18042085
Technological advances have found common ground in work places, homes and more
importantly, educational institutions. These changes can prove to be either a challenge for
teachers and their students’ learning ability or a success. The immeasurable benefits of
technology cannot be argued; however, a dim side has appeared for the purposes of bullying,
the education system as they evaluate all possible strategies to utilise such a tool to enhance a
positive learning environment for the students. Australia, in particular, has utilised these
advances in classrooms and became an unwitting victim of cyber bullying. Even though
technology has been welcomed by schools and classroom for the purpose of learning,
students have found a way to use technology to exploit and harm other students or peers.
Cyberbullying involves the use of technology to threaten or irritate others. In the article
“Rates of cyber victimization and bullying among male Australian primary and high school
students”, Sakellariou and Carroll (2012) evaluate the predominance and the nature of
cyberbullying by carrying out a questionnaire among the participants. This article will be
cyberbullying”, where Griezel, Finger, Bodkin-Andrews, Craven and Yeung (2012) identify
and analyse the foundation of cyberbullying across two variables’ gender and grade. Both
studies take on a similar approach to the research method and implement the same topic of
cyber bullying. In this essay, both articles will be critically analysed for the strengths and
weaknesses in according to the relevance of the research analysis. Overall, the findings of
each article will provide an insight towards cyber bullying and how this applies to good
cyberbullying spreads among male students, with respect to victimisations and the bullying
itself. The idea was extended in the study by Griezel et al. (2012) where they focused on
comparing both genders instead of just males and comparison of grades as well. Sakellariou
and Carroll (2012), acknowledge the extensive use of Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) by teachers in classrooms and male students have experienced cyber
bullying either through email or SMS text, whereas, Griezel et al. (2012) discovered that boys
engaged in physical forms of bullying, in comparison to girls who were involved in verbal
and cyber bullying. Both studies concluded that bullying itself left all forms on psychological
effects on the victims and suggest for further research to seek prevention of this critical social
The literature used within both articles establish a comprehensive review of the chosen topic,
thus assuring the validity and reliability of their findings. Both articles comprise of
background information and or introduction, results, discussion and implication in future, all
of which are mandatory in a literature review (Webster & Watson, 2002). Both articles,
however, both studies have referenced finding from different countries thus the relevance of
those articles can be questioned. Sakellariou and Carroll (2012) also mentioned that their
main limitation was the inclusion of only males in their research, whereas both studies came
forward to mention that the sample size was too small. They have both used other research
articles to either support or create room for further research. This gives rise to critical
thinking and high order work ethic thus proving to be competent in writing a literature
review. Overall, the review of the literature was well structured and contains information
researchers were able to appraise their findings comprehensively. Both studies utilised
questionnaires and provided a thorough knowledge of their findings in clearly labelled tables
and graphs. Griezel et al. (2012) provided a good layout of their Revised Adolescent Peer
Relations Instrument- Bully/Target (RAPRI-BT) whereas, Sakellariou and Carroll (2012) did
not provide any survey questions. Although they discuss the questions asked throughout the
discussion, failure to provide the actual questionnaire is seen as a weakness in their study and
can possibly prevent future researchers from further testing their work (Panda & Gupta,
2014). There is no transparency regarding the questions and as a result, other researchers will
be able to distort the results towards their own conventions and deductions. Overall, both
studies have shown competent data collections and resourcing skills to describe the main
Here, the differences between both studies have been explored. Sakellariou and Carroll
(2012), state that within their research, 90 percent of male students reported that they had
never been bullied online. The rest mentioned that they had been victimised via the internet,
SMS text messaging and email. This data is evidence for Nathan’s (2009), where the author
states that cyber bulling is the least reported form of bullying. Sakellariou and Carroll (2012),
do mention the limitation of their study is that they only concentrated on male students, but
do recognize that their work validated the fact that cyberbullying does pose a problem within
schools. Griezel et al. (2012), worked across multiple variables such as gender, grade and
gender by grade to present the developmental differences in cyberbullying. Their study found
that boys engaged and were the victims of physical bullying whereas girls involved in verbal
and cyberbullying. Their work can be compared with other research (Parada, 2006) where
boys, in most cases, were found to be the bully and the victim. Griezel et al. (2012), also state
Helen Asokan
18042085
the inconsistency among the gender differences with cyber bullying, citing various other
research that shows girls, in most cases being both the bully and the victim. Both studied did
prove to construct a well thought out method to investigate their aims. In saying that, they
have acknowledged their limitations due to time and participants interest. Overall, both
studies show relevance and validity do that their findings can contribute to a strong
foundation in the development for more effective research at seeking prevention to the
Both studies have clearly identified that technology used within education can not only have
