18563346

Gabrielle Magee

Researching Teaching and Learning

Assignment 2

19/05/2016
1H

The past twenty to thirty years of technological advancement has been beneficial for
educational practise. Improvements in communications, access to information and resources
and ICT teaching and learning strategies have changed the way lessons are taught and
received in the classroom. But with this surge of new technology comes the capacity for new
mediums of negative interaction. Studies show that 58% of students aged between 11 and 15
own their own mobile phone, and 64% access the internet at least once a day (Cassidy, et al
2009). This exposes them to these possible negative interactions, referred to commonly as
cyberbullying. Rates of cyber victimisation and bullying amongst male Australian primary
and high school students, a 2012 study by Tass Sakellariou, Annemarie Carroll and Stephen
Houghton, and Cyberbullying; Experiences, impacts and coping strategies as described by
Australian young people, a 2010 study by Megan Price and John Dalgleish, aim to assess
and analyse the occurrence and features of cyberbullying amongst Australian youth. Though
their purposes are similar, the structuring of these two studies has ramifications for their
usefulness and applicability for educational practise.
Both Sakellariou et al. and Price and Dalgleish begin their articles with detailed reviews of
previous literature. However, there is some significant difference in terms of how each
literature review is utilised within the article. Both articles begin with a review of research
pertaining to the adverse effects of bullying. These adverse effects include, problems with
emotional adjustment, school adjustment and relationships, (Price and Dalgleish 2010 p.52)
and depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation, (Sakellariou et al. 2012 p 534). Use of this
literature establishes context for the article and the need for research that can prevent these
issues from affecting Australias youth. Sakellariou takes this context one step further by also
including statistics on the prevalence of new technology and its accessibility for adolescents.
This establishes a sense of urgency for Sakellariou et al.s research. While Sakellariou

18563346
Gabrielle Magee

Researching Teaching and Learning

Assignment 2

19/05/2016
1H

espouses the need for further research, referring to current research in cyberbullying as
relatively little and embryonic (534-535), Price and Dalgleish directly identify gaps in
the literature, including investigation into the interaction between traditional bullying and
cyberbullying and into which methods youths use to protect themselves against bullying
online (52). They then use these gaps to formulate their research questions. Both articles
share statistical sources, suggesting a similar basis for the structure of their research. Though
both articles have detailed literature reviews which share a number of sources, Sakellariou et
al. uses contextual evidence of the prevalence of new technology to support the need for the
research. Price and Dalgleish identify gaps in the research to support the research questions
they are answering with their study. Both articles ultimately use their literature reviews to
support the objects of their research studies.
While both studies have a similar purpose, to explore the characteristics and incidence of
cyberbullying in the lives of Australian youth, these aims are structured in very different
ways. Sakellariou et al. aims to assist educators and associated professionals in general, in
developing a greater understanding of cyberbullying (537), and make this claim at three
separate intervals in their introduction and literature review (535, 537). But beyond
addressing a need for further research into cyberbullying trends for this purpose, no clear
hypothesis or research question is put forward. This presents an issue, as a hypothesis or
research objective in the foundation of a research study (Gall et al, 2015), and a lack of this
foundation can affect the overall structure of the study i.e. in their results, Sakellariou et al.
are unable to connect much of their research to any applications for teaching, preferring to
return to an analysis of previous literature (544-545). Price and Dalgleish, on the other hand,
state three very clear research questions, including extending knowledge [of] the use and
perceived effectiveness of coping strategies (52), which are based on three areas of concern
that they identify within their literature review, in this case, research into creating coping

18563346
Gabrielle Magee

Researching Teaching and Learning

Assignment 2

19/05/2016
1H

strategies but not on the effectiveness of these strategies (52). The results and discussion at
the end of this study are then centred on their research questions and specifically how they
can be utilised for the studys main goal. Both studies address the need for further research
into cyberbullying, but while Sakellariou et al.s study is aimed at educational practitioners,
Price and Dalgleishs study has a more specific aim. Their study is being used to assist Kids
Helpline counsellors (52), meaning that, though they claim the research has broader
applications for educators and parents, their study will be tailored to suit this specific
purpose, possibly limiting its applicability. From this perspective, Sakellariou et al.s article is
more useful for educational practitioners, as it is aimed at them and not at counsellors for a
specific service. Price and Dalgleish are much clearer in establishing research questions
which support the structure of their study. However, Sakellariou et al. aim their study at a
wider purpose and audience, whilst Price and Dalgleishs research has a very specific target.
This means, that although their objectives are clearer, the application value for Price and
Dalgleishs research might be less than that of Sakellariou et al.
In the construction of their research studies, Sakellariou et al. and Price and Dalgleish use
some similar techniques. Sakellariou uses an entirely quantitative survey, based in Yes/No
and four point scale questions (538), and Price and Dalgleish uses a usage meter and a three
point scale (53). The difference between these two studies is the addition of qualitative
questions and the option of free text responses in Price and Dalgleishs survey. Price and
Dalgleish justify this choice by pointing out that the qualitative portion provided a more in
depth description of the experience (53) while also allowing for cross-examination of
consistency between quantitative and qualitative results. The benefit of this choice is shown
in the results, which provide a number of firsthand responses to cyberbullying, such as I felt
isolated from everyone and very frustrated (56). These responses can be used as case studies
and scenarios when teaching counsellors and educators how students experiencing

18563346
Gabrielle Magee

Researching Teaching and Learning

Assignment 2

19/05/2016
1H

cyberbullying feel, and in turn, how to relate to and assist these students. Sampling choices
for the two articles each have their own downfalls. Sakellariou et al. uses cluster sampling in
the form of three randomly selected schools (537-539). This runs the risk of not accurately
representing the population. For example, what if all three schools were in a low socioeconomic or rural area? This would impact the results significantly, due to varied access to
internet and technology. Perhaps a better method would have been stratified random sampling
from urban, suburban, rural and remote areas, to get a wider perspective. Price and
Dalgleishs use of convenience sampling, targeted primarily at users of the Kids Helpline
service, supports their research goal of educating Kids Helpline counsellors. It does however
severely impact the generalisability of their results. There is a clear bias towards female
participants, at a roughly 5:1 ratio and a significant age bias, with 10-18 year olds
representing 92% of the participants from a sample of ages 5-25. The author notes that this
means, though the studys purpose was to measure both genders and a wider age range, the
results are only generalizable and therefore practically relevant, for females and those aged
10-18 (53). The article does explain this issue by citing Kids helpline Statistics which also
favour this bias. Though both studies use quantitative methods to gain results, the addition of
qualitative results gives Price and Dalgleish an additional element of applicability for
educational practise. Both sampling methods used have flaws which can affect their
generalisability, but neither article claims their results are generalizable to the entire
population and Price and Dalgleish take steps to ensure that this is noted in their results.
As previously stated, Sakellariou et al. bases their research in the context of the negative
effects of bullying and the prevalence of new technology. One of the most significant results
of this study is an examination of the means by which students received victimisation. The
results showed that all year groups were most likely to be bullied via internet messaging, and
that junior secondary students (Years 8-10) were more likely to be cyberbullied than the

18563346
Gabrielle Magee

Researching Teaching and Learning

Assignment 2

19/05/2016
1H

lower or higher years (538, Table 4). This data can be used when constructing year specific
and medium specific intervention programs for cyberbullying. For instance, focussing less on
phone safety and more on internet privacy, and undertaking cyberbullying programs towards
the end of Year 7 or early Year 8 to stem the increase associated with these years. Price and
Dalgleish have similar results in this field, determining that email, social networking sites and
online chat rooms represented 61% of cyberbullying instances (54). They also determine that
cyberbullying most commonly occurred between the ages of 10-14 (roughly years 6-9) and
note that parents, community and schools would do well to recognise this finding and ensure
support and guidance is given during those critical years (57). The implied need for
communication between parents, community and teachers is important, as this is critical
element of educational practise (AITSL 2014, Standard 6.3, 7.3). From this it is clear that
both studies have application for educational purposes. An issue lies in the applicability of
these results. As stated above, Price and Dalgleishs results are only valid for females and
those aged 9-18. Sakellariou et al. only use males for their study, limiting its generalisability
to males (545). However, the fact that both studies have produced such similar results in
terms of medium of cyberbullying and most likely ages to be cyberbullied, one could argue
that when the studies are looked at concurrently, considering the similar age sample, and that
each favours a specific gender, they can be used to provide a holistic understanding of these
concepts for an educational practitioner or counsellor.
These essays have several common themes within their arguments that can be highly
beneficial for teaching practise. Both Sakellariou et al. and Price and Dalgleish examine the
effects of cyberbullying on the mental wellbeing of students. Sakellariou et al. used a four
point Likert scale, (Gall et al. 2015), to determine how upset students were made by
cyberbullying. This resulted in between 18% and 29% of students who received threatening
or hurtful messages and emails indicating that they made them very upset (542). This

18563346
Gabrielle Magee

Researching Teaching and Learning

Assignment 2

19/05/2016
1H

represents a significant impact on the students wellbeing, and, as teachers maintaining

student safety (AITSL, 2014, Standard 4.4), mental and emotional safety included, is
paramount. By recognising the significant impact of bullying on students wellbeing, teachers
can push for further action to be taken to control the effects of cyberbullying. Price and
Dalgleish also explore this theme, but go slightly more in depth in examining specific
impacts of cyberbullying. Of the 86% of respondents who reported experiencing
cyberbullying, 35% reported negative effects on marks, 28% on school attendance and19%
on family relationships (55). Emotional effects included sadness, annoyance, anger and
embarrassment (55). This can also be utilized by teachers, to recognise the signs and
symptoms of cyberbullying. For example, if a students grades are slipping and they are
demonstrating anger or frustration that seems out of context, the teacher may suspect the
student is being cyberbullied, and take appropriate action. So whilst both articles provide
useful information on the effects of bullying, Price and Dalgleishs specificity makes their
article slightly more useful for a teacher wishing to identify victims of cyber bullying.
Both studies have some minor issues within their internal structure. For example, Sakellariou
et al. only use males for their study. There are number of reasons for why this could be for
example, females are also more likely to report cyberbullying than boys (Cassidy et al. 2009,
Cross 2009), meaning that there may be sufficient data from the female perspective. But
Sakellariou et al. never clearly states this and for such a significant variable, further
explanation should have been given. Both articles also cite the issue of varied definition of
the construct of cyberbullying leading to inconsistent results in previous studies, but while
Sakellariou et al. makes a point to use already established definitions (535), Price and
Dalgleish create their own definition (51). As can be seen from Sakellariou et als article,
there are already clearly established definitions of this construct and using them allows for
greater consistency between studies (Gall, et al, 2015). These gaps in structural integrity do

18563346
Gabrielle Magee

Researching Teaching and Learning

Assignment 2

19/05/2016
1H

not limit the studies applicability for education, but can alter their reliability for future
reference.
Overall, both of these studies have the same goal, to examine the concept of cyberbullying in
order to assist those who work with children. They both use previous literature, often the
same resources, to push the need for and context of their studies. They both produce results
pertaining to the most frequent ages during which cyberbullying takes place, what mediums
are most frequently used and its recognisable adverse effects. This information is highly
useful for educational practise. So despite a difference in structure, both studies ultimately
achieve their goal.
Cassidy, W., Jackson, M., & Brown, K. (2009). Sticks and Stones Can Break My Bones, But
How Can Pixels Hurt Me?: Students' Experiences with Cyber-Bullying. School Psychology
International, 30(4), 383-402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034309106948
Sakellariou, T., Carroll, A., & Houghton, S. (2012). Rates of cyber victimization and bullying
among male Australian primary and high school students. School Psychology
International, 33(5), 533-549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034311430374
Price, M. & Dalgeish, J. (2010). Cyberbullying: Experiences, impacts and coping strategies
as described by Australian young people. Youth Studies Australia, 29(2), 51-60.
Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., & Borg,W.R. (2015). Applying educational research: How to read, do,
and use research to solve problems of practice. (7th ed.). Hoboken, N.J.: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Cross, D. (2009). Australian covert bullying prevalence study. Child Health Promotion
Research Centre: Edith Cowan University.

18563346
Gabrielle Magee

Researching Teaching and Learning

Assignment 2

19/05/2016
1H

AITSL. (2014). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved: 15/3/2016.

Retrieved from: http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-forteachers/standards/list