Paper1: #DigCitLA: Cultivating Digital Citizenship District-Wide From Policy to Practice
Location: W179a, Table 1
Listen and learn : Research paper
Tuesday, June 26, 10:15–11:15 am
Location: W179a, Table 1
In this session, attendees will gain a deeper understanding of district-level complexities and systemic practices that both hinder and support the integration of digital citizenship throughout district-level policies and instructional practices.
|Attendee devices:||Devices not needed|
|Focus:||Digital age teaching & learning|
|ISTE Standards:||For Administrators:
Change at an organizational level is a systematic yet complex undertaking, especially when the change is centered on an initiative, such as digital citizenship, that requires significant capacity-building among stakeholders. The Four-Frame Model (Bolman & Deal, 2013) provides an innovative lens through which to examine and critique a district’s organizational approach to designing and implementing a digital citizenship initiative. Most of the literature on digital citizenship implementation provides classroom-level, localized perspectives, but an organizational perspective remains to be utilized. Using the Four-Frame Model provided a method of unpacking the complexities of an organizational change initiative, allowing the subtle nuances of cultivating a digital citizenship initiative to emerge.
The purpose of this study was to examine a large, urban school district’s approach to defining, developing, and maintaining a digital citizenship initiative focused on empowerment over the course of four years. The research questions guiding this study centered on unearthing the organizational practices and processes that undergirded the evolution of this initiative over time. Three research questions framed this study:
1. What does the implementation of a digital citizenship initiative look like over a four-year period in a large, urban school district?
2. What organizational efforts (i.e. programs, policies, processes) are needed to develop and sustain a comprehensive digital citizenship initiative?
3. What organizational elements facilitate and/or hinder a culture of digital citizenship that moves beyond safety and security?
The evolution of this digital citizenship initiative was studied using a case study approach, examining the historical processes and procedures put in place, such as investigating key policies developed, assessing the district’s political climate through board meetings and documents, and examining the dynamics of the district’s culture throughout the initiative’s evolution from 2013 to 2016.
Due to the exploratory nature of this study, a single-case study approach was most appropriate to explore this topic (Creswell, 2012; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2013). With case study methodology, the phenomenon was contextualized and explored more deeply. A representative single-case study approach was selected in order capture the conditions of an initiative demonstrating growth and transformation as they cultivate a digital citizenship culture district-wide. Digital citizenship has yet to be a widely-taught element of the curriculum or embedded across district-wide practices; thus, a representative single-case study approach helped shed light on organizational challenges faced by stakeholders when pursuing a culture of digital citizenship.
Regarding data sources, artifacts were collected and analyzed to determine how the district developed and sustained their digital citizenship efforts over the course of four years, from 2013 to 2016. Human participants were not interviewed nor observed. Artifacts examined ranged from memos to district plans and district policies, which were then subjected to analysis that provided insight into the process of change. Additionally, integrative memos (Emerson et al., 2011) were included as a data source serving as critical reflection pieces due to the researcher’s integral part on the digital citizenship team. All aspects of the district’s digital citizenship program, from resources developed to support implementation to the annual events organized to increase stakeholder awareness around this initiative, were documented and explored.
Due to a lack of instrumentation focused on digital citizenship, a content analysis protocol aligned to the theoretical framework was developed to provide meaningful insight regarding digital citizenship understanding. Validity for the content analysis protocol used for analysis was established through expert review and use of a theoretical framework (Bolman & Deal, 2013) as well as the literature to guide its design. The protocol was designed to identify elements as described by the political frame and the symbolic frame in order to analyze critical points of organizational change or lack thereof throughout the evolution of the initiative. The content analysis protocol also helped focus data collected across a variety of documents, which ranged from policies to staff memorandums that focused on the district’s digital citizenship efforts.
Data analysis occurred through four cycles of coding and analysis, allowing themes to emerge from the data alongside the theoretical framework that guided this study with the final analysis occurring through member checking and calibration, ensuring the analysis embedded participant interpretation and reflection (Boyatzis, 1998; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2013). The four cycles of coding and analysis were conducted (Stringer, 2013): 1) identify units of meaning through categorizing data; 2) use categories to create broader themes across the data; 3) enrich analysis by applying a theoretical framework; and 4) calibrate analysis with participants. Data analysis was conducted using qualitative research software, specifically Nvivo. As previously shared, 281 artifacts were analyzed for this study in total, of which I contributed to 181; of which I was the sole author of 53; and where 47 artifacts were created by others that were not under my or the team’s control in design and development.
