skip to main content
10.1145/3462741.3466651acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswebsciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Towards Evaluating Students’ Digital Capabilities: An Analysis of UK Further Education Student Surveys

Published:21 June 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

The ability of students to access learning via technology is a key factor in sustainable development goals. During the COVID-19 emergency most students’ educational experience moved from face-to-face physical classroom to web-based environments which exposed disparities in students’ digital resources and competence and placed greater attention on the need to address these inequalities. Digital competence is typically measured in terms of an individual's ability to use digital technology to achieve their work, study or personal objectives. Being digitally competent is significant with regard to an individual being able to achieve things that they value, but is only part of an overall evaluation of their digital capability. This paper argues that in addition to competence, assessment of digital capability should include an evaluation of a person's access to technology as well as their attitudes towards its value in achieving their goals.

This paper is a work in progress exploring findings derived from research evaluating strategies to improve staff capability and confidence in using online learning technologies at eight FE colleges in the south east of England. In this research students undertook surveys that included self-assessment of their digital competences following the DigComp model, information on their use of digital devices and home network reliability, and evaluated their enjoyment of and confidence in using online learning technologies. This current paper explores the outcomes from these surveys.

Evaluation of survey data revealed a significant digital divide between those who had access to suitable devices and reliable network connections and those who did not. Results show significant associations between students’ access to the technology they need to take part in online lessons, their self-assessed competence, and their capability to fully engage with and satisfaction with online learning. This paper suggests that these factors should be considered as part of a ‘digital capabilities index’ when undertaking evaluations of individual student needs and identifying potential ‘at risk’ students.

References

  1. Alex Adcock, Elizabeth Rough, and Georgina Hutton. 2020. Digital infrastructure, connectivity and accessibility. House of Commons Library: Research Briefing. Retrieved March 21, 2021 from https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0162/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Sabina Alkire. 2005. Why the Capability Approach? J. Hum. Dev. 6, 1 (2005), 115–135. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/146498805200034275Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Sabina Alkire. 2016. Introduction to Capability Approach. OPHI Oxford, YouTube Channel. Retrieved March 30, 2021 from https://youtu.be/fhzD-yCJvfMGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Paul Anand. 2020. COVID-19 Reflections: A Global Capability Crisis. Human Development & Capability Association News. Retrieved January 20, 2021 from https://hd-ca.org/news/covid-19-reflections-a-global-capability-crisisGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Emily J. Armstrong. 2019. Maximising motivators for technology-enhanced learning for further education teachers: Moving beyond the early adopters in a time of austerity. Res. Learn. Technol. 27, 1063519 (2019). DOI:https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v27.2032Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Association of Colleges. 2020. 100,000 college students still without suitable device for learning. AoC News. Retrieved February 20, 2021 from https://www.aoc.co.uk/news/100000-college-students-still-without-suitable-device-learningGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. Retrieved from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC106281/web-digcomp2.1pdf_(online).pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Flavio Comim. 2001. Operationalizing Sen's capability approach. Cambridge, UK. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239922491_Operationalizing_Sen's_Capability_ApproachGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Department for Business Innovation and Skills. 2015. FELTAG Progress Report. London, UK. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/405001/BIS_15_71_FELTAG_progress_report.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Department for Digital Culture Media and Sport. 2020. Digital Nations Charter. Policy paper. Retrieved November 11, 2020 from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/digital-nations-charter/digital-nations-charterGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Department for Education. 2021. Get laptops and tablets for pupils and students who cannot access face-to-face education due to coronavirus (COVID-19). Education, universities and childcare during coronavirus. Retrieved March 5, 2021 from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/get-laptops-and-tablets-for-children-who-cannot-attend-school-due-to-coronavirus-covid-19Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Department for Education and Gavin Williamson. 2020. Schools, colleges and early years settings to close. Education, universities and childcare during coronavirus. Retrieved January 20, 2021 from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/schools-colleges-and-early-years-settings-to-closeGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerard Dominguez-Reig and David Robinson. 2019. 16-19 education funding. Trends and implications. London, UK. Retrieved February 20, 2021 from https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/16-19-Funding_EPI-_2019.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Education and Skills Funding Agency. 2021. 16 to 19 bursary fund guide 2020 to 2021 academic year. Guidance. Retrieved March 20, 2021 from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/16-to-19-bursary-fund-guide-2020-to-2021-academic-year#to-19-bursary-fund-a-summaryGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Amy Ellis-Thompson, Steve Higgins, Jonathan Kay, Jennifer Stevenson, and Mohammad Zaman. 2020. Remote Learning: Rapid Evidence Assessment. London, UK. Retrieved from https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Publications/Covid-19_Resources/Remote_learning_evidence_review/Remote_Learning_Rapid_Evidence_Assessment.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Yoram Eshet-Alkalai. 2004. Digital Literacy: A Conceptual Framework for Survival Skills in the Digital Era. J. Educ. Multimed. Hypermedia 13, 1 (2004), 93–106.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. James D Evans. 1996. Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Brooks/Cole Publishing, Pacific Grove, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Amy Gibbons. 2021. Laptops shortage “still not fully resolved”, warn heads. Tes News. Retrieved February 18, 2021 from https://www.tes.com/news/coronavirus-laptops-shortage-still-not-fully-resolved-warn-headsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Yueh Min Huang, Yen Hung Kuo, Yen Ting Lin, and Shu Chen Cheng. 2008. Toward interactive mobile synchronous learning environment with context-awareness service. Comput. Educ. 51, 3 (2008), 1205–1226. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Shakeel Iqbal and Zeeshan Ahmed Bhatti. 2020. A qualitative exploration of teachers’ perspective on smartphones usage in higher education in developing countries. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 17, 1 (2020). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00203-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Mads Meier Jæger and Ea Hoppe Blaabæk. 2020. Inequality in learning opportunities during Covid-19: Evidence from library takeout. Res. Soc. Stratif. Mobil. 68, June (2020), 100524. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2020.100524Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Jisc. 2019. Jisc digital capabilities framework: The six elements defined. London, UK. Retrieved from http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/7278/1/BDCP-DC-Framework-Individual-6E-110319.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Jisc. 2020. Learner digital experience insights survey 2020: UK further education (FE) survey findings. London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Paul Joyce. 2020. Online education in further education and skills: learning about what works. Ofsted blog: schools, early years, further education and skills. Retrieved November 20, 2020 from https://educationinspection.blog.gov.uk/2020/07/15/online-education-in-further-education-and-skills-learning-about-what-works/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Justin Kruger and David Dunning. 1999. Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77, 6 (1999), 1121–1134. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/MMM.2011.2173980Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Nipan Maniar, Emily Bennett, Steve Hand, and George Allan. 2008. The effect of mobile phone screen size on video based learning. J. Softw. 3, 4 (2008), 51–61. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4304/jsw.3.4.51-61Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Allan Martin. 2005. DigEuLit European framework for digital literacy: a progress report. J. Elit. 2, (2005), 130–266. Retrieved from http://www.jelit.org/65/01/JeLit_Paper_31.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government. 2019. English indices of deprivation 2019. National Statistics, 1–31. Retrieved March 30, 2021 from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2019Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Towella Ngambi, Joanne Brown, Fosca Grossi, Shamsun Choudhury, Peter Baylis, and Stefan Overton. 2020. Retention, Success and Progression amongst Foundation Year Students: the effects of the transition to online learning as a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic– A Case Study. J. Found. Year Netw. 58, 3 (2020), 639–640.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramon Palau, Marta Fuentes, Jordi Mogas, and Gisela Cebrián. 2021. Analysis of the implementation of teaching and learning processes at Catalan schools during the Covid-19 lockdown. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. (2021), 1–17. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1863855Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. D. Parsitau and E. Jepkemei. 2020. How school closures during COVID-19 further marginalize vulnerable children in Kenya. Brookings Institute. Retrieved April 12, 2021 from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/education-plus-development/2020/05/06/how-school-closures-during-covid-19-further-marginalize-vulnerable-children-in-kenya/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Anastassia Parsons. 2017. Accessibility and use of VLEs by students in further education. Res. Post-Compulsory Educ. 22, 2 (2017), 271–288. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2017.1314684Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. A. Patricia Aguilera-Hermida. 2020. College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19. Int. J. Educ. Res. Open 1, August (2020), 100011. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Plumpton College. 2021. Evaluation of Strategies for Online Learning Implementation in Further Education. Plumpton, East Sussex, UK. Retrieved from https://www.plumpton.ac.uk/news-updates/evaluation-of-strategies-for-online-learning-implementation-in-further-education-4988/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Erez Porat, Ina Blau, and Azy Barak. 2018. Measuring digital literacies: Junior high-school students’ perceived competencies versus actual performance. Comput. Educ. 126, July (2018), 23–36. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.030Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Henrique Salgado and Ivone Castro-Vale. 2020. Clinical Communication Skills Training in Dental Medical Education: The COVID-19 Pandemic Challenge. Healthcare 8, 4 (2020), 429. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8040429Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. KT Matthew Seah. 2020. COVID-19: Exposing digital poverty in a pandemic. Int. J. Surg. 79, 2020 (2020), 127–128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Amartya Sen. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Jatinder Sharma and David Turner. 2020. 'If all learning was online, many learners would be seriously disadvantaged’. Jisc Inform. Retrieved February 19, 2021 from https://www.jisc.ac.uk/news/if-all-learning-was-online-many-learners-would-be-seriously-disadvantaged-25-nov-2020Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Jenifer R. Spisak. 2018. VCU Scholars Compass Secondary Student Information Literacy Self-efficacy vs . Performance. Virginia Commonwealth University. Retrieved from https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6731&context=etdGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. The Sutton Trust. 2021. Remote Learning and the Digital Divide. The Sutton Trust. Retrieved from https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/remote-learning-the-digital-divide/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Eric Topol. 2019. The Topol Review – NHS Health Education England. London, UK. Retrieved from https://topol.hee.nhs.uk/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. UNICEF. 2020. COVID-19: At least a third of the world's schoolchildren unable to access remote learning during school closures, new report says. Unicef, 8–13. Retrieved January 20, 2021 from https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/covid-19-least-third-worlds-schoolchildren-unable-access-remote-learning-duringGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. United Nations Development Programme. 2019. Human Development Report 2019: beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today. New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Melanie Walker. 2006. Towards a capability-based theory of social justice for education policy-making. J. Educ. Policy 21, 2 (2006), 163–185. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500500245Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Towards Evaluating Students’ Digital Capabilities: An Analysis of UK Further Education Student Surveys
      Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

      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 Conferences
        WebSci '21 Companion: Companion Publication of the 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021
        June 2021
        157 pages
        ISBN:9781450385251
        DOI:10.1145/3462741

        Copyright © 2021 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: 21 June 2021

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate218of875submissions,25%

        Upcoming Conference

        Websci '24
        16th ACM Web Science Conference
        May 21 - 24, 2024
        Stuttgart , Germany
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)33
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format