This essay will endeavor to critically review two research articles written on the issue of

cyberbullying in the Australian education context. The first aim of this review is to identify where
possible congruities in and differences between the two articles by analyzing the backgrounds of the
authors, the literature cited in both articles, the methodology of the research undertaken in each
context, and make observations as to the validity of the respective findings based on this analysis.

The second aim of this essay will be to synthesize the relevant interpretations of the critical analysis
of each article to inform what may be suitable teaching practice to address the issue of cyberbullying
as contextualised within the Australian education system (assuming that said analysis allows such a
conclusion).

The research article ‘Rates of cyber victimization and bullying among male Australian primary and
high school students’ by Sakellariou, Carroll and Houghton, (2012) focuses on defining the nature of
male school student cyberbullying within a limited context at the time of the article’s publication.
Because of the quantitative analysis undertaken by the researchers (noting that their research model
agrees with those precepts outlined by Ullman [2015]) the authors argue that more research in
cyberbullying is required, and make some observations regarding the implications of cyberbullying
for teachers, parents and guardians, educational psychologists and school policies. Their main
findings are that, within the limitations of their study, male students were most likely to be exposed
to cyberbullying via the agency of the internet, during Years 8 to 10.

The authors of the study have considerable exposure to the issue of bullying in an educational
context, either as a counsellor (Sakellariou) (Villanova College, 2017) or as widely published
academics, i.e. Annemaree Carroll is an Affiliate Associate Professor at the Centre for Youth
Substance Abuse at the University of Queensland (University of Queensland, 2017), Stephen
Houghton is a Professor at the University of Western Australia and the director of that institute’s
Centre for Child and Adolescent Related Disorders (University of Western Australia, 2017). Thus,
their credentials as informed authors are appropriate for considering the issue.

The literature that is used for their research is widely sourced, though it has limitations in two areas.
Firstly, the currency of the literature may be questioned. For example, the authors cite Mathews
(2004) as supporting documentation regarding mobile phone use by students. There are other, later
papers available that give more nuanced information on the take-up and use of mobile/smart phone
technology by adolescent Australians, such as Walsh, White, Cox and Young (2010). However, it may
be noted that the paucity of literature as to specific research data relating to the classroom use of
mobile and smart phones and other Information and Communication Technologies is still in effect.
This may be seen in the use of similar literature as supporting documentation in the 2011 article
‘Keeping in Constant Touch: The Predictors of Young Australians’ Mobile Phone Involvement’ also by
Walsh, White, Cox and Young.

Secondly, there is a limit to the literature cited in the original research article in that international
research is used for contextual consideration when the core research agenda is nominally Australian.
For example, Kowalski and Limber (2011) are cited as references as to the nature and definition of
cyberbullying. As their research is focused on American middle school experiences, it may be argued
that there are cultural, social and educational differences between their American context and a
specifically Australian context.

Another criticism that may be posited regarding Sakellariou, Carroll and Houghton’s research is that
whilst substantial numbers of students were asked to complete the questionnaire that formed the
basis of the quantitative data acquisition for the authors’ research, the population studied were
limited in terms of gender, location, school context and arguably socio-economic diversity. As cited
in the article, the research was focused solely on boys in classes from Year 6 to 12 at three
independent schools, one of which was primary. Two of these schools were in Brisbane, one in
Sydney, and the students nominally came from middle-class suburbs that supposedly “…cater to a
wide diversity of cultural and socio-economic backgrounds.” (Sakellariou, Carroll and Houghton,
2012). Whilst within the limited construct of assessing male cyberbullying practices quantitatively in
an educational context may be assessed based on this method of research, there are valid concerns
over the overall population validity as defined in Ullman (2015). If, as indicated in the discussion and
implications of the research, the data is to be applied across a broader target population than just
male students from inner city Brisbane and Sydney independent schools, then one must be cautious
in applying the research undertaken by the authors.

The use of a questionnaire as the key tool to acquire data for the research undertaken also has
issues that can be identified, as they pertain to both ubiquity and potential bias. The questionnaire
was adapted from the 2006 The Boys Bullying at School Questionnaire (written by Sakellariou) that
was focused on traditional bullying, and developed from preceding documents such as the 1996 ‘Life
at School Survey’ by Ahmed. That researcher’s original questionnaire was substantially different in
terms of questions, aims and application (Australian National University, 2016) as to that developed
by Sakellariou and applied in this research area. It may be argued that by adapting a questionnaire
from a traditional bullying context that was originally applied over a decade before the adapted
questionnaire used by Sakellariou, Carroll and Houghton, is problematic, when an entirely new
questionnaire formulated by either the 2012 researchers as a team, and/or another external party to
ensure disassociation from the researchers’ preconceived biases may have been more suitable.

Keeping in mind the limitations and issues relating to the methodology of the research, which is at
times acknowledged by all authors of this article (primarily that of the gender imbalance in favour of
male students), the results indicate certain underpinning behaviours in cyberbullying. They also
inform the position that more research is needed in this educational area so that the problem may
be addressed in an environment where “…school-aged students’ access to new technologies is likely
to increase in the future.” As documented by a 2013 research report commissioned by the Australian
Communications and Media Authority, internet use within a four-week period reached up to 100%
of surveyed Australians aged 16-17 years old (ACMA, 2013), thus reinforcing the previously cited
article’s observations regarding internet usage.

As for considering the practical implications of the research undertaken by Sakellariou, Carroll and
Houghton and observed at the end of their article, the authors consider the role of teachers, parents
and guardians, and school policies as key in addressing what they perceive to be problematic with
cyberbullying for male students in late primary school and for all years of secondary school. Whilst a
question is raised as to the issue of motivation for male cyberbullying in this analysed paradigm, with
specific reference to delayed gratification, the authors of this research paper draw on corroborative
literature that informs their observations (Nathan, 2009). Having completed their research
Sakellariou, Carroll and Houghton state that there are significant dangers to male school students’
wellbeing due to the potential repetitive nature of cyberbullying, as well as its scope and technical
sophistication.

The second article that this essay will consider is ‘Correlates of traditional bullying and cyberbullying
perpetration among Australian students’ by Tanrikulu and Campbell (2015). This article, which
studies both ‘traditional’ bullying and cyberbullying applies Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems
Theory to map the interconnected elements that constitute these issues, both separately and as a
unified whole.
Therefore, it is paramount when juxtaposing Tanrikulu and Campbell with Sakellariou, Carroll and
Houghton that the first two authors’ article takes a holistic approach to bullying (both ‘traditional’
and cyberbullying) and attempts to understand what constitutes the relevant influences to assist in
the implementation of anti-bullying strategies. This is different from Sakellariou, Carroll and
Houghton, who aim to identify how cyberbullying may be constructed for or by male school
students, and its effects on them. Also, these three authors present their research with an emphasis
on victims of cyberbullying, whereas Tanrikulu and Campbell look at both victims and practitioners
of all forms of bullying no matter the gender.

Tanrikulu and Campbell are both, like Sakellariou, Carroll and Houghton, academically qualified in
the studying bullying in children of a school age. The former author was working as a researcher at
Queensland University of Technology at the time of the article’s composition, having graduated from
Middle Eastern Technology University. Marilyn Campbell is a Professor of Early Childhood and
Inclusive Education at the same university (Queensland University of Technology, 2017) and has
published extensively in the field of children and bullying.

The literature cited by Tanrikulu and Campbell is in many cases the same as that used by Sakellariou,
Carroll and Houghton. For example, Slonje, Ybarra and Hindujaa and Patchinb are all used by both
sets of researchers in their respective articles. However, even with such congruities of literature
sources the scope and use of these materials is different. For example, the article by Sakellariou,
Carroll and Houghton cites Campbell’s 2005 article ‘Cyberbullying: An old problem in a new guise?’,
whereas Tanrikulu and Campbell fail to cite the former’s article (even though it was published
approximately two years beforehand). Tanrikulu and Campbell also rely more on the Campbell’s own
research publications to form part of the reference corpus for their article. This may be problematic
if personal biases arise during an examination of these references as pertaining to this specific
article.

Just as in the first article, Tanrikulu and Campbell used a questionnaire circulated as part of a
quantitative research paradigm among a sample of Australian school students. Their sample of 500
students is more gender balanced (though still heavily in favour of male students), however the
cluster sample is problematic insofar as the data sources have potential biases. Over one third of the
respondents to the questionnaire used by the second article’s authors came from two Islamic
schools in Queensland, whilst the balance were randomly selected volunteers from government
schools who were approached individually and completed the questionnaire in a different
environment than those from the first group.

Tanrikulu and Campbell fail to provide a rationale as to the procedural aspect of their research, and
without this information it is hard to judge the validity of population of the study. This is a similar
problem already identified when considering the first article by Sakellariou, Carroll and Houghton.
Additionally, just as in the first article where Sakellariou adapted a previously formulated
questionnaire he had developed to meet his relevant research aims, Campbell adapted her own
previously formulated questionnaire form for her research aims. This includes separating
cyberbullying from ‘traditional bullying. Both Sakellariou and Campbell followed the
recommendations of Solberg and Olweus to cite definitions to improve the validity of the responses
(Tanrikulu and Campbell, 2015).

