Proposal of a Framework for the Assessment of ICT Literacy and
Examining the Structure of High School Students’ ICT Literacy:
A Case of Turkey
Feriha Soysal, Erman Coşkun and Büşra Alma
Department of Management Information Systems, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey
Keywords: Information, Information Communication Technologies (ICT) Literacy, Information Literacy, Education,
Information Technologies.
Abstract: Development levels of societies are highly correlated with the efficiency in usage of information and
communication technologies between people belonging to those particular societies. For this reason, this study
aims to investigate ICT literacy levels of high school students, to find out the general profile in terms of
literacy levels and to reveal the students’ internet usage purposes according to their ICT literacy levels. So as
to achieve this goal a questionnaire developed by the researchers was conducted among the students at their
9
th
, 10
th
, 11
th
and 12
th
levels of study. Sample of the study encompassed different types of high schools in the
Sakarya province of Turkey including Anatolian High School, Science High School, Vocational & Technical
High School, Private Anatolian High School and Sports School. Students were questioned so as to determine
their ICT literacy levels and to find out reasons behind their internet usage by means of variables representing
school type, gender, level of study (9, 10, 11, 12), average success score and frequency of usage. As a result,
even though the purpose of internet usage demonstrated a common trend among groups having different levels
of ICT literacy, priorities for the usage of internet changed among different levels.
1 INTRODUCTION
Information & communication technologies (ICT)
literacy is the individuals’ possession of minimum
level of technology and communication usability
skills that makes their daily and business lives easier.
ICT literacy has been increasingly gaining
importance and it has even become a compromising
context for all other fields of science. Depending on
the fact that there is not any field that information
technologies are not used, people of this age have to
own sufficient levels of ICT literacy so as to handle
their activities easily and complete them in a short
time. Thus, it is necessary to determine the common
criteria and to establish standards for measuring the
ICT literacy. Nowadays, rapid changes in the
development of information technologies have
remarkably affected all sectors. In terms of producing
qualified work force for business world importance of
using IT in the field of education is getting more and
more important. Students of today which can be
classified as “digital locals” meet technology at
earlier ages compared to older generations and they
inevitably develop different abilities and thoughts
(Prensky, 2001). Education supported with IT
improves students’ ICT literacy skills as well.
Today’s students are capable of doing multiple
activities by using a single technological tool (Yildiz,
2012), they are skilful in terms of handling new
technologies and they are eager to use them. Such a
student profile forces educational institutions or any
other decision makers to adapt state of the art
educational models (Arabaci and Polat, 2013).
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Based on the Alexandria Proclamation of 2005 and
UNESCO’s Information for All Programme (IFAP),
information literacy is basically defined as the ability
of people to know their information requirements and
to assess information quality. Moreover, it means
holding, revealing information, using it effectively
and in an ethical manner and implementing it in order
to develop and disseminate knowledge (Catts and
Lau, 2008). Bruce (2002) as cited by Virkus (2003)
276
Soysal, F., Co¸skun, E. and Alma, B.
Proposal of a Framework for the Assessment of ICT Literacy and Examining the Structure of High School Students’ ICT Literacy: A Case of Turkey.
DOI: 10.5220/0006272202760283
In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2017) - Volume 1, pages 276-283
ISBN: 978-989-758-239-4
Copyright © 2017 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

expressed information literacy as a context that
arrived with the emergence of information
technologies in 1970s. In addition to this, it is the
underlying and required literacy for our century as
technology is continuously evolving, becoming more
complex and new technologies are emerging. Thus,
information literacy constitutes the basis of learning
in this complex and dynamic environment (Bruce,
2002). Moreover, according to Owusu and Ansah
(2003) as cited by Anunobi and Ukwoma (2016)
providing education by solely giving structured
knowledge to the students is not acceptable anymore.
Their processes of acquisition and production of new
knowledge should be maintained and espousal of
lifelong learning should be provided. In order to
achieve this, equipping students with experiences and
capabilities for investigating new knowledge,
conducting research and navigating properly are
remarkably important (Anunobi and Ukwoma, 2016).
All over the world, in the field of education there
is an increasing trend on getting maximum benefit
from information and communication mechanisms by
means of integrating them into learning processes.
