Supporting adolescents toward healthy digital media use and digital citizenship more broadly “takes a village” (Hollandsworth et al., Reference Hollandsworth, Dowdy and Donovan2011). Chapters in this volume have touched on different aspects of digital media use and adolescent mental health, pointing to the importance of clinical intervention. Schools are another crucial entry point for delivery of support and prevention of future mental health difficulties. Educators have considerable reach to a captive audience of youth. Examining why, what, and how they teach students about digital media use and well-being is vital. In this chapter, we review leading K–12 digital media curricula that aim to teach students how to lead healthy digital lives. We outline the content and pedagogical approaches present in these materials and distill a set of learning goals apparent across curricular resources: critical awareness, self-reflection, and behavioral change. Given the relative absence of external evaluations of school-based interventions, we draw on relevant research to suggest both promising directions and key questions for future research.

Why do schools take on healthy digital media use and digital citizenship more broadly as a topic of instruction and intervention? At least four distinct drivers are arguably at play: problems, parents, precedent, and policies. First, problems: Digital and social media are meaningful venues for young people’s learning and lives beyond the classroom (Ito et al., Reference Ito, Odgers and Schueller2020). As adolescents use apps for peer connection, there are meaningful upsides but also inevitable conflicts. Conflicts that start online routinely spill over into schools, creating problems educators must solve through reactive sanctions, proactive classroom lessons, or both (Hinduja & Patchin, Reference Hinduja and Patchin2011). Other problems that educators feel pressed to solve include in-school device misuse, distraction, and inattention in class due to media-linked sleep deprivation (e.g., Klein, Reference Klein2020; Sparks, Reference Sparks2013). Second, parents are searching for support as they raise the first generation of digital youth (Palfrey & Gasser, Reference Palfrey and Gasser2011). They may turn to schools for guidance, or even demand that schools intervene when issues like digital drama or cyberbullying cases involve their children and fellow students. Third, precedent: in many schools, there is a long history of teaching relevant topics, including media literacy, news and information literacy, and health and wellness. Teachers of these topics have naturally (even if reluctantly) had to incorporate digital media into their class content in order to keep it relevant. Fourth, policies: The above factors have triggered school device policies to which enrolled students must consent, especially in schools with one-to-one laptop or tablet programs. However, schools are not the only policy drivers. Increasingly, schools themselves are subject to state policies that suggest or even mandate teaching of digital topics (Media Literacy Now, 2020; Phillips & Lee, Reference Phillips and Lee2019). For example, in 2019, the state of Texas passed legislation requiring school districts to incorporate digital citizenship (defined as “appropriate, responsible, and healthy online behavior”) into curricula and instruction (Media Literacy Now, 2020, p. 12).

In sum, problems, parents, precedent, and policies create a demand for resources to support digital citizenship and healthy digital media use. Comprehensive curricula and other resources for schools emerged in the 2000s in response, initially with a focus on internet safety and then with the expanded purview and framing of “digital citizenship” (Cortesi et al., Reference Cortesi, Hasse, Lombana-Bermudez, Kim and Gasser2020). While these curricula center on the Internet and social media, they build on a longer tradition of media literacy education (MLE). MLE has long advocated competences for informed and critical reflection about media. Through MLE, students develop a core recognition that media messages are constructed and a related understanding of the persuasion techniques used in ads and other mass media (Hobbs, Reference Hobbs2010). Now expanded to encompass “‘the digital,” contemporary MLE spans skills and knowledge for critical reflection about digital content (i.e., posts produced by others and oneself) as well as traditional mass media content. Protection and empowerment are dual motivations for digital and media literacy education: building essential literacies to protect youth from potential risks (e.g., harm to their psychological well-being) and empower them to leverage media benefits (e.g., for learning, social connection) (Hobbs, Reference Hobbs, Blumberg and Brooks2017).

Digital citizenship encompasses all of the skills for participation in a digital world – personally, socially, and civically – including essential “new media literacies” (Cortesi et al., Reference Cortesi, Hasse, Lombana-Bermudez, Kim and Gasser2020; Jenkins, Reference Jenkins2009). Mike Ribble and Gerald Bailey, who were among the first to use the term digital citizenship, named digital health and wellness as a key aspect of digital citizenship in the first edition of their book, Digital Citizenship in Schools (Reference Ribble and Bailey2007). At the time, they emphasized physical health and framed the topic in relation to protection from harms like carpal tunnel, poor posture, and eye strain through improper ergonomics. Ribble and Bailey also referenced psychological well-being and internet addiction, which they acknowledged as “another aspect of digital safety that has not received the attention it deserves” (p. 32).

Psychological well-being is no longer at the margins of discussions about digital life. In recent years, technology overuse and psychological well-being have been a steady focus in both public discourse and academic research. These topics have also been a source of considerable debate among researchers. As discussed throughout this volume, research currently converges around a recognition that young people are differentially susceptible to digital media impacts (See Subrahmanyam & Michikyan, Chapter 1 in this volume; Valkenburg, Chapter 2 in this volume). Individual, social, and contextual risk factors present in adolescents’ offline lives are often mirrored or amplified as they use digital media. For example, adolescents who have mental health challenges, those who are victimized, those who have limited family resources, and those who are surrounded by more offline violence in their communities all face digital risks that can impact their health and well-being (e.g., see Nesi et al., Reference Nesi, Wolff and Hunt2019; Odgers, Reference Odgers2018; Patton et al., Reference Patton, Eschmann, Elsaesser and Bocanegra2016; Underwood & Ehrenreich, Reference Underwood and Ehrenreich2017). And yet, digital media use can also reduce or mitigate offline risk (Ito et al., Reference Ito, Odgers and Schueller2020). Youth who are ostracized offline can find supportive community connections and resources for coping and recovery online.

The design features of technologies also shape their use in ways that matter for adolescent health and well-being. Today’s apps and devices are designed with features that are intentionally tested, iterated, and deployed to hold users’ attention (Center for Humane Technology, 2020a). For example, social media apps provide an endless stream of intermittent rewards (Alter, 2017; Center for Humane Tech, 2020a, 2020b). Features like infinite scrolling remove natural stopping cues. Default push notifications interrupt other activities. And metrics like Snapchat streaks capitalize on social reciprocity. These features leverage psychological vulnerabilities to create powerful habits loops and even, in some cases, behavioral addictions (Alter, Reference Alter2017).

Although individual youth are differentially vulnerable to these design tactics, from a developmental standpoint all adolescents are in a position of vulnerability given their sensitivity to social feedback and peer acceptance (Steinberg, Reference Steinberg2014). At the same time, the neural bases for impulse control are still developing (Dahl, Reference Dahl2004; Tamm et al., Reference Tamm, Menon and Reiss2002). Thus, contemporary adolescents are in a precarious position: the rewards social media offer are compelling and their capacities for self-regulation are not yet fully mature. Given that avoiding digital technology all together is neither desirable nor practical, learning how to use it in ways that promote rather than diminish health and well-being is arguably crucial. Schools represent an opportune context for this learning given their reach to a wide audience of youth and the frequent role of schools (whether realized or aspirational) in providing guidance related to matters of health and well-being (e.g., health class and drug and alcohol prevention efforts).

Digital Citizenship and Related Curricula for School-Based Approaches

To examine existing school-based approaches to support healthy digital technology use, we conducted a two-phase review of available curricula. First, we identified and reviewed leading digital citizenship programs and lessons (Table 15.1). Second, we conducted a closer examination of curricular resources identified in Step 1 that addressed healthy digital habits.

In the first phase of our review, we identified 20 relevant programs through (1) Google search, (2) consultation with experts, (3) review of educator resource “round ups” (e.g., via Edutopia), and (4) a recent comprehensive report on digital citizenship frameworks and approaches (Cortesi et al., Reference Cortesi, Hasse, Lombana-Bermudez, Kim and Gasser2020). With one exception (Center for Humane Technology), all programs we reviewed are framed as curricula, lessons, and/or classroom resources designed for use in K–12 school contexts. All are described as resources for supporting digital media use, often under the label of “digital citizenship.” We did not examine programs related to coding or computer science skills, nor did we focus on programs that incorporate but do not center technology use (for example, programs focused on self-harm and suicide prevention that may also cover the role of online communities).

In Table 15.1, we outline for each program (as of Fall 2020) the structure and format of resources, target grade levels, fee structure, and whether each program provides explicit instruction on the following common digital citizenship topics: cyberbullying and drama; identity expression and digital footprints; information quality and news literacy; privacy and safety; sexting; friendship and communication; violent and/or explicit content; and healthy digital habits.

All of these topics are relevant to healthy digital media use and individual well-being. A few examples: Cyberbullying is linked to poor psychosocial functioning, increased likelihood of self-injury, and poor physical health, as well as diminished academic performance (Kowalski et al., Reference Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder and Lattanner2014). Certain types of sexting are associated with internalizing problems (depression/anxiety) and risky sexual health behaviors, particularly for younger adolescents (Mori et al., Reference Mori, Temple, Browne and Madigan2019). Self-expression and digital footprints are intertwined with identity development, which is a key task of adolescence and healthy psychosocial development for all youth (Davis & Weinstein, Reference Davis, Weinstein and Wright2017). Depressed adolescents also report online self-expression practices like oversharing, “stressed posting,” and disclosing their own mental health issues (Nesi et al., Reference Nesi, Wolff and Hunt2019; Radovic et al., Reference Radovic, Gmelin, Stein and Miller2017). These practices may amplify short-term risks (e.g., because they contribute algorithmic inputs that suggest an interest in depressogenic or triggering content) and create lasting digital footprints with sensitive mental health information. Graphic, violent content in video games and pornography is a persistent focus of adult concern, though causal impacts on youth health and behavior remain a source of contention among researchers (Anderson, Reference Anderson2003; Ferguson, Reference Ferguson2020; Gentile, Reference Gentile2011; Kohut & Štulhofer, Reference Kohut and Štulhofer2018).

Available school-based programs that address topics relevant to adolescent well-being vary considerably in their approaches. Some programs provide brief coverage of a topic, while others offer multiple lessons for a deeper dive. Some have one resource set that is designed for applicability to students across multiple grade levels, while others are grade differentiated. Programs that have resources framed as applicable across multiple grade levels include: The Center for Humane Technology, which currently has a single signature video-recorded presentation and related technology tips and strategies; Google’s Be Internet Awesome curriculum, which has a collection of lessons that are all framed as best-suited for students in grades 2–6; and White Ribbon Week, which also uses the same lessons across a grade band (in their case, all elementary school grade levels). Other programs are grade differentiated: Common Sense Education, for example, has different lessons aligned to every year of school from kindergarten through 12th grade and CyberWise has lessons for each year of middle school. Across programs, some lessons are structured around a lecture-style presentation while others are interactive and use discussion questions, writing prompts, or hypothetical scenarios to engage students through more constructivist approaches (where learners actively make meaning of content and their personal connections to it). Most have mixed-media elements and a few have their own full-fledged online games (e.g., Be Internet Awesome, Common Sense Education, and DQ). Nearly all of the programs have educator tips, guides, or resources to support teaching and several have comprehensive professional development training (e.g., webinars, courses, and certification programs).

Even a brief review of the lessons also reveals considerable variation in how different programs approach the same topic. For example, with respect to cyberbullying, programs vary in how much time they allot to the topic (e.g., is cyberbullying a passing mention or the focus of multiple lessons?); in pedagogical approaches (e.g., do teachers provide students with strategies for dealing with cyberbullying and/or ask students to come up with their own ideas?); and – perhaps most crucially – in both implicit and explicit messages about the topic (e.g., are students primarily encouraged to be allies who stand with targets or to be upstanders who stand up to aggressors?). Each topic area listed in Table 15.1 could reasonably be the focus of a full review to examine these key messages and approaches and how they map to existing research. Given our focus in this chapter on healthy media use, we conducted a review of lessons that aim to promote healthy digital habits (i.e., those in the far-right column of the table, which is outlined and labeled “Digital Habits, Media Balance”).

Digital Citizenship Education: State of the Field

Above, we describe a suite of potentially promising pedagogies keyed to three crucial learning goals for supporting healthy digital habits. In Figure 15.1, we distill these three distinct learning goals of existing digital habits lessons and propose a cyclical relationship among them. Although we developed this model based on our review of lessons that target digital habits and media balance, it holds broader relevance for other aspects of technology use – such as online sharing and digital footprints. This model may offer a guide for assessing digital citizenship lesson content and pedagogies.

Figure 15.1

Educating for healthy digital media use: three core learning goals

These three focal aims – critical awareness, self-reflection, and behavioral change – likely have relevance beyond school settings, too, and particularly for mental health professionals who work directly with youth. Consider, for example, a teen whose struggle with depression appears to be exacerbated by social comparison on social media (Nesi & Prinstein, Reference Nesi and Prinstein2015). Building critical awareness could begin with discussion of the ways social media feeds can function as highlight reels that invite comparison (Weinstein, Reference Weinstein2017). Self-reflection might then involve engaging the teen in a process of self-identifying whether and when this pattern holds in their personal media use: Are there specific accounts that lead them to compare themself to others in ways that erode their mood or well-being? This self-reflection step could include building digital metacognition so that they begin to self-monitor and recognize when comparative thinking comes up in their everyday media use. Behavioral change could be supported through active strategies, like curating their social media feed(s) by unfollowing accounts that spark toxic comparison and adding accounts that encourage recovery and spark inspiration.

Returning to the context of school-based efforts, our review confirms overall that there are a number of available resources designed for digital citizenship and the intended promotion of healthy digital habits. Many of these resources are free, well-developed materials that are ready for immediate use and accompanied by detailed guidance for facilitators. Educators who are interested in promoting healthy digital media use will likely have little trouble finding relevant supports. What is less clear at this point is whether available resources actually achieve their intended aims and, more generally, which pedagogical approaches are effective and for whom.

We caution, too, that research about digital citizenship topics themselves (e.g., young people’s experiences with digital drama, sexting pressures, news and civic life, and creating healthy digital habits) is rapidly evolving and extremely relevant to the content of classroom lessons. Notably, in some cases, research consensus is hard won. Ongoing debates about the interpretations of evidence regarding impacts of technology use on mental health are a relevant example. It is understandable, then, that creators of school programs might struggle to distill the latest empirical research into clear, age-appropriate instructional content and classroom materials. In reviewing the digital habits lessons, we saw at least three instances of decisive curricular messages that are arguably misaligned with current research: (1) using the language of “addiction” to characterize everyday media habits; (2) describing a causal relationship between media activities and mental health issues (e.g., depression, anxiety, suicide risk); and (3) emphasizing total screen time without any attention to the types of digital activities that comprise that time. In addition to including potentially problematic messages, we noted examples of simplistic and likely ineffective instructional approaches (e.g., just telling all students “Don’t compare yourself to others on social media”) (see Weinstein, Reference Weinstein2017 for context on why this approach may fall short). We also observed in some lessons a clear implication that offline activities are inherently more worthwhile than any online activities.

Researchers must also attend to different methods of implementation for school-based interventions. As we have touched on above, research should go beyond analysis of curricular content to consider details like where (e.g., advisory, health class, social studies, whole school assembly), how often (e.g., “one and done” versus multiple lessons across a semester or year), and who facilitates (e.g., classroom teacher, guidance counselor, expert guest speaker, peer mentor). A further question about interventions for healthy digital media use is by whom and for whom. Who decides what constitutes healthy versus unhealthy use, particularly given that youth use technologies in ways that reflect dramatically different offline circumstances and access to resources (Ito et al., Reference Ito, Odgers and Schueller2020; Odgers, Reference Odgers2018)? Who actually receives digital citizenship interventions and in which ways do such interventions “meet them where there are” versus miss the mark?

There remain persistent and pernicious inequities across US education (e.g., Jencks & Phillips, Reference Jencks and Phillips2011; Reardon, Reference Reardon, Duncan and Murnane2011). The recent example of remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic provided yet another illustration of the ways in which young people differentially experience learning on a day-to-day basis in ways that set them up for stark differences in learning, health, and well-being outcomes (MacGillis, Reference MacGillis2020). Unsurprisingly, educational inequities play out in the context of technology-related education in ways that disproportionately impact black, Latino, and low-income youth (Watkins & Cho, Reference Watkins and Cho2018). A puzzle relates to who is responsible for attending to equity concerns when it comes to teaching digital topics. Should consideration of vulnerable students, and specific vulnerabilities, be “baked into” digital citizenship curricula and associated teacher supports? Or should programs leave it to teachers to make relevant adaptations for their students – whether they be students who have constrained resource access those who face learning challenges, those who have known mental health challenges, or any other number of relevant vulnerabilities? These questions are key for research, relevant to policy, and consequential from an ethical standpoint.

Other School-Based Approaches for Supporting Healthy Digital Media Use

Notably, digital citizenship curricula are but one approach to supporting healthy digital media use. The literature also suggests considerable advantages to integrating internet safety into already well-established and evidence-based programs that address related off-line harms (see Finkelhor et al., Reference Finkelhor, Walsh, Jones, Mitchell and Collier2020 for discussion). This integrative approach recognizes the considerable overlap between offline and online behaviors and corresponding intervention strategies. For example, as Finkelhor et al. (Reference Finkelhor, Walsh, Jones, Mitchell and Collier2020) describe, cyberbullying co-occurs with offline victimization and well-established prevention strategies for bullying hold relevance for cyberbullying (e.g., norm-setting about acceptable versus hurtful behaviors, teaching de-escalation strategies, discussing bystander support). Educational interventions that integrate cyberbullying with offline bullying appear effective based on meta-analytic review (Gaffney et al., Reference Gaffney, Farrington, Espelage and Ttofi2019). Finkelhor and colleagues argue that internet addiction/overuse is another topic best addressed through integration with existing interventions, specifically those that promote mental and physical health for high-risk youth, for example, by developing self-control, time management skills, and parental mediation.

Schools can also model or promote digital citizenship and healthy digital media use beyond the classroom lesson format. Additional venues for extra-curricular, school-based interventions – all of which are potentially relevant to digital citizenship – include whole school assemblies, peer-to-peer mentoring programs, and family engagement events. Acceptable use policies also set overarching guidelines and expectations for at-school technology use and/or the use of school-provided devices. These policies may bear resemblance to the aforementioned use-related “pledges” and represent another school channel for communicating messages and values about technology use.

Conclusion

Today’s digital technologies are designed with compelling features that contribute to their allure. These apps and devices are created to capture and hold people’s attention: designed and iterated to be “irresistible” (Alter, Reference Alter2017). Youth readily use these tools, though technologies are rarely created with young people’s healthy development front of mind. For adolescents, normative developmental drives and vulnerabilities contribute to heightened interest in the affordances digital media provide, from peer feedback to immediate rewards in gaming and on social media. While debate continues about the specific nature and mechanisms by which screen activities impact mental health, there is little question that digital media use should be a standard component of discussions about youth well-being.

As prior chapters in this handbook address, young people with particular mental health challenges may use digital media in ways that mirror or amplify risks. Clinical intervention represents an important avenue for providing these youth with targeted support. Yet questions about promoting healthy digital media use are widely relevant, and arguably merit attention with any and every young person who uses digital tools. Schools are a natural context for interventions particularly as they increasingly provide students with access to devices and encourage or require digital media use for learning. Our review documents a range of digital citizenship curricula and related resources to guide school-based intervention. These resources vary in their focal topics and in their approaches to those topics, as well as in terms of their formats, target grade levels, fee structures, and messaging. Across lessons that specifically target healthy digital habits, we observed three common learning goals: (1) building critical awareness so that students recognize and understand psychological dynamics and digital affordances that shape technology use; (2) scaffolding self-reflection that prompts students to take stock of their current digital media use and build digital metacognition; and (3) supporting behavioral change through strategies that promote digital agency and well-being. While programs often cover one or two of these learning goals, there is potential power in a three-pronged approach. Overall, relevant research suggests these aims and their corresponding approaches are good bets for supporting healthy digital media use. But, at present, we do not have a sufficient evidence base to guide decision-making about school-based interventions for promoting healthy digital media use. What works, for whom, and under what circumstances? Which topics, messages, and approaches align with current research on digital life and adolescent mental health/well-being? To what extent and how should school-based digital citizenship interventions be designed with an explicit equity lens?

All told, school-based interventions offer tangible ways to reach and support young people. Moving toward a set of well-developed and evidence-based curricular resources for digital media use will provide vital direction for the field.