Cybersecurity Fundamentals Training Among Middle School

Students: Building a Strong Foundation

Qingsong Zhao

, Urska Cvek

and Kevin Zhao

Department of Computer Science, Louisiana State University Shreveport, One University Pl, Shreveport, LA 71115, U.S.A.

Caddo Magnet High School, 1601 Viking Dr, Shreveport, LA 71101, U.S.A.

Keywords: Cybersecurity, Internet Security, Cybersecurity Awareness, Cybersecurity Knowledge,

Cybersecurity Fundamentals, Cybersecurity Training, Awareness Evaluation.

Abstract: Cyber threats and cybercrimes pose serious challenges for individuals and organizations. Cybersecurity

awareness (CSA) training helps mitigate these risks, but its effectiveness depends on accurately assessing

participants' CSA levels. Without a solid understanding of cybersecurity fundamentals (CSF), trainees often

overestimate their awareness. This study investigates the impact of foundational cybersecurity knowledge on

self-assessment accuracy in a CSA training program. Conducted during a summer camp for 61 middle school

students, the research involved five phases of targeted instruction and evaluations. We developed a

comprehensive program with pre-, mid-, and post-training evaluations to measure participants' awareness.

The findings reveal that while students initially overestimated their CSA, training improved both their quiz

scores and self-assessment accuracy. This study provides valuable insights into the design of effective CSA

training programs and self-assessment tools, offering practical guidelines for middle school students and

broader audiences.

1 INTRODUCTION

In today's digital world, cyber threats pose significant

challenges for individuals and organizations (Rawat

et al., 2019). Middle school students, heavily reliant

on the Internet for education and entertainment, are

increasingly exposed to risks like phishing, malware,

and cyberbullying (Norton, 2021). Despite frequent

technology use, they often lack the knowledge to

protect themselves, leaving them vulnerable.

Cybersecurity awareness (CSA) involves recognizing

risks and best practices, but a solid understanding of

cybersecurity fundamentals (CSF) is crucial for

effective defense (Al-Shanfari et al., 2020). However,

many students lack this foundation, limiting their

ability to assess their awareness accurately and

fostering a false sense of security (CompTIA, 2024).

While technology is vital, the human factor is

critical in mitigating cyber risks (Michael, 2008).

Education and training must balance technical

concepts with behavioural strategies (Zwilling, Moti,

et al., 2022). However, most programs emphasize

CSA over CSF, neglecting foundational knowledge

critical for applying these concepts (Johnson, 2019).

This paper addresses this gap by integrating CSF into

CSA education for middle school students, enhancing

their self-assessments and cybersecurity practices. It

reviews related work, outlines research methodology,

presents results, and concludes with findings and

recommendations, offering future research directions.

2 RELATED WORK

The fields of CSA and CSA training have recently

gained significant attention, with studies

investigating methods for improving user

understanding of cyber risks and best practices. CSA

includes knowledge of security threats, policies, and

the ability to respond to digital risks (Akter et al.,

2022). Effective CSA training helps users align their

actions with organizational security, comply with

regulations, and adopt best practices (Bauer, et al.,

2017). However, threats like social engineering

highlight the need for continuous CSA training

(Bitton et al., 2020), as cyber threats evolve.

Research shows that understanding CSA can

significantly influence compliance with practices

(Lee et al., 2016). Psychological factors such as self-

176

Zhao, Q., Cvek, U. and Zhao, K.

Cybersecurity Fundamentals Training Among Middle School Students: Building a Strong Foundation.

DOI: 10.5220/0013144500003899

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information Systems Security and Privacy (ICISSP 2025) - Volume 2, pages 176-183

ISBN: 978-989-758-735-1; ISSN: 2184-4356

efficacy, risk awareness, and social support play a

vital role in shaping CSA (Zhou et al., 2020). Studies

have explored the relationship between CSA, CSF,

and behavior in various populations. For instance,

Zwilling et al. (2022) found that higher CSF

knowledge correlates with CSA. Bauer et al. (2017)

observed that well-designed security training

improves CSA in the banking sector.

Different methodologies to enhance CSA include

a cost-benefit analysis framework to optimize

training (Zhang et al., 2021), and research on gaming

technology in cybersecurity education (Alotaibi et al.,

2016). Hijji and Alam (2022) proposed a CSA

training framework for remote workers, which proved

effective. Most CSA programs focus on adults in

corporate settings, though there is a lack of CSA

among academic staff, students, and parents (Ahmad

et al., 2018). Ahmad et al. (2018) also highlight the

moderate CSA among parents, emphasizing the

importance of early cybersecurity education.

Interest in children’s CSA is increasing due to the

rise in Internet use among youth. Studies have

explored risks like password practices, online

privacy, and phishing (Prior & Renaud, 2020), and

platforms have been developed to teach children

about these risks (Desimpelaere et al., 2020). Despite

this, children's CSA programs are fewer than those for

adults (Sulaiman et al., 2022). Overall, CSA plays a

critical role in mitigating cyber threats, and

continuous, tailored education is essential. Future

research should focus on innovative methods to

address evolving cybersecurity threats.

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research methodology aims to identify gaps

between students' self-assessed and actual CSA,

examine the CSA-CSF relationship, and test

strategies to improve both through targeted training.

3.1 Aims

The study aims to: 1. Identify disparities between

middle school students' self-assessed and measured

CSA levels using Likert scale surveys and quizzes; 2.

Examine the relationship between self-assessed CSA

and CSF understanding using self-reported surveys

and quizzes; 3. Test strategies to enhance CSA and

CSF through targeted training modules in a summer

camp setting.

3.2 Research Questions

This study addresses the following research

questions: 1. How accurately do students' self-

assessed CSA levels reflect their actual CSA as

measured by quizzes? 2. What factors contribute to

discrepancies between students' self-assessments and

their actual CSA, such as gaps in understanding key

cybersecurity threats? 3. Which educational content

most effectively enhances both self-assessed and

actual CSA?

3.3 Research Hypotheses

Our research is guided by the following hypotheses:

H1: Students tend to overestimate their CSA levels

compared to their actual CSA; H2: Instruction in CSF

significantly improves students' CSF knowledge as

measured by quiz performance; H3: Increased

understanding of CSF leads to more accurate self-

assessment of CSA; H4: Practical CSA training

improves the students' actual CSA levels; H5:

Engaging in CSA training and practice improves

students' self-assessed CSA.

4 RESEARCH DESIGN

The research methodology aims to identify gaps

between students' self-assessed and actual CSA,

examine the CSA-CSF relationship, and test

strategies to improve both through targeted training.

4.1 Participants and Demographics

This research was part of the LSU Shreveport

Summer Cybersecurity Camp (LSUS IRB #2023-

061), a 4-week program offering 3 hours of daily

cybersecurity awareness training for middle school

students. Funded by LSUS Continuing Education, the

camp was offered free of charge and open to all

regional middle school students. Of the 69 students

who registered, 61 completed the camp and all related

surveys, while the remaining 8 did not finish and were

excluded from the study.

Table 1: Participant demographic information.

Variable Items n Percentages %

Sex

Female 29 47.5%

Male 32 52.5%

Grade

6th 18 29.5%

7th 22 36.0%

8th 21 34.5%

Cybersecurity Fundamentals Training Among Middle School Students: Building a Strong Foundation

177

Participant demographics are outlined in Table 1,

showing that our overall population was

approximately half female and half male and equally

distributed across the three middle school grades

(grades 6-8). Our sex distribution within each grade

was similar (although the data is not shown).

4.2 Phases

The study was organized into five phases, aimed at

evaluating and enhancing specific aspects of CSA and

CSF.

Phase 1: Initial Survey: Phase 1 involved baseline

data collection to measure students' CSA and CSF: 1.

Basic Information Questionnaire: Demographic and

educational data; 2. CSA self-evaluation: Students

self-assessed their CSA levels; 3. CSA quiz: An

objective quiz measured actual CSA; 4. CSF

evaluation: A quiz assessed CSF knowledge.

Phase 2: CSF Instruction: Following Phase 1,

students participated in two weeks (750 minutes) of

CSF lessons. Topics included Cybersecurity

Terminology, Information System Components,

Threats, Ethical Hacking, Incident Response, and

Encryption. The lessons involved slides, lectures,

discussions, games, and hands-on activities.

Phase 3: Midterm Survey: After CSF instruction,

students reassessed their CSA (self-evaluation) and

took a CSF quiz to measure improvements.

Phase 4: CSA Instruction and Practice: Phase 4

aimed to improve CSA with lectures and activities

covering Password Security, Phishing, Privacy

Protection, Social Engineering, and Malware. The

content was tailored to address security in daily

activities such as smartphone use, social media, and

gaming. Students worked in small groups, completing

quizzes and receiving feedback to refine the training.

Phase 5: Final Survey: The final phase assessed

the program’s impact: 1. Final CSA self-evaluation:

Students rated their CSA as in earlier phases; 2. Final

Quiz: A final quiz compared CSA with previous

evaluations.

Table 2: Study Phases (x denotes conducting the action).

Phase

Basic

Info

Questio

nnaire

CSA

Self-

Evaluati

CSA

Quiz-

Evaluati

CSF

Quiz-

Evaluatio

1 x x x x

3 x x

5 x x

This multi-phase design enables a thorough

analysis of students’ self-perceived and actual CSA,

CSF training effectiveness, and the impact of

practical CSA improvements. The five phases and

corresponding surveys are illustrated in Table 2.

4.3 Survey Design

The questionnaires were designed to collect

comprehensive data through four assessments: basic

information, CSA self-evaluation, CSA quiz, and

CSF quiz. These were based on the NIST/NICE

framework (NICE 2020) and other research studies

(Zwilling et al., 2022).

Table 3: CSA evaluation questions.

CSA Key Area CSA Question Group

Password

CSA 1: I understand password and

assword securit

CSA 2: I take steps to create and

use strong passwords

Phishing

CSA 3: I am aware of common

hishin

attacks

CSA 4: I follow best practices

rotect a

ainst email

hishin

ID and Privacy

CSA 5: I know ID and privacy and

how to protect the

CSA 6: I practice safe behaviour to

protect my Personally Identifiable

Information

Social

Engineering

Attack

CSA 7: I can identify social

engineering attacks

CSA 8: I take measures to avoid

social en

ineerin

attac

Malware

CSA 9: I am aware of malware and

malware attacks

CSA 10: I leverage resources to

mitigate malware risks

Basic Information Questionnaire: Gathered

demographic and background data, including device

usage, cyber risk perceptions, training, and

experiences with cyber incidents.

CSA Self-Evaluation (Table 3): Measured

students' confidence in cybersecurity across five areas

(Password Security, Phishing, ID Protection, Social

Engineering, and Malware) using a Likert scale. Two

sets of questions per area assessed awareness and

practical application, scored from 0 to 10, totalling up

to 100 points.

CSA Quiz-Evaluation (Table 3): Assessed

students' actual knowledge in the same five areas

through objective

questions, similar to the self-

evaluation, with scores totalling 100 points.

ICISSP 2025 - 11th International Conference on Information Systems Security and Privacy

178

CSF Quiz-Evaluation (Table 4): Evaluated

knowledge in five critical cybersecurity domains:

Cybersecurity Basics, System Components, Risks &

Access Management, Identification &

Authentication, and Ethical Hacking & Incident

Response, with scores totalling 100 points.

Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for reliability:

CSA Self-Evaluation (0.90), CSA Quiz (0.77), and

CSF Quiz (0.73), indicating acceptable reliability.

The survey design provided valuable insights into

students' cybersecurity awareness, revealing

discrepancies between perceived and actual

knowledge, guiding the development of targeted

educational strategies to improve cybersecurity

competency.

Table 4: CSF evaluation questions.

CSF Key Area CSF Question Group

Cybersecurity

Basics

CSF 1: Understanding Key

Cybersecurity Terms and

Definitions

CSF 2: Core Cybersecurity

Principles and Best Practices

System

Components &

Network

CSF 3: Critical Information

System Components and Their

Roles

CSF 4: Networking Fundamentals

for Cybersecurity

Risks & Access

Management

CSF 5: Identifying and Managing

Risks, Threats, and

Vulnerabilities

CSF 6: Implementing Effective

Access Control Strategies

Identification,

Authentication &

Encryption

CSF 7: Techniques for

Identification and Authentication

in C

bersecurit

CSF 8: Data Encryption Methods

and Their Importance in

bersecurit

Ethical Hacking

& Incident

Response

CSF 9: Ethical Hacking: Methods

and Techniques for Testing

Securit

CSF 10: Developing and

Implementing Effective Incident

Response Plans

5 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

This section presents the study's findings, comparing

assessments before and after the training.

5.1 Descriptive Statistics

The research was conducted through a free CSA

training summer camp for middle school students,

with 61 out of 69 participants completing the program

and surveys. Participant demographics (Table 1)

indicate an equal gender distribution and a balanced

representation across grades 6-8 (ages 12 to 14).

Table 5: Basic information questionnaire results.

Variable Items n %

Internet Daily

Usage

–

3 Hours 15 24.6%

–

6 Hours 32 52.4%

7 and above 14 23.0%

Top 3

Activities

Videos/Movie 53 86.9%

Gamin

42 68.9%

Music 41 67.2%

Chattin

30 49.2%

Learning 14 23.0%

Very Familiar

Apps

Video Games 42 68.9%

Web Browsers 38 62.3%

Social Media

Apps

30 49.2%

Biggest Cyber

Risk

Perception

Identity theft 17 27.9%

Losing data 16 26.2%

Violation of

rivac

13 21.3%

Financial loss 8 13.1%

Being influenced

misinformation

7 11.5%

Device Usage

Smart

hone 42 68.9%

Personal

Computer

(

Deskto

/La

18 29.5%

Tablet 1 1.6%

Received

Formal

Training

Yes 24 39.3%

No 37 60.7%

Parental

Control

Yes 36 59.0%

No 25 41.0%

Cyber Incident

Vitim

Yes 14 23%

No 47 77%

The study first collected basic demographic

information and cybersecurity-related behaviours

among the participants. Table 5 summarizes the data,

highlighting that 52.4% of students spend 4-6 hours

on the Internet daily, with the top three activities

being watching videos/movies (86.9% of students),

gaming (68.9% of students), and listening to music

(67.2% of students). Most students identified

themselves as very familiar with video games (68.9%

of students) and web browsers (62.3% of students),

while identity theft (27.9% of students) and losing

data (26.2% of students) were perceived as the

Cybersecurity Fundamentals Training Among Middle School Students: Building a Strong Foundation

179

biggest cybersecurity risks. Interestingly, 39.3% of

students had previously received formal

cybersecurity training, and 59.0% of students

reported parental control over their Internet usage.

Notably, 23% of students had experienced a cyber-

incident in the past.

5.2 Survey Data

This section presents the students' self-assessed CSA

scores, CSA quiz scores, and CSF quiz scores

collected from the initial, midterm, and final surveys

in the project.

5.2.1 Initial Survey Data

The initial survey assessed students' CSA through

self-evaluation and quiz evaluations. Table 6 shows

that students generally rated themselves higher in

CSA than their quiz results reflected. For example,

the average of self-evaluation was 6.78, while the

quiz-evaluation average was only 4.18. This

discrepancy was consistent across all categories,

indicating an overestimation of their CSA.

Similarly, the initial quiz-evaluation of CSF

revealed low scores across the board (Table 7). For

instance, the average score for CSF was 2.86,

indicating a need for improved understanding of basic

cybersecurity principles.

Table 6: Initial self-evaluation and quiz-evaluation of CSA.

Question

Group

Self-evaluation Quiz-evaluation

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Mean

Standard

Deviation

CSA 1 6.40 3.33 4.67 3.22

CSA 2 6.78 3.09 3.77 3.06

CSA 3 6.14 3.06 4.47 3.11

CSA 4 6.69 3.20 4.8 0 3.46

CSA 5

7.12 3.08 4.47 3.71

CSA 6 6.48 3.51 3.61 3.55

CSA 7 6.40 3.54 3.73 3.38

CSA 8 6.78 3.09 3.52 3.43

CSA 9 7.50 2.80 4.51 3.59

CSA 10 7.54 3.07 4.26 3.77

Avera

e 6.78 3.18 4.18 3.43

Table 7: Initial quiz-evaluation of CSF.

Question Group

Quiz-evaluation

Mean

Standard

Deviation

CSF 1 1.93 2.69

CSF 2 3.28 3.25

CSF 3 3.40 3.27

CSF 4 1.93 2.45

CSF 5 3.57 3.46

CSF 6 2.21 2.97

CSF 7 2.42 2.93

CSF 8 4.02 3.37

CSF 9 3.07 3.08

CSF 10 2.79 2.83

Avera

e 2.86 3.03

5.2.2 Midterm Survey Data

After 2-week instruction on CSF, a midterm survey

was conducted. The results, presented in Tables 8 and

9, showed modest improvements in students' self-

evaluation scores for CSA. However, the quiz

evaluations for CSF indicated significant gains, as the

average score increased from 2.86 to 6.14. This

suggests that the instructional content was effective in

enhancing students' fundamental cybersecurity

knowledge.

Table 8: Midterm self-evaluation of CSA.

Question Group

Self-evaluation

Mean

Standard

Deviation

CSA 1 4.63 3.32

CSA 2 6.15 3.4

CSA 3 4.18 3.22

CSA 4 4.75 3.38

CSA 5

5.70 3.60

CSA 6 4.71 3.57

CSA 7 5.00 3.48

CSA 8 5.41 3.48

CSA 9 5.45 3.66

CSA 10 4.26 3.31

Average 5.02 3.44

Table 9: Midterm quiz-evaluation of CSF.

Question Group

Quiz-evaluation

Mean

Standard

Deviation

CSF 1 5.49 3.5

CSF 2 5.86 3.44

CSF 3 6.56 3.51

CSF 4 6.68 3.41

CSF 5 5.66 3.59

CSF 6 5.94 3.54

CSF 7 6.23 3.38

CSF 8 6.60 3.33

CSF 9 7.09 2.97

CSF 10 5.29 3.74

Avera

e 6.14 3.44

5.2.3 Final Survey Data

The final survey, conducted after the completion of

all instructional phases, showed further improvement

in both self-evaluation and quiz-evaluation scores for

ICISSP 2025 - 11th International Conference on Information Systems Security and Privacy

180

CSA (Table 10). The average score for CSA in the

self-evaluation rose to 6.84, closely matching the

quiz-evaluation score of 6.74. This alignment

between self-evaluation and quiz results indicates that

students' perceptions of their cybersecurity awareness

had become more accurate by the end of the program.

Table 10: Final self-evaluation and quiz-evaluation of CSA.

Question

Group

Self-evaluation Quiz-evaluation

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Mean

Standard

Deviation

CSA 1 6.93 3.25 7.13 3.26

CSA 2 6.72 3.15 6.43 3.34

CSA 3 6.52 3.69 6.48 3.72

CSA 4 6.80 3.39 7.25 3.03

CSA 5 7.13 3.20 6.56 3.33

CSA 6 7.01 2.89 6.19 3.22

CSA 7 6.89 3.53 6.80 2.97

CSA 8 6.72 3.37 7.09 3.14

CSA 9 6.52 3.15 7.09 3.17

CSA 10 7.13 3.38 7.35 3.22

Average 6.84 3.30 6.84 3.24

5.3 Statistical Analysis

This section presents the students' self-assessed CSA

scores, CSA quiz scores, and CSF quiz scores on line

charts (Figure 1 – Figure 5), demonstrating that the

data supports all hypotheses (H1-H5).

5.3.1 H1: Students Tend to Overestimate

Their CSA Levels Compared to Their

Actual CSA

By comparing the initial CSA self-evaluation scores

with the initial CSA quiz evaluation scores, Figure 1

indicates that students who struggle to accurately

assess their CSA levels tend to overestimate their

capabilities.

Figure 1: CSA self-evaluation vs. quiz-evaluation.

5.3.2 H2: Instruction in CSF Significantly

Improves Students' CSF Knowledge as

Measured by Quiz Performance

By comparing the initial CSF quiz evaluation scores

with the midterm quiz evaluation scores obtained

after CSF instruction, Figure 2 demonstrates that

students have significantly improved their CSF

knowledge.

Figure 2: CSF before and after instruction.

5.3.3 H3: Increased Understanding of

CSF Leads to More Accurate

Self-Assessment of CSA

Figure 3 compares CSA self-evaluation scores before

and after CSF instruction, clearly indicating that

students were able to self-assess their CSA more

accurately after acquiring greater CSF knowledge.

5.3.4 H4: Practical CSA Training Improves

the Students' Actual CSA Levels

Figure 4 compares students' final quiz-evaluation

scores before and after CSA instruction,

demonstrating that the instruction significantly

enhances CSA levels.

Figure 3: CSA self-evaluation before and after CSF

instruction.

Cybersecurity Fundamentals Training Among Middle School Students: Building a Strong Foundation

181

Figure 4: CSA quiz-evaluation before and after CSA

instruction.

5.3.5 H5: Engaging in CSA Training and

Practice Improves Students'

Self-Assessed CSA

The absolute difference between the Initial CSA Self-

evaluation and Initial CSA Quiz-evaluation

highlights the disparity in how students assessed their

CSA before the program. Similarly, the absolute

difference between the Final CSA Self-evaluation

and Final CSA Quiz-evaluation reflects their

evaluation accuracy after the program. Figure 5

shows a significant reduction in this disparity

following the program, indicating a notable

improvement in students' ability to accurately

evaluate their CSA.

Figure 5: CSA evaluation disparity: before and after the

program.

5.4 Paired Sample T-Tests

Additionally, we conducted paired sample t-tests to

evaluate the statistical significance of the observed

changes. Table 11 summarizes the results, confirming

that all hypotheses are upheld by the data. The t-tests

consistently produced very low p-values, indicating

that the training had a significant positive impact on

both self-evaluation and quiz scores.

Table 11: Research Analysis.

# Data Result

H1 Initial CSA Self-

evaluation

vs.

Initial CSA Quiz-

evaluation

t-statistic: 42.294

p-value: 0.000

H2 Initial CSF Quiz-

evaluation

vs.

Midterm CSF Quiz-

evaluation

t-statistic: -25.800

p-value: 0.000

H3 Absolute difference

between

Initial CSA Self-

evaluation and Initial

CSA Quiz-evaluation

vs.

Absolute difference

between

Midterm CSA Self-

evaluation and Initial

CSA Quiz-evaluation

t-statistic: 18.404

P-value: 2.343e-26

H4 Initial CSA Quiz-

evaluation

vs.

Final CSA Quiz-

evaluation

t-statistic: 26.5935

p-value: 6.6865e-35

H5 Absolute difference

between

Initial CSA Self-

evaluation and Initial

CSA Quiz-evaluation

vs.

Absolute difference

between

Final CSA Self-

evaluation and Final

CSA Quiz-evaluation

t-statistic: 20.4914

p-value: 8.8948e-29

6 CONCLUSIONS

The statistical analysis confirms that the CSA and

CSF training provided during the camp significantly

improved students' cybersecurity awareness. The

alignment between students' self-evaluations and

their quiz-evaluation scores by the end of the camp

suggests that the program effectively enhanced both

their actual knowledge and their ability to accurately

self-assess that knowledge. This highlights the

importance of CSA and CSF training in cybersecurity

education.

ICISSP 2025 - 11th International Conference on Information Systems Security and Privacy

182

7 FUTURE WORK

Future research should explore the long-term

retention of cybersecurity knowledge among middle

school students and investigate the effectiveness of

different teaching methods in various educational

settings. Additionally, expanding the study to include

a more diverse group of students and exploring the

role of parental involvement in cybersecurity

education could provide further insights into

improving cybersecurity awareness at a young age.

REFERENCES

Rawat, Danda B., Doku, Ronald, & Garuba, Moses. (2019).

"Cybersecurity in Big Data Era: From Securing Big

Data to Data-Driven Security." Proceedings of the

IEEE International Conference on Services Computing

(SCC), 2019, pp. 10-1109. https://doi.org/10.

1109/TSC.2019.2907247.

"Understanding Cyber Threats." Norton. Retrieved from

https://us.norton.com/internetsecurity-malware-what-

are-cyber-threats.html (This is a website source and not

a conference proceeding.)

Al-Shanfari, Issam, Mohamed, Warusia, & Abdullah,

Raihana. (2020). "Identify of Factors Affecting

Information Security Awareness and Weight Analysis

Process." Proceedings of the International Conference

on Advances in Engineering and Technology Research,

2020, vol. 9, pp. 2249-8958. https://doi.org/10.

35940/ijeat.C4775.029320.

"Cyber Security Fundamentals." (2024). CompTIA.

Retrieved from https://www.comptia.org/ (This is a

web source, not a conference proceeding.)

Michael, K. (2008). "Social and Organizational Aspects of

Information Security Management." Proceedings of the

IADIS e-Society Conference, 9-12 April, Algarve,

Portugal, pp. 1-8.

Zwilling, Moti, et al. (2022). "Cyber Security Awareness,

Knowledge and Behavior: A Comparative Study."

Proceedings of the 62nd International Conference on

Information Systems and Security, Jan. 2022, pp. 82–

97. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2020.1712269.

Alotaibi, F., Furnell, S., Stengel, I., & Papadaki, M. (2016).

"A Review of Using Gaming Technology for Cyber-

Security Awareness." Proceedings of the International

Conference on Information Systems and Security

Research, 2016, vol. 6(2), pp. 660-666.

Johnson, M. (2019). "Cybersecurity Awareness Training:

Why it Fails." Proceedings of the 12th International

Conference on Information Security and Privacy, 2019,

pp. 121-127.

Akter, Shahriar, et al. (2022). "Reconceptualizing

Cybersecurity Awareness Capability in the Data-

Driven Digital Economy." Proceedings of the Annals of

Operations Research International Conference, Aug.

2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04844-8.

Bauer, S., & Bernroider, E. W. (2017). "An Empirical Study

of Information Security Awareness Programs in the

Banking Sector." Proceedings of the International

Conference on Information Security and Applications,

2017, vol. 35, pp. 23-33.

Bitton, R., Gonen, Y., Giyora, I., & Elovici, Y. (2020).

Phishing attacks detected: Leveraging phishing

awareness to predict training improvements.

Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective,

29(1), 18-30.

Lee, S. Y., & Rao, H. R. (2016). Cybersecurity Awareness

Capabilities (CSAC): Impact on cybersecurity

compliance. Journal of Computer Information Systems,

56(4), 310-319.

Zhou, Y., Zhang, Y., Wu, X., & Chen, D. (2020). Exploring

psychological factors in cybersecurity awareness: Self-

efficacy, risk awareness, and social support. Computers

in Human Behavior, 107, 106281.

Zwilling, M., Netzer, D., Dell, M., & Yechezkel, G. (2022).

The influence of cybersecurity awareness on the

adoption of cybersecurity tools across countries.

Computers & Security, 108, 102319.

Zhang, Z., He, W., Li, W., & Abdous, M. H. (2021).

Cybersecurity awareness training programs: A cost–

benefit analysis framework. Industrial Management &

Data Systems, 121(3), 613-636.

Hijji, M., & Alam, G. (2022). Cybersecurity Awareness and

Training (CAT) framework for remote working

employees. Sensors, 22(22), 8663.

Ahmad, N., Mokhtar, U. A., Fauzi, W. F. P., Othman, Z. A.,

Yeop, Y. H., & Sheikh Abdullah, S. N. H. (2018).

Cyber Security Situational Awareness among Parents.

2018 Cyber Resilience Conference (CRC), Putrajaya,

Malaysia, pp. 1-3. doi: 10.1109/CR.2018.8626830.

Prior, S., & Renaud, K. (2020). Age-appropriate password

“best practice” ontologies for early educators and

parents. International Journal of Child-Computer

Interaction, 23–24, Article 100169.

Desimpelaere, L., Hudders, L., & Van de Sompel, D.

(2020). Knowledge as a strategy for privacy protection:

How a privacy literacy training affects children’s online

disclosure behavior. Computers in Human Behavior,

110, Article 106382.

Sulaiman, N. S., et al. (2022). A Review of Cyber Security

Awareness (CSA) Among Young Generation: Issue

and Countermeasure. In Al-Emran, M., Al-Sharafi, M.

A., Al-Kabi, M. N., & Shaalan, K. (Eds.), Proceedings

of International Conference on Emerging Technologies

and Intelligent Systems. ICETIS 2021. Lecture Notes in

Networks and Systems (Vol. 322). Springer, Cham.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85990-9_76

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

(2020). National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education

(NICE) Cybersecurity Workforce Framework (NIST

Special Publication 800-181 Rev. 1).

https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-181r1.

Cybersecurity Fundamentals Training Among Middle School Students: Building a Strong Foundation

183