Development of a Scale to Measure Digital Citizenship Among Young Adults for Democratic Citizenship Education

Development of a Scale to Measure Digital Citizenship among Young Adults for Democratic Citizenship Education

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Ohio State University

By Moonsun Choi Graduate Program in Education: Teaching and Learning

The Ohio State University 2015

Dissertation Committee: Dr. Dean Cristol, Advisor Dr. Michael Glassman, Co-advisor Dr. Binaya Subedi Dr. Tracey Stuckey-Mickell

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a theory-based digital citizenship scale building on calibrated and inclusive components of digital citizenship. Although understanding what informed and engaged citizens mean in the current digitalized and networked society is important in social studies education, there is a dearth of research on a well-developed measurement scale to evaluate the degree of digital citizenship among young adults. This study included a multi-step scale development effort designed to measure young adults’ perception and behavior with regard to digital citizenship.

The study had three phases to create a reliable, valid instrument to measure young adults’ perceptions of digital citizenship: 1) Phase One included a concept analysis of digital citizenship for initial item generation and content validity of the scale. Thirty articles, six white papers, four book chapters and seventeen blogs/websites were coded and analyzed, 2) Phase Two involved continuous revision of initial items through expert review, providing evidence of face validity and content validity for scale items, and 3) Phase Three consisted of final administration for assessment of digital citizenship, along with correlation studies with Internet self- efficacy and Internet anxiety scales for construct validity.

This study addressed the core elements of digital citizenship and how these elements changed over the last decade using a concept analysis methodology. Four categories for defining digital citizenship were identified: Ethics, Media and

Information Literacy, Participation/Engagement, and Critical Resistance. Using a total of 508 respondents, a 26-item five-factor model was extracted from Exploratory

Factor Analysis, which was cross-validated by Confirmatory Factor Analysis:

Technical Skills, Local/Global Awareness, Networking Agency, Internet Political

Activism, and Critical Perspectives. The digital citizenship scale presented in this study had respectable reliability and construct validity, evidenced by the significant relationships with Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety. From the development of the scale, the researcher developed a general definition of digital citizenship as abilities, thinking, and action regarding the Internet use, which allows people to understand, navigate, engage in, and transform self, community, society, and the world.

As a first attempt to create more advanced and theory-based digital citizenship scale items, this study will help to better understand individuals’ sense of digital citizenship as members of online communities participating in everyday life on local, national, and global levels. These comprehensive, inter-related, and multidimensional elements of digital citizenship can play a significant role in developing ultimate goals of citizenship education while supporting underlying themes for social studies teacher education in the information age.

iii

Dedication

To my parents

Acknowledgements

Above all, I would like to give many thanks to Dr. Dean Cristol and Michael

Glassman, who are my academic advisors and mentors. Dr. Cristol gave me significant opportunities regarding teaching and research experiences. Dr. Glassman’s intellectual and insightful guidance helped me grow as a beginning but at the same time independent researcher. I will definitely remember my times at the Ohio State

University with them, including the academic collaboration as well as exciting personal memories.

I also owe much from this dissertation to the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Binaya Subedi and Dr. Tracey Stuckey-Mickell. From my dissertation proposal to the final oral examination, their comment and feedback enhanced my theoretical perspectives and research design. Their professions and passions in citizenship education and methods contributed to qualitatively improve my dissertation.

I am deeply grateful to my Korean professors, Dr. Kyung-Sook Hwang, Hyung

Joon Park, Daehoon Jho, and Hyun-Jin Seo in Sungshin Women’s University. They strongly recommended me pursuing a doctoral degree in the United States helping to receive Sungshin Global Leader Fellowship. Without their ongoing academic support I would not have finished my dissertation.

The relationship I had with my OSU friends provided strength to overcome my stress and keep working on my research. I am lucky to get along with You Joung,

Seungyoun, Jonathan, Beth, David, Narmada, and Min Young. I also give special thanks to Eugene and Heejeong for their support and encouragement. They carefully listened to me, made me laugh and feel better when I was depressed and stressed.

Finally, I must record my deep gratitude to my family, without whose constant support this dissertation would not have been possible. My mom, dad, and brother have always been patient with me from starting the doctoral program at OSU to defending my dissertation. In particular I will never forget my mom’s unchanging dedication of sincere love and support.

Vita

2004 …………………………………B.A., Sungshin Women’s University, S. Korea

2010 …………………………………M.A., Sungshin Women’s University, S. Korea

2011 …………………………………Researcher, Korea Institute for Curriculum and

Evaluation

2013 to present ………………………Graduate Research Associate, Center on

Education and Training for Employment, The

Ohio State University

Publications

Cristol, D., Choi, M., Mitchell, R., & Burbidge, J. (2015). Mobile technology in K-12 environments. In Y. Zhang (Ed.), Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning. Springer. Merryfield, M., Augustine, T., Choi, M., Harshman, J. & Collins, M. (2012). Teacher thinking on developing informed and engaged students for a globally connected world. The Hague, The Netherlands: International Baccalaureate. (http://www.educationforinternationalmindedness.com/uploads/1/3/4/3/13434 171/tt-globalconnect.pdf)

vii

Choi, M. (2011). Social studies preservice teachers’ perceptions of gender and teacher education, Korean Social Studies Association, 50 (1), 31-51.

Fields of Study Major Field: Education - Teaching and Learning Social Studies and Global Education

viii

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii Dedication ...... iv Acknowledgements ...... v CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Context of the Study ...... 1 Problem Statement ...... 3 Purpose of the Study ...... 7 Research Questions ...... 7 Theoretical Perspectives ...... 9 Critical Perspective ...... 9 Relational Perspective ...... 11 Definitions of Key Terms ...... 12 Significance of the Study ...... 14 Overview of Chapters ...... 17 Conclusion ...... 18 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ...... 19 Introduction ...... 19 Technology, the Internet, and Society ...... 20 Feenberg’s Critical Theory of Technology ...... 20 Castells’ Network Society and Space of Information Flows ...... 22 Open Source Approach ...... 25 Traditional Approaches to Citizenship ...... 27 Alternative/Expansive Conceptions of Citizenship ...... 29

The Current Crisis of Citizenship ...... 29 Global and Cosmopolitan Citizenship ...... 32 Cultural and Multicultural Citizenship ...... 34 Tribal and Dual Citizenship ...... 38 Citizenship Education: Incorporating the Global ...... 41 Digital Citizenship and Education ...... 44 Media and Information Literacy ...... 44 Digital Divide ...... 48 Online Civic Engagement ...... 50 Related Other Constructs: Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety ...... 52 Digital Citizenship Education ...... 53 Conclusion ...... 56 CHAPTER 3: METHODS ...... 57 Introduction ...... 57 Research Design ...... 58 Overview ...... 58 Scale Development ...... 58 A Concept Analysis Method ...... 62 Research Site ...... 64 Participants ...... 65 Recruitment ...... 65 Participants Characteristics ...... 66 Measures ...... 66 Demographic Information ...... 66 Internet Usage ...... 67 Digital Citizenship ...... 68 Internet Self-efficacy ...... 68 Internet Anxiety ...... 69 Data Collection ...... 70

Phase One: Concept Analysis for Item Generation and Scale Construction ...... 70 Phase Two: Expert Panel Review ...... 73 Phase Three: Final Scale of Administration ...... 74 Data Analyses ...... 75 Phase One: Qualitative Data from a Concept Analysis ...... 75 Phase Two: Qualitative Data from Expert Panel Review ...... 77 Phase Three: Statistical Analyses ...... 78 Conclusion ...... 83 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ...... 85 Introduction ...... 85 Summary of Procedure of Scale Development ...... 86 Phase One: A Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship ...... 87 Four Categories of the Concept of Digital Citizenship ...... 87 Evolution of the Concept of Digital Citizenship ...... 100 Initial Digital Citizenship Scale Items ...... 102 Phase Two: Expert Review ...... 105 Expert Panel ...... 105 Scale Revision ...... 106 Phase Three: Factor Structure of Digital Citizenship ...... 107 Instrumentation ...... 107 Sample Characteristics ...... 110 Context of Usage: Devices, websites, Access, and Purpose ...... 112 Analytical Methods ...... 115 Data Cleaning and Screening ...... 116 Item Analysis ...... 119 Exploratory Factor Analysis ...... 120 Scale Characteristics ...... 126 Confirmatory Factor Analysis ...... 130 Correlations with Other Constructs ...... 132

Demographic differences ...... 133 Conclusion ...... 138 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 140 Introduction ...... 140 Summary of Findings ...... 141 Four Categories of Digital Citizenship ...... 141 Five Factor Structure of Digital Citizenship ...... 143 Correlations with Other Constructs ...... 143 Discussion of Findings ...... 144 Interwoven Relationship between Existing Conceptions of Citizenship and Digital Citizenship ...... 144 A Multidimensional Concept of Digital Citizenship ...... 148 Three Conditions of Complexity of Digital Citizenship ...... 151 Implications for Democratic Citizenship Education ...... 157 Limitations and Future Research ...... 159 Conclusion ...... 161 References ...... 163 Appendix A: Elements of Digital Citizenship as Ethics ...... 185 Appendix B: Elements of Digital Citizenship as Media and Information Literacy ...... 187 Appendix C: Elements of Digital Citizenship as Participation/Engagement ...... 189 Appendix D: Elements of Digital Citizenship as Critical Resistance ...... 190 Appendix E: Changes in Digital Citizenship as Ethics ...... 191 Appendix F: Changes in Digital Citizenship as Media and Information Literacy ...... 193 Appendix G: Changes in Digital Citizenship as Participation/Engagement ...... 195 Appendix H: Changes in Digital Citizenship as Critical Resistance ...... 197 Appendix I: References Included in the Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship ...... 198 Appendix J. Deleted Items from the Original Digital Citizenship Scale ...... 202

xii

Appendix K. Administration Guide for the Digital Citizenship Scale (DCS) ..... 203 Appendix L. Final Instrument ...... 205

xiii

List of Tables

Table 1. Search Process ...... 71 Table 2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria ...... 73 Table 3. Coding Example ...... 76 Table 4. Excerpts from the Texts in Digital Citizenship as Ethics ...... 91 Table 5. Excerpts from the Texts in Digital Citizenship as Media and Information Literacy ...... 94 Table 6. Excerpts from the Texts in Digital Citizenship as Participation/Engagement 96 Table 7. Excerpts from the Texts in Digital Citizenship as Critical Resistance ...... 99 Table 8. The Initial List of the Digital Citizenship Scale items ...... 103 Table 9. The Final Digital Citizenship Scale Items ...... 107 Table 10. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample ...... 110 Table 11. Device Usage: Percentage of Participants accessing the Internet ...... 112 Table 12. Sources for Information on Political, Economic, Social, and Cultural Issues ...... 113 Table 13. Internet Access ...... 114 Table 14. Main Purpose of Internet Usage ...... 115 Table 15. Correlation Matrix of the Digital Citizenship Scale Items ...... 117 Table 16. Digital Citizenship Scale: Response Means and Standard Deviations ...... 119 Table 17. EFA of DCS: Eigenvalues, Percentage of Variance Accounted for by the Unrotated Factors ...... 121 Table 18. Digital Citizenship Scale Items Retained after EFA and the Respective Factor loadings ...... 124 Table 19. Item-Total Correlation & Internal Consistency of the Digital Citizenship Scale ...... 127 Table 20. Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Subscales of the DCS ...... 128 Table 21. Mean and Standard Deviation of Subscales of the Digital Citizenship Scale ...... 130 Table 22. The Model Fits of CFA Model of the Digital Citizenship Scale ...... 132 Table 23. Construct Validity of the Digital Citizenship Scale ...... 133 Table 24. Mean Scores of Digital Citizenship Subscales by Gender ...... 134

xiv

Table 25. Mean Score of Digital Citizenship Subscales by Ethnicity ...... 135 Table 26. Mean Scores of Digital Citizenship Subscales by Educational Level ...... 136 Table 27. Mean Scores of Digital Citizenship Subscales by Major ...... 137

List of Figures

Figure 1. A concept map of the notion of citizenship ...... 31 Figure 2. Screet plot ...... 122 Figure 3. CFA model of the digital citizenship scale ...... 131 Figure 4. A multidimensional concept of digital citizenship ...... 149 Figure 5. Three conditions of complexity of digital citizenship ...... 151

xvi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

I imagine one could say: “Why don’t you leave me alone?! I want no part of your Internet, of your technological civilization, of your network society! I just want to live my life!” Well, if this is your position, I have bad news for you. If you do not care about the networks, the networks will care about you, anyway. For as long as you want to live in society, at this time and in this place, you will have to deal with the network society. Because we live in the Internet Galaxy. (Castells, 2001, p.282)

Context of the Study

As Castells (2001) argues in his book, The Internet Galaxy, it is almost impossible to deny that we are living in a digitalized and networked society even if we want to ignore the influences of the Internet. The burgeoning use of digital technologies and ubiquitous accessibility to the Internet has made the world interconnected and networked (Castells, 1996; 2001). The Internet-facilitated, new digital media-driven, and web-based networking environments allow people to adopt new perspectives toward the self, the other community, and the world, changing the ways humans think, the ways people communicate with others, and the ways they participate in society (e.g., DiMaggio et al., 2001; Dutton, 2005;

Glassman, 2012a; Lee, 2009; Palfrey & Gasser, 2013). In particular, Tapscott

1 (2009) argues that to the young generations who have grown up in the digital age, the boundaries between online and offline are no longer clear and the gaps between their analog and digital life are blurring. He labeled this type of young people as “The Net Generation” born from January 1977 to December 1997

(Tapscott, 2009, p. 16). Correspondingly, many scholars in a variety of fields have started to consider the Internet as progenitor of a new space that empowers individuals to easily and actively engage in their everyday civic life which is closely related to the concept of citizenship (Banaji & Buckingham, 2013;

Bennett, Wells, & Rank, 2009; Blevins et al., 2013; Crowe, 2006; Makinen,

2006).

The issue of citizenship is particularly salient for social studies educators.

Going back almost a century scholars and educators sought to integrate a sense of citizenship into school curricular (Fallace, 2009; Longstreet, 1985). John Dewey

(1916) indicated “civic efficiency” and “good citizenship” based on experience and political social participation in community as a primary purpose of education.

It is imperative to understand how citizenship is defined and reinterpreted in the

Internet age. Are previous notions of the citizenship still valid in a networked and digitalized society? Do we need a new concept of citizenship more attuned to 21st century technologies? Does the burgeoning use of digital technologies and ubiquity of the Internet suggest critical changes to traditional approaches to citizenship accordingly? What is the relationship between the exiting conceptions of citizenship we have brought with us from the 20th century and a new concept of

2 citizenship demanded in the 21st century? How has the concept of citizenship been evolved? And/or can digital citizenship be understood as a purely online activity?

In order to begin the process of addressing the aforementioned questions, this study developed a reliable, valid, and self-report digital citizenship scale to explore and bring together the different aspects of digital citizenship. This study identified major factors that may comprise a cohesive, well-defined concept of digital citizenship through a concept analysis and factor analysis. This research will contribute to an expanding knowledge base regarding citizenship, establishing a rigorous definition of digital citizenship for 21st century citizenship studies and education. It will also contribute to provide concrete criteria for teaching digital citizenship in social studies and global education.

Problem Statement

The concept of citizenship is traditionally framed as a “nationally bounded membership” (Fischman & Haas, 2012) or a “legal membership” (Banks, 2008).

As a legislative term, the notion of citizenship provides people living in nation- states with civil, social, political, and economic rights and responsibilities. The most important quality of citizens from this perspective is to obey the laws and regulations, vote, and pay taxes. However, many scholars have challenged this traditional conception of citizenship focusing on rights and responsibilities, arguing that citizenship need to relate to identity and a sense of community

(Agbaria, 2011; Banks, 2008; Dower, 2003; El-haj, 2007; Merryfield et al.,

3 2012a; Osler & Starkey, 2003; Subedi, 2010; Pike, 2000; 2008; Rosaldo, 1997;

Ong et al, 1996; Pewewardy, 2004). As an effort to expand the meaning of citizenship, cultural/multicultural, global/cosmopolitan, and tribal citizenship were included in the discourse of citizenship. Correspondingly, various teaching and learning strategies and resources that encourage students to become good citizens locally, nationally, and globally were developed in education (Banks,

2001; 2008; Merryfield, 2012a; Pike, 2010).

Despite these active and meaningful academic conversations with respect to expansive conceptions of citizenship and citizenship education, the burgeoning use of digital technologies and ubiquitous accessibility to the Internet brought new questions with regard to citizenship and education: what roles does the

Internet play as a tool for civic engagement? (e.g., Mossberger, 2009;

Mossberger, Tolbert, & McNeal, 2008; VanFossen, 2006), what are youth doing online? (e.g., Banaji & Buckingham, 2010; Bennett, Wells, & Rank, 2009), or how can teachers promote informed and engaged digital citizens in the Internet age? (e.g, Blevins, LeCompte, & Wells, 2013; Crowe, 2006). Some citizenship studies scholars and social studies researchers and educators questioned the existing conceptions of citizenship because it was insufficient to explain many social issues and problems stemming from a digitalized society (Berson &

Berson, 2004; Blevins et al., 2013; Crowe, 2006; Hicks et al., 2011; VanFossen,

2006). These scholars began to use digital citizenship, defined as the norms or values that students should know in order to appropriately and effectively use

4 technology and the Internet for civic engagement (Bennett et al., 2009;, 2010;

Mossberger, 2009; Mossberger et al., 2008; Ribble, 2009; Richards, 2010;

Shelley, 2004).

Although there has been significant expansion of online participation and an increasing interest in the relationship between the Internet and citizenship

(Bennett et al., 2009; Goode, 2010; Hermes, 2006; Pajnik, 2005), there is a paucity of digital citizenship research on especially how it can be measured

(Greenhow, 2010). In particular, there are few digital citizenship studies in social studies education that argue good citizens in the Internet age are active online participants who perform tasks using digital literacy (Bennett & Fessenden, 2006;

Berson & Berson , 2003; 2004; Blevins et al., 2013; Crowe, 2006; Hicks et al.

2011; Nebel et al., 2009; VanFossen 2006). Even if these studies provide specific skills and knowledge that should be taught to nurture good digital citizens, many studies focus only on political engagement due to a belief that successful citizenship is achieved by active and direct participation in politics (Bennett et al.,

2011). Given that civic engagement is constructed by political, economic, social, and cultural participation, it is imperative to include various aspects of online civic life not limited to political participation. Civic education also needs more inclusive ways of developing online-based societal involvement to promote informed and engaged digital citizens. The effort to expand knowledge and build comprehensible elements of digital citizenship has made it possible to encourage students to be more aware of what digital citizenship includes so that they are

5 capable of thinking critically and acting responsibly in the digital world. Instead of providing a single definition, this study provides an informed and inclusive definition through the utilization of multidimensional factors of digital citizenship in relation to the existing conceptions of citizenship for a better digital citizenship education.

If digital citizenship can be defined, what are the factors that drive individual development of digital citizenship? Since self-efficacy is considered one of the significant psychological concepts in individual and educational development (Bandura, 1995), Internet self-efficacy, which refers to “the belief in one’s capability to organize and execute Internet actions required to produce given attainments” (Eastin & LaRose, 2000, p.1), can be a focal concept to maximize digital citizenship. It may be obvious that people who are very confident with searching for information online and evaluating digital resources are more likely to actively participate in online activities. In contrast, Internet anxiety can be negatively connected with a degree of digital citizenship among young adults. However, little emphasis has been directed toward research exploring correlations between digital citizenship and Internet self-efficacy or

Internet anxiety. This study investigates correlations between Internet self- efficacy/Internet anxiety and digital citizenship to test construct validity of the digital citizenship scale.

6 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to develop a reliable and valid scale to measure young adults’ perceived sense of digital citizenship. Since there has been, to date, a paucity of formal investigation to develop digital citizenship instruments, this study focuses on developing a digital citizenship scale to be measured, suggesting comprehensive components of digital citizenship for democratic civic engagement and citizenship education in the Internet age. As a first attempt to create more advanced and theory-based digital citizenship scale items, this study involved a multi-step scale development effort designed to measure young adults’ perceptions of digital citizenship in connection with

Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety.

This study conducted a conceptual analysis of digital citizenship and tested the factor structure of the digital citizenship using a convenience sample of undergraduate and graduate students in a large mid-western university in Ohio.

The final scale is assessed for reliability and validity in connection with Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety.

Research Questions

The guiding question for this study is: How do young adults navigate a sense of digital citizenship? This scale development study assesses the factor structure, internal consistency and validity of the Digital Citizenship Scale (DCS).

Three specific research questions are as follows:

7 1. What elements constitute the concept of digital citizenship as a measurable

construct?

1-1: What are the key components of digital citizenship?

1-2: How has the notion of digital citizenship evolved over the past ten

years?

This question investigates the elements or characteristics that comprise the

concept of digital citizenship described in a variety of data sources such as

journal articles, white papers, blog posts, and official websites related to

digital citizenship issues. In order to answer this question, a concept

analysis of digital citizenship was conducted and the elements were

classified into relevant categories.

2. What is the underlying structure of the concept of digital citizenship?

This question examines if the digital citizenship scale items developed in

this study represent a common underlying dimension or separable

dimensions. Three relevant theoretical foundations and a concept analysis

of digital citizenship were used to generate an initial set of scale items.

Two rounds of expert panel review were conducted to revise and complete

the scale items. Exploratory factor analysis was used to reduce a large set

of scale items and to identify underlying dimensions or factors related to

digital citizenship. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the

extent to which hypothesized model of the underlying dimensions of

digital citizenship extracted from exploratory factor analysis.

8 3. Is digital citizenship related to measure of other constructs, Internet self-

efficacy and Internet anxiety?

Hypothesis 3-1: Digital citizenship will be positively associated with

Internet self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 3-2: Digital citizenship will be negatively associated with

Internet anxiety.

This investigation provides evidence for construct validity of the DCS

through examining the association between digital citizenship and Internet

self-efficacy and Internet anxiety.

Theoretical Perspectives

In order to inform and guide for constructing research questions, two sets of theoretical perspectives were used: 1) critical perspective on citizenship and education including Banks’ (2008) transformative citizenship and Subedi’s (2010) critical global perspective and 2) Tilly’s (2005) relational perspective.

Critical Perspective

The study is situated broadly in critical theory, which is closely related to challenging dominant perspectives and the status quo (Sayer, 2009) or a process of decolonizing knowledge (Smith, 1999). However, within critical theory, this study is framed by critical perspectives of citizenship and education. Banks’

(2008) transformative citizenship and Subedi’ (2010) critical global perspective will give insight into how democratic citizenship education might look like.

9 Banks’ (2008) transformative citizenship. The study partially draws upon Banks’s (2008) perspective on citizenship that is linked with cultural democracy in a global context presenting the notion of transformative citizenship as democratic citizenship. Banks emphasizes taking action as an important factor in transformative citizenship to achieve social justice when this action challenges existing laws and conventions. As Kumashiro (2004) noted, it is difficult to challenge commonsensical ideas and the status quo and to confront the authority.

However, people can challenge dominant narratives of citizenship and simultaneously re-center citizenship on issues of diverse values, cultural democracy, and social justice on the basis of transformative citizenship. Similarly, transformative citizenship is closely connected to what Iverson & James (2010) calls “changed-oriented” citizenship that focuses on the relationship among power, privilege and its critique. Consequently the weight of Bank’s transformative citizenship in relation to this study rests on its dedication to a critical approach to understanding citizenship for democratic citizenship education. This theoretical perspective sheds light on how a concept of digital citizenship can be constructed and what types of elements should be included in digital citizenship discourse.

Subedi’s (2010) critical global perspectives. According to Subedi (2010) critical global perspectives refer to “reevaluating how we have come to know the world and ask us to consider the socio-political context in which we have come to understand what constitutes an ethical global imagination” (p. 1) allowing us to

10 rethink traditional approaches to citizenship and citizenship education. He asserts these perspectives can bring “a more open conception of citizenship” rather than

“national-state-centered conceptions of citizenship” (Subedi, 2010, p. 2) in social studies and citizenship education. Given that important issues in the concept of digital citizenship and digital citizenship education are not limited in national borders, critical global perspectives give insight into challenging dominant and traditional discourse on the concept of citizenship, providing a new perspective on digital citizenship.

Relational Perspective

According to Tilly (2005), the relational perspective focuses on

“interactions among social sites as starting points” and “placing communication, including the use of language, at the heart of social life” (p. 19). In opposition to dispositional perspective that considers individual’s characteristics embedded in people or tools, the relational perspective takes into account how human or even non-human subjects in social sites interact with each other and how they are interrelated to each other. Therefore, this perspective provides an opportunity to think about the relationships between young adults and Internet/digital media beyond technological attributes or characteristics. Many studies in social studies education focus on elements of the Internet/digital media by emphasizing low cost, easy accessibility and comfortable communication. However, the relational perspective enables the researcher to encompass various elements of digital

11 citizenship including knowledge, skills, abilities, and actions when developing the digital citizenship scale presented in this study.

Definitions of Key Terms

Digital Citizenship is widely defined as “the norms of appropriate and responsible

behavior with regard to technology (Ribble, et al., 2004) or “human,

cultural, and societal issues related to technology” and “legal and ethical

behavior” (ISTE, 2007, p. 2). In this study, the researcher defines digital

citizenship as “abilities, thinking, and action regarding Internet use,

which allows people to understand, navigate, engage in, and transform

self, community, society, and the world.”

Internet Self-Efficacy refers to ones’ belief in their abilities to successfully

complete a variety of Internet activities (Eastin & LaRose, 2000). Since

users’ Internet competency is regarded as a fundamental factor influencing

digital participation (Min, 2010; De Marco et al., 2014), it can be assumed

that Internet self-efficacy is positively correlated with digital citizenship.

Internet Anxiety is regarded as “the fear or apprehension when individuals use the

Internet” (Thatcher et al, 2007). Internet anxiety is likelihood of

participants’ negative feelings with regard to using the Internet. This will

be used as a negative correlate with digital citizenship because anxiety

is generally perceived an opposite side of self-efficacy.

Scale Development is conducted when researchers seek to measure phenomena

that they believe to exist but that researchers cannot assess directly.

12 “Measurement scales are collections of items combined into a composite

score, and intended to reveal the level of an underlying theoretical variable

not readily observable by direct means” (Devellis, 2003, p. 8). For this

study development of a digital citizenship scale means generating items

that reveal multidimensional aspects of digital citizenship.

Concept Analysis is a “strategy through which a set of attributes or characteristics

essential to the connotative meaning or conceptual definition of a concept

are identified” (Burns & Grove, 2001, p. 792). As an effective method to

identify key attributes of a concept and to provide clarity for abstract

constructs, concept analysis is regarded as a significant type of inquiry to

expand existing knowledge in a certain discipline (Rodgers, 1989; Walker

& Avant, 2011). This conceptual analysis is commonly used to know as

much about the construct as possible before developing the scale and/or

instrument (Pett et al., 2003).

Citizenship Education needs to be reimagined and transformed to successfully

educate students to function in the 21st century (Banks, 2008). According

to Banks (2008), transformative citizenship education is regarded as an

ideal type of democratic citizenship education enabling students “to

acquire the information, skills, and values needed to challenge inequality

within their communities, their nations, and the world” (p. 135).

13 Significance of the Study

The purpose of this study was to develop a reliable and valid a digital citizenship scale to measure young adults’ self-perception of digital citizenship.

The study responded to increased academic interests in online civic engagement and digital citizenship education. This study contributes to the field of social studies and citizenship education in the following three ways: conceptual, methodological, and practical contributions.

First, this study provokes a comprehensive definition of digital citizenship.

As mentioned, there are two dominant beliefs about digital citizenship in the social studies education. Some focus on digital citizenship as a supplement to the traditional concept of citizenship (Bennett & Fessenden, 2006; Mossberger, 2009;

Ribble et al, 2004). They consider digital citizenship as a set of proficient literacy skills and strategies or merely moral etiquette required online. From this perspective, it is believed that if a person is equipped with basic media literacy skills, his or her socialized citizenship in an offline world can be automatically transferred online. Others claim that ideal digital citizenship requires active political engagement in online events (Crowe, 2006; Shelley, 2004; VanFossen,

2006). According to this political centered perspective, good citizenry in a digital world is politically sensitive, active, and participatory as they are in a real world.

For them, political engagement in a digital world is interpreted as a virtue for desirable citizenship. Despite their insights, both views seem to be limited in traditional approaches to citizenship. This study, however, provides more

14 comprehensive and inclusive characteristics that constitute the concept of digital citizenship beyond simple literacy skills and political engagement.

Second, this study quantitatively measures a construct of digital citizenship through developing a scale and performing factor and correlation analysis. Many digital citizenship empirical studies are speculative and regulative, arguing what digital citizenship should be (Ribble, 2009; Ribble et al, 2004;

Ribble & Bailey, 2004; Lenhart et al., 2011; Oxley, 2010; Winn, 2012). Many of them are qualitative studies to understand what types of technology skills that students need to have or how youth use social networking services (Blevins et al,

2013). Even if some studies are quantitative, there has been no an advanced and well-developed digital citizenship scale to measure a perceived sense of digital citizenship among young adults. As a first attempt to develop a reliable, valid, and self-report digital citizenship scale, this study sheds light on quantitative research focusing on a scale development study with regard to digital citizenship. An administration guide is included as an appendix containing a brief description of the instrument and the developmental processes, purpose, scale items, population, and administration. This guideline helps other researchers who plan to use or modify the instrument for their own research.

Moreover, this study may provide an updated way to conduct educational research. Although content analysis of curricular and textbooks has been commonly used in the field of education, a concept analysis is relatively new.

Conardi et al. (2013) is a unique work in education, especially educational

15 psychology; however, they modified the procedures to some extent to fit it into their study and the way they displayed their findings was very similar to meta analyses using many numbers and graphs. This study provides a more detailed and accurate procedure of a concept analysis through tracing the original steps of

Rodgers’ (1989, 1993) evolutionary approach. In particular, the introduction of concept analysis into social studies research is useful because there are a variety of concepts that should be taught in social studies education. If teachers have a better and deeper understanding of concepts they might be able to more effectively and efficiently teach them. Therefore, this study contributes a more methodological diverse approach to the citizenship education field.

Third, this study provides practical suggestions to promote students to become good citizens in a digital world. This research gives meaningful insights into social studies curriculum, civic/citizenship education, and social studies teacher education. On the basis of theoretical work this study will also give profound implications for social studies curriculum and instructions with regard to digital citizenship.

In a digitalized society, new digital media and web-based networking environment provide additional layers of meaning to us, allowing people to adopt a new perspective toward a world and to change interactional patterns among people. This changes traditional concepts of citizenship accordingly. By investigation of the concept of digital citizenship at the Internet era, this study challenges existing ideas of digital citizenship and establishes new notions of

16 digital citizenship in relation to Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety.

