Advertisement

Students’ computer and information literacy

  • Julian FraillonEmail author
  • John Ainley
  • Wolfram Schulz
  • Tim Friedman
  • Daniel Duckworth
Open Access
Chapter
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

In the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) 2018 assessment there is a focus on students’ abilities to use computer technologies to collect and manage information as well as to produce and exchange information. According to the framework, computer and information literacy (CIL) comprises four strands, each of which is specified in terms of a number of aspects. The strands describe CIL in terms understanding computer use, gathering information, producing information, and digital communication. This chapter explains the measurement of CIL in ICILS and discusses student achievement across ICILS countries. The CIL assessment instrument, the proficiency scale derived from the ICILS test instrument and data, and the student test results relating to CIL are described in detail. CIL achievement is described across four levels of increasing sophistication from a functional working knowledge of computers as tools (Level 1) through to the execution of control and evaluative judgment when searching for information and creating information products (Level 4). The assessment showed that students’ CIL varied more within countries than across countries. CIL achievement was associated with student gender with female students demonstrating higher CIL achievement than male students. Socioeconomic status (SES) was significantly positively associated with student CIL achievement. In nine of the 13 countries and benchmarking participants that met the ICILS technical requirements, students from non-immigrant families had statistically significantly higher CIL scores than students from immigrant families, and in 10 of 13 countries and benchmarking participants, students who reported mainly speaking the language of the ICILS test at home had statistically significantly higher CIL scale scores than those who reported speaking another language at home. Access to computers at home and years’ experience using computers were associated with students’ CIL.

References

  1. ACARA. (2012). National Assessment Program—ICT literacy years 6 and 10 report 2011. Sydney, Australia: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu.au/_resources/NAP_ICTL_2011_Public_Report_Final.pdf.
  2. ACARA. (2018). NAP sample assessment ICT literacy years 6 and 10 November 2018. Sydney, Australia: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2017napictlreport_final.pdf?sfvrsn=2
  3. Binkley, M., Erstad, E., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining 21st century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2.
  4. Buchmann, C. (2002). Measuring family background in international studies of education: Conceptual issues and methodological challenges. In A. Porter, & A. Gamoran (Eds.), Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement (pp. 150–197). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/read/10322/chapter/7#153.
  5. Dede, C. (2009). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
  6. Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do students read? The Hague, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Retrieved from https://www.iea.nl/publications/study-reports/international-reports-iea-studies/how-world-do-students-read.
  7. Entwistle, D. R., & Astone, N. M. (1994). Some practical guidelines for measuring youth’s race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Child Development, 65, 1521–1540.Google Scholar
  8. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Duckworth, D., & Friedman, T. (2019). International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 assessment framework. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Retrieved from https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030193881.
  9. 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. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Retrieved from https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319142210.
  10. Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Meyer, S. (Eds.). (2020). IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 technical report. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  11. Ganzeboom, H. B. G., de Graaf, P. M., & Treiman, D. J. (1992). A standard international socioeconomic index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 21(1), 1–56.Google Scholar
  12. Gottfried, A. (1985). Measures of socioeconomic status in child development research: Data and recommendations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 31(1), 85–92.Google Scholar
  13. Hauser, R. M. (1994). Measuring socioeconomic status in studies of child development. Child Development, 65, 1541–1545.Google Scholar
  14. International Labour Organization. (2007). International Standard Classification of Occupations: ISCO-2008. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.Google Scholar
  15. ITU. (2019). IDI 2017 rank [webpage]. Geneva, Switzerland: International Telecommunications Union. Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/net4/ITU-D/idi/2017/index.html.
  16. Kao, G. (2004). Social capital and its relevance to minority and immigrant populations. Sociology of Education, 77, 172–183.Google Scholar
  17. Kao, G., & Thompson, J. S. (2003). Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 417–442. Retrieved from https://www.annualreviews.org/ doi/abs/ https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100019.
  18. Lehmann, R. (1996). Reading literacy among immigrant students in the United States and former West Germany. In M. Binkley, K. Rust, & T. Williams (Eds.), Reading literacy in an international perspective: Collected papers from the IEA Reading Literacy Study (pp. 101–114). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).Google Scholar
  19. Mueller, C. W., & Parcel, T. L. (1981). Measures of socioeconomic status: Alternatives and recommendations. Child Development, 52(1), 13–30.Google Scholar
  20. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Kennedy, A., & Foy, P. (2007). PIRLS 2006 international report: IEA’s Progress in International Reading Literacy Study in primary schools in 40 countries. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Retrieved from https://timss.bc.edu/PDF/PIRLS2006_international_report.pdf.
  21. OECD. (1999). Classifying educational programmes: Manual for ISCED-97 implementation in OECD countries. Paris, France: Author.Google Scholar
  22. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nielsen & Lydiche.Google Scholar
  23. Schulz, W. (2006). Measuring the socioeconomic background of students and its effect on achievement in PISA 2000 and PISA 2003. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April 7–11, 2006. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED493510.pdf.
  24. Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.Google Scholar
  25. Stanat, P., & Christensen, G. (2006). Where immigrant students succeed: A comparative review of performance and engagement in PISA 2003. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
  26. UNESCO. (2006). ISCED 1997: International standard classification of education (Revised ed.). Paris, France: UNESCO Institute of Statistics.Google Scholar
  27. US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). NAEP Report Card: Technology & Engineering Literacy (TEL): Highlights from the 2018 assessment [webpage]. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/tel_2018_highlights/.
  28. Vereecken, C., & Vandegehuchte, A. (2003). Measurement of parental occupation: Agreement between parents and their children. Archives of Public Health, 61, 141–149.Google Scholar
  29. Von Davier, M., Gonzalez, E., & Mislevy, R. (2009). What are plausible values and why are they useful? In M. von Davier, & D. Hastedt (Eds.), IERI Monograph Series: Issues and Methodologies in Large-Scale Assessments, Volume 2 (pp. 9–36). Hamburg, Germany/Princeton, NJ: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)/Educational Testing Service (ETS). Retrieved from http://www.ierinstitute.org/fileadmin/Documents/IERI_Monograph/IERI_Monograph_Volume_02_Chapter_01.pdf.
  30. Woessmann, L. (2004). How equal are educational opportunities? Family background and student achievement in Europe and the United States (IZA Discussion Paper 1284). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp1284.pdf.Google Scholar
  31. World Wide Web Consortium. (2019). Web content accessibility guidelines 2.0, W3C World Wide Web Consortium recommendation March, 2016 [webpage]. World Wide Web Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

Copyright information

© IEA International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement 2020

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julian Fraillon
    • 1
    Email author
  • John Ainley
    • 2
  • Wolfram Schulz
    • 3
  • Tim Friedman
    • 4
  • Daniel Duckworth
    • 5
  1. 1.The Australian Council for Educational ResearchCamberwellAustralia
  2. 2.The Australian Council for Educational ResearchCamberwellAustralia
  3. 3.The Australian Council for Educational ResearchCamberwellAustralia
  4. 4.The Australian Council for Educational ResearchCamberwellAustralia
  5. 5.The Australian Council for Educational ResearchCamberwellAustralia

Personalised recommendations