Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
StudentsStudents’’ ICTICT‐‐use in and outside use in and outside school: What are the school: What are the
differences?differences?Findings from the Public Policy Research (PPR) project “Educational Inequality and ICT Use in Schools: Bridging
the Digital Divide”
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong KongFaculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong
Survey Results DisseminationSurvey Results Dissemination
1
(1) (1) STUDENTSSTUDENTS’’ ICTICT‐‐USE IN AND USE IN AND OUTSIDE SCHOOLOUTSIDE SCHOOL
2
BackgroundBackground
• A two‐year research project “Educational Inequality and ICT Use in Schools: Bridging the Digital Divide” (HKU7025‐PPR‐10).
• Public Policy Research (PPR) project funded by the Research Grants Council (RGC).
• Project Team:
– Dr. Allan Yuen (Principal Investigator), Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong
– Dr. Wilfred Lau, Dr. Jae Park, Dr. Gervas Lau, Miss Gabrielle Yu, Miss Greenie Lam, Mr. Albert Chan
3
Project ObjectivesProject Objectives
• To define the educational essence of the digital divide and find the most fitting parameters of the phenomenon to understand digital divide in Hong Kong education
• To develop and validate appropriate instruments to measure and examine digital divide in education
• To examine and capture the extent of the digital divide at the individual level, school level, and outside‐school level
• To recommend appropriate policy questions and policy formulations in relation to educational inequalities and ICT in education
4
MethodMethod
• The target population was Hong Kong Secondary 2 (Grade 8) students in the 2011/2012 academic year, in which the schools are implementing local curriculum.
• Data of a random sample of 826 students from 36 schools was collected and analyzed. About 85% of the students have more than 4 years experience in using computer/Internet. Students perceived their ICT proficiency are higher than their parents.
• One intact class of the Secondary 2 level was randomly selected from each of the sample schools to participate in the study.
• The students are invited to respond to an online survey including two parts. The first part was an academic attainment test with 30 multiple‐choice questions to assess students’ knowledge in Chinese language, English language and Mathematics, and the scoring ranged from 0 to 100. The second part was a self‐reported questionnaire on students’ICT‐use in and outside school.
5
Estimation of Socioeconomic ProfileEstimation of Socioeconomic Profile• Constituents
– Family Income• Housing Type
• Application of School Textbook Assistance Scheme
– Parent’s Education Levels
– Student’s Home Resources• Own desk
• Number of books
• SEP index was calculated (55 – 136; median = 100)
• The formulation of 4 SEP groups (SEP1, SEP2, SEP3, SEP4)
6
Gender and SEPGender and SEP
* Students range in age from 11 years old (or below) to 16 (or above); 93% of them range in age from 12 to 14.** Chi‐square test of independence = 4.008, p = 0.261, df = 3
48.0
12.6
12.6
10.4
12.4
52.0
12.5
12.7
14.4
12.4
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Total
SEP1
SEP2
SEP3
SEP4
Male Female
7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Number ofBooks
Own Desk
Father'sEducation
Mother'sEducation
TextbookAssistance
HousingType
SEP OverviewSEP Overview
SEP1(F) SEP2(F) SEP3(F) SEP4(F)Keys :
SEP1(M) SEP2(M) SEP3(M) SEP4(M)
Primary (10.5%) Secondary (67.4%) Tertiary (12.5%) N/A (9.6%)
Primary (8.6%) Secondary (60.0%) Tertiary (20.6%) N/A (10.8%)
No (24.7%) Yes (75.3%)
Full (19.3%) Half (22.1%) Not Applied (53.5%) Pending Rejected(3.3%) (1.9%)
Rented (48.4%) Purchased (42.1%) Unknown (9.6%)
< 20 (37.6%) 21-50 (29.6%) 51-100 (16.4%)101-150(5.9%)
>200(7.4%)
151-200(3.2%)
8
SEP OverviewSEP Overview• Higher SEP families tend to live in purchased houses compared
with lower SEP families which mostly live in rented houses.
• Higher SEP families do not tend to apply for the School Textbook Assistance Scheme compared with lower SEP families which mostly receive half or full grant.
• There are no parents from the lowest SEP families who received tertiary education. On the other hand, there are no parents from the highest SEP families who received primary education only.
• Students from higher SEP families tend to have their own working desks than their counterparts from lower SEP families.
• Students from higher SEP families tend to possess more books than their counterparts from lower SEP families.
9
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Home ICT Access and UseHome ICT Access and Use
SEP1(F) SEP2(F) SEP3(F) SEP4(F)Keys :
SEP1(M) SEP2(M) SEP3(M) SEP4(M)
< 1 hr(7.6%)
1 - 2 hr(30.2%)
0 - 0.24 (27.4%) 0.25 - 0.49 (43.9%)
0 - 0.49 (28.0%) 1 (17.2%) > 1 (17.5%)0.50 - 0.99 (37.3%)
0.5 – 1.0 (28.7%)
3 - 4 hr(31.0%)
> 8 hr(12.4%)
ICTAccessRatio
Time ofICT-use
ICT-useforLearningRatio
6 - 7.9 hr(14.8%)
8 - 9.9 hr(4.0%)
10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Overall ICT Access and UseOverall ICT Access and Use
SEP1(F) SEP2(F) SEP3(F) SEP4(F)Keys :
SEP1(M) SEP2(M) SEP3(M) SEP4(M)
< 2 hr6.4%)
2 - 3.9 hr(27.3%)
0 - 0.24(25.6%)
0.25 - 0.49(43.2%)
0 - 0.49 (26.9%) > 1 (34.7%)0.50 - 0.99 (38.4%)
0.75 – 1.0(11.0%)
4 - 5.9 hr(22.5%)
> 10 hr(15.4%)
6 - 7.9 hr(19.4%)
8 - 9.9 hr9.0%)
0.50 - 0.74(20.2%)
ICTAccessRatio
Time ofICT-use
ICT-useforLearningRatio
11
ICT Access and UseICT Access and Use• In terms of home ICT access and use, SEP affects ICT access
(SEP3>SEP1), time of ICT‐use (SEP1, SEP2>SEP4; SEP2>SEP3), and ICT use for learning (SEP4>SEP2). Gender and the interaction between gender and SEP do not affect ICT access and use.
• In terms of overall ICT access and use, SEP affects ICT access (SEP2, SEP3>SEP1), time of ICT‐use (SEP1>SEP4), and ICT use for learning (SEP4>SEP2).
• Gender affects time of ICT‐use (M>F), and ICT use for learning (F>M).
• The interaction between gender and SEP does not affect overall ICT access and use.
12
School ICTSchool ICT‐‐useuse
60.2
26.5
14.2
15.1
31.0
29.9
45.3
32.1
32.2
28.9
7.6
23.4
38.3
32.7
20.0
11.6
12.3
10.5
7.6
9.6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Teacher Discuss
Exam
Presentation
Online Assignment
Peer Discuss
Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
13
Location for ICTLocation for ICT‐‐Use Outside SchoolUse Outside School
59.4
67.3
55.2
35.0
11.6
14.2
21.9
26.3
13.8
20.2
42.0
41.2
9.0
7.5
10.7
14.4
18.0
16.9
36.0
19.7
18.6
8.1
21.3
14.8
35.8
37.2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Youth Centre etc
Cyber Café
Restaurant
Public Library
Peer Home
Home Living Room
Home Own Room
Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
14
Home ICTHome ICT‐‐useuse
50.754.7
38.637.0
19.132.2
14.310.010.27.9
28.210.25.79.6
5.7
29.118.0
24.922.8
23.226.4
23.114.518.8
15.318.5
19.210.4
12.36.2
16.117.8
23.623.7
37.524.6
37.739.3
41.342.1
27.525.5
28.523.1
16.9
2.16.2
7.710.2
13.08.4
16.124.918.3
22.312.6
20.824.521.5
19.6
3.35.16.37.18.58.8
11.111.512.513.2
24.231.033.4
51.6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Discuss with TeacherOnline TradingWriting Blog
Entertainment NewsDiscuss with PeerReading e‐books
Daily Life InfoLearning Materials
Watching NewsAssignment
Without PurposeOnline GameDownloading
ChattingSocial Networking
Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
15
School and Home ICTSchool and Home ICT‐‐useuse• Students frequently and always use ICT for peer discussion
(20.1%), online assignment (19.9%), and presentation (15.5%) in schools. Only 2.3% of the students use ICT to discuss with teachers.
• 57.1% and 52% of the students frequently and always use ICT in their living rooms and their own rooms respectively when using ICT outside schools. Only 4.47% and 3.63% of the students frequently and always use ICT in cyber cafes and youth centres respectively.
• Students frequently and always use ICT for social networking (71.2%), downloading songs/movies/photos/pictures (55.5%), and chatting (55%) at homes. Only 4.12% of the students use ICT to discuss with teachers.
16
SEP, Academic Attainment (AA) and RegionsSEP, Academic Attainment (AA) and Regions
48.5
107.2
54.1
103.9
47.7
99.9
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
AA
SEP
AA
SEP
AA
SEP
HK Island
Kowloon
N.T.
SEP of students on Hong Kong Island (mean=107.2, sd=15.7) is higher than those in New Territories (mean=99.9, sd=16.4). Students in Kowloon performed best academically (Chinese, English, Mathematics) (mean=54.1, sd=8.9) compared with their counterparts on Hong Kong Island (mean=48.5, sd=14.2) and in New Territories (mean=47.7, sd=10.3). 17
(2) (2) STUDENTSSTUDENTS’’ ICTICT‐‐USE AT HOME USE AT HOME AND PERCEIVED PARENTING AND PERCEIVED PARENTING
STYLESSTYLES
18
Parenting StylesParenting StylesParenting Styles Mean s.d.EncouragementMy parents encourage me to use computers more frequentlyMy parents think that being good at computers is useful for my futureMy parents always talk to me about the benefits of computer / InternetMy parents share their experience of using computer / Internet with meMy parents always help me in using computer / Internet
2.72 0.78
WorryMy parents worry (if) using computer too often will cause health issueMy parents worry (if) using computer too often will decrease the time of communication with themMy parents worry about my thinking ability if I depend too much on the InternetMy parents worry about online risks that give me negative impact (e.g. online violence, pornography information)
3.01 0.87
PermissionMy parents allow me to chat with net friendsMy parents allow me to download songs / moviesMy parents allow me to play online games
3.77 0.90
MonitoringMy parents always ask me what I did with computerMy parents always ask me who did I chat with on the Internet
3.02 1.10
19
SEP, Gender and Parenting StylesSEP, Gender and Parenting Styles2.8
3.0
3.9
3.0
2.8
3.1
3.8
3.0
2.7
3.1
3.7
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.8
3.0
2.4
2.9
3.8
2.9
2.6
2.9
3.7
3.0
2.7
3.0
3.8
3.2
2.8
2.9
3.7
3.0
EncouragementWorry
PermissionMonitoring
EncouragementWorry
PermissionMonitoring
EncouragementWorry
PermissionMonitoring
EncouragementWorry
PermissionMonitoring
SEP1
SEP2
SEP3
SEP4
20
SEP, Gender and ParentingSEP, Gender and Parenting• Male students (mean=2.8, sd=0.8) tend to receive more
encouragement and support in using ICT from their parents than female students (mean=2.6, sd=0.7). Male students (mean=3.1, sd=0.9) tend to express that their parents are more worried about the negative effects of using ICT than female students (mean=2.9, sd=0.9).
• High SEP families (SEP4: mean=2.9, sd=0.8) tend to adopt a more encouraging and supportive style than low SEP families (SEP1: mean=2.6, sd=0.8).
• In particular, male students in higher SEP families (SEP4: mean=3.0, sd=0.8) tend to receive more encouragement and support in using ICT from their parents compare with female students in lower SEP families (SEP1: mean=2.4, sd=0.7) .
21
Home ICTHome ICT‐‐useuse
2.7
3.7
2.8
3.7
2.9
3.5
3.0
3.6
3.1
3.9
2.9
4.0
3.1
3.8
3.3
3.8
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Learning
Social Networking
Learning
Social Networking
Learning
Social Networking
Learning
Social Networking
SEP1
SEP2
SEP3
SEP4
Male Female
“Home ICT‐use for Learning” includes discussion with classmates about matters on learning, doing assignment/report on designated topic, and searching for learning materials (3 items).“Home ICT‐use for Social Networking” includes downloading songs/movies/photos/pictures, chatting with net friends (via chatroom/ MSN/Skype/QQ), and browsing social networking sites (e.g. Facebook/Weibo) (3 items).
22
SEP, Gender and Home ICTSEP, Gender and Home ICT‐‐useuse• Female students (mean=3.5, sd=0.7) tend to engage in more
learning‐related activities and social networking using ICT at homes than male students (mean=3.2, sd=0.8).
• Students from higher SEP families (SEP4: mean=3.1, sd=0.9) tend to engage in more learning‐related activities using ICT at homes than students from lower SEP families (SEP1: mean=2.9, sd=1.0).
• Female students from higher SEP families (SEP4: mean=3.3, sd=0.8) tend to engage in more learning‐related activities using ICT at homes than male students from lower SEP families (SEP1: mean=2.7, sd=1.0) .
• In middle SEP families, female students (SEP3: mean=3.8, sd=0.9) appear to participate more in social networking at homes than male students (SEP3: mean=3.5, sd=1.0) .
23
Association between Parenting Styles and Home Association between Parenting Styles and Home ICTICT‐‐useuse
Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss MonitorLearing 0.28 0.3 Learing Learing 0.17 0.18Social N 0.41 Social N 0.41 0.27 Social N 0.41 0.27
Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss MonitorLearing 0.3 Learing 0.32 0.26 Learing 0.28Social N 0.49 Social N 0.33 Social N 0.39
Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss MonitorLearing Learing 0.2 0.22 0.28 0.19 Learing 0.18 0.14 0.25Social N 0.25 0.5 Social N 0.37 Social N 0.44 0.17
Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss MonitorLearing 0.3 0.26 0.26 Learing 0.25 Learing 0.19 0.16 0.25Social N 0.26 0.44 0.31 Social N 0.47 Social N 0.45 0.23
Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss MonitorLearing 0.19 0.13 0.22 Learing 0.16 0.19 0.12 0.19 Learing 0.16 0.14 0.1 0.21Social N 0.12 0.46 0.21 Social N 0.4 0.13 Social N 0.42 0.17
TotalFemaleMale
SEP1
Total
SEP4
SEP3
SEP2
Significant positive relationships exist between internet use at home (learning‐related activities and social networking) and parenting styles (encouragement, worry, permission, and monitoring) for different genders and SEPs. In particular, regardless of SEP, for male and female students, monitoring style is associated with learning‐related activities using ICT. Permission style is associated with social networking. 24
(3) (3) STUDENTSSTUDENTS’’ ICTICT‐‐USE AT HOME USE AT HOME AND THEIR ACADEMIC AND THEIR ACADEMIC
ATTAINMENTATTAINMENT
25
SEP, Gender and Academic SEP, Gender and Academic AttainmentAttainment
45.54
46.14
45.41
52.72
47.52
50.59
49.04
52.04
55.15
51.7
48.05
47.6
49.24
53.93
49.69
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SEP1
SEP2
SEP3
SEP4
Total
Male Female Total
26
SEP, Gender and Academic AttainmentSEP, Gender and Academic Attainment
• Female students (mean=51.7, sd=9.3) tend to perform better academically than male students (mean=47.5, sd=12.0).
• Students from higher SEP families (SEP4: mean=53.9, sd=10.2) tend to perform better academically than students from lower SEP families (SEP1: mean=48.1, sd=9.7).
• In particular, female students from higher SEP families (SEP4: mean=55.2, sd=7.3) tend to perform better academically than malestudents from lower SEP families (SEP1: mean=45.5, sd=10.1) .
• Interestingly, female students from lower SEP families (SEP1: mean=50.6, sd=8.7) tend to perform better academically than malestudents from higher SEP families (SEP3: mean=45.4, sd=12.8) except for the highest SEP male group.
27
Association between Academic Association between Academic Attainment and Home ICTAttainment and Home ICT‐‐useuse
AA AA AALearing Learing 0.26 Learing 0.14Social N Social N ‐0.23 Social N
AA AA AALearing Learing 0.24 Learing 0.21Social N Social N Social N
AA AA AALearing 0.21 Learing 0.33 Learing 0.29Social N Social N Social N
AA AA AALearing Learing 0.2 Learing 0.14Social N Social N ‐0.27 Social N ‐0.18
AA AA AALearing 0.11 Learing 0.29 Learing 0.22Social N Social N ‐0.16 Social N
SEP4
Total
Male Female Total
SEP1
SEP2
SEP3
Regardless of gender and SEP, academic attainment is positively associated with engagement in learning‐related activities using ICT. For female students and highest SEP families, academic attainment is negatively associated with social networking (r=‐0.27).
28
(4) (4) RISKS AND CONCERNS OF RISKS AND CONCERNS OF STUDENTSSTUDENTS’’ ICTICT‐‐USE OUTSIDE USE OUTSIDE
SCHOOLSCHOOL
29
Problematic Internet BehaviourProblematic Internet Behaviour
• Unauthorized acts includes searching for some methods to break into others’ computer, trying to break into others’ computer, using an unauthorised password to install software, and using pirated software (4 items).
• Internet stickiness includes feeling unease when there is no Internet online access for a certain period, immediately going online when wake up during holidays (2 items).
• Plagiarism includes coping assignments from other students and then submit to teachers, submitting assignments with contents or pictures copied from the Internet without acknowledgment, submitting assignments with the translated results using an online translator, and pasting others’ article in discussion forum on the Internet without acknowledgment (4 items).
30
Problematic Internet BehaviourProblematic Internet Behaviour
2.0
2.4
2.4
2.0
2.5
2.5
1.9
2.5
2.3
1.7
2.1
1.9
1.5
2.3
2.2
1.6
2.5
2.1
1.5
2.2
2.1
1.3
1.9
1.9
Unauthorized Acts
Internet Stickiness
Plagiarism
Unauthorized Acts
Internet Stickiness
Plagiarism
Unauthorized Acts
Internet Stickiness
Plagiarism
Unauthorized Acts
Internet Stickiness
Plagiarism
SEP1
SEP2
SEP3
SEP4
31
SEP, Gender and SEP, Gender and Problematic Internet Problematic Internet BehaviourBehaviour
• Male students (mean=1.9, sd=1.0) tend to engage in more unauthorized acts than female students (mean=1.5, sd=0.7). Male students (mean=2.3, sd=1.0) also tend to engage in more plagiarism than female students (mean=2.1, sd=0.8).
• Students from lower SEP families (SEP1: mean=1.7, sd=0.9) tend to have more problematic internet behaviour (e.g. unauthorised acts) than students from higher SEP families (SEP4: mean=1.5, sd=0.8).
• In particular, male students from lower SEP families (SEP1: mean=2.4, sd=1.2) tend to have more problematic internet behaviour (e.g. internet stickiness) than female students from higher SEP families (SEP4: mean=1.9, sd=1.0).
32
Association between Parenting Styles and Association between Parenting Styles and Problematic Internet BehaviourProblematic Internet Behaviour
Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss MonitorUnauth A 0.31 0.23 0.2 Unauth A 0.23 Unauth A 0.33 0.2 0.15Internet S 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.24 Internet S Internet S 0.15 0.17 0.21 0.16Plagiarism 0.27 0.22 0.27 0.2 Plagiarism Plagiarism 0.24 0.17 0.23
Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss MonitorUnauth A 0.22 Unauth A Unauth A 0.17 0.14Internet S Internet S Internet SPlagiarism Plagiarism 0.22 Plagiarism 0.15
Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss MonitorUnauth A 0.29 Unauth A Unauth AInternet S 0.25 Internet S Internet S ‐0.16 0.16Plagiarism Plagiarism Plagiarism
Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss MonitorUnauth A Unauth A Unauth AInternet S Internet S 0.28 Internet S 0.24Plagiarism Plagiarism 0.28 Plagiarism
Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss Monitor Ecourage Worry Permiss MonitorUnauth A 0.19 0.14 Unauth A Unauth A 0.15 0.1Internet S 0.13 0.14 0.17 Internet S 0.16 0.1 Internet S 0.1 0.15 0.13Plagiarism 0.12 Plagiarism 0.15 0.07 Plagiarism 0.11 0.09
SEP4
Total
Male Female Total
SEP1
SEP2
SEP3
33
Association between Parenting Styles and Association between Parenting Styles and Problematic Internet BehaviourProblematic Internet Behaviour
• Significant positive relationships exist between problematic internet behaviour and parenting styles for different genders and SEPs.
• For male students in the lowest SEP families (SEP1), problematicinternet behaviour is associated with almost all parenting styles. For male students in the middle SEP families (SEP3), unauthorized acts are associated with encouragement style (r=0.29) and internet stickiness is associated with monitoring style (r=0.25).
• For female students in the highest SEP group (SEP4), internet stickiness (r=0.16) and plagiarism (r=0.15) are associated with permission style.
34
(5) (5) STUDENTSSTUDENTS’’ ATTITUDES ATTITUDES TOWARDS ICTTOWARDS ICT‐‐USE USE
35
StudentsStudents’’ Attitudes towards ICTAttitudes towards ICT‐‐useuse
Male Female SEP1 SEP2 SEP3 SEP4 TotalAttitudes
Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d.
Subjective Norm 3.15 0.80 3.04 0.60 3.12 0.71 3.08 0.64 3.02 0.72 3.16 0.74 3.10 0.71
Negative Attitude towards Internet 3.01 0.92 3.21 0.86 3.17 0.91 3.04 0.84 3.23 0.87 3.00 0.94 3.11 0.89
You Copy I Copy 2.40 0.95 2.22 0.85 2.41 0.92 2.58 0.88 2.22 0.88 2.00 0.81 2.31 0.90
Awarenewss of Plagiarism 3.35 1.02 3.51 0.94 3.38 1.01 3.24 0.92 3.52 0.95 3.59 1.02 3.43 0.98
Justified Hacking 2.20 0.94 1.81 0.82 2.08 0.92 2.17 0.94 1.98 0.85 1.76 0.83 2.00 0.90
Hacking Worry 3.53 1.08 3.70 1.05 3.59 1.05 3.44 1.03 3.74 1.03 3.70 1.13 3.62 1.07
Internet Risk 3.32 0.89 3.48 0.86 3.37 0.87 3.28 0.83 3.45 0.87 3.51 0.93 3.40 0.88
Internet Freedom 2.48 0.84 2.20 0.77 2.40 0.82 2.49 0.82 2.29 0.81 2.16 0.79 2.34 0.82
Justified Pirated Software 2.36 1.00 1.99 0.82 2.25 0.92 2.36 0.95 2.12 0.91 1.94 0.88 2.17 0.93
Worry Use Pirated Software 3.34 1.02 3.46 1.02 3.37 1.02 3.30 0.95 3.44 1.05 3.50 1.05 3.40 1.02
Aware Information Accuracy 3.00 1.09 3.06 1.03 2.94 1.05 3.11 0.91 3.05 1.13 3.01 1.13 3.03 1.06
Worry Information Accuracy 3.22 0.88 3.32 0.84 3.17 0.88 3.13 0.79 3.16 0.89 3.24 0.87 3.18 0.86
Perceived Usefulness ICT 3.51 0.78 3.52 0.65 3.45 0.74 3.44 0.67 3.53 0.69 3.64 0.72 3.51 0.71
Positive Attitude towards Interenet 3.72 0.81 3.85 0.69 3.74 0.80 3.70 0.70 3.85 0.75 3.86 0.74 3.79 0.75
Efficacy 3.40 0.80 3.34 0.65 3.34 0.72 3.31 0.69 3.38 0.73 3.43 0.75 3.37 0.72
36
SEP, Gender and AttitudesSEP, Gender and Attitudes
3.4
3.7
3.4
3.2
3.6
3.2
3.3
3.8
3.3
3.5
3.8
3.3
3.3
3.8
3.3
3.3
3.8
3.4
3.7
3.9
3.5
3.7
4.0
3.7
Awareness of Plagiarism
+ve Att towards Internet
Internet Risks
Awareness of Plagiarism
+ve Att towards Internet
Internet Risks
Awareness of Plagiarism
+ve Att towards Internet
Internet Risks
Awareness of Plagiarism
+ve Att towards Internet
Internet Risks
SEP1
SEP2
SEP3
SEP4
37
SEP, Gender and AttitudesSEP, Gender and Attitudes
• Male students (mean=3.4, sd=1.0) tend to be less aware of plagiarism using ICT than female students (mean=3.5, sd=0.9). Male students (mean=3.7, sd=0.8) tend to show less positive attitudes towards the internet than female students (mean=3.9, sd=0.7). Male students (mean=3.3, sd=0.9) also tend to be less aware of internet risks than female students (mean=3.5, sd=0.9).
• Students from lower SEP families (SEP2: mean=3.2, sd=0.9)tend to be less aware of plagiarism using ICT than students from higher SEP families (SEP3: mean=3.5, sd=1.0).
• Students from lower SEP families (SEP2: mean=3.3, sd=0.8) tend to be less aware of internet risks than students from higher SEP families (SEP4: mean=3.5, sd=0.9).
38
Attitudes and Parenting StylesAttitudes and Parenting Styles
012345
Encouragement
Monitoring
Worry
Permission
AP >P75 AP <P25
012345
Encouragement
Monitoring
Worry
Permission
PATI >P75 PATI <P25
012345
Encouragement
Monitoring
Worry
Permission
PIR >P75 PIR <P25 39
Attitudes and Parenting StylesAttitudes and Parenting Styles• Comparing the groups with high and low awareness of
plagiarism, there is difference in encouragement from parents in using ICT (HI: mean=2.9, s.d=0.9 vs LO: mean=2.6 , sd=0.9). There is difference in worry expressed by parents in using ICT (HI: mean=3.1, s.d=1.0 vs LO: mean=2.8 , sd=1.0).
• Comparing the groups with more and less positive attitudes towards the internet, there is difference in encouragement from parents in using ICT (HI: mean=2.7, s.d=0.8 vs LO: mean=2.8 , sd=0.8). There is difference in permission from parents in using ICT (HI: mean=4.1, s.d=0.9 vs LO: mean=3.5 , sd=1.0).
• Comparing the groups with high and low awareness of internet risks, there is difference in encouragement from parents in using ICT (HI: mean=2.9, s.d=0.9 vs LO: mean=2.6 , sd=0.8).
40
Association between Parenting Styles and Association between Parenting Styles and AttitudesAttitudes
Aware P Pos I I Risk Aware P Pos I I Risk Aware P Pos I I RiskEncourage Encourage EncourageWorry Worry Worry
Permission 0.42 Permission 0.24 Permission 0.35Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring
Aware P Pos I I Risk Aware P Pos I I Risk Aware P Pos I I RiskEncourage 0.24 Encourage Encourage 0.19Worry 0.19 0.2 0.29 Worry Worry 0.16 0.17
Permission 0.28 Permission ‐0.21 Permission 0.19Monitoring 0.3 Monitoring Monitoring 0.16
Aware P Pos I I Risk Aware P Pos I I Risk Aware P Pos I I RiskEncourage 0.23 Encourage 0.23 0.18 Encourage 0.23Worry Worry 0.27 0.2 0.31 Worry 0.16 0.17 0.19
Permission 0.33 0.29 Permission 0.34 Permission 0.24 0.32 0.17Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring
Aware P Pos I I Risk Aware P Pos I I Risk Aware P Pos I I RiskEncourage ‐0.22 ‐0.27 Encourage Encourage ‐0.15 ‐0.15Worry ‐0.22 Worry Worry ‐0.14
Permission 0.28 Permission Permission 0.15Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring
Aware P Pos I I Risk Aware P Pos I I Risk Aware P Pos I I RiskEncourage 0.12 Encourage 0.13 0.1 Encourage 0.11Worry Worry 0.14 0.11 Worry 0.1 0.07 0.08
Permission 0.32 Permission 0.18 Permission 0.25Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring
SEP4
Total
Male Female Total
SEP1
SEP2
SEP3
41
Association between Parenting Styles Association between Parenting Styles and Attitudesand Attitudes
• Significant positive relationships exist between attitudes towards risks and concerns of ICT use and parenting styles for different genders and SEPs.
• For students from the higher SEP families (SEP4), positive attitudes towards the internet (r=‐0.15) and awareness of internet risks (r=‐0.15) are associated negatively with encouragement style. Awareness of internet risks (r=‐0.14) is associated negatively with worry style. Similar patterns are observed for male students from the higher SEP families (SEP4).
• For female students in the middle SEP group (SEP2), awareness of internet risks (r=‐0.21) is associated negatively with permission style.
42
(6) (6) SUMMARY OF FINDINGSSUMMARY OF FINDINGS
43
A Summary of FindingsA Summary of Findings• There are gender as well as SEP differences in students’ ICT
access and use, perceived parenting styles, academic attainment, problematic Internet behavior, and attitudes towards ICT
• Parenting styles are focused on the dimension of permission, and they are associated with issues of students’ ICT‐use at home
• Students’ academic attainment is associated with their ICT access and use
• Students’ problematic Internet behaviors are associated with parenting styles
• Students’ attitudes towards ICT are associated with parenting styles
44
(7) (7) RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS
45
Recommendations (1)Recommendations (1)
• Teachers should design more learning or assessment tasks using online resources to promote meaningful ICT‐use in and after school for students.
• Parent‐teacher communication should be strengthened to enable both teachers and parents to get into the blurring realities of students’ learning and development in the digital age.
• When young people are rushing into the digital world, many parents feel left behind in the dust with worry. Thus parents should be aware of the recent development of ICT particularly mobile technology, interplay of learning and playing, and issues on values and attitudes of ICT‐use.
46
Recommendations (2)Recommendations (2)
• To effectively negotiate cyberspace and avoid the risks and areas of concern, students need parents’ attention and guidance. Parents should be aware of the changing digital lives and guide their children to use the ICT safely and positively.
• Parenting style focusing on “permission” is not enough. Parents should review their parenting styles and learn more about strategies to “encourage” their children to use ICT for learning and personal development.
• Resources should be provided not only focusing on students’ICT access and use, but also the positive and quality use of new media for their well‐being.
47
Recommendations (3)Recommendations (3)• Parent education programs should be provided to help
parents gain a better understanding of information literacy and the impact of new media on students’ learning and development.
• Professional development for teachers should provide the necessary knowledge and competence to help teachers re‐conceptualize teaching and learning with new digital media and understand the related ethical issues.
• Research and development efforts should be put in place to understand the social, cultural and contextual aspects of students’ experiences in using new digital media, and to examine why they are more or less likely to be digitally excluded in various contexts and the impacts of digital exclusion on both their formal and informal learning.
48
