Moline, Teddy

English

University of Calgary Journal Hosting

The Alberta Journal of Educational Research Vol. 55, No. 2, Summer 2009, 253-262Book ReviewsCyber-Bullying: Issues and Solutions for the School, the Classroomand the Home.Shaheen Shariff.London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2008, 299 pages.Reviewed by: Teddy MolineUniversity of AlbertaFrom its heart-wrenching beginning to its resolutionary conclusion, ShaheenShariff’s book is a valuable read for educators, preservice teachers, and parents.Shariff begins her crusade against bullying in our schools with the tragicsuicide note of 14-year-old bullying victim Hamed Nastoh. His posthumousmessage is a plea to educate others about the harmful and hurtful consequen-ces of bullying. Shariff attempts to meet his request by examining various typesof bullying and offering guidelines to education stakeholders such as staff,students, parents, media, administrators, government, school boards, and dis-trict offices for changing the culture of coercion in schools into a culture ofcollaboration.Shariff urges parents and educators to address the root causes of bullying,“a form of abuse that is based on an imbalance of power” (p. 11), and rejectsanti-bullying programs that focus on the symptoms, not the disease. She cau-tions that zero tolerance policies do not work because they do not contextualizethe harassment, but provide a generic totalitarian solution regardless of cir-cumstances. To Shariff such approaches, although well meant, are ineffectivebecause they simply overlie rather than address the underlying causes. Readerswill find that her presentation prompts review of their own standards andresponses to bullying and of the role that educators, parents, and other educa-tion stakeholders play in creating safe and caring learning environments forchildren. The author first introduces the topic and then devotes a chapter toeach of the following: traditional views of bullying, cyber-bullying worldwide,gender and bullying, the ineffectiveness of adult-in-control or top-down solu-tions, the roles of education stakeholders in resolving this problem, liabilityand responsibility of stakeholders, and “harmonious solutions” (p. 226).Shariff’s interest in counteracting cyber-bullying and traditional bullyingbegan with an incident involving her teenage daughter, continued during herteaching and administrative experience, and eventually led to her doctoralresearch on bullying and its legal implications for schools and teachers. Shenotes that the root causes of bullying remain unchanged and strongly suggeststhat teaching education stakeholders about the ramifications and legalities ofbullying, especially cyber-bullying, is the first step in counteracting this in-Teddy Moline is completing her doctoral research in the Faculty of Education. Her currentresearch interests include technology integration and cognitive self-efficacy and video gaming.She has worked as a teacher and administrator at the school, district, and provincial level.253AJER Journals Summer 09.indd   117 6/9/09   2:54:19 PMsidious behavior that negatively influences the learning atmosphere in schools.The second step is to involve these stakeholders as partners in resolving theissue. Shariff’s intent is not to be a harbinger of techno-fear, but to explain whyschools and parents must take bullying seriously.Traditional bullying can be physical (overt actions), verbal (overt actions),or psychological such as excluding or isolating a victim (overt and covertactions). The author explains that teasing can be a form of verbal bullying, andyet most teachers do not regard teasing as bullying, a response that oftentriggers further bullying.Cyber-bullying or harassment through technology takes the form of eitherverbal or psychological bullying through overt means (e.g., video, e-mails,messaging) or covert means (e.g., rumors, rankings). Incidents of cyber-bully-ing are far fewer than positive online communications, but have been known tooccur in the form of electronic threats; on ranking pages (e.g., rankmyprofes-sor.com, rankmyteacher.com, freevote.com); on postings containing maliciousrumors; and on social networking sites such as MySpace and FaceBook.Without doubt, whatever the form, bullying negatively affects the learningenvironment of a school.Assessing occurrences of school bullying, whether traditional or online, isdifficult for a number of reasons including the code of silence that is thecommon response of victims and bystanders; the recursivity of victim andperpetrator; and the overall hierarchical structure of schools. Shariff believesthat the incidence of bullying is high and that most children have experiencedbullying in one of its forms in school even from teachers, who can be per-petrators as well as targets. Girls are more often the target than perpetrator orbully, but their role as instigator is increasing. Perpetrators are often classroomleaders and popular with both peers and teachers, whereas targets or victimsmay be perceived as different in some way such as ethnicity, socioeconomicstatus, or intelligence. Shariff identifies two types of cyber-bullying in schools:peer to peer and anti-authority. She notes that more attention is paid to thelatter because teachers’ unions and administrators are involved and becausethe reputations of both the school and teachers can be damaged. In cases wherea teacher, school, or administration has been libeled or slandered, the courtsvalue the reputation of schools and their staff over freedom of expression.Shariff next provides an international perspective on cyber-bullying and onaccess to communication technologies. In her exploration of e-bullying in theUnited Kingdom, Asia, India, North America, New Zealand, and Australia, sheencountered cultural differences such as group bullying; the use of cell phonesrather than the Internet for harassment; varying parental responsibilities fortheir children’s bullying; and online bullying based on social class. She alsodescribes the solutions used in diverse jurisdictions. For example, NewZealand has formed an effective educational stakeholder organization calledNetSafe that emphasizes educating teachers, students, parents, and schools. (InCanada, the Media Awareness Network uses a similar collaborative approach.)Australia, on the other hand, implemented an ineffective and expensive nation-wide Internet filter to protect children from cyber-bullying and other damag-ing online materials. A 16-year-old former cyber-bullying victim hacked intothis new filter within 30 minutes and then told politicians that educatingT. Moline and K. Loerke254AJER Journals Summer 09.indd   118 6/9/09   2:54:19 PM“children on how to protect themselves and their privacy” (p. 87) should be thegoal, not controlling access.Shariff continues with a discussion of biological and environmental influen-ces on bullying behavior. She found that physiological factors may influencebehavior patterns, but that the home and social setting play a much greaterrole. Overall, boys tend to favor physical bullying whereas girls engage in morepsychological and covert forms such as rumors and ridicule. Shariff points outthat the media often exacerbate bullying by sensationalistic reporting thatframes a perspective of us versus them, implying that society is fighting a battleagainst bullying rather than working to resolve this offence. Confrontationalattitudes, Shariff states bluntly, will not reduce bullying, and changing thestatus quo is a “slow, but worthwhile process” (p. 111) that requires systemicchanges to the power structures between adults and children in our schoolsystemsToday in Canada, adults control or supervise most places of childhood play,and virtual playgrounds such as the Internet are for many children the onlyplaces with limited, often unfettered supervision. Once adults had almost totalcontrol over the sources that children could read, listen to, or view, but in thisera of ubiquitous online information, almost 95% of Canadian children canaccess the Internet, and adults can no longer control and manage the data thatyouth experience. This control shift is one influence that circumvents adult-control methods of censorship and punishment to combat bullying, but manyother factors constrain the zero-tolerance model.For one thing, Shariff describes schools as centers of conflicting ideologiessuch as individualism, socialization, hierarchical power structures, situatedlearning, and standardized assessment. These diverse philosophies undermineboth the top-down control strategy and the cooperative approach that isneeded to overcome bullying in schools.Shariff suggests that another determinant is the difference between thetechnological mindsets of adults and children. As Prensky (2001) explains,adults are primarily “digital immigrants” and view technology as a tool,whereas children, “digital natives,” see technology as an opportunity for inter-action. Many adults see technology as a problem, whereas children see itsbenefits. Adults perceive literacy as reading, writing, and arithmetic; childrenview literacy as the “ability to understand information no matter how it ispresented” (p. 126). These opposing mindsets, then, undermine attempts tocensor or restrict access to technologies and also create barriers for partner-ships.Shariff advocates collaborative problem-solving to eliminate bullying fromour schools. This approach is not a quick fix, but requires underlying philoso-phical changes to attitudes about responsibility. European communities, forexample, are jointly developing conflict resolution strategies, promoting Inter-net literacy, holding public consultations, and expanding research into Internetsafety. In the UK, Becta (British Educational Communications and TechnologyAgency) provides an e-safety site that advocates that schools work togetherwith the school community to develop policies, supports, and technologytraining. This organization also condones a contextual approach to cyber-bul-lying rather than a zero-tolerance tactic.Book Reviews255AJER Journals Summer 09.indd   119 6/9/09   2:54:19 PMBullying court cases that have legal implications for Canadian schools, inparticular individual rights of free expression compared with individual rightsof privacy and safety, are reviewed in chapter 7. Shariff maintains that educa-tors must increase their understanding of the liability issues of online libel (e.g.,messaging, Internet postings) and slander (e.g., oral communications) becausethe educational environment is now both the virtual and physical worldswhere learning takes place. In today’s world, it is not easy to separate in-schoollearning from out-of-school learning because students are expected to use theircomputers for school assignments, are encouraged to contact teachers outsideschool hours, and access Web pages posted by teachers. If bullying moves intothis virtual school setting, the effects on the school learning environment can bedevastating.Court rulings on cyber-bullying of both students and teachers have beenarbitrary and send mixed messages about whether harassment can be con-sidered to have a substantial effect on learning in school. Nevertheless, thecourts do uphold the right of students to learn without fear of harassment, anda case of harassment by fellow students would be decided against the per-petrators. As well, if intimidation tactics foster an atmosphere of fear in schoolfor any child, educators have the responsibility to take action. Victims, though,do not often complain due to inaction by the staff and administration and ageneral lack of mutual trust and respect between school staff and students.Schools, then, are obliged to meet the legal standards of no material andsubstantive disruption to learning and of a school milieu that provides equalopportunities to learn without fear of harassment or bullying.In sum, Shariff’s guidelines for eliminating cyber-bullying and bullying callfor schools to become collaborative communities of learning (Dufour, Dufour,& Eaker, 2008) that involve all stakeholders, including students, in developingand implementing the common goals of achievement, respect, and responsibil-ity. She proposes two models for establishing synergetic schools, one thataddresses legal literacy and the other the atmosphere of harassment currentlyevident in schools. Her first model on legal literacy recommends trainingeducators in technology and legal responsibilities, in particular substantivelaw. The second “harmonious solution,” the stakeholder model, is embeddedin the first.Practical strategies for implementing legal literacy, which encompassesmultiliteracies, are provided and include training preservice teachers in legalissues and technology integration. Some suggestions may be more naïve thanintended. For example, although I wholeheartedly endorse that teachers be-come learners and learners become teachers (Davis, 2004), it seems simplistic tosuggest that children know how to use the Internet and can train teachers in itsuse. Undoubtedly youth can teach most educators and parents much aboutsocial networking sites, but they have yet to develop effective searching, or-ganizing, and evaluating skills. Information literacy is not innate, and studentsneed to learn how to use the Internet without filters and without fear. I agreewith Shariff that the door to cooperation can be opened by technology, and thispartnership among learners (i.e., teachers and students) leads to the develop-ment of multiliteracies. But teachers are lifelong learners who rely on them-T. Moline and K. Loerke256AJER Journals Summer 09.indd   120 6/9/09   2:54:19 PMselves and on ongoing professional development, not just their students, tokeep abreast of technology.The author’s stakeholder model calls for education partners to work togeth-er to create safe and caring schools. She proposes that developing and im-plementing Acceptable Use Policies is one way for stakeholders to collaboratein pursuit of this ideal.As with all texts addressing a complex issue, minor quibbles arise. Google isa search engine, not a portal. Profiles on Facebook, a social networking site, arerarely left open for public scrutiny. And because Shariff often alludes to sub-stantive law, I did not expect to have to search outside sources for its definition.I also noted three omissions in this otherwise inclusive resource: the lack ofacknowledgment of the roles that curriculum and teacher-librarians play inaddressing this issue, and lack of acknowledgment of existing holistic pro-grams for developing collaborative learning environments.Recognizing diversity and promoting respect for others must be infused inprovincial and classroom curricula if the ideals of schools as ecologies oflearning are to be realized. Including values and ethics in curricula is key tochanging existing practices. Technology standards must also be embedded incurricula in order to effect changes in pedagogy. Developing communities oflearning is a slow process, as Shariff says, but worthwhile.The second omission is lack of recognition of the information literacyspecialist in schools. The teacher-librarian promotes multiliteracies, is thecatalyst for cooperative planning, and plays a leading role in the integration oftechnology with curriculum and in the development of information literacypolicies (Asselin, Branch, & Oberg, 2003).Third, Shariff does not discuss Canadian projects such as the grassroots Safeand Caring Schools (SACS) initiatives adopted by Alberta (1996), New-foundland and Labrador (2001), Manitoba (2004), and Saskatchewan (2000).Programs such as SACS and Developmental Assets (Search Institute, 2006) aregrounded in Noddings’ (1984) research on caring and education and are jointlydeveloped by education stakeholders. Other Canadian provinces appear toemphasize safe schools from the control perspective, a strategy that Shariffclaims models punishment and intolerance. Research into the effects of thesevarious perspectives would be of interest and use to educators.Based on her analysis of data primarily from Ontario, Quebec, and BritishColumbia, Shariff found that schools are not communities of learning, buthierarchical compounds that foster bullying. Shariff lays out clearly and suc-cinctly why censorship and didactic control in schools contribute to bullying.Her proposals are not the band-aid solutions of some anti-bullying programs,but focus on proactive ways to involve, not control youth in resolving all formsof bullying. I recommend this book as a welcome addition to the anti-bullyingliterature. The process of changing top-down hierarchical relationships inschools into constructionist partnerships is a long-term undertaking that willameliorate the negative effect of bullying on the world’s most vulnerableresource: its children.Book Reviews257AJER Journals Summer 09.indd   121 6/9/09   2:54:19 PMReferencesAsselin, M., Branch, J., & Oberg, D. (2003). Achieving information literacy: Standards for school libraryprograms in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Canadian School Library Association and Association forTeacher-librarianship in Canada.Davis, B. (2004). Inventions of teaching: A genealogy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Dufour, R., Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: Newinsights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.Noddings, N. (1984). Caring. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.November, A. (2008, May). Creating a new culture of teaching and learning. Paper presented at TLtSummit 2008: Learning in a digital world, Saskatoon.Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently?On the Horizon, 9(6). Available:http://www.emeraldinsight.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.caSearch Institute. (2006). What kids need: Developmental assets. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from:http://www.search-institute.org/assets/forty.htmT. Moline and K. Loerke258AJER Journals Summer 09.indd   122 6/9/09   2:54:19 PM

Cyber-Bullying: Issues and Solutions for the School, the Classroom and the Home by Shaheen Shariff

https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ajer/article/download/55324/42361

Cyber-Bullying: Issues and Solutions for the School, the Classroom and the Home by Shaheen Shariff

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Calgary Journal Hosting