The topic of digital citizenship is gaining prominence following, in part, intense interest in the safe and appropriate use of technology in contemporary "infospheres". According to Ohler, morals now need to be "revisted, expanded and refreshed" (p. 4) so that students can do what is right on the basis of a robust and informed ethical core. Education is central in this process and teachers play crucial roles in building the skill sets, knowledge and dispositions required to meet the challenges thrown up by local, global and digital communities.
Ohler's approach to unpacking the complex and often contentious issues surrounding digital citizenship--reflected in the three parts of this book--involves constructing past, present and future analytical perspectives. First, we need to understand how the concept of digital citizenship arises out of the history of citizenship, in general. Second, we have to "see" (and/or notice?) technology for what it is and question it; that is, recognise its impacts, interrogate our purposes and articulate our concerns. The third step is to consider what we, as educators, might do after seizing the present to move positively and hopefully into the future.
Overall, I like Ohler's easy-going style and the clear, logical presentation. This book asks important questions, makes significant points (see the frequent "bottom line" statements) and I recommend educators, parents and (digital) children to read it for a general overview and treatment of "digi-munity" (my own pointless neologism inspired by Ohler's occasional penchant for the same linguistic nonsense ;-)). But I also have a number of concerns about some of the illustrations given and points made that I think impair the wide appeal of the material and arguments presented. Three examples follow.
In the third section of the book an ideal school board is imagined as a way of framing ways to predict and respond to change via digital character education programmes. After establishing the Golden Rule of ethical action, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (cf. Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12), Ohler then extends the Eleven Principles of Effective Character Education developed by the Character Education Partnership (Likona, Schaps, & Lexis, 2007)[...] to include issues of technology use and cyber behavior. For example, the eighth principle: "The school staff is an ethical learning community that shares responsibility for character education and adheres to the same core values that guide the students" becomes "[The] school staff [i]s a learning and moral community that shares responsibility for character education and attempts to adhere to the same core values that guide the education of students. This should happen regardless of whether the community is actual or virtual in nature." Aside from some confusion caused by what seems to be a typographical/transpositional error between the original and expanded principles six and eight, I found this exercise of questionable utility--not because it's idealistic but because the list of eleven modified items is acultural and asocial in spirit and intent. Maybe this is meant to be so but I don't share or even fully understand Ohler's premise that "We have the tools to create any kind of society, and thus educational system, that we want" (p. 5). Surely, not everyone enjoys the same level of political freedom, history or social outlook?
When discussing concerns about technology (Chapter 4), Ohler states, "Although some teachers are genuinely excited about the challenges and opportunities of teaching digital kids, others feel uneasy, overwhelmed, and irrelevant" (p. 90). He continues, "The reality is that the more technological we become, the more important teachers become. Machines don't teach citizenship--humans do. Teachers mistakenly think they need to be advanced technicians to be effective in today's classrooms. They don't. What is important is that teachers become advanced managers of their students' talents, time, inquiry and productivity. Teachers need to be able to articulate standards of quality and provide feedback that students can use to meet those standards. They need to be the guide on the side rather than the technician magician." The sentiments expressed here are familiar but unsubstantiated in general terms. I would contend that the guide on the side is not always welcomed or even appropriate in all classrooms or learning contexts given the cultural, social, historical and political composition of communities (digital or otherwise) throughout the world.
Third, Ohler comments that, "What our students desperately need is to learn how to blend creatical [creative and critical] thinking, emerging literacies, prodigious information synthesis, and moral perspective in order to thrive as they are tested by new technologies and evolving ethical situations we can't even imagine" (p. 227). Why desperate? I'm also prompted to ask: Who are these students, where are they located and, most importantly, would they agree with this assessment?
