Elementary Educators' Knowledge, Beliefs, and Planned and
Implemented Practices for Digital Citizenship
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Increased integration of technology in the K–12 educational arena has enabled
schools to adopt new instructional practices to support 21st-century learning. Twentyfirst-
century learning can be defined as specific learning skills that are central to digital
literacy and promote the collaboration, problem solving, and critical thinking necessary
for success in a technologically dependent world (Rich, 2011). Digital literacy is only one
aspect of digital citizenship, which creates a framework for the way individuals interact in
situations online and in person. In this study, I described what patterns exist for educator
knowledge, beliefs, and planned and implemented practices for digital citizenship. Digital
citizenship can be defined as the appropriate, ethical, and responsible use of technology
(Gazi, 2016; Hawai’i State Department of Education [HIDOE], n.d.c;
Hobbs & Jensen, 2009; Impero Software, 2016; Ohler, 201l; Ribble, 2011, 2015, 2017;
Ribble & Bailey, 2007; Ribble & Miller, 2013).
With increased access and use of technology in school and home environments,
students are using technology more than ever before. Elementary-aged children and
younger children now have access to mobile devices and, therefore, need to be taught safe
behaviors for Internet use (Shillair et al., 2015). Without proper education or guidance,
students may fall prey to poor habits that could put them in danger of breaking laws or
participating in negative postings, ultimately impacting their futures. Researchers have
demonstrated ways students and adults misuse technology and the gaps of knowledge
they possess about specific methods to use technology appropriately (Davis, Katz, Santo,
& James, 2010; Farmer, 2011; Sincar, 2013). Educational institutions must become more
aware of actions of misuse (Ribble & Miller, 2013) and begin to address issues with an
emphasis on what students and educators should be doing as young as elementary school
age (Gazi, 2016; Martens & Hobbs, 2015; Ohler, 2011, 2012; Oyedemi, 2015; Ribble,
2015). Educators should be incorporating digital citizenship in their instruction with
technology to prepare students to make appropriate, responsible, and ethical decisions
when using technology in their future. Therefore, results of this study contributes to the
body of knowledge by identifying what elementary educators know, believe, plan, and
implement in their instructional practices with respect to digital citizenship. Results from
the study contributes to social change by helping educational leaders identify specifically
how to support educators in teaching with digital citizenship and also supports in the
creation of policies that could be used to handle issues of technology misuse.
Chapter 1 follows with background information, a problem statement, purpose of
the study, research questions, a general overview of the theoretical and conceptual
frameworks, details about the nature of the study, assumptions, study scope and
delimitations, limitations, and the significance of the study. The chapter also includes
definitions of specific terminology used throughout the dissertation.
Background
In 2010, Global Scan and British Broadcasting Channel World Services conducted
an Internet poll of 27,000 adults from nearly 26 countries and found that 87% of
participants believed Internet access should be a fundamental right afforded to all people
(British Broadcasting Channel, 2010). In 2013, the National Center for Education
Statistics reported that 71% of the U.S. population over the age of 3 had access and
regularly used the Internet (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). The United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (2013) highlighted the idea that
21stcentury curriculum should focus on more than merely critical thinking and
problemsolving skills. The curriculum should also include skills for work in a
technological environment including an awareness of ethical and responsible behavior,
working to develop learners who will produce an inclusive, equitable society for future
generations (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, 2013). As
published by the Nation’s Report Card, the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) administered a Technology and Engineering Literacy examination in 2014 to
eighthgrade students around the United States; demographic results reported 50% of
students were asked to use digital media at least monthly to complete school work.
In contrast, NAEP revealed 87% of students reported they regularly figured out
how to solve technology problems and fix technology on their own, outside of school
(The Nation’s Report Card, 2014). Furthermore, The Nation’s Report Card released
results from a survey administered in conjunction with NAEP’s mathematics and reading
assessments in 2015 to understand fourth, eighth, and 12th grade students’ computer
access and use. Results reveled only about 17% of students did not have access to
computers at home and more than 90% of students had access to computers at school
(The Nation’s Report Card, n.d.). Additionally, fourth-grade teachers reported that their
use of computers to enhance instruction, specifically in mathematics, had increased by
20% when compared to results from the 2009 survey (The Nation’s Report Card, n.d.).
Lastly, Common Sense Media (2016) conducted a census survey of U.S.
adolescents and preadolescents, which revealed they spent from 5 to 9 hours a day
participating in social media interactions. The extensive length of time accessing and
engaging in social media could be considered an unhealthy addiction (Common Sense
Media, 2016).
Internet Crimes, Laws, and Policies
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Internet Crime Complaint Center
(IC3) 2015 Internet Crime Report indicated cybercrimes had increased by nearly 25,000
reported cases since 2013 (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015). Of the more than 288,000
reported cybercrimes, 4,812 reported harassment/threats of violence, and 19,967 reported
crimes were in some way associated with social media (U.S. Department of Justice,
2015). Additionally, news reports continued to surface about cyberbullying and the use of
social media, especially among adolescents (Ribble & Miller, 2013). Some states, such as
California, created laws that allowed schools to expel students who engage in
cyberbullying in and outside of school hours (Kohli, 2016).
In 2012, the Canadian nonprofit organization for digital and media literacy,
MediaSmarts, published the third edition of a national survey to determine teacher,
parent, and student beliefs and knowledge related to technology use. Results showed
teachers believed that to maximize the benefits of technology use, students needed to be
taught to use technology across the curriculum. Teachers thought they needed to provide
instruction which encouraged students to take responsibility for their actions and develop
lifelong skills for working and collaborating with others in school and in the community
as a whole to become citizens (Media Awareness Organization, 2012).
Developing Standards for Digital Citizenship
Ribble and Bailey (2007) popularized the term digital citizenship, which is the
societal view of the appropriate and responsible use of technology. Ribble identified nine
elements of digital citizenship: digital access, digital commerce, digital communication,
digital literacy, digital etiquette, digital law, digital rights and responsibilities, digital
health and well-being, and digital security (2011). These nine elements establish the basis
for providing students with instruction that helps them navigate the online world more
effectively and develop into ethical and responsible users of technology. Technology
instruction should predominantly focus on helping the younger generation build a sense
of responsibility related to technology use at personal, local, and global levels (Ohler,
2011).
In 2016, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) released
revamped technology instructional standards for K–12 students which included an entire
standard devoted to digital citizenship (Snelling, 2016). ISTE’s rationale for redeveloping
curriculum standards was to create standards better aligned with the changing world of
interconnectedness (Snelling, 2016). The standards eliminated focus on what skills
students possess (digital literacy) and placed greater emphasis on what students will
become as result of the changing education infrastructures of the world (Sykora, as cited
in Snelling, 2016). Refreshed standards are necessary to promote the changing
connectedness of the world as a result of technology development (Stoeckl, 2016). As the
world has advanced and globalization has become more widespread, the ability to be a
citizen is not limited to only the local community, state, or country of nationality or
residency. Citizenship now encompasses the entire world through access to the Internet;
therefore, the act of being a citizen requires certain mutually agreed behaviors that benefit
the community and society as a whole (Stoeckl, 2016). ISTE (2017) hoped the standards
would empower teachers and students to take responsibility for being members of the
globalized world.
Of the previously six instructional strands found in the 2007 ISTE student
standards, digital citizenship was retained and included in the seven strands of the 2016
standards (ISTE, 2018a). As found on ISTE’s (2018a) website, Student Standard 2
includes four indicators:
●Students will create and maintain a “digital identity” and become aware of the
permanence of their interactions online.
●Students will have “positive, safe, legal, and ethical” action online and in
networked technologies.
●Students know the rights and respect obligations of “using and sharing
intellectual property.”
●Students learn about how their online activity can be tracked and take
precautions to keep their digital property private and safe.
The reasoning behind the inclusion of digital citizenship was to ensure students would be
able to grasp what it means to be a citizen, not only in the physical world but also in the
digital world. Students would be able to make informed decisions about their behavior
online for personal, educational, and professional reasons (Snelling, 2016).
ISTE released updated standards for educators in 2017; these ISTE educator
standards contained teacher-performance indicators to help educators promote technology
use in education (Smith, 2017). The 2008 standards indicated educators should “promote
and model digital citizenship and responsibility” (ISTE, 2007, p. 2). However, the
refreshed standards emphasized educators’ power in shaping learning through the use of
technology (Smith, 2017). According to Richard Culatta, CEO of ISTE (as cited by
Smith, 2017, para 7), “The ISTE Standards for Educators set the vision for how educators
can use technology to create next-generation learning environments.”
Educators’ standards comprise seven key points, with citizenship listed as Number
3. As published on ISTE’s website under the citizenship standard, it states, “Educators
inspire students to positively contribute to and responsibly participate in the digital world”
(ISTE, 2018b, para 3). The standard contains four indicators that emphasize educators
modeling, promoting, and establishing learning opportunities for students to build online
relationships and communities, develop a sense of curiosity, understanding of digital
literacy and critical research, ethical use of technology, and the importance of safe and
secure practices for technology specific to one’s own digital identity (ISTE,
2017).
Technology Infrastructure Development for K–12 Education
In the last several years, the availability and use of technology and mobile
learning devices in U.S. classrooms have become increasingly widespread as a result of
educational funding sources such as the eRate program, which provides affordable
broadband to schools and libraries (Federal Communications Commission, 2016).
Additionally, many schools have adopted technology policies and infrastructures such as
shared laptop and tablet carts, Bring Your Own Technology or Device, or 1:1 mobile
device for students. Many schools and districts have implemented technology initiatives
without the foresight to plan for the potential of technology-related issues (Ribble, 2015).
Educators, administrators, parents, and community leaders did not foresee problems such
as cyberbullying, sexting, plagiarism, identity theft, and physical health issues from
technology use. News reports and social media have documented examples of poor
technology use and overall social judgment (Acedo & Hughes, 2014; Ribble, 2015).
Additionally, overly zealous social-media postings and online gaming blur the lines
between real life and online life, making technology addiction more prevalent among this
generation of students. Educational professionals should be modeling appropriate online
behavior through their personal practices and online presence (ISTE, 2018a Lowenthal,
Dunlap, & Stitson, 2016). Initiatives and programs are being developed on a national
level to increase technology access and use for K–12 students; yet, limited research exists
about what elementary educators know and believe about digital citizenship and what
they plan for and implement into their instructional practice.
Context of the Study
An example of national initiatives and programming for technology access at the
K–12 level is the Future Ready Schools initiative: a nationwide pledge of superintendents
to make policy and infrastructure changes to support digital learning and student success
in their school districts (Alliance for Excellent Education, n.d.). The HIDOE, along with
many other school districts across the nation, submitted a Future Ready Pledge through
Future Ready Schools to the U.S. Secretary of Education. HIDOE committed to
“fostering and leading a culture of digital learning within our schools...to teach students
to become responsible, engaged, and contributing digital citizens” (2014, p.2).
Additionally, in 2014, HIDOE drafted a Future Ready Learning Plan to have
comprehensive technology plans throughout the state that promoted 21st-century
technology empowerment, training, and use by 2019.
Unlike other states that have many school districts under the umbrella of the
state’s department of education, Hawaii is a single unified school district across seven
islands. In states with many districts, inconsistency in programming, infrastructure,
funding, and resourcing may exist because districts can make decisions unique to their
population of students and teachers. Hawaii is similar because being unified does not
necessarily mean consistency exists across the statewide district. However, to address
inconsistency and a commitment to become future ready, the district has made a longterm
goal to implement 1:1 technology-device infrastructure for students in all K–12 schools
(HIDOE, n.d.b). Furthermore, the 2017–2020 HIDOE strategic plan focuses on Hawaii-
specific outcomes to prepare students for local and global leadership. Developing quality
digital citizenship skills and practices can help people become better global citizens. The
strategic plan identified that the state must “ensure graduates demonstrate the general
learner outcomes and have … habits … to achieve aspirations” (HIDOE, 2016, p.7). The
development of good digital citizenship skills at younger ages can support students in
maintaining appropriate online habits to be successful in future endeavors.
As a result of the Future Ready and Strategic plan for 2017–2020, elementary,
middle/intermediate, and high schools throughout the state are in various phases of
implementation with technology devices. Furthermore, as technology-device access
increases, the expectation to use technology regularly in classrooms rises. Additionally,
along with technology-device increase comes expectations for how individuals will learn
to use technology to be equipped to work in the 21st century. Finally, the Hawaii Future
Ready Pledge and Learning Plan indicates a commitment to providing educators with the
training necessary to support student learning.
In this study, I aimed to identify patterns and trends among elementary educators
in Hawaii related to digital citizenship instruction. With this information, leaders can plan
appropriate professional development to support any gaps that may exist in preparing
educators to instruct students to use technology effectively and efficiently. Additionally,
this study was aligned with the strategic plan to strengthen infrastructure for teacher
professional development and training by providing a baseline for what teachers know,
believe, and are already doing in their classroom or professional roles. Results of this
study could support HIDOE in deciding what training is necessary to support learning
specific to appropriate, ethical, and responsible technology use for educators. By
surveying elementary educators, an understanding of what is happening across the state
can better paint a picture of any potential gaps, so leaders can address them through
proper training or programming. Additionally, because I aimed to reach educators across
the state, this study was used to provide a glimpse of what is and is not consistent from
island to island, so educators can target professional development and training to meet the
specific needs of regions in the state.
Problem Statement
Although the concept of digital citizenship has been recognized since the early
2000s, curriculum programs for digital use have not provided teachers or students with
enough knowledge for interactions in the online world (Ribble, 2015). Currently, minimal
research has focused on elementary educators’ knowledge, beliefs, and planned and
implemented practices of digital citizenship. This problem is significant in the discipline
because it aligns with initiatives and programming which support the use of technology at
all levels of education, and especially elementary, which is positive. However, the lack of
study about knowledge, beliefs, and professional practices can lead to greater problems in
the future, as students develop poor habits for technology use as a result of lack of
training in their developmental years.
Chapter 2 will provide an explanation of what is known in scholarly literature
about digital citizenship instruction and educator knowledge and beliefs about technology
instruction; however, extant research has focused on specific elements of digital
citizenship and provided minimal research on the overall concept (Baumann, 2016;
Klinger, 2016; Snyder, 2016; Suppo, 2013). The problem that I addressed in this study
was the deficit in knowledge about what elementary educators know about digital
citizenship, what they believe about digital citizenship, what they plan and implement for
digital citizenship instruction, and what factors support or impede them in implementing
digital citizenship instruction.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this quantitative survey study was to describe patterns of Hawaii
public school elementary educators’ knowledge and beliefs about digital citizenship and
their planned and implemented practices for a digital citizenship instruction. The
secondary purpose of this study was to develop the survey tool, the Survey of Digital
Citizenship (SDC), to assess educators’ knowledge, beliefs, and professional practice on
digital citizenship. Researchers in the fields of education and psychology can use the
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing published by the American
Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National
Council on Measurement in Education (1999) as guides in the development of original
instruments for research. The standards serve as “definitive, technical, and operational …
for all forms of assessments that are professionally developed and used in a variety of
ways” (Camara, 2014 via Doğan, 2016, p. 2).
Additionally, a formative evaluation process can support the design and
development to collect data to determine the validity of tools (Dick, Carey, & Carey,
2014). I used a quantitative research method with an original survey tool, the SDC, to
collect data from elementary teachers, curriculum coordinators, and technology
coordinators about knowledge, beliefs, planned, and implemented practices for digital
citizenship. Using a formative-evaluation process, I established evidence of content and
response process validity of the SDC.
Research Questions
Because this study relied on descriptive statistics, I tested no statistical
hypotheses. The variables in this study are not independent or dependent, and the study
only reported descriptive statistics of each variable. I described relationships between
variables based on patterns which emerged from educators’ responses. Because the
variables of interest are likely to interrelate, Question 5 provided information about what
trends exist in the relationships between the variables. A more thorough explanation and
rationale for only presenting research questions can be found in Chapter 3.
Research Question 1 (RQ1): What are elementary educators’ knowledge and skill
levels of digital citizenship?
Research Question 2 (RQ2): What level of beliefs about digital citizenship do
elementary educators use in their instructional practices?
Research Question 3 (RQ3): To what degree do elementary educators plan to
implement digital citizenship in their curriculum?
Research Question 4 (RQ4): To what degree do elementary educators implement
digital citizenship in their instructional practices?
Research Question 5 (RQ5): What factors support or impede elementary
educators’ ability to plan and implement digital citizenship?
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
I used two theoretical frameworks: Mezirow’s theory of transformational learning
(1994) and Siemens’ theory of connectivism (2005), and one conceptual framework:
Ribble’s nine elements of digital citizenship (2011). Digital citizenship provided a
structure, as it has become the cornerstone to analyze and measure teacher perceptions
regarding technology and teaching. Many authors referenced digital citizenship when
discussing issues related to appropriate technology use by students in and outside of
school, as well instructional practices designed to prepare students to work in the 21st
century.
Mezirow’s (1997) theory describes frames of references for adult learners, which
are ways in which knowledge affects change based on individuals’ habits of mind and
points of view. A component of this theory is the idea of autonomous thinking, showing
citizenship and making moral decisions, which directly relates to the definition of digital
citizenship. In this study, I used RQ1 and RQ2 to address frame of reference, established
by determining what educators knew and believed about the concept of digital
citizenship. Chapter 2 includes a more comprehensive examination of the major
components of transformative learning.
Ribble’s (2011) nine elements of digital citizenship included elements to probe the
phenomena of digital citizenship knowledge, beliefs, and instructional practices.
According to Ribble (2015), “Digital citizenship aims to teach everyone (not just
children) what technology users must understand to use digital technologies effectively
and appropriately” (p. 15). Ribble (2015) intended the nine elements to provide for an
“understanding of the complexity of digital citizenship and issues of technology use,
abuse, and misuse” (p. 15). Furthermore, the nine elements are not a specific set of rules,
but a concept to support technology users in making appropriate decisions when using
technology and should serve as a place for educators to start when planning and
implementing technology into curriculum and instruction. Chapter 2 includes a more
detailed discussion of Ribble’s nine elements.
Siemens’ theory of connectivism, which combines tenets of behaviorism,
cognitivism, and constructivism to recognize learning as actionable knowledge, supported
Research Questions 3–5. Kop and Hill (2008) defined actionable knowledge as the
“process of the learner connecting to and feeding information into a learning community”
(p. 2). Based on the implications of connectivism, educators’ learningenvironment design
enables them to better pass on the knowledge they possess. Additionally, connectivism
promotes the idea learning is bidirectional and development in media resources which can
support networked learning when the learner possesses the necessary skills to navigate,
locate, identify credibility, and apply to the correct contexts (Kivunja, 2014).
From a connectivist perspective, teachers provide students with examples of the
responsible and appropriate use of technology and address issues of unethical use of
technology. Connectivist teachers model appropriate technology behaviors for students
(Thota, 2015). Therefore, a connectivist perspective provides a framework to understand
what teachers plan in regard to digital citizenship, what they implement in their
classrooms, and what supports or hinders their ability to plan or implement digital
citizenship. Chapter 2 includes a more extensive discussion of the aspects of
connectivism.
Nature of the Study
Quantitative survey study data was accrued from Hawaii public school elementary
teachers, curriculum coordinators, and technology coordinators. Throughout this
dissertation, the term educators refers to elementary teachers, curriculum coordinators,
and technology coordinators. In this study, I attempted to describe patterns of educators’
knowledge and beliefs about digital citizenship and their planned and implemented
practices for digital citizenship. With permission from HIDOE, I shared the survey with
educators through publicly accessible email addresses of elementary principals and
curriculum and technology coordinators, who then forwarded to Listservs and faculty
members meeting participation requirements. Additionally, the Hawaii Society for
Technology Education (HSTE), a professional organization, shared the study through
their monthly membership newsletter.
Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2006) and Creswell (2009) suggested using a
survey instrument to collect data, enabling a researcher to gather data on opinions,
beliefs, and perspectives related to specific phenomenon from a population. Because 209
elementary schools span seven islands, researchers can reach educators more effectively
through quantitative research methods rather than other methods. Elementary (K–5/6)
schools in the HIDOE comprise a range of faculty sizes, depending on enrollment
numbers, so school may have varying numbers of teachers at each grade level. Aside
from Oahu, the most populated island, many islands have schools that combine
elementary, intermediate (middle), and high school; however, the survey stated this study
was specifically designed for those educators in the elementary division. A demographic
question about professional responsibility reinforced the request for only
elementaryeducator participants. Data collection through a survey shared through email
and administered online eliminated issues of geographic location and staff availability
while also providing greater access to the population being examined. I analyzed data
using descriptive statistics with reports of frequencies and percentages for survey items in
order to describe patterns.
Definitions
21st-century learning: Specific learning skills that are central to digital literacy
and promote collaboration, problem solving, and critical thinking that are necessary for
success in a technologically dependent world (Rich, 2011).
Cyber ethics: Moral decisions about what is right and wrong in an Internet
environment (Park, Na, & Kim, 2014; Pusey & Sadera, 2012).
Cyberbullying: A form of harassment that occurs in online environments (Farmer,
2011; Jones & Mitchell, 2015; Ribble & Miller, 2013).
Digital citizen: For this study, a digital citizen is an “effective and ethical user of
technology” based on the general learner outcome #6 from Hawaii State Department of
Education (HIDOE, n.d.c, para 8). This definition, more than other definitions, is
important, because the population for my study was elementary educators working for
HIDOE who are expected to use rubrics and classroom evidence to score students on
general learner outcomes (GLOs) and report student progress on a quarterly report card
(HIDOE, n.d.c).
Digital citizenship: Appropriate, responsible, and ethical use of technology (Choi,
2016; Gazi, 2016; HIDOE, n.d.c; Curran, Ribble, & Ohler as cited by Impero Software,
2016; ISTE Connects, 2016; Mossberger, Tolbert, & McNeal, 2008; Ohler, 2011; Ribble,
2015). Chapter 2 provides context and comprehensive information about how this
definition arose.
Ethics: Moral decisions about what is right and wrong in an individual’s
environment (James et al., 2010; Pardo & Siemens, 2014).
General learner outcome (GLO): “overarching goals of standards-based learning
for all students in all grade levels” (HIDOE, n.d.c, para 1) used by HIDOE educators to
assess student characteristics. Elementary teachers are required to address six GLOs in
their instruction and provide a score on the report card. The focus of this study was
specifically on GLO 6: “Effective and ethical user of technology” (HIDOE, n.d.c, para 8)
Ribble’s nine elements of digital citizenship: Nine distinct topics outline the norms
for technology use, including the appropriate and inappropriate use of technology.
Educators can use these nine elements to plan and implement technology in the
instructional curriculum (Ribble, 2015).
Web 2.0: Technology tools and skills are user-generated and collaborative in
nature, allowing individuals to make connections with people, places, and concepts
beyond the physical space of the classroom, thereby expanding students’ ability to
understand on a deeper level of conceptualization (Choi, Glassman, & Cristol, 2017;
Foroughi, 2015; Frydenberg & Andone, 2014; Kop & Hill, 2008; Thota, 2015).
Assumptions
In this study, I made a number of assumptions. I assumed:
1. Educators read the request for participation email or watched the introduction
video and read the participant consent form and understood the context of the
survey.
2. Educators were truthful to the best of their abilities in assessing their
knowledge, beliefs, and professional practices.
3. Educators took time to read through each of the questions and answered them
individually instead of merely clicking through a section or randomly
selecting an answer.
4. Educators participated voluntarily and did not feel coerced into completing the
survey.
5. Educators who participated in the survey represented a sufficient sample of
the population spanning all seven islands.
6. Educators who participated in the survey represented a sufficient sample of
the population spanning a variety of age ranges, years of professional teaching
experience, and genders.
7. Educators who participated in the survey represented an accurate proportion
of elementary teachers, curriculum coordinators, and technology coordinators,
reflecting the actual population.
8. The analysis of survey results was free from researcher bias from experience
working for HIDOE.
9. The survey tool was valid in content and design.
Study assumptions primarily relate to how educator participants responded to the
questions in the survey as well as how the demographic information represents the actual
population under examination. The choice to include demographic information allowed
the research results to be generalized to the wider population, thereby permitting more
explicit statements about what the data revealed about specific demographic groups
(Hathaway, 1995).
Alternatively, Assumption 8 in the list above relates to researcher bias. This
assumption was supported by using an anonymous survey. Because my experience
working for HIDOE was only at one school on the most populated island, and the
educators who participated in the study did not identify themselves personally, I had no
way to persuade or influence former colleagues’ responses. I did not know which were
their responses or even if they participated. I applied empirical-analytical detachment to
my inquiry, which allowed me to be sufficiently removed from the research results to
avoid personal bias in my analysis (as suggested by Hathaway, 1995). Additionally,
removing specific elements regarding particular schools, classrooms, or organizations
allowed for the phenomenon being studied to be applicable to the overall population and
not specific or in isolation to unique situations (as in Hathaway, 1995). In regard to
Assumption 9, the use of a formative-evaluation process in the instrument development
(explained in detail in Chapter 3) supported the validation of the instrument used to
document the phenomenon for all educators across all demographic groups.
Scope and Delimitations
This research was limited to only elementary teachers, curriculum coordinators,
and technology coordinators. The rationale behind using these participants pertained to
their professional responsibilities in HIDOE. The curriculum coordinator meets with
classroom teachers’ multiple times in a grading quarter (decided by the school
administration). They discuss instructional plans, evaluate student data, and make
decisions for future instruction, giving curriculum coordinators knowledge about what
classroom teachers plan and implement in their learning environments in curriculum and
instruction.
Technology coordinators are responsible for all hardware and software a school
purchases or uses, training of faculty on district-implemented programming, and ensuring
the school follows state policy on technology integration. Some technology coordinators
have additional teaching responsibilities related to providing technology lessons for all
grade levels in the school. In these situations, technology coordinators communicate with
grade-level teams to plan technology instruction specific and appropriate to those grade
levels. However, they are also able to make instructional decisions based on their use of
the Hawaii State Career and Technical Education Standards (Department of Education,
State of Hawaii, 2005).
Finally, the elementary classroom teacher ultimately makes the decisions about
the instruction given to students (Acedo & Hughes, 2014; Patesan & Bumbuc, 2010;
William, 2011). Their knowledge and beliefs drive the pedagogy and support the end
goals outlined by state standards (van Braak, Tondeur, & Valcke, 2004; Wilson, Scalise,
& Gochyyev, 2014). In this study, I asked about the knowledge, beliefs, and professional
practices of educators responsible for instruction at the elementary level; therefore, I
invited individuals in the above-mentioned roles to participate. I included a demographic
question about their professional role to allow me to consider levels of knowledge and
beliefs based on position, but also holistically, for instructing students. If I acquired a
wide enough spread among educators in the three roles, or at least a representative ratio
accurate to school staffing, where no more than one technology coordinator and one
curriculum coordinator participated per school, I made statements of generalization based
on professional roles.
Limitations
As explained in more detail in Chapter 3, the choice of using a quantitative rather
than a qualitative methodology was due, in part, to wanting to include educators from
schools across the entire state. The state comprises seven islands, and the time and cost of
traveling to every elementary school in the state to conduct a qualitative study would not
be feasible. Time and cost are considered acceptable factors when deciding on a design
method (Hathaway, 1995).
A survey design offered some limitations to data collection; in this case, the main
issue was the participant response rate. Suppo (2013) conducted a survey study on
educator beliefs and professional practices for digital citizenship in the State of
Pennsylvania, working to access all superintendents, technology coordinators, and
curriculum coordinators in the entire state. Suppo closed the survey after 2 weeks due to
lack of participant response. Three differences exist between Suppo’s study and this
study: (a) Pennsylvania is not a unified school district, (b) the state is significantly larger
than Hawaii, and (c) Suppo focused on administrative roles only, which reduced
population numbers. I included some administrative roles along with classroom teachers,
who make up the majority of school staffing.
I shared the study with school administrators, including a letter of permission
from the superintendent of HIDOE. Under the guidelines of HIDOE’s Research and Data
Governance office, access to all employees meeting the population criteria is not
permitted and only publicly accessible email addresses were permissible. All principal
email addresses appear on the HIDOE homepage. Using publicly accessible email
addresses, I asked school administrators to share the study with members of their staff
who fit the criteria of classroom teacher, technology coordinator, or curriculum
coordinator. I carefully considered the time of year in which I conducted the study to
encourage a sufficient response rate. I conducted the survey during the third quarter of the
school year, after the holidays and before state testing. This timeframe includes a
relatively lower amount of additional responsibility that might interfere and cause
educators to be unwilling to complete additional tasks or respond to external requests.
Finally, although I was an employee of HIDOE for more than 2 years, I used
anonymous surveys to ensure I was not influenced by respondents’ responses because of
any professional or personal connection. Additionally, I only worked at one school in
HIDOE, so my knowledge of technology infrastructure and teacher knowledge was only
representative of that one school. I recognized the situation at my former place of
employment was not necessarily true of all other schools. I discuss this issue at great
length in the ethical procedures section of Chapter 3.
Significance
This study is unique because I attempted to draw data from the entire population
of Hawaii public school elementary educators rather than merely a sample of the
population. Information from this study may directly impact social change in Hawaii
because it will provide education leaders with insight they can use to make informed
decisions regarding policy and programming directly impacting the Future Ready Plan
and State Strategic plan. Research results may also assist leaders with information they
could use to develop programming that assists educators in addressing digital citizenship
for students at the elementary school level. Educational leaders and administrators can
use the information to design or provide appropriate staff development for educators on
digital citizenship and implementation in the classroom.
This study may also provide valuable information to educational leaders in large,
widespread districts in the United States, as well as to other school districts that have
made a Future Ready Pledge. Schools are auditing their plans to ensure they meet the
components they committed to when they pledged to be future ready. Finally, this study
is significant because it begins to address a gap in the literature regarding elementary
educators’ beliefs and knowledge of digital citizenship, curriculum planning, and
implementation of digital citizenship, and what supports or impedes their instruction with
respect to students as 21st-century learners.
Summary
Digital citizenship is not merely a trend of technology development that will reach
a point of exposure and then disappear; instead, digital citizenship is a concept that aligns
with the way individuals live their lives in the ever-growing connectedness of the real and
online worlds (Ribble, 2015). Education continues to change to support more technology
integration in classrooms from the earliest primary years through higher education.
Students experience technology at home and at school more than previous generations.
Developing into a person who is a user of technology that supports responsible decision
making, appropriate choices, and ethical viewpoints supports a more positive world.
Educators have a responsibility to support digital citizenship in their learning
environments from the earliest years of education. Using a survey to collect data, I
described patterns and trends among elementary educators for knowledge, belief, and
professional practice in relationship to digital citizenship.
The information provided in this chapter presented the context for the study. It
provided background information and outlined the problem from which this study took
root. The chapter introduced the theoretical and conceptual frameworks, but Chapter 2
provides a more thorough examination of the frameworks. The chapter included
definitions that are useful in understanding the information presented not only in Chapter
2 but throughout the remainder of the dissertation. The proceeding chapter will present a
thorough examination of scholarly research and literature
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The purpose of this quantitative survey study was to describe patterns of Hawaii
public school elementary educators’ knowledge and beliefs about digital citizenship and
their planned and implemented practices for digital citizenship instruction. As the 21st
century has seen an increase in access to digital tools in classrooms, a need exists to go
beyond schools’ and districts’ acceptable use policies (AUP). These AUPs outline the
negative aspects of technology use and the legal ramifications associated with poor digital
practices. Instead, educational institutions need to focus on the development of
curriculum programming that highlights technology use for self-empowerment, creativity,
collaboration, and academic purposes (Dotter, Hedges, & Parker, 2016). As human
beings, the development and transformation of technology has impacted many aspects of
everyday life, shaping people’s lives as they learn to work with and through a growing
dependence and need for technology (Gazi, 2016). Technology development has
impacted education as well as industry and commerce, where students will eventually
participate (Karal & Bakir, 2016). Educational institutions are key elements in ensuring
students receive the necessary skills to participate appropriately and efficiently as citizens
in the globalization of today and tomorrow’s world (Engin & Sarsar, 2015; Gazi, 2016;
Karal & Bakir, 2016).
Chapter 2 follows with an explanation of how I conducted a literature review,
including databases accessed and keywords used. I provide an in-depth discussion of the
two theoretical frameworks and the conceptual framework, including elaboration on key
components of the nine elements of digital citizenship. The chapter includes an
explanation of how the definition of digital citizenship developed, based on scholarly
literature. In this chapter, I discuss issues related to misuse of technology as well as
policy and laws developed to address poor use of technology. Additionally, I identify
extant research on digital citizenship knowledge and concepts. More topic areas included
in this chapter are reviews of research focused on preservice teachers, students’ ethical
choices and actions for technology use, and evaluation of research on teachers’
knowledge and beliefs on information and communication technology (ICT) in classroom
instruction. A rationale for digital citizenship instruction in K–12 and an explanation of
instrument development to assess digital citizenship knowledge complete the review.
Literature-Search Strategy
An assortment of scholarly journals and articles supported a review of literature
for the present study. I emphasized peer-reviewed sources dated within 5 years of the
completion of this study. Some sources are older than 5 years, due to the nature of the
topic and the initial hype of digital citizenship as a technology trend. An influx of articles
and studies took place between 2007 and 2011 and then a resurgence of interest took
place on the topic of digital citizenship in 2015, continuing to the present day. Databases
that provided the most relevant material included Dissertation Database, Education
Research Complete, Sage Premier, ProQuest, Academic Search Complete, and Science
Direct. Search terms used with each database included the following terms. The use of an
asterisk (*) at the end of words allowed for the database to cull items that might have
various endings but still be connected; for example, tech* would provide hits that
included technology, technologies, and technological: digital citizenship, Ribble, teacher
beliefs, teacher knowledge, digital literacy*, planning OR implementation,
teacher/practice, elementary OR primary OR grade school, tech* competence*, global
collab*, education and collab* and global*, tech* use, educat* and citizen*, social media
and educat* and collab*, social media and educat* and glob*, netiquette, Internet
citizenship, cyber citizenship, networked citizenship, online citizenship, citizenship
education, cybercrime, cyber bullying, Siemens, connectivism, connectiv* and citizen*,
Mezirow, transformative learning, and autonomous thinking.
At times, searches yielded too many results and had to be narrowed to ensure
relevance. A skimming of abstracts assisted in determining the suitability of a periodical.
I narrowed results based on their relevance to the topic of teachers’ beliefs or knowledge
on digital citizenship or professional practices with digital citizenship. Additionally, to
keep current with publications throughout the writing process, I set up email alerts based
on search key terms using Walden Library database services and Google Scholar to
ensure any new peer-reviewed, full-text publications could be included in the literature
review.
Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks
Mezirow’s (1991) transformative learning theory and Siemens’ (2014) theory of
connectivism provided lenses through which I explored digital citizenship. An additional
conceptual framework, Ribble’s (2011) nine elements of digital citizenship supported the
definition and parameters of the concept of digital citizenship.
Transformative-Learning Theory
Mezirow’s theory of transformational learning is an adult-learning theory focused
on the idea that one’s understanding of experiences rests on past knowledge (Taylor,
2007). In this theory, learning is a process in which individuals use previous experience
to guide their future action (Mezirow, 1997; Taylor, 2007). Frames of references for
adults have developed over years of experience, constructed based on their values,
feelings, interactions, connections, associations, and knowledge to shape their reality
(Mezirow, 1997). Frames of reference rest on individuals’ habits of mind and points of
view (Mezirow, 1997, pp. 5–6).
Mezirow (1978) described habits of mind as the code individuals use to think and
act on situations: the decision-making process driven by cultural, social, educational,
political or psychological experiences; habits of mind can be broad and abstract or narrow
and focused (Mezirow, 1997). Individuals use habits of mind to mentally uphold their
ethnocentrism, the maintaining of what they know and believe to be right about their
culture, network, society, and world (Mezirow, 1997). Habits of mind determine how an
individual reacts to a new situation or person outside the parameters of what they have
always known, such as a teacher forced to change their instructional practices that have
proven effective year after year, due to new institutional policy or programming. For
example, as teachers experience new literacy practices for 21st-century learning, they use
their own experiences to help them to determine how to best adapt the practices to fit
their classrooms (Roach & Beck, 2012). Therefore, points of view influence habits of
mind (Mezirow, 1997).
Points of view are an individual’s beliefs, attitudes, feelings, and judgments that
determine the person’s interpretation of situations. An individual’s point of view can
change as a result of experiences related to problem solving, a major impacting event, or
a compelling argument/experience (Christie, Carey, Robertson, & Grainger, 2015, p. 11).
For example, when teachers face a policy or program change, they may need extensive
collaboration with colleagues to help them to accept the change and adjust to the new
professional requirements. Habits of mind, in contrast, are often hard to change because
the views are ingrained over time as the person grows (Mezirow, 1997). When points of
view change and later, habits of mind change, people modify their frame of reference.
This modification can happen over time as individuals critically reflect on situations
altered their point of view and encouraged their habit of mind to change (Mezirow,
1997).
Mezirow (1978) proposed individuals define themselves based on the perspectives
they mentally create. Stuckey, Taylor, and Cranton (2015) recognized Boyd and Myers’s
(1998) view of transformative learning, which emphasizes the idea unconscious content
affects individuals and their intimate way of knowing as they begin to recognize their
identity as separate but intertwined with society. Additionally, Mezirow (1997) theorized
in society, people learn together and have connected experiences to create shared
understandings of the way things are meant to be, such as societal norms or codes of
behavior. Therefore, an individual’s frame of reference will alter through their analysis
and reflection on their beliefs, knowledge, and experiences. Mezirow (1996, as cited in
Taylor, 2007) identified learning as a process impacted by experience that ultimately
creates a new frame of reference or revamps existing frames of reference that support the
individual in making future decisions. Mezirow (1997) identified four processes of
learning may occur to change frames of reference:
elaboration of points of view, establishing new points of view, the transformation of
points of view, and the transformation of habits of mind.
Elaboration of points of view is the expansion of the way individuals think,
confirmed by what they already believe (Mezirow, 1997). In education, teachers may
view themselves as not being technologically savvy because they do not use much
technology in their personal or professional life. However, new programming requires
teachers to integrate more technology into their classroom and they may not receive any
support for this programming. The lack of support, knowledge, or experience extends
their view of not being technologically savvy and further deters them from using
technology.
The second process of learning, establishing new points of view, results from
exposure to adverse situations that may confirm stereotypes as they strive to maintain
their ethnocentricity, also defined as their self-identity and the beliefs they have
developed as result of their upbringing, culture, and heritage (Mezirow, 1997). For
example, a teacher might have a set of beliefs about whether or not a particular
curriculum is not suitable for the group of students they are teaching, despite how other
teachers feel. However, after hearing of a situation that proves their belief to be right,
they are further substantiated in maintaining this belief.
The third process of learning is when individuals transform their points of view
through experiences with new groups or entities that result in reflection and reevaluation
of previous frames of references (Mezirow, 1997). In education, a teacher may have a
particular point of view about specific professional practices that are not necessary or
suitable for their group of students. They may have an experience, such as attending a
professional-development conference, observing a colleague’s classroom, or working
collaboratively with a peer that causes them to shift their thinking or adapt their practice
away from their original belief system. Repeated transformation of a point of view will
alter a habit of mind (Mezirow, 1997).
Finally, the fourth process of learning is the transformation of habits of mind
through the recognition of personal biases and the ongoing change in one’s thinking and
behaviors. This process occurs when the learner experiences enough situations to change
the habit of mind (Mezirow, 1997). An educator may adopt new beliefs about
instructional practices after receiving professional development, listening to colleagues
who have had success in implementing programming, or trying out small aspects of a
program or curriculum; in other words, these new experiences significantly affect them
enough to change their beliefs. Scholarly literature has shown that for students to be
prepared as workers of the future, they must have flexibility to adapt to the changing
environments of education and industry (Brock, 2010). Being able to adapt to change and
transform as a learner in one’s formative years, and later as a professional, supports the
fourth process of learning. Furthermore, developing short- and long-term learning goals
can lead to the creation of frames of reference; therefore, educators must recognize how
they are responsible for the development of their students’ frames of reference (Mezirow,
1997).
With regard to teacher professional practice, Taylor (2007) conducted a
qualitative meta-analysis of 41 peer-reviewed journal articles that used transformative
learning as an aspect of the conceptual framework. The analysis revealed a modification
of Mezirow’s (1997) original theory to encompass the evolution of theory. Taylor
identified several studies that pointed out the importance of being a good citizen as a
component of transformational learning. Lange (2004, as cited in Taylor, 2007) especially
recognized how social responsibility changed one’s sense of self and purpose in the
world. Real-world applicable learning experiences has had an impact on establishing
frames of reference as recognized in scholarly literature (Taylor, 2007). Moreover,
teachers need to be responsible for the necessary preparation of future workers by
providing students with opportunities to learn the necessary skills and shape their
worldview to become good citizens (Brock, 2010).
An additional aspect of Mezirow’s learning theory is the idea of “autonomous
thinking,” defined as showing citizenship and making moral decisions (Mezirow, 1997,
p. 8). Mezirow believed essential knowledge for 21st-century education must include
opportunities to develop skills for flexible, collaborative, socially responsible thinkers
who can make creative decisions necessary for the situation at hand (Mezirow, 1997).
Aspects of autonomous thinking align with elements of digital citizenship in the
promotion of making socially responsible sound decisions when using technology
(Mezirow, 1997; Ribble, 2015). Transformational-learning theory is relevant to this study
because educators are adult learners; thus, this theory provides information that can be
used to understand how they learn. In addition, transformational-learning theory provides
information educators can use to recognize their role as learners and models of ethical
and responsible use of technology when planning to instruct in the 21st century, which
leads to the following discussion of Siemen’s theory of connectivism.
Connectivism
Siemens (2005) developed a learning theory for the 21st century that combined
elements of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism, but with the inclusion of
implications for technology use in education. Siemens (2005) proposed informal learning
plays a significant role in the learner’s experiences because learning happens in a variety
of ways, such as interactions with communities and social networks as well as
workrelated experiences. Siemens (2005) believed learning is a lifelong and continuous
process and technology is altering the way individuals are thinking, learning, and solving
problems. The introduction of technology has changed the way people acquire knowledge
, not only with emphasis on where to find knowledge, but also knowing what something
is or how to do specific things (Siemens, 2005). Connectivism may be less rooted in the
traditional classroom learning environment and better linked to informal or personal
experiences that build one’s knowledge base (Snyder, 2016). This type of learning
promotes an epistemology that goes beyond the individual and instead emphasizes
collaboration and social networking (Kivunja, 2013).
Williams, Karousou, and Mackness (2011) recognized two styles of learning:
prescriptive learning and emergent learning (p. 45). Prescriptive learning means actively
recognized and expected curriculum in traditional learning settings (Williams et al.,
2011). Emergent learning is learning that comes from individuals collaborating,
interacting, and socializing (Williams et al., 2011). Emergent learning, as with
connectivist principles, reinforces the learning connections people make through the
interconnectedness of collaborative and social interactions of Internet use (Snyder, 2016).
Implications of connectivism include an understanding synergy ultimately leads to the
expansion of the knowledge base of an organization (Siemens, 2005).
Connectivism recognizes the importance of the individual and the role the
individual plays in supporting the growth of knowledge in an organization as well as
beyond to the networked world (Siemens, 2005). Additionally, this theory promotes the
recognition new media sources may be resources for knowledge acquisition;
understanding information is bidirectional as a result of technology advances (Kivunja,
2014). Although this theory is most closely related to course design of eLearning,
connectivism has merits in a study exploring digital citizenship because many of the
aspects of online course design can be applied to K–12 teachers integrating technology
use into their learning environments.
Over the past decade, Web 2.0 tools and skills have altered the use of technology
in classrooms and forced teachers to change their ways of thinking and instructing to
support a more hands-on and participatory learning environment (Foroughi, 2015). Web
2.0 tools and skills are commonly recognized as the trends and technological
developments of collaboration and user-generated content (Foroughi, 2015; Frydenberg
& Andone, 2014; Thota, 2015). People can misuse specific technologies and tools and
lack professional training to support learners in developing new skills, which prevent
teachers from implementing a completely Web 2.0 classroom (Thota, 2015). Connectivist
teachers model for students the appropriate behaviors and discuss issues that may impact
students legally, socially, and ethically when using technology (Thota, 2015).
Additionally, connectivist learning environments promote the philosophy individuals are
responsible for their own learning and should develop as responsible learners, consistent
with their values and engagement as a global participant (Thota, 2015).
Connectivism theory continues to facilitate the changing nature of technology in
education as technology advances past Web 2.0 into Web 3.0 tools (Foroughi, 2015).
Web 3.0 tools are closing information gaps and decreasing the time in which worldly
knowledge is created and disseminated (Foroughi, 2015). To frame the trends of
technology development, access, use, and integration, Siemens (2005) developed eight
principles as part of the theory of connectivism.
Principle 1 is opinion has an impact on learning and knowledge (Foroughi, 2015;
Siemens, 2005). Technology will advance to make use of smart search engines, which
will produce search results with more multimedia components and organize the data in
ways not previously considered (Foroughi, 2015). Additionally, resources are becoming
more succinct across platforms available as common or open-education resources
(Hussain, 2013). With this type of technological advancement, it will become important
for students to have a strong foundation in digital-literacy skills and knowledge of digital
law when accessing and using a more complex set of resources.
Principle 2 is that when learning happens people make connections (Foroughi,
2015; Siemens, 2005). Teachers and students will be able to contact peers and scholars in
new ways with greater access to resources and media (Foroughi, 2015). Having a strong
foundation of digital etiquette and digital communication can better facilitate the growing
of relationships. Connections and networking also support good citizenship because
technology is advancing to be more collaborative in nature, allowing individuals to work
with peers despite geographic boundaries through collaborative platforms and virtual
environments (Dalgarno & Lee, 2012; Foroughi, 2015).
Next, Principle 3 is education can accrue through nonhuman means (Foroughi,
2015; Siemens, 2005). With the increase in digital aggregates, searching and using the
Internet are becoming more tailored to the individual (Foroughi, 2015). Synchronization
of devices and hand-off functionality allows users to pick up where they left off from one
device to another device, the way they might use a bookmark in a book. These
functionalities can be beneficial for productivity as people move about but can also be
harmful if individuals do not ensure certain protocols are in place to protect personal
information. Because technology is developing to be more intuitive, it can cause people to
develop poor habits that could result in negative digital citizenship. Education can
support individuals by making them more aware of the potential hazards and having them
establish certain protocols and behaviors to prevent issues arising from technology use.
Principle 4 states the ability to acquire more knowledge supersedes the already
obtained knowledge, meaning individuals will continue to search for more answers in
pursuit of knowing more than what is already known (Foroughi, 2015; Siemens, 2005).
Being able to retrieve information about a concept, idea, political issue, or social trend
has never been faster (Foroughi, 2015). News and information updates in nanoseconds in
addition to the speed at which people are posting and sharing information they find
interesting, exciting, shocking, or unbelievable. However, having good digital-literacy
skills will support a learner being able to sift through the magnitude of information to
determine what is credible and reliable, enhancing the ability to become a more informed
consumer or engaged citizen.
Principle 5 is learning is best facilitated through connections (Foroughi, 2015;
Siemens, 2005). Web 2.0 has allowed individuals to make connections with people,
places, and concepts beyond the physical space of the classroom, expanding the ability
for students to understand on a deeper level of conceptualization (Kop & Hill, 2008).
Students will need to understand how connections can be made between concepts and
ideas (Siemens, 2008). Having adequate and consistent access to Internet-enabled digital
devices will prevent lapses in developing the ability to create connections (Foroughi,
2015).
Next, Principle 6 proposed recognizing connections among people or objects is a
major attribute of success (Foroughi, 2015; Siemens, 2005). As students become better
critical thinkers, problem solvers, and collaborative team players, they are building their
aptitude to be successful in future work environments (Foroughi, 2015). Much like
Principle 5, knowing about and having consistent digital access is a major component in
developing the necessary connections for success (Foroughi, 2015).
Principle 7 indicated having current knowledge is vital to learning (Foroughi,
2015; Siemens, 2005). Similar to Principle 4, digital-literacy skills and access to digital
tools will support a learner in knowing what is currently happening in the world and
which shared information is factual. The speed at which knowledge is generated and
shared is faster than it has ever been and having the skills to use technology to keep
current supports learning not just in the formative years of education, but as a lifelong
learner who continues to evolve and adapt with the change of the world and the
knowledge being shared (Foroughi, 2015; Siemens, 2005). Additionally, control over
who is the provider of knowledge is being released from the teacher or educational
institute by putting greater emphasis on the student taking responsibility for their learning
(Foroughi, 2015).
Finally, Principle 8 indicates decision making is essential to survival (Foroughi,
2015; Siemens, 2005). As technology becomes more specific and customizable to the
user, it becomes even more important for the user to know how to make decisions and
which actions are considered acceptable, responsible, and appropriate to be a contributing
citizen in society. Teachers will continue to provide education, as their experience can
support students in making decisions by sharing their skills and knowledge as a model or
director of learning with students, as they make choices for their future (Foroughi, 2015;
Siemens, 2008).
The eight principles of connectivism help outline the impact of technology
development on the educational process (Foroughi, 2015). Teachers and students
contribute to the learning environment and to the interconnected world as they increase
their use and integration of technology in their learning environment. Taken in isolation,
each principle highlights specific behaviors that currently and will continue to influence
individuals’ technology use in the future. However, it is the combined essence of the
principles that helps highlight how technology will influence education and what teachers
can do to support students in their ability to become responsible, ethical, and appropriate
users of technology who value lifelong learning.
Specific principles of connectivism that support this study are the understanding
of learning resulting from nonhuman means (i.e., the teacher is not the sole source of
learning), the recognition of the value of current or relevant knowledge, and how the
decision-making process of planning for instruction can lead to the preparation of
students as citizens of the future. This theory is relevant to this study because the teacher
makes decisions about what knowledge is going to be acquired through their instruction,
formal and informal. Digital citizenship could be viewed as informal learning or hidden
curriculum (Acedo & Hughes, 2014), but by exposing students to acceptable
technologyuse practices and maintaining standards for this type of behavior, the teacher
enables codes of behavior and expectations that will be part of the current learning
environment and perhaps future learning environments in which students adapt to change
formally and informally.
Digital Citizenship Definition and Overview
Scholars such as Ribble (2015) and Mossberger et al. (2008) viewed citizenship
connected to Internet and technology use as norms, appropriate behavior, and
participation in an online society, otherwise termed digital citizenship (Choi, 2016).
Digital citizenship, as defined by Ribble, Bailey, and Ross (2004) is the ethical, social,
and cultural awareness of issues related to technology use. This also includes acceptable
norms and implications of actively using technology (Ribble et al., 2004). According to
Hobbs and Jensen (2009), digital citizenship is the skills and knowledge needed to be
effective in the increasingly social media environment, where the distinction
between producer and consumer have evaporated and the blurring between
public and private worlds create new ethical challenges and opportunities for
children, young people, and adults. (p. 5)
Gazi (2016), Ohler (201l), Ribble and Bailey (2007), Ribble (2011, 2015, 2017), and
Ribble and Miller’s (2013) definitions for digital citizenship encompass having
acceptable online behavior, norms or codes of online actions, and responsible technology
use. According to the white paper, “Digital Citizenship: A Holistic Primer,” coauthored
by Impero Software and the directors of the Digital Citizenship Institute, Curran, Ribble,
and Ohler, “Digital citizenship reflects our quest to help students, as well as ourselves,
develop the skills and perspectives necessary to live a digital lifestyle that is safe, ethical,
and responsible, as well as inspired, innovative and involved” (Impero Software, 2016, p.
2). The authors’ intention in publishing this document was to “help schools understand
and effectively teach digital citizenship” (Impero Software, 2016, p. 1).
For this study, all reference to digital citizenship will mean an individual’s
appropriate, ethical, and responsible use of technology for all aspects of device use,
websites, open-education resources, documents, and collaborative environments such as
social-networking sites. This definition grew from examining and combining the
definitions provided by previously scholars. An additional consideration included the
definition of the HIDOE’s (n.d.c) General Learner Outcome 6: “Effective and ethical user
of technology” described in Chapter 1.
Digital citizenship is neither a trend in technology development nor a label for
online-behavior guidelines but instead is a matter of real issues impacting technology
users regardless of age or status (Snyder, 2016). Nine elements highlight positive and
negative online behavior (Ribble, 2011). Because Web 2.0 tools were developed with
adults in mind, many interactions that occur online require a maturity level that many K–
12 students, especially elementary aged, may not be ready to manage. The maturity level
necessary to engage with Web 2.0 tools are forcing students to mature faster than those in
previous generations (Ribble & Miller, 2013).
