What is digital citizenship? In the writings of the past few weeks, some of us have touched on some aspects of digital citizenship (mainly on responsibility). In this week, we would explore further into this topic.
The definition of digital citizenship is emergent, which means it continues to be redefined and revised according to the unique ways that the Internet and digital media continues to shape our interactions and our engagement with others and with the world. According to Choi, Glassman, & Cristol (2017, p.100-101), in the information age, a digital citizen is expected to have “abilities to extend out into continuously expanding networks of information, to link together with new groups, to engage in online (and offline) civic activities that were once beyond the scope of everyday life.” It does not refer to any activities but civic activities? Then what are civic activities, or we say, civic engagement? Ehrlich stated in Civic Responsibility and Higher Education that civic engagement “means working to make a difference in the civic life of our communities and developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values and motivation to make that difference. It means promoting the quality of life in a community…”
Therefore, the question/inquiry for us is: how do digital technologies, like the Internet, play a role in civic engagement? That is, how can they play a role in developing the “combination of knowledge, skills, values and motivation to make a difference” in our local and global communities? Let’s examine digital citizenship this week and consider these things.
https://www.commonsense.org/education/digital-citizenship
After reading about digital citizenship, add a new post to this forum and address all of the following:
- In your own words, what is digital citizenship?
- In the Choi (2016) article you were assigned to read, he contends that digital citizenship is “a multidimensional and complex concept.” Explain what he means by this with support from the reading. That is, in what ways is it multidimensional and complex?
- Choi also asserts that digital citizenship has important implications for education. What are some of these implications?
**Continue to use the ABC method to guide your writing in your post to ensure your writing is substantive, robust, and sufficiently detailed. For each of the questions I have posed for you above:
A: Answer or address the question.
B: Back it up with evidence. Provide additional information to help support and explain. This can be references to this week’s readings, any other resources provided to you this week, or additional sources you seek out on your own.
C: Add your comments or perspectives about it. What do YOU think about it or what are YOUR thoughts on this issue?
Aim for at least 3 full paragraphs of writing in your post. You are welcome to craft your paragraphs in any way that makes the most sense to you. Or, if you need or would like more guidance for your writing, write one paragraph on each of the three bullet points above for a total of 3 full paragraphs.
Theory & Research in Social Education, 44: 565–607, 2016
Copyright © College and University Faculty Assembly of
National Council for the Social Studies
ISSN 0093-3104 print / 2163-1654 onlin
e
DOI: 10.1080/00933104.2016.1210549
A Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship
for Democratic Citizenship Education in the
Internet Age
Moonsun Choi
The Ohio State University
Abstract: Despite the importance of promoting socially responsible citizenship in the
Internet age, there is a paucity of research on how digital citizenship or digital citizens
might be defined and/or investigated. This study found 4 major categories that construct
digital citizenship: Ethics, Media and Information Literacy, Participation/Engagement,
and Critical
Resistance
. Based on these comprehensive and interconnected categories of
digital citizenship, the author argues that digital citizenship needs to be understood as a
multidimensional and complex concept in connection with an interrelated but non-linear
relationship with offline (place-based) civic lives
.
Keywords: concept analysis, critical resistance, digital citizenship, digital ethics, media
and information literacy, participation/engagement
I imagine one could say: “Why don’t you leave me alone?! I want no
part of your Internet, of your technological civilization, of your network
society! I just want to live my life!” Well, if this is your position, I have
bad news for you. If you do not care about the networks, the networks
will care about you, anyway. For as long as you want to live in society, at
this time and in this place, you will have to deal with the network society.
Because we live in the Internet Galaxy. (Castells, 2001, p. 282)
Correspondence should be sent to Moonsun Choi, Center on Education and Traini
ng
for Employment, The Ohio State University, 1900 Kenny Road, Columbus, OH 43210.
Email: choi.811@osu.edu
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.
tandfonline.com/utrs.
566 Choi
As Castells (2001) argued in his book, The Internet Galaxy, it is impossi-
ble to deny that we are living in a digitalized and networked society, even if
we fear and escape the often-negative influences of the Internet. For instance,
Internet trolls sometimes infiltrate online communities and then use their posts
to disrupt and ultimately destroy not only the community, but also specific
members (e.g., some subreddit communities). Digital warriors use the Internet
to influence and potentially recruit vulnerable users into extreme causes (e.g.,
the recruitment of adolescents by the Islamic State).
Web-based activities have affected the ways humans think, the ways they
communicate with others, and the way they generally participate in society
(DiMaggio, Hargittai, Neuman, & Robinson, 2001; Dutton, 2005; Glassman,
2012a; Palfrey & Gasser, 2013). Put another way, emerging digital media and
web-based networking environments allow people to adopt new perspectives
toward the self, the other, their community, and the world at large. In particu-
lar, for more digitally oriented generations, boundaries that differentiate online
and offline are becoming more transparent (Tapscott, 2008). At the same time,
many scholars across diverse fields have started to consider the Internet as pro-
genitor of new (cyber) spaces that empower individuals to actively engage in
civic life in ways closely related, and at times going beyond, traditional con-
ceptions of citizenship (Banaji & Buckingham, 2013; W. L. Bennett, Wells,
& Rank, 2009; Blevins, LeCompte, & Wells, 2013; Crowe, 2006; Makinen,
2006).
The issue of citizenship is particularly salient for social studies educators.
Going back almost a century, the issue of integrating a sense of citizenship
into school curricula has been a central, but at times a divisive, topic in edu-
cation (Fallace, 2009; Longstreet, 1985). In Democracy and Education, John
Dewey (1916) directly addressed “civic efficiency” or “good citizenship” based
on experience and political and social participation in one’s community as
one of the primary purposes of education. The central role citizenship plays
in social studies education makes it imperative that we understand how the
concept of citizenship is defined and reinterpreted in the Internet age. More
specifically, how can we define citizenship in the Internet era? Do we need
to have a different approach to citizenship more attuned to 21st-century tech-
nologies? Are previous notions of citizenship still applicable in a networked
and digitalized society? What are the similarities and differences between the
exiting understandings of citizenship we have brought with us from the 20th
century?
To begin the process of addressing these questions, this study uses a
concept analysis methodology (Rodgers, 1989) to explore and bring together
the different threads of citizenships that have been discussed and investi-
gated as the Internet has gained deeper penetration in the social fabric. I use
this methodology to identify major categories/elements that might comprise
a cohesive, well-defined concept of digital citizenship, taking into account
how these categories/elements have changed over the last decade. I hope this
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 567
analysis contributes to an expanding knowledge base regarding citizenship
that establishes a rigorous definition for 21st-century citizenship studies and
education and provides useful ideas for teaching citizenship in social studies
educatio
n.
THREE DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP
AND EDUCATION
This article builds on the understandings of existing knowledge and
conceptions of citizenship. I extend traditional and critical approaches to cit-
izenship, such as cultural/multicultural and global/cosmopolitan citizenship
to provide a rigorous definition of digital citizenship. The idea of open-source
intelligence suggests that individuals use crystallized, centripetal concepts as a
base from which to reach out to the faster moving, fluid information streams
of the Internet (Glassman & Kang, 2012). In much the same way, I see tradi-
tional and critical approaches to citizenship providing a firm base from which
students can experiment with the free flowing, often non-hierarchical and/or
non-linear approaches to online community and citizenship.
Traditional Approaches to Citizenship
The concept of citizenship is traditionally framed as a “nationally bounded
membership” (Fischman & Haas, 2012) or a “legal membership” (Banks, 2008)
in a nation-state. As a legislative term, the notion of citizenship provides people
living in these nation-states with certain civil, social, political, and economic
rights and responsibilities. The most important qualities for being a (good) cit-
izen from this perspective are to obey the laws and regulations, vote, and pay
taxes. This traditional approach to citizenship focusing on rights and respon-
sibilities was developed out of the emergence of the modern nation-state in
Western countries during the 17th century (Castles & Davidson, 2000). In a
period when territorial integrity of nation-states was important, their rela-
tive autonomy was fundamentally based on national citizenship. Nation-states
strived to provide their citizens with constructed homogeneous national cul-
tures. “Homogenization” was a key strategy of the nationalist project and an
“ideology of distinct and relatively autonomous national cultures,” pervasive
from the 17th through the 19th centuries (Castles & Davidson, 2000, p. 8).
Marshall’s (1964) three elements of citizenship (civil, political, and
social elements) are the widely accepted definition of traditional citizenship
(Banks, 2008). The civil elements consist of individual rights, such as freedom
of speech, thought and faith; the right to own property; and the right to
justice. The political elements offer citizens a chance to exercise power by
participating in the governing processes of the community. Finally, the social
568 Choi
elements are composed of economic welfare, security, and social heritage in
the national civic culture.
Similarly, there are two dominant perspectives of a contemporary concept
of citizenship (Dagger, 2002; Rogers, 2002; Schuck, 2002). The first is a civic
republican view, which puts an emphasis on participation in a political commu-
nity at a local, state, and/or national level. From this perspective, “cooperative
participation in pro-government activities” (Knight Abowitz & Harnish, 2006,
p. 657), such as voting, volunteering, and petitioning, are essential parts of
individual’s civic duties. The second is a liberal framework, which empha-
sizes individuals’ civil, social, political, and economic rights as the essential
elements of citizenship. In terms of these two dominant perspectives, the civic
republican perspective is often highlighted in citizenship education to promote
active citizens. Students are educated to national values and norms by learn-
ing responsibilities and obligations of being good citizens as part of classroom
activities (Castles & Davidson, 2000).
Critical Conceptions of Citizenship
Many scholars have challenged traditional conceptions of citizenship,
arguing that true citizenship is more closely related to identity and a sense
of community (Abu El-Haj, 2007; Banks, 2008; Ong, 1996; Osler & Starkey,
2003; Subedi, 2010). These scholars believe that even if traditional conceptions
of citizenship are universal and influential in the field of citizenship studies,
these perspectives do not include many ethnically, linguistically, religiously,
and culturally marginalized and oppressed peoples who are often denied full
rights of citizenship. Furthermore, these definitions do not include the phenom-
ena of multiculturalism (e.g., Banks, 2008; Ong, 1996; Rosaldo, 1997) and
globalization (e.g., Agbaria, 2011; Merryfield, Augustine, Choi, Harshman,
& McClimans, 2012; Pike, 2000), which are pervasive in the current soci-
ety. For these reasons, a number of educators and other researchers expand
understanding citizenship to cultural/multicultural and global/cosmopolitan
citizenship.
The issue of citizenship is complicated by increasing migrations across
national boundaries, leading to heterogeneous populations and cultural diver-
sity in nation-states. Cultural differences and social marginalization are often
interrelated, creating ethnic minority based groups with disadvantaged and rel-
atively isolated positions in society. Cultural citizenship is a theoretical lens to
understand these structural inequalities where dominant narratives of citizen-
ship generally serve the purposes of middle-class White males, while people
who differ from the majority population(s) in ethnicity, race, gender, sexual-
ity, religion, and age are marginalized and/or oppressed (Flores & Benmayor,
1997; Maria, 2005; Ong, 1996; Rosaldo, 1997). In terms of immigration,
transnational communities, and border crossings, it is certain that immigrant
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 569
and undocumented people can have different perspectives on their national
identities, belonging, and citizenship. Some scholars argue people need to
know who they are, what cultural elements contribute to their identities, how
their communities affect them, and what political issues are related to their
status to become active citizens (Abu El-Haj, 2007; Brayboy, 2005; Fresnoza-
Flot, 2009; Kim, 2000; Sone, 1979; Suarez-Orozco, Yoshikawa, Teranishi, &
Suarez-Orozco, 2011).
