A UK study conducted by the National Foundation for Educational Research (nfer), titled International Comparison of Computing in Schools, surveyed the cross–national implementation of ICT in education. The report looks at how computing is taught at school and explores how ‘ICT and Computing as a school subject in the 5-19 curriculum’ (p. 2) is taught in a small number of education systems. In particular, attention is given to the terminology and its implementation by each country and at the stages it is taught. Canada (Ontario), Finland, Japan, Montenegro, Serbia, Singapore and USA (Massachusetts), were selected for their range of experiences provided  as well as for their known ICT innovation and demonstration of good practice in the use of ICT and computing in the curricula.

The report covers three areas: curriculum and terminology, the status of ICT and computing, and curriculum content and ages expected to be taught.

Commonalities are identified in relation to curriculum and terminology, such as:

• In the earlier years, ICT is integrated with other learning and is being used as a tool across the curriculum.
• In the later stages of schooling ICT and Computing are taught as discrete subjects with a wide range of labels being used to describe the subject (p.4), including Technology and Home Economics; Information; Computer and Information Sciences; Computer Applications; Web Presentation and Informatics; Programming Algorithms; Technology and Society; and Information Technology.

What is of note is the absence of ICT and digital literacy from this list.

Systems in the report differ in how they treat ICT and Computing. In Massachusetts, for example, no national/state curriculum subject focuses solely on ICT and/or Computing and students are expected to use technology across the curriculum. Montenegro and Serbia offer a ‘discrete course comprising some compulsory and some elective modules’ (p.5). Flexibility in the application of the national curriculum is allowed in Finland and Japan as no particular ICT skills or knowledge is specified (p.7). However, what is obvious is the widespread use of computers as tools, whether integrated or discrete as a separate subject.

 In short, key findings of this study highlight variability in ICT and computing education internationally, as well as some areas of commonality. The small sample of countries surveyed provides a snapshot into the provision of the teaching of ICT and the approach some systems have opted to adopt. It does not comment on the pros or cons of either method (ICT integrated across the curriculum or taught as a discrete subject) and no judgement is made by the authors. Also, no consideration is given to the use of ICT, skills and knowledge of students outside formal education. Nevertheless, this small-scale comparative study provides useful background for those interested in the framing and implementation of the Australian Curriculum and its treatment of ICT.

The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) released a report Online K-12 Schooling in the U.S. addressing many issues about online education. It included issues such as, ‘what the research says’ about online learning, its effectiveness, expenditure, quality and the entry of commercial interests. This detailed and in-depth review about online K-12 education in the U.S. is important because virtual education issues may be reflected in other countries now or in the future.

Even though ‘virtual schooling has become the fastest growing alternative to traditional K-12 education in the United states’ (p. 3), full-time virtual schooling is prohibited in over twenty states although ‘virtual education to supplement traditional schooling’ is allowed. ‘By the year 2011, approximately 40 states operated or authorized online schools that students may attend full or part time’ (p. 3). Online K-12 Schooling in the U.S. summaries the research about online learning which finds that blended learning would appear to be marginally more effective than face-to-face or full-time online learning. However, there is no research comparing full-time face-to-face learning or blended learning with full-time online learning although ‘meta-analysis found that, on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction’ (p. 4). The limitations of the research are worth noting: ‘no study examined test performance over an extended period of time, none attempted to compare outcomes for virtual and traditional full-time schooling, and none looked at a complete curriculum’ (p. 5). Most research has been short term, focussed on standardised tests for reading and mathematics, and has been exclusively about supplementing traditional education.

Issues such as expenditure and equity of virtual schooling need to be carefully explored. For example, not much is known about ‘how full-time virtual school can or should serve special needs students’ (p. 5). The operating costs would appear to be similar for virtual schooling and traditional schooling although capital cost comparisons are not known. However, ‘size differences in virtual classes will also create economies of large-scale that greatly affect the bottom line’ (p. 6).

Quality education has become a major issue especially with commercial interests offering to provide virtual schooling. Issues such as teacher accreditation, authenticity of student work and reliable student credit will need to be taken into account to avoid diminution of quality. For example, outsourcing instructional functions to low paid workers in India has already occurred in one virtual school (p. 8) in the U.S. Another example may be about ensuring that student work in examinations is genuine which may require proctoring environments. Also, the possibility of online bullying needs to be taken into account because of the lack of face-to-face relationships and in addition, to achieve legitimacy, online schools will need to be accredited by reputable state or national agencies.

The entry of commercial interests into the schooling arena raises a number of critical issues such as regulation, oversight, the interests and care of students, cooperation with government especially by commercial lobbyists, corporate efficiencies and educational standards. Commercial services are not limited to the provision of courses and ‘extend to human resource services, student record keeping (maintaining test scores, attendance, and discipline records) and even teacher training’ (p. 12).

Online K-12 Schooling in the U.S. makes a number of important recommendations about virtual schooling and without diminishing the value of virtual education argues that, ‘The relatively unregulated operation of virtual schools by private or public entities has caused many professionals to approach the subject of virtual schooling with caution’ (p. 13).

Online K-12 Schooling in the U.S. is an important policy brief to read for educational decision makers considering virtual schooling.

A thorough meta-analysis about using technology to learn mathematics has been published by the Center for Research and Reform in Education at John Hopkins University in the US and is available from the Best Evidence Encyclopedia. The study, The Effectiveness of Educational Technology Applications for Enhancing Mathematics Achievement in K-12 Classrooms: A Meta-Analysis is comprehensive and detailed. The research findings contain no surprises and confirm what is already known by stating that, ‘The majority of reviews concluded that there were positive effects of educational technology on mathematics achievement’ (p. 3).

A comprehensive literature review of published papers and unpublished reports written between 1970 and 2011 located 700 studies for further scrutiny. Studies were included if they evaluated any type of technology, were K-12 focussed, used rigorous quantitative research methods, were undertaken for longer than 12 weeks and were replicable in schools. The cull of preliminary studies found 74 that qualified for ‘final analysis with a total sample size of 56,886 K-12 students: 45 elementary studies (N=31,555) and 29 secondary studies (N=25,331)’ (p. 11). The meta-analysis modelled variations for methodological differences and substantive features of the studies such as ‘grade levels, types of educational technology programs, program intensity, level of implementation and socio-economic status’ (p. 9). However, high quality experimental studies on the use of interactive whiteboards could not be found.

The study found that ‘educational technology had a more positive effect on elementary students than secondary students’ (p. 15) and that ‘supplemental technology programs produced the largest effect size’ (p15) provided that they were used for more than 30 minutes per week. No differences were found between schools serving low socio-economic status students and high socio-economic status students, and although in more recent years technology has become much more advanced ‘recent reviews are consistent in failing to find improvements over time in effects of technology on learning’ (19). This means that more sophisticated technologies and more teacher acceptance of technology in recent years has shown negligible further positive increases in the effect on learning. However, this is not a comment on the flexibility and convenience afforded by technology nor the capacity that technology enables to access learning resources.

The study, The Effectiveness of Educational Technology Applications for Enhancing Mathematics Achievement in K-12 Classrooms: A Meta-Analysis concludes that the issue that needs to be addressed in education is ‘how best to incorporate various educational technology applications into classroom settings’ (p. 20) and states that ‘educational technology is making a modest difference in [the] learning of mathematics’ (p. 20). This is a seminal study that confirms the beneficial use of technology for learning and emphasises the need for research into how best to use technology for learning.

Text messaging is short, simple, lacks contextual clues and can be quickly done at any time of the day or night and sent from a vast range of geographical locations. A recent literature review of research into the use of texting by students published by the Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology provides a very good summary of how texting is used by students and adults, and for teaching and learning. Text Messaging and Teenagers: A Review of the Literature succinctly summarises the scant findings in the literature from research about texting by teens, by adults referring to teachers, and in education. Although email is used for school and work (p. 87), texting is preferred for personal messages because it is fast, immediate, simple to use and for teenagers has become the ‘primary form of text-based communication’ (p. 87). Mobile phones can be taken anywhere including places like the bedroom, the classroom, public transport, cafes, meeting places and more. In fact, text messages can be sent from almost anywhere. Messages can and are sent surreptitiously (p. 87) almost as a regular part of teenagers’ lives, including in the classroom.

Text Messaging and Teenagers: A Review of the Literature reports that texting is done largely for practical reasons and foremost for maintaining friendships. A number of modes of communication are interchangeable such as using a fixed or mobile phone, chatting online, instant web messaging, face-to-face meetings and text messaging. Online conversations occur less frequently via text messaging and vendor advertisements sometimes invade teenagers’ online space even though advertisements have the potential to alienate teenagers.

Three findings are of interest to educators. Firstly, texting in bed can disrupt sleeping patterns (p. 89); secondly, texting in classrooms is common although mobile phones are tolerated in schools when they are switched off or they are banned from school altogether; and thirdly, ‘the prevalence of email, instant messaging and text messaging may be increasing students’ writing capabilities through sheer quantity’ (p. 89). DERN has previously reported on the benefits of using mobile phones in mathematics programs. Why then is text messaging not harnessed for learning by educators for use both in and outside of the school, especially as digital connectedness enables communication at anytime and anywhere?

Text messaging can be used in education for collaboration on a topic, for class and work reminders, for attendance purposes, in relation to library borrowing, event and sports reminders, on field trips, for polling issues, for teaching languages, for spelling, for quizzes, for student issues, to assist students, to communicate with parents and to send out notices, to name but a few. However, teachers do need to become familiar with the advantages and disadvantages of using text messaging in learning programs but the benefits of engaging students using their preferred mode of communication may be inestimable.

Text messaging is a simple, quick and immediate form of communication for teachers, parents, students and supporters of school learning programs. Simply restraining its use or banning text messaging in learning could be argued to be mindless. Text messaging is an area that requires further and deeper investigation in education in order to harness this type of communication and to engage the wider community of which the learner is part. Text Messaging and Teenagers: A Review of the Literature is an excellent and well written summary of the research so far, that could help educators to begin to grapple with the benefits and issues of text messaging in order to improve learning.

The Open University of Catalunya (UOC) in Barcelona, Spain, is one of the oldest and most respected open online universities in the world. As a specialist university that utilises online courses, UOC has in-depth experience in the use of online collaboration as part of their courses. Research into the use of online collaboration in education is timely, as collaborative learning grows in the expectation of improved learning. Are Online Learners Frustrated with Collaborative Learning Experiences is the title of a recent research article from the UOC published in The International Journal of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL).

Online collaboration is broadly viewed in this research as a method that has been used in both problem-based learning activities and the development of online learning communities, many of which have been documented in case studies. The article examines the level, frequency and learning impact of frustration as a negative emotion where obstacles are encountered with online collaboration. Also identified in the article are the sources of frustration that can occur with online collaboration, followed by some suggestions for educators when planning and using online collaboration in courses.

The research found that students dealt with frustration sporadically and that although it could adversely affect their emotions and learning experiences, the data did not reveal any significant impact on overall student course satisfaction (p. 34). The main source of student frustration with online collaboration was ‘the imbalance in the level of commitment, responsibility, and effort … related to the task category … and the [online] experiences generally’ (p. 34). Other factors that were found to be sources of frustration included a lack of shared goals, difficulties with communication, negotiation skills, workload, contribution quality, technical issues and a perception of fairness in assessment. Many of these issues, other than those related to the technology, are consistent with findings from research in areas such as team work and group work.

However, a new factor of student frustration with online collaboration was identified as related to instructors. ‘Instructor inaction was a frustrating factor that was reported as undermining the collaborative process, especially when an instructor is made aware of a problem but does not take any corrective actions' (p. 36). This finding confirms other research that indicates that instructor feedback and interaction is a concern because students are worried about their performance.

Are Online Learners Frustrated with Collaborative Learning Experiences concludes that instructors need to know when to intervene and to what degree. Drawing on their own results and that of previous research, the authors state that, ‘The instructor should play an active role in the collaborative process. He or she should be proactive in monitoring and intervening in collaborative activities and should ensure that the group works effectively through mechanisms for assistance, feedback, and evaluation’ (p. 37).

There is a clear need to define collaboration in education and to identify the factors and instructor actions that can contribute to successful online collaboration in teaching and learning. Are Online Learners Frustrated with Collaborative Learning Experiences makes a very timely contribution to our understanding of how best to implement online collaboration in course-work.

An exciting and innovative approach that utilised social networking and measured student engagement has been described in a paper Beyond marks: new tools to visualise student engagement via social networking which can be found in the open online journal Research in Learning Technology. The paper is refreshing because it demonstrates how course leaders can innovatively use social networking services to engage students in the content and also to assess student performance.

Although Facebook is a very well-known and used global social networking service, the researchers have used Friendfeed because of its capacity for non-reciprocal subscriptions that link other participants. The researchers analysed Friendfeed logs and graphically showed the networking clusters of student activity. In addition, the researchers codified and examined online student contributions and gathered student feedback via a questionnaire. As a part of their course-work, students were required to make regular significant online academic contributions reflecting on the content as distinct from engaging in social or personal discussions for which they deferred to Facebook.

The researchers were also the course leaders of this inventive approach to engaging students, in a ten week science course. Students could submit status updates, comments, questions about the course and shared links but to quality for credit, external links had to be ‘accompanied by a short commentary explaining how and why it [was] relevant to academic study’ (p. 3). Significant reflective comments on the course content or commentary added to discussion threads were also given assessment credit.

The researchers noted that ‘females make more significantly contributions than males’ (p. 4) but that ‘typical male students tend to be strategically focussed on meeting assessment criteria’ (p. 5). However, these statistics indicated the behaviour of the entire cohort rather than individual students. Interestingly, a male student ‘made the highest number of academically-relevant comments’ (p. 5).

The researchers deployed a number of research methods for analysing who was talking to whom, what they were talking about and why they were talking as they were. The analysis revealed that three communities of students formed: a very active group that interacted with staff, a smaller group that chatted amongst themselves and a medium sized group that interacted with the whole group but remained on the periphery of the main discussion (p. 7).

The researchers clearly demonstrated that to inform educational practices, popular social networks can be deployed as a part of course-work, although the educational activities need to be carefully designed, so that they can be closely related to the course-work. In the science course that was analysed, staff participated in the online social networking activities and led discussions. There is a suggestion that where teaching staff are engaged in student networks that the networks may become higher performing activities.

Beyond marks: new tools to visualise student engagement via social networking is a demonstration of successfully using social networks in which ‘student peer networks leverage academic input for maximum engagement’ and for ‘more subtle and effective ways for educators to measure and guide student engagement with academic learning’ (p. 12). This research introduces a successful new method for course leaders that makes use of digital technologies.

Beyond marks: new tools to visualise student engagement via social networking is compelling reading for course leaders.

A recent research article about the uses of wikis in K-12 education is a welcome addition to understanding wiki use. A report of the research titled The State of Wiki Usage in U. S. K012 Schools: Leveraging Web 2.0 Data Warehouse to Assess Quality and Equity in Online Learning Environments and published in Educational Researcher is freely accessible. The research on wikis in education is interesting from three perspectives. Firstly, the research examines the pattern of wiki use and then develops a very useful taxonomy. Secondly, the researchers developed and used an instrument called the Wiki Quality Instrument (WQI) for assessing the quality of educational wikis. The WQI had been developed over a two-year period prior to the research. Finally, the research was undertaken by examining the data logs of each of ‘255 wikis identifiably associated with a specific U.S. K-12 public school’ (p. 9) between 2005 and 2008 that were hosted by PBworks.com, ‘one of the three most visited sites that offer free wiki hosting’ (p.9). That is, the researchers were able to undertake the research about school education wiki usage from their offices by examining the data warehouse that contained the logs for each of the wikis.

The researchers found that in education there was a pattern of wiki use which could be understood as four types of wikis: ‘(a) failed wikis, trial wikis, and teacher resource sites; (b) teacher-centred content delivery devices; (c) individual student presentations and portfolios with limited collaboration; and (d) collaborative student presentations and workplaces’ (p. 11). This insightful taxonomy used in the research revealed that most wikis were experiments by teachers or teacher information sites. However, the individual student wikis and collaborative workspaces, although very much in the minority, did provide opportunities for students to develop 21^st century skills such as collaboration and online publishing.

The researchers also examined the usage of wikis in designated disadvantaged schools and non-disadvantaged schools. Their conclusions are a concern. They found that ‘Wikis created in schools serving high-income families provide more opportunities for 21^st-century skills development than those created in schools serving less advantaged students. Moreover, inequities within schools may be as serious as inequities between schools’ (p. 13). The estimated mean time for wikis in disadvantaged schools was 6.5 days whereas in other schools it was 32 days. This and related findings indicated that wikis were often project specific.

The State of Wiki Usage in U. S. K012 Schools: Leveraging Web 2.0 Data Warehouse to Assess Quality and Equity in Online Learning Environments is a clever and skilful research report about interactive web use in education which also provides a well-developed and researched instrument for assessing the quality of educational wiki use. The research also asks some thought provoking questions about the possibilities for researching student learning performance using online activity data stored in data warehouses. This research report is well worth reading and makes a significant contribution to further understanding online learning in education.

An exploratory study titled Understanding student perceptions and motivation towards academic blogs: An exploratory study into the motivation of students to participate in academic blogs, reveals some useful strategies for enhancing student teaching practice. The study published in the first-rate open Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET) is interesting from two perspectives. Firstly, the article includes a very thorough discussion of research into the use of blogs for academic purposes and secondly, it isolates a number of factors that can be usefully taken into account for successfully establishing blogs in order to encourage student reflections of their teaching practice.

The article points out that the main student experience of technology in universities is most often ‘web-based course management systems’ (p. 1) which ‘have been employed more for informative purposes than for interactive purposes’ (p. 1). Blogs on the other hand are interactive and have ‘become the main venue for self-publishing on the Internet’ (p.1). Blogs can be used to support both ‘individual and community learning’ (p.1 ) through sharing, networking, communicating and collaborating.

Understanding student perceptions and motivation towards academic blogs: An exploratory study reports on a series of pre and post teaching practice surveys, analyses of blog posts and a number of interviews with student teachers. The study aimed to ‘develop a better understanding of the perceptions of student teachers towards academic blogging and the factors that motivated them to write academic blogs voluntarily’ (p. 2). Academic blogs are different from personal and social blogs, and are developed to increase the participation of the learners and to improve learning.

The student teachers in the study were encouraged to blog in order to reflect on their experiences and to share teaching practices with their lecturers and peers. The researchers found that motivation for academic blogging among the students could be ‘grouped under three dimensions: personal, social and academic’ (p. 8). Social pressure and encouragement from lecturers were two reasons for blogging although they were less motivational than keeping others up to date, sharing teaching ideas and documenting their experiences. However, if blogging was included in the course requirements then these factors changed.

The students expressed their thoughts, experiences and also their feelings in a professional way and were motivated by the participation of their lecturers especially during the teaching practice period ‘when they were in real need of guidance and constructive feedback’ (p. 11). A weekly blog summary with comments by the lecturers was greatly valued, as was an automatic aggregation of the individual blogs.

The prior experience of students who had engaged with technology was a determinant as was the level of support for one another among the students. Peer support for the use of technology was especially prevalent where ‘a strong sense of community and social relationships among classmates’ (p. 13) was evident. The third major factor, unique to academic blogging, was the pedagogical design. That is, the ‘visibility of their blogs to their instructor as well as fellow students served as an effective impetus for blogging’ (p. 13).

The researchers noted additionally, that students with prior experience could be enthused to become blogging leaders and that knowledge of social bonds among students could be useful in pairing inexperienced students with those who were more experienced. Blogging can be enhanced through the participation of the lecturer although students can also be rostered for leadership roles to provide timely feedback, encourage participation and value deep reflective thinking. The researchers argue that insights into the perceptions and motivations of students to use blogs for academic purposes ‘can allow teachers and researchers to avoid pitfalls and to better exploit the pedagogical affordances of blogs’ (p. 2).

Understanding student perceptions and motivation towards academic blogs: An exploratory study is a valuable piece of exploratory research in an area where educational research is almost non-existent. It provides some new insights into ways of enhancing student learning during teaching practice.

In a recent research article Investigating Instructional Strategies for Using Special Media in Formal and Informal Learning published in the open access journal The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), the views of eight faculty staff about using social media were analysed and discussed. The participant faculty staff were involved in university public administration courses across the US and they had already integrated social media in their classes.

‘Social connections and networks’, suggests the paper, ‘are changing the ways we think about knowledge and learning and the ways that we organize work and ideas’ (p. 89). The use of social media can help educators to connect formal and informal learning which is useful because ‘formal learning is only a small fraction of the lifelong experience of human learning’ (p. 89). This study Investigating Instructional Strategies for Using Special Media in Formal and Informal Learning addressed questions about ‘how to use social media to facilitate student learning’ (p. 99) by focussing on its use, integration into courses and faculty concerns.

