Advertisement

Digital Technologies and Assessment in the Twenty-First-Century Schooling

  • Jing Lei
  • Ji Shen
  • Laurene Johnson
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 41)

Abstract

The rapid development of information and communication technologies (ICT) has significantly changed the ways today’s children entertain, socialize, and learn. The digital society in the twenty-first century requires a complete suite of cognitive and psychological abilities and perspectives that enable the individual to intelligently consume and creatively develop digital products, and ethically participate and lead in a world that has become increasingly mediated by technology. How can today’s education help our students develop technological competencies that they will need to survive and thrive in the twenty-first century? In this chapter, we address this question by envisioning school assessments that focus on digital technology proficiencies. Our discussion centers on the question “What are the most critical skills students need to equip with in terms of digital technologies?” Specifically, this chapter reviews the role of digital technologies in the twenty-first century, examines what technology proficiency is necessary for students to fully participate in the society, discusses how the concept and standards of digital proficiency have evolved in the last a few decades, and then investigates how student digital technology proficiency has been assessed and discusses what schools need to do to prepare their students with proficient digital literacy.

Keywords

Digital Technology Information Literacy Technology Literacy Technology Skill Digital Literacy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1998). Information power: Building partnerships for learning. Chicago: American Library Association.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. Q., & Rainie, L. (2006). The future of the Internet II. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved November 15, 2006, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Future_of_Internet_2006.pdf
  3. Associated Colleges of the South. (1999). Information fluency and information training for the 21st Century. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from www.colleges.org/techcenter/if/IF_full_proposal.pdf
  4. Atomic Learning. (2011). Tech skills student assessment. Retrieved April 21, 2011, from http://www.atomiclearning.com/k12/assessment/
  5. Bakia, M., Mitchell, K., & Yang, E. (2007). State strategies and practices for educational technology: Volume I—Examining the enhancing education through technology program (Policy and Program Studies Service, Trans.). Washington, DC: US Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.Google Scholar
  6. Barlow, A., Duncan, P., Li, F., & Papagiannidis, S. (2007). New frontiers in e-business and e-government: Emerging opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 2(1). Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://www.business-and-management.org/download.php?file=2007/2_1--3-8,Barlow,Duncan,Li,Papagiannidis.pdf
  7. Boone, K. (2009). Building technology literacy into the curriculum. Principal Leadership, 10(2), 68–70.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, R. J. (1998, January–February). Hyper-minds for hypertimes: The demise of rational, logical thoughts? Educational Technology, 38(1), 24–31.Google Scholar
  9. Commission on Colleges, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). (1996). Criteria for accreditation (10th ed.). Atlanta: SACS.Google Scholar
  10. comScore. (2011). The 2010 U.S. digital year in review. Retrieved April 20, 2011 from, http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Presentations_Whitepapers/2011/2010_US_Digital_Year_in_Review
  11. Cornell University Digital Literacy Resources. (2009). Digital literacy. Retrieved April 20, 2011, from http://digitalliteracy.cornell.edu/
  12. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dhamija, R., Tygar, J. D., & Hearst, M. (2006). Why phishing works. Retrieved November 15, 2006, from http://people.deas.harvard.edu/~rachna/papers/why_phishing_works.pdf#search='Whypercent20phishing%20percent20works%E2%80%99
  14. Eastin, M. S., Yang, M. S., & Nathanson, A. I. (2006). Children of the net: An empirical exploration into the evaluation of Internet content. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Education Testing Services. (2002). Digital transformation: A framework for ICT literacy. Digital transformation. http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/ICTREPORT.pdf
  16. Education Week. (2005). Technology counts 2005: Electronic transfer: Moving technology dollars to new directions. Retrieved May 2, 2013, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/05/05/35tracking.h24.html
  17. Education Week. (2007). Technology counts 2007. Retrieved May 2, 2013, from http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/tc/2007/tc07_press_release.pdf
  18. eSchool News. (2007, October 1). Survey: Parents talk to their kids about the web. Retrieved December 3, 2007, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=48786&CFID=1268225&CFTOKEN=29464627
  19. Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2004). Experiments with digital literacy. Cyber Psychology, 7(4), 425–434.Google Scholar
  20. Generation YES. (2011). TechYES—Project-based learning and authentic assessment. Retrieved April 21, 2011, from http://www.genyes.org/programs/techyes/assess
  21. Goad, T. W. (2002). Information literacy and workplace performance. Westport: Green Wood.Google Scholar
  22. Hecker, D. (2005). Occupational employment projections to 2014. Monthly Labor Review Online, 128(11). Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art5full.pdf
  23. Heverly, R. A. (2008). In M. P. Tara (Ed.), Growing up digital: Control and the pieces of a digital life. Digital youth, innovation, and the unexpected (The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur foundation series on digital media and learning, pp. 199–218). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hightower, A. (2009). Tracking U.S. trends: States earn B average for policies supporting ed. tech. use. Education Week, 28, 30–30, 31. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/03/26/26tracking.h28.html
  25. Hitlin, P., & Rainie, L. (2005). Teens, Technology & School. PEW Internet and American Life project data memo. Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Internet_and_schools_05.pdf
  26. Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Barron, A. E. (2010). Development and validation of the student tool for technology literacy. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 361.Google Scholar
  27. Horrigan, J. B. (2008). Online shopping. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Online%20Shopping.pdf
  28. InfoSource. (2011). SimpleK12. Retrieved April 21, 2011, from http://www.simplek12.com/content/student-technology-assessments-are-now-simple-finally
  29. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (1998). National technology standards for students. http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS_for_Students_1998_Standards.sflb.ashx
  30. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2007). National technology standards for students 2007. http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students/nets-student-standards-2007.aspx
  31. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2011). National educational technology standards for students. Retrieved March 1, 2011, from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students.aspx
  32. Irvine, M. (2006). Some rethink posting of private info. Retrieved December 25, 2006, from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/ap_on_hi_te/self_editing_online
  33. Jorgenson, D. (2005). Accounting for growth in the information age. In P. Aghion & S. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth (Vol. 1A, pp. 743–815). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://hp.idefi.cnrs.fr/bruno/enseignements/croissanceiup/Jorgenson.pdf
  34. Jorgenson, D., Ho, M. S., & Stiroh, K. J. (2005). Information technology and the American growth resurgence. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Judson, E. (2010). Improving technology literacy: Does it open doors to traditional content? Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 271–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Katz, I. R. (2007). Testing information literacy in digital environments: The ETS iSkills™ assessment. Information Technology and Libraries, 26(3), 3–12.Google Scholar
  37. Keengwe, J., & Anyanwu, L. O. (2007). Computer technology-infused learning enhancement. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(5), 387–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lamb, P. (2006). Have Yourspace call Myspace. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1108/p09s02-coop.html
  39. Learning.com. (2011). Tech literacy assessment. Retrieved April 21, 2011, from http://www.learning.com/techliteracy-assessment/
  40. LeClaire, J. (2006). Predicting the top security threats for 2007. Retrieved May 2, 2013, from http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/54924.html
  41. Levin, D., & Arafeh, S. (2002). The digital disconnect: The widening gap between internet-savvy students and their schools. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Schools_Internet_Report.pdf
  42. Livingstone, D. E., & Kemp, J. E. (2006, August 18–20). Proceedings of the Second Life Education Workshop, Part of the Second Life Community Convention 1st, San Francisco, 2006.Google Scholar
  43. Livingstone, S. (2008). Internet literacy: Young people’s negotiation of new online opportunities. In M. P. Tara (Ed.), Digital youth, innovation, and the unexpected (The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur foundation series on digital media and learning, pp. 101–122). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Marks, P. (2006). Introverted IT students more inclined to cyber-crime. Retrieved May 2, 2013, from http://cyberforensics.purdue.edu/DNN/Portals/0/IntrovertedIT-Rogers.pdf
  45. McAfee Avert Labs. (2006). McAfee virtual criminology report 2007 organized crime and the internet. Retrieved month day, year, from http://www.mcafee.com/us/threat_center/white_paper.html
