Meeting thessaloniki june 2011
Download
1 / 23

Συνάντηση στη Θεσσαλονίκη Meeting Thessaloniki June 2011 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 81 Views
  • Uploaded on

Συνάντηση στη Θεσσαλονίκη Meeting Thessaloniki June 2011. Spanish Team R. Ortega, R. Del Rey, J. A. Casas & J. Calmaestra. Comparison between T1 and T2 Daphne 2. Spanish Team R. Ortega, R. Del Rey, J. A. Casas & J. Calmaestra. SUMMARY. 1. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION. 2. NEW VARIABLES.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Συνάντηση στη Θεσσαλονίκη Meeting Thessaloniki June 2011' - mircea


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Meeting thessaloniki june 2011

ΣυνάντησηστηΘεσσαλονίκηMeeting Thessaloniki June 2011

Spanish Team

R. Ortega, R. Del Rey, J. A. Casas & J. Calmaestra


Comparison between t1 and t2 daphne 2

Comparison between T1 and T2 Daphne 2

Spanish Team

R. Ortega, R. Del Rey, J. A. Casas & J. Calmaestra


SUMMARY

1. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

2. NEW VARIABLES

3. COMPARATIVE T1 & T2

4. CONCLUSION


1 sample description
1. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

T1

T2

5 secondary schools

1106 students

Age (M): 14.41

  • 7 secondary schools.

  • 1671 students

  • Age (M): 14.45



Victim direct bullying
Victim Direct Bullying

[χ2 (2,2743) = 3.702, p>.05]


Bully direct bullying
Bully Direct Bullying

[χ2 (2,2752) = 16.620, p<.001]


Victim indirect bullying
Victim Indirect Bullying

[χ2 (2,2743) = .188, p>.05]


Aggressor indirect bullying
Aggressor Indirect Bullying

[χ2 (2,2759) = 22.332, p<.001]


Victim cyberbullying mobil
Victim Cyberbullying Mobil

[χ2 (2,2745) = 3.086, p>.05]


Aggressor cyberbullying mobil
Aggressor Cyberbullying Mobil

[χ2 (2,2750) = .644, p>.05]


Victim cyberbullying internet
Victim Cyberbullying Internet

[χ2 (2,2752 = 14.034, p<.001]


Aggressor cyberbullying internet
Aggressor Cyberbullying Internet

[χ2 (2,2743) = 4.525, p>.05]


Roles in direct bullying
Roles in Direct Bullying

[χ2 (6,2730) = 21.273, p<.01]


Roles in indirect bullying
Roles in Indirect Bullying

[χ2 (6,2734) = 24.856, p<.001]


Roles in cyberbullying mobile
Roles in Cyberbullying Mobile

[χ2 (6,2721) = 3.720, p>.05]


Roles in cyberbullying internet
Roles in Cyberbullying Internet

[χ2 (6,2725 = 15.543, p<.05]


Ways of cyberbulling
Ways of Cyberbulling

+

**

**

+

***p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05; + p<.1


Overlapping traditional bullying
Overlapping Traditional Bullying

[χ2 (3,2777 = 15.259, p<.01]


Overlapping cyberbullying
Overlapping Cyberbullying

[χ2 (3,2777 = 13.730, p<.01]


Overlapping bullying both types
Overlapping Bullying (Both Types)

[χ2 (3,2777 = 14.387, p<.01]


4 conclusions
4. Conclusions

  • Higher percentages of implication in T2 vs T1

    • Direct traditional bullying: more occasional victims and frequent aggressors

    • Indirect traditional bullying: less occasional aggressors and bully/victim, but more frequents aggressors

    • Mobil Cyberbullying: no significant differences

    • Internet Cyberbullying: more occasional victims


4 conclusions1
4. Conclusions

  • Ways of Cyberbullying are changing

    • From IM to Social Network

  • More overlapping:

    • Traditional bullying: less indirect more both

    • Cyberbullying: more internet

    • Cyberbullying and Bullying: less only traditional, more overlap


ad