Perceived Information and Communication Competency of Students in the Context of PISA Turkey Results

Abstract

PISA, or the Programme for International Student Assessment, is an international assessment tool developed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Today's education system aims to transform students into individuals who inquire, question, learn by doing, and subjectively internalize and make sense of what they have learned. The use of information and communication technologies enables the achievement of lasting and effective learning outcomes in teaching and learning activities. PISA measures information and communication technology (ICT) literacy, which refers to the ability to cope appropriately with today's information and communication technologies and is often referred to as ICT literacy. This study aims to answer the question "What is the status of Turkish students' ICT competency levels in the PISA 2018 assessment according to various variables?" The research can be considered as descriptive research since it describes the status of Turkish students' perceived ICT competency levels according to some variables in the PISA assessment. A simple random sampling method was used to obtain a sample representing subgroups from the entire population and to allow for hypothesis testing. The sample of the research consists of 28,746 students from OECD member countries, 31,678 students from non-OECD member countries, and 687 students from Turkey. Mann Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and multiple regression analysis were used for data analysis. The research findings indicate that there is no significant difference in perceived ICT proficiency based on gender and age group. However, there is a difference in ICT competency based on the kind of country. Additionally, the study observed that ICT resources, interest in ICT, and the use of ICT for social interaction significantly predicted ICT competency.

Keywords

• Information and communication
• OECD
• perceived competency
• PISA.

PISA Türkiye Sonuçları Bağlamında Öğrencilerin Algılanan Bilgi ve İletişim Yeterliği

Öz

PISA veya Uluslararası Öğrenci Değerlendirme Programı, Ekonomik İş birliği ve Kalkınma Örgütü (OECD) tarafından geliştirilen uluslararası bir değerlendirme uygulamasıdır. Bugünün eğitim sistemi, öğrencileri araştıran, sorgulayan, yaparak öğrenen ve öğrendiklerini içselleştirip öznel olarak anlamlandıran bireyler haline getirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin kullanımı, öğrenme-öğretme etkinliklerinde kalıcı ve etkili öğrenmelerin gerçekleşmesine olanak sağlar. PISA bilgi iletişim yeterliliği (BİT) günümüzün bilgi ve iletişim teknolojisi ile uygun bir şekilde başa çıkma yeteneğini ifade eder ve çoğu zaman BİT okuryazarlığı olarak adlandırılır. Bu çalışmada “PISA 2018 uygulamasına Türkiye’den katılan öğrencilerin BİT yeterlik düzeylerinin çeşitli değişkenlere göre durumu nasıldır?” sorusuna yanıt aranmaktadır. Araştırmada PISA’ya Türkiye’den katılan öğrencilerin BİT yeterlik düzeylerinin bazı değişkenlere göre durumu betimlendiği için araştırmanın betimsel bir araştırma olduğu söylenebilir. Tüm evrenden alt grupları temsil edebilmesi ve hipotez yapılabilmesi için basit tesadüfi örnekleme yolu ile evrenin yaklaşık %10 kadar öğrenci çekilmiş ve örneklem elde edilmiştir. Araştırmanın örneklemini Türkiye dışındaki OECD üyesi ülkelerden 28746, OECD üyesi olmayan ülkelerden 31678 ve Türkiye’den 687 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Verilerin analizinde Mann Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis testi ve çoklu regresyon analizi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda bilgi ve iletişim yeterliğinin cinsiyete ve yaş grubuna göre farklılaşmadığı ancak ülke türüne göre farklılaştığı belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca ABİTY’in cinsiyete ve yaş grubuna göre değişmediği gözlenmiştir. BİT kaynaklarının, BİT’e yönelik ilginin, sosyal etkileşim için BİT kullanımının bilgi ve iletişim yeterliğini manidar bir biçimde yordadığı belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bilgi ve iletişim
• algılanan yeterlik
• PISA
• OECD

Kaynakça

1. Anderson, J., Chiu, M., & Yore, L. (2010). First cycle of PISA (2000–2006) international perspectives on successes and challenges: Research and policy directions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 373-388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9210-y
2. Aslan, A., & Zhu, C. (2016). Investigating variables predicting Turkish pre‐service teachers’ integration of ICT into teaching practices. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 552–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12437
3. Aydoğmuş, M. & Karadağ, Y. (2020). Öğretmen adaylarının bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri (BİT) yeterlikleri: On Dokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi örneği. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(3), 686-705. DOI: 10.17860/mersinefd.715457
4. Carvalho, L. M., Costa, E., Gonçalves, C. (2017). Fifteen years looking at the mirror: On the presence of PISA in education policy processes (Portugal, 2000-2016). European Journal of Education, 2(52), 154-166. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12210
5. Çelen, F. K., Çelik, A., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2011). Türk eğitim sistemi ve PISA sonuçları. Akademik Bilişim, 2(4), 1-9. Çelik, Ö., & Yavuz, F. (2018). The effect of using mobile applications on literal and contextual vocabulary instruction. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 2(10), 126-136. https://doi.org/10.18844/ijlt.v10i2.3407
6. Chen, X. (2018). Facilitating students’ critical thinking in an ınclusive educational environment: Model development and testing. International Journal of Education and Learning, 2(7), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijel.2018.7.2.04
7. Çobanoğlu, A., & Yücel, Z. E. (2017). Efl teachers' technology use and attitudes towards information and communication technologies in education. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 3(7), 453. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2017.222
8. Çoklar, A., & Çalişkan, M. (2019). Öğretmen adaylarının özgüvenleri ile teknoloji kullanımları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.38151/akef.578807

9. Danner, R. B., & Pessu, C. O. (2013). A survey of ICT competencies among students in teacher preparation programmes at the University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, (12), 033-049. https://doi.org/10.28945/1762
10. Demir, S. B., & Yıldırım, Ö. (2016). Okulda ve okul dışında bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin kullanımının öğrencilerin PISA 2012 performansıyla ilişkisinin incelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24 (1), 251-262. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kefdergi/issue/22606/241619
11. Demirtaş, B., & Mumcu, F. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of ICT and TPACK competencies. Acta Educationis Generalis, 11(2) 60-82. https://doi.org/10.2478/atd-2021-0013
12. Dibek, M., Yalçın, S., & Yavuz, H. Ç. (2016). Matematik okuryazarlığı ile bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri kullanim becerileri arasindaki ilişki: PISA 2012. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(3), 39-58. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kefad/issue/59425/853478
13. Dolin, J., & Krogh, L. (2010). The relevance and consequences of PISA science in a Danish context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(8), 565-592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9207-6
14. Ercan, B. (2021). Quality management concerning use of ICT in higher education language learning environments: A case study in Turkey. Human, Technologies and Quality of Education. https://doi.org/10.22364/htqe.2021.71
15. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: Mc Graw Hill.
16. Görür, R. (2011). Ant on the PISA trail: following the statistical pursuit of certainty. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(sup1), 76-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00612.x
17. Grande-de-Prado, M., Cañón, R., García-Martín, S., & Cantón, I. (2020). Digital competence and gender: Teachers in training a case study. Future Internet, 12(11), 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12110204
18. Güzeller, C. O. (2011). PISA 2009 Türkiye örnekleminde öğrencilerin bilgisayar öz-yeterlik inançları ve bilgisayar tutumları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(4).
19. Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. L. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills: The role of gender. Social Science Quarterly, 2(87), 432-448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00389.x
20. Heemskerk, I., Volman, M., Admiraal, W., & Dam, G. t. (2012). Inclusiveness of ICT in secondary education: Students’ appreciation of ICT tools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2(16), 155-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603111003674560
21. Kacetl, J., & Klimova, B. (2019). Use of smartphone applications ın English language learning: A challenge for foreign language education. Education Sciences, 3(9), 179. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030179
22. Khanna, N., & Goyal, H. (2016). Students' feedback system and credibility of teaching learning process: Complementary or contradictory. Journal of Commerce and Management Thought, 1(7), 54. https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-478x.2016.00004.5
23. Kunina-Habenicht, O., & Goldhammer, F. (2020). ICT engagement: a new construct and its assessment in PISA 2015. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 8.
24. Mason, M. (2008). Critical Thinking and Learning. In Critical Thinking and Learning, M. Mason (Ed.). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444306774.ch1
25. Mehrvarz, M., Heidari, E., Farrokhnia, M., & Noroozi, O. (2021). The mediating role of digital informal learning in the relationship between students' digital competence and their academic performance. Computers &Amp; Education, (167), 104184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104184
26. Meng, L., Qiu, C., & Boyd-Wilson, B.M. (2018). Measurement invariance of the ICT engagement construct and its association with students' performance in China and Germany: Evidence from PISA 2015 data. Br. J. Educ. Technol., 50, 3233-3251.
27. Milford, T., Ross, S., Anderson, J. R. (2010). An opportunity to better understand schooling: the growing presence of PISA in the Americas. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(8), 453-473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9201-z
28. OECD (2019b), PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en.
29. OECD, (2019a). The PISA target population, the PISA samples and the definition of schools. PISA 2018 Results (Volume II).
30. Özden, M. (2007). Problems with science and technology education in Turkey. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75391
31. Peciuliauskiene, P., & Barkauskaite, M. (2007). Would-be teachers' competence in applying ICT: Exposition and preconditions for development. Informatics in Education, 2(6), 397-410. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2007.26
32. Pons, X. (2017). Fifteen years of research on PISA effects on education governance: A critical review. European Journal of Education, 2(52), 131-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12213
33. Richards, C. (2004). From old to new learning: global ımperatives, exemplary Asian dilemmas and ICT as a key to cultural change in education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3(2), 337-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/1476772042000252470
34. Rimiene, V. (2002). Assessing and developing students' critical thinking. Psychology Learning &Amp; Teaching, 1(2), 17-22. https://doi.org/10.2304/plat.2002.2.1.17
35. Şenyiğit, Ç., & Serin, O. (2022). The role of perceived ICT competencies on primary school pre-service teachers' integrated stem teaching intentions. Participatory Educational Research, 6(9), 221-247. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.137.9.6
36. Tairab, A., Huang, R., Chang, T., & Zheng, L. (2016). A framework to promote ICT in k-12 education in developing countries: A case study ın Sudan. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 312-323. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41165-1_28
37. Tondeur, J., Aesaert, K., Prestridge, S., & Consuegra, E. (2018). A multilevel analysis of what matters in the training of pre-service teacher's ICT competencies. Computers &Amp; Education, (122), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.002
38. Tondeur, J., Aesaert, K., Pynoo, B., Braak, J. v., Fraeyman, N., & Erstad, O. (2015). Developing a validated instrument to measure preservice teachers’ ICT competencies: Meeting the demands of the 21st century. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2(48), 462-472. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12380
39. Townsend, M. (1997). Computer block: Does it exist in the comprehensive secondary school?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 3(28), 219-221. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00027
40. Tubella, I. (2015). La génération globale, notre point aveugle . In E. Anderson & M. Wieviorka (Eds.), Sociologie. Penser global: Internationalisation et globalisation des sciences humaines et sociales (pp. 363–370). https://doi.org/10.4000/books.editionsmsh.4775
41. Voogt, J. (2010). Teacher factors associated with ınnovative curriculum goals and pedagogical practices: Differences between extensive and non-extensive ICT-using science teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 6(26), 453-464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00373.x
42. Wang, Q., & Zhao, G. (2021). ICT self‐efficacy mediates most effects of university ICT support on preservice teachers' tpack: Evidence from three normal universities ın China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 6(52), 2319-2339. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13141
43. Xiao, F., & Sun, L. (2021). Profiles of student ICT use and their relations to background, motivational factors, and academic achievement. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 3(54), 456-472. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1876577
44. Yilmaz, E., & Güner, B. (2020). Farklı öğreni̇m kademeleri̇ndeki̇ öğrenci̇lere veri̇len uzaktan eği̇ti̇m hi̇zmeti̇ni̇n veli̇ görüşleri̇ne göre değerlendi̇ri̇lmesi̇. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 1(49), 477-503. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.777353
45. Youssef, A. B., Dahmani, M., & Ragni, L. (2022). ICT use, digital skills and students’ academic performance: Exploring the digital divide. Information, 3(13), 129. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13030129
46. Yu, R., Wang, M., & Hu, J. (2023). The relationship between ICT perceived competence and adolescents’ digital reading performance: A multilevel mediation study. Journal of Educational Computing Research.