Shivani Kakde

Education Technology
Jason Ohler
16 October 2016

Digital Citizenship

In quite a short time, we have witnessed life altering changes, including the advent of the internet and the proliferation
of glowing rectangles. The ubiquity of personal devices infiltrates all aspects of human life. There are those in the education
world who believe the use of these devices should be restricted to off-school hours for students. I believe this promotes a
double-life for students, meaning they have a non-digital school life and a separate online after-school life. Others believe that
in these changing times it is important for us to view students holistically, meaning we teach them to have one life inclusive of
their online presence in and out of the classroom. I agree with the latter. I consider school to be, as John Dewey said, School is
the laboratory for life (Dewey, p#), it should reflect the conditions students face upon exiting the school building. If we fail to
acknowledge and respond to the changing technological times, we fail to prepare students for the real world.
My understanding of Digital Citizenship, (DC) is that it refers to a persons overall presence and behavior online. In
this paper I use DC to refer to students online behavior in relation to their community/school. DC concerns all facets of a
persons behavior on social media sites, specifically how they represent themselves to others online, and their treatment of others
online. Many issues have become associated with DC such as, bullying, sexting, and general inappropriate behaviors. In Ohlers
article, Character
Education for the Digital Age, Ohler states, ...our job as educators (is) to help students live one, integrated
life, by inviting them to not only use their technology at school, but also talk about it within the greater context of community and
society (2011). I agree with this sentiment. Students should understand that who they are online is a digital footprint of their
real selves. As technology advances we shall only see these dual selves integrated within the classroom.
The inquiry of what DC means to students is a necessary conversation to have in the classroom. In another of Ohlers
articles he supports the idea that students frame the system rather than game the system, which means students need to be part
of the conversation in deciding the rules for appropriate DC. The act of students engaging in the process of developing the
guidelines gives them, buy-in, or investment, in the outcomes. I believe that the purpose of school is to prepare students for
life once they leave the safety net of a school building and teachers. Whether their path is to continue pursuing studies or to join
the workforce immediately, technology and the internet will be a part of either path. Helping them to understand the permanent
record of the internet in regards to DC is is critical and necessary. In order for students to understand this, they must be a part of
the conversation, and given a safe space to discuss the consequences of their potential decisions.

The internet policy at the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District is that every student will be provided, access to
computers, networks, and the Internet as a means to enhance their education. The district even encourages personal devices to
be brought into school. There are clearly laid out rules that state students are not to partake in illegal activities such as
downloading music, viewing age and school inappropriate materials, etc., because the school district will not defend individuals
in a lawsuit. Basically, you are on your own if you break the rules. While this policy lays out rules and generic guidelines like,
users should be polite, kind, courteous, and respectful at all times, it does not take responsibility in setting out a curriculum in
understanding the consequences of DC. Doing so is up to individual teachers, who may or may not be trained or understand the
rhetoric of the acceptable internet use policy themselves. If teachers or students violate this policy the repercussion is loss of
privilege, as this is seen as such rather than a right. Again, I bring up the tattoo analogy: whatever you do online becomes
immortalized and permanent. Teaching students to understand the permanence of their online choices is a task that I believed is
now required within the classroom.
In this day and age it is crucial that we teach our students about the implications of their online actions in their
everyday lives. Teachers must know their schools internet policies, and model appropriate online behaviors. A topic this paper
does not address is the appropriateness of student-teacher friendships on Facebook and other social media sites. In Alaska the
size of communities constitutes different relationships between teachers and students. For example, in an Alaskan village there
could be relatives in the teaching position. In such a case, I would not tell students that they could not be friends with their family
members who are students. I think if we are teaching students to have one life, we as teachers should model one life as well. The
idea of what is school appropriate and after school appropriate on online media will be an ongoing conversation. In the
meantime, I believe there should be an open a dialogue in the classroom about ethics, values, and DC.

References
Kenai Peninsula Borough School District. (2012). Acceptable use policy/internet safety policy.
Ohler, J., (2011). Character education for the digital age. Educational Leadership. 68(5). Retrieved from:
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb11/vol68/num05/Character-Education-for-the-Digital-Age.as
px
Ohler, J., (2014). Youre in charge. Youtube video. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlxS2Blb2Cg