You are here:

When Technology Does Not Add Up: ICT Use Negatively Predicts Mathematics and Science Achievement for Finnish and Turkish Students in PISA 2012
article

, , University of Alberta, Canada

Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Volume 27, Number 1, ISSN 1055-8896 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This study examines the data of students from Finland (n = 8,829) and Turkey (n = 4,848) who participated in the 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The purpose of this study is to discern whether the use and availability of information and communication technologies (ICT) at home and at school have a differential impact on academic achievement in mathematics and science. In both countries, structural equation modeling analyses revealed that the use of ICT at school for mathematics lessons was negatively associated with mathematics, while the use of ICT at home for schoolwork was not associated with mathematics and science. The availability of ICT at home and at school was positively associated with achievement in Turkey, but not in Finland. Finally, the use of ICT for entertainment was associated positively with achievement in Turkey, but negatively in Finland. These results have implications for the adoption of ICT in formal and informal learning environments.

Citation

Bulut, O. & Cutumisu, M. (2018). When Technology Does Not Add Up: ICT Use Negatively Predicts Mathematics and Science Achievement for Finnish and Turkish Students in PISA 2012. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 27(1), 25-42. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved April 21, 2021 from .

© 2018 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Aypay, A. (2010). Information and communication technology (ICT) usage and achievement of Turkish students in PISA 2006. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 116-124.
  2. Baller, S., Dutta, S., & Lanvin, B. (2016). The global information technology report 2016: Innovating in the digital economy. Geneva: World Economic Forum and INSEAD.
  3. Bielefeldt, T. (2005). Computers and student learnings: Interpreting the multivariate analysis of PISA 2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 339-347.
  4. Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R., Bollen, K.A., & Long, J.S. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 21(2), 230-258. Doi:10.11 77/0049124192021002005.
  5. Chang, K., Wu, L., Weng, S., & Sung, Y. (2012). Embedding game-based problem-solving phase into problem-posing system for mathematics learning. Computers& Education, 58(2), 775-786.
  6. Delen, E., & Bulut, O. (2011). The relationship between students’ exposure to technology and their achievement in science and math. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 311-317.
  7. Güzeller, C.O., & Ayça, A. (2014). Relationship between ICT variables and mathematics achievement based on PISA 2006 database: International evidence. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 184-192.
  8. Hox, J.J., & Bechger, T.M. (1998). An introduction to structural equation modeling. Family Science Review, 11, 354-373. Bulut and Cutumisu structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
  9. Kent, N., & Facer, K. (2004). Different worlds? A comparison of young people’s home and school ICT use. Journal of computer assisted learning, 20(6), 440-455.
  10. Kim, H., Seo, J., & Park, H. (2008). The impact of ICT use on students’ academic performance based on PISA 2006 korean data. The Journal of Korean Education, 35(4), 107-129.
  11. Kubiatko, M., & Vlckova, K. (2010). The relationship between ICT use and science knowledge for czech students: A secondary analysis of PISA 2006. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 523-543.
  12. Liem, G.A.D., Martin, A.J., Anderson, M., Gibson, R., & Sudmalis, D. (2014). The role of arts-related information and communication technology use in problem solving and achievement: Findings from the programme for international student assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 348.
  13. Niemi, H., Kynäslahti, H., & Vahtivuori-Hänninen, S. (2013). Towards ICT in everyday life in Finnish schools: seeking conditions for good practices. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(1), 57-71. Taylor& Francis.
  14. OECD. (2011). What is the student-teacher ratio and how big are classes? P. 395. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/edu-/skills-beyondschool/48631144.pdf
  15. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2010). Good practice in science teaching. Maidenhead; New York: Open University Press.
  16. Papanastasiou, E.C., & Ferdig, R.E. (2006). Computer use and mathematical literacy: An analysis of existing and potential relationships. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(4), 361.
  17. Papanastasiou, E.C., Zembylas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2005). An examination of the PISA database to explore the relationship between computer use and science achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(6), 529543.
  18. Petko, D., Cantieni, A., & Prasse, D. (2017). Perceived quality of educational technology matters A secondary analysis of students’ ICT use, ICT-related attitudes, and PISA 2012 test scores. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(8), 1070-1091.
  19. Shewbridge, C., Ikeda, M., & Schleicher, A. (2006). Are students ready for a technology-rich world?: What PISA studies tell us.
  20. Skryabin, M., Zhang, J., Liu, L., & Zhang, D. (2015). How the ICT development level and usage influence student achievement in reading, mathematics, and science. Computers& Education, 85, 49-58.
  21. Tømte, C., & Hatlevik, O.E. (2011). Gender-differences in self-efficacy ICT related to various ICT-user profiles in Finland and Norway. How do selfefficacy, gender and ICT-user profiles relate to findings from PISA 2006. Computers and Education, 57(1), 1416-1424. Elsevier.
  22. Uluyol, Ç. (2013). ICT integration in Turkish schools: Recall where you are coming from to recognise where you are going to. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), E10-E13. Wiley Online Library.
  23. Van Eck, R., & Dempsey, J. (2002). The effect of competition and contextualized advisement on the transfer of mathematics skills a computer-based instructional simulation game. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 23-41.
  24. Wals, A.E., Brody, M., Dillon, J., & Stevenson, R.B. (2014). Convergence between science and environmental education. Science, 344(6184), 583-584.
  25. Wittwer, J., & Senkbeil, M. (2008). Is students’ computer use at home related to their mathematical performance at school? Computers& Education, 50(4), 1558-1571.
  26. Yildirim, S. (2007). Current utilization of ICT in turkish basic education schools: A review of teacher’s ICT use and barriers to integration. International Journal of Instructional Media, 34(2), 171-186.
  27. Ziya, E., Doğan, N., & Kelecioğlu, H. (2010). What is the predict level of which computer using skills measured in PISA for achievement in mathematics. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(4), 185 DASHDASH

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections