reading response

ContentServer.asp.pdf

Home >English homework help >reading response

The scale for the self-efficacy and perceptions in the safe use of the Internet for teachers: The validity and reliability studies

Nadire Cavus and Erinc Ercag

Nadire Cavus is an associate professor in Department of Computer Information Systems at Near East University. Her research interests are in the field of LMSs, Internet security, the development of virtual learning environment systems, and mobile technologies. Erinc Ercag is a lecturer in Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies at Near East University. His research interests are in the field of Internet security, and teacher education. Address for correspondence: Nadire Cavus, Chairperson, Department of Computer Information Systems, Near East University, Nicosia, Cyprus, Via: Mersin 10, Turkey. Email: [email protected]

Abstract There has been an increase in the vulnerability in Internet security, and the unconscious usage of the Internet is a very important issue throughout the world as it is in Cyprus today. The best way to solve such an issue would be to make people aware of this situation. Based on this idea, teachers should firstly be trained to use the Internet in a safe and conscious manner so to be able to aid their students and the student’s parents in the correct and safe usage of the Internet. The aim of this study is to determine teachers’ self-efficacy and perceptions in safer use of the Internet so to be able to identify and develop a multidimensional tool, which is both valid and reliable, and can be there- fore used in other scientific studies as well. Through a confirmatory factor analysis, the “Scale for the Self-Efficacy and Perceptions in the Safe Use of the Internet for Teachers” was validated in four dimensions: “Security in Social Networking Sites,” “Malicious Software,” “Web Security & Social Engineering” and “Computer Security,” The scale developed has the characteristics of being the first of its kind in a developing country such as Cyprus. According to the results of the study, the scale in terms of validity and reliability was found to be appropriate in all aspects of the necessary criteria. As a result, the developed scale could help or be used by teachers, in Cyprus and in other countries, to be able to access the Internet safely and aid them in other scientific areas of study in determining teachers’ self-efficacy.

Introduction Nowadays, learning continues throughout our lives, and it has become a necessity for learners to be able to find whatever piece of knowledge/information they may need no matter where they are and what time it is. This can be achieved by the use of modern learning environments. In other words, the so-called virtual environments used via the Internet, such as blogs, social networks (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), management systems for lessons (eg. Moodle, WebCT and Blackboard), slideshares, mobile devices, and so on. The important point here while using such virtual envi- ronments is to be able to protect ourselves from certain problems, attacks and threats. It is therefore imperative that we receive the necessary education/training. When we look at the term education, we immediately think of teachers, students and parents. First of all, teachers should have the necessary know-how and experience so to be able to access the Internet in a safe and conscious manner. So to be able to understand whether or not the teacher is capable, we must try to determine his/her level of self-efficacy. Due to the insufficiency of the literature and the

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 1 2016 76–90 doi:10.1111/bjet.12217

inappropriate scales in this field of study, as well as the fact that no such scale/literature exists in our country Cyprus, shows us that this study and scale is indeed a necessity.

Perception of self-efficacy Bandura (1977) defined the perception of self-efficacy for the first time in his article as, “if an individual is to cope with possible problems he/she should take the necessary actions that he/she believes in.” In addition, it is emphasised that the perception of self-efficacy seems to influence the

Practitioner Notes What is already known about this topic

• The unconscious usage of the Internet is a very important issue throughout the world as it is in Cyprus today.

• The perception of self-efficacy is an important feature in education and more attention should be shown.

• We should all learn about using the Internet correctly and safely in order to protect ourselves and reduce the chance of our personal information from being spread over the web, especially teachers, students and parents.

• With the rapid growth of technology, the time spent on the Internet by teachers, students and parents is quickly increasing day by day.

• Due to the problems encountered through constant use of technology in the various levels of education, there is a great need for people who are capable and fully trained to be able to use and understand security software for safer Internet use.

What this paper adds

• Developed scale could help or be used by teachers, in Cyprus and in other countries, to be able to access the Internet safely and aid them in other scientific areas of study in determining teachers’ self-efficacy.

• Due to the insufficiency of the literature and the inappropriate scales in this field of study, as well as the fact that no such scale/literature exists in our country Cyprus, shows us that this study and scale is indeed a necessity.

• We must begin by determining teachers’ level of perception of self-efficacy of safe Internet use. If we are able to determine their level, then we will be able to plan and prepare a training session for them. This study is therefore thought to be helpful in the literature of this area of education.

• The scale developed is the first of its kind to be developed in a country like Cyprus, which is still developing.

Implications for practice and/or policy

• The developed multidimensional tool, which is valid and reliable and can be therefore used in other scientific studies.

• If teachers were trained or had the correct knowledge of safe Internet use, they could be able to show/teach their students the right way to use the Internet, therefore, no negative aspects would be encountered.

• Training people at different levels and times will help them be aware of various threats and therefore will be able to use the Internet more safely.

• This scale can be scientifically used to calculate the level of the perception of self- efficacy among teachers in the safe use of the Internet, whether it be in Cyprus or in other countries.

The scale for safer use of the Internet 77

right or wrong behaviour of the individual as well as how much effort he/she will put into solving a problem, and also in how much he/she will want to overcome the problem. According to Akgündüz (2013), an individual’s perception of competence is strongly related to the informa- tion they have about themselves. Akkoyunlu and Orhan (2003) points out that if an individual is to be successful, they must show great effort and spend a lot of time on the task. The studies put forward in this field of research show that the perception of self-efficacy has a universal structure in today’s world (Schwarzer, Bässler, Kwiatek & Schröder, 1997). Aşkar and Işıksal (2003) states that the perception of self-efficacy is an important feature in education and more attention should be shown. Individuals with a low level of self-efficacy tend to complicate things and therefore start to panic and become stressed. This then leads to greater confusion (Davidsson, Larzon & Ljunggren, 2010). In this context, self-efficacy can be defined as an individual’s belief in his/her ability to overcome a problem or task (Askar & Davenport, 2009; Bandura, 1977).

Security issues One of the most significant issues in security is to know how to use the necessary applications in a safe way. In order to do this, we must know which method and programme to use for security (Jansen, 2009). If a person’s computer does not have a firewall or an up to date anti-virus program, his/her computer will be vulnerable to various harmful viruses (Trojan horses, etc.) that will appear in the background and download automatically while surfing the web, downloading music/films, etc. Therefore, everything done on the individual’s computer could be monitored. For example, while using online banking services, the individual’s pin code and account number could be stolen and used by others (hackers) leading to financial loss on behalf of the victim. So it is for this reason that people should always update their antivirus programs and apply the correct security settings before using the Internet. Despite using antivirus software and firewalls, there are numerous up-to-date antivirus programs where we still find ourselves up against new computer viruses, and it is sometimes difficult to protect ourselves. Security on the Internet does not necessarily mean antivirus scans but being a well-trained, well-educated and knowledgeable Internet user. Therefore, we should all learn about using the Internet correctly and safely in order to protect ourselves and reduce the chance of our personal information from being spread over the web, especially teachers, students and parents (CCRA, 2012). Although at the beginning of the 21st century there had been new security standards introduced, the percentage of protection against cyber attacks have not yet reached 100% (Hancock, 2000; Mogull, 2009; PCI SSC, 2008; Topcu, Yıldırım & Erdur-Baker, 2013). Due to the use of various information tools, cyber security has become a situation where people need to know (Belsey, 2007). For instance, people who receive e-mails are at risk of being hacked and losing personal things from their files or computers (Willard, 2007). Moreover, nowadays, a lot of cyber attacks often target application software (Bayuk, 2013).

On the other hand, web pages and applications on social networking sites create great danger. Many researchers point out that people who use social networking sites unconsciously are at risk of losing personal information to a third party, in which case one should be very careful and should take safety precautions to prevent such an incident (Belsey, 2007; Lacey, 2007; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Soutworth, Finn, Dawson, Fraser & Tucker, 2007). When using social networking sites (Facebook, etc.), one should use the necessary processes before looking at or downloading shared photographs. If the necessary steps are not taken, other Internet users like hackers could easily steal your information and photographs, etc., and harm you in many different ways. For example, the use of a person’s private pictures could be put on porn websites, etc. So for people to be safe while using sites like Facebook and so on, they should use the necessary security programs for their own protection, thus removing such a threat/danger from their minds. Also, if we do not apply the correct security settings, we could be confronted by rude and bad comments from people we do not know when uploading pictures on social networking sites. This would therefore leave

78 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 1 2016

the individual in a very difficult situation. For this reason, the individual must apply the correct web security settings so only his/her friends can see uploaded/shared photographs.

Safety in education With the rapid growth of technology, the time spent on the Internet by teachers, students and parents is quickly increasing day by day. On the other hand, educational institutions have begun to change due to the affects of the sudden development of technology in recent years (Boukas, 2009; Cavus, 2011; Uzunboylu, Bicen & Cavus, 2011; Wurst, Smarkola & Gaffney, 2008). Internet access in various countries around the world has increased dramatically. As a result of this, Internet is being used in various countries as an educational tool not only with the activities in classrooms, but also outside the classrooms (on the bus or at home) with the help of mobile devices like phones, laptops and tablets (Furnell, Bryant & Phippen, 2007). This massive use of the Internet by both students and teachers can lead to problems and great risks such as losing data or personal information because many people do not know everything they need to know about the Internet (Chou & Peng, 2007; Wishart, 2004). That is to say, if teachers were trained or had the correct knowledge of safe Internet use, they could be able to show/teach their students the right way to use the Internet, therefore, no such negative aspects would be encountered (Aftab, 2000).

The use of technology in education for students in particular has become very risky (Ayas & Horzum, 2010). With the introduction of technology into schools, many school networks have begun to be exposed to cyber attacks (Katz, 2005). One of the reasons for the attacks is to get into and change student information, like grades, etc. Another reason is to gain access of the univer- sities corporate information. Due to the problems encountered through constant use of technol- ogy in the various levels of education, there is a great need for people who are capable and fully trained to be able to use and understand security software for safer Internet use (Marks, 2007). The study put forward by Oblinger (2003), which consisted of about 435 students, showed that the majority of the students were unaware of correct and safe Internet use. In the research conducted by North, Roy and North (2006), it was seen that only 3% of the class actually had knowledge of safe Internet usage. Marklein (2006) found out that only about 27% of his students were aware of user agreements on certain Internet sites. According to Piazza (2006), an educa- tional institution with no Internet security was exposed to a cyber attack, therefore, resulting in the theft of personal information of numerous students and examination questions.

In recent years, with the emergence of Web 2.0, many forms of Internet sites have begun to be used in education, such as blogs, Wikipedia and social networking sites (Usluel & Mazman, 2009). The use of blogs and social networking sites seem to have many advantages and have positive affects in many areas of education (Brandtzæg & Heim, 2007; Pettenati & Ranieri, 2006; Seitzinger, 2006). For example, creating a rich learning environment (Lee & McLoughlin, 2008; Lu, 2007), creating a cooperative learning/teaching atmosphere, to be able to share information/ knowledge with others via blogs and social networking sites (Alexander & Levine, 2008; Chen & Bonk, 2008; Efimova, 2009; Shim & Guo, 2009). Contributing to the increase of students’ motivation and willingness in their collaborative learning studies, the education realized on this manner create positive effects on students (Diaz, 2009; Ferdig, 2007; Kanniah & Krish, 2010; Kim, 2008) and therefore, we can see that such environments have great impact on the learning aspect for students (Dron, 2006; Hargadon, 2008; McLoughlin & Lee, 2007; Uzunboylu et al, 2011). Most unconscious Internet users post their own photos and videos on these sites for everyone to see, which is in fact very dangerous if well-trained people do not warn them, because if bad people get a hold of such private information, they could do a lot of damage to that student’s psychology (Shehab, Squicciarini, Ahn & Kokkinou, 2012).