The most significant difference between the two articles is the complexity of descriptive statistical
information and the intersections of bullying practice and victimization as articulated by Tanrikulu
and Campbell’s data. This information goes beyond the more simplistic findings of the research
undertaken by Sakellariou, Carroll and Houghton, and thus reflects the scope of the first two
authors’ research subject as well as the breadth of implications for understanding the correlations
on student bullying behaviours. As a result, Tanrikulu and Campbell have produced findings that are
more in line with, for example, the work undertaken by Hemphill, Kotevski, Tollit, Smith, Herrenkohl,
Toumbourou and Catalano in their 2012 research paper ‘Longitudinal Predictors of Cyber and
Traditional Bullying Perpetration in Australian Secondary School Students’. Not only do Tanrikulu and
Campbell identify what constitutes bullying and cyberbullying from their research sample, they posit
multiple constructs of bullying and cyberbullying behaviours.

When considering these two articles in terms of teaching practice, once the relevant biases and
limitations are acknowledged, they may be combined to offer substantive evidence for
implementing strategies to curtail cyberbullying. Sakellariou, Carroll and Houghton have formulated
a model of understanding what constitutes cyberbullying for male students and its effects, and by
positing the key area of internet abuse during Years 8 to 10 for this student demographic, they have
thus provided a focal point for cyberbullying awareness for all relevant parties (i.e. teachers, parents
and care-givers, school policy designers). Tanrikulu and Campbell, within the limitations of their
research construct, illuminate the different intersections and behavioural underpinnings of bullying
in general, with some specific observations as to the prevalence of cyberbullying as well as the
importance of family and school environments as influences on such behavior. By assimilating and
adjusting these disparate findings from the two separate articles a practicing teacher may have more
capability in successfully addressing cyberbullying in his or her situation, with more adaptive
strategies informed by academically credible research.
References

Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2017). Like, post, share: Young Australians’
experience of social media. Retrieved from
http://www.acma.gov.au/~/media/mediacomms/Report/pdf/Like%20post%20share%20You
ng%20Australians%20experience%20of%20social%20media%20Quantitative%20research%2
0report.pdf

Australian National University. (2016). The Canberra bullying and life at school project (1996-1999).
Retrieved from http://regnet.anu.edu.au/research/research-projects/details/523/canberra-
bullying-and-life-school-project-1996-1999#acton-tabs-link--qt-
research_project_details_qtab-ui-tabs1

Hemphill, S., Kotevski, A., Tollit, M., Smith, R., Herrenkohl, T., Toumbourou, J.,Ph.D.e, Catalano, R.
(2012). Longitudinal Predictors of Cyber and Traditional Bullying Perpetration in Australian
Secondary School Students, Journal of Adolescent Health 51, (1). 59-65. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/science/article/pii/S1054139X11006525

Kowalski, R. and Limber, S. (2007). Electronic Bullying Among Middle School Students. Journal of
Adolescent Health 41, (6). S22-S30. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.017

Nathan, E. (2009). Reputational orientations and aggression: Extending reputation enhancement

theory to upper primary school aged bullies. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of
Western Australia. Retrieved from http://research-
repository.uwa.edu.au/files/3217320/Nathan_Elijah_2009.pdf

Queensland University of Technology. (2017). Professor Marilyn Campbell. Retrieved from

http://staff.qut.edu.au/staff/campbema/

Sakellariou, T., Carroll, A., Houghton, S., (2012), Rates of cyber victimization and bullying among
male Australian primary and high school students, School Psychology International 33, (5).
533-549. Retrieved from https://vuws.westernsydney.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-2658007-dt-
content-rid-
22276746_1/courses/102096_2017_1h/AustralianBoysBullying_DescriptiveStatsPaper_2012
.pdf

Tanrikulu, I. and Campbell, M. (2015), Correlates of traditional bullying and cyberbullying

perpetration among Australian students. Children and Youth Services Review, 55. (August),
138-146. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.06.001

Ullman, J. (2015). Applying educational research: How to read, do, and use research to solve
problems of practice (2nd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Pearson Education, Inc

University of Queensland. (2017). UQ Researchers. Retrieved from

http://researchers.uq.edu.au/researcher/459

University of Western Australia. (2017). UWA Staff Profile. Retrieved from

http://www.web.uwa.edu.au/person/Stephen.Houghton

Villanova College. (2017). Pastoral Care Team. Retrieved from https://www.vnc.qld.edu.au/student-

life/pastoral-care/pastoral-care-team/
Walsh, S., White, K., Cox, S., Young, R. (2010). Needing to Connect: The effect of self and others on
young people’s involvement with their mobile phones, Australian Journal of Psychology 62
(4), 194-203. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/doi/10.1080/00049530903567229/epdf

Walsh, S., White, K., Cox, S., Young, R. (2011). Keeping in constant touch: The predictors of young
Australians’ mobile phone involvement, Computers in Human Behaviour 27 (1). 332-342.
Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.011