Global citizenship is shaped by recognizing an interdependent/
interconnected world and engaging with that world actively (Andrzejewski &
Alessio, 1999; Merryfield, Augustine et al., 2012). Because of capital and cul-
tural movement, as well as human immigration as a result of globalization,
global mindedness and consideration of global issues is increasingly empha-
sized in global citizenship studies. Some scholars focused on cosmopolitan
citizenship on the basis of global/international human rights (Benhabib, 2004;
Dower, 2003; Nussbaum & Cohen, 1996; Osler & Starkey, 2003). These schol-
ars argued that homogenous cultural characteristics of the nation-state are
important to national citizenship, while cosmopolitan citizenship including
cultural diversity, minority groups, and their belongings are the most salient
elements of global citizenship. Osler and Starkey (2003) explained that cos-
mopolitan citizenship is needed in a global context where diverse students can
recognize local, national, and global identities and value their own cultural
heritage and religious background.
In partial response to immigration and globalization, cultural/
multicultural and global/cosmopolitan citizenship have been increas-
ingly included in the discourse on citizenship. These expansive forms of
citizenship can be understood as critical citizenship because they represent
an attempt to critique the predetermined social construction of community
(Knight Abowitz & Harnish, 2006). This is closely in line with Banks’s (2008)
transformative citizenship, which is defined as an active citizen who challenges
the status quo and pursues social equality, as well as Westheimer and Kahne’s
(2004) justice-oriented citizen. Accordingly, a vast array of teaching/learning
strategies and resources that encourage students to become good citizens while
fostering critical mindsets are continuously being developed (e.g., Banks,
2008; Merryfield, Badang, et al., 2012; Pike, 2000).
Internet-Driven Approaches to Citizenship: Digital Citizenship
In addition to active and meaningful academic conversations regarding
what citizenship or citizenship education is needed in a multicultural and global
age, the information revolution of the late 20th and early 21st centuries has
brought various citizenship-related questions created by prevalent and bur-
geoning use of the Internet: What distinguishes digital citizenship from other
570 Choi
concepts of citizenship in the digital age (e.g., W. L. Bennett et al., 2009;
W. L. Bennett, Wells, & Freelon, 2011)? What role does the Internet play as
a tool for civic engagement (e.g., Mossberger, 2009; Mossberger, Tolbert, &
McNeal, 2008; VanFossen, 2006)? How can teachers promote the development
of informed and engaged digital citizens in the Internet age (e.g, Blevins et al.,
2013; Crowe, 2006)?
To a large extent, studies of citizenship in connection with the Internet
have tended to bifurcate. On one side, researchers have focused mostly on
reinterpreting citizenship, using existing concepts of predominantly cultural
citizenship (Goode, 2010; Hermes, 2006; Pajnik, 2005) to develop additional
layers of citizenship, which can be more applicable to the Internet age. These
scholars have examined how cultural citizenship can play a role in modern
media society or Internet-based communication. On the other side are scholars
who acknowledge that the Internet is pervasive in human activity, including
civic activities. These scholars have started to use a new term, digital citizen-
ship, that is often defined as “the norms of appropriate and responsible behavior
with regard to technology use” (Ribble, 2004, p. 7) or “the ability to participate
in society online” (Mossberger et al., 2008, p. 1).
However, there are few digital citizenship studies in education, espe-
cially social studies education, which is where citizenship studies often find
their home (L. Bennett & Fessenden, 2006; M. J. Berson & Berson, 2004;
Blevins et al., 2013; Crowe, 2006; Hicks, van Hover, Washington, & Lee, 2011;
Nebel, Jamison, & Bennett, 2009; VanFossen, 2006). Many studies focused on
strategies for integrating new information technologies into classrooms (e.g.,
Franklin & Molebash, 2007; Hostetler, 2012), such as providing helpful and
useful information, such as relevant websites and online resources, that can
be utilized in everyday teaching practices. In particular, Hicks, Lee, Berson,
Bolick, and Diem (2014) provided and revised specific and concrete guidelines
for using technologies to augment civic practices for social studies teachers.
Recently flipped classroom or gamification has been emphasized in teaching
and learning in many domains (Educational Technology and Mobile Learning,
2014). However, these types of studies often do not provide rationalizations for
why students and teachers should use Internet-based technologies, especially
relating to lifelong learning. Additionally, researchers often fail to identify the
types of knowledge and skills that help teachers and students think critically
and act responsibly beyond general discussions of effective use of the Internet
and technology.
To gain an expanded knowledge baseline and provide comprehensive
categories of digital citizenship for better 21st-century civic education, this
study examines how the concept of digital citizenship has been defined, used,
and practiced during the past 10 years. This effort will hopefully help in
identifying ultimate goals for citizenship education in the information age
while supporting underlying themes and specific ideas of teaching digital
citizenship.
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 571
Concept Analysis
A concept analysis method was used to address two research questions:
(1) What elements might constitute a cohesive concept of digital citizenship?
and (2) How has the notion of digital citizenship evolved over the past 10 years?
A concept analysis is an effective method to identify key attributes of a concept
and to provide clarity for abstract constructs or those that are unclear in use.
It is regarded as a significant type of inquiry to expand existing knowledge in
a certain discipline (Rodgers, 1989; Walker & Avant, 2011).
Wilson (1963) pioneered development of specific steps as methodological
guidelines for high school students to easily analyze concepts while improving
cognitive and writing skills. Although establishing a rigorous concept analy-
sis method was not Wilson’s intent, his work was widely adopted by Chinn
and Kramer (1991), Rodgers (1989), and Walker and Avant (2011) as part
of nursing education and research (Hupcey, Morse, Lenz, & Tasón, 1996).
However, Rodgers especially criticized other scholars for failing to recognize
that concepts are dynamic, flexible, and changeable, presenting her method as
an evolutionary approach to concept analysis. She suggested that concepts are
context dependent so that they change over time in reference to their social and
cultural contexts. Rodgers differentiated her method from other Wilsonians in
three ways: systematic sample selection using multiple data sources, qualita-
tive approach to data analysis, and identification of related terms of the concept
being analyzed (Hupcey et al., 1996). Using Rodgers’s approach, the specific
procedure of this study is as follows:
1. Identify and name the concept of interest,
2. Identify surrogate terms and relevant uses of the concept,
3. Identify and select an appropriate realm (sample) for data collection,
4. Identify the elements of the concept, and
5. Identify concepts that are related to the concept of interest.
More detailed information of each step is provided under the following
search parameters section. Additionally, in the current concept analysis, a tree
diagram was used to classify the elements of the concept for the fourth step,
and a more cohesive and comprehensive definition of digital citizenship was
produced after the concept analysis was completed.
Given that a concept plays a significant role in understanding its meaning
in a certain discipline, if the elements or features of concepts are not clearly
identified, it is difficult to build knowledge. Therefore, a concept analysis
regarding digital citizenship can be considered as an important methodology
for developing the constructs leading to better citizenship education. Since the
main goal of this study was to examine how the concept of digital citizenship is
572 Choi
constructed and how elements/categories of digital citizenship have changed,
Rodgers’s (1989) evolutionary approach to concept analysis was deemed the
most appropriate for this study.
Search Parameters
Addressing the digital citizenship related terms. Although the concept
of digital citizenship was the primary term of analysis, several other terms
regarding citizenship in connection with the Internet were also used. Based on
citizenship studies (L. Bennett & Fessenden, 2006; Coleman, 2006; Longford,
2005), I found six digital citizenship related terms: online citizenship, cyber
citizenship, e-citizenship, networked citizenship, technological citizenship, and
Internet citizenship.
Searching the data. An online search of multiple databases (EBSCO,
ERIC, and Google Scholar) was conducted using keywords listed above until
the available data sources were depleted. The study used seven search terms
(digital citizenship along with the six terms identified above) in conjunction
with Internet and citizenship. I found 254 data sources in the first search, and
detailed analytical notes were recorded.
Establishing the criteria for inclusion and exclusion. English-language
journal articles and/or book chapters published in the fields of education,
political science, and communication/journalism were selected because digital
citizenship studies have been actively pursued in these fields. To gain multiple
data sources, official websites and blogs and news articles dealing with digital
citizenship from 2003 to 2014 were also included. The year 2003 was used as
a starting point for this study because some important incidents that affect the
way in which Internet-related social interactions and communication occurred
around that time: Facebook was launched in 2004; Twitter was initiated in
2006; 4chan, regarded as Internet subculture for anonymous groups posting
and discussing manga and animations was launched in 2003; and Reddit, a
major platform for sharing and discussing social news with the slogan of “The
front page of the Internet” was started in 2005.
Book reviews, along with literature lacking a definition of digital citizen-
ship, were excluded for this study. However, literature that illustrated a new
meaning of citizenship as a result of the advent of the Internet and digital tech-
nologies was included, even though the term digital citizenship not directly
used in the text. As a result, 30 articles, six white papers, four book chapters,
and 17 blogs/websites were qualitatively analyzed.
Coding and analyzing data. I used five categories for coding the data
set: (1) author, (2) publication year, (3) title, (4) data sources (journal article,
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 573
book chapter, white paper, news article, blog, and website), and (5) texts
indicating meanings of digital citizenship (see coding example in Table 1).
I carefully read through all collected documents at least three times, using an
iterative process to abstract out main elements of explicit as well as implicit
definitions and/or explanations of digital citizenship from the text. A tree
diagram was created to group the elements into relevant themes. An expert
in Internet-infused education examined these emerging sub-themes for inter-
rater reliability. Disagreements resulted in elements that were re-examined and
reclassified. After agreement was achieved, relevant sub-themes were com-
bined into a general category. Two experts in citizenship education were then
asked to verify if each category was reasonable.
Four Categories of the Concept of Digital Citizenship
Retrieved texts from the established literature and online data defined,
explained, and practiced the concept of digital citizenship in four ways:
digital citizenship as Ethics, Media and Information Literacy (MIL),
Participation/Engagement (P/E), and Critical Resistance (CR). These cate-
gories emerged through an iterative process as I continuously searched through
the texts for common threads. Each category will be briefly defined and
elaborated through its primary sub-themes.
Digital citizenship as ethics. Digital citizenship as ethics refers to how
Internet users appropriately, safely, ethically, and responsibly engage in
Internetworking activities (see examples in Table 2 and detailed elements in
). This perspective recognizes virtual communities (Rheingold,
1993) as new spaces where people live, interact, and communicate with each
other on a regular basis. Many educators were relatively more interested in this
category, highlighting the fact that responsible and safe behavior online should
be a serious topic in education (e.g., I. R. Berson & Berson, 2003; CyberWise,
2014; International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2007; Lenhart
et al., 2011; Ribble, 2004; Ribble & Bailey, 2007; Winn, 2012). Three major
sub-themes of this category were found: safe, responsible, and ethical use of
technology and the Internet; digital awareness; and digital responsibilities and
rights.
First, a representative sub-theme in the Digital Ethics category was “safe,
responsible, and ethical use of technology and the Internet.” According to defi-
nitions offered by Ribble (2004) and ISTE (
2007)
, good digital citizens need to
know norms and/or values regarding appropriate and effective use of tech-
nology and/or the Internet. Second, “digital awareness” was considered as
an important sub-theme of the Digital Ethics category. Several studies have
T
ab
le
1.
C
od
in
g
E
xa
m
pl
e
A
ut
ho
rs
Y
ea
r
T
it
le
D
at
a
so
ur
ce
M
ai
n
te
xt
s
an
al
yz
ed
E
m
er
gi
n
g
th
em
es
A
fs
ha
r
20
13
D
ig
it
al
ci
ti
ze
ns
hi
p
B
lo
g
po
st
•
E
du
ca
to
rs
ha
ve
fa
ce
d
a
ch
al
le
ng
e
si
m
il
ar
to
bu
si
ne
ss
es
re
ga
rd
in
g
th
e
us
e
of
te
ch
no
lo
g
y
an
d
th
e
In
te
rn
et
;u
nf
et
te
re
d
st
ud
en
ta
cc
es
s
ca
n
br
in
g
m
aj
or
b
e
ne
fi
ts
by
dr
am
at
ic
al
ly
en
ha
nc
in
g
le
ar
ni
ng
an
d
cr
ea
ti
vi
ty
,b
ut
it
co
m
es
at
th
e
ri
sk
of
co
m
pr
o
m
is
ed
pr
iv
ac
y,
co
py
ri
gh
ti
nf
ri
ng
em
en
t,
cy
be
r
bu
ll
yi
ng
,
pl
ag
ia
ri
sm
,a
nd
ex
po
su
re
to
in
ap
pr
op
ri
at
e
co
nt
en
t;
th
e
co
nc
ep
to
f
di
gi
ta
lc
it
iz
en
sh
ip
w
as
cr
ea
te
d
to
ad
dr
es
s
th
is
si
tu
at
io
n.
•
R
es
po
ns
ib
le
be
ha
vi
or
on
li
ne
B
ec
ta
20
10
D
ig
it
al
li
te
ra
cy
W
hi
te
pa
pe
r
•
D
ig
it
al
ci
ti
ze
ns
hi
p
m
ea
ns
be
in
g
di
gi
ta
ll
y
li
te
ra
te
an
d
ha
vi
ng
th
e
co
m
bi
na
ti
on
of
sk
il
ls
,
kn
ow
le
dg
e
an
d
un
de
rs
ta
nd
in
g
th
at
yo
un
g
pe
op
le
ne
ed
to
le
ar
n
be
fo
re
th
ey
ca
n
pa
rt
ic
ip
at
e
fu
ll
y
an
d
sa
fe
ly
in
an
in
cr
ea
si
ng
ly
di
gi
ta
lw
or
ld
.
•
H
ig
he
r
le
ve
ls
of
cr
it
ic
al
th
in
ki
ng
sk
il
ls
•
T
hi
s
ar
ra
y
of
sk
il
ls
,k
no
w
le
dg
e,
an
d
un
de
rs
ta
nd
in
g
is
a
ke
y
co
m
po
ne
nt
of
th
e
pr
im
ar
y
an
d
se
co
nd
ar
y
cu
rr
ic
ul
um
an
d
sh
ou
ld
be
in
co
rp
or
at
ed
i
n
th
e
te
ac
hi
ng
of
al
l
su
bj
ec
ts
at
al
ll
ev
el
s.
574
•
E
vi
de
nc
e
ha
s
sh
ow
n
th
at
w
hi
le
m
an
y
yo
un
g
pe
op
le
fe
el
co
nfi
de
nt
ab
ou
tu
si
ng
te
ch
no
lo
gy
,t
hi
s
do
es
no
ta
lw
ay
s
tr
an
sl
at
e
in
to
co
m
pe
te
nc
e;
th
is
is
pa
rt
ic
ul
ar
ly
ap
pa
re
nt
in
re
la
ti
on
to
“h
ig
he
r
le
ve
l”
cr
it
ic
al
th
in
ki
ng
sk
il
ls
,e
.g
.,
aw
ar
en
es
s
of
co
m
m
er
ci
al
st
ra
te
gi
es
or
bi
as
in
th
e
m
ed
ia
.
B
en
ne
tt
et
al
.
20
09
Y
ou
ng
ci
ti
ze
ns
an
d
ci
vi
c
le
ar
ni
ng
Jo
ur
na
l
ar
ti
cl
e
•
A
ct
ua
li
zi
ng
ci
ti
ze
n:
(1
)
w
ea
k
se
ns
e
of
du
ty
to
pa
rt
ic
ip
at
e
in
go
ve
rn
m
en
t;
(2
)
fo
cu
se
s
on
li
fe
st
yl
e
po
li
ti
cs
—
po
li
ti
ca
lc
on
su
m
er
is
m
,
vo
lu
nt
ee
ri
ng
,s
oc
ia
la
ct
iv
is
m
(m
or
e
pe
rs
on
al
ly
ex
pr
es
si
ve
or
se
lf
-a
ct
ua
li
zi
ng
po
li
ti
cs
);
(3
)
m
is
tr
us
to
f
m
ed
ia
of
m
ed
ia
an
d
po
li
ti
ci
an
s,
le
ss
li
ke
ly
to
fo
ll
ow
po
li
ti
cs
in
th
e
ne
w
s;
(4
)
jo
in
s
lo
os
e
ne
tw
or
ks
fo
r
so
ci
al
ac
ti
on
,c
om
m
un
ic
at
es
th
ro
ug
h
di
gi
ta
lm
ed
ia
.
•
L
if
es
ty
le
po
li
ti
cs
(m
ic
ro
-w
ay
s
of
po
li
ti
ca
le
ng
ag
em
en
t)
575
576 Choi
Table 2. Excerpts From the Texts in Digital Citizenship as Ethics
Texts analyzed Emerging theme Coded terms
“The project starts with a data collection
phase, during which exploratory,
quantitative and qualitative studies are
conducted to then produce
evidence-based communication
materials to raise awareness on the
optimal and safe use of the Information
and Communication Technologies
(ICTs).” (Unicef, 2011)
Safe and ethical use
of technology
Ethics (E)
“Students will require awareness that
online behaviors can impact people
within their immediate circle of friends
but also outside of that circle.
Additionally, student digital behaviors
can impact their own personal social
dynamics, personal resources, careers,
and safety.” (Hollandsworth et al.,
2011, p. 38)
Digital awareness
“A good digital citizen will experience
the advantages of the digital world but
like a citizen of a nation, they will be
identifiable, speak using the
appropriate language, serve his or her
duty to judge what is appropriate
within the laws of the land and ethical
behavior, uphold their social
responsibilities and be virtuous.”
(Educational Origami,
2014)
Digital
responsibilities and
rights
focused on the idea that digital citizens need to be aware of political, social,
cultural, economic, and educational issues that stem from the pervasive use
of digital technologies in their everyday lives (I. R. Berson & Berson, 2003;
Hollandsworth, Dowdy, & Donovan, 2011; Ohler, 2012; Ribble, 2004). I. R.
Berson and Berson (2003) pointed out that this topic should be added into
existing social studies curricula to educate students to become effective citizens
in the 21st century. From a more critical perspective, Longford (2005) argued
that digital citizens should understand how codes constructed and designed
for Internet/web activities regulate and influence peoples’ behaviors, activities,
and lives online.
Third, “digital rights and responsibilities” have also been highlighted as
a central part of ethical and responsible behaviors on the Internet (Coleman,
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 577
2006; Common Sense Media, 2009; Ohler, 2012; Ribble & Bailey, 2007). For
example, it is pointed out that rights to free speech; protecting privacy; intellec-
tual property; copyright protection; and respecting self, others, and community,
including reporting cyberbullies and harms, are important issues that should
be included in Internet-infused educational contexts. Similar to traditional
approaches to citizenship, scholars see a digital citizen as a full member of
an online community and believe digital citizens should protect their own and
others’ rights and obligations in ways that transcend geographical, cultural, and
class boundaries.
Digital citizenship as MIL. Digital citizenship as MIL denotes ones’ abil-
ities to access, use, create, and evaluate information and to communicate with
others online (see examples in Table 3 and detailed elements in Appendix
B). The title of this category is drawn from the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (Moeller, Joseph, Lau, & Carbo, 2011)
definition of MIL, which outlines critical skills and competencies of media and
information as central to productive online activity. As opposed to traditional
perspectives on literacy that are generally defined as print based, functional,
cognitive, and decontexualized reading and writing skills (Alvermann, 2009;
Table 3. Excerpts From the Texts in Digital Citizenship as Media and Information
Literacy
Texts analyzed Emerging theme Coded terms
“What does it mean to be a digital citizen?
Participation in society online requires
regular access to information technology
and the effective use of technology.”
(Mossberger, 2009, p. 173)
Internet access Media and
Information
Literacy
(MIL)
“The authors contend that becoming a
digital citizen is a process influenced by
technological attitudes that may have the
effect of widening the digital gap; in turn,
racial and educational differences may
have independent effects.” (Shelley et al.,
2004, p. 259)
Technical skills
“New literacies are prerequisite for digital
citizenship. New literacies increase the
availability of relevant and credible
information and broaden the capacity of
individuals to get, share, compare, and
contextualize information by developing
new skills.” (Simsek & Simsek, 2013,
p. 133)
Psychological
capabilities
578 Choi
Venezky, 1995), MIL includes “abilities to recognize the need for information
and knowing how to access, evaluate, synthesize, and communicate” (Moeller
et al., 2011, p. 32). MIL also embraces the process of critical analysis of a wide
variety of forms, such as print, audio, video, and multimedia (Hobbs & Jensen,
2009). In school-based contexts, critiquing mass media texts, such as movies
and advertisements, is commonly used to promote media literacy. Sometimes
MIL includes critique of the social power and politics that is embedded in
digital media so that students can recognize the voices of those who produce
the information along with awareness of those whose voices cannot be heard
through the applications (Alvermann & Hagood, 2000; Buckingham, 2007;
New Media Consortium, 2005). The data from this category show three pri-
mary sub-themes: digital access, technical skills as lower levels of MIL, and
psychological capabilities as higher levels of MIL.
“Digital access,” or the digital divide, is one of the main concerns of MIL
(e.g., Moeller et al., 2011; Mossberger, 2009; Mossberger et al., 2008; Ribble,
2004, 2009; Ribble & Bailey, 2007). Some researchers argued that effective
and efficient accessibility to the Internet is a fundamental component to full
participation in online societies. There is a huge gap between people who have
easy, reliable Internet access and those who have limited or no Internet access
(Mossberger, 2009; Mossberger et al., 2008; Shelley, Shulman, Lang, Beisser,
& Mutiti, 2004). Race, ethnicity, age, and educational levels are considered as
significant predictors of Internet access (Shelley et al., 2004).
Simply having Internet access does not necessarily mean the individual is
using the Internet effectively and successfully. MIL also includes “technical
skills,” which represent an instrumental perspective on literacies and compe-
tencies, such as how to use new digital technologies, computers, smart phones,
and/or tablet PCs (e.g., d’Haenens, Koeman, & Saeys, 2007; Mossberger,
2009; Mossberger et al., 2008; Ohler, 2012; Shelley et al., 2004; Simsek
& Simsek, 2013). These skills serve as prerequisites for advanced Internet
activities.
A good deal of the literature on Internet-infused education and citizenship
has considered many different “psychological capabilities as higher levels of
MIL” (e.g., ISTE, 2007; Marcinek, 2013; Ohler, 2012; Ribble, 2004; Ribble
& Bailey, 2007; Simsek & Simsek, 2013). Scholars emphasize such abilities
as how to assess information, critically read and write online, and express
themselves online beyond simple technical proficiencies (Hobbs & Jensen,
2009; Salpeter, 2008). Due to technological developments, such as multime-
dia, readable/writable web (e.g., wikis), and various other digital applications,
21st-century literacy is considered within a framework of multimodality activi-
ties that use sound, visual images, including video, and text for communication
(Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001). From this perspective, researchers assert that
students need to be equipped with specific abilities, skills, and competences,
including cognitive-intellectual abilities to select, classify, analyze, interpret,
and understand data critically (e.g., I. R. Berson & Berson, 2003; Hicks et al.,
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 579
2011; Salpeter, 2008; Simsek & Simsek, 2013); socio-communicative abilities
to communicate/network with others, share photo/videos, or exchange ideas
through blogs, podcasts, and/or online discussion forums (e.g., d’Haenens
et al., 2007; Simsek & Simsek, 2013); and emotional abilities to learn how to
control negative feelings or sympathize with others’ emotions (e.g., Marcinek,
2013; Simsek & Simsek, 2013).
Digital citizenship as P/E. Digital citizenship as P/E introduces different
types of online engagement, including political, socio-economic, and cultural
participation (see examples in Table 4 and detailed elements in Appendix
C). Two major sub-themes of this category were identified through the liter-
ature: political participation as a macro-form of engagement and personalized
participation as a micro-form of engagement.
One dominant sub-theme in P/E is “political participation” as a macro-
form of engagement, including economic participation. The political-oriented
perspective regards the Internet as a new type of public sphere for discussion of
and/or deliberation on political policy or as a tool to increase voting rates and
voting participation. Using social network sites for elections and communicat-
ing between representatives and the public has become a general phenomenon
of the burgeoning information age (Lee, 2009; Raoof, Zaman, Ahmad, & Al-
Qaraghuli, 2013). Government-related participation, including e-voting and
online petition for e-democracy, is regarded as an important type of engage-
ment in digital citizenship (e.g., L. Bennett & Fessenden, 2006; Crowe, 2006;
VanFossen, 2006).