With the use of Web 2.0, we are now able to share/post any piece of information on other social networking sites with ease (O’Reilly, 2005). Although this sounds good, unfortunately, there are

The scale for safer use of the Internet 79

also many disadvantages concerning security issues, such as using insecure Internet sites. In other words, if an individual uses insecure sites, they are at risk of being attacked and therefore losing personal information or trying to get rid of certain viruses from your computer, especially Facebook users who are able to make changes to their profiles, and therefore people with bad intentions can easily take personal information or even the user’s password for whatever reason they have (Gates, 2007; Hart, Johnson & Stent, 2007; Tootoonchian, Gollu, Saroiu, Ganjali & Wolman, 2008). Generally, most Internet users’ personal information can be seen and used by advertising agencies. Actually, if individuals were aware of both the secure and insecure social networking sites, and in how to set their personal security settings, they would be safe and at ease and would not worry about cyber attacks (CNET Blog, 2008; Young, 2008).

Whether you are surfing the net or using Web 2.0 vehicles in education, the only way to be safe and not worry about cyber attacks is to become a knowledgeable Internet user. To become a knowledgeable user, teachers should therefore get the necessary training/education so as to be able to teach/show students and their parents the correct way of usage. Whereas, Ólafsson, Livingstone and Haddon (2013) in their report emphasised that most teachers lacked knowledge in correct Internet use and that because of this we should focus more on research in this area of study. The number of studies in this area increased in 1 year, but strangely 85% of the studies focused only on children, and it was stressed that only 18% of the studies focused on teachers. In this context, we must begin by determining teachers’ level of perception of self-efficacy of safe Internet use. If we are able to determine their level, then we will be able to plan and prepare a training session for them. This study is therefore thought to be helpful in the literature of this area of education.

Aim of the study The aim of this study is to put forward a scale that will be able to measure the perception of self-efficacy for teachers in the safe use of the Internet. Developed for this purpose, the validity and reliability studies were carried out on the data obtained from the scale.

Method The study group One hundred seventy teachers working at Near East College took part in this study. The teachers were chosen randomly according to a sampling method. A percentage of 52.35 (89) of the teachers who took part in the study were female ,and 47.65% (81) were male, all coming from different educational backgrounds (Maths, Turkish, Science, English, etc.). The participants were aged between 22 and 59, and the mean age was 28.

Creation process of the scale This scale has been developed in order to determine the level of the perception of self-efficacy in teachers for safe Internet use. In the development of the scale, firstly, the literature was examined, and then a knowledge pool of 54-items was established. A draft of three categories was estab- lished: spelling, punctuation and expression errors, which were later analysed by three linguists. Then, to understand the validity of the content and scope of the study, we turned to 11 teachers working in the department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies. After receiv- ing feedback, we made the necessary adjustments, and therefore removed five items from the knowledge pool making it a 49-item pool. To understand the validity and reliability of the scale, we tested it on 170 teachers. According to the statistical results gained from our study, we made more adjustments, and therefore removed 14 more items leaving our pool with 35 items.

Data analysis A Likert statement consisting of five stages was used to fully analyse and understand the responses given by the teachers who took part in the study. A statistical analysis was made according to the participants’ responses that went from “strongly agree” (5 points) to “strongly disagree” (1 point).

80 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 1 2016

By the use of the developed scale, we attempted to try and understand the relationship between variables, and to do this, we used factor analysis. In other words, we used large-scale variables known as factors (Şencan, 2005). We applied the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test in order to use factor analysis to determine the adequacy of the sample. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was used to check the multivariate normal distribution of the data obtained. An exploratory factor analysis was used to measure the structure and nature of the data obtained. To be able to understand the factors better during factor analysis, we turned to principle components analysis so as to be able to explain our findings more clearly. Also, parallel to this, we used varimax rotation and Kaiser’s normalisation technique. By this, we were able to calculate the factor loading matrix. To get an idea of the items that make up the basis of the scale, we calculated the values gained by the use of measures of sampling adequacy (MSA). We also used Cronbach’s alpha to calculate the internal consistency of the scale.

Results The data obtained by the use of the developed scale were aided by the SPSS 20 program (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) in the analysis and calculations of the scores obtained that were to determine the perceptions of self-efficacy of teachers for safe Internet use. According to our scale, participants can only receive a minimum of 35 points and a maximum of 169 points, but the results show us that the range was 134. The calculations show that the mean of the scale was 107.7059, median was 107 and standard deviation was 30.65935. The analyses show us that the skewness was −.034 and the Kurtosis was −0.493. The results of the data gathered show us that the distribution is normal and can be seen in Table 1.

Factor analysis The sample coefficient of concordance according to KMO for the “Scale for the Self-Efficacy and Perceptions in the Safe Use of the Internet for Teachers” has been calculated as 0.897. Seeing that the KMO value is over 0.80 tells us that it is adequate for factor analysis (Hutcheson & Sofronio, 1999; Namlu & Odabasi, 2007). According to Bartlett’s test of sphericity, the value of (X2) being 8858.782 (p < 0.005) tells us that there is a normal distribution, which is a good finding. Table 2 shows us that the results obtained through KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity is indeed suitable for factor analysis.

Principal component analysis According to the results of factor analysis, if there are factors where the load is distributed to more than one factor, then in such a case that factor will be removed from the scale. Also, if the

Table 1: Normal distribution of the data analysis results

Statistics

N Valid 170 Missing 0

Mean 107.7059 Standard error of mean 3.32547 Median 107.0000 Standard deviation 30.65935 Variance 939.996 Skewness −0.034 Standard error of skewness 0.261 Kurtosis −0.493 Standard error of kurtosis 0.517 Range 134.00 Minimum 35.00 Maximum 169.00

The scale for safer use of the Internet 81

items factor load is under 0.40 or if there is not a 0.10 difference between factor loads, then again it will be taken from the scale (Cokluk, Sekerciglu & Buyukozturk, 2010). In this context, to understand whether the scale is one-dimensional or not, the first thing we did was conduct a principle component analysis. As you may know, the principle component analysis is used in many areas as a factorisation technique (Buyukozturk, 2010). To understand whether or not unrelated factors react with one another and to find the factor loads, we used the varimax rotation technique. Accordingly, the item loads that are below 0.40 are taken out of the scale (five items). Then, those items with a load lighter than 0.10 and which distribute to more than one factor are again removed (nine items). After this process, we begin our factor analysis once more. While we try to analyse our results, we make sure that we look at the factor load produced by each item. According to Kline (1994), the factors load value shows us the relationship between the item and factor itself. It is expected that the items load factor values be high. If a cluster is formed due to a high level in the relationship between the item and factor, then this finding tells us that this connection between them is said to measure the structure (Cokluk et al, 2010).

Validity of items To analyse the items in the scale on their properties of distinctiveness, we calculated the 35 items according to the component factor load. The items in the scale, as is evident in Table 3, have a component factor load between 0.607 and 0.803.

Structural validity Exploratory factor analysis According to the results of the analysis, the first items factor loads ranged between 0.500 and 0.897, and each single factor variance quantity was approximately 53.976%. Also, as it can be seen in Table 4, there are four factors that have an eigenvalue greater than 1. According to the load values of the analysis, we found out that the variance explained by the factors estimated the first factor as 18.892, second factor as 4.098, third factor as 2.750 and finally the fourth factor as 1.539. The variance quantity estimated, which was explained as a four factor scale, came out as 77.937%.

Prior to the rotation of the factors as seen in the examination of the results, the given variance quantity is as follows: first factor as 53.976%, second factor as 11.707%, third factor as 7.858% and the fourth factor as 4.396%. The results obtained for factor rotation is as follows: the first dimension variance quantity was estimated as 25.589%, second dimension variance quantity as 20.380%, third as 18.852% and finally fourth as 13.116%.

According to the graph (Figure 1) formed in accordance to eigenvalues, it is evident that each factor is the equivalent to every gap in between every point. In Figure 1, we can see that the first four factors have suffered high velocity drops. For this reason, the four factors seem to have positively influenced the variance, whereas the other factors influence seems to drop after the fourth point meaning that they are very close to one another (Cokluk et al, 2010). According to the findings evident in Table 4 and in the scree plot chart (Figure 1), we can easily say that the scale could be four dimensional. We can now say that the scale consists of four factors. Firstly, “Security in Social Networking Sites,” which consists of 12 items in the first factor. Secondly,

Table 2: KMO and Bartlett’s test results

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.897

Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. chi-square 8858.782 Df 595 Sig. 0.000

82 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 1 2016

Table 3: Mean, standard deviation, component factor load and varimax factor load results of the developed scale

Items and factors Mean SD Component factor load

Varimax factor load

36. To be able to hide the information that I share on social networking sites from people.

3.7882 1.30104 0.786 0.894

38. To be able to block requests from people I don’t know/want on social networking sites.

3.9294 1.34331 0.736 0.891

42. To be able to hide my profile information from people I don’t want on social networking sites.

3.6000 1.43261 0.745 0.871

35. To be able to protect personal information I share with people on social networking sites.

3.6471 1.28828 0.789 0.866

37. To be able to contact the necessary people if my password is taken by someone on social networking sites.

3.5765 1.27594 0.811 0.846

44. To be able to share videos and photos on social networking sites that will not harm my reputation.

3.6588 1.32335 0.722 0.834

45. To be able to share information about others on social networking sites that will not harm their reputation.

3.6824 1.34706 0.716 0.825

34. To be able to use social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter in a safe way.

3.7765 1.19897 0.723 0.795

39. To be able to protect myself from infected videos on social networking sites.

3.2706 1.27605 0.809 0.777

40. To be able to take necessary safety precautions against security breaches on social networking sites.

3.0353 1.20956 0.781 0.695

41. To be able to prevent theft of personal photo albums on social networking sites.

2.9529 1.23352 0.774 0.655

43. To be able to create a secure password on social networking sites. 3.8706 1.02107 0.671 0.500 Factor I: Security on social networking sites, α = 0.971

23. To be able to prevent harmful software from infecting your computer.

2.5412 1.19077 0.712 0.867

24. To be able to protect my password from key loggers 2.4941 1.24043 0.738 0.824 22. To be able to clean my computer when it has been infected with

viruses. 2.6000 1.21694 0.730 0.814

20. To be able to prevent viruses from entering my computer. 2.9647 1.20956 0.738 0.798 25. To be able to take the necessary precautions to prevent Trojan

horses from entering my computer. 2.6941 1.30952 0.801 0.763

19. To be able to protect my computer from worms. 2.9882 1.30470 0.747 0.757 16. To be able to protect myself from spyware software. 3.2235 1.09519 0.702 0.634 14. To be able to create a very secure password. 2.4824 1.15069 0.777 0.601 27. To be able to use Microsoft Security Essentials. 2.7059 1.22303 0.595 0.595

Factor II: Malicious software, α = 0.956 29. To be able to do shopping in a secure way via Internet. 2.4235 1.03942 0.683 0.897 32. To be able to take the necessary security precautions against

spam e-mails. 2.4118 1.03848 0.689 0.892

49. To be able to protect myself from built-in camera pens and glasses from social engineering attacks.

2.2706 1.00461 0.701 0.859

46. To be able to protect myself from social engineering attacks via e-mails.

2.4588 1.02994 0.724 0.844

30. To be able to use the necessary precautions while using interactive banking on the Internet.

2.3882 1.03618 0.727 0.756

15. To be able to take the necessary precautions against hoax e-mails.

2.5176 1.23068 0.769 0.628

33. To be able to protect myself from phishing e-mails. 2.2941 1.02148 0.678 0.621 10. To be able to show the difference between HTTP and HTTPS 2.4824 1.06471 0.634 0.515

Factor III: Web security & social engineering, α = 0.946 3. To be able to protect my personal files. 3.6353 1.10029 0.706 0.792 1. To be able to take the necessary security measures for logging on

to my computer. 3.6118 1.07009 0.708 0.737

2. To be able to add a password to my operating Windows system. 3.3765 1.20492 0.726 0.737 5. To be able to update my security files. 3.5529 1.21013 0.722 0.713 4. To be able to add a password to my files. 3.1882 1.21002 0.736 0.669 6. To be able to create backup files in case of problems. 3.6118 1.19617 0.716 0.614

Factor IV: Computer security, α = 0.932

The scale for safer use of the Internet 83

Ta bl

e 4

: R

es ul

ts of

fa ct

or an

al ys

C om

po ne

In it

ia l

ei ge

nv al

ue s

E xt

ra ct

io n

su m

s of

sq ua

re d

lo ad

in gs

R ot

at io

n su

m s

of sq

ua re

d lo

ad in

To ta

l %

of V

ar ia

nc e

C um

ul at

iv e

% To

ta l

% of

V ar

ia nc

e C

um ul

at iv

e %

To ta

l %

of V

ar ia

nc e

C um

ul at

iv e

1 1

8 .8

9 2

5 3

.9 7

6 5

3 .9

7 6

1 8

.8 9

2 5

3 .9

7 6

5 3

.9 7

6 8

.9 5

6 2

5 .5

8 9

2 5

.5 8

9 2

4 .0

9 8

1 1

.7 0

7 6

5 .6

8 3

4 .0

9 8

1 1

.7 0

7 6

5 .6

8 3

7 .1

3 3

2 0

.3 8

0 4

5 .9

6 9

3 2

.7 5

0 7

.8 5

8 7

3 .5

4 1

2 .7

5 0

7 .8

5 8

7 3

.5 4

1 6

.5 9

8 1

8 .8

5 2

6 4

.8 2

1 4

1 .5

3 9

4 .3

9 6

7 7

.9 3

7 1

.5 3

9 4

.3 9

6 7

7 .9

3 7

4 .5

9 1

1 3

.1 1

6 7

7 .9

3 7

5 0

.9 8

0 2

.8 0

1 8

0 .7

3 8

6 0

.7 8

7 2

.2 4

9 8

2 .9

8 7

7 0

.7 0

2 2

.0 0

5 8

4 .9

9 2

8 0

.5 6

9 1

.6 2

4 8

6 .6

1 7

9 0

.5 1

9 1

.4 8

2 8

8 .0

9 8

1 0

0 .4

6 2

1 .3

2 0

8 9

.4 1

8 1

1 0

.4 3

3 1

.2 3

6 9

0 .6

5 4

1 2

0 .4

1 1

1 .1

7 5

9 1

.8 3

0 1

3 0

.3 7

1 1

.0 6

0 9

2 .8

9 0

1 4

0 .3

0 8

0 .8

7 9

9 3

.7 6

9 1

5 0

.2 7

6 0

.7 8

9 9

4 .5

5 8

1 6

0 .2

5 4

0 .7

2 6

9 5

.2 8

4 1

7 0

.2 2

8 0

.6 5

2 9

5 .9

3 6

1 8

0 .2

0 2

0 .5

7 8

9 6

.5 1

4 1

9 0

.1 8

1 0

.5 1

7 9

7 .0

3 0

2 0

0 .1

4 5

0 .4

1 4

9 7

.4 4

4 2

1 0

.1 2

2 0

.3 5

0 9

7 .7

9 4

2 2

0 .1

0 7

0 .3

0 7

9 8

.1 0

1 2

3 0

.1 0

5 0

.3 0

0 9

8 .4

0 1

2 4

0 .0

9 5

0 .2

7 2

9 8

.6 7

4 2

5 0

.0 9

0 0

.2 5

7 9

8 .9

3 1

2 6

0 .0

6 9

0 .1

9 8

9 9

.1 2

9 2

7 0

.0 6

5 0

.1 8

7 9

9 .3

1 6

2 8

0 .0

5 3

0 .1

5 2

9 9

.4 6

8 2

9 0

.0 5

1 0

.1 4

7 9

9 .6

1 5

3 0

0 .0

4 1

0 .1

1 7

9 9

.7 3

2 3

1 0

.0 3

3 0

.0 9

5 9

9 .8

2 7

3 2

0 .0

2 6

0 .0

7 4

9 9

.9 0

1 3

3 0

.0 1

7 0

.0 4

9 9

9 .9

5 0

3 4

0 .0

1 1

0 .0

3 1

9 9

.9 8

2 3

5 0

.0 0

6 0

.0 1

8 1

0 0

.0 0

84 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 1 2016

“Malicious Software,” which consists nine items in the second factor. Thirdly, “Web Security & Social Engineering,” which consists of eight items in the third factor and finally “Computer Secu- rity,” which consists of six items in the fourth factor.

In “Security in Social Networking Sites,” we are introduced to what possible threats we can come up against and precautions we can take when we enter/use sites such as Facebook. In “Malicious Software,” we are introduced to explanations and warnings about harmful software such as viruses, Trojan horses and worms. In “Web Security & Social Engineering,” we are shown to be very careful and cautious while surfing the net and also to be aware of various social engineer attacks via the net. In “Computer Security,” we are introduced to various ways of protecting your computer against cyber attacks and other incoming threats.

Reliability analysis In order to prove the reliability of the developed scale, we applied a Likert-type measurement (Cronbach’s alpha technique) to help determine the internal consistency of the scale. For the reliability of the scale, the Cronbach’s alpha technique (the internal consistency coefficient), based on an item analysis, helped calculate the whole scale as 0.975. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of each factor is calculated in the following way: for the first factor α = 0.971, second factor α = 0.956, third factor α = 0.946 and for the fourth factor α = 0.932. According to our findings, the whole scale and the reliability coefficient of the sub-dimensions are over 0.70, therefore proving that our scale is indeed reliable (Sipahi, Yurtkoru & Çinko, 2010).

Figure 1: Factors based on eigenvalues

The scale for safer use of the Internet 85

Item–factor correlation analysis To understand and estimate the interaction between the factors found, we used Pearson correla- tion analysis. In Table 5, we can see that there is a 0.01 statistical correlation between dimen- sions, although there seems to be a difference in the correlation level of the factors. The results of the analysis show that there is a medium level correlation of (0.570) between the “Security in Social Networking” factor and the “Malicious Software” factor (0.564), between the “Security in Social Networking” factor and the “Web Security & Social Engineering” factor (0.654), between the “Security in Social Networking” factor and the “Computer Security” factor. There also seems to be a medium correlation of (0.571) between the “Web Security & Social Engineering” factor and the “Computer Security” factor. There also seems to be a high level correlation of (0.706) between the “Harmful Software” factor and the “Web Security & Social Engineering” factor, and also a high level correlation of (0.705) between the “Harmful Software” factor and the “Com- puter Security” factor.

Discussion In recent years, the evolution of technology has affected education institutions in many ways (Boukas, 2009; Cavus, 2011). Due to this rapid change in technology, the Internet has begun to be used very much in schools and education centres worldwide. The use of mobile devices has lead to a massive increase in Internet use both inside and outside of classes (Furnell et al, 2007). In addition, Web 2.0 tools (blogs, Wikis and podcasts), course management systems and social networking sites have begun to be used in education (Usluel & Mazman, 2009; Uzunboylu et al, 2011). As there are positive sides to Internet use, there are also negative aspects such as security issues while using the Internet (Chou & Peng, 2007; Wishart, 2004). Due to this reason, it has become necessary for teachers to be aware of correct Internet use. So that is why all teachers should gain the necessary knowledge on Internet use so as to be able to protect themselves and their files, etc. (Aftab, 2000). If the necessary precautions are not taken in advance, our personal information and files could be stolen by people with bad intentions (Belsey, 2007; Shehab et al, 2012; Slonje & Smith, 2008; Willard, 2007).

Today, it is of grave importance for all to know about the correct techniques and software to be used for protecting one’s computer and personal files while using the Internet (Jansen, 2009). To be able to protect personal files, we must at all times use antivirus software and firewalls (Katz, 2005). However, no matter what we do, our computers and mobile devices being used for the

Table 5: Results of the item–factor correlation

Security in social networking sites

Harmful software

Web security & social engineering

Computer security

Security in social networking sites

Pearson correlation 1 0.570* 0.564* 0.654* Sig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 n 170 170 170 170

Harmful software Pearson correlation 0.570* 1 0.706* 0.705* Sig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 n 170 170 170 170

Web security & social engineering

Pearson correlation 0.564* 0.706* 1 0.571* Sig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 n 170 170 170 170

Computer security Pearson correlation 0.654* 0.705* 0.571* 1 Sig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 n 170 170 170 170

*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

86 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 1 2016

Internet are always vulnerable to cyber attacks (DBIR, 2012; Mogull, 2009; PCI SSC, 2008). The only way to be able to protect ourselves is to be knowledgeable, and this is possible through education. Teachers should primarily be trained/educated so they can help educate their students and also parents in correct Internet use. Unfortunately, according to the research conducted, teachers seem to lack the necessary knowledge in proper Internet use (Ólafsson et al, 2013). For this reason, all teachers should be given the necessary training in this area. So before teachers are taught, their level of perceptions of self-efficacy in correct Internet use should be determined. Because individuals’ perception of competence is related to the information they have about themselves (Akgündüz, 2013), they need to focus on the beginning of the process of education. This is, therefore, one of the key features of the perceptions of self-efficacy (Aşkar & Işıksal, 2003). However, when we look at the literature in this area of study, it is evident that a scientific scale of this kind does not exist for us to use. In this context, the significance of this study is immense. Due to the results of a scientific analysis, this developed scale, which can be used easily, will be of great help and importance for international research in this field of correct and safe Internet use.

Conclusion The Internet is being used more and more every day. We may not be able to completely secure our computer or personal files but being able to use the Internet consciously and safely will prevent cyber attacks and file theft—if not fully to an extent. Training people at different levels and times will help them be aware of various threats and therefore will be able to use the Internet more safely. The training/education should first begin with teachers then students and finally parents. For this, teachers’ perception of self-efficacy in safe Internet use should be determined. For this purpose, a scale of 35 items, through a confirmatory factor analysis, the “Scale for the Self- Efficacy and Perceptions in the Safe Use of the Internet for Teachers” was validated in four dimensions: “Security in Social Networking Sites,” “Malicious Software,” “Web Security & Social Engineering,” and “Computer Security.” The scale developed is the first of its kind to be developed in a country like Cyprus, which is still developing. According to the results of the study, the developed scale met all the necessary criteria in terms of reliability and validity. The results show us that, this scale can be scientifically used to calculate the level of the perception of self-efficacy among teachers in the safe use of the Internet, whether it be in Cyprus or in other countries.

In the near future, we are thinking of using the scale developed in this study to estimate the missing knowledge of teachers’ perception of self-efficacy of safe Internet use. With the data that will be obtained, we are going to plan appropriate training/education sessions for teachers. We are also planning to apply the same strategy for both students and parents in calculating the perception of self-efficacy in safe Internet use.

Acknowledgements The researchers would like to express their sincere thanks to all of the participants who have given their valuable times in order to participate in this study and who have provided the neces- sary information.

References Aftab, P. (2000). The parent’s guide to protecting your children in cyberspace. New York: McGraw-Hill. Akgündüz, Y. (2013). Analysis of relationship between job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and self-efficacy in

hospitality business. Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 11, 1, 180–204. Akkoyunlu, B. & Orhan, F. (2003). Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi (BÖTE) Bölümü Öğrencilerinin

Bilgisayar Kullanma Öz Yeterlik İnancı ile Demografik Özellikleri Arasındaki İlişki. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2, 3, 1303–6521.

Alexander, B. & Levine, A. (2008). Web 2.0 storytelling: emergence of a new genre. Educause Review, 43, 6, 40–56.

Askar, P. & Davenport, D. (2009). An investigation of factors related to self-efficacy for Java programming among engineering students. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8, 1, 26–32.

The scale for safer use of the Internet 87

Aşkar, P. & Işıksal, M. (2003). İlköğretim Öğrencileri İçin Matematik ve Bilgisayar Öz-Yeterlik Algısı Ölçekleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, 109–118.

Ayas, T. & Horzum, M. B. (2010). Cyber bully/victim scale development study. Akademik Bakış Dergisi, Uluslararası Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler E-Dergisi, 19, 1–17.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a Unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 2, 191–215.

Bayuk, J. (2013). Security as a theoretical attribute construct. Computers & Security, 37, 155–175. Retrieved September 23, 2014, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2013.03.006

Belsey, B. (2007). Cyberbullying: a real and growing threat. ATA Magazine, 88, 1, 14–21. Boukas, L. (2009). Pandora: an SMS-oriented m-informational system for educational realms. Journal of

Network and Computer Applications, 32, 3, 684–702. Brandtzæg, P. B. & Heim, J. (2007). Initial context, user and social requirements for the CITIZEN MEDIA

applications. Brussels: EU Commission. Buyukozturk, S. (2010). Sosyal Bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (12th ed.). Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık. Cavus, N. (2011). The application of multi-attribute decision making algorithm to learning management

systems evaluation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 1, 19–30. CCRA (2012). Common criteria recognition agreement. Retrieved September 4, 2013, from http://

www.commoncriteriaportal.org. Chen, W. & Bonk, C. (2008). The use of weblogs in learning and assessment in Chinese higher education:

possibilities and potential problems. International Journal on E-Learning, 7, 1, 41–65. Chou, C. & Peng, H. (2007). Net friends: adolescents’ attitudes and experiences vs. teachers’ concerns.

Computers in Human Behaviour, 23, 5, 2394–2413. CNET Blog (2008). Exclusive: the next Facebook privacy scandal. Retrieved June 4, 2013, from http://

news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-9854409-46.html Cokluk, O., Sekerciglu, G. & Buyukozturk, S. (2010). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Çok Değişkenli İstatistik: SPSS Ve Lisrel

Uygulamaları (1st ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. Davidsson, K., Larzon, L. & Ljunggren, K. (2010). Self-efficacy in programming among STS students. Retrieved

August 12, 2013, from http://www.it.uu.se/edu/course/homepage/datadidaktik/ht10/reports/Self -Efficacy.pdf

DBIR (2012). Data breach investigations report. Retrieved June 4, 2013, from http://www.verizonenterprise .com/resources/reports/rp_data-breach-investigations-report-2012-ebk_en_xg.pdf

Diaz, E. F. (2009). Collaborative projects and web 2.0: a social learning environment, research. In A. Méndez-Vilas, A. Solano Martin, J. Mesa González & J. A. Mesa González (Eds), Reflections and innovations in integrating ICT in education, m-ICTE 2009 Vol. 3 (pp. 1287–1290). Badajoz, Spain, FORMATEX.

Dron, J. (2006). Pedagogy 2.0. In Proceedings of the 12th NETTIES International Conference—The Future of E: Advance Educational Technologies for a Future e-Europe, 27–32.

Efimova, E. (2009). Weblog as a personal thinking space. In Proceedings of the twentieth ACM conference on hypertext and hypermedia, HT09. New York: ACM. Retrieved November 25, 2013, from http:// blog.mathemagenic.com/download/weblogAsPersonalThinkingSpace.pdf

Ferdig, R. E. (2007). Editorial: examining social software in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15, 1, 5–10.

Furnell, S. M., Bryant, P. & Phippen, A. D. (2007). Assessing the security perceptions of personal Internet users. Computers & Security, 26, 5, 410–417.

Gates, C. E. (2007). Access control requirements for web 2.0 security and privacy. In Proceedings of workshop on web 2.0 security & privacy (W2SP 2007) (p. 3). Retrieved September 6, 2013, from http:// www.cs.sunysb.edu/∼rob/papers/cbac-w2sp07.pdf

Hancock, B. (2000). US Government Board setting up security metrics. Computers & Security, 19, 7, 580.

Hargadon, S. (2008). Web 2.0 is the future of education. Retrieved September 4, 2013, from http:// www.stevehargadon.com/2008/03/web-20-is-future-of-education.html

Hart, M., Johnson, R. & Stent, A. (2007). More content -less control: access control in the web 2.0. In Proceedings of Workshop on Web 2.0 Security & Privacy, W2SP 2007 (p. 3). Retrieved September 6, 2013, from http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/∼rob/papers/cbac-w2sp07.pdf

Hutcheson, G. D. & Sofronio, N. (1999). Multivariate social scientist: introductory statistics using generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jansen, W. (2009). Directions in security metrics research. Retrieved September 6, 2013, from http:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.153.3785&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Kanniah, A. & Krish, P. (2010). Collaborative learning skills used in weblog. CALL-EJ Online, 11, 2. Retrieved September 5, 2013, from http://callej.org/journal/11-2/kanniah_krish.html

88 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 1 2016

Katz, F. H. (2005). The effect of a university information security survey on instruction methods in informa- tion security. Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on İnformation Security Curriculum Development, 43–48. Retrieved September 23, 2014, from http://www.eicar.org/files/katztheeffectofauniversity informationsecuritysurvey.pdf

Kim, H. (2008). The phenomenon of blogs and theoretical model of blog use in educational contexts. Computers & Education, 51, 1342–1352.

Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge. Lacey, B. (2007). Social aggression: a study of internet harassment. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,

Hofstra University. Retrieved September 6, 2013, from http://www.hofstra.edu/academics/Colleges/ SOEAHS/FLPS/flps_dissertations.html

Lee, M. J. W. & McLoughlin, C. (2008). Harnessing the affordances of Web 2.0 and social software tools: can we finally make “student centred” learning a reality? In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 3825–3834). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved October 5, 2013, from http://www.editlib.org/p/28915

Lu, P. C. (2007). The integration of blog platform and e-portfolio in art assessment. The International Journal of Arts Education, 5(2), 154–185.

Marklein, M. B. (2006). The new learning curve: technological security. Retrieved September 5, 2013, from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/hacking/2006-08-01-college-security_x .htm

Marks, A. (2007). Exploring universities’ information systems security awareness in a changing higher education environment: a comparative case study research. PhD thesis (Degree of Doctor of Philosophy), University of Salford. Retrieved October 20, 2012, from http://usir.salford.ac.uk/26802/1/10581588 .pdf

McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. In the Proceedings of ascilite Singapore. Retrieved September 5, 2013, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf

Mogull, R. (2009). An open letter to Robert Carr, CEO of Heartland Payment Systems. Retrieved September 5, 2013, from https://securosis.com/blog/an-open-letter-to-robert-carr-ceo-of-heartland-payment-systems

Namlu, A. G. & Odabasi, F. (2007). Unethical computer using behaviour scale: a study of reliability and validity on Turkish university students. Computers & Education, 48, 205–215.

North, M. M., Roy, G. & North, S. M., (2006). Computer security ethics awareness in university environ- ments: a challenge for management of information systems. Proceedings of the 44th annual southeast regional conference (ACMSE), 434–439.

Ólafsson, K., Livingstone, S. & Haddon, L. (2013). Children’s use of online technologies in Europe. A review of the European evidence base. LSE, London: EU Kids Online.

Oblinger, D. (2003). IT security and academic values. In M. Luker & R. Petersen (Eds), EDUCAUSE leadership strategies: computer and network security in higher education Vol. 8 (pp. 31–44). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. PCI SSC (2008). The Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council. Version 1.2. Retrieved September 5,

2013, from https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/pdfs/pci_ssc_quick_guide.pdf Pettenati, M. C. & Ranieri, M. (2006). Informal learning theories and tools to support knowledge manage-

ment in distributed CoPs. In E. Tomadaki & P. Scott (Eds), Workshop Proceeding of the Innovative Approaches for Learning and Knowledge Sharing (pp. 345–355). Heildeberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Piazza, P. (2006). Security goes to school. Security Management, 50, 12, 46–51. Schwarzer, R., Bässler, J., Kwiatek, P. & Schröder, K. (1997). The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs:

comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the general self-efficacy scale. Applied Psychology an International Review, 46, 1, 69–88.

Seitzinger, J. (2006). Be constructive: blogs, podcasts, and wikis as constructivist learning tools. Learning Solutions E-Magazine, 1–14. Retrieved September 23, 2014, from http://www.elearningguild.com/pdf/2/ 073106DES.pdf

Shehab, M., Squicciarini, A., Ahn, G. & Kokkinou, I. (2012). Access control for online social networks third party applications. Computers & Security, 31, 8, 897–911.

Shim, J. P. & Guo, C. (2009). Weblog technology for instruction, learning, and information delivery. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7, 171–193.

Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, E. S. & Çinko, M. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde spss’le veri analizi. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları. Slonje, R. & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of

Psychology, 49, 147–154.

The scale for safer use of the Internet 89

Soutworth, C., Finn, J., Dawson, S., Fraser, C. & Tucker, S. (2007). Intimate partner violence, technology, and stalking. Violence Against Women, 13, 842–856.

Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. Tootoonchian, A., Gollu, K. K., Saroiu, S., Ganjali, Y. & Wolman, A. (2008). Lockr: social access control for

Web 2.0. Proceedings of the first workshop on online social networks, WOSP’08. 43–48. Topcu, Ç., Yıldırım, A. & Erdur-Baker, Ö. (2013). Cyber bullying @ schools: what do Turkish adolescents

think? International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 35, 2, 139–151. Usluel, Y. K. & Mazman, S. G. (2009). Adoption process of web 2.0 tools in distance education. Procedia—

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 1, 818–823. Uzunboylu, H., Bicen, H. & Cavus, N. (2011). The efficient virtual learning environment: a case study of Web

2.0 tools and Windows Live Spaces. Computers & Education, 56, 3, 720–726. Willard, N. E. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: responding to the challenge of online social aggression,

threats, and distress. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Retrieved September 23, 2014, from https:// www.researchpress.com/books/495/cyberbullying-and-cyberthreats

Wishart, J. (2004). Internet safety in emerging educational contexts. Computers & Education, 43, 1–2, 193–204.

Wurst, C., Smarkola, C. & Gaffney, M. A. (2008). Ubiquitous laptop usage in higher education: effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and constructivist measures in honors and traditional class- rooms. Computers & Education, 51, 4, 1766–1783.

Young, J. R. (2008). Study raises new privacy concerns about Facebook. Retrieved September 5, 2013, from http://chronicle.com/article/Study-Raises-New-Privacy/465/

90 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 47 No 1 2016

Copyright of British Journal of Educational Technology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.