Advertisement

The contexts for education on computer and information literacy and computational thinking

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

Abstract

The International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) 2018 collected and reported information relating to the national contexts in which computer and information literacy (CIL) and computational thinking (CT) are developed for grade eight students. This information illustrates the range of national approaches regarding curriculum, assessment policy and program support regarding these areas and can support interpretation of data gathered from students, teachers, and schools in ICILS. National research coordinators (NRCs) coordinated responses to detailed questions about characteristics of the educational system, plans and policies for using ICT in education and about how such policies are implemented in schools. Additionally NRCs authored respective country profiles which describe the overarching goals and direction for the educational system in participating countries, detailing how the curriculum relating to the use of ICT in education is developed, implemented, and assessed, highlighting many similarities but key differences across participating ICILS 2018 countries. In almost all countries, schools had at least some autonomy with most aspects of school policies, with private schools typically having a greater degree of autonomy. A wide range of differences across participating countries exist, both in relation to information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure availability and economic characteristics. Although the formulation of plans and policies supporting the use of ICT in education differed across countries, there was a high degree of similarity in the content related to improving student learning, ICT resources, methods to support student learning, and the priorities for the use of ICT. While many countries had explicit or implicit recognition of different CIL aspects in their national curriculum, aspects of CT were less frequently included. Countries had very different approaches to the development of teachers’ capacity to use ICT, but generally provided a large degree of support for teacher access to ICT-based professional development. Reports from school principals and ICT coordinators provide a contrasting profile of differences across participating ICILS countries in terms of school resourcing, policies, and priorities.

References

  1. Anderson, R., & Ainley, J. (2010). Technology and learning: Access in schools around the world. In P. Peterson, R. Tierney, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 21–33). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. E., & Plomp, T. (2008). National contexts. In N. Law, W. J. Pelgrum, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study (pp. 38–66). (CERC studies in comparative education; No. 23.) Hong Kong SAR /The Netherlands: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong/Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Charalambos, V., & Glass, G. (2007). Teacher professional development and ICT: Strategies and models. National Society for the Study of Education 2007 Yearbook, 106(2), 87–102.Google Scholar
  4. Eurydice. (2019). National education systems [webpage]. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Retrieved from https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/national-description_en.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. IEA. (2019). SITES. Second Information Technology in Education Study [webpage]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Retreived from https://www.iea.nl/studies/iea/sites.
  8. ITU. (2017). ICT development index 2017 [webpage]. Geneva, Switzerland: International Telecommunication Union. Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/net4/ITU-D/idi/2017/.
  9. ITU. (2019). Statistics [webpage]. Geneva, Switzerland: International Telecommunication Union. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx.
  10. Law, N., Pelgrum, W., & Plomp, T. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study. (CERC studies in comparative education; No. 23.) Hong Kong SAR/The Netherlands: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong/Springer. Retrieved from https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781402089275.
  11. Pelgrum, W. J., & Doornekamp, B. D. (2009). Indicators on ICT in primary and secondary education (IIPSE). Report commissioned by the Directorate General Education and Culture (IIPSE: EACEA-2007-3278/001-001). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  12. Plomp, T., Anderson, R. E., Law, N., & Quale, A. (Eds.). (2009). Cross-national information and communication technology policies and practices in education (2nd ed.). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  13. Rosstat. (2019). Regions of Russia. Socioeconomic indicators [webpage]. Moscow, Russian Federation: Author. Retrieved from https://www.gks.ru/dbscripts/munst/munst46/DBInet.cgi.
  14. Scherer, R., & Siddiq, F. (2015). Revisiting teachers’ computer self-efficacy: A differentiated view on gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 48–57.Google Scholar
  15. Statistics Finland. (2019). Current expenditure on education has decreased in real terms since 2010 [webpage]. Helsinki, Finland: Author. Retrieved from https://www.stat.fi/til/kotal/2017/ kotal_2017_2019-05-09_tie_001_en.html.
  16. UNDP. (2016). Human development report 2016: Human development for everyone. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/2016-report.
  17. UNDP. (2018). Human development indices and indicators 2018 statistical update. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2018_human_development_statistical_update.pdf.
  18. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2011). International Standard Classification of Education: ISCED 2011. Montreal, Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf.
  19. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2019). ISCED mappings [webpage]. Montreal, Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/en/isced-mappings.
  20. US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2011). International experiences with educational technology: Final report. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/ files/2013/10/iete-full-report-1.doc.

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