Junko and Ananou (2015) outlined the social, emotional, ethical, and cognitive
impact technology has had on today’s learners to understand how education can lessen
adverse effects and provide a more well-rounded student. When educators emphasize
digital citizenship in the educational setting, students engage in appropriate
onlinebehavior practices (Chou, Block, & Jesness, 2012). Therefore, it is not only
valuable for educators to have knowledge about digital citizenship but to also implement
sound practices into their instruction with technology
Ribble’s Nine Elements of Digital Citizenship
Ribble’s (2011, 2015) nine elements of digital citizenship are digital access,
digital commerce, digital communication, digital literacy, digital etiquette, digital law,
digital rights and responsibilities, digital health and well-being, and digital security (and
safety), each defined below.
Digital Access
Digital access is the idea of having equitable access to technological resources to
participate fully in society including providing accommodations for individuals with
disabilities. In the classroom setting, digital access can be used to accommodate students
with disabilities accessing traditional curriculum content. Choi’s (2016) concept analysis
found many studies attribute access to digital resources, otherwise termed the digital
divide, as a barrier to being able to develop as a citizen with media and
informationliteracy skills.
Digital Commerce
Digital commerce is the ability to buy and sell goods electronically to promote a
globalized market for products (Curran & Ribble, 2017; Ribble, 2015). Students need to
be made aware of costs associated with buying items online such as extra coins for a
game or a new application for the tablet (Curran & Ribble, 2017). Furthermore, students
need to recognize how their personal information can be made vulnerable through the use
of insecure websites when making online purchases (Curran & Ribble, 2017).
Digital Communication
Digital communication is the way individuals connect through digital means as
well as the flow and interaction of information accessed through technology. Uzuboylu
and Hürsen (2011) recognized when people are lifelong learners, they change their
behavior as a result of experiences impacting their personal and professional lives. Being
a lifelong learner means developing competencies such as information retrieval or
learning how to communicate in an intelligent, appropriate, and efficient manner using
technology such as email and cell phones (Ozdamli & Ozdal, 2015). It may be more
valuable to focus on the intended message before picking a tool to deliver it through text,
email, and social media applications such as SnapChat and Twitter, or face-to-face
(Curran & Ribble, 2017).
Digital Literacy
Sometimes referenced as new literacies, media literacies, or information literacies,
digital literacy is essentially an individual’s basic understanding of computer functions
and technology use by being able to apply digital skills to specific situations to engage in
the online world (Curran & Ribble, 2017). Teachers who provide opportunities for
students to develop quality digital-literacy skills such as navigating and evaluating online
platforms and comprehending the building blocks of computer and device use such as
email, search engines, word processing, and producing are preparing students to be better
21st-century workers (Curran & Ribble, 2017). New literacy skills are necessary for
digital citizenship (Simsek & Simsek, 2013). Access to reliable and creditable
information has increased with the development of new literacies; there by enhancing
one’s ability to “share, compare, and contextualize information by developing new skills”
(Simsek & Simsek, 2013, p. 133). Online collaboration and communication skills
improve users’ self-efficacy with technology use as users become more confident using
the Internet to access and evaluate information, as well as cooperate, collaborate, and
communicate with others through the web (Aesaert, Van Nijlen, Vanderlinde, & van
Braak, 2014; Choi et al., 2017; Livingstone & Helsper, 2009; Moeller, Joseph, Lau, &
Carbo, 2011; Simsek & Simsek, 2013).
Digital Etiquette
Digital etiquette is sometimes referred to as ‘netiquette,’ indicating accepted
standards for behaving in digital forums. Netiquette indicates online morality and ethics
(Park et al., 2014). Cyberspace has its own code of behaviors separate from the real world
that support users in determining what is acceptable and not acceptable to do when
engaging in activities online (Park et al., 2014). Digital etiquette also relates to
organizations needing to have AUPs and individuals understanding of when it is
appropriate to use certain technologies and devices in their personal and professional
lives (Ribble, 2015). Additionally, etiquette is about humanizing the interactions people
have with one another by remembering it is not a machine but a person on receiving
opposite end of tweets, texts, and emails (Curran & Ribble, 2017). Teachers support
students in developing this element by having them learn how to communicate in
different messaging situations and with various people, including the use of positive or
constructive communication versus negative, aggressive, or poorly articulated
communication (Curran & Ribble, 2017).
Digital Law
Digital law is about the understanding of what actions are considered poor
behavior and what actions break actual laws, aligning significantly with issues related to
intellectual property and copyright issues (Curran & Ribble, 2017). Furthermore, digital
law is about developing a code of conduct for fair access, sharing, downloading, altering,
or reusing material distributed digitally. Educating students in digital law includes
instructing them on how to do Internet research and properly cite sources of different
types of media including photographs, articles, and videos (Curran & Ribble, 2017).
Laws were created to ensure individuals’ rights are protected and to ensure those
who behave inappropriately in digital environments are prosecuted. Inappropriate online
behavior encompasses the development and sharing of computer viruses or hacking
protocols, plagiarizing and distributing publications by other people while claiming them
as one’s own work, sharing files that should be paid for before using, the creation and
distribution of media of an unacceptable nature such as child pornography, and actively
pursuing an individual and invading their life through the use of social-media outlets so
as to cause them harm or fear (known as Internet stalking; Ribble, 2015). Students also
need to be aware of the legal ramifications of not giving credit to sources and sharing
inappropriate content through sexting or other social media (Curran & Ribble, 2017).
Digital Rights and Responsibilities
Digital rights and responsibilities are the freedoms of using the digital world while
also being responsible for the use of what one accesses. When educators help students to
recognize responsibilities come with using technology, they provide students with the
opportunity to be positive contributors to the global world (Curran & Ribble,
2017). Additionally, parents play a significant role in supporting rights and
responsibilities by monitoring their child’s online accounts and activities (Curran &
Ribble, 2017) and by being an example in their use of social media.
Digital Health and Well-being
Digital health and well-being are an individual’s ability to maintain physical and
mental health while still engaging in the digital world, including the recognition and
acknowledgment that one can overuse technology compared to the ability to find balance
between online and real-world lives. This element’s negative aspect is based on the
amount of time individuals spend looking at screens and not physically moving (Curran
& Ribble, 2017). Of adults, 65% use social media regularly (Pew Research Center, 2015).
With the high usage of online platforms for entertainment and interaction, it is valuable to
model to students how to build healthy relationships with people through digital
communication and face-to-face interactions (Curran & Ribble, 2017).
Digital Security (and Safety)
Digital security is about the protocols, policies, and procedures individuals use to
ensure their use of the Internet does not have a negative impact on other aspects of their
lives. This element emphasizes the precautions individuals must take to ensure private
information is not compromised or stolen as a result of electronic interactions. People
practicing good digital safety and security have habits and practices like purchasing and
installing virus protection on their computers, creating backup systems for valuable
documentation through external hard drives or cloud storage, and only using sites with
clear safety protocols when sharing sensitive and personal information (Ribble, 2015).
Knowledge and experience specific to computer security are essential for teachers to
understand and pass on specific behaviors (Jagasia, Baul, & Mallik, 2015).
Through the use of Ribble’s (2015) nine elements of digital citizenship, educators,
students, parents, and policymakers are able to develop an understanding of ethical,
appropriate, and responsible uses of technology. Stakeholders can also discern what are
unacceptable, poor, or illegal uses of technology in the confines of educational settings
and in the broader, more open, interconnected and globalized world. The nine elements
provide a framework to address issues by focusing on specific aspects of technology use
and integration. These elements should be taught continuously throughout a student’s
education to ensure developmentally appropriate topics are covered at crucial times in
students’ use of technology (Ribble, 2015). Additionally, students should be repeatedly
exposed to the elements to reinforce appropriate, ethical, and responsible technology-use
behavior over time (Ribble, 2017).
Issues of Poor Technology Use
Issues of poor technology use will arise when individuals are not trained on
specific laws and policies in place for responsibly and ethically using technology. Many
dangers exist through Internet access (Shillair et al., 2015); individuals should learn safe
online behaviors at younger ages than ever before. Elementary-aged students are
particularly susceptible to technology misuse because they are at the beginning stages of
digital literacy and understanding of appropriate behaviors for interacting with others in
real-world interactions and online interactions. I provide examples of how people misuse
technology in the following section.
In 2011, the Pew Research Center released a report entitled “Teens, Kindness, and
Cruelty on Social Network Sites,” indicating at least a quarter of survey respondents had
their interactions online impact their life significantly (Lenhart, Madden, Smith, Purcell,
& Zickuhr, 2011). The real-life impact resulted in the form of face-to-face arguments
following online communication, friendship loss, or feeling uncomfortable attending
school after online situations (Ribble & Miller, 2013). Statistics such as these indicate
responsible and appropriate technology use needs to be addressed at the school level
(Ribble & Miller, 2013). Student access to technology is not limited to devices provided
at school; however, the misuse of social media and technology impacts the social
environment of the school, increasing bullying because the physical constraints of faceto-
face interactions or because school hours are no longer a factor (Ribble & Miller, 2013).
To address this issue, some states across the United States are beginning to develop laws
that allow school leaders to suspend or expel individuals engaging in cyberbullying or
sexual harassment and the distribution of naked photographs and videos using technology
(known as sexting; Ribble & Miller, 2013).
Students proficiency in technology-literacy skills accompanies a growing rise in
cyber-related crimes. News reports and social media continue to document examples of
poor technology use and overall poor social judgment (Ribble, 2015). Students may
inadvertently engage in online interactions that are harmful to themselves or others as a
result of lack of knowledge (Snyder, 2016).
Policy and Laws for Responsible Technology Use
School disciplinary policies for technology misuse fall into one of two categories:
issues handled case-by-case or firewalls and blockades preventing students from
accessing parts of the Internet (Ohler, 2011). Additionally, educators have concerns
regarding other important issues such as learning to use the Internet and technology in a
responsible way and are not addressing the discerning of appropriate and inappropriate
content (Ohler, 2011). Currently, two significant federal laws exist to enforce the teaching
of Internet ethics, safety, and security: the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2001
(updated 2011) and the Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008 (Pusey & Sadera,
2012). These laws address K–12 schools’ requirement to have policy related to acceptable
online content access and the instruction of acceptable online behavior. The laws are
vague and not strictly enforced (Pusey & Sadera, 2012).
In 2008, Pruitt-Mentle and the Stay Safe Online Organization conducted the first
National Cyberethics, Cybersafety and Cybersecurity Baseline Study to discern how U.S.
schools addressed cybersecurity, cybersafety, and cyberethics. Research results revealed
schools address Internet ethics, safety, and security by only focusing on issues related to
plagiarism and cyberbullying (Pusey & Sadera, 2012). More current literature reflects the
continued focus on understanding and addressing issues of cyberbullying (Jones &
Mitchell, 2015; Steinmetz, 2013; Styron Bonner, Styron, Bridgeforth, & Martin, 2015).
Digital Ethics Behavior of Students
Pardo and Siemens (2014) described ethics as being left to the interpretation of an
organization’s stakeholders’ views of what is acceptable and unacceptable online
behavior. Several researchers studied unethical online behaviors of students. James et al.
(2010) conducted a 3-year empirical research study called the GoodPlay project, which
documented and analyzed the online behaviors of youth to identify the digital knowledge
and ethics they possess. James et al. collected data through interviews, analysis of
theoretical standpoints on culture, psychology, and sociology, and identified research
trends on developing new media usage. The researchers identified five topics that
represent areas of poor technology use or ethical dilemmas. These topics include
“identity, privacy, ownership and authorship, credibility, and participation” (Davis et al.,
2010, p. 126; James et al., 2010, p. 269).
Identity is the understanding of how individuals represent themselves in online
environments including what information they share. Shared information may be too
revealing or deceptive and misleading (Davis et al., 2010). Privacy issues align with what
personal information one shares or what individuals share about others, such as posting
and tagging photographs of someone in a questionable or unflattering situation.
Ownership and authorship issues arise with the collaborative and often open resourcing of
many Web 2.0 technologies. Credibility relates to building and giving trust (Davis et al.,
2010), such as reading reviews of places or products to determine the authenticity of what
is being marketed online. Last, participation aligns with individuals’ sense of right and
responsibility when interacting in online, collaborative, and social-interactive
environments (Davis et al., 2010). Researchers acknowledged additional research needs
to be conducted to understand what youth believe to impact their choices when making
ethical online decisions and what supports are necessary to meet their needs. Researchers
proposed the creation of a curriculum to support youth in developing the skills necessary
to make good choices online, but additional research will be needed to determine
effective objectives and activities.
In continuation and in partnership with Common Sense Media, the GoodPlay
Project, and Global Kids, researchers Davis et al. (2010) qualitatively analyzed electronic
dialogues from a 3-week series of online discussions by more than 150 teachers,
adolescents, and parents. Results revealed adults were more likely to engage in ethical
and morally responsible thinking compared to adolescents. Additionally, adolescents
disclosed they engaged in unethical online behaviors such as downloading and stealing
others’ intellectual property with indifference toward their actions. Implications of this
study are the significant role adults, teachers, and parents play in modeling for children
and adolescents about how to be a good digital citizen. The researchers recommended
using support groups and intervention programs that encourage adults, specifically
parents, to dialogue with children about moral and ethical online behavior (Davis et al.,
2010).
Furthermore, Konrath, O’Brien, and Hsing (2011) conducted a cross-temporal
meta-analysis study tracking the empathy of college students over a 30-year period
(1979–2009). The researchers conducted a literature search in the Web of Knowledge
database for studies that used the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) to study empathy
among U.S. college students at traditional 4-year undergraduate institutions; a total of 72
studies met the criteria for this meta-analysis (Konrath et al., 2011). Researchers analyzed
the IRI subscales of each of the 72 qualifying studies through correlation of the year the
study was conducted and mean scores on the IRI. Regression analysis revealed mean
scores for studies conducted in the same year. Results of scores from the IRI revealed,
under the empathy subscale, a 48% drop in empathetic concern and a 34% drop in
perspective taking (Konrath et al., 2011). These results, along with other research into
empathy, are believed to contribute to the lack of physical interaction and increased
access to more violent content online such as videos and gaming, resulting in the
dehumanization of people (Konrath as cited by Swanbrow, 2010; Ribble & Miller, 2013).
Intervention programs have been introduced to support teaching empathy to children and
adolescents, such as a program called Roots of Empathy (Konrath et al., 2011); however,
the program does not specifically state these programs are the answer. Instead they
recommend schools and families continue to introduce interventions to counteract some
of the negative behavior from overuse of technology, such as just having 20 to 30 minutes
of face-to-face contact with other people, free of technology use (Konrath et al.,
2011).
Poor online behavior, such as cyberbullying or harassment, may be an individual’s
way of escalating their popularity or seeking validation by making others feel weaker or
victimized (Farmer, 2011). When students do not receive education about how to interact
with others, online or in person, they lack the capacity to relate to others, especially those
with differing ideas, cultures, or belief systems, and they do not develop a moral or
ethical code based on respect and understanding (Snyder, 2016). Therefore, unguided
technology use may result in a lowered moral compass and a higher rate of negative
interactions between humans.
Teachers and students, regardless of their educational level, can be taught to use
various technologies, but should have a foundation for responsible and ethical technology
use to prevent them from developing poor lifelong habits and the potential for causing
harm to others (Wilson et al., 2014). An understanding of what is acceptable and what is
unacceptable when using technology needs to be established in the learning environment
and at home. Thus, when time is given to address potential issues of poor technology use
or highlight appropriate use of technology, students will be less likely to make poor
choices.
Scholars recommended that emphasis on the importance of exposure to
instructional experiences will help students recognize appropriate and ethical behavior in
the digital world (Davis et al., 2010; Farmer, 2011; Konrath et al., 2011; Pardo &
Siemens, 2014; Ribble & Miller, 2013; Snyder, 2016; Swanbrow, 2010). Additionally,
teachers can model acceptable behaviors in their own technology practices in planning
and integrating digital citizenship into the curriculum. Therefore, establishing what
teachers know and believe about digital citizenship or what they plan and implement in
their learning environments will help determine what additional support they need to
ensure teachers and students learn and use all aspects of digital citizenship.
Prior Research into Digital Citizenship Knowledge and Concepts
Limited research specifically examined the knowledge or beliefs of teachers
regarding digital citizenship through the lens of Ribble nine elements. Some researchers
focused on student behavior in relationship to some aspects of digital citizenship. A few
research studies focused on attempts to develop or integrate curriculum that addressed
digital citizenship into learning environments, specifically middle and high school levels.
Researchers conducted very minimal research at the elementary level with teachers, and
virtually nothing with elementary students with respect to Ribble’s nine elements or
digital citizenship in general.
Although researchers regularly cited Ribble in journal articles regarding
developing a concrete definition of digital citizenship, many citations are used to provide
a rationale for why digital citizenship will prepare students for the future, supporting
technology-infused curriculum, and how digital citizenship could help prepare teachers
and administrators for potential hazards that can arise with technology use that is not
covered by organizational acceptable-use policies. Studies cited below either directly
referenced Ribble’s nine elements as the framework for the research design or used the
nine elements as a key definition related to the research question(s). The majority of the
literature focused on preservice teachers, identified as “Digital Natives.” Based on
Prensky’s (2001) definition, a digital native is someone who has never known a time
without the Internet. However, scholars debate the exact point in time when “natives”
were first born.
Several dissertation studies incorporated Ribble’s nine elements as either a
reference to define specific aspects of digital citizenship or as a conceptual framework
Such dissertations include the works of Baumann (2016), Boyle (2010), Klinger (2016),
Lindsey (2015), Lyons, (2012) Snyder (2016), and Suppo (2013). Of the studies
referenced, only one, Baumann, used teachers of elementary-age students as participants.
Additionally, Baumann only examined one element of digital citizenship: safety and
security. Boyle, Lyons, and Suppo conducted quantitative studies whereas Baumann,
Klinger, and Lindsey used qualitative research strategies. A comparison of scholarly
literature from dissertation and other research follows.
Preservice Teacher Training
Sincar (2011, 2013), Pusey and Sadera (2012), Lindsey (2015), Karal and Bakir
(2016), and Çiftci and Aladag (2018) conducted research studies on preservice teachers’
knowledge of digital citizenship. Sincar (2011) and Karal and Bakir conducted qualitative
studies, Lindsey and Sincar (2013) conducted mixed-methods studies, and Pusey and
Sadera and Çiftci and Aladag conducted a quantitative survey study. Additionally, Pusey
and Sadera emphasized the curriculum of cyber ethics, cyber security, and cyber safety
(C3) rather than Ribble’s nine elements of digital citizenship as the framework to
determine digital citizenship knowledge.
Sincar (2011) conducted a qualitative study of 17 preservice teachers’ recognition
of Ribble’s nine elements. Then, Sincar adapted the study into a mixed-methods study
also using preservice teachers to consider the influence of gender on digital citizenship
habits. Sincar used semistructured interviews lasting 30–60 minutes with open-ended
questions and inductive analysis to identify themes and patterns. The results of the study
indicated participants possessed adequate behaviors for digital literacy and digital
communication but lacked proficiency in the other seven elements.
In 2013, Sincar used a quantitative form to identify gender and social-media usage
(type and duration per day) among 210 preservice teachers and semistructured interviews
with the participants that emphasized five basic questions and five open-ended questions
on causes for inappropriate technology and device usage. Sincar used multiple linear
regression for the quantitative portion and deductive analysis of themes and patterns for
the qualitative portion. Results revealed more male than female preservice teachers
engaged in inappropriate behaviors in technology use; however, women were not entirely
free of poor behavior. Sincar’s studies in connection with Ribble’s nine elements
concluded preservice teachers were not prepared to exemplify good digital citizenship for
their future students. Greater emphasis should be placed on the ethical and responsible
use of technology for personal and curriculum instructional purposes in college-
preparation programs (Sincar, 2013). Additionally, this lack of preparation among
preservice teachers could indicate the need for professional development for current
teachers focused on the nine elements of digital citizenship (Snyder, 2016).
Like Sincar (2013), Lindsey (2015) used a mixed-methods study but used action
research focused on a training program at the university level. Participants were faculty
working in the College of Education and teacher-candidate students. Through this study,
researchers aimed to determine if a technology-support system that used appropriate
digital citizenship behavior would affect participants’ plans for future classroom
instruction. Data was collected using surveys, focus-group interviews of teacher
candidates, interviews with course instructors, researcher journal reflections, and
fieldnote observations. Lindsey analyzed data using an ANOVA for the quantitative
portion and a constant-comparative method to identify themes from open codes for the
qualitative portion. Participants felt the intervention had a positive impact on their
professional practice and intended to implement learned strategies into their future
instruction
(Lindsey, 2015).
Karal and Bakir (2016) conducted a qualitative case study involving preservice
teachers. Data-collection methods involved observations and interviews of 11 preservice
teachers over a period of 5 weeks while they completed their required classroom-teaching
practicum. The authors identified all participants as digital natives, aligned with
Prensky’s (2001) definition, aiming to measure the perceptions of digital citizenship
terms by preservice teachers. Results from Karal and Bakir revealed preservice teachers
closely associated digital citizenship terms and Ribble’s nine elements of digital
citizenship with clear but simple definitions of each element. However, preservice
teachers only emphasized being put on digital communication, digital access, and digital
literacy in the classroom environment (Karal & Bakir, 2016). Implications of the Karal
and Bakir study align with the research findings of Sincar (2011, 2013) and Lindsey
(2015), in which exposure to digital citizenship curriculum at the university level
supports preservice teachers’ preparation to use these practices in their future classrooms.
Pusey and Sadera (2012) conducted a survey study of 318 university students
majoring in education, often referenced as preservice teachers, and their knowledge of
and preparedness to teach C3 curriculum. Like the previously mentioned studies, the
researchers identified study participants as digital natives because they have never known
a time when the Internet did not exist. The researchers hypothesized that despite the
population’s exposure to the web and mobile devices over their lifetime, they might not
possess the skills necessary to include C3 curriculum in their future instructional
methods. Data accrued using a face-to-face administration of a quantitative survey—the
C3 Awareness and Instructional Preparedness Instrument—to identify what preservice
teachers knew about C3 curriculum and what topics they were prepared to teach in their
future classrooms over a period of several semesters from 2008 to 2010 (Pusey & Sadera,
2012).
Pusey and Sadera (2012) used descriptive statistics of means of the topics of
awareness and preparedness to determine a threshold for which an individual was
prepared or unprepared to teach specific topics The results of the study revealed that a
majority of participants were knowledgeable and felt prepared to teach four skills
typically associated with digital literacy or digital communication: emailing with
attachments, text messaging, cell-phone usage, and plagiarism. Other components related
to a C3 curriculum more closely connected to digital elements such as digital law, digital
rights and responsibilities, and digital security and safety, revealing low knowledge or
preparedness for instructing students including topics such as disposal of technology,
phishing, tracking cookies, and fair-use exceptions (Pusey & Sadera, 2012). Implications
of this study revealed that although preservice teachers may have a lifetime of working
with technology, they do not have knowledge or skills necessary to instruct future
generations on issues of poor digital citizenship (Pusey & Sadera, 2012). In alignment
with the findings of Karal and Bakir (2016), Lindsey (2015), and Sincar (2011, 2013), the
researchers recommended that university education programs develop their curriculum to
better address knowledge competencies for digital citizenship to ensure teachers are ready
to provide this type of curriculum.
Çiftci and Aladag (2018) conducted a descriptive survey study of elementarylevel
preservice teachers using two instruments: the Digital Citizenship Scale developed by
Isman and Gungoren (2014) and the Attitude Scale for Digital Technology developed by
Cabi (2016). Study results showed no connection between gender and attitudes toward
technology digital citizenship. However, a significant difference emerged between the
level of digital citizenship and Internet access (connection), but no significance in attitude
and Internet access. The results also showed a significant difference in attitudes on
technology and citizenship when considering years of experience using the Internet.
Additionally, participants’ years in the program) impacted the attitudes and citizenship
scale. The implications of the study revealed that with more experience in Internet use,
participants had a more positive attitude toward technology and an increased level of
digital citizenship. These results are significant when considering future classrooms filled
with digital natives because if educators who are responsible for their instruction have a
positive attitude toward technology use, they are likely to support students in positively
developing as digital citizens.
Teacher Practices for Digital Citizenship
Baumann (2016) conducted a qualitative case study using surveys, interviews, and
artifact analysis with 20 administrators and teachers from public schools in Connecticut.
Baumann aimed to examine the perceptions of K–5 faculty in addressing computer safety
and security in the curriculum. The administration did not recognize the need for
additional instructional time to address computer safety and security. In contrast, teachers
who were attempting to implement this concept into their instructional practices believed
they lacked proper training. Researcher recommendations included up-to-date and
ongoing training on relevant topics for computer-safety issues and instruction,
professional development for computer use and integration, adoption of a new curriculum
that emphasizes common core and 21st-century skills for technology use, and a need for
administrators to reconsider policies to address and enforce consequences for
inappropriate technology use. Additionally, Baumann recommended that further research
address the effectiveness of AUP and enforcement of policies for student computer safety
and security.
Similar to Baumann’s (2016) study, Klinger’s (2016) qualitative case study used
teachers; however, Klinger used 12 private-school teachers from Grades 6–12 classrooms
inquiring into the digital communication tool use for social collaborative and learning
usage among students. Klinger interviewed participants using a semistructured, face-
toface, individual interview. Klinger recorded the interviews and coded them to identify
themes. Participants revealed that although they believed their students possessed the
necessary digital-literacy skills to use the tools, they did not possess the appropriate
maturity level to engage successfully through the use of the tools. Implications of this
study are that technology-device choice and training to support the mature and
responsible use of collaborative social learning through a digital citizenship curriculum
would better support this type of learning experience. Information about studies focusing
specifically on student behavior follows.
K–12 Students and Digital Citizenship
Placing emphasis on student behavior instead of teacher action, Boyle (2010) and
Lyons (2012) conducted quantitative studies and Davis and James (2013) conducted a
qualitative study. Boyle used high school aged students (approximately 14–18 years old
in Grades 9–12), Davis and James (2013) used preadolescents (11–13 year olds,
approximately Grades 6–8), and Lyons used a span of students from fifth through 11th
grade, crossing from preadolescents to adolescents.
Boyle (2010) used a quasiexperimental quantitative study to determine if high
school students exposed to a digital citizenship curriculum would adopt digital citizenship
behavioral elements into their technology-use practices. The researcher collected data
from 150 high school student participants using a pre and posttest of Ribble and Bailey’s
(2007) Digital Driver’s License instrument. Student participants were in two different
curriculum paths or academies: the Academy of Arts and the
Academy of Technology.
Half of the participants were exposed to a series of lessons on digital citizenship—
the experimental group—and the other half were not: the control group. Boyle (2010)
included students from both academies in the experimental and control groups. Both
groups attended schoolwide oral presentations on digital citizenship behavior that was
part of the regular school programming. Boyle analyzed data using a t-test to compare
each individual group’s pre- and posttest scores and conducted an ANCOVA between
groups’ posttests, using pretests as the covariant.
Boyle (2010) found that, with exposure to a digital citizenship curriculum,
students exhibited strong digital citizenship behaviors in all elements except digital access
and digital security. Although these two elements did not have a significant impact on the
students’ technology use behavior, they did not have adverse consequences either. Boyle
rationalized that the lack of impact on security and access may have resulted from the age
of the students and their exposure to technology access throughout their lives.
Additionally, Boyle proposed that the schools may have spent more time emphasizing
digital security over other elements throughout the educational experience of the
participants before their participation in the study.
Boyle (2010) recommended that school leaders monitor student technology-use
behaviors to determine and tailor the type of programming needed to support students
with learning-appropriate online behavior. Because Boyle used students in different
curriculum programs, one recommendations was to ensure all students received the same
type of curriculum in digital citizenship, regardless of their curriculum path, including
schools that do not offer different curriculum paths. Finally, a suggestion for further
research included finding out what teachers believe to be best practices for digital
citizenship instruction. The study’s findings align with those of Gazi (2016), Ohler
(2011), Ribble et al. (2004), and Ribble and Miller’s (2013) position about the importance
of exposing students to a digital citizen curriculum to develop appropriate technology use
skills.
Lyons (2012) conducted a study focusing on student digital use. Using an ex post
facto quantitative study of the online behaviors of fifth- through 11th-grade students in a
K–12 public school district in California, Lyons compared student gender and grade level
to online behavior. Specific areas of focus included cyberbullying, parent involvement,
personal safety, and digital citizenship abuse, based on historical data of district and
archived surveys. Lyons analyzed data using an ANOVA to determine if a causal
relationship existed among gender, grade level, and misbehavior online. Research results
revealed that differences existed between grade level and gender. As students aged, their
parental involvement decreased but risks increased for the other three subscales.
Additionally, young women had fewer issues with digital citizenship abuse and
personalsafety concerns; however, the level of parental involvement stayed constant
across genders. The implications of the study included the need to increase awareness of
all issues among all stakeholders: parents, teachers, administrators, and students (Lyons
2012).
Using a similar population by age to Lyons (2012), Davis and James (2013)
conducted a qualitative case study in which they interviewed 42 preadolescents
(middleschool-aged students approximately 11–13 years old) about their behaviors and
attitudes toward maintaining their online privacy in social-media environments and the
impact educators play in developing these practices. Researchers included participants
from different schools who had different racial and diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
Davis and James used surveys to identify the digital aptitude of participants and invited
those with the greatest digital experience and engagement to participate in interviews.
Each interview participant had two one-on-one interviews each lasting about 45 minutes.
The results revealed that participants did engage in practices in which they were
aware of potential dangers of sharing private information in online public settings, and
they also possessed a variety of strategies to ensure others were not accessing or using
their private information (Davis & James, 2013). However, teachers provided a narrower
perspective of online privacy issues, focusing only on what not to do or not to post and
rarely promoted positive interactions with others in online environments. Davis and
James averred teachers should consider how their instruction directly and indirectly
impacts what students do in their online privacy and interactions with others.
Teachers and Students Using Digital Citizenship
Focusing on teachers and students, Snyder (2016) conducted a qualitative case
study of middle school students and teachers. The goal of the learning project was to
provide students with technological experiences that helped them develop their
understanding of digital citizenship. Students used social media to support their learning
of different cultures, develop a worldlier view of other cultures, and compare their own
digital footprints. Data accrued from interviews and data in the Wiki learning
environment. Snyder analyzed both interactions using open coding to identify themes and
patterns. Results from the case study revealed that students’ knowledge increased, and
they made greater effort to engage in making responsible, ethical, and appropriate choices
in online collaborative environments. Additionally, teachers planned to continue to
implement practices for responsible and ethical use of technology in their instruction.
However, study implications were that if teachers had not participated in the study, they
might not have considered incorporating digital citizenship elements into the curriculum.
This study is significant to the body of knowledge because Snyder examined teachers and
students working together to learn about digital citizenship and considered what teachers
do professionally to integrate technology and what students learn as a result of teachers’
implemented practices.
Research conducted in dissertations over the past 7 years, as well as scholarly
studies, revealed a trend that a lack knowledge and understanding persists about what is
appropriate, responsible, and ethical use of technology among students and teachers at all
levels. This implication aligns with the need for further study on knowledge of digital
citizenship. However, greater emphasis may need to focus on what teachers and students
do know and less on what they do not know.
Rationale for Digital Citizenship, a Component of 21st Century Learning
Citizenship is a “commitment to common good, public interest, and places the
interest of the community ahead of personal interest...education is seen as enhancing the
public and common good” (Oyedemi, 2015, p. 453). When people actively participate in
an interconnected and interdependent world, they are acknowledging the existence of
global citizenship (Andrzejewski & Alessio, 1999; Choi, 2016; Martens & Hobbs, 2015).
Furthermore, digital citizenship is not solely a list of behaviors for using technology, but
instead is concept that impacts all students, teachers, parents, school and community
leaders, and the greater world by establishing norms or codes of behavior for how
individuals learn to get along in an increasingly connected world (Snyder, 2016).
Technology has played a significant role in supporting globalization, allowing
individuals to become members of online communities through social networking such as
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google+. In the past, being able to read, write, and do
basic mathematics was a symbol of being a knowledgeable, productive, and contributing
member of society; one could make intelligent decisions based on the possession of these
skills (Simsek & Simsek, 2013). However, in recent years, the literacy skills that mark an
acceptable member of society are not as passive as in the past; they include reading,
researching, understanding, interpreting, collaborating, and sharing (Martens & Hobbs,
2015; Simsek & Simsek, 2013). Trilling and Fadel (2009) and Kivunja (2014) believed
that an educated person needs to have skills for independent and efficient problemsolving
and logical thinking. Furthermore, the capabilities of computers and the Internet have
enhanced ethical dilemmas and raised new issues and moral choices that were nonexistent
in the pre-Web 2.0 world (Mulka, 2014; Rice et al., 2015).
Ohler (2012) outlined the aspects of digital citizenship and advocated for
community-based initiatives in educating children. Ohler suggested the use of curriculum
programming that breaks the boundaries of the school’s walls to include parents,
community leaders, teachers, administrators, and students. Scholars have begun to
recognize the benefit of digital etiquette in preventing perceived poor digital behavior
(Baumann, 2016).
Education skills for the 21st century comprise key domains that included the
traditional reading, writing, and arithmetic skills as well as “learning and innovation
skills,” “career and life skills,” and “digital literacy skills” (Kivunja, 2014, p. 85; Trilling
& Fadel, 2009, pp. 175–176). These more active literacy skills change the way
individuals may interact with one another and contribute to the quality of the community
with information flow that is dynamic and multidirectional (Simsek & Simsek, 2013). For
people to engage in particular democracy and have appropriate citizenship behaviors,
they need access to credible information that comes from the ability to use specific
digital-literacy skills such as research and judgment (Simsek & Simsek, 2013).
Access to Internet and mass-media sources enables the development of citizenship
in young adults by allowing them to participate in political, cultural, and educational
purposes (Oyedemi, 2015). In concurrence, when students are exposed to media literacy
education, they are more likely to become civically involved in community or societal
issues (Martens & Hobbs, 2015). Teachers instructing across subject areas and integrating
civic engagement, such as researching, producing, and publishing products that support
student learning about current political and social conditions, are promoting curiosity and
self-efficacy as well as developing students’ moral compass (Martens & Hobbs, 2015).
Technology instruction should predominantly focus on helping this generation build a
sense of responsibility related to technology use at personal, local, and global levels
(Ohler, 2011).
Choi (2016) conducted a concept analysis of studies related to citizenship
education and found a divide among scholars in studies related to citizenship and Internet
use. Analysis revealed four major themes in research related to digital citizenship
literature: media and information literacy, ethics, participation/engagement, and critical
resistance. Choi postulated that digital citizenship is a complex concept that makes
connections with interactions in the real world as well as in an online environment.
Educators have a moral obligation to prepare students to be citizens who can
contribute to society productively and adapt to the changes and complexities of society
(Fullan, 2001). Digital citizenship provides a backbone for teachers, school leaders, and
parents to comprehend and model appropriate use of technology (Gazi, 2016). Learning
that happens because of interactions between humans and technology forces individuals
to consider their values (Williams et al., 2011). Because the goal of education is to
prepare students for their future, it is essential that students learn to be responsible digital
citizens while in their formative years, to better prepare them for their future roles
working and living in an increasingly more digitally dependent society (Snyder, 2016).
Considering the impact of curriculum, van de Oudeweetering and Voogt (2018)
conducted a secondary analysis of survey results from nearly 3000 K–12 teachers in the
Netherlands about their perceptions of the frequency of classroom activities that
promoted 21st-century learning skills. Their research focused on six specific
competencies of 21st-century learning: “digital literacy, innovative thinking, critical
thinking, and communication, (digital) citizenship, self-regulated learning, and
(computer-supported) collaborative learning” (van de Oudeweetering & Voogt, 2018, p.
116). The analysis revealed teachers perceived themselves as spending less time on
digital literacy and innovative-thinking activities compared to collaboration and
selfregulated learning, inferring a result of the novelty of these types of learning
activities. Therefore, digital literacy and innovative thinking have not been fully
developed in the curriculum teachers are prepared to teach. The researchers
recommended consideration of curriculum development, specifically in the areas of
digital literacy and innovative thinking to support teachers’ ability to integrate them into
classroom-activities. Additionally, researchers recommended teacher and school leaders
reflect on facilitating these competencies and their connection with digital citizenship.
On a related note, Hollandsworth, Dowdy, and Donovan (2011) raised questions
about who is responsible for educating students on digital issues. They put out a call to
action for educators to develop programs that do not solely rely on schools to support this
learning but instead advocated for a community approach, including the use of students
(Hollandsworth et al., 2011). In disseminating knowledge related to being a good digital
citizen and protecting students from dangers of the Internet, Pruitt-Mentle (2008)
identified parents as responsible for providing Internet-ethics learning and the
information (or instructional) technology department as responsible for the learning and
maintenance of the Internet infrastructure. In agreement, Hobbs (2008, as cited in Davis
et al., 2010) suggested that media-literacy education support critical thinking with a
reciprocal dialogue between teachers and students about appropriate online behavior for
academic purposes; however, these dialogues should also be taking place between
children and parents (or other influential adult figures) to address a wide range of online
interactions. Concurrently, Pusey and Sadera (2012) recognized that a combined effort of
all stakeholders, especially teachers and teacher educators, is necessary to provide
learning for ethics, safety, and security when using the Internet. Furthermore, Rice et al.
(2015) asserted there should be a combined effort of the instructional technology
department, teachers, and parents to maintain computer security and establish responsible
and ethical practices when engaging in cyber activities.
To have a future that promotes humanity, educators need to help students find
balance between having an avid online presence and having “a sense of personal,
community, and global responsibility” in technology use (Ohler, 2011, para 4). Ohler
(2011) proposed, “School is an excellent place to help kids become capable digital
citizens who use technology not only effectively and creatively, but also responsibly and
wisely” (para 4). Teachers play an important role in the evolution of society because
teachers must consistently adapt to the development of innovations and change in
knowledge and be open to these developments (Ozdamli & Ozdal, 2015). Furthermore,
teachers should possess the necessary skills for using “new information-communication
technologies” and be actively using them to enhance the learning in their classrooms to
support the current and future educational needs of students (Ozdamli & Ozdal, 2015, p.
720). Finally, despite rapid changes in technology, teachers and preservice teachers need
specific informational-technology skills to model the proper use of technology so
students will develop as digital citizens (Greenhow, 2010; Karal & Bakir, 2016).
Teacher Beliefs, Knowledge and Professional Practices for ICT and Digital
Citizenship
According to a considerable number of meta-analyses on teacher beliefs, results
revealed that teachers are have the most important impact on learning and the level of
pedagogy is essential in developing the quality of education (Acedo & Hughes, 2014;
William, 2011). Educational ideals and fundamentals of the 21st century are more
complex than in any previous century. Various curriculum content has a less direct cause
and effect relationship; instead, greater emphasis rests on the influence of the multitude of
information, data, and media sources. Individuals require greater skills to navigate,
analyze, and evaluate to be successful problem solvers (Acedo & Hughes, 2014).
Educators need instructional-technology-education curriculum design to support the
changing demands of society and technology use (Patesan & Bumbuc, 2010). Graduates
require a range of digital-literacy skills to enter the workforce; therefore, teachers have
the added responsibility of ensuring students gain these skills in their formal education
(Lowenthal et al., 2016).
Many researchers have shown that teachers have a positive perception of the use
of technology in the classroom and believe mobile devices can significantly benefit the
educational experience (Domingo & Gargante, 2016; Inan & Lowther, 2010).
Additionally, teachers’ attitudes toward computer usage in their classroom and their
likelihood of incorporating technology into their implemented instructional practices
relates to their comfort level with ICT (Inan & Lowther, 2010; van Braak et al., 2004).
Badia, Meneses, Sigalés, and Fábregues (2014) conducted a random participant-survey
study in 356 schools with 702 K–12 teachers to determine factors that influence
perceptions about digital technology effectiveness. Participants responded to Likert-type
scale items about their level of agreement with ICT infrastructure, policy, and
programming. The researchers found that school policies about ICT teaching practice
controlled teachers’ perceptions of effective training plans, access to devices, and
personal levels of digital literacy (Badia et al., 2014).
Crichton, Pegler, and White (2012) deployed a mixed-methods study using online
surveys, ongoing teacher professional development meetings, classroom observations,
and analysis of lesson plans and student work samples to identify specific attributes or
commonalities that needed to be in place to support this type of technology integration.
The study used teacher participants who were tasked with trying out iPod touch and iPad
handheld devices. The purpose of the study was to understand the necessary infrastructure
to support the use of handheld devices for instruction in urban K–12 schools in Canada.
Crichton et al. chose five classrooms from schools across the district, based on
stakeholders’ willingness and school population diversity. In Phase 1 of the study, the
researchers gave classroom teachers a class set of iPod Touches, a laptop, syncing cart,
and document camera. In Phase 2, the researchers selected three schools based on an
application process that highlighted their experience with inquiry-based teaching and
willingness to purchase the necessary hardware. Study findings indicated that participants
believed educational reform for increased device use would be best supported with
stronger distribution and management policies geared toward student safety (Crichton et
al., 2012). This study focused on policy reform for students’ Internet security, but
additional research would be needed to see if policies would be effective over time.
Furthering consideration of hardware and software use, Domingo and Gargante
(2016) conducted a survey study in 12 primary schools in Spain using 102 teachers,
asking participants about their perceptions of the influence of mobile technology on
learning and their use of specific applications. The researchers analyzed the data using
descriptive statistics to identify specific applications deemed relevant for use.
Additionally, they analyzed survey items using the Whitney U nonparametric test to
identify any differences between classroom and nonclassroom users of specific
applications. Research results revealed that teacher knowledge about classroom
technology use predominantly built on specific actions or plans; teachers’ beliefs related
to their willingness to dedicate time and their personal perceptions of technology’s impact
on learning. Additionally, Domingo and Gargante asserted that to promote technology
use in meaningful ways for the classroom, it is vital to comprehend the perceptions of
teachers. The development of society over time shapes students’ futures; therefore,
educators instructional planning for technology use should encompass not only dynamic
and engaging but informative and valuable learning opportunities to benefit students’
future (Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray, & Krause, 2008, as cited in Snyder, 2016).
Shifting from student use to teacher perspectives and use of technology, Roach &
Beck (2012) conducted a qualitative, inquiry-focused case study of one teacher’s personal
habits when using social-media sites like Facebook. Researchers coded and analyzed
status updates and public digital conversations to see what types of personas people
developed or communicated in the Facebook public view. Findings revealed patterns in
attitude or feelings in the teacher’s posts on a personal news feed or by respondents or
audience to the news feed. Common attitudes and feelings posted by the teacher or the
audience consisted of lamenting, affirming, planning, challenging, confessing, and
justifying (Roach & Beck, 2012, p. 248).
This inquiry attempted to identify certain trends and topics that might evoke more
interest in writing independently and collaboratively in support of new literacy-based
writing curriculums in classrooms. One recommendation of the researchers was for
teachers to use broad questioning, especially around ethical or value-laden topics, as a
way to spark written dialogue (Roach & Beck, 2012). Additionally, teachers should use
social-media sites as sources of reading to support students’ development of purposeful
writing by examining and building an understanding of language use, context, and
audience choice in public posts and status updates. Finally, using social media to support
writing can help students develop their own norms for what they believe is acceptable and
unacceptable communication in public and collaborative online environments (Roach
& Beck, 2012).
Continuing the focus on teacher use of technology, Harshman and Augustine
(2013) conducted a qualitative case study of 126 teachers from 30 countries working at
International Baccalaureate schools that used asynchronous online discussion forums for
professional development on global citizenship and international mindedness. The
researchers conducted content analysis of online discussion forums, email exchanges, and
interviews completed through Skype. As in transformative learning, Harshman and
Augustine noted that participants defined global citizenship as on a spectrum and being
an aspect of habits of mind, where individuals are initially most comfortable with what
they have always known, but through their interactions with other people, change their
perspectives and become more open and globally minded (Harshman & Augustine,
2013). Digital learning enriches students, transforming their education to prepare them
for future work that emphasizes global digital learning (Gazi, 2016).
Participants’ exposure to multicultural perspectives, either from working with
colleagues from different nations at their schools or participating in professional
development helped them adapt their viewpoint on what global citizenship means
(Harshman & Augustine, 2013). The study was a collaborative online, asynchronous
discussion forum that allowed participants to interact in a meaningful way with other
participants and to have time to compose thoughtful and meaningful responses.
Additionally, teacher participants portrayed and elaborated on the behaviors they
described and hoped their students would exhibit as global citizens. This type of
interaction allowed the researchers to discern a more comprehensive sense of
participants’ understanding and perspectives on global citizenship. Participating in online
activities where individuals are exposed to a diverse group of people can support aspects
of citizenship education (Harshman & Augustine, 2013).
With respect to integration of technology, Zheng, Warschauer, Lin, and Chang
(2016) conducted a meta-analysis of 96 research studies to determine the impact of 1:1
programs on student achievement. Studies included in the meta-analysis were K–12
schools using 1:1 laptop programs (no other technologies such tablets or iPads). The
researchers did not describe the programs; instead, they provided an empirical
examination (Zheng et al., 2016). Although this study did not directly focus on teacher
knowledge of ICT or digital citizenship, it did support understanding of how technology
integration affects educators and their decisions in making instructional choices.
Zheng et al. (2016) identified how students’ individual access to technology
affects classroom instruction. Through a meta-analysis, Zheng et al. found 1:1 programs
had a positive impact on student achievement, specifically in English language arts, after
the first year of implementation. Teachers and students needed a year to adjust to the new
instructional paradigm. Students in 1:1 programs also showed greater achievement on
computer-based tests after the first year of implementation. Additionally, 1:1 programs
helped bridge the gap in the digital divide by providing access to students who might not
have technology access at home, thereby leveling the economic playing field.
More student-centered learning activities took place as well as increased
digitalliteracy-related tasks such as writing, editing, publishing, researching, and
providing students with immediate feedback as a result of the program (Zheng et al.,
2016). The researchers also analyzed results from studies on teacher perceptions, beliefs,
and instructional approaches. Results indicated that when teachers did not feel they were
supported with training or technical support, they felt negatively toward the integration of
technology. Alternatively, when teachers received adequate support and training, they
became confident and efficient in their use of technology. Professional development also
played a major role in supporting teachers in willingness to integrate technology into their
classrooms and adapt instructional practices (Benes, 2013; Baumann, 2016; Inan &
Lowther, 2010; Ozdamli & Ozdal, 2015; Taylor, 2007; Tondeur, van Braak, Ertmer, &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2016).
Zheng et al. (2016) reported Longitudinal studies revealed a positive change in
teacher attitudes past the first year of the laptop program (Zheng et al., 2016).
Furthermore, studies showed some evidence that the use of a 1:1 laptop program
supported the development of some 21st-century learning skills related to information,
media, and technology, such as the components of the element of digital literacy (Zheng
et al., 2016).
Teacher Beliefs and ICT
Tondeur et al. (2016) conducted a meta-aggregative review of 14 qualitative
studies to determine a relationship between pedagogical beliefs of teachers and their use
of technology in education. Findings revealed that teachers’ beliefs about effective
learning and good teaching practices influenced their professional practice (Tondeur et
al., 2016). Additionally, teachers’ pedagogical beliefs should be a good indicator of their
implemented instructional practices for technology integration (Inan & Lowther, 2010;
Miranda & Russell, 2012; Tondeur et al., 2016). Teachers were either teacher centered or
student centered and not a mix of both; instructional practices indicated a range of beliefs
and habits (Ertmer & Ottenbriet-Leftwich, 2010; Tondeur et al., 2016). Technological
and social determinism are blockading educators’ ability to view connections between
technology education and society (Tillberg-Webb & Strobel, 2011).
In conjunction, a barrier to complete technology integration for public education
contributed to teacher and administrator knowledge (Benes, 2013). Additionally,
principals need adequate technology training to model appropriate actions and make
disciplinary decisions that adequately address issues and prevent future problems
(Baumann, 2016; Maxwell, Stobaugh, & Tassell, 2011; Persaud, 2010). However,
educational stakeholders are beginning to recognize the gap between technology
knowledge and their organizations’ preparation for digital literacy use (Ribble & Miller,
2013).
Along these lines, Tondeur et al. (2016) recognized this gap and further supported
accountability of educational leadership by examining results revealed in a meta-analysis,
averring that external and internal factors such as self-efficacy for technology use,
administration policies, and parental pressures can influence teachers’ beliefs compared
to actual practice. In addition, teachers’ core pedagogical beliefs are the hardest to change
because they interrelate with many topics, actions, and understandings developed from
professional experience (Tondeur et al., 2016). Under Mezirow’s
transformationallearning framework, Taylor (2007) identified the need for teachers to
receive comprehensive training and leadership support to alter their teacher practices. To
integrate technology that includes curriculum emphasizing ethical and responsible
practices for technology use, teachers and administrators need the most current and
relevant knowledge and skills for technology use (Ozdamli & Ozdal, 2015). Last, it is
also important to understand what teachers know about aspects of technology use and
what can influence their beliefs allowing leadership to address any gaps or make
programming modifications to support teachers with technology use.
Digital Citizenship Curriculum for K–12 Education
Four aspects of curriculum and learning are intended, written, taught, and hidden
(Acedo & Hughes, 2014). Intended curriculum is what teachers plan for their students to
learn as a result of the instruction. Written curriculum is the way teachers lay out planned
instruction over a school year(s). The taught curriculum is the actionable instruction that
happens in real time in the classroom. Finally, hidden curriculum subconsciously happens
intentionally or unintentionally as a result of engagement with the other three aspects.
Teachers have responsibility to cover these four areas in their instructional practices to
provide a complete learning experience for students. The hidden curriculum occurs
unintentionally but often aligns with the reality of everyday life (Acedo & Hughes, 2014).
Although aspects of instruction occur without the predetermination of the teacher manual,
this type of instruction should be covered, particularly in consideration of technology
integration and use in the classroom. Digital citizenship is an example of a once-hidden
curriculum that is now gaining attention and is pushed to be taught alongside traditional
curriculum.
The development of a specific curriculum for digital citizenship would enable
digital citizenship to become a taught curriculum (Acedo & Hughes, 2014). By the same
token, knowing the basic functionalities of one’s devices is invaluable; individuals should
be knowledgeable about what protocols are necessary to protect their online profile and
sensitive data (Pusey & Sadera, 2012). For instruction focused on technology security to
take place, teachers need a well-developed knowledge of technology use and the potential
hazards associated with improper use (Skutil, 2014). Educators have a professional
responsibility to instruct on digital citizenship to ensure that everyone develops an
understanding about poor technology use and learns required actions to counteract misuse
of technology (Farmer, 2011). Similarly, elementary school teachers need specific
professional development that helps them prepare for technology use in the classroom to
ensure students have opportunities to learn the necessary safe practices for technology use
(Baumann, 2016).
Because research remains sparse on the topic of digital citizenship, some
researchers have attempted to develop instruments to facilitate scholarly understanding of
digital citizenship knowledge and beliefs. Ribble (2015), Suppo (2013), Isman and Canan
Gungoren (2014), and Choi et al. (2017) attempted to develop instrumentation to assess
specific knowledge of digital citizenship definitions, components, and elements.
Adopting Ribble and Bailey’s (2007) original survey, Suppo (2013) conducted a
quantitative survey to determine knowledge and beliefs about digital citizenship
instructional practices for superintendents, curriculum coordinators, and technology
coordinators working in K–12 public schools in the State of Pennsylvania. With
permission, Suppo used a formative-evaluation process to create a more comprehensive
Likert-type scale instrument that assessed participants’ knowledge of aspects related to
Ribble’s nine elements. Suppo used content-area experts, including Ribble, to evaluate
the question and establish content validity. The survey consisted of 36 knowledge-based
questions, 17 policy and professional practice questions, and two beliefs in instructional
practices in participants’ school-district questions.
Suppo (2013) analyzed data using descriptive statistics to compare the means of
responses for each of the nine elements across the variables of age, gender, and district
type (rural, urban, and suburban). Also, the researcher conducted a three-way ANOVA to
determine if the variables affected digital citizenship beliefs and a chi-square test to
determine if a connection existed between curriculum implementation and district type
(Suppo. 2013). Suppo intended to reveal if a connection existed between beliefs about
digital citizenship and the actual professional practice of implementing a digital
citizenship curriculum at various school levels. However, research results revealed a
relatively small correlation between variables.
