Online Learning and Educational Technology

The present study addresses the perceptions of adolescent girls in Guerrero, Mexico, regarding the supervision of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) by parents and teachers. It recognizes the importance of understanding these perceptions in the context of the increasing influence of ICT in the lives of adolescents and their impact on their development and online safety. A study was conducted involving 1900 participants, with 1260 girls from secondary school and 640 from high school, through a structured survey. Frequency analyses, measures of central tendency, and correlations were employed to examine the responses of the adolescent girls and understand their opinions on ICT supervision. The results revealed significant differences between the perceptions of secondary school and high school girls regarding ICT supervision. Secondary school girls showed a more favorable opinion towards supervision, while high school girls expressed greater concerns about privacy invasion. This study highlights the importance of considering adolescent girls’ perceptions regarding ICT supervision to develop more effective policies and educational practices. Furthermore, it underscores the need to promote safe and responsible use of ICT among adolescents by tailoring interventions to the specific needs of each group. Ultimately, this study is expected to contribute to creating a safer and more positive digital environment for future generations.

1. Shin W, Kang H. Adolescents’ privacy concerns and information disclosure online: The role of parents and the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016; 54: 114-123. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.062

2. Symons K, Ponnet K, Emmery K, et al. Parental Knowledge of Adolescents’ Online Content and Contact Risks. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2016; 46(2): 401-416. doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0599-7

3. Valcke M, Bonte S, De Wever B, Rots I. Internet parenting styles and the impact on Internet use of primary school children. Computers & Education. 2010; 55(2): 454-464. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.009

4. Livingstone S, Ólafsson K, Helsper EJ, et al. Maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks for children online: The role of digital skills in emerging strategies of parental mediation. Journal of Communication. 2017; 67(1): 82-105. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12277

5. Medrano C, Martínez de Morentín JI, Apodaca P. Television consumption profiles: A transcultural study. Education. 2015; 18(2): 305-321, doi: 10.5944/educXX1.14020

6. Lobe B, Livingstone S, Ólafsson K, Vodeb H. Cross-national comparison of risks and safety on the internet: Initial analysis from the EU Kids Online survey of European children. Available online: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/39608/ (accessed on 7 June 2024).

7. Sasson H, Mesch G. Parental mediation, peer norms and risky online behavior among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior. 2014; 33: 32-38. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.025

8. Yu S. College students’ justification for digital piracy: A mixed methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2012; 6(4): 364-378. doi: 10.1177/1558689812451790

9. Jocson KM. New media literacies as social action: The centrality of pedagogy in the politics of knowledge production. Curriculum Inquiry. 2015; 45(1): 30-51. doi: 10.1080/03626784.2014.982490

10. Boyd D. It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press; 2014.

11. Ito M, Antin J, Finn M, et al. Hanging out, messing around, and gee king out: Kids living and learning with new media. MIT Press; 2009.

12. Clark LS. Parental mediation theory for the digital age. Communication Theory. 2011; 21(4): 323-343. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01391.x

13. Eastin MS, Greenberg BS, Hofschire L. Parenting the Internet. Journal of Communication. 2006; 56(3): 486-504. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00297.x

14. Mesch GS. Social bonds and Internet pornographic exposure among adolescents. Journal of Adolescence. 2009; 32(3): 601-618. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.06.004

15. Hinduja S, Patchin JW. Bullying, Cyberbullying, and Suicide. Archives of Suicide Research. 2010; 14(3): 206-221. doi: 10.1080/13811118.2010.494133

16. Livingstone S, Helsper EJ. Parental Mediation of Children’s Internet Use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 2008; 52(4): 581-599. doi: 10.1080/08838150802437396

17. Shin W, Lwin MO. How does “talking about the Internet with others” affect teenagers’ experience of online risks? The role of active mediation by parents, peers, and school teachers. New Media & Society. 2016; 19(7): 1109-1126. doi: 10.1177/1461444815626612

18. Martínez de Morentin de Goñi JI, Medrano Samaniego C. Parental mediation and internet use. Revista INFAD; 2012.

19. Livingstone S, Haddon L, Görzig A, Ólafsson K. Risks and safety on the Internet: The perspective of European children. Available online: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/ (accessed on 7 June 2024).

