Ramblings. Musings. Required coursework.

Month: June 2017 (Page 1 of 2)

Exploring the Whys and Hows of Digital Citizenship

As someone whose academic work and past experience revolves largely around high school students, but who currently works and teaches in higher education, I wanted to take a slightly different approach to this assignment. While I do want to know how we are teaching students, often referred to as digital natives and assumed to have a concomitant set of skills and habits, to be digital citizens, I’m also intensely curious how we have those same conversations with adults who have learned and adapted to the modern digital world from its inception through its developmental stages when no curricula existed to guide that process.

How are the experts defining Digital Citizenship?

Although a variety of specific definitions of digital citizenship abound, each with its own slightly unique take on the matter, they clearly share a focus on the importance of defining responsible behavior as we interact with modern technology in the interconnected world it creates. While Dr. Mike Ribble, Chief Digital Citizen of the Digital Citizenship Institute, defines digital citizenship as “the norms of appropriate, responsible behavior with regard to technology use,” the Digital Citizenship Institute declares it as the “area of inquiry and activity related to the ethics, concerns, and opportunities associated with living a digital lifestyle.” Webroot, a cybersecurity firm, defines digital citizens, using a political lens, as those who “[recognize] how their homegrown efforts affect their neighbors and populations abroad [and] use technology to report events, organize action, and mobilize supporters across nations.”

Where I, however, find the definition that most resonates with me is in The Digital Citizenship Institute’s White Paper description of digital citizenship as a quest to “help students, as well as ourselves, develop the skills and perspectives necessary to live a digital lifestyle, that is safe, ethical, and responsible, as well as inspired, innovative, and involved.” This definition both encompasses the benefits of an interactive digital world (connectivity, innovation, and the drastic increase of access to knowledge) and the roles and responsibilities of the individual within that world (acting in a manner that demonstrates awareness of personal safety while ensuring the ethical treatment of others (Keady; Horvath) and awareness of the ramifications of individual action).

Keeping the Heart of a Definition

Here’s a really interesting take on how we perceive and think about digital citizenship…


Teaching Students to be Digital Citizens

Perform a Google search for digital citizenship and it will return a variety of curricula or methodologies dedicated to how we teach students to be responsible digital citizens. While many of them stem from the work of entities (Common Sense Media; Digital Citizenship Institute; New Media Literacies), others are the work of individuals within the field (Ribble; Davis; Hertz; Curran and Ribble). Sites geared toward educating parents and children to be vigilant in an online world also abound (Common Sense Media; FTC; Cyberwise; Youthspark; StopBullying).

Beyond classroom curricula and informational sites, many entities create games to teach students about the concepts of digital citizenship. Ranging from the FBI’s Cyber Surf Island to PBS’s Webonauts Internet Academy to Common Sense Media’s Digital Passport to AT&T’s Safety Land, these games teach key vocabulary, present real life scenarios requiring decisions, provide frameworks to guide interaction with the Internet and other users (for example, PBS’s Webonauts motto is Observe, Respect, and Contribute), and ensure students know how to maintain their personal safety when using the Internet.

For the purposes of deeper understanding, however, I want to compare Curran and Ribble’s P-20 Model of Digital Citizenship with Common Sense Media’s Digital Citizenship Curriculum. I selected these two curricula for two reason. First, Curran and Ribble (as leaders of the Digital Citizenship Institute) and Common Sense Media are respected as experts within the field and, second, both are recent, having been released within the last 2 years.

Building on Ribble’s Nine Themes of Digital Citizenship, the P-20 Model adopts 9 digital elements across three themes, noted as REP areas: Respect (etiquette, access, law); Educate (literacy; communication; commerce); and Protect (rights & responsibilities, safety, health & welfare).  Within the curriculum cycles, each theme is taught across the appropriate grade levels, with content building on prior knowledge. Common Sense Media’s Digital Citizenship Curriculum asks students to study eight themes across grades K-12: Privacy & Security, Self-Image and Identity, Relationships & Communication, Cyberbullying & Digital Drama, Digital Footprint & Reputation, Creative Credit & Copyright, Information Literacy, and Internet Safety (see Scope and Sequence above for visual). Although the Scope and Sequence covers each of the eight themes in the grade bands (K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12), the lessons for the youngest students focus more heavily on privacy, safety, literacy, and building positive relationships and communication while lessons for high school students see a more equal coverage of each theme.

On the surface (and without having experienced the presentation of either curriculum in person), I appreciate the clear delineation of the nine digital elements and three themes in the P-20 Model, however, I think the scope and sequence of the Digital Citizenship Curriculum indicates a program that introduces themes and follows them throughout the units, building on student experience, prior learning, and ability to engage in more meaningful ways with the content as they age. Further, given the ways we see high school students engaging with social media (Koebler; Helsel; BBC) and the ramifications of their actions, I like that the curriculum continues throughout their K-12 education. As students move into adulthood and technologies continue to advance, it seems important that we reinforce the lessons of responsible behavior in a digital age, rather than assuming (as we’re inclined to do in the era of “digital natives”), that they’ve got it.

Take Aways…

Before moving on to examine how we discuss digital literacy with adults, however, I wanted to highlight a few points that stood out when reviewing the curricula and commentaries:

  • Students need to be comfortable using modern technologies to be competitive in the job market when they graduate. The P-20 Model quotes third grader, Curran Dee, as saying “If you want us to learn about the world, we have to learn with the world.” As such we need to ensure that our students have access to technology, that technology use is meaningful and relevant, and that the technologies we select promote the level of thinking we want them to demonstrate.
  • We cannot assume our students come to us with the requisite skills and attitudes for success with technology. Our students come from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, and, as such, have varied experiences with technology. We also cannot assume they are savvy users just because they are using the technology.
  • Studies show that access to technology is changing how our students view the world and themselves, as such, it is important to have conversations with them about setting appropriate boundaries, understanding the affect social media can have on self-image, etc.
  • Say it loud and say it often. Teaching students about digital citizenship once doesn’t cut it. Students must be introduced to the concepts, engage in real-life experiences to inform their perspectives, continue to learn and develop themselves as digital citizens, and reflect on how they will integrate new technologies and knowledge into their lives. The lessons of digital citizenship should stand as enduring understandings we hope they attain throughout their formative years.
  • Growing digital citizens, like most things in life, takes a village. Educators should work in partnership with parents, community members, etc. to ensure that students understand the best ways to use and interact with technology. We must ensure that we, for lack of a better expression, practice what we preach. (Curran and Ribble)
  • We are citizens of an ever-increasing world. We need to talk with our students about their role within the local community, larger community, and the world. If they don’t understand how their actions may impact others, we’re doing something wrong. Consider Curran’s concept of iCitizen – iCitizens are “aware, empathetic, socially responsible, and action oriented in regard to social justice issues…[they are] citizen[s] of the world” (P-20).

What about adults?

Given that many adults today grew into technology and didn’t have the benefit of curricular programs targeted at digital citizenship in their formative years, I’m incredibly curious as to how the message from official channels may differ. Like many individuals my age, I hopped on the earliest social media and had a MySpace page through college; I held out from Facebook until 2008. I was fortunate to be in education courses at the time where instructors encouraged us to remember our students would also be on these sites and to keep our profiles private. I also have a father who is pretty diligent about reminding us to be safe so I was somewhat limiting what I put out there for the rest of the world to see. For my friends? Not so much. That said, it was after I left college and began working in a professional environment that I learned more about password security, how employers were using social media to screen future employees, and how it was almost impossible to really erase digital information.

While there will always be those who eschew technology and the access it provides to their lives, how do we talk to adults about staying safe as they engage in social media or information sharing across the Internet? How are adults, who didn’t grow up computers, learning these same lessons we’re teaching students? And is there an inevitability that we take a do as I say, not as I do mentality when it comes to our own behaviors?

In an interview between Larry Magid and Rebecca Randall of Common Sense Media, they advocate that the same lessons of digital citizenship we teach to students apply to adults (full article). Although I was able to find several higher education and adult education blogs that addressed teaching digital literacy to adults (Spector; Ahlquist; Pasquini), these blogs assume we have adults face-to-face in a classroom where they are being compelled by grade or requirement to learn these behaviors…which will not always be the case. Clearly quality curricula exist relating to digital citizenship, but they are predominantly targeted at K-12 and that may not always translate well to an adult audience.

As such (and as educators or information professionals), we need to think about how we can build these conversations among our students and peers. Pasquini, who cites Tom Nichols’ quote “…the internet is actually changing the way we read, the way we reason, the way we think, and all for the worse” (The Death of Expertise), provides evidence as to why these conversations are so important. Our students need to know how to use technology to find context, engage critically, ensure credibility, and practice collaboration and problem-solving. Her discussion of credibility and context reminded me of the April Fools’ joke played by NPR several years ago. While funny, the bottom line is that people are posting, and passionately, about a heading (surface level information, at best) without bothering to dig more deeply. This speaks to a larger and more-telling trend when you consider people may be using the same strategies to determine their votes, weigh in on issues of significance, etc.

I’m not sure I there is any easy answer to this question as we cannot mandate all adults take a course and it’s unfortunate that many will learn the hard way (Poppick; Ronson; Samson), however, we need to consider how we can both encourage and engage in conversations with our peers and society at large about the responsible use of technology and all that implies.





Digital Citizenship: Where I am Now?

A former history teacher, I find it challenging to consider “digital citizenship” as entirely separate from the concept of “citizenship.” Further, since I taught citizenship, civic duty, etc., I find it equally challenging to remove prior knowledge from the discussion, therefore, rather than treating one concept as unique and independent from the other, I want to engage the historical concept of citizenship through the lens of digital in my discussion.


When considering the definition of citizenship, the term “citizen” is fundamental to the discussion. Citizens, as members, native or naturalized, of a nation, hold citizenship within that nation which generally guarantees a certain set of rights while holding them accountable to the specific and (hopefully?) agreed-upon laws of the nation. “Civic duty,” then, implies those inherent responsibilities that lie within the purview of the individual citizen to support and uphold the nation to which they belong and ensure these same rights and responsibilities are guaranteed to all citizens.

Digital Citizenship

Carrying forward the definitions in the last paragraph and considering citizenship through the lens of digital, I posit that the nation to which digital citizens belong is the Internet (perhaps even the Internet of Things, but that’s a much more granular conversation and likely best left for later in the course). Given this definition, anyone who uses the Internet, running the gamut from those born digitally native to those uncomfortably, naturalized yet hesitant adopters, is a citizen of the digital sphere and, as such, are given immense freedoms in return for accountability to a certain set of standards governing their interactions. Continuing this argument, civic duty then, in a digital nation, would imply the inherent responsibilities of the individual participants to support and uphold the access, usability, customs, etc. of the Internet in a manner that makes it equitable for all.

Carrying forward the concept of citizenship is an interesting argument to consider, however, there is nothing that easily straightforward about it and the definition certainly leaves holes. For instance, who or what governs the standards and expected behaviors? Do we have an agreed upon standard of netiquette? Is that even really a thing anymore? Where do we place spammers, flamers, cyber stalkers, and trolls in this definition? Are they the digital equivalent of the modern terrorist? While I stand by my definition above as a basic, and perhaps naively hopeful definition of the term, I do hope to further refine, consider, and confront these notions throughout the semester.

Eight Essentials: Clarifying the Skill Sets and Mindsets

During the Library 2.017: Digital Literacy and Fake News mini conference Keynote, Dr. Doug Belshaw discussed the Eight Essential Elements of Digital Literacies. His presentation was limited to a short time, so if you would like a longer discussion on the topic, his TEDx Talk should be of interest. One of the points he shared during the keynote was that some time ago another individual had pointed out that his Eight Essentials could actually be divided into skill sets and mindsets which really jived with me.

Below you will find my make and share project that resulted from the talk. While you can find numerous visual examples of the eight essentials, none of them that I was able to find listed that the first four are skill sets, while the latter are mindsets. Given that I think this is an important distinction (and a handout I’d like to share with my faculty), I wanted to create my own version that included this key piece of information.


Library 2.017: Digital Literacy and Fake News

Search and Research

Although quite a few sessions in the Library 2.017: Digital Literacy and Fake News workshop last Thursday interested me, Joyce Valenza and Michelle Luhtala’s presentation proved to be the most relevant to my field of study. Given that I spent most of 2011-2014 working with several thousand educators to incorporate primary sources into their classrooms and ensuring students had the tools they needed to analyze primary source documents, I’ve seen educator experience that runs the gamut. Some of the teachers attended my sessions to learn where to find the primary sources they comfortably used and taught while those on the other end of the spectrum relied heavily on publisher-created materials and rarely deviated. After spending three years immersed in that environment (and that was after 5 years of teaching a curriculum heavily influenced by the use of primary sources), you can imagine my shock when Valenza and Luhtala discussed the research results in the “Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning” report published by the Stanford History Education Group.

According to the study, students from middle school to higher education classes demonstrated a clear lack of preparation in their ability to discern between advertisement and article, evaluate truth in information presented in social media, and determining bias or agenda in the presentation of “facts”. The researchers found the results particularly confounding as the students belong to the generation of digital natives and, even though they are quite fluent in social media and its use, demonstrated a lack of savvy in understanding and analyzing information on these sites.

The research was conducted between January 2015 and June 2016 as part of Stanford History Education Group’s Reading Like a Historian curriculum initiative.

The curriculum focuses on the use of primary sources and provides explicit questions (see below) to ensure students engage in inquiry and step into the role of historian as they piece together the events and narrative of the past.

As part of their initiative to improve student’s history learning and ability to analyze primary sources, Stanford also created the Beyond the Bubble site with contains Historical Assessments of Thinking (or HATS)  which require students to leave behind the factual recall associated with multiple choice tests and apply their knowledge to the primary sources documenting specific historical events.

Beyond the work being done by Stanford, other entities, such as the National Archives and Library of Congress provide analysis sheets for students or suggestions to guide their investigations of primary sources. For more information about these efforts, see the links below:

Relating this to the Course

While this topic lives predominantly in the intersection of my interests/experiences and the content of the course, what I find particularly relevant (two weeks in) is the way this issue plays into commentary on the larger digital literacy argument. As a social studies teacher, I perceived my most significant role as being a facilitator to teach my students to engage in inquiry, analyze sources, and form their own perspectives of and opinions about the past. When we discuss the meaning of digital literacy, Stanford’s research provides a solid example of how a skill we take for granted (digital natives as being social media savvy and therefore capable to discern content) can be quite wrong when put to the test. I see this informing our conversations through the creation of four key questions:

  1. What assumptions do we make around individuals as relates to the nature of digital literacy and individual experience?
  2. When do we teach the skills and mindsets associated with digital literacy?
  3. How do we determine students are effectively applying the skills and mindsets we teach?
  4. How can digital literacy in one context (the ability to effectively analyze primary sources) provide the experience and transferable skills and mindsets necessary to examine digital literacy in a different context (news via social media)?





« Older posts

© 2022 Heather Marie

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