“Personalized forms of participation” is a second important sub-theme
in P/E. Some studies acknowledge that online activities do not have to be
directly political in nature, with many younger users engaging in transac-
tional Internet activities in more personal, interest-driven ways (W. L. Bennett
et al., 2009; Kahne, Lee, & Feezell, 2013; Lenhart et al., 2011). For exam-
ple, W. L. Bennett et al. (2009) challenged the idea of conventional civic
learning practices in political activities, claiming it is imperative to also
understand online civic life on the basis of games, popular culture, and self-
expression, the types of participation capable of transcending dichotomies
between “private and public, commercial and civic” (p. 117). In a simi-
lar vein, Earl and Schussman (2008) and Tatarchevskiy (2011) suggested
youth culture and popular culture, including entertainment-related petition-
ing and Internet activism with regard to poverty, as a more personal form
of online activism. Lenhart et al. (2011) also illustrated how gaming can
be a form of civic engagement, focusing on the civic nature of many gam-
ing experiences. These scholars regard the Internet as a cultural tool and
emphasize the role(s) played by interest-driven online participation. Given
that youths are more familiar with micro-forms of the civic engagement
based on their immediate culture and everyday activities, these studies clearly
580 Choi
Table 4. Excerpts From the Texts in Digital Citizenship as Participation/Engagement
Texts analyzed Emerging theme Coded terms
“Citizenship means more than behaving
responsibly, it also means that we should be
civically engaged: voting, keeping current
and having our voice in political matters, and
contributing to society. To this end, we need
to get accurate information, and decide the
verity of political messages that surround us.
This same pro-active attitude and behavior
also applies to the digital environment.
Technology enables us to research
significant social issues and to voice our
opinions to a global audience.” (Farmer,
2011)
Political
engagement
Participation/
Engagement
(P/E)
“Digital commerce is often the most difficult
element of digital citizenship for educators
to address in the classroom. Teachers may
believe it is not their responsibility to teach
students to be informed, careful consumers
(except in certain business courses).
However, online purchasing has become an
important factor in students’ lives. Learning
to become an intelligent consumer is an
important aspect of good citizenship.”
(Ribble & Bailey, 2007, p. 16)
Economic
engagement
“Recent bright spots point to the increased use
of narratives and gaming. This is no surprise.
If engagement is about sustaining action and
involvement beyond one-off events, then
engagement will naturally take the form of
stories or games. They provide meaningful
structures for sustained actions.” (Knight
Foundation, 2012, p. 10)
Cultural
engagement
“Actualizing citizen: 1) Weak sense of duty to
participate in government, 2) Focus on
lifestyle politics: political consumerism,
volunteering, social activism (more
personally expressive or self-actualizing
politics), 3) Mistrust of media of media and
politicians—less likely to follow politics in
the news, 4) Joins loose networks for social
action—communicates through digital
media.” (W. L. Bennett et al., 2009, p. 107)
Personalized
engagement
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 581
demonstrate that young adults are perhaps more likely to perform non-
political and micro-ways of participation in the process of becoming online
citizens.
Digital citizenship as CR. Digital citizenship as CR takes more progres-
sive and radical viewpoints than P/E. However, the division between P/E
and CR is not always clear cut, as both are related to active, goal-driven
participation in virtual communities (see examples in Table 5 and detailed
elements in
). P/E suggests legitimate participation options in
existing systems or events online or one-click activism, such as signing online
petitions or pushing a “like” button on Facebook. CR pursues more creative,
innovative, non-linear, and non-hierarchal forms of participation, potentially
leading to a deeper level of digital engagement. This category is reminiscent
of Banks’s (2008) conceptions of transformative citizens who take action to
achieve social justice and challenge the status quo. Two major sub-themes were
found: critique of the existing power structures and political activism.
“Critique of the existing power structure” is regarded as a first step
for CR. Longford (2005) claimed true digital citizenship in the Internet
age should entail the “capacity to resist and reshape-to hack” (p. 2), high-
lighting the hacker’s values of “decentralization, openness, transparency,
consensus, flexibility, universal accessibility, anti-commercialism, and anti-
authoritarianism” (p. 5). For instance, hacktivists (a portmanteau of hack and
activists) sometimes develop open-source approaches to goal-oriented online
Table 5. Excerpts From the Texts in Digital Citizenship as Critical Resistance
Texts analyzed Emerging theme Coded terms
“Digital citizenship should involves a broad
conception of politics that embraces
traditional questions of power, inequality,
organisation and ideology, but does not
exclude everyday political experience,
such as the negotiation of feelings and
sensitivities, the governance of spaces and
relationships, the nature and political
status of children, adults and youth, and
the many intersections between popular
culture and power.” (Coleman, 2006,
p. 261)
Recognition of power
structure
Critical
Resistance
(CR)
“Egypt’s wired revolutionary generation
who challenge the status quo and want
educational reform using social media.”
(Herrera, 2012, p. 340)
Resistance
582 Choi
communities (e.g., Linux) in order to circumvent government and/or corpo-
rate control of the Internet experience (Glassman, 2013; Kahn & Kellner,
2004). Coleman (2006) also criticized current digital citizenship and citizen-
ship education initiatives that simply reinforce students’ exposure to controlled
situations dominated by an authoritative voice and/or practice political simu-
lations in highly managed virtual worlds. He asserted that digital citizenship
should embrace “traditional questions of power, inequality, organization and
ideology” (p. 261).
“Political activism,” the second sub-theme of CR, can be associated with
recent epoch-making incidents, such as the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall
Street. Digital citizens use the Internet as a tool to challenge inequality and
to transform society through grassroots movements and activist networks
(DeLuca, Lawson, & Sun, 2012; Glassman, 2012b; Mansour, 2012). For
instance, Herrera (2012) pointed out the potentials of a younger Egyptian
generation actively engaging in politics, using social media to pursue deep
democracy and challenge previously unchallengeable institutional power struc-
tures. Similar to the ways multicultural citizenship challenges White-male
dominant perspectives by including marginalized voices into citizenship dis-
course, CR can help digital citizens recognize the unequal power relations,
challenge the status quo, and re-claim democratic processes for marginalized
citizens.
As a response to the second research question, how the notion of digital
citizenship has evolved over the past 10 years, this section will examine what
sorts of changes, if any, that have occurred in each category. Since only a few
distinctive changes have been identified, the results will be provided as a whole
rather than using separate subsections.
Digital citizenship as Ethics has been an important topic in the extant
literature between 2003 and 2014 (
). This category generally
maintains legislative, regulative, top-down-oriented, legal, and protective per-
spectives of digital citizenship over time. Much attention was given to the
role(s) of individual users between 2003 and 2011, while greater considera-
tion was given to transactional community between 2012 and 2014. Scholars
have recently shown a greater interest in such issues as developing better
relationships with others, not harming others, and/or how to make a bet-
ter world through collective efforts in cyberspace (e.g., Davis, 2013; Ohler,
2012). The concept of digital citizenship has started to integrate related
such issues as mutual respect, preventing cyber bullying, creating safe com-
munities in an online world, and being aware of community and global
responsibilities when using social network sites. For example, Ohler (2012)
argued digital citizens should “balance the individual empowerment of digital
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 583
technology with a sense of personal, community, and global responsibility”
(p. 14). In sum, there is a common aspect of regulative abilities, but there
has been a move from individual-centered perspectives to social relation-
ships and community-oriented viewpoints in Digital Ethics. Some of this
may be in reaction to Internet-influenced socio-political events, such as the
Arab Spring, as well as emerging non-hierarchical discussion forums, such
as Reddit.
The second category, MIL, has been extensively studied over the last
10 years (
). The issue of digital access was periodically empha-
sized through 2011. There was an early focus on lower MIL skills and basic
hardware-centered skills, such as computer proficiency (Shelley et al., 2004),
while web-based skills, such as effective use of the Internet, were addressed
later (Mossberger, 2009). Psychological capabilities related to higher levels of
MIL were repeatedly studied between 2003 and 2014. Beyond functional liter-
acy skills such as how to read and write online (L. Bennett & Fessenden, 2006),
cognitive, communicative, and social skills have been discussed a number of
times, particularly after 2009.
There have been only a few changes in P/E discussions (
).
The term civic engagement is generally used. However, political engagement
is also often used, while economic, social, and cultural online participation has
rarely been discussed over the past 10 years. The most noticeable change to
P/E was that individualized ways of participation have been more frequently
identified since 2009. For example, young adults today are more interested in
“self-actualizing” styles of civic engagement, such as communicative, interac-
tive, and networked activities through using participatory media (W. L. Bennett
et al., 2009, p. 107).
Digtial citizenship as CR is directly connected to only three studies in
2005, 2006, and 2012. The discourse of CR tends to remain on the margins,
particularly between 2007 and 2011 (
). As it is difficult to chal-
lenge common-sense ideas and the status quo and/or to confront authority
(Kumashiro, 2004), it is likely that activities of hackers or other anonymous
groups are considered threatening on- and offline. However, after Occupy
Wall Street and the Arab Spring, more attention has been given to grassroots
movements using social network sites to achieve goals (DeLuca et al., 2012).
A Multidimensional and Complex Concept of Digital Citizenship
According to the results of the concept analysis, four categories of digital
citizenship were identified as being central to the concept of digital citi-
zenship: Digital Ethics refers to responsible behavior on the Internet; MIL
concerns Internet access, technological skills, and psychological capabilities
584 Choi
Political, economic,
cultural engagement
Personalized
participation
Critique of the exsiting
power structure
Political activism
Digital access
Technical skills
Psychological capability
Ethical use of technology
Digital awareness
Digital responsibilities &
rights
Ethics
(E)
Media and
Information
Literacy
(MIL)
Participation/
Engagement
(P/E)
Critical
Resistance
(CR)
Figure 1. Four Categories of Digital Citizenship
for using the Internet to successfully communicate with others online; P/E
signifies political, economic, cultural participation in existing social struc-
tures; and CR denotes more critical participation challenging the status quo
and promoting social justice via the Internet (Figure 1). Although the four
categories are comprised of their own characteristics, they are not always dis-
tinctive when compared with other categories because digital citizenship is
rarely considered along a single dimension. Moreover, there have been few
truly substantive and distinguishing changes in these categories over the last
decade. Possible reasons could be that the pervasive use of the Internet and its
application in formal educational settings is relatively new, and deeper stud-
ies concerning the relationship between the Internet, citizenship, and education
are rare.
Based on the results, this study partially responds to each of the four ques-
tions posited at the beginning of this article. First, citizenship in the Internet
era can be referred to as digital citizenship, including abilities, thinking, and
action regarding Internet use, which allows people to understand, navigate,
engage in, and transform self, community, society, and the world. This defini-
tion implies its multifaceted, interrelated, critical, and global characteristics in
line with Knight Abowitz and Harnish’s (2006) critical citizenship and Banks’s
(2008) transformative citizenship. Being a good digital citizen is not just partic-
ipating in pre-existing communities but also creating new and different types
of communities and/or sometimes transforming the community, society, and
world when social injustice happens online and offline.
Second, digital citizenship needs to be understood as a multidimensional
phenomenon more attuned to the burgeoning uses of digital technology
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 585
in everyday activities. The established studies on digital technologies, the
Internet, and citizenship tend to examine digital citizenship as a unidimen-
sional concept. For example, from an educational perspective, some argued
that when students learn online etiquette and communication skills, they
become good digital citizens (e.g., Hicks et al., 2011; Ribble & Bailey, 2007;
Winn, 2012), and from a political perspective, some claim digital citizen-
ship is promoted when students participate in political events (e.g., Citron &
Norton, 2011; Coleman, 2006). However, without knowing social and politi-
cal issues along with abilities to effectively use digital technologies, it would
be difficult to actively engage in online civic activities. Consequently, dig-
ital citizenship should be conceptualized as being a multilayered concept
that might lead students toward inclusive and comprehensive perspectives of
citizenship.
Third, digital citizenship is different but not separate from the previous
notions of citizenship that rely on offline civic lives. Cyberspace is no longer
a new and mysterious space. Rather, it is where we think, feel, behave, and
experience on a daily basis in connection with mixed offline and online partici-
pation. Therefore, online activities are not limited to use of the Internet but are
also closely related to place-based communities (Castells, 2001; Glassman &
Burbidge, 2014). Put another way, the previous conceptions of citizenship are
significant milestones in examining the notion of digital citizenship, and they
remain still useful and applicable in development and understanding of digital
citizenship in the information age.
Finally, digital citizenship has been constructed in the seamless web of
three shared elements of citizenship: social responsibility (e.g., M. J. Berson
& Berson, 2004; Dagger, 2002; Osler & Starkey, 2003), being well-informed
on issues (e.g., Merryfield, Augustine et al., 2012; Salpeter, 2008), and active
engagement (e.g., Banks, 2008; Coleman, 2006), which are also key aspects of
previous approaches to citizenship.
An understanding of digital citizenship based in the four categories repre-
sented in this study suggests it is beneficial to take various other approaches to
citizenship into account while still recognizing the unique qualities the Internet
is having on everyday civic life. These findings, however, are constrained by
what data sources were collected and used for analysis. This study included
academic journals, white papers, and official websites to investigate compre-
hensive elements of digital citizenship. If data had been collected from only
empirical academic journal articles, it might be more convenient to conceptu-
alize and/or operationalize the concept of digital citizenship as providing more
distinctive and clearer empirical indicators of digital citizenship. Given that
most civic engagement has been performed in active political blogs and/or
Internet community (e.g., Reddit, Voat, 4Chan), it might be worthwhile to
include Internet activities performed in these types of online communities to
thoroughly and concretely understand how actual political activism occurs on
the Internet.
586 Choi
Interrelated, but Nonlinear, Relationship Among Traditional, Critical,
and Digital Citizenship
This study sought to understand the concept of digital citizenship in asso-
ciation with other existing conceptions of citizenship. I argue that there are
three shared aspects to the different perspectives on each type of citizenship:
social responsibility, being well-informed on issues, and active and engaged
citizenry (Table 6).
Digital citizens’ responsibility is reminiscent of the traditional viewpoint
of citizenship, which also centers on rights and responsibilities for people liv-
ing in a nation-state. Concepts of traditional citizenship are often, by their
very nature, bounded by the physical place where individuals are born and/or
spend a good part of their lives (Rogers, 2002). That is, citizenship gen-
erally acts as a centripetal force pulling individuals back toward the needs
and responsibilities of pre-existing communities, such as nation-states. The
Table 6. Three Shared Aspects of the Different Perspective on Citizenship
Traditional
citizenship Critical citizenship Digital citizenship
Social
responsibility
Maintaining
centripetal forces
that hold
community
together and the
role the
individual plays
with in it
Recognizing
community that
can easily be
oppressed by
centripetal forces
established
through dominant
groups
Supporting
centrifugal
information and
social
interactions that
are respectful of
other members of
the specific
community
Being well
informed on
issues
Using traditional
information
sources to keep
abreast of current
political, social,
and economic
issues
Understanding
information that
is often
controlled for
specific purposes
Searching for new
information that
supports or
critiques current
political, social,
and economic
issues
Active and
engaged
citizenry
Engaging in
predetermined
activities that the
social system
uses to define
citizens (e.g.,
voting)
Critiquing
predetermined
social
construction to
develop diverse
communities
Creating systems
and relationships
that hold
community
together in a
dynamic
information
environment
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 587
emphasis is on the sustainability and stability of the community or larger
society and on the role(s) its members are expected to play in its ongoing
and productive activities. Similarly, digital citizenship reflects the needs and
responsibilities of individuals. However, it is more concerned with the way
these needs and responsibilities play out in the maelstrom of centrifugal infor-
mation sources and social interaction environments offered in Internet-based
activities (Glassman, 2013).
The ideas of being well informed on issues have been a highlight of tra-
ditional, critical, and digital citizenship. Traditionally, literacy is pointed to as
a primary ability allowing citizens to keep abreast of current political, social,
and cultural issues. In critical citizenship, literacy is used to challenge the sta-
tus quo and predetermined activities of traditional citizenship (Freire, 1970).
Digital citizens need to be equipped with basic skills regarding the use of the
Internet, including searching for new information that supports or critiques cur-
rent political, social, economic, and cultural issues. It is more imperative that
the ability to participate in building knowledge aids in both the critique and
development of important information sources.
Active engagement is a key element in the concept of citizenship. It is rep-
resented in republican conceptions of citizenship engaging in pre-determined
activities (e.g., voting) that the social system uses to define citizens. Critical cit-
izenship understands active engagement as infusing marginalized voices into
societies and political actions for social justice and/or human rights. Active
engagement in digital citizenship is linked with developing and sustaining the
diverse online communities to which people belong, which includes more crit-
ical types of engagement, derived from such organically developed Internet
phenomena as open-source communities (e.g., Linux) and hacktivist groups
(e.g., Anonymous) (Glassman, 2013; Longford, 2005; Olson, 2012).
As seen in comparison between traditional, critical, and digital citizen-
ship, online civic activities should not be interpreted strictly as an Internet
phenomenon. I believe that the concept of digital citizenship has important,
sometimes non-linear and sometimes indirect, interrelationships with offline
(place-based) civic lives. As many online activities affect offline activities and
vice versa, digital citizenship is not limited solely to online behavior. Even if
some activities can be regarded as purely online (e.g., tweeting and gaming),
they eventually have some influence on offline communications, behaviors, or
economic issues. For example, Anonymous, an online hactivist group, sought
to destroy ISIS-linked online accounts and websites recruiting members of ISIS
after the Paris attacks. As seen in this case, the online activity of Anonymous
is interconnected with an offline political and social incident. Therefore, three
different forms of citizenship are all together in the web of citizens’ respon-
sibility, knowledge, and engagement, where individuals traverse sometimes
apparent and sometimes transparent boundaries between (cyber) space and
place (see Glassman & Burbidge [2014] for a robust discussion of this rela-
tionship). The idea of digital citizenship as an extension of traditional and/or
588 Choi
critical approaches to citizenship would be beneficial to gaining a deeper
understanding of evolving online human activities, civic engagement, and
citizenship.
This conceptual analysis of digital citizenship has important implications
for education in three ways. First, the four reported categories of digital citi-
zenship expand and build upon knowledge regarding citizenship. To understand
the concept of digital citizenship per se, this study examined disciplines beyond
education, in particular, political science and journalism/communication.
Since citizenship is a contested and complex concept, there would be limita-
tions to a deep understanding of what citizenship means if its investigation was
conducted within a restricted field of inquiry. Therefore, this study helps to pro-
vide rich and detailed information on how the concept of digital citizenship can
be understood across fields of inquiry as well as within the field of education.
Second, this study methodologically could provide a newer way to conduct
educational research. Although content analysis of curricular and textbooks
has been commonly used in the field of education, concept analysis is rela-
tively new. Conradi, Jang, and McKenna (2014) used a concept analysis in
education, especially educational psychology. However, they modified the pro-
cedures to some extent to fit it into their study, and the way they displayed
their findings was very similar to meta-analyses using numbers and graphs.
This study attempted to trace the original steps of Rodgers’s (1989) evolu-
tionary approach. In particular, the introduction of concept analysis into social
studies research also can be useful because there exists a variety of concepts
that should be taught in social studies education. If teachers have a better and
deeper understanding of concepts, they might be able to more effectively and
efficiently teach them.
Finally, this study can support ideas of social studies teaching and teacher
education. Considering the importance of curriculum in teaching, it would be
difficult to find effective outcomes without curriculum change (Barnett, Parry,
& Coate, 2001). ISTE (2007) already regards digital citizenship as one of the
standards for students and teachers. The concept of digital citizenship also
needs to be added into social studies curricula to promote active digital citi-
zens. Despite the fact that there is no direct topic regarding digital citizenship in
social studies curricula, it should be possible to incorporate digital citizenship
issues into relevant themes, such as “Science, Technology, and Society,” and
“Civic Ideals and Practices” (National Council for the Social Studies, 2010).
This study can support practical suggestions to promote students as
informed and engaged digital citizens. Multilayered and multifaceted cate-
gories of digital citizenship could concretely provide specific ideas of respon-
sible, active, and engaged digital citizens. For example, as described in Digital
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 589
Ethics, students should be taught to take responsibility but more in terms
of being a productive member of a shared, project-based online community,
avoiding activities that might negatively impact both traditional and online
communities (such as piracy). Digital citizenship as MIL can also help teach-
ers understand that being informed citizens is not to put something in a search
bar and/or just go to the Wikipedia to find information. Rather, teachers can
provide more advanced and higher levels of skills and knowledge regarding
how to express ideas and opinions online, evaluate information, and create
online content (e.g., Glassman, Bartholomew, & Hur, 2013). Digital citizen-
ship as P/E suggests that teachers should reach outside of the classroom, but
perhaps more importantly, students should reach beyond immediate curricula
to understand possibilities of advocacy and/or extended education (local, soci-
etal, and/or global). For instance, some teachers have had students try to create
trending hashtags on Twitter for organizations they believe do important work
or become participants on active discussion boards. Digital citizenship as CR
is perhaps the most difficult because it involves using the Internet to challenge
dominant social themes. It involves facilitating Internet communities becoming
autonomous working groups that are capable of not only building informa-
tion sources but also using online social interactions to critique and challenge.
For example, asynchronous online discussions (e.g., community blog) offer
opportunities for individuals to provide challenges to accepted narratives by
providing links to other knowledge sources (see Glassman & Burbidge, 2014,
for an extended example in which a Ugandan student was able to challenge an
accepted narrative about child soldiers).
It is significant to understand how digital citizenship can be defined and
how it is changing along with deeper penetration of digital technologies into
everyday activities for better citizenship education in the burgeoning Internet
age. Digital citizenship should also be examined in conjunction with existing
conceptions of citizenship because it is not a single dimension and/or a sud-
denly abrupt change in what citizenship means. Thus, this study collected data
from different disciplines and interpreted the results in the relationship with
other forms of citizenship to understand the meaning of digital citizenship in
a broader context, generating four main categories that can be used for better
citizenship education in social studies education. The investigation of key cat-
egories of digital citizenship must meet the needs of the times when identity;
daily activities; and the core of political, economic, social, and cultural lives
are being constructed by and around Internet activities. Furthermore, this con-
ceptual analysis has meaningful implications for social studies education by
providing awareness of the importance of digital citizenship as a primary goal
of education. This study could support a big picture of what democratic digital
590 Choi
citizenship might look like and in what ways teachers educate their students
to become responsible, well-informed, and actively engaged digital citizens at
the local, national, and global levels. In addition, the four categories of digital
citizenship found in this study could be used as a conceptual framework for
further research when developing an instrument measuring individuals’ abili-
ties, thinking, and behaviors in an Internet-based community and/or providing
primary elements of teaching citizenship in curriculum development.
Abu El-Haj, T. R. (2007). “I was born here, but my home, it’s not
here”: Educating for democratic citizenship in an era of transnational
migration and global conflict. Harvard Educational Review, 77, 285–316.
doi:10.17763/haer.77.3.412l7m737q114h5m
Afshar, V. (2013, February 11). Digital citizenship: Businesses can learn from
K–12 educators. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.
com/vala-afshar/digital-citizenship-busin_b_2654628.html
Agbaria, A. (2011). The social studies education discourse community
on globalization: Exploring the agenda of preparing citizens for the
global age. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15, 57–74.
doi:10.1177/1028315309334645
Alvermann, D. E. (2009). Sociocultural constructions of adolescence and
young people’s literacies. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky
(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp. 14–28). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Alvermann, D. E., & Hagood, M. C. (2000). Critical media literacy: Research,
theory and practice in “new times.” The Journal of Educational Research,
93, 193–205. doi:10.1080/00220670009598707
Andrzejewski, J., & Alessio, J. (1999). Education for global citizenship and
social responsibility. Progressive Perspectives, 1(2), 2–17.
Banaji, S., & Buckingham, D. (2013). The civic web: Young people, the
Internet, and civic participation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship edu-
cation in a global age. Educational Researcher, 37, 129–139.
doi:10.3102/0013189X08317501
Barnett, R., Parry, G., & Coate, K. (2001). Conceptualising cur-
riculum change. Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 435–449.
doi:10.1080/13562510120078009
Becta (2010). Digital literacy: Teaching critical thinking for our digital
world. History.org. Retrieved from http://www.history.org.uk/file_download.
php?ts=1294321749&id=7314
Benhabib, S. (2004). The rights of others: Aliens, residents and citizens. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.77.3.412l7m737q114h5m
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1028315309334645
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220670009598707
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08317501
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562510120078009
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 591
Bennett, L., & Fessenden, J. (2006). Citizenship through online communica-
tion. Social Education, 70, 144–146.
Bennett, W. L., Wells, C., & Freelon, D. (2011). Communicating civic engage-
ment: Contrasting models of citizenship in the youth web sphere. Journal of
Communication, 61, 835–856. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01588.x
Bennett, W. L., Wells, C., & Rank, A. (2009). Young citizens and civic learn-
ing: Two paradigms of citizenship in the digital age. Citizenship Studies, 13,
105–120. doi:10.1080/13621020902731116
Berman-Dry, A. (2013). Making it personal: A new approach to teaching
digital citizenship. Learning & Leading with Technology, 41(1), 24–26.
Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (2003). Digital literacy for effective citizenship.
Social Education, 67, 164–167.
Berson, M. J., & Berson, I. R. (2004). Developing thoughtful “cybercitizens”.
Social Studies and the Young Learner, 16(4), 5–8.
Blevins, B., LeCompte, K., & Wells, S. (2013). Citizenship educa-
tion goes digital. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 38, 33–44.
doi:10.1016/j.jssr.2013.12.003
Brayboy, B. (2005). Transformational resistance and social justice: American
Indians in Ivy League universities. Anthropology and Education Quarterly,
36, 193–211. doi:10.1525/aeq.2005.36.3.193
Buckingham, D. (2007). Digital media literacies: Rethinking media educa-
tion in the age of the Internet. Research in Comparative and International
Education, 2, 43–55. doi:10.2304/rcie
Castells, M. (2001). The Internet galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business,
and society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Castles, S., & Davidson, A. (2000). Citizenship and migration: Globalization
and the politics of belonging. New York, NY: Routledge.
Chinn, P. L., & Kramer, M. K. (1991). Theory and nursing: A systematic
approach. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Year Book.
Citron, D., & Norton, H. (2011). Intermediaries and hate speech: Fostering
digital citizenship for our information age. Boston University Law Review,
91, 1435–1484.
Coleman, S. (2006). Digital voices and analogue citizenship Bridging the gap
between young people and the democratic process. Public Policy Research,
13, 257–261. doi:10.1111/newe.2006.13.issue-4
Common Sense Media. (2009). Digital literacy and citizenship in the 21st
century. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/council/groups/wg-cop/second-
meeting-june-2010/CommonSenseDigitalLiteracy-CitizenshipWhitePaper.
pdf
Conradi, K., Jang, B. G., & McKenna, M. C. (2014). Motivation terminology
in reading research: A conceptual review. Educational Psychology Review,
26, 127–164. doi:10.1007/s10648-013-9245-z
Couros, A. (2014). Open thinking wiki: digital citizenship. Retrieved from
http://couros.wikispaces.com/digitalcitizenship
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01588.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13621020902731116
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2013.12.003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2005.36.3.193
http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/rcie
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/newe.2006.13.issue-4
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9245-z
592 Choi
Crowe, A. R. (2006). Technology, citizenship, and the social studies classroom:
Education for democracy in a technological age. International Journal of
Social Education, 21(1), 111–121.
CyberWise. (2014). Top ten digital citizenship resources. Retrieved from http:/
/www.cyberwise.org/Digital-Citizenship-Top-Ten.html
Dagger, R. (2002). Republican citizenship. In E. Isin & S. Turner (Eds.),
Handbook of citizenship studies (pp. 145–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, M. (2013, October 16). Digital citizenship week 6: Resources for
educator. Edutopia. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/digital-
citizenship-resources-matt-davis
Dede, C. (2009). Determining, developing, and assessing the capabilities of
“future-ready” students (Friday Institute White Paper Series Number 2).
Boston, MA: Harvard University.
DeLuca, K. M., Lawson, S., & Sun, Y. (2012). Occupy Wall Street on
the public screens of social media: The many framings of the birth of
a protest movement. Communication, Culture & Critique, 5, 483–509.
doi:10.1111/j.1753-9137.2012.01141.x
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
d’Haenens, L., Koeman, J., & Saeys, F. (2007). Digital citizenship among eth-
nic minority youths in the Netherlands and Flanders. New Media & Society,
9, 278–299. doi:10.1177/1461444807075013
DigitalLiteracy.gov. (2014). Back to school: Digital citizenship. Retrieved from
http://www.digitalliteracy.gov/back-to-school
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social
implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307–336.
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.307
Dower, N. (2003). An introduction to global citizenship. Edinburgh, UK:
Edinburgh University Press.
Dutton, W. H. (2005). The Internet and social transformation: Reconfiguring
access. In W. H. Dutton, B. Kahin, R. O’Callaghan, & A. W. Wyckoff
(Eds.), Transforming enterprise: The economic and social implications of
information technology (pp. 375–397). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Earl, J., & Schussman, A. (2008). Contesting cultural control: Youth culture
and online petitioning. In W. L. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning
how digital media can engage youth (pp. 71–95). London, UK: The MIT
Press.
Educational Origami. (2014). The digital citizen. Retrieved from http://
edorigami.wikispaces.com/The+Digital+Citizen
Educational Technology and Mobile Learning. (2014). Ed tech terminology
and concepts teachers should know about. Retrieved from http://www.
educatorstechnology.com/2014/09/ed-tech-terminology-and-concepts.html
Fallace, T. (2009). John Dewey’s influence on the origins of the social stud-
ies: An analysis of the historiography and new interpretation. Review of
Educational Research, 79, 601–624. doi:10.3102/0034654308326159
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-9137.2012.01141.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444807075013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.307
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326159
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 593
Farmer, L. (2011, February 1). Digital citizen. Digital Citizen. Retrieved from
http://ecitizenship.csla.net
Felt, L. J., Vartabedian, V., Literat, I., & Mehta, R. (2012). Explore locally,
excel digitally: A participatory learning after-school program for enrich-
ing citizenship on-and offline. The Journal of Media Literacy Education, 4,
213–228.
Fischman, G. E., & Haas, E. (2012). Beyond idealized citizenship educa-
tion: Embodied cognition, metaphors, and democracy. Review of Research
in Education, 36, 169–196. doi:10.3102/0091732X11420927
Flores, W. V., & Benmayor, R. (1997). Latino cultural citizenship: Claiming
identity, space, and rights. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Franklin, C. A., & Molebash, P. E. (2007). Technology in the elementary social
studies classroom: Teacher preparation does matter. Theory & Research in
Social Education, 35, 153–173. doi:10.1080/00933104.2007.10473331
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder & Herder.
Fresnoza-Flot, A. (2009). Migration status and transnational mothering:
The case of Filipino migrants in France. Global Networks, 9, 252–270.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-0374.2009.00253.x
Georgia Virtual Learning. (2013). Connecting with other digital citizens, tech-
nology and resources. Retrieved from http://cms.gavirtualschool.org/Shared/
Digital%20Citizenship/DigCitConnect/index.html
Glassman, M. (2012a). An era of webs: Technique, technology and the
new cognitive (r) evolution. New Ideas in Psychology, 30, 308–318.
doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2012.05.002
Glassman, M. (2012b). Occupying the noosystem: The evolution of media
platforms and webs of community protest. Berkeley Planning Journal, 25,
198–209.
Glassman, M. (2013). Open source theory .01. Theory & Psychology, 23,
675–692. doi:10.1177/0959354313495471
Glassman, M., Bartholomew, M., & Hur, E. H. (2013). The importance of the
second loop in educational technology: An action science study of intro-
ducing blogging in a course curriculum. Action Research, 11, 337–353.
doi:10.1177/1476750313502555
Glassman, M., & Burbidge, J. (2014). The dialectical relationship between
place and space in education: How the Internet is changing our per-
ceptions of teaching and learning. Educational Theory, 64, 15–32.
doi:10.1111/edth.12048
Glassman, M., & Kang, M. J. (2012). Intelligence in the Internet age: The
emergence and evolution of open source intelligence (OSINT). Computers
in Human Behavior, 28, 673–682. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.014
Goode, L. (2010). Cultural citizenship online: The Internet and digital culture.
Citizenship Studies, 14, 527–542. doi:10.1080/13621025.2010.506707
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0091732X11420927
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2007.10473331
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2009.00253.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2012.05.002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959354313495471
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476750313502555
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/edth.12048
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2010.506707
594 Choi
Hancock, M. (2011, October 4). Digital citizenship for today’s teens.
Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marsali-
hancock/digital-citizenship-for-t_b_993454.html
Heick, T. (2013, May 2). The definition of digital citizenship.
TeachThought.com. Retrieved from http://www.teachthought.com/
technology/the-definition-of-digital-citzenship/
Hermes, J. (2006). Citizenship in the age of the Internet. European Journal of
Communication, 21, 295–309. doi:10.1177/0267323106066634
Herrera, L. (2012). Youth and citizenship in the digital age: A
view from Egypt. Harvard Educational Review, 82, 333–352.
doi:10.17763/haer.82.3.88267r117u710300
Hicks, D., Lee, J., Berson, M., Bolick, C., & Diem, R. (2014). Guidelines for
using technology to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 433–450.
Hicks, D., van Hover, S., Washington, E. Y., & Lee, J. K. (2011). Internet
literacies for active citizenship and democratic life. In W. B. Russell III (Ed.),
Contemporary social studies: An essential reader (pp. 467–491). Charlotte,
NC: Information Age.
Hobbs, R., & Jensen, A. (2009). The past, present, and future of media literacy
education. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 1, 1–11.
Hollandsworth, R., Dowdy, L., & Donovan, J. (2011). Digital cit-
izenship in K–12: It takes a village. TechTrends, 55(4), 37–47.
doi:10.1007/s11528-011-0510-z
Hostetler, A. L. (2012). Democratic use of blogs and online discussion boards
in social studies education. Social Education, 76, 100–104.
Hupcey, J. E., Morse, J. M., Lenz, E. R., & Tasón, M. C. (1996). Wilsonian
methods of concept analysis: A critique. Research and Theory for Nursing
Practice, 10, 185–210.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). ISTE stan-
dards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-
14_ISTE_Standards-T_PDF
Kahn, R., & Kellner, D. (2004). New media and Internet activism: From
the ‘Battle of Seattle’ to blogging. New Media & Society, 6, 87–95.
doi:10.1177/1461444804039908
Kahne, J., Lee, N. J., & Feezell, J. T. (2013). The civic and political sig-
nificance of online participatory cultures among youth transitioning to
adulthood. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10, 1–20. doi:
10.1080/19331681.2012.701109
Kim, E. (2000). Korean adoptee auto-ethnography: Refashioning self, fam-
ily and finding community. Visual Anthropology Review, 16, 43–70.
doi:10.1525/var.2000.16.1.43
Knight Abowitz, K. K., & Harnish, J. (2006). Contemporary dis-
courses of citizenship. Review of Educational Research, 76, 653–690.
doi:10.3102/00346543076004653
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323106066634
http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.82.3.88267r117u710300
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-011-0510-z
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444804039908
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.701109
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/var.2000.16.1.43
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543076004653
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 595
Knight Foundation. (2012). Digital citizenship: Exploring the field of tech
for engagement. Retrieved from http://www.knightfoundation.org/media/
uploads/media_pdfs/Digital-Citizenship-tech4engage-summit-report
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. V. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and
media of contemporary communication. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Kumashiro, K. K. (2004). Against common sense: Teaching and learning
toward social justice. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
Kurubacak, G. (2007). Transformative power of digital citizenship: Critical
perspectives on culture, new media and pedagogy. Journal of Educational
Technology, 4(4), 12–22.
Lee, Y.-O. (2009). Internet election 2.0? Culture, institutions, and technology
in the Korean presidential elections of 2002 and 2007. Journal of Information
Technology & Politics, 6, 312–325. doi:10.1080/19331680903050085
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith, A., Purcell, K., Zickuhr, K., & Rainie, L.
(2011). Teens, kindness and cruelty on social network sites: How American
teens navigate the new world of “digital citizenship”. Pew Internet &
American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/11/
09/teens-kindness-and-cruelty-on-social-network-sites/
Longford, G. (2005). Pedagogies of digital citizenship and the politics of code.
Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 9, 1–17.
Longstreet, W. S. (1985). Citizenship: The phantom core of social stud-
ies curriculum. Theory & Research in Social Education, 13, 21–29.
doi:10.1080/00933104.1985.10505497
Makinen, M. (2006). Digital empowerment as a process for enhancing citizens’
participation. E-learning, 3, 381–395. doi:10.2304/elea.2006.3.3.381
Mansour, E. (2012). The role of social networking sites (SNSs) in
the January 25th Revolution in Egypt. Library Review, 61, 128–159.
doi:10.1108/00242531211220753
Marcinek, A. (2013). The path to digital citizenship. Edutopia. Retrieved
from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/the-path-to-digital-citizenship-andrew-
marcinek
Maria, S. (2005). The intimate and the imperial: South Asian Muslim immi-
grant youth. In S. Maira & E. Soep (Eds.), Youthscapes: The popular, the
national, the global (pp. 3–22). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Marshall, T. H. (1964). Class, citizenship, and social development: Essays of
T. H. Marshall. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Merryfield, M., Augustine, T., Choi, M., Harshman, J., & McClimans, M.
(2012). Teacher thinking on developing informed and engaged students for
a globally connected world. The Hague, The Netherlands: International
Baccalaureate.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19331680903050085
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1985.10505497
http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/elea.2006.3.3.381
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00242531211220753
596 Choi
Merryfield, M. M., Badang, G., Bragg, C., Kvasov, A., Taylor, N., Waliaula, A.,
& Yamaguchi, M. (2012). Web resources for teaching about human rights.
Social Education, 76, 266–268.
Microsoft. (2014). What does digital citizenship mean to you? Retrieved from
http://www.microsoft.com/security/resources/digital-citizenship.aspx
Moeller, S., Joseph, A., Lau, J., & Carbo, T. (2011). Towards media and
information literacy indicators. Paris, France: United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Mossberger, K. (2009). Toward digital citizenship: Addressing inequality in the
information age. In A. Chadwick & P. Howard (Eds.), Routledge handbook
of Internet politics (pp. 173–185). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
National Council for the Social Studies. (2010). National curriculum stan-
dards for social studies: A framework for teaching, learning, and assessment.
Silver Spring, MD: Author.
Nebel, M., Jamison, B., & Bennett, L. (2009). Students as digital citizens on
Web 2.0. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 21(4), 5–7.
New Media Consortium. (2005). A global imperative: The report of the
21st century literacy summit. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.net/pdf/
Global_Imperative
Nussbaum, M. C., & Cohen, J. (1996). For love of country: Debating the limits
of patriotism. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Ohler, J. (2011). Digital citizenship resources. Retrieved from http://www.
jasonohler.com/digitalCitizenship/index.cfm
Ohler, J. (2012). Digital citizenship means character education for the digi-
tal age. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review,
77(8), 14–17.
Olson, P. (2012). We are Anonymous: Inside the hacker world of Lulzsec,
Anonymous, and the global cyber insurgency. New York, NY: Back Bay
Books.
Ong, A. (1996). Cultural citizenship as subject-making: Immigrants negotiate
racial and cultural boundaries in the United States. Current Anthropology,
37, 737–762. doi:10.1086/204560
Orth, D., & Chen, E. (2013). The strategy for digital citizenship. National
Association of Independent Schools. Retrieved from http://www.nais.
org/Magazines-Newsletters/ISMagazine/Pages/The-Strategy-for-Digital-
Citizenship.aspx
Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2003). Learning for cosmopolitan citizenship:
Theoretical debates and young people’s experiences. Educational Review,
55, 243–254. doi:10.1080/0013191032000118901
Pajnik, M. (2005). Citizenship and mediated society. Citizenship Studies, 9,
349–367. doi:10.1080/13621020500211321
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/204560
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013191032000118901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13621020500211321
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 597
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2013). Born digital: Understanding the first genera-
tion of digital natives. Philadelphia, PA: Basic Books.
Pike, G. (2000). Global education and national identity: In pursuit of meaning.
Theory Into Practice, 39, 64–73. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3902_2
Raoof, J. K., Zaman, H. B., Ahmad, A., & Al-Qaraghuli, A. (2013). Using
social network systems as a tool for political change. International Journal
of Physical Sciences, 8, 1143–1148.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic
frontier. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ribble, M. (2004). Digital citizenship: Addressing appropriate technology
behavior. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(1), 6–11.
Ribble, M. (2009). Passport to digital citizenship: Journey toward appropriate
technology use at school and at home. Learning & Leading with Technology,
36(4), 14–17.
Ribble, M., & Bailey, G. (2007). Digital citizenship in schools. Washington,
DC: International Society for Technology in Education.
Richards, R. (2010). Digital citizenship and Web 2.0 tools. Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 6, 516–522.
Robb, M., & Shellenbarger, T. (2013). Promoting digital citizenship and
academic integrity in technology classroom. The Teaching Professor,
27(8), 10–13.
Rodgers, B. L. (1989). Concepts, analysis, and the development of nurs-
ing knowledge: The evolutionary cycle. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 14,
330–335. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.1989.tb03420.x
Rogers, S. (2002). Modern citizenship. In E. Isin & S. Turner (Eds.), Handbook
of citizenship studies (pp. 117–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rosaldo, R. (1997). Cultural citizenship, inequality, and multiculturalism. In
W. V. Flores & R. Benmayor (Eds.), Latino cultural citizenship: Claiming
identity, space, and rights (pp. 27–38). Boston, MA: Beacon.
Salpeter, J. (2008). Make students info literate. Technology & Learning,
28(10), 24–27.
Schuck, P. (2002). Liberal citizenship. In E. Isin & S. Turner (Eds.), Handbook
of citizenship studies (pp. 131–144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shelley, M., Shulman, S., Lang, E., Beisser, S., & Mutiti, J. (2004). Digital cit-
izenship: Parameters of the digital divide. Social Science Computer Review,
22, 256–269. doi:10.1177/0894439303262580
Simsek, E., & Simsek, A. (2013). New literacies for digital citizenship.
Contemporary Educational Technology, 4, 126–137.
Sone, M. I. (1979). Nisei daughter. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Suarez-Orozco, C., Yoshikawa, H., Teranishi, R. T., & Suarez-Orozco, M.
M. (2011). Growing up in the shadows: The developmental implica-
tions of unauthorized status. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 438–473.
doi:10.17763/haer.81.3.g23x203763783m75
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1989.tb03420.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439303262580
http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.3.g23x203763783m75
598 Choi
Subedi, B. (Ed.). (2010). Critical global perspectives: Rethinking knowledge
about global societies. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing
your world. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Tatarchevskiy, T. (2011). The ‘popular’culture of Internet activism. New Media
& Society, 13, 297–313. doi:10.1177/1461444810372785
Unicef. (2011). Digital citizenship and safety. Retrieved from http://www.
unicef.org/ceecis/resources_18475.html
VanFossen, P. J. (2006). The electronic republic? Evidence on the impact of
the Internet on citizenship and civic engagement in the US. International
Journal of Social Education, 21(1), 18–43.
Venezky, R. L. (1995). Literacy. In T. L. Harris & R. E. Hodges (Eds.), Literacy
dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing (p. 142). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Walker, L. O., & Avant, K. C. (2011). Strategies for theory construction in
nursing (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics
of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41,
237–269. doi:10.3102/00028312041002237
Wilson, J. (1963). Thinking with concepts. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Winn, M. R. (2012). Promote digital citizenship through school-based social
networking. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39, 10–13.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
MOONSUN CHOI is a Post-Doctoral Researcher in the Center on Education
and Training for Employment at The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
43210. She can be contacted at choi.811@osu.edu.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810372785
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312041002237
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 599
APPENDIX A
Elements of Digital Citizenship as Ethics
Sub-themes Elements
Safe, responsible,
and ethical use
of technology
• Safe, legal and responsible use of information and technology
(International Society for Technology in
Education, 2007)
• Optimal and safe use of information and communications
technologies (ICTs; Unicef, 2011)
• Appropriate norms associated with technology use, especially
social media
(Winn, 2012)
• Safe, legal, responsible, and ethical use of digital information
(Robb & Shellenbarger, 2013)
• Safely and confidently use of technology (CyberWise, 2014)
Digital awareness • Digital awareness (I. R. Berson & Berson, 2003)
• Being aware of technology-related ethical, societal, and cultural
issues (Ribble, 2004)
• Critical awareness of how code constitutes the conditions of
possibility for different norms, models (Longford, 2005)
• Careful attentions to diverse online community (Kurubacak,
2007)
• Personal, social, and environmental impacts of every technology
and media application they use in school (Ohler, 2012)
• Digital citizenship awareness (Hollandsworth et al., 2011)
Digital
responsibilities
• Responsible behavior online (Berman-Dry, 2013; M. J. Berson
& Berson, 2004; DigitalLiterarcy.gov, 2014)
• Digital etiquette (Ribble, 2004, 2009; Ribble & Bailey, 2007)
• Appropriate behavior in social network sites (Lenhart et al.,
2011)
• Roles and responsibilities as a user of the Internet (Nebel et al.,
2009)
• Personal responsibility (Common Sense Media, 2009; Davis,
2013; ISTE, 2007; Microsoft, 2014; Ohler, 2012; Ribble, 2004,
2009; Ribble & Bailey, 2007; Richards, 2010)
• Respecting the impact of one’s actions beyond the self on the
larger collective (Felt, Vartabedian, Literat, & Mehta, 2012)
• Community and global responsibility (Ohler, 2012)
• Responsibilities of self and others (Davis, 2013)
• Addressing the situation with regard to cyber bullying,
plagiarism, and exposure to inappropriate content (Afshar, 2013)
• Respecting and protecting self and others (Educational Origami,
2014)
(Continued)
600 Choi
Appendix A (Continued)
Sub-themes Elements
Digital rights • Free expression (Coleman, 2006)
• Digital law (Ribble & Bailey, 2007)
• Digital rights (Microsoft, 2014; Ribble, 2004; Ribble & Bailey,
2007)
• Respecting copyright and intellectual property (Educational
Origami, 2014; Robb & Shellenbarger, 2013)
• Addressing the situation with regard to privacy, copyright
infringement (Afshar, 2013)
APPENDIX B
Elements of Digital Citizenship as Media and Information Literacy
Sub-themes Elements
Digital access • Access to information technology (Moeller et al., 2011;
Mossberger, 2009; Mossberger et al., 2008; Ribble, 2004, 2009;
Ribble & Bailey, 2007)
Technical skills
as lower
levels of MIL
• Computer proficiency (Shelley et al., 2004)
• Technical competence/proficiency (Mossberger et al., 2008)
• Effective use of the Internet (Mossberger, 2009; Mossberger
et al., 2008; Ohler, 2011)
• Educational competencies (Mossberger, 2009)
• Use of web applications (Simsek & Simsek, 2013)
• Technical skills and instrumental competence (Simsek &
Simsek, 2013)
Psychological
capabilities as
higher levels
of MIL
• Online reading and writing (L. Bennett & Fessenden, 2006)
• Information literacy skills (Mossberger et al., 2008)
• Information literacy, media literacy, or network literacy; the
ability to access, evaluate, synthesize, and build upon
information and media (Salpeter, 2008)
• New media literacies skills (Felt et al., 2012; Hobbs & Jensen,
2009)
• ICT literacy (Dede, 2009)
• Digital literacy skills (Becta, 2010; I. R. Berson & Berson, 2003,
M. J. Berson & Berson, 2004; Common Sense Media, 2009;
Dede, 2009; Felt et al., 2012; Georgia Virtual Learning, 2013;
Hicks et al., 2011; Microsoft, 2014; Mossberger, 2009; Ribble
& Bailey, 2007)
(Continued)
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 601
(Continued)
Sub-themes Elements
• Skills in acquiring and using information (Simsek & Simsek,
2013)
• Digital communication (d’Haenens et al., 2007; Georgia Virtual
Learning, 2013; ISTE, 2007; Ribble, 2004; Ribble & Bailey,
2007)
• Culturally responsive, social justice-oriented, critical, and
creative communication (Kurubacak, 2007)
• Collaboration (Kurubacak, 2007)
• Socio-communicative competence (Simsek & Simsek, 2013)
• Communication skills (Simsek & Simsek, 2013)
• Social learning skills (Felt et al., 2012)
• Emotional competence (Simsek & Simsek, 2013)
• Emotional learning skills (Felt et al., 2012)
• Combining cognitive, affective, psycho-social, and technological
skills (Dede, 2009)
• Knowledge (Nebel et al., 2009; Simsek & Simsek, 2013), civic
knowledge (Blevins et al., 2013)
• Digital wellness (Marcinek, 2013; Ohler, 2012; Ribble & Bailey,
2007)
602 Choi
APPENDIX C
Elements of Digital Citizenship as Participation/Engagement
Sub-themes Elements
Political
engagement
• Political engagement/participation (Coleman, 2006; Crowe,
2006; d’Haenens et al., 2007; Farmer, 2011; Mossberger,
2009;VanFossen, 2006)
• A more multi-layered, open-ended notion of political interaction
(Coleman, 2006)
• Lifestyle politics—personally expressive or self-actualizing
politics (W. L. Bennett et al., 2009)
• Civic engagement (W. L. Bennett et al., 2009; Citron & Norton,
2011)
• A participatory digital citizen (Richards, 2010)
• A justice-oriented digital citizen (Richards, 2010)
• Partaking freely in the Internet’s diverse political, social,
economic, and cultural opportunities (Citron & Norton, 2011)
• Research significant social issues (Farmer, 2011)
• Voice opinions to a global audience (Farmer, 2011)
• Building safe spaces and communities (Couros, 2014)
Economic
engagement
• Economic engagement (Citron & Norton, 2011; Mossberger
et al., 2008)
• Consumer skills (Simsek & Simsek, 2013)
• Digital commerce (Georgia Virtual Learning, 2013; Ribble,
2004; Ribble & Bailey, 2007)
Cultural
engagement
• E-cultural citizens (d’Haenens et al., 2007)
• Engagement based on culture, everyday experiences, narratives,
and
gaming (Knight Foundation, 2012)
Personalized
engagement
• Leadership for digital citizenship (International Society for
Technology in Education, 2007)
• A sense of ownership (Microsoft, 2014)
• Individual empowerment of digital technology (Ohler, 2012)
• Self-monitored habits (Heick, 2013)
• Quality of habits, actions, and consumption patterns that impact
the ecology
of digital content and communities (Heick, 2013)
• Managing personal information (Couros, 2014)
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 603
APPENDIX D
Elements of Digital Citizenship as Critical Resistance
Sub-themes Elements
Critique of the existing
power structure
• Recognizing, contesting, and negotiating with the
powers that exist to
control them (Coleman, 2006)
Political activism • Capacity to resist and reshape to hack (Longford,
2005)
• Egypt’s wired revolutionary generation that challenge
the status quo and want educational reform using
social media (Herrera, 2012)
APPENDIX E
Changes in Digital Citizenship as Ethics
Year Elements
2003 • Digital awareness (I. R. Berson & Berson, 2003)
2004 • Being aware of technology-related ethical, societal, and cultural issues;
digital etiquette; personal responsibility; digital rights; digital security
(Ribble, 2004)
2005 • Critical awareness of how code constitutes the conditions of possibility for
different norms, models (Longford, 2005)
2006 • Free expression (Coleman, 2006)
2007 • Careful attention to diverse online communities (Kurubacak, 2007)
• Digital etiquette, digital rights, digital law, digital security (Ribble &
Bailey, 2007)
• Safe, legal, and responsible use of information and technology
(International Society for Technology in Education, 2007)
• Personal responsibility (International Society for Technology in Education,
2007; Ribble & Bailey, 2007)
2008
(Continued)
604 Choi
Appendix E (Continued)
Year Elements
2009 • Digital etiquette (Ribble, 2009)
• Personal responsibility (Common Sense Media, 2009; Ribble, 2009)
• Roles and responsibilities as a user of the Internet (Nebel et al., 2009)
2010 • Personal responsibility (Richards, 2010)
2011 • Digital citizenship awareness (Hollandsworth et al., 2011)
• Dignity and safety of other users (Citron & Norton, 2011; Hancock, 2011;
Ohler, 2011)
• Digital security (Hancock, 2011)
• Optimal and safe use of ICTs (Unicef, 2011)
• Behavior in social network sites (Lenhart et al., 2011)
2012 • Personal, community, and global responsibility (Ohler, 2012)
• Respecting the impact of one’s actions beyond the self on the larger
collective (Felt et al., 2012)
• Appropriate norms associated with technology use, especially social media
(Winn, 2012)
2013 • Responsible behavior online (Berman-Dry, 2013)
• Safe, legal, responsible, and ethical use of digital information (Robb &
Shellenbarger, 2013)
• Personal responsibility, responsibilities of self and others, dignity and safety
of other users (Davis, 2013)
• Respecting copyright and intellectual property (Robb & Shellenbarger,
2013)
• Smart, responsible, respectful, appropriate, ethical decisions (Orth & Chen,
2013)
• Addressing the situation with regard to privacy, copyright, infringement,
cyber bullying, plagiarism, and exposure to inappropriate content (Afshar,
2013)
2014 • Safe and confident use of technology (CyberWise, 2014)
• Respectful, responsible, and safe online behavior (DigitalLiterarcy.gov,
2014)
• Responsibility and digital rights (Microsoft, 2014)
• Respecting and protecting self and others, and respecting copyright and
intellectual property (Educational Origami, 2014)
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 605
APPENDIX F
Changes in Digital Citizenship as Media and Information Literacy
Year Characteristics
2003 • Digital literacy skills (I. R. Berson & Berson, 2003)
2004 • Access to information technology and digital communication (Ribble,
2004)
• Computer proficiency (Shelley et al., 2004)
• Digital literacy skills (M. J. Berson & Berson, 2004)
2005
2006 • Online reading and writing (L. Bennett & Fessenden, 2006)
2007 • Access to information technology (Ribble & Bailey, 2007)
• Digital literacy skills (Ribble & Bailey, 2007)
• Digital communication (d’Haenens et al., 2007; International Society for
Technology in Education, 2007; Ribble & Bailey, 2007)
• Culturally responsive, social justice-oriented, critical, and creative
communication (Kurubacak, 2007)
• Digital health and wellness (Ribble & Bailey, 2007)
• Collaboration (Kurubacak, 2007)
2008 • Access to information technology (Mossberger et al., 2008)
• Technical competence/proficiency (Mossberger et al., 2008)
• Information literacy skills (Mossberger et al., 2008)
• Information literacy, media literacy, or network literacy; the ability to
access, evaluate, synthesize, and build upon information and media
(Salpeter, 2008)
2009 • Access to information technology (Mossberger, 2009; Ribble, 2009)
• Effective use of the Internet (Mossberger, 2009)
• ICT literacy (Dede, 2009)
• Educational competencies (Mossberger, 2009)
• Digital literacy skills (Common Sense Media, 2009; Dede, 2009;
Mossberger, 2009)
• New media literacies skills (Hobbs & Jensen, 2009)
• Combining cognitive, affective, psycho-social, and technological skills
(Dede, 2009)
• Knowledge (Nebel et al., 2009)
2010 • Digital literacy skills (Becta, 2010; Hicks et al., 2011)
2011 • Access to information technology (Moeller et al., 2011)
• Effective use of the Internet (Ohler, 2011)
(Continued)
606 Choi
Appendix F (Continued)
Year Characteristics
2012 • Use of web applications, technical skills, instrumental competence, skills in
acquiring and using information, communication skills and
socio-communicative competence, emotional competence, knowledge
(Simsek & Simsek, 2013)
• Digital literacy skills and new media literacies skills, social learning skills,
emotional learning skills (Felt et al., 2012)
• Digital health and wellness (Ohler, 2012)
2013 • Digital literacy skills and digital communication (Georgia Virtual Learning,
2013)
• Digital health and wellness (Marcinek, 2013)
• Civic knowledge (Blevins et al., 2013)
2014 • Digital literacy skills (Microsoft, 2014)
APPENDIX G
Changes in Digital Citizenship as Participation/Engagement
Year Characteristics
2003
2004 • Digital commerce (Ribble, 2004)
2005
2006 • Political engagement/participation (Coleman, 2006; Crowe, 2006;
VanFossen, 2006)
• A more multi-layered, open-ended notion of political interaction (Coleman,
2006)
2007 • Political engagement/participation (d’Haenens et al., 2007)
• Digital commerce (Ribble & Bailey, 2007)
• E-cultural citizens (d’Haenens et al., 2007)
• Leadership for digital citizenship (International Society for Technology in
Education, 2007)
2008 • Economic engagement (Mossberger et al., 2008)
2009 • Civic engagement (Mossberger, 2009
• Political engagement/participation (Mossberger, 2009)
(Continued)
Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship 607
Appendix G (Continued)
Year Characteristics
• Lifestyle politics: personally expressive or self-actualizing politics using
social media (W. L. Bennett et al., 2009)
2010 • A participatory digital citizen (Richards, 2010)
• A justice-oriented digital citizen (Richards, 2010)
2011 • Civic engagement (Citron & Norton, 2011)
• Political engagement/participation (Farmer, 2011)
• Partaking freely in the Internet’s diverse political, social, economic, and
cultural opportunities (Citron & Norton, 2011)
• Research significant social issues (Farmer, 2011)
• Voice opinions to a global audience (Farmer, 2011)
• Economic engagement (Citron & Norton, 2011)
2012 • Consumer skills (Simsek & Simsek, 2013)
• Individual empowerment of digital technology (Ohler, 2012)
• Engagement based on culture, everyday experiences, narratives, and
gaming (Knight Foundation, 2012)
2013 • Digital commerce (Georgia Virtual Learning, 2013)
• Self-monitored habits (Heick, 2013)
• Quality of habits, actions, and consumption patterns that impact the ecology
of digital content and communities (Heick, 2013)
2014 • Building a safe spaces and communities (Couros, 2014)
• A sense of ownership (Microsoft, 2014)
• Managing personal information (Couros, 2014)
APPENDIX H
Changes in Digital Citizenship as Critical Resistance
Year Characteristics
2005 • Capacity to resist and reshape to hack (Longford, 2005)
2006 • Recognizing, contesting, and negotiating with the powers that exist to
control them (Coleman, 2006)
2012 • Egypt’s wired revolutionary generation who challenge the status quo and
want educational reform using social media (Herrera, 2012)
- ABSTRACT
- THREE DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP AND EDUCATION
- Appendix C
Traditional Approaches to Citizenship
Critical Conceptions of Citizenship
Internet-Driven Approaches to Citizenship: Digital Citizenship
RESEARCH METHOD
Concept Analysis
Search Parameters
RESULTS
Four Categories of the Concept of Digital Citizenship
THE EVOLUTION OF DIGITAL CITIZENSHIP
DISCUSSION
A Multidimensional and Complex Concept of Digital Citizenship
Interrelated, but Nonlinear, Relationship Among Traditional, Critical, and Digital Citizenship
EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
