01-11-2016, 12:42 PM
1462962774-lidiyaimp.docx (Size: 223.64 KB / Downloads: 4)
Information technology is defined as the study or use of electronic equipment especially computers for storing analysis and sends out information. Communication technology is the process of sending receiving and exchanging information. ICT can be defined as the use of hardware and software for efficient management of information. ICT refer to the form of technology that are used to transmit, store, create, share or exchange particular task. ICT has become a part and parcel of life. The discoveries and inventions in science and technology have improved the speed of communication. By making use of available tools, ICT is helping common man to fulfill his needs. It has become an integral part of new era. .
Integrating ICT in education
This basically refers to use of technology in communication, data processing and data storage to impact the knowledge on learners.
ICTs help to achieve the goals of educational programs for several reasons. The benefits of ICT seem suitable for coping with the issue of basic literacy and technological literacy, even among the poorest population sectors. Computer Based Learning(CBL) and teaching makes learning more efficient and more interesting to learners thus improving the quality of education. The knowledge deepening approach has a greater impact on learning. Its policy goal is to increase the ability of learners, to add value to education.ICT offers increased possibilities for codification of knowledge about teaching and for innovation in teaching activities through being able to deliver learning and cognitive activities anytime and any where. The integration of ICT in education is affecting educational systems in multiple ways. ICT use in education influences the private life of all educational actors in the sense that these are engaged in innovative practices which require new methodologies, techniques and attitudes. Emerging technologies (e.g. smart- boards, mobile devices) stimulate the change in contextual conditions for learning. Computer equipment and software are becoming increasingly available inside educational establishments as well as in private house holds not only for school-related activities of young people, but also for learning at all stages in life. As teachers and pupils convert from being non-users to regular users of ICT for teaching and learning, they in parallel learn how to use them in optimal ways, i.e. as they learn something new, they learn new ways to learn. In other words, according to this scenario, ICT will ‘penetrate’ and change schools in successive stages.
Indicators for monitoring the integration of ICT
in education
Indicators, as defined by Unesco (2003), are meas- uring devices to assess or evaluate materials, methods, an intervention, a programme or a project on the basis of adopted assumptions on what is rel- evant. Many countries worldwide have adopted quantitative and qualitative indicators of the degree of integration of ICT into schools and some of them have even established annual surveys to monitor progress in this area.
Input indicators are the most widely used type of indicators, something that reflects the priorities of national policies, which commonly focus first on building a minimum level of ‘frame- work conditions’ in schools. The greatest emphasis has been placed on input indicators regarding national policies and the regulatory frame- works, expenditure, teacher training, the inclusion of ICT in school curricula, ICT infrastructure in schools and the access of ICT equipment by teachers and pupils at home. Outcome indicators often focus on the attitudes of teachers and pupils towards ICT, and their confidence and skills in using ICT. They also start to focus on wider ‘strategic’ practices such as the use of ICT for lifelong learning and pro- fessional development, and assess- ment of actual ICT skills is starting to be developed in some areas. It is, however, much less common to use indicators to measure the impact of the use of ICT on pupils’ attainment in core curriculum subjects. The ‘input’ indicators is often driven by political priorities and the philosophy and concerns of the bodies, often government supported, issuing such studies.
The use of indicators has its limitations: generally, indicators provide support to assess a current state, but usually do not cover other important issues, such as reasons for not using ICT; mental effects on learner and learning, etc. Moreover, comparative surveys typically only provide a snapshot of a given situation at a very specific moment in time.
Therefore, the indicators tend to focus on areas where there has been a recent policy initiative and they tend to ignore other areas which, although highly relevant, are not included in the current policy agenda or may reveal disturbing policy failures.
From a European perspective, the development and use of indicators is highly relevant, especially for the development of monitoring policies established by the European Union. The Lisbon strategy set up the open method of coordination (OMC) in education and training (among other fields). This implies that Member States agreed to be monitored in a series of issues to allow for mutual policy learning. In 2002, five benchmarks were established as the average level to achieve by 2010 and several indicators were proposed for monitoring purposes. In addition, the recent emphasis on evidence-based policies in education (see European Commission, 2007a) (1) also provides a
(1) European Commission (2007). ‘Towards more knowledge-based policy and practice in education and training’. SEC (2007) 1098. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
strong policy support for the creation of monitoring tools in education. In 2007, the Commission published the coherent framework of indicators (European Commission, 2007b). This communica- tion established 16 indicators that were adopted by the European Council and can be used to monitor Member States in the achievement of the Lisbon goals in education and training, one of which is ‘ICT skills’. In the current state, there is a necessity to place this indicator within a wider context of ICT use and integration. Likewise, other European programmes, such as i2010, aim at promoting the positive contribution of ICT in the economy, society and quality of life. There is a need to have a framework that will allow evaluating the impact of ICT for this purpose, par- ticularly its contribution in educational settings.
Existing comparative data
The OMC, as well as the trend of proposing knowledge-based policies, requires reliable data and information for policymakers to enable the monitoring of policies. Data needs to be comparable in order to allow for mutual learning between countries. In prin- ciple, it is possible to group potential sources and instruments for assess- ing the ICT effect at a comparative level into three different categories:
• data collected by international bodies (Eurostat, World Bank, Unesco, OECD);
• international surveys, (such as PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS, SITES, TALIS);
• thematic studies (e.g. ‘Study of the impact of technology in primary schools’ (STEPS) 2009, carried out by European Schoolnet and Empirica for the European Commission).
Studies concerning education at a comparative level are carried out by the OECD and IEA on a regular basis. Their main focus is on the assessment of student achievement in different competences: reading, mathematics and science. These further concern themselves with investigation of ICT use in education. PISA is probably the best known survey of this type. It has had important political impact and results in PISA are used within the OMC to monitor progress towards the Lisbon objective (the percentage of low-skilled readers is used as one of the five benchmarks agreed by the Council in 2002). PISA has a specific module on ICT. The module has been modified in each of the three rounds of PISA (2000, 2003, 2006) and will probably have a different version in
2009. It strives to gather information from 15-years-olds (the PISA target group) on the use they make of com- puters and their self-reported capac- ity for doing certain computer tasks. In 2004, the OECD published a report specifically looking into PISA and ICT: Are students ready for a technology- rich world? The report mainly looks into the effects of use of ICT in student
performance. But it lacks information on how the computer has been used and in what way because of the limi- tations of the ICT module question- naire. TIMSS and PIRLS, carried out under the auspices of the International Association for the Evaluation of Education (IEA), also have specific information on the use of ICT. In TIMSS, for example, information on the use of ICT is linked to subject, and, therefore, it is more possible to explore the impact of the educational use of ICT on student performance. But we have no information on how the computer has been used.
In terms of thematic studies, there are a number of initiatives looking specifi- cally into aspects of ICT in education. Empirica (2006), in a study financed by the European Commission, explores the access and use of ICT in European schools in 2006. It presents information for 25 EU Member States, Norway and Iceland, but it does not look into student results so it is not possible to study this important aspect of ICT impact. Another relevant study is SITES, which, like TIMSS, is under the auspices of the IEA. The survey explores the use of computers in teaching through sampling teachers, principals and ICT responsibility in schools. It does not look into student achievement, but it does look at the perceived impact on ICT in students from the teacher’s perspective.
The impact of ICT
in education
Current approaches for evaluating ICT in education are often only focused on a few aspects, such as input, utilisa- tion and outcome/impact. By the use of indicators, they can assess how the input (e.g. monetary, infrastruc- ture, resources) relates to the impact. These models may apply for several purposes, but come too short to assess the integration of ICT in policies and curricula, particularly because they often use a snapshot, one time and one level approach. Furthermore, evaluation has to care about different states in the implementation process and analyse changes in the culture of the school system — at the micro level (pupils) as well as at the meso (school) and macro (curriculum/attain- ment targets) level. Therefore, a con- ceptual framework is needed to look into the various dimensions of ICT use and to discuss possibilities to measure the effects of use of electronic media
in education. Such an orientation aims at constructing a framework to look at the relevant domains and interdepend- ence between components related to ICT in educational processes from a holistic perspective.
Evaluating different
stages of implementing ICT
in education and levels of evaluation
One of the shortcomings of many indicator approaches is that they are measuring an ‘instance’ within a wider historic process, but they are never exhaustive, and by being unavoidably ‘selective’ they can create an incomplete picture of the integration of ICT into educational systems. A powerful approach to the study of the degree of integration of ICT in education makes use of such indicators within developmental models of integration of ICT in education. Such models attempt to describe potential successive phases through which teachers and students gradually adopt and use ICT.
A more recent effort to use indicators within a model of ICT integration in education was made in the context of a project carried out by Unesco’s Institute of Information Technology (3) in 2001. It is based on the assumption that this process progresses through four distinct successive phases: (a) emerging, (b) applying, © integrat- ing and (d) transforming
A somewhat newer version of the
‘stages’ approach is exemplified in ‘e-maturity’ models
Such models focus on what teachers and pupils actually do when they use ICT in schools, something that the indicators approach deals with only in superficial ways. When such models are used to guide evaluation, in combination with the indicators approach, this may offer outcomes of more explanatory power regarding the integration of ICT in education. They may also offer a more solid basis for developing models and other instruments to study the capacity of educa- tional systems to absorb ICT-related pedagogic innovations.
Besides the different stages, there are several levels to be considered when studying the effects of ICT. Indicators
and emphasis of domains studied may vary depending on which of these levels are taken into consideration: macro, meso and micro levels. The macro level refers to aspects at the highest level of aggregation. The meso level refers to aspects at the institu- tional level .The meso level refers to aspects related to an inter- mediate level that shaped the relation- ship between micro and macro level aspects. The micro level refers to the individual; it portrays individuals in their use of ICT.
These levels present different focuses and relate to each other in that lower levels are integrated (‘belong’) into higher levels (an individual is in a school, a school is in a region, a region is in a country, etc.). These three levels determine the type of indicators that we might use within each of the domains. Some indicators at the macro level or meso level might just be aggrega- tions of micro level data..
Conceptual framework
All in all, we can say that learning practices and teaching for a vari- ety of obvious reasons need to be assessed in different ways. New tools and instruments are required to moni- tor both achievements and progress made in the context of ICT, but there is no clear position yet on adequate indicators, instruments and scales for measurement. A conceptual frame- work would help to alleviate this defi- cit. There is a ‘need for a thorough, rigorous and multifaceted approach to analysing the impact of ICT on educa- tion and students’ learning’ (Cox and Marshall, 2007; also Kikis and Kolias,
2005; Aviram and Talmi, 2004). Of interest here is that, as early as 1997, Collins pointed out that ‘research into the contribution of ICT to students’ thinking and acting reflects the social and epistemological beliefs of the research community’. This has seri- ous implications for evidence-based policies. Major policy analyses that encompass a wide range of settings and look for commonalities and differ- ences as a result of systemic condi- tions are often missed from most of the previous research agendas. Currently conducted meta-analyses on ICT and attainment suggest that the most robust evidence of ICT use in enhanc- ing learning was from those studies that focused on specific uses of ICT (Cox and Marshall, 2007, p. 60).
The purpose of a conceptual framework should be to provide an orientation for any kind of measurement required in the decision-making process. A frame- work serves as the basis for modelling an appropriate assessment approach and the design of methodologies and instruments. It connects to all aspects of empirical enquiry. When drafting a framework, we would therefore expect
that, contrary to the specific models, a conceptual framework acts as a refer- ence which is flexible and adaptable to the purpose of a study to be car- ried out. To take an example: if we want to study if technology is having a positive impact on educational per- formance, a framework would help us to identify the various domains in the given context to be looked at (such as ICT availability and devices used, pedagogies applied in which subject areas, etc.) and possible perspectives to be taken into account (school level, individual level, etc.). This is important for ensuring that all relevant aspects are considered and that a systematic approach is followed that is transparent and comprehensible for the stakehold- ers involved. It provides a holistic view and supports the setting of standard orientations when defining the evalua- tion methodology and selecting appro- priate instruments for measurement. In more complex evaluation settings, when conclusions are to be based on a combination of surveys conducted by different research teams world- wide, it would, ideally, also contrib- ute to a coherent common approach to the identification of phenomena to be analysed and their evidence-based interpretation in the light of a common understanding of aspects to be stud- ied. In the case of the assessment of ICT effects in education, this is to the benefit of more effective valorisation of evaluation studies carried out and better quality of analytical work.
A conceptual framework could further- more act as the basis for the design of monitoring tools aimed at informing policy on the emerging trends, their effects and their implications for cur- rent or future education. It is therefore oriented towards medium- and long- term policies and benchmarks defined for ensuring effective integration into
A conceptual framework is given in Figure 2 for further discussion which takes into account the political con- text of European education. It covers several domains relevant to specific EU policy priorities. However, policy goals/priorities are presented here as an example and could be adapted to any other policy priority which might be dominant in other countries. The framework is divided into domains, indicators and stages.
The domains identified by the concep- tual framework here represent the rel- evant areas of study. When assessing the effects of ICT in education, such domains should cover the complete range of analytical constructs to be studied in the context of the integration and use of ICT in education. Ideally, each domain should be exclusive and not overlap with other domains. Based on the literature review carried out between 2007 and 2008 relating to European projects, case studies and research reports, the following six dominant blocks were identified in the research discussions.
• Policies: By this term we understand any type of strategies relating to the implementation of ICT and their effective use. This could take place at a national policy level as well as at an institutional level, such as in universities, schools, etc.
• Resources: This domain refers to the ICT infrastructure in terms of hardware, software, network capaci- ties and any type of digital resources used for teaching and learning.
• Curriculum: By ‘curriculum’ we under- stand the level of ICT integration in the curriculum, including courses on how to use ICT effectively.
• Organisation: This term refers to organisational measures to imple- ment ICT and its use. One example
is the use of content/learning man- agement systems for educational purposes.
• Teaching practices: This domain characterises the use of ICT for teaching activities, pedagogical practices, etc.
• Learning: Like the definition pro- vided above, ‘Learning’ focuses on the use of ICT by the learner (stu- dent, etc.).
It is possible to find specific indicators for each of the domains that describe the state of the domain and that vary from context to context and case to case. For example, in the domain referring to resources, one possible aspect to look at would be ‘ICT avail- ability’. As indicated above, the spe- cific indicators to look at here would be determined partially by the level of analysis (macro, meso or micro) to be undertaken. As such, at macro level, it would be possible to use indicators such as ‘broadband penetration’, ‘ICT availability in the country’ or ‘percent- age of educational software sales in a country’ among others. At the meso level, indicators would be slightly dif- ferent and would refer specifically to school contexts (or to another meso level entity that would be in focus). In our example, possible indicators would include ‘the presence of LAN in schools’ or ‘the percentage of schools reporting having educational software’. At the micro level, indicators would refer to individuals in relation to the availability of ICT, for example individ- uals reporting on having educational software at home and uses made.
Furthermore, the present framework permits the identification of the ICT maturity stages. Each of the different indicators identified would have certain levels that would suggest a specific stage of ICT maturity. As such, continuing with our example, ICT resources in schools might have reached a certain degree that would allow for a ‘trans- forming’ stage (let’s say all schools in a country have an adequate supply of ICT tools). However, other indicators, for example relating to curriculum, might not be as advanced, or have no teachers trained in the pedagogi- cal use of ICT. These latest indica- tors would denote an emerging state. Under this scope, the framework pro- vides a holistic picture of the range of aspects related to ICT.
It is important to note that the differ- ent indicators would have a different degree of aggregation depending on the analysis that we will want to draw from it (see Figure 1). The framework provides the pre-stage for the analysis, allowing stakeholders to see the rele- vant aspects in a holistic picture before a specific analysis is carried out. As such, individual reporting of the number of computers at home, for example, can be aggregated at the national level to analyse country-specific patterns in relation to use and possession, or can be used at the individual level to carry out studies on the use and possession of ICT by individuals in relation, for example, to their age. Our framework permits the review results of the analy- sis in light of the ‘greater scenery of ICT’ within a given setting. This facili- tates the consideration of aspects not specifically accounted for in the origi- nal level of analysis, but which might play an important role in understand- ing the results.
Outlook
Conceptual frameworks are impor- tant tools for orienting and evaluating policy decisions. They offer policymak- ers dimensions for consideration when evaluating the effectiveness of policy
interventions and provide a basis for further decisions. The framework pre- sented in this paper builds a compre- hensive model for the analysis of ICT effects into the educational process from various levels and perspectives. It establishes a structure for reflecting on relevant indicators. The framework takes into account different levels of analysis allowing therefore for dif- ferentiation in scope. The framework further introduces different stages of implementation. This allows policy- makers to acquire a holistic view on policy changes and the effects these have on different actors within the educational system. A holistic view is an essential aspect for policy evalua- tion because it can disclose the matu- rity of the implementations of policies.
In brief, the paper proposes that in order to deepen our analysis of the impact of ICT on education, we need to shift our attention from technology per se to processes and skills teach- ers and learners are currently apply- ing. This will allow us to identify and explore conditions and factors that are shaping the way ICT is used in education. Under this perspective, we need to shift from approaches that exclusively monitor macro level aspects to an integrated model where the three different levels are consid- ered in conjunction. Such a compre- hensive approach to the study of ICT effects and their impact on education needs to be considered in a coher- ent manner. The proposed framework allows for the integration of differ- ent levels and types of data sources. It is important to bear in mind that there appears to be a need to reflect beyond pure observations and evalu- ate more concretely institutional con- texts of learning (schools, university, etc.), learning situations and teaching processes to determine under which
circumstances ICT-based activities can enhance learning and improve skills. Due to the complexity involved in mapping factors/variables on to one another, the evaluation of the causes of the observed impacts requires a
degree of qualitative interpretation. It is highly recommended that the actors engaged in the process define the scope for evaluation and on such bases interpret the results