Table4: Moving Beyond Personal Responsibility: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Digital Citizenship Curricula
Location: W179a, Table 4
Listen and learn : Research paper
Monday, June 25, 4:00–5:00 pm
Location: W179a, Table 4
Dr. Kristen Mattson
Presentation of original research. Learn how the term 'digital citizen' is conceptualized & furthered through curricula written for secondary students, what assumptions about teens and technology use emerge from these lessons, and how 'digital citizenship' work is often misaligned from traditional citizenship education. Recommendations for curricular improvements will be presented.
|Attendee devices:||Devices not needed|
|Participant accounts, software and other materials:||None|
|Focus:||Digital age teaching & learning|
|ISTE Standards:||For Administrators:
|Additional detail:||ISTE author presentation|
In order to examine these research questions, I used three different conceptual frameworks. The first is a framework for citizenship and citizenship education developed by Kahne, Chi and Middaugh in 2006. They combed through dozens of citizenship curricula and found that schools are usually forwarding one of three ideals about what it means to be a good citizen.
Personally responsible citizenship curriculum teaches that in order for society to function and thrive, each person must take responsibility for his/her own actions, obey authority, and follow the law. Curriculum focuses heavily on character traits and rules.
Participatory citizenship teaches that citizens must be actively engaged in their communities. This engagement might could include joining organizations, becoming an informed voter, helping other members of the community; Curriculum usually includes aspects of community service and democratic voice.
Justice Oriented Citizenship is a citizenship type rarely cultivated in K-12 education. The justice oriented citizen recognizes that volunteerism only goes so far to bring about change. This type of citizen is passionate about responding to social problems by changing the systems that bring those problems about. Curriculum would include opportunities for students to study, analyze, and critique the interplay of social, economical, and political forces.
The second conceptual framework I chose for this study is critical discourse analysis, which also happens to be a methodology. As a concept, there are a few core beliefs that guide the work.
1. Texts are not created in isolation, but are part of a larger societal context.
2. Three levels of analysis - text itself, the discursive elements of the text, and the relationships between that text and the world.
3. CDA most often focus on social issues and analysts are interested in examining structures of dominance, power, control & discrimination in language.
4. Critical Discourse Analysts are optimistic about bringing light to & possibly altering conversations because they believe the link between text and society is mediated and moldable.
The third framework used in this study is governmentality. Governmentality challenges the idea that power is only exercised by laws, regulations, and top-down political structures.
It introduces a wide range of “technologies of power” that shape and mold all of our behaviors. There are many recognized technologies of power, but two that emerged frequently in this study were disciplinary power and strategic games.
This critical discourse analysis was conducted on lessons designed to be delivered to teens, ages 13-18. CDA was conducted on lessons, handouts, and teaching documents written by the organization or author of said curricula.
The first step in this process was selecting works to include in the data set. Throughout my literature review, I kept coming across the work of Dr. Mike Ribble. He was the first to publish the term “digital citizenship” and as of today, his book is the only one published by the International Society of Technology in Education on the topic. It seemed only natural to include this seminal piece of text. To locate the other two curricula, I conducted a variety of Google searches using keywords that a classroom teacher might if he/she were searching for classroom lessons (digital citizenship lessons, digital citizenship for high school, digital citizenship curriculum) and I tallied the number of times different curricular packages came up in the top 10 Google search results. Additionally, I read about a dozen blog posts and “best of” lists on educational websites and found that both Common Sense & NetSmartz came up consistently over time in both of my methods.
Common Sense, based on those searches, appears to be the most popular and widely used in many districts including my own
NetSmartz has a 15 year history of internet safety education, and is also supported by grant from the US Department of Justice.
The initial coding of my data sets happened through lexical analysis. Essentially I wanted to know how the chosen words and phrases in the curricula could help me answer each research question:
What is digital citizenship?
How do these curricula portray teenagers?
How do these curricula relate to traditional forms of citizenship education?
To accomplish this task, I had to code for:
Classifications: How are people categorized and grouped? Is there a use of we vs. them? Are minors referred to as teens, adolescents, youth, students? How do the curricula draw attention to specific parts of identity?
Collocational patterns: How do groups of words used in relation to one another over time help develop a concept? Is technology associated with cyberbullying, digital drama, predators, etc? Or is it associated with opportunity, community, learning, etc?
Word connotations: How does a word feel? House vs. Home carries different emotions. Cyberbully vs Digital Drama; digital citizenship lesson vs. internet safety lesson
On a second pass of the data, I had to code for presupposition: What words and phrases are these curricula setting out as “knowns”? What do they assume people already know or think about technology, teenagers, and citizenship?
In order to accomplish this, I had to look for:
Structural Oppositions: Meaning is developed not only through words themselves, but through the understanding of their opposites. When I say something is “good,” I rely on both my understanding of the word “good” and my understanding of its opposite word, “bad” to form a concept in my head
Overlexicalisation: The overuse of words and phrases can help forward a concept as true. In the same regard, the absence of anticipated words and phrases can help shape one’s understanding of a concept.
After completing my initial passes of the data sets, I moved on to focused and axial coding. This coding happened on multiple levels, where I looked for themes in individual lessons, then across the curriculum as a whole, and final in an interdiscursive analysis of all three curricula combined.
Three Key Findings:
-Being a digital citizen means being safe, ethical, and respectful online;
-Lessons on digital citizenship have limited parallels to traditional frameworks for citizenship education;
-Digital citizenship lessons reinforce traditional relationships of power between teenagers and adults through recognized aspects of governmentality.
The majority of digital citizenship lessons currently used in high schools today are written from a core assumption that a good citizen is one who follows the law and acts responsibly, respectfully, and ethically in online environments. This core assumption guides curriculum writers to develop lessons that promote cautionary use, obedience to authority, civility and tolerance with other internet users and that promote a replication of traditional power structures found offline into the digital spaces. These attempts are most evident in the way digital citizenship curricula portray teenagers, adults, and the relationships amongst them.
Across the three curricula, personally responsible citizenship is mostly demonstrated through non-examples. In many cases, scenarios are used to show students engaged in “uncitizen like” behavior, and then receiving a consequence because of it. The use of these crime and punishment examples is a recognized technology of governmentality that is used to shape behavior. Unfortunately, the sole use of non-examples in these curricula makes it difficult for students to see what a good digital citizen does with technology.
Part of being a good critical discourse analyst is studying the history and context through which discourse has come about. Throughout this study, I began to develop a theory about digital citizenship based on my reading. Digital citizenship dialogue began in 2004 with publication by Mike Ribble. Several years earlier, however, an article entitled “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants” was published by Marc Prensky in 2001. This article forwarded the notion that kids born in a digital generation “are all ‘native speakers’ of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet” (p. 1). Prensky asserts that while many adults often become fascinated by and adopt new technologies, they “always will be, compared to (digital natives), digital immigrants” (p. 2). While the intent of Prensky’s article was to engage teachers in thinking differently about their pedagogy, these two opposing terms - digital native and digital immigrant - have been repeated over and over again in both popular and academic literature. While many studies have challenged the dichotomy of the native vs. the immigrant, these classifications persist. Two terms, two labels, one widely cited article put a younger generation in a position of power over adults – something that rarely, if ever, happens in the offline world.
My theory, then, is that digital citizenship came about as an attempt to restore the traditional relationship of power between digital natives and digital immigrants. As I further considered this possibility, the technologies of power used to reset the balance through such curricula became abundantly clear.
As educators yourselves, you are well aware that the educational system is in a slow, ongoing struggle to adapt and change in a world permeated with technology. The schoolhouse is no longer the sole source of information and teachers have lost their sense of authority on Google-able facts, figures, and how-to’s. They find themselves fighting for their students’ attention and trying to convince teenagers why the curriculum is so relevant in an age when students and non-students alike are increasingly turning to one another and to the internet when they have a need for information or support.
The problem is, when digital citizenship curricula overwhelmingly portray technology as a portal for risk, a source of unreliable information, a space for cruelty or folly, while also maintaining a traditional figured world of school where the teacher is the center and student centered inquiry is frowned upon, the wheels of change are given permission to slow even more.
In fact, digital citizenship curricula may be doing schools more harm than good. As more districts move toward 1:1 environments, they will need the support of teachers, families, and the community to make that shift successful. However, when schools are passing out Chromebooks alongside curricular handouts that focus on negative behaviors, it can be difficult to get stakeholders to support the inclusion of digital resources in the curriculum.
In a final call to action, we must
1. Reexamine and expand the digital citizenship discourse to help educators, parents, and students see possibility over problems, opportunities over risks, and community success over personal gain.
2. Move beyond non-examples centered around personal responsible citizenship, equipping students with the skills to actively participate and contribute in a global society.
3. Further clarify a framework for the alignment of digital citizenship, traditional, technological, and media literacies.
Abowitz, K. K., & Harnish, J. (2006). Contemporary Discourses of Citizenship. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 653–690. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4124417
American Association of School Librarians. (2010). School libraries count: Supplemental report on digital citizenship. Retrieved from: http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/researchandstatistics/slcsurvey/2011/AASL-SLC-2011-DIGITAL-FINALweb.pdf
Aristotle, Aeterna Press. (2015). Politics. Jowett, B. (Ed.). London, UK: Clarendon Press. (Original work published 350 B.C.).
Barber, B. R. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Univ of California Press.
Belsey, C. (2002). Poststructuralism: A very short introduction. OUP Oxford.
Bennett, T., & Frow, J. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE handbook of cultural analysis. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
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.
Bernauer, J. W., & Rasmussen, D. M. (1988). The Final Foucault. Mit Press.
Besley, T. C. (2009). Governmentality of Youth: Beyond Cultural Studies. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 1(2), 36-83. Retrieved from http://www.ulib.niu.edu:2205/docview/613690734?accountid=12846
Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B.P., Madrid, S., Otto, S., Shuart-Faris, N., & Smith, M. (2008). Discourse analysis in classrooms: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.
boyd, d. (2010). Friendship. In M. Ito (Ed.), Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out (pp. 79-115). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The networked social lives of teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Boyle, C. J. (2010). The effectiveness of a digital citizenship curriculum in an urban school. (Order No. 3404228, Johnson & Wales University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 105. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/375485607?accountid=12846. (375485607).
Bulach, C. R. (2002). Implementing a character education curriculum and assessing its impact on student behavior. The Clearing House 76 (2), 79- 83.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chilcoat, G. W., & Ligon, J. A. (2004). " It is Democratic Citizens We Are After:" The Possibilities and the Expectations for the Social Studies From the Writings of Shirley H. Engle. International Journal of Social Education, 18(2), 76-88.
Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
Common Sense Media (2012). Common sense on E-rate and CIPA: Toolkit for administrators. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/educators/erate-admins
Common Sense Media. (2015a). Digital literacy & citizenship classroom curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/educators/curriculum
Common Sense Media. (2015b). Parent concerns. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/parent-concerns
Common Sense Media. (2015c). Scope and sequence. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/uploads/classroom_curriculum/commonsense_digitalcitizenshipcurriculum.pdf
Common Sense Media. (2016). Common Sense K-12 digital citizenship curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/educators/scope-and-sequence
Cruikshank, B. (1999). The will to empower: Democratic citizens and other subjects. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
DeGraff, J. (2014, June 16). Digital natives vs. digital immigrants. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-degraff/digital-natives-vs-digita_b_5499606.html
Deleuze, G. (1988). Foucault. U of Minnesota Press.
Dewey, J. (2004). Democracy and education. Courier Corporation.
Dewey, J. (1909). Moral principles in education. Houghton Mifflin.
Doyle, S. (2011). A program effects case study of the CyberSmart! student curriculum in a private school in Florida. (Order No. MR80778, Memorial University of Newfoundland (Canada)). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 167. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/902447018?accountid=12846. (902447018).
Duncan, A. (2010). Dear colleagues: Key policy letters from the Education Secretary and Deputy Secretary. Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/101215.html
Education Commission of the States. (2012). Civic engagement through digital citizenship. The Progress of Education Reform, 13(1).
Erb, T. (2008). Case for Strengthening School District Jurisdiction to Punish Off-campus Incidents of Cyberbullying, A. Ariz. St. LJ, 40, 257.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Harlow, England: Longman.
Federal Communication Commission. (2015, January). Children’s internet protection act. Consumer guide. Retrieved from http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.pdf
Feldmann, D. (2007). Citizenship Education: Current Perspectives from Teachers in Three States. Educational Research Quarterly, 30(4), 3-15.
Fisk, N. W. (2011). Trash talk and trusted adults: An analysis of youth internet safety discourses in New York State (Order No. 3496374). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/921504864?accountid=12846
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage.
Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population. Springer.
Foucault, M., Burchell, G., Gordon, C., & Miller, P. (1991). The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. University of Chicago Press.
Foucault, M., Martin, L. H., Gutman, H., & Hutton, P. H. (1988).Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault. Univ of Massachusetts Press.
Frank, J. (2005). A democracy of distinction: Aristotle and the work of politics. University of Chicago Press.
Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2013). The App generation: How today's youth navigate identity, intimacy, and imagination in a digital world. Yale University Press.
Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd Edition). New York: Routledge.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Google Trends. (2015a). [Graph illustrating Google searches for digital citizenship; interest over time]. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22digital%20citizenship%22
Google Trends (2015b). [Graph illustrating Google searches for digital citizenship; displayed by regional interest]. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22digital%20citizenship%22
Google Trends (2015c). [Chart illustrating Google searches for digital citizenship; displayed by top queries]. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22digital%20citizenship%22
Harvard Graduate School of Education (2015). The good play project. Retrieved from http://www.pz.harvard.edu/projects/the-good-play-project
Hill, A. M. (2014). The kids are all right online: Teen girls' experiences with self-presentation, impression management & aggression on Facebook ProQuest (1631658024). Retrieved from http://www.ulib.niu.edu:2205/docview/1631658024?accountid=12846
Hindess, B. (1996) Discourses of Power. From Hobbes to Foucault. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hoge, J. D. (2002). Character education, citizenship education, and the social studies. Social Studies 93 (3), 103-108.
Horst, H.A., Herr- Stephenson, B., & Robinson, L. (2010). Media Ecologies. In M. Ito (Ed.), Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out (pp. 117-148). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Huckin, T. N., & Miler, T. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. DOCUMENT RESUME, 87.
Huckin, T., Andrus, J., & Clary-Lemon, J. (2012). Critical discourse analysis and rhetoric and composition. College Composition and Communication, 64(1), 107-129. Retrieved from http://www.ulib.niu.edu:2205/docview/1347460704?accountid=12846
Illinois General Assembly. (2007). (105 ILCS 5/27-13.3) Sec. 27-13.3. Internet safety education curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/010500050K27-13.3.htm
International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National Educational Technology Standards for Students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_iste_standards-s_pdf.pdf
Internet Keep Safe Coalition (2015). About BEaPRO. Retrieved from http://www.ikeepsafe.org/be-a-pro/info/
Ito, M. (2010). Introudction. In M. Ito (Ed.), Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out (pp. 1-28). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Cody, R., Stephenson, B. H., Horst, H. A. ... & Perkel, D. (2009). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. MIT press.
James, C. (2014). Disconnected: Youth, new media, and the ethics gap. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robinson, A. J. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. A report for the MacArthur Foundation.
Johnson, C.. (1984). Who Is Aristotle's Citizen?. Phronesis, 29(1), 73–90. Retrieved from http://www.ulib.niu.edu:2207/stable/4182188
Joseph, P. B., Green, N.S., Mikel, E.R., & Windschitl, M.A. (2011). Narrowing the curriculum. In P. Joseph (Ed.), Cultures of curriculum (2nd ed., pp. 36 - 54). New York: Routledge.
Kahne, J., Chi, B., & Middaugh, E. (2006). Building social capital for civic and political engagement: The potential of high-school civics courses. Canadian Journal Of Education, 29(2), 387-409.
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.
Kahne, J., Lee, N. J., & Feezell, J. T. (2012). Digital media literacy education and online civic and political participation. International Journal of Communication, 6, 24.
Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., & Allen, D. (2014). Youth, New Media, and the Rise of Participatory Politics. Youth, New Media and Citizenship.
Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S., Flint, K., Hawkins, J., Harris, W., … Zara, S. (2014). Youth risk behavior surveillance – United States, 2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6304a1.htm?s_cid=ss6304a1_w
Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39-81.
Lemke, T. (2002). Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Rethinking marxism, 14(3), 49-64.
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”. Retrieved from Pew Internet & American Life Project website: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Teens-and-social-media.aspx
Leydet, D, "Citizenship", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Retrived from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/citizenship/
Lindsey, L. (2015). Preparing teacher candidates for 21st century classrooms: A study of digital citizenship. ProQuest (1679282830). Retrieved from http://www.ulib.niu.edu:2205/docview/1679282830?accountid=12846
Loaded [Def. 1d]. (n.d.) Oxford English Dictionary Online. Retrieved July 5, 2016, from http://www.ulib.niu.edu:2846/view/Entry/109411
Lutz, M. J. (1997). Civic virtue and Socratic virtue. Polity, 565-592.
Lyons, R. (2012). Investigating student gender and grade level differences in digital citizenship behavior. ProQuest Dissertations (1038378905). Retrieved from http://www.ulib.niu.edu:2205/docview/1038378905?accountid=12846
Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Maguire, C. L. S. (2010). Policy and curriculum recommendations for student cell phone use (Order No. 3428124). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (816399320). Retrieved from http://www.ulib.niu.edu:2205/docview/816399320?accountid=12846
Madden, M., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M. (2012). Parents, teens, and online privacy. Retrieved from the Pew Internet & American Life Project website: http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/20/main-report-10/
Mark, L. K. (2014). Reducing cyber victimization through home and school partnerships: The effects of a cyber safety workshop on parent and educator perceptions of self-efficacy and attitudes toward family-school collaboration. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1611913933). Retrieved from http://www.ulib.niu.edu:2205/docview/1611913933?accountid=12846
Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class (Vol. 11, pp. 28-29). Cambridge.
McCowan, T. (2009). Rethinking citizenship education: A curriculum for participatory democracy. New York, New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
McKay, L. (2002). Character education with a plus. Education Digest, 68 (4), 45-51.
MediaSmarts. (2015a). Digital & media literacy. Retrieved from http://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy
MediaSmarts. (2015b). Our mission & beliefs. Retrieved from http://mediasmarts.ca/about-us/mission-beliefs
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Mertens, D. M. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Mogashoa, T. (2014). Understanding critical discourse analysis in qualitative research. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 1(7), 104-113.
Moran, J. P. (2009). Teaching sex: The shaping of adolescence in the 20th century. Harvard University Press.
National Center for Education Statistics (2013). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2013. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2013/key.asp
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (2016). NetSmartz teaching materials. Retrieved from http://www.netsmartz.org/Educators
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Silver Spring, MD: NCSS.
NSW Curriculum and Learning Innovation Centre (2011). Digital citizenship. Retrieved from http://www.digitalcitizenship.nsw.edu.au/Sec_Splash/index.htm
Office of Educational Technology (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education. Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf
Ohler, J. (2010). Digital community, digital citizen. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (n.d.) Reimagining citizenship for the 21st century. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/Reimagining_Citizenship_for_21st_Century_webversion.pdf
Palfrey, J., Gasser. U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. Nueva York, NY: Basic Books.
Pangle, T. L. (2013). Aristotle's Teaching in the" Politics". University of Chicago Press.
Pascoe, C. J. (2010). Intimacy. In M. Ito (Ed.), Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out (pp. 117-148). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Plato & Lee, D. (2003). Plato: The republic. London: Penguin.
Policante, A. (2010). War against biopower - Timely reflections on an historicist Foucault. Theory & Event 13(1), The Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved September 18, 2016, from Project MUSE database.
Predator. (n.d.). In Oxford English dictionary online. Retrieved from http://www.ulib.niu.edu:2846/view/Entry/149783?redirectedFrom=predator#eid
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9 (5), 1-6.
Prestwich, D. L. (2004). Character Education in America's Schools. School Community Journal, 14(1), 139-150.
Rainie, L. (2015). The changing privacy landscape. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/03/16/the-changing-privacy-landscape/
Rainie, L., Anderson, J. (2014). The future of privacy. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/12/18/future-of-privacy/
Ribble, M. S. (2006). Implementing digital citizenship in schools: The research, development and validation of a technology leader's guide. ProQuest (305322283). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305322283?accountid=12846
Ribble, M., & Bailey, G. (2007). Digital citizenship in schools (1st ed.). Washington, D.C.: International Society for Technology in Education.
Ribble, M. (2011). Digital citizenship in schools (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: International Society for Technology in Education.
Ribble, M. (2015). Digital citizenship in schools (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: International Society for Technology in Education.
Ribble, M., Bailey, G. & Ross, T. (2004). Digital citizenship: Addressing appropriate technology behavior. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(1), 6 -11.
Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data. London: Sage.
Revell, L. (2002). Children’s responses to character education. Education Studies 28(4), 421-431.
Rogers, R. (2011). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. New York: Routledge.
Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Suppo, C. A. (2013). Digital citizenship instruction in Pennsylvania public schools: School leaders expressed beliefs and current practices. ProQuest (1348693580). Retrieved from http://www.ulib.niu.edu:2205/docview/1348693580?accountid=12846
Taylor, D. (2014). Michel Foucault: Key Concepts. Routledge.
Tunick, R. A., Mednick, L., & Conroy, C. (2011). A snapshot of child psychologists' social media activity: Professional and ethical practice implications and recommendations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42(6), 440-447. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025040
Turner, B. S., & Hamilton, P. (1994). Citizenship: critical concepts (Vol. 2). Taylor & Francis US.
Tyack, D. & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
United States. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2011a). Ensuring equal access to high-quality education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ensure03.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2011b). Analysis of state bullying laws and policies. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/bullying/state-bullying-laws/state-bullying-laws.pdf
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2014) State anti-bullying laws and policies. Retrieved from http://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/index.html
Van Dijk, T. (1991). Racism and the press. London: Routledge.
Van Dijk, T. (1996). Discourse, power and access. Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis, 84-104.
Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Representing social action. Discourse & Society, (6)1, 81-106.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004a). Educating the “good” citizen: Political choices and pedagogical goals. Political Science and Politics, 37(02), 241-247.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004b). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American educational research journal, 41(2), 237-269.
Windschitl, M. A. (2011). Constructing understanding. In P. Joseph (Ed.), Cultures of curriculum (2nd ed., pp. 81-101). New York: Routledge.
Wodak, R. (2011). Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. J. Zienkowski and J. Ostman and J. Verschueren, Discursive Pragmatics: a Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights, 50-70.
Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of discourse. London: Longman.
Young, I. M.. (1989). Polity and Group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship. Ethics, 99(2), 250–274. Retrieved from http://www.ulib.niu.edu:2207/stable/2381434