J Acad Ethics (2018) 16:117–131

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9302-9

Discrepancy between Learning and Practicing

Digital Citizenship

Bowen Hui 1 & Robert Campbell

2

Published online: 20 January 2018

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract The importance of digital citizenship has been well recognized and integrated in
standardized school curriculum. However, there are very few empirical studies that report on
the success of these new initiatives. Our teaching experience suggest that students are able to
perform well on exams that assess proper online conduct, but they still fail to follow digital
citizenship guidelines in practice. In this paper, we present a study to investigate students’
attitudes and opinions on various digital citizenship concepts via a self-reported questionnaire
that is designed to gain insights on what the students would actually do in real life. Our results
show that among the nine digital citizenship elements, students have the most appreciation for
access, communication, literacy, and security. On the other hand, elements such as digital
etiquette and health and wellness were trivialized and undervalued. Furthermore, we
found some students were unable to come to a consensus on what is right and wrong
in certain scenarios pertaining to digital law. As the Internet continues to gain
prominence in our daily lives, these findings lead to important questions of how
learning modules and how the overall education system need to change so to ensure
the growth of good digital citizens in the future generation.

Keywords Digital citizenship assessment . Curriculum design . Student experience . Conceptual

scenarios

Motivation

The role of digital citizenship in the educational system is to provide a means to help students
understand how to use technology in a safe and appropriate manner. Some of the crucial skills
that students need in order to navigate the digital world effectively include: finding reliable

* Bowen Hui
bowen.hui@ubc.ca

1
Department of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, Canada
2
Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, Canada
118 Hui B., Campbell R.

information online, detecting suspicious content, being aware of privacy policies with infor-
mation collected online, and taking advantage of what technology offers by participating in a
responsible way with others worldwide. The importance of digital citizenship has been well
recognized as a need for K-12 levels (Herold 2016) and in some instances at post-secondary
levels (Almekinder et al. 2017). Several major technology companies, such as Google1 and
Microsoft,2 also provide online curriculum to support teachers and parents in teaching their
children about digital citizenship. The International Society for Technology in Education also
includes concepts of digital citizenship in their standards to guide responsible and ethical use
of information and technology for students, teachers, and administrators (ISTE 2017).
To our knowledge, very few empirical studies report on the success of these new initiatives.
Our teaching experience suggest that students are able to perform well on exams that assess
proper online conduct, but they still fail to follow digital citizenship guidelines in practice. For
example, many students acknowledge the negative consequences and the seriousness of cyber-
bullying, yet they still succumb to bullying others online due to peer pressure or a moment of
anger. Another anecdotal example is the violation of copyrights where students know that
stealing content from others is wrong but they rationalize their own misconducts. Therefore,
traditional ways of measuring learning gains via increased performance on written exams do
not necessarily lead to improved online behavior. Thus, it leaves us wondering: what is the
impact of digital citizenship education on our students?
As a first step, we conducted a study with students in a teacher education program to
investigate students’ attitudes and opinions on various digital citizenship concepts. For this
purpose, we developed a questionnaire that addresses not only students’ knowledge but also
their practice of relevant concepts so that we can gain insights on what the students would
actually do in real life. To assess a possible change in responses, this questionnaire was
distributed at the beginning of the course and after their lessons on digital citizenship. Our
results show that among the nine digital citizenship elements, students have the most appre-
ciation for access, communication, literacy, and security. On the other hand, elements such as
digital etiquette and health and wellness were trivialized and undervalued. Digital law was a
special case in which students had uncompromising ideas of what is right and wrong. Despite
going through our designed lessons and discussions, we found that the students’ attitudes did
not change much on these matters. These results are alarming because our study participants
are future teachers who will educate young children on topics of digital citizenship. As the
Internet continues to gain prominence in our daily lives, these findings lead to important
questions of how learning modules and how the overall education system need to change so to
ensure the growth of good digital citizens in the future generation.

Background

The attributes of new digital media are inherently different from technologies of the
past. Digital media can provide information that is instantaneous, interactive, partic-
ipatory and global. As a result of these attributes, digital media require new attitudes

