skip to main content
research-article

Design, Development, and Evaluation of a Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Digital Literacy Game for Tweens

Published:30 September 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Tweens are avid users of digital media, which exposes them to various online threats. Teachers are primarily expected to teach children safe online behaviours, despite not necessarily having the required training or classroom tools to support this education. Using the theory of procedural rhetoric and established game design principles, we designed a classroom-based cybersecurity, privacy, and digital literacy game for tweens that has since been deployed to over 300 Canadian elementary schools. The game, A Day in the Life of the JOs, teaches children about 25 cybersecurity, privacy, and digital literacy topics and allows them to practice what they have learned in a simulated environment. We employed a user-centered design process to create the game, iteratively testing its design and effectiveness with children and teachers through five user studies (with a total of 63 child participants and 21 teachers). Our summative evaluation with children showed that the game improved their cybersecurity, privacy, and digital literacy knowledge and behavioural intent and was positively received by them. Our summative evaluation with teachers also showed positive results. Teachers liked that the game represented the authentic experiences of children on digital media and that it aligned with their curriculum requirements; they were interested in using it in their classrooms. In this article, we discuss our process and experience of designing a production quality game for children and provide evidence of its effectiveness with both children and teachers.

References

  1. Icek Ajzen. 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organiz. Behav. Human Decis. Process. 50, 2 (1991), 179–211.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Leonard Annetta and Stephen Bronack (Eds.). 2011. Serious Educational Game Assessment: Practical Methods and Models for Educational Games, Simulations and Virtual Worlds. Springer, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Sabra Ayres. 2020. Zoom Bombing and Data Breaches: As Classrooms Go Back Online, Will Hackers Find Opportunities?Retrieved from https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/san-antonio/news/2020/07/23/cybersecurity-schools-online-learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradley Barth. 2020. Roblox Hacker Enabled by Insider Threats; Expert Offers Tips to Curb Rogue Employees. Retrieved from https://www.scmagazine.com/home/security-news/roblox-hacker-enabled-by-insider-threats-expert-offers-tips-to-curb-rogue-employees.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Kanad Basu, Suha Sabi Hussain, Ujjwal Gupta, and Ramesh Karri. 2020. COPPTCHA: COPPA tracking by checking hardware-level activity. IEEE Trans. Info. Forensics Secur. 15 (2020), 3213–3226. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2020.2983287Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Shea Bennett. 2014. Minimum Age Requirements: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Secret. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/digital/social-media-minimum-age.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jim Bizzocchi. 2010. The role of narrative in educational games and simulations. In Educational Gameplay and Simulation Environments: Case Studies and Lessons Learned. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 68–83. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-731-2.ch004Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Yukon Digital Literacy & Citizenship Blog. 2019. A Day in the Life of the JOs. Retrieved from https://yukondigitalcitizen.ca/2019/07/18/a-day-in-the-life-of-the-jos.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Ian Bogost. 2007. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Ian Bogost. 2008. The rhetoric of video games. In The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning, Katie Salen (Ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 117–140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. John Bransford and Rodney Cocking (Eds.). 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded edition. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 2 (2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Deccan Chronicle. 2018. New Malware Attacks Children’s App With Pornographic Content. Retrieved from https://www.deccanchronicle.com/technology/in-other-news/170118/new-malware-attacks-childrens-app-with-pornographic-malware.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Australian Communications and Media Authority. 2012. Zippep’s Astro Circus. Retrieved from https://fuse.education.vic.gov.au/Resource/LandingPage?ObjectId=e6a6a20d-6dc6-4602-a739-2ad7d6616465.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Katie Davis and Carrie James. 2013. Tweens’ conceptions of privacy online: Implications for educators. Learn. Media Technol. 38, 1 (2013), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2012.658404Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. John Dewey. 1933. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. D.C. Heath & Company, Lexington, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Frances Dewing. 2019. The Emerging Gray-App Threat: Mobile Kids’ Apps. Retrieved from https://www.rsaconference.com/library/presentation/the-emerging-grey-app-threat-mobile-kids-apps-are-gateway-to-parents.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Lars Doucet and Vinod Srinivasan. 2010. Designing entertaining educational games using procedural rhetoric: A case study. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Video Games (Sandbox’10). ACM, New York, NY, 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/1836135.1836136Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Serge Egelman, Marian Harbach, and Eyal Peer. 2016. Behavior ever follows intention?: A validation of the security behavior intentions scale (SeBIS). In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16). ACM, New York, NY, 5257–5261. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858265Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen. 2007. Third generation educational use of computer games. Edu. Multimedia Hypermedia 16, 3 (2007), 263–281.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Europol. 2020. Catching the Virus: Cybercrime, Disinformation and the COVID-19 Pandemic. Retrieved from https://www.europol.europa.eu/track/click/8391/11931.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. John Ferrara. 