Advertisement

Students and Their Computer Literacy: Evidence and Curriculum Implications

  • John AinleyEmail author
Reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)

Abstract

For a number of years, education authorities have responded to the importance of school students developing computer literacy by including it as part of the school curriculum, directly as a cross-curriculum capability, and by assessing the extent to which students are computer literate. Computer literacy and related concepts, such as ICT literacy, are defined so as to include both technological expertise and information literacy. Assessments of computer literacy, even though they vary, indicate that there are substantial variations in levels of computer literacy among students in the lower years of secondary school. In technologically developed countries, approximately one half of Year 8 students demonstrate proficiency, or advanced proficiency, in computer literacy, but up to 10% have very limited computer literacy. Assessments of computer literacy can also provide the basis for progression maps that could be used to inform curriculum development. Those progression maps will be more valuable if the frameworks on which they are based become more strongly integrated with each other. In addition, computer literacy appears to be influenced by student background, including familiarity with computers, as well as the emphases placed on it in classrooms and schools and the support provided by ICT in education systems. At present, there is less information about school and classroom influences on computer literacy than there is about student background influences. In the immediate future, the construct of computer literacy may need to accommodate increasingly to changes in software and hardware contexts in which it is manifested.

Keywords

Computer literacy ICT literacy Asessment Curriculum 

References

  1. Aesaert, K., van Nijlen, D., Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2014). Direct measures of digital information processing and communication skills in primary education: Using item response theory for the development and validation of an ICT competence scale. Computers & Education, 76, 168–181.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aesaert, K., van Braak, J., van Nijlen, D., & Vanderlinde, R. (2015). Primary school pupils ICT competences: Extensive model and scale development. Computers & Education, 81, 326–344.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Fraillon, J., & Gebhardt, E. (2016). Conceptualizing and measuring computer and information literacy in cross-national contexts. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 291–309.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1209205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). (2016). A global measure of digital and ICT literacy skills. Background paper prepared for the 2016 Global Education Monitoring Report: Education for people and planet: Creating sustainable futures for all. Paris: UNESCO. ED/GEMR/MERT/2016/P1/4. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002455/245577e.pdf.
  5. Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2012). National Assessment Program – ICT literacy years 6 & 10 2011 report. Sydney: Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA). Available: http://www.nap.edu.au/_resources/NAP_ICTL_2011_Public_Report_Final.pdf.Google Scholar
  6. Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2015). National Assessment Program – ICT literacy years 6 & 10 2014 report. Sydney: Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA). Available: http://www.nap.edu.au/_resources/D15_8761__NAP-ICT_2014_Public_Report_Final.pdf.Google Scholar
  7. Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2017). Information and communication technology (ICT) capability. Sydney: Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA). Available: http://v7-5.australiancurriculum.edu.au/GeneralCapabilities/Pdf/ICT.Google Scholar
  8. Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning and Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23.Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Binkley, M., Erstad, E., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., et al. (2012). Defining 21st century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Catts, R., & Lau, J. (2008). Towards information literacy indicators. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  12. Claro, M., Preiss, D., San Martin, E., Jara, I., Hinostraoza, J. E., 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 and Education, 59, 1042–1053.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Bortoli, L., Buckley, S., Underwood, C., O’Grady, E., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). ICILS 2013: Australian students’ readiness for study, work and life in the digital age. Melbourne: ACER. http://research.acer.edu.au/ict_literacy/6.Google Scholar
  14. Dexter, S. (2008). Leadership for IT in schools. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (Vol. 2, pp. 543–554). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Educational Testing Service (ETS), International ICT Literacy Panel. (2002). Digital transformation – A framework for ICT literacy. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  16. E-learning Nordic. (2006). E-learning Nordic 2006: The impact of ICT on education. Denmark: Ramboll Management.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission. (2008). Digital Literacy European Commission working paper and recommendations from Digital Literacy High-Level Expert Group. Retrieved 21 Oct 2010 from http://www.ifap.ru/library/book386.pdf.
  18. European Commission. (2010). Digital competence: Identification and European-wide validation of its key components for all levels of learners (DIGCOMP). Retrieved 26 Nov 2012, from http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/DIGCOMP.html.
  19. European Commission, Joint Research Centre-IPTS on behalf of DG Education and culture. (2013). DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. Retrieved from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC83167.pdf.
  20. Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Retrieved 5 Feb 2013 from http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=5099.
  21. Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., & Ainley, J. (2013). International computer and information literacy study assessment framework. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Retrieved from http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Electronic_versions/ICILS_2013_Framework.pdf.Google Scholar
  22. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a digital age. The IEA international computer and literacy information study international report. Heidelberg: Springer Cham.Google Scholar
  23. Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hatlevik, O. E., Ottestad, G., & Throndsen, I. (2015). Predictors of digital competence in 7th grade: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31, 220–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Helsper, E., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: Where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503–520.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902989227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hinostroza, J. E., Hepp, P., & Cox, C. (2008). Policies and practices on ICT in education in Chile: Enlaces. In T. Plomp, R. E. Anderson, N. Law, & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-national policies and practices on information and communication technology in education (Revised ed.). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) technology and engineering literacy (TEL) assessment. Retrieved on 8 Feb 2013 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tel/.
  29. Katz, I. R. (2007). Testing information literacy in digital environments: ETS’s iSkills assessment. Information Technology and Libraries, 26(3), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim, J., & Lee, W. (2013). Meanings of criteria and norms: Analyses and comparisons of ICT literacy competencies of middle school students. Computers & Education, 64, 81–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim, H. S., Kil, H. J., & Shin, A. (2014). An analysis of variables affecting the ICT literacy level of Korean elementary school students. Computers & Education, 77, 29–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koutropoulos, A. (2011). Digital natives: Ten years after. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4). Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no4/koutropoulos_1211.htm.
  33. Kozma, R. (Ed.). (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective. Eugene: ISTE.Google Scholar
  34. Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Madaus, G., & O’Dwyer, L. M. (1999). A short history of performance assessment: Lessons learned. The Phi Delta Kappan, 89(9), 688–695.Google Scholar
  36. Markauskaite, L. (2006). Towards an integrated analytical framework of information and communications technology literacy: From intended to implemented and achieved dimensions. Information Research, 11(3) paper 252. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/11-3/paper252.html.
  37. McDougall, A., Murnane, J. S., & Wills, S. (2014). The educational programming language logo: Its nature and its use in Australia. In A. Tatnall & B. Davey (Eds.), Reflections on the history of computers in education (IFIP advances in information and communication technology, Vol. 424). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2005). National Assessment Program Information and Communication Technology literacy years 6 and 10 an assessment domain for ICT literacy. Carlton: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  39. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2007). National Assessment Program – ICT literacy years 6 & 10 2005 report. Carlton: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  40. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Carlton: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  41. Moos, D., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning environments: A literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 576–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2016a). 2014 Abridged technology and engineering literacy framework for the 2014 National Assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.Google Scholar
  43. National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2016b). 2014 Nations Report Card: Technology & Engineering Literacy (TEL). https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/tel_2014/.
  44. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2011). PISA 2009 results: Students on-line digital technologies and performance. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  45. Peyton Jones, S. (2011). Computing at school: International comparisons. London: Microsoft Research.Google Scholar
  46. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2007). About information and communication technology: Assessment guidance. Retrieved 7 Apr 2007 from http://www.qca.org.uk/7889.html.
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sánchez, J., & Salinas, A. (2008). ICT & learning in Chilean schools: Lessons learned. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1621–1633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native – myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 61(4), 364–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Senkbeil, M., Ihme, J. M., & Wittwer, J. (2013). The Test of Technological and Information Literacy (TILT) in the National Educational Panel Study: Development, empirical testing, and evidence for validity. Journal for Educational Research Online, 5(2), 139–161.Google Scholar
  52. Siddiq, F., Hatlevik, O. E., Olsen, R. V., Throndsen, I., & Scherer, R. (2016). Taking a future perspective by learning from the past - A systematic review of assessment instruments that aim to measure primary and secondary school students’ ICT literacy. Educational Research Review, 19, 58–84.Google Scholar
  53. Sturman, L., & Sizmur, J. (2011). International comparison of computing in schools. Slough: NFER.Google Scholar
  54. United States Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education powered by technology: National Education Technology Plan 2010. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education Office of Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  55. Van Deursen, A. J., & Van Dijk, J. A. (2016). Modelling traditional literacy, internet skills and internet usage: An empirical study. Interacting with Computers, 28(1), 13–26.  https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/wu027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Council for Educational ResearchCamberwellAustralia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Joke Voogt
    • 1
  • Ola Erstad
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Child Development and EducationUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations