sign in sign up
<<
Home , Abuse

technology Del Siegle, Ph.D.

Cyberbullying and : Technology of the 21st Century

Many young people cannot remember a time before Peterson and Ray (2006) surveyed eighth-grade Instant Messaging (IM), cell phone text messag- gifted students and found that tended to peak ing, video conferencing, blogging, e-mailing, and in sixth grade, although females reported that bullying MySpace and Facebook postings existed. Thanks to remained steady or increased through eighth grade. the ubiquitous nature of technology in the 21st cen- Almost half, 46%, of gifted students reported that they tury, digital natives are accustomed to seeing, and were bullied in sixth grade in some way, and 67% of being seen, on a scale that was unimaginable by their the students said they had been the victim of some type parents and teachers. This limitless access to infor- of bullying in their first 9 years of school. Eleven per- mation, peers, and even around the globe cent of these students were bullied repeatedly. Name- brings with it a new set of safety concerns for parents calling was the most prevalent form of bullying these and school personnel. Although schools have made gifted students experienced. They also reported that concerted efforts to curb Internet by develop- they bully. Over one fourth (28%) of gifted eighth M graders said they had bullied someone during their first ing acceptable use policies and installing filtering 9 years of school, and 16% reported bullying someone software for websites, expanded forms of technology while they were in eighth grade. The most prevalent and differing formats of information presentation bullying tactic was name-calling, which increased from have surfaced, and they warrant a new discussion of 4% in kindergarten to 14% in eighth grade. digital safety, abuse, and bullying. The Internet and other technology-related devices Bullying, and being bullied, has a long history are particularly suited to nonviolent types of bully- in schools. How does giftedness relate to bullying ing such as name-calling. Gable, Ludlow, Kite, and and being bullied? In a recent survey of fifth-grade McCoach (2009) studied the prevalence of cyber- students, Estell et al. (2009) found that academically bullying with a general population of seventh and gifted students and general education students were eighth graders. The researchers classified students less likely than students with mild to be into one of four categories: neither bullies nor victims viewed as bullies by their peers. Teachers also rated of (74%), victims only of cyberbul- academically gifted students as less likely to bully or lying (5%), only cyberbullies (6%), and both bul- be bullied than both general education students and and victims of cyberbullying (15%). Although students with mild disabilities. Key factors in being three quarters of the students had no involvement perceived as a bully were associations with aggressive with cyberbullying, one in five had been digitally and popular peers. Social isolates were the most likely bullied and one in five had digitally bullied others. to be bullied. Whereas gifted students are less likely Unfortunately, those who bullied or were victims said to bully or be bullied according to this research, bul- they were less likely to notify adults about Internet lying is still a factor in their lives. bullying than those who were not bullied. Bullies

14 spring 2010 • vol 32, no 2 Cyberbullying and Sexting and victims also said their parents were you don’t have to be able to phys- to have the distribution of the image less aware of their Internet activities. ically overpower your victim—a stopped by reporting it to authori- High-frequency Internet users were person can simply log on, create a ties, students allegedly escalated their more likely to be both bullies and vic- new identity, and bully away. . . . of her. Her parents are cur- tims than low Internet users. An AP/ Instead of whispers behind teens’ rently suing the ex-, several MTV (2009) survey found that 47% backs, the are posted for former high school classmates, and the of teenagers surveyed have experienced everyone to read. Instead of one school for failing to stop the harass- digitally abusive . . . . silently listening in on a ment (Zetter, 2009). So what is cyberbullying? Willard phone conversation, two . . . can (2007) described it as “being cruel to watch incriminating IMs from an Parents and educators play others by sending or posting harmful unsuspecting “buddy” pop up on material or engaging in other forms a computer screen. Instead of a an important role in helping of social using the Internet clique not letting . . . [someone] or other digital technologies” (p. 1). sit with them at lunch, a group young people understand She listed eight different forms of of friends can decide to keep the consequences of cyberbullying: . . . [that person] off everyone’s 1. : Online fights using buddy lists. (p. 1) poor decisions in a digital electronic messages with angry and vulgar . According to an AP-MTV (2009) age where favorable, 2. Harassment: Repeatedly sending poll, more than 75% of 14- to 24-year- as well as unfavorable, nasty, mean, and insulting mes- olds believe that digital abuse is a seri- sages. ous problem for people their age. Yet, text and images spread 3. Denigration: “Dissing” someone only about half believe that what they online. Sending or posting gos- post online could come back to hurt exponentially. sip or rumors about a person to them. This is at a time when 24% of damage his or her or 14- to 17-year-olds report having been The media surrounding this, and friendships. involved in some type of naked sexting. other incidents, has prompted a 4. Impersonation: Pretending to be Sexting, which is sending or forward- national movement to address the someone else and sending or post- ing nude, sexually suggestive, or explicit issue of digital abuse. MTV has orga- ing material to get that person in pictures on a cell phone or online, was nized a year-long campaign called “A trouble or danger or to damage that listed as Time magazine’s number one Thin Line” to empower young people person’s reputation or friendships. buzzword of 2009 (Stephey, 2009). to identify, respond to, and stop the 5. Outing: Sharing someone’s Females are more likely to have sent spread of digital abuse in their lives secrets or embarrassing informa- naked photos of themselves, and males and their peers’ lives (A Thin Line, tion or images online. are more likely to have received them. 2009). This campaign included an 6. Trickery: Talking someone into Well more than half (61%) of those who MTV television special dedicated to revealing secrets or embarrassing send naked photos of themselves have the topic on Valentine’s Day in 2009. information or images online. been pressured by someone else to do A dozen other organizations have 7. Exclusion: Intentionally and so at least once. Nearly one in five who joined this timely project. cruelly excluding someone from receive sext messages pass them along to Parents and educators play an an online group. someone else (AP-MTV, 2009). important role in helping young people 8. : Repeated, The snowballing effect of forwarded understand the consequences of poor intense harassment and denigra- sexting can be dire. An 18-year-old decisions in a digital age where favor- tion that includes or cre- Ohio girl committed suicide after her able, as well as unfavorable, text and ates significant . (pp. 1–2) ex-boyfriend shared a digital nude images spread exponentially. Hinduja photo of her from the neck down and Patchin (2009a, 2009b) of the Goodstein (2008) remarked: that she had sent to him. He shared Cyberbullying Research Center have the image with other students in an extensive website (http://www. In many ways cyberbullying has her school, who in turn distributed cyberbullying.us) dedicated to this democratized bullying because it widely. After the Ohio girl sought topic. Thecontinued following on tips page to ??parents and

gifted today 15 Cyberbullying and Sexting

educators for preventing cyberbullying can be done informally (through make the situation worse. Schools are adapted from material on their site active participation in, and super- should consult with their school (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009a, 2009b): vision of, the young person’s online attorney before incidents occur • Establish that all rules for inter- experience) and formally (through to determine what actions they can acting with people in real life software). Use discretion when or must take in varying situations. also apply for interacting online covertly spying on young people. • Teach and reinforce positive val- or through cell phones. Convey This could cause more harm than ues about how others should be that cyberbullying inflicts harm good if they feel their privacy has treated with respect and dignity. and causes in the real world as been violated. They may go com- Schools can cultivate a positive well as in cyberspace and all forms pletely underground with their school climate, as research has of bullying are unacceptable and online and deliberately shown a link between a perceived behavior that occurs away from work to hide their actions. “negative” environment on cam- school also can be subject to school • Use filtering and blocking soft- pus and an increased prevalence sanctions. ware as a part of a comprehen- of cyberbullying offending and • Make sure the school has sive approach to online safety, but victimization among students. In Internet Safety educational pro- understand software programs general, it is crucial to establish gramming in place. This should alone will not keep kids safe or and maintain a school climate of not solely cover the of sexual prevent them from bullying others respect and integrity where viola- predators, but also how to prevent or accessing inappropriate content. tions result in informal or formal and respond to online peer harass- Most tech-savvy youth can find sanction. ment, interact wisely through ways around filters very quickly. • Educate yourself and your social networking sites, and engage • Look for warning signs that some- community. Schools can utilize in responsible and ethical online thing abnormal is occurring with specially created cyberbullying communications. Schools should respect to their technology usage. curricula, or general information survey their students about the If children become withdrawn or sessions such as assemblies and extent of digital abuse among stu- their Internet use becomes obses- in-class discussions to raise aware- dents. This information will be sive, they could either be a victim ness among youth. Invite special- useful when planning strategies to or a perpetrator of cyberbullying. ists to talk to staff and students. educate students and faculty. • Utilize an “Internet Use • Educate young people about Contract” and a “Cell Phone Send information to parents. appropriate Internet-based behav- Use Contract” to foster a crystal- Sponsor a community education iors. Explain to them the problems clear understanding about what is event. Invite parents, grandpar- that can be created when technol- appropriate and what is not with ents, aunts, uncles, and any other ogy is misused (e.g., damaging respect to the use of communica- relevant adult. their reputation, getting in trou- tions technology. To remind young ble at school or with the police). people of this pledged commit- Cell phones and the Internet have This can include peer mentoring, ment, these contracts should be helped us connect and learn from each where older students informally posted in a highly visible place other in ways that most of us never teach lessons and share learning (e.g., next to the computer). imagined. We have only begun to experiences with younger stu- • Cultivate and maintain an open, explore the benefits that these, and dents—to promote positive online candid line of communication future technologies, will bring to our interactions. with children, so that they are ready lives. As with many things, it is not • Model appropriate technology and willing to come to you when- the technology, but the misuse of it, usage. Don’t harass or joke about ever they experience something that creates problems. As responsible others while online, especially unpleasant or distressing in cyber- parents and educators, we have an obli- around young people. Don’t text space. Victims of cyberbullying gation to understand the potential uses while driving. Young people are (and the bystanders who observe of new technologies and guide young watching and learning. it) must know for sure that the people in their responsible implemen- • Monitor young people’s activi- adults who they tell will intervene tation of them. GCT ties while they are online. This rationally and logically, and not continued on page 65

