). Furthermore, 10.2% of teachers’ definitions of bullying and 35.5% of students’ definitions and focused exclusively on the direct forms of bullying (physical and verbal abuse). The omission of social exclusion (a form of relational bullying) from their definitions of bullying was contrary to the findings in the studies by Oliver and Candappa (2007) and Varjas et al. (2008), where students reported that bullying could be manifested in physical, verbal, and relational ways. However, Naylor et al.’s (2006) finding may help to explain the finding in the studies by Mishna et al. (2005) and Bauman and Del Rio (2006) that teachers do 48 not perceive relational bullying as being as serious as physical and verbal bullying. Overall, the differences between the students’ and teachers’ definitions of bullying in Naylor et al.’s (2006) study have significant implications for how both parties conceive of bullying and how they respond to it as a result. In another study, Bradshaw, Sawyer, and O’Brennan (2007) examined students’ and school staff members’ perceptions of bullying. The study was conducted in a public school district in Maryland, and the participants included 15,185 students in grades 4-12 as well as 1,547 staff members from 109 elementary, middle, and high schools in the district. Both students and staff completed an online, password-protected survey that included questions about the prevalence of bullying, beliefs about bullying, characteristics of bullying, and prevention and intervention strategies. The response rate for students was 74%. Bradshaw et al. (2007) found that there were several significant differences between students and staff with regards to their perceptions of bullying. First, staff members perceived the prevalence of frequent bullying victimization to be much lower than students did (Bradshaw et al., 2007). This supports Mishna et al.’s (2005) finding that teachers were unaware of most instances of bullying, but is contrary to the study by Crothers and Kolbert (2004), who found that teachers reported higher rates of bullying than students. Secondly, Bradshaw et al. (2007) found that most students (55.6%) believed that it was acceptable to retaliate by fighting back, while most teachers (92.9%) disagreed with this. Third, Bradshaw et al. (2007) found that the majority of students (78.7%) did not report bullying to staff members, although almost half of staff members (45.6%) said that students had reported bullying to them. Furthermore, most 49 staff members (86%) perceived their prevention and intervention strategies to be effective, while 61.5% of middle school student and 57% of high school students believed that staff interventions made things worse. The finding that most students did not perceive staff member interventions to be effective is a common theme in the research literature (Crothers & Kolbert, 2004; Oliver & Candappa, 2007; Varjas et al., 2008; Tenenbaum et al., 2011). Bradshaw et al. (2007) also noted several similarities in terms of students and staff members’ perceptions of bullying. For example, students and staff perceived the most frequent form of bullying to be verbal bullying, followed by relational bullying and physical bullying. This finding is contrary to the study by Carney (2008), where most students reported observing or experiencing physical bullying, followed by verbal bullying and relational bullying. In addition, Bradshaw et al. (2007) found that both students and staff perceived one of the main reasons for bullying to be the appearance of the victim, which was also noted by students in the study by Varjas et al. (2008) as a characteristic of victims. Lastly, Bradshaw et al. (2007) found that middle school students and staff were most likely to witness bullying, be concerned about bullying, and experience bullying. This reflects a common theme in the research literature that middle school is a time during which bullying is at its peak (Nansel et al., 2001; Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Li, 2006; Tokunaga, 2010). Another study which provides insight into students’ and teachers’ perceptions of bullying was conducted by Maunder, Harrop, and Tattersall (2010), who conducted a comparative study that involved students, teachers, and support staff (e.g., teacher 50 assistants and lunch supervisors). The study was conducted at four urban secondary schools in England, and the participants included 685 students in Year 8 (aged 12-13), 415 students in Year 11 (aged 15-16), 144 teachers, and 58 support staff. The response rates for each group of participants were 70%, 45%, 39%, and 32%, respectively. Students, teachers, and support staff completed identical questionnaires, which included a list of scenarios that incorporated direct bullying (i.e., physical and verbal abuse), indirect bullying (i.e., relational abuse), and some vague situations. For each scenario, participants were asked to identify whether it involved bullying and to rate how serious it would be for both a male and female victim. Maunder et al. (2010) found that teachers and support staff regarded more scenarios as instances of bullying than students did. In addition, staff members rated the bullying scenarios as being more serious than students did. These findings support the finding in previous research that there are differences in terms of students’ and staff members’ perceptions of what bullying is and what it entails (Naylor et al., 2006). Maunder et al. (2010) also found that students, teachers, and support staff rated direct bullying behaviors as being more serious than indirect bullying behaviors, with threats being rated as most serious. This is in accordance with previous studies by Mishna et al. (2005) and Bauman and Del Rio (2006), which found that teachers do not perceive relational bullying as being as serious as physical and verbal bullying. In sum, the studies that have been conducted about students’ and teachers’ perceptions of bullying reveal several key trends. First, students are hesitant to report bullying to teachers, and they do not perceive teachers as being effective at responding to 51 bullying. Second, teachers perceive direct bullying (i.e., physical and verbal bullying) as being more serious than indirect bullying (i.e., relational bullying and exclusion). Lastly, students and teachers differ in their perceptions of bullying, particularly in regards to its definition, prevalence, and coping strategies. These three points are of much significance for the current study. If students are hesitant to report traditional bullying to teachers, they may also be hesitant to report cyberbullying to them. Likewise, if teachers perceive direct bullying as being more serious than indirect bullying, they may be less likely to respond to cyberbullying (which encompasses both verbal and relational bullying). Furthermore, if teachers and students’ conceptions of bullying are so varied, their understanding of cyberbullying may vary significantly as well. The current study examined teachers’ knowledge of cyberbullying, experiences managing cyberbullying, and perceptions of their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying within the context of their knowledge, perceptions, and experiences pertaining to traditional bullying. Prevalence and Impact of Cyberbullying An examination of the literature on the prevalence and impact of cyberbullying is essential in order to understand how extensive the problem is and how it affects students. Studies of this nature have been conducted in various countries worldwide, including the United States, Canada, and Sweden. This section reviews seven key studies that examined both the prevalence and impact of cyberbullying. Beran and Li (2005) studied the frequency of cyberbullying amongst adolescents in Canada and their reactions to it. A 15-item questionnaire was administered to 432 7 th - 52 9 th grade students at nine Canadian junior high schools. The questionnaire consisted of both open-ended questions and closed-ended, Likert scale questions. Beran and Li (2005) found that in terms of cyberbullying victimization, 35% of students reported being cyberbullied once or twice, 23% of students reported being cyberbullied several times, and 42% reported that they had not experienced cyberbullying. With regard to cyberbullying offending, 22% of students reported cyberbullying others once or twice, 4% reported cyberbullying others several times, and 74% reported that they had never cyberbullied someone. Of the 23% of students who had been cyberbullied multiple times, 57% reported that they felt angry, and 36% reported that they felt sad and hurt. Beran and Li’s (2005) study suggests that cyberbullying is a significant problem in some settings, with over half of students being victims of cyberbullying at least once, and more than a quarter of students being perpetrators of cyberbullying at least once. Furthermore, the study highlights that cyberbullying can result in a variety of negative emotions for victims. In another study, Hinduja and Patchin (2007) examined the prevalence of cyberbullying and how cyberbullying victimization, strain, and offline misbehavior are correlated. They utilized an online survey that was linked to seven popular websites for adolescents. The survey examined three main variables: type of cyberbullying victimization (e.g., being ignored by others, being called names, having rumors spread, etc.), type of strain (e.g., getting a bad grade, parents’ divorce, death or hospitalization of a loved one), and type of offline misbehavior (e.g., drinking, skipping school, assaulting a peer, etc.). The participants in the study were 1,388 adolescents under the age of 18, with 53 49.6% of them being males and 50.4% being females. Hinduja and Patchin (2007) found that 33.7% of adolescents reported being victims of cyberbullying, with 32.4% of victims being males and 36.3% being females. Among those who were victims, 30.6% said that they felt angry, 34% said that they felt frustrated, 21.8% said that they felt sad, and 35% said that they were not bothered by it. The major finding of this study was that cyberbullying victims are more likely to engage in offline misbehaviors. Interestingly, the prevalence of cyberbullying in Hinduja and Patchin’s (2007) study was lower than that in Beran and Li’s (2005) study, as was the percentage of students who reported feeling angry and sad as a result of being victimized. However, one limitation of Hinduja and Patchin’s (2007) study is that the survey was administered online, where it is more difficult to ensure the accuracy of the information that people provide. Several studies also examined the prevalence and impact of cyberbullying in relation to different digital and online tools. For example, Smith et al. (2008) conducted a two-part study of 11-16 year-old secondary students in London to examine cyberbullying with respect to seven different types of media (phone calls, text messages, email, picture/video clips, instant messaging, websites, and chatrooms). The first part of the study involved administering a questionnaire to 92 students and conducting focus groups with 47 students. The second part of the study involved administering a questionnaire to a larger sample of 533 students. In the first part of the study, Smith et al. (2008) found that 15.6% of students had been cyberbullied once or twice, 6.6% had been cyberbullied often, and 77.8% had never experienced cyberbullying. Students in the focus groups shared that they thought that 67-100% of students have been cyberbullied. In the second 54 part of the study, approximately 17.2% of students reported that they had been cyberbullied, while 82.7% said that they had never been cyberbullied. Furthermore, approximately 12.5% of students reported that they had cyberbullied others, while 87.6% said that they had never engaged in cyberbullying others. Students in both parts of the study believed that picture/video clip bullying had the greatest negative impact compared to the other six types of media. The rates of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration reported in Smith et al.’s (2008) study were lower than those reported in the prior two studies. In addition, unlike previous studies, Smith et al.’s (2008) study highlights that specific types of media (i.e., picture/video clips) may be more harmful for cyberbullying than others. Similar to Smith et al.’s (2008) study, Slonje and Smith (2008) examined the extent of cyberbullying in Sweden with regard to four types of media: text messages, email, phone calls, and picture/video clips. A questionnaire was administered to 360 12- 20 year old students from four lower-secondary schools (ages 12-15) and four sixth- forms colleges (ages 15-20). Of the students surveyed, 11.7% were victims of cyberbullying and 10.3% had cyberbullied others. The rates of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration in Slonje and Smith’s (2008) study were the lowest of the studies reported here thus far. In addition, Slonje and Smith’s (2008) study corroborates Smith et al.’s (2008) finding that students perceive picture/video clip bullying to be the most harmful because it can be shared with a wide audience. This is particularly true if the picture/video clips are posted online. 55 Unlike previous studies that surveyed adolescents, Hoff and Mitchell’s (2009) study examined the causes and effects of cyberbullying by surveying 351 undergraduate students at a university in New England about their experiences with cyberbullying prior to college. Of the 251 students surveyed, 56.1% had experienced cyberbullying, and 89% percent knew someone who was a target of it. With regard to the causes of cyberbullying, Hoff and Mitchell (2009) found that cyberbullying typically stemmed from relationship issues (91%). When analyzed further, they found that 41% of cyberbullying instances were due to break-ups, 20% were due to envy of others, 16% were due to intolerance (especially related to sexual orientation), and 14% were due to ganging up on someone in order to exclude them. In terms of the impact of cyberbullying, Hoff and Mitchell (2009) found that students felt anger, powerlessness, sadness, and fear. These feelings increased when the victim did not know who the perpetrator was. The prevalence of cyberbullying in Hoff and Mitchell’s (2009) study was high and similar to that reported in Beran and Li’s (2005) study. Likewise, the emotional impact of cyberbullying in Hoff and Mitchell’s (2009) study was similar to that described in the studies by Beran and Li (2005) and Hinduja and Patchin (2007). One important contribution that this study makes to the literature is that it examines the underlying reasons why students engage in cyberbullying others. Yet another study of the prevalence and impact of cyberbullying was conducted by Patchin and Hinduja (2010). They examined the relationship between cyberbullying and self-esteem by surveying 1,963 6 th -8 th grade students from 30 middle schools in a large district in the United States about their experiences with cyberbullying (both as 56 victims and perpetrators) and their level of self-esteem. Thirty-percent of students surveyed reported they had been victims of cyberbullying at least twice in the past month, and 22% of students reported that they had participated in cyberbullying others within the same time span. Patchin and Hinduja (2010) found that both the victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying had significantly lower self-esteem than those who had not experienced cyberbullying. The rate of students who had been victims or perpetrators of cyberbullying at least twice in Patchin and Hinduja’s (2010) study was similar to the rates reported in Beran and Li’s (2005) study. Furthermore, Patchin and Hinduja’s (2010) study highlights yet another negative psychological impact that cyberbullying can have on students: lower self-esteem. Another recent study by Mishna et al. (2010) examined the prevalence and impact of cyberbullying in Canada by surveying 2,186 6 th , 7 th , 10 th , and 11 th grade students. Mishna et al. (2010) found that 49.5% of students had been cyberbullied within the past three months, 33.7% had cyberbullied others, and 25% had witnessed someone being cyberbullied. The most common form of cyberbullying was name calling (27%). Victims of cyberbullying reported a range of feelings including being angry (16%), embarrassed (8%), sad (7%), and scared (5%). Twenty-one percent said that they were unaffected by it. Mishna et al. (2010) also found that the perpetrators of cyberbullying had a variety of feelings afterwards, including guilt (16%), power (9%), popularity (6%), and superiority (6%). Twenty-five percent of perpetrators thought it was funny, and 41% reported having no emotional reaction to it. The high rate of cyberbullying reported in the study by Mishna et al. (2010) was similar to the rates reported in several previous studies (Beran & 57 Li, 2005; Hoff & Mitchell, 2009), and it corroborates what previous studies have found about the negative emotional impact of cyberbullying (Beran & Li, 2005; Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Hoff & Mitchell, 2009). Furthermore, unlike previous studies, it provides insight into the emotional responses of cyberbullying perpetrators. The fact that such a high percentage of cyberbullies thought their actions were funny or had no emotional reaction to it is of concern and reflects that cyberbullies may not really understand the impact of their bullying behaviors. The evidence from the literature suggests that cyberbullying is an international phenomenon, and that there is a range in terms of its prevalence. According to the research studies examined here, 11.7%-58% of students have been victims of cyberbullying at least once, 10.3%-33.7% have been perpetrators of cyberbullying, and 25%-89% know or have witnessed others being cyberbullied (Table 1). The literature also reflects that cyberbullying can have a variety of negative impacts on victims, including anger, sadness, and fear. This is similar to the negative impact of traditional bullying (Borg, 1998; Klomek et al., 2007; Roland, 2002). Furthermore, a limitation of the cyberbullying studies reviewed thus far is that most of them rely primarily on quantitative survey data. The current study utilized qualitative methods to examine middle school teachers’ knowledge of the prevalence and impact of cyberbullying. If teachers do not understand that cyberbullying is a growing issue or that it can have a negative impact on students, they may be less likely to intervene or less invested in learning ways to address it. 58 Table 1 Prevalence and Impact of Cyberbullying Study Rate of Cyberbullying Victimization Rate of Cyberbullying Perpetration Know/Have Witnessed Someone Being Cyberbullied Impact on Victims Beran & Li (2005) Once or twice- 35% Several times- 23% At all- 58% Never been cyberbullied - 42% Once or twice- 22% Several times- 4% At all-26% Never cyberbullied others- 74% N/A Felt angry- 57% Felt sad or hurt- 36% Hinduja & Patchin (2007) At all-33.7% N/A N/A Felt angry- 30.6% Felt frustrated- 34% Felt sad-21.8% Not bothered- 35% Smith et al. (2008) Study One Once or twice- 15.6% Often- 6.6% Never been cyberbullied- 77.8% Study Two At all- 17.2% Never been cyberbullied- 82.7% Study Two At all- 12.5% Never cyberbullied others- 87.6% N/A Picture/video clip bullying believed to have greatest negative impact Slonje & Smith (2008) At all- 11.7% At all-10.3% N/A Picture/video clip bullying believed to have greatest negative impact (continued) 59 Table 1 (continued) Prevalence and Impact of Cyberbullying Study Rate of Cyberbullying Victimization Rate of Cyberbullying Perpetration Know/Have Witnessed Someone Being Cyberbullied Impact on Victims Hoff & Mitchell (2009) At all- 56.1% N/A Know a Target of Cyberbullying - 89% Felt anger, powerlessness, sadness, and fear. Patchin & Hinduja (2010) At least twice in the past month- 30% At least twice in the past month- 22% N/A Lower self- esteem Mishna et al. (2010) Within the past three months- 49.5% Within the past three months- 33.7% Witnessed Someone Being Cyberbullied- 25% Felt angry- 16% Felt embarrassed- 8% Felt sad- 7% Felt scared- 5% Unaffected- 21% Perceptions of and Reactions to Cyberbullying Examining people’s perceptions of and reactions to cyberbullying can provide insight into their understanding of the issue, their strategies for addressing it, and why they respond in the ways that they do. The following two sections explore the major studies related to students’ and teachers’ perceptions of and reactions to cyberbullying. Students’ Perceptions and Reactions The majority of the literature on students’ perceptions of and reactions to cyberbullying focuses on students in the middle grades, since bullying behaviors tend to increase in adolescence (Li, 2006). Tokunaga (2010) found that cyberbullying occurs most often in seventh and eighth grade with students who are between the ages of 12 and 60 14. This section reviews studies that examined students’ perceptions of cyberbullying and how they react to it. Agatston, Kowalski, and Limber (2007) conducted same-gender focus groups with 148 12-17 year-old students to determine how they perceive cyberbullying and whether or not prevention strategies are addressed by the school. They found that more females than males perceive cyberbullying as a problem, and that students do not perceive adults at school as being helpful for dealing with cyberbullying. Students tended to report cyberbullying to their parents more than adults at school, but were also hesitant to do so for fear that they would not be allowed to use the Internet. Agatston et al. (2007) also found that students were aware of some strategies for dealing with cyberbullying (e.g., blocking or ignoring people), but not of others (e.g., removing websites). They were also not aware of how to respond if they witnessed someone being cyberbullied online. Agatston et al.’s (2007) finding that students do not perceive school officials as being helpful for addressing cyberbullying points to the need to examine what teachers actually do know and understand about cyberbullying. Furthermore, their finding that students have limited coping strategies for dealing with cyberbullying suggests that students need additional education about ways to manage cyberbullying effectively. Two of the previously cited studies that examined the prevalence and impact of cyberbullying also examined students’ reporting practices and coping strategies. The first study by Smith et al. (2008) found that 43.7% of students who were victims of cyberbullying did not report it to anyone. Most students reported instances of cyberbullying to their friends (26.8%), while some told their parents (11.5%). Very few 61 reported cyberbullying to their teachers (8.5%). With regard to ways of stopping cyberbullying, students advocated blocking it (74.9%), telling someone (63.6%), documenting it (56.7%), ignoring it (41.4%), reporting it to police (38.5%), contacting the Internet or telephone company (31.1%), asking the perpetrator to stop (21.4%), and fighting back (19.6%). Although a majority of students in this study recommended reporting cyberbullying, very few reported it to teachers, which confirms Agatston et al.’s (2007) findings. The second study by Slonje and Smith (2008) found that students perceived adults as being most likely to notice picture/video clip cyberbullying compared to text message, email, and phone call bullying. Slonje and Smith (2008) also found that the majority of students who were victims of cyberbullying did not report it to anyone (50%). Of those who did report it, most told their friends (35.6%), followed by parents (8.9%) or someone else (5.4%). None of the students in this study reported cyberbullying to a teacher. Slonje and Smith’s (2008) findings corroborate what previous studies have found about the tendency for students to not report cyberbullying to teachers, and points to the need to examine what experience (if any) teachers have had dealing with cyberbullying. Another study which examined students’ perceptions of cyberbullying and their reporting practices was conducted by Cassidy et al. (2009), who surveyed 365 11-15 year old Canadian students to examine their experiences with cyberbullying. One of the main portions of the survey focused on students’ opinions about cyberbullying. Cassidy et al. (2009) found that 75% of students believed that cyberbullying is more of a problem now than it was one year ago, and 46% believed that cyberbullying is a normal part of the 62 Internet. In addition, 47% of students believed that they had complete freedom of speech online, and 32% of students believed that cyberbullying is not harmful. With regard to solutions for addressing cyberbullying, Cassidy et al. (2009) found that 60% of students believed that students themselves have the solutions to cyberbullying, although only 37% expressed that they knew how to solve it. The majority of students also expressed that cyberbullying would decrease if schools were more welcoming (66%), and if students were treated fairly at school. The top three solutions that students advocated for dealing with cyberbullying were creating anonymous phone lines where students could report cyberbullying incidents, teaching students about cyberbullying, and building students’ self-esteem. Cassidy et al. (2009) found that the majority of students (75%) would report cyberbullying if there were methods to do so anonymously. In addition to examining students’ opinions about cyberbullying, Cassidy et al. (2009) also examined students’ reporting practices. Students were asked who they would report cyberbullying to if it were to occur. Forty-seven percent of students reported that they would tell a school official, 74% said that they would tell a friend, 57% said that they would tell a parent, 30% said they would tell the police, and 25% said that they would not report it to anyone. Although the percentage of students who said that they would report cyberbullying to a school official was high, it is clear from the research that the percentage of those who actually do is quite small (Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008). The primary reasons given for not reporting cyberbullying to school officials in particular were fear that the cyberbully would get revenge (30%), the belief that cyberbullying was the student’s problem, not the school’s (29%), the belief that school 63 officials would not be able to stop it (27%), concern that they would get their friends in trouble (26%), concern that their parents would limit their Internet usage (24%), and concern that other students would view them as a tattler (20%) (Cassidy et al., 2009). Similar reporting patterns were found in Hoff and Mitchell’s (2009) study. Only 35.9% of the college students surveyed said that they had reported cyberbullying incidents to their parents. Those who did not report said that they were afraid that they would lose their digital media privileges or that their parents would find out something about them that they did not want them to know. In terms of reporting cyberbullying to school officials, only 16.7% of cyberbullying victims said that they had done so. Those who did not report it said that they did not believe that school officials knew how to handle the situation appropriately. In fact, of the 16.7% who said that they reported cyberbullying incidents to school officials, 70.7% said that the school officials seldom did anything about it. With regard to school policies, 36.1% of students reported that their school had a cyberbullying policy, 15.4% said that their school did not have a cyberbullying policy, and 48.6% were unsure. Hoff and Mitchell’s (2009) finding that students lack confidence in schools officials and do not perceive them as handling cyberbullying situations appropriately points to the need to examine how teachers are trained to address instances of cyberbullying. Another study which provides insight into students’ perceptions of and reactions to cyberbullying was conducted by Wright, Burnham, Inman, and Ogorchock (2009), who used mixed-methods to examine middle school students’ understanding of cyberbullying. During one phase of the study, qualitative focus groups were conducted 64 with 13 students from a high-poverty middle school and a low-poverty middle school. The purpose of the focus groups was to examine students’ reactions to cyberbullying, knowledge of cyberbullying, and coping strategies. Wright et al. (2009) found that students at the high-poverty school tended to react more aggressively to cyberbullying than students at the low-poverty school. For example, they tended to advocate fighting back. With regard to knowledge of cyberbullying, Wright et al. (2009) found that students at both schools understood what cyberbullying was, but that students at the low- poverty school were more aware of how to use technology to respond to it (e.g., reporting people or emailing website companies). In terms of coping strategies, students at both schools advocated ignoring cyberbullying. Students also indicated that they would seek help from different individuals, with students at the high-poverty school indicating that they would seek help from a friend or school counselor, and students at the low-poverty school indicating that they would seek help from their mother or school counselor. In addition, students from both schools emphasized the need for adults to learn about cyberbullying and how to help students address it. This is in line with other studies which suggest that students lack confidence in teachers and school officials with regard to managing cyberbullying (Agatston et al., 2007; Cassidy et al., 2009; Hoff & Mitchell, 2009). In a more recent study, Li (2010) surveyed 269 7 th to 12 th grade students from five Canadian schools in order to examine their behaviors and beliefs with regard to cyberbullying. The survey examined four key areas: how victims react to cyberbullying, how bystanders (witnesses) react to cyberbullying, why victims do not report 65 cyberbullying, and what students’ opinions of cyberbullying are. Li (2010) found that cyberbullying victims had varied reactions to cyberbullying, with 26.8% reporting that it was “no big deal,” 26.4% reporting that they just “live with it,” 24.5% reporting that they were upset, and 22.3% reporting that they had no opinion. In terms of their behaviors in reaction to cyberbullying, 42.5% of students did nothing after they were cyberbullied and 11.7% chose to tell an adult. Furthermore, only 2.1% of students said that adults at school tried to help them. Of those who had witnessed cyberbullying, 70.2% watched without participating, 35.1% tried to help the victim, 25.5% logged off the internet, 23.2% confronted the cyberbully, 13.3% joined in, 12.6% cheered on the cyberbully, and 9.3% reported it to someone. When asked about whether they would report cyberbullying to an adult at school if they were cyberbullied, over 80% said that they would not. The reasons for this included students thinking that the school would or could not do anything to stop it (47.5%), fear that the cyberbully would retaliate (28.2%), concern that their parents would find out and limit their Internet access (26.9%), and concern that school officials would not understand or believe them (17.5%). Finally, in terms of their opinions about cyberbullying, Li (2010) found that 63% of students believed that cyberbullies engaged in bullying others because they thought it was fun, 46.7% of students felt that there was nothing that could be done to stop cyberbullying, 35.4% believed that “what happens online stays online,” 17.4% felt that they had complete freedom of speech online, and 35% thought that adults should stay out of cyberbullying. Li’s (2010) study confirms the finding in previous studies that students seldom report instances of cyberbullying to adults at school (Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008). In addition, it corroborates 66 the finding in Cassidy et al.’s (2009) study that some students lack awareness of the limitations of free speech online. The fact that most students in Li’s (2010) study did not believe that the school could do anything to stop cyberbullying and that in most cases, school officials were not perceived as doing anything to help, emphasizes the need to examine the perceptions and behaviors of teachers. These studies demonstrate that, although students have an understanding of what cyberbullying is, they have a limited repertoire of methods for coping with it. The studies by Cassidy et al. (2009) and Li (2010) also suggest that despite their knowledge of cyberbullying, students do not completely understand the limitations of free speech online. All of these studies also point to the need for adult education about cyberbullying. Students in the studies tended to report cyberbullying to parents, friends, and school counselors, but not to teachers or other school officials. They did not perceive them as having a strong base of knowledge about cyberbullying or ways to handle it. The prevalence of cyberbullying may also be underestimated due to the low reporting rates. One of the primary aims of the current study was to examine what teachers know about cyberbullying and how they perceive their role in preventing and responding to it. Teachers’ Perceptions and Reactions While the majority of studies examine the issue of cyberbullying from students’ perspectives, very few studies examine teachers’ perceptions and reactions. The few existing studies focus on preservice teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying. Li (2008) conducted a study of 154 preservice teachers who were enrolled in a two-year teacher education program at a Canadian university in order to determine how they perceived 67 cyberbullying. The study examined four key aspects: preservice teachers’ level of concern about cyberbullying, their confidence to address cyberbullying issues, their perception of the role of school commitment to cyberbullying, and their preparation to address cyberbullying. With regard to preservice teachers’ concern about cyberbullying, Li (2008) found that 31.9% of the preservice teachers believed that cyberbullying was a problem, 65.5% believed that it affected children, and 49.7% were concerned about it. In terms of confidence to address cyberbullying, Li (2008) found that only 13.1% of preservice teachers felt confident in identifying cyberbullying, and only 11.1% felt confident managing it. The majority of preservice teachers believed that schools should demonstrate a commitment to addressing cyberbullying through a variety of methods including developing school policies (75.3%), training teachers (67.6%), and discussing the issue of cyberbullying with parents (67.5%) (Li, 2008). Approximately half of the preservice teachers advocated other methods such as developing classroom activities about cyberbullying (53.2%), organizing school-wide activities about cyberbullying (53.1%), and using cyberbullying curriculum in the classroom (46.1%) (Li, 2008). Li (2008) also found that only 3.3% of preservice teachers felt that their university program prepared them to address cyberbullying. However 44.4% of preservice teachers were interested in learning more about it. Yilmaz (2010) used the methodology of Li’s (2008) study as the basis for examining the perceptions of 163 preservice teachers who were enrolled in four-year teacher education programs at seven Turkish universities. Like Li (2008), Yilmaz (2010) examined the preservice teachers’ concern about cyberbullying, confidence in addressing 68 cyberbullying, perceptions of the role of school commitment to cyberbullying, and preparation to address cyberbullying. Yilmaz (2010) also examined whether gender differences existed with regard to preservice teachers’ concern about cyberbullying and their confidence to address it. As in Li’s (2008) study, Yilmaz (2010) found that the majority of preservice teachers believed that cyberbullying affected children (85.9%). However, more preservice teachers in Yilmaz’s (2010) study believed that cyberbullying was a problem (77.9%) and expressed concern about it (77.3%). In addition, gender differences were evident, with more females expressing concern about cyberbullying than males (81.8% and 72% respectively). Yilmaz (2010) also found that approximately half of the preservice teachers felt confident identifying cyberbullying (51.5%) and managing cyberbullying (48.5%). This was greater than the percentage of preservice teachers in Li’s (2008) study who expressed confidence in identifying and managing cyberbullying. One gender difference that Yilmaz (2010) found was that males felt more confident in identifying and managing cyberbullying than females. As in Li’s (2008) study, a majority of the teachers in Yilmaz’s (2010) study believed in the importance of developing school policies (90.2%), training teachers (88.3%), and discussing the issue with parents (85.3%). However, unlike Li’s (2008) study, a majority of the Turkish teachers also advocated developing curriculum (91.4%), developing classroom activities about cyberbullying (84%), developing school-wide activities (81%), and utilizing school counseling (79.1%). Lastly, Yilmaz (2010) found that few preservice teachers felt that their university program prepared them to address cyberbullying (24.5%) and the majority of preservice teachers were interested in learning more (79.1%). The percentage 69 of preservice teachers who felt prepared to address cyberbullying and were interested in learning more about it was greater than that in Li’s (2008) study. The studies conducted by Li (2008) and Yilmaz (2010) point to the need for teacher education about cyberbullying. In both studies, most of the preservice teachers did not feel that their teacher education program prepared them to address cyberbullying. Furthermore, the majority of preservice teachers in both studies expressed that they did not feel confident in addressing or identifying cyberbullying. Despite their low self- efficacy with regard to addressing cyberbullying, the majority of preservice teachers in both studies supported the development of school policies and activities about cyberbullying and many expressed interest in learning more. If preservice teachers already feel unprepared to address cyberbullying during the course of their teacher education programs, they may continue to feel this way when they become inservice teachers and issues of cyberbullying arise in their classrooms. In sum, the evidence from the literature on students and teachers’ perceptions of and reactions to cyberbullying suggests that students do not perceive teachers as being knowledgeable about cyberbullying or how to address it. Their lack of confidence prevents them from reporting cyberbullying to teachers when it occurs. This is similar to the research literature on traditional bullying, which revealed that students are hesitant to report bullying to teachers (Oliver & Candappa, 2007; Tenenbaum et al., 2011) and that they do not perceive teachers as being effective in responding to bullying (Bradshaw et al., 2007; Crothers & Kolbert, 2004; Varjas et al., 2008). In addition, the evidence from the literature suggests that preservice teachers lack confidence in identifying and 70 managing cyberbullying and that they do not feel that their teacher education programs adequately prepare them address it. There is a critical gap in the literature about inservice teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying. Four areas that the current study examined were inservice teachers’ knowledge of cyberbullying, their experiences managing cyberbullying, their concern about and confidence to address cyberbullying, and their perceptions of their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. The School’s Role in Cyberbullying Although cyberbullying mostly occurs off campus (Agatston et al., 2007; Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011; Smith et al., 2008), the role of schools cannot be ignored. What starts as physical or verbal bullying at school can easily continue as cyberbullying at home (Hanewald, 2009; Shariff, 2005). In addition, the effects of cyberbullying can extend to the school environment (Shariff, 2005). Furthermore, schools can play a central role in educating students about cyberbullying (Hoff & Mitchell, 2009). The following two sections review school-based prevention and intervention strategies and the legal issues that schools should consider when addressing cyberbullying. School-Based Prevention and Intervention Strategies The research on cyberbullying prevention and intervention strategies is very limited. Mason (2008) explains that the paucity of empirical research is due to the newness of cyberbullying. To date, only two studies have examined cyberbullying intervention techniques. In the first study, Wright et al. (2009) developed virtual scenarios/simulations about cyberbullying in an online program called SecondLife. Their aim was to examine the impact of the virtual scenarios/simulations on students’ 71 awareness of cyberbullying. In the first virtual scenario, there were “girls sending hurtful messages via MySpace” and in the second scenario, a “student visits the school counselor after a Facebook joke got out of hand.” (Wright et al., 2009, p. 39). Two middle school students (one male and one female) watched both of the scenarios, and the researchers noted their reactions to the scenarios, their nonverbal behaviors while watching the scenarios, and their responses after watching the scenarios. Wright et al. (2009) found that both students were engaged in the scenarios and were able to identify the main message (i.e., seek help from an adult if you are being cyberbullied). The study suggests that virtual scenarios/simulations may be one method of addressing cyberbullying, however further research needs to be conducted about the impact of virtual scenarios/simulations on students’ awareness of and reactions to cyberbullying using larger samples of students. In another study, Ahlfors (2010) conducted a qualitative analysis of seventeen cyberbullying prevention and intervention websites in order to determine what type of information they provide. Four specific categories were analyzed: target audience, main topics addressed, references to professional research, and methods for delivering information. Ahlfors (2010) found that the majority of the cyberbullying websites (14 sites) targeted parents and caregivers, despite the fact that most adolescents do not report instances of cyberbullying to their parents. In addition, none of the websites targeted cyberbullies specifically. The cyberbullying websites often addressed topics such as prevention and safety tips, commercial products for parents (e.g., books and software), methods for managing cyberbullying, and symptoms of cyberbullying. Ahlfors (2010) 72 also found that ten of the websites provided a reference list with professional literature, and sixteen of them provided accurate information in their content that was reflected in the research literature. With regard to the methods used for relaying information about cyberbullying, Ahlfors (2010) found that two websites used written text only, eleven websites included message boards or blogs, eight websites included personal “human interest” stories, six websites used interactive methods (e.g., quizzes, games, songs), five websites used videos, and two websites used online newsletters. Ahlfors (2010) suggested that more websites need to be developed that target children, adolescents, and cyberbullies, and that the interactive information delivery methods may be more engaging for visitors to the websites. One limitation of the study was that it did not provide evidence of the effectiveness of these websites for curbing or addressing cyberbullying. More research needs to be conducted in this area. Despite the paucity of empirical research about cyberbullying prevention and intervention methods, many recommendations and suggestions are made within the literature. One key recommendation is that school programs aimed at addressing cyberbullying should involve students, parents, and teachers (Beale & Hall, 2007; Couvillon & Ilieva, 2010). Mason (2008) used the research on traditional bullying interventions to suggest a tri-level approach that involves system-level, classroom, and individual interventions. System-level, or school-level, interventions include developing an anti-bullying policy that includes cyberbullying and developing an Acceptable Use Policy that outlines “acceptable online behavior” (Mason, 2008, p. 334). Classroom interventions include teaching lessons about cyberbullying and empathy, encouraging 73 netiquette (proper online behavior), and utilizing online resources such as i-SAFE (www.i-safe.org), NetSmartz (http://netsmartz.org), and CyberSmart (http://www.cybersmartcurriculum.org/home), which provide lesson plans, activities, and information related to cyberbullying and online safety (Mason, 2008). Finally, individual interventions include working one-on-one with students who are victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying, involving the parents of cyberbullying victims and perpetrators, and doing outreach to educate the community about cyberbullying (Mason, 2008). The literature provides additional cyberbullying prevention and intervention techniques. The most reoccurring suggestions include: • conducting an assessment to determine the extent of cyberbullying at school (Beale & Hall, 2007; Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011; Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Strom & Strom, 2005; Willard, 2005) • developing a clear school policy about cyberbullying (Beale & Hall, 2007; Chibbaro, 2007; Willard, 2005) • educating students and parents about cyberbullying (Beale & Hall, 2007; Brady, 2008; Chibbaro, 2007; Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Willard, 2005) • developing an Acceptable Use Policy (Beale & Hall, 2007; Brady, 2008; Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011; Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Siegle, 2010) • creating a positive climate where students feel comfortable reporting instances of cyberbullying to adults (Beale & Hall, 2007; Brady, 2008; Cassidy et al., 2009; Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Siegle, 2010) 74 • conducting professional development about cyberbullying (Beale & Hall, 2007; Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011; Willard, 2005) In terms of responding to cyberbullying incidents, Hinduja and Patchin (2009) recommend that schools investigate the situation, ensure that the victim is safe and feels supported, separate the bully from the victim (if necessary), and document the incident. They explain that a range of responses can be used based on the severity of the misbehavior. Minor misbehaviors such as teasing and name calling may warrant having a discussion with the student, contacting parents, having a meeting with the school counselor, or imposing a “creative sanction” like making anti-cyberbullying posters (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Moderate misbehaviors such as spreading rumors and creating videos of bullying may warrant meeting with the principal, developing a behavior plan, detention, and limiting extracurricular opportunities. Serious misbehavior, such as making death threats and stalking, warrant contacting the police and seeking legal counsel. Hinduja and Patchin (2009) also recommend creating a way for students to report incidences of cyberbullying anonymously and contacting Internet or cell phone providers to inform them of cyberbullying incidents. Two factors that the current study examined were inservice teachers’ perceptions of ways to prevent and respond to cyberbullying and their knowledge of school procedures pertaining to cyberbullying. Legal Issues When intervening in instances of cyberbullying, schools must be aware of their legal rights and limitations. Hanewald (2009) explains that “cyberbullying creates a tension between the right of free speech by the offender and the right for safety or 75 protection from defamation by the victim” (p. 13). According to Brady (2008), communication that occurs online is considered to be “off-campus speech” (p. 96), and as such, there are limitations to the kinds of disciplinary actions that schools can take when cyberbullying occurs. Shariff (2005) explains that “expressions that substantially or materially disrupt learning, interfere with the educational mission, utilize school-owned technology to harass, or threaten other students are not protected by the First Amendment and allow school intervention” (p. 478). Moreover, instances of cyberbullying that involve death threats, threats of violence, intimidation, extortion, and sexual exploitation are considered to be infringements of criminal law and would warrant contacting law enforcement (Willard, 2005). Theoretical Framework The primary theoretical framework utilized in this study is the Clark and Estes (2008) process model. Although this model is framed in a business perspective, it is effective for analyzing performance problems in educational and other organizational settings. The Clark and Estes (2008) process model encompasses six main steps (Figure 1). First, the organization identifies its main goals. Second, the organization develops performance goals, which specify the goals for individuals within the organization. Third, the organization calculates the performance gap (i.e., the difference between their current and ideal level of performance). Fourth, the organization engages in gap analysis, a procedure that “diagnoses the human causes behind performance gaps” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 21). Fifth, the organization develops and implements solutions that target the 76 identified causes. Finally, the organization evaluates the solutions and makes changes as necessary (Clark & Estes, 2008). Figure 1 Clark and Estes’ (2008) Process Model The gap analysis procedure that occurs in step four of the Clark and Estes (2008) process model is an essential component of the theoretical framework for this study. In 77 this step, the organization determines the specific causes of the performance gap. According to Clark and Estes (2008), the three main causes for performance gaps are inadequate knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational barriers. The following sections describe the key characteristics of each type of cause. Knowledge and Skills Causes According to Clark and Estes (2008), the knowledge and skills factor addresses “whether people know how (and when, what, why, where, and who) to achieve their performance goals” (p. 44). This factor can be divided into three sub-factors: communication, procedure, and experience (Clark & Estes, 2008). Communication refers to whether individuals understand the goal. Procedure refers to whether individuals know how to achieve the goal. Experience refers to whether individuals have had any prior experience achieving the goal. The current study examined teachers’ knowledge of cyberbullying, their experiences managing it, and their perceptions of ways to prevent and respond to it. This provided insight into whether inservice teachers possessed accurate knowledge about cyberbullying or the proper skills for addressing it. In addition, it provided insight into any further training or support that may be needed. Motivation Causes Motivation also plays a significant role in performance gaps. According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation affects three key factors: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Active choice refers to whether individuals choose to pursue the goal. Persistence refers to whether individuals continue to work towards the goal despite other distractions. Mental effort refers to the amount of effort individuals devote to achieving 78 the goal. According to Clark and Estes (2008), mental effort is heavily influenced by confidence. Those who are confident tend to invest mental effort into achieving the goal, while those who lack confidence or are overconfident do not. Individuals who lack confidence may also lack self-efficacy that they can achieve the goal, while overconfident individuals may overestimate their abilities and not take responsibility for their errors (Clark & Estes, 2008). The current study examined inservice teachers’ confidence in identifying and managing cyberbullying and their concern about the issue, which provided insight into whether they were motivated to address it. Organizational Causes The third main cause of performance gaps is organizational barriers. This refers to aspects of the organization itself that impede achievement of the goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Two organizational factors that impact success are tools (i.e., whether there are sufficient material resources such as supplies, equipment, and physical space to achieve the goal), and work processes (i.e., whether the policies and approaches that the organization utilizes support achievement of the goal). According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizational culture must also be taken into consideration: Work culture is present in our conscious and unconscious understanding of who we are, what we value, and how we do what we do as an organization. In many ways, organizational culture is the most important “work process” in all organizations because it dictates how we work together to get our job done (p. 107). The current study’s examination of inservice teachers’ knowledge, perceptions, and experiences in relation to cyberbullying provided insight into any organizational factors (such as school culture or policies) that may have influenced their behaviors. 79 In sum, determining the specific types of knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational barriers that are at work is an important precursor to developing solutions to address them. This study utilized the Clark and Estes (2008) process model to examine the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational barriers related to inservice teachers’ understanding of and responses to cyberbullying. Based on this, targeted recommendations were made for teacher development in the area of cyberbullying. Summary This chapter examined the literature on traditional bullying and cyberbullying, with an emphasis on the prevalence and impact of both forms of bullying, and students’ and teachers’ perceptions of and reactions to both forms of bullying. In addition, the school’s role in cyberbullying was discussed. Four critical factors emerged from the literature. First, while estimates of the rate of cyberbullying victimization vary, the range in some studies is as high as 58%, indicating that a considerable number of adolescents may have experienced cyberbullying to some extent. Secondly, victims of cyberbullying reported a range of negative effects including anger, sadness, and fear. This is similar to the reported impact of traditional bullying. Third, a majority of students do not report cyberbullying to teachers because they do not believe that they possess enough knowledge about it or know how to handle it. This, too, was a common trend in regards to traditional bullying. Finally, while the research on teacher perceptions of cyberbullying is very limited, the few studies that have been conducted about preservice teachers’ perceptions indicate that many preservice teachers lack confidence in their ability to 80 identify and address cyberbullying. This study utilized the Clark and Estes (2008) process model to explore these factors in depth in Chapter Three. 81 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY Cyberbullying has become a significant problem in the digital age, with studies reporting that as many as 58% of students have been victims of cyberbullying (Beran & Li, 2005). The research literature on students’ perceptions of and reactions to cyberbullying indicates that most students do not report cyberbullying to adults, especially teachers and school officials (Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008). Furthermore, students do not perceive teachers or school officials as being knowledgeable about or helpful in addressing cyberbullying (Agatston et al., 2007; Cassidy et al., 2009; Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Li, 2010; Wright et al., 2009). The limited research on teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying has focused on preservice teachers, and it indicates that many preservice teachers lack confidence in identifying and managing cyberbullying and do not feel that their teacher education program adequately prepares them to address it (Li, 2008; Yilmaz, 2010). In the literature, a critical gap remains regarding inservice teachers’ perceptions of and experiences with cyberbullying. The purpose of this study was to explore inservice teachers’ knowledge of cyberbullying, their experiences managing cyberbullying, their concerns about and confidence to address cyberbullying, and their perceptions of their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. In particular, this study examined the following four research questions: 1. What do middle school teachers know about cyberbullying? 2. What experiences have middle school teachers had managing cyberbullying? 82 3. How concerned are middle school teachers about cyberbullying, and how confident are they that they can address it? 4. How do middle school teachers perceive their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying? Previous studies conducted by Li (2008) and Yilmaz (2010) about preservice teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying utilized quantitative methods in the form of surveys. This study utilized a qualitative case study approach to gather data about the research questions since the aim of this study was to conduct an in-depth exploration of cyberbullying from the perspective of middle school teachers. According to Patton (2002), unlike quantitative methods, “qualitative methods facilitate study of issues in depth and detail” (p. 14). Sample and Population The population for this study was the inservice teachers from a public middle school within a suburban school district in the western region of the United States. For the purposes of this study, middle school teachers were defined as classroom teachers who teach 6 th , 7 th , or 8 th grade. Middle school was selected as the focus of this study since the research literature indicates that bullying behaviors tend to increase during this period of schooling (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Li, 2006; Tokunaga, 2010). The middle school site in this study was designated by the pseudonym, Clovis Middle School. This school was purposefully selected based on how representative it was of the middle schools in the district with regards to its size, demographics, and performance outcomes; that is, it represented a “typical” middle school within the district. Examining Clovis Middle 83 School provided insight into the middle school teachers’ knowledge, perceptions, experiences, concerns, and confidence regarding cyberbullying, and factors that should be taken into consideration in order to improve future professional development. Maximum variation or heterogeneity sampling was used to select six teachers from Clovis Middle School for this study. In maximum variation sampling, one selects samples that are as different from each other as possible because “any common patterns that emerge from great variation are of particular interest and value in capturing the core experiences and central, shared dimensions of a setting or phenomenon” (Patton, 2002, p. 235). The six teachers who were selected for the sample reflected a range in terms of their content areas, grade levels, and years of teaching experience. In addition to these six teachers, the principal of Clovis Middle School and two other recommended faculty and staff members (i.e., the assistant principal and school counselor) were included as participants in this study. Snowball sampling was used to select these individuals by asking the six teachers for the names of other faculty and staff members who would be knowledgeable about cyberbullying on campus. According to Patton, snowball sampling is useful “for locating information-rich key individuals” (p. 237). The principal, assistant principal, and school counselor were referred to holistically as school leaders for the purposes of this study. They provided additional insight into the extent of cyberbullying on campus and the school’s cyberbullying procedures. Instrumentation Two semi-structured interview protocols were developed for this study: one for teachers and another for the school leaders (i.e., the principal, assistant principal, and 84 school counselor). The teacher semi-structured interview protocol consisted of 26 primary questions with additional follow-up questions where appropriate (Appendix A). The questions were divided into five sections: (a) Demographics, (b) Teacher’s Use of Technology, (c) Teacher’s Perceptions of Students’ Use of Technology, (d) Teacher’s Perceptions of Bullying & Cyberbullying, and (e) Cyberbullying Scenarios. The first section, Demographics, included three questions about the teacher’s background (including grade level(s) and content area(s) taught, and years of teaching experience). The second section, Teacher’s Use of Technology, included three questions about how the teacher uses technology in the classroom setting and beyond, and his/her level of comfort with technology. The third section, Teacher’s Perceptions of Students’ Use of Technology, included three questions about how the teacher perceives students’ use and misuse technology, and his/her knowledge of school policies pertaining to technology usage. The fourth section, Teacher’s Perceptions of Bullying & Cyberbullying, included twelve questions about the teacher’s knowledge of and experiences with bullying and cyberbullying, his/her concern about and confidence to address cyberbullying, and school actions and procedures pertaining to cyberbullying. In the fifth section, Cyberbullying Scenarios, the teacher was presented with two hypothetical scenarios that involve cyberbullying in order to elicit his/her thoughts about intervention strategies. The teacher was also asked to share his/her perceptions of obstacles to addressing cyberbullying. Two final open-ended questions were included to allow the teacher to identify other faculty and staff members who may have knowledge about cyberbullying on campus, and to allow the teacher to share any additional thoughts, feelings, or ideas that he/she had. 85 The teacher interview protocol was structured according to the Clark and Estes (2008) process model, which was used as the theoretical framework for this study. According to this model, one must identify the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational barriers that may be contributing to the performance issue. The different sections of the teacher interview protocol were designed to target the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational issues related to middle school teachers’ understanding of cyberbullying. The questions on the teacher interview protocol were aligned with the research questions for this study. The first research question was, “What do middle school teachers know about cyberbullying?” Questions 12-14 on the teacher interview protocol focused on teachers’ knowledge of the nature cyberbullying (e.g., prevalence of cyberbullying, impact on students, media used for cyberbullying, etc.), and question 21 focused on teachers’ knowledge of school procedures for handling cyberbullying. Since the research literature indicates that students do not perceive teachers as having a strong base of knowledge about cyberbullying (Wright et al., 2009), these questions aimed to identify the extent of teachers’ knowledge of the issue. The second research question was, “What experiences have middle school teachers had managing cyberbullying?” Question 15 on the teacher interview protocol provided teachers with the opportunity to discuss any experiences they have had dealing with cyberbullying, since the research literature indicates that students seldom report instances of cyberbullying to teachers or school officials (Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008). 86 The third research question was, “How concerned are middle school teachers about cyberbullying, and how confident are they that they can address it?” Questions 16- 18 on the teacher interview protocol focused on teachers’ concern about cyberbullying and their confidence in identifying and addressing it, and question 24 focused on their perceptions of obstacles to addressing it. The limited research that has been conducted on preservice teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying indicates that the majority of preservice teachers lack confidence in their ability to identify or address cyberbullying, and that they do not feel that their teacher education program prepares them to address cyberbullying (Li, 2008; Yilmaz, 2010). Questions 16-18 were adapted from the “Survey on School Cyberbullying for Preservice Teachers” developed by Li (2008). The researcher contacted Dr. Li via email and obtained permission to utilize her survey questions (Appendix B). In the original survey by Li (2008), participants rated the following three statements on a five-point Likert scale that ranges from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5): “I am concerned about cyberbullying,” “I feel confident in identifying cyberbullying,” and “I feel confident in managing cyberbullying.” These three declarative statements were changed into questions for the purposes of the current study. “I am concerned about cyberbullying” became “How concerned are you about cyberbullying?” (question 16), “I feel confident in identifying cyberbullying,” became “How confident do you feel that you can identify cyberbullying?” (question 17), and “I feel confident in managing cyberbullying” became “How confident do you feel that you can manage cyberbullying?” (question 18). 87 The fourth research question was, “How do middle school teachers perceive their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying?” Questions 19-20 on the teacher interview protocol focused on teachers’ perceptions of actions that teachers and schools should take to prevent and address cyberbullying. In addition, questions 22-23 utilized hypothetical scenarios to elicit teachers’ suggestions for responding to cyberbullying. It was essential to examine teachers’ perceptions of prevention and intervention methods since the research literature indicates that students do not perceive teachers as being helpful for addressing cyberbullying (Agatston et al., 2007; Cassidy et al., 2009; Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Li, 2010; Wright et al., 2009), and that students have limited ways of coping with cyberbullying (Agatston et al., 2007). The scenarios that were presented in questions 22-23 were taken from Hinduja and Patchin’s (2009) book entitled Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying. The researcher contacted Dr. Hinduja and Dr. Patchin via email and obtained permission to utilize their scenarios (Appendix C). The first scenario (question 22) was used exactly it was written in the original text without any adaptations. The second scenario (question 23) was slightly adapted to fit the context of this study. The original scenario developed by Hinduja and Patchin (2009) begins as follows: “James is frustrated and saddened by the comments his high school peers are making about his sexuality” (p. 196). Since the current study focused on middle school teachers, the phrase, “high school” was omitted from the scenario on the teacher interview protocol. The second semi-structured interview protocol was developed for the school leaders of Clovis Middle School. This protocol, entitled Principal Plus, consisted of 16 88 primary questions with additional follow-up questions where appropriate (Appendix D). It was divided into three sections: (a) Demographics, (b) Perceptions of Bullying & Cyberbullying, and (c) Cyberbullying Scenarios. The first section of the Principal Plus protocol, Demographics, included three questions about the individual’s role at the school. The second section of the Principal Plus protocol, Perceptions of Bullying & Cyberbullying, included ten questions about bullying and cyberbullying on campus; school policies and procedures about bullying, technology, and cyberbullying; and perceptions of teachers’ preparation and prevention strategies in relation to addressing cyberbullying. Questions of this nature were included since the study by Hoff and Mitchell (2009) reports that most students are unsure of whether their school has a cyberbullying policy. Furthermore, studies conducted by Li (2008) and Yilmaz (2010) report that most preservice teachers do not feel prepared to address cyberbullying. The third section of the Principal Plus protocol, Cyberbullying Scenarios, presented the school leaders with the same two scenarios that were included in the teacher interview protocol. This section aimed to uncover how the school leaders believed teachers should respond to instances of cyberbullying. The scenarios were included in the protocol since the study conducted by Hoff and Mitchell (2009) reports that students do not perceive school officials as taking appropriate action when cyberbullying occurs. As in the teacher interview protocol, a final open-ended question was included in the Principal Plus protocol in order to allow the school leaders to share any additional thoughts, feelings or ideas that they had. The questions on the Principal Plus protocol aimed to provide 89 additional insight into the factors that were addressed on the teacher interview protocol, such as the scope of cyberbullying on campus and prevention and intervention strategies. Both the teacher semi-structured interview protocol and the Principal Plus semi- structured interview protocol were developed by the researcher based on the research literature. In order to ensure the validity of the two protocols, the researcher’s chair and a committee member reviewed both protocols, and revisions were made to the instruments as necessary. In order to ensure reliability, the same semi-structured interview protocols were used across every participant in the study. Data Collection Upon approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), the principal of Clovis Middle School was contacted in January 2012 in order to inform him of the purpose of the study and request the school’s participation. Three forms of data were collected for this study. First, individual, in-depth interviews were conducted with six teachers at the school site using the teacher semi-structured interview protocol. Next, individual interviews were conducted with the three school leaders using the Principal Plus semi- structured interview protocol. Finally, seven school/district policy documents that the teachers and school leaders referenced were collected and analyzed. Table 2 provides an overview of how the three data sources (teacher interviews, school leader interviews, and documents) aligned with the research questions for this study. The following sections discuss the data collection methods for each data source. 