Although it is common to refer to them as “digital natives”, young Spaniards – and Europeans too – present a performance between medium and low in computer skills. Specifically, Spain obtains a score of 495 points in the International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2023 (ICILS), prepared by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement).
The country is thus above the study average (476 points), but still has almost one of every student (45%) who does not reach level 2 in the test, which the EU considers the minimum desirable. Furthermore, Spain has large differences between the (small) group of students who perform the most and the (largest) group of those who perform the least and, as is the case with all the countries that have participated in this evaluation, as a whole the country is in the level 2 out of 4. Spain is just below France or Germany and above Italy. South Korea, the Czech Republic and Denmark are the ones with the best results in the test with 540, 525 and 518 points, respectively.
Looking at the extremes, in Spain almost one in two students (45%) is at level 1 or below, which means that “the student demonstrates understanding of the use of computers as tools for simple tasks.” That 45% triples the European objective of having a maximum of 15% of students below level 2 by 2030. In that next step, the one desired by the EU, “students can use computers to carry out basic basic tasks.” collection and management or create simple information products,” the report describes.
As usually happens in this type of studies, Spain does not stand out at the extreme of excellence: only one in six (15%) reaches level 3 (“students demonstrate the ability to work autonomously with computers to compile and information management and information management, and demonstrate that they understand basic information design conventions”) or 4 (“students select the most relevant information for communicative purposes, evaluate its usefulness, credibility and reliability, and create products adapted from digital resources, so that the information is more accessible to the target audience”), the two highest.
The report points out that one of the big differences between the most competent students and the least is in the books they have at home (26 is the magic number) and the education of their parents. Each of these circumstances implies a difference of about 50 points in the test, which the authors describe as “statistically quite large.” Each of these elements by itself is equivalent to half an entire level: not having either of these two circumstances implies starting directly from an entire level below.
“They need help”
The IEA defines computer literacy as “the ability to use computers to research, create and communicate to participate effectively at home, at school, in the workplace and in society.” Within this framework, level 2 in which Spain is on average is summarized, according to the organization, in that students “need help.” What can students at this level do? “They can perform simple actions under explicit instructions,” says the IEA.
No performance group in any country, not even the top performer, South Korea, reaches level 4. Only 1% of the global student body gets there. In general terms, the largest group is 2, followed by 1. This means that 61% of the students, almost two out of every three, are in the two lowest levels. “Needs help” or is “undeveloped.”
The report also evaluates computational thinking, although Spain has not participated in this part. The results are similar to those of computer literacy: the average is at level 2 out of 4 and the countries present large internal differences between the students who perform the best and those who perform the least.
“It is a concern”
The evolution of computing competition in the last decade does not give reason for optimism to Julian Fraillon, director of the study. Among the seven countries with comparable data between the 2013 and 2023 editions, not a single one has improved its results and only one remains more or less the same. The other six have gone down.
“I am particularly concerned about the very high proportion of students at level 2 or 1 and even below,” he explains via videoconference, “because in developed countries like Spain, digital information is becoming the basis of information. “Citizens receive the vast majority of information digitally,” he reflects on the low level. “And before, in the pre-internet era, the information that was presented to people had been processed. There were editors, filters, people making decisions about what was appropriate to publish. Now we have a situation in which anyone can publish information without any type of supervision or editorial control, without verifying its accuracy or bias,” he warns of the danger this entails.
The text comes to influence the idea, repeated by computer science teachers, that “digital natives do not exist.” These teachers argue that saying that there are “digital natives” would be equivalent to saying that in previous generations there were “native drivers” simply because they were born in a time when driving was widespread.
There is the idea of the ‘digital native’, that because young people have grown up with technology they are very effective users. But we clearly see that almost half of them are not as we want them to be. They are able to find websites or access networks, but are not demonstrating critical use or sophisticated skills
Fraillon doesn’t say it in those words, but he talks about it. “There is the idea of digital nativethat since young people have grown up with technology they are very effective users. And we see that they are technology users, but we also clearly see that almost half of them are not really as effective with technology as we want them to be. They’re not demonstrating critical use, they’re not demonstrating sophisticated or independent skills. They are able to find websites that interest them, download things or access social networks. But they are not the types of technical or cognitive skills we look for in students. “Those are skills that have to be taught,” he reflects.
Why books?
The report points out several factors that explain the difference in performance between students. Apart from some more obvious ones, such as the mother tongue being the same one in which the test was taken or having two or more computers at home and at least five years of experience in using them, the IEA points out that having more than 26 books at home is a differentiating factor to have higher digital competence, as is parental education.
It is already a classic in the great reports on Education, such as PISA. Beyond the curiosity that the IEA has calculated the specific number (based on the students’ responses) and that its director comments half jokingly (half not) that they seem very few to him, there is a more elaborate explanation.
“It is an indicator,” explains Fraillon. “Books in the home have long been a very strong indicator of educational capital in a home. It is a combination of wealth – you have to have the money to be able to buy books, which could be considered a luxury item – but also an indicator of a domestic culture where reading is valued. And with reading comes an additional set of educational benefits, from belief in the value of reading to access to reading.
Fraillon compares what reading entails with the tendency to consume information in short videos. “TikTok is the classic example of those small video fragments, YouTube with more time. But there’s still a lot of text-based information, which is what we really work with. And being able to read and make sense of that information is a prerequisite to being able to do something useful with it. So it is not surprising that, although computers are not books, in some respects they are used in similar ways. And if you combine all these things – the socioeconomic level, the cultural beliefs of the home and the reading processes necessary in the management of digital information – it is not surprising the differences between students who have some books compared to those who have very few in their homes,” he maintains.
And mobile phones?
Without going specifically into the (hot in Spain) use of mobile phones in classes, the report does reflect that a third of students use information and communication technologies (ICTs) in class on a daily basis. But it does not enter into the debate about performance and the consequences it has, something that the IEA announces it will do for the next edition.
“It is difficult to measure,” says Fraillon, “because ICT is used in different ways and in many cases it is used more in educational support. These are the students who say they use ICT more because they are normally given more resources. But at the same time, they generally don’t do it as well, so it’s more difficult to draw conclusions. We talk about cell phones, but I think it can be extended to the use of any technology in teaching. What really matters is what you do with it. Why it is used and what it is used for. Spain is not alone (in banning cell phones), teachers believe that students are distracted. And without a doubt it is a challenge for teachers, but it is a broader challenge because many technologies have that capacity for distraction, and that has to be monitored and worked on.”
#students #sufficient #computer #skills #key #books #home