Through this research process, this study provides theoretical reconceptualization, methodological diversity, and practical instructional suggestions to the social studies and civic/citizenship education field.

Overview of Chapters

This dissertation is organized into five chapters. The first chapter introduces what the research is about and why it is important to be conducted including problem statement, purpose of the study, theoretical perspectives, definitions of key terms, and significance of the study. Chapter Two reviews the literature related to theoretical foundations that help create digital citizenship scale items such as Feenburg’s (1991) critical theory of technology, Castells’

(1996) network society and space of flows, and the idea of an open source approach. Literature that relates place-based conceptions of citizenship such as national citizenship, multicultural, global, and tribal citizenship as well as digital citizenship is also reviewed in order to understand what types of conceptions of citizenship have been examined. Chapter Three details procedures to develop scale items and explains how the methods were used in this study. Concept analysis as a method of inquiry is explained and its uses in this study are demonstrated. Chapter Four presents the results of the concept analysis and factor analysis of digital citizenship. Reliability and validity of the digital citizenship sale presented in this study are provided. Chapter Five discusses how and why the results are found using the literature that was described in the Chapter Two.

17 Potential new directions for democratic citizenship education and suggestion for further research are presented.

Conclusion

The Internet-based instructions and technology-driven learning is pervasive in education. Given that promoting informed and engaged citizens living in a global society is the main goal in social studies and global education, educators should know and understand what good digital citizenship mean in the current digitalized and networked society. However, there has been a lack of research on what digital citizenship is; and a well-developed measurement scale designed to evaluate the degree of digital citizenship among young adults has not been identified in a review of the published literature. Moreover, despite potential influences of online engagement on young adults, little effort has been directed toward in-depth development and testing of scales designed to measure young adults’ perception of digital citizenship. Thus, the ultimate purpose of the present study is to develop a reliable and valid digital citizenship scale as a means of better understanding the concept of citizenship and democratic citizenship education in the Internet age.

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter presents literature related to the topic of this study. By providing a review of relevant literature, this chapter will help understand how theoretical foundations on technology/the Internet and existing studies on citizenship contributed to develop the digital citizenship scale items presented in this study. The theoretical work concerning the use of technology and the Internet developed by Feenberg (1991), Castells (1996), and Open Source approach

(Raymond, 1999; Glassman, 2013) will be investigated. Literature on what elements/characteristics need to be included in a concept of citizenship and how the concept of citizenship has been developed will be provided. Traditional conceptions of citizenship will be explored as a beginning point.

Global/cosmopolitan citizenship, cultural/multicultural citizenship, and tribal/dual citizenship will be discussed as a way of alternative/expansive understanding to overcome the limitation of traditional approaches to citizenship. In order to help understand how democratic citizenship education might look like, literature on citizenship education will be also addressed. Lastly, literature that presents what digital citizenship is and how digital citizenship education has been implemented will be described.

19 Technology, the Internet, and Society

This study used three general theoretical foundations along with a concept analysis of digital citizenship presented in Chapter Four to inform and guide to develop the scale items that would be responsive to the new civic ecologies created by the Internet. The first was not directly related to the Internet but has important implications for understanding human-Internet transactions: Feenberg’s

(1991) critical approach to technology and the idea that individuals control the trajectories set by new tools. The second is Castell’s (1996) ideas of a networked society and the dangers in the relationships between the spaces of place and the spaces of information flows, being aware of the ways powerful hubs can manipulate and control spaces of places through the flow of information of the

Internet – and the idea that digital citizenship is as much a responsibility as it is a possibility. The third framework is a still developing Open Source approach, initially outlined by Raymond (1999) and applied to psychological aspects of human activity (Glassman, 2013; Glassman & Kang, 2012).

Feenberg’s Critical Theory of Technology

Given the central role that technology plays in the structure and organization of 21st century global and digital society, and the inherent specter of oppressive or exclusionary narratives embodied by Internet consumerism and corporate or governmental technical elites, it is imperative to extend the critical mindset to the technology itself. According to Feenberg (1991), technology is developed and shaped in terms of the biases and features of the society in which it

20 is shaped. However, the Internet is an example of co-construction occurring between society and technology, informed by its inherent capacity for free expression and communication (Feenberg, 2010). Consequently, the Internet opens new spaces for social interaction that can interrupt the one-way distribution of state-sanctioned media. Within this new socio-technological context, there are opportunities for resistance, democratic participation, and emancipatory change.

Feenberg (1991) suggested perspectives of the influence of technologies can fall into two general categories: as autonomous where technology more or less takes on a life of its own, helping to define and in some circumstances driving human activity. And human controlled, where technologies are neutral; it is the human decisions about how to use them that defines their character in everyday life. This decision-making can be about recognizing technology as an augmentation for extending capabilities, but it can also take its users on darker trajectories, often subject to the human desire for control. Any positive or negative effects of technology should not be blamed on the technology per se but on the individual, or more likely the culture/society that sets the context for its use. The rational use of technology suggests that humans will use it primarily for profit, but a subversive rationality suggests that it can be turned to support democratic principles and positive expansion of the human condition.

The researcher views the Internet as acting as being unique among tools, one that can be understood from the capitalist rationality perspective that

Feenberg discusses, but also as a tool that is capable of moving society towards a

21 more vibrant democracy through its very use. The Internet can take societies it penetrates towards more hegemonic systems or it takes these same societies towards a more participatory expression. Social trajectories are up for grabs in a small way that every time users decide to log on; based on whether and how they use the Web as an augmentation of civic engagement. Being able to measure the ways individuals use or do not use their Web based activities for civic engagement with in different circumstances (e.g., broadband access, portal access, level of experience with Internet) – based in hegemonic or participatory practices

- as consumers, as participants in social structures, and/or developing critiques of local institutions – is central for understanding new forms of citizenship.

Castells’ Network Society and Space of Information Flows

The second theoretical construct that informed the development of the scale is Manuel Castell’s (1996) ideas of an increasingly networked society. The term ‘network’ depicts a structural condition where many ‘nodes’ (e.g., people, companies, computers) are related to many other nodes by connections called

‘ties’. According to Castells (1996), a network is “a set of interconnected nodes”

(p. 471) and a network-based social structure is “a highly dynamic, open system, susceptible to innovating without threatening its balance: (p. 471). He suggested that the primary interactions of network society are constructed and mediated through information networks arguing that networks are appropriate social structures for a capitalist economy based on globalization. Information networks

22 created by the Internet play a significant role in structuring the kernel of political, economic, social, and cultural activities in the information age.

Castells (1996) argued that the Internet creates new contexts and processes for the flows of information to (and to a lesser extent from) individual users.

Castells contrasted the new spaces of information flows created by the Internet with the more traditional information sources provided by spaces of place. Spaces of place control information through social structures and institutions, but they are often indebted to the social and cultural histories of a bounded physical environment. It is difficult to change sources of information in spaces of place because bounded information can serve as a stabile force for those who live in those places: creating a means for shared, sustainable identity with those with whom they share contiguous contact and ongoing relationships in their everyday lives. In the final analysis those who control information in spaces of place are stakeholders in the social networks that help to define individual and group activities.

The new spaces of information flows created by the Internet change both the roles of information and those who control it. When users log into a network they encounter information provided by online networks, or more particularly the central hub(s) that dominate that network. The true goals of these networks can be opaque to the user. The central hubs of the information networks play much the same role(s) as the place based structures and institutions, but they also have limited if any ties to history of the individual and/or their contiguous, everyday

23 relationships. The hubs dominate networks, and therefore control the flow of information, through power systems that are distant and detached from the users they are affecting. The power might come from brand, from material resources, from digital expertise – but generally those who wield it have little if any stake in the everyday identity of the user. The spaces of information flows can be so effective so as to negate the role of place-based institution and the stability they bring. There is then the possibility of continuous dialectical tension between the space of flows and the space of places in terms of identity, behavioral trajectories, and choices in civic engagement (Glassman & Burbridge, 2014). For example, depending on how networks evolve spaces of information flows might lead to greater awareness of civic issues that stretch beyond traditional boundaries, greater alienation of the individual user in civic practice, or both.

Castells (2011) highlighted the Internet plays a key role in promoting social movement emerging in network society valuing “hacker-activist protests” which range from breaking into the restricted websites to accentuate their insecurity and to protest against their goals. He argued networked social movements in the Internet age are “purposive collective actions aiming at the transformation of values and institutions of society manifest themselves on and by the Internet” (p. 138). Consequently, power is exercised around “the production and diffusion of cultural codes and information content” (p. 164) in global networks. From Castells’ viewpoints, the Internet encourages people to share their interests, to communicate and collaborate with others to solve the problem and

24 transform existing values, and to voice their concerns and rights in a public agora via online.

Open Source Approach

The idea of an open source approach is more amorphous that the two frameworks above, and as much based in practice and philosophy. It is taken from practices of the Open Source programming communities that emerged in the late twentieth century (Moody, 2001), Eric Raymond’s recounting of their genesis and sustainability (1999), and the Open Source initiative that emerged as a result of both (Moody, 2001). An open source approach focuses on the development of both individuals as sophisticated users of Internet technologies so that boundaries between use of tools to achieve goals and/or enter into digital relationships and abilities to establish, sustainable communities/networks of purpose become transparent. In particular the idea of open source approach is related to the hacker culture which can be defined as “a community, a shared culture, of expert programmers and networking wizards that traces its history back through decades to the first time-sharing minicomputers and the earliest Arpanet experiments”

(Raymond, 1999, p. 231). Hackers do not hinge on place based institutions but they do depend on self-defined community by sharing

In this study the researcher focused on the development individual/psychological abilities that allow users to move between the centripetal forces of their spaces of place and the centrifugal possibilities of Web based activities (Glassman, 2013). There are a number of open source skills (Glassman

25 & Kang, 2011, which have also been termed Internet literacy, digital literacy, or media and information literacy, Simsek & Simsek, 2013) that help make the boundary between the everyday lives of users and their activities on the Internet more transparent so that thinking and online goals become more fluid (i.e., the user is neither fearful of wary of Web based explorations or subsumed by dominant networks). Who individuals are as citizens in the Internet age then can be very much determined by their Internet skill levels. The Internet skill levels in turn are, from a socio-cognitive/psychological perspective the consequence on the types and qualities of Internet based experiences in their lives (Kim & Glassman,

2013). In particular, Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety are considered important psychological factors when using the Internet in goal-oriented activities

(Kim & Glassman, 2013). These two constructs will be explained in the digital citizenship and education section in this chapter.

The general context of the development of the digital citizenship scale then was a focus on individuals and the active choices they make as Internet based tool users that help define their roles as citizens at the local, societal and global level. There is for Internet users a continuous but growing tension between the stability, identity but also restrictions inherent to their everyday, place based lives and the possibilities of new discoveries and new ways of doing things, but also the possibilities of alienation and distant control of online networks. The Internet is a tool of agency and much of this is determined by the perception-based actions of the user.

26 Traditional Approaches to Citizenship

Citizenship is traditionally framed as a “nationally bounded membership”

(Fischman & Haas, 2012) or a “legal membership” (Banks, 2008). As a legislative term, citizenship provides people living in the nation-state with civil, social, political, and economical rights. The most important quality of citizens from this perspective is to obey the laws and regulations, vote, and pay taxes. This traditional approach to citizenship focusing on rights and responsibilities was developed from the emergence of the nation-state in Western countries in the 17th century (Castles & Davidson, 2000). In a period when territory of nation-states was very important, the relative autonomy of the nation-state was based on national citizenship. Nation-states strived to provide their citizens with constructed homogeneous national cultures. “Homogenization” was a key strategy of the nationalist project and an “ideology of distinct and relatively autonomous national cultures” (p. 8) was pervasive from the 17th to the 19th century (Castles &

Davidson, 2000) to maintain the independence of nation-states.

Marshall (1964)’s three elements of citizenship (civil, political, and social aspects) are the widely accepted explanation of citizenship (Banks, 2008): 1) The civil elements consist of individual rights such as freedom of speech, thought and faith, the right to own property, and the right to justice. 2) The political elements mean that citizens have a chance to exercise political power by participating in the political process. 3) The social elements are composed of economic welfare, security, and social heritage in the national civic culture.

27 Similarly, Abowitz and Harnish (2006) review a contemporary concept of citizenship, summarizing that there are two dominant perspectives, (a) civic republican and (b) liberal frameworks in the context of the United States. The civic republican viewpoint puts an emphasis on participation in a political community including local, state, and national. From this perspective,

“cooperative participation in pro-government activities” (p. 657) such as voting, volunteering, and petitioning are essential parts of civic rights and duties. In contrast, individuals’ civil, social, political, and economical rights are emphasized and individual freedom and equality are the essential elements from the liberal discourses of citizenship. In terms of these two dominant perspectives, the civic republican perspective is more highlighted in citizenship education. Students are often transmitted from national values and norms by learning responsibilities and obligations of good citizens (Castles & Davidson, 2000).

However, these traditional approaches to citizenship can discourage some citizens from having their own languages, cultures and values (Banks, 2009; El- jai, 2007; Ong et al, 1996; Brayboy, 2005). For example, speaking Spanish was banned in school, speaking in African American Vernacular English was ignored, and American Indians were assimilated and Christianized by missionaries in the

United States. Even if these traditional conceptions of citizenship are universal and influential in the field of citizenship studies, they do not include many ethnically, linguistically, religiously, culturally marginalized and oppressed people who do not have full citizenship. Furthermore, this explanation cannot

28 include the phenomenon of multiculturalism and globalization that change the conceptions of citizenship (e.g., Banks, 2008; Merryfield et al., 2012a; Suarez-

Orozco e al., 2011)

Alternative/Expansive Conceptions of Citizenship

The Current Crisis of Citizenship

Many scholars believe the national and traditional conceptions of citizenship are in crisis because of globalization, which has influences on understanding what the concept of citizenship is (Agbaria, 2011; Castles, 2004;

Castles & Davidson, 2000; Pike, 2000). From dominant perspectives, globalization seems to focus on economic aspects and pay attention to increased power of transnational/multinational corporations (Osler & Vincent, 2002).

However, globalization has an effect on political, social, technological, cultural, and economic aspects of society. We are living in an interconnected/interdependent world that is impacting all aspects of our lives because of globalization.

According to Castles & Davidson (2000), globalization affects citizenship in three ways: 1) globalization blurs borders between nations that have territorial principle associated with power and place, 2) globalization weakens autonomous national cultures, and 3) globalization creates mobility of people across national borders. This mobility enables populations in a nation-state to become more heterogeneous and culturally diverse in line with colonization and industrialization. Therefore, the idea of crossing-border framed in a broad way of

29 understanding of globalization can be a focal issue to construct alternative/expansive conceptions of citizenship. As the meaning of national border is becoming blurred in a global age, global issues are also national issues and transnational and cross-cultural experiences have influenced peoples’ identity, belonging, culture, and citizenship in nation-states. Additionally, colonization is a result of an imperial way of governing through crossing-border.

From this perspective, globalization, immigration, and colonization are interrelated and overlapping so all of them simultaneously contribute to expanding the meaning of citizenship (Castles & Davidson, 2000).

Global/cosmopolitan citizenship, cultural/multicultural citizenship, and tribal/dual citizenship (Figure 1) will be detailed in response to globalization, immigration, and colonization in more details in the next section.

Traditional

• Legal/modernConceptions citizenship of • As a membership or license • The focus on rights & responsibilities • Within nation-states

Globalization, Immigration, and

Alternative/Expansive

Conceptions of • Engagement with the world • Multiple identities • Cultural diversity • Social justice

Global Cultural Tribal Citizenship Citizenship Citizenship

• Global • Cultural diversity mindedness • Indigeniety • Ethnic minorities • Global issues • Tribal nationhood • Social (e.g., human rights, • Sovereignty marginalization sustainability)

Figure 1. A concept map of the notion of citizenship

Global and Cosmopolitan Citizenship

Global citizenship is shaped by recognizing an interdependent/ interconnected world and engaging with the world (Andrzejewski & Alessio,

1999; Merryfield et al, 2012). Due to capital, cultural, human movement because of globalization, the base of global citizenship is the recognition of the world

(global mindedness) and consideration of global issues.

Oxfam (2006) demonstrated key elements of global citizenship by categorizing it into three parts: 1) knowledge and understanding: social justice and equity, diversity, globalization and interdependence, sustainable development, peace and conflict, 2) skills: critical thinking, ability to argue effectively, ability to challenge injustice and inequalities, respect for people and things, co-operation and conflict resolution, and3) values and attitudes: sense of identity and self- esteem, empathy, commitment to social justice and equity, value and respect for diversity, concern for the environment and commitment to sustainable development, belief that people can make a difference.

Merryfield et al (2012a) found similar aspects of global citizens through online threaded discussion with teachers around the world. Teachers believed that students need to be educated to become global citizens and must attain the following characteristics: open-mindedness, empathy, caring, listening, respect, multiple perspectives and perspective consciousness, learning about cultures, cross-cultural experiences, global interconnectedness, having interests in global

32 issues (environmental sustainability, conflict and resolution, human rights), and engagement in the world through festivals, fundraising, travel, and research projects.

Some scholars emphasize cosmopolitan citizenship on the basis of global/international human rights among global issues (Benhabib, 2004; Dower,

2003; Nussbaum & Cohen, 1996; Osler & Starkey, 2003). They argued that homogenous cultural characteristics of the nation-state are important to national citizenship, while cosmopolitan citizenship includes cultural diversity, minority groups and their belongings as salient elements of global citizenship. Osler &

Starkey (2003) explained that cosmopolitan citizenship is desired consequence in a global context where diverse students can recognize local, national, and global identities and value their own cultural heritage and religious background.

The studies described above enable educators to teach students to become effective global citizens, providing a vast array of knowledge, behaviors, and values that construct global citizenship. Although global educators consider social justice to be an important element that constructs global citizenship, they do not specifically provide how to achieve social justice or overcome social inequality

(Subedi, 2013). Subedi (2010) captured this issue of general global education and tried to infuse critical perspectives into learning knowledge about global society.

Since students in the United States tend to be taught “uncritical notions of being an American” (p. 5), they have a “third world as a problem” perspective that generates hostile relations between the U.S. and the non-Western world.

33 Additionally, traditional/mainstream ways of understanding the concept of citizenship paint the third world with negative images and students are forced to

“consume a narrow orientation of national citizenship” (p. 6). Consequently, he argued that we need to include critical local and global relationships in citizenship discourse in order to broaden the conception of citizenship.

Pike (2000, 2008) also problematized the concept of global citizenship, asserting that global citizenship should be reconceptualized within the context of the interdependent relationship of human beings and their environments. He put a lot of emphasis on concern for the environment and the promotion of the global ethics within educational settings. Dower (2003) and Pike (2000) posited active engagement is a focal point to becoming a global citizen, arguing that active participation at a local level plays a significant role in promoting global citizenship. They asserted collective participation of citizens over the world brings changes in the society.

Cultural and Multicultural Citizenship

Immigration led to diverse populations and cultural diversity in nation- states. This cultural difference and social marginalization are interrelated, creating ethnic minorities with disadvantaged and isolated positions in society. Cultural citizenship is a theoretical lens to understand these structural inequalities where dominant narratives of citizenship are for middle-class white males and people who differ in ethnicity, race, gender, sexuality, religion and age are marginalized and oppressed.

34 Some scholars used cultural citizenship as a theoretical framework in their research. Flores & Benmayor (1997) and Rosaldo (1997) used cultural citizenship to help explain how Latinos are incorporating themselves into the U.S. Ong et al.

(1996) regarded cultural citizenship as subject-making, meaning that non-white immigrants are subjected to two processes of normalization, either an ideological whitening or blackening. Maria (2005) employed cultural citizenship in order to illustrate the transnational aspects of the citizenship of the South Asian students.

Even if cultural citizenship was not mentioned in many studies, research on identity, belonging, culture, and marginalization gives empirical evidence to expand the perceptions of citizenship (e.g., Brayboy, 2005; Kim, 2000; El-haj,

2007; Montezemolo, 2009; Sone, 1929; Suarez-Orozco et al., 2011) We can understand how identity is not fixed, linear, and decontextualized but flexible, changeable, complex, dynamic, and socially and culturally situated from Kim

(2000) and Sone (1979)’s autobiographies. Citizenship can be more connected to their (or their parents) original national affiliations and cultures.

Kim (2000), as a Korean adoptee, belonged to Korea all the time and found the true meaning of self, family, and community through several trips to

Korea. Along with the search for self, her experiences seemed similar to that of the students in Brayboy (2005) and undocumented youth (Suarez-Orozco et al.,

2011). Furthermore, the author of ‘Nisei Daughter’, as a second generation Asian

American, experienced identity confusion as part Japanese and part American, even though legally she had U.S. citizenship. These narratives show that

35 citizenship as a legal membership cannot provide meaningful criterion with which immigrants or adoptees can navigate their personal and cultural identity.

Moreover, El-haj (2007) examined Palestinian American youth’s transnational experiences that constructed their sense of national belonging and citizenship identities. Palestinian youth believed they belonged to Palestine even if they were born in the United States. Their national identities were directly connected to Palestine regardless of having U.S. citizenship. On the contrary, these youth looked at their U.S. citizenship as only legal possession which enabled students to work and earn money. There were complex relationships between national belonging and citizenship that constructed “Palestinian and

American identities as dichotomous” (p.294). Somali Youth’s identity transformation (Forman, 2005) can also be seen in this way. In particular, unauthorized status impacted negatively on ecological development in their entire life, creating children “at risk of lower educational performance, economic stagnation, blocked mobility, and ambiguous belonging” (Montezemolo, 2009, p.461).

Similarly, some scholars explored how undocumented students went through their childhood and adulthood and how the transition to adulthood affects their identity formation, friendship patterns, aspirations and expectations, and social and economic mobility (Gonzales, 2011; Hernandez et al., 2011). Many students became confused, angry, and frustrated after they learned of their illegal status through an inability to work, drive, participate in school activity, and

36 receive college/financial aid. Fresnoza-Flot (2009) illustrated how documented and undocumented status affects mothering and how important legal position for mothering is since undocumented mothers struggle to visit their families back and manage their lives back in the country they left. Indeed, immigration policies affect the transnational family life of migrants.

According to St. John (2009) Luma, as a soccer coach, tried to actively participate in her community and to help refugee students and their families feel that they belonged to where they lived. She made a lot of efforts to provide opportunities for her marginalized young students, fighting with people living the town to find a way to play with very diverse immigrant students as a team. Her efforts can also be considered as civic engagement for refugee students who are not regarded as good and informed citizens from the traditional conceptions of citizenship.

In terms of immigration, transnational communities, and border crossings, it is certain that immigrant and undocumented people can have different perspectives on their national identities, belonging, and citizenship. People need to know who they are, what cultural elements contribute to their identities, how their communities affect themselves, and what political issues are related to their status to become active citizens. Particularly, active engagement with their communities is also an important factor to investigate the conception of cultural citizenship (Brayboy, 2005; Kim, 2000; El-haj, 2007; 2011Fresnoza-Flot, 2009;

Montezemolo, 2009; Sone, 1929; Suarez-Orozco et al., 2011).

37 Tribal and Dual Citizenship

bell hooks (1994) investigated how an African American woman lived in white privileged society and school, and the film “Precious Knowledge” showed how Latino students can develop self-esteem and their own cultural values from ethnic studies. Also, Sone (1929) illustrated how Japanese people in Seattle received racial discrimination from white people and the U.S government during

WWII. Since these marginalized experiences influence constructing peoples’ personal and social identities, narratives of marginalized peoples’ lives can play a significant role in having a deeper understanding of the meaning of citizenship.

However, it is difficult to find the discourse of Indigenous people such as their identity, culture, and sovereignty in traditional approaches to citizenship.

Given that colonization is one of the historical movements of people, we need to examine the effect of colonization on Indigenous people. As ways of knowing of Indigenous people are different from Western ways of knowing that is evidence-centered, scientifically-based, and written-centered (Dei, 2000; Deloia,

2001; McKinley & Brayboy, 2005), the recognition of unique characteristics of

Indigenous values, norms, and cultures is needed for the alternative and expansive meaning of citizenship.

According to many Indigenous people’ narratives (Crow, 1991, Mckinley

& Brayboy, 2005; Menchú, 1984, Pewewardy, 2004; Taylor, 2000), the processes of historical, political, economic, cultural, and intellectual exploitation explain why Indigenous people are marginalized and oppressed and why they cannot

38 overcome poverty. For example, Pewewardy (2004) illustrated how American

Indian mascots, logos, and nicknames are culturally exploited and represented with racist images that have a bad influence on American Indian youth’s self- esteem and academic performance. Similar phenomenon was found in Taylor

(2000) and Kaomea (2000) studies. According to Taylor (2000), stereotypes of

Indigenous people have also been represented in well-used literatures. This misrepresentation both enabled non-Indigenous people to think of Indigenous people as savage, non-civilized, and very vulnerable people and discouraged

Indigenous youth from having positive self-esteem. Kaomea (2000) investigated how Hawaiians are illustrated in Hawaii’s textbooks and tourist guide books.

Surprisingly, Hawaiians were similarly portrayed in two books from colonial perspectives.

We can recognize the importance of active engagement from Crow (1991) and Menchú, (1984) in order to recover Indigenous’ rights and their sovereignty.

Crow (1991) led many American Indian movements, including the battle at

Wounded Knee in 1973 and the occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs building in Washington, D.C. Despite endangering her own life by challenging the dominant western culture in her country, Menchú took action to fight for the rights and the lives of her people in Guatemala. She kept taking political action and having constant struggles to unify Indians and resist the government. She was a person who strove to achieve public interest and social justice. Crow (1991) and

Menchú (1984) vividly described their resistance and struggle to promote

39 Indigenous rights. All of these stories showed what Indigenous people’s lives are in modern society, how they fight for justice, and how they make effort to develop inner solidarity. They wanted to maintain their own cultures that put a lot of emphasis on a sense of community and struggled to find their rights.

Through colonization, Indigenous knowledge came to be considered trivial, non-scientific, and suspicious. Moreover, their sovereignty was ignored in the relationship between the U.S. government and tribal nation governments, even though a lot of resistance, struggle, and survival of American Indians against the

U.S. government were performed. If historical and political contexts of

Indigenous people are not included in the notion of citizenship or citizenship education, it definitely shows colonization and cultural imperialism still exists in this post-colonial society (Haynes, 2010). Therefore, inclusive and democratic citizenship needs to embrace tribal nationhood status and take into account tribal/dual citizenship of Indigenous people.

In sum, traditional approaches to citizenship are no longer adequate because of the modern political, economic, social, and cultural transformations such as globalization, immigration, and colonization. This current crisis of citizenship led to deconstructing and reconstructing the concept of citizenship. In response to these crisis alternative and expansive conceptions of citizenship such as global/cosmopolitan, cultural/multicultural, and tribal/dual citizenship are deemed appropriate for a global age. These alternative and expansive conceptions of citizenship consider people’ multiple identities, belonging, and culture as a part

40 of constructing more open conceptions of citizenship. Furthermore, as transformative citizenship emphasized, active engagement can be the core for all types of alternative citizenship. Engagement with global issues, participation in infusing marginalized voices into societies and political actions for social justice can contribute the concept of citizenship to be democratic. The traditional approaches of citizenship sought to protect political, economic, societal rights and obligations of citizens who have legal membership but marginalize and ignore many other people who do not have legal citizenship living in nation-states. In contrast, alternative/expansive conceptions of citizenship (e.g., global, cultural, and tribal citizenship) that embrace human rights, dynamic and multiple identities, cultural diversity, and social justice have been increasingly discussed to provide deeper understandings of the concept of citizenship and promote democratic citizenship for social justice.

Citizenship Education: Incorporating the Global

There has been a turn on citizenship education focusing on from traditional perspectives of citizenship, such as liberalism and republicanism, to alternative approaches to citizenship, the ideas about (multi) cultural, global, and tribal citizenship. Particularly, social studies educators have been emphasized the role of the school in promoting global citizenship (White & Openshaw, 2002). As young people can easily access the world because of the development of new digital technologies and the Internet, schooling began to focus on global education encouraging students to the issues and problems regarding humanity (Merryfiled

41 & Subedi, 2006). Subedi (2010) argued that global education not only gives students a real insight into global issues and human rights, but also makes them have diverse viewpoints on a certain local, national, and global.

With the developments of technology, global educators use the digital tools in order to have students promote global perspectives and have cross-culture experience. As teachers employ digital technologies and the Internet in their teaching, students have more opportunities to communicate with students from other states or other countries (Bickley & Carleton, 2009; Dove et al., 2010;

Peters, 2009). The teaching and learning replete with using technology makes a local-global classroom, which enables students to involve in their studying and to have interests in other cultures. Therefore, it is impossible that students are losing their interests in obtaining school knowledge in the environment where new technologies surrounding them are lagging behind.

Peters (2009) explained how to integrate global collaborative projects into curriculum using Web 2.0 tools and existing global networks such as ‘iEarn’,

‘Global Schoolhouse’, and ‘ePals’, supported by case studies, lesson plans, and hundreds of resources for bringing global education opportunities to students of every subject area and grade level. In particular, the ‘iEarn’ website empowers teachers and young people to work together online using the Internet and other new communications technologies helping students develop awareness of other cultures but connect local problems with global challenges. Similarly, students can easily discuss global issues with students from different cultures tool through

42 the ‘ePals’ site providing a translate tool. Both teachers and students have the opportunity to share their culture and traditions with other people around the world through collaborative working in these websites.

Dove et al. (2010) conducted a classroom teaching research with digital technologies, which help students discuss local, national, and global issues and problems and work collaboratively with diverse people. The primary purpose of this teaching was to encourage students to become citizens actively engaging in their community, nation, and the world. Three teachers in this study used different digital tools such as Moodle, Skype, and Google Docs to make a difference in learning culture and developing skills in cross-cultural interaction. These tools were regarded as prominent tools to develop students’ cultural understanding and global awareness by engaging with learners of other cultures.

Bickley & Carleton (2009) illustrated three global collaborative projects, the Machinto Project, the My Hero project, and the Art Miles project, all of which enable students to share their own ideas about war, peace, heroes, and other cultures with other students from many different countries such as Japan, Canada,

Indonesia, or the U.S. Students in the Machinto Projects created the picture book regarding peace, students in the My Hero project publish essays about their heroes for the global audience, and students in the Art Miles project deeply learned about culture of other countries through exchanging the package including books, flags or maps. All students in the project communicated through a live web conference, wiki and the shared website.

43 In sum, global educators consider digital technologies and the Internet as effective tools to transform from teacher-centered, textbook-oriented, and chalkboard-based classrooms to globally aware and culturally interactive classrooms. According to the aforementioned studies, students became more culturally and globally responsive citizens through global education. Under the situation where many students may have few opportunities to meet people with other race, skin color, or languages in person, the ubiquity of the Internet and digital technologies, cross-cultural and global experiences through the web are the alternative ways for expansive citizenship education.

Digital Citizenship and Education

There have been a number of attempts to define digital citizenship or civic engagement over the past decade. As a matter of fact the digital citizenship scale presented in this study is in very large part dependent on an analysis of those attempts. The items and factors of the scale are the result of a broad ranging examination of the concept of digital citizenship as will be made clear in the

Chapter Three and Four. Here some of the primary work on digital citizenship will be highlighted helping to informed development of the scale for this study.

Media and Information Literacy

Some scholars explored digital citizenship from the perspective of media and information literacy (Bennett & Fessenden, 2006; Dede, 2009; Hicks, 2011;

Simsek & Simsek, 2013). Before investigating what literacy means in the Internet

44 age, traditional approaches to literacy need to be examined to have a better understanding of media and information literacy. The traditional concept of literacy is “minimal ability to read and write in a designated language, as well as a mindset or way of thinking about the use of reading and writing in everyday life”

(Venezky, 1995, p. 142). This traditional way of understanding literacy is closely linked to a set of reading and writing skills for “decoding and encoding printed text” (Alvermann, 2009, p.16). This concept of literacy can be explained by Street

(2003, 2005)’s ‘autonomous model of literacy,’ which is prevalent in schools in the U.S. (Alvermann, 2009), which views reading and writing as neutral processes that are generally explained by individual variations in cognitive and physiological areas.

Due to technological developments, such as multimedia, Web 2.0, and other various digital technologies, 21st century literacy is framed as a multimodality that uses sound, visual images including video, and text for communication (Kress & Leeuwen, 2001). Students today use digital media to communicate with other people and search for information through in- and out-of- school activities. The ubiquity of use of digital technologies and the Internet has required researchers, educators, and students to redefine and expand the concept of literacy using media and information literacy which can be a proper term to understand the notion of literacy in the digitalized society.

As opposed to traditional perspectives on literacy which are generally defined as print based, functional, cognitive, decontexualized reading and writing

45 skills (Alvermann, 2009; Venzky, 1995), media and information literacy is defined as “abilities to recognize the need for information and knowing how to access, evaluate, synthesize, and communicate” (Moeller et al, 2011, p. 32) or

“the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide variety of sources when it is presented via computers” (Gilster, 1997, p. 1), or via

“the medium of the Internet” (Lankshear & Knobel, 2005). They emphasize the differences between digitally produced content and conventional print based contents. From this perspective, digital literacy is viewed as a set of skills so students develop these technological skills to adjust to working and communicating in these multimodal and digital environments.

Media and information literacy embraces the process of critical analysis of a wide variety of forms such as print, audio, video, and multimedia (Hobbs,

1998). In school-based contexts, critiquing mass media texts, such as movies and advertisements was commonly used to promote particularly media literacy. In particular, critical media literacy promotes students to consider the structure of society, politics, and how gender and power produce cultural artifacts (Alvermann

& Hagood, 2000). Occasionally media and information literacy contains a critique of social power and politics that is embedded in digital media and the Internet, so that students can pay attention to the idea of who produces, whose voice is heard and whose is not in the web (Alvermann & Hagood, 2000; Buckingham, 2007;

New Media consortium, 2005). Buckingham (2007) acknowledged that digital literacy should be used to understand or critique social power that is embedded in

46 digital media and the Internet. According to New Media consortium (2005), “21st century literacy [includes] the ability to understand the power of images and sounds, to recognize and use that power, to manipulate and transform digital media, to distribute them pervasively, and to easily adapt them to new forms” (p.

2). As a result, media and information literacy includes not only consuming

(reading) and producing (writing) online information but also criticizing the represented images and meanings of the contents in digital media.

In sum, traditional perspectives on literacy are related to an individual’s cognitive skills and print-based behaviors that are measurable without the recognition of contexts. However, literacy cannot be isolated from social and cultural contexts, power relations, and identity. The development of digital media and technologies is also an inevitable factor affecting more open conceptions of literacy in this society where people are connected to the Internet all the time.

From more critical viewpoints, media/digital literacy was used to perform students’ cultural and social identities through challenging their negative images represented in digital media.

As presented at the beginning of this chapter, media and information literacy is close to the psychologically based skills of an open source approach, where users have the basic skills to not only access but evaluate and synthesize information found on the Internet. A various aspects of media and information literacy including from basic skills to critical approaches needs to be taken into account digital citizenship discussion.

47 Digital Divide

The fundamental skills examined in the previous section, Media and

Information Literacy are dependent on experience with the Internet. This suggests that a key issue in the development of digital citizenship is how we can understand the term digital divide is. It is not simply general access issues that impact digital citizenship but the time and the places where access is possible.

Some scholars suggested digital divide as critical for understanding online civic engagement, with possibilities of growing differences between people who have high levels of Internet access and those do not (Norris, 2001; Warschauer,

2003). Other scholars have argued that digital literacy including Internet specific skills and self-efficacy should be a focal point for determining critical differences between users in their abilities to engage on in through online platforms in civic discourse and/or activities (De Marco et al., 2014; Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008;

Min, 2010).

Some studies presented issues involving Internet access cannot and should not be easily dismissed at a time when high-speed dependent applications are becoming more consequential to everyday activities (e.g., Instagram) (Armenta et al., 2012; Kruger & Gilroy, 2012; Rainie, 2010; Strover, 2014). Those people without high-speed access often face constraints to actively participating in community and societal activities via the Internet: limited in their abilities to engage for example by loading times of sites, access location, and/or screen size.

These differences led many researchers to investigate relationships between

48 socioeconomic factors and Internet access (e.g., Gangadharan & Byrum, 2012;

Oyana, 2011).

The issue of digital divide is also illustrated in an important study by

Neumann and Celano (2012) following development of computer skills of children using computers in a public library who have different access to the

Internet and low bandwidth at home (based on social economic status). They found children with less access at home were slower in developing critical Web based skills. This suggests that digital divide is a multi-faceted, complex concept.

Some form access to bandwidth and/or basic Internet literacy skills may be necessary but not sufficient categories for understanding the development of digital citizenship. There may be a number of other ecological factors, some of which we do not yet even recognize, that impact different aspects of digital citizenship.

In sum, digital divide refers to inequalities between groups in terms of access to, use of, and/or knowledge of information and communication technologies. A more serious problem is inequalities of technology usage.

Students from advantaged families tend to use technology for improving higher order thinking while students from disadvantaged families tend to use computer for “undersupervised drill-and practice routines” (Reich et al., p.8). The issue of digital inequality needs to be considered when we discuss digital citizenship.

49 Online Civic Engagement

A number of researchers looked at digital citizenship as a wider category than traditional civic participation and political action (Bennett et al, 2009; Kahne et al., 2013; Lenhart et al., 2008). Bennett et al (2009) point to the fact that user online engagement often encompasses a number of superficially variant activities such as visiting popular culture websites, gaming, and using Internet platforms for self-expression. For instance, becoming an active member of subReddit community can often demand advanced decisions in when and how they participate in ongoing online, non-hierarchical debates, including social conflict where each user is responsible for the trajectory of the discussion – but the experience is in many ways framed by the specific site and/or discussion.

Individuals may engage in advanced collaborative activities on multi-user gaming platforms in ways not possible in other online or offline ecologies of their everyday lives (Lenhart et al, 2008). And there has been development of Internet user as a new type of consumer outreach but for ethical consumption rather than material consumption (Hirzalla & Van Zoonen 2010), where organizations such as Greenpeace use affective models to draw users in to their perspectives of the world; processes that often focus more on developing a new and more critical understanding of phenomenon than direct political activity. These types of user activities would increase citizenship from a broader perspective but not necessarily the type that is attached to direct political action.

50 Wellman et. al (2003) conducted a number of surveys around the ways the

Internet might be transforming understanding/perspective of community to make the argument that Internet communications are moving us towards a society where citizenship is less based on local or cultural historical solidarity and more based in what they refer to as networked individualism. Traditional place based social groups are losing their abilities to pull individuals into generalized civic relationships based on place based boundaries and/or physically contiguous relationships. While Castells (1996) suggested that these place based institutions would be replaced by networks organized around centralized, powerful hub

Wellman and colleagues suggest citizenship will be distributed, based in the agency of individuals – leading to what they refer to as networked individualism.

The user follows their own (utilitarian) interests (as suggested by Internet researcher/theorists such as Bennett et al, 2009 and Downes, 2010.) combined with the new connectivity of the information age to join targeted communities.

Concepts of citizenship are tied to activities/responsibilities in a number of eclectic communities, presumably varying how they understand those communities supporting their lives. This networked individualism/distributed citizenship might be hastened by the fact that individuals can often be more successful, at least in meeting their own needs, in smaller targeted communities where relationships and goals are often more transparent; leading users to become less interested in offline political groups and the online sites that mirror them

(Banaji & Buckingham, 2010).

51 Related Other Constructs: Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety

Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety are considered important psychological factors when effectively and efficiently using the Internet in goal- oriented online activities (Kim & Glassman 2013). These two constructs tested the validity of the digital citizenship scale developed for this study.

Internet self-efficacy. Internet self-efficacy refers to “the belief in one’s capability to organize and execute Internet actions required to produce given attainments” (Eastin & LaRose, 2000, p. 1). There have been several attempts to measure Internet self-efficacy (Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Eastin & LaRose,

2000, Kim & Glassman, 2013; Miltiadou & Yu, 2000). For example, Eastin &

LaRose (2000) identified that prior Internet experience, outcome expectancies, and Internet usage were positively related to Internet self-efficacy while Internet stress and self-disparagement were negatively related to Internet self-efficacy. To develop a reliable operational measure of Internet-self efficacy, a 17-item five- factor model was extracted and cross-validated from Exploratory and

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Kim & Glassman, 2013). Building on the previously developed self-efficacy measures (Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Eastin

& LaRose, 2000, Miltiadou & Yu, 2000) and theoretical suggestions for self- efficacy (Bandura, 2006), this study identified five main factors that constitute

Internet self-efficacy: “Reactive/generative self-efficacy,” “Differentiation self- efficacy,” “Organization self-efficacy,” “Communication self-efficacy,” “Search self-efficacy.” The main difference from other established scales was that it was

52 developed from a humanistic viewpoint, which regards the Internet/Web as

“extension or augmentation of human mind attempting to interact with other minds in a larger information universe” (Kim & Glassman, 2013, p. 1423). In contrast, other scales had more technological perspective of the relationship between human and computers focusing on “self-efficacy in using the computer as a helper or junior partner in completing a task” (Kim & Glassman, 2013, p.

1423).

Internet anxiety. Internet anxiety refers to “the fear or apprehension that individuals experience when use the Internet” (Thatcher et al, 2007). There have been studies on the relationship between computer/Internet self-efficacy and computer/Internet anxiety (Beckers & Schmidt, 2001; Bures et al., 2001;

Compeau and Higgins, 1995; Havelka et al., 2004; Mcilroy et al., 2005; Thatcher

& Perrewe, 2002; Whilfong, 2004). For example, there was a negative relationship between computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety (Compeau &

Higgins, 1995; Thatcher & Perrewe, 2002). Similarly, Kim & Glassman (2013) demonstrated Internet self-efficacy was negatively related to Internet anxiety.

Digital Citizenship Education

Some scholars assert that digital citizenship should be taught in formal schooling in the age of information technology revolution (Crowe, 2006; Ribble,

2009; 2012). Digital citizenship is often defined as the norms or values that students need to know in order to appropriately and effectively use technology for civic engagement (Mossberger et al., 2008; Ribble, 2009; Shelley, 2004). This

53 conception of digital citizenship is constructed by two important elements, involvement in community and leaning digital literacy skills. According to this definition, digital citizenship education needs to promote good citizens in the

Internet age are active online participants who perform digital literacy practices

(Bennett & Fessenden, 2006; Crowe, 2006; Hicks et al., 2011; Mossberger et al.,

2008)

First many digital citizenship education studies focused on encouraging students to become politically active citizens (Bennett et al., 2008; 2011).

Participating in government related events such as election or contacting representatives were considered an important way of digital citizenship education.

Some of studies argued online activities do not necessarily have to be political

(Bennett, 2009; Kahne et al., 2013; Lenhart et al., 2008). For example, Bennett et al. (2009) claimed that while researchers need to expand conventional civic learning practices in political activities, they also understand civic life on the basis on games and popular culture in order to overcome a dichotomy between “private and public, commercial and civic” (p. 117). Earl and Schussman (2008) and

Tatarchevskiy (2011) infused youth culture and popular culture into political activity, such as entertainment-related petitioning and participation in Internet activism through the website with regard to poverty. Lenhart et al. (2008) illustrated gaming can be a form of civic engagement and paid attention to civic gaming experiences. They view the Internet as a cultural tool and emphasized interest-driven online participation. Youths are familiar with the micro ways of

54 the civic engagement based on their culture. These studies clearly demonstrate that youths are likely to perform non-political and micro ways of online participation as the process of being good citizens.

Next, digital citizenship educators and researchers emphasized digital literacy education to achieve academic success (Dalton et al, 2011; Warschauer et al., 2004). Warschauer et al. (2004) investigated how using laptops for learning

English encouraged students to promote independent reading, support language scaffolding, and be involved in cognitively engaging projects. They chose culturally and linguistically diverse middle school level students who were divided into two groups, homogenous Latino English learners and a heterogeneous group of immigrants and refugees. However, they did not consider students’ cultural backgrounds or use their own experiences and narratives but emphasized how well students utilized digital technologies in their English learning. Similarly, Dalton et al. (2001) strove to find the effectiveness of

Improving Comprehension Online (ICON) they designed for improving reading achievement of fifth-grade monolingual English and bilingual students. From more critical and relational perspectives, media/digital literacy was occasionally used to express students’ experiences and identities online or critically deconstructed their ethnic images in digital media. Media/digital literacy in these studies was a form of human activity that has to be understood within a particular social and cultural context including one’s identity (Santoy, 2013).

55 Conclusion

This chapter presented literature on theoretical foundations of technology and the Internet such as Feenberg’s (1991) critical theory of technology, Castells’

(1996) Network society, and Open Source approach (Raymond, 1999) giving theoretical perspectives to provide the Digital Citizenship Scale items.

Investigation of traditional and alternative/expansive conceptions of citizenship and global citizenship education broadens understanding the notion of citizenship and type of citizenship education. Examination of digital citizenship provides more specific and detailed knowledge on what digital citizenship means and what important elements that construct the concept of digital citizenship are.

CHAPTER 3: METHODS

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to develop a reliable and valid scale to measure young adults’ perceived sense of digital citizenship. This chapter presents the methods used to develop the Digital Citizenship Scale (DCS) and to collect and analyze the data for this study. In order to develop the DCS presented in this study, three phases were implemented. Phase One (February – June 2014) included a concept analysis of digital citizenship for concept clarification and initial item generation, which supports evidence of content validity. Phase Two

(July – August 2014) consisted of expert panel review for completion of item generation and revisions, which provides evidence supporting content and face validity of the items. Phase Three (October- November 2014) included final administration for assessment of the DCS. The participants were undergraduate and graduate students attending a large mid-western university in the United

States. The data was collected through a paper-based survey to increase response rates (Shih & Fan, 2008). An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to find underlying dimensions of digital citizenship and a confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) was used to test if the hypothesized model extracted from EFA fits the data. Correlational analyses were used to measure reliability and validity of the

57 DCS. The following sections describe more details concerning research site, participants, data collection, and data analyses after research questions are presented.

Research Design

Overview

Since there is a paucity of studies regarding the development of a precise digital citizenship scale, this study needed to follow rigorous procedures provided by scale development study. To develop a theory based digital citizenship scale, this research included three phases to generate, revise, and administer scale items along with three theoretical foundations described in Chapter Two. Phase One included a concept analysis to provide an initial list of digital citizenship scale items. A concept analysis of digital citizenship for this study played a significant role in providing empirical indicators of the concept of digital citizenship. Phase

Two involved expert panel review for completion of item revision. Phase Three consisted of final administration of the scale. Qualitative data were collected through a concept analysis and expert panel review and quantitative data were collected during the final scale administration.

Scale Development

Scale Development is conducted when researchers seek to measure phenomena that they believe to exist but cannot assess directly and/or there is no reliable and valid instrument to measure the construct of interest (Devellis, 2003;

58 Pett et al., 2003). “Measurement scales are collections of items combined into a composite score, and intended to reveal the level of an underlying theoretical variable not readily observable by direct means” (Devellis, 2003, p. 8). According to Pett et al (2003) there are five steps to develop a reliable and valid instrument:

1) identify the measurement frameworks, 2) identify the empirical indicators of the construct, 3) develop the instrument including instrument design issue, 4) pilot test the instrument, and 5) administer the instrument.

The first step in scale development is to identify the type of measurement frameworks that guide the design and interpret the results obtained by use of the instrument. There are the major frameworks for scale development: 1) Criterion- referenced instruments determine what a participant knows or does not know

(Mishel, 1998; Waltz et al., 1991), and 2) norm-referenced instruments discriminate between participants who have different quantities and/ or qualities of some values (Waltz et al., 1991). The digital citizenship scale presented in this study is a norm-referenced instrument designed to measure specific characteristics, skills, knowledge, and perspectives regarding online civic activities among participants.

The second step is providing empirical indicators (scale items) of the construct to be able to assess scale items using factor analysis. Researchers need to determine the construct or phenomenon of interest, conceptualize/operationalize the construct, conduct an integrated review of the literature, and undertake a concept analysis. For this study, the researcher

59 conducted a concept analysis of digital citizenship to conceptualize and provide empirical indicators of digital citizenship along with literature reviews presented in Chapter Two.

The third step is organizing scale items in a useful format that allows the data to be collected effectively reducing participant misunderstanding of the items. There are six common elements to be considered when effectively and efficiently organize scale items: 1) instrument format, 2) printed layout, 3) instructions to the subject, 4) wording and structuring of the items, 5) response format, and 6) number of items. First, a commonly used instrument format is the

Likert scale (DeVellis, 2003) used to measure participants’ attitudes, beliefs, and opinions. Positive and negative declarative statements must be worded to minimize ambiguity. Second, the instrument needs to be printed in a suitable format (e.g., font size) that is easy to handle and read. Third, instructions and the purpose of the instrument are included on the instrument if the instrument is a self-report type of scale. The researcher presented the research purposes before distributing the survey to the participants for this study. Fourth, scale items should be stated clearly to decrease measurement error. Fifth, the response options for the instrument allow participants to select degrees of agreement or disagreement with a statement. These response options could be dichotomous (e.g., 1 = yes, 2 = no) or they could be continuous (e.g., a 5-point LIkert scale ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). This study used 7-point Likert scale providing an accurate measure of the participants’ responses than 5-point scale (Finstad, 2010;

60 Nunnally, 1978). Finally, if the instrument has too few scale items it is difficult to capture the construct correctly, but there are also possibilities that too many items which will not be read and answered carefully. Nunnally (1978) suggested that 10 to 15 initial items per suspected subscale is sufficient.

The fourth step is a field test of the instrument. It is recommended to conduct a field test with participants selected from the larger study pool of participants to improve the instrument. However, university faculty and instructors were selected as the target sample for the field test in this study. The researcher decided this sample used to conduct the field test allowed for better identification if scale items generated were misunderstood or answered in the way that the researcher wants the items to be answered (DeVellis, 2003; Kirchhoff,

1999; Nieswiadomy, 2001). Two rounds of experts review, therefore, would help minimize the threats to the validity of the Digital Citizenship Scale developed for this study. The fourth step was referred to as Phase Two: Expert Panel Review.

The fifth step is the administration of the instrument with an appropriate population sample. Although there is little agreement on sample size for factor analysis, Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) indicate “as a general rule of thumb, it is comforting to have at least 300 cases for factor analysis” (p. 588) and Pett et al.,

(2003) suggest “at least 10 to 15 subjects per initial item” (p. 48) would be appropriate.

61 A Concept Analysis Method

A concept analysis is an effective method to identify key attributes of a concept and to provide clarity for abstract constructs or those that are unclear in use because it is regarded as a significant type of inquiry to expand existing knowledge in a certain discipline (Rodgers, 1989; Walker & Avant, 2011). This conceptual analysis is commonly used to determine empirical indicators of the construct of interest (Pett et al., 2003). Historically concept analyses have two primary philosophical foundations, commonly referred to as entity and dispositional perspectives of concepts. Entity views generally consider a concept as an absolute thing such as an abstract and static idea or metal image while dispositional views focus on behaviors or the use of concepts such as feasible physical acts. Entity theories can be traced back from Aristotle, Kant, and Locke to positivism, whereas the later works of Wittgenstein represents dispositional theories (Rodgers & Knafl, 2000).

Practically, Wilson (1963) pioneered the development of specific steps as methodological guidelines for high school students to easily analyze concepts, gaining cognitive and writing skills. Although establishing a rigorous concept analysis method was not a Wilson’s intent, his work was widely adopted by Chinn and Kramer (1991), Rodger (1993), and Walker and Avant (1995) in nursing school (Hupcey et al, 1996). Although there were slight different features among these Wilsonians in aspect of purpose, data source, process, and outcome, the primary focus of Wilson-derived methods was development of nursing theory and

62 knowledge (see Hupcey et al, 1996 for more detailed information on each method). However, Rodgers especially criticized other scholars for failing to recognize that concepts are dynamic, flexible, and changeable, presenting her method as an evolutionary approach to concept analysis. As opposed to a philosophical foundation known as essentialism or entity theories, Rodgers suggested that concepts are context dependent so that they change over time in reference to their social and cultural contexts (Rodgers, 1989; 1993). Rodgers differentiated her method from other Wilsonians in three ways; 1) systematic sample selection using multiple data sources, 2) a qualitative approach to data analysis, and 3) identification related terms of the concept being analyzed

(Hupcey et al., 1996). The specific procedure Rodger (1989) provided is as follow:

1. Identify and name the concept of interest. 2. Identify surrogate terms and relevant uses of the concept. 3. Identify and select an appropriate realm (sample) for data collection. 4. Identify the attributes of the concept 5. Identify the references, antecedents, and consequences of the concept, if possible. 6. Identify concepts that are related to the concept of interest. 7. Identify a model case of the concept.

63 Additionally, a tree diagram was used to classify the attributes of the concept for the fourth step and a more cohesive and comprehensive definition of digital was produced at the final step rather than providing a model case of the concept.

Given that a concept plays a significant role in understanding its meaning in a certain discipline, if the attributes or features of a concept are not clearly identified it is difficult to build knowledge. Therefore, concept analysis regarding digital citizenship can be considered as an important methodology to develop the constructs leading to better citizenship education. Since the main goal of this study was to examine how the concept of digital citizenship is constructed and how attributes of digital citizenship have changed, Rogers’ evolutionary approach to concept analysis was deemed the most appropriate for this study.

Research Site

A large U.S. mid-western university was selected for this study. Based on a statistical summary the university provides as of Autumn 2014, the total enrollment of 57,446 students; 44,201 are undergraduate students and 10,013 graduate students. Females and males are nearly equally represented with only

1400 more male students than female students. Although this university has some ethnic and racial diversity (17.16%) including African American, Asian

American, Hispanic, two or more races, American Indian, and Native

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, it has a predominantly White student population. A total of 3,343 students are international students and represent 74 countries. There are more than 200 majors and 475 academic specializations in16 colleges. 37.5%

64 of the undergraduate population enrolled in the Art and Science followed by

Engineering (17.3%), Business (14.1%), and Education and Human Ecology

(8.2%). This university is regarded as an appropriate research site in order to access a non-random sample and generalizable data. In an attempt to obtain a relatively wide variation in responses, efforts were made to obtain respondents from different colleges and learning organizations in the university.

Participants

Recruitment

The researcher contacted directors and coordinators of two learning centers and department of education at the university provides and 15 class instructors in three colleges via email to gain access to the target population. The researcher gain permission to recruit participants in the following way: 1)

Learning Center A: the researcher was invited to the instructors’ meeting in the center to present the current research. All instructors (n=8) gave permission to collect data in their classes, 2) Learning Center B: the director directly invited the researcher to a guest speaker session, and 3) class instructors in the three colleges:

10 out of 15 instructors responded to the email and 8 instructors allowed the researcher to visit their classrooms for recruitment. Based on class schedules, the researcher visited the classrooms before starting classes or after ending classes to recruit participants and collect data. The questionnaire was handed out in the class along with consent forms after the researchers’ presentation on the research topic and procedure. All participants volunteered to be part of the study.

65 Participants Characteristics

A convenience sample of undergraduate and graduate students was used for the survey. A total sample of participants was 508, consisting of 188 males

(37%), 319 females (62.8%) with 1 unidentified. Based on Tapscott (2009)’s definition of net generation, the participants were born in January 1977 to

December 1997. The participants mean age was 21.03 years with the range being

18 years to 35 years. The racial composition of the sample was 410 Whites

(80.7%), 50 Asian/Pacific Islanders (5.9%), 26 Blacks (5.1%), 26 Bi-racial

(5.1%), and 7 Hispanics (1.4%). There were 436 undergraduate students (85.8%) and 72 graduate students (14.2%). 208 participants (40.9%) predominantly major in Education followed by 134 participants (26.4%) in the Arts and Sciences.

Much detailed information on sample characteristics is presented in Table 10 in chapter 4.

Measures

Demographic Information

Demographic information of the participants with regard to age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, and major was collected on the first page of the final instrument. From multicultural and diverse perspectives, demographic questions were developed to protect participants’ privacy. To assess age, participants were asked, “What is your year of birth?” and asked to fill in a number of years; however participants also had a right not to fill out. In particular response options for gender were carefully developed. Although many survey have only two

66 response options (male or female), the researcher added three other options such as ‘Trans,’ ‘Other,’ and ‘Prefer not to disclose.’ Ethnicity was assessed using an item borrowed from Student Involvement Survey (2010) that this University used including ‘Bi-racial,’ ‘Other,’ and ‘Prefer not to disclose.’ Response options were

White, Black, Hispanic, American Indian, Asian/pacific Islander, Bi-racial, Other, and Prefer not to disclose. If participants checked two other ethnic category or more than two categories, responses were coded into a ‘Bi-racial’ or ‘Other’ category respectively. Since the target population is Net generation born in between 1977 and 1997, response options for the highest level of education that participants have completed included ‘High School,’ ‘Bachelor’s degree,’

‘Master’s degree,’ and ‘Doctoral degree.’ Lastly, participants were asked to check the college to which they belong. 15 response options were developed using a list of colleges the university provides; however, considering that this study was designed to provide profound implications for education, participants in the

College of Education and Human Ecology were asked to check their specific majors to differentiate between participants majoring in Education and those in the other majors.

Internet Usage

In order to gain general understandings of Internet usage among participants, four questions regarding devices that participants use to access the

Internet, main websites that participants visit to read and watch social, political, and cultural issues, frequency of Internet access from different places (home,

67 school, work, and etc.), and main purpose of the Internet use were included in the questionnaire.

Digital Citizenship

Thirty-seven scale items were developed based on a concept analysis of digital citizenship and two rounds of expert reviews. The digital citizenship scale items were constructed by the elements of four categories of digital citizenship, which will be detailed in Chapter Four, Ethics, Media and Information Literacy,

Participation/Engagement, and Critical Resistance. This measure assesses participants’ subjective perception of online activities as digital citizens. A 7- point Likert type of scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) was used. Specific scale items are provided in Appendix K.

Internet Self-efficacy

Participants’ perceived likelihood of Internet self-efficacy was measured using the Internet self-efficacy scale (Kim & Glassman, 2013). Internet self- efficacy refers to ones’ belief in their abilities to successfully complete a variety of Internet activities (Eastin & LaRose, 2000). Since users’ Internet competency is regarded as a fundamental factor to influence digital participation (Min, 2010;

De Marco et al., 2014), we can assume Internet self-efficacy is correlated to digital citizenship. One item related to the specific course for Kim and Glassman

(2013) study was removed from the original scale. A total 16 items consist of reactive/generative self-efficacy (blogging), differentiations self-efficacy (using

68 hyperlinks), organization self-efficacy (organizing information), communication self-efficacy (social networking), and search self-efficacy (searching for information). Comparing with other Internet self-efficacy scale, the Kim and

Glassman (2013) scale has more benefits theoretically and practically because this scale was developed based on not only the previous self-efficacy measures but also more current theoretical backgrounds of Internet use. Cronbach’s alpha of the

Internet self-efficacy scale in the current study was .923. A 7-point Likert type of scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) was used. Specific scale items are provided in Appendix K.

Internet Anxiety

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Vagg, Barker, Donham

& Westberry, 1980) was adapted to measure participants’ level of anxiety in engaging in Internet activities. This measure was used as a negative correlate because anxiety is generally perceived an opposite side of self-efficacy. For this study the STAI was modified to measure participants’ subjective feelings in using the Internet. The participants were asked to report how they feel about each inventory item on a 7-point Likert type of scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha of the inventory in the present study was

.673. Specific inventory items are provided in Appendix K.

69 Data Collection

In order to provide a reliable and valid digital citizenship scale items and collect data, this study included three phases. Phase One included a concept analysis of digital citizenship for initial item generation and scale construction.

This phase was conducted to provide a knowledge base about digital citizenship for the second phase. The 30 articles, 6 white papers, 4 book chapters and 17 blogs/websites were reviewed. Phase Two included expert panel review for completion of item generation and revisions, which provides evidence for content and face validity. Phase Three included final administration for assessment of digital citizenship, Internet self-efficacy, and Internet anxiety.

Phase One: Concept Analysis for Item Generation and Scale Construction

A concept analysis is commonly used to generate initial scale items (Pett et al., 2003). As a first attempt to develop an advanced, well-developed digital citizenship scale, the examination of the concept of digital citizenship was needed. The purpose of this analysis was 1) to obtain greater understanding of a concept of digital citizenship, and 2) to provide evidence supporting content validity of digital citizenship scale items. An initial list of items was constructed based on four categories that ran through the data collected for a concept analysis.

Addressing the digital citizenship related terms. Although the concept of digital citizenship was the primary term to be analyzed, several other terms regarding citizenship in connection with the Internet were used in the analysis.

Based on citizenship studies (Bennett & Fessenden, 2006; Coleman, 2004;

70 Longford, 2005), the researcher found six digital citizenship related terms such as online citizenship, cyber citizenship, e-citizenship, networked citizenship, technological citizenship, and Internet citizenship.

Searching the data. An online search of multiple databases (EBSCO,

ERIC, and Google Scholar) was conducted using key words listed above until the available data sources were depleted. The study used seven search terms (digital citizenship along with six terms identified above), in conjunction with Internet and citizenship. 254 data sources were found in the first search and detailed analytical notes were recorded for the analyses. Steps for the search process are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Search Process

1. The researcher reviewed literature regarding how the Internet affects a concept of citizenship or citizenship studies in handbooks, research articles, and white papers. From this review, 6 terms related to a concept of digital citizenship were found. 2. Using three search databases, 254 data sources from the initial search were found. 3. The researcher established 5 criteria for inclusion. Data lacking a definition of digital citizenship or just repeating other scholars’ definitions were excluded from this analysis even if they provided digital citizenship related terms. 4. A total of 57 sources for data was read and analyzed accordingly.

Establishing the criteria for inclusion and exclusion. To be included in this study, each data had to meet the criteria indicated in Table 2. English language journal articles and/or book chapters published in the fields of

71 education, political science, and communication/journalism were selected because digital citizenship studies have been actively conducted in these fields. In order to gain multiple data sources, official websites, blogs, and news articles dealing with digital citizenship from 2003 to 2014 were also included. The year of 2003 was used as a beginning point for this study because some important incidents that affect the way in which Internet related social interactions and communication occurred around that time: Facebook was launched in 2004; Twitter was initiated in 2006; 4chan, regarded as Internet subculture for anonymous groups posting and discussing manga and animations was launched in 2003; Reddit, a major platform for sharing and discussing social news with the slogan of “The front page of the

Internet” was started in 2005. Academically the iConference in which information and communication oriented topics such as history and philosophy of information, human-computer interaction, participatory cultures, digital youths were mainly focused was initiated in 2005.

Book reviews or literature lacking a definition of digital citizenship were excluded for this study. However, literature that illustrates a new meaning of citizenship as a result of the advent of the Internet and digital technologies were included, even though they did not directly use the term digital citizenship in their papers. As a result, 30 articles, 6 white papers, 4 book chapters and 17 blogs/websites were analyzed. All references included in the concept analysis of digital citizenship are presented in Appendix I.

72 Table 2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria 1. Must be written by English. 1. Data sources not 2. Must be involve on of the following fields: providing meanings of education, political science, communication/ digital citizenship journalism 2. Data sources simply 3. Must be published or released between January citing other scholars’ 2003 and October 2014. definitions. 4. Must be one of the following data sources: journal articles, book chapters, white papers, and websites/ blogs. 5. Must provide meanings of digital citizenship or citizenship in connection with the Internet.

Phase Two: Expert Panel Review

After generating the initial items, an expert panel was asked to review the survey items regarding the wording, response format, instrument directions, and quality of the items to minimize ambiguities, misunderstandings, or other inadequacies. Twelve panel members were selected based on their expertise in citizenship education (n=4), global education (n =3), Internet studies (n=2), educational psychology (n=2), and literacy (n=1). Each of the panel members was asked to review the initial generated items for measuring digital citizenship and provide comments on the validity of each item and feedback on whether on perceived difficulties or issues that may have been overlooked. The brief results of a concept analysis of digital citizenship were also provided to help them understand how the scale items were constructed. The guided questions provided to members of the panel were:

• Are there any questions unclear or difficult to understand? • Are there any questions irrelevant to digital citizenship? • Do you have any relevant items with regard to digital citizenship that should be added to this scale in your mind? • Any comments and suggestions that you would like to provide in

general?

It was also made clear to the panel members that they could respond in any other ways they thought important to the validity of the scale. Eight out of twelve panel members responded to this request and scale items were added, deleted, and/or revised based on this first round of feedback. After the scale was revised, eight of the experts who participated in the first review were re-invited to participate in a second review to help finalize and confirm the scale items with the same-guided questions as above. For this second review, five of the experts provided feedback.

Phase Three: Final Scale of Administration

The final scale was administered to undergraduate and graduate students in three colleges and two learning centers during the Autumn semester, 2014

(n=508, 20 classes). The final questionnaire consisted of 5 demographic questions, 4 general Internet usages questions, 37 DCS items, 16 Internet self- efficacy scale items, and 19 Internet anxiety scale items. The questionnaire was administered to participants by the researcher via in-class introduction with permission of the class instructor and the respective institution. Confidentiality

74 and anonymity of responses were emphasized to participants. Data collected through the final scale administration was analyzed to evaluate evidence of scale dimensionality, reliability, and validity.

Data Analyses

Phase One: Qualitative Data from a Concept Analysis

With the data set collected through the process described above in the data collection section, the researcher coded all data into five categories: 1) author, 2) publication year, 3) title 4) data sources (journal article, book chapter, white paper, news article, blog, and website), 5) texts indicating meanings of digital citizenship, and 6) emerging themes from the texts (see coding example in Table

3). A tree diagram was created to reclassify/regroup relevant themes into one category. The researcher and three experts in Internet infused education and citizenship studies insured if the coding and analysis were appropriate.

75 Table 3. Coding Example

Data Emerging Authors Year Source Main Texts Analyzed themes

Afshar 2013 Blog • Educators have faced a challenge similar •Responsible post to businesses regarding the use of behavior technology and the Internet. Unfettered online student access can bring major benefits by dramatically enhancing learning and creativity. But, it comes at the risk of compromised privacy, copyright infringement, cyber bullying, plagiarism, and exposure to inappropriate content. The concept of digital citizenship was created to address this situation.

Becta 2010 White • Digital citizenship means being digitally • Higher paper literate and having “the combination of levels of skills, knowledge and understanding that critical young people need to learn before they thinking skills can participate fully and safely in an increasingly digital world. • This array of skills, knowledge and understanding is a key component of the primary and secondary curriculum and should be incorporated in the teaching of all subjects at all levels. • Evidence has shown that while many young people feel confident about using technology, this doesn’t always translate into competence. This is particularly apparent in relation to ‘higher level’ critical thinking skills, e.g. awareness of commercial strategies or bias in the media.

Continued

76 Table 3. Continued Bennett 2009 Journal • Actualizing citizen: 1) Weak sense of • Lifestyle , Wells, article duty to participate in government, 2) politics and Focus on lifestyle politics: political (micro ways Rank consumerism, volunteering, social of political activism (more personally expressive or engagement) self-actualizing politics), 3) Mistrust of media of media and politicians – less likely to follow politics in the news, 4) Joins loose networks for social action – communicates through digital media

Phase Two: Qualitative Data from Expert Panel Review

Experts’ comments and feedback on the initial scale items and open-ended suggestions through two round reviews were examined thoroughly and used to determine item inclusion, exclusion, and revision for the final scale (DeVellis,

2003). The researcher established criteria for deleting, retaining, rewriting, and adding. Items that received the comments in terms of ‘irrelevant to the topic’ by more than half of the experts in each round were removed; Items that received the feedback including the meaning of ‘good,’ and ‘important,’ by more than half of the experts in each round were remained unchanged; Items that received comments about ‘confusing,’ ‘not clear,’ by more than half of the experts in each round were revised; and new items recommended adding into the scale were examined and added if it is necessary and/or it is in line with the relevant theoretical framework.

77 Phase Three: Statistical Analyses

Descriptive analysis and item analysis. Data cleaning and screening was conducted to insure if the collected data can be used for factor analysis (Field,

2004). After administering the scale, the data was cleaned and screened by examining missing data for errors. Descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation, variance, minimum, and maximum along with graphical plots of data distributions were calculated and examined for the entire scale items. Then correlation matrix was examined to see inter-correlation between variables (Field,

2004; Pett et al., 2003). Items that are highly correlated (r > .80) with other items in the scale should be removed from the scale because of the multicollinearity issue (Field, 2004). The suitability of the data for factor analysis is widely tested by two particular measures (Field, 2004; Pett et al., 2003; Reinard, 2006): 1) The

Kasier-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) is a measure of sampling adequacy and a sample is considered adequate if the KMO is greater than, .5 (Field, 2005, Reinard, 2006), and 2) Bartlett’s test of sphericity reports “a statistical significance test of the null hypothesis that the variables under analysis are unrelated” (Reinard, 2006, p.

410). It should be rejected to indicate that the data show intercorrelations.

Exploratory factor analysis. In order to examine underlying structure or relationships between subscales that constitute the concept of digital citizenship, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted using the half of the total sample (n=254). EFA is generally used “when the researcher does not know how many factors are necessary to explain the interrelationships among a set of

78 characteristics, indicators, or items (Reinard, 2006, p. 3). Given that reliable and valid digital citizenship scales have not been developed, it is difficult to know how many factors that consist of digital citizenship. To explore the underlying dimensions of digital citizenship EFA is appropriate to be conducted for this study.

To determine the number of factors, Kaiser’s criteria (factors with an eigenvalue greater than one) and Cattell’s (1966) scree test (retaining factors above the elbow of the curve and rejecting those below it), and theoretical interpretability of the resulting factor structures were used.

Principal axis factoring as an extraction method and Oblimin for a rotation method were used for this study. Although principal component analysis (PCA) and principal axis factoring (PAF) are most commonly used and there was no practical difference between them (Thompson, 2004), PAF is considered as a more appropriate extract method in factor analysis (Reinard, 2006). With a rotation method Oblimin which is often seen to produce more accurate results for research involving human behaviors rather than Verimax (Costello & Osborne,

2005).

Confirmatory factor analysis. In order to test a proposed factor structure extracted from the EFA, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used with the second half of the total sample. CFA is generally used to assess the extent to which the hypothesized model which consists of a set of identified factors fits the data under the assumption that researchers have some knowledge about the

79 underlying dimension of the construct of interest (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994;

Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991; Pett et al., 2003). The researcher used CFA to test the hypothesized model (underlying structure of digital citizenship) extracted from the EFA

Modification index that Amos provides and theoretical foundations were considered to improve a model fit. To evaluate the degree of fit between the model and the data, model-fit-criterion that Reinard (2006) and Schumacker &

Lomax (2012) provide were used: Relative chi-square (χ2/ d.f. X < .20),

Goodness-of-fit index (GFI close to .90), Comparative Fit Index (CFI close to

.90), Root Mean Square of Error Approximation (RMSEA between .05 and 0.08).

The values that meet this criterion indicate a good model fit.

Correlation Analyses. A series of correlation analyses were conducted using the entire sample to test the scale’s reliability, intra-subscale item correlations, and construct validity: 1) reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) were computed as a measure of the internal consistency of each subscale. 2) intra- subscale item correlations among digital citizenship, and 3) correlation between digital citizenship and Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety was analyzed.

Sample Size. According to Pett et al. (2003), if there are at least 10-15 subjects per initial item, 200 are fair enough and 300 are good enough to do factor analysis. Devellis (2003) describes a range of published sample size recommendations arguing that a ratio 5 to 10 participants per item is considered adequate for factor analysis. There were a total number of 508 participants for this

80 study which were randomly split in half into two subgroups: (1) the first group of participants (n=254) was used for an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) study and

(2) the second group of participants (n=254) was used for a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) study. Thus, the sample size is reasonable to perform factor analysis.

Reliability. Reliability refers to “the degree to which the questions used in the survey elicits the same type of information each time they used under the same conditions” (Peirce, 2008, p. 84). Although there are many sources of reliability such as internal consistency, temporal stability, parallel forms, inter- rater reliability, and generalizability theory, internal consistency is considered as an important source in scale development (Cook & Beckman, 2006). Among several types of measuring internal consistency, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is widely used to measure homogeneity of the items within a scale (Devellis, 2003).

For this reason Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was computed as a measure of the internal consistency of the total scale and each factor within the DCS scale.

Validity. Validity refers to “the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by the proposed uses of tests”

(AERA, 1999, p.8). It means how precisely and legitimately the results of a test can be interpreted. Validity has traditionally been classified into three types, content, criterion, and construct validity. However, Cook and Beckman (2006) argued that construct validity is a conceptually overarching notion and then other two types of validity can function as sources of evidence to support construct

81 validity. They provided five sources of construct validity evidence: content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variable (criteria), and consequences.

First, content validity can be measured through “the process for developing and selecting items, the wording of individual items, and the qualifications of items writers and reviewers detailed description of steps taken to ensure that the items represent the construct” (Cook & Beckman, 2006, p. 10). In order to have a higher degree of content validity, this study conducted a concept analysis of digital citizenship and expert reviews. A concept analysis of digital citizenship provided theoretical and conceptual evidence that consisted of digital citizenship as a construct. The results of this concept analysis were used to develop the scale items. Expert reviews were performed to evaluate the appropriateness of language/vocabulary of each item and assess how well items represent a concept of digital citizenship. Second, response process reviews “the actions and thought processes of test takers or observers” (Cook & Beckman,

2006, p. 10). For this, two experts familiar with survey research and scale development reviewed their own thought process through answering each item with the researcher. Third, internal validity refers to how much scale items are correlated with another. In order to measure homogeneity of internal structure, reliability and factor analysis were performed in this study. Fourth, criteria validity is measured through “correlation with scores from another instrument or outcome for which correlation would be expected, or lack of correlation where it

82 would not” (p. 10). To test this validity, this study investigated correlations between digital citizenship and Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety. Fifth, the issue of consequences assesses through “evaluating intended or unintended consequences of an assessment” or “exploring whether desired results have been achieved” (p. 12). After data collection, analysis, and interpretation this issue was evaluated by the researcher’s reflection on the survey items and discussion with two aforementioned experts.

Missing Data. Missing responses from the data collected during Phase

Three were analyzed. Missing data for thirty-seven DCS items were 0.4 % when calculating total scale scores. Based on the item mean substitution method

(Downey & King, 1998), missing items were replaced with item means. This approach is regarded as acceptable to manage missing data on Likert scales when the number of missing items and the number of respondents with missing items for each scale are 20% or less (Downey & King, 1998).

Conclusion

This study provides a comprehensive digital citizenship scale based on carefully calibrated, overarching, inclusive components of digital citizenship that can be used to measure levels of digital citizenship among young adults. Three phases were implemented to provide a reliable and valid digital citizenship scale items. Phase One included a concept analysis of digital citizenship for concept clarification and initial item generation, which supports evidence of content validity. Phase Two included expert panel review for completion of item

83 generation and revisions, which provides evidence supporting content and face validity of the items. Phase Three included final administration for assessment of the DCS along with Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety scales, which support evidence of construct validity.

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

Introduction

The aim of this study is to develop a reliable and valid digital citizenship scale to measure young adults’ self-conceptions of digital citizenship. The research focused on the overarching question “how do young adults navigate a sense of digital citizenship?” In order to answer this question, this study first conducted a concept analysis to generate initial scale items and then these items were revised and finalized through expert reviews. The final administered survey included demographic information, details around Internet usage, 37-item digital citizenship scale, 16-item Internet self-efficacy scale, and 19-item Internet anxiety scale. This digital citizenship scale was tested using a convenience sample of the undergraduate and graduate students aged between 1977 and 1997 (n=508). This chapter is organized by research phases. The results of the concept analysis of digital citizenship conducted in Phase One and comments and feedbacks from expert review implemented in Phase Two will be reported in the following sections. The results of factor analysis of the data collected in Phase Three will be addressed in conjunction with correlations between digital citizenship and Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety.

85 Summary of Procedure of Scale Development

Since there was no rigorous, well-developed digital citizenship scale in the established literature, the researcher sought to use as valid procedures as possible in developing scale items. The current study included three phases to create a reliable and valid instrument to measure a perceived sense of digital citizenship among young adults. Phase One included a concept analysis of digital citizenship for initial item generation and content validity of the scale. Phase Two consisted of continuous revision of initial items through expert review, providing evidence of face validity and content validity for scale items. Eight experts for a first round review and five experts for a second review were invited to help finalize the scale items. Phase Three included final administration for assessment of digital citizenship, along with correlations with Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety scales for construct validity. On this final stage, the researcher collected quantitative data using a paper-based survey, contacting directors and coordinators of two learning centers and 15 class instructors in three colleges. The researcher visited the learning centers and classrooms to promote the study and distributed the survey. In total, 514 students completed the survey. Initial screening of the data showed that six respondents skipped a large amount of the survey questions and/or marked the same scale from the beginning to the end.

Consequently, these six responses were deleted and a total of 508 responses were used for analysis.

86 Phase One: A Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship

Research Question 1:

1. What elements constitute the concept of digital citizenship as a

measurable construct?

1-1: What are the key components of digital citizenship?

1-2: How has the notion of digital citizenship evolved over the past ten

years?

Four categories were identified through retrieved texts from the established literature and online data: Ethics, Media and Information Literacy,

Participation/Engagement, and Critical Resistance. These categories emerged through an iterative process as the researcher continuously searched through the texts for common threads. Each category will be elaborated by its primary and main sub-themes in more details. The results of how each category has been changed will be also addressed in the following sections.

Four Categories of the Concept of Digital Citizenship

Digital citizenship as Ethics (E). The data from the category of Digital

Citizenship as Ethics (E) regarded an online and virtual community as a new space where people live, interact, and communicate with each other on a regular basis. Compared with other disciplines such as political science and communication/journalism, many scholars in education were relatively more interested in this category, highlighting that responsible and safe behavior online

87 should be seriously taught in education (e.g., Berson & Berson, 2003; CyberWise,

2014; DigitalLiteracy, 2014; Famerer, 2011; ISTE, 2007; Lenhart et al., 2011;

Ribble et al., 2004; ribble & Bailey, 2007; Ribble, 2009; Unicef, 2011; Winn,

2012). Three major sub-themes of this category were found: 1) ‘safe, responsible, and ethical use of technology and the Internet’, 2) ‘digital awareness,’ and 3)

‘digital responsibilities and rights.’

First, the representative sub-theme in this Digital Ethics category was

‘safe, responsible, and ethical use of technology and the Internet.’ Ribble defined digital citizenship as “the norms of appropriate and responsible behavior with regard to technology use,” and addresses nine elements of digital citizenship⎯digital access, digital commerce, digital literacy, digital etiquette, digital law, digital rights and responsibilities, digital health and wellness, and digital security. He explained digital citizenship related issues as much detailed as possible and illustrated appropriate/inappropriate examples so that teachers and school leaders could apply these examples in the classroom. Similarly, ISTE

(2007) provided standards for students, “Students understand human, cultural, and societal issues related to technology and practice legal and ethical behavior.” The

UNICEF website also directly addressed that “the optimal and safe use of the

Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)” is the significant task of their research project to raise good digital citizens. According to the aforementioned definitions of Ribble (2004, 2007, 2009), ISTE (2007), and

UNICEF (2011), good digital citizens need to know norms and/or values

88 regarding appropriate and effective use of technology and/or the Internet. These attempts to conceptualize digital citizenship provide a general understanding of what digital citizenship is and how educators could teach students to encourage responsible digital citizens.

Secondly, ‘digital awareness’ was considered as an important element of the Digital Ethics category. Several studies have focused on the idea that digital citizens need to be aware of political, social, cultural, economic, and educational issues which stem from the pervasive use of digital technologies and the Internet in their everyday lives (Berson & Berson, 2003; Hollandsworth et al., 2011;

Ribble et al, 2004; Ohler, 2010). For example, Berson and Berson (2003) argued that the topic of digital awareness should be added into existing social studies curriculum to educate students to become effective citizens for the 21st century.

From a more critical perspective, Longford (2007) asserted that digital citizens should understand how codes constructed and designed in the Internet/Web regulate and influence peoples’ behaviors, activities, and lives online. Similar to global citizenship, Kurubacak (2007) emphasized careful attentions to diverse online communities, which enhance collaboration at the local and global level.

Thirdly, ‘digital rights and responsibilities’ were primarily highlighted as a central part of ethical and responsible behaviors on the Internet (Coleman, 2006;

Common sense media, 2009; educational origami, 2014; Ohler, 2012; Ribble &

Bailey, 2007; Robb & Shellenbarger, 2013). For example, the data from this sub- theme showed that right to free speech; protecting privacy, intellectual property

89 copyright protection; respecting self, others, and community; and reporting cyber bullies and harms were important issues to be taught to students. Similar to traditional approaches to citizenship, this sub-theme, ‘digital rights and responsibilities’ regarded a digital citizen as a full member of an online community, and demanded a digital citizen to protect their and others’ rights and obligations beyond geographical boundaries.

In sum, the category of Digital Ethics referred to how individuals appropriately, safely, ethically, and responsibly behave online in terms of using digital technologies, the Internet, and social networking sites. Three primary sub- themes of this category were ‘safe, responsible, and ethical use of technology’,

‘digital awareness’, and ‘digital responsibilities and rights.’ As described above, the scholars all shared ethical and regulatory perspectives on digital citizenship even if the ideas of what the responsible, ethical, and safe behaviors mean were slightly different according to each scholar. Excerpts analyzed for each sub-theme are presented in Table 4 and a variety of elements under the sub-themes are provided in Appendix A.

90 Table 4. Excerpts from the Texts in Digital Citizenship as Ethics

Emerging Texts analyzed Coded terms theme “The project starts with a data collection phase, during Safe and Ethics (E) which exploratory, quantitative and qualitative studies ethical use of are conducted to then produce evidence-based technology and communication materials to raise awareness on the the Internet optimal and safe use of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)” (UNICEF, 2011, website)

“Students will require awareness that online behaviors Digital can impact people within their immediate circle of awareness friends but also outside of that circle. Additionally, student digital behaviors can impact their own personal social dynamics, personal resources, careers, and safety” (Hollandsworth et al., 2011, p. 38)

“A good digital citizen will experience the advantages Digital of the digital world but like a citizen of a nation, they responsibilities will be identifiable, speak using the appropriate and rights language, serve his or her duty to judge what is appropriate within the laws of the land and ethical behavior, uphold their social responsibilities and be virtuous” (Educational Origami, 2014, Blog post)

Digital citizenship as Media and Information Literacy (MIL). The second category of digital citizenship involved Media and Information Literacy

(MIL) which is defined as “abilities to recognize the need for information and knowing how to access, evaluate, synthesize, and communicate” (UNESCO,

2010, p. 32) or “the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats

91 from a wide variety of sources when it is presented via computers” (Gilster, 1997, p. 1), or via “the medium of the Internet” (Lankshear & Knobel, 2005). The data from this category showed that there were three primary sub-themes: 1) ‘digital access’, 2) ‘technical skills as lower levels of MIL’, and 3) ‘psychological capabilities as higher levels of MIL.’

First, ‘digital access’ or digital divide was one of the main concerns of

MIL (Mossberger et al., 2009; Mossberger, 2009; Ribble & Bailey, 2007; Ribble et al., 2004; Ribble, 2009; Unicef, 2011). The issues of who has/use digital technologies such as computers, laptops, smart phones, and/or tablet PCs, how/where to access the Internet, and/or who can access the Internet were important elements in this sub-theme. The data showed that the effective and efficient accessibility to the Internet was a fundamental component to participate in society online and to achieve digital citizenship successfully. A gap between people who have Internet access and those who have not has been continually reported on multiple occasions (Mossberger et al., 2009; Mossberger, 2009;

Shelley et al., 2004). Race, ethnicity, age, and educational levels were considered as significant predictors of the Internet access (Formaosa, 2013; Milioni et al.,

2014; Shelley et al., 2004).

Second, the MIL included ‘technical skills as lower levels of MIL’, which were prerequisite for digital citizenship. This was an instrumental perspective on literacies and competencies such as how to use new digital technologies, computers, smart phones, or Tablet PCs (e.g., d’Haenens et al., 2007; Mossberger

92 et al., 2008; Mossberger, 2009; Ohler, 2011; Shelley et al., 2004; Simsek &

Simsek, 2012). The results illustrated that only having the Internet access does not mean using the Internet effectively and successfully. Because of emerging new technologies, technological skills were required as basic tools to use computer, the Internet/web, and digital technologies for more advanced online activities and participation.

Lastly, a vast array of literature has considered many different psychological capabilities as higher levels of MIL (Dede, 2009; Felt et al., 2012;

ISTE, 2007; Marcinek, 2013; Nebel et al., 2009; Ohler, 2012; Simsek & Simsek,

2012). Some scholars emphasized how to assess information, critically read and write online, and express themselves online beyond technical proficiencies (Felt at al., 2012; Hobbs & Jensen, 2009; Salpeter, 2008). Due to technological developments, such as multimedia, readable/writable web, and other various digital technologies, 21st century literacy is framed as a multimodality that uses sound, visual images including video, and text for communication (Kress, 2001).

From this perspective, some researchers asserted that students today need to be equipped with abilities, skills, and competences as follows: 1) Cognitive- intellectual abilities to select, classify, analyze, interpret, understand data critically (e.g., Berson & Berson, 2003; Hicks et al., 2011; Salpeter, 2008; Simsek

& Simsek, 2012), 2) socio-communicative abilities to communicate/network with others, share photo/videos, or exchange ideas through blogs, podcasts, online discussion forum (e.g., Dede, 2009; Simsek & Simsek, 2012), and 3) Emotional

93 abilities to learn how to control negative feelings or sympathize with others’ emotion (e.g., Felt et al., 2012; Simsek & Simsek, 2012).

In sum, digital citizenship as Media and Information Literacy (MIL) denoted the abilities to access, use, create, and evaluate information, and communicate with others online. Three primary sub-themes of this category were

‘digital access’, ‘technical skills’, and ‘psychological possibilities.’ Excerpts analyzed for each sub-theme are presented in Table 5 and a variety of elements under the sub-themes are provided in Appendix B.

Table 5. Excerpts from the Texts in Digital Citizenship as Media and Information Literacy

Emerging Texts analyzed Coded terms theme “What does it mean to be a digital citizen? Participation Digital access Media and in society online requires regular access to information Information technology and the effective use of technology” Literacy (Mossberger, 2009, p. 173) (MIL)

“The authors contend that becoming a digital citizen is Technical a process influenced by technological attitudes that may skills have the effect of widening the digital gap; in turn, racial and educational differences may have independent effects” (Shelley et al., 2004, p. 259)

“New literacies are prerequisite for digital citizenship. Psychological New literacies increase the availability of relevant and capabilities credible information and broaden the capacity of individuals to get, share, compare, and contextualize information by developing new skills” (Simsek and Simsek, 2013, p. 133)

94 Digital citizenship as Participation/Engagement (P/E). The third category was classified into digital citizenship as Participation/Engagement (PE).

In this category, the political-oriented perspective regarded the Internet as a new type of public sphere to discuss and deliberate political policy or as a tool to increase voting rates and voting participation (Lee, 2009; Raoof el al., 2013).

Government-related participation including e-voting and online petition for e- democracy was considered as key engagement in digital citizenship (e.g., Bennett

& Fessenden, 2006; Crowe, 2006; Farmer, 2011; VanFossen, 2006).

However, some studies acknowledged that online activities do not necessarily have to be political, and young people today are engaging in society in more interest-driven ways (Bennett, 2009; Kahne et al., 2013; Lenhart et al.,

2008). For example, Bennett et al. (2009) challenged conventional civic learning practices in political activities, and claim that it is imperative that civic life on the basis of games, popular culture, and self-expression should be considered as a way of participation in order to overcome a dichotomy between “private and public, commercial and civic” (p. 117). In a similar vein, Earl and Schussman

(2008) and Tatarchevskiy (2011) tried to infuse youth culture and popular culture into activism, including entertainment-related petitioning and Internet activism with regard to poverty. Lenhart et al. (2008) also illustrated gaming can be a form of civic engagement, paying attention to civic gaming experiences. These scholars regard the Internet to be a cultural tool and emphasize interest-driven online participation. Given that youths are more familiar with micro ways of the civic

95 engagement based on their culture, these studies clearly demonstrate that young adults are likely to perform non-political and micro ways of online participation in the process of becoming citizens.

In sum, digital citizenship as Participation/Engagement (P/E) introduced different types of engagement such as political, social, economic, and cultural participation in society online. Excerpts analyzed from each sub-theme are presented in Table 6 and a variety of elements under the sub-themes are provided in Appendix C.

Table 6. Excerpts from the Texts in Digital Citizenship as Participation/Engagement

Emerging Texts analyzed Coded terms theme “Citizenship means more than behaving responsibly, it Political Participation/ also means that we should be civically engaged: voting, engagement Engagement keeping current and having our voice in political (P/E) matters, and contributing to society. To this end, we need to get accurate information, and decide the verity of political messages that surround us. This same proactive attitude and behavior also applies to the digital environment.” (Farmer, 2011, blog post)

“Digital commerce is often the most difficult element Economic of digital citizenship for educators to address in the engagement classroom. Teachers may believe it is not their responsibility to teach students to be informed, careful consumers (except in certain business courses)” (Ribble and Bailey, 2007, p. 16) Continued

96 Table 6. continued “Recent bright spots point to the increased use of Cultural narratives and gaming. This is no surprise. If engagement engagement is about sustaining action and involvement beyond one-off events, then engagement will naturally take the form of stories or games. They provide meaningful structures for sustained actions” (Knight foundation, 2012, p. 10)

“Actualizing citizen: 1) Weak sense of duty to Personalized participate in government, 2) Focus on lifestyle engagement politics: political consumerism, volunteering, social activism (more personally expressive or self-actualizing politics), 3) Mistrust of media of media and politicians – less likely to follow politics in the news, 4) Joins loose networks for social action – communicates through digital media” (Bennett et al., 2009, p. 107)

Digital citizenship as Critical Resistance (CR). Digital citizenship as

Critical Resistance (CR) had more progressive and radical viewpoints than the

P/E; however, the division between P/E and CR was not always clear-cut because both of them were related to active participation. As a matter of fact, the division was taken from Banks’ (2008) conceptions of transformative citizens who take action to achieve social justice and to challenge the status quo, differentiating from active citizens who simply take action within existing laws, norms, customs, and conventions. For this reason, Coleman (2006) also criticized the current digital citizenship and citizenship education that reinforces students’ exposure to controlled situations dominated by an authoritative voice and/or practice political simulations in a highly managed virtual world. He asserted that digital citizenship

97 should embrace “traditional questions of power, inequality, organization and ideology” (p. 261).

P/E suggested legitimate participation options in existing systems or events online or one-click activism such as signing online petitions or pushing a like button on Facebook. CR pursues more creative, innovative, non-linear, and non-hierarchal participation for achieving a deeper level of digital citizenship. In this sense, the characteristics of CR are often similar to those of hacktivists (a portmanteau of hack and activists) who develop open source approaches to goal oriented online communities (e.g. Linux) in order to overcome government and/or corporate control of the Internet experience (Glassman, 2013; Kahn & Kellner,

2004). For example, Longford (2005) claimed true digital citizenship in the

Internet age should entail “capacity to resist and reshape-to hack” (p. 2), highlighting the hackers values of “decentralization, openness, transparency, consensus, flexibility, universal accessibility, anti-commercialism, and anti- authoritarianism” (p. 5).

Furthermore, as seen in recent epoch-making incidents, the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street, digital citizens have used the Internet as a tool to challenge the inequality and to transform the society through grassroots movements and activist networks (Deluca et al., 2012; Glassman, 2012b;

Mansour, 2012). For instance, Herrera (2012) pointed out the potentials of a younger Egyptian generation actively engaging in politics, using social media to pursue deep democracy and challenge previously unchallengeable institutional

98 power structures. Similar to the ways multicultural citizenship challenges white- male dominant perspectives by including marginalized voices into citizenship discourse, CR can help digital citizens recognize the unequal power relations inhabited in the society, challenge the status quo, and claim democratic citizenship.

