This document summarizes a study on how adolescents perceive the participatory potential of the Internet. The researchers developed a conceptual framework to define four levels of online participation: crowd, network, community, and collaborative groups. They then created an assessment tool using story-based questions to measure attitudes toward each level. The tool was administered to 163 secondary school students. Preliminary results found that respondents showed participatory attitudes overall but preferred sharing and networking over more active and collaborative behaviors online. The researchers plan to improve the assessment tool's validity and explore correlations with demographics, Internet use, and age.

1. How do adolescents perceive the
participatory potential of the Internet?
An study on teens’ attitudes towards
participation and content creation.
Maria Ranieri* and Alessia Rosa**
*University of Florence, **University of Turin
Istanbul, 10th September 2013

2. Background
The raise of participatory culture (Jenkins, 2006)
• Emphasis on the potential of the Internet as a means of
increasing young people’s participation (Bennett, 2007;
Pettingill, 2007).
• Internet, especially Web 2.0 and social networks, viewed as a
technology enabling participatory aptitudes and facilitating
content sharing and creation: from discussing in a web forum
to creating content in a wiki, from sharing useful resources to
using information in every field of life – education, politics,
economy, society.

3. Background
However, some studies have questioned the enthusiasm in the
participatory power of the Internet
For example,
• Livingstone et al. (2005) found that interactive uses of the
Internet are encouraged by the very experience of using it
but that engagement with civic resources depends primarily
on demographic factors.
• Hargittai and Walejko (2008) found that despite new
opportunities to engage in such distribution of content,
relatively few people are taking advantage of these recent
developments.

4. Research questions
How do students perceive the potential of the
Internet for online participation?
What are their attitudes towards online
participation?
• How to represent the concept of online participation?
• How to assess young people’s attitudes toward the
potential of the Internet for online participation?

5. Procedures and Methods
Step 1.
Development of a conceptual framework to represent the
notion of online participation
Step 2.
Development and validation of a tool for assessing participatory
attitudes
Step 3.
Survey based on the participatory attitudes’ tool, including a
questionnaire on socio-demographic aspects
Step 4.
Focus group

6. Conceptual framework
Identification of four levels of online social
“proximity” according to criteria such as
• Openness vs Closeness
• Strong vs Weak ties
• Active vs Passive involvement

7. Conceptual framework
Level 1: Crowd - is completely public
Level 2: Network – is semi-public
Level 3: Community - is semi-private
Level 4: Collaborative - is a private space

8. Conceptual framework
Level 1: Crowd
• Conceptual sources – Close to the idea of crowd as “a
‘lightweight’ collaborative structure”, where people are
interconnected by weak ties: crowdsourced projects don’t
require knowing others and working with them directly as a
prerequisite for participation (eg, OpenStreetMap)
(Haythornthwaite, 2011).

9. Conceptual framework
Level 2: Network
• Conceptual sources – Inspired to the idea of social
networking sites defined as a category of websites where
individual users create their public or semi-public profiles,
list connections with others (friends, followers or buddies)
and traverse the site through their own and others’ friend
lists forming a public networked space (boyd & Ellison,
2007).

10. Conceptual framework
Level 3: Community
• Conceptual sources – Goes back to the notion of virtual
communities defined by Rheingold as “social aggregations that
emerge from the [Internet] when enough people carry on
those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human
feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace"
(1993, p. 5) – Commons interests, public discussions,
conviviality, interaction…

11. Conceptual framework
Level 4: Collaborative (groups)
• Conceptual sources – Inspired to the Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning (CSCL) approach based on small groups
of people (5-7 members) working on the achievement of the
same goal through strong interactions, social negotiation and
the use of technologies (see e.g. Koschmann et al., 1992).

12. Assessment Tool
• A telling stories approach has been adopted as a method
to explore people’s values (Marradi, 1996; Trinchero,
2011).
• Each item is formulated as a story and the respondent is
requested to take a position in front of a small dilemma.
• To test the instrument a sample of stories was
administered to a group of secondary school students
aged 16-18.
• A panel of experts analyzed the items and provided
feedback on validity

13. Assessment Tool
Level 1: Crowd
Indicators
• Being available to share personal views/opinions/ratings
• Being interested in considering and trusting in
views/opinions/ratings by others
• Making public the access to self-produced contents
No. of items
3

14. Assessment Tool
Level 1: Crowd
Example
During the festival of the independent cinema, Isabella convinces Andrea and Luca to
see a film directed by an African Director about the wars for the control the
diamonds’ extraction. Surprisingly the film excited them. The movie is scheduled in a
small cinema which, however, has an interesting website where people can rate the
films and evaluate them. Luca is determined to provide and disseminate his positive
feedback, since the film is barely advertised and run in a few rooms, so others will be
intrigued or maybe they're going to see it. Andrea instead thinks it's just a waste of
time because no one will read or will trust his judgment. According to you which one
is right?
Andrea
Luca

15. Assessment Tool
Level 2: Network
Indicators
• Being available to share resources within his/her own social
network
• Sharing his/her personal contacts
• Connecting people and resources
No. of items
3

16. Assessment Tool
Level 2: Network
Example
While writing the science essay, Simona has managed to create a collection of
websites on the topic and has decided to publish it on the blog of Luca who collects
and share digital learning resources.
According your point of view,
Simona is right because this could be of help for some other students.
Simona is wrong because the sites she identified are public, so everyone can seek
them for themselves rather than using things are done by others.

17. Assessment Tool
Level 3: Community
Indicators
• Being a member of a community
• Engaging with mentoring
• Respecting rules and the others
No. of items
3

18. Assessment Tool
Level 3: Community
Example
Jonathan is very skilled in understanding how software and computer applications
work, so he decides to create and share online a list of the best freeware video-
editing programs and produces a number of useful tutorials.
According to your opinion,
Jonathan is very generous and is right in sharing his ability with other people
Jonathan is just an egocentric person… Actually, if he has a skill, he should take it for
himself!

19. Assessment Tool
Level 4: Collaborative (groups)
Indicators
• Being available to work with others to achieve a common
goal
• Taking responsibilities and roles
• Contributing to the work group in an active way
No. of items
3

20. Assessment Tool
Level 4: Collaborative (groups)
Example
Beatrice, Luca, Simone, Roberto and Maria are great fans of Lady Gaga and decide to
develop together a Wikipedia page. At this purpose, they plan for different roles and
responsibilities with some of them presenting her biography, others searching for
images and others for music. In their view, this is the only way to achieve the goal in a
complete manner.
According to your opinion
Hardily the final result will be satisfactory as someone will work more and some less:
since there is no grade, there will be different levels of contribution.
• Only by working together the final result will be satisfactory since there is so much
material. Satisfaction is given by the result and the accuracy of the work.

21. Participants (=163)

22. Preliminary results
Note: 1=low; 2=medium; 3=high; 4=very high

23. Preliminary results
• Overall respondents
show participatory
attitudes toward the
use of the Internet: for
each level they mostly
preferred participatory
behaviours
• However, it seems
that they prefer sharing
and being in a network
rather than engaging in
collaborative work
within small groups

24. Preliminary results
Being a member of a community
Level 1: Crowd
Level 2: Network
Level 3: Community
Level 4: Collaborative
Level 2: Network

25. Preliminary results
• Respondents revealed a participatory approach to the
Internet, particularly in the sense of sharing contacts (semi-
public dimension, networking) and being engaged in both
weak and strong ties (crowd and community).
• At the same time, participation as active contribution seems
to be less common in their understanding of the potential of
the Internet: they are less enthusiastic about sharing self-
productions and engaging in collaborative work.
• Moreover, they declared their positive attitudes towards
helping other people through mentoring and sustaining
behaviours.

26. • It seems confirmed the tendency to perceive the potential of
the Internet for sharing rather than producing with others.
This could mean that the creative potential of the Internet is
not completely seized by teens.
• There seems to be an inconsistency between their
avalilability towards mentoring (which is an active behaviour)
and their tendency to perceive the Internet as a tool for
sharing rather than producing (which si also an active
behaviour). However, mentoring refers more to strong ties
than active behaviours.
Conclusions

27. • Improving the tool to increasy its validity through further
surveys and consultations with experts.
• Exploring possible correlations between socio-demographic
characteristics (such as parents background) and attitudes
towards online participation
• Exploring possible correlations between current uses of the
Internet and attitudes towards online participation
• Exploring possible correlations between age and attitudes
towards online participation
Future research

28. Related Studies & Projects
Studies on Digital Competences Assessment such as
• Calvani A., Fini A., Ranieri M., Picci P. (2012). Are young
generations in secondary school digitally competent? A study
on Italian teenagers. COMPUTERS & EDUCATION, vol. 58, pp.
797-807.
• Y. Li, M. Ranieri (2010). Are ‘digital natives’ really digitally
competent? A Study on Chinese Teenagers. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 41, 6, pp. 1029-1042.

29. Related Studies & Projects
www.engagementproject.eu

30. Thank you!
Correspondent Author
maria.ranieri@unifi.it