Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:729–741

DOI 10.1007/s10639-015-9426-0

Digital citizenship within global contexts

Michael Searson 1 & Marsali Hancock 1 &

Nusrat Soheil 1 & Gregory Shepherd 1

Published online: 29 August 2015

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract EduSummIT 2013 featured a working group that examined digital citizen-
ship within a global context. Group members recognized that, given today’s interna-
tional, regional, political, and social dynamics, the notion of Bglobal^ might be more
aspirational than practical. The development of informed policies and practices serving
and involving as many sectors of society as possible is desirable since a growing
world’s population, including students in classrooms, will have continued access to the
Internet, mobile devices and social media. Action steps to guide technology integration
into educational settings must address the following factors: national and local policies,
bandwidth and technology infrastructure, educational contexts, cyber-safety and
cyberwellness practices and privacy accountability. Finally, in the process of develop-
ing and implementing positive and productive solutions, as many key members and
stakeholders as possible who share in—and benefit from—students’ digital lives should
be involved, from families and educators to law enforcement authorities, from tele-
communication organizations to local, provincial and national leaders.

Keywords EduSummit 2013 . Digital citizenship . Digital literacy . Cybersafety .

Cyberwellness

1 Introduction to global citizenship

Placing digital citizenship within a global context is a complex issue. At an interna-

tional gathering, such as the EduSummIT 2013, with so many researchers, educators
and policymakers from across the world, it would be natural to assume a global
perspective when addressing digital citizenship. Of course, in recent years there has
been a clarion call to deal with digital citizenship in educational settings (Erstad 2013;
Ribble 2011; Young 2014). However, agreeing upon the universal characteristics and

* Michael Searson
msearson@kean.edu

1
Kean University Union, Union, NJ, USA
730 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:729–741

features that constitute digital citizenship across the globe would challenge notions of a
unified ideal.
Before attempting to outline the characteristics of global citizenship, one might
reasonably ask if a locus of digital citizenship even exists. In other words, if scholars
are divided on the very existence of global citizenship, how can we reasonably engage
in discourse on global digital citizenship? A cursory review of the literature on global
citizenship helps to frame this issue.

2 What is global citizenship?

The simple action of combining the terms Bglobal^ and Bcitizenship^ adds intricacy:
BThings become even more complex when we join citizenship and global together.
Those who invoke the term global citizenship could be thinking of very different
things, or combinations of different things^ (Byers 2005, p. 3). Also, the invocation
of the term Bglobal^ can be packed with intent: BGlobal citizenship is a powerful term
because those who invoke it do so to provoke and justify action^ (Byers 2005, p. 6).
As Green (2012) points out, BNational citizenship is an accident of birth; global
citizenship is different. It is a voluntary association with a concept that signifies ways of
thinking and living within multiple cross-cutting communities—cities, regions, states,
nations, and international collectives…^ (citing Schattle 2007, 9).
For some, the notion of global citizenship represents a rather Western point of view,
which cannot easily be adopted across the globe. As Samra (2007) explains,

There are many barriers in facilitating the construction of global citizens; the
language of cosmopolitanism and global citizenship itself, as conceived in the
West, proved to be inaccessible to those that live in the developing world and
have very different priorities. (p. 1)

3 What is global digital citizenship?

Digital citizenship describes the characteristics of an individual’s behavior, especially

within collaborative environments, when engaged with digital tools, such as computers,
mobile devices, cell phones and tablets. Increasingly educators and policymakers
across the world are dedicated to moving such behavior in a positive direction and
guiding children toward the safest environments possible.
Yet, a universal approach to a digital citizenship is subject to similar complexities
when trying to construct any global citizenship model. One might ask, for example, if
our digital Bcitizenry^ is largely an accident of birth? We are born into societies whose
technical infrastructures and government policies frame our digital experiences. Some
have even argued that contemporary ICT culture could lead to a more diffuse society.
According to Servaes (2013):

The Internet is, and could increasingly become, a major tool for the self-
organising of social groups…. This could re-balance power relationships in the
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:729–741 731

public sphere … to another kind of society—a move away from mass society,
towards a more localised kind of networked society, based on the co-existence of
varied subcultures. (Servaes 2013, p. 327)

Servaes (2013) cites Van Dijk (2012) and Qiu (2009) to support the notion
of diffused, rather than centralized, networks created through modern technol-
ogies. Thus, while Web 2.0 media may be having an increasingly global
impact, the networks they create could be, progressively, more specialized,
leading, ironically, to the development of sub-divided communities with specific
rather than general identities.
To what degree is our development as digital citizens empowered or limited by
factors related to nation-state identity, gender, regionalism, religion and religious
tolerance, socio-economic status? How much do these external factors shape the extent
and quality of our digital citizenship? Is it even possible, let alone advisable, for all
individuals across the world to achieve the same characteristics of digital citizenship
and literacy?

4 Models for developing digital citizenship

One response to the idea of an over-arching global digital citizenship appears in

the work of Parekh who has written extensively on this topic (Parekh 2002, 2003,
and 2008). Rather than arguing for absolute global citizenship, he suggests that
B…citizens should be globally orientated, and able to discharge their duties to
global [sic] others by exercising their responsibilities as democratic citizens and
where necessary challenging nationalistic policies which are against the interests of
mankind^ (Parekh 2003 qtd. in Samra 2007, p.11). He proposes that globally
oriented citizenship has three components: 1) constant examination and questioning
of one’s own country and its policies, 2) active interest in the affairs of other
countries and 3) an active commitment to create a just world order, Bone in which
different countries, working together under fair terms of cooperation, can attend to
their common interests in a spirit of mutual concern^ (Parekh 2003, p. 12–13).
This framework would allow the world’s citizens to move toward a global
orientation, within their regional and nation-state contexts. Likewise, ICT leaders
might also consider a globally-oriented digital citizenship model.
Another model published by the International Society for Technology in Education
(ISTE) advocates a series of comportments constituting digital citizenship:

1. Equal digital rights and access for all.

2. Treating others with respect in online environments, no cyber-bullying.
3. No stealing or damaging others’ digital work, identity or property.
4. Appropriate decisions when communicating through digital channels.
5. Using digital tools to advance learning and keeping up with changing technologies.
6. Responsible online purchasing decisions while protecting payment information.
7. Upholding basic digital rights in digital forums.
8. Protecting personal information from forces that might cause harm.
9. Limiting physical and psychological health risks of technology (Brichacek 2014).
732 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:729–741

These are clearly characteristics of digital citizenship that are aspirational in nature in
that they are held as universal ideals. For example, since contemporary, 21st century
society will likely see an increasing presence of social media across all sectors, from
business to education and health care, each industry will promote specific digital citizen-
ship skills and competencies. Those able to leverage these skills will expand their
opportunities for positions requiring leadership and innovation in the professional world.
Mossberger et al. (2007) see a clear link between digital citizenship and a partici-
patory culture. Against this backdrop, some have voiced concern about cultural and
socioeconomic barriers that could limit full acceptance into a digital society. This
dilemma is often referred to as the Bdigital divide^ (Bimber 2012; Kularski and
Moller 2012) and was addressed extensively at the EduSummIT 2011 (Resta et al.
2011). How can we minimize the separation inherent in this digital divide as we move
forward with models calling for universal global digital citizenship and literacy
practices?
Other scholars (Ohler 2010) directly address the intricate relationship among youth,
a digitally-mediated society, and formal educational structures, i.e., schools. The
interrelationship between schooling, virtual spaces, formal and informal learning has
been a consistent theme at EduSummITs 2009, 2011 and 2013. These universal models
need to take into account the concerns of educational institutions as well as those held
by the business and public sectors.

5 The iKeepSafe model

The non-profit iKeepSafe organization (http://www.ikeepsafe.org/) working across the

world with public and private schools, school districts, corporations and governments
articulates another model for developing global digital citizenship. In this model,
citizenship in the 21st century is not confined to country or geographical location.
Adopting a Bglobal citizen approach,^ iKeepSafe contends that modern technologies
like telephones, television, and most of all, the Internet, allow for a global society where
individuals can access information from around the world—in real time—despite being
thousands of miles from the source of the content. Significantly, these technologies do
not simply allow for the transmission of information, but also facilitate two-way
communication and participation. For example, entire communities thrive on social
media platforms (chat groups, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, etc.), founded on mutual
interest rather than proximity. For iKeepSafe and others, an individual’s ability to
participate as a citizen in this new global society is contingent on several key factors,
which include:

Access: One must have convenient technology/internet access.

Bandwidth: One’s ability to participate on various online platforms may be
determined by whether or not their technology allows for streaming, real-time
updates, etc.
Censorship: One will be hesitant to voice opinions or participate if doing so is
against their government’s laws.
Security: One’s participation may be hindered by cybercrime, identity theft,
harassment or other threats that arise from using unsecured networks.
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:729–741 733

As with many organizations of its kind, iKeepSafe seeks to robustly address

situations where Bcyberwellness^ (Wong and Divaharan 2013) is threatened by inci-
dents such as cyber-bullying. This is a contemporary ICT problem, to varying degrees,
across the world. Such an orientation has led iKeepSafe, in conjunction with Microsoft
and AT&T, to develop its BEaPRO index (http://www.ikeepsafe.org/be-a-pro/info/) that
addresses core competencies and skills that many practitioners and scholars alike
believe must be addressed for successful digital citizenship. This Bsix pillar^ model
offers the following features:

B- Balance: Balancing Digital Usage: Skills include: limiting media use based on
acceptable norms given research, maintaining regular connections to nature and
other non-media environments and developing an awareness to addictive behavior
associated with media consumption.
E- Ethics: Practicing Ethical Digital Usage—Skills include: understanding and
applying knowledge of plagiarism, piracy and hacking, avoiding inappropriate
content and showing respect and courtesy for others in the online environment.
P- Privacy: Protecting Personal Information—Skills include: understanding and
applying knowledge of what is public and personal information and using media to
construct positive images.
R- Relationships: Maintaining Healthy & Safe Relationships—Skills include:
recognizing when online conversations and media consumption become inappro-
priate, using technology to converse and collaborate in a healthy and safe manner
as well as recognizing and respecting the social and personal boundaries of others.
R- Reputation: Building a Positive Reputation—Skills include: showing an aware-
ness that posted online media forms a part of an ongoing identity, using online
activity to build a positive digital presence and permanent digital identity and
avoiding over-sharing of personal information.
O- Online Security: Achieving Digital Security—Skills include: keeping pass-
words secure, backing up data, deploying proper privacy settings in browsers and
social media platforms and using anti-virus measures to protect personal
information.

These concepts materialized as the iKeepSafe organization extensively reviewed

existing research and measures regarding digital safety, security, privacy and health (for
a list of resources supporting this work, see http://www.ikeepsafe.org/be-a-pro/info/).
Once identified, iKeepSafe designed an online questionnaire to assess and measure
digital safety attitudes and competence in each of the six areas. The findings indicate
that although many individuals want to foster good digital citizenship practices, most
have limited knowledge about how to do so. It is important to identify and address
areas of concerns for youth and families because some countries cite challenges such as
cyber-security and children’s access to pornography as their public reason for filtering
and restricting web access. iKeepSafe has even developed an App, for mobile devices,
to allow parents to monitor their knowledge and awareness (see http://www.ikeepsafe.
org/beapro-parent-app/). The 2013 iKeepSafe BEaPRO™^
Parent Safety Index Report shows the results of almost 3700 parent surveys and
highlights online security trends, areas of concern and overall findings for each of the
six categories mentioned above.
734 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:729–741

6 Alternative perspectives on global citizenship

Unlike the more universal ISTE and iKeepSafe models, some believe international
digital citizenship is highly contextualized. For example, in one US-based StarTalk
language-training program, designed to develop language proficiency in Hindi and
Urdu, US students are paired with Indian students (for Hindi) and Pakistani students
(for Urdu). Rich discourse using social media tools, supported through mobile devices
and laptops, became the forum within which language, ideas and thoughts were
negotiated. Students and faculty use target languages to engage one another, often
through ICT, in several projects satisfying a major objective of the Startalk program.
Placed within an international context, the project requires practical investigations of
the Bideal^ (and functional) toolset to successfully engage students and teachers in
digital discourse. For example, faculty examined the use of Facebook versus Orkut and
Skype versus Oovoo at the beginning of student project development. However, an
understanding of what tools would be optimal for project collaboration and production
could only be achieved once the project had actually commenced and communications
among students and faculty from across the participating countries had begun.
Beyond the technical intricacies of fostering communications among young people
(often minors) from various countries, diverse cultural dynamics demand contextually-
based experiences. For example, programming for a summer course sometimes occurs
during the Muslim Ramadan holiday, requiring great flexibility and sensitivity for those
in the Urdu program. Additionally, there are cases of salient distrust by some families of
faculty and staff who administer this heritage-based program. Program staff and faculty
are often perceived to be extensions of government-based institutions. Yet, the em-
ployment of technology to allow students and faculty easy communication among the
US, Indian, and Pakistani participants led to revealing discourse on key global issues,
such as gender, education and poverty. Lively discussions and project-based work—all
in the target languages—compelled students to address domains of a comparative
global citizenship.
Similar to the language program previously described, a project establishing a US
university on Chinese soil, professional development activities and academic instruc-
tion, featured web-based and social media tools to support faculty and student-based
activities (Searson et al. 2013). Related interactions were designed to take place not
only at the Chinese campus, but also among faculty, staff and students at the home-
based US institution. As the project emerged, some critical differences in the employ-
ment of technology between US and Chinese participants became apparent. For
example, while young people in the two countries could be seen using their mobile
devices and texting endless messages to each other, certain bandwidth and national
policy issues dictated tool usage.
Thus, participating students, faculty and staff learned to develop contextualized
digital literacies, reflecting technical, bandwidth and policy constraints, e.g., deciding
when to use a VPN (virtual private network) vs. a public network; when to switch from
Facebook to QQ; Twitter to WeChat; YouTube to Youku. Necessarily, they decided what
features on their mobile devices worked best depending on how and where they were
being used.
Given the early development and burgeoning of digital technology use in
Western society, one must be sensitive to the critique that any notion of global
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:729–741 735

digital citizenship would be a largely Western construct. Nevertheless, it is

impossible to ignore the globalization of technology use and participation from
nearly every country and culture. As more countries adopt digital tools and
practices, many drawing from rich and diverse cultural backgrounds, there is
great need to more clearly and respectfully define which behavioral and ethical
codes apply to digital citizenship. In order to achieve a construct of digital
citizenship more representative of global views as a whole, it is necessary to
include a wide and diverse community in the conversation.
Recognizing that development of literacy in global digital citizenship may be
based on specific contexts, it is reasonable to ask what are the baseline
characteristics and features necessary to achieve any level in this membership?
Once such a baseline is established, one could then begin to identify aspira-
tional elements of digital citizenship, i.e., under ideal conditions, free of
technology barriers and policy constraints—how would optimal membership
manifest itself? What would the full global digital citizen look like? How
would s/he behave? What do educators, researchers and policy makers need
to do to support such development? What can they do to maximize develop-
ment of digital citizenship in any context?

7 Recommendations and action steps

Based on discussion of the recommendations of organizations presented in this paper,

and other informational sources, TWG 8 members at EduSummIT 2013 formulated
several recommended concrete action steps. These are discussed next.

A: National and Local Policy and Leadership

National and local leadership need to work in tandem to effectively promote change.
Organizations such as iKeepSafe recommend that both national and site-based com-
mittees be formed specifically to tackle the challenges and opportunities that digital
technology presents. Leaders should communicate and coordinate often to make sure
that new policies are implemented successfully. Ultimately, according to iKeepSafe, the
focus of these committees should be to assess the status of their community’s digital
skills and citizenship competencies in the following areas:

& Government/public policy: Is there an infrastructure and system in place to

safeguard against human trafficking, identity theft, harassment, impersonation,
cyber threats, child abuse images, and other risks of the online environment?
& Education: Do all stakeholders possess proficient digital skills and
competencies?
& Law Enforcement: Is there an infrastructure in place that allows citizens to
coordinate with law enforcement and file a complaint or report when they face
cyber crimes, cyber stalking, etc.?
& Public Health: Is the public health community constantly engaged in providing
resources and guidance that build support of digital activities? This includes
opportunities for early intervention and detection of suicide, depression, an-
orexia and other self-harm.
736 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:729–741

& Industry Leaders: Do vendors who provide various support and services also
provide the ability to report abuse? Are they culturally sensitive? Do they meet
the educational needs of the local community and protect student privacy?
& Parents and Youth: Are parents and youth voices heard in the development of
policies and procedures? Do they have a venue and capacity to be included in
the digital culture?
At appropriate levels (e.g., national, provincial/state, local) that directly
impact procedures and practices connected to the use of digital devices, clear
policies and guidelines need to be developed and articulated. In order to
accomplish this, the following activities should take place:

& Conduct an inventory of existing national, state, and local policies.

& Review to see if they apply to contemporary educational settings.
& Seek to modify them as necessary.
& Modification or development of policies should engage appropriate educational
stakeholders. These include, but are not limited to, teachers, students, admin-
istrators, parents, law enforcement, healthcare, corporate and non-profit
partners
& As new policies are developed, engage all community members through online
and print publications, Btown hall^ type meetings, professional development
events and other dissemination activities.

B: Education
As many have noted, new media and technologies have the potential to dramatically
change the learning experience (Buckingham and Willett 2013; de Freitas and Ott
2013; Mouza and Lavigne 2012; Miller and Doering 2014). Some examples of
innovative technology integration are previously described. However, to fully leverage
the potential of learning technologies as educational tools, several areas need to be
addressed, especially professional development. The following actions are therefore
recommended:

1. Districts and school administrators should invest substantially in professional

development so that teachers can, in turn, teach their students to thrive in the digital
age.
K-12 students in the US face specific online risks when using their digital
devices. iKeepSafe has documented the known offenses by gathering credible,
academic research from cyber security professionals, media and digital literacy
experts, media psychologists, law enforcement officials and public health profes-
sionals. This includes a research project (McQuade and Sampat 2008) that identi-
fied the offenses 40,000 New York students in grades K-12 reported from using
wireless and internet-connected devices. After verifying the known list of risks and
offenses, iKeepSafe worked with the Center on Media and Child Health at Boston
Children’s hospital to translate the known risks into a framework of positive
concepts. The acronym BBEaPRO™^ identifies the core competencies and skills
that must be addressed for youth to thrive and succeed in our highly-connected
culture. (http://storage.googleapis.com/ikeepsafe/BEaPRO Parent/BEaPRO_
Parent_Index_Report.pdf):
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:729–741 737

2. The education community should move social norms towards positive digital
behaviors by integrating these principles into their curriculum.
The professionals at iKeepSafe recommend that schools host parent workshops
to equip parents with the resources and knowledge they need to reinforce the
BEaPRO principles at home. Moreover, the education community should encour-
age positive digital behavior by integrating the six BPillars of Digital Citizenship
Success^ into their curriculum. To accomplish this, the following steps should be
taken:

& Substantially invest in teacher professional development to build competence

and confidence in the digital space.
& Integrate BBEaPRO™^ curriculum into everyday lesson plans.
& Host parent workshops to reinforce these skills at home.

C: Technical Infrastructure
A user’s bandwidth, access, device and applications all have a significant
impact on his or her online experience, with potential implications for enhanced
learning experiences. However, access to such technologies can be especially
challenging in many school systems, particularly where constrained by outdated
physical plants and old wiring systems. Few schools have responded in a
timely fashion to new media technologies, e.g., mobile devices, cell-based
networks, etc. As schools rewire and bolster their technical infrastructures,
appropriate measures must be taken to secure and protect the user’s network
and devices. The authors recommend the following actions:

& Encourage educational stakeholders to assess available bandwidths to deter-

mine what technologies are possible.
& Engage stakeholders in professional development to help them thoroughly
align emergent technologies to curricula, national and local standards and
pedagogical needs.
& Develop technical tools to protect networks and users’ devises.

D: Safety and Privacy Accountability

Once policies, education initiatives and technical infrastructure are in place, proper
steps should be taken so that stakeholders remain accountable for the safety and privacy
of their students and/or community members. Cyber incidents must be recorded,
reviewed and reported to the proper authorities (i.e. school administration, district
and regional administrators, law enforcement, and Child Protective Services). This
process of reviewing and reporting incidents should inform policy development and the
teaching of digital citizenship practices. Parents should be specifically informed of
cyber incidents involving their children and the school should actively cooperate with
other agencies to help ensure the development of a consistent and effective local digital
citizenship strategy. The following action steps are recommended:

& Expand policies and practices regarding cyberwellness and education beyond
school settings.
& Analyze safety and privacy policies to ensure accountability.
738 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:729–741

& Assess laws and law enforcement practices of different countries to learn what
protections Global Digital Citizens can rely on in their individual nations.
& Use assessment data to inform policy and educational development and reform.

E: Cyberwellness

In recent years, the term Bcyberwellness^ has gained currency, as it largely adopts a
more positive and more holistic approach to similar terms such as Bcyber bullying^ and
Bcyber safety.^ As described by the Singapore Ministry of Education (2012), an agency
often credited with promoting the term:

The goal of the Cyber Wellness curriculum is to equip students with life- long
social-emotional competencies and sound values so that they can become safe,
respectful and responsible users of Information and Communication Technology
(ICT).

The recognition of the Blifelong^ element in cyberwellness necessitates that the topic
be addressed both inside and outside the classroom. In other words, teachers and
schools alone cannot adequately address cyber wellness. Rather, a community-wide
effort across many domains is required to produce the development of cyber-well
humans.
Along these lines, abundant cross discipline research efforts, covering a wide range
of topics, are addressing the intricacy of cyberwellness and human development, from
mental health (Breslau et al. 2015; Ong and Tan, 2014) to medical analyses (Chng et al.
2015; Marzano et al. 2013); from the integration of TPACK and cyberwellness (Chai
et al. 2012); to collaboration with law enforcement and criminal justice systems (Jiow
2015; Koh and Chai 2015).
As mentioned above, terms like cyber safety and cyber-bullying can connate a
deficit model, focusing on the most problematic elements of digital citizenship, com-
monly leading to draconian solutions, e.g., uber Internet filters, or drastic limitation of
Internet access to students. Ideally cyber wellness elevates policy and practice to a more
balanced level, where students can function productively in digital environments, yet,
within a safe environment.
In order to accomplish this, the authors recommend the following actions:

& Explore the relationship between digital citizenship and cyberwellness within
productive and balanced educational settings.
& Expand policies and practices regarding cyberwellness and education beyond
school settings.

8 Discussion

At the 2013 EduSummIT, TWG 8 examined digital citizenship from a global perspec-
tive. As with the more general term Bglobal citizen^, the TWG found any commitment
to global digital citizenship somewhat problematic, preferring, at most, a more regional,
rather than universal, approach.
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:729–741 739

As EduSummITs assemble an international collection of researchers, policymakers,

and practitioners committed to the proactive role of ICT in education, models that
impact digital citizenship in education were examined by the 2013 TWG. Two
organizations, whose work is well respected by the international community—ISTE
and iKeepSafe—were offered as examples that have explored and set guidelines for
digital citizenship in educational settings.
Of course, for a group such as EduSummIT, models that weave digital citizenship,
digital literacies and innovative educational practices in formal school settings are
critical. With that in mind, two examples of school-based educational programs
featuring elements of digital citizenship and digital literacies were examined. One truly
international program relied on digital technologies to bring together students from US,
Indian, and Pakistani schools to study languages and culture, with the focus of US
students enhancing their expertise in Hindi and Urdu. Another program, which focused
on the establishment of an international campus, saw faculty, students and administra-
tors navigate through the best ICT tools that would work within the policy and
infrastructure constraints of their new environment. Within these school-based settings,
complex interactions among digital citizenship, digital literacies and cyberwellness
emerged. Even a cursory examination of student experiences in these programs, both
inside and outside the classroom, underscores the TWGs concern that a global digital
citizenship is an aspirational, rather than actual, notion.
As noted above, in recent years the concept of Bcyberwellness^ has been increas-
ingly adopted, in part, as an antidote to more pejorative terms such as cyber-bullying
and cyber safety. Also an abundant cross disciplinary research agenda connecting
cyberwellness to a variety of topics impacting children’s lives has emerged in recent
years. Cyberwellness represents a more holistic and balanced approach as access to and
robust use of digital age ICT become more central to the educational agenda, both in
formal and informal school settings.

9 Conclusion

While a discussion on the existence of a universal, global, model of digital citizenship

will continue, it is clear that the integration of digital technologies, especially mobile
and social media tools, are having a profound impact on the lives of today’s students
across the world. Digital membership is being shaped by a swirl of activities, both in
and out of the classroom, across an array of devices, and through a variety of personal
and social interactions. Increasing access to these tools, and their presence in the lives
of students, demand that digital activity defining the lives of so many youth today be
addressed in a forceful and constructive manner. To some extent, the holistic approach
represented by the concept Bcyberwellness^ is illuminating. Educational leaders, in-
cluding researchers, practitioners, and policy makers, would be wise to consider a
holistic approach as they continue to work on policies and procedures ensuring healthy,
active and productive—yet safe—use of the Internet and related tools in education
settings. Because so much of today’s students’ digital experiences are shaped by
external, i.e., out-of-school, interactions, so should the solutions. In other words, as
we work to develop positive and productive solutions, we should strive to involve as
many key members and stakeholders who share in—and benefit from—students’
740 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:729–741

digital lives, from families to law enforcement authorities, from telecommunication

organizations to local, provincial and national leaders. And, of course, the voices of
educators and students should also be heard as this important work moves forward.

References

AboutBeAPro http://www.ikeepsafe.org/be-a-pro/info/.
Bimber, B. (2012). Digital media and citizenship. In H. A. Semetko & M. Scammell (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of political communication (pp. 115–127). London: Sage Publications.
Breslau, J., Aharoni, E., Pedersen, E. R., & Miller, L. L. (2015). A review of research on problematic internet
use and well-being. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.
Brichacek, A. (2014). Infographic: citizenship in the digital age. Retrieved from: http://www.iste.org/explore/
articleDetail?articleid=192.
Buckingham, D., & Willett, R. (Eds.). (2013). Digital generations: Children, young people, and the new
media. New York: Routledge.
Byers, M. (2005). Are you a global citizen? The Tyee, 5, 1–7.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., Ho, H. N. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2012). Examining preservice teachers’ perceived
knowledge of TPACK and cyberwellness through structural equation modeling. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 28(6), 1000–1019.
Chng, G. S., Li, D., Liau, A. K., & Khoo, A. (2015). Moderating effects of the family environment for parental
mediation and pathological internet use in youths. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking,
18(1), 30–36.
de Freitas, S., & Ott, M. (Eds.). (2013). New pedagogical approaches in game enhanced learning: curriculum
integration. IGI Global.
Erstad, O. (2013). Digital learning lives: Trajectories, literacies, and schooling. New York: Peter Lang.
Green, M. F. (2012). Global citizenship: what are we talking about and why does it matter? Trends and
Insights for International Education Leaders, 1–3.
Jiow, H. J. (2015). Singapore’s cybercrime regulation based on Lessig’s modalities of constraint. Asia
Research Center. Retrieved from: http://www.murdoch.edu.au/Research-capabilities/Asia-Research-
Centre/_document/Working-Paper-Hee-Jhee-JIOW-179WP.pdf.
Koh, J. H. L., & Chai, C. S. (2015). Towards a Web 2.0 TPACK lesson design framework: applications of a
Web 2.0 TPACK survey of Singapore preservice teachers. In New media and learning in the 21st Century
(pp. 161–180). Singapore: Springer.
Kularski, C. M., & Moller, S. (2012). The digital divide as a continuation of traditional systems of inequality.
Sociology, 5151, 14.
Marzano, G., Lubkina, V., & Truskovska, Z. (2013). Cyberspace’s threats: a pedagogical perspective on
Internet addiction, violence and abuse. Retrieved from: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gilberto_
Marzano/publication/259609197_Cyberspaces_threats_a_pedagogical_perspective_on_Internet_
addiction_violence_and_abuse/links/0f31752d7b9f9e9c6a000000.pdf.
McQuade, S., & Sampat, N. (2008). Survey of internet and at-risk behaviors. Rochester: Rochester Institute of
Technology.
Miller, C., & Doering, A. (Eds.). (2014). The new landscape of mobile learning: Redesigning education in an
app-based world. New York: Routledge.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2007). Digital citizenship: The internet, society and
participation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Mouza, C., & Lavigne, N. (2012). Emerging technologies for the classroom: A learning sciences perspective.
New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
Ohler, J. B. (2010). Digital community, digital citizen. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Ong, S. H., & Tan, Y. R. (2014). Internet addiction in young people. Annals of Academy of Medicine,
Singapore, 43(7), 378–382.
Parekh, B. (2002). Rethinking multiculturalism: Cultural diversity and political theory. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Parekh, B. (2003). Cosmopolitanism and global citizenship. Review of International Studies, 29(1), 3–17.
Parekh, B. (2008). A new politics of identity: Political principles for an interdependent world. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:729–741 741

Qiu, J. L. (2009). Working-class network society. Communication technology and the information have-less in
Urban China. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Resta, P., Searson, M., Patru, M., Knezek, G., & Voogt, J. (2011). Building a global community of policy-
makers, researchers and teachers to move education systems into the digital age. Paris: EDUsummIT.
Ribble, M. (2011). Digital citizenship in schools. International Society for Technology in Education. Eugene:
ISTE.
Samra, M. (2007). Creating global citizens? The case of ‘Connecting Classrooms’. Diss. Thesis, Retrieved
from London School of Economics http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/mediaWorkingPapers/
(Reg. number 70527).
Schattle, H. (2007). The practices of global citizenship. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Searson, M., Sadeghi, L., Cirasa, R., & Tang, T. D2013]. Digital age professional development for college
faculty from the ends of the earth! In R. McBride & M. Searson DEds.], Proceedings of society for
information technology & teacher education international conference 2013 Dpp. 2646–2648].
Chesapeake: AACE. Retrieved December 15, 2013. http://www.editlib.org/p/48510.
Servaes, J. (2013). The many faces of (soft) power, democracy and the internet. Telematics and Informatics,
30(4), 322–330.
Singapore MOE. (2012). 2014 cyber wellness secondary. Singapore Ministry of Education. Student
Development Curriculum Division. Retrieved at http://www.ibe.unesco.org/curricula/singapore/si_sc_
cplf_2012_eng.pdf.
Van Dijk, J. (2012). The network society. London: Sage Publications.
Wong, P., & Divaharan, S. (2013). ICT for meaningful learning (Singapore). In Case studies on integrating
ICT into teacher education curriculum in Asia (pp. 55–70). Bangkok: UNESCO.
Young, D. (2014). A 21st-century model for teaching digital citizenship. Educational Horizons, 92(3), 9–12.

Members of the Thematic Working Group 8

Andresen, Bent, Denmark

Edyburn, Dave, USA
Hancock, Marsali USA
Jermol, Mitja, Slovenia
Nusrat, Sohail, Pakistan
Padgett, Helen, USA
Searson, Mike, USA
Sirrine, Ben, USA
Vilela, Adriana, OAS