102096

Research Teaching and Learning

Critical Analysis of Research: Review

By Michael Alex Murgolo

University of Western Sydney

Word Count: 1090

1
 Contents

1. Introduction………………….………….………………….………………….………………….………..……..3

2. Methods..……………………………….………………….…….……………….………………….……………..3

3. Results..………………….………….………………….…….……………….………………….………….………4

4. Conclusion………………….………………….………………….……………….………………….…………….5

5. Discussion…………..…….………………….………………….…….….…….………….……….………………6

6. References………………….………………….………………….……………….………………….…………….7

2
 1. Introduction

In their article, Rates of cyber victimization and bullying among male Australian primary and
high school students, Sakellariou, Carroll and Houghton (2012) outline an investigation into
electronic forms of bullying among the specified students across schools in Sydney and
Brisbane, Australia. Results revealed that victimization was the most common type of
bullying retaining 11.5 percent of the cohort annually, and that prevalent variations of
‘cyberbullying’ occur everyday in the lives of students. This critique aims to assess the
quality of research in the article and evaluate its data to determine whether cyberbullying
poses a significant problem in the lives of male Australian students.

2. Method

The population validity approach was carefully considered despite the palpable selection
difficulties. The authors’ selected 3 independent primary and secondary schools from
Brisbane and Sydney due to their state capital status and large population representation,
this would help to generalize results for other cities. Indigenous and country exclusion exists
since no action was taken to include a rural school. The cluster sampling ages were between
10-17 which helps to shape the bullying perspective across a range of developing males.
What becomes prevalent in this study is its relation not only in schools, but societal
discourses, as Australian law (Young et al., 2016) states children above 14 can be held
criminally liable of certain accounts, while children between 10 and 14 can also be
responsible.

Examining the broader picture of electronic bullying and adolescent development, the large
student representation helps in obtaining multiple opinions related to bullying and allows us
to assess its progression through education. From this group, a mixed method approach was
established which included 33 close-ended response items which partially assesses student
feelings. Unfortunate bias is recognized of an author, Olewus, whose own research dictated
21 of this questionaries’ items. Critiquing the question quality, it remains observant that a
multi-angled approach of victimizing and bullying was inclusive to help gain diverse
perspectives and possible triggers. According to an article by Burton (2015) it remains that

3
questionnaires helped identify bullies and their behaviors due to anonymity.
Through a descriptive research plan, the authors’ methods of collaboration stem from
approval through a research institution directing their explained outcomes to significant
schools. What remains observant is that all factions of a school were informed of the
research, whilst ensuring confidentiality, which properly supports the 90% collaboration
rate of parents allowing participation. Effectively, community contact allowed them the
resources to conduct their study confidently and with support.

3. Results

Aggregated results from student’s answers has reinforced factual knowledge already known
about male bullying behavior while also giving statistical evidence to support the common
modes of cyberbullying, either through email, text, images or the internet. Conducting
extended research on the tables provided reveals accurate reliability of the data has been
manipulated to increase the significance of the findings.
The articles introduction of 1,530 students researched is rounded from the accurate 1,528.
Although this is minute, it does threaten the integrity of the research considering how
obvious the error was to identify. Furthermore, statistical terminology isn’t defined in the
text which isolates the audience from results and what they imply. The data reflects on
more males obtaining electronic devices and are fluent in its communication methods at a
younger age, suggesting that cyberbullying from these devices is potentially the most
common mode given the ubiquity of mobile phones amongst young children in Australia
(Srivastava, Gamble & Boey, 2012).

The frequency of students participating in answering the questions has led to a standard
error in which the authors did not acknowledge the null responses in their tables. Critiquing
data concatenation, some results exceeded the student threshold, notably one reaching
1,572 responses and another equal to 1,483 responses. Not including or acknowledging
these demonstrates a lack of professionalism in displaying data appropriately and without
manipulation. Furthermore, the authors make reference to other sources not introduced in
their research description, particularly comparing cyberbullying behavior in Western
Australian schools as well as female cyberbullying rates across multiple countries. We must

4
conclude that this data is ambiguous to the research they were conducting.
In its conclusion, links were made between the development of males and the rates of
cyberbullying they were experiencing, “ratifying school staff need to implement
cyberbullying prevention and management as part of a systemic whole school approach”
(Cross et al., 2016).

4. Conclusion

The conclusion provided in the article discusses the adequacy of their data in comparison to
similar studies. What is observant from the quantitative data is that the results support the
aim of the study to assess the rates of cyberbullying among male students. The main finding
of this study indicates that electronic devices are increasingly owned by students between
10-17 years of age, and this correlates to increased number of cyberbullying variations
through multiple forms of social communication. Explanations of this were aligned within
the four factors of email, text, images and internet. What was briefly mentioned, which may
have been addressed better in the questionnaire, was how students tended to avoid
physical bullying and chose to act maliciously in a digital setting.

While the article makes reference to an immense amount of data, its correlation is not
compared effectively and is somewhat lost in the information extrapolated by backup
sources. Rather than suggesting methods to counter cyberbullying, the authors interrelate
other results to support their explanation, which concludes that the research is not unique
and is commonly investigated. Indicative throughout this section they imply its direct
causality with electronic forms of communication. According to an article by Schneider
(2012) the limitations of these to youth in rural schools and its generalizability to other male
populations may be limited because of its encompassing of only three schools in inner city
locations.
Conclusively, there is acknowledgement of traditional male forms of bullying in the article
which are expressed within the bullying framework. The authors mention that educators
must remain vigilant that electronic advances aren’t the only means of bullying for male
students (Sakellariou, 2012). Critiquing the extent of cyberbullying in this article, it
effectively mentions its implications on every individual’s health and education while also

5
providing relevant strategies. This is essential to creating an “inclusive educational
environment that values and respects diversity and equity” (Elci, 2016).

5. Discussion

In evaluating the quality of the article, evidence provided through the authors’ mixed
method approach demonstrates extensive data on the implications of cyberbullying and its
link to the increasing use of technology by adolescent students. The authors did identify the
limitations provided by a male only study but rectify that its influence is prevalent to all
genders and ages. Furthermore, extended research is acknowledged by the authors to
better understand the evolution of cyberbullying with constantly improved electronic
devices.

6
References

Burton, B., Lepp, M., Morrison, M., & O'Toole, J. (2015). Acting to manage conflict and
bullying through evidence-based strategies. Retrieved from
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hadwen, K., Cardoso, P., Slee, P., Roberts, C., Thomas, L. and Barnes, A.
(2016). Longitudinal Impact of the Cyber Friendly Schools Program on Adolescents’
Cyberbullying Behavior, Aggressive Behaviour, 42(2), 166–180.
doi:10.1002/ab.21609
Elci, A., &Seckin, Z. (2016). Cyberbullying Awareness for Mitigating Consequences in Higher
Education. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, doi: 10.1177/0886260516646095
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. doi: 10.1177/0143034311430374
Schneider, S. K., O’Donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Coulter, R. W. S. (2012). Cyberbullying, School
Bullying, and Psychological Distress: A Regional Census of High School Students.
American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 171–177. Retrieved from
http://doi.org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300308
Srivastava, A., Gamble, R., & Boey, J. (2013). Cyberbullying in Australia: Clarifying the
Problem, Considering the Solutions. International Journal of Children's Rights, 21(1),
25-45. doi: 10.1163/157181812X637145
Young, H., Campbell, M., Spears, B., Butler, D., Cross, D., & Slee, P. (2016). Cyberbullying and
the Role of the Law in Australian Schools: Views of Senior Officials. Australian Journal
of Education, 60(1), 86-101. doi: 10.1177/0004944115627557