A STUDY ON THE AWARENESS OF CYBER SAFETY AND SECURITY AMONG

SECONDARY-STAGE STUDENTS (CLASS IX TO XII)

Research Report

Principal Investigator

Dr. Angel Rathnabai

Central Institute of Educational Technology

National Council of Educational Research and Training

Sri Aurobindo Marg

New Delhi-110016
 DECLARATION

I declare that this research entitled "A Study on the Awareness of Cyber Safety and
Security among Secondary-Stage Students (Class IX To XII)" has been taken up as a part
of the PAC 20.05 project.

~
Principal Investigator
Dr. Angel Rathnabai S
CIET-NCERT

~ ~
Head (DICT) Joint Director
Prof. Indu Kumar Prof. Amarendra P.Behera
CIET-NCERT CIET-NCERT
 DECLARATION

I declare that this research entitled "A Study on the Awareness of Cyber Safety and
Security among Secondary-Stage Students (Class IX To XII)" has been taken up as a part
of the PAC 20.05 project.

~
Principal Investigator
Dr. Angel Rathnabai S
CIET-NCERT

w
Head (DICT)
Prof. Indu Kumar
Joint Director
Prof. Amarendra P.Behera
CIET-NCERT CIET-NCERT
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We would like to sincerely thank Prof. Amarendra P. Behra, Joint Director, and Prof. Indu
Kumar, Head, DICT & TD, Central Institute of Educational Technology (CIET), NCERT, New
Delhi, for their valuable expertise and guidance throughout this project. Their leadership played
a key role in shaping our work and ensuring its quality.
We also want to recognize the important contributions of the resource persons and experts
whose insights and hard work were essential in the research.
I am also profoundly appreciative of the participants of the research. Their active engagement
and enthusiasm were crucial in bringing this research to life. Their feedback and reflections
provided valuable insights that have significantly contributed to the findings of this report.
 Table of Content

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1

1.1 Overview of Digital Landscape in India .............................................................................. 1
1.2 Importance of Cyber Safety and Security in the Context of Growing Internet among
Students ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Emerging Cyber Threats and the Impact on Students ......................................................... 1
1.4 Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Operational Definition of the Key Terms ............................................................................ 3
1.5.1 Awareness ................................................................................................................. 3
1.5.2 Cyber Safety and Security ......................................................................................... 3
1.5.3 Secondary School Students in India .......................................................................... 3
1.6 Variables of the Study .......................................................................................................... 3
1.7 Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 4
1.8 Objectives of the Study ........................................................................................................ 4
1.9 Hypothesis of the Study ....................................................................................................... 4
1.10 Research Methodology ...................................................................................................... 5
1.10.2 Population of the Study ........................................................................................... 5
1.10.3 Sampling Technique ................................................................................................ 5
1.10.4 Sample of the Study ................................................................................................ 5
1.10.5 Research Tool .......................................................................................................... 5
1.10.6 Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 5
1.10.7 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 6
1.11 Need and Significance of the Study ................................................................................... 6
1.12 Scope of the Study ............................................................................................................. 6
1.13 Delimitations of the Study ................................................................................................. 7
1.14 Organization of the Research Report ................................................................................. 7

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.................................................... 8

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Review Related Literature ................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 18
3.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 18
3.2. Research Design................................................................................................................ 18
3.2.1. Design of the Study ................................................................................................ 18
3.2.2. Variables of the Study ............................................................................................ 18
3.2.3. Hypotheses of the Study ......................................................................................... 19
3.3 Sampling Strategy .............................................................................................................. 20
3.3.1 Population of the Study ........................................................................................... 20
3.3.2 Sampling Technique ................................................................................................ 20
3.3.4 Access and Permission ............................................................................................ 23
3.4 Research Tool .................................................................................................................... 24
3.4.1 Identification of Dimensions ................................................................................... 24
3.4.2 Identification of Parameters and Attributes ............................................................. 25
3.4.3 Development of Items ............................................................................................. 28
3.4.4 Development of the Research Tool ......................................................................... 28
3.4.5 Pilot of Research Tool ............................................................................................. 29
3.4.6 Validity & Reliability .............................................................................................. 29
3.4.7 Finalisation of Tool ................................................................................................. 31
3.4.8 Translation of Tool .................................................................................................. 31
3.5 Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 31
3.6 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 32
3.6.1 Statistical Analysis for Quantitative Data ............................................................... 32
3.7 Limitations of the Study..................................................................................................... 32

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION ....................................................... 34

4.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 34
4.2 Data Analysis and Interpretation ....................................................................................... 34
4.2.1 Nature of Distribution of Samples Across Subgroups ............................................ 34
4.2.2 Analysis of Data with Regard to ICT/Digital Exposure.......................................... 57
4.2.3 Analysis of Data with Regard to Awareness About Cyber Safety and Security ..... 97

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION............................................................ 128

5.1. Genesis of the Problem ................................................................................................... 128
5.2. Need and Significance of the Study ................................................................................ 128
5.3. Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 129
5.4. Operational Definitions ................................................................................................... 129
 5.4.1 Awareness ............................................................................................................. 129
5.4.2 Cyber Safety and Security ..................................................................................... 129
5.4.3 Secondary School Students in India ...................................................................... 130
5.5. Variables of the Study ..................................................................................................... 130
5.6. Research Question .......................................................................................................... 130
5.7. Objectives of the Study ................................................................................................... 130
5.8. Hypotheses of the Study ................................................................................................. 131
5.9. Design of the Study......................................................................................................... 131
5.10. Sample........................................................................................................................... 132
5.10.1 Population of the Study ....................................................................................... 132
5.10.2 Sampling Technique ............................................................................................ 132
5.10.3 Sample Size ......................................................................................................... 133
5.11. Instruments used in the Study ....................................................................................... 133
5.11.1 Description of the Tool........................................................................................ 133
5.11.2 Pilot Study ........................................................................................................... 135
5.11.3 Validity and Reliability ....................................................................................... 135
5.12 Limitations and Constraints ........................................................................................... 136
5.13. Major Findings of the Study ......................................................................................... 137
5.14. Recommendations and Implications of the Study ........................................................ 143
5.15. Suggestions for Further Research ................................................................................. 144

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 145

 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview of Digital Landscape in India

India’s digital landscape has seen transformative growth with widespread internet access and
the proliferation of mobile technology, reshaping various aspects of daily life and education.
A wide range of digital tools and materials are now easier to access, which has an impact on
how education is provided and received. This increase in internet penetration is powered by
reasonably priced cell phones and data plans. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and
the Digital India campaign, two government programs aimed at enhancing digital infrastructure
and incorporating technology into teaching methods, provide support for this digital
transformation. Nevertheless, despite these developments, more people are using digital
platforms, which increases their vulnerability to online dangers including phishing,
cyberbullying, and data breaches. It is essential to comprehend secondary-stage students'
awareness of cyber safety and security because they are especially susceptible to these hazards
(classes IX to XII). This study aims to examine the efficacy of current educational initiatives
in equipping students to face online dangers and to gauge how effectively these pupils
understand cyber safety principles, including safe internet habits and privacy protection.

1.2 Importance of Cyber Safety and Security in the Context of Growing Internet among
Students
The significance of cyber safety and security is becoming more and more apparent as the
number of pupils using the internet rises. Increased access to a wealth of information and
interactive teaching tools are only two benefits of increased digital connectivity for education.
But students are also more vulnerable to online threats because of this increased connectedness,
such as phishing, cyberbullying, and data breaches. Cyber safety education must be given top
priority in order to reduce these threats. Safeguarding students' digital well-being requires
making sure they know how to utilize privacy settings wisely, secure their personal
information, and behave appropriately when navigating online environments. In addition,
encouraging responsible digital citizenship fosters polite online interactions and works to stop
harmful behaviours like cyberbullying. Students who receive more critical thinking instruction
are better able to distinguish reliable information from false information and stay away from
internet scams. Incorporating cyber safety education into the curriculum benefits kids in two
ways: it keeps them safe and helps them use digital technologies effectively and confidently,
which helps them succeed academically and grow in a connected society. Overall, integrating
cyber safety education into the curriculum is vital for safeguarding students in the digital age,
ensuring they can navigate online environments securely and responsibly.

1.3 Emerging Cyber Threats and the Impact on Students

As digital technology becomes increasingly integrated into daily life, there is a rising number
of cyber threats that students must deal with, which could seriously impact their safety and

Page | 1
well-being. New and dangerous cyber threats that target students' personal information and
academic data include ransomware, malware, and phishing scams. Phishing scams frequently
deceive students into divulging personal information, which can result in identity theft or
monetary loss. Malware and ransomware have the ability to infiltrate personal devices and
school networks, interfering with academic activity and possibly leading to data loss.
Additionally, cyberbullying has become a pervasive issue, with students experiencing
harassment and bullying through digital platforms, which can lead to severe emotional and
psychological distress. Students may find it more difficult to leave dangerous situations
because of the anonymity and reach of online contacts, which can intensify the negative
impacts of bullying. Students must be aware of and take precautions against these concerns
because the presence of exploitative content and online predators exacerbates these risks. The
significance of these new cyber threats highlights the critical need for thorough cyber safety
education, giving pupils the know-how and abilities to safely traverse the digital environment
and reduce hazards.
Emerging new and sophisticated threats include deepfake technology, which can
produce deceptive and harmful content that could affect students' reputations and mental
health; social engineering attacks, which take advantage of people's trust and vulnerability by
tricking them into disclosing private information; and the growth of dark web activities and
illicit online communities, which expose students to unlawful and dangerous content, including
harmful practices and extremist ideologies.
The prevalence of influencer fraud and other fraudulent schemes that take advantage of
students' hopes and dreams can lead to both monetary losses and psychological suffering.
Inappropriate content may be exposed to students or personal data may be collected without
authorization through exploitative internet games and applications. The necessity for proactive
cyber safety education is highlighted by the growing sophistication of these threats. This will
ensure that students are aware of the hazards involved and have the knowledge and resources
necessary to protect themselves in the digital era. Teachers and parents may help students
navigate the internet safely and responsibly by addressing these new threats.

1.4 Statement of the Problem

The secondary school students of India are increasingly exposed to cyberspace owing to rapid
digitalization. With the increasing use of internet-connected devices and social media
platforms, students get exposed to various kinds of cyber threats. In this context, their
awareness about cyber safety and security is of paramount importance. This study intends to
check the awareness of secondary students about cybersafety and security of secondary
students studying in various schools of India. An understanding about the students’ awareness
would be helpful to promote cybersafety and security skills among the learners so that they can
be safeguarded against cyber threats. In this context, the current research work has been
undertaken and is entitled as ‘A Study on the Awareness of Cyber Safety and Security Among
Secondary Stage Students (Class IX to XII).

Page | 2
1.5 Operational Definition of the Key Terms
1.5.1 Awareness
Awareness is the quality or state of being aware: knowledge and understanding that something
is happening or exists (Merriam-Webster, 2024). In this study, an awareness for teachers is
referred to as an organized educational programme designed to give instructors the knowledge,
skills, and practices they need to comprehend and apply cyber safety and security measures in
learning environments.
1.5.2 Cyber Safety and Security
According to Merriam-Webster, cyber safety is the safe practices when using the Internet to
prevent personal attacks or criminal activity. Cybersecurity is the practice of defending
computers, servers, mobile devices, electronic systems, networks, and data from malicious
attacks (Kaspersky, 2024). In this study, Cyber Safety and Security refer to teachers who
understand how to keep themselves and their students safe online and are practising cyber
safety and security. It involves educating students on how to be responsible online, accessing
the internet safely, creating strong passwords, and identifying and addressing online threats
including scams and cyberbullying.
1.5.3 Secondary School Students in India
Secondary school students are defined as individuals who are enrolled in grades IX through
XII within the Indian educational system. These students typically range in age from
approximately 14 to 18 years.

1.6 Variables of the Study

Variables are the factors involved in addressing the research problem, which leads to the
closure of the research gap. These attributes ought to impact one another. The current study
investigates secondary students' levels of awareness of cyber safety and security. Hence, the
following independent and dependent variables were identified for the investigation of the
study:
● Independent Variable
An independent variable is a variable that has been manipulated. The independent
variable is purposely manipulated during observation to determine its relationship with
the dependent variable. So the demographic factors Gender, Standard, States/UTs, Type
of School, Locality of the school and Medium of Instruction are considered as
independent variables.
● Dependent Variable
The dependent variable is the level of awareness of cyber safety and security among
secondary-stage students. This variable represents the degree to which students
understand and are informed about various aspects of cyber safety and security, such as
recognizing cyber threats, understanding safe online practices, and knowing how to
protect personal information online. This awareness can be measured through surveys,

Page | 3
 questionnaires, or assessments designed to evaluate students' knowledge and attitudes
towards cyber safety and security issues.

1.7 Research Questions

1. What is the awareness level of secondary students on cyber safety and security?
2. What are the dimensions in which secondary students lack awareness of cyber safety
and security?

1.8 Objectives of the Study

1. To evaluate the level of awareness and understanding of cyber safety and security
among secondary-stage students.
2. To study the difference in awareness on cyber safety and security among secondary
school students with respect to various subgroups.
3. To study the difference in different dimensions of cyber safety and security awareness
among secondary school students with respect to various subgroups.

1.9 Hypothesis of the Study

To undertake a meaningful analysis, the following hypotheses were proposed. There are 16
hypotheses which were clubbed under three broad hypotheses as given below:
H1: There is no significant difference in the mean score of cyber safety and security awareness
of secondary students with respect to their/ the
1. Access to Internet at home
2. Possession of personal email ID
3. Participation in ICT courses
4. Availability of digital devices at home
5. Availability of own digital devices
6. Possession of personal social media account
7. Duration of use of devices per day
8. Perception about excessive screen time
H2: There is no significant difference in the mean score of cyber safety and security awareness
of secondary students with respect to
1. Locale of the school
2. Gender of the student
3. Standard in which the students are studying
4. Type of school
H3: There is no significant difference in the mean score of different dimensions of cyber safety
and security awareness of secondary students with respect to
1. Locale of the school
2. Gender of the student
3. Standard in which the students are studying
4. Type of school

Page | 4
1.10 Research Methodology
1.10.1 Research Design
The study utilized a survey method, a quantitative research technique, to investigate students'
awareness of cyber safety and security on a national scale. This approach was chosen to explore
the current level of understanding among secondary-stage students regarding cyber threats and
protective measures. By employing descriptive and inferential statistics, the survey method
provided a comprehensive view of students' awareness across different regions. The use of
surveys allowed the researcher to gather data on students' knowledge and attitudes toward cyber
safety, offering valuable insights into the prevailing level of awareness and identifying areas
that may require further educational intervention or policy development. This method proved
effective in capturing a broad spectrum of information, essential for assessing and improving
cyber safety education nationwide.
1.10.2 Population of the Study
The population of the present study is all the secondary school students studying in various
Government, Private, or Aided schools, from all 28 Indian States and 8 Union Territories.
There are about 6.7 crore students enrolled in secondary education in the 2023-24 session
(MoE, 2021) and all of them were considered as the population of the present study.
1.10.3 Sampling Technique
A convenience sampling method was used to collect data from secondary school students. The
first stage was the selection of states/UTs and autonomous bodies for collecting data. In the
first stage, it was decided to collect data from students of class IX to XII studying in all boards
i.e., Boards of all 36 States/UTs and CBSE. In the second stage, the schools were selected. All
the schools affiliated to the boards of States/UTs and the following schools affiliated to the
CBSE board were selected: 1) KVS, 2) NVS, 3) Sainik Schools, 4) AESS, 5) EMRS, 6) Private
schools affiliated to CBSE. In the third stage, convenient sampling was employed to select the
sample of the study.
1.10.4 Sample of the Study
The sample consists of students studying in standard IX to XII in schools at States/UTs and
autonomous organizations.
1.10.5 Research Tool
A cyber safety and security awareness scale covering five dimensions of cyber safety and
security was constructed. Validity and reliability was achieved by going through pilot testing.
The research tool was developed in English and also translated into Hindi.
1.10.6 Data Collection
An online-based survey was used to collect the data. The research tool was shared through the
school authorities and in turn data was collected from the students.

Page | 5
1.10.7 Data Analysis
The quantitative data was analyzed under descriptive and inferential parameters. MS-Excel
was used for descriptive analysis, and SPSS Software was used for inferential analysis, such
as t-test, ANOVA, etc.

1.11 Need and Significance of the Study

The study on the awareness of cyber safety and security among secondary-stage students (Class
IX to XII) is essential in today’s digital age, where adolescents are increasingly immersed in
online environments through educational tools, social media, and various digital platforms. As
these students navigate their academic and social lives, they are exposed to a range of cyber
risks, including cyberbullying, phishing scams, and privacy breaches. This research seeks to
evaluate their current level of understanding and preparedness regarding these threats. By
identifying gaps in their knowledge and awareness, the study aims to provide valuable insights
that can guide the development of more effective educational programs and policies tailored to
their specific needs. Such insights will be instrumental in crafting targeted interventions that
empower students to practice safe online behaviors, protect their personal information, and
respond appropriately to cyber threats. Furthermore, the findings will serve as a resource for
educators, parents, and policymakers, offering a basis for enhancing digital safety curricula and
fostering a culture of responsible digital citizenship. Ultimately, the study’s significance lies in
its potential to improve students’ online safety and contribute to a more secure and informed
digital community.

1.12 Scope of the Study

Research on students’ cyber safety and security can have a wide scope and cover a variety of
topics linked to making sure students are safe and secure online. Children are currently facing
a wide range of cyber safety and security concerns and risks, including malware, phishing
scams, cyberbullying, online predators, and different cyberattacks directed exclusively at
children. These hazards not only jeopardize students' personal information but also endanger
their mental and emotional well-being, academic performance, and overall development. To
address these issues, it is critical to assess the efficacy of current cyber safety and security
awareness and education programmes for children, such as school-based initiatives, online
resources, and seminars. Furthermore, knowing the cyber safety and security measures students
use, such as password management and social media privacy settings, is critical for
encouraging safer online behaviour. Parental engagement and aid support students' cyber safety
and security activities. Examining legislative and legal frameworks at the local, national, and
international levels, including data privacy legislation and online platform limits, is critical for
providing a secure environment for students online. Technological solutions such as parental
control software, firewalls, antivirus software, and content screening technologies can help
students stay safe online. Cultural norms, socioeconomic determinants, and digital literacy
levels all have a substantial influence on pupils' capacity to detect online dangers and adopt
cyber safety and security measures, emphasizing the necessity of considering these aspects.
We can collaboratively create a safer online environment for students by describing best
practices and making recommendations to educational institutions, guardians, politicians, and

Page | 6
technology corporations. Finally, anticipating future trends and difficulties in cyber safety and
security for students is critical in predicting technical advancements, emerging cyber dangers,
and the transforming implications of the digital revolution on classroom dynamics.

1.13 Delimitations of the Study

Delimitations help focus the research by specifying what aspects will be included and excluded
from the investigation. Here are some probable delimitations for this study:
● Age Range: The study focused solely on students in grades 9–12, omitting younger or
older age groups. This delimitation ensures a specific assessment of cyber safety and
security awareness within the context of secondary school.
● Educational Setting: Students enrolled in government, private, and aided schools
were the only subjects of the study; homeschoolers and participants in alternative
education programs were not included. An investigation in a more homogeneous
sample and context was made possible by this delimitation.
● Dimensions of Cyber Safety and Security: The study concentrated only on five
dimensions of cyber safety and security namely Technical, Psychological, Physical,
Legal, and Socio-ethical. This boundary guarantees a targeted analysis of the most
critical cyber safety and security concerns that affect the intended sample.
● Research Methodology: To investigate students' awareness of cyber safety and
security, the study used specialized research techniques, such as online surveys through
Google Forms.
● Language coverage: The tool of the study was prepared in English and translated only
in Hindi.

1.14 Organization of the Research Report

The research report is organized into six chapters. The first chapter, Introduction, presents the
need and significance of the study, statement of the problem, the definition of the key terms,
variables of the study, objectives of the study, the hypotheses of the study, methodology, scope
and delimitations of the study. The second chapter is a review of related literature, a theoretical
overview and studies related to cyber safety and security. The third chapter, Methodology,
presents a detailed account of the methodology, including descriptions of the method of the
study, design of the study, variables of the study, tools used for the study, description of tools,
population and sample selected for the study, procedures for data collection and the statistical
techniques used for analysis. The fourth chapter, Analysis and Interpretations, deals with the
analysis of data in detail. This chapter includes preliminary analysis, percentage analysis, mean
difference analysis, and correlation analysis. The fifth chapter, Summary of Findings and
Conclusions, contains a summary of findings, tenability of hypotheses, the relationship of
results to existing studies, limitations of the study, suggestions, recommendations and
educational implications for further research, and conclusions.

Page | 7
 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Introduction
Fundamentally, research is an ongoing dialogue – a scientific effort to expand the limits of
human understanding. It is essential to carefully review the current debate before starting any
research. Here, the literature review assumes a central role, serving as a link between existing
knowledge and forthcoming research. Its significance cannot be emphasized since it provides
a solid basis for thorough study and has many advantages. Examining the body of prior research
is essential when it comes to educational research since it serves as the foundation for novel
and vital findings. Examining relevant literature is a crucial first step, compass, and guidance
for academic research projects. First of all, it provides a thorough grasp of the existing
environment, including recognized gaps, accepted ideas, and established information. In
addition, this enables ongoing research to place the findings within the broader discussion
carefully. Moreover, a critical examination of earlier research refines the methodology by
highlighting both possible advantages and limitations. It also generates new ideas by pointing
out places where the body of knowledge is lacking or ambiguous, which opens the door for
special contributions. In the end, a comprehensive study promotes scholarly progress within an
area. The following are the reviews from the national and international research studies which
were carried out on awareness of cyber safety and security among students.

2.2 Review Related Literature

Jalil et al. (2024) proposed a cyber-awareness programme to help students learn about
cybersecurity and control the danger of cyber-attacks. The process is divided into four phases:
initiation and planning, module development, implementation, and evaluation. Descriptive and
statistical studies demonstrate that participants' knowledge of cyber security dangers and risks
increased after participating in the programme. Finally, this programme met its goals of raising
cyber security knowledge and encouraging participants to use the internet safely. These
findings indicate that similar programmes might be used to raise cybersecurity awareness and
promote safe internet use among students.
Alfalah (2023) evaluated how different aspects of cyber security perception affected
students' views about using learning management systems (LMS) and how much Internet
security awareness may impact these connections. The study employed a quantitative
methodology, collecting 261 responses from students in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia using a
survey questionnaire. Analysis revealed that attitudes are influenced by several important
factors, including perceived privacy, trust in the Internet, trust in the university, and perceived
cyber risk. All of these correlations are mitigated by awareness of Internet security.
Masenya (2023) investigated the students' awareness and understanding of cyber ethical
conduct at South African HEIs. Using the content analysis approach, this study also looked
into the variables that contribute to unethical cyber activity and the cyber security measures
that stop it among students in HEIs in South Africa. Ethical theories such as consequentialism,
deontology, virtue ethics, and Kohlberg's theory of moral growth also served as a guide for the

Page | 8
research. While most students at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are aware of unethical
online behavior, such as fraud, hacking, cyberbullying, and pornography, it seems that these
institutions lack a cooperative approach to computer security best practices and cyber ethical
behavior education.
Wei-Kocsis et al. (2023) presented a fresh proactive and collaborative learning
paradigm for educating and training a qualified cyber workforce in this new era of security
breaches, privacy abuses, and artificial intelligence. This learning paradigm was developed
using the educational principles of technology-mediated learning and social constructivism.
The findings indicated that, while the research is still ongoing, the prototype learning paradigm
has demonstrated promising outcomes in enhancing learners' engagement in applied AI
learning.
Alsharida et al. (2023) carried out a systematic review to provide multiple perspectives
on human cybersecurity behavior by evaluating and synthesizing cybersecurity
theories/models, independent variables, target variables, moderators, methodologies,
participants, units of analysis, technologies/services, countries, and domains. Of the 2936
papers gathered, 93 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and were extensively examined. The
major findings suggested that the protection motivation theory (PMT) and the theory of planned
behavior (TPB) were the most widely used theories in the studied literature. 76% of the papers
reviewed did not use a moderator to investigate the associations between predictors and target
variables. The majority of the studies were done on an individual basis, mostly involving
students and end users. Social media and mobile devices were the most often studied
technologies for human cybersecurity behavior.
Baraković and Baraković (2023) assessed how the COVID-19 pandemic conditions
affected the outcomes related to cyber hygiene, such as awareness, behavior, and knowledge.
The goal was to assess and contrast university students' levels of cyber hygiene before and after
the COVID-19 epidemic. The survey study's findings show that university students' awareness,
behavior, and knowledge of cyber hygiene have changed as a result of the COVID-19
epidemic.
Shah and Agarwal (2023) recommended Cyber Suraksha, a tabletop card game, to raise
threat awareness and encourage users to implement recommended security precautions for
smartphone users. The risk behavior diagnostic scale was used to collect responses from
participants in both the control and intervention groups. The results showed that the game was
entertaining and fun. The Cyber Suraksha game efficiently convinces users to implement the
recommended security controls for the targeted conduct. The findings show that individuals in
the intervention group are 2.65 times more likely to follow suggested behavior. The study's
findings support the usefulness of hope and fear appeals in raising cybersecurity awareness.
Ahmed et al. (2023) assessed the level of cyber security knowledge among graduate
and undergraduate students at five institutions in Mogadishu. A questionnaire was used to
collect data from 250 pupils. The cross-tabulation results revealed that there was a considerable
variance in cybersecurity awareness levels among universities. The findings revealed that
SIMAD and Jamhuriya University students were vulnerable to malware assaults, whereas SIU
students battled with password strength and social network abuse. Students in Mogadishu were

Page | 9
subjected to phishing and virus assaults, while students at UNISO encountered virus attacks as
well as password strength concerns.
Sussman (2023) explored cybersecurity through the lens of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) framework. This strategy employs the topics of identify,
protect, detect, respond, and recover to foster an atmosphere of everyday cyber safety. The
chapter then describes how cybercriminals affect people's behavior. This knowledge will assist
pupils in recognizing cybercriminal behavior and being more cyber secure.
Ellala et al. (2023) assessed how much knowledge a sample of superior and regular
students in the education department at Al Ain University had about cyber security. Students
of all genders made up the study sample. According to the scale's total score, both gifted and
average students in the faculty of education had a high degree of knowledge about cyber
security. The findings showed that while the degree of cyber security awareness attributed to
the variable of gender (male, female) did not show statistically significant differences, the level
of awareness assigned to the variable of student type (superior, ordinary) did show statistically
significant differences, with exceptional students showing a greater degree of awareness.
Huraj et al. (2023) investigated university students' attitudes and awareness levels of
cyber security. The survey, which compares students' opinions in two subjects’ computer
science and media studies on a sample of 570 students, is based on empirical data. According
to the statistical analysis results, the responses from the surveys of students in the two fields
exhibit both parallels and contrasts.
Alammari et al. (2022) validated a fuzzy linguistic group decision-making technique to
assess cybersecurity degree programme competencies regarding knowledge, skills, and
abilities (KSAs). This demonstrates the need for cybersecurity knowledge, as well as technical
skills and human capabilities, for cybersecurity professionals.
Erendor and Yildirim (2022) investigated to determine to what degree Kyrgyz-Turkish
Manas University students are informed about cybersecurity throughout the remote education
procedure. The poll included 517 students from all university faculties at the undergraduate,
graduate, and PhD levels. The findings revealed that the kids knew nothing about cybersecurity
or the consequences of cyberattacks in general. An investigation of cybersecurity awareness
was conducted by asking questions about harmful software, password security, and social
media security. It has been established that kids have little cybersecurity awareness. It has been
further decided that cybersecurity education should be provided to kids in order to protect them
from being victims of cyberattacks and to help them utilize the internet more efficiently.
Raju et al. (2022) investigated students' cybersecurity awareness. The study is crucial
since it focuses on flaws and educates pupils about being cyber victims. A set of questionnaires
was distributed to 110 students to gather data. Open-ended and closed-ended questions
provided numbers and figures, which aided in data collection. Descriptive analysis reveals that
many pupils are aware of and understand cyber security, cyberattacks, and cyberbullying.
Mohammed and Bamasoud (2022) addressed how important it is to raise cyber security
knowledge among students in order to prevent cyber risks. Cybersecurity awareness is one of
the aspects of cybersecurity controls that strive to raise knowledge of cybersecurity threats and

