Effect of ICT Use, Parental Support and Student Hindering on Science Achievement: Evidence from PISA 2018

Abstract

We aimed to examine the effect of ICT use, parental support and student hindering on science achievement in Turkey, USA and South Korea with using PISA 2018 data. PISA is one of the biggest international assessment study aiming comparison of students’ academic capabilities in science, mathematics and reading among participant countries. For this purpose, we classified variables related to student -ICT use out of school for leisure, ICT use in classroom, perceived family support, students’ hindering behaviors, gender and ESCS on student achievement- as (i) student level and (ii) school level. Approximately 710.000 students representing nearly 32 million students from 79 participating countries completed the PISA 2018 assessment in all over the world. Number of participants were 6890 in 186 schools for Turkey, 4838 in 164 schools for USA and 6650 in 188 schools for South Korea. We used a two-level hierarchical linear model (HLM) to determine the effect of parents’ emotional support, student hindering behavior, ICT use in classroom and ICT use out of school for leisure on science achievement. Two students’ background variables (gender and economic, social and cultural status) were controlled for student levels. Two level HLM results indicated that gender of the students has a significant effect on science achievement in Turkey but no significant effect in USA and South Korea. Additionally, family socio-economic status had a significant positive effect on students’ science achievement in all three counties. We also found that in all three countries, family support had a positive influence on science achievement. Results indicated that student-hindering behavior had a negative effect on science achievement for all three countries. In USA, an increase in ICT usage had a very strong negative effect on science achievement. On the contrary, ICT usage out of school for leisure had a positive effect on science achievement in Turkey. There was no significant effect in South Korea.

Keywords

• ICT use in classroom
• ICT use out of school for leisure
• parental support
• student hindering
• science achievement
• PISA 2018

References

1. Ainley J., Enger L., & Searle D. (2008). Students in a digital age: Implications of ICT for teaching and learning. In International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 63-80). Springer. Boston. MA.
2. Aslanargun E. (2007). Okul-aile işbirliği ve öğrenci başarısı üzerine bir tarama çalışma. Manas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(18), 119-135.
3. Atasoy R. (2021). Öğrencilerin okula bağlılığı. N. Özdemir. S. Turan ve Ö. Çoban (Ed.). 21. yüzyıl okullarını yeniden düşünmek (ss. 335-366). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
4. Avvissati F. (2020). The measure of socio‑economic status in PISA: a review and some suggested improvements. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 8(8), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-020-00086-x Aypay A. (2010). Information and communication technology (ICT) usage and achievement of Turkish students in PISA 2006. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 9(2), 116-124.
5. Barrow L., Markman L., & Rouse C. E. (2009). Technology’s edge: The educational benefits of computer-aided instruction. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 1, 52–74.
6. Barutçu Yıldırım F., & Demir A. (2019). Self-handicapping among university students: The role of procrastination. test anxiety. self-esteem. and self-compassion. Psychological Reports. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118825099.
7. Brighouse H., Ladd H., Loeb S., & Swift A. (2015). Educational goods and values: A framework for decision makers. Theory and Research in Education, 14(1), 3–25.
8. Bruniges M. (2003). Developing performance indicators for ICT use in education: Australia's experience. http://www2.unescobkk.org/education/ict/v2/info.asp?id=13249

9. Bryk A. S., Sebring P. B., & Allensworth E. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226078014.001.0001.
10. Boonk L., Gijselaers H. J., Ritzen H., & Brand-Gruwel S. (2018). A review of the relationship between parental involvement indicators and academic achievement. Educational Research Review, 24, 10-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.001
11. Carretero S., R. Vuorikari, & Y. Punie (2017). Dig Comp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use. European Commission. http://dx.doi.org/10.2760/38842
12. Castro M., Exposito-Casas E., Lopez-Martin E., Lizasoain L., Navarro-Asencio E., & Gaviria. J. L. (2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 14, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.01.002
13. Chen J. J. L. (2008). Grade-level differences: Relations of parental teacher and peer support to academic engagement and achievement among Hong Kong students. School Psychology International, 29(2), 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034308090059
14. Cheung. A. C. K., & 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.edurev.2013.01.001
15. Chinn M. D., & Fairlie R. W. (2010). ICT use in the developing world: an analysis of differences in computer and internet penetration. Review of International Economics, 18(1), 153-167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9396.2009.00861.x
16. Coban O., & Atasoy R. (2019). An examination of relationship between teachers' self-efficacy perception on ICT and their attitude towards ICT usage in the classroom. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 14(1), 136-145.
17. Coleman J. S., Campbell E. Q., Hobson C. J., McPartland J., Mood. A. M., Weinfeld. F. D., & York R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
18. Comi S. L., Argentin G., Gui M., Origo F., & Pagani L. (2017). Is it the way they use it? Teachers. ICT and student achievement. Economics of Education Review. 56. 24-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.11.007
19. Çoban Ö., Özdemir N., & Bellibaş M. Ş. (2020). Trust in principals. leaders’ focus on instruction. teacher collaboration. and teacher self-efficacy: testing a multilevel mediation model. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 1741143220968170.
20. Çobanoğlu R., & Yurttaş-Kumlu G. D. (2020). Children’s science learning outside school: Parental support. Turkish Journal of Education, 9(1), 46-63. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.613091
21. Dabney K. P., Chakraverty D., & Tai. R. H. (2013). The association of family influence and initial interest in science. Science Education, 97(3), 395-409. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21060
22. Daniel J. (2012). Choosing the type of probability sampling. In: Daniel J (Ed.). Sampling essentials: Practical guidelines for making sampling choices. Thousand Oaks. California: SAGE Publications. Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452272047
23. Delen E., & Bulut O. (2011). The relationship between students' exposure to technology and their achievement in science and math. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(3). 311-317.
24. Dumais S. A. (2002). Cultural capital, gender and school success: The role of habitus. Sociology of Education, 75(1), 44–68. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090253.
25. Demirtaş H., & Özer N. (2007). Öğretmen adaylarının zaman yönetimi becerileri ile akademik başarısı arasındaki ilişkisi. Eğitimde Politika Analizleri ve Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2(1), 34-47.
26. Eberbach C., & Crowley K. (2017). From seeing to observing: How parents and children learn to see science in a botanical garden. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(4), 608-642. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1308867
27. Ehrlich K. B., Dykas. M. J., & Cassidy. J. (2012). Tipping points in adolescent adjustment: Predicting social functioning from adolescents’ conflict with parents and friends. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 776-783. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029868
28. Ertem. H. Y. (2021). Examination of system of transition to upper-secondary schools from lower-secondary schools in terms of student. class. and school level variables. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 79(2), 194-206.
29. ETS [Educational Testing Service]. (2002). Digital transformation. Princeton: A framework for ICT literacy. European Commission. (2013). Survey of schools; ICT in education. Luxembourg: The European Union.
30. Ferrari. A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. (Report EUR 25351 EN). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
31. Flynn H. K., Felmlee D. H., Shu X., & Conger, R. D. (2018). Mothers and fathers matter: The influence of parental support. hostility. and problem solving on adolescent friendships. Journal of Family Issues, 39(8), 2389-2412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X18755423
32. Fraillon J., Schulz W., & Ainley J. (2013). International computer and information literacy study: Assessment framework. Amsterdam: IEA.
33. Fraillon J., Schulz W., Gebhardt E., & J. Ainley (2015). National assessment program: ICT literacy years 6 & 10 Report 2014. Australian Curriculum. Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). Sydney. https://research.acer.edu.au/ict_literacy/11.
34. Freeman C. E. (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls & women: 2004. NCES 2005-016. National Center for Education Statistics.
35. Freeman M. (2010). Knowledge is acting: Working‐class parents’ intentional acts of positioning within the discursive practice of involvement. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390903081629
36. Fuchs T., & Woessmann L. (2004). Computers and student learning: bivariate and multivariate evidence on the availability and use of computers at home and at school (Munich. CESifo GmbH).
37. Garson G. D. (2014). Fundamentals of hierarchical linear and multilevel modeling. In Hierarchical linear modeling: guide and applications. SAGE Publications. Inc. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483384450.