Enhancement in the level of ICT skills through
practices and experiences is aimed which contributes
to transfer these skills to any other fields of life as
well (Bruce, 2002).
Regarding the computer literacy, researchers have
studied the concept from different aspects and defined
various types of skills to portray a computer literate
individual. Simon et al. (1987) as cited by Oliver and
Tomei (2000) defined computer literacy as having
insight into computer characteristics, abilities,
practices, implementations and owning capability of
transferring this knowledge in terms of efficient usage
of computer implementations. However, the last
decade has experienced significant advancements in
communication technologies era which caused the
evolution of computer literacy concept. Gilster (1997)
as cited in Oliver and Tomei (2000) expressed that
changes in technology diversified notions of
computer literacy and many concepts associated with
computer literacy occurred such as information
technology literacy, digital literacy, online literacy or
net literacy. In the matter of information and
communication technology (ICT) literacy, the term
represents a wider framework stemmed from the
requirement of technology usage for obtaining
information and using it in a productive manner.
Using internet, world-wide-web and e-mail for
searching of information, sharing and communicating
are parts of ICT literacy (Oliver and Tomei, 2000).
Lau and Yuen (2014) stated that although there are
various terminologies for digital literacy it is basically
concerned with internet and computer literacy.
Markauskaite (2007) examined the level of ICT
literacy of trainee teachers based on information
literacy and digital literacy. Researcher determined
the main components of assessment to be the
cognitive capabilities and technical capabilities.
Cognitive capabilities involved problem solving and
communication and meta-cognition whereas
technical capabilities involve basic computer and
internet related capabilities. Educational Testing
Service (2007) developed a tool compromising
technical and cognitive sites of ICT literacy for
assessing ICT literacy levels. Taking into
consideration these arguments ICT literacy can be
considered as a generic term that includes information
literacy, computer literacy and internet literacy (Lau
and Yuen, 2014).
Many researchers have investigated ICT literacy
in education field and comprehensive tools assessing
both information and technology aspects have been
used. For instance, by means of ETS’s iSkills tool
ICT literacy levels of junior students were evaluated
and necessary precautions were taken in terms of
course contents (Somerville, Smith and Macklin,
2008). Again the same tool was used by Katz and
Mackin (2007) in 30 universities in U.S. to validate
the measurement tool and to improve ICT literacy.
“IEA International Computer and Literacy Study
(ICILS)”, “Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) Digital Reading Assessment” and
“Assessment and Teaching of 21
st
Century Skills
(AT21CS)” are other broad ICT literacy evaluation
mechanisms (Global Education Monitoring Report,
2016). Oliver and Towers (2000) studied on ICT
literacy of students depending on computer, software-
application, internet and www skills and developed a
measurement tool. Moreover, Dijk and Deursen
(2014) evaluated ICT literacy merely focusing on
internet skills.
This research developed a measurement tool on
ICT literacy of high school students in the wider
context of ICT literacy which integrates information,
computer and internet skills for evaluation.
3 METHODOLOGY
This study aims to measure ICT literacy of high
school students and to analyze differences among
students based on variables such as school type,
gender, level of study, average school success and
frequency of computer and internet usage. In the way
of accomplishment research questions of this study
were as follows:
Proposal of a Framework for the Assessment of ICT Literacy and Examining the Structure of High School Students’ ICT Literacy: A Case
of Turkey
277

What are the ICT literacy levels of students?
Is there a meaningful difference in ICT literacy
levels according to school type?
Is there a meaningful difference in ICT literacy
levels according to gender?
Is there a meaningful difference in ICT literacy
levels according to level of study?
Is there a meaningful difference in ICT literacy
levels according to average school success?
Is there a meaningful difference in ICT literacy
levels according to frequency of internet usage?
Is there a meaningful difference in purposes for
internet usage according to ICT literacy levels?
Under the quantitative research paradigm a
questionnaire was conducted in order to explore
necessary information.
Regarding the sample of the study, students in the
9
th
, 10
th
, 11
th
and 12
th
classes of four different types of
high schools were chosen. Three dimensions
compromising basic skills, office skills and internet
skills were identified to assess the ICT literacy levels
of students.
Measurement tool constructed by the researchers
was at first used for a pilot study in order to readjust
the scale. After examination of results it was accepted
for implementation. Participants were compromised
of 1000 students and 477 responses were obtained
representing a response rate of 47.7%.
The questionnaire encompassed questions about
demographic information of students (6 questions),
IT ownership (smart phone, tablet, laptop, desktop
computer and internet), frequency of internet usage,
most preferred tools for connecting to internet (5
questions), computer and internet usability skills (10
questions), purposes for internet usage (17 questions)
and attitudes in internet usage (28 questions).
According the reliability analyses, Cronbach
alpha values measuring the purposes for internet
usage (14
th
section) and attitudes in internet usage
(15
th
section) were 0,825 and 0,916, respectively.
Depending on the fact that Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Measure of Sampling Adequacy value (0,917)
represented the applicability of factor analysis, for the
15
th
section factor analysis was implemented and six
factors were obtained.
4 FINDINGS & RESULTS
Depending on the descriptive analysis on the data of
questionnaire results findings about the ownership of
information technology are represented in Table 1.
Table 1: Information technologies ownership.
Ratio
Total
N
%
N
%
Ownerships
Desktop computer
268
56,2
477
Laptop
316
66,2
Tablet
304
63,7
Smart phone
452
94,8
Internet-yes-limited
53
11,3
471
100
Internet-yes-limitless
324
68,7
Internet-no
94
20
Tools mostly used for internet connection
Smart phone
369
78,30
471
Tablet
20
4,20
Laptop
49
10,30
Desktop computer
33
6,90
Frequency of Internet Usage
Less than 2 hours/per day
215
45,90
468
100
2-8 hours every day
189
40,40
8-12 hours every day
31
6,60
One day/per week
33
7,10
As seen in the table percentage of smart phone owners
represents an extremely high number (94.8%).
Percentages of desktop computer owners, laptop
owners and tablet owners are 56.2%, 66.2% and
63.7%, respectively. With regard to internet owners
total percentage is 80%. The highest percentage in
terms of internet usage frequency is observed among
the group using the internet less than 2 hours per day
by 45.5%.
4.1 Calculation of the ICT Literacy
Score of Students
In the case of calculation of information literacy the
methodology is as follows:
The dimensions of “Basic skills”, “office skills”
and “internet skills” were used to measure the ICT
literacy and scores were calculated accordingly.
For the office skills and internet skills 5-point
Likert-type scales were used whereas in the case of
basic skills a dichotomous scale was used and
respondents were asked to choose between 1:no,
2:yes for answering the questions. About internet
skills participants were asked about their level of
agreement to each item on a Likert scale (1:strongly
disagree, 2:disagree, 3:neither agree nor disagree,
4:agree, 5:strongly agree). As a result for basic skills
minimum score was expected to be 6 while maximum
score was expected to be 12. For office skills scores
were supposed to be (min= 4, max=20) and for
internet skills (min=11, max=55). For an explicit
rating both basic and office skills were calculated
over 55 points. Formulation is represented below:
CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
278

SOIL: Score of ICT literacy: T
BSS: Score of basic skills: x
OSS: Score of office skills: y
ISS: Score of internet skills: z
𝑇 =
55
12
. 𝑥 +
55
20
. 𝑦 + 𝑧
minT =
55
12
. 6 +
55
20
. 4 + 11 = 49.5
Maximum score maxT=55.3=165
MaxT-MinT=165-49.5=115.5
Difference among degrees=115.5:5=23.10
49.50-72.60: Very Low
72.61-95.71: Low
95.72-118.82: Moderate
118.83-141.93: High
141.94-165.00: Very High
Using these formulations ICT literacy levels of
schools are demonstrated in Table 2
Table 2: ICT literacy score according to high schools.
High Schools
ICT Literacy
Score (SOIL)
4
Özel Şahin Private
Anatolian H.S.
138.5538
2
Sakarya S&T H.S.
131.6231
1
Sakarya Anatolian H.S.
130.0032
5
Sakarya Sports H.S.
124.1667
3
Serdivan-F. Mesleki ve
Teknik A.L.
122.0019
Mean
129.1759
Max. score
165
Min. score
49.5
1: Sakarya Anatolian High School, 2: Sakarya Science
High School, 3: Serdivan Farabi Vocational & Technical
High School, 4: Ozel Sahin Private Anatolian High School
5: Sakarya Sports High School
Examination of the data in the table reveals that
although order of schools did not change in terms of
office skills, internet skills and ICT literacy skills of
students, for the assessment of basic skills ranks of
school 4 and school 1 changes place based on their
scores. In order to get if there is a meaningful
difference between schools in terms of information
literacy scores One-way Anova analysis was
conducted and Test of Homogeneity of Variance
showed that variances were homogeneous
(p=0,129>0.05). As p=0.000<0.05 for the Anova Test
it was accepted that there were differences.
Tamhane’s T2 test results exhibited that there were
meaningful differences among (school 1 and 4),
(school 2 and 3), (school 3 and 4), (school 4 and 5).
Table 3 demonstrates ICT literacy scores based on
gender.
Table 3: ICT literacy score according to gender.
Gender
Mean
N
Standard dev.
Min
Max
Male
130.334
189
21.140
60.08
165
Female
127.833
163
17.387
65.5
160
Total
129.176
352
19.506
60.08
165
Although ICT literacy score (SOIL) was found higher
for males, Independent Samples Test results exhibited
that variances were not homogeneous (p=0.22<0.05).
Moreover, Sig.(2-tailed) result showed that there was
no meaningful difference in SOIL according to
gender.
Table 4: ICT literacy score according to levels of study.
Level
Mean
N
Standard dev.
Min.
Max.
9
126.30
127
21.227
60.08
165
10
131.38
106
19.413
65.50
165
11
131.17
66
18.689
75.08
165
12
129.25
50
15.773
99.00
160.25
Mean
129.19
349
19.555
60.08
165
One Way Anova analysis displayed that there was not
a significant relationship among SOIL and the level
of study. Although, Test of Homogeneity of Variance
showed that variances were homogeneous
(p=0.154>0.05), there were not meaningful
differences among levels of study (p=0.188>0.05)
according to Anova test. Analysis results of SOIL
according to TEOG Score are summarized in Table 5.
TEOG is a central exam for entrance to high schools
in Turkey. For the students that are at the 9
th
level of
study Table 5 presents the analysis results which
examines the relationship between TEOG score and
SOIL
Table 5: ICT literacy score according to TEOG score.
Mean
N
Standard dev.
Min.
Max.
1
112.69
16
24.546
60.08
165
2
121.82
32
20.109
74.5
151.75
3
131.38
9
10.188
115.25
144.25
4
130.96
72
20.283
86.25
165
M.
126.45
129
21.105
60.08
165
1: TEOG score between (100-200), 2: TEOG score between
(201-300), 3: TEOG score between (301-400), 4: TEOG
score between (401-500)
Table 5 proves that SOIL values of students increased
based on TEOG scores. However, the group having
TEOG score between (301-400) demonstrated a
higher SOIL compared to the group having TEOG
score between (401-500). One Way Anova test results
Proposal of a Framework for the Assessment of ICT Literacy and Examining the Structure of High School Students’ ICT Literacy: A Case
of Turkey
279

showed that variances were homogeneous
(p=0.073>0.05) and depending on the the Anova test
(p=0.006<0.05) it was accepted that there were
meaningful differences.
Table 6 below shows the statistical analysis`
results of students in their 10
th
, 11
th
and 12
th
levels of
study, their average scores on school success and the
ICT literacy scores of students.
Table 6: ICT literacy score according to average school
success score.
Mean
N
Standard dev.
Minimum
Maximum
1
105.19
3
24.741
79.75
129.17
2
119.84
27
18.430
70.83
154
3
132.77
12
10.805
107.25
148.42
4
129.83
32
21.604
75.08
165
5
132.19
80
18.314
65.5
165
6
134.37
63
15.463
103.75
162.25
mean
130.60
217
18.429
65.5
165
1: (0-49.99), 2: (50-59.99), 3: (60-69.99), 4: (70-79.99), 5:
(80-89.99), 6: (90-100) (Intervals represent average
success score of students)
Average school success increased with SOIL with the
exception of students having success scores among
70-79.99. As One-Way Anova test results exhibited
homogeneity of variances (p=0.184>0.05), Tukey test
was performed. SOIL differed according to average
success score of students based on Anova results
(p=0.002<0.005).
Table 7: ICT literacy score according to frequency of
internet usage.
Mean
N
Std.dev.
Min.
Max.
1
129.63
160
18.666
74.5
165
2
128.95
144
19.778
60.08
165
3
136.85
21
18.046
97.83
165
4
125.03
22
19.599
70.83
157
mean
129.49
347
19.199
60.08
165
1: Less than 2 hrs, 2: (2-8) hrs everyday, 3: (8-12) hrs
everyday 4: Once/week (Categorization for frequency of
internet/computer usage)
Analysis results above demonstrates that SOIL of
students using internet/computer only once a week
had lower SOIL than the ones using the internet for
(8-12) hours every day. It is meaningful that (8-12)
hours of internet usage results in higher SOIL. When
the data was analysed for a meaningful difference,
(p=0.783>0.05) showed that variances were
homogeneous and Anova test represented that SOIL
did not showed difference based on the frequency of
internet usage.
Table 8: ICT literacy levels.
N
%
Very low
1
1
0.3
Low
2
35
10.0
Moderate
3
162
46.2
High
4
148
42.2
Very high
5
5
1.4
Total
351
100
Greatest number of students fell under the moderate
and high level of ICT literacy categories by
constituting 46.2% and 42.2% of entire students.
The next step of analyzes was to assess ICT
literacy levels according to school types and Table 9
portrays these findings.
Table 9: ICT literacy levels according to schools.
ICT Literacy Levels
T
2
3
4
5
1
N
12
48
43
1
104
%
34.30
29.60
29.10
20.00
29.60
2
N
5
41
40
2
88
%
14.30
25.30
27.00
40.00
25.10
3
N
15
42
28
1
87
%
42.90
25.90
18.90
20.00
24.80
4
N
0
17
30
1
48
%
0.00
10.50
20.30
20.00
13.70
5
N
3
14
7
0
24
%
8.60
8.60
4.70
0.00
6.80
T
N
35
162
148
5
351
%
100
100
100
100
100
1: Sakarya Anatolian High School, 2: Sakarya Science
High School, 3: Serdivan Farabi Vocational & Technical
High School, 4: Ozel Sahin Private Anatolian High School
5: Sakarya Sports High School
Serdivan Farabi Vocational & Technical High School
(42.9%) had the highest number of students
belonging to “Very Low” category in terms of ICT
literacy. Ozel Sahin Private Anatolian High School
did not have any students having “Very Low” and
“Low” levels of ICT literacy. In the case of Sakarya
Anatolian High School the highest number of
students had “Moderate” level of ICT literacy.
Moreover, in Sakarya Anatolian High School
percentage of students having “High” level of ICT
literacy was more than other schools’ percentages of
the same category (29.1%).
Table 10 displays ICT literacy levels based on
TEOG score.
CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
280

Table 10: ICT literacy levels according to TEOG score.
ICT literacy levels
T
2
3
4
5
1
N
5
9
2
0
16
%
33.3
14.5
4.0
0.0
12.4
2
N
3
19
10
0
32
%
20.0
30.6
20.0
0.0
24.8
3
N
1
6
2
0
9
%
6.7
9.7
4.0
0.0
7.0
4
N
6
28
36
2
72
%
40.0
45.2
72.0
100
55.8
T
N
15
62
50
2
129
%
100
100
100
100
100
1: TEOG score between (100-200), 2: TEOG score between
(201-300), 3: TEOG score between (301-400), 4: TEOG
score between (401-500)
Table 11: ICT literacy levels according to average success
score at school.
ICT literacy levels
T
2
3
4
5
1
N
1
2
0
0
3
%
5.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
2
N
5
13
7
1
26
%
25.0
13.1
7.5
33.3
12.0
3
N
1
7
4
0
12
%
5.0
7.1
4.3
0.0
5.6
4
N
5
12
14
0
32
%
25.0
12.1
15.1
0.0
14.8
5
N
7
34
39
0
80
%
35.0
34.3
41.9
0.0
37.0
6
N
1
31
29
2
63
%
5.0
31.3
31.2
66.7
29.2
T
N
20
99
93
3
216
%
100
100
100
100
100
1: (0-49.99), 2: (50-59.99), 3: (60-69.99), 4: (70-79.99), 5:
(80-89.99), 6: (90-100) (Intervals represent average
success score of students)
Findings of the Table 11 display ICT literacy levels
of students based on their average success scores at
school. Students having average success scores
between 80-89.99 achieved the highest percentage in
the category of “High Level” ICT literacy by 41.9%
and the same pattern was observed among other
groups as well. Since, it can be concluded that ICT
literacy levels increased by average success grades of
students.
Table 12 shows internet usage` purposes of
students which belong to each particular level of ICT
literacy.
Table 12: Reasons for using the internet.
ICT literacy levels
2
3
4
5
Social media
N
21
107
111
4
%
60
66.9
75
80
T
35
160
148
5
Checking the e-
mail account
N
7
37
42
1
%
21.2
23
28.6
20
T
33
161
147
5
Chatting
N
0
3
%
47.1
63.1
72.3
60
T
34
160
148
5
Playing online
games
N
12
44
51
1
%
34.3
27.5
35.2
20
T
35
160
145
5
Searching for
course related
activities
N
13
64
66
4
%
37.1
39.8
44.6
80
T
35
161
148
5
Listening to
music
N
23
123
115
4
%
67.6
76.4
77.7
80
T
34
161
148
5
Watching
film/video
N
15
107
102
3
%
42.9
66.5
70.3
60
T
35
161
145
5
Shopping
N
7
35
30
0
%
20
21.9
20.5
0
T
35
160
146
6
Research
N
18
61
66
2
%
52.9
37.9
45.2
40
T
34
161
146
5
Following the
news
N
12
63
61
3
%
34.3
39.6
41.2
60
T
35
159
148
5
Entering to e-
learning system
of the school
N
14
64
58
3
%
41.2
39.8
39.2
60
T
34
161
148
5
Entering to e-
governent
system
N
4
12
10
1
%
11.8
7.5
6.8
20
T
34
161
146
5
Entering to e-
health system
N
5
20
20
1
%
14.3
12.4
13.6
20
T
35
161
147
5
Joining to chat
rooms/live
forums
N
4
21
19
2
%
11.8
13.1
12.8
40
T
34
160
148
5
Based on the data in Table 12, most widely indicated
purposes were summarized and a short table showing
the priority of internet usage` purposes among
different ICT literacy levels was constructed.
Proposal of a Framework for the Assessment of ICT Literacy and Examining the Structure of High School Students’ ICT Literacy: A Case
of Turkey
281

Table 13: Major reasons for using the internet.
ICT literacy levels
2
3
4
5
Listening to music
1
1
1
3
Social media
2
2
2
1
Research
3
9
6
3
Chatting
5
4
3
4
Watching film/video
6
3
4
5
Entering to e-learning
system of the school
7
7
9
9
Searching for course
related activities
8
6
7
2
Playing online games
9
10
Following the news
10
8
8
6
The first reason for using the internet was “listening
to music” for students having low, moderate and high
levels of ICT literacy whereas the third reason was
“doing research” for students having low and very
high level of literacy. However, “doing research for
my courses” was identified to be the second reason
for students in the fifth group. This data pattern
showed that all students used the internet nearly for
the same purposes although the priorities of each
group altered.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Nowadays based on the fact that ICT literacy level of
individuals has been gradually increasing, today’s
high school students as well as the others have to
achieve very high levels of ICT literacy to adapt the
dynamic environment and rapidly changing
circumstances. This study’s findings demonstrate that
percentage of owners of smart phones which is 94.8%
is extremely high and the smart phone is the most
prevalent tool for connecting to the internet. The
percentage of internet ownership among households
is 80% which also demonstrates a high number. In the
matter of ICT literacy, SOIL differs according to
school type and the highest scores are achieved by
students of the Private High School and Science &
Technology High School. Concerning the gender
there is no difference between males and females, and
also for different levels of study (9
th
, 10
th
, and 11
th
,
12
th
) ICT literacy score does not express meaningful
differences. Nevertheless, ICT literacy score changes
according to TEOG score and average success score
of students. Another criterion that ICT literacy score
does not exhibit difference is the frequency of internet
usage. Finally, there is a trend among students for
using the internet for similar reasons although the
priorities change based on literacy levels.
