Demokratik tutumların yordanmasında dijital okuryazarlık, 21. yüzyıl becerileri ve kültürlerarası duyarlılığın rolü

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, ortaokul öğrencilerinin demokratik tutumlarını yordamada dijital okuryazarlık, 21. yüzyıl becerileri ve kültürlerarası duyarlılığın rolü incelenmiştir. Araştırma, altı ortaokulda öğrenim gören 681 öğrenciyle nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılarak yürütülmüştür. Veriler, Dijital Okuryazarlık Ölçeği, Demokratik Tutum Ölçeği, Kültürlerarası Duyarlılık Ölçeği ve 21. Yüzyıl Becerileri Ölçeği aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde betimsel istatistikler, bağımsız örneklemler t testi, tek yönlü varyans analizi, Pearson korelasyon analizi ve çoklu regresyon analizi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, öğrencilerin 21. yüzyıl becerileri, kültürlerarası duyarlılık ve dijital okuryazarlık puan ortalamalarının yüksek, demokratik tutum puan ortalamalarının ise çok yüksek düzeyde olduğunu göstermiştir. Öğrencilerin 21. yüzyıl becerileri ve demokratik tutum puanları sınıf düzeyine göre; dört değişkenin tamamına ilişkin puanları ise kültürlerarası etkinliklere katılım durumuna ve örneklemde temsil edilen üç okul türüne göre anlamlı farklılık göstermiştir. Bununla birlikte, bu farklılıkların etki büyüklükleri küçük düzeydedir ve okul türlerine göre belirlenen farklılıklar, araştırmaya katılan okulların kendilerine özgü özelliklerinden bağımsız olarak değerlendirilememektedir. Dört değişkenin tamamı arasında pozitif yönlü ve anlamlı ilişkiler bulunmuştur. Regresyon analizi sonuçlarına göre, 21. yüzyıl becerileri ve kültürlerarası duyarlılık demokratik tutumların anlamlı yordayıcıları iken dijital okuryazarlığın bağımsız yordayıcı etkisi anlamlı bulunmamıştır. Kurulan model, demokratik tutumlardaki toplam varyansın yaklaşık %41'ini açıklamaktadır. Bu bulgular, demokratik tutumların bilişsel, kültürel ve dijital yeterliklerle birlikte ele alındığında ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

• demokratik tutum
• dijital okuryazarlık
• 21. yy becerileri
• kültürlerarası duyarlılık

The role of digital literacy, 21st century skills, and intercultural sensitivity in predicting democratic attitudes

Abstract

This study examines the role of digital literacy, 21st century skills, and intercultural sensitivity in predicting democratic attitudes among middle school students. The research employed a quantitative relational survey design with 681 students from six middle schools. Data were collected using the Digital Literacy Scale, Democratic Attitude Scale, Intercultural Sensitivity Scale, and 21st Century Skills Scale. Analyses included descriptive statistics, independent-samples t tests, one-way analysis of variance, Pearson correlation, and multiple regression. Students’ mean scores were high for 21st century skills, intercultural sensitivity, and digital literacy and very high for democratic attitudes. Scores differed significantly by grade level for 21st century skills and democratic attitudes and by participation in intercultural activities and across the three school categories represented in the sample for all four measures. These differences were small in magnitude, and the school-category differences cannot be separated from the characteristics of the individual participating schools. All four variables were positively and significantly intercorrelated. In the regression model, 21st century skills and intercultural sensitivity were significant predictors of democratic attitudes, whereas digital literacy was not a significant independent predictor. The model accounted for approximately 41% of the variance in democratic attitudes. These findings suggest that democratic attitudes are associated with cognitive, cultural, and digital competencies considered together.

Keywords

• democratic attitude
• digital literacy
• 21st century skills
• intercultural sensivity

References

1. Aktuğ, S. (2023). *Effects of a task-based intercultural competence training program on university students’ intercultural sensitivity, ethnocentrism, cultural intelligence levels, and multicultural personality traits* [Doctoral dissertation, Uşak University]. National Thesis Center.
2. American Library Association. (2013). *Digital literacy, libraries, and public policy: Report of the Office for Information Technology Policy’s Digital Literacy Task Force.* [https://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/content/digilitreport2013.pdf](https://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/content/digilitreport2013.pdf)
3. Andreotti, V. de O., & Pashby, K. (2013). Digital democracy and global citizenship education: Mutually compatible or mutually complicit? *The Educational Forum*, *77*(4), 422–437. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2013.822043](https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2013.822043)
4. Bal, E., & Akçıl, U. (2024). The implementation of a sustainable online course for the development of digital citizenship skills. *Sustainability*, *16*(1), 445. [https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010445](https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010445)
5. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. *Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)*, *57*(1), 289–300. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x)
6. Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. *International Journal of Intercultural Relations*, *10*(2), 179–196. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(86)90005-2](https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767\(86\)90005-2)
7. Bennett, W. L., Wells, C., & Rank, A. (2009). Young citizens and civic learning: Two paradigms of citizenship in the digital age. *Citizenship Studies*, *13*(2), 105–120. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020902731116](https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020902731116)
8. Brandau, M., Dilley, T., Schaumleffel, C., & Himawan, L. (2022). Digital citizenship among Appalachian middle schoolers: The common sense digital citizenship curriculum. *Health Education Journal*, *81*(2), 157–169. [https://doi.org/10.1177/00178969211056429](https://doi.org/10.1177/00178969211056429)

9. Burroughs, S., Brocato, K., Hopper, P. F., & Sanders, A. (2009). Media literacy: A central component of democratic citizenship. *The Educational Forum*, *73*(2), 154–167. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720902739627](https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720902739627)
10. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2021). *Data analysis handbook for social sciences* (28th ed.). Pegem Akademi.
11. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2017). *Scientific research methods* (23rd ed.). Pegem Akademi.
12. Cameron, A. C., & Miller, D. L. (2015). A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. *Journal of Human Resources*, *50*(2), 317–372. [https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.2.317](https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.2.317)
13. Chen, C.-H., Liu, C.-L., Hui, B. P. H., & Chung, M.-L. (2020). Does education background affect digital equal opportunity and the political participation of sustainable digital citizens? A Taiwan case. *Sustainability*, *12*(4), 1359. [https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041359](https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041359)
14. Choi, M. (2016). A concept analysis of digital citizenship for democratic citizenship education in the internet age. *Theory & Research in Social Education*, *44*(4), 565–607. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2016.1210549](https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2016.1210549)
15. Choi, M., & Cristol, D. (2021). Digital citizenship with intersectionality lens: Towards participatory democracy driven digital citizenship education. *Theory Into Practice*, *60*(4), 361–370. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.1987094](https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.1987094)
16. Choi, M., & Park, H.-J. (2023). Korean adolescents’ profiles of digital citizenship and its relations to internet ethics: Implications for critical digital citizenship education. *Cambridge Journal of Education*, *53*(4), 567–586. [https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2023.2191929](https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2023.2191929)
17. Cohen, J. (1988). *Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences* (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). *Research methods in education* (5th ed.). Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203224342](https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203224342)
19. Connolly, M., & Miller, T. (2022). Evaluating and revising the digital citizenship scale. *Informatics*, *9*(3), 61. [https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics9030061](https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics9030061)
20. Çatalbaş, N. C., & Susam, E. (2022). Liselere geçiş sisteminin (LGS) ortaokul matematik öğretmenlerinin görüşleri doğrultusunda incelenmesi [Examining the high school transition system (LGS) based on the views of middle school mathematics teachers]. *İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education*, *23*(3), 1482–1500. [https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.1134613](https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.1134613)
21. Çullu, M. S., & Samancı, O. (2016). Democracy in children’s education. *Erzincan University Journal of Social Sciences Institute*, *9*(1), 79–84. [https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/erzisosbil/article/258795](https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/erzisosbil/article/258795)
22. Dancey, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2007). *Statistics without maths for psychology* (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
23. Daniel, J. (2012). *Sampling essentials: Practical guidelines for making sampling choices*. SAGE Publications. [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452272047](https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452272047)
24. Dewey, J. (1916). *Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education*. Macmillan.
25. DiGiacomo, D. K. (2021). Digital civic learning in schools: Youth perspectives and experiences. *Information and Learning Sciences*, *122*(11/12), 709–725. [https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-01-2020-0013](https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-01-2020-0013)
26. Doğan, S., & Oktay, Y. (2022). Liselere geçiş sınavı (LGS) hazırlık sürecinin değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the high school entrance examination (LGS) preparation process]. *İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi*, *11*(2), 963–992. [https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1054829](https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1054829)
27. Doyran, H. (2024). *Examination of middle school students’ 21st century skills and digital literacy self-efficacy* [Master’s thesis, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University]. National Thesis Center.
28. Duman, D., & Şahiner, D. G. S. (2008). The effect of active learning techniques on democratic attitudes and academic achievement in primary school social studies. *Dokuz Eylül University Buca Faculty of Education Journal*, (24), 69–82. [https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/deubefd/issue/25427/268244](https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/deubefd/issue/25427/268244)
29. Field, A. (2018). *Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics* (5th ed.). SAGE.
30. Gozálvez-Pérez, V., & Cortijo-Ruiz, G. (2023). Desarrollo humano y redes sociales en sociedades digitales [Human development and social media in digital societies]. *Sophia: Colección de Filosofía de la Educación*, (34), 41–64. [https://doi.org/10.17163/soph.n34.2023.01](https://doi.org/10.17163/soph.n34.2023.01)
31. Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2011). *Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences* (7th ed.). Wadsworth.
32. Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B. (2019). Can media literacy education increase digital engagement in politics? *Learning, Media and Technology*, *44*(2), 211–224. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.1601108](https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.1601108)
33. Kahne, J., Hodgin, E., & Eidman-Aadahl, E. (2016). Redesigning civic education for the digital age: Participatory politics and the pursuit of democratic engagement. *Theory & Research in Social Education*, *44*(1), 1–35. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2015.1132646](https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2015.1132646)
34. Kaldırım, E. (2005). Democracy perceptions of 8th grade primary school students. *Gazi University Gazi Journal of Education Faculty*, *25*(3), 143–162. [https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/gefad/issue/6755/90830](https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/gefad/issue/6755/90830)
35. Kim, E., & Yang, S. (2016). Internet literacy and digital natives’ civic engagement: Internet skill literacy or internet information literacy? *Journal of Youth Studies*, *19*(4), 438–456. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2015.1083961](https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2015.1083961)
36. Kim, H.-Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. *Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics*, *38*(1), 52–54. [https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52](https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52)
37. Kolb, C. J., & Pietzonka, M. (2026). Demokratiekompetenz im gesellschaftlichen Wandel – Herausforderungen und Grenzen der Demokratiebildung in der Schule [Democratic competence in a changing society: Challenges and boundaries of democracy education in schools]. *Politische Vierteljahresschrift*, *67*(3), 743–764. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-025-00640-8](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-025-00640-8)
38. Landry, J., & von Lieres, B. (2022). Strengthening democracy through knowledge mobilization: Participedia — A citizen-led global platform for transformative and democratic learning. *Journal of Transformative Education*, *20*(3), 206–225. [https://doi.org/10.1177/15413446221103191](https://doi.org/10.1177/15413446221103191)
39. Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. *Methodology*, *1*(3), 86–92. [https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86](https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86)
40. Mete, G. (2021). Ortaokul öğrencilerine yönelik 21. yüzyıl becerileri ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Developing the 21st century skills scale for secondary school students: A validity and reliability study]. *Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / The Journal of Social Sciences*, *8*(51), 196–208. [https://doi.org/10.29228/SOBIDER.50754](https://doi.org/10.29228/SOBIDER.50754)
41. Mihailidis, P., & Thevenin, B. (2013). Media literacy as a core competency for engaged citizenship in participatory democracy. *American Behavioral Scientist*, *57*(11), 1611–1622. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213489015](https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213489015)
42. Milenkova, V., & Lendzhova, V. (2021). Digital citizenship and digital literacy in the conditions of social crisis. *Computers*, *10*(4), 40. [https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10040040](https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10040040)
43. Nazlı, Ö. P., & Aşık, A. (2022). Adaptation and validation of the intercultural sensitivity scale to Turkish EFL contexts and for young learners. *Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language)*, *16*(1), 74–96. [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1343056.pdf](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1343056.pdf)
44. Özbey, A. (2021). An investigation of the democratic values, problem-solving skills, and attitude levels toward violence of secondary school students. *International Journal of Social Science Studies*, *9*(3), 66–81. [https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v9i3.5220](https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v9i3.5220)
45. Özeren, E. (2023). Predicting secondary school students’ 21st-century skills through their digital literacy and problem-solving skills. *International Education Studies*, *16*(2), 61–75. [https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v16n2p61](https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v16n2p61)
46. Pala, Ş. M., & Başıbüyük, A. (2020). Examination of digital literacy levels of fifth grade middle school students. *Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education*, *9*(3), 897–921. [https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.672882](https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.672882)
47. Pallant, J. (2020). *SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS* (7th ed.). Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452](https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452)
48. Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2009). *Framework for 21st century learning*. Battelle for Kids. [https://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21/frameworks-resources](https://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21/frameworks-resources)
49. Peart, M. T., Gutiérrez-Esteban, P., & Cubo-Delgado, S. (2020). Development of the digital and socio-civic skills (DIGISOC) questionnaire. *Educational Technology Research and Development*, *68*(6), 3327–3351. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09824-y](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09824-y)
50. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, *88*(5), 879–903. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879](https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879)
51. Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & De Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. *Computers in Human Behavior*, *72*, 577–588. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010)
52. Wang, W., & Zhou, M. (2016). Validation of the short form of the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS-15). *International Journal of Intercultural Relations*, *55*, 1–7. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.08.002](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.08.002)
53. Yurdakul, S. (2023). *Examination of the relationship between social studies pre-service teachers’ cultural competence, cultural intelligence, and intercultural sensitivity levels* [Master’s thesis, Trabzon University]. National Thesis Center.