Advertisement

Social Psychology of Education

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 497–516 | Cite as

Information and communication technologies use, gender and mathematics achievement: evidence from Italy

  • Silvia MeggiolaroEmail author
Article

Abstract

This study investigates the importance of information and communication technology (ICT) use in the mathematics achievement scores of Italian secondary school students, with particular attention paid to the role of gender in the ICT-maths performance relationship. Data from the 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment study allow to describe (a) how the type and intensity of ICT use are associated with high or low maths achievement and (b) how the association varies according to gender. These issues are examined with respect to different maths domains. The results of multilevel models show a complex scenario. A positive association between ICT use and mathematics achievement occurs only when computers are used for some, not all, activities. In other cases, the association is negative. In general, the ICT-maths performance association is weaker for girls. Some exceptions to this general trend are the benefits of certain ICT applications, only for girls, in Shape and Space and in Uncertainty and Data subscales of mathematics.

Keywords

ICT use PISA data Students’ achievements Gender studies Italy 

References

  1. Ainley, J., Enger, L., & Searle, D. (2008). Students in digital age: Implications of ICT for teaching and learning. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 63–80). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attewell, P., & Battle, J. (1999). Home computers and school performance. The Information Society, 15(1), 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1080/019722499128628.Google Scholar
  3. Avvisati, F., Hennessy, S., Kozma, R. B., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2013). Review of the Italian strategy for digital schools. OECD education working papers series n. 90, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Azzolini, D., Schnell, P., & Palmer, J. R. B. (2012). Educational achievement gaps between immigrant and native students in two “new” immigration countries. Italy and Spain in comparison. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 643(1), 46–77.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212441590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barkatsas, A., 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barone, C., & Schizzerotto, A. (2006). Sociologia dell’istruzione (Sociology of Education). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  7. Berkman, R. M. (2004). The chess and mathematics connection: More than just a game. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 9, 246–250.Google Scholar
  8. Biagi, F., & Loi, M. (2013). Measuring ICT use and learning outcomes: Evidence from recent econometric studies. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 28–42.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bilalić, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2007a). Does chess need intelligence? A study with young chess players. Intelligence, 35(5), 457–470.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bilalić, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2007b). Personality profiles of young chess players. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(6), 901–910.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bocconi, S., Kampylis, P., & Punie, Y. (2012). Innovating teaching and learning practices: Key elements for developing creative classrooms in Europe. eLearning Papers, n. 30, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
  12. Borghans, L., & ter Weel, B. (2004). Are computers skills the new basic skills? The returns to computer, writing and math skills in Britain. Labour Economics, 11, 85–98.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5371(03)00054-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bornstein, M. H., & Bradley, R. H. (Eds.). (2003). Socio-economic status, parenting, and child development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Bratti, M., Checchi, D., & Filippin, A. (2007a). Geographical differences in Italian students’ mathematical competencies: evidence from PISA 2003. Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economica, 66(3), 299–333.Google Scholar
  15. Bratti, M., Checchi, D., & Filippin, A. (2007b). Da dove vengono le competenze degli studenti? (Where are students’ competences from?). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  16. Cahill, L. (2005). His brain, her brain. Scientific American, 292(5), 40–47.  https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0505-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Calzarossa, M., Ciancarini, P., Mich, L., & Scarabottolo, N. (2009). ICT teaching and certification in Italian high schools. In C. Hermann, T. Lauere, T. Ottmannn, & M. Welte (Eds.), Proc. IV informatics education Europe (pp. 89–94). Freiburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  18. Calzarossa, M., Ciancarini, P., Mich, L., & Scarabottolo, N. (2011). Informatics education in Italian high schools. In I. Kalas & R. T. Mittermeir (Eds.), Informatics in School (pp. 31–42). Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Chisalita, O. A., & Cretu, C. (2014). What do PISA 2012 results tell us about European students’ ICT access, ICT use and ICT attitudes?. In Proceedings of the 10th International Scientific Conference eLSE (eLearning and Software for Education), Bucharest, 24–25 April, 2014.Google Scholar
  20. Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2005). Effects of resources, inequality, and privilege bias on achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 575–603.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042004575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chiu, M. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2006). Gender, context, and reading: A comparison of students in 43 countries. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 331–362.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1004_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chiu, M. M., & Xihua, Z. (2008). Family and motivation effects on mathematics achievement: Analyses of students in 41 countries. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 321–336.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Close, S., & Shiel, G. (2009). Gender and PISA mathematics: Irish results in context. European Educational Research Journal, 8(1), 20–33.  https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2009.8.1.20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 22, 320–334.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00185.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cosgrove, J., & Cunningham, R. (2011). A multilevel model of science achievement of Irish students participating in the 2006 Programme for International Student Assessment. Irish Journal of Education, 39, 57–73.  https://doi.org/10.2307/41548684.Google Scholar
  27. De Lisi, R., & McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. (2002). Sex differences in mathematical abilities and achievement. In A. McGillicuddy-De Lisi & R. De Lisi (Eds.), Biology, society, and behavior: The development of sex differences in cognition (pp. 155–181). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  28. 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.compedu.2014.02.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Di Maggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355–400). New York: Russell Sage Found.Google Scholar
  30. Drabowicz, T. (2014). Gender and digital usage inequality among adolescents: A comparative study of 39 countries. Computers & Education, 74, 98–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dronkers, J., & Robert, P. (2008). Differences in scholastic achievement of public, private government-dependent, and private independent schools. A Cross-National Analysis. Educational Policy, 22(4), 541–577.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904807307065.Google Scholar
  32. Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks (JRC Technical Reports). European Commission, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  33. Ferrer, F., Belvís, E., & Pàmies, J. (2011). Tablet PCs, academic results and educational inequalities. Computers & Education, 56(1), 280–288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fuchs, T., & Wömann, L. (2005). Computers and student learning: Bivariate and multivariate evidence on availability and use of computers at home and at schools. IFOWorking Paper No.8, Munich.Google Scholar
  35. Gallagher, A. M., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2005). Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Gierl, M. J., Bisanz, J., Bisanz, G. L., & Boughton, K. A. (2003). Identifying content and cognitive skills that produce gender differences in mathematics: A demonstration of the multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40(4), 281–306.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2003.tb01148.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gilleece, L., Cosgrove, J., & Sofroniou, N. (2010). Equity in mathematics and science outcomes: Characteristics associated with high and low achievement on PISA 2006 in Ireland. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 475–496.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9199-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Grabner, R. H., Stern, E., & Neubauer, A. C. (2007). Individual differences in chess expertise: A psychometric investigation. Acta Psychologica, 124(3), 398–420.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.07.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gui, M., Micheli, M., & Fiore, B. (2014). Is the internet creating a ‘learning gap’ among students? Evidence from the Italian PISA data. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 6(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  40. Hampden-Thompson, G., & Johnston, J. S. (2006). Variation in the relationship between non-school factors and student achievement. Washington, DC: NCES.Google Scholar
  41. Hanushek, E. A., Dean, T., Jamison, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2008). Education and economic growth: It’s not just going to school but learning that matters. Education Next, 8(2), 62–70.Google Scholar
  42. Heemskerk, I., ten Dam, G., Volman, M., & Admiraal, W. (2009). Gender inclusiveness in educational technology and learning experiences of girls and boys. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(3), 253–276.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Judkins, D. R. (1990). Fay’s method for variance estimation. Journal of Official Statistics, 6, 223–239.Google Scholar
  44. Kaiser, G., & Steisel, T. (2000). Results of an analysis of the TIMS study from a gender perspective. Zentralblatt Für Didaktik Der Mathematik, 32(1), 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kirriemuir, J. M. (2004). Literature review in games and learning. Bristol: Futurelab.Google Scholar
  46. Kreft, I., & de Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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, 523–543.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9195-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lavy, V. (2004). Do gender stereotypes reduce girls’ human capital outcomes? Evidence from a natural experiment. NBER Working Paper 10678.Google Scholar
  49. Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers & Education, 49(2), 284–296.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.06.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Liu, O. L., & Wilson, M. (2009). Gender differences in large-scale math assessments: PISA trend 2000 and 2003. Applied Measurement in Education, 22, 164–184.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340902754635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Liu, O. L., Wilson, M., & Paek, I. (2008). A multidimensional Rasch analysis of gender differences in PISA mathematics. Journal of Applied Measurement, 9(1), 18–35.Google Scholar
  52. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young and the digital divide. New Media and Society, 9, 671–696.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807080335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Luu, K., & Freeman, J. G. (2011). An analysis of the relationship between information and communication technology (ICT) and scientific literacy in Canada and Austria. Computers & Education, 56, 1072–1082.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ma, X. (2008). Within school gender gaps in reading, mathematics, and science literacy. Comparative Education Review, 52(3), 437–460.  https://doi.org/10.1086/588762.Google Scholar
  55. Mumtaz, S. (2001). Children’s enjoyment and perception of computer use in the home and the school. Computers & Education, 36, 347–362.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00023-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nævdal, F. (2007). Home-PC usage and achievement in English. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1112–1121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Notten, N., Jochen, P., Kraaykamp, G., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2009). Research note: Digital divide across borders—a cross-national study of adolescents’ use of digital technologies. European Sociological Review, 25(5), 551–560.  https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcn071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nuttal, R. L., Casey, M. B., & Pezaris, E. (2005). Spatial ability as a mediator of gender differences on mathematics tests. In A. M. Gallagher & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics (pp. 121–142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming social background—equity in learning opportunities and outcomes (Vol. II). Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  60. OECD. (2012). PISA data analysis manual: SAS (2nd ed.). Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  61. OECD. (2014a). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do (Vol. I) (Revised ed.). Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. OECD. (2014b). PISA 2012 Technical Report, PISA, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  63. Papanastasiou, E., Zembylas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2003). Can computer use hurt science achievement? The USA results from PISA. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 325–332.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025093225753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pedró, F. (2007). The new millennium learners. Challenging our views on technology and learning. Nordic Journal of Digital Competence, 2(4), 244–264.Google Scholar
  65. Redecker, C., & Johannessen, O. (2013). Changing assessment: Towards a new assessment paradigm using ICT. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 79–96.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rosholm, M., Mikkelsen, M. B., & Gumede, K. (2017). Your move: The effect of chess on mathematics test scores. PLoS One, 12(5), e0177257.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Smihily, M. (2007). Internet usage in 2007. Households and individuals. Luxembourg: Eurostat.Google Scholar
  68. Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. (1999). Introduction to multilevel analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Tabatabai, D., & Shore, B. M. (2005). How experts and novices search the Web. Library & Information Science Research, 27, 222–248.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2005.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thiessen, V., & Looker, D. (2007). Digital divides and capital conversion: The optimal use of Information and Communication Technology for youth reading achievement. Information, Community and Society, 10(2), 159–180.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180701307370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tiedemann, J. (2000). Parents’ gender stereotypes and teachers’ beliefs as predictors of children’s concept of their mathematical ability in elementary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 144–151.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tømte, C., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2011). Gender-differences in self-efficacy ICT related to various ICT-user profiles in Finland and Norway. How do self-efficacy, gender and ICT-user profiles relate to findings from PISA 2006. Computers & Education, 57, 1416–1424.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. van Braak, J. (2001). Factors influencing the use of computer mediated communication by teachers in secondary schools. Computers & Education, 36(1), 41–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00051-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vekiri, I. (2010). Boys’ and girls’ ICT beliefs: Do teachers matter? Computer & Education, 55(1), 16–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Volman, M., van Eck, E., Heemskerk, I., & Kuiper, E. (2005). New technologies, new differences. Gender and ethnic differences in pupils’ use of ICT in primary and secondary education. Computers & Education, 45(1), 35–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wigfield, A., Battle, A., Keller, L., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Sex differences in motivation, self-concept, career aspiration, and career choice: Implications for cognitive development. In A. V. McGillicuddy-De Lisi & R. De Lisi (Eds.), Biology, society, and behavior: The development of sex differences in cognition (pp. 93–124). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  77. Willms, J. D. (2002). Ten hypotheses about socioeconomic gradients and community differences in children’s developmental outcomes. Montreal, Quebec: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
  78. Wittwer, J., & Senkbeil, M. (2008). Is students’ computer use at home related to their mathematical performance at school? Computers & Education, 50, 1558–1571.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Statistical SciencesUniversity of PadovaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations