meeting thessaloniki june 2011 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Συνάντηση στη Θεσσαλονίκη Meeting Thessaloniki June 2011

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
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


Download Now 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

slide3

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