16 spring 2010 • vol 32, no 2 The Public’s Fascination With Prodigious Youth way up to win their hundreds Bolding, A. W. (1941). Editorial post- Peterson, J. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted of thousandscontinued of dollars” from page (Wyatt, ?? 2009, script. The Journal of Education, 124, and talented do not have para. 1). Parents also will have access 294. unique social and emotional needs. to Ivy League professors and medical Bruce, H. A. (1910). Bending the twig: Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 280–282. doctors in order to gauge their child’s The education of the eleven-year-old Quart, A. (2006). Hothouse kids: The dilemma of the gifted child. New York, performance (Wyatt, 2009). (Author boy who lectured before the Harvard NY: The Penguin Press. note: Perhaps the producers have had professors on the fourth dimension. Radio & TV: The kids. (1952, July their own misgivings about the show American Magazine, 69, 690–695. Feldman, R. D. (1982). Whatever hap- 7). Time Magazine. Retrieved from as, at the time of this writing, it has http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ been put on hold after taping several pened to the Quiz Kids? Chicago, IL: Chicago Review Press. article/0,9171,888747,00.html episodes.) These types of programs and Wheeler, J. (Ed.). (1910). The boy prod- Hickok, E. M. (1947). Quiz Kids. Boston, other public forums, much like their igy of Harvard. Current Literature, 48, MA: Houghton Mifflin. predecessors, focus solely on gifted 291–293. Jolly, J. L. (2005). Pioneering definitions children’s keen intellect and present a Whipple, G. M. (1924). Historical and and theoretical positions in the field of introductory. In G. Whipple (Ed.), The one-dimensional and stereotypical por- gifted education. Gifted Child Today, trait, resulting in a no greater qualita- twenty-third yearbook of the National 28(3), 38–44. Society for the Study of Education. Part tive understanding of gifted children’s Jolly, J. L. (2007). The research legacy of capabilities and their correlation to I: Report of the Society’s Committee on Leta S. Hollingworth. Gifted Child the Education of Gifted Children (pp. their social and emotional needs. GCT Today, 30(3), 57–64. 1–25). Bloomington, IL: Public School Lyon, G. W. (1941). Is it good for the Publishing. References “Quiz Kids”? The Journal of Education, Wyatt, E. (2009). Coming to Fox: 124, 293–294. “Our Little Geniuses.” Retrieved Autobiography by John Stuart Mill (1873). Montour, K. (1977). William James Sidis: from http://mediadecoder. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www. The broken twig.American Psychologist, .nytimes.com/2009/11/11/ utilitarianism.com/millauto 32, 265–279. coming-to-fox-our-little-genius

Cyberbullying and Sexting:

continued from page 16 Gable, R. K., Ludlow, L., Kite, S., & www.cyberbullying.us/Top_Ten_Tips_ McCoach, D. B. (2009, April). Devel- Parents_Cyberbullying_Prevention.pdf opment and validation of the Survey of Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006). Bul- References Internet Risk and Behavior. Round- lying and the gifted: Victims, perpe- table presentation at the 2009 Annual trators, prevalence, and effects. Gifted A Thin Line. (2009).A thin line. Retrieved Meeting of the American Educational Child Quarterly, 50, 148–168. doi: from http://www.athinline.org/ Research Association, San Diego, CA. 10.1177/001698620605000206 about#research Goodstein, A. (2008). Cyberbullying: Stephey, M. J. (2009). The top 10 every- AP-MTV. (2009). A thin line: 2009 AP- The new bathroom wall. Duke Gifted thing of 2009: Top 10 buzzwords. MTV digital abuse study. Retrieved Letter, 8(2). Retrieved from http:// Retrieved from http://www.time. from http://www.athinline.org/ www.dukegiftedletter.com/articles/ com/time/specials/packages/arti MTV-AP_Digital_Abuse_Study_ vol8no2_tm.html cle/0,28804,1945379_1944799,00. Executive_Summary.pdf Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009a). html Estell, D. B., Farmer, T. W., Irvin, M. J., Preventing cyberbullying: Top ten tips Willard, N. (2007). Educator’s guide to Crowther, A., Akos, P., & Boudah, D. J. for educators. Retrieved from http:// cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Retrieved (2009). Students with exceptionalities www.cyberbullying.us/Top_Ten_Tips_ from http://www.cyberbully.org/ and the peer group context of bullying Educators_Cyberbullying_Prevention. cyberbully/docs/cbcteducator.pdf and victimization in late elementary pdf Zetter, K. (2009). Parents of dead teen sue school. Journal of Child and Family Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009b). school over sexting images. Retrieved Studies, 18, 136–150. doi: 10.1007/ Preventing cyberbullying: Top ten tips from http://www.wired.com/ s10826-008-9214-1 for parents. Retrieved from http:// threatlevel/2009/12/sexting-suit

gifted child today 65