Expected impact
The three projected levels of impact — individual, institutional, and community — and the success criteria fixed in advance.
// English summary below. The complete Spanish version is always available.
What follows are expected outcomes, not obtained ones. The pilot has not been run and this section reports no findings. Stating expectations in advance serves two purposes: declaring what will be measured — so the project cannot later fit its success criteria to whatever comes out — and showing the levels at which the intervention operates.
Individual
Participants are expected to improve on three verifiable fronts: recognising fraud attempts in the situational performance test, awareness of what their own posts and devices reveal, and the ability to justify a security decision — why this message is suspicious — rather than merely guessing right.
That last point deserves emphasis. The evidence shows declared knowledge improves easily while behaviour resists (Prümmer, van Steen & van den Berg, 2024); the success criterion is therefore not that students say they know more, but that they decide better when facing a message they have never seen. If the post measurement showed a jump in self-efficacy with no change in performance, that result would be reported as such — a relevant finding, not a failure to hide.
Institutional
At this level the project aims to leave three things that outlast the pilot: documented evidence on the digital competence level of the third section, which the institution does not currently have; a tested teaching sequence with its instruments ready for reuse; and guidelines for curricular integration and teacher training.
Teacher preparation is part of the problem, not an appendix. UNESCO published an AI competency framework aimed specifically at teachers in 2024 because the lack of teacher preparation is a globally documented issue. A programme that trains students without leaving installed capacity lasts exactly as long as its author.
Community
The platform is public, free, bilingual and requires no registration: any student, family or institution can use it without asking permission. That design makes community reach a property of the product, not an aspiration of the document.
E-DIGNA is also proposed as a replicable model. Another institution can adopt the sequence, the instruments and the tools with no licensing or infrastructure cost; and since the system collects no data, it inherits no custody obligations either. Replicability is not a promise — it is the direct consequence of having built the product under severe constraints from the start.
What would count as success
- A detectable change between the pre and post situational performance test, reported with its effect size and its limitations.
- Participants identifying, in the focus group, at least one concrete practice they changed.
- The institution holding, at closing, the continuity guidelines and at least one teacher able to run the sequence.
- The system still running and still auditable, without having collected a single piece of personal data.
That last criterion is not minor: a project about digital footprints that ended up accumulating data on minors would have failed even if every indicator had gone up.
Full translation in progress — complete Spanish version available at /investigacion/impacto.