1
Google for Education: Training Center. Accessed July 20 2017. Available at: https://edutrainingcenter.
withgoogle.com/training
2
Microsoft Digital Literacy. Accessed July 20 2017. Available at: https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/digitalliteracy/overview.aspx
Discrepancy between Learning and Practicing Digital Citizenship 119

and different behaviors if they are to be used appropriately, ethically, and responsibly.
Online users can be put at risk or cause harm if they apply outdated rules and
conventions of the past to new digital media. Small social gaffes or breaches of
etiquette may occur when users communicate or interact with others online, not
understanding how public their private communications can become. Users can also
engage in even more serious activities that include unethical conduct or even criminal
violations, when they are not fully aware of one’s online rights or do not understand
copyright laws that protect the creators of digital materials. Additionally, users need to
know that there can be a dark underside to the digital world; there are sites and
online activities that can harbor hate, harm, and danger—especially to young and
often naïve users, such as adolescents and school age children.
Not all students in schools are aware of what is appropriate, ethical, or legal as they
communicate, create, or consume online content. This lack of awareness and understanding
has given rise to the idea of digital citizenship that Ribble et al. (2004) define as the Bnorms of
behaviour with regard to technology use. As a way of understanding the complexity of digital
citizenship and the issues of technology use, abuse, and misuse^ (p. 7). Their description goes
beyond just using technology effectively; digital citizenship, in their view, is using technology
in a safe, secure, responsible, and respectful manner. We adopt this broad definition of digital
citizenship, and define it in detail in the remainder of this section.

Nine Elements of Digital Citizenship

Ribble et al. (2004) identified the following nine elements that allow students to understand
key digital citizenship issues:

1. Digital Access: Infrastructure to allow for full electronic participation in society. We need
to be aware that not everyone has equal access to technology. Many in the world have no
access, or very limited access, to computers or to Internet connections. Digital citizens
need to support equal digital rights.
2. Digital Commerce: The electronic buying and selling of goods. As the Internet increas-
ingly becomes a common world marketplace, digital citizens need to be intelligent
consumers and not fall victim to Internet scams, phishing, or identity theft. They also
need to understand that goods and services available from international sources may
contravene laws and morals of their own country.

3. Digital Communication: The electronic exchange of information. There are many options
now available for instantaneous communication and collaboration using the Internet.
Users who text, email, or publish content on social media need to be aware of how wide
and interconnected their audience may be. Digital citizens need to make appropriate
decisions and responsible choices when they are communicating and collaborating on
the Internet.

4. Digital Literacy: The process of teaching and learning about technology and the use of
technology. As technology-infused learning becomes more common practice, teachers
need to learn how to use technology appropriately. Additionally, educational concepts and
practices need to keep pace with innovations in technology. New technologies can provide
students with new modes of learning and new learning media.
120 Hui B., Campbell R.

5. Digital Etiquette: The electronic standards of conduct or procedure. Digital citizens use
technology in ways that are contextually appropriate. They should also be aware of subtle
rules in technology use.

6. Digital Law: The electronic responsibility for actions and deeds. Digital citizens are aware
of laws related to technology use, and distinguish between legal and illegal use. They obey
copyright laws and other legislation that ensures that technology use is legal and does not
infringe on the rights of others.

7. Digital Rights and Responsibilities: Those requirements and freedoms extended to every-
one in a digital world. Digital citizens use online material ethically and agree to live
according to acceptable use policies or legal rules and regulations.

8. Digital Health and Wellness: Physical and psychological wellbeing in a digital technology
world. Digital citizens need to be aware of physical dangers inherent in using technology,
as well as any psychological harm that may occur through excessive use or Internet
addiction.

9. Digital Security: The electronic precautions to guarantee safety. Digital citizenship pro-
motes the protection of our personal information from being stolen, or our technological
hardware and software from viruses, worms, and security hackers.

Digital Citizenship Assessments

Numerous resources exist in both print and online form that support the instruction of digital
citizenship in schools. As learners work through concepts of digital citizenship, a number of
assessment tools are available that allow them to test their knowledge of digital citizenship and
to self-assess their behaviors to determine if they are using technology appropriately, ethically,
and responsibly. The majority of this material is primarily focused at the K-12 level and is
designed to gauge how much a learner knows about specific content. A popular platform used
for curriculum and assessment is one by Common Sense Education.3 In this work, learning
units are designed for different age groups across K-12 levels. Each unit has an associated
post-assessment that is typically consisted of knowledge-based multiple-choice questions.
Examples of such questions include: Bwhat does it mean to go online?^ and Bwhich of the
following online activities are risky?^ While this tool serves as a useful resource, we see that
the assessments within any given grade level do not cover all nine elements of digital
citizenship. In this work, our goal is to develop a behavioral assessment tool that addresses
all the digital citizenship elements.
Another example that is more aligned with our goals is the Digital Driver’s License (DDL),
which Swan and Park (2015) describe as Ba free and easy-to-navigate resource that schools or
individuals can use to teach and measure digital citizenship proficiency^ (p. 1). The basic
assessment component of the DDL consists of two multiple-choice questions to test students’
knowledge of each of the nine elements of digital citizenship. In recent years, DDL has also

3
Common Sense Education, Unit assessments. Accessed July 20 2017. Available at: https://assessments.
commonsensemedia.org/
Discrepancy between Learning and Practicing Digital Citizenship 121

been extended in practice in some schools to include a second assessment component (Swan
and Park 2015). This additional component enables students to create a portfolio of evidence to
prove they understand certain concepts from the multiple-choice component. Schools use the
DDL platform both as a way to train teachers and to educate students about proper online
conduct and digital proficiencies.
From a review of existing assessment tools, we found a variety of instruments that have
been developed to measure digital literacy. As the focus of these instruments is literacy, they do
not speak to the other elements of digital citizenship that is of interest in this paper. (However,
in some cases, there is overlap with digital communication and digital rights and responsibil-
ities.) According to a review done by Covello (2010), sub-disciplines of digital literacy
addressed by these instruments include information literacy, computer literacy, media literacy,
communication literacy, visual literacy, and technology literacy. These literacies are mainly
concerned with an individual’s skills level in finding and analyzing information, using
technology effectively, and interpreting online content accurately. While these instruments
are relevant, they only measure one’s digital skills and are narrow in scope in terms of the
breadth of coverage of digital citizenship concepts. The interested reader is referred to (Covello
2010) for more details on these tests.
Johnes and Mitchell (2016) reported on a study that surveyed 979 youths ranging between
the ages of 11–17 on their online behavior and online civic engagement. In this regard, only
one of the digital citizenship elements was investigated. The authors found that online respect
decreased as the youth became older, and scores were higher for girls than boys. The study also
measured online harassment experience as well as bystander behavior. The results found that
both online respect and civic engagement were negatively correlated with harassment experi-
ence but positively correlated with helpful bystander behavior.

Measuring Curriculum Impact

To our knowledge, Boyle (2010) is the only study that measures the effectiveness of digital
citizenship curriculum. Boyle designed a digital citizenship curriculum, delivered over the
course of four weeks, and used the DDL as the tool for both pre-test and post-test assessment.
The study consisted of a control group that was not exposed to the curriculum and a test group
that was. The results indicated a significant improvement in the students’ normative behavior
of technology was found for digital etiquette, communication, literacy, commerce, law, rights
and responsibilities, and health and wellness. In contrast to our interest in students’ attitudes,
this study reports on the change in student knowledge because the DDL measures
normative behavior. Our goal is to develop a more comprehensive questionnaire that
addresses issues beyond normative behavior or Bright or wrong answers^—an instru-
ment that would explore students’ attitudes and online behavior. Moreover, the DDL
may lack reliability; it has only two questions in each of the nine elements, making it
easy for students to guess the correct answer.

Questionnaire Development

The context of this inquiry is at the higher education level. Specifically, we focus on the
curriculum and assessment in a university teacher education program. The intentions of
introducing digital citizenship to teacher candidates in this program is that if they become
122 Hui B., Campbell R.

aware of digital citizenship elements as they prepare to become teachers, they can then teach
these elements to their own students and also model appropriate, ethical, and responsible
behavior in the classroom. As we examine the online interactions of these students, two key
areas of inquiry arise. The first explores the broad agenda of post-secondary students learning
about digital citizenship—what do they know and what are their perceptions of appropriate,
ethical, and responsible use of digital media? The second area focuses on the efficacy of
learning about digital citizenship. That is, does learning about digital citizenship result in
making learners better digital citizens?
To investigate these questions more deeply, we designed a questionnaire based on
the nine elements of digital citizenship. Rather than asking knowledge-based questions
in our questionnaire, we opted to design questions that address behaviors and atti-
tudes, so that we can get a closer approximation to what respondents would actually
do in real life situations. Let us consider digital access as an example. In a
knowledge-based questionnaire, one might ask for a definition of the terminology or
provide a context that requires the application of that definition. A plausible knowl-
edge application question might be a true/false item with the following question:
BDoes online information mean equitable access to digital content for people living
in different geographic areas?^ In contrast, our questionnaire provides the definition
and context needed, then elicits for the respondent’s opinion of it. For example, an
item we have is the following: BIt’s not my problem if other people don’t have
computers or access to digital information.^
Among the nine elements of digital citizenship, we felt that digital rights and responsibil-
ities overlapped with digital etiquette, digital law, and digital security. Thus, we excluded it
from our questionnaire. For reasons of consistency and coverage, we included four to six
questions for each of the remaining eight elements. The questions we used in our questionnaire
are provided in Table 1.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited from a post baccalaureate course required in the first year of a two-
year teacher education program for those training to become K-7 teachers across a variety of
subjects. Overall, there were 77 students in the course. The majority of the students were in
their early to mid-20’s, with about 10% being mature students — some in their 30’s and one in
their 40’s. The course had about 80% females and 20% males. All the students held a
Bachelor’s degree while some students have previous teaching experience overseas. A pre-
liminary analysis of the students at the start of the course indicated that, on average, their
computer skills were not advanced. None held degrees in computer science or information
technology, nor did any have deep training in traditional technologies such as productivity
software (e.g., MS Excel). However, everyone was familiar with social media and communi-
cation technologies; they used a range of readily available Bapps^ for texting, chatting, and
sharing photos. Generally, the students’ knowledge of computer technology was limited to
communication activities, not production activities, other than word processing. A few had
previously taken computer science courses that they completed prior to entering teacher
training. These courses were introductory programming courses; however, none of the students
Discrepancy between Learning and Practicing Digital Citizenship 123

Table 1 List of questions for each digital citizenship element

Digital Access
7. We should work toward ensuring that everyone in our society has equal access to technology, whether it be
having personal computers at home or using public computers in their community.
9R. It’s not my problem if other people don’t have computers or access to digital information.
17. Using a cell phone to access the Internet can be very helpful and convenient.
28R. Seniors don’t really need access to the Internet because they grew up without it.
35R. People who live in rural areas shouldn’t complain if they don’t have highspeed Internet access. They
shouldn’t expect highspeed access.
Digital Commerce
10R. I don’t buy or sell anything online. I don’t trust the technology to handle my money.
24R. Everyone has been buying and selling merchandise online for so many years now, it must be safe for me
to do so too.
29R. Since there are well-established corporations I can always trust big online companies to store my credit
card information securely.
34R. If a business has an online website, it means that the business must be credible and it’s okay to buy its
merchandise.
40R. If I purchased merchandise online, I would only use a credit card. I don’t trust alternate online purchasing
methods.
Digital Communication
19. The Internet is a great way to exchange information with friends and family.
20. I encourage others to communicate with me by texting me or by using social media sites like Facebook and
Twitter.
25. I often share funny or interesting stories with friends online or through emails.
30R. There is so much information online I just can’t keep up, so I don’t even bother to read anything online
anymore.
39. I like being able to communicate and collaborate online with anyone from anywhere at anytime.
Digital Literacy
3R. The world of digital media changes so rapidly we shouldn’t be expected to keep up with all the changes.
4R. Being information literate isn’t all that important. Not everyone needs to know how to use computers.
21. Being able to assess the credibility and validity of an online source is important.
31R. If information is posted on Wikipedia, it must be accurate.
37. Improving my knowledge with digital technologies and online media is a good way to enhance
employment opportunities.
Digital Etiquette
1R. When working online I should be able to post whatever I want, whenever I want and wherever I want. The
Internet supports freedom of expression.
6R. My Facebook page is my own page – I post anything on it I want to.
16R. If people post objectionable comments online, they deserve objectionable feedback.
22R. It’s okay to send rude comments or make fun of others in text messages I send to my friends because they
know I’m just joking.
32R. When I’m attending a university class and accessing my computer, I feel that I can work on anything I
want to, even if it’s not related to the class that I’m in.
Digital Law
5R. Our copyright rules and regulations for digital media are out-of-date; we shouldn’t be expected to follow
them exactly.
12R. If someone posts a photo or image online, I can use it freely on my own webpage. They posted it on a
public forum; they should expect other people to use it.
14R. The less government control on the Internet the better.
18R. Some countries don’t have copyright laws. We should be like them and just get rid of copyright
altogether.
Digital Health and Wellness
11R. I don’t worry much about any physical or health problems that could occur from using technology too
much.
13R. People can use technology as much as they want; I don’t think it is possible for people to be addicted to
the Internet.
23R. I like to work online all day without interruptions.
26R. Sitting with proper posture was important when we sat at desks and wrote with pen and paper. It’s not a
big issue now that people are inputting text on computers and working with laptops.
33. I need to have the best ergonomically designed and user-friendly keyboard and mouse I can find.
124 Hui B., Campbell R.

Table 1 (continued)
38R. I don’t worry much about any psychological problems that could occur from using technology too much.
Digital Security
2R. If people want to snoop into my digital data – they can go right ahead. This is the information age and I
have nothing to hide.
8. I worry about others finding information about me online.
15. I don’t believe in open-access to my computer data – I want tight security on all my computer systems.
27R. It is always safe to open an attached document if it is from someone that I know.
36R. Opening email messages is quite safe. Computer viruses are not transmitted through emails.

regarded themselves as proficient programmers. Among this pool of students, 41 volunteered

to participate in this study. No compensation was provided to the participants.

Procedure

In previous years, digital citizenship content was covered entirely in the last class of the
semester. This seemed to be antithetical to effective instruction since all nine elements were
covered only briefly and not in a way that students would have time to discuss, remember, or
learn deeply specific aspects of the content. This year, we decided to apportion a few digital
citizenship elements over several classes earlier in the term, and support the teaching of these
with online videos that students could watch at home prior to attending class. This setup
provided a flipped classroom experience. Flipping the digital citizenship content afforded the
benefit of having students engage with this content prior to coming to each class session.
While our study only considers data from participants, the process was the same for all the
students in the course. First, the questionnaire we developed was given to all the students to
complete at the beginning of the semester. The digital citizenship videos were used over a five-
week period, with one video assignment each week. These videos were between two to three
minutes long, showing contentious scenarios related to digital citizenship. At the end of each
video, a handful of questions were presented for discussion. Students were instructed to watch
the videos and prepare responses for those questions in order to participate effectively during
in-class discussions in the upcoming lecture. These instructional materials were structured as
part of a flipped classroom environment where students would come to the lectures prepared
and ready to discuss the issues raised in the videos. In-class discussions generally took about
30 min. At the end of the course, in order to assess possible changes in their attitudes and
perceptions, the same questionnaire was given to the students to complete again.

Instructional Materials

Our funding and resources permitted us hire three students as undergraduate research assis-
tants, whom we tasked with developing and producing a series of five videos about digital
citizenship. Our discussions with the research assistants led us to choose online streamed
videos as the media for the project. Since we were exploring opportunities for distributed
learning, online streamed videos would allow students to learn both in the classroom and at
home — thereby allowing us to Bflip^ the instruction in this course. Additionally, students at
the post-secondary level were very comfortable using streamed videos for instructional
purposes. YouTube and Vimeo were very familiar to them.
At the outset of the project, in addition to deciding which medium to use, the three research
assistants met and collaborated with the authors of this paper to consider the content of the
Discrepancy between Learning and Practicing Digital Citizenship 125

videos. They came up with a handful of scenario they considered key in understanding
appropriate and safe use of digital media. These scenarios covered the following five digital
citizenship elements: access, etiquette, law, security, and health and wellness. Using these
scenarios as a content source, the research assistants developed, scripted, shot, edited, and also
acted in five videos that depicted these elements. The videos were made publicly available
online through the university’s learning management system. Each video lasted between two
to three minutes and adopted the following structure: (i) a review of the nine digital citizenship
elements, (ii) two or three scenarios pertaining to the relevant digital citizenship element, and
(iii) a list of discussion questions at the end of each video. Learners in the course were given
one week in advance to watch the videos and prepare their responses to the discussion
questions. It is important to note that although, only five elements were depicted in the acted
scenarios in videos, all nine elements were included at the introduction of each video and all
nine elements were taken up in class as course content with time for in-class discussions of
each elements.
During class, the instructor would review the relevant concept for the week and lead the
discussion with the students. Using digital access as an example, the first part of the video
showed a scenario where some students did not have access to a personal laptop, and thus,
were less effective in their school work. In the same video, the second scenario showed the
availability of public access sites for general technology use. The list of discussion questions
provided at the end of the video included:

– When faced with the issue of digital access in a classroom, what can instructors do
differently?
– Do you or disagree with BBYOD^ (bring your own device)? Would you be comfortable
sharing your device with others?
– Where can people gain more access to technology?
– How does digital exclusion affect your social acceptance in a classroom?
– Should it be mandatory to invest in technology in order to attend post-secondary
institutions?

The scenarios illustrating digital etiquette pertain to online slandering and violating an-
other’s privacy. Scenarios for digital law pertain to website hacking, software piracy, and
copyrights. Scenarios for digital security pertain to data privacy and online identity. Lastly,
scenarios for digital health and wellness pertain to Internet addiction and posture.

Results

Among the 41 participants, one of them did not complete the pre-test questionnaire and four
others did not complete the post-test questionnaire. The data from these five participants were
removed from the analysis, and we were left with a sample of N = 36.
The purpose of this study was not to develop a questionnaire, but rather, to explore
students’ understanding of digital citizenship and their behaviors as they work online
and engage with digital media. As such, we arrived at some validation of the
questionnaire using Cronbach’s alpha with mixed results as shown in Table 2 for
both the overall questionnaire and each subscale. As we continue to examine the
concept of digital citizenship, we plan to further assess the reliability of the ques-
tionnaire and refine it for use in future studies.
126 Hui B., Campbell R.

Table 2 Cronbach alpha values for the overall questionnaire and each subscale based on the pre- and post-test
data

Overall By Subscale

Access Commerce Communication Literacy Etiquette Law Health Security

Pre-Test 0.67 0.58 0.57 0.63 0.30 0.61 0.57 0.48 0.29
Post-Test 0.80 0.62 0.57 0.49 0.60 0.61 0.56 0.54 0.52

For each question, we obtained a response on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from BStrongly
Disagree^ (a score of 1) to BStrongly Agree^ (a score of 7), with the midpoint labeled as
BUndecided^ (a score of 4). In the case where the question was written using negated wording,
the score was reversed. (In Table 1, these are the items suffixed with an BR^.) Since there are
multiple questions per concept, we averaged the responses across all the relevant questions for
a given concept. For example, a high average score on digital access indicates that the
respondent has good appreciation of digital access, while a low average score indicates that
the respondent does not care about the lack of digital access in today’s society. After
computing an average score, we converted the scores back to their agreement labels for ease
of interpretation. In particular, a score of 6.5 and above is marked as BStrongly Agree^ for the
concept overall, a score between 6.5 and 5.5 is marked as BAgree^, etc. Table 3 shows the
mapping between the calculated average scores for each digital citizenship element and the
agreement label used.
Generally, we are interested in our participants’ overall attitude and awareness of digital
citizenship concepts. To better understand this, we created a histogram of the responses
(averaged over questions per concept) for both the pre-test and the post-test shown in Figs. 1
and 2 respectively. By comparing them side-by-side, we see the general patterns of responses
that the participants gave before the course, as well as how their attitudes and beliefs might
have changed after the course.
The first pattern we notice from Fig. 1 is that most participants generally have good
appreciation of the various digital citizenship concepts. In particular, we see that digital
etiquette, law, and health and wellness have a large portion of BUndecided^ (about one-third
to one-fourth), along with some disagreement as well. Looking closely at the questionnaire
items in these categories, we hypothesize several reasons for these results. One possible reason
is that the participants can think of many more scenarios that were posed in the questionnaire,
so they remain undecided on these items. Another reason is that they do not think that
situations raised in the questionnaire are likely or are applicable to them. This is very likely
the case since the participants are younger and do not necessarily agree with the importance of

Table 3 The conversion used for mapping average scores to an agreement label

Average Score Agreement Label

6.5 or above Strongly Agree

> = 5.5 and <6.5 Agree
> = 4.5 and <5.5 Somewhat Agree
> = 3.5 and <4.5 Undecided
> = 2.5 and <3.5 Somewhat Disagree
> = 1.5 and <2.5 Disagree
Below 1.5 Strongly Disagree
Discrepancy between Learning and Practicing Digital Citizenship 127

Fig. 1 Shows the scores averaged across questions for each digital citizenship concept from the pre-test

digital health and wellness. A third reason is that the participants may simply want to do
whatever they see fit on the Internet.
Among the remaining concepts, digital commerce has the highest portion of BUndecided^.
This suggests that the participants do not understand e-commerce and web presence enough to
make a judgment.
In the remaining concepts, we see that about one-tenth of the responses for digital access
and communication were BUndecided^, and minimal to no BUndecided^ responses for digital
security and digital literacy. This suggests that the participants understand the issues surround-
ing of access, communication, literacy, and security. This is not surprising, since the

Fig. 2 Shows the scores averaged across questions for each digital citizenship concept from the post-test
128 Hui B., Campbell R.

