Technology's Effect on Student Honor Codes and Life

In order to understand how children may be educated to become moral digital citizens, we must first understand what a digital citizen is. It is essentially someone who uses the internet regularly whether that is to engage in society, politics or even the government. Therefore, according to the Digital Citizen, a moral digital citizen is someone who is both ethical and moral and thus thinks about the consequences they’ll face as a result of their actions. Thus, these moral digital citizens know about any risks and benefits that are accompanied by having access to so much information such as cyber bullying.

Furthermore, the education system, especially teachers, play an important role in training young people to become better citizens; as if unless young people are taught to be civil in general, they can’t be civil online. Teachers are the ones who can mould the children as it's quite common for children to be familiar with some kind of technology before they even start school. This supported by a research conducted by the Pew Research Center in which they found that 95% of American teenagers possessed a Smartphone and 45% said they are online ‘almost constantly’, this shows that in today's society the digital world is perhaps more important than face to face interaction. Thus teachers must prepare all students to tackle ethical issues that can arise. However, every individual has a different experience with the internet as some parents might now allow them to have internet access without supervision.

In addition, another way teachers can help create moral digital citizens is through the use of Skinners operant theory, in which good behaviours are rewarded with praise and bad behaviour has negative repercussions. Therefore, the students would always associate uncivil actions with the negative consequences such as; plagiarism would have the repercussion of failing the assignment.

However, young people will only use a digital tool in an ethical manner, if they are already committed to being a democratic and inclusive individual which is why the education system has the power to create moral or uncivil digital citizens. Therefore, attitudes such as compassion and being reasonable must be taught and supported by; society, institutions like schools and their policies, and by the government. This is further reinforced by the New London Group, who created the term “multiliteracies” which described the skills needed in our contemporary society and its new technology. It looked beyond the traditional literacy pedagogy that everyone was accustomed to and instead assimilated culture and context, by doing this, teachers especially, are able to engage with social media more efficiently by allowing them to critically analyse what is going on after taking into account a variety of contexts and perspectives.

Furthermore, in order for young people to become moral digital citizens they need to have critical perspectivism. This attitude that would enable them to understand information received from a number of sources. This key skill allows the individual to be both critical and compassionate as they can critically evaluate information for the truth but also take into consideration other scenarios as well as other people. It allows for rational thinking and self discipline as the moral citizen has to resist any online click bait culture and this would help them be ethical online. Another factor of critical perspectivism is that the moral citizen must not base a decision on what they have been told or even forward unethical messages because they also look at the emotional aspects and the effect this would have. Teachers can do this through group projects in which students must critically evaluate texts, this skill can then be applied to social interactions.

Therefore, in agreement with me, university lecturer Christopher McGilvery, understood that technology led to uncivil actions due to its destructive nature; which is why he created an acronym called “TECHSMART” to help teachers keep young people safe on the internet. Students learn things about copyright, safe website, viruses, cyber bullying, self image and privacy through his use of “TECHSMART” and teachers also learn how to tackle these issues. This was essentially his safety guidelines. He also emphasised both how education is important in creating moral digital citizens and in avoiding uncivil actions. For example, his guidelines explains what to do in a situation that can arise due to the easy access students have to the internet such as cyber bullying. For this situation he explains that the teacher should make the student aware of their actions and the effect it has on the victim, then report the behaviour to the guardians so that they will realise the consequences. This creates morality within the student.

McGilvery concluded that being able to even use technology is considered to be a privilege due to the power it holds, which is also why he has a notion of children being almost robotic while using it because they become so captivated by it. Therefore he suggests teachers must create boundaries on the amount they use.

However, it is evident that some individuals such as Mossberger would disagree with me and instead argue that the digital world itself has a positive impact and creates moral citizens. This is because Mossberger would be an advocate for technology as she defines digital citizens as individuals who are able to use the internet both effectively and regularly. They’ve learnt to be aware of their actions. As a result this not only benefits the individual but society as a whole just as the education system promotes economic growth. Therefore, technology only increases in value as it creates opportunities, thus both work in cohesion.

Furthermore, in the Digital Diet, an article published by SAGE, allowed its readers to gain a better understanding into the digital world. They believed that by being able to understand the terminology used such as flaming and phishing, teachers could educate their students better on how to avoid any ethical issues. However, unlike Mossberger, they only view technology in a positive light if the “digital citizens are self-aware and respect and protect others'', as this supports virtuous and civil actions. Churches et al acknowledges that technology can be destructive if it's not used properly as it can lead to things such as piracy which is essentially theft and in order to avoid this situation, the teacher needs to teach the students about copyrights and plagiarism through the use of examples. This would help students cite their work more efficiently and give credit to the author.

Furthermore, Churches et al emphasises that a moral digital citizen is made up of six tenants of respect and protect which form a citizenship. These are respect and protect; yourself, others and intellectual property which allows the individual to become more self-aware and take responsibility. For example, if someone is taking part in cyber bullying its states that the education system should make it clear that they have a policy of zero tolerance for unacceptable behaviour. This will help deter uncivil actions as there will be consequences. Therefore it does also agree with me to an extent as it believes that the digital world does in fact create uncivil students but teachers have a duty to prevent this; as it states “You cannot sit by and let such behavior continue” so it could be avoided altogether.

Lepper et al explains the effects of when privacy is invaded, through technology. This happens due to surveillance through testing. They had conducted an experiment of young children when they had both high and low intrinsic motivation as a result of being monitored. The results showed that those who were not monitored showed a higher rate of intrinsic motivation compared to those who were. This emphasises that technology is intrusive and privacy is important for young people, especially as they are growing so they require a certain amount of freedom and trust to grow. If children are monitored less, a rapport is built and trust is gained, which in return creates moral digital citizens as they learn to respect others' privacy and are less likely to misbehave. Although this experiment may be outdated, even in today's society children are watched through the use of CCTV which alters their actions but today this could be a positive thing as children are less likely to take part in vicious actions such as bullying if they know they are being watched.

On the other hand, Engler et al explained that students are more likely to be influenced by their peers rather than their teachers or parents. For example, in his study he explains that students have a certain amount of loyalty to one another and thus live by something called an honor code. Although they may not be fully aware of this, they are subconsciously living by it; which is why they are more likely to partake in an action such as cheating if their friends are doing it too. Therefore, teachers can enforce positive honor codes such as respect and honesty. This would be done through rules and regulations put into place which would avoid unethical behaviour such as cheating. Furthermore, he makes it evident that technology creates a gateway of opportunities to cheat because of copy and pasting being so easy to use. This is unethical and only snowballs. Therefore, although the honor code is based more on peer pressure, he believes that students still deviate from being moral citizens to becoming lazy and losing passion for their intellectual desires; unless they are educated about how to use technology in an ethical way. Then they wouldn't plagiarise unknowingly. .

In addition to this, as adolescents are easily influenced by their peers, the teacher wouldn't need to influence every student. They can allow Banduras social learning theory of observational learning take over and the students will influence each other subconsciously. However, to do this the teachers must reinforce and discuss expectations of ethical behaviours and apply them into their syllabuses.

However, in opposition to Engler, DeVoss et al would simply argue that the academic institutions aren’t trying hard enough because they have a duty to fulfil, they have to ensure that young people are moulded into moral digital citizens in order to increase their morality. Instead he believes that technology is a gateway for communication because it has created more ways of students becoming more interactive with their teachers through the use of emails and academic institution websites. As a result of this, a participatory culture has formed creating more new opportunity as students are gaining key skills needed for future jobs such as; proficiency in Microsoft word, emailing and meeting deadlines. Therefore, by learning new skills they become aware of the impact they will have on their future careers and take responsibility for their actions and become vigilant about how they use social media; they are partaking in civil actions.

On the other hand, Insley argues that although he understands that plagiarism is an ethical issue and it results in immoral digital citizens; academic institutions are helping as best as they can but as technology has just made everything so accessible, it is difficult for them. Nonetheless, Insley suggests that teachers take in drafts of the students work so that it can be edited and any plagiarism can be avoided, this way the students become more self aware and learn how to use citation. He also makes suggestions that more group discussions should be taking place and projects should be made on plagiarism. However, ideas are currently implemented in schools for example; there are plagiarism guidelines for universities and penalty marks. Therefore, technology can cause uncivil actions and become destructive even if teachers are helping as much as they can.

Whereas, Richardson et al recently created a handbook in which they explained that education doesn't just stop at the institution; as it continues to play a role in the lives of children whether that is online or offline. Then due to technology being brought into the classrooms, the academic institutions have a duty to ensure that it is assimilated well. This assimilation will create moral digital citizens. However, this puts immense pressure on teachers as some children grow up in poverty so have little knowledge and access to technology and this creates inequalities and insecurities, neither of which are healthy for moral digital citizens. In addition to this, technology is hazardous to health as due to the digital divide; those with access, have too much unsupervised access during their early years to the point where they can damage their wellbeing, both social and physical. This affects their educational potential. Therefore, Richardson et al agrees with me in terms of how technology is destructive.

However, in a report conducted by the literacy trust in 2018 statistics emphasised how easily children believed fake news, another downfall of the digital world. Fake news can be created by anyone as materials are so easily accessible on the internet and children tend to follow those around them. This study was to reiterate the fact that children are easily influenced by the media in general such as the news of killer clowns, which was easily believed. Statistics revealed that only 2% of children have the critical literacy skills to spot fake news and many children lack the skills to check the credibility of the sources but this is the responsibility of the teachers to create morality within them. Therefore the report places emphasis on the importance of having analytical skills and being able to use them in order to differentiate the fake news from the truth. However, this can only be done with the help of their teachers as they can help by implementing critical literacy practices as an addition to the curriculum, as this would enable them to enhance their comprehension skills. Teachers can also use pedagogical learning methods such as collaborative or student led learning to teach the=m how to be safe.

On the other hand, technology also creates a sense of community and togetherness as it all stems from one individual user, who then connects with other users either individually or through the use of other networks. Therefore, knowledge is distributed; people learn new skills and information that they then share with others. Thus, technology has a positive impact on community growth and it creates moral digital citizens who display civil actions. 

In conclusion, my personal belief is that although technology and the internet itself is a positive progression in society it comes with a lot of negative repercussions such as; an invasion of privacy and isolation. Cyber-bullying and e-safety are important because technology is advancing faster than both the social and emotional ability of children. Therefore, it’s important that individuals understand how to use it effectively, as everyone learns differently, this can sometimes get lost in translation or they may not have the opportunity. This is why I believe that it is destructive as it leads to uncivil actions such as catfishing and so the education system must teach them guidance.