Main Article Content

Abstract

This article, in the form of an essay, proposes a new model of digital citizenship starting from ethical-social assumptions and bases, an alternative point of view through which the development of digital skills and new technologies is supported by anthropological and cultural paradigms. This becomes the only possible context where to develop a sustainable, shared and egalitarian digital citizenship, epitome of the transformation of today’s society, which is increasingly connected to the world of technological innovations. The synergy of different activities, in fields and contexts not always linked to each other, develop a fertile network on which to enhance the attitude to a positive and critical use of digital tools. The proposed model aims to establish six key points, six focuses: governance, prevention, network and social ethics, education and research, all operating within a conscious sharing of real ethical-social rules, recognized as a primary source by society. The represented sectors of intervention move simultaneously, in a circular, dynamic, centripetal convergence; only the joint effort of all areas of intervention will be able to achieve a real digital citizenship permeated by a conscious and active ethical awareness. The discussion also focuses on training and on the disparities relating to accessibility and use in the technological field, detecting the inequalities still deeply rooted in the territory and identifying Universal Design for Learning as a possible inclusive model.

Keywords

Digital Education Conscious Digital Citizenship Equal Accessibility Ethical and Social Context UDL

Article Details

How to Cite
Lo Iacono, M. (2022). A model for a conscious digital citizenship. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 18(3), 111-116. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135683

References

  1. Backstrom, L., Boldi, P., Rosa, M., Ugander, J., Vigna, S. (2012, June). Four degrees of separation. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference (pp. 33-42).
  2. Backstrom, L., Karrer, B., Marlow, C., Ugander, J., (2011). The anatomy of the facebook social graph, from http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.4503
  3. Baroni, F., Lazzari, M. (2013). Tecnologie informatiche e diritti umani per un nuovo approccio all’accessibilità. Italian Journal of Disability Studies, 1(1), 79-92.
  4. Baudelaire, C. (2014). I fiori del male e altre poesie. Bari: Einaudi.
  5. Boccia Artieri, G. (a cura di) (2015). Gli effetti sociali del web. Forme della comunicazione e metodologie della ricerca online. Milan: Franco Angeli.
  6. Buccieri, A. (2004). Le voci nella rete. Per una sociologia delle comunità virtuali. Pisa: Plus.
  7. Calvani, A. (2010). La competenza digitale: un modello di riferimento per la scuola. In: A. Calvani, A., Fini, & M., Ranieri, La competenza digitale nella scuola. Modelli e strumenti per valutarla e svilupparla. Trento: Erickson, 35 – 63.
  8. Calvani, A. (2013). L’innovazione tecnologica nella scuola: come perseguire un’innovazione tecnologica sostenibile ed efficace. LEA – Lingue e letterature d’Oriente e d’Occidente, 2, 567– 584.
  9. Calvani, A., Bonaiuti, G., & Pettenati, M. C. (2011). Instructional Principles, Universal Learning Design and the role of technologies. In International Conference ICT for inclusive learning: the way forward (pp. 229-233). Athens, Greece: Euracademy Association. Euracademy Association.
  10. Durkheim, E. (2008). Le regole del metodo sociologico, Sociologia e filosofia. Bari: Piccola biblioteca Einaudi.
  11. European Court of Auditors (2021) from https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/rw21_02/rw_digital_skills_it.pdf
  12. European Commissiom, JRC, (2022). DigComp 2.2: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens from https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC128415
  13. Galimberti, U., (2011). Freud, Jung e la psicoanalisi. Turin: La biblioteca di Repubblica.
  14. Guglielman, E. (2011). Verso l’«e-learning» inclusivo. Primi contributi per la costruzione di linee guida per l’accessibilità metodologico-didattica. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies (ECPS Journal), 2(4), 167-186.
  15. Italian Commission for internet rights and duties (2015). Declaration of internet rights, from https://www.camera.it/application/xmanager/projects/leg17/commissione_internet/TESTO_ITALIANO_DEFINITVO_2015.pdf
  16. Khun, T. (1999). La struttura delle rivoluzioni scientifiche. Torino: Einaudi.
  17. Mace, R. (1985). Universal Design, Barrier-free Environments for Everyone. Los Angeles, CA: Designers West.
  18. McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal design for instruction: The paradigm, its principles, and products for enhancing instructional access. Journal of postsecondary education and disability, 17(1), 11-21.
  19. Morin, E. (2002). Il metodo. L'identità umana. Milan: Raffaello Cortina.
  20. Morin, E., Cotroneo, G., & Gembillo, G. (2003). Un viandante della complessità. Morin filosofo a Messina, a cura di Anselmo A., Messina: Armando siciliano Editore.
  21. Morin, E. (2008). Lo spirito del tempo. Milan: Meltemi.
  22. Nida-Rümelin J., & Weidenfeld, N. (2019). Umanesimo digitale. Un’etica per l'epoca dell'Intelligenza Artificiale. Milan: Franco Angeli.
  23. Rivoltella, P.C. (2020). Tecnologie di comunità. Brescia: Editrice Morcelliana.
  24. Salamone, R. (2021). I pericoli del web per i giovani e gli adolescenti. Linee-guida per un corretto uso della rete. Rome: Alpes.
  25. Sennett, R. (2019). Building and Dwelling. Ethics for the City. London: Penguin.
  26. Simmel, G. (1995). La metropoli e la vita dello spirito. Rome: Armando Editore.
  27. Urbinati, N. (2011). Liberi e uguali. Contro l’ideologia individualista. Rome-Bari: Laterza.