‘Under the radar’: Educators and cyberbullying in schools

Importance of school policy

Von Marées and Petermann (2012), Marachi, Astor, and Benbenishty (2007), and Li (2006) all emphasize the importance of school policies for encouraging the right kind of behaviour for both educators and students. Educator indifference or lack of knowledge about cyberbullying may lead to policy deficiencies or inadequate prevention strategies (Huang & Chou, 2010; Sakellariou, Carroll, & Houghton, 2012). But even when there are policies in place to deal with negative behaviour, Bauman, Rigby, and Hoppa (2008) note that this does not mean that educators know what to do when faced with a problem. In a comparative study of cyberbullying in Canada and Turkey, Ryan, Kariuji, and Yilmaz (2011) found that although teachers were concerned about the rise in cyberbullying incidents, and could identify cyberbullying behaviours, less that half knew what to do when an incident occurred. Heiman (2010) noted that German teachers said they lacked the necessary professional training to deal with cyberbullying. Bauman, Rigby, and Hoppa (2008) found that counsellors, rather than teachers, were more likely to engage in bullying interventions, primarily because they were trained in intervention methods.

Teachers’ perceptions of bullying/cyberbullying

Teachers’ awareness as to what constitutes bullying/cyberbullying can vary (Kochenderfer-Ladd, & Pelletier, 2008). Many educators perceive overt violence as the key factor, and disregard covert relational aggression as nothing more than bickering and exclusion (Ryan et al., 2011; Sahin, 2010). In a study of pre-service teachers in the United States, respondents ranked relational aggression as the least serious and were unlikely to intervene if such bullying occurred. Because of a lack of knowledge of bullying-type behaviours, teachers may be ill equipped to recognize such behaviours (Ryan et al., 2011). Recognizing the spectrum of bullying behaviours, as well as empathy training, is a first step towards teachers developing an appropriate skill set to deal with bullying issues (Craig, Henderson, & Murphy, 2000). In a South Korean study, Yoon, Bauman, Choi, and Hutchinson (2011) observed that more experienced teachers (26 years or more) were less likely to intervene in bullying incidents than those educators with 11 to 16 years of experience.

Technological challenges

In our technologically driven world, teachers and parents are generally behind youth in their knowledge of technology, which leads to inadequate supervision at school and home and an increase in cyberbullying (Popovic-Citic, Djuric, & Cvetkovic, 2011). Cassidy, Brown, and Jackson (in press) found in their Canadian study that parents generally were unfamiliar with newer forms of technology, such as blogs, with some admitting that even sending emails was challenging. Teacher engagement with bullying issues can be one of the best strategies for prevention (Crothers, Kolbert, & Barker, 2006), but this poses an impediment if those teachers are not conversant with technology. For this reason, Tangen and Campbell (2010) noted that Australian teachers were more likely to focus on preventing face-to-face bullying than cyberbullying. Jäger, Amado, Matos, and Pessoa (2010) proposed several solutions for addressing educators’ lack of knowledge of technology and willingness to intervene, noting that cyberbullying is a unique form of bullying that requires a multi-disciplinary approach in both policy development and teacher training. Paul, Smith, and Blumberg (2010) suggest cyber-themed school assemblies and curriculum lessons, all designed, organized and taught by students themselves.

Background to study and research questions

Our study of educators focused on three research questions: Do they consider cyberbullying a problem at their school and how familiar are they with the extent and impact among their students? What policies and practices are in place to prevent or counter cyberbullying? What solutions do they have for encouraging a kinder online world?

Educators’ responses to these questions would add a Western Canadian dimension to the small body of literature discussed above, and would also allow us to compare their responses to what we were learning from students and parents at these schools through our survey research.

We chose a school district in the province of British Columbia that stressed the importance of technology and equipped their schools with state of the art equipment, thinking that the more familiar educators were about technology, the more aware they would be about the problem of cyberbullying (Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2007). The district also offered professional development opportunities for teachers, and prided itself on its reputation for quality education, including the highest scores on standardized tests in the province and the highest percentage of graduates attending post-secondary institutions.

Procedure

Two of the three secondary schools in the district offered to participate in the study. Each school had a student population of over 1,000 students, ranging from grades 8 to 12, and ages 13 to 18. Both schools had an ethnically diverse student population, with a mix of Canadian-born students, recent immigrants, and international students. The socio-economic level of families was primarily upper middle class, although there was representation from middle and lower incomes. For the educator part of our study, we purposefully (Patton, 1990) asked to interview representatives from the following groups: School administrators (since they are responsible for policy and programs); school counsellors and youth workers (since they are at the front lines of intervention); technology teachers (for their knowledge of technology); and social studies teachers (since their curriculum included social justice issues and current events). Seventeen educators from these groups volunteered to be interviewed: Both principals, two vice-principals from each school, three teachers from school A and two from school B, one counsellor and one youth worker from school A and three counsellors and a youth worker from school B. Although we had hoped that more than five teachers would participate to provide a wider range of responses, additional teachers did not volunteer, placing that limitation on our findings.

Each participant chose a pseudonym and was asked a series of 16 in-depth, semi-structured, open-ended questions (Lancy, 2001) and three closed-category questions in a private setting, allowing their views to be voiced in confidence (Cook-Sather, 2002). Each 45 to 60 minute audiotaped interview was conducted by one of the authors, while maintaining a neutral, nonjudgmental stance in regards to the responses (Merriam, 1988).

Once the interviews were transcribed, each participant was given the opportunity to review the transcript and make changes. The transcripts were then reviewed and re-reviewed in a backward and forward motion (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; McMillan & Schumacher, 1997) separately by two of the three researchers to determine commonalities and differences among responses as well as any salient themes that surfaced due to the frequency or the strength of the response (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Each researcher’s analysis was then compared with the other’s to jointly determine emergent themes and perceptions.

The dominant themes were then reviewed in relation to the existing literature on educators’ perceptions and responses to cyberbullying. The approach taken was ‘bottom-up’, to inductively uncover themes and contribute to theory, rather than apply existing theory as a predetermined frame for analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

In addition to the 16 open-ended questions, there were three closed-category questions, which used a five-point Likert scale, and asked participants: (a) How concerned were they about cyberbullying (1 = not concerned at all; 5 = extremely concerned); (b) How familiar were they with email, cellular phones/text messaging, Facebook, MSN/chat rooms, YouTube and Blogs (1 = not familiar at all; 5 = very familiar); (c) How important was it, in terms of the school’s priorities, to prevent cyberbullying and to encourage positive online exchanges. (1 = not important at all; 5 = extremely important). Responses to these scaled questions are integrated with the discussion of the qualitative findings.

Coding

Educators are coded in this discussion according to their school, title, and number of years as an educator; for example, P14-B refers to a principal with 14 years’ experience at school B and T8-A refers to a teacher with eight years’ experience at school A. Because the schools were from the same district and drew on a similar student population, and because we found no differences between the types of responses from each school, we amalgamated the responses from school A and B into one discussion.

Familiarity with technology

Despite the district’s emphasis on technology, the educators (except for two younger teachers and one vice-principal) indicated that they were not very familiar with chat rooms and blogs, were moderately familiar with YouTube and Facebook and were most familiar with the older forms of communication—email and cellular phones.

Incidences and responses

Although ten of the 17 respondents (59%) said that they were concerned or extremely concerned about the problem of cyberbullying, four (two teachers and two vice-principals) were not able to describe any cyberbullying incident that had occurred at their school, despite our student survey results that showed that 36% of students admitted to participating in cyberbullying and 32% had been victims in the past year. Of the remaining 13 participants, several pointed to the same incident. The educators’ concern about cyberbullying seemed to be generic, about young people in general rather than a focused concern about identifiable problems at their school. Of the educators interviewed, only one younger, technologically savvy teacher at school A (T8-A) and one of the vice-principals at school B (VP19-B) were able to point to several examples of cyberbullying that had occurred at their schools.

T8-A began his discussion with an example that involved him. A female student who was not in his class created a fake Facebook account and sent him nasty, derogatory messages, which were then shared with other students. This student also created a fake AOL account targeting another teacher and used email to send virulent messages to one of the administrators. T8-A, who is computer literate, ‘tricked’ the student into revealing herself, and she was subsequently suspended for one week. T8-A said that there were at least eight other suspensions for cyberbullying in the previous year. These incidents included a Facebook site developed by students for the sole purpose of attacking one teacher and a website created to humiliate another student.

T8-A talked about students who would never say anything nasty to a ‘friend’ in person but hid behind technology to cyberbully. In his experience, many of the perpetrators are in ‘girl groups’, and are often considered the ‘good kids’ by teachers. He said that he has also witnessed students texting away under their desks, sending hurtful messages to or about another student or teacher. These students are not caught because most teachers at his school ‘don’t have a clue about technology … [it] is happening so quickly’. Parents, he said, are even more ‘illiterate’ and have no idea what their children are saying online: ‘ … if parents knew half of what was being said on the [Facebook] wall, I think they would be shocked—they’re just clueless. And that’s the biggest part, is that the students are empowered in this situation’.

T8-A also described an inadequate attempt by his school’s administrators to prevent cyberbullying. After a whole school assembly at which time the dangers and consequences of cyberbullying were addressed, several students were caught cyberbullying another student, using the same tactics that had been discussed. One of the perpetrators admitted that they got the idea from the assembly and that they were also testing out the policy to see if the punishment would be doled out.

One of the vice-principals at the same school (VP17-A) provided another example. During lunch hour, one boy scattered spaghetti spray on another boy, called him names, videotaped it and then posted it on Facebook. Once uploaded onto Facebook, other students posted derogatory, hurtful comments about the victim. VP17-A noted that the perpetrator was suspended from school for two days, but said that nothing was done to help the victim because, in his view, the incident ‘really didn’t bother [him]—in fact, he seemed to really roll it off his back’. However, VP17-A acknowledged that the victim was nowhere to be seen during subsequent lunch breaks and it was only during the interview that he began to speculate that perhaps the boy had been traumatized after all. Indeed, Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) note that psychosocial symptoms can appear post-incident, when many victims let their grades fall, start to miss classes, and eventually display overall malaise.

Examples shared by VP19-B mainly involved students threatening each other online or filming fights and then posting these on YouTube or Facebook, with other students joining in with nasty, sexual, or hurtful comments. In his view, most students do not understand the impact that online comments have on others and since many incidents occur within friendship groups, the results can be devastating. VP19-B said that his approach to curtailing the problem is to go for a walk with the perpetrator, revisit the scenario, and discuss how the victim must be feeling. He believes that educators must get to know their students and have open conversations with them about inappropriate behaviour and the emotional and physical costs of victimization.

The principal at school B (P14-B) provided an example of a Facebook account that had been set up by students that denigrated the school, the principal, one vice-principal, and a particular female student. C16-B stepped in to help the girl who was victimized and she agreed to a mediation process involving herself, the perpetrator, the counsellor and a youth worker. It turned out that the perpetrator had herself been a victim and was retaliating: As C16-B explained:

… it actually was good because it gave the other girl, the supposed perpetrator, an opportunity to share her side of the story … There was definitely a lot of emotion during that meeting. So it definitely gave them an opportunity to be honest with each other out in the open, but be in a situation where they were safe.

The principal brought the other perpetrators and their parents in to discuss why they would target the school in this way. She reported that, unfortunately, none of the parents judged the situation to be serious enough to remove the site from Facebook. After the meeting, when she tried to follow-up with the parents, her phone calls were not returned. She noted that if parents do not provide guidance regarding appropriate online behaviour, then ‘what can the school do?’ She added that students do not realize that Facebook and other such sites are in the public domain and that ‘what you put down is going to affect you later … If I see a student cyberbullying, and that student later comes to me and asks me to write a reference letter, it’s going to be very difficult … I don’t think they’re aware of that.’

YW10-B expressed a similar concern about the vastness of the Facebook audience. In her role as youth worker, she sometimes hears about 14- or 15-year-olds indulging in alcohol at a party or engaging in some form of sexual activity. Others take pictures and the next day they are all over Facebook, complemented by nasty and hurtful comments. She notes that these types of incidents have long-term implications for that young person’s reputation.

Interestingly, the other two vice-principals (VP40-A and VP33-B), both older, could not think of any incidents of cyberbullying that had occurred at their school, despite their supervisory role. VP33-B focused on discussing the school’s procedures if an incident did happen, including the district’s ‘progressive discipline policy’, which involved the student being suspended from the school for a few days, moved to another school, or prevented from attending any school in the district. VP40-A showed no interest in the topic, answered each question abruptly and concluded the interview within ten minutes.

Cyberbullying policies

We asked respondents about specific cyberbullying policies in place at their school and their perceived effectiveness. Despite the district’s priorities around technology, neither the school district nor either school had a specific cyberbullying policy; instead educators were supposed to follow the district’s bullying policy. When VP17-A was asked if the district’s bullying handbook effectively addressed the problem of cyberbullying, he replied: ‘It effectively addresses the people that are identified as bullying others [but] it doesn’t address the educational side of it …  about what is proper use of the Internet as a tool.’

P14-B wanted to see a new policy put in place that was flexible enough to deal with the different situations as they arose. VP19-B thought that a cyberbullying policy should be separate from a face-to-face bullying policy since the impact on students is different. He also felt that there should be a concerted district policy regarding ‘risk assessment in which you have a team that’s trained at determining the level of threat and it should be taken very seriously whether it’s a phone threat, a verbal threat, or a cyber threat.’ Participants indicated that they had not considered the idea of a separate cyberbullying policy before the interview, with several commenting that they now saw it as important.

Cyberbullying prevention

Fourteen of the 17 respondents saw cyberbullying prevention as either ‘extremely important’ or ‘important’ in terms of the competing priorities of the school. The most conversant respondent, T8-A, argued strongly that education is the best tool for preventing cyberbullying. He suggested that instead of looking at Facebook and YouTube as negative forms of communication and banning access in schools, they should be seen as useful pedagogical tools. Another young, technologically savvy teacher (T3-B) reiterated this notion: ‘I think there is a fear of Facebook and using it in schools. I am a Facebook user, and it is very much connected with my age group and my generation … I think that rather than being afraid of it we should be using it because it’s engaging students.’

C16-B wanted to see a specific curriculum developed around the use of language and its impact on feelings. For example, when a student says, ‘Oh, yeah, you bitch’, this can be misconstrued as slanderous by adults although it is common dialogue among youth. He suggested that teachers create examples of cyberbullying because many youth are unaware of what constitutes cyberbullying. VP19-B thought that the English curriculum could incorporate a section on technology as an alternate means of discourse. P14-B said that she was in the process of designing a program for all Grade 8 students in the school around the use of technology and that she would [following the interview] consider adding a dimension about cyberbullying.

T18-A and C29-A also reinforced the need for education, so that students understand why someone might bully online. At the same time, they also recommended a stringent punishment response if online bullying is serious. C29-A added that parents need to monitor their child’s computer use and that having the computer in the bedroom, away from adult eyes, was one of the problems. YW2-A noted that many parents are simply less knowledgeable than their children when it comes to technology, so his suggestion was to ask the children to sit down and show their parents how to use the technology, even though ‘it is not every kid’s dream to work with their parents’. VP17-A thought that it was important to provide positive examples of internet use in the classroom so that youth can learn responsible and caring behaviour, with teachers acting as role models in that forum. VP33-B said that part of the curriculum should include the worldwide scale of the audience in the online environment since a typical lament heard from bullies is, ‘I really didn’t mean to hurt this person, and I had no idea it was going world-wide, where everybody else could see it’.

T3-B talked about journal writing as one option that might help curtail cyberbullying as it encourages empathy and expression of feelings. She described how she used this method with a group of girls who were cyberbullying each other on Facebook. At first the girls were reluctant to share, but in the end this proved to be successful. T5-A was adamant that imposing rules and regulations only ‘go in one ear and out the other’ and that it was important for educators and parents to model the right behaviour and for students to be shown concrete examples of cyberbullying and discuss the implications.