Navigating the Digital Realm_ Perceptions and Challenges of High-17-167.pdf

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The goal of this chapter is to provide the organization of this study that explores the

experiences of a group of high school teachers that implement digital citizenship lessons. In this

chapter, I will introduce the problem and research question as well as the purpose of the study. I

will also provide definitions of major terms along with the assumptions, delimitations,

limitations, and significance of this study.

Rationale for the Study

The evolution of digital technology has transformed the educational landscape,

influencing how students interact, learn, and communicate. In this context, digital citizenship has

emerged as a crucial skill set essential for safe, responsible, and informed navigation through the

online realm. However, despite increased investments in educational technology, the integration

of digital citizenship skills in school curricula remains sporadic (Escueta et al., 2020).

Furthermore, it is unclear which digital citizenship instructional strategies support effective

curriculum implementation, enhance students’ safety and learning, and reduce educational

disparities. Addressing this gap in understanding is crucial to the ongoing development of digital

citizenship education and ensuring that students are adequately prepared to navigate the digital

world responsibly. To better address this need, the aim of this research study was to delve into

how high school educators comprehend, prepare for, and incorporate digital citizenship lessons

in their classrooms.

The significance of this study is underscored by the increasingly pervasive role of

technology in students’ lives. As a teacher and a parent of three adolescents entrenched in the

digital world, my daily observations highlight the prevalent reliance on smart devices and online

communication platforms for social interaction. Yet, these platforms pose risks by allowing

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

connections beyond familiar social circles, raising concerns about online safety and responsible

digital conduct. My firsthand experiences underscore the vulnerability of young individuals

navigating the digital sphere without adequate guidance or supervision.

Addressing the issue of digital citizenship is not solely about online safety but also about

equipping students with essential workforce skills. The digitalization of businesses underlines the

imperative for individuals to possess adept digital citizenship skills as they step into the

workforce (Buchholz et al., 2020; Cockerham et al., 2021). This digitalization demonstrates a

pressing need for students to be proficient in online settings, not just for academic endeavors but

for future professional success in a globalized digital landscape.

Moreover, there is a need for digital competency in both educational and professional

spheres. While many schools have reverted to traditional face-to-face learning, the experience of

online learning, from the global pandemic, has become a part of the educational experience for

numerous students. Understanding the pivotal role of digital access and proficiency in today’s

educational setting, it becomes essential to ascertain whether both students and educators possess

the necessary digital citizenship skills to seamlessly transition across different learning

modalities.

This study seeks to bridge the gap between the pressing demand for digital citizenship

skills and the current implementation and understanding of these skills within the high school

education system. By investigating educators’ perceptions and practices, the research aims to

inform and enhance the integration of digital citizenship education, ensuring students are

equipped with the essential skills to navigate the digital world safely, responsibly, and

competently.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Problem Statement

In an increasingly digitized world, where technology and online interactions play a

pivotal role, the integration of digital citizenship education in schools has become imperative

(Buchholz et al., 2020; Malenkov & Lendzhova, 2021; Prasetiyo et al., 2021). Digital citizenship

encompasses the responsible and ethical use of technology, including online communication,

information consumption, and privacy considerations (Cortesi et al., 2020; Martin et al., 2019;

Mossberger et al., 2008; Ribble et al., 2007). As high schools attempt to equip students with the

skills necessary to navigate this digital landscape, it is essential to delve into the experiences and

perceptions of the educators who are tasked with imparting digital citizenship skills through a

district adopted curriculum.

This study attempts to address the gap in existing research by focusing on the

perspectives of high school teachers who are actively involved in implementing digital

citizenship education, a need previously articulated by Martin et al. (2020). While various

curricula and resources are available, little is known about how teachers perceive the

effectiveness, challenges, and overall impact of these educational initiatives (Martin et al., 2020),

teaching digital citizenship through a formalized curriculum in an intentional way. The lack of

knowledge about teachers’ perceptions on the efficacy and challenges of digital citizenship

initiatives poses a problem for both educators and students. It impedes effective implementation,

impacts students’ safety and learning, and could expose educational disparities. Addressing this

gap in understanding is crucial to enhancing the effectiveness of digital citizenship education and

ensuring that students are adequately prepared to navigate the digital world responsibly.

The importance of this study lies in its potential to uncover the subtle factors that

influence the successful integration of digital citizenship education. By examining teachers’

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

viewpoints, pedagogical approaches, and perceptions of student engagement and comprehension,

researchers and educational policymakers can make informed decisions to refine the curriculum,

design targeted professional development, and create supportive environments that facilitate

effective digital citizenship instruction for both students and staff. Overall, a comprehensive

exploration of high school teachers’ experiences and perceptions in implementing digital

citizenship education can contribute to refining educational practices, enhancing students’ digital

literacy and responsible technology usage, and preparing them for active and ethical participation

in the digital world.

Research Question

In this phenomenographic study, I examined teacher experiences when implementing a

digital citizenship curriculum. The research question for this study was:

What are the different ways in which teachers experience the challenges and

opportunities in school settings of implementing a digital citizenship curriculum?

Areas of interest under consideration:

• Teachers’ perceptions of digital citizenship

• Factors that affected implementation of digital citizenship curriculum

• Teachers’ perceptions of how digital citizenship should be implemented

• Concerns of teachers about the effect digital interactions has on their students

Organization of this Study

The foundation of this study mirrors Ravitch and Riggan’s (2017) approach to a

conceptual framework. They suggest that a strong conceptual framework lies in a researcher’s

personal interests and goals, along with the researcher’s identity and positionality. Researchers

strengthen their argument through a literature review that focuses on topical research; the

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

researcher then moves past the current research to advance the study. The Ravitch and Riggan

(2017) “superstructure” guides my research and literature review by informing my argument as

to why this study is timely and needed. Figure 1, built within the Hopscotch framework (Jorrín-

Abellán, 2016, 2019), shows the components to complement Ravitch and Riggan’s (2017) model

to building a conceptual framework.

Figure 1

Conceptual Framework Built Within Hopscotch (Jorrín-Abellán, 2016, 2019)

This study focused on exploring the digital citizenship experiences of high school teachers. In

Chapter 2, I explain how the theory of connectivism, the nine elements of digital citizenship, and

the Self-identity in digital environments, Activity online, Fluency for digital tools, and Ethics for

digital environments, also known as the SAFE model (Kim & Choi, 2018), provide the lens

through which I looked at the ways teachers experience the phenomenon of implementing digital

citizenship curriculum. I conducted a topical review which explored the differing research

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

definitions of digital citizenship, teacher perceptions of digital citizenship, the standards that

have been created for digital citizenship, professional development for digital citizenship, and

digital citizenship around the world. This research led to gaps within the literature pertaining to

in service teachers implementing digital citizenship curriculum and their perceptions on the

topic. In Chapter 3, the methodology of the study is discussed, specifically how qualitative

research methods within a phenomenography fit this type of study.

Nature of the Study

A qualitative phenomenography research tradition was used in this study to investigate

the perceptions high school teachers have on digital citizenship and implementing a digital

citizenship curriculum. Data from twelve in-depth interviews, six observations, and a focus

group interview were used to form conclusions on the experiences of teachers that implement

digital citizenship curriculum. The interviews and observations took place during the spring

semester of the 2022/2023 school year from April 20, 2023, through May 17, 2023. Transcripts

were coded and analyzed, looking for common themes amongst the participants. The process of

analyzing the data used a format advocated by Gonzalez (2010) for a phenomenography study,

which is a six-step data analysis process with a seventh step added by Sjöström and Dahlgren

(2002). The data collected and discussed allowed for strong conclusions.

Qualitative research methods were chosen to gain a deep understanding of the complexity

of teachers’ experiences with digital citizenship. These methods offered a flexible and adaptable

approach to research, allowing for the exploration of teachers’ experiences with digital

citizenship that may not be easily quantified or measured. Qualitative research can provide

valuable insights that quantitative research cannot.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Assumptions

Several assumptions exist in this study. For one, it is assumed that participants, after

agreeing and learning of the study, did not change the way they prepare for and implement

digital citizenship lessons. The second assumption is that participants answered interview

questions openly and honestly. Interviews of the participants were an important component of

data and analysis for this study to form valid conclusions. The third assumption is that teacher

participants agreeing to this study valued the digital citizenship curriculum. Since participants

agreed to participate in the study with no compensation for their time it is a strong indication of

their interest in this topic. Finally, it is assumed that during the focus group, participants could

have been influenced by the opinions and reactions of other group members.

Scope and Delimitations

This study centered around the perceptions on digital citizenship of six high school

teachers that implemented digital citizenship lessons. In this school district, each individual

school is responsible for their own digital citizenship lessons and practices. At the study site,

teachers receive prepared digital citizenship lessons from the administration to be presented

during a homeroom-type time for students. Teachers are left to review and present the lessons on

their own. The study was conducted over the course of three weeks in the spring semester of the

2022 - 2023 school year. This study relied on qualitative methods and the research tradition of a

phenomenographic study. Analysis was also conducted using phenomenographic methods of

interpretation.

I chose to study teachers’ experiences with implementing digital citizenship lessons

because there is already a good deal of research on students’ perceptions of digital citizenship.

Martin et al. (2022) recommended that future studies were needed on teacher implementation of

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

digital citizenship. Therefore, the study looked to examine teachers’ experiences and practices

when it comes to implementing a digital citizenship lesson. Students in the system have received

digital citizenship lessons throughout their school career (K-12); however, this study focused on

teachers in high school. This delineation could be something that future research focuses on. The

literature on teachers’ practices in planning and implementing lessons has been limited and will

be discussed in Chapter 2.

Limitations

While this study endeavors to provide a comprehensive analysis of digital citizenship, it

is important to acknowledge the limitations inherent in the research approach and scope.

Identifying these constraints is crucial to understanding the boundaries within which the study

operates and interpreting the findings accurately. The study has certain limitations that warrant

consideration. The first potential limitation is that of a single school. The utilization of a single

school as the primary research setting restricted the diversity of perspectives and experiences that

could have been gained from a broader range of schools. The next potential limitation was that of

the observation process. I observed a single digital citizenship lesson during my study.

Restricting the observation of the digital citizenship lesson to a single instance per participant

may not have fully captured the development or consistency of behavior and engagement in

digital citizenship of my participants. The next potential limitation is that of diversity. The lack

of diversity among participants, represented predominantly by five white females and one white

male, may restrict the inclusivity of perspectives, potentially limiting understanding of the

study’s findings across diverse demographic or cultural backgrounds. The timing of the study

could be considered the next limit of my study. The data collection was conducted at the end of

the school year during a period characterized by heightened stress and busyness for both students

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

and teachers. This might have influenced participant availability and may have impacted the

quality or depth of data collected. The next limitation was that I only considered the teacher's

voice in this study. The restriction of participation solely to teachers excluded valuable

perspectives from other stakeholders, leaving out other important shareholder voices such as the

students. Finally of note is the potential influence of my personal biases and experiences and

how that might have impacted the interpretation of the data, potentially introducing subjectivity

into the analysis of the study.

Significance of the Study

The significance of this study lies in its exploration of how teachers perceive digital

citizenship and its instruction, offering several key contributions to the field of education: The

first being that this study sheds light on the diverse ways in which teachers conceptualize digital

citizenship. This diversity in perspectives is essential in understanding the complex landscape of

digital citizenship education. The second comes from examining how teachers are using the

prescribed digital citizenship curriculum, the study provides valuable insights into the practical

aspects of curriculum implementation. This information could help improve the effectiveness of

curriculum delivery in schools. The third is that this study highlights a potential need for training

for in-service teachers on digital citizenship, including a discussion of the ISTE (International

Society for Technology in Education) standards. Recognizing these training needs is essential for

enhancing teacher preparedness in a digitally connected world. The fourth is that the study points

out the need for teachers to have adequate time for reviewing and preparing digital citizenship

lessons, as well as extended time for lesson delivery. This is critical for ensuring that digital

citizenship education is thorough and effective. The fifth is that the research offers insights into

the digital citizenship curriculum used by the site of the study, contributing to a better

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

understanding of the educational landscape in that specific context. The study also raises

important concerns regarding the mental health of students and the impact of social media on

them. This is especially relevant in today’s digital age, emphasizing the need for addressing these

issues within the education system. Finally, is that the research underscores the importance of

establishing a uniform vision of digital citizenship, either within individual schools or at the

district level. This can help ensure consistency and alignment in the education system.

Furthermore, the study suggests directions for future research, expanding its impact. To

start, the study could be expanded to multiple-school sites using the same digital citizenship

curriculum which could provide a broader perspective on its implementation and effectiveness. It

could be worthwhile investigating the merits of offering digital citizenship as an individual

course at the K-12 level can help determine its feasibility and benefits. Along with a single

course, exploring when digital citizenship curriculum should begin for K-12 students could

inform decisions about the age-appropriate introduction of digital citizenship concepts. Finally,

examining teacher training related to digital citizenship, standards, and curriculum

implementation for in-service teachers could contribute to improving teacher preparedness and

instructional quality.

Definitions

Below are common terms used within this study alongside definitions with authors who

are seminal scholars on these concepts. For the purposes of this study, I define digital citizenship

as the skills needed to search for and evaluate information from multiple sources, both electronic

and physical, while operating both safely and responsibly. My understanding and definition of

this topic were shaped by the insights and perspectives offered by authors such as Ribble et al.

(2007, 2012, 2015) Martin et al. (2018, 2019, 2022), Mossberger et al. (2008), among others.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Citizen – “a member of a political community who enjoys the rights and assumes the

duties of membership” (Leydet, 2017, para. 1).

Citizenship – “status bestowed on those who are full members of a community. All who

possess the status are equal with respect to the rights and duties with which the status is

endowed” (Marshall, 1950, p. 28-29).

DigiComp – Framework amongst the European Union that identifies the key components

of digital competence for European citizens. European Council, (2015).

Digital practice – “all behaviors related to digital media, such as uses and habits—this

may be social interaction, information seeking, transactions, or entertainment—or avoidance and

disconnection” (Büchi, 2021, p. 7).

Digital citizenship – the skills needed to search for and evaluate information from

multiple sources, both electronic and physical while operating both safely and responsibly.

Digital citizens – Individuals that use the Internet regularly and effectively on a daily

basis (Mossberger et al., 2007).

Internet – “a global system of interconnected computer networks that use the standard

Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to serve billions of users worldwide. It is a network of networks

that consists of millions of private, public, academic, business, and government networks, of

local to global scope, that are linked by a broad array of electronic, wireless and optical

networking technologies” (Madakam et al., 2015, p. 165).

Social media – Group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and

technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of User

Generated Content (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Social presence – An individual’s postings and engagement on their social media

accounts (Carr & Hayes, 2015; Facer, 2012; Forbes, 2017; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).

Social practice - “liking, sharing, following, retweeting, tagging, replying, commenting,

and last but not least posting and replying” (Passmann & Schubert, 2020, p. 2948).

Summary

Education often emphasizes not just academic content but also the broader skills essential

for students' future after graduation. Today, part of that life includes the ability to function with

digital technologies. Digital citizenship lessons in K-12 schools can assist teachers in preparing

their students to navigate the digital technologies that, for some, dominate their lives. This study

was designed to give a voice to teachers that are asked to teach digital citizenship lessons and

provide insight into their conceptualization of digital citizenship and the curriculum they teach.

Chapter One detailed the rationale for the study, the problem statement, the research

question, the organization of the study, the nature of the study, assumptions, scope and

delimitations, and limitations, along with a brief look at the significance of the study, and

pertinent definitions. The remaining chapters are organized as such: Chapter Two explores a

comprehensive range of topics, including digital citizenship and its origins, the evolving nature

of digital citizenship, various definitions of this concept, an analysis of the International Society

for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards along with their historical development, the

significance of digital citizenship curriculum, the role of professional development, technology

utilization, and an examination of the European framework within this context. Chapter Three

discusses the methodology and research design used to explore teacher participants’ experiences

with implementing a digital citizenship curriculum. Chapter Four reports the findings of the

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

study based on the qualitative data collection and analysis. Chapter Five is followed by the

appropriate references and appendices used in this study.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of the following literature review is to summarize the topics pertinent to the

study of teachers’ implementation of digital citizenship in their classrooms. The review is broken

down into sections as they relate to the study: digital citizenship, standards, and technology. The

literature review is designed to give a history of prior research and studies into the history of

digital citizenship as well as highlight the importance of implementing digital citizenship in

classrooms. The literature review will also describe the digital citizenship standards as they

currently exist, along with training practices for teachers, and teacher perceptions. The review

should also demonstrate gaps in the literature that make this study necessary. As a result, the

purpose of the qualitative study that follows is to determine how teachers are planning for and

implementing digital citizenship standards and curriculum in their classrooms.

Digital Citizenship

Digital citizenship research has increased substantially since 2011, with the research

varying across topics ranging from education and technology to political science and law (Chen

et al., 2021). While this literature review will discuss some of the differences in digital

citizenship usage, the primary focus will be on education. One researcher that has written

extensively on digital citizenship, the standards, and teachers’ perceptions of the standards,

among other digital citizenship topics, is Dr. Florence Martin. Martin et al. (2019) wrote that

there is a “need to examine the digital citizenship practices of educators” (p. 15). Later, in June

of 2021, after completing a review of digital citizenship literature over the course of the past 15

years, Martin and her coauthors found that “more research needs to be conducted on K-12

educators” (Richardson et al., 2021, p. 12). The article found that, while research into digital

citizenship has increased, there are still areas that need exploring, with K-12 educators and their

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

perceptions of digital citizenship being one key areas. A study with educators as the focus should

“translate research into practice” (p. 12).

In the sections below, I expand upon digital citizenship research by first discussing the

topical research on digital citizenship, followed by overviewing the gaps that led to the need for

this study, and finally presenting the theoretical foundations of this study.

Digital Citizenship Beginnings

While digital citizenship is the focus of this study it is important to recognize that the

digital part of the concept of citizenship has only recently been added to what it means to be a

citizen. In 1950, T.H. Marshall wrote that citizenship consists of three elements: “civil, political

and social” (p. 10). He would equate the civil element with freedom, the political element with

one’s political power, and the social element as all the ideas of living as a civilized person in

society (Marshall, 1950). The idea of citizenship has evolved over the decades much as the idea

of digital citizenship has.

The term digital citizenship first appeared in scholarly works in the late 1990s and early

2000s, as the internet and digital technologies became more prevalent in society. While the scope

of this dissertation study focuses on digital citizenship in education, the origins can be seen in

different fields such as politics. Research in the field of politics tends to drill down on the idea of

traditional civic responsibilities and the impact that online life has on them (Loader, 2007;

Papacharissi, 2010; Tolbert & Mcneal, 2003). Mossberger et al. (2008) would form a definition

of digital citizenship that became regularly used in the field of politics (Chen et al., 2021). I will

discuss the Mossberger et al. (2008) definition in more detail below. While the field of politics

was concerned with the impact of the internet on citizenship and citizens civic responsibilities,

education research focused on the impact that technology had on students.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Early research on digital citizenship, similarly to the political research, did not use the

term digital citizenship but instead focused on the effects of media and the internet on children

and students. Livingston (1996) looked at the effects television viewing could have on children

as it took away time from friends and schoolwork. Buckingham and Jensen (2012) wrote on

moral panics that have occurred throughout history and discussed the concern that arose in the

1990’s due to children’s access to the internet which could lead to the viewing of pornography

and the potential for online bullying. Digital citizenship as a concept may not have been

specifically mentioned; however, components that later emerge in Ribble and Bailey’s (2007)

digital citizenship definition started to arise.

Digital Citizenship’s Evolution

Digital citizenship research has increased over the past ten years. Chen et al. (2021)

analyzed the term “digital citizenship” across 350 publications and identified the term “digital

citizenship” within 114 article titles. While education related publications dominated the digital

citizenship landscape with over half the number, other disciplines do study digital citizenship,

including researchers from the civil and political science disciplines. The differing research

disciplines can lead to some debate on the definition of digital citizenship. Digital citizenship

research, while not discussing digital citizenship directly always, has been occurring since the

1990’s. Much of the early digital citizenship research involved concerns about children and

students’ newfound access to the internet. Chen et al. (2021) reported that the earliest publication

of research on digital citizenship was in 1999. The publications were broken into three groups

made up of peer-reviewed journal articles, publications for professionals and the public, and

other research publications. According to Chen et al. (2021), growth amongst these publications

was a slow process for digital citizenship research as only 27 articles were published from 1999

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

– 2009. Most notable about the journal group from this period is that there was no “explicit

definition for digital citizenship” (Chen et al., 2021, p. 4).

Starting in 2010, attention to digital citizenship grew immensely, with a large increase

across disciplines, especially amongst the professional publications. Digital citizenship

definitions provided by Ribble et al. (2007) and Mossberger et al. (2008), or a combination of the

two, were cited most frequently according to Chen et al. (2021). Ribble and Bailey (2007)

defined digital citizenship as “norms of appropriate, responsible behavior with regards to

technology use” (p. 10) and could be considered narrow in scope, mostly, showing up in

education related journals. Mossberger et al. (2008) defined digital citizens as “those who use the

Internet regularly and effectively” (p. 1). The Mossberger et al.’s (2008) definition is broader and

finds itself in disciplines such as law, ethics, and politics. This is not to say that Mossberger et

al.’s (2007) definition never shows up in education related journals nor Ribble et al.’s (2007) to

non-education related disciplines. Education related research dominated the research themes

according to Chen et al. (2021). Despite this dominance by education, there is plenty of interest

outside of education to research and study digital citizenship, but studies “remain largely

isolated” (Chen et al., 2021, p. 9). Of interest are the conceptualized differences of digital

citizenship between the above-mentioned authors. Chen et al. (2021) found that Ribble and

Bailey’s (2007) work are “frequently adopted in education related research” while Mossberger et

al. (2008) is cited most often in work associated with citizenship (Chen pp.12-13). The

differences seem to come down to an emphasis on competencies (Ribble & Bailey, 2007) verses

participation (Mossberger et al., 2008). As stated, Ribble and Bailey’s (2007) work are mostly

associated with educational themes and usually serves as a framework for what students should

know or be learning when it comes to digital citizenship. Mossberger et al.’s (2008) framework,

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

however, is citizen participation-based and concentrates on “digital citizenship as an extension of

citizenship” (Chen et al., 2021, p. 5). The digital part of citizenship is important to citizens in that

it leads to “full social, economic, and political participation” (Chen et al., 2021). Chen et al.

(2021) did find that studies are beginning to combine the two areas of focus by citing Cortesi et

al. (2020) as an example. Cortesi et al. (2020) provided a framework of skills youth need to

operate in a digital world. While competence focused, the study did include “civic and political

engagement” (Cortesi et al., 2020, p. 4). Finally of interest are the conceptualized differences of

digital citizenship between the above-mentioned authors. Despite this dominance by education,

there is plenty of interest outside of education to research and study digital citizenship, but

studies “remain largely isolated” (Chen et al., 2021, p. 9). Of interest are the conceptualized

differences of digital citizenship between the above-mentioned authors. Chen et al. (2021) found

that Ribble and Bailey’s (2007) work are “frequently adopted in education related research”

while Mossberger et al. (2008) is cited most often in work associated with citizenship (Chen

pp.12-13). The differences seem to come down to an emphasis on competencies (Ribble &

Bailey, 2007) verses participation (Mossberger et al., 2008). As stated, Ribble and Bailey’s

(2007) work are mostly associated with educational themes and usually serves as a framework

for what students should know or be learning when it comes to digital citizenship. Mossberger et

al.’s (2008) framework, however, is citizen participation-based and concentrates on “digital

citizenship as an extension of citizenship” (Chen et al., 2021, p. 5). The digital part of citizenship

is important to citizens in that it leads to “full social, economic, and political participation”

(Chen et al., 2021, p. 1). Chen et al. (2021) did find that studies are beginning to combine the

two areas of focus by citing Cortesi et al. (2020) as an example. Cortesi et al. (2020) provided a

framework of skills youth need to operate in a digital world. While competence focused, the

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

study did include “civic and political engagement” (Cortesi et al., 2020, p. 4). Finally of interest

are the conceptualized differences of digital citizenship between the above-mentioned authors.

Digital Citizenship Beyond Ribble et al. and Mossberger et al.

One researcher with a similar vision to Ribble and Bailey’s (2007) digital citizenship is

Florence Martin. Martin and her colleagues (2019) defined digital citizenship as “responsible

digital habits to function in a digital world” (p. 241). Much as with Ribble and Bailey (2007),

Martin et al. (2019) concentrated on the role that schools and educators play in preparing

students to be digital citizens. Martin et al. (2019) definition focuses primarily on cyber safety

issues such as cyberbullying and digital footprints, while Ribble and Bailey (2007) included

other items such as critical thinking and creativity. Martin et al. (2022) also wrote of the need for

teachers to know and understand what it takes to be a good digital citizen. This contributes to the

overall vision of Martin et al. (2022), which is better prepared students, educators, and parents in

the area of cyber safety and needed technological skills.

Another lens of digital citizenship was created by Cortesi et al. (2020), who introduced a

vision of digital citizenship that they called digital citizenship+ (plus). The vision is based on a

study of thirty-five digital citizenship frameworks eventually broken down into subsets of topics

such as civic and political engagement. This work led to the digital citizenship+ (plus) definition

“as the skills needed for youth to fully participate academically, socially, ethically, politically,

and economically in our rapidly evolving digital world” (Cortesi et al., 2020, p. 28). Digital

citizenship+ (plus) is made up of 17 areas of skills that youth need and ranges among the skills

listed in the definition (see Table 1 for the areas and a brief description). For example, Cortesi et

al. (2020) included the ability to “participate in public matters and advocate for issues one cares

about” (p. 28). Youths must also maintain their safety and well-being within the digital

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

citizenship+ (plus) framework and “counteract the risks that the digital world may come with”

(Cortesi et al., 2020, p. 30). Each of the seventeen areas has an important role to play in digital

citizenship+ (plus); however, the weight of importance depends heavily on the context of each

individual youth’s situation. For example, digital access may be prioritized by young people

around the world who have limited or no access to the internet or technology. Those individuals

may view digital access as the most important area of the 17 tools.

Table 1

17 Tools Across Areas of Digital Life

Artificial Intelligence

Understanding the algorithms of the platform’s individuals interact

with

Civic and Political

Engagement

Understanding, participating in, and advocating in public matters to

improve one’s community

Computational Thinking

Understanding and applying computational concepts and practices

Content Production

Producing content digitally

Context

Understanding and being aware of contextual factors of relevance

such as experiences and perspectives of underrepresented groups

Data

The ability to find, create, and analyze data from a variety of sources

Digital Access

The ability to access the internet

Digital Economy

The ability to navigate both on and offline to earn capital in various

forms

Digital (Literacy)

The ability to use different platforms to search for and interact with

information

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Identity Exploration and

Formation

The ability to use digital tools to understand how one’s community

shapes their identity

Information Quality

The ability to find and analyze information such as news

Law

The ability to understand and work with legal frameworks

surrounding the internet and other digital tools

Media (Literacy)

The ability to work with and create content in various forms of

media

Positive/Respectful

Behavior

Interacting with others online in a respectful and responsible manner

Privacy and Reputation

The ability to protect one’s personal information online

Safety and Well-being

The ability to engage in the digital world and protect one’s physical

and mental well-being

Security

The ability to protect the integrity of one’s information (e.g.,

passwords)

Note. Explanation of Cortesi et al.’s (2020) 17 tools for digital life.

Summary of Digital Citizenship Perspectives

These authors and studies focus on skills needed for students to become successful digital

citizens. Each one has a place for use in schools whether it be concentrating on students or

educators. Martin et al.’s (2019; 2022) lens of digital citizenship aligns with the Ribble (2012,

2015) and Ribble and Bailey (2007) model, meaning the vision and goals are framed within the

context of education and preparing both students and educators. While Martin et al. (2019)

concentrated on schools and educators, the definition they provided aligns somewhat with that of

Mossberger et al.’s (2008) “ability to participate in society online” (p. 1). Martin et al. (2019)

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

wrote of “functioning in a digital world” (p. 241). Despite the similarity of participating in

society online and functioning a digital world, Martin et al. (2019) did not mention civic

engagement or political participation as an area of emphasis for digital citizenship now or in the

future. Cortesi et al. (2020) did the best of using both Ribble and Bailey’s (2007) and

Mossberger et al.’s (2008) vision in their study. Mossberger et al.’s (2008) digital citizenship

vision included a civic engagement and political participation as a part of digital citizenship.

Cortesi et al. (2021) also included this component in their digital citizenship vision, unlike

Martin et al. (2019) and Kim and Choi (2021). Cortesi et al. (2020) also included education and

preparation for digital skills, as does Ribble and colleagues (2007). Since Cortesi et al. (2020) are

able to combine the visions of Ribble and Bailey (2007) and Mossberger et al. (2008), their

vision appears to be a strong one for the future of digital citizenship studies and programs.

Digital citizenship + (plus) provides a framework that could be considered for a study such as

this it does incorporate 21st Century skills such as critical thinking and innovation; however,

these skills are not isolated to the 21st Century (Kirschner & Stoyanov, 2020).

Table 2

Definitions of Digital Citizenship

Researchers Definition

Ribble et al. (2007)

“norms of appropriate, responsible behavior with regards to

technology use” (p. 10)

Mossberger et al. (2007)

“those who use the Internet regularly and effectively” (p. 1)

Martin et al. (2019)

responsible digital habits to function in a digital world” (p. 241)

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Cortesi et al. (2020)

“the skills needed for youth to fully participate academically,

socially, ethically, politically, and economically in our rapidly

evolving digital world” (p. 28)

Council of Europe

(2019)

“someone who, through the development of a broad range of

competencies, is able to actively, positively and responsibly engage

in both online and offline communities, whether local, national or

global” (p. 11).

Teaching digital citizenship is an evolving process with several options for lesson

providers. The most widely adopted technology integration standards in the United States are the

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards for students. Standard 1.2

concerns students as digital citizens. While the United States has standards provided by ISTE it

is still up to the individual states to implement digital citizenship. The United States though is

just one example around the world of the implementation of digital citizenship standards. Digital

citizenship is a worldwide concept, with countries around the globe implementing the concept to

ensure citizens acquire the skills to be digital citizens. Below is a description of one such

framework that is implemented in Europe.

European Framework

Digital citizenship preparedness is not limited to just the United States. The European

Union through the European Council has a framework in place called the DigComp framework

that has five key elements and 21 competencies (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Five Key Areas and 21 Competencies of the DigComp Framework

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Note. DigComp’s five key areas and twenty one competencies. From The European digital

competence framework for citizens (p. 4), by European Union, 2016, European Union. Copyright

by European Union. Reprinted with permission.

The framework was created due to a concern over the lack of digital skills that Europeans

were demonstrating and how vital the ability to operate as a digital citizen has become to one’s

ability to earn a living. The framework is being implemented across the European Union at

different speeds; see Figure 3 for how different countries are using the framework.

Figure 3

European Union Member State Implementations

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Note. Member states various implementation of DigiComps key areas and competencies. From

The European digital competence framework for citizens (p. 9), by European Union, 2016,

European Union. Copyright by European Union. Reprinted with permission.

In the context of education, The Council of Europe (2019) defined a digital citizen as

“someone who, through the development of a broad range of competencies, is able to actively,

positively and responsibly engage in both online and offline communities, whether local,

national or global” (p. 11). The Council wrote in its digital citizenship handbook that it is time

“to move from measures to protect children to those that actively empower them” (p. 5). The

European model, while focused on students and their education, aims to prepare students to

operate in life situations that call for digital competence, particularly in a culture of democracy.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Education is just the vehicle for students to acquire these skills (see Figure 4 for a listing of the

skills).

Figure 4

Skills Needed to Function in a Democratic Society

Note. Competences needed for democratic culture – From Living together as equals in culturally

diverse democratic societies (p. 11), Council of Europe, 2016, Council of Europe. Copyright

2016 by Council of Europe. Reprinted with permission.

From the list of skills needed to function in a democratic society, twenty competencies emerged

encompassing ten digital domains (see Table 3 for a list of the domains) broken into three areas:

being online, well-being online, and rights online.

Table 3

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Ten Digital Domains

Competencies

Digital Domains

Being Online

Access and inclusion

Learning and creativity

Media and information literacy

Well-being online

Ethics and empathy

Health and well-being

e-Presence and communication

Rights online

Active participation

Rights and responsibilities

Privacy and security

Consumer awareness

Note. Council of Europe’s Digital Citizenship Handbook, 2018

The competencies for democratic culture and digital citizenship education complement

each other and both should assist citizens in becoming digital citizens. While there is more to

being a citizen than online behaviors, the European Council (2018) feels that much of the

training for digital citizenship can translate to human-to-human interactions such as cultural

diversity and human empathy.

Comparatively, the United States does not have such a comprehensive plan of

implementing and integrating digital citizenship education. As mentioned earlier, the United

States has the ISTE standards. Table 4 provides a comparison of the European model and the

ISTE-S standards (2016); however, despite the adoption by states of the ISTE-S standards, they

are not being implemented with true regularity (Gomez et al., 2022). Much of the digital

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

citizenship education in the United States continues to concentrate on online safety and

cyberbullying.

Table 4

United States v. European Union Key Components of Digital Competence Standards

United States ISTE-S

European Union key components of digital

competencies

Empowered Learner

Digital Citizen

Knowledge Constructor

Innovative Designer

Computational Thinker

Creative Communicator

Global Collaborator

Information and Data Literacy

Communication and Collaboration

Digital Content Creation

Safety

Problem Solving

Note. Standards come from International Society for Technology in Education and European

Union’s Digital Competence Framework 2.0

As seen, the DigiComp framework is a comprehensive plan for European citizens to learn

to take part in a digital society. The framework contains components that are similar to those

already mentioned such as keeping students and citizens safe online to collaboration. With

universal digital citizenship components, it is important to understand what problems and issues

teachers could be facing in the implementation of the standards. Shifting away from the

European digital citizenship framework, I will now discuss a digital citizenship framework used

in the United States, specifically, the standards created by ISTE.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

ISTE Standards

The ISTE Standards for Students (ISTE-S) are of significant importance in the context of

digital citizenship due to their comprehensive and structured approach towards fostering digital

citizenship skills among learners. These standards can provide a framework that emphasizes not

just the theoretical aspect but also the practical implementation of digital citizenship in

education. The standards not only highlight the importance of understanding the responsible use

of technology but also emphasize the critical role of educators in teaching digital citizenship. The

ISTE-S offers a globally recognized framework that provides tangible benchmarks for evaluating

the effectiveness of educational strategies in instilling these essential skills in learners. Therefore,

exploring the ISTE-S becomes a pivotal aspect in understanding and promoting digital

citizenship within educational contexts.

According to the International Society for Technology in Education, its standards are a

framework for innovation in education (ISTE, 2020). These standards help educators and

education leaders worldwide prepare learners to thrive in work and life. The ISTE site lists

standards for students, educators, coaches, and leaders. The ISTE Standards for Students (ISTE-

S) are designed to empower student voice and ensure that learning is a student-driven process

(ISTE, 2020). The ISTE-S standards are (1) Empowered Learner; (2) Digital Citizen; (3)

Knowledge Constructor; (4) Innovative Designer; (5) Computational Thinker; (6) Creative

Communicator; and (7) Global Collaborator (ISTE, 2020). As well as the standards, ISTE lists

14 critical elements for school leaders that may serve as a framework for assisting schools with

implementing the students’ standards (ISTE, 2020). No data was available for how many states,

districts, or schools have adopted the 14 critical elements. The ISTE also has standards for

educators, the ISTE-E. The ISTE-E standards are (1) Learner; (2) Leader; (3) Citizen; (4)

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Collaborator; (5) Designer; (6) Facilitator; and (7) Analyst. The Citizen standard concerns a

teacher's role in digital citizenship for students such as creating online experiences for students to

learn positive and responsible use of technology as well as modeling management of personal

data (ISTE, 2020). As stated earlier, every state has adopted some version of the ISTE standards.

Therefore, since every state has adopted these digital standards in some form or fashion it would

be expected that teachers are integrating these standards into their classroom curriculum;

however, studies show that is not the case and that integration is “below desired levels” (Gomez

et al., 2022, p. 164).

A Brief History

The ISTE standards began in the late 1990’s as National Educational Technology

Standards (NETS). NETS•S was first released in 1998 by ISTE. These standards were developed

to outline the skills and knowledge that students, teachers, and administrators should possess to

effectively use technology in education (Georgia Department of Education, 2023). Up to this

point educational technology had mostly been about how to use technology rather than actual

learning outcomes (Malloy et al., 2016). The US Department of Education came to a similar

conclusion stating that there is a “need to emphasize content and pedagogy, not just the hardware

requirements” (Culp et al., 2005, p. 292).

The NETS•S standards were created to provide a framework for integrating technology

into various aspects of education to enhance learning and prepare students for the challenges of

the digital age. (Wheeler et al., 2000). The original 1998 standards did not include a specific

digital citizenship standard although standard 2 includes hints of digital citizenship. Standard 2

concerns social, ethical, and human issues where students practice safe and ethical uses of

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

technology. All told, NETS•S outlined six key categories of technology-related skills and

concepts that students should achieve. See Table 5 below for a synopsis of each.

Table 5

NETS•S Six Categories of Technology Related Skills

Category

Expected Skills

Basic Operations and Concepts

Proficiency in using various technologies

Social, Ethical, and Human Issues

Responsible and ethical use of technology

Technology Productivity Tools

Use technology effectively for productivity

tasks

Technology Communication Tools

Use digital communication tools

Technology Research Tools

Use technology to gather information

Technology Problem-Solving and Decision-

Making Tools

Develop critical thinking and problem-solving

skills

Since its 1998 introduction NETS•S has gone through several iterations. In 2007 ISTE

CEO Don Knezek took part in an interview about the standards. When asked why there was a

need to reimagine NETS•S, he said:

A number of forces influenced the need to update the NETS, from their age (NETS for

students, or NETS•S, were released in 1998) to the globalization of education, from

developments in technology and changing demographics of learners to the emergence of

the digital learning landscape inside and outside of schools, and, of course, pressures

from the flattening world and the slippage in our nation's leadership in innovation and in

its world economic leadership (Stager, 2007, para. 3).

He would go on to say, when asked about what was wrong with the 1998 standards:

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Absolutely nothing was wrong with the last set of standards except that societal, learning,

technological and economic landscapes have evolved, and it is clearly time to re-examine

what our students need to know and be able to do to learn effectively and live

productively in increasingly digital and global environments (Stager, 2007, para. 5).

The standards would be updated in 2007 and include a digital citizen standard, Standard 5, which

is similar to the NETS•S 1998 standard in that students are expected to practice good behavior

and legal behaviors online. In the same interview as above Knezek was asked about the digital

citizenship standard:

Interviewer: Digital Citizenship is one of the six standards, and “Students will exercise

proactive leadership for digital citizenship” is one of the substandards. Recently,

politicians have used the World Wide Web to announce their presidential candidacies.

They are also using Web chats, different social networking sites, streaming videos, blogs

and wikis to interact with voters. How are students to develop as “digital citizens” when

many school network policies make the processes of citizenship impossible?

KNEZEK: I share your concern. In fact, I would say we've equipped schools with the

most powerful enabler to learning in decades ... Web connectivity ... and then created

policies that take away a teacher's ability to effectively develop responsible digital

citizenship in the students. Young learners need to be protected online. However, it is

equally important that they be guided in developing self-responsibility as they mature

(Stager, 2007, para. 36).

As technology evolved though so did the standards as once again a change was needed.

In 2013 the ISTE would remove the NETS•S acronym due to the international reach of the

organization (ISTE, 2023). In 2016 the standards would once again be revamped to keep up with

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

the changing technology of the classroom. The new standards still included a digital citizen

standard with some changes from the 2007 version. While 2007 was centered on the use of

technology, the 2016 version focused on students managing their online life in a safe and

responsible way. See Table 6 below for a brief comparison of the different standards since 1998.

Table 6

ISTE Standards for Students Since 1998

Name

Year

Standards

NETS•S

1998

Basic Operations and Concepts

Social, Ethical, and Human Issues

Technology Productivity Tools

Technology Communication Tools

Technology Research Tools

Technology Problem-Solving and Decision-Making

Tools

NETS•S

2007

Creativity and Innovation

Communication and Collaboration

Research and Information Fluency

Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision

Making

Digital Citizenship

Technology Operations and Concepts

ISTE Standards for Students

2016

Empowered Learner

Digital Citizen

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Knowledge Constructor

Innovative Designer

Computational Thinker

Creative Communicator

Global Collaborator

Educators may hear the term standards and feel as if they are expected to either replace

their content or add the ISTE standards to their current content. The ISTE standards, however,

are meant to intertwine with course content and contribute to the learning process, not become a

burden for teachers to teach. In a meta-analysis study Valverde-Berrocoso et al. found there was

a positive correlation between combining technology infused lesson plans and increased

academic performance (2022). The ISTE standards were created with the idea of students taking

part in a learning environment that mimics the “technology-saturated and globally connected

world” (Dondlinger et al., 2016, p. 258). ISTE standards are a resource for teachers to help

implement the digital skills that students need today.

The ISTE has outlined a comprehensive set of standards designed to cultivate digital

citizenship among students. One of these pivotal standards, 1.2 under the ISTE framework,

specifically addresses the aspect of digital citizenship. Standard 1.2 emphasizes the importance

of modeling and promoting the responsible use of technology, advocating for the establishment

of safe and healthy digital environments for learners. See Table 7 for the sub standards included

in 1.2.

Table 7

ISTE-S Digital Citizen Sub Standards

Sub Standard

Explanation

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

1.2a

Students cultivate and manage their digital identity and reputation and are

aware of the permanence of their actions in the digital world.

1.2b

Students engage in positive, safe, legal and ethical behavior when using

technology, including social interactions online or when using networked

devices.

1.2c

Students demonstrate an understanding of and respect for the rights and

obligations of using and sharing intellectual property.

1.2d

Students manage their personal data to maintain digital privacy and security

and are aware of data-collection technology used to track their navigation

online.

Note. International Society for Technology in Education. (2020). ISTE-S standards.

http://www.iste.org/standards

The journey of ISTE's student standards from their inception to the current framework

shows the evolving landscape of education in a technology-driven world. Reflecting the

progressive integration of technology into learning, these standards have continually adapted to

address the challenges and opportunities presented by digital tools. Standard 1.2, in particular,

embodies the significance of digital citizenship, advocating for responsible and ethical use of

technology. Understanding this standard within the broader evolution of ISTE's framework

showcases a concerted effort to prioritize not only the technical skills but also the ethical

considerations that students need in their digital interactions.

Digital Citizenship Curriculum Choice

ISTE serves as a framework for teachers and school systems for integrating technology

instead of a clear-cut curriculum for teaching digital citizenship (Almisad, 2020). Despite the

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

lack of lessons, there are resources from ISTE for teachers. ISTE offers a 15-hour self-paced

course for educators on teaching digital citizenship along with other resources such as a

community of teachers and librarians that write about embedding digital citizenship into content

(ISTE, 2022). The Georgia Department of Education also provides several resources for teachers

wishing to incorporate more digital content (Georgia Department of Education, 2023). Phillips

and Lee (2019) felt that digital citizenship curriculum should go beyond “prepackaged” (p. 9)

lessons. Despite that several options exist for teachers and school systems wishing to implement

a prepared digital citizenship curriculum.

School systems have several choices when it comes to a digital citizenship curriculum.

Seale and Schoenberger (2018) in writing about Google’s Be Internet Awesome listed several

other programs including Net Alert, Take Control of your Digital Footprint, Safer Internet

Program, and NetSmartz. Another prominent, reputable, and free curriculum is the Common

Sense Education Digital Citizenship Curriculum. Common Sense Education is a U.S.-based non-

profit that is “dedicated to improving the lives of all kids and families by providing the

trustworthy information, education, and independent voice they need to thrive in the 21st

century” (Common Sense Education, 2023, para. 1). The digital citizenship curriculum launched

in 2010 and was revised in 2019/2020and includes 1.3 million registered users (James et al.,

2021). It is based on three frameworks, Rings of Responsibility, Digital Life Dilemmas, and

Repetition and Routine. The Rings of Responsibility asks the student to consider their actions

and how they may affect others in the community and globe (James et al., 2021). Digital Life

Dilemmas put students into real life situations that can spring up in their lives. Common Sense

does differentiate between younger and older students as the dilemmas a student faces differs

with age (James et al., 2021). The Repetition and Routine framework are designed to create

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

habits for students to take into their digital lives. Within the three frameworks, there are six

topics central to the Common Sense curriculum. The six topics are made up of media balance

and wellbeing, privacy and security, digital footprint and identity, relationships and

communication, cyberbullying, digital drama and hate speech, and news and media literacy. The

curriculum includes one lesson per topic per grade level (James et al., 2021). These topics are

based on research into areas of interest of students via survey results conducted by the authors.

Implementing Digital Citizenship Curriculum

When implementing digital citizenship curriculum there are numerous options to pick

from as illustrated in the prior section. Choi et al. (2018) found that over the past two decades

there has been quite a bit of growth in schools that claim, as a part of their mission, to prepare

students as digital citizens. Common Sense Media (2019) reports that six out of ten teachers are

teaching some sort of digital citizenship content in the classroom. With this increase has come an

increase in expectations of teachers to implement the content; however, teachers still report

difficulties in implementing digital citizenship. Martin et al. (2022) reported that teachers found

three areas that impeded the implementation of digital citizenship: “student related challenges,

teacher related challenges, and curriculum related challenges” (p. 152). In Martin et al.’s (2022)

study, teachers reported that students were not responsive or open to the digital citizenship

content which hindered its implementation. More importantly teachers felt that they did not have

the time to consistently implement a digital citizenship curriculum since digital citizenship is not

officially a part of the regular curriculum (Martin et al., 2022).

Despite the concerns over digital citizenship implementation, teachers agree that there

should be dedicated teaching time for digital citizenship (Martin et al., 2022). There is some

debate over how to implement digital citizenship though. Tadlaoui-Brahmi et al. (2022) found

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

there can be a split over the type of digital citizenship to implement, safety and net etiquette or

skill-based. When it comes to the safety and net etiquette version of digital citizenship

technology is used to apply citizenship skills (Tadlaoui-Brahmi et al., 2022). On the skill-based

side of digital citizenship implementation students tend to work more independently on project -

based assignments where they practice digital citizenship skills in a more authentic setting

(Tadlaoui-Brahmi et al., 2022).

Schools today have several digital citizenship curriculum options to choose from.

Research by Choi et al. (2018) indicates a notable increase in schools incorporating digital

citizenship into their mission over the past two decades. Common Sense Media (2019) reports

that a majority of teachers, six out of ten, are actively teaching digital citizenship content in their

classrooms; however, this surge in interest has brought about heightened expectations for

teachers to effectively implement this content, despite persistent challenges. Martin et al. (2022)

identifies three major impediments to digital citizenship implementation: student-related

challenges, teacher-related challenges, and curriculum-related challenges. These challenges

include issues with student engagement and receptiveness, limited time for incorporating digital

citizenship due to its non-inclusion in the regular curriculum, and the need for dedicated teaching

time.

Perceptions of Digital Citizenship

Teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions significantly influence how they convey the

principles of responsible and ethical online behavior to their students. Research shows that

teachers agree that digital citizenship should be taught in schools (Casa-Todd, 2018; Martin et

al., 2022). After that though there is some debate about digital citizenship, concerning how it

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

should be taught, teacher preparation for digital citizenship, and even whose responsibility it is to

teach it (Phillips & Lee, 2019).

Digital Citizenship Curriculum Priorities and Teacher Training

As mentioned earlier there are two schools of thought when it comes to teaching digital

citizenship, which is schools should teach online safety and net etiquette or digital skills

(Tadlaoui-Brahmi et al., 2022). Walters et al. (2019) wrote that online safety should be taught at

younger ages, as elementary school students are more likely to misuse technology and be

unaware of how online interactions should go. Kumar et al. (2019) had similar findings in that

elementary age students have some understanding of online privacy and safety but need the help

of teachers to differentiate what should be shared and with whom online. Common Sense Media

reported in 2019 that 91% of teachers that used a digital citizenship curriculum found it to at

least moderately help students make smart and safe choices online.

On the other side of the digital citizenship spectrum is the idea that the curriculum should

be taught based around skills students need to be successful citizens. Common Sense Media

reported in 2019 that one of the top concerns of teachers was that students lacked information

processing skills. Mahadir et al. (2021) wrote about the importance of students possessing the

abilities to “use digital technologies efficiently, connect with others to engage in society, and

produce and use digital content” (p. 835). More recently von Gillern et al. (2022) wrote about the

need to teach students digital citizenship skills to “produce, circulate, evaluate, and critique

content using current and emerging technologies” (p. 146). Örtegren (2022) wrote of teachers

needing the ability to teach students the necessary skills to participate in a democratic society.

In order to teach either the safety and net etiquette or skills discussed above, teachers

need training in order to best prepare students for digital citizenship. Common Sense Media

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

(2019) found that only 4 in 10 teachers felt they were receiving effective professional

development for implementing digital citizenship. This statistic is backed up by Martin et al.

(2022) where in a review of the current literature found that there is a “need for teacher

professional development on digital citizenship” (p. 146). Martin et al. (2019) found similar

results from a teacher perception survey where teachers felt they needed more training in order to

effectively teach digital citizenship standards. While teachers see the need for digital citizenship,

they also feel underprepared to teach the curriculum (Martin & Bolliger, 2018; Martin et al.,

2019, 2022; Phillips & Lee, 2019; Vega & Robb, 2019).

Along with a lack of training there also exists some uncertainty as to who should be

teaching digital citizenship. In a 2019 study, Phillips and Lee found that there was uncertainty

between teachers and librarians about who was responsible for implementing a digital citizenship

curriculum. This could be problematic if states and districts fail to assign the curriculum to

specific individuals in the school setting (Phillips & Lee, 2018); however, the responsibility does

not only fall to teachers and librarians to teach students responsible digital citizenship habits, as

parents also play a role. Sorbring (2012) found that parents are very concerned about the digital

practices of their children. Parents also feel that they can do a good job of teaching their students

about posting online (Anderson et al., 2019). While there may be some confusion about whose

responsibility it is, there should be no doubt that there should be a collaborative effort to teach

students digital citizenship (Phillips & Lee, 2019).

Professional Development for Teachers’ Technology Usage and Digital Citizenship

Several factors play into educators teaching of the digital citizenship standards and the

importance that they put on those standards. One factor includes how educators are trained to

implement digital citizenship standards. Martin et al. (2022) asserted that teachers need support

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

from their principals by providing professional development sessions on digital citizenship

implementation.

Many teachers that Martin et al. (2020) surveyed felt their principals were effective at

supporting digital citizenship training. Ribble (2012) suggested that teachers may be hesitant to

teach digital standards because they “view digital citizenship as a technology problem” (p. 149).

Ribble (2012) wrote about teachers needing training in order to be better prepared to teach the

skills and concepts of digital citizenship. ISTE Standards for Educators (2020) include specific

standards that encourage teachers to “inspire students to positively contribute to and responsibly

participate in the digital world” and “educators facilitate learning with technology to support

student achievement” (ISTE, 2020, para. 3 & 6). Falloon (2020) argued that teachers are coming

into the profession without these skills and instead with skills aimed at increasing teachers own

use of digital tools. Falloon (2020) went on to state that there needs to be a more intensive effort

on preparing to manage “one’s personal information and online profile, safety and security, and

exercising digital judgement” (p. 2457). Despite technology in classrooms and technological

training, many teachers still struggle with implementing digital citizenship skills because of

either a lack of confidence in their training or a lack of skills (Harrell & Bynum, 2018).

Up to this point this literature review has explored the evolution of digital citizenship,

from its beginnings along with changes over time. While digital citizenship research was

dominated by two main definitions, other researchers have contributed new definitions. I have

also discussed the European framework, DigiComp, and the ISTE standards in order to clarify

the different approaches to creating responsible digital citizens. Additionally, the review

examined existing digital citizenship curriculums, teachers’ perceptions of digital citizenship,

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

and crucial aspects of teacher training when it comes to digital citizenship. As the review

concludes, the focus now shifts towards the theoretical framework of this study.

Theoretical Foundations

An overarching framework of social constructivism guides this study. Additionally,

Siemens’ theory of connectivism, Ribble’s nine elements of digital citizenship, and Kim and

Choi’s (2018) SAFE model inform the theoretical framework. Ravitch and Riggan (2017) wrote

that theoretical frameworks should illuminate an aspect of the conceptual framework (p. 11). The

theoretical framework will be used to explain digital citizenship in different ways (Ravitch &

Riggan, 2017).

Social Constructivism

The theory framing this study is that of social constructivism. Social constructivism

focuses on how various parts of the social world are created through human interactions and

processes (Thomas et al., 2014). This means that the perception of whatever phenomena is at

hand, in the context of this study, digital citizenship implementation, is influenced by a social

context. Social constructivism as an idea was presented in the 1960’s by Leon Vygtosky in

response to Jean Piaget’s earlier work on language and child learning. Vygtosky (1962) wrote

that an “adult cannot pass on to a child his mode of thinking” (p. 68). Vygtosky’s focus was on

child learning and languages, but the concept can be applied to anyone’s learning. While ideas

and concepts can be presented to someone, it is up to them to construct their own learning and

interpretation based on their experiences. Creswell and Poth (2018) wrote that in social

constructivism “individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work” (p.

24). Thomas et al., (2014) went beyond seeking understanding stating that the “focus is on

revealing the ways in which individuals and groups participate in the creation of their perceived

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

social reality” (p. 2). As it relates to this dissertation study, the social reality I sought to explore

was high school teachers’ understanding of digital citizenship along with the common

curriculum implementation. Creswell and Poth (2018) went on to write that individuals will

“develop subjective meanings of their experiences” (p. 24). These combined experiences of the

participants and myself lead to an “interpretation of what they find” (p. 24). The interpretation

was formed by the collective contributions of the participants when considering digital

citizenship. I as the researcher dug into the teacher participants’ experiences prior to teaching

digital citizenship and their classroom experiences when it comes to implementing digital

citizenship and digital citizenship standards in order to form the conclusions that come later in

this paper.

Theory of Connectivism

Students are learning through many means in today’s classrooms. Students can learn not

only from the people in the classroom, but also connect with experts and peers from around the

country and world. Siemens’ (2004) Connectivism is a learning theory that highlights individuals

as part of an interconnected digital network where information and knowledge is changing

constantly. According to Siemens (2004), people are constantly acquiring information in new

and more rapid ways, technology being one form of information acquisition. Connectivism helps

understand learning in the digital age and is applicable for school systems that make use of

technologies to contribute to the students’ learning process. Connectivism can also be helpful in

research, digital citizenship, and global collaboration. Connectivism is informed by elements of

constructivism and behaviorism (Corbett et al., 2020). For example, constructivism involves

individuals’ knowledge coming from experiences (Driscoll, 2000); connectivism allows for the

adaptation and inclusion of a digital component as well as information processing. Connectivism

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

as a theoretical lens guided my interpretation of educators’ use of and understanding digital

citizenship and how that informed their teaching.

Ribble’s Nine Elements of Digital Citizenship

Partnering with the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) in 2015,

Mike Ribble wrote Digital Citizenship in Schools: Nine Elements all Students Should Know,

where he created a framework, the nine elements, to help teachers guide their students through

the technology driven world they live in. Ribble’s (2015) nine elements of digital citizenship

include the digital forms of access, literacy, communication, etiquette, security or self-protection,

rights and responsibilities, law, commerce, and health and wellness (p. 11). See Table 8 for a

brief description of the elements.

Table 8

Ribble’s Nine Elements of Digital Citizenship

Digital access

Some students do not have access to electronic devices and

internet access. Teachers should be aware of this digital

divide.

Digital commerce

Provide students with knowledge about issues and safety

surrounding e-commerce

Digital communication

Recognizing that students participate in digital

communications and need to recognize these digital

communications are wrought with miscommunication

Digital literacy

Students recognizing the differences between real and fake

content

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Digital etiquette

Students should become digitally fluent and learn to respond

appropriately to online content

Digital law

Understanding the laws and restrictions that govern digital

content

Digital rights and

responsibilities

Students should recognize that the online world and its users

have rights and should be kept safe from instances such as

cyberbullying

Digital health and wellness

Students should be taught to protect themselves from online

danger but also to ask for help when needed

Digital security

Students should be made aware of potential cyber-attacks and

how to protect their devices and themselves

Note. Ribble’s (2015) nine elements of digital citizenship

These elements provide a lens into one framework for implementing digital citizenship

inside the classroom. Ribble’s (2015) elements of digital citizenship highlight technology use

associated with “learning and academic performance, school environment and student behavior,

and student life outside the school environment” (p. 11). These elements are noted within my

theoretical framework as they provide one lens for interpretating how educators use and

understand the elements of digital citizenship and what role these elements factors into their

integration of the digital citizenship standards, particularly when planning for digital citizenship

content and how that guides their implementation of digital citizenship lessons.

SAFE Model

The Safety Assessment Family Evaluation (SAFE) Model was created in 2018 from

research dedicated to creating an instrument for giving a scale to students’ and teachers’ digital

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

citizenship levels. Kim and Choi (2018) wrote that “existing Digital Citizenship Scales contain

too broad ranges and do not precisely focus on the target students, so teachers do not have clear

criteria for facilitating young people to have digital citizenship” (p. 155). Kim and Choi (2018)

also stated that it is necessary to rework digital citizenship “to the point of establishing the

viewpoints and self-image of the youth in and out of online activities based on tolerance and

respect” (pp. 158-159). The goal of their study was to create a digital citizenship scale based on

the perceptions of educators.

Educators, through classroom instruction and interactions, have a role to play in the

digital citizenship education of students. Kim and Choi (2018) wrote, “Teachers have the most

direct responsibility to educate and guide students in digital citizenship” (p. 156). For this reason,

the researchers created an instrument to measure teacher and student digital citizenship

competency. The model includes “(a) self-identity in digital environment; (b) activity in online

[sic]; (c) fluency for the digital tools; and (d) ethics for digital environment” (Kim & Choi, 2018,

p. 156). Figure 5 provides a visual breakdown of the SAFE framework components.

Figure 5

SAFE Framework Components

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Note: From Development of youth digital citizenship scale and implication for educational

setting. Kim, M., & Choi, D. (2018). Educational Technology & Society, 21 (1), 155–171.

https://doi.org/10.2307/26273877

The SAFE model was designed with teachers in mind. While teachers may recognize the

importance of digital citizenship in their classroom, there is no way to visualize the concept of

digital citizenship except by being in the classroom when the lessons are occurring. The SAFE

framework is supposed to provide teachers with direction for digital citizenship. Kim and Choi

(2018) stated that the model can “be used as a digital citizenship scale for students through

concept analysis” (p. 155). While the nine elements of digital citizenship are rooted in research

and best practices, the SAFE model is based on both student and teacher perceptions of digital

citizenship. See Table 9 for the categories. Much like the 9 elements earlier, the inclusion of the

SAFE framework components provided a comprehensive lens through which I was able analyze

the implementation of digital citizenship standards among teacher participants in my study.

Table 9

SAFE Model Framework Categories

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Self-identity

Building personal values and beliefs in the

digital environment and to protect themselves

from potential risks

Activity in online

Engaging in positive and reasonable activity

and interact with others through rational

decision making

Fluency for digital environment

Using software and hardware to achieve a

variety of goals and keep up with changing

digital environment

Ethics for digital environment

Demonstrating and understanding of and respect

for the rights and obligations of others in digital

environment

Note: Adapted from Kim and Choi, (2018). Development of Youth Digital Citizenship Scale and

Implication for Educational Setting. Educational Technology & Society, 21 (1), 155–171.

Frameworks Summary

The sections above provide insight into the theoretical frameworks that guided this study.

Social constructivism provides the overarching worldview of this study as each individual

participant experiences the phenomenon, digital citizenship, differently. The theory of

connectivism by Siemens (2004) highlights the fast-paced way in which knowledge and

information is gathered and shared. Both Ribble’s (2015) nine elements and Kim and Choi’s

(2018) SAFE framework present action items which provide a lens for analysis of participants’

experiences implementing digital citizenship lessons with their students. In the sections below, I

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

provide a comprehensive review of digital citizenship, a brief history of digital citizenship,

digital citizenship standards, digital citizenship researchers along with other items.

Summary and Conclusions

The literature review in Chapter 2 commenced with an exploration of the beginnings of

digital citizenship research and its evolution. Digital citizenship research has steadily increased

over the past twenty years with heightened emphasis during the last decade (Chen et al., 2021).

Despite the increase in research there are still only two dominate definitions used in research on

digital citizenship. Research focused on education tends to rely on Ribble and Bailey’s (2007)

definition, while research in areas such as law, politics, and government rely on the Mossberger

et al.’s (2008) definition. Within education ISTE has created standards for students, one of which

is digital citizenship. However, the ISTE plan is not a curriculum. Schools typically must choose

a curriculum from several options (Seale & Schoenberger, 2018). While digital citizenship has

been studied in various forms since 1999 (Chen et al., 2021), there has not been a dedicated

study of teachers planning for and implementing a consistent digital citizenship curriculum.

Martin et al. (2019) has written extensively on digital citizenship and has found that more

research should be conducted on educators' digital citizenship practices (2019) as well as

implement studies that focus on teachers’ digital citizenship implementation. Likewise,

Richardson et al. (2021) argued that “more research needs to be conducted on K-12 educators”

(p. 12) following their review of digital citizenship research over the past 15 years.

While this study is situated in the United States, digital citizenship and its implementation

is not only a phenomenon happening in the United States. Around the world countries are

attempting to implement systems to prepare their citizens to be digital citizens. One such

framework resides in the European Union (EU). The EU created a comprehensive program,

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

European Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (European Council, 2016). The

framework has been pushed and is being implemented across Europe at various speeds. The

framework includes a uniform understanding of what it takes to be a digital citizen. In the

framework, a digital citizen should be component in skills and competencies set forth by the

European Council.

The exploration of digital citizenship in this literature review extended to an examination

of the ISTE digital citizenship standards and their historical development from NETS•S to today.

The review then examined the landscape of digital citizenship curriculums, investigating

specifically Common Sense Media’s digital citizenship curriculum.

The section concluded with an exploration of the key frameworks that inform this study.

The overarching framework of the study is that of social constructivism which describes how

human interactions influence the social world and different phenomena (Thomas et al. 2014).

The Theory of Connectivism (Siemens, 2004) highlights the rapid way that information changes

hands. Ribble’s (2015) nine elements of digital citizenship as well as Kim and Choi’s (2018)

SAFE Framework can serve as a starting point for addressing the issue of digital citizenship and

appropriate technology use.

The collective insights from these works contribute to the overall understanding of digital

citizenship as well as presenting gaps in research. What follows in Chapter 3 is an overview of

the qualitative methods approach to further explore this topic.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the experiences of teachers who

implement a digital citizenship curriculum; this chapter will introduce the research methodology.

A qualitative approach allows for a deeper understanding of how teachers experience the

planning and implementing process of digital citizenship curriculum and lessons. By collecting

qualitative data, the results provide a more thorough look at teachers’ behaviors and

understanding than a quantitative study that may only provide results of whether teachers are

presenting digital citizenship standards.

Research Design and Rationale

I decided on a qualitative study because I wanted to explore the complexities of

implementing a digital citizenship curriculum. A qualitative study also allowed me to gain in-

depth insights into my teacher participants experiences, perceptions, and behaviors when it

comes to digital citizenship. Guba and Lincoln (1982) wrote, “qualitative methods are richer and

can deal with phenomena not easily translatable into numbers” (p. 244). A quantitative study

would not have provided the personal details and feelings that a qualitative study would.

Creswell et al. (2007) used the following definition of qualitative research:

Qualitative research begins with assumptions and the use of interpretive/theoretical

frameworks that inform the study of research problems addressing the meaning

individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. To study this problem,

qualitative researchers use an emerging qualitative approach to inquiry, the collection of

data in a natural setting sensitive to the people and places under study, and data analysis

that is both inductive and deductive and establishes patters or themes. The final written

report or presentation includes the voices of participants, the reflexivity of the researcher,

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

a complex description and interpretation of the problem, and its contribution to the

literature or a call for change (p. 8).

Qualitative research works for this study as it focuses on dealing with complex human and social

problems and allows for interpretations that individuals and groups assign to the issues at hand.

Robert Stake (2010) and Glesne (2016) both provide descriptions of qualitative research

that strike at the reasoning for using qualitative methods in this study, which is to answer

questions about the experiences educators have with the delivery of digital citizenship in the

classroom. Robert Stake (2010) wrote that qualitative research relies on “human perception and

understanding” (p. 11). The practice of understanding in research falls in line with the

interpretivism paradigm. Interpretivism has social scientists accessing their participants’

“interpretations of some social phenomenon and of interpreting, themselves, others actions and

intentions” (Glesne, 2016, p. 9). This study involved interviewing teacher participants, observing

teachers teach at least one digital citizenship lesson, and a focus group interview, to interpret the

effects on their classrooms.

The constructivist view asserts that knowledge is not passively received but actively built

by individuals based on their experiences, interactions, and reflections. Social constructions are

formed by examining several members of some group and finding some cultural patterns

(Glesne, 2016). Stake (2010) wrote of two realities that exist at the same time, one being of

personal experiences and the other of a “group and societal relationship” (p. 18). In the case of

this study, participants experience a similar lesson in their own classrooms; however, their

personal experiences in this implementation process may differ from the rest of the group.

Research Tradition

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

I used a qualitative phenomenography research tradition as described by Marton (1981),

which, much like Stake (2010), looks for differences in how individuals experience a shared

phenomenon. In this case, the phenomenon under study was teacher delivery of digital

citizenship curriculum and skills. I used a phenomenography research tradition for several

reasons. In a phenomenography study, according to Marton (1981), the researcher “orients

themselves towards people’s ideas about the world or their experiences of it and the researcher

makes statements about people’s ideas about the world” (p. 178). Phenomenology and

phenomenography are two different research traditions. Larson and Holmström (2007) described

the differences thusly, “Phenomenography, denotes a research tradition aiming at describing the

different ways a group of people understand a phenomenon [Marton, 1981], whereas

phenomenology, aims to clarify the structure and meaning of a phenomenon [Giorgi, 1999]” (p.

55). This research tradition aims at identifying and interrogating the range of different ways in

which people perceive or experience specific phenomena (typically learning, teaching or aspects

thereof). A phenomenography researcher “considers that to find out the different ways in which

people experience, interpret, understand, apprehend, perceive or conceptualize various aspects of

reality is sufficiently interesting in itself” (Marton, 1981, p. 178). The researcher must

“investigate” a problem because “the answer cannot be derived from what we know” (Marton,

1981, p. 178). This phenomenographical study attempted to identify the different ways in which

educators prepare for and implement digital citizenship content. I used this research tradition for

several reasons. In a phenomenography study, according to Marton (1981), the researcher

“orients themselves towards people’s ideas about the world or their experiences of it, and the

researcher makes statements about people’s ideas about the world” (p. 178). This research

tradition aims at identifying and interrogating the range of different ways in which people

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

perceive or experience specific phenomena (typically learning, teaching or aspects thereof). A

phenomenography researcher “considers that to find out the different ways in which people

experience, interpret, understand, apprehend, perceive, or conceptualize various aspects of reality

is sufficiently interesting in itself” (Marton, 1981, p. 178). The researcher must “investigate” a

problem because “the answer cannot be derived from what we know” (Marton, 1981, p. 178).

This phenomenographical study attempted to identify the different ways in which educators

prepare for and implement digital citizenship content.

The most common form of data collection in a phenomenographic study is that of

interviews (Han & Ellis, 2019; Stenfors-Hayes et al., 2013). Participants’ perceptions of the topic

at hand come from in-depth semi-structured interviews. Stenfors-Hayes et al. (2013) noted that it

is important in semi-structured interviews for the participants to respond freely and explore the

phenomenon. Participants should be allowed time to ponder their answers and understand that

there are no right and wrong answers, as prescribed by Stenfors-Hayes et al. (2013).

While observation is not used as often in phemonographic studies, it does serve a purpose

for these types of studies (Han & Ellis, 2019). Han and Ellis (2019) wrote that observations can

be “used to reflect how people perceive a phenomenon through what they act upon” (p.

3). Using observation and interviews works in a phenomographic study. Lam (2017) wrote “the

original idea of phenomenography was not that restrictive, and promoted a variety of data

collection methods for investigating people’s ways of seeing” (p. 172). A reason for using

phenomenography is the ability to use multiple research tools to collect data in several ways.

Given the small number of participants available for this research study, a phenomenographic

study made sense for several reasons. First, it afforded a depth of understanding that can come

from this type of study (Åkerlind, 2005). Small groups enable a researcher to allocate more time

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

and attention to each participant, allowing for a more thorough exploration of their unique

perspectives and insights, as well as rich data collection opportunities. Additionally, working

with fewer participants creates a manageable data analysis opportunity, enabling analysis and

interpretation of the findings doable. Phenomenographic analysis involves identifying patterns

and categories of experience, and a smaller sample size facilitates a more in-depth exploration of

these categories. Finally, there is enhanced rapport and trust. Working with a small group allows

researchers to build stronger rapport and trust with participants.

Below, in Figure 6, is a visual depiction that illustrates both the reasoning behind

conducting a phenomenographic study and the study's overarching framework.

Figure 6

Visual Representation of the Key Components of the Phenomenography Developed Using

Hopscotch (Jorrín-Abellán, 2016, 2019)

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Role of the Researcher

As the researcher in this study, I attempted to access the experiences of my participants. I

sought to understand how teacher participants prepared to deliver digital citizenship content. To

achieve this goal, I knew I would need to act as a participant observer throughout the process.

Participant observation “combines participation in the lives of the people being studied with

maintenance of a professional distance that allows adequate observation and recording of data”

(Fetterman, 1998, p. 45). To maintain the level of distance needed I knew I would not want to

take part in my teacher participants’ delivery of content and would only seek to discuss the

lesson afterwards via an in-depth interview process.

As a researcher that is concerned about the digital world students are entering, there are

biases I bring as a researcher. As a teacher and as a father, I have a personal stake in preparing

my students and children for digital interactions. To that end, I try to monitor my children’s

online interactions, as do many other parents. Even students with the most diligent parents can

fall victim to online scams and scammers. This begs the question, what is happening to students

without the support of watchful parents and what role should schools be playing?

I recognize that I place more of an emphasis on digital citizenship than other teachers

with whom I work mainly due to my concerns for my children and students. Additionally, I

believe that becoming a digital citizen is almost as important as some of the content standards

that are taught. I understand that personal bias often leads the researcher to subconsciously find

results that suit their research topic. From the analyzation of work and discovery of trends that

support their agenda to reporting the findings in such a manner that best fits their agenda,

research manipulation can and does happen. Creswell and Creswell (2018) suggest self-reflection

that “creates an open and honest narrative” (p. 200). As such, throughout the research process, I

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

made a commitment to constantly check work, my findings, and myself and to reflect on the

conclusions reported in my findings.

Research Setting and Context

The setting of this research study was a single high school in McCoy County

(pseudonym) Public Schools (MCPS) in the southeast portion of the United States. The school

district is one of the largest in the state with several high schools maintaining student enrollment

of over 3,000 students. All schools in the MCPS district have an abundance of technology, such

as laptops, cameras, and recording equipment, readily available for teachers to check out and

integrate into their classrooms for instructional purposes, and the district went to a 1:1 model in

fall 2022, when all students received a Chromebook. Prior to the global pandemic, most students

used phones and other smart devices to complete class work that required internet access and

very few brought tablets, laptops, or some other device. Directly after the COVID-19 school shut

down, McCoy County incorporated a HyFlex (Beatty, 2019) learning environment, which

involved a mix of face-to-face and digital students at the same time. During this time most

students would bring and rely on a device other than their phone, such as a laptop or tablet. Local

schools decide their own technology policy and, within the local school governance, most leave

that up to the individual teachers. Despite every student having their own Chromebook, the use

of this technology for classroom purposes varies. Teachers may work to incorporate activities

that call for student technology use on a regular basis while others rely on more traditional

methods (e.g., lecture, book work) to convey knowledge.

Ryne Sandberg (pseudonym) High School (RSHS) is the site for this study. While each

school in MCPS is different, RSHS can serve as a snapshot of what a school looks like in this

district. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), RSHS served 2,771

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

students for the 2021/2022 school year, with 147 teachers and over 200 staff members. The

student population is very diverse at RSHS, with African Americans making up 33.34% of the

population, followed by Hispanics at 31.6%, Caucasian at 18.2%, and Asians at 11.9% (NCES,

2023). According to school data, the staff population is not quite as diverse as the students with

78.6% of teachers being Caucasian, 13.3% African American, 6% Hispanic, and 2% Asian.

NCES reports that the school has 11.4% of the student population that qualifies for the free lunch

program. The teaching staff at RSHS is a diverse staff when reviewing service years and

education levels. Of the 147 teachers working at RSHS, according to NCES and according to

school data 71% of the staff hold an advanced degree.

MCPS has digital citizenship standards in place but relies on the local schools to

implement digital citizenship at their discretion. See Table 10 for the MCPS digital citizenship

standards.

Table 10

McCoy County Public Schools Digital Citizenship Standards

MCPS Standard

Descriptor

Digital Citizen Identity

Ability to build and manage a healthy identity

online and offline with integrity

Privacy Management

Ability to handle with discretion all personal

information shared online to protect one’s and

others’ privacy

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Critical Thinking

Ability to distinguish between true and false

info, good and harmful content, and trustworthy

and questionable contacts online

Digital Footprints

Ability to understand the nature of digital

footprints and their real-life consequences and

to manage them responsibly

Digital Empathy

Ability to be empathetic towards one’s own and

others’ needs and feelings online

With a large district like MCPS, the implementation of digital citizenship can and does

vary from school to school and amongst the different levels of schools. Many local high schools,

RSHS included, build digital citizenship lessons along with other non-academic lessons into their

“homeroom” sessions and teach these lessons once a week.

RSHS began implementing the homeroom style advisement period in the 2016/2017

school year. At that time the period was more of a study hall, where students had free reign over

the time. During the 2017/2018 school year RSHS began a revamping of that time and asked

teachers to implement a more structured time for students. A committee of local teachers was

formed to create a structure for homeroom time. The plan the committee came up with was to

designate each of the days of the week for some type of student learning or activity. For

example, Mondays were and are reading days where students are expected to read subject matter

of their choice during this time. Wednesdays were and are designated for lessons for students.

The committee mapped out each Wednesday of the school year and provided lessons for teachers

to implement, including the digital citizenship curriculum provided by Common Sense Media,

along with required items from the county.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Despite the responsibility of teaching digital citizenship lessons, teachers at RSHS do not

receive specific guidance or training to teach the required standards. The advisement committee

creates a “live” Google doc that is updated with the advisement schedule each week. The

Wednesday lesson is linked in this document for teachers to access. Teachers are asked to access

the document on a regular basis for news and notes about the advisement time. Along with the

scheduled lesson from the committee, teachers have access to the library of digital citizenship

lessons through Nearpod that they can present to students. Nearpod is an educational technology

platform that allows teachers to create and deliver interactive lessons. Nearpod contains a library

of premade lessons as well, which is where the Common Sense Media digital citizenship content

is housed. It is up to each individual teacher to review and prepare to teach the lessons. Teachers

are not trained on the lessons during preplanning nor are there training sessions during the school

year to provide resources for teaching digital citizenship.

Teachers are minimally held accountable for whether they present these lessons or not

and how much time they spend on the lesson with students. School administrators do have the

capability to view summarized data regarding Nearpod teacher usage. Furthermore, they can

access post-session reports from any teacher's lesson. These reports trigger administrators to send

follow up emails to those teachers that are either partially completing the lessons or not

completing the lessons at all. These data reports are also shared with the entire administrative

team. While presentation data is followed and reported, there are no scores or data to analyze to

show that students are mastering digital citizenship. Teachers have not been asked to incorporate

digital citizenship into their content areas, instead teachers decide individually whether to build

digital items into their content areas. As of now, there has not been a push by the administration

at RSHS to incorporate digital citizenship standards in class content.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Site Selection

I selected MCPS and RSHS for several reasons. A key reason for identifying RSPS as the

main research site is due to its requirement that digital citizenship standards must be taught, and

a curriculum was in place. While there were other sites in MCPS, they were not guaranteed to

offer the digital citizenship curriculum like RSHS, as digital citizenship implementation is left up

to local schools. Additionally, RSHS resides within MCPS, which serves as my current district

assignment. By working within the same district as the teacher participants, the familiarity with

the district's digital citizenship expectations engenders trust between the researcher and the

teacher participants. Baier (1986) wrote that trust “is accepted vulnerability to another’s possible

but not expected ill will (or lack of good will) toward one” (p. 235). Participants needed to feel

that the researcher had no ill will when discussing and observing digital citizenship delivery

practices in their classrooms. Jones (2012) wrote of the goodwill and trust that is “found in

friendship or good collegial relations” (p. 67) that can only exist with participants and

researchers that have a prior relationship. While not every participant would have a prior

relationship with the researcher, there was a level of comfort in knowing that the researcher

works in the district and is facing the same classroom issues as the participants. Finally, the

school has a diverse staff, demographically. Of the 150 staff members at RSHS, minority

representation accounts for 21% of the staff.

Participant Recruitment

To select participants, I used purposive sampling, specifically criterion sampling.

Phenomenographical studies such as this usually include six to ten participants. Palys (2008)

wrote to “engage in purposive sampling signifies that one sees sampling as a series of strategic

choices about with whom, where, and how one does one’s research” (p. 697). Criterion

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

sampling, “involves searching for cases or individuals who meet a certain criterion” (Palys,

2008, p. 697). The criterion in this case was that high school educators at the selected site

location take part in digital citizenship content delivery to describe what goes into the planning

for and implementing of digital citizenship standards. The study included six full-time teachers

across differing curriculums at RSHS. Prior to being chosen as a participant I did confirm that

the participants actively plan for and deliver the digital citizenship content.

After obtaining approval from the Kennesaw State University Institutional Review Board

(IRB) to initiate the study, I proceeded to engage with the principal of RSHS. Within the McCoy

County Public Schools (MCPS), local principals hold the authority to approve research requests

from teachers within their respective locales. I successfully arranged a meeting with the

principal, during which I presented and discussed my research plan, ultimately securing approval

to conduct the intended research study at RSHS. Once all approvals were official, a letter of

invitation (Appendix A) was sent via email on Monday, April 17, 2023, to the entire faculty and

staff introducing the details of my study as well as asking for participants. The email went out to

a total of 224 staff members, 150 of them as certified teachers. Of the 150 teachers who received

the email, six teachers reached out to me with interest in participating in the study.

Participant Selection

The members of the study were selected from the responses to the email previously

mentioned and the follow-up face-to-face meetings I had with each one. I received a response

from one teacher right away expressing her interest and scheduled a face-to-face meeting to

discuss details of the study. After this meeting, she agreed to participate and was given an

informed consent form (Appendix B). Over the next two days, four teachers reached out to me

and expressed an interest in participating. I followed up with each teacher individually to fully

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

explain the details of the study. After the individual meetings, each person agreed to participate

and was provided with the informed consent forms. The last teacher who expressed interest in

the study communicated with me on Monday, April 21, 2023, for a total of six full-time teacher

participants across differing curriculums at RSHS. Prior to being chosen as a participant, I did

confirm that the participants actively planned for and delivered digital citizenship content.

Participant Consent

Upon acceptance into the study, participants were provided consent forms for their

review and signature. The consent forms consisted of a description of the project, an explanation

of the process, along with potential risks, and benefits, a confidentiality agreement, an informed

consent form, and the option to opt out of the study. A copy of the signed consent form was kept

on record for the entirety of the study.

Participants Portrayal

The teacher participants in this study were all members of the faculty at RSHS in MCPS.

Five of the six participants were female. Three participants teach social studies, one teaches

Language Arts, one is a special education teacher, and one is a media specialist. Each participant

teaches classes ranging in size from five up to thirty-nine students. Teacher participants ranged

in age from 26 to 60, with experiences in education ranging from a first-year teacher to 25 years.

The names listed below are pseudonyms provided to protect the identity of the participants.

1. Ray is 43 and a white male teacher. He teaches social studies with 18 years of experience

and has a master’s degree. His classes consist of mostly 10th grade students. His

advisement class was only 10th grade students.

2. Rachel is 26 and a white female teacher. She is in her first full year as a teacher, having

been a mid-year hire the previous year. She has a bachelor’s degree in education. She

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

teaches social studies with classes consisting of 10th graders and 12th graders. Her

advisement class was all 12th grade students.

3. Amy is 55 and a white female teacher. She is in her 5th year of teaching and teaching is

her second career as she started off in the corporate world. She holds a master’s degree.

She teaches 11th grade Language Arts throughout the day. Her advisement class was all

11th grade students.

4. Melissa is 40 and a white female teacher. She is in her 14th year of teaching. She holds a

specialist degree. Her main role is that of the media specialist, but she teaches several

periods per day of library science. The library science courses have a mix of 11th and 12th

grade students.

5. Tonya is 60 and a white female teacher. She is in her 25th year of teaching. She holds a

doctorate degree. Her school day splits time between social studies and special education

classes. She teaches both 10th grade classes and 12th grade classes. Her advisement was

made up of 12th grade students.

6. Victoria is 52 and a white female teacher. She is in her 7th year of teaching. She holds a

bachelor’s degree. She is a special education teacher with a focus on life skills for her

students. Her students are a mix of 10th, 11th, and 12th graders.

Table 11 provides a breakdown of the participants, their age, gender, race, and years of teaching

experience.

Table 11

Demographic Table of the Participants

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Pseudonym

Age

Gender

Race

Years of

Teaching

Experience

Ray

Male

Caucasian

Rachel

Female

Caucasian

Amy

Female

Caucasian

Melissa

Female

Caucasian

Tonya

Female

Caucasian

Victoria

Female

Caucasian

Ray, age 43, has the most experience teaching at RSHS specifically of any of the

participants, having been at the school for 14 of his 18 years in education. He taught for four

years in a school system that would be considered rural as opposed to the more suburban RSHS.

He has a master’s degree in an educational field that he obtained six years into his teaching

career. His teaching day consists of all advanced level social studies classes for 9th and 10th

graders; he is also a team lead for his subject matter. Having been at the school for so many

years, Ray’s career extended into the early efforts that MCPS and RSHS made to teach digital

citizenship when it concentrated on reducing cyberbullying and staying safe online.

Rachel, age 26, is the youngest of the participants and has the least experience as a

teacher. She was hired at RSHS in late February of the 2021/2022 school year as a social studies

teacher. Her current schedule consists of all 10th grade social studies. At the time of the study, she

taught 10th-grade classes and 12th-grade classes. She has a bachelor’s degree in education with

plans to go back for advanced degrees.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Amy, age 55, is the second oldest participant, but she has the second least amount of

teaching experience. Teaching is her second career, as she comes from the corporate world. Her

teaching day consists of Language Arts for 11th grade students all day. Also of note, she had just

been awarded the instructional coordinator position for the Language Arts department as the data

collection process concluded.

Melissa, age 40, is in the middle of her teaching career and has been at RSHS for five

years working as a media specialist. Earlier in her career, she taught elementary school at a

school in MCPS system before becoming a media specialist at RSHS. She is not the traditional

librarian, though, as she teaches several classes of library sciences throughout the school day.

Her schedule does not afford an advisement period due to an influx of students in the media

center during lunches; however, she presented her lesson to one of her classes during a

traditional 50-minute session. Her perspective comes from a media literacy standpoint and that is

what her observed lesson focused on.

Tonya, age 60, has the most overall teaching experience of all the participants, having

taught for 25 years, mostly in MCPS, with some time out of state as well. Her career began in

Florida before moving to Georgia and MCPS. She began teaching in MCPS at RSHS before

moving to another school in the district for a brief time and then moving back to RSHS. She also

has the most education, having obtained a doctorate earlier in her career. Tonya’s school day is

spent with a mix of 10th grade and 12th grade social studies classes and teachers. Tonya is

certified as a special education and social studies teacher and team teaches during two of her

class periods. Team teachers work with students that might have special needs in a regular

education classroom. The rest of the other periods that Tonya teaches are her own class.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Victoria, age 52, has only been teaching for seven years and this was her first year at

RSHS as she spent the first six years of her career at a middle school in the MCPS system. She is

a special education teacher, and she spends most of her day with a group of five students. Her

class is considered life skills and students participate in various daily tasks throughout the day.

For example, during the 2022/2023 school year, Victoria started a mail delivery system where

her students check the teacher mail room and deliver any mail to teachers that have opted into

the program. She teaches her digital citizenship lessons to her students during a traditional 50-

minute class instead of the advisement period.

Data Collection

Data collection for this study consisted of two in-depth interviews with the participating

teachers for a total of 12 interviews, observation of participants’ digital citizenship lesson

delivery, and a focus group session with participants. In this study, I conducted a total of twelve

semi-structured in-depth interviews (one pre-lesson delivery and one post-lesson delivery), six

observations of participants presenting digital citizenship lessons, and one focus group interview

with four of the participants. Interviews are an important part of a phemonographic study as I

was trying to understand the different conceptions my participant have about digital citizenship.

Sin (2010) wrote a phemonographic study “explores participants' experiences and identifies their

conceptual meanings of the phenomenon of interest” (p. 306). Given that interviews comprised a

large part of the data collection process, I was able to fully explore the participants’ feelings and

experiences. For recording and transcribing Otter.ai (Otter.ai, 2021) were used. Otter.ai is

software that transcribes conversations as the conversation is happening (Otter.ai, 2021). Otter.ai

also categorizes words that are repeated in an interview.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Interview Process

The initial set of interviews involved five sessions held in the participants' classroom

during their planning period or after school hours, with one interview conducted via Zoom.

During this, the participant was in their classroom alone, engaging in a discussion of the

interview questions. The duration of these initial interviews varied from 15 to 40 minutes. The

interview questions underwent multiple revisions, with the initial draft subjected to peer review

involving teachers not involved in the study, which aided in identifying and rectifying issues

related to question clarity and relevance. The interview protocol is available in Appendix C.

Subsequently, the second round of interviews all occurred in person within the

participants' classrooms, again during their planning periods or after school. The interview

protocol for this round is detailed in Appendix D, following a similar vetting process to the

questions in Appendix C. These interviews were shorter, lasting from 12 to 26 minutes. These

sessions allowed for a discussion of the lesson delivery after the initial interview, providing an

opportunity to delve into the planning process and the participants' feelings during lesson

delivery.

Observation Process

Along with semi-structured interviews, I also observed participants teaching a digital

citizenship lesson. In order to gather this data and ensure the trustworthiness of the observations,

I developed an observation protocol based on the work of Creswell (2016). See Appendix E for

the field observation protocol. By using this structured method, I was able to obtain a more

comprehensive understanding of digital citizenship implementation by my participants. Marshall

and Rossman (1989) defined observation as “the systematic description of events, behaviors, and

artifacts in the social setting chosen for study” (p. 79). Erlandson et al. (1993) described

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

observations as allowing researchers to describe situations and events with the senses. The

observations in this study allowed for an in-depth analysis of my participants' experiences.

The six field observations took place over the course of a two-week period and each

observation occurred in the participant’s classroom. Four of the participants had an advisement

period, which is a 30-minute period paired with the students’ lunchtime. Students either begin

this period in their classroom for academic support (e.g., prepared lessons, remediation) and then

depart for lunch or the students begin with lunch and then head to their advisement period.

Among my participants, four followed the aforementioned advisement schedule, while the other

two participants, due to being a self-contained special education class and library science class,

taught the lesson to one of their full length (53 minute) classes. The time spent in the classroom

varied due to each teacher picking a different lesson. The longest observation was just less than

an hour at 52 minutes while the shortest was 15 minutes. During the observation, I positioned

myself to focus on the teacher participant and their actions only. While student voices and

discussions were a part of each lesson, they were not the focal point of the observation or study.

Table 12 provides a brief overview of the lesson presentations for each participant.

Table 12

Participant lesson overview

Participant

Lesson Topic

Number of

students

Length of lesson

Ray

College bound

30 minutes (incomplete)

Rachel

Digital footprints

15 minutes (complete)

Amy

College bound

30 minutes (incomplete)

Melissa

Media bias

52 minutes (incomplete)

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Tonya

Does it matter who has your data

17 minutes (complete)

Victoria

Good and bad of Tik Tok

35 minutes (complete)

Focus Group Process

For the final portion of data collection, I used a focus group made up of four of the

teacher participants. Two of the six participants were unable to make it to the meeting on the date

that was scheduled. Like the interview questions, my focus group questions were piloted by a

group of teachers not involved in the study. Their feedback revealed issues with questions of

open-endedness and relevance. I made necessary changes, resulting in the questions found in

Appendix F. Beck et al. (1986) defined a focus group as “an informal discussion among selected

individuals about specific topics” (p. 73). Wilkson (1998) wrote that focus groups involve

“group discussions, in which participants focus collectively upon a topic selected by the

researcher and presented to them as a set of questions” (p. 182). According to Folch-Lyon and

Trost, focus groups are a valuable resource for gaining insights into the “determinants of

behavior” (1981, p. 443) and they are “helpful in answering questions of how and, in particular,

why people behave as they do” (p. 443). By using a focus group in this study, I was able to

gather deeper insights into digital citizenship and the curriculum as the participants were able to

build off each other’s thoughts and experiences that impacted their behavior.

While the focus group is a valuable tool in collecting data and worked for this study there

are limitations associated with them. Focus groups need a skilled facilitator that is able to guide

the discussion and keep it on track (Leung & Savithiri, 2009; Ochieng et al., 2018). Ochieng et

al. (2018) additionally wrote of the need for an assistant when attempting to facilitate a focus

group; however, an assistant was not present during the focus group portion of this study.

Wilkinson (1998) wrote about the potential for personal information to be revealed and shared

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

outside of the focus group conversation, despite a researcher’s best efforts to warn against the

sharing of details from the focus group it is up to the group participants. Additionally, Wilkinson

(1998) discussed “collective sense-making” (p. 195) where participants sort out their ideas

together. If a few participants can bend the group’s collective sense making to their own

perspectives, is it truly the group’s combined efforts? While focus groups can and do have

limitations, the group discussion that was a part of this study provided important insight into the

group’s perceptions of digital citizenship.

The focus group discussion took place after the individual interviews and observations

were conducted. The interview took place after school in a classroom of one of the participants

and lasted 32 minutes. During the focus group, I facilitated the discussion, encouraged

participant engagement, and provided guidelines, emphasizing the importance of confidentiality.

Participants had the chance to share their thoughts on every question, with only a few questions

left unaddressed by each participant toward the end. The focus group process served as a

valuable platform for gathering insights and perspectives from my participants. I was able to dig

into the main topics of my research. The participants actively engaged in discussions, sharing

their experiences and viewpoints.

Data analysis

Qualitative research involves the analysis of non-numerical data. Creswell and Poth

(2018) describe a process of organizing one’s data for analysis, reducing that data down to

manageable units through coding, and then representing the findings. Creswell and Poth (2018)

describe this process as a data analysis spiral. See Figure 7 for a visual of the data analysis

spiral.

Figure 7

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Creswell and Poth’s data analysis spiral

Figure 7. Data analysis spiral. From Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design (p. 186), by J.

Publications.

The spiral is a systematic approach used to analyze research data. It involves several

iterative stages that allow researchers to refine their analysis and gain deeper insights from the

data. The spiral nature of this process implies that researchers revisit and refine their analysis

iteratively, building upon their previous findings. The first step is data collection which I

described earlier in this chapter. In the section below I will discuss the steps I went through using

the data analysis spiral.

Data Analysis Process

As described earlier, this study had three primary sources of data: individual interviews,

observations, and a focus group interview. The examination of these data sources allowed for a

description of the lived experiences of the teachers experienced the phenomenon under study

(Marton, 1981). Tomaszewski et al. (2020) stated that within phenomenological studies, to

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

analyze the data, a researcher should “focus on what participants said while describing the

phenomenon” (p. 4). As it pertains to this study, the phenomenon I sought to examine was

teacher experiences of implementing a digital citizenship curriculum.

The recordings of the interviews in this study were uploaded into and transcribed by

Otter.ai. I first read through the transcripts and then read through the transcripts a second time

while listening to the audio recordings. I did this to verify that the transcripts from Otter.ai were

accurate. This detailed comparison showed that the transcription from Otter.ai was fairly

accurate, with minor edits needed. A similar process was used for the observations. The

transcripts were loaded into Atlas.ti’s web version. This process is in line with the data analysis

spiral’s first step which is managing and organizing the data (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The

transcripts were also printed and as prescribed by Gonzalez (2010) and Sjöström and Dahlgren

(2002) in their process for a phenomenography study, read and reread. The multiple reading of

the transcripts was to be sure I was familiar with the data I was working with.

The second step of the data analysis spiral is that of reading and memoing emergent ideas

(Creswell & Poth, 2018). As I read the transcripts this time, I began making notes and memos of

my thoughts on what I was reading. Memoing in qualitative research plays a vital role by helping

the researcher transition from the raw data collected during research activities to the

development of abstract concepts and explanations that shed light on the phenomena being

studied within their specific research context (Birks et al., 2008). Creswell and Poth (2018) wrote

that the process of reading the text and memoing “allows the researcher to build a sense of the

data as a whole without getting caught up in the details of coding” (p 188). This step of the data

analysis spiral also falls in line with that of the Gonzalez (2010) and Sjöström and Dahlgren

(2002) process’s second step which is compilation.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

The third step of the data analysis spiral is that of describing and classifying codes into

themes (Creswell & Poth, 2018). According to Creswell and Poth (2018) coding involves

“aggregating the text or visual data into small categories of information, seeking evidence for the

code from different databases being used in a study, and then assigning a label to the code” (p.

190). Tomaszewski et al. (2020) called this classification “meaning units” (p. 5) or portions of

the data that give meaning to the phenomenon. During this first round of coding, I used in vivo

coding, defined as “names that are the exact words used by participants” (Creswell & Poth, 2018,

p.193). According to Stringer (2014), this allows a researcher to “capture the meanings inherent

of people’s experience” (p. 140).

During the initial coding process, I assigned 56 total codes. See Figure 8 for a visual of

the early coding categories from Atlas.ti web version.

Figure 8

Portion of coded categories image from Atlas.ti web version

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

The codes were then assigned to quotes from the interviews within the Atlas.ti program. See

Figure 9 below for an example of a quotation and codes.

Figure 9

Quotation paired with code from Atlas.ti web version

This step of the data spiral process coincides with the condensation step of Gonzalez

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

(2010) and Sjöström and Dahlgren (2002) as I was able to begin deducing central elements from

my participants’ answers. This also falls in line with Tomaszewski et al.’s (2020) third step of

transforming “meaning units into central themes by making what is implicit explicit and making

some generalizations” (p. 5) as I began to group the codes during this step as well. The grouping

led to four emergent categories that I ended up naming. These categories were digital citizenship

definition, curriculum, challenges, and concerns. At this point, I finalized my codebook. See

Appendix G for the codebook.

Under the emergent category of digital citizenship definition, I assigned the following

codes: critical thinking, digital citizen, digital ethics, digital safety, media literacy, and privacy.

Under the curriculum category, I assigned the following codes: data privacy, digital behaviors,

digital ethics, digital safety, education, responsibilities, structure, and suggestions. Under the

challenges category, I assigned the following codes: barriers, frustration, lacking, parenting, time

management, and workload. The final category, concerns, had the following codes: bullying,

career planning, cyberbullying, data privacy, digital behaviors, internet safety, lacking, mental

health, parenting, planning, privacy, structure, and suggestions. See Figure 10 below for a visual

representation of four final categories.

Figure 10

Visual representation of the final categories

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

I analyzed the codes and came up with the common themes about teacher participants’

perceptions of digital citizenship along with their thoughts on the implementation of the digital

citizenship curriculum. I looked for ways in which teacher participants perceived and defined

digital citizenship and what influenced those perceptions. The data was analyzed to develop an

understanding of how the teacher participants experienced the implementation of a digital

citizenship curriculum and if there were any shared experiences. I looked at the challenges that

the teacher participants shared when it comes to both digital citizenship in general as well as

those challenges that come with implementing a digital citizenship curriculum. Finally, I

analyzed the concerns that the teacher participants shared, both about students and about the

teaching of digital citizenship.

This ultimate analysis corresponds to the concluding phase within the iterative process of

the data analysis spiral (Creswell & Poth, 2018) of representing and visualizing the data, the

process as recommended by Tomaszewski et al. (2020) of discovering the “essence of the

phenomenon” (p.5), as well as the outcome space advocated by Gonzalez (2010) and Sjöström

and Dahlgren (2002). The results allow for an educated assessment as to where teachers stand

when it comes to their students’ digital lives, interactions with digital citizenship, and

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

implementing a digital citizenship curriculum. Each teacher participant experienced the delivery

of digital citizenship content in a different way. According to Sin (2010), that is to be expected in

this type of study. All teacher participants in this study discussed digital citizenship skills and

practices. Analyzing the interviews and observations helped in identifying themes, patterns, and

relationships among the data.

Ethical Considerations

Research studies that involve human participants should be carefully planned and

conducted. This careful preparation is to ensure fair and ethical treatment of the teacher

participants. Below is a description of the steps I took to keep this study fair and safe.

Strategies to Ensure Trustworthiness

Glesne (2016) wrote that trustworthiness is about “alertness to the quality and rigor of a

study, about what sorts of criteria can be used to assess how well the research was carried out”

(p. 53). Glesne draws on the work of Lincoln and Guba (1985) for the strategies to ensure

trustworthiness. I used the following strategies from Glesne, as well as Lincoln and Guba to

ensure my study’s trustworthiness:

1. Prolonged engagement and persistent observation – Glesne (2016) stated that “Time

observing, participating, conversing, and building sound relationships all contribute to

data that are more trustworthy” (pp. 153-154). Time spent with my participants in the

interview process, observations, and focus group was vital to ensuring the trustworthiness

of my study. Data collection was one part of the time component as I spent at least 90

minutes with each participant collecting data; as a faculty member within the district who

also was tasked with teaching digital citizenship lessons at the high school level, there

was a shared rapport which fostered additional trust.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

2. Multiple data sources – This involves using multiple data-collection methods and

multiple sources to capture a complex perspective (Glesne, 2016). In this study, I used

interviews with the participants, observations of their digital citizenship curriculum

delivery, and a focus group interview. While using multiple data collection sources

cannot ensure trustworthiness it should contribute to and demonstrate the rigor of my

study.

3. Rich, thick description – Glesne (2016) writes that descriptive notes help the researcher

notice more. The rich and thick description goes hand and hand with the prolonged

engagement and persistent observations, because, as in order to take the required notes, a

researcher must spend sufficient time with a subject. Over the course of my study, I spent

between 90 and 120 minutes with each participant. Thick descriptions of extensive length

“allows readers to understand the basis for the claims” (Glesne, 2016, p. 153).

4. Member checking – Stake (2010) wrote that member checking is “presenting a recording

or draft copy of an observation or interview to the persons providing the information and

asking for correction and comment” (p. 126). As a part of this study all transcripts were

read thoroughly several times by me, and participants also were provided the opportunity

to read over their transcripts. By asking participants to check the transcripts, the

researcher can check for understanding and ask for clarification as needed (Glesne,

2016). No participant felt it necessary to check their interview transcripts.

5. Clarification of researcher bias and subjectivity – Glesne (2016) stated that a researcher

should “Reflect upon how your theoretical perspectives, values, and commitments lead

you to behave and interpret in particular ways” (p. 153). I set aside time for reflection

after the interviews and field observations to think about what I had heard and seen. This

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

was done to attempt to analyze data with an unbiased mind. Interview questions were

asked in an open-ended format so as to encourage the participant to answer openly and

honestly and not be able to just agree or disagree with a question.

6. Audit trail – Glesne (2016) recommended, “saving and organizing all documents related

to one’s research” (p. 53). I stored original data files in a secure university-based server

(Office 365 through my affiliation with Kennesaw State University) and used Atlas.ti as

the source to conglomerate all notes, transcripts, codes, etc. I also used my password

protected laptop to store recordings and data.

In summary, the study followed several methodological strategies to ensure its

trustworthiness and rigor. First, the approach emphasized prolonged engagement, as advocated

by Glesne (2016), involving persistent observation and extensive time spent with participants

during interviews, observations of digital citizenship curriculum delivery, and focus group

sessions. This deliberate investment, typically spending 90 to 120 minutes with each participant,

fostered trust and rapport due to the shared role as a high school educator, contributing to richer

data. Secondly, the study employed multiple data sources—interviews, observations, and focus

group data. While not a guarantee, this approach aimed to bolster the study's credibility.

Furthermore, thick and rich descriptions were recorded, enabling a comprehensive understanding

of the claims made in the research. Member checking, a practice advocated by Stake (2010), was

implemented, allowing participants the opportunity to review their transcripts, contributing to

data accuracy and understanding. Additionally, the study addressed researcher bias and

subjectivity by prompting self-reflection post-interviews and by framing questions in an open-

ended format, encouraging candid responses. Lastly, an audit trail was maintained through

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

secure storage of data files on university-based servers and password-protected devices, aligning

with Glesne's (2016) recommendation to meticulously organize all research-related documents.

Ethical Principles and Procedures

Creswell and Poth (2018) wrote of three principles that guide ethical research: respect for

persons, concern for welfare, and justice. Stake (2010) focused on privacy with rules to diminish

intrusion and holds the researcher responsible for keeping the participants safe. Glesne (2016)

cited the Belmont Report from (1978) and its three ethical principles for research with human

subjects: respect, beneficence, and justice. Obviously, there is no shortage of ethical principles to

choose from; however, I used Glesne (2016) and the Belmont Report (1979) along with some of

Stake’s (2010) rules to diminish intrusion.

The first principle of the Belmont Report is voluntary and informed consent. Participants

have a right to know and understand the purposes of and procedures of the proposed study and

should then volunteer to participate (Glesne, 2016). Voluntary consent forms have some issues

such as a change of plans in a long-term study or who all should sign a consent; however, due to

the length of my study and the number of observations, a one-time voluntary consent form

sufficed for this study (Glesne, 2016). As Glesne (2016) stated, informed consent “should

disclose potential participants all the information necessary for them to make intelligent

decisions about participation” (p. 161). I provided my potential participants all the necessary

information both orally and in written format, and once they agreed to participate, both my

participants and I signed the written form. Stake (2010), in his rules to diminish intrusion

includes that a termination process should be clear, and participants informed of how to exit a

study. It was made clear to my participants that they could exit the study at any point.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

The next principle in the Belmont Report is that of beneficence or privacy. The focus is

protecting participants’ rights to privacy by attempting to ensure that researchers do not ask

questions of a sensitive nature that could invade a participant’s privacy and cause harm (Glesne,

2016). The questions posed during participant interviews were not sensitive in nature;

however, two participants chose to share private information about themselves and their families

(a family member’s attempted suicide and a family member’s substance abuse battle). Stake

(2010) wrote that researchers need to “get close enough” to understand personal experiences but

“stay far enough away” so that privacy is maintained (p. 208). I believe the teacher participants

trusted me enough to have an open and honest discussion about digital citizenship and their

digital citizenship lesson delivery.

The final principle addressed in the Belmont Report is that of justice in areas of the

vulnerable, reciprocity, and representation. The vulnerable here deals with the participants and

their grouping. The federal government has labeled several groups as vulnerable such as minor

children (Glesne, 2016). My study did not focus on one group of individuals. Instead, this study

invited a large group of educators, 150, to join the study without any exclusions based on any

race or gender identity. Reciprocity deals with the exchange between participant and researcher,

either monetarily or some other non-cash item, such as time (Glesne, 2016). Participants in this

study did not receive compensation for their time. Glesne (2016) noted that compensating

participant can be tricky based on extended periods; however, my study took up a minimal

amount of the participant’s time. Finally, there is the area of representation, which encompasses

how a researcher presents their research participants. Glesne (2016) pointed out that researchers

choose from a small representation of a participant’s life to share. This small snippet elicits

responses from readers about the participant’s lives. As such, “the onus is upon us [researchers]

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

to be rigorous in our work and thoughtful in what we represent” (Glesne, 2016, p. 170). Member

checking plays an important role in the representation of a group as members can check for

accuracy and as Stake (2010) pointed out “protect human subjects from being hurt” (p. 127).

Once again, participants were offered the opportunity to check transcripts, and all declined.

The three principles described above have been used to create five basic guidelines to inform

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) decisions on proposals (Glesne, 2016). They are as follows:

1. Participants should have sufficient information to make informed decisions.

2. Participants should be allowed to leave a study at any point.

3. All unnecessary risks to a research subject must be eliminated.

4. Benefits to the subject or society must outweigh all potential risks.

5. Only qualified investigators should conduct experiments.

My study followed the previously outlined three principles from the Belmont Report as well as

the guidelines laid out above by the IRB.

Summary

This chapter provided a comprehensive insight into the approach undertaken to explore

teachers' perceptions of digital citizenship and their implementation of a digital citizenship

curriculum in their classrooms. This chapter explained the research design and the underlying

reasons for conducting a qualitative research study, rooted in the phenomenographic tradition.

The rationale for opting for a qualitative approach was used on the premise that human

experiences are inherently challenging to quantify and necessitate a qualitative lens for a close

examination.

In addition to the aforementioned points, this chapter delved deeper into various specific

aspects of the research methodology. These included an exploration and explanation of critical

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

elements such as the research setting and context, participant selection and recruitment

procedures, as well as the process of data collection and analysis. I discussed the process of

selecting high school teachers from a single school located in a suburban area of the southeastern

United States, emphasizing the criteria used for their selection, which centered around their

involvement in implementing a digital citizenship curriculum. This selection process was pivotal

in ensuring the relevance and specificity of the study population.

Furthermore, the chapter provided an in-depth description of the data collection and

analysis procedures inherent to a qualitative research study. I discussed the various methods

employed, including in-depth interviews, observations, and a focus group, shedding light on how

these methods were executed. I also detailed the phases of data analysis and interpretation,

underscoring the application of the phenomenographic method, which served as the framework

for pulling meaningful insights from the gathered data.

Lastly, I demonstrated my commitment to upholding ethical standards in conducting

qualitative research. This involved adhering to fundamental principles outlined in the Belmont

Report, such as respect for participants, ensuring their well-being, and maintaining a sense of

justice in the research process. Furthermore, I detailed how I preserved the trustworthiness of the

study by closely aligning with the principles inherent in a phenomenographic approach. Chapter

4 will provide a detailed description of the results from the implementation of the study.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

CHAPTER 4: Findings

The purpose of this qualitative phenomenographic study was to explore the experiences of

high school teachers teaching digital citizenship content. This study explored teachers’

perceptions of and experiences with digital citizenship and digital citizenship lessons taught to a

variety of high school students in either an advisement period or a full period depending on the

participant. Participants were able to pick a lesson that they felt best fit their student needs from

the library of digital citizenship lessons. I followed the process as advocated by Gonzalez (2010)

for a phenomenography study, which is a six-step data analysis process. Sjöström and Dahlgren

(2002) added a step before the elaboration of the outcome that created the seven-step process I

followed. This process helped provide answers to the research question at hand: What are the

different ways in which teachers experience the challenges and opportunities in school settings

of implementing a digital citizenship curriculum? Additionally, the research provided answers to

specific areas of interest listed below:

• What teachers think about digital citizenship

• Where teachers think digital citizenship standards should be implemented

• Who should be teaching digital citizenship

• How ready and prepared teachers are to teach digital citizenship lessons

• How teachers approach teaching digital citizenship content

• The role that social media plays on students’ mental health

In this chapter I will describe the research findings, explain the rationale, and summarize the

results from the final outcome of the analysis process. This final outcome should provide insight

into the different ways that all of my participants conceptualized digital citizenship and

experienced a similar digital citizenship lesson implementation.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Outcome Space

What follows is an accounting of the findings from the interview process, along with the

observations of participants teaching a digital citizenship lesson. The account follows the topics

and subtopics that presented themselves during the data analysis process attempting to find What

are the different ways in which teachers’ experience the challenges and opportunities in school

settings of implementing a digital citizenship curriculum? See Figure 11 below for a visual

representation of the final outcome.

Figure 11

Visual Representation of the Final Outcome Space

Digital Citizenship’s Importance

The first category to emerge was how important each of the participants felt that digital

citizenship is. Without question, the most overwhelming view of digital citizenship is that it

holds a great deal of educational value. This view came out over the course of several interview

questions, but then as the participants and I discussed other topics as well. I will break this

section down into three groups and discuss each: participant’s (a) view on digital citizenship, (b)

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

conceptualization of digital citizenship, and (c) feelings of digital citizenship as it related to the

digital citizenship lessons required within the curriculum.

Teachers View of Digital Citizenship Education

Each participant in the study expressed in one way or another how important digital

citizenship education was for their students. While each participant declared the importance of

digital citizenship their reasoning for its importance diverged. Participants discussed a number of

issues concerning digital citizenship and why they felt it was so important. From the tried-and-

true digital citizenship concept of keeping students safe in online interactions to the potential

harm and political division occurring on social media, each participant spoke of a different

reason for teaching digital citizenship. The differences varied with the life experiences of the

participants. Tonya had her identity stolen and thus was concerned about keeping personal

information safe and secure while Victoria had a child that suffered from cyberbullying. Despite

those differing reasons for its importance, one of the main lines of reasoning to appear was stated

by Melissa, who explained in the first interview, “Students don’t fully understand the scope and

reach of their digital lives, and we should be more intentional about the way we address it with

them”. Amy expanded on her reasoning for the importance of digital citizenship education for

several reasons:

One, we continue to evolve from a technological perspective, and I think what we’ve

seen in the past several years is the impact of social media and potential political division.

So, the impact on our culture and our humanity and just kind of trying to think about how

do we start kind of handling and addressing things.

Victoria expressed concern for her students and the fact that they may not be getting

taught digital citizenship at home and a worry that some of her students could be taken advantage

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

of online. For Victoria though digital citizenship was not just important for her students but for

her own children, as she noted, “I work for their safety because of the amount of bullying that

happens on social media.” Each participant believed digital citizenship education is an important

topic for students to be taught; however, as stated earlier, the reasons for the importance differed.

See Table 13 for a breakdown of the reasoning.

Table 13

Participants Reasons for Teaching Digital Citizenship

Participant

Reasoning

Ray

“It’s something that a lot of younger people seem to be

lacking…. kids need it and I don’t think they get

exposed to it in school.”

Amy

“impact of social media and potential political

division.”

Melissa

“students don’t fully understand the scope and reach

of their digital lives.”

Rachel

“they (students) don’t understand the severity of

putting something out into the world.”

Tonya

“needs to be learned to keep your personal

information secured.”

“students can be easily taken advantage of.”

Victoria

“I do have a child that was bullied on social media.”

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Teachers Conceptualization

While there was consensus amongst the teacher participants about the value of digital

citizenship in education, there was a variance about how they conceptualized digital citizenship.

Descriptions swayed from a new set of societal norms to parents controlling the children’s social

media. The idea behind digital citizenship varied with teacher experience and age as older

participants felt that digital citizenship should be about staying safe online and that it is the

parents’ responsibility to prepare students while the younger participants felt digital citizenship

tended to be about thinking critically about online actions and information literacy.

Rachel, in her first full year of teaching, felt that digital citizenship is “accountability and

understanding of what you’re doing.” She went on to say:

Young people have this disconnect, I think, between what they say online versus what

they say in person. And I feel like we just need to have an understanding that you are not

separate from your digital identity or your digital citizenship, like it’s an extension of

you. And it’s going to be the very first thing people judge you and base you off.

Amy, in her fifth year of teaching, felt that digital citizenship is just societal norms

applied to digital competencies. Amy compared the norms of society with life before and after

the introduction of mobile technologies, such as cell phones “It’s just we’ve kind of taken

societal norms and then tried to apply it to the digital world for students.” She felt that prior to

cell phones and other technologies, people would make a choice to be in places and situations

that were safe and now that same idea can be applied to deciding to stay safe online. She also felt

that, before cell phones and social media, individuals managed their reputation and identity

through actions whereas now people manage those same concepts online stating, “When we

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

think about behavior pre cellphone, these are just putting those same behavior expectations on

people in a digital world.”

On the other hand, Tonya, the most experienced teacher participant, felt that digital

citizenship was more basic, stating:

Use of financial information, appropriate completion of forms. . . all of it is digital

citizenship to me. By using appropriate methods to teach keyboarding and [providing an]

introduction to the technology that is readily available is one way to start the process.

Overall, Tonya did not factor the ways in which students think critically into her definition but

instead she concentrated on students staying safe and secure online.

Melissa, who is in the middle of the road when it comes to experience, described digital

citizenship as:

How you interact with people in digital spaces, a whole plethora of them. It’s how you

use information and resources that you get from those spaces. How you share those

resources, giving credit, how you research what you’re looking at.

Melissa is a media specialist, and her idea of digital citizenship comes from the

information literacy standpoint, along with the interactions in the digital world.

Much like the academic version of digital citizenship, there was no consensus amongst

the participants about how to conceptualize digital citizenship. Table 14 shows a breakdown of

each participants idea of digital citizenship.

Table 14

Participants Conceptualization of Digital Citizenship

Participant

Conceptualization

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Ray

“people thinking critically about what they do online

before they do it.”

Amy

“learning and practice of society, societal norms just

applied in this technology age.”

Melissa

“how you interact with people in digital spaces and how

you use information and resources that you get from those

spaces.”

Rachel

“Accountability and understanding of what you’re

doing.”

Tonya

“Use of financial information, appropriate completion of

forms, all of it is digital citizenship to me.”

Victoria

“Watching how one acts online and watching what you

post.”

Digital Citizenship Lessons versus Views

For this study each teacher participant was asked to pick a digital citizenship lesson to

present to their class on a date of their choosing. Teacher participants went through a Nearpod

directory that houses the Common Sense Education digital citizenship lessons to find the lesson

that worked best for them and their classes. As discussed earlier, four of these lessons took place

during RSHSs advisement period, which is a 30-minute class with no academic requirements.

Two participants taught their lesson during fourth period, which is a regular period, due to the

nature of their classes, one being a special education class and the other being a library science

class. After observing the lesson, I then set up a time to talk to the participants about the lesson.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

One of the questions during this interview was about alignment with their views on digital

citizenship from the first interview.

Five of the six participants said that their lesson aligned with their views with Melissa

being the only participant to hedge on the lesson’s alignment. In the first interview, Melissa had

said that digital citizenship was “Interactions in digital spaces.” When asked if the lesson lined

up with her previous view on digital citizenship, Melissa responded with “Kind of, but they were

not interacting necessarily with other people ‘cause it was kind of about information versus

actual posting stuff, right?” When I followed up with her about clarifying if the lesson was more

about the type of information students were consuming and their ability to be aware of it,

Melissa stated, “But that still, to me, that’s still interactions in digital spaces, right? I mean

because you’re consuming stuff on a computer and interacting with that stuff. So, I think that

lines up.” While her initial response was that the lesson was not necessarily aligned, she did

eventually talk herself into agreement.

The other five participants were surer of their answers and that their lesson of choice did

align with the idea of digital citizenship that they had previously shared. Amy had presented a

digital citizenship lesson on student’s digital footprint and how it can affect one’s college

admission or employment status. Amy previously had said that digital citizenship was the new

set of societal norms. When asked about alignment, she said:

I think it did, when you think about both college and kind of going into the real world.

You have to be aware of what you’re posting. And that is a societal norm, right? Like

there are expectations for the right people that we want at our college or university or that

we want in our business. So, I think it’s very relevant.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Ray shared the same lesson as Amy, and felt that, as with Amy, the lesson had aligned with his

view on digital citizenship. Ray in the first interview had felt that digital citizenship was about

students being able to think critically online. Ray pointed to a specific portion of the lesson to

back up his opinion, “The kids were trying to evaluate the two college applicants and looking at

kind of what they each put out there in terms of their social media, what were kind of the

positives and negatives for each example.” In this example, the students were presented with two

separate Facebook pages of perspective students and were then asked to point out what they felt

would help and hurt the students. After time to discuss their thoughts, they had to decide which

page was more appropriate.

Rachel shared a lesson that included college admission details and shared a real-world

example where Harvard rescinded an acceptance offer based on a student’s digital footprint.

Rachel shared this response when asked about the lesson’s alignment:

I think it [her concept of digital citizenship] was reinforced with the Harvard video a lot

because what you say in group chat, even as a joke, that’s a representation of yourself.

You still said it, even if it was, you know, haha, promoted by social media, by your other

friends, that still came out of you, that was your thought that you posted publicly. That is

part of you. And I think that’s where people are getting in trouble a lot. They are like, oh,

well, I said that ten years ago, or you know, and it’s like, sorry, yeah, like, if your name is

on it, even if you didn’t verbally say it, like you’re still liable. You still wrote it out? Or

typed it out or whatever it is, and like that’s connected to you.

Even with Melissa originally questioning her lessons alignment with her view of digital

citizenship, the lessons chosen by participants all seemed to align nicely with their views on

digital citizenship.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Curriculum Implementation

The curriculum for the digital citizenship lessons at RSHS is from the Common Sense

library on the Nearpod platform. Teacher participants are expected to present lessons on a wide

range of topics including digital citizenship on a regular basis to their advisement classes. What

follows is a breakdown of the teacher participants experience with digital citizenship

implementation, their thoughts on the curriculum, where they feel digital citizenship should be

taught, the ISTE standards, and the skills needed to be a successful digital citizen.

Implementation

The post observation interviews focused on the implementation of teacher participants’

digital citizenship lesson. Overall, each participant found the lessons easy enough to search for in

the Nearpod library provided by MCPS. Additionally, along with easily finding a lesson, each

participant felt that the experience of preparing for and implementing the lesson went well, but

for varied reasons. There was only one participant who expressed some dissatisfaction with how

the lesson went. Below is a description of the participants’ experiences with the lesson.

Rachel, the youngest participant, stated she felt good about the lesson because it was

“Something I could talk a little bit about away from the slides because some of the things I have

seen firsthand.” During her lesson, Rachel had told her students about an experience she saw

with a classmate in college who had used social media to contact students during his time as a

student teacher. This individual was caught and removed from his preservice teacher preparation

program.

Amy also stated that she felt her lesson went well because of past experience she could

call back on; however, unlike Rachel, her experience was from the corporate world. Amy, who

came to education as her second career, stated “I knew the importance of the digital footprint for

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

sure. I knew that I could talk about like real world experience.” Melissa, the media specialist, felt

her lesson went well because it gave her a different perspective on her students:

I think the way that they interpret the information was interesting. Because you just

culturally don’t know when there’s that big of an age gap, what their experiences are

unless they tell you. Yeah, so that was really interesting to see how they took the

information and applied it so differently than like where I would have gone with it.

Ray stated that he thought that his lesson went well because it was something that his

students were more interested in than some of the other lessons, they may receive in advisement

mentioning that student engagement was higher than a usual advisement lesson. He noted, “I

thought the students seemed pretty engaged with it. I thought it was a lot more relevant a topic

than many of the lessons that we’ll do in academy (advisement).” Ray went on to talk about the

level of student engagement due to the relevance of the topic to his students was important and a

welcome sight, noting, “the students had good things to say in terms of sharing kind of their

thoughts. Again, I think it was a more relatable lesson.”

Victoria had expressed concern for her students, as they are all receiving special

education services, yet many of them post on social media and she was worried that they do not

understand the dangers that could arise. She was excited that her students were participating and

actively engaged in the lesson. Tonya, who only had three students for her lesson, felt the lesson

she had chosen was of value to her students. She stated, “Overall, the topic was very relevant,

and the presentation information was good.” The problem Tonya faced was student engagement

with the lesson, she noted, “Having students truly connect themselves to the various things

presented is the challenge.” Tonya, expressed some frustration, over how the students did not

seem concerned about valuable information to their personal lives “Even when I tried to show

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

them how this information does apply to them, they were still quick to shut down.” While Tonya

did feel the lesson itself was a positive one, her experience was soured by a lack of engagement

from her students.

Another similarity noted during the observation process was that all of the participants

shared personal experiences from their own lives with the students in their classes. Personal

stories can be used to make an abstract concept, like digital citizenship, more relatable and

understandable. When teachers share their own experiences, they can provide real-world context

for the subject matter being taught. This can help students see the practical applications of what

they are learning. See Table 15 below for some of the personal experiences each participant

shared.

Table 15

Personal Experiences Participants Shared During Lesson Implementation

Participant

Experience

Ray

Asks permission before sharing photos of people on social media

Rachel

Colleague that was removed from teaching preparation program for social

media interactions with students

Amy

Mentioned her adult aged child that is recovering from addiction

Melissa

Removed friends from social media for toxic behaviors

Tonya

Personal identity stolen

Victoria

Participating in positive social media challenges (ice bucket challenge)

When, Where, Who, and How

Teacher participants had already expressed their thoughts about digital citizenship

curriculum and its importance to their students. Participants did differ a bit on their thoughts

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

about the different ways of going about implementing a digital citizenship curriculum. What

follows are some of the points participants made about who should be teaching digital

citizenship, when it should start, and which classes should implement it.

During the focus group portion of data collection, Ray and Rachel shared these thoughts

when asked about improvements that could be made to digital citizenship implementation:

Rachel: Right now, I feel like it’s just an add on or afterthought. I feel like if we want to

get kids on board with it and make it matter to them, it needs to be more of a course and

be implemented at a younger age.

Ray: It would be nice to have a standardized curriculum that is introduced at the

elementary level and then grows with the students as they progress through school. To my

knowledge, there is nothing in place that addresses digital citizenship other than NearPod

or enrolling in a specific business technology class.

Along those same lines participants expressed that digital citizenship should not be limited to a

brief 30-minute advisement period but should be its own class. Melissa was one participant that

felt that way “I mean honestly it needs to be a whole class because I know that teachers put little

things in here and there when they can as conversations come up, but it really needs to be a

course.” Rachel, as well, felt there needs to be a class and a position dedicated to digital

citizenship:

I feel like we should create an entire new title for somebody like a new position. I feel

like it should be someone who is certified in safety and how it affects young people in

just resource skills. Honestly, using the digital citizenship can be like a whole bunch of

different things from the very basic like, how do you make sure your password doesn’t

get hacked to this is how you research a paper. I should still have some responsibility, like

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

this is how you write, you know, a history paper. But it would be a lot easier for me if

they already had those building blocks because I feel like a lot of them just don’t.

Ray felt that it could be taken as a 9th grade course and used as something similar to a civics

course:

You could see, maybe a course. I know years ago I taught in another school that had a

ninth grade one semester civics course. And it was some government, but it was also just

how to be a good person in the United States, how to treat others well, what are your

rights and responsibilities as a person here. I think a course like that would be ideal for

something like digital citizenship.

On the topic of who should be teaching digital citizenship there was a range of responses

amongst the participants and not really a consensus. Three participants felt that business or

technology classes should be responsible while the others felt that it should be in the core

classes. While there was not a consensus on this point Amy made an excellent point about it

being the whole school’s responsibility to teach digital citizenship, as she stated, “It needs to be

coordinated or there needs to be collaboration, amongst the teachers.” Given the collective

responses of the participants, it could be argued that digital citizenship instruction is both a

whole school and a districts responsibility.

Concerns

The next category to emerge from the analysis of the data was concerns that the

participants had about students and digital citizenship. The teacher participants in this study were

often worried about their student’s social media usage and the way that led into mental health

issues for their students. Also of note was how social media could affect students’ college and

employment options.

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Social Media

Each participant concluded that social media was an issue for their students. Issues

ranged from a concern over the time spent on social media apps to what was being posted on the

social media apps of choice for students. Five of the lessons that participants presented focused

on social media usage. Victoria summed up a theme very well when she noted, “Its [social

media] become such a part of their lifeline.” Victoria was trying to indicate that many students

use social media as a way of connecting with and interacting with their friends.

While social media may be a huge part of students’ lives, one teacher participant

expressed how “students are naïve to the actions they carry out.” Tonya noted that she believes

that students do not have a true understanding of what they are doing, as she explained, “high

school students seem to lack the understanding that social media platforms request personal

information, and that information is then put out there on the internet.” She went on to say,

"Students do not understand the severity of their choices on the internet.” Tonya is the participant

that had her identity stolen and is concerned about how much personal information is shared by

students. In a similar vein, Rachel also spoke about students’ awareness of their social media

and online presence, stating, “They (students) don’t understand the severity of putting something

out into the world.” While social media undeniably plays a significant role in students' lives,

there seems to be a prevailing naivety among high school students regarding their online actions.

These insights mark the importance of the need for digital literacy education and a broader

awareness of the responsibilities and implications of one's online presence, especially among

younger users who may not fully grasp the long-term consequences of their online actions.

Both Ray and Rachel expressed deep concerns about the influence of social media on

students, with Ray emphasizing the immersion of students in online culture, while Rachel

100

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

strongly advocated against social media use for individuals under 18, citing its potential negative

impact on their mental well-being and self-esteem. Ray felt that students are “Embedded in

online, social media culture, they’re living it, they do it for often hours, every day.” Spending an

extended period on social media can lead to excessive self-comparison, ultimately resulting in

potentially harmful consequences. When asked about social media usage amongst her students

Rachel felt very strongly about the issue:

Yes, 1,000% and my personal opinion, I don’t think anyone under the age of 18 should

have any social media as they are impressionable. They are young. They, I feel like

especially things like Tik Tok, Instagram, it gives young people so much depression, like

they see what they, what they conceive like that they should be doing at this age. You

know, oh, this person is famous. This person’s traveling, this person’s rich, and they’re

like my age, and it’s just a whole lot of depression when comparing themselves to others.

Rachel’s feeling and concern about social media leading to problems is a viewpoint shared by

other teacher participants, who expressed concerns related to the mental health of students. This

is further detailed in the section below.

Mental Health.

All participants tied mental health and social media together, often times citing social

media usage as a reason for some of the mental health issues with students. Five participants had

similar feelings about social media and what students were seeing and following on social media.

For example, when discussing online issues Amy said that, “And so, they (students) don’t really

want to listen to us, but [they will] listen to the influencers that are out there.” Amy is expressing

the feeling that students are more inclined to follow and take advice from social media

influencers rather than listen to their teachers.

101

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

The teacher participants' observations highlighted the adverse effects of increased screen

time and social media usage on students' mental health and interpersonal communication skills.

Mental health and social media issues discussed by the teacher participants are tied to the

communication practices of students as well. For example, Amy discussed part of the problem

with student mental health and social media use stemmed from the Covid-19 lockdowns:

They (students) admit that especially Covid really kind of sent them to their phones to the

scrolling to constant scrolling to constant binging of whatever it was technology or

Netflix or whatever and some of them realize its significantly impacted their mental

health because they weren’t communicating with other human beings in person. And I

think that’s kind of one of the things I think we all realized is that’s one thing we need as

humans, and we lost it. And so, the more they’re kind of in their phones, they’re less

engaged with other people.

Tonya had a similar sentiment about the lack of in person communication caused by social media

use by high school students:

Students spend entirely too much online and attached to their social media. The lack of

social interaction with a real human leads to things like students being unable to

understand body language, social cues, sarcasm, facial expressions, learn appropriate

social skills for team work, and seems to set off their tempers much quicker than if they

did not have the unlimited access that so many of their parents given them.

Victoria, while concerned with her student’s social media usage and mental health also had a

more personal reason to be worried about social media and the affects it has on students:

I do have a child that was bullied on social media. Bullied enough that she did try to

commit suicide. Her experience is educational though for other children. She’s actually

102

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

gotten back to talking [to the person] though which is a part of her healing process, being

able to forgive.

Since that incident Victoria’s child has recovered, forgave the individuals, and has begun to

move forward. Victoria did report that there has been some social media bullying reoccurring;

however, she felt that her child has the situation under control.

Bullying, as can be seen in the example of Victoria’s child, can have devasting

consequences. Bullying can be very subtle as well. Melissa described her thoughts on today’s

bullying issue:

I think it’s more nuanced, like their friends will post things that they didn’t invite them to

or like won’t like a picture that they thought that they would or will block them. Yeah,

little things like that become a big deal.

Victoria shared similar thoughts on the different forms of bullying:

They show there was a party. Well, I wasn’t invited. They didn’t really know those years

ago, if your friend had a party, you may never have known. Here we are posting all these

fun pictures, but you weren’t invited.

With examples coming from both participants own homes and classrooms, there is reason for the

participants’ experiences with digital citizenship to involve their student’s’ online presence.

Social media leads to another concern for the participants and that is how their student’s digital

footprint will affect their futures.

College and Employment Opportunities

Teacher participants felt that making sure their students were aware of potential colleges

and employers searching social media posts was an important task. The idea of students being

aware was brought up throughout the course of the study and was at the center of three of the

103

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

participants digital citizenship lessons that were presented. In the participants’ experience,

students were aware or cognizant of the repercussions of their posting history. Amy, who comes

from a corporate background, felts that it was important to teach kids about what they are sharing

for public consumption, as she explained:

We’ve got to teach kids how to push things out into the world in a thoughtful way. So, it’s

not just about consuming what’s out there. And it’s not just posting every second of your

life. Yeah, but how do you kind of push things out into the world? Yeah. And again, I

don’t think we’ve cracked it yet.

Melissa shared a similar idea of thoughtful online posting:

Teaching them (students) to be cognizant of the footprint that they leave online and

making sure that what they’re presenting to the world is what they want presented. That’s

professional and engaging online in a way that’s not going to hurt anyone else.

Rachel, who earlier shared that people under 18 should not have social media, felt strongly again

that students are underprepared for the consequences of what they post publicly:

Kids post whatever they want online, they reshare, and they retweet. And I feel like until

something happens, they don’t understand the severity of putting something out into the

world. But also, right now we’re just in a high school class, if somebody wants to go out,

and if somebody is working a corporate job, and they post some of the things I hear them

say, you know, like, that’s an HR visit minimum.

Rachel’s statement about a potential visit to human resources for what is posted

highlights one of the themes that occurred through the interview process as well as the digital

citizenship lesson. Students are not fully aware that what they and their friends post to social

media is potentially visible for the world to see. Ray’s lesson, once again, pertained to students’

104

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

digital footprint and its effects on potential college and career endeavors. Ray, stated that he tries

to emphasize the fact that what students post on social media is not going away:

When talking about college and jobs mostly at the moment. I try to really elaborate that

nine times out of ten, a job or interview board will look you up on social media before

they ever call you into an interview. Students’ digital citizenship is not some

inconsequential, made up thing; it is a part of you and will follow you through life.

Amy shared an interaction with a student after the lesson on colleges looking at potential

candidates’ social media “One kid already told me he’s like, ‘Oh, Miss Amy, ah no college wants

to look at my social media.’” Amy shared this conversation shortly after delivering what she

thought was an impactful lesson; however, despite the informative lesson, this particular student

still did not think there could be repercussions for their behavior online. That said, overall

students took to the lessons delivered by the teacher participants and great conversations were

had. For example, Rachel’s class had a great conversation about posting on social media and how

students can even be held responsible for what their friends post and tag them in:

They (student) said, ‘What if it was a friend’s account, but I was tagged in it? Like you’re

still attached to it, you know?’ So like, you got to be careful of who you have connections

with on social media as well. People you follow and all of that.

Ray may have set the stage best for his lesson on college and employer acceptance to his

10th grade class. Ray explained to his students, “You want possible interviewers or admission

people for college to get a really positive sense of who you are.” Ray was among three

participants who correlated their digital citizenship lessons with the potential consequences of

social media usage on prospective college admissions and employability status.

105

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

It should be noted that not every student will embrace the importance of a clean digital

footprint as can be seen in the example from Amy’s class. Teachers often have legitimate

concerns about their students’ digital footprints when it comes to their prospects for college

admissions and future job opportunities. Based on the lessons I observed that emphasized the

significance of maintaining a clean and responsible social media presence, it is evident that this

is a valid concern among the participants when it comes to their students' experiences.

Challenges

Teacher participants throughout the interview process spoke about challenges that they

felt impeded their digital citizenship lesson plan implementation. All of the participants felt that

they lacked training and preparedness for digital citizenship in general; however, each participant

felt that the lesson they presented to their class was easily taught. Participants also felt that time

was an issue, both for the lesson itself and time to prepare for the lesson. Some participants took

umbrage with the students and their attitude towards digital citizenship. For example, Ray

expressed an opinion that may have encapsulated what each participant was feeling:

I think most teachers are happy to do digital citizenship type lessons. I think the only

issue is just the state of teaching the way it is right now. We’ve got a lot of

responsibilities. We’re wearing a lot of hats. We’ve got limited time to sometimes train up

on some of the things that we’re doing and just kind of the pressure for, you know,

getting up to date with all the things that we’re doing, whether it’s, you know, coursework

related stuff, teaching, you know, other responsibilities that we just have as teachers. It’s

sometimes hard just to find the time to add another to our plate.

106

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

This overarching theme of digital citizenship being one more responsibility to add to teachers

was a sentiment shared throughout the interview process. Below is a description of the specific

difficulties that participants felt they faced.

Preparation

Preparation for digital citizenship evoked a range of teacher participant responses. The

preparation challenge varied across disciplines with participants facing different preparation

issues. While all of the participants ended up feeling that preparing for their lesson was easy,

they discussed the difficulty in incorporating digital citizenship into their daily content

areas. During the focus group the consensus was that there was not enough preparation or

training on the issue of digital citizenship. For example, Amy, who is a language arts teacher, had

a broad perspective on the issue of teaching a digital citizenship lesson versus integrating digital

citizenship into one’s teaching practice during her first interview:

I know that schools provide things and I know that we focus on those things. And I think

teachers are probably prepared enough to deliver a presentation they’ve been asked to

deliver. I’m not sure that they have it kind of in the forefront of their mind on how they

would integrate it [digital citizenship] into like what I would call kind of normal day to

day operations in the classroom.

The lack of preparedness among teacher participants for digital citizenship education was

expressed throughout the study. Melissa, a media specialist, did not feel like she was prepared to

teach digital citizenship in her teacher preparatory classes in college or by the district. When

asked about her preparedness, she stated, “We’re not ready at all.” She expanded on that

statement to speak to the training and resources provided at the district level as she noted, “I

mean, we have resources on Safari montage through Nearpod, but they [district] just said here’s

107

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

some stuff we’ve [district] added use it if you want to.” Rachel, the youngest and least

experienced participant, during the focus group said that she had not received any digital

citizenship educational training. During her first interview, Rachel had said she was becoming

more prepared but that she accomplished this on her own and with the support of the teachers

around her versus school or district level training. Victoria, a special education teacher, shared

the same sentiment as the other participants about a lack of preparedness, as she explained, “I

don’t think we’re prepared because there’s so much out there. I know I’m not and seeing other

teachers, we’re not prepared to really know what’s out there.”

In thinking upon the experiences and perspectives of the teacher participants, it becomes

evident that while they feel confident in teaching a lesson, there is a collective concern about

their preparedness for teaching digital citizenship in general. All the participants found that the

initial preparation for a digital citizenship lesson was relatively straightforward; however, the

true challenge lies in the integration of digital citizenship principles into their daily content areas.

Regardless of discipline, each participant faced unique preparation issues, which are detailed

further in the following section.

Time

The issue of time to teach digital citizenship was twofold, as participants talked about

needing time to prepare for lessons as well as more time for the lessons themselves. Two of the

four lessons I observed during the RSHS advisement periods went over the 30-minute time limit.

The two lessons taught during the traditional 55-minute class period, Melissa and Victoria’s

exceeded the 30-minute mark. Melissa had the longest lesson which took up the entire 55-minute

class period. She remarked in her second interview how she would have liked more time and that

her students were asking to finish up the lesson on the following Monday.

108

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

In terms of time to prepare to teach digital citizenship, collectively, the teacher

participants only have so much time in the day to complete their tasks. For example, Tonya

claimed that “The role of the teacher in all of this is overwhelming.” In other words, Toyna is

expressing the difficulties educators face in addressing digital citizenship and related challenges.

Ray echoed that idea when discussing why teachers may not teach digital citizenship as directed.

He noted the issue may be, “[teachers] just not having enough time to sometimes prepare for

those lessons on top of all the other things that we’re also doing.” The lack of time for teachers to

prepare for the lessons does frustrate certain teacher participants. For example, Melissa

expressed a desire to have more time to prepare as she wished for “time concentrated to me to

gain the knowledge and skills I would need. I don’t feel like I am qualified to teach it [digital

citizenship] in depth.”

While each participant does have a planning period that allows for grading and prepping

for the day, it is not always exactly free for teachers to dedicate that time to digital citizenship

preparation. While not explicitly noting time as an issue, Amy discussed some of the school day

responsibilities that take up teacher’s time “All the generic testing, all the other competing, you

know, competing priorities. I think that’s just the way it is in any classroom though. I think we

have a lot that we have to get through.” This statement speaks to the need for teachers to navigate

a complex array of required responsibilities with a limited amount of time and training provided

to meet those responsibilities.

Teacher participants expressed the concern that they do not have sufficient time to

adequately prepare to teach digital citizenship. Balancing the demands of a required curriculum,

lesson planning, grading, and classroom management already places significant time constraints

109

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

on educators. The added responsibility of teaching one more thing, digital citizenship, can feel

like a daunting task.

Time for the Lesson

On the flip side of time to prepare for digital citizenship is the time actually dedicated to

the lessons. As stated earlier, four of the participants taught their lesson during a 30-minute

advisement period and two participants taught their lesson during a 55-minute class period. See

Table 16 below for a brief breakdown of the lesson presented and the time it took.

Table 16

Digital Citizenship Lesson Details

Participant

Lesson Detail

Class Length

Duration

Ray

College bound

30 minutes

30 minutes (incomplete)

Rachel

Digital footprint

30 minutes

15 minutes (complete)

Amy

College bound

30 minutes

30 minutes (incomplete)

Melissa

Media bias

55 minutes

52 minutes (incomplete)

Tonya

Does it matter who has your

data

30 minutes

17 minutes (complete)

Victoria

Good and bad of Tik Tok

55 minutes

35 minutes (complete)

What follows is a brief synopsis of the lesson presentation timing and any relevant discussion

from the participants on the timing of their lesson presentation.

Ray worked through the college bound lesson, where students take a look at their digital

presence, in his 10th grade advisement class, where students take a look at their digital identity.

He started right on time after taking attendance. When asked what did not go well about the

lesson, he quickly responded the issue was one of time:

110

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Just the time issues. I realized kind of in the middle of the lesson that we were running

short on time and I did kind of rush them through a little bit of it trying to get to a decent

stopping point where we could start to wrap it up. So, time wise, that was the only issue I

had and I think in a normal kind of full class period, I think there’d be plenty of time to

like actually address each part of the lesson with the attention it needs.

Amy taught the college bound lesson as well to her 11th grade advisement class. Her class started

quickly after taking attendance and then she explained what the students were to be participating

in. When asked what she might change about the lesson, Amy said, “I clearly did not have

enough time for the engagement, that was like crazy.” Amy’s class enjoyed discussing portions

of the lesson and those discussions may have played a role in her class not finishing the lesson.

Melissa’s class worked on a media bias lesson. Melissa, once again, is the media

specialist and did not have an advisement due to her responsibilities in the media center during

RSHS’s lunch periods. She presented her lesson to her 4th period class which is a traditional 55-

minute class. Despite the extra time as compared to the 30-minute advisement period, Melissa’s

class did not finish the lesson despite starting on time and working diligently. Melissa did state

that her students were ready to finish on the next day though. She explained in her post-

observation interview, “They came up and asked if they could do it on Monday. That’s a good

indication of something good happening.”

Rachel was able to finish her lesson during the advisement period on student’s digital

footprint. Rachel did say that she altered the lesson a bit, which may have contributed to

finishing the lesson. Rachel said in her post-observation interview, “I skipped through a couple

of slides. There was a matching section of the vocab. I didn’t want to focus as strongly on like

the vocab of those words as more of like the experience of like what happened.” Rachel’s lesson

111

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

included some basic social media vocabulary that she felt her students knew well enough

already. She also bypassed some of the sections where students respond to prompts through the

lesson and instead focused on class discussion.

Tonya had a small class for her advisement period with only five students total and only

three in class on the day of the lesson. Tonya, as stated earlier, has a mixed schedule where she

teaches on-level social studies classes but also is a special education teacher. As such, she has

classes that are purposely kept small. Her advisement period was one such class. For her lesson

she selected the topic Does it matter who has your data? She was able to finish due to the small

class size. She did express frustration over the lack of student involvement in the lesson as she

noted, “Very few questions are ever asked [by the students] with advisement topics or things like

this.” Her lesson was designed to include student involvement; however, in the absence of that,

she was able to move quickly through the lesson.

Victoria, another special education teacher with a small class also completed her lesson in

a timely manner; however, had she taught the lesson to an advisement period, she would have

exceeded the time allotted by about five minutes. Her lesson was on the good and bad of Tik

Tok, and Victoria was happy with the amount of student interaction during the lesson. When

asked what went well, she stated, “Well, they actually participated. They paid attention. They

seemed interested in it.” Her timing could have been shortened and she said that next time she

presented the lesson, she would take out some of the wordy slides and also check the videos as

she spent a few minutes trying to get one video to play.

The experiences of the teachers during their lessons on digital citizenship revealed a

common challenge that emerged across the board: time constraints. Ray, Amy, and Melissa all

cited time as a significant factor that affected the completeness of their lessons. Ray felt the need

112

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

to rush through his lesson, Amy wished for more time to delve into engagement activities, and

Melissa's class did not finish despite a 55-minute period. Despite these time-related challenges,

both Rachel and Tonya successfully completed their lessons by adapting their approaches to suit

their class sizes and student engagement levels. These diverse experiences show the need for

flexible approaches to digital citizenship education that can accommodate varying classroom

situations.

Issues with the lesson content

As detailed in the prior section, facilitating digital citizenship lessons within a limited

time period was a significant issue amongst the participants. Time, however, was not the only

problem that participants faced. What follows is a brief discussion of some of the challenges the

participants experienced with the pre-designed content of the lessons.

Ray, who was unable to finish his lesson, felt that redundancy of the instructional content

was the biggest problem with his college bound lesson:

I skipped over a little bit in the middle that I thought was a little redundant. It would often

in a lesson ask for students' thoughts on something and then it would, maybe a couple of

slides later, ask a similar question to what they just saw before and when I saw stuff like

that, that was kind of the stuff I would try to accelerate through a little bit. If I thought,

like, kids were kind of looking around like we already did this.

Despite skipping over sections of the lesson Ray still did not finish and felt that this lesson at

least should probably be over the course of several advisement periods in order for students to

get the full effect of the lesson. He explained, “I would just probably shorten it for the time

constraints or kind of figure out a way to do it over multiple academy periods.”

113

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Redundancy was an issue also noted by other teacher participants. For example, Amy

taught the same lesson as Ray to her students and like Ray, she was unable to finish. Amy

explained:

So, there were some things we either covered or they covered before we even got to them

in the slot, so they were just going to be repetitive. And for me, I just kind of skip over it

because like, they don’t want to see the say the same thing over and over.

Amy and Ray both spoke about issues of redundancy in pre-designed digital citizenship content,

which they remedied by making instructional judgments to bypass certain information if their

students were already engaged in the specified learner activities.

Another issue with the digital citizenship lesson content noted by teacher participants

related to the interactivity expectations found within the lessons themselves. For example, Amy

opted to forgo interactivity on one-to-one devices altogether and instead clicked through the

lesson as a presentation. Amy explained, “I do think it [the lesson] would have worked better on

Nearpod, but at the beginning of the year, when all of the stuff was on Nearpod, they revolted in

that class!” It should be noted that earlier in the school year, teachers had been asked to present

several Nearpod lessons in succession and Amy’s class had expressed their distaste for those

types of lessons. Due to student feedback, Amy opted to present lessons outside of Nearpod,

which caused other problems. For example, the lesson that I observed called for students to

compare two different fictional Facebook profiles, but students were unable to read and view the

profiles since it was being projected instead of students having the lesson on their device. As

stated above Amy did recognize that it was a problem but one that is easily solved. When asked

what she would do to change the lesson for the next time she said “I definitely would have

figured out how to make those visuals better. Um, I might even convince them to do it on

114

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Nearpod if I felt like it was good to engage them.” Amy was attempting to find a balance

between presenting the lesson but also keeping the student's attention by not using the Nearpod

format.

The content of digital citizenship lessons may be effective without technology in the

hands of students. One teacher participant, Melissa, taught her lesson on media bias to her small

group of students during a traditional 55-minute class period. As previously mentioned, she was

unable to finish the lesson in one class session. She felt her lesson might have been better

without the students on their devices as she stated, “Maybe [I could] facilitate better conversation

or just [provide] more, maybe round table talk. Maybe they don’t need their computers and they

can just share.” Melissa did try to create more discussion as she went through the lesson by

prompting students to discuss the responses to prompts in the lesson instead of typing out a

response. She expressed that students need to talk more when possible. She explained, “This

group of kids, they really need that skill of talking with each other versus with their thumbs.” To

Melissa’s point here, students need face-to-face interaction and meaningful discussion that is not

reliant on technology.

Four participants felt that lessons should incorporate real-life examples that directly relate

to students' experiences and daily online interactions. Rachel presented the digital footprint

lesson to her 12th grade advisement class and while she felt the lesson was a good one and

pertinent, she thought the lesson was missing something:

I would have wanted more of the video clips of Harvard and everything. Of the NASA

girl who lost her internship, have more just actual stories, real life stories, what they see

on the news as an actual thing. I think it makes it more like real life.

115

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Rachel did mention that next time she presented this lesson she would spend some time

researching and finding real life examples in the form of videos and news articles. She felt that

while the one example was a good one her students needed more “Because you can talk about it

all day and you can take notes on it, but if they don’t see it, actually occurring, then they think

this can’t happen to me, right?” Student exposure to digital citizenship content does not always

guarantee learning transfer, which was stated as a concern by at least one teacher participant,

Rachel.

Two participants encountered challenges during their lessons that were primarily related

to student engagement and technical issues, respectively, highlighting the importance of

addressing these aspects in digital citizenship instruction Tonya and Victoria’s problems with the

lesson dealt more with their students then the lesson itself. Tonya would have liked her student

engagement to increase but found it difficult with such a small class. Victoria felt her students

were engaged, but issues arose when a video would not play; she felt that was more on her than

the lesson as she admitted to not checking the link beforehand. Even the most well-crafted

lessons and presentations can encounter unforeseen challenges beyond teachers' control, as

evidenced by Tonya's struggle with student engagement and Victoria's technical difficulties.

The experiences of the teachers with their respective lessons on digital citizenship

revealed common challenges related to lesson redundancy and engagement. Ray and Amy both

noted issues of redundancy within the college-bound lesson they taught, with Ray skipping

sections he found repetitive, while Amy adapted her lesson to better suit her students'

preferences. Melissa, teaching a media bias lesson, highlighted the need for more face-to-face

discussion and less device reliance in her class. Rachel expressed the desire for more real-life

examples to enhance the relevance of her digital footprint lesson. Tonya faced engagement

116

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

challenges with her small class size, while Victoria’s lesson on TikTok faced technical

difficulties.

Differences

The varied approaches and perspectives toward digital citizenship among the six

participants also showcased wide array of implementation strategies, challenges in educating

students about responsible online behavior, and their conceptualization of digital citizenship. The

six participants demonstrated diverse perspectives on digital citizenship, revealing distinct

emphases and challenges in educating students about responsible online behavior. Ray and

Melissa concentrated on fostering critical thinking and understanding the impact of students'

digital decisions, while Rachel and Amy emphasized accountability and the evolving social

norms applied to technology. Both Amy and Melissa believed in the necessity of a separate class

for digital citizenship, echoing Ray's advocacy for standardized courses across all grades. In

contrast, Tonya and Victoria stressed the importance of safeguarding personal information and

monitoring online actions, with Tonya proposing integration into business classes while Victoria

leaned towards a dedicated course solely focused on digital citizenship. Each participant faced

unique challenges in implementation; from Ray’s struggle to balance teaching responsibilities to

Rachel’s redundancy issues and Amy’s deviation from the lesson format. Melissa’s lesson timing

and Tonya’s difficulty in engaging students were notable hurdles, while Victoria faced technical

impediments. Despite these differences, their collective concern for students’ well-being in the

digital realm unites their endeavors. See Table 17 for a breakdown of participant differences.

Table 17

Differences amongst participants

117

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Participant

Importance of Digital

Citizenship

Conceptualization of

Digital Citizenship

Lesson

Implementation

Ray

Students lack digital

citizenship skills and are

not being taught elsewhere

Encourages people to

think critically about

what they post online

Achieved high student

engagement due to

student interest in the

topic.

Rachel

Students lack awareness of

what they are posting

online

Emphasizes

accountability and

understanding one's

actions online

Utilized personal

experiences related to

college and admissions

due to her age

Amy

Digital citizenship is the

new societal norms just

applied to the digital world

Applies traditional

societal norms of

politeness and respect to

the digital world

Leveraged corporate

experience to discuss

business hiring

practices

Melissa

Students do not understand

how their digital lives

impact them

Focuses on interactions

(chats, social media

interactions, online

gaming, etc..) in digital

spaces

Taught a lesson on

information literacy,

finding students’

interpretation intriguing

Tonya

Students do not know to

not share and keep their

personal information safe

Emphasizes keeping

basic information safe

and secure

Felt the lesson was

valuable but was

disappointed in student

engagement

118

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Victoria

Own children had gone

through cyberbullying;

concerned about students

not receiving guidance at

home

Stresses being mindful

of actions conducted

online

Small class actively

participated, though

technical issues

hindered the lesson’s

progress

Summary

The results from this chapter represent the outcome space of a qualitative

phenomenographic study I conducted during the spring semester of the 2022/2023 school year.

In this study on digital citizenship lesson implementation, key findings revealed four distinct

categories that shed light on the perspectives and experiences of the participants. While all

participants recognized the value and importance of digital citizenship education, they held

varying conceptualizations of this important topic. Although they implement lessons on a regular

basis, a common theme emerged: they did not feel adequately prepared to teach digital

citizenship. This readiness gap was compounded by challenges related to time constraints, both

in terms of lesson preparation and available class time for instruction. Participants also struggled

with students' engagement in these lessons. Additionally, the study highlighted a shared concern

among all the educators regarding the impact of digital life, particularly social media, on their

students' mental health. They expressed apprehensions about potential long-term consequences,

specifically in relation to their students' future college and career prospects.

In the final outcome I found that each participant found digital citizenship to be of utmost

importance for their students. The participants felt implementing a digital citizenship curriculum

was vital and felt that the process should either start in earlier grades or be its own class in high

school. While each participant felt the lesson, they chose was fairly easy to implement, they did

119

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

not feel like the school or district prepared them well to teach digital citizenship. Participants

also expressed a great deal of concern for their students in relation to digital citizenship actions

or lack thereof, along with consequences of those actions. Teacher participants explained some of

the challenges that were involved in implementing digital citizenship instruction with their

students including a lack of time to prepare and student engagement with the lessons. These

findings underscore the importance of comprehensive training and support for educators, as well

as the need for strategies to enhance student engagement and address the broader well-being

implications of digital citizenship.

This chapter also highlighted differences between the participants. Chief among those

differences would be the different conceptualizations of digital citizenship and how it should be

implemented. Participant views on digital citizenship ranged from student digital skills to

concerns over students’ abilities with personal information. Participants disagreed on who and

how digital citizenship should be implemented. Suggestions on implementing digital citizenship

included creating a whole new course as well as rolling the content into a present course.

In Chapter 5, I will call back to literature from Chapter 2 and link my research and

findings to previous research. I will present the scholarly implications of my findings and the

potential impact they have for shareholders in the school system. I will also discuss some of the

limitations of this study along with future research recommendations.

120

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

CHAPTER 5: Discussion, Implications, Significance, and Conclusions

In this chapter, the focus shifts from the theoretical foundations and methodological

approach to the core of this qualitative dissertation study—the scholarly significance. The

primary objective of this chapter is to discuss the relevance and implications of the data gathered

through in-depth interviews and observations. By delving into the narratives, themes, and

patterns that emerged during the research process, a deeper understanding of the phenomenon,

digital citizenship implementation, under investigation can be explored.

This chapter begins by providing a brief recapitulation of the research findings and relate

those to the previous literature from Chapter 2. The subsequent sections will be structured

according to the key themes and sub-themes that have emerged, presenting analysis of each and

the implications of the study. I will then discuss how future researchers can use and expand this

study. This chapter will also discuss any potential biases or limitations that may have influenced

the interpretation of the findings.

Introduction

Digital citizenship, despite no universal definition, refers in general to the responsible,

ethical, and mindful use of digital technologies and online spaces. The concept of digital

citizenship has become increasingly relevant in today’s technologically advanced society,

especially within high schools in the U.S., the setting for this study. Gleason and von Gillern

(2018) wrote about the need for a digital citizenship curriculum that is relevant to students’ lives

and their personal interests. The state of Georgia and McCoy County Public Schools heeded this

call and saw value in offering a digital citizenship curriculum to students. The state first adopted

the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) in 1998 and updated to the ISTE

standards for students (Georgia Department of Education, 2023) when they were introduced.

121

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

McCoy County Public Schools (MCPS) selected the Common Sense Media digital citizenship

curriculum as a basis for their digital citizenship implementation, per the recommendation of the

state. Despite digital citizenship standards and a curriculum in place, it can be argued that digital

citizenship is an afterthought in the larger scheme of what teachers are expected to do. For that

reason, I set out to investigate the experiences of six high school educators with digital

citizenship.

I conducted this phenomenographic study to understand how teachers were experiencing

the implementation of a digital citizenship curriculum during their school day. I conducted my

study at a single high school in the MCPS system. The main data-gathering tool I used was two

semi-structured in-depth interviews with six high school teachers, which transpired before and

after I conducted classroom observations. I observed their teaching of a lesson to one of their

classes. After the individual interviews and observations were completed, four members of the

study discussed digital citizenship as a focus group. I then set about analyzing the data using the

methods described in detail in Chapter 3. In the subsequent sections, I will recap the findings and

link them to the existing literature on the topic.

Summary of Findings and the Relationship to the Previous Literature

During the analysis of the data, four key themes emerged. The first theme was that all the

teacher participants believed that teaching digital citizenship to students was important. The

second theme centered around the digital citizenship curriculum that teachers have been asked to

teach. The third theme encompassed the challenges that the teacher participants perceived when

implementing digital citizenship. The fourth and final theme related to the concerns that the

teacher participants articulated about digital citizenship, both their proficiency, or lack of, in

teaching the subject matter and about the potential impact that digital citizenship has on their

122

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

students’ lives. See Table 18 for a brief description of these themes followed by a more detailed

description and link to the relevant literature.

Table 18

Key Themes and Research Findings in the Final Outcome

Theme

Findings

Teacher Participants Views on

Digital Citizenship

Digital citizenship is an important topic to teach

students because they do not always understand the

scope of their digital footprint;

The concept of digital citizenship varied amongst

teacher participants;

Digital Citizenship Curriculum

Teacher participants felt that digital citizenship

curriculum should be either a semester long class at

the high school level or taught throughout K-12;

Teachers were able to teach the curriculum as is;

however, they did not feel prepared to navigate

digital citizenship, as a concept;

Challenges Involved in Teaching

Digital Citizenship

Teachers are feeling overwhelmed and

implementing a digital citizenship curriculum is an

item they do not have time for;

Teachers do not feel prepared to teach a digital

citizenship curriculum;

123

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

The implementation of the lessons in the time frame

that teachers have is an issue.

Concerns of Teacher Participants

Teachers are concerned about the toll that digital

interactions, including social media use, are taking

on their students;

Teachers are worried about the repercussions that

students may face when applying for colleges and

jobs.

Digital Citizenship to Teacher Participants

In Chapter 2, I presented several definitions of digital citizenship from different

researchers. Ribble and Bailey (2007) defined digital citizenship as “norms of appropriate,

responsible behavior with regards to technology use” (p. 10). Mossberger et al. (2008) defined a

digital citizen as “those who use the Internet regularly and effectively” (p. 1). These definitions

were used frequently in research pertaining to digital citizenship according to Chen et al. (2021).

As more researchers conduct studies on digital citizenship, more definitions have emerged.

Martin et al. (2019) defined digital citizenship as “responsible digital habits to function in a

digital world” (p. 241). Cortesi et al. (2020) created the digital citizenship+ (plus) definition in

2020 “as the skills needed for youth to fully participate academically, socially, ethically,

politically, and economically in our rapidly evolving digital world” (p. 28). For the purposes of

this study, I had defined digital citizenship as the skills needed to search for and evaluate

information from multiple sources, both electronic and physical, while operating both safely and

responsibly. My definition was significantly influenced by the works of scholars such as Ribble

and Bailey (2007), Mossberger et al. (2008), Martin et al. (2019), and Cortesi et al. (2020).

124

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

As the literature indicates and as Chen et al. (2021) stated, there is no consensus on what

digital citizenship is. The teacher participants in this study were no different as each had a

slightly varied conceptualization of what digital citizenship is. See Table 19 for the participants’

conceptualization of digital citizenship.

Table 19

Participants Conceptualization of Digital Citizenship

Participant

Conceptualization

Ray

“People thinking critically about what they do online before they do it.”

Amy

“Learning and practice of society, societal norms just applied in this

technology age.”

Melissa

“How you interact with people in digital spaces and how you use

information and resources that you get from those spaces.”

Rachel

“Accountability and understanding of what you’re doing.”

Tonya

“Use of financial information, appropriate completion of forms, all of it

is digital citizenship to me.”

Victoria

“Watching how one acts online and watching what you post.”

Even though there are differences across definitions, several of the teacher participants’ ideas of

digital citizenship can be linked to ideas in the afore-mentioned researchers’ definitions.

Interestingly, one teacher participant in the study, Amy, referenced digital citizenship as the new

norms of society, just with technology. Her definition harkens to the definition provided by

Ribble and Bailey (2007) who wrote about the norms that were inherent in technology use.

Additionally, participant Melissa felt that digital citizenship included a component about how

one uses information and resources digitally. Mossberger et al. (2008) proposed a broad range of

125

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

topics that make a digital citizen, including the use of informational technologies. Victoria felt

that digital citizenship was made up of how one acts online. Martin et al. (2019) included

responsible digital habits for functioning in the digital world. The Cortesi et al. (2020) definition

included a range of skills that are needed by the youth of today to function in the digital world.

Participants used a range of skills in their conceptualization, as well including critical thinking,

financial literacy, information literacy, and netiquette. While there may not be a consensus

definition of digital citizenship, the skills needed to be a successful digital citizen emerge within

the different conceptualizations of digital citizenship. Some of those skills can be seen in the

framework of this study.

The theoretical framework of this study used Ribble’s (2015) nine elements of digital

citizenship (digital access, digital commerce, digital communication, digital literacy, digital

etiquette, digital law, digital rights and responsibilities, digital health and wellness, digital

security) as a lens for data analysis. When compared to teacher participants ideas of digital

citizenship and concerns, seven of the nine elements received a great deal of focus, with digital

security, digital health and wellness, digital literacy, digital etiquette, digital rights and

responsibilities, and digital communications topping the list. This aligns with the perspective

shared by participant Melissa, who emphasized that “Students don’t fully understand the scope

and reach of their digital lives.” Current research supports this concern, as evidenced by a recent

study which found a decline in young people’s digital literacy levels (Tinmaz et al., 2023).

Participants also mentioned the importance of digital commerce during the interview process.

The digital citizenship lessons that participants taught focused on seven of the nine elements

from Ribble’s (2015) list. Digital access was not mentioned at all as an issue during this study

though. This likely has to do with the fact that RSHS is a 1:1 school with each student receiving

126

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

a Chromebook and having access during the school day. Digital law also was not a focus of the

participants, with limited discussion about responsible use of online works.

Within the development of the study, the SAFE Model developed by Kim and Choi

(2018) served as a guiding lens for comparison. Like Ribble’s (2015) nine elements of digital

citizenship, the SAFE Model was designed to provide teachers with a blueprint for making

students digital citizens. The model includes “(a) self-identity in digital environment; (b) activity

in online [sic]; (c) fluency for the digital tools; and (d) ethics for digital environment” (Kim &

Choi, 2018, p. 156). In this study, teacher participants focused on each of these components in

one way or another, either through the lesson they presented, or the components were mentioned

during the interview process. The self-identity piece of the SAFE Model includes limiting

physical and psychological health risks that can come with technology use. When asked about

student mental health, each teacher participant listed it as a concern. Activity in online [sic] has a

digital commerce component, which was a particular focus for Tonya who expressed concern

about students giving away vital financial information. Fluency for digital environment includes

a focus on digital literacy, which each participant either presented as a part of their chosen lesson

or mentioned during their interview as an important part of digital citizenship teachings. Finally,

the ethics for digital environment includes items such as treating others with respect and no

cyber bullying, which were areas that participants discussed in the interview process as concerns,

but the lessons I personally observed did not focus on those areas. This section of the SAFE

model also includes a digital law component, which was not discussed by the participants.

Overall, when it comes to the two respective frameworks that informed this study,

participants focused on certain components of both the nine elements of digital citizenship and

the SAFE Model; however, aspects of each model were not mentioned or observed. Participants

127

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

expressed concern with digital safety and literacy, but they were not worried at all about digital

access, and only marginally mentioned digital law.

Digital Citizenship Curriculum

Participants in this study picked a digital citizenship lesson from a Nearpod library of

lessons provided by Common Sense Media. MCPS selected Common Sense as the digital

citizenship curriculum in the 2017/18 school year with its ease of use and real-world applications

being some of the main selling points. The findings in this study present compelling discussion

points, as each participant felt that they were not prepared to teach digital citizenship, but they

did feel that teaching the lesson of their choice was not hard to prepare for. The literature has

similar findings, as teachers feel there is a definite need for digital citizenship, but they also feel

underprepared to teach the concept (Ananto & Ningsih, 2023; Martin & Bolliger, 2018; Martin et

al., 2018, 2019, 2022; Phillips & Lee, 2019; Vega & Robb, 2019). This idea ties into one of the

challenges of teaching a digital citizenship curriculum, which is that of time. While the teacher

participants did not feel that they were ready or prepared to teach digital citizenship as

professional teachers, they could teach a lesson prepared for them. This falls in line with research

by Phillips and Lee (2019) who argued that it is important for teachers to teach digital citizenship

and to have access to lessons provided for the curriculum. Teacher preparation is also of

importance as Örtegren (2022) stressed the vital need for providing teachers with training in

digital citizenship. Teacher participants in this study expressed feeling overwhelmed with current

teaching responsibilities and had they been asked to create a digital citizenship curriculum along

with their other teaching duties, it may be a bridge too far.

Teacher participants in this study also discussed the curriculum as it relates to when and

how digital citizenship should be presented to students. For when digital citizenship instruction

128

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

should occur, participants felt that digital citizenship learning should start much earlier, and this

is supported by current research. Ladd and Traver (2023) wrote about the increasing digital

connectivity of children bringing both opportunities and risks, including online exploitation,

misinformation, and cyberbullying, and calling for the necessity for effective digital citizenship

curriculum development at a young age. Participants felt that digital citizenship could be its own

course and not limited to one day a week in an advisement setting. Common Sense Media

provides a digital citizenship curriculum that can be used as a standalone course or integrated

into existing subject areas. James et al. (2021) wrote that the Common Sense curriculum consists

of 73 lessons and is based on three frameworks: Rings of Responsibility, Digital Life Dilemmas,

and Repetition and Routine. Each of these three frameworks include components that were

discussed by teacher participants in this study as important parts of a curriculum. The Rings of

Responsibility was a point for several participants as they mentioned real life situations for their

students as an important part of a digital citizenship lesson and curriculum.

Participants differed on who should be responsible for teaching digital citizenship with

responses ranging from teachers within their content area, business type classes, to the entire

school. Lauricella et al. (2020) indicated that various individuals within school settings,

including teachers, media specialists, and STEM educators, possess the capability to teach digital

citizenship education. However, a debate persists regarding the most suitable approach for

integrating digital citizenship, subject content teachers incorporating digital citizenship concepts

alongside regular curriculum or linking digital citizenship education specifically to the role of the

media specialist (Lauricella et al., 2020; Phillips & Lee, 2019).

129

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Challenges Involved in Teaching Digital Citizenship

Teacher participants in this study expressed frustration at impediments to implementing

digital citizenship. These findings line up with existing literature. In 2022, Martin et al.

completed a study with ten K-12 participants that had taught digital citizenship and were

involved in a digital citizenship graduate course. In Martin et al.'s 2022 study, participants

highlighted challenges related to students' reluctance toward digital citizenship, inconsistency in

digital citizenship instruction by teachers, and a curriculum constraint due to limited time for

digital citizenship. Teacher participants in this dissertation study voiced their concerns over

students buy-in to the content of digital citizenship. One participant in particular, Tonya, was

very perplexed over the lack of attention her students displayed during a lesson on digital and

financial literacy. Other participants also were worried about how seriously their students were

taking the lessons, as some students had the belief that parts of the lesson could never happen to

them. Their concerns are not necessarily surprising, as Preddy (2016) listed that the greatest

hurdle to teaching digital citizenship “is gaining buy-in and instructional time for these critical

life skills” (p. 5). Another issue at play comes from a more recent study which found that

student’s conceptualization of digital citizenship is unclear (Zhong & Zheng, 2023), which could

shed light on why students do not always take the lessons seriously. This lack of clarity suggests

a potential gap in understanding and awareness, emphasizing the need for efforts to enhance

children’s comprehension of digital citizenship principles.

Teacher participants also spoke to the challenges that educators face when tasked with

teaching digital citizenship, issues that ranged from teacher training and preparation to

accountability. For example, one participant discussed accountability challenges in the

classroom, as the curriculum used by teachers at MCPS does not have grades attached to it so

130

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

students may not view it as important as other graded coursework. Additionally, implementation

of digital citizenship teaching is only assessed when an administrator checks the school-

generated reports to see if teachers presented their lesson. Melissa, the media specialist,

discussed during her interview that she works with teachers from all content areas, and she noted

that not all teachers taught the digital citizenship curriculum as intended. This issue could come

from a lack of preparation on the teacher’s part or the lack of value some teachers put onto

digital citizenship; issues previously noted by Martin et al. (2022).

Time to prepare for and implement digital citizenship instruction was the other challenge

that teacher participants in this study faced, a finding that echoes Martin et al.’s (2022) research.

In this dissertation, teacher participants expressed concern about both the time that digital

citizenship took away from their teacher duties and the limited amount of time in advisement to

teach the lesson. Three of the participants ran out of time in their chosen lesson and had to finish

on a separate occasion. Having enough time in the school day to teach digital citizenship in

conjunction with all other teacher duties, however, was the top problem cited by teacher

participants as an ongoing barrier; most of the participants expressed the feeling of being

overwhelmed by their responsibilities as teachers already and that digital citizenship was just

another thing to add to their list of duties.

Concerns of Teacher Participants

Teacher participants voiced their concerns in three areas of digital citizenship: student use

of social media, students’ mental health, and how students’ online life could affect their college

and career goals. In their 2022 study, Chen and Xiao explored the relationship between social

media usage and its impact on students' mental health. Their comprehensive review identified a

notable correlation between the use of social media and the potential emergence of mental health

131

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

challenges among students. In Feher's 2019 study, the validity of teacher concerns regarding

students' online postings was substantiated. The research revealed that students themselves

acknowledged the potential reputation-damaging consequences of negative online posts. These

concerns are shared by other shareholders, as parents are also worried about their children’s

online behaviors and its effects on them (Anderson et al., 2018; Auxier et al., 2020; Sobring,

2012).

Teacher participants felt that social media could be the root cause of their other areas of

concern: students’ mental health and students’ college and career goals. Participants felt that

students do not connect the dots from their online social media persona to real-life consequences.

One teacher participant, Rachel, stated that students do not understand the consequences of

putting questionable material out into the world. Another participant, Melissa, talked about the

new forms of cyberbullying and the passive aggressive nature it can take on. She discussed how

friends will block other friends or not invite someone to a party, then post pictures of the party

online for all to see. Social media posts that ostracize others lead to students questioning the

motivations of their friends. Passive aggressive bullying is not the only kind of cyberbullying

happening, as Victoria shared that her own child had suffered from online bullying that led to an

attempt on her own life. The participants are not alone in these feelings and are validated by

research.

Research backs up participants' concerns about students’ excessive time spent online.

Recent research has shed light on the impact of prolonged screen exposure on adolescent

behavior and well-being. Twenge and Campbell (2018) found that extended screen time,

especially beyond 1 hour a day, correlates with diminished psychological well-being in various

aspects among students, including reduced curiosity, self-control, and emotional stability. High

132

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

usage (7+ hours daily) among 14 to 17-year-olds significantly increases the risk of diagnoses of

depression and anxiety, seeking mental health treatment, and medication intake for psychological

or behavioral concerns compared to those who use screens for just an hour a day (Twenge &

Campbell, 2018). Pandya and Lodha (2021), in a comprehensive meta-analysis of numerous

primary studies, found a consensus that prolonged screen time has detrimental long-term effects

on both physical health—resulting in symptoms like eye strain, sleep disturbances, carpal tunnel

syndrome, and neck pain—and mental health, ranging from difficulties in concentration and

obsessions to diagnosable mental illnesses such as anxiety, depression, and attention-deficit

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Muppalla et al. (2023) found adverse connections between

screen time and the advancement of both physical and cognitive abilities.

Not only do the postings of teenagers affect each other’s mental health, but they can also

lead to potential employment problems in the future (Roth et al., 2013). Amy, who comes from a

corporate background, expressed frustration in knowing that employers look at student’s social

media and online life and it can affect their hiring status. As an example, a survey of 2,600 hiring

managers in the United States showed that 45% of them actively searched for information about

job applicants on social networking sites. Notably, among this group, 35% decided not to hire at

least one applicant based on the information they discovered during these searches (Roth et al.,

2013). Three participants picked lessons that attempted to demonstrate how colleges look at

students’ social media history and how it can keep students out of the college of their choice.

Participants voiced their concerns about student buy in and attempted to present lessons

that matter to the students; however, garnering student engagement and convincing students to

participate, as discussed earlier, is a challenge for educators tasked with teaching digital

citizenship (Martin et al., 2022). This was expressed by participants and has been an issue for

133

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

teachers forever; how can students be convinced to buy-in to a lesson or curriculum before it’s

too late and happens to them in real life. One may ask what must be done to convey the

seriousness of the lessons and curriculum to students before potential consequences transpire in

real life? The next section discusses potential implications and suggestions for future research.

Implications for the Future

The findings of this study provide possible implications for the practice of digital

citizenship in high schools and school districts. Through in-depth interviews and observations of

digital citizenship lessons, valuable insights have been gained into the challenges, successes, and

opportunities associated with teaching students responsible and ethical technology use. This

section outlines the practical implications of the study's findings.

There are five implications from this study, which are detailed in the following section,

that can support teachers in their practice of teaching digital citizenship in this particular school

and possibly the larger school district. First, teacher participants expressed that training on digital

citizenship is needed. Second, teachers are in need of time to adequately prepare to teach digital

citizenship. Third, teachers expressed a need for a curriculum that is hands-on and based on real

life situations for students. Fourth, digital citizenship instruction should include and prioritize

supporting the mental health of students. Finally, I provide a call to action for districts or states

to develop a statewide definition of digital citizenship. See Figure 12 for a brief listing of the

practical implications.

Figure 12

Visual Representation of Implications for Practical Use

134

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

Teacher Training

Based on the experiences reported by the teacher participants, training for digital

citizenship implementation at RSHS and MCHS is lacking. Each participant felt that, while they

could teach a lesson from the digital citizenship library of prepared lessons, they did not feel

prepared at all to teach digital citizenship. Schools and districts may need to consider dedicated

training on the concept of digital citizenship (Common Sense Media, 2019). Teacher participant

felt that digital citizenship was an important concept for their students to learn and felt some sort

of responsibility to teach their students, but the feeling of not being prepared could deter some

teachers from going beyond the lessons or even teaching the lessons (Martin & Colliger, 2018;

Martin et al., 2019, 2022; Phillips & Lee, 2019; Vega & Robb, 2019).

Within the district of RSHS and at MCHS, time exists in the school year for one or more

professional development sessions to be offered to teachers. Professional development sessions

could encompass topics that include enhancing students’ online safety, promoting responsible

online behavior, and developing critical thinking skills and media literacy, all pieces of digital

citizenship that teacher participants in this study discussed. Professional development sessions

135

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

are offered in several ways already in schools, from live and in person sessions to on demand

online modules that guide participants through training on their own time. Professional

development sessions on digital citizenship would help teachers feel more comfortable with the

idea of incorporating digital citizenship in the classroom and show teachers that the school and

district take this topic seriously. Whether developing their own curriculum or finding a service

with a digital citizenship professional development series already, this is an important step for

teachers, schools, and districts to take in empowering students to be digital citizens. In Örtegren's

(2023) work, it is emphasized that there is a growing necessity for educators to enhance their

professional digital competence, especially in the context of digital citizenship. Furthermore,

Örtegren also highlights the need for a training method aimed at developing this digital

competence.

ISTE

Based on the findings of this study and as an emerging scholar of digital citizenship, I

argue that any training on digital citizenship should encompass exposure to the ISTE standards

for students. Educators equipped with an understanding of the ISTE standards can guide students

in developing responsible and ethical digital citizenship, whether through a prepared curriculum

such as Common Sense Media or by intermingling content with digital citizenship. While the

standards are not measured with state or national tests, they can serve as a springboard for

teachers who may feel unprepared for teaching their students digital citizenship concepts and

preparing their students for a digital world.

The ISTE standards for students have been adopted by the state of Georgia; however,

teacher participants in this study were not at all familiar with them, which is problematic. During

the interviews, participants were provided a copy of the ISTE student standards for digital

136

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

citizenship, which they had not seen previously. I had to provide each participant a few minutes

to review the standards and familiarize themselves with them before proceeding with their

responses. Not being familiar with the ISTE standards can lead to an unintentional divergence

from the digital citizenship curriculum objectives, causing a mismatch between what is taught

and students’ expected learning outcomes. This lack of awareness may result in inconsistent

student learning, hindered lesson planning, limited professional growth for teachers, and the

potential disadvantage of students lacking important knowledge and skills. While I do not feel

that an entire training or professional development session should focus on the ISTE standards,

the lack of awareness of their existence indicates that training is merited within the school and

district. For example, the ISTE student standards could easily be linked to the school resource

page and briefly discussed during a preplanning meeting on technology usage. At a minimum,

the standards would be easily accessible for teachers and, perhaps, on their minds.

Teachers' familiarity with the ISTE standards is valuable even if not directly

implemented in every lesson. Understanding these standards enables teachers to support

colleagues in technology integration, guides professional development, and prepares students for

a technology-driven future. This awareness allows recognition of necessary student skills,

inspiring creative technology integration and aligning teaching practices with globally

recognized best practices in technology education.

Need for Time

Teacher participants in this study made a case for already being overwhelmed with

responsibilities both in and out of the classroom. Introducing new responsibilities to teachers

without allocating sufficient time can lead to an overwhelming increase in their workload.

Teachers already have numerous responsibilities, including lesson planning, grading, student

137

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

support, and extracurricular activities. Increasing expectations when it comes to digital

citizenship implementation without providing additional time can negatively impact their ability

and desire to effectively teach digital citizenship plus fulfill their existing duties.

RSHS already has a model in place that could lead to more time for teachers to review

and prepare for digital citizenship lessons and curriculum implementation. The advisement

period is a non-academic time for both teachers and students where school information is

distributed and lessons on digital citizenship and other initiatives happen. Since it is a non-

academic part of the school day, one day a week could be deemed as digital citizenship

preparation time. Teachers could review and prepare for digital citizenship lessons, take part in

digital citizenship training sessions (online and participant paced), and review relevant digital

citizenship literature. Students could perhaps be tasked with working on schoolwork from other

classes on a rotating basis. For example, week one is social studies day, week two is math day,

etc.

This model of offering one day a week of advisement time completely dedicated to

digital citizenship preparation would take work by both the teachers and administration.

Teachers would need to take advantage of the time, which may not always happen as some

educators may use it for other tasks. The administration team would need to make a concerted

effort to fill preparation days with relevant information. This would require administrators

locating training resources to share, curating current digital citizenship articles, and checking in

on their teachers during this time, among other things, for the planning periods to be used

effectively. Once established, however, this program would pay dividends for the administrative

team who could repurpose training materials for new employees hired into the district. While this

138

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

program would be an adjustment for everyone, it is one that would offer teachers what they felt

was missing, which was time to prepare for digital citizenship.

Digital Citizenship Curriculum

One of the most important findings in this study was that teacher participants felt strongly

that digital citizenship either needed to be an entirely separate class or a district-wide and all-

grade level program that immerses students in digital citizenship. While teacher participants felt

that the current curriculum was satisfactory, and that the lessons lined up with their beliefs about

digital citizenship, there was an overarching concern about the haphazard way that it was

implemented. Since MCPS already incorporates Common Sense media’s digital citizenship

curriculum, it would be worthwhile to examine how the curriculum is being implemented

throughout the district. Teacher participants did not feel like the curriculum was being

implemented throughout the district consistently or with fidelity, however.

Current Digital Citizenship Curriculum

The digital citizenship curriculum for K-12 could be easily addressed in MCPS as

vertical team meetings are occurring. During a vertical team, session time could be spent to

address what each grade level is doing with the digital citizenship curriculum and how each

grade level can help each other. This would not require a new curriculum as Common Sense

media already has lessons for each grade level; however, this would require some level of

coordination and dedication from each grade level within a school cluster. MCPS has school

clusters that include a high school, at least one middle school, and usually several elementary

schools. This step would fall in line with the above recommended teacher training on digital

citizenship and it could be stacked on top of each other to create an alignment of the curriculum

across grade levels.

139

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

A New Digital Citizenship Class

During the data collection, it became evident that participants believed that digital

citizenship should be taught as a distinct and separate class. Creating a new digital citizenship

class at the high school level would not be as easy as attempting to streamline the current

curriculum across grade levels. A new class would require a dedicated teacher assigned to the

course. Earmarking a teacher for a digital citizenship class could potentially mean reassignment

of a teacher from a different subject area, as there are only so many teachers assigned to each

school. The district would also need to develop, create or adopt a curriculum for the new class;

however, there is potential for the Common Sense curriculum to serve in that capacity. Teacher

participants shared the desire to incorporate more real-life examples of digital citizenship issues,

which is something that could be incorporated into a new class.

Buy-In Amongst Stakeholders

Teacher participants in this study expressed concern about the level of buy-in from key

stakeholders involved in the digital citizenship curriculum at MCPS. Teacher participants

identified students as the most important stakeholders who need additional support, as students

do not always take the digital citizenship lessons seriously enough. One of the issues at MCPS

with the current curriculum set up is that it is presented during a non-academic time block, thus

students do not have grades attached to the lessons they receive. Creating a digital citizenship

course would create academic consequences as students would have graded assignments and

potentially create more buy-in, in that regard; however, as mentioned above, creating a new

course is not an easy task. A grade, however, is not the only way to create a vested interest or

engagement from students. Making a digital citizenship lesson interesting and relevant to student

140

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

lives could go a long way towards creating the level of buy-in that is needed for successful

implementation.

Mental Health of Students

Teacher participants in this study collectively expressed concern about the mental health

of their students and the role they as teachers have in supporting students to address mental

health in a positive manner. Deaton et al. (2022) found that teachers play a crucial and significant

role in addressing students’ mental health concerns due to the amount of face-to-face contact

with students. Nygaard et al. (2023) wrote that schools and teachers are increasingly being asked

to implement a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS), which integrates student needs and

school services which includes those associated with student mental health and well-being.

Digital citizenship can play a role in improving students mental health as they learn ways to

interact online in a safe and respectful manner. Teacher participants discussed how students are

affected today by online interactions both directly and indirectly, from passive aggressive

bullying to being targeted by online scammers looking for personal information. All these

interactions can play a negative role in a student’s mental health.

Based on the findings of this study, I argue that all levels of education should take

concrete steps towards addressing students’ mental health needs. To achieve this aim,

administrators cannot merely ask teachers to provide instruction about the safe and responsible

use of technology. Teachers need support from the district and the state on several facets of

student’s mental health. Teachers are not mental health professionals, so they need guidance on

the signs of student distress and how to effectively communicate with students who require

assistance. Teachers also would benefit from learning ways to build trust with students so that

they are someone that students can come to for help and assistance. Adding professional

141

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

psychologists or social workers to the school staff would be an important step to take as well.

While talking to a teacher can provide some relief for a student in distress, a true mental health

professional should be readily available for students. The district in this study has school

psychologists available to the school clusters; however, one person for multiple schools is not

sufficient. The district should hire a permanent dedicated mental health professional at each high

school in the district and then continue the practice of having a roving professional for the

middle and elementary grade levels.

Uniform Definition of Digital Citizenship

Each teacher participant in this study had a similar yet different vision of digital

citizenship. In Chapter 2, I discussed how there is no universal definition of digital citizenship

and presented several different variations. Although there is not a consensus about what digital

citizenship means, there are actions that can be taken to address this issue to better support

stakeholders who have a vested interest in digital citizenship education. As Ohler (2010)

described, digital citizenship can be ‘a catch-all phrase to describe an ideal for our students’ (p.

40), encapsulating the diverse yet interconnected concepts and ideals within the scope of digital

citizenship.

To implement digital citizenship curriculum at a school or district level effectively, there

needs to be a consistent definition and vision of what digital citizenship is. I recommend that

stakeholders at the school, district, and/or state level work together to create a digital citizenship

definition. For example, MCPS should dedicate the time and effort to create a definition of

digital citizenship and could use the Common Sense Media curriculum as a starting point since

the curriculum has already been adapted by the school. By taking the initiative to create a

uniform definition, teachers would have a clear expectation of what digital citizenship in the

142

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

classroom entails. The county could reference their definition and expectations for digital

citizenship implementation when training the teachers in the system. Additionally, the state of

Georgia could enact a similar effort and share its findings with all the school districts in the state

so that the entire state could have a cohesive vision of digital citizenship and a curriculum to

support it.

Limitations

Every research study has limitations, and this study is no exception. It is important to

acknowledge these limitations to provide a comprehensive understanding of my research. One of

the limitations of my study is that data collection was conducted solely within a single high

school. Although efforts were made to ensure the representativeness of the chosen school, the

findings may not be relevant to other educational settings around the nation, state, or even within

the MCPS system. This takes away the ability to analyze differences amongst diverse context

settings. Other schools in different geographic locations may offer unique insights and

perspectives that are not included. Different grade levels and their voices are excluded in this

study as well. Middle and elementary school teachers could have provided a different insight into

digital citizenship. While a limitation, working with multiple schools and levels would have

increased the complexity and logistical challenges of the study. By focusing on a single school, I

was able to build on an established rapport with the participants and gain a deeper understanding

of their experiences and perspectives. This intensive approach allowed for more in-depth

interviews, observations, and data collection.

Along the lines of scope as well, the next limitation deals with the observation piece of

my study. I only observed a single digital citizenship lesson of the teacher participants choosing.

The limitation created by this choice is twofold. By focusing on a single lesson, my study may

143

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

not have captured all the instructional strategies and approaches employed by my teacher

participants to promote digital citizenship throughout the curriculum. Teacher participants who

shared that they integrate digital citizenship instruction throughout the school day could only

describe their practices to me versus seeing them in action. Teachers also may have changed

their teaching style and approach to teaching digital citizenship because of being observed.

While I would like to think that I observed authentic and organic digital citizenship lessons, I

understand and recognize that teacher behaviors change when an observation is occurring even

though it was made clear it was not a punitive observation.

Another key limitation in my study is the lack of diversity amongst participants. RSHS

presented the opportunity to find a diverse group of participants. Despite reaching out to all

teachers who taught digital citizenship at the school, my participants ended up all being white

and mostly female, with only one male participant. Digital citizenship is a broad and

multifaceted concept that encompasses various aspects of responsible and ethical behavior in the

digital realm. Different backgrounds, experiences, and characteristics could have brought unique

insights to the research process. While my study did include a diversity of experiences in

education, it fell short of my goal to include a voice that is representative of the diverse teacher

and student population of MCPS and RSHS. Although every staff member at RSHS had the

opportunity to respond and potentially participate in the study, only six individuals responded to

my request. Although I would have liked to have had a more diverse group of participants, I

could not force individuals to participate and could only work with those that volunteered.

The timing of my study is an additional limitation. More specifically, the time of the

school year when I conducted the study proved challenging. My study began in late April and

ran into May which is the end of the school calendar year for MCPS and RSHS. During this time

144

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

of year, schools are busier than usual and more disjointed, with end-of-year testing occurring and

both students and teachers looking forward to summer plans. During the time frame of my study,

students were in the middle of end-of-course testing, which included several district assessments,

as well as Advanced Placement (AP) testing. While not every participant was affected by this,

almost every student had to take some sort of high stakes test. These stressors could have altered

the way participants, and their classes completed the digital citizenship lessons. The advisement

period at RSHS is often a time for students to decompress from the stress of the school day. The

digital citizenship lesson being presented may not have had students’ full attention. While

student interaction was not a focus of this study, the way students approached the lesson may

have impacted the views of the participants. While I would have liked to have collected data

without some of the stresses of the end of the school year, I could only begin my study after

approval was obtained from the university, school district, and individual school.

Finally, this study was limited to teacher participants; other stakeholders in schools were

not interviewed. Students, while present during the lesson portion of the study, were not

interviewed or observed during the lesson as a source of data. Administrators were not

interviewed despite overseeing the advisement program at RSHS. Parents were not involved in

this research study, even though they play a major role in their child’s digital citizenship

education. Student interviews, especially, could have provided valuable insight into the lesson

implementation by providing feedback on how they felt about the digital citizenship lesson and

curriculum.

Recommendations

The following recommendations for further research are based on the teacher

participants’ perceptions of digital citizenship, their experience with implementing a digital

145

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

citizenship curriculum, and the limitations of the study from above. See Figure 13 for a listing of

the recommendations.

Figure 13

Recommendations for Future Research

Student Perceptions

Additional research is needed to explore students’ perceptions about a digital citizenship

curriculum and the lessons that go with it. This study chose to focus on teachers’ experiences

with digital citizenship curriculum; however, students are the main stakeholders and maybe the

most affected by a digital citizenship curriculum. Literature also shows a lack of studies that

focus on students’ perspectives of the topic. Studies, instead, have looked at the impact of

teaching digital citizenship or the importance of digital citizenship (Buchholz et al., 2020;

Gleason & Von Gillern, 2018; Martin et al., 2022; Ribble, 2012). Further research into student

perceptions of a digital citizenship curriculum could lend insight on student buy-in to the topic

and curriculum. Martin et al. (2022) did address student related challenges; however, this was

146

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

from the perspective of teachers and not students. In Martin et al.’s (2022) study, her participants

also found that students did not buy into the topic of digital citizenship.

Multiple School Research

Future research should consider extending the investigation to multiple schools to

provide a broader perspective and enhance the generalizability of the findings. This research

study focused on one school in one district. A broader study could consider including a more

diverse sample of schools, encompassing different geographical locations, socio-economic

backgrounds, and school types. Future researchers with more resources could potentially tap into

a broader range of knowledge and experiences, enriching the research and potentially generating

new ideas about digital citizenship and digital citizenship curriculum.

Digital Citizenship as a Course

One of the findings of this study was that digital citizenship should be its own class

taught to high schoolers. At the time of this study, RSHS and MCPS only offered digital

citizenship in their advisement time period, which called for a weekly lesson. Three of the

participants ran out of time on their lesson; Melissa pointed out that the lesson implementation

varies by teacher. While digital citizenship can be infused into a period during the day and across

the curriculum, having a dedicated class would help ensure that it receives adequate attention and

resources. It would allow for a structured and comprehensive approach to teaching digital

citizenship, potentially empowering students to become digital citizens in an increasingly

interconnected world. Research could be conducted on the difference between digital citizenship

taught as a stand-alone class and adding digital citizenship curriculum to other areas of the

school day. This could shed light on the best way to implement digital citizenship into the

students’ daily schedule.

147

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

The Parent Role

Previous studies, such as that of Erikson et al. (2016), have found that parents are

concerned about the online risk of their children. Some participants in this study, though, voiced

a concern with the role of their students’ parents in digital citizenship education. The digital

landscape presents various challenges for young people, including cyberbullying, online privacy

concerns, misinformation, and digital addiction, all of which participants spoke to in this study.

When parents are informed and engaged in digital citizenship education, they can better

understand these challenges and work together with educators to address them effectively.

Parents should play a vital role in helping children navigate online risks, making informed

decisions, and seeking help when needed. This study did not directly address the role of parents

in students’ digital citizenship education, and while there are studies centering around parents

(Erikson et al., 2016; Wang & Xing, 2018), future research could center around the relationship

between parents, schools, and teachers when it comes to teaching digital citizenship.

When to Start Digital Citizenship Curriculum

In this study the participants expressed two suggestions for the digital citizenship

curriculum, which included starting digital citizenship education earlier and creating a separate

dedicated digital citizenship course for students. Martin et al. (2022) referenced a similar

problem in that there was no consistency in digital citizenship education. This study builds on

Martin et al.’s (2022) research as most of the participants in this study felt that digital citizenship

education should be consistent and begin during the elementary school years. During the focus

group portion of this study Ray, summed up the group’s feelings:

It would be nice to have a standardized curriculum that is introduced at the

elementary level and then grows with the student as they progress through school. To

148

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

my knowledge, there is nothing in place that addresses digital citizenship other than

Nearpods or enrolling in a specific business technology class.

At the high school level, there is a prevailing sentiment that students enter their classes with

minimal to no prior digital citizenship education received during their earlier years of schooling.

The participants unanimously agreed that there should be a greater emphasis on digital

citizenship training at earlier grade levels, benefiting both teachers and students.

Buchholz et al. (2020) discussed the importance of a curriculum that allows for

interaction as a student prepares to become a citizen and digital citizen. A curriculum that is

curated for students to be immersed in digital citizenship from the time MCPS students enter the

school system could arm students with the knowledge and skills to become true digital citizens.

More longitudinal research in digital citizenship education could be conducted, starting at the

elementary level and following students through their high school years. This comprehensive

approach could investigate the effects of sustained digital citizenship instruction on both student

and teacher experiences, as well as their perceptions of digital citizenship.

Teacher Training

During this study teacher participants were asked about their digital citizenship training,

and collectively the participants stated they felt unprepared to teach digital citizenship. During

follow-up interviews, each participant was asked about preparing to teach their digital citizenship

lesson and each participant responded that it was not difficult. So, where does the problem

reside? One could argue that teachers can present a pre-designed lesson when asked to do so;

however, teachers require time to review the lesson and prepare for it in their minds. Given the

expressed concerns from the participants of this study who noted that they needed more training

on digital citizenship, future qualitative studies could examine this need specifically to identify

149

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

which areas are skills and knowledge needed for digital citizenship instruction. The participants

in this study all agreed that it is a vital topic to be teaching their students, but they all felt

something was lacking and felt unprepared to teach digital citizenship.

Longer Look at Curriculum Implementation

As mentioned in the limitations portion of this chapter, I only saw one lesson being

taught by each participant. Future researchers could consider broadening the scope of the study

by examining multiple lessons over the course of a semester or even school year. This would

allow for a more comprehensive exploration of perceptions of teachers presenting this digital

citizenship curriculum. I am not aware of studies that examine teachers teaching a digital

citizenship curriculum for an extended period of time at the high school level.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study sheds light on the landscape of digital citizenship

implementation within a high school setting. The findings reveal that teachers at this level indeed

place substantial value on digital citizenship, although their individual interpretations of the

concept can vary significantly. It is evident that teachers have successfully integrated the

required curriculum into their teaching practices and acknowledge its importance in imparting

crucial lessons to their students. However, their efforts are not without challenges, as they

wrestle with time constraints, limited training opportunities, the struggle to engage students, and

the overwhelmed feeling that comes with being a teacher. This study also highlights teachers'

genuine concerns for their students, encompassing both their mental well-being and safety in the

digital realm, as well as the potential long-term consequences that students may face in their

academic and professional pursuits due to their digital presence.

150

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

On a personal note, this study has enabled me to grow as a researcher and writer

throughout this entire process. The experience interviewing teacher participants and observing

them teach has also changed my perceptions of digital citizenship. While I have always valued

the concept of digital citizenship with my own children and students, I have never voiced my

value of teaching students this concept. In the past, I assumed I was an outlier among teachers in

my school and district who recognized the importance of digital citizenship; however, after

spending time speaking with the participants and listening to their voices, I know that I am not

alone. I also recognize that I need to do more to champion digital citizenship for students. I seek

to be a teacher leader of digital citizenship in my school and district to support my current and

future students.

This study allowed high school teachers to discuss a topic that is infrequently discussed at

RSHS. Although teachers receive a weekly schedule for advisement and preview the weekly

presentation slides, there is a lack of comprehensive attention at RSHS regarding the evaluation

of lesson effectiveness or the assessment of salient instructional components. The participants in

this study were able to discuss their perceptions of the concept of digital citizenship, voice the

concerns they have for their students as well as the digital citizenship curriculum. The

participants value digital citizenship and recognize that it is a key concept to teach students. The

participants are worried about the effects that digital life and social media are having on their

students. These participants feel the burden of preparing students for the pitfalls of navigating a

digital world. At the end of the day, it is these voices that most need to be heard as they are the

ones working with children daily. My goal for this study is to advance practice in the area of

teaching digital citizenship at the high school level, as well as encourage future research into

other stakeholders’ perceptions and opinions of digital citizenship in schools. At a minimum

151

NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL REALM

outcome arising from this study, I propose the initiation of systematic monitoring within RSHS

to assess the progress and effectiveness of the digital citizenship curriculum, facilitated through

the establishment of a dedicated committee focused on the digital citizenship curriculum.

Navigating the Digital Realm_ Perceptions and Challenges of High-17-167.pdf

Students also viewed