Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104404

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Research paper

Media literacy, digital citizenship and their relationship: Perspectives of

preservice teachers
Sam von Gillern a, *, Matthew Korona b, William Wright c, Hillary Gould a,
Brandon Haskey-Valerius a
a
University of Missouri, 211 Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO, USA
b
George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, USA
c
University of Georgia, 110 Carlton Street, Athens, GA, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Scholarship has examined media literacy and digital citizenship in various ways, yet limited research has
Media literacy examined connections between these concepts, which may have implications for teaching and learning. This case
Digital citizenship study investigated 111 preservice teachers’ perspectives on media literacy, digital citizenship, and their rela­
Preservice teachers
tionship via examining their responses to essay questions. Data analysis revealed central themes in their per­
ceptions of media literacy, digital citizenship, and their relationship, which aligned with both empowerment and
protectionist perspectives of media and digital engagement. This study illuminates relational understandings of
media literacy and digital citizenship and demonstrates the value of teaching them in concert.

1. Introduction respecting the rights and responsibilities of others in an online space

Media literacy and digital citizenship have become essential con­
cepts in the digital age as the importance of media and technology in
society continues to grow (Garcia et al., 2021; Guess et al., 2020).
Together, the two terms bring attention to the analysis, interpretation,
and production of media content as well as the role of media and
technology in shaping society, culture, and politics. And yet the two
terms, though related, have different focuses that are important to
consider for teaching students to become Internet-savvy, well-informed,
and civic-minded citizens in a democratic society.
Definitions of media literacy and digital citizenship approach critical
thinking, leveraging technology mediated environments for civic pur­
poses, and supporting appropriate behavior and content through
differing yet complementary lenses. Scholars typically conceive of
media literacy as the ability to competently navigate online in order to
read and evaluate media messages (Potter, 2018). In this regard, media
literacy involves the ability to assess the accuracy and credibility of
sources, identify bias and propaganda, and understand the impact of
media on individuals and society. Meanwhile, digital citizenship typi­
cally refers to the responsible and ethical use of digital technology, tools,
and resources (Ribble, 2017) and thus involves understanding and
(encompassing, for example, such issues as privacy, security, and
cyberbullying).
The intersections and relationships between media literacy and
digital citizenship, however, are poorly understood. Investigating and
illuminating these connections is valuable and may demonstrate the
value of teaching these concepts in concert. For example, teaching stu­
dents media literacy skills that focus on critical evaluation of media
messages is valuable, but its full value may be limited if students do not
use their informed perspectives to meaningfully participate in social
online spaces. Conversely, while teaching digital citizenship and helping
students engage respectfully in digital spaces is worthwhile, if students
lack strong media literacy skills and are misinformed about important
social issues, their respectful online behavior may revolve around
inaccurate information and beliefs.
Research related to media literacy supports stand-alone courses,
integration across the K-12 curricula (Huguet et al., 2019), embedded
within teacher education (Hobbs, 2017a), and approached through
social-justice lenses (Funk et al., 2016). Conversely, several packaged
curricula exist promoting stand-alone digital citizenship lessons often
offered by school-based librarians (Phillips & Lee, 2019). To support
comprehensive instructional approaches for functional and critical

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: svongillern@missouri.edu (S. von Gillern), mkorona@gmu.edu (M. Korona), wrightwilliam33@gmail.com (W. Wright), hgould@missouri.edu
(H. Gould), bshhc4@missouri.edu (B. Haskey-Valerius).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104404
Received 16 April 2023; Received in revised form 31 October 2023; Accepted 1 November 2023
Available online 17 November 2023
0742-051X/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. von Gillern et al.
media consuming and producing, ethical online participation, and
acting within online communities for civic purposes, media literacy and
digital citizenship warrant investigation separately as well as at their
intersection at the conceptual level.
The concepts of media literacy and digital citizenship have been
examined in a variety of ways (Potter, 2022; Ribble, 2015; Vajen et al.,
2023; Weninger et al., 2017). Limited scholarship, however, has
examined the relationship between media literacy and digital citizen­
ship (Erdem et al., 2022; Hobbs, 2010), and even less from the
perspective of preservice teachers, who will go on to teach the next
generation of young people and shape how these concepts are addressed
in classrooms in the future. As such, in this article, we first provide an
overview of both media literacy and digital citizenship, with an
emphasis on definitional clarity and key issues in existing scholarship.
We then explore 111 preservice elementary teachers’ perceptions of
media literacy, digital citizenship, and their relationship, based on
themes that arose from students’ responses to a culminating series of
essay questions in a literacy methods course in the US. Findings
emphasize the need for educators to prioritize relational understandings
between media literacy and digital citizenship in order to foster
well-informed, responsible, and productive digital citizens.
2. Literature review
As noted above, scholarship has examined the concepts of media
literacy and digital citizenship in various ways, yet limited research has
examined connections between these concepts. This section, thus,
highlights important perspectives from the scholarly literature on media
literacy and digital citizenship, followed by a brief examination of
existing literature that explores the relationship of these concepts.
Before proceeding, however, it is worth spelling out the connection
between these topics (media literacy and digital citizenship) and the
fast-moving space of artificial intelligence (AI) development. While this
study does not explicitly concern the use of AI, the introduction of
ChatGPT and other chatbots powered by large language models have
brought to the fore additional threats to the integrity of sources and the
clarity of digital ethics more generally. Media literacy and digital citi­
zenship, as such, emerge as topics with even greater significance and
necessity for teachers and students today.
2.1. Media literacy
“Media literacy is the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, create, and
act using all forms of communication” (National Association for Media
Literacy Education, 2007, n. p.). Media literacy has progressed alongside
evolving communication technology. For example, sophisticated algo­
rithms within web sites and social media creates a different experience
for Internet users which complicates media literacy education (Hobbs,
2020). Additionally, fake images are disseminated through Web 2.0
environments aimed at stimulating emotional responses, influencing
decisions, and modifying memories (Korona & Hathaway, 2021), which
calls for media literacy education to consider the multimodal nature of
online environments. Advocates for media literacy education support
addressing these challenges through pre-service and practicing teacher
education opportunities focusing on becoming media literate. Currently,
one state (i.e., Illinois) has enacted policy requiring media literacy ed­
ucation in K12 classrooms and four other states (i.e., Colorado, Florida,
Ohio, and Texas) require media literacy in education standards (Media
Literacy Now, 2022). Media literacy education invites consumers to
evaluate the credibility of online information, leverage media creation
to respond and act upon the structures of oppression perpetuated by the
media, and examine their own relationship with media messages.
The application of media literacy education has been approached
through protectionist and empowerment lenses (Potter, 2022). As
Buckingham (1998) explained, a protectionist approach toward media
literacy education aims to safeguard students against deleterious
2
Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104404
content disseminated through media channels. Connected to scholarship
on media effects, protectionism accounts for the complicated, and often
problematic, effects of media on students (Friesem, 2018). For example,
Potter (2010) discussed media literacy interventions designed to protect
students from violence, sex, stereotypes, and intense or fear-provoking
content. These interventions included parents restricting specific con­
tent as well as co-viewing content with their child. Furthermore, Higdon
et al. (2021) described protectionism as dividing cultured and philistine
content, often dismissing popular culture as having little or no intel­
lectual value.
While the protectionist perspective supports shielding media con­
sumers from harmful content, the empowerment perspective promotes
critical thinking about media messages to participate in a democracy, an
economy, and across cultures (RobbGrieco, 2014). For example, Wine­
burg and McGrew (2019) suggested that teachers implement a strategy
used by professional fact checkers called lateral reading. In contrast to
reading vertically by evaluating the features and text on the page itself,
reading laterally entails opening tabs along the horizontal axis of their
web browser to compare information through Internet searches.
Furthermore, Pilgrim et al. (2019) explained that teachers should
explicitly teach and model strategies to evaluate online information such
as providing online mentor texts, modeling and thinking-aloud specific
strategies, providing additional resources, and discussing evaluation
strategies with students. Additionally, media literacy promotes de­
mocracy and civic engagement through self-expression, exploration of
identity, responding to media, and awareness of inequality (Funk et al.,
2016). Likewise, media literacy empowers media consumers to recog­
nize and respond to the underlying structures of media messages that
promote racism, classism, sexism, xenophobia, and other forms of
oppression.
Furthermore, media literacy invites Internet users to explore their
own biases and examine the online communities in which they are
involved. Alvermann (2017) explained that media consumers must be
cognizant of accepting emotional appeals in place of facts when
engaging with online information. She illustrated the dangers of being
surrounded by only like-minded people in Web 2.0 communities without
considering other viewpoints. As social media communities are typically
comprised of people who share similar ideologies or political affilia­
tions, information spread through social media often travels through
echo chambers (Brummett et al., 2018) promoting confirmation bias
(Fisch, 2018). Relatedly, false information and hoaxes often spread
throughout the Internet because users do not verify the credibility or
accuracy of the media message, or they spread disinformation pur­
posefully (Syam & Nurrahmi, 2020). Thus, relevant selected literature
supports that media literacy education empowers individuals to reflect
about their own media literacy practices as well as the influence it has on
their perception of reality.
However, as Potter (2022) asserts, the protectionist and empower­
ment perspectives are complementary as both acknowledge and attend
to the power of the media but through differing approaches. In a study
examining teacher perceptions about instruction related to the portrayal
of gender in the media, Friesem (2018) explained that teachers
acknowledged the importance of protecting students from harmful
media portrayals of gender in the media, but ultimately, they must ac­
quire the skills to think critically about media. As media literacy pro­
motes awareness that media messages are constructed, construct reality,
and have commercial, ideological, and political implications (Hobbs,
2007), it is vital that teachers and students alike are equipped with the
skills, strategies, and dispositions to not only recognize when media is
harmful but also practice critical consuming and producing to actively
engage as democratic citizens in a media saturated society.
Focusing on media literacy in teacher education, Garcia et al. (2013)
highlighted an activity in a university course where preservice teachers
selected historical figures to create a digital Wanted Poster that chal­
lenged the selected historical figures’ dominant narratives. The preser­
vice teachers in this study explained that the assignment helped them to
S. von Gillern et al.
become further aware that hegemonic cultures control media narratives
and that media literacy empowers students to respond to media mes­
sages that construct and control power in society. Similarly, Joanou
(2017) explored how implementing media literacy into a graduate level
course bridged critical theories and practice for K12 educators. Through
discussion and course artifacts, findings suggested that media literacy
empowered learners to represent critical theories through visuals,
articulate calls to action challenging injustice, critically reflect about
negative portrayals of marginalized groups in the media, and construct
and deconstruct media for advocacy. Likewise, von Gillern et al. (2022)
examined the Analyze Create, Then Share (ACTS) framework imple­
mented within a teacher education course. The ACTS framework was
designed for learners to apply media literacy skills to analyze authentic
media on societal or civic issues and then create publishable media ar­
tifacts to respond to or spread awareness of their focal issue. Thus,
scholars and practitioners have offered differing approaches for media
literacy education through teacher education but have placed a greater
emphasis on empowering teachers and students to think critically about
media messages.
2.2. Digital citizenship
Scholars have worked to describe the concept of digital citizenship
since the inception of Web 2.0 circa 2004. Although perspectives on
digital citizenship are varied, we focus our review on three key frame­
works: the pedagogic, the civic, and the participatory.
In the field of education, Ribble (2017) describes digital citizenship
as “the continuously developing norms of appropriate, responsible, and
empowered technology use” (para. 1). Ribble’s (2015) work identifies
nine constitutive elements: digital access, digital commerce, digital
communication, digital etiquette, digital law, digital rights and re­
sponsibilities, digital health and wellness, and digital security. The aim
here, for Ribble, was to outline core facets of digital citizenship for
teachers such that they might prepare 21st century students to become
active and engaged members in a globally connected, digitally-mediated
world. In support of this aim, Jones and Mitchell (2016) suggest a focus
on digital citizenship offers educators a means to move away from
fear-based admonitions (against problem behaviors like cyberbullying
and sexting) and instead orients youth to develop positive online social
skills and capacities for civil engagement. Indeed, scholars such as Ohler
(2012) have gone so far as to suggest that teaching digital citizenship is
aligned to teaching “character education” in the digital age.
A second framework underscores the civic nature of digital citizen­
ship. In a concept analysis of the term, Choi (2016) laid out four key
themes of digital citizenship scholarship: (1) Digital Ethics, (2) Media
and Information Literacy, (3) Participation/Engagement, and (4) Crit­
ical Resistance. A subsequent piece by Choi et al. (2017) put forth a
comprehensive digital citizenship scale, which established 3 levels
(conditions) of complexity for engaging in digital citizenship. These
conditions include a necessary initial condition that involves the acqui­
sition of lower levels technical skills; a higher distributed and communi­
cative condition that involves awareness and ethical consumption of
information regarding local and global issues; and finally, a collaborative
and cooperative condition that involves higher order media and infor­
mation literacy, action/transformation-oriented participation, and an
overarching critical perspective regarding online participation.
It is worth noting that this last provision (taking a critical stance
toward the Internet) has borne energetic discussion among academics
regarding the ethics and consequences of AI, online bots, misinforma­
tion/disinformation, and Big Data surveillance (Zuboff, 2018), with
particular emphasis on the impact of such forces on the
traditionally-conceived agency and autonomy of digital citizens
(Bouayach, 2021; Calzada, 2021; Duncan, 2018). At the very least, there
is a growing recognition of the need for policy and regulation to address
issues related to digital citizenship, including online privacy and secu­
rity (Hui & Campbell, 2018), as well as the need for individuals,
3
Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104404
corporations, and governments to practice responsible and ethical uses
of technology (Öztürk, 2021).
A third framework highlights the participatory nature of digital
citizenship (Jenkins, 2009; Garcia et al., 2021; Gleason & von Gillern,
2018). Although studies around organized political activities such as
e-voting and e-petitions on social networks sites are common (Citron &
Norton, 2011; Ohler, 2012), other studies focus on more niche,
interest-driven participation on Reddit forums, fandom communities,
and the like (Black et al., 2022, pp. 1–13; Blanch, 2016). Such forms of
engagement are generally difficult to account for in traditional institu­
tional settings (i.e., schools), and yet various approaches, from critical
digital literacies (Garcia et al., 2021), platform pedagogies (Pangrazio &
Sefton-Green, 2019), and efforts to engage students in interactive media
production (Hobbs, 2017b), have all looked to broaden the scope of civic
education in schools. Nevertheless, many scholars agree that digital
citizenship (in some form) is now key to full participation in society
(Simsek & Simsek, 2013). Research has also shown that those on the
privileged end of the digital divide (Ragnedda & Muschert, 2013) who
possess more advanced media literacy skills tend to have greater access
to societal benefits (Mosseberger, 2009). Indeed, on the whole, as people
interact online as digital citizens, they tend to increase their political
awareness, civic engagement, and overall levels of participation (Vro­
men, 2017).
Given its relevance, however, few teacher education studies have
investigated the conceptions and pedagogies of digital citizenship in
complex terms (Heath, 2018). While there is nascent research exploring
the role of schoolteachers in helping young people develop responsible
notions of digital citizenship (Cervera & Caena, 2022), scholars such as
Örtegren (2023) have argued that teacher educators, in particular, must
learn to help early-career teachers develop more critical, robust, and
dynamic digital competencies in order to teach digital citizenship. These
competencies include having the requisite knowledge, skills, and con­
ceptual understandings of the digital technologies and infrastructures
that not only impact education but shape broader issues of (in)justice in
society—i.e., datafication (Hintz et al., 2019), artificial intelligence
(Markauskaite et al., 2022), and so forth.
In summary, the literature on digital citizenship highlights the need
for a dynamic, multifaceted approach to addressing issues surrounding
education, civic engagement, and online participation in the digital age.
There is recognition across the available literature that interpretations of
digital citizenship are shaped by cultural, social, and economic contexts
(Searson et al., 2015), and research has shown that these contexts can
have a significant impact on how it is understood and practiced.
2.3. Perspectives on connections between media literacy and digital
citizenship
While limited research has examined the relationship between media
literacy and digital citizenship, existing literature provides interesting
insights on how scholars perceive connections between these concepts.
Hobbs (2010), a media literacy scholar, posits that media literacy skills
are crucial for promoting digital citizenship and preparing children to
productively participate in civic affairs. Specifically, she advocated for
media literacy education across K-12 and higher education settings
emphasizing the ability to consume and produce media in varied for­
mats disseminated through Web 2.0 environments for social, civic,
professional, and other personal purposes. Similarly, Park et al. (2021),
who quantitatively studied effects of a media literacy education program
in South Korea, suggested that media literacy programming not only
enhances media literacy skills but also participants’ digital citizenship
abilities such as functional computer skills, media consumption related
to local and global issues, critical evaluation, participating in online
environments, and taking action to address social issues. Thus, relevant
selected literature suggested media literacy promotes the underlying
functional and critical skills for effective digital citizenship.
In addition to a direct relationship between media literacy and
S. von Gillern et al.
digital citizenship, studies point to ancillary factors that support both
concepts such as digital literacy and critical perspectivism. For example,
in a study of pre-service teachers in Turkey, Erdem et al. (2022) found
that media literacy directly affects digital citizenship, though, the rela­
tionship is mediated through people’s digital literacy skills. Further,
Teschers and Brown (2019) discussed that educators must account for
the social-emotional challenges faced by today’s students stemming
from constant Internet connectivity. They argue media literacy and
digital citizenship promotes critical perspectivism, which is engaging
with online information critically, collaboratively, and creatively
through a compassionate lens. The intersections of media literacy and
digital citizenship include digital literacy skills in addition to ethical,
empathetic, and compassionate Internet behaviors.
In sum, existing research on the relationship between media literacy
and digital citizenship (e.g., Erdem et al., 2022; Hobbs, 2010) largely
posits that the former influences the latter (i.e., media literacy skills such
as functional and critical media consumption and production influence
one’s abilities as a digital citizen by applying media literacy skills to
behave ethically and serve civic purposes in online environments.)
However, further research is needed, particularly qualitative research,
to develop a fuller understanding of the relationship between media
literacy and digital citizenship and to inform its curricular integration.
Given that preservice teachers will soon have students of their own and
educators’ perspectives on technology influence classroom practice
(Miranda & Russell, 2012; Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010), this study
addresses a gap in the literature by qualitatively investigating preservice
teachers’ perceptions on media literacy, digital citizenship, and their
relationship, as their perspectives may influence if and how these skills
are integrated into curriculum and instruction. To investigate this issue,
this study utilizes the concepts of empowerment and protectionism that
are traditionally associated with media literacy (Potter, 2022) to help
understand the preservice teachers’ perspectives on media literacy,
digital citizenship, and their relationship by recognizing ways that these
skills provide citizens both safeguards and opportunities in their
participation of democratic society.
3. Methods
This qualitative study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) examines preser­
vice teachers’ perceptions on media literacy, digital citizenship, and
their relationship. This qualitative approach posits that knowledge is
socially constructed and influenced by backgrounds and experiences of
the participants (Lune & Berg, 2017). Relatedly, this study is under­
pinned by an interpretive epistemology that recognizes that individual
researchers have unique backgrounds that influence how they interpret
data. Further, this research utilizes a case study approach, which in­
volves examining a bounded system, which serves as a case for detailed
analysis (Harrison et al., 2017). The bounded system examined in this
study is the collection of written essay responses of preservice teachers
on media literacy and digital citizenship to understand their perceptions
of these topics. This study emphasized the importance of understanding
participants’ perspectives in their own words (Creswell & Poth, 2016)
and was guided by the following research questions.
1. How do preservice teachers conceptualize media literacy?
2. How do preservice teachers conceptualize digital citizenship?
3. What connections do preservice teachers identify between media
literacy and digital citizenship?
3.1. Study context and participants
Given this study’s research questions and focus on the perspectives of
preservice teachers on media literacy, digital citizenship, and their
relationship, this study utilized purposeful sampling (Creswell & Cres­
well, 2017) recruited and included 111 preservice teachers as
4
Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104404
participants. Participants were enrolled in a teacher education program
that upon completion results in their certification as elementary school
teachers. The study included 104 females, five males, one individual
who identified as non-binary, and one who preferred not to say. As part
of their teacher education program, the participants were enrolled in a
junior-level literacy methods class as part of their coursework at a large
Midwestern research institution in the United States, in which they
learned about different concepts, skills, and practices that help them
understand and utilize effective practices for literacy instruction they
can use in their careers as teachers. This course included a unit on digital
literacies, in which participants learned about various ways digital
technologies relate to and can support literacy development. As part of
this unit, participants learned about media literacy and digital citizen­
ship through readings, lecture, and class discussions. Readings and focal
perspectives on digital citizenship involved the foundational work of
Ribble and colleagues (e.g., Ribble, 2015; Ribble et al., 2004), including
their nine key elements of digital citizenship (etiquette, communication,
education, access, commerce, responsibility, rights, safety, and secu­
rity). Readings and key perspectives on media literacy included the
National Association of Media Literacy Education’s (NAMLE, 2007)
“Core Principles of Media Literacy Education in the United States” as
well as Potter’s (2010) work on the “State of Media Literacy” (p. 675),
which provides a variety of definitions and perspectives on media lit­
eracy from prominent scholarship.
The culminating project for this unit on digital literacies involved
participants creating elementary-level lesson plans on how they can
support media literacy and digital citizenship for their future students.
After completing their lesson plans, participants were required to reflect
on key concepts related to media literacy and digital citizenship by
responding in writing to several essay questions. Example questions
included: What does digital citizenship mean to you? What does media
literacy mean to you? Do you believe that digital citizenship and media
literacy are connected? Please explain. Their essay question responses
were graded in conjunction with their lesson plans as part of the final
project for the course. After grades were completed and submitted, the
participants’ essay responses were extracted and anonymized to prepare
for data analysis. Participants typically wrote a one-paragraph response
to each essay question, resulting in several hundred paragraphs of
writing included in data analysis.
3.2. Data analysis
Data was analyzed using a two-cycle qualitative coding procedure
(Saldaña, 2021). First-cycle coding involved applying process codes and
descriptive codes to the data using MAXQDA, a qualitative data coding
application. Processing coding involves identifying segments of data
relevant to the research questions and applying gerunds (i.e., -ing
words) to those data segments. This allows the researcher to recognize
actions and processes present in the data. Common process codes
applied during data analysis included “understanding,” “analyzing,” and
“creating.” Descriptive coding entails applying nouns to potentially
relevant segments of data to capture the main idea or essence of a pas­
sage of data. Example descriptive codes utilized in data analysis
included “awareness,” “reliability,” and “impact.” Two researchers
independently coded the data, after which all codes were combined into
a single MAXQDA file. In total, 5771 codes were applied to the data.
After compiling the codes, second-cycle coding began, in which three
researchers independently examined the codes to identify themes that
aligned with the research questions. The three researchers shared the
themes they identified and engaged in a dialogic reliability check
(Åkerlind, 2005) by discussing and deliberating upon the proposed
themes until they came to an agreement on the final themes.
S. von Gillern et al.
4. Results
4.1. RQ1 - how do preservice teachers conceptualize media literacy?
Three themes were identified on the preservice teachers’ perspec­
tives of media literacy: evaluating the credibility of media messages,
accessing and interacting with media, and safety. These themes incor­
porate both empowerment and protectionist perspectives.
4.1.1. Evaluating the credibility of media messages
Participants regularly reflected on how analyzing and evaluating
media to determine its credibility was a central component of media
literacy. This involved students’ ability to discern whether or not in­
formation is credible and explain why or why not. Laney, for example,
wrote: “Media literacy to me is being able to identify the different types
of media and what media is reliable vs not reliable,” and according to
Jayden, “With media literacy, students learn how to find reliable evi­
dence online.” Similarly, Bethany noted: “Media literacy is being able to
find credible sources, make conclusions on those sources, and then use
those sources to your benefit.”
Participants often coupled their focus on evaluating media credi­
bility with determining the purpose of media messages. Faye wrote:
“Media literacy means being able to consume media in a way that is
thoughtful and critical. Media literacy requires you to evaluate your
sources and examine them to determine their purpose.” Leigh echoed
this perspective, reflecting that media literacy involves “gaining the
knowledge about the different motives behind the information being
given to them, they will be able to see through the negative side of the
media and find the facts.” Shayla reflected on these issues and their
implications for her future classroom. She wrote that she can:
promote media literacy for [her] students by being able to evaluate if
websites are reliable or non-reliable as well as looking at different
websites that are biased. It’s crucial to know where to go to get facts
[given] all the fake news in the world. Adding in media literacy can
help them create a habit of what to look for and be able to use cre­
ative outlets to promote their thinking in the future.
This theme includes both empowerment and protectionist perspec­
tives in that effectively
Evaluating message credibility empowers people as critical thinking
and well-informed citizens as well as protects them from falling victim to
misinformation.
4.1.2. Accessing and interacting with media
The second theme for media literacy was the students’ ability to
access and interact with multiple forms of media. In order to ascertain
whether or not information is credible, people must first understand
how to access a variety of sources on a variety of platforms. Ella defined
media literacy as “the ability to interact with different forms of media,”
and Alicia stated that media literacy involves “having the skills to access,
evaluate, and manipulate different forms of media.”
Participants also described how there are many types of media that
students can learn about, access, and utilize. Taylor, for instance,
described the importance of traditional types of media including “radio,
television, and magazines.” Other participants focused on electronic
media. For example, Payton mentioned “online articles, blogs, e-books
and more,” and Shawna stated that “students must be able to view
messages, articles, texts, tweets or posts in order to learn about what is
going on in our world.”
Interacting with media also involved creating and communicating
one’s own media messages. Mikayla wrote: “Media literacy to me means
students know how to engage digitally and then create their own form of
a message.” Similarly, Leah wrote that media literacy includes the “ca­
pacity to … access … and generate media in a variety of formats,” and
Abby noted that “Media literacy means the ability to use and understand
digital resources and how to communicate in the multiple modes of
5
Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104404
communication possible through technology.” Ultimately, participants’
writing indicated that understanding different types of media and
technologies, including how to access, interact, and communicate with
these platforms, were key components of media literacy. This theme
primarily aligns with an empowerment perspective, as accessing and
interacting with media was framed as crucial media literacy skills that
enable people to access and participate in digitally mediated spaces.
4.1.3. Safety
The final theme for media literacy was safety. In the words of
Kathryn, “Media literacy means navigating the internet/media safely
and being a critical consumer of information.” Similarly, according to
Hailey, media literacy “prepares [students] to make smart, safe and
ethical decisions online.” Stella noted the importance of safety and re­
sponsibility in terms of both accessing media and creating texts to share.
She wrote: “students need to be safe and responsible when searching for
texts … They will also need to be safe and responsible while creating
artifacts digitally and sharing them online.”
Participants noted that there are many websites and much content
that is inappropriate and unsafe for students to see. Knowing how to
avoid these sites is an important aspect of media literacy and keeping
students safe. For example, Rebecca noted that media literacy involves
“the ability to navigate through an online setting by staying safe …
[including] staying away from places that could get you into trouble or
avoiding sketchy sites.” Adam similarly wrote about this and implica­
tions for his future classroom. He reflected, “To engage my students in
media literacy, I will not be scared to let them explore the internet and
what it has to offer safely and with supervision, because there is still a lot
that should not be seen.” Overall, participants emphasized the impor­
tance of safe and responsible behavior as important aspects of media
literacy, and how they, as educators, have an opportunity and re­
sponsibility to help students develop ways to safely utilize digital tech­
nologies. Safety corresponds with a protectionist perspective as it
focuses on mitigating risks that could negatively impact media users.
4.2. RQ2 – how do preservice teachers conceptualize digital citizenship?
Data analysis identified four themes on how the preservice teachers
defined digital citizenship, representing both empowerment and pro­
tectionist perspectives. These themes included developing well-
informed citizens, community engagement and activism, safety and
respect, and technological proficiency.
4.2.1. Well-informed citizens
In order to participate effectively as digital citizens in modern soci­
ety, the preservice teachers stressed that their students should be well-
informed. Macey noted how strong digital citizens are well-informed
and capable of “discerning fact from opinion and reliable sources from
unreliable sources.” Developing a well-rounded understanding of civic
issues, as Mel stated, involves students “look [ing] at multiple resources
to cultivate a solid opinion with cited resources.” Shannon echoed this
perspective, elaborating:
I think a major aspect of digital citizenship is being responsible about
the news and political information we share, which includes check­
ing dates, other sources, and media bias, as well as assessing whether
an article or other form of media is fact or opinion. The internet has
created echo chambers in which it is easy to only read and share
media that you agree with, especially on social media websites like
Twitter and Facebook.
These quotes illustrate that well-informed digital citizens not only
evaluate the credibility of media messages, but also the importance of
examining multiple sources, particularly considering how many web­
sites and online platforms have become echo chambers. These are issues
that participants noted deserve attention in schools. Olivia wrote about
the relevance of digital citizenship for her future classroom and how she
S. von Gillern et al.
values “teaching students how to use the Internet to analyze information
about civic issues, form their own opinions, and then share their opin­
ions in a respectful way.” The theme of well-informed citizens addresses
both empowerment and protectionist perspectives, as well-informed
citizens are empowered to understand and participate in various social
and digital spaces. Simultaneously, well-informed citizens are less likely
to visit untrustworthy websites and fall victim to misinformation, cor­
responding with a protectionist perspective.
4.2.2. Community engagement and activism
The preservice teachers also felt that in order to be good digital
citizens, their students should participate in community engagement
and activism. Andrew viewed digital citizenship as “a parallel to civic
responsibility.” For Riley, this means that students should be “using
information to better your community, society, or world,” and Olivia
stated that students should “use the Internet for good and take part in
democracy and civic action.” Dana had a similar perspective, writing:
“Digital citizenship is when people use and develop the skills and
knowledge to effectively use the internet and digital technologies to
engage in society, politics, and civic issues.” While digital citizenship
activities largely focus, understandably, on digital participation, Chrissy
noted the importance of students “engaging in civic activities in digital
spaces, [which can] bridg [es] civic participation in online and offline
spaces.”
Many participants focused on civic engagement in broad terms, as
described above. Many others, though, focused on the relevance of
digital citizenship for promoting social justice and activism for com­
munity improvement. Anica addressed these issues at length. She wrote:
I want to promote my students’ engagement in current social justice
issues, along with instilling skills and confidence within my students
to make a difference in the world. Our students are the future of our
nation and our society … It is very important that we, as educators,
give our students the tools and cultivate their skills to be able to
advocate for their beliefs. By having students start with a question, or
to spark their curiosity on a large and prevalent social issue and be
able to connect it to their communities so that they can create a
change is very inspiring. Children will always surprise us, and they
have such creative ideas and strong passions that I believe they can
make a large impact in their communities at a young age.
