TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – April 2019, volume 18 issue 2

of facing situation in digital environment. Though digital citizenship concept included practical values,
tolerance, respect, democracy and questioning regarding policies by citizens (Sanabria & Cepeda, 2016;
Gorman, 2015) . Some authors agree digital citizenship is refered mainly to citizenship promulgation in society
with ICT (Sancho-Gil, Hernández, Rivera, 2016). Also included other trends such as digital identity as right
(Gorman, 2015, citizenship empowerment using technology for pronunciation about the approach of citizen
participation mechanisms (Alcaide, Rodríguez, Cobo, Herrera, 2017) and citizen influence on changes in the use
of Internet (Hintz, Dencik & Wahl-Jorgensen, 2017).
It is important to delve into other aspects such as analyzing basic citizen training around democratic principles
(ethics, legality, security and liability) and how previous concepts could be influenced by citizen acts, because
there are critical positions about digital gap could be generated into citizen inequality and manipulation by
undemocratic regimes Nam (2017). The results of this review indicate that whereas initiatives are underway
and different countries are conscious of the importance of providing training on digital citizenship, it is
necessary to reflect on the recognition that this field should have in developing countries, toward establishing
alliances between countries and offering equality for all. In this way, could have been consider for future works
this question: How could the measurement instruments in Digital Citizenship reflection different relationships in
different countries? Transcultural studies could elaborate on the differences between countries with high and low
access to technological resources.
Regarding the skills required to exercise digital citizenship, it would be worth asking: what does society need to
contribute to digital citizenship? The follow-up shows three trends in terms of the training needs of citizens: the
first is democratic knowledge for citizen participation and knowledge of the rules of citizen behavior (Sanabria
& Cepeda, 2016; Burridge, 2010; Missingham, 2009).
The second tend includes social skills such as creativity, critical attitude, axiology, communication (Arif, 2016;
Ortega, 2015; Sanabria & Cepeda, 2016) and the third tendency is digital literacy (Simsek E, Simsek, 2013; Area
& Ribeiro, 2012) which includes the Internet management, skills in the handling of information and the use of
social networks. On the other hand, it is necessary to establish in theory and practice, the relationships and
interactions that technologies generate in citizenship and technology promote this aspect with greater force, since
it is a point that does require analysis. According to the above, the following questions can have been ask to
inquire about these issues: How have programs in Digital Citizenship transformed the profile of the citizen?
The results include the relevant tools for the design of instruments oriented to the measurement of digital
citizenship in school, government and family contexts. For this reason, it is worth considering the following
question: How is the level of education in Digital Citizenship former and how is it contribute to the professional
profile of the students in formation? This aspect is interesting to deepen in future research because students have
deficiencies in civic knowledge (Robles, 2011) and digital literacy is not a guarantee that the use of the Internet
will developed critical thinking and empowerment. In this regard, the instruments used in the studies analyzed
present two trends: the first one is oriented to how the Internet is being used as a mechanism of public
interaction, enriching citizen and activist participation (Jiménez, 2016; Gao X, Lee, 2017). The second tendency
of the account of the instruments used to measure the educational use of civic education and citizen participation
with multimedia (Robles, 2011; Blevins, LeCompte & Wells, 2014). However, it is necessary to analyze the
criteria of choice of technological tools that propitiate these skills (Hohlfeld, Ritzhaupt, Dawson & Wilson,
2017).
REFERENCES
Alcaide–Muñoz, L., Rodríguez–Bolívar, M., Cobo, M., & Herrera–Viedma, E. (2017). Analysing the scientific
evolution of e-government using a science mapping approach. Government Information Quarterly,
34(3), 545-555.
Al-Zahrani, A. (2015). Toward digital citizenship: Examining factors affecting participation and involvement in
the Internet society among higher education students. International Education Studies, 8(12), 203.
Area, M. & Ribeiro, M. (2012). From Solid to Liquid: New Literacies to the Cultural Changes of Web 2.0. [De
lo sólido a lo líquido: Las nuevas alfabetizaciones ante los cambios culturales de la Web 2.0].
Comunicar, 38, 13-20. https://doi.org/10.3916/C38-2012-02-01.
Arif, R. (2016). Internet as a Hope or a Hoax for Emerging Democracies: Revisiting the Concept of Citizenship
in the Digital Age. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, (236), 4-8.
Aytekin, I, & Ozlem, C. (2013). Being digital citizen. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 551 –
556.
Blevins, B, LeCompte, K & Wells, S. (2014). Citizenship education goes digital. The Journal of Social Studies
Research, 38, 33–44.
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

16