Educating teens about the risks on social network sites. An intervention study in Secondary Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing popularity of social network sites (SNS) is causing concerns about privacy and security, especially with teenagers since they show various forms of unsafe behavior on SNS. Media literacy emerges as a priority, and researchers, teachers, parents and teenagers all point towards the responsibility of the school to educate teens about risks on SNS and to teach youngsters how to use SNS safely. However, existing educational materials are not theoretically grounded, do not tackle all the specific risks that teens might encounter on SNS and lack rigorous outcome evaluations. Additionally, general media education research indicates that although changes in knowledge are often obtained, changes in attitudes and behavior are much more difficult to achieve. Therefore, new educational packages were developed –taking into account instructional guidelines- and a quasi-experimental intervention study was set up to find out whether these materials are effective in changing the awareness, attitudes or the behavior of teenagers on SNS. It was found that all three courses obtained their goal in raising the awareness about the risks tackled in this course. However, no impact was found on attitudes towards the risks, and only a limited impact was found on teenagers’ behavior concerning these risks. Implications are discussed. La creciente popularidad de las redes sociales (RS) está causando preocupación por la privacidad y la seguridad de los usuarios, particularmente de los adolescentes que muestran diversas formas de conductas de riesgo en las redes sociales. En este contexto, la alfabetización mediática emerge como una prioridad e investigadores, profesores, padres y adolescentes enfatizan la responsabilidad de la escuela de enseñar a los adolescentes acerca de los riesgos en RS y cómo utilizarlas sin peligro. Sin embargo, los materiales educativos existentes no están teóricamente fundamentados, no abordan todos los riesgos específicos que los adolescentes pueden encontrar en las redes y carecen de evaluaciones de resultados. Además, estudios acerca de la educación mediática indican que, mientras los cambios a nivel de conocimientos suelen obtenerse fácilmente cambios en las actitudes y el comportamiento son mucho más difíciles de lograr. Por este motivo, nuevos paquetes educativos han sido desarrollados teniendo en cuenta directrices educativas. Posteriormente se llevó a cabo un estudio de intervención cuasi-experimental a fin de verificar si estos materiales son eficaces para cambiar el conocimiento, las actitudes y el comportamiento de los adolescentes en las redes sociales. El estudio constató que los cursos obtienen su objetivo en la sensibilización de los riesgos tratados. Sin embargo, no se observó ningún impacto en las actitudes hacia el riesgo, y el impacto en el comportamiento de los adolescentes en relación con estos riesgos fue limitado. Las implicaciones de este estudio son discutidas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".