ict, society and human beings 2008

IADIS International Conference ICT, Society and Human Beings 2008

CYBERBULLYING IN THE DIGITAL AGE: DEVELOPMENT OF E-SAFETY STRATEGIES Catherine McLoughlin Australian Catholic University Canberra, Australia

ABSTRACT While the ubiquitous access to the Internet continues to expand, the demands of the Net generation for constant connectivity and cyber-fun, there is increasing evidence of the disruptive effects of technology. The problem of cyberbullying in schools has become very widely recognised as a significant and serious one. In most developed countries, the increased prevalence of cyberbullying is reported in the UK, USA, Australia, Japan and Korea. The serious and sometimes long-term physical and psychological damage to students has remained a major focus for research across the globe in the past decade. The development of social networking technologies and virtual worlds has brought about new challenges for school communities and has placed considerable pressures on educators to remain informed and vigilant to the developing phenomenon of cyberbullying. This paper addresses the impact of cyberbullying on students, and outlines strategies being adopted by schools and policy makers to combat this growing negative behavior. KEYWORDS Cyberbullying, cybersafety, social software, e-safety, virtual worlds, cyberviolence

1. CYBERBULLYING DEFINED The rapid embrace of technology in primary and secondary schools and within the homes of most school students has complicated the existing struggle to balance the right of students to engage in educational access to ICT and the need to ensure the safety of students. As Internet use has increased, so too have concerns about the prevalence of cyber violence and risks to young people (Olweus, 2002). Online harassment now has a new name: it’s called “cyberbullying”. The word means "using the Internet or cell phones to send hurtful messages or post information that's designed to damage the reputation or friendships of others," according to the author of Cyberbullying and Cyber threats (Willard, 2007). No one knows the exact number of teenagers worldwide who are on the receiving end, but it's significant. "Survey data ranges from 7 percent to 55 percent," says Willard. "My guess is it's somewhere in between." Research into cyberbullying is still in its early stages and there are numerous definitions of the term. While there is now a general consensus that bullying can be identified as an aggressive behavior that intends to cause general distress or harm to the victim and that there is an actual or perceived imbalance of power between the victim and the bully (Rigby, 2002), bullying behavior is also seen as occurring repeatedly overtime. In other definitions bullying behavior is defined as unprovoked behavior (Olweos, Limber et al 1999). Rigby (2002) raises a number of ambiguities with the generally accepted definitions of bullying and cyberbullying, including the difficulties of proving intent to hurt, repetition (for instance, when a student bullies several people once each) and the problems of identifying an imbalance of power in non-face-to-face or indirect bullying. Cyberbullying is a particular case in question where the bullies who may spread defamatory rumours via the internet may not be perceived as more powerful than the targeted victim/s (Rigby in Greene, 2006). Definitions of cyberbullying generally focus on the repetition of cruel and hostile behaviors towards others. Bill Belsey ( Belsey, ND), who coined the term ‘cyberbullying’ and is creator of the websites www.bullying.org and www.cyberbullying.org, defines cyberbullying as:

131

ISBN: 978-972-8924-61-4 © 2008 IADIS

The use of information and communication technologies such as e-mail, cell phone and pager text messages, instant messages, defamatory personal websites, and defamatory online personal polling Web sites, to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others (Belsey, in Li, 2007, p. 2). Similarly, Patching and Hinduja (2006, p. 152) define cyberbullying as ‘willful and repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text’. They draw parallels between traditional bullying and this emerging form, pointing out that the violence, malicious intent, repetition and power imbalance evident in the general bullying definitions are also relevant to the definition of this new permutation of bullying. Willard (2007, p. 1) classifies cyberbullying as ‘being cruel to others by sending or posting harmful material or engaging in other forms of social aggression using the Internet or other digital technologies.’ She identifies seven forms that cyberbullying can take: Flaming: Online fights using electronic messages with angry and vulgar language. Harassment: Repeatedly sending nasty, mean, and insulting messages. Denigration: “Dissing” someone online. Sending or posting gossip or rumours about a person to damage his or her reputation or friendships. Impersonation: Pretending to be someone else and sending or posting material to get that person in trouble or danger or to damage that person’s reputation or friendships. Outing: Sharing someone’s secrets or embarrassing information or images online. Exclusion: Intentionally and cruelly excluding someone from an online group. Cyberstalking: Repeated, intense harassment and denigration that includes threats or creates significant fear (Willard, 2007, pp. 1-2).

Wolak, Mitchell & Finkelhor (2007) emphasise that there is no standard definition of cyberbullying and suggest that the outcome of a study can be affected depending on how a researcher defines cyberbullying. They cite a number of studies, all with slightly varying definitions of cyberbullying or online harassment. The reported incidences of being cyberbullied in these studies ranged from 6% to 43%. These definitions include ‘bothering someone online, teasing in a mean way, calling someone hurtful names, intentionally leaving persons out of things, threatening someone and saying unwanted, sexually related things to someone’ (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006, p. 158); ‘use of the Internet, cell phones, or other technologies to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person’ (Moessner, 2007, p. 1) and ‘threats or other offensive behaviour (not sexual solicitation) sent online to the youth or posted online about the youth for others to see’ (Finkelhor, Mitchell & Wolak, 2000 in Wolak et al, 2007, p. S52). Clearly not all definitions include sexually based harassment. While it is evident that what a researcher decides the term ‘cyberbullying’ encompasses can affect what participants report, it should also be noted that there are a number of other variables that could influence the results of these studies.

1.1 Who are the Cyberbullies and the Victims? There is some evidence that supports a correlation between being a victim of traditional face-to-face bullying and being a victim of cyberbullying (Beran & Li, 2005). Studies by Bentley & Li (1995) and Farrington (1993, in Beran & Li, 2005, p. 271) yielded a reported rate of traditional harassment similar to that of Beran & Li’s 2005 cyber-harassment study. This study also found that most of the students who experienced cyberbullying were also victimised at school (Beran & Li, 2005, p. 271). Together, this data suggest that many students who are bullied at school may also be victims of cyberbullying. Recently, evidence corroborating these earlier findings showed that involvement in traditional bullying was a strong predictor for cyberbullying (Li, 2007, p. 448). Victims of bullying (both victims and bully/victims) have an increased likelihood of being cyberbullied. Similarly, traditional bullies (both bullies and bully/victims) are more likely to cyberbully others than those not involved in traditional bullying (Li, 2007, p. 448). A recent Australian study focusing on mobile phone bullying amongst 348 students in Years 8 to 10 also found a significant positive correlation between being a victim of traditional bullying and being a victim of cyberbullying (Nicol, 2007, p. 42). There is also the possibility that traditional bullying can flow over into cyberspace and vice versa (Li, 2007, p. 448). Raskauskas & Stoltz (2007) found an interesting relationship between cyberbullying and other types of bullying. Victims of online cyberbullying (n=41) tended also to be

132


victims of text message and camera phone bullying, traditional teasing and rumour spreading. However, these Internet victims were also likely to be bullies at school, involved in physical bullying, teasing, rumour spreading and exclusion. Similarly, those victims of text message bullying were also commonly bullied via the Internet, camera phones and traditional teasing, yet they also took on a bullying role in the school environment through teasing and exclusion (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007, p. 9). Campbell (2005a, 2005b), has called this a ‘Revenge of the Nerds’ type scenario.

2. IMPACT OF CYBERBULLYING BEHAVIORS The impact can be devastating. Increasing reports of youth suicide, as well as school violence, in the United States appear to be related to cyberbullying. Suicides have occurred in South Korea, too, and a school murder in Japan might have been related to cyberbullying. Although many experts say adults have been slow to respond to the problem, which may be changing (Kowalski, Limber and Agatson, 2008). School administrators and politicians are trying to address cyberbullying once it starts and to prevent it from happening. The widespread use of virtual classrooms, Internet exploration and chat rooms has stretched the concept of the traditional classroom, while the popularity of social networking sites, (MySpace, Face book,) blogging and text messaging have affected the way students communicate with and about each other, their teachers, school administrators and their schools. Adding to the mix of concerns about virtual predators, cyber harassment and cyberbullying and it is no surprise that more research is being called for and greater emphasis on the need to develop effective strategies to respond to such scenarios (Kowalski et al, 2008). In Australia, experiences of bullying and peer rejection within school environments have been shown to increase the risk of negative learning and health outcomes for youth (Sawyer, et.al. 2000). Students who are persistently bullied are less connected to school and feel less cared for by people at their school (McNeely, Nonnemaker & Blum, 2002). According to McNeely and colleagues those students who feel cared for by people at their schools are far less likely to engage in violent, sexual, suicidal or substance abuse behaviors. Supportive classroom and school environments are essential for student wellbeing, engagement with school, motivation, academic skill development and general mental health (Catalano, et.al., 2004). Anxiety and depression are six and eight times (respectively) more likely to be experienced by those students who have been victims of bullying than those who have not been either victims or bullies (Dake, Price, Telljohan and Funk, 2003).

3. PROGRAMS AND POLICIES TO COMBAT CYBERBULLYING There have been numerous programs and policies developed to reduce bullying in schools and a number have resulted in successful outcomes with reductions in bullying evidenced (Olweus, Limber & Mihalic, 1999; Smith & Ananiadou, 2003). While bullying has historically only effected students at school, at the bus stop, travelling to and from school, in the playground and sometimes in other public places (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006), the development of new technologies has brought about new challenges for the policies and programs already in schools and placed considerable pressures on schools to remain informed and vigilant to the developing phenomenon of cyberbullying. In the United Kingdom, the British Educational Communications and Technologies Agency (Becta), the Government’s primary agency for Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in education, has developed a number of e-safety resources for policy makers, schools and their teachers, teaching assistants and ICT support staff (http://www.becta.org.uk ). As it is pointed out on Becta’s website, in today’s world, ‘[p]rotecting young people (and adults) properly means thinking beyond the traditional school environment. Where once the desktop computer was the only way to access the internet, now many mobile phones and games consoles offer broadband connections’ (http://www.becta.org.uk). Becta provides information and recommendations for designing and implementing Acceptable Use Policies, effective use of firewalls and other technical controls, ways to minimise the incidence of cyberbullying and approaches for educating young people about safe online behaviors. They advocate a ‘whole-school approach towards responsibility for e-safety’.

133

ISBN: 978-972-8924-61-4 © 2008 IADIS

3.1 Development of e-safety Strategies Australia? In comparison to other countries, particularly the UK, Australia is lagging behind in both research and action regarding cyberbullying and more work is certainly required. There is, however, valuable work being done in Australia by both organizations and individuals. Table 1 displays a summary of strategies that are being implemented by national and statewide organizations. The Alannah and Madeline Foundation is a charity aimed at keeping children safe from violence (http://www.amf.org.au, accessed 19 March, 2008). While their work has a broader focus than bullying alone, initiatives such as the ‘Better Buddies framework’ for primary schools focus on a safe, harmonious school environment and reducing the incidence of bullying. It is a whole-school initiative, with younger students pairing up with older students to learn valuable social skills and build relationships. This peer support system promotes self-esteem as it helps the younger students to feel safe and the older students to feel valued and respected. The Alannah and Madeline Foundation is also the parent body of the National Centre Against Bullying (NCAB), previously the National Coalition Against Bullying. NCAB’s mission is to reduce bullying and minimise its harm on young people and to create communities, schools, homes and cyberspace environments that are strong, connected and caring through research, knowledge dissemination and advocacy (http://www.ncab.org.au, accessed 19 March, 2008). In 2007 they held a cyber-safety symposium, where it was agreed that ‘cybersafety requires a coordinated and collaborative national approach. As a result, NCAB is now working with a variety of interest groups including education, welfare, industry, government, police, parents, students and not-for-profit to harness the outcomes of the symposium’ (http://www.ncab.org.au/, accessed 31 March, 2008). The Child Health Promotion Research Unit (CHPRU), funded by Western Australia’s Healthway, has begun a study into cyberbullying amongst Australian youth aged 10 to 17 years http://chpru.ecu.edu.au/research/current/cyber-bullying.php. Table 1. Organizations in Australia Engaged in Development of Cyber Safety Resources and Research Organization

URL

Focus

Strategies

The Alannah and Madeline Foundation

http://www.amf.org.au

Keeping children safe from violence (not just bullying)

Better Buddies Framework

National Centre Against Bullying

http://www.ncab.org.au

Research, advocacy, knowledge dissemination

Child Health Promotion Research Unit (at ECU)

http://chpru.ecu.edu.au/in dex.php

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy

http://www.deewr.gov.au

Community linkages, research and resources development Previous research on traditional bullying led to FSFC program, new research begun into cyberbullying School e-safety programs

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/

Internet filtering programs

Australian Communications and Media Authority

http://www.acma.gov.au/ WEB/LANDING/pc=IN TERNET_MAIN

Monitoring online content, providing information about dangers online (especially for children)

