SavedAdd your journal

Journals / IOJET / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3

DIGITAL DEVICES AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: THE RELATIONSHIP IN PISA 2018 DATA

Kıvanç Bozkuş
Journal
IOJET
Pages
1560–1579
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results showed that the infrastructure of digital devices within the school affected PISA 2018 reading, math and science scores more than teachers’ capacity using digital devices.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This research aims to find how the infrastructure of digital devices within the school and teachers’ capacity using digital devices affect student achievement defined as PISA 2018 reading, math, and science scores.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data were obtained from the school questionnaire administered to school principals who participated in PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) 2018.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that the infrastructure of digital devices within the school affected PISA 2018 reading, math and science scores more than teachers’ capacity using digital devices.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This research aims to find how the infrastructure of digital devices within the school and teachers’ capacity using digital devices affect student achievement defined as PISA 2018 reading, math, and science scores. The ex post facto co-relational causal research design was employed. The data were obtained from the school questionnaire administered to school principals who participated in PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) 2018. A scale was developed from the PISA 2018 data available on OECD PISA website. To correlate factor means with PISA 2018 scores, a matrix was constructed by the researcher. To predict PISA 2018 scores with factor means, linear regression analyses were done. The results showed that the infrastructure of digital devices within the school affected PISA 2018 reading, math and science scores more than teachers’ capacity using digital devices. It was also revealed that there was a strong relationship between the infrastructure of digital devices within the school and teachers’ capacity using digital devices, and developing the infrastructure of digital technologies could provide practical benefits for students.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bozkuş, K. (2022). DIGITAL DEVICES AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: THE RELATIONSHIP IN PISA 2018 DATA. IOJET, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3, 1560–1579. https://ajindex.com/articles/493500

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Batane, T., & Ngwako, A. (2017). Technology use by pre-service teachers during teaching practice: Are new teachers embracing technology right away in their first teaching experience? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1). Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses: Why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 45-63.
  2. Becker, K. (2007). Digital game-based learning once removed: Teaching teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 478-488. Bovée, C., Voogt, J., & Meelissen, M. (2007). Computer attitudes of primary and secondary students in South Africa. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1762-1776.
  3. Brenner, A. M., & Brill, J. M. (2016). Investigating practices in teacher education that promote and inhibit technology integration transfer in early career teachers. TechTrends 60, 136–144.
  4. Brown, C. (2007). Learning through multimedia construction: A complex strategy. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(2), 93-124.
  5. Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachers’ adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 8(1), 136-155.
  6. Carstens, K. J., Mallon, J. M., Bataineh, M., & Al-Bataineh, A. (2021). Effects of technology on student learning. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 105-113.
  7. Chen, R. J. (2010). Investigating models for preservice teachers’ use of technology to support student-centered learning. Computers and Education, 55(1), 32-42.
  8. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6. ed.). New York: Routledge. Cradler, J., McNabb, M., Freeman, M., & Burchett, R. (2002). How does technology influence student learning? Learning and Leading with Technology, 29(8), 46-56.
  9. Davies, R. S. & West, R. E., (2014). Technology Integration in Schools. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, M. J. Bishop (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, (pp. 84-854). New York: Springer. Depta, M. (2015). Best Practices in Implementation of Technology Change in the K-12 Context. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(12B), 41-56.
  10. Ebuara, V. O. (2012). Information communication technology (ICT) as a factor in knowledge creation in Cross River Nigeria. Journal of Educational Re