The relation between teachers’ emphasis on the development of students’ digital information and communication skills and computer self-efficacy: the moderating roles of age and gender

被引:24
作者
Siddiq F. [1 ]
Scherer R. [2 ]
机构
[1] Department of Teacher Education and School Research (ILS), Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo, Blindern, Postbox 1099, Oslo
[2] Centre for Educational Measurement at the University of Oslo (CEMO), Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo, Blindern, Postbox 1161, Oslo
关键词
Age and gender differences; Computer self-efficacy; Emphasis on digital skills [TEDDICS; ICILS; 2013; Moderation; Teachers’ ICT integration;
D O I
10.1186/s40536-016-0032-4
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Teachers’ integration of information and communication technology (ICT) has been widely studied, given that digital competence is considered to be a crucial outcome of twenty first century education. In this context, research highlighted teachers’ computer self-efficacy (CSE) as one of the most important determinants of their ICT integration into teaching practices. Whereas previous research mainly focused on the relation between CSE and ICT integration from a frequency-based point of view, recent research suggests to investigate this relation using more qualitative measures of ICT integration such as the degree to which teachers emphasize developing students’ digital information and communication skills (TEDDICS). Consequently, the present study investigates the relations between these two constructs: teachers’ emphasis on developing students’ digital skills and their computer self-efficacy, taking into account the moderating roles of age and gender. We used a representative sample of 1071 Norwegian secondary school teachers who participated in the international computer and information literacy study (ICILS) in 2013. Our results provide evidence on the positive relation between CSE and TEDDICS. Furthermore, age positively moderated this relation between some factors of the two constructs, indicating that computer self-efficacy plays an even more important role for teachers of higher age in the context of emphasizing ICT skills in classrooms. The unique effect of gender was present for one correlation between CSE and TEDDICS, indicating that moderation by gender was apparent to a limited extent, and related to use of computers for instructional purposes. The interaction between age and gender did not reveal significant moderation effects. We discuss these results in light of the potential consequences for teacher training. © 2016, The Author(s).
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 75 条
[1]  
Aesaert K., van Nijlen D., Vanderlinde R., van Braak J., Direct measures of digital information processing and communication skills in primary education: using item response theory for the development and validation of an ICT competence scale, Computers Education, 76, pp. 168-181, (2014)
[2]  
Afshartous D., Preston R.A., Key results of interaction models with centering, Journal of Statistics Education, 19, 3, pp. 1-24, (2011)
[3]  
Ainley J., Friedman T., Gebhardt E., Macaskill G., Teaching About Information and Communication Technologies, Paper Presented at the 6Th IEA International Research Conference (IRC), (2015)
[4]  
Akarsu B., Akbiyik C., Relationships among perceived computer literacy skills, computer attitudes, and computer self-efficacy levels, Journal of European Education, 2, 2, (2012)
[5]  
Antonietti A., Giorgetti M., Teachers’ beliefs about learning from multimedia, Computers in Human Behavior, 22, pp. 267-282, (2006)
[6]  
Asparouhov T., Sampling weights in latent variable modeling, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12, pp. 411-434, (2005)
[7]  
Asparouhov T., Muthen B., Weighted Least Squares Estimation with Missing Data, (2010)
[8]  
Bandura A., Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, (1997)
[9]  
Bong M., Skaalvik E.M., Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really?, Educational Psychology Review, 15, pp. 1-40, (2003)
[10]  
Brown T.A., Latent variable measurement models, The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods, 2, pp. 257-280, (2013)