  46. McCoy, C. (2010). Perceived self-efficacy and technology proficiency in undergraduate college students. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1614–1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morahan-Martin, J., & Schumacher, P. (2007). Attitudinal and experiential predictors of technological expertise. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2230–2239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. National Academy of Engineering, & National Research Council. (2006). Tech tally: Approaches to assessing technological literacy (E. Garmire & G. Pearson, Eds.). Retrieved from http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11691&page=1
  49. National Forum on Information Literacy. (n.d.). Definitions. Retrieved April 20, 2011, from http://infolit.org/definitions/
  50. Plotnick, E. (1999). Information literacy (ERIC digest). Syracuse: ERIC Clearinghouse of Information and Technology. Retrieved May 7, 2013, from http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-4/information.htm
  51. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives. Educational leadership, 63(4), 8–13.Google Scholar
  53. Presidential Committee on Information Literacy. (1989). Final report (1989). Chicago: American Library Association. Retrieved October 16, 2012, from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential.cfm
  54. Project Tomorrow. (2007). Congressional briefing. Retrieved April 29, 2006, from http://www.tomorrow.org/docs/Press%20Release%20032107.pdf
  55. Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2005). Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8–18 Year-olds. Washington, DC: A Kaiser Family Foundation Report. Retrieved May 2, 2013, from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/index.cfm
  56. Roland, J. (2006). Measuring up: Online technology assessment tools ease the teacher’s burden and help students learn. Learning & Leading with Technology, 34(2), 12–17.Google Scholar
  57. Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., Nelson, M. R., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2008 (Vol. 8). Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS0808/RS/ERS0808w.pdf
  58. SchoolKit. (2011). TechSteps. Retrieved April 21, 2011, from http://www.edvation.com/techsteps-home/
  59. Shapiro, J. J., & Hughes, S. K. (1996). Information technology as a liberal art: Enlightenment proposals for a new curriculum. Educom Review, 31(2), 31–35.Google Scholar
  60. Stead, G. (2006). Mobile technologies: Transforming the future of learning. In Becta ICT Research Emerging Technologies for Learning. Retrieved April 12, 2007, from http://www.becta.org.uk/corporate/publications/documents/Emerging_Technologies.pdf.
  61. Steele, M., & Stewart, M. (1998). Enabling access: Implementing library and information skills. Education Libraries Journal, 41(20), 5–12.Google Scholar
  62. Tannenbaum, R. J., & Kartz, I. R. (2008, February). Setting standards on the core and advanced iSkills TM assessments [Research Memorandum]. Princeton: Educational Testing Services.Google Scholar
  63. Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital. The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  64. The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). Nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform (A report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education). U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  65. Tullis, P. (2010). An “A” in abstractions. THE Journal, 37(3), 26–32. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/2010/03/01/an-a-in-abstractions.aspx?sc_lang=en Google Scholar
  66. U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Getting America’s students ready for the 21st century: Meeting the technology literacy challenge. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  67. U.S. Department of Education. (2000). E-learning: Putting a world-class education at the fingertips of all children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  68. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  69. U.S. Department of Education. (2011). National educational technology plan—Assessment: Measure what matters. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010/assessment-measure-what-matters
  70. United National Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2008). INFORMATION ECONOMY REPORT 2007–2008 Science and technology for development: the new paradigm of ICT. Retrieved April 9, 2008, from http://topics.developmentgateway.org/ict/rc/ItemDetail.do?intcmp=3007&itemId=1140431
  71. Urban-Lurain, M., & Zhao, Y. (2004). Freedom to learn evaluation report: 2003 project implementation. Retrieved June 2005, from www.hflcsd.org/ftlsummary.pdf
  72. Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online Victimization of youth: Five years later, Retrieved May 2, 2013, from http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC167.pdf
  73. Yannie, M. (2000). Technology is us: Do we have time to learn? TechTrends, 44(4), 42–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the Way: American education in the age of globalization. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  75. Zhao, Y., & Lei, J. (2009). New technology. In D. Plank, G. Sykes, & B. Schneider (Eds.), AERA handbook on educational policy research (pp. 671–693). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation, School of EducationSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  2. 2.Department of Teaching and LearningUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA

Personalised recommendations