SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 3

How does the ICT Access and Usage Influence Student Achievement in PISA 2009 and 2012?

Nuri DOĞAN
Gülfem Dilek YURTTAŞ KUMLU
Pages
219–242
Publication Date
2022-10-12
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)

In this study, the explained variance ratio of mathematics achievement by the school ICT variables levelwas greater than by the student ICT variables level.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of access and usage of information and communicationtechnologies (ICT) on Turkish students’ mathematics achievement implemented in PISA 2009 and PISA 2012.A correlational research model was used in this study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, the data which were obtained from the PISA2009 and PISA 2012 mathematics achievement tests and from the information and communications technologiesfamiliarity questionnaire (ICTFQ) in Turkey were used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this study, the explained variance ratio of mathematics achievement by the school ICT variables levelwas greater than by the student ICT variables level.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of access and usage of information and communicationtechnologies (ICT) on Turkish students’ mathematics achievement implemented in PISA 2009 and PISA 2012.A correlational research model was used in this study. In this study, the data which were obtained from the PISA2009 and PISA 2012 mathematics achievement tests and from the information and communications technologiesfamiliarity questionnaire (ICTFQ) in Turkey were used. In this study, three student level variables and two schoolvariables of ICTFQ which are common indexes both in PISA 2009 and PISA 2012 were selected to compare theeffect of ICT variables on PISA mathematics achievement implemented in different years. Two-levelHierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) analysis was performed in the analysis of the data. As a result, the studentlevel variables had a small or a trivial effect on mathematics achievement. The effect size value of the ENTUSEvariable was similar in the PISA 2009 and the PISA 2012 implementation, but the effect size value of theHOMSCH variable and the ICTHOME variable on mathematics achievement in PISA 2012 was lower than inPISA 2009. The ICTSCH and the USESCH variables at the school level had a large effect on mathematicsachievement in two implementations of PISA 2009 and PISA 2012. The effect size value of the ICTSCH variableon mathematics achievement in PISA 2012 was higher than in PISA 2009. The effect size value of the ICTSCHvariable, having a negative relationship with mathematics achievement in PISA 2012, was lower than in PISA2009. In this study, the explained variance ratio of mathematics achievement by the school ICT variables levelwas greater than by the student ICT variables level.

🔖

Cite This Article

DOĞAN, N., KUMLU, G. D. Y. (2022). How does the ICT Access and Usage Influence Student Achievement in PISA 2009 and 2012?. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 3, 219–242. https://ajindex.com/articles/497198

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Acar, T. (2012). 2009 yılı uluslararası öğrenci başarılarını değerlendirme programı’nda Türk öğrencilerin başarılarını etkileyen faktörler. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 3(2), 309-314.
  2. Akın, Y., & Cancan, M. (2007). Matematik öğretiminde problem çözümüne yönelik öğrenci görüşleri analizi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (16), 374-390.
  3. Alakoç, Z. (2003). Matematik öğretiminde teknolojik modern öğretim yaklaşımları. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(1), 43-49. http://tojet.net/articles/v2i1/217.pdf adresinden edinilmiştir. Anderson, R. E. (2008). Implications of the information and knowledge society for education. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 5-22).
  4. Boston, MA: Springer. 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. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ898009.pdf
  5. Baki, A., Yalçınkaya, H. A., Özpınar, İ., & Uzun, S. Ç. (2009). İlköğretim matematik öğretmenleri ve öğretmen adaylarının öğretim teknolojilerine bakış açılarının karşılaştırılması. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 1(1), 67-85.
  6. Balanskat, A., Bannister, D., Hertz, B., Sigillò, E., & Vuorikari, R. (2013). Overview and analysis of 1: 1 learning initiatives in Europe. In S. Bocconi, A. Balanskat, P. Kampylis, & Y. Punie (Eds.), Overview and analysis of 1: 1 learning initiatives in Europe (pp. 1-166).
  7. Spain, Luxembourg: European Commission. doi: 10.2791/20333. Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., & Kefala, S. (2006). The ICT impact report: A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe. European Schoolnet, 1, 1-71. Retrieved from http://colccti.colfinder.org/sites/default/files/ict_impact_report_0.pdf
  8. Barkatsas, A. T., Kasimatis, K., & Gialamas, V. (2009). Learning secondary mathematics with technology: Exploring the complex interrelationship between students’ attitudes, engagement, gender and achievement. Computers & Education, 52(3), 562-570. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.001 Becker, H. J. (2000). Ped