Comparative Cross-Cultural Study in Digital Literacy

Nazire Burçin HAMUTOĞLU, (Eskişehir Teknik Üniversitesi, Öğrenme ve Öğretme Mükemmeliyet Merkezi, Eskişehir, Türkiye)
Orhan GEMİKONAKLI, (Middlesex Üniversitesi, Bilim ve Teknoloji Fakültesi, Londra, İngiltere)
Clifford De RAFFAELE, (Middlesex Üniversitesi, Malta)
Deniz Mertkan GEZGİN (Trakya Üniversitesi, Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi, Edirne, Türkiye)
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research
4 1
Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 20 Sayı: 88 Sayfa Aralığı: 121 - 147 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.14689/ejer.2020.88.6 İndeks Tarihi: 26-11-2020

Comparative Cross-Cultural Study in Digital Literacy

Öz:
Purpose: Due to the distinctive characteristics ofdeveloped countries differentiating them from thedeveloping countries, it is expected that there may bedifferences between developed and developingcountries’ levels of digital literacies. Considering thecultural differences and approach to the genderproblem, it is important to see how these differencesmanifest themselves when genders are considered.Therefore, this study aimed to investigatecomparatively the level of digital literacy ofuniversity students in three culturally differentcountries.Method: The study was based on descriptive survey research and consisted of 430 universitystudents, studying on technological programs in three different countries: the first one wasthe United Kingdom (UK), a well-developed member of the European Union (EU), the secondone was Malta, a less developed EU member, and the third one was the Republic of Turkey, adeveloping country and a candidate for EU membership. The data were collected through theDigital Literacy Scale. In the analysis of data, descriptive statistics and multivariate analysisof variance (MANOVA) test were used.Findings: The only difference in the findings is in the technical sub-dimension of digitalliteracy; male students’ average scores for this sub-dimension are higher than that of femalestudents across three countries. The findings also indicated significant differences in terms ofcognitive and social-emotional sub-dimensions of digital literacy between countries.Accordingly, participants studying in Turkey had a lower score than participants studying inMalta in terms of cognitive sub-dimension and had a higher score than the UK participants inthe social-emotional sub-dimension. Moreover, it was found that neither gender nor countryhad any significant effect on the sub-dimensions of digital literacy.Implications for Research and Practice: The findings of the study reveals that the participantsfrom Turkey scored lower than other countries in the cognitive skills needed for digitalliteracy. This may well lead to a recommendation for improving digital literacy in differentcountries.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Akbulut, Y. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS uygulamalari (1. Baski). İstanbul: Ideal Kultur Yayincilik
  • Akca, E. B. (2014). Dijital bolunme kavrami baglaminda Turkiye’de ortaokul ogrencilerinin internet ve sosyal ag kullanimlari: Gaziantep Ili Ornegi. 1. Uluslararası Iletisim Bilimleri ve Medya Arastirmalari Kongresi, 12-15.
  • Akdag, M., & Karahan, M. (2004). Universite ogrencilerinin bilgi okuryazarlik duzeylerinin cesitli degiskenler acisindan incelenmesi [Examining the information literacy level of undeıgraduates through a number of variables]. Egitim ve Bilim, 29(134).
  • Antonio, A., & Tuffley, D. (2014a). The gender digital divide in developing countries. Future Internet, 6(4), 673-687.
  • Antonio, A., & Tuffley, D. (2014b). Digital literacy in the developing world: a gender gap. The Conversation, 8, 1-3.
  • Ata, F. (2011). Universite ogrencilerinin web 2.0 teknolojilerini kullanim durumlari ile bilgi okuryazarligi oz-yeterlik algilari arasindaki iliskinin incelenmesi [The investigation of correlation between the undergraduate students‟ usage of web 2.0 technology and perceptions of information literacy self – efficacy]. (Master dissertation). DEU Egitim Bilimleri Enstitusu, İzmir.
  • Bal, H. C., Kalayci, C., & Artan S. (2015). Farkli gelir grubuna sahip ulkelerde dijital bolunmenin boyutu ve belirleyicileri [The size and determinants of digital divide in countries of different income groups]. Uluslararasi Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 1(2), 107-123.
  • Barut, E., & Kuzu, A. (2017). Turkiye ve Ingiltere bilisim teknolojileri ogretim programlarinin amac, kazanim, etkinlik, olcme ve degerlendirme surecleri acisindan karsilastirilmasi [The comparison of Turkey and Uk's information technologies curriculum in the context of objectives, acquisition, activities, measurement and evaluation]. Trakya Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 7(2), 721-745.
  • Basturk Akca, E., & Kaya, B. (2016). Toplumsal cinsiyet esitligi perspektifinden dijital bolunme ve farkli yaklasimlar [The different approaches to digital divide in the concept of gender equality and it’s dimensions]. Intermedia International e-Journal, 3(5), 301-319.
  • Betts, B., & Payne, N. (2016). From content to curation. In A. Anderson & B. Betts (Eds). Ready. set. curate (pp.9-13). Alexandria. VA: Association For Talent Development.
  • Bhatt, I. (2015). Curation as a new direction in digital literacy theory, Reviewed proceedings for the society for research into higher education (SRHE) Annual Research Conference 2015 ‘Converging Concepts in Global Higher Education Research’ (Dec 2015, Celtic Manor, Newport, Wales).
  • Bulus, B. (2017). Yetiskin yeni medya okuryazarligi: Avrupa Birligi ve Turkiye ornekleri [Adult new media literacy: the case of European Union and Turkey]. (Yukseklisans Tezi). Hacettepe Universitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu, Ankara.
  • Buyukozturk, S. (2005). Sosyal bilimler icin veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi
  • Buyukozturk, S., Cakmak, E. K., Akgun, O. E., Karadeniz, S., & Demirel, F. (2015). Bilimsel arastirma yontemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi
  • Camilleri, R. A., Aquilina, K., Carabott, V., & Seguna, O., (2018). Dijital literacy: Ministry for education and employment. Retrieved from https://eskills.org.mt/en/digitaleducationinschools/Documents/Omar_Seg una_Digital%20Literacy%20eskills%20foundation.pdf
  • Casey, L., & Hallissy, M. (2014). Live learning: Online teaching, digitial literacy and the practice of inquiry. Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1).
  • Chen, C. Y., Pedersen, S., & Murphy, K. L. (2012). The influence of perceived information overload on student participation and knowledge construction in computer-mediated communication. Instructional Science, 40(2), 325-349.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology. 78, 98-104.
  • Dabbagh, N., Benson, A. D., Denham, A., Joseph, R., Al-Freih, M., Zgheib, G., Fake, H., & Zhetao, G. (2016). Evolution of learning technologies: Past, present. and future. In N. Dabbagh. A. D. Benson. A. Denham. R. Joseph. M. Al-Freih. G. Zgheib. H. Fake. & G. Zhetao (Eds.). Learning Technologies and Globalization (pp. 1-7): Springer International Publishing.
  • De Raffaele, C., & Galea. M. (2014). Moving towards knowledge creating schools. in Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Web and Open Access to Learning (ICWOAL 2014). pp. 1-6. Dubai. United Arab Emirates. Nov. 2014.
  • De Raffaele, C., Bugeja. L., & Smith. S. (2015). The use of social networking sites in elearning. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computing Education (ICCE 2015). pp. 1237-1242. Marrakech.
  • Dembo, M. H., & Seli, H. P. (2004). Students' resistance to change in learning strategies courses. Journal of Developmental Education, 27(3).
  • Dikmen, M., & Tuncer, M. (2018). Bilgi okuryazarlik oz yeterligi inanci, ogretmenlik meslegine yonelik tutum ve ust bilis dusunme becerileri arasindaki iliskiler [The relationships between information literacy self-efficacy beliefs, attitudes toward teaching occupation and metacognitive thinking skills]. Electronic Journal of Education Sciences, 7(13), 73-86.
  • Durmuscelebi, M., & Temircan, S. (2017). MEB (Egitim Bilisim Agi) EBA’daki egitim materyallerinin ogrenci goruslerine gore degerlendirilmesi. OPUS Uluslararasi Toplum Arastirmalari Dergisi, 7(13), 632-652.
  • Ertl, B., & Helling, K. (2011). Promoting gender equality in digital literacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(4), 477-503.
  • Europe's Information Society Thematic Portal, (2007). Europe's information society thematic portal (ICT PSP). Retrieved from https://oerworldmap.org/resource/urn%3Auuid%3Aa745b6d9-f905-45a4- 8f46-9d784efa11f4
  • Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics Using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  • Forsyth, I. (2001). Teaching and learning materials and the internet (3rd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education.
  • Fransman, J. (2005). Understanding literacy: A concept paper. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.569.2120&rep=re p1&type=pdf on 29.05.2020
  • George D, & Mallery P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Publications.
  • Green, B., & Beavis, C. (2012). Literacy in 3D: An integrated perspective in theory and practice. Melbourne Vic. Australian Council Educational Research (ACER).
  • Gulbahar, Y., Kalelioglu, F., & Madran, O. (2010). Sosyal aglarin egitim amacli kullanimi. XV. Turkiye’de internet konferansi, Istanbul. Retrieved from http://www. inet-tr. org. tr
  • Hamutoglu, N. B., Gungoren, O. C., Uyanik, G. K., & Erdogan, D. G. (2017). Dijital okuryazarlik olcegi: Turkce’ye uyarlama calismasi. Ege Egitim Dergisi, 18(1), 408-429.
  • Hamutoglu, N. B., Gungoren, O. C., Uyanik, G. K., & Erdogan, D. G. (2018). Ogretmen adaylarinin dijital okuryazarlik duzeyleri ve sosyal ag kullanma amaclarinin farkli degiskenler acisindan incelenmesi. 27th Internation Congress on Educational Sciences (ICES), 18-22 April 2018, Antalya, Turkey.
  • Hilbert, M. (2011). Digital gender divide or technologically empowered women in developing countries? A typical case of lies, damned lies and statistics. Women’s Stud. Int. Forum, 34, 479–489.
  • ICT Facts and Figures 2016. ITU. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/en/ITUD/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2016.pdf
  • INTEL, 2013. Women and the web. Retrieved from http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/technology-ineducation/women-in-the-web.html
  • Islamoglu, H., Ursavas, O. F., & Reisoglu, İ. (2015). Fatih projesi uzerine yapilan akademik calismalarin icerik analizi [A content analysis of the academic work on the fatih project]. Egitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 5(1), 161-183.
  • IMD World Competitiveness Centre (2017). IMD world competitiveness rankings 2017 Retrieved from http://www.otp.go.th/uploads/tiny_uploads/PDF/256008/IMDReport/Ap pendicesAndSources/IMD_World_Competitiveness_Ranking_2017_Appendi ces_and_Sources.pdf
  • ITU (2015), Key ICT Indicators for developed and developing countries and the world. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/en/ITUD/Statistics/Documents/statistics/2015/ITU_Key_2005- 2015_ICT_data.xls
  • Johnson, L., Adams B., S., Estrada. V., & Freeman. A. (2015). NMC horizon report 2015: Higher education edition, Austin. TX: The New Media Consortium.
  • Jones, G., & Sallis, E. (2013). Different types of knowledge: Knowledge management in education: Enhancing Learning & Education. Routledge Publishing
  • Jones, R. H., & Hafner, C. A. (2012). Understanding digital literacies: A practical introduction. London. UK: Routledge.
  • Karahan, M., & Izci, E. (1999). Bilgi toplumu insaninin egitimi. I. Uluslararası egitimde bilgi teknolojileri sempozyumu bildiri kitapcigi, Bursa, 27-28.
  • Kellner, D. (2004). Yeni teknolojiler/yeni okuryazarliklar: Yeni binyılda egitimin yeniden yapilandirilmasi. Kamusal Alan, (T. Kurtarici, Cev.). Meral Ozbek (Ed.). Istanbul: Hil Yayinlari.
  • Keniston, K., & Kumar, D. (2003). The four digital divide. Delhi: Sage Publishers.
  • Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 746-759.
  • Korkut, E., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2008). Foreign language teacher candidates’ information and computer literacy perceived self-efficacy. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34, 178-188.
  • Kozan, M., & Ozek, M. B. (2019). Bote bolumu ogretmen adaylarinin dijital okuryazarlik duzeyleri ve siber zorbaliga iliskin duyarliliklarinin incelenmesi [Examination of department of CEIT teacher candidates’ digital literacy levels and cyberbullying sensitivities]. Firat Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 29(1), 107-120.
  • Kuyucu, M. (2017). Y kusagi ve teknoloji: Y kusaginin iletisim teknolojilerini kullanim aliskanliklari [The use of communication technologies in y generation]. Gumushane Universitesi Iletisim Fakultesi Elektronik Dergisi, 5(2), 845-872.
  • Leech, N.L., Barrett, K.C., & Morgan, G.A. (2005). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  • Mertler, C. A., & Vanatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods (3rd Ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrzcak Publishing.
  • Mohammadyari, S., & Singh, H. (2015). Understanding the effect of e-learning on individual performance: The role of digital literacy. Computers & Education, 82, 11-25.
  • Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59, 1065-1078.
  • Osburn, H. G. (2000). Coefficient alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficients. Psychological Methods, 5, 343–355.
  • Organisation For Economic Co-operation and development (OECD), (2001). Understanding the digital divide. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/1888451.pdf
  • Ozdamar, K. (2002). Paket programlari ile istatistiksel veri analizi-1.(4. Baski). Eskisehir: Kaan Kitabevi.
  • Ozden, M. (2018). Digital literacy perceptions of the students in the department of computer technologies teaching and Turkish language teaching. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(4), 26-36.
  • Ozerbas, M., & Kuralbayeva, A. (2018). Turkiye ve Kazakistan ogretmen adaylarinin dijital okuryazarlik duzeylerinin degerlendirilmesi [A review of digital literacy levels of future primary-school and secondary-school teachers in Turkey and Kazakhstan]. Mugla Sitki Kocman Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 5(1), 16- 25.
  • Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows. Australia: Australian Copyright.
  • PISA (2015). Results in focus. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015- results-in-focus.pdf
  • Prior, D. D., Mazanov, J., Meacheam, D., Heaslip, G., & Hanson, J. (2016). Attitude, digital literacy and self efficacy: Flow-on effects for online learning behavior. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 91-97.
  • Sipahi B., Yurtkoru, E.S., & Cinko M. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS ile veri analizi. Istanbul: Beta Yayinlari.
  • Sopan, T. M., Vilas, D. A., & Suresh, S. S. (2016). An efficient and secure technique for searching shared and encrypted data. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2(3). 295-297.
  • Sparks, J. R., Katz, I. R., & Beile, P. M. (2016). Assessing digital information literacy in higher education: A review of existing frameworks and assessments with recommendations for next‐generation assessment. ETS Research Report Series, 2, 1-33.
  • Sun, X., Wu, Y., Liu, L., & Panneerselvam, J. (2015, October). Efficient event detection in social media data streams. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology; Ubiquitous Computing and Communications; Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing; Pervasive Intelligence and Computing (pp. 1711-1717). IEEE.
  • Takahashi, A., Kashiwaba, Y., Okumura, T., Ando, T., Yajima, K., Hayakawa, Y., Takeshige. M., & Uchida, T. (2015). Design of advanced active and autonomous learning system for computing education. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Teaching. Assessment. and Learning for Engineering (TALE).
  • Tang, C. M., & Chaw, L. Y. (2016). Digital literacy: A prerequisite for effective learning in a blended learning environment?. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(1), 54-65.
  • Turkiye Istatistik Kurumu- TUIK, (2007). Hane halki bilisim teknolojileri kullanimi arastirmasi. Retrieved from www.tuik.gov.tr
  • Turkiye Istatistik Kurumu- TUIK, (2019). Hane halki bilisim teknolojileri kullanimi arastirmasi, Retrieved from www.tuik.gov.tr
  • UNDP (2016). Human development indices and indicators. U.S.A.: Communications development incorporated.
  • Ungerer, L. M. (2016). Digital curation as a core competency in current learning and literacy: A higher education perspective. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5)
  • Usluel, Y. K. (2006). Ogretmen adaylari ve ogretmenlerin bilgi okuryazarligi ozyeterliklerinin karsilastirilmasi [Comparison of prospective teachers’ and teachers’ information literacy self – efficacy]. Egitim Arastirmalari, 6 (22), 233– 243.
  • Ustundag, M. T., Gunes, E., & Bahcivan, E. (2017). Dijital okuryazarlik olceginin Turkce’ye uyarlanmasi ve fen bilgisi ogretmen adaylarinin dijital okuryazarlik durumlari [Turkish adaptation of digital literacy scale and investigating preservice science teachers’ digital literacy]. Journal of Education and Future, (12), 19-29.
  • Vu, X. T., Abel, M. H., & Morizet-Mahoudeaux, P. (2015). A user-centered approach for integrating social data into groups of interest. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 98.
  • We Are Social, (2018). Global digital report-2018. Retrieved from https://digitalreport.wearesocial.com/
  • Williams. C. (2002). Learning on-line: A review of recent literature in a rapidly expanding field. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(3). 263-272. Women’s Annex Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.womensannexfoundation.org
APA HAMUTOĞLU N, GEMİKONAKLI O, De Raffaele C, Gezgin D (2020). Comparative Cross-Cultural Study in Digital Literacy. , 121 - 147. 10.14689/ejer.2020.88.6
Chicago HAMUTOĞLU Nazire Burçin,GEMİKONAKLI Orhan,De Raffaele Clifford,Gezgin Deniz Mertkan Comparative Cross-Cultural Study in Digital Literacy. (2020): 121 - 147. 10.14689/ejer.2020.88.6
MLA HAMUTOĞLU Nazire Burçin,GEMİKONAKLI Orhan,De Raffaele Clifford,Gezgin Deniz Mertkan Comparative Cross-Cultural Study in Digital Literacy. , 2020, ss.121 - 147. 10.14689/ejer.2020.88.6
AMA HAMUTOĞLU N,GEMİKONAKLI O,De Raffaele C,Gezgin D Comparative Cross-Cultural Study in Digital Literacy. . 2020; 121 - 147. 10.14689/ejer.2020.88.6
Vancouver HAMUTOĞLU N,GEMİKONAKLI O,De Raffaele C,Gezgin D Comparative Cross-Cultural Study in Digital Literacy. . 2020; 121 - 147. 10.14689/ejer.2020.88.6
IEEE HAMUTOĞLU N,GEMİKONAKLI O,De Raffaele C,Gezgin D "Comparative Cross-Cultural Study in Digital Literacy." , ss.121 - 147, 2020. 10.14689/ejer.2020.88.6
ISNAD HAMUTOĞLU, Nazire Burçin vd. "Comparative Cross-Cultural Study in Digital Literacy". (2020), 121-147. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2020.88.6
APA HAMUTOĞLU N, GEMİKONAKLI O, De Raffaele C, Gezgin D (2020). Comparative Cross-Cultural Study in Digital Literacy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 20(88), 121 - 147. 10.14689/ejer.2020.88.6
Chicago HAMUTOĞLU Nazire Burçin,GEMİKONAKLI Orhan,De Raffaele Clifford,Gezgin Deniz Mertkan Comparative Cross-Cultural Study in Digital Literacy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 20, no.88 (2020): 121 - 147. 10.14689/ejer.2020.88.6
MLA HAMUTOĞLU Nazire Burçin,GEMİKONAKLI Orhan,De Raffaele Clifford,Gezgin Deniz Mertkan Comparative Cross-Cultural Study in Digital Literacy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, vol.20, no.88, 2020, ss.121 - 147. 10.14689/ejer.2020.88.6
AMA HAMUTOĞLU N,GEMİKONAKLI O,De Raffaele C,Gezgin D Comparative Cross-Cultural Study in Digital Literacy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. 2020; 20(88): 121 - 147. 10.14689/ejer.2020.88.6
Vancouver HAMUTOĞLU N,GEMİKONAKLI O,De Raffaele C,Gezgin D Comparative Cross-Cultural Study in Digital Literacy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. 2020; 20(88): 121 - 147. 10.14689/ejer.2020.88.6
IEEE HAMUTOĞLU N,GEMİKONAKLI O,De Raffaele C,Gezgin D "Comparative Cross-Cultural Study in Digital Literacy." Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 20, ss.121 - 147, 2020. 10.14689/ejer.2020.88.6
ISNAD HAMUTOĞLU, Nazire Burçin vd. "Comparative Cross-Cultural Study in Digital Literacy". Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 20/88 (2020), 121-147. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2020.88.6
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
17-04-2024 17:22

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları