Here is my live blog of the 2nd keynote at the cybersafety forum:

Session 2 – Donna Cross

Many risks to students online, cyber bullying one of the main issues. This session will focus on this issue.

Bystanders can also be traumatised and affected. Research shows in face to face bullying the bystanders feel threatened they may be next, which causes them to resist getting involved and making themselves a potential target. Bystander audience in cyber bullying can be much larger.

Kids love cyber space – don’t come in with doom and gloom approach.  Minimising harm, not discouraging use. Keep a positive line, so kids are open to what you are saying.

Australian statistics say 10% of kids have been target of cyberbullying. USA stats suggest 50%.

Research suggests that intervention and support required as soon as kids are in contact with the technology, at whatever age they start.

Important to define the terms in documentation and policies. Be specific – what do we expect them to do and not do in these spaces. Is flaming in a chat or forum cyber bullying, cyber aggression, or just an argument in print.

Example of a student in USA who committed suicide due to cyber bullying.  Was bullied at school first – most victims of cyber bullying are the ones that get bullied face to face also. Although more kids will do cyber bullying than would face to face. He developed a relationship with a girl online, shared personal things. When they eventually met, discovered it was a joke and she had been passing on everything to her friends, his family etc.  Widespread humiliation to much to deal with.  ‘Nuclear attack’.

Defining is hard, as methods of bullying vary. “Location’ varies ie MySpace, Bebo, Facebook etc.  School sat same school tend to go to similar sites – worth doing casual surveys at school to find current venues.

To define terms, must separate behaviour and method.  Cyberbullying is same behaviours as face to face – so your policies will still hold.  Kids will say that they may not be aware that they were being hurtful online, as they can’t see the reaction. Cyberbullying can be ambiguous in the same way teasing can be. Bullying can be direct or by proxy.

While peer support roles can be important, they can cause ‘diffusion of responisibilty’ – if there is a student whose ‘job’ it is to support bullied students, the others don’t need to intervene. Must all be educated to realise individual responsibility.

Traditional definition of bullying -

-aggressive behaviour

-intention to cause harm

-How define repeated behaviour? – online can appear repeatedly, even if behaviour occurred once

-is there a power imbalance? Power in anonymity

Cyberbullying Behaviours -

-Flaming – heated exchange

-Harassing and threatening messages – text wars, ‘griefers’

-Denigration – ’slam books’, ‘bash sites’

-Impersonation

-Outing or Trickery

-Ostracism – knocking off buddy lists

-Posting set up messages/video

 Strategies suggested by student feedback/research

-Bullies look for reaction – don’t react outwardly. even if crumbling inside.

-Mild humour – not enough to cause more reaction, but enough to show you are not strongly affected.

-Someone stepping in and showing support is of a huge benefit. Can be easier to do that in an online situation – less confronting than doing it face to face. Don’t have to make yourself a target.

-students are affected by the realisation of a digital footprint lasting for ever.

School approaches:

-Must address seriously across the board. If you have a program that helps 1/2 the kids being bullied – the other half are worse off.  The behaviour of bullies must be addressed, not just supporting victims. An ineffective approach can push the bullying into covert mode.

-Students involved in negotiating policy (ie mobile phone policy) more successful.

-Lack of empathy is an issue – need to do empathy based work with the bullies

-Must be careful not to label ‘bullies’ as once labelled students more likely to repeat behaviour

-There must be social based punitive consequences ie withdrawal at lunch

-Students who bully must be trained/supported – cant pull sock sup if you don’t know what socks are. Using program like ‘method of shared concern’. The program designer says you must keep the 2 parties apart, but research from students says they must come together as a conclusion - once the bully has apologised and sees the other as a real person, the situation can improve.

-Parent education – most successful way to get them to come to informations sessions was have students run the sessions. Students wnating to attend to get skills from the older studnets presenting, and the parents come with their kids.

-Tips for parents – snippets in newsletter.

-Strong school leadership. Clarity across school about the school sstance on the issue.

-Talk about the issue, but describe what online behaviour should be, not just the negatives.

-Focus on transitional periods ie primary to high school – bullying at highest at this stage.

-Provide online help/reporting option. Be prepared for large spike of cases being reported. Must be able to deal with the responses or they wont continue to use it.

-Be clear about consequences.

-Establish student committee.

-Survey students – where do they go, is there bulying etc. Can be casual ie coloured card technique

-Training about cyberbullying, nettiquette etc must be taught specifically.

-social innoculation – preventative action. ie Role plays, then address issues. Dont role play the bullying behaviour- that reinforces it (the bully will always look better in the role play).  Can use cards to represent the behaviour, and then a small group of students respond together. Use coloured cards – all kids with blue cards get into groups and brainsotmr which places are the bullying hotspots, pink cards get into groups and brainstorm the ways kids bully in the school and yellow cards brainstorm typical responses to bullying in school. Way of surveying the students. After we have the 3 lists collected, get students to pick one thing off their list and write it on their card. Then get together with the other 2 coloured card people, so you have a venue, a behaviour and a response and discuss your ’story’. Role play the reactions – throw them ‘zigzags’ - they are the bystanders but the victim is their sister etc. Can probide a list of suggestions as to how they might react. After the they have discussed, come up with some solutions etc, shuffle the groups – all the blue kids move.  Do the techniques work in the new venue etc?

-students need a strong sense of school ethos. Clear value system.

-staff professional development is imperative – not just guest speakers  but using website resources etc

-Be aware filters are not the solution – necessary but not good enough.

-Clear rules.Time online, phone usage etc

Differences between cyber and face to face bullying

• 24/7 – no rest from it, no ’safe’ space.
• broadcast repeatedly
• anonymous – casuses paranoia
• no authority present in cyber space – no teachers, parents, police.
• not telling – punitive fears. Boys less likely to tell than girls.
• Nastiness/disinhibition.

 Teachers can be targets of cyber bullying also and will need support.

 Student summit in October 2008 – www.cyberfriendlystudentsummit.com. Student feedback to go to government etc.

 Pikas method of Shared Concern