skip to main content
10.1145/3265757.3265763acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswipsceConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

What do secondary school students associate with the digital world?

Published:04 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

In 2006, the European Union defined digital competence as one of eight key competences for lifelong learning. As a result, a process of defining "education in the digital world" began, which is not yet completed. But what is the digital world anyway from the students' points of view? In this paper, we present answers to this question given by 198 students, who were in grades 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 of German secondary schools. As part of an association test, we asked them first for the terms they think of, when they hear the term "digital world", and repeated this procedure afterwards with the pair of terms "digital world and computer science". They often associated terms such as computer, cell phone and internet, but also programming, communication, and social networks, but could only partially relate their terms to computer science. Our results show that the age, gender, extent of computer science education received and the free time students spent on computer science topics influenced the associations they gave. Especially for the variable age differences in the level of abstraction of the given answers could be identified. Furthermore, the results indicate, in which areas it might be worthwhile in follow-up studies to investigate learners' interests.

References

  1. Kirsti Ala-Mutka. 2011. Mapping Digital Competence: Towards a Conceptual Understanding. Technical Report JRC 67075. European Commission: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Luxembourg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. John R. Anderson. 2015. Cognitive Psychology and its Implications (8. ed.). Macmillan Learning, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. David P. Ausubel. 1968. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Mehmet Bahar, Alex H. Johnstone, and R. G. Sutcliffe. 1999. Investigation of Students' Cognitive Structure in Elementary Genetics through Word Association Tests. Journal of Biological Education 33, 3 (1999), 134--141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Ayelet Baram-Tsabari, Ricky J. Sethi, Lynn Bry, and Anat Yarden. 2010. Identifying Students' Interests in Biology Using a Decade of Self-Generated Questions. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education 6, 1 (2010), 63--75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Hannelore Barthel. 2010. Informatikunterricht: Wünsche und Erwartungen von Schülerinnen und Schülern. Ph.D. Dissertation. Christian-Albrechts Universität Kiel, Kiel, Germany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jürgen Baumert and Olaf Köller. 1998. Interest Research in Secondary Level I: An Overview. In Interest and Learning: Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on Interest and Gender, L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, and J. Baumert (Eds.). Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften (IPN), Kiel, Germany, 241--256.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Peter Behrens and Thomas Rathgeb. 2017. JIM 2017. Jugend, Information, (Multi-) Media. Basisstudie zum Medienumgang 12- bis 19-Jähriger in Deutschland. Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest, Stuttgart. https://www.mpfs.de/studien/jim-studie/2017/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Lars H. Bodenstein, Christian Borowski, and Ira Diethelm. 2016. Was Schüler über Informatik fragen und was ihre Lehrkräfte dazu vermuten. In Informatik für Kinder - 7. Münsteraner Workshop zur Schulinformatik, Marco Thomas and Michael Weigend (Eds.). BoD - Books on Demand, Münster, Germany, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Christian Borowski, Ira Diethelm, and Henning Wilken. 2016. What Children Ask About Computers, the Internet, Robots, Mobiles, Games Etc. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 72--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Torsten Brinda and Ira Diethelm. 2017. Education in the Digital Networked World. In Tomorrow's Learning: Involving Everyone. Learning with and about Technologies and Computing, Arthur Tatnall and Mary Webb (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 653--657.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Joachim Burger. 2001. Schülervorstellungen zu "Energie im biologischen Kontext": Ermittlungen, Analysen und Schlussfolgerungen. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universität Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Donal E. Carlston and Eliot R. Smith. 1996. Principles of Mental Representation. In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, E. E. Higgins and A. Kruglanski (Eds.). Guilford Press., New York, NY, USA, 184--210.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Stephanie Carretero, Riina Vuorikari, and Yves Punie. 2017. DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with Eight Proficiency Levels and Examples of Use. Technical Report JRC106281. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. European Commission. 2014. A Digital Agenda for Europe. Publications Office of the European Union. Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Luxembourg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission. 2016. A New Skills Agenda for Europe: Working Together to Strengthen Human Capital, Employability and Competitiveness. Technical Report. Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Brussels, Belgium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Jeanne Nakamura. 2014. The Concept of Flow. In Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology. Springer, Dordrecht, Germany, 239--263.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. James Deese. 1962. Form Class and the Determinants of Association. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1 (1962), 79--84.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Council of the European Union European Parliament. 2006. Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. Recommendation 32006H0962. Brussels, Belgium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Anusca Ferrari. 2013. DIGCOMP: A Framework for Developing and Understanding Digital Competence in Europe. Technical Report JRC83167. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Luxembourg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Anusca Ferrari, Yves Punie, and Christine Redecker. 2012. Understanding Digital Competence in the 21st Century: An Analysis of Current Frameworks. 21st Century Learning for 21st Century Skills 7563 (2012), 79--92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Paul L. Gardner. 1998. The Development of Males' and Females' Interest in Science and Technology. In Interest and Learning. Proceedings of the Seeon-Conference on Interest and Gender, L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, and J. Baumert (Eds.). Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften (IPN), Kiel, Germany, 41--57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Andreas Helmke. 2015. Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität: Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts (6. ed.). Klett, Kallmeyer, Seelze-Velber, Germany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Hans W. Heymann. 1997. Allgemeinbildung als Aufgabe der Schule und als Maßstab für Fachunterricht. Pädagogik und Schulalltag 49, 1 (1997), 9--52.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Suzanne Hidi. 2000. An Interest Researcher's Perspective: The Effects of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Factors on Motivation. In Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation, C. Sansone and J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.). Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA, 309--339.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Suzanne Hidi and K. Ann Renninger. 2006. The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development. Educational Psychologist 41, 2 (2006), 111--127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Suzanne Hidi, K. Ann Renninger, and Andreas Krapp. 2004. Interest, a Motivational Variable That Combines Affective and Cognitive Functioning. In Motivation, Emotion, and Cognition: Integrative Perspectives on Intellectual Functioning and Development, D. Y. Dai and R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, 89--115.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Lore Hoffmann, Peter Häussler, and Manfred Lehrke. 1998. Die IPN-Interessenstudie Physik. Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften (IPN), Kiel, Germany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. José Janssen and Slavi Stoyanov. 2012. Online Consultation on Experts' Views on Digital Competence. Technical Report JRC73694. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Luxembourg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Ulrich Kattmann, Reinders Duit, Harald Gropengiesser, and Michael Komorek. 1996. Educational Reconstruction - Bringing Together Issues of Scientific Clarification and Students' Conceptions.. In Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST). St. Louis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Peter Kloosterman. 2002. Beliefs About Mathematics and Mathematics Learning in the Secondary School: Measurement and Implications for Motivation. In Beliefs: A Hidden Variable in Mathematics Education?, G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen, and G. Törner (Eds.). Mathematics Education Library, Vol. 31. Springer, Dordrecht, Germany, 247--269.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Olaf Köller, Jürgen Baumert, and Kai-Uwe Schnabel. 2000. Zum Zusammenspiel von schulischem Interesse und Lernen im Fach Mathematik: Längsschnittanalysen in den Sekundarstufen I und II. In Interesse und Lernmotivation - Untersuchungen zu Entwicklung, Förderung und Wirkung, U. Schiefele and K.-P. Wild (Eds.). Waxmann, Münster, Germany, 163--183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Olaf Köller, Jürgen Baumert, and Kai-Uwe Schnabel. 2001. Does Interest Matter? The Relationship between Academic Interest and Achievement in Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 32, 5 (2001), 448--470.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Andreas Krapp. 1992. Interesse, Lernen und Leistung. Neue Forschungsansätze in der pädagogischen Psychologie. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 38, 5 (1992), 747--770.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Andreas Krapp. 2003. Interest and Human Development: An Educational-Psychological Perspective. British Journal of Eductional Psychology (2003), 57--84.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Andreas Krapp. 2006. Interesse. In Handwörterbuch Pädagogische Psychologie (3. ed.), D. H. Rost (Ed.). Beltz, PVU, Weinheim, Germany, 280--290.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Andreas Krapp, Ulrich Schiefele, and Inge Schreyer. 1993. Metaanalyse des Zusammenhangs von Interesse und schulischer Leistung. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie 25, 2 (1993), 120--148.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Margaret W. Matlin. 2014. Cognitive Psychology (8., internat. student version ed.). Wiley, Singapore.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Marianne L. Nielsen and Peter Ingwersen. 1999. The Word Association Methodology: a Gateway to Work-Task Based Retrieval. In Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Final Mira (MIRA'99). BCS Learning & Development Ltd., Glasgow, Scotland, 17 -- 27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Jonathan Osborne, Simon Shirley, and Sue Collins. 2003. Attitudes towards Science: A Review of the Literature and Its Implications. International Journal of Science Education 25, 9 (2003), 1049--1079.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Patrice Potvin and Abdelkrim Hasni. 2014. Interest, Motivation and Attitude towards Science and Technology at K-12 Levels: A Systematic Review of 12 Years of Educational Research. Studies in Science Education 50, 1 (2014), 85--129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Erich Ramseier. 2014. Motivation als Ergebnis und als Determinante schulischen Lernens: eine Analyse Im Rahmen von TIMSS. Ph.D. Dissertation. Philosophische Fakultät Universität Zürich, Austria.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. K. Ann Renninger. 2000. Individual Interest and its Implications for Understanding Intrinsic Motivation. In Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance, C. Sansone and J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.). Elsevier Inc, New York, NY, USA, 373--404.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. K. Ann Renninger, L Ewen, and A. K Lasher. 2002. Individual Interest as Context in Expository Text and Mathematical Word Problems. Learning and Instruction 12, 4 (2002), 467--490.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. M. Sato and P. James. 1999. 'Nature' and 'environment' as Perceived by University Students and Their Supervisors. Environmental Education and Information 18, 2 (1999), 165--172.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Ulrich Schiefele. 1996. Topic Interest, Text Representation, and Quality of Experience. Contemporary Educational Psychology 21, 1 (1996), 3--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Ulrich Schiefele, Manfred Prenzel, Andreas Krapp, A. Heiland, and H. Kasten. 1983. Zur Konzeption einer pädagogischen Theorie des Interesses. Institut für Empirische Pädagogik, Universität München, Germany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Ulrich Schiefele and Detlef Urhane. 2000. Motivationale und volitionale Bedingungen der Studienleistung. In Interesse und Lernmotivation: Untersuchungen zu Entwicklung, Förderung und Wirkung, U. Schiefele and K.-P. Wild (Eds.). Waxmann, Münster, Germany, 183--205.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Ulrich Schiefele and Klaus-Peter Wild (Eds.). 2000. Interesse und Lernmotivation: Untersuchungen zu Entwicklung, Förderung und Wirkung. Waxmann, Münster, Germany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Camilla Schreiner. 2006. Exploring a ROSE-Garden: Norwegian Youth's Orientations towards Science---seen as Signs of Late Modern Identities. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Oslo, Norway.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Secretary of the Standing Conference of the German Federal Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs. 2016. Bildung in der digitalen Welt. Strategie der Kultusministerkonferenz. (December 2016). https://www.kmk.org/fleadmin/Dateien/pdf/PresseUndAktuelles/2016/Bildung_digitale_Welt_Webversion.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Anna Uitto, Kalle Juuti, Jari Lavonen, and Veijo Meisalo. 2006. Students' Interest in Biology and Their out-of-School Experiences. Journal of Biological Education 40, 3 (2006), 124--129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Riina Vuorikari, Yves Punie, Stephanie Carretero Gomez, and Godelieve Van Den Brande. 2016. DigComp 2.0: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens. Update Phase 1: The Conceptual Reference Model. Technical Report JRC101254. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Monika Waldis. 2012. Interesse an Mathematik: zum Einfluss des Unterrichts auf das Interesse von Schülerinnen und Schülern der Sekundarstufe I. Ph.D. Dissertation. Waxmann, Münster, Germany.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. What do secondary school students associate with the digital world?

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          WiPSCE '18: Proceedings of the 13th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education
          October 2018
          170 pages
          ISBN:9781450365888
          DOI:10.1145/3265757

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 4 October 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          WiPSCE '18 Paper Acceptance Rate32of72submissions,44%Overall Acceptance Rate104of279submissions,37%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader