Archives
Current issue
About
About us
Aims and Scope
Abstracting and Indexing
Editorial Office
Open Access Policy
Publication Ethics
Journal History
Publisher
Follow us: Twitter
Contact
For Authors
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
Copyright & Licencing
Publication Fees
Fee Waiver Policy for Doctoral Students
EJMSTE Language Editing Service
More
Statistics
Special Issues
Special Issue Announcements
Published Special Issues
RESEARCH PAPER
The Relation Between ICT and Science in PISA 2015 for Bulgarian and Finnish Students
1
University of Alberta, CANADA
Publication date: 2020-02-21
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2020;16(6):em1846
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The relationship between Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and science
performance has been the focus of much recent research, especially due to the prevalence of ICT
in our digital society. However, the exploration of this relationship has yielded mixed results. Thus,
the current study aims to uncover the learning processes that are linked to students’ science
performance by investigating the effect of ICT variables on science for 15-year-old students in
two countries with contrasting levels of technology implementation (Bulgaria n = 5,928 and
Finland n = 5,882). The study analyzed PISA 2015 data using structural equation modeling to
assess the impact of ICT use, availability, and comfort on students’ science scores, controlling for
students’ socio-economic status. In both countries, results revealed that (1) ICT use and availability
were associated with lower science scores and (2) students who were more comfortable with ICT
performed better in science. This study can inform practical implementations of ICT in classrooms
that consider the differential effect of ICT and it can advance theoretical knowledge around
technology, learning, and cultural context.
REFERENCES (53)
1.
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(4), 495-508.
2.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3.
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 on June 7, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p....
4.
Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edur....
5.
Cobern, W. W. (1993). Contextual Constructivism: The impact of culture on the learning and teaching of science. In: K. Tobin (Ed) The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education, pp 51-69, Lawrence-Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
6.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
Cussó-Calabuig, R., Farran, X. C., & Bosch-Capblanch, X. (2018). Effects of intensive use of computers in secondary school on gender differences in attitudes towards ICT: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 23(5), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639....
8.
De Witte, K., & Rogge, N. (2014). Does ICT matter for effectiveness and efficiency in mathematics education? Computers & Education, 75, 173-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comp....
9.
European Union (March, 2019a). 2nd survey of schools: ICT in Education. Digital Single Market. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-s....
10.
European Union (March, 2019b). 2nd survey of schools: ICT in Education. Bulgaria Country Report. Digital Single Market. https://doi.org/10.2759/83567.
11.
European Union (March, 2019c). 2nd survey of schools: ICT in Education. Finland Country Report. Digital Single Market. https://doi.org/10.2759/364303.
12.
Gamazo, A., Martínez-Abad, F., Olmos-Migueláñez, S., & Rodríguez-Conde, M. J. (2018). Evaluación de factores relacionados con la eficacia escolar en PISA 2015. Un análisis multinivel1 Assessment of factors related to school effectiveness in PISA 2015. A multilevel analysis. Revista de educación, 379, 56-84.
13.
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 17.0 update (10a ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.
14.
Gurria, A. (2016). PISA 2015 results in focus. PISA in Focus, (67), 1, OECD Publishing, Paris.
15.
Hayduk, L. (2014). Seeing perfectly fitting factor models that are causally misspecified: Understanding that close-fitting models can be worse. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(6), 905-926.
16.
Holzinger, K., & Swineford, F. (1937). The bi-factor method. Psychometrika, 2, 41-54.
17.
Hu, X., Gong, Y., Lai, C., & Leung, F. K. (2018). The relationship between ICT and student literacy in mathematics, reading, and science across 44 countries: A multilevel analysis. Computers & Education. 125, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comp....
18.
ICTC (2016). Information and Communication Technology Council. Digital talent road to 2020 and beyond: A national strategy to develop Canada’s talent in a global digital economy. Retrieved from https://www.ictc-ctic.ca/wpcon....
19.
Johnson, L., Becker, S. A., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., Kampylis, P., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2014). NMC Horizon Report Europe: 2014 Schools Edition. The New Media Consortium. https://doi.org/10.2791/83258.
20.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
21.
Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York, USA: Guilford Press.
22.
Luu, K., & Freeman, J. G. (2011). An analysis of the relationship between information and communication technology (ICT) and scientific literacy in Canada and Australia. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1072-1082.
23.
Martin-Perpiñá, M., Viñas i Poch, F., & Malo Cerrato, S. (2019). Media multitasking impact in homework, executive function and academic performance in Spanish adolescents. Psicothema, 31(1), 81-87.
24.
Meng, L., Qiu, C., & Boyd‐Wilson, B. (2019). Measurement invariance of the ICT engagement construct and its association with students’ performance in China and Germany: Evidence from PISA 2015 data. British Journal of Educational Technology, 5(6), 3233-3251.
25.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus statistical modeling software: Release 7.0. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
26.
Naumann, J. (2015). A model of online reading engagement: Linking engagement, navigation, and performance in digital reading. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 263-277.
27.
Nordicity (2017). Canada’s video game industry in 2017. Final report. Prepared for the Entertainment Software Association of Canada. Retrieved from http://theesa.ca/wp-content/up....
28.
Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Novak, J., Purta, M., Marciniak, T., Ignatowicz, K., Rozenbaum, K., & Yearwood, K. (2018). The rise of Digital Challengers: How digitization can become the next growth engine for Central and Eastern Europe. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from https://digitalchallengers.mck....
30.
OECD (2005). PISA 2003 Technical Report. PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/....
31.
OECD (2009). PISA 2006 Technical Report. PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from https://www.educacionyfp.gob.e....
32.
OECD (2014a). PISA 2012 Technical Report. PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisap....
33.
OECD (2014b). PISA 2015 ICT Familiarity Questionnaire, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/....
34.
OECD (2014c). PISA 2015 Student Questionnaire, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/....
35.
OECD (2015). Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection. PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/978926....
36.
OECD (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/978926....
37.
OECD (2017a). PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic, Financial Literacy and Collaborative Problem Solving, revised edition, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/978926....
38.
OECD (2017b). PISA 2015 Technical Report, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/site....
40.
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.
41.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (Vol. 8, No. 5, p. 18). New York: International Universities Press.
43.
Ridao-Cano, C., & Bodewig, C. (2018). Growing United: Upgrading Europe’s Convergence Machine. World Bank Report on the European Union. Retrieved from http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/e....
44.
Rodrigues, M., & Biagi, F. (2017). Digital technologies and learning outcomes of students from low socio-economic background: An Analysis of PISA 2015. Joint Research Centre (JRC) Science for Policy Report. Retrieved from: https://core.ac.uk/download/pd....
45.
Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley and Sons.
46.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
47.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th edn.). Boston. Ma: Pearson.
48.
van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., Cook, J., Leiserowitz, A., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017). Inoculating against misinformation. Science, 358(6367), 1141-1142.
49.
Waight, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2007). The impact of technology on the enactment of “inquiry” in a technology enthusiast sixth grade science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 154-182.
50.
Webb, M. E. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning: Implications for an integrated pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 705–736.
51.
Yeganehfar, M., Zarei, A., Isfandyari-Mogghadam, A. R., & Famil-Rouhani, A. (2018). Justice in technology policy: A systematic review of gender divide literature and the marginal contribution of women on ICT. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 16(2), 123-137. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-....
52.
Zandvliet, D. B. (2012). ICT learning environments and science education: Perception to practice. In Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1277-1289). Springer, Dordrecht.
53.
Zhang, D., & Liu, L. (2016). How Does ICT Use Influence Students’ Achievements in Math and Science Over Time? Evidence from PISA 2000 to 2012. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(9).
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1305-8223 |
| ISSN: | 1305-8215 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
