Engl. transl.: Youth Media Protection Index: Dealing with online-related risks – results of the survey of teachers and educational professionals

The "Youth Media Protection Index" initiated and published by the Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle Multimedia-Diensteanbieter e.V. (FSM) demonstrates how the protection of adolescents from negative online experiences is reflected in the concerns, attitudes, knowledge and actions of parents, educational professionals and teachers as well as adolescents themselves. Within this framework, this report informs about the perspective of teachers and educational professionals. It is based on an explorative survey of a total of 296 persons working at school or non-school institutions in Bavaria, Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein." (cf. Gebel et al. 2018, 10). [translated by the coder]

"The teachers and educational professionals surveyed perceive reasons for child and youth online media protection. In response to the question about possible risks, almost 90 per cent state at least one risk. In the foreground are content-related risks. However, many also formulate critical remarks on the omissions of parents and the lack of media competence of adolescents as well as (self-)critical references. Asked directly about the frequency of various online risks, the respondents assume for almost all of these risks that children and adolescents are confronted with them "often" or "very often" - their assessments are generally even higher than those of the children and adolescents surveyed. What is striking is the very frequent perception of risks that are directly attributed to the behaviour of the children and young people themselves, that they spend too much time with online media, that they make too much personal data public, that they make illegal downloads and uploads and that they bully or harass others. When asked more specifically about the experiences that the children the respondents work with have already had, deviations can be seen especially in the more serious and consequential risks: Thus, "only" 61 per cent say that they generally assume that adolescents are bullied "(very) often", while 86 per cent say that bullying has already occurred among the children they work with; most of the others state that they do not know this - hardly anyone thus safely assumes that no one among the adolescents in their own field of activity is bullied. The respondents are largely in agreement that there is a fundamental need to support adolescents in their online use and in coping with possible risks. This also and especially applies to the more non-technical aspects of online use, such as the ability to check the truth of information or to develop appropriate forms of self-expression in social media." (cf. Gebel et al. 2018, 10). "As was already the case in the survey of parents, the protection of young people from harmful media is very highly rated. The respondents rated age-related measures as well as the promotion of media competence and coping skills particularly highly. The teachers and educational professionals surveyed were somewhat more sceptical about some measures than parents. These include those that do not take effect independently of the actions of parents and children. This could play a role in the sceptical assessment because the respondents view the assumption of responsibility by parents and children quite critically. The respondents attributed the highest responsibility for youth media protection to parents and, in keeping with traditional youth media protection, least to the children themselves." (cf. Gebel et al. 2018, 11). "The educational professionals and teachers interviewed, like the parents, are familiar with the basic aims and regulations of the legal protection of minors from harmful media; however, there are also some uncertainties about the details. The cautious self-assessment of the respondents is striking: only half think that they can support children and young people "(very) well" in dealing with online risks. This self-assessment contrasts to a certain extent with the expectations placed on educational institutions." (cf. Gebel et al. 2018, 11). "The topics of youth media protection and media education are present in the interviewed teachers and educational staff in the respective institutions. At 89 per cent, the proportion of institutions in which media education activities of one kind or another take place is quite high. However, the fact that more than half of the respondents would assign a higher priority to the topic in the institution also illustrates a need for action from the point of view of the respondents. This explicitly demanded higher priority also indicates a high level of motivation and readiness to take up the topic on the part of the respondents. The concrete actions related to the protection of young people from harmful media are closely connected to the framework conditions at schools and extracurricular institutions. The interviewees are more likely to act in the sense of youth media protection if there are corresponding institutional guidelines at the institution. The institutional framework conditions seem to fulfil a content and enabling function for youth media protection-related action. However, structural problems are also evident here: there is a relatively high proportion of "don't know" statements regarding the framework conditions at the institutions. The results also show that the topic of digital media is still polarised in educational contexts. On the one hand, there is a group of respondents who do not address the use of online media in their work and do not inform themselves about the possible dangers of using internet media. They simply avoid the topic. On the other hand, in the spectrum of concrete pedagogical action, in addition to various forms that allow children and young people to use online media in a restricted way, there are also the two extremes that either allow the use of online media completely unregulated or, on the contrary, prohibit it completely. The fact that pro and con arguments can be put forward for this practice also reflects the generally divided opinion of the respondents." (cf. Gebel et al. 2018, 11-12). [translated by the coder]