Teaching Digital Safety & ICT Competence in Primary School


A practitioner pre–post study at The English School of Meilahti (ENGS)

Abbreviation used in this paper

To keep things simple, we call the combined approach of simulation‑based lessons by 3DBear plus a digital learning environment (DLE)–managed learning path “SimPath.” In this project, the DLE was implemented with Qridi to make learning paths easy to run and track. Our focus is the approach, not the product name.   

1 Introduction

The English School of Meilahti (ENGS) launched a school‑wide effort to strengthen L5 (transversal) ICT competencies by building coherent learning paths, integrating simulation‑based activities, and aligning assessment so that every learner encounters the same expectations and routines across classes. This white paper reports on an early, practitioner‑led pre–post study comparing two cohorts: (a) Traditional teacher‑led instruction and (b) SimPath (simulation‑based lessons + a DLE‑managed learning path). Our goal is to share what worked, what we learned, and what we would improve next—not to claim academic causality. 

Why SimPath? Prior reviews and field experience at ENGS indicated that transversal ICT skills can fall between the cracks when left to individual teacher interpretation; assessment is especially hard, and implementation varies widely. A consistent learning path—paired with simulation‑based practice—was designed to reduce class‑to‑class variability and make progress visible and repeatable.   

2 Background & related work

In Finland, ICT competence is embedded as a transversal area rather than a standalone subject, which gives schools flexibility but also creates unevenness in what actually gets taught and assessed across classes and grade bands. Several national and municipal initiatives provide materials and frameworks, yet teachers still report fragmentation, limited scaffolding for assessment, and heavy reliance on individual expertise and interest. That unevenness was one of ENGS’s starting problems to solve. 

Simulation‑based learning—especially when paired with structured briefing–practice–debriefing—is strongly associated with situated learning and transfer (being able to apply what was learned in messy, real‑life situations). Despite a lively research landscape, concrete VR/simulation examples for ICT skills in basic education are rare; most available solutions target fragments (e.g., typing, coding) or exist in corporate training. ENGS therefore set out to build rather than “buy” these experiences and to integrate them into a coherent, school‑wide path managed in a DLE. 

The ENGS project plan reflects this intent: design grade‑level learning paths, combine virtual practice with practical classroom work and verification via the DLE, and publish the materials openly so other schools can adapt them. SimPath is the local name for this pairing of simulation pedagogy (3DBear) and a DLE‑managed path (Qridi). 

3 Methods

Design

Pragmatic, school‑based pre–post comparison of two non‑randomized cohorts. One cohort received Traditional instruction typical of ENGS legacy practice; the other used SimPath, i.e., simulation‑based lessons supported by a DLE‑managed, school‑wide learning path. This is a practitioner study, not a controlled experiment. 

Participants & Setting 

Traditional: 15 pre‑survey responses and 13 post; SimPath: 21 pre and 20 post. Slight attrition occurred in both, and groups were not matched at the student level. 

Instrument 

Five yes/no indicators aligned with digital safety responses and dispositions: (1) understands why age limits exist; (2) feels confident staying safe online; (3) would block a bully; (4) would delete harmful content/app; (5) would tell an adult when scared. Pre was administered before instruction; post followed the instructional period. We report descriptive percentage‑point (pp) changes and comment on ceiling effects. 

Pedagogical Contrast

In Traditional, emphasis varies by teacher (content selection, time on task, class routines). In SimPath, every class followed the same sequence of simulation‑based activities and reflections in the DLE, making the experience consistent and trackable across the year group. This difference in consistency is central to interpreting results and starting‑level differences.   

4 Results

Table 1. Pre → Post (%) and change (pp) by cohort

The SimPath cohort began higher on understanding/confidence and on blocking (≈8–28 pp higher at baseline), creating clear ceiling effects on those items. The Traditional cohort showed a dramatic catch‑up on blocking a bully (+33 pp). The SimPath cohort posted the largest gains on deleting harmful content/app (+28 pp) and telling an adult when scared (+23 pp). 

5 Discussion

Complementary profiles—and why “delete” and “tell” matter so much

Viewed together, the cohorts trace a sensible safety arc. Traditional instruction produced a large gain in immediate defensive action (blocking). SimPath produced strong gains in reflective follow‑through—specifically, deleting harmful content/apps and telling an adult. These three behaviors together (“block → delete → tell”) represent a complete response sequence to many online incidents. 

Deleting harmful content/apps (+28 pp in SimPath)

Deletion is not merely “cleanup.” It signals that a student (a) recognizes a risk, (b) chooses a proportionate control, and (c) executes that control across platforms. This requires judgment (recognizing what counts as harmful in context) and transfer (applying the rule in different apps and situations). Simulation‑based activities are well suited to rehearsing these judgment calls: they can present realistic, even ambiguous cases, make consequences visible, and scaffold the decision to remove the risk source. The DLE‑managed path then normalizes deletion as a routine expectation (e.g., prompts, checklists, reflections), reducing the chance that learners stop after the first technical step (blocking) and forget the environmental follow‑through. In other words, SimPath appears to turn “delete” from optional advice into an institutional habit.   

Why is that beneficial? Regular deletion lowers ongoing exposure (e.g., to grooming content, violent imagery), reduces algorithmic recirculation of harmful items, and decreases the cognitive load of seeing the same risky content repeatedly. In classrooms, it also shortens the time window in which incidents escalate. By rehearsing deletion decisions inside realistic simulations—and then logging them via the DLE—students practice both the action and the reasoning behind it, which should improve transfer to real life. 

Telling an adult when scared (+23 pp in SimPath)

Help‑seeking is a social safety valve. Early disclosure exposes “silent” cases, invites proportionate adult responses (technical, pastoral, disciplinary), and distributes problem‑solving across a supportive network. Help‑seeking, however, is deeply norm‑dependent: students need a shared script for what to say, to whom, and when. Simulation practice can make those scripts explicit (briefing → practice → debriefing), reduce the social friction of disclosure, and model appropriate adult responses. The DLE further cements the norm by embedding “tell an adult” as a visible checkpoint with feedback—sending a school‑wide cue that telling is expected and competent, not tattling. This visibility across classes is difficult to achieve with purely teacher‑dependent approaches.   

Why SimPath would emphasize “delete” and “tell.”

Two practical reasons fit the data and design. First, ceiling effects: the SimPath cohort started high on understanding/confidence and blocking, so there was limited headroom there; more room remained for second‑step behaviors. Second, consistency: the school‑wide learning path directs every class through the same reflective checkpoints, giving repeated opportunities to rehearse deletion and help‑seeking. Traditional teaching can absolutely cultivate these behaviors, but outcomes will vary by how much emphasis each teacher chooses to place on them. SimPath reduces that variance.   

A note on interpretation.

Given the non‑randomized design, we are cautious about causal claims. Yet the pattern is coherent: Traditional strengthened the first move (block), while SimPath strengthened follow‑through moves (delete, tell). For practice, the implication is straightforward: blend them and teach the full response sequence—quick defensive action and reflective remediation and disclosure. 

6 Limitations & bias (threats to validity)

  • Small, independent samples; attrition; no matched pairs. Ns were modest (Traditional 15→13; SimPath 21→20), with slight attrition and independent samples pre–post. Binary outcomes limit sensitivity and invite social‑desirability bias; several items show ceiling effects. 

  • Private‑school context. ENGS is an independent/private school with historically strong academic culture. Baselines (especially for understanding/confidence) may be higher than municipal averages, limiting generalization. 

  • Teacher‑dependent variation in “Traditional.” Under legacy practice, content and emphasis vary by teacher, which likely explains different starting levels across classes.

  • SimPath intentionally standardizes experience across classes; this is a program strength—but also a confound when comparing to variable legacy practice.   

We therefore present these results as practitioner evidence, useful for school decision‑making and for shaping more rigorous follow‑ups.

7 Implications for practice

Teach the full safety sequence. Make “block → delete → tell” the shared mental model. Use quick drills (for block/report) and SimPath‑style reflective checkpoints (for delete & tell) so the second‑step behaviors are practiced and expected, not left to chance. 

Prefer consistency at scale. Because Traditional outcomes depend heavily on teacher emphasis, a DLE‑managed path helps ensure that every class encounters the same safety routines, evidence captures, and debriefs. This improves equity, continuity, and monitoring. 

Keep simulation briefings and debriefings tight. The learning lift comes not only from the scenario but from the structured reflection around it. Plan prompt sets that explicitly ask: What would you delete, why, and who would you tell? 

Publish and iterate. ENGS’s plan to share materials openly invites constructive critique and reuse—vital for a field where examples in basic education are still scarce. 

8 Recommendations & next studies

  • Design upgrades

  • Control for baselines. Use randomized or matched‑pairs assignment where possible; compute effect sizes to account for ceiling effects. 

  • Track durability. Add 3–6‑month follow‑ups to see which behaviors persist without refreshers (prediction: “block” persists, “tell” decays without norm reinforcement). 

  • Add qualitative depth. Short interviews/focus groups on why students do—or don’t—tell an adult. 

  • Pilot a hybrid arm. Combine quick defensive drills with SimPath’s reflective cycle; compare to single‑method groups. 

  • Instrument upgrades.

  • Move beyond binary items to Likert scales and a small performance task (e.g., branching simulation) that records time‑to‑action for block/delete/tell. 

  • Disaggregate help‑seeking: who (teacher, counselor, caregiver), how soon, and what words students would use.

  • Add reporting pathway knowledge (platform‑specific) and bystander actions (“Would you help a peer delete/tell?”).

  • Include evidence‑keeping where appropriate (when not to delete immediately but still to tell), to reflect real‑world escalation paths.

  • Capture transfer across contexts (gaming chat, messaging, social feeds) with scenario variants. 

9 Conclusion

These practitioner results suggest complementary strengths. Traditional approaches can sharply lift immediate defensive action (blocking), while SimPath appears to cultivate the reflective follow‑through behaviors that keep students safer over time (delete and tell). For schools seeking a practical path forward, the message is to blend: keep the quick drills, and add a consistent, simulation‑anchored learning path to normalize deletion and help‑seeking across every class.   

Acknowledgements & context

This work is part of ENGS’s initiative to develop coherent ICT learning paths and simulation‑based activities, framed under the Finnish National Agency for Education’s Innovatiivisten oppimisympäristöjen program, with a commitment to open sharing of outputs. We thank the ENGS team, students, and partners (3DBear for simulation design and platform; Qridi for the DLE integration that makes learning paths easy to run).