20. Lwin MO, Li B, Ang RP. Stop bugging me: An examination of adolescents’ protection behavior against online harassment. Journal of Adolescence. 2011; 35(1): 31-41. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.06.007

21. Guan SSA, Subrahmanyam K. Youth Internet use: Risks and opportunities. Current Opinion in Psychiatry. 2009; 22(4): 351-356. doi: 10.1097/yco.0b013e32832bd7e0

22. Valkenburg PM, Peter J. Social Consequences of the Internet for Adolescents. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2009; 18(1): 1-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01595.x

23. Baumgartner SE, Valkenburg PM, Peter J. Unwanted online sexual solicitation and risky sexual online behavior across the lifespan. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2010; 31(6): 439-447. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2010.07.005

24. Greenfield PM. Developmental considerations for determining appropriate Internet use guidelines for children and adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2004; 25(6): 751-762. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2004.09.008

25. Byrne J, Burton P. Children as Internet users: how can evidence better inform policy debate? Journal of Cyber Policy. 2017; 2(1): 39-52. doi: 10.1080/23738871.2017.1291698

26. Lwin M, Stanaland A, Miyazaki A. Protecting children’s privacy online: How parental mediation strategies affect website safeguard effectiveness. Journal of Retailing. 2008; 84(2): 205-217. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2008.04.004

27. Wisniewski P, Xu H, Rosson MB, Carroll JM. Parents just don’t understand: Why teens don’t talk to parents about their online risk experiences. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing.

28. Joiner R, Gavin J, Brosnan M, et al. Gender, Internet Experience, Internet Identification, and Internet Anxiety: A Ten-Year Follow up. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2012; 15(7): 370-372. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0033

29. Kirwil L. Parental Mediation of Children’s Internet Use in Different European Countries. Journal of Children and Media. 2009; 3(4): 394-409. doi: 10.1080/17482790903233440

30. Nathanson AI. Media and the Family: Reflections and Future Directions. Journal of Children and Media. 2015; 9(1): 133-139. doi: 10.1080/17482798.2015.997145

31. Kalmus V, Blinka L, Ólafsson K. Does It Matter What Mama Says: Evaluating the Role of Parental Mediation in European Adolescents’ Excessive Internet Use. Children & Society. 2013; 29(2): 122-133. doi: 10.1111/chso.12020

32. Lee SJ, Chae YG. Balancing Participation and Risks in Children’s Internet Use: The Role of Internet Literacy and Parental Mediation. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2012; 15(5): 257-262. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2011.0552

33. Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications; 2017.

34. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Statistical and geographical yearbook by federative entity. Available online: https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/productos/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/nueva_estruc/702825197513.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2024).

35. Google. Map of the 10 municipalities where the study was conducted, Mexico. Available online: https://www.google.com/maps (accessed on 7 June 2024).

36. León OG, Montero I. Research methods in psychology and education: The quantitative and qualitative traditions, 4th ed. McGraw-Hill; 2015.

37. Christensen LB, Johnson RB, Turner LA. Research methods, design, and analysis, 12th ed. Pearson; 2014.

38. Apuke OD. Quantitative Research Methods: A Synopsis Approach. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review. 2017; 6(11): 40-47. doi: 10.12816/0040336

39. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics, 6th ed. Pearson Education; 2013.

40. Smith J, Hewitt B, Skrbiš Z. Digital socialization: young people’s changing value orientations towards internet use between adolescence and early adulthood. Information, Communication & Society. 2015; 18(9): 1022-1038. doi: 10.1080/1369118x.2015.1007074

41. García-Martín J, García-Sánchez JN. Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the competence dimensions of digital literacy and of psychological and educational measures. Computers & Education. 2017; 107: 54-67. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.010

42. Pérez-Escoda A, Castro-Zubizarreta A, Fandos-Igado M. Digital Skills in the Z Generation: Key Questions for a Curricular Introduction in Primary School. Comunicar. 2016; 24(49): 71-79. doi: 10.3916/c49-2016-07

43. Liang L, Zhou D, Yuan C, et al. Gender differences in the relationship between internet addiction and depression: A cross-lagged study in Chinese adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016; 63: 463-470. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.043

44. López de Ayala López MC, Haddon L, Catalina-García B, Martínez-Pastor E. The dilemmas of parental mediation: Continuities from parenting in general. Comunicar. 2021; 29(67): 65-74. doi: 10.3916/C67-2021-05

45. Rosen LD, Cheever NA, Carrier LM. The association of parenting style and child age with parental limit setting and adolescent MySpace behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2008; 29(6): 459-471. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.005