Cybersecurity Interventions for Teens: Two Time-Based Approaches

Abstract

Contribution:Intervention effectiveness is shown to vary in its influence on teenagers’ outcomes with cybersecurity problem-solving and engagement. In-depth, high-intensity types of intervention may be more effective for female students.Background:Instructional interventions are being developed to address both the critical shortage in cybersecurity talent and gender gaps in the cyber workforce. These interventions need rigorous evaluation. Specific types of instructional strategies are particularly effective for STEM learning. Also, gender differences are found in the benefit students derive from certain instructional methods. An important question is whether certain instructional methods are particularly effective for cybersecurity learning, and consistent in both male and female students.Research Questions:Do cybersecurity interventions affect problem-solving, cybersecurity engagement, and/or cybersecurity self-efficacy? Are there gender differences in terms of intervention effectiveness?Methodology:Study 1 (${n}\,\, {=}$79) included a 60-min workshop model where participants, assigned to treatment and control groups, completed surveys pre- and post-intervention. The treatment group experienced a workshop on computer networking, without any technology. The control group did not receive the workshop. Study 2 (${n}\,\,{=}$34) was a week-long intervention whose participants had formal lessons, built websites, and defended themselves from an ongoing simulated cyberattack. Participants completed a survey on cybersecurity learning and engagement three times during the intervention.Findings:Study 1 showed no main treatment effect, but females experienced greater gains in problem-solving than males. In Study 2, there was positive growth over time and females experienced greater growth in cybersecurity self-efficacy relative to males.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.