90 Table 2 Triangulation of Data Sources Research Question Data Source #1: Teacher Semi- Structured Interview Protocol Data Source #2: Principal Plus Semi- Structured Interview Protocol Data Source #3: Document Analysis What do middle school teachers know about cyberbullying? Section IV, Questions 12-14 & 21 Section II, Questions 6-7, 9-10 & 12 Parent Guide to Anti- Bullying Discipline Policy for Grades 6-12 Online Services Board Policy Student Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy Adult Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy District Technology Plan Student/Parent Handbook What experiences have middle school teachers had managing cyberbullying? Section IV, Question 15 Section II, Question 8 How concerned are middle school teachers about cyberbullying, and how confident are they that they can address it? Section IV, Questions 16-18 Section V, Question 24 Section II, Question 11 (continued) 91 Table 2 (continued) Triangulation of Data Sources Research Question Data Source #1: Teacher Semi- Structured Interview Protocol Data Source #2: Principal Plus Semi- Structured Interview Protocol Data Source #3: Document Analysis How do middle school teachers perceive their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying? Section IV, Questions 19-20 Section V, Questions 22-23 Section II, Question 13 Section III, Questions 14-15 Teacher Interviews Teacher interviews were conducted in February and March 2012. Once the principal agreed to participate in the study, the researcher requested permission from the principal to attend a faculty meeting in order to distribute recruitment letters and information sheets to teachers (Appendices E and F). Teachers were asked to complete the Interested Participant Form (which asked for the teacher’s name, gender, ethnicity, grade level(s), content area(s), years of teaching experience, and contact information) and return it to the researcher if they were interested in participating in the study (Appendix G). Maximum variation sampling was then used to select six teachers who showed diversity with regards to their content area(s), grade level(s), and years of teaching experience. These six teachers were contacted to inform them that they had been selected to participate in the study and to arrange an interview date and time. Each teacher was interviewed using the teacher semi-structured interview protocol. The interviews lasted approximately 30-95 minutes each. Prior to the interviews, teachers were informed that 92 their responses would remain confidential and that a pseudonym would be used in the study. The researcher transcribed notes during each interview and obtained consent from each teacher to record the interview as well. School Leader Interviews Following the teacher interviews, the three school leaders were interviewed in February and March 2012 as well. The purpose of these interviews was to obtain additional data about cyberbullying on campus and factors that may impact teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying. The researcher contacted each individual via a recruitment letter and follow-up email in order to request their participation in the study and arrange an interview date and time. Each interview lasted approximately 43-64 minutes and was conducted using the Principal Plus semi-structured interview protocol. Prior to the interview, each individual was provided with an information sheet that reviewed the purpose of the study. Each person was also informed that all information would remain confidential and that a pseudonym would be used in the study. The researcher transcribed notes during each interview and recorded the interview with the individual’s consent. Documents Documents that the teachers and school leaders mentioned during the interviews were collected and analyzed as yet another source of data. There were seven documents in total: the Parent Guide to Anti-Bullying, the Discipline Policy for Grades 6-12, the Online Services Board Policy, the Student Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy, the Adult Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy, the District Technology Plan, and the 93 Student/Parent Handbook. These documents were examined for their inclusion of policies and procedures specific to cyberbullying. Data Analysis After conducting individual interviews with the six teachers and three school leaders using the semi-structured interview protocols, the researcher transferred their responses to charts that were organized by research question. Content analysis was then used to analyze the data. Patton (2002) explains that, after data has been collected, one must read through it and engage in a process of content analysis in order to identify the main patterns and themes in the data. The researcher read the participants’ responses to each research question, and identified the key categories and emerging themes. The data was then used to develop individual cases, or vignettes, of the teachers and school leaders. Comparative analysis was then used to identify the similarities and differences between each case and the overarching themes. The Clark and Estes (2008) process model was used as the conceptual framework to identify the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational gaps that persisted amongst the teacher participants. Knowledge and skills gaps included responses related to the nature of cyberbullying (e.g., what it is, how it impacts students, etc.), and responses related to experiences with cyberbullying. Motivation gaps included responses related to the participants’ level of concern about cyberbullying and their confidence with regard to identifying and addressing cyberbullying. Organizational gaps included responses related to school or district policies and procedures regarding cyberbullying. The data collected from the school leader interviews and the document analysis process provided additional 94 lenses for examining the factors influencing the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational gaps. Based on this analysis, solutions for addressing the gaps were identified. Summary This chapter provided a detailed description of the methodology for this study, which utilized a qualitative case study approach to examine middle school teachers’ knowledge of cyberbullying, their experiences managing cyberbullying, their concerns about and confidence to address cyberbullying, and their perceptions of their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Three sources of data were collected in the form of teacher interviews, school leader interviews, and document analysis. The instrumentation was described in depth, as well as the methods for data collection and analysis. Chapter Four reports the findings of this study in relation to each of the research questions. Chapter Five discusses the implications of this study for practice and future research. 95 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS This study aimed to explore middle school teachers’ knowledge of cyberbullying, their experiences managing cyberbullying, their concern and confidence concerning cyberbullying, and their perceptions of their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. In particular, this study addressed the following four research questions: 1. What do middle school teachers know about cyberbullying? 2. What experiences have middle school teachers had managing cyberbullying? 3. How concerned are middle school teachers about cyberbullying, and how confident are they that they can address it? 4. How do middle school teachers perceive their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying? A qualitative case study approach was utilized, wherein three data sources were employed: teacher interviews, school leader interviews, and document analysis. First, in- depth interviews were conducted with six teachers at Clovis Middle School (pseudonym) using the teacher semi-structured interview protocol. In addition, three school leaders (i.e. the principal, assistant principal, and the school counselor) were interviewed with the Principal Plus semi-structured interview protocol. Finally, the following seven documents were collected and analyzed: the Parent Guide to Anti-Bullying, the Discipline Policy for Grades 6-12, the Online Services Board Policy, the Student Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy, the Adult Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy, the District Technology Plan, and the Student/Parent Handbook. 96 This chapter reviews the results of this study. First, the demographics of Clovis Middle School are described. Next, a brief introductory portrait of each of the six teacher participants in the study is provided. Subsequently, a brief introductory portrait of each of the three school leader participants is provided. Following the teacher and school leader portraits, a cross-case analysis of the interview data is presented in relation to each research question. The chapter concludes with a summary of the key findings. School Demographics Clovis Middle School is located in a suburban school district in the western region of the United States. The school serves students in grades 6-8. During the 2010- 2011 school year, Clovis Middle School had a total enrollment of 756 students, with 248 students in sixth grade, 246 students in seventh grade, and 262 students in eighth grade (California Department of Education [CDE], 2012). The student population of Clovis Middle School is diverse. During the 2010-2011 school year, the ethnic breakdown was as follows: 28.2% Asian, 27.1% Hispanic or Latino, 26.6% White, 6.9% Filipino, 4.4% Black or African American, 1.1% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 3.8% Multiethnic, and 0.4% American Indian or Alaska Native. Approximately 7.5% of students were English Language Learners, and 22.1% of students qualified for free or reduced-price meals (CDE, 2012). Clovis Middle School is typical with regards to academic performance within the district. During the 2010-2011 school year, 76% of students were proficient or advanced in English Language Arts, and 65% of students were proficient or advanced in mathematics (CDE, 2012). In 2010, Clovis Middle School had an Academic Performance 97 Index (API) statewide rank of 9, and in 2011, they had an API score of 876. The school did not meet its Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals during the 2010-2011 school year (CDE, 2012). In terms of staffing, there were 22 teachers at Clovis Middle School during the 2010-2011 school year with the following ethnic breakdown: 72.7% White, 13.6% Asian, 9.1% Hispanic or Latino, and 4.5% multiethnic (CDE, 2012). The teachers had an average of 11.9 years of teaching experience and an average class size of 32.6 students (CDE, 2012). With regards to technology, during the 2010-2011 school year, Clovis Middle School had 57 computers on campus that were less than two years old (CDE, 2012). There were approximately 13.3 students per computer, and 24 classrooms had computers with high-speed internet access (CDE, 2012). Teacher Portraits Individual interviews were conducted with six teachers at Clovis Middle School utilizing the teacher semi-structured interview protocol. The interviews ranged in duration from approximately 30 minutes to 95 minutes. The six teachers who were interviewed were all female, and five of the six teachers were White. However, they varied with regards to the grade levels and subjects they teach, and their years of teaching experience (Table 3). The following sections provide a brief introductory portrait of each teacher participant, with a focus on their use of technology, their perceptions of students’ use of technology, and their perceptions of bullying. These three areas of focus are 98 intended to provide a context for examining the teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying. Pseudonyms have been used in order to maintain the confidentiality of the participants. Table 3 Demographics of Teacher Participants Teacher Current Grade Level(s) Current Subject(s) Total Years of Teaching Experience Linda 6 th Math Science Rotating Elective (Study Skills, Tech Ed, Health, or Art) 14 Rebecca 6 th , 7 th , & 8 th English Language Arts (6 th -8 th ) Social Studies (6 th ) 8 Jenny 6 th English Language Arts Social Studies P.E. 14 Sarah 6 th , 7 th , & 8 th English Language Arts (6 th ) English Language Development (6 th , 7 th , & 8 th ) Social Studies (8 th ) 7 Karen 7 th & 8 th Pre-Algebra (7 th ) Algebra (8 th ) 19 Leah 6 th & 8 th P.E. 9 Linda Linda teaches sixth grade math and science at Clovis Middle School. She also teaches an elective course that changes each quarter. The elective course titles include Study Skills, Tech Ed, Health, and Art. Linda has 14 years of teaching experience 99 overall, and she considers herself to be “pretty comfortable” using technology. Within the school setting, she uses a document camera, a projector, and a laptop to deliver lessons to her students, and to administer homework and quarterly district assessments. Beyond the school setting, she occasionally uses the social networking website, Facebook. When asked about her students’ use of technology, Linda explained there is much variance. According to her, “Some don’t even have a computer and then there’s some that just are on the computer all the time.” Linda explained her students use technology on campus approximately once each week or week-and-a-half, although she would like it to occur more frequently. She expressed that it is difficult due to the limited number of computers on campus. Linda’s students have primarily used technology to take district assessments, although she would like to do more projects with them. In terms of their personal use of technology, she believes students use technology every day, especially their cell phones. She also believes that some students misuse technology by “watching inappropriate things” online or by sending inappropriate messages via text messages or email. With regards to the issue of bullying amongst students at Clovis Middle School, Linda expressed that “kids can be mean” and that bullying occurs every day. The forms of bullying that she has dealt with include students making mean comments about each other and students being exclusive by not allowing others to play or work with them. Linda explained that she usually responds to instances of bullying by talking to the students about what occurred, reminding them to be respectful and to think about how 100 they would feel if they were in the other person’s shoes, and having them apologize to each other. Rebecca Rebecca teaches 6 th , 7 th , and 8 th grade English Language Arts and 6 th grade social studies at Clovis Middle School. This is her eighth year of teaching. In her classroom, Rebecca uses a projector, computer, and VCR, and software such as Microsoft Office to create presentations and publish student work. She also uses technology to communicate with students and parents. In terms of personal technology use, Rebecca uses Facebook to connect with friends, an iPad to play games, and the internet to pay her bills and do research. She also has an iPhone and frequently listens to music on her iPod. Rebecca described her comfort with technology as “adequate,” and explained that she can figure out programs after playing with them for a while. When asked about her students’ use of technology, Rebecca explained, “It’s their lifeline. They can’t live without it. They’re constantly on it.” She also explained that her students use different tools including the iPad, Kindle, iTouch, and the internet, and she estimated that 90% of her students have a Facebook account. Despite their frequent use of technology, Rebecca noted that students’ misuse of technology stems from them not fully understanding its reach: I would say that even though they have knowledge of how to use it, they’re very illiterate to it. The– you know, the formalities, the um, I don’t know, um, they’re not aware that uh, everyone can see it. [It] has access. They really do think that it’s only their little world. It’s not open to everyone. Rebecca believes that bullying occurs on campus on a daily basis, particularly when adults are not present. She especially noted the mean comments that students make 101 about each other (e.g., “You’re so dumb”), and she explained that students are not “always aware that even some of their comments which are meant to be harmless are actually ways of bullying.” Rebecca explained that she does not tolerate negative comments or behaviors in her classroom, and that she has “a very positive environment in the classroom.” She also explained that she has not had to deal with many bullying situations because she always addresses them as soon as she hears about them. Jenny Jenny teaches 6 th grade English Language Arts, social studies, and physical education (P.E.) at Clovis Middle School. She also coaches a high school swimming team. This is Jenny’s 14 th year of teaching. The types of technology that Jenny employs in her classroom include a laptop, document camera, and projector. She uses her laptop for grading and record keeping purposes, PowerPoint for developing presentations, a class webpage for posting assignments, and YouTube to access videos to make her lessons more “interactive.” In terms of her personal use of technology, Jenny uses her laptop to make online purchases and her smartphone to keep in touch with others. She also uses social media websites like Facebook and Pinterest. Jenny is currently working on her Masters in Instructional Design and Technology through an online program. Through her coursework, Jenny has been gaining experience in collaborating with her peers online, creating online courses, and using different types of software. She noted that she is “pretty comfortable” using technology. On campus, Jenny’s students use technology to complete district assessments and to type essays and other assignments. Like Linda, Jenny noted that her students are not 102 able to use computers that often because there is only one computer lab on campus. Jenny’s students also use Google Docs and the school website for assignments. Beyond the use of technology for classroom purposes, Jenny explained that social media and texting are “huge” for students. She said, “I think social media and texting is pretty much primarily what they’re doing most of the time unless a teacher gives them a specific assignment.” Jenny also explained that students “spend a couple of hours a day” texting, using Facebook, and playing video games. With regards to students’ misuse of technology, Jenny explained that some students “look at sites they shouldn’t look at in terms of inappropriate photos” and that some students post inappropriate things. She explained that students “don’t seem to have a social filter of what’s appropriate” and that they “say things about people and to people that they would never say in front of an adult or in person.” When asked about bullying at Clovis Middle School, Jenny explained that it occurs “all the time.” Although there have been trainings about it at school, she expressed doubt about the effectiveness of the trainings beyond raising the awareness level of the adults. Most of the bullying that Jenny has observed has involved name-calling, teasing, ethnic slurs, and sexual references. Like Rebecca, Jenny expressed that she does not think students realize that their comments are bullying. She explained that boys “sometimes escalate to physical” while girls tend to gossip. In addition, Jenny stated that “probably 99 percent of it is never reported to anybody” due to fear. Jenny explained, “I don’t think it’s that they don’t want to tell; I think they’re afraid of the retaliation from their peer 103 group that someone will find out that they told.” Jenny stated that when bullying issues arise, she addresses them. Sarah Sarah teaches 6 th grade English Language Arts, 6 th - 8 th grade English Language Development, and 8 th grade social studies at Clovis Middle School. She has been teaching for 7 years. Sarah uses different types of technology in her classroom, including computers, laptops, USB devices, and the district’s interactive website, where she posts quizzes, class lectures, and links to YouTube videos and other websites for her history class. Sarah also uses a document camera, a DVD player, an online grade book, interactive maps, and a Mobi Interwrite (a mobile interactive whiteboard) to mark up and alter her class presentations. In her personal life, Sarah uses her iPhone to text, take pictures, access the internet, check email, keep track of appointments, do online shopping, and access Facebook. She noted that she is “very comfortable” using technology. Sarah expressed that her students use technology to send emails, manipulate computer settings, access Facebook, text, play games, watch YouTube videos, listen to music via iTunes, and conduct web searches via Google. She also said that her students use technology “every day if not every couple of hours,” and that they primarily use it for entertainment. In terms of students’ misuse of technology, Sarah noted that some students (particularly 8 th graders) “push the boundaries of their age group” by accessing adult content. She also explained that students “say mean and nasty things to each other.” 104 Sarah is aware that bullying happens on campus and she explained that it occurs in “varying degrees”: Some of it is lighthearted, some of it is deep-seated. Some kids can handle it better; some kids can melt down at the slightest bit…. It ranges from like, ‘Oh, that outfit looks dumb’ to ‘I’m going to kick your butt.’ Sarah also noted that student bullying occurs every day, and that it typically involves students making mean comments about physical appearance (e.g., “Your makeup’s ugly!”) and race (e.g., “You’re such a Mexican!”). She also explained that there’s “social pressure” to bully because “this is the age when kids really want to fit in and they’re easily pressured into behavior or sharing opinions and things like that in order to fit [into] a group.” Sarah responds to the mean comments students make by explaining that it is unacceptable and administering a consequence. She reports any bullying that involves threats or physical violence to the administration. Karen Karen teaches 7 th grade pre-algebra and 8 th grade algebra at Clovis Middle School. She has been teaching for 19 years. Within the classroom setting, Karen uses a document camera to project notes and computers to administer district assessments and complete research projects with students. In her personal life, Karen uses Facebook, email, and word processing software. She described her comfort with technology as being “sort of medium.” Karen noted that her students use technology “all the time” to connect with their friends. They text, email, access sites like RateMyTeachers.com, and use Facebook. Karen repeatedly expressed that she does not support teachers accepting students as 105 friends on Facebook “just because there’s that legality issue of, you know, teacher- student.” Karen also explained that students have misused technology by ganging up on each other and posting mean messages. With regards to bullying on campus, Karen mentioned that students sometimes tease each other and that it has led to fights in the past. She explained that she does not tolerate teasing in her classroom, and that she does not think bullying occurs that often because many students know that “it’s not going to be tolerated.” Leah Leah teaches 6 th and 8 th grade P.E. at Clovis Middle School, and she has been teaching for 9 years overall. At school, Leah uses a laptop for taking attendance, and a walkie-talkie for emergency purposes. In her personal life, Leah uses email, YouTube, an iPod, and Facebook. She explained that if she were to rate her comfort with technology on a scale from 1 to 10, it would be a “5 or 6.” Leah explained that her students use technology “on a daily basis” and that their main tools include Facebook, computers, MP3 players for playing music, and their cell phones for texting. She also explained that students primarily use technology to communicate with friends and find out what others are up to. With regards to students’ misuse of technology, Leah explained that some of the boys “are naughty,” and that students sometimes use electronic devices (like cell phones and earbuds) during class time. Leah noted that bullying happens “on a daily basis,” but that she does not see it often. She explained, “It probably happens more at like, lunch time, when teachers aren’t 106 around as much, or in the passing period.” She noted that “kids are pretty slick” and that they “try and do it under cover.” In addition, Leah said that bullying typically involves “a smaller kid getting picked on or a kid with a disability,” and she gave an example of a student with autism who was teased and mocked because of his athletic ability. When asked how she responds to bullying, Leah said, “I’ve definitely stepped in. I’ll say something. As a P.E. teacher, we’re kind of loud people. So, you know, they know when I say something that I mean business. At least, I like to believe that.” School Leader Portraits In addition to conducting interviews with teachers, interviews were also conducted with the principal and two other recommended school leaders (i.e., the assistant principal and school counselor). These interviews served as another lens for viewing the teachers’ experiences, and also served as a method of triangulation for this study. The three school leaders were interviewed with the Principal Plus interview protocol, and the interviews ranged in duration from approximately 43 minutes to 64 minutes. The principal was male, but the assistant principal and school counselor were female. All three school leaders were White. They varied with regards to their years of experience in their respective roles (Table 4). The following sections provide a brief introductory portrait of each school leader participant, with a focus on their perceptions of bullying. This provides a context for the subsequent analysis of their responses pertaining to cyberbullying. Pseudonyms have been used in order to maintain the confidentiality of the participants. 107 Table 4 Demographics of School Leader Participants School Leader Role Years of Experience in this Role at Clovis Middle School Total Years of Experience in this Role Steven Principal 6 16 Mia Assistant Principal Over 1 year Over 1 year Julie School Counselor 6 6 Steven Steven has been the principal of Clovis Middle School for six years. Overall, he has 16 years of experience as a school principal in both elementary and middle school settings. Steven also has 16 years’ experience in other positions within the field of education. He was the assistant principal of a middle school for one year, and he served as an administrator for various programs such as Migrant Services and the Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) program for three years. Steven also worked as a classroom teacher at the elementary and high school levels, and within a bilingual school setting. When asked about bullying amongst students at Clovis Middle School, Steven explained that bullying occurs every day “at varying levels,” and that it typically occurs “during lunch, recess, passing period when there's relatively little supervision, or out on the P.E. area when students are running laps or doing something like that.” Steven also noted that, while bullying occurs at all grade levels, it tends to be greatest amongst the entering sixth grade students more so than with the seventh and eighth grade students. He explained that although bullying occurs every day, “not every day does it come to our attention.” Steven relies on students reporting incidences of bullying, and he explained 108 that “many students feel comfortable speaking with either my assistant principal or a counselor or me or their teachers about issues.” However, Steven noted that there is a culture amongst the male students “not to tell on each other” because they believe it is an “unmanly kind of an idea.” Steven explained that teachers should respond to bullying incidents by being aware, listening to students, and reporting serious issues to the administration. Mia Mia is the assistant principal of Clovis Middle School, and she also teaches two 7 th grade public speaking classes. She has been the assistant principal of the school for just over a year, which is also the duration of her experience in this role overall. Prior to this position, Mia taught at a high school for seven years. Mia explained that bullying occurs at Clovis Middle School “every day to some degree.” Like Steven, Mia noted that bullying is most prevalent amongst the sixth grade students. She also noted that there is a lot of intra- versus inter-grade bullying. Similar to Steven, Mia noted that they “have formed relationships with the kids where they will rat out whoever is bothering them” because they know that their identity will be kept anonymous. Mia noted that in most cases, teachers should report instances of bullying to her and let her handle it because “they don’t have the time.” Julie Julie has been the counselor of Clovis Middle School for six years, which is also the duration of her experience in this role overall. Prior to becoming a counselor, Julie was a special education teacher for five years. 109 Julie explained that she is sure that bullying occurs every day, “but probably to a small amount of students.” She explained that she sees it occur more frequently with girls than with boys, and that boys seldom come to her office to report it. Julie explained that teachers should respond to bullying by being “active” and immediately addressing the situation. She said teachers should get details about the incident from the victim and then report it to her or the administration if they do not feel prepared to handle it. Julie elaborated on the importance of this: I’ve had some students say that when they do report stuff, teachers don’t do anything about it, and that upsets me. So then I tell them, ‘Well, you make sure you come tell me. And we’ll make sure something gets done about it.’ Research Question One Results The first research question for this study was, “What do middle school teachers know about cyberbullying?” To date, there have been no research studies conducted about inservice teachers’ knowledge of cyberbullying. However, the research literature indicates that students do not perceive teachers as being knowledgeable about cyberbullying or appropriate interventions (Agatston et al., 2007, Cassidy et al., 2007; Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Wright et al., 2009). As such, the current study aimed to examine teachers’ knowledge of the characteristics, tools, causes, effects, and prevalence of cyberbullying, and the school procedures for handling it. The following sections analyze the themes that emerged amongst teachers and school leaders within each category. Characteristics of Cyberbullying The first category that was explored was teachers’ knowledge of the characteristics of cyberbullying. In the research literature, Vandebosch and Van 110 Cleemput (2008) and Hinduja and Patchin (2009) state that cyberbullying involves intentionally inflicting harm on another person. Suler (2004) and Kowalski and Limber (2007) note that anonymity enables perpetrators of cyberbullying to say mean or inappropriate things that they would not typically say in person. In addition, Vandebosch and Van Cleemput (2008) and Smith et al. (2008) express that cyberbullying occurs between people of unequal power. Furthermore, Shariff (2005), Kowalski and Limber (2007), and Slonje and Smith (2007) explain that due to the ability to quickly share mean messages and pictures via technology, more people can be involved as witnesses and/or perpetrators of cyberbullying. The research literature also indicates that cyberbullying is repetitive in nature (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Smith et al., 2008; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). In the teacher interviews, four of the six teachers explained that cyberbullying involves the intent to do harm. Linda expressed that “it’s harassing somebody” or “making somebody feel uncomfortable through using technology.” Rebecca explained that cyberbullying is when “people go out of their way to publically disrespect another person.” Sarah explained that cyberbullying involves the use of online forums to “harm them directly or indirectly.” Karen explained that cyberbullying involves the use of “very mean” language and bullying. Two teachers also explained that cyberbullying involves anonymity. Jenny explained that “it’s hard to trace” and “it’s hard to track who’s doing it.” Likewise, Sarah explained that there is a sense of “secrecy you have when posting.” In addition, two teachers noted that cyberbullying involves a much broader audience than traditional 111 bullying. Rebecca explained, “With cyberbullying more people can see it. It is there. The access is there. And also with cyberbullying, more people can be involved.” Sarah elaborated as follows: If someone says something to you on the Internet, potentially thousands are witnesses to it. I think that– that amplifies it because with every set of eyes, that’s another voice shouting the same thing, even if it’s just one person who posted it. Everyone who sees it, you know, that’s added weight onto the person who’s experiencing that negative comment. Two teachers also noted the role of power in cyberbullying. Sarah expressed that online forums can be used to “pressure someone’s behavior,” and Rebecca explained that cyberbullying involves showing “popularity or even a sense of power control; creating intimidation.” The teachers cited several different sources of knowledge about cyberbullying including professional experience (Linda and Sarah), information shared at staff meetings (Rebecca), presentations/workshops (Sarah and Rebecca), and the media (Karen and Leah). In addition to these sources, two teachers explained that their knowledge of cyberbullying stemmed from personal experience. Jenny shared that her daughter was a victim of cyberbullying when she was in high school last year. Some students posted mean comments on her daughter’s Facebook page and other social media pages. Jenny’s daughter printed out the postings and reported them to the school, but “nobody got in trouble” and “it didn’t stop.” Instead, “it was just veiled more” and “they were more careful.” Jenny explained that the experience was “devastating” for her daughter: It was hard on her and it was hard on us because we couldn’t– we couldn’t do anything about it. So I think that’s, that’s the biggest part is, because it’s so cyber, we can’t– we can’t stop it. You don’t have much control, I guess, or it feels that way. 112 Rebecca also shared that she had experienced cyberbullying personally as an adult. One of the men that Rebecca dated had an ex-girlfriend who was “jealous” of her, and the ex-girlfriend and her friends posted mean comments and messages on Rebecca’s MySpace page. The ex-girlfriend also harassed Rebecca offline as well. Rebecca explained that, at first, she responded to the messages in order to defend herself, but she soon decided that she was not “going to play into this game.” The harassment eventually stopped. All three school leaders noted that cyberbullying involves anonymity. According to Steven, “Many students have a Facebook account or other account and somehow feel they can say things online with anonymity and um, anything goes.” Mia echoed this sentiment when she said, “I think they have a sense of– is it anonymity?– that because they’re not in school the rules don’t apply.” Julie also explained that students “feel as though they are kind of um, isolated with just their little friends and they can express themselves however they want and it’s kind of their place of venting.” Two of the school leaders (Steven and Julie) also noted that cyberbullying involves impulsivity. Steven explained that “kids are just saying whatever pops into their mind and sending it,” and Julie noted that “kids live in the moment and they react a lot of times without thinking about the consequences.” In addition, two of the school leaders explained that cyberbullying is instantaneous. Mia noted that it is “more detrimental because it’s faster,” and Steven elaborated as follows: I think that one of the biggest issues is that if a student has a um, a problem with another student, it’s possible to spread the word much more quickly through 113 technology. It can be school-wide knowledge much more quickly– quickly than it used to be. Furthermore, two of the school leaders (Steven and Mia) noted that cyberbullying involves a much wider audience. Steven expressed that “their audience is much greater, potentially, so they could have an audience, maybe of hundreds of thousands of people that see whatever it is they put up on– on YouTube.” Like the school leaders, the teachers identified anonymity and the broader audience as being characteristic of cyberbullying. However, unlike the school leaders, the teachers did not note that impulsivity and instantaneity are characteristic of cyberbullying. Furthermore, several teachers noted the role of power in cyberbullying, unlike the school leaders (with the exception of Julie). Tools Used for Cyberbullying The second category that was explored was teachers’ knowledge of the tools used for cyberbullying. The research literature indicates that students use a variety of tools for cyberbullying purposes, including instant messaging (Kowalski & Limber, 2007; Smith et al., 2008; Mishna et al., 2010), email (Slonje & Smith, 2008), phone calls (Smith et al., 2008), text messages (Smith et al., 2008), and social networking sites (Wright, Burnham, Inman, & Ogorchock, 2009). All six of the teachers in the current study mentioned that cell phones and/or texting are tools that teenagers use to cyberbully others. For example, Jenny said, “They text each other,” and Sarah said, “Phones [are] probably number one.” Four of the teachers (Rebecca, Jenny, Sarah, and Karen) also mentioned that students use social media sites like Facebook and YouTube to cyberbully others. For example, Sarah 114 explained, “They’re using YouTube. Some of the more creative ones will make videos.” Three teachers (Rebecca, Sarah, and Karen) mentioned that students use the internet (i.e., instant messages, email, other websites, etc.) to engage in cyberbullying. All three school leaders explained that Facebook is a tool that teenagers use to cyberbully others. For example, Mia expressed, “Facebook is where it happens because kids are more into the quantity of friends that they have instead of the quality.” Steven also cited “instant messages” and “YouTube” as tools used for cyberbullying, while Julie cited “the phone and the internet” as tools. All of the tools that the school leaders identified were mentioned by the teacher participants as well. Causes of Cyberbullying The third category that was explored was teachers’ knowledge of the causes of cyberbullying. The research literature indicates that anonymity plays a factor in why students engage in cyberbullying (Suler, 2004; Kowalski & Limber, 2007). In addition, Hoff and Mitchell (2009) found that most students engage in cyberbullying due to relationship issues, such as break-ups, envy, intolerance (particularly in regards to sexual orientation), and the desire to exclude others. The six teacher participants in the current study noted a wide range of reasons why students may engage in cyberbullying. Rebecca explained that “social acceptance,” “power control,” and poor communication skills” were causes of cyberbullying, while Leah mentioned disliking someone, boredom, and unhappiness with oneself as reasons for cyberbullying. The remaining four teachers also cited various reasons for cyberbullying. Linda stated the following: 115 I think they think it’s funny, or maybe to make themselves feel better. Or, you know, they have low self-esteem, they don’t think much of themselves. I think some just don’t really even think about it; they just do it just to do it. Jenny said, “I think the anonymity of it is what encourages it, or– or facilitates it.” Karen expressed that students cyberbully because of “peer pressure” and “their hormones.” Sarah noted the following reasons for students engaging in cyberbullying: Maybe they feel threatened by that individual. Uh, probably one of the biggest reasons is, ‘If I make you look dumb, I look smarter,’ you know, like that– that cycle of, ‘If I tear you down, it pulls me up.’ Uh, they bully in order to get recognition from others, uh, to impress others maybe, to get their way, to be persuasive– in a way, to gain social capital. The three school leaders also noted a variety of causes for cyberbullying. Two school leaders (Steven and Julie) explained that two causes of cyberbullying are the desire for revenge on someone who has hurt them in some way and the desire for power over others. Julie elaborated as follows: They feel the– the power, and it’s often times what I tell the kids. Hurt people hurt others. You know? These people are hurting others and in order for them to feel good about themselves, they bring others down as well. Steven and Julie also explained that some students cyberbully others for fun. Steven explained that “it seems fun for some kids” and that “they get a joy out of making somebody uncomfortable and watching them wince.” Mia explained that some students cyberbully others because of “anonymity.” All of the causes that the school leaders identified were mentioned by the teachers as well (with the exception of revenge). Effects of Cyberbullying The fourth category that was explored was teachers’ knowledge of the effects of cyberbullying. It is noted in the research literature that cyberbullying can have a variety 116 of negative effects for victims (Beran & Li, 2005; Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Mishna et al., 2010; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010). In addition, instances of victims committing suicide in response to being cyberbullied have been reported in the media (Associated Press, 2007; Canning, Goldman, & McCarthy, 2010; Friedman, 2010; Maag, 2007). In the current study, all of the teacher participants noted that cyberbullying negatively impacts victims. Jenny explained that it could range from, “‘I’m not having a good day’ to ‘If they don’t stop, I’m going to jump off the building.’” A similar sentiment was evident in the responses of the other teachers, who explained that victims of cyberbullying may feel hurt and angry, experience depression, have low self-esteem, develop a fear of school, become withdrawn, fight back, start bullying others, commit suicide, or even murder the students who have been bullying them. Like the teachers, the three school leaders noted a range of negative effects of cyberbullying, including humiliation, fear, low self-esteem and self-worth, anxiety, and stress. Julie explained that cyberbullying “can cause a– a whole multitude of– of negative emotions and mindsets.” Prevalence of Cyberbullying The fifth category that was explored was teachers’ knowledge of the prevalence of cyberbullying on campus. Due to human error, interview data on the prevalence of cyberbullying is absent for one teacher participant (Linda). All five of the remaining teachers expressed that students at Clovis Middle School have been victims or perpetrators of cyberbullying. When asked how they know that this is so, two of the 117 teachers (Sarah and Karen) noted their direct experience dealing with cyberbullying amongst students. The other three teachers (Rebecca, Jenny, and Leah) expressed that they believe students have been victims or perpetrators of cyberbullying due to a range of other factors. Rebecca explained that “just hearing comments that kids make to one another” lets her know that cyberbullying is occurring. Jenny expressed that her awareness of cyberbullying has stemmed from discussions in faculty meeting meetings “where we know that sometimes those sort of things are going on and stuff’s out there.” Leah expressed that she was “just assuming because of the day and age we’re in” and what she has seen on television. The five teacher participants were also asked how big of an issue they think cyberbullying is on campus, and four of them expressed that they did not know. Rebecca explained, “I’m not sure exactly. I honestly– I would like to say it’s not, but I’m sure it is.” Sarah stated, “I couldn’t give you a number or a general feeling. I know that it happens because I’m not naïve.” Jenny elaborated as follows: Hm…I don’t know. I don’t have any concept of how much of it goes on. I’m– I– I’m going to assume that quite a bit of it goes on. I don’t think with my 6 th graders it’s as much of a big deal, I think, as you get toward the 8 th grade. I would think it would be much more rampant. I mean, I think a lot of our 6 th graders are still pretty naïve. Leah expressed uncertainty about the prevalence of cyberbullying as well: How big of an issue? I’d say it’s– well, because I don’t know for sure, this is an assumption– I would say it’s, you know, an issue. I don’t know if it’s a huge issue but I would say, yeah, it’s an issue, but I’ve–– like I said before–– I’ve seen it more in person than in the cyber world. 118 The remaining teacher, Karen, expressed that the scope of cyberbullying on campus was minimal. She stated, “I think that we have a few incidences. I don’t think that it is as bad as I hear at some of the other schools.” All three school leaders expressed that students at Clovis Middle School have been victims or perpetrators of cyberbullying. In addition, all three school leaders expressed that they typically learn about cyberbullying incidents from students (particularly the victims). Steven and Mia also explained that they have learned about incidents from parents, while Julie explained that she has learned about incidents from the administration. When asked how big of an issue they think cyberbullying is on campus, two of the school leaders expressed that it was minimal while one expressed uncertainty about its magnitude. Julie explained, “I don’t hear a lot about it so I wouldn’t say it’s, it’s a huge issue. But that doesn’t mean the kids tell me everything.” Mia elaborated about the minimal occurrence of cyberbullying as follows: On this campus, cyberbullying, [is] not– not very big. I mean, I don’t know, maybe my colleagues have said other things, but from what is brought to me, ah, I would say of all the bullying, the teasing, harassing type situations that go on here, I’d say 3 percent is bullying, is cyber bullying. It’s not – I just– but who’s to say with the advancement of the technology and the kids’ growing knowledge of technology? I’m hoping we keep it that [way], you know. Of the three school leaders, Steven was the only one who expressed uncertainty about the prevalence of cyberbullying on campus: I’m not sure. I– I’m– I have a hard time measuring it. I don’t think it’s a– rampant. It’s hard to say. But I think many students are– have had some involvement, either watching a friend cyberbully somebody or reading um, threatening or inappropriate statements written by somebody. So I think there’s a 119 widespread awareness of it. My feeling is that– my sense is that probably a very small percentage do it on a regular basis. I– I really can’t quantify it. Like Steven, most of the teachers expressed uncertainty about the magnitude of cyberbullying on campus. Only one teacher expressed that it was minimal, like Mia and Julie. School Procedures The sixth category that was explored was teachers’ knowledge of the school’s procedure for handling cyberbullying. In the current study, five of the six teachers expressed that they do not know the school’s procedure for handling cyberbullying. Of these five teachers, three expressed that they would report cyberbullying to the counselor and/or the administration. Sarah explained, “Ha, I have no idea. I’m sure– Uh, what I would do is I would– I would give it to the administration and I would consider my involvement closed.” Leah also explained, “I honestly don’t know. Um, I personally would go and talk to, like I mentioned, the counselor and the principal. But I don’t know exactly step-by-step.” Karen also explained that she did not know the school’s procedure for cyberbullying, but that she would proceed as follows: Well, if teachers notice it, it's obviously– it's reported to both the counselor and to the administration, and then they go through whatever process. He will ask us to keep our eyes and ears open if we hear anything– if we, you know, think, uh, certain students are involved. But I don't really have access to what he does. I know that he's looking like for– trying to figure out the account that it came from, and they have their whole thing that they do. But we're not involved in that. But we are asked to keep our eyes and ears open, um, just report anything that we hear, things of that nature. But I know there's a procedure; I just don't know what it is. The one teacher (Rebecca) who expressed knowledge of the school’s cyberbullying procedures simply stated that it is “in the handbook.” 120 Two of the school leaders (Steven and Mia) were aware of the school’s procedures for handling cyberbullying. Steven outlined the process as follows: Typically, we– we ask for evidence, we try to understand it, we get statements from the victims. We talk with the people that we feel are involved in this, and then have to determine whether this is something, um, that needs further disciplinary action. We usually inv– invite the parents to have a discussion with us or come in and talk, look at the evidence. If it’s not something that’s leading to serious disciplinary issues at school, like pushing or fighting, we usually do it as a counseling issue and it doesn’t necessarily need to involve school– school discipline. Mia explained that the consequence for cyberbullying “depends on the severity of what was said” and that it may include “after school detention,” “Saturday school,” or “suspension.” She also explained that the student would be told to remove the cyberbullying posting (if they have not already done so). While Steven and Mia knew the school’s procedure for handling cyberbullying, Julie expressed that she did not: Shame on me. I am not gonna know the answer to that one. Oh, because like I said, I don’t know the discipline of it. Um, yeah, ‘cause what I normally would do is send it to the administration and have them determine I guess the severity of it, of what kind of consequence needs to occur. Like Julie, most of the teachers expressed that they did not know the school’s procedure for handling cyberbullying. In order to triangulate the data concerning school cyberbullying procedures, seven school/district policy documents were analyzed for this study: the Parent Guide to Anti- Bullying, the Discipline Policy for Grades 6-12, the Online Services Board Policy, the Student Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy, the Adult Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy, the District Technology Plan, and the Student/Parent Handbook. The following 121 sections provide a description of each policy document, with a focus on whether or not cyberbullying-specific procedures are included. Parent guide to anti-bullying. The Parent Guide to Anti-Bullying was included as part of the 2011-2012 Registration Handbook that parents received at the beginning of the school year. The handout includes an explanation of bullying, which is defined as follows: Bullying occurs when one child or group of children repeatedly hurts another child through actions or words. Bullying may involve physical or verbal aggression, or more subtle aggression, such as socially isolating a child. The Parent Guide to Anti-Bullying also includes a list of things that victims, bullies, and bystanders should be taught to do in response to bullying. For example, the document states that victims should be taught to “ignore the bully’s behavior,” “walk away from a situation, “and “report it to an adult.” Bullies should be taught appropriate social skills, such as “assisting others,” “asking for permission,” and “sharing.” Bystanders who witness bullying should be taught to “request that the bully stop,” “seek adult help,” and “speak up and/or offer support to the victim.” The Parent Guide to Anti- bullying also includes specific tips for parents about how to tell if their child is a victim or a bully, and how to respond if their child is being bullied or is bullying others. For example, the document states that two of ways that parents can tell if their child is being bullied is if their child “seems afraid to go to school” or “seems sad, depressed or moody.” Some tips that the document provides for parents whose children may be experiencing bullying are to “contact your child’s teacher, counselor, or administrator to alert them and to request their assistance” and to “not encourage your child to be 122 aggressive or to strike back.” Two of the ways that the document suggests parents can tell if their child is bullying others are if their child “teases, threatens or kicks other students” or if their child “is tough and/or shows no sympathy for children who are bullied.” Some tips that the document provides for the parents of bullies are to “specify the consequences if the bullying continues” and to “teach (including role playing) and reward appropriate behavior and improvement.” The Parent Guide to Anti-bullying concludes with a section about the school’s role in addressing bullying. For example, the document specifies that schools will “identify bullies and their victims to address individual problems and needs,” “establish a confidential reporting system,” and “help to establish a climate throughout the school that promotes understanding, acceptance, and appreciation of individual differences.” The Parent Guide to Anti-bullying provides parents with an overview of what bullying is, how to identify the role their child may play (bully, victim, or bystander), how to respond, and what they can expect the school’s response to be. No information about cyberbullying procedures is provided in the document. Discipline policy for grades 6-12. The Discipline Policy for Grades 6-12 was also included in the 2011-2012 Registration Handbook that parents received at the beginning of the school year. The document has a matrix that lists a range of transgressions that students may commit, such as cheating, vandalism, truancy, violating the dress code, using profanity, or possessing drugs, alcohol, or weapons on campus. For each transgression, the document lists what the consequences may be for the first, second, and third offense. The purpose of the document is to “standardize disciplinary procedures 123 as much as possible throughout the District,” and the document specifies that the listed consequences are “not intended to substitute for the judgment of professional personnel based upon knowledge of the student’s behavior record and statutory restraints.” The Discipline Policy for Grades 6-12 includes three transgressions that may pertain to cyberbullying. The phrase “may pertain” was used by the researcher because the term “cyberbullying” does not appear anywhere in the document. The first possible cyberbullying-related transgression is listed as “violation of district policy for use of cameras, iPods/MP3 players, cellular phones, pagers/beepers and other electronic devices.” The consequences listed under the first offense of this transgression include “warning,” “confiscation of item for the day,” “possible parent conference,” “possible detention,” and “citation by police department.” The consequences listed under the second offense are “parent conference,” “confiscation of equipment to be returned to parent at conference,” “detention,” “possible suspension 1-3 days,” and “citation by police department.” The consequences for the third offense are the same as those for the second offense, except that the confiscated equipment may be returned “at the end of the school year,” and “detention” is no longer listed as a consequence. Furthermore, “possible adjustment transfer” is included as a consequence for the third offense, and suspension is no longer described as just a “possible” consequence. The second cyberbullying-related transgression is listed as “inappropriate use of computers.” The consequences for the first offense of this transgression are “parent conference,” “removal from class,” “restitution,” “possible 1-3 day suspension,” 124 “possible adjustment transfer,” “referral to police department” and “possible citation by police department.” The consequences for the second offense are the same as those listed under the first offense, except that the duration of the suspension has increased from a possible 1-3 days to 3-5 days. The consequences for the third offense are the same as those listed for the second offense, except that the consequences related to suspension and adjustment transfer have been combined as “suspension and adjustment transfer,” and “removal from class” is no longer listed as a consequence. Furthermore, “possible expulsion recommendation” is included as a consequence for the third offense. The third cyberbullying-related transgression that is listed in the Discipline Policy for Grades 6-12 is, “Hate violence, harassment, teasing, threats, intimidation, or bullying, including but not limited to physical or mental disability, gender, nationality, race, religion, or sexual orientation; and/or bullying using electronic devices or websites.” The consequences for the first offense include “parent-student conference,” “possible suspension for 1-5 days,” “possible adjustment transfer,” “possible expulsion” based on the severity of the issue, and “possible referral to police department.” The consequences for the second offense are the same as those listed for the first offense except that suspension is no longer described as just a “possible” consequence. There are three consequences listed under the third offense: “parent-student conference,” “suspension 5 days and recommendation to expel,” and “possible referral to police department.” Online services board policy. Like the Parent Guide to Anti-bullying and the Discipline Policy for Grades 6-12, the Online Services Board Policy was also included in 125 the 2011-2012 Registration Handbook that parents received at the beginning of the year. The Online Services Board Policy lists student “obligations and responsibilities” related to the use of district equipment to access the internet, such as not using copyrighted information without permission. As with the Discipline Policy for Grades 6-12, the term “cyberbullying” does not appear anywhere in the Online Services Board Policy. However, there are three student obligations and responsibilities in the document that may pertain to the issue of cyberbullying. These policies are as follows: Students shall not access, post, submit, publish or display harmful or inappropriate matter that is threatening, obscene, disruptive or sexually explicit, or that could be construed as harassment or disparagement of others based on their race/ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion or political beliefs. Students shall not use the system to threaten, intimidate, harass, or ridicule other students or staff. Students shall report any security problem or misuse of the services to the teacher or principal. Student acceptable use and copyright policy. The Student Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy outlines the district’s policies concerning students’ use of technology and copyrighted materials. Like all of the previous documents, it was included in the 2011-2012 Registration Handbook that parents received at the beginning of the year. The first section of the document focuses on the Acceptable Use Policy. It explains that student use of technology is “a privilege, not right,” and it lists specific responsibilities that students have as part of the acceptable use clause, such as using the technology for educational purposes. This section also lists the district’s responsibilities and limitations as they pertain to technology, the district’s web policy (which permits students to create 126 web pages for educational purposes), and a list of the personal responsibilities that students have as users of technology. The second section of the Student Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy focuses on copyright law and fair use policies. This section provides a definition of the term, “copyright,” and explains the fair use clause, which permits students to use copyrighted materials for specific purposes. This section also lists the copyright guidelines for students and explains what does and does not fall under the fair use clause (such as the use of software). The Student Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy does not include any mention of cyberbullying. However, there is one clause in the Personal Responsibility section of the document that may pertain to cyberbullying, and it reads as follows: As a representative of this school, the user will accept personal responsibility for reporting any misuse of the network to a teacher, administrator, or supervisor. Misuse can come in many forms, but is commonly viewed as any message(s) sent or received that indicate or suggest pornography, unethical or illegal solicitation, racism, sexism, and inappropriate language. Students and parents are required to provide signatures indicating that they have read and agree to abide by the policies outlined in the Student Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy. Adult acceptable use and copyright policy. The Adult Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy is provided to teachers at the beginning of the year. Like the Student Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy, it outlines the district’s policies concerning the use of technology and copyrighted materials. The Adult Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy is identical to the Student Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy, with the exception of the copyright guidelines section which is tailored specifically to educators. 127 Like the Student Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy, the Adult Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy does not include any mention of cyberbullying. The only clause that may be applicable to cyberbullying is the one listed in the Personal Responsibility section (quoted previously). Teachers are expected to provide a signature indicating that they have read and agree to abide by the guidelines listed in the Adult Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy. District technology plan. The District Technology Plan specifies the technology- related goals of the district and outlines the district’s plan for achieving those goals. Many of the goals in the District Technology Plan pertain to the use of technology to enhance student learning, academic achievement, and teaching practices. To illustrate this, the plan states the following goal for teacher professional development: Training will focus on providing teachers with the level of technology proficiency necessary to teach their students technology and information literacy skills, to access and use assessment data to improve instruction and to use technology more frequently in student assignments to develop higher order thinking skills for lifelong learning. The District Technology Plan also includes goals pertaining to information literacy, which is defined and described as follows: Information literacy is the ability to define, locate, select, organize, present and assess information in and through a variety of media technologies and contexts to meet diverse learning needs and purposes. An information literate person knows and follows safety, ethical, and legal procedures in the use of technology. While the preceding quote expresses the goal of students following “safety, ethical, and legal procedures in the use of technology,” there is no direct mention of cyberbullying procedures in the District Technology Plan. Most of the topics pertaining to the safe and 128 ethical use of technology focus on issues of cyber safety, copyright, fair use, and plagiarism. Student/parent handbook. The Student/Parent Handbook is included at the beginning of the homework planners that students receive at the beginning of the year. The handbook is sixteen pages in length, and it outlines the school’s mission, academic policies, student recognition policies, promotion policies, guidelines for appropriate student behavior, consequences, and student services. Students (and in past years, parents) are required to initial the bottom of each page of the handbook to acknowledge that they have read it. The Student/Parent Handbook includes a section on the possession of cell phones and other electronic devices under the “Appropriate Student Behavior” section. It states the following: Students may possess or use personal electronic devices, including but not limited to pagers, cell phones, digital media players, CD players, portable game consoles, cameras, digital scanners, and laptop computers. Permitted devices shall: 1. Be turned off during class time, and at any other time as directed by an employee. 2. Not disrupt the educational program or school activity. 3. Not be used for illegal or unethical activities such as cheating. The Student/Parent Handbook also includes a section on cyberbullying under the “Appropriate Student Behavior” section. It states that “harassment of students or staff, such as bullying, including cyberbullying, intimidation, hazing, or initiation activity, ridicule, extortion, or any other verbal, written, or physical conduct that causes or threatens to cause bodily harm or emotional suffering” is prohibited. This statement is followed by a definition of cyberbullying, which the handbook defines as follows: 129 Cyberbullying includes the transmission of communications, posting of harassing messages, direct threats, social cruelty, or other harmful texts, sounds, or images on the internet, social networking sites, or other digital technologies using a telephone, computer, or any wireless communication device. Cyberbullying also includes breaking into another person’s electronic account and assuming that person’s identity in order to damage that person’s reputation or friendships. Following the definition of cyberbullying is a description of the procedure that students should follow if they are being cyberbullied. The protocol lists these steps: 1. Students will submit a complaint of conduct they consider to be bullying to a teacher or administrator. 2. Students are encouraged to save and print any messages sent to them that they feel constitutes cyberbullying. 3. Cyberbullying conducted using District-owned equipment or on school premises, as well as off-campus cyberbullying that impacts school activity or school attendance, may be subject to discipline. 4. If the student is using a social networking site or service that has terms of use that prohibit posting harmful material, the Principal or designee also may file a complaint with the internet site. Information about cyberbullying is also listed under the “Suspension, Expulsion, and Due Process” section of the Student/Parent Handbook. It states that students may be suspended or expelled if they are “engaged in an act of bullying, including, but not limited to, bullying by means of an electronic act, directed toward a student or school personnel.” It goes on to specify that the suspension or expulsion may occur under the following circumstances: A student may be suspended or expelled for any of the acts listed above if the act is related to school activity or school attendance occurring at any District school under the jurisdiction of the Superintendent or principal or within any other school district, including but not limited to the following circumstances: 1. While on school grounds 2. While going to or coming from school 3. During the lunch period, whether on or off the school campus 4. During, going to, or coming from a school-sponsored activity 130 In sum, two of the school/district policy documents (i.e., the Parent Guide to Anti- bullying and the District Technology Plan) included no direct mention of cyberbullying. Four of the school/district policy documents (i.e., the Discipline Policy for Grades 6-12, Online Services Board Policy, Student Acceptable Use and Copyright policy, and Adult Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy) also did not include any direct mention of cyberbullying, but they did include policies that may pertain to cyberbullying. The only document that directly mentioned cyberbullying was the Student/Parent Handbook, which provided a definition of cyberbullying, the procedure that students should follow if they are being cyberbullied, and the possible consequences for cyberbullying (such as suspension and expulsion). Discussion of Results for Research Question One One of the main goals of this research study was to determine what middle school teachers know about cyberbullying. In terms of the characteristics of cyberbullying, the teacher participants in this study expressed that cyberbullying involves the intent to do harm, anonymity, issues of power, and a much broader audience than bullying. One difference between the teachers’ understanding of cyberbullying and that which is presented in the research literature is that none of the teachers expressed that cyberbullying is repetitive in nature, a characteristic which is often included in definitions of cyberbullying within the research literature (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Smith et al., 2008; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). The teacher participants also expressed knowledge of the tools, causes, and effects of cyberbullying. They identified cell phones and/or texting and social media sites 131 like Facebook and YouTube as the primary tools that cyberbullies utilize. In addition, the teachers noted a range of causes for cyberbullying, including social acceptance, boredom, anonymity, dislike of a particular individual, and the need to make oneself feel better than another person. All of the teacher participants were aware of the negative impact of cyberbullying. They noted a range of negative effects, including feelings of hurt and anger, depression, low self-esteem, and fear. Some teachers also noted that victims of cyberbullying may even consider committing suicide. There are two key findings in the area of teacher knowledge of cyberbullying. First, the teachers lack knowledge of the prevalence of cyberbullying on campus. While the teachers were aware that students at Clovis Middle School have experienced cyberbullying, they were uncertain about the magnitude of the issue. In addition, they cited a range of sources for their knowledge of cyberbullying aside from direct personal experience (such as the media, workshops, and information shared at staff meetings). Secondly, the teachers lack knowledge of the school’s procedure for managing cyberbullying. The majority of the school/district policy documents contained no direct mention of cyberbullying or cyberbullying policies. Rather, they focused primarily on issues pertaining to physical and verbal transgressions and the proper use of technology as it relates to cyber security, copyright law, and fair use. Although the Student/Parent Handbook outlines the procedure that students should follow if they are cyberbullied, the majority of teachers and one of the school leaders (i.e., the school counselor) expressed that they did not know the school’s procedure for handling cyberbullying. 132 These two findings reflect important gaps in the areas of teacher knowledge and school/district organizational processes. According to Clark and Estes (2008), the three main causes for performance gaps are inadequate knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational barriers. The first factor, knowledge and skills, refers to whether individuals have the information, procedures, and experience necessary to achieve the goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation refers to whether individuals have the commitment and confidence to achieve the goal. Finally, organizational barriers refer to the structures, resources, and processes within the organization that impede achievement of the goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). The findings reveal that teachers lack sufficient knowledge of the magnitude of cyberbullying on campus and that they lack official processes (i.e., procedures) for managing it. Research Question Two Results The second research question for this study was, “What experiences have middle school teachers had managing cyberbullying?” To date, there have been no research studies conducted about inservice teachers’ experiences with cyberbullying. In the current study, half of the teachers (Linda, Karen, and Sarah) reported that they have had direct experience dealing with cyberbullying amongst students. Linda’s experience dealing with cyberbullying occurred when she taught fourth grade at a previous school. One of the boys in her class used his school email account to send inappropriate emails to a girl. The girl reported what was happening to Linda, who then asked for permission to access the girl’s account and check her email. When asked how she responded thereafter, 133 Linda explained, “I gave the information to the principal because basically I felt it was out of my hands at that point.” Another teacher who expressed that she had had direct experience dealing with cyberbullying was Karen. During the previous school year, one of Karen’s eighth grade girls was receiving mean text messages from another girl who believed that she was “messing with [her] man.” In the text messages, the girl called the other girl a variety of derogatory names and even threatened that they could take care of the issue “behind the building.” Karen recounted how the student reported the text messages to her and how she responded to it: I had a student that came in and said, ‘Can I show you something on my phone?’ And I go, ‘Sure.’ And she showed me, and it was– she was being harassed. She was being bullied. And it was immediately reported to the administration, who then took over. And I don’t know what their– what they did, but I know that she came back and thanked me, and the mother called and thanked me and– you know, for turning it in. The last teacher who expressed that she had had experience dealing with cyberbullying amongst students was Sarah. Her first experience with cyberbullying came through her participation in a student disciplinary committee, and another experience occurred with one of her students. Both of these experiences are recounted below: I was in a disciplinary case with one of them that was posting threats on MySpace, and we had the – the campus um, liaison officer came in and showed her the printouts and said this can get you arrested. There was the other case that I was involved in of a nice girl in one of my classes who decided to leave because she was being ostracized; and they were posting things– texting to each other. Their parents were involved texting back and forth mean things. Sarah went on to explain that beyond these two instances, she has never had a student approach her directly with the issue of cyberbullying. She explained, “I never caught 134 someone texting something mean. I’ve never had someone come up to me and show me something mean. So you know, just – I think those two cases are probably my direct involvement limit.” The remaining three teachers (Rebecca, Jenny, and Leah) reported that they have not dealt directly with cyberbullying amongst students. Jenny elaborated as follows: I have not personally had any kids tell me that they’ve been cyberbullied or reported it to me in my– in my classes, so it’s mostly just what we hear about if we’re– if we happen to be in a staff meeting and it’s being discussed or there’s a certain situation that’s going on. All three of the school leaders have had experience managing cyberbullying, compared to only half of the teachers. Steven described three different cases that he had experienced. In one case, a student took a picture of a teacher’s gradebook and then posted the picture on Facebook with each student’s grade showing. In another case, a group of boys riled up an “emotionally unstable” student and then filmed his outburst and posted it on YouTube. Steven described a third case of cyberbullying as follows: We had a case three years ago of a girl who was fairly new to our school who was invited to a sleepover and um, the girls decided to tease her and poured ketchup all over her underwear and her bra when she was sleeping and made it look like blood and– and took pictures of it and then um, they had a falling out with her, and then put this photo on– on T-shirts and wore it around school and sent the photo out to almost everybody in school. And the– one of the mothers actually was involved in, in uh, promoting that. Mia also recounted a specific instance of cyberbullying that she had dealt with: We had an incident just a couple of weeks ago where a parent came in very upset. Another student had posted on Facebook a picture that was not appropriate. It was a violent picture and the child had put his name being one person in the picture, and the student who he considered annoying to be the other person in the picture. 135 Julie also briefly described a cyberbullying incident where a boy was posting messages on a girl’s Facebook page, warning her to leave his girlfriend alone. Discussion of Results for Research Question Two One of the main goals of this research study was to explore the experiences that middle school teachers have had managing cyberbullying. A key finding is that teachers vary with regards to their experiences managing cyberbullying. Half of the teacher participants indicated they have directly dealt with cyberbullying amongst students. Of these three teachers, two indicated that students reported the cyberbullying incidents to them, and one indicated that, although students have never reported cyberbullying to her, she has participated in a student disciplinary case that involved cyberbullying, and another incident that involved one of her students. Although half of the teachers have directly dealt with cyberbullying amongst students, half have not. While this may be perceived as a positive outcome, the teachers’ lack of experience dealing with cyberbullying may inform their confidence in identifying and/or managing it, and it reflects a gap in experience-based knowledge. Research Question Three Results The third research question for this study was, “How concerned are middle school teachers about cyberbullying, and how confident are they that they can address it?” Li (2008) and Yilmaz (2010) conducted quantitative studies that examined preservice teachers’ concern and confidence with regards to cyberbullying. In terms of preservice teachers’ concern about cyberbullying, Li (2008) found that 49.7% of the preservice teachers in the study were concerned about cyberbullying, while Yilmaz (2010) found 136 that 77.3% of the preservice teachers were concerned about it. In terms of preservice teachers’ confidence, Li (2008) and Yilmaz (2010) found that preservice teachers felt more confident in identifying cyberbullying than managing it. In the current study, the data from the teacher and school leader interviews yielded three categories pertaining to the third research question: concern, confidence, and obstacles. The following sections analyze the themes that emerged within each category. School leader interview data is only included in the confidence category, as the school leader participants were not interviewed about topics pertaining to teachers’ concerns or obstacles. Concern All six of the teachers in the current study expressed a general concern about cyberbullying. Jenny explained the following: Well, I don’t think of it on a daily basis or anything like that. I’m concerned of– I’m concerned holistically, I guess, just in terms of what I know goes on out there and, of course, as a parent I was very concerned. But I don’t, uh, I don’t spend any time thinking about it or worrying about it unless a situation comes up. But I do think it’s a major issue and I don’t think there’s a quick fix for it. Sarah also expressed a general concern about cyberbullying: I would say I’m concerned. Um, I would say that it’s worthy of discussion. I think kids need to be educated that what they put online is a record, and it’s an accessible record by administration and by the police…Students have a right to education and your interference of that right is not to be tolerated; it can be tracked back to you. Karen explained the following: I keep my eye out for [cyberbullying]. So it’s always in the back of [my] mind ‘cause, again, it’s on the news. You hear stories, and then it’ll quiet down, and then you hear more stories. So I think as– not only as an educator, but as a parent, I need to be aware, because I do have a child that is almost a teenager. 137 Like Karen, Leah also expressed that she keeps cyberbullying at the back of her mind: Because I don’t see or hear about it, I wouldn’t say it’s, you know, on the top of the list, with everything else that teachers deal with. Um, I definitely know if something was brought to my attention that I would step in the best way I knew how. Confidence During the interviews, the teachers reported their confidence with regards to two different factors: identifying cyberbullying and managing cyberbullying. In addition, the school leaders reported how prepared they felt teachers were to address cyberbullying. The following sections discuss the themes that emerged in these areas. Identifying cyberbullying. Half of the teachers (Linda, Karen, and Leah) expressed that they were “pretty confident” that they could identify cyberbullying. These three teachers also expressed confidence that students would report cyberbullying to them if it was occurring. Linda explained, “I think they would come and tell me. I mean they’re really not going to put up for– with that, you know?” Karen explained, “It’s an open door policy, and they know that it’s safe. What they say to me is safe. They will say something.” Leah also expressed that students would report cyberbullying to her: I think the thing with a P.E. teacher is kids for some reason or another they always feel more comfortable talking to their P.E. teacher. I think we have a different, you know, personal bubble than a classroom teacher does. Um, so I feel that if a student was getting cyberbullied they would actually come and tell me. Um, if it got, you know, to the point where they didn’t know what to do or couldn’t handle it, I would feel they would come up and say something. Two of the teachers (Jenny and Sarah) expressed that their confidence in identifying cyberbullying would be dependent on other factors, such as student reporting. For example, Jenny shared that she was confident that she could identify someone who is 138 a victim of cyberbullying “if they have any outward signs,” but she said that she would not know how to identify the perpetrator “unless someone reports it to you.” Sarah also expressed that her confidence would be based on additional factors: I guess it would depend on what resources are shown to me. Um, like if a student can discuss the issue with me, I would immediately know whether cyberbullying is involved. Uh, if a student showed me, uh, you know, materials, I would know whether or not cyberbullying was involved. But uh, I mean if I’m just teaching and they’re just suffering in silence, and nothing is ever brought up to me, there’s no way I could know what’s going on. I wouldn’t identify it as bullying unless I saw manifestations of it like a mention that it was on the Internet, or a mention that it was from a text, or the mention that it was from a technology-based item. Then I would be like, okay, well, this is a portion of bullying that’s using cyberbullying. The remaining teacher, Rebecca, expressed that she was not confident that she could identify cyberbullying: I’m not with them twenty-four/seven. I don’t know what they’re doing at home. I– I don’t know what they’re doing with their friends. The only thing that I know is when they’re in my classroom, they’re doing what I ask them to do. So outside of that, there’s no way for me to be able to say, ‘This kid is doing this’ or ‘This kid is not.’ I’m not their parent, you know? Managing cyberbullying. The teachers’ level of confidence in managing cyberbullying varied greatly. Two teachers (Linda and Rebecca) expressed that they felt confident that they could manage cyberbullying. For example, Rebecca stated, “I’m very confident that I can manage cyberbullying um, in a school setting, because I set clear expectations and boundaries and I enforce them every time, all the time.” Two teachers (Jenny and Sarah) expressed that they were “not at all” confident that they could manage cyberbullying. Jenny expressed that she has “zero power.” She explained, “You can’t control when they– when they get online. They’re unchecked and 139 they can be anonymous and their parents don’t check.” Sarah also expressed lack of power to manage cyberbullying: I have no access to these students’ personal uh– personal access to their technology. Um, other than catching them texting in class, I have no right to their phone, to look at their phone. I don’t have any access to their– their technology that they’re using to do it. Um, I don’t– as a classroom teacher, I don’t have any authority to discipline um, especially character discipline. It’s difficult for me to have a strong enough deterrent, if I even know about it. The remaining two teachers (Leah and Karen) expressed some confidence in managing cyberbullying and explained that they would report it to the counselor and/or the administration. Leah expressed, “Manage? Um, I guess, you know, semi-confident. If I couldn’t manage it, I guess I’d know who to go to, like the school counselor or take it to the principal or assistant principal. Um, inform the parents as well.” Karen elaborated as follows: Personally, me, I report it to the counselor and the administration because I don’t really have access to how to go in and figure out where the ISB or whatever thingy they talk about to get that information. But if it’s reported to me, I need to take it to the next step. It’s just– it’s just like child abuse. You have to report it. Just as the teachers’ confidence in managing cyberbullying varied considerably, so did the school leaders’ perceptions of how prepared the teachers are to address cyberbullying. Steven stated the following: Some of them are– are pretty prepared. They have um, teenage kids and are tech savvy, but they’re very busy and it’s not too hard for a student, when you have 40 or so in a class, to be sitting with a cell phone or making a text message, especially if it’s just a short, silent one to somebody. Um, but most of our teachers are aware of that. Mia expressed that teachers are not fully prepared, but that it is not their role: I don’t think they’re as prepared as they could be, but that– I don’t think that’s necessarily a negative because it’s not really part of their responsibility. It’s the 140 administration’s responsibility to take care of that. And when it– when cyberbullying happens, it’s not in the context of the classroom; it’s in the context of the school. Julie stated that she does not know how prepared teachers are to address cyberbullying, but that teachers “would be sensitive to it if a child came to them and said, ‘You know, so-and-so is bullying me.’” All three school leaders also expressed that additional education for teachers could be helpful in the form of videos or workshops about cyberbullying. Obstacles The six teacher participants identified a range of obstacles to addressing cyberbullying. Three of the teachers (Sarah, Karen, and Leah) identified obstacles pertaining to lack of access to students’ devices, accounts, and messages. Sarah explained that “teachers are pretty much powerless” and that she does not have “a lot of authority when it comes to investigating or gathering evidence of bullying.” Two teachers (Jenny and Leah) also described obstacles pertaining to anonymity. Leah elaborated as follows: We don’t always know who was behind the computer or the text messages ‘cause someone could have grabbed somebody else’s phone. How do we, you know, link it to just one person? It could be a group as well. Um, yeah, we just don’t know who’s behind this stuff– the antics. Another obstacle that two teachers (Rebecca and Jenny) identified was related to the policies and procedures pertaining to cyberbullying. For example, Jenny explained that there is “no real procedural policy to follow.” Beyond obstacles pertaining to access, anonymity, policies, and procedures, the six teachers noted a range of additional obstacles including limited teacher knowledge in the area of technology, parents who are 141 in denial about their child’s participation in cyberbullying, and the lack of advisory periods and character education curriculum to address cyberbullying. Discussion of Results for Research Question Three Two key aims of this research study were to examine middle school teachers’ concern about cyberbullying and their confidence in addressing it. All of the teacher participants in the study expressed a general concern about cyberbullying. They explained that, while cyberbullying is not at forefront of their minds, they are concerned. Confidence was examined in terms of two aspects: identifying cyberbullying and managing cyberbullying. Half of the teacher participants in this study expressed that they were “pretty confident” that they could identify cyberbullying. Two other teachers expressed that their confidence in identifying cyberbullying would be based on other factors (such as students reporting it), and the last teacher expressed that she was not confident that she could identify cyberbullying. In terms of confidence to manage cyberbullying, two of the teacher participants expressed that they were confident that they could manage cyberbullying, two teachers expressed that they were “not at all” confident, and two teachers expressed some confidence in managing cyberbullying. This leads to the key finding that teachers are more confident in identifying cyberbullying than in managing it. According to Clark and Estes (2008), confidence is a key element of motivation, and it influences people’s mental effort and self-efficacy. The fact that the teachers in this study were more confident in their ability to identify cyberbullying than to manage it reflects an important motivation gap. Furthermore, the varying levels of 142 teacher preparation expressed by the school leaders suggest that teachers could benefit from additional support in this area. One topic of interest related to teachers’ confidence in identifying cyberbullying is the role of student reporting. The three teacher participants in this study who expressed confidence in identifying cyberbullying also expressed confidence that students would report instances of cyberbullying to them. Of these three teachers, two had prior experience with students reporting cyberbullying to them, and one did not. In addition, two other teacher participants expressed that their confidence in identifying cyberbullying would be based on students reporting it to them. There is a major trend in the research literature that students seldom report cyberbullying to adults (Hoff & Mitchell 2009; Junoven & Gross, 2008; Li, 2006; Li, 2007; Mishna et al., 2010; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008; Wright et al., 2009). This is especially true for students reporting cyberbullying to teachers and other school officials (Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Slonje & Smith, 2008). If inservice teachers are dependent on student reporting in order to identify cyberbullying, they may not actually be aware of the majority of cyberbullying incidents due to the hesitancy of students to report it to them. The six teacher participants also identified several obstacles to addressing cyberbullying, including lack of access to students’ technological devices and messages, anonymity, and insufficient policies and procedures regarding cyberbullying. Some additional obstacles that they identified included limited teacher knowledge of technology, parents who are in denial about their child’s participation in cyberbullying, and the lack of advisory periods and character education curriculum to address 143 cyberbullying. These obstacles may play a role in teachers’ confidence to identify and manage cyberbullying. Research Question Four Results The fourth research question was, “How do middle school teachers perceive their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying?” Although no studies to date have examined inservice teachers’ perceptions of their role in preventing cyberbullying, Li (2008) and Yilmaz (2010) examined preservice teachers’ perceptions of the role of school commitment to cyberbullying. They found that the majority of preservice teachers recommended that schools develop policies about cyberbullying, train teachers, and discuss cyberbullying with parents (Li, 2008; Yilmaz, 2010). Other strategies that the preservice teachers in these studies recommended include developing classroom activities and school-wide events about cyberbullying, and utilizing cyberbullying curriculum in the classroom (Li, 2008; Yilmaz, 2010). Preservice teachers in Yilmaz’s (2010) study also recommended utilizing school counseling. In yet another study that examined students’ perceptions of cyberbullying, the majority of students expressed that cyberbullying would cease if schools were more welcoming (Cassidy et al., 2009). The students in this study recommended that schools develop an anonymous phone reporting system, teach students about cyberbullying, and build students’ self-esteem (Cassidy et al., 2009). The strategy of creating a positive climate where students feel comfortable reporting instances of cyberbullying is frequently recommended in the literature as well (Beale & Hall, 2007; Brady, 2008; Cassidy et al., 2009; Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Siegle, 2010). 144 The data from the teacher and school leader interviews yielded two categories pertaining to the fourth research question: responding to cyberbullying and prevention and intervention. The following sections will analyze the themes that emerged within each category. Responding to Cyberbullying In the current study, the teacher participants and school leaders were presented with two hypothetical scenarios that involved cyberbullying. The first scenario was as follows: Two female sixth graders, Katie and Sarah, are exchanging malicious instant messages back and forth because of a misunderstanding involving a boy named Jacob. The statements escalate in viciousness from trivial name-calling to very vicious and inflammatory statements, including death threats. The second scenario stated the following: James is frustrated and saddened by the comments his peers are making about his sexuality. Furthermore, it appears a group of male students is creating fake email accounts at Yahoo.com and sending love notes to other male students as if they came from James– who is mortified at the thought of what is happening. The teachers were asked to describe how they would respond if they were the teacher of the students in each scenario, whereas the school leaders were asked to describe how they think the teachers should respond in each case. The teachers and school leaders’ responses to these scenarios revealed two different themes: the role of teachers and the role of school leaders. Each of these themes will be explored in the subsequent sections. The role of teachers. All six teachers explained that they would speak with the students who were involved in the cyberbullying scenarios. Jenny expressed the following: 145 The first thing I would do is I would pull both of them aside and find out what’s going on, interview them both separate– separately, and– and find out together what’s going on. I’d tell them it was inappropriate and they had to stop it immediately. Rebecca expressed that she would respond as follows: I’d bring them both in um, like in a conference and not– not when there’s other people around and I would have them um, explain to me their version of– of what is causing this– what– what is causing their harassment on each other, and find ways to resolve the issue. Karen also explained that she would speak with students: I would talk to James and see if he would open up to me to let me know what the issue was so that I knew for sure. I would try to talk to him first and see, and get as much information as I could. In addition, Leah expressed that she would “first try and build James’ self-esteem up and let him know that it’s okay.” All of the teachers also expressed that they would respond to the cyberbullying scenarios by reporting the incidents to the counselor and/or administrators. For example, Jenny said, “I would report it to my boss,” and Karen expressed, “I would report to the counselor, and I would report to the administration, because that’s another zero tolerance issue.” Linda explained, “If I felt like it needed to go to the principal, then I would take it to the principal.” Sarah elaborated upon the first scenario as follows: I would fill out a formal referral form and it would go straight to the principal. You don’t have a choice to be discretionary if you see a threat. You have– you have to – you have to report it. Um, if it was just saying mean things to each other, I could try to deal with that with a classroom situation, but not with a threat. In addition to speaking with the students involved and reporting the incident to the counselor and/or the administration, three of the teachers (Rebecca, Karen, and Leah) expressed that they would notify parents of what occurred. Furthermore, two teachers 146 (Sarah and Karen) expressed that in the first scenario, they would confiscate the phones of the two girls if they saw them. Lastly, two teachers (Linda and Jenny) expressed that in the second scenario involving James, they would have a general, whole class discussion to let students know that the behaviors are inappropriate. Linda explained her rationale for this as follows: I’d go a step further and also talk to the class and let them know that um, it’s not okay to uh– to do that, because it is a form of bullying and that they’re taking somebody– they’re hurting somebody else uh– their reputation. Jenny’s rationale for initiating a class discussion was as follows: I would probably talk to my classes as a whole in– in general about– just in, you know, general– the inappropriateness of those sort of things and whatever and the legality of it that those kids are facing. I mean, it’s sexual harassment. All three of the school leaders expressed that the teachers should respond to the cyberbullying scenarios by reporting it to the administration. Steven explained that “if teachers learn about this, it should be referred to administrators.” Likewise, Mia explained, “If it’s the teachers that found out, then they immediately need to tell me.” Julie also supported teachers reporting cyberbullying incidents by saying, “They need to take it very seriously. Um, they need to inform the administration.” Two of the school leaders (Steven and Mia) also noted that teachers should respond to the cyberbullying scenarios by being aware. Steven elaborated about this as follows: So we would do our best to um, protect [James] and I would want teachers to be helping me with that– to be aware, to watch, to, I mean– I– I would have people outside who are doing duty and um, staff to just be aware of– of this situation. Be aware of it and if you hear anything more or see anything more or see anybody harassing him or coming up to him, you need to take note of that and report it. 147 Mia also explained the importance of teachers being aware: I would alert the teachers in any classes where [Katie and Sarah] are in together and ask the teachers just to keep an eye on the two students. ‘I just want you to be aware of it, and if anything that you feel is not appropriate looks like it’s going to take place in your class, ah, please call me immediately.’ That would be their role. While the school leaders perceived the role of teachers to involve reporting cyberbullying incidents to the administration and being aware of the situation, teachers perceived their role as going beyond reporting the incident to speaking with the students involved, and in some cases, notifying parents, confiscating devices, or having whole- class discussions about the issue. The role of administrators. The teachers’ responses to the cyberbullying scenarios not only revealed their perceptions of their own role in responding to cyberbullying, but also their perceptions of the role of administrators (i.e., the principal and assistant principal) in responding to cyberbullying. Four teachers (Sarah, Karen, Jenny, and Leah) expressed that it was the role of the administrators to investigate cyberbullying incidents. Sarah explained, “It’s not my place to do the investigation; it’s my place to bring it to the attention of the correct individuals so they can do the investigation.” Karen echoed this sentiment when she expressed, “It’s on the administration to handle it from there and the district, ‘cause I’m sure [the principal] then would call the police and there’d be a whole investigation.” Jenny explained, “I would kick it up to my boss. The difficulty is that I can’t just pick up the phone and call the cops, you know. I have to go through the chain of command.” Leah also expressed, “I personally wouldn’t talk to the students that created the fake accounts and messages, but 148 I’d let the principal deal with that and I’m sure that would have a consequence on the discipline matrix.” All three school leaders also explained that it was the role of the administrators to conduct the actual investigation of the cyberbullying incident. According to Steven and Mia, the investigation process includes obtaining facts about what occurred, determining who the perpetrators are, speaking with the parties involved in the incident, determining the appropriate consequences, providing counseling, and in some cases, contacting the police. Steven described the process as follows: It would start with an investigation to try to determine who is doing this, who is involved. We'd want to know the impact on James. It sounds like James is being impacted negatively and it's having a big impact on him first, so that's making a– making it seem like an unsafe environment for him um, at school. And then we would try to determine the facts of the case. Mia also elaborated on the process: The school counselor and the assistant principal should respond to this by the four of us getting together (the AP, the counselor and the two girls) and talking about what has taken place because of misunderstandings. And I mean, there’s two sides to that. There’s the– there’s the discipline side that will take place if this continues, and there’s the, ‘Where is this coming from?’ side that the counselor can help with. In addition, Julie explained, “Administration needs to inform the police, um, if we've gotten to the point of death threats. Um, definitely both girls need to be called and– and parents need to be informed, as well.” Prevention and Intervention During the interviews, the six teacher participants provided a range of suggestions with regards to cyberbullying prevention and intervention strategies. Their responses 149 were categorized as being teacher-based, school-based, or home-based. The trends within each of these categories are explored in the following sections. Teacher-based strategies. Four of the teacher participants explained that teachers can help prevent cyberbullying by educating students about it. Linda advocated showing “videos or examples of what cyberbullying is” so that students can see that “even if they don’t think it’s cyberbullying, it could be.” Jenny also explained the importance of educating students about the issue: I think we need to make kids aware that that’s what it is. I don’t think they realize that’s what it is and I don’t think they realize the repercussions of it. Speakers who come in and talk about it or we can have, um, you know, actual real live stuff. Don’t– don’t give me a newspaper article or don’t tell them, ‘Oh, here! This is what it is’– like real, live, ‘Can you believe this is happening?’ kind of thing and, you know, that would shock them into the fact, ‘Oh my god! I do that too!’ Sarah elaborated on the importance of education as a strategy: I think education is probably my primary way I can be a battle against it by letting the bullies know that, you know, you’re not anonymous. You’re easily tracked and easily nailed to the wall for this. So I think the more the kids who are doing it know that it’s not easy to get away with, that it – that it will be taken seriously and that the information is – is simple to grab off the Internet or grab off a text…I think if administration had more opportunities to have access to that kind of stuff, I think it would be much less of an issue. Because they know if they hit someone they’re done for, like, they know that. But if they know that if they text someone it can easily be brought up and printed out and shown to the liaison officer as a threat or as bullying and that they’re going to get, you know, nailed for it, I think that would do a lot. Leah also noted the strategy of making students aware of the issue: We could probably make more mention of it to let the kids know that we are aware that it happens. Maybe have a guest speaker come in and talk to the school on how it’s not appropriate and if it does happen to you, what steps you should take. Kids think we’re not in the know, you know, like we’re dinosaurs. 150 The remaining two teachers (Rebecca and Karen) explained that teachers can help prevent cyberbullying by maintaining open communication. Rebecca explained, “Kids need to know that they can talk about things that are uncomfortable and know that the adult that they are talking to they can trust. And you build trust through communication.” Karen also stressed the importance of communication: Keep that communication line open. Don't just think, oh, it's just my class. You know sometimes, if– if you see it over time, communicate with the parents. Let them know, ‘Hey, I'm seeing this in my class. Is– is everything okay?’ You know– you just– maybe the parent is seeing that at home too and just going, ‘Man, what's going on?’ I mean it's just– it's all about communication. While the teachers explained that they could prevent cyberbullying by educating students about the issue and maintaining open communication, all three school leaders emphasized that teachers can prevent cyberbullying by creating a safe and welcoming classroom environment. Steven explained: Part of it, I think, is working with people, with students to encourage them to think of others, to learn compassion and to get kids to think about feelings of others. It’s partly getting multicultural awareness and helping [teachers] learn to um– to create a um– an all-inclusive classroom that doesn’t somehow exclude people because they’re a little different. Some teachers are better at that than others. But that’s a school goal. Mia also described the importance of creating a positive classroom environment: I think if we here at the school and in the class foster an environment of tolerance, um, agreeing to disagree, accepting those that are different than ourselves, and remembering that we are also different from everybody else, and starting it here to where in the, in the classroom, ah, you know, your citizenship is important. You treat everybody the way you want to be treated. Julie echoed this strategy as well: To prevent it, I think they need to create a safe environment in their classrooms that kids can feel safe and feel accepted. They need to point out the positives. But um, we have different personalities as teachers and so not all of them create that type of environment. When [students] feel like that teacher’s someone that they 151 can trust, they’re gonna be open more, and they’re gonna share some of the things that are happening to them. We’re all gonna become more aware of what’s really happening out there. School-based strategies. In addition to suggesting cyberbullying prevention and intervention strategies that were unique to teachers, the six teachers also made recommendations for school-based strategies. Three of the teachers recommended that schools develop clearer policies and guidelines with regards to cyberbullying. Jenny expressed, “Well, you have to have a policy against it so you have to admit it’s there.” Linda also supported clear and enforced cyberbullying policies: Well, I think have policies in place like we do and also not just general district policies but, you know, at the school level as well. Say um, you know, we’re not going to put up with, you know, A, B, and C, or whatever. And um, and have it enforced. Sarah expressed that the policies should be age-appropriate: Um, I definitely think that you could have a better definition of bullying– that you could have a more uh, age-appropriate discussion of it than like, you know, to write some legal mumbo jumbo in their planner that nobody really looks at; they just sign their initials on each page as they turn the page. That’s not educating them about what our – our expectations on bullying are. Two of the teachers also mentioned that schools should collaborate with the police department when cyberbullying occurs. Jenny explained that there should be “a process with the police department in order to identify who’s doing it and a consequence when that occurs.” Karen also explained that “it should be reported to the police” because it is “zero tolerance” and “a federal crime.” Other school-based prevention and intervention strategies that the teachers recommended included reinforcing positive behavior, having a safe method for students 152 to report cyberbullying to adults, incorporating character education into the curriculum, and addressing instances of cyberbullying immediately. Home-based strategies. Several of the teachers also made recommendations for what parents can do to help prevent and intervene in cyberbullying. The main recommendation that teachers made was that parents should take an active role in monitoring what their children do with their technological devices. Karen explained that “it’s hard to believe parents are not monitoring.” Rebecca elaborated on this same idea: I think that one of the biggest problems is that um, communication within the home is not really occurring. So parents aren’t aware of what their child is doing on the computer. So when the child says, “Oh, I’m on my computer doing my homework,’ they’re like, ‘Oh, good.’ But they’re not actually checking to see what they’re really doing on it, on their– on their computer. Sarah echoed the same sentiment: It’s atrocious how oblivious many, many, many of these parents are. They – they give these kids these smartphones and they have their computers, and so forth and so on, but there’s very little oversight that they actually give to them. Jenny emphasized the role of parents in monitoring as well: I don’t think parents have a clue unless your kid comes in and says, ‘I’m a victim,’ you know, I don’t think you could– I don’t think you’d know. I mean, most parents don’t even go on and look at their kids’ grades. They’re certainly not going on looking to see if they’re cyberbullying. Jenny later suggested that parents be informed that cyberbullying “happens and you need to check all your kids’ stuff. They got more than one account. They’ve got more than one social media site they’re on.” Several teachers also said that parents should collaborate with the school to address cyberbullying. Rebecca expressed, “We’re a community. We– we need to work together. You know? Um, we can’t point the finger and blame someone for something 153 that we both could be a part of.” Sarah also expressed that “parents should coordinate more with the school when it comes to having an issue.” Discussion of Results for Research Question Four One of the aims of the current study was to examine how teachers perceive their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. With regards to responding to cyberbullying, the teacher participants primarily viewed themselves as mandated reporters of cyberbullying who should speak with the students involved and then report the incident to the school leaders so that they can conduct the actual investigation. This raises important questions about what it means to “handle” cyberbullying. Is the teachers’ response of reporting cyberbullying incidents to administrators an adequate way to handle cyberbullying, or are teachers simply handing it off? In terms of prevention and intervention, the teacher participants offered a variety of teacher-, school-, and home-based strategies. The most commonly recommended teacher-based strategy was for teachers to educate students about cyberbullying. Another teacher-based strategy that several teachers recommended was for teachers to maintain open communication with students. The school leaders, on the other hand, expressed that teachers could prevent cyberbullying by creating a welcoming classroom environment. In terms of school-based strategies, teachers recommended developing clearer policies and guidelines about cyberbullying, collaborating with the police, reinforcing positive behavior, developing a safe reporting method, incorporating character education into the curriculum, and addressing instances of cyberbullying immediately. The most commonly recommended home-based strategy was for parents to take a more active role in 154 monitoring what their children do with their technological devices. The combination of these results leads to the finding that teachers perceive themselves as having a definite role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. The results of the current study corroborate Li’s (2008) and Yilmaz’s (2010) findings that preservice teachers support the development of cyberbullying policies as a prevention and intervention strategy. The results also corroborate Cassidy et al.’s (2009) findings with regards to the strategies of educating students about cyberbullying and developing a safe reporting method. Furthermore, the school leaders’ perspective that teachers should create a welcoming classroom environment corroborates Cassidy et al.’s (2009) finding that students perceive this to be an effective strategy as well. It is interesting to note that the teacher participants themselves did not identify the development of a welcoming classroom environment as a potential prevention and intervention strategy. It is also interesting to note that, while the inservice teachers in the current study emphasized educating students about cyberbullying and parents being more vigilant about their children’s use of technology, they did not suggest that the school educate parents about the issue, as was suggested by preservice teachers in the studies by Li (2008) and Yilmaz (2010). The inservice teachers in the current study also did not mention the strategies of teacher training [as in the studies by Li (2008) and Yilmaz (2010)], or building students’ self-esteem [as in the study by Cassidy et al. (2009)]. Summary This chapter provided a detailed analysis of the results of this study in relation to middle school teachers’ knowledge of cyberbullying, experiences managing 155 cyberbullying, concern and confidence regarding cyberbullying, and their perceptions of their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. The results led to five key findings. First, teachers lack knowledge of the prevalence of cyberbullying on campus. Second, teachers lack knowledge of the school’s procedure for handling cyberbullying. Third, teachers have had varied experiences managing cyberbullying. Fourth, teachers are more confident in identifying cyberbullying than in managing it. Fifth, teachers perceive themselves as having a definite role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. In Chapter Five, these findings are discussed holistically, with an emphasis on their implications for practice and future research. 156 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS Cyberbullying has become the new form of bullying in the digital age. Unlike traditional bullying which occurs face-to-face, cyberbullying permeates traditional barriers because it can be done anytime and anywhere through digital technology. Cyberbullying impacts students in a variety of negative ways, including creating anger, sadness, stress, and lower self-esteem (Beran & Li, 2005; Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Mishna et al., 2010; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010). While teachers are well aware of traditional bullying, cyberbullying often remains overlooked (Beran & Li, 2005). Furthermore, students are wary of reporting cyberbullying to teachers because they lack confidence that teachers know about cyberbullying and how to handle it (Agatston et al., 2007; Cassidy et al., 2007; Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Wright et al., 2009). Much of the research literature on cyberbullying focuses on students’ perceptions of and experiences with cyberbullying. The few studies that have been conducted about teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying have been limited to preservice teachers. These studies examined preservice teachers’ concern, confidence, preparation, and perceptions of the role of school commitment in relation to cyberbullying (Li, 2008; Yilmaz, 2010). There remains a critical gap in the literature with regards to inservice teachers’ perceptions of and experiences with cyberbullying. Examining the knowledge, perceptions, and experiences of inservice teachers is critical since teachers may engage with students who are victims and/or perpetrators of cyberbullying. In addition, teachers can play a significant role in addressing cyberbullying. 157 The purpose of the current study was to examine middle school teachers’ knowledge of cyberbullying, experiences managing cyberbullying, concern and confidence regarding cyberbullying, and their perceptions of their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. The following four research questions formed the basis for this exploratory study: 1. What do middle school teachers know about cyberbullying? 2. What experiences have middle school teachers had managing cyberbullying? 3. How concerned are middle school teachers about cyberbullying, and how confident are they that they can address it? 4. How do middle school teachers perceive their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying? In order to examine these research questions, a qualitative case study approach was employed. The study was conducted at a public, suburban middle school in the western region of the United States. For the purposes of this study, the middle school site was designated by the pseudonym, Clovis Middle School. Clovis Middle School serves students in grades 6-8, and it is representative of other middle schools within the district with regards to its size, demographics, and academic performance outcomes. Three data sources were collected for the purposes of this study. First, in-depth interviews were conducted with six teachers at Clovis Middle School. The interviews were facilitated with the teacher semi-structured interview protocol, which was designed to elicit information about the teachers’ knowledge of and experiences with cyberbullying, their concern about and confidence to address cyberbullying, and school 158 procedures pertaining to cyberbullying. In addition, the protocol elicited information about teachers’ perceived roles in responding to cyberbullying, their obstacles to addressing cyberbullying, and their suggested prevention and intervention strategies. Next, in-depth interviews were conducted with the three leaders of Clovis Middle School (namely, the principal, assistant principal, and school counselor). The purpose of these interviews was to obtain another lens by which to examine the teachers’ interview data. The three school leaders were interviewed with the Principal Plus semi-structured interview protocol, which was designed to elicit information about cyberbullying on campus and school policies and procedures pertaining to cyberbullying. The interview protocol was also designed to elicit information about the school leaders’ perceptions of how teachers should respond to cyberbullying and actions teachers can take to prevent cyberbullying. Both the teacher and Principal Plus semi-structured interview protocols were developed by the researcher, based on the established research literature. Finally, seven school/district policy documents were analyzed for their inclusion of cyberbullying policies and procedures. These documents included the Parent Guide to Anti-Bullying, the Discipline Policy for Grades 6-12, the Online Services Board Policy, the Student Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy, the Adult Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy, the District Technology Plan, and the Student/Parent Handbook. Like the school leader interview data, the analysis of these seven documents served as an additional method of triangulation for this study. This chapter presents the conclusions of this study. First, a summary of the findings of the study are presented in relation to the research literature. Next, the 159 limitations of this study are described. This is followed by a discussion of the implications of this study for teacher practice, and recommendations for future research. The chapter concludes with a summary of the findings and conclusions of this study. Findings There were five key findings pertaining to teachers’ knowledge, experiences, confidence, and perceptions of their role in addressing cyberbullying. First, teachers lack knowledge of the prevalence of cyberbullying on campus. Second, teachers lack knowledge of the school’s procedures for handling cyberbullying. Third, teachers’ have had varied experiences managing cyberbullying. Fourth, teachers are more confident that they can identify cyberbullying than manage it. Fifth, teachers perceive themselves as having a definite role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. The following sections will review each of these findings in relation to the research literature. The sections have been organized according to the topics of the four research questions for this study, since the findings answer the research questions. Knowledge of Cyberbullying The first finding revealed that teachers lack knowledge of the prevalence of cyberbullying on campus. While the teachers expressed that they knew that students at Clovis Middle School have been victims and perpetrators of cyberbullying, they explained that they were uncertain about how big of an issue it was on campus. Past research that has been conducted on the prevalence of cyberbullying reported a range of rates. According to these studies, 11.7%-58% of students have been victims of cyberbullying, 10.3%-33.7% have been perpetrators of cyberbullying, and 25%-89% 160 know or have witnessed others being cyberbullied (Beran & Li, 2005; Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Hoff & Mitchell, 2009; Mishna et al., 2010; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008). If teachers at Clovis Middle School are unaware of the prevalence of cyberbullying on campus and do not know how widespread it is, they may not be addressing the issue to the true extent that it needs to be addressed. The second finding revealed that teachers lack knowledge of the school’s procedure for managing cyberbullying. Although the Student/Parent Handbook outlines the procedure that students should follow if they are cyberbullied, the majority of teachers and one of the school leaders (i.e., the school counselor) expressed that they did not know the school’s procedure for handling cyberbullying. Although no research to date has been conducted on school cyberbullying procedures, Agatston et al. (2007) found that students were unaware of how to respond if they witnessed someone being cyberbullied online. Furthermore, Hoff and Mitchell (2009) found that the majority of students in their study were unsure if their school had a cyberbullying policy. If teachers do not know the school’s procedures for handling cyberbullying, they may not be aware of the most appropriate ways to respond when cyberbullying occurs or how to direct students to respond. In addition, due to their lack of knowledge of the appropriate procedures, teachers may lack confidence in addressing cyberbullying. Experience Managing Cyberbullying The third finding revealed that teachers have had varied experiences managing cyberbullying. Some teachers have dealt with cyberbullying amongst students while others have not. To date, no research studies have been conducted about inservice 161 teachers’ experiences with cyberbullying. However, this finding suggests that cyberbullying is a real phenomenon that teachers are encountering. It is also possible that some teachers have not had experience dealing with cyberbullying due to students not reporting cyberbullying incidents to them. There is a common trend in the research literature that students seldom report cyberbullying to adults (Hoff & Mitchell 2009; Junoven & Gross, 2008; Li, 2006; Li, 2007; Mishna et al., 2010; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Smith et al., 2008; Wright et al., 2009). Confidence Concerning Cyberbullying The fourth finding revealed that teachers are more confident that they can identify cyberbullying than manage it. There is no research to date about inservice teachers’ confidence to identify cyberbullying. However, studies have been conducted about preservice teachers’ confidence in identifying and managing cyberbullying. Li (2008) found that only 13.1% of preservice teachers felt confident in identifying cyberbullying, while Yilmaz (2010) found that 51.5% of preservice teachers felt confident doing so. In terms of confidence to manage cyberbullying, Li (2008) found that only 11.1% of preservice teachers felt confident managing cyberbullying, while Yilmaz (2010) found that 48.5% of preservice teachers felt confident managing cyberbullying. In both studies, preservice teachers were more confident that they could identify cyberbullying than that they could manage it (Li, 2008; Yilmaz, 2010). This same trend is true of the inservice teachers in the current study. If inservice teachers lack confidence in managing cyberbullying, they may be hesitant to address it when incidents are brought to their 162 attention. This, in turn, may contribute to students’ reluctance to report cyberbullying to them and to their perception that teachers do not know how to address it effectively. Role in Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying The fifth finding revealed that teachers perceive themselves as having a definite role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. This role primarily entails speaking with students involved in the incident, reporting cyberbullying incidents to school leaders, and educating students about cyberbullying. No studies to date have examined how inservice teachers perceive their role in responding to cyberbullying. However, the findings of the current study provide a clearer image of what teachers expect their role to entail. One question that this finding raises is, “What does it mean for teachers to handle cyberbullying?” Is reporting the situation to administrators adequately handling the situation, or are teachers simply handing off the situation to administrators to handle? In addition, which aspects of cyberbullying do teachers perceive they can handle themselves versus hand off to administrators? The research literature on students’ perceptions of cyberbullying indicates that students do not perceive school officials as being helpful for addressing cyberbullying (Agatston et al., 2007; Hoff & Mitchell, 2009). The literature also indicates that students seldom report cyberbullying incidents to school officials due to a variety of reasons including fear of revenge by the cyberbully, the belief that it is not the school’s role to address cyberbullying incidents, the belief that school officials will not be able to stop it, fear of getting their friends in trouble, concern that parents will limit their internet usage, and concern that students will call them tattlers (Cassidy et al., 2009). 163 There is a discrepancy between the way teachers perceive their role in responding to cyberbullying in the current study (i.e., reporting cyberbullying to administrators and educating students about cyberbullying), and how effective students perceive their role to be (as described in the research literature). If students do not believe that teachers or other school officials will handle cyberbullying incidents appropriately, they may be less likely to report it. Limitations The findings of the current study may have been impacted by several limitations. One limitation of the study was that there was no precise determination of the incidence of cyberbullying on campus and exactly what was happening at the school site. The middle school site in this study (Clovis Middle School) was selected because it represented a “typical” middle school within the district with regards to its size, demographics, and performance outcomes. There was no predetermination of the incidence of cyberbullying on campus, and whether or not it was a problem at this school. As such, it was difficult to extrapolate whether teachers’ perceptions aligned with what was actually occurring at the school site. Another limitation of the study relates to sample size. Although the original intent was to conduct in-depth interviews with eight middle school teachers, only six teachers volunteered to participate in the study. The researcher made additional attempts to recruit volunteers (via recommendations from colleagues and email) to no avail. Yet another limitation of the current study may be that the teachers who volunteered to participate 164 possessed more interest in or knowledge of the topic of cyberbullying than the rest of the population. Implications for Practice Based on the findings of this study, five recommendations for practice have been formulated: conducting a school-wide cyberbullying assessment, providing faculty development/training in the area of cyberbullying, developing comprehensive school procedures for handling cyberbullying, incorporating cyberbullying-specific policies into the school/district policy documents, and providing ongoing education about cyberbullying. First, it is recommended that the school conduct a survey of students to obtain a better understanding of the extent of cyberbullying on campus. This addresses the finding that teachers lack knowledge of the prevalence of cyberbullying on campus. The strategy of assessing the extent of cyberbullying is frequently recommended in the research literature (Beale & Hall, 2007; Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011; Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; Strom & Strom, 2005; Willard, 2005). Hinduja and Patchin (2009) developed a tool called the Cyberbullying Assessment Instrument, which may be used to assess the prevalence of cyberbullying on campus. The survey consists of 38 questions that ask students to rate how frequently they have experienced or engaged in a variety of cyberbullying behaviors. Students who have experienced cyberbullying can also explain how they responded to the cyberbullying incident and how it made them feel. By having the student body complete a survey such as this and analyzing the data, teachers and school leaders can gain a better understanding of the magnitude of cyberbullying amongst 165 students and the impact that it is having. Armed with this information, teachers and school leaders can make more informed decisions about the types of interventions that may be most appropriate. Second, teachers should engage in professional development/training about cyberbullying so that they can learn more about the signs to be aware of, and how to respond when cyberbullying incidents occur. This addresses the finding that teachers have varied experiences managing cyberbullying, and it also addresses the finding that teachers are more confident in identifying cyberbullying than managing it. Conducting professional development about cyberbullying is frequently recommended in the research literature as well (Beale & Hall, 2007; Couvillon & Ilieva, 2011; Willard, 2005). It is important that this training not only be informative in nature, but that it also provide teachers with the opportunity to read authentic cyberbullying scenarios and discuss how they would respond to them. According to Jeffries and Maeder (2005), “vignettes are a strong candidate for assessing teacher understanding and predicting appropriate teacher implementation of instructional strategies (p. 20). Hinduja and Patchin (2009) provide a variety of cyberbullying scenarios that teachers can use for discussion purposes, such as the two scenarios that were utilized in the semi-structured interview protocols for the current study. By engaging in discussions of cyberbullying scenarios with colleagues, teachers who lack experience and/or confidence managing cyberbullying can learn from their colleagues who have dealt with cyberbullying, share ideas about how to respond when incidents arise, and build their self-efficacy for managing cyberbullying. 166 Third, in addition to providing teachers with cyberbullying training, it is recommended that school leaders develop a more comprehensive cyberbullying procedure. This is in accordance with the finding that teachers lack knowledge of the school’s procedure for managing cyberbullying. Currently, the only direct mention of a cyberbullying procedure can be found in the Student/Parent Handbook, and the majority of the teacher participants in the study were unaware of it. Furthermore, while the procedure in the Student/Parent Handbook details what students should do if they are being cyberbullied, there is no clear outline of what teachers should do. In addition, although the administrators can specify what they do when cyberbullying is brought to their attention, the teachers are unaware of what the administrators do once the incident has been reported. This may make it difficult for teachers to know how to respond when students ask what is being done to address a cyberbullying incident they reported. To address these issues, school leaders should create a more comprehensive cyberbullying procedure that specifies what students, teachers, and the administrators and/or counselor should do when cyberbullying incidents occur. This procedure should be made transparent to teachers by sharing it at a faculty meeting and reviewing it as necessary throughout the year. It is also recommended that teachers be provided with a cyberbullying “job aid.” (Clark and Estes, 2008). According to Clark and Estes (2008), job aids “contain self-help information employees can use on the job to perform a task” (p. 58). For example, teachers may be provided with a job aid that outlines the actions they should take (and that they should direct students to take) if they hear about a cyberbullying incident. By providing a clear, comprehensive explanation of the school’s 167 procedure for handling cyberbullying, teachers will have a better understanding of what their role is in responding to cyberbullying and how they should advise their students to respond when incidents occur. Teachers should also make this procedure transparent to students so that students know that they can report cyberbullying incidents to them, and that they will be addressed. The fourth recommendation for practice is that the school/district policy documents be revised to include cyberbullying-specific policies. This is in accordance with the finding that teachers perceive themselves as having a definite role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Although teachers perceive themselves as having such a role, there are no explicit policies in place to support this. Furthermore, the student- directed polices that do exist (such as the cyberbullying procedure in the Student/Parent Handbook) are written in technical language that is not student friendly. Developing clear cyberbullying policies is a common recommendation in the literature (Beale & Hall, 2007; Chibbaro, 2007; Willard, 2005). For example, cyberbullying could be incorporated into the Adult and Student Acceptable Use and Copyright Policies under the “acceptable uses of technology” section, with an explicit description of teachers’ and students’ roles and responsibilities as they pertain to issues of cyberbullying. It is recommended that the school/district policies be revised so that they not only include specific information and guidelines about teachers’ roles and responsibilities with regards to cyberbullying, but also so that they more aptly address their intended audiences (e.g., students). In addition to revising the policies themselves, it is also recommended that the manner in which these policies are communicated to teachers, students, and parents be 168 modified by providing ongoing education. At this time, the majority of the policy documents are included in a registration packet that families receive at the beginning of the year. Students and parents are asked to provide signatures indicating that they have read and understood the documents in the packet (such as the Online Services Board Policy and the Student Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy). Likewise, teachers are asked to submit a signed copy of the Adult Acceptable Use and Copyright Policy. However, simply requiring a signature on these documents does not ensure that teachers, students, or parents truly understand what the policies mean or their implications; ongoing education for all three parties is essential as well. Wright et al. (2009) explained the importance of education as follows: There is a need to raise awareness about the effects of cyberbullying and to create educational opportunities to serve multiple audiences (i.e., teachers, teacher educators, school administrators, school counselors, mental health professionals, students, parents) in the quest to identify and hopefully prevent cyberbullying in the future. (p. 35) Teachers, students, and parents should not only be informed of the cyberbullying policies through the documents that they receive at the beginning of the year. Rather, the topic of cyberbullying should be incorporated into teacher professional development workshops, faculty meetings, classroom lessons and activities, and parent education materials and workshops so that the entire school community has a clear understanding of cyberbullying, and can work together to prevent and address it. Recommendations for Future Research The current study aimed to explore middle school teachers’ knowledge, experiences, concern, confidence, and perceptions of their role in preventing and 169 responding to cyberbullying. Based on the findings, three areas for future research have been developed. One area for future research may be the impact of cyberbullying training/professional development on teachers’ confidence to address cyberbullying. The current study revealed that teachers are more confident in identifying cyberbullying than in managing it. According to Elmore (2002), professional development plays a significant role in teacher development and learning once they are in the classroom. It would be of interest to explore whether and how cyberbullying training (such as the use of scenarios and vignettes) impacts teachers’ confidence in addressing cyberbullying. Another area for future research may be the examination of teacher practices as they pertain to educating students about cyberbullying. In the current study, the majority of the teachers advocated education as a key strategy that they can utilize to prevent cyberbullying. However, it is unknown whether teachers actually do educate students about cyberbullying, and if so, in what ways. Examining teachers’ actual practices as they pertain to educating students about cyberbullying is essential in order to determine what types of messages they are (or are not) conveying to students about the issue, and the impact of education on students’ knowledge, perceptions, and responses to cyberbullying. A final area for future research pertains to the findings of the current study in which teachers expressed that they did not know the extent of cyberbullying on campus or the school’s procedures for handling cyberbullying. It is recommended that a comprehensive comparative study be conducted with teachers, students, school leaders, and parents. This comparative study should examine the knowledge, perceptions, and experiences of all 170 four stakeholders as they pertain to cyberbullying. Surveying students would lead to a better understanding of the extent of cyberbullying on campus, their knowledge of the school’s procedure for handling cyberbullying, how they typically respond and why, and what they perceive the role of teachers and school leaders to be. Surveying parents would lead to a deeper understanding of their knowledge of cyberbullying, their experiences dealing with cyberbullying, and what actions (if any) they take to prevent or intervene in it. Conducting a comparative study amongst teachers, students, school leaders, and parents would be very beneficial in identifying additional gaps that may persist amongst the entire school community, and it may lead the development of more targeted interventions. Conclusion The aim of the present study was to examine the knowledge, experiences, concern, confidence, and perceptions of middle school teachers as they pertain to the issue of cyberbullying. The findings revealed that while teachers are knowledgeable of many factors (such as the characteristics and causes of cyberbullying, the tools used for cyberbullying, and the impact of cyberbullying), they lack knowledge of the extent of cyberbullying on campus and the school’s procedures for handling cyberbullying. In addition, the findings revealed that teachers had varied experiences managing cyberbullying, and that they feel more confident in their ability to identify cyberbullying than manage it. In addition, teachers perceive themselves as having a definite role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying, which entails speaking to the students involved in the incident, reporting incidents to school officials, and educating students 171 about cyberbullying. Based on the findings of this study, five recommendations for practice were suggested: conducting a school-wide cyberbullying assessment, providing cyberbullying professional development/training to teachers, developing a comprehensive cyberbullying procedure, including cyberbullying-specific policies in the school/district policy documents, and providing ongoing education about cyberbullying. It is the hope of the researcher that through such interventions, teachers may develop greater knowledge, skill, and confidence in addressing cyberbullying. 172 REFERENCES Agatston, P.W., Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2007). Students’ perspectives on cyber bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), 59-60. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.003 Ahlfors, R. (2010). Many sources, one theme: Analysis of cyberbullying prevention and intervention websites. Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 515-522. Associated Press. (2007, February 21). States pushing for laws to curb cyberbullying. Fox News. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/ Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). Preservice teachers’ responses to bullying scenarios: Comparing physical, verbal, and relational bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 219-231. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.219 Bauman, S., Rigby, K., & Hoppa, K. (2008). U.S. teachers’ and school counselors’ strategies for handling school bullying incidents. Educational Psychology, 28(7), 837-856. doi: 10.1080/01443410802379085 Beale, A.V., & Hall, K.R. (2007). Cyberbullying: What school administrators (and parents) can do. The Clearing House, 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. Borg, M.G. (1998). The emotional reactions of school bullies and their victims. Educational Psychology, 18(4), 433-444. Bradshaw, C.P., Sawyer, A.L., & O’Brennan, L.M. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. School Psychology Review, 36(3), 361-382. Brady, K.P. (2008). Student bullying and harassment in a cyberage: The legal ambiguity of disciplining students for cyberbullying. International Journal of Educational Reform, 17(1), 92-106. Bryant, J.A., Sanders-Jackson, A., & Smallwood., A.M.K. (2006). IMing, text messaging, and adolescent social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 577-592. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00028.x California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2009). California standards for the teaching profession (CSTP 2009). Retrieved from www.ctc.ca.gov/educator- prep/standards/CSTP- 2009.pdf 173 California Department of Education. (2012). DataQuest. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/ Canning, A., Goldman, R., & McCarthy, K. (2010, March 30). Some parents outraged no school officials charged in teen cyberbullying case. ABC News: Good Morning America. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/GMA Carney, A.G., & Merrell, K.W. (2001). Bullying in schools: Perspectives on understanding and preventing an international problem. School Psychology International, 22(3), 364-382. doi: 10.1177/0143034301223011 Carney, J. (2008). Perceptions of bullying and associated trauma during adolescence. Professional School Counseling, 11(3), 179-188. doi: 10.5330/PSC.n.2010- 11.179 Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., & Brown, K.N. (2009). Sticks and stones can break my bones, but how can pixels hurt me? School Psychology International, 30(4), 383-402. doi: 10.1177/0143034309106948 Chibbaro, J.S. (2007). School counselors and the cyberbully: Interventions and implications. Professional School Counseling, 11(1), 65-68. Clark, R.E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 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. doi: 10.1080/1045988X.2011.539461 Crothers, L.M., & Kolbert, J. B. (2004). Comparing middle school teachers’ and students’ views on bullying and anti-bullying interventions. Journal of School Violence, 3(1), 17-32. doi: 10.1300/J202v03n01_03 Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/library/results/res11- 02elmore.html 174 Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39. Ertmer, P.A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284. 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), 365-383. Friedman, E. (2010, September 29). Victim of secret dorm sex tape posts Facebook goodbye, jumps to his death. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/ Gomez, L.M., Sherin, M.G., Griesdorn, J., & Finn, L.E. (2008). Creating social relationships: The role of technology in preservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 117-131. doi: 10.1177/0022487107314001 Hanewald, R. (2009). Cyberbullying research: The current state. Australian Educational Computing, 24(1), 10-15. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2007) Offline consequences of online victimization: School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89-112. doi:10.1300/J202v06n03_06 Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hoff, D.L., & Mitchell, S.N. (2009). Cyberbullying: Causes, effects, and remedies. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(5), 652-665. doi: 10.1108/09578230910981107 International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). NETS for students 2007. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students/nets-student- standards-2007.aspx International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). NETS for teachers 2008. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers/nets-for-teachers- 2008.aspx Jeffries, C., & Maeder, D.W. (2005). Using vignettes to build and assess teacher understanding of instructional strategies. The Professional Educator, 27(1 & 2), 17-27. 175 Junoven, J, & Gross, E.F. (2008). Extending the school grounds? – Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496-505. Junoven, J., Wang, Y., & Espinoza, G. (2011). Bullying experiences and compromised academic performance across middle school grades. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(1), 152-173. doi: 10.1177/0272431610379415 Kafai, Y.B., Nixon, A.S., & Burnam, B. (2007). Digital dilemmas: How elementary preservice teachers reason about students’ appropriate computer and internet use. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 409-424. Kite, S.L., Gable, R., & Filippelli, L. (2010). Assessing middle school students’ knowledge of conduct and consequences and their behaviors regarding the use of social networking sites. The Clearing House, 83(5), 158-163. doi: 10.1080/00098650903505365 Klomek, A.B., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, IS., & Gould, M.S. Bullying, depression, and suicidality in adolescents. (2007). American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(1), 40-49. doi: 10.1097/01.chi.0000242237.84925.18 Kowalski, R.M., & Limber, S.P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), 22-30. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.017 Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010). Teens and mobile phones. Retrieved from Pew Internet & American Life Project website: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Teens-and-Mobile-Phones.aspx Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Retrieved from Pew Internet & American Life Project website: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young- Adults.aspx Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology International, 27(2), 157-170. doi: 10.1177/01430343060xxxxx Li, Q. (2007). Bullying in the new playground: Research into cyberbullying and cyber victimization. Australian journal of Educational Technology, 23(4), 435-454. Li, Q. (2008). Cyberbullying in schools: An examination of preservice teachers’ perception. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(2), 75-90. 176 Li, Q. (2010). Cyberbullying in high schools: A study of students’ behaviors and beliefs about this new phenomenon. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 19(4), 372-392. doi: 10.1080/10926771003788979 Maag, C. (2007, November 28). A hoax turned fatal draws anger but no charges. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/ Marshall, M.L., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Graybill, E.C., & Skoczylas, R.N. (2009). Teacher responses to bullying: Self-reports from the front line. Journal of School Violence, 8(2), 136-158. doi: 10.1080/15388220802074124 Mason, K. (2008). Cyberbullying: A preliminary assessment for school personnel. Psychology in the Schools, 45(4), 323-348. doi: 10.1002/pits.20301 Maunder, R.E., Harrop, A., & Tattersall, A.J. (2010). Pupil and staff perceptions of bullying in secondary schools: Comparing behavioral definitions and their perceived seriousness. Educational Research, 52(3), 263-282. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2010.504062 Mishna, F., Scarcello, I., Pepler, D., & Weiner, J. (2005). Teachers’ understanding of bullying. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(4), 718-738. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4126452 Mishna, F., Cook, C., Gadalla, T., Daciuk, J., & Solomon, S. (2010). Cyber bullying behaviors among middle and high school students. American Orthopsychiatric Association, 80(3), 362-374. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01040.x Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Montgomery, K.C. (2009). Generation digital. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Nagel, D. (2010, February 1). EETT eliminated in 2011 Obama budget proposal. T.H.E. Journal. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/2010/02/01/ed-tech- funding-eliminated-in-2011-obama-budget-proposal.aspx National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Educational technology in teacher education programs for initial licensure (Report No. 2008-040). Retrieved from Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics website: nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008040.pdf 177 National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. public schools: 2009 (Report No. 2010-040). Retrieved from Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics website: nces.ed.gov/ pubs2010/2010040.pdf National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/documents/standards/NCATE%20Standards%202008.pdf Naylor, P., Cowie, H., Cossin, F., de Bettencourt, R., & Lemme, F. (2006). Teachers’ and pupils’ definitions of bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 553-576. doi:10.1348/000709905X52229 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat.1425 (2002). North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2003). enGauge 21 st century skills: Literacy in the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.metiri.com/21/21%20Century%20Skills%20Final.doc Oliver, C., & Candappa, M. (2007). Bullying and the politics of ‘telling.’ Oxford Review of Education, 33(1), 71-86. doi: 10.1080/03054980601094594 Olweus, D. (1996). Bullying at school: Knowledge base and an effective intervention program. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 794(1). 265-276. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1996.tb32527.x Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus bullying prevention program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(1), 124-134. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01015.x Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyberbullying and self-esteem. Journal of School Health, 80(12), 614-621. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants: Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 2-6. Ribble, M.S., Bailey, G.D., & Ross, T.W. (2004). Digital citizenship: Addressing appropriate technology behavior. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(1), 6- 11. 178 Rigby, K. (2004). Addressing bullying in schools: Theoretical perspectives and their implications. School Psychology International, 25(3), 287-300. doi: 10.1177/0143034304046902 Roland, E. (2002). Bullying, depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts. Educational Research, 44(1), 55-67. doi: 10.1080/0013188011010735 1 Shariff, S. (2005). Cyber-dilemmas in the new millennium: School obligations to provide student safety in a virtual school environment. McGill Journal of Education, 40(3), 467-487. Siegle, D. (2010). Cyberbullying and sexting: Technology abuses of the 21 st century. Gifted Child Today, 32(2), 14-16. Slonje, R., & Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 147-154. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 9450.2007.00611.x Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376-385. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x Strom, P.S., & Strom, R.D. (2005). Cyberbullying by adolescents: A preliminary assessment. The Educational Forum, 70(1), 21-36. doi: 10.1080/00131720508984869 Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321- 326. Tenenbaum, L.S., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Parris, L. (2011). Coping strategies and perceived effectiveness in fourth through eighth grade victims of bullying. School Psychology International, 32(3), 263-287. doi: 10.1177/0143034311402309 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. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014 U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use technology program (PT3). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teachtech/index.html U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology- National education technology plan 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010-execsumm.pdf 179 Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 499-503. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0042 Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Bellmoff, L., Lopp, E., Birckbichler, L., & Marshall., M. (2008). Missing voices: Fourth through eighth grade urban students’ perceptions of bullying. Journal of School Violence, 7(4), 97-118. doi:10.1080/15388220801973912 Willard, N. (2005). Educator’s guide to cyberbullying, cyberthreats, & sexting. Retrieved from Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use website: http://cyberbully.org/documents/documents/educatorsguide.pdf Wright, V.H., Burnham, J.J., Inman, C. Ti., & Ogorchock, H.N. (2009). Cyberbullying: Using virtual scenarios to educate and raise awareness. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(1), 35-42. Yang, H.H., & Chen, P. (2010). Exploring teachers’ beliefs about digital citizenship and responsibility. In K. Elleithy, T. Sobh, M. Iskander, V. Kapila, M. Karim, & A. Mahmood (Eds.), Technological developments in networking, education, and automation (pp. 49-54). doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9151-2_9 Yilmaz, H. (2010). An examination of preservice teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 6(4), 263- 270. 180 APPENDIX A: TEACHER SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Introduction Script: Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. I am exploring middle school teachers’ knowledge, perceptions, and experiences related to cyberbullying, and your responses will provide valuable insight into this issue. I will begin by asking you several demographic questions about your teaching background. Then I will ask about how you use technology and how your students use technology. After that, I will ask you about bullying and cyberbullying amongst students on campus. Last, I will ask you to respond to several scenarios that involve cyberbullying, The interview will take approximately 60-90 minutes, and all information that you share will be confidential. Do I have your permission to record this interview? Section 1 – Demographics 1. Which grade(s) do you teach? 2. Which subject(s) do you teach? 3. How long have you been teaching? Section 2- Teachers’ Use of Technology 4. What kinds of technology (if any) do you use in your classroom and for what purposes? 5. How do you use technology beyond the school setting? • Do you make use of social media websites? 6. How comfortable do you feel using technology? Section 3– Teachers’ Perceptions of Students’ Use of Technology 7. What do you know about how your students use technology? • What types of technology do students use? • What do they use them for? • How frequently do they use technology? 8. How (if at all) do you think your students misuse technology? • Can you offer an example of this? 9. What policies does your school or district have about technology use? • How were they communicated to students, parents, and/or teachers? Section 4-Teachers’ Perceptions of Bullying & Cyberbullying 10. What do you know about bullying amongst students at your school? • How big of an issue do you think bullying is on your campus? • What makes you say this? • How frequently do you think it occurs? 11. What direct experience have you had with bullying amongst students? • How have you responded in situations involving bullying? 12. What role do you see technology playing in bullying? 13. What do you know about cyberbullying specifically? 181 • Where does that information come from? • What tools do teenagers use to cyberbully others? • What causes students to engage in cyberbullying others? • How does cyberbullying affect victims? 14. Have students at your school been victims or perpetrators of cyberbullying? • How do you know? • How big of an issue do you think cyberbullying is on your campus? 15. What direct experience have you had dealing with cyberbullying amongst students? • What happened? • Who was involved? • How did you hear about it? • How did you respond? • Were there any resources that you drew upon when responding? 16. How concerned are you about cyberbullying? 17. How confident do you feel that you can identify cyberbullying? • If teacher expresses confidence, ask: o What would you consider to be signs that a child is being cyberbullied or is cyberbullying others? o What prepared you to identify cyberbullying? • If teacher expresses lack of confidence, ask: o Why do you not feel confident doing so? o What would help you to develop confidence in this area? 18. How confident do you feel that you can manage cyberbullying? • If teacher expresses confidence, ask: o What prepared you to do so? • If teacher expresses lack of confidence, ask: o Why do you not feel confident doing so? o What would help you to develop confidence in this area? 19. What, if anything, do you think teachers can do to prevent cyberbullying? • Have you utilized any of these strategies? 20. What actions should schools take to address cyberbullying? 21. What is your school’s procedure for handling cyberbullying? Section 5- Cyberbullying Scenarios I will read two scenarios that involve cyberbullying and ask you to respond to each one. 22. Scenario #1: Two female sixth graders, Katie and Sarah, are exchanging malicious instant messages back and forth because of a misunderstanding involving a boy named Jacob. The statements escalate in viciousness from trivial name-calling to very vicious and inflammatory statements, including death threats. • If you were Katie or Sarah’s teacher, how would you respond to this? 182 23. Scenario #2: James is frustrated and saddened by the comments his peers are making about his sexuality. Furthermore it appears a group of male students is creating fake email accounts at Yahoo.com and sending love notes to other male students as if they came from James- who is mortified at the thought of what is happening. • If you were James’ teacher, how would you respond to this? 24. What do you perceive as obstacles to addressing cyberbullying? 25. Is there anyone else at your school that is likely to have knowledge about students’ experiences with cyberbullying? 26. Are there any other thoughts, feelings, or ideas you’d like to share? 183 APPENDIX B: EMAIL ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO USE SURVEY INSTRUMENT From: Qing Li <qinli@ucalgary.ca> Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2011 11:10 am To: Tolulope Noah <tolulopn@usc.edu> Subject: Re: Dissertation on Cyberbullying- USC Hi, Tolu: Sure, you can use the instrument...and yes I'd love to read your dissertation... On 30/04/2011 2:01 PM, Tolulope Noah wrote: >Hello Dr. Li, > >My name is Tolulope (Tolu) Noah and I am enrolled in the Doctor of Education program at the University of Southern California (USC). I am writing my dissertation on cyberbullying and have read much of your research about this important topic. For my dissertation, I will be examining inservice teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying and the training they receive to address it. My study will primarily be qualitative in nature, consisting of interviews with middle school teachers and other stakeholders. I read the article you published in 2008, entitled "Cyberbullying in schools: An examination of preservice teachers' perception." I would like to request permission from you to adapt and use some of your research and survey questions for my study. I would be happy to send you my dissertation once it is complete. Thank you for your consideration. > >~Tolu Noah > > -- Qing Li, Ph.D Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Calgary 2500 University DR. NW, Calgary, AB Canada, T2N 1N4 ph: 403-220-5507 fax: 403-282-8479 http://people.ucalgary.ca/~qinli ************* 184 APPENDIX C: EMAIL ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO USE SCENARIOS From: "Patchin, Justin W." <PATCHINJ@UWEC.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:15 pm To: Tolulope Noah <tolulopn@usc.edu> Cc:"hinduja@cyberbullying.us" <hinduja@cyberbullying.us> Subject: RE: Dissertation on Cyberbullying Hello Tolu - thanks for the note. You have our permission to use our scenarios. We look forward to seeing your completed dissertation. Best of luck with your research, Justin Patchin -- Justin W. Patchin, Ph.D. Co-director, Cyberbullying Research Center Associate Professor of Criminal Justice Department of Political Science University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire 105 Garfield Avenue Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004 http://www.cyberbullying.us/ New book - "Cyberbullying Prevention and Response: Expert Perspectives" - now available! -----Original Message----- From: Tolulope Noah [mailto:tolulopn@usc.edu] Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 9:34 PM To: hinduja@cyberbullying.us; patchin@cyberbullying.us Subject: Dissertation on Cyberbullying Hello Dr. Hinduja and Dr. Patchin, My name is Tolulope (Tolu) Noah and I am enrolled in the Doctor of Education program at the University of Southern California (USC). I am writing my dissertation on cyberbullying and have read much of your research about this important topic. For my dissertation, I will be examining inservice teachers' knowledge of cyberbullying, their experiences managing cyberbullying, their concern about and confidence to address cyberbullying, and their perceptions of their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. My study will be qualitative in nature, consisting of interviews with middle school teachers and other stakeholders. I have read your book, Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying, and I would like to request 185 permission from you to use and modify some of the scenarios that you provide in Appendix C of your book for my study. I will be using selected scenarios to gather data about middle teachers' suggested prevention and intervention strategies. I would be happy to send you a copy of my dissertation once it is complete. Thank you for your consideration. ~Tolu Noah 186 APPENDIX D: PRINCIPAL PLUS SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Introduction Script: Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. I am exploring middle school teachers’ knowledge, perceptions, and experiences related to cyberbullying, and your responses will provide another valuable lens for examining the issue. I will begin by asking you several demographic questions about your role at this school. Then I will ask about bullying and cyberbullying amongst students on campus. Last, I will ask you to respond to several scenarios that involve cyberbullying, The interview will take approximately 45-60 minutes, and all information that you share will be confidential. Do I have your permission to record this interview? Section 1 – Demographics 1. What is your position at this school? 2. How long have you worked in this role at this school? 3. How long have you worked in this role overall? Section 2- Perceptions of Bullying & Cyberbullying 4. What do you know about bullying amongst students at your school? • How big of an issue do you think bullying is on your campus? • How frequently do you think it occurs? • Can you describe a specific instance of bullying that was brought to your attention? 5. How should teachers respond in situations involving bullying? 6. What role do you see technology playing in bullying? 7. What do you know about cyberbullying specifically? • Where does that information come from? • What tools do teenagers use to cyberbully others? • What causes students to engage in cyberbullying others? • How does cyberbullying affect victims? 8. Have students at your school been victims or perpetrators of cyberbullying? • How do you know? • How big of an issue do you think cyberbullying is on your campus? • Can you describe a specific instance of cyberbullying that was brought to your attention? 9. What policies does your school or district have about bullying? technology? cyberbullying? • How were they communicated to students, parents, and/or teachers? 10. What is your school’s procedure for handling cyberbullying? 11. How prepared do you think teachers are to address cyberbullying? • What do you think teachers need in order to be better prepared? • How concerned are you about teachers’ preparation to address cyberbullying? 187 12. What resources, if any, related to cyberbullying do teachers in this school have access to? • Where, or from whom, do teachers get these resources? • How have teachers used these resources? • How effective do you perceive them to be? • Have there been any resources that you personally passed along to teachers? Explain. 13. What, if anything, do you think teachers can do to prevent cyberbullying? • Do you know of any teachers who have utilized any of these strategies? Section 3- Cyberbullying Scenarios I will read two scenarios that involve cyberbullying and ask you to respond to each one. 14. Scenario #1: Two female sixth graders, Katie and Sarah, are exchanging malicious instant messages back and forth because of a misunderstanding involving a boy named Jacob. The statements escalate in viciousness from trivial name-calling to very vicious and inflammatory statements, including death threats. • How do you think teachers should respond to this? 15. Scenario #2: James is frustrated and saddened by the comments his peers are making about his sexuality. Furthermore it appears a group of male students is creating fake email accounts at Yahoo.com and sending love notes to other male students as if they came from James- who is mortified at the thought of what is happening. • How do you think teachers should respond to this? 16. Are there any other thoughts, feelings, or ideas you’d like to share? 188 APPENDIX E: RECRUITMENT LETTER <DATE> Dear <NAME OF EDUCATOR>, My name is Tolulope (Tolu) Noah, and I am a doctoral student in the Doctor of Education program at the University of Southern California (USC). I am conducting a research study on the topic of cyberbullying. In particular, I am examining staff and faculty members’ knowledge, perceptions, and experiences pertaining to cyberbullying. I would like to invite you to be a participant in this study. The interview will last approximately 60-90 minutes, and it will be conducted at a time and location that is convenient for you. A pseudonym will be used instead of names or other identifiable information. Please read the attached information sheet for additional details. I will follow up with an email requesting your participation in the study. If you are interested in participating, please reply to the email at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact me at 626- 422-9173 or via email at tolulopn@usc.edu. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you! Sincerely, Tolulope Noah Doctoral Candidate University of Southern California Rossier School of Education TEMS Concentration C: 626-422-9173 E: tolulopn@usc.edu 189 APPENDIX F: FACULTY & STAFF MEMBER INFORMATION SHEET Faculty & Staff Member Information Sheet University of Southern California Rossier School of Education Waite Phillips Hall 3470 Trousdale Parkway Los Angeles, CA 90089 INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH TITLE OF STUDY: Middle School Teachers’ Perceptions of Cyberbullying You are invited to participate in a research study by Tolulope Noah, a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California. You are eligible to participate in this study if you are a school principal, teacher, faculty or staff member. Your participation in this study is voluntary, and you can withdraw at any time. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this research study is to examine middle school teachers’ knowledge, perceptions, and experiences pertaining to cyberbullying. The knowledge gained from this study may help to fill a gap in the research literature regarding inservice teachers and cyberbullying. The findings of this research study may also be used to inform teacher professional development around the issues of cyberbullying and digital citizenship. PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in an interview that will occur at a time and location that is convenient for you. The interview will consist of open-ended questions about cyberbullying on campus and factors related to teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying. The interview will last 60-90 minutes, and it will be audio recorded with your permission. Notes will be taken, if you decline to be audio-taped. CONFIDENTIALITY Names or other identifiable information will not be collected or linked to your responses. All data will be assigned a pseudonym (false name). There are no anticipated benefits or risks to participating in this study. The University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. 190 The data will be stored on a password protected computer for three years after the study has been completed and then destroyed. When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used. INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please feel free to contact the Principal Investigator Tolulope Noah, Doctoral Candidate, at 626-422-9173, or via email at tolulopn@usc.edu or the Faculty Advisor Dr. Patricia Burch via email at pburch@usc.edu. IRB CONTACT INFORMATION University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224A, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu. 191 APPENDIX G: INTERESTED PARTICIPANT FORM Interested Participant Form I have read the information provided, and I am interested in participating in this study. Name: __________________________________________________________________ Gender: ____ Male ____ Female Ethnicity: ___________________________ Years of Teaching Experience: ______________________________________________ Current Grade Level(s): ____________________________________________________ Current Content Area(s): ___________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Phone Number: __________________________________________________________ Email Address: ___________________________________________________________ What is the best way to contact you if you are selected for an interview? _____________ Thank You! 192 APPENDIX H: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) APPROVAL LETTER Date: Nov 14, 2011, 09:45am Principal Investigator: Tolulope Noah Faculty Advisor: Patricia Burch Co-Investigators: Project Title: Teachers' Perceptions of Cyberbullying USC UPIRB # UP-11-00478 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY PARK INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD FWA 00007099 Exempt Review The iStar application and attachments were reviewed by UPIRB staff on 11/14/2011. The project was APPROVED. Based on the information provided for review, this study meets the requirements outlined in 45 CFR 46.101(b)(1) (2) & (4) and qualifies for exemption from IRB review. The study is not subject to further IRB review. IRB exemption of this study was granted on 11/14/2011 The following materials were reviewed and approved by the designee: Certified Information Sheet, dated 11-14-2011 Certified Recruitment Letter, dated 11-14-2011 Minor revisions were made to the recruitment and consent documents by the IRB Administrator (IRBA). The IRBA revised documents have been uploaded into the relevant iStar sections. Please use the IRBA revised documents if an 193 amendment is submitted and future revisions are required to the documents. To access IRB-approved documents, click on the “Approved Documents” link in the study workspace. These are also available under the “Documents” tab. Researchers are reminded that some site/schools require permission to conduct research even if the research is exempt from IRB review. Sincerely, RoseAnn Fleming, CIP Funding Source(s): N/A - no funding source listed This is an auto-generated email. Please do not respond directly to this message using the "reply" address. A response sent in this manner cannot be answered. If you have further questions, please contact your IRB Administrator or IRB/CCI office. The contents of this email are confidential and intended for the specified recipients only. If you have received this email in error, please notify istar@usc.edu and delete this message.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The prevalence of digital technology amongst today’s youth has expanded the ways in which they can interact with each other. One negative form of interaction that has emerged is cyberbullying, where youth bully each other through digital and online tools. While several studies have examined students’ and preservice teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying, there is a critical gap in the research literature about inservice teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying. Thus, the aim of this exploratory research study was to investigate middle school teachers’ knowledge of cyberbullying, their experiences managing cyberbullying, their concerns about and confidence to address cyberbullying, and their perceptions of their role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. The study was conducted at a public middle school (6th-8th grade site) within a suburban school district in the Western region of the United States. A qualitative case study approach was employed. In-depth interviews were conducted with six middle school teachers and three school leaders at the middle school using semi-structured interview protocols. The data from the interviews was read and coded to identify the predominant themes. In addition, seven school/district policy documents were analyzed for their inclusion of cyberbullying-specific policies and procedures. The data from the teacher interviews, school leaders interviews, and document analysis resulted in five key findings. First, teachers lack knowledge of the prevalence of cyberbullying on campus. Second, teachers lack knowledge of the school’s procedure for handling cyberbullying. Third, teachers have had varied experiences managing cyberbullying. Fourth, teachers are more confident that they can identify cyberbullying than manage it. Lastly, teachers perceive themselves as having a definite role in preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Based on these findings, the following five recommendations for practice were made: conducting a school-wide cyberbullying assessment, providing cyberbullying professional development/training to teachers, developing a comprehensive cyberbullying procedure, including cyberbullying-specific policies in the school/district policy documents, and providing ongoing education about cyberbullying. Future research should be conducted about the impact of cyberbullying training/professional development on teachers’ confidence to address cyberbullying and teacher practices as they pertain to educating students about cyberbullying. In addition, a comparative study should be conducted to examine the knowledge, perceptions, and experiences of teachers, students, school leaders, and parents in relation to one another.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying

PDF

A case study of promising practices of anti-cyberbullying efforts in a middle school

PDF

Understanding the teachers' perception of impeding bullying in the middle school classroom

PDF

Student perceptions at middle college high schools

PDF

The impact of teacher perceptions about underrepresented students

PDF

Teachers as bystanders: the effect of teachers’ perceptions on reporting bullying behavior

PDF

Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement

PDF

Program elements for special needs students in a hybrid school setting

PDF

Middle school science teachers' reaction and pedagogical response to high stakes accountability: a multiple case study

PDF

Challenging stigmas and perceptions in alternative high schools through mentorship: an innovation study

PDF

Investigating the enactment of professionald development practices in a high performing secondary school setting: a case study examining the purpose, process, and structure of professional development

PDF

Black middle school girls' self-efficacy for science

PDF

Students' perceptions of school interventions to reduce violence

PDF

An examination of teacher leadership in public schools

PDF

First and second grade teachers' knowledge and perceptions about African American language speakers

PDF

"Creaming" students in the charter school admission process: a case study of admission practices in charter schools

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

School connectedness and teacher reflective practices

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

How teachers identify and respond to bullying: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Noah, Tolulope Omolara (author)

Core Title Middle school teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/13/2012

Defense Date 06/06/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag bullying,cyberbullying,inservice,middle school,OAI-PMH Harvest,perceptions,Teachers,Technology

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Burch, Patricia E. (committee chair), Anderson, Lauren (committee member), Dwyer, David C. (committee member)

Creator Email forsavior@aol.com,ForSavior@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-56457

Unique identifier UC11289330

Identifier usctheses-c3-56457 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-NoahTolulo-945.pdf

Dmrecord 56457

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Noah, Tolulope Omolara

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