2022-03-22-未知机构-探索数字成熟度在学校研究报告_114页_1mb

Summary of "Education Technology: Exploring Digital Maturity in Schools" Research Report

Core Content

This report, commissioned by the Department for Education (DfE) and conducted by CooperGibson Research (CGR), explores the concept of digital maturity in schools in England using data from the Education Technology Survey 2020-21. The survey aimed to understand the current use and readiness of technology across primary and secondary schools, and the report builds on this data to develop a digital maturity metric and examine its relationship with pupil attainment.

Main Objectives

• To develop a digital maturity metric based on survey data.
• To explore the characteristics of schools with high, medium, and low digital maturity.
• To investigate the relationship between digital maturity and pupil attainment.
• To conduct qualitative interviews to gain deeper insights into schools' experiences with technology.

Key Findings

Digital Maturity Metric

• The metric was developed using three pillars: Technology, Capability, and Strategy.
• Each pillar includes specific indicators:
  • Technology: Connectivity, infrastructure, cloud readiness, hardware, and software.
  • Capability: Staff training, technology suitability, staff confidence, and access to ICT expertise.
  • Strategy: Strategic planning, investment in technology, and change management.
• The scoring system assigns values between 0 and 1 to each question, with 1 representing the most digitally mature response and 0 the least.
• Schools were classified into three digital maturity tiers: High, Medium, and Low.

Digital Maturity Tiers

• 9% of schools were classified as highly digitally mature.
• 31% were categorized as low digitally mature.
• The remaining 60% were moderately digitally mature.
• Low digitally mature schools were more likely to be in rural areas, primary schools, local authority-maintained schools, or with a 'good' Ofsted rating.
• High digitally mature schools were more likely to be in urban areas or secondary academies.

Relationship with Pupil Attainment

• Statistically significant correlations were found between digital maturity pillar scores and Key Stage 2 (KS2) attainment measures for primary schools.
• However, correlations were generally small, indicating that while there is some association, it may not be strong or meaningful.
• The technology pillar had the lowest correlation with KS2 attainment.
• No significant correlations were found between Key Stage 4 (KS4) attainment measures and digital maturity pillars, likely due to the limited sample size (146 secondary schools).

Confounding Variables

• Pupil characteristics and school profile variables were identified as potential confounding factors in the relationship between digital maturity and attainment.
• The capability and strategy pillars were found to have no evidence of confounding with profiling variables.

Qualitative Insights

• Highly digitally mature schools were more likely to have a formal technology strategy focused on improving pupil outcomes and meaningful classroom use.
• These schools demonstrated strong leadership support, staff buy-in, technical expertise, and reliable infrastructure.
• Low digitally mature schools faced budget and funding constraints, staff confidence issues, and challenges with cloud-based systems.
• Schools generally did not measure the impact of technology on pupil attainment, cost savings, or teacher workload, making it difficult to assess effectiveness.

Key Viewpoints

• Digital maturity is a multi-dimensional concept that requires a structured approach to measure.
• Technology adoption is not uniform across schools, with significant differences in readiness and implementation.
• School leadership and staff engagement are critical enablers of digital maturity.
• Funding and training are key barriers for schools with low digital maturity.
• The relationship between digital maturity and attainment is complex and may be influenced by other variables, requiring further research.

Critical Considerations

• The metric is exploratory and may not be fully valid or reliable.
• Methodological limitations include the retrospective design of the metric and the timing of the attainment data (collected at a different time from the survey).
• The survey data were not designed specifically as a measure of digital maturity, which may affect the accuracy of the metric.
• Further research is needed to develop a more robust and comprehensive measure of digital maturity.

Conclusion

• The report highlights that only 9% of schools are considered highly digitally mature, with 60% at a moderate level and 31% at a low level.
• While there is some correlation between digital maturity and pupil attainment, the relationship is not strong and confounding variables may play a significant role.
• The qualitative interviews provide valuable insights into the challenges and enablers of digital maturity, emphasizing the importance of leadership, funding, and training.
• The digital maturity metric serves as a useful tool for assessing progress, but further refinement and targeted research are required for a more accurate and actionable measure.