Search results

This chapter introduces the book by revolving around its core concept: digital citizenship. This introductory chapter on digital citizenship regimes in the postpandemics could be established by including several brief discussion points that gradually introduce and lead us comprehensively to the chapters of the book previously introduced. These discussion points are informative and attempt to introduce progressively to the key chapters of the book as follows: (1) Urban-Digital Citizenship Nexus; (2) Advancing Recent Literature on Citizenship; (3) Rescaling Nation-States: Pandemic Citizenship and Algorithmic Nations; (4) Beyond the Smart Cities; (5) Exploring Digital Citizenship Towards Technopolitical Dynamics; (6) Borderless and Pandemic Citizenship; and (7) In Summary: Towards Future Research and Policy Avenues in the Postpandemics.

This chapter develops a conceptual taxonomy of five emerging digital citizenship regimes: (1) the globalised and generalisable regime called pandemic citizenship that clarifies how post-COVID-19 datafication processes have amplified the emergence of four intertwined, non-mutually exclusive and non-generalisable new technopoliticalised and city-regionalised digital citizenship regimes in certain European nation-states’ urban areas; (2) algorithmic citizenship, which is driven by blockchain and has allowed the implementation of an e-Residency programme in Tallinn; (3) liquid citizenship, driven by dataism – the deterministic ideology of big data – and contested through claims for digital rights in Barcelona and Amsterdam; (4) metropolitan citizenship, as revindicated in reaction to Brexit and reshuffled through data co-operatives in Cardiff; and (5) stateless citizenship, driven by devolution and reinvigorated through data sovereignty in Barcelona, Glasgow and Bilbao. This chapter challenges the existing interpretation of how these emerging digital citizenship regimes together are ubiquitously rescaling the associated spaces/practices of European nation-states.

This chapter elucidates how digital citizenship regimes may be rescaling nation-states. In order to shed light on this phenomenon, the chapter introduces and answers three main research questions to unfold the content of this book as follows: (1) How will nation-states in Europe evolve in the aftermath of the emerging digital citizenship regimes? (2) Against the backdrop of the COVID-19, will the urban age reconfigure the technopolitics of European nation-states through new digital citizenship regimes (Moisio, 2018)? (3) And ultimately, will Europe evolve towards a post-national technopolity from a platform of established nation-states headed for a city-regionalised federal network of nations determined voluntarily and democratically through blockchain (Bauböck & Orgad, 2019; Calzada, 2018a, 2022; Calzada & Bustard, 2022; De Filippi & Lavayssiére, 2020; De Filippi, Mann, & Reijers, 2020; Keating, 2017; Keating, Jordana, Marx, & Wouters, 2019; Orgad & Bauböck, 2018)?

This study investigated the effectiveness of a professional development project on digital citizenship education (DCE) conducted by a team at the Education University of Hong Kong. The project aimed to promote digital citizenship education in local junior secondary schools in Hong Kong and support the professional development of in-service teachers.

This study was based on a departmental knowledge transfer and curriculum development project that provided professional development training workshops to in-service teachers from seven partner schools. This paper analyses some findings from the quantitative research questionnaires, lesson observations and qualitative interviews.

Eleven of the 12 participants reported that they were satisfied with the training workshops in the end. We also conducted paired sample t-tests of inferential data. The results show that after the workshops, the teachers tended to teach their students more about aspects of digital law, digital commerce and digital safety and security when teaching digital citizenship. This selection helps us to better understand the priorities of teachers in teaching digital citizenship.

This paper is the product of an original knowledge transfer and curriculum development project supported by the Education University of Hong Kong in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Hong Kong SAR) of China. The topic of digital citizenship education has also been under developed since citizenship education has always been about conventional citizenship in the physical world.

Public schools in a democracy should educate young people to develop the knowledge and dispositions of citizenship in order to foster a more inclusive society and ensure the continuation of the democratic republic. Conceptualizations of citizenship must be clearly framed in order to support civic engagement, in particular, civic engagement for social justice. Rarely do educational technology scholars or educators interrogate the International Society for Technology in Education definition of digital citizenship. Educational technologists should connect notions of civic engagement and conceptions of digital citizenship. Instead, the field continues to engage in research, policy and practice which disconnects these ideas. This suggests that a gap exists between educational technologists’ conceptualizations of citizenship and the larger implications of citizenship within a democracy. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

This paper uses a between-study analysis of the literature to answer: How does the field of educational technology discuss and research digital citizenship? The data were coded using constant comparative analysis. The study adopted a theoretical framework grounded in Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004) What Kind of Citizen, and Krutka and Carpenter’s (2016) digital approach to citizenship.

The findings suggest that educational technologists’ uncritical usage of the term digital citizenship limits the authors’ field’s ability to contribute to a fundamental purpose of public schooling in a democracy – to develop citizens. Further, it hampers imagining opportunities to use educational technology to develop pedagogies of engaged citizenship for social justice.

Reframing the conception of digital citizenship as active civic engagement for social justice pushes scholarship, and its attendant implications for practice, in a proactive direction aimed at dismantling oppression.

Previous studies highlighted a shortage of scale to measure digital citizenship among Indians. Accordingly, this study examined the psychometric properties of Jones and Mitchell’s (2016) digital citizenship scale in the Indian context with the help of two independent studies.

In the first study, the factorial validity of the scale was determined using the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In the second study, Cronbach’s alpha (CA) and composite reliability (CR) values checked the internal consistency reliability of the scale. Also, convergent, discriminant and criterion validity were examined.

EFA recommended a two-factor structure explaining 58.219% of the total variance. The item loadings varied from 0.540 to 0.793. The Indian version of the scale showed one variation. In the original digital citizenship scale, the seventh statement (“I like to present myself online as someone was making positive choices”) was part of factor 1 (online respect); however, this study suggested that the seventh statement should be included in factor 2 (online civic engagement). In the second study, the acceptable (>0.70) values of CA and CR concluded the internal consistency reliability of the scale. The convergent validity was suggested by average variance explained values (>0.50). In addition, as expected, the Indian version of the digital citizenship scale reported a statistically significant positive correlation with Internet self-efficacy and a considerable negative relationship with cyberbullying. These findings concluded the criterion validity of the scale.

The Indian version of the digital citizenship scale showed appreciable psychometric properties among Indian students.

Northern Ireland (NI) has pervasively been a fragile and often disputed city-regional nation. Despite NI's slim majority in favour of remaining in the European Union, de facto Brexit, post-pandemic challenges and the Northern Ireland Protocol (NIP) have revealed a dilemma: people of all political hues have started to question aspects of their own citizenship. Consequently, this chapter suggests an innovative approach called ‘Algorithmic Nations’ to better articulate its emerging/complex citizenship regimes for this divided and post-conflict society in which identity borders and devolution may be facilitated through blockchain technology. This chapter assesses implications of this dilemma for a city-regionalised nation enmeshed within the UK, Ireland and Europe: NI through Belfast, its main metropolitan hub. The chapter explores digital citizenship in NI by applying ‘Algorithmic Nations’ framework particularly relating to intertwined (1) cross-bordering, (2) critical awareness, (3) digital activism and (4) post-pandemic realities and concludes with three dilemmas and how ‘Algorithmic Nations’ framing could better integrate NI's digital citizenship.

This study aims to investigate the trending term: “Netiquette” as an important element in the effective digital citizenship. The research suggests a systematic framework of netiquette rules in the field of online education based on the classical core rules of netiquette and according to the digital citizenship scale (DCS). The research also studies the corresponding responsibilities of both educators and students to raise awareness towards using technology in a balanced, safe, smart and ethical way as the shift towards the digital activities increased significantly in the post-corona time.

The research used the qualitative data that were based on the everyday observation and analysis of the online education experience at the university of Jordan in the academic year 2020/2021; the online group discussions of students and teachers; and investigating the guidelines of the online learning netiquette rules in various academic institutes. Comparative analysis was conducted to merge and eliminate redundant rules and to add sub rules, and then to cluster them into groups. The suggested clustered groups were distributed into the classical core rules outline of netiquette. In each core rule, the sub rules were reclassified and recategorized according to the DCS by studying the complexity levels and their corresponding factors. The suggested framework updates and adds DCS levels and factors considering the exceptional experience of online education through the pandemic.

The research finds that “Netiquette” had been neglected in cyber ethics literature, and so it has to be rediscovered through the lens of digital citizenship that becomes very noticeable issue in the post-COVID era. So, the research presents a systematic framework that outlines more than 150 netiquette sub rules in the field of online education, and that were clustered according to DCS and the classical core rules of netiquette. It also adds a new factor to the bottom level of DCS which is the primarily skills and traits, and also updates the internet and political activism fac-tor by adding the social perspective.

A novel classification of the classical core rules of netiquette was proposed in the field of online education to serve as a spectrum of identifying the complexity of digital citizenship levels and factors. This research can be a starting point of more works on netiquette research in online education and on other fields such as online business meetings, social media networking and online gaming.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how changes in K-12 educational delivery methods in the USA impacts students as 1:1 device programs become a required tool for learning. This change produces gaps in knowledge and understanding of the digital environment and exposes minors to risk. Mandatory technology integration by school districts places the ethical responsibility on school districts to prepare students to use the digital environment to mitigate risk.

The author’s literature review focused on the impact of personal device integration in education on students. The author surveyed teachers in the district on what they perceived as risk to students accessing the digital environment and what they believe creates value in digital citizenship instructional content. The author also gathered information while serving on the school district technology steering committee and digital citizenship working group.

Mandatory 1:1 device programs used for learning provide unlimited access to the digital environment. This technology integration creates digital knowledge gaps in understanding among students and exposes them to risk or dangers such as loss of privacy, psychological harms and engaging in or being a victim of illegal online activities. School districts are responsible for providing a remedy to close this gap and mitigate risk by developing learning content resources for teachers.

As 1:1 device programs continue to grow in school districts in the USA, it is essential for students to learn to apply protocols and understand norms of the digital world. Providing a digital citizenship curriculum in a format such as a Google Site will offer educators access to instructional content that teaches students to apply protocols, understand norms of the internet and social media and foster critical thinking to analyze power structures, biases and recognize manipulation online. Student must learn how to apply rules that challenge assumptions behind the digital content they see, and they must be able to identify and resolve digital practices and behaviors that are problematic, so they are prepared to participate in a digital society.

This perspective may be relevant to school districts contemplating personal device integration, providing insight into how 1:1 device use impacts students and develops an ethical position for creating digital citizenship resources for teachers.