NetAlert: Protecting Australian Families Online package as part of its ongoing commitment to providing a safe online environment for all Australian families, especially children. NetAlert Outreach Program, funds cybersmartkids.com.au

134

‘Friendly Schools, Friendly Communities’ Bullying Reduction Program Policy development National Safe Schools Framework


The CHPRU is part of Edith Cowan University and the cyberbullying research team (Cross & Hall, 2004). This formative study aims to gather data on students’, parents’ and teachers’ perceptions, understanding and behaviour in relation to all aspects of cyberbullying, with a view to informing a comprehensive intervention trial in the future, aimed at reducing the social, emotional and mental health outcomes that result from relational peer aggression. The CHPRU is also responsible for the ‘Friendly Schools, Friendly Communities’ program (http://chpru.ecu.edu.au/fsaf/index.php, accessed March 31, 2008). This program was also funded by Healthway and is designed to assist school communities in implementing a whole school approach to reduce (traditional) bullying.

3.2 The National Safe Schools Framework One Australian Government initiative is the National Safe Schools Framework (NSSF), developed by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) in 2003. All government and non-government schools agreed to implement this framework as a condition of receiving financial assistance from the Commonwealth. The document comprises ‘a set of nationally agreed principles…that schools can put in place to address issues of bullying, violence, harassment, child abuse and neglect (DEEWR, 2007). The NSSF advocates sustained positive approaches to increase school safety and students’ physical, social and emotional wellbeing (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 4). There are eleven guiding principles of the NSSF, five of which are particularly relevant in dealing with cyberbullying: • • • • •

A whole-school approach is favoured when developing and implementing policies and programs; Policies, programs and processes are to nurture a safe and supportive school environment; The focus should be on policies that are proactive and aimed at prevention and intervention; Schools have a responsibility to provide students with the opportunity to learn through the formal curriculum the knowledge, skills and dispositions required for positive relationships; Schools should promote care, respect and cooperation and value diversity (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 5).

While this framework incorporates existing good practice, building on numerous positive strategies already employed in many schools Australia-wide, as well as being a valuable tool for school communities to combat the problems of bullying and harassment (amongst others), it does not identify cyberbullying explicitly. Although it may be argued that cyberbullying is implicitly included as a subset of bullying, I would suggest this emerging phenomenon needs to be clearly distinguished, because it is not identical to traditional bullying (as discussed above) and strategies for dealing with cyberbullying will thus also be different to some extent. This document and others may also be an indicator of the fact that Australian policy makers have been somewhat slow in terms of recognizing cyberbullying as a significant problem when compared to some countries, especially Canada and the UK, and highlights the urgent need for more research and the subsequent development of relevant strategies, policies and recommendations. At this stage, however, nothing specifically relating to cyberbullying has come from the Department. In August 2007, the Australian government Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) launched their Internet safety initiative, NetAlert. This initiative included the National Filter Scheme, giving all Australian residents the option of downloading one of four free Internet content filters, access to a website and a national helpline to provide information on these filters as well as advice on keeping children safe online (DBCDE, 2007). Problems with the filters quickly became apparent when a 16 year old student cracked the original filter in around 30 minutes and a second filter, added by the government in response to his actions, in 40 minutes (Higginbottom & Packham, 2007). The Government had hoped around 1.4 million households would take up the filter, but to date less than 10% of this target has been reached and funding is likely to be cut on this program, with the new Communications Minister saying the initiative has ‘clearly failed’ (Colley, 2008). One might argue that the Government’s approach towards Internet safety was somewhat misguided, with other research demonstrating that Internet content filters are ineffective in preventing children from access inappropriate material, such as pornography. An American study found that while filters had a slight effect on ‘reducing deliberate accessing of pornography, in conditions simulating accidental access… filters allowed access to pornography 38% of the time’ (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002, in Bamford, 2004, p. 3). Furthermore, as the level of filtering increased, so too did the chances of accidentally accessing pornography – yet the study showed that while such negative material was poorly blocked by the filters, important health information and even art galleries were very efficiently barred (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002, in Bamford, 2004, p. 3). Similarly, the Canberra study by Fleming, Greentree et al (2006) found no significant difference in the levels of exposure to inappropriate online

135

ISBN: 978-972-8924-61-4 © 2008 IADIS

content between those students whose parents had installed Internet content filters and those who had not (p. 148). Bamford argues that technical solutions, such as content filters and firewalls, are not effective in improving e-safety and suggests that ‘teachers and parents need to develop filtering and blocking mechanisms within the child’s behaviour’ (Bamford, 2004, p. 4). As well as range of information online, Australia’s Internet safety advisory body, NetAlert, has released a series of Internet safety guides for parents, teachers and librarians aimed at keeping young people safe. These guides outline potential risks online for young people using Web 2.0 technologies and suggest approaches adults can take in educating them about these risks and e-safety strategies. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is responsible for monitoring online content and enforcing Australia’s anti-spam laws (http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/LANDING/pc=INTERNET_MAIN, accessed 31 March, 2008). One of their other roles is informing the community about Internet safety issues, especially child-related issues. While the NetAlert initiative is managed by Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, ACMA is responsible for the research and outreach components of this initiative. As described on the ACMA website, their activities include: • •

• •

Providing information on current trends in internet safety Undertaking targeted awareness raising campaigns and activities – including the Cybersafe and Cybersmart kids programs in schools The continuing review of filtering technology, including another trial of ISP-level filtering technologies in Tasmania Reporting annually to the Government on internet filtering technologies to ensure Australian families are offered the best available filtering http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=INT_PUB_CONTENT_PARENTS, accessed 31 March, 2008).

ACMA’s Outreach program sees NetAlert visiting metropolitan and regional centres to give presentations to adults (parents, teachers, other community members) regarding dangers for children online and ways to improve cybersafety for children. This program is receiving increased government funding over the next four years to expand the program to all states and territories’

4. CONCLUSION The cyberworld of young people is changing rapidly, and while they may be expert users of social networking sites, evidence suggests that there are risks of cyberviolence. In addition, the uptake of mobile phones among a younger age group of 8-11 year old children exposes them to harassment and to hurtful and defamatory messages, identity theft and social exclusion. Willard’s (20007) approach to countering cyberbullying is to advocate that schools engage in participatory planning that involves current school-based programs (such as safe schools initiatives) and non-school participants-- police, parents and community groups and social agencies. There is also growing evidence of cyberbullying demands the development of esafety frameworks and community education (Smith & Pepler, 2004). While other countries (such as the UK) have already taken this next step, Australian researchers are still at the early stages of policy and strategy development. While there are numerous Australian anti-cyberbullying websites and resources available to those who are aware of them, these are no substitute for the implementation of preventative policies, frameworks and programs in Australian schools. In addition, it will be important to develop programs specifically designed for the Australian situation, as it has been demonstrated that traditional antibullying programs do not always translate well to other countries. It is plausible that a ‘one size fits all’ approach would be unsuccessful in terms of cyberbullying also, so the use of Australian data to develop Australia-specific policy is a necessary step.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project is funded by the National Centre for Science, Information Technology and Mathematics for Rural and Regional Australia (SiMMER). Thanks also to Tessa Yvanovich and Jill Burgess for contributing to this review.

136


REFERENCES Bamford, A. 2004. Cyber-Bullying. Paper presented at the AHISA Pastoral Care National Conference, Melbourne. Retrieved February 26, 2008 from http://www.coc.edu.au/site/_documents/ahisaconferencebamfordcyberbullying.pdf. Becta. 2007. Signposts to safety: Teaching e-safety at key stages 1 and 2. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://publications.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=32422&page=1835. Belsey, B. No Date, ‘Where you are not alone’ [online] Available at http://cyberbullying.ca/ Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for an old behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(32), 265-277. Colley, A. February 26, 2008, ‘NetAlert budget set to crash after program failure’. The Australian, p. 6, from Factiva. Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 2007 ‘NetAlert’, [online] Available at http://www.netalert.gov.au. Dickerson, D. 2005, ‘Cyberbullies on Campus’ [Online] available at: http://law.utoledo.edu/students/lawreview/volumes/v37n1/Dickerson.htm#_ftnref54 Campbell, M. A. 2005a, ‘Cyberbullying: An old problem in a new guise?’, Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, vol, 15, no. 1. pp 68-76. Campbell, M. A. 2005b, The impact of the mobile phone on young people's social life. Paper presented at the Social Change in the 21st Century Conference, Brisbane, 28 October 2005, [online] Available at http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00003492/01/3492.pdf. Catalano, R.F., Haggerty, K.P., Oesterle, S. Fleming C.B., & Hawkins, J.D., 2004, ‘The importance of bonding with schools for healthy development: Findings from the Social Development Research Group’, Journal of School Health, 74(7), 252-61. Cross, D., M. Hall, et al. 2004. Australia: The Friendly Schools Project, in Bullying in Schools: how successful can interventions be?, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Dake, J.A., Price, J.H., Telljohan, S.K., & Funk, J.B., 2003, ‘Teacher perception and practice regarding school bullying prevention’, Journal of School Health, vol. 73, no. 9, pp. 347-55. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) 2007, National safe schools framework census: 2007 census of non-government (independent and Catholic schools). Implementation of the core elements 16. [online]available at https://schools.dest.gov.au/ssp/help/html/nssf/index.html. Fleming, M. J., Greentree, S., Cocotti-Muller, D., Morrison, S., & Ellias, K. A. 2006, ‘Safety in cyberspace: Adolescents' safety and exposure online’ Youth & Society, vol pp. 38, 135-154. Greene, M. 2006, ‘ Bullying in schools: A plea for measure of human rights’ Journal of Social Issues,vol 62, no. 1, pp.63—79. Higginbottom, N., & Packham, B., 2007, ‘Student cracks government's $84m porn filter’ Herald Sun. [online available at http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22304224-2,00.html. Kowalski, R., & Limber, S.P., & Agatson, P.W., 2008, Cyberbullying. Oxford, MA, Blackwell. Li, Q. 2007. ‘Bullying in the new playground: Research into cyberbullying and cyber victimisation’ Australasian Journal of Educational Technology vol. 23, no 4, pp. 435-454. National Coalition Against Bullying. (2007). Cyber-safety symposium report. Cyber-safety Symposium, Melbourne 2007. [online] Available at : http://www.ncab.org.au/ McNeely, C.A., Nonnemaker, J.M., Blum, R.W., 2002, ‘ Promoting school connectedness: Evidence from the National longitudinal study of adolescent health’ , Journal of School Health, vol. 72, no 4, pp. 138-46. Nicol, A. (2007). "i h8 u": The influence of normative beliefs and hostile response selection in predicting adolescents' mobile phone bullying. Unpublished honours thesis, University of Canberra. McNeely, C.A., Nonnemaker, J.M., Blum, R.W., 2002 ‘Promoting school connectedness: Evidence from the National longitudinal study of adolescent health’ Journal of School Health, vol 72 no. 4, pp. 138-146. Moessner, C., 2007, ‘Cyberbullying’ Trends & Tudes,vol 6, no 4 pp 1-4, [online] available at http://harrisdealerpoll.com/news/newsletters/k2012news/HI_TrendsTudes_2007_v2006_i2004.pdf. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) 2003, National safe schools framework. [online] Available at http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/natsafeschools_file.pdf Olweus, D. 1993, Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do, Blackwell, Oxford. Olweus, D. 2002, ‘A profile of bullying at school’, Educational Leadership, vol.60, pp. 12-17. Olweus, D., Limber, S., & Mihalic, S. 1999. Bullying prevention program. Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Bounder, Colorado

137

ISBN: 978-972-8924-61-4 © 2008 IADIS

Patchin, J. W. & Hinduja, S., 2006, ‘Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying’ Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, vol 4, pp. 148-169. Raskaukas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 564-575. Rigby, K. 2002, New perspectives on bullying. Kingsley, Philadelphia. Sawyer, M.G., Arney, F.M., Baghurst, P.A., Clark, J. J., Graetz, B.W., Kosky, R.J., Nurcombe, B., Patton, G.C., Prior, M.R., Raphel, B., Rey, J., Whaites, L.C., & Zubrick, S.R., 2000, The mental health of young people in Australia. Mental Health Special Programs Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, Canberra, Australia. Smith, P. K., D. Pepler, et al. 2004, Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. 2003. The nature of school bullying and the effectiveness of school based interventions’ . Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, vol. 5, pp. 189–209. Wolak, J., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. 2007. ‘Does online harassment constitute bullying? An exploration of online harassment by known peers and online-only contacts’ Journal of Adolescent Health, vol 41, pp. 51-58. Willard, N. (2007). Educator's guide to cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from http://www.csriu.org/cyberbully/docs/cbcteducator.pdf.

138