ChapterPDF Available

Developing Digital Citizenship and Civic Engagement Through Social Media Use in Nordic Schools

Authors:
  • NOVA - Norwegian Social Research, OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University

Abstract and Figures

In this chapter, we explore the factors involved in developing digital citizenship through social media use in schools for 14-year-old students in four Nordic countries. The call for digital citizenship and digital citizenship education stems from the new and multiple ways in which young people are engaging in and communicating about civic issues through the use of social media. Schools could be considered to play a core part in developing students’ digital civic engagement, yet the field of digital citizenship education and the factors that enable engagement in schools are underexplored. To address this issue, in this chapter we have completed a mixed methods study analyzing the national curricula in the four Nordic countries and complementing this with an analysis of data from school leaders, teachers, and 14-year-old students participating in the IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) 2016. The findings of the analysis show that digital citizenship and citizenship in general are prevailing ideals in the national curricula and that schools are well-equipped technologically. Yet, both teachers and students are ambivalent in their use of social media for developing digital citizenship. Thus, we argue that digital citizenship in education is a manifold and emerging phenomenon and that students might be important guides for its further development in schools.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Chapter 4
Developing Digital Citizenship and Civic
Engagement Through Social Media Use
in Nordic Schools
Ingrid R. Christensen, Heidi Biseth, and Lihong Huang
Abstract In this chapter, we explore the factors involved in developing digital
citizenship through social media use in schools for 14-year-old students in four
Nordic countries. The call for digital citizenship and digital citizenship education
stems from the new and multiple ways in which young people are engaging in and
communicating about civic issues through the use of social media. Schools could be
considered to play a core part in developing students’ digital civic engagement, yet
the field of digital citizenship education and the factors that enable engagement in
schools are underexplored. To address this issue, in this chapter we have completed
a mixed methods study analyzing the national curricula in the four Nordic countries
and complementing this with an analysis of data from school leaders, teachers, and
14-year-old students participating in the IEA International Civic and Citizenship
Education Study (ICCS) 2016. The findings of the analysis show that digital citi-
zenship and citizenship in general are prevailing ideals in the national curricula and
that schools are well-equipped technologically. Yet, both teachers and students are
ambivalent in their use of social media for developing digital citizenship. Thus, we
argue that digital citizenship in education is a manifold and emerging phenomenon
and that students might be important guides for its further development in schools.
Keywords Digital citizenship education ·Civic engagement ·Social media ·
International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) 2016 ·Nordic
countries
I. R. Christensen (B
)
Department of Pedagogy, University of South-Eastern Norway, Drammen, Norway
e-mail: ingrid.christensen@usn.no
H. Biseth
Department of Culture, Religion and Social Studies, University of South-Eastern Norway,
Drammen, Norway
e-mail: Heidi.biseth@usn.no
L. Huang
Norwegian Social Research—NOVA, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway
e-mail: lhuang@oslomet.no
© The Author(s) 2021
H. Biseth et al. (eds.), Northern Lights on Civic and Citizenship Education,
IEA Research for Education 11,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 030-66788- 7_4
65
66 I. R. Christensen et al.
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, we explore the factors involved in developing digital citizenship
education and promoting civic engagement through the use of social media1among
14-year-old students in four Nordic countries. The call for digital citizenship educa-
tion stems from a fast-developing society with new and multiple ways of partici-
pating in global knowledge circuits and engaging with the world. The internet and
social media have paved the way for a new era of global communication (Loader
and Mercea 2011; Sevincer et al. 2018), moving beyond the context of the nation-
state (Jorba and Bimber 2012). Consequently, new forms of global citizenship and
political participation are emerging (Frau-Meigs et al. 2017; Carretero et al. 2017;
Parker and Fraillon 2016). Digital resources have opened up new possibilities for civic
engagement. Social media represent several opportunities for learning and enhancing
employability as well as a means of managing one’s own social life and developing
civic engagement. These digital developments increase the space for interaction and
change our ways of connecting and engaging with each other in what could be seen
as a new public space and a modern arena of political and civic engagement. Digital
tools and social media (e.g., online social platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Insta-
gram, Snapchat, blogs, forums, and videos) have paved the way for individuals to
participate in and engage with local and global issues through innovative means. New
and varied digital tools and social media continually trigger further evolution in the
way people—especially young people—communicate with friends, access entertain-
ment, and engage with communities of interest (European Commission 2009,p.3).
However, the constant flow of information and targeted content may also challenge
individuality and critical discernment. Digital tools represent shifting and multiple
realities, blurring the means and ends of the polis (Frau-Meigs et al. 2017). Thus, the
digital represents both possibilities and challenges, making digital civic engagement
a complex enterprise.
School authorities have high aspirations for the school and its role in developing
digital citizenship on local, national, and international levels. Schools can be consid-
ered to be a key factor in developing digital citizenship.2Along with the aims of
developing digital competencies, educating informed and responsible citizens is a
major challenge (e.g., Parker and Fraillon 2016). Teachers can be expected to be
role models for employing digital skills in their classrooms, supporting students in
developing their digital competencies and manoeuvring in the digital arena (Biseth
et al. 2018). Digital citizenship is counted as a core competency for students in the
21st century (e.g., Voogt and Roblin 2012)—it targets the availability of technology
1In our discussion of social media, we used the term “social media” to describe a collection of
online social networking sites and tools (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) and shared content sites
(e.g., blogs, discussion forums) that people use to socially interact and distribute content with other
groups of people (Koršˇnáková and Carstens 2017).
2Conference on the Future of Citizenship and Human Rights Education in Europe (Strasbourg,
France, June 20–22, 2017, www.coe.int/en/web/edc/report-on-the-state-ofcitizenship-and-human-
rights-in-europe).
4 Developing Digital Citizenship and Civic Engagement … 67
and digital tools as well as the competencies to handle, participate in, and engage
in society. Yet, the area of digital citizenship education is not settled as a field, and
the development of definitions of digital citizenship is considered a key need (e.g.,
Council of Europe 2020). Furthermore, the development process of digital citizen-
ship from initiating digital citizenship in the national curricula to the specific skills
the students learn may not be a streamlined one. Different levels and actors in the
school organization might accentuate various factors as important for developing
digital citizenship.
The International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) 2016 of the
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) is the
first study to establish measures for investigating the conditions for digital citizenship
education. Unlike ICCS 2009, ICCS 2016 includes items that connect digital tools,
social media, and democratic engagement in regard to both principals, teachers, and
students. The international report from ICCS 2016 lists some factors for citizenship
(Schulz et al. 2018a), such as social media. The access to social media is high across
all the countries in the ICCS 2016 study. The students’ use of social media for civic
engagement is increasing, but it varies considerably across the participating countries
(Schulz et al. 2018a, p. xvii).
The research on digital skills in the education field is vast, but limited research
has been conducted on how to develop citizenship through digital tools and even less
through social media (Purvis et al. 2016; Biseth et al. 2018). Schools seem to have
fallen behind in promoting digital citizenship compared to out-of-school activities
(Gleason and von Gillern 2018). Kahne et al. (2016) argue that teaching about the
dangers of digital participation discourages the students’ online political participation
and suggest principles of supporting the students for civic engagement in teaching.
However, few studies investigate the many factors needed for the development of
digital citizenship. The development depends not only on the teacher but also on
different organization levels in schools.
Thus, this study aims at mapping the current contributory factors for the devel-
opment of digital citizenship through social media use in schools. The Nordic
schools are of particular interest, being ranked as top-level democracies and
as technologically advanced and having well-funded public education systems
(Economist Intelligence Unit [EIU] 2018; Freedom House 2019). We, therefore,
pose the following research question:
What factors indicate the development of digital citizenship through social media
use in schools in the four Nordic countries?
In this study, we map and explore the contributory factors for the development
of digital citizenship through social media use on different organization levels in
schools. We have conducted a mixed-methods study of qualitative and quantitative
data from the four Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. First,
we examine how the national compulsory school curricula describe factors for the
development of digital citizenship through social media use in schools. Second, we
analyze factors for developing digital citizenship as described by Nordic principals,
teachers, and students participating in ICCS 2016.
68 I. R. Christensen et al.
4.2 Conceptual Framing of Digital Citizenship in Education
The overall field of this study is digital citizenship education, a relatively new research
area. Digital citizenship education is a constructed phenomenon that combines digital
tools, social media, and citizenship education. At the heart of digital citizenship
education lie ideas of democratic education. Democracy and citizenship education
are also socially constructed phenomena, comprising several values, discourses, and
practices of civic society and dependent on human interaction and participation.
Democracy in the education context is limited not only to academic knowledge about
political systems and students’ ability to use their political competence to influence
school life and in society; democracy also represents the ideas, values, civic attitudes,
and skills needed to engage with each other and to live together despite different
interests (Zyngier 2012; Barber 1984, pp. 117–120). Education can be understood as
a core enterprise for the promotion of civic values and for developing individual and
collective democratic intelligence (Goodlad 1994). The ways in which citizenship is
understood and practised in educational politics by principals, teachers, and students
are decisive for what kind of citizens the society can foster (Westheimer and Kahne
2004).
Civic engagement in political and social issues has in recent decades increasingly
been dependent on social media, creating the field of digital citizenship (Kahne
et al. 2014). Digital citizenship can be defined as “the confident, critical and creative
use of ICT [information and communications technology] to achieve goals related
to work, employability, learning, leisure, inclusion and/or participation in society”
(Ferrari 2013). Another definition is “confident and positive engagement with digital
technology” used to actively participate in society, communicate with others, and
create and consume digital content (Frau-Meigs et al. 2017, p. 14). The field of
digital citizenship education embraces several pedagogical and political ideals and
has yielded several teaching models (e.g., Kahne et al. 2016).
Nevertheless, a basic problem regarding digital citizenship in education is that
it lacks conceptual groundings on a practice level (Kahne et al. 2016). We assume
part of this problem is that digital citizenship appears to be due to the different
priorities and values in school. Goodlad (1994) pinpoints the challenges of promoting
and developing moral values in school, which he sees as a non-linear process. The
intended moral values on a policy level in schools might not be the same as how
the teachers teach or what the students learn in school. Goodlad (1994) describes
different levels of the curriculum, for instance, (1) formal curriculum, the formal
and legal documents concerning the education system and what should be taught
at schools; (2) perceived curriculum, which can be understood as the interpretation
of users, such as principals and teachers3; and (3) curriculum experience, which
reflects the students own experience of the content in school. Moral values are not
3Goodlad (1994) refers to two more curricuum levels—”ideal curriculum,” the ideological basis
upon which a country chooses its formal curriculum, and also the teachers’ “practiced curriculum.”
This model has been widely used and elaborated upon (e.g., Westbury 2008;Akker2004), however,
less with the aim of describing the complexity of the promotion of moral values in education.
4 Developing Digital Citizenship and Civic Engagement … 69
only differently understood on different curricula levels but they appear as separate
practices, accentuating different concepts and factors in regard to how they can
be developed (Westbury 2008). In this study, the exploration of different curricula
levels might facilitate the creation of a wider “map” showing various factors for the
development of digital citizenship through social media use.
4.3 Data and Methods
To explore and map the factors indicating the development of digital citizenship
through social media in schools, we have selected material from the Nordic countries.
We have selected the Nordic countries as they have many similar historical, polit-
ical, societal, and cultural characteristics and tend to have comparable and general
high scores on democratic indicators (e.g., EIU 2018; Ringen 2007,2011; Freedom
House 2019).4They also have well-equipped public school systems, technically and
materially, representing an “ideal” scenario for the development of digital citizenship
through social media.5Rather than seeking to prove a Nordic profile and contrasting
it with the results from other countries, we treat the Nordic results as a single-case
study and investigate how educational policies and practices may vary and interact on
different curricula levels between countries with relatively similar societal features
over the course of a decade (e.g., Arnove 2013; Bray and Thomas 1995).
The data analyses present both qualitative and quantitative information repre-
senting the different curricula levels through mixed methods (Borrego et al. 2009)
and a sequential exploratory design (Cabrera 2011). The curricula levels of Goodlad
(1994) have served as a guiding framework for structuring the analysis. We used qual-
itative data from the national curricula of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden
and quantitative data from these Nordic countries obtained through the ICCS 2016
study. The qualitative national curricula represent the intended curriculum on the
emphasized factors for developing digital citizenship in schools. The quantitative
ICCS data provide information about the perceived curriculum, including princi-
pals’ and teachers’ information and views on the technical and didactical factors for
developing digital citizenship. The quantitative ICCS data also illuminate factors of
the experienced curriculum from the student responses on their use of social media
and civic engagement.
4This does not mean that the Nordic findings do not have similarities with findings from other
countries in the ICCS survey. However, we delimit the Nordic context as one case and discuss
possible links between discourse and pedagogical and practical facilities across these countries.
5The ICCS 2016 international report concludes that, for instance, high socioeconomic status is
associated with increased student civic knowledge (Schulz et al. 2018a, p. 22).
70 I. R. Christensen et al.
4.3.1 Qualitative Data Analysis
The qualitative analysis is performed on the national primary school curricula
and represents the intended curriculum level (Goodlad 1994). The contents from
these documents suggest factors that support the development of digital citizenship
through social media. The materials of analysis consist of the Danish fælles mål
(common goals) for the subjects of Danish and social studies (Undervisningsmin-
isteriet 2009a,b); the Norwegian generell del (core curriculum) in the national
curricula Kunnskapsløftet K06 (Utdanningsdirektoratet 2006); the core curriculum
in Finland, National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (Perusopetuksen opetus-
suunnitelman perusteluonnos) (Finnish National Board of Education 2016); and
the Swedish core curriculum (Läroplan L11), particularly the section prescribing
the mandate and overall aim given to the sector (Skolverket 2011).6Knowledge-
able/native educators have read the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian curricula
in these languages. The Danish fælles mål is used in planning, implementing,
and evaluating education, and are thus similar to the core curricula in Finland,
Norway, and Sweden. These common goals are nationally prescribed aims that
students should reach in each subject by the end of their compulsory education. The
education acts and core curricula constitute the legal outline for Nordic schools. The
formal curricula chosen for analysis are the core curricula of the four countries that
were valid for the period in which ICCS 2016 was conducted. These curricula were
developed at different points in time, from 2006 in Norway to 2014 in Finland. In
addition, we assume some differences between the countries based on, for example,
each country’s tradition, conventional practice, digital equipment available, as well
as the effectuated date of the core curricula that may have had a possible impact on
the development of the concept and its consequences for perceived and experienced
digital citizenship. In treating the Nordic countries as four case studies that we
can compare, we aim at mapping conceptual factors indicating the development of
digital citizenship through social media in schools.
To analyze the qualitative material, descriptive thematic analysis is performed
using NVivo (Boyatzis 1998;Bryman2012). The indicators for the promotion of
digital citizenship were generated from reading the curricula and creating themes
from the material. After a general reading of the document, we first used the document
finder and searched for “digital citizenship” and “social media.” Second, we extended
the terms of “citizenship” into “citizen,” “civic,” and “democracy/democratic” and
“digital” into “ICT” and “media.” Third, we conducted another search using asso-
ciated terms such as “participation,” “engagement,” “technology,” and “values.” In
all these three stages we analyzed how the different curricula emphasize different
keywords and how they were combined.
6We selected the national curricula in the Nordic countries. Some of the core curricula specify
indicators of digital citizenship through social media use in the general parts, some in the subject
descriptions.
4 Developing Digital Citizenship and Civic Engagement … 71
4.3.2 Quantitative Data Analysis
The quantitative analysis using the ICCS 2016 data enables access to principal,
teacher, and student emphasis on factors that enable digital citizenship. ICCS 2016
applied a sampling strategy to ensure representativeness of the data (Köhler et al.
2018) from all participant countries, while the pooled data used in the analysis of this
chapter from the four Nordic countries contain responses from students (n=18,962),
teachers (n=6,138), and school principals (n=630) from 669 lower secondary
schools (for more details on the ICCS data, see Chapter 1of this book and also Köhler
et al. [2018] and Schulz et al. [2018a]). To perform the quantitative analysis, we used
the IEA IDB Analyzer to perform descriptive statistics such as percentages and
means of responses along with correlation analyses. Country sampling weights were
applied respectively in analyzing responses from school principals, teachers, and
students, and standard errors are computed using the jackknife repeated replication
(JRR) method (Köhler et al. 2018; Schulz et al. 2018b).
4.3.3 Mixed Methods
We have mapped both data sources on different curricula levels to display discourses
and priorities in the national core curricula, available equipment, teachers’ teaching
activities, and students’ experienced content. We did not seek to predict or define
any conceptual correlations between the curricula levels as each level gives different
information and represents different practices (Cohen et al. 2007; Yang 2007). Rather
than attempting to determine causal relations between all the curricula levels, we aim
at bringing forward the complexity and nuances in the relationships between them
in the teaching of digital citizenship and civic engagement through social media in
schools. Separating the curricula into different levels shows that the curriculum is
more than teaching content and methods and measuring success as results—it also
consists of different understandings that might entail different social practices and
draw on various discourses and logics. We conclude by discussing the relevance
of different factors for making analytical generalizations about digital citizenship
education (Flyvbjerg 2011; Roald and Køppe 2009).