38. Goddard R., Goddard Y., & Sook Kim E. (2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the roles of instructional leadership. teacher collaboration and collective efficacy beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 501–530. https://doi.org/10.1086/681925
39. Goddard Y. L., Goddard R. D., Bailes L. P., & Nichols R. (2019). From school leadership to differentiated instruction: a pathway to student learning in schools. The Elementary School Journal, 120(2), 197–219. https://doi.org/10.1086/705827
40. Gonida E. N., & Cortina K. S. (2014). Parental involvement in homework: Relations with parent and student achievement‐related motivational beliefs and achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 376-396.
41. Gore J. M., Miller A., Fray L., Harris J., & Prieto. E. (2021). Improving student achievement through professional development: Results from a randomised controlled trial of Quality Teaching Rounds. Teaching and Teacher Education, 101,1-12.
42. Gumus S., & Atalmis E. H. (2011). Exploring the relationship between purpose of computer usage and reading skills of Turkish students: Evidence from PISA 2006 .The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10, 129-140.
43. Hallinger P., & Heck R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: a review of empirical research. 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X96032001002
44. Hallinger P., & Murphy J. F. (1986). The social context of effective schools. American Journal of Education, 94(3), 328–355. https://doi.org/10.1086/443853.
45. Hill N. E., & Taylor L. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children's academic achievement: Pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychology Science, 13, 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00298.x
46. Hofstede G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks. CA: SAGE.
47. Hornby G., & Lafaele. R. (2011). Barriers to parental involvement in education: An explanatory model. Educational Review, 63(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2010.488049
48. House J. (2007). Relationships between computer use and reading achievement of elementary-school students: Results from the PIRLS 2001 assessment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 34, 449–456.
49. Ilter B. G. (2009). Effect of technology on motivation in EFL classrooms. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 10(4), 136-158.
50. Ivinson G., & Murphy P. (2003). Boys don’t write romance: The construction of knowledge and social gender identities in English classrooms. Pedagogy Culture and Society, 11(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360300200162
51. Jeynes W. H. (2011). Parental involvement and academic success. New York. NY: Routledge.
52. Jones E. E., & Berglas S. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(2), 200-206. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727800400205
53. Johnson B., & Stevens J. J. (2006). Student achievement and elementary teachers’ perceptions of school climate. Learning Environments Research, 9(2), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-006-9007-7.
54. Kreft I., & de Leeuw J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. Newbury Park. CA: Sage.
55. Kim J. S., & Bang H. (2017). Education fever: Korean parents’ aspirations for their children’s schooling and future career. Pedagogy. Culture & Society, 25(2), 207-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2016.1252419
56. Lee S., & Shouse R. (2008). Is education fever treatable? Case studies of first-year Korean students in an American University. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 5(2), 113-132.
57. Lee V. E. (2000). Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: the case of school effects. Educational Psychologist. 35(2), 125-141. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3502_6
58. Lennon, M., Kirsch I., von Davier M., Wagner M., & Yamamoto K. (2003). Feasibility study for the PISA ICT literacy assessment. report to network A.. In. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED504 154.pdf.
59. Lorenz R., Eickelmann B., & Gerick J. (2015. March). What affects students’ computer and information literacy around the world?–An analysis of school and teacher factors in high performing countries. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1212-1219). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
60. Machin S., & McNally S. (2005). Gender and student achievement in English schools. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 21(3), 357-372. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/gri021
61. MacNeil A. J., Prater D. L., & Busch S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120701576241.
62. Mahdum M., Hadriana H., & Safriyanti M. (2019). Exploring teacher perceptions and motivations to ICT use in learning activities in Indonesia. Journal of Information Technology Education, 18, 24-37. https://doi.org/10.28945/4366
63. Mayer R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
64. MoNE (2021). FATIH Project Our Mission and Vision. http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/en/about.html.
65. Murray D. (2005). Information technology and innovation in language education. In Davison C. (E.d.) Hong Kong: Hong Kong University press.
66. Nelson D. B., & Nelson K. W. (2003, March). Emotional intelligence skills: Significant factors in freshmen achievement and retention. Paper presented at the American Counselling Association Conference. Anaheim. CA.
67. Odell B., Cutumisu M., & Gierl M. (2020). A scoping review of the relationship between students’ ICT and performance in mathematics and science in the PISA data. Social Psychology of Education, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09591-x
68. OECD (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting. developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD Publishing.
69. OECD (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. PISA: Author. doi: 10.1787/9789264239555
70. OECD (2018). Preparing Our Youth for an Inclusive and Sustainable World: The OECD PISA global competence framework. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/Handbook-PISA-2018-Global-Competence.pdf.
71. OECD (2019). PISA 2018 results. Paris: OECD Publication.
72. Özdemir N. (2019). Principal leadership and students’ achievement: Mediated pathways of professional community and teachers’ instructional practices. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 16(1), 81-104.
73. Özdemir N., & Yalcın M.T. (2019). Examination of the relationships between academic achievement and the variables at the levels of school and students in secondary schools: two-level path analysis. Education and Science, 44(200), 93–116. https://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.8056
74. Pennington M. C. (1996). The Power of CALL. Houston: Athelstan.
75. Putwain D. W. (2019). An examination of the self-referent executive processing model of test anxiety: control. emotional regulation. self-handicapping. and examination performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 34(2), 341-358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-018-0383-z
76. Rank T., Warren C., & Millum T. (2011). Teaching English using ICT: A Practical Guide for Secondary School Teachers. New York.NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.
77. Raudenbush S. W., & Bryk A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and data analysis methods. Second edition. Chicago.
78. Sarıer Y. (2016). Türkiye’de öğrencilerin akademik başarısını etkileyen faktörler: bir meta-analiz çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(3), 609-627. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2016015868
79. Sebastian J., Huang H., & Allensworth E. (2017). Examining integrated leadership systems in high schools: connecting principal and teacher leadership to organizational processes and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(3). 463–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2017.1319392
80. Salisbury J., Rees G., & Gorard S. (1999). Accounting for the differential attainment of boys and girls at school. School Leadership and Management, 19(4), 403–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632439968943
81. Skryabin M., Zhang J. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.004
82. Şahin F., & Çoban Ö. (2020). Effect of school climate. students 'self-handicapping behaviors and demographic characteristics on students' achievement. I.E.: Inquiry in Education, 12(2), 1-20. https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie/vol12/iss2/6
83. Tamim R. M., Bernard R. M., Borokhovski E., Abrami P. C., & Schmid. R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81, 4-28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310393361
84. Tan C. Y., Lyu M., & Peng B. (2020). Academic benefits from parental involvement are stratified by parental socioeconomic status: A meta-analysis. Parenting, 20(4), 241-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2019.1694836
85. Thomas C. R., & Gadbois S. A. (2007). Academic self‐handicapping: The role of self‐concept clarity and students' learning strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 101-119. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X79644
86. Török L., Szabó Z. P., & Tóth L. (2018). A critical review of the literature on academic self-handicapping: theory. manifestations. prevention and measurement. Social Psychology of Education, 21(5), 1175-1202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9460-z
87. Uluyol Ç., & Şahin S. (2016). Elementary school teachers' ICT use in the classroom and their motivators for using ICT. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 65-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12220
88. Xiao Y., Liu Y., & Hu J. (2019). Regression analysis of ICT impact factors on early adolescents’ reading proficiency in five high-performing countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1646. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01646
89. Voyer D., & Voyer, S. D. (2014). Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1174–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036620
90. Wang Y., Deng C., & Yang X. (2016). Family economic status and parental involvement: Influences of parental expectation and perceived barriers. School Psychology International, 37(5), 536–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034316667646
91. Wentzel K. R., & Miele D. B. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed). New York: Routledge.
92. Willms J. D., & Smith T. M. (2005). A manual for conducting analyses with data from TIMSS and PISA. A report prepared for the UNESCO institute for statistics. Retrieved October 13. 2010.
93. Willms J., & Tramonte L. (2015). Towards the development of contextual questionnaires for the PISA for development study. In OECD education working papers (Vol. 2015). Paris: OECD Publishing. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js1kv8crsjf-en.
94. Woessmann L., & Fuchs. T. (2005). Computers and student learning: bivariate and multivariate evidence on the availability and use of computers at home and at school. CESifo Working Pap., 47, 339–347.
95. Yalçın S., & Tavşancıl E. (2014). The comparison of Turkish students’ PISA achievement levels by year via data envelopment analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(3), 961-968. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.3.1748
96. You, H. S., Park. S., & Delgado C. (2021). A closer look at US schools: What characteristics are associated with scientific literacy? A multivariate multilevel analysis using PISA 2015. Science Education, 105, 406–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21609
97. Yu C. C. W., Chan. S., Cheng F., Sung R. Y. T., & Hau K. T. (2006). Are physical activity and academic performance compatible? Academic achievement. conduct. physical activity and self-esteem of Hong Kong Chinese primary school children. Educational Studies, 32(4), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690600850016
98. Yu J., & McLellan R. (2019). Beyond academic achievement goals: The importance of social achievement goals in explaining gender differences in self-handicapping. Learning and Individual Differences, 69, 33-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.11.010
99. Zhong Z. J. (2011). From access to usage: The divide of self-reported digital skills among adolescents. Computers & Education. 56(3), 736–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.016