Pastoral Care in Education

An International Journal of Personal, Social and Emotional

Development

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rped20

Digital media and relationships, sex, and health

education in the classroom

Emily Setty

To cite this article: Emily Setty (2022): Digital media and relationships, sex, and health
education in the classroom, Pastoral Care in Education, DOI: 10.1080/02643944.2022.2095418

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2022.2095418

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 30 Jun 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1678

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rped20
PASTORAL CARE IN EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2022.2095418

Digital media and relationships, sex, and health

education in the classroom
Emily Setty
Department of Sociology, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Young people’s socio-sexual lives and development have Received 16 July 2021
become increasingly digitally mediated over recent years. Accepted 23 June 2022
There are implications for classroom-based Relationships, KEYWORDS
Sex, and Health Education (RSHE), which has recently been young people; Relationships;
made mandatory in most state-maintained schools in Sex and Health Education;
England. The evidence base pertaining to good practice in Digital media; Online
RSHE is extensive and identifies a need for RSHE to be rela­ influencers
table and relevant to learners, and to position learners as
active participants in the pedagogic process. Typically, young
people’s use of digital media is considered a risk or problem
to address in RSHE and this includes their use of digital media
for formal and informal learning about sex and relationships.
This paper explores the potential value of digital media to
classroom based RSHE. It considers how using digital media
in the classroom could help to convey material in a relatable
and relevant way, including how the ‘influencer model’ may
represent a new opportunity for or form of peer delivered
education. It also discusses the value of strengthening young
people’s skills in identifying reliable and trustworthy content
and in applying the content to their own lives, which may
necessitate opportunities for independent and self-directed
learning away from the classroom.

Introduction
Young people’s use of digital media, including as pertains to their socio-sexual lives
and development, has, typically, been considered a risk or problem area that
requires addressing in Relationships, Sex, and Health Education (RSHE) (see,
Döring, 2021; Scott et al., 2020). In this paper, I discuss evidence pertaining to the
use of digital media as a pedagogical tool in the classroom. The evidence on good
practice in RSHE suggests it must be responsive to and meet learners where they
are and offer them the opportunity to actively participate in the learning process
(Limmer, 2010; Pound et al., 2016). Given the significance of digital media to young
people’s contemporary lives and experiences, incorporating it into pedagogy could
have value. This paper considers the potential value in terms of, first, how it could

CONTACT Emily Setty emily.setty@surrey.ac.uk

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduc­
tion in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 E. SETTY

recreate the typical ways in which young people connect and learn in digital media
environments and, in turn, enable educators to develop and strengthen young
people’s skills and competences within these environments for learning purposes.
Second, and relatedly, it considers the scope for self-directed and independent
learning enabled by digital media and that could be supported through classroom
teaching. For the process to be most effective and impactful on learners, the
evidence suggests it needs to address knowledge, skills, and norms and values in
an integrated, inclusive, and critical approach. In this sense, using digital media will
not be a panacea just because young people are oftentimes familiar with and
positive about it. Pedagogy must still be well designed and delivered. The paper
provides an important contribution to understanding the role of digital media in
RSHE, which is particularly valuable at the current time in England in which RSHE
has recently been made mandatory in most state-maintained schools (DfE, 2019).

Young people’s perspectives on RSHE

Young people’s perspectives on RSHE have been gleaned from evaluation
studies of specific programmes and interventions (e.g. Buston & Wight, 2004;
Forrest et al., 2004; Mellanby et al., 2001; Paiva, 2005; Smith et al., 2011; Wight,
2002), as well as studies that explore their general perspectives more broadly
(e.g. Allen, 2005; Formby & Wolstenholme, 2012; Hirst, 2008; Kontula, 2010;
O’Higgins & Gabhainn, 2010; Selwyn & Powell, 2007; Unis & Sällström, 2020).
The evidence suggests that young people want and value RSHE, particularly
when it is interactive and participatory and avoids overly factual, risk averse and
top-down, one-way educational methods (Hirst, 2004; Smith et al., 2011; Unis &
Sällström, 2020). Studies find that young people’s ‘expressed needs’ (Forrest
et al., 2004) – or what they say they want from RSHE – relate to interest,
relevance, and the ability to actively participate, ask questions, and be respected
as learners (Allen, 2005; Macintyre et al., 2015; O’Higgins & Gabhainn, 2010). It is
suggested that it is important that RSHE is responsive to the nuanced and
complex perspectives that young people hold, as well as the confusion and/or
insecurity that they may feel about the topics (Döring, 2021). The style of
teaching is important, with young people expressing a desire for non-
judgmental and unbiased approaches (Smith et al., 2011; Unis & Sällström,
2020). Studies have found that they want open and honest RSHE that does
not unduly problematize, homogenize, or generalize about teenage life and
their experiences; rather, they say they want to be treated as legitimate subjects
and agents (e.g. Allen, 2005; Hirst, 2008; Limmer, 2010). Where education is risk-
averse or negative in tone, rather than practical and skills-based, young people
perceive it to lack relevance to their lives, which may be a particular issue for the
‘trickier’ RSHE topics that some traditional educators have been inclined to
avoid or only engage with on a superficial level (Formby & Wolstenholme, 2012).
 PASTORAL CARE IN EDUCATION 3

RSHE provision includes that delivered by teachers within schools and by

external specialists and organizations. It has been identified that the quality of
provision is affected by levels of willingness, openness, and ease, as well as
attitudes toward taking a positive and inclusive approach to learners within the
educational process among these educators (Blake, 2008). Kontula (2010) found
that the effectiveness of RSHE in Finland can, in part, be attributed to teachers’
ease, openness, and frankness in teaching about the topics. Smith et al. (2011,
p. 282) surveyed inner-city youth in the US about their experiences of an
‘abstinence-plus’ programme and found that teachers need to ‘convey accurate
content’ but ‘in an appealing way’ that is perceived as ‘open, direct and non­
judgmental’. Pound et al. (2017, p. 6) suggest:

‘ . . . that good sex educators enjoy teaching [RSHE], have experiential knowledge and
are comfortable with their own sexuality. They are professional, confident, unembar­
rassed, straightforward, experienced at talking about sex and use everyday language.
They have expertise in sexual health, are specifically trained in [RSHE], are trustworthy,
approachable, non-judgmental and able to maintain confidentiality. They respect
young people and their autonomy, treat young people as equals and accept that
they may be sexually active.’

Teachers in schools may vary in their ability and willingness to deliver RSHE that
aligns with these principles for good practice. External specialists and organiza­
tions may be more at ease with open and candid discussion and can build
rapport with young people while maintaining a sense of being apart from the
institutional structures and processes within the school. Young people say they
want to hear from outside experts and non-teachers (O’Higgins & Gabhainn,
2010; Pound et al., 2017). Good quality RSHE can, however, occur in a variety of
settings and with different types of young people and the style of the teacher
and the relationships between the educator and learner (and among learners)
are important (Buston & Wight, 2004). Studies have found that young people
want to feel at ease and safe in RSHE lessons and that confidentiality is impor­
tant to them (O’Higgins & Gabhainn, 2010; Pound et al., 2017; Selwyn & Powell,
2007). Teachers themselves are aware that they need to be seen as credible and
experienced to be taken seriously by learners (Formby & Wolstenholme, 2012)
and that active participation in the classroom can help convey and engage
learners with the material (Buston & Wight, 2004). It has been argued that RSHE
teachers must be both open and comfortable and capable of controlling the
class and managing discussions safely (Allen, 2005; Buston & Wight, 2004;
Strange et al., 2003; Unis & Sällström, 2020). This can help to create a space
where learners feel able and willing to contribute and discuss the topics.
Careful consideration needs to be given, in particular, to ensuring that RSHE
is responsive to and engaging for boys. Boys have been found to sometimes
disengage from RSHE when they feel it is not addressing the issues that matter
to them, particularly those who are already disengaged from school (Allen,
4 E. SETTY

2005; Hilton, 2001; Limmer, 2010; Measor, 2004). Allen (2005, p. 395) suggests
that boys’ expressed desire for real and hands-on teaching and learning is an
expression of a ‘masculine identity as sexual actors with sexual desires that need
quenching’ as well as their need for education that connects to their lives.
Strange et al. (2003) outline how these issues can play out in the classroom.
Boys can behave disruptively and can sexualize and harass girls, who, in turn,
can feel inhibited from participating. Both boys and girls in the study said they
would value the opportunity to hear about one another’s perspectives but, in
reality, felt that this does not always occur effectively. Strange et al. (2003)
suggest that boys’ disruptive behaviour can mask fear and anxiety about
participating and speaking openly, and young people felt that it happens
because the content does not engage with what is important to them.
Scholars also identify the importance of ensuring that RSHE provision is
inclusive for LGBT and BAME youth (Formby, 2011; Hirst, 2004). Formby and
Donovan (2020) argue that the marginalization and stigma of LGBT perspectives
is reflected in the data on poor sexual and mental health and intimate and
relational wellbeing outcomes. Hirst (2004) recommends engaging with how
young people can challenge normative assumptions about sex and relation­
ships and posits that talking about pleasure can help widen the discourse
around what constitutes identity, health, and wellbeing and can give recogni­
tion to marginalized identities. She suggests this requires positioning young
people as legitimate experts, reflecting on the nature of and hoped-for impacts
of RSHE, and, as part of this, reflexivity on the part of educators.

The impact of RSHE

Evaluations of RSHE have typically considered impacts on knowledge, attitudes,
and behaviour pertaining to the topics. Findings suggest that the interconnec­
tions between these aspects are complex and sometimes difficult to establish.
Wight (2002) argue that young people do not always act on the basis of knowl­
edge and that RSHE is competing with other influences, such as family, culture,
and the media and may be difficult to recall and apply within day-to-day contexts.
Knowledge gained through RSHE may, however, shape behaviour over time
(Kippax & Stephenson, 2005). Unis and Sällström (2020) suggest that while the
relevance of RSHE may not be immediately apparent to young people, it can
provide them with opportunities for reflection, exploration, and perspective tak­
ing and can help them get comfortable with talking about the topics.
It has been argued that RSHE should be conceptualized in terms of how
young people learn and develop in a social and cultural context (Wight, 2011);
norms and attitudes (Walcott et al., 2011); sites of power and contestation
(Ingham, 2005); and the ‘cultural and symbolic realm’ of young people’s lives
(Paiva, 2005, p. 356). Rogow and Haberland (2005) describe a social science
approach to RSHE as aiming to develop analytical and critical thinking skills. This
 PASTORAL CARE IN EDUCATION 5

type of RSHE is, perhaps, political and can help engender critical reflexivity
among both educators and learners, including about the value systems and
inequities that shape young people’s socio-sexual lives and development within
a wider social, cultural, and structural context (Hirst, 2004; Rogow & Haberland,
2005). It can, for example, help young people to explore and learn about culture,
media, peer pressure, the role of gender and sexuality, issues of discrimination
and diversity, and the emotional and relational aspects of socio-sexual life
(Macintyre et al., 2015). It can, however, be challenging to address the wider
issues that often transcend the classroom setting (Willis et al., 2013).
The impact metrics and methodologies that are used to evaluate the quality of
RSHE are, therefore, important. Kippax and Stephenson (2005) suggest that rather
than focusing on individual change within a short period, evaluations should
examine longer-term social and cultural change through knowledge and attitude
development. They advocate examining how learners engage with RSHE and how
it relates to the ‘thick’ conditions of their lives. Understanding these mechanisms
of engagement and learning requires person-centred methodologies. Impact thus
includes the process of learning and attitude and belief formation and change
whereby ‘ . . . “awareness” should be understood as more than a psychological
outcome intended to change individual attitudes, behaviours and knowledge;
instead, it aims to promote citizenship’ and involves a process of subjectification,
agency, and participation (Paiva, 2005, p. 348; also see, Morris, 2005).

Peer-delivered RSHE
It has been suggested that peers may be effective at generating the kind of
open and informal RSHE that young people say they want and may be more
influential over social norms than teachers (Dobson et al., 2017). The evidence
on the effectiveness of peer delivered RSHE is, however, mixed. It is important
they are perceived by learners as credible and knowledgeable (Selwyn & Powell,
2007). Forrest et al.’s (2004) evaluation of the Ripple Programme of peer-
delivered RSHE in English secondary schools found that sessions were most
effective when participatory and skills-based, but that peer educators were less
effective at engaging learners who were most at risk. Dobson et al. (2017)
discuss how peer education tended to involve more open and bi-directional
communication and was more youth centred in terms of language and style
compared to teacher-delivered education, but there were issues with discipline
and class control. They caution that it is unclear what underlies effective peer
education, and the approach can be variable, with authoritarian structures and
problematic attitudes potentially reproduced in such education. Mellanby et al.
(2001), furthermore, found that peer-delivered education may help to convey
norms but is seemingly less effective at imparting factual information. They
suggest that peer-delivered education may be most effective when part of an
integrated approach involving teachers and other adults as well. There can,
6 E. SETTY

moreover, be issues of sustainability with peer delivered RSHE further suggest­

ing that it should be considered part of broader RSHE provision rather than
sufficient in and of itself (Wight, 2011).
In a digital landscape, ‘peers’ go beyond the same or similarly aged indivi­
duals that comprise young people’s immediate social contexts. Instead, they
now include broader networks of actors and individuals who may not be known
directly in day-to-day offline life (boyd, 2012). As such, understanding the nature
of peer delivered RSHE involves recognising the different forms it can take in
digital spaces and, for example, the role of ‘influencers’ and others in imparting
education about sex and relationships topics (Johnston, 2017). More generally,
influencers comprise individuals online who share content on digital media
platforms and develop followings based on lifestyle, politics, commerce,
among others (e.g. Zimmermann et al., 2020). This paper now discusses what
is known about the use of digital media in RSHE and how the ‘influencer trend’
could be harnessed as part of digital RSHE pedagogy.

Digital media and RSHE

In general, technology-based approaches and the use of digital media in
educational interventions are associated with helping to develop research,
collaborative, critical, creativity, and communication skills (Lawlor et al., 2018;
Potter & McDougall, 2017). Many studies suggest that the use of practical
activities with digital media, whereby students engage in planning, collabora­
tion, and production, is an effective learning strategy (Buckingham, 2003; Burn &
Durran, 2007; Burnett & Merchant, 2018). There is an increasing tendency to use
technology in RSHE, such as videos, computer activities, text messaging, and
games (Garzón-Orjuela et al., 2021). Young people have been found to value the
use of technology, for example, in online safety interventions, because it fits
their media culture and provides fun (Hartikainen et al., 2019).
It is well-established that young people globally are frequent and heavy users
of the internet for information, communication, and entertainment, and new
digital media is ‘user controlled and shareable’ (Guse et al., 2012, p. 542). Young
people’s socio-sexual lives and development have been impacted upon by
developments in digital technology and are, likewise, digitally mediated (see,
Lee et al., 2018). Young people have been found to consult a range of sources of
information and advice about sex and relationships, including more informal
sources such as the internet, alongside parents and teachers (Bleakley et al.,
2008; Borzekowski & Rickert, 2001; Döring, 2021; McKee et al., 2018; Selwyn &
Powell, 2007). Traditional media, and now the internet, may be influential over
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours although the evidence base on this is not
entirely clear (Guse et al., 2012; L’Engle et al., 2006; Ngo et al., 2008; Simon &
Daneback, 2013). Online RSHE has been described by scholars as, at least
potentially, interactive and responsive, and young people like it for its
 PASTORAL CARE IN EDUCATION 7

accessibility, broadened content, anonymity, and discretion (Doornwaard et al.,

2017; Döring, 2021; Dyson et al., 2003; Guse et al., 2012; Hirst, 2013; Kanuga &
Rosenfeld, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2014; Simon & Daneback, 2013). Potential
benefits include its reach, access, and anonymity, alongside controlled and
systematic content which can be tailored to the individual (Barak & Fisher, 2001).
Young people seem to particularly value social media and user-generated
content for providing opportunities to discuss and explore personal experiences
and issues (Macintyre et al., 2015; McKee et al., 2018; Sanne et al., 2020).
Manduley et al. (2018) describe online RSHE as a digital extension of the by-
and-for RSHE that predates the emergence of contemporary digital media and
social media, and which now includes user-generated content. They suggest
that digital media is more responsive to the needs and demands of users
compared to mainstream media, can challenge dominant narratives, and facil­
itates personal expression, solidarity, and community building. They caution,
however, that the visibility of youth in these spaces can create risk and platforms
can exercise extensive control over and censorship of content.
While various types of young people report using digital media for RSHE,
there is evidence that older and more educated youth may use it to a greater
extent (Bleakley et al., 2008; Cotton & Gupta, 2004). The evidence on gender
differences is mixed (Bleakley et al., 2008; Borzekowski & Rickert, 2001). Sanne
et al.’s (2020) more recent study found that boys and girls may differ in the type
of content they seek out, with boys seeking more informational and interactive
content and girls more professional content. They also found that those with
higher levels of sexual experience and curiosity, lower sexual self-esteem, and
greater experience of sexual problems were more likely to seek out education
online. LGBT youth seem particularly likely to seek out information and educa­
tion online (Charest et al., 2016; Mitchell et al., 2014; Sanne et al., 2020). Online
provision may be valuable to LGBT young people if and when they feel that
mainstream RSHE is not fully addressing their perspectives (McKee et al., 2018;
Oosterhoff et al., 2017) or is pathologizing or oppressive in nature (Manduley
et al., 2018). Anonymity seems particularly important for minoritized and mar­
ginalized youth due to fears of stigma and the heteronormative focus of some
mainstream RSHE (Craig & McInroy, 2014; Mitchell et al., 2014).
Döring (2021) identifies that the nature of RSHE online varies, and providers
include professional sexual health organizations, individual professional educa­
tors, and laypersons serving as peer educators. She found that many individual
educators are providing ‘sex positive’ and comprehensive education ‘in an
approachable, entertaining and personal manner which includes their own
experiences’ (Döring, 2021, p. 4). While sex positivity is a contested term, it
can be understood as not about an obligation or expectation to be sexually
active or to participate in any and all forms of sexual activity, but about non-
judgmental communication about sex free from shame or embarrassment
(School of Sexuality Education, 2019). Laypersons online, meanwhile, were
8 E. SETTY

