The Modern Teacher – Bridging the Digital Divide

Bridging the Digital Divide

The term ‘Digital Divide’ has grown with the advances in ICT (information communication technology). Most commonly it refers to the ‘haves‘ vs. the ‘have nots’,  The population with access to and knowledge of how to use ICT as opposed to those who do not.

There are a few key factors that have been identified which contribute to maintaining or lengthening the digital divide. According to Atkinson & Black (2007), economic status, geographical location and culture are the key factors in the digital divide.

Curtin 2001 as cited by Atkinson and Black 2007 points out that ‘people on lower incomes are less likely to be connected to the internet  and the associated services’ and that ‘ as a person’s income increases, so too does the likelihood of having access to a computer’. Furthering the divide is the geographical factor, and how it can limit access. Location is cited as ‘a significant factor by many authors’ (Atkinson & Black 2007) the main reasons being, choice of hardware, software and providers, and infrastructure to allow internet access. The third major influence on the divide is culture. Some cultural communities may see no relevance to computers and the internet (Roberts, P. 2010). The cultural factor can also be influenced by geographical location and economic status (Roberts, P. 2010). This is relevant in Australia where many indigenous people live in smaller isolated communities.

Taking this one step deeper, the affects of the digital divide can be broken down into theoretical access verses affective access (Poore, 2010). Theoretical access where people may have access to a computer but it may be limited by factors such as: having to share a computer between all family members, having a slow internet connection or a small download limit. The opposite side of this is affective access where the user has sufficient: hardware, connection speed and download allowances (Poore, 2010).

This digital divide is having a massive effect on students in Australia and all over the world. Typically the digital divide was about having access to hardware-P.Cs, servers, internet and email (Poore, 2010), however it seems now to be ‘becoming more about access to knowledge and networks and the way in which people use them’ (Poore, 2010). This is why the Digital divide is becoming a growing issue for students, less at school, and more at home. ‘Students who do not have the economic and social capital to achieve meaningful and effective engagement with ICTs outside of schools, may find themselves disadvantaged as a new literacy paradigm becomes increasingly important for participation in social routines’ (Grant, 2007. as cited by Poore, 2010). Students are being increasingly divided digitally through social capital, economic capital and cultural capital. Socially students need to have connections and access to support networks and expertise in order to get advice, help and recommendations. Culturally students need to know perform and operate in an appropriate way within the digital world. Finally economically students need to be able to afford and have access to hardware, software and quality internet connections (Poore, 2010).  Those without access to these resources who are on the wrong side of the digital divide will be disadvantaged during schooling and into their future in the workforce. ‘Access to participatory culture functions as a new form of hidden curriculum, shaping which youth will succeed and which will be left behind’ (Henry Jenkins as cited by Poore, 2010).

The digital divide not only disadvantages people academically. It has now been suggested that the internet can play a vital role in a person’s mental health and well being (Blanchard, Metcalf & Burns, 2007). The internet can help promote social connectedness, civic participation and social skill development (Blanchard et al 2007).  Wyn et al, 2005 as cited by Blanchard et al, 2007 argue that ‘the internet is continuously increasing the possibilities of who we connect with and how we belong, on and off line’. It seems that with the introduction of web 2.0, the digital divide has grown more complicated. This means for people on the wrong side of the divide, they may be disconnected from communities and online connections which can interfere with mental health and well being (Blanchard et al 2007). It appears that ‘in an online context, young people in particular are developing a sense of self in relation to broader context and making sense of social issues and social boundaries’ (Blanchard et al 2007). This shows that young people with limited or no access to the internet may be socially disadvantaged, or inept.

 

Currently in Australia there is some effort being made to help close or bridge the digital divide. For people without access to affordable hardware and internet connections there are public libraries where internet and other programs can be accessed.  The national broadband network (NBN) is another initiative in Australia hoping to close the gap in internet accessibility in Australia. The 43billion dollar program aims to upgrade nationwide broadband networks and will allow regional towns ‘greater connectedness to other areas’ (department of broadband, communication and the digital economy. 2010). Other programs currently running to help close the digital divide include: the ‘Reach for the Clouds’ wired housing scheme (Meredyth &Thomas 2000, as cited by Atkinson & Black 2007), the Access at Schools program (Multimedia Victoria 2007, as cited by Atkinson & Black 2007) and the CTC at NSW program which places community tele-centers in communities of less than 3000 citizens (Rokesby et al, 2002, as cited by Atkinson & Black 2007).

 

It seems that the digital divide is something that has many causes in Australia and some effort is being made to help correct those causes, however this is a deep and complicated matter that cannot be addressed over night. The effects of being on the wrong side of the divide have not yet been fully explored but it is safe to say being on the wrong side can have significant impacts on a child’s learning which, can extend into their working lives. As for whether the digital divide is widening or closing cannot be said for sure, however Atkinson and Black point out that ‘as technology changes, the number of barriers to technology access also increase’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resources

Black, R., Atkinson, J. (2007). Addressing the Digital Divide in Rural Australia. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/search;res=AEIPT;search=DN=169294

Blanchard, M., Metcalf, A., Burns, J. (2007). Bridging the Digital Divide: Creating opportunities for marginalised young people to get connected. Retrieved from http://www.inspire.org.au/uploads/files/pdfs/BDD%20Report%201_Yp%20use%20of%20technology%202007.pdf

Department of broadband, communication and the digital economy (2010). National Broadband Network 2010. Retrieved from http://www.dbcde.gov.au/broadband/national_broadband_network

Poore, M. (2010). Digital divide and digital participation . Retrieved from http://7840lwt2010.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/lecture-05-01-digital-divide-and-digital-participation-f2f/

Roberts, P. (2010) unit 7840 Learning with Technology, Lecture Monday 18^th October 2010. [lecture power point slides]. Retrieved from http://learnonline.canberra.edu.au/calendar/view.php?view=day&course=3718&cal_d=18&cal_m=10&cal_y=2010#event_41375

 

 

 

 

 

 

The biggest thing i have learnt throughout this unit is how to write a blog. Before this i didn’t know how to sign up for one or how to use one appropriately. I also think i have learnt lots about researching different topics and using different tools like ucansearch, e-reserve and Google scholar, and selecting reliable and relevant information sources from them.

Overall i learnt lots about impacts of ICT on education. Before this class i thought any use of technology would enhance learning . But now i understand that copying down notes from slides on a IWB is the same as older methods of teaching except it involves new technology. I can now appreciate that technology should only be used when it is going to enhance a lesson not just because it is there. I found researching the technologies which will be emerging in the future particularly interesting and was amazed at the paths learning and teaching are heading down.

Researching cyber bullying was something new for me. I had heard about cyber bullying but had never experienced it when I was at school. I have learnt just how damaging cyber bullying can be when defamatory material is posted for the whole world to see. I can also see now how much of a struggle it will be to help control cyber bullying.  I think that its prevention strategies should be targeted at education on the subject, not prevention, to help children understand the reality of what they are doing and what they are causing to someone else as well as how it may affect them in the future.

So this is my last post for the unit Learning with Technology, hope you enjoyed reading.

its the end. eeeeaaaaaaaggghhhhhhhhh!

CoOlsy.

Final Analysis: Cyber Bullying

With all the new technologies emerging being used in schools and at home by children there are many advantages that come with these technologies. However there is one Negative consequence to these new technologies. Some students are using these new mediums to bully and attack other students.

Cyber bullying or bullying on the internet and through text is a growing problem in schools around the world. Cyber bullying can be described as: ‘teasing, spreading rumours, sending unwanted or threatening materials or the displaying of defamatory material’ (Shariff & Strong-Wilson. 2005). Currently cyber bullying is most commonly being achieved through: email, chat rooms, instant messaging, social networking sites, websites or text messaging (Shariff & Strong-Wilson. 2005).

In general ‘cyber bullying has similar impacts factors to traditional bullying’ (Smith et al, 2008), however in a study conducted in the UK there were certain aspects of cyber-bullying which students pointed out as being more harmful than traditional bullying. Those rated as more damaging than traditional bullying were picture and video posting (Smith et al. 2008). This is because these images are hard to delete and can be displayed to an endless audience. According to Drogin & Young, 2008, long term effects of cyber bullying can include: attention deficit disorder, personality disorders, anxieties and conduct disorders. It has also shown to increase adult suicide rates (Drogin & Young, 2008). Some of these symptoms have been uncovered in Australian courts with one Victorian school student seeking compensation from school bullies after fearing for her safety at school and developing anxiety due to continued cyber-bullying (Carrick, 2010).

In order to assess cyber-bullying behaviour there are a number of questionnaires or scales that have been identified: bullying behaviour scale, name calling survey, Olweus’ bully/victim questionnaire, ‘Life in Schools’ booklet, peer belief inventory, peer nomination inventory and the peer victimisation scale. (Crothers & Levinson 2004 as cited by Drogin & Young 2008) These help identify the type and extent of cyber-bullying.

It is hard to find information on just how widespread cyber bullying actually is. Cyber bullying: Its nature and impact on secondary school pupils compared two studies done on cyber bullying and traditional bullying, looking at its prevalence and if or why students are reluctant to report incidence of bullying, either cyber or traditional. The results showed that traditional bullying was more common with 14.1% saying they were bullied regularly compared to 6.6% who said they were cyber bullied regularly (Smith et al, 2008). However it was reported that cyber bullying is more prevalent outside school (Smith et al, 2008). When asked why, typical answers from those surveyed where   ‘phones are excluded in schools’ so access to texting is limited and ‘[outside school] no one is checking on you’ (Smith et al, 2008).

The two studies conducted also looked at if students were reporting being cyber bullied, who they were telling and that was then compared that to results for the same questions asked for traditional bullying. From the questions asked about reporting cyber bullying and who victims were telling, it was shown that 43.7% of those surveyed were not reporting the problem to anyone. This was compared to traditional bullying where fewer than 30% weren’t reporting the problem (Smith et al, 2008).  From the students who said they reported being cyber bullied the largest group victims reported to were friends (26%), the second largest group were parents (15.5%) and the smallest group reported to were class teachers or other adults within the school (8.5%)(Smith et al, 2008). Smith et al, 2008, hypothesise that cyber bullying is less frequently reported to anyone as content posted on the internet may be more embarrassing eg pictures or videos, compared to traditional bullying. Smith et al, 2008 also believe that parents are less likely to be involved as victims believe that parents are not as technologically savvy and may not be able to help. Lastly it is theorised that teachers or other adults in the school were shown as the smallest group to report cyber bullying to as the problem occurs predominantly outside of school (Smith et al, 2008).

Counteracting cyber bullying in schools is becoming increasingly hard. Each state has policies in schools about cyber bullying. However it is hard to have up to date, effective policies as ICT is constantly evolving and changing. (http://www.cybersmart.gov.au). Schools are commonly using tools like acceptable use forms to help manage cyber bullying. Students and parents are made to sign internet acceptable use forms which include policies on use of social networking sites, emails and appropriate communication as well as consequences. Filtering and blocking software is also used in ACT schools to block sites such as facebook and private email addresses. (cyber smart guide for families, Australian communication and media authority)

There are many things parent can advise their children on or do themselves to keep children safe from online bullying in the home. The Australian Government’s Cyber Smart Guide for Families 2009(www.cybersmart.gov.au) outlines some of these strategies.

Over all it can be shown that there is a direct link between the rise of cyber bullying and the development and use of ICT in schools. Cyber bullying can occur virtually anywhere now with the development of new technologies, however cyber attacks most commonly occur in school or at home. There are many ways students, parents and teachers can do to prevent or counteract cyber bullying and prevent problems that can occur immediately as well as long term problems or effects from being cyber bullying.

Resources:

Carrick, D (presenter). (2010, May 4) ABC Radio National. Podcast. Retrieved fromhttp://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2010/2888868.htm

Cyber Smart Guide for Families, Australian Communication and Media Authority www.cybersmart.gov.au

Drogin, E., Young, K. (2008). Forensic Mental Health Aspects of Adolescent ‘Cyber Bullying’: A Jurisprudent Perspective. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 36.

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=10&sid=f5f3aadb-fcca-4c28-8a68-764f43f629cd%40sessionmgr13

P. Smith., J. Mahdavi., M. Carvalho., S. Fisher., S. Russell., & N. Tippett. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. The Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 49:4, 376-385. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=10&sid=a4b4412c-2238-406d-8cd0-3acae098db99%40sessionmgr13-

S.Shariff and T. Strong-Wilson 2005 chapter 14, Bullying and New Technologies,  Classroom Teaching.

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=10&sid=364176c1-5b2b-415d-8ee3-92782c3a37af%40sessionmgr11

Prevalence and frequency of reporting cyber bullying compared to traditional bullying

Cyber bullying: Its nature and impact on secondary school pupils compared two studies done on cyber bullying and traditional bullying, looking at its prevalence and if or why students are reluctant to report incidence of bullying, either cyber or traditional.

The studies over 19 schools asked students how often they were bullied: often (once or twice a week), sometimes (once or twice a month) or never (Smith et al, 2008). The results showed that traditional bullying was more common with 14.1% saying they were bullied regularly compared to 6.6% who said they were cyber bullied regularly (Smith et al, 2008). The results also showed that more students were never cyber bullied (77.8%) compared to those who were never subjected to traditional bullying (54.3%) (Smith et al, 2008). This shows that traditional bullying is still more common than cyber bullying in schools, however it was reported that cyber bullying is more prevalent outside school (Smith et al, 2008). When asked why, typical answers from those surveyed where   ‘phones are excluded in schools’ so access to texting is limited and ‘[outside school] no one is checking on you’ (Smith et al, 2008).

The two studies conducted also looked at if students were reporting being cyber bullied, who they were telling and that was then compared that to results for the same questions asked for traditional bullying. From the questions asked about reporting cyber bullying and who victims were telling, it was shown that 43.7% of those surveyed were not reporting the problem to anyone. This was compared to traditional bullying where fewer than 30% weren’t reporting the problem (Smith et al, 2008).  From the students who said they reported being cyber bullied the largest group victims reported to were friends (26%), the second largest group were parents (15.5%) and the smallest group reported to were class teachers or other adults within the school (8.5%)(Smith et al, 2008). Smith et al, 2008, hypothesise that cyber bullying is less frequently reported to anyone as content posted on the internet may be more embarrassing eg pictures or videos, compared to traditional bullying. Smith et al, 2008 also believe that parents are less likely to be involved as victims believe that parents are not as technologically savvy and may not be able to help. Lastly it is theorised that teachers or other adults in the school were shown as the smallest group to report cyber bullying to as the problem occurs predominantly outside of school (Smith et al, 2008).

resources

P. Smith., J. Mahdavi., M. Carvalho., S. Fisher., S. Russell., & N. Tippett. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. The Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 49:4, 376-385

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=10&sid=a4b4412c-2238-406d-8cd0-3acae098db99%40sessionmgr13

Final Analysis: Impacts of ICT on Education

Analysis: Impacts of ICT (Information Communication Technology) on Education.

Over the last two decades as ICT developed it began to gradually be integrated in education with the view it would enhance learning, which it does. However ICT has many impacts on education both positive and negative. The impacts on education can be split into two main groups, the tools used in an educational setting and the ways in which ICT is taught or integrated.

Because of these new technologies there has been a push for pedagogies and teaching styles to be changed to keep up with the advancing technology.  In his article E-Pedagogy, does e-learning require a new approach to teaching and learning, Bobby Elliot suggests there are two main reasons pedagogies have not already changed, ‘Firstly [it is believed] there is no need to change the tried-and-tested pedagogies and; secondly, there are no alternative methods’. Over the last 20 years tools for teaching have changed, however methods for teaching and learning have not (B. Eliot, 2009).  Garrison and Anderson, 2003, write, ‘To realise the potential of e-learning it is essential that we rethink our pedagogy. Education is about ideas, not facts. Moreover, students in higher education are not receiving the educational experiences they need to develop the critical and self directed high education skills required for lifelong learning. The current passive-information-transfer approaches to higher education are contrasted with the interactive and constructive potential of e-learning’.

From examples like this, new pedagogies have been suggested. One of these is Connectivism. Connectivism ‘conceptualises knowledge and learning as a network’ (B. Elliot, 2009). It focuses on learning being about networking and creation. This theory differentiates between data, information, knowledge and meaning.

Data – raw elements

Information- data with intelligence applied

Knowledge- Information in context and internalised

Meaning-comprehension of the nuances, value and implications of knowledge

(B. Elliot, 2009)

Taking this one step further is TPACK, where teachers need to have a grasp of content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and technological knowledge (Roblyer M. D, Doering A. H, 2010) in order to use ICT beneficially in education.

As technologies develop further, they complement the new pedagogies and TPAK even more greatly.

Using Communication and sharing tools like blogs, wikis and social networking sites promotes some key concepts put forward by connectivism and constructivism. Concepts like ‘maintaining connection is needed for continual learning’ and ‘currency is vital for learning’ (B. Elliot, 2009). This can be added to agian by accessing these tools on mobiles in the classroom or on an IWB (interactive white board).

The physical tools used as well as the structure of classrooms are all changing. IWBs are providing audio and visual as well as aesthetic mediums to help motivate and engage students. ‘Students can come and interact with the surface [of an IWB] and actually create opportunities to learn’ (Andy Penman, Teamboard Australia, 2010, ABC Radio National podcast). IWBs also give teachers access to current issues and web pages, which again complements the constrivism and connectivism approaches. IWBs also allow teachers to revisit previous saved lessons or even email saved lessons to students.

New technologies like IWBs and laptops are being used and explored currently in Australia. Looking into the future there are a number of new technologies that will impact on education just over the horizon.

Future technologies heading our way include things like:

Mobile learning where students have devices on them at all times. This has been trailed in Clementi Town secondary School where, ‘Upon arrival at the field site, instructions appear on the [students’] mobiles, and the students work collaboratively to carry out experiments, take notes, analyse and synthesise data and submit their results’ (K-12 Horizons Report, 2010, p. 23). This technology engages students with learning, allows them portable, in the field resources and gives them the opportunity to submit work electronically.

It can be concluded that ICT has two main impacts affecting education today. The first being the tools which we use to teach, e.g, IWBs or mobiles, and the way in which we teach with these new tools or the pedagogies we choose to employ. However, when used correctly these new technologies complement pedagogies like connectivism and constructivism very well and can ultimately enhance the learning process a great deal.

References:

E-Pedagogy, Does e-learning require a new approach to teaching and learning?

G. B Reedy, Scottish Qualifications Authority, Jan. 2009 retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/932164/E-Pedagogy

Funnell. A. (Presenter). (2010 May, 13^th) ABC Radio National – Audio Podcast, retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/rn/futuretense/stories/2010/2885066.htm

Roblyer M. D, Doering A. H, 2010, Integrating Educational Technology in Teaching.

5^th ed. Pearson Publishing 2010

Technology, Pedagogy and Education, Gabriel B. Reedy, 2008,

The New Media Consortium, 2010 K-12 Horizons Report, (2010)

retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.canberra.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=11&sid=6cc27d6f-800a-4f60-8785-00fccd4a930f%40sessionmgr11

Analysis – Cyber Bullying

With all the new technologies emerging being used in schools and at home by children there are many advantages that come with these technologies. However there is one Negative consequence to these new technologies. Some students are using these new mediums to bully and attack other students.

Cyber bullying or bullying on the internet and through text is a growing problem in schools around the world. Cyber bullying can be described as: ‘teasing, spreading rumours, sending unwanted or threatening materials or the displaying of defamatory material’ (Shariff & Strong-Wilson. 2005). Currently cyber bullying is most commonly being achieved through: email, chat rooms, instant messaging, social networking sites, websites or text messaging (Shariff & Strong-Wilson. 2005).

In general ‘cyber bullying has similar impacts factors to traditional bullying’ (Smith et al, 2008), however in a study conducted in the UK there were certain aspects of cyber-bullying which students pointed out as being more harmful than traditional bullying. Those rated as more damaging than traditional bullying were picture and video posting (Smith et al. 2008). This is because these images are hard to delete and can be displayed to an endless audience. According to Drogin & Young, 2008, long term effects of cyber bullying can include: attention deficit disorder, personality disorders, anxieties and conduct disorders. It has also shown to increase adult suicide rates (Drogin & Young, 2008). Some of these symptoms have been uncovered in Australian courts with one Victorian school student seeking compensation from school bullies after fearing for her safety at school and developing anxiety due to continued cyber-bullying (Carrick, 2010).

In order to assess cyber-bullying behaviour there are a number of questionnaires or scales that have been identified: bullying behaviour scale, name calling survey, Olweus’ bully/victim questionnaire, ‘Life in Schools’ booklet, peer belief inventory, peer nomination inventory and the peer victimisation scale. (Crothers & Levinson 2004 as cited by Drogin & Young 2008) These help identify the type and extent of cyber-bullying.

Counteracting cyber bullying in schools is becoming increasingly hard. Each state has policies in schools about cyber bullying. However it is hard to have up to date, effective policies as ICT is constantly evolving and changing. (http://www.cybersmart.gov.au). Schools are commonly using tools like acceptable use forms to help manage cyber bullying. Students and parents are made to sign internet acceptable use forms which include policies on use of social networking sites, emails and appropriate communication as well as consequences. Filtering and blocking software is also used in ACT schools to block sites such as facebook and private email addresses. (cyber smart guide for families, Australian communication and media authority)

There are many things parent can advise their children on or do themselves to keep children safe from online bullying in the home. The Australian Government’s Cyber Smart Guide for Families 2009 (www.cybersmart.gov.au) outlines some of these strategies.

Over all it can be shown that there is a direct link between the rise of cyber bullying and the development and use of ICT in schools. Cyber bullying can occur virtually anywhere now with the development of new technologies, however cyber attacks most commonly occur in school or at home. There are many ways students, parents and teachers can do to prevent or counteract cyber bullying and prevent problems that can occur immediately as well as long term problems or effects from being cyber bullying.

Resources:

Carrick, D (presenter). (2010, May 4) ABC Radio National. Podcast. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2010/2888868.htm

Cyber Smart Guide for Families, Australian Communication and Media Authority www.cybersmart.gov.au

Drogin, E., Young, K. (2008). Forensic Mental Health Aspects of Adolescent ‘Cyber Bullying’: A Jurisprudent Perspective. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 36.

P. Smith., J. Mahdavi., M. Carvalho., S. Fisher., S. Russell., & N. Tippett. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. The Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 49:4, 376-385.

S.Shariff and T. Strong-Wilson 2005 chapter 14, Bullying and New Technologies,  Classroom Teaching.

Profiles: the ‘bully’ and the ‘victim’

The journal article Cyberbullying: Its Nature and Impact in Secondary School Pupils reveals answers from two studies on who bullies and victims typically are and students perceptions of bullies and victims.

The study revealed that many students who were victims of cyber bullying were also victims of traditional school yard bullying the same was shown with cyber bullies often being a bully in other situations (Smith et al, 2008).

Girls in general are more likely to be involved in cyber bullying. Students believe it is reasons like ‘boys are more physical’ and ‘girls hold grudges for longer and boys deal with it then and there and get it over with’ (Smith et al. 2008) for girls more commonly being involved in cyber bullying.

Bullies are often motivated because of a lack of confidence or a desire for control (Smith et al. 2008). Students from another study conducted across 14 schools said ‘bullying on the computer is quite cowardly, because people can’t face up to the person themselves’ and ‘people are too scared to do stuff face to face’ (Smith et al. 2008) Its has been concluded that a lack of face to face interaction only encourages bullying as it reduces the bullies feelings of empathy (Smith et al, 2008)

It seems that bullying takes place within victims acquaintances, 20% of victims in these studies said the person bullying them was in the same class and 28% were not in the same class but in the same year group (Smith et al, 2008). The largest group who admitted to bullying were lone males (24%) flowed by lone females (21%) and several females (18%) (Smith et al, 2008).

One over all reoccurring link between victims was internet usage. In these studies students who admitted to being bullied were also those who had the highest internet usage. This increased time on the internet or exposure links directly to frequency of cyber bullying (Smith et al. 2008)

P. Smith., J. Mahdavi., M. Carvalho., S. Fisher., S. Russell., & N. Tippett. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. The Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 49:4, 376-385.

Effects of Cyber Bullying

Effects of cyber bullying

The effects on victims of cyber-bullying can be similar to the effects of traditional school yard bullying.

A study conducted by the Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health 2007 (as cited by Smith et al, 2008) showed for most students in the U.K (56%), cyber-bullying lasted on average one or two weeks. With 18.8% saying it lasted about a month and 10.1% admitting it had gone on for several years.

The study also showed that most students believed that in general ‘cyber bullying had similar impacts factors to traditional bullying’ (Smith et al, 2008), however there were certain aspects of cyber-bullying which students pointed out as being more harmful than traditional bullying. Those rated as more damaging than traditional bullying were picture and video posting (Smith et al. 2008). This is because these images are hard to delete and can be displayed to an endless audience.

According to Drogin & Young, 2008, long term effects of cyber bullying can include: attention deficit disorder, personality disorders, anxieties and conduct disorders. It has also shown to increase adult suicide rates (Drogin & Young, 2008). Some of these symptoms have been uncovered in Australian courts with one Victorian school student seeking compensation from school bullies after fearing for her safety at school and developing anxiety due to continued cyber-bullying (Carrick, 2010).

In order to assess cyber-bullying behaviour there are a number of questionnaires or scales that have been identified: bullying behaviour scale, name calling survey, Olweus’ bully/victim questionnaire, ‘Life in Schools’ booklet, peer belief inventory, peer nomination inventory and the peer victimisation scale. (Crothers & Levinson 2004 as cited by Drogin & Young 2008) These help identify the type and extent of cyber-bullying.

Resources:

Carrick, D (presenter). (2010, May 4) ABC Radio National. Podcast. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2010/2888868.htm

Drogin, E., Young, K. (2008). Forensic Mental Health Aspects of Adolescent ‘Cyber Bullying’: A Jurisprudent Perspective. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 36.

P. Smith., J. Mahdavi., M. Carvalho., S. Fisher., S. Russell., & N. Tippett. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. The Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 49:4, 376-385.

E-Safety in the Home

There are many things parent can advise their children on or do themselves to keep them safe from online bullying in the home. The Australian Government’s Cyber Smart Guide for Families 2009 (www.cybersmart.gov.au) outlines some of these strategies.

Victims can:

• Not reply to any messages from a bully
• Learn how to block bullies so they can’t make contact
• Keep a record of any harassment
• Keep user names and passwords secret
• Report threatening messages to a parent or teacher immediately

Parents can:

• Change privacy settings for home internet services
• Visit the cyber bullying website for information about cyber bullying
• Use support services such as the kids help line or bullying no way website
• Contact school if other students are involved
• Report threatening messages to police
• Contact the cyber safety centre on 1800 880 176 for advice

These strategies can help reduce the risk of or help combat cyber bullying in the home.

E-Safety in Schools

Each state has policies in schools about cyber bullying. However it is hard to have up to date, effective policies as ICT is constantly evolving and changing. Students and parents are often made to sign internet acceptable use forms which include policies on use of social networking sites, emails and appropriate communication as well as consequences. All schools in the ACT employ filtering software to block inappropriate or non educational content from school browsers.

The ACT has ‘firm policies on the appropriate use of internet and mobile phones within schools’ (http://www.cybersmart.gov.au/en/Schools/Cybersafety%20policies.aspx). Some of the Cyber bullying specific policies are:  Counter bullying, harassment and violence in ACT schools and, Our school-a safe and happy place for everyone- a code of conduct to promote respectful interaction on ACT DET premises.

As well as policies in schools to help combat cyber bullying there are many resources available to teachers to help recognise and deal with cyber bullying in the classroom. Some of examples of these are: ‘Hectors world’, a interactive help website for kids of a primary school age, ‘Cybernetrix’- an interactive website aim at high school students to educate them about cyber bullying and safety, and ‘Lets fight it together’ a teacher resource about cyber bullying, what it is how to deal with it and how to combat it.

ACT DET policies and resources like ‘cybernetrix’ and ‘Lets fight it together’ are currently the main ways of combating and keeping ACT students safe from cyber bullying in school.