Digital citizenship unlike digital literacy, considers how individuals interact and use technology to create a parallel identity in digital space that retains a symbiotic relationship to the material self. Research continues to cite multiple definitions of digital citizenry using these different definitions to investigate various hypotheses concerning primary, secondary and post-secondary students, adults and teachers. The most concise definition divides digital citizenship into narrow or broad terms, depending on investigative or educational purposes. As Choi et al., 2018 elaborate, “[the] concept of digital citizenship can be understood either narrowly as ethical, responsible and safe use of the Internet and a variety of digital technologies…or in a broad context, as a multidimensional concept with five dimensions, Technical Skills, Local/Global Awareness, Networking Agency, Internet Political Activism, and Critical Perspective” (Atif & Chou, 2018; Choi et al., 2018; Kim &Choi, 2018). However, given the explicit complexity of both the narrow and broad definitions of digital citizenship, most research tends to simplify the concepts into three capacities, cyberbullying, digital communication, and political engagement (Choi et al., 2018)

As digital citizenship pertains to education, it is our responsibility as educators to ensure our pupils possess the three capacities or a competency to engage or disengage in them (Atif & Chou, 2018). However, two major issues are confronted when bringing digital citizenry into the classroom. First, we must engage students in curriculum that educators are competent with (Choi et al., 2018; Kim & Choi, 2018). We cannot have the blind leading the blind. Secondly, we must realize and accept that as educators, we cannot manage behavior outside of our institutions and therefore any program or model we choose to implement must include parental support (Choi et al., 2018; Kim & Choi, 2018).

Therefore, besides attaining the necessary knowledge to teach digital citizenship and building lessons to reflect the expanded five levels in the definition above. An educator could assign an ongoing and reflexive reporting or journaling activity concerning current events. Drawing from the digital realm and informed by either credible or unreliable sources, the teacher could use formative feedback and discussions to elucidate and address any weaknesses or misunderstandings of what appropriate digital citizenry looks like. Notably, the reflexive piece would be of significance as it would muse students to investigate how they feel about current events in the light of weak or robust digital resources. Furthermore, if we adapted a social re-constructivist pedagogy, we could use this activity to promote the two highest levels of digital citizenry, “Internet Political Activism and Critical Perspective” (Atif & Chou, 2018; Choi et al., 2018; Kim &Choi, 2018). Difficulty achieving parental involvement is problematic but providing informative letters, resources, or suggestions may help moderate students outside of class.

 

References

Atif, Y., & Chou, C. (2018). Digital citizenship: Innovations in education, practice, and pedagogy. Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 152-154.

Choi, M., Cristol, D., & Gimbert, B. (2018). Teachers as digital citizens: The influence of individual backgrounds, internet use and psychological characteristics on teachers’ levels of digital citizenship. Computers and Education, 121, 143-161. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.005

Kim, M., & Choi, D. (2018). Development of youth digital citizenship scale and implication for educational setting. Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 155-171.