Several steps were taken throughout the study to ensure trustworthiness, such as addressing confirmability, transferability, credibility, and dependability (Guba, 1981; Shenton, 2004). Confirmability was addressed by using multiple sources of evidence, such as member checking analyzed data with integral members of the digital citizenship team, collecting artifacts from both district leaders and external partners, and examining internal staff memorandums in order to triangulate data. The individuals responsible for the development and maintenance of the digital citizenship initiative were also invited to review a draft of study findings. Transferability was addressed through expert review of protocols and coding scheme by a senior researcher in addition to the use and application of an organizational leadership framework alongside a comprehensive review of the literature, which facilitated the transferability of study findings. Credibility was addressed through explanation-building using theoretical memos as an analytic strategy. Dependability was demonstrated through developing a protocol based on the theory and research. Additionally, dependability was addressed through the documentation of all procedures.
Findings revealed that the district’s complex organizational efforts were rooted in political and symbolic decisions that facilitated the influence of digital citizenship across policy and program implementation efforts. There were critical phases of organizational growth that emerged using a political and symbolic lens in order to provide a helpful guide for ways to engage in developing and sustaining an initiative as important and paradigm-shifting as digital citizenship.
District leaders play a pivotal role in shaping federally-mandated policies that impact how digital citizenship curriculum is developed and implemented in schools. Yet, for many school leaders, teaching about digital participation may appear as a daunting and unfamiliar practice. In fact, most educators do not participate in digital communities, in contrast to the large number of youth who do.
For educators who want to delve into digital citizenship, there currently exists a plethora of resources to support teachers in classroom-level integration of digital citizenship, but supports and resources for system-level, implementation remain limited. Moreover, these resources represent varied conceptualizations of digital citizenship, which results in inconsistent implementations of digital citizenship across classrooms, schools, and districts. Thus, how can district leaders such as superintendents, chief academic officers, or chief technology officers provide a cohesive and comprehensive digital citizenship program when the very conceptualization of digital citizenship remains unclear? Thus, this study aimed to address this important educational leadership need.
Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In P. Golle & G. Danezis (Eds.), Proceedings of 6th Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (pp. 36–58). Cambridge, UK: Robinson College.
Ahn, J., Bivona, L. K., & DiScala, J. (2011). Social media access in K‐12 schools: Intractable policy controversies in an evolving world. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1), 1-10.
American Library Association [ALA]. (2012, September 14). Digital literacy definition. Retrieved from http://connect.ala.org/node/181197
Alvermann, D. E. (2006). Technology use and needed research in youth literacies. In McKenna, M., Labbo, L., Kieffer, R., & Reinking, D. (Eds.), International Handbook of Literacy and Technology. (pp. 327 - 333). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Alvermann, D. E. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents' online literacies for classroom practice and research? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 8 - 19.
Blankenship, M. (2011). How social media can and should impact higher education. Education Digest, 76(7), 39-42.
Blume, H. (2013a, September 25). LAUSD halts home use of iPads for students after devices hacked. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lausd-ipad-hack-20130925-story.html
Blume, H. (2013b, September 30). L.A. Unified takes back iPads as $1-billion plan hits hurdles. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-1001-lausd-ipads-20131001-story.html
Blume, H., (2013c, December 1). Mixed reaction to iPad rollout from L.A. teachers and administrators. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-ipads-survey-20131202-story.html
Blume, H. (2015a, February 15). L.A. Schools can’t afford computers for all, Cortines says. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-la-school-district--computers-20150220-story.html.
Blume, H. (2015b, February 20). L.A. Unified says it can't afford 'computer for all' plan. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-lausd-cortines-20150221-story.html
Blume, H., Kim, V., & Rainey, J. (2014, December 2). FBI seizes LAUSD records related to troubled iPad program. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-lausd-ipads-20141203-story.html
Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles [BOE]. (2014, April 8). Regular meeting stamped revised order of business.
Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (5th ed.). Chicago: Jossey-Bass.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. sage.
boyd, d. (2008). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
boyd, D. (2014). It's Complicated: the social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.
boyd, d. & Ellison, N. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 13, p. 210-230.
Brown, V. R., & Vaughn, E. D. (2011). The writing on the (Facebook) wall: The use of social networking sites in hiring decisions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 219-225.
Chandler, R. (2013, June 8). Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) For District Computer and Network Systems. Los Angeles Unified School District Policy Bulletin.
Cohen, C. J., & Kahne, J. (2012). participatory politics. New media and youth political action.
Collins, A. & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in america. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Consortium of School Networking [CoSN]. (2013, March). Rethinking acceptable use policies to enable digital learning: A guide for school districts. Retrieved from http://www.cosn.org/sites/default/
Common Sense Education [CSE]. (2017a). Certification for educators, schools, and districts. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/educators/certification.
Common Sense Education [CSE]. (2017b). Scope & sequence: Common sense K-12 digital citizenship curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/educators/scope-and-sequence.
Common Sense Media [CSM]. (2017). What is digital literacy? Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/news-and-media-literacy/what-is-digital-literacy
Common Sense Media [CSM] (2009, June). Digital literacy and citizenship in the 21st Century: Educating, empowering, and protecting America’s kids. Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/council/groups/wg-cop/second-meeting-june-2010/CommonSenseDigitalLiteracy-CitizenshipWhitePaper.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
Culp, K., Honey, M. & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), p. 279–307.
Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Proceedings of the 13th Americas Conference on Information Systems. Retrieved from http://www.mendeley.com/
Edutopia. (2011, August 19). https://www.edutopia.org/article/digital-citizenship-resources.
Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press.
Gilbertson, A. (2013, September 13). Top school official resigns amid turn to new teaching standard. Retrieved from http://www.scpr.org/blogs/education/2013/09/13/14741/top-la-school-district-official-resigns/
Gilbertson, A. (2014, August 25). Updated: LA schools cancel iPad contracts after KPCC publishes internal emails. Retrieved from http://www.scpr.org/blogs/education/2014/08/25/17202/la-schools-cancel-ipad-contracts-after-kpcc-publis/
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ECTJ, 29(2), 75-91.
Hill, M. (2014, November 18). Responsible & Acceptable Use Policy (RAUP) for District Computer and Network Systems. Los Angeles Unified School District Policy Bulletin.
Hobbs, R. (2004). A review of school-based initiatives in media literacy education. The American Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), 42 - 59.
Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. The Aspen Institute.
Hobbs, R., & Frost, R. (2003). Measuring the acquisition of media‐literacy skills. Reading research quarterly, 38(3), 330-355.
Hobbs, R., & Jensen, A. (2013). The past, present, and future of media literacy education. Journal of media literacy education, 1(1), 1.
Hull, G. (1993). Critical literacy and beyond: Lessons learned from students and workers in a vocational program and on the job. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24, 308–317.
Instructional Technology Initiative [ITI]. (2016). Instructional Technology Initiative Task Force Recommendations. Retrieved from http://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/21/RECOMMENDATIONS.pdf
International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2016) ISTE Standards for Students. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/standards/for-students-2016#startstandards
International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2017). Digital citizenship defined: Teach the 9 elements to enhance students’ safety, creativity, and empathy. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/resources/product?ID=3980.
Ito, M., Antin, J., Finn, M., Law, A., Manion, A., Mitnick, S., Schlossberg, D., Yardi, S., & Horst, H. A. (2009). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. MIT press.
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Mit Press.
Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Smythe, T. (2009). The 2009 horizon report: K. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Creative Commons, 3.
Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2005). Toward critical media literacy: Core concepts, debates, organizations, and policy. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 26(3), 369-386.
Khazei, S. (2015, August 20). Responsible Use Policy (RUP) for District Computer and Network Systems. Los Angeles Unified School District Policy Bulletin.
KPCC. (2014, October 16). http://www.scpr.org/blogs/education/2014/10/16/17429/la-unified-s-superintendent-poised-to-resign/
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). Researching new literacies: Web 2.0 practices and insider perspectives. E-Learning, 4(3), p. 224–240.
Lee, C. (2015). Nurturing conscious digital natives. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/youth-radio-youth-media-international/nurturing-conscious-digit_b_6527954.html.
Lemke, C., Coughlin, E., Garcia, L., Reifsneider, D., & Baas, J. (2009). Web 2.0 in American schools: Administrators’ perspectives. Culver City, CA: Metiri Group.
Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). “Teens, privacy, & online social networks.” Pew Internet and American Life Project Report. Retrieved July 30, 2007 from http:// www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Privacy_SNS_Report_Final.pdf
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). “Social Media and Mobile Internet Use Among Teens and Young Adults.” Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-media-and-young-adults.aspx.
Mahiri, J. (2011). Digital tools in urban schools: Mediating a remix of learning. University of Michigan Press.
Margolin, J., Heppen, J., Haynes, E., Ruedel, K., Meakin, J., Rickles, J., Samkian, A., O’Brien, B., Surr, W., & Fellers, L. (2015). Evaluation of LAUSD’s Instructional Technology Initiative. Washington D.C.: American Institutes for Research.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Monterosa, V. (January 2015). Developing digital citizens. In Association of California School Administrators (ACSA), Leadership, 30-33. Retrieved from http://home.lausd.net/apps/news/article/429466.
Morrell, E. (2002). Toward a critical pedagogy of popular culture: Literacy development among urban youth. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(1), 72-77.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship. The internet, society, and participation, 1.
Mossberger, K. (2009). Toward digital citizenship. Addressing inequality in the information age. Routledge handbook of Internet politics, 173-185.
Newcombe, T. (2015, May 14). http://www.govtech.com/education/What-Went-Wrong-with-LA-Unifieds-iPad-Program.html
O’Keeffe, G. & Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). The impact of social media on children, adolescents, and families. Pediatrics, p. 800-804.
Prensky, M. (2004). The emerging online life of the digital native. Retrieved August, 7, 2008.
Ohler, J. (2011). Digital citizenship means character education for the digital age. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(sup1), 25-27.
Perez, A. (2013, August 14). No iPads on first day of classes for students in LA Unified. Retrieved from http://www.scpr.org/blogs/education/2013/08/14/14511/no-ipads-on-first-day-of-classes-for-students-in-l/
Purcell, K., & Salmond, K. (2011). "Trends in Teen Communication and Social Media Use: What’s Really Going On Here?" Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Presentations/2011/Feb/PIP-Girl-Scout-Webinar.aspx
Ribble, M. (2011). Digital citizenship in schools. International Society for Technology in Education.
Rideout, V., Foehr, U., & Roberts, D. (2010). "GENERATION M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds." Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/entmedia
Romo, V. (2013, February 12). LAUSD board votes down proposed staff layoffs; approves iPads. Retrieved from http://www.scpr.org/blogs/education/2013/02/12/12532/lausd-backtracks-school-board-votes-down-proposed-/
Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (No. 14). Sage.
Sánchez Abril, P., Levin, A., & Del Riego, A. (2012). Blurred boundaries: Social media privacy and the twenty‐first‐century employee. American Business Law Journal, 49(1), 63-124.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63-75.
Sheppard, J. (2009). The rhetorical work of multimedia production practices: It's more than just technical skill. Computers and Composition, 26(2), 122-131.
Singer, N. (2013). They loved your G.P.A. Then they saw your tweets. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/business/they-loved-your-gpa-then-they-saw-your-tweets.html
Smythe, S., & Neufeld, P. (2010). “Podcast time”: Negotiating digital literacies and communities of learning in a middle years ELL classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(6), 488-496.
Soep, E. (2012). The digital afterlife of youth-made media: Implications for media literacy education. Comunicar, 19(38), 93-100.
Soep, E. (2014). Participatory politics: Next-generation tactics to remake public spheres. MIT Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. ed: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stringer, E. T. (2013). Action research. Sage Publications.
Tynes, B. & Monterosa, V. (2014). The making of a global citizen: A model of supporting civic learning opportunities among urban Latino youth. In E. Middaugh & B. Kirshner (Eds.), #YouthAction: Becoming political in the digital age. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology [OET]. (2015). Future Ready Learning: Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/NETP16.pdf
Watkins, S.C. (2012). Digital divide: Navigating the Digital Edge. International Journal of Learning and Media, 3(2), 1 - 12.
Williams, A. & Merten, M. (2008). A review of online social networking profiles by adolescents: Implications for future research and intervention. Adolescence, 43, p. 253-274.
Yeung, C. M. A., Liccardi, I., Lu, K., Seneviratne, O., & Berners-Lee, T. (2009, January). Decentralization: The future of online social networking. In W3C Workshop on the Future of Social Networking Position Papers (Vol. 2, pp. 2-7).
As a scholar-practitioner, Dr. Vanessa Monterosa works at the intersection of education, access, and technology. She currently serves as a Program & Policy Development Specialist for the Los Angeles Unified School District, coordinating the ITI Task Force and producing district-wide reports on instructional technology practices. Dr. Monterosa received an Ed.M. in Technology, Innovation, Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education where she focused her studies on developing mobile learning games. She received her doctorate in Educational Leadership at California State University, Long Beach, where she engaged in praxis, leveraging her digital citizenship work for a qualitative dissertation case study.