1. After reading the literature review, I first noticed the authors identified the the categorized topics and the starting point, within the Abstract of the review. From there, I was able to get an understanding from the introduction section, the authors were first explaining the definition of cyberbullying and the factors behind it of why it is such a severe problem. In the second section, “Definition”, the authors described again the importance of referring to online bullying as cyberbullying. The third section: “Nuances of Electronic Communication”, in my opinion should have been placed second instead of third. When reading an article, I look for flow. Placing the third section in place of the second section would have assisted with the definitons as figure 2 in the article defines the types of cyberbullying that exist today. I also would have swapped section 5 and 4, as the Roles in Cyberbullying describe what a cyberbully does, then the Reasons for Cyberbullying would be clearer to the reader. So to answer the question if the authors’ arguments move logically, I would have to answer with no. I understood what the article was talking about, but in my opinion the article didn’t flow correctly.

2. After reading the attached literature review, I believe that the authors’ argument move logically from one topic to another. The abstract did not give enough information on what the topic was about. They just gave a small brief. An abstract gives the reader an understanding to what will be covered throughout the article. Although the author mentioned the topic covered, the reader did not have enough information pretending to the topic of interest. The authors began by addressing the hypothesis in the introduction which was a great start. Overall, the authors provided previous studies to support their statements which gives a sense of a strong argument. Throughout the paper, the authors did not only focus on one factor relating cyberbullying. They identified six different roles. In my opinion, their strongest part of the paper was including gender comparisons because it allows the reader to view cyberbullying from different perspectives. The authors’ argument was well supported with secondary sources. Secondary sources are books and essays that analyze another text. It would have been interesting to read a methodology section where the authors conduct their own research but overall the authors’ argument did move logically.

3. After reading the discussion question topic, I went into the article focusing upon the couple sentences leading up to when the author switched topics. A couple of examples are in the Victims section there is the sentence “Gender differences emerge in risk factors.” The next section is “Gender differences in Response to Cyberbullying” so in this the author sets up a smooth transition from a broader topic to a more refined topic of which gender reported more cyberbullying. Of 25.8% for females and 16% for males. Another good example is section three about electronic communication to section four reasons for cyber-bullying. At the end of section three, the author quotes Patchin that “Cyber-bullying is tailor-made for the relational aggression and rumors that girls typically engage in”. This is a great transition as the author guides the review of how children can feel invincible because of the anonymity online communication provides to then mentioning that anonymity is perfect for envy spawned rumors. Which can be the driving force behind a lot of childhood bullying. I think overall the author did a good job of starting with the very broad topic at the start and slowly started refining the research through each section. I was surprised the abstract section was so small and that there was no method section that detailed how the author went about with their research. I think the sections are placed in good order as it goes from the introduction and definition of the topic. To the discussion of the nuances of electronic communication and why its important to the most common reasons for cyberbullying. To then the roles and then victims of cyberbullying. To how the victims are mostly female and then the conclusion. I found it had a nice path through the topic. So the only things I would change would be to possibly combine sections 2 and 3 because the topic of why cyberbullying is important and should get attention could be added to the definition of the topic. I would also recommend adding a method section. I think other than that the review moved logically.

4. After reading the article “Cyberbullying: a review of the literature” I felt that the points made were well written and had a good flow overall. The study stated off with an introduction to what cyberbullying is and who are the targets and a brief history as to how cyberbullying came to be and why people do it without getting into any greater detail. The author then gives a definition as to what cyberbullying is and the different types if bullying there are, this gives a great pavement to the article as it gives definitions to what will be touched on later. The author then elaborates as to why the youth use electronic communication, within the boom of technology it is apparent that the youth use multiple platforms to communicate with each other out of school and explains that the roles between bullies, popular kids, and unpopular kids stays relatively the same. The part that does throw me off is when the author goes back on their word as they state that those who are usually the victims at school are more likely to retaliate to their bully and turn the tables. Other than that, the article flows very well when they go into explaining that girls are more than likely to be victims of cyberbullying because they lack the physical bullying in person and to accommodate that they do so via online. Girls are more than likely to spread rumors online and the reason for cyber bullying is to keep a social status.

5. After reading the attached literature review I am left torn. All topics mentioned were covered throughout the paper and gave a lot of insight into cyberbullying as a whole. How ever the flow of topics could use some work. There were a lot of sections that could of followed nicely after eachother, but were misplaced throughout the layout of the paper. For example when listing in your introductory paragraph what is going to be written in the paper it is a general rule of thumb to be sure to follow that same order when going into detail throughout the paper. I did feel the author went into more detail about the gender roles in cyber bullying and almost shifted the topic of the paper. I feel less could of been more for that section of the paper. I also found that they did a great job of laying out the history of cyber bullying and used a lot of secondary data to back up the statements provided. For example, when explaining victims I would of made gender roles a subsection of that. This way the paper would follow better and over all make a better paper. Another way to make the paper flow better would be to also keep everything in order from introduction to body of paper to conclusion. Between those three sections there had been some separation. It should all continuously flow within one and another. By keeping those three sections in line with the flow it will make the paper over all easier to read. Over all, the paper was good and included a lot of good facts, but I would not use this as an example to show younger writers because they may loose track within their organization plans.