Perception of Risk in the Use of Technologies and Social Media. Implications for Identity Building during Adolescence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

the paper "Perception of Risk in the Use of Technologies and Social Media. Implications for Identity Building during Adolescence" presents the results of a research in order to get useful inputs to manage the implication of risks and identity building. Those implications are poorly discussed in the two paragraphs "discussion and conclusions" since the discussion on how the educational context should use those data to activate a proper training is very generic. The suggestion is to review discussion and conclusion in this direction by providing a more detailed overview of actions/resources/tools to be used in the educational context.

As for Material and Methods I underline the following weaknesses:

the author mentions a qualitative approach, but in the analysis clearly appears just a quantitative results of coding (with some graphs).

What categories (and subcategorties) were found and analysed?

The table 1 reports the characteristics of the sample: what kind of triangulation of data was made with interpretative categories (just age is mentioned) ? The author say NVIVO was used, but there is  no trace in the analysis of the NVIVO qualitative tools used .

It is highly suggested to provide a synthesis of coding process and then a discussion for each dimension (please show how NVIVO was actually used).

Finally the technique of Focus group also needs to be more clearly described (kind of focus group used, the protocol used, information about the semi-structured script).

Author Response

In what follows, the authors provide a detail of the changes made according to the reviewers’ recommendations and comments.

• A description is made of one of the keys that, in the authors’ opinion, will shape the future for educating in the risk this technology poses in young people’s identity-building, specifically involving the ideas presented by post-critical pedagogy, seeking to consider technology as an end in itself and such settings as the hyper-classroom or the “classroom of the future”.
• Following reviewer 1’s indications, a more detailed description has been provided of the methodological design. Information has been included on the semi-structured script used to dynamise the encounters. Likewise, a detail has been included of the dimensions and categories used for coding and analysing content (with specific inclusion of Table 1), placing particular emphasis on the procedure.
• As regards the analysis of content, the revised text now indicates that we have focused on the study of differences by ages, an aspect that is more thoroughly clarified in the procedure, as well as the weight of the categories in the discourse, accompanying them with a series of tags.
• We have further clarified this aspect by including a screenshot from the N-VIVO program that corresponds to the hierarchical map of the categories and dimensions used in the coding process, and which were themselves established according to the prior script followed by the moderators of the encounters in the different focus groups.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper addresses the issue of student use of the internet and online platforms beyond what is required for their school work. It also examines the risks of these online activities, the assessment of these risks, the tools and strategies used to overcome them, and the claim that "they deploy few tools and strategies to deal with the self-perceived risks". A key feature of the paper is its focus on students' own perceptions of these factors, as indicated in several graphs and a number of comments made by students. 

The paper is, mainly, clearly written and the findings well-presented (see comments below). However, the finding that students "deploy few tools and strategies to deal with the self-perceived risks" seems overly pessimistic, given (i) that many of them show awareness of the risks - which suggests at least a measure of control over them - and (ii) they do use such strategies as "common sense", "trial and error", juggling personal profiles, etc. The author's ("A's") point seems to be that they are aware that they are not taught in school to engage in critical thinking and good judgement regarding the online risks. A is not entirely consistent when it comes to risk-awareness: compare "The aforementioned risks seem to arise from a lack of control over the time spent online [29] as well as the lack of self-perception of the risk to which the adolescents themselves are exposed" (lines 75-6) with Fig. 2 and associated comments. A does comment that younger students are less likely to perceive certain risks, but notes that such findings have already been reported in similar studies (line 282). 

Given the number of references to similar studies, the strongest feature of this paper, in my view, is its use of personal comments from students, along with their own criticisms of aspects of their schooling in regard to critical thinking. 

Additional points: A refers to adolescent identity construction, a concept of which this reviewer is somewhat sceptical. However, it does not play any role in the main part of the paper, so perhaps its inclusion is not necessary. Similarly for the one brief reference to "post-critical pedagogy" (line 300). The first sentence of the Abstract is unfortunate, since it is clearly untrue (adolescents are not "permanently connected to the internet"). Lines 33-4 do not constitute a grammatical sentence. And the sentence at lines 43-4 is rather obscure. 

Author Response

In what follows, the authors provide a detail of the changes made according to the reviewers’ recommendations and comments.

• The statement “adolescents are permanently connected to the internet” has been qualified as “spending a large part of their time”.
• The reasoning that young people "deploy few tools and strategies to deal with the self-perceived risks" has been reviewed and developed, indicating some of the findings recorded in this research and reported in earlier articles and linked to those forthcoming here. The notion of using tools for coping with risks is linked to whether or not there are parental and school controls, confirming the lack of instruction received that has been manifested by the adolescents.
• A further exploration has been made of the reasoning on post-critical pedagogy and its relationship with the use of technology.
• The grammatical structure of lines 33-4 and 43-4 has been changed, as recommended.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

weaknesses already underlined have been sufficiently  covered.