Empowering an active and ethical (digital) generation is a key policy goal for education ministries across the OECD. This chapter explores the subject of digital citizenship in all of its complexity, including the competencies to actively, responsibly and positively engage in online and offline communities. When online, even the most skilled digital citizens are likely to encounter cyber risks such as cyberbullying, sexting and revenge porn, as well as threats to their security and privacy. As well as victims, children can be the perpetrators themselves of these online misdemeanours. The anonymity and invisibility that the Internet provides can prompt children to act differently online than they might offline. This underscores the need for education systems to promote ethical online behaviour. This chapter explores how countries deal with digital risks through policies aimed at protection and promoting resilience, and highlights how they encourage active, ethical and empowered use of digital tools.
Educating 21st Century Children
Chapter 12. Empowering an active and ethical (digital) generation
Abstract
Developing digital citizenship
In education systems around the world, an increasing emphasis has been placed on digital citizenship. Interest in academic and policy spheres has resulted in a number of different definitions, but in a broad sense digital citizenship can be conceptualised as norms of behaviour regarding the use of digital technologies (Ribble, Bailey and Ross, 2004[1]). It requires both educational and technological competence, as well as access to technology (Mossberger, Tolbert and McNeal, 2008[2]).
In addition, digital citizens possess the competences to actively, responsibly and positively engage in online and offline communities (Council of Europe, 2019[3]). Some scholars argue for inclusion of online civic engagement in the digital literacy definition (Jones and Mitchell, 2016[4]), alongside respectful and tolerant behaviour towards others (UNICEF, 2017[5]).
In the 21st Century Children Policy Questionnaire, 13 systems out of the 24 that responded to this section identified developing digital citizenship as a pressing challenge in their context (see Chapter 2). This online challenge was often mentioned as having offline implications – responses highlighted that digital citizenship can contribute positively to personal development and to society as a whole, and that this can be developed in tandem with skills/knowledge pertaining to moral and civic education more generally.
The main themes that emerged from this section of the Policy Questionnaire were:
the need to be responsible and respectful online
the importance of offline implications (i.e. negative or maladaptive behaviours in online spaces can affect offline behaviour patterns as well)
safety concerns – recognising harmful/threatening behaviour, exposure to non‑ethical Internet usage
media literacy.
This chapter looks at policies and practices to strengthen and build digital citizenship, as well as some of the risks and conduct issues that arise with Internet use. These include cyberbullying, revenge porn and sexting, and security and protection of data. The chapter ends with a look at building resilience and the ethical dimension of the digital world.
Policies and practices for building digital citizenship
Digital citizenship encompasses different facets. Firstly, it requires competent and positive engagement with digital technologies, thereby allowing children to create content, socialise, use digital tools to play, communicate and learn, and to work and share. It also requires active and responsible participation, the continuous defending of human dignity and also entails lifelong learning in formal, non-formal and informal contexts (Council of Europe, 2019[3]).
A set of essential digital skills are required in order to access digital resources and platforms, as well as an understanding of how to apply critical thinking in digital spaces and being able to interpret, understand and express oneself through digital means. Countries use curricular reform, development of independent bodies and teacher training programmes to develop and strengthen the digital citizenship of their students. Table 12.1 below outlines some of the approaches countries take to build digital citizenship.
Table 12.1. Targeting digital citizenship
Source: 21st Century Children Policy Questionnaire
A number of education systems have embedded the teaching of digital skills (see Chapter 11), as well as information and media literacy programmes in their strategies to target digital citizenship. These approaches either involve development of a new curriculum, or integration of digital media and skills training into the existing curriculum either as an independent unit of study or through already existing courses, or a mix of both approaches. Some systems address digital citizenship education more explicitly, such as in Saskatchewan (Canada) with Digital Citizenship Education in Saskatchewan Schools, which spans kindergarten to Grade 12 (the last year of high school).
Focus on teaching
Approaches targeting digital citizenship are most effective if they include a component that works to build the digital skills of teachers themselves (Choi, Cristol and Gimbert, 2018[7]). However, explicit training in many of these areas is not always widely available to teachers, as shown in Figure 12.1.
While over half of the 24 systems that responded to this question in the Policy Questionnaire reported that educating students in digital citizenship and digital literacy was either required or widely available, an almost equal number reported that these topics were only covered in some programmes or not widely available. Even more strikingly, despite the policy attention paid to cyber risks, educating students in online risks was the least commonly required element included in initial and continuing professional development of teachers. These findings align with the results from the TALIS survey, in which teachers have consistently reported a high need for professional development in the use of ICT for teaching over the last 10 years (OECD, 2019[8]).
Figure 12.1. Digital skills in teacher education (initial and continuous)
Note: Responses indicate the proportion of systems that confirmed the topics were covered in existing teacher education in their systems. 24 countries and systems responded to this question.
Source: 21st Century Children Policy Questionnaire
The importance of multi-stakeholder involvement in building digital citizenship
The most effective strategies to promote digital citizenship and are those that involve a multi-stakeholder, multi-sectoral approach, including engagement from parents and children themselves (Byrne et al., 2016[9]), see also Chapter 13).
However, empowering parents to guide their children online requires them to have the necessary digital skills to do this effectively. This is challenging on two levels. First, research has demonstrated that on average, parents tend to have higher digital literacy skills than their children until they reach around 12 years of age. After a short period of similar skill level, on average children have surpassed their parents by the age of 15. This systematically results in parents not necessarily being able to appropriately guide their older children in their online experiences (Byrne et al., 2016[9]).
Second, not all children are able to turn to their parents. Children from disadvantaged homes are more likely to have parents with lower digital skills, and those parents are less likely to be involved in their schooling. Conflicts with work schedules, childcare needs, transportation problems, lack of familiarity with the institution and not speaking the same language as the teacher are just some of the participation barriers faced by parents (OECD, 2017[10]). This makes the involvement of schools and the broader community even more important for building digital citizenship and digital skills more generally.
One interesting example of an initiative involving both the broader community and technology experts comes from Google. ‘Creators for Change’ is a global programme consisting of fifty ambassadors with the responsibility to reach adolescents aged 13-15 years old and educate them about digital citizenship. Google also seeks to reach children coming from disadvantaged backgrounds by creating a curriculum similar to the ‘Creators for Change’ programme as well as by partnering with other businesses and organisations that seek to enhance the digital skills of disadvantaged youth. Recognising that poor digital literacy skills of parents can also have a negative effect on child digital literacy, the programme also pays particular attention to parental engagement.
Active and empowered use comes with risks
Some of the key components of digital citizenship include active, positive and responsible online engagement. However, with active online use comes a number of cyber risks (see Chapters 2 and 10), and some research suggests that higher information literacy and digital skill, coupled with high usage, makes children more likely to encounter online risks (Livingstone and Helsper, 2010[11]; Park, Na and Kim, 2014[12]). These risks can stand as barriers to active, effective and engaged online participation for many children, and they are also sources of considerable worry among parents and policy makers alike. The following sections highlight selected risks and the policy responses education systems use to overcome these challenges.
Cyberbullying
Cyberbullying has been defined as the aggressive targeting of a victim through digital technologies by peers (Levy et al., 2012[13]), although this definition is not always agreed upon. While it shares many similarities with traditional face-to-face bullying, the potential anonymity of online spaces, as well as the potential to reach victims despite lack of physical proximity, are important differences from traditional bullying (Kowalski et al., 2014[14]; Livingstone, Stoilova and Kelly, 2016[15]). Levels of digital literacy can affect both perpetrators and victims. For example, a greater level of digital literacy for a cyberbully may help create the power imbalance which is inherent in many forms of bullying (Görzig and Machackova, 2015[16]).
Although high on policy agendas, it is not that clear that rates of cyberbullying are increasing, despite perceptions of rising risk of harm (Livingstone, Stoilova and Kelly, 2016[15]). The latest UNESCO report on bullying around the world (including cyberbullying) suggests that levels of bullying are decreasing (UNESCO, 2019[17]). Certainly the rates of cyberbullying are lower than many people believe – on average across countries in 2014, about 12% of children reported that they had been cyberbullied (Livingstone et al., 2014[18]). However, up-to-date and comparable data in this field is currently lacking.
It is important to note that bullying and cyberbullying are understood and defined differently in different countries. In some, emphasis is placed on harassment, social exclusion or social status, while in others it might also include incidents that happen within the school context (Livingstone, Stoilova and Kelly, 2016[15]). The Digital Child Protection Strategy of Hungary, for example, takes a very broad definition of cyberbullying, including behaviours such as denigration, exclusion, sexting, cyberstalking, “outing” (i.e. unauthorised sharing of secrets or personal information with others) and “flaming” (i.e. using furious or obscene language in online arguments, or posting offensive, often irrelevant comments about someone in a public forum).
In the 21st Century Children Policy Questionnaire, 20 systems identified cyberbullying as a challenge in their context, while 15 identified it as one of the most pressing challenges (see Chapter 2). Countries and systems reported concern about the prevalence of cyberbullying, how newsworthy it is and that it affects and is affected by factors such as gender, emotional well-being/mental health, suicide and digital citizenship more broadly.
Cyberbullying is a particularly difficult issue for education systems to address, in part due to the ubiquity of digital technology and also because it often takes place outside of school. Cyberbullying usually does not occur in isolation and is often linked to offline bullying (Waasdorp and Bradshaw, 2015[19]; Baldry, Farrington and Sorrentino, 2015[20]).
Systems can have difficulty finding effective solutions, schools might be disorganised regarding implementation of these solutions, and online victimisation can be anonymous, all of which can be obstacles in dealing with cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is also a challenge that encompasses other issues such as revenge porn and sexting.
Box 12.1. Online bullying, offline implications
Cyberbullying can have far-reaching consequences, including depression (Brunstein Klomek et al., 2007[21]; Bauman, Toomey and Walker, 2013[22]; Van Geel, Vedder and Tanilon, 2014[23]), stress (Kowalski et al., 2014[14]), anxiety and sleep disorders (Swearer and Hymel, 2015[24]). It can also affect academic performance: across OECD countries, low performers in PISA tend to report greater exposure to bullying (OECD, 2017[10]).While cyberbullying might not be occurring at “epidemic” levels, children who experienced bullying on- or offline are more likely to have suicidal thoughts or attempt suicide than those who did not have these experiences (Hinduja and Patchin, 2010[25]).
High profile cases have spurred policy development in a number of different countries. In Australia, for example, the 2018 suicide of Amy “Dolly” Everett prompted the Council of Australian Governments to form a working group of senior officials across different levels and sectors of government (e.g. Education and Justice), focused on recommending actions to target (cyber)bullying. In the French Speaking Community of Belgium, a 16-year-old suicide victim, Louise, is at the centre of a cyberbullying awareness campaign. In Canada, the suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons in Nova Scotia in 2013 prompted provincial and national level inquiries. In another report from Saskatchewan an overwhelming number of youth cited cyberbullying or bullying on social media or over texting as a contributing factor to youth taking their lives (Saskatchewan Advocate for Children and Youth, 2017[26]).
However, the best way to combat cyberbullying is not always clear. Sabella, Patchin and Hinduja (2013[27]) suggest a list of “myths” regarding cyberbullying. They include:
Everyone knows what cyberbullying is.
Cyberbullying is occurring at epidemic levels.
Cyberbullying causes suicide.
Cyberbullying occurs more often now than traditional bullying.
Like traditional bullying, cyberbullying is a rite of passage.
Cyberbullies are outcasts or just mean kids.
To stop cyberbullying, just turn off your computer or cell phone.
The ubiquity of technology and the opportunities it offers make it both unrealistic and counter-productive to suggest turning off or banning devices. Therefore, approaches should focus on enhancing digital citizenship, dealing with aggression, traditional bullying and violence in the school, and coordinating mental health and suicide prevention programmes to help support all students, especially the most vulnerable.
Policies and practices for cyberbullying
There are a number of anti-bullying policies and initiatives in place across the countries and systems that responded to the Policy Questionnaire. Some of these initiatives specifically target cyberbullying, others include it as a component of a more general anti‑bullying framework, whereas still others refer more broadly to bullying as an umbrella term.
Information campaigns and teacher training are important steps in tackling cyberbullying for children. When adults understand online safety and are capable users of digital technologies, they also tend to be more successful in guiding children’s digital use. Therefore, a crucial step in ensuring online safety for children is to disseminate information and train teachers and parents on online safety, and give advice on how to help children manage online risks (Livingstone, Davidson and Bryce, 2017[28]). Furthermore, adopting whole-school approaches in resolving online issues can help members of the broader educational community protect and support students online, and coherent policies addressing cyberbullying and traditional bullying are essential (Hooft Graafland, 2018[29]).
One of the biggest challenges is measuring the effectiveness of cyberbullying campaigns or policies. Firstly, without a clear, agreed upon definition, it is difficult to understand what to measure and how to do so, as methodologies also tend to differ across surveys (Volk, Veenstra and Espelage, 2017[30]). This hampers the comparability of research findings in the field. In addition, on a national or subnational level, many systems have limited available data (see Chapter 10). Those that do collect data on cyberbullying, such as the National Statistics Bureau in Netherlands, do not necessarily look at the effectiveness of specific measures. Some systems, such as Ireland have a more formalised evaluation process whereby the Department of Education and Skills inspectorate checks school compliance to the action plan, however many programmes lack effective evaluation measures.
Sexting and revenge porn
Sexting involves the “creating, sharing and forwarding of sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude images” by individuals (Lenhart, 2009[31]). Revenge porn refers to posting nude images of non-consenting individuals online (Stroud, 2014[32]).
16 countries and systems who responded to the Policy Questionnaire identified sexting as a challenge in their context and three identified this as a pressing challenge (Latvia, Netherlands and Portugal). Sharing sexually explicit images or videos can be illegal, especially if the subject is underage. It can also lead to sextortion (i.e. threatening to publicly publish images if the subject does not pay a bribe, see Chapter 10).
Sexting is not uncommon, despite the fact that adolescents report understanding that their sexually explicit photos can be used later for coercion or blackmail (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016[33]). However, it is difficult to accurately estimate its prevalence: studies from the United States using nationally representative samples of teens vary in estimates from 2.5% to 24%. Indeed, across studies, sexting can be measured in very different ways, making any kind of cross-study or national comparison difficult (Kosenko, Luurs and Binder, 2017[34]). Some research suggests girls are more likely to feel pressured into sending sexts and tend to report more negative sexting experiences than boys (Burén and Lunde, 2018[35]), and this might be done out of fear that they could lose their romantic partner (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016[33]). On the contrary, other results suggest that girls are less inclined to engage in sexting (Walrave et al., 2015[36]).
Table 12.2. Targeting cyberbullying: Country policies and practices
Source: 21st Century Children Policy Questionnaire
As highlighted in Chapter 10, sexism and gender stereotyping appear to play a significant role in the ‘culture of sharing’. There is also potentially a ‘moral blind spot’ around sexting compared to other behaviours. In one Canadian study, a large number of young people used moral disengagement mechanisms to justify non-consensual sharing of intimate images. These mechanisms included i) justifying an action (e.g. ‘sharing a sext of a girl raises the awareness of other girls’), ii) shifting responsibility (e.g. ‘one does not have the power to stop the sharing of sexts’), iii) blaming the victim (e.g. ‘sharing of a sext is the fault of the girl who originally sent it’) and iv) denying the harm (e.g. ‘sharing sexts is so common, nobody cares about it’) (Johnson et al., 2018, pp. 12-13[37])..
Only 12 countries identified revenge porn as a challenge in their national context, with one (Netherlands) identifying it as one of their most pressing challenges. Many countries in recent years have taken note of revenge porn and have been working hard to legislate against it and to protect victims. From 2013-2016, the number of OECD and BRICS countries that enacted national laws on revenge porn increased from 1 to 16 (OECD, 2016[38]), and more have done so since then.
Policies and practices addressing sexting and revenge porn
Addressing sexting and revenge porn is multifaceted, in part due to legal but also emotional ramifications. Launching legal investigations or police interventions can present additional challenges for schools, especially if the violation took place outside of school. Some approaches countries have taken are summarised in Table 12.3. While there is little research on the ramifications on emotional well-being of revenge porn, early research in the field suggests revenge porn survivors are prone to facing a number of mental health concerns such as anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts (Bates, 2016[39]). This highlights the need for robust policy actions to protect individuals, especially minors, from revenge porn.
Table 12.3. Initiatives addressing sexting and revenge porn
Source: 21st Century Children Policy Questionnaire and OECD (2016[38])
Security and privacy
By virtue of being online, people leave trails of personal data and sensitive and confidential data can be stored on servers around the world. With the rise of data breaches over the past fifteen years (OECD, 2019[40]) cyber-security is at the forefront of many online discussions. Phishing for personal information, surveillance, industrial-scale data processing and behavioural advertising based on personal information online are all risks children face when they go online.
One of the biggest challenges in working to secure and protect children’s data is whether or not they understand the consequences for their own privacy. Unsurprisingly, their ability to do this depends on age and maturity, as well as their digital literacy skills. Recent work from Livingstone and Stoilova (2018[41]) has revealed that children aged 5-7 already have a sense of privacy rules, although they struggle to comprehend the consequences of their actions. By 8-11, privacy management is governed more by rules than internalised behaviours. By 12-17 years, children and youth are aware of privacy risks and they assess opportunities and risks, but tend to focus on short-term benefits when making a decision.
A number of systems recognise issues of security and privacy as pressing in their national or regional contexts and countries are increasingly working to address these issues legislatively (see Chapter 10). Of the countries and systems responding to the 21st Century Children Policy Questionnaire, 17 identified online security and privacy to be a challenge in their context; five systems identified this as one of the most pressing challenges (Denmark, Flemish Community of Belgium, France, Norway and Scotland).
In some countries this is a priority due to the recent implementation of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) initiative (see Box 12.2).
Box 12.2. GDPR
The European Union (EU) Charter of Fundamental Rights stipulates the right EU citizens have to the protection of their personal data (European Union, 2012[42]). Accordingly, in 2016 the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force for all EU member states in order to overcome the fragmentation across countries and to clarify rights and rules in the digital age regarding personal data. All EU countries are subject to the GDPR legislation. However, a number of EU countries adopt national legislation or implement policies that go further than GDPR.
The GDPR cover all individuals within the EU and EEA as well as the export of their personal data outside of these areas. One single set of rules applies to all EU member states and EEA states, and requires consent of personal data processing unless there is an existing legal basis to do so.
The GDPR includes tenets such as the “right to erasure” (previously the “right to be forgotten”). In addition, each data subject has legal obligations to notify data breaches to supervisory authority, a right of access (i.e. citizens have rights to access personal data as well as information on how these data are being processed), and the pseudonymisation (not anonymisation) when storing personal data.
The extraterritorial applicability of the regulation means it applies to all companies processing personal data of data subjects residing in the EU or EEA, regardless of where the company is physically based. Breaching GDPR comes with a large financial cost; up to 4% of annual global turnover or EUR 20 000 (whichever is greater) is the maximum fine that can be imposed on the most serious infringements of the regulation.
Policies and practices
It is not always easy to translate security policy at the operational level in education. Some systems take a national approach to data protection, whereas others take a decentralised approach and leave policies and implementation up to the jurisdiction of regional or local authorities, sometimes even down to the level of individual schools. Table 12.4 provides an overview of country initiatives to protect student data and privacy.
Table 12.4. Initiatives addressing security, privacy and student data protection
Source: 21st Century Children Policy Questionnaire; Hungary’s Digital Child Protection Strategy
Ensuring the effective protection of student data will require data security and privacy training for people managing education information systems. This is because individual users are more likely to be the weakest links of the chain in data protection than the technical systems themselves (Jardine, 2015[43]). In addition, no matter the policy, it is important that while protecting children online, their independence and autonomy must also be respected (UNICEF, 2017[5]).
Building digital resilience
It is important to identify which children are more vulnerable to digital risks in order to help build resilience. Risk factors include (1) personality factors such as sensation-seeking, low self-esteem and psychological difficulties, (2) social factors such as the lack of parental support and peer norms, and (3) digital factors such as specific online practices, online sites and skills (Livingstone et al., 2014[18]; Anderson, Steen and Stavropoulos, 2017[44]).
At home, many parents use rules, time limits and bans on particular activities or content. These restrictive strategies are associated with fewer risks, but come at the cost of digital opportunities. Parents who are more confident in their own or their children’s digital skills take a less restrictive approach. By encouraging digital activity and sharing it with children, such parents create a safer environment without hindering children’s agency and learning, helping them better manage risk and learn when things go wrong (Livingstone, Davidson and Bryce, 2017[28]). This suggests that interventions targeting the skills of both parents and children can increase children’s resilience and expand their opportunities.
Schools can contribute to students’ risk resilience in a number of ways (OECD, 2018[45]), including training for teachers on digital risks and their implications, fostering a zero-tolerance culture to behaviours such as cyberbullying and introducing online ethics and safety learning opportunities into the curriculum, offering spaces for adult and peer mentoring so that students can discuss practical implications of digital engagement and improve their levels of empathy and self-control (Harrison-Evans and Krasodomski-Jones, 2017[46]; Hutson, Kelly and Militello, 2017[47]; Döring, 2014[48]). In addition to school level policy, there are also a number of broader initiatives that are available to help protect children and build their resilience to online risks (see Box 12.3).
Box 12.3. eSafety initiatives in Europe
The eSafety Kit is available in Austria, the French and Flemish communities of Belgium, Czech Republic, Ireland, Greece, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Spain. This interactive portal provides children with eSafety tips such as taking breaks and protecting posture, keeping email addresses and personal information safe, thinking before posting and ignoring cyberbullies. It shares links and phone numbers to national and international websites/hotlines and sites that publish where children can legally download things such as music. Each national eSafety kit also has a resource section for teachers and parents. For example, in the teacher space there are downloadable quizzes that can be administered to students aged 6-12 on topics such as cyberbullying and “smart surfing”, as well as a quiz on chat acronyms such as “ilu” (I love U). The parent section has a guide to keeping kids safe online, and a family fun booklet filled with activities.
Better Internet for Kids (BIK) is a service platform developed and maintained by the European Schoolnet on behalf of the European Commission. Besides providing information and materials to the public, it also provides a safe and closed space for youth to meet with youth coordinators from their national Safer Internet Centre to share ideas, discuss and debate. The BIK platform provides information about hotlines to anonymously report dangerous or illegal online material (i.e. child sexual abuse material), and Safer Internet Day, which raises awareness of emerging online issues as well as contact details for national helplines.
Respecting others and netiquette
Children participate in many different online spaces, ranging from social media to forums and multiplayer games. Many children create profiles on sites such as Instagram and Facebook using their real names and photos, which is sometimes even required by the platform. However, sites such as Reddit and YouTube, and gaming sites such as Fortnite, allow users to engage with other users under the guise of avatars and usernames, thereby providing anonymity and invisibility.
Online anonymity can stimulate disinhibition, and can prompt users to say and do things online that they would not ordinarily say and do in offline settings. This can be both positive and negative: For example, children can disclose more about themselves than they would in person, which can stimulate closeness between friends (see Chapter 5). However, it can also open the door for threats to their online security or privacy. It is thus important for children to understand online norms and to learn how to maintain respect and behave ethically online, especially as some youth believe that online spaces provide them with relatively anonymous, safe spaces, free from judgment, immediate consequences or direct criticism (Runions and Bak, 2015[49]; Suler, 2004[50]).
Ethical online behaviour extends beyond action and includes reactions to others. For example, young people may perceive aggression that occurs online differently, thereby affecting their willingness to intervene in online altercations between bullies and victims (making them “cyberbystanders”). The lack of physical and verbal cues, such as body language and tone, can make it difficult to understand online intentions, making it easier for children to ignore potential aggression and avoid becoming involved. Furthermore, in comparison to the school environment, there is a lack of clearly established authority figures and rules in online spaces (Patterson, Allan and Cross, 2016[51]). This might affect how children see they can report online transgressions, and to whom. Table 12.5 sets out some of the elements involved.
While the Table above focuses mainly on negative implications, some of these disinhibiting factors can empower children by allowing them to express themselves freely, stimulating their online creativity, and can also enhance closeness between friends whether mixed-mode or virtual. The anonymity of online spaces can provide opportunities for youth in historically marginalised groups such LGBTQ+ to explore their identity, participate in online discussion and come out digitally (Craig and McInroy, 2014[52]).
Netiquette
Netiquette, combining the net of Internet with etiquette, generally refers to acceptable online behaviour. The examples relayed throughout this chapter such as cyberbullying, and engaging in sexting or revenge porn, showcase examples of bad netiquette and can be detrimental for children’s well-being and online participation.
In the literature, netiquette can be measured in different ways. For example, Park and colleagues (2014[12]) used six questions in their survey such as “It is not a crime to bully someone online because it is not in a face-to-face interaction”, “It is okay to insult somebody by criticising them online because everyone has freedom of expression” and “It is okay to share sexual material or harmful online content online, including sending them through mobile phones for fun” to assess netiquette in a sample of South Korean adolescents. Kumazaki and colleagues (2011[53]) used a different scale, including items asking whether respondents thought certain behaviours online were wrong such as creating and spreading rumours, impersonating others online, sharing login information with friends and participating in online polls about fellow classmates while knowing this could hurt others. As is the case with other online phenomena, the definitions and ways of measuring netiquette are not consistent across the literature, and generally focus on maladaptive online behaviours.
An example of a positive angle is the use of social platforms to extend children’s social relationships and contribute to their social and political engagement. One such example are ‘flop accounts’ collectively managed by youngsters that act as fora where challenging social and political topics are discussed. The shared nature of these platforms have the added benefit of allowing trusted peers to step in to defend an individual in case of, for instance, cyberbullying. These shared accounts can also be used for negative purposes, of course.
Other topics that feature frequently in the netiquette literature include “trolling”, which can refer to causing disruption or triggering/exacerbating conflict online for one’s own amusement (Hardaker, 2010[54]), although, as with netiquette, definitions and behaviours that fall under the trolling umbrella vary (Cook, Schaafsma and Antheunis, 2017[55]). Scholars suggest that using the Internet allows for increased opportunities for aggression, as well as the willingness or ability to override inhibition as factors explaining why some individuals are more likely to act aggressively online (Anderson and Bushman, 2002[56]). However, this is indeed not the case for many children and teens engaging in online spaces; some youth are just more susceptible to succumbing to the impact of disinhibition online and to engaging in aggressive or immoral behaviour, which is a relatively understudied phenomenon (Kurek, Jose and Stuart, 2019[57]).
Dealing with challenges to ethical online use such as cyberbullying not only requires fostering netiquette but also developing social and emotional skills. Across the literature, bullying is consistently reported as one of the biggest predictors of cyberbullying (Chen, Ho and Lwin, 2017[58]). More broadly, propensity to misbehave online (i.e. engaging in deviant behaviour such as illegal downloading or accessing pornography) is strongly correlated with misbehaving offline (Selwyn, 2008[59]; Kim and Kim, 2015[60]). Therefore, addressing challenges children face in digital spheres involves online scrutiny and a host of other measures. For example, using a whole school approach that encompasses traditional anti-bullying approaches, development of social and emotional skills such as tolerance, empathy, co-operation and emotional control, can be effective measures in targeting cyberbullying. Fostering empathy through school‑based programmes may be an effective measure in reducing aggression in adolescents (Castillo et al., 2013[61]), which is related to cyberbullying (Park, Na and Kim, 2014[12]).
Teachers can encourage students to critically but respectfully engage in informed discussions while building their digital confidence, motivation and skills. Schools can emphasise the production and sharing of digital content (Kahne, Hodgin and Eidman-Aadahl, 2016[62]), as well as discussions on digital behaviour and its ethical implications (Harrison-Evans and Krasodomski-Jones, 2017[46]). Parents have an important role to play too; support for families in ensuring they monitor adolescents’ behaviour and set clear rules to establish appropriate behaviour can be important in bullying prevention (Hemphill and Heerde, 2014[63]) (Wang and Xing, 2018[64]).
One key issue relates to privacy. Social networking sites are considered "private spaces", and the right to privacy must be balanced with discussions about what is appropriate to share and not. The permanent nature of content in the virtual world – and the fact that everything that is posted is likely to persist long after graduation – changes the definition of what is considered "appropriate content". Using social media profiles specifically created for school activity might be one way to overcome such concerns. Discussions, guidance and examples of how this has played out in work searches, political campaigns and other public spheres are also helpful.
In sum
With the rise of technology use at home and in the classroom, developing digital citizenship has been a priority in countries around the world. Ensuring children are active, engaged and respectful online is essential to fostering digital skill development and inclusion of even the most marginalised of children.
The reality of being online is that children, despite their digital skill level, will be exposed to risks. Some of these include cyberbullying, sexting, revenge porn, and security and privacy breeches. By encouraging children to be resilient and to engage in ethical online behaviours, they will be more able to overcome online challenges, and can avoid becoming perpetrators or idle bystanders themselves. For governments and ministries, this will involve implementing policies to give children (and parents) the tools and knowledge to protect themselves online, establishing and disseminating clear information concerning illegal online and offline activity, and will also require the implementation of strong social and emotional learning programmes. Strong development of these skills will help children in their online and offline resilience, and may play a role in reducing online aggression and transgressions.
References
[56] Anderson, C. and B. Bushman (2002), “Human aggression”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 53/1, pp. 27-51, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231.
[44] Anderson, E., E. Steen and V. Stavropoulos (2017), “Internet use and Problematic Internet Use: A systematic review of longitudinal research trends in adolescence and emergent adulthood”, International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, Vol. 22/4, pp. 430-454, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2016.1227716.
[20] Baldry, A., D. Farrington and A. Sorrentino (2015), “’Am I at risk of cyberbullying’? A narrative review and conceptual framework for research on risk of cyberbullying and cybervictimization: The risk and needs assessment approach”, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 36-51, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.AVB.2015.05.014.
[39] Bates, S. (2016), “Revenge porn and mental health”, Feminist Criminology, Vol. 12/1, pp. 22-42, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1557085116654565.
[22] Bauman, S., R. Toomey and J. Walker (2013), “Associations among bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide in high school students”, Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 36/2, pp. 341-350, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.ADOLESCENCE.2012.12.001.
[21] Brunstein Klomek, A. et al. (2007), “Bullying, depression, and suicidality in adolescents”, Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 46/1, pp. 40-49, http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.CHI.0000242237.84925.18.
[35] Burén, J. and C. Lunde (2018), “Sexting among adolescents: A nuanced and gendered online challenge for young people”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 85, pp. 210-217, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2018.02.003.
[9] Byrne, J. et al. (2016), Global Kids Online Research Synthesis, 2015-2016.
[61] Castillo, R. et al. (2013), “Effects of an emotional intelligence intervention on aggression and empathy among adolescents”, Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 36/5, pp. 883-892, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.07.001.
[58] Chen, L., S. Ho and M. Lwin (2017), “A meta-analysis of factors predicting cyberbullying perpetration and victimization: From the social cognitive and media effects approach”, New Media & Society, Vol. 19/8, pp. 1194-1213, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444816634037.
[7] Choi, M., D. Cristol and B. Gimbert (2018), “Teachers as digital citizens: The influence of individual backgrounds, internet use and psychological characteristics on teachers’ levels of digital citizenship”, Computers & Education, Vol. 121, pp. 143-161, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2018.03.005.
[55] Cook, C., J. Schaafsma and M. Antheunis (2017), “Under the bridge: An in-depth examination of online trolling in the gaming context”, New Media & Society, Vol. 20/9, pp. 3323-3340, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444817748578.
[3] Council of Europe (2019), Digital Citizenship Education Handbook, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.
[52] Craig, S. and L. McInroy (2014), “You can form a part of yourself online: The influence of new media on identity development and coming out for LGBTQ youth”, Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, Vol. 18/1, pp. 95-109, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2013.777007.
[48] Döring, N. (2014), “Consensual sexting among adolescents: Risk prevention through abstinence education or safer sexting?”, Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, Vol. 8/1, http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/cp2014-1-9.
[42] European Union (2012), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union, www.eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT.
[16] Görzig, A. and H. Machackova (2015), “Cyberbullying from a socio-ecological perspective: A contemporary synthesis of findings from EU Kids Online”, No. 36, MEDIA@LSE Working Paper Series, www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/mediaWorkingPapers/.
[54] Hardaker, C. (2010), “Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions”, Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, Vol. 6/2, pp. 215-242, http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.011.
[46] Harrison-Evans, P. and A. Krasodomski-Jones (2017), The Moral Web: Youth Character, Ethics and Behaviour, Demos, London, https://demos.co.uk/project/the-moral-web/.
[63] Hemphill, S. and J. Heerde (2014), “Adolescent predictors of young adult cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among Australian youth”, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 55/4, pp. 580-587, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.04.014.
[25] Hinduja, S. and J. Patchin (2010), “Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide”, Archives of Suicide Research, Vol. 14/3, pp. 206-221, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2010.494133.
[29] Hooft Graafland, J. (2018), “New technologies and 21st century children: Recent trends and outcomes”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 179, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/e071a505-en.
[47] Hutson, E., S. Kelly and L. Militello (2017), “Systematic review of cyberbullying interventions for youth and parents with implications for evidence-based practice”, Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, Vol. 15/1, pp. 72-79, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12257.
[43] Jardine, E. (2015), Global Cyberspace is Safer Than You Think: Real Trends in Cybercrime, Global Commission on Internet Governance, www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/no16_web_0.pdf.
[37] Johnson, M. et al. (2018), Non-Consensual Sharing of Sexts: Behaviours and Attitudes of Canadian Youth, http://mediasmarts.ca/sites/mediasmarts/files/publication-report/full/sharing-of-sexts.pdf.
[4] Jones, L. and K. Mitchell (2016), “Defining and measuring youth digital citizenship”, New Media & Society, Vol. 18/9, pp. 2063-2079, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444815577797.
[62] Kahne, J., E. Hodgin and E. Eidman-Aadahl (2016), “Redesigning civic education for the digital age: Participatory politics and the pursuit of democratic engagement”, Theory & Research in Social Education, Vol. 44/1, pp. 1-35, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2015.1132646.
[60] Kim, J. and J. Kim (2015), “International note: Teen users’ problematic online behavior: Using panel data from South Korea”, Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 40, pp. 48-53, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.01.001.
[34] Kosenko, K., G. Luurs and A. Binder (2017), “Sexting and sexual behavior, 2011-2015: A critical review and meta-analysis of a growing literature”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 22/3, pp. 141-160, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12187.
[14] Kowalski, R. et al. (2014), “Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 140/4, pp. 1073-1137, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035618.
[53] Kumazaki, A. et al. (2011), “The effects of Netiquette and ICT skills on school-bullying and cyber-bullying: The two-wave panel study of Japanese elementary, secondary, and high school students”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 29, pp. 735-741, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2011.11.299.
[57] Kurek, A., P. Jose and J. Stuart (2019), “‘I did it for the LULZ’: How the dark personality predicts online disinhibition and aggressive online behavior in adolescence”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 98, pp. 31-40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2019.03.027.
[31] Lenhart, A. (2009), Teens and Sexting: How and Why Minor Teens Are Sending Sexually Suggestive Nude or Nearly Nude Images via Text Messaging, Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C., www.ncdsv.org/images/pewinternet_teensandsexting_12-2009.pdf.
[13] Levy, N. et al. (2012), “Bullying in a networked era: A literature review”, SSRN Electronic Journal, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2146877.
[28] Livingstone, S., J. Davidson and J. Bryce (2017), Children’s Online Activities, Risks and Safety: A Literature Review by The UKCCIS Evidence Group, UK Council for Children Internet Safety, London, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/650933/Literature_Review_Final_October_2017.pdf.
[11] Livingstone, S. and E. Helsper (2010), “Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet: The role of online skills and internet self-efficacy”, New Media & Society, Vol. 12/2, pp. 309-329, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342697.
[18] Livingstone, S. et al. (2014), Children’s Online Risks and Opportunities: Comparative Findings From EU Kids Online and Net Children Go Mobile, LSE, London, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/60513/.
[41] Livingstone, S. and M. Stoilova (2018), Children’s data and privacy online: Exploring the evidence, www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/assets/documents/research/projects/childrens-privacy-online/Children's-data-and-privacy-online-exploring-the-evidence.pdf.
[15] Livingstone, S., M. Stoilova and A. Kelly (2016), “Cyberbullying: Incidence, trends and consequences”, in Ending the Torment: Tackling Bullying from the Schoolyard to Cyberspace, United Nations Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children, New York, USA, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68079/.
[2] Mossberger, K., C. Tolbert and R. McNeal (2008), Digital Citizenship, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[8] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.
[40] OECD (2019), Trends Shaping Education 2019, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/trends_edu-2019-en.
[45] OECD (2018), “A brave new world: Technology and education”, Trends Shaping Education Spotlights, No. 15, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9b181d3c-en.
[10] OECD (2017), PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students’ Well-Being, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-en.
[38] OECD (2016), Trends Shaping Education 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/trends_edu-2016-en.
[6] Paraskeva, F., H. Bouta and A. Papagianni (2008), “Individual characteristics and computer self-efficacy in secondary education teachers to integrate technology in educational practice”, Computers & Education, Vol. 50/3, pp. 1084-1091, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2006.10.006.
[12] Park, S., E. Na and E. Kim (2014), “The relationship between online activities, netiquette and cyberbullying”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 42, pp. 74-81, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.CHILDYOUTH.2014.04.002.
[51] Patterson, L., A. Allan and D. Cross (2016), “Adolescent bystanders’ perspectives of aggression in the online versus school environments”, Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 49, pp. 60-67, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.02.003.
[1] Ribble, M., G. Bailey and T. Ross (2004), “Digital citizenship: Addressing appropriate technology behavior”, Learning & Leading with technology, Vol. 32/1, p. 6, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ695788.
[49] Runions, K. and M. Bak (2015), “Online moral disengagement, cyberbullying, and cyber-aggression”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 18/7, pp. 400-405, http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0670.
[27] Sabella, R., J. Patchin and S. Hinduja (2013), “Cyberbullying myths and realities”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 29/6, pp. 2703-2711, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2013.06.040.
[26] Saskatchewan Advocate for Children and Youth (2017), Shhh… Listen We Have Something to Say: Youth Voices from the North, www.saskadvocate.ca/sites/default/files/u11/listen_we_have_something_to_say_nov_2017.pdf.
[59] Selwyn, N. (2008), “A safe haven for misbehaving?”, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 26/4, pp. 446-465, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894439307313515.
[32] Stroud, S. (2014), “The dark side of the online self: A pragmatist critique of the growing plague of revenge porn”, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Vol. 29/3, pp. 168-183, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08900523.2014.917976.
[50] Suler, J. (2004), The Online Disinhibition Effect.
[24] Swearer, S. and S. Hymel (2015), “Understanding the psychology of bullying: Moving toward a social-ecological diathesis–stress model.”, American Psychologist, Vol. 70/4, pp. 344-353, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038929.
[17] UNESCO (2019), Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000366483.
[5] UNICEF (2017), The State of the World’s Children: Children in a Digital World, www.soapbox.co.uk.
[23] Van Geel, M., P. Vedder and J. Tanilon (2014), “Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis”, JAMA Pediatrics, Vol. 168/5, pp. 435-442, http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4143.
[33] Van Ouytsel, J. et al. (2016), “Sexting: Adolescents’ perceptions of the applications used for, motives for, and consequences of sexting”, Journal of Youth Studies, pp. 1-25, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2016.1241865.
[30] Volk, A., R. Veenstra and D. Espelage (2017), “So you want to study bullying? Recommendations to enhance the validity, transparency, and compatibility of bullying research”, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 36, pp. 34-43, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.AVB.2017.07.003.
[19] Waasdorp, T. and C. Bradshaw (2015), “The overlap between cyberbullying and traditional bullying”, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 56/5, pp. 483-488, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.12.002.
[36] Walrave, M. et al. (2015), “Whether or not to engage in sexting: Explaining adolescent sexting behaviour by applying the prototype willingness model”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 32/4, pp. 796-808, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.TELE.2015.03.008.
[64] Wang, X. and W. Xing (2018), Exploring the Influence of Parental Involvement and Socioeconomic Status on Teen Digital Citizenship: A Path Modeling Approach, www.j-ets.net/ets/journals/21_1/17.pdf.