The use of the Internet by children brings both benefits and certain risks (Livingstone & Haddon, 2009). In the case of students with intellectual disabilities (ID), Internet access and use have increased progressively in recent years (Jenaro, Flores, Cruz, et al., 2018). Their difficulties in conceptual, practical and social skills (Schalock et al., 2010) require support for their learning and, in certain circumstances, mediators who can help them manage certain risks (Seale, 2014; Seale, Nind, & Simmons, 2013). Teachers and family members tend to think that Internet access of students with ID has some associated risks (Chiner, Gómez-Puerta, & Cardona-Moltó, 2017) such as cyberbullying (Jenaro, Flores, Vega, et al., 2018), scams, online harassment, or sexual solicitation (Lough & Fisher, 2016).

Facing overprotection, which can reduce the benefits of using the Internet, positive risk management is a functional alternative that enables students with ID to develop online skills (Seale et al., 2013). The positive risk management is based on social mediation from an educational perspective, understood as training for the identification and management of online risks (Seale, 2015). In this sense, teachers are in a privileged position for implementing risk management strategies that favour the use of the Internet by these students. In fact, families expect them to do so (Karaseva, Siibak, & Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, 2015). However, this management is conditioned by the knowledge and training of the teaching staff regarding the implementation of those strategies. The study carried out by Kalmus, von Feilitzen and Siibak (2012) showed that teacher support generates a positive effect on the development of students' digital skills. However, they also identified that this mediation is scarce and that it was likely that without teacher mediation the students would have experienced even more negative situations online. Therefore, authors stressed the importance of developing support and digital social mediation of students, both for its potential effect of reducing risks and negative experiences and the effect of increasing online skills. On the other hand, as discussed by Karaseva et al. (2015), the available research on teacher training and competence in online mediation strategies is very scarce. The knowledge available so far indicates that there is significant variability between teachers regarding their training to use Internet access devices, and for risk management and mediation. In addition, there is a wide variability of attitudes towards the use of these devices in educational environments among teachers, which seem to be conditioned by their perception of self-efficacy and competence of use. In general, the available knowledge about teachers’ skills, their perception of self-efficacy, as well as the mediation practices they have implemented and their effects will help to better understand a relatively recent and underresearched phenomenon, especially referred to students with ID.

Consequently, the purpose of this study was to examine and to compare the mediation strategies that teachers in regular and special schools implement to minimise online risks for students with ID. The study also aimed to explore teachers’ level of competence to prevent and to address those online risks and the specific training received.

Participants In the study participated 258 regular and special education teachers from the Valencian Community, Spain. Teachers were selected using a stratified cluster sampling, taking the province (Alicante, Castellón and Valencia) and the type of school (primary, secondary and special education) as strata to sort out the schools. Once the schools were selected (n = 138), six teachers from each school were asked to participate in the study. The final sample comprised 181 teachers from mainstream schools (70.2%) and 77 teachers from special schools (29.8%). Participants had an average teaching experience of 17.18 years (SD = 9.55) and 72.5% (n = 187) were female teachers. Instruments The questionnaire included a list of 23 strategies categorised in four types of mediation: active mediation (co-use and internet safety), restrictive mediation, monitoring and technical mediation (Dürager and Sonck, 2014). Participants had to select the practices and strategies they had used at school with their students with ID or promoted with family members. The perceived level of competence to prevent or to address the online risks was measured using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = not competent, 5 = highly competent). Finally, teachers were asked about the training received and the specific sources from which they had received or they would like to receive information and/or training (e.g. workplace, public administration, mass media, friends). Additionally, demographic questions were included. Procedure The study was conducted using a cross-sectional survey design, which had been previously approved by the University Ethics Committee (procedure UA-2017-11-15). The survey was sent by post to the selected schools and it was returned completed via a prepaid envelope a month later. The time taken to complete it was 10 minutes. Descriptive and non-parametric statistics (Phi coefficient) were used.

Teachers implement mostly active mediation strategies, specifically, strategies related to co-use like talking to students with ID about what they do on the Internet (83.3%), staying nearby when they use the Internet (66.7%) and doing shared activities (62%). Other active mediation strategies are related to Internet safety like talking to students with ID about (a) the risks of chatting and dating online (64%), (b) misleading advertising and scams (55.8%), (c) online identity and data theft (55.8%). Half of the teachers (50.8%) also reported to organise workshops or briefings for family members about internet safety. Restrictive practices such as checking (a) students’ browsing history (17.4%), (b) messages in their email or instant messaging account (15.1%) and (c) new friends and contacts added to their social networking profile (13.6%) were used less frequently. Overall, special schools implemented some mediation strategies more often than regular schools (p < .01). Concerning teachers’ level of competence, 35.6% of the participants feel they are not competent enough to prevent potential online risks and 41.9% think they are poorly competent to address online problems. No differences were found between special and regular schools. Finally, 92.6% of the participants had never participated in training courses related to internet safety. Information and training came mostly from the media (41%), from work (38%) and from the centres of educational training, innovation and resources - CEFIRE (24%). Teachers from regular schools had used these sources of information more often compared with teachers from special schools. Participants considered that they should receive information and training preferably from the CEFIRE (53.9%), the public administration (40.3) and from their workplace (38.8%). There is a need of training on Internet safety and use by students with ID. Despite teachers implement some Internet mediation strategies, they do not feel competent enough to cope with online risks.

Chiner, E., Gómez-Puerta, M., & Cardona-Moltó, M. C. (2017). Internet and people with intellectual disability: An approach to caregivers’ concerns, prevention strategies and training needs. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2017.7.243 Dürager, A., & Sonck, N. (2014). Testing the reliability of scales on parental internet mediation. London: EU Kids Online, LSE. Jenaro, C., Flores, N., Cruz, M., Pérez, M. C., Vega, V., & Torres, V. A. (2018). Internet and cell phone usage patterns among young adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31(2), 259-272. Jenaro, C., Flores, N., Vega, V., Cruz, M., Pérez, M. C., & Torres, V. A. (2018). Cyberbullying among adults with intellectual disabilities: Some preliminary data. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 72, 265-274. Kalmus, V., von Feilitzen, C., & Siibak, A. (2012). Effectiveness of teachers’ and peers’ mediation in supporting opportunities and reducing risks online. In S. Livingstone, L. Haddon, & A. Görzig (Eds.), Children, risk and safety on the Internet (pp. 245-256). Bristol: Policy Press. Karaseva, A., Siibak, A., & Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, P. (2015). Relationships between teachers` pedagogical beliefs, subject cultures, and mediation practices of students’ use of digital technology. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9(1), article 6. Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2009). EU Kids Online: Final Report. LSE, London, UK: EU Kids Online. Lough, E., & Fisher, M. H. (2016). Internet use and online safety in adults with Williams syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 60(10), 1020-1030. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12281 Schalock, R. L., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Bradley, V. J., Buntinx, W. H. E., Coulter, D. L., Craig, E. M., … Yeager, M. H. (2010). Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports (11.a ed.). Washington, DC. USA: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Seale, J. (2014). The role of supporters in facilitating the use of technologies by adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: a place for positive risk-taking. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(2), 220-236. https://doi.org///dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2014.906980 Seale, J. (2015). Negotiating risk and potential: What role can positive risk taking play in promoting excellent, inclusive partnerships? En Conference on Education 2015 (pp. 1-6). Qatar: QScience. https://doi.org///dx.doi.org/10.5339/ Seale, J., Nind, M., & Simmons, B. (2013). Transforming positive risk-taking practices: the possibilities of creativity and resilience in learning disability contexts. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 15(3), 233-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2012.703967