Promoting ethical online behaviour: the perspectives of educators, experts and policymakers on cyberbullying in Maltese secondary schools

Empathy and the online disinhibition effect

In 2007, Floridi coined the term ‘onlife’ to describe how developments since the beginning of the twenty-first century have eroded the differences between physical and digital spaces. This shift has caused the boundaries between ‘virtual life’ and ‘real life’ to progressively blur into each other (Floridi, 2007: 62). We have become increasingly reliant on digital communication platforms such as social networks, online games and video-conferencing apps, which have profound impacts on our lives (Jurgenson, 2012; Terranova, 2004), making us practically ‘digital by default’ (Stoilova et al., 2020: 198). These platforms have allowed us to maintain a sense of connection with others even when physically apart, which revealed to be a crucial lifeline during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, a critical question arises: can these digital connections genuinely replace face-to-face interactions, or do they have a detrimental impact on our relationships with others?

Various researchers have argued that the frequent use of technology displaces face-to-face conversations with others (Bugeja, 2005; Konrath et al., 2011; Martingano et al., 2022; Small and Vorgan, 2009; Turkle, 2011, 2015; Twenge, 2017). Turkle (2011, 2015) contends that the more time people spend looking at screens instead of faces, the less they engage in meaningful conversations, eye contact and active listening. She suggests that while virtual spaces encourage connection, human relationships become more superficial. Turkle (2011, 2015) asserts that modern technologies create a split in our sense of self, dividing it between the digital screen and the physical world, impacting our ability to forge deep connections and maintain empathy.

Turkle’s (2011, 2015) work, although seminal, echoes concerns expressed earlier by Bugeja (2005). Bugeja argued that people spend more time in the online realm than in their real life, fostering deeper connections with online communities than with their physical counterparts. He maintained that this shift led to a neglect of primary relationships and a sense of isolation, diminishing our ethical and emotional responses to life’s challenges. In their work on technologically mediated relationships, both Turkle (2011, 2015) and Bugeja (2005) draw a dichotomy between the ‘real’ and the ‘virtual’, a distinction that may have been more relevant at the time, considering the evolving integration of digital technologies into daily life. Other researchers also assert that spending time online reduces our capacity for empathy (Konrath et al., 2011; Martingano et al., 2022; Small and Vorgan, 2009; Twenge, 2017). They argue that modern life, with its heavy reliance on technology, has made us less empathetic, as deep attention to the needs, feelings and facial expressions of others becomes less common due to reduced face-to-face interactions.

Bauman, in conversations with Donskis, discusses a loss of empathy that he terms ‘adiaphora’, attributed partly to the sadistic language and insensitivity in online communication, which he links to mass media. Bauman suggests that the constant exposure to sensational and destructive stimuli desensitises individuals, making them indifferent to others’ suffering. He points out that only celebrities and victims seem to gain society’s attention in a media-saturated world (Bauman and Donskis, 2013).

John Suler’s (2004) theory of the online disinhibition effect is grounded in the notion that virtual interactions can erode empathy. Suler (2004) contends that online behaviour often diverges from in-person conduct. He argues that online interactions often lack the usual restraints seen in face-to-face encounters, as social norms and inhibitions are often loosened or discarded altogether. The online environment facilitates anonymity, with pseudonyms allowing users to shield their true identities, providing them with an opportunity to harm and defame others without revealing themselves. This anonymity allows users to disconnect from their in-person identities and moral responsibilities, effectively distancing themselves from their actions. When individuals feel that their identity is concealed, they may be more likely to engage in aggressive or hurtful behaviour without fear of immediate consequences. This anonymity can embolden potential cyberbullies, making them feel less accountable for their actions.

The disinhibition effect is exacerbated by the fact that online participants, often not visible to one another, miss out on non-verbal cues of disapproval from each other. This lack of empathic feedback can lead to reduced empathy online, making individuals less attuned to the emotional impact of their actions. Suler (2004) draws a parallel between this form of interaction and psychoanalysis, where the analyst sits behind the patient to encourage free discussion, unaffected by the visible reactions of the analyst. According to Suler (2004), the asynchronicity of some online communication intensifies this effect, as users can post a hostile message and then postpone or even refuse to deal with the immediate reactions. The online disinhibition effect can lead individuals to perceive the online world as a separate, disconnected space from real life. As a result, they may detach from the potential harm they cause through cyberbullying, seeing it as divorced from the consequences they might face offline. Additionally, online users can dehumanise those they interact with, perceiving them as fictional characters in a make-believe world (Suler, 2004).

