“THE CONTRIBUTION OF FIVE “TÉLÉCENTRES COMMUNAUTAIRES POLYVALENTS (TCPS)” TO CAMEROON’S RURAL SECONDARY EDUCATION”

Table of Contents

Introduction.............................................................................................................................1

Methodology.............................................................................................................................1

Selection of the TCPs...........................................................................................................2

Data Collection.....................................................................................................................2

Self-Assessed Performance, Hours of Study and Student Motivation............................2

Findings....................................................................................................................................3

The TCPs..............................................................................................................................3

TCP Student User Profile...................................................................................................3

Have the TCPs helped Students Improve their School Performance?...........................4Training in Computer and the Internet Use...................................................................................................5Computer Skills and School Performance.....................................................................................................5Better-Performing Hard-Working Students Use the Internet for School Purposes.......................................5Is there an Internet Advantage?.....................................................................................................................6

Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................................................7

Works Cited.............................................................................................................................9

Appendix. Tables...................................................................................................................10

Introduction

Cameroon is a country located in the heart of the Gulf of Guinea in Africa, with more than 20 million people, over one third being poor (INS, 2007). People interviewed during the preparation of the Strategy Paper Poverty Reduction, view the inability to provide decent education for their children as a manifestation of poverty. The main weaknesses of the country’s educational system are unequal access to education for girls and the poor, poor learning and working conditions, inadequate distribution of teachers and few textbooks and essential materials (MINEDUB, 2006). A major thrust of the education sector strategy is to improve " the quality and relevance of education provided, including the introduction of modern technology and communication into the system”.

This strategy seems difficult to implement with fixed teledensity less than 2% and Internet density 0.2% (ANTIC, 2008). Telephony services and Internet are still relatively expensive and virtually inaccessible in rural areas. From a recent national survey most students complained of not having access to a computer, despite the computer courses in their program. The government has sought to improve people's access to telecommunications services and Internet, in part through a program to set up multipurpose community telecenters (TCPs) in rural areas throughout the country with public funding. At the time the research was made, thirty-four (34) TCP were established.

According to the program manager, TCPs could help improve the performance of teachers by providing access to digital resources and allow exchanges with other institutions around the world. The professional literature supports this view, (Laferiere, 1999; Karsenti, 2005; Lebrun, 2007) and suggests that Internet access can broaden the range of subject and course materials available to students and teachers. This can be especially important in rural and remote schools. A TCP may therefore impart efficiency to an educational system, by enhancing learning experiences, facilitating the acquisition of basic skills and building the capacity of teachers (Djeumeni, 2008).

In fact, learners use ICT to review lessons, access to the tests of other institutions and those of previous years, and the preparation of presentations." Dissemination of educational materials through a website or an intranet is also very popular with students" (Perreault, 2005). In a study conducted in 25 schools in rural and urban areas of Europe, Bert Jaap van Oel shows a positive impact on group and collaborative work, the extension of hours of study beyond stay in school, creativity, interpersonal skills, innovation, motivation and self-confidence (Oel, 2007).

The impact of ICT on educational outcomes is difficult to demonstrate (Oel, 2007) because it is not easy to isolate the impact of technology from other factors. As Attenoukon (2011) points out, “ICT does not automatically produce a positive impact on learner performance”.

To our knowledge, no previous study has tried to assess how computers and the Internet, accessible through a TCP, impact on the academic performance of rural secondary students. This study seeks to help fill this gap.

Methodology

Selection of the suitable TCPsTo be able to detect impacts on education, a TCP had to have: i. reliable Internet access; ii. reliable equipment and energy supply; iii. been in operation for at least 3 years; iv. a significant number of students and teachers as customers (or, as a proxy indicator, a large proportion of young people age 25 years or less as customers); and v. initiatives in place to support of education, with some services specifically designed for students and teachers.

1

Among Cameroon’s 34 functional TCPs, only 18 were found to have access to the Internet. And only five met the five criteria deemed essential for the conduct of this study : Bangang, Ambam, Makenene, Bankim, Jakiri1 (Table 1).

Data Collection

Complete data gathered over a one-month period (November 8th to December 8th, 2010) on 1015 students. All students attending secondary schools entering each one of the TCP during this period were surveyed. The interviewers chosen are local residents and employees of the TCP, and are known to the respondents and this facilitated data collection.

The student questionnaire gathered basic demographic information, about the student’s school performance in the past three years and other school-related variables, the level of computer and Internet literacy and previous training, the frequency of visits and activities engaged in while visiting the TCP, and a final section on personal objectives and direct inquiries regarding the perceived impact of the TCP.

Self-Assessed Performance, Hours of Study and Student Motivation

Students were asked to assess whether their academic achievement over the past three years had been on the decline, remained stable or risen. This is a not an objective measure of school performance. It is a self-assessment requiring memory recall over a three-year period and is subject to error. The student’s response may also be biased towards his or her most recent school performance experience, i.e. last year, as opposed to 3 years ago, and tend to have an upward optimistic bias (Pearson, Ross and Dawes 1992).

In practice, student responses may have an overall upward bias. Only about 13% estimated their 3-year performance as falling, about half (53%) as stable and nearly a third as rising. With slight variations, this pattern holds regardless of level (Table 4).

To assess, indirectly, the reliability of the school-performance measure, we examined its correlation with two variables known to be positively correlated with school performance: the student’s motivation ((Fyans and Maehr 1987, Zimmerman 1990, Broussard 2002) and hours of study (Duckworth and Seligman 2005, Stinebrickner and Stinebrickner 2007).

Even though an imperfect measure, self-assessments of school performance over the past 3-years appear to reflect school performance of the students in our sample. When students were asked if “acquiring knowledge to succeed in school” was one of their goals nearly all (979) said yes. When they were next asked to rate the importance they attached to this goal, responses were more telling: 44% marked “very”, 32% “medium” and 1.5% “weak”. Table 5 shows the number of students who identified acquiring knowledge to succeed in school as a “very” important goal, distributed according to their self-assessment of performance. Considering the three secondary school levels jointly, students who had “acquiring knowledge…” as a very important goal represent 53% of those with falling performance; 57%, of those with stable performance, and 75% of those with “rising” performance. This correlation holds for the three secondary school levels considered.

Hours of study are also positively correlated with self-performance assessments in our sample. For every school level and for men as well as women, those with a “rising” performance rating, also 1 This study does not aim to “evaluate” the performance of individual TCPs or compare differences in student performance according to the TCPs they attend. We consider how these differences might affect school performance but we mask the identity of individual TCPs by referring to them according to an arbitrarily assigned number from 1 through 5.

2

reported spending the most time studying outside the classroom, while those with a “falling” performance studied the least (Table 6),

Findings

The TCPs

The five TCPs chosen for study are located in Bangang, Ambam, Makenene, Bankim, and Jakiri. In all five sites, the TCP is the only point of access to the Internet. The TCPs are located in rural areas, but mostly in the urban core or the administrative seat of local government. Each TCP is equipped with enough hardware to meet the needs of (students) users. Installed software, free or proprietary, are mainly word processing, spreadsheets and to a lesser extent translation software. The TCP typically offers the following services: training in the use of computers and the Internet, telephony, office stationery, faxing, photocopying, features and video editing. A summary profile is given in Table 1.

The average number of customers varies from 20 to 30 per day and is constantly increasing, particularly on account of communication campaigns organized by managers. Users of age less or equal 25 years represent at least 55% of TCP clients.

The computers in the 5 TCPs were found in good working order at the time of our survey.

TCP Student User Profile

Overall there are 55.4% of males vs. 45% of females in the sample. The gender distribution is fairly even, and all age groups - 10 to 16 - are represented, but two thirds in the sample are 16 years or older (Table 3) and fewer than 4% are younger than 12.

Cameroon’s secondary education lasts about 7 years and may be divided into three stages, depending on whether pupils have not yet passed the BECP/CAP exam (Lower Level), are in between the BEPC/CAP and the Probatoire (Mid Level) exams or have obtained the Probatoire diploma and are in their final year of secondary school (Upper Level). Fewer students are generally found in the Upper level, which lasts only about a year. In our sample one in five students are in this group. The remaining students are in the Mid (42%) and Lower (37%) levels (Table 3). The distribution of the sample by school level is uneven.

The sample distribution by secondary level in the various TCPs is uneven. There are fewer Upper level students in the 5 TCPs. Lower secondary students are numerically more important than Mid level students in TCPs 1, 2 and 4, but the relationship is reversed in TCPs 3 and 5. The most striking differences are in the digital skills of interviewees. Ninety nine percent of the students in TCP2 were computer literate and 92% had Internet skills. At the other extreme, from TCP3, which only has 4 computers (Table 1), there were only 29% computer literate students and only 25% with Internet skills.

Have the TCPs helped Students Improve their School Performance?

TCPs appear to have helped some students improve their school performance. A larger proportion of rising performers access the net and make use of Word processing, view and download textbooks, and prepare schoolwork, than stable performers; and a greater proportion of stable performers carry out these activities compared to falling performers. The TCP has also helped a

3

greater proportion of rising performers become more confident and better informed than is the case for the other two groups.

Falling Stable RisingNumber in group: 131 539 345

Most popular TCP activities:*Photocopy 64.9 68.1 77.1Internet access 40.5 46.8 63.2Word processing 35.9 34.0 41.7Printing 28.2 29.9 31.3Telephone 26.0 27.1 28.7

School related activities in TCP:View / get textbooks 20.6 24.9 34.2Prepare for exams, homework, etc. 67.2 68.3 76.2Communicate with teachers 10.3 13.0 8.3

Has TCP helped you become:more confident? 51.1 60.9 71.0better informed? 58.0 70.1 78.0

* Each student was asked to select three TCP activities. (Full list in Table 10)

Students were also asked to identify the primary means they use to improve their school performance and were given four options: the TCP, studying in groups, approaching and working with teachers, and consulting books. The most popular response (40%) was approaching and working with teachers. The TCP (Table 11) was ranked second and chosen by 28% of the students. Studying in groups and consulting books, tied in third place, and chosen in each case by 15% of the students.

Training in Computer and the Internet Use

Nearly 60% of all students learn how to use computers in schools (Table 7). The TCPs provide an important complementary computer training service; especially if we consider those who learn from TCP organized training (17%) as well as those who teach themselves how to use computers while visiting the TCP (9%). TCP organized training is for a fee. Some students learn computers at private institutions.

Since TCPs are the only place of Internet connection in their localities, they play a critical role training students how to use the Internet (Table 8). TCP training and self-training at the TCP respectively account for 51% and 17% of students who have Internet skills. Private training institutions play a secondary but important training role (19%).

Computer Skills and School Performance

Three quarters of secondary students had computer skills and nearly two thirds (63%) know how to use the Internet. Less than a third (28%) have computers at home. Tables 9 and 10 show the differences in self-assessed school performance depending on whether they had computers and Internet skills. A higher proportion of students with rising performance had computer skills (75%) than among those with stable (66%) or falling performance (66%).

Computer skills are practically a requirement for Internet use. Of the 553 students who said they have Computer skills, 96% indicated they also know how to use the Internet.

4

Better-Performing Hard-Working Students Use the Internet for School Purposes

A higher proportion of students with rising performance had Internet skills (63%) than among stable performers (51%; Table 10), and the latter proportion is higher than among students with falling performance (44%). This performance advantage is more pronounced at the upper and mid secondary school levels (Table 10). Internet access is the TCP service used by the largest proportion of rising performers (63%) than by stable (47%) or falling (40.5%) performers. Falling performers visit the TCP less frequently and their visits are shorter than those of stable or rising performers.

Use of the Internet seems to account for the performance difference. Except for activities that do not require use of the Internet, like word processing, printing and photocopying, a larger proportion of students with Internet skills use the TCP in school related activities than among those who do not. The TCPs also seem to help students overcome the scarcity of textbooks that is common in Cameroon’s rural communities. About 40% of students who know how to use the Internet, go to the TCP to view or download school related materials.

Knows Internet?Yes No

Number in group: 553 462Most popular of TCP activities:*

Photocopy 50 69Internet access 75 24Word processing 31 44Printing 20 42Telephone 33 21

School related activities**:View / get textbooks 40 12Prepare for exams, homework, etc. 84 55Communicate with teachers 8 3

Has TCP helped you become:more confident? 83 40better informed? 90 49

* Each student was asked to select three activities when visiting TCP** School related activities students engage in when visiting TCP

Students who lack Internet skills visit the TCP less frequently and their visits are shorter (Table 13). Few of them access the Internet (25%) compared to students who are comfortable with the technology (74.5%; Table 13),

Students who do not know how to use the Internet may have a stellar academic performance, and those who know the technology can falter. But the Internet seems to give students an edge. Rising performers account for 39% of those who know the technology, but only 28% of those who do not (Table 13). This correlation between a rising performance and Internet skills is also observed in four of the five TCP’s studied.

5

The possession of Internet skills is also correlated with the amount of time that students spend studying after school (Table 15). The proportion of Internet savvy students who study less than 3 hours a week is 27%, 49.5% among those who study 3-5 hours, and 75.6% among students who study more than 5 hours a week. This correlation holds for all effort and secondary school levels (Table 15).

Is there an Internet Advantage?

Does knowing how to use the Internet confer a school performance advantage, beyond the effect that a student’s study effort makes?

To test this hypothesis we estimated three separate models for each secondary school level. Our focus is on the probability that a student is a rising performer, a dichotomous dependent variable that takes a value of 1 if the student self-assessed his or her performance as rising, and zero otherwise. We posit that this probability may be determined by a student’s Age, Motivation (i.e. if learning is a very important goal or not), Computer skills, Internet Skills, Hours of Study, Hours of TCP Use. The substantial differences in academic requirements justify separate models by secondary school level, and we include four dummy variables in each model to capture differences from attending one or another venue. The results are presented in Tables 16a through 16c.

Age does not make much difference, except at the lower level. Perhaps being a student 16 years or older at this level, reflects performance limitations that are not otherwise captured.

Attending one TCP or another makes a positive and significant difference for lower level students interviewed in TCP5, and for Mid level students interviewed in TCP3 and TCP4. Underlying these differences are localized factors about which we have little information.

The single most important determinant of a rising school performance is the number of hours that a student spends studying outside the classroom. The corresponding coefficient is statistically significant in all 3 models. Being motivated to learn also contributes to a rising performance, with significant coefficients in the Mid and Upper level models.

Knowing how to use computers has a positive sign in all 3 models, but these are not statistically significant, perhaps due to insufficient variability within the sample.

Having Internet skills makes a statistically significant difference in the Mid and Upper level models. In the lower level such skills seem to produce a negative effect, although the negative coefficient is significant only at a 12% probability level. That it should be Upper and Mid Level students that benefit makes sense. It is at higher educational levels that texts and assignments are most advanced yet accessible from the Internet. Also, perhaps, younger students, even if they “know how to use the Internet”, have not yet developed the skills to use it effectively for school purposes.

Spending too much time at the TCP seems to be counterproductive. The coefficients for spending three hours or more per visit are negative in all three models. For Mid level students, spending even 2-3 hours has a negative and statistically significant effect, and spending more than 3 hours will further diminish the prospects of a rising performance.

These findings are for the most part confirmed when we consider the three school levels jointly (Table 16d). Age differences gain importance, with older students performing better than younger students. Study hours and Motivation coefficients remain highly significant determinants of school performance. The negative impact of school performance of spending more than 3 hours on each

6

visit to the TCP is perceptible and statistically significant. The coefficients of Computer and Internet Skills are positive but not very significant, as a result of including Lower level students in the estimating sample.2

Conclusions and Recommendations

The experience of secondary students who visit these five rural TCPs lends credence to a premise under which these facilities were established. Student access to computers and the Internet can make a positive difference in their academic performance. Students who study hard and are motivated to learn generally find a way to learn Internet skills in these TCPs. The technology may be appreciated for reasons unrelated to school, e.g. recreation, but rising performers tend to make more intensive use of the Internet for school related purposes suggesting that one reason they use the technology is its value as a “learning tool”. The evidence also suggests that for the Mid and Upper secondary levels, having access to the Internet gives students a performance edge beyond that associated with their study effort.

Having a desire to learn and spending long hours studying remain key to academic success. The effect on school performance of these two critical variables far outweigh any advantage attainable by access to the Internet. Furthermore, an unexpected finding of this study is that spending too much time at the TCP is bound to thwart academic success. School administrators and officials should be aware of these “negative features” of TCP use. This is not a call for strict rules regarding TCP use, but a warning for government and school officials, parents and students, of the importance of self-regulation in academic success.

The Government of Cameroon is to be commended for its TCP initiative, but it is disheartening to see how limited the program’s reach has been to date. Out of the 34 TCPs that have been installed we were only able to find five that had been operating sustainably. The nation’s ambitious objectives of using the TCP to expand educational opportunities will have to wait until the challenges of expanding electricity and connectivity to rural communities are overcome.

The slow pace of rural deployment of telecenters in developing countries present a quasi-experimental opportunity for researchers to compare the effects of introducing a new technology into previously disconnected rural settings. Future research in this area should consider robust measures of academic performance (e.g. student performance records) and comparisons of school performance between communities, some with TCP access and others without.

2 We ran a separate model considering only Upper and Mid Level students. The results are similar to those shown in Tables 16b and 16c. The coefficients for Internet Skills, Motivated, and Study Time are all positive and statistically significant and the coefficients for spending 2 Hours or more per visit to the TCP are negative and significant.

7

Works Cited

ANTIC. 2008. Stratégie sectorielle du domaine des télécommunications et TIC, octobre 2008. 2008.ATTENOUKON, S. A. (2011). TIC et rendement académique en contexte universitaire beninois: Cas des apprenants en Droit de l’Universite d’Abomey-Calavi, Ph.D. Thesis, Universté de Montréal, 2011. Balanskat A., Blamire, R. et Kefala, S. (2007). The ICT impact report: A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. European Schoolnet.Djeumeni. 2008. L’impact des TIC sur les apprentissages scolaires en Afrique. Une étude comparée auprès d' établissements secondaires du Cameroun, Yaoundé, 2008. INS. 2007. Enquête Camerounaise des Ménages (ECAM3). Karsenti, T. (2005). L'impact des technologies de l'information et de la communication sur la réussite éducative des garçons à risque de milieux défavorisés. Montréal, Rapport de recherches du CRIPFE. Laferiere, T. (1999). Avantages des technologies de l'information et des communications (TIC) pour l'enseignement et l'apprentissage dans les classes de la maternelle à la fin du secondaire, Rapport du Rescol Industrie, Canada, http://desette.free.fr/pdf/ . Lebrun, M. (2007). Théories et méthodes pédagogiques pour enseigner et apprendre : Quelle place pour les TIC dans l'éducation. Bruxelles : De Boeck. 2007.MINEDUB, MINESUP, MINESEP. (2006). Document de Stratégie Sectorielle de l’Education, Comité Technique d’Elaboration de la Stratégie Sectorielle de l’Education.MINPOSTEL. (2008). Performances des P&T, Magazine d’informations du Ministère des Postes et Télécommunications, N°004 août-octobre 2008. Yaoundé.Oel, B. J. V. (2007). Study of the impact of ICT in primary schools (STEPS), Part 5: Analysis of the good practices and case studies, steps.eun.org , Public services contract N°EACEA/2007/4013.Perreault . (2005). Rôle et impacts des TIC sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage au collégial, in http://repere3.sdm.qc.ca/cgi-bin Pearson, R. W., Ross, M., Dawes, R. M. (1992). Personal Recall and the Limits of Retrospective Questions in Surveys, in

8

Questions about Questions: Inquiries into the Cognitive Bases of Surveys, by Judith M. Tanur (ed.), 1992.

9

Appendix. Tables

Table 1. Basic Features of 5 TCPs Studied, as Assessed during Selection and

Subsequently Verified During Field ResearchTCP1 TCP2 TCP3 TCP4 TCP5

Year established 2006 2005 2005 2006 2005

% of users ≤ 25 years 55% 75% 65% 75 % 55%

Education servicesTraining Contract

with SchoolTrainin

gTrainin

g Training Training

Number of computers 10 9 4 6 10

Functionality of computers*

63% 100% 100% 45% 63%

Energy Availability** 79% 93% 67% 93%Internet connection*** Good Good Good Good Fair

* Computers in operation as % of computers installed** Days with power as % of days center is open for service.*** Possible grades: None, Poor, Acceptable, Good Enough, Good

10

Table 2. Distribution of Students Interviewed, by Center, Age, School Level, 3-Year Self-Assessed Performance and Digital Literacy

TCP1 TCP2 TCP3 TCP4 TCP5 All TCPs# % # % # % # % # % # %

Age< 12 4 2.0 4 2.0 4 1.9 15 7.5 10 4.8 37 3.612-15 63 31.7 60 30.6 77 36.2 51 25.6 44 21.2 295 29.1

16 and over 130 65.3 129 65.8 132 62.0 134 67.3153 73.6 678 66.8

Secondary School LevelLower 87 43.7 117 59.7 57 26.8 78 39.2 37 17.8 376 37.0Mid 65 32.7 76 38.8 115 54.0 73 36.7 96 46.2 425 41.9Upper 47 23.6 3 1.5 41 19.2 48 24.1 75 36.1 214 21.1

School PerformanceFalling 32 16.1 16 8.2 22 10.3 19 9.5 42 20.2 131 12.9Stable 131 65.8 95 48.5 120 56.3 103 51.8 90 43.3 539 53.1Rising 36 18.1 85 43.4 71 33.3 77 38.7 76 36.5 345 34.0

Digital literacy

Computer Literacy 122 61.3 194 99.0 61 28.6 175 87.9150 72.1 702 69.2

Home computer 56 28.1 57 29.1 47 22.1 45 22.6 56 26.9 261 25.7

Internet Skills 75 37.7 181 92.3 53 24.9 121 60.8123 59.1 553 54.5

Interviewees 199 196 213 199208 1015

11

Table 3. Distribution of Students by School Level and Age

Age # %Lower Level

< 12 35 9.32-15 183 48.716+ 158 42.0

Subtotal 376 100.0Mid Level

< 12 2 0.512-15 104 24.516+ 319 75.1

Subtotal 425 100.0Upper Level

< 1212-15 9 4.216+ 205 95.8

Subtotal 214 100.0All Secondary by School Level

Lower Level 376 37.0Mid Level 425 41.9Upper Level 214 21.1

All Secondary by Age< 12 37 3.612-15 296 29.216+ 682 67.2

All 1015 100.0

%100.

0

Notes:Lower Level: Lower to or equal to BEPC/CAPMid Level: Between BEPC/CAP and Probatoire/BPUpper Level: Probatoire/BP or higher

12

Table 4. Self-assessed Academic Performance in Last 3 Years by School

LevelSchool Level # %Lower Level

Falling 40 10.6Stable 222 59.0Rising 114 30.3

Subtotal 376 100.0Mid Level

Falling 68 16.0Stable 205 48.2Rising 152 35.8

Subtotal 425 100.0Upper Level

Falling 23 10.7Stable 112 52.3Rising 79 36.9

Subtotal 214 100.0All secondary

Falling 131 12.9Stable 539 53.1Rising 345 34.0

All 1015 100.0% 100.0

13

Table 5. Self-assessed Academic Performance in Last 3 Years, by School Level and Whether "Acquiring

knowledge to succeed in school"is an Important Goal

School Level # % YesLower Level

Falling 24 60.0

Stable133 59.9

Rising 77 67.5

Subtotal234 62.2

Mid LevelFalling 34 50.0

Stable123 60.0

Rising118 77.6

Subtotal275 64.7

Upper LevelFalling 12 52.2Stable 52 46.4Rising 63 79.7

Subtotal127 59.3

All Three LevelsFalling 70 53.4

Stable308 57.1

Rising258 74.8

All students636 62.7

14

Table 6. Hours of Study by School Level, and Self-assessed Academic

Performancein the Last 3 Years

School Level % < 3 % 3-5 % ≥ 5Lower Level

Falling 47.5 25.0 27.5Stable 25.7 44.1 30.2Rising 24.6 31.6 43.9

Mid LevelFalling 33.8 52.9 13.2Stable 15.6 53.7 30.2Rising 9.9 40.1 50.0

Upper LevelFalling 21.7 47.8 30.4Stable 10.7 59.8 28.6Rising 0.0 50.6 49.4

All 3 LevelsFalling 35.9 43.5 20.6Stable 18.7 51.0 29.9Rising 12.5 39.7 47.8

15

Table 7. Computer Literate Students by Age and Venue or Way in which

Students Learned Computers

Age Students# %

Computer literate < 12 with full dataSchool 14 50.0Private institution 4 14.3TCP 5 17.9Self-taught 1 3.6HomeOther 4 14.3

Subtotal 28 100.0Computer literate 12-15 with full dataSchool 103 55.4Private institution 23 12.4TCP 33 17.7Self-taught 27 14.5HomeOther

Subtotal 186 100.0Computer literate 16+ with full dataSchool 283 58.0Private institution 59 12.1TCP 84 17.2Self-taught 47 9.6HomeOther 15 3.1

All ages 488 100.0

All ages (with data)School 400 57.0Private institution 86 12.3TCP 122 17.4Self-taught 75 10.7HomeOther 19 2.7

Subtotal 702 100.0

16

Table 8. Students Who Know how to Use the Internet by Age and Venue or Way they Learned to Use it

Age Students# %

Know Internet < 12 with full dataSchoolPrivate institutionTCP 10 66.7Self-taught 5 33.3HomeOther

Subtotal 15 100.0Know Internet 12-15 with full dataSchool 12 8.8Private institution 26 19.0TCP 75 54.7Self-taught 19 13.9HomeOther 5 3.6

Subtotal 137 100.0Know Internet 16+ with full data

School 24 6.0Private institution 78 19.5TCP 198 49.4Self-taught 73 18.2HomeOther 28 7.0

Subtotal 401 100.0

All AgesSchool 36 6.5Private institution 104 18.8TCP 283 51.2Self-taught 97 17.5HomeOther 33 6.0

Subtotal 553 100.0% 100.0

17

Table 9. Self-assessed Academic Performance in Last 3 Years, by

School Level and Whether Student has is Computer Literate

School Level Students# % Yes

Lower LevelFalling 25 62.5Stable 159 71.6Rising 81 71.1

Subtotal 265 70.5Mid Level

Falling 43 63.2Stable 124 60.5Rising 113 74.3

Subtotal 280 65.9Upper Level

Falling 18 78.3Stable 75 67.0Rising 64 81.0

Subtotal 157 73.4All Three Levels

Falling 86 65.6Stable 358 66.4Rising 258 74.8All students 702 69.2

18

Table 10. Self-Assessed Performance, by School Level, and Whether Student Knows How to Use the

Internet

School Level & Performance Group

Students

Do not Know

Know How to

Use

% Who Know

Lower LevelFalling 28 12 30.0Stable 101 121 54.5Rising 57 57 50.0

All Lower 186 190 50.5Mid Level

Falling 36 32 47.1Stable 115 90 43.9Rising 53 99 65.1

All Mid 204 221 52.0

Upper LevelFalling 9 14 60.9Stable 46 66 58.9Rising 17 62 78.5

All Upper 72 142 66.4

All Three LevelsFalling 73 58 44.3Stable 262 277 51.4Rising 127 218 63.2

All students 462 553 54.5

19

Table 11.TCP Use by Secondary Students - All Performance Levels

TCP UseAll 1015#

obs. %Are you computer literate? 486 47.9Do you have a computer at home? 261 25.7Do you know how to use the Internet? 553 54.5How often do you visit the TCP?

Once a week 671 66.12 or 3 times/week 265 26.1More than 3 times/week 57 5.6

How long do you stay when you visit TCP?

At most 1 hour per day 631 62.22-3 hours per day 298 29.4More than 3 hours per day 84 8.3

Services most frequently used?*Telephone 279 27.5Telecopy/Fax 25 2.5Internet access 523 51.5Payment services 12 1.2Photocopy 718 70.7Word Processing 374 36.8Data processing 94 9.3Printing 306 30.1Money Transfer 14 1.4Onsite training 26 2.6Search for jobs or internships 24 2.4Distance learning 13 1.3Cultural events 12 1.2Space rentals 4 0.4School related activities most frequently

engaged in when Using Internet at TCP?**View / Get textbooks 279 27.5To pay the school 17 1.7Communicate with teachers 60 5.9Prepare for exams, presentations and

homework 719 70.8Learn foreign languages and cultures 166 16.4Register abroad 24 2.4Other 171 16.8

Has TCP helped you become more self-confident? 640 63.1Has TCP helped you become better informed? 723 71.2

What is the primary means by which you try to improve your school performance?

The TCP 290 28.6Studying in groups 154 15.2

1

approaching & working with teachers 410 40.4Consulting books 153 15.1Other 8 0.8

* Students were asked to give the 3 most frequently used services.** Students were asked to mention 3 most frequent school-related activities.

Table 12. TCP Use for School Purposes, According to Whether Student Knows How to Use the Internet, and Self-Assessed Performance in Past 3 Years - All Secondary Levels

Performance and Response Options to: "What are the school related activities you engage

in when using the TCP?"

Know How to Use

Internet

Do Not Know How to Use

InternetAll Students

# % # % # %Falling 58 100.0 73 100.0 131 100.0

View/Get textbooks 24 41.4 3 4.1 27 20.6Communicate with teachers 4 6.9 2 2.7 6 4.6Prepare for exams, presentations and homework 48 82.8 40 54.8 88 67.2Learn foreign language and cultures 20 34.5 2 2.7 22 16.8

Stable 277 100.0 262 100.0 539 100.0View/Get textbooks 98 35.4 36 13.7 134 24.9Communicate with teachers 28 10.1 8 3.1 36 6.7Prepare for exams, presentations and homework 225 81.2 143 54.6 368 68.3Learn foreign language and cultures 73 26.4 7 2.7 80 14.8

Rising 218 100.0 127 100.0 345 100.0View/Get textbooks 100 45.9 18 14.2 118 34.2Communicate with teachers 14 6.4 4 3.1 18 5.2Prepare for exams, presentations and homework 193 88.5 70 55.1 263 76.2Learn foreign language and cultures 61 28.0 3 2.4 64 18.6

All Performance levels 553 100.0 462 100.0 1015 100.0View/Get textbooks 222 40.1 57 12.3 279 27.5Communicate with teachers 46 8.3 14 3.0 60 5.9Prepare for exams, presentations and homework 466 84.3 253 54.8 719 70.8Learn foreign language and cultures 154 27.8 12 2.6 166 16.4

2

Table 13. Internet Knowledge Status, School Performance and Frequency of TCP Use

Internet Status and frequency of TCP Use Students

# %Do Not Know how to Use Internet 462

By PerformanceFalling 73 15.8Stable 262 56.7Rising 127 27.5

How often do you visit the TCP?Once a week 354 76.62 or 3 times/week 82 17.7More than 3 times/week 13 2.8

How long do you stay when you visit TCP?At most 1 hour per day 362 78.42-3 hours per day 87 18.8More than 3 hours per day 12 2.6

Know How to Use Internet 553By Performance

Falling 58 10.5Stable 277 50.1Rising 218 39.4

How often do you visit the TCP?Once a week 317 57.32 or 3 times/week 183 33.1More than 3 times/week 44 8.0

How long do you stay when you visit TCP?At most 1 hour per day 269 48.62-3 hours per day 211 38.2More than 3 hours per day 72 13.0

3

Table 14. TCP Uses by Internet Knowledge Status

4

Internet Status and TCP Uses All# %

Do Not Know How to Use Internet 462Services Used

Telephone 96 20.8Telecopy/Fax 13 2.8Internet access 111 24.0Payment services 4 0.9Photocopy 319 69.0Word Processing 203 43.9Data processing 35 7.6Printing 196 42.4Money Transfer 10 2.2Onsite training 1 0.2Search for jobs or internships 7 1.5Distance learning 1 0.2Cultural events 5 1.1

School related activities when Using Internet at TCP

View / Get textbooks 57 12.3To pay the school 7 1.5Communicate with teachers 10 2.2Prepare for exams, present. and homework 253 54.8Learn foreign languages and cultures 8 1.7Register abroad 0Other 129 27.9

Know How to Use Internet 553Services Used

Telephone 183 33.1Telecopy/Fax 12 2.2Internet access 412 74.5Payment services 8 1.4Photocopy 399 72.2Word Processing 171 30.9Data processing 59 10.7Printing 110 19.9Money Transfer 4 0.7Onsite training 25 4.5Search for jobs or internships 17 3.1Distance learning 12 2.2Cultural events 7 1.3

School related activities when Using Internet at TCP

View / Get textbooks 222 40.1To pay the school 9 1.6Communicate with teachers 27 4.9Prepare for exams, present. and homework 465 84.1Learn foreign languages and cultures 104 18.8Register abroad 11 2.0

5

Other 3 0.5

Table 15. Proportion of Students who Know How to Use Internet, for given combinations of Study Hours, School

Level and School PerformanceHours of Study

< 3 hrs 3-5 hrs >5 hrsLower Level

Falling 5.3 40.0 63.6Stable 31.6 49.0 82.1Rising 14.3 30.6 84.0

All Lower Level 22.1 43.8 81.3

Mid LevelFalling 39.1 47.2 66.7Stable 21.9 38.2 64.5Rising 46.7 50.8 80.3

All Mid Level 32.9 43.5 72.8

Upper LevelFalling 20.0 72.7 71.4Stable 41.7 59.7 62.5Rising 77.5 79.5

All Upper Level 35.3 66.9 71.8

6

Table 16a. Lower Secondary: Logistic Regression of Probability that a Student will Have a Rising Performance

Estimate Std. ErrorZ

value Pr(>|z|)Intercept -1.424 0.5719 -2.491 0.013 **Age (12-15) -0.403 0.4138 -0.973 0.330Age (16 and over) -0.816 0.4320 -1.889 0.059 *TCP2 0.640 0.4994 1.281 0.200TCP3 0.447 0.4312 1.036 0.300TCP4 0.584 0.4424 1.320 0.187TCP5 1.396 0.4647 3.004 0.003 ***Computer Literate -0.124 0.3386 -0.366 0.715Motivated 0.290 0.2946 0.984 0.325Internet Skills -0.506 0.3286 -1.539 0.124TCP Use (2-3 hrs/visit) 0.362 0.3111 1.165 0.244TCP Use (>3 hrs/visit) -0.186 0.4990 -0.373 0.709Hours of Study 0.515 0.2173 2.368 0.018 **

McFadden Pseudo R2 0.05989Statistical significance levels: * α=.1; ** α=.05; *** α=.01; **** α =.001

Table 16b. Mid Level Secondary: Logistic Regression of Probability that a Student will Have a Rising Performance

Estimate Std. ErrorZ

value Pr(>|z|)Intercept -1.779 1.5470 -1.150 0.250Age (12-15) 0.933 1.4964 0.623 0.533Age (16 and over) -0.656 1.4825 -0.443 0.658TCP2 0.389 0.5049 0.771 0.440TCP3 0.762 0.4345 1.754 0.079 *TCP4 0.864 0.4488 1.924 0.054 *TCP5 0.220 0.4286 0.513 0.608Computer Literate 0.313 0.3202 0.977 0.328Motivated 0.630 0.2587 2.436 0.015 **Internet Skills 0.586 0.2878 2.036 0.042 **TCP Use (2-3 hrs/visit) -0.536 0.2565 -2.089 0.037 **TCP Use (>3 hrs/visit) -0.630 0.4549 -1.385 0.166Hours of Study 0.603 0.1946 3.098 0.002 ***

McFadden Pseudo R2 0.097115Statistical significance levels: * α=.1; ** α=.05; *** α=.01; **** α =.001

7

Table 16c. Upper Secondary: Logistic Regression of Probability that a Student will Have a Rising Performance

Estimate Std. ErrorZ

valuePr(>|

z|)Intercept -5.565 1.4137 -3.937 0.000 ****Age (12-15)Age (16 and over) 1.716 1.2071 1.422 0.155TCP2 -1.076 1.4308 -0.752 0.452TCP3 0.321 0.57796 0.555 0.579TCP4 0.671 0.5260 1.276 0.202TCP5 -0.162 0.4994 -0.325 0.745Computer Literate 0.549 0.4370 1.257 0.209Motivated 1.590 0.3750 4.239 0.000 ****Internet Skills 0.823 0.3986 2.064 0.039 **TCP Use (2-3 hrs/visit) -0.088 0.3666 -0.241 0.809TCP Use (>3 hrs/visit) -0.793 0.5964 -1.329 0.184Hours of Study 0.887 0.2955 3.002 0.003 ***

McFadden Pseudo R2 0.18785Statistical significance levels: * α=.1; ** α=.05; *** α=.01; **** α =.001

Table 16d. All Secondary: Logistic Regression of Probability that a Student will Have a Rising Performance

Estimate Std. ErrorZ

valuePr(>|

z|)Intercept -1.508 0.5010 -3.010 0.003 ***Age (12-15) -0.796 0.3822 -2.082 0.037 **Age (16 and over) -0.812 0.3868 -2.099 0.036 **Lower -0.207 0.2383 -0.867 0.386Mid 0.007 0.1946 0.036 0.971TCP2 0.174 0.3055 0.570 0.568TCP3 0.499 0.2593 1.923 0.054 *TCP4 0.727 0.2570 2.830 0.005 ***TCP5 0.463 0.2513 1.841 0.066 *Computer Literate 0.193 0.2000 0.967 0.334Motivated 0.616 0.1621 3.804 0.000 ****Internet Skills 0.254 0.1805 1.407 0.159TCP Use (2-3 hrs/visit) -0.183 0.1646 -1.114 0.265TCP Use (>3 hrs/visit) -0.518 0.2766 -1.871 0.061 *Hours of Study 0.566 0.1245 4.542 0.000 ****

McFadden Pseudo R2 0.0671Statistical significance levels: * α=.1; ** α=.05; *** α=.01; **** α =.001

8