4.4 Factors in Teaching Digital Citizenship Through Social
Media in the Formal School Curricula
The national curricula provide information on factors that enable digital citizenship
and civic engagement via social media in schools through the formal curricula that
were operational at the time ICCS 2016 was conducted. The national curricula in
the four countries indicate the political intent behind developing digital citizenship
72 I. R. Christensen et al.
education through the use of social media. All four countries have education acts
that describe democratic values as fundamental underpinnings of their education
systems. These education acts describe school as an important space for devel-
oping democratic traits, values, and skills (Undervisningsministeriet 2007;Basic
Education Act 1998; Ministry of Education and Research 1998; Utbildningsde-
partementet 2010). However, the curricula may vary between the Nordic countries
and may also show development over the years.
The Norwegian core curriculum (Utdanningsdirektoratet 2006) places relatively
low importance on citizenship, and there is no description of digital tools and no
occurrence of any terms connected to social media. Citizenship is not mentioned
explicitly, and democracy is described in general terms, for example, a major task for
education is to promote democracy, national identity, and international consciousness
(p. 2). Common knowledge, traditions, and values secure a democratic society as well
as the democratic rule of law and equal political participation (pp. 3, 15), preventing
undemocratic manipulation and to prevent social inequalities (p. 14). One aim of
education is to expand student participation (p. 2). Neither digital tools nor ICT
are explicitly mentioned. Yet, the curriculum describes technology not in specific
terms but rather in philosophical terms, being a tool for problem-solving and for
improved solutions (pp. 6, 9, 20). Technology is also described as a promoter of
values; for instance, it is often used as an expression of empathy, facilitating the
lives of vulnerable humans (p. 9), and represents historical mediating artefacts for
a division of labour and power balance (p. 9). Technology seems to contain an
ambiguity by also including negative connotations—as something being used in
destructive weapons and the destruction of the environment (pp. 2, 9, 20). Media
and mass media are mentioned in general as a flow of news (p. 15) and that natural
relations are exchanged through media (p. 18), indicating a divide between the digital
and the so-called “real” world. The students are supposed to have training in getting
in touch with authorities and media (p. 18). Thus, technology and references to the
internet can indicate a divide between the digital and the analogue, treating digital
media from a distance, something that one should protect oneself against and use
with caution.
In Denmark, the core curriculum is described in subject-specific documents. The
curriculum for the subject of Danish expresses themes that may indicate citizenship
and the use of digital tools in the fælles mål (common goals). ICT as a skill is
particularly visible in the subject of Danish, where students are expected to be “able
to make presentations using digital tools” (Undervisningsministeriet 2009a, §2-2,
Point 15), acquire knowledge of printed and electronic media (§2-3, Point 8), and
make use of ICT and multimedia (§2-3, Point 9). In a democratic society such as
Denmark, the citizen must have access to and experience with using the media,
for instance, for reading letters, paper articles, blogs and letter writing to public
authorities (p. 57). The digital, however, is somehow described as a particular genre
(digital texts, which are named in addition to fiction and academic literature) (pp. 6,
8, 10). Digital texts are also cited as something other than printed texts (pp. 14, 19,
20, 22). The main digital competence is represented by information searches (pp. 6,
24, 27, 28) although the students are also supposed to use the digital media and
4 Developing Digital Citizenship and Civic Engagement … 73
critically relate to them in analysis, communication, and in production (pp. 28, 30).
However, the means of communication and production are not specified.
Issues of democracy permeate the Danish social studies (samfundsfag)
curriculum. Concepts such as “digital” or “social media” do not appear; instead,
it describes “information technology” (IT) and “media.” Students are supposed to
give examples of how IT affects political participation and how power is exercised
locally, nationally, and globally (Undervisningsministeriet 2009b, pp. 7, 9). However,
the curriculum presents the following three different perspectives on the use of infor-
mation and communication technology ICT7: a collection of information, commu-
nication, and collaboration (p. 48). To a large degree, ICT and media are connected
to using the internet and to collecting and critically evaluating information (pp. 38,
48). The internet is described as central, and its major advantage is accessing infor-
mation (p. 48). The curriculum mentions weblogs and blogs as possible channels
for communicating with other students nationally or abroad (p. 49): “The contact
with other students and the exchange of information, attitudes, and products can,
for instance, happen in connection with the work contained in the everyday lives of
young people” (p. 49, our translation).
The Swedish national curriculum begins with the statement that the Swedish
school rests on the foundation of democracy (Skolverket 2011, p. 1). It emphasizes
the students’ capabilities to act in a complex reality, including increased digitalization
and the flow of information and rapid changes (p. 3). It states that schools should
contribute to the students’ understanding of how digitalization affects individuals
and the development of the society (p. 3). Digital competence is defined as the
use of digital techniques and understanding the possibilities and risks of the digital
information and having a critical and responsible approach to digital techniques (p. 3).
The promotion of moral values is described in terms of how students are expected
to take and express ethical stands based on human rights, foundational democratic
values, and personal experiences. It does not mention digital tools or competencies
in its description of the students’ learning nor students’ possibilities to influence
society. One of the principal’s responsibilities is to provide updated learning tools,
such as a school library and digital tools (p. 12).
In the Finnish core curriculum, the information and communication technology
(ICT) competences are one of seven transversal competences; they are described as
an important civic skill. The Finnish curriculum underscores technology as a moral
enterprise and claims that technology is based on human values (Finnish National
Board of Education 2016, p. 39). Technology is also considered a matter of moral
responsibility and the curriculum encourages the school to “steer technology into
a direction that safeguards the future of humans and the environment” (p. 39). The
school should teach students to make “sensible technological choices” and to be
guided in how to use technology responsibly and ethically (p. 57) as well as to prac-
tice source criticism and critical insight in terms of how information is produced
(p. 945). ICT is described in the Finnish core curriculum both as “an object and a
7The curricula documents use different terms for digital communication; for instance “IT”
(information technology) and “ICT” (information and communication technology).
74 I. R. Christensen et al.
tool of learning” (p. 59) as well as an opportunity for individual creativity: “ICT
provides tools for making one’s thoughts and ideas visible in many different ways”
(p. 60). ICT is a means of “practical skills and personal production” and “informa-
tion management and inquiry-based and creative work” as well as of collaborative
working skills (p. 27) and interaction and networking (pp. 944–945). The teaching
and learning include using social media services to experience the importance of
cooperation and interaction for learning, exploratory work, and creativity (p. 946).
In the Finnish core curriculum, the use of ICT is not only a skill but a competence
to be used for meaningful communication and media to practice generic skills, and
also to practice civic skills (p. 59) The several ways of using social media for interac-
tion, networking, taking responsibility for communication, and for involvement are
described for students in grades 7–9 (p. 945). This shows that digital media is not
only a matter of communication as such but that it bears on elements of responsibility
for roles and communication as well as involvement.
Through their formal curricula, all four countries’ education systems are given
a relatively strong political role in promoting societal values. The national core
curricula active at the time of the ICCS 2016 study, however, indicate varied and
relatively weak positions on digital citizenship education and not least the role of
social media in it. Citizenship seems an important feature of all the school curricula,
however with highly variable approaches—from a philosophical approach to tech-
nology (Norway, Sweden), to technical digital tools (Denmark), to value-driven
engagement in social media (Finland).
4.5 Teaching Digital Citizenship Education Through
Access to Digital Equipment in Schools
In this section, we present and discuss aspects of the perceived curriculum (Goodlad
1994) for digital citizenship education and report the access to digital equipment
among principals, teachers, and students. Figure 4.1 is a visual presentation of the
percentages of school principals’ responses to the question as to whether their schools
are equipped with IT facilities for teaching and teachers’ responses in regard to
whether they have ever used those IT facilities in teaching during the current school
year. According to the principals’ reporting, the Nordic countries have a high level of
access to a variety of digital tools. The schools in Norway have the highest access to
portable computers (95.9%), with Sweden and Denmark next highest (83.9 and 83%,
respectively). Finland has a relatively high use of desktop computers (85.8%). Almost
all Danish classrooms have interactive whiteboards, whereas the lowest access to
interactive whiteboards is in Finland (only 60% have one). Meanwhile, teachers’ use
of these devices in teaching appears to correspond to the availability of these devices
in schools. Figure 4.1 shows that, in general, portable computers and interactive
whiteboards are most in use by teachers in Denmark and Norway, while Swedish
teachers use mostly portable computers and tablet devices in teaching. In Finland,
4 Developing Digital Citizenship and Civic Engagement … 75
School
facility
Teacher
use^¨
School
facility
Teacher
use
School
facility
Teacher
use
School
facility
Teacher
use
Denmark Finland Norway Sweden
Desktop computers 40.7 39.3 85.8 77.6 55 42.8 33.1 22.6
Portable computers (laptop,
notebook, netbook) 83 94.1 71.5 55.8 95.9 91.1 83.9 83.1
Tablet devices (e.g. iPad) 48.2 52.3 72 58.0 33.6 26.9 59.6 50.0
E-readers (e.g. Kindle, Kobo,
Nook) 20.7 11.2 9 1.4 3.9 3.2 11.1 2.0
Interactive whiteboards 88.6 85.7 58.6 28.4 68.1 61.2 60 26.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
PERCENTAGES OF
POSITIVE RESPONSES %
Fig. 4.1 Principals’ responses in regard to IT facilities available for teaching at their schools
and teachers’ responses as to whether they have used these devices in their teaching during the
current school year (Notes All calculations are facilitated by the IDB Analyzer by applying total
school weights to school principals’ responses and applying total teacher weight, respectively [see
Appendix Table 4.3]. No significant test is performed as we consider it not necessary. ˆ Participation
rates for the teacher survey were below the ICCS 2016 international standard in Denmark)
the most in-use devices are desktop computers and portable computers together with
tablet devices. However, it appears that e-readers are the least available and least
in-use devices in all Nordic schools.
Principals, teachers, and students in each country report a variation of online
devices and levels of access to digital devices. The students in all the Nordic countries
report nearly full access to the internet (99%), while nearly all students have online
opportunities via phones, tablets, and computers (see Fig. 4.2). Figure 4.2 shows
that the majority of student homes in all four countries have more than six digital
devices in regular use. Although less than 1% of student homes have none or only
one or two devices, this still can be a concern as 1% represents several thousand in
each country. However, the results presented in Figs. 4.1 and 4.2 show that students
have almost full access to online information devices both at school and at home for
collaboration, participation, and engagement among all Nordic countries.
In the second section, we analyze the next factor to investigate how teachers make
use of digital opportunities for teaching and learning activities. Figure 4.3 presents
teachers’ positive responses to the question asking if they have received training
either from pre-service or in-service or both trainings on topics and skills related to
responsible internet use (Q19) and the question asking how much teachers feel well-
prepared or very well-prepared to teach the subject of responsible internet use (Q18)
(see Appendix Table 4.4 for descriptions). The majority of the teachers in the Nordic
schools feel well-prepared to teach the subject of responsible internet use although
76 I. R. Christensen et al.
Denmark Finland Norway Sweden
930.6 9.3 25.8 20.3
825.3 14.7 25.2 23.9
722.4 21.6 22.4 26.4
613 25.7 15.7 16.1
55.3 17.1 6.7 9
42.4 7.8 2.8 3
30.8 2.7 1.1 1
20.2 0.9 0.2 0.2
100.100.1
00.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
PERCENTAGE
Fig. 4.2 Percentages of student homes with numbers of IT devices in regular use (Notes Number
of IT devices is derived from the sum of students’ responses to the question “How many of the
following devices are used regularly in your home?” (Q12) on three types of devices, i.e., desktop
or portable computers, tablet devices or e-readers, and mobile phones, with the response options
“None =0, 1 =1, 2 =2, and 3 or more =3” (see[Appendix Table 4.3)]. Calculations presented
here are facilitated by IDB Analyzer applying total student weight [see Appendix Table 4.3 rows
at the bottom])
only one-third of the teachers in Denmark and Sweden and less than half of those
in Norway have received training on this subject. Among all the Nordic teachers, it
appears that a higher proportion of teachers in Finland have received relevant training
than in the other three countries, while teachers in Sweden and Norway feel most
well-prepared to teach the subject of responsible internet use.
Meanwhile, most teachers in Nordic schools use internet information and ICT
both for lesson preparation and for teaching in the classroom although there are
small differences in the usages of ICT between the countries. Figure 4.4 shows
the percentages of teachers’ use of ICT in two form, one is using the internet for
information when they prepare lessons (Q16), and the other is working with students
to use ICT and internet information in classrooms (Q17) (see Appendix Table 4.4 for
descriptions). Over half of the Danish teachers both use the internet for information
in preparing lessons to a large extent and use ICT when working with students on
information from the internet—more than those in the other three countries.
In general, teachers in all four countries report a high level of use of the internet in
their classes. In Denmark, less than 1% never use the internet for information, whereas
8% of the teachers in Finland report the same. The teachers report a high level of use of
4 Developing Digital Citizenship and Civic Engagement … 77
70.4
82.1
90.2 93.1
33.6
63.4
43.5
37.2
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Denmark^¨ Finland Norway Sweden
Teachers feel well prepared to teach responsible internet use
Teachers have ever received training on teaching responsible internet use
Fig. 4.3 Percentages of teachers who have received training and feel well-prepared for teaching
responsible internet use (Notes ˆ Participation rates for the teacher survey were below the ICCS
2016 international standard in Denmark. Calculations presented here are facilitated by IDB Analyzer
applying teacher weights [see Appendix Table 4.4])
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Denmark^¨ Finland Norway Sweden
Use web-based sources of
informaƟon to plan civic-related
lessons
Not at all To a small extent
To a moderate extent To a large extent
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Denmark^¨ Finland Norway Sweden
Use ICT with students to search for
and/or analyze informaƟon from
the internet
Never SomeƟmes OŌen Very oŌen
Fig. 4.4 Teachers’ use of ICT for working on planning lessons and working with students in the
classroom (Notes Participation rates for the teacher survey were below the ICCS 2016 international
standard in Denmark. Calculations presented here are facilitated by IDB Analyzer applying teacher
weights [see Appendix Table 4.4])
78 I. R. Christensen et al.
web-based sources to plan civic-related lessons. In Denmark, Finland, and Norway,
75–95% of the teachers report using web-based sources to plan civic-related lessons.
However, almost no teachers in any of the countries work with students on any social
network, forum, or blog to support environmentally related actions (see Appendix
Table 4.4).
4.6 The Use of ICT and Social Media for Digital
Citizenship and Civic Engagement in Schools
In this section, we examine the use of ICT in connection to civic issues as well as civic
engagement for political or social issues. In this stage, we examine the experienced
curriculum and the students’ reporting of digital citizenship on social media in school.
Table 4.1 presents the descriptive data of three questions and six items the students
answered regarding their use of IT for civic engagement now and in the future (in
%).
The students seem to neither post nor share political or social issues on the internet
as about 80% in all four countries answer that they never share any political or social
content. It is worth noting that about 10% in all countries share political or social
content online once a month or more often, indicating a gap between a large “never
engaged” and a small “very engaged” cohort. However, 30–40% of the students in all
four countries think that they will contribute to an online discussion forum on a social
or political issue in the future. There seems to be a divide between sharing an online
discussion and initiating any online activity themselves. Roughly 15–20% of the
students are likely to organize an online group to take a controversial political social
or political stance in the future, with higher scores in Norway and Sweden. Those
who would certainly or probably participate in an online campaign yield identical
results in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, with 35–40%; Finland has 28%. For all
the questions about participating and engaging in an online discussion, organizing a
group, and participating in an online campaign, students in the four different countries
are quite similar: a large group, 50–60%, do not think that they will engage in any
of these activities in the future.
Most of the students report that they never comment on a political or social issue
on the internet or social media or even on other people’s online posts. Furthermore,
most of the students report that they are not likely to take part in organizing an
online group to take a stance on a controversial political or social issue. There is
a slightly higher probability that they will contribute to an online discussion or an
online campaign on political issues. These findings are similar across all four Nordic
countries.
Table 4.2 presents a correlation analysis between current and future online partic-
ipation with current and future offline civic engagement using scales derived from
student responses to items of specific questions on their current and future partici-
pation both online (items in Table 4.1) and offline (current civic engagement in the
4 Developing Digital Citizenship and Civic Engagement … 79
Table 4.1 Student responses and experienced curriculum: ICT use (in %)
Items of interest Response alternatives Denmark Finland Norway Sweden
Students’ current use
of ICT to find
information about
political and social
issues (Q14G)
Never 30.6 (1.0) 55.3 (1.0) 39.8 (0.8) 34.7 (1.0)
Monthly 31.6 (0.7) 26.9 (0.8) 33.6 (0.6) 32.1 (0.9)
Weekly 26.5 (0.7) 14.2 (0.8) 20.6 (0.6) 24.2 (0.9)
Daily 11.4 (0.6) 3.6 (0.4) 6.1 (0.3) 9.0 (0.6)
Tota l 100 100 100 100
Students’ current use
of ICT to post about
political or social
issues (Q14H)
Never 88.9 (0.6) 88.8 (0.7) 86.9 (0.5) 85.3 (1.0)
Monthly 7.8 (0.4) 8.2 (0.6) 8.7 (0.4) 9.8 (0.7)
Weekly 2.2 (0.2) 2.5 (0.3) 3.0 (0.3) 3.3 (0.3)
Daily 1.1 (0.2) 0.5 (0.1) 1.4 (0.2) 1.6 (0.3)
Tota l 100 100 100 100
Students’ current use
of ICT to share about
political or social
issues (Q14I)
Never 85.4 (0.7) 86.1 (0.8) 83.3 (0.6) 79.1 (1.2)
Monthly 10.2 (0.6) 10.4 (0.7) 12.0 (0.5) 13.9 (0.7)
Weekly 3.3 (0.3) 2.7 (0.3) 3.4 (0.2) 5.2 (0.6)
Daily 1.1 (0.2) 0.8 (0.2) 1.3 (0.1) 1.9 (0.3)
Tota l 100 100 100 100
Students’ future
contributions to an
online discussion
forum about social or
political issues (Q30E)
Certainly will not do
this
15.1 (0.6) 11.7 (0.6) 16.9 (0.5) 12.4 (0.7)
Probably will not do
this
55.8 (0.9) 56.9 (0.9) 47.6 (0.8) 46.0 (0.8)
Probably will do this 25.1 (0.7) 26.1 (0.8) 28.0 (0.7) 31.7 (0.9)
Certainly will do this 4.0 (0.3) 5.3 (0.5) 7.6 (0.4) 9.9 (0.6)
Tota l 100 100 100 100
Students’ future
organization of an
online group to take a
stance on a
controversial political
or social issue (Q30F)
Certainly will not do
this
19.9 (0.6) 18.6 (0.7) 22.1 (0.6) 19.4 (0.7)
Probably will not do
this
63.9 (0.8) 65.1 (0.8) 57.0 (0.7) 61.9 (1.2)
Probably will do this 13.8 (0.6) 13.1 (0.6) 16.1 (0.6) 14.5 (0.9)
Certainly will do this 2.3 (0.2) 3.2 (0.3) 4.8 (0.4) 4.2 (0.4)
Tota l 100 100 100 100
Students’ future
participation in an
online campaign
(Q30G)
Certainly will not do
this
13.4 (0.6) 10.6 (0.7) 16.9 (0.5) 16.0 (0.7)
Probably will not do
this
47.1 (0.8) 53.7 (1.1) 44.5 (0.7) 55.2 (1.1)
Probably will do this 34.7 (0.9) 30.5 (0.9) 31.0 (0.7) 23.7 (0.8)
Certainly will do this 4.8 (0.3) 5.1 (0.4) 7.5 (0.4) 5.1 (0.6)
Tota l 100 100 100 100
80 I. R. Christensen et al.
Table 4.2 Correlation coefficients between current and future online civic engagement with offline
current and future civic engagement**
Students’ current
engagement with social
media
Students’ willingness to
participate in social media
in the future
Students’ current
participation in the wider
community
Denmark 0.21 0.19
Finland 0.25 0.15
Norway 0.25 0.25
Sweden 0.25 0.25
Students’ expected active
political participation
Denmark 0.24 0.44
Finland 0.22 0.44
Norway 0.27 0.52
Sweden 0.27 0.49
Notes Analysis using IDB Analyzer applying student weights. **all correlation coefficients are
significant, p< 0.01. A correlation < 0.20 is weak, between 0.20–0.30 is moderate, between 0.30–
0.40 is strong, and > 0.40 is very strong
community and expected future political engagement) using information resources
and technology (IRT)-weighted likelihood estimates (Köhler et al. 2018; Schulz et al.
2018b).
First, all the correlation coefficients are significant and positive in all four coun-
tries, which means the higher the students’ reported online participation, the higher
their intention of future online civic engagement and the higher their offline civic
engagement both currently and in the future. Second, all four countries are similar in
terms of current student online participation—it is moderately to strongly correlated
with both their current and future offline participation (see Table 4.2, column 3).
Third, there are some small differences between the four countries in the correla-
tions between students’ willingness to participate in social media in the future and
their future offline political participation—the correlation is very strong in all four
countries.
Nevertheless, we find only a few significant but very weak correlations between
the ICT resources in schools (i.e., the devices available for teaching at school) with
students’ current and future online engagement. It is all significant but very weak and
positive only in Finland, whereas it is not at all significant in Denmark. However,
school ICT resources have a very weak and positive correlation with students’ future
online engagement in Sweden and a very weak and negative correlation with students’
current online participation in Norway. Yet, ICT resources at home have a significant,
very weak, and positive correlation with both students’ current and future online
participation in all four countries.
4 Developing Digital Citizenship and Civic Engagement … 81
4.7 Discussion
The background for this chapter is the complex and partly blurred field of digital
citizenship in education. IEA’s ICCS 2016 was the first study to establish a small
number of measures for investigating the factors for digital citizenship education.
In this chapter we have, therefore, aimed to elaborate on this and attempted to map
digital citizenship and civic engagement through social media in schools by iden-
tifying the factors that indicate the teaching of digital citizenship on social media
in schools in four Nordic countries. The main finding is that the development of
digital citizenship through social media in schools consists of multiple and emerging
factors. The analysis resulted in a conceptual map that can be summarized under the
heading of six major themes regarding digital citizenship education in the Nordic
countries and is illustrated in Fig. 4.5.
Teaching methods and
learning
ICT, digital tools,
technology
InformaƟon and knowledge
Societal values, ciƟzenship
Social media
Strong factors in the study across
curriculum levels:
Emphasized connecƟons in the
study
Stronger:
Weaker:
Factors of digital
ciƟzenship in
educaƟon
Fig. 4.5 Map of factors promoting digital citizenship on social media in school in the four Nordic
countries
82 I. R. Christensen et al.
Figure 4.5 suggests six main factors that indicate the promotion of digital
citizenship on social media in education in the mixed-methods study, as follows:
1. Societal values and ideas: All the Nordic countries have a quite strong
emphasis on societal values and ideas promoting digital citizenship at the formal
curriculum level.
2. ICT, digital tools, and technology: Elaborate descriptions of ICT, digital tools,
and technology exist at the formal curriculum level; whereas good access to ICT
devices and the internet are described as present, and constituting the perceived
curriculum level.
3. Handling of information and knowledge: At a formal curriculum level,
handling of information and knowledge are emphasized in all the four countries.
However, a variation between describing knowledge development in general,
using digital tools to gain information, and using technology to promote knowl-
edge exist. At a perceived curriculum level, the teachers were well-prepared to
teach the handling of information, and on an experienced curriculum level, many
students were likely to use ICT to find information about political and social
issues.
4. Teaching methods and learning: At a formal curriculum level, Finland exten-
sively describes digital tools for learning, and in the perceived curriculum, 75–
95% of the teachers in Finland, Norway, and Denmark reported that they use
web-based sources to plan civic-related teaching.
5. Social media: At a formal curriculum level, social media concepts such as “digi-
tal” or “social media” are not established concepts. Instead, in Denmark, Sweden,
and Norway, it is often referred to using terms such as “the internet” and “media.”
In contrast, in the Finnish curriculum, there is a more extensive conceptualization
of social media. At a perceived curriculum level, the teachers report a high level
of readiness to teach about online ethics and that they use the internet and social
media to teach about civic issues. However, on an experienced curriculum level,
the students report very low positive responses on the posting of civic issues
online, and the teachers do not report modelling civic participation in online
discussions or social media in their teaching.
6. Civic engagement: At a formal curriculum level, few curricula use the term
“civic” or “citizenship” except for the Finnish core curriculum. However, all the
national curricula mention participation or engagement in society and becoming
democratic citizens in general. At the perceived curriculum level, most of the
teachers in Finland, Denmark, and Sweden teach about civic issues. However,
on the level of experience, almost none of the students report that they are likely
to engage in political or social issues online, whether it be sharing, posting, or
making arrangements.
Overall, digital citizenship through the use of social media is not a single
phenomenon but is represented by multiple practices on different curricula levels. The
results of the analysis suggest six common features of digital citizenship in schools.
4 Developing Digital Citizenship and Civic Engagement … 83
These features are sometimes stronger or weaker on different curricula levels and
there is some variation between the Nordic countries.
The next overall finding is that there are some new emerging factors regarding
digital citizenship education. The map in Fig. 4.5 shows some established factors
and connections to digital citizenship. In addition, the map also illustrates weaker
factors, which we have interpreted as possibilities for the future development of
digital citizenship in education. For instance, there is a difference between the factors
for teaching digital citizenship in the Norwegian core curriculum from 2006 and the
Finnish curriculum from 2014. The curricula could be described as incompatible for
comparison because of the differences of time periods. However, such differences
might also give insights into how the curricula have developed in the Nordic context.
Digital citizenship education might also be seen as emerging when considering
discrepancies between the ideals of digital citizenship as formulated at the formal
curriculum level and how it is practised by the students. Thus, these discrepan-
cies can show that the formal, national curricula represent ideals preceding prac-
tice. However, the belief that ideals precede practice might be a misconception of
the development of digital citizenship in education. According to Goodlad (1994),
there is no cause–effect the between different curriculum levels in promoting moral
values. Each curriculum level represents a separate practice, with its logic being
worth listening to. The lack of civic engagement through social media might be
the students’ unique way to raise their voice and bring new questions about which
factors support the development digital citizenship. One question is to what extent
can 14-year-olds engage in civic questions online and on social media in school?
Are 14-year-old students mature enough to address civic engagement? Maybe they
are not. The correlation analysis shows that many students report the belief that they
probably will participate in online civic discussions in the future. It seems likely that
they imagine that civic engagement online is something separate from their present
reality. It is also possible that students and teachers take political formation in school
as a given, assuming that engagement will evolve in one way or another.
Another question is a moral one and asks whether 14-year-olds should engage in
civic questions online and in media in school. Although many teachers report that they
have the ability and feel well-prepared to promote civic awareness and engagement,
they do not use social media to engage in online discussions with their students.
Perhaps the use of the internet and social media in questions of civic engagement
touches upon a moral hesitation among teachers. If this is the case, we are missing
an explicit moral discussion about our expectations for young people’s participation
in political issues as the idea of participation is connected to a moral standard of a
“better citizen” and thus a better person (Westheimer and Kahne 2004).
One more question concerns the agency of the pupils themselves. The question is
whether 14-year-olds would engage in civic questions online and in social media in
school. When introducing digital citizenship and hope for posting on social media,
there is a danger that we confuse moral values of engagement with cultural values of
socially accepted values. Our results may indicate a reluctance among young people
towards online participation concerning civic issues. One explanation might be that
84 I. R. Christensen et al.
young people see the online space as a private space as well as a space for play and
relaxation.
It might be too much to expect young people to engage personally in a formal
setting such as school. However, young people do engage. As Schulz et al. (2018a,
p. 208a) suggest, school is not the key actor in the development of digital citizenship
and engagement on social media. This is a major challenge for schools. We believe
that these challenges might stem from a misconception in the national curricula
about the schools’ role in creating civic engagement. Young people engage not only
because of the national curricula, the principals, or due to what teachers or educa-
tional researchers believe engagement to be. The challenge for education—and the
further development of the ICCS study—is to cease to treat engagement as top-down
activities to be evaluated or measured as individual performance indicators. Instead,
there is a need for new perspectives on what engagement can mean, and a “re-
ontologisation” of education (Floridi 2007; Amnå and Ekman 2014; Lieberkind and
Bruun, Chapter 2in this volume). First, these new perspectives should not treat digital
citizenship and engagement as technical and virtual domains and as separate from
other forms of civic engagement. The curricula in school need to consider the virtual
space as any other political space and engage with the youth to jointly develop digital
citizenship through social media use. Second, digital citizenship and engagement are
social and mediated processes (Purvis et al. 2016). Thus, the measures should include
process indicators between actors in education and between school, political leaders,
teachers, and students. Third, digital citizenship and engagement represent not only
competencies but also ways of living. The challenge in defining and assessing factors
for developing digital citizenship education is to be able to capture the transformative
processes (Dewey 1916). Understandings of digital citizenship education and digital
civic engagement should thus embrace the complexities of life. Developing digital
citizenship can emerge if it is not only the students that learn but also if the education
systems and assessment frameworks learn from the experiences of the students.
Appendix
See Tables 4.3 and 4.4.
4 Developing Digital Citizenship and Civic Engagement … 85
Table 4.3 Descriptive data of questions and measures of IT resources available for teaching at school, and in use at home ICCS 2016 data
Items of interest DenmarkaFinland Norway Sweden
Principals’ responses to the questions
“Are the following devices with internet
access provided by the school to the
students for their learning activities?”
(Q10) (Yes =1, No =0), percent
Yes s.e. Yes s.e. Yes s.e. Yes s.e.
Desktop computers 40.7 4.2 85.8 5.1 55.0 5.4 33.1 4.3
Portable computers (laptop, notebook,
netbook)
83.0 3.7 71.5 4.6 95.9 1.4 83.9 3.4
Tablet devices (e.g. iPad) 48.2 3.6 72.0 5.1 33.6 7.7 59.6 5.7
E-readers (e.g. Kindle, Kobo, Nook) 20.7 3.0 9.0 2.2 3.9 1.4 11.1 5.3
Interactive whiteboards 88.6 3.7 58.6 6.0 68.1 7.0 60.0 4.9
Teachers’ responses to the question
“How frequently do you use the
following devices with internet access
provided by the school for your teaching
activities with students” (Q13) (Never
and Not provided by the school =0; Yes
in some lessons and Yes in most lessons
=1), percent
Yes s.e. Yes s.e. Yes s.e. Yes s.e.
Desktop computers 39.3 4.7 77.6 1.7 42.8 3.1 22.6 2.4
Portable computers (laptop, notebook,
netbook)
94.1 1.5 55.8 2.2 91.1 1.2 83.1 1.9
Tablet devices (e.g. iPad) 52.3 3.3 58.0 2.7 26.9 3.9 50.0 3.5
E-readers (e.g. Kindle, Kobo, Nook) 11.2 1.7 1.4 0.2 3.2 0.5 2.0 0.4
Interactive whiteboards 85.7 3.7 28.4 2.6 61.2 3.9 26.7 2.6
(continued)
86 I. R. Christensen et al.
Table 4.3 (continued)
Items of interest DenmarkaFinland Norway Sweden
Students’ responses to question “How
many of the following deices are used
regularly in your home?” (Q12) (None
=0, 1 =1, 2 =2, 3 and more =3)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Desktop or portable computer s (laptop,
notebook or netbook)
2.6 0.6 2.0 0.8 2.5 0.7 2.4 0.8
Tablet devices or e readers (e.g. iPad or
Kindle)
2.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.8 1.0
Mobile phones with internet access (e.g.
smart Phones)
2.9 0.4 2.8 0.5 2.9 0.4 2.9 0.4
Students’ responses to question “Do you
have an Internet connection at home?”
(Q13) (Yes =1, No =0)
Yes s.e. Yes s.e. Yes s.e. Yes s.e.
Response percent 99.7 0.1 99.3 0.1 99.0 0.1 99.2 0.2
Notes Calculations presented in the table are performed by IDB Analyzer applying school weight, teacher weights and student weights, respectively
aParticipation rates for the teacher survey were below the ICCS 2016 international standard in Denmark
4 Developing Digital Citizenship and Civic Engagement … 87
Table 4.4 Descriptive data of question items on the use of devices of information technology for civic- and citizen-related teaching and student activities (in
%)
Items of interest Response alternatives DenmarkaFinland Norway Sweden
Teachers work with students on a social network, forum,
or blog to support environment-related actions (Q12c)
Yes 3.4 (0.9) 1.6 (0.3) 2.9 (07) 2.5 (0.4)
No 96.6 (0.9) 98.4 (0.3) 97.1 (0.7) 97.5 (0.4)
Tota l 100 100 100 100
Teachers use web-based sources of information to plan
civic-related lessons (Q16g)
Not at all 0 1.4 (0.5) 1.2 (0.5) 2.5 (1.0)
To a small extent 4.4 (2.2) 15.8 (1.6) 8.5 (1.8) 21.3 (3.0)
To a moderate extent 43.8 (5.8) 49.2 (2.5) 53.6 (3.1) 50.1 (3.6)
To a large extent 51.7 (85.8) 33.5 (2.5) 36.6 (2.9) 26.1 (3.3)
Tota l 100 100 100 100
Teachers use ICT with students to search for and/or
analyze information gathered from the internet (Q17f)
Never 0.7 (0.7) 7.7 (1.0) 2.9 (1.0) 1.6 (0.8)
Sometimes 44.5 (6.4) 59.8 (2.5) 62.6 (2.8) 51.8 (3.9)
Often 32.6 (5.9) 27.7 (2.1) 31.6 (2.9) 36.2 (3.6)
Ver y o f t e n 22.1 (5.6) 4.9 (1.1) 2.9 (0.9) 10.5 (2.2)
Tota l 100 100 100 100
How much teachers feel well prepared to teach
responsible internet use (Q18)
Not at all prepared 2.1 (1.6) 0.9 (0.5) 0.3 (0.2) 0
Little prepared 27.4 (6.2) 16.9 (1.9) 9.5 (1.7) 6.9 (2.0)
Well prepared 42.0 (5.3) 56.6 (2.1) 51.1 (3.8) 51.2 (3.6)
(continued)
88 I. R. Christensen et al.
Table 4.4 (continued)
Items of interest Response alternatives DenmarkaFinland Norway Sweden
Very well prepared 28.4 (7.0) 25.5 (2.3) 39.1 (3.9) 41.9 (3.9)
Tota l 100 100 100 100
If teachers have received training on topics and skills
related to responsible internet use (Q19)
Never 66.4 (5.9) 36.6 (1.8) 56.5 (3.9) 62.8 (3.7)
Yes, pre-service training 12.5 (4.9) 18.3 (1.6) 16.1 (2.8) 22.1 (3.0)
Yes, in-service training 8.4 (3.9) 32.3 (2.8) 18.0 (2.9) 4.5 (1.8)
Yes, both pre- and in-service training 12.6 (3.5) 12.8 (2.2) 9.4 (1.8) 10.6 (2.4)
Notes Calculations presented in the table are performed by IDB Analyzer applying teacher weights
aParticipation rates for the teacher survey were below the ICCS 2016 international standard in Denmark
4 Developing Digital Citizenship and Civic Engagement … 89
References
Akker, J. v. d. (2004). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In J. v. d. Akker, W. Kuiper, &
U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1–10). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1205-7_1.
Amnå, E., & Ekman, J. (2014). Standby citizens: Diverse faces of political passivity. European
Political Science Review, 6(2), 261–281. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175577391300009X.
Arnove, R. F. (2013). Introduction: Reframing comparative education: The dialectic of the global
and the local. In R. F. Arnove, C. A. Torres, & S. Franz (Eds.), comparative education: The
dialectic of the global and the local (4th ed., pp. 1–26). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Los Angeles, CA:
University of California Press.
Basic Education Act 628/1998 [Finland]. http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1998/en19980628.
pdf.
Biseth, H., Madsen, J., & Christensen, I. R. (2018). Student teachers promoting democratic engage-
ment using social media in teaching. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education
(NJCIE), 2(4), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.2796.
Borrego, M., Douglas, E. P., & Amelink, C. T. (2009). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research
methods in engineering education. The Research Journal for Engineering Education, 98(1),
53–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01005.x.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bray, M., & Thomas, M. R. (1995). Levels of comparison in educational studies: Different insights
from different literatures and the value of multilevel analyses. Harvard Educational Review,
65(3), 472–490. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.65.3.g3228437224v4877.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University
Press.
Cabrera, N. L. (2011). Using a sequential exploratory mixed-method design to examine racial
hyperprivilege in higher education. New directions for institutional research, 151, 77–91. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ir.400.
Carretero, S., Vurokari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1. The digital competence frame-
work for citizens.https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC106281/web-dig
comp2.1pdf_(online).pdf.
Cohen, L., Morrison, K., & Manion, L. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London,
UK: Routledge.
Council of Europe. (2020). Digital citizenship education—Key findings and recommendations.
https://www.coe.int/en/web/digital-citizenship-education/key-findings-and-recommendations.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
Economist Intelligence Unit. (EIU). (2018). Democracy index 2018: Me too? Political participation,
protest, and democracy. London, UK: Author.
European Commission. (2009). Study on assessment criteria for media literacy levels. Brussels,
Belgium: Author. https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/culture/library/studies/literacy-criteria-report_
en.pdf.
Ferrari, A. (2013). Digcomp: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence
in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Finnish National Board of Education. (2016). New national core curriculum for basic education:
Focus on school culture and integrative approach. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/docume
nts/new-national-core-curriculum-for-basic-education.pdf.
Floridi, L. (2007). A look into the future impact of ICT on our lives. The Information Society, 23(1),
59–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240601059094.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed
again. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
90 I. R. Christensen et al.
Frau-Meigs, D., O’Neill, B., Soriani, A., & Tomé,V. (2017). Digital citizenship education. Overview
and new perspectives. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/prems-187117-gbr-2511-digital-cit
izenship-literature-review-8432-web-1/168077bc6a.
Freedom House. (2019). Democracy in retreat: Freedom in the world 2019.https://freedomhouse.
org/sites/default/files/Feb2019_FH_FITW_2019_Report_ForWeb-compressed.pdf.
Gleason, B., & von Gillern, S. (2018). Digital citizenship with social media: Participatory practices
of teaching and learning in secondary education. Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 200–
212.
Goodlad, J. (1994). Curriculum as a field of study. In T. Husén & T. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The
international encyclopedia of education (pp. 1262–1276). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Jorba, L., & Bimber, B. (2012). The impact of digital media on citizenship from a global perspective.
In E. Anduiza, M. J. Jensen, & L. Jorba (Eds.), Digital media and political engagement worldwide:
A comparative study (pp. 16–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/
10.1017/cbo9781139108881.002.
Kahne, J., Hodgin, E., & Eidman-Aadahl, E. (2016). Redesigning civic education for the digital age:
Participatory politics and the pursuit of democratic engagement. Theory & Research in Social
Education, 44(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2015.1132646.
Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., & Allen, D. (2014). Youth, new media, and the rise of participatory
politics. Youth and Participatory Politics Research Network.https://clalliance.org/wp-content/
uploads/files/ypp_workinpapers_paper01_1.pdf.
Korš ˇnáková, P., & Carstens, R. (2017). Social media and civic engagement: New developments
from IEA’s International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016. Childhood Education,
93(6), 511–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2017.1398566.
Köhler, H., Weber, S., Brese, F., Schulz, W., & Carstens, R. (Eds.). (2018). ICCS 2016 user guide
for the international database. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Loader, B., & Mercea, D. (2011). Networking democracy? Social media innovations and participa-
tory politics. Information Communication and Society, 14(6), 757–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1369118X.2011.592648.
Ministry of Education and Research [Norway]. (1998). Education act.https://www.regjeringen.no/
contentassets/b3b9e92cce6742c39581b661a019e504/education-act-norway-with-amendments-
entered-2014-2.pdf.
Parker, R., & Fraillon, J. (2016). Southeast Asia primary learning metrics (Sea-Plm): Global citi-
zenship domain assessment framework. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).
https://research.acer.edu.au/ar_misc/20.
Purvis, A., Rodger, H., & Beckingham, S. (2016). Engagement or distraction: The use of social
media for learning in higher education. Student Engagement and Experience Journal,5(11).
http://shura.shu.ac.uk/12274/.
Ringen, S. (2007). What democracy is for: On freedom and moral government. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Ringen, S. (2011). The measurement of democracy: Towards a new paradigm. Society, 48, 12–16.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-010-9382-7.
Roald, T., & Køppe, S. (2009). Generalisering i kvalitative metoder [Generalization in qualitative
methods]. Psyke & Logos, 29, 86–99.
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., Agrusti, G., & Friedman, T. (2018a). Becoming
citizens in a changing world: IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016
international report. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Schulz, W., Carstens, R., Losito, B., & Fraillon, J. (2018b). ICCS 2016 technical report.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA). https://www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2019-07/ICCS%202016_Technical%
20Report_FINAL.pdf.
Sevincer, V., Biseth, H., & Waagan, R. (2018). Faktuell: Youths as journalists in online newspapers
and magazines in Norway. In Y. Andersson, U. Dahlquist, & J. Ohlsson (Eds.), Youth and news
4 Developing Digital Citizenship and Civic Engagement … 91
in a digital media environment—Nordic-Baltic perspectives (pp. 11–19). Gothenburg, Sweden:
Nordicom.
Skolverket. (2011). Läroplan för grundskolan samt för förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet (Lgr11)
[Curriculum for compulsory school and for the preschool class and after-school center
(Lgr11)]. https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/grundskolan/laroplan-och-kursplaner-for-gru
ndskolan/laroplan-lgr11-for-grundskolan-samt-for-forskoleklassen-och-fritidshemmet.
Undervisningsministeriet [Denmark]. (2007). Lov om folkeskolen [Education act]. https://www.ret
sinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=25528.
Undervisningsministeriet [Denmark]. (2009a). Fælles mål 2009 – Dansk [Common goals 2009—
Danish]. Undervisningsministeriets håndbogsserienr. 3.2009. https://www.uvm.dk/folkeskolen/
fag-timetal-og-overgange/faelles-maal/historisk/historiske-faelles-maal-2009.
Undervisningsministeriet [Denmark]. (2009b). Fælles mål 2009 – Samfundsfag [Common goals
2009—Social studies]. Undervisningsministeriets håndbogsserienr. 7.2009. https://www.uvm.
dk/folkeskolen/fag-timetal-og-overgange/faelles-maal/historisk/historiske-faelles-maal-2009.
Utbildningsdepartementet [Sweden]. (2010). Skollagen. 2010:800 [The Education Act]. http://rkr
attsbaser.gov.se/sfst?bet=2010:800
Utdanningsdirektoratet [Norway]. (2006). Læreplanverket for Kunnskapsløftet (K06) [Core
curriculum for knowledge promotion]. https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/lareplanverket/hvo
rdan-er-lareplanene-bygd-opp/.
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st-
century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 44(3), 299–321.
Westbury, I. (2008). Making curricula: Why do states make curricula, and how? In F. M. Connelly,
M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 45–65).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Ssge Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976572.n3.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen?: The politics of educating for democracy.
American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269.
Yang, R. (2007). Comparing policies. In M. Bray, B. Adamson, & M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative
education research:Approaches and methods (pp. 241–262). Hong Kong: ComparativeEducation
Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Zyngier, D. (2012). Rethinking the thinking on democracy in education: What are educators thinking
(and doing) about democracy? Education Sciences, 2(1), 1–21.
Ingrid Christensen is an associate professor, and leads several ongoing international projects
democracy and citizenship, dialogical approaches in education, and education in emergency. Addi-
tional fields of research and teaching is professional development, special needs education and
human rights. She leads the research group Diversity and Citizenship in Education.
Professor Heidi Biseth has long-standing research experience on democracy and citizenship
education, multicultural education and professional development in teacher education and schools.
She was a member of the National Advisory Group for the IEA International Civic and Citizenship
Education Study (ICCS) 2016 in Norway. Biseth leads a research project on improving interdis-
ciplinary work within teacher education and between teacher education and school (BRIDGES),
a project funded by the Research Council of Norway.
Lihong Huang is a research professor in youth research with extensive research experience in
school education and survey studies. She was the national research coordinator of the Norwegian
IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) (2016) with strong expertise in
research methodology and cross-country quantitative comparative analyses. She currently leads
a research project democratic citizenship education in Norwegian school system (DEMOCIT)
funded by the Research Council of Norway.
92 I. R. Christensen et al.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
... TE institutions form another arena for digital citizenship formation in TE, and the way TE institutions prepare student teachers for the democratic assignment in K-12 schools where teacher educators have an important role (Raiker & Rautiainen, 2020). This includes interpreting TE Degree Objectives, designing programs and courses accordingly, and considering relevant documents such as national K-12 curricula (Edling & Liljestrand, 2020), which in the case of Sweden feature digital citizenship although the term is not used explicitly (Christensen, Biseth & Huang, 2021). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In a postdigital era, an increasingly important dimension of citizenship is digital citizenship, which is reflected for instance by digital civic engagement, fake news, and disinformation, not least during the Covid-19 pandemic. Teacher education (TE) prepares student teachers for the fostering of citizens in K-12 schools, and various conceptualizations of digital citizenship appear in educational research that could inform TE practice. This paper explores two common conceptualizations of digital citizenship in educational research, Ribble's nine elements of digital citizenship and Choi's four-category model, and critically examines how these reflect digital citizenship in a postdigital era, including potential implications for TE. The paper shows that neither conceptualization fully reflects digital citizenship in a postdigital era although Choi's model mirrors some characteristics, for instance a blurredness between binaries such as "online" and "offline", and a multi-faceted understanding of citizenship and digital technologies. Critically analyzing digital citizenship is important as the conceptualizations informing TE may impact the preparation of future teachers to teach for digital citizenship in a postdigital era.
Chapter
Social media usage continues to change the lives of millions, especially students (young people) in developing countries where the penetration is growing daily. As the usage increases, the safety concerns increase as a result of citizens’ (users) engagement. Digital citizenship looks into the users’ safety, character, and responsible usage and application of the Internet and social media platforms. This study looks into the development of factors that influence digital citizenship on social media platforms using a narrative literature review (NLR) of existing literature. The study’s outcome shows that digital citizenship is driven through safe, secure, ethical, moral, and responsible usage of social media platforms.KeywordsCyberspaceDigital citizensDigital citizenship educationDigital citizenshipDigital worldInternetSocial media platformsStudentYoung people
Article
Full-text available
Generaliseringsproblematikken er tæt forbundet med de kvalitative metoders videnskabelige legitimitet. Metoderne baserer sig på relativt få tilfælde af det undersøgte fænomen, og bliver derfor ofte tilskrevet intet eller kun et lavt potentiale for generalisering. I denne artikel derimod beskriver vi hvordan generalisering på den ene side er uløselig knyttet til brugen af metode og teori, mens der på den andre side er flere forskellige metodiske overvejelser i forbindelse med den konkrete, kvalitative undersøgelse der yderligere sikrer kvalitative metoder et potentiale for udsigelser på det mere generelle plan. Der eksisterer således en række forskellige former for generalisering der er tilpasset forskellige undersøgelsesfænomeners kompleksitet, der hver især indeholder deres partikulære videnskabelige legitimitet.
Article
Full-text available
In this study, we address how student teachers can facilitate democratic engagement in school. The demo-cratic engagement is seen through the lenses of an increasingly digital world through which both teachers and children live in. 42 third-year student teachers systematically prepared to use social media as an illus-trative pedagogical tool in their practice placement period. By using the notions of “thin” and “thick” de-mocracy, we are analyzing student teachers’ understanding of democracy and democratic engagement. Our findings suggest that the students view democracy in a thin way, and this lack of democratic competence may influence their classroom practices as future teachers. The Council of Europe’s Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture was used to analyse the student teachers’ competence to connect the use of social media as a digital and pedagogical tool in promoting democratic engagement. The findings disclose that students vary in their capacity to make use of social media when promoting democratic en-gagement. In our closing discussion, we argue that these results, primarily, pose serious challenges for teacher education.
Article
Full-text available
This article explores how social media use in formal and informal learning spaces can support the development of digital citizenship for secondary school students. As students increasingly spend large amounts of time online (e.g., an average of six hours of screen time per day, excluding school and homework), it is critical that they are developing skills enabling them to find, evaluate, and share information responsibly, engage in constructive conversation with others from diverse backgrounds, and to ensure their online participation is safe, ethical, and legal. And, yet, in spite of the importance of students learning these skills, opportunities for digital citizenship in formal and informal learning spaces have lagged behind our ideals. The article provides a conceptual analysis of civic engagement as digital citizenship and considers how digital media applications can support citizenship education in middle- and high-school grades. Then, empirical research is provided that demonstrates how high school students develop digital citizenship practices through out-of-school practices. Finally, this article suggests that both dimensions of digital citizenship (i.e., in-school, traditional citizenship education and out-of-school activities aimed at civic engagement) can be integrated through a social media-facilitated curriculum. Finally, recommendations for teaching and learning through social media are offered to educators, community members, practitioners, parents, and others.
Article
Full-text available
The digital revolution has enabled important changes in political life. Opportunities to engage in participatory politics have expanded significantly. Participatory politics differ from institutional politics in that they are peer-based, interactive, and not guided by deference to traditional elites and institutions. These changes require a response from civic educators. Core practices of civic and political engagement, such as investigation, dialogue, circulation, production, and mobilization, must be taught differently because they are now frequently enacted differently and in different contexts. This article conceptualizes these changes, draws on a nationally representative survey to assess the frequency and expansion of these new practices, and highlights examples of curricular reform to help frame an expanded agenda for civic education in the digital age.
Chapter
Correction to: W. Schulz et al., Becoming Citizens in a Changing World, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73963-2
Book
This open access book presents the results from the second cycle of the IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS 2016). Using data from 24 countries in Asia, Europe and Latin America, the study investigates the ways in which young people are prepared to undertake their roles as citizens in a range of countries in the second decade of the 21st century. It also responds to the enduring and emerging challenges of educating young people in a world where contexts of democracy and civic participation continue to change. New developments of this kind include the increase in the use of social media by young people as a tool for civic engagement, growing concerns about global threats and sustainable development, as well as the role of schools in fostering peaceful ways of interaction between young people. Besides enabling the evaluation of a wide range of aspects of civic and citizenship education, including those related to recent developments in a number of countries, the inclusion of test and questionnaire material from the first cycle of the study in 2009 allows the results from ICCS 2016 to be used to examine changes in civic knowledge, attitudes and engagement over seven years.
Chapter
Introduction As new technologies are evolving worldwide, many theoretical challenges have arisen that surpass the frameworks used so far to pose questions about digital media and citizens’ lives. There is a great need for broader perspectives to understand what is common and what is different in emerging political practices across nations. That need motivates this chapter, which starts from the observation that a great deal of research on digital media and politics since the late 1990s has centered on one of two sets of issues. In the United States and the United Kingdom, and to some extent in other European countries, a central concern has been whether the use of digital media increases political participation or civic engagement. In research on authoritarian regimes, however, questions of censorship and state control over media have dominated the discussion. Although these two frameworks for analysis have been productive, they are ultimately quite limited in addressing the broad range of changes in the character of citizenship that is underway because of digital media. The transformations associated with digital media extend well beyond how many people vote or how much content is circumscribed by state control. In many nations, both democratic and nondemocratic, the changes are similar or overlapping or common, whereas in others they differ because of political institutions and culture, or other aspects of political context, and as a result of different stages of internet diffusion. The goal of this chapter is to examine some common theoretical issues in digital media across nations as a framework for understanding citizenship practices in a broader way. We focus on five issues: political attitudes, political practices, sociality of politics, political voice, and transnational allegiance. In each, we account for some commonalities and differences across regimes.