participants are training to become schoolteachers who either use technology or will be
teaching children who use technology heavily. It is also encouraging to see that the participants
understand security issues well. These results show that our participants are, in some specific
areas, tech-savvy.
Next, we take a closer look at the changes in the responses before and after the course.
Recall that we created educational material on videos for digital access, etiquette, law, security,
and health and wellness. Note that due to the in-class discussions following these video
assignments, it is possible that learning occurred beyond these five elements. For example, a
discussion following the security video may include explanations of how security technology
works in our everyday online use and in e-commerce. In this case, students would improve
their knowledge on security, digital literacy, as well as digital commerce. Keeping this in mind,
we turn to the post-test results displayed in Fig. 2.
The resulting histogram from the post-test is shown in Fig. 2. By comparing the results
between Figs. 1 and 2, we identified the following patterns. First, although there was a course
module on digital access, there was not much change in the post-test data. This is likely
because participants have a good appreciation of this concept already, so without a much
deeper learning experience (such as experiential learning activities), it is not surprising that the
data did not change significantly.
While there is not much difference in the post-test data for digital communication, we see
that literacy and security have more agreement. In the case of literacy, the post-test data shows
that participants who had previously indicated BSomewhat Agree^ have switched to BStrongly
Agree^ and BAgree^. In one instance, a participant switched to BUndecided^. As for security,
there is no longer any reports of BUndecided^, and all responses are in some form of
agreement. We attribute these changes to the learning modules. As well, commerce also has
an increased number of agreement. This improvement may be due to an increased level of
understanding with security issues, since several of the questionnaire items pertaining to
commerce relate to data privacy and security.
Lastly, we look at the results for digital etiquette, law, and health and wellness – the three
digital citizenship elements that require the most attention in this population. Despite having a
learning module on each of these concepts, there was no significant change between the pre-
test and post-test data. In particular, we see that there is almost no change at all on the health
and wellness items. It may be that the video scenarios and discussion questions did not address
the participants’ personal concerns enough so the learning module did not contribute to a
change in attitude on this concept. For example, rather than asking students to consider cases
of Internet addiction (which they may not believe is a real threat) and health regulations around
technology use, perhaps it would have been more effective to demonstrate negative impact that
Internet addiction may have on one’s social and work lives. Possible ways to provide a more
realistic experience for students include case study discussions with explicit focus on people’s
emotions (e.g., Lenhart et al. 2011) and service learning activities with populations that are
directly impacted by health and wellness issues (e.g., Hui 2013).
On the other hand, there was improvement with etiquette and law, but only slightly. In the
pre-test data, etiquette was the only concept with BDisagree^ reported. In comparison, the post-
test data now has no data on this label, some responses on BStrongly Agree^, and some
responses remaining on BSomewhat Disagree^. Here, the video scenarios and discussion
questions focused on getting the student to empathize with the victim of poor online etiquette
(e.g., students chatting online about how the teacher is boring). Since our participant pool
consists of individuals training to become teachers, the participants were more able to relate to
Discrepancy between Learning and Practicing Digital Citizenship 129

the content of the video. We suspect this is the reason that the post-test data shows that the
participants appreciate the issues of digital etiquette more.
As for digital law, there is less disagreement reported as BSomewhat Disagree^, and a slight
increase in BUndecided^ and BStrongly Agree^. The video scenarios addressed hacking,
software piracy, and copyrights, while the discussion questions asked the students to consider
what is right and wrong, whether something should be done if it is wrong, and how such a law
can be developed and practiced in the real world. Through informal observations, we note that
the classroom discussion in this module was engaging and students clearly demonstrated good
critical thinking skills. However, there were certain matters that some students thought were
right while others considered to be wrong. Thus, with digital law, we believe that the scope
encompasses such a wide variety of issues that it will be difficult for everyone to come to the
same terms of agreement.

Discussion

Our results generally conformed to expectations for the types of learners enrolled in this
teacher education course. As with many students enrolled in teacher education courses, their
primary area of interest is students, not technology. They are not avid technophiles, but this is
not to say that they are naïve users of technology. Our results indicate that students are, in some
specific areas, tech-savvy, as they understand the issues surrounding digital access, commu-
nication, literacy, and security. However, we found students had little exposure to digital
commerce. One possibility for this could be due to concerns they had regarding the security
and privacy of personal data in online shopping. We saw that after the security module was
completed, students’ perceptions and attitudes toward digital commerce improved. Thus, if we
want to foster this improvement, we could develop modules that teach students how to identify
secure shopping sites and how to take precautions for credit card and identify theft.
Not surprisingly, the issues surrounding digital etiquette and health and wellness seemed
trivialized by the participants. Recall that our participants are experienced users of social media
and communication technologies. It is possible that in their experience of texting and social
networking that issues such as cyber-bullying, online slandering, and data privacy were not of
concern. To increase their awareness, participants need to learn how their use of technology
can affect others. Likewise, for digital health and wellness, it is not surprising that our
participants do not appreciate ergonomic hardware and good posture much, since they are
not avid technophiles and are of a younger age. Thus, it may be difficult for them to relate to
those who are addicted to online activities. For these reasons, we believe that learning modules
used in this study were ineffective because they consisted of hypothetical scenarios. In order
for students to appreciate the problems in these areas, a safe environment with experiential
learning components (e.g. via computer simulations) are needed. This proposal is a step
beyond the portfolio creation exercise in the DDL assessment. While the portfolio exercises
are a great way for students to deepen their knowledge with digital citizenship issues, the
scenarios that students choose to explore may not apply to them. Here, we propose a way for
the students to play an active role in relevant scenarios so that they can experience the negative
consequences first hand (in a safe way). In this way, students can empathize with victims of
those situations and consequently, effect change on their own behavior.
Digital law was the single digital citizenship element where students showed they
simply differed on their opinions between what is right and wrong. Discussions
130 Hui B., Campbell R.

surrounding digital law were interesting, as we touched on concerns for online

freedom, data ownership, policy development, law enforcement, fair punishment, and
international regulations. While different perspectives were considered, it was at times
difficult to pinpoint what the right solution is for everyone. Although our results show
that they did not all conform with current standards of beliefs and practice, students
clearly demonstrated strong critical thinking skills in these discussions. It may be the
case that our role as educators here is to develop learning modules that deepens their
knowledge and curiosity in digital law, without necessarily targeting the end result
that students should believe and oblige by the same set of rules. With so much user-
generated content on the Internet today, we might imagine a future version of the
Internet that relies on laws that have been collectively defined by online users and
enforced by the public. These matters bring forth interesting conversations surround-
ing the kind of students we want to foster in the next generation, and the kind of
education system that is needed to support their learning.
Although digital citizenship is taught in many schools and school districts, it is not
universally taught. With a concerted effort, digital citizenship could be included in all school
curricula. Additionally, digital citizenship is currently only included in some teacher education
programs. As well, not all teacher education programs focus on digital media or educational
technology. Thus, in many cases, teachers leave their programs to enter the teaching profession
without knowledge or understanding of the complexity of digital citizenship and the issues of
technology use, abuse, and misuse. Ideally, we would like to enable teachers to introduce
digital citizenship ideas and concepts early on in young children’s schooling and revisiting
these ideas and concepts as students continue through middle and high school years. If digital
citizenship were included in the curricula of all teacher education programs, teachers would
enter their profession well prepared to teach digital citizenship elements and model good
online behavior in their classrooms.
Beyond the inclusion of digital citizenship as an area of study at all levels of education, our
research shows that the curriculum needs to shift towards an emphasis on online behaviors and
attitudes. The normative approach most commonly used today in teaching digital citizenship
yields knowledge of right or wrong behaviors — a prescription to comply with digital
citizenship. However, this approach does not include assessing attitudes and does not
address the ways learners engage with technology online. Beyond digital citizenship
knowledge is good digital citizenship practice. Assessing students’ online behavior
and attitudes should be the foundation of the digital citizenship curriculum, not just
how well they know the nine elements.
The rapid flux of change in the ongoing development of social media and online commu-
nities not only requires ongoing instruction and promotion of digital citizenship, but also
continued assessment of whether or not users of digital media are practicing good digital
citizens. Overall, we hope that this study will spur more inquiry into instruction and assess-
ment of students’ digital citizenship. This area remains very much under-researched, and it
truly is an important area where more research and inquiry is needed.

References

Almekinder, A., Bryant, E., Caines, A., Lukens, K., Marksbury, N., Narasimhan, A., Richard, S., Siesing, G., &
Spohrer, J. (2017). Digital citizenship + liberal arts = students empowered for life. Educause Review.
Discrepancy between Learning and Practicing Digital Citizenship 131

http://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/6/digital-citizenship-liberal-arts-students-empowered-for-life. Accessed
27 Apr 2017.
Boyle, C. J. (2010). The effectiveness of a digital citizenship curriculum in an urban school. Ann Arbor:
ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Covello, S. (2010). A review of digital literacy assessment instruments. Syracuse University School of education/
IDD & E, IDE-712: Analysis for Human Performance Technology Decisions. https://www.academia.
edu/7935447/A_Review_of_Digital_Literacy_Assessment_Instruments?auto=download. Accessed 2
June 2017.
Herold, B. (2016). K-12 digital citizenship initiative will target state legislators. Education Week, 36(11), 1–13.
Hui, B. (2013) Teaching digital citizenship by fostering digital citizens. In the 18th proceedings of the western
Canadian conference on computing education (WCCCE), Vancouver, Canada.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). Standards for students. https://www.iste.
org/standards/standards/for-students. Accessed 27 May 2017.
Johnes, L., & Mitchell, K. (2016). Defining and measuring youth digital citizenship. New Media & Society,
18(9), 2063-2079
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith, A., Purcell, K., Zickuhr, K., & Rainie, L. (2011). Teens, Kindness and Cruelty
on Social Network Sites: How American teens navigate the new world of "digital citizenship". Pew Internet
& American Life Project, Report Released on November 9 2011. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537516.
pdf. Accessed 28 May 2017.
Ribble, M., Bailey, G., & Ross, T. (2004). Digital citizenship: addressing appropriate technology behavior.
Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(1), 6–9.
Swan, G., & Park, M. (2015). Get your students on the road to digital citizenship with a digital
driver’s license. International Society for Technology in Education. ISTE Report. https://www.iste.
org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=582. Accessed 22 May 2017.