Page 41 - Šolsko polje, XXVII, 2016, no. 3-4: IEA ICILS in druge sodobne teme, ur. Eva Klemenčič
P. 41
p. mirazchiyski ■ the digital divide ...
bridge the digital divide (see the Background section) was overly optimis
tic and the issue of the digital divide has much deeper roots than simply
possessing technological means. And just as with any other kind of means,
the possession does not guarantee their successful use or use by its pur
pose. As Yu et al. (2012) note, the presence of a computer at home does
not mean it is used academically: it could be used for gaming, shopping or
communicating. ICT underuse or use for different purposes at home, in
turn, has consequences for education (Yu et al., 2012). Additional analy
ses of ICILS data (not published here) show, for example, that 66% of the
students in the group of analyzed countries use digital devices less than
once a month or never for school-related purposes at any location (pre
paring reports/essays, presentations, working with other students from
your own or other schools, completing exercises, organizing own time and
work, writing about their own learning, and completing tests). Moreo
ver, when it comes to the use of digital devices for study purposes outside
of school (creating or editing documents [e.g. to write stories or assign
ments], use a spreadsheet to do calculations, store data or plot graphs, use
education software designed to help with school study, searching for in
formation for study or school work, and accessing wikis or online encyclo
paedia for study or school work), 51% answer they never do it or do it less
than once a month. But even if used for academic purposes, what matters
for some of the gaps is how digital technology is used: as stated in the be
ginning of the paper, low and high SES students differ in the way they use
the computer – drill and practice versus higher-order thinking activities
(Hohlfeld et al., 2008).
References
Epstein, D., Nisbet, E. C., and Gillespie, T. (2011) Who’s Responsible for
the Digital Divide? Public Perceptions and Policy Implications. In-
formation Society 27 (2), pp. 92–104. http://doi.org/10.1080/0197224
3.2011.548695
Fraillon, J. (2015) ICILS Test Development. In Fraillon, J., Schulz, W.,
Friedman, T., Ainley, J., and Gebhardt, E. (ed.). ICILS 2013 Techni-
cal Report. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation
of Educational Achievement.
Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., and Ainley, J. (2013) International Computer and
Information Literacy Study: Assessment Framework. Amsterdam: In
ternational Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achieve
ment.
Gebhardt, E., and Schulz, W. (2015) Scaling Procedures for ICILS Test
Items. In Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Ainley, J., and Geb
39
bridge the digital divide (see the Background section) was overly optimis
tic and the issue of the digital divide has much deeper roots than simply
possessing technological means. And just as with any other kind of means,
the possession does not guarantee their successful use or use by its pur
pose. As Yu et al. (2012) note, the presence of a computer at home does
not mean it is used academically: it could be used for gaming, shopping or
communicating. ICT underuse or use for different purposes at home, in
turn, has consequences for education (Yu et al., 2012). Additional analy
ses of ICILS data (not published here) show, for example, that 66% of the
students in the group of analyzed countries use digital devices less than
once a month or never for school-related purposes at any location (pre
paring reports/essays, presentations, working with other students from
your own or other schools, completing exercises, organizing own time and
work, writing about their own learning, and completing tests). Moreo
ver, when it comes to the use of digital devices for study purposes outside
of school (creating or editing documents [e.g. to write stories or assign
ments], use a spreadsheet to do calculations, store data or plot graphs, use
education software designed to help with school study, searching for in
formation for study or school work, and accessing wikis or online encyclo
paedia for study or school work), 51% answer they never do it or do it less
than once a month. But even if used for academic purposes, what matters
for some of the gaps is how digital technology is used: as stated in the be
ginning of the paper, low and high SES students differ in the way they use
the computer – drill and practice versus higher-order thinking activities
(Hohlfeld et al., 2008).
References
Epstein, D., Nisbet, E. C., and Gillespie, T. (2011) Who’s Responsible for
the Digital Divide? Public Perceptions and Policy Implications. In-
formation Society 27 (2), pp. 92–104. http://doi.org/10.1080/0197224
3.2011.548695
Fraillon, J. (2015) ICILS Test Development. In Fraillon, J., Schulz, W.,
Friedman, T., Ainley, J., and Gebhardt, E. (ed.). ICILS 2013 Techni-
cal Report. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation
of Educational Achievement.
Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., and Ainley, J. (2013) International Computer and
Information Literacy Study: Assessment Framework. Amsterdam: In
ternational Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achieve
ment.
Gebhardt, E., and Schulz, W. (2015) Scaling Procedures for ICILS Test
Items. In Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Ainley, J., and Geb
39
