Digital citizenship is a term that has been used globally. However, many schools have also traditionally operated on a perceived need to behaviorally control children's activity. These control mechanisms have been presented in communities using terms such as citizenship–where the children and community are led to believe that strict obedience is for the common good. In this chapter, the authors share the experiences of Green, a child identified with multiple disabilities. The authors address laws in the United States and inclusive ethics and demonstrate the potential harm that is done when digital citizenship is defined around a narrow set of compliance behaviors that are too rigid for many students without support. The authors propose an alternative framing of digital citizenship that accounts for inclusive ethics and that encircles adults and institutions in collateral obligations regarding digital technologies' ethical use. The authors end with suggestions for classroom practices that support these definitions and offer an alternative ending for Green.
TopIntroduction
Green Lantern, an eighth grader who had been identified as having multiple disabilities, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), anxiety disorder, and a sensory disorder, walked into his reading class. He was 25 minutes late because he had been using the restroom. Green took out his school-provided chrome book and began to make his way to a preferred website. His teacher observed Green and attempted to redirect him.
“Green!” she said in a loud voice. “That is NOT an approved site. Go to page 10 in the story we are reading and do your work.”
Green lowered his head. He reached into his pocket and pulled out some fidget magnets. His breathing became more rapid. He stared into the screen and continued to view the preferred site. His teacher noticed.
“Go to Ms. Winnuka,” she ordered.
Green slammed his book and walked out. Ms. Winnuka was his special education teacher, specifically tasked with supporting him with behavior and emotional skills.
When Ms. Winnuka saw Green open the door, she started shouting.
“What are you doing here? Get out your chrome book! Do your work!”
Green sat down at an empty desk. He opened his Chromebook and went to his preferred site.
A few moments later, Ms. Winnuka passed by Green’s desk.
“Just do your work. Do your work. If you don’t do your work, I will make sure that your electives are taken off your IEP. DO YOUR WORK.”
“My head hurts,” Green replied.
“Go to the office,” Ms. Winnuka ordered.
Green headed to the office. The office assistant was frustrated as well.
“Well, if you aren’t going to do your work, then give me your Chromebook and you can just do puzzles.”
“Okay,” Green said, surrendering the Chromebook and sat at a table in the office waiting room and pulled out a puzzle of a farm scene. He worked on the puzzle, putting the pieces together and taking them apart for three hours until the end of the day. When the dismissal bell rang, Green retrieved his Chromebook, visited his locker to pick up his backpack, and went out to the car to meet his brothers and mother.
“How is the birthday boy!?!” his mother exclaimed.
Green burst into tears.
“I hate everyone! I hate school!”
Green’s experience with his Chromebook, his use or perceived misuse of it by school officials, and the subsequent confiscation illustrate several critical issues in digital citizenship. First, Green was trying to use his chromebook during unsanctioned time. Second, he was visiting unapproved sites. Third, he was not completing assignments that were expected of him. In traditional thinking about digital citizenship, this is an open and shut case: Green is exhibiting poor citizenship. According to Ribble (2015), digital citizenship is described as a set of learned behaviors.
What are the appropriate behaviors in a digital society? How can an individual learn what is appropriate and what isn’t? These are core questions ... The goal of digital citizenship is to provide a consistent message to students and educational professionals so that they can become productive and responsible users of digital technologies. (p. 10)
The terms productive and responsible have special application here since at the end of the day, Green was perceived to be neither of these things. He was on the computer when he was not supposed to be and visiting sites that were deemed unworthy. It was also considered irresponsible of him to be on the chromebook at that time. In every sense, Green was using his device to act in ways that were beyond the control of the teacher and which were deemed particularly disruptive and annoying to her. Moreover, Green continued to be passed around as a human being from room to room and person to person until he landed in the office doing a puzzle. At that point, it was somehow no longer important to ensure that Green was doing work that was grade and skill level appropriate like it had been when Green wanted to be on the chromebook earlier. Without the device and under the control of an adult, doing some task just to take up time, did not seem to bother anyone.