Abstract
Although numerous media literacy training sessions on internet safety for children and adolescents have been conducted, their number contrasts sharply with the few systematic studies on their effectiveness. In this study, we describe the evaluation of nationwide-implemented training sessions on internet safety in Luxembourg, which included perceptions of learning outcomes and evaluations of implementation and effectiveness. Training data from 2011 to 2018 were analyzed, including 28,060 students and 5,031 teachers. Students reported pronounced learning effects, especially for younger students and for repeated training participation. Teachers greatly appreciated the implementation and effectiveness, which generally increased over the years. The perceived effectiveness of the training was significantly related to teachers’ planning to cover internet safety topics in future lessons. The present study shows that carefully planned and continuously evaluated training sessions on internet safety successfully support children’s understanding and teachers’ willingness to implement internet safety in their curriculum.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Service National de la Jeunesse, Luxembourg, especially Ms Judith Swietlik-Simon.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749–5978(91)90020-T10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-TSearch in Google Scholar
Alannah and Madeline Foundation (2015). eSmart Schools Evaluation Summary. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from https://youngpeopletechnologyandwellbeing.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/esmart-schools-evaluation-summary-14-07-1511.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Antona, R. D., Kevorkian, M., & Russom, A. (2010). Sexting, texting, cyberbullying and keeping youth safe online. Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 523–528. doi:10.3844/jssp.2010.523.52810.3844/jssp.2010.523.528Search in Google Scholar
Aspen Institute (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. The Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program, Washington, DC. Retrieved June 03, 2021,from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED523244.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Aufderheide, P. (1992). Media literacy: A report of the National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. Retrieved January 14, 2021 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED365294.10.4324/9781351292924-4Search in Google Scholar
Australian Communications and Media Authority (2012). Evaluation of Cybersmart Detectives online education activity. Retrieved August 19, 2017, from https://www.acma.gov.au/-/media/Research-and-Analysis/Information/pdf/Evaluation-of-Cybersmart-Detectives-online-education-activity.PDF.Search in Google Scholar
Blais, J. J., Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Connolly, J. (2007). Adolescents online: The importance of internet activity choices to salient relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(5), 522–536. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9262-710.1007/s10964-007-9262-7Search in Google Scholar
Buckingham, D. (2015). Defining digital literacy – What do young people need to know about digital media? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 10(Jubileumsnummer), 21–35. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from http://www.idunn.no/dk/2015/Jubileumsnummer/defining_digital_literacy_-_what_do_young_people_need_to_kn.10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2015-Jubileumsnummer-03Search in Google Scholar
Bulger, M., & Davison, P. (2018). The promises, challenges, and futures of media literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 10(1), 1–21. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1365&context=jmle.10.23860/JMLE-2018-10-1-1Search in Google Scholar
CASES (2009). Leitfaden zur Informationssicherheit für den Unterricht und zu Hause [Guideline on information security for class and for home]. Luxemburg: Ministerium für Wirtschaft und Außenhandel & Ministerium für Erziehung und Berufsausbildung. Retrieved August 19, 2017, from http://www.cases.public.lu/fr/actualites/actualites/2009/10/12_SR/SLF_web_ohne-Anhang_.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Chang, H. Y., Park, E. J., Yoo, H. J., Lee, J. W., & Shin, Y. (2018). Electronic media exposure and use among toddlers. Psychiatry Investigation, 15(6), 568–573. https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2017.11.30.210.30773/pi.2017.11.30.2Search in Google Scholar
Chibnall, S., Wallace, M., & Lunghofer, L. (2006). I-safe evaluation. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/213715.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Cho, C., & Cheon, H. (2005). Children’s exposure to negative internet content: Effects of family context. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronical Media, 49(4), 488–509. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4904_810.1207/s15506878jobem4904_8Search in Google Scholar
Chou, C., & Peng, H. (2011). Promoting awareness of internet safety in Taiwan in-service teacher education: A ten-year experience. Internet and Higher Education, 14, 44–53. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.00610.1016/j.iheduc.2010.03.006Search in Google Scholar
Christ, W. G., & Potter, W. J. (1998). Media literacy, media education, and the academy. Journal of Communication, 48(1), 5–15. doi:10.1093/joc/48.1.510.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02733.xSearch in Google Scholar
Davidson, J., Martellozzo, E., & Lorenz, M. (2009). Evaluation of CEOP ThinkUKnow internet safety programme and exploration of young people’s internet safety knowledge. Centre for Abuse & Trauma Studies, Kingston University London. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/5976/.Search in Google Scholar
Dooley, J., Thomas, L., Falconer, S., Cross, D., & Waters, S. (2011). Educational evaluation of Cybersmart Detectives. Child Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan University. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworks2011/862/.Search in Google Scholar
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage–environment fit: Development-tally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 3. Goals and cognitions (pp. 13–44). New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
English, M. C., & Visser, T. A. (2014). Exploring the repetition paradox: The effects of learning context and massed repetition on memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21(4), 1026–1032. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0566-110.3758/s13423-013-0566-1Search in Google Scholar
European Commission (2007). A European approach to media literacy in the digital environment. Retrieved January 14, 2021 from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0833&from=EN.Search in Google Scholar
European Commission (2016). Final evaluation of the multi-annual EU programme on protecting children using the internet and other communication technologies (Safer Internet). Brussels, 364 final. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-364-EN-F1-1.PDF.Search in Google Scholar
Finkelhor, D., Walsh, K., Jones, L., Mitchell, K., & Collier, A. (2020). Youth internet safety education: Aligning programs with the evidence base. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/152483802091625710.1177/1524838020916257Search in Google Scholar
Griffith Institute for Educational Research for the Australian Communications and Media Authority (2011). The ACMA Cybersmart Outreach Program Evaluation. Retrieved August 19, 2017, from https://www.acma.gov.au/-/media/Research-and-Analysis/Information/pdf/The-ACMA-Cybersmart-Outreach-Program-Evaluation-Qualitative-Report-October-2011-Griffith-University.PDF?la=en.Search in Google Scholar
Guan, S. S. A., & Subrahmanyam, K. (2009). Youth internet use: Risks and opportunities. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 22(4), 351–356. doi:0.1097/YCO.0b013e32832bd7e010.1097/YCO.0b013e32832bd7e0Search in Google Scholar
Holden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 343–367. doi:10.1080/15391523.2011.1078257610.1080/15391523.2011.10782576Search in Google Scholar
Holloway, D., Green, L., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Zero to eight. Young children and their internet use. LSE, London. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/52630/1/Zero_to_eight.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Ilomäki, L., Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., & Kantosalo, A. (2016). Digital competence – an emergent boundary concept for policy and educational research. Education and Information Technologies, 21(3), 655–679. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9346-4.10.1007/s10639-014-9346-4Search in Google Scholar
JIM-Studie (2019). JIM-Studie 2019: Jugend, Information, (Multi) Media [JIM study 2019: Youth, information, (multi)media]. Stuttgart: Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from https://www.mpfs.de/fileadmin/files/Studien/JIM/2019/JIM_2019.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Jones, L. M., Mitchell, K. J., & Walsh, W. A. (2013). Evaluation of internet child safety materials used by ICAC task forces in school and community settings. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/242016.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
KIM-Studie (2018). KIM-Studie 2018: Kindheit, Internet, Medien. Basisuntersuchung zum Medienumgang 6- bis 13-Jähriger in Deutschland [KIM study 2018: Childhood, internet, media. Basic study on the media behavior of 6- to 13-year-olds in Germany]. Stuttgart: Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from https://www.mpfs.de/fileadmin/files/Studien/KIM/2018/KIM-Studie_2018_web.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
König, A., & Steffgen, G. (2015). Mediennutzung Jugendlicher in Luxemburg. Aktueller Überblick zur Nutzung von Internet und Computerspielen und erste Prävalenzdaten zur dysfunktionalen Nutzung [Media use of youths in Luxembourg. Current overview of internet and computer game use and first prevalence data on the dysfunctional use]. Luxembourg: University of Luxembourg. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from https://orbilu.uni.lu/handle/10993/21477Search in Google Scholar
Lee, S. J., & Chae, Y. G. (2012). Balancing participation and risks in children’s internet use: The role of internet literacy and parental mediation. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(5), 257–262. doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.055210.1089/cyber.2011.0552Search in Google Scholar
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children: Full findings and policy implications from the EU Kids Online survey of 9–16 year olds and their parents in 25 countries. London: EU Kids Online. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/.Search in Google Scholar
Livingstone, S., Kirwil, L., Ponte, C., & Staksrud, E. (2013). In their own words: What bothers children online? with the EU Kids Online Network. London: EU Kids Online. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/48357/.Search in Google Scholar
Livingstone, S., & Ólafsson, K. (2017, January 26). Children’s commercial media literacy: New evidence relevant to UK policy decisions regarding the GDPR. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2017/01/26/childrens-commercial-media-literacy-new-evidence-relevant-to-uk-policy-decisions-regarding-the-gdpr/.Search in Google Scholar
Martens, H. (2010). Evaluating media literacy education: Concepts, theories and future directions. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 2(1), 1–22. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/jmle/vol2/iss1/1.10.23860/jmle-2-1-1Search in Google Scholar
Mascheroni, G., & Cuman, A. (2014). Net children go mobile: Final report. Deliverables 6.4 & D5.2. Milano. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from http://netchildrengomobile.eu/ncgm/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/NCGM_FinalReport_Country_DEF.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Mascheroni, G., & Ólafsson, K. (2014). Net children go mobile: Risks and opportunities. Educatt, Milan, Italy, (May), 1–123. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3590.8561Search in Google Scholar
Nikken, P., & Jansz, J. (2006). Parental mediation of children’s videogame playing: A comparison of the reports by parents and children. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743988060075680310.1080/17439880600756803Search in Google Scholar
Passey, D., Shonfeld, M., Appleby, L., Judge, M., Saito, T., & Smits, A. (2018). Digital agency: Empowering equity in and through education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23, 425–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9384-x10.1007/s10758-018-9384-xSearch in Google Scholar
Perels, F., Gürtler, T., & Schmitz, B. (2005). Training of self regulatory and problem-solving-competence. Learning and Instruction, 15(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.04.01010.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.04.010Search in Google Scholar
Potter, W. J. (2004). Media literacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.1093/obo/9780199756841-0065Search in Google Scholar
Schaan, V. K., & Melzer, A. (2015). Parental mediation of children’s television and video game use in Germany: Active and embedded in family processes. Journal of Children and Media, 9(1), 58–76. doi:10.1080/17482798.2015.99710810.1080/17482798.2015.997108Search in Google Scholar
Scharrer, E., & Ramasubramanian, S. (2015). Intervening in the media’s influence on stereotypes of race and ethnicity: The role of media literacy education. Journal of Social Issues, 71(1), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.1210310.1111/josi.12103Search in Google Scholar
Schilder, E., Lockee, B., & Saxon, D. P. (2016). The challenges of assessing media literacy education. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 8(1), 32–48. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1108281.pdf.10.23860/jmle-8-1-3Search in Google Scholar
Smith, P. K., & Steffgen, G. (2013). Cyberbullying through the new media: Findings from an international network. London: Psychology Press.10.4324/9780203799079Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, F., Robinson, S., & Smith, P. K. (2012). Cyberbullying in the UK: An evaluation of some intervention procedures. Unit for School and Family Studies, Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, UK. Retrieved August 19, 2017, from http://www.bullyingandcyber.net/media/cms_page_media/55/Thompson-Robinson-Smith.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Tiemann, A., & Steffgen, G. (2017). Evaluation der Schulung „BEE SECURE for schools” 2016/17 (Interner Bericht) [Evaluation of the training course “BEE SECURE for schools” 2016/17 (internal report)]. Universität Luxemburg, Luxemburg. Retrieved June 03, 2021, from http://hdl.handle.net/10993/32573.Search in Google Scholar
Wentzel, K. R., & Miele, D. B. (2016). Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315773384Search in Google Scholar
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). Development between the ages of 11 and 25. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 148–185). New York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
Wishart, J. M., Oades, C. E., & Morris, M. (2007). Using online role play to teach internet safety awareness. Computers and Education, 48, 460–473. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.03.00310.1016/j.compedu.2005.03.003Search in Google Scholar
Yan, Z. (2009). Differences in high school and college students’ basic knowledge and perceived education of internet safety: Do high school students really benefit from the Children’s Internet Protection Act? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.10.00710.1016/j.appdev.2008.10.007Search in Google Scholar
Zaman, B., & Nouwen, M. (2016). Parental controls: Advice for parents, researchers and industry. London, UK.Search in Google Scholar
Appendix
Factor loadings of the teacher questionnaire items on the factors implementation and effectiveness.
Item | Factor loadings | ||
Implementation | Effectiveness | h2 | |
1. The training follows a clear structure. | .66 |
| .51 |
2. The training seems appropriately prepared. | .72 | .57 | |
3. The trainer expressed himself clearly and comprehensibly. | .81 | .68 | |
4. The trainer deals with the topics in an understandable way. | .77 | .63 | |
7. The trainer creates a pleasant working climate. | .61 | .46 | |
9. I think the training is useful. | .52 | .43 | |
10. The training sensitizes the students with regard to … |
| ||
a. … an understanding of how the internet works and its peculiarities. | .69 | .54 | |
b. … respecting the safety rules and their social behavior. | .79 | .68 | |
c. … a critical and careful use of the internet. | .79 | .67 | |
d. … the recognition of concrete risks and dangers and adequate reactions. | .80 | .71 | |
e. … the knowledge of the basics principles of data protection and their application. |
| .79 | .68 |
Eigenvalues | 3.14 | 3.41 | |
% of explained variance | 28.58 | 30.96 | |
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
