Digital Etiquette and Being a Good Citizen

Miguel is a full-time online student, a full-time employee, and a father. He finds that he is constantly struggling with balancing all of his responsibilities and is trying to figure out a way to manage his time wisely. He is only in his third class and has already submitted assignments late. Trying to complete his assignments has been stressful and when he does manage to submit his work on time, he is working on it up until the last minute.
Miguel has a three-page paper to write for his class tonight. He just sat down to work on it at 9:00 p.m. He had hoped to take the instructor’s feedback from last week and use it to improve his work on this assignment; however, because it is so late, he already feels that he won’t have time to submit his work at the level of quality the professor is looking for. He feels pressured and stressed.
To complete the paper, Miguel has to do some research on the topic. Since he has not yet taken the time to explore the library, he believes it would take too long to use this as a research tool. Therefore, he decides to Google the topic for his paper.
He pulls up several websites, and finds plenty of information that he can use. Because he is running out of time to complete his paper, he decides to copy the information he has found (without citing) and after changing just a few words, he submits his paper on time.
In complete sentences, respond to the following:
1) In at least three sentences, describe how Miguel’s actions do not align with being a good digital citizen.
Being a good digital citizen means being aligned with the principles of academic honesty. Academic honesty means avoiding plagiarism. Miguel is cutting and pasting online material and then passing it off as his own, which is the definition of plagiarism. Even if the material Miguel cuts and pastes comes from a public source like Wikipedia, he still needs to cite the source of the material.
2) In at least three sentences, explain the potential consequences of Miguel’s actions.
As Sole & Jackson (1017) point out, plagiarism is a serious offence. There are several potential consequences for Miguel. One could be that he receives a warning from the instructor, who could counsel Miguel on the principles of good digital citizenship and academic honesty. Everyone deserves a second chance. Another potential consequence is a failing grade on this assignment. Alternatively, Miguel could fail the entire class or even get kicked out of his school.
3) Describe three alternative actions that Miguel could have taken in this situation.
1. Miguel could have simply cited the material’s source.
2. Miguel could have learned and practiced better time management skills.
3. Miguel could have spoken with his instructor about his situation and asked for an extension.
4) Review Ashford University’s Policy on recycling assignments (found in the Ashford Catalogue under Student’s Rights and Responsibilities) and in your own words, explain what it means to “recycle” an assignment.
Recycling assignments means handing in the same assignment that I wrote for another class. Even if I only change a few words, the act is still unethical unless I ask for and receive permission from the instructor. If the professor agrees, I would still need to substantially revise the material so that it constitutes a new assignment.
References
Sole, K. & Jackson, K.L. (2017). Fundamentals of Digital Literacy.
Scenario #2
Margaret is a full-time online student. She is currently in her second class and has been working very hard on maintaining a B average in her classes so far. She is hoping to achieve an A average by the end of her current class. However, in order for her to accomplish her academic goal, she knows she needs to make improvements in her school work.
One strategy that she knows she needs to use is to ask her instructor for feedback. The class is currently in the third week and Margaret has just opened the gradebook to view her grade and feedback from the assignment she completed the week before. Margaret reviews the feedback the instructor has provided; however, she is confused by it and is not completely clear on the suggestions that are given throughout the paper. Margaret decides to email her instructor and ask for clarification on the feedback provided.
Read Margaret’s email:
To: Ashford Instructor 
From: Student 
Subject: MY ASSIGNMENT
Email text:
Hey I saw u graded my paper from my grade but I thought I did wat u asked. Where can I see what u said to help me? I don’t understand. HELP!!!! I had better here from u today!
Write:
1) List three netiquette violations that you notice in this email.
a. Margaret uses txt slang unnecessarily, such as with “u” and “wat.” Emails are informal, but using this kind of lazy writing shows lack of respect for the professor.
b. All-caps (“HELP”) sounds like Margaret is shouting.
c. She writes, “I had better here from u today!” Not only is the word “here” incorrect (it should be “hear”), but this tone is demanding and also shows lack of respect for the professor. It would be inappropriate in face-to-face communication as well as in the online context.
2) Create a better email that Margaret can use instead. The email should demonstrate at least three characteristics of good digital citizenship as indicated in this week’s resources.
To:
From: (Include your Ashford or professional email address)
Subject:
Email text (The email should consist of at least four sentences) :
Hi
I reviewed your feedback from the assignment but unfortunately, I am unclear about what you mean. I would really appreciate it if you could explain your suggestions. Please let me know a good time to meet so that we can clarify what I need to do to improve my grade.
Thank you!
3) Aside from correcting the netiquette violations you listed in the first prompt, identify three additional characteristics of good digital citizenship that you used in the email you created above.
1. I used a respectful tone throughout.
2. I suggested that the professor pick the time to meet, which also is a sign of respect.
3. I did not blame the professor, but simply told her that I was unclear about what she meant.
Scenario #3
Part of being a good critical thinker and college student is the ability to maintain your own values, while understanding the perspectives of others who you may disagree with. Appropriate communication is important in an academic, online environment. An online classroom is meant to mirror a brick and mortar classroom in some ways. In the online classrooms at Ashford University, you will engage in academic discussions each week with your peers through the discussion forums. You may not always find that you agree with everything your classmates say, and while it is acceptable to compare and contrast your perspective with those of others, disagreement should be communicated in a calm, respectful, and non-aggressive manner. While academic discourse is part of learning and encouraged, there is a proper way to communicate. Peer responses should focus on the topic at hand and should be written to continue the academic discussion.
Irene is taking PSY 203 – Human Sexuality. She has just logged in to begin responding to her classmates’ posts. In the week’s discussion, part of the discussion prompt asks that they discuss the role of the school system on sex education. They are asked to support their discussion with at least one scholarly source. As Irene reads through the responses, she finds a response written by her classmate, Mark, which she disagrees with and decides to respond to him.
Read:
Mark’s initial response:
In my opinion, the school’s should not be talking about sex education in elementary schools. In my daughters school, they started talking about sex education when she was in fifth grade. I think that was to young. I think it was my responsibility to educate my daughter and not they’res that wasn’t right. So now she knows too much about sex and I am worried about how it influenced her.
Irene’s response to her classmate, Mark:
I think you are WRONG! I think they should educate kids in school because how else are they going to learn about it? We don’t have the right information to give them. At least the teachers know what they’re talking about, did you? I disagree with you. Also you didn’t use a scholarly source like we were supposed to and you have lots of spelling errors.
Write:
1) Identify three items in Irene’s response to Mark that did not demonstrate appropriate communication and good digital citizenship.
a. Using all caps (“WRONG”) is...wrong if good digital citizenship is the goal.
b. Saying someone is “wrong” right away is unnecessary and inflammatory, and suggests that Irene is not willing to understand her classmate’s point of view.
c. Similarly, Irene writes antagonistic statements like, “At least the teachers know what they’re talking about, did you?” and is both pedantic and arrogant when she writes, “you didn’t use a scholarly source like we were supposed to and you have lots of spelling errors.”

2) Rewrite Irene’s response to Mark to demonstrate appropriate communication and good digital citizenship.

Hi Mark, I understand where you are coming from. Teaching children sex education in elementary school does seem early, but when you think about it, fifth grade is right around the time prior to puberty for many children. Wouldn’t you rather arm your children with the knowledge they need to make educated choices about their own sexual behavior? I do think it is a great idea for you as a parent to assume the greater responsibility of teaching your children about sex. Schools can supplement your parental instruction with scientific evidence, ensuring that your children make healthy and mature choices when they are ready.
3) Aside from correcting the three items identified in the first prompt, describe three additional ways in which the post you have rewritten above demonstrates good digital citizenship. Explain in at least three sentences.

One of the most important ways of communicating a disagreement is to maintain a tone of respect. In this email, I showed respect for Mark and verbalized my understanding of his point of view. I also tried to show him a different side of things so that he can integrate his own values and beliefs with opposing views. The goal is to create dialogue, but attacking people does exactly the opposite by creating barriers in communication.