Introduction

Bullying is one of the aggressive behaviors that happen in an intentional and recurring style that result in feeling hurt by others [1]. Three key characteristics define bullying: a purpose to harm, repetition, and an obvious power disparity between the bully and the victim. It does not just occur between teenagers and schoolchildren but also among adults [2,3]. Bullying involves many forms, either verbal, physical, sexual, social, or relational actions. Most recently, cyberbullying has been described as bullying in the digital era through various aggressive online actions [4,5].

Cyberbullying is an international epidemic rapidly spreading worldwide. Although conventional forms of bullying, such as verbal or physical abuse, are marginally down, cyberbullying is on the rise and is becoming more common. Evidence shows that the global incidence of cyber victimization is rapidly rising [3-5]. Since all students use technology and are exposed to social media platforms, cyberbullying has become an urgent and prominent issue, especially during the e-learning transformation era [6]. A recent systematic review of cyberbullying discovered that it is a widespread phenomenon: cyberaggression (1%- 41%), cyber victimization (3%-72%), and overlapping between both (2.3%-16.7%) [7]. Two recent Egyptian studies also revealed that cyberbullying victimization is a widespread problem among university students in Beni-Suef (48.2%) and EL-Fayoum (27.3%) universities [8,9].

Cyberbullying can have numerous forms, such as posting images or awkward comments about others, sending threatening messages, and distributing images through websites, blogs, instant messages, chat rooms, cell phones, electronic mail, and personal profiles. Online dating abuse and cyberstalking are two recent examples of cyberbullying conduct. Cyberbullies frequently say things they would not have the guts to say in person. They experience isolation, anonymity, and disconnection because of technology. Cyberbullying seems intrusive and never-ending to the targets of it. Bullies can harm at any time or any place and frequently do so in the comfort of their own homes. As a result, cyberbullying has serious repercussions [10,11].

Evidence shows that the victims of cyberbullying experience a significant level of psychological anguish as well as behavioral issues [12]. They exhibit greater anxiety, depression, and long-term behavioral changes, including resignation and social isolation, a preponderance of obsessive tendencies with hostile attitudes and hypersensitivity, and emotions of learned helplessness and low self-esteem [13]. When students have a bad perception of their social environment and are exposed to cyberbullying by their virtual classmates, it can lead to undesirable outcomes, including social withdrawal and even dropping out [14]. Cyberbullying in higher education negatively affects institutions and their respective stakeholders. The consequences range from staff members' turnover to student suicide [15].

The COVID-19 pandemic impacts all aspects of social life, involving the educational sphere. Since the students' previous familiarity with the learning environment has changed to a virtual classroom, a recent teaching-learning model refers to network-based learning, tele-learning, web-based learning, or e-learning. It may provide more opportunities for cyberbullying behavior and can affect the classroom climate that reflects the norms, expectations, and values that enhance the student's sense of social, emotional, and physical safety in school life [16-18]. This context creates great challenges for teachers in different educational institutions. They must be able to explore the associated changes in the student's behavior in this digital age besides guaranteeing their safety in this precarious virtual classes environment [16,19].

Student-teacher relationships also significantly influence bullying-related behaviors [20]. Literature highlights its importance in predicting involvement in different bullying roles [21,22]. Positive interactions with teachers allow the students to internalize a decent relational model that can shape other contexts and relationships, such as with peers [20,22]. Such a good relationship frequently correlates with prosocial and less aggressive behaviors and, more broadly, may foster a favorable learning environment in the classroom [20]. Cyberbullying needs critical attention where the educational sector plays a paramount role, especially during the e-learning transformation era. It can be modified using a hybrid strategy combining policy, technology, and non-technology-based solutions [23]. In addition to developing social competencies and knowledge, fostering attitudes and awareness of the potential repercussions of cyberbullying, cultivating social responsibility and enhancing the classroom climate, and developing strategies for constructive online communication [24]. A crucial step is fostering an atmosphere of online civility through establishing and putting cyber-civility regulations and standards into practice [25].

The magnitude of the study

This study is one of the pioneer studies in Egypt that handled this rising epidemic of cyberbullying (both cyber victimization and aggression) during the e-learning transformation era and COVID-19-related life changes. Thus, it provides valuable knowledge that can aid in developing targeted awareness programs about cyber-civility strategies to reduce this rising problem. Therefore, this study aimed to assess cyberbullying among university students and explore the role of the student-teacher relationship and virtual classroom environment.

Research questions

- What are the students’ self-reported levels of cyberbullying (victimization & aggression)?

- What is the extent of the students’ perceived virtual classroom community?

- What is the nature of the students’ perceived relationship with teachers?

- How do the virtual classroom community and student-teacher relationship affect cyber victimization and aggression?

- Are there other factors affecting cyber victimization and aggression?

Methods

1. Study design

A descriptive exploratory research design was employed.

2. Participants and Setting

Participants were recruited from the four randomly selected colleges at Damanhour University/Egypt: theoretical colleges (Education and Art) and practical colleges (Nursing, Science). All the students who enrolled in the selected colleges were invited to participate in the study, both genders and were willing to contribute. A convenient sample of 600 students was included in the study using an equal allocation of 150 students from each college.

The sampling size was determined using the Steven K. Thompson formula [26] based on the average number of students in the four colleges in the academic year 2021-2022. Besides, recent evidence shows that the average proportion of cyberbullying among Egyptian university students ranges from 27.3 to 48.2 percent [8,9]. These results minimally in 533 required students, then they were upgraded to 600 to compensate for possible nonresponse.

n=[N×p(1-p)][[N-1×(d2Z2)]+p(1-p)]

n: Sample size (533), N: population size (≈20000), Z: Confidence level at 95.0% (1.96 Z score), d: Error proportion (0.05), and p: Probability (50%).

3. Questionnaire development

It incorporated the following parts.

Part I: Personal characteristics

Age, gender, academic year, residence, and perceived income level. Besides, awareness that bullying is punishable by law, regular accessibility of the internet, and health-related data such as chronic disease diagnosis and mental or psychological health problems.

Part II: European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (ECIPO)

It was adapted from Del Rey et al. [27] and Ortega-Ruiz et al. [28] studies that aimed to investigate the validity and cross-cultural robustness of the ECIPO. It is a self-reported measure comprised of 22 items with two domains: cyber victimization (11 items) and cyberaggression (11 items). Items were weighted on a Likert-type scale with five responses ranging from (0 = never, 1= once or twice, 2 = once or twice a month, 3 = once a week, 4 = more than once a week) in the previous two months. The total score was calculated separately for cyberbullying and cyberaggression (0-22). Higher scores signified a higher level of the respective subscale that was further leveled as never (0), low (1-7), moderate (8-14), and high (15-22).

Part III: Rovai's Classroom Community Scale (RCCS)

It was originally developed by Rovai [29] to assess the students’ perceived sense of classroom community in the virtual environment. It was further validated by Ahmady et al. [30], who revealed higher reliability for the overall scale, connectedness, and learning subscales (α= 0.87, 0.86, and 0.85). It consisted of 20 items distributed over two subscales: connectedness (10 items) and learning (10 items). Five-point Likert-type items ranged from strongly agree (0) to strongly disagree (4). The overall score was calculated (0-80), where higher scores reflected a better sense of virtual classroom community that was further leveled as poor (0-26), average (27-53), and good (54- 80). The subscales scores were also calculated (0-40), where a higher score reflected a better level of the respective domain.

Part IV: Student Version of the Teacher-Student Relationship Inventory (S-TSRI)

It was adapted from Ang et al. [31] study that aimed to develop and validate the Teacher–Student Relationship Inventory (TSRI) from students’ perspective. It incorporated 14 items over three subscales: satisfaction (5 items), Instrumental help (5 items), and conflict (4 items). Items were rated on a 5-point scale: almost never true (1), seldom true (2), sometimes true (3), often true (4), and almost always true (5). The overall score was calculated (14-70), where a higher score indicated a better student-teacher relationship that was further leveled as poor (14-33), average (34-53), and good (54-70). The subscales scores were also calculated where higher scores reflected a better level of the respective domain, except for the conflict domain, the higher scores reflected conflicting student-teacher relationships.

4. Questionnaire validity and reliability

The researchers translated the scales into Arabic with another researcher's back translation (Arabic to English) to guarantee their accuracy. Six experts in the field evaluated the content validity of the questionnaire. The Content Validity Index per item level (I-CVI) ranged from 0.8 to 1.0, and the overall scale (S-CVI) was 0.91. The internal consistency reliability of the questionnaire was assured using “Cronbach’s α coefficient," which disclosed a satisfactory level: part II (α =0.861), part III (α =0.827), and part IV (α =0.902).

5. Administrative design

An official letter for study conduction was directed from the Dean of the nursing college to the Dean of Damanhour University. After approval, the necessary official approval to conduct the study was obtained from the designated colleges after explaining the purpose of the study.

6. Pilot study

Afterward, the questionnaire was pre-tested on 10% of the university students who were later dismissed from the main study. It was executed before data collection to review the feasibility, duration, cost, and adverse events of a full-scale research project and to enhance the study design.

7. Data collection

The researchers designed a digital self-administered constructed questionnaire using Microsoft Team forms. We invited undergraduate students enrolled in Damanhour University to participate in the study. They were invited via emails and official university platforms on social media profiles (WhatsApp and Facebook). Consequently, the online questionnaire was available from February 1^st to March 30^th, 2022. Reminder messages were sent twice a week to those who did not respond for three consecutive weeks.

8. Ethical Considerations

The study’s ethical approval was gained from the research ethics committee of the Faculty of Nursing, Damanhour University (No. 22-1-202252e). The data were anonymously collected, kept confidential, and used for research purposes only. The consent form explained the background of the study, outlined the confidentiality procedures, and explained how the participant was free to withdraw from the survey at any time. It appeared on the very first screen of the survey. The participant read through the consent form and had to click 'I agree' to continue participating in the survey or 'I disagree' to withdraw from the survey. There were no identifying demographic questions asked to ensure confidentiality. Thus, there is no way for the researcher to identify who participated in the survey as it was all done anonymously online. The survey was distributed through an anonymous survey link with no identifying information, such as email addresses, to be collected.

9. Statistical Analysis

The data was coded and entered in the “Statistical Package of Social Sciences” “SPSS Inc; version 24; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA”. After data entry, it was explored to detect any error; then, it was analyzed by the same program for presenting frequency tables with percentages. Qualitative data was shown as numbers and percentages, while quantitative data were represented as mean/SD. Spearman correlation (r) was executed to guarantee the strength of a linear relationship between ordinal variables, and a t-test was performed to evaluate multiple linear regressions. Two linear regression models were utilized to investigate the factors affecting cyber victimization and cyberaggression. Both models were assessed for potential multi-collinearity using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF < 10), and the adjusted R² value determined their goodness of fit. The Tolerance level (1 – R²) was set at 0.50 or more to ensure that none of the independent variables can be predicted by the others in the model. The Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plot we used to ensure that the models' residuals were normally distributed, while a scatter plot was used to ensure the linear relationship between factors involved in each model and either cyber victimization or cyberaggression. The Durbin-Watson test was also employed to ensure the independence of residuals/observations or to exclude autocorrelation. Moreover, homoscedasticity was judged using a scatter plot of residuals versus predicted values to confirm the absence of a clear pattern in the distribution. The results were considered statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.

Results

1. Personal characteristics of the students

Table 1 displays that 45.5% of the students aged between 20-21 years, 51.0% were females, and 40.2% were enrolled in the first academic year. More than half (56.5%) were rural residents, and 48.8% had enough income for basic needs. In addition, 82.8% of them used the internet regularly, and 80.8% did not know bullying is punishable by law. Finally, 69.7% of the students did not have physical or psychological health problems.

2. Scale items mean scores and total scores of all the studied variables.

Table 2 illustrates that the highest mean score items of cyber victimization were being exposed to nasty things and names personally 0.41 ± 0.03, or in public 0.50 ± 0.02, and being excluded or ignored by others on social networking sites and chat rooms 0.38 ± 0.01. Regarding the cyberaggression items, the highest mean score items were ignoring others on social networking sites and chat rooms 0.32 ± 0.02, saying nasty things and names about others 0.13 ± 0.01, and creating a fake account pretending to be someone else 0.10 ± 0.01.

Table 3 shows that the lowest mean value for connectedness items was 2.64 ± 0.76 for not feeling a spirit of community in the class, whereas the highest mean value was 3.58 ± 1.07 for feeling confident with receiving support from others. Moreover, the lowest mean value for the learning items was 2.5 ± 0.97 for feeling hard to get help when having a question while the highest mean value was 3.66 ± 0.74 for receiving timely feedback.

Table 4 represents that the highest mean value for satisfaction items was 4.17 ± 1.33 for the item "Like the teacher," while the highest mean value for instrumental help items was 3.18 ± 0.35 for "When needing help, it is likely to go to the teacher." However, the highest mean value for the conflict items was 2.20 ± 0.34: "Cannot wait for this year to be over because lack of desire to be with this teacher again."

Table 5 reveals that 66.5% of the students reported low cyber victimization, while 39.8% reported being involved in low cyberaggression behaviors. The highest percent of the students had average scores of classroom connectedness (77.3%), learning experience (70.3%), and overall RCCS (80.8%). Moreover, most (82.3%) of the students had good satisfaction levels, perceived average (38.8%) and poor (35.8%) instrumental help, and 68.0% perceived poor conflict level; meanwhile, average total S-TSRI was reported by 70.5% of them.

3. Linear regression analysis of the factors affecting cyber victimization and cyberaggression.

Model 1 in table 6 depicts the high significance of the model (F=13.87, p<.001), which explains 67.0% of the variation in cyber victimization (R²=.67). It explained that the increasing levels of students’ perceived satisfaction with their teachers relationship (B=-0.34, p<0.01), virtual classroom connectedness (B=-0.31, p<0.01), total S-STRI scores (B=-0.30, p<0.05), instrumental help by teachers (B=-0.28, p<0.01), learning experience (B=-0.23, p<0.05), and total RCCS (B=-0.20, p<0.05) decrease the likelihood of cyber victimization. However, having physical or psychological health problems (B=0.24, p<0.05) and regular internet access (B=0.22, p<0.05), female gender (B=0.27, p<0.05), conflicting teacher relationship (B=0.20, p<0.05), and lower age (B=0.17, p<0.05) increase the likelihood of cyber victimization.

Model 2 in table 6 portrays the high significance of the model (F=11.78, p=<.001), which explains 59.0% of the variation in cyberaggression (R²=.59). It revealed that higher scores of the total S-STRI score (B=-0.40, p<0.01), classroom connectedness (B=-0.31, p<0.01), instrumental help by teachers (B=-0.28, p<0.05), knowing that bullying is punishable by law (B=-0.26, p<0.05), total RCCS scores (B=-0.24, p<0.05), learning experience and satisfying teacher relationship (B=-0.20, p<0.05) decrease the likelihood of cyberaggression. However, conflicting teacher relationship (B=0.30, p<0.01), having regular internet access (B=0.27, p<0.05), experiencing cyber victimization (B=0.25, p<0.05), higher age (B=0.20, p<0.05), male gender (B=0.17, p<0.05) increase the likelihood of cyberaggression.

Discussion

The current study revealed that almost two-thirds (66.5%) of the students were victims of cyberbullying, mainly through personal or public exposure to nasty things and/or names and exclusion by others on social networking sites and chat rooms. Moreover, nearly two-fifths (39.8%) of the students were cyberbullies. The frequently reported bullying behaviors were ignoring others on social networking sites and chat rooms, saying nasty things and names about others, and creating a fake account pretending to be someone else. Besides, being exposed to cyber victimization proved to increase the likelihood of involvement on cyberaggression behaviors. Therefore, the victims of cyberbullying have a higher tendency to cyberbully others, which necessitates urgent action to cut down on this rising phenomenon.

In accordance, a recent Saudi study by Ali & Shahbuddin [32] portrayed that nearly half (49.1%) of the studied college students have been cyberbullied, and the rest (50.9%) never experienced cyberbullying. Yudes et al. [33] depicted that nearly a quarter of the studied Spanish students was involved in cyberbullying activities, where the most frequent behaviors were online insults and social exclusion. Two Egyptian studies reported that cyber victimization is prevalent among college students, especially females. The first was at El-Fayoum University by Hassan et al. [8], who showed that more than a quarter of the studied nursing and non-nursing students experienced cyberbullying. The second was by Arafa & Senosy [9], who revealed that nearly half of the students were victims of cyberbullying. Moreover, an almost equal cyber victimization percentage (66.0%) among those in the current study was reported by Lai et al. [34] among Malaysian university students.

A lower trend of cyber victimization than the current study among college students in the US was reported by Webber and Ovedovitz [35], where 4.3% reported being exposed to cyberbullying at the university level. However, 7.5% reported participation in cyberbullying behaviors using different platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, texting, email, Instagram, Snapshot, and chat rooms. Moreover, a survey conducted by Johnson et al [36] among undergraduate students in the US revealed that 73.6% reported never being victims of cyberbullying, and nearly a quarter of them reported being victims of cyberbullying. The findings also signified that most students never cyberbullied others, and a minority reported cyberbullying once a month. This lower trend can be explained by the ecological factors involved in cyberbullying that differ between and even within countries. Besides, the e-learning transformation during the COVID-19 era as both studies was conducted before the pandemic.

The current study explored that most students had an average sense of the virtual classroom community with an average sense of connectedness and learning experience. It also explored that the better the students’ perceived level of virtual classroom connectedness, learning experience, and the overall virtual classroom climate, the lower the likelihood of cyber victimization and cyberaggression. Thus, the supportive virtual class environment played an essential role in protecting the students from being victims of cyberbullying or perpetrators.

In agreement, Thornberg et al. [37] showed that students are less prone to be victims or bullies than uninvolved if they pertain to a more positive, caring, and supportive class climate. Numerous studies have also shown classroom climate has a positive role in diminishing cyberbullying and victimization [38,39]. Moreover, Yang et al. [19] reported an inverse association between self-management and cyber victimization, strengthening with a more positively perceived school climate. Moreover, Aizenkot and Kashy-Rosenbaum [40] and Ferrer-Cascales et al. [41] indicated the efficacy of anti-cyberbullying intervention programs in reducing cyberbullying and victimization and improving student sense of class climate belonging. The former conducted a WhatsApp-based intervention, while the latter conducted a peer tutoring program. Therefore, the anti-cyberbullying intervention program is highly recommended to improve socio-emotional aspects in the classroom.

The present study revealed that the highest percentage of the students reported average overall student-teacher relationships with high satisfaction levels, average instrumental help, and low conflict. It also proved that the better the students’ perceived quality of relationship with their teachers, sense of satisfaction, and instrumental help, the lower the likelihood of cyber victimization and cyberaggression. In converse, the higher the rate of perceived conflicting relationship with the teacher, the higher the rate of both. Henceforth, the teachers have a pivotal role in protecting students from committing or being victims of cyberbullying through the internalized values acquired by the students from their model teachers.

Conveniently, a Chinese study during COVID-19 by Ye et al. [42] demonstrated that the student-teacher relationship moderated the relationship between cyberbullying and mental health and difficulties with online learning and academic engagement. A Brazilian study by Valle et al. [43] reported that bullying had a direct negative influence on school engagement while the teacher-student relationship had a direct positive influence on school engagement. Besides, it elaborates that a good teacher-student relationship significantly mediates the adverse effect of bullying victimization and perpetration on school engagement levels. Therefore, a positive relationship between students and teachers translates into better school engagement, while a conflicting relationship translates into lower school engagement levels. Similarly, several studies demonstrate that conflicting student-teacher relationships are associated with an increased risk of bullying victimization [22,44].

Moreover, evidence about teachers' mediation interventions shows their effectiveness in decreasing cyberbullying by providing emotional warmth to support students' disengagement from online activities [45,46]. Interventions reinforcing social support can create positive relations, interpersonal skills, and prosocial behaviors that can help decrease cyberbullying [47,48]. So, the joined work of different agents (e.g., psychologists, teachers, parents, peers) should be considered to promote a positive evolution in cyberbullying prevention.

The current study explored additional factors that can affect cyberbullying. Having physical or psychological health problems, regular internet access, lower age, and female gender increased the likelihood of cyber victimization. Moreover, the likelihood of cyber aggression was increased by being exposed to cyber victimization, having regular internet access, male gender, and higher age, whereas it was decreased by being aware that bullying is punishable by law. These findings illustrate the multidimensional influences on cyberbullying as a social phenomenon while highlighting the role of laws and policies in regulating such a social disorder.

Similar findings were revealed by Zhong et al. [49], who indicated that Chinese male college students are more likely to cyberbully others. Besides, the students with regular Internet access differ significantly regarding cyberbullying. Lai et al. [34] reported a higher rate of cyber victimization among Malaysian female college students. However, no gender differences in cyber victimization rates have been reported by many studies [50,51]. These conflicting findings may be attributed to the differences in the sample size, age, socioeconomic status, and instruments used to measure cyber victimization.

Moreover, Bennett and Ramos [51] and Rezk El Khateeb et al. [52] found that adolescents commonly participate in cyberbullying behavior as both perpetrators and victims. They found that the number of cyberbullying cases and effects increased with age and a lack of knowledge Moreover, Llorent et al. [53] reported an increasing relationship between academic level and cyber victimization in high school and university adolescents. Lastly, Yudes et al. [33] depicted that cyberbullying perpetration was predicted through higher age, male gender, cyber victimization, Internet use, poor emotional regulation, and lack of parental control.

Conclusion

The current study concluded that almost two-thirds of the students reported low cyber victimization and nearly two-fifths were involved in low cyberaggression behaviors. Most students reported an average sense of the virtual class community with average connectedness and learning experience. Moreover, most students had an average relationship with their teachers, with high satisfaction, average instrumental help, and low conflict.

The likelihood of cyber victimization and aggression was significantly decreased by the perceived higher quality of the overall student-teacher relationship scale and its two domains (satisfaction and instrumental help), besides the higher perceived sense of virtual classroom climate and its domains (connectedness and learning experience). However, their likelihood was significantly increased by the students’ perceived conflicting teacher relationship and having regular internet access. Moreover, the likelihood of cyber victimization increased by having physical or psychological health problems, being lower age, and being female. Finally, the likelihood of cyber aggression was increased by higher age and male gender, whereas it was decreased by knowing that bullying is punishable by law.

Thus, based on these findings, the authors suggested that the Ministry of higher education and Colleges should develop the cyberbullying policy and effectively communicate it to students and staff members; develop mass media campaigns to enhance awareness about cyberbullying, its code of conduct, law, and cyber civility regulations and standards; develop and implement internet etiquette training programs to help students discriminate between proper and improper behaviors; design and implement educational programs for staff/teachers to strengthen their relationship with students.

Strengths and limitations

This study is one of the pioneer studies in Egypt that handle cyberbullying, categorizing both cyber victimization and aggression during the e-learning transformation era. Besides, assessing the role of the virtual classroom community and the role of teachers' relationship. However, one of the limitations is that this study was conducted in one university; we recommend replicating this study in several Egyptian universities to capture a holistic picture of cyberbullying among this critical age group.

Acknowledgments

References

• 1. UNICEF. Bullying, Happens to everyone, stoppable by everyone [Internet]. 2022 [Cited 2022 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/egypt/bullying
• 2. Kowalski RM, Toth A, Morgan M. Bullying and cyberbullying in adulthood and the workplace. The Journal of Social Psychology. 2018;158(1):64–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1302402ArticlePubMed
• 3. Pichel R, Foody M, O’Higgins Norman J, Feijóo S, Varela J, Rial A. Bullying, cyberbullying and the overlap: What does age have to do with it? Sustainability. 2021;13(15):8527. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158527Article
• 4. Giumetti GW, Kowalski RM. Cyberbullying via social media and well-being. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2022;45:101314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101314ArticlePubMed
• 5. Vismara M, Girone N, Conti D, Nicolini G, Dell’Osso B. The current status of Cyberbullying research: A short review of the literature. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2022;46:101152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101152Article
• 6. Shin N, Ahn H. Factors affecting adolescents' involvement in cyberbullying: What divides the 20% from the 80%? Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking. 2015;18(7):393–399. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0362ArticlePubMed
• 7. Selkie EM, Fales JL, Moreno MA. Cyberbullying prevalence among US middle and high school-aged adolescents: A systematic review and quality assessment. The Journal of Adolescent Health : Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. 2016;58(2):125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.026ArticlePubMed
• 8. Hassan HE, Sheha EAAEM, Gamel WMA, Arafa AEE. Online harassment and cyberbullying victimization and its emotional impacts among female nursing and non-nursing students. American Journal of Nursing Research. 2019;7(2):102–108. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajnr-7-2-1Article
• 9. Arafa A, Senosy S. Pattern, and correlates of cyberbullying victimization among Egyptian university students in Beni-Suef, Egypt. Journal of Egypt Public Health Association. 2017;92(2):107–115. https://doi.org/10.21608/epx.2018.8948Article
• 10. Zhu C, Huang S, Evans R, Zhang W. Cyberbullying among adolescents and children: A comprehensive review of the global situation, risk factors, and preventive measures. Frontiers in Public Health. 2021;9:634909. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.634909ArticlePubMedPMC
• 11. Gordon S. 6 Types of Bullying Parents Should Know About [Internet]. 2022 [Cited 2022 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.verywellfamily.com/types-of-bullying-parents-should-know-about-4153882
• 12. Machimbarrena JM, Calvete E, Fernández-González L, Álvarez-Bardón A, Álvarez-Fernández L, González-Cabrera J. Internet risks: An overview of victimization in cyberbullying, cyber dating abuse, sexting, online grooming and problematic internet use. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018;15(11):2471. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112471ArticlePubMedPMC
• 13. Aparisi D, Delgado B, BO RM, Martínez-Monteagudo MC. Relationship between cyberbullying, motivation and learning strategies, academic performance, and the ability to adapt to university. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(20):10646. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010646ArticlePubMedPMC
• 14. Kashy-Rosenbaum G, Aizenkot D. Exposure to cyberbullying in WhatsApp classmates ‘groups and classroom climate as predictors of students ‘sense of belonging: A multi-level analysis of elementary, middle and high schools. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;108:104614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104614Article
• 15. Cox TD, Raditch J. Teaching online and cyberbullying: Exploring cyberbullying policies. Journal of Effective Teaching in Higher Education. 2022;5(1):71–89. https://doi.org/10.36021/jethe.v5i1.152Article
• 16. Khan MS, Wani S, Fatima E. Cyberbullying among Neuro­diverse Learners during Online Teaching and Learning amidst COVID-19. In: Pathan ASK, editor. Securing Social Networks in Cyber­space. UK: CRC Press; 2021. p. 195-217.
• 17. Blaine AM. Interaction and presence in the virtual classroom: An analysis of the perceptions of students and teachers in online and blended advanced placement courses. Computers & Education. 2019;132:31–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.004Article
• 18. Yang C, Chan MK, Ma TL. School-wide social emotional learning (SEL) and bullying victimization: Moderating role of school climate in elementary, middle, and high schools. Journal of School Psychology. 2020;82:49–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.08.002ArticlePubMed
• 19. Marengo D, Fabris MA, Prino LE, Settanni M, Longobardi C. Student-teacher conflict moderates the link between students’ social status in the classroom and involvement in bullying behaviors and exposure to peer victimization. Journal of Adolescence. 2021;87(1):86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.01.005ArticlePubMed
• 20. Iotti NO, Thornberg R, Longobardi C, Jungert T. Early adolescents’ emotional and behavioral difficulties, student–teacher relationships, and motivation to defend in bullying incidents. Child & Youth Care Forum. 2020;49(1):59–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10566-019-09519-3Article
• 21. Longobardi C, Ferrigno S, Gullotta G, Jungert T, Thornberg R, Marengo D. The links between students’ relationships with teachers, likeability among peers, and bullying victimization: the intervening role of teacher responsiveness. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2022;37:489–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-021-00535-3Article
• 22. Bi N. Managing cyber bullying in virtual worlds for education online. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities. 2021;11(11):99–104. https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-7315.2021.00157.XArticle
• 23. Zovinec E, Sender B. Introduction to the problematics of bullying, cyberbullying, and cyber-aggression-analysis of selected methods of prevention and intervention. ICERI2021 Proceedings. 2021;3783–3794. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2021.0905Article
• 24. De Gagne JC, Koppel PD, Kim SS, Park HK, Rushton S. Pedagogical foundations of cybercivility in health professions education: A scoping review. BMC Medical Education. 2021;21(1):79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02507-zArticlePubMedPMC
• 25. Thompson SK. Sampling. 3rd ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Co.; 2012. p. 59–60.
• 26. Del Rey R, Casas JA, Ortega-Ruiz R, Schultze-Krumbholz A, Scheithauer H, Smith P, et al. Structural validation and cross-cultural robustness of the European cyberbullying intervention project questionnaire. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015;50:141–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.065Article
• 27. Ortega-Ruiz R, Rey RD, Casas JA. Assessing bullying and cyberbullying: Spanish validation of EBIPQ and ECIPQ. Psicologia Educativa. 2016;22(1):71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2016.01.004Article
• 28. Rovai AP. Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education. 2002;5(4):319–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00130-6Article
• 29. Ahmady S, Kohan N, Bagherzadeh R, Rakshhani T, Shahabi M. Validity testing of classroom community scale in virtual environment learning: A cross sectional study. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 2018;36:256–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2018.08.021ArticlePubMedPMC
• 30. Ang RP, Ong SL, Li X. Student version of the Teacher–Student Relationship Inventory (S-TSRI): Development, validation, and invariance. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11:1724. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01724ArticlePubMedPMC
• 31. Ali SI, Shahbuddin NB. The relationship between cyberbullying and mental health among university students. Sustainability. 2022;14(11):6881. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116881Article
• 32. Yudes C, Rey L, Extremera N. Predictive factors of cyberbullying perpetration amongst Spanish adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(11):3967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113967ArticlePubMedPMC
• 33. Lee MF, Salleh KM, Sulaiman NL, Rosli DI, Chang WV. Prevalence of cyberbullying among students in Malaysian higher learning institutions. Advanced Science Letters. 2017;23(2):781–784. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.7492Article
• 34. Webber MA, Ovedovitz AC. Cyberbullying among college students: A look at its prevalence at a U.S. Catholic university. International Journal of Educational Methodology. 2018;4(2):101–107. https://doi.org/10.12973/IJEM.4.2.101Article
• 35. Johnson LD, Haralson A, Batts S, Brown E, Collins C, Van Buren-Travis A, Spencer M. Cyberbullying on social media among college students. Ideas and Research You Can Use: VISTAS. 2016;1-8.
• 36. Thornberg R, Wegmann B, Wänström L, Bjereld Y, Hong JS. Associations between student–teacher relationship quality, class climate, and bullying roles: A Bayesian multilevel multinomial Logit analysis. Victims & Offenders. 2022;17(8):1196–1223. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2022.2051107Article
• 37. Košir K, Klasinc L, Špes T, Pivec T, Cankar G, Horvat M. Predictors of self-reported and peer-reported victimization and bullying behavior in early adolescents: The role of school, classroom, and individual factors. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2020;35:381–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00430-yArticle
• 38. Thornberg R, Wänström L, Pozzoli T, Gini G. Victim prevalence in bullying and its association with teacher–student and student–student relationships and class moral disengagement: A class-level path analysis. Research Papers in Education. 2018;33(3):320–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1302499Article
• 39. Aizenkot D, Kashy-Rosenbaum G. The effectiveness of safe surfing intervention program in reducing WhatsApp cyberbullying and improving classroom climate and student sense of class belonging in elementary school. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 2021;41(4):550–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431620931203Article
• 40. Ferrer-Cascales R, Albaladejo-Blázquez N, Sánchez-SanSegundo M, Portilla-Tamarit I, Lordan O, Ruiz-Robledillo N. Effectiveness of the TEI program for bullying and cyberbullying reduction and school climate improvement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019;16(4):580. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16040580ArticlePubMedPMC
• 41. Ye Y, Wang C, Zhu Q, He M, Havawala M, Bai X, Wang T. Parenting and teacher–student relationship as protective factors for Chinese adolescent adjustment during COVID-19. School Psychology Review. 2022;51(2):187–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.1897478Article
• 42. Valle JE, Stelko-Pereira AC, Peixoto EM, Williams LCDA. Influence of bullying and teacher-student relationship on school engagement: Analysis of an explanatory model. Educational Psychology. 2018;35(4):411–420. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-02752018000400008Article
• 43. Elledge LC, Elledge AR, Newgent RA, Cavell TA. Social risk and peer victimization in elementary school children: The protective role of teacher–student relationships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2016;44(4):691–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0074-zArticlePubMed
• 44. Carter M, van der Watt R, Esterhuyse K. The relationship between perceived parenting dimensions, attachment, and pre-adolescent bullying. Journal of Psychology in Africa. 2020;30(2):106–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2020.1744280Article
• 45. Wright MF. Parental mediation, cyberbullying, and cybertrolling: The role of gender. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017;71:189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.059Article
• 46. DeSmet A, Bastiaensens S, Van Cleemput K, Poels K, Vandebosch H, Deboutte G, et al. The efficacy of the friendly attac serious digital game to promote prosocial bystander behavior in cyberbullying among young adolescents: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Computers in Human Behavior. 2018;78:336–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.011Article
• 47. Van Ryzin MJ, Roseth CJ, Biglan A. Mediators of effects of cooperative learning on prosocial behavior in middle school. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology. 2020;5(1-2):37–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-020-00026-8ArticlePubMedPMC
• 48. Zhong J, Zheng Y, Huang X, Mo D, Gong J, Li M, Huang J. Study of the influencing factors of cyberbullying among Chinese college students incorporated with digital citizenship: From the perspective of individual students. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:621418. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.621418ArticlePubMedPMC
• 49. Saleem S, Khan NF, Zafar S. Prevalence of cyberbullying victimization among Pakistani youth. Technology in Society. 2021;65:101577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101577Article
• 50. Uludasdemir D, Kucuk S. Cyber bullying experiences of adolescents and parental awareness: Turkish example. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 2019;44:e84–e90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2018.11.006ArticlePubMed
• 51. Bennett, D, Ramos, M. Cyber bullying in Romantic Relationships: Developmental Perspectives. In Cyber bullying in Schools, Workplaces, and Romantic Relationships, Routledge. 2019;184–200. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315110554Article
• 52. Rezk EKA, Hassan AM, Fathi EN. Students' awareness about psychosocial problems associated with cyber bullying. Journal of Nursing Science Benha University. 2022;3(1):148–164. https://doi.org/10.21608/JNSBU.2022.213183Article
• 53. Llorent VJ, Diaz‑Chaves A, Zych I, Twardowska‑Staszek E, Marín-López I. Bullying and cyberbullying in Spain and Poland, and their relation to social, emotional and moral competencies. School Mental Health. 2021;13:535–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-021-09473-3Article

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by