Background I.C.T. (Information Communication Technology) is increasingly being used by younger...
1
Background I.C.T. (Information Communication Technology) is increasingly being used by younger children. With the increased affordability and accessibility of the internet and mobile phones the numbers of young children (aged 8-11 years) who have their own mobile phones or access to the internet has escalated (MobileLife, 2007; Byron Review, 2008). Recent research in England has reported that around 80% of homes with children aged 8-17years have internet access (Bryon Review, 2008). The MobileLife (2007) survey found that 51% of 10 year olds and 71% of 11 year olds owned a mobile phone. Cyberbullying is the deliberate harassment or degradation of one individual or group by another through I.C.T.,primarily mobile phones or the internet (Smith et al., 2008). Like traditional bullying, cyberbullying involves aggression, a power imbalance and the intent to harm. Research with secondary school pupils has identified cyberbullying as being a problem experienced by young people online or via mobile phones. However, little research has examined the nature and extent of cyberbullying among primary school pupils, despite the fact that many younger children are now using the internet or mobile phones. Additionally, despite guidelines from the Department for Children, Schools and Families (2007) few U.K. primary school anti-bullying policies mention cyberbullying (9%) (Smith et al., 2008). Research has shown that primary school children frequently use the internet and mobile phones as accepted tools of social communication (Staksrud et al., 2007). Therefore, it is important to establish the nature and extent of cyberbullying within this vulnerable population, in order to assess the prevalence of each and to tailor age- appropriate intervention and prevention work. Contact details: Dr Claire Monks, Department of Psychology and Counselling, University of Greenwich, Avery Hill Campus, London SE9 2UG ENGLAND Email: [email protected] Method Participants – 149 participants (72 boys and 77 girls) between 7 – 11 from 4 primary schools in Greater London. Informed consent was given by the headteachers of the schools and parents/guardians of the children involved. Measures – The Ortega et al (2007) self-report questionnaire was used. The questionnaire was translated from Spanish to English and backtranslated to ensure that no meaning was lost. The wording was adapted to cater for a younger audience and underwent successful piloting. In the questionnaire, focus is given to use of ICT, particularly the internet and mobile phones. Furthermore it probes experience of “traditional bullying” (Physical: hitting, damage to property; Verbal: name-calling and threats; Direct relational: Social exclusion; Indirect relational: rumour spreading) either as a victim or perpetrator. Additional questions probe the experience of cyberbullying (via mobile phone: SMS, MMS or calls; via the internet: chatrooms, via websites, instant messenger or email) again, as victim or perpetrator. Participants are also asked about their perceptions of these forms of bullying. Procedure – The questionnaire was administered in a group setting. Questions were read out loud to the children and an adult was available to address any queries. The participants were asked to fill out the questionnaire individually and in silence. It was made clear that there were no right or wrong answers and that all information would remain confidential. Type As a victim As a bully Hit 20.81% (N=31) 4.03% (N=6) Nasty Names 35.57% (N=53) 3.36% (N=5) Damage to property 7.38% (N=11) 0 Exclusion 12.08% (N=18) 2.68% (N=4) Spread rumours 22.82% (N=34) 1.34% (N=2) Threats 12.75% (N=19) 0.67% (N=1) Others 7.38% (N=11) 0.67% (N=1) Type As a victim As a bully Texts 6.04% (N=9) 1.34% (N=2) Videos/Photos 2.01% (N=3) 0 Phone Calls 2.01% (N=3) 0 Emails 8.05% (N=12) 1.34% (N=2) Chatroom 3.36% (N=5) 1.34% (N=2) Instant Messenger 8.05% (N=12) 0.67% (N=1) Websites 1.34% (N=2) 0 Other 1.34% (N=2) 0 Traditional bullying Cyberbullying Types of bullying reported by victims and bullies in the present study Reported percentages of bullies and victims by bullying type How upsetting is cyberbullying compared to traditional bullying? Cyberbullying Among Primary School Pupils Claire P. Monks, Rosario Ortega, Susanne Robinson & Penny Worlidge University of Greenwich Reported access to the internet Reported ownership of mobile phone
-
Upload
francine-cunningham -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
1
Transcript of Background I.C.T. (Information Communication Technology) is increasingly being used by younger...
BackgroundI.C.T. (Information Communication Technology) is increasingly being used by younger children. With the increased affordability and accessibility of the internet and mobile phones the numbers of young children (aged 8-11 years) who have their own mobile phones or access to the internet has escalated (MobileLife, 2007; Byron Review, 2008). Recent research in England has reported that around 80% of homes with children aged 8-17years have internet access (Bryon Review, 2008). The MobileLife (2007) survey found that 51% of 10 year olds and 71% of 11 year olds owned a mobile phone. Cyberbullying is the deliberate harassment or degradation of one individual or group by another through I.C.T.,primarily mobile phones or the internet (Smith et al., 2008). Like traditional bullying, cyberbullying involves aggression, a power imbalance and the intent to harm. Research with secondary school pupils has identified cyberbullying as being a problem experienced by young people online or via mobile phones. However, little research has examined the nature and extent of cyberbullying among primary school pupils, despite the fact that many younger children are now using the internet or mobile phones. Additionally, despite guidelines from the Department for Children, Schools and Families (2007) few U.K. primary school anti-bullying policies mention cyberbullying (9%) (Smith et al., 2008). Research has shown that primary school children frequently use the internet and mobile phones as accepted tools of social communication (Staksrud et al., 2007). Therefore, it is important to establish the nature and extent of cyberbullying within this vulnerable population, in order to assess the prevalence of each and to tailor age-appropriate intervention and prevention work.
Contact details: Dr Claire Monks, Department of Psychology and Counselling, University of Greenwich, Avery Hill Campus, London SE9 2UG ENGLANDEmail: [email protected]
MethodParticipants – 149 participants (72 boys and 77 girls) between 7 – 11 from 4 primary schools in Greater London. Informed consent was given by the headteachers of the schools and parents/guardians of the children involved.
Measures – The Ortega et al (2007) self-report questionnaire was used. The questionnaire was translated from Spanish to English and backtranslated to ensure that no meaning was lost. The wording was adapted to cater for a younger audience and underwent successful piloting. In the questionnaire, focus is given to use of ICT, particularly the internet and mobile phones. Furthermore it probes experience of “traditional bullying” (Physical: hitting, damage to property; Verbal: name-calling and threats; Direct relational: Social exclusion; Indirect relational: rumour spreading) either as a victim or perpetrator. Additional questions probe the experience of cyberbullying (via mobile phone: SMS, MMS or calls; via the internet: chatrooms, via websites, instant messenger or email) again, as victim or perpetrator. Participants are also asked about their perceptions of these forms of bullying.
Procedure – The questionnaire was administered in a group setting. Questions were read out loud to the children and an adult was available to address any queries. The participants were asked to fill out the questionnaire individually and in silence. It was made clear that there were no right or wrong answers and that all information would remain confidential.
Type As a victim As a bully
Hit 20.81% (N=31) 4.03% (N=6)
Nasty Names 35.57% (N=53) 3.36% (N=5)
Damage to property 7.38% (N=11) 0
Exclusion 12.08% (N=18) 2.68% (N=4)
Spread rumours 22.82% (N=34) 1.34% (N=2)
Threats 12.75% (N=19) 0.67% (N=1)
Others 7.38% (N=11) 0.67% (N=1)
Type As a victim As a bully
Texts 6.04% (N=9) 1.34% (N=2)
Videos/Photos 2.01% (N=3) 0
Phone Calls 2.01% (N=3) 0
Emails 8.05% (N=12) 1.34% (N=2)
Chatroom 3.36% (N=5) 1.34% (N=2)
Instant Messenger 8.05% (N=12) 0.67% (N=1)
Websites 1.34% (N=2) 0
Other 1.34% (N=2) 0
Traditional bullying Cyberbullying
Types of bullying reported by victims and bullies in the present study
Reported percentages of bullies and victims by bullying type
How upsetting is cyberbullying compared to traditional bullying?
Cyberbullying Among Primary School PupilsClaire P. Monks, Rosario Ortega, Susanne Robinson & Penny Worlidge
University of Greenwich
Reported access to the internet Reported ownership of mobile phone