using different forums and discussion spaces online, and ‘focus mainly on
sharing their own sexual experiences, skills, attitudes and complement these
with scientific knowledge on sexuality insofar as they are able to do so in respect
of background research’ (Döring, 2021, p. 5). Döring (2021) describes these
individuals as trying to inform, inspire, and act as role models. She found that
there is diversity among online educators, and they often talk about inclusivity,
stigma, and self-acceptance and advocate for their own and others’ rights. In an
analysis of two YouTube channels that provide RSHE to a large number of
followers, Johnston (2017) identifies that these ‘influencers’ have the scope to
convey relatability and a personal touch. She found that the content needs to be
enticing and trustworthy and can engender interactivity and community build­
ing among and by followers. At the same time, however, it is important to
critically evaluate the extent to which different ‘influencers’ and their content
genuinely is ‘trustworthy’ and reliable (beyond being perceived as such) and to
equip young people with the skills they need to make these judgments.
There may be value, therefore, in incorporating digital media into RSHE
because it may feel familiar and relevant to learners. It may, furthermore, help
in developing and strengthening learners’ skills in using these sources, for
example, regarding how to assess the quality of the material they encounter
and consume and how to interpret and apply it to themselves and their lives.
This latter point is important, first, because online content varies in its form and
quality and, second, because some young people, including those experiencing
sexual problems or with low sexual self-esteem, may be more likely to consult
this type of content and so require support and guidance to do so safely (Sannes
et al., 2020). Döring (2021, p. 3) found that the content can include traditional
and conservative voices and internet sources can contribute to the spread of
‘sexual misinformation and disinformation’ and it can be difficult to assess the
accuracy of the content (also see, Doornwaard et al., 2017; Kanuga & Rosenfeld,
2004). While some young people are aware of variation in the quality of online
content and may, sometimes, be able to assess its accuracy, credibility, and
reliability, there is evidence that some may find it easier to do this than others
(Doornwaard et al., 2017; Döring, 2021; Simon & Daneback, 2013).
The diversity of online spaces, in terms of the nature and style of the
education, the level and type of interactivity, and the modalities of digital
media used, may not, furthermore, be an inherently negative aspect because
young people themselves are diverse in their knowledge, experiences, and
preferences (Guse et al., 2012). It can also offer young people opportunities to
encounter different opinions and experiences (Attwood et al., 2015; Kanuga &
Rosenfeld, 2004). The diversity of online content includes pornography (Kanuga
& Rosenfeld, 2004), which tends to raise concerns particularly among traditional
educators. Oosterhoff et al. (2017) discuss how the boundaries between porno­
graphic and educational content blur and young people can encounter
 PASTORAL CARE IN EDUCATION 9

pornography when searching for information, while censorship by platforms

and internet service providers can impact educational as well as pornographic
content.
As such, while young people’s digital media use may, typically, be considered
as having risky or otherwise problematic implications for sex and relationships
(Döring, 2021; Scott et al., 2020), there may, instead, be value in harnessing the
potentials of digital media as a tool for learning and for bringing to life the
issues that young people face (Albury, 2013). Barak and Fisher (2001) argue that
it should involve interactivity and participation, utilize different types of media
content and platforms, and enable learners to re-access and revisit the learning.
They caution, however, that the ‘digital divide’ among youth needs addressing
and that digital media should complement, rather than replace, other forms of
RSHE. Digital media can then become part of school-based interventions and
education (Guse et al., 2012) and evidence suggests that young people’s use of
digital media for education does not necessarily usurp other forms of education
and may meet different needs and so can be part of an integrated approach
(Sanne et al., 2020).
Practically, incorporating digital media into RSHE could be a way of replicat­
ing and embedding an influencer model of peer delivered education. The
preceding discussion of good practice in RSHE and the nature of peer delivered
education suggests that RSHE needs to be relatable and relevant to be most
engaging for learners and needs to address knowledge, skills, and norms safely
and inclusively in the classroom. Peers may have a role to play in this education
but issues with quality, impact, and sustainability have been identified.
Incorporating online influencers into RSHE could be a way of achieving
a sense of relatability and a personal touch (see, Johnston, 2017) while the
classroom teacher or facilitator is able to manage the class and provide learners
with the structures and support required for them to explore, interpret, and
apply the content. Such an approach could be part of skills- and competency-
based learning for the digital era.
An example of the use of digital media to facilitate RSHE was reported on by
McKee et al. (2018). They examined the use of vulgar comedy videos dissemi­
nated via an app for use by youth workers who work with young men. The
videos were intended to aid teaching about sexual health and included male
comedians telling jokes about condoms, masturbation, giving their partner
sexual pleasure, among other topics. McKee et al. (2018) found that young
people liked the videos and found them informative, helpful, and funny. They
described them as more detailed, accessible, frank, and honest than parent or
teacher delivered RSHE. It was important to them that the content was funny,
relatable, and authentic and they valued the shareability dimension on social
media. This study suggests that digital media can potentially be harnessed by
professionals to support their RSHE delivery. As discussed further below, how­
ever, young people may also need opportunities for self-directed and
10 E. SETTY

independent learning, first, because they need opportunities to apply and

develop their skills and, second, because young people report wanting private
and anonymous spaces for learning in their own time.
Another example is a pedagogically driven game developed to support
classroom based RSHE (specifically, skills in dealing with sexual coercion)
evaluated by Arnab et al. (2013). They found that study participants liked
discussing the content in class and valued the opportunity to hear about
what others think. Some did not contribute to the whole group discussion,
however, and the game set-up allowed for smaller group interaction, with
evidence that some young people felt more able to contribute and felt more
listened to in the smaller groups. Some teachers paused the game to facilitate
discussion at various points. Arnab et al. (2013, p. 16) recommend a ‘blended’
approach, involving the game and discussion. In this sense, there are broader
implications in terms of the value of using digital media to complement RSHE
rather than replace it. Furthermore, Arnab et al. (2013) also found that some
outcomes, for example, knowledge about saying no and positive attitudes
toward saying no, actually diminished for the game group compared to the
control group. They posit that the increased awareness of the complexity of
the topic may have diminished perceptions of certainty among the game
group, which may be a necessary part of the learning process. Discussion
and critical deconstruction of the topics is, therefore, a potentially important
part of pedagogy.

Developing the use of digital media in RSHE

Delivering RSHE can be challenging for schools. Teachers need to be equipped
to deliver RSHE safely, inclusively, and effectively for all learners (Blake, 2008).
Some learners may have had traumatic experiences connected to the topic,
especially young women and LGBT youth (Forrest et al., 2004). Others, mean­
while, may be uninterested in or disengaged from RSHE (Smith et al., 2011) and
there can be missed opportunities for participation and development of under­
standing among these young people (Unis & Sällström, 2020). Wight (2011,
p. 71), furthermore, identifies that a positive impact of RSHE on learners is most
likely when it ‘[coincides] with critical points in a young person’s own sexual
experiences’, which will differ between youth and may not be reflected in the
curriculum design and delivery process (also see, Unis & Sällström, 2020). As
such, developing young people’s skills and competencies for self-directed and
independent learning that they can undertake at times that align with their
socio-sexual developmental processes and experiences is important. Digital
media may be an important part of this educational landscape.
Incorporating digital media into RSHE may help to improve the quality and
impact of the provision, but careful thought needs to be given for the rationale
and nature of the approach. Incorporating digital influencers and other online
 PASTORAL CARE IN EDUCATION 11

educational resources may help with relatability and relevance. Young people’s
skills at identifying accurate, reliable, and trustworthy content and interpreting
and applying the content to their own lives can be supported with opportu­
nities to explore and discuss the content in the classroom. It could offer an
opportunity to incorporate a contemporary form of peer education into the
classroom in a safe and sustainable way. It is important, however, to understand
how teachers use this kind of content and the skills and approach needed to do
so most effectively (see, Allen, 2005; Buston & Wight, 2004; Pound et al., 2017).
As part of this, it may be valuable to take a holistic approach to evaluating how
young people engage with RSHE resources, content, and teaching methods
beyond just short-term impacts, as discussed above. Metrics such as perceived
relatability and relevance of the content, as well as the perceived value and
effectiveness of classroom discussions and activities, are important.
Furthermore, as Arnab et al. (2013) found, the opportunity to consider the
complexities of different topics may have a more immediate effect of creating
uncertainty with negative implications for expressed knowledge and under­
standing. There is thus a need to capture the processes of learning and devel­
opment over time.
Given that young people are consulting and interacting with online sources
of education beyond the control and purview of teachers and other adults, it is
perhaps also important, as discussed above, to ensure that the education
supports and strengthens young people’s abilities to assess and apply online
content independently. Scholars have argued that learning may require oppor­
tunities to engage with the resources on their own terms and in private settings
(Allen, 2005) or, perhaps, pedagogical methods that involve linking the content
to their own lives and sociocultural contexts, which may need to be done
privately (Paiva, 2005). Evidence suggests, furthermore, that young people can
be concerned about confidentiality and vary in how comfortable they feel
sharing their own perspectives in the classroom, with many wanting self-
directed and independent learning opportunities (O’Higgins & Gabhainn,
2010; Pound et al., 2017; Selwyn & Powell, 2007).
Barak and Fisher (2001) argue that a strength of the internet is how it can
facilitate interactivity and participation, in which learners can re-access and revisit
the learning. They describe it as offering control, flexibility, and privacy and,
therefore, as complementing formally delivered RSHE. Young people express
a desire to have control over accessing and sharing RSHE media content
(McKee et al., 2018). As such, it is perhaps unlikely to be possible for educators
in formal RSHE in the classroom to fully mediate or gatekeep young people’s
access to online education. Instead, these educators may want to aim to support
a strengths- and competency-based approach and acknowledge the role for
independent and self-directed learning. Borghuis et al. (2010) discuss an example
of independently accessed RSHE, which involved a digital storytelling method
intended for 15 to 25 year-old Turkish and Moroccan young people living in the
12 E. SETTY

Netherlands. It was youth-led, and a group of students interviewed Muslim

young people about their perspectives and experiences of sex and relationships.
The students acted as ‘cultural mediators’ (Borghuis et al., 2010, p. 235) who were
‘able to transform potentially sensitive information and issues into acceptable
language and narratives’ (p. 238). The interview data was adapted into eight life
stories about difficulties, dilemmas, and choices connected to sex and relation­
ships, featuring Turkish and Moroccan characters. The stories were intended to:

‘ . . . make it possible for young Dutch Muslims to find ways to talk about and
experience sex in terms of respect and dignity, in ways that are respectful and sensitive
to how young people themselves experience their cultural and religious heritage in
a multicultural society’ (Borghuis et al., 2010, p. 236).

There was a website for young people to access the stories and to discuss and
develop their understanding and personal perspectives with other website visitors.
The stories were open-ended to facilitate reflection and discussion and dealt with
norms, values, and taboos. The project aimed to engage with the needs and
perspectives of the target audience and achieve ‘authenticity and credibility’ and,
on the whole, was well-received by young people (Borghuis et al., 2010, p. 242).
Despite the positive potentialities of self-directed learning and independent use of
digital media, McKee et al. (2018) describe how some adult stakeholders (involved
in sexual health education and promotion) can sometimes be concerned about
how young people may interpret the content (in their case, the comedy videos
described above) if able to access it privately and independently. The implications
of gatekeeper control over young people’s use of digital media for RSHE can vary
across country contexts and can be further impacted by internet service providers,
for example, due to censorship (Oosterhoff et al., 2017). It is important, therefore,
to understand how young people can be empowered to access and engage with
online content privately and independently, but also safely and with the required
critical thinking skills. As part of this, it is necessary to explore how educators feel
about digital learning for RSHE and how to align classroom-based and teacher-
directed education with self-directed and independent learning.

Conclusion
With young people’s socio-sexual lives and development being increasingly
digitally mediated, the potential value of incorporating digital media into
pedagogy for RSHE are numerous. First, it may help to ensure that the teaching
and learning is relatable and relevant for young people, with positive impacts
on their engagement with classroom based RSHE. Second, it may be a way of
incorporating valuable aspects of peer delivered RSHE (e.g. through the ‘influ­
encer model’) while ensuring that the teacher or facilitator can provide the
structures and support necessary to ensure that the teaching and learning is
safe, inclusive, and helps young people to develop their skills and competences.
 PASTORAL CARE IN EDUCATION 13

Third, it may help young people to develop skills and competences specifically
as pertain to their access to and interpretation of formal and informal sources of
online education about sex and relationships. While there may be some disquiet
about young people’s use of the internet for these purposes, there may be some
value for them in terms of being able to undertake independent and self-
directed learning aligned with their needs and wants at different stages of
their socio-sexual development.
Harnessing the potentialities and embedding digital media within an inte­
grated approach to RSHE that focuses on knowledge, skills, norms, and values
may be helpful for both educators and learners within the contemporary digital
era. It may require critical reflexivity from both educators and learners about the
impacts of digital media on sex and relationships and the different sources of
information, education, and guidance that can be found online. An active and
participatory role for young people as learners is likely to be important to
navigating these new and ever-changing terrains, as has long been identified
as being the case for RSHE as a subject. There are examples of existing peda­
gogy utilizing digital media that indicate the importance of relatable and
relevant content, and opportunity for critical discussion about the content. It
is thus likely to be important that digital media complements rather than usurps
or replaces RSHE. Further development and evaluation of pedagogical models
that include elements of digital media will help in identifying the aspects that
are associated with positive impact – short and long term – on learners.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Emily Setty http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2085-7963

References
Albury, K. (2013). Young people, media and sexual learning: Rethinking representation. Sex
Education, 13(1), S32–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2013.767194
Allen, L. (2005). ‘Say everything’: Exploring young people’s suggestions for improving sexu­
ality education. Sex Education, 5(4), 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810500278493
Arnab, S., Brown, K., Clarke, S., Dunwell, I., Lim, T., Suttie, N., Louchart, S., Hendrix, M., & de
Feitas, S. (2013). The development approach of a pedagogically-driven serious game to
support Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) within a classroom setting. Computers &
Education, 69, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.013
Attwood, F., Barker, M. J., Boynton, P., & Hancock, J. (2015). Sense about sex: Media, sex advice,
education and learning. Sex Education, 15(5), 528–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.
2015.1057635
14 E. SETTY

Barak, A., & Fisher, W. A. (2001). Toward an internet-driven, theoretically-based, innovative

approach to sex education. The Journal of Sex Research, 38(4), 324–332. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00224490109552103
Blake, S. (2008). There’s a hole in the bucket: The politics, policy and practice of Sex and
Relationships Education. Pastoral Care in Education, 26(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02643940701848604
Bleakley, A., Hennessy, M., Fishbein, M., & Jordan, A. (2008). It works both ways: The relation­
ship between exposure to sexual content in the media and adolescent sexual behavior.
Media Psychology, 11(4), 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260802491986
Borghuis, P., De Graaf, C., & Hermes, J. (2010). Digital storytelling in sex education: Avoiding
the pitfalls of building a ‘haram’ website. Seminar.net – International Journal of Media,
Technology, and Lifelong Learning, 6(2), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.7577/seminar.2445
Borzekowski, D. L. G., & Rickert, V. I. (2001). Adolescents, the internet, and health: Issues of
access and content. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22(1), 49–59. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0193-3973(00)00065-4
Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education: Literacy, learning and contemporary culture. Polity
Press.
Burn, A., & Durran, J. (2007). Media literacy in schools: Practice, production and progression.
Sage.
Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2018). New media in the classroom: Rethinking primary literacy.
Sage.
Buston, K., & Wight, D. (2004). Pupils’ participation in sex education lessons: Understanding
variation across classes. Sex Education, 4(3), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1468181042000243367
Charest, M., Kleinplatz, P. J., & Lund, J. I. (2016). Sexual health information disparities between
heterosexual and LGBTQ+ young adults: Implications for sexual health. The Canadian
Journal of Human Sexuality, 25(2), 74–85. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.252-A9
Cotton, S. R., & Gupta, S. S. (2004). Characteristics of online and offline health information
seekers and the factors that discriminate between them. Social Science & Medicine, 59(9),
1795–1806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.02.020
Craig, S. L., & McInroy, L. (2014). You can form a part of yourself online: The influence of new
media on identity development and coming out for LGBTQ youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian
Mental Health, 18(1), 95–109. 10.1080/19359705.2013.777007
DfE. (2019). Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education. HMSO. https://assets.
publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
908013/Relationships_Education__Relationships_and_Sex_Education__RSE__and_
Health_Education.pdf
Dobson, E., Beckmann, N., & Forrest, S. (2017). Educator-student communication in sex and
relationship education: A comparison of teacher and peer-led interventions. Pastoral Care
in Education, 35(4), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2017.1350202
Doornwaard, S. M., den Boer, F., Vanwesenbeeck, I., van Nijnatten, C. H. C. J., ter Bogt, T. F. M.,
& van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M. (2017). Dutch adolescents’ motives, perceptions, and reflec­
tions toward sex-related internet use: Results of a web-based focus-group study. The
Journal of Sex Research, 54(8), 1038–1050. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1255873
Döring, N. (2021). Sex education on social media. In A. D. Lykins (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Sexuality
and Gender. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59531-3_64-1
Dyson, S., Mitchell, A., Dalton, D., & Hillier, L. (2003). Factors for success in conducting effective
sexual health and relationship education with young people in schools: A literature review.
Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society. https://www.shinesa.org.au/media/
product/2015/04/Literature_ReviewFinal.pdf
 PASTORAL CARE IN EDUCATION 15

Formby, E. (2011). Sex and relationships education, sexual health, and lesbian, gay and
bisexual sexual cultures: Views from young people. Sex Education, 11(3), 255–266.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2011.590078
Formby, E., & Wolstenholme, C. (2012). If there’s going to be a subject that you don’t have to
do . . . ’ Findings from a mapping study of PSHE education in English secondary schools.
Pastoral Care in Education, 30(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2011.651227
Formby, E., & Donovan, C. (2020). Sex and Relationships Education for LGBT+ young people:
Lessons from UK youth work. Sexualities, 23(7), 1155–1178. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1363460719888432
Forrest, S., Strange, V., Oakley, A., & RIPPLE Study Team, T., the Ripple Study Team. (2004).
What do young people want from sex education? The results of a needs assessment from a
peer-led sex education programme. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 6(4), 337–354. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13691050310001645050
Garzón-Orjuela, N., Samacá-Samacá, D., Moreno-Chaparro, J., Ballesteros-Cabrera, M. D. P., &
Eslava-Schmalbach, J. (2021). Effectiveness of sex education interventions in adolescents:
An overview. Comprehensive Child and Adolescent Nursing, 44(1), 15–48. https://doi.org/10.
1080/24694193.2020.1713251
Guse, K., Levine, D., Martins, S., Lira, A., Gaarde, J., Westmorland, W., & Gilliam, M. (2012).
Interventions using new digital media to improve adolescent sexual health: A systematic
review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(6), 535–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.
2012.03.014
Hartikainen, H., Iivari, N., & Kinnula, M. (2019). Children’s design recommendations for online
safety education. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 22(December),
100146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.100146
Hilton, G. L. S. (2001). Sex education - the issues when working with boys. Sex Education, 1(1),
31–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810120041706
Hirst, J. (2004). Researching young people’s sexuality and learning about sex. Culture, Health and
Sexuality, 6(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691050310001600969
Hirst, J. (2008). Developing sexual competence? Exploring strategies for the provision of
effective sexualities and relationships education. Sex Education, 8(4), 399–413. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14681810802433929
Hirst, J. (2013). ‘It’s got to be about enjoying yourself: Young people, sexual pleasure, and sex
and relationships education. Sex Education, 13(4), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14681811.2012.747433
Ingham, R. (2005). We didn’t cover that at school’: Education against pleasure or education for
pleasure? Sex Education, 5(4), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810500278451
Johnston, J. (2017). Subscribing to sex edutainment. Television and New Media, 18(1), 76–92.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476416644977
Kanuga, M., & Rosenfeld, W. D. (2004). Adolescent sexuality and the internet: The good, the
bad, and the URL. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 17(2), 117–124. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2004.01.015
Kippax, S., & Stephenson, N. (2005). Meaningful evaluation of sex and relationship education.
Sex Education, 5(4), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810500278436
Kontula, O. (2010). The evolution of sex education and students’ sexual knowledge in Finland
in the 2000s. Sex Education, 10(4), 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2010.515095
L’Engle, K. L., Brown, J. D., & Kenneavy, K. (2006). The mass media are an important context for
adolescents’ sexual behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38(3), 186–192. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.03.020
16 E. SETTY

Lawlor, J., Conneely, C., Oldham, E., Marshall, K., & Tangney, B. (2018). Bridge21: Teamwork,
technology and learning. A pragmatic model for effective twenty-first-century team-based
learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(2), 211–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1475939X.2017.1405066
Lee, N., Hewett, A., Jørgensen, C., Tuener, J., Wade, A., & Weckesser, A. (2018). Children and
sexting: The case for intergenerational co-learning. Childhood, 25(3), 385–399. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0907568218777305
Limmer, M. (2010). Young men, masculinities and sex education. Sex Education, 10(4),
349–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2010.515093
Macintyre, A. K. J., Montero Vega, A. R., & Sagbakken, M. (2015). From disease to desire,
pleasure to the pill: A qualitative study of adolescent learning about sexual health and
sexuality in Chile. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2253-
9
Manduley, A. E., Mertens, A., Plante, I., & Sultana, A. (2018). The role of social media in sex
education: Dispatches from queer, trans, and racialized communities. Feminism &
Psychology, 28(1), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353517717751
McKee, A., Albury, K., Burgess, J., Light, B. A., Osman, K., & Walsh, A. (2018). Locked down apps
versus the social media ecology: Why do young people and educators disagree on the best
delivery platform for digital sexual health entertainment education? New Media &and
Society, 20(12), 4571–4589. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818778255
Measor, L. (2004). Young people’s views of sex education: Gender, information and knowl­
edge. Sex Education, 4(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810410001678338
Mellanby, A. R., Newcombe, R. G., Rees, J., & Tripp, J. H. (2001). A comparative study of peer-led
and adult-led school sex education. Health Education Research, 16(4), 481–491. https://doi.
org/10.1093/her/16.4.481
Mitchell, K. J., Ybarra, M. L., Korchmaros, J. D., & Kosciw, J. G. (2014). Accessing sexual health
information online: Use, motivations and consequences for youth with different sexual
orientations. Health Education Research, 29(1), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyt071
Morris, R. W. (2005). Research and evaluation in sexuality education: An allegorical exploration
of complexities and possibilities. Sex Education, 5(4), 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14681810500278501
Ngo, A. D., Ross, M. W., & Ratliff, E. A. (2008). Internet influences on sexual practices among
young people in Hanoi, Vietnam. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 10(S1), S201–S213. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13691050701749873
Nikkelen, S. W., van Oosten, J. M., & van den Borne, M. M. (2020). Sexuality Education in the
Digital Era: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Predictors of Online Sexual Information Seeking Among
Youth. Journal of Sex Research, 57(2), 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.
1612830
O’Higgins, S., & Gabhainn, S. N. (2010). Youth participation in setting the agenda: Learning
outcomes for sex education in Ireland. Sex Education, 10(4), 387–403. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14681811.2010.515096
Oosterhoff, P., Müller, C., & Shephard, K. (2017). Sex education in the digital era. Transforming
Knowledge Development IDS Bulletin, 48(1), 1–6. https://bulletin.ids.ac.uk/index.php/idsbo/
article/view/2841/ONLINE%20ARTICLE
Paiva, V. (2005). Analysing sexual experiences through ‘scenes’: A framework for the evalua­
tion of sexuality education. Sex Education, 5(4), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14681810500278295
Potter, J., & McDougall, J. (2017). Digital media, culture and education: Theorising third space
literacies. Springer.
 PASTORAL CARE IN EDUCATION 17

Pound, P., Langford, R., & Campbell, R. (2016). What do young people think about their school-
based sex and relationship education? A qualitative synthesis of young people’s views and
experiences. BMJ Open, 6(9), e011329. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011329
Pound, P., Denford, S., Shucksmith, J., Tanton, C., Johnson, A. M., Oen, J., Hutten, R., Mohan, L.,
Bonell, C., Abraham, C., & Campbell, R. (2017). What is best practice in sex and relationship
education? A synthesis of evidence, including stakeholders’ views. British Medical Journal
Open, 7(5), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014791
Rogow, D., & Haberland, N. (2005). Sexuality and relationships education: Toward a social
studies approach. Sex Education, 5(4), 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14681810500278188
School of Sexuality Education. (2019). What is sex positivity? https://schoolofsexed.org/blog-
articles/2019/11/4/what-is-sex-positivity
Scott, R. H., Smith, C., Formby, E., Hadley, A., Hallgarten, L., Hoyle, A., Marston, C., McKee, A., &
Tourountsis, D. (2020). What and how: Doing good research with young people, digital
intimacies, and relationships and sex education. Sex Education, 20(6), 675–691. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14681811.2020.1732337
Selwyn, N., & Powell, E. (2007). Sex and relationships education in schools: The views and
experiences of young people. Health Education, 107(2), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09654280710731575
Simon, L., & Daneback, K. (2013). Adolescents’ use of the internet for sex education:
A thematic and critical review of the literature. International Journal of Sexual Health, 25
(4), 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2013.823899
Smith, P. B., Realini, J. P., Buzi, R. S., & Mario, M. (2011). Students’ experiences and perceived
benefits of a sex education curriculum: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Sex & Marital
Therapy, 37(4), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2011.582433
Strange, V., Oakley, A., Forrest, S., & Ripple Study Team, T., & The RIPPLE Study Team. (2003).
Mixed-sex or single-sex sex education: How would young people like their sex education
and why? Gender and Education, 15(2), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250303852
Unis, B. D., & Sällström, C. (2020). Adolescents’ conceptions of learning and education about
sex and relationships. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 15(1), 25–52. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15546128.2019.1617816
Walcott, C. M., Chenneville, T., & Tarquini, A. (2011). Relationship between recall of sex
education and college students’ sexual attitudes and behavior. Psychology in Schools, 48
(8), 828–842. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20592
Wight, D. (2002). Limits of teacher delivered sex education: Interim behavioural outcomes
from randomised trial. Bmj, 324(7351), 1430–1433. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7351.
1430
Wight, D. (2011). The effectiveness of school-based sex education: What do the rigorous
evaluations in Britain tell us? Education and Health, 29(4), 67–73.
Willis, B., Clague, L., & Coldwell, M. (2013). Effective PSHE education: Values, purposes and
future directions. Pastoral Care in Education, 31(2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02643944.2012.747556
Zimmermann, D., Noll, C., Gräßer, L., Hugger, K. U., Braun, L. M., Nowak, T., & Kaspar, K. (2020).
Influencers on YouTube: A quantitative study on young people’s use and perception of
videos about political and societal topics. Current Psychology, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12144-020-01164-7