Description of my PhD project on cyberbullying.

2. 1. Introduction:
1. Define
2. Some characteristics
2. Background research
3. The project:
1. Purpose
2. The objective of the research
3. Methodology
4. Sampling

3. Difficult to define
1. Introduction

4. Difficult to define
“An aggressive, intentional act carried out by a
group or individual, using electronic forms of
contact, repeatedly and over time against a
victim who cannot easily defend him or
herself” (Smith & Slonje, 2012, p. 249)
1. Introduction

5. Digital Natives

6. Poor feedback
Image of http://blog.art4software.com/2012/05/gestion-la-importancia-del-feedback/

7. https://flic.kr/p/bkuie6

8. Size of audience
https://flic.kr/p/9JYTfZ

9. Anonymity
https://flic.kr/p/riPEB4

10. Power imbalance

11. Smith, Mahdavi,
Carvalho &
Tippett (2006)
England 92
(11-16)
14% bullying, 6,6% cyberbullying in last 6 months. 6,6%
cyberbullying once or twice a week
Li (2007) Canada 80 boys y 97
girls
54% bullying & 25% cyberbullying. 15% Had harassed with
electronic tools.
Kowalski &
Limber (2007)
USA 3767
secondary
11% cyberbullying in last months (victims), and 4%
cyberbullied
Ybarra &
Mitchell (2008)
USA 1588
(10-15)
33% victims in the past year of rumors, rude, malicious,
aggressive or threatening comments over the Internet. 15%
suffered sexual assault of character through the network.
Del Río, Bringue,
Sádaba &
González (2010)
Argentina, Brasil,
Chile, Colombia,
México, Perú y
Venezuela
20941
(10-18)
2542 schoolchildren from 7 countries were affected by
mobile and Messenger: 12.1% had suffered a form of
cyberbullying.
Garaigordobil
(2013)
Spain
(Basque Country)
3026
(12-18)
Victims: 17,6% female and 12,5% male
Perpetrator: 7,8% male and 7.7%
2. Background

12. 3. MY PROJECT

13. The purpose of this research is to study the
phenomenon of cyberbullying and cybervictimization
(incidence and impact) in students of compulsory
secondary education in Región de Murcia, and the
perception of this problem by the teachers in order to
create educational programs to prevent cyberbullying.

14. 1. To describe the results of studies and
methodology.
2. To examine the prevalence of cyberbullying
in Secondary Education in Región de Murcia.
3. To describe the characteristics of those
involved in the cyberbullying.
4. To know the perception of teachers.

15. METHODOLOGY

16. METHODOLOGY
• Quantitative:
– Survey to students
– Survey to teachers
• Qualitative
– Interview teachers

17. SAMPLING
https://flic.kr/p/aQUzkH

18. SAMPLING
• 66413 students of Compulsory Secondary
Education in Región de Murcia (Year2013/2014).
• Confidence level 95%
• Sample stratified by districts.
Minimum sample 1050 students

19. DATA COLLECTION

20. • Buelga, S., Cava, M., & Musitu, G. (2010). Cyberbullying: victimización
entre adolescentes a través del teléfono móvil y de Internet. Psichothema,
22, 784-789.
• Dehue, F., Bolman, C., & Vollink, T. (2008). Cyberbullying: Youngsters'
experiences and parental perception. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2),
217-223.
• Garaigordobil, M. (2011). Bullying y cyberbullying: conceptualización,
prevalencia y evaluación. Madrid: FOCAD, Consejo General de Colegios
Oficiales de Psicólogos.
• Kowalski, R., Limber, S., & Agatston, P. (2010). Cyber Bullying: el acoso
escolar en la era digital. España: Desclée De Brouwer.
• López, A., Domínguez, J., & Álvarez, E. (2010). Bullying vertical: variables
predictivas de la violencia escolar. Revista de Investigación en Educación,
8, 24-38.
• McMillan, J. & Schumacher, S. (2005). Investigación educativa. Madrid:
Pearson
• Moore, M. J., Nakano, T., Enomoto, A., & Suda, T. (2012). Anonymity and
roles associated with aggressive posts in an online forum. Computer in
Human Behavior, 1-7.
• Slonje, R., & Smith, P. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of
bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 147-154.

21. KIITOS