ICT literacy is the combination of technical
literacy skills and information literacy skills.
Availability of information, speed of access to the
information, information sources and types have
changed significantly which changed the way people
search, learn and work. In order to be successful it is
not enough having only technical capabilities, it is
also necessary to have skills of transferring them and
using in information society. This is undoubtedly true
for students and educators as well.
According to the findings of our study it is
observed that there are significant differences in
terms of ICT literacy of students among different
school types which may be considered as the
reflection of poor integration of IT in learning
activities and curriculum. For this reason, integrating
information and communication technologies and
associated mechanisms to the learning processes,
supporting research and projects that require usage of
these technologies are critically important.
REFERENCES
Anunobi, C. V. and Ukwoma, S. (2016). Information
literacy in Nigerian universities trends, challenges and
opportunities. New Library World, 117 (5/6).
Bakır Arabacı, İ., Polat, M. (2013). Dijital Yerliler, Dijital
Göçmenler ve Sınıf Yönetimi. Electronic Journal of
Social Sciences, 12(47), 11-20.
Bruce, C. (2004). Information literacy as a catalyst for
educational change. a background paper. “Lifelong
Learning: Whose responsibility and what is your
contribution?”, the 3rd International Lifelong
Learning Conference, Yeppoon, Queensland.
Catts R. and Lau, J., (2008). Towards Information Literacy
Indicators. UNESCO. Retrieved November 2, 2016,
from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/
documents/towards-information-literacy-indicators-
08-infolit-en_0.pdf.
Global Education Monitoring Report, (2016). A global
measure of digital and ICT literacy skills, UNESCO.
Retrieved November 1, 2016, from http://unesdoc.
unesco.org/images/0024/002455/245577E.pdf.
Deursen, A. J. A. M. and Dijk, J. A. G. M., (2014). “Digital
İnequality”, Unlocking the Information Society, July
2014, Publischer: Palgrave Macmillan.
Educational Testing Service, (2007). Digital
Transformation, A Framework for ICT Literacy, A
Report of the International ICT Literacy Panel.
Retrieved November 1, 2016, from https://
www.ets.org/Media/Tests/Information_and_Communi
cation_Technology_Literacy/ictreport.pdf.
CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
282

Yıldız, A. K. (2012). Dijital Yerliler Gerçekten Yerli Mi
Yoksa Dijital Melez Mi? JASSS International Journal
of Social Science. 5(7), 819-833.
Katz, I. R. and Macklın, A. S. (2007), Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) Literacy:
Integration and Assessment in Higher Education,
Systemıcs. Cybernetıcs And Informatıcs, 5(4).
Lau, W. W. F. and Yuen, A. H. K., 2014, Developing and
validating of a perceived ICT literacy scale for junior
secondary school students: Pedagogical and
educational contributions. Computers & Education, 78,
1-9.
Markauskaite, L., 2007. Exploring The Structure of Trainee
Teacher's ICT Literacy: The Main Components of, and
Relationships Between, General Cognitive and
Technical Capabilities. Educational Technology,
Research and Development, 55, 547–572.
Oliver, R. and Tomei, L. (2000). Information and
Communications Technology Literacy: Getting Serious
About IT. Paper presented at the Proceedings of ED-
MEDIA 2000. World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications.
Virginia.
Oliver, R. and Towers, S. (2000) Benchmarking ICT
literacy in tertiary learning settings. In Learning to
choose: Choosing to learn. Proceedings of the 17th
Annual ASCILITE Conference, pp. 381-390.
Prensky, M., (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants
From On the Horizon MCB, University Press, 9(5).
Somerville, M. M., Smith, G. W. and Macklin, A. S.,
(2008), The ETS İskillstm Assessment: A Digital Age
Tool, The Electronic Library, 26(2), 158-171.
Virkus, S. (2003). Information Literacy in Europe: A
Literature. Inf. Res, 8(4), 1-56.
Proposal of a Framework for the Assessment of ICT Literacy and Examining the Structure of High School Students’ ICT Literacy: A Case
of Turkey
283