Revisiting cyberbullying in schools using the quality circle approach

Abstract

An earlier study reported the use of Quality Circles (QC) in a UK school in the context of understanding and reducing bullying and cyberbullying. Here, we report further work in the same school setting. The QC approach allows explorative analysis of problems in school settings, whereby students embark on a problem-solving exercise over a period of time. The process involves identifying key issues and prioritizing concerns, analysing problems and generating solutions, through participation in a series of workshops. The purpose of this research was to explore further the use of QCs as an effective means of gathering information on bullying and cyberbullying in school, and how these might have changed over one academic year; as well as to examine the use of QCs in empowering pupils and in producing pupil-led solutions. This study validated the use of QCs as an engaging process for pupils (N = 30) which encourages a range of suggested solutions to problems. The information gained from the QCs supported a transitory notion of bullying behaviour, whereby forms of bullying and cyberbullying continue to alter over time, thus prevention programmes must adapt to the changeable nature of this behaviour to remain effective.

Keywords

bullying cyberbullying intervention Quality Circle school students

Social researchers and education practitioners are struggling to keep up with the changing nature of bullying, and especially aspects of cyberbullying. Advances in technology are causing methods of cyberbullying to evolve at a considerable rate as young people utilize media communication tools to adopt new forms of cyberbullying behaviour. This ultimately impacts on the ability of school personnel to protect students and prevent such bullying incidents from occurring, either inside or outside of education settings. Most recently, efforts have been made to inform and advise practitioners of cyberbullying issues based on research findings to date (Von Marées & Peterman, 2012).

The overarching concept of bullying is well established; the defining features of bullying behaviour include the assertion of physical, social or psychological power, repetition of the behaviour, and intention of the bully. Traditional forms of bullying incorporate direct physical attack or intimidation and verbal name-calling as well as indirect behaviours such as taking property or damaging possessions, ignoring or rejecting others from a group, spreading nasty lies and gossip (Rivers & Noret, 2010; Smith, 2011; Tokunaga, 2010). Cyberbullying is considered as similar to indirect bullying in that victims are targeted through mobile phones (text messages, voicemail, and picture imaging) and the internet (email, instant messenger, chat rooms, and websites). There appears to be an association between traditional bullying and cyberbullying involving school relations (Kowalski, Morgan, & Limber, 2012; Monks, Robinson, & Worlidge, 2012).

Cyberbullying most notably occurs outside educational settings, but involves school relationships, most often classroom-based relationships (Slonje & Smith, 2008). Although in many countries rates of traditional bullying appear to be decreasing, rates of cyberbullying appear to be maintained or even increasing, perhaps due to continuing developments in the technology, such as the recent advent of smart phones and popularity of social networking sites (Rigby & Smith, 2011). The harm caused by cyberbullying appears to be commensurate to that caused by traditional bullying (Gradinger, Strohmeier, & Spiel, 2009; Smith & Slonje, 2010). Thus, cyberbullying presents a legitimate cause for concern shared by local authorities, schools, teachers, and parents alike. As for traditional bullying, there is little consistent evidence for effectiveness of any one particular approach (Rigby, 2004; Smith, 2011; Tokunaga, 2010).

Quality Circles

In the UK, the Quality Circles (QC) approach has been highlighted as suitable for work in education settings (Lovett & Gilmore, 2003; Office for Standards in Education, 2003). Since the Sheffield Project in the early 1990s, it has been recognized as a proactive classroom-based anti-bullying strategy (Smith & Sharp, 1994). However, it has been rather rarely used in this way in schools (Samara & Smith, 2008). A recent overview of anti-bullying practice in schools in England (Thompson & Smith, 2011) confirms this relatively low take-up, by only 16% of schools (only 11% in secondary schools). Yet when compared with other classroom strategies such as circle time, cooperative group work, and curriculum work, QC received the highest ratings for effectiveness from teachers (Thompson & Smith, 2011).

QCs have some particular features that may help one understand the high effectiveness ratings. Bullying is recognized as a relationship problem, such that positive classroom relationships (both pupil-pupil and teacher-pupil) can strongly influence the success of anti-bullying programmes (Murray-Harvey & Slee, 2010; Richard, Schneider, & Mallet, 2011). There is also some recognition of the need to encourage student participation in bullying prevention (Cowie & Jennifer, 2008). The potential for QC emerges in both these respects.

The QC process involves groups working through a series of stages, whereby participants are encouraged to analyse problems, following a sequential process, in order to find possible causes and develop solutions; and then formally present project proposals (worked up from some of these solutions) to a wider audience for consideration. QCs involve substantial pupil-pupil interaction and consultation, guided by a teacher or learning mentor. It can thus be both a vehicle for relationship-building, and encourage active participation in improving a school environment. It can also serve as a useful source of data regarding the problem being investigated.

Previous research using QCs

In a previous case study in an English secondary school (Paul, Smith, & Blumberg, 2010), QCs were implemented by six groups over a one-term period, from March to July 2009. Analysis of the information reported by the QCs showed that general bullying most often occurred as verbal bullying in the form of ‘cussing’, namely insults. Students casually relied on racist, homophobic, sexually explicit or offensive language to communicate with each other. ‘Cussing matches’ were a regular occurrence with insulting remarks relating to cultural heritage or physical appearance.

Cyberbullying was reported most often in activities enabled through mobile phones, such as sharing inappropriate pictures or video images. Hacking was reported as a common problem, with Bluetooth devices accessing mobile phone handsets and school computers enabling access to email accounts; students considered this to be more of a nuisance than bullying. Similarly, the problem of ‘prank calling’ was perceived as a pastime to prevent boredom with recipients reacting more with anger than fear. The general attitude amongst the student population surveyed was one of amusement prior to the situation escalating out of control and a serious incident taking place.

The anti-bullying ideas in the form of project proposals were similar in approach. There was little difference noted between QC ideas for bullying (such as an information booklet, teacher training, educational film, and student questionnaire) and cyberbullying (such as a mail box, bully club, student survey and undercover report). The similarities in solutions for bullying, cyberbullying and anti-social behaviour generally, could be seen as reflecting relational problems common in school life. Students recognized the key to prevention was educational initiatives informing teachers about bullying and cyberbullying, as well as peer education about the lasting negative impact of these activities.

Research aims

This case study revisits the school setting of the earlier study by Paul et al. (2010), one year after the previous study. A first aim was to highlight the use of QC as a method of enquiry (QC project ideas, group work materials, and discussion transcripts) of practical value for schools to gain information about bullying and cyberbullying from the student perspective. In particular, comparison with the earlier study could explore any changes regarding the types of bullying and cyberbullying activities reported, different problems identified and solutions suggested by young people themselves. A second aim was to explore the use of QCs with young people in the school context: Did they enjoy the QCs, did they find them useful, what kind of ideas and solutions were produced, were they listened to and acted upon?

Method

The study was carried out in an inner-city co-educational secondary school in London. The QC activities were carried out with year 7 and year 8 pupils by the first author, who performed a pastoral support role in the school and was recognized by students as non-teaching staff. The purpose of the QC group activities was presented as exploring general bullying and cyberbullying issues in school. The QCs lasted from May to July 2010.

Participants

Of a total of 12 tutor groups, five were selected on the basis of school reports of bullying incidents; class teachers were instructed to identify six students each ‘to help solve the bullying problems’ by participating in QC work. A total of 30 participants took part in the five QC groups (18 from year 7 with an average age of 11.5 years, and 12 from year 8 with an average age 12.5 years; 20 males and 10 females).

Materials

The activities developed for the programme were adapted from published materials and recommended guidelines (Paul et al., 2010; Smith & Sharp, 1994). The series of 12 weekly sessions covering one school term introduced during the previous year was reduced to 7-weekly sessions over half a term. It was previously noted by the researcher that students demonstrated the potential to complete project work over a shorter period. It was agreed with school to reflect this in the second study to reduce the loss of curricular learning time.

Procedure

Weekly meetings lasting approximately one hour were held during tutorials. An outline of each session is summarized below:

QC Launch

Group Formation (ice breaker, group membership, agreeing ground rules, participation and confidentiality).

Week 1

Introduction and discussion (information about bullying and cyberbullying; discussion of concerns in school and class).

Week 2

Problem and solutions (students identify main problems in school and develop ideas about possible solutions).

Week 3

Planning project presentations (group selects three solutions to develop into projects and prepare a class talk).

Week 4

Delivering project presentations (class to identify most popular project idea and teacher approves final decision).

Week 5

Project preparation (all members of the group collaborate on project and agree individual roles of responsibility).

Week 6

Project implementation (review progress, address problems and identify sources of support for completing project).

Week 7

Class evaluation (groups showcase work and provide information to class. Collect feedback from peers).

Results

Noteworthy information obtained from the QC work will be presented with reference to both bullying and cyberbullying. First, we summarize the nature of the group discussions in Week 1 that addressed bullying and cyberbullying in school. Next, we present the problems and solutions that arose during Week 2. Finally, we give an account of the project ideas proposed and developed from Week 3 onwards, by each of the five QCs selecting three solutions to develop further.

QC group discussion: Problems Identified

Prior to commencing group work in their QCs, students participated in a 20-minute recorded discussion; this addressed anti-social behaviour in school and specific problems in class. Semi-structured interview scripts were used to guide positive solution-focused responses, whereby open questions encouraged students to consider the issue of bullying and cyberbullying. Transcripts were examined for noteworthy points; the same concerns were raised by every group, with verbal bullying the overriding problem, plus physical bullying in year 7.

The general concerns regarding bullying in school were similar in content to discussions held during the previous year. The student accounts of verbal, physical, and cyberbullying all presented similar relational problems, where misjudging a situation or the mood of another student could have serious consequences. Bullying and cyberbullying were interlinked and there appeared to be a worrying cycle present in escalating incidents, whereby the situational context (online, classroom, playground) could alter the bullying scenario, to include multiple behaviours (verbal, physical, and cyber) or even multiple methods (web based, mobile phone handsets). This shifting pattern of bullying behaviours and a ‘no snitching’ code of silence amongst students complicated attempts made to remedy problems in school.

The younger, year 7 student groups were able to recognize that the cultures, customs, and practices generally accepted within the school community are deemed inappropriate outside of this setting. By contrast, the year 8 students seemed unable to comprehend how aggressive actions and comments could be taken seriously outside of school; attempts to challenge hostile behaviour or prejudice were met with either genuine surprise or ridicule. The year 7 students were able to recall previous experiences in primary school and expressed resentment at joining a secondary school with relational problems that impact on their enjoyment of education. This offered promise for younger student groups taking the lead on implementing and sustaining institutional change.

The older, year 8 students were more involved with technology and aware of cyberbullying; new strategies had been independently developed by students themselves to manage incidents without enflaming the problem. For example, when receiving an unpleasant comment while using Instant Messenger or social networking sites, a simple solution was to send a neutral response or make a diffusing comment (‘Laugh Out Loud’ ‘whatever’ ‘that’s so old’); this served to prevent the problem continuing or becoming increasingly hostile. It was encouraging to find a method of approach that had been informally devised and mutually agreed to have some influence amongst students themselves.

QC group work materials: Problems

As part of problem analysis guided by activity worksheets (designed to explore reasons why problems occur), students outlined a range of different problems in school and identified specific issues in class. Concerns raised by QC groups are summarized below.

Bullying

Physical bullying had taken the form of older students pushing or shoving younger students about. The matter of ‘fake fighting’ was much debated amongst students as to whether it was bullying; it was generally acknowledged that this trend could be taken advantage of by bullies, saying that they were ‘only play fighting’. Verbal bullying was reported as a major cause for concern in both year groups. The types of slang words used to insult other students differed somewhat from the previous year but still had racist undertones. Students noted insulting comments in the classroom often began as teasing but then became increasingly hostile, whereby ‘cussing matches’ would suddenly become serious; this was identified as where a link between physical and verbal bullying emerged.

Cyberbullying

The type of cyberbullying activity favoured was dependent on the type of mobile handset used, whereby Blackberry (Blackberry Messenger replacing Bluetooth as a free method of instant communication) would be misused in a different manner to iPhone (Ping Chat replacing Bluetooth and greater reliance on the internet, Instant Messenger, and social networking websites).

Students thought that the incidences of cyberbullying had increased since the previous year. Prank calling was commonplace with students, and considered as light-hearted entertainment. The recipient would not report feeling victimized, but rather annoyed, which would result in some form of retaliation, often with a mutual friend making a return prank call. Students took full responsibility for protecting their own contact details, and accepted an element of culpability when permitting others to access personal information resulted in trust being abused (especially when leaving a webpage open to full public access, or if a stranger was accepted as a friend on facebook).

Deliberately hurtful fake websites and webpages promoting hateful campaigns against peers and teachers were perceived by students as amusing rather than harmful, and most would readily sign up to a nasty voting poll for fun (the creator is not considered as a bully but certainly believed to be the person who should be punished if discovered, not those registered). Another term, ‘munching’, involved taking a snapshot image of a computer screen (usually an unpleasant Instant Messenger conversation) and sending others the copy of the screenshot for the purpose of creating an argument or ‘hyping’ up a situation.

QC group work materials: Solutions

As part of the solution process guided by activity worksheets (designed to explore how problems could be solved), students suggested a variety of interesting options in approaching problems in school; noteworthy contributions are now highlighted:
Allow an opportunity for free talk at the start of each lesson when students acknowledge they are agitated and recognize a need to have a settling down period.

Hold circle time to reflect at the end of the day to address ongoing issues as a group, not just whenever there is a problem but also to talk about positives.

Showcase good behaviour in the school newsletter where students can be commended. Agree individual classroom contracts, designed by each class and revisited every term.

Create a safe zone in the classroom allowing students to remove themselves from the bullying situation and continue working, distanced from the problem.

Introduce a bullying timetable in the school diary to note where, when and what type of incident occurred each week for the student and teacher to review together.

QC projects: Case studies

The ultimate goal of the QC work was for each group to explore the underlying cause of the problems occurring in their class and take positive action for improving standards of behaviour in school. The five QC groups of six students each (identified by their corresponding class name: 7A, 7D, 7E in year 7, and 8D and 8E in year 8) were asked to identify three solutions related specifically to problems in their class and to consult peers on potential project ideas. A series of small case studies are presented below, providing brief background of each QC along with an outline of the main ideas and final project.
7A comprised four male and two female students. Group ideas included: Student reward cards for good behaviour (relating to general bullying), board game of problem scenarios and solutions options (relating to cyberbullying), and ‘anti-cussing’ earmuffs for students (relating to class-based problems). As part of the final project, students designed an observation sheet and a series of treat cards for the teacher to monitor good behaviour and issue rewards.

7D comprised four male and two female students. Group ideas included: A bully free ‘hot seat’ inside each classroom (school bullying), a parent information leaflet about home internet use (cyberbullying), and a questionnaire on classroom behaviour to raise awareness (class problems). As part of the final project, students designed a timetable for computer use at home to protect against cyberbullying (whereby the bully and victim agree to use the internet at different times).

7E comprised five male students and one female. Group ideas included: A weekly bullying timetable to record events (school bullying), a class bulletin board / webpage (cyberbullying), and a learning agreement for students and teachers (class problems). As part of the final project, students gave teacher recommendations about how best to manage the class characteristics.

8D comprised three male and three female students. Group ideas included: Year-group behaviour charts (school bullying), anti-bullying posters and information leaflets (cyberbullying), and individualized classroom contracts (class problems). As part of the final project, students designed posters to raise awareness about bullying in class and reasons for the behaviour.

8E comprised four male and two female students. Group ideas included: Classroom procedures for teachers (school bullying), recommended responses to online harassment (cyberbullying), and behaviour advice slips for classmates (class problems). As part of the final project, students handed out leaflets recommending ways to help prevent bullying in class.

Every group had the opportunity to implement their project in class with the agreed support of the peer group and approval of the teacher. The purpose was not to achieve a measurable impact but to help students further understand what could be done to make a change in the group, and what future actions were required to achieve a positive outcome. The range of proposals for managing problems was similar in content and themes across groups; this could have been due to ongoing issues in school generally reported as the same. Also, the problems addressed in each class were not unique, as similar relational issues were arising in every class throughout the school.

The experience of QC in this study was marked by an overriding pressure of time to complete work in a relatively short period of half a term, which prevented the opportunity to fully develop trust and respect with students. However, the final student evaluation was generally positive, reporting QC as enjoyable and a good use of learning time. QC groups provided encouraging feedback in terms of being able to understand the purpose of the work, and students considered the project to have achieved its aims. The school received anonymized transcripts with notable comments highlighted, a report was also included to help illustrate problems and summarize solutions. QC groups demonstrated student enthusiasm and ability to take responsibility for addressing problems in school. In response, the school introduced a student leadership scheme, incorporating peer mentors, mediators and behaviour monitors to encourage continued student involvement in the school anti-bullying programme.

Discussion

The information gathered demonstrated the use of QCs as an effective method of enquiry. The initial group discussion periods were especially informative in terms of understanding changes in (cyber)bullying, attitudes towards it, and new terms being used. Cyberbullying using mobile phones had changed considerably over a relatively short period, confirming the rapidly changing nature of cyberbullying. Hacking into mobile phones using Bluetooth occurred most often the previous year and was virtually unheard of in the current year (in addition, reports of computer-based hacking had altered so that personal accounts were instead misrepresented by using fake identities to create web pages). With regard to bullying, similar fads were also revealed in slang words used for verbal bullying (prejudice based) and methods through which physical bullying occurred (name calling, ‘cussing matches’ escalating).

In terms of impacting on relationships in the school, one aspect of QC involving problem identification showed that students were able to recognize that bullying can occur as a result of classroom based tensions, while intergroup relations in class also offer potential for resolving bullying. Verbal bullying remained the most common problem reported, coupled with physical bullying noted by year 7 and with cyberbullying noted by year 8. The relationships among these forms were interlinked by the typical, sometimes progressive nature of this behaviour, initially starting as low level teasing, giving rise to verbal bullying, which sometimes resulted in cyberbullying and escalated to physical bullying.

The QCs culminated in the group project ideas, and here there was little difference between the almost interchangeable proposals for bullying and cyberbullying. Interestingly, giving free choice to students produced solutions which remained very diverse and rich in content. This supports the ethos of encouraging explorative analysis in permitting participants to fully explore ideas and solutions, perhaps even uncovering previously undiscovered problems, especially helpful to inform future practice in exploring cyberbullying.

When considering the impact of this work in school, QC projects remained as classroom based solutions and were not introduced across year groups or throughout the whole school. The intention was to get small, manageable, and achievable ideas focused on specific problems in each class. Time constraints did not allow for large scale projects covering the course of an academic year, and this obviously reduced the possibility of establishing tangible measures of change as a result. The influence of QC on the general school climate was evident in the positive response from teachers and peers to the QCs. Without a shared enthusiasm for this work, the project proposals could not have been implemented in class.

In summary of the main findings, limitations are also highlighted, most notably knowledge yet to be gained despite completing a follow up study using the same methods. It still remains unclear what is the best approach to cyberbullying and what action can be taken by schools to help support or prevent future incidents involving students. It is difficult to establish how the suggestions made by young people can be utilized effectively by researchers or school personnel, applied to other cyberbullying scenarios, or even outside of the case study school context. To provide further clarification, future research should be conducted on QC work in other matched schools. This would help in understanding how to make better use of the knowledge gained and direct attention toward what remains undiscovered.

Conclusions

The information obtained using QC methodology can be of practical value to schools and practitioners interested in anti-bullying interventions. This school was able to take an active stance in combating anti-social behaviour, responding to new information and adapting to changes in an effort to prevent bullying behaviour from occurring. The proactive stance taken by the school was supported by research collaboration and was clearly enhanced by the student contributions obtained via the QCs. It is important to note, however, that the effectiveness of QC in reducing cyberbullying was not formally established in this study, a consideration for future research combining the qualitative nature of this work with a quantitative measurement of results, could provide supportive evidence for QC as an anti-bullying intervention.

With regard to implications for future research, this study highlights the largely unrealized potential of QCs. The process of QC can generate information not previously known or understood by adults, employing the shared expertise of young people. QC groups are encouraged to produce new ideas and alternatives to problems which would remain unresolved without this opportunity for the student voice to be heard. The QC activities enable young people to share their views in a structured manner and facilitate a dialogue between students and school, enabling both parties to take an active stance in combating bullying and cyberbullying. There also appears to be some potential for school personnel to contribute effectively in QC when considering possible solutions (Cassidy, Brown, & Jackson, 2012). In addition, the involvement of impartial practitioners in facilitating this work may encourage collaboration between students and staff in developing successful school interventions (Sakellariou, Carroll, & Houghton, 2012).

In this present study, the QC work promoted classroom discussions about peer relationships and how students behaved towards one another, highlighting the problems that existed and ultimately raising the profile of the anti-bullying message in school. Encouraging students to consider what could be done to make a positive change and noting that comments are listened to and sometimes acted upon by teachers and the school can give a sense of empowerment to pupils. These benefits can be balanced against the time commitments necessary for running QCs, and the training required for managing them effectively. In this study, a 7-week period was used successfully, but a full term would be a more usual length, and would enable more thorough group cohesion and depth of analysis. Completing each stage of the QC approach (Smith & Sharp, 1994) and key activities (group formation, problem analysis, exploring solutions, developing project ideas, and formally presenting proposals) within a reduced time frame remains a challenge.

In summary, adopting a consultative approach such as QC can help schools gather up-to-date information on the nature of and attitudes to bullying and cyberbullying in their pupil community; something especially worthwhile for cyberbullying, where developments are currently so rapid. The QC approach can also give students a sense of ownership of their school community, and provide a sense of empowerment for young people, encouraging them to share their knowledge of any underlying bullying problems, and help keep the school informed of emerging cyberbullying issues.

Footnotes

Simone Paul is a PhD student with the Unit for School and Family Studies at Goldsmiths, University of London, completing case study research of antisocial behavior, bullying, and cyberbullying in secondary education. She is exploring pupil perception of bullying and cyberbullying (legal aspects, coping strategies, and school interventions) using qualitative methodology (Quality Circles, focus group discussions, and activity worksheets) and quantitative measures (survey materials incorporating peer nomination and self-reports). Address: Psychology Department, Unit for School & Family Studies, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross Gate, SE14 6NW, UK. Email: psp01sp@gold.ac.uk

Peter K. Smith was Head of the Unit for School and Family Studies at Goldsmiths, from 1998 to 2011 and is now Emeritus Professor continuing with research, writing, and some postgraduate supervision. Research interests include school bullying, cyberbullying, causes and prevention of bullying in school. Recently completed DCSF/DfE funded (2008-2010) research project on anti-bullying strategies in schools in England. He was Chair of COST Action IS0801 on cyberbullying, from 2008–2012. Address: Unit for School and Family Studies, The Bungalow, Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, SE14 6NW, UK. Email: p.smith@gold.ac.uk

Herbert H. Blumberg is Emeritus Reader at Goldsmiths University of London, previously being Visiting Scholar at Harvard University and Visiting Professor at Haverford College. He is author and co-author of articles in social psychology and research methods as well as several books on non-violent conflict resolution (relating largely to peace and to civil rights); also bibliographer and review editor for Peace and Conflict, journal of the Peace Psychology Division of the American Psychological Association. Address: Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, SE14 6NW, UK. Email: h.blumberg@gold.ac.uk

References

Cassidy

Brown

Jackson

(2012). ‘Under the radar’: Educators and cyberbullying in schools, School Psychology International, 33(5), 520–532.

Cowie

Jennifer

(2008). New perspectives on bullying. Maidenhead, Open University Press.

Gradinger

Strohmeier

Spiel

(2009). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying: Identification of risk groups for adjustment problems, Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217, 205–213, doi: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.205.

Kowalski

R. M.

Morgan

C. A.

Limber

S. P.

(2012). Traditional bullying as a potential warning sign of cyberbullying, School Psychology International, 33(5), 505–519.

Lovett

Gilmore

(2003). Teachers’ learning journeys: The quality learning circle as a model of professional development, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14, 189–211, doi: 10.1076/sesi.14.2.189.14222.

Monks

C. P.

Robinson

Worlidge

(2012). The emergence of cyberbullying: A survey of primary school pupils’ perceptions and experiences, School Psychology International, 33(5), 477–491.

Murray-Harvey

Slee

(2010). School and home relationships and their impact on school bulling, School Psychology International, 31, 271–295, doi: 10.1177/0143034310366206.

Office for Standards in Education. (2003). Bullying: Effective action in secondary schools. London, Ofsted.

Paul

Smith

P. K.

Blumberg

H. H.

(2010). Addressing cyberbullying in school using the Quality Circle approach, Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 20, 157–157, doi: 10.1375/ajgc.20.2.157.

10.

Richard

J. F.

Schneider

B. H.

Mallet

(2011). Revisiting the whole-school approach to bullying: Really looking at the whole school. School Psychology International, 33(3), 263–284, doi: 10.1177/0143034311415906.

11.

Rigby

(2004). Addressing bullying in schools: Theoretical perspectives and their implications, School Psychology International, 25, 287–300, doi: 10.1177/0143034304046902.

12.

Rigby

Smith

P. K.

(2011). Is school bullying really on the rise? Social Psychology Education, 14, online first. doi: 10.1007/s11218-011-9158-y.

13.

Rivers

Noret

(2010). ‘I h8 u’: Findings from a five-year study of text and email bullying, British Educational Research Journal, 36, 643–671, doi: 10.1080/01411920903071918.

14.

Sakellariou

Carroll

Houghton

(2012). Rates of cyber victimization and bullying among male Australian primary and high school students. School Psychology International, 33(5), 533–549, doi:10.1177/0143034311430374.

15.

Samara

Smith

P. K.

(2008). How schools tackle bullying, and the use of whole school policies: Changes over the last decade, Educational Psychology, 28, 663–676, doi: 10.1080/01443410802191910.

16.

Slonje

Smith

P. K.

(2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying?, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 147–154, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00611.

17.

Smith

P. K.

(2011). Cyberbullying and cyber aggression, In Jimerson

S. R.

Nickerson

A. B.

Mayer

M. J.

Furlong

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of school violence and school safety: International research and practice, 2nd edn, (pp. 93–103). New York, NY, Routledge.

18.

Smith

P. K.

Sharp

(1994). Tackling bullying in your school: Practical handbook for teachers. London, Routledge.

19.

Smith

P. K.

Slonje

(2010). Cyberbullying: The nature and extent of a new kind of bullying, in and out of school, In Jimerson

Swearer

Espelage

(Eds.), The International handbook of school bullying (pp. 249–262). New York, NY, Routledge.

20.

Thompson

Smith

P. K.

(2011). The use and effectiveness of anti-bullying strategies in schools. Department for Education Research Report DFE-RR098. Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFE-RR098.pdf.

21.

Tokunaga

R. S.

(2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimisation, Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277–287, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014.

22.

Von Marées

Petermann

(2012). Cyberbullying: An increasing challenge for schools, School Psychology International, 33(5), 467–476.