Page 40 - Šolsko polje, XXVII, 2016, no. 3-4: IEA ICILS in druge sodobne teme, ur. Eva Klemenčič
P. 40
šolsko polje, letnik xxvii, številka 3–4
The multilevel models revealed that the individual SES is not relat
ed to student CIL in only four countries, but the school SES is related to
CIL in all countries. In addition, in two thirds of all countries there is a
compositional effect: the influence of the overall SES of the students in
school has on the individual CIL achievement. Somewhat soothing is that
in most countries there was no interaction effect between SES on individ
ual and school level (i.e. the effect of student SES on achievement does not
vary as a function of the aggregated SES on school level), and where such
effect was found, it was negative (the higher SES students are not advan
taged compared to low SES students in the same schools).
All these are alarming finding for all countries included in this
study: the school with its resources, personnel, purposeful use of ICT
in instruction and emphasis on ICT does not help on bridging the dig
ital divide gap between students coming from low and high SES fami
lies. Along these lines, some authors say that the digital divide is actual
ly a “home-school divide”, and this divide between the real world and the
classroom in terms of technology use is the real concern: rich literate prac
tices at home versus the narrow and restricted practices used at school and
in the classroom (Henderson, 2011). Moreover, school may often neglect
the learning outside its walls and ignore what students bring to schools as
a multi-literate experience (Henderson, 2011). The aforementioned issues
on the differences between the home and school divide are related to the
educational ecology perspective, where the adoption of ICT in education
is viewed as a whole and the broader social and cultural contexts, where
family and home factors belong, have a stronger influence than the school
ones. Schools should rely more on the dynamic relationship with families
in planning the use of technology in instruction, which could increase the
social capital and empower individuals and their families which, in turn,
would improve the learning outcomes (Yu, Yuen, & Park, 2012). From the
point of view of the “third space” theories, the knowledge acquired at home
and school come together. “In such ‘third spaces’, meaningful connections
are made between different funds of knowledge, mutually informing and
reshaping one another” (Grant, 2011, p. 293). The intersection of these dif
ferent knowledge funds gives the students the opportunity to use differ
ent cultural resources in their learning, including other domains. If these
knowledge funds are different and do not intersect, the good learning ex
perience at home does not facilitate learning at school, discontinuing the
transfer between the two different cultures and children would have to
put more efforts in creating their third space (Grant, 2011).
The findings show that the widespread expectation at the end of last
century opinion that the massive computerization of the population will
38
The multilevel models revealed that the individual SES is not relat
ed to student CIL in only four countries, but the school SES is related to
CIL in all countries. In addition, in two thirds of all countries there is a
compositional effect: the influence of the overall SES of the students in
school has on the individual CIL achievement. Somewhat soothing is that
in most countries there was no interaction effect between SES on individ
ual and school level (i.e. the effect of student SES on achievement does not
vary as a function of the aggregated SES on school level), and where such
effect was found, it was negative (the higher SES students are not advan
taged compared to low SES students in the same schools).
All these are alarming finding for all countries included in this
study: the school with its resources, personnel, purposeful use of ICT
in instruction and emphasis on ICT does not help on bridging the dig
ital divide gap between students coming from low and high SES fami
lies. Along these lines, some authors say that the digital divide is actual
ly a “home-school divide”, and this divide between the real world and the
classroom in terms of technology use is the real concern: rich literate prac
tices at home versus the narrow and restricted practices used at school and
in the classroom (Henderson, 2011). Moreover, school may often neglect
the learning outside its walls and ignore what students bring to schools as
a multi-literate experience (Henderson, 2011). The aforementioned issues
on the differences between the home and school divide are related to the
educational ecology perspective, where the adoption of ICT in education
is viewed as a whole and the broader social and cultural contexts, where
family and home factors belong, have a stronger influence than the school
ones. Schools should rely more on the dynamic relationship with families
in planning the use of technology in instruction, which could increase the
social capital and empower individuals and their families which, in turn,
would improve the learning outcomes (Yu, Yuen, & Park, 2012). From the
point of view of the “third space” theories, the knowledge acquired at home
and school come together. “In such ‘third spaces’, meaningful connections
are made between different funds of knowledge, mutually informing and
reshaping one another” (Grant, 2011, p. 293). The intersection of these dif
ferent knowledge funds gives the students the opportunity to use differ
ent cultural resources in their learning, including other domains. If these
knowledge funds are different and do not intersect, the good learning ex
perience at home does not facilitate learning at school, discontinuing the
transfer between the two different cultures and children would have to
put more efforts in creating their third space (Grant, 2011).
The findings show that the widespread expectation at the end of last
century opinion that the massive computerization of the population will
38
