Search

Children are heavy users of the Internet and prior studies have shown that many of them lack a good understanding of the risks of doing so and how to avoid them. This study examined if the cross-age teaching zone (CATZ) intervention could help children acquire important knowledge of online risks and safety. It allowed older students to act as CATZ tutors to design and deliver a lesson to younger schoolmates (tutees), using content material about online risks and safety provided by adults. Students in Year 6 (mean age = 11.5 years) were randomly assigned to act as either CATZ tutors (n = 100) or age-matched controls (n = 46) and students in Year 4 (mean age = 9.5 years) acted as either CATZ tutees (n = 117) or age-matched controls (n = 28) (total N = 291). CATZ tutors, but not matched controls scored significantly higher on objective measures of knowledge of both online risks and safety, and CATZ tutees, but not matched controls did so for online safety. Effect sizes were moderate or large. CATZ was highly acceptable to participants. The results suggest that CATZ is a viable way to help school students learn about online dangers and how to avoid them.

Many adolescents choose not to tell teachers when they have been bullied. Three studies with 12–16 year-old English adolescents addressed possible reasons. In study 1, students (N = 411, 208 females/203 males) identified reasons with no prompting. Three perceived negative outcomes were common; peers would disapprove, disclosers would feel weak/undermined, and disclosers desired autonomy. In study 2, students (N = 297, 153 females/134 males/10 unspecified) indicated how much they believed that the perceived negative outcomes would happen to them, and a substantial proportion did so. Perceived negative outcomes significantly predicted intentions to disclose being bullied. Study 3 (N = 231, 100 females/131 males) tested if the perceived negative outcomes would be strong enough to stop participants from telling a teacher even though the teacher would stop the bullying. This was the case for many of them. Participants did not report disliking peers who disclosed bullying. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Students training to be educators frequently exhibit voice disorders prior to employment. To date, there exist no similar studies of future speech-language pathologists (SLPs). The study is designed as a prospective, nonrandomized survey. The objective of this study is to determine the voice problems of first year graduate students training to be SLPs. Participants were 104 first year graduate students majoring in speech-language pathology at two universities. The Quick Screen for Voice was administered. Participants who failed completed a questionnaire regarding voice problems, medical history, daily habits, and voice use. When responses further indicated voice-related problems, endoscopic examination was completed. Fourteen percent (N=15) of the participants failed the screening by demonstrating two or more abnormal voice characteristics. These included persistent glottal fry (present in all who failed), low habitual pitch, juvenile resonance, hoarse, breathy, or strained phonation, abnormally low pitch on sustained vowels, and voice breaks during the frequency range. Twelve percent (N=12) failed both the screening and follow-up questionnaire. Responses included self-reported dysphonia, medical history with voice-related side effects, difficulty with excessive voice use, and voice problems occurring daily or weekly. Endoscopic evaluation showed one participant with bilateral vocal nodules. The results suggest that voice problems among future SLPs (12%) are more common than the 3-9% reported in the general population and similar to the 11% previously reported for teachers. However, future SLP voice problems are less frequent than those reported among education majors (21%) and all college students (17%). Faculty should identify students with voice problems and emphasize optimal voice use in classroom and clinical settings.