Strong-arming in its assorted signifiers is one of the new emerging jobs that many kids and adolescents have to confront daily at school or while practising extracurricular activities off from their parents’ position and protection. Bullying is going an progressively of import job for parents. school decision makers and instructors. and it affects our society at big.
Bullying is non merely physical. but it can besides interrupt a person’s emotional life through mobbing and cyberbullying which is its worst signifier. In fact. cyberbullying is a awful arm that can destruct someone’s repute and life for good in no clip. That is why cyberbullying may hold serious deductions. even legal 1s. for those who pattern it. This paper will show facts about intimidation and its consequence on young person. and will supply some possible solutions to the job.
Cyber Bullying is a major job many people face. Some get truly hurt from being bullied and they finally begin to acquire down. Many people got hurt from this. but it is clip to state halt. Cyber Bullying is non suppose to go on on the cyberspace or any other type of societal media because societal media are suppose to be educational and helpful and non an point of injury. Please fall in me in halting this job or even danger that people get hurt from by fall ining me in this run in order to assist cut down this job and do it easy fade off.
URJHS Volume 12 | | |
Strong-arming on Facebook: How It Affects Secondary School and College StudentsEmily Salinas. Deana Coan. Sara Ansley. Andrew Barton. Caleb McCaig Tarleton State UniversityAbstractSocial networking web sites have contributed to a new sort of bullying—cyberbullying. In this survey. we investigated how cyberbullying via Facebook affects pupils transitioning from high school to college and if blustery persists after that clip period. The intent of this survey was to better understand how blustery emerges from interpersonal communicating on societal networking web sites. In order to carry through the intent of our survey. we proposed the undermentioned research inquiries: “How does strong-arming through Facebook affect pupils? ” and “How do the effects of strong-arming through societal networking impact academic public presentation in school? ”Problem StatementHigh school and college pupils across the state are using societal networking sites such as Facebook to pass on with current friends and household and to make new friendly relationships.
This has both positive and negative effects on their wellbeing. While it allows pupils to obtain “support and information. ” this engineering can potentially expose them to racial or hate-based messages ( Subrahmanyam & A ; Greenfield. 2008. p. 119 ) . As societal networking sites begin to take a big function in the interaction of pupils. “it is of import to see them in the context of the interpersonal relationships” ( Subrahmanyam & A ; Greenfield. 2008. p. 125 ) . As technological promotions make it possible to pass on across a broad assortment of societal media about immediately go forthing less clip for pupils to see their words and actions. a new signifier of intimidation is going prevalent among our nation’s teens. called cyberbullying ( Kite. Gable. & A ; Filippelli. 2010 ) . Cyberbullying is defined as torment. bullying. or strong-arming by agencies of technological promotion ( Kite. Gable. & A ; Filippelli. 2010 ) . When person is bullied on Facebook. they are harassed or are the receiver of hateful messages. The long-run effects of cyberbullying on high school and college pupils along with its impact on societal networking have non been exhaustively discussed. Purpose StatementIn this survey. we researched how cyberbullying via Facebook affects pupils transitioning from high school to college and whether it persisted after that clip period.
The intent of this survey is to better understand how blustery impacts interpersonal communicating on societal networking web sites. Research QuestionsIn order to carry through the intent of our survey. we proposed the undermentioned research inquiries: 1. How does strong-arming through Facebook affect pupils? 2. How do the effects of strong-arming through societal networking impact academic public presentation in school? Review of LiteratureBackground & A ; Description of Cyberbullying Facebook has every bit many as 350 million users and is the most popular societal networking site used by college pupils ( Houghton & A ; Johnson. 2010 ) . Developed in the late ninetiess purely for college pupils. Facebook has become the “behemoth” of the societal networking web sites as it has opened its site to anyone able to make a profile ( North. 2011. p. 1285 ) . Most people create a societal networking profile with the intent of keeping communicating with current friends and household. doing new friends. and researching and sharing involvements.
Users maintain communicating with others by posting updates. sharing images. noticing on other users’ profiles. and directing private messages. The most frequently reported usage for Facebook among college pupils was. “for societal interaction. chiefly with friends with whom the pupils had a pre-established relationship offline” ( Pempek. Yermolayeva. & A ; Calvert. 2009. p. 227 ) . Facebook and Teenage Cyberbullying As today’s adolescents become more consumed with utilizing on-line societal networking sites ( SNS ) such as Facebook. the incidents of cyberbullying are besides increasing. Surveies are being conducted to place the correlativity between strong-arming and SNS ; nevertheless. this is still a comparatively new phenomenon. which makes it hard to organize a solid consensus ( Sengupta & A ; Chaudhuri. 2011 ) . A study conducted in 2005. the 2nd Youth Internet Safety Survey ( YISS-2 ) . “found that nine per centum of immature Internet users reported being harassed online. Harassment included being bothered online every bit good as holding person station or direct messages about them to others” ( Subrahmanyam & A ; Greenfield. 2008. p. 127 ) . While both male childs and misss were marks of strong-arming. Subrahmanyam and Greenfield ( 2008 ) noted misss were more likely to be harassed ( p. 127 ) . Another survey. conducted between October and November of 2006. used informations collected by Pew Internet American Life Survey.
“The study collected information on whether the teens had been contacted by aliens online or had been bullied in any signifier. including whether they had rumours spread about them. abashing images posted on-line. or received baleful messages” ( Sengupta & A ; Chaudhuri. 2011. p. 285 ) . The consequences of this survey indicated that 30 per centum of the surveyed population had been contacted by aliens. Additionally. the study showed more than 25 per centum had been subjected to cyberbullying ( Sengupta & A ; Chaudhuri. 2008 ) . As the phenomenon of cyberbullying continues to turn. it is good to place the population most wedged. This survey focused on the effects cyberbullying has on pupils in the passage from high school to college and if it persisted after that clip period. Past surveies “reported that one in three adolescents experience some signifier of cyberbullying” ( Sengupta & A ; Chaudhuri. 2011. p. 284 ) . Another study. as noted by Walker ( 2011 ) . was given to “120 undergraduate pupils in societal scientific discipline. engineering. and instruction sections.
The bulk ( 54 % ) and 100 per centum of the male pupils said that they knew person who had been cyber-bullied” ( Walker. 2011. p. 31 ) . Yet another survey by Finkelhor et Al. showed that “one in 17 were harassed or threatened” ( Sengupta & A ; Chaudhuri. 2011. p. 284 ) . It’s of import to observe that many instances of intimidation or torment go unreported. However. many instances. 63 per centum as noted by Sengupta & A ; Chaudhuri ( 2011 ) . reported pupils as “being disturbance. embarrassed or stressed as a consequence of these unwanted contacts” ( Sengupta & A ; Chaudhuri. 2011. p. 284 ) instead than really being bullied. This implies that many adolescents have varied definitions of intimidation or seek to understate the incidents. all of which make informations aggregation and analysis really hard to gaining control. Through this survey. a defined population was studied to outdo find how blustery typically affected high school and college freshers pupils.
The Future of Cyberbullying Cyberbullying is going a more prevailing job and has redefined the usual school-yard intimidation. It has become more common because of societal networking engineering. such as Facebook and Twitter. “Social networking may be on the brink of replacing traditional personal interactions for the following generation” ( Zay. 2011. p. 56 ) . Cyberbullying is somewhat different from traditional intimidation because the stations can link to a wider audience ( Holladay. 2011 ) . The figure of immature people who stated they posted rude or awful remarks to another individual on the cyberspace increased from 14 per centum to 28 per centum from 2000 to 2005 ( Kornblum. 2008 ) . Some of the most recent studies on cyberbullying indicated that it has become a lifting job in schools. doing damaging effects on the victim’s wellness. The dangers of these cyberbullying onslaughts have even led parents and functionaries to prosecute legal action.
In the article. Technology & A ; the Law. the issue is carried every bit deep as to discourse First Amendment rights. “The tribunals have said First Amendment rights do apply online. But those free-speech rights are capable to the same bounds as in individual and in print: You can’t defame. libel. or defame another person” ( Olsen. 2010. p. 18 ) . Theoretical FrameworkFor the intent of our survey. we used Knapp’s Theory of Coming Together and Falling Apart ( Knapp. 1978 ) with accent on the Falling Apart subdivision of the procedure for our theoretical model. The Coming Together portion of the procedure has a series of phases that must take topographic point in order for a relationship to be. The phases of the process are: initiating ( i. e. . directing a friend petition to another Facebook user ) . experimenting ( i. e. . the other user accepts the friend petition and additions entree to see personal information and images of their new friend ) . escalating ( i. e. . the relationship progresses ; conversations between the persons intensify in both breath and deepness ; a stronger bond is formed ) . and integrating ( i. e. . the societal friends become more involved in each other’s lives ; speaking more often or sharing activities on or offline ; a friendly relationship of equal grasp and regard has formed ) .
Two persons that may non hold had the closest relationship beforehand now portion a bond that is particular and of import to both. However. sometimes relationships like this do non last and the Falling Apart occurs. Our research focused more on the relationship falling apart. which could perchance take to strong-arming. and on why people who were one time friends would make up one’s mind to bully person. The relational phases of falling apart are: differentiating ( i. e. . both users realize that they do non hold every bit much in common as they originally thought ) . circumscribing ( i. e. . the conversation becomes less intense both in breath and deepness ) . stagnating ( i. e. . both users communicate merely one time per hebdomad or month ) . avoiding ( i. e. . one friend ignores the other friends’ messages and fails to react on their Facebook walls ) . and ending ( i. e. . both users agree to stop their on-line and/or face-to- face friendly relationship ) . Research MethodologyIn order to achieve our end for this survey. we persisted through a phenomenological research design. obtained a deeper apprehension of interpersonal communicating on societal networking sites. and considered how this sort of communicating can hold an consequence on relationships in individual or face-to-face.
Phenomenology is “the survey of the universe as it appears to persons when they place themselves in a province of consciousness that reflects an attempt to be free of mundane prejudices and beliefs” ( Gall. Gall. & A ; Borg. 2003. p. 481 ) . Participants and Context Results were gathered from 44 undergraduate pupils go toing a mid-sized higher instruction establishment in cardinal Texas. Twenty-seven participants were female and 16 participants were male. Thirty-six of the participants were white. three participants were African American. three of the participants were Hispanic. and two did non include their ethnicity. Most of the participants ( 33 ) were between 18-22. six participants were between 23-26. three participants were between 27-32. and two participants indicated that they were 33 and older. Seven participants were freshers. two participants were sophomores. 16 participants were juniors. and 19 participants were seniors. Instrumentality After reexamining the literature. we created a questionnaire based on our theoretical model dwelling of two study inquiries:
1. How does strong-arming through Facebook affect pupils?
2. How do the effects of strong-arming through societal networking impact academic public presentation in school? In add-on to the aforesaid inquiries. the study featured several demographic inquiries focused on age scope. race. gender. hometown part. major. and their academic college.
Data Collection The study was disseminated online to at least 50 college pupils go toing a specified university of our choosing. Our survey was restricted to pupils who were at least 18 old ages of age and were willing to take the study. graduated from a public or private high school. were presently enrolled in our chosen higher instruction establishment. had a Facebook history and had either experienced a signifier of cyberbullying on Facebook themselves or cognize person that experienced cyberbullying. Data Analysis Google Spreadsheets. a package bundle available to online research workers. was used to manually analyse the information. The informations were analyzed for meaningful forms and subjects and organized suitably. “Data analysis involves working with informations. forming them. interrupting them into manageable units. synthesising. seeking for forms. detecting what is of import and what is to be learned. and make up one’s minding what you will state others” ( Bodgan & A ; Biklen. 1998. p. 157 ) . We persisted through the informations analysis stairss per the recommendations of these research workers.
A procedure called research worker triangulation ( Denzin. 1978 ) . where multiple research workers categorize the information. was used to do certain that participants’ responses correlated with the classs ab initio determined. Five pupil research workers and one module member determined these classifications by reexamining the responses of the participants and utilizing their ain perceptual experiences of forms and subjects. puting them into classs. We used the phenomenological research stairss mentioned above in our survey. while at the same clip remained nonsubjective and limited our research prejudice. As undergraduate pupils we were connected to the higher instruction environment in assorted ways. ResultsAfter a two-week data-gathering period. 44 people responded to our study. Using a phenomenological research position. five research workers analyzed the 44 participants’ responses for each of the study inquiries in our survey.
For the intents of this survey. we focused on both of the study inquiries. Survey Question One: Have you of all time been bullied on Facebook? Please depict a state of affairs in which you or a friend experienced cyberbullying ( i. e. . strong-arming on Facebook ) . Three overarching classs. strong-arming contexts. intimidation experiences. and covering with toughs became clear from the participants’ responses to the study inquiry. The first overarching class. intimidation experiences. consisted of the undermentioned subcategories: friends’ experience. ” “witnessed with friends. ” “knowledge but no experience. ” “relationship/ex-relationship. ” “not experient intimidation. ” “unsure. ” Table 1 provides a frequence distribution of responses from the intimidation experiences class. Table 1- Frequency Distribution of Responses Related to Bullying Experiences | Friends’ Experience| Witnessed with Friends| Knowledge but no Experience| Relationship/ Ex- relationship| Not Experienced bullying| Unsure| TOTAL| Participants’
Responses| 4| 4| 5| 4| 23| 3| 43|
The subcategory “not experienced bullying” had the most responses ( 23 ) . The “knowledge but no experience” subcategory had the most figure of relevant participant responses ( 5 ) . One illustration of the participants’ responses was. “I have ne’er been cyber- bullied on Facebook. but I see it go on all the clip. ” There are three subcategories that had the same figure of responses ( 4 ) . These subcategories are “friends’ experiences. ” “witnessed with friends. ” and “relationship/ex-relationship. ” A participant’s response from the friends’ experience subcategory was. “A friend of mine was bullied through Facebook. Stating she wasn’t reasonably plenty to day of the month a certain cat. this friend’s name stayed in this station. but it was clear it was about her. ”
The subcategory “witnessed with friends” ( 4 ) consisted of this participant’s response. “One of my friends and a miss that my ex-boyfriend cheated on me with were contending on my Facebook page about how she knew he had a girlfriend and that she should non hold done it. ” The subcategory “relationship/ex-relationship” ( 4 ) produced this participant’s response. “Well one clip I was speaking to a female and so her ex-boyfriend got mad and told me he was fundamentally traveling to hit me.
This caused me to non speak to her any more. ” Another participant’s response from the relationship/ex-relationship subcategory was. “A friend of mine was dating a cat for a long clip and they lived in the same flat composite as I did.
When they broke up my friends ex started to reach me and was hassling me on Facebook. I eventually had to barricade him. ”
The last participant responses ( 3 ) came from the diffident class. The 2nd overarching class. “bullying contexts” . consisted of the undermentioned subcategories: “bullying pages ( i. e. . Facebook. Myspace ) . ” “sexual orientation. ” “interfere with Cyberbullying. ” Table 2 provides a frequence distribution of responses from the intimidation contexts. | Bullying Pages ( i. e. Facebook. Myspace ) | Sexual Orientation| Interfere with
Responses| 2| 1| 1| 4|
The subcategory with the highest figure of responses ( 2 ) was the intimidation pages ( i. e. – Facebook. Myspace ) class. An illustration of one of the participants’ responses in this subcategory was. “… person at my high school created a Facebook page. posted a clump of images of different misss. and wrote hateful things about each of them on the page. ” Another similar response was. “There were some anon. people from my high school who made a Myspace and a Facebook page and posted images of misss and cats. Peoples from my high school would so travel and vote on who was better looking. This was strong-arming to me. ”
The two staying subcategories. “sexual orientation” and “interfering with cyberbullying” both had one response each. The response for the subcategory related to sexual orientation was. “The use. ‘that’s gay’ is strong-arming to me. As a homosexual it’s violative. ”The 3rd overarching class was “dealing with bullies” and consisted of the undermentioned subcategories: “drastic measures” and “did non add toughs. ” Table 3 provides a frequence distribution of responses from the “dealing with bullies” class. Table 3-Frequency Distribution of Responses Related to Covering With Bullies | Drastic Measures| Did Not Add Bullies| TOTAL| Participants’ Responses| 1| 2| 3|
The subcategory with the highest participant responses ( 2 ) was the “did non add bullies” subcategory. One of the participants’ responses from this subcategory was. “I’ve ne’er been bullied on Facebook. I don’t add people who I think might bully me. ” The subcategory with the least participant responses ( 1 ) was the “drastic measures” subcategory. This response was. “Yes. a friend of my ex kept go forthing ill-mannered messages on my wall until I deleted him. This happened a few old ages back and we are still non friends. but he is on my Facebook and does non tease me any longer. ”Survey Question Two: While in high school. did you or a friend experience cyberbullying to the extent that it affected your academic public presentation in school?
This study inquiry focused on research inquiry two. “How do the effects of strong-arming through societal networking impact academic public presentation in school? ” Two overarching classs. “related experienced” and “bullying affects” became clear from the participants’ responses to the 2nd study inquiry. The first overarching class. “related experiences” . consisted of the undermentioned subcategories: “technology non available at high school. ” “face-to-face intimidation. ” “students non affected. ” Table 4 provides a frequence distribution of responses from the related experiences | Face-to-Face Bullying| Not
Affected| Technology non available at High
responses| 2| 2| 6| 10|
The subcategory with the highest participant responses ( 6 ) was the “technology non available at High School” subcategory. The following two subcategories “face-to-face bullying” and “not affected” had an equal figure of responses ( 2 ) . The first “face-to-face” response was. “Nope non at all. I experienced regular intimidation but non cyberbullying. ” The 2nd. “not affected. ” had this response. “Um. no. I didn’t care what other people thought of me.
It’s one thing for a individual to portion his beliefs ; nevertheless. when beliefs become actions. it’s different. ”The 2nd overarching class. “bullying affects” . consisted of the undermentioned subcategories: “affected friend’s performance/friend’s experiences” and “personally affected” . Table 5 provides a frequence distribution of responses from the intimidation affects class. Table 5 – Frequency Distribution of Responses Related to Bullying Affects | Affected friend’s performance/ Friend’s Experience| Personally affected| TOTAL| Participants’
responses| 5| 2| 7|
The subcategory with the highest participant responses ( 5 ) was the “affected friend’s performance/friend’s experience” subcategory. One of the participant’s responses from this subcategory was. “My small sister was bullied all through her first-year twelvemonth and even moved schools because of it. ” This response from our study is the most drastic consequence cyberbullying has had on academic public presentation. The subcategory with the least participant responses ( 2 ) was the “personally affected” subcategory. A response from this class stated. “Yes. I was told that I should decease and the following twosome of hebdomads after that. I truly couldn’t believe consecutive. ”
ConclusionsThe bulk of our research focused on intimidation and its effects in different contexts through societal media. In this survey. 44 participants contributed to our study and provided responses that addressed cyberbullying in a personal scene and a school environment. Their responses addressed the two research inquiries in our survey. “How does strong-arming through Facebook affect pupils? ” and “How do the effects of strong-arming through societal networking impact academic public presentation in school? ”Conclusions for Research Question OneResearch inquiry one was. “How does strong-arming through Facebook affect pupils? ”
The bulk of our participants indicated that they have non personally been affected by cyberbullying but had witnessed it in some manner. Three subcategories comprised our first class. “bullying contexts. ” “bullying pages. ” “sexual orientation. ” and “interference with cyberbullying. ” In this class. more participants responded that they had cognition of strong-arming pages. One interesting answer. “I have ne’er been bullied on Facebook. But person at my high school created a Facebook page. posted a clump of images of different misss. and wrote hateful things about each of them on the page. ”
Another participant indicated that they had been bullied because of their sexual orientation. One participant revealed that a intimidation case witnessed became so hideous that intervention was necessary. In our 2nd class. “bullying experiences” . one participant responded. “While I personally have non experienced cyberbullying. I have seen it in many topographic points on Facebook. ” Another participant indicated that drastic steps were taken to cancel a friend. “Yes. a friend of my ex kept go forthing ill-mannered messages on my wall until I deleted him. This happened a few old ages back and we are still non friends but he is on my Facebook and does non tease me any longer. ”
Decisions for Research Question Two Research inquiry two was. “How do the effects of strong-arming through societal networking impact academic public presentation in school? ” Based on the participants’ responses. cyberbullying does impact academic public presentation in some form or signifier. One participant indicated that a sibling had experienced intimidation and later had to alter schools because of the torment. There were several more interesting findings in our participant’s responses that made our research more absorbing. These were responses about strong-arming because of sexual orientation. relationship issues. and even societal media web sites with the exclusive intent of assailing person or a group of people. Decisions for Knapp’s Stages of Coming Together and Falling Apart Most of the participants’ responses did non follow a typical patterned advance through Knapp’s Stages of Coming Together and Falling Apart. Merely one individual in our study stated that drastic steps had been taken to cancel the friend from Facebook. Several participants indicated that they would non even add some individuals because they seemed like toughs.
This behaviour might bespeak that communicating and relationships/friendships on societal networking web sites might follow a potentially new theoretical account of coming together and coming apart. ImplicationsThis survey nowadayss several deductions for the higher instruction community and person who is interested in the phases of societal networking friendly relationships. High schools and colleges should recognize that although the consequences of this survey imply that the biggest jobs were among friends. it is still possible for these jobs to impact student populations on campuses. Educators and decision makers in the K-12 scenes might see following a proactive attack to cyberbullying and host information literacy Sessionss for their pupils. Suggestions for Further ResearchThis survey was limited to 44 undergraduate pupils go toing a rural. preponderantly white university in Texas.
Future research workers might try to include a more diverse sample by concentrating on a university that is more racially and ethnically diverse. Since most of our participants were seniors in the university. future research workers might take to diversify the survey by trying equal Numberss of each academic category. Our survey had more female participants than work forces. hereafter research workers might take to study an equal figure of both work forces and adult females.
If our study had a broad degree of engagement. more jobs might hold trended. However. our consequences showed that most of the people who attended the university had non been personally bullied. A few mentioned that they had seen others being bullied. but merely a little part had first-hand experience. In add-on. future research workers might take to make farther analyze into the relationship between Knapp’s Stages of Coming Together and Apart.
ReferencesBodgan. R. . & A ; Bickler. S. K. ( 1998 ) . Qualitative research in instruction: An debut to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & A ; Bacon. Denzin. N. K. ( 1978 ) . The research act: A Theoretical debut to sociological methods. New York: McGraw Hill. Gall. M. D. . Gall. J. P. . & A ; Borg. W. R. ( 2003 ) . Educational research: An debut ( 7th ed. ) . Boston: A & A ; P Publishers. Holladay. J. ( 2011 ) . Cyberbullying. Education Digest [ consecutive online ] . 76 ( 5 ) . 4. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. eddigest. com/Houghton. D. J. . Joinson. A. N. ( 2010 ) . Privacy. Social Network Sites. and Social Relations. Journal of Technology in Human Services. 28. 74-94. Retrieved from doi:10. 1080/15228831003770775. Kite. S. L. . Gable. R. . & A ; Filippelli. L. ( 2010 ) . Measuring in-between school students’ cognition of behavior and effects and their behaviours sing the usage of societal networking sites.
The Clearing House. 83. 158-163. Department of the Interior: 10. 1080/00098650903505365. Knapp. M. L. ( 1978 ) . Social intercourse: From recognizing to goodbye. Boston: Allyn & A ; Bacon. Kornblum. J. ( 2008 ) . Cyberbullying grows bigger and meaner. 01. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. USAtoday. comNorth. E. E. ( 2011 ) . Facebook isn’t your infinite any longer: Discovery of societal networking Websites. Kansas City Law Review. 58 ( 5 ) . 1279-1309. Olsen. S. ( 2010 ) . New York Times upfront. Technology & A ; the Law. 18-21. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. nytimes. comPempek. T. A. . Yermolayeva. Y. A. . & A ; Calvert. S. L. ( 2009 ) . College students’ societal networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 30 ( 3 ) . 227- 238. Department of the Interior: 10. 1016/j. physletb. 2003. 10. 071. Sengupta. A. . & A ; Chaudhuri. A. ( 2011 ) .
Are societal networking sites a beginning of on-line torment for teens? Evidence from study informations. Children and Youth Services Review. 33 ( 2 ) . 284-290. Department of the Interior: 10. 1016/j. childyouth. 2010. 09. 011Subrahmanyam. K. . & A ; Greenfield. P. ( 2008 ) . Online communicating and adolescent relationships. The Future of Children. 18 ( 1 ) . 119-146. Department of the Interior: 10. 1353/foc. 0. 0006. Walker. C. M. . Sockman. B. . & A ; Koehn. S. ( 2011 ) . An exploratory survey of cyberbullying with undergraduate university pupils. Techtrends: Associating Research and Practice to Better Learning. 55 ( 2 ) . 31-38. Department of the Interior: 10. 1007/s11528-011-0481-0Zay. S. ( 2011 ) . What sticks & A ; rocks can’t do. Facebook will-and more! . USA Today Magazine. 139 ( 2790 ) . 56. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. usatoday. com/ . |