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
Ⅱ. Digital Citizenship Framework
Ⅱ. Digital Citizenship Framework
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
Ⅱ. Digital Citizenship 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
Ⅱ. Digital Citizenship 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
Ⅱ. Digital Citizenship Framework
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
Ⅱ. Digital Citizenship Framework
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.
Ⅱ. Digital Citizenship Framework
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.
Ⅱ. Digital Citizenship Framework
Digital Emotional Intelligence
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
Ⅱ. Digital Citizenship Framework
Creativity & Innovation
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
Validation of Survey
Validation of Survey
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
CompetencyCronbach‘s
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
Digital Participation & Agency
.791 12 .827 .735 .850 .681
Validation of Survey
Reliability
CompetencyCronbach‘s
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
Validation of Survey
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
Validation of Survey
Correlational Analysis
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
Validation of Survey
Correlational Analysis
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
Validation of Survey
Correlational Analysis
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
Validation of Survey
Correlational Analysis
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.
Validation of Survey
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
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.
Validation of Survey
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
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***
Validation of Survey
‘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.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Result of CFA
Validation of Survey
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.
Sub-competencyobservedvariables
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***
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Result of CFA
Validation of Survey
Digital Participation & Agency
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.
Sub-competencyobservedvariables
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’>
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Result of CFA
Validation of Survey
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)>
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Result of CFA
Validation of Survey
Digital Emotional Intelligence
<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***
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Result of CFA
Validation of Survey
Creativity & Innovation
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.
Sub-competencyobservedvariables
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
Contextual Characteristics
“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
Contextual Characteristics
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
Contextual Characteristics
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
Contextual Characteristics
Unit: %
“Do you have access to any of these things at your school? Please check all that apply.”
Desktop computer
Laptop Smartphone Tablet PC PrinterNone of
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
Contextual Characteristics
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
Laptop Smartphone Tablet PC PrinterNone of
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
Contextual Characteristics
“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
Contextual Characteristics
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
Contextual Characteristics
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
Contextual Characteristics
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.
Comparative Analysis
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)
Comparative Analysis
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>
Comparative Analysis
Digital Safety & Resilience
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)
Comparative Analysis
Digital Safety & Resilience
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>
Comparative Analysis
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
Comparative Analysis
Digital Safety & Resilience
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
Comparative Analysis
Digital Safety & Resilience
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
Comparative Analysis
Digital Safety & Resilience
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
Comparative Analysis
Digital Safety & Resilience
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
Comparative Analysis
Digital Participation & Agency
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).
Comparative Analysis
Digital Participation & Agency
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
Bangladesh Fiji Korea Vietnam
<Cross-national comparison on Digital Participation & Agency>
Comparative Analysis
Digital Emotional Intelligence
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).
Comparative Analysis
Digital Emotional Intelligence
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
Bangladesh Fiji Korea Vietnam
<Cross-national comparison on Digital Emotional Intelligence>
Comparative Analysis
Creativity & Innovation
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)
Comparative Analysis
Creativity & Innovation
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
Bangladesh Fiji Korea Vietnam
<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
Gender and Region Differences on Five Domains
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
BangladeshMale 529 3.29 .59
-2.882**Female 526 3.38 .51
FijiMale 521 3.43 .51
-0.863Female 715 3.47 .55
KoreaMale 863 3.49 .45
-3.519***Female 919 3.56 .39
VietnamMale 493 3.33 .34
-2.216*Female 557 3.37 .33
TotalMale 2406 3.40 .49
-4.657***Female 2717 3.46 .45
Gender Digital Safety & Resilience
Gender and Region Differences on Five Domains
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
BangladeshMale 529 2.91 .65
-6.009***Female 526 3.13 .51
FijiMale 521 3.09 .47
2.657**Female 715 3.01 .52
KoreaMale 860 2.92 .56
-3.946***Female 918 3.02 .47
VietnamMale 492 2.98 .34
-2.259*Female 558 3.02 .30
TotalMale 2402 2.97 .53
-5.127***Female 2717 3.04 .47
Gender Digital Participation & Agency
Gender and Region Differences on Five Domains
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
BangladeshMale 529 2.98 .60
-4.775***Female 526 3.14 .49
FijiMale 521 3.17 .48
-0.499Female 715 3.18 .52
KoreaMale 858 3.19 .51
-2.082*Female 919 3.24 .46
VietnamMale 492 2.97 .34
1.032Female 558 2.95 .33
TotalMale 2400 3.09 .51
-3.769***Female 2718 3.15 .47
Gender Digital Emotional Intelligence
Gender and Region Differences on Five Domains
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
BangladeshMale 528 2.44 .69
-8.245***Female 526 2.77 .62
FijiMale 521 2.80 .64
3.886***Female 715 2.66 .67
KoreaMale 856 2.74 .73
-0.961Female 919 2.77 .67
VietnamMale 492 2.75 .39
0.283Female 558 2.74 .35
TotalMale 2397 2.69 .66
-2.621**Female 2718 2.74 .61
Gender Creativity & Innovation
Gender and Region Differences on Five Domains
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
Gender and Region Differences on Five Domains
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
BangladeshRural 842 3.30 0.54
-3.966***Urban 213 3.46 0.49
FijiRural 505 3.37 0.54
-3.920***Urban 731 3.49 0.52
KoreaRural 882 3.50 0.42
-2.366*Urban 900 3.55 0.42
VietnamRural 540 3.33 0.35
-2.169*Urban 510 3.37 0.32
TotalRural 2769 3.38 0.48
-7.867***Urban 2354 3.48 0.45
Gender and Region Differences on Five Domains
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
BangladeshRural 842 3.02 0.58
-0.217Urban 213 3.03 0.64
FijiRural 505 3.04 0.51
0.085Urban 731 3.04 0.50
KoreaRural 879 2.93 0.48
-3.794***Urban 899 3.02 0.55
VietnamRural 539 3.01 0.31
0.464Urban 511 3.00 0.33
TotalRural 2765 2.99 0.50
-2.217*Urban 2354 3.02 0.50
Gender and Region Differences on Five Domains
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
BangladeshRural 842 3.05 0.55
-0.854Urban 213 3.09 0.57
FijiRural 505 3.12 0.53
-3.172**Urban 731 3.22 0.48
KoreaRural 880 3.18 0.47
-2.919**Urban 897 3.25 0.50
VietnamRural 540 2.95 0.31
-0.894Urban 510 2.97 0.35
TotalRural 2767 3.09 0.49
-5.671***Urban 2351 3.16 0.49
Gender and Region Differences on Five Domains
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
BangladeshRural 841 2.61 0.67
0.413Urban 213 2.59 0.70
FijiRural 505 2.83 0.63
5.038***Urban 731 2.64 0.67
KoreaRural 878 2.68 0.70
-4.947***Urban 897 2.84 0.70
VietnamRural 540 2.71 0.35
-3.100**Urban 510 2.78 0.38
TotalRural 2764 2.69 0.63
-2.916**Urban 2351 2.74 0.64
Thank you!