Similarly, Harper reflected on how digital citizenship educational
activities are “a great way for students to share media messages on civic
issues! [They] incorporate civic duty with education, which is very
important … This inspires activism and change (two things that our
society badly needs right now).” This highlights the importance of
critical perspectives and community action. Participants ultimately saw
civic engagement and activism as key components of digital citizenship,
which empower students to participate in social affairs to make their
communities a better place.
4.2.3. Technological proficiency
The final theme was technological proficiency. In order to become
well-informed citizens who can safely participate in community impact,
students have to know how to utilize the tools available to them online.
For example, Lilly wrote: “digital citizenship means knowing how to use
technology, how to participate online, and how to take what they learn
online and apply it to reality.” Similarly, Kaylee defined digital citi­
zenship as “the ability to navigate different digital platforms easily and
responsibly,” and Donna defines a good digital citizen as “someone
confident in their ability to communicate with others through digital
technologies.”
In the views of participants, though, technological proficiency goes
beyond being tech savvy. It also involves being productive with tech­
nology. Leigh, for instance, noted that “digital citizenship means that
students are responsible online and have the ability to work their way
around digital sources and pull the information they need,” and Olivia
6
Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104404
described “digital citizenship [involves] navigating the Internet in a
productive way.” While productivity in the views of participants often
involved community engagement and activism, aligning with the theme
above, they also noted how digital citizenship skills are valuable for
students in their future careers. Abby wrote: “digital citizenship can help
prepare students for any of their future jobs as it will get them more used
to communicating online and sharing their opinions in an online
format.” Similarly, Laney reflected on the importance of “good digital
citizenship for future schooling, jobs, and many other things in the ‘real
world’. I think elementary age is a good place to start getting students
introduced and familiar with digital citizenship.” As the preservice
teachers’ reflections demonstrate, developing strong technology and
digital citizenship skills allows students to effectively utilize digital
platforms, which are valuable for children throughout schooling, their
social lives, and their future careers. The theme of technological profi­
ciency corresponds with an empowerment perspective, as it focuses on
enabling people to productively utilize digital tools for a variety of
purposes throughout life.
4.2.4. Safety and respect
Safety is also very important for students to be good digital citizens.
Payton defined digital citizenship as “providing students with the skill
set to safely navigate technology and media” and Morgan similarly
stated that digital citizenship is about “making good decisions and being
safe online.” The preservice teachers felt that their students should know
how to participate safely before engaging in community impact. Tess
pointed out that “if students do not learn about digital citizenship, then
one day they might be hurt by scams, misinformation, cyberbullying, etc
… Or could one day be the ones hurting others, unintentionally or
intentionally.”
Many participants also described respect as a salient component of
digital citizenship. For example, Macey defined digital citizenship as
“acting in an informed, respectful, and responsible way online.” Simi­
larly, Shannon reflected on the value of respect, writing, an “important
aspect of digital citizenship is maintaining empathy online, being
respectful to others, and being able to successfully communicate and
work in an online environment.” Payton addressed safety and respect as
important connected facets of digital citizenship that can be taught in
the classroom. She wrote:
Digital citizenship to me means providing students with the skill set
to safely navigate technology and media. This includes showing
students [effective] ways to communicate their opinions while being
respectful to others. It also involves teaching about how some people
decide to use media to portray hateful messages and bully others. By
learning these skills … students will learn online etiquette.
As illustrated above, participants reflected on how safety and respect
are crucial aspects of digital citizenship. Notably, they saw these con­
cepts as elements of successful communication (i.e., disrespectful and
disparaging messages are less effective than respectful messages).
Furthermore, they noted the presence and danger of issues, such as
“scams, misinformation, cyberbullying, etc.,” that negatively affect
people’s safety and well-being in digital environments, issues that
deserve attention in the classroom. Safety and respect align with a
protectionist perspective by reducing exposure to harmful content and
outcomes.
4.3. RQ3 - what connections do preservice teachers identify between
media literacy and digital citizenship?
The results for this section were drawn primarily from the following
question to which students responded: “Do you believe that digital
citizenship and media literacy are connected? Please explain.” All 111
participants in this study responded in the affirmative, demonstrating
their consistent belief that media literacy and digital citizenship are
related, and their responses to this question were supported via their
S. von Gillern et al.
answers to other questions that illustrated similarities and connections
between these two concepts. (See Fig. 1 for overview of and connections
between themes). Different students, though, focused on different con­
nections, resulting in three key themes from data analysis: Evaluating
Media Message Credibility to Become Well-Informed Citizens, Techno­
logical Know-How and Community Participation, and Safety.
4.3.1. Evaluating media message credibility to become well-informed
citizens
The preservice teachers recognized the importance of determining
the reliability of digital texts and resources, which they noted draws
upon both media literacy and digital citizenship skills. Ella, for example,
wrote, “You have to use media literacy as a digital citizen to seek out
reliable sources. Every time you read something online regarding a civic
issue you are acting as a digital citizen and using your media literacy
abilities.” This perspective is echoed by Leigh, who wrote:
I think that a large aspect of being a good digital citizen is being able
to have those strong media literacy skills to find the truth. Students
need to know that everyone in the media has a certain goal they are
trying to accomplish and a point they are trying to get across.
As these quotes illustrate, participants recognized that it is crucial for
digital citizens to develop their abilities to use media literacy skills to
determine the reliability of media as well as the motives of the author.
Critically consuming media and evaluating its credibility are funda­
mental aspects of media literacy, and they directly influence one’s
ability to be a well-informed citizen. These are important issues for
teachers to address. As Alicia noted: “both media literacy and digital
citizenship requires students to comprehend text and interpret the au­
thor’s intent. These two skills really do go hand in hand and can easily be
taught together within lessons.” Given the overlapping skill set between
media literacy and digital citizenship, educators can teach them in
tandem to help students understand their relationship. This theme rep­
resents both empowerment and protectionist perspectives, as critical
evaluation skills empower people to become well-informed citizens
capable of productively participating in digital spaces and society more
broadly. Simultaneously, this theme represents a protectionist perspec­
tive as critical thinking well-informed citizens are less likely to succumb
to misinformation and other problematic content.
4.3.2. Technological know-how and community participation
Many participants noted that understanding how to use technolo­
gies, including for community participation, were important aspects of
both media literacy and digital citizenship. Their views illustrated the
understanding how to use different technologies and platforms pro­
motes one’s ability to effectively participate in their community. Jayden
addressed this in her writing, noting:
Digital citizenship and media literacy are connected because you
need to have both skills to effectively use technology. With digital
Fig. 1. Overview of and Connections Between Themes on Media Literacy and Digital Citizenship.
7
Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104404
citizenship, students learn to be safe online, use technology properly,
and evaluate information online. With media literacy, students learn
how to find reliable evidence online, and use media to create and share.
It is important for students to use both skills together.
In a similar line of thinking, Morgan reflected on commonalities of
digital citizenship and media literacy in terms of understanding tech­
nology and media. She wrote:
Digital citizenship refers to the way students use and interact with
technology. Media literacy refers to the different types of media and
the messages sent from said media. These two are connected because
the goal of being a digital citizen is to educate students to be
responsible and to do this students must also be able to think criti­
cally about the media they are using, which encompasses media
literacy.
While participants emphasized the importance of understanding how
to use technology as being central to conceptions of both digital citi­
zenship and media literacy, they also noted how these skills support
one’s ability to participate in their communities. Chrissy wrote: Digital
citizenship and media literacy “both call for students to participate on­
line and engage in civic activities.” Similarly, Elaine noted: “digital
citizenship and media literacy are connected because both are a way to
share thoughts and opinions” and Taylor wrote: “Both digital citizenship
and media literacy teach students about media, engagement in society,
and civics.” Overall, digital citizenship and media literacy both involve
participating in communities, an ability underpinned by one’s techno­
logical know-how. This represents an empowerment perspective as
technological know-how and community participation allow people to
productively utilize digital tools to engage in social and civic spaces.
4.3.3. Safety and responsibility
The preservice teachers reflected on the importance of responsible
and safe use of digital technologies as a common feature of both digital
citizenship and media literacy. Stella wrote:
I believe that digital citizenship and media literacy are connected.
Digital citizenship is the ability to use digital technologies in a safe and
responsible way while participating online. Students will need to have
digital citizenship while using media literacies. For example, students
will need to be safe and responsible when searching for texts to analyze.
They will also need to be safe and responsible while creating messages
digitally and sharing them online.
Similarly, Tess wrote: “The digital side of media literacy pairs well
with digital citizenship because they both aim to teach students how to
protect themselves on the internet, how to look for reliable information,
and how to use the internet responsibly.” Hailey echoed this sentiment,
writing: “In order to be able to participate smartly, safely, and ethically
in the digital world (digital citizenship) you will need to also be able to
analyze and evaluate digital media (media literacy).”
S. von Gillern et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104404

As participant quotes illustrate, both digital citizenship and media Garcia et al.’s (2021) focus on critical theory to inform perspectives on
literacy involve accessing, analyzing, and participating in digital social issues and civic engagement. Lastly, our theme of safety and
spaces in safe and responsible ways. Safety is a priority across facets respect aligns with Choi’s theme of digital ethics as well as Ribble’s
and processes of both concepts from responsibly accessing media to (2015) themes on etiquette, rights, and responsibilities. Collectively, the
creating messages and participating in their communities, processes concepts identified by the preservice teachers in this study demonstrated
mediated via technological know-how. As Grace wrote: “I think their understanding of digital citizenship in ways that dovetail with
[digital citizenship and media literacy] are connected because [they existing scholarship and emphasize the importance of students devel­
have] the students understand how to act with technology, to use oping their ability to safely and productively become well-informed
technology with literacy, and enable students to use technology in a citizens who advocate for positive social change in their communities.
safe way, which is really important.” This theme represents a pro­ Further, participants’ perspectives on digital citizenship reflect both
tectionist perspective, emphasizing the importance of protecting empowerment and protectionist perspectives (Potter, 2022); while these
oneself and others from problematic content and outcomes. concepts are traditionally associated with media literacy, the results
indicate they are also applicable to digital citizenship, which both en­
ables productive behaviors and mitigates risks in digital environments.
5. Discussion
Participants’ views on digital citizenship also diverge from foundational
perspectives from their course readings (e.g., Ribble, 2015; Ribble et al.,
The purpose of this study was to examine preservice elementary
2004). For example, Ribble highlights commerce as an important feature
teachers’ perceptions of media literacy, digital citizenship, and their
of digital citizenship, but this was not mentioned by a single participant.
relationship. Participants described media literacy as the ability to
Additionally, the well-informed citizen theme from this study and its
evaluate the credibility of media messages, access and interact with
focus on civic issues does not have a counterpart in the nine elements of
media, and safely engage in digital environments. Additionally, partic­
digital citizenship presented by Ribble (2015). This demonstrates that
ipants described digital citizenship in terms of developing well-informed
participants did not simply restate the perspectives they read in class but
citizens, community engagement and activism, technological profi­
processed and reflected on digital citizenship to develop their own
ciency, and safety and respect. Findings suggested that media literacy
views.
and digital citizenship are related through evaluating media message
The preservice teachers also identified commonalities between
credibility to become well-informed citizens, technological know-how
media literacy and digital citizenship, including as relates to evaluating
and community participation, and safety and responsibility.
the credibility of media to become well-informed citizens, technological
The participants’ descriptions of media literacy represented both
know-how and community participation, and safety and respect. Eval­
empowerment and protectionist perspectives (RobbGrieco, 2014) and
uating credibility and becoming a well-informed citizen parallels the
discussed skills aligning with the National Association for Media Liter­
work of existing research on connections between media literacy and
acy Education’s definition of media literacy (2007). Most participants
digital citizenship (von Gillern et al., 2022). The theme of technological
related media literacy with evaluating media messages, aligning with
proficiency and civic engagement also complements existing literature,
the emphasis of credibility in the media literacy literature (Hobbs,
such as the work of Hobbs (2010) who noted the importance of “acquir
2010). Participants also acknowledged that people with strong media
[ing] multimedia communication skills … know [ing] how to use these
literacy skills can access, interact with, and produce various media
skills to engage in the civic life of their communities” (p. vii). Finally, the
formats and content. These are crucial media literacy skills that allow
theme of safety and responsibility also aligns with scholarship that ex­
people to collaborate and participate in online communities (Zhang, Li,
amines the relationship of media literacy and digital citizenship, such as
Liu, & Miao, 2016), aligning with an empowerment perspective of
the work of Sarwatay, Raman, & Ramasubramanian, 2021 who note the
media literacy (Weninger et al., 2017). Participant reflections also
importance of digital ethics, including participating safely and re­
illustrated the salience of safe Internet practices and shielding students
sponsibility in online environments.
from harmful content, a perspective on media literacy that aligns with
While results of this study align with literature examining connec­
the work of Lee (2018), who emphasizes the importance of safety,
tions between media literacy and digital citizenship, previous studies
including as relates to privacy, scams, social media, and more, aligning
mostly focused on how media literacy supports digital citizenship
with a protectionist perspective of media literacy (Potter, 2022). Addi­
(Erdem et al., 2022; Hobbs, 2010). However, this study’s findings sug­
tionally, while the participants’ perspectives were likely influenced by
gest that the relationship between media literacy and digital citizenship
course readings on media literacy, including prominent perspectives (e.
may be more complementary and reciprocal than existing scholarship
g., NAMLE, 2007; Potter, 2010), the participants did not simply repeat
indicates. The preservice teachers perceived these concepts as mutually
what they learned via those texts. For example, Potter (2010) provided a
supporting and less of a directional relationship (media literacy supports
list of over 20 definitions of media literacy from various scholars and
digital citizenship). For example, by focusing on core aspects of digital
organizations, but participants processed the information and reflected
citizenship, such as safety and responsibility (ISTE, 2016; Ribble, 2015),
on media literacy in a way that did not cleanly align with any particular
students can develop their media literacy skills of effectively accessing
definition. Further and relatedly, neither NAMLE (2007) or Potter
and utilizing digital resources and technologies. Similarly, through
(2010) focus on safety as a central component of media literacy, yet
engaging in digital citizenship via civic participation and critical resis­
participants highlighted safety as a crucial issue for media literacy.
tance (Choi et al., 2017), students can hone their media literacy abilities
In terms of digital citizenship, participants discussed the importance
through creating media messages, including as relates to fostering crit­
of being well-informed citizens, community engagement and activism,
ical consciousness and social change (Ladson-Billings, 2006). The point
acting in respectful ways, and proficiency with navigating digital envi­
here is not to suggest that it is actually digital citizenship that supports
ronments. Our themes of well-informed citizens and technological pro­
media literacy but rather that the relationship between these concepts is
ficiency correspond with Choi et al. (2016) theme of media and
less linear and more fluid than previous scholarship suggests. Implica­
information literacy. This theme also aligns with recent work of Vajen
tions for pedagogy, then, include not only striking a thoughtful balance
et al. (2023), who examined educators’ perspectives on digital citizen­
between empowerment and protectionist paradigms (Friesem & Frie­
ship and found that teachers believe that digital technologies can serve
sem, 2021), but also engaging media literacy and digital citizenship in
as valuable tools for civic participation yet are concerned about malign
tandem with students. To do so sustainably, however, will no doubt
actors and their efforts to sow misinformation and social discord. Our
require attention in teacher education programs and savvy professional
theme of community engagement and activism align with Choi et al.
development communities alongside resources and institutional support
themes of participation/engagement and critical resistance as well as
along these lines. Such programming can highlight the importance of

8
S. von Gillern et al.
both media literacy, digital citizenship, their relationship, and how they
can be taught in conjunction to support student learning and foster
critical-thinking, well-informed, and active student citizens.
