digital kids asia-pacific: preliminary findings and …...digital kids asia-pacific: preliminary...

Digital Kids Asia-Pacific: Preliminary Findings and

HighlightsJae Young Chung

Tae Seob ShinHyeyoung Hwang

Institute of School Violence Prevention Ewha Womans University

Ⅰ. Introduction

Ⅱ. Digital Citizenship Framework

Ⅲ. Methodology- Research Procedure

- Validation

Ⅳ. Preliminary Findings - Contextual Characteristics

- Comparative Analysis

2

3

Ⅰ. Introduction

Ⅰ. Introduction

Objectives of Project

• Contribute to the evidence-base in Asia-Pacific by obtaining and comparatively analyzing quantitative and qualitative data on children’s actual attitude, behaviors, competency levels, and use of ICT within an educational context.

• Establish an evidence-based understanding of children’s safe, effective and responsible use of ICT in Asia-Pacific by developing and validating the Framework that can assess children’s attitude and behaviors, competency levels, and use of ICT within an educational context between Asia-Pacific countries.

Overview of DKAP

“The overall aim of the research team is to conduct a comparative cross-national study to address the Asia-Pacific region’s knowledge gap regarding children’s ICT practices, attitudes, behaviors, and competency levels within an educational context”To achieve the goal, we perform the following tasks:

Assessment development (A paper-based survey) Data collection (pilot tests) Data analysis and synthesis Collaboration with country research teams & UNESCO Bangkok

team

Ⅰ. Introduction

Research Teams

Lead Research Team

• Republic of Korea

Institute of School Violence Prevention (ISVP) at Ewha Womans University

• Vietnam• Bangladesh• Fiji

Country Research Teams

Ⅰ. Introduction

ISVP’s Role in the Project

Assessment Development

• Finalize the Digital Citizenship Competency Framework • Develop the assessment tool (A paper-based survey) for measuring children’s

attitude and behaviors, competency levels, and use of ICT

Pilot Test – Data Collection

• Support the pilot countries (Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Fiji) in the pilot test• Data collection in South Korea• Merging data from four countries

Data Analysis• Compare the status of the pilot countries using the Digital Citizenship

Competency Framework and synthesize the findings

Ⅰ. Introduction

Country Team’s Role

Assessment Development

• Review and provide feedback on the framework and methodologies

Pilot Test – Data Collection

• Translate English-written assessment into own language• Test the translated assessment• Select national representative sample according to ISVP’s guideline• Conduct a pilot test (data collection) • Conduct data coding according to ISVP’s guideline

Data Analysis• Review and provide feedback on ISVP’s synthesis of the findings

Ⅰ. Introduction

9



Understanding Concept of Digital Citizenship• In the widest and most recent definitions, digital citizenship

competence consists not only of digital skills but also social and emotional aspects for using and understanding digital device

• “A competency is more than just knowledge and skills. It involves the ability to meet complex demands, by drawing on and mobilizing psychosocial resources (including skills and attitudes) in a particular context.” (OECD, 2005, p. 4)

• Our initial framework that was primary suggested at conference on Digital Citizenship Education in Asia-Pacific was developed based on review and analysis of 13 different frameworks from internationally credited organizations (OECD, 2017).

Digital Citizenship Competency Framework


• Conference on Digital Citizenship Education in Asia-Pacific (March, 2017) Initial framework was developed

• Experts’ Meeting (July, 2017) Framework was refined with a final

set of five domains together with the corresponding competencies and sample performance indicators

Digital Citizenship

Digital Literacy

Digital Emotional Intelligence

Creativity & Innovation

Digital Participation

& Agency

Digital Safety &

Resilience

Digital Citizenship Competency Framework


• All competencies identified/suggested should be measured? The unique and qualitative nature of the competencies identified

cannot be easily measured Transversal nature of competencies in a domain: Each competency is

highly correlated Children’s cognitive burden should be considered

• Need for finalizing the (core) competencies that should be measured in this project and their performance indicators with a focus on consistency, clarity, and validity

• Initial core competencies of each domain were selected based on the literature review of prior research


Digital Literacy

1. ICT Literacy: Managing and operating ICT hardware and software responsibly in digital environments to access and search for data, information and content, and to utilize them.

2. Information Literacy: The ability to seek, critically evaluate and use digital information effectively to make informed decisions.

The ability to seek, critically evaluate and use digital tools andinformation effectively to make informed decisions


Digital Safety & ResilienceThe ability to understand how to protect oneself and others from harm in digital space1. Understanding Child Rights: Knowledge of legal rights and obligations within the

global and local context2. Personal Data, Privacy and Reputation: To understand how to use and share

personally identifiable information while being able to protect oneself and others from harm. Be able to implement strategies for information and device security and personal security protocols.

3. Promoting and Protecting Health and Well-Being: Ability to identify and manage health risks, and use digital technology in order to protect and improve the physical and psychological well-being of oneself and others.

4. Digital Resilience: A set of preventative, reactive and transformative competencies that allow young people to avoid or cope with risky situations they face and improve themselves.


Digital Participation & Agency

The ability to equitably interact, engage and positively influence society through ICT1. Interacting, Sharing and Collaborating: The ability to interact, share data and

information, and collaborate with others using suitable digital technologies to achieve shared goals (work, social, leveraging network, education, entertainment, etc.).

2. Civic Engagement: The ability and willingness to recognize seek, and act on opportunities to positively influence local and global communities online and/or offline through appropriate digital technologies.

3. Netiquette (Network + Etiquette): Demonstrate ethical and courteous behavior to inform choices in interacting and engaging in different digital environments with different audiences.



The ability to recognize, navigate and express emotions in one’s digital intrapersonal and interpersonal interactions1. Self-Awareness: Ability to explain one’s moods, emotions, drives, and how these

affect oneself and others in the digital world through introspection.2. Self-Regulation: Ability to manage one’s emotions, moods and impulses during

online engagements.3. Self-Motivation: Demonstrates initiative, commitment to attain internal or

external goals despite setbacks in the digital sphere.4. Interpersonal Skills: Build positive online relationships to communicate, build

rapport and trust, embrace diversities, manage conflicts and make sound decisions.

5. Empathy: Demonstrate awareness and compassion for the feelings, needs and concerns of others during digital interactions



The ability to express and explore oneself through creation of content using ICT tools

1. Creative Literacy: The ability to apply skills and use tools to create, adopt, or curate digital content.

2. Expression: The ability to use technology to creatively represent one’s identities and to exercise their right to fun and relaxation.

18

Ⅲ. Methodology

Ⅲ. Methodology

Research Procedure

Survey DevelopmentSurvey Items Development Expert Review/Field TrialDevelopment of a Guideline for Pilot Countries

Pilot TestField TestingFinalization of Survey Items

Data Collection[National Teams] Translation Data Collection Focus Group Interview (optional)

Data Analysis Data Analysis and Result Comparison

Survey Development

• Survey questionnaire consists of 91 items.• Some items are directly taken from existing questionnaires or instruments

used in the reviewed literature.• Others are modified from existing questionnaire or literature, considering

national, cultural or digital contexts.• Several items are newly generated by the ISVP team due to a lack of relevant

literature.

<Survey Item Development Process>

Ⅲ. Methodology

Item Development

Item Development

Expert Review

Field Trial Draft-version of Survey

Survey Development

• Does each item measure the objective it is designed to measure?• Is each item based on the content that is accurate and current?• Does this understanding match what the survey designers intended?

• Are the response sets reasonable?• Is the wording technically correct and appropriate?• Will all questions be understood in the same way by all respondents?

• How long does it take respondents to complete the survey?• Is there a pattern in missing data? (e.g., is there a high level of missing for

one or more items?)

Ⅲ. Methodology

Expert Review

Field trial

Piloting and Revision of Tools

• Survey questionnaire consists of 71 items in the form of 4-point Likert scale that range from ‘agree a lot’ (4) to ‘disagree a lot’ (1).

• Digital Safety and Resilience : some items ask about how students will react on the specific situation. These items are in the form of multiple select questions

Student Characteristics ICT Familiarity Family ContextGender ICT Usage Family StructureYear of Birth Years of ICT Usage Parental Education Level

Grade Frequency of Internet Use PossessionsLanguage at Home Digital Devices Access Parental ICT SupportCultural Origin Internet AccessEducational Aspiration ICT Learning ResourcesSchool Life Online PracticesTime Use Learning experience on ICT skills

Ⅲ. Methodology

Finalization of Items

Development of Contextual Questionnaires

Data Collection Preparation

Ⅲ. Methodology

Translation

Country LanguageVietnam Vietnamese

South Korea KoreanFiji English

Bangladesh Bangla

<Test Language by Country>

<Translation Process>

Forward Translation

Expert Panel

BackTranslation

Cognitive Interviewing

Final Version

Data Collection Preparation

Ⅲ. Methodology

Sampling1. Target Population DefinitionThe desired target population in each country consists of 15-year-old students who are:

• Attending educational institutions in grades 9 and higher;• Enrolling full-time in educational institutions;• Not having following reasons including limited proficiency in the questionnaire

language, intellectually/functionally disability.

2. Sampling Frame (Recommended)Sampling was recommended to be conducted using stratified two-stage cluster design.

• During the first stage, with stratification, independent samples of schools are selected from each explicit stratum. During the second stage, target-grade students are selected with equal probability within participating schools.

• A minimum size of 20 schools, in which 50 students are selected for the study.

Data Collection : Field Operations

Ⅲ. Methodology

National research team (NRT) identify eligible schools, select the participating schools, and contact the schools

School coordinator sends the list of all in-scope students to NRT

NRT samples students and sends the list of these students to school coordinator

NRT and school coordinator make agreement on the availability of sampled students and the survey process

NRT send questionnaire and manual to school coordinator

School coordinator and survey administrators prepare for the survey administration

Survey administrator conducts the survey

School coordinator collects survey materials for shipment and sends them back to NRT

Data Management and Creation of the DKAP Database

• All information in the database conform to the defined data structure

• The content of all codebooks and documentation appropriately reflects national adaptations to questionnaires

• All variables used for international comparisons are in fact comparable across countries

• All institutions involved in this process apply quality control measures throughout in order to assure the quality and accuracy of the DKAP data.

Ⅲ. Methodology

Quality Control Mechanism and Ethical Considerations

• Quality standards are established through comprehensive operational manuals based on the all agreements among the ISVP team, the UNESCO Bangkok, and national research teams.

• National-level documents allowing national research team to record their specific project information and any approved variations to standard procedures should be provided to the ISVP team for quality monitoring.

• ISVP provided 1) codebook and coding example, 2) training manual for national survey administrator, and 3) flow chart for national team.

Ⅲ. Methodology

Quality Control Mechanism

Ethical Considerations

• The study should be conducted in an appropriately ethical manner. • ISVP describes the data privacy at the beginning of the survey questionnaire.

28

Validation of Survey

Study ParticipantsSample Information

Total Gender Age (Birth Year) Grade

Bangladesh 1,055 Girl = 49.9%2000(0.5%), 2001(1.0%),

2002(9.9%), 2003(34.2%), 2004(44.1%), 2005(10.3%)

All 9th grade

Fiji 1,239 Girl = 57.7%2002(53.5%), 2003(46.5%)

9th Grade (6.9%), 10th Grade (93.1%)

Korea 1,784 Girls = 51.5%2000(0.2%),

2001(0.8%), 2002(94.1%), 2003(4.7%)

9th grade(0.1%), 10th grade(99.7%), 11th grade(0.2%)

Vietnam 1,051 Girls = 53.1%2001(0.1%), 2002(0.9%),

2003(99.0%)All 10th grade



Reliability

Internal Consistency

• Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used as an indicator of the internalconsistency of items in the measurement scale.

• Table 1 shows the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for each sub-competency offive competency- domains.

<Table 1> Internal Consistency of Scale

CompetencyCronbach‘s

alphaNumberof items

Bangladesh(N=1,055)

Fiji(N=1,236)

Korea(N=1,784)

Vietnam(N=1,051)

ICT Literacy .789 9 .825 .717 .848 .654Information Literacy .740 5 .733 .641 .822 .538

Digital Literacy .851 14 .877 .787 .898 .741

Reliability


alphaNumberof items

Bangladesh(N=1,055)

Fiji(N=1,236)

Korea(N=1,784)

Vietnam(N=1,051)

Understanding Child Rights .519 4 .491 .517 .582 .474

Personal data, Privacy and Reputation

.691 4 .623 .698 .827 .528

Promoting and Protecting Health and Well-Being

-.017 3 -.033 .018 .145 -.09

Digital Resilience .532 3 .523 .616 .642 .396

Digital Safety & Resilience .687 14 .702 .690 .760 .565

Interacting, Sharing, andCollaborating

.696 4 .703 .670 .781 .451

Civic Engagement .761 4 .725 .677 .884 .594Netiquette .658 4 .625 .627 .873 .474


.791 12 .827 .735 .850 .681


Reliability


alphaNumberof items

Bangladesh(N=1,055)

Fiji(N=1,236)

Korea(N=1,784)

Vietnam(N=1,051)

Self-Awareness .642 4 .665 .546 .764 .544

Self-Regulation .555 3 .560 .482 .659 .514

Self-Motivation .631 3 .544 .579 .753 .477

Interpersonal Skills .619 3 .562 .622 .745 .411

Empathy .736 3 .698 .640 .823 .706Digital Emotional

Intelligence.868 16 .877 .837 .908 .797

Creative Literacy .777 5 .771 .720 .858 .638

Expression .842 6 .808 .794 .918 .746

Creativity & Innovation .865 11 .862 .837 .916 .714


Correlational Analysis

Mean Correlations

• The mean correlations between each sub-competency and their statistical significance in five domains are presented in Table 2~Table 6 respectively.

<Table 2> Correlations between sub-competencies in ‘Digital Literacy’

ICT Literacy Information Literacy

ICT Literacy 1

Information Literacy .625** 1



Mean Correlations

<Table 3> Correlations between sub-competencies in ‘Digital Safety & Resilience’

Understanding Child Rights

Personal data, Privacy and Reputation

Promoting and Protecting Health

and Well-BeingDigital Resilience

Understanding Child Rights 1

Personal data, Privacy and Reputation .461** 1

Promoting and Protecting Health

and Well-Being.037** -.064** 1

Digital Resilience .307** .515** -.076** 1

‘Promoting and Protecting Health and Well-Being’ competency has very low correlation coefficients

with the other competencies



Mean Correlations

<Table 4> Correlations between sub-competencies in ‘Digital Participation & Agency’ Interacting, Sharing,

and CollaboratingCivic Engagement Netiquette

Interacting, Sharing, and Collaborating 1

Civic Engagement .495** 1

Netiquette .341** .192** 1



Mean Correlations

<Table 5> Correlations between sub-competencies in ‘Digital Emotional Intelligence’

Self-Awareness Self-Regulation Self-MotivationInterpersonal

SkillsEmpathy

Self-Awareness 1

Self-Regulation .479** 1

Self-Motivation .465** .496** 1

Interpersonal Skills .517** .469** .542** 1

Empathy .562** .468** .443** .553** 1



Mean Correlations

<Table 6> Correlations between sub-competencies in ‘Creativity & Innovation’

Creative Literacy Expression

Creative Literacy 1

Expression .551** 1

• Overall, except for a low correlation between ‘Civic Engagement’ and ‘Netiquette’ (r=0.192) in ‘Digital Participation & Agency’ domain, correlations between other sub-competencies are shown to be relatively moderate (r= 0.341~0.625), indicating that the scale measures distinct but related constructs (Watson, 2001).

• In regards to Cronbach's alpha coefficient and mean correlations, the reliability of the measurement scale is verified.


Confirmatory Factor Analysis


• Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for the measurement model is employed to assess whether the measurement scale consists of each postulated competency-domain.

• The item parceling method is used in order to reduce the number of observed variables and estimated error and to improve reliability and normality of the resulting measures (Alhija & Wisenbaker, 2006).

• Parceling technique generally involves summing or averaging item scores from more than two unidimensional items that measure specified composites of competencies (Kishton & Widamn, 1994).

• In the analysis, item parceling is carried out by averaging items.



Result of CFA Digital Literacy

<Factor Loadings on ‘Digital Literacy’>

Sub-competencyobservedvariables

B Β S.E C.R

ICT LiteracyICT_1 0.916 .814 .020 45.148***ICT_2 1.000 .726 - -

Information LiteracyIL_1 1.000 .873 - -IL_2 0.872 .632 .023 38.71***


‘Digital Literacy’ domain attains a good fit reporting a chi-square of 6.407, with1 degree of freedom, TLI=0.995, CFI=0.999 and RMSEA=0.032.


Result of CFA


Digital Safety & Resilience

<Factor Loadings on ‘Digital Safety & Resilience’>

The domain has a good fit reporting a chi-square of 188.992, with 11 degree offreedom, TLI=0.947, CFI=0.972 and RMSEA=0.056.


B Β S.E C.R

Understanding Child Rights

UCR_1(B1) 1.000 .655 - -UCR_2(B2) 1.135 .671 .042 26.737***

Personal Data, Privacy, and Reputation

PPR_1 1.000 .651 - -PPR_2 0.842 .692 .024 35.030***

Digital ResilienceDR_1(B12) 1.000 .521 - -DR_2(B13) 1.042 .573 .004 24.222***DR_3(B14) 0.818 .478 .034 22.806***


Result of CFA



The competency-domain has a good fit reporting a chi-square of 110.188, with 6degree of freedom, TLI=0.966, CFI=0.987 and RMSEA=0.058.


B β S.E C.R

Interacting, Sharing, and Collaborating

ISC_1 1.000 .683 - -ISC_2 1.049 .751 .030 34.841***

Civic EngagementCE_1 1.000 .861 - -CE_2 0.820 .735 .023 35.881***

NetiquetteNET_1 1.000 .774 - -NET_2 0.774 .612 .039 19.716***

<Factor Loadings on ‘Digital Participation & Agency’>


Result of CFA


Digital Emotional IntelligenceThe competency- domain has a good fit reporting a chi-square of 1087.952,with 67 degree of freedom, TLI=0.928, CFI=0.947 and RMSEA=0.055, indicatingan acceptable model fit.

Sub-competency observedVariables

B β S.E C.R

Self-AwarenessSA_1 1.000 .695 - -SA_2 1.037 .680 .027 38.863***

Self-Regulation

SR_1(D5) 1.000 .578 - -SR_2(D6) 0.988 .515 .037 26.672***

SR_3(D7) 0.977 .509 .038 25.992***

<Factor Loadings on ‘Digital Emotional Intelligence’(1)>


Result of CFA



<Factor Loadings on ‘Digital Emotional Intelligence’(2)>

Sub-competency observedvariables

B β S.E C.R

Self-Motivation

SM_1(D8) 1.000 .575 - -SM_2(D9) 1.083 .641 .035 31.141***

SM_3(D10) 1.075 .594 .036 29.821***

Interpersonal Skills

IS_1(D11) 1.000 .562 -IS_2(D12) 0.903 .564 .030 30.086***

IS_3(D13) 1.048 .663 .032 33.163***

Empathy

EM_1(D14) 1.000 .694 -EM_2(D15) 0.967 .701 .024 40.828***

EM_3(D16) 1.026 .688 .025 40.474***


Result of CFA



The ‘Creativity & Innovation’ domain shows a very good model fit reporting achi-square of 1.787, with 1 degree of freedom, TLI=0.999, CFI=1.000, andRMSEA=0.012.


B β S.E C.R

Creative LiteracyCL1 1.000 .730 - -CL2 1.176 .820 .030 39.761***

ExpressionEX1 1.000 .879 - -EX2 0.911 .788 .020 46.612***

<Factor Loadings on ‘Creativity & Innovation’>

45

Ⅳ. Preliminary Findings

46

Contextual Characteristics

Ⅳ. Findings


“How long have you been using digital devices (e.g., desktop/laptop, smartphone, tablet PC)? “

Never Less than 1 year 1-2 years 3-4 years More than

5 yearsBangladesh 10.2 30.8 30.6 20.3 8.0

Fiji 8.4 23.6 21.6 22.1 24.2Korea 0.9 2.2 2.4 13.5 80.9

Vietnam 1.2 5.7 17.0 31.6 44.4

Unit: %

The focus of the following section is to describe students’ ICT-related experience.

• Across the pilot countries, the range of duration on using digital devices is varied.

Ⅳ. Findings


Unit: %

“How often do you go online or use the Internet using digital devices (e.g., smartphone, desktop/laptop, tablet PC) per day? “

Hardly everLess than an hour

1-2 hour 3-4 hours 5-6 hours7 hours or

more

Bangladesh 23.4 31.1 34.7 7.9 2.0 0.9

Fiji 19.0 25.2 28.9 13.6 7.0 6.3

Korea 2.6 5.0 28.9 40.9 14.1 8.3

Vietnam 2.1 5.1 31.3 38.9 14.7 7.9

• In the same way, frequency of going online or using the Internet using digital devices per day is varied across the pilot countries.

Ⅳ. Findings


Unit: %

“Do you have access to any of these things at your home? Please check all that apply.”

Desktop computer

Laptop Smartphone Tablet PC PrinterNone of

the above

Bangladesh 18.5 36.5 84.5 18.3 5.5 8.5

Fiji 23.8 53.1 72.2 39.9 20.5 7.1

Korea 67.9 63.5 95.7 38.7 58.4 1.2

Vietnam 41.2 47.7 92.1 31.4 11.7 0.8

• In regard to the accessibility of digital devices at home, regardless of country, students are most easily accessed on smartphone at home (72.2 to 95.7%).

Ⅳ. Findings


Unit: %

“Do you have access to any of these things at your school? Please check all that apply.”

Desktop computer


the above

Bangladesh 62.3 57.1 15.6 6.1 30.7 14.9

Fiji 68.7 28.5 13.5 10.9 50.5 18.2

Korea 54.7 25.9 71.2 14.9 35.1 7.8

Vietnam 64.8 5.1 38.0 3.0 5.2 14.6

• In regard to the accessibility of digital devices in school, except Korea, desktopcomputer is most accessible digital device in a school (62.2% to 68.7%).

Ⅳ. Findings


Unit: %

“Do you have access to any of these things in your local community (e.g., local library, community center)? Please check all that apply.”

• In regard to the accessibility of digital devices in local community, over 50% ofBangladesh students have accessed to desktop (54.4%), laptop (50.5%), andsmartphone (53.4%) in local community.

Desktop computer


the above

Bangladesh 54.4 50.5 53.4 19.4 31.8 19.3

Fiji 33.8 30.8 33.3 17.7 26.1 33.1

Korea 56.1 19.6 49.3 15.8 35.4 25.2

Vietnam 27.2 12.8 46.2 7.5 5.6 32.7

Ⅳ. Findings


“Which of the following can you access at home? Please check all

that apply.”

Wired Internet

Wireless Internet None

At homeBangladesh 18.9 67.3 21.2

Fiji 26.4 55.4 27.0Korea 61.4 84.8 2.3

Vietnam 38.6 80.6 2.9At school

Bangladesh 23.0 47.3 37.4Fiji 49.2 34.8 24.1

Korea 51.4 55.7 18.6Vietnam 31.6 55.0 24.3

In local community or local districtBangladesh 31.8 69.0 17.9

Fiji 30.1 39.8 37.4Korea 51.9 63.6 17.6

Vietnam 24.3 66.3 18.7

• In general, wireless internet is used more widely than wired internet regardless of access location.

Ⅳ. Findings


Unit: %“Who taught you most about how to use computers?”

• In regard to role of influential others in students’ usage of computer, exceptBangladesh, three other countries show similar patterns: the percentage ofstudents who answered they learned how to use computer by themselves isthe highest.

• For Bangladesh, the role of teacher is important in explaining students’ usageof computer.

My teachers My friends My familyI learned

myselfMy local

communityOthers

Bangladesh 46.3 12.2 23.5 13.9 2.5 1.6Fiji 26.3 16.1 22.9 31.3 0.8 2.7

Korea 7.6 10.7 19.6 59.3 0.4 2.3Vietnam 29.5 10.5 12.3 46.9 0.2 0.6

Ⅳ. Findings


Unit: %“Who taught you most about how to use Internet?”

• In regard to the role of influential others in students’ usage of Internet, thesimilar pattern is appeared: except Bangladesh, in three other countries, thepercentage of students who answered they learned how to use Internet bythemselves is the highest.

• For Bangladesh, the role of teacher is important in explaining students’ usageof Internet.

My teachers My friends My familyI learned

myselfMy local

communityOthers

Bangladesh 28.4 24.4 20.0 21.7 2.8 2.7Fiji 10.8 23.0 21.9 39.8 1.1 3.5

Korea 4.1 12.2 13.5 68.3 0.3 1.7Vietnam 9.0 12.2 9.3 67.9 0.9 0.8

Ⅳ. Findings


Unit: %“Have you ever learned basic coding

skills at school?”• In regard to education on basic coding skills, Vietnam shows the highest rate of educational experience on basic coding skills at school (41.8%) and Bangladesh shows the lowest rate of this experience (24.8%).

Yes NoBangladesh 24.8 75.2

Fiji 39.3 60.7Korea 33.7 66.2

Vietnam 41.8 58.0

Unit: %“Have you ever developed websites

or applications?”• In regard to experience on website or

application development, Fiji shows the highest rate of experience on website or application development (28.1%) and Vietnam shows the lowest rate of this experience (13.2%).

Yes NoBangladesh 26.0 74.0

Fiji 28.1 71.9Korea 15.1 84.8

Vietnam 13.2 86.8

56

Comparative Analysis

Key Findings from Comparative Analysis

Ⅳ. Findings

DL DSR DPA DEI CIBangladesh 3.01 3.33 3.02 3.06 2.60

Fiji 3.14 3.45 3.04 3.18 2.72Korea 3.31 3.53 2.98 3.22 2.76

Vietnam 3.10 3.35 3.00 2.96 2.74

• In all four pilot countries, Digital Safety and Resilience shows thehighest mean-level and Creativity and Innovation shows the lowestmean-level among five domains.


Digital Literacy

Ⅳ. Findings

• Korea shows highest mean-level in Digital Literacy, and the mean-level ofBangladesh is the lowest.

ICT literacy : Korea (3.26) = Fiji (3.26) > Vietnam (3.19) > Bangladesh(3.02)

Information Literacy : Korea (3.40) > Bangladesh (2.98) > Fiji (2.94) >Vietnam (2.93)


Digital Literacy

Ⅳ. Findings

3.01 3.02 2.98

3.143.26

2.94

3.313.26

3.4

3.13.19

2.93

2.62.72.82.9

33.13.23.33.43.5

Digital Literacy ICT Literacy Information Literacy

M

Bangladesh Fiji Korea Vietnam

<Cross-national comparison on Digital Literacy>



Ⅳ. Findings

• Korea shows highest mean-level in Digital Safety & Resilience, and the mean-level of Bangladesh is the lowest.

Understanding Child Rights : Korea (3.77) > Bangladesh (3.69) > Vietnam (3.68) > Fiji (3.61)

Personal Data, Privacy and Reputation : Korea (3.53) > Fiji (3.41) > Vietnam (3.33) > Bangladesh (3.28).

Digital Resilience : Fiji (3.39) > Korea (3.36) > Bangladesh (3.17) > Vietnam (3.16)



Ⅳ. Findings

3.33

3.69

3.283.17

3.45

3.61

3.41 3.393.53

3.77

3.53

3.363.35

3.68

3.33

3.16

2.82.9

33.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.9

Digital Safety andResilience

Understanding ChildRights

Personal Data,Privacy, andReputation

Digital Resilience

M

Bangladesh Fiji Korea Vietnam<Cross-national comparison on Digital Safety & Resilience>



Ⅳ. Findings

• Four behavior-related questions are developed to measure how studentsthink they ought to behave in a specific digital situation.

• Patterns on answers on behavior-related questions are slightly different



Ⅳ. Findings

B15 asks “how will you react when you are exposed to unwanted disturbing file or website (e.g., pornography website, violent media)?”

Bangladesh Fiji Korea Vietnam Total①Get rid of it immediately by closing the

page, deleting the file, or scrolling away 25.6 25.9 39.6 33.7 31.3

②Talk about it with parents/caregivers 12.5 13.4 3.4 5.6 8.8③Use a program that prevents it from

happening again 16.2 16.3 14.5 23.7 17.3

④Talk about it with a friend 16.1 9.5 3.8 3.8 8.4⑤Look away or close my eyes 5.1 5.6 6.2 2.7 5.0⑥Keep looking 1.7 2.1 5.2 1.0 2.6⑦Block the webpage or website 20.4 24.5 24.2 28.8 24.3⑧Don’t know what to do 2.3 2.6 3.0 0.7 2.2



Ⅳ. Findings

B16 asks “how will you react when you receive unwanted disturbing messages including annoying messages or embarrassing pictures from someone on your contact list?”

Bangladesh Fiji Korea Vietnam Total① Block and report the person 18.4 21.5 33.8 29.8 26.1② Delete the contact 18.6 19.4 19.0 20.7 19.3③ Ignore the messages and the person 15.7 11.9 18.8 6.6 13.8④ Talk with parents/caregivers about

what to do 12.3 10.5 4.7 8.3 8.7

⑤ Ask the person to stop sending these messages or pictures 24.6 17.8 9.9 24.2 18.2

⑥ Talk with teachers about what to do 5.8 4.8 1.4 2.7 3.6⑦ Report the issue to the police and

show them what happened 3.6 12.9 11.0 7.6 9.2

⑧ Don’t know what to do 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.1 1.0



Ⅳ. Findings

B17 asks “how will you react when you find that your personal information is misused, compromised or acquired without permission online?”

Bangladesh Fiji Korea Vietnam Total① Change password 28.2 26.5 26.0 24.9 26.3② Review privacy settings and choose a more

secure password 26.2 18.0 22.2 29.7 23.5

③ Use a report button 8.4 8.1 19.2 17.6 14.0④ Disable or delete the account and make a

new account 13.5 20.7 15.0 11.6 15.4

⑤ Ask parents/caregivers to help 11.4 9.9 4.7 5.1 7.4⑥ Ask teachers to help 6.2 5.3 1.5 2.0 3.5⑦ Report the issue to the police and show

them what happened 4.1 9.8 10.3 8.5 8.6

⑧ Don’t know what to do 2.0 1.7 1.1 0.6 1.3



Ⅳ. Findings

B18 asks “how will you react when you are bullied online by friends or others?”Bangladesh Fiji Korea Vietnam Total

①Block and report the persons 16.8 19.0 21.2 20.9 19.6

②Delete the contact 16.5 16.0 9.5 13.2 13.4

③Show the persons I am not bothered by their behavior by ignoring them 16.4 13.3 9.6 9.5 12.0

④Ask the persons to stop sending annoying messages or pictures 10.5 9.0 7.9 9.2 9.0

⑤Ask the persons to stop sending annoying messages or pictures 18.8 14.3 8.6 15.8 13.8

⑥Talk with teachers about what to do 4.9 4.6 5.0 4.1 4.7⑦Report the issue to the police and show them what

happened 3.7 9.7 15.1 6.0 9.4

⑧Keep the evidence of bullying (e.g., screen shot) 10.9 12.9 22.4 20.8 17.1

⑨Don’t know what to do 1.6 1.1 0.8 0.4 1.0



Ⅳ. Findings

• Fiji shows highest mean-level in Digital Participation and Agency, and the mean-level of Korea is the lowest.

Interacting, Sharing and Collaborating : Fiji (3.28) > Bangladesh (3.17) > Vietnam (3.15) > Korea (3.06)

Civic Engagement : Vietnam (2.60) > Bangladesh (2.56) > Fiji (2.43) > Korea (2.37)

Netiquette : Korea (3.50) > Fiji (3.42) > Bangladesh (3.32) > Vietnam (3.26).



Ⅳ. Findings

3.02 3.17

2.56

3.323.04

3.28

2.43

3.422.98 3.06

2.37

3.53 3.15

2.6

3.26

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

Digital Participationand Agency

Interacting, Sharing,and Collaborating

Civic Engagement Netiquette

M


<Cross-national comparison on Digital Participation & Agency>



Ⅳ. Findings

• In this domain, Korea shows highest mean-level, while Vietnam shows lowest mean-level. Self-awareness : Korea (3.33) > Bangladesh (3.25) > Fiji (3.12) > Vietnam

(2.96) Self-regulation : Fiji (3.30) > Bangladesh (3.26) > Korea (3.20) > Vietnam

(3.12) Self-motivation : Fiji (3.36) > Korea (3.20) > Vietnam (3.19) > Bangladesh

(2.94) Interpersonal Skills : Korea (3.13) > Fiji (3.11) > Vietnam (2.86) >

Bangladesh (2.78) Empathy : Korea (3.19) > Fiji (3.03) > Bangladesh (2.99) > Vietnam (2.66).



Ⅳ. Findings

3.063.25 3.26

2.94 2.782.99

3.18 3.123.3 3.36

3.11 3.033.22 3.33 3.2 3.2 3.13 3.19

2.96 2.96 3.12 3.192.86

2.66

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

DigitalEmotional

Intelligence

Self-Awareness Self-Regulation Self-Motivation InterpersonalSkills

Empathy

M


<Cross-national comparison on Digital Emotional Intelligence>



Ⅳ. Findings

• Korea shows highest mean-level, while Bangladesh shows lowest mean-level. • Creativity and Innovation domain shows relatively low mean-level compared

to other four domains of digital citizenship.

Creative Literacy : Fiji (2.83) > Korea (2.79) > Vietnam (2.68) > Bangladesh (2.54)

Expression : Vietnam (2.80) > Korea (2.74) > Bangladesh (2.65) > Fiji (2.63)



Ⅳ. Findings

2.62.54

2.652.72

2.83

2.63

2.76 2.792.742.74

2.68

2.8

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

Creativity and Innovation Creative Literacy Expression

M


<Cross-national comparison on Creativity & Innovation>

Gender and Region Differences on Five Domains

Ⅳ. Findings

• Totally, females show statistically higher level of Digital Literacy. • In addition, Vietnam has no gender difference in Digital Literacy and Fiji has

opposite pattern that males have higher level of Digital Literacy than females.N Mean S.D t

BangladeshMale 529 2.89 .65

-6.629***Female 526 3.13 .53

FijiMale 521 3.18 .47

2.334*Female 715 3.12 .50

KoreaMale 865 3.27 .55

-3.024**Female 919 3.35 .45

VietnamMale 493 3.09 .32

-0.530Female 558 3.10 .31

TotalMale 2408 3.13 .54

-4.357***Female 2718 3.19 .47

Gender Digital Literacy


Ⅳ. Findings

• Females show statistically higher level of Digital Safety & Resilience on average.• Except Fiji, Bangladesh, Korea, and Vietnam have differences on Digital Safety &

Resilience between females and males. N Mean S.D t


-2.882**Female 526 3.38 .51

FijiMale 521 3.43 .51

-0.863Female 715 3.47 .55


-3.519***Female 919 3.56 .39


-2.216*Female 557 3.37 .33

TotalMale 2406 3.40 .49

-4.657***Female 2717 3.46 .45

Gender Digital Safety & Resilience


Ⅳ. Findings

• Females show statistically higher level of Digital Participation and Agency across all pilot countries.

• Interestingly, only Fiji shows opposite pattern that males has higher level of Digital Participation and Agency than females.

N Mean S.D t


-6.009***Female 526 3.13 .51

FijiMale 521 3.09 .47

2.657**Female 715 3.01 .52


-3.946***Female 918 3.02 .47


-2.259*Female 558 3.02 .30

TotalMale 2402 2.97 .53

-5.127***Female 2717 3.04 .47

Gender Digital Participation & Agency


Ⅳ. Findings

• Females show statistically higher-level than males. • Gender differences in Digital Emotional Intelligence are reported only in

Bangladesh and Korea.

N Mean S.D


-4.775***Female 526 3.14 .49

FijiMale 521 3.17 .48

-0.499Female 715 3.18 .52


-2.082*Female 919 3.24 .46


1.032Female 558 2.95 .33

TotalMale 2400 3.09 .51

-3.769***Female 2718 3.15 .47

Gender Digital Emotional Intelligence


Ⅳ. Findings

• Females show statistically higher level of Creativity & Innovation than males.• Only Bangladesh and Fiji have statistical gender differences in Creativity &

Innovation, however, they have different pattern. N Mean S.D t


-8.245***Female 526 2.77 .62

FijiMale 521 2.80 .64

3.886***Female 715 2.66 .67


-0.961Female 919 2.77 .67


0.283Female 558 2.74 .35

TotalMale 2397 2.69 .66

-2.621**Female 2718 2.74 .61

Gender Creativity & Innovation


Ⅳ. Findings

Region Digital Literacy • In three countries except Bangladesh, students in urban areas have higher

level of Digital Literacy compared to those who in rural areas.N Mean S.D t

BangladeshRural 842 3.00 0.61

-1.263Urban 213 3.05 0.60

FijiRural 505 3.08 0.50

-4.111***Urban 731 3.19 0.48

KoreaRural 882 3.27 0.49

-3.097**Urban 902 3.35 0.51

VietnamRural 540 3.07 0.32

-3.069**Urban 511 3.13 0.32

TotalRural 2769 3.11 0.52

-7.998***Urban 2357 3.23 0.49


Ⅳ. Findings

Region Digital Safety & Resilience• Across pilot countries, students in urban areas have higher level of Digital

Safety & Resilience compared to those who in rural areas.

N Mean S.D t


-3.966***Urban 213 3.46 0.49

FijiRural 505 3.37 0.54

-3.920***Urban 731 3.49 0.52


-2.366*Urban 900 3.55 0.42


-2.169*Urban 510 3.37 0.32


-7.867***Urban 2354 3.48 0.45


Ⅳ. Findings

Region Digital Participation & Agency• Mean-level difference of Digital Participation and Agency between urban areas

and rural areas is appeared only in Korea.

N Mean S.D t


-0.217Urban 213 3.03 0.64

FijiRural 505 3.04 0.51

0.085Urban 731 3.04 0.50


-3.794***Urban 899 3.02 0.55


0.464Urban 511 3.00 0.33


-2.217*Urban 2354 3.02 0.50


Ⅳ. Findings

Region Digital Emotional Intelligence• Students in urban areas show higher scores than those who in rural areas.

These region differences are appeared only in Fiji and Korea.

N Mean S.D t


-0.854Urban 213 3.09 0.57

FijiRural 505 3.12 0.53

-3.172**Urban 731 3.22 0.48


-2.919**Urban 897 3.25 0.50


-0.894Urban 510 2.97 0.35


-5.671***Urban 2351 3.16 0.49


Ⅳ. Findings

Region Creativity & Innovation• Students in urban areas show statistically higher level of Creativity &

Innovation than those who in rural areas.• Fiji students in rural areas shows higher Creativity & Innovation scores than

those who in urban areas.N Mean S.D t


0.413Urban 213 2.59 0.70

FijiRural 505 2.83 0.63

5.038***Urban 731 2.64 0.67


-4.947***Urban 897 2.84 0.70


-3.100**Urban 510 2.78 0.38


-2.916**Urban 2351 2.74 0.64

Thank you!

digital kids asia-pacific: preliminary findings and …...digital kids asia-pacific: preliminary...

Documents