Gender Differences in Computer and Information Literacy An In depth Analysis of Data from ICILS Eveline Gebhardt

Gender Differences in Computer and Information
Literacy An In depth Analysis of Data from ICILS
Eveline Gebhardt download
https://textbookfull.com/product/gender-differences-in-computer-
and-information-literacy-an-in-depth-analysis-of-data-from-icils-
eveline-gebhardt/
Download full version ebook from https://textbookfull.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit textbookfull.com
to discover even more!
Recent Developments in Data Science and Intelligent
Analysis of Information Oleg Chertov
https://textbookfull.com/product/recent-developments-in-data-
science-and-intelligent-analysis-of-information-oleg-chertov/
Gender, Class and Power: An Analysis of Pay
Inequalities in the Workplace Tricia Dawson
https://textbookfull.com/product/gender-class-and-power-an-
analysis-of-pay-inequalities-in-the-workplace-tricia-dawson/
Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of
Gender Differences in Language 3rd Edition Coates
https://textbookfull.com/product/women-men-and-language-a-
sociolinguistic-account-of-gender-differences-in-language-3rd-
edition-coates/
Computer Science in Sport Modeling Simulation Data
Analysis and Visualization of Sports Related Data
2024th Edition Daniel Memmert
https://textbookfull.com/product/computer-science-in-sport-
modeling-simulation-data-analysis-and-visualization-of-sports-
related-data-2024th-edition-daniel-memmert/

Assistive Technology in Special Education: Resources to
Support Literacy, Communication, and Learning
Differences Joan L Green
https://textbookfull.com/product/assistive-technology-in-special-
education-resources-to-support-literacy-communication-and-
learning-differences-joan-l-green/
Muslim Women in Austria and Germany Doing and Undoing
Gender Making Gender Differences and Hierarchies
Relevant or Irrelevant Constanze Volkmann
https://textbookfull.com/product/muslim-women-in-austria-and-
germany-doing-and-undoing-gender-making-gender-differences-and-
hierarchies-relevant-or-irrelevant-constanze-volkmann/
Collaboration in Designing a Pedagogical Approach in
Information Literacy Ane Landøy
https://textbookfull.com/product/collaboration-in-designing-a-
pedagogical-approach-in-information-literacy-ane-landoy/
Moving from Unity to Godot: An In-Depth Handbook to
Godot for Unity Users Alan Thorn
https://textbookfull.com/product/moving-from-unity-to-godot-an-
in-depth-handbook-to-godot-for-unity-users-alan-thorn/
Preparing for Life in a Digital Age The IEA
International Computer and Information Literacy Study
International Report 1st Edition Julian Fraillon
https://textbookfull.com/product/preparing-for-life-in-a-digital-
age-the-iea-international-computer-and-information-literacy-
study-international-report-1st-edition-julian-fraillon/

A Series of In-depth Analyses Based on Data of the International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)
IEA Research for Education
Eveline Gebhardt
SueThomson
John Ainley
Kylie Hillman
GenderDifferences
in Computer
and Information
Literacy
An In-depth Analysis of Data from ICILS

A Series of In-depth Analyses Based on Data
of the International Association for the Evaluation
of Educational Achievement (IEA)
Volume 8
Series Editors
Seamus Hegarty, Chair of IEA Publications and Editorial Committee, University of
Warwick, Coventry, UK
Leslie Rutkowski, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA
Editorial Board
John Ainley, Australian Council for Educational Research, Australia
Kadriye Ercikan, University of British Columbia, Canada
Eckhard Klieme, German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF),
Germany
Rainer Lehmann, Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany
Fou-Lai Lin, National Taiwan Normal University, Chinese Taipei
Marlaine Lockheed, Princeton University, USA
Sarah Maughan, AlphaPlus Consultancy, UK
Carina Omoeva, FHI 360, USA
Elena C. Papanastasiou, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus
Valena White Plisko, Independent Consultant, USA
Jonathan Plucker, John Hopkins University, USA
Fernando Reimers, Harvard Graduate School of Education, USA
David Rutkowski, Indiana University, USA
Jouni Välijärvi, University of Jyväskylä, Finland
Hans Wagemaker, Senior Advisor to IEA, New Zealand

The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement
(IEA) is an independent nongovernmental nonproﬁt cooperative of national
research institutions and governmental research agencies that originated in
Hamburg, Germany in 1958. For over 60 years, IEA has developed and conducted
high-quality, large-scale comparative studies in education to support countries’
efforts to engage in national strategies for educational monitoring and improvement.
IEA continues to promote capacity building and knowledge sharing to foster
innovation and quality in education, proudly uniting more than 60 member
institutions, with studies conducted in more than 100 countries worldwide.
IEA’s comprehensive data provide an unparalleled longitudinal resource for
researchers, and this series of in-depth peer-reviewed thematic reports can be used
to shed light on critical questions concerning educational policies and educational
research. The goal is to encourage international dialogue focusing on policy matters
and technical evaluation procedures. The resulting debate integrates powerful
conceptual frameworks, comprehensive datasets, and rigorous analysis, thus
enhancing understanding of diverse education systems worldwide.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14293

Eveline Gebhardt • Sue Thomson •
John Ainley • Kylie Hillman
Gender Differences
in Computer and Information
Literacy
An In-depth Analysis of Data from ICILS

Eveline Gebhardt
ACER
Camberwell, VIC, Australia
Sue Thomson
ACER
John Ainley
ACER
Kylie Hillman
ACER
ISSN 2366-1631 ISSN 2366-164X (electronic)
ISBN 978-3-030-26202-0 ISBN 978-3-030-26203-7 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26203-7
© International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) 2019. This book is an
open access publication.
Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which per-
mits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,
as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons
license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s
Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
This work is subject to copyright. All commercial rights are reserved by the author(s), whether the whole
or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed. Regarding these commercial rights a non-exclusive
license has been granted to the publisher.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publi-
cation does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the
relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface
IEA’s mission is to enhance knowledge about education systems worldwide, and to
provide high-quality data that will support education reform and lead to better
teaching and learning in schools. In pursuit of this aim, it conducts, and reports on,
major studies of student achievement in literacy, mathematics, science, citizenship,
and digital literacy. These studies, most notably TIMSS, PIRLS, ICCS, and ICILS,
are well established and have set the benchmark for international comparative
studies in education.
The studies have generated vast datasets encompassing student achievement,
disaggregated in a variety of ways, along with a wealth of contextual information
which contains considerable explanatory power. The numerous reports that have
emerged from them are a valuable contribution to the corpus of educational
research.
Valuable though these detailed reports are, IEA’s goal of supporting education
reform needs something more: deep understanding of education systems and the
many factors that bear on student learning advances through in-depth analysis of the
global datasets. IEA has long championed such analysis and facilitates scholars and
policymakers in conducting secondary analysis of our datasets. So, we provide
software such as the International Database Analyzer to encourage the analysis of
our datasets, support numerous publications including a peer-reviewed journal—
Large-scale Assessment in Education—dedicated to the science of large-scale
assessment and publishing articles that draw on large-scale assessment databases,
and organize a biennial international research conference to nurture exchanges
between researchers working with IEA data.
The IEA Research for Education series represents a further effort by IEA to
capitalize on our unique datasets, so as to provide powerful information for
policymakers and researchers. Each report focuses on a speciﬁc topic and is produced
by a dedicated team of leading scholars on the theme in question. Teams are selected
on the basis of an open call for tenders; there are two such calls a year. Tenders are
subject to a thorough review process, as are the reports produced. (Full details are
available on the IEA website.)
v

This eighth volume in the series deals with an issue that is especially timely in an
information era—that of gender differences in computer literacy. Given the
importance of technology in our day-to-day lives and the dominant role that
computers and digital devices play, examining the existence of a gender-based
digital divide is crucial by any measure. This is especially important, as the impact
of digital gaps can be severe. For example, in the United States alone, high school
aged boys are far more likely than girls to enroll in advanced computer science
courses (81% to 19%, respectively) and this disparity carries over into higher
education, where just 18% of computer science degrees are awarded to women
(National Girls Collaborative Project 2019). In the light of these differences,
necessarily, women will be underrepresented in the technology labor force, a sector
with many highly skilled and well-paid jobs in industrialized countries. Viewed
purely from an economic perspective, such a divide neglects an enormous store of
human capital, reducing capacity and risking lower economic growth. Clearly, a
first step in any discussion around a digital divide is to understand the degree to
which a population is technology literate and what differences in computer literacy
exist between males and females. In this volume, the authors do just that.
To gain a better understanding about computer and information literacy, the
authors use data from the 2013 cycle of the IEA’s International Computer and
Information Literacy Study (ICILS). ICILS is a survey of grade eight students,
designed to answer the question “How well are students prepared for study, work,
and life in the digital age?” Here, computer and information literacy (CIL)
is defined as “students’ ability to use computers to investigate, create, and
communicate in order to participate effectively at home, at school, in the workplace,
and in the community.” Using a variety of methods and perspectives, the authors
examine not only gender differences among students but also among their teachers.
Including this latter aspect is particularly relevant, given empirical evidence
regarding teachers’ influence on student outcomes (Darling-Hammond 2000).
The sorts of issues taken up in this volume include (1) gender differences in
computer literacy, (2) gender differences in attitudes toward computer use, and
(3) how male and female teachers differ in their use of technology in teaching. This
list is not exhaustive, but it offers some examples of what readers will find. As with
much cross-cultural research, this volume shows that the answer to many of the
queries is “it depends”; cross-country differences are ubiquitous. As just one
example, the correlation between information and communication technology use
during lessons and CIL is positive in Australia but negative in Lithuania, and these
relationships are consistent between boys and girls. This high-level view of the data
does not and cannot offer definitive explanations for these differences; however,
these findings open the door for further in-depth research. The ICILS database is
rich and interesting and offers a treasure trove of material for research. Besides
adding to the literature on the digital divide, we find this volume to be an example
of the ways in which ICILS can be used to answer pressing and timely questions
vi Preface

around technology literacy in the modern era. As a ﬁnal note, ICILS was
administered for a second time in 2018, and the results are to be released in
November 2019. This second cycle offers further possibilities for analyzing trends
over time to evaluate the stability of the 2013 ﬁndings.
Seamus Hegarty
Leslie Rutkowski
Series editors
References
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 8, 1. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000.
National Girls Collaborative Project. (2019). State of girls and women in STEM [webpage].
Retrieved from https://ngcproject.org/statistics.
Preface vii