As findings demonstrate specific connections between media literacy
and digital citizenship and ways these concepts support one another,
future research should investigate the influence of media literacy edu­
cation when situated within a digital citizenship context. In such efforts,
utilizing the media literacy perspectives of empowerment and protec­
tionism (Potter, 2022) may prove fruitful. For example, becoming
well-informed digital citizens who actively participate in civic issues to
improve their communities aligns with an empowerment perspective.
Simultaneously, focusing on the importance of safety and responsibility
as key features of digital citizenship represents a protectionist perspec­
tive. Thus, future research and teaching on digital citizenship (including
when coupled with media literacy) can utilize the concepts of empow­
erment and protectionism to frame and guide instruction to help stu­
dents become well-rounded digital citizens. In such efforts, practitioners
should promote critical media literacy to advocate for social justice and
promote community impact (Garcia et al., 2021). Overall, this study can
further inform research, theory, and practice to promote the necessary
media literacy skills, strategies, and dispositions for effective and im­
pactful digital citizenship.
While this study contributes to the literature and illustrates preser­
vice teachers’ perspectives of media literacy, digital citizenship, and
their relationship, it is not without its limitations. First, this study was
completed with 111 preservice elementary teachers at a single research
university in the Midwestern United States. Further research that ex­
amines preservice teachers’ views on these topics with larger participant
samples in diverse locations around the United States and globe would
be valuable. Second, the curriculum in class may have influenced the
participants’ responses. Yet, as demonstrated above, the course readings
drew upon foundational perspectives on media literacy (NAMLE, 2007;
Potter, 2010) and digital citizenship (Ribble, 2015; Ribble et al., 2004),
resources likely commonly covered in relation to these concepts in
various educational settings. Further, as noted in the discussion, the
participants simply did not regurgitate the perspectives of these foun­
dational texts, but processed information to develop and share their own
perspectives. Nonetheless, given that limited research has explored the
relationship of media literacy and digital citizenship (Erdem et al., 2022;
Hobbs, 2010), additional scholarship that explores these connections
and their relevance for education and literacy development would be
valuable. Such research may include empirical quantitative and quali­
tative studies with students to determine how different instructional
approaches can facilitate media literacy and digital citizenship learning
in diverse educational settings, including by directly measuring learning
outcomes for students. Further, such research could aim to understand
how these concepts apply to and may be integrated into broader efforts
to promote students as capable and active democratic citizens (Wood
et al., 2018). Finally, given the rapid rise and proliferation of generative
artificial intelligence (AI), including platforms such as Chat-GPT and
DALL-E 3, it is crucial that scholars examine the relevance of generative
AI for media literacy and digital citizenship, how it may impact students’
experiences and learning, and methods for mitigating risks and pro­
moting responsible use of AI.
6. Conclusion
Ultimately, as the views of preservice teachers in this study and
existing scholarship demonstrate, media literacy and digital citizenship
are incredibly valuable in modern society and are connected, comple­
mentary concepts that will continue to evolve as the media landscape
transforms with the emergence of new technologies and media plat­
forms. While this study addressed a gap in the literature related to pre-
service teachers’ perspectives about media literacy and digital citizen­
ship, it is essential for researchers to continue investigating these issues
and effective methods for student learning. Participants voices helped to
9
Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104404
form connections between media literacy and digital citizenship to
inform future teacher professional learning, curriculum design, class­
room instruction, and theory. Thus, it is crucial that educators across
grade levels and content areas integrate thoughtful, timely, and effective
activities that promote media literacy and digital citizenship. These
skills empower children to become well-informed citizens who can
safely and responsibly participate in civic engagement to promote pos­
itive change in their communities, which is essential for sustaining a
healthy and vibrant democracy.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
References
Akerlind, G. (2005). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research
methods. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(4), 321–334.
Alvermann, D. (2017). Social media texts and critical inquiry in a post-factual era.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61(3), 335–338. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jaal.694
Black, R., Walsh, L., Waite, C., Collin, P., Third, A., & Idriss, S. (2022). In their own words:
41 stories of young people’s digital citizenship. Learning, Media and Technology.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2044848
Blanch, K. (2016). New spaces, blurred boundaries, and embodied performances on
Facebook. In K. Nairn, P. Kraftl, & T. Skelton (Eds.), Space, place, and environment
(pp. 441–460). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-044-5_
20.
Bouayach, A. (2021). Artificial intelligence & digital citizenship for ethical AI that
respects human rights. Arribat-International Journal of Human Rights Published, 1(2),
131–140.
Brummette, J., Distaso, M., Vafeiadis, M., & Messner, M. (2018). Read all about it: The
politicization of “fake news” on Twitter. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
95(2), 497–517.
Buckingham, D. (1998). Introduction: Fantasies of empowerment? Radical pedagogy and
popular culture. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Teaching popular culture: Beyond radical
pedagogy (pp. 1–17). UCL Press.
Calzada, I. (2021). Emerging digital citizenship regimes: Pandemic, algorithmic, liquid,
metropolitan, and stateless citizenships. Citizenship Studies, 1–29.
Cervera, M. G., & Caena, F. (2022). Teachers’ digital competence for global teacher
education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 45(4), 451–455. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02619768.2022.2135855
Choi, M. (2016). A concept analysis of digital citizenship for democratic citizenship
education in the internet age. Theory & Research in Social Education, 44(4), 565–607.
Choi, M., Glassman, M., & Cristol, D. (2017). What it means to be a citizen in the internet
age: Development of a reliable and valid digital citizenship scale. Computers &
Education, 107, 100–112.
Citron, D., & Norton, H. (2011). Intermediaries and hate speech: Fostering digital citizenship
for our information age (Vol. 91, pp. 1435–1484). Boston University Law Review.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five approaches. Sage publications.
Duncan, J. (2018). Uncertainty and Desire: Big data surveillance and digital citizenship.
The iJournal: Student Journal of the Faculty of Information, 3(3).
Erdem, C., Oruç, E., Atar, C., & Bağcı, H. (2022). The mediating effect of digital literacy
in the relationship between media literacy and digital citizenship. Education and
Information Technologies, 1–17.
Fisch, A. (2018). Trump, J.K. Rowling, and confirmation bias: An experiential lesson in
fake news. Radical Teacher, 111(111), 103–108. https://doi.org/10.5195/
rt.2018.481
Friesem, E. (2018). Too much of a good thing? How teachers’ enthusiasm may lead to
protectionism in exploring media and gender. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 10
(1), 134–147.
Friesem, E., & Friesem, Y. (2021). Media literacy education in the era of post-truth:
Paradigm crisis. In the Information Resources Management Association’s. In
Research anthology on fake news, political warfare, and combatting the spread of
misinformation (pp. 589–604). IGI Global.
Funk, S., Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2016). Critical media literacy as transformative
pedagogy. In M. N. Yildiz, & J. Keengwe (Eds.), Handbook of research on media
literacy in the digital age (pp. 1–30). Information Science Reference.
Garcia, A. G., McGrew, S., Mirra, N., Tynes, B., & Kahne, J. (2021). Rethinking digital
citizenship: Learning about media, literacy, and race in turbulent times. Educating for
civic reasoning and discourse, 319–352.
S. von Gillern et al.
Garcia, A., Seglem, R., & Share, J. (2013). Transforming teaching and learning through
critical media literacy pedagogy. LEARNing Landscapes, 6(2), 109–123. https://doi.
org/10.36510/learnland.v6i2.608
von Gillern, S., Gleason, B., & Hutchison, A. (2022). Digital citizenship, media literacy,
and the ACTS Framework. The Reading Teacher, 76(2), 145–158.
Gleason, B., & von Gillern, S. (2018). Digital citizenship with social media: Participatory
practices of teaching and learning in secondary education. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 21(1), 200–212.
Guess, A. M., Lerner, M., Lyons, B., Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Sircar, N.
(2020). A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between
mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 117(27), 15536–15545.
Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017). Case study research: Foundations
and methodological orientations. Forum qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative
Social Research, 18(1), 1–17.
Heath, M. K. (2018). What kind of (digital) citizen? A between-studies analysis of
research and teaching for democracy. The International Journal of Information and
Learning Technology, 35(5), 342–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-06-2018-0067
Higdon, N., Butler, A., & Swerzenski, J. D. (2021). Inspiration and motivation: The
similarities and differences between critical and acritical media literacy. Democratic
Communique, 30(1), 1–15.
Hintz, A., Dencik, L., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2019). Digital citizenship in a datafied society.
Polity Press.
Hobbs, R. (2007). Reading the media: Media literacy in high school English. Teachers College
Press.
Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. A white paper on the digital
and media literacy recommendations of the knight commission on the information needs of
communities in a democracy. Aspen Institute.
Hobbs, R. (2017a). Approaches to teacher professional development in digital and media
literacy education. In B. S. De Abreu, P. Mihailidis, A. Y. L. Lee, J. Melki, &
J. McDougall (Eds.), International handbook of media literacy education (pp. 54–64).
Routledge.
Hobbs, R. (2017b). Teaching and learning in a post-truth world. Educational Leadership,
75(3), 26–31.
Hobbs, R. (2020). Propaganda in an age of algorithmic personalization: Expanding
literacy research and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(3), 521–533.
Huguet, A., Kavanagh, J., Baker, G., & Blumenthal, M. S. (2019). Exploring media literacy
education as a tool for mitigating truth decay. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_
reports/RR3050.html.
Hui, B., & Campbell, R. (2018). Discrepancy between learning and practicing digital
citizenship. Journal of Academic Ethics, 16(2), 117–131.
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for
the 21st century. The MIT Press.
Joanou, J. P. (2017). Examining the world around us: Critical media literacy in teacher
education. Multicultural Perspectives, 19(1), 40–46.
Korona, M., & Hathaway, D. (2021). Visual literacy in teacher education: Examining the
complexity of online images for instructional and personal purposes. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 29(4), 533–557.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). Yes but how do we do it?: Practicing culturally relevant
pedagogy. In S. Landsman, & C. W. Lewis (Eds.), White teachers/diverse classrooms: A
guide to building inclusive schools, promoting high expectations, and eliminating racism
(pp. 29–41). Stylus Publishing.
Lee, N. M. (2018). Fake news, phishing, and fraud: A call for research on digital media
literacy education beyond the classroom. Communication Education, 67(4), 460–466.
Lune, H., & Berg, B. L. (2017). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson.
Markauskaite, L., Marrone, R., Poquet, O., Knight, S., Martinez-Maldonado, R.,
Howard, S., Tondeur, J., De Laat, M., Buckingham Shum, S., Gašević, D., &
Siemens, G. (2022). Rethinking the entwinement between artificial intelligence and
human learning: What capabilities do learners need for a world with AI? Computers
& Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, Article 100056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
caeai.2022.100056
Media Literacy Now. (2022). U.S. media literacy policy report 2021. Retrieved from htt
ps://medialiteracynow.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/MediaLiteracyPolic
yUpdate2021.pdf. (Accessed 30 March 2023).
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Miranda, H. P., & Russell, M. (2012). Understanding factors associated with teacher-
directed student use of technology in elementary classrooms: A structural equation
modeling approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 652–666.
Mitchell, L. (2016). Beyond digital citizenship. Middle grades review, 1(3), 1–8.
Mossberger, K. (2009). Toward digital citizenship. Addressing inequality in the
information age. In Routledge Handbook of internet politics (pp. 173–185). Routledge.
10
Teaching and Teacher Education 138 (2024) 104404
National Association for Media Literacy Education. (2007). Media literacy defined.
https://namle.net/publications/media-literacy-definitions. (Accessed 27 March
2023).
Ohler, J. (2012). Digital citizenship means character education for the digital age. The
Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 77(8), 14–17.
Örtegren, A. (2023). Philosophical underpinnings of digital citizenship through a
postdigital lens: Implications for teacher educators’ professional digital competence.
Education and Information Technologies, 1–33.
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010).
Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and
student needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321–1335.
Öztürk, G. (2021). Digital citizenship and its teaching: A literature review. Journal of
Educational Technology and Online Learning, 4(1), 31–45.
Pangrazio, L., & Sefton-Green, J. (2019). Platform pedagogies: Toward a research agenda
for young people and education. Journal of Design Science.
Phillips, A. L., & Lee, V. R. (2019). Whose responsibility is it?. In A statewide survey of
school librarians on responsibilities and resources for teaching digital citizenship (Vol. 22,
pp. 1–20) School Library Research.
Pilgrim, J., Vasinda, S., Bledsoe, C., & Martinez, E. (2019). Critical thinking is critical:
Octopuses, online sources, and reliability reasoning. The Reading Teacher, 73(1),
85–93.
Potter, W. J. (2010). The state of media literacy. Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 54(4),
675–696.
Potter, W. J. (2018). Media literacy. Sage Publications.
Potter, W. J. (2022). Analyzing the distinction between protectionism and empowerment
as perspectives on media literacy education. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 14
(3), 119–131.
Ragnedda, M., & Muschert, G. W. (2013). The digital divide. Routledge.
Ribble, M. (2015). Digital citizenship in schools: Nine elements all students should know.
International Society for Technology in Education.
Ribble, M. (2017). Digital citizenship: Using technology appropriately. http://www.dig
italcitizenship.net. (Accessed 15 March 2023).
Ribble, M. S., Bailey, G. D., & Ross, T. W. (2004). Digital citizenship: Addressing
appropriate technology behavior. Learning and Leading with Technology, 32(1), 6.
RobbGrieco, M. (2014). Why history matters for media literacy education. Journal of
Media Literacy Education, 6(2), 3–20.
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. In The coding manual
for qualitative researchers (pp. 1–440).
Sarwatay, D., Raman, U., & Ramasubramanian, S. (2021). Media literacy, social
connectedness, and digital citizenship in India: Mapping stakeholders on how
parents and young people navigate a social world. Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 3,
Article 601239.
Searson, M., Hancock, M., Soheil, N., & Shepherd, G. (2015). Digital citizenship within
global contexts. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 729–741.
Simsek, E., & Simsek, A. (2013). New literacies for digital citizenship. Contemporary
Educational Technology, 4, 126–137.
Syam, H. M., & Nurrahmi, F. (2020). “I don’t know if it is fake or real news” how little
Indonesian university students understand social media literacy. Jurnal Komunikasi:
Malaysian Journal of Communication, 36(2), 92–105.
Teschers, C., & Brown, C. (2019). Media literacy and digital citizenship in aotearoa new
zeland. In A. Kamp (Ed.), Education studies in Aotearoa: Key disciplines and emerging
directions (pp. 201–215). NZCER Press.
Vajen, B., Kenner, S., & Reichert, F. (2023). Digital citizenship education–Teachers’
perspectives and practices in Germany and Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 122, Article 103972.
Vromen, A. (2017). Digital citizenship and political engagement. In Digital citizenship and
political engagement. Interest groups, advocacy and democracy series. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Weninger, C., Hu, G., & Choo, S. S. (2017). The influence of individual and contextual
variables on teachers’ understanding and classroom practice of media literacy.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 429–439.
Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2019). Lateral reading and the nature of expertise: Reading
less and learning more when evaluating digital information. Teachers College Record,
121(11), 1–40.
Wood, B. E., Taylor, R., Atkins, R., & Johnston, M. (2018). Pedagogies for active
citizenship: Learning through affective and cognitive domains for deeper democratic
engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 259–267.
Zhang, Z., Li, J., Liu, F., & Miao, Z. (2016). Hong Kong and Canadian students
experiencing a new participatory culture: A teacher professional training project
undergirded by new media literacies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 146–158.
Zuboff, S. (2018). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new
frontier of power. Profile Books.