a positive effect on the children but also assert negative repercussions. Griezel et al. (2012)
fail to discuss the implications for educators and only provide a generalised notion of the
consequences of cyberbullying, unlike Sakellariou and Carroll (2012), who provided a clear
and concise section for the implications for educators. Nevertheless, it is still important to
raise the significance of the implications for the teaching practice. It is evident that
technology has been advantageous towards enhancing the learning ability of a learner, as they
are able to learn from technology and learn with technology (Reeves, 1998). Research also
shows that children and adolescents use the internet more than any other age group thus it has
quickly become a fundamental part of their lives (Bremer, 2005). The Australian government
has also supported the use of technology within classrooms citing that the schools are
preparing students to learn and live in a digital world (Department of Education and Training,
2016). From interactive Smart-boards (whiteboards) personal devices that are government
issued have grown increasingly in the last few years. Online discussion forums and e-learning
have become a necessity for the proper functioning of a classroom (Department of Education
within classrooms. Sakellariou and Carroll (2012), however; provided means of preventing
such behaviour and promoting a positive learning environment in the classroom. It is evident
that adult awareness is necessary for the prevention of cyber bullying. Raising awareness
where they suggest joining hands with educational psychologists to develop collaborative
interventions which involve students, teachers and the parents. This can help to ensure that
students will be confident enough to report any incident of cyber bullying which can lead to
proper consequences for the parties involved. This latter is essential as it takes away the fear
from victims and brings in a new sense of hope, thus reducing the acts of cyber bullying
and teacher must be aware of. Establishing and implementing anti cyberbullying programs
can help to keep the school safe. This can require proper professional development seminars
for teachers and administrators so that they are also trained to be alert and detect any issues in
relation to cyberbullying (Beale & Hall, 2007). The students must be aware of the policy set
out by the NSW Government to prevent and respond to student bullying. The policy also
states that bullying/ cyber bullying off school premises is also included in the policy as there
is a close association between the school and the behaviour of the student (NSW Department
of Education, 2016). Policies and procedures must be clearly implemented and managed in
schools and classroom, with the consequences, as laid out by the school are ready at hand if
the rules are broken by students. Cyberbullying is budding as one of the most challenging
issues faced by students and school staff. Teachers themselves cannot prevent such behaviour
alone. They need the support of students who are ready to report such incidents so that proper
consequences are laid out for the bullies. With a vast array of technology at hand, educators
must implement proper work ethic to students and constantly monitor their work within
Helen Asokan
18042085
classrooms. Educators must realise that they have a responsibility to “create and maintain
supportive and safe learning environment”, for their students, as per the Australian
Professional Standards for Teachers (Australian Institute for Teaching and School
Leadership, 2014, standard 4). As research into this experience develops, the education
system must be prepared to manage the technological advances and the disadvantages that
In conclusion, both articles have contributed to extending the knowledge in the field and have
schools. While only Sakellariou and Carroll (2012), provided implications for educators, both
said that teachers play a significant role in controlling student behaviour in the classroom and
online. The increase in the sophistication of technology allows for more ways to bring harm
to students. Therefore, it is evident that further research into educational strategies and issues
such as cyberbullying and preventative methods are vital so that a positive and quality
References
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2014). Australian Professional
standards-for-teachers/standards/list
Beale, A. V. & Hall, K. R. (2007). Cyberbullying: What school administrators (and parents)
can do. The Clearing Hall: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(1), 8-
Bremer, J. (2005). The internet and Children: Advantages and Disadvantages. Child and
10.1016/j.chc.2005.02.003
https://www.education.gov.au/technology-schools
Sakellariou, T. & Carroll, A. (2012). Rates of victimization and bullying among male
Australian primary and high school students. School Psychology international, 33(3), 533-
Griezel, L., Finger, L. R., Bodkin-Andrews, G. H., Craven, R. G. & Yeung, A. S. (2012).
Uncovering the structure of and gender and development differences in cyber bullying. The
enhancement theory to upper primary school aged bullies (PhD thesis). Retrieved from
http://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/publications/reputational-orientations-and-
aggression-extending-reputation-enhancement-theory-to-upper-primary-school-aged-
bullies(6d778269-0fbf-44e0-935e-057b5eeea5a1).html?uwaCustom=thesis
library/policies/bullying-preventing-and-responding-to-student-bullying-in-schools-policy
Panda, A., & Gupta, R. K. (2014). Making academic research more relevant: A few
Reeves, T. C. (1998). The Impact of media and Technology in Schools. The Bertelsmann
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30758321/The_Impact_of_Media_by_Be
rtelsmann_Fdtn.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1495251
638&Signature=KWAuLdmzYGxr87w%2B1isVzSceMyc%3D&response-content-
disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DThe_impact_of_media_and_technology_in_sc.pdf
Webster, J. & Watson, R.T. (2002). Analysing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a