Contents
1 Introduction to Gender Differences in Computer and Information
Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Students and Computer Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.1 Students’ Computer and Information Literacy . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.2 Gender Differences in Student Technology Use . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.3 Gender Differences in Student Perceptions of Computer
Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.4 Students’ ICT Self-efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Teachers and Computer Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.1 Gender Differences in Teacher Confidence
in Using ICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.2 Teacher Perceptions About and Use of Digital
Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4 Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5 Structure of This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2 Data and Methods Used for ICILS 2013. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1 Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.1 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.2 Participation and Response Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.3 Weighting of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2 Measures and Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.1 Student Computer Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.2 Student Performance Measures on CIL Strand Items . . . . . 16
2.2.3 Student Performance on CIL Item Types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2.4 Time Taken to Respond to Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3 Measures of Significance and Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
ix

3 Student Achievement and Beliefs Related to Computer and
Information Literacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2 Gender Differences in Overall Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3 Gender Differences in Specific Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.4 Gender Differences in CIL Self-efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.5 Gender Differences in Time Taken to Respond to the Test . . . . . . 29
3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4 Students’ Interest and Enjoyment in, and Patterns
of Use of ICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1 Students’ Interest and Enjoyment in Computers and Digital
Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1.1 Affective Responses to ICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1.2 Opportunity to Learn CIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.2 Gender Differences in ICT Interest and Enjoyment . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.3 Gender Differences in the Associations Between CIL
and ICT, and Interest and Enjoyment in Using ICT . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.4 Gender Differences in Patterns of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.4.1 Use of ICT Productivity Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.4.2 Use of ICT for Social Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.4.3 Use of ICT for Exchanging Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.4.4 Use of Computers for Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.4.5 Use of ICT for Study Purposes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.5 Combined Effect of Interest and Enjoyment and Patterns
of Use on CIL Achievement, by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5 Teacher Gender and ICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.2 Teacher Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.3 Experience in Using Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.4 Confidence in Using ICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.5 Using ICT in the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.6 Developing ICT Skills in Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.7 Teachers’ Views About ICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.8 Explaining Variation in Teachers’ Emphasis on Developing
ICT Skills in Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
x Contents

6 What Have We Learned About Gender Differences in ICT? . . . . . . 69
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.2 Gendered Differences in CIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.3 Response to and Use of ICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.4 Teachers and ICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Contents xi

Chapter 1
Introduction to Gender Differences
in Computer and Information Literacy
Abstract As computer and information technologies increasingly dominate modern
life, educators and policymakers recognize the importance of ensuring that all
students are able to use computers to investigate, create, and communicate effectively.
Intriguingly, results from IEA’s International Computer and Information Literacy
Study (ICILS) of grade eight students, undertaken in 2013, indicated that female
students generally had higher computer and information literacy (CIL) scale scores
than male students. This book further analyzes the data collected by ICILS 2013,
providing an in-depth investigation of the gender differences in the CIL abilities
of students and their teachers. After establishing how CIL (and other similar
constructs) are assessed, this chapter reviews the existing research into gender
differences in students’ CIL; this is based mainly on data collected by large-scale
assessments. Patterns in students’ use of information and computer technologies,
their perceptions of computer technology, and their sense of competence in using
computer technologies reveal gender differences that might be associated with the
differing development of students’ CIL. Gender differences among teachers, in their
confidence in the use of computer technologies and their attitudes to the pedagogical
use of those technologies, are also examined.
Keywords Computer and information literacy (CIL) · Gender differences ·
Information and communications technologies (ICT) · International Computer and
Information Literacy Study (ICILS) · International large-scale assessments
1.1 Introduction
Information and communications technologies (ICT) have significantly changed how
people interact with each other, and the ways people live and work around the
world. The evolution of ICT has also affected teaching and learning in schools,
and education systems have recognized the importance of developing their students’
capacity to use these technologies for a range of purposes beyond basic ICT skills.
IEA’s International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) was designed
to establish how well students around the world were prepared for study, work,
and life in the digital age. ICILS 2013 referred to these capacities as computer
© International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) 2019
E. Gebhardt et al., Gender Differences in Computer and Information Literacy,
IEA Research for Education 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26203-7_1
1

2 1 Introduction to Gender Differences in Computer …
and information literacy (CIL). CIL was defined as “an individual’s ability to use
computers to investigate, create, and communicate in order to participate effectively
at home, at school, in the workplace, and in society” (Fraillon et al. 2014, p. 17). The
ICILS 2013 CIL construct comprised two strands: (1) using computer technologies
to collect and manage information, and (2) using computer technologies to produce
and exchange information.
Educators and systems have also recognized the importance of ensuring that both
male and female students develop those capacities. Many large-scale educational
assessments in a range of countries have reported that, on average, female students
score higher than male students on ICT-related assessments, such as national studies
in Australia (ACARA [Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority]
2015), Chile (Claro et al. 2012), and the Republic of Korea (Kim and Lee 2013;
Kim et al. 2014). These results are intriguing because they defy commonly held
expectations and do not reflect the gender balance in employment patterns in
computer-related industries or participation in further studies in computing and
information technology.
In this report, we aim to provide a systematic investigation of gender differences
in computer literacy, computer usage, and attitudes to computer technology, based on
the data collected by ICILS 2013 (Fraillon et al. 2014). In the early days of computing
in schools it was evident that computer use was dominated by male teachers (for
example, see Reinen and Plomp 1993). However, the use of ICT has become more
prevalent since the days of the Computers in Education study (COMPED; see IEA
2019a), and so to gauge changes, we investigate the use of computer technologies in
the classroom by female and male teachers. Teachers’ personal use of, and attitudes
to, computer technologies in the lower secondary school years may also have an effect
on their students, either directly, through their instructional practices or frequency
of use of ICT in the classroom, or indirectly, through modeling of behavior. The
associated teacher questionnaires delivered as part of ICILS 2013 thus provide a
rich data resource that may better explain student achievement (Fraillon et al. 2014).
While previous research has certainly investigated gender differences in student and
teacher capabilities and their use of digital technologies, the literature for students is
more extensive than that for teachers (Heemskerk et al. 2005; Volman and van Eck
2001).
In this chapter, we review the relevant research literature on gender differences in
CIL among students, beginning with a summary of findings for measured CIL (and
similar constructs) drawn mainly from large-scale assessments. We then consider
studies reporting gender differences in factors that might be associated with the
development of students’ CIL: namely patterns in students’ use of ICT, and their
perceptions of computer technology and sense of competence in using computer
technologies. We also consider gender differences in teachers’ confidence in using
computer technologies and teachers’ attitudes to the pedagogical use of those
technologies. After reviewing the existing literature, we formalize a set of research
questions to guide our investigation.

1.2 Students and Computer Technologies 3
1.2 Students and Computer Technologies
Knezec and Christensen (2018) noted that, while competencies in computer
technologies, computer use, and computer-related attitudes were once considered
separate but related aspects of the field, they have come to be seen as integrated. It is
thus important that we not only review literature concerned with gender differences in
these aspects of student computer literacy but also review information about gender
differences in CIL and related constructs, patterns of computer use, and perceptions
of computer technology (including consideration of student attitudes to computer
technologies and their perceptions of their capacities to use those technologies).
1.2.1 Students’ Computer and Information Literacy
Large-scale assessments of students’ CIL have reported that, on average, female
students perform better than male students on computer, digital, or ICT literacy
assessments (the terminology varies, but the constructs remain similar). Results from
IEA’s ICILS 2013, conducted in 21 countries,1
indicated that female grade eight
students achieved significantly higher CIL scores than male students (Fraillon et al.
2014). The difference between the international average scores for female and male
students was equivalent to about one-fifth of the ICILS standard deviation. As part of
the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Programme
for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2009, 19 countries participated in
an option that focused on assessing the digital reading capabilities of 15-year-old
students (OECD 2011). Female students scored higher than male students on that
assessment of digital reading, with the average difference being one-quarter of a
standard deviation.
Similar results have been reported across a range of national assessments of
computer literacy. In the 2014 National Assessment of Educational Progress in
the United States, female grade eight students scored higher than male grade
eight students in the ICT content area of the assessment of technological and
engineering literacy by approximately one-sixth of a standard deviation (NCES
[National Center for Educational Statistics] 2016a, b). In Australia, over four cycles
of national assessment of ICT literacy at grades six and 10, the difference between the
performance of female and male students averaged one-fifth of a standard deviation
(ACARA 2015). Similar size differences (that is, about one-fifth of a standard
deviation) were reported between female and male students at elementary and middle
levels of school in the Republic of Korea’s national assessment of ICT literacy (Kim
1In this report, educational systems are sometimes referred to as “countries.” This is for ease of
reading, but it should be noted that there are a number of systems that are not countries as such,
but are provinces or regions within a country with a degree of educational autonomy that have
participated following the same standards for sampling and testing.

and Lee 2013; Kim et al. 2014). Aesaert and van Braak (2015) reported similar
differences for upper primary school students in the Netherlands, while Hatlevik
et al. (2015) reported statistically significant, but slightly smaller differences in favor
of female students in a study of a sample of upper primary students in Norway.
There have been some large-scale studies that reported no gender differences in
computer literacy. ICILS 2013 identified only two countries, Thailand and Turkey,
where there were no significant gender differences in achievement (Fraillon et al.
2014). Among the 19 countries that took part in the OECD PISA 2009 study of
digital reading, only Colombia reported no gender differences in student achievement
(OECD 2011). In a large-scale assessment of the ICT literacy of Chilean 15-year-
olds, there were no significant differences found between female and male students
(Claro et al. 2012). Hatlevik and Christophersen (2013) also reported no significant
gender differences in digital literacy among senior secondary students in Norway.
Some have argued that gender differences vary across different types of computer
task. Punter et al. (2017) used data from ICILS 2013 to identify three subscales of
CIL: technical functionality, evaluating and reflecting on information, and sharing
or communicating information (such as through an information product). They
found that female students performed better than male students on both evaluating
and reflecting on information (nine countries) and sharing and communicating
information (nine countries), with these two subscales being highly correlated. On
the subscale of technical functionality, however, the differences between female
and male students were not significant in four countries, in favor of male students
in five countries, and in favor of female students in five countries. A study of
upper grade students in Finnish comprehensive schools reported a very small,
but statistically significant, difference in favor of female students on overall ICT
literacy, with male students performing better on technical-oriented items and female
students performing better on “school work-oriented and social interaction” items
(Kaarakainenetal.2018).TheargumentputforwardbyPunteretal.(2017)providesa
plausible explanation of why the relative computer literacy achievements of female
and male students might have changed over time, as there has been a change in
computer use from the more technical to a focus on applications incorporating
information management and communications that make use of the internet. Changes
in the balance of assessment items focusing on different domains or subskills of CIL
could contribute to explanations of why some assessments generate different results
to the majority (differences in the balance of items across assessments). Accordingly,
the current report examines not only the overall CIL scale scores of male and female
students, but also item-level performance data.
1.2.2 Gender Differences in Student Technology Use
When computer technologies were being introduced into schools, the use of ICT
was more extensive among male than female students (Lockheed 1985). However,
as the use of computer technologies became more prevalent, the overall differences

in computer use between male and female students appeared to decrease (Colley and
Comber 2003). Potential gender differences in computer usage have remained of
interest because computer use at home has been identified as a predictor of measured
CIL, although the association may not be linear (Bundsgaard and Gerick 2017;
Fraillon et al. 2014). More recently, the differences between female and male students
in terms of the percentages who report using computer technologies on a daily basis
appeartohavebeennegligible.AnalysesofICILS2013datashowedthat57%ofmale
students and 52% of female students used computers at home at least once each day
(Fraillon et al. 2014). While this overall difference may be viewed as negligible, the
magnitude of the difference between the proportions of male and female students who
reported daily use of computers varied across countries (Fraillon et al. 2014). In the
Australian national assessment of ICT literacy, there were no significant differences
between the percentages of female and male students who reported daily computer
use at home or school, either in primary or secondary school (ACARA 2015).
However, there are some differences between male and female students in the
types of computer use. According to ICILS 2013, female students made slightly
greater use of computer technologies for schoolwork or study purposes than male
students, while male students used ICT more frequently for exchanging information
and for recreational purposes (Fraillon et al. 2014). Similar findings were reported
in PISA 2009 (OECD 2011).
1.2.3 Gender Differences in Student Perceptions of Computer
Technology
Punter et al. (2017) noted that many studies have attributed the lower use of computer
technologies among female students and lower levels of female participation in
computer-based industries to differences in attitudes. Research in this area focused
mainly on gender differences in computer-related attitudes, such as liking computers,
perceived usefulness of computers, self-confidence in computer use, and anxiety in
using computers (Meelissen 2008). These differences identified in the early literature
appear to have remained largely unchanged in recent years. In ICILS 2013, male
students expressed greater interest and enjoyment in using computer technology
than did female students, although this finding varied across countries (Fraillon
et al. 2014). Similarly, PISA 2009 reported that male students showed more positive
attitudes than female students towards computers (OECD 2011).
The Australian national assessment of ICT literacy indicated that students in late
primary and mid-secondary school expressed high levels of interest and enjoyment
in working with computers (ACARA 2015). However, interest and enjoyment
were higher among male than female students at both stages of schooling, and
interest was higher among primary students than secondary school students. Positive
associations between ICT literacy and interest and enjoyment in working with

computers were identified in both late primary and mid-secondary stages of school,
with the associations being stronger among male students than female students
(ACARA 2015).
In general, research has indicated that gender differences in students’ attitudes
towards computer technologies run counter to the gender differences in achievement
in CIL. We thus aimed to explore gender differences in interest in and enjoyment
of computer and information technologies, patterns of particular use (i.e., for social
communication, for exchange of information, for recreation, and for study purposes),
and potential associations between these differences and CIL.
1.2.4 Students’ ICT Self-efficacy
Many studies of computer, digital, or ICT literacy have made use of self-reports,
where students are asked to evaluate how well they believe they can perform
on ICT-related tasks. The construct measured by these self-reports is called ICT
self-efficacy. Studies of self-efficacy from the early stages of the introduction of
computer technology to schools have consistently found that male students rate their
competence more highly than their female peers (Cooper 2006; Volman and van Eck
2001). Rohatgi et al. (2016) analyzed the Norwegian ICILS 2013 data, and noted that
ICT self-efficacy may not be a unidimensional construct. They distinguished general
ICT self-efficacy from specialized ICT self-efficacy (sometimes referred to as self-
efficacy with basic and advanced skills) and determined that general ICT self-efficacy
was positively related to computer literacy, whereas specialized ICT self-efficacy was
negatively, but minimally associated with computer literacy. ICILS 2013 found that
female students, on average, reported slightly higher levels of ICT self-efficacy than
male students in relation to basic ICT tasks (about one-tenth of a standard deviation),
whereas male students reported much higher levels of ICT self-efficacy in relation to
advanced ICT tasks (by about half a standard deviation) (Fraillon et al. 2014). Similar
results have been reported for grade six and grade 10 students in Australia (ACARA
2015). This variability in self-confidence in performing tasks with different levels of
difficulty has become more apparent over time, likely in line with increasing use of
ICT both inside and outside the classroom. For basic ICT self-efficacy tasks there
is now a very strongly skewed distribution of responses; most students report that
they can perform simple basic tasks. Thus, what is now being observed in the factor
structure may be a distinction between tasks that almost all students think they can
perform, and tasks that only some students think they can perform. For example,
while 87% of students participating in ICILS 2013 agreed that they could search for
and find a file on a computer and 89% agreed that they could search for and find
information on the internet, only 30% agreed that they could create a database and
only 38% agreed that they could build or edit a webpage (Fraillon et al. 2014).
Siddiq et al. (2016) cautioned that measures of self-confidence or self-efficacy
do not provide sound measures of ICT literacy because they correlate poorly with
measured competence. It is thus important to distinguish between computer literacy

and self-confidence in using those technologies, and most studies have concluded
that the two constructs are distinct. The Australian National Assessment Program for
ICT literacy also found that measures of ICT self-efficacy were not equivalent for
male and female students: male students were more confident than female students
about using ICT, but this confidence was not reflected in measured computer literacy
(ACARA 2015). In PISA 2009, 15-year-old male students reported greater levels
of self-confidence in completing high-level ICT tasks than female students, but
female students recorded higher average scores on digital reading, which is a form
of computer literacy (OECD 2011).
1.3 Teachers and Computer Technologies
1.3.1 Gender Differences in Teacher Confidence in Using
ICT
One of the enduring research issues involved in the study of the differential
use of computer technologies in teaching concerns teacher confidence or ICT
self-efficacy. Indeed, among the many purposes of professional learning in computer
technologies is to enhance teacher expertise and confidence in computer technologies
andtheirpedagogicalapplications.TheSecondInformationTechnologyinEducation
Study 2006 (SITES 2006; see IEA 2019b) surveyed the role of ICT in science
and mathematics in grade eight teaching in 22 countries and reported that the use
of ICT was greater when teachers had a higher level of confidence in using ICT,
when teachers had participated in ICT-related professional development, and when
there were fewer contextual obstacles (infrastructure, digital learning resources, ICT
access) (Law et al. 2008). The European Commission (2013) also reported that
teachers who were confident users of ICT were more likely to adopt ICT as part
of their teaching. However, the results from SITES 2006 also suggested that the
relationship between ICT self-efficacy and the use of digital technologies was not
determinist, and that there were variations in the relationship across countries and
among environments within countries. Among the possible reasons for the apparent
differences in results concerning the relationship between gender and computer
self-efficacy could be that the self-efficacy construct is multifaceted and the strength
of (or even the direction of) the relationship depends on the facet that is being
addressed by the instrument.
Scherer and Siddiq (2015) analyzed ICILS 2013 teacher data from Norway and
identified three aspects of teacher ICT self-efficacy: in basic operational skills, a
combination of advanced operational and collaborative skills, and in using computers
for instructional purposes. This was a similar structure to that reported from SITES
2006. Scherer and Siddiq (2015) found that the structure was the same for male
and female teachers, although there were differences found on some aspects. Male
teachers had higher self-efficacy with respect to both basic and advanced operational

skills, but there were no significant gender differences in confidence in using
computers for instructional purposes. Markauskaite (2006) reported differences in
the self-reported technical ICT capabilities of male and female preservice teachers.
In contrast, Sang et al. (2010) reported that gender was unrelated to teacher ICT
self-efficacy, their attitudes to computing, or teacher prospective computer use after
mediating variables were taken into account.
Most studies that have reported on teachers’ ICT competencies have relied
on self-report data. However, one of the few performance assessments of ICT
skills among teachers identified three ICT skill factors: basic digital skills,
advanced technical skills, and professional ICT skills (Kaarakainen et al. 2018).
Interestingly, these dimensions appear to be similar to those reported from studies
of ICT self-efficacy. Results from this assessment indicated that male teachers
outperformed female teachers in the assessment of ICT skills that they used; these
results mirror the patterns found among assessments of students.
1.3.2 Teacher Perceptions About and Use of Digital
Technologies
There are conflicting claims about the influence of gender on the pedagogical use of
ICT (Teo 2008). Some argue that male teachers tend to be more interested in learning
about and using digital technologies (Schumacher and Morahan-Martin 2001; Yuen
and Ma 2002). However, more recent studies suggest that the differences are neither
large nor consistent across varied contexts.
SITES 2006 stressed the importance of the reciprocal relationships between
teachers’ pedagogical orientations and their use of ICT in teaching (Law et al.
2008). Ertmer et al. (2012) reported on the importance of teachers’ general beliefs
about teaching, and on their interest in technology itself, for the extent and manner
of technology use in classrooms. ICILS 2013 included a set of questions asking
teachers about the benefits of ICT in school education. Data based on responses to
these questions were used to identify two orthogonal dimensions: positive views and
negative views (Fraillon et al. 2014). The implication was that it was possible to
hold both sets of views simultaneously. The level of use of computer technologies
in teaching was higher among those teachers who had positive views of the roles of
these technologies in school education and lower among those who held negative
views about ICT (Fraillon et al. 2014). Gender differences on these scales were not
reported.
Studies of teacher use of computer technologies have drawn attention to the
importance of the environment in which teaching takes place. One aspect of the
teaching environment is the learning or subject area in which teaching takes place.
SITES 2006 found that the pedagogical use of ICT was greater in science classrooms
than in mathematics classrooms (Law et al. 2008). ICILS 2013 also reported that the
pedagogical use of ICT varied across learning areas. Aside from teaching in computer

1.3 Teachers and Computer Technologies 9
studies classes, the pedagogical use of ICT was considerably greater in the sciences
and the humanities than in mathematics and the creative arts (Fraillon et al. 2014). As
the distribution of male and female teachers across learning areas is not uniform, these
findings suggest that comparisons of the pedagogical use of computer technologies
by female and male teachers need to take into account the subject areas in which
they are teaching.
1.4 Research Questions
We derived a set of research questions designed to systematically investigate the
gender differences in computer literacy, computer usage, and attitudes to computer
technology in the ICILS 2013 data. These research questions can be divided into two
groups. The first set of questions focus on students.
RQ1 What is the magnitude of the difference between female and male students in
measured computer literacy overall, and for particular types of items?
RQ2 To what extent do female and male students differ in computer self-efficacy
overall, and in particular aspects of computing?
RQ3 To what extent do female and male students differ in their patterns of computer
use and in their attitudes to computer technology?
The second set of research questions concerned teachers.
RQ4 To what extent do female and male teachers differ in computer self-efficacy
overall and in relation to particular aspects of computing?
RQ5 To what extent do female and male teachers differ in their attitudes towards the
use of computer technologies in school education?
RQ6 To what extent do female and male teachers differ in the ways in which they use
computer technologies in their teaching?
1.5 Structure of This Report
The chapters that follow this introduction address our six research questions in
Sect. 1.4. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the ICILS study, describes the
instruments and data, discusses the methods of analysis and variables used, and
measures of significance and effect. Chapter 3 addresses research question RQ1
(measured computer literacy) and research question RQ2 (computer self-efficacy). It
discusses each of these measures and the relationship between them for female and
male students. Chapter 4 addresses research question RQ3 and examines differences
between female and male students in their patterns of computer use and their
attitudes towards computer technology. Research questions RQ4, RQ5, and RQ6,
concerned with differences between female and male teachers of grade eight students

in computer self-efficacy, attitudes to the pedagogical use of computer technology,
and the uses made of computer technology in teaching, are the focus of Chap. 5.
Chapter 6 provides an overview and interpretation of gender differences in computer
literacy and computer use in schools.
References
ACARA. (2015). National Assessment Program—ICT literacy years 6 & 10. Report
2014. Sydney, Australia: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
(ACARA). Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu.au/_resources/D15_8761__NAP-ICT_2014_
Public_Report_Final.pdf.
Aesaert, K., & van Braak, J. (2015). Gender and socioeconomic related differences in performance-
based ICT competences. Computers & Education, 84, 8–25.
Bundsgaard, J., & Gerick, J. (2017). Patterns of students’ computer use and relations to their
computer and information literacy: results of a latent class analysis and implications for teaching
and learning. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 5, 2–16. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.
1186/s40536-017-0052-8.
Claro, M., Preiss, D., San Martin, E., Jara, I., Hinostraoza, J. E., Valenzuela, S., et al. (2012).
Assessment of 21st century ICT skills in Chile: Test design and results from high school level
students. Computers & Education, 59, 1042–1053. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2012.04.004.
Colley, A., & Comber, C. (2003). Age and gender differences in computer use and attitudes among
secondary school students: What has changed? Educational Research, 45(2), 155–166.
Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 22(5), 320–334. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00185.x.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher
beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education,
59(2), 423–435. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001.
European Commission. (2013). Survey of schools: ICT in education. Benchmarking access, use and
attitudes to technology in Europe’s schools (final report). Brussels, Belgium: Author. Retrieved
from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/sites/digital-agenda/files/KK-31-13-401-EN-N.
pdf.
Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a
digital age: The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study international report.
Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-
14222-7.
Hatlevik, O. E., & Christophersen, K.-A. (2013). Digital competence at the beginning of upper
secondary school: Identifying factors explaining digital inclusion. Computers & Education, 63,
240–247. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.015.
Hatlevik, O., Ottestad, G., & Throndsen, I. (2015). Predictors of digital competence in 7th grade: A
multilevel analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31, 220–231. Retrieved from https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12065.
Heemskerk, I., Brink, A., Volman, M., & Ten Dam, G. (2005). Inclusiveness and ICT in education:
A focus on gender, ethnicity and social class. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 1–16.
Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00106.x.
IEA. (2019a). COMPED. Computers in Education Study [webpage]. Retrieved from https://www.
iea.nl/studies/iea/other#spy-para-162.
IEA. (2019b). SITES. Second Information Technology in Education Study 2006 [webpage].
Retrieved from https://www.iea.nl/studies/iea/sites.

References 11
Kaarakainen, M., Kivinen, O., & Vainio, T. (2018). Performance-based testing for ICT skills
assessing: A case study of students and teachers’ ICT skills in Finnish schools. Universal Access
in the Information Society, 2, 349–360. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/
s10209-017-0553-9.
Kim, J., & Lee, W. (2013). Meanings of criteria and norms: Analyses and comparisons of ICT
literacy competencies of middle school students. Computers & Education, 64, 81–94. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.018.
Kim, H. S., Kil, H. J., & Shin, A. (2014). An analysis of variables affecting the ICT literacy level of
Korean elementary school students. Computers & Education, 77, 29–38. Retrieved from https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.009.
Knezec, G., & Christensen, R. (2018). The evolving role of attitudes and competencies
in information and communication technology in education. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R.
Christensen & K.-W. Lai (Eds.), Second handbook of information technology in primary and
secondary education (pp. 239–253). Springer International Handbooks of Education. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/
978-3-319-71054-9_16.
Law, N., Pelgrum, W., & Plomp, T. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the
world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study. CERC Studies in Comparative Education,
Volume 23. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Retrieved from https://www.springer.com/gp/book/
9781402089275.
Lockheed, M. E. (Ed.) (1985). Women, girls, and computers: A first look at the evidence. Sex Roles,
13, 115–122. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00287904.
Markauskaite, L. (2006). Gender issues in preservice teachers’ training: ICT literacy and online
learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(1), 1–20.
Meelissen, M. (2008). Computer attitudes and competencies among primary and secondary school
students. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in
primary and secondary education (pp. 381–395). Springer International Handbooks of Education.
Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-
387-73315-9_23.
NCES. (2016a). 2014 abridged technology and engineering literacy framework for
the 2014 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National
Assessment Governing Board, National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED563941.pdf.
NCES. (2016b). 2014 Nations Report Card: Technology & Engineering Literacy (TEL) [webpage].
Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/tel_2014/.
OECD. (2011). PISA 2009 results: Students on line. Digital technologies and performance
(Volume VI). Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
9789264112995-en.
Punter, R., Meelissen, M., & Glas, C. (2017). Gender differences in computer and information
literacy: An exploration of the performances of girls and boys in ICILS 2013. European
Educational Research Journal, 16(6), 762–780. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/
doi/10.1177/1474904116672468.
Reinen, I. J., & Plomp, T. (1993). Some gender issues in educational computer use: Results of an
international comparative study. Computer Education, 20(4), 353–365.
Rohatgi, A., Scherer, R., & Hatlevik, O. (2016). The role of ICT self-efficacy for students’ ICT use
and their achievement in a computer and information literacy test. Computers & Education, 102,
103–116. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.08.001.
Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes
and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology.
Computers & Education, 54(1), 103–112. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.
2009.07.010.

Scherer, R., & Siddiq, F. (2015). Revisiting teachers’ computer self-efficacy: A differentiated view
on gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 48–57. Retrieved from https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.038.
Schumacher, P., & Morahan-Martin, J. (2001). Gender, Internet and computer attitudes and
experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(1), 95–110. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0747-5632(00)00032-7.
Siddiq, F., Hatlevik, O. E., Olsen, R. V., Throndsen, I., & Scherer, R. (2016). Taking a future
perspective by learning from the past: A systematic review of assessment instruments that aim
to measure primary and secondary school students’ ICT literacy. Educational Research Review,
19, 58–84. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.05.002.
Teo, T. (2008). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards computer use: A Singapore survey.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 413–424.
Volman, M., & van Eck, E. (2001). Gender equity and information technology in education: The
second decade. Review of Educational Research, 71, 613–631. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.
3102/00346543071004613.
Yuen, A., & Ma, W. (2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 365–382. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.
org/p/15142/.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which
permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium
or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.

Chapter 2
Data and Methods Used for ICILS 2013
Abstract IEA’s International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS)
was designed to establish how well students around the world were prepared for
study, work, and life in the digital age. This chapter describes the ICILS 2013 study
design, the sample design, scaling methods, and the variables used, and outlines the
practical significance of particular results.
Keywords Computer and information literacy (CIL) · Gender differences ·
Information and communications technologies (ICT) · International Computer and
Information Literacy Study (ICILS) · International large-scale assessments ·
Methodology
2.1 Sampling
This report is based on secondary analyses of student and teacher data from ICILS
2013 (Fraillon et al. 2015). ICILS 2013 gathered data from almost 60,000 grade eight
(or equivalent) students and 35,000 teachers of grade eight students in more than 3300
schools from 21 countries. In each country, the samples were designed as two-stage
cluster samples. During the first stage, schools were sampled with a probability
proportional to the numbers of students enrolled in a school. Twenty students were
then randomly sampled from all students enrolled in the target grade. In schools with
fewer than 20 students, all students were invited to participate (Meinck 2015). These
student data were augmented by data from almost 35,000 teachers in those schools.
From the sampled schools, a minimum of 15 teachers was selected at random from
all teachers teaching the target grade, but in schools with 20 or fewer such teachers,
all teachers were invited to participate (Meinck 2015).
© International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) 2019
E. Gebhardt et al., Gender Differences in Computer and Information Literacy,
IEA Research for Education 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26203-7_2
13

14 2 Data and Methods Used for ICILS 2013
2.1.1 Data Collection
The main ICILS survey took place in the 21 participating education systems
(18 countries and three benchmarking education systems) between February and
December 2013 (the survey took place between February and June 2013 in the
Northern Hemisphere countries, and between October and December 2013 in the
Southern Hemisphere countries).
Students completed a computer-based test of CIL that consisted of questions
and tasks presented in four 30-min modules. Each student completed two modules
randomly allocated from the set of four, so that the total assessment time for each
studentwasonehour(Fraillonetal.2015).Thepsychometricpropertiesofthestudent
assessment have been reported by Gebhardt and Schulz (2015). After completing the
two test modules, students completed a 30-min questionnaire (again on computer)
that included questions relating to students’ background characteristics, their interest
in and enjoyment of using ICT, their experience and use of computers and ICT to
complete a range of different tasks in school and out of school, and use of ICT during
lessons at school (Schulz and Ainley 2015).
Teachers completed a 30-min online questionnaire about their background and
familiarity with ICT, their confidence in using ICT, and their use of ICT in teaching in
general and with a randomly-selected reference class. In this questionnaire, teachers
were asked about the emphasis they placed on developing students’ CIL, their views
about the use of ICT in teaching and their participation in professional learning
relating to pedagogical use of ICT. The properties of the student and teacher-based
scales have been reported by Schulz and Friedman (2015).
2.1.2 Participation and Response Rates
Despite the efforts of participating countries and educational systems to meet the
minimum response rates required, not all countries who participated in ICILS 2013
had data that allowed for further investigation in the current report. Fourteen countries
met the minimum participation requirements for comparing student achievement
and 12 countries met the minimum response rate requirement for teacher responses
(Table 2.1). Germany and Norway met the student response rate criteria but failed
to meet the teacher response rate criteria. Three benchmarking participants (Ontario
in Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada, and the city of Buenos Aires in
Argentina) also participated in ICILS 2013, however, in this report we focus only on
full country participants.

2.1 Sampling 15
Table 2.1 ICILS 2013 weighted survey response rates
Country Overall student
participation
rate (%)
Met criteria for
student survey
Overall teacher
response rate
(%)
Met criteria for
teacher survey
Australia 86.3 Yes 79.0 Yes
Chile 93.4 Yes 95.9 Yes
Croatia 81.1 Yes 96.0 Yes
Czech Republic 93.7 Yes 99.9 Yes
Denmark 64.1 No 49.7 No
Germany 75.2 Yes (with
replacements)
64.9 No
Hong Kong
SAR
68.6 No 58.3 No
Republic of
Korea
96.3 Yes 99.9 Yes
Lithuania 88.8 Yes 85.6 Yes
Netherlands 71.9 No 49.5 No
Norway (grade
nine)
83.4 Yes 64.5 No
Poland 86.3 Yes 93.6 Yes
Russian
Federation
92.8 Yes 98.4 Yes
Slovak Republic 92.3 Yes 97.7 Yes
Slovenia 90.0 Yes 88.1 Yes
Switzerland 43.5 No 27.2 No
Thailand 88.8 Yes 85.4 Yes
Turkey 85.8 Yes 95.8 Yes
Only those countries that met the following response rate requirements, either
initially or after replacements were recruited, were included in the analyses in this
report:
• an unweighted school response rate without replacement of at least 85% (after
rounding to the nearest whole percent) and an unweighted overall student/teacher
response rate (after rounding) of at least 85%, or
• a weighted school response rate without replacement of at least 85% (after
rounding to the nearest whole percent) and a weighted overall student/teacher
response rate (after rounding) of at least 85%, or
• the product of the (unrounded) weighted school response rate without replacement
and the (unrounded) weighted overall student/teacher response rate of at least 75%
(after rounding to the nearest whole percent).

2.1.3 Weighting of Data
One of the main objectives of any large-scale international study is to obtain
estimates of population characteristics. In order to draw accurate conclusions about
the population, researchers need to take into account the complex sample design
implemented in all countries, in particular, the critical characteristic that sampling
units do not have equal probability of selection. In addition, nonparticipation of
schools, teachers, and students, in particular differential patterns of nonresponse,
have the potential to bias results. To account for these complexities, sampling
weights and nonresponse adjustments were calculated for each country, leading to
an estimation (or “final”) weight for each sampled unit. Further detailed information
on the weighting procedures used in ICILS 2013 are available in the ICILS 2013
technical report (Fraillon et al. 2015). All findings presented in this report are based
on appropriately weighted data.
2.2 Measures and Scales
In our analyses we used measures (based on responses to single items) and scales
(constructed from responses to a number of similar items) that were derived for the
ICILS 2013 international student assessment, and the student and teacher survey
questionnaires. No new scales were created for the analyses reported in this volume.
In this report, we considered four variables derived from the international student
assessment.
2.2.1 Student Computer Literacy
The Rasch item response model (Rasch 1960) was used to derive the CIL scale from
student responses to the 62 test questions and large tasks (which corresponded to
a total of 81 score points). The final reporting scale was set to a metric that had a
mean of 500 (the ICILS average score) and a standard deviation of 100 for equally-
weighted national samples. Plausible value methodology with full conditioning was
used to derive summary student achievement statistics. Student computer literacy is
a dependent variable.
2.2.2 Student Performance Measures on CIL Strand Items
Similarly to the full measure of CIL, students’ performance on seven strands of
CIL items (creating information, transforming information, sharing information,
accessing and evaluating information, managing information, knowing about and

2.2 Measures and Scales 17
understanding computer use, and using information safely and securely) was scaled
to a mean of 500 with a standard deviation of 100. Student performances on different
strand items were considered to be dependent variables.
2.2.3 Student Performance on CIL Item Types
As already noted, student performance on the three types of CIL items (large task,
multiple choice, and constructed response items) was scaled to the common metric
andthesemeasuresofstudentperformancewereconsideredtobedependentvariables
in some analyses.
2.2.4 Time Taken to Respond to Items
ICILS 2013 recorded the amount of time taken by students (in seconds) to respond
to each test item. Time taken to respond to test items is used as a dependent variable
in our analyses.
We used a number of other scales derived for ICILS 2013 for our analyses
(Table 2.2). These are described in more detail in the relevant chapter of this report.
Table 2.2 ICILS 2013 scales used in this report
Chapters Description of ICILS 2013 scale used
3 Students’ confidence (ICT self-efficacy) in solving basic computer-related tasks
(S_BASEFF)
3 Students’ confidence (ICT self-efficacy) in solving advanced computer-related tasks
(S_ADVEFF)
4 Students’ interest and enjoyment in using computers and computing (S_INTRST)
4 Students’ use of specific ICT applications (S_USEAPP)
4 Students’ use of ICT for social communication (S_USECOM)
4 Students’ use of ICT for exchanging information (S_USEINF)
4 Students’ use of ICT for recreation (S_USEREC)
4 Students’ use of ICT for (school-related) study purposes (S_USESTD)
4 Students’ use of ICT during lessons at school (S_USELRN)
4 Students’ reports on learning ICT tasks at school (S_TSKLRN)
5 Teachers’ ICT self-efficacy (T_EFF)
5 Teachers’ positive views on using ICT in teaching and learning (T_VWPOS)
5 Teachers’ negative views on using ICT in teaching and learning (T_VWNEG)
Notes All ICILS scales referred to here are described in detail in chapter 12 of the ICILS 2013
technical report (Schulz and Friedman 2015)

2.3 Measures of Significance and Effect
In large-scale studies with many thousands of respondents, even small differences
or correlations can be significant. An effect size provides a quantitative measure
of the magnitude of the difference or correlation. In this report we use a “rule of
thumb” measure of effect when we talk about the sizes of the statistically significant
differences on either the CIL scale or the questionnaire scales as follows:
• We refer to the differences as “large” if the differences are larger than 50 points on
the ICILS 2013 CIL scale (the international standard deviation was 100) or larger
than five points on the ICILS 2013 questionnaire scales (the international standard
deviation for these was 10);
• We refer to the differences as “moderate” if the differences are between 30 and 50
points on the ICILS 2013 CIL scale or between three and five points on the ICILS
2013 questionnaire scales;
• We refer to the differences as “small” if the differences are between 10 and 30
points on the ICILS 2013 CIL scale or between one and three points on the ICILS
2013 questionnaire scales; and
• We refer to the differences as “not meaningful” or “negligible” if the differences
are less than 10 points on the ICILS 2013 CIL scale or less than one point on the
ICILS 2013 questionnaire scales.
For correlations, we also provide Cohen’s d as a measure of effect size. Cohen
(1988) suggested the following labels for effect sizes for correlations:
• Strong if Cohen’s d = 0.8;
• Moderate if Cohen’s d = 0.5; and
• Insubstantial if Cohen’s d = 0.2.
For further information about the development of the scales for ICILS 2013,
and their psychometric properties, please refer to the ICILS 2013 technical report
(Fraillon et al. 2015).
References
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY, USA:
Routledge Academic.
Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Ainley, J., & Gebhardt, E. (2015). ICILS 2013
technical report. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation
of Educational Achievement (IEA). Retrieved from https://www.iea.nl/publications/technical-
reports/icils-2013-technical-report.
Gebhardt, E., & Schulz, W. (2015). Scaling procedures for ICILS test items. In J. Fraillon,
W. Schulz, T. Friedman, J. Ainley & E. Gebhardt (Eds.), ICILS 2013 technical report
(pp. 155–176). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation
of Educational Achievement (IEA). Retrieved from https://www.iea.nl/publications/technical-
reports/icils-2013-technical-report.

Other documents randomly have
different content

Gender Differences in Computer and Information Literacy An In depth Analysis of Data from ICILS Eveline Gebhardt

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Path, Vol.
I.—1886-'7.

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
Title: The Path, Vol. I.—1886-'7.
Author: Various
Editor: William Quan Judge
Release date: March 8, 2019 [eBook #59038]
Language: English
Credits: Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team
at
http://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from
images
made available by the HathiTrust Digital Library.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PATH, VOL.
I.—1886-'7. ***

Transcriber’s Notes
The cover was produced by the transcriber and is placed within the public domain.
Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations in hyphenation
and ligatures have been standardised but all other spelling and punctuation remains
unchanged. In particular * are used frequently throughout in various quantities and
spacings. These have been reproduced as nearly as possible.
Rythm is spelled thus throughout and has not been corrected
The table of contents was added by the transcriber.

TO
THE BROTHERHOOD OF HUMANITY, THEOSOPHY IN
AMERICA, AND THE STUDY OF OCCULT
SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, AND
ARYAN LITERATURE.
Vol. I.—1886-’7.
PUBLISHED AND EDITED AT NEW YORK
BY WILLIAM Q. JUDGE.
1887.
Copyright 1887, by
WILLIAM Q. JUDGE.
THE PATH.
VOL. I, 1886-1887.

Table of Contents
No. 1 April 1886
No. 2 May
No. 3 June
No. 4 July
No. 5 August
No. 6 September
No. 7 October
No. 8 November
No. 9 December
No. 10 January 1887
No. 11 February
No. 12 March

INDEX.
A
PAGE
A Year on the Path 353
Activities in Theosophy 30, 32, 62, 64, 95, 96, 127, 158,
191, 223
Animal Magnetism and Star Colors 129
Announcement 288
Apollonius and Mahatmas 197, 274
AUM 4
B
Biogen Series 124
Body, Polarity of 84
Boehme, Jacob, on Soul of Man 149
Buddha’s Religion, Nature and Office of 24
C
Caballah of Old Testament 8, 103, 134
Chela’s Diary, Hindu 65, 97, 131, 169
Christianity, What is True 355
Common Sense of Theosophy 225
Corner Stone, The 215
Correspondence 59, 93, 95, 124, 188, 320
D
Diary of Hindu Chela 65, 97, 131, 169
E
Effects of Thought 341
Elementals and Elementary Spirits 289, 321
Environment 346
Evolution of Individual and Reticence of
Mahatmas
184
Evolution and Rotation 304

G
Gates of Gold, Through the 372
H
Heralds from the Unseen 361
Hermes Trismegistus 167
Hermetic Philosophy 87, 112, 281
Higher Life, Living the 114, 152
Hindu Chela’s Diary 65, 97, 131, 169
Hindu Symbolism 220, 251, 334, 371
Human Body, Polarity of 84
I
Individual Evolution 184, 304
Inworld and Outworld 56
K
Kaballah 8, 103, 134
Karma 175
L
Light on the Path 335
Lines from Lower Levels 263
Literary Notes 28, 55, 89, 92, 124, 156, 189, 222,
287, 319
Living the Higher Life 114, 152
M
Magic, Considerations on 377
Mahatmas and Apollonius 197, 274
„ Reticence of 184
„ Theosophical 257
Man, Soul of 149
Master, Teachings of, The 253, 278
Mohammedanism or Sufism 41, 68, 108, 139, 180, 199
Morals, Theosophic 161, 165
Musings on True Theosophist’s Path 155, 208, 339
Mystery of Numbers 37
N
Nature and Office of Buddha’s Religion 24
Numbers, Mystery of 37
O
Occultism, Poetical 211, 245, 270, 331, 383

Old Testament Caballah 8, 103, 134
P
Papyrus 359
Path, A Year on the 353
„ Light on the 335
„ The 188, 189
Plato 102
Poetry 56, 384
Poetical Occultism 211, 245, 270, 331, 383
Polarity of Human Body 84
Prophecy, Theosophical 27, 57
R
Reincarnation and Spirits 232, 320
Religion of Buddha 24
Reticence of Mahatmas 184
Reviews 28, 55, 89, 92, 124, 156, 189, 222,
287, 319
Rosicrucians, Society of 217
Rotation and Individual Evolution 304
S
Salutatory 1
Sanscrit Pronunciation 95
Seership 14
Singing Silences 144
Society of the Rosicrucians 217
Solitude, Thoughts in 308
Soul of Man 149
Spirits and Reincarnation, Theories About 232, 320
Studies in the Upanishads 33, 121
Sufism 41, 68, 108, 139, 180, 199
Symbolism, Hindu 220, 251, 334, 370
Symbolism, Theosophical 51
T
Tea Table Talk 284, 314, 348, 380
Teachings of The Master 253, 278
Theories About Reincarnation and Spirits 232, 320
Theosophic Morals 161, 165
Theosophical Activities 30, 32, 62, 64, 95, 96, 127, 158,
191, 222, 317

Theosophical Mahatmas 257
Theosophical Society, What is the 193, 300
Theosophical Symbolism 51
Theosophist’s Path, Musings on the True 155, 208, 339
Theosophy, Common Sense of 225
Thought Effects 341
Thoughts in Solitude 308, 367
Through the Gates of Gold 372
True Christianity, What is 355
U
Udgitha, What is the 61
Universal Unity 384
Unwritten Message Becomes Visible 93
Upanishads, Studies in the 33, 121
W
What is the Theosophical Society? 193, 300
What is True Christianity? 355
Unveil, O Thou who givest sustenance to the world, that face of the true
sun, which is now hidden by a vase of golden light! so that we may see the
truth, and know our whole duty.
In him who knows that all spiritual beings are the same in kind with the
Supreme Spirit, what room can there be for delusion of mind, and what room
for sorrow, when he reflects on the identity of spirit.—Yajur Veda.
THE PATH.

Vol. I. APRIL, 1886. No. 1.
The Theosophical Society, as such, is not responsible for any
opinion or declaration in this magazine, by whomsoever
expressed, unless contained in an official document.
Where any article, or statement, has the author’s name attached,
he alone is responsible, and for those which are unsigned, the Editor
will be accountable.
This magazine is not intended either to replace or to rival in
America The Theosophist, nor any other journal now published in
the interest of Theosophy.
Whether we are right in starting it the future alone will determine.
To us it appears that there is a field and a need for it in this country.
No cultivating of this field is necessary, for it is already ripe.
The Theosophist is the organ of the Theosophical Society, now
spread all over the civilized world, its readers and subscribers are
everywhere, and yet there are many persons who will not subscribe
for it although they are aware of its existence; and furthermore,
being an Indian publication, it necessarily follows, because of certain
peculiar circumstances, that it cannot be brought to the attention of
a large class of persons whom this journal will endeavor to reach.
But while the founders of The Path are Theosophists, they do not
speak authoritatively for the Theosophical Society. It is true that had
they never heard of Theosophy, or were they not members of the
Society, they would not have thought of bringing out this magazine,
the impulse for which arose directly from Theosophical teachings
and literature.
It is because they are men, and therefore interested in anything
concerning the human race, that they have resolved to try on the
one hand to point out to their fellows a Path in which they have

found hope for man, and on the other to investigate all systems of
ethics and philosophy claiming to lead directly to such a path,
regardless of the possibility that the highway may, after all, be in
another direction from the one in which they are looking. From their
present standpoint it appears to them that the true path lies in the
way pointed out by our Aryan forefathers, philosophers and sages,
whose light is still shining brightly, albeit that this is now Kali Yuga,
or the age of darkness.
The solution of the problem, “What and Where is the Path to
Happiness,” has been discovered by those of old time. They thought
it was in the pursuit of Raja Yoga, which is the highest science and
the highest religion—a union of both. In elaborating this, they wrote
much more than we can hope to master in the lifetime of this
journal, and they have had many kinds of followers, many devotees,
who, while earnestly desiring to arrive at truth, have erred in favor
of the letter of the teachings. Such are some of the mendicants of
Hindoostan who insist upon the verbal repetition of OM for
thousands of times, or upon the practice of postures and breathing
alone, forgetting that over all stands the real man, at once the
spectator of and sufferer by these mistakes. This is not the path.
At the same time we do not intend to slight the results arrived at
by others who lived within our own era. They shall receive attention,
for it may be that the mind of the race has changed so as to make it
necessary now to present truths in a garb which in former times was
of no utility. Whatever the outer veil, the truth remains ever the
same.
The study of what is now called “practical occultism” has some
interest for us, and will receive the attention it may merit, but is not
the object of this journal. We regard it as incidental to the journey
along the path. The traveller, in going from one city to another, has,
perhaps, to cross several rivers; may be his conveyance fails him and
he is obliged to swim, or he must, in order to pass a great mountain,
know engineering in order to tunnel through it, or is compelled to
exercise the art of locating his exact position by observation of the

sun; but all that is only incidental to his main object of reaching his
destination. We admit the existence of hidden, powerful forces in
nature, and believe that every day greater progress is made toward
an understanding of them. Astral body formation, clairvoyance,
looking into the astral light, and controlling elementals, is all
possible, but not all profitable. The electrical current, which when
resisted in the carbon, produces intense light, may be brought into
existence by any ignoramus, who has the key to the engine room
and can turn the crank that starts the dynamo, but is unable to
prevent his fellow man or himself from being instantly killed, should
that current accidentally be diverted through his body. The control of
these hidden forces is not easily obtained, nor can phenomena be
produced without danger, and in our view the attainment of true
wisdom is not by means of phenomena, but through the
development which begins within. Besides that, mankind in the mass
are not able to reach to phenomena, while every one can
understand right thought, right speech, and right action.
True occultism is clearly set forth in the Bhagavat-Gita, and Light
on the Path, where sufficient stress is laid upon practical occultism,
but after all, Krishna says, the kingly science and the kingly mystery
is devotion to and study of the light which comes from within. The
very first step in true mysticism and true occultism is to try to
apprehend the meaning of Universal Brotherhood, without which the
very highest progress in the practice of magic turns to ashes in the
mouth.
We appeal, therefore, to all who wish to raise themselves and
their fellow creatures—man and beast—out of the thoughtless jog
trot of selfish every-day life. It is not thought that Utopia can be
established in a day; but through the spreading of the idea of
Universal Brotherhood, the truth in all things may be discovered.
Certainly, if we all say that it is useless, that such highly strung,
sentimental notions cannot obtain currency, nothing will ever be
done. A beginning must be made, and has been by the Theosophical
Society. Although philanthropic institutions and schemes are

constantly being brought forward by good and noble men and
women, vice, selfishness, brutality and the resulting misery, seem to
grow no less. Riches are accumulating in the hands of the few, while
the poor are ground harder every day as they increase in number.
Prisons, asylums for the outcast and the magdalen, can be filled
much faster than it is possible to erect them. All this points
unerringly to the existence of a vital error somewhere. It shows that
merely healing the outside by hanging a murderer or providing
asylums and prisons, will never reduce the number of criminals nor
the hordes of children born and growing up in hot-beds of vice.
What is wanted is true knowledge of the spiritual condition of man,
his aim and destiny. This is offered to a reasonable certainty in the
Aryan literature, and those who must begin the reform, are those
who are so fortunate as to be placed in the world where they can
see and think out the problems all are endeavoring to solve, even if
they know that the great day may not come until after their death.
Such a study leads us to accept the utterance of Prajapati to his
sons: “Be restrained, be liberal, be merciful;” it is the death of
selfishness.
AUM!
The most sacred mystic syllable of the Vedas, is Aum. It is the first
letter of the Sanscrit alphabet, and by some it is thought to be the
sound made by a new born child when the breath is first drawn into
the lungs. The daily prayers of the Hindu Brahmin are begun and
ended with it, and the ancient sacred books say that with that
syllable the gods themselves address the most Holy One.
In the Chandogya Upanishad its praises are sung in these words:1
Let a man meditate on the syllable OM called the
udgitha,2 * * it is the best of all essences, the highest,

deserving the highest place, the eighth.
It is then commanded to meditate on this syllable as the breath,
of two kinds, in the body—the vital breath and the mere breath in
the mouth or lungs, for by this meditation come knowledge and
proper performance of sacrifice. In verse 10 is found: “Now,
therefore, it would seem to follow that both he who knows the true
meaning of OM, and he who does not, perform the same sacrifice.
But this is not so, for knowledge and ignorance are different. The
sacrifice which a man performs with knowledge, faith and the
Upanishad is more powerful.”
Outwardly the same sacrifice is performed by both, but that
performed by him who has knowledge, and has meditated on the
secret meaning of OM partakes of the qualities inhering in OM,
which need just that knowledge and faith as the medium through
which they may become visible and active. If a jeweler and a mere
ploughman sell a precious stone, the knowledge of the former bears
better fruit than the ignorance of the latter.
Shankaracharya in his Sharir Bhashya, dwells largely on OM, and
in the Vayu Purana, a whole chapter is devoted to it. Now as Vayu is
air, we can see in what direction the minds of those who were
concerned with that purana were tending. They were analyzing
sound, which will lead to discoveries of interest regarding the human
spiritual and physical constitution. In sound is tone, and tone is one
of the most important and deep reaching of all natural things. By
tone, the natural man, and the child, express the feelings, just as
animals in their tones make known their nature. The tone of the
voice of the tiger is quite different from that of the dove, as different
as their natures are from each other, and if the sights, sounds and
objects in the natural world mean anything, or point the way to any
laws underlying these differences, then there is nothing puerile in
considering the meaning of tone.
The Padma Purana says that: “The syllable OM is the leader of all
prayers; let it therefore be employed in the beginning of all prayers,”

and Manu, in his laws, ordains: “A Brahmin, at the beginning and
end of a lesson on the Vedas, must always pronounce the syllable
OM, for unless OM precede, his learning will slip away from him, and
unless it follows, nothing will be long retained.”
The celebrated Hindoo Raja, Ramohun Roy, in a treatise on this
letter, says:
“OM, when considered as one letter, uttered by the help of one
articulation, is the symbol of the Supreme Spirit. ‘One letter (OM) is
the emblem of the Most High, Manu II, 83.’ But when considered as
a triliteral word consisting of अ (a), उ (u), म (m), it implies the three
Vedas, the three states of human nature, the three divisions of the
universe, and the three deities—Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, agents in
the creation, preservation and destruction of this world; or, properly
speaking, the three principal attributes of the Supreme Being
personified in those three deities. In this sense it implies in fact the
universe controlled by the Supreme Spirit.”
Now we may consider that there is pervading the whole universe a
single homogeneous resonance, sound, or tone, which acts, so to
speak, as the awakener or vivifying power, stirring all the molecules
into action. This is what is represented in all languages by the vowel
a, which takes precedence of all others. This is the word, the
verbum, the Logos of St. John of the Christians, who says: “In the
beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the word
was God.”3 This is creation, for without this resonance or motion
among the quiescent particles, there would be no visible universe.
That is to say, upon sound, or as the Aryans called it, Nada Brahma
(divine resonance), depends the evolution of the visible from the
invisible.
But this sound a, being produced, at once alters itself into au, so
that the second sound u, is that one made by the first in continuing
its existence. The vowel u, which in itself is a compound one,
therefore represents preservation. And the idea of preservation is

contained also in creation, or evolution, for there could not be
anything to preserve, unless it had first come into existence.
If these two sounds, so compounded into one, were to proceed
indefinitely, there would be of course no destruction of them. But it
is not possible to continue the utterance further than the breath, and
whether the lips are compressed, or the tongue pressed against the
roof of the mouth, or the organs behind that used, there will be in
the finishing of the utterance the closure or m sound, which among
the Aryans had the meaning of stoppage. In this last letter there is
found the destruction of the whole word or letter. To reproduce it a
slight experiment will show that by no possibility can it be begun
with m, but that au invariably commences even the utterance of m
itself. Without fear of successful contradiction, it can be asserted
that all speech begins with au, and the ending, or destruction of
speech, is in m.
The word “tone” is derived from the Latin and Greek words
meaning sound and tone. In the Greek the word “tonos” means a
“stretching” or “straining.” As to the character of the sound, the
word “tone” is used to express all varieties, such as high, low, grave,
acute, sweet and harsh sounds. In music it gives the peculiar quality
of the sound produced, and also distinguishes one instrument from
another; as rich tone, reedy tone, and so on. In medicine, it
designates the state of the body, but is there used more in the
signification of strength, and refers to strength or tension. It is not
difficult to connect the use of the word in medicine with the divine
resonance of which we spoke, because we may consider tension to
be the vibration, or quantity of vibration, by which sound is
apprehended by the ear, and if the whole system gradually goes
down so that its tone is lowered without stoppage, the result will at
last be dissolution for that collection of molecules. In painting, the
tone also shows the general drift of the picture, just as it indicates
the same thing in morals and manners. We say, “a low tone of
morals, an elevated tone of sentiment, a courtly tone of manners,”
so that tone has a signification which is applied universally to either

good or bad, high or low. And the only letter which we can use to
express it, or symbolize it, is the a sound, in its various changes,
long, short and medium. And just as the tone of manners, of morals,
of painting, of music, means the real character of each, in the same
way the tones of the various creatures, including man himself, mean
or express the real character; and all together joined in the deep
murmur of nature, go to swell the Nada Brahma, or Divine
resonance, which at last is heard as the music of the spheres.
Meditation on tone, as expressed in this Sanscrit word OM, will
lead us to a knowledge of the secret Doctrine. We find expressed in
the merely mortal music the seven divisions of the divine essence,
for as the microcosm is the little copy of the macrocosm, even the
halting measures of man contain the little copy of the whole, in the
seven tones of the octave. From that we are led to the seven colors,
and so forward and upward to the Divine radiance which is the Aum.
For the Divine Resonance, spoken of above, is not the Divine Light
itself. The Resonance is only the outbreathing of the first sound of
the entire Aum. This goes on during what the Hindoos call a Day of
Brahma, which, according to them, lasts a thousand ages.4 It
manifests itself not only as the power which stirs up and animates
the particles of the Universe, but also in the evolution and
dissolution of man, of the animal and mineral kingdom, and of solar
systems. Among the Aryans it was represented in the planetary
system by Mercury, who has always been said to govern the
intellectual faculties, and to be the universal stimulator. Some old
writers have said that it is shown through Mercury, amongst
mankind, by the universal talking of women.
And wherever this Divine Resonance is closed or stopped by death
or other change, the Aum has been uttered there. These utterances
of Aum are only the numerous microcosmic enunciations of the
Word, which is uttered or completely ended, to use the Hermetic or
mystical style of language, only when the great Brahm stops the
outbreathing, closes the vocalization, by the m sound, and thus
causes the universal dissolution. This universal dissolution is known

in the Sanscrit and in the secret Doctrine, as the Maha Pralaya;
Maha being “the great,” and Pralaya “dissolution.” And so, after thus
arguing, the ancient Rishees of India said: “Nothing is begun or
ended; everything is changed, and that which we call death is only a
transformation.” In thus speaking they wished to be understood as
referring to the manifested universe, the so-called death of a
sentient creature being only a transformation of energy, or a change
of the mode and place of manifestation of the Divine Resonance.
Thus early in the history of the race the doctrine of conservation of
energy was known and applied. The Divine Resonance, or the au
sound, is the universal energy, which is conserved during each Day
of Brahma, and at the coming on of the great Night is absorbed
again into the whole. Continually appearing and disappearing it
transforms itself again and again, covered from time to time by a
veil of matter called its visible manifestation, and never lost, but
always changing itself from one form to another. And herein can be
seen the use and beauty of the Sanscrit. Nada Brahma is Divine
Resonance; that is, after saying Nada, if we stopped with Brahm,
logically we must infer that the m sound at the end of Brahm
signified the Pralaya, thus confuting the position that the Divine
Resonance existed, for if it had stopped it could not be resounding.
So they added an a at the end of the Brahm, making it possible to
understand that as Brahma the sound was still manifesting itself. But
time would not suffice to go into this subject as it deserves, and
these remarks are only intended as a feeble attempt to point out the
real meaning and purpose of Aum.
For the above reasons, and out of the great respect we entertain
for the wisdom of the Aryans, was the symbol adopted and placed
upon the cover of this magazine and at the head of the text. With us
OM has a signification. It represents the constant undercurrent of
meditation, which ought to be carried on by every man, even while
engaged in the necessary duties of this life. There is for every
conditioned being a target at which the aim is constantly directed.
Even the very animal kingdom we do not except, for it, below us,

awaits its evolution into a higher state; it unconsciously perhaps, but
nevertheless actually, aims at the same target.
“Having taken the bow, the great weapon, let him place on it the
arrow, sharpened by devotion. Then, having drawn it with a thought
directed to that which is, hit the mark, O friend—the Indestructible.
OM is the bow, the Self is the arrow, Brahman is called its aim. It is
to be hit by a man who is not thoughtless; and then as the arrow
becomes one with the target, he will become one with Brahman.
Know him alone as the Self, and leave off other words. He is the
bridge of the Immortal. Meditate on the Self as OM. Hail to you that
you may cross beyond the sea of darkness.”5
Hadji-Erinn.
AUM!
KABBALAH.
The Kabbalah was formerly a tradition, as the word implies, and is
generally supposed to have originated with the Jewish Rabbins. The
word is of Hebrew origin, but the esoteric science it represents did
not originate with the Jews; they merely recorded what had
previously been traditional.
The Kabbalah is a system of philosophy and theosophy, that was
obtained at a very remote period of time by the wise men of the
east, through the unfoldment of the intuitive perceptions.
Self consciousness forms the basis of mind, and knowledge is
acquired through the reception of activities from without, which are
recorded in consciousness; there are two sources through which
knowledge is received—one subjective, the other objective. The
former gives us a knowledge of the causal side of the cosmos, and

the latter, the objective or material side, which is the world of
effects, on account of being evolved from the former.
“The outward doth from the inward roll,
And the inward dwells in the inmost soul.”
If this be true, the great first cause—God, has evolved out of
Himself the esoteric or subjective world, in which He is to be found
manifested. Out of the subjective, by change of energy and
substance through law, He evolved the objective world. Therefore,
the antecedents of the objective are to be found in the unseen or
invisible portion of the universe. In a work we are preparing for the
press, which has been a study for over thirty years, we will show
what spirit is, that it is self-generating and self-sustaining, and from
it, through volition, the cosmos was evolved.
Do not understand by the above remark that spirit becomes
matter, through evolution, and that the universe is a huge Divine
Personality. We have too high a conception and reverence for Deity,
to suppose for an instant, that He became a material being through
the evolution of the universe. He is not in any manner personally
associated with either the esoteric or exoteric cosmos. Spirit is
distinct from matter but not from energy; energy is the source of
matter. It is therefore through energy and law that God is associated
with the universe. The law is His Providence, and His will the
executive. A miracle is an impossibility, for it requires a suspension of
the law upon which the universe is reared. To suspend this law for
one moment, would disarrange the harmony of the entire universe.
Therefore, the suspension of this unique law, which controls energy
in the production of substance and matter, would immediately
suspend evolution, and the entire universe and all that is associated
with it, would at once become disintegrated.
The Providential law, being one of harmony, applies to everything
outside of the spirit of God, and therefore cannot be violated with
impunity. The beauties of nature result from its harmony, and when
it is violated, discord ensues. We see this in nationalities, society,

Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!
textbookfull.com

Gender Differences in Computer and Information Literacy An In depth Analysis of Data from ICILS Eveline Gebhardt

More Related Content

Similar to Gender Differences in Computer and Information Literacy An In depth Analysis of Data from ICILS Eveline Gebhardt (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Gender Differences in Computer and Information Literacy An In depth Analysis of Data from ICILS Eveline Gebhardt