Advertisement

Students’ Engagement with Information and Communications Technologies

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

Abstract

The International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) 2018 investigated students’ experience of using information and communication technology (ICT), their frequency of using ICT for a range of different purposes at and outside of school, and their dispositions toward the use of ICT. This study built on the knowledge about variations in the extent and type of ICT use by students established in ICILS 2013. With large representative samples it is possible to report not only on levels and patterns of ICT engagement but on the relationships of ICT engagement with student attributes. Student engagement with ICT was informed by the opportunity to learn construct. ICILS 2018 investigated both the in-school and out-of-school time that students engaged with ICT because students learned about and developed skills in using ICT in both environments. Students were also asked about the content of the ICT learning they had experienced at school and aspects of their attitudes to ICT. Slightly fewer than half of the students in grade 8 had been using computers for five or more years and computer experience was associated with students’ computer and information literacy (CIL). Only one in five students reported ICT use on a daily basis for school-related purposes but seven out of ten students reported ICT use on a daily basis outside school. School-related use of ICT most often involved internet searching and document production. Use of ICT outside school most frequently involved listening to downloaded or streamed music, playing games and searching for online information about things of personal interest. Most students were confident users of ICT and saw benefits of ICT for society. Male students had greater expectations than female students of using ICT for work or study in the future.

References

  1. Aparicio, M., Bacao, F., & Oliveira, T. (2016). An e-learning theoretical framework. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 19(1), 292–307.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  3. Bulfin, S., Johnson, N., Nemorin, S., & Selwyn, N. (2016). Nagging, noobs and new tricks–students’ perceptions of school as a context for digital technology use. Educational Studies, 42(3), 239–251. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2016.1160824.
  4. Bundsgaard, J., & Gerick, J. (2017). Patterns of students’ computer use and relations to their computer and information literacy: Results of a latent class analysis and implications for teaching and learning. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 5(17), 1–15. Retrieved from https://largescaleassessmentsineducation.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40536-017-0052-8.
  5. Comi, S.L., Argentin, G., Gui, M., Origo, F., & Pagani, L. (2016). Is it the way they use it? Teachers, ICT and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 56, 24–39. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.11.007.
  6. Elliott, S.N., & Bartlett, B.J. (2016). Opportunity to Iearn. Oxford Handbooks Online: Scholarly Research Reviews. Oxford, UK/New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935291.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935291-e-70.
  7. European Commission. (2013). Survey of schools: ICT in education. Benchmarking access, use and attitudes to technology in Europe’s schools (final report). Brussels, Belgium: Author. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/KK-31-13-401-EN-N.pdf.
  8. Fisher, C., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., & Dishaw, M. (1981). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 17(1), 2–15. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43997772.
  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. Fredericks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–96. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.3102/2F00346543074001059.
  12. Fu, J.S. (2013). ICT in education: a critical literature review and its implications. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 9(1), 112–125.Google Scholar
  13. Gerick, J., Eickelmann, B., & Bos, W. (2017). School-level predictors for the use of ICT in schools and students’ CIL in international comparison. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 5(1), 1–13. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-017-0037-7.
  14. Gil-Flores, J., Rodríguez-Santero, J., & Torres-Gordillo, J. (2017). Factors that explain the use of ICT in secondary-education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 441–449. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.057.
  15. Howard, S., Chan, A., & Caputi, P. (2014). More than beliefs: Subject areas and teachers’ integration of laptops in secondary teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 360–369. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12139.
  16. Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 international results in science. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/.
  17. Masters, G.N., & Wright, B.D. (1997). The partial credit model. In W.J. van der Linden, & R.K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 101–122). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 international results in mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/.
  19. OECD. (2014). TALIS 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en.
  20. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants: Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.173.Google Scholar
  21. Rohatgi, A., Scherer, R., & Hatlevik, O. (2016). The role of ICT self-efficacy for students’ ICT use and their achievement in a computer and information literacy test. Computers & Education, 102, 103–116. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.08.001.
  22. Rowan, B., & Correnti, R. (2009). Studying reading instruction with teacher logs: Lessons from the Study of Instructional Improvement. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 120–131. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.3102/0013189X09332375.
  23. Scheerens, J. (Ed.). (2017). Opportunity to learn, curriculum alignment and test preparation: A research review. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Schmidt, W.H., Zoido, P., & Cogan, L. (2013). Schooling matters: Opportunity to learn in PISA 2012. OECD Education Working Papers No. 95. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
  25. Scherer, R., Rohatgi, A., & Hatlevik, O. (2017). Students’ profiles of ICT use: Identification, determinants, and relations to achievement in a computer and information literacy test. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 486–499. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.034.
  26. Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native – myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings, 61(4), 364–379. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910973776.
  27. Vrasidas, C. (2015). The rhetoric of reform and teachers’ use of ICT. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(20), 370–380. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12149.
  28. Willermark, S. (2017). Technological pedagogical and content knowledge: A review of empirical studies published from 2011 to 2016. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(3), 315–343.Google Scholar

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