Page | 10
hazards, as well as to foster a healthy cybersecurity culture. Furthermore, cybersecurity
awareness is a vital aspect of preserving the security and privacy of sensitive information
assets. Students' understanding of cybersecurity, its hazards, and risks improves students'
references to action when faced with cybercrime to safeguard information and technological
assets to attain secure cyberspace.
Alqahtani (2022) analyzed university students' cybersecurity knowledge using three
key criteria: password security, browser security, and social media. The survey generated up
to 450 replies. It discovered that knowledge of password security, browser security, and social
media activity had a substantial impact on students' cybersecurity awareness. Overall, pupils
have recognized the need for cybersecurity knowledge.
Tsimtsiou et al. (2021) evaluated the teenagers' perceptions of this school-based
intervention. A student sample was drawn using a multistage stratified random sampling
procedure based on geography and school grade level (middle and high school). Students aged
12 to 18 received an interactive presentation in their classes about the amount of time spent
online, the usage of social networks, and the available support services. Four hundred and sixty-
two kids (90.7% response rate, 246 middle, 216 high school) completed the assessment form.
Younger children, particularly those in their first year of middle school, scored considerably
higher in all six measures utilized in the evaluation of this intervention than all older
participants.
Aljohni et al. (2021) analyzed students' current levels of cybersecurity awareness
(CSA). The cybersecurity students' awareness level questionnaire was derived from many prior
cybersecurity awareness initiatives. 136 students took part in the survey. The study's findings
demonstrate that there is no substantial difference in cybersecurity knowledge levels between
male and female pupils, although females are slightly more concerned about cybersecurity.
However, students in computer and information technology disciplines are more
knowledgeable than others. Furthermore, urban pupils demonstrated higher levels of
cybersecurity awareness than students from distant places. The survey findings show that the
study model helped assess students' awareness.
Ahmad and Othman (2019) carried out a literature study to examine knowledge of
information privacy among the younger generation in particular. According to the findings, a
lack of awareness of the principles of Internet knowledge has increased occurrences of Internet
scams, online harassment, cross-site scripting, and identity theft. The study proposed that a
thorough and suitable legislative framework be built on an ongoing basis to fight the concerns.
Tsokoto et al. (2019) performed action research to establish a plan for improving e-
safety among Zimbabwean students. The data was gathered using an online questionnaire,
group discussions, and student observations. The study was continuous, with two cycles
completed, and the results led to the development of a strategy based on the WHAT, WHO,
and HOW.
Musharraf et al. (2019) investigated both general and Internet and Communication
Technology (ICT) self-efficacy in several domains. Students were surveyed on cyberbullying/
victimization, general self-efficacy (GSE), ICT self-efficacy, traditional bullying/

Page | 11
victimization, ICT usage, social desirability, and demographics. In terms of gender, the data
revealed that females were more likely to be victimized, whilst males were more likely to
perpetrate both conventional and cyberbullying.
Koyuncu and Pusatli (2019) evaluated smartphone users' awareness levels for several
security-related characteristics and compared them to other user groups based on demographic
data. It is based on a survey of a population of a wide variety of ages and educational levels.
According to the results, participants' awareness levels are often poor and require significant
development. In terms of age, the oldest group scores the lowest, followed by the youngest
group. Overall, education has a favorable influence on awareness.
Mousa (2019) researched cybersecurity awareness among students. The researcher
employed a questionnaire and developed a study model based on the customized TPB model.
The poll included 140 students from both ICT and non-ICT-related professions. The findings
revealed a lack of awareness of cyber security risks, with pupils having just a modest
understanding of the subject. A proposal is made to launch and promote cybersecurity
awareness initiatives among students.
Durak et al. (2017) evaluated the impact of Wild Web Woods (WWW), a game
designed by the European Council for safe Internet usage, on secondary school pupils' safe
Internet use. To measure students' awareness of safe Internet use, 504 students from various
areas of Turkey were surveyed. The researchers devised a 25-item questionnaire for the study,
which was administered to the students. The data analysis demonstrated that pupils were
largely aware of safe Internet use.
Ma et al. (2023) developed and validated a scale for internet literacy intended for high
school students. Seventy-four high school students were enlisted in the study, and thirty items
covering eight dimensions-self-management, self-image construction, damage control,
information processing, critical thinking, cooperation, moral consciousness, and security—
were included in the validated scale. The study also suggests potential uses of the scale in an
educational setting.
Taking into consideration the variety of individuals in terms of demography,
socioeconomic level, and the digital divide, Khan et al. (2023) examined the cyber-security
and risky Internet behaviors of undergraduate students from Pakistan. A survey questionnaire
was used to gather data. Using multistage stratified sampling in face-to-face interactions, 294
students from six distinct cities in Pakistan were surveyed. According to gender, age, and
digital divide characteristics, the results showed considerable disparities in cyber-security
posture. Based on cyber-security and risky Internet behaviors, student profiles reveal three
categories, the majority of which are characterized by poor cyber-security behavior and a
greater inclination towards risk aversion. High-risk-averse behavior is also positively impacted
by proactive cyber-security awareness behavior.
Baraba and Tomaš (2022) investigated the variables pertaining to school children's
Internet usage and awareness of online safety in the Croatian language. An eighteen-item
Croatian questionnaire was prepared and used for data collection. According to the findings,
students in urban regions had a greater understanding of the notion of personal data than

Page | 12
students in rural areas (71,2% vs. 47.2%, P=0.038). Pupils do not fully comprehend or are
aware of online safety. It draws attention to the necessity of a suitable educational intervention.
Using questionnaires, Macaulay et al. (2020) evaluated the attitudes toward e-safety
education, the subjective and objective knowledge of online safety and hazards, and the
perceptions of children (N = 329) regarding their safety online. Although most participants felt
safe while using the internet and thought they knew a lot about the risks and how to avoid them
(subjective knowledge), they were often not very good at defining those risks and how to
prevent them specifically (objective knowledge). For boys and younger children in particular,
this was true. Taken together, these results imply that while certain children may believe they
understand how to be safe online, they may lack objective information that may keep them
secure or at least be unable to express it. The study proposed that it is necessary to evaluate
children's objective understanding of internet safety and dangers and to give children the right
education.
Zulqadri et al. (2022) identified potential security hazards associated with online
learning and the steps that may be taken to mitigate these risks. Employing two techniques:
literature reviews and web mining, the study found that there are a number of risks associated
with using the internet, including viruses, phishing, scams, fraud, cyberbullying, problems with
privacy and personal data, and offensive or pornographic content. Additionally, this study
offers three crucial measures for safeguarding kids from online dangers while they are learning
online: helping them access online resources, educating them about internet safety and personal
data protection, and introducing them to digital citizenship and online ethics.
Ahmad et al. (2022) emphasized cybersecurity education in all fields and at all levels.
The emphasis is on the following four categories of users: K-12, college, technical
professionals, and all other citizens. A curriculum roadmap that incorporates cybersecurity into
both technical and nontechnical courses is offered as the foundation for future cyber education
planning. The purpose is to teach students and people the notion of cybersecurity, assure their
ability to apply cybersecurity principles and expose them to various ways to resolve
cybersecurity-related issues.
AlDaajeh et al. (2022) examined national cybersecurity strategic plans (NCSP) from
different nations and areas, discussed initiatives to improve cybersecurity curricula and best
practices, and looked into the most effective ways to develop engaging cybersecurity education
and training programmes to entice people to consider the field for their future careers.
Additionally, the study looks at several strategies for matching higher-level strategic objectives
with curriculum enhancements for cybersecurity education and training programmes.
Quyen and Lien (2022) carried out a literature evaluation of research on school pupils'
digital safety competencies. Studied over 90 academic articles and government records. It
demonstrates the need for activities that reinforce knowledge and abilities, as well as
reorientation or reinforcing attitudes towards digital safety and the constructive use of new
media at home and school. The findings also present chances to further our understanding of
the educational processes that occur in the home context in the digital era.

Page | 13
 Martin et al. (2021) investigated parents' perceptions of student digital safety based on
technology use, time spent, parental worries, and understanding of several digital safety
subjects. The researchers evaluated data from 113 parents as part of a survey-based study.
Parents stated that their children mostly use the Internet on tablets and computers to view
movies, play games, and complete schoolwork. Parents were familiar with the applications and
gaps their children used for education and amusement. Regarding time limitations and access
restrictions, 40% of parents allow their children to spend 1-2 hours online every day, while
47% establish time constraints. Parents are always concerned about their children's internet
safety, with the most pressing issue being their children's exposure to sexual content and
interactions with strangers.
Jian and Kamsin (2021) studied ways to use gamification to raise cybersecurity
awareness among teens, as well as how a computer game may entice teenagers to learn about
cybersecurity. For this study, the quota sampling approach is used with 50 secondary students
aged 13 to 15 in Malaysia via an online survey. Three students were chosen at random to
participate in the interview session to ensure the reliability of the online survey results. Future
studies to enhance cybersecurity awareness would be advised, emphasizing activities that
schools must take.
Wahid et al. (2021) established a cybersecurity awareness approach that can protect
citizens from online threats. This study uses a quantitative methodology, selecting 300 samples
using a convenience sampling strategy. Three factors—organizational, societal, and individual-
were shown to influence cybersecurity awareness in the study. The findings showed that
whereas social and individual variables were found to be less important to cybersecurity
awareness, organizational aspects were shown to be highly associated with cybersecurity
awareness.
Dorasamy et al. (2021) performed a qualitative study by interviewing 19 parents with
children aged 13 to 17 years to establish their degree of awareness. Results are linked to three
major variables of cyber grooming: parental influences, self-efficacy, and self-regulation. The
research concluded with findings and suggestions for parents, schools, and the government to
be more vigilant against online predators and raise awareness of cyber grooming.
Aldosari et al. (2020) investigated the requirements for digital citizenship among
middle and high school pupils in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A quantitative survey was used to
determine whether components of digital citizenship were available to 394 students. The four
areas of digital citizenship, digital identity, ethical behavior, intellectual property, and digital
privacy and security were the foundation around which the survey items were constructed. The
results showed that students had high levels of Internet self-efficacy and digital citizenship
availability in both the first and second domains. The promotion of digital citizenship among
middle and high school students should receive more attention, with a focus on educating them
about digital identity, cybersecurity, online bullying, intellectual property rights, and
appropriate online behavior.
Nkechi et al. (2020) examined cyber safety in junior secondary education. A descriptive
survey methodology was employed to gather data from 815 educators. It was shown that
teachers had a limited understanding of the issues related to junior secondary school students'

Page | 14
use of the Internet. Additionally, no internet safety tactics are taught to the pupils. According
to the study's findings, while the educational system promotes students' use of the internet, it
cannot continue to downplay the hazards and let them squander their futures on it.
Podila et al. (2020) created Android applications that addressed cyber-safe practices
through run-time permission attacks and malware classes such as scareware, ransomware,
spyware, and phishing using social networking apps. The apps were discussed in light of typical
users and cybercriminals. Through the use of these applications, an effort will be made to
conduct psychological evaluations on young high school students in order to detect
cybersecurity dangers, preventing them from being victims of cyberattacks and enhancing their
confidence in their ability to pursue a career in cybersecurity.
Fatokun Faith et al. (2020) performed an online survey of 450 students from Malaysian
tertiary institutions. The investigation discovered correlations between cybersecurity
behavioral variables. Except for perceived severity, all criteria were strongly associated with
students' cybersecurity behaviors. The investigation emphasizes the need for increased
cybersecurity training and practices at institutions.
Kritzinger (2020) assessed the four primary components of cyber safety—leadership
and policies, infrastructure, education, and standards and inspection in order to determine the
maturity levels of cyber safety in 24 South African schools. According to the data, there was a
marked lack of cyber safety maturity and compliance in all of the study's participating
institutions. In an effort to better prepare students for the future, schools in South Africa are
beginning to integrate technology into their curricula, but there is a conspicuous dearth of rules,
practices, and procedures that promote cyber safety awareness. The study suggested a ten-
phase cyber safety strategy as a step-by-step method to enable schools.
Nicolaidou and Venizelou (2020) designed an interactive web-based learning
environment and assessed its efficacy and motivating potential for enhancing children's e-
safety knowledge. Using a quasi-experimental pre-test post-test control group design, 48 sixth-
grade primary school students participated in two 80-minute classes using the web-based
learning environment, whereas 25 students in the control group did not utilize it. The
experimental group students' favorable sentiments towards the learning environment were
established through the analysis of an attitudes questionnaire and student interviews. Results
show how well the web-based learning environment, which can be utilized in both formal and
casual learning contexts, can motivate students and help them develop their e-safety skills.
Dhaka (2020) evaluated the level of knowledge of cybercrime among Senior Secondary
School pupils in the Meerut District, by using a descriptive survey method, based on factors
like gender, school type, and area. It was discovered that there are no appreciable differences
between the pupils based on their location or gender. Additionally, it was shown that children's
understanding of cybercrime varies significantly depending on the kind of school they attend.
When compared to students attending government senior secondary schools, the pupils in
private senior secondary schools had a greater understanding of cybercrime. Therefore, it is
advised that to protect themselves, pupils should be educated to be aware of cybercrime and to
abstain from engaging in it.

Page | 15
 Erdoğdu et al. (2021) developed and validated the Mobile Information Security
Awareness Scale (MISAS), which measures information security awareness, as well as the
related literature. The scale was created and verified with the help of 562 students. The MISAS
has six criteria and seventeen elements. Backup, instant messaging and navigation, password
security, updates, access permissions, and using others' devices were among the reasons found.
Khader et al. (2021) proposed a conceptual Cybersecurity Awareness Framework to
guide the adoption of tools to promote students' cybersecurity awareness in any academic
setting. This framework consists of components that constantly enhance the development,
integration, delivery, and assessment of cybersecurity knowledge within an institution's
curriculum.
Omar et al. (2021) developed a malware awareness tool aimed at students. This tool's
development followed the Game Development Lifecycle (GDLC) approach. The tool
development period began with commencement, progressed to pre-production, production,
testing, and beta testing, and concluded with the release phase. The functionality testing
revealed that this product was well-received by its target students. The malware awareness tool
that was developed increased students' knowledge of malware and increased their
understanding of Internet hazards.
Tomczyk and Eger (2020) assessed the group of upper-secondary school students'
digital literacy in the area of risks associated with utilizing new media. An eighteen-item
diagnostic exam was used in the investigation. The study involved 1693 young people between
the ages of 15 and 21. The design of the study was influenced by conventional techniques for
evaluating knowledge and skills. The results demonstrated that copyright-related knowledge
was the least proficient component of digital literacy, whereas online shopping and financial
operations were the most proficient.
Mai and Tick (2021) examined the degree of cyber security awareness, knowledge, and
behavior among students in general, as well as the differences between Hungary and Vietnam
in particular. A series of questionnaires and 313 replies were used to collect research data in
Hungary and Vietnam, across various school years and disciplines of study. The quantitative
analysis was carried out using SPSS. Regardless of respondent country, the results demonstrate
that all respondents lack understanding about cyber security, resulting in a low degree of cyber
threat awareness. However, there are slight discrepancies in behavior between respondents in
Hungary and Vietnam, which were assessed using four aspects of cyber security: virus items,
password usage concerns, social engineering, and online scam issues.
Rahman et al. (2020) carried out a systematic review to investigate why it is so
important that students now get instruction about the dangers of using the internet and the
methods that stakeholders might employ to encourage cybersecurity education in classrooms.
This study discusses many options for implementing cybersecurity education in educational
institutions.
Klein et al. (2020) investigated the relationship that exists between cyber security
behavior, cyber knowledge, and cyber security awareness. The student's behaviors in Slovenia
and Israel, two comparable nations, were measured. The findings indicate that although

Page | 16
students thought they had a sufficient understanding of cyber threats, they only took a few,
typically straightforward precautions to keep their devices safe. The results of the study also
demonstrate that knowledge about cyber threats acts as a mediator in the relationship between
protective behaviors and knowledge, but only when the information is particular to IT
protection courses.
Khalid and El-Maliki (2020) evaluated the concerns that the participants had as they
were organizing and creating their digital tales, as well as their experiences creating digital
stories regarding cyber threats. Written reflections were used to gather data. NVivo software
was then used to do a thematic analysis of the data. The results show how much the respondents
appreciated their involvement in the conception, creation, and assessment of their narrative
films.

2.3 Conclusion
The literature related to Cyber safety and security research shows that protecting our
digital information is more important than ever. The studies reveal that cyber threats are
constantly evolving, with hackers using advanced techniques like phishing and ransomware.
Technology, like artificial intelligence and blockchain, is seen as crucial for defending against
these threats. Human error is a big concern, so education and training are recommended to
prevent mistakes that could lead to breaches. Laws and regulations play a significant role in
making sure companies and organizations take cybersecurity seriously. Overall, the research
emphasizes the need to work together is key to staying safe online and protecting our
information.

Page | 17
 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1. Introduction
The methodology section of this study outlines the systematic approach adopted to investigate
the awareness of cyber safety and security among secondary-stage students (Class IX to XII)
in India. Given the rising digital exposure among this demographic, it is crucial to assess their
knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to cyber safety to develop effective educational
interventions and policies. This study employs a mixed-methods research design, integrating
both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods to provide a comprehensive
understanding of the student’s awareness levels and the factors influencing them. Through a
combination of structured surveys and focus group discussions, the study aims to capture a
holistic view of the current state of cyber safety awareness among secondary-stage students.
The following sections detail the research design, sampling strategy, data collection tools,
procedures, and analytical techniques employed in this study.

3.2. Research Design

The importance of research design lies in its role in providing a structured and systematic
approach to conducting a study. It outlines the methodology, including data collection and
analysis techniques, ensuring that the research is valid, reliable, and well-organized. A robust
research design optimizes resources, minimizes bias, and enhances the quality of data collected,
leading to credible and reproducible results. It also addresses ethical considerations, such as
participant consent and confidentiality, ensuring the research adheres to ethical standards. By
clearly defining how data will be analyzed and reported, research design helps in drawing
meaningful conclusions and making informed recommendations. Furthermore, a well-planned
research design facilitates the generalization of findings to a larger population and guides future
replication of the study, thereby contributing to the overall reliability and advancement of
knowledge in the field.
3.2.1. Design of the Study
In the study, the investigator adopted a convenience sampling method for the survey method.
It is a non-probability sampling method. This sampling method includes participants who are
readily available and agree to participate in a study. The major features of this type of sampling
are availability, convenience, and accessibility. This method is appropriate when the study
places special emphasis upon the lack of control of certain specific variables in the survey
method.
3.2.2. Variables of the Study
Variables are the factors involved in addressing the research problem, which leads to the
closure of the research gap. These attributes ought to impact one another. The current study
investigates secondary students' levels of awareness of cyber safety and security. Hence, the
following independent and dependent variables were identified for the investigation of the
study:

Page | 18
 ● Independent Variable
An independent variable is a variable that has been manipulated. The independent
variable is purposely manipulated during observation to determine its relationship with
the dependent variable. So the demographic factors Gender, Standard, States/UTs, Type
of School, Locality of the school and Medium of Instruction are considered as
independent variables.
● Dependent Variable
The dependent variable is the level of awareness of cyber safety and security among
secondary-stage students. This variable represents the degree to which students
understand and are informed about various aspects of cyber safety and security, such as
recognizing cyber threats, understanding safe online practices, and knowing how to
protect personal information online. This awareness can be measured through surveys,
questionnaires, or assessments designed to evaluate students' knowledge and attitudes
towards cyber safety and security issues.
3.2.3. Hypotheses of the Study
To undertake a meaningful analysis, the following hypotheses were proposed. There are 16
hypotheses which were clubbed under three broad hypotheses as given below:
H : There is no significant difference in the mean score of cyber safety and security awareness
1

of secondary students with respect to their/ the

1. Access to Internet at home
2. Possession of personal email ID
3. Participation in ICT courses
4. Availability of digital devices at home
5. Availability of own digital devices
6. Possession of personal social media account
7. Duration of use of devices per day
8. Perception about excessive screen time
H : There is no significant difference in the mean score of cyber safety and security awareness
2

of secondary students with respect to

1. Locale of the school
2. Gender of the student
3. Standard in which the students are studying
4. Type of school
H : There is no significant difference in the mean score of different dimensions of cyber safety
3

and security awareness of secondary students with respect to

1. Locale of the school
2. Gender of the student
3. Standard in which the students are studying
4. Type of school

Page | 19
3.3 Sampling Strategy
3.3.1 Population of the Study
The population of the study refers to all the secondary school students (from IX Standard to
XII standard) studying in any school, whether Government, Private or Aided school, from all
28 - States and 8 Union Territories in India. There are 6.7 crore students enrolled in secondary
education in the 2021-22 session (MoE, 2021). Furthermore, every student who uses the
internet in accordance with the eligibility conditions.
3.3.2 Sampling Technique
The process of choosing a small group from a vast population to serve as the actual
representation of that population is known as sampling. In the context of a large and
geographically dispersed population, a more complex technique known as multistage sampling
is employed. The multistage sampling is a complex form of cluster sampling in which the
selection of samples is carried out in multiple stages (Cochran, 1977). At each stage, the
population is divided into clusters or groups, and a random sample of these clusters is selected.
Within each selected cluster, further sampling is done to select smaller units, and this process
is repeated as necessary.
Given the vast geographical size and diversity of the population, the documented report
utilized a four-phase sampling process to create the final sample for the investigation. In the
first phase, the sample encompassed the entire population across all 28 states and 8 Union
Territories (UTs). In the second phase, the sample included the entire population across all
school boards. The third phase focused on categorizing data by school type, covering private,
government, and aided schools, and including their entire student populations. In the fourth
phase, the sample included all students from grades IX to XII across the schools. Only students
who were using the Internet were included in the final sample for this study.
The sample was collected in four phases:
Phase 1: Selection of States and Union Territories
The first phase involved choosing every single person living in all 28 states and 8 Union
Territories (UTs) in India, all 36 entities were taken. Ensuring geographic coverage and variety,
this phase captured the whole range of regional variances and traits.
Table 3.1

States/UTs Selected Remarks

36 36 Entire Population was taken

Phase 2: Selection of School Boards

In the second phase, every student in every state and UT across all approved school boards was
included in the sample. This stage was essential to creating a thorough depiction of the
educational environment by incorporating the various curricula and educational systems.

Page | 20
Phase 3: Selection of School Type
The third phase involved selecting the entire population of students from all demographic
groups attending various school kinds, such as government, private, and aided. This
classification made sure that varied school settings were included, which reflected the various
financial and administrative systems found in the educational system.
Phase 4: Selection of Student Selection
In the fourth phase, all students across all the schools in grades IX through XII were included
in the sample wherein purposive sampling was used as only the students using the Internet were
included as the sample of this study.
Table 3.2

Students Selected Remarks

Students of standard IX, X, XI Students of standard IX, X, XI Entire Population was

and XII and XII taken

3.3.3 Sample Size

The sample coverage was 1,15,632 secondary school students (from IX Standard to XII)
studying in any school, whether Government, Private, or Aided school, from all 28 Indian
States and 8 Union Territories.
Table 3.3 Gender-wise sample distribution

S. No. Gender Sample

1 Male 53,929

2 Female 61,482

3 Transgender 219

Table 3.4 Standard-wise sample distribution

S. No. Standard Sample

1 9 Standard
th 38,308

2 10 Standard
th 38,096

3 11 Standard
th 5450

4 12 Standard
th 33,776

Page | 21
Table 3.5 State/ UT/ Autonomous Organization wise sample distribution

S. No. State/ UT/ Autonomous Organization Sample

1 Andaman & Nicobar Islands 173

2 Andhra Pradesh 1461

3 Arunachal Pradesh 241

4 Assam 2258

5 Bihar 1445

6 Chandigarh 3968

7 Chhattisgarh 1428

8 Dadra and Nagar Haveli & Daman and Diu 34

9 Delhi 17360

10 Goa 3138

11 Gujarat 34

12 Haryana 1720

13 Himachal Pradesh 3518

State/ UT 14 Jammu & Kashmir 1448

15 Jharkhand 2639

16 Karnataka 1238

17 Kerala 3247

18 Ladakh 12

19 Lakshadweep 6

20 Madhya Pradesh 2855

21 Maharashtra 3749

22 Manipur 164

23 Meghalaya 96

24 Mizoram 5350

25 Nagaland 1967

26 Odisha 2114

Page | 22
 27 Puducherry 7

28 Punjab 13625

29 Rajasthan 1050

30 Sikkim 20

31 Tamil Nadu 815

32 Telangana 1770

33 Tripura 114

34 Uttar Pradesh 4580

35 Uttarakhand 2131

36 West Bengal 3696

Table 3.6 Type of school-wise Sample distribution

S. No. Type of School Sample

1 Government School 97,028

2 Aided School 6518

3 Private School 12,084

Table 3.7 Locality of School-wise Sample Distribution

S. No. Locality of the School Sample

1 Rural 36,467

2 Urban 79,163

Table 3.8 Medium of Instruction-wise Sample Distribution

S. No. Medium of Instruction Sample

1 English 90,324

2 Hindi 18,526

3 Others 6782

3.3.4 Access and Permission

The research project has been approved by the PAC of National Council of Educational
Research and Training, New Delhi. Access and permission were obtained from school heads.
The consent of respondents was obtained through consent guidelines via the online survey.
This research aimed to gather valuable insights into students' awareness and practices regarding
online safety.

Page | 23
3.4 Research Tool
It was determined to employ an online survey for data collection because of the unique nature
of the study, as rating scales are thought to be an effective technique for gathering data in
descriptive research (Lobe, Simoes, & Zaman 2009). When collecting information from a large
sample, a rating scale is a more practical and effective method (Coolican, 2004; Quinn, 2013).
Due to the unique nature of this research project, it was hard to find the appropriate
rating scale; a rating scale was created in order to gather relevant information from the
population.
The study used an online survey method with a quantitative design; therefore, creating
a tool to collect the required data was unavoidable. The research team examined a wide range
of relevant literature in order to construct the tool "Cyber Safety and Security Awareness Scale
(CSSAS) for Secondary Students," including country reports, peer-reviewed research articles
from India and abroad, cyber safety and security guidelines for students from various national
and international agencies, policy documents from India and abroad, expert opinions, etc.
Dimensions were determined, and the five-point awareness was developed. The scale has five
dimensions: Psychological, Physical, Legal, Socio-ethical, and Technical. Each dimension has
items categorized as Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree and Strongly Disagree.
3.4.1 Identification of Dimensions
A five-point rating scale/ awareness tool with five dimensions on cyber safety and security was
constructed, validated, and reliability was achieved by going through pilot testing. A Google
form was created in English language and translated into Hindi also for the collection of data
and the link was shared with all the 36 states and UTs of India for the purpose of collecting
data from secondary school students for the study. Five dimensions of the rating scale are
shown below:

Figure 3.1: Dimension coverage

Page | 24
The awareness scale consists of 5 dimensions with 58 items with the 5 responses, namely;
strongly agree/ agree/ undecided/ disagree/ strongly disagree. Each dimension consists of items
with true or false connotations with respect to cyber safety and security. The following table
presents dimension-wise items with true/ false connotations.
Table 3.9: Items coverage- Dimension wise

Dimension True False Total

Psychological 12 0 12

Physical 8 3 11

Legal 5 5 10

Socio-ethical 6 7 13

Technical 6 6 12

Total 37 21 58

3.4.2 Identification of Parameters and Attributes

Selection and Compilation of Items. Initially, a Focused Group Discussion was organized on
the following questions:
1. Due to the use of digital devices, what changes do you see in lifestyle and behavioral
patterns?
2. Who do you think is more appropriate to approach when you come across cyber-
related problems? Teacher, Counselor? Psychologist and Why?
3. How will you handle it if you and your friends are cyberbullied?
4. How do you protect your digital device? Explain.
5. What precautions do you take when you access public WIFI?
6. What information will you share publicly or on social media platforms?
In this Focused Group Discussion, five dimensions of the rating scale were finalized.
120 items were developed through a rigorous review of literature available on different
websites, previous studies were also considered for selecting items. After the discussion with
experts, 100 items were found suitable, and these 100 items were divided into five parts:
Table 3.10

Dimension Parameter Indicator Example

Antivirus installation
Installation from authentic
Software/apps
Technical Device Safety
Piracy
Updation of the device
software

Page | 25
 Password protection
Authorization and
authentication for external
devices
Accessing wireless devices
and WIFI connections
Managing apps and software
Accessing information from suspicious links,
anonymous/unauthorized unauthorized links,
sources HTTPS
Data Safety Data Backup
Data protection OTP and passwords
Privacy settings setting filters
Accessing another
email, and passwords,
signing out devices
Accessing and Sharing
with not in use,
information without consent
misusing information,
Confidentiality taking parents'
consent/permission
Leaving
Device/application/Data
Social and unattended
Ethical Creating/Accessing/Sharing
Fake Profiles/ Documents
Identity
Accessing and Sharing the
Footprints
personal information
Accuracy/ misinformation, fake
verifying information
Information literacy news, profile
Credits of information,
Intellectual Property
Plagiarism Copying information
& Copyright
without consent
Intellectual Property Crime/
Copyright
Identifying Cyber Cyber Stalking/harassment
Legal
Crime
Financial
Derogatory comments

Page | 26
 Legal offense for using
Cyber pornography
child pornography
Copyright
hacking
Cyber law
Data breach and misuse
Violation of Privacy
of information
Creation and sharing of
misinformation
Helpline, police station,
complaint box,
Various forms of reporting
Reporting Principal, Parents/
Guardians
Essentials for reporting Forms of evidence
neck, back, arm, finger,
hand, wrist and elbow
Posture
pain, body posture,
Ergonomics body positioning
Positioning of gadgets and
furniture
Physical
Eye strain
Hearing Loss
Impact/Consequences Accidents
radiations
Obesity
Sleep disruption
Span of attention
Isolation
Consequences Addiction
Anxiety and Fear
Psychological
self-image
Depression
Counselors
Support system Helpline
Clinics

Page | 27
3.4.3 Development of Items
As cited above there was a Multiple choice scale used in this study. A brief description of the
Multiple choice scale’ development is presented in the following heads- Scale for Students:
Structure of Rating Scale, Blueprint of Students’ Rating Scale
Table 3.11

Purpose of the Rating A Study of the Awareness on Cyber Safety and Security Among
Scale Secondary Students
(Class IX to XII)

Nature of the Rating Unstructured, Close Ended

Scale

Parts Three or four

Sections Personal Information

General Information
Rating Scale

Dimensions Psychological 12

Physical 11

Legal 10

Socio-ethical 13

Technical 12

Total number of items 58

3.4.4 Development of the Research Tool

One of the objectives of the research was to develop a research tool to measure the level of
cyber safety and security awareness among students. In the research process, a workshop was
conducted to gather expert input, which was then complemented by a thorough analysis and
review of existing literature. This combined approach was utilized to identify and define the
primary dimensions for the development of the measurement scale. pon identifying the
dimensions, parameters and sub-parameters were defined under each dimension. Further, for
tool development, individual items were designed under each dimension covering all the
parameters. The research tool developed by CIET-NCERT is termed “The Cyber Safety And
Security Awareness Scale”.
A series of workshops were also conducted at CIET-NCERT to review the scale from
external experts.
Workshop 1: To review the Tool Developed
A Three days workshop was conducted to review the questionnaire developed with the
following objectives:

Page | 28
 • To review the cyber safety and security awareness research tools developed for
students.
• To finalize the cyber safety and security awareness research tools developed for
students.
The workshop was conducted in the blended mode where resource persons were given an
option to join the workshop in face-to-face mode from CIET-NCERT whereas outstation
resource persons from ISEA-CDAC had an option to join the workshop online and review the
parameters and items developed to assess the level of cyber safety awareness among various
stakeholders. At the end of this workshop, all the items of the tool were reviewed and the tool
was finalized. The finalized research tool developed which is termed as “Cyber Safety And
Security Awareness Scale” consists of 58 items, each part consisting of 5 dimensions namely,
technical aspects, legal aspects, social-ethical aspects and physical-psychological aspects.
These 5 dimensions cover 16 parameters and 25 sub-parameters. The developed questionnaire
is attached as Annexure I.
3.4.5 Pilot of Research Tool
A feasibility study, sometimes called a pilot study, is a small-scale investigation carried out
before a more extensive, full-scale investigation. It serves as a trial run to evaluate the viability,
usefulness, and efficacy of the techniques and protocols intended for the primary study. A pilot
study was done on a small sample of secondary students. A sample of 302 secondary students
was chosen, and the research tool was administered to them to establish the reliability, viability,
usefulness, and efficacy of the research tool.
3.4.6 Validity & Reliability
Validation of Tool: The validity and reliability of the scales employed in research are critical
aspects that allow the research to provide useful results. For this reason, it is important to
understand how researchers appropriately assess the scales' reliability and validity (Surucu &
Maslakci, 2020). A research study may comprise only part of the methodological subspace's
elements, which include scientific standards, procedures, and principles. Examples of these
elements are validity systems. This subspace is utilized in substantive research to establish
knowledge claims and comprises information derived from methodological research (Lund,
2022).
The literature synthesis produced themes and codes for item development in scale based
on worldwide and Indian research papers, reports, and policy guidelines, as well as the
identified research deficit. The expert members structured the questions and items on the
background variables and dimensions of the scale using the themes and codes. The scale
contains five dimensions: psychological, physical, legal, socio-ethical, and technical.
Individual Items were developed using the dimensions. The items were labelled as Strongly
Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree and Strongly Disagree. The scale has three parts which are
mentioned below:

Page | 29
Part 1:Demographic information of respondents (Personal information).
Part 2: Information related to ICT and digital exposure of respondents (General
information).
Part 3: Rating scale related to Cyber Safety and Security Awareness (CSSA).
The developed questions on the background variables and items under each dimension were
then examined for face validity and content validity by the national-level experts. Based on
their validity examination, some items were removed, and a few were added.
• Face Validity: Face validity was checked by the research team members first, and then
by the Program Coordinator, 80 questions and 5 dimensions were finalized.
• Content Validity. The rating scale was validated by 7 experts in the field. Later, the
panel of experts was formed based on expertise in psychology, sociology, law, and
educational technology; a minimum of five years of experience in concerned fields was
required. Three professors and four assistant professors constituted the panel of experts.
The experts’ suggestions regarding objectivity, and suitability of items were taken into
consideration. Language difficulty was removed by replacing difficult words with easy ones.
In the final rating scale out of 80 items, 58 items were selected and reframed according to the
need of the study and the rest were removed. All the suggestions given by experts were
incorporated in the final tool. It is only after the validation; that the tool was administered to
the sample.
To determine the flaws and limitations and to achieve reliability and validity of the
rating scale, pilot testing was done on a small sample of 302 secondary school students. It
enables us to refine the instrument and make necessary improvements before the final
implementation. A pilot test was conducted on 130 students to ensure the accuracy of items
and whether it addressed research questions or not.
Reliability of Research Tool:
Reliability refers to the consistency and stability of a measurement over repeated
administrations or observations. A reliability score close to 1.0 indicates a high level of
consistency, meaning that the measurement is highly dependable and yields similar results
under consistent conditions. The statistical analysis was conducted using version 28.0 of the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the
CSSAS quality score's internal consistency. A reliability score of 0.9933 was derived from
statistical analyses, indicating that the measurement instrument has demonstrated exceptional
reliability in the context of the research study. In research, a reliability score of 0.9933 typically
indicates a very high level of reliability of the tool. It also suggests that the measurement
instrument or tool used in the study demonstrates an extremely high level of consistency and
stability. This high-reliability score implies that the measurement is highly trustworthy and can
be relied upon to produce consistent and accurate results across multiple administrations or
observations.

Page | 30
3.4.7 Finalisation of Tool
After the pilot study, a few more modifications were made to the rating scale before the final
administration of the students. Here irrelevant and invalid items were removed, and at the end,
58 items were left in the final rating scale.
3.4.8 Translation of Tool
Translating a research tool is critical for guaranteeing the inclusion, precision, and validity of
research. Translating a research tool makes it accessible to individuals who do not speak the
original language. Translation of research tools into other languages ensures that students who
do not know the original language have equal access to participate in the study; it may improve
sample representativeness and generalizability.
The translation process is extensive and detailed, requiring knowledge of the subject
idea, conversion, and presentation of complicated concepts in their simplest form. The
population covers senior secondary students from all 28 Indian States and 8 Union Territories,
and the sample was selected from that, so the translation of the awareness scale in the mother
tongue was required.

3.5 Data Collection

The current study used a quantitative research design, which is empirical in nature i.e., it
focuses on numbers and statistics, and is critical for revealing the educational landscape. It is
effective for educators, policymakers, and researchers alike, providing crucial insights to
inspire evidence-based policies and enhance learning outcomes. The study includes all 28
States and 8 Union territories in India. An online survey method was used to collect data from
multiple schools, including diversity in population, school settings, languages, etc. A
descriptive survey was done using Google Forms among students from secondary schools to
find out their awareness on cyber safety and security based on different dimensions. Getting
accurate details on an existing situation is the aim of a descriptive survey study in order to
decide what should happen next (Good, 1972). An Online-based survey was used to collect the
data. This was due to covering samples of all 28 Indian States and 8 Union Territories.
Permission from the school authorities/ teachers was obtained, and consent was also obtained
from the students for the data collection.
Time allocation was maintained for each step of the empirical investigation of this
study, including project conception, literature review, tool construction, validation, pilot study,
reliability attainment, primary data collection, data analysis, and report writing.
The online tool was administered in English and bilingual mode, and a Google form
link of the research tool was shared with each of the 28 States and 8 Union Territories in India
for fifteen days.
Procedure of Data Collection: The next step after defining the sample and instrumentation is
data collection. The Google form link/ rating scale was directly sent to the states and UTs,
which was further shared with the sample students. The consent of the students was taken.

Page | 31
3.6 Data Analysis
The quantitative data was analyzed under descriptive and inferential parameters. The items
which are in the scale have five-point rating scale connotations based on the connotations with
respect to cyber safety and security. Each item has 5 responses. All items that are labeled as
true have responses as strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly disagree with
scoring 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, respectively. All items that are labeled as false have responses as strongly
disagree, disagree, undecided, agree, and strongly agree with scoring 1,2,3,4,5, respectively.
The results were presented in tables and figures. The quantitative data was analyzed under
descriptive and inferential parameters. Ms-Excel was used for Descriptive analysis, and SPSS
Software for inferential analysis; t-test, ANOVA etc. were used. The result was presented in
tables and figures.
3.6.1 Statistical Analysis for Quantitative Data
Statistical analysis is an essential component of quantitative research (Kee et al., 2013).
Quantitative data is usually associated with numbers, and Quantitative research has the
advantage of establishing a sequence of processes that allow for the standardized investigation
of phenomena, thus significantly reducing the researcher's bias (Suárez et al., 2017). A popular
approach for formulating and addressing quantitative research questions is to identify a gap in
the current literature and conduct a study to fill it (Jamieson et al., 2023).
For the statistical analysis, data was exported to an Excel file and was cleaned. After
this, the collected data which were in alpha-numeric format were coded to numerics, so as to
make the analysis easier. The score of the CSSA tool was calculated dimension-wise as well
as in total. The cleaned and coded data was then exported into SPSS (Version 27) for further
analysis. The details of the analysis carried out along with the findings and discussion are
presented in the following chapter.

3.7 Limitations of the Study

This nationwide quantitative study has its own limitations. They are limited with Age
range, educational setting, Coverage of dimensions, Research method, School education, and
coverage of languages in tools.
• Age Range: The study focused solely on students in grades 9–12, omitting younger or
older age groups. This delimitation ensures a specific assessment of cyber safety and
security awareness within the context of secondary school.
• Educational Setting: Students enrolled in government, private, and aided schools were
the only subjects of the study; homeschoolers and participants in alternative education
programs were not included. An investigation in a more homogeneous sample and
context was made possible by this delimitation.
• Dimensions of Cyber Safety and Security: The study concentrated only on five
dimensions of cyber safety and security that are pertinent to students in grades 9 through
12, including Psychological, Physical, Legal, Socio-ethical and Technical. This
boundary guarantees a targeted analysis of the most important cyber safety and security
concerns that affect the intended sample.

Page | 32
 • Research Method: The study adopted online surveys through Google Forms and
quantitative analysis.
• Language coverage: The tool of the study was prepared in English and Hindi.
The results and interpretation along with its discussion will be presented in the next chapter.

Page | 33
 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1. Introduction
Data analysis is the systematic procedure of applying logical and statistical methods for
describing, illustrating, condensing and assessing the research data. According to Creswell
(2002), qualitative research is a strategy for data collection, analysis, and report writing that is
distinct from the conventional, quantitative approaches. Quantitative research is the process of
gathering, analyzing, interpreting, and producing study results.

4.2 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Analyzing and interpreting data entails systematically going over gathered information to find
trends, connections, and revelations that help with decision-making. This procedure entails
cleaning and arranging the data, analyzing it using statistical or computational techniques, and
producing a meaningful summary of the results. Interpretation is more than just summarizing
the findings; it also entails placing the data in the larger context of the study question or issue,
coming to conclusions, and drawing conclusions from the analysis.
4.2.1 Nature of Distribution of Samples Across Subgroups
In this primary section, the distribution of selected samples across the subgroups is provided
across different states. This has been done to have a better insight about the sample distribution
4.2.1.1: State-wise distribution of sample with regard to Gender
Table 4.1 State-wise distribution of sample with regard to Gender

State / Union Territory Gender Response Response

(Number) (Percentage)

Andaman and Nicobar Islands Female 87 50.3

Male 79 45.7

Transgender 7 4

Total 173 100

Female 785 53.7

Male 673 46.1

Andhra Pradesh
Transgender 3 0.2

Total 1461 100

Arunachal Pradesh Female 121 50.2

Male 119 49.4

Page | 34
 Transgender 1 0.4

Total 241 100

Assam Female 1148 50.8

Male 1106 49

Transgender 4 0.2

Total 2258 100

Bihar Female 614 42.5

Male 826 57.2

Transgender 5 0.3

Total 1445 100

Chandigarh Female 1990 50.2

Male 1960 49.4

Transgender 18 0.5

Total 3968 100

Chhattisgarh Female 722 50.6

Male 704 49.3

Transgender 2 0.1

Total 1428 100

Female 14 41.2

Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Male 17 50

Daman and Diu
Transgender 3 8.8

Total 34 100

Delhi Female 24523 56.8

Male 18612 43.1

Transgender 73 0.2

Total 43208 100

Goa Female 1998 57.9

Male 1450 42

Page | 35
 Transgender 1 0

Total 3449 100

Gujarat Female 15 44.1

Male 18 52.9

Transgender 1 2.9

Total 34 100

Haryana Female 762 44.3

Male 952 55.3

Transgender 6 0.3

Total 1720 100

Himachal Pradesh Female 1816 51.6

Male 1701 48.4

Transgender 1 0

Total 3518 100

Jammu & Kashmir Female 740 51.1

Male 708 48.9

Total 1448 100

Jharkhand Female 1235 46.8

Male 1402 53.1

Transgender 2 0.1

Total 2639 100

Karnataka Female 623 50.3

Male 615 49.7

Total 1238 100

Kerala Female 1719 52.9

Male 1527 47

Transgender 1 0

Total 3247 100

Page | 36
Ladakh Female 1 8.3

Male 10 83.3

Transgender 1 8.3

Total 12 100

Lakshadweep Female 4 66.7

Male 2 33.3

Total 6 100

Madhya Pradesh Female 1354 47.4

Male 1498 52.5

Transgender 3 0.1

Total 2855 100

Maharashtra Female 1744 46.5

Male 2003 53.4

Transgender 2 0.1

Total 3749 100

Manipur Female 94 57.3

Male 70 42.7

Total 164 100

Meghalaya Female 41 42.7

Male 55 57.3

Total 96 100

Mizoram Female 2929 54.7

Male 2419 45.2

Transgender 2 0

Total 5350 100

Nagaland Female 1062 54

Male 903 45.9

Transgender 2 0.1

Page | 37
 Total 1967 100

Female 1027 48.6

Male 1086 51.4

Odisha Transgender 1 0

Total 2114 100

Puducherry Female 4 57.1

Male 3 42.9

Total 7 100

Punjab Female 7514 55.1

Male 6043 44.4

Transgender 68 0.5

Total 13625 100

Rajasthan Female 477 45.4

Male 571 54.4

Transgender 2 0.2

Total 1050 100

Sikkim Female 13 65

Male 7 35

Total 20 100

Tamil Nadu Female 424 52

Male 391 48

Total 815 100

Telangana Female 917 51.8

Male 852 48.1

Transgender 1 0.1

Total 1770 100

Female 53 46.5
Tripura
Male 60 52.6

Page | 38
 Transgender 1 0.9

Total 114 100

Uttar Pradesh Female 2098 45.8

Male 2475 54

Transgender 7 0.2

Total 4580 100

Uttarakhand Female 1035 48.6

Male 1096 51.4

Total 2131 100

West Bengal Female 1779 48.1

Male 1916 51.8

Transgender 1 0

Total 3696 100

From above table 4.1, the distribution of data is based on the state wise with regard to
gender. There are 21 states and UTs in which the Female has the highest number. In Delhi,
females are the most populous gender group, comprising 24,523 individuals, which accounts
for 56.8% of the total population of 43,208. This indicates that there are more females than
males in the population of Delhi. In 15 states and UTs, Males have the highest number. In Uttar
Pradesh (UP), males form the predominant gender group, totalling 2,475 individuals, which
accounts for 54% of the state's total population of 4,580. This demographic composition
highlights a significant male majority within the region. There are significantly more males
than females based on the given data in UP. In Chandigarh, transgender individuals account
for 18 persons, making up 0.5% of the total population of 3,968. It indicates their numerical
representation as a minority within the broader population.
The distribution is graphically represented in the following figures (fig 4.1, 4.2, 4.3)

Page | 39
Fig 4.1: State-wise distribution of sample across the sub-group: Female

Fig 4.2: State-wise distribution of sample across the sub-group: Male

Page | 40
 Fig 4.3: State-wise distribution of sample across the sub group: Transgender
It is evident from the above section that the majority of students were from Punjab,
Delhi and Chandigarh irrespective of their gender.

4.2.1.2: State-wise distribution of sample with regard to Standard

Table 4.2: State-wise distribution of sample with regard to Standard

State / Union Territory Standard Response Response

(Number) (Percentage)
Andaman and Nicobar Islands 10th Standard 62 35.8
11th Standard 7 4.0
12th Standard 18 10.4
9th Standard 86 49.7
Total 173 100.0
Andhra Pradesh 10th Standard 662 45.3
11th Standard 24 1.6
12th Standard 252 17.2
9th Standard 523 35.8
Total 1461 100.0
Arunachal Pradesh 10th Standard 101 41.9
11th Standard 3 1.2
12th Standard 59 24.5
9th Standard 78 32.4
Total 241 100.0
Assam 10th Standard 813 36.0
11th Standard 48 2.1
12th Standard 558 24.7
9th Standard 839 37.2
Total 2258 100.0

Page | 41
Bihar 10th Standard 505 34.9
11th Standard 68 4.7
12th Standard 359 24.8
9th Standard 513 35.5
Total 1445 100.0
Chandigarh 10th Standard 1179 29.7
11th Standard 227 5.7
12th Standard 1203 30.3
9th Standard 1359 34.2
Total 3968 100.0
Chhattisgarh 10th Standard 497 34.8
11th Standard 33 2.3
12th Standard 445 31.2
9th Standard 453 31.7
Total 1428 100.0
Dadra and Nagar Haveli and 10th Standard 11 32.4
Daman and Diu 11th Standard 5 14.7
12th Standard 4 11.8
9th Standard 14 41.2
Total 34 100.0
Delhi 10th Standard 13762 31.9
11th Standard 1342 3.1
12th Standard 1 .0
9th Standard 14911 34.5
Total 13192 30.5
10th Standard 43208 100.0
Goa 10th Standard 1253 36.3
11th Standard 271 7.9
12th Standard 934 27.1
9th Standard 991 28.7
Total 3449 100.0
Gujarat 10th Standard 8 23.5
11th Standard 4 11.8
12th Standard 8 23.5
9th Standard 14 41.2
Total 34 100.0
Haryana 10th Standard 462 26.9
11th Standard 71 4.1
12th Standard 580 33.7
9th Standard 607 35.3
Total 1720 100.0
Himachal Pradesh 10th Standard 967 27.5

Page | 42
 11th Standard 528 15.0
12th Standard 980 27.9
9th Standard 1043 29.6
Total 3518 100.0
Jammu & Kashmir 10th Standard 473 32.7
11th Standard 221 15.3
12th Standard 360 24.9
9th Standard 394 27.2
Total 1448 100.0
Jharkhand 10th Standard 920 34.9
11th Standard 18 .7
12th Standard 619 23.5
9th Standard 1082 41.0
Total 2639 100.0
Karnataka 10th Standard 514 41.5
11th Standard 20 1.6
12th Standard 190 15.3
9th Standard 514 41.5
Total 1238 100.0
Kerala 10th Standard 1153 35.5
11th Standard 35 1.1
12th Standard 776 23.9
9th Standard 1283 39.5
Total 3247 100.0
Ladakh 10th Standard 5 41.7
11th Standard 1 8.3
12th Standard 1 8.3
9th Standard 5 41.7
Total 12 100.0
Lakshadweep 10th Standard 4 66.7
9th Standard 2 33.3
Total 6 100.0
Madhya Pradesh 10th Standard 976 34.2
11th Standard 18 .6
12th Standard 598 20.9
9th Standard 1263 44.2
Total 2855 100.0
Maharashtra 10th Standard 1443 38.5
11th Standard 54 1.4
12th Standard 857 22.9
9th Standard 1395 37.2
Total 3749 100.0

Page | 43
Manipur 10th Standard 53 32.3
12th Standard 52 31.7
9th Standard 59 36.0
Total 164 100.0
Meghalaya 10th Standard 33 34.4
12th Standard 29 30.2
9th Standard 34 35.4
Total 96 100.0
Mizoram 10th Standard 1681 31.4
11th Standard 25 .5
12th Standard 1696 31.7
9th Standard 1948 36.4
Total 5350 100.0
Nagaland 10th Standard 599 30.5
11th Standard 36 1.8
12th Standard 643 32.7
9th Standard 689 35.0
Total 1967 100.0
Odisha 10th Standard 733 34.7
11th Standard 33 1.6
12th Standard 510 24.1
9th Standard 838 39.6
Total 2114 100.0
Puducherry 10th Standard 4 57.1
12th Standard 1 14.3
9th Standard 2 28.6
Total 7 100.0
Punjab 10th Standard 4370 32.1
11th Standard 1999 14.7
12th Standard 3414 25.1
9th Standard 3842 28.2
Total 13625 100.0
Rajasthan 10th Standard 318 30.3
11th Standard 20 1.9
12th Standard 286 27.2
9th Standard 426 40.6
Total 1050 100.0
Sikkim 10th Standard 1 5.0
11th Standard 1 5.0
12th Standard 15 75.0
9th Standard 3 15.0
Total 20 100.0

Page | 44
 Tamil Nadu 10th Standard 284 34.8
11th Standard 13 1.6
12th Standard 150 18.4
9th Standard 368 45.2
Total 815 100.0
Telangana 10th Standard 807 45.6
11th Standard 10 .6
12th Standard 238 13.4
9th Standard 715 40.4
Total 1770 100.0
Tripura 10th Standard 41 36.0
11th Standard 3 2.6
12th Standard 44 38.6
9th Standard 26 22.8
Total 114 100.0
Uttar Pradesh 10th Standard 1595 34.8
11th Standard 185 4.0
12th Standard 1206 26.3
9th Standard 1594 34.8
Total 4580 100.0
Uttarakhand 10th Standard 644 30.2
11th Standard 28 1.3
12th Standard 654 30.7
9th Standard 805 37.8
Total 2131 100.0
West Bengal 10th Standard 1163 31.5
11th Standard 98 2.7
12th Standard 1126 30.5
9th Standard 1309 35.4
Total 3696 100.0

From the above table 4.2, the data was distributed state-wise with regard to their
standard. The state-wise data for the 10th standard shows varying numbers of students enrolled,
with states like Delhi (13,762), Punjab (4370), Maharashtra (1,443), and Uttar Pradesh (1,595)
having relatively higher figures, while smaller states like Sikkim (1) and Dadra and Nagar
Haveli and Daman and Diu (11) have lower enrollments. States like Delhi and Punjab have
notably high enrollments in the 11th standard. In Punjab, the enrollment in the 11th standard is
substantial, with a total of 1,999 students, which represents 14.7% of the total student
population across different standards in the state. In Delhi, the enrollment in the 11th standard
is also notable, with 1,342 students, constituting 3.1% of the total student population across
different standards in the region. Whereas states like Gujarat and Sikkim have much lower
enrollments in comparison.

Page | 45
 Among the states and union territories listed, Mizoram stands out with the highest
enrollment in the 12th standard, totaling 1,696 students, which represents 31.7% of its total
student population across different standards. This indicates a significant focus on higher
secondary education in Mizoram compared to other regions.
Among the states and union territories listed, Delhi has the highest enrollment in the
9th standard, with 14,911 students, accounting for 34.5% of its total student population across
different standards. This highlights a substantial emphasis on secondary education at the 9th
standard level in Delhi compared to other regions.

Fig 4.4: State-wise distribution of sample across the sub group: 10th standard

Fig 4.5: State-wise distribution of sample across the sub group: 11th standard

Page | 46
 Fig 4.6: State-wise distribution of sample across the sub group: 12th standard

Fig 4.7: State-wise distribution of sample across the sub group: 9th standard
From the above section, it is clear that a major share of 12th standard students
participated in the survey are from Punjab and mizoram. Whereas maximum participation of
students of other standards are from Punjab and Delhi.

Page | 47
4.2.1.3: State-wise Distribution of Sample with regard to Type of School
Table 4.3: State-wise Distribution of sample with regard to Type of School

Type of Response Response

State / Union Territory
School (Number) (Percentage)
Andaman and Nicobar IslandsAided 18 10.4
Government 146 84.4
Private 9 5.2
Total 173 100.0
Andhra Pradesh Aided 150 10.3
Government 1208 82.7
Private 103 7.0
Total 1461 100.0
Arunachal Pradesh Aided 44 18.3
Government 181 75.1
Private 16 6.6
Total 241 100.0
Assam Aided 73 3.2
Government 2112 93.5
Private 73 3.2
Total 2258 100.0
Bihar Aided 95 6.6
Government 1287 89.1
Private 63 4.4
Total 1445 100.0
Chandigarh Aided 92 2.3
Government 2556 64.4
Private 1320 33.3
Total 3968 100.0
Chhattisgarh Aided 68 4.8
Government 1306 91.5
Private 54 3.8
Total 1428 100.0
Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Aided 3 8.8
Daman and Diu Government 26 76.5
Private 5 14.7
Total 34 100.0
Delhi Aided 2265 5.2
Government 38005 88.0
Private 2938 6.8
Total 43208 100.0
Goa Aided 931 27.0
Government 1642 47.6

Page | 48
 Private 876 25.4
Total 3449 100.0
Gujarat Aided 4 11.8
Government 29 85.3
Private 1 2.9
Total 34 100.0
Haryana Aided 114 6.6
Government 1413 82.2
Private 193 11.2
Total 1720 100.0
Himachal Pradesh Aided 127 3.6
Government 2495 70.9
Private 896 25.5
Total 3518 100.0
Jammu & Kashmir Aided 96 6.6
Government 1241 85.7
Private 111 7.7
Total 1448 100.0
Jharkhand Aided 154 5.8
Government 2379 90.1
Private 106 4.0
Total 2639 100.0
Karnataka Aided 76 6.1
Government 1106 89.3
Private 56 4.5
Total 1238 100.0
Kerala Aided 149 4.6
Government 2997 92.3
Private 101 3.1
Total 3247 100.0
Ladakh Government 11 91.7
Private 1 8.3
Total 12 100.0
Lakshadweep Aided 1 16.7
Government 3 50.0
Private 2 33.3
Total 6 100.0
Madhya Pradesh Aided 107 3.7
Government 2718 95.2
Private 30 1.1
Total 2855 100.0
Maharashtra Aided 109 2.9
Government 3345 89.2

Page | 49
 Private 295 7.9
Total 3749 100.0
Manipur Aided 5 3.0
Government 152 92.7
Private 7 4.3
Total 164 100.0
Meghalaya Aided 9 9.4
Government 84 87.5
Private 3 3.1
Total 96 100.0
Mizoram Aided 849 15.9
Government 3659 68.4
Private 842 15.7
Total 5350 100.0
Nagaland Aided 96 4.9
Government 238 12.1
Private 1633 83.0
Total 1967 100.0
Odisha Aided 65 3.1
Government 2025 95.8
Private 24 1.1
Total 2114 100.0
Puducherry Aided 2 28.6
Government 5 71.4
Total 7 100.0
Punjab Aided 362 2.7
Government 11208 82.3
Private 2055 15.1
Total 13625 100.0
Rajasthan Aided 55 5.2
Government 957 91.1
Private 38 3.6
Total 1050 100.0
Sikkim Aided 3 15.0
Government 16 80.0
Private 1 5.0
Total 20 100.0
Tamil Nadu Aided 52 6.4
Government 731 89.7
Private 32 3.9
Total 815 100.0
Telangana Aided 153 8.6
Government 1545 87.3

Page | 50
 Private 72 4.1
Total 1770 100.0
Tripura Aided 9 7.9
Government 104 91.2
Private 1 .9
Total 114 100.0
Uttar Pradesh Aided 62 1.4
Government 4471 97.6
Private 47 1.0
Total 4580 100.0
Uttarakhand Aided 58 2.7
Government 2048 96.1
Private 25 1.2
Total 2131 100.0
West Bengal Aided 62 1.7
Government 3579 96.8
Private 55 1.5
Total 3696 100.0
The above table 4.3, the result shows that Delhi stands out with the highest percentage
of government schools at 88.0%. Punjab has the highest percentage in aided schools at 2.7%,
and Goa has the highest percentage in private schools at 25.4%.

Fig 4.8: State-wise distribution of sample across the sub group: Government

Page | 51
 Fig 4.9: State-wise distribution of sample across the sub group: Aided

Fig
4.10: State-wise distribution of sample across the sub group: Private
The participation data revealed that from the north eastern states of Nagaland and
Mizoram had maximum participation of students belonging to private schools and aided
schools respectively. The students of aided schools of Goa has also actively participated in the
survey. While looking at the participation of students from different types of schools, Delhi
stood first among others.

Page | 52
4.2.1.4: State-wise distribution of sample with regard to Locality of the school
Table 4.4: State-wise distribution of sample with regard to Locality of the school
States Locality Response Response
(Number ) (Percentage)
Andaman and Nicobar Islands Rural 93 53.8
Urban 80 46.2
Total 173 100.0
Andhra Pradesh Rural 493 33.7
Urban 968 66.3
Total 1461 100.0
Arunachal Pradesh Rural 65 27.0
Urban 176 73.0
Total 241 100.0
Assam Rural 674 29.8
Urban 1584 70.2
Total 2258 100.0
Bihar Rural 558 38.6
Urban 887 61.4
Total 1445 100.0
Chandigarh Rural 736 18.5
Urban 3232 81.5
Total 3968 100.0
Chhattisgarh Rural 320 22.4
Urban 1108 77.6
Total 1428 100.0
Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman Rural 17 50.0
and Diu Urban 17 50.0
Total 34 100.0
Delhi Rural 7618 17.6
Urban 35590 82.4
Total 43208 100.0
Goa Rural 1619 46.9
Urban 1830 53.1
Total 3449 100.0
Gujarat Rural 22 64.7
Urban 12 35.3
Total 34 100.0

Page | 53
Haryana Rural 627 36.5
Urban 1093 63.5
Total 1720 100.0
Himachal Pradesh Rural 2260 64.2
Urban 1258 35.8
Total 3518 100.0
Jammu & Kashmir Rural 779 53.8
Urban 669 46.2
Total 1448 100.0
Jharkhand Rural 1099 41.6
Urban 1540 58.4
Total 2639 100.0
Karnataka Rural 248 20.0
Urban 990 80.0
Total 1238 100.0
Kerala Rural 1260 38.8
Urban 1987 61.2
Total 3247 100.0
Ladakh Rural 5 41.7
Urban 7 58.3
Total 12 100.0
Lakshadweep Rural 5 83.3
Urban 1 16.7
Total 6 100.0
Madhya Pradesh Rural 707 24.8
Urban 2148 75.2
Total 2855 100.0
Maharashtra Rural 657 17.5
Urban 3092 82.5
Total 3749 100.0
Manipur Rural 128 78.0
Urban 36 22.0
Total 164 100.0
Meghalaya Rural 54 56.3
Urban 42 43.8
Total 96 100.0
Mizoram Rural 2491 46.6

Page | 54
 Urban 2859 53.4
Total 5350 100.0
Nagaland Rural 626 31.8
Urban 1341 68.2
Total 1967 100.0
Odisha Rural 246 11.6
Urban 1868 88.4
Total 2114 100.0
Puducherry Rural 3 42.9
Urban 4 57.1
Total 7 100.0
Punjab Rural 9197 67.5
Urban 4428 32.5
Total 13625 100.0
Rajasthan Rural 295 28.1
Urban 755 71.9
Total 1050 100.0
Sikkim Rural 7 35.0
Urban 13 65.0
Total 20 100.0
Tamil Nadu Rural 238 29.2
Urban 577 70.8
Total 815 100.0
Telangana Rural 406 22.9
Urban 1364 77.1
Total 1770 100.0
Tripura Rural 14 12.3
Urban 100 87.7
Total 114 100.0
Uttar Pradesh Rural 1184 25.9
Urban 3396 74.1
Total 4580 100.0
Uttarakhand Rural 900 42.2
Urban 1231 57.8
Total 2131 100.0
West Bengal Rural 816 22.1

Page | 55
 Urban 2880 77.9
Total 3696 100.0
From the above table 4.4, the result shows that Punjab has the highest percentage of
samples from rural schools at 67.5%, indicating a strong rural area . On the other hand, Delhi
shows a predominantly urban focus with 82.4% of its samples from urban schools.

Fig 4.11: State-wise distribution of sample across the sub group: Rural

Fig 4.12: State-wise distribution of sample across the sub group: Urban
It is evident from the above section that the majority of students were from Punjab,
Delhi irrespective of their locality of the school.

Page | 56
4.2.2 Analysis of Data with Regard to ICT/Digital Exposure
Basic information regarding the availability and use of digital resources and ICT facilities were
collected from the sample to understand the nature of exposure of secondary students to ICT
and associated aspects. The data collected is analyzed with regard to selected sub groups and
is presented systematically in this section.
4.2.2.1: Gender-wise Distribution of Internet access at home
Table 4.5: Gender-wise Distribution of Internet access at home

Internet access at home

Gender
Yes No Total

Female 53950 (87.7) 7532 (12.3) 61482 (100.0)

Male 47786 (88.6) 6143 (11.4) 53929 (100.0)

Transgender 177 (80.8) 42 (19.2) 219 (100.0)

From the above table 4.5, the result shows that males have the highest percentage of
individuals with internet access at home, at 88.6%. Females closely follow with 87.7%,
indicating a slightly lower but still significant adoption rate. In contrast, transgender individuals
show a lower percentage at 80.8%.

Fig 4.13: Gender-wise Distribution of Internet access at home

Page | 57
4.2.2.2: Gender-wise Distribution of the Email ID
Table 4.6: Gender-wise Distribution of the Email ID

Distribution of the Email ID

Gender
Yes No Total

Female 42799 (69.6) 18683 (30.4) 61482 (100.0)

Male 43437 (80.5) 10492 (19.5) 53929 (100.0)

Transgender 162 (74.0) 57 (26.0) 219 (100.0)

From the above table 4.6, shows that Males have the highest percentage of individuals
with an Email ID (80.5%), followed by transgender individuals (74.0%), and females (69.6%).
In terms of not having an Email ID, females have the highest percentage (30.4%), followed by
transgender individuals (26.0%), and males (19.5%).

Fig 4.14: Gender-wise data distribution of Email ID

4.2.2.3: Gender-wise Distribution of use of Digital Devices per day
Table 4.7: Gender-wise Distribution of use of Digital Devices per day

1 hour to 2 2 hours to 4 30 min to 1 Above 4 Do not use it Less than

Gender
hours hours hour hours every day 30 min
17677 11978
Female 15770 (25.6) 7808 (12.7) 3115 (5.1) 5134 (8.4)
(28.8) (19.5)
15352 8708
Male 14932 (27.7) 7645 (14.2) 3899 (7.2) 3393 (6.3)
(28.5) (16.1)
Transgender 41 (18.7) 16 (7.3) 42 (19.2) 17 (7.8) 25 (11.4) 78 (35.6)

Page | 58
 From the above table 4.7, the result shows that females have the highest percentage
(28.8%) use digital devices for 30 minutes to 1 hour daily, indicating a balanced engagement
with digital technology for moderate durations. Additionally, 25.6% of females use devices for
1 to 2 hours, suggesting a significant proportion engage in slightly longer sessions. Conversely,
males show a similar trend with 28.5% using devices for 30 minutes to 1 hour and 27.7% for
1 to 2 hours, indicating comparable engagement patterns but with a slightly higher percentage
in the 1 to 2 hours category compared to females. For transgender individuals, the largest
percentage (35.6%) uses digital devices for less than 30 minutes daily, indicating a preference
for shorter durations of device use compared to females and males.

Fig 4.15: Gender-wise data distribution of use of digital devices per day
4.2.2.4: Gender-wise Distribution of Perception about Excessive Screen Time
Table 4.8: Gender-wise Distribution of Perception about Excessive screen time

1 hour to 2 2 hours to 4 30 min to 1 More than 4 Upto 30

Gender
hours hours hour hours min
Female 11495 (18.7) 8262 (13.4) 14394 (23.4) 7676 (12.5) 19655 (32)
13759
Male 11381 (21.1) 8124 (15.1) 13027 (24.2) 7638 (14.2)
(25.5)
Transgender 34 (15.5) 22 (10) 47 (21.5) 21 (9.6) 95 (43.4)
From the above table 4.8 Females, the largest proportion (32.0%) perceive spending up
to 30 minutes on screens, indicating a significant portion adheres to what they consider a
moderate screen time limit. Additionally, 18.7% perceive spending 1 to 2 hours on screens,
suggesting a balanced perception across different time categories. In contrast, males show a
slightly different distribution, with 25.5% perceiving up to 30 minutes and 21.1% perceiving 1
to 2 hours on screens, highlighting a comparable but varied perception compared to females.
For transgender individuals, a notable 43.4% perceive spending up to 30 minutes on screens,
with smaller percentages perceiving higher screen times.
Page | 59
 Fig 4.16: Gender-wise data distribution about excessive screen time
4.2.2.5: Gender-wise Distribution of participation in courses related to ICT
Table 4.9: Gender-wise Distribution of participation in courses related to ICT

Participation in courses related to ICT

Gender Yes No Total

Female 29234 (47.5) 32248 (52.5) 61482 (100.0)

Male 25665 (47.6) 28264 (52.4) 53929 (100.0)

Transgender 143 (65.3) 76 (34.7) 219 (100.0)

From the above table 4.9, it is found that transgender individuals emerge with the
highest percentage at 65.3%, indicating a significant engagement compared to females at
47.5% and males at 47.6%.

Fig 4.17: Gender-wise Distribution of participation in courses related to ICT

Page | 60
4.2.2.6: Standard wise Distribution of Internet access at home
Table 4.10: Standard-wise Distribution of Internet access at home

Internet Access at Home

Standard Yes No Total

10th Standard 33666 (88.4) 4430 (11.6) 38096 (100.0)

11th Standard 4814 (88.3) 636 (11.7) 5450 (100.0)

12th Standard 30022 (88.9) 3754 (11.1) 33776 (100.0)

9th Standard 33412 (87.2) 4896 (12.8) 38308 (100.0)

From the above table 4.10, the 12th standard students have the highest percentage of
internet access at 88.9%. Following closely behind are students in the 10th standard, with
88.4% having internet access, showing a similar strong adoption of digital connectivity. In the
11th standard, 88.3% of students have internet access. Among the 9th standard students, 87.2%
have internet access, reflecting a slightly lower but still significant level of connectivity
compared to higher standards.

Fig 4.18: Standard-wise Distribution of Internet access at home

Page | 61
4.2.2.7: Standard-wise Distribution of the Email ID
Table 4.11: Standard-wise Distribution of the Email ID

Distribution of the Email ID

Standard Yes No Total

10th Standard 28039 (73.6) 10057 (26.4) 38096 (100.0)

11th Standard 4193 (76.9) 1257 (23.1) 5450 (100.0)

12th Standard 27944 (82.7) 5832 (17.3) 33776 (100.0)

9th Standard 26222 (68.5) 12086 (31.5) 38308 (100.0)

From the above table 4.11, Based on the distribution of email IDs among different
standards, it is evident that the 12th standard students have the highest percentage of email ID
ownership at 82.7%. Following closely behind are students in the 11th standard, with 76.9%
having email IDs, showing a substantial engagement with digital platforms for communication.
In the 10th standard, 73.6% of students possess email IDs, reflecting a significant presence but
slightly lower than the upper secondary levels. Among the 9th standard students, 68.5% have
email IDs, demonstrating a growing but relatively lower uptake compared to higher standards.

Fig 4.19: Standard-wise Distribution of the Email ID

Page | 62
4.2.2.8: Standard-wise Distribution of Use of Digital Devices per day
Table 4.12: Standard-wise Distribution of Use of Digital Devices per day

1 hour to 2 hours to 30 min to Above 4 Do not use Less than

Standard
2 hours 4 hours 1 hour hours it every day 30 min
9423 11874
9th standard 3841 (10) 1519 (4) 3241 (8.5) 8410 (22)
(24.6) (31)
10150 4682 11350 1880 7024
10th standard 3010 (7.9)
(26.6) (12.3) (29.8) (4.9) (18.4)
1339 1554 1031
11th standard 760 (13.9) 383 (7) 382 (7)
(24.6) (28.5) (18.9)
9831 6185 8293 3249 4299
12th standard 1919 (5.7)
(29.1) (18.3) (24.6) (9.6) (12.7)
From the above table 4.12, 10th Standard has the highest percentage of students
spending 1 hour to 2 hours on digital devices per day is 26.6%. 11th Standard has 24.6% of
students spending 1 hour to 2 hours on digital devices daily, which is the highest among the
given categories. 12th Standard has the highest percentage here also for 1 hour to 2 hours, at
29.1%. 9th Standard has the highest percentage for 1 hour to 2 hours, with 24.6%.

Fig 4.20: Standard-wise Distribution of Use of Digital Devices per day

Page | 63
4.2.2.9: Standard-wise Distribution of Excessive screen time
Table 4.13: Standard-wise Distribution of Excessive screen time
1 hour to 2 hours to 30 min to More than Upto 30
Timings
2 hours 4 hours 1 hour 4 hours min
7645 9355 11276
10th standard 5388 (14.1) 4432 (11.6)
(20.1) (24.6) (29.6)
1238 1618
11th standard 1035 (19) 729 (13.4) 830 (15.2)
(22.7) (29.7)
6834 7665
12th standard 5698 (16.9) 7096 (21) 6483 (19.2)
(20.2) (22.7)
7396 9779 12950
9th standard 4593 (12) 3590 (9.4)
(19.3) (25.5) (33.8)
From the above table 4.13, the result indicates that 10th standard has the highest
percentage of students spending 1 hour to 2 hours on screen time, with 20.1% falling within
this range. 2 hours to 4 hours is most prevalent among students in the 12th standard, with 16.9%
of them spending this amount of time on screens. 30 minutes to 1 hour of screen time is notably
observed across different standards, with significant percentages. For instance, in the 10th
standard, 24.6% of students fall within this range, while in the 11th standard, 22.7% do. In the
9th standard, it accounts for 25.5% of students, and in the 12th Grade, it constitutes 21.0% of
students. More than 4 hours is the highest category for screen time in the 12th standard, with
19.2% of students falling into this range. Among the standards surveyed, the 9th standard
shows the highest percentage of students spending 30 minutes to 1 hour on screen time, with
25.5% falling within this range.

Fig 4.21: Standard-wise Distribution of Excessive screen time

Page | 64
4.2.2.10: Standard-wise Distribution of participation in courses related to ICT
Table 4.14: Standard-wise Distribution of participation in courses related to ICT

Participation in courses related to ICT

Standard
Yes No Total

10th Standard 19341 (50.8) 18755 (49.2) 38096 (100.0)

11th Standard 2906 (53.3) 2544 (46.7) 5450 (100.0)

12th Standard 15938 (47.2) 17838 (52.8) 33776 (100.0)

9th Standard 16857 (44.0) 21451 (56.0) 38308 (100.0)

From the above table 4.14, the result indicates that, In the 10th standard, 50.8% of
students participate in courses related to ICT, compared to 53.3% in the 11th standard, 47.2%
in the 12th standard, and 44.0% in the 9th standard. This reveals varying levels of engagement
across different grade levels, with higher participation rates observed in the 11th standard
compared to the 12th and 9th standards. These percentages highlight the distribution of ICT
course participation among students at different stages of their secondary education,
underscoring potential differences in curriculum integration and student interest across these
standards.

Fig 4.22: Standard-wise Distribution of participation in courses related to ICT

Page | 65
4.2.2.11: Type of School-wise Distribution of Internet Access at Home
Table 4.15: Type of School wise Distribution of Internet Access at Home

Internet Access at Home

Type of School
Yes No Total

Aided School 5770 (88.5) 748 (11.5) 6518 (100.0)

Government 85038 (87.6) 11990 (12.4) 97028 (100.0)

Private 11105 (91.9) 979 (8.1) 12084 (100.0)

From the above table 4.15, In aided schools, 88.5% of students have internet access at
home, while in government schools, this figure is higher at 87.6%, and in private schools, it is
highest at 91.9%. This indicates that a significant majority of students across all types of
schools have access to the internet from their homes, facilitating online learning, research, and
connectivity. The data underscores the importance of digital access in education, ensuring
students can effectively engage with online resources and educational materials outside of
school hours.

Fig 4.23: Type of School wise Distribution of Internet Access at Home

Page | 66
4.2.2.12: Type of School-wise Distribution of the Email ID
Table 4.16: Type of School-wise Distribution of the Email ID

Distribution of the Email ID

Type of School
Yes No Total

Aided School 5015 (76.9) 1503 (23.1) 6518 (100.0)

Government 72707 (74.9) 24321 (25.1) 97028 (100.0)

Private 8676 (71.8) 3408 (28.2) 12084 (100.0)

From the above table 4.16, In aided schools, 76.9% of students have personal email
IDs, while in government schools, 74.9% have them, and in private schools, 71.8% do. This
indicates a generally high adoption of email IDs across all types of schools, with aided schools
showing the highest percentage. The data suggests that email usage for communication and
educational purposes is prevalent among students across different school types, contributing to
their digital connectivity and communication skills development.

Fig 4.24: Type of School-wise Distribution of the Email ID

Page | 67
4.2.2.13: Type of School-wise Distribution of Digital Devices Used per Day
Table 4.17: Type of School-wise Distribution of Digital Devices Used per Day

Type of 1 hour to 2 2 hours to 30 min to Above 4 Do not use it Less than

School hours 4 hours 1 hour hours every day 30 min
1856
Aided School 1781 (27.3) 1083 (16.6) 433 (6.6) 469 (7.2) 896 (13.7)
(28.5)
25550 12526 12526 18071
Government 5856 (6) 7155 (7.4)
(26.3) (12.9) (28.7) (18.6)
3345
Private 3412 (28.2) 1860 (15.4) 742 (6.1) 928 (7.7) 1797 (14.9)
(27.7)
From the above table 4.17, In aided schools, a significant portion of students allocate
their daily digital device usage as follows: 27.3% spend 1 to 2 hours, 16.6% use devices for 2
to 4 hours, and 28.5% engage for 30 minutes to 1 hour. Government schools show a similar
pattern with 26.3% using devices for 1 to 2 hours, 28.7% for 30 minutes to 1 hour, and 18.6%
for less than 30 minutes daily. Meanwhile, in private schools, 28.2% of students use devices
for 1 to 2 hours daily, 27.7% for 30 minutes to 1 hour, and 15.4% for 2 to 4 hours.

Fig 4.25: Type of School wise Distribution of Digital Devices Used per Day

Page | 68
4.2.2.14: Type of School wise Distribution of Excessive Screen Time
Table 4.18: Type of School wise Distribution of Excessive Screen Time

1 hour to 2 hours to 30 min to More than Upto 30

Timing
2 hours 4 hours 1 hour 4 hours min
1277 1484 1212 1565
Aided School 980 (15)
(19.6) (22.8) (18.6) (24)
19275 13270 23391 12075 29017
Government
(19.9) (13.7) (24.1) (12.4) (29.9)
2358 2158 2593 2048 2927
Private
(19.5) (17.9) (21.5) (16.9) (24.2)
From the above table 4.18, In aided schools, the distribution of excessive screen time
shows that 24.0% of students spend up to 30 minutes, 22.8% spend 30 minutes to 1 hour, and
19.6% spend 1 to 2 hours on screens. Government schools report that 29.9% of students spend
up to 30 minutes, 24.1% spend 30 minutes to 1 hour, and 19.9% spend 1 to 2 hours on screens.
Private schools indicate that 24.2% of students spend up to 30 minutes, 21.5% spend 30
minutes to 1 hour, and 19.5% spend 1 to 2 hours on screens.

Fig 4.26: Type of School wise Distribution of Excessive Screen Time

Page | 69
4.2.2.15: Type of School wise Distribution of courses related to ICT
Table 4.19: Type of School-wise Distribution of Courses Related to ICT

Distribution of courses related to ICT

Type of School
Yes No Total

Aided School 2666 (40.9) 3852 (59.1) 6518 (100.0)

Government 46707 (48.1) 50321 (51.9) 97028 (100.0)

Private 5669 (46.9) 6415 (53.1) 12084 (100.0)

From the above table 4.19, In aided schools, 40.9% offer courses related to ICT, while
59.1% do not, Government schools show a nearly equal distribution, with 48.1% offering ICT
courses and 51.9% not offering them, Among private schools, 46.9% provide ICT courses,
while 53.1% do not.

Fig 4.27: Type of School wise Distribution of courses related to ICT

4.2.2.16: Locality-wise Distribution of Internet access at home
Table 4.20: Locality-wise Distribution of Internet access at home

Internet Access at Home

Locality
Yes No Total

Rural 31605 (86.7) 4862 (13.3) 36467 (100.0)

Urban 70308 (88.8) 8855 (11.2) 79163 (100.0)

Page | 70
 From Table 4.20, In Rural Areas, 86.7% of respondents have internet access at home,
13.3% do not have internet access at home. And in Urban Areas, 88.8% of respondents have
internet access at home, 11.2% do not have internet access at home. This indicates that a higher
percentage of people in both rural and urban areas have internet access at home, with urban
areas showing a slightly higher access rate compared to rural areas.

Fig 4.28: Locality-wise Distribution of Internet access at home

4.2.2.17: Locality-wise Distribution of Email ID
Table 4.21: Locality-wise Distribution of Email ID

Distribution of the Email ID

Locality
Yes No Total

Rural 26598 (72.9) 9869 (27.1) 36467 (100.0)

Urban 59800 (75.5) 19363 (24.5) 79163 (100.0)

From Table 4.21 in Rural Areas, 72.9% of respondents have a personal email ID, 27.1%
do not have a personal email ID. and Urban Areas, 75.5% of respondents have a personal email
ID, 24.5% do not have a personal email ID. This shows that a higher percentage of people in
urban areas have personal email IDs compared to rural areas, where a significant but slightly
lower percentage also have access to personal email services.

Page | 71
 Fig 4.29: Locality-wise Distribution of Email ID
4.2.2.18: Locality-wise Distribution of Digital Devices Used per day
Table 4.22: Locality-wise Distribution of Digital Devices Used per day

1 hour to 2 hours to 30 min to Above 4 Do not use Less than

Timing
2 hours 4 hours 1 hour hours it every day 30 min
10755 1947
Rural 8758 (24) 3841 (10.5) 3008 (8.2) 8158 (22.4)
(29.5) (5.3)
21985 11628 22316 5084
Urban 5544 (7) 12606 (15.9)
(27.8) (14.7) (28.2) (6.4)
From Table 4.22, the result indicates that
Rural Areas:
• 24.0% of respondents use digital devices for 1 to 2 hours per day.
• 29.5% use devices for 30 minutes to 1 hour per day.
• 22.4% use devices for less than 30 minutes per day.
• Other usage categories include 10.5% for 2 to 4 hours, 8.2% do not use devices every
day, and 5.3% use devices for more than 4 hours daily.
Urban Areas:
• 27.8% of respondents use digital devices for 1 to 2 hours per day.
• 28.2% use devices for 30 minutes to 1 hour per day.
• 15.9% use devices for less than 30 minutes per day.
• Other usage categories include 14.7% for 2 to 4 hours, 7.0% do not use devices every
day, and 6.4% use devices for more than 4 hours daily.

Page | 72
 Fig 4.30: Locality-wise Distribution of Digital Devices Used per day
4.2.2.19: Locality-wise Distribution of Excessive Screen Time
Table 4.23: Locality-wise Distribution of Excessive screen time

1 hour to 2 hours to 30 min to More than Upto 30

Timing
2 hours 4 hours 1 hour 4 hours min
6800 3759 9506 13061
Rural 3341 (9.2)
(18.6) (10.3) (26.1) (35.8)
16110 17962 11994 20448
Urban 12649 (16)
(20.4) (22.7) (15.2) (25.8)
From table 4.23 the result indicates, In rural areas, the majority of respondents spend
up to 30 minutes (35.8%) and between 30 minutes to 1 hour (26.1%) on excessive screen time,
followed by 1 to 2 hours (18.6%). Fewer respondents spend more than 4 hours (9.2%) or
between 2 to 4 hours (10.3%) on excessive screen time. In urban areas, a similar trend is
observed with the majority spending up to 30 minutes (25.8%) and between 30 minutes to 1
hour (22.7%) on excessive screen time. A significant portion also spends 1 to 2 hours (20.4%),
while fewer spend more than 4 hours (15.2%) or between 2 to 4 hours (16.0%).

Page | 73
 Fig 4.31: Locality-wise Distribution of Excessive screen time
4.2.2.20: Locality-wise Distribution of courses related to ICT
Table 4.24: Locality-wise Distribution of courses related to ICT

Distribution of Courses related to ICT

Locality
Yes No Total

Rural 19216 (52.7) 17251 (47.3) 36467 (100.0)

Urban 35826 (45.3) 43337 (54.7) 79163 (100.0)

From the above table 4.24, the result indicates that,

• In rural areas, 52.7% of respondents indicated access to courses related to ICT, while
47.3% did not.
• In urban areas, a lower percentage (45.3%) reported access to ICT courses compared to
rural areas, where 54.7% did not.
This suggests that while there is a significant uptake of ICT courses in both rural and urban
areas, rural areas show slightly higher engagement in ICT education compared to urban areas

Page | 74
 Fig 4.32: Locality-wise Distribution of courses related to ICT
4.2.2.21: State-wise Distribution of Internet access at home
Table 4.25: State-wise Distribution of Internet access at home
Internet Response Response
States
access at home (Number ) (Percentage)
No 16 9.2
Andaman and Nicobar Islands Yes 157 90.8
Total 173 100.0
No 274 18.8
Andhra Pradesh Yes 1187 81.2
Total 1461 100.0
No 21 8.7
Arunachal Pradesh Yes 220 91.3
Total 241 100.0
No 183 8.1
Assam Yes 2075 91.9
Total 2258 100.0
No 189 13.1
Bihar Yes 1256 86.9
Total 1445 100.0
No 403 10.2
Chandigarh
Yes 3565 89.8

Page | 75
 Total 3968 100.0
No 129 9.0
Chhattisgarh Yes 1299 91.0
Total 1428 100.0
No 10 29.4
Dadra and Nagar Haveli and
Yes 24 70.6
Daman and Diu
Total 34 100.0
No 6064 14.0
Delhi Yes 37144 86.0
Total 43208 100.0
No 391 11.3
Goa Yes 3058 88.7
Total 3449 100.0
No 7 20.6
Gujarat Yes 27 79.4
Total 34 100.0
No 242 14.1
Haryana Yes 1478 85.9
Total 1720 100.0
No 391 11.1
Himachal Pradesh Yes 3127 88.9
Total 3518 100.0
No 223 15.4
Jammu & Kashmir Yes 1225 84.6
Total 1448 100.0
No 278 10.5
Jharkhand Yes 2361 89.5
Total 2639 100.0
No 148 12.0
Karnataka Yes 1090 88.0
Total 1238 100.0
No 301 9.3
Kerala Yes 2946 90.7
Total 3247 100.0
No 3 25.0
Ladakh Yes 9 75.0
Total 12 100.0

Page | 76
Lakshadweep No 6 100.0
No 322 11.3
Madhya Pradesh Yes 2533 88.7
Total 2855 100.0
No 337 9.0
Maharashtra Yes 3412 91.0
Total 3749 100.0
No 17 10.4
Manipur Yes 147 89.6
Total 164 100.0
No 14 14.6
Meghalaya Yes 82 85.4
Total 96 100.0
No 274 5.1
Mizoram Yes 5076 94.9
Total 5350 100.0
No 187 9.5
Nagaland Yes 1780 90.5
Total 1967 100.0
No 147 7.0
Odisha Yes 1967 93.0
Total 2114 100.0
No 2 28.6
Puducherry Yes 5 71.4
Total 7 100.0
No 1694 12.4
Punjab Yes 11931 87.6
Total 13625 100.0
No 103 9.8
Rajasthan Yes 947 90.2
Total 1050 100.0
No 1 5.0
Sikkim Yes 19 95.0
Total 20 100.0
No 115 14.1
Tamil Nadu Yes 700 85.9
Total 815 100.0

Page | 77
 No 225 12.7
Telangana Yes 1545 87.3
Total 1770 100.0
No 8 7.0
Tripura Yes 106 93.0
Total 114 100.0
No 472 10.3
Uttar Pradesh Yes 4108 89.7
Total 4580 100.0
No 229 10.7
Uttarakhand Yes 1902 89.3
Total 2131 100.0
No 297 8.0
West Bengal Yes 3399 92.0
Total 3696 100.0
From the above table 4.25, Mizoram has the highest percentage of households with
internet access at home at 94.9%. States like Delhi (86.0%) and Kerala (90.7%) also show a
high prevalence of internet access.
Conversely, states such as Andaman and Nicobar Islands (90.8%) and Arunachal
Pradesh (91.3%) also have significant percentages but lower than the national average.

Fig 4.33: State-wise Distribution of Internet access at home

Page | 78
4.2.2.22: State-wise Distribution of Availability of personal email ID
Table 4.26: State-wise Distribution of Availability of personal email ID
Response Response
States E-Mail ID
(Number) (Percentage)
No 50 28.9
Andaman and Nicobar
Yes 123 71.1
Islands
Total 173 100.0
No 476 32.6
Andhra Pradesh Yes 985 67.4
Total 1461 100.0
No 43 17.8
Arunachal Pradesh Yes 198 82.2
Total 241 100.0
No 482 21.3
Assam Yes 1776 78.7
Total 2258 100.0
No 237 16.4
Bihar Yes 1208 83.6
Total 1445 100.0
No 999 25.2
Chandigarh Yes 2969 74.8
Total 3968 100.0
No 274 19.2
Chhattisgarh Yes 1154 80.8
Total 1428 100.0
No 11 32.4
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
Yes 23 67.6
and Daman and Diu
Total 34 100.0
No 11286 26.1
Delhi Yes 31922 73.9
Total 43208 100.0
No 665 19.3
Goa Yes 2784 80.7
Total 3449 100.0
No 5 14.7
Gujarat Yes 29 85.3
Total 34 100.0
No 516 30.0
Haryana Yes 1204 70.0
Total 1720 100.0
No 1088 30.9
Himachal Pradesh
Yes 2430 69.1

Page | 79
 Total 3518 100.0
No 367 25.3
Jammu & Kashmir Yes 1081 74.7
Total 1448 100.0
No 551 20.9
Jharkhand Yes 2088 79.1
Total 2639 100.0
No 283 22.9
Karnataka Yes 955 77.1
Total 1238 100.0
No 382 11.8
Kerala Yes 2865 88.2
Total 3247 100.0
No 2 16.7
Ladakh Yes 10 83.3
Total 12 100.0
No 1 16.7
Lakshadweep Yes 5 83.3
Total 6 100.0
No 516 18.1
Madhya Pradesh Yes 2339 81.9
Total 2855 100.0
No 873 23.3
Maharashtra Yes 2876 76.7
Total 3749 100.0
No 53 32.3
Manipur Yes 111 67.7
Total 164 100.0
No 25 26.0
Meghalaya Yes 71 74.0
Total 96 100.0
No 1686 31.5
Mizoram Yes 3664 68.5
Total 5350 100.0
No 738 37.5
Nagaland Yes 1229 62.5
Total 1967 100.0
No 343 16.2
Odisha Yes 1771 83.8
Total 2114 100.0
No 4 57.1
Puducherry Yes 3 42.9
Total 7 100.0

Page | 80
 No 4019 29.5
Punjab Yes 9606 70.5
Total 13625 100.0
No 277 26.4
Rajasthan Yes 773 73.6
Total 1050 100.0
No 2 10.0
Sikkim Yes 18 90.0
Total 20 100.0
No 178 21.8
Tamil Nadu Yes 637 78.2
Total 815 100.0
No 502 28.4
Telangana Yes 1268 71.6
Total 1770 100.0
Tripura No 18 15.8
Yes 96 84.2
Total 114 100.0
Uttar Pradesh No 1152 25.2
Yes 3428 74.8
Total 4580 100.0
Uttarakhand No 519 24.4
Yes 1612 75.6
Total 2131 100.0
West Bengal No 609 16.5
Yes 3087 83.5
Total 3696 100.0
From the above table 4.27, Mizoram has the highest percentage of students with
personal email IDs at 68.5%. States like Delhi (73.9%) and Kerala (88.2%) also show a high
prevalence of students with personal email IDs. On the other hand, states with relatively lower
percentages include Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu (67.6%), Gujarat (85.3%),
and Sikkim (90.0%). Conversely, states such as Uttar Pradesh (74.8%) and West Bengal
(83.5%) also have significant percentages, though lower than the national average.

Page | 81
 Fig 4.34: State-wise Distribution of Availability of personal email ID
4.2.2.23: State-wise Distribution of usage of digital devices per day
Table 4.27: State-wise Distribution of usage of digital devices per day
Usage of Digital Response Response
States
devices per day (Number) (Percentage)
Andaman and Nicobar 1 hour to 2 hours 49 28.3
Islands 2 hours to 4 hours 15 8.7
30 min to 1 hour 46 26.6
Above 4 hours 5 2.9
Do not use it everyday 7 4.0
Less than 30 min 51 29.5
Total 173 100.0
Andhra Pradesh 1 hour to 2 hours 330 22.6
2 hours to 4 hours 186 12.7
30 min to 1 hour 474 32.4
Above 4 hours 51 3.5
Do not use it everyday 117 8.0
Less than 30 min 303 20.7
Total 1461 100.0
Arunachal Pradesh 1 hour to 2 hours 74 30.7
2 hours to 4 hours 44 18.3
30 min to 1 hour 52 21.6
Above 4 hours 27 11.2
Do not use it everyday 12 5.0
Less than 30 min 32 13.3

Page | 82
 Total 241 100.0
Assam 1 hour to 2 hours 641 28.4
2 hours to 4 hours 378 16.7
30 min to 1 hour 599 26.5
Above 4 hours 189 8.4
Do not use it everyday 158 7.0
Less than 30 min 293 13.0
Total 2258 100.0
Bihar 1 hour to 2 hours 360 24.9
2 hours to 4 hours 226 15.6
30 min to 1 hour 335 23.2
Above 4 hours 149 10.3
Do not use it everyday 105 7.3
Less than 30 min 270 18.7
Total 1445 100.0
Chandigarh 1 hour to 2 hours 1039 26.2
2 hours to 4 hours 533 13.4
30 min to 1 hour 1140 28.7
Above 4 hours 198 5.0
Do not use it everyday 294 7.4
Less than 30 min 764 19.3
Total 3968 100.0
Chhattisgarh 1 hour to 2 hours 465 32.6
2 hours to 4 hours 232 16.2
30 min to 1 hour 366 25.6
Above 4 hours 118 8.3
Do not use it everyday 60 4.2
Less than 30 min 187 13.1
Total 1428 100.0
Dadra and Nagar 2 hours to 4 hours 4 11.8
Haveli and Daman and 30 min to 1 hour 9 26.5
Diu Above 4 hours 3 8.8
Do not use it everyday 4 11.8
Less than 30 min 14 41.2
Total 34 100.0
Delhi 1 hour to 2 hours 11514 26.6
2 hours to 4 hours 5356 12.4
30 min to 1 hour 12347 28.6
Above 4 hours 2575 6.0
Do not use it everyday 3247 7.5
Less than 30 min 8169 18.9
Total 43208 100.0
Goa 1 hour to 2 hours 1002 29.1

Page | 83
 2 hours to 4 hours 614 17.8
30 min to 1 hour 951 27.6
Above 4 hours 280 8.1
Do not use it everyday 186 5.4
Less than 30 min 416 12.1
Total 3449 100.0
Gujarat 1 hour to 2 hours 12 35.3
2 hours to 4 hours 4 11.8
30 min to 1 hour 7 20.6
Do not use it everyday 1 2.9
Less than 30 min 10 29.4
Total 34 100.0
Haryana 1 hour to 2 hours 403 23.4
2 hours to 4 hours 205 11.9
30 min to 1 hour 514 29.9
Above 4 hours 88 5.1
Do not use it everyday 172 10.0
Less than 30 min 338 19.7
Total 1720 100.0
Himachal Pradesh 1 hour to 2 hours 757 21.5
2 hours to 4 hours 303 8.6
30 min to 1 hour 1159 32.9
Above 4 hours 122 3.5
Do not use it everyday 311 8.8
Less than 30 min 866 24.6
Total 3518 100.0
Jammu & Kashmir 1 hour to 2 hours 379 26.2
2 hours to 4 hours 157 10.8
30 min to 1 hour 406 28.0
Above 4 hours 79 5.5
Do not use it everyday 117 8.1
Less than 30 min 310 21.4
Total 1448 100.0
Jharkhand 1 hour to 2 hours 730 27.7
2 hours to 4 hours 345 13.1
30 min to 1 hour 759 28.8
Above 4 hours 170 6.4
Do not use it everyday 179 6.8
Less than 30 min 456 17.3
Total 2639 100.0
Karnataka 1 hour to 2 hours 339 27.4
2 hours to 4 hours 202 16.3
30 min to 1 hour 354 28.6

Page | 84
 Above 4 hours 67 5.4
Do not use it everyday 85 6.9
Less than 30 min 191 15.4
Total 1238 100.0
Kerala 1 hour to 2 hours 986 30.4
2 hours to 4 hours 587 18.1
30 min to 1 hour 926 28.5
Above 4 hours 195 6.0
Do not use it everyday 204 6.3
Less than 30 min 349 10.7
Total 3247 100.0
Ladakh 1 hour to 2 hours 2 16.7
30 min to 1 hour 6 50.0
Do not use it everyday 1 8.3
Less than 30 min 3 25.0
Total 12 100.0
Lakshadweep 1 hour to 2 hours 2 33.3
30 min to 1 hour 1 16.7
Do not use it everyday 1 16.7
Less than 30 min 2 33.3
Total 6 100.0
Madhya Pradesh 1 hour to 2 hours 729 25.5
2 hours to 4 hours 390 13.7
30 min to 1 hour 888 31.1
Above 4 hours 185 6.5
Do not use it everyday 170 6.0
Less than 30 min 493 17.3
Total 2855 100.0
Maharashtra 1 hour to 2 hours 1098 29.3
2 hours to 4 hours 631 16.8
30 min to 1 hour 1044 27.8
Above 4 hours 230 6.1
Do not use it everyday 196 5.2
Less than 30 min 550 14.7
Total 3749 100.0
Manipur 1 hour to 2 hours 40 24.4
2 hours to 4 hours 30 18.3
30 min to 1 hour 42 25.6
Above 4 hours 20 12.2
Do not use it everyday 20 12.2
Less than 30 min 12 7.3
Total 164 100.0
Meghalaya 1 hour to 2 hours 28 29.2

Page | 85
 2 hours to 4 hours 14 14.6
30 min to 1 hour 29 30.2
Above 4 hours 5 5.2
Do not use it everyday 9 9.4
Less than 30 min 11 11.5
Total 96 100.0
Mizoram 1 hour to 2 hours 1632 30.5
2 hours to 4 hours 1142 21.3
30 min to 1 hour 1203 22.5
Above 4 hours 486 9.1
Do not use it everyday 379 7.1
Less than 30 min 508 9.5
Total 5350 100.0
Nagaland 1 hour to 2 hours 482 24.5
2 hours to 4 hours 329 16.7
30 min to 1 hour 476 24.2
Above 4 hours 99 5.0
Do not use it everyday 332 16.9
Less than 30 min 249 12.7
Total 1967 100.0
Odisha 1 hour to 2 hours 647 30.6
2 hours to 4 hours 478 22.6
30 min to 1 hour 517 24.5
Above 4 hours 209 9.9
Do not use it everyday 97 4.6
Less than 30 min 166 7.9
Total 2114 100.0
Puducherry 1 hour to 2 hours 1 14.3
30 min to 1 hour 1 14.3
Do not use it everyday 3 42.9
Less than 30 min 2 28.6
Total 7 100.0
Punjab 1 hour to 2 hours 2983 21.9
2 hours to 4 hours 1068 7.8
30 min to 1 hour 4260 31.3
Above 4 hours 547 4.0
Do not use it everyday 1060 7.8
Less than 30 min 3707 27.2
Total 13625 100.0
Rajasthan 1 hour to 2 hours 248 23.6
2 hours to 4 hours 131 12.5
30 min to 1 hour 344 32.8
Above 4 hours 53 5.0

Page | 86
 Do not use it everyday 90 8.6
Less than 30 min 184 17.5
Total 1050 100.0
Sikkim 1 hour to 2 hours 5 25.0
2 hours to 4 hours 5 25.0
30 min to 1 hour 3 15.0
Above 4 hours 1 5.0
Do not use it everyday 1 5.0
Less than 30 min 5 25.0
Total 20 100.0
Tamil Nadu 1 hour to 2 hours 207 25.4
2 hours to 4 hours 124 15.2
30 min to 1 hour 246 30.2
Above 4 hours 47 5.8
Do not use it everyday 62 7.6
Less than 30 min 129 15.8
Total 815 100.0
Telangana 1 hour to 2 hours 518 29.3
2 hours to 4 hours 203 11.5
30 min to 1 hour 580 32.8
Above 4 hours 98 5.5
Do not use it everyday 91 5.1
Less than 30 min 280 15.8
Total 1770 100.0
Tripura 1 hour to 2 hours 32 28.1
2 hours to 4 hours 25 21.9
30 min to 1 hour 24 21.1
Above 4 hours 16 14.0
Do not use it everyday 11 9.6
Less than 30 min 6 5.3
Total 114 100.0
Uttar Pradesh 1 hour to 2 hours 1316 28.7
2 hours to 4 hours 619 13.5
30 min to 1 hour 1298 28.3
Above 4 hours 330 7.2
Do not use it everyday 338 7.4
Less than 30 min 679 14.8
Total 4580 100.0
Uttarakhand 1 hour to 2 hours 546 25.6
2 hours to 4 hours 231 10.8
30 min to 1 hour 644 30.2
Above 4 hours 95 4.5
Do not use it everyday 210 9.9

Page | 87
 Less than 30 min 405 19.0
Total 2131 100.0
West Bengal 1 hour to 2 hours 1147 31.0
2 hours to 4 hours 658 17.8
30 min to 1 hour 1021 27.6
Above 4 hours 294 8.0
Do not use it everyday 222 6.0
Less than 30 min 354 9.6
Total 3696 100.0
From the above table 4.27, the Majority of students (29.5%) from Andaman and
Nicobar Islands use digital devices for less than 30 minutes daily. It was found that the majority
of students (32.4%) from Andhra Pradesh use digital devices for 30 minutes to 1 hour daily,
and the majority of students (30.7%) from Arunachal Pradesh use digital devices for 1 hour to
2 hours daily. Across different states, usage patterns vary, with the highest percentages seen in
shorter durations like 30 minutes to 1 hour and 1 hour to 2 hours daily, while fewer students
use digital devices for more than 4 hours or do not use them every day.
4.2.2.24: State-wise Distribution of consideration of hours as excessive screen time
Table 4.28: State-wise Distribution of consideration of hours as excessive screen time
Excessive Screen Response Response
States
Time (Number) (Percentage)
Andaman and 1 hour to 2 hours 40 23.1
Nicobar Islands 2 hours to 4 hours 19 11.0
30 min to 1 hour 33 19.1
More than 4 hours 18 10.4
Upto 30 min 63 36.4
Total 173 100.0
Andhra Pradesh 1 hour to 2 hours 243 16.6
2 hours to 4 hours 183 12.5
30 min to 1 hour 364 24.9
More than 4 hours 149 10.2
Upto 30 min 522 35.7
Total 1461 100.0
Arunachal Pradesh 1 hour to 2 hours 51 21.2
2 hours to 4 hours 31 12.9
30 min to 1 hour 60 24.9
More than 4 hours 44 18.3
Upto 30 min 55 22.8
Total 241 100.0
Assam 1 hour to 2 hours 415 18.4
2 hours to 4 hours 425 18.8
30 min to 1 hour 419 18.6
More than 4 hours 432 19.1

Page | 88
 Upto 30 min 567 25.1
Total 2258 100.0
Bihar 1 hour to 2 hours 289 20.0
2 hours to 4 hours 214 14.8
30 min to 1 hour 299 20.7
More than 4 hours 210 14.5
Upto 30 min 433 30.0
Total 1445 100.0
Chandigarh 1 hour to 2 hours 699 17.6
2 hours to 4 hours 686 17.3
30 min to 1 hour 800 20.2
More than 4 hours 699 17.6
Upto 30 min 1084 27.3
Total 3968 100.0
Chhattisgarh 1 hour to 2 hours 328 23.0
2 hours to 4 hours 251 17.6
30 min to 1 hour 303 21.2
More than 4 hours 225 15.8
Upto 30 min 321 22.5
Total 1428 100.0
Dadra and Nagar 1 hour to 2 hours 1 2.9
Haveli and Daman 2 hours to 4 hours 5 14.7
and Diu 30 min to 1 hour 4 11.8
More than 4 hours 4 11.8
Upto 30 min 20 58.8
Total 34 100.0
Delhi 1 hour to 2 hours 8657 20.0
2 hours to 4 hours 5682 13.2
30 min to 1 hour 10673 24.7
More than 4 hours 5236 12.1
Upto 30 min 12960 30.0
Total 43208 100.0
Goa 1 hour to 2 hours 641 18.6
2 hours to 4 hours 565 16.4
30 min to 1 hour 755 21.9
More than 4 hours 700 20.3
Upto 30 min 788 22.8
Total 3449 100.0
Gujarat 1 hour to 2 hours 4 11.8
2 hours to 4 hours 8 23.5
30 min to 1 hour 10 29.4
More than 4 hours 4 11.8
Upto 30 min 8 23.5

Page | 89
 Total 34 100.0
Haryana 1 hour to 2 hours 348 20.2
2 hours to 4 hours 203 11.8
30 min to 1 hour 416 24.2
More than 4 hours 212 12.3
Upto 30 min 541 31.5
Total 1720 100.0
Himachal Pradesh 1 hour to 2 hours 639 18.2
2 hours to 4 hours 364 10.3
30 min to 1 hour 894 25.4
More than 4 hours 301 8.6
Upto 30 min 1320 37.5
Total 3518 100.0
Jammu & Kashmir 1 hour to 2 hours 289 20.0
2 hours to 4 hours 176 12.2
30 min to 1 hour 366 25.3
More than 4 hours 149 10.3
Upto 30 min 468 32.3
Total 1448 100.0
Jharkhand 1 hour to 2 hours 535 20.3
2 hours to 4 hours 363 13.8
30 min to 1 hour 670 25.4
More than 4 hours 303 11.5
Upto 30 min 768 29.1
Total 2639 100.0
Karnataka 1 hour to 2 hours 257 20.8
2 hours to 4 hours 193 15.6
30 min to 1 hour 244 19.7
More than 4 hours 227 18.3
Upto 30 min 317 25.6
Total 1238 100.0
Kerala 1 hour to 2 hours 667 20.5
2 hours to 4 hours 684 21.1
30 min to 1 hour 657 20.2
More than 4 hours 736 22.7
Upto 30 min 503 15.5
Total 3247 100.0
Ladakh 1 hour to 2 hours 1 8.3
30 min to 1 hour 5 41.7
More than 4 hours 1 8.3
Upto 30 min 5 41.7
Total 12 100.0
Lakshadweep 1 hour to 2 hours 1 16.7

Page | 90
 30 min to 1 hour 1 16.7
Upto 30 min 4 66.7
Total 6 100.0
Madhya Pradesh 1 hour to 2 hours 601 21.1
2 hours to 4 hours 404 14.2
30 min to 1 hour 712 24.9
More than 4 hours 342 12.0
Upto 30 min 796 27.9
Total 2855 100.0
Maharashtra 1 hour to 2 hours 824 22.0
2 hours to 4 hours 716 19.1
30 min to 1 hour 732 19.5
More than 4 hours 616 16.4
Upto 30 min 861 23.0
Total 3749 100.0
Manipur 1 hour to 2 hours 27 16.5
2 hours to 4 hours 23 14.0
30 min to 1 hour 41 25.0
More than 4 hours 39 23.8
Upto 30 min 34 20.7
Total 164 100.0
Meghalaya 1 hour to 2 hours 20 20.8
2 hours to 4 hours 17 17.7
30 min to 1 hour 33 34.4
More than 4 hours 12 12.5
Upto 30 min 14 14.6
Total 96 100.0
Mizoram 1 hour to 2 hours 1209 22.6
2 hours to 4 hours 870 16.3
30 min to 1 hour 1312 24.5
More than 4 hours 943 17.6
Upto 30 min 1016 19.0
Total 5350 100.0
Nagaland 1 hour to 2 hours 375 19.1
2 hours to 4 hours 269 13.7
30 min to 1 hour 498 25.3
More than 4 hours 277 14.1
Upto 30 min 548 27.9
Total 1967 100.0
Odisha 1 hour to 2 hours 460 21.8
2 hours to 4 hours 493 23.3
30 min to 1 hour 337 15.9
More than 4 hours 449 21.2

Page | 91
 Upto 30 min 375 17.7
Total 2114 100.0
Puducherry 2 hours to 4 hours 1 14.3
30 min to 1 hour 1 14.3
Upto 30 min 5 71.4
Total 7 100.0
Punjab 1 hour to 2 hours 2357 17.3
2 hours to 4 hours 1195 8.8
30 min to 1 hour 3627 26.6
More than 4 hours 890 6.5
Upto 30 min 5556 40.8
Total 13625 100.0
Rajasthan 1 hour to 2 hours 220 21.0
2 hours to 4 hours 155 14.8
30 min to 1 hour 273 26.0
More than 4 hours 128 12.2
Upto 30 min 274 26.1
Total 1050 100.0
Sikkim 1 hour to 2 hours 3 15.0
2 hours to 4 hours 3 15.0
30 min to 1 hour 5 25.0
More than 4 hours 4 20.0
Upto 30 min 5 25.0
Total 20 100.0
Tamil Nadu 1 hour to 2 hours 167 20.5
2 hours to 4 hours 141 17.3
30 min to 1 hour 174 21.3
More than 4 hours 124 15.2
Upto 30 min 209 25.6
Total 815 100.0
Telangana 1 hour to 2 hours 364 20.6
2 hours to 4 hours 309 17.5
30 min to 1 hour 405 22.9
More than 4 hours 222 12.5
Upto 30 min 470 26.6
Total 1770 100.0
Tripura 1 hour to 2 hours 27 23.7
2 hours to 4 hours 14 12.3
30 min to 1 hour 19 16.7
More than 4 hours 34 29.8
Upto 30 min 20 17.5
Total 114 100.0
Uttar Pradesh 1 hour to 2 hours 969 21.2

Page | 92
 2 hours to 4 hours 688 15.0
30 min to 1 hour 1113 24.3
More than 4 hours 562 12.3
Upto 30 min 1248 27.2
Total 4580 100.0
Uttarakhand 1 hour to 2 hours 402 18.9
2 hours to 4 hours 277 13.0
30 min to 1 hour 563 26.4
More than 4 hours 254 11.9
Upto 30 min 635 29.8
Total 2131 100.0
West Bengal 1 hour to 2 hours 780 21.1
2 hours to 4 hours 781 21.1
30 min to 1 hour 650 17.6
More than 4 hours 789 21.3
Upto 30 min 696 18.8
Total 3696 100.0

From the above table 4.28, the Majority of students from Arunachal Pradesh (21.2%)
and Gujarat (11.8%) consider 1 hour to 2 hours as excessive screen time. States like Odisha
(23.3%) and Kerala (21.1%) have the majority considering 2 hours to 4 hours as excessive
screen time. In Mizoram (24.5%) and Haryana (24.2%), the majority of students consider 30
minutes to 1 hour as excessive screen time. Only a small number of states indicated any
significant proportion of students who do not use digital devices every day. Majority of students
from most states, including Andaman and Nicobar Islands (36.4%), Andhra Pradesh (35.7%),
and Delhi (30.0%), consider up to 30 minutes as excessive screen time. In contrast, in states
like Kerala (22.7%) and West Bengal (21.3%), the majority of students consider more than 4
hours as excessive screen time. Here are the states where the majority of students indicated not
using digital devices every day:
• Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu: 58.8%
• Puducherry: 71.4%
• Lakshadweep: 66.7%
4.2.2.25: State-wise Distribution of courses related to ICT
Table 4.29: State-wise Distribution of courses related to ICT
Response Response
States ICT
(Number) (Percentage)
Andaman and Nicobar Islands No 68 39.3

Yes 105 60.7

Total 173 100.0

Page | 93
Andhra Pradesh No 816 55.9

Yes 645 44.1

Total 1461 100.0

Arunachal Pradesh No 133 55.2

Yes 108 44.8

Total 241 100.0

Assam No 1429 63.3

Yes 829 36.7

Total 2258 100.0

Bihar No 726 50.2

Yes 719 49.8

Total 1445 100.0

Chandigarh No 1948 49.1

Yes 2020 50.9

Total 3968 100.0

Chhattisgarh No 831 58.2

Yes 597 41.8

Total 1428 100.0

Dadra and Nagar Haveli and No 14 41.2

Daman and Diu
Yes 20 58.8

Total 34 100.0

Delhi No 21368 49.5

Yes 21840 50.5

Total 43208 100.0

Goa No 2111 61.2

Yes 1338 38.8

Total 3449 100.0

Gujarat No 20 58.8

Page | 94
 Yes 14 41.2

Total 34 100.0

Haryana No 916 53.3

Yes 804 46.7

Total 1720 100.0

Himachal Pradesh No 1499 42.6

Yes 2019 57.4

Total 3518 100.0

Jammu & Kashmir No 831 57.4

Yes 617 42.6

Total 1448 100.0

Jharkhand No 1330 50.4

Yes 1309 49.6

Total 2639 100.0

Karnataka No 767 62.0

Yes 471 38.0

Total 1238 100.0

Kerala No 2181 67.2

Yes 1066 32.8

Total 3247 100.0

Ladakh No 4 33.3

Yes 8 66.7

Total 12 100.0

Lakshadweep No 1 16.7

Yes 5 83.3

Total 6 100.0

Madhya Pradesh No 1622 56.8

Yes 1233 43.2

Page | 95
 Total 2855 100.0

Maharashtra No 2357 62.9

Yes 1392 37.1

Total 3749 100.0

Manipur No 116 70.7

Yes 48 29.3

Total 164 100.0

Meghalaya No 53 55.2

Yes 43 44.8

Total 96 100.0

Mizoram No 3215 60.1

Yes 2135 39.9

Total 5350 100.0

Nagaland No 1086 55.2

Yes 881 44.8

Total 1967 100.0

Odisha No 1093 51.7

Yes 1021 48.3

Total 2114 100.0

Puducherry No 5 71.4

Yes 2 28.6

Total 7 100.0

Punjab No 5425 39.8

Yes 8200 60.2

Total 13625 100.0

Rajasthan No 590 56.2

Yes 460 43.8

Total 1050 100.0

Page | 96
 Sikkim No 11 55.0

Yes 9 45.0

Total 20 100.0

Tamil Nadu No 584 71.7

Yes 231 28.3

Total 815 100.0

Telangana No 1086 61.4

Yes 684 38.6

Total 1770 100.0

Tripura No 72 63.2

Yes 42 36.8

Total 114 100.0

Uttar Pradesh No 2590 56.6

Yes 1990 43.4

Total 4580 100.0

Uttarakhand No 1156 54.2

Yes 975 45.8

Total 2131 100.0

West Bengal No 2534 68.6

Yes 1162 31.4

Total 3696 100.0

From the above table 4.29 ,the majority of students (60.7%) from Andaman and
Nicobar Islands use ICT. In Delhi, 50.5% of students use ICT. In Punjab, 60.2% of students
use ICT. The majority of students (57.4%) from Himachal Pradesh use ICT. In Ladakh, 66.7%
of students use ICT. The majority of students (83.3%) from Lakshadweep use ICT.
4.2.3 Analysis of Data with Regard to Awareness About Cyber Safety and Security
This section outlines the data analysis of the CSSA scale with regard to the selected sub groups.
For the analysis of data, several hypotheses were proposed and the data was analyzed to answer
each proposed hypothesis. The results of data analysis have been presented in the following
sections under different headings. Mainly the overall score of CSSA scale was used for data

Page | 97
analysis and wherever possible, the various dimensions of CSSA scale was also taken into
consideration to get a better insight into the nature of understanding about CSSA among
secondary students.
4.2.3.1 Analysis of overall score of CSSA with regard to exposure to ICT
In this section, the significant difference of overall score of CSSA against various sub-groups
of students with regard to their exposure to various aspects of ICT/ digital devices was studied.
For the analysis of data, the following hypotheses were proposed:
There is no significant difference in the mean score of cyber safety and security
awareness of secondary students with respect to their/the
1. Access to internet at home
2. Possession of personal email ID
3. Participation in ICT courses
4. Availability of digital devices at home
5. Availability of own digital devices
6. Possession of personal social media account
7. Duration of use of devices per day
8. Perception about excessive screen time
Each hypothesis were taken separately and the analysis was performed and is given in
the following sections:
4.2.3.1.1 Analysis of overall score of CSSA with regard access to internet at home
To study the effect of internet access at home on the overall CSSA of secondary students,
a null hypothesis “There is no significant difference in the mean score of cyber safety and
security awareness of secondary students with respect to their access to internet at home” has
been proposed. t test was performed to analyze the data and the results are given in the
following table:
Table 4.30: Cyber Safety and Security Awareness (CSSA) with respect to access to internet
at home

Internet at Std. Sig. (2-

N Mean t
home Deviation tailed)

Total Awareness No 13717 182.36 29.31 -

.000
Score Yes 101914 193.47 31.46 39.14

From Table 4.30 it is evident that the obtained t value -39.14 is significant at 0.01 level
(p<0.01). This means that there is a significant difference in the mean scores of awareness
about cyber safety and security among students who have and who haven’t have access to the
internet at home and hence the null hypothesis, that is, There is no significant difference in the
mean score of cyber safety and security awareness of secondary students with respect to Their
access to internet at home is not accepted and the alternate hypothesis is upheld. Further, from
the mean scores, it is evident that those students with internet access at home have a higher

Page | 98
mean score (193.47) compared to those without it (182.36). Students with internet access at
home tend to have a higher average awareness score compared to those without internet access.
4.2.3.1.2 Analysis of overall score of CSSA with regard to having personal email ID
To study the effect of having personal email ID on the overall CSSA of secondary students, a
null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the mean score of cyber safety and
security awareness of secondary students with respect to their possession of personal email ID
has been proposed. t test was performed to analyze the data and the results are given in the
following table:
Table 4.31: CSSA with respect to availability of personal Email ID

Own Std. Sig. (2-

N Mean t
Email ID Deviation tailed)

Total Awareness No 29232 190.54 30.80 -

.000
Score Yes 86399 192.70 31.60 10.13

From Table 4.31 it is evident that the obtained t value -10.13 is significant at 0.01
level(p<0.01). This means that there is a significant difference in the mean scores of awareness
about cyber safety and security among students who have their email IDs to the ones who didn’t
and hence the null hypothesis, that is, “There is no significant difference in the mean score of
cyber safety and security awareness of secondary students with respect to Their possession of
personal email ID” is not accepted and the alternate hypothesis is upheld. Further, from the
mean scores, it is evident that those students who have their email ID have a slightly higher
mean total awareness score (192.70) as compared to those who do not have their email ID
(190.54).
4.2.3.1.3 Analysis of overall score of CSSA with regard to participation in ICT courses.
To study the effect of participation in ICT courses on the overall CSSA of secondary students,
a null hypothesis, there is no significant difference in the total awareness scores between
students who have participated in ICT courses and those who have not has been proposed. t
test was performed to analyze the data and the results are given in the following table:
Table 4.32: CSSA with respect to ICT Course Participation

ICT Std. Sig. (2-

N Mean t
course Deviation tailed)

Total Awareness No 60588 194.52 30.45

26.97 .000
Score Yes 55043 189.55 32.25

From Table 4.32 it is evident that the obtained t value 26.97 is significant at 0.01
level(p<0.01). This means that there is a significant difference in the mean scores of awareness
about cyber safety and security among students who participated in the ICT course and who
didn't, hence the null hypothesis, that is, there is no significant difference in the total
awareness scores between students who have participated in ICT courses and those who
Page | 99
have not and is not accepted and the alternate hypothesis is upheld. Further, from the mean
scores, it is evident that the students who have not participated in ICT courses have a higher
average total awareness score (194.52) compared to those who have participated (189.55).
4.2.3.1.4 Analysis of overall score of CSSA with regard to Access the Digital Devices at
Home.
To study the effect of access to digital devices at home on the overall CSSA of secondary
students, a null hypothesis, there is no significant difference in the total awareness scores
between individuals who have access to digital devices at home and those who do not has been
proposed. t test was performed to analyze the data and the results are given in the following
table:
Table 4.33: CSSA with respect to Access To Digital Gadgets at Home

Availability of Std. Sig. (2-

N Mean t
devices at home Deviation tailed)

Total No 1198 173.51 26.29

-
Awareness .000
Yes 114433 192.35 31.41 20.68
Score

From Table 4.33 it is evident that the obtained t value -20.68 is significant at 0.01
level(p<0.01). This means that there is a significant difference in the mean scores of awareness
about cyber safety and security among students who have access to digital devices at home and
those who didn’t, hence the null hypothesis, that is, there is no significant difference in the
total awareness scores between individuals who have access to digital devices at home and
those who do not is not accepted and the alternate hypothesis is upheld. Further, from the
mean scores, it is evident that the students who have access to digital devices at home have a
higher average total awareness score (192.35) compared to those who haven’t (173.51).
4.2.3.1.5 Analysis of overall score of CSSA with regard to availability of own digital
devices.
To study the effect of availability of own digital devices on the overall CSSA of secondary
students, a null hypothesis, there is no significant difference in the total awareness scores
between individuals who use their devices and those who do not has been proposed. t test was
performed to analyze the data and the results are given in the following table:
Table 4.34: CSSA with respect to Availability Of Own Digital Gadgets

Using own Std. Sig. (2-

N Mean t
device Deviation tailed)

Total Awareness No 18962 195.88 30.35

17.89 .000
Score Yes 96669 191.42 31.57

From Table 4.34 it is evident that the obtained t value 17.89 is significant at 0.01
level(p<0.01). This means that there is a significant difference in the mean scores of awareness

Page | 100
about cyber safety and security among students who have availability of their device to the
ones who don’t, hence the null hypothesis, that is, there is no significant difference in the
total awareness scores between individuals who use their device and those who do not is
not accepted and the alternate hypothesis is upheld. Further, from the mean scores, it is evident
that the students who don’t have availability of their devices have a higher average total
awareness score (195.88) compared to those who have (191.42).
4.2.3.1.6 Analysis of overall score of CSSA with regard to having a social media account.
To study the effect of having a social media account on the overall CSSA of secondary students,
a null hypothesis, There is no significant difference in the total awareness scores between
individuals who have a social media account and those who do not has been proposed. t test
was performed to analyze the data and the results are given in the following table:
Table 4.35: CSSA with respect to having Social Media Account

Social Media Std. Sig. (2-

N Mean t
Account Deviation tailed)

Total No 36423 194.92 31.89

Awareness 20.34 .000
Score Yes 79208 190.88 31.11

From Table 4.35 it is evident that the obtained t value 20.34 is significant at 0.01
level(p<0.01). This means that there is a significant difference in the mean scores of awareness
about cyber safety and security among students who have their social media accounts to the
ones who don’t, hence the null hypothesis, that is, there is no significant difference in the
total awareness scores between individuals who have a social media account and those
who do not is not accepted and the alternate hypothesis is upheld. Further, from the mean
scores, it is evident that the students who don’t have availability of their social media account
have a higher average total awareness score (194.92) compared to those who have (190.88).
4.2.3.1.7 Analysis of overall score of CSSA with regard to duration of use of digital
devices.
Table 4.36 CSSA with respect to duration of use of digital devices

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 5240428.62 5 1048085.72

Within Groups 108911048.71 115625 941.93 1112.69 .000

Total 114151477.33 115630

The obtained F value is 1112.69, which is significant at 0.01 level (p<0.01). This means
that there exists a significant difference in Cyber Security and Safety awareness with regard to
the duration of use of digital devices per day. Hence, the null hypothesis stating that there is no
significant difference in cyber security awareness among students using digital devices for
varying durations in a day has not been accepted and the alternate hypothesis is upheld. In order

Page | 101
to find out differences among groups, Duncan's post-hoc test has been performed and the results
are given in the following table.
POST HOC
Table 4.37 CSSA post hos analysis with respect to duration of use of digital devices
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Duration of use of digital

N 1 2 3 4 5
devices per day

Less than 30 minutes 20764 180.77

Do not use everyday 8552 186.95

30 min to 1 hr. 33071 190.94

1hr to 2hrs 30744 196.46

Above 4hrs 7031 197.17

2hrs to 4hrs 15469 202.07

Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 .055 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 13801.69.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I
error levels are not guaranteed.
From the above table, it is clear that the mean awareness scores of students using digital
devices daily varies across the groups. The obtained mean score of those students using digital
devices for 2-4 hrs. (202.07) was found to be greater among all the groups and the smallest
mean score was observed among students using digital devices for less than 30 minutes
(180.77). Hence it can be concluded that the students are using digital devices for 2-4 hrs. are
having higher levels of awareness about cyber safety and security. The mean scores are plotted
in the mean plot below.

Page | 102
4.2.3.1.8 Analysis of overall score of CSSA with regard to excessive screen time.
Table 4.39 CSSA with respect to Excessive Screen Time

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 10743720.41 4 2685930.10

Within Groups 103407756.92 115626 894.33 3003.28 .000

Total 114151477.33 115630

The obtained F value is 3003.28, which is significant at 0.01 level (p<0.01). This means
that there exists a significant difference in Cyber Security and Safety awareness with regard to
their perception about excessive screen time. Hence, the null hypothesis stating that there is no
significant difference in cyber security awareness among students with respect to Their
perception about excessive screen time has not been accepted and the alternate hypothesis is
upheld. In order to find out differences among groups, Duncan's post-hoc test has been
performed and the results are given in the following table.
POST HOC
Table 4.40 CSSA post hoc analysis with respect to excessive screen time
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Duration of use of digital N 1 2 3 4 5

devices per day

Upto 30 min 33509 181.21

30 min to 1 hr. 27469 187.53

1hr to 2hrs 22910 194.79

2hrs to 4hrs 16408 204.49

More than 4hrs 15335 207.23

Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 21181.715.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I
error levels are not guaranteed.
From the above table, it is clear that the mean awareness scores of students using digital
devices daily varies across the groups. The obtained mean score of those students who perceive
use of digital gadgets for more than 4 hrs (207.23) as excessive screen time was found to be
greater among all the groups and the smallest mean score was observed among students who
perceive use of digital gadgets for up to 30 minutes (181.21) as excessive. Hence it can be
concluded that the students who perceive excessive screen time as more than 4 hrs are having

Page | 103
higher levels of awareness about cyber safety and security. The mean scores are plotted in the
mean plot below.

4.2.3.2 Analysis of overall score of CSSA with regard to demographic variables

In this section, the significant difference of overall score of CSSA against various sub-groups
of demographic factors of students was studied. The data has been analyzed by considering the
overall score of CSSA as well as dimension-wise scores of CSSA. For the analysis of data, the
following two broader hypotheses were proposed:
There is no significant difference in the mean scores of cyber safety and security
awareness of secondary students with respect to
1. Locale of the school
2. Gender of the student
3. Standard in which the students are studying
4. Type of school
There is no significant difference in the mean score of different dimensions of cyber
safety and security awareness of secondary students with respect to
1. Locale of the school
2. Gender of the student
3. Standard in which the students are studying
4. Type of school
4.2.3.2.1 Analysis of effect of locale of the school on overall and dimension wise scores of
CSSA
To study the effect of the locale of the school on the overall CSSA of secondary students, a
null hypothesis “There is no significant difference in the mean score of cyber safety and
security awareness of secondary students with respect to the locale of the school” has been
proposed. Further, to analyze the effect of locale of the school on various dimensions of CSSA,

Page | 104
another hypothesis “There is no significant difference in the mean score of different dimensions
of cyber safety and security awareness of secondary students with respect to locale of the
school” was also proposed. t test was performed to analyze the data and the results are given
in the following table:
Table 4.44 Locality and their dimensions scores

Locale N Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. (2-tailed)

Total Rural 36467 184.12 29.98

-
Awareness .000
Urban 79163 195.85 31.37 59.91
Score

Psychological Rural 36467 36.13 13.81 -

.000
Dimension Urban 79163 40.15 12.63 48.79

Physical Rural 36467 34.57 5.73 -

.000
Dimension Urban 79163 36.45 5.89 50.71

Legal Rural 36467 32.50 4.71 -

.000
Dimension Urban 79163 34.05 5.37 47.06

Socio-Ethical Rural 36467 42.06 6.55 -

.000
Dimension Urban 79163 44.41 7.50 51.25

Technical Rural 36467 38.84 5.48 -

.000
Dimension Urban 79163 40.80 6.52 49.66

There is a significant difference in the mean score of secondary students about their
awareness about cyber safety and security (CSS) with regard to their locale. The difference is
significant across all the dimensions of CSS.
From the above table, it is evident that the obtained t value of 59.91 is significant at
0.05 level. This means that there is a significant difference in the mean scores of awareness
about cyber safety and security among rural and urban students, hence the null hypothesis
“There is no significant difference in the mean score of cyber safety and security awareness of
secondary students with respect to locale of the school”is not accepted and the alternate
hypothesis is upheld. Further, from the mean scores, it is evident that those urban students have
shown significantly better awareness with a mean score of 195.85.
From the above table, it is also evident that the effect of locale on all the dimension
wise mean scores of CSSA was significant at 0.05 level. Hence the second hypothesis “There
is no significant difference in the mean score of different dimensions of cyber safety and
security awareness of secondary students with respect to the locale of the school” was also not
accepted. The mean scores of urban students were found to be higher than that of rural students
across all the dimensions.

Page | 105
4.2.3.2.2 Analysis of effect of gender of the student on overall and dimension wise scores
of CSSA
To study the effect of gender of the student on the overall CSSA of secondary students, a null
hypothesis “There is no significant difference in the mean score of cyber safety and security
awareness of secondary students with respect to gender of the student” has been proposed.
Further, to analyse the effect of gender of the student on various dimensions of CSSA, another
hypothesis “There is no significant difference in the mean score of different dimensions of
cyber safety and security awareness of secondary students with respect to gender of the
student” was also proposed. ANOVA was performed to analyze the data and the results are
given in the following table:
Table 4.45 ANOVA score of effect of Gender on CSSA and its dimensions

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square

Between
674624.85 2 337312.42
Groups
Total Awareness
Within 343.80 .000
Score 113309733.34 115491 981.11
Groups

Total 113984358.19 115493

Between
79056.18 2 39528.09
Groups
Psychological
Within 229.71 .000
Dimension 19873276.91 115491 172.07
Groups

Total 19952333.10 115493

Between
14388.60 2 7194.30
Groups
Physical
Within 206.71 .000
Dimension 4019478.28 115491 34.80
Groups

Total 4033866.88 115493

Between
14452.68 2 7226.34
Groups

Legal Dimension Within 265.63 .000

3141779.47 115491 27.20
Groups

Total 3156232.16 115493

Socio-Ethical Between
47525.96 2 23762.98 449.33 .000
Dimension Groups

Page | 106
 Within
6107739.32 115491 52.88
Groups

Total 6155265.29 115493

Between
6957.13 2 3478.56
Groups
Technical
Within 88.24 .000
Dimension 4552746.05 115491 39.42
Groups

Total 4559703.19 115493

From the above table, it is evident that the obtained F value of 343.80 is significant at
0.01 level. This means that there is a significant difference in the mean score of awareness
about cyber safety and security with respect to gender of the students and hence the null
hypothesis “There is no significant difference in the mean score of cyber safety and security
awareness of secondary students with respect to gender of the student” is not accepted and the
alternate hypothesis is upheld.
Similar trend was observed with regard to the effect of gender on the dimension wise
scores of CSSA across all the dimensions. Across all dimensions, the F value found to be
significant at 0.01 level. Hence the null hypothesis “There is no significant difference in the
mean score of different dimensions of cyber safety and security awareness of secondary
students with respect to gender of the student” is not accepted.
In order to find out the differences among groups, Duncan post-hoc test has been
performed and the results are given in the following table.
Table 4.46 Post hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to gender of the
students
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Gender N 1 2

Transgender 83 176.30

Male 53929 189.65

Female 61482 194.42

Sig. 1.000 .090

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 248.283.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I
error levels are not guaranteed.

The above table shows no significant difference in Total Awareness Scores between
Transgender individuals and Males. There is no significant difference in Total Awareness

Page | 107
Scores between Males and Females, although it is borderline significant. These findings
suggest that while there are differences in mean Total Awareness Scores between the groups,
the only potentially meaningful difference is between Males and Females, where the difference
approaches significance.
From the above table it is clear that the mean awareness scores of students vary across the
groups. The obtained mean score of female students (194.42) was found to be greater among
all the groups and the smallest mean score was observed among transgender students
(176.30). Hence it can be concluded that the female students are having higher levels of
awareness about cyber safety and security. The mean scores (overall and dimension wise)
are plotted in the mean plots below.

Fig 4.38 Mean plot of group difference in CSSA with respect to gender of the students
Table 4.47 Dimension-wise post hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to
gender of the students (psychological dimension)
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Gender N 1 2

Transgender 83 31.46

Male 53929 38.04

Female 61482 39.65

Sig. 1.000 .172

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 248.283.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.

Page | 108
 There is no significant difference in scores for the Psychological Dimension between
Transgender and Males. There is no significant difference in scores for the Psychological
Dimension between Males and Females at the conventional significance level. These findings
suggest that based on the Psychological Dimension, there are no significant differences
between Transgender and Males, nor between Males and Females. The differences observed
in mean scores across genders do not exceed the critical range for statistical significance as
determined by Duncan's test.

Fig 4.39 Mean plot of group difference in psychological dimension of CSSA with respect to
gender of the student.
Table 4.48 Dimension-wise post hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to
gender of the student (physical dimension)
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Gender N 1 2

Transgender 83 33.25

Male 53929 35.50

Female 61482 36.19

Sig. 1.000 .190

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 248.283.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.
There is no significant difference in scores for the Physical Dimension between
Transgender and Males. There is no significant difference in scores for the Physical Dimension

Page | 109
between Males and Females at the conventional significance level. These findings suggest that,
based on the Physical Dimension, there are no significant differences between Transgender and
Males, nor between Males and Females. The observed differences in mean scores across
genders do not exceed the critical range for statistical significance as determined by Duncan's
test.

Fig 4.40 Mean plot of group difference in CSSA with respect to gender of the students
(Physical Dimension)
Table 4.49 Dimension-wise post-hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to
gender of the students (Legal Dimension)
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Gender N 1 2

Transgender 83 31.92

Male 53929 33.19

Female 61482 33.89

Sig. 1.000 .133

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 248.283.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.
There is no significant difference in scores for the Legal Dimension between
Transgender and Males. There is no significant difference in scores for the Legal Dimension
between Males and Females at the conventional significance level. These findings suggest that
based on the Legal Dimension, there are no significant differences between Transgender and
Males, nor between Males and Females. The observed differences in mean scores across

Page | 110
genders do not exceed the critical range for statistical significance as determined by Duncan's
test.

Fig 4.41 Mean plot of group difference in CSSA with respect to gender of the students
(Legal dimension)

Table 4.50 Dimension-wisr post-hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to
gender of the students (Socio-Ethical Dimension)
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Gender N 1 2

Transgender 83 41.19

Male 53929 42.99

Female 61482 44.27

Sig. 1.000 .050

There is no significant difference in scores for the Socio-Ethical Dimension between

Transgender and Males. There is a borderline significant difference in scores for the Socio-
Ethical Dimension between Males and Females, suggesting that Females tend to have slightly
higher scores compared to Males. These findings suggest that based on the Socio-Ethical
Dimension, there are no significant differences between Transgender individuals and Males,
but there is a potential difference between Males and Females. The observed difference
between Males and Females in mean scores is close to the threshold for statistical significance
as determined by Duncan's test.

Page | 111
 Fig 4.42 Mean plot of group difference in CSSA with respect to gender of the students
(Socio-ethical dimension)
Table 4.51 Dimension-wise post-hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to
gender of the students (Technical Dimension)
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Gender N 1 2

Transgender 83 38.48

Male 53929 39.93

Female 61482 40.41

Sig. 1.000 .391

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 248.283.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.
The mean score for the 'Transgender' group is lower compared to both 'Male' and
'Female' groups. However, the significance value (1.000) suggests that this difference is not
statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

Page | 112
 Fig 4.43 Mean plot of group difference in CSSA with respect to gender of the students
(Technical dimension)
To study the effect of gender of the student on the overall CSSA of secondary students,
a null hypothesis “There is no significant difference in the mean score of cyber safety and
security awareness of secondary students with respect to gender of the student” has been
proposed. Further, to analyse the effect of gender of the student on various dimensions of
CSSA, another hypothesis “There is no significant difference in the mean score of different
dimensions of cyber safety and security awareness of secondary students with respect to gender
of the student” was also proposed. ANOVA was performed to analyze the data and the results
are given in the following table:
4.2.3.2.3 Analysis of effect of standard of the students on overall and dimension wise
scores of CSSA
To study the effect of standard of the students on the overall CSSA of secondary students a
null hypothesis, there is no significant difference between the mean scores for cyber safety and
security awareness among students and their standard with their dimensions has been proposed.
further , to analyze the effort of standard of the student on various dimensions of CSSA, another
hypothesis “There is no significant difference in the mean score of different dimensions of
cyber safety and security awareness of secondary students with respect to standard of the
student” was also proposed. ANOVA was performed to analyze the data and the results are
given in the following table:

Page | 113
Table 4.52 Dimension-wise ANOVA Score of group difference in CSSA with respect to
standards of the students

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between
550363.74 3 183454.58
Groups
Total
Awareness Within 186.72 .000
113601105.48 115626 982.48
Score Groups

Total 114151469.22 115629

Between
107801.60 3 35933.87
Groups
Psychological
Within 208.97 .000
Dimension 19882574.14 115626 171.95
Groups

Total 19990375.75 115629

Between
8519.94 3 2839.98
Groups
Physical
Within 81.46 .000
Dimension 4031008.86 115626 34.86
Groups

Total 4039528.80 115629

Between
6164.80 3 2054.93
Groups
Legal
Within 75.35 .000
Dimension 3152999.77 115626 27.26
Groups

Total 3159164.58 115629

Between
17914.024 3 5971.34
Groups
Socio-Ethical
Within 112.37 .000
Dimension 6143881.59 115626 53.13
Groups

Total 6161795.61 115629

Between
13089.489 3 4363.16
Groups
Technical
Within 110.87 .000
Dimension 4550174.13 115626 39.35
Groups

Total 4563263.62 115629

Page | 114
 The obtained F value is 186.72, which is significant at 0.01 level (p<0.01). This means
that there exists a significant difference in cyber security and safety awareness with regard to
the students studying standard-wise. Hence the null hypothesis stating that there is no
significant difference in cyber security awareness among students studying standard has not
been accepted and the alternate hypothesis is upheld. In order to find out differences among
groups, Duncan's post-hoc test has been performed and the results are given in the below table.
Table 4.53 Dimension-wise post-hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to
standard of the students
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Standard N 1 2 3

9th Standard 38308 189.98

11th Standard 5450 190.67

10th Standard 38096 191.70

12th Standard 33776 195.37

Sig. .056 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 15068.936.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I
error levels are not guaranteed.
From the above table, it is clear that the mean awareness score of students studying
standards across the groups. The obtained mean scores of those students studying 12th standard
(195.37) was found to be greater among all the groups and the smallest mean score was
observed among students studying 9th standard (189.98). Hence it can be concluded that the
students studying in the 12th standard are having a higher level of awareness about cyber safety
and security. The mean scores are plotted in the mean plot below.

Fig 4.44 Mean plot of group difference in CSSA with respect to standard of the student

Page | 115
 Table 4.54 Dimension-wise post-hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to
standard of the students (Psychological Dimension)
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Standard N 1 2 3 4

9th Standard 38308 37.83

11th Standard 5450 38.16

10th Standard 38096 38.85

12th Standard 33776 40.24

Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 15068.936.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.
With respect to the psychological awareness score, a significant difference was
observed between 12th standard and 10th standard with all the other groups. Among all the
groups, the mean score of class 12th students were found to have higher than that of other
groups. The results are graphically represented below.

Fig 4.45 Mean plot of group difference in CSSA with respect to standard of the students
(Psychological dimension)

Page | 116
 Table 4.55 Dimension-wise post-hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to
standard of the students (Physical Dimension)
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Standard N 1 2 3

9th Standard 38308 35.58

11th Standard 5450 35.70 35.70

10th Standard 38096 35.80

12th Standard 33776 36.26

Sig. .083 .129 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 15068.936.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.
With respect to the physical awareness score, a significant difference was observed between
12 standard and 10 standard with all the other groups. Among all the groups, the mean score
th th

of class 12 students were found to have higher than that of other groups. The results are
th

graphically represented below.

Fig 4.46 Mean plot of group difference in CSSA with respect to standard of the students
(Physical Dimension)

Page | 117
 Table 4.56 Dimension-wise Post-hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to
standard of the students (Legal Dimension)
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Standard N 1 2

11th Standard 5450 33.37

9th Standard 38308 33.38

10th Standard 38096 33.46

12th Standard 33776 33.92

Sig. .180 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 15068.936.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.
With respect to the legal dimension of the awareness score, a similar significant difference was
observed between the groups. The mean scores of all the groups are closer among each other.
The results are graphically represented below.

Fig 4.47 Mean plot of group difference in CSSA with respect to standard of the students
(legal Dimension)

Page | 118
 Table 4.57 Dimension-wise post-hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to
standard of the students (Socio-Ethical Dimension)
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Standard N 1 2 3

11th Standard 5450 43.32

9th Standard 38308 43.33

10th Standard 38096 43.53

12th Standard 33776 44.27

Sig. .976 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 15068.936.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.
With respect to the socio-ethical awareness score, a significant difference was observed
between the groups. The mean scores of 12th-standard students were found to have higher than
that of other groups. The results are graphically represented below.

Fig 4.48 Mean plot of group difference in CSSA with respect to standard of the students
(Socio Ethical dimension)

Page | 119
 Table 4.58 Dimension-wise post-hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to
standard of the students (Technical Dimension)
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Standard N 1 2 3

9th Standard 38308 39.86

10th Standard 38096 40.06

11th Standard 5450 40.11

12th Standard 33776 40.69

Sig. 1.000 .557 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 15068.936.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.

With respect to the technical dimension of the awareness score, a significant difference
was observed between the groups. The mean scores of 12th-standard students were found to
have higher than that of other groups. The results are graphically represented below.

Fig 4.49 Mean plot of group difference in CSSA with respect to standard of the students
(Technical dimension)
4.2.3.2.4 Analysis of effect of type of schools of the students on overall and dimension wise
scores of CSSA.
To study the effect of the type of schools of the students on the overall CSSA of secondary
students a null hypothesis, There is no significant difference between the mean scores for cyber
safety and security awareness among students and their type of school with their dimensions
has been proposed. further, to analyze the effort of the type of schools of the student on various

Page | 120
dimensions of CSSA, another hypothesis “There is no significant difference in the mean score
of different dimensions of cyber safety and security awareness of secondary students with
respect to the type of schools of the student” was also proposed. ANOVA was performed to
analyze the data and the results are given in the following table:
Table 4.59 Dimension-wise ANOVA Scores of group difference in CSSA with respect to
Type of School of the students

Sum of
df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares

Between
1141232.25 2 570616.12
Total Groups
Awareness 583.82 .000
Within Groups 113010236.97 115627 977.36
Score
Total 114151469.22 115629

Between
111614.84 2 55807.42
Groups
Psychological
324.61 .000
Dimension Within Groups 19878760.91 115627 171.92

Total 19990375.75 115629

Between
29802.69 2 14901.34
Groups
Physical
429.70 .000
Dimension Within Groups 4009726.10 115627 34.67

Total 4039528.80 115629

Between
21261.31 2 10630.65
Groups
Legal
391.72 .000
Dimension Within Groups 3137903.26 115627 27.13

Total 3159164.58 115629

Between
55586.34 2 27793.17
Groups
Socio-Ethical
526.29 .000
Dimension Within Groups 6106209.26 115627 52.81

Total 6161795.61 115629

Between
32518.20 2 16259.10
Groups
Technical
414.94 .000
Dimension Within Groups 4530745.41 115627 39.18

Total 4563263.62 115629

Page | 121
 From the above table, it is evident that the obtained F value of 583.82 is significant at
0.05 level. This means that there is a significant difference in the mean square of awareness
about cyber safety and security among type of school, hence the null hypothesis is not accepted
and the alternate hypothesis is upheld. Further, from the Sum of Squares, it is evident that those
between groups have shown significantly better awareness with a mean square of 337312.42.
Table 4.60 Dimension-wise post-hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to
Type of School of the students
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Type of School N 1 2 3

Government 97028 190.84

Aided 6518 195.69

Private 12084 200.75

Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 12171.291.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.
With respect to the overall awareness score, a significant difference was observed
between Private and Aided schools with all the other groups. Among all the groups, the mean
score of private schools were found to be higher than that of other groups. The results are
graphically represented below.

Fig 4.50 Mean plot of group difference in CSSA with respect to Type of School of the students

Page | 122
 Table 4.61 Dimension-wise post-hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to
Type of School of the students (Psychological Dimension)
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Type of School N 1 2 3

Government 97028 38.48

Aided 6518 39.90

Private 12084 41.60

Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 12171.291.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.
With respect to the psychological awareness score, a significant difference was
observed between private and aided schools with all the other groups. Among all the groups,
the mean score of private schools were found to be higher than that of other groups. The results
are graphically represented below.

Fig 4.51 Mean plot of group difference in CSSA with respect to Type of School of the student
(Psychological dimension)

Page | 123
 Table 4.62 Dimension-wise post-hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to
Type of School of the student (Physical Dimension)
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Type of School N 1 2 3

Government 97028 35.65

Aided 6518 36.40

Private 12084 37.26

Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 12171.291.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.
With respect to physical awareness score, a similar significant difference was observed
between the groups. The mean scores of private schools were found to have slightly higher
than that of other groups. The results are graphically represented below.

Fig 4.52 Mean plot of group difference in CSSA with respect to Type of School of the student
(Physical dimension)

Page | 124
 Table 4.63 Dimension-wise post-hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to
Type of School of the student (Legal dimension)
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Type of School N 1 2 3

Government 97028 33.38

Aided 6518 34.03

Private 12084 34.74

Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 12171.291.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.
With respect to the legal dimension of the awareness score, a similar significant
difference was observed between the groups. The mean scores of all the groups are closer
among each other. The results are graphically represented below.

Fig 4.53 Mean plot of group difference in CSSA with respect to Type of School of the student
(Legal dimension)

Page | 125
 Table 4.64 Dimension-wise post-hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to
Type of School of the student (Socio-Ethical Dimension)
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Type of School N 1 2 3

Government 97028 43.38

Aided 6518 44.49

Private 12084 45.55

Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 12171.291.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.
With respect to the socio-ethical awareness score, a significant difference was observed
between the groups. The mean scores of private schools were found to have higher than that of
other groups. The results are graphically represented below.

Fig 4.54 Mean plot of group difference in CSSA with respect to Type of School (Socio-ethical
dimension)

Page | 126
 Table 4.65 Dimension-wise post-hoc analysis of group difference in CSSA with respect to
Type of School of the student (Technical Dimension)
Duncan Subset for alpha = 0.05
a,b

Type of School N 1 2 3

Government 97028 39.96

Aided 6518 40.87

Private 12084 41.61

Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 12171.291.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.
With respect to the technical dimension of the awareness score, a significant difference
was observed between the groups. The mean scores of private schools were found to be higher
than that of other groups. The results are graphically represented below.

Fig 4.55 Mean plot of group difference in CSSA with respect to Type of School (Technical
Dimension)

Page | 127
 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

5.1. Genesis of the Problem

In order to give secondary students the necessary abilities for successfully navigating the digital
world, the Government has taken steps to increase awareness of cyber safety and security.
These programs seek to teach children about internet safety, how to use the internet
responsibly, and how to secure their personal data. Through the inclusion of cyber safety in the
curriculum, the government guarantees that students acquire the resilience and knowledge
needed to protect themselves in the digital world.

5.2. Need and Significance of the Study

In today's digital world, the study on cyber safety and security awareness among secondary
students has become extremely important. As technology advances, adolescents become more
entrenched in the online world, leaving them vulnerable to a variety of cyber risks.
Understanding the level of awareness about cyber safety and security is critical for several
reasons. Adolescents constitute a sizable proportion of internet users, and they are frequently
involved in online activities such as social networking, gaming, and academic research.
Numerous individuals may be unaware of the hazards involved with these activities, such as
cyberbullying, identity theft, phishing, and exposure to unsuitable information. Educators,
legislators, and parents may identify knowledge gaps and build tailored educational programs
to provide children with the skills they need to securely navigate the online world by analyzing
their awareness levels.
Fostering a culture of cyber safety and security among secondary students is critical for
the overall well-being of society. As digital natives, these adolescents are both consumers and
possible contributors to the digital ecosystem. The education system of the country may
encourage responsible digital citizenship and reduce the possible negative repercussions of
cyber events by teaching children the necessity of adopting safe online behaviors and
understanding the ramifications of their digital footprint.
The findings of this research can help to shape school curricula and educational
initiatives that are tailored to secondary students' specific needs. Integrating cyber safety and
security education into the school curriculum may provide students with the information and
skills necessary for safeguarding themselves online, resulting in a safer digital world for
everyone.
Furthermore, identifying the elements that influence students' awareness of cyber safety
and security can facilitate targeted interventions. Factors such as socioeconomic status, access
to technology, parental supervision, and peer influence could affect student's views and actions
about online safety. Identifying these elements enables stakeholders to successfully implement
prevention techniques and encourage healthy online habits.
The study on secondary students' awareness of cyber safety and security is critical for
ensuring the behavior of adolescents' well-being in the digital era. By measuring students'

Page | 128
knowledge, analyzing the driving elements, and implementing tailored interventions, we can
help them navigate the online world securely and responsibly, eventually contributing to a more
secure digital future for everyone.

5.3. Statement of the Problem

In today's digital era, the behavior of adolescents' extensive utilization of the internet and digital
gadgets has created serious concerns about cyber safety and security. Secondary students,
particularly those in grades IX-XII, are increasingly involved in online activities for education,
social connection, and amusement. While the internet has many advantages, it also exposes
students to a variety of challenges, including cyberbullying, identity theft, online predators,
and inappropriate information. Despite these hazards, there needs to be more complete
information on secondary students' levels of awareness and ability to face these challenges
safely.
This study aims to assess the level of knowledge and comprehension of cyber safety
and security concerns among secondary students. It intends to identify knowledge gaps and
evaluate the performance of current educational programs that address these challenges. The
study will provide insight into students' behaviors and perceptions about online safety. For this
purpose, the project aims to develop a cyber safety and security awareness scale, assess
students' awareness levels, analyze and identify dimensions, and create an intervention
package. Hence the problem statement is framed as “A Study of the Awareness on Cyber safety
and Security Among Secondary Students (Class IX to XII)”.

5.4. Operational Definitions

The terms used in this study are operationally defined as follows.
5.4.1 Awareness
Awareness is the quality or state of being aware : knowledge and understanding that
something is happening or exists (Merriam-webster, 2024). In this study an awareness for
teachers is referred to as an organized educational programme designed to give instructors the
knowledge, skills, and practices they need to comprehend and apply cyber safety and security
measures in learning environments.
5.4.2 Cyber Safety and Security
According to Merriam-Webster, cyber safety is the safe practices when using the Internet to
prevent personal attacks or criminal activity. Cybersecurity is the practice of defending
computers, servers, mobile devices, electronic systems, networks, and data from malicious
attacks (Kaspersky, 2024). In this study Cyber Safety and Security refer to teachers who
understand how to keep themselves and their students safe online and are practicing cyber
safety and security. It involves educating students on how to be responsible online, accessing
the internet safely, creating strong passwords, and identifying and addressing online threats
including scams and cyberbullying.

Page | 129
5.4.3 Secondary School Students in India
Secondary school students are defined as individuals who are enrolled in grades IX through
XII within the Indian educational system. These students typically range in age from
approximately 14 to 18 years.

5.5. Variables of the Study

Variables are the factors involved in addressing the research problem, which leads to the
closure of the research gap. These attributes ought to impact one another. The current study
investigates secondary students' levels of awareness of cyber safety and security. Hence, the
following independent and dependent variables were identified for the investigation of the
study:
● Independent Variable
An independent variable is a variable that has been manipulated. The independent
variable is purposely manipulated during observation to determine its relationship with
the dependent variable. So the demographic factors Gender, Standard, States/UTs, Type
of School, Locality of the school and Medium of Instruction are considered as
independent variables.
● Dependent Variable
The dependent variable is the level of awareness of cyber safety and security among
secondary-stage students. This variable represents the degree to which students
understand and are informed about various aspects of cyber safety and security, such as
recognizing cyber threats, understanding safe online practices, and knowing how to
protect personal information online. This awareness can be measured through surveys,
questionnaires, or assessments designed to evaluate students' knowledge and attitudes
towards cyber safety and security issues.

5.6. Research Question

1. What is the awareness level of secondary students on cyber safety and security?
2. What are the dimensions in which secondary students lack awareness of cyber safety
and security?

5.7. Objectives of the Study

1. To evaluate the level of awareness and understanding of cyber safety and security
among secondary-stage students.
2. To study the difference in awareness on cyber safety and security among secondary
school students with respect to various subgroups.
3. To study the difference in different dimensions of cyber safety and security awareness
among secondary school students with respect to various subgroups.

Page | 130
5.8. Hypotheses of the Study
To undertake a meaningful analysis, the following hypotheses were proposed. There are 16
hypotheses which were clubbed under three broad hypotheses as given below:
H : There is no significant difference in the mean score of cyber safety and security awareness
1

of secondary students with respect to their/ the

1. Access to Internet at home
2. Possession of personal email ID
3. Participation in ICT courses
4. Availability of digital devices at home
5. Availability of own digital devices
6. Possession of personal social media account
7. Duration of use of devices per day
8. Perception about excessive screen time
H : There is no significant difference in the mean score of cyber safety and security awareness
2

of secondary students with respect to

1. Locale of the school
2. Gender of the student
3. Standard in which the students are studying
4. Type of school
H : There is no significant difference in the mean score of different dimensions of cyber safety
3

and security awareness of secondary students with respect to

1. Locale of the school
2. Gender of the student
3. Standard in which the students are studying
4. Type of school

5.9. Design of the Study

The study used a survey method, a quantitative research technique that optimizes descriptive
and inferential statistics, to look into students' awareness of cyber safety and security at the
national level.
Survey research is a popular approach in the social sciences because it allows
researchers to collect data on various topics related to people's or groups' behavior, ideas, and
feelings. The goals of survey research are to describe a population, identify group
characteristics, describe features and characteristics of study interest, explain a phenomenon,
or explain how variables are connected (Buchanan & Hvizdak, 2009). Online surveys are
widely utilized in educational research (Roberts & Allen, 2015). Online surveys are growing
more popular. Online surveys are becoming increasingly popular, maybe because they are a
simple, convenient, and cost-effective way to collect data (Andrade, 2020). In recent decades,
the two most popular social science methods for gathering large-scale recreation data were an
online survey and a random digit dial telephone survey. Both strategies have demonstrated
efficacy in providing a respectable response rate at a reasonable cost (Loomis & Paterson,
2018).

Page | 131
 Online surveys are useful but require a high response rate, which is a key factor for
assessing survey quality (Wu et al., 2022). Self-administered surveys have gradually
supplanted in-person and telephone surveys, as seen by a historical overview of data-gathering
technologies. The usage of online surveys has increased significantly in recent years due to
technological advancements (de Rada, 2022). Compared to traditional surveys, administering
online surveys is quicker and less costly (Castorena et al., 2023).

5.10. Sample
5.10.1 Population of the Study
The population of the study refers to all the secondary school students (from IX Standard to
XII standard) studying in any school, whether Government, Private or Aided school, from all
28 - States and 8 Union Territories in India. There are 6.7 crore students enrolled in secondary
education in the 2021-22 session (MoE, 2021). Furthermore, every student who uses the
internet in accordance with the eligibility conditions.
5.10.2 Sampling Technique
The process of choosing a small group from a vast population to serve as the actual
representation of that population is known as sampling. In the context of a large and
geographically dispersed population, a more complex technique known as multistage sampling
is employed. Multistage sampling is a complex form of cluster sampling in which the selection
of samples is carried out in multiple stages (Cochran, 1977). At each stage, the population is
divided into clusters or groups, and a random sample of these clusters is selected. Within each
selected cluster, further sampling is done to select smaller units, and this process is repeated as
necessary.
Given the vast geographical size and diversity of the population, the documented report
utilized a four-phase sampling process to create the final sample for the investigation. In the
first phase, the sample encompassed the entire population across all 28 states and 8 Union
Territories (UTs). In the second phase, the sample included the entire population across all
school boards. The third phase focused on categorizing data by school type, covering private,
government, and aided schools, and including their entire student populations. In the fourth
phase, the sample included all students from grades IX to XII across the schools. Only students
who were using the Internet were included in the final sample for this study.
The sample was collected in four phases:
Phase 1: Selection of States and Union Territories.
The first phase involved choosing every single person living in all 28 states and 8 Union
Territories (UTs) in India, all 36 entities were taken. Ensuring geographic coverage and variety,
this phase captured the whole range of regional variances and traits.
Phase 2: Selection of School Boards.
In the second phase, every student in every state and UT across all approved school boards was
included in the sample. This stage was essential to creating a thorough depiction of the
educational environment by incorporating the various curricula and educational systems.

Page | 132
Phase 3: Selection of School Type.
The third phase involved selecting the entire population of students from all demographic
groups attending various school kinds, such as government, private, and aided. This
classification made sure that varied school settings were included, which reflected the various
financial and administrative systems found in the educational system.
Phase 4: Selection of Student Selection.
In the fourth phase, all students across all the schools in grades IX through XII were included
in the sample wherein purposive sampling was used as only the students using the Internet were
included as the sample of this study.
5.10.3 Sample Size
The sample coverage was 1,15,632 secondary school students (from IX Standard to XII)
studying in any school, whether Government, Private, or Aided school, from all 28 Indian
States and 8 Union Territories.

5.11. Instruments used in the Study

An awareness instrument with five aspects of cyber safety and security was developed, and
validated, and reliability was achieved through pilot testing.
It was determined to employ an online survey for data collection because of the unique
nature of the study, as rating scales are thought to be an effective technique for gathering data
in descriptive research (Lobe, Simoes, & Zaman 2009). When collecting information from a
large sample, a rating scale is a more practical and effective method (Coolican, 2004; Quinn,
2013).
Due to the unique nature of this research project, it was hard to find the appropriate
rating scale; a rating scale was created in order to gather relevant information from the
population.
The study used an online survey method with a quantitative design; therefore, creating
a tool to collect the required data was unavoidable. The research team examined a wide range
of relevant literature in order to construct the tool "Cyber Safety and Security Awareness Scale
(CSSAS) for Secondary Students," including country reports, peer-reviewed research articles
from India and abroad, cyber safety and security guidelines for students from various national
and international agencies, policy documents from India and abroad, expert opinions, etc.
Dimensions were determined, and the five-point awareness was developed. The scale has five
dimensions: Psychological, Physical, Legal, Socio-ethical, and Technical. Each dimension has
items categorized as Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree and Strongly Disagree.
5.11.1 Description of the Tool
A five-point rating scale/ awareness tool with five dimensions on cyber safety and security was
constructed, validated, and reliability was achieved by going through pilot testing. A Google
form was created in English language and translated into Hindi also for the collection of data
and the link was shared with all the 36 states and UTs of India for the purpose of collecting

Page | 133
data from secondary school students for the study. Five dimensions of the rating scale are
shown below:

Fig 5.1: Dimension coverage

The awareness scale consists of 5 dimensions with 58 items with the 5 responses,
namely; strongly agree/agree/ undecided/ disagree/ strongly disagree. Each dimension consists
of items with true or false connotations with respect to cyber safety and security. The following
table presents dimension-wise items with true/ false connotations.
Table 5.1: Items coverage- Dimension wise

Dimension True False Total

Psychological 12 0 12

Physical 8 3 11

Legal 5 5 10

Socio-ethical 6 7 13

Technical 6 6 12

Total 37 21 58

Page | 134
5.11.2 Pilot Study
A feasibility study, sometimes called a pilot study, is a small-scale investigation carried out
before a more extensive, full-scale investigation. It serves as a trial run to evaluate the viability,
usefulness, and efficacy of the techniques and protocols intended for the primary study. A pilot
study was done on a small sample of secondary students. A sample of 302 secondary students
was chosen, and the research tool was administered to them to establish the reliability, viability,
usefulness, and efficacy of the research tool.
5.11.3 Validity and Reliability
Validation of Tool: The validity and reliability of the scales employed in research are critical
aspects that allow the research to provide useful results. For this reason, it is important to
understand how researchers appropriately assess the scales' reliability and validity (Surucu &
Maslakci, 2020). A research study may comprise only part of the methodological subspace's
elements, which include scientific standards, procedures, and principles. Examples of these
elements are validity systems. This subspace is utilized in substantive research to establish
knowledge claims and comprises information derived from methodological research (Lund,
2022).
The literature synthesis produced themes and codes for item development in scale based
on worldwide and Indian research papers, reports, and policy guidelines, as well as the
identified research deficit. The expert members structured the questions and items on the
background variables and dimensions of the scale using the themes and codes. The scale
contains five dimensions: psychological, physical, legal, socio-ethical, and technical.
Individual Items were developed using the dimensions. The items were labeled as Strongly
Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree and Strongly Disagree. The scale has three parts, excluding
the need and objective of the study, the Consent Section;
Part 1: Nature of distribution of samples across sub-groups.
Part 2: Analysis of data with regard to ICT/Digital Exposure
Part 3: Analysis of data with regard to awareness about cyber safety and security
The developed questions on the background variables and items under each dimension
were then examined for face validity and content validity by the national-level experts. Based
on their validity examination, some items were removed, and a few were added.
• Face Validity: Face validity was checked by the research team members first, and then
by the Program Coordinator, 80 questions and 5 dimensions were finalized.
• Content Validity. The rating scale was validated by 7 experts in the field. Later, the
panel of experts was formed based on expertise in psychology, sociology, law, and
educational technology; a minimum of five years of experience in concerned fields was
required. Three professors and four assistant professors constituted the panel of experts.
The experts’ suggestions regarding objectivity, and suitability of items were taken into
consideration. Language difficulty was removed by replacing difficult words with easy ones.
In the final rating scale out of 80 items, 62 items were selected and reframed according to the
need of the study and the rest were removed. All the suggestions given by experts were

Page | 135
incorporated into the final tool. It is only after the validation; that the tool was administered to
the sample.
To determine the flaws and limitations and to achieve reliability and validity of the
rating scale, pilot testing was done on a small sample of 302 secondary school students. It
enables us to refine the instrument and make necessary improvements before the final
implementation. A pilot test was conducted on 130 students to ensure the accuracy of items
and whether it addressed research questions or not.
Reliability of Research Tool:
Reliability refers to the consistency and stability of a measurement over repeated
administrations or observations. A reliability score close to 1.0 indicates a high level of
consistency, meaning that the measurement is highly dependable and yields similar results
under consistent conditions. The statistical analysis was conducted using version 28.0 of the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the
CSSAS quality score's internal consistency. A reliability score of 0.9933 was derived from
statistical analyses, indicating that the measurement instrument has demonstrated exceptional
reliability in the context of the research study. In research, a reliability score of 0.9933 typically
indicates a very high level of reliability of the tool. It also suggests that the measurement
instrument or tool used in the study demonstrates an extremely high level of consistency and
stability. This high reliability score implies that the measurement is highly trustworthy and can
be relied upon to produce consistent and accurate results across multiple administrations or
observations.

5.12 Limitations and Constraints

This nationwide quantitative study has its own limitations. They are limited to Age range,
educational setting, Coverage of dimensions, Research method, School education, and
coverage of languages in tools.
• Age Range: The study focused solely on students in grades 9–12, omitting younger or
older age groups. This delimitation ensures a specific assessment of cyber safety and
security awareness within the context of secondary school.
• Educational Setting: Students enrolled in government, private, and aided schools were
the only subjects of the study; homeschoolers and participants in alternative education
programs were not included. An investigation in a more homogeneous sample and
context was made possible by this delimitation.
• Dimensions of Cyber Safety and Security: The study concentrated only on five
dimensions of cyber safety and security that are pertinent to students in grades 9 through
12, including Psychological, Physical, Legal, Socio-ethical and Technical. This
boundary guarantees a targeted analysis of the most important cyber safety and security
concerns that affect the intended sample.
• Research Method: The study adopted online surveys through Google Forms and
quantitative analysis.
• School Education: The study focused on students from school education only, higher
education was not included in the study.

Page | 136
 • Language coverage: The tool of the study was prepared in English and Hindi.

5.13. Major Findings of the Study

Nature of distribution of sample across subgroups
State-wise distribution of sample with regard to Gender
The Findings showed that females are the most populous gender group in 21 states and UTs,
with Delhi having the highest proportion at 56.8%. In contrast, males are the majority in 15
states and UTs, with Uttar Pradesh exhibiting a significant male majority at 54%, while
transgender individuals in Chandigarh represent a minority at 0.5%.
State-wise distribution of sample with regard to Standard
The finding showed that the state-wise data reveals significant variation in student enrollments
by standard, with Delhi and Punjab having notably high enrollments in the 10th and 11th
standards, while Mizoram leads in the 12th standard with 31.7% of its student population. Delhi
also has the highest enrollment in the 9th standard, accounting for 34.5% of its total student
population, indicating a strong focus on secondary education.
State-wise distribution of sample with regard to Type of School
Findings showed that Government schools are most common in states like Uttar Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh, and Odisha. Aided schools are prominent in Goa and Delhi, while private
schools are notably present in Nagaland, Punjab, and Delhi.
State-wise distribution of sample with regard to the Locality of the school
The finding showed that Punjab has the highest percentage of rural schools at 67.5%,
highlighting a strong focus on rural education. In contrast, Delhi has the highest percentage of
urban schools at 82.4%, followed by Chandigarh at 81.5%, indicating a concentration of
schools in urban areas.
Analysis of data with regard to ICT/Digital Exposure
Gender-wise Distribution of the Internet access at home
The Finding showed that Males have the highest percentage of Internet access at home at
88.6%, while transgender individuals have the lowest at 80.8%.
Gender-wise Distribution of the Email ID
From the above table 4.6, shows that Males have the highest percentage of individuals with an
Email ID (80.5%), followed by transgender individuals (74.0%), and females (69.6%). In terms
of not having an Email ID, females have the highest percentage (30.4%), followed by
transgender individuals (26.0%), and males (19.5%).
Gender-wise Distribution of use of Digital Devices per day
The findings showed that Females slightly favor 30 minutes to 1 hour usage (28.8%) and males
slightly higher in the 1 to 2 hours category (27.7%), while transgender individuals
predominantly use devices for less than 30 minutes daily (35.6%).

Page | 137
Gender-wise Distribution of Perception about Excessive Screen Time
The Findings showed that Females perceive spending up to 30 minutes on screens the most
(32.0%), while transgender individuals show a notable preference for shorter screen times
(43.4%), contrasting with males who perceive 25.5% spending up to 30 minutes and 21.1%
spending 1 to 2 hours on screens.
Gender-wise Distribution of participation in courses related to ICT
From Table 4.9, transgender individuals exhibit the highest percentage of participation in ICT
courses, with 65.3% engaging in such courses. This finding suggests that transgender
individuals show a strong interest and involvement in ICT education compared to females and
males, based on the available data.
Standard wise Distribution of Internet access at home
From Table 4.10, the 12th standard students have the highest percentage of internet access at
88.9%. Following closely behind are students in the 10th standard, with 88.4% having internet
access, showing a similar strong adoption of digital connectivity. In the 11th standard, 88.3%
of students have internet access. Among the 9th standard students, 87.2% have internet access,
reflecting a slightly lower but still significant level of connectivity compared to higher
standards.
Standard-wise Distribution of the Email ID
In Table 4.11, the 12th standard students have the highest percentage of email ID ownership at
82.7%. Following closely behind are students in the 11th standard, with 76.9% having email
IDs, showing a substantial engagement with digital platforms for communication. In the 10th
standard, 73.6% of students possess email IDs, reflecting a significant presence but slightly
lower than the upper secondary levels. Among the 9th standard students, 68.5% have email
IDs, demonstrating a growing but relatively lower uptake compared to higher standards.
Standard-wise Distribution of Use of Digital Devices per day
From Table 4.12, 10th Standard has the highest percentage of students spending 1 hour to 2
hours on digital devices per day is 26.6%. 11th Standard has 24.6% of students spending 1 hour
to 2 hours on digital devices daily, which is the highest among the given categories. 12th
Standard has the highest percentage here also for 1 hour to 2 hours, at 29.1%. 9th Standard has
the highest percentage for 1 hour to 2 hours, with 24.6%.
Standard-wise Distribution of Excessive screen time
From Table 4.13, the result reveals that different standards exhibit varied screen time habits,
with the 9th standard showing the highest percentage (25.5%) of students spending 30 minutes
to 1 hour on screens, while the 12th standard has the highest proportion (19.2%) spending more
than 4 hours daily.
Standard-wise Distribution of participation in courses related to ICT
From Table 4.14, The findings indicate that ICT course participation is highest among students
in the 11th standard (53.3%), followed closely by the 10th standard (50.8%), revealing varying

Page | 138
levels of engagement across different grades and highlighting potential curricular differences
and student interest.
Type of School-wise Distribution of Internet Access at Home
From Table 4.15, The finding shows that internet access at home is highest among students in
private schools (91.9%), followed closely by aided (88.5%) and government schools (87.6%),
highlighting widespread access across school types and emphasizing its crucial role in
supporting online learning and educational connectivity.
Type of School-wise Distribution of the Email ID
From Table 4.16, The finding reveals that aided schools have the highest adoption of personal
email IDs among students (76.9%), followed by government schools (74.9%) and private
schools (71.8%), indicating widespread use across school types and emphasizing the
importance of email for communication and educational purposes among students.
Type of School-wise Distribution of Digital Devices Used per Day
From Table 4.17, the finding showed that in aided schools, a significant portion of students
allocate their daily digital device usage as follows: 27.3% spend 1 to 2 hours, 16.6% use devices
for 2 to 4 hours, and 28.5% engage for 30 minutes to 1 hour. Government schools show a
similar pattern with 26.3% using devices for 1 to 2 hours, 28.7% for 30 minutes to 1 hour, and
18.6% for less than 30 minutes daily. Meanwhile, in private schools, 28.2% of students use
devices for 1 to 2 hours daily, 27.7% for 30 minutes to 1 hour, and 15.4% for 2 to 4 hours.
Type of School-wise Distribution of Excessive Screen Time
From Table 4.18, the findings showed In aided schools, the distribution of excessive screen
time shows that 24.0% of students spend up to 30 minutes, 22.8% spend 30 minutes to 1 hour,
and 19.6% spend 1 to 2 hours on screens. Government schools report that 29.9% of students
spend up to 30 minutes, 24.1% spend 30 minutes to 1 hour, and 19.9% spend 1 to 2 hours on
screens. Private schools indicate that 24.2% of students spend up to 30 minutes, 21.5% spend
30 minutes to 1 hour, and 19.5% spend 1 to 2 hours on screens.
Type of School wise Distribution of courses related to ICT
From Table 4.19, In aided schools, 40.9% offer courses related to ICT, while 59.1% do not,
Government schools show a nearly equal distribution, with 48.1% offering ICT courses and
51.9% not offering them, Among private schools, 46.9% provide ICT courses, while 53.1% do
not.
Locality-wise Distribution of Internet access at home
From Table 4.20, the result indicates In Rural Areas, 86.7% of respondents have internet access
at home, 13.3% do not have internet access at home. And in Urban Areas, 88.8% of respondents
have internet access at home, 11.2% do not have internet access at home. This indicates that a
higher percentage of people in both rural and urban areas have internet access at home, with
urban areas showing a slightly higher access rate compared to rural areas.

Page | 139
Locality-wise Distribution of Email ID
From Table 4.21, the results indicate that a higher percentage of respondents in urban areas
(75.5%) have personal email IDs compared to those in rural areas (72.9%), highlighting slightly
greater digital connectivity in urban settings.
Locality-wise Distribution of Digital Devices Used per day
From Table 4.22, The findings show that in rural areas, 29.5% of respondents use digital
devices for 30 minutes to 1 hour daily, and 24.0% use them for 1 to 2 hours, indicating moderate
digital engagement. In contrast, urban areas have higher usage for 1 to 2 hours (27.8%) and 30
minutes to 1 hour (28.2%), with more varied usage patterns including longer durations of
device use compared to rural areas.
Locality-wise Distribution of Excessive Screen Time
From Table 4.23, In rural areas, most respondents spend up to 30 minutes (35.8%) or between
30 minutes to 1 hour (26.1%) on excessive screen time, with fewer spending longer durations
like 1 to 2 hours (18.6%). Urban areas show a similar trend, with the majority spending up to
30 minutes (25.8%) or between 30 minutes to 1 hour (22.7%), and a significant portion
spending 1 to 2 hours (20.4%) on excessive screen time.
Locality-wise Distribution of courses related to ICT
From Table 4.24, In rural areas, 52.7% of respondents have access to ICT courses, indicating
a strong interest and participation in ICT education. Conversely, in urban areas, a lower
percentage (45.3%) reported access to these courses, suggesting comparatively less
engagement in ICT education among urban residents.
State-wise Distribution of Internet access at home
From Table 4.25, the result indicates that Mizoram stands out with the highest percentage of
households having internet access at home at 94.9%. Delhi and Kerala also demonstrate notable
rates of 86.0% and 90.7% respectively. Conversely, states like Andaman and Nicobar Islands
and Arunachal Pradesh show significant but comparatively lower percentages of internet access
at 90.8% and 91.3% respectively, which are below the national average.
State-wise Distribution of Availability of personal email ID
From Table 4.26, the result indicates Mizoram leads with the highest percentage of students
(68.5%) having personal email IDs, followed by Delhi (73.9%) and Kerala (88.2%), while
states like Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, Gujarat, and Sikkim show relatively
lower adoption rates.
State-wise Distribution of usage of digital devices per day
From the table 4.27, the findings reveal that in Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 29.5% of
students use digital devices for less than 30 minutes daily, while in Andhra Pradesh, 32.4% use
them for 30 minutes to 1 hour daily, and in Arunachal Pradesh, 30.7% use them for 1 to 2 hours
daily. Across states, predominant usage patterns are observed in these moderate time ranges,
with fewer students using devices for more than 4 hours or infrequently.

Page | 140
State-wise Distribution of consideration of hours as excessive screen time
From Table 4.28, the result indicates that Arunachal Pradesh and Gujarat for 1 to 2 hours,
Odisha and Kerala for 2 to 4 hours, and Mizoram and Haryana for 30 minutes to 1 hour daily,
while some states like Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, Puducherry, and
Lakshadweep show a majority of students not using digital devices daily.
State-wise Distribution of courses related to ICT
From above table 4.29, the result indicates the majority of students in Andaman and Nicobar
Islands (60.7%), Delhi (50.5%), Punjab (60.2%), Himachal Pradesh (57.4%), Ladakh (66.7%),
and Lakshadweep (83.3%) use ICT.
Analysis of data with regard to awareness about cyber safety and security
H : There is no significant difference between the mean scores for cyber safety and
01

security awareness among students with and without access to the internet at home.
From Table 4.30 it is evident that
• There is a significant difference in cyber safety awareness scores between students who
have internet access at home and those who do not.
• Students with internet access at home tend to have higher average scores in cyber safety
awareness compared to those without internet access.
H : There is no significant difference between the mean scores for cyber safety and
02

security awareness among students with ownership of email ID and those without it.
From Table 4.31, the finding showed that,
• Students who have an email ID show a significant difference in cyber safety awareness
scores compared to those who do not.
• On average, students with an email ID tend to have slightly higher scores in cyber safety
awareness than those without an email ID.
H : There is no significant difference in the total awareness scores between students who have
03

participated in ICT courses and those who have not.

From Table 4.32 the findings showed that the students who participated in ICT courses showed
a significant difference in cyber safety awareness scores compared to those who did not.
• On average, students who did not participate in ICT courses tend to have higher scores
in cyber safety awareness than those who did participate.
H : There is no significant difference in the total awareness scores between individuals
04

who have access to digital devices at home and those who do not.
From Table 4.33 the findings showed that the students who have access to digital devices at
home show a significant difference in cyber safety awareness scores compared to those who
do not.
• On average, students with access to digital devices at home tend to have higher scores
in cyber safety awareness than those without access.

Page | 141
H : There is no significant difference in the total awareness scores between individuals
05

who use their devices and those who do not.

From Table 4.34 the findings showed that students who have availability of their device show
a significant difference in cyber safety awareness scores compared to those who do not.
• On average, students who do not have availability of their devices tend to have higher
scores in cyber safety awareness than those who do have availability.
H : There is no significant difference in the total awareness scores between individuals
06

who have a social media account and those who do not.

From Table 4.35 the findings showed that.
• The obtained t value of 20.34 indicates a significant difference in cyber safety and
security awareness scores between students who have their social media accounts and
those who do not (p < 0.01).
• Therefore, the null hypothesis, suggesting no difference in awareness scores based on
social media account ownership, is rejected in favor of the alternate hypothesis.
Students who do not have a social media account have a higher average score in cyber
safety awareness (194.92) compared to those who do have one (190.88).
H : There is no significant difference between the mean scores for cyber safety and
07

security awareness among students and their locality with their dimensions.
The findings showed that Urban secondary students show significantly higher awareness scores
on cyber safety and security compared to rural students. This disparity suggests a potential need
for targeted interventions to enhance cyber safety awareness among rural secondary students
to bridge the gap observed with their urban counterparts.
H : There is no significant difference between the mean scores for cyber safety and
08

security awareness among students and their gender with their dimensions.
The finding showed that,
• The obtained F value of 343.80 is significant at the 0.01 level, indicating a significant
difference in cyber safety and security awareness among genders.
• Therefore, the null hypothesis, suggesting no difference in awareness scores between
genders, is rejected in favor of the alternate hypothesis. Gender differences play a
significant role in cyber safety awareness, with substantial variations observed between
different gender groups.
H : There is no significant difference between the mean scores for cyber safety and
09

security awareness among students and their standard with their dimensions.
The finding showed that the F value of 186.72, significant at the 0.01 level, shows a notable
difference in cyber security awareness among students across different educational standards.
This rejects the idea of no differences and supports that awareness levels vary significantly
based on the standard of study.

Page | 142
H : There is no significant difference between the mean scores for cyber safety and
10

security awareness among students and their type of school with their dimensions.
The findings showed that the F value of 583.82, significant at the 0.05 level, reveals a
significant difference in cyber safety and security awareness between types of school. This
supports the alternate hypothesis, indicating that awareness levels vary significantly between
males and females, with females generally demonstrating higher awareness.

5.14. Recommendations and Implications of the Study

The study's finding is meaningful only when it has an educational implication. A few
implications of this study are put forth.
• Emphasizing the importance of specific interventions to ensure gender equality and
support for both boys and girls in secondary education, as well as incorporating cyber
safety and security awareness to prepare them for the digital age.
• Increasing digital literacy and cyber safety awareness among students in both rural and
urban regions to ensure safe and effective internet use.
• Enhanced Curriculum Integration: Comprehensive Integration of internet safety and
security elements into the existing school curriculum should be initiated. This should
include subjects ranging from basic to complex, such as safe surfing behaviors,
identifying phishing attempts, the necessity of strong passwords, and social media
privacy settings.
• Interactive Workshops: frequent workshops and interactive sessions with cyber security
professionals to bring students up to date on the most recent cyber risks and defensive
measures should be organized by the schools.
• More ICT courses are required nation-wide since many students are yet to participate
any ICT related courses
• The CSSA vary significantly among students who participated in ICT courses and did
not participate. Hence CSSA can be improved if we provide ICT training to students
with special focus on Cyber Safety and Security.
• Similarly it was found that the CSSA among students having and not having social
media accounts varies and those using social media accounts seem to be less aware
about CSS. This is highlighting their vulnerability in cyber space and needs to be
addressed with priority.
• The screen time of majority of students (duration of use of devices per day) seems to
be more than the commonly approved limit of 1-2 hrs and hence need to be addressed
for their overall health
• The overall CSSA was found to be high for class 12 students. Hence it is required to
give more focus on class 9, 10 and 11 students since lack of awareness may keep them
vulnerable in cyberspace.
• With regard to CSSA, it was found that the government school students are having less
awareness, and it clearly highlights the training needs of students belonging to govt
schools.

Page | 143
Proposed Activities and Developed Student’s Handbook
The study's findings, which indicate a lack of awareness regarding cyber safety and security
among secondary students (Classes IX through XII), highlight the need for comprehensive
interventions. In addition to advocating cyber safety-related student activities, including
workshops on recognizing online threats and practical exercises on safe internet practices, the
study might advocate for the creation of a student handbook. This handbook could be used as
a guide for students, providing practical suggestions and tools for navigating the digital
landscape securely, understanding privacy settings, identifying cyber risks such as phishing
and cyberbullying, and responding to online occurrences successfully.

5.15. Suggestions for Further Research

Every study has its limitations and delimitations. It is, therefore, desired that similar studies
should be conducted after overcoming the limitations. The following insights on further
research that could be conducted are presented below:
• Investigate how parents' and teachers' knowledge and involvement influence students'
awareness and practices regarding cyber safety.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of integrating cyber safety education into the standard school
curriculum.
• Incorporating interactive workshops and practical activities to improve cyber security
awareness among secondary students.

Page | 144
 REFERENCES
Ahmad, N. A., & Othman, N. (2019). View of Information Privacy Awareness Among Young
Generation in Malaysia. Journal of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, 5(2),
1–10. https://jostip.utm.my/index.php/jostip/article/view/41/41
Ahmad, N., Laplante, P. A., Defranco, J. F., & Kassab, M. (2022). A Cybersecurity Educated
Community. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 10(3), 1456–1463.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TETC.2021.3093444
Ahmed, A. A., Elmi, A. H., Abdullahi, A., & Ahmed, A. Y. (2023). Cybersecurity awareness
among university students in Mogadishu: a comparative study. Indonesian Journal of
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 32(3), 1580–1588.
https://doi.org/10.11591/ijeecs.v32.i3.pp1580-1588
Alammari, A., Sohaib, O., & Younes, S. (2022). Developing and evaluating cybersecurity
competencies for students in computing programs. PeerJ Computer Science, 8.
https://doi.org/10.7717/PEERJ-CS.827
AlDaajeh, S., Saleous, H., Alrabaee, S., Barka, E., Breitinger, F., & Raymond Choo, K. K.
(2022). The role of national cybersecurity strategies on the improvement of
cybersecurity education. Computers and Security, 119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2022.102754
Aldosari, F. F., Aldaihan, M. A., & Alhassan, R. A. (2020). Availability of ISTE Digital
Citizenship Standards Among Middle and High School Students and Its Relation to
Internet Self-Efficacy. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(5), 59.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v9n5p59
Alfalah, A. A. (2023). The role of Internet security awareness as a moderating variable on cyber
security perception: Learning management system as a case study. International
Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(4), 136–144.
https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2023.04.017
Aljohni, W., Elfadil, N., Jarajreh, M., & Gasmelsied, M. (2021). Cybersecurity Awareness
Level: The Case of Saudi Arabia University Students. International Journal of
Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 12(3), 276–281.
https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2021.0120334
Alqahtani, M. A. (2022). Factors Affecting Cybersecurity Awareness among University
Students. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 12(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052589
Alsharida, R. A., Al-rimy, B. A. S., Al-Emran, M., & Zainal, A. (2023). A systematic review
of multi perspectives on human cybersecurity behavior. Technology in Society, 73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102258
Annabelle, L. (2019). Why is methodology important in research? Retrieved from
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-methodology-important-in-research
Bagchi, B. K. (2017). Why is methodology important in research? Retrieved from
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-methodology-important-in-research

Page | 145
Baraba, A., & Tomaš, S. (2022). Online safety awareness of elementary school students from
Croatian rural and urban areas. St Open, 3, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.48188/so.3.7
Baraković, S., & Baraković Husić, J. (2023). Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic Circumstances on
Cyber Hygiene of University Students. International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2247577
CIET. (2021). Be Safe in the Cyber World. NCERT.
https://ciet.ncert.gov.in/storage/app/public/files/14/cybersafety/Cyber_safety_for_Stu
dents_new.pdf
Coolican, H. (2004). Research methods and statistics in psychology. New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
Dhaka, S. (2020). Cyber Crime Awareness among Senior Secondary School Students in
District Meerut. Innovation The Research Concept, 5(2), 5–8.
Dorasamy, M., Kaliannan, M., Jambulingam, M., Ramadhan, I., & Sivaji, A. (2021). Parents’
awareness on online predators: Cyber grooming deterrence. Qualitative Report, 26(11),
3685–3723. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.4914
Durak, G., Cankaya, S., Yünkül, E., Taylan, U., Erten, E., & Akpinar, S. (2017). Influence of
a Game-Based Application on Secondary School Students’ Safe Internet Use.
European Journal of Education Studies, 3(10), 22.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1012416
Ellala, Z. K., AL-Tkhayneh, K. M., & AlKhatib, R. N. (2023). The Extent of Awareness of
Cyber Security Among the Superior and Ordinary Students in the Faculty of Education
in Al Ain University. In Studies in Systems, Decision and Control (Vol. 488, pp. 134–
144). Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39158-3_12
Erdoğdu, F., Gökoğlu, S., & Kara, M. (2021). “What about users?”: Development and
validation of the mobile information security awareness scale (MISAS). Online
Information Review, 45(2), 406–421. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2020-0129
Erendor, M. E., & Yildirim, M. (2022). Cybersecurity Awareness in Online Education: A Case
Study Analysis. IEEE Access, 10, 52319–52335.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3171829
Fatokun Faith, B., Hamid, S., Norman, A., Fatokun Johnson, O., & Eke, C. I. (2020). Relating
Factors of Tertiary Institution Students’ Cybersecurity Behavior. 2020 International
Conference in Mathematics, Computer Engineering and Computer Science, ICMCECS
2020, 0–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMCECS47690.2020.246990
Good, C. V. (1972). Dictionary of education. McGraw-Hill. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20495320
Huraj, L., Lengyelfalusy, T., Hurajová, A., & Lajčin, D. (2023). Measuring Cyber Security
Awareness: A Comparison between Computer Science and Media Science Students.
TEM Journal, 12(2), 623–633. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM122-05

Page | 146
Jalil, M., Ali, N. H., Yunus, F., Zaki, F. A. M., Hsiung, L. H., & Almaiah, M. A. (2024).
Cybersecurity Awareness among Secondary School Students Post Covid-19 Pandemic.
Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, 37(1),
115–127. https://doi.org/10.37934/araset.37.1.115127
Jian, N. J., & Kamsin, I. F. B. (2021). Cybersecurity Awareness Among the Youngs in
Malaysia by Gamification. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Integrated Intelligent Computing Communication & Security (ICIIC 2021), 4(Iciic),
487–494. https://doi.org/10.2991/ahis.k.210913.061
Kelley, K. (2023). What is Cybersecurity and Why It is Important? simplilearn.
https://www.simplilearn.com/tutorials/cyber-security-tutorial/what-is-cyber-security.
Retrieved on 30/01/24.
Kesharwani, S. (2020). 14C A New Cyber Initiative- By Government of India in 2020. 6, 25–
31.
Khader, M., Karam, M., & Fares, H. (2021). Cybersecurity awareness framework for academia.
Information (Switzerland), 12(10), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12100417
Khalid, F., & El-Maliki, T. (2020). Teachers' experiences in the development of digital
storytelling for cyber risk awareness. International Journal of Advanced Computer
Science and Applications, 2, 186–191. https://doi.org/10.14569/ijacsa.2020.0110225
Khan, N. F., Ikram, N., Saleem, S., & Zafar, S. (2023). Cyber-security and risky behaviors in
a developing country context: a Pakistani perspective. In Security Journal (Vol. 36,
Issue 2). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-022-00343-4
Klein, G., Zwilling, M., & Lesjak, D. (2020). A comparative study in Israel and Slovenia
regarding the awareness, knowledge, and behavior regarding cyber security. In
Responsible AI and Ethical Issues for Businesses and Governments (pp. 128–147). IGI
Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4285-9.ch007
Koyuncu, M., & Pusatli, T. (2019). Security Awareness Level of Smartphone Users: An
Exploratory Case Study. Mobile Information Systems, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2786913
Kritzinger, E. (2020). Improving cyber safety maturity of South African schools. Information
(Switzerland), 11(10), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11100471
Lobe, B., Simoes, J. A., Zaman, B., & L. Haddon. (2009). Research with children. In: S.
Livingstone, Kids online. Opportunities and risks for children, 31-40. Bristol: The
Policy Press.
Ma, S., Wang, Y., Shu, Z., Duan, Z., & Sun, L. (2023). Development and validation of Internet
literacy scale for high school students. Education and Information Technologies,
0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11641-8
Macaulay, P. J. R., Boulton, M. J., Betts, L. R., Boulton, L., Camerone, E., Down, J., Hughes,
J., Kirkbride, C., & Kirkham, R. (2020). Subjective versus objective knowledge of
online safety/dangers as predictors of children’s perceived online safety and attitudes

Page | 147
 towards e-safety education in the United Kingdom. Journal of Children and Media,
14(3), 376–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2019.1697716
Mai, P. T., & Tick, A. (2021). Cyber security awareness and behavior of youth in smartphone
usage: A comparative study between university students in Hungary and Vietnam. Acta
Polytechnica Hungarica, 18(8), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.12700/APH.18.8.2021.8.4
Martin, F., Gezer, T., Anderson, J., Polly, D., & Wang, W. C. (2021). Examining Parent's
Perception on Elementary School Children Digital Safety. Educational Media
International, 58(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2021.1908500
Masenya, T. M. (2023). Awareness and knowledge of cyber ethical behavior by students in
higher education institutions in South Africa. In Handbook of Research on
Cybersecurity Risk in Contemporary Business Systems (pp. 33–48). IGI Global.
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-7207-1.ch002
McCombes, S. (2020). Descriptive research. Scribbr. Retrieved from https://www.scribbr.com
MHRD. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. Government of India.
https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf
MoE. (2021). Report on Unified District Information System for Education Plus (UDISE+). In
Goi. https://dashboard.udiseplus.gov.in/#/home
Mohammed, M., & Bamasoud, D. M. (2022). The Impact of Enhancing Awareness of
Cybersecurity on Universities Students: A Survey Paper. Journal of Theoretical and
Applied Information Technology, 100(15), 4756–4766.
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
85138808067&partnerID=40&md5=f5409059905f855f94029d0526d10d6b
Mousa, S. (2019). Cyber security: exploring awareness among University Students at a Public
Educational Institution. International Journal of Innovative Research and Knowledge,
4(5), 88–97. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Cyber-Security-%3A-Exploring-
Awareness-among-Students-Mousa/b49f62de4dd6edafc0fae4deabf39404c5ce73c5
Musharraf, S., Bauman, S., Anis-ul-Haque, M., & Malik, J. A. (2019). General and ICT self-
efficacy in different participants roles in cyberbullying/victimization among Pakistani
university students. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(MAY), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01098
NCF. (2023). National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2023. In the National
Council of Educational Research and Training.
https://dsel.education.gov.in/sites/default/files/NCF2023.pdf
NEP. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. Economic and Political Weekly, 55(31), 4L.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003254942-12
Nicolaidou, I., & Venizelou, A. (2020). Improving children’s E-safety skills through an
interactive learning environment: A quasi-experimental study. Multimodal
Technologies and Interaction, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/mti4020010

Page | 148
Nkechi, L., Harcourt, P., & State, R. (2020). Achieving Cyber Safety in Junior Secondary
Schools in Rivers State, Nigeria. The International Journal of Humanities & Social
Studies, 8(4), 141–147.
Omar, N. S., Foozy, C. F. M., Hamid, I. R. A., Hafit, H., Arbain, A. F., & Shamala, P. (2021).
Malware Awareness Tool for Internet Safety using Gamification Techniques. Journal
of Physics: Conference Series, 1874(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-
6596/1874/1/012023
Podila, L. M., Bandreddi, J. P., Campos, J. I., Niyaz, Q., Yang, X., Trekles, A., Czerniak, C.,
& Javaid, A. Y. (2020). Practice-oriented smartphone security exercises for developing
a cybersecurity mindset in high school students. Proceedings of 2020 IEEE
International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering,
TALE 2020, 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE48869.2020.9368440
Prathyush, N. G. P., & Kumar, N. G. P. D. (2022). A Study of Cybersecurity and its Role in
Information Technology along with the Emerging Trends and Latest Technologies.
International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and
Technology, 854–858. https://doi.org/10.48175/ijarsct-7576
Quinn, S. (2013). The role of social networking site use in feelings of belonging among 9 to
13-year-olds. University of York, Psychology, Retrieved from
http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/5700/
Quyen, D., & Lien, N. H. (2022). Literature review of research in the area of digital safety
competency for school-age students and the prospect of digital safety education in
Vietnam. Vietnam Journal of Educational Sciences, 18(3), 40–51.
Rahman, N. A. A., Sairi, I. H., Zizi, N. A. M., & Khalid, F. (2020). The importance of
cybersecurity education in school. International Journal of Information and Education
Technology, 10(5), 378–382. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2020.10.5.1393
Raju, R., Rahman, N. H. A., & Ahmad, A. (2022). Cyber Security Awareness In Using Digital
Platforms Among Students In A Higher Learning Institution. Asian Journal of
University Education, 18(3), 756–766. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v18i3.18967
Rakhmatov, D., & Akhatov, A. (2020). Factors of cybercrime and cyber ethics: problems and
prospects. 1, 227–235.
Saxena, A. (2023). Importance of cyber security: Benefits and Disadvantages. sprinto.
https://sprinto.com/blog/importance-of-cyber-security/ Retrieved on 30/01/24.
Shah, P., & Agarwal, A. (2023). Cyber Suraksha: a card game for smartphone security
awareness. Information and Computer Security, 31(5), 576–600.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ICS-05-2022-008
Sussman, L. L. (2023). Everyday Cyber Safety for Students. In Studies in Computational
Intelligence (Vol. 1080, pp. 3–24). Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland
GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21199-7_1

Page | 149
Tomczyk, & Eger, L. (2020). Online safety as a new component of digital literacy for young
people. Integration of Education, 24(2), 172–184. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-
9468.099.024.202002.172-184
Tsimtsiou, Z., Drosos, E., Drontsos, A., Haidich, A.-B., Dantsi, F., Sekeri, Z., Dardavesis, T.,
Nanos, P., & Arvanitidou, M. (2021). Raising awareness on cyber safety: Adolescents’
experience of primary healthcare professional-led, school-based, multi-centre
intervention. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 31(6).
https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2017-007
Tsokoto, T., Mhloza, V., & Kangara, C. C. (2019). A Strategy To Enhance E-Safety Among
First Year Students at Zimbabwean Universities. Journal of Governance and
Development, 15(2), 67–85.
Wahid, S. D. M., Buja, A. G., Hasrol Jono, M. N. H., & Aziz, A. A. (2021). Assessing the
influential factors of cybersecurity awareness in Malaysia during the pandemic
outbreak: A structural equation modelling. International Journal of Advanced
Technology and Engineering Exploration, 8(74), 73–81.
https://doi.org/10.19101/IJATEE.2020.S1762116
Wei-Kocsis, J., Sabounchi, M., Mendis, G. J., Fernando, P., Yang, B., & Zhang, T. (2023).
Cybersecurity Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Novel Proactive and
Collaborative Learning Paradigm. IEEE Transactions on Education, 0–1.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2023.3337337
Zulqadri, D. M., Mustadi, A., & Retnawati, H. (2022). Digital Safety During Online Learning:
What We Do to Protect Our Student? Jurnal Iqra’: Kajian Ilmu Pendidikan, 7(1), 178–
191. https://doi.org/10.25217/ji.v7i1.1746

Page | 150
Page | 151
Page | 153