The use of (social) media can be very entertaining but presents challenges for educators of adolescents that are not that media-literate yet^1,2.How adolescents with an intellectual disability (ID) can benefit from the opportunities of (social) media safely, responsibly, and ethically, is internationally an urgent but poorly studied educational issue³. For these adolescents assessing online information as fake or real often is troublesome, due to deficits in intellectual functioning (e.g., reasoning, problem solving, making judgments, learning from instruction and experience, and practical understanding)^4,5. Consequently, they are often involved in online incidents like fraud, manipulation, sextortion, and cyberbullying, and hence to sense a feeling of online exclusion impacting their education and wellbeing^6,7,8.

The issue of online exclusion of adolescents with an ID is addressed in three consecutive studies, which together aim to answer the general research question of what these adolescents need to benefit from the opportunities of (social) media? First, via 7 peer-to-peer interviews the needs regarding adolescents’ experiences with online incidents were recorded⁹. The adolescents, aged 13 to 20, foremost indicated having difficulty with assessing the authenticity of online information, for example: “I don’t want to believe online fake stuff, but I do”, “I don’t want any more miscommunication with guys”, and “I once won a price, but lost all my money when I wanted to claim it by phone”. In a focus-group meeting about the input derived from the interviewees, they unanimously indicated the need for an application that could help them assess whether online information is fake or real.

In order to meet this need, in a successive study such an application was developed, applying the principles of participatory action research (PAR)¹⁰ with adolescents with an ID and educators that guide them in their media use. The app, named Fake Real! (in Dutch: Nep Echt!^11,12) provides information, actual examples of fake and real information, check lists, user guidelines, and hyperlinks to assess the authenticity of online information that can be found on a broad range of platforms (e.g., WhatsApp,Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, Messenger, Telegram, Vinted, TikTok, Marketplace, Discord, Omegle, Tinder, and Grindr). The Fake Real! app meets the international Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)¹³ to make web content accessible to people with an ID.

A final study addressed the experiences of the target group with the use of the Fake Real! app. By using the app, adolescents with an ID are expected to become more media-wise and mentally stronger, suffer less from online incidents, feel more safe online, enjoy media use more, and experience an increased sense of online belonging. Since these adolescents often struggle with standardized tests, resulting in unreliable outcomes¹⁴, and because suitable media literacy tests are not available⁷, a custom made method was needed to bring together their experiences. Again using PAR, two measurements were developed for this purpose: the questionnaire ‘How are you doing online?’ and an art-based evaluation tool.

The presentation at the ECER is intended to address and discuss the process-related as well as the substantial outcomes of the second and third performed studies. These outcomes include: a) the input from the target population and the educators that guide them in their media-use during the app development process; b) an impression of the content and functioning of the app; c) the lessons learned from the PAR process towards the app and the evaluative instruments; and d) the implications of the app for adolescents with an ID for introduction and use in educational settings.

Participatory Action Research (PAR)10 was performed to collect input from adolescents with an ID on their requirements for an app for assessing the authenticity of online information. PAR is an approach to research emphasizing participation and action of the people involved. Based on the input from the adolescents, educators, and researchers, college students from the educational minor ‘Mobile Solutions’ of Windesheim University of Applied Sciences in Zwolle, the Netherlands, developed the Fake Real! app, following an iterative process of building, testing, collecting feedback, and improving. PAR was also used to develop the evaluation measurements. The ‘How are you doing online?’ questionnaire comprised easy to understand, visually supported questions addressing the respondent’s extent of media-literacy and need for guidance (5 items; e.g., ‘Do you ask friends for help if you find something difficult online?’, ‘Do you have problems because of online fake information?’) and their feeling of confidence (6 items; e.g., ‘Are you having fun online?’, ‘Do you feel safe online’?). Each of these items had four answering options ranging from ‘Always’ to ‘Never’. The questionnaire also contained 10 screenshot-examples of online situations (e.g., a WhatsApp request for money, a news message on Instagram, a Facebook account) which respondents had to indicate as fake or real. The art-based evaluation tool was applied in small groups of adolescents with an ID after they had access to the app for a substantial period, i.e. about 4-8 weeks. The tool-script contained step-by-step instructions for the researchers who prepared and conducted the sessions. A number of simply worded, visualized, inviting questions about the experiences of the target group with the app were asked (e.g., ‘What did you use the app for?’, ‘What do you think of the app?’, ‘Are you going to use the app more often?’). Subsequently, a Google Jam Board session was applied to collect experiences with the app by means of making a drawing, collage or video on a personal Jam Board page. Within the sessions, there was ample opportunity to talk about the creative expressions. Two researchers collect input on the questionnaire and art-based evaluation tool at three schools for secondary special education from December 2022 to March 2023 in the East region of the Mid-Netherlands. A total of 18 to approximately 28 respondents is expected to participate based on the number of adolescents that participated in the pre-measurement and agreed to also participate in the post-measurement and art-based sessions.

The requirement analyses with the adolescents indicated that the app should meet various criteria such as ‘funfactor’ (“I like pop-ups and gimmicks”, “Avoid a focus on learning, keep it playful”), ‘clarity’ (“Explain things simple and short”, “Use a clear font”), ‘accessibility’ (“Can texts be read aloud?”, “Use examples that match the perception of the target group”), ‘inclusivity’ (“Use examples of all genders”, “I'd rather hear a real human voice than one from a robot”), and ‘navigation’ (“I want to know where I am and how long it will take”, “Avoid unnecessary click-throughs”). The data collection from the ‘How are you doing online? questionnaire and the art-based evaluation-tool is currently in full swing. Yet, the first outcomes of the questionnaire indicate an increased level of media-literacy among app-users. The input so far on the Google Jam Board sessions varies a lot. Adolescents foremost expressed themselves using digital sticky notes (e.g., “I haven’t used the app”, “It prevented me from being scammed”, “I would use the app to see if emails and SMS’s are genuine”, “I use it when I don’t trust something on TikTok”). Two adolescents filmed themselves with their iPhones talking about their positive experiences with the app. Regarding the lessons learned from PAR, experiences by educators and researchers so far include: “The target population has unique experiential knowledge that supplements ours” and “By giving people a greater role in research about themselves, the research is more in line with their environment”. Furthermore, the college students initially emphasized not to see the point of PAR (“Let's just build an app, ask users what they think of it, and then adjust it”), but became aware of the inaccessibility of many software and the importance of developing tools for and with people with an ID during the iterative process.

1 Nikken, P. (2022). Media and the family context. In: D. Lemish (Ed.). The Routledge International Handbook of Children, Adolescents, and Media (2nd ed., pp. 339-346). Taylor & Francis Group. 2 Livingstone, S. & Blum-Ross, A. (2020). Parenting for a digital future: How hopes and fears about technology shape children’s lives. Oxford university press. 3 Alfredsson Ågren, K., Kjellberg, A., & Hemmingsson, H. (2020). Access to and use of the Internet among adolescents and young adults with intellectual disabilities in everyday settings. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 45(1): 89-98. 4 Probst, D. (2017). Social Media Literacy as an IEP Intervention for Social and Emotional Learning. Journal of Media Literacy Education 9(2): 45-57. 5 Chadwick, D. (2019). Online risk for people with intellectual disabilities. Tizard Learning Disability Review 24(4): 180–187. 6 Nikken, P. (2020). Professionals about the media use of adolescents with a disability. Nederlands Jeugdinstituut [Netherlands Youth Institute], Utrecht, The Netherlands. 7 Vergeer, M. & Nikken, P. (2016). Media literacy and children with a mild intellectual disability: An analysis of what is available and needed to include children with a mild intellectual disability. Netwerk Mediawijsheid/Nederlands Jeugdinstituut [Network of Media Literacy/Netherlands Youth Institute], Utrecht, The Netherlands. 8 Good, B., & Fang, L. (2015). Promoting smart and safe internet use among children with neurodevelopmental disorders and their parents. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2): 179-188. 9 Nikken, P. & Buttner, S.A. (2021). Everyone can participate in social media. Pedagogiek in Praktijk [Pedagogics in Practice] 121: 18-28. 10 Kramer, J.M., Kramer, C., Garcia-Iriarte, E.l, and Hammel, J. (2011). Following Through to the End: The Use of Inclusive Strategies to Analyse and Interpret Data in Participatory Action Research with Individuals in Intellectual Disabilities. Journal of Applied Research on Intellectual Disabilities 24(3): 263-273. 11 Buttner, S.A., & Nikken, P. (2021). Fake Real! [Nep Echt!] An app for assessing the authenticity of online information. Sozio-Special: Buitengewoon Normaal [Exceptionally Normal] 121(3). 12 Research Department of Windesheim University of Applied Sciences (2023). Fake Real! [Nep Echt!] An app to assess the authenticity of online information. https://www.nepecht.com. Zwolle, the Netherlands. 13 WCAG 2: Understanding the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag. 14 Geisinger, K.F. (2009). Psychometric issues in Testing Students With Disabilities. Applied Measurement in Education 7, 121-140.