In sum, digital citizenship as Critical Resistance denoted more critical participation in society online challenging the status quo and promoting social justice. Two major sub-themes were addressed: 1) ‘recognition of power structure’ and 2) ‘political activism.’ Excerpts analyzed from each sub-theme are presented in Table 7 and a variety of elements under the sub-themes are provided in Appendix D.

Table 7. Excerpts from the Texts in Digital Citizenship as Critical Resistance

Emerging Texts analyzed Coded terms theme “Digital citizenship should involves a broad conception Recognition of Critical of politics that embraces traditional questions of power, power Resistance inequality, organisation and ideology, but does not structure (CR) exclude everyday political experience, such as the negotiation of feelings and sensitivities, the governance of spaces and relationships, the nature and political status of children, adults and youth, and the many intersections between popular culture and power” (Coleman, 2006, p. 261)

“Egypt’s wired revolutionary generation who challenge Political the status quo and want educational reform using social activism media” (Herrera, 2012, p. 340)

99 Evolution of the Concept of Digital Citizenship

As seen in the previous section four categories of digital citizenship were found: Ethics, Media and Information Literacy, Participation/Engagement, and

Critical Resistance. As a response to the research question regarding how the notion of digital citizenship has evolved over the past ten years, this section will examine what sorts of changes, if any, has occurred in each category. Since only a few distinctive changes have been identified, the explanations will be provided as a whole rather than using separated subsections.

Digital citizenship as Ethics (E) has been an important topic from 2003 to

2014 (Appendix E). This category maintained legislative, regulative, top-down oriented, legal, and protective stance on digital citizenship over time. Much attention was given to the role(s) of individual users between 2003 and 2011 while there was greater consideration of community and relation based perspectives between 2012 and 2014. The results showed that scholars took a greater interest in issues such as how to develop a better relationship with others, how not to harm others, and/or how to make a better world through collective efforts on the Internet (e.g., Davis, 2013; Orech, 2012). The concept of digital citizenship has started to become more concerned with the emotion/feelings of others, including issues such as mutual respect, preventing cyber bullying, creating safe communities in an online world, and being aware of community and global responsibilities when using social network sites. For example, Ohler (2012) argued digital citizens should “balance the individual empowerment of digital

100 technology with a sense of personal, community, and global responsibility” (p.

14). In sum, there is a common factor of regulative abilities, but there has been a move from individual-centered perspectives to social relationships and community-oriented viewpoints in E category. Some of this may be in reaction to

Internet influenced socio-political events such as the Arab Spring.

In the second category, Media and Information Literacy (MIL) has been extensively studied over the last ten years (Appendix F). The issue of digital access was periodically emphasized through 2011. There was an early focus on basic hardware-centered skills such as computer proficiency (Shelley et al., 2004) while web-based skills such as effective use of the Internet were addressed later

(Mossberger, 2009). Psychological capabilities as higher levels of MIL were repeatedly studied between 2003 and 2014. Beyond functional literacy skills such as how to read and write online (Bennett & Fessenden, 2006), cognitive, communicative, and social skills were deeply discussed particularly after 2009.

There have been only a few changes in Participation/Engagement (P/E) discussions (Appendix G). The term civic engagement is generally used; however, political engagement is also often used while economic, social, and cultural online participation has rarely been discussed over the past ten years. The most noticeable change of P/E was that individualized ways of participation have been more frequently identified since 2009. For example, young adults today are more interested in “self-actualizing” styles of civic engagement such as communicative,

101 interactive, and networked activities through using participatory media (Bennett et al., 2009, p.107).

Digtial citizenship as Critical Resistance (CR) is directy connected to only three studies in 2005, 2006, and 2012 (Appendix H). The discourse of CR tends to remain on the margins, particularly between 2007 and 2011. As it is difficult to challenge commonsensical ideas and the status quo and/or to confront authority

(Kumashiro, 2004), it is likely that activities of hackers or other anonymous groups are consdiered threatening on-and-offline. However, after the Occupy

Wall Street and the Arab Spring movements, more attention has been given to grassroots movements using social network sites to achieve goals (Deluca et al.,

2012).

Initial Digital Citizenship Scale Items

The concept analysis conducted in Phase One was accomplished in an effort to obtain detailed information on digital citizenship and generate a list of initial digital citizenship scale items. As described in Table 8, a total of 49 scale items were developed based on four categories consisting of Ethics, Media and

Inforamtion Litearcy, Participation/Engagement, and Critical Resistance along with three relevant theoretical foundations explained in Chpater Two.

102 Table 8. The Initial List of the Digital Citizenship Scale items

Categories Items Digital Ethics 1. Do you think you usually use the Internet in an appropriate manner? 2. Do you think it is important for others to use the Internet in an appropriate manner? 3. Would you stay a member of online communities when people hurt each other? 4. Do you see yourself as an individual actor when in online communities? 5. Do you feel a visitor when you are online? 6. Have you ever used materials illegally on the Internet? 7. Have you ever stalked anybody on the Internet? 8. Have you ever lied to anybody on the Internet? 9. Have you ever using the Internet to spread out the gossip about people? 10. Have you ever using the Internet to hurt somebody? 11. Have you ever posting the video without knowing on the Internet? 12. Have you ever visited hate sites?

Media and 13. Do you access to the Internet at home? Information 14. Do you access to the Internet at school or work? Literacy 15. Do you access to the Internet without Wi-Fi? 16. Are you frustrated when you access and use the Internet? 17. Do you feel confident to find good and reliable information? 18. Is it easy for you to find and download applications if you might feel useful to you? 19. Do you feel overwhelmed by information you find on the Internet? 20. Do you feel comfortable using the Internet for communicating? 21. Do you enjoy collaborating with others online? 22. Do you enjoy collaborating with others offline? 23. Does being online increase your knowledge about the world? Continued

103 Table 8. Continued 24. Do you think the Internet makes you more aware of others in the world? 25. Do you feel more informed in your community when you use the Internet? 26. Do you feel more involved in your community when you use the Internet? 27. Do you use the Internet to solve problems in your life? 28. Do you work with others online to help some community problems? 29. Have you ever worked with others online to participate in a political and social event? 30. Do you usually buy things to fulfill your needs in your life? Participation/ 31. Do you visit political websites? Engagement 32. Do you originally post on the political websites? 33. Do you comment what people are saying on the political websites? 34. Are you politically engaged when you are online? 35. Are you politically engaged when you are offline? 36. Do you see online participation as a good way to engage in politics? 37. Are you a usually lurker when you are online? 38. Are the online communities you are belonging to successfully achieving social goals? 39. Are the online communities you are belonging to successfully achieving political goals? 40. Do you feel you are more powerful politically when you use the Internet? 41. Do you discuss political and social issues with others online? 42. Do you think deeply about the problems in the world when you are online? 43. Do you think the Internet brings people together for productive action?

Continued

104 Table 8. Continued Critical 44. Do you think using the Internet can control other people? Resistance 45. Do you think you can use the Internet to change something you thought was wrong? 46. Have you ever rethought something you believed when you use the Internet? 47. Are you afraid the Internet may be used to change you? 48. Have you ever used the Internet for protest? 49. Do you feel the Internet does not speak to your culture?

Phase Two: Expert Review

Expert Panel

An expert panel was asked to review the survey items regarding the wording, response format, instrument directions, and quality of the items to minimize ambiguities, misunderstandings, or other inadequacies. Twelve panel members were selected based on their expertise in citizenship education (n=4), global education (n =3), Internet studies (n=2), educational psychology (n=2), and literacy (n=1). Each of the panel members was asked to review the initial set of items and judge each items for its relevance to the concept analysis of digital citizenship. Eight out of twelve panel members responded to this request and scale items were added, deleted, and/or revised based on this first round of feedback. After the scale was revised, eight of the experts who participated in the first review were re-invited to participate in a second review to help finalize and confirm the scale items. For this second review, five of the experts provided feedback. Qualitative comments were considered when revising items.

105 Scale Revision

The initial set of the digital citizenship scale items was deleted and revised based on the first round of expert review. Many experts believed that four categories of digital citizenship were theoretically understandable and appropriate. However, they recommended avoiding vague words, which can be interpreted in different ways and including examples if necessary in the scale items to minimize biases in the interpretation. For example, they wondered how the word ‘appropriate’ could be defined and if what is appropriate in one context may not be in another. The items with the word appropriate, hurt, reliable, and fulfill were revised. Some experts indicated some items such as ‘create content online’, ‘solve problems in your life’, ‘use the Internet for protest’ were too broad.

These items were specified to ‘post your own thoughts’, ‘solve local, national, and/or global issues’, ‘use the Internet in order to participate in social movement/change or protest.’ Two experts from citizenship education strongly suggested adding some items with regard to political engagement (e.g., ‘sign petition online’, ‘organize petition online’, ‘belong to online groups related to political or social issues). Many experts alerted that starting the survey with perceivably negative topics (e.g., ‘use materials illegally on the Internet’, ‘stalk anybody on the Internet’, ‘lie to anybody on the Internet’, ‘use the Internet to spread out the gossip about people’) would dissuade participants from completing the survey. Since the reset of the survey might be influenced if participants feel

106 bad about their answers, some negative scale items from Ethics category were deleted or revised.

Phase Three: Factor Structure of Digital Citizenship

Research Questions 2:

What is the underlying structure of the concept of digital citizenship among young adults?

Instrumentation

The DCS including 37-items (Table 9) was finalized based on the second round expert review. Responses to questions were combined to create a 7-point

Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree, scored as 1) to 7 (strongly agree, scored as 7). Digital citizenship scale scores are gained by summing raw scores across the scale items. Total possible scores of digital citizenship scale ranged from 37 to 259, with higher scores indicating a greater likelihood of digital citizenship.

Table 9. The Final Digital Citizenship Scale Items

Categories Items Digital Ethics 1. I think Internet-related issues (e.g., privacy, censorship, information access, and networking) affect my life. 2. I feel my private information is secure when I use the Internet. 3. I am careful with others’ feelings when I write online. Continued

107 Table 9. Continued

4. I sometimes download materials (e.g., music, movie, software, etc.) illegally on the Internet. 5. I sometimes use offensive language in online spaces that guarantee anonymity. 6. I sometimes post pictures or videos of people I know online without their permission. Media and 7. I can access the Internet through digital technologies (e.g., Information mobile/smart phones, Tablet PCs, Laptops, PCs) whenever I want. Literacy 8. I am able to use digital technologies (e.g., mobile/smart phones, Tablet PCs, Laptops, PCs) to achieve the goals I pursue. 9. I can use the Internet to find information I need. 10. I can use the Internet to find and download applications (apps) that are useful to me. 11. I enjoy communicating with others online. 12. I enjoy collaborating with others online more than I do offline. 13. I am more informed with regard to political or social issues through using the Internet? 14. I am more aware of global issues through using the Internet. 15. I post original messages, audio, pictures, or videos to express my feelings/thoughts/ideas/opinions on the Internet. 16. Where possible, I comment on other people’s writings in news websites, blogs, or SNSs I visit. 17. I regularly post thoughts related to political or social issues online. 18. I evaluate the news, blogs, and other content I read or watch online in terms of reliability, truth, and accuracy. 19. I express my opinions online to challenge dominant perspectives or the status quo with regard to political or social issues. 20. I feel my culture is represented on the Internet. 21. I feel my race/ethnicity is represented on the Internet.

Continued

108 Table 9. Continued Participation/ 22. I think online participation is an effective way to engage with Engagement political or social issues. 23. I belong to online groups that are involved in political or social issues. 24. I sometimes contact government officials about an issue that is important to me via online methods. 25. I attend political meetings or public forums on local, town, or school affairs via online methods. 26. I work or volunteer for a political party or candidate via online methods. 27. I order/purchase/exchange goods online (e.g., Amazon, Target, eBay). 28. I work with others online to solve local, national, or global issues. 29. I sign petitions about social, cultural, political, or economic issues online. 30. I organize petitions about social, cultural, political, or economic issues online. 31. I am more socially or politically engaged when I am online than offline. 32. I think online participation promotes offline engagement. Critical 33. I think only a few people or organizations control most of the Resistance information we get through the Internet. 34. I think online participation is an effective way to make a change to something I believe to be unfair or unjust. 35. I use the Internet in order to participate in social movement/change or protest. 36. I think I am given to rethink my beliefs regarding a particular issue/topic when I use the Internet. 37. I think the Internet reflects the biases and dominance present in offline power structures.

The final self-report instrument (Appendix K) contained the following items: 1) Q.1-5: demographic questions (year of birth, gender, ethnicity,

109 educational level, and major), 2) Q.6-9: Internet use related questions (devices,

Internet access, and the main purpose of the Internet usage), 3) Q.10-46: 37-DCS items, 4) Q.47-62: 16-item Kim & Glassman Internet self-efficacy scale, 5) Q.63-

81: 19-item STAI Internet anxiety scale.

Sample Characteristics

After revising the preliminary scale based on expert reviews, the final scale was administered to undergraduate and graduate students (n=508) during

2014 autumn semester. Demographic characteristics and additional aspects regarding Internet use of the participants are presented in Table 10.

Table 10. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Variable % (N) Age (N=504) 18-20 51.6% (260) 21-25 41.9% (211) 26-30 5.3% (27) 31-35 1.2% (6) Gender (N=508) Male 37. 0% (188) Female 62.8% (319) Prefer not to disclose 0.2 % (1) Ethnicity (N=506) White 80.7% (410) Black 5.1% (26) Hispanic 1.4% (7) American Indian 0% (0) Asian/Pacific islander 5.9% (30) Bi-racial 5.1% (26) Other 0.6% (3) Prefer not to disclose 0.8% (4) Continued

110 Table 10. Continued Highest level of education (N=508) High School 85.8% (436) Bachelor’s degree 13.8% (70) Master’s degree 0.4% (2) Doctoral degree 0.0% (0)

Major (N=508) University exploration 3.0% (15) Arts and Sciences 26.4% (134) Business 8.1% (41) Continuing Education 0.6% (3) Dentistry 0.2% (1) Education 40.9% (208) Engineering 6.7% (34) Environment and Natural Resources 0.2% (1) Food, Agricultural, and Environmental sciences 1.8% (9) Medicine 0.2% (1) Nursing 0.6% (3) Pharmacy 0.6% (3) Social Work 8.1% (41) Human Sciences 2.4% (12) Health and Rehabilitation Science 0.2% (1) Public Health 0.2% (1)

The participants mean age was 21.03 years with the range being 18 years to 35 years. Of the participants to the survey 37.0% (n=188) were male, and

62.8% (n=319) were female. Most participants self-reported that they were White

(80.7%, n=410) and the majority of the sample reported that they were undergraduate students (85.8%, n=436). The predominant majors were Education

(40.9%) and Arts and Sciences (26.4%).

111 Context of Usage: Devices, websites, Access, and Purpose

Participants were asked to answer the questions about the devices they use for Internet access; the websites they visit to read and watch political, economic, social, and cultural issues; the frequency of Internet access in different places

(e.g., home, work, school, and public spaces); and the main purpose of Internet usage.

Digital devices for Internet usage. The participants were asked to indicate digital devices for Internet usage with five options: Mobile/Smart Phone,

Tablet PC, Laptop Computer, Desktop Computer, and Other. As Table 11 demonstrates, the most commonly used devices to access the Internet were the laptop (50.4%, n=256) and mobile/smartphone (42.3%, n=215).

Table 11. Device Usage: Percentage of Participants accessing the Internet

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Mobile/Smart 215 42.3 42.3 42.3 Phone Tablet PC 19 3.7 3.7 46.1 Laptop 256 50.4 50.4 96.5 Computer Desktop 17 3.3 3.3 99.8 Computer Other 1 .2 .2 100.0 Total 508 100.0 100.0

112 Source for information on political, economic, social, and cultural issues. The survey asked participants to identify their main sources for information and news on political, economic, social, and cultural issues. The survey presented the participants with four options: news websites (e.g., New

York Times, BBC), social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter), and blogs, and TV/Radio, and other. As Table 12 shows, the major sources for information on political, economic, social, and cultural issues were social networking sites

(46.7%, n=237) and news websites (25.2%, n=128). The relatively larger proportion of the participants (20.3%, n=103) also used TV and/or radio to gain political and social issues.

Table 12. Sources for Information on Political, Economic, Social, and Cultural Issues

Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent News Websites 128 25.2 25.3 25.3 Social Networking 237 46.7 46.9 72.3 Sites Blogs 13 2.6 2.6 74.9 TV/Radio 103 20.3 20.4 95.2 Missing 3 .6 Total 508 100.0

113 Frequency of Internet access in different places. The participants were asked to indicate the frequency to access the Internet in five different places, home, school, work, public places (e.g., café, bus, street), and other places. The participants accessed the Internet multiple times a day from home (87%, n=442), school (73.6%, n=374), public places (35.8%, n=182), and other places (29.3%, n=139) (Table 13). Since the participants are all students, Internet usage from work indicated never (32.3%, n=164).

Table 13. Internet Access

Public Other Home School Work Places Places N* % N % N % N % N % Multiple times a 442 87 374 73.6 143 28.1 182 35.8 149 29.3 day Daily 55 10.8 92 18.1 89 17.5 127 25 127 25 Weekly 5 1 34 6.7 73 14.4 115 22.6 91 17.9 Monthly 3 0.6 4 0.8 12 2.4 34 6.7 39 7.7 Less than once a 2 0.4 0 0 25 4.9 25 4.9 28 5.5 month Never 1 0.2 3 0.6 164 32.3 24 4.7 72 14.2 Total 508 100 507 99.8 506 99.6 507 99.8 506 99.6 Missing 0 0 1 0.2 2 0.4 1 0.2 2 0.4 Total 508 100 508 100 508 100 508 100 508 100 *Frequency

114 Purpose of Internet usage. The survey asked participants to identify their main purpose of Internet usage. The survey presented the participants with five options: entertainment (e.g., playing games, watching video clips, listening to music), homework/research for school, searching for news, visiting social media sites (e.g.,

Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram), and other. As seen in Table 14, the participants most frequently used the Internet to visit social media sites (42.9%, n=218).

Entertainment (27.4%, n=139) and homework/research for school (27%, n=137) were the main purposes as well. A few of the participants did not use the Internet to search for news (2.6%, n=13)

Table 14. Main Purpose of Internet Usage

Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Entertainment 139 27.4 27.4 27.4 Homework/Research for 137 27.0 27.0 54.3 school Searching for news 13 2.6 2.6 56.9 Visiting social media 218 42.9 42.9 99.8 sites other 1 .2 .2 100.0 Total 508 100.0 100.0

Analytical Methods

The data analysis was conducted using SPSS 22.0 and AMOS 20.0 statistical software. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic information of the participants and assess the distributions of each individual item collected. To assess

115 the dimensionality of the scale, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed.

The Cronbach alpha coefficient was calculated to measure the internal reliability and consistency. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test if the proposed model driven from EFA fitted with the data for the purpose of cross validation. Correlation analyses between digital citizenship and Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety were computed to test convergent validity of the scale.

Data Cleaning and Screening

All 37 items were tested in order to identify if there were any deviant items.

Examination of the single item distribution suggested that there was no deviant item to be removed from the scale. There was no item that highly correlated with other items

(Table 15). The KMO for this analysis was .803, which indicated an acceptable sample. As a result, the original 37 items were used for EFA.

To determine the number of factors underlying the DCS, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted using principal axis factoring. A sample is considered adequate if the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic is greater than .5 (Field, 2005).

The KMO measure of sampling adequacy for this study was .803, which indicated an acceptable level of sampling adequacy.

116 Table 15. Correlation Matrix of the Digital Citizenship Scale Items

Continued

117 Table 15. Continued

118 Item Analysis

The entire sample (n=508) was used for item analysis of the scale. The descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, and variance, minimum and maximum) along with graphical plots of data distributions were conducted. All 37 items were tested to examine if there was the deviant items. The digital citizenship scale (DCS) item means and standard deviations are presented in Table 16. The DCS item scores ranged from a minimum of 1 to maximum of 7 and items scores have different means and standard deviations: there were no deviant items so all items were used for EFA.

Table 16. Digital Citizenship Scale: Response Means and Standard Deviations

Item Item Mean Standard deviations DC1 5.10 1.603 DC2 3.67 1.420 DC3 5.81 1.289 DC4 3.80 2.13 DC5 2.73 1.94 DC6 2.93 1.97 DC7 6.59 .795 DC8 6.41 .824 DC9 6.66 .640 DC10 6.45 .886 DC11 5.48 1.476 DC12 2.71 1.635 DC13 5.24 1.436 DC14 5.48 1.333 DC15 4.40 1.762 DC16 2.59 1.529 DC17 2.32 1.521 Continued

119 Table 16. Continued DC18 4.55 1.772 DC20 5.07 1.606 DC21 5.26 1.754 DC22 4.47 1.627 DC23 2.15 1.669 DC24 1.64 1.311 DC25 1.40 .910 DC26 1.29 .880 DC27 6.12 1.212 DC28 1.90 1.282 DC29 2.64 1.837 DC30 1.38 .932 DC31 2.89 1.721 DC32 3.68 1.788 DC33 3.50 1.694 DC34 3.92 1.538 DC35 3.00 1.761 DC36 3.55 1.652 DC37 4.20 1.638

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Factor extraction. The number of factors to be retained was determined by a convergence of criteria including eigenvalues > 1 (Kaiser, 1960), the scree plot level point, and theoretical interpretability of the resulting factor structure. As shown in

Table 17 and Figure 2, five factors emerged, and the five-factor solution appeared to be acceptable based on eigenvalues greater than one rule. Although ten factors were extracted (Table 17), the factors from six to ten only accounted for fewer than 3.0% of variance. Castell’s (1966) scree plot of the eigenvalues indicated that the inclusion of six or more factors would add very little variance to the solution (Figure 2). As a

120 result, the five-factor solution appeared to be adequate based on eigenvalues greater than one rule and scree plot, and this solution was examined further.

Table 17. EFA of DCS: Eigenvalues, Percentage of Variance Accounted for by the Unrotated Factors

Extraction Sums of Squared Initial Eigenvalues Loadings % of Cumulative % of Cumulative Factor Total Variance % Total Variance % 1 7.043 19.035 19.035 6.577 17.775 17.775 2 3.861 10.436 29.472 3.466 9.367 27.142 3 2.628 7.104 36.575 2.159 5.836 32.978 4 1.953 5.279 41.855 1.513 4.088 37.066 5 1.629 4.403 46.258 1.309 3.537 40.604 6 1.427 3.857 50.116 .996 2.691 43.294 7 1.385 3.743 53.859 .908 2.455 45.749 8 1.192 3.222 57.081 .661 1.787 47.537 9 1.146 3.097 60.178 .532 1.437 48.974 10 1.059 2.863 63.041 .494 1.336 50.310 11 .971 2.625 65.667 12 .935 2.528 68.195 13 .896 2.420 70.615 14 .819 2.214 72.829 15 .767 2.073 74.902 16 .724 1.957 76.859 17 .714 1.930 78.788 18 .648 1.751 80.540 19 .619 1.673 82.213 20 .589 1.592 83.804 21 .571 1.543 85.348 22 .530 1.432 86.780 23 .492 1.331 88.111 24 .471 1.273 89.384 25 .436 1.177 90.561 Continued

121 Table 17. Continued

26 .406 1.099 91.659 27 .385 1.040 92.699 28 .373 1.009 93.708 29 .366 .988 94.696 30 .346 .935 95.631 31 .319 .862 96.493 32 .296 .800 97.293 33 .268 .725 98.018 34 .250 .675 98.693 35 .184 .496 99.189 36 .165 .446 99.635 37 .135 .365 100.000

Figure 2. Screet plot

122 Factor Rotation. For this exploratory study, an oblique (Direct Oblimin) rotation method was applied to the data. Oblique rotation methods allow factors to be correlated, which is widely used in social science studies while orthogonal rotation keeps factors uncorrelated. Eleven items (item 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 18, 20, 21, 27, 33) out of the 37 items were removed based on the predetermined criteria (factor loading < .40), which means that there are lower/weaker relations between a certain factor and its items. The factors including individual items retained in the final scale and their factor loadings are provided in Table 18 (Deleted items are also presented in Appendix J). A

26-item measure with five-factors was found and each factor was labeled as follows.

Factor 1 has nine items that measure individuals’ political participation using the Internet including the items such as ‘I regularly post thoughts related to political or social issues online’, ‘I express my opinions online to challenge dominant perspectives or the status quo with regard to political or social issues’, ‘I organize petitions about social, cultural, political, or economic issues online.’ Since this factor is related political engagement in more progressive way, it was labeled Internet Political activism.

Factor 2 consists of four items that measure individuals’ abilities to access the

Internet, use digital technologies, find information, and download apps including the items ‘I can access the Internet through digital technologies whenever I want’, ‘I am able to use digital technologies to achieve the goals I purse’, ‘I can use the Internet to find information I need.’ Since this factor is associated with technical skills as lower levels of media and information literacy found from a concept analysis of digital

123 citizenship, it was named Technical skills.

Table 18. Digital Citizenship Scale Items Retained after EFA and the Respective Factor loadings

Items F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Factor 1: Internet Political Activism (IPA) 25. I attend political meetings or public forums on local, town, or .75 school affairs via online methods. 28. I work with others online to solve local, national, or global issues. .68 30. I organize petitions about social, cultural, political, or economic .65 issues online. 17. I regularly post thoughts related to political or social issues .60 online. .58 24. I sometimes contact government officials about an issue that is important to me via online methods. .56 19. I express my opinions online to challenge dominant perspectives or the status quo with regard to political or social issues. .55 29. I sign petitions about social, cultural, political, or economic issues online. .46 26. I work or volunteer for a political party or candidate via online methods. .45 23. I belong to online groups that are involved in political or social issues

Factor 2: Technical Skills (TS) 9. I can use the Internet to find information I need. .92 10. I can use the Internet to find and download applications (apps) .78 that are useful to me. 8. I am able to use digital technologies (e.g., mobile/smart phones, .72 Tablet PCs, Laptops, PCs) to achieve the goals I pursue. 7. I can access the Internet through digital technologies (e.g., .60 mobile/smart phones, Tablet PCs, Laptops, PCs) whenever I want. Continued

124 Table 18. Continued Factor 3: Local/Global Awareness (LGA) 13. I am more informed with regard to political or social issues .89 through using the Internet. 14. I am more aware of global issues through using the Internet. .83

Factor 4: Critical Perspective (CP) 34. I think online participation is an effective way to make a change -.68 to something I believe to be unfair or unjust. 36. I think I am given to rethink my beliefs regarding a particular -.68 issue/topic when I use the Internet. 22. I think online participation is an effective way to engage with -.55 political or social issues 32. I think online participation promotes offline engagement. -.54 37. I think the Internet reflects the biases and dominance present in -.52 offline power structures. 31. I am more socially or politically engaged when I am online than -.50 offline. 35. I use the Internet in order to participate in social -.47 movement/change or protest.

Networking Agency (NA) 16. Where possible, I comment on other people’s writings in news .64 websites, blogs, or SNSs I visit. 11. I enjoy communicating with others online. .50 12. I enjoy collaborating with others online more than I do offline. .47 15. I post original messages, audio, pictures, or videos to express my .44 feelings/ thoughts/ ideas/ opinions on the Internet.

Factor 3 comprises of two items that measure individuals’ awareness of social

and political issues locally, nationally, and globally including two scale items such as

‘I am more informed with regard to political or social issues through using the

Internet’ and ‘I am more aware of global issues through using the Internet.’ This factor

was named Local/Global Awareness. Generally each factor usually holds at least three

items but it is sometimes acceptable if at least two items are load on a factor (Reinard,

2006). Moreover, given that this factor has high factor loadings, it is noted that the

125 factor named Local/Global awareness is separate and unique from the other factors.

Factor 4 is made up of seven items that measure critical approaches to participation in society and perception of the Internet including the items such as ‘I think online participation is an effective way to engage with political and social issues’, ‘I think online participation is an effective way to make a change to something

I believe to be unfair or unjust’, ‘I think the Internet reflects the biases and dominance present in offline power structures.’ Since these items partially came from Critical

Resistance in the concept analysis along with Feenberg’s (1991) critical theory of technology, and Castells’ (1996) idea of space of information flow, this factor was named Critical Perspective.

Factor 5 is composed of four items that measure individuals’ higher level of media literacy and open source skills such as communicating, collaborating, posting, and commenting including the items such as ‘I enjoy collaborating with others online more than I do offline’, ‘Where possible, I comment on other people’s writings in news websites, blogs, or SNSs I visit’. These scale items were from Media

Information Literacy in the concept analysis and the idea of open source approach described in Chapter Two. This factor was labeled Networking Agency.

Scale Characteristics

Reliability. The reliabilities of each factor were calculated using the sample used for EFA. Person product correlation between each items score and the total scale score were computed. Each item was regarded adequate because it correlated with other scale items and the total score at least moderately (r = .20 or greater). The

126 Cronbach’s alphas were .837, .813, .897, .811, and .655 respectively for Internet

Political Activism (IPA), Technical Skills, Local/Global Awareness, Critical

Perspective, and Networking Agency. The estimate of the internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) for the DCS total scale score was .88. Specific item-total correlation and internal consistency is shown in Table 19.

Table 19. Item-Total Correlation & Internal Consistency of the Digital Citizenship Scale

Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha if Total Factor Item Total Correlation Item Deleted correlation Internet Political 17 .598 .809 0.833 Activism 19 .529 .820 (9 items) 23 .552 .815

24 .533 .817

25 .634 .811

26 .383 .831

28 .663 .804

29 .526 .822

30 .647 .812

Technical Skills 7 .584 .836 0.840 8 .637 .814 (4 items)

9 .791 .756

10 .709 .783

Local/Global 13 .808 . .891 Awareness 14 .808 . (2 items) Critical 22 .580 .770 0.804 Perspectives 31 .506 .784 (7 items) 32 .495 .786 34 .589 .770 35 .536 .778 36 .629 .761 37 .437 .797 Continued

127 Table 19. Continued

Networking 0.665 11 .500 .566 Agency (4 items) 12 .360 .657

15 .434 .609

16 .507 .559

Evaluation of the subscale structure. Pearson correlation coefficients of the subscales with each other and total digital citizenship scale are presented in Table 20 in order to know the correlations among the subscales and the total digital citizenship scale.

Table 20. Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Subscales of the DCS

Total IPA TS LGA CP NA DCS IPA 1 -.06 .29** .57** .46** .82** TS 1 .19** .16** .19** .23** LGA 1 .40** .22** .52** CP 1 47** .86** NA 1 .67** Total 1 DCS **. P < .01

According to Clark and Watson (1995) subscales that have moderate correlations with total scale scores and smaller correlations with other subscales support the evidence of independent underlying factors. Local/Global Awareness and

128 Networking Agency can be considered independent factors of digital citizenship since they have moderate correlations with the total DCS scores (.52 and .67 respectively) and relatively smaller correlations with other scales. Yet, two digital citizenship subscales, Internet Political Activism and Critical Perspective had high correlations with total scores although these subscales had weak and/or moderate correlations with other subscales, suggesting that these two subscales were not tapping different dimensions. Technical Skills had relatively weak correlations with other subscale and even total scores. This does not mean this subscale is not part of digital citizenship scale but it can be considered as a baseline or essential factor for achievement of advanced level of digital citizenship.

Subscale descriptive statistics are presented in Table 21. Technical Skills had the highest mean (�=6.51) with the lowest standard deviation (SD=.59) while Internet

Political Activism had the lowest mean (�=1.98). Local/Global Awareness had a relatively high mean (�=5.37) with the highest standard deviation (SD=1.37). Critical

Perspective and Networking Agency had the moderate mean and standard deviation.

The participants in this study reported that they believe they have enough technical skills to use the Internet and they are aware of local and global issues via online.

However, they do not believe that they politically engage in society online.

129 Table 21. Mean and Standard Deviation of Subscales of the Digital Citizenship Scale

Subscale N of item Mean (SD) Internet Political Activism 9 1.98 (.91) Technical Skills 4 6.51 (.59) Local/Global Awareness 2 5.37 (1.37) Critical Perspective 7 3.77 (1.14) Networking Agency 4 3.86 (1.09)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The five five-factor structure with 26 items extracted from the EFA was cross validated with the second half of the sample (n=254) using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation. Although most items had moderate and high loadings on their respective factors, the initial model did not meet the criteria for relative chi-square (χ2/ d.f. < .20). When an initial model does not fit, researchers should improve the model based on modification indices and theoretical reasons (Byrne, 1998). Researchers should stop fitting the model once the model has a proper fit and subsequent models do not improve the fit any more. The modification indices indicated an additional covariance path between the error terms of items 17 and 19 that would most significantly improve the model fit. After rerunning the second model, relative chi-square still did not meet the criteria for reasonable model fit. Other covariance paths between the error terms of items 11 and 12, 36 and 37, 26 and 30 were detected and then the model was rerun. The final model (Figure 3) resulted in a moderate to good fit (Table 22).

130 Figure 3. CFA model of the digital citizenship scale

131 Table 22. The Model Fits of CFA Model of the Digital Citizenship Scale

χ2 d.f. χ2/ d.f. GFI CFI RMSEA Original 652.493 289 2.258 .834 .855 .071 model Second 599.078 288 2.080 .848 .876 .065 model Final model 552.961 285 1.940 .861 .893 .061

Correlations with Other Constructs

Research Questions 3:

Is digital citizenship related to other measures, Internet self-efficacy and

Internet anxiety?

Hypothesis 3-1: Digital citizenship will be positively associated with Internet

self-efficacy.

Two other scales regarding Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety were included in the digital citizenship scale (DCS) in the final instrument to assess construct validity of the DCS. As hypothesized, the DCS was significantly correlated with Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety.

Based on the previous research, it was expected that higher digital skills including Internet self-efficacy would be associated with active online engagement, which is part of digital citizenship. Digital citizenship was positively related to

Internet self-efficacy (r = .57, p < .01) indicating participants who reported higher levels of digital citizenship also reported higher levels of Internet self-efficacy (Table

23).

132 Table 23. Construct Validity of the Digital Citizenship Scale

Digital citizenship Internet self-efficacy Internet anxiety Digital citizenship 1 .57** -.22** Internet self-efficacy 1 -.31** Internet anxiety 1 **. P < .01

Hypothesis 3-2: Digital citizenship will be negatively associated with Internet

anxiety.

It was hypothesized that digital citizenship would be negatively correlated with

Internet anxiety, which is considered an opposite characteristics of Internet self- efficacy. As expected, higher digital citizenship (r = -.22, p < .01) was significantly associated with lower self-reported Internet anxiety (Table 23).

Demographic differences

While not part of the original research questions, a few demographic analyses were conducted to better understand the results. Subscale scores were compared across gender, ethnicity, educational level, and major using a t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). A t-test was used to compare means across gender (male and female) and educational level (high school and bachelor’s degree) and a one-way

ANOVA with Duncan post hoc criterion were conducted to compare across ethnicity

(White, Black, and Asian/Pacific Islander).

A t-test suggested that female students had significantly low Internet Political

Activism scores (� = 1.86, SD = .85) than male students (� = 2.09, SD = 1.00).

133 However, there was no significant difference between male and female in other subscales (Table 24). This result indicates that the female students participated in this study seem that less politically engage in society via online.

Table 24. Mean Scores of Digital Citizenship Subscales by Gender

Gender N Mean SD t P Internet Political Male 188 2.09 1.00 2.518* .012 Activism Female 319 1.86 .85 Male 188 6.47 .76 -1.290 .198 Technical Skills Female 319 6.56 .54 Local/Global Male 188 5.44 1.33 1.133 .258 Awareness Female 319 5.30 1.31 Critical Male 188 3.73 1.20 .840 .401 Perspective Female 319 3.64 1.11 Networking Male 188 3.72 1.21 -1.244 .214 Agency Female 319 3.84 1.07 P <.05*

A one-way ANOVA showed that Internet Political Activism and Technical

Skills subscale scores were significantly different across ethnic groups, F = 3.283, p =

.038 and F = 8.945, p = .000 respectively (Table 25). Post hoc analyses using the

Duncan post hoc criterion for significance indicated that Black participants (� = 2.29,

SD = 1.04) had significantly higher scores than White (� = 1.88, SD = .83) and

Asian/Pacific Islander (� = 1.76, SD = .90) students in Internet Political Activism subscale. This analysis also suggested that Asian/Pacific Islander students (� = 6.08,

SD = 1.12) had significantly lower scores than White (� = 6.55, SD = .58) and Black

134 participants (� = 6.70, SD = .42) in Technical Skills subscale.

Table 25. Mean Score of Digital Citizenship Subscales by Ethnicity

Ethnicity N Mean SD F P Internet Political White 410 1.88 .83 3.283* .038 Activism Black 26 2.29 1.04 Asian/Pacific 30 1.76 .90 Islander Technical Skills White 410 6.55 .58 8.945* .000 Black 26 6.70 .42 Asian/Pacific 30 6.08 1.12 Islander Local/Global White 410 5.35 1.29 .267 .765 Awareness Black 26 5.15 1.36 Asian/Pacific 30 5.33 1.32 Islander Critical White 410 3.65 1.12 2.274 .104 Perspective Black 26 3.91 1.32 Asian/Pacific 30 3.28 1.14 Islander Networking White 410 3.75 1.09 2.999 .051 Agency Black 26 4.28 1.26 Asian/Pacific 30 3.90 1.20 Islander P <.05*

A t-test suggested that undergraduate students had significantly low Internet

Political Activism scores (� = 1.91, SD = .91) than master students (� = 2.17, SD =

.95). However, there was no significant difference between educational levels in other subscales (Table 26). This result indicates that the undergraduate students participated

135 in this study seem that less politically engage in society via online than graduate students.

Table 26. Mean Scores of Digital Citizenship Subscales by Educational Level

Education N Mean SD t P High School 436 1.91 .91 -2.216* .027 Internet Political Bachelor’s Activism 70 2.17 .95 degree High School 436 6.53 .64 .582 .451 Technical Skills Bachelor’s 70 6.49 .60 degree High School 436 5.36 1.35 .451 .652 Local/Global Bachelor’s Awareness 70 5.29 1.15 degree High School 436 3.64 1.17 -1.503 .134 Critical Bachelor’s Perspective 70 3.86 .99 degree Networking High School 436 3.80 1.13 .758 .449 Agency Bachelor’s 70 3.70 1.07 degree P <.05*

A one-way ANOVA showed that Internet Political Activism and Critical

Perspective subscale scores were significantly different across ethnic groups, F =

5.130, p = .000 and F = 3.575, p = .007 respectively (Table 27). Post hoc analyses using the Duncan post hoc criterion for significance indicated that participants majoring in Education (� = 1.76, SD = .80) had significantly lower scores than other students in Arts and Sciences (� = 2.06, SD = .94), Business (� = 2.25, SD = 1.13),

Engineering (� = 2.25, SD = 1.18), Social Work (� = 2.12, SD = .89) in Internet

136 Political Activism subscale. This analysis also suggested that participants majoring in

Education (� = 3.53, SD = 1.14) had significantly lower scores than other students in

Arts and Sciences (� = 3.65, SD = 1.17), Business (� = 4.05, SD = 1.27), Engineering

(� = 4.15, SD = 1.09), Social Work (� = 3.85, SD = 1.18) in Critical Perspective subscale.

Table 27. Mean Scores of Digital Citizenship Subscales by Major

Major N Mean SD F P Arts & 5.130* .000 134 2.06 .94 Science Internet Political Business 41 2.25 1.13 Activism Education 208 1.76 .80 Engineering 34 2.25 1.18 Social Work 41 2.12 .89 Arts & .703 .590 134 6.49 .66 Science Business 41 6.42 1.96 Technical Skills Education 208 6.57 .56 Engineering 34 6.45 .59 Social Work 41 6.52 .53 Arts & .978 .419 134 5.51 1.41 Science Local/Global Business 41 5.38 .99 Awareness Education 208 5.30 1.31 Engineering 34 5.60 1.22 Social Work 41 5.18 1.33 Continued

137 Table 27. Continued Arts & 3.575* .007 134 3.65 1.17 Science Critical Business 41 4.05 1.27 Perspective Education 208 3.53 1.14 Engineering 34 4.15 1.09 Social Work 41 3.85 .97 Arts & 1.924 .105 134 3.86 1.16 Science Networking Business 41 4.15 1.18 Agency Education 208 3.78 1.10

Engineering 34 3.67 1.11 Social Work 41 3.51 .99

In sum, males, Blacks, and master students, participants majoring in Art and

Science, Business, Engineering, and Social Work had higher levels of Internet

Political Activism as compared to females, White and Asian/Pacific Islander, undergraduate students, participants in Education.

Conclusion

The results suggested that four categories for defining digital citizenship are identified - Ethics, Media and Information Literacy, Participation/Engagement, and

Critical Resistance. Using a total of 508 respondents, a 26-itme five-factor model was extracted from an exploratory factor analysis, which was cross-validated by a confirmatory factor analysis: Internet Political Activism, Technical Skills,

Local/Global Awareness, Critical Perspectives, and Networking Agency. The digital citizenship scale presented in this study had good reliability and construct validity,

138 evidenced by the significant relationships with Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety. There were significant differences across gender, ethnicity, educational level, and major in digital citizenship subscales.

139

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Introduction

This study focused on developing a reliable and valid scale to measure a perceived sense of digital citizenship among young adults and to assess the reliability and validity of the scale. This study put forward a comprehensive digital citizenship scale based on carefully calibrated overarching and inclusive components of digital citizenship that can be used to measure levels of digital citizenship of young adults.

Using a convenient sample of 508 participants, a 26-itme five-factor model was extracted from an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), which was cross-validated by a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The digital citizenship scale (DCS) presented in this study had good reliability and construct validity, evidenced by the significant relationships with Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety. This final chapter presents a summary of the research and concluding remarks on the study. The chapter provides a brief summary of the findings and discussion of three main themes driven from the findings. Implications for educational research and democratic citizenship education are provided. A conclusion addresses some of the limitations and suggests potential future research.

140 Summary of Findings

Four Categories of Digital Citizenship

At the core of the digital citizenship scale presented in this paper is a concept analysis of the term digital citizenship in the relevant literature leading to the development of basic categories for scale item generation. A concept analysis is a research methodology to clarify meanings, delineate, classify, compare, and refine concepts providing validity for developing measuring instruments (Pett et al., 2003).

Using Rodgers’ (1989; 1993) evolutionary approach to a concept analysis, four categories of a concept of digital citizenship were identified through a thorough review of publicly available data. The main results of a concept analysis of digital citizenship will be addressed, providing content validity for the digital citizenship scale presented in this study.

Four categories of digital citizenship were identified as being central to the concept of digital citizenship: Digital Ethics, Media and Information Literacy,

Participation/Engagement, and Critical Resistance. Digital Ethics referred to Internet users’ appropriate, safe, ethical, and responsible online behaviors. Some studies emphasized concepts of digital citizenship should be conscious of political, social, economic, and cultural issues in society and the world related to the burgeoning information technologies (Berson & Berson, 2003; Hollandsworth et al., 2011; Ohler,

2010; Ribble, 2004). Central to this category was digital rights and responsibilities.

Many studies regarded digital citizens as full members of online/virtual communities,

141 capable of protecting their and other community members’ rights and responsibilities focusing on free speech, intellectual property, copyright protection etc.

Media and Information Literacy denoted internet users’ abilities to access the

Internet, evaluate information, communicate, cooperate and/or collaborate with others using the Internet. In light of social inclusion/exclusion and social inequality issues,

Internet access leading to the development of basic technical skills was the most important prerequisite in becoming digital citizens. Moreover, different psychological capabilities such as cognitive-intellectual abilities to analyze and interpret online information and socio-communicative abilities to network with others were emphasized.

Participation/Engagement signified using the Internet to participate in the political, economic, social, and cultural lives in the place based activities of the user – whether local, societal or national. Although political centered perspectives such as e- voting, e-petition, and following political figures using social networks sites were pervasive, some studies focused on individuals’ personalized interest-driven participation.

Critical Resistance introduced transformative participation challenging the status quo and promoting social justice via the Internet. This category seems similar to the third category of Participation/Engagement in that they are both based in agency and goal driven activity. However, Critical Resistance is more creative, non- traditional, and non-hierarchical in nature while Participation/Engagement is more

142 dependent on existing, place based social structures/institutions. The incidents of Arab

Spring and Occupy Wall Street were provided as the exemplary of critical resistance.

Five Factor Structure of Digital Citizenship

According to the results of factor analysis of a digital citizenship scale, five factors were addressed as underlying dimensions of digital citizenship: 1) Internet

Political Activism referred to political centered participation via online sites/outlets to promote or challenge the existing social structure, 2) Technical Skills concerned

Internet/computer literacy skills and basic open source skills/abilities to meet needs in

Internet based activities, 3) Local/Global Awareness measured users general awareness of social or political issues in local communities, nations, and the world at large through ethical consumption of websites, 4) Critical Perspective denoted non- traditional, non-hierarchal, and progressive viewpoints on online participation and

Internet use, and 5) Networking Agency represented higher levels of internet based activities (higher level of open source skills) for using the Internet to successfully communicate/collaborate with others online.

Correlations with Other Constructs

Two other scales regarding Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety were included in the digital citizenship scale (DCS) to test construct validity of the DCS. As expected, the DCS was significantly correlated with Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety. Specifically, the DCS was positively correlated with Internet self-efficacy and negatively correlated with Internet anxiety.

143 Discussion of Findings

This study suggests that the digital citizenship scale (DCS) is a valid and reliable measure for assessing individuals’ sense of digital citizenship including skill, perspective, and action based elements. The conceptual model for the DCS constructed by five factor structure demonstrates the assessment of individuals who might use the Internet to be active and critical digital citizens based on self- perceptions of skills, actions and perspectives - some of which are more common and baseline (e.g., abilities to access the Internet and find information, and/ or recognition of political or social issues locally and globally) and some of which are less common and more complex in nature (e.g., political engagement with social organizations using the Internet). Based on these results of the concept analysis and factor analysis of digital citizenship, this section will highlight how the results could be interpreted arguing three important themes: 1) interwoven relationship between existing conceptions of citizenship and digital citizenship, 2) a multidimensional concept of digital citizenship, and 3) three conditions of complexity of digital citizenship.

Interwoven Relationship between Existing Conceptions of Citizenship and Digital

Citizenship

The concept analysis of digital citizenship in this study revealed that digital citizenship was closely associated with existing conceptions of citizenship from traditional to expansive approaches to citizenship (e.g., cultural, tribal, and global citizenship). Even if many previous studies regarding digital citizenship were related to only online behaviors, activities, and participation (Ribble, 2004), this study

144 suggests digital citizenship needs to be understood in the context of existing conceptions of citizenship. The similarities and differences between existing approaches to citizenship and digital citizenship were identified by the concept analysis of digital citizenship conducted as a first step to generate proper digital citizenship scale items.

The category of Digital Ethics focusing digital citizens’ rights and responsibilities (e.g.,Berman-Dry, 2013; Lenhart et al., 2011; Nebel et al., 2009;

Ohler, 2012; Ribble, 2004) is for instance reminiscent of the traditional/liberal viewpoint of citizenship (Abowitz & Harnish, 2006), which also centers on rights and responsibilities for people living in within a nation-state. Concepts of traditional citizenship are often by their nature bounded and place based where people were born

(Fischman &Haas, 2012). That is citizenship generally acts as a centripetal force pulling individuals back towards the needs and responsibilities of pre-existing communities such as nation-states. The emphasis is on the sustainability and stability of the community or larger society and the role(s) its members are expected to play in its ongoing and productive activities. Similarly, digital citizenship reflects the Internet where it is looking to extend ideas of needs and responsibility, however; it more concerned with the way they play out in the centrifugal information and social interaction environment of the Internet (Glassman, 2013). Students need to know how to become a responsible digital citizens developing, maintaining online communities they belong to. As global citizenship emphasizes global issues (Merryfield et al.,

2012), socially responsible digital citizens also need to be aware of what is happening

145 in the world through searching information online (Kurubacak, 2007). However, the unique aspect of digital citizenship found in this Digital Ethics category was that the ethical issues concerning the anonymous features inherent to Internet communication have only recently emerged (Longford, 2005).

The category of Media and Information Literacy is a relatively new category because the development of digital technologies demands new infrastructure to be connected to the Internet and relevant knowledge/skills to effectively use the digital devices, search tools (e.g. search engines), and applications that allow even the casual user to express themselves online. Accordingly, well-informed digital citizens should be equipped with basis skills regarding the use of the Internet and simultaneously they can search for new information that supports or critique current political, social, economic, and cultural issues.

The Participation/Engagement category is similar to republican conceptions of citizenship that focus on cooperative participation to engage in pre-determined activities that the social system uses to define citizens. (Abowitz & Harnish, 2006).

Although traditional approaches to citizenship are interested in government-oriented activities such as voting, Participation/Engagement for digital citizens includes more diverse ways of engagement and personalized participation highlighting that active engaged digital citizens should participate in online social interactions that are respectful of and show concerns for other members of the specific community.

In terms of Critical Resistance, its baseline seems similar to critical multicultural citizenship, challenging the current power structure (Banks, 2008). But

146 an important difference is that Critical Resistance is derived from organically developed Internet phenomena open source movement and hacktivist groups such as

Anonymous (Longford, 2005; Olson, 2012).

As seen in comparison between existing conceptions of citizenship which is more place based and digital citizenship, place-based conceptions of citizenship such as cultural/multi-cultural citizenship, global/cosmopolitan citizenship along with legal membership and nationally bounded citizenship should not be ignored to understand the concept of digital citizenship. It would however be too limiting to interpret this newer phenomenon of Internet (and other new technology) driven social/civic activity through the lens of an established concept such cultural citizenship, missing the ways

Web applications and activities are changing human to human relationships. Thus the idea of digital citizenship as a technological-rational (Marcuse, 1941) extension of traditional and alternative approaches to citizenship would be beneficial to gaining a deeper understanding of the evolving relationships among online human activities, civic engagement, and citizenship.

The researcher claims that the concept of digital citizenship is more than an online related concept but has interrelations with offline (place-based) civic lives.

However, there is nonlinear and non-direct relationship among existing conceptions of citizenship and digital citizenship. Rather, they are all together in the web of citizens’ engagement including multilayered, complex, and interwoven relationship that comprise of an individual’s identity and sense of community. As most of the online activities affect offline activities, digital citizenship as presented in this study is not

147 limited solely to online behavior. Even if some activities can be regarded as purely online (e.g. activities such as tweeting, gaming or hacking), they eventually have some influence on offline communications, behaviors, or economic issues. Therefore, when considering digital citizenship as a global, multi-faceted construct it is beneficial to take various other approaches to citizenship into account while still recognizing the unique qualities the Internet is having on everyday civic life.

A Multidimensional Concept of Digital Citizenship

This study found that digital citizenship is a multidimensional and complex concept encompassing several distinct sub categories/factors. Based on the concept analysis of digital citizenship conducted in this study, four categories of digital citizenship were identified as being central to the concept of digital citizenship: 1)

Digital Ethics refers to responsible behavior on the Internet, 2) Media and Information

Literacy concerns Internet access, technological skills, and psychological capabilities for using the Internet to successfully communicate with others online. 3)

Participation/Engagement signifies political, economic, cultural participation in existing social structures, and 4) Critical Resistance denotes more critical participation challenging the status quo and promoting social justice via the Internet (Figure 4).

148 • Ethical use of • Digital access technology • Technical skills • Digital awareness • Psychological • Digital responsibility capability • Digital rights Media and • Digital health Ethics Information (E) Literacy (MIL)

Critical Participation/ Resistance Engagement (CR) (P/E) • Recoginition of power • Political, economic, sturucture cultural engagement • Resistance • Leadership&ownership • Individual managment

Figure 4. A multidimensional concept of digital citizenship

There have been few substantive changes in these categories over the last decade.

Possible reasons are the pervasive use of the Internet and its application in formal educational settings is relatively new and complex studies concerning the relationship between the Internet, citizenship, and education are rare.

These four categories of digital citizenship found in the concept analysis were partially confirmed by factor analysis. Using the principle axis factoring and direct oblimin methods, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) yielded a five-factor structure of digital citizenship; Internet Political Activism, Technical skills, Local/Global

Awareness, Critical Perspective, and Networking Agency which were cross-validated by a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

149 Based on these four categories and five-factor structure the researcher argues the concept of digital citizenship is not a single concept but a multidimensional and complex concept defining it as abilities, thinking, and action regarding Internet use, which allows people to understand, navigate, engage in, and transform self, community, society, and the world. Although this definition includes a variety of aspects of citizenship, this definition implies its multifaceted, interrelated, and global characteristics in line with the theoretical perspectives, Banks’ (2008, 2009) transformative citizenship and Subedi’s (2010) critical global perspectives described in Chapter One. Being a good digital citizen is not participating in pre-existing communities but creating a new community and/or sometimes transforming the community, society, and the world when social injustice happens online and offline as well.

This definition also allows us to include both existing various meanings of citizenship and the unique qualities inherent to the ways the Internet influences everyday civic life. Therefore, the definition of digital citizenship represented in this study is supported from other existing conceptions of citizenship, which is fully elaborated in Chapter Two. The online world is no longer a new and mysterious space, rather it is where we think, feel, behave, and experience on a daily basis. The investigation of key components of digital citizenship must meet the needs of the times when identity, daily activities, and the core political, economic, social, and cultural lives are being constructed by and around the Internet activities.

150 Three Conditions of Complexity of Digital Citizenship

Using the five-factor structure of digital citizenship as statistical evidence embedded within the theoretical foundations elaborated in Chapter Two, the researcher argues there are three ascending conditions for achievement of advanced digital citizenship (Figure 5).

Critical Perspective Rethinking online participation and the Internet

Internet Political Activism Third Condition Action/transformation oriented participation

Networking Agency Higher levels of media and information literacy

Local/Global Awareness Second Condition Ethical consumption of information that deal with local and global issues

Technical Skills First Condition Lower levels of media literacy and basic open source intelligence skills Complexity

Figure 5. Three conditions of complexity of digital citizenship

151 The first necessary (but not sufficient) condition for digital citizenship involves

Technical Skills - lower levels of media and information literacy and basic (i.e. most broadly available and easily achievable) open source intelligence skills. As presented in Table 21 in the previous result chapter, Technical Skills had the highest means at

6.51 and the lowest standard deviation. The researcher suggests this condition/factor is the baseline and/or fundamental element for successfully using the Internet for more complex, encompassing conditions of digital citizenship: without mastery of these skills it would not be possible to properly practice digital citizenship of any type. An individual makes relatively little effort, cognitive investment, and/or critical judgment about online participation in appropriating these technical skills through their everyday use of the Web. The four scale items in the factor called Technical Skills are consistent with lower levels of Media and Information Literacy found through the concept analysis as well as more basic open source skills (Glassman & Kang, 2012) described in the theoretical foundations section in Chapter Two, which promote successful engagement in online activities, thinking, and, goal driven activities. This necessary condition is essential so individuals need to be equipped with basic components of Technical Skills for achievement of the next advanced two conditions.

The second defined condition of digital citizenship is associated with abilities to search, organize, and differentiate information that allow for higher levels of

Local/Global Awareness. This factor had the highest median score other than

Technical Skills. One possible reason for this might be the ease for the participants use the Internet to find and/or become consumers of new information sources related to

152 relevant problems in their lives across ecological levels (from micro to macro,

Bronfenbrenner, 1977), leading to information awareness that was much rarer pre-

Internet. The relationships between users and information sites (often found with the help of search engines) are usually unilateral – the site produces the information and the user consumes it. The users have the option to appropriate the information into their thinking, but are not usually offered options such as critical response and/or working with others extending the scope of the information as part of a knowledge building communities. In traditional commerce situations, the extended reach of the

Internet can offer users more options and greater understanding of competing possibilities in choosing particular products. The same phenomenon can help improve understanding of local and global issues when used in ethical consumption scenarios

(Hirzalla & Van Zoonen 2010). As described in the Chapter Two, visiting websites of non-governmental organizations fighting pollution and/or extensive harvesting of natural resources such as Greenpeace or the World Wildlife Federation can be a good example.

The third complex condition of digital citizenship is linked with users becoming part of Internet based communities augmenting the thinking of both individuals and goal directed communities, expanding the users’ abilities and willingness to connect with others, and engaging in critical thinking and/or political activities on the Internet. This condition is part of Networking Agency, Internet

Political Activism, and Critical Perspectives. The scale items in Networking Agency are related to higher levels of media literacy and more advanced open source

153 skills/abilities/self-efficacy such as generating content, reacting to context, and joining and working to help sustain collaborative and/or cooperative communities.

Consequently, Networking Agency can be seen as gateway capabilities for Internet

Political Activism and Critical Perspectives.

Unexpected Findings. In terms of the third condition, there were two unexpected findings that after reflection, and taking possible contextual issue into account, seem both logical and important. The first unexpected finding was that the

Critical Perspectives sub-scale had a negative relationship with the other four subscales in the digital citizenship scale. The participants in this study seem to consider using the Internet to develop more critical approaches to information as qualitatively different from their other everyday uses of the Internet. The second unexpected and perhaps related finding was that the mean scores for Internet Political Activism were by far the lowest of any sub-scales, even Critical Perspective which was initially hypothesized to be more complex and difficult to achieve.

As seen in theoretical perspectives in Chapter One, critical perspectives can be interpreted by two related ways; 1) abilities to look at different perspectives or to use the perspective of the other in the development of new ideas, (Sayer, 2009), and 2) as part of the process of decolonizing knowledge by promoting thinking that challenges the status quo (Smith, 1999). Users with advanced Critical Perspective see online activity participating in the world around them, in ways that are continuously comparing to traditional forms of engagement with new possibilities. Thy are capable of rethinking the idea of the Internet from a neutral technology for information

154 communication/distributing to a tool potentially subject to the same biases as all other human tools, often times reflecting or even extending the same power relationships as the place based world (Feenberg, 2001). The Internet should not be used as a tool of authority but used as a tool for exploring, comparing, exchanging and augmenting ideas.

Interestingly, the Critical Perspective subscale items were negatively associated with all other factors in the scale. This may mean that at least the participants in this study did not see critical approaches to the Internet and non- traditional ways of participation as integrated into their other everyday uses and activities on the Web. Participants in this study may see the use of the Internet to develop and take critical perspectives as qualitatively different from participation in society from more traditional forms of citizenship such as being good information consumers or being politically active in ways that reflect place based behaviors. Most

Web-based activity is promoted as proactive – establishing social circles (e.g.

Facebook), finding answers to problems (Google, Wikipedia), getting a good price on a product (Amazon), or taking a course that was previously unavailable (e-learning).

In these situations the Internet as perceived as a neutral tool where online activity does not, or should not (necessarily) challenge the social order. This study suggests that the development of critical perspectives for these populations is more organic, a function of high levels of connectivity between information sources, opportunities to explore alternative possibilities by clicking through links. One possible reason for these unexpected findings is that the results may be a consequence of the particular

155 population used in this study; the sample is unevenly distributed, especially in terms of ethnicity (White centered) and social class must be taken into account. More marginalized populations might be more willing to integrate Critical Perspective into their large views/understandings of the Internet.

As explained in the concept analysis of digital citizenship, the researcher expected Critical Perspectives to have the lowest mean scores among participants, but this fell to the Internet Political Activism factor. This may partially be because Internet activism involves action-oriented and transformation-driven undertakings – the types of goal driven activities currently difficult to sustain in Web based contexts. Or it may be the result of participants not (yet) believing Internet based participation can impact their place based lives; young peoples’ recent online participation is much closer to their individual interests and needs (Bennett, 2009; Wellman, 2003) than transformation of larger institutional structures.

There were significant differences among the participants in terms of gender, ethnicity, educational level, and major: significant differences among groups were mainly found in Internet Political Activism factor. Males (� = 2.09), Black (� = 2.29), master students (� = 2.17), and participants majoring in Art and Science (� = 2.06) and Social Work (�=2.13) had higher levels of Internet Political Activism as compared to females (� = 1.87), than White (� = 1.88) and Asian/Pacific Islander

(� = 1.76), undergraduate students (� = 1.91), and participants in Education (� =

1.76). It is obvious that Internet Political Activism is a complex factor dependent on a number of competing issues.

156 Implications for Democratic Citizenship Education

Individuals’ sense of digital citizenship is important to people’s everyday life at local, national, and global levels of activity. As a significant attempt to measure individuals’ levels of digital citizenship, this study has a profound for democratic citizenship education.

Considering the important role of curriculum in teaching, it would be difficult to find effective outcomes without curriculum changes (Barnett et al., 2001). The

International Society for Technology in Education (2007, 2008) regards digital citizenship as one of the standards for students and teachers. The concept of digital citizenship needs to be added into in social studies curricula to promote active global and digital citizens. Despite there is no direct topic regarding digital citizenship in social studies curricula, it should be possible to incorporate digital citizenship issues into relevant themes such as ‘Science, Technology, and Society,” and “Civic Ideals and Practices” (NCSS, 2010).

This study supports practical suggestions to educate informed and active digital citizens, suggesting the types of factors and/or conditions needed to achieve higher levels of digital citizenship. The current study revealed that while some elements of digital citizenship such as technical skills and local/global awareness can be less difficult to achieve, other more complex and action oriented capabilities that foster advanced digital citizenship such as Networking Agency, Critical Perspective, and Internet Political Activism can be more difficult to develop. These results help reestablish digital citizenship centered curricular and instruction and provide concrete

157 ideas of what should be taught first for digital citizenship education. For example, as described in Digital Ethics students should be taught to take responsibility, but more in terms of being a productive member of a shared, project based online community, helping to organically develop governance systems that are unique to the particular online community, avoiding activities that might negatively impact both traditional and online communities (such as piracy).

Also, the provided categories/factors of digital citizenship can be utilized to establish important criteria or contents in setting goals of social studies teacher education. Many studies with regard to infusing technology and the Internet into classrooms have been conducted in the realm of professional development (e.g.,

Franklin & Molebash, 2007; Hostetler, 2012; Merrifield et al., 2012b). These studies provide helpful and useful information such as websites and online resources that can be utilized in their everyday teaching. Recently flipped classroom or gamification has been emphasized in teaching and learning in many domains (Educational Technology and Mobile learning, 2014). However, these types of studies do not provide the primary purposes why students and teachers should use Internet based technologies, especially relating to lifelong learning. Multilayered and multifaceted aspects and comprehensive definition of digital citizenship could concretely support the central goals of education beyond the immediate classroom. If teachers were equipped with concrete digital citizenship ideas, they would better teach their students to become responsible, active, and engaged digital citizens because there are different ways that being an informed, responsible, and engaged citizens plays out. For example, digital

158 citizenship as Media and Information Literacy can help teachers understand that being informed citizens is not to put something in a search bar, just go to the Wikipedia, and/or deal with how to use the digital technologies and the Internet. Social studies teacher education program needs to provide more advanced and higher levels of skills and knowledge regarding how to express ideas and opinions online, evaluate information, and creating online contents for their teaching.

The purpose of citizenship education has been influenced by understanding of the concept of citizenship per se (Lawson & Scott, 2002). For example, in the period when rights and responsibilities of the individuals living in the nation-state were emphasized, the primary purpose of citizenship education was to build a common and shared identity encouraging patriotism and loyalty to the nation. However, globalization has challenged the idea of traditional understandings of citizenship and demanded global education highlighting global awareness, cultural differences, and diverse values when promoting good citizens. Consequently, the burgeoning use of new digital technologies and ubiquity of the Internet demands newer forms of citizenship education. In line with four categories and five factor structure of digital citizenship presented in Chapter Four, digital citizenship education needs to promote students to be globally aware, more critical, and more willing to challenge the immediate to actively participate in local, national, and global communities.

Limitations and Future Research

Based on the aforementioned results and discussion, there are a number of limitations for this study. The main limitation to DCS emanates from how the scale

159 items were developed. Since there was no relevant instrument to be referred to as the

DCS was being developed, the current study to a large extent was dependent on the results of a concept analysis of digital citizenship. Although the concept analysis adhered to a solid process and provided centered elements and comprehensive definition of digital citizenship, the results are constrained by the collected data sources including academic journals, white papers, and websites/blogs. If data had been collected from only empirical academic journal articles, it might be more convenient to operationalize the concept of digital citizenship and provide empirical indicators of digital citizenship. Future research on a digital citizenship scale development is needed based primarily on using academic journal articles.

Second, this study used the relevant theoretical work concerning use of the

Internet and technology such as Feenberg’s critical theory of technology, Castells’ network society and spaces of flows, and the idea of Open Source approach to generate digital citizenship scale items. Although these theoretical perspectives had an effect on developing the DCS items Future research is needed to rely on theoretical foundations of citizenship studies.

Third, two psychological scales, Internet self-efficacy and Internet anxiety were used to test construct validity of the DCS. Given that citizenship is closely interrelated with political participation, if the study had assessed correlations with other online civic engagement scales there would have provided more balanced construct validity of the DCS. Future research is needed to gain higher validation of

160 digital citizenship scale using other relevant instruments relating to online participation.

Fourth, the Local/Global awareness factor in this study has only two items.

Although many scales have some factors with two items, it is generally suggested that there be at least three items in a single subscale, allowing for methodologically and statistically strong interpretation (Crawford, 1975; Zwick & Velicer, 1986). In light of the idea that being informed with local and global issues is of paramount importance in this globalized and networked society, future research is needed to provide more items supporting this factor.

Lastly, the data used in this research were collected at a relatively homogenous, large Mid-western university. Thus, the findings should be interpreted with caution because the research sample might not be representative of the Net generation in the US. For example, a technical skill factor including Internet access could have different means from other populations living in other location.

Additionally, considering that gender, educational level, and major of the participants may affect the level of digital citizenship, the group differences were tested. As noticed in the section of unexpected findings, there was significant difference in

Internet Political Activism across gender, educational level, and major. Therefore, future research is needed with a larger and more diverse sample.

Conclusion

The digital citizenship scale (DCS) presented in this study measures individuals’ abilities, perceptions, and levels of participation in goal oriented and

161 Internet based community at different conditions of complexity. Digital citizenship is not static, stable, and/or fixed but a dynamic, flexible, multifaceted, and/or multilayered concept to be interlinked with individuals’ everyday online and offline activities in this networked and digitalized society. Although traditional approaches to citizenship centered on place based contexts of everyday activities, digital citizenship should include more global awareness, more critical perspectives, and more goal oriented participation beyond traditional boundaries. As a first attempt to develop an advanced and well developed digital citizenship scale, this study will help understand individuals’ sense of digital citizenship for being part of online communities in practicing their everyday life on local, national, and global levels. The DCS presented in this study is a first step, and as such cannot be ideal; but it will contribute statistically and theoretically in developing more advanced and higher quality understandings of digital citizenship and practically in providing concrete elements for teaching digital citizenship.

162

References

Abowitz, K. K., & Harnish, J. (2006). Contemporary discourses of citizenship. Review

of Educational Research, 76(4), 653-690.

Agbaria, A. (2011). The Social studies education discourse community on

globalization: Exploring the agenda of preparing citizens for the global age.

Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(1), 57–74.

Andrzejewski, J., & Alessio, J. (1999). Education for global citizenship and social

responsibility. Progressive Perspectives, 1(2), 2-17.

Alvermann (2009). Sociocultural constructions of adolescence and young people’s

literacies. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.) Handbook

of Adolescent Literacy Research (pp. 14-28). New York, NY: The Guilford

Press.

Alvermann, D. E., & Hagood, M.C. (2000). Critical media literacy: Research, theory

and practice in “new times.” Journal of Educational Research, 93, 193-205.

Armenta, A., Serrano, A., Cabrera, M., & Conte, R. (2012). The new digital divide:

the confluence of broadband penetration, sustainable development, technology

adoption and community participation. Information Technology for

Development, 18(4), 345-353.

163 Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global

age. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 129–139.

Banks, J. A. (2001). Citizenship education and diversity implications for teacher

education. Journal of teacher education, 52(1), 5-16.

Banaji, S., & Buckingham, D. (2013). The Civic Web. Young people, the internet, and

civic participation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bandura, A. (1995). Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. New York: Cambridge

Univ. Press

Barnett, R., Parry, G., & Coate, K. (2001). Conceptualising curriculum change.

Teaching in Higher Education, 6(4), 435-449.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Beckers, J. and Schmidt, H. (2001). The structure of computer anxiety: A six-factor

model. Computer in Human Behavior. 17(1), 35-49.

Benhabib, S. (2004). The rights of others: Aliens, residents and citizens. New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bennett, W. L., Wells, C., & Freelon, D. (2011). Communicating civic engagement:

contrasting models of citizenship in the youth web sphere. Journal of

Communication, 61(5), 835-856.

Bennett, L., & Fessenden, J. (2006). Citizenship through online communication.

Social Education, 70(3), 144.

Bennett, W. L., Wells, C., & Rank, A. (2009). Young citizens and civic learning: Two

164 paradigms of citizenship in the digital age. Citizenship Studies, 13(2), 105-120.

Berson, M. J., & Berson, I. R. (2004). Developing Thoughtful" Cybercitizens". Social

Studies and the Young Learner, 16(4), 5-8.

Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (2003). Digital literacy for effective citizenship. Social

Education, 67(3), 164-167.

Bickley, M., & Carleton, J. (2009). Students without Borders: Global Collaborative

Learning Connects School to the Real World. Learning & Leading with

Technology, 37(3), 20-23.

Blevins, B., LeCompte, K., & Wells, S. (2013). Citizenship education goes digital.

The Journal of Social Studies Research. 38, 33-44.

Brayboy, B. (2005). Transformational resistance and social justice: American

Indians in Ivy League universities. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36

(3), 193-211.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development.

American psychologist, 32(7), 513.

Buckingham, D. (2007). Digital Media Literacies: rethinking media education in the

age of the Internet. Research in Comparative and International Education,

2(1), 43-55.

Bures, E., P. Abrami, and C. Amundsen. 2000. Student motivation to learn via

computer conferencing. Research in Higher Education. 41(5) 593-621.

Burns N, Grove S (2001) The Practice of Nursing Research: Conduct, Critique and

Utilisation. WB Saunders, Philadelphia

165 Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and

SIMPLIS. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Castells, M. (2001). The Internet galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business, and

society. New York: Oxford University Press.

Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy,

society, and culture (Vol. 1). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Castles, S., & Davidson, A. (2000). Citizenship and migration: globalization and the

politics of belonging (pp. 1- 25). New York: Routledge.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate behavioral

research, 1(2), 245-276.

Chinn, P.L., & Kramer, M.K. (1991). Theory and nursing: A systematic approach. St.

Louis, MO: Mosby Year Book.

Choi, M. (2014, November). A concept analysis of digital citizenship: Promoting

informed and engaged citizens at the Internet era. Paper presented at the

Proceedings of the 94rd National Council for the Social Studies Annual

Conference, Boston, MA.

Coleman, S. (2006). Digital voices and analogue citizenship: Bridging the gap

between young people and the democratic process. Public policy research,

13(4), 257-261.

Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a

measure and initial test. MIS quarterly, 189-211.

166 Conradi, K., Jang, B. G., & McKenna, M. C. (2014). Motivation terminology in

reading research: A conceptual review. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1),

127-164.

Cook, D. A., & Beckman, T. J. (2006). Current concepts in validity and reliability for

psychometric instruments: theory and application. The American journal of

medicine, 119(2), 166.e7-e.16. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.10.036

Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis:

four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical

Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(7). Available online:

http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7

Crawford, C. B. (1975). Determining the number of interpretable factors.

Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 226.

Crow, D. M. (1991). Lakota woman. HarperCollins.

Crowe, A. R. (2006). Technology, Citizenship, and the Social Studies Classroom:

Education for Democracy in a Technological Age. International Journal of

Social Education, 21(1), 111-121.

Dalton, B., Proctor, C. P., Uccelli, P., Mo, E., & Snow, C. E. (2011). Designing for

diversity: The role of reading strategies and interactive vocabulary in a digital

reading environment for fifth-grade monolingual English and bilingual

students. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(1), 68–100.

Dede, C. (2009). Determining, developing, and assessing the capabilities of “future-

167 ready” students. Harvard University. Friday Institute White Paper Series,

Number Two.

Dei, J. (2000). Rethinking the role of Indigenous knowledges in the academy.

International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4 (2), 111-132.

Deloria, V. & Wildcat, D. (2001). Power and place: Indian education in America.

Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

De Marco, S., Robles, J. M., & Antino, M. (2014). Digital skills as a conditioning

factor for digital political participation. The European Journal of

Communication Research, 39(1), 43-65.

DeVellis, R. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26).

Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social

implications of the Internet. Annual review of sociology, 27. 307-336.

Dove, T., Elliott, J. Merryfield, M., Sideor, B. (2010). Globally connected social

studies: Making it real, making it relevant. In Diem, R. & Berson, M. (Eds.),

Technology in Retrospect: Social Studies in the Information Age 1984-2009

(pp.241-262). Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.

Dower, N. (2003). An introduction to global citizenship. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.

Downes, S. (2010). New technology supporting informal learning. Journal of

Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence, 2(1), 27-33.

168 Downey, R. G., & King, C. V. (1998). Missing data in Likert ratings: A comparison of

replacement methods. The Journal of general psychology,125(2), 175-191.

Dutton, W. H. (2005). The Internet and social transformation: reconfiguring access.

Transforming enterprise: The economic and social implications of information

technology, 375-397.

Earl, J. & Schussman, A. (2008). Contesting cultural control: Youth culture and online

petitioning. In W.L. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital

media can engage youth (71-95). London: The MIT Press.

Eastin, M. S., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self‐efficacy and the psychology of the

digital divide. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 6(1).

Educational Technology and Mobile Learning (2014). Ed tech terminology and

concepts teachers should know about. Retrieved October 1, 2014, from

http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2014/09/ed-tech-terminology-and-

concepts.html.

El-Haj, T. R. A. (2007). “I was born here, but my home, it’s not here”: Educating for

democratic citizenship in an era of transnational migration and global conflict.

Harvard Educational Review, 77(3), 285–316.

Fallace, T. (2009). John Dewey’s influence on the origins of the social studies: An

analysis of the historiography and new interpretation. Review of Educational

Research, 79(2), 601-624.

Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. NY: Oxford University Press.

Field, A. (2004). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Thousands

169 Oaks, CA: Sage.

Finstad, K. (2010). Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: Evidence against 5-

point scales. Journal of Usability Studies, 5(3), 104-110.

Fischman, G. E., & Haas, E. (2012). Beyond idealized citizenship education embodied

cognition, metaphors, and democracy. Review of Research in Education, 36(1),

169–196.

Flores, W. V. & Benmayor, R. (1997). Latino Cultural Citizenship; Claiming Identity,

Space, and Rights. Boston: Beacon.

Forman, M. (2005). Straight outta Mogadishu: Prescribed identities and performative

practices among Somali youth in North American high schools. In S. Maira &

E. Soep (Eds.), Youthscapes: The popular, the national, the global (3-22).

Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Franklin, C. A., & Molebash, P. E. (2007). Technology in the elementary social

studies classroom: Teacher preparation does matter. Theory & Research in

Social Education, 35(2), 153-173.

Fresnoza-Flot, A. (2009). Migration status and transnational mothering: The case of

Filipino migrants in France. Global Networks, 9(2), 252–270.

Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N., & Valenzuela, S. (2012). Social media use for news and

individuals' social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal

of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319-336.

Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Publications.

Glassman, M (2013). Open source theory. 01. Theory & Psychology, 23 (5), 675-692.

170 Glassman, M. (2012a). An era of webs: technique, technology and the new cognitive

(r) evolution. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(3), 308-318.

Glassman, M. (2012b). Occupying the noosystem: The evolution of media platforms

and webs of community protest. Berkeley Planning Journal, 25(1). 198-209.

Glassman, M., & Kang, M. J. (2012). Intelligence in the internet age: The emergence

and evolution of Open Source Intelligence (OSINT). Computers in Human

Behavior, 28(2), 673-682.

Glassman, M., & Kang, M. J. (2011). The logic of wikis: The possibilities of the Web

2.0 classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative

Learning, 6(1), 93-112.

Gonzales, R. (2011). Learning to be illegal: Undocumented youth and shifting legal

contexts in the transition to adulthood. American Sociological Review, 76(4),

602–619.

Goode, L. (2010). Cultural citizenship online: the Internet and digital culture.

Citizenship Studies, 14(5), 527-542.

Gangadharan, S., & Byrum, G. (2012). Introduction: Defining and measuring

meaningful broadband adoption. International Journal of Communication. 6,

2601-2608.

Greenhow, C. (2010). A new concept of citizenship for the digital age. Learning &

Leading with Technology, 37(6), 24-25.

Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality differences in young adults' use

of the Internet. Communication Research, 35(5), 602-621.

171 Havelka, D., F. Beasley, & T. Broome. (2004). A study of computer anxiety among

business students. Mid-America Journal o f Business. 19(1), 63-71.

Hermes, J. (2006). Citizenship in the Age of the Internet. European Journal of

Communication, 21(3), 295-309.

Hernandez, I., Mendoza, F., Lio, M., Latthi, J., & Eusebio, C. (2011). Things I’ll never

say: Stories of growing up undocumented in the United States. Harvard

Educational Review, 81(3), 500–508.

Herrera, L. (2012). Youth and citizenship in the digital age: A view from Egypt.

Harvard Educational Review, 82(3), 333-352.

Hicks, D., van Hover, S., Washington, E. Y., & Lee, J. K. (2011). Internet literacies

for active citizenship and democratic life. Contemporary Social Studies: An

Essential Reader (467-491).

Hirzalla, F., van Zoonen (2010). Affective Political Marketing Online: Emotionality in

the Youth Sites of Greenpeace and WWF. International Journal of Learning

and Media, 2 (1), 39-54. (doi: 10.1162/ijlm_a_00040)

Hobbs, R. (1998). The seven great debates in the media literacy movement. Journal of

Communication, 48(1), 16–32. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02734.x

Hollandsworth, R., Dowdy, L., & Donovan, J. (2011). Digital citizenship in K-12: It

takes a village. TechTrends, 55(4), 37-47. hooks, bell. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom.

New York: Routledge.

Hostetler, A. L. (2012). Democratic use of blogs and online discussion boards in social

172 studies education. Social Education, 76(2), 100-104.

Hupcey, J. E., Morse, J. M., Lenz, E. R., & Tasón, M. C. (1996). Wilsonian methods

of concept analysis: a critique. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice,

10(3), 185-210.

ISTE (2008). ISTE standards teachers. International Society for Technology in

Education. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-

14_ISTE_Standards-T_PDF.pdf

Iverson, S. V., & James, J. H. (2010). Becoming “effective” citizens? Change-oriented

service in a teacher education program. Innovative Higher Education, 35(1),

19-35.

Kahn, R., & Kellner, D. (2004). New media and internet activism: From the 'Battle of

Seattle' to blogging. New media & society, 6(1), 87-95.

Kahne, J., Lee, N. J., & Feezell, J. T. (2013). The civic and political significance of

online participatory cultures among youth transitioning to adulthood. Journal

of Information Technology & Politics, 10(1), 1-20.

Kaomea, J. (2000). A Curriculum of aloha? Colonialism and tourism in Hawai’i’s

elementary textbooks. Curriculum Inquiry, 30(3), 319–344.

Kim, E. (2000). Korean adoptee auto-ethnography: Refashioning self, family and

finding community. Visual Anthropology Review, 16 (1), 43-70.

Kim, Y., & Glassman, M. (2013). Beyond search and communication: Development

and validation of the Internet Self-efficacy Scale (ISS). Computers in Human

Behavior, 29(4), 1421-1429.

173 Kirchhoff, K. T. (1999). Design of questionnaires and structured interviews. In M. A.

Mateo, ed. & K. T. Kirchhoff (Eds.), Using and conducting nursing research

in the clinical setting (2nd ed., pp. pp. 229-239). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. V. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and

media of contemporary communication. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Kruger, L. G., & Gilroy, A. A. (2012). Broadband internet access and the digital

divide: Federal assistance programs. Broadband Internet: Access, Regulation

and Policy, 51.

Kumashiro, K. K. (2004). Against common sense: Teaching and learning toward

social justice. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2005). Digital literacies: Policy, pedagogy and research

considerations for education. Opening Plenary Address to ITU Conference

October 20, 2005, Oslo, Norway.

Lee, Y. O. (2009). Internet election 2.0? Culture, institutions, and technology in the

Korean presidential elections of 2002 and 2007. Journal of Information

Technology & Politics, 6(3-4), 312-325.

Lenhart, A., Arafeh, S., & Smith, A. (2008). Writing, technology and teens.

Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith, A., Purcell, K., Zickuhr, K., & Rainie, L. (2011).

174 Teens, kindness and cruelty on social network sites: How American teens

navigate the new world of “Digital Citizenship". Washington, DC: Pew

Internet & American Life Project.

Lomax, R. G., & Schumacker, R. E. (2012). A beginner's guide to structural equation

modeling. Routledge Academic.

Longford, G. (2005). Pedagogies of digital citizenship and the politics of code.

Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 9(1), 1-17.

Longstreet, W. S. (1985). Citizenship: The phantom core of social studies curriculum.

Theory & Research in Social Education, 13(2), 21-29.

Makinen, M. (2006). Digital empowerment as a process for enhancing citizens'

participation. E-learning, 3(3), 381-395.

Mansour, E. (2012). The role of social networking sites (SNSs) in the January 25th

Revolution in Egypt. Library Review, 61(2), 128-159.

Maria, S. (2005). The intimate nad the imperial: South Asian Muslim immigrant

youth. In S. Maira & E. Soep (Eds.), Youthscapes: The popular, the national,

the global (3-22). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Marshall, T. H. (1964). Class, citizenship, and social development: Essays of T. H.

Marshall. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Mcilroy, D., C. Sadler, & N. Boojawon. (2005). Computer phobia and computer self-

efficacy: Their association with undergraduates’ use o f university computer

facilities. Computers in Human Behavior. 23(3), 1285-1299.

175 McKinley, B & Brayboy, J. (2005). Toward a tribal critical race theory in education.

The Urban Review, 37(5), 425-446

Merryfield, M., Augustine, T., Choi, M., Harshman, J., & McClimans, M. (2012a).

Teacher thinking on developing informed and engaged students for a globally

connected world. The Hague, The Netherlands: International Baccalaureate.

http://occ.ibo.org/ibis/documents/general/g_0_iboxx_amo_1211_1_e.pdf.

Merryfield, M.M. & Subedi, B. (2006). Decolonizing the mind for world centered

global education. In E.W. Ross (Ed.), The Social Studies Curriculum:

Purposes, Problems, and Possibilities (3rd ed.) (283-296). Albany: State

University of New York Press.

Menchú, R. (1984). I, Rigoberta Menchú: An Indian woman in Guatemala. London:

Verso.

Miltiadou, M., & Yu, C. H. (2000). Validation of the online technologies self-efficacy

scale. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 445 672).

Min, S. J. (2010). From the digital divide to the democratic divide: Internet skills,

political interest, and the second-level digital divide in political internet use.

Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(1), 22-35.

Mishel, M. H. (1998). Methodological studies: Instrument development. In P. J. Brink,

ed. & M. J. Wood (Eds.), Advanced design in nursing research (2nd ed., pp.

pp. 235-282). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moeller, S., Joseph, A., Lau, J., & Carbo, T. (2011). Towards media and information

literacy indicators. Paris, Francija: UNESCO.

176 Montezemolo, F. (2009). Tijuana: Hybridity and beyond, A conversation with Néstor

García Canclini. Third Text, 23 (6), 733-750.

Moody, G. (2001). Rebel code: Inside Linux and the Open Source revolution.

Cambridge, UK: Perseus.

Mossberger, K. (2009). Toward digital citizenship: Addressing inequality in the

information age. Routledge handbook of Internet politics, 173-185.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

NCSS (2010). National curriculum standards for social studies: A framework for

teaching, learning, and assessment. Maryland: Third Printing.

Nebel, M., Jamison, B., & Bennett, L. (2009). Students as digital citizens on Web 2.0.

Social Studies and the Young Learner, 21(4), 5-7.

Neuman, S. B., & Celano, D. (2012). Giving our children a fighting chance: Poverty,

literacy, and the development of information capital. Teachers College Press.

New Media Consortium (2005). A global imperative: The report of the 21st century

literacy summit. Retrieved January 13, 2007, from

www.nmc.net/pdf/Global_Imperative.pdf.

Nieswiadomy, R. M. (2001). Foundations of nursing research (4th ed.). Paramus, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Norris, Pippa. Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet

worldwide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

177 Nunnally, J. C.Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Nussbaum, M. C., & Cohen, J. (1996). For love of country: Debating the limits of

patriotism. Boston: Beacon Press.

Ohler, J. (2012). Digital citizenship means character education for the digital age.

Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 77(8), 14-

17.

Olson, P. (2012). We are Anonymous: inside the hacker world of Lulzsec, Anonymous,

and the global cyber insurgency. Hachette Digital, Inc.

Ong, A., Dominguez, V. R., Friedman, J., Schiller, N. G., Stolcke, V., Wu, D. Y. H.,

& Ying, H. (1996). Cultural citizenship as subject-making: Immigrants

negotiate racial and cultural boundaries in the United States. Current

Anthropology, 37(5), 737–762.

Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2003). Learning for cosmopolitan citizenship: Theoretical

debates and young people’s experiences. Educational Review, 55(3), 243–54.

Oxfam Development Education Program (2006). Education for global citizenship: A

guide for schools. London. Oxfam. http://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/gc/.

Oyana, T. J. (2011). Exploring geographic disparities in broadband access and use in

rural southern Illinois: Who's being left behind? Government Information

Quarterly, 28(2), 252-261.

Pajnik, M. (2005). Citizenship and mediated society. Citizenship studies, 9(4), 349-

367.

178 Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2013). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of

digital natives. Philadelphia, PA: Basic Books.

Pedhazur, E. J.Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An

integrated approach . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Peters, L. (2009). The flat classroom project. In Global Education: Using Technology

to Bring the World to Your Students (pp.39-54). Washington, DC: International

Society for Technology in Education.

Pett, M., Lackey, N., Sullivan, J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of

factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousands

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pewewardy, D.C. (2004). Playing Indian at halftime: The controversy over American

Indian mascots, logos, and nicknames in school-related events. The Clearing

House, 77 (5), 180-185.

Pike, G. (2000). Global education and national identity: In pursuit of meaning. Theory

into Practice, 39(2), 64–73.

Pike, G. (2008). Reconstructing the legend: Educating for global citizenship. In A. A.,

Abdi & L. Shultz (Eds.), Educating for human rights and global citizenship

(pp. 223-237). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Rainie, L. (2010). Internet, broadband, and cell phone statistics. Pew Internet &

American Life Project, 5.

179 Raoof, J. K., Zaman, H. B., Ahmad, A., & Al-Qaraghuli, A. (2013). Using social

network systems as a tool for political change. International Journal of

Physical Sciences, 8(21), 1143-1148.

Raymond, E. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar. Knowledge, Technology & Policy,

12(3), 23-49.

Reich, J., Murnane, R., & Willett, J. (2012). The state of wiki usage in U.S. K–12

schools: Leveraging web 2.0 data warehouses to assess quality and equity in

online learning environments. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 7-15.

Reinard, J. (2006). Communication research statistics. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rhodes, J.A & Robnolt, V.J. (2009). Digital literacies in the classroom. In L.

Christenbury, R. Bomer & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent

literacy research (pp. 153-169). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Ribble M. (2004). Digital citizenship: Addressing appropriate technology behavior.

Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(1), 6-11.

Rodgers, B. L. (1993). Concept analysis: an evolutionary view. In B. L. Rodgers & K.

A. Knafl (Eds.), Concept development in nursing: foundations, techniques, and

applications (pp. 77–102). Philadelphia: Saunders.

Rodgers, B. L. (1989). Concepts, analysis, and the development of nursing knowledge:

The evolutionary cycle. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 14, 330–335.

Rodgers, B. L., & Knafl, K. A. (2000). Concept development in nursing. Foundations,

techniques, and applications. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company.

180 Rosaldo, R. (1997). Cultural citizenship, inequality, and multiculturalism. In W. V.

Flores & R. Benmayor (Eds.), Latino cultural citizenship: Claiming identity,

space, and rights (pp. 27–38). Boston: Beacon.

Santoy, J. J. (2013). Chicana bloggers: Creating diversity online via participation.

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(5), 361–367.

doi:10.1002/JAAL.155

Sayer, A. (2009). Whose afraid of critical theory? Current Sociology, 57, 767-786.

Shih, T. H., & Fan, X. (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys:

A meta-analysis. Field methods, 20(3), 249-271.

Smith, A. (2013). Civic engagement in the digital age. Washington, DC: Pew Internet

& American Life Project.

Smith, L (1999). Introduction to Decolonizing methodologies. London: Zed.

Simsek, E., & Simsek, A. (2013). New literacies for digital citizenship. Contemporary

Educational Technology, 4(2), 126-137

Sone, M. I. (1979). Nisei daughter. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Spielberger, C. D., Vagg, P. R., Barker, L. R., Donham, G. W., & Westberry, L. G.

(1980). Factor structure of the state–Trait anxiety inventory. In I. G. Sarason &

C. D. Spielberger (Eds.). Stress and anxiety (Vol. 7, pp. 95–109). Washington,

DC: Hemisphere.

St. John, W (2009). Outcasts united: An American town, a refugee team, and one

woman's quest to make a difference. New York, NY: Spiegel & Grau.

181 Strover, S. (2014). The US Digital Divide: A Call for a New Philosophy. Critical

Studies in Media Communication, 31(2), 114-122.

Student Life Research and Assessment (2010). Student involvement survey: A closer

look at the gender differences within our student body. Retrieved from

http://cssl.osu.edu/posts/documents/std-involv-survey-gender.pdf

Suarez-Orozco et al. (2011). Growing up in the shadows: The developmental

implications of unauthorized status. Harvard Educational Review, 81(3), 438-

472.

Subedi, B. (2010). Critical global perspectives: Rethinking knowledge about global

societies. Toledo, OH: Information Age Publishing.

Tabachnick, B. G.Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston:

Allyn & Bacon.

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your

world. NY: McGraw Hill.

Tatarchevskiy, T. (2011). The ‘popular’culture of internet activism. New Media &

Society, 13(2), 297-313.

Taylor, H.R. (2000). Indian in the cupboard: A case study in perspective. Qualitative

Studies in Education, 13 (4), 371–384.

Thatcher, J. B., Loughry, M. L., Lim, J., & McKnight, D. H. (2007). Internet anxiety:

An empirical study of the effects of personality, beliefs, and social

support. Information & Management, 44(4), 353-363.

Thatcher, J., & Perrewe, P. (2002). An empirical examination o f individual traits as

182 antecedents to computer anxiety and computer self-efficacy. MIS Quarterly.

26(4), 381-396.

Tilly, C. (2005). Terror as strategy and relational process. International Journal of

Comparative Sociology, 46(1-2), 11-32.

VanFossen, P. J. (2006). The electronic republic? Evidence on the impact of the

Internet on citizenship and civic engagement in the US. International Journal

of Social Education, 21(1), 18-43.

Venezky, R. L. (1995). Literacy. In T.L. Harris & R. E. Hodges (Eds.), Literacy

dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing (p. 142). Newark, De:

International Reading Association.

Walker, L.O. & Avant,K. C. (2011). Strategies for theory construction in nursing (5th

ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

Waltz, C. F.Strickland, O. L.Lenz, E. R. (1991). Measurement in nursing research .

Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital

divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., Díaz, I. and Miyata,

K. (2003), The Social Affordances of the Internet for Networked

Individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8: 0.

doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00216.x

White, C. & Openshaw, R. (2002). Translating the national to the global in citizenship

education. In D. Scott & H. Lawson (Eds.), Citizenship Education and the

183 Curriculum (151-166). London: Ablex Publishing.

Wilson, J. (1963). Thinking with concepts. New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.

Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the

number of components to retain. Psychological bulletin, 99(3), 432-442.

184

Appendix A: Elements of Digital Citizenship as Ethics

Sub-themes Elements Safe, • Safe, legal and responsible use of information and technology responsible, and (ISTE, 2007) ethical use of • Optimal and safe use of ICTs (Unicef, 2011) technology • Appropriate norms associated with technology use especially social media (Winn, 2012) • Safe, legal, responsible, and ethical use of digital information (Robb & Shellenbarger, 2013) • Safely and confidently use of technology (CyberWise, 2014) Digital • Digital awareness (Berson & Berson, 2003) awareness • Being aware of technology-related ethical, societal, and cultural issues (Ribble, 2004) • Critical awareness of how code constitutes the conditions of possibility for different norms, models (Longford, 2005) • Careful attentions to diverse online community (Kurubacak, 2007) • The personal, social, and environmental impacts of every technology and media application they use in school (Ohler, 2010) • Digital citizenship awareness (Hollandsworth et al., 2011) Digital • Responsible behavior online (Berman-Dry, 2013; Berson & responsibilities Berson, 2004; DigitalLiterarcy.gov, 2014) • Digital etiquette (Ribble,2004; Ribble & Bailey, 2004; 2007; Ribble, 2009) • Appropriate behavior in social network sites (Lenhart et al., 2011) • Roles and responsibilities as a user of the Internet (Nebel et al., 2009)

185 • Personal responsibility (Common sense media, 2009; Davis, 2013; ISTE, 2007; Microsoft, 2014; Ohler, 2012; Ribble, 2004, Ribble & Bailey, 2007; Ribble, 2009; Richards, 2010) • Respecting the impact of one’s actions beyond the self on the larger collective (Felt et al., 2012) • Community and global responsibility (Ohler, 2012) • Responsibilities of self and others (Davis, 2013; Orech, 2012) • Addressing the situation with regard to cyber bullying, plagiarism, and exposure to inappropriate content (Afshar, 2013) • Respecting and protecting self and others (educational origami, 2014) Digital rights • Free expression (Coleman, 2006) • Digital law (Ribble & Bailey, 2007) • Digital rights (Microsoft, 2014; Ribble, 2004; Ribble & Bailey, 2007) • Respecting copyright and intellectual property (educational origami, 2014; Robb & Shellenbarger, 2013) • Addressing the situation with regard to privacy, copyright infringement (Afshar, 2013) Decision • Smart, responsible, respectful, appropriate, ethical decisions (Orth making & Chen, 2013) Digital safety • Digital security (Hancock, 2011, Ribble, 2004; Ribble & Bailey, and security 2007) • Dignity and safety of other users (Citron & Norton, 2011; Davis, 2013; Hancock, 2011; Microsoft, 2014; Ohler, 2011)

186

Appendix B: Elements of Digital Citizenship as Media and Information Literacy

Sub-themes Elements Digital access • Access to information technology (Mossberger et al., 2008; Mossberger, 2009; Ribble & Bailey, 2007; Ribble, 2004; Ribble, 2009; Unicef, 2011) Technical skills • Computer proficiency (Shelley et al., 2004) as lower levels • Technical competence/proficiency (Mossberger et al., 2008) of MIL • Effective use of the Internet (Mossberger et al., 2008; Mossberger, 2009; Ohler, 2011) • Educational competencies (Mossberger, 2009) • Use of web applications (Simsek & Simsek, 2012) • Technical skills and instrumental competence (Simsek & Simsek, 2012) Psychological • Online reading and writing (Bennett & Fessenden, 2006) capabilities as • Information literacy skills (Mossberger et al., 2008) higher levels of • Information literacy, media literacy, or network literacy, the MIL ability to access, evaluate, synthesize, and build upon information and media (Salpeter, 2008) • New media literacies skills (Felt et al., 2012; Hobbs & Jensen, 2009) • ICT literacy (Dede, 2009) • Digital literacy skills (Becta, 2010; Berson & Berson, 2003; 2004; Common sense media, 2009; Dede, 2009; Felt et al., 2012; Georgia virtual learning, 2013; Hicks et al., 2011; Microsoft, 2014; Mossberger, 2009; Ribble & Bailey, 2007) • Skills in acquiring and using information (Simsek & Simsek, 2012) • Digital communication (b’Haenens et al., 2007; Ribble & Bailey, 2007; Ribble, 2004; ISTE, 2007; Georgia virtual learning, 2013) • Culturally responsive, social justice-oriented, critical and creative communication (Kurubacak, 2007) • Collaboration (Kurubacak, 2007) • Socio-communicative competence (Simsek & Simsek, 2012)

187 • Communication skills (Simsek & Simsek, 2012) • Social learning skills (Felt et al., 2012) • Emotional competence (Simsek & Simsek, 2012) • Emotional learning skills (Felt et al., 2012) • Combining cognitive, affective, psycho-social, and technological skills (Dede, 2009) • Knowledge (Nebel et al., 2009; Simsek & Simsek, 2012), civic knowledge (Blevins et al., 2013) • Digital wellness (Marcinek, 2013; Ohler, 2012; Ribble & Bailey (2007)

188

Appendix C: Elements of Digital Citizenship as Participation/Engagement

Sub-themes Elements Political • Political engagement/participation (Coleman, 2006; Crowe, 2006; engagement d’Haenens et al., 2007; Farmer, 2011; Mossberger, 2009;VanFossen, 2006) • A more multi-layered, open-ended notion of political interaction (Coleman, 2006) • Lifestyle politics – personally expressive or self-actualizing politics (Bennett et al, 2009) • Civic engagement (Bennett et al., 2009; Citron & Norton, 2011) • A participatory digital citizen (Richards, 2010) • A justice oriented digital citizen (Richards, 2010) • Partaking freely in the internet’s diverse political, social, economic, and cultural opportunities (Citron & Norton, 2011) • Research significant social issues (Farmer, 2011) • Voice our opinions to a global audience (Farmer, 2011) • Building a safe spaces and communities (Couros, 2014) Economic • Economic engagement (Citron & Norton, 2011; Mossberger et al, engagement 2008) • Consumer skills (Simsek & Simsek, 2012) • Digital commerce (Georgia virtual learning, 2013; Ribble, 2004; Ribble & Bailey, 2007) Cultural • E-cultural citizens (d’Haenens et al., 2007) engagement • Engagement based on culture, everyday experiences, narratives, and gaming (Knight Foundation, 2012) Leadership & • Leadership for digital citizenship (ISTE, 2007) ownership • A sense of ownership (Microsoft, 2014) Individual • Individual empowerment of digital technology (Ohler, 2012) management • Self-monitored habits (Heick, 2013) • The quality of habits, actions, and consumption patterns that impact the ecology of digital content and communities (Heick, 2013) • Managing personal information (Couros, 2014)

189

Appendix D: Elements of Digital Citizenship as Critical Resistance

Sub-themes Elements Recognition of • Recognizing, contesting, and negotiating with the powers that exist Power structure to control them (Coleman, 2006) Resistance • Capacity to resist and reshape to hack (Longford, 2005) • Egypt’s wired revolutionary generation who challenge the status quo and want educational reform using social media (Herrera, 2012)

190

Appendix E: Changes in Digital Citizenship as Ethics

Year Elements 2003 • Digital awareness (Berson & Berson, 2003) 2004 • Being aware of technology-related ethical, societal, and cultural issues, digital etiquette, personal responsibility, digital rights, digital security (Ribble, 2004) 2005 • Critical awareness of how code constitutes the conditions of possibility for different norms, models (Longford, 2005) 2006 • Free expression (Coleman, 2006) 2007 • Careful attentions to diverse online community (Kurubacak, 2007) • Digital etiquette, digital rights, digital law, digital security (Ribble & Bailey, 2007) • Safe, legal and responsible use of information and technology (ISTE, 2007) • Personal responsibility (ISTE, 2007; Ribble & Bailey, 2007) 2008 2009 • Digital etiquette (Ribble, 2009) • Personal responsibility (Common sense media, 2009; Ribble, 2009) • Roles and responsibilities as a user of the Internet (Nebel et al., 2009) 2010 • Personal responsibility (Richards, 2010) 2011 • Digital citizenship awareness (Hollandsworth et al., 2011) • Dignity and safety of other users (Citron & Norton, 2011; Hancock, 2011; Ohler, 2011) • Digital security (Hancock, 2011) • Optimal and safe use of ICTs (Unicef, 2011) • Behavior in social network sites (Lenhart et al., 2011) 2012 • Personal, community, and global responsibility (Ohler, 2012) • Responsibilities of self and others (Orech, 2012) • Respecting the impact of one’s actions beyond the self on the larger collective (Felt et al., 2012) • Appropriate norms associated with technology use especially social media (Winn, 2012) 2013 • Responsible behavior online (Berman-Dry, 2013) • Safe, legal, responsible, and ethical use of digital information (Robb & Shellenbarger, 2013)

191 • Personal responsibility, responsibilities of self and others, dignity and safety of other users (Davis, 2013) • Respecting copyright and intellectual property (Robb & Shellenbarger, 2013) • Smart, responsible, respectful, appropriate, ethical decisions (Orth & Chen, 2013) • Addressing the situation with regard to privacy, copyright, infringement, cyber bullying, plagiarism, and exposure to inappropriate content (Afshar, 2013) 2014 • Safely and confidently use of technology (CyberWise, 2014) • Respectful, responsible, and safe online behavior (DigitalLiterarcy.gov, 2014) • Responsibility and digital rights (Microsoft, 2014) • Respecting and protecting self and others, and respecting copyright and intellectual property (educational origami, 2014)

192

Appendix F: Changes in Digital Citizenship as Media and Information Literacy

Year Characteristics 2003 • Digital literacy skills (Berson & Berson, 2003) 2004 • Access to information technology and digital communication (Ribble, 2004) • Computer proficiency (Shelley et al., 2004) • Digital literacy skills (Berson & Berson, 2004) 2005 2006 • Online reading and writing (Bennett & Fessenden, 2006) 2007 • Access to information technology (Ribble & Bailey, 2007) • Digital literacy skills (Ribble & Bailey, 2007) • Digital communication (b’Haenens et al., 2007; ISTE, 2007; Ribble & Bailey, 2007) • Culturally responsive, social justice-oriented, critical and creative communication (Kurubacak, 2007) • Digital health and wellness (Ribble & Bailey, 2007) • Collaboration (Kurubacak, 2007) 2008 • Access to information technology (Mossberger et al., 2008) • Technical competence/proficiency (Mossberger et al., 2008) • Information literacy skills (Mossberger et al., 2008) • Information literacy, media literacy, or network literacy, the ability to access, evaluate, synthesize, and build upon information and media (Salpeter, 2008) 2009 • Access to information technology (Mossberger, 2009; Ribble, 2009) • Effective use of the internet (Mossberger, 2009) • ICT literacy (Dede, 2009) • Educational competencies (Mossberger, 2009) • Digital literacy skills (Common sense media, 2009; Dede, 2009; Mossberger, 2009) • New media literacies skills (Hobbs & Jensen, 2009) • Combining cognitive, affective, psycho-social, and technological skills (Dede, 2009) • Knowledge (Nebel et al., 2009) 2010 • Digital literacy skills (Becta, 2010; Hicks et al., 2011) 2011 • Access to information technology (Unicef, 2011)

193 • Effective use of the internet (Ohler, 2011) 2012 • Use of web applications, technical skills, instrumental competence, skills in acquiring and using information, communication skills and socio-communicative competence, emotional competence, knowledge (Simsek & Simsek, 2012) • Digital literacy skills and new media literacies skills, social learning skills, Emotional learning skills (Felt et al., 2012) • Digital health and wellness (Ohler, 2012) 2013 • Digital literacy skills and digital communication (Georgia virtual learning, 2013) • Digital health and wellness (Marcinek, 2013) • Civic knowledge (Blevins et al., 2013) 2014 • Digital literacy skills (Microsoft, 2014)

194

Appendix G: Changes in Digital Citizenship as Participation/Engagement

Year Characteristics 2003 2004 • Digital commerce (Ribble, 2004) 2005 2006 • Political engagement/participation (Coleman, 2006; Crowe, 2006; Vanfossen, 2006) • A more multi-layered, open-ended notion of political interaction (Coleman, 2006) 2007 • Political engagement/participation (d’Haenens et al., 2007) • Digital commerce (Ribble & Bailey, 2007) • E-cultural citizens (d’Haenens et al., 2007) • Leadership for digital citizenship (ISTE, 2007) 2008 • Economic engagement (Mossberger et al, 2008) 2009 • Civic engagement (Mossberger, 2009 • Political engagement/participation (Mossberger, 2009) • Lifestyle politics: personally expressive or self-actualizing politics using social media (Bennett et al, 2009) 2010 • A participatory digital citizen (Richards, 2010) • A justice oriented digital citizen (Richards, 2010) 2011 • Civic engagement (Citron & Norton, 2011) • Political engagement/participation (Farmer, 2011) • Partaking freely in the internet’s diverse political, social, economic, and cultural opportunities (Citron & Norton, 2011) • Research significant social issues (Farmer, 2011) • Voice our opinions to a global audience (Farmer, 2011) • Economic engagement (Citron & Norton, 2011) 2012 • Consumer skills (Simsek & Simsek, 2012) • Individual empowerment of digital technology (Ohler, 2012) • Engagement based on culture, everyday experiences, narratives, and gaming (Knight Foundation, 2012) 2013 • Digital commerce (Georgia virtual learning, 2013)

195 • Self-monitored habits (Heick, 2013) • The quality of habits, actions, and consumption patterns that impact the ecology of digital content and communities (Heick, 2013) 2014 • Building a safe spaces and communities (Couros, 2014) • A sense of ownership (Microsoft, 2014) • Managing personal information (Couros, 2014)

196

Appendix H: Changes in Digital Citizenship as Critical Resistance

Year Characteristics 2005 • Capacity to resist and reshape to hack (Longford, 2005) 2006 • Recognizing, contesting, and negotiating with the powers that exist to control them (Coleman, 2006) 2012 • Egypt’s wired revolutionary generation who challenge the status quo and want educational reform using social media (Herrera, 2012)

197

Appendix I: References Included in the Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship

Afshar, V. (2013, February 11). Digital citizenship: Businesses can learn from K-12 educators. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vala- afshar/digital-citizenship-busin_b_2654628.html Becta (2010). Digital literacy: Teaching critical thinking for our digital world. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from www.history.org.uk/file_download.php?ts=1294321749&id=7314 Bennett, W. L., Wells, C., & Rank, A. (2009). Young citizens and civic learning: Two paradigms of citizenship in the digital age. Citizenship Studies, 13(2), 105-120. Bennett, L., & Fessenden, J. (2006). Citizenship through online communication. Social Education, 70(3), 144. Berman-Dry, A. (2013). Making it personal: A new approach to teaching digital citizenship. Learning & Leading with Technology, 41(1), 24-26. Berson, M. J., & Berson, I. R. (2004). Developing Thoughtful" Cybercitizens". Social Studies and the Young Learner, 16(4), 5-8. Berson, I. R., & Berson, M. J. (2003). Digital literacy for effective citizenship. Social Education, 67(3), 164-167. Blevins, B., LeCompte, K., & Wells, S. (2013). Citizenship education goes digital. The Journal of Social Studies Research. 38, 33-44. Citron, D., & Norton, H. (2011). Intermediaries and hate speech: Fostering digital citizenship for our information age. Boston University Law Review, 91, 1435- 1484. Coleman, S. (2006). Digital voices and analogue citizenship: Bridging the gap between young people and the democratic process. Public policy research, 13(4), 257-261. Coleman, S. (2008). Doing IT for themselves: Management versus autonomy in youth e-citizenship. Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth, 189-206. Common Sense Media (2009). Digital literacy and citizenship in the 21st century. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://www.itu.int/council/groups/wg- cop/second-meeting-june-2010/CommonSenseDigitalLiteracy- CitizenshipWhitePaper.pdf Couros, A. (2014). Open thinking wiki: digitalcitizenship. Retrieved May 5, 2014,

198 from http://couros.wikispaces.com/digitalcitizenship Crowe, A. R. (2006). Technology, Citizenship, and the Social Studies Classroom: Education for Democracy in a Technological Age. International Journal of Social Education, 21(1), 111-121. CyberWise: Top ten digital citizenship resources (2014). Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://www.cyberwise.org/Digital-Citizenship-Top-Ten.html Davis, M. (2013, October 16). Digital citizenship week 6: Resources for educator. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/digital-citizenship-resources- matt-davis Dede, C. (2009). Determining, developing, and assessing the capabilities of “future- ready” students. Harvard University. Friday Institute White Paper Series, Number Two. d'Haenens, L., Koeman, J., & Saeys, F. (2007). Digital citizenship among ethnic minority youths in the Netherlands and Flanders. New Media & Society, 9(2), 278-299. DigitalLiteracy (2014). Back to school: Digital citizenship. Retrieved May 5, 2014 from http://www.digitalliteracy.gov/back-to-school Educational Origami (2014). The digital citizen. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/The+Digital+Citizen Farmer, L. (2011, February 1). Digital citizen. Retrieved from http://ecitizenship.csla.net Felt, L. J., Vartabedian, V., Literat, I., & Mehta, R. (2012). Explore locally, excel digitally: A participatory learning after-school program for enriching citizenship on-and offline. The Journal of Media Literacy Education, 4(3). 213-228. Georgia Virtual Learning (2013). Connecting with other digital citizens, technology and resources. (2013). Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://cms.gavirtualschool.org/Shared/Digital%20Citizenship/DigCitConnect/i ndex.html Hancock, M. (2011, October 4). Digital citizenship for today’s teens. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marsali-hancock/digital-citizenship-for- t_b_993454.html Herrera, L. (2012). Youth and citizenship in the digital age: A view from Egypt. Harvard Educational Review, 82(3), 333-352. Heick, T. (2013, May 2). The definition of digital citizenship. Retrieved from http://www.teachthought.com/technology/the-definition-of-digital-citzenship/ Hicks, D., van Hover, S., Washington, E. Y., & Lee, J. K. (2011). Internet literacies

199 for active citizenship and democratic life. Contemporary Social Studies: An Essential Reader (467-491). Hobbs, R. & Jensen, A. (2009). The past, present, and future of media literacy \ education. Journal of Media Literacy Education 1, 1-11. Hollandsworth, R., Dowdy, L., & Donovan, J. (2011). Digital citizenship in K-12: It takes a village. TechTrends, 55(4), 37-47. ISTE (2007). ISTE standards students. International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20- 14_ISTE_Standards-S_PDF.pdf. Knight Foundation (2012). Digital citizenship: Exploring the field of tech for engagement. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://www.knightfoundation.org/media/uploads/media_pdfs/Digital- Citizenship-tech4engage-summit-report.pdf Kurubacak, G. (2007). Transformative power of digital citizenship: Critical perspectives on culture, new media and pedagogy. Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 12-22. Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith, A., Purcell, K., Zickuhr, K., & Rainie, L. (2011). Teens, kindness and cruelty on social network sites: How American teens navigate the new world of “Digital Citizenship". Pew Internet & American Life Project. Longford, G. (2005). Pedagogies of digital citizenship and the politics of code. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 9(1), 1-17. Marcinek, A. (2011). The path to digital citizenship. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/the-path-to-digital-citizenship-andrew-marcinek Microsoft (2014a). What does digital citizenship mean to you? Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://www.microsoft.com/security/resources/digital-citizenship.aspx Microsoft (2014b). What does digital citizenship mean to you? Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://www.microsoft.com/security/resources/digitalcitizenship.aspx Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mossberger, K. (2009). Toward digital citizenship: Addressing inequality in the information age. Routledge handbook of Internet politics, 173-185. Nebel, M., Jamison, B., & Bennett, L. (2009). Students as digital citizens on Web 2.0. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 21(4), 5-7. Nine themes of digital citizenship. (2014). Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://www.digitalcitizenship.net/Nine_Elements.html Ohler, J. (2011). Digital citizenship resources. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from

200 http://www.jasonohler.com/digitalCitizenship/index.cfm (2011) Ohler, J. (2012). Digital citizenship means character education for the digital age. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 77(8), 14- 17. Orth, D. & Chen, E. (2013). The strategy for digital citizenship. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://www.nais.org/Magazines- Newsletters/ISMagazine/Pages/The-Strategy-for-Digital-Citizenship.aspx Ribble M. (2004). Digital citizenship: Addressing appropriate technology behavior. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(1), 6-11. Ribble, M & Bailey, G. (2004). Digital citizenship: focus questions for implication. Leaerning and Leading with Technology. 32(2), 12-15. Ribble, M., & Bailey, G. (2007). Digital citizenship in schools. Washington, DC. Ribble, M. (2009). Passport to Digital Citizenship: Journey toward Appropriate Technology Use at School and at Home. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(4), 14-17. Richards, R. (2010). Digital citizenship and web 2.0 tools. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 516-522. Robb, M. & Shellenbarger, T, (2013). Promoting digital citizenship and academic integrity in technology classroom. The Teaching Professor, 27 (8), 1. Salpeter, J. (2008). Make students info literate. Technology & Learning, 28 (10) 24- 27. Swan, G. & Park, M. (2012). Students need a digital driver’s license before they start their engines. Learning & Leading with Technology, 40 (4), 26-28. Shelley, M., Shulman, S., Lang, E., Beisser, S., & Mutiti, J. (2004). Digital citizenship: parameters of the digital divide. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 256-269. Simsek, E., & Simsek, A. (2013). New literacies for digital citizenship. Contemporary Educational Technology, 4(2), 126-137 Unicef (2014). Digital citizenship and safety. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/resources_18475.html VanFossen, P. J. (2006). The electronic republic? Evidence on the impact of the Internet on citizenship and civic engagement in the US. International Journal of Social Education, 21(1), 18-43. Winn, M. R. (2012). Promote Digital Citizenship through School-Based Social Networking. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(4), 10-13.

201

Appendix J. Deleted Items from the Original Digital Citizenship Scale

1. I think Internet-related issues (e.g., privacy, censorship, information access, networking) affect my life. 2. I feel my private information is secure when I use the Internet. 3. I am careful with others’ feelings when I write online. 4. I sometimes download materials (e.g., music, movie, software, etc.) illegally on the Internet. 5. I sometimes use offensive language in online spaces that guarantee anonymity. 6. I sometimes post pictures or videos of people I know online without their permission. 18. I evaluate the news, blogs, and other content I read or watch online in terms of reliability, truth, and accuracy. 20. I feel my culture is represented on the Internet. 21. I feel my race/ethnicity is represented on the Internet. 27. I order/purchase/exchange goods online (e.g., Amazon, Target, eBay). 33. I think only a few people or organizations control most of the information we get through the Internet.

202

Appendix K. Administration Guide for the Digital Citizenship Scale (DCS)

Element Description General Information • Definition of Digital Citizenship: Abilities, thinking, and action regarding Internet use, which allows people to understand, navigate, engage in, and transform self, community, society, and the world. • Purpose: The DCS was developed to measure levels of skills, perception, and participation related to using the Internet for online social integration. • Types of Items 1. Technical Skills (TS): 4 items measuring individuals’ basic media literacy/open source skills. 2. Local/Global Awareness (LGA): 2 items measuring individuals’ awareness of social and political issues. 3. Networking Agency (NA): 4 items measuring individuals’ higher level of media literacy/open source skills. 4. Internet Political Activism (IPA): 9 items measuring individuals’ political participation. 5. Critical Perspective (CP): 7 items measuring critical approaches to online participation. Population • The DCS was administered to undergraduate and graduate students aged between 18 and 35. • Consider the reading level of the items, which may be too advanced for pre-college students. Procedure in the • Phase One: Conducted a concept analysis of digital Development of DCS citizenship for concept clarification and initial item generation, which supports evidence of content validity of the items. • Phase Two: Included two rounds of expert panel review were included for completion of item generation and revision, which provides evidence of content and face validity of the items. •Phase Three: Consisted of final administration for assessment of the DCS.

203 Administration • Type of survey: Paper-based • Average time to complete the survey: About 10-15 minutes. • The survey was distributed in face-to-face classrooms along with consent forms following a brief presentation on the research topic, purpose, and procedure. This was conducted before starting class or after class. Recommended Citation Choi, M. (2015). Development of a scale to measure digital citizenship among young adults for democratic citizenship education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus. Contact Information • Name: Moonsun Choi, Ph.D. • Email: [email protected] • Please contact me if you plan to use and/or modify the original scale.

204

Appendix L. Final Instrument

1. What is your year of birth? ( )

2. Please identify your gender. ☐ Male ☐ Female ☐ Trans ☐ Other ☐ Prefer not to disclose

3. Please specify your ethnicity. ☐ White ☐ Black ☐ Hispanic ☐ American Indian ☐ Asian/ Pacific Islander ☐ Bi-racial ☐ Other ☐ Prefer not to disclose

4. Please select the highest level of education you have completed. ☐ High School ☐ Bachelor’s degree ☐ Master’s degree ☐ Doctoral degree

5. Please select the college to which you belong (If you are in EHE, please select the department to which you belong) ☐ Architecture ☐ Arts and Sciences ☐ Business

205 ☐ Continuing Education ☐ Dentistry ☐ Education and Human Ecology ☐ Educational Studies ☐ Teaching and Learning ☐ Human Sciences ☐ Engineering ☐ Environment and Natural Resources ☐ Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences ☐ Law ☐ Medicine ☐ Nursing ☐ Optometry ☐ Pharmacy ☐ Social Work

6. What type of a device do you usually use to access the Internet? (Please select one) ☐ Mobile/ Smart Phone ☐ Tablet PC ☐ Laptop Computer ☐ Desktop Computer ☐ Other

7. Where do you read and watch social, political, economic, or cultural issues? (Please select one and if you check others, please identify them) ☐ News Websites (e.g., New York Times, BBC) ☐ Social Networking Sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) ☐ Blogs ☐ TV and/ or radio ☐ Others ( )

8. How frequently do you access the Internet from the following places? Less Multiple than times a Daily Weekly Monthly Never once a day month From ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ home

206 From ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ school From ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ work From a public places ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ (e.g., café, bus, street) From other ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ places

9. What is your main purpose for using the Internet? (Please select one and if you check others, please identify them) ☐ Entertainment (e.g., playing games, watching video clips, listening to music) ☐ Homework/research for school ☐ Searching for news ☐ Visiting social media sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram)

Please mark the number on the scale the best reflects your opinion and behavior for each of the statement Strongly Strongly below. Disagree Agree 1. I think Internet-related issues (e.g., privacy, censorship, information access, networking) affect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 my life. 2. I feel my private information is secure when I use the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Internet. 3. I am careful with others’ feelings when I write 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 online. 4. I sometimes download materials (e.g., music, movie, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 software, etc.) illegally on the Internet. 5. I sometimes use offensive language in online spaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 that guarantee anonymity.

207 6. I sometimes post pictures or videos of people I know 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 online without their permission. 7. I can access the Internet through digital technologies (e.g., mobile/smart phones, Tablet PCs, Laptops, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PCs) whenever I want. 8. I am able to use digital technologies (e.g., mobile/smart phones, Tablet PCs, Laptops, PCs) to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 achieve the goals I pursue. 9. I can use the Internet to find information I need. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. I can use the Internet to find and download 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 applications (apps) that are useful to me. 11. I enjoy communicating with others online. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. I enjoy collaborating with others online more than I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 do offline. 13. I am more informed with regard to political or social 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 issues through using the Internet? 14. I am more aware of global issues through using the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Internet. 15. I post original messages, audio, pictures, or videos to express my feelings/thoughts/ideas/opinions on the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Internet. 16. Where possible, I comment on other people’s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 writings in news websites, blogs, or SNSs I visit. 17. I regularly post thoughts related to political or social 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 issues online. 18. I evaluate the news, blogs, and other content I read or watch online in terms of reliability, truth, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 accuracy. 19. I express my opinions online to challenge dominant perspectives or the status quo with regard to political 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 or social issues. 20. I feel my culture is represented on the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

208 21. I feel my race/ethnicity is represented on the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. I think online participation is an effective way to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 engage with political or social issues. 23. I belong to online groups that are involved in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 political or social issues. 24. I sometimes contact government officials about an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 issue that is important to me via online methods. 25. I attend political meetings or public forums on local, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 town, or school affairs via online methods. 26. I work or volunteer for a political party or candidate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 via online methods. 27. I order/purchase/exchange goods online (e.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Amazon, Target, eBay). 28. I work with others online to solve local, national, or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 global issues. 29. I sign petitions about social, cultural, political, or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 economic issues online. 30. I organize petitions about social, cultural, political, or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 economic issues online. 31. I am more socially or politically engaged when I am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 online than offline. 32. I think online participation promotes offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 engagement. 33. I think only a few people or organizations control 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 most of the information we get through the Internet. 34. I think online participation is an effective way to make a change to something I believe to be unfair or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unjust. 35. I use the Internet in order to participate in social 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 movement/change or protest. 36. I think I am given to rethink my beliefs regarding a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 particular issue/topic when I use the Internet.

209 37. I think the Internet reflects the biases and dominance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 present in offline power structures.

Please mark the number on the scale the best reflects your Strongly Strongly opinion and behavior for each of the statement below. Disgree Agree 1. I can use the Internet as an effective way of connecting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with others. 2. I can write any posts or comments on the Internet that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 other people will read and be interested in. 3. I can be very effective using the Internet. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. I can have a positive impact on the lives of others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 through using the Internet. 5. I can offer other people important and interesting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 information by posting on the Internet. 6. I can find important and interesting information by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 reading other people’ blogs or posts. 7. I can improve my own well-being through the use of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 hyperlinks. 8. I can use hyperlinks to find information that is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 important to others. 9. I can use hyperlinks to find information that is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 important to me. 10. I can improve others’ well-being through the use of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 hyperlinks. 11. I can use the Internet to answer other people’s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 questions in a productive way. 12. I can use the Internet to answer my own questions in a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 productive way. 13. I can organize the information I find on the Internet so 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 that it is coherent and answers specific questions. 14. I can use social networking sites as an effective way of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 connecting with others. 15. I can be very effective communicating using social 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 networking sites like Facebook. 16. I can use the Internet to find good information about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 topics that are important to me.

210

Please mark the number on the scale the best reflects your Strongly feeling for each of the statement below. Agree 1. I feel calm when I need to find new information on my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 own. 2. I feel secure about sharing my thoughts with others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I feel tense when online discussion or blogging is a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 course requirement. 4. I feel strained having to write online. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I feel at ease writing what I think for other people to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 read. 6. I feel upset when other people comment on my posts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. I feel satisfied when I have said something I really 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 wanted to say in a blog or SNSs post. 8. I feel frightened when I think people I do not know will 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 read my writings online. 9. I feel uncomfortable with public discussion of ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. I feel self-confident that people will like what I write 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 online. 11. I feel nervous that people will not like what I write 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 online. 12. I feel jittery that people will judge me because of what I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 write online. 13. I feel content with my ability to seek out information on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the Internet. 14. I feel indecisive when I am thinking about making one 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 of my ideas public. 15. I am relaxed when I am reading other people’s posts on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the Internet. 16. I am worried when I am reading other people’s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 comments on what I wrote online. 17. I am confused when I am asked to write a blog post on a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 subject. 18. I feel steady when I hit the “post/submit” button. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. I feel pleasant when others comment on my posts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

211