Advertisement

Predictors of fostering students’ computer and information literacy – analysis based on a representative sample of secondary school teachers in Germany

  • Ramona Lorenz
  • Manuela Endberg
  • Wilfried Bos
Article

Abstract

In Germany schools are obliged to foster students’ digital competences. Based on the proficiency levels of students’ computer and information literacy (CIL) from the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS 2013), and a theoretical approach to media education in school, this paper aims to provide evidence on the relevance of teacher- and school-related factors in the fostering of students’ CIL. On the basis of a representative sample of secondary school teachers in Germany a structural equation model (SEM) which accommodated the frequency of ICT-use in instruction as a mediator variable was computed. The results of the SEM indicate teachers’ attitudes towards the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in instruction, ICT-related collaboration, and sufficient ICT equipment at schools as significant predictors in fostering students’ CIL. Findings bear important implications for teacher education in terms of preparing teachers for this fundamental task.

Keywords

Digital media in education Fostering students’ computer and information literacy ICT equipment Teacher collaboration Teachers’ attitudes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The presented study was made possible by the German foundation Deutsche Telekom Stiftung.

References

  1. Ala-Mutka, K., Punie, Y., & Redecker, C. (2008). Digital competence for lifelong learning. In Policy brief. European Commission, Joint Research Centre: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC48708.TN.pdf accessed 1 February 2018.
  2. Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41).  https://doi.org/10.1787/218525261154.
  3. Anderson, R. (2008). Implications of the information and knowledge society for education. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 3–22).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_1.
  4. Anderson, R., & Ainley, J. (2010). Technology and learning: Access in schools around the world, in: B. McGaw, E. Baker, & P. Peterson (Eds.) International encyclopaedia of education. 3rd edition (pp. 21–33). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52, 154–168.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Badia, A., Meneses, J., & Sigalés, C. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of factors affecting the educational use of ICT in technology-rich classrooms. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11(3), 787–808.  https://doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.31.13053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CEC [Commission of the European Communities]. (2007). Key competences for lifelong learning: European reference framework. Brussels: Directorate General Education and Culture. https://www.erasmusplus.org.uk/file/272/download accessed 1 February 2018.
  8. Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2008). Self-report measures and findings for information technology attitudes and competencies. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 349–365). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Claro, M., Preiss, D., San Martín, E., Jara, I., Hinostroza, J., Valenzuela, S., Cortes, F., & Nussbaum, M. (2012). Assessment of 21st century ICT skills in Chile: Test design and results from high school level students. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1042–1053.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness. In A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Dexter, S., Seashore, K. R., & Anderson, R. E. (2002). Contributions of professional community to exemplary use of ICT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4), 489–497.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.00260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers & Education, 51(1), 187–199.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B., & Gerick, J. (2016). Predictors of teachers’ use of ICT in school – The relevance of school characteristics, teachers’ attitudes and teacher collaboration. Education for Information, 22(2), 551–573.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9476-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eickelmann, B. (2011). Supportive and hindering factors to a sustainable implementation of ICT in schools. Journal for Educational Research Online, 3(1), 75–103.Google Scholar
  15. Eickelmann, B., & Schulz-Zander, R. (2008). Schuleffektivität, Schulentwicklung und digitale Medien. In W. Bos, H. G. Holtappels, H. Pfeiffer, H.-G. Rolff, & R. Schulz-Zander (Eds.), Jahrbuch der Schulentwicklung (Vol. 15, pp. 157–193). Weinheim, Germany: Juventa.Google Scholar
  16. Endberg, M., Lorenz, R., & Senkbeil, M. (2015). Einstellungen von Lehrpersonen der Sekundarstufe I zum Einsatz digitaler Medien im Unterricht. In W. Bos, R. Lorenz, M. Endberg, H. Schaumburg, R. Schulz-Zander & M. Senkbeil (Eds.), Schule digital – der Länderindikator 2015. Vertiefende Analysen zur schulischen Nutzung digitaler Medien im Bundesländervergleich (pp. 95–140). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  17. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. Seville, Spain: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, European Commission. http://www.ifap.ru/library/book522.pdf accessed 1 February 2018.
  19. Ferrari, A. (2013). DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  20. Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., & Ainley, J. (2013). International Computer and Information Literacy Study: Assessment Framework.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14222-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a digital age. The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study International Report: Springer. http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Electronic_versions/ICILS_2013_International_Report.pdf accessed 1 February 2018.Google Scholar
  22. Gräsel, C., Fußangel, K., & Pröbstel, C. (2006). Lehrkräfte zur Kooperation anregen – eine Aufgabe für Sisyphos? Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 52(2), 205–219.Google Scholar
  23. Hatlevik, O. (2009). How to identify and understand digital literacy among 9th grade norwegian students: examining the influences from school and home on students’ digital literacy. Digital Kompetanse, 4(3–4), 159–174.Google Scholar
  24. Herring, M. C., Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Rosenberg, J., & Teske, J. (2016). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. KMK [Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland]. (2016). Bildung in der digitalen Welt. Strategie der Kultusministerkonferenz. https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/pdf/PresseUndAktuelles/2016/Bildung_digitale_Welt_Webversion.pdf (accessed 1 February 2018).
  27. Kozma, R. (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective. OR, ISTE: Eugene.Google Scholar
  28. Kozma, R. (2008). Comparative Analyses of Policies for ICT in Education. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Education (pp. 1083–1096).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_68.
  29. Länderkonferenz MedienBildung. (2015). Kompetenzorientiertes Konzept für die schulische Medienbildung. LKM-Positionspapier Stand, 29(01), 2015. www.laenderkonferenz-medienbildung.de/index.php/medienbildung.html?file=files/Dateien_lkm/PDF/LKM-Positionspapier.pdf accessed 1 February 2018.
  30. Law, N., & Chow, A. (2008). Teacher characteristics, contextual factors, and how these affect the pedagogical use of ICT. In N. Law, W. J. Pelgrum, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Pedagogy and ICT use in Schools around the World. Findings from the IEA-SITES 2006 (pp. 182–221).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8928-2_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Law, N., Pelgrum, W., & Plomp, T. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study. Hong Kong SAR: Comparative Education Research Centre/Springer, University of Hong Kong.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8928-2.Google Scholar
  32. Literat, I. (2014). Measuring new media literacies: Towards the development of a comprehensive assessment tool. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 6(1), 15–27.Google Scholar
  33. Lorenz, R., & Endberg, M. (2015). Förderung der IT-bezogenen Fähigkeiten von Schülerinnen und Schülern durch Lehrpersonen in der Sekundarstufe I. In W. Bos, R. Lorenz, M. Endberg, H. Schaumburg, R. Schulz-Zander, & M. Senkbeil (Eds.), Schule digital – der Länderindikator 2015. Vertiefende Analysen zur schulischen Nutzung digitaler Medien im Bundesländervergleich (pp. 141–188). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  34. Lorenz, R. & Endberg, M. (2016a). Förderung der medienbezogenen Kompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern der Sekundarstufe I in Deutschland und im Bundesländervergleich. Aktuelle Ergebnisse für 2016 und der Trend seit 2015. In W. Bos, R. Lorenz, M. Endberg, B. Eickelmann, R. Kammerl & S. Welling (Hrsg.), Schule digital – der Länderindikator 2016. Kompetenzen von Lehrpersonen der Sekundarstufe I im Umgang mit digitalen Medien im Bundesländervergleich (S. 110–147). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  35. Lorenz, R., & Endberg, M. (2016b). Zusammenhang zwischen medienbezogenen Lehrereinstellungen und der Förderung computer- und informationsbezogener Kompetenzen. In R. Strietholt, W. Bos, H.-G. Holtappels, & N. McElvany (Eds.), Jahrbuch der Schulentwicklung (Vol. 19, pp. 206–229). Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.Google Scholar
  36. Lorenz, R., & Bos, W. (2017). Schule digital – der Länderindikator 2017. Theoretisches Rahmenmodell, Überblick über die Befunde des Länderindikators 2017 und Einordnung zentraler Ergebnisse der Erhebungszyk-len 2015, 2016 und 2017. In R. Lorenz, W. Bos, M. Endberg, B. Eickelmann, S. Grafe, & J. Vahrenhold (Eds.), Schule digital – der Länderindikator 2017. Schulische Medienbildung in der Sekundarstufe I im Bundesländervergleich und Trends von 2015 bis 2017 (pp. 11–35). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  37. MCEECDYA [Ministerial Council on Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs]. (2010). National Assessment Program: ICT literacy years 6 & 10 report 2008. Carlton South, VIC, Australia: Curriculum Corporation. https://www.nap.edu.au/_resources/2008_NAP_ICTL_Public_Report.pdf accessed 1 February 2018.
  38. MCEETYA [Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs]. (2007). National Assessment Program: ICT literacy years 6 and 10 report 2005. Carlton South, VIC, Australia: Curriculum Corporation. https://www.nap.edu.au/_resources/2005_ICTL_Public_Report_file_main.pdf accessed 1 February 2018.
  39. Muthén, B. O. (2004). Latent variable analysis. Growth mixture modeling and related techniques for longitudinal data. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The sage handbook of quantitative methodology (pp. 345–368). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus User’s Guide (Eighth ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  41. P21 [Partnership for 21st Century Learning]. (2015). P21 Framework Definitions. http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_Framework_Definitions_New_Logo_2015.pdf (accessed 1 February 2018).
  42. Pelgrum, W. J., Reinen, I. A. M. J., & Plomp, T. (1993). Schools, Teachers, Students and Computers: A Cross-national Perspective (IEA-COMPED Study, Stage 2). Enschede, the Netherlands: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  43. Petko, D. (2012). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital Media in Classrooms: Sharpening the focus of the ‘will, skill, tool’ model and integrating teachers’ constructivist orientations. Computers & Education, 58, 1351–1359.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scheerens, J. (1990). School Effectiveness and the Development of Process Indicators of School Functioning. In B. P. M. Creemers, T. Peters & D. Reynolds (eds), School Effectiveness and School Improvement (pp. 61–80).  https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345900010106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scheerens, J. (2000). Improving school effectiveness. Paris, France: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.Google Scholar
  47. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Teo, T. (2015). Becoming more specific: Measuring and modeling Teachers' perceived usefulness of ICT in the context of teaching and learning. Computers & Education, 88, 202–214.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Siddiq, F., Scherer, R., & Tondeur, J. (2016). Teachers' emphasis on developing Students' digital information and communication skills (TEDDICS): A new construct in 21st century education. Computers & Education, 92, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.006, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55.  https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. ten Brummelhuis, A., & Kuiper, E. (2008). Driving Forces for ICT in Learning. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 97–111).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tondeur, J., Hermans, R., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). Exploring the link between teachers’ educational belief profiles and different types of computer use in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 65(3), 555–575.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2016). Understanding the relationship between Teachers' pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 555–575.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 403–413.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012). Structural equation modeling. Applications Using Mplus. West Sussex, UK: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Welling, S., Lorenz, R,. & Eickelmann, B. (2016). Kooperation von Lehrkräften der Sekundarstufe I zum Einsatz digitaler Medien in Lehr- und Lernprozessen in Deutschland und im Bundesländervergleich. In W. Bos, R. Lorenz, M. Endberg, B. Eickelmann, R. Kammerl, & S. Welling (Eds.), Schule digital – der Länderindikator 2016. Kompetenzen von Lehrpersonen der Sekundarstufe I im Umgang mit digitalen Medien im Bundesländervergleich (pp. 236–263). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research on Education and School DevelopmentTU Dortmund UniversityDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations