Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study assesses the degree to which students practice digital citizenship values at Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University. The researchers identified elements of digital citizenship and divided them into three areas: respect, education, and protection. Following a descriptive approach, the sample consisted of 540 male and female students who were randomly selected. The study found strong results in all three areas, although protection had the lowest practice. Female students were significantly more likely than male students to practice these values. Significant differences were also found according to field of study.

Keywords

digital citizenship respect education protection Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University university education digital technology

Introduction

Social networking sites offer new methods of civic engagement, collaborating on projects with peers around the world, and sharing photos, videos, and opinions (Fingal, 2020). Despite the many benefits of these networks, they can also be used for deception and illegal or otherwise unethical activity (M. Ribble & Miller, 2013), such as violating intellectual property rights, cyberbullying, disrespecting others, and fraud. Thus, many educators have called for schools and universities to better prepare students to interact online, exercise their digital citizenship, and protect themselves from the potential dangers of social media (A. H. Al-Qahtani, 2021; Al-Saadoun, 2019).

Universities have a duty to instill students with a sense of responsibility when using digital technology (Abbas, 2011). This is because the role of higher education has expanded to guiding and mentoring students and society (M. Ribble, 2015). Faculty are also expected to become digital leaders in their university communities, such as by designing creative activities related to the positive elements of digital citizenship, highlighting the dangers of digital technology, and developing critical and constructive thinking skills about online content.

The COVID-19 pandemic has further pushed students to use digital tools in every area of their lives (Öztürk, 2021; Ranchordas, 2020). This shift calls for regulations that encourage students to act responsibly, ethically, and safely in digital environments. Such responsible online behavior has been called digital citizenship (M. Ribble, 2008; M. S.Ribble et al., 2004).

Digital citizenship refers to online behaviors that ensure the legal, safe, ethical, and responsible use of information and communication technology (Elcicek et al., 2018; Goode, 2010; Oxley, 2011). Digital citizenship standards are among the most important measures adopted by the International Society for Technology in Education in 2009 and applied in different curricula. Ribble developed digital citizenship standards in 2011 to provide a balance between giving access to digital technology and preventing misbehavior by clarifying the penalties for non-compliance (Ribble, 2015).

Saudi Arabia has adopted policies for using online networks and computers in government institutions, such as requiring organizations to develop their own information security programs and define policies for accessing digital platforms, risk and property management, and managing information security incidents (Bureau of Experts, Council of Ministers, 2019). Nevertheless, some universities have not realized the importance of disseminating these policies to the extent required for university students to read and adhere to them (Al-Saadoun, 2019). This has also negatively affected the degree to which students practice safe, ethical, and responsible behavior in the digital sphere. Moreover, some universities have failed to recognize these policies’ potential to inculcate digital citizenship behaviors among undergraduates. For this reason, the current study sought to discover the degree to which Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University (PSAU) students practice the values of digital citizenship.

Problem Statement and Objectives

Hill (2015) emphasized the urgent need to investigate digital citizenship, while Ribble (2015) called on education leaders to promote the positive aspects of new technology and minimize negative aspects. Many studies have examined students’ awareness and perceptions of the components of digital citizenship (e.g., Abbasi & Hamdi, 2020; Al-Hanafi, 2021; Al-Momani & Alsmadi, 2020; A. H. Al-Qahtani, 2021; Al-Rashidi, 2021; Cubukcu & Bazyan, 2016; Naji, 2019; Nassar, 2019). Abbasi and Hamdi (2020) reported that University of Jordan students held an average understanding of the digital citizen, and Al-Sulayhat et al. (2018) showed similar results, while Tawalba (2018) showed that Yarmouk University students were aware of their digital practices and the impact on their citizenship values.

Some research on digital citizenship has focused on the mechanism of developing effective skills through programs and adding them to the curricula (e.g., Ahmed, 2021; Al-Juhani & Al-Ruhaili, 2020; Al-Khurisat, 2019; A. Al-Qahtani, 2018; Tapingkae et al., 2020). However, few studies (e.g., Domingo & Guerrero, 2018; Kara, 2018) have explored the degree to which undergraduates practice these values when using digital technology.

Furthermore, most previous studies have focused on awareness of digital citizenship and its elements among teachers and students in general education, not higher education (Blevins et al., 2014; Gazi, 2016; Hill, 2015; Hollandsworth et al., 2011; M. Ribble, 2008, 2012; M. S. Ribble & Bailey, 2004). The current study sought to bridge this gap with the following objectives:

Identify the degree to which PSAU students practice digital citizenship values in the areas of respect, education, and protection.

Identify the impact of gender and field of study on PSAU students’ practice of these values.

Based on the above aims, the study sought to answer the following main research question: To what extent do PSAU students practice digital citizenship values in terms of respect, education, and protection? This question was divided into the following sub-questions:

To what extent do PSAU students practice the digital citizenship value of respect?

To what extent do PSAU students practice the digital citizenship value of education?

To what extent do PSAU students practice the digital citizenship value of protection?

Does gender have a significant effect on PSAU students’ practice of digital citizenship values?

Does field of study have a significant effect on PSAU students’ practice of digital citizenship values?

Significance of the Study

The results of this study contribute to current knowledge about university students’ practice of digital citizenship values and could help guide learners toward safe, optimal use of digital technology. The results could inform curriculum design, policymakers, and educators by drawing attention to these values and current practice and could provide researchers with a theoretical and practical reference point. The research could provide useful feedback to learners, educators, and administrators at Saudi universities about the need to include digital citizenship values in coursework.

Limitations

The limitations of this research are as follows:

Substantive: The study was limited to three basic themes of digital citizenship: respect, education, and protection.

Temporal: The study was conducted during the second semester of 2020 (1442 AH).

Spatial: The study was limited to a random sample of students at PSAU.

Theoretical Framework

M. Ribble (2008) defined digital citizenship as the norms of appropriate and responsible behavior with regard to technology use. In this sense, a digital citizen is someone who has the ability to use information technology appropriately in different situations, such as official transactions, social communication, and education (Yildiz et al., 2020). The operational definition in this study was a set of values applied to use digital tools safely and effectively in all areas of life, but especially in education.

Although previous studies have given digital citizenship different definitions, they share a common meaning. For example, Hollandsworth et al. (2011) described it as the online version of traditional society, where people can socialize, receive education, trade, work, buy, and entertain online. M. S. Ribble and Bailey (2004) defined it as the norms of behavior for technology use, and M. Ribble (2008, 2009) defined it as a responsible and appropriate use of technology. Al-Kout (2015) argued that the concept evolves according to societal trends. The term is emblematic of the influence of digitization on the concept and practices of citizenship, as today’s youth increasingly turn to the Internet for information and to communicate with others.

The above definitions reveal that digital citizenship focuses on the behavior and interaction of people using digital resources, such as websites and social media. They also show that digital citizenship concentrates on using such resources to promote respectful and tolerant behavior among learners as well as increasing civic cooperation (Jones & Mitchell, 2016). Furthermore, it can facilitate individual development and protect social values in digital communities (Gazi, 2016).

Digital citizenship can be characterized broadly as an awareness of the components of digital citizenship, having the skills to effectively use digital tools, and practicing ethical behavior that ensures socially acceptable interaction (Alqahtani et al., 2017).

Some educators (e.g., M. Ribble, 2011; M. S. Ribble & Bailey, 2004) have suggested three categories or areas of digital citizenship: respect, education, and protection. These three categories include nine elements that illustrate the general framework of digital citizenship, as described below.

First Area: Respect (for Oneself and Others)

Research has shown that Internet access leads people to participate in digital citizenship activities in areas such as politics and economics (Mossberger et al., 2012), and connecting to online services is key to sustaining such practices (Kara, 2018). Information technology is thus an important factor helping citizens interact with friends, family, employers, and the government. Countries have therefore paid growing attention to applying e-government. Saudi Arabia, for example, established a law in 2003 to ensure all government functions and services could be accessed via the Internet and thereby protect equal digital rights, such as issuing passports, traffic fines, national identity papers, and renewing residency (Noor Al-din & Suriya, 2014). This area includes the following elements:

1. Digital access: Advocate for equal rights in digital access, which is where digital citizenship starts and is required for full electronic participation in society (M. S. Ribble & Bailey, 2004). Educational leaders need to ensure all students having similar digital opportunities.

2. Digital behavior (etiquette): Rules and policies may be inadequate and there is a need to teach others to follow electronic standards of conduct (M. S. Ribble & Bailey, 2004). Educational leaders should draw parallels for students between being good to each other in the classroom and in the digital sphere. For this to work, students need specific examples of appropriate action in both contexts (Ribble, 2015).

3. Digital law (responsibility): Users should understand that stealing or damaging another person’s property, business, or identity online is a crime punishable just like in the real world; people are therefore responsible for what they say and do online (M. S. Ribble & Bailey, 2004).

Second Area: Education (Teaching and Learning)

The second area includes the following elements:

1. Digital communication: Users need to learn how to communicate effectively online (M. S. Ribble & Bailey, 2004). Discussions should be held with students on which situations require which technology or media for interpersonal interactions, and students need to understand how to be clear to avoid misunderstandings with teachers and colleagues when there is no way to see physical reactions.

2. Digital literacy (education): Students need to know how to learn in a digital community (M. S. Ribble & Bailey, 2004). This entails learning about technology, its uses, and basic technical skills such as digital reading and writing.

3. Digital commerce: With more goods and services bought and sold over the Internet, users should understand how to navigate the digital economy (M. S. Ribble & Bailey, 2004). Students need to know how to protect themselves and their information in an online world by knowing which sites are safe, how much information to share, and how to protect their financial reputations.

Third Area: Protection

The third area includes the following elements:

1. Digital rights and responsibility: M. S. Ribble and Bailey (2004) defined digital rights and responsibility as those freedoms extended to everyone in a digital world. Educators should clarify the rights of all students to access the Internet and electronic platforms responsibly, such as by using strong passwords. The institution has the right not to grant access to their platforms to anyone who violates such rules.

2. Digital safety and security: Digital citizens need the knowledge to protect their information (M. S. Ribble & Bailey, 2004). For example, students should keep antivirus software up to date and follow safe protocols online.

3. Digital health and welfare: Teachers should show students the need to balance real life and virtual life and how to limit the use of digital technology in their daily lives.

Previous Studies

Kara (2018) employed a mixed-methods interpretive study to investigate the practices and ideas of 435 university students regarding digital citizenship. A questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale was used to collect the quantitative data, which were analyzed via factor analysis, descriptive statistics, and parametric testing. The quantitative results showed that college students preferred not to engage in political activities online. The qualitative phase was then conducted to better understand the reasons behind the ideas and practices reported in the first phase. Kara conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 students and used content analysis to analyze the data. The results indicated that students preferred to avoid online political activities due to pressure from society, emotional turmoil, and fear of negatively influencing their future.

Domingo and Guerrero (2018) used a questionnaire to determine students’ practice of digital citizenship values at an Omani university. They randomly selected 200 students who were enrolled in the fifth and sixth levels of the 2016–2017 academic year. The study focused on self-respect/respecting others, self-education/communication with others, and self-protection/protection of others. Gender and education level were found to affect the practice of digital citizenship. Students were practicing self-education and communicating with others (education) at a higher level than respecting themselves/others (respect). In addition, men was significantly more than women when it came to self-education and communicating with others through digital technology. In contrast, protecting oneself or others was lower in practice, and some participants were less aware of digital health. Similarly, the current study divided the elements of digital citizenship into respect, education, and protection.

A descriptive study by Al-Abdullatif and Gameil (2020) surveyed undergraduate students’ knowledge and practice of eight elements of digital citizenship. Although participants had many years of Internet experience and sufficient knowledge about how to access and interact with digital technology, they lacked sufficient knowledge of a number of elements of digital citizenship. Digital commerce had the highest level of access and interaction, but participants showed an inadequate level of digital security and safety practices when making purchases online. The results also showed a high level of digital competence in information exchange for personal and academic purposes, and participants displayed a high level of proficiency in undergraduate practices related to digital law, digital rights and responsibilities, digital health and safety, digital literacy, and digital etiquette.

Al-Rashed (2020) explored students’ knowledge of digital citizenship skills at Jordanian public universities. The researcher used a descriptive approach and collected the data through a 45-item questionnaire divided into three areas: digital skills, digital responsibility, and digital safety. The population included all graduate students at Jordanian public universities. A random sample of 5,200 students showed a high level of digital citizenship skills, but their digital safety and responsibility skills were average. The results revealed no significant differences in participant responses according to gender, college, or academic year, but those from the University of Jordan did show a significantly higher score than those from the University of Mutah.

Al-Masri and Sha’at (2017) surveyed 300 students at a Palestinian university following a descriptive analytical approach with a 68-item questionnaire distributed across nine areas of digital citizenship. The total degree of digital citizenship was high (71%), with no significant differences due to gender. Masri and Sha’at recommended that digital citizenship be included as a basic requirement of universities and to spread this culture through workshops, meetings, and courses.

Yildiz et al. (2020) distributed a quantitative questionnaire to 253 students in different sections of the Indik Secondary School for Technical Sciences in Sakarya University, Turkey. The questionnaire contained 49 items representing eight factors for digital citizenship. Relevant dimensions were communication, law, responsibility, critical thinking, participation, security, digital skills, ethics, and commerce. Male students were more awareness with the sub-dimensions of digital citizenship than female students. Additionally, students aged 18 to 21 were more awareness than those 21 to 24 or 25+. In contrast, there was little difference between students from different departments. Students whose father or mother graduated from high school showed significantly higher digital citizenship.

Abbasi and Hamdi (2020) sent a 36-item questionnaire to 500 students from the University of Jordan who were selected using a random stratified method, followed by a descriptive analytical approach to data analysis. The level of awareness in this sample was average, with no significant differences due to gender, college, or academic level. Similarly, the current study employed a descriptive analytical approach.

Al-Sulayhat et al. (2018) employed a questionnaire to assess awareness about digital citizenship among 230 randomly selected undergraduates in the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Jordan. Student awareness was generally average, with no significant differences attributable to gender, age, place of residence, or amount of Internet use. The study recommended teaching students how to protect themselves from online risks, such as cases of hacking.

Tawalba (2018) conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with (383) Yarmouk University students. Oliver’s (2000) steps were used to analyze the data. A number of main categories and sub-categories were generated representing awareness of digital practices and their impact on citizenship values. The results revealed that the degree of awareness of the concept of digital citizenship was high among students. Also, the results showed that there is a high correlation between the degree of awareness of the concept of digital citizenship and the axes of digital citizenship.

Methodology

This study employed a descriptive approach in describing the literature (Al-Assaf, 2012) and the data needed to measure the level of awareness about digital citizenship values among PSAU students. This was in keeping with the tendency for studies concerning evaluation or aiming to observe opinion to follow a descriptive approach (Adas, 1993).

Population and Sample

The study population consisted of all students attending PSAU. All students were invited by email to fill out the questionnaire, which was attached to the email along with the consent form. They were free to fill out the online questionnaire at the time and place of their choice and to express their thoughts freely (Robson, 2002). In total, 552 responses were received, and after random and incomplete responses were deleted, 540 responses were left for analysis. Table 1 describes the sample in terms of gender, field of study, academic level, and education level.

Table 1.

Description of the Study Sample.

Variable	Sub-variable	N	Percent
Gender	Male	202	37.4%
	Female	338	62.6%
	Total	540	100.0%
Field of study	Administration	84	15.6%
	Education	264	48.9%
	Medicine	15	2.8%
	Science	110	20.4%
	Engineering (including computer science)	67	12.4%
	Total	540	100.0%
Academic level	First	34	6.3%
	Second	53	9.8%
	Third	55	10.2%
	Fourth	65	12.0%
	Fifth	96	17.8%
	Sixth	73	13.5%
	Seventh	56	10.4%
	Eighth	108	20.0%
	Total	540	100.0%
Education level	Diploma	69	12.8%
	Bachelor’s	451	83.5%
	Master’s	20	3.7%
	Total	540	100.0%

Instrument

The data were collected through a questionnaire designed by the researchers based on a set of previous studies (e.g., A. Al-Qahtani, 2018; Al-Shayab & Tawalba, 2019). It consisted of two main sections. The first collected demographic information, and the second was divided into three areas of digital citizenship focusing on students’ awareness of respect (12 items), education (12 items), and protection (13 items). All responses in the second section were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, strongly disagree).

Validity and Reliability

To test for face validity, the initial version of the questionnaire, which contained 41 items, was examined by six experts specialized in curriculum and teaching methods, education technology, and measurement and evaluation. They were asked to express their opinion about the instrument’s adequacy to answer the research questions, the clarity of the content, and the content’s relevance to each area. Based on their feedback, the questionnaire was restructured to its final version containing 37 items.

Internal Consistency

After confirming face validity, the researchers applied it to a sample of 30 students from the study population. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used between the degree of each phrase of the area and the total degree of all phrases of that area, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Pearson’s Correlation of Items to the Area’s Total Degree.

Respect			Education			Protection
Item	Correlation to area	Sig	Item	Correlation to area	Sig	Item	Correlation to area	Sig
1	.390*	.036	13	.334*	.038	25	.758**	.000
2	.603**	.000	14	.577**	.001	26	.675**	.000
3	.462**	.006	15	.441**	.008	27	.360*	.037
4	.515**	.002	16	.502**	.003	28	.756**	.000
5	.393*	.036	17	.565**	.001	29	.723**	.000
6	.758**	.000	18	.551**	.001	30	.831**	.000
7	.467**	.005	19	.588**	.000	31	.374*	.038
8	.538**	.001	20	.622**	.000	32	.573**	.001
9	.734**	.000	21	.664**	.000	33	.597**	.000
10	.564**	.001	22	.545**	.001	34	.722**	.000
11	.333*	.045	23	.448**	.007	35	.816**	.000
12	.717**	.000	24	.381*	.021	36	.785**	.000
						37	.624**	.000
Area correlation coefficient	.796**	.000	–	.791**	.000	–	.940**	.000

Correlation significant at α ≤ .05. **Correlation significant at α ≤ .01.

All correlations were significant at α ≤ .01. Thus, all items were related to the areas to which they belonged, and the areas were related to the questionnaire as a whole.

Reliability

Table 3 shows the reliability coefficients of the sample responses according to Cronbach’s alpha.

Table 3.

Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients Measuring Instrument Reliability.

No.	Area	Items	Cronbach’s alpha
1	Respect	12	.755
2	Education	12	.737
3	Protection	13	.892
Total	Questionnaire as a whole (general reliability)	37	.910

All Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from .737 to .892, indicative of an average level of reliability, which is often higher than .7 (Field, 2017). This finding suggested that the questionnaire could reliably achieve the study objectives and that the statistical analysis would be valid and acceptable.

Statistical Processing

To analyze and interpret the results, the researchers used IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed). Data were coded and logged in a computer, then statistically processed. To determine the degree of awareness for each item, the researchers set three levels (high, medium, low) based on the following equation: class interval = (upper-class limit – lower class limit)/number of classes (see Al-Kilani & Al-Sharifin, 2007). Thus, the range was calculated as (5–1)/3 = 1.33, which was the class interval. This value was added to the lowest value in the scale (unity) to identify the upper limit to this cell.

Through SPSS, the following statistical methods were used:

Descriptive statistics (replications, rate, mean, standard deviation).

A Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the reliability of the questionnaire.

A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient for the face validity of the questionnaire.

A t-test to determine significant differences between participants according to gender and college.

A one-way ANOVA to identify significant differences between participants based on Internet use.

A Scheffe test to look for significant differences between variable answers.

Results and Discussion

The main research question asked, “To what extent do PSAU students practice digital citizenship values in terms of respect, education, and protection?” As shown in Table 4, the overall mean (M = 4.01) and standard deviation (SD = 0.70) showed a high degree of agreement with digital citizenship values. The areas were ordered based on mean. Respect came first (M = 4.08, SD = 0.81), followed by education (M = 4.06, SD = 0.75) and protection (M = 3.88, SD = 0.81).

Table 4.

Mean and Standard Deviation for Each Area of the Questionnaire.

No.	Area	M	SD	Order	Degree
1	Respect	4.08	0.81	1	High
2	Education	4.06	0.75	2	High
3	Protection	3.88	0.81	3	High
	Overall Mean	4.01	0.70	-	High

This result could be due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to increased awareness and use of digital technology in education. This concurs with Öztürk (2021), who analyzed a series of studies on digital citizenship and pointed out that the importance given to teaching digital citizenship has increased during the pandemic.

The digital citizenship value of respect was the most common, possibly due to the high moral and religious awareness among university students. Education as a close second could be attributed to the university raising awareness among students, such as through links to electronic resources. The e-course design standards also emphasize intellectual property rights and an e-learning charter, including policies for the safe, responsible use of digital technology. The high practice of protection could be explained by providing the basic rights of all university students to access technology, preserve their privacy, and express their opinions.

These results are consistent with those of Domingo and Guerrero (2018), who found protection was generally less commonly practiced than respect or education. In contrast to Domingo and Guerrero, however, students in the present study did not practice education to a higher degree than respect.

Research Question 1

To answer Research Question 1 (To what extent do PSAU students practice the digital citizenship value of respect?), mean and standard deviation were calculated for each item in the first area, respect (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Responses to Each Item Under Respect.

No.	Item	M	SD	Order	Explanation
11	I refrain from impersonating others on social media for whatever reason	4.40	1.26	1	High
10	I refrain from circulating indecent video and audio clips	4.38	1.25	2	High
3	I have electronic devices at home (such as a smart phone, computer, laptop)	4.29	1.11	3	High
1	I have an Internet connection	4.23	1.00	4	High
12	I am committed to not stealing other people’s property (written, audio, visual) online	4.21	1.32	5	High
4	I have access to most services (educational, government, and others) online	4.18	1.11	6	High
7	I avoid engaging in bullying or online incitement	4.13	1.44	7	High
5	I avoid sending disturbing emails to others	4.12	1.39	8	High
8	I read the chatroom instructions when I participate in them	3.99	1.24	9	High
9	I refrain from circulating copied video and audio clips	3.75	1.30	10	High
2	I help everyone in accessing the Internet	3.69	1.18	11	High
6	I use the Internet and social media in a balanced manner without over- or under-use	3.53	1.23	12	Medium
	Overall mean	4.08	0.81	-	High

The overall results (M = 4.08, SD = 0.81) indicated that students commonly practiced the digital citizenship value of respect. The items were ordered by mean. For example, Item 11 (I refrain from impersonating others on social media for whatever reason) came in first place (M = 4.40, SD = 1.26), followed by Item 10 (I refrain from circulating indecent video and audio clips) (M = 4.38, SD = 1.25), both with a high degree of practice. Item 6 (I use the Internet and social media in a balanced manner without over- or under-use) came in last (M = 3.53, SD = 1.23) with a medium degree of practice.

The above could be due to students’ high awareness of responsible, safe, and ethical use of digital technology. All items in the respect area pointed to a high degree of practice, except for the balanced use of digital technology, which showed a medium degree of practice. These results are consistent with Domingo and Guerrero (2018), who indicated that students practiced the digital citizenship value of respect to a high degree but less so than the digital citizenship value of education.

Research Question 2

To answer Research Question 2 (To what extent do PSAU students practice the digital citizenship value of education?), descriptive statistics were calculated for each item within this area (see Table 6).

Table 6.

Responses to Each Item Under Education.

No.	Item	M	SD	Order	Explanation
8	I submit my academic assignments online	4.55	0.84	1	High
7	I distinguish useful from useless content on webpages	4.53	0.88	2	High
11	I check the credibility of an online store before purchasing from it	4.41	1.01	3	High
5	I use search engines and social media to educate myself	4.39	0.91	4	High
12	I read customer reviews about goods before purchasing them online	4.25	1.18	5	High
4	I refrain from using social media to cheat on exams	4.13	1.31	6	High
3	I use social media to share ideas to support my learning	4.01	1.14	7	High
9	I use credit cards when shopping online	3.94	1.36	8	High
2	I use digital media to share information and experiences with others	3.89	1.20	9	High
10	I purchase goods (e.g., books, electronic games, software, clothing) from online stores	3.85	1.22	10	High
6	I attend online educational classes and lectures	3.72	1.24	11	High
1	I make new friends from all over the world using digital media	3.08	1.40	12	Medium
	Overall mean	4.06	0.75	-	High

The overall statistics (M = 4.06, SD = 0.75) indicated students commonly practiced the digital citizenship value of education. The items were arranged according to mean. Item 8 (I submit my academic assignments online) came in first place (M = 4.55, SD = 0.84), followed by Item 7 (I distinguish useful from useless content on webpages) (M = 4.53, SD = 0.88), both with a high degree of practice. In last place was Item 1 (I make new friends from all over the world using digital media) (M = 3.08, SD = 1.40) with a medium degree of practice.

The above findings illustrate that students educate themselves and communicate with others to a high degree. This may be attributed to faculty and programs educating students about how to communicate with them and their colleagues online, especially since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. These results correspond with Domingo and Guerrero’s (2018) finding that students practiced self-education and communicated with others (education-oriented digital citizenship skills) to a high degree.

Research Question 3

To answer Research Question 3 (To what extent do PSAU students practice the digital citizenship value of protection?), descriptive statistics were calculated for each item in this area (see Table 7).

Table 7.

Responses to Each Item Under Protection.

No.	Item	M	SD	Order	Explanation
6	I change my device passwords to protect my privacy	4.47	1.04	1	High
7	I refrain from providing any unknown person with my personal information, such as my identity or bank account numbers	4.13	1.13	2	High
2	I follow the user policy when using any program or app	4.13	1.20	3	High
8	I use unfamiliar passwords that are difficult to hack	4.10	1.24	4	High
1	I look into the privacy policy of programs and apps before installing them on my devices	4.06	1.18	5	High
13	I take breaks from continuous work on electronic devices	4.06	1.18	6	High
11	I maintain health and safety standards while using electronic devices, such as sitting up straight at a proper distance	3.95	1.22	7	High
12	I make sure the screen brightness is appropriate to reduce eye strain	3.88	1.18	8	High
3	I express my opinion in online communities without offending others	3.83	1.28	9	High
5	I have antivirus software and anti-spyware on my electronic devices	3.72	1.37	10	High
9	I take part in protecting my community from cyberterrorist campaigns	3.67	1.27	11	High
10	I avoid immersion in online games or social media so it doesn’t turn into an addiction	3.40	1.34	12	Medium
4	I refer to the source of digital data when quoting or using it	3.39	1.52	13	Medium
	Overall mean	3.88	0.81	-	High

The overall results (M = 3.88, SD = 0.81) suggested a high rate of digital citizenship skills related to protection. The items were arranged according to mean. Item 6 (I change my device passwords to protect my privacy) came in first place (M = 4.47, SD = 1.04), followed by Item 7 (I refrain from providing any unknown person with my personal information, such as my identity or bank account numbers) (M = 4.13, SD = 1.13), both with a high rate of practice. Item 4 (I refer to the source of digital data when quoting or using it) was ranked last (M = 3.39, SD = 1.52) with a medium rate of practice.

This result could be due to students’ awareness of related digital citizenship values, as suggested by them claiming to change their passwords to protect their privacy. This is a basic aspect of responsible, ethical, and safe behavior with digital technology that many educators have called for (e.g., Ribble, 2015). The results differ from some studies, such as Domingo and Guerrero (2018), who showed that some male and female participants were less aware of digital health, while the current study found frequent practice of protection-related digital citizenship skills.

Research Question 4

To answer Research Question 4 (Does gender have a significant effect on PSAU students’ practice of digital citizenship values?), an independent-samples t-test was conducted on responses in relation to gender (see Table 8).

Table 8.

Differences Between Participants According to Gender.

Area	Gender	N	M	SD	t	Degrees of freedom	p
Respect	Male	202	3.95	0.76	−2.84	538	.00**
	Female	338	4.15	0.82
Education	Male	202	3.83	0.79	−5.85	538	.00**
	Female	338	4.20	0.69
Protection	Male	202	3.73	0.82	−3.38	538	.00**
	Female	338	3.97	0.79
Total	Male	202	3.84	0.72	−4.49	538	.00**
	Female	338	4.11	0.66

significant at .001 level.

Overall, Table 8 shows that female participants were significantly more likely than male participants (at ≤0.05) to report using digital citizenship values in all three areas examined. These results differ from those of Yildiz et al. (2020), which showed male students had significantly higher digital citizenship values than female students. The researchers attribute this difference to female students’ greater engagement and interest in these values in the present study.

Research Question 5

To answer Research Question 5 (Does field of study have a significant effect on PSAU students’ practice of digital citizenship values?), a one-way ANOVA was used to analyze the responses in relation to field of study (see Table 9).

Table 9.

Mean Differences Between Participants According to Field of Study.

Area	Source variation	Sum of squares	Degree of freedom	Mean squares	F	p
Respect	Between groups	15.24	4	3.81	6.08	.00**
	Within groups	335.26	535	0.63
	Total	350.50	539
Education	Between groups	4.59	4	1.15	2.06	.08
	Within groups	298.11	535	0.56
	Total	302.70	539
Protection	Between groups	3.15	4	0.79	1.22	.30
	Within groups	347.10	535	0.65
	Total	350.25	539
Total	Between groups	5.54	4	1.38	2.88*	.02*
	Within groups	256.83	535	0.48
	Total	262.37	539

, *significant at .001 and .05 levels.

Table 9 shows a significant difference (at ≤0.05) between responses about respect according to field of study, but no such significant difference was found regarding education or protection. To determine the differences in the area of respect according to field of study, the researchers used the Scheffe test, as shown in Table 10.

Table 10.

Scheffe Results for Mean Differences between Responses About Field of Study.

Area	Field of study	M	Administration	Education	Medicine	Science
Respect	Administration	3.76	-
Education	4.21	**	-
Medicine	4.24			-
Science	3.95				-
Engineering (and computer science)	4.11					-
Total	Administration	3.87	-
Education	4.10	*	-
Medicine	3.96			-
Science	3.89				-
Engineering (and computer science)	4.02					-

Significant difference ≤ .05 in favor of the greater mean. **Significant difference ≤ .01 in favor of the greater mean.

Education students were significantly more likely to report using digital citizenship values than students in medicine, science, engineering, or administration. This might be due to the inclusion of this topic in the College of Education. Likewise, it could be due to the pandemic fostering a higher awareness and need to use digital technology among students in that college. Another factor is the greater number of responses from students in the College of Education.

Recommendations

This study investigated the degree to which PSAU students practiced digital citizenship values in the areas of respect, education, and protection. In addition, it revealed the impact of gender and field of study. The results showed students practiced these values in all three areas, with female participants reportedly practicing them significantly more than male participants.

Based on these findings, universities should help students acquire the key values of digital citizenship and promote the responsible use of digital technology. Faculty members could pay attention to having students read and sign the policies established by the university and competent authorities to raise awareness about these values and thereby encourage safe, responsible, and ethical practice. More studies are needed in global citizenship, especially those following a mixed-methods approach.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Amani BinJwair

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Abbasi

D. K.

Hamdi

N. A.

(2020). The degree of awareness of the students at the University of Jordan towards the concept of Digital Citizen. Science Journal of Education, 47(3), 318–332.

Abbas

(2011). Egyptian educational institutions and the development of citizenship values among students: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of the Faculty of Education at Tanta University, 44(2), 387–444.

Adas

(1993). Fundamentals of educational research. Dar Al Furqan.

Ahmed

(2021). The effectiveness of distance education in supporting the values of digital citizenship for university youth. Journal of the Faculty of Social Service for Studies and Social Research, 22(4), 131–162.

Al-Abdullatif

A. M.

Gameil

A. A.

(2020). Exploring students’ knowledge and practice of digital citizenship in higher education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(19), 122–142.

Al-Assaf

(2012). Introduction to research in behavioral sciences. Dar Al-Zahra.

Al-Hanafi

R. M.

(2021). Awareness of students with visual impairment at the secondary stage of the dimensions of digital citizenship and ways to enhance it from their viewpoint and their teachers. Educational Journal of Sohag College of Education, 88, 1455–1574.

Al-Juhani

Al-Ruhaili

(2020). Effectiveness of a proposed mobile learning environment in developing awareness of digital citizenship elements and being in harmony with them among female students at Taibah University. Science Journal of Education, 3(20), 196–215.

Al-Khurisat

M. A.

(2019). Developing an educational unit using telephone learning in the development of digital citizenship values among first grade secondary students in Jordan. Islamic University Journal of Educational and Psychological Studies, 27(5), 364–389.

10.

Al-Kilani

A. Z.

Al-Sharifin

N. K.

(2007). Introduction to research in educational and social sciences. Dar Al Masirah.

11.

Al-Kout

A. K.

(2015). Digital citizenship: Manifestations and challenges. Al Jameai Journal, 22, 65–76.

12.

Al-Masri

M. W.

Sha’at

A. H.

(2017). The estimate of level of digital citizenship among a sample of students of Palestine University from their point of view. Palestine University Journal for Research and Studies: University of Palestine, 7(2), 187–200.

13.

Al-Momani

M. O.

Alsmadi

M. A.

(2020). Students’ degree of possessing digital-citizenship skills from their points of view at Al-Balqa Applied University. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(8), 3335–3345.

14.

Al-Rashed

K., R.

(2020). The extent to which the Jordanian university students possess digital citizenship skills. Journal of Educational and Psychological Sciences, 4(10), 119–138.

15.

Al-Qahtani

(2018). DCV included in the educational technologies curriculum from the faculty’s point of view. Islamic University Journal of Educational and Psychological Studies, 26(1), 57–97.

16.

Alqahtani

Alqurashi

(2017). The extent of comprehension and knowledge with respect to digital citizenship among Middle Eastern and US students at UNC. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(9), 96–102.

17.

Al-Qahtani

A. H.

(2021). Students’ perceptions of the College of Education at Kuwait University about the dimensions of digital citizenship: Field study. College of Education Journal, 18(103), 571–611.

18.

Al-Rashidi

A. S.

(2021). The role of social studies teachers in promoting the values of digital citizenship from their point of view. Research Journal of Specific Education, 61, 53–73.

19.

Al-Saadoun

(2019). Fostering digital citizenship through acceptable use policies in Saudi government universities. Education Journal, 34(133), 273–307.

20.

Al-Shayab

M. K.

Tawalba

H. M.

(2019). Concepts of digital citizenship that need to be included in the national and civic curricula of primary education from the perspective of social studies teachers in Jordan. Journal of Al-Quds Open University for Educational & Psychological Research & Studies, 9(26), 34–56.

21.

Blevins

LeCompte

Wells

(2014). Citizenship education goes digital. Journal of Social Studies Research, 38(1), 33–44.

22.

Bureau of Experts, Council of Ministers. (2019). Controls on the use of information and communication technologies in government agencies. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2019-10-04/saudi-arabia-new-resolution-regulating-the-use-of-information-and-communication-technology-in-government-agencies/

23.

Cubukcu

Bazyan

(2016). A study regarding the perception of digital citizenship among adults and the assessment of this perception: A digital literacy model. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence, 7(3), 23–37.

24.

Domingo

S. M.

Guerrero

(2018). Extent of students’ practices as digital citizens in the 21st century. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 3(1), 134–148.

25.

Elcicek

Erdemci

Karal

(2018). Examining the relationship between the levels of digital citizenship and social presence for the graduate students having online education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 203–214.

26.

Field

(Ed.). (2017). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Sage.

27.

Fingal

(2020). Infographic: Citizenship in the digital age. https://www.iste.org/explore/infographic-im-digital-citizen

28.

Gazi

Z. A.

(2016). Internalization of digital citizenship for the future of all levels of education. Egitim ve Bilim, 41(186), 137–148.

29.

Goode

(2010). Cultural citizenship online: The Internet and digital culture. Citizenship Studies, 14(5), 527–542.

30.

Hill

(2015). Digital citizenship through game design in Minecraft. New Library World, 116(7/8), 369–382.

31.

Hollandsworth

Dowdy

Donovan

(2011). Digital citizenship in K-12: It takes a village. TechTrends, 55(4), 37–47.

32.

Jones

L. M.

Mitchell

K. J.

(2016). Defining and measuring youth digital citizenship. New Media & Society, 18(9), 2063–2079.

33.

Kara

(2018). Understanding university students’ thoughts and practices about digital citizenship: A mixed methods study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 172–185.

34.

Mossberger

Tolbert

C. J.

Hamilton

(2012). Measuring digital citizenship: Mobile access and broadband. Journal of International Communication, 6, 2492–2528.

35.

Naji

M. M.

(2019). Students’ awareness of the digital citizenship at library, documents and information department at Assiut University: An exploratory study. Scientific Journal of Library, Archives and Information, 1(2), 121–171.

36.

Nassar

N. M.

(2019). The Arab Open University students’ perceptions towards digital citizenship and determines ways of activating it from the student’s (a field study on a sample of university students). Islamic University Journal of Educational and Psychological Studies, 27(1), 152–184.

37.

Noor Al-din

Suriya

(2014). Developing e-government rules: Saudi Arabia as a model. Journal of Economic Research (JER), 2(2), 79–57.

38.

Oliver

(2000). Research for business, marketing and education. Hodder and Stoughton.

39.

Oxley

(2011). Digital citizenship: Developing an ethical and responsible online culture. Access, 25(3), 5–9.

40.

Öztürk

(2021). Digital citizenship and its teaching: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 4(1), 31–45.

41.

Ranchordas

(2020). We teach and learn online. Are we all digital citizens now? Lessons on digital citizenship from the lockdown. https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/we-teach-and-learn-online-are-we-all-digital-citizens-now-lessons

42.

Ribble

(2008). Passport to digital citizenship. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(4), 14–17.

43.

Ribble

(2009). Raising a digital child: A digital citizenship handbook for parents. Homepage Books.

44.

Ribble

(2011). Digital citizenship in schools. International Society for Technology in Education.

45.

Ribble

(2012). Digital citizenship for educational change. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48(4), 148–151.

46.

Ribble

(2015). Digital citizenship in schools: Nine elements all students should know. International Society for technology in Education.

47.

Ribble

Miller

T. N.

(2013). Educational leadership in an online world: Connecting students to technology responsibly, safely, and ethically. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 135–143.

48.

Ribble

M. S.

Bailey

G. D.

(2004). Digital citizenship focus questions for implementation. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(2), 12–15.

49.

Ribble

M. S.

Bailey

G. D.

Ross

T. W.

(2004). Digital citizenship: Addressing appropriate technology behavior. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(1), 7–12.

50.

Robson

(Ed.). (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (2nd ed.). Blackwell.

51.

Tapingkae

Panjaburee

Hwang

G. J.

Srisawasdi

(2020). Effects of a formative assessment-based contextual gaming approach on students’ digital citizenship behaviours, learning motivations, and perceptions. Computers & Education, 159, 103998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103998.

52.

Tawalba

H. M.

(2018). Yarmouk University students’ awareness of their digital practice and its relationship to their citizenship values. Jordan Journal of Educational Sciences, 14(4), 391–409.

53.

Yildiz

E. P.

Alkan

Cengel

(2020). Determination of digital citizenship levels of university students at Sakarya University Turkey. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(3), 300–308.

Students’ Practice of Digital Citizenship Values at Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Problem Statement and Objectives

Significance of the Study

Limitations

Theoretical Framework

First Area: Respect (for Oneself and Others)

Second Area: Education (Teaching and Learning)

Third Area: Protection

Previous Studies

Methodology

Population and Sample

Instrument

Validity and Reliability

Internal Consistency

Reliability

Statistical Processing

Results and Discussion

Research Question 1

Research Question 2

Research Question 3

Research Question 4

Research Question 5

Recommendations

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

References