i Available online at ijci.wcci-international.org IJCI International Journal of International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(1) Curriculum and Instruction (2022) 350-377 Examination of cyberbullying awareness of parents with 36-72 months of children, tackle cyberbullying or victimization and prevention strategies Nilgün Tosuna *, Halenur Akçayb a, Trakya University, Faculty of Education CEIT Department, Edirne, 22030, Turkey bTrakya University, Graduate School of Educational Sciences, Edirne, 22030, Turkey Abstract This study aims to determine the state of awareness of cyberbullying of preschool parents in Edirne, whether they are cyberbullies or cyber victims, and whether they create strategies by taking security measures to combat cyberbullying. The research was conducted in the 2019-2020 academic year, a total of 15 public, private and independent kindergartens of the Ministry of National Education in Edirne city center were held with parents whose children were educated. The Cyberbullying Scale for University Students, developed by Tanrıkulu and Erdur Baker (2020), the questionnaire prepared by the researcher, and the interview form prepared by the researchers were used as a data collection tool. Content analysis was performed for the data obtained from interview forms. SPSS 24 software was used for all analyses. According to the results of the analysis, parents' cyberbullying levels are lower than cyber victimization levels. Being cyberbullying levels of male parents are higher than female parents. Being cyberbully levels are higher for parents who use the Internet for an average of 3-5 hours per day than parents who use 0-2 hours. It is also found that being cyberbullying levels are higher for parents who had not heard of cyberbullying than parents who had heard of it. The parents who participated in the study stated that they were most aware of the concept of cyberbullying through social media. More than half of the parents who participated in the interview emphasized that they have the main control and responsibility to protect children from cyberbullying, and they also emphasized that parents should restrict the usage time of the Internet and information technologies for their children. Keywords: Cyberbullying; preschool; parent; cyber victims © 2016 IJCI & the Authors. Published by International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (IJCI). This is an open- access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). . 1. Introduction As of December 2019, during the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide, children of all ages began to spend more time at home and had to take a break from activities such as school, * Corresponding author name. Phone.: +90-554-998-5616 E-mail address: [email protected] Tosun/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(1) (2022) 350-377 351 sports, and outdoor travel. This has also increased the technological devices and the internet usage of children at home. According to UNICEF, 1.5 billion children worldwide were unable to attend school due to the pandemic, the vast majority of whom had to study and socialize digital environment (UNICEF, 2020a). A study was conducted with 3,000 parents shows that the increase in the screen time of children is 500 percent higher than before the pandemic. 49% of parents surveyed said their children were online for at least 6 hours a day during the pandemic, and more than half said they worried about it (Eng, 2020; Parents Together Foundation, 2020). According to the report of another study on children between the ages of 4 and 15 living in the UK, Spain, and America; After the pandemic, the time children spent with online activities increased by more than 100 percent compared to before the pandemic. The same report also states that increased time spent on the Internet brings along online dangers to children (Qustudio, 2020). Similarly, Uluçay and Melek (2017) point out that there are some problems due to the unsupervised use of the Internet and digital tools, especially by children and adolescents. Encountering violent or pornographic images or videos, sometimes exposure to some elements of harassment or threats by individuals who are met with them in virtual environments by sharing individual information, are the most common of these problems. Livingstone and Haddon (2009) add cyberbullying issues to these problems and point out. Today, cyberbullying has become a global problem combating with and that has serious negative effects for children and young people of all ages. Especially during the pandemic period, children's prolonged and unsupervised use of the Internet and digital tools can expose them to a greater risk of cyberbullying (UNICEF, 2020b). Akkoyunlu (2020), states that cyberbullying incidents against children and young people during the pandemic period increased by a record 70%. The fact that increased screen time in children during the pandemic causes children to be more likely to face risks such as cyberbullying as well as parents to worry. According to Cook (2020), with the closure of schools and the introduction of distance education, parents' resistance to their children's screen addiction has decreased and their warnings to children have become increasingly meaningless. Despite this, it has become the duty of especially parents to inform children who have to stay at home due to distance education about the dangers and risks of the online environment, to take measures in this regard, and to supervise the children. 1.1. Cyberbullying, Cyberbully, and Cyber Victim The definition of cyberbullying has many equivalents in the literature. The concept of cyberbullying, first introduced by Bill Belsey in 2004, refers to the targeting of a child or adolescent by another child or adolescent who is also his peer. He defined cyber-bullying as the act of using electronic communication devices such as the Internet or mobile phone to attempt to intimidate, harass and threaten a person (Kowalski, Limber, and Agaston, 2008). Mason (2008) defines cyberbullying as the intentional and repeated use of communication technologies through sending or publishing vulgar texts or images to 352 Tosun/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(1) (2022) 350-377 facilitate harassment or threat deliberately and repetitively by an individual or group. Cyberbullying is intentional and continuous acts of harm or abuse through computers, mobile phones, and other electronic devices by another definition (Hinduja and Patchin, 2009). Cassidy, Faucher, and Jackson (2012) define cyberbullying as the use of a style or image that includes offensive, rude or condescending comments to harm the individual. Following Smith, Grimm, Lombar, and Wolfe's (2015) studies, cyberbullying is a group or individual as an aggressive, deliberate act repeatedly and over a long period against a victim who cannot easily defend himself using electronic forms of communication. They are individuals who commit acts of cyberbullying using information communication technologies (Betts, 2016). Cyberbullies can threaten the individual with instant messages at any time in digital environments such as mobile phones and computers, speak derogatorily about the individual on social networks, send messages from social networks in a vulgar manner and share the private life of the individual online (Temel, 2015). When these individuals describe their reasons for doing cyber bullying state that they do what they do for fun or joke (Ayas, 2016; Hinduja and Patchin, 2010), and do not think that the messages, images, or messages they use will negatively affect others (Eroglu, 2011). But some researchers suggest that such narratives of cyberbullies are a kind of defensive logic (Smith, Talamelli, Cowie, Naylor, and Chauhan, 2004). Cyberbullies, however, can also target gains such as popularity or liking in their environment (Smith, Madhavi, Carvalho, Fisher, Russell, and Tippett, 2008). In virtual environments, cyberbullies act aggressively or by dominating individuals. The biggest reason for this is the desire to meet their own superiority needs (Dilmaç, 2009). The cyber victim is the individual chosen as the target in the act of cyberbullying. In addition, individuals directly harmed by the act of cyberbullying are defined by this concept. It is often seen that individuals who have problems in their circles and relationships have a strong sense of loneliness, low self-esteem, are dissatisfied with their relationships, and feel constant unhappiness are more likely to suffer cyber victimization (Ayas, 2016; Campfield, 2008). Smith et al. (2008) defines the status of cyber victimization as systematic aggression that an individual or group intentionally shows to another individual who is incapable of defending himself with digital technology on the Internet. According to Chapin (2016), being a cyber victim is the exposure to damaging actions such as sending a malicious message to a personal e-mail or mobile phone, sending offensive, abusive, threatening, or harmful texts to social networking accounts, obtaining personal information from virtual accounts without permission, disseminating indecent images of an individual via the Internet. There has been no research on cyberbullying with parents of preschoolers in the literature. The fact that alpha generation children have the opportunity to use the Internet and digital tools from a very young age requires that the issue of cyberbullying Tosun/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(1) (2022) 350-377 353 be handled meticulously by parents from preschool ages. In this context, determining whether preschool parents in Edirne city center are aware of cyberbullying, whether they are cyberbullies or cyber victims, and their ability to strategize to combat cyberbullying are the main problems of this research. Accordingly, the following questions were sought for answers: 1. What are the levels of cyberbullying and cyber victimization of the parents involved in the study? 2. Does the level of being a cyberbully and cyber victim of the parents participating in the research differ according to; - Gender, - Age, - Educational background, - Average internet usage time per day? - Does it differ depending on the situation in which whether they have heard the concept of cyberbullying before? 3. Do parents surveyed have cyberbullying awareness? 4. What are the strategies of the parents involved in the study to combat cyberbullying? Conducting this study with preschool parents can contribute to minimizing the likelihood of children becoming cyberbullies or cyber victims in later life. In addition to revealing the current situation, it is hoped that it will shed light on decision-makers and administrators for the works to be performed at the preschool level, in the family- teacher-manager triangle, in-service training, and projects in the future. 2. Method 2.1. Model of research A mixed model was used as a research model in this study. The mixed research model covers collecting qualitative and quantitative data on the same primary phenomenon in a study, analyzing and interpreting data (Leech and Onwuegbuzie, 2007). The descriptive survey model among quantitative research methods and case study research among qualitative research methods were used. The findings obtained by the descriptive survey model in the study were supported by qualitative data obtained through interviews. 2.2. Participant (subject) characteristics 354 Tosun/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(1) (2022) 350-377 The study was performed with the public, private kindergartens of the Ministry of National Education in Edirne city center and independent kindergartens. The focus group consists of the 541 student's parents who are educated in 15 institutions, 9 of which are public schools and 6 of which are private. The convenience sampling method was used from the non-random sampling methods in determining schools. The main objective of the convenience sampling method is to prevent loss of time, money, and labor (Büyüköztürk, Çakmak, Akgün, Karadeniz, and Demirel, 2017). Demographic information about parents is included in Table 1. Table 1. Parent demographics Demographic Characteristics Frequency Percentage Gender Female 449 83 Male 92 17 18-28 36 6.7 Age 29-39 387 71.5 40-50 118 21.8 Elementary School 14 2.6 Middle School 32 5.9 High School 181 33.5 Graduation Status Associate’s 68 12.6 Bachelor's 211 39.0 Postgraduate 24 4.4 Ph.D. 11 2.0 I don't use the Internet. 5 1 Daily Average 0 – 2 hours 328 60 Internet Usage 3 – 5 hours 170 31 Duration 6 – 8 hours 27 6 9 hours and above 11 2 Whe Total 541 n the participants are split by their gender, it is viewed that 83% of the participants are female and 17% are male. In case they are broken down by their ages, it is observed that 6.7% of parents are at the age of 18-28, 71.53% of parents are 29-39, 21.4% are between the ages of 40 and 50, and only 2 (0.4%) parents are over 50. The distribution of parents concerning their educational background shows that 14 people with primary school degrees (2.6%), 32 people with secondary school degrees (5.9%), 181 people with high school degrees (33.5%), 68 people with associate's degrees (12.6%), 211 people with bachelor's degrees (39%), 24 people with master's degrees (4.4%) and 11 people with Ph.D. degrees (2%). 5 (1%) parents affirmed that they do not use the Internet. The number of parents who have an average of 0-2 hours internet usage time per day is 328 Tosun/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(1) (2022) 350-377 355 (60%), 170 (31%) who use 3-5 hours, 27 (6%) who use 6-8 hours, and 11 (2%) who use 9 hours or more. 2.3. Data collection tools The Cyberbullying Scale for University Students, developed by Tanrıkulu and Erdur Baker (2020), is one of the data collection tools used in research. It consists of a total of 22 items. The scale is rated in the type of 4-Likert. There are 11 items in the Cyberbully section of the scale, and the highest score that can be obtained from this section is 33 and the lowest score is 0. The high score indicates a high level of cyberbullying. There are also 11 items in the Cyber Victim section of the scale, and the highest score that can be obtained from this section is 33 and the lowest score is 0. The high score indicates a high level of cyber victimization. The internal consistency reliability coefficients of the scale are 34 and 60 for each section. In this study, the Cronbach Alpha value was found as 0.72 for cyberbullying section and 0.78 for the cyber victim section. The original scale was developed by working on university students. However, the scale was applied to adults in this research. Therefore, there was no need for invariance analysis (measurement invariance) for the scale. Because measurement invariance tests are a kind of covariance structure analysis and are designed to measure a certain structure in different groups (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1999). According to Tyson (2004), measurement invariance is the degree to which the validity and reliability levels of psychological measurements related to the groups to be compared are similar. In fact, the purpose of testing the measurement invariance is to ensure the validity of the relevant measurements for comparison groups. In this study, a 19-question questionnaire prepared by the researchers for parents and an interview form consisting of 3 semi-structured questions were used as a data collection tool. 2.4. Data collection After obtaining the necessary permissions for the implementation of data collection tools, appointments were made from the administrator of each institution during the process of collecting the data and went to meetings. During meetings, administrators and teachers were informed about the subject, purpose, data collection tools, and the process to follow. Parents' questionnaires and scales were delivered to teachers in the next stage of the data collection process. During the data collection process implemented voluntarily, parents who want to participate in the research were also asked to fill out volunteering forms. The institutions were visited two weeks later, and the parents' questionnaires, scales, and volunteering forms were taken from the teachers. Before meeting with the parents, they were contacted from GSM numbers in the parent information forms and an appointment was made from the parents who agreed to meet face-to-face and an interview was provided with them at the institutions. However, 356 Tosun/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(1) (2022) 350-377 interviews with some parents were conducted via mobile phone due to COVID-19 measures. 2.5. Data analysis The normality values of cyberbullying and cyber victimization variables that constitute the quantitative part of the study were analyzed. The Kolmogorov Smirnov test was used to examine parents' data. The results obtained are given in Table 2. Table 2. The normality analysis results of cyberbullying/victimization variables Statistics Df Sig Cyberbully 0.522 541 0.00 0.516 56 0.00 0.203 25 0.00 Cyber victim 0.435 541 0.00 0.395 56 0.00 0.316 25 0.00 According to the normality test results in Table 2, none of the parents' cyberbullying and cyber victimization variables can provide the assumption of normality (p<0,05). The frequency analysis for information obtained through surveys, difference tests (Mann- Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis) based on data obtained from scale, and content analysis for data obtained from interview forms were performed within the scope of the study. SPSS 24 software was used for all analyses. 3. Results In this study conducted with 541 parents, the values obtained as a result of statistics of the participants' cyberbullying and cyber victim scores are included in Table 3. Table 3. The descriptive statistics of parents' cyberbullying and cyber victimization scores N S.S. Skewness Kurtosis Min. Max. Cyberbully 541 0.18 0 0 0.667 0.029 4.367 20.451 0 5 Cyber 541 0.60 0 0 1.571 0.068 3.707 16.003 0 11 victim According to Table 3; The cyberbullying average of 541 parents is 0.18; the median and mode value is 0. The resulting standard deviation value is 0.667. The parent with the Tosun/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(1) (2022) 350-377 357 lowest "cyberbully" score got 0, and the parent with the highest score got 5 amongst all of the participants. It can be noted that the participating parents have low levels of cyberbullying when the scores are examined. The table also contains descriptive statistics of the level of the parents' cyber victimization. The arithmetic average is 0.60, median and mode values are 0 based on these values. The resulting standard deviation value is 1.571. The parent with the lowest cyber victim score counted 0 and the parent with the highest score counted 11 among all of the participants. Consequently, it can be said that the participating parents have low levels of cyber victims. In this context, the descriptive statistics of the two dimensions in comparison with each other prove that the "cyberbullying" levels of the participants are lower than the levels of "cyber victimization". Do the levels of cyberbullying and cyber victimization of the parents involved in the study vary by gender? The results of the Mann Whitney U test for this question are included in Table 4. Table 4. Mann whitney u test results by gender of parents' cyberbullying and victimization Rank Gender N Rank Sum U Z P Average Female 449 120391.50 268.13 21941.5 1.989 0.047 Cyberbully Male 92 26219.50 284.99 Cyber Female 449 120250.00 267.82 22083 1.458 0.145 victim Male 92 26361.00 286.53 Table 4 is an indication that the level of cyberbullying differs statistically significantly by gender (U=21941.5 p<0,05). Males’ average points for cyberbullying are higher than females'. There was no statistically significant difference for gender when the cyber victimization scores are examined (U=22083, p>0.05). Do the levels of cyberbullying and cyber victimization of the parents who participated in the study differ by age? The results of the Kruskal Wallis test for this question are given in Table 5. Table 5. Kruskal wallis test results for parents' cyberbullying and victimization levels in comparison by age Rank Sd P Age N Χ2 Average 18-28 36 268.53 0.866 2 0.649 Cyberbullying Offending 29-39 387 268.58 40-50 118 279.69 18-28 36 271.13 0.907 2 0.635 Cyberbullying 29-39 387 269.30 Victimization 40-50 118 276.55 358 Tosun/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(1) (2022) 350-377 According to Table 5, parents' levels of cyberbullying do not differ statistically by age (X2=0.866 sd=2 p>0.05). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference as a result of the examination of cyber victim status by age (X2 =0.907 sd=2 p>0.05). Do the levels of cyberbullying and cyber victimization of the parents involved in the study vary according to their educational status? The results of the Kruskal Wallis test are given in Table 6. Table 6. Kruskal wallis test results of parents’ levels of being a cyberbully/victim by their educational background Educational N Rank Average X2 Sd P Background Elemantary 14 289.43 5,837 6 0,442 Secondary 32 282.27 Cyberbully High School 181 270.23 Associate 68 280.13 Bachelor’s 211 269.43 Master 24 249.00 Ph. D. 11 249.00 Elemantary 14 304,61 4,082 6 0,666 Secondary 32 269,36 High School 181 274,10 Cybervictim Associate 68 284,29 Bachelor’s 211 265,19 Master 24 246,83 Ph. D. 11 263,95 According to Table 6; Parents' levels of cyberbullying do not differ significantly depending on their educational background statistically (X2=5,837 sd=6 p>0.05). Similarly, as a result of the examination of cyber victim status related to their educational background, there was no significant difference statistically (X2=4,082 sd=6 p>0.05). Do the levels of cyberbullying and cyber victimization of the parents involved in the study vary according to the average daily internet usage time? The results of the Kruskal Wallis test are given in Table 7 for this question. Table 7. Kruskal wallis test results based on average daily internet usage time of parents' cyberbullying and victimization Average Internet Usage Time Rank Sd P N Χ2 Per Day Average Cyberbullying I don't use the Internet 5 249.00 10.222 4 0.037 Offending 0-2 hours 328 263.79 3-5 hours 170 284.28 6-8 hours 27 269.04 over 9 hours 11 295.45 Cyberbullying I don't use the Internet 5 259.50 6.243 4 0.182 Tosun/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 14(1) (2022) 350-377 359 Victimization 0-2 hours 328 261.95 3-5 hours 170 288.26 6-8 hours 27 272.20 over 9 hours 11 276.41 According to Table 7; parents' levels of cyberbullying differ statistically from the average daily internet usage time (X2=10,222 sd=4 p<0,05). The most essential difference is between parents who use the Internet for an average of 0-2 hours per day and parents who use the Internet for 3-5 hours. As a result of examining the levels of cyber victimization of parents according to the average daily internet usage time, there was no statistically significant difference (X2=6.243 sd=4 p>0.05). Do the levels of cyberbullying and cyber victimization of the parents who participated in the study vary by their awareness? The results of the Mann Whitney U test related to this question are included in Table 8. Table 8. Mann whitney u test results based on cyberbullying awareness of parents' cyberbullying and victimization The awareness Rank of N Rank Sum U Z P Average cyberbullying Cyberbullying Yes 412 110122.50 267.29 28103.5 2.083 0.037 Offending No 129 36488.50 282.86 Cyberbullying Yes 412 110353.50 267.85 27872.5 1.168 0.243 Victimization No 129 36257.50 281.07 According to Table 8, the level of cyberbullying in parents differs statistically significantly from hearing the concept of cyberbullying (U=37337.5 p<0,05). Parents who had not heard of cyberbullying (SO= 282.86) were more bullish than those who had heard of it (SO=267.29). When parents' cyber victimization scores are examined, it is seen that these scores do not differ statistically significantly according to the situation of hearing the concept of cyberbullying (U=27872.5 p>0.05). Do parents who participated in the study have awareness of cyberbullying? The analysis findings of this question are presented below: Parents who heard the concept of cyberbullying were asked where they heard about it. The values for the answers to the relevant question are given in Table 9. Table 9. Frequency & percentage values of where parents hear of the concept of cyberbullying Resource of Heard Frequency Percent