2013. Games for persuasion: Argumentation, procedurality, and the lie of gamification. Games Culture 8, 4 (2013), 289–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412013496891Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Consortium for School Networking. 2020. State of EdTech Leadership Report. Retrieved from https://www.cosn.org/focus-areas/leadership-vision/state-edtech-leadership.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Howard Gardner. 2011. The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach. Basic Books, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. James Paul Gee. 2003. What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. James Paul Gee. 2005. Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. Dig. Edu. Rev. 2, 1 (2005), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2005.2.1.5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. James Paul Gee. 2007. Good Video Games and Good Learning: Collected Essays on Video Games, Learning and Literacy. Peter Lang Publishing, Bern, Switzerland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomas A. Goldman, Frank J. Lee, and Jichen Zhu. 2014. Using video games to facilitate understanding of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A feasibility study. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY’14). ACM, New York, NY, 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1145/2658537.2658707Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Google. 2017. Interland—Be Internet Awesome. Retrieved from https://beinternetawesome.withgoogle.com/en_us/interland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Boston Herald. 2020. “Zoom-bombing” on the Rise: Hijackers Invade Videoconferences for Work, School, FBI Says. Retrieved from https://www.mercurynews.com/coronavirus-zoom-bombing-hijackers-videoconferences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Talib S. Hussain and Susan L. Coleman (Eds.). 2014. Design and Development of Training Games: Practical Guidelines from a Multidisciplinary Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Gokul Chettoor Jayakrishnan, Gangadhara Reddy Sirigireddy, Sukanya Vaddepalli, Vijayanand Banahatti, Sachin Premsukh Lodha, and Sankalp Suneel Pandit. 2020. Passworld: A serious game to promote password awareness and diversity in an enterprise. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS’20). USENIX, Berkeley, CA, 1–18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Mansureh Kebritchi. 2010. Factors affecting teachers’ adoption of educational computer games: A case study. Brit. J. Edu. Technol. 41, 2 (2010), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00921.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Robert Kenny and Glenda Gunter. 2011. Factors affecting adoption of video games in the classroom. Interact. Learn. Res. 22, 2 (2011), 259–276.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Priya C. Kumar, Marshini Chetty, Tamara L. Clegg, and Jessica Vitak. 2019. Privacy and security considerations for digital technology use in elementary schools. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’19). ACM, New York, NY, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300537Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Sonia Livingstone, Leslie Haddon, Anke Görzig, and Kjartan Ólafsson. 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. In EU Kids Online, Deliverable D4. EU Kids Online Network, London, UK, 9–16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Minhua Ma and Andreas Oikonomou (Eds.). 2011. Serious Games and Edutainment Applications. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2161-9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Thomas W. Malone. 1981. Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cogn. Sci. 5, 4 (1981), 333–369.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Thomas W. Malone and Mark R. Lepper. 1987. Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, Vol. 3: Conative and Affective Process Analyses, Richard E. Snow and Marshall J. Farr (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Hillsdale, NJ, 223–253.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Sana Maqsood. 2020. The Design, Development and Evaluation of a Digital Literacy Game for Preteens. Ph.D. Dissertation. Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. https://doi.org/10.22215/etd/2020-13968Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Sana Maqsood, Christine Mekhail, and Sonia Chiasson. 2018. A day in the life of JOs: A web-based game to increase children’s digital literacy. In Proceedings of the Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC’18). ACM, New York, NY, 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1145/3202185.3202753Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Allan Martin. 2005. DigEuLit—A european framework for digital literacy: A progress report. J. eLiteracy 2, 2 (2005), 130–136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Florence Martin, Chuang Wang, Teresa Petty, Weichao Wang, and Patti Wilkins. 2018. Middle school students’ social media use. Edu. Technol. Soc. 21, 1 (2018), 213–224.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Caroline Masse, Kelly Pounds, Eric Church, Robert E. Waters, and Vance Souders. 2014. Story for learning and gaming. In Design and Development of Training Games: Practical Guidelines from a Multidisciplinary Perspective, Talib S. Hussain and Susan L. Coleman (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107280137.005Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Angela McFarlane, Anne Sparrowhawk, and Ysanne Heald. 2002. Report on the Educational Use of Games. Retrieved from http://consilr.info.uaic.ro/uploads_lt4el/resources/pdfengReport on the educational use of games.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. MediaSmarts. 2000. Jo Cool or Jo Fool Game. Retrieved from http://mediasmarts.ca/game/jo-cool-or-jo-fool-grades-6-8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. MediaSmarts. 2012. Digital and Media Literacy Outcomes by Province and Territory. Retrieved from http:// mediasmarts.ca/teacher-resources/digital-and-media-literacy-outcomes-province-territory.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. MediaSmarts. 2012. MediaSmarts’ Games. Retrieved from http://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy/educational-games.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. MediaSmarts. 2018. A Day in the Life of the JOs (Grades 6–8). Retrieved from http://mediasmarts.ca/teacher-resources/licensed-resources/day-life-jos-grades-6-8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Christine Mekhail. 2016. A Day in the Life of the JOs: The Design of an Educational Game on Privacy. Master’s thesis. Carleton University, Canada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. David Michael and Sandra Chen. 2005. Serious Games: Games That Educate, Train, and Inform. Course Technology, Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Bukelwa Ngoqo and Stephen V. Flowerday. 2015. Exploring the relationship between student mobile information security awareness and behavioural intent. Info. Comput. Secur. 23, 4 (2015), 406–420. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICS-10-2014-0072Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Lindsey O’Donnell. 2020. Ransomware and Zoom-Bombing: Cyberattacks Disrupt Back-to-School Plans. Retrieved from https://threatpost.com/ransomware-zoom-cyberattacks-school/159093.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Government of Alberta. 2017. Information and Communication Technology Curriculum (Grades 1–12). Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/media/3114953/ictpos.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Government of British Columbia. 2017. Applied Design, Skills, and Technologies Curriculum (Grades 1–12). Retrieved from https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/adst/6/core.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Ontario Ministry of Education. 2012. K-12 Ontario Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/teachers/curriculum.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Government of Manitoba. 2012. Literacy with Information and Communication Technology Curriculum (Grades 1–12). Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/tech/lict/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Government of Saskatchewan. 2012. Digital Citizenship Education in Saskatchewan Schools. Retrieved from https://publications.saskatchewan.ca/#/products/74447.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Sarah Perez. 2018. Roblox Responds to the Hack That Allowed a Child’s Avatar to Be Raped in Its Game. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/18/roblox-responds-to-the-hack-that-allowed-a-childs-avatar-to-be-raped-in-its-game.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Pooja Pradeep and Sujata Sriram. 2016. The virtual world of social networking sites: Adolescent’s use and experiences. Psychol. Dev. Soc. 28, 1 (2016), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971333615622911Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Portia Pusey and William A. Sadera. 2011. Cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity: Preservice teacher knowledge, preparedness, and the need for teacher education to make a difference. Dig. Learn. Teach. Edu. 28, 2 (2011), 82–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2011.10784684Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Janet C. Read. 2008. Validating the fun toolkit: An instrument for measuring children’s opinions of technology. Cogn. Technol. Work 10, 2 (2008), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-007-0069-9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Ute Ritterfeld, Michael Cody, and Peter Vorderer (Eds.). 2009. Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects. Routledge, Oxfordshire, UK.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Dana Ruggiero. 2014. Spent: Changing students’ affective learning toward homelessness through persuasive video game play. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’14). ACM, New York, NY, 3423–3432. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557390Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. 2004. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Kristin L. Schneider, John Ferrara, Bri Lance, Andrew Karetas, Susan Druker, Emily Panza, Barbara Olendzki, Victoria Andersen, and Lori Pbert. 2012. Acceptability of an online health videogame to improve diet and physical activity in elementary school students: “Fitter critters.” Games Health: Res. Dev. Clin. Appl. 1, 4 (2012), 262–268. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2012.0009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Barry Schwartz. 2004. The Paradox of Choice—Why More Is Less. Ecco, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Mikko Siponen, Seppo Pahnila, and Adam Mahmood. 2007. Employees’ adherence to information security policies: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the International Information Security Conference (SEC’07). Springer, New York, NY, 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-72367-9_12Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Tony Stephanou and Rabelani Dagada. 2008. The impact of information security awareness training on information security behaviour: The case for further research. In Proceedings of the Information Security South Africa Conference (ISSA’08). Springer, New York, NY, 1–21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Radio Télévision Suisse. 2017. DataK Game. Retrieved from https://seriousgamessociety.org/2017/03/13/datek-a-game-on-the-use-of-personal-data.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Sreenivas Sremath Tirumala, Abdolhossein Sarrafzadeh, and Paul Pang. 2016. A survey on internet usage and cybersecurity awareness in students. In Proceedings of the Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST’16). IEEE, New York, NY, 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1109/PST.2016.7906931Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Carnegie Mellon University. 2007. Carnegie Cyber Academy. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiecyberacademy.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Arielle Waldman. 2020. Cyber Attacks on Schools Increasing Amid Remote Learning Shift. Retrieved from https://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/news/252489363/Cyber-attacks-on-schools-increasing-amid-remote-learning-shift.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Lance Whitney. 2020. School-based Cyberattacks Are on the Rise. Retrieved from https://www.techrepublic.com/article/cyberattacks-against-schools-are-on-the-rise.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Leah Zhang-Kennedy and Sonia Chiasson. 2021. A systematic review of multimedia tools for cybersecurity awareness and education. Comput. Surveys 54, 1 (2021), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3427920Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Design, Development, and Evaluation of a Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Digital Literacy Game for Tweens

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!