Finally, in digital environments, individuals may perceive a reduced presence of authority figures or consequences for their actions. This perception can embolden potential cyberbullies, as they believe they can engage in bullying behaviour with impunity.

Cyberbullying

The link between the online disinhibition effect and cyberbullying is well established (Antoniadou et al., 2016; Wang and Ngai, 2021). The term ‘cyberbullying’ was coined in 2008 by Canadian educator Bill Belsey (2019: n.p.), who defined cyberbullying as ‘the use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour by an individual or group intended to harm others’. Since the introduction of the term, numerous studies have examined its prevalence and impact on children and young people. A scoping review by Hamm et al. (2015) found that the median prevalence of reported cyberbullying in the US was 23 per cent, with significant associations between cyberbullying and depression, low self-esteem, behavioural issues and substance abuse among children and adolescents. An earlier study by Van Geel et al. (2014) revealed a strong link between cyberbullying and suicidal ideation. According to Campbell et al. (2012), some aspects of cyberbullying, such as anonymity and larger audiences, can increase the harmful effects of the bullying.

Similar trends have been observed in the UK and Europe. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC, 2016) reported changes in the nature of bullying, including online gaming site bullying, sexual bullying online and race- or faith-related bullying following high-profile terrorist attacks. In the latest World Health Organization study conducted in Europe, central Asia and Canada, the prevalence of reported cyberbullying stands at 15 per cent for boys and 16 per cent for girls (Cosma et al., 2024). Bryce and Fraser’s (2013) research with UK youths indicates that cyberbullying is viewed as a prevalent and serious issue, yet it is considered a relatively common aspect of young people’s online experiences and interactions. In Malta, cyberbullying is also a prominent issue. Local sources indicate that it is widespread among Maltese teenagers (Azzopardi et al., 2023; Borg, 2016). Caruana (2014) reports that 38.3 per cent of respondents admitted to being perpetrators of cyberbullying, while 60.7 per cent of 13–15-year olds claimed to be victims of cyberbullying on social media platforms. Some victims reported missing school, thoughts of self-harm and suicidal ideation.

The latest EU Kids Online survey studied European children’s (ages 9 to 16) online opportunities, risks and safety. The survey combined online and offline bullying, since they often overlap. The EU average for children reporting victimisation in bullying stands at 23 per cent, while 14 per cent admitted to being bullies themselves. In Malta, the numbers were higher, with 34 per cent reporting victimisation and 20 per cent admitting to being perpetrators (Smahel et al., 2020). Notably, in older age groups, the majority of bullying occurred online (90 per cent for 13–14-year olds and 78 per cent for 15–16-year olds) (Lauri and Farrugia, 2020). A more recent study on child abuse in Malta showed that, according to professionals who worked with children, cyberbullying is the most frequently mentioned type of abuse among Maltese children (Azzopardi et al., 2023).

Cyberbullying prevention and intervention in schools

As observed by Lauri and Farrugia (2020), online and offline bullying often intersect, highlighting the complexity of the issue. Research indicates that teachers, school leaders and school staff view cyberbullying as a major concern (Macaulay et al., 2018; Young et al., 2017). Furthermore, educators and schools play a crucial role in both preventing and addressing cyberbullying (Elbedour et al., 2020; NASP, 2019).

Researchers, practitioners and policymakers have sought to mitigate cyberbullying through school-based interventions (Mishna et al., 2011; Polanin et al., 2022). Meta-analyses of cyberbullying prevention and intervention programmes implemented in schools indicate reductions in cyberbullying perpetration by up to 15 per cent and in victimisation by as much as 14 per cent (Gaffney et al., 2019; Polanin et al., 2022). Polanin et al. (2022) found that preventive programmes were effective in reducing both cyber perpetration and victimisation, with a more significant effect on perpetration. These findings align with those of Gaffney et al. (2019).

This research study seeks to offer insights into the perspectives of educators and policymakers regarding the causes of cyberbullying and the approaches adopted by Maltese secondary schools to address this phenomenon. Although cyberbullying in Malta is well-documented, there is a lacuna in research focusing on the viewpoints of educators and educational policymakers, and the aim of this study is to fill that gap.

Empathy

Many of the research participants agreed with the researchers who argue that the use of technology diminishes empathy (Bugeja, 2005; Konrath et al., 2011; Martingano et al., 2022; Small and Vorgan, 2009; Turkle, 2011, 2015; Twenge, 2017). Ten participants reported reduced empathy observed in Maltese secondary school students. The participants blamed anonymity behind screens as the main factor which led to a decrease in empathy, echoing Suler’s (2004) concerns about the online disinhibition effect. The Commissioner for Children’s representative, Ms Garcia Imbernon, emphasised the significance of acknowledging the real person behind the screen, highlighting the notable absence of emotional connection in online conversations compared to face-to-face interactions.

Mr Catania voiced concern regarding the use of apps that provide anonymity among teenagers. He maintained that his role as the Education Officer responsible for the teaching of ICT in Maltese schools requires familiarity with the apps that students use on a daily basis. He highlighted the potential risk of young users feeling empowered to act invisibly online, remarking that young people often believe that when they go online, ‘all of a sudden they get a superpower which makes them invisible’. Mr Spiteri, the Project Coordinator of BeSmartOnline, echoed similar sentiments:

I’m sure that three quarters of the people that say certain things online wouldn’t say them face to face, and that, I think, goes to show that they have learnt their values and the principles offline, but they can’t easily transfer them online.

Some participants, including Mr Grixti (Director of the Department for Digital Literacy and Transversal Skills) and Mr Attard (Head of a church school), highlighted a pervasive ‘lack of boundaries’ in digital spaces, where students frequently engage in online insults directed at their teachers or peers. Their observations aligned with those of Bauman and Donskis (2013), who claimed that virtual life is eroding human compassion and fostering an indifference to the plights of others. These assertions resonate with similar concerns raised by others (Konrath et al., 2011; Small and Vorgan, 2009; Turkle, 2011, 2015; Twenge, 2017). The participants drew a direct connection between the decline in empathy and the surge in cyberbullying cases among students.

The findings of this study reveal a strong connection between diminished empathy and the prevalence of cyberbullying among Maltese secondary school students. Many participants observed that the anonymity provided by digital platforms fosters a lack of accountability, aligning with Suler’s (2004) online disinhibition effect. These findings underscore the urgent need to address the erosion of empathy as a key factor in combating cyberbullying. As highlighted in the literature, reduced empathy diminishes the ability to understand the emotional impact of one’s actions, thereby perpetuating harmful online behaviours. These findings are particularly relevant in the Maltese context, where the close-knit nature of communities amplifies the effects of cyberbullying within school settings.

Cyberbullying among Maltese secondary school students

Fourteen participants expressed concern over cyberbullying among Maltese secondary school students, confirming the results from various studies (Azzopardi et al., 2023; Borg, 2016; Caruana, 2014; Lauri and Farrugia, 2020; Smahel et al., 2020). Ms Garcia Imbernon, whose work at the Office of the Commissioner for Children brings her into frequent contact with children and youths, described cyberbullying as ‘rampant’ among Maltese students, with many incidents occurring on online gaming platforms. Of the educators in schools, 11 supported this assertion, with Ms Mangion (ICT teacher) describing a dramatic increase in cyberbullying cases in her school, characterising them as ‘out of control’.

Mr Attard, Head of a church school, lamented the collapse of social boundaries in the digital era, noting that students often insult each other online, leading to conflicts that spill over into the school environment. He stressed that cyberbullying is a significant concern for Maltese schools, and that school leaders often invest a lot of energy and resources in tackling this issue. This concern was shared by many participants, particularly heads of school and teachers. It is noteworthy that all heads or assistant heads of schools, regardless of their affiliation, highlighted cyberbullying as a significant concern. Ms Borg, the Assistant Head of a state school, shared an incident illustrating how petty online disputes could escalate into real-life problems. She described an incident that had occurred just that morning. A female student had been to her office, expressing concerns about feeling excluded at school due to a disagreement related to her online ‘likes’. Although Ms Borg did not delve into the specifics of this incident, she suggested that girls tend to employ more covert methods of bullying, while boys often display physical aggression.

Other participants also highlighted a gender difference in cyberbullying, with girls more likely to engage in such behaviour. Mr Zammit, the Assistant Head of an independent school, maintained that girls often initiate cyberbullying, while boys tend to get involved in disputes started by girls. This observation was supported by Ms Tanti (teacher of ethics) and Ms Garcia Imbernon. Ms Tanti reported that while evaluating students’ responses to a question on cyberbullying in an ethics examination, she observed a higher number of reports from girls of experiencing online bullying. In a similar vein, Ms Garcia Imbernon, drawing from her work with young people, highlighted that girls tend to engage in more personalised attacks when targeting others online, whereas boys frequently direct their focus towards critiquing fellow boys’ gaming skills. These observations align with data from the EU Kids Online survey, which reported higher instances of cyberbullying among girls (Smahel et al., 2020). When asked about the source of cyberbullying, Mr Galea, an ICT teacher, attributed it to complex romantic relationships among students, which sometimes led to online harassment when relationships soured.

The increase in the number of cyberbullying and online harassment cases among Maltese secondary school students is not surprising. Floridi’s (2007: 62) concept of ‘onlife’ is based on the merging of people’s online and offline lives. As students seamlessly navigate both realms, traditional and cyberbullying become intertwined. In fact, the EU Kids Online Survey reports both forms together, with Maltese children having the highest reported incidence of bullying in the EU (Lauri and Farrugia, 2020). This survey data aligns with findings from participant interviews in this research.

Ms Garcia Imbernon stressed the role of schools in addressing cyberbullying, claiming that the line between online and offline experiences is often blurred for young people. She argued that although such bullying starts after school, students often continue arguing at school, which is in line with Lauri and Farrugia’s (2020) conclusions. She claimed that cyberbullying is worse than traditional bullying because it continues even after students leave school grounds, and she said that schools should have a prominent role in supporting victims of cyberbullying or other online harms. This resonates with research that shows that schools and educators play an important role in preventing and addressing cyberbullying (Elbedour et al., 2020; NASP, 2019).

Participants identified significant challenges in addressing cyberbullying, particularly due to its occurrence beyond school boundaries. This finding is consistent with research emphasising the blurred lines between digital and physical spaces (Floridi, 2007; Terranova, 2004). While schools are expected to manage the repercussions of cyberbullying, the lack of clear policies exacerbates the difficulty of defining their role in such incidents. This gap highlights a pressing need for comprehensive anti-cyberbullying policies tailored to the unique dynamics of Maltese schools, as discussed in the literature review.

Strategies employed by schools to combat cyberbullying

The majority of participants discussing cyberbullying were either educators working in schools or professionals with close interactions with students. Remarkably, only three policymakers or experts addressed this issue. It is worth noting that most of the participants centred their discussions on the challenges that cyberbullying presents within a school context. In fact, the three participants who raised concerns about the victims of cyberbullying were all policymakers or experts. The educators were primarily preoccupied with the difficulties cyberbullying posed in terms of upholding discipline within schools. Conversely, the experts and policymakers appeared less preoccupied with the prevalence of cyberbullying, but among the three who did address it, their greater concern revolved around the adverse consequences it had on students, rather than the disciplinary challenges it imposed on schools. For instance, Professor Wain, an expert in the field of moral education, underscored how digital technologies add a new dimension to bullying, making it more accessible and dangerous. He acknowledged the considerable challenge for schools, but he was uncertain about whether Maltese schools had formulated specific policies to address cyberbullying.

A significant insight from the interviews, particularly those involving teachers, heads and assistant heads of schools, highlighted that schools frequently face challenges in addressing cyberbullying. This issue tends to occur outside school hours and off school grounds, largely because personal devices are prohibited on school property. Mr Darmanin, a teacher, pointed out that educators seem to be ‘washing their hands’ of cyberbullying:

I think that in a way it’s a new form of bullying that everyone seems to wash their hands of, since it’s not physical, so it’s like it is not related to school. Last year, they used to say that there wasn’t much bullying happening in school, but it seems that this year there is quite a bit, so, as I said, in a way, it’s something that happens online, so since it’s not happening at school, it’s like everyone is washing their hands of it.

Mr Attard, the Head of a church school, emphasised that cyberbullying represents a major issue for schools in Malta, prompting them to allocate considerable effort and resources to combat it. Two of the participants (Ms Mangion and Mr Galea) mentioned that, at times, they have had to involve police officers from the Cyberbullying Unit to educate students on the repercussions of cyberbullying.

Despite varying approaches shared by the educators, it was noted that there was no mention of the anti-bullying strategy that was supposed to be in effect at the time of the interviews. The formal anti-bullying policy, titled Addressing Bullying Behaviour in Schools, was released in 2014 (Ministry for Education and Employment, 2014). It makes a very cursory reference to cyberbullying, and it lacks any specific information or guidance for schools on how to tackle it. Later, a new document aimed at offering guidance on managing cyberbullying was made available on the Department for Assessment and Learning Programmes curriculum web page. Titled How to Deal with Cyberbullying: Guidelines for the senior management team, this resource carries the BeSmartOnline consortium’s logo, but it lacks a publication date and does not hold the formal status of an official policy. It references the official Addressing Bullying Behaviour in Schools policy, but it focuses specifically on cyberbullying. It outlines a Standard Operating Procedure for teachers and senior management teams to address cyberbullying incidents, and it provides guidance for students, parents or guardians, and external agencies, on reporting cyberbullying incidents. Notably, the document does not differentiate between cyberbullying occurring within school premises and that taking place outside (Ministry for Education and Employment, n.d.).

The fact that none of the participants made any reference to these two documents suggests that schools lack a clear policy on cyberbullying, and that instead they address incidents on an individual basis. Mr Galea noted that guidance teachers, who serve a pastoral function, often handle these issues. Ms Farrugia shared that at her school, students implicated in cyberbullying are temporarily removed from their regular classes and placed in a ‘Learning Zone’. Here, guidance teachers adopt a more holistic approach, prioritising pastoral care over the standard curriculum:

The Learning Zone is a space which is run by guidance teachers. Students who are going through difficult times, or have particular needs, are taken out of the classroom setting for a number of lessons and are taught in the Learning Zone. The teachers work with them on anger management, challenging behaviour or time management, according to the students’ needs.

Mr Attard stood out as the only school leader who described a comprehensive approach to managing cyberbullying and other forms of misuse of social media. He outlined a process through which identified offenders or victims receive individual counselling sessions with school counsellors or guidance teachers. Subsequently, the entire class receives broad instruction on social media etiquette through PSCD lessons, occasionally supplemented by assemblies addressed to the whole school. These assemblies feature presentations by the Police Department’s Cybercrime Unit or, in some cases, parents of other students who work as judges or magistrates, providing insights into the legal implications of cyber activities.

Mr Gatt, a teacher of ethics and PSCD, claimed that the head of the school in which he taught had limited technological expertise, relying on teachers to address the issue. He proposed increased school involvement in cases of cyberbullying, emphasising the importance of schools engaging with social media. He portrayed the school authorities as ‘ignorant’ of the realities of students, arguing that schools should be active in their school community’s online activities, even beyond the physical school boundaries. He attributed the school authorities’ ignorance of students’ realities to their limited presence on social media:

Bullying is not only happening at school, now it’s happening away from school, it’s happening on the social media. Although bullying has happened outside of schools before, on the social media it stays public, and it could involve the school as well, because it’s happening within the social media bubble of the school community, and then they carry it back to the school, and the school is usually obliged to ask, Why? What has happened? Why are you fighting? Why are you bullying each other? What’s going on? And the reason why there is this ignorance of what is happening is because the school is not present enough on the social media. Sometimes you get teachers who know what’s happening, but the school itself as an institution does not know.

Ms Mangion, an ICT teacher, explained that ICT and computing teachers were often tasked by the head of school to develop a strategy to combat cyberbullying. They organised a talk on responsible online behaviour during Internet Safety Week, conducted by a Police Inspector from the Cyberbullying Unit. Mr Galea, another ICT and computing teacher who taught at the same school, said that this approach was effective, since the students seemed to be rather receptive to the talk, and, consequently, there was a noticeable decrease in cyberbullying cases within the school. This is reflected in studies which show that prevention strategies are effective in reducing cyberbullying (Gaffney et al., 2019; Polanin et al., 2022).

Of the participants, 14 extensively discussed cyberbullying among secondary school students; 11 of them contended that cases of cyberbullying have proliferated among secondary school students, presenting challenges for school authorities. They highlighted a central problem in addressing cyberbullying, where school staff often grappled with intervening in incidents occurring outside school premises. The ‘spillover’ of cyberbullying from students’ homes and external spaces into schools was frequently mentioned.

Furthermore, the research findings indicated that educators found it challenging to understand how to combat cyberbullying, particularly when it occurred outside the school’s physical boundaries. Traditionally, there was a clear demarcation of school authorities’ responsibilities – any kind of misbehaviour or illegal activity which occurred outside school premises was not considered to be the school’s remit, unless students were wearing the school uniform when they committed their misdeeds. However, with cyberbullying, this distinction is blurred, as cyberbullying often merges with traditional bullying occurring within the school environment. Victims of cyberbullying often seek help from teachers and guidance counsellors, especially if both the perpetrators and the victims attend the same school. Digital and physical spaces became intricately linked, as many participants noted. As Terranova (2004), Floridi (2007) and Jurgenson (2012) contend, digital spaces and physical spaces are intricately linked, rendering it impractical to treat them as separate domains. The participants’ discussions highlighting a division between the physical school setting and the digital realms frequented by Maltese students reveals a discrepancy in how participants perceive this division while concurrently acknowledging that their students’ interactions seamlessly traverse both physical and digital spaces.

The results of this research show that the distinction between the physical school environment and the digital domains frequented by Maltese students has become outdated. Students engage with one another in diverse ways, whether within the physical school premises, beyond school boundaries, or online through school-related platforms, school social media accounts, private messaging groups and direct messaging. Instances of cyberbullying often encompass the use of multiple platforms, sometimes coupled with face-to-face confrontations or exclusion. The complexity heightens when students from different schools become involved in cyberbullying incidents, either as victims or perpetrators. This complexity becomes even more pronounced with the growing adoption of educational technologies.

Between 2020 and 2021, students spent extensive periods, sometimes months, engaged in online synchronous lessons, due to Covid-19 restrictions. Maltese schools actively endorsed the use of educational technology platforms as a means for students to interact with both their peers and teachers. In fact, all students have institutional access to such platforms, provided by their respective schools. While there may be no official data or academic research supporting this claim, anecdotal evidence from parents and teachers suggests that students have experienced cyberbullying via such platforms. An online news report highlighted at least one instance of a student being bullied by peers (Barbara, 2022). Additionally, another news article revealed a security vulnerability in government-provided digital devices, enabling anyone to access children (Calleja, 2022). Consequently, such cases of cyberbullying squarely fall within the jurisdiction of school authorities, who can readily intervene given their access to students’ chat logs.

The insights gleaned from participant interviews also revealed a noteworthy pattern: those directly engaged with students, particularly teachers and heads of schools, exhibited a higher level of concern regarding cyberbullying. However, their predominant focus tended to revolve around the operational challenges that cyberbullying posed within a school’s framework. Conversely, policymakers and experts who were not directly affiliated with schools or lacked direct interactions with students were less inclined to discuss cyberbullying as a pressing issue. Nevertheless, when they did address it, their primary concern centred on the detrimental impact of cyberbullying on the well-being of the victims. This suggests that educators actively engaged with students may perceive a lack of support from existing policy structures and are more inclined to prioritise addressing cyberbullying and managing its consequences in the day-to-day running of schools.

Mr Spiteri, overseeing the BeSmartOnline project, stood out as the sole participant who played down the impact of cyberbullying on its victims. He proposed that cyberbullying has proliferated to such an extent among Maltese secondary school students that they have developed a sense of resilience to it. His perspective mirrored the findings of Bryce and Fraser (2013), who argued that cyberbullying had become so commonplace among young people that they no longer found it surprising when they encountered it in digital spaces.

However, it is worth noting that the EU Kids Online research findings do not align with Mr Spiteri’s or with Bryce and Fraser’s (2013) conclusions. The data revealed that 47 per cent of 13–14-year-old victims, and 61 per cent of 15–16-year-old victims, reported feeling fairly upset or very upset by cyberbullying (Lauri and Farrugia, 2020). These conflicting data can be attributed to one’s expectations regarding cyberbullying. If one adheres to a zero-tolerance stance against any form of bullying, these statistics would be deeply concerning. Conversely, if one subscribes to the viewpoint that bullying, in some form, has always existed and that children tend to expect a certain degree of bullying, these figures might appear more acceptable.

Despite numerous insights shared by participants on the topic of cyberbullying within schools, it appears that many teachers and school administrators find it challenging to manage its repercussions due to the absence of explicit guidelines for schools, leading to a case-by-case evaluation of each incident. The fact that none of the participants referred to the anti-bullying policy or the cyberbullying guidelines available on the national curriculum’s website highlights the lack of awareness of a comprehensive anti-bullying policy in Maltese schools.

The study’s findings underscore the importance of integrating empathy-building initiatives into the curriculum, particularly through subjects such as ethics and PSCD. These subjects are well-positioned to promote critical thinking and ethical decision making, which are essential for fostering responsible online behaviour. The operational challenges identified by educators further validate the need for targeted professional development to equip teachers with strategies for managing cyberbullying effectively.