In recent decades, there has been a notable trend toward using the internet and technology for education. During adolescence, students encounter numerous challenges and temptations that may be exacerbated by being exposed to misinformation or disinformation, social media or gaming activities. Although the positive impacts of an internet-based learning environment on students have been demonstrated (Poccoli et al., 2001; Chou and Liu, 2005; El-Sabagh, 2021), this editorial aims to address the concerns that internet-based environments may have on students and their relation to their learning based on empirical studies and seeks support systems for the next generations.
These internet-based social environments negatively impact students' cognitive functioning—especially information processing—including cognitive biases (Britt et al., 2019) and impaired reasoning and thinking skills (Bago et al., 2020; Axelsson et al., 2021). The biased cognitive system even negatively affects behaviors (Bastick, 2021), such as the use of unauthorized resources or pirated software (Bonadio et al., 2021), cyberloafing, and cyberbullying (Huang et al., 2023).
These phenomena worsened throughout the pandemic (Fu et al.; Malik et al., 2023). For example, Malik et al. examined academic cheating behaviors and perceived online effectiveness on academic performance during the COVID-19 pandemic among schools, colleges, and university students in Pakistan. Their findings revealed that a significant portion of students engaged in cheating during online exams, with 60% admitting to cheating most of the time and 30% admitting to cheating at least once during such exams. Multivariate regression analysis indicated that cheating contributed to a 26% increase in students' academic performance. The results suggest that students perceive online learning as effective, as it allows for easy attainment of academic grades. Therefore, technology-based virtual activities moderate risky behaviors.
Since millennials and Gen Z were born with technology but their parents are not ready to fully guide them to a society with an unprecedented learning environment, the gap in perception between students and their parents makes it difficult to create supportive learning environments for younger generations. This phenomenon is well described by Luo et al.. Luo et al. conducted a survey of 629 parents in Taiwan to investigate their perspectives on their young children's utilization of information communication technology (ICT), including usage patterns and the interplay with socioeconomic status. The results revealed a notable disparity. While approximately 50% of parents deemed 6 years old or older as an appropriate age for children to commence using ICT, more than 80% of children had already begun interacting with ICT before reaching that age.
This finding highlights a substantial gap between parental expectations and the actual onset of ICT engagement among children. Additionally, the parents showed a wide range of spectra, from balanced and optimistic views to value emphasis, conservatism, and negative doubts, of children's use of information communication technology rather than a monotonous binary perspective, such as being positive or negative. The results imply the intricate and multifaceted nature of parental viewpoints, which encompass both positive and negative attitudes toward children's use of ICT. Since initial learning behaviors while interacting with the world strongly influence subsequent behaviors or are at least fixed as a habit, earlier intervention by primary caregivers is needed to better control any risky behavior in internet-based learning environments.
Risky behaviors not only hinder student learning but also have impacts on individuals and their peers, including social deterioration (Hoff et al., 2012), interpersonal distress (Copeland et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2020), emotional harm (Hessler and Katz, 2010; Weiss et al., 2015), and victimization (Windle, 1994). Creating a supportive and secure learning environment has always been a crucial educational goal in offline and online settings as well. Therefore, it is essential to understand the dynamics of how risky behaviors are manifested in internet-based learning environments and how schools and educators can prevent and address such behaviors among students.
The present Research Topic calls readers' attention to youths' risky behaviors in an online context, and empirical studies on this topic have investigated the perspectives of caregivers (Luo et al.) and students (Malik et al.). During the pandemic, internet-based learning environments for students became more influential. Future research is recommended to elucidate the neural mechanism of risky behaviors, the challenges faced by adolescents and parents and their interactions, the remedies that help overcome these challenges, and the design and effectiveness of intervention programs.
Statements
Author contributions
CH: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. SK: Writing – original draft. SY: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
Axelsson C.-A. W. Guath M. Nygren T. (2021). Learning how to separate fake from real news: scalable digital tutorials promoting students? civic online reasoning. Future Intern. 13:60. 10.3390/fi13030060
2
Bago B. Rand D. G. Pennycook G. (2020). Fake news, fast and slow: deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.149, 1608–1613. 10.1037/xge0000729
3
Bastick Z. (2021). Would you notice if fake news changed your behavior? An experiment on the unconscious effects of disinformation. Comput. Hum. Behav.116:106633. 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106633
4
Bonadio E. Lucchi N. Pollicino O. (2021). Fake news and copyright. Queen Mary J. Intellect. Proper.11, 444–468. 10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.02
5
Britt M. A. Rouet J.-F. Blaum D. Millis K. (2019). A reasoned approach to dealing with fake news. Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci.6, 94–101. 10.1177/2372732218814855
6
Chen R. Peng K. Liu J. Wilson A. Wang Y. Wilkinon M. R. et al . (2020). Interpersonal trauma and risk of depression among adolescents: the mediating and moderating effect of interpersonal relationship and physical exercise. Front. Psychiatry11:194. 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00194
7
Chou S. W. Liu C. H. (2005). Learning effectiveness in a web-based virtual learning environment: a learner control perspective. J. Comput. Assist. Learn.21, 65–76. 10.1111/j.13652729.2005.00114.x
8
Copeland W.E. Keeler G. Angold A. Costello E. J. (2007). Traumatic events and posttraumatic stress in childhood. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry64, 577–584. 10.1001/archpsyc.64.5.577
9
El-Sabagh H. A. (2021). Adaptive e-learning environment based on learning styles and its impact on development students' engagement. Int. J. Educ. Technol. Higher Educ. 18:53. 10.1186/s41239-021-00289-4
10
Hessler D. M. Katz L. F. (2010). Brief report: Associations between emotional competence and adolescent risky behavior. J. Adolesc.33, 241–246. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.007
11
Hoff C. C. Chakravarty D. Beougher S. C. Neilands T. B. Darbes L. A. (2012). Relationship characteristics associated with sexual risk behavior among MSM in committed relationships. AIDS Patient Care STDs26, 738–745. 10.1089/apc.2012.019
12
Huang C. L. Alimu Y. Yang S. C. Kang S. (2023). What you think is a joke is cyberbullying: the effects of ethical dissonance, event judgment and humor style on cyberbullying behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 142:107670. 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107670
13
Malik A. Bashir F. Mahmood K. (2023). Antecedents and consequences of misinformation sharing behavior among adults on social media during COVID-19. Sage Open 13. 10.1177/21582440221147022
14
Poccoli G. Ahmad R. Ives B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic it skills training. MIS Q.25, 401–426. 10.2307/3250989
15
Weiss N. H. Sullivan T. P. Tull M. T. (2015). Explicating the role of emotion dysregulation in risky behaviors: a review and synthesis of the literature with directions for future research and clinical practice. Curr. Opin. Psychol.3, 22–29. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.013
16
Windle M. (1994). Substance use, risky behaviors, and victimization among a US national adolescent sample. Addiction89, 175–182. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1994.tb00876.x
Summary
Keywords
risk behaviors, internet, learning environment, youth, internet-based learning, prevention program
Citation
Huang CL, Kang S and Yang SC (2024) Editorial: Risky behaviors faced by youth in an internet-based learning environment. Front. Psychol. 15:1420357. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1420357
Received
20 April 2024
Accepted
22 May 2024
Published
06 June 2024
Volume
15 - 2024
Edited and reviewed by
Douglas F. Kauffman, Consultant, Boston, MA, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2024 Huang, Kang and Yang.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Shu Ching Yang shyang@mail.nsysu.edu.tw
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.