Critical Digital Citizenship: A Call to Action for Educators and Educational Researchers

  • Harry T. Dyer
Part of the Cultural Studies and Transdisciplinarity in Education book series (CSTE, volume 11)


This chapter explores what a consideration of the manner in which design influences social experiences online might mean for educational researchers, educators, and pupils. The chapter begins by critiquing the current approaches towards technology in education, particularly highlighting the one-size-fits-all model of technology in classrooms, the creeping ‘data gaze’ in education, and the attempts to present and view technology as apolitical. The chapter finishes by summarising how Comic Theory (presented in Chap.  6 of this book) can help understand the interactions of young people online in a nuanced and careful manner. To echo Larkin’s (2008, 3) words, ‘what media are needs to be interrogated, not presumed’. This holds true for education and for our understanding of media writ large. It is hoped that Comic Theory presents a method through which this interrogation can take place.


Comic Theory Educational technology MOOCs Interactive whiteboards Clinicalisation Data gaze Datafication Educational bureaucracy 


  1. Allsopp, D. H., Colucci, K., Doone, E., Perez, L., Bryant, E., Jr., & Holhfeld, T. N. (2012). Interactive whiteboard technology for students with disabilities: A year long exploratory study. Journal of Special Education Technology, 27(4), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2011). ‘Digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’ discourses. In R. Land & S. Bayne (Eds.), Digital difference: Perspectives on online learning (pp. 159–169). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blank, G., & Dutton, W. H., With Lefkowitz, J. (2019). Perceived threats to privacy online: The internet in Britain. Oxford Internet Survey 2019. Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. Boczkowski, P. J., Matassi, M., & Mitchelstein, E. (2018). How young users deal with multiple platforms: The role of meaning-making in social media repertoires. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23(5), 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cottom, T. M. (2017). Black CyberFeminism: Ways forward for intersectionality and digital sociology. In J. Daniels, K. Gregory, & T. McMillan Cottom (Eds.), Digital sociologies. Policy Press: London.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, J. L., & Jurgenson, N. (2014). Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society, 17(4), 476–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Despujol, I. M., Turro, C., Busqueis, J., & Canero, A. (2014). Analysis of demographics and results of student’s opinion survey of a large scale MOOC deployment for the Spanish speaking community. In Proceedings of Frontiers in education conference (pp. 1–8). Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
  8. Emejulu, A., & McGregor, C. (2019). Towards a radical digital citizenship in digital education. Critical Studies in Education, 60(1), 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foucault, M. (1979). The history of sexuality (Vol. 1). London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  10. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. London: Greenwood Publishing Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gillen, J., Staarman, J. K., Littleton, K., Mercer, N., & Twiner, A. (2007). A ‘learning revolution’? Investigating pedagogic practice around interactive whiteboards in British primary classrooms. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  13. Gopal, P. (2017). Yes, we must decolonise: Our teaching has to go beyond elite white men. Accessed 09/2019.
  14. Gov.UK. (2019). Statutory guidance National curriculum in England: computing programmes of study. Published 11 September 2013. Access 09/2019.
  15. Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Iniesto, F., & Rodrigo, C. (2016). A preliminary study for developing accessible MOOC services. Journal of Accessibility and Design for All, 6(2), 126–150.Google Scholar
  17. Jurgenson, N. (2012). When atoms meet bits: Social media, the mobile web and augmented revolution. Future Internet, 4, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Larkin, B. (2008). Signal and noise: Media, infrastructure, and urban culture in Nigeria. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Laurillard, D. (2016). The educational problem that MOOCs could solve: Professional development for teachers of disadvantaged students. Research in Learning Technology, 24, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman, S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Education and Information Technologies, 13(4), 291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loren, T. (2019, March 14). The hottest chat app for teens is … Google docs. The Atlantic. Access 09/2019.
  24. Macleod, H., Haywood, J., Woodgate, A., & Alkhatnai, M. (2014). Emerging patterns in MOOCs: Learners, course designs and directions. TechTrends, 59(1), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Munafo, J., Diedrick, M., & Stoffregen, T. A. (2017). The virtual reality head-mounted display Oculus Rift induces motion sickness and is sexist in its effects. Experimental Brain Research, 235(3), 889–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Neff, G., & Nafus, D. (2016). Self-tracking. Boston: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Northcote, M., Mildenhall, P., Marshall, L., & Swan, P. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: Interactive or just whiteboards? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 494–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD (2013). New sources of growth: Knowledge-based capital: Key analyses and policy conclusions: Synthesis report. Retrieved from
  30. Privacy International. (2019). No body’s business but mine: How menstruation apps are sharing your data. Access 09/2019.
  31. Rowe, E. (2019). Capitalism without capital: The intangible economy of education reform. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(2), 271–279.Google Scholar
  32. Selwyn, N. (2007). The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: A critical perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Slay, H., Siebörger, I., & Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”? Computers & Education, 51(3), 1321–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spring, J., & Picciano, A. G. (2013). The great American education-industrial complex: Ideology, technology, and profit. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Strauss, V. (2018). Teachers are now being asked to punch time clocks. What does that mean for their profession?. Retrieved from
  37. Weller, K. (2016). Trying to understand social media users and usage: The forgotten features of social media platforms. Online Information Review, 40(2), 256–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhao, X., Lampe, C., & Ellison, N. B. (2016). The social media ecology: User perceptions, strategies and challenges. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 89–100). ACM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry T. Dyer
    • 1
  1. 1.University of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations