Digital Citizenship Capabilities Among Indigenous Senior High School Students: A Multidimensional Analysis in Resource-Constrained Contexts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65339/ijsair.V2.I2.321Keywords:
Capability Approach, Digital Citizenship Education, Indigenous Students, Philippines, Rural Education, Sociotechnical Systems TheoryAbstract
This study examines digital citizenship education (DCE) capabilities among indigenous senior high school students in Tinoc, Ifugao, Philippines, with the aim of identifying capability gaps and informing context-responsive educational transformations. Grounded in Sen’s Capability Approach, Sociotechnical Systems Theory, and Indigenous Knowledge Systems, the research adopts a quantitative descriptive design within a post-positivist framework. Data were collected from 211 students using a validated 58-item survey instrument measuring eight DCE dimensions: knowledge, skills, attitudes, literacy, behavior, safety, digital footprints, and ethics. Descriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests were employed to analyze overall profiles and demographic differences. Findings reveal a “foundational but fragmented” DCE profile (M = 3.12), where affective-behavioral dimensions (attitudes, behavior, safety, ethics) outperform cognitive-capability dimensions (knowledge, skills, literacy, footprints). Significant deficiencies were observed in digital footprints (M = 2.69) and source evaluation (M = 2.83), indicating limited critical digital agency. A notable knowledge–attitude gap (0.24) suggests “false competency,” while structural factors such as device ownership significantly influence capability development. Gender differences favor females in skills, literacy, and safety, and internet access primarily affects attitudes and behavior rather than cognitive competencies. The study concludes that DCE in resource-constrained indigenous contexts promotes protective rather than empowered citizenship. It recommends pedagogical reforms emphasizing critical literacy, technical resilience, and culturally grounded participation through indigenous governance principles such as Keleng. This research supports Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4.7 by addressing global citizenship and digital literacy competencies in marginalized contexts. Its sustainability impact lies in strengthening equitable, culturally responsive education systems that enhance community-based digital participation and reduce structural inequalities in rural education settings.
References
Arviola, S. A., Jr., & Dellomos, C. O. (2023). Global citizenship education in the Philippines: Adaptations and innovations. Human Rights Education in Asia-Pacific, 13, 267–280. https://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/asia-pacific/section1/hreap_v13_surveys_and_research2.pdf
Bernardo, A. B. I., Cordel, M. O., Ricardo, J. G. E., Galanza, M. A. M. C., & Almonte-Acosta, S. (2022). Global citizenship competencies of Filipino students: Using machine learning to explore the structure of cognitive, affective, and behavioral competencies in the 2019 Southeast Asia primary learning metrics. Education Sciences, 12(8), 547. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080547
Breakstone, J., Smith, M., Connors, P., Ortega, T., Kerr, D., & Wineburg, S. (2021). Lateral reading: College students learn to critically evaluate internet sources in an online course. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-56
Choi, M. (2016). A concept analysis of digital citizenship for democratic citizenship education in the Internet age. Theory and Research in Social Education, 44(4), 565–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2016.1210549
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2015). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.
Hobbs, R. (2017). Create to learn: Introduction to digital literacy. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394260201
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2016). ICCS 2016 user guide for the international database. IEA. https://www.iea.nl/index.php/studies/iea/iccs/iccs-2016
Malti, T., Galarneau, E., & Peplak, J. (2021). Moral development in adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(5), 1097–1113. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12639
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674061200
Philippine Institute for Development Studies. (2023). SDG 4 Philippines progress report. PIDS. https://pids.gov.ph/publications/
Philippine Normal University – GCED Cooperation Centre. (n.d.). The Philippine adaptation of global citizenship education: PAGHABI framework. https://gced.pnu.edu.ph/?page_id=11
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
Senate of the Philippines. (2024). Senate Bill No. 1376: Digital literacy in schools act. Senate of the Philippines. https://senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=19&q=SBN-1376
Shin, T. S., Hwang, H., Park, J., Teng, J. X., & Dang, T. (2019). Digital kids Asia-Pacific: Insights into children’s digital citizenship. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000367985
UNESCO. (2024). Global citizenship education: Taking it local in Asia-Pacific. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/
World Bank. (2022). Unlocking the Philippines' digital transformation by increasing internet connectivity. World Bank Group. https://doi.org/10.1596/36841