Whereas most lecturers teach using traditional lecture-base instruction, previous studies have found that students attribute greater levels of credibility to lecturers who openly engage with them using social media, states the article (p. 90). All participants in the study used social media, particularly Facebook and LinkedIn for their own personal benefit although learning and content management systems, which can be limiting, were used most frequently for teaching. This is not surprising because of concerns for student privacy and security although faculty staff did report that they were unable to access some social media or download software to their work computers.

The use of social media for ‘discussions and collaborations were strategies that most participants mentioned’ (p. 94) in relation to coursework although the informal and unstructured nature of social media appeared to be at odds with the organised nature of regular classes. The interviewees did have some success outside of regular classes using social media such as discovering and sharing content, noting news reports and sharing and discussing audio and video material. ‘Their experience suggests that learning on social media is informal, conversational and driven by user’s interests’ (p. 95) which may not sit comfortably with some faculty staff. The participants did not use social media directly for assessment purposes because the online activities were largely informal, open and self-regulated and were used as a supplement to reinforce coursework.

A number of concerns were raised by the participants including cyber-security and privacy, staff professional identity and students posting inappropriate material. Ethical issues such as ‘cyberbullying, marginalizing students, and being unfair because of befriending one student over another’ (p. 96) and the student-teacher relationship were also raised. Faculty support such as training sessions for students by IT staff, library staff and digital media specialists was seen as a key to success. However, there was a perception by participants that ‘there was a need for crafting and implementing clearly stated institutional policies on the use of social media’ (p. 97) and that ‘more instructors would be willing to try to integrate new technologies in teaching but only if they knew that they were supported and their rights were protected by their institutions’ (p. 97).

‘Social media and networking technologies have a significant potential to recreate the learning environment between student and teacher’ (p. 97) states the article, although training is needed for staff. Staff valued faculty support to further understand social learning theory and best practices using social media as well as some of the pitfalls in encouraging ‘social and active learning that is learner-centred and informal’ (p. 99).

The use of social media in post-compulsory education coursework will be realised through many investigations of this type across a wide variety of training and university disciplines. This research article Investigating Instructional Strategies for Using Special Media in Formal and Informal Learning, based on a larger study, provides a very useful template for further research into the use of social media in courses across a range of disciplines.

The PISA 2009 Results: Students On Line: Digital Technologies and Performance (Volume VI), referenced on DERN, did assess student proficiency of print reading and digital reading, among 15 year olds in the 16 OECD countries involved in the PISA 2009 assessments. The recently released analysis of gender differences raises some very pertinent issues relating to reading proficiency.

The OECD PISA in Focus report, Are boys and girls ready for the digital age found that students in Australia, Korea and New Zealand ‘scored significantly higher in digital reading than in print reading’ (p. 1). In fact, Korea has developed a policy to digitise textbooks and assessments by 2015 and the United States also aims to move to digital textbooks within five years. These recent trends signify the importance of close analysis of digital reading.

Are boys and girls ready for the digital age reported that girls outperformed boys in reading in both formats and that the proficiency gap was narrower with digital reading than with print reading. They stated, ‘girls outperformed boys by 38 points – the equivalent of one year of formal schooling – in print reading, by 24 points in digital reading’ (p. 2). These differences can be ‘seen most clearly at the extremes of the proficiency scale, that is, poor performers and top performers’ (p. 2).

Another interesting finding is that in these countries, ‘fewer girls performed poorly in digital reading than in print reading’ (p. 2) and so more girls performed at the higher end of the scale in digital reading than for print reading. Correspondingly, the increased percentage of boys in digital reading proficiency was much greater than for girls and there was a reduction in the percentage of poor performers, especially of boys.

Boys on the other hand outperformed girls in digital navigation which influenced their proficiency in digital reading but boys were less proficient in print reading. Where both boys and girls achieved the same proficiency in print reading, the boys were more proficient in digital reading. That is, boys perform better in digital reading than they do in print reading because of their digital navigation skills.

The report Are boys and girls ready for the digital age report finishes with a valuable conclusion for all educators. ‘The bottom line: Boys’ interest and abilities in digital reading could be exploited to start a “virtuous cycle” through which more frequent reading of digital texts would result in better digital reading proficiency, which in turn, would lead to greater enjoyment of reading and better proficiency in print reading, as well. Parents, educators and policy makers should also take note of girls’ weaker skills in digital navigation. Without those skills, students will find it difficult to make their way in the digital age’ (p. 4).

This short (4 pages) report is very pertinent to the teaching of reading and reading achievement by students using digital devices.