Schools with their ICT-related learning opportunities and instructional practices are seen as playing a major role in conveying computer- and information literacy (CIL). However, there are marked differences in ICT-related curricula, resources and teaching approaches between countries (Educational Testing Service, 2002; Kozma, 2008; Sturman & Sizmur, 2011). Although studies have generally found that school computer use is positively related to the acquisition of CIL (MCEECDYA, 2010; Warschauer, 2007) this general relation seems rather weak compared to other resources or learning opportunities, such as media use at home (MCEECDYA, 2010). Therefore, it can be assumed that specific instructional practices differ in their effectiveness for the acquisition of CIL. However, the impact of instructional practices on CIL learned at school has rarely been investigated at an international level. In the framework of ICILS, instructional practice is seen as process factor at the school/classroom level, which, together with individual student characteristics is supposed to have a direct impact on students’ CIL. Accordingly, previous analyses of the ICILS data have shown that overall computer use at school is in fact positively related with the level of CIL of students (Bos et al., 2014; Fraillon et al., 2014). Surprisingly, there is considerable variation between countries: While in some countries like Australia we find strong positive correlations, others show a much weaker or even a negative correlation between school computer use and CIL acquired (e. g. Poland, Germany). Using a multi-level approach, the present analysis seeks to understand these results by investigating the role various instructional practices might play in explaining these differences. In particular, the importance of digital tools, instructional practices and the emphasis given to the acquisition of various digital skills will be compared. The discussion will focus on indicators for effective instructional practices on an international level as well as national differences.

Bos, W., Eickelmann, B., Gerick, J., Goldhammer, F., Schaumburg, H., Schwippert, K., Senkbeil, M., Schulz-Zander, R. & Wendt, H. (2014). ICILS 2013 – Computer- und informationsbezogene Kompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern in der 8. Jahrgangsstufe im internationalen Vergleich. Münster: Waxmann. Educational Testing Service (ETS), (2002). Digital transformation: A framework for ICT literacy. Princeton, NJ: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/Information_ and_Communication_Technology_Literacy/ictreport.pdf Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedmann, T. & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a digital age. The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study. International Report. Springer. Kozma, R. (2008). Comparative analyses of policies for ICT in education. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in education (pp. 1083–1096). Berlin, Germany: Springer Science. Ministerial Council on Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA). (2010). National assessment program: ICT literacy Years 6 & 10 report 2008. Carlton South, VIC, Australia: Curriculum Corporation. (ERIC Document ED534805) Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu.au/verve/_ resources/2008_nap_ictl_public_report.pdf Sturman, L., & Sizmur, J. (2011). International comparison of computing in schools. Slough, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). Warschauer, M. (2007). Information literacy in the laptop classroom. Teacher College Record, 109 (11), 2511–2540.