Alternatively, Isman and Canan Gungoren (2014) conducted a reliability and
validity test for a 34-question scaled survey tool to be used in studying digital citizenship
knowledge and the knowledge of responsible and ethical online behavior. Test
participants were from a population of university members including professors from the
college of education and perspective teachers from a range of disciplines and teaching
levels. Results revealed that the survey would be a useful measurement tool that could be
used in future studies connected to digital citizenship knowledge. Although this survey
tool does not explicitly use Ribble’s nine elements of digital citizenship, it does add to the
field of study in helping to develop research instruments to determine digital citizenship
knowledge (Isman & Canan Gungoren, 2014).
Continuing with instrument development, Jones and Mitchell (2015) conducted a
self-report survey scale of 979 youths, aged 11–17, from New England. As part of a
larger study on cyberbullying, the researchers developed a scale to measure the construct
of respectful online behavior and online civic engagement, and to operationalize a
definition of digital citizenship in educational curriculum. Results revealed a negative
correlation between age and behavior in that, as the age of the participants increased, the
level of online respect and online civic engagement decreased. When Jones and Mitchell
analyzed items based on gender, girls showed higher levels of online respect and online
civic engagement than male participants. For the larger study on cyberbullying and
harassment, participants who reported having respectful online behavior and civic
engagement also reported lower incidence of participation or victimization in the form of
cyberbullying. The results of Jones and Mitchell’s study aligned with the view of Gazi
(2016), Martens and Hobbs (2015), Ohler (2011, 2012), Oyedemi (2015), Ribble (2015),
and Ribble and Miller (2013) that digital citizenship should be addressed at younger ages.
Quite recently, Choi et al. (2017) conducted a formative-evaluation process to
develop a digital citizenship scale instrument that researchers could use to understand
holistically to establish individuals’ online behavior unique to digital citizenship criteria.
In the instrument Choi et al. (2017) developed, they used four categories or themes
specific to the concept of digital citizenship as subscales: Digital Ethics, Media and
Information Literacy, Participation/Engagement, and Critical Resistance. The final
product consisted of a 26-item, 5-point scale to self-assess one’s Internet abilities,
perceptions or self-efficacy, and participation in online communities, dubbed the Digital
Citizenship Scale (Choi et al., 2017).
Choi et al. (2017) used a three-phase formative development and evaluation
process involving an extensive literature review, content analysis by a panel of experts,
and a sample test to establish content validity and instrument reliability. They sorted the
questions developed to determine digital citizenship knowledge into four factors: Internet
Political Activism, Technical Skills, Local/Global Awareness, Critical Perspective and
Network Agency, based on themes determined from a literature review (Choi et al., 2017,
p. 18). In addition to content-based questions about Internet knowledge and digital
citizenship, Choi et al. (2017) adopted the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory to discern the
stress levels of participants toward web-based activities. The researchers conducted
formal research using 508 participants ranging in age from 18 to 35, categorized as either
undergraduate or graduate university students from two different educational institutions.
Study results revealed Internet self-efficacy positively correlated with digital citizenship
competency, and Internet insecurity or anxiety negatively correlated with digital
citizenship competency. The identified themes and factors in the Choi et al. (2017) survey
tool were labeled differently from Ribble’s nine elements of digital citizenship; however,
educators can draw similarities between the Choi et al. themes and factors and Ribble’s
nine elements.
Digital ethics are a user’s ethical, safe, responsible behavior when interacting
online (Choi et al., 2017; Hollandsworth et al., 2011; Ribble et al., 2004; Winn, 2012),
and provide the basis on which Ribble’s nine elements developed. The theme of Media
and Information Literacy, identified by Choi et al. (2017), along with the factor labeled
“technical skills” closely relate to Ribble’s elements of digital communication and digital
literacy because they describes how users search, access, and evaluate content on the
Internet as well as the communication and collaborative nature of many Web 2.0 tools.
One can view the theme of Participation/Engagement and Critical Perspective and
Network Agency as indicating how one interacts with different media to participate in
“political, economic, social, and cultural … activities” (Choi et al., 2017, p. 10; see also
Citron & Norton, 2011; Ohler, 2012) through actions such as posting, sharing, saving,
and buying and selling, which relate to Ribble’s elements of digital etiquette, digital law,
and digital commerce. Finally, Critical Resistance and Local/Global Awareness indicate
participation in activities that promote social justice (Choi et al., 2017; Coleman, 2006;
Herrera, 2012) relating to elements of digital access, digital law, and digital rights and
responsibilities.
Choi et al. (2017) showed that researchers are starting to devote time to
developing reliable and valid instruments that can be used to support studies about digital
citizenship knowledge and personal practice. The research study by Choi et al. (2017) is
specifically important to the present study, as the formative evaluation process that was
used to determine the validity and reliability of the instrument was also used for this
study. Choi et al. (2017) did not specifically address all the variables under investigation,
so using the Digital Citizenship Scale is not an appropriate choice for this study;
therefore, I developed a different instrument.
The above-mentioned studies indicated the current state of available literature
connected to Ribble’s nine elements or digital citizenship in general. These studies
revealed that Ribble’s elements provide a backbone for establishing a curriculum that
integrates with ethical and responsible use of technology as well as time and interest in
developing valuable tools to assess competencies for digital citizenship. However,
insufficient research persists about what current in-service teachers specifically know or
believe about digital citizenship or what they are already doing to address digital
citizenship in their classrooms.
Summary
The focus of this literature review was to determine what knowledge has already
been found on the topic of digital citizenship with emphasis on elementary teachers’
beliefs, knowledge, planned, and implemented instructional practices. The body of
knowledge for the topic of digital citizenship has shown that researchers predominantly
studied higher education, preservice teachers, or the middle and high school years, with
students. Research results showed that despite being identified as digital natives, growing
up not ever knowing a time when the Internet and mobile devices were not readily
available, these groups of middle school aged to university students still lack a complete
understanding of what constitutes acceptable, ethical, and responsible use of technology
(Boyle, 2010; Davis et al., 2010; James et al., 2010; Karal & Bakir, 2016; Lindsey, 2015;
Pusey & Sadera, 2012; Sincar, 2011, 2013). Additionally, research on poor student
behavior with an emphasis on social media and cyberbullying (Davis & James, 2013;
Jones & Mitchell, 2015; Park et al., 2014; Ribble & Miller, 2013) showed that although
cyberbullying is a recognized problem in a more networked and technology-dependent
society and deserves to be studied deeply, it is not the only aspect of digital citizenship.
Scholars such as Hobbs and Jensen (2009), Ribble et al. (2004), Ohler (2011,
2012), Ribble (2012), Ribble and Miller (2013), and Curran, Ribble, and Ohler as cited in
Impero Software (2016) focused on digital citizenship and wrote articles proposing the
implementation of curriculum to support teachers and students in learning to make
appropriate, responsible, and ethical decisions when accessing and using the wide range
of media that comprises Web 2.0. However, specific research on what teachers and
students know or believe about digital citizenship, especially at the elementary level,
remains dramatically understudied.
With regard to teacher planned and implemented instructional practices, many
studies conducted on teacher efficacy and beliefs about the use of technology in the
classroom showed that teachers believe technology can enhance the learning environment
(Inan & Lowther, 2010); however, researchers also showed that training, infrastructure,
and leadership are barriers (Baumann, 2016; Benes, 2013; Ozdamli & Ozdal, 2015;
Taylor, 2007; Tondeur et al., 2016). Of all the studies reviewed on ICT use in the
classroom, no study identified digital citizenship as a component of ICT integration. Most
studies focused on digital literacy, a single component of digital citizenship.
Despite some research on instrumentation developed to fully assess individuals’
knowledge of digital citizenship or cyber ethics behavior (Choi et al., 2017; Isman &
Canan Gungoren, 2014; Jones & Mitchell, 2015), research is minimal and quite recent. In
contrast, discussions on digital citizenship, including definitions and concept
development, has been ongoing since the early 2000s. This literature review revealed that
a gap persists in the literature about what teachers specifically know or believe about
digital citizenship and what teachers are doing to implement digital citizenship elements
into their instructional practices and curriculum with students, especially at the
elementary level.
Chapter 3: Research Methods
The purpose of this quantitative nonexperimental survey study was to describe
patterns of Hawaii public school elementary educators’ knowledge and beliefs about
digital citizenship and their planned and implemented practices for a digital citizenship
instruction. Hawaii is made up of a single unified public-school district, HIDOE, spread
among seven islands. Limited research has been done using elementary educators when
examining the phenomenon of digital citizenship. Results from this study were intended
to help educational leaders in making decisions about training and programming for
educators that would ultimately support Hawaii in meeting the goals of the Future Ready
plan and 2017–2020 Strategic plan. In the sections that follow, I discuss the research
design with my rationale and provide an in-depth description of the methodology
including participant pool, sample size, data collection, and the use of a
formativeevaluation process to ensure content and response process validity of the
instrument. Additionally, I define operational variables and detail the data-analysis plan.
Finally, I provide a thorough discussion of how I addressed threats to validity and ethical
issues.
Context of Study
As stated in Chapter 1, the context for this study derived from a pledge HIDOE
made in 2014 to the U.S. Secretary of Education to become a Future Ready state and
school district. Within this pledge, HIDOE specifically identified digital citizenship as an
important asset to being future ready. In addition, a strategic learning plan was created
which focused on the importance of supporting technology integration by ensuring all
schools are 1:1 with technology devices throughout K–12. Finally, the learning plan
emphasized providing necessary training to educators to ensure student learning would
meet the tenets of the pledge.
Research Design and Rationale
This quantitative, nonexperimental survey was a descriptive study in which the
variables were not dependent upon one another. Results of the data were used to look for
patterns among the individual variables: educator knowledge of digital citizenship,
educator beliefs about digital citizenship, educator planning for digital citizenship
instruction, educator implemented instruction of digital citizenship, and factors impeding
or supporting educators’ use of digital citizenship instruction. For this study, I used a
quantitative online, self-administered survey questionnaire involving Likert scale
questions and limited open-ended response questions.
Survey research is often used as an orderly way to collect data about people in
order to get accurate generalizations about a large population. Researchers use survey
tools when attempting to explain, describe, or explore characteristics, attitudes or
behaviors about specific populations (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). Additionally, when
researchers want to get direct information from people about the way they act or what
they know, believe, or think then a survey can assist in gathering information. The survey
design is efficient for explanatory and descriptive research (Singleton & Straits, 2004).
Information collected from a survey can include demographic information and
may assist in describing characteristics of the targeted population, especially when a
sample may be widely dispersed (Pinsonneault & Kraemer, 1993), as in this current
research study with participants spread throughout schools across seven different islands.
Furthermore, besides being able to reach members of the population that are
geographically spread out, online surveys have additional advantages. Advantages
include things likes being able to easily send reminders, providing skip logic for directing
participants to specific locations based on answers to previous questions, quicker
turnaround time with retrieving responses, and combining all data including
downloadable or transferable files for data analysis (Gunn, 2002).
Methodology
The primary reason I chose this research method was the geographic constraints of
the population. To reach individuals in the population who live on seven different islands,
it was most convenient to use an online survey. Additionally, the population comprised a
large number of individuals, so the use of the state-issued email system ensured a greater
number of people being invited to participate in the study. The necessary resources for
participation in this study was an Internet-enabled device and access to the survey link. I
provided the link to educators through email. I collected educator email addresses from
publicly accessible data on the HIDOE website with permission from the HIDOE Data
Governance and Analysis (DGA) Branch. I sent invitations to participate as emails to a
list of principals, technology coordinators, and curriculum coordinators using publicly
accessible information, and then forwarded the survey to teachers and other coordinators
through Listservs by the original recipients of the initial email invitations. Additionally,
participants may have learned of the study through their membership in the HSTE, which
shared the study with their membership
Listserv in their monthly newsletter. All procedures for recruitment were approved by the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Walden University (approval # 07-20-17-0510658)
and HIDOE DGA (approval # RES201720 ).
Population
The population for this quantitative study consisted of K–5 or K–6/ elementary
classroom teachers, elementary school curriculum coordinators, and elementary school
technology coordinators in the HIDOE public school system, including charter schools
and schools of choice but not private or parochial. The term educator is used throughout
the remainder of the chapter to refer to any participant who is an elementary teacher,
curriculum coordinator, or technology coordinator. The HIDOE is one unified school
system consisting of schools located on seven different islands. There are 209 schools
with elementary student populations. Schools have anywhere from one to five (or more)
teachers per grade level, as well as one curriculum coordinator and one technology
coordinator per school, making up an estimate of approximately 2000 teachers,
curriculum coordinators, and technology coordinators who made up the target population.
Because it was unreasonable to expect a 100% response rate for an online survey, with a
population of 2000, a large effect size of d =0.5, the sample population was 38 or 115 if
there was a medium effect size, d= 0.3 (Heinrich-Heine-Universität Dusseldorf, 2018).
Participant Inclusion and Sampling Procedures
In this study, I did not draw a sample but instead attempted to include the entire
population of educators matching the above-mentioned criteria. This population was an
accessible population due to my connection with the HIDOE school system at the start of
the initial proposal. The criteria for individuals to be invited to participate in this study
aligned with their role in planning and implementing curriculum at the elementary level
through the traditional 3Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic) or ICT; therefore, they
could provide the greatest knowledge and understanding to answer the research questions
under investigation (Patton, 2014). All educators in HIDOE who met the demographic
criteria of working at the elementary level as a teacher, curriculum coordinator, or
technology coordinator were welcome to participate in the study. The study was
voluntary.
Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection
I solicited educators through an email sent using the state’s secure email system,
Lotus Notes. I notified principals of the research study and asked them to share the study
with educators by sharing/forwarding the request for participation invitation email (see
Appendix B). In some cases, I invited the curriculum coordinator and technology
coordinator directly, who may have shared the study with the curriculum coordinator
communication portal and the technology coordinator, the Tech Cadre Listserv, and their
classroom teachers (see Appendix B).
Demographic information included gender, age (in a range), years of professional
teaching (in a range), island location, complex-area location, description of professional
responsibility (I am primary a classroom teacher, I am a Technology Coordinator with
teaching responsibilities, I am a Technology Coordinator with no teaching
responsibilities, I am a Curriculum Coordinator with some teaching responsibilities, I am
a Curriculum Coordinator with no teaching responsibilities), and schools’ level of
adoption for the 1:1 device whole-state Future Ready adoption plan. The survey questions
included response choice about the ratio of students to devices and the piloted plan in the
schools.
The email included a link to an introduction video and transcript of the video (see
Appendix B for the video transcript), a link to the online survey with informed-consent
information, additional details about how to participate, the voluntary nature of the study,
and an attached copy of the superintendent-signed approval letter from HIDOE (see
Appendix H). The link to the survey led participants to the start page, which again
reviewed the informed consent and included a checkbox they had to mark to acknowledge
their willingness to participate to proceed with the survey.
Data accrued in the form of an online survey that included Likert-type scale
questions that determined their beliefs about digital citizenship, specific knowledge, and
skill-based questions about the elements of digital citizenship. Additionally,
openresponse questions gave participants the opportunity to provide information about
their planning and instructional practices and describe any factors that either supported or
impeded their ability to plan or implement digital citizenship instruction. Due to the
nature of this quantitative study, I conducted no follow-up procedures such as interviews.
Survey Software
SurveyMonkey is a web-based software program that allows users to develop
surveys that can easily be shared with many individuals. Although this program has a free
version, I used the paid version to ensure additional securities were put in place such as
anonymous collection of respondents, privacy-policy disclosure, number of survey items,
email delivery, and skip logic. I established anonymity by providing a web link that did
not track respondents, regardless of whether they received the link in an email invitation
or as a public link (SurveyMonkey, 2017). SurveyMonkey includes a feature that can be
turned on and off to collect participant names or identify specific IP addresses of the
survey respondent. For this study, had the feature turned off to ensure anonymity of
respondents. I outlined privacy policies on the first page of the survey that included the
participant informed consent. SurveyMonkey has their own privacy policies separate
from organization policies; however, these are merely to reassure the user that the use of
SurveyMonkey to disseminate the survey is safe and secure. Skip logic is an automated
rerouting process that directs respondents to specific locations based on how they respond
to certain questions. In Appendix C, the first screen shown is the informed consent; if the
respondent selects they do not agree to participate, they would have been rerouted out of
the survey. However, if they agreed to participate, they were routed to the first set of
questions. Finally, SurveyMonkey used Secure Sockets Layer encryption to ensure
responses were sent through a secure connection (SurveyMonkey, 2017).
Survey Development and Operationalization of Constructs Although
researchers have used similar instruments in studies intending to determine the beliefs
or knowledge of school educators related to digital citizenship, no single instrument
was sufficient for this study. The literature review referenced survey instruments such
as the Choi et al. (2017) Digital Citizenship Scale, Isman and Canan
Gungoren’s (2014) Digital Citizenship Scale, Ribble and Bailey’s (2004) Digital Driver’s
License, Ribble’s (2015) Digital Citizenship Audit, and Suppo’s (2013) Digital
Citizenship Survey. However, no one tool encapsulated all the variables examined in this
study. Suppo’s Digital Citizenship Survey, developed as a modification of Ribble and
Bailey’s (2004) instrument, was the closest instrument to the purpose of this study;
however, because Suppo only collected data from district administrators, questions
specific to professional practice were not specific enough for this study. Therefore, a new
instrument needed to be created, the SDC.
I used the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American
Educational Research Association et al., 1999) to guide instrument development. The
standards serve as criteria for demonstrating the creation of a quality instrument. I
considered test design and development, test validity in the form of content and response
process, and test fairness to be key standards in the creation of the SDC.
Test development and design require a researcher to determine the constructs to
measure; identify the target population; examine preexisting tests; develop, evaluate, and
revise the instrument; and engage in procedures to ensure validity (Gall, Gall, & Borg,
2007). I developed the SDC after a thorough examination of the literature (see Table 1)
and an examination of existing instruments previously described. I created a draft of the
instrument, reviewed by a survey expert and content-area experts who included scholarly
researchers in the field of digital citizenship. Educators meeting the participant criteria
reviewed the draft instrument to ensure validity.
In original instrument development, content and response-process validity are of
high importance. In content validity, the researcher attempts to do more than merely
casually examine what the instrument proposes to address (Gall et al., 2007). Instead, the
researcher uses content-area experts to examine the entire scope of the instrument by
carefully evaluating each item individually and holistically (Gall et al., 2007). I developed
the SDC after a review of literature, including the instruments mentioned above, and
wrote questions to align with the framework. I then shared the SDC with content-area
experts for a thorough review.
Alternatively, response-process validity is about determining if the test takers
interpret the test content in the same way as the developer of a test intended the items to
be interpreted (Gall et al., 2007). For the SDC, a small sample of the population reviewed
the survey to determine response-process validity. In the sections that follow, I more
thoroughly explain these types of validity.
With regard to test fairness, the standards outline that the developer of the
instrument is responsible for minimizing any barriers a respondent may face, and the
developer and the survey taker are responsible for providing needed accommodations
(Doğan, 2016). In the case of the SDC, the survey questionnaire was self-administered
online with access provided through a publicly accessible secure link. Any
accommodations the participant may have needed, such as enlarging the print on the
screen or needing items to be read aloud, were at the discretion of the participant and not
known by the researcher if they took place. Following the review by content-area experts,
items were reviewed by members fitting the criteria of the population. All question items
remained as written. However, I altered two questions after the technology pilot to ensure
clarity and response validity. Examples of supports or impairments were added to Items 3
and 4 in Part 2 of the survey.
As previously stated, this was a descriptive statistics study, so the operational
definitions of the variables were determined by the response pattern of each set of
questions in the survey that directly related to the specific variable. Educator knowledge
of digital citizenship was determined based on participant responses to the survey on the
questions identified as knowledge-specific questions. The same was true for educator
beliefs and planned and implemented professional practices. The variable was measured
by specific questions on the survey. For each question, I calculated and evaluated
frequencies and percentages and interpreted response patterns and trends.
Survey Development
I used a matrix as a design tool to establish evidence of content validity for the
survey questionnaire (see Table 1). The matrix is a bridge between the research questions
and the review of literature in Chapter 2 for the development of the survey items. I
divided the matrix into five columns: research questions, variables, definitions,
references, and survey item numbers. The survey-item-numbers column provides a
complete list of items in the survey, divided by element or section, that address that
specific research question. The completed survey appears in Appendix C.
Table 1
Survey Matrix for Survey Item Development
Research questions Variables Definition References
Survey item
numbers
RQ—What are
elementary
educators’
knowledge and
skill levels of
digital citizenship?
Knowledge of
digital
citizenship
elements
Specific skills
for using
technology
Appropriate, ethical, and
responsible use of
technologies related to a
wide range of topics
including digital
communication, digital
laws, digital literacy,
digital rights and
responsibilities, and digital
etiquette.
Skills relate more
specifically to digital
literacy but still
encompass other elements
of digital citizenship.
Choi (2016); Choi et Element 1: 1
al. (2017); Curran & Element 2:
1-6
Ribble (2017);
Greenhow (2010); Element 3: 2 &3
Isman & Canan Element 4: 1-3
Gungoren (2014); Element 5: 1-4
ISTE (2017); Jagasia Element 6: 1
& 2 et al. (2015); Karal &
Bakir (2016); Ozdamli Element 7: 4
& Ozdal (2015); Pusey Element 8: 3
& Sadera (2012); Element 9: 1, 2,5
Simsek & Simsek
(2013); Sincar (2013);
Skutil (2014); Ribble
(2015); Wilson et al.
(2014)
RQ 2—What level
of beliefs about
digital citizenship
do elementary
teachers have with
regards to their
instructional
Pedagogical
beliefs of
teachers
Moral choices about what Domingo & Gargante Element 1: 4-8 to
do online, Ideas about (2016); Uzunboylu & Element 2: 8
what is developmentally Hursen (2011); Element 3: 7
appropriate for students Klinger (2016); Suppo and meets the
learning (2013); Tondeur et al. Element 5: 8
needs at a specific grade (2016) Element 6: 5-7
practices? level. Element 7: 1 & 2
Part 2: 5
Table 1 continued
Research questions Variables Definition References
Survey item
numbers
RQ3—To what
degree do
elementary
educators plan to
implement digital
citizenship into
their curriculum?
Planned
instructional
practices for
digital
citizenship
What teachers consider Acedo & Hughes when
making instructional (2014); Lindsey plans for
their lessons. (2015); Ribble (2015);
Either directly addressing Snyder (2016)
digital citizenship elements or indirectly
addressing through general technology
integration
Element 2: 7
Element 4: 4
Element 8: 2
Part 2: 1, 2, 6
RQ4—To what
degree do
elementary
educators
implement digital
citizenship into
their instructional
practices?
Implemented
instructional
practices related
to digital
citizenship
What teachers specifically
do or teach in their
classroom related to
technology integration
with and without digital
citizenship incorporated
Chou et al. (2015);
Curran & Ribble
(2017); Inan &
Lowther (2010); Karal
& Bakir (2016);
Martens & Hobbs
(2015); Snyder (2016)
Element 1: 2 & 3
Element 3: 1, 4-6
Element 4: 5-7
Element 5: 5- 7
Element 6: 3 & 4
Element 7: 3
Element 8: 1
Element 9: 3 &4
Part 2:7
RQ5—What Planning or
factors support or
implementing impede
elementary educators’ ability to
plan and implement digital
citizenship?
The policies, protocols,
infrastructure, training,
time, pressures, or
expectations that could
impact why a teacher does
or does not implement
digital citizenship
Badia et al. (2014); Part 2: 3 & 4
Baumann (2016);
Benes (2013); Lindsey
(2015)
Formative Evaluation Process
The formative evaluation consisted of three parts. First was a formativeevaluation
process to construct the survey instrument and to ensure evidence of content validity.
Additionally, a sample population reviewed survey items to determine evidence of
response-process validity and reviewed the technical aspects of the survey to ensure they
had no difficulty that might impact end users’ ability to successfully complete the survey.
The formative evaluation started with a review by a survey expert to consider wording of
survey questions to determine the clarity of questions.
The second phase of the formative evaluation was a review of the content of the
survey questions by content-area experts to ensure that aspects of educator knowledge,
educator belief, educator planning, and educator implementation practices were
represented correctly in the lens of digital citizenship. A face-to-face review took place
with experts in the field of educational technology and digital citizenship, Internet
security, curriculum, and teacher education. I asked content-area experts to identify any
question items that could have been unclear, identify any questions that were irrelevant,
provide recommendations for additions of any questions, and provide general feedback
on the overall survey. They suggested minimal revisions. I revised some items based on
wording, but overall content remained the same. With the feedback from the experts, I
made revisions and sent a second version to the panel to review by email. No further
meeting was necessary as all members of the panel agreed the instrument was sufficient.
A face-to-face review took place with a sample of educators from HIDOE. The
face-to-face interview consisted of reading the questions aloud and the educators
providing feedback as to what they thought the question was intending to ask. Because
the educators’ responses were concurrent with the intended purpose of the question, this
provided evidence of response-process validity. Finally, I asked volunteers to complete
the online survey from different devices and different web browsers to determine any
technical issues that might have arisen during the official administration of the survey.
The practice survey administration took place individually by the volunteers from their
various locations and devices. The volunteers provided feedback via email and I adjusted
the technical workings of the survey, as needed, before sending the first email invitations
to all participants (Dick et al., 2014).
Data Collection
As stated previously, participating in this survey was entirely voluntary. I made a
dissemination agreement with HIDOE, included sharing the survey with elementary
school principals through email with an introductory video that explained who I was and
what I wanted to do with this study. HIDOE agreed to encourage staff to participate in the
survey study. Principals and coordinators could share the email with faculty, but no
specific protocol was specified. Further efforts to increase awareness of this study
involved the HSTE sharing the video and link for the study in their monthly newsletter
(see Appendix I). Because I had no way to know exactly who completed the survey, I was
unable to target any individual or receive any negative repercussions as a result of their
participation in the study.
The survey was open for approximately 40 days. I sent the first email on the first
day the survey was open. After one week, I sent a reminder email and on Day 11 sent
another reminder email. Last, I sent a third email reminder on Day 22 to increase
participant-response numbers after teachers had been out of school for a week on spring
break. The HSTE newsletter was sent on Day 28. I locked the survey at the end of 40
days, ran reports, and analyzed the data. At the completion of the study, the only data that
remained were those that appear in the final write up of the study. I destroyed any data
that included any personal information, such as email addresses used to share the study.
Data-Analysis Plan
SurveyMonkey provides features to view and analyze data in a variety of ways,
including Excel spreadsheets that calculate the percentage of all respondents’ responses
per question. I used this document to determine frequencies and percentages. I calculated
frequencies and percentage for the questions in each section of the survey. I examined
patterns based on the overall response in the element to see if patterns portrayed a high,
medium, or low level of teacher knowledge or belief that they planned or implemented.
With regards to data cleaning or screening procedures, I reviewed data entries to
determine that respondents answered questions completely. With forced-choice responses
of the online survey, respondents could select only one of the Likert-type scale items.
Because the majority of the test items were Likert-type scale items with a choice of 1–4,
little to no input error was possible by users. However, simple open-ended questions
might have had errors in the form of typographical issues. I analyzed the items and made
changes only to wording to interpret the overall meaning of the sentence; I noted these in
the analysis procedures described in Chapter 4. I only changed wording if it was obvious
that auto correct or homophones were used in place of the intended word or words.
I used IBM’s Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software (version 24)
for analysis of data for an internal-consistency test to establish reliability of the
instrument. I manually inputted participants’ responses to each question into SPSS and
gave a numerical value to each response. A zero input indicated the participant skipped
the questions; 1 indicated a response “not true of me”; 2 indicated “sometimes true of
me”; 3 represented “always true of me”; and 4 indicated “always true of me.” At the
completion of data input, I ran a Cronbach’s alpha test. The details of the analysis appear
in detail in Chapter 4.
Research Questions
Because the purpose of this quantitative survey study was to describe patterns of
Hawaii public school elementary educators’ knowledge and beliefs about digital
citizenship and their planned and implemented practices for digital citizenship instruction,
I tested no hypotheses; rather, I presented research questions. Chapter 4 provides answers
to the research questions based on the information analyzed from the descriptive-statistics
output.
RQ1—What are elementary educators’ knowledge and skill levels of digital
citizenship?
RQ2—What level of beliefs about digital citizenship do elementary educators use
in their instructional practices?
RQ3—To what degree do elementary educators plan to implement digital
citizenship in their curriculum?
RQ4—To what degree do elementary educators implement digital citizenship in
their instructional practices?
RQ5—What factors support or impede elementary educators’ ability to plan and
implement digital citizenship?
Threats to Validity
According to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, validity is
“the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretation of test scores for
proposed uses of tests” (American Educational Research Association et al., 1999, p. 11).
Threats to validity can happen in a variety of ways such as internally, externally, with
content, and in the response process. The use of a survey matrix tool provided satisfactory
evidence of content validity based on scholarly literature and is the primary source of
validity in the construction of a questionnaire. In addition, I further substantiated
evidence of content validity during the formative-evaluation process explained earlier in
this chapter.
Due to the nature of this study, no threats to internal validity existed because this
study did not examine a relationship between independent and dependent variables.
Internal validity is the degree to which outside factors affect the variables of the study.
For example, because I used no pretest, no issues of prior knowledge could impact the
results. In fact, the knowledge the educators possess was one variable to be determined.
Because I used no posttest, no issues could arise of educators learning from the pretest to
impact posttest results. Maturation was not a concern as educators could not age out of
the study and I only used their physical age to attempt to group educators generationally
to see if a connection arose among individuals in that age group. The survey was only
conducted once, so no concern emerged that educators would not be able to complete the
study.
The primary threat to this study was external or population threat. Because
participation in the survey was voluntary, the sample accrued based on the response rate.
I included demographic questions in the survey to assist in comparing characteristics
among educators in specific groups such as age, gender, years of professional teaching
experience, island of residence, complex-area location, or professional role. Although the
population was rather large, the response rate was small with a medium-high effect size.
The total number of participants was 75; also, demographic information was distributed
fairly evenly among some demographic groups, making it possible to provide inferences
based on patterns for educators in HIDOE. Chapter 4 provides specific analysis.
Ethical Procedures
All participation in this study was voluntary and anonymous. No physical harm
was brought to educators and the only access they needed to participate in the study was
the use of computer or mobile device and an Internet connection. Educators provided
informed consent prior to the start of the survey.
I accessed participants through snowball sampling with the use of publicly
accessible email addresses and Listservs in the HIDOE secure email system and HSTE
membership. I requested use of this type of data from HIDOE’s DGA through a threepart
application process that only occurred at certain times of a year. DGA initially denied the
application because DGA needed additional information and requested revisions to
certain aspects of the initial application (see Appendix G). After DGA approved and the
Superintendent for HIDOE signed the application (see Appendix H), the IRB provided
final approval and data collection commenced.
I made initial contact with HIDOE DGA in January 2017 to introduce the intent to
submit an application for a proposed study and to obtain clarification regarding school
numbers and acceptable ways to access educator contact information. This initial email in
maintained the IRB policy of conducting research following proposal approval (see
Appendix A). HIDOE DGA highly encourages perspective researchers to contact them in
advance to prepare them for the application process and to help them differentiate
between proposals that may be accepted at the researcher’s institutional IRB but would
not be approved by the HIDOE.
HIDOE (2015) required the submission of an application through a three-phase
process. Phase 1 required the submission of a research application, an excel spreadsheet
that included lists of targeted offices and schools, and an Advisor Support Form, if
applicable to the study. After submission of the initial paperwork, the DGA of HIDOE
preliminarily screened the application. Because the study was not deemed excessively
intrusive or inappropriate, I was invited to participate in Phase 2, the submission of a full
application. A full application included an Affirmation Form for Researchers,
documentation of approval from my institution’s IRB, copies of necessary consent forms,
and copies of all research instruments/documents including survey tool and research
questions. Finally, Phrase 3 consisted of a committee review of all materials submitted in
Phase 2, when permission was either granted or the applicant was requested to make
changes and resubmit at a later date. My initial application received committee review but
was not approved because DGA needed further clarification about how the study would
support and connect with HIDOE’s (2016) strategic plan. Additionally, HIDOE DGA
requested I revise my method of contacting participants. I had initially requested access to
all employees meeting my population criteria’s email addresses, and DGA would not
provide that information.
DGA invited me to resubmit my application in October 2017, providing more
detailed information about how the study related to the HIDOE strategic plan and
outlining the idea of using snowball sampling through publicly accessible email
addresses, using contacts made through my former employer to share through Listservs,
and using a professional organization, HSTE, to share with members. In December 2017,
DGA granted conditional approval with a request to alter two demographic questions (see
Appendix G) and granted final approval, with a signature from the superintendent,
granted in January 2018 (see Appendix H).
Even though I was previously employed at a school in HIDOE, the teachers, the
curriculum coordinator, and the technology coordinator of the school where I worked
were invited to participate. The anonymous nature of the survey prevented me from ever
knowing which members of staff participated and which did not, nor did I ever know how
they specifically responded. I provided no incentives for participation in this study;
however, if principals believed this was an important study and encouraged staff to take
the survey, I could not stop them from incentivizing their staff. I also was not privy to this
information.
Summary
Chapter 3 provided an overview of this quantitative descriptive survey study that
included the research design and rationale, overview of the methodology, procedures for
recruiting, participation, and data collection, including a description of the population and
sample size, methods for conducting a formative evaluation, a pilot study for instrument
development, threats to validity, and ethical procedures. Chapter 3 also outlined
procedures for gaining permission from the governing organization, HIDOE, and an
explanation about how educators could preserve their anonymity without fear of
repercussions if they participated. Chapter 4 provides details about the exact data
collection, data analysis, and results overview. Chapter 5 includes details about finding
interpretations, any limitations experienced during the study, implications of the study,
and recommendations for future research.
Chapter 4: Results
The purpose of the quantitative research study, using an online survey tool, was to
determine the knowledge, beliefs, planned, and implemented practices of elementary
educators for digital citizenship instruction. For my study, I attempted to survey educators
in public and charter elementary schools across the State of Hawaii, consisting of
approximately 209 schools on seven islands. This study had five research questions:
RQ1—What are elementary educators’ knowledge and skill levels of digital
citizenship?
RQ 2—What level of beliefs about digital citizenship do elementary educators use
in their instructional practices?
RQ3—To what degree do elementary educators plan to implement digital
citizenship in their curriculum?
RQ4—To what degree do elementary educators implement digital citizenship in
their instructional practices?
RQ5—What factors support or impede elementary educators’ ability to plan and
implement digital citizenship?
The data collection and analysis that follows includes information regarding the
frequencies and percentages for each research question based on the specific survey items
in addition to describing any patterns that existed among participants based on
demographic responses.
Data Collection
I recruited participants through the use of publicly accessible email addresses for
administrators and the monthly electronic newsletter for the HSTE. I emailed a request
for participation along with an introduction video, link to the live survey, and a copy of
HIDOE superintendent’s letter of approval on Day 1 of the survey, March 5, 2018. I sent
three additional reminders approximately every week the survey was open, not including
the week educators were on spring break. In addition to my main recruitment technique,
HSTE included information about the survey in their newsletter distributed on March 30,
2018. The survey stayed open through the following week. The majority of survey
responses accrued between Weeks 2 and 3 and closed after the fifth week due to lack of
participation.
The only required survey item was the informed consent at the start of the survey.
Although 82 individuals accessed the survey, only 74 consented to participate and
completed the survey. Those agreeing to participate in the survey were able to skip items
in the actual survey, resulting in the lowest number of participants for any single survey
item at 62; however, for some demographic questions, only 60 participants responded.
Although the numbers were lower than intended and put forth in the plan in Chapter 3,
the numbers were still sufficient for the sample.
Descriptive and Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample
The information provided in Table 2 shows the demographic data of participants.
These questions helped create a profile of the educator participants. All answers to the
questions were voluntary, and some participants who completed the specific survey items
chose to skip the demographic questions, resulting in the data for these questions having
lower numbers than the overall survey information.
Table 2
Percentages and Frequencies, Study Variables
Frequency Percent
Q 66. Gender
Male
9
15.00
Female 50 83.33
Prefer not to Answer 1 1.67
Q67. Age 20–25
4
6.67
26–30 6 10
31–40 11 18.33
40–50 16 26.67
51+ 19 31.67
Prefer not to Answer 4 6.67
Q. 68 Including this year, how many years have you been teaching?
This is my first year
4
6.67
2–5 years 9 15.00
6–10 years 8 13.33
11–15 years 8 13.33
16–20 years 13 21.67
21+ years 15 25.00
Prefer not to Answer 3 5.00
Q71. What is the level of adoption of 1:1 device program at your school?
Not 1:1 at all
0
0.00
I have a quarter of the number of devices as I have students in my classroom
(ex, I have 5 devices and 20 students 4 6.56
I have half the number of devices as I have students in my classroom (Ex, I
have 10 devices and 20 students) 5 8.20
Some grade levels/classrooms are 1:1 and other grade levels/classrooms are
2:1 or less for device access 11 18.03
Piloting 1:1 in some classrooms in the school by not mine 0 0.00
Piloting 1:1 in some classrooms in the school including mine 0 0.00
1:1 at certain grade levels but not mine 3 4.92
1:1 at certain grade levels including mine 13 21.31
Fully adopted 1:1 at all planned grade levels 23 37.70
Prefer not to answer 2 3.28
Table 2 continued
Frequency Percent
Q 72. Description of Professional Responsibility: Please pick the statement that most
closely your professional role at the school.
Grades K–2 classroom teacher
describes
15 25.00
Grades 3–6 classroom teacher 24 40.00
Technology Coordinator with teaching responsibilities 4 6.67
Technology Coordinator with no teaching responsibilities 2 3.33
Curriculum Coordinator with some teaching responsibilities 6 10.00
Curriculum Coordinator with no teaching responsibilities 3 5.00
Prefer not to answer 6 10.00
Demographically, nearly five times as many women as men participated with only
one person choosing not to share their gender. The age of participants was more
widespread throughout the ranges, with the majority of participants being over 40 years
of age and the least number of participants being in the youngest age range. When
compared to years of professional experience, the numbers reasonably aligned, as those
with more years of experience as an educator typically aligned with their age; however, it
is not unreasonable for an individual to be older with less than a year of experience, as
teaching is often a second career for professionals.
The dissemination of professionals aligned with the number of individuals in these
roles. Because most schools only have one technology coordinator and one curriculum
coordinator, the results are representative of this distribution. More teachers participated
than coordinators by nearly three times. Of educators who participated, more Grades 3 to
6 teachers participated than those teaching Grades K to 2.
The background for this study comes from a pledge HIDOE made to have schools
and students future ready. As part of the HIDOE’s strategic plan, schools are moving
toward 1:1 technology devices in all classrooms. Therefore, I asked participants about
how they viewed their school in the adoption process. The highest percentage of
participants reported that their schools “Fully adopted 1:1 in planned grade levels”
followed by 1:1 at the participants’ respective grade level, then 1:1 or 2:1 throughout the
school.
Appendix J provides the percentage breakdown of participants by island and
school-complex area. An examination of the island location of participants showed the
percentage is comparable to the population size of each island. The majority of
participants came from Oahu, which is the most populated island of all the inhabited
islands. Only two islands did not have any individuals reporting as participating, and
these islands have only one K–12 school each; population numbers are comparatively
smaller. Molokai, the third lowest population, had one participant, whereas Maui and
Hawaii had the next highest populations and participants in the study. In examining the
demographic information from complex-area demographic information, a relatively even
distribution emerged throughout the state with only one complex area having at least
double the number of participants of any other complex area.
Data Preparation and Internal Reliability
I used an original survey instrument tool that I developed using a formative
evaluation process. Chapter 3 provided a full explanation of the development process.
Upon the completion of data collection, I ran a Cronbach’s Alpha test of interitem
reliability of the Likert-type scale items, using all participants’ responses to determine the
internal consistency of the survey. I ran an internal instrument reliability test only on the
survey items in which respondent choices were Not true of me, Sometimes true of me,
Usually true of me, or Always true of me, as it is not typical to run reliability on
openended or multiple-choice response questions. I assigned numerical value to
responses: 0 = skipped, 1 = Not true of me, 2 = Sometimes true of me, 3 = Usually true of
me, and 4 = Always true of me. I inputted each participant’s answers to all items into
SPSS and ran an interitem reliability test. The information provided in Tables 3 to 5
revealed that a
= .986; when a is greater than or equal to .9, internal consistency is excellent (Statistics
How To, 2018). This result indicated that the Likert-type scale items were independent of
one another and were not gathering the same information. Instead, the survey items were
able to create a complete profile of educators because similar responses emerged in the
overall construct.
Table 3
Case Processing Summary
N
Cases Valid 74 98.7
Excludeda 1 1.3
Total 75 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Table 4
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s alpha
Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized items
N of items
.986 .987 57
Table 5
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. deviation N of Items
165.99 2430.835 49.304 57
Data Analysis and Results Based on Research Questions
In the sections that follow, I provide a detailed description of the results collected
through the survey. The tables provide survey responses based on individual research
questions and provide a connection to the theoretical and conceptual frameworks that
grounded this study.
Research Question 1
With RQ1, I intended to create a profile of educator knowledge and skills related
to digital citizenship. Concerning Mezirow’s (1994) transformative learning framework,
autonomous thinking derives from an individual’s frames of reference. An educator’s
knowledge and skills of digital citizenship create their frame of reference. Table 6
provides a breakdown of each question in the SDC that relates to knowledge and skill
level. The survey scale for these questions were Not true of me, Sometimes true of me,
Usually true of me, or Always true of me. When examining all survey items related to
educator knowledge and skill level with digital citizenship elements, most participants
reported each question to be usually or always true of them, with a combined percentage
ranging from 60 to over 90 participants identifying their knowledge and skill level to be
usually or always true of them. Most questions had less than five participants indicating
Not true of me. Collectively speaking, educator knowledge and skill level were rather
high with the majority of the participants selecting Usually true of me or Always true of
me.
Table 6
Research Question 1: Educator Level of Knowledge and Skills for Digital Citizenship, by
Percentage
Not true of Sometimes Usually Always
Element Survey question me true of me true of me true of me
Digital Access Knowledge of types of technology for
differentiated instruction
2.90 18.84 52.17 26.09
Digital Commerce Knowledge of electronic transactions 0.00 7.14 25.71 67.14
Digital Commerce Skill of buying from online stores 0.00 18.57 12.86 68.57
Digital Commerce Making secure online purchases 2.86 5.71 40.00 51.43
Digital Commerce Skill of selling in the online market 55.71 27.14 7.14 10.00
Digital Commerce Mobile banking use 10.00 11.43 18.57 60.00
Digital Commerce Informed consumer by reviewing product 2.86 12.86 38.57 45.71
Digital
Communication
Knowledge of using classroom
technology devices
0.00 5.71 31.43 62.86
Digital
Communication
Knowledge of which tool is appropriate
for situation
0.00 21.43 47.14 31.43
Digital Literacy Making judgements of online material 0.00 11.43 51.43 37.14
Digital Literacy Knowledge and use of web-based tools 0.00 4.29 34.29 61.43
Digital Literacy Using Internet to locate range of media
sources
0.00 4.29 40.00 55.71
Digital Etiquette Sharing opinion online in a respectful way 4.35 4.35 26.09 65.22
Digital Etiquette Read and engage with others online
constructively
2.90 7.25 30.43 59.42
Digital Etiquette Knowledge of appropriate and
inappropriate times to use digital tools
0.00 4.41 29.41 66.18
Digital Etiquette Recognize times when others are being
mistreated in social online environments
2.94 8.82 35.29 52.94
Digital Law Knowledge of different sharing and usage
rights of material online
14.93 19.40 31.34 34.33
Digital Law Knowledge of digital laws interpreted
globally
13.24 25.00 35.29 26.47
Table 6 continued
Not true of Sometimes Usually Always
Element Survey question me true of me true of me true of me
Digital Rights and
Responsibilities
Knowledge of global and social issues
because of the Internet
2.90 15.94 37.68 43.48
Digital Health and
Well-being
Recognize how Internet effect students
behavior
2.90 8.96 55.22 32.84
Digital Safety and
Security
Use of different passwords for accounts 4.48 17.91 50.75 26.87
Digital Safety and
Security
Knowledge of creating secure passwords 1.47 5.88 36.76 55.88
Digital Safety and
Security
Skill of following school media policy 0.00 3.03 18.18 78.79
In contrast to the other questions, where nearly all participants selected Usually
true of me or Always true of me, more participants stated that these specific survey
questions were Not true of me and Sometimes true of me. These two survey questions
were “I know there are differences between 1) free to use or share, 2) free to use, share or
modify, 3) free to use or share commercially, and 4) free to use, share, or modify
commercially” and “I know that digital laws can be interpreted globally.” In these
questions, 13.49% and 14.93% of participants marked Not true of me and 19.4% and 25%
marked Sometimes true of me, respectively.
The only exception to this spread was the two questions related to digital laws and
the sharing of resources accessed on the Internet. Also, in responses to these questions,
the distribution among the four choices was much more evenly dispersed. This could
possibly indicate educator knowledge about digital laws is not high.
Research Question 2
Research question 2 intended to create a profile of educators’ beliefs about digital
citizenship instruction. Again, relating to Mezirow’s (1994) theory of transformative
learning, one’s beliefs also impact one’s frames of reference. Table 7 provides a
breakdown of each survey item related to beliefs and the percentage of participants who
believed that item to be Not true of me, Sometimes true of me, Usually true of me, and
Always true of me. The survey items that addressed Research Question 2 revealed that
most participants indicated Usually true of me or Always true of me concerning their
beliefs regarding instruction of digital citizenship. The only question that had a
contrasting response was the question about the educators being responsible for teaching
students to make online purchases, in this case, 64.59% identified this item as not true of
them, and 15.71% identified Sometimes true of me (see Table 3). Less than 20%
identified this item as usually or always true of them. An interesting observation and
connection with the element of digital law revealed that a third of the participants viewed
teaching students about the digital law as Not true of me or Sometimes true of me. It
appears that because they do not possess the knowledge, they may not feel they are
responsible for instructing students in the law.
Shown in Table 7, results demonstrated that educators view digital citizenship as a
vital learning concept for students. Specifically, more than 90% of participants identified
Usually true of me or Always true of me concerning belief in incorporating digital
citizenship concepts into their instructional practices.
Table 7
Research Question 2: Educator Beliefs About Digital Citizenship Instruction, by
Percentage
Not true of Sometimes Usually true Always true
Element Survey question me true of me of me of me
Digital Access Belief all students should have access
to technology for learning
0.00 2.86 17.14 80.00
Digital Access Responsibility to model the use of
technology
0.00 2.90 27.54 69.57
Digital Access Responsibility to support students with
extended access to technology
8.57 11.43 34.29 45.71
Digital Access Belief technology supports students
with disabilities
0.00 5.71 22.86 71.43
Digital Access Belief accommodations should be made
for students with disabilities
0.00 2.86 20.00 77.14
Digital
Commerce
Teach students to make online
purchases
64.29 15.71 11.43 8.57
Digital
Communication
Responsible for teaching appropriate
digital communication
5.71 11.43 31.43 51.43
Digital Etiquette Belief it is important to address negative
online actions with students
2.94 10.29 13.24 73.53
Digital Law Responsible for teaching digital laws 10.29 22.06 30.88 36.76
Digital law Responsibility to organization to
discuss ethical digital practices.
1.47 17.65 36.76 44.12
Digital Rights Believe students should
and opportunities to work in online
Responsibilities interactive environments
2.90 14.49 40.58 42.03
Digital Rights Believe students can contribute to a and
global discussion using technology
Responsibilities
2.94 16.18 35.29 45.59
N/A Believe digital citizenship concepts
should be incorporated into
instructional practices
0.00 9.68 29.03 61.29
Furthermore, Survey Question 62 asked participants to identify their level of
belief in the importance of incorporating digital citizenship into their instructional
practices. Participant response choices included Not at all, Somewhat important,
Important, and Very important. No participant answered, Not at all; however, 9.68%
responded as Somewhat important, 29.03% responded Important, and 61.29% responded
as Very important. These responses reflect that educators value digital citizenship as a
necessary component to their instructional practices.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 changed emphasis from educators’ internal frames of
reference to examination of their actions. Siemens’ (2005) theory of connectivism
emphasizes educators’ actions in the educational setting; specifically, what the educator
intends or plans to do impacts the overall learning environment. Tables 8 through 11
show the survey items that specifically related to the planned implementation of
educators. Although not all digital citizenship elements are connected to planned
implementation, the elements that did connect revealed that the majority of educators felt
that planning for digital citizenship instruction is essential (see Table 8). For example,
25.71% of participants indicated it was Usually true of me, and 38.57% of participants
stated that it was Always true of me to pay for educational resources found online. With
regards to digital literacy, educators are preparing for instruction by planning for the
potential for mishaps in technology use; 44.29% of participants stated this is Usually true
of me and 32.86% responded as Always true of me.
Table 8
Research Question 3: Planned Implementation of Digital Citizenship Instruction, by
Percentage
Element
Not True of Sometimes Usually
Survey question me true of me true of me
Always
true of me
Digital commerce Pay for educational and professional
resources found online
11.43 24.29 25.71 38.57
Digital Literacy Use of technology planned for mishaps 2.86 10 44.29 32.86
Digital Health and
Well-being
Plan for instructional time not using
technology
5.88 16.18 36.76 41.18
Table 9 shows whether participants viewed planning for digital citizenship
implementation as a priority. Of participants, 83% indicated planning was a priority.
Table 9
Research Question 3: Planned Implementation of Digital Citizenship Instruction,
LikertType Response Item, by Percentage
Planning for digital
citizenship is a priority
Yes No
83.08 16.92
Additionally, Survey Question 64 asked participants to identify the frequency, in
an instructional year, in which they emphasize digital citizenship concepts in their
planning. Response choices ranged from Not at all to Multiple times a week. Table 10
shows the responses. Aligning with the data that 83.08% of participants indicated
planning for digital citizenship is a priority, results revealed that participants not only
believed planning for digital citizenship concepts is important but they consider it
regularly.
Table 10
Frequency of Planning for Digital Citizenship Concepts
Frequency Percentage
Not at all 6.35
Once a quarter 19.05
Once a month 20.63
Twice a month 3.17
Once a week 19.05
Multiple times a week 31.75
Furthermore, I asked participants were a follow-up question about why they
selected yes or no and to provide up to three reasons why it was or was not a priority to
plan for digital citizenship. Answers for why it was a priority included “technology is the
future,” “to ensure students grow to be digitally responsible citizens & don’t abuse
technology,” and “proactive to prevent technology mishaps.” Table 11 shows percentages
based on common responses for reasons why planning is a priority.
Table 11
Participants Reasons Why Planning is a Priority
Reasons Percentage
Students need to be digital citizens 6
Proactive to prevent technology mishaps 17
Keep students safe 14
Ensuring students are responsible for using electronic devices/interactions 6
Student awareness of technology use 7
Students will regularly use technology throughout their life 12.7
Teach student appropriate and ethical use 22
To be prepared 6
Differentiation 5
Table 12 provides responses as to why planning for digital citizenship is not a
priority. Participants who responded it was not a priority identified reasons such as, “Too
many other things to cover,” “lower grade students at my school only use selected
educational apps,” and “not enough time.” The main reason for not planning related to
other priorities or lack of time. An interesting observation is that participants who did not
view planning for digital citizenship as a priority identified institutional restrictions or
selected applications as a reason to not have to plan.
Table 12
Participants Reasons Why Planning is Not a Priority
Reasons Percentage
Other priorities/Not enough time 40
Students access is highly managed/monitored 10
not necessary for my grade level 10
Lack of functioning technology 10
Students need to be real life citizens first 10
Lack of knowledge 10
No clear rules for digital etiquette 10
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 focused on what educators implemented into their
instructional practices. This question also related to Siemens’ (2005) theory of
connectivism. What the educator is doing instructionally with students creates a profile of
the classroom experience of students and helps identify areas of instruction that may need
more attention. Table 13 provides a complete breakdown of how participants answered
the specific survey items.
Table 13
Research Question 4: Educators Implementation of Digital Citizenship Instruction, by
Percentage
Element
Not Survey question true of
me
Sometimes Usually Always
true of me true of me true of me
Digital Access Use different technologies to support
differentiated instruction
4.29 25.71 42.86 27.14
Digital Access Share with families about free Internet
access
21.43 27.14 32.86 18.57
Digital
Communication
Communicate with students and families
digitally
12.86 20.00 30.00 37.14
Digital
Communication
Teach the difference between text and
academic lingo
21.43 22.86 25.71 30.00
Digital
Communication
Incorporate digital media and devices into
learning experiences
0.00 20.00 27.14 52.86
Digital
Communication
Provide opportunities to work
collaboratively in online environments
24.29 32.86 18.57 24.29
Digital Literacy Provide opportunities to research and
evaluate sources using Internet
10.00 34.29 28.57 27.14
Digital Literacy Teach how to use Internet to search for
information
8.57 28.57 34.29 28.57
Digital Literacy Teach how to cite information from the
Internet
24.29 31.43 25.71 18.57
Digital Etiquette Teach appropriate language use in online
discourse
19.40 11.94 29.85 38.81
Digital Etiquette Teach when it is appropriate to use devices 5.97 11.94 29.85 52.24
Digital Etiquette Teach students to report inappropriate
online behavior
8.82 10.29 23.53 57.35
Digital Law Teach about plagiarism 4.41 16.18 29.41 50.00
Digital Law Teach students the difference in usage
rights for online resources
34.33 20.90 28.36 16.42
Digital Rights and
Responsibilities
Provide opportunities for to students to
interact in safe online environments
22.39 22.39 29.85 25.37
Digital Health and
Well-being
Help parent/guardians to learn about
appropriate screen time
32.25 29.41 27.94 10.29
Digital Safety and
Security
Teach students importance of keeping
passwords secret
10.45 10.45 34.33 44.78
Digital Safety and
Security
Secure student passwords in the
classroom so that others don’t have access
7.35 4.41 39.71 48.53
Concerning digital etiquette, more than 50% of participants identified that they
always teach students when it is appropriate to use devices and to report incidents of
inappropriate online behavior. These responses align with participants’ responses to
digital-etiquette questions for Research Questions 1 and 2 in which more than half of
participants responded they had knowledge of digital etiquette and believed it was
important to address negative online actions. It would appear educators are consistent in
knowledge, beliefs, and planned practices for digital etiquette.
Much like responses to survey items in answering Research Questions 1 and 2,
educator instructional practices related to digital law also indicated higher percentages
among the Not true of me and Sometimes true of me choices, compared to some other
elements. Teaching students about usage rights for online resources had 34.33% of
participants identifying this as Not true of me compared to 16.42% who identified this as
Always true of me. Alternatively, under the element of digital health and well-being, the
majority of participants identified that it is Not true of me or Sometimes true of me in
helping parents and guardians learn about screen time for the students they teach.
Furthermore, I asked educators to identify the amount of time they spend
integrating digital citizenship concepts into their instruction. Results indicated that the
majority of participants integrate these concepts Multiple times a week (30.16%) followed
by Once a month (23.81%), Once a quarter (17.46%), Once a week (17.46%) , Twice a
month (7.94%), and Not at all (3.17%). It appears, the majority of educators are
addressing digital citizenship concepts throughout the school year.
Research Question 5
Survey items related to Research Question 5 were open-ended short-response
questions instead of Likert-type scale items. I asked participants to identify up to three
factors that supported their implementation of digital citizenship instruction and three
factors that impeded their implementation of digital citizenship instruction. I sorted
answers to these questions based on their responses to generate percentages of common
responses (see Tables 14 and 15).
Table 14
Factors Supporting Implementation of Digital Citizenship
Factors Frequency Percentage
Curriculum 11 8.39
Device Access for Students 8 6.10
Knowledge 9 6.87
Resources (including hardware or software) 23 17.55
Professional Development 4 3.05
School Culture and Environment 8 6.10
Skills 7 5.34
Support (Instructional and Administrative) 13 9.92
Students’ skills and knowledge 4 3.05
Time 12 9.16
Training 22 16.79
Other 10 7.63
Some factors educators identified as supporting their implementation of digital
citizenship included “Tech teacher comes in does a lesson on digital citizenship,”
“Focused time,” “Cooperative professional learning opportunities,” “school and complex
providing 1:1 devices,” and “admin support.” According to Table 14, participants most
commonly cited training and resources as supporting factors. It would appear that
educators find training to be helpful and resources to be plentiful enough to influence
their decisions to implement digital citizenship.
Table 15
Factors Impeding Implementation of Digital Citizenship
Factors Frequency Percentage
Curriculum 9 7.82
Knowledge/Comfort Level 15 13.04
Not grade appropriate 1 0.86
Resources 13 11.30
Skills 7 6.08
Support, Lack of 2 1.73
Student home environment influences 2 1.73
Students’ knowledge and skills 2 1.73
Time, Lack of 36 31.30
Training, Lack of or not specific enough 11 9.56
Technological difficulties (hardware, software, and firewalls) 8 6.95
Other 9 7.82
Some factors identified as impeding the implementation of digital citizenship
instruction included “Knowledge comfort level,” “Time,” “Training,” “Lack of support,”
“Depth of knowledge,” “Resources,” “Technology at school is not up to date and does not
work ,” “Inappropriate web content not blocked,” “Blocked websites by Department of
Education,” “Lack of proper use of Internet at home,” “Waste of time,” and
“Overwhelmed with so many other things.”
Additional Statistical Analyses
Because the background for this study came from HIDOE’s participation in the
Future Ready Pledge and their strategic plan that included making K–12 schools 1:1, I
ran additional statistical analysis to determine if a correlation existed between
participants’ school level of adoption of 1:1 devices and educators’ knowledge and skill
levels, beliefs, and planned and implemented practices. Researchers can conduct
statistical correlation analysis using either Pearson product-moment correlation
(Pearson’s correlation) or Spearman’s rank-order (Spearman’s correlation) test. I chose
Spearman’s correlation to analyze the data because Likert-type scale items are ordinal,
whereas a Pearson’s correlation requires interval or ratio data. Additionally, a Pearson’s
correlation assumes a linear relationship between variables, whereas a Spearman’s
correlation assumes a monotonic relationship, meaning “the variables increase in value
together” or one value increases and the other value decreases at the same time (Laerd
Statistics, 2018, para 5). Therefore, using SPSS, I ran a Spearman’s correlation
comparing Question 71, educators’ school’s level of adoption as the central variable for
correlation. It would appear that if educators are at schools that are further along in the
adoption and implementation of 1:1 devices, educators would have greater knowledge,
beliefs, and planned and implemented practices in relationship to digital citizenship
because these skills directly relate to HIDOE’s GLO 6, ethical and responsible use of
technology (HIDOE, 2017). For the analysis, I assigned each participant’s answer to
Question 71 a numeric code and then analyzed results against other survey items, with
variables also given a numerical code (see Table 16).
Table 16
Variable Code for Spearman Correlation Analysis
Numeric code Participant response
0 skipped/preferred not to answer
1 Not at all 1:1
2 quarter of the devices to students
3 half of the devices to students
4 Some grades 1:1 and others 2:1 or less
5 Piloting 1:1 in some classrooms but not mine
6 Piloting 1:1 in some classrooms including mine
7 1:1 at some grade levels but not mine
8 1:1 at some grade levels including mine
9 Fully adopted 1:1 at all planned grade levels
For Likert-type scale questions, the response code was 0 = skipped, 1 = Not true
of me, 2 = sometimes true of me, 3 = Usually true of me, and 4 = Always true of me.
Additionally, for any survey items used for correlation analysis that were not the
Likerttype scale questions, the ranking code was roughly the same, where zero indicated
the participant either skipped the question or preferred not to answer; then the order went
from one upward, based on the number of choices in the question. One always
represented the None, Not, No, or lowest possible option response and the highest rank
number represented the Always, Multiple, Fully, Yes, or the highest possible option
response with the other responses between these choices increasing in value by one in
their progression. Results of the correlation analysis appear in Tables 17 and 18.
Table 17
Level of Adoption and Age of Participants Correlation
Q71 adoption
level
Q67 demographic
age
Spearman’s rho Q71 Adoption Level Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .426**
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000
N 74 74
Q67 demographic age Correlation Coefficient .426** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .
N 74 74
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 18
Level of Adoption and Educators’ Years of Teaching
Correl ation
Q71 adoption
level
Q68 years of
teaching
Spearman’s rho Q71 Adoption Level Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .371**
Sig. (2-tailed) . .001
N 74 74
Q68 years of teaching Correlation Coefficient .371** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .
N 74 74
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 17 shows a high degree of correlation between participants’ age and the
school’s level adoption, r = 0.426 and a significance level of 99%. In contrast, Table 18
shows a moderate correlation between adoption level and years of teaching experience, r
= .371, and a 99% significance level. I explore the results shown in Table 17 with
regards to scholarly literature further in Chapter 5.
Table 19 shows the correlation between adoption level and the participant’s
frequency of implementing digital citizenship into instructional time. The correlation
between these two variables indicates a moderate relationship with r about 0.3 and 95%
significance level. Based on this result, it appears that participants in schools where the
adoption level is higher or further along integrate digital citizenship concepts more
frequently.
Table 19
Level of Adoption and Digital Citizenship Implementation into Instructional Time
Correlation
Q71 adoption
level
Q65 Implement
into instructional
time
Spearman’s rho Q71 Adoption Level Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .272*
Sig. (2-tailed) . .019
N 74 74
Q65 Implement into
instructional time
Correlation Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
.272*
.019
1.000
.
N 74 74
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 20 reveals the correlation between participants’ school’s adoption level and
their skill of using online tools to engage in electronic transactions, a component of the
digital citizenship element, digital commerce. Although the correlation is moderately
weak (r = .234), it has a 95% significance level. It appears that if a participant is at a
school with a greater level of adoption, they may have increased their knowledge and
skills of digital actions and are applying it to their personal life.
Table 20
Level of Adoption and Skill of Digital Transactions Correlation
Adoption level
Q10 doing
electronic
transactions
Spearman’s rho Adoption Level Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .234*
Sig. (2-tailed) . .044
N 74 74
Q10 doing electronic
transactions
Correlation Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
.234*
.044
1.000
.
N 74 74
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 21 shows evidence of a moderate correlation with 99% significance level
between the adoption level and educator belief in providing students with opportunities to
learn with technology. Because HIDOE intends to provide all K–12 students with 1:1
devices, this data would support this initiative by indicating that when educators have
access of 1:1 for their students, it is essential to give students the opportunity to use the
provided technology. As district leaders consider budgetary plans for the coming years,
this evidence may sway them in assisting the schools that have not been able to purchase
the devices to enhance their adoption of 1:1 devices.
Adoption level and educator belief in accommodating students with disabilities
using instructional technologies had a moderate correlation (r = .282) and a significance
level of 95% (see Table 22). I discuss this correlation further in Chapter 5.
Table 21
Level of Adoptions and Belief in Students Opportunities to Learn with Technology
Correlation
Q71 adoption
level
Q5 believe
students
opportunity to
learn with tech
Spearman’s rho Q71 Adoption Level Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .299**
Sig. (2-tailed) . .010
N 74 74
Q5 believe students
opportunity to learn
with tech
Correlation Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
.299**
.010
1.000
.
N 74 74
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 22
ts Correlation
Level of Adoption and Belief in Accommodations for Studen
Q71 adoption
level
Q9 believe in
accommodations
for students with
disabilities
Spearman’s rho Q71 Adoption Level Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .282*
Sig. (2-tailed) . .015
N 74 74
Q9 believe in
accommodations for
students with
disabilities
Correlation Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.282*
.015
74
1.000
.
74
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Alternatively, Table 23 indicates a weak correlation (r = 0.173) between the use of
different types of technology for differentiated instruction. Similarly, Table 24 reveals a
weak correlation (r = .112) between school adoption level and the incorporation of digital
media tools and technology devices. Because the variable resources were a factor that
supports and a factor that impedes educators’ implementation of digital citizenship, it
would appear educators are making use of what they have available, regardless of how far
along the a school is in adopting 1:1 devices. Educators cannot use what they do not have.
Alternatively, this does not help to understand if educators in schools with complete 1:1
device adoption are making the most effective use of all the technology they have,
providing a topic for further research.
Table 23
Level of Adoption and Use of Technology to Support Differentiation Correlation
Q71 adoption Q3 use diff types
level of tech support
Spearman’s rho Q71 Adoption Level Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .173
Sig. (2-tailed) . .140
N 74 74
Q3 use diff types of
tech support
differentiation
Correlation Coefficient .173
Sig. (2-tailed) .140
1.000
.
N 74 74
Table 24
Level of Adopt
Learning
Corre
ion and the Incorpor
lation ation of Digital Media Tools/Technology into Student
Q22 digital tool
Adoption level usage
Spearman’s rho Adoption Level Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .112
Sig. (2-tailed) . .342
N 74 74
Q22 incorporate digital Correlation Coefficient .112 media tools and
technology devices into Sig. (2-tailed) .342
student learning N 74
1.000
.
74
Table 25 reveals a moderate correlation and a significance level of 95% between
adoption level and instructional practices, specifically educators implementing
opportunities for students to work collaboratively in online environments.
Table 25
Level of Adoption and Providing Students with Opportunities to Work Collaboratively
Online Correlation
Q71 adoption
level
Q23 opportunities
to work
collaboratively
online
Spearman’s rho Q71 Adoption Level Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .262*
Sig. (2-tailed) . .024
N 74 74
Q23 opportunities to
work collaboratively
online
Correlation Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
.262*
.024
1.000
.
N 74 74
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 26 provides an interesting connection to ensuring educators are
knowledgeable about policies in place to protect students. Schools in HIDOE require
families to sign media release forms at the start of each school year that gives the school
permission to publish photographs, videos, and documents with students’ images and
names to their websites. Based on the moderate correlation with a significance level of
95% between adoption level and sharing students’ pictures following the school media
policy, it would appear that if an educator is at a school that is further along or has fully
adopted 1:1 devices, they are more likely to be knowledgeable of the policy and be
skillful in engaging in this practice.
Table 26
Level of Adoption and Sharing Student Pictures Online Following the School Media
Policy Correlation
Q71 adoption
level
Q58 share pictures
of student online
following school
media policy
Spearman’s rho Q71 Adoption Level Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .236*
Sig. (2-tailed) . .043
N 74 74
Q58 share pictures of Correlation Coefficient student
online
following school media Sig. (2-tailed)
policy N
.236*
.043
74
1.000
.
74
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Question 59 asked educators simply if planning for digital citizenship was a
priority. Table 27 indicates a moderately high correlation, r = .415 with a 99%
significance level between adoption level and planning for digital citizenship.
Additionally, Table 28 reveals a moderate correlation, r = .340, and a significance level
of 99% between adoption level and educators’ belief in the importance of incorporating
digital citizenship practices.
Table 27
Level of Adoption and Educators Making Planning for Digital Citizenship a Priority
Correlation
Q71 adoption
level
Q59 planning for
digital citizenship
is a priority
Spearman’s rho Q71 Adoption Level Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .415**
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000
N 74 74
Q59 planning for Correlation Coefficient digital
citizenship is a
priority Sig. (2-tailed)
.415**
.000
1.000
.
N 74 74
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 28
Level of Adoption and Educators’ Importance Level for Inc
Correlation orporation Digital Citizenship
Q71 Adoption
Level
Q63 level of
importance
incorporating
digital citizenship
into instructional
practices
Spearman’s rho Q71 Adoption Level Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .340**
Sig. (2-tailed) . .003
N 74 74
Q63 level of
importance
incorporating digital
citizenship into
instructional practices
Correlation Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.340**
.003
74
1.000
.
74
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Summary
In this chapter, I provided the descriptive statistics results, data analysis, and
results from a correlation analysis for the study Elementary Educators’ Knowledge,
Beliefs, Planned and Implemented Practices for Digital Citizenship: The Development
and Implementation of the Survey of Digital Citizenship. Results from this study
answered five research questions. RQ1 focused on educator knowledge and skill level of
digital citizenship concepts. Results revealed that the majority of participants possessed a
reasonably high knowledge and skill level by self-reporting Usually true of me and
Always true of me to the majority of survey items overall. However, the survey items that
connected to the element of digital law reported less favorable responses indicating that
this may be an area of knowledge that needs to be addressed for educators.
With regard to RQ2, educators’ beliefs about digital citizenship, results revealed
similar outcomes to those on educators’ knowledge. However, questions related to digital
commerce revealed more educators did not believe they were responsible for teaching
students about making purchases online. Reasons behind educators’ beliefs on this topic
were not provided and only inferences can be made; however, this may be an area that
may need further research.
RQ3 focused on educators’ planned instructional practices for digital citizenship.
Results for this research question revealed that the majority of educators do plan for
digital citizenship, or at least feel that it is important. Results showed that educators
thought it was important that students learn to be digital citizens and that they will be
using technology throughout their lives. Alternatively, those who expressed that planning
was not a priority emphasized lack of time and institutional safeguards as reasons not to
plan.
RQ4 investigated educators’ implemented practices for digital citizenship. The
majority of participants do implement digital citizenship into their instructional practices.
This information is valuable with regard to the district initiative to be 1:1 throughout K–
12. Furthermore, RQ5 revealed that many factors support and impede educators’
implementation of digital citizenship. Training and resources were cited most frequently
among participants as factors of support compared to time and knowledge or comfort
level as the most frequent reasons impeding implementation.
I conducted additional statistical analysis in the form of a Spearman’s rank-order
correlation test to determine if the adoption level of 1:1 devices in educators’ schools
impacted variables in the other survey questions. Although not all questions revealed a
high correlation or significance level, nine survey items had a moderate to high
correlation with significance levels of 95 or 99. The content of these questions
predominately emphasized the professional practice of planned or implemented
instruction of digital citizenship concepts. Additionally, age and years of experience also
possessed significance in the correlation, which aligns with research and theory about
digital natives.
Items mentioned in this chapter with a weak correlation and no specific
significance level do not provide value to understanding the impact of 1:1 device
adoption, but instead provide evidence about an overall effect on educator
implementation of digital citizenship. These topics may not be areas of high significance
for school and district leaders to invest training or time but may need to be considered
when resourcing and supporting educators.
In Chapter 5, I provide a more comprehensive discussion of the implications of
the analysis. Additionally, I consider the results in the scope of the theoretical and
conceptual frameworks on which this study was grounded. Furthermore, I provide
limitations to the study and recommendations for further research along with an
understanding of how this study supports positive social change.
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Introduction
This study was about elementary educators’ knowledge, beliefs, and planned and
implemented practices for digital citizenship; additionally, the study included
development and implementation of an original survey instrument, the Survey of Digital
Citizenship (SDC). The purpose of this quantitative survey study was to describe patterns
of Hawaii public school elementary educators’ knowledge and beliefs about digital
citizenship and their planned and implemented practices for digital citizenship instruction.
The secondary purpose of this study was to develop the survey tool, the SDC, to assess
educators’ knowledge, beliefs, and professional practices for digital citizenship. For this
quantitative research study, I collected data from Hawaii public and charter school
elementary teachers, curriculum coordinators, and technology coordinators. I attempted to
describe patterns of educators’ knowledge and beliefs about digital citizenship and their
planned and implemented practices for digital citizenship.
I contacted the HIDOE and obtained permission to recruit educators working for
HIDOE to be participants in the current study. I received permission following a threestep
application process. Participation in this study was entirely voluntary. I notified educators
about the survey through email communication either shared with them by their
administration or through a newsletter from HSTE. The participant pool comprised
elementary school teachers, curriculum coordinators, and technology coordinators across
the State of Hawaii working at public or charter schools. I used a researcher-developed
original online survey tool as the instrument to collect data and descriptive statistics to
analyze the data. Additionally, I conducted a Spearman’s rho correlation analysis to
determine significance levels between specific variables.
To develop the survey, I used a formative-evaluation process with a review by a
survey-design expert and content-area experts. I conducted response process validity
using a small sample of participants as well as a technical review to ensure the survey
would function adequately online. I used a post-hoc Cronbach’s alpha test to determine
the interitem reliability of Likert-type scale items. Results from the Cronbach's alpha
confirmed excellent internal consistency and reliability (a = .986). The survey consisted
of questions about educators’ knowledge and skill level for digital citizenship actions,
their beliefs about digital citizenship instruction, their planned and implemented practices
for the instruction of digital citizenship, and factors supporting or impeding their
implementation of digital citizenship.
Additionally, I included a series of demographic questions to assist in comparing
characteristics among educators in the specific groups of age, gender, years of
professional teaching experience, island of residence, complex-area location, and
professional role. I included some demographic items as part of the analysis for
correlational comparison. Furthermore, as part of the agreement with HIDOE to use this
population for research, I added a demographic question about participants’ complex
areas and edited the question about schools’ adoption levels to include more options.
Results from the demographic section provided information about the progress made by
participants’ schools in their adoption of 1:1 technology-device access and Future Ready
Pledge initiative. Data analysis revealed many schools across the state are making strides
to meet the pledge and plan for 1:1 device access for all students, K–12.
Overall, results generally indicated educators perceived themselves as having high
levels of knowledge and skills related to digital citizenship and high levels of beliefs
about digital citizenship instruction by selecting Usually true of me or Always true of me
in response to questions related to knowledge and beliefs. Additionally, the majority of
participants regularly plan and implement digital citizenship concepts into their
instructional practices. This chapter provides an interpretation of the findings aligned
with scholarly literature along with recommendations for future research, limitations to
the study, implications for positive social change, and a conclusion for the study as a
whole.
Interpretations of the Findings
In this section, an interpretation of the findings from Chapter 4 will be presented
in alignment with scholarly literature.
Research Question 1: Knowledge and Skill Level of Digital Citizenship
RQ1 connects to the theoretical framework of Mezirow’s theory of
transformational learning and the conceptual framework of Ribble’s nine elements of
digital citizenship. Ribble (2015) identified digital citizenship as meant to assist
individuals of all ages in understanding how “to use digital technologies effectively and
appropriately” (p. 15), whereas Mezirow (1997) identified autonomous thinking as
showing citizenship and moral decision making. I used survey items related to this
research question to asked about what educators know or do related to technology use.
Participant responses helped establish a profile of educators and identify specific areas in
which knowledge and skill may be perceived as weak/low or high/strong to show what
educators are capable of modeling for technology use. Researchers identified the value of
educators modeling appropriate online behaviors in their technology use to support
students own use of technology (Foroughi, 2015; ISTE, 2017; Lowenthal et al. 2016).
Results from the data analysis revealed the majority of participants viewed
themselves as having relatively high to high levels of knowledge and skills related to
elements of digital citizenship with one exception: the element of digital law. Sincar
(2011) identified that participants possess adequate knowledge of digital literacy and
digital communication, but not of the other seven elements, including digital law. Results
of the present study showed educator knowledge and skill level for digital citizenship is
increasing, but an area of weakness in digital law persists.
How people acquire knowledge has changed to include aspects of how to find,
use, and precisely apply the knowledge using technology (Siemens, 2005). For digital
literacy, a combined 95.71% of participants identified themselves as usually or always
being able to use the Internet to locate a range of media sources. Additionally, 34.29 % of
participants selected Usually true of me and 61.43% of participants selected Always true
of me in knowing how to use web-based tools. Researchers found increased knowledge
and skill of digital literacy improves users’ self-efficacy in technology use (Aesaert et al.,
2014; Choi et al., 2017; Çiftci &Aladag, 2018; Livingstone & Helsper, 2009; Moeller et
al., 2011; Simsek & Simsek, 2013). Curran and Ribble (2017) maintained that
opportunities educators provide to students related to digital literacy will support students
who are 21st-century learners and future workers. Therefore, if educators have high levels
of knowledge and skill in digital literacy, they can model appropriate behavior for this
element.
Under the element of digital communication, a combined 94.29% of participants
indicated they usually or always know about using classroom technology, and a
combined 78.57% responded they usually or always know which technology tool is most
appropriate for specific situations. For digital etiquette, less than 5% of participants
indicated they did not or sometimes did not know of appropriate and inappropriate times
to use digital tools. These results indicated participants possess high levels of knowledge
for appropriate technology use, related to the findings of Pusey and Sadera (2012) that
knowing how to use devices and how to protect oneself in online environments are
essential aspects of being a digital citizen.
Concerning digital safety and security, a combined 96.97% responded they
usually or always had skill in following the school media policy of sharing student
photographs online. The results substantiated the moderate correlation shown in Table 26
between schools’ levels of 1:1 adoption and skills in using the school’s media-sharing
policy. Schools and educators have many reasons to put pictures of students online such
as promoting events at the school and deepening the relationship between home and
school by allowing parents/guardians to see what their children are doing at school.
Participation or engagement in social and cultural activities is one of the four factors of
digital citizenship (Choi et al., 2017).
With regards to digital commerce, the results of a correlation analysis shown in
Table 20 of Chapter 4 revealed a moderately weak correlation but high significance level
(r = .234, 95%) between educators’ knowledge and skill in using online tools for
electronic transactions and their schools’ level of 1:1 adoption. Although personal use of
technology, especially for electronic buying and selling purposes, may not seem
important to the educational setting, it does provide a connection to Mezirow’s theory of
transformational learning. Specifically, through ethnocentrism, what an individual knows
and believes to be right is based on culture, network, society, and the world substantiating
an individual’s habits of mind (Mezirow, 1997).
With regards to digital access, a combined 78.26% of participants indicated
Usually true of me or Always true of me in knowing different types of technology that
could be used for instructional differentiation. In conjunction with Burton (2003) as
referenced by Paolini (2015), instructional differentiation is “an aspect of teachers’
professional pedagogical” (p. 23). Additionally, these results relate to Research Question
3 because participants identified differentiation of instruction as a reason planning for
digital citizenship was a priority. Research findings relate to Foroughi (2015), who
identified the value of consistent digital access in developing necessary tools for future
success. Additionally, “effective instructors utilize a variety of learning modalities to
differentiate instruction for an array of student learning styles” (Paolini, 2015, p. 23). In
considering differentiation, this research supports that knowledge of different types of
technology for instructional differentiation would be helpful in providing a learning
environment that best supports the generation in the classroom. Findings align with
Keengwe and Georgina (2013), who identified that the millennial generation prefers
working in collaborative environments that are supportive, flexible, and customizable.
The only element for which educators did not perceive themselves as having high
levels of knowledge or skill was the element of digital law. Results revealed nearly 40%
of participants indicated they did not or sometimes did not have knowledge of different
sharing and usage rights of online materials or knowledge of global digital laws. These
results align with results from Pusey and Sadera (2012), who found low levels of
knowledge in areas related to digital law among preservice-teacher participants.
Additionally, these results align with findings by Sincar (2011). Therefore, digital law
may be an area in which school and district leaders may want to better support educators
with professional development or shared information to increase knowledge in this area.
Overall, results from data analyzed for Research Question 1 showed educators
possess high levels of knowledge and skills related to specific actions in digital
citizenship. Findings for this question aligned favorably with those of other scholarly
research. Therefore, as educators adopt more technology-savvy digital practices into their
personal lives, they may, in turn, instill those practices into their instruction, elaborating
and expanding their points of view and enhancing their abilities in two of the four
processes associated with a change in an individual’s frame of reference (Mezirow,
1997). Alternatively, the increased expectation for technology use in the professional
setting may inadvertently affect their personal lives, increasing their level of citizenship
in the digital world and strengthening their points of view (Mezirow, 1997).
Research Question 2: Educators Beliefs about Digital Citizenship
As with RQ1, RQ2 also relates to the theoretical framework of Mezirow’s theory
of transformative learning and Ribble’s nine elements of digital citizenship. As stated
previously, in creating the survey instrument, I did not address all digital elements in
every research question. This research question aimed to discern the beliefs of educators
and directly related to the digital elements of digital access, digital commerce, digital
communication, digital law, and digital rights and responsibilities. As reported in Chapter
4, on average, more than 75% of educators viewed themselves as having relatively high
to high level of beliefs related to these aspects of digital citizenship in providing
instruction. According to Mezirow (1997), knowledge essential for the 21st century
includes opportunities to develop skills for flexibility, collaboration, and socially
responsible thinking. Educator beliefs from this study align with Mezirow’s theory
because more the 80% of educators reported Usually true of me or Always true of me
when providing students with digital access and experiences with digital communication.
Because such a high percentage of educators believe students should have digital access
and experiences with digital communication, they recognized what knowledge is essential
for 21st-century learning.
According to Boyle (2010), further research should find out what teachers believe
to be the best practices for digital citizenship instruction. Although my study did not
specifically identify teachers’ best practices, it did identify educators’ levels of belief in
incorporating digital citizenship concepts into their instructional practices. As explained
in Chapter 4, all participants believed in some level of importance for incorporating
digital citizenship into their instructional practices, with a combined 90.32% believing it
is Important or Very important. Concerning Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning,
data from this study related to beliefs discerned educators’ frames of reference in
establishing a sense of obligation for instruction (Mezirow, 1997). Furthermore,
emphasizing digital citizenship in the educational setting would result in students making
appropriate online decisions (Chou et al., 2015). Additionally, nearly 90% of participants
responded Usually true of me or Always true of me about a belief that participants should
incorporate digital citizenship concepts into instructional practices. In general, educators
find value in including digital citizenship in student education, substantiating previous
scholarly work related to the incorporation of digital citizenship in education (Acedo &
Hughes, 2014; Boyle, 2010; Chou et al., 2015; Ribble, 2015; Suppo, 2013).
For digital commerce, 11.43% of participants responded Usually true of me and
8.57% responded Always true of me that educators believed they have a responsibility to
teach students to make online purchases. In contrast, 64.29% of participants responded
Not true of me and 15.71% responding Sometimes true of me. The ability to make online
purchases often requires access to accounts people can use to pay for services. Because
student school accounts do not typically allow for the ability to purchase items, I infer
that educators do not believe teaching students to make online purchases is their
responsibility and is an issue better addressed by parents. This belief aligns with the
development of a habit of mind, based on a person’s background (Mezirow, 1997).
PruittMentle (2008) suggested parents have an obligation to provide learning related to
Internet ethics, whereas Hobbs (2008, as cited by Davis et al., 2010) suggested teachers
should instruct students about appropriate online behavior for academic purposes;
parents/guardians should address a wider range of online interactions. Additionally, Rice
et al. (2015) recognized the combined efforts of teachers, parents, and other stakeholders
to address ethical and responsible practices for cyber activities. Therefore, the findings of
my study align with literature suggesting parental involvement in the development of
students as digital citizens.
In reference to Table 22 in Chapter 4, a moderate correlation (r = .282) emerged
between educators at schools further along in the adoption of 1:1 devices and educator
beliefs in providing accommodations for students with disabilities. A component of
digital access is the accommodation of students with disabilities accessing curriculum
using technology for accommodation, as needed (Ribble, 2015). Aligned with Siemen’s
theory of connectivism, the teacher provides a learning environment that is accessible to
all students (Foroughi, 2015). Based on the correlation in Table 22, it appears that
educators who teach in schools further along in adoption of 1:1 technology devices have a
higher chance of finding ways for all students to access technology and be more inclusive
of students with disabilities, compared to teachers in less advanced schools.
Overall, Research Question 2 provided insight about educators’ beliefs related to
instruction with digital citizenship. Data analysis provided evidence that educators have
high beliefs in the use of digital citizenship in education but also recognize areas that may
require a shared partnership between home and school. The consistent goal is to provide
students with an understanding of ethical practices for technology use.
Research Question 3: Planned Implementation for Digital Citizenship Instruction
Research Question 3 emphasizes the professional practices of educators. In the
theory of connectivism, actionable knowledge (Siemens, 2005) is the “feeding of
information into a learning community” (Kop & Hill, 2008, p. 2). Planning for instruction
could be actionable knowledge for teachers. Thus, planning, a required component of an
educator’s preparation for classroom instruction, was included in this study to develop a
full understanding of educators’ professional practices, aiming to discern what they
intended to do in their learning community as a result of their professional
responsibilities.
Of participants, 83% identified planning for digital citizenship instruction was a
priority, compared to 17% of participants who did not feel it was a priority to plan for
digital citizenship instruction. Concerning the theoretical framework of Siemen’s (2005)
theory of connectivism, learning environments should promote legally, socially, and
ethically acceptable behaviors in developing participants in a digitally global world
(Thota, 2015). Participants in this study who selected Yes to making planning a priority
for digital citizenship instruction demonstrated planning for digital citizenship is equally
important to planning for subject-specific content. Knowledge and perception of tasks
guides professional action among educators (van de Oudeweetering & Voogt, 2018).
Educators may be learning to integrate planning for instruction with planning for digital
citizenship; the majority of teachers identified plan for digital citizenship as a priority, in
part supported by training. Furthermore, participants can integrate digital citizenship into
other subject-matter lessons. Concerning Siemens’ theory of connectivism, educators
taking time to plan for implementation of these concepts are creating a learning
environment that supports appropriate, responsible, and ethical use of technology.
For those participants who identified No to making digital citizenship a priority in
their planning, it is important to understand their reasons for not making it a priority.
These reasons identified in Table 12 in Chapter 4 included lack of knowledge, no clear
rules for digital etiquette, and organizational management of student technology use.
Similarly, Lindsey (2015) noted a lack of knowledge and rules for digital etiquette and
found that training emphasizing digital citizenship behavior positively impacted
participants’ plans to implement concepts in future instruction. Researchers showed
exposure and training can support the planning and implementation of digital citizenship
into classroom instruction (Karal & Bakir, 2016; Lindsey, 2015; Sincar, 2011, 2013).
One reason for not planning for digital citizenship instruction was the
organizational management of student technology use. Based on those data, I inferred that
educators felt district firewalls and predetermined applications protect the online content
students can access, which creates a safe enough online environment that the educators do
not have to put in additional time planning to prevent irresponsible or unethical use of
technology. In connection with these results, school leaders must monitor student
technology to identify the necessary programming for appropriate online learning (Boyle,
2010). However, this reliance on school and district monitoring may create a false sense
of security and allow educators to ignore a topic that needs to be addressed as students
increase their use of technology, specifically concerning digital communication, digital
literacy, digital rights and responsibilities, and digital law. School policies on technology
misuse include putting in place firewalls and blockades that prevent students from
accessing specific online content but does not support students in learning to use
technology in responsible ways (Ohler, 2011). Furthermore, digital citizenship curriculum
is valuable for developing appropriate use of technology (Gazi, 2016; Ohler, 2011; Ribble
et al., 2004; Ribble & Miller, 2013).
Because planning is an aspect of professional responsibility for educators, I asked
participants to identify the frequency with which they plan for the incorporation of digital
citizenship concepts. Options ranged from Not at all to Multiple times a week; the highest
percentage was Multiple times a week at 31.75%, followed up by Once a month at
20.63% (see Table 10). Teachers can prepare and plan in a variety of ways; however, as
identified in Chapter 4, more than 50% of participants responded they usually or always
pay for educational resources online. Implications of these findings support previous
research that educators are finding resources shared digitally and are willing to pay for
resources to prepare for instruction that may provide valuable learning opportunities for
students (Kennedy et al., 2008, as cited in Snyder, 2016).
Overall, results related to Question 3 indicated educators recognize the need to
prepare for digital citizenship instruction. The majority of educators make efforts to plan
on a regular basis and seek additional resources, as needed. Those not making planning a
priority rely on the safeguards the school or district have in place to protect students.
Research Question 4: Implemented Instructional Practices for Digital Citizenship
Instruction
The results and analysis for Research Question 4 continued to contribute to an
understanding of the professional practices of educators by requesting specific
information about what educators are implementing for instructional practices for digital
citizenship. From a connectivist perspective, educators will model responsible and
appropriate use of technology and address unethical uses (Thota, 2015). Results from this
study supported this ideal when considering participants responses to the digital-etiquette
questions. For example, more than 50% of participants responded they always teach
students when it is appropriate for them to use devices. Furthermore, 57.35% of
participants answered they always teach students to report inappropriate online behavior.
These findings align with Davis et al. (2010), who identified that adults such as teachers
and parents play a significant role in modeling good digital citizenship for children and
adolescents. Results also confirmed the recommendations of scholarly research that for
students to recognize appropriate and ethical behavior in the digital world, they need to
have instructional experiences that reinforce 21st-century skills. Additionally, the
findings of the study supported the idea that planning and integration of digital
citizenship by educators can model acceptable behavior for students (Davis et al., 2010;
Farmer, 2011; Konrath et al., 2011; Ribble & Miller, 2013; Snyder, 2016; Wilson et al.,
2014).
Snyder (2016) recognized the impact of not properly educating students about
interacting with people online and in person and the impact these interactions have on the
development of a moral and ethical code. Curran and Ribble (2017) identified that, with
respect to digital etiquette, educators can support students by having them learn how to
communicate with a variety of people in positive and constructive ways rather than
poorly articulated, aggressive, or negative ways. Because technology is advancing to be
more collaborative through online and virtual platforms, connections and networking
support good citizenship (Dalgarno & Lee, 2012; Foroughi, 2015; Kivunja, 2013). Based
on Principle 2 of Siemens’ (2005) theory of connectivism, connections facilitate learning,
and the use of digital etiquette and digital communication can facilitate contact with the
larger world with increased media resources (Foroughi, 2015; Kivunja, 2014).
Along these same lines regarding communication, 52.24% of participants reported
they always incorporate digital media and devices into their learning experiences. These
results align with those of Ozdamli and Ozdal (2015), who identified the lifelonglearning
benefit of developing digital communication skills such as information retrieval or
learning how to communicate in an intelligent, appropriate, and efficient manner.
Therefore, if more than 50% of educators are incorporating digital media and devices into
the learning experiences they are providing to their students, students will continue to
benefit from this incorporation throughout their lives (Christie et al., 2015; Kivunja,
2013, 2014; Siemens, 2005).
Table 25 shows a moderate correlation (r = .262) between adoption level and
opportunities for students to work collaboratively in online environments. Additionally,
descriptive statistical analysis revealed that when I asked educators to provide
“opportunities to work in collaborative online environments,” 18.57% selected Usually
true of me and 24.29% selected Always true of me. These results support 21st-century
learning and working skills as well as HIDOE’s (n.d.a) performance-based assessment
indicators for career and technical education: a component of their Career and
Collegeready initiative for students. Roach and Beck (2012) proposed When teachers
have access to new literacy practices for the 21st century (such as working in
collaborative online environments), they will apply their personal experiences to adapt
these practices for their classrooms (Roach & Beck, 2012). With higher adoption levels,
the instructional opportunities change, and educators can consider more interactive
learning opportunities for students.
Much like outcomes from survey items for Research Question 1, instruction in
topics related to digital law revealed lowered percentages among the usually-true and
always-true responses specifically related to usage and sharing rights. Curran and Ribble
(2017) identified educating students in digital law includes having students conduct
Internet research and learn how to properly cite from a range of media sources. Many of
these actions also align with best practices for digital literacy as well. As indicated in the
data analysis in Chapter 4, a combined 66.86% of participants responded they usually or
always teach students how to use the Internet to search for information (digital literacy), a
combined 44.28% teach students how to cite information from the Internet (digital
literacy), and a combined 44.78% usually or always teach students the difference in usage
rights for online resources (digital law). Furthermore, proper citation of resources and
understanding usage rights may be areas of development and learning for educators and
students, preventing issues in the future from misuse of content accessed on the Internet.
Therefore, it may be beneficial for educational leaders to consider training in this area,
specifically for elementary educators.
Table 19 shows a moderate correlation (r = .272) and 95% significance level
between implementation of digital citizenship concepts into instructional time and
educators’ school level of 1:1 adoption. Factors that support teachers’ implementation of
digital citizenship concepts include training, support, and resourcing (see Table 14). With
an increase in the access to digital tools, I inferred educators believed digital citizenship
concepts need to be implemented in instruction because students are using technology
more often. Additionally, I inferred that educators with higher levels of integration of
digital citizenship concepts in instructional time were also at schools that were further
along in the 1:1 adoption process. Educators’ professional perceptions impact their
implementation of curriculum (van de Oudeweetering & Voogt, 2018). More focused
training and support on instructional integration will better support the overall adoption
and integration of 1:1 technology use. The results of this study align with findings from
Snyder (2016), who found teachers participating in programming emphasizing the
incorporation of digital citizenship elements implemented the elements into their
professional practice, which ultimately impacted what students learned.
Overall, the results from Question 4 revealed that the majority of educators are
implementing digital citizenship into their instructional practice. They are making strides
to provide students with learning opportunities that align with 21st-century learning
standards. However, they may need additional support to integrate aspects of digital law,
digital communication, and digital literacy.
Research Question 5: Factors Supporting or Impeding Educators’ Ability to Plan
and Implement Digital Citizenship
I designed this research question to provide more information on the perceptions
of educators regarding their ability to implement digital citizenship. I asked educators to
identify up to three supports and three hindrances when implementing digital citizenship.
The factors most supportive of implementation were Resources (including hardware and
software), Training, Support (Instructional and Administrative), Time, and Curriculum.
In contrast, among factors impeding implementation, the highest percentage factors were
Lack of time, Knowledge/comfort level, Resources, and Training, lack of or not. These
reasons supporting, and impeding implementation align with scholarly research that
exposure and training support planning and implementation for digital citizenship in the
classroom (Karal & Bakir, 2016; Lindsey, 2015; Roach & Beck, 2012; Sincar, 2011,
2013). Additionally, Tables 26 through 28 in Chapter 4, provided a correlation between
adoption level and planned or implemented instructional practices. If an educator is at a
school that has a greater level of adoption with 1:1 devices, then planning is a priority
because the expectation to use technology, especially in an appropriate, ethical, and
responsible way, is higher.
Demographics
Table 17 shows the results of the correlation between adoption level of schools
and educators’ age. Although a participant may not have a choice in their school’s
adoption plan for technology integration, the results shown in Table 17 align with
research that identifies individuals under 40 years of age as digital natives and
participants over 40 as digital immigrants (Joy, 2012; Prensky, 2001). It appears
participants who are younger are more likely to have higher knowledge and beliefs and
implement digital citizenship concepts into their instruction more regularly; however,
adaptation of one’s work environment will create digital fluency, creating a spectrum
instead of a straight divide between the native and the immigrant (Wang, Meyers, &
Sundaram, 2013).
One demographic question asked participants to identify the complex area in
which their school was located. Results revealed a relatively even distribution among
complex areas with the exception that one was more than double all other complex areas.
Implications of this data may have been a result of how I elicited participants. Because
participants learned about this study through principals, it is possible that principals of
participants in the Kailua-Kalaheo and Nanakuli-Waianae Complex Areas may have
shared the study more often or put greater emphasis on participating; however, this is
only speculation and cannot be confirmed.
Limitations of the Study
This study was limited to elementary educators at public and charter schools in the
State of Hawaii. Limitations to this study included the method of recruiting participants. I
was only allowed to share this study through access to publicly accessible email address
of principals and through an eNewsletter of HSTE. A snowball effect was used to recruit
participants rather than direct contact with the population which impacted the number of
participants. Despite multiple efforts, sending three reminders to principals to recruit
study participants, participation was at the discretion of principals who may not have
shared study recruitment or may only have shared it one time. Additionally, despite the
time consideration of administering the survey in the third quarter, before state testing,
spring break fell during the third week the survey was open and HSTE’s newsletter not
going out until the last day of the month, at the end of spring break, which may have had
an impact on number of responses and the potential to recruit additional participants. I
considered the limitation of research bias in preparing this study; however, the anonymity
and voluntary nature of the survey prevented any bias in the analysis to take place
because it was not possible for me to know anything specific about the participants; also,
the demographic information collected only provided a general overview of participants’
backgrounds.
Recommendations
This study filled a gap in the literature by focusing on elementary educators and
digital citizenship. In the section that follows, I make recommendations for further
research that stem from the findings of this study.
Vertical Alignment of K–12 educators, Comparison Study
Because this study focused on only elementary-level educators, one
recommendation is to conduct a comparison study between the perceptions of elementary
educators to middle and high school educators with respect to the elements of digital
citizenship, specifically emphasizing digital literacy and digital law. Other studies such as
Sincar (2011) and Pusey and Sadera (2012) also found participants in their studies to
possess a deficit in knowledge related to digital laws. Digital literacy “specifically relates
to digital citizenship by encompassing life skills that focus on finding, using,
summarizing, evaluating, creating, and communicating information while using a variety
of digital technologies” (Curran & Ribble, 2017; p. 37; see also Ribble, 2015); therefore,
researchers should explore this element across the K–12 education span. It would be
interesting to see if educators serving students from the youngest to the oldest years of K–
12 education possess similar knowledge, beliefs, and professional practices in this
element. Additionally, such knowledge would also support districts that are 1:1
technology integrated for K–12 in understanding if their professional-development plans
are efficient and effective in providing educators in their district with equitable
verticalalignment training that supports knowledge and integration.
Increase Population for Generalization
This research study included a geographically diverse sample by reaching
participants across the islands of Hawaii and in a range of complex areas. However,
access to the educator population was impacted by the way I recruited participants;
therefore, it may be beneficial to repeat this study with more direct access to participants
to further validate the generalizations. This study could be repeated in other districts,
states, or regions that made a Future Ready Pledge and have been actively implementing
1:1 technology integration over the past several years.
Qualitative Study from Quantitative Results
The factors supporting, or impeding implementation of digital citizenship were
open-ended responses, but participants had limited response space. It may be worth
considering a qualitative study to explore these factors in greater detail, especially
because some factors that supported implementation also impeded implementation;
gaining greater detail of factors could provide better understanding. It may also be worth
considering demographic information in relationship to these factors, such as complex
area, island, professional role, or level of 1:1 adoption.
Examining and Comparing Beliefs of Other Stakeholders
My study only emphasized the knowledge and beliefs of the educator. Some
results; however, revealed a lowered perception of action (selection Not true of me or
Sometimes true of me) on areas that might stem from parental influence such as making
technological purchases and appropriate amounts of screen time for students. I
recommend conducting a comparative study of what parent/guardians believe compared
to educators’ beliefs about supporting children in developing as digital citizens. This
notion aligns with Davis et al. (2010) and Rice et al. (2015), who promoted the shared
responsibility of stakeholders in supporting children developing as digital citizens.
Poverty and Digital Access
Poverty was not addressed in this study. Digital access raises issues of the digital
divide (Mossberger et al., 2008). Researchers should consider demographic and poverty
levels of student populations because even though schools may be giving 1:1 access to
students when they are in the buildings, this may not transfer into the home environment
and access may not be equitable, causing learning opportunities to stop when the school
day stops. The gap between those consistently having reliable and easy access to
technology continues to be an issue of concern in support of developing digital citizens
(Choi, 2016; Mossberger, 2009; Mossberger et al., 2008).
Implications
My study is significant because it adds to the body of knowledge by filling in a
gap in the literature focused on elementary educators and digital citizenship. Limited
research exists that combines these two phenomena. Results from this study can
positively impact social change by providing evidence that educators are recognizing
their professional responsibility to support students in developing into appropriate,
responsible, and ethical users of technology: digital citizens.
My study contributes to social change by bringing to light some educator efforts
educators as well as what educators need to support and develop students in developing
as citizens digitally and globally through appropriate, responsible, and ethical use of
technology. Such understanding will shape the future of the world. My study supports
other research aligned with the idea that education can provide students with the
necessary tools to shape and change the world for the better. Results of my study revealed
educators possessed a high level of knowledge and beliefs about digital citizenship.
Additionally, many educators are making planning a priority and regularly implementing
digital citizenship in their instructional practice. Moreover, results of my study revealed
educators are willing to purchase instructional materials to supplement their planning and
implementation of digital instruction. Results showed areas where educators perceived
they might need additional support with digital citizenship, such as in the areas of digital
law and digital literacy. With recognition of areas of support, school and district leaders
can provide the necessary support for educators and students in areas of less knowledge
or skill, increasing any gaps in instruction.
Implications at an Educator Level
Although educators are making strides to support students in younger grades to
develop digital citizenship, results of this study also revealed some educators rely on
district support and infrastructure to prevent technology mishaps and misuse. This avenue
of district support could be viewed as a crutch that does not really prepare students for
appropriate, responsible, and ethical technology use in the future or outside of the school
hours. Therefore, educators should continue to plan and implement instruction that
addresses digital citizenship elements.
Implications at schools or district level
Based on the results revealed in the correlation analysis, if schools have more
fully adopted technology, educators are more likely to plan and implement digital
citizenship in their professional practices, as their exposure to technology resources have
shaped their knowledge and beliefs. If districts wish to cultivate a culture of digital
citizenship, they should support schools not as far along in the process to expedite their
adoption. Although supporting full acquisition and adoption is important in ensuring
students have technology access and educators are able to provide students with
21stcentury learning opportunities, a need persists for continual training focused on
ensuring digital citizenship is an integral part of educators’ instructional planning and
implementation.
As schools continue to integrate technology, it is important to consider the
necessary training for specific elements of digital citizenship, such as digital law, digital
etiquette, and digital literacy. As schools progress in ensuring schools are 1:1 in
technology access, they must also consider how the emphasis on these elements will
ultimately support the development of students as digital citizens who will use technology
in appropriate, responsible, and ethical ways, thereby promoting a globally positive and
respectful society in the future. Additionally, researchers found 1:1 laptop environments
have a positive effect on reading, writing, and mathematics skills among students in K–
12, identified in the meta-analysis by Zheng et al. (2016). Therefore, academics and
citizenship can both be supported with 1:1 technology integration throughout K–12.
Additionally, training should not only focus on educators but cater toward
students, especially at the elementary level. With the adoption of 1:1 technology access in
K–12 schools, along with educators’ willingness to implement technology, equality of
access increases for students regardless of background and family income. Data from my
study revealed many educators believed in providing students with opportunities to use
technology. Additionally, educators identified themselves as possessing knowledge of
ways to use differentiated instruction through technology.
Furthermore, because many public schools have educators working with
lowincome/impoverished children, providing digital access to students helps support the
closing of the digital divide between those who have access and those who do not. If the
pledge to provide 1:1 technology access across K–12 ensures teachers and students
throughout the state have the same resources and training, then it is necessary to support
schools not as far along in resourcing devices and training staff on integration.
Conclusion
The purpose of my study was to determine the knowledge, beliefs, planned, and
implemented practices for digital citizenship among elementary educators. In my study, I
surveyed elementary educators throughout the State of Hawaii. Results showed the
majority of educators possessed high levels of knowledge and skills in all digital
citizenship elements except digital law. Results also revealed the majority of educators
possessed high levels of beliefs about their role in providing instruction to students
related to digital citizenship. Many educators believed planning and implementing digital
citizenship into their instruction was important.
The background of my study came from HIDOE’s pledge to be future ready and
provide K–12 students with 1:1 technology access. Because school districts have made
commitments to bring technology access to students, educators are expected to use
technology from kindergarten on. This policy signifies a generational shift, as student
populations are largely considered digital natives, despite educators being
digitalimmigrant or digital-transient generations. Educators have a responsibility to
support digital citizenship in their learning environments from the earliest years of
education.
Results from this study revealed educators are more practical about integrating
and using technology, based on findings about planning for digital citizenship instruction.
The high percentage of educators who identified planning for digital citizenship is a
priority indicated reasons for planning, such as “Students need to be digital citizens,”
“Proactive to prevent technology mishap,” “Students will regularly use technology
throughout their lives,” “Teach student appropriate and ethical use,” and “To be
prepared” (see Table 11).
Additionally, results demonstrate agreement on what educators believe are their
responsibility regarding students and technology use. Analysis of data showed educators
believe parents/guardians should instruct students on certain topics. Also, certain factors
impeded their ability to implement digital citizenship instruction such as lack of
knowledge or training. Educators were either not or minimally addressing certain
elements such as aspects of digital law or digital etiquette. Finally, educators who do not
make planning a priority relied on organizational safeguards, restrictions, and firewalls to
protect students and themselves from situations of technology misuse at school. For my
study, I investigated the knowledge and skill levels of elementary educators in
relationship to digital citizenship. I attempted to determine educators’ beliefs, planned,
and implemented practices related to digital citizenship instruction and to discern what
supported and impeded educators in providing digital citizenship education. The majority
of participants self-identified with high levels of knowledge and skills on most of the nine
elements of digital citizenship; the exception was digital law. Additionally, results
revealed similar results for participants’ beliefs and implemented practices including less
efficacy in the area of digital law. Finally, my study revealed a moderately positive
correlation between participants in schools where full adoption of 1:1 technology
integration has taken place and many aspects of digital citizenship in their knowledge,
beliefs, planned, and implemented practices. Ultimately my study contributes to positive
social change by helping educational leaders identify best practices and what is needed to
support educators in teaching digital citizenship, regardless of their stage in adopting 1:1
technology integration.
