Abstract
This study aims to investigate how Turkish students’ involvement in information and communication technologies (ICT) predicts their math and science performance in the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) test. The research also tests demographic variables including socioeconomic status (SES) and gender as covariates. The data were examined through two-step hierarchical regression analyses. Regarding demographics, SES revealed a significant positive contribution to the prediction of math and science performance, whereas gender failed to make a significant contribution. Additionally, after controlling demographics, ICT availability at home significantly and negatively predicted student math and science performance, whilst ICT availability at school was not found to be significantly contributory. Regarding ICT use variables, all constructs significantly predicted student math and science performances, but some negatively contributed to the model, whereas others positively contributed. Amongst ICT attitude variables, all constructs made a significantly positive or negative contribution to predicting both math and science performance, with one exception. Only perceived autonomy in ICT use failed to significantly contribute to the prediction of math performance. Based on the findings, it was concluded that persistent involvement in ICT tends to be related to decreased math and science performance. We propose that policymakers and practitioners drop the myth that ICT use results in better achievement under any circumstances and should therefore refrain from integrating ICT without first undertaking careful planning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aesaert, K., & van Braak, J. (2015). Gender and socioeconomic related differences in performance based ICT competences. Computers & Education, 84, 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.017
Aypay, A. (2010). Information and communication technology (ICT) usage and achievement of Turkish students in PISA 2006. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 116–124. http://www.tojet.net/articles/v9i2/9213.pdf
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
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
Bragdon, R. A., & Dowler, K. (2016). College student technology use and academic performance. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 6(1), 12–22. http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_6_No_1_January_2016/2.pdf
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. https://learntechlib.org/primary/p/178514/
Caro, D. H., & Biecek, P. (2017). intsvy: An R package for analysing International large-scale assessment data. Journal of Statistical Software, 81(7), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v081.i07
Chen, Y.-F., & Peng, S. S. (2008). University students’ Internet use and its relationships with academic performance, interpersonal relationships, psychosocial adjustment, and self-evaluation. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 467–469. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0128
Chiao, C., & Chiu, C.-H. (2018). The mediating effect of ICT usage on the relationship between students’ socioeconomic status and achievement. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 27(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0370-9
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004813
Drain, T. S., Grier, L. E., & Sun, W. (2012). Is the growing use of electronic devices beneficial to academic performance? Results from archival data and a survey. Issues in Information Systems, 13(1), 225–231. http://iacis.org/iis/2012/50_iis_2012_225-231.pdf
Falck, O., Mang, C., & Woessmann, L. (2018). Virtually no effect? Different uses of classroom computers and their effect on student achievement. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12192
Fernández-Gutiérrez, M., Gimenez, G., & Calero, J. (2020). Is the use of ICT in education leading to higher student outcomes? Analysis from the Spanish autonomous communities. Computers & Education, 157, Article 103969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103969
Gamazo, A., Martínez-Abad, F., Olmos-Migueláñez, S., & Jose Rodriguez-Conde, M. (2018). Assessment of factors related to school effectiveness in PISA 2015. A multilevel analysis. Revista de Educacion, 379, 56–84. https://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/dam/jcr:11b5dc5f-ed60-4d8c-92e5-83a2355c5fb2/03gamazo-pdf.pdf
Gök, A. (2014). Current situation, usage, management and integration of the smart classroom technologies within the scope of FATIH Project: A multiple case study [Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey]. METU Library. http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12618196/index.pdf
Gök, A., & Yildirim, Z. (2015). Investigation of FATIH Project within the scope of teachers, school administrators and YEGITEK administrators’ opinions: A multiple case study. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 11(2), 487–504. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/mersinefd/issue/17397/181967
Gubbels, J., Swart, N. M., & Groen, M. A. (2020). Everything in moderation: ICT and reading performance of Dutch 15-year-olds. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 8(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-020-0079-0
Gumus, S., & Atalmis, E. H. (2011). Exploring the relationship between purpose of computer usage and reading skills of Turkish students: evidence from PISA 2006. Turkish Online Journal Of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(3), 129–140. http://www.tojet.net/articles/v10i3/10315.pdf
Guo, Q., Qiao, C., & Ibrahim, B. (2022). The mechanism of influence between ICT and students’ science literacy: a hierarchical and structural equation modelling study. Journal of Science Education and Technology. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09954-9
Güzeller, C. O., & Akın, A. (2014). Relationship between ICT variables and mathematics achievement based on PISA 2006 database: International evidence. TOJET: Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 184–192. http://www.tojet.net/articles/v13i1/13116.pdf
Hu, X., Gong, Y., Lai, C., & Leung, F. K. S. (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.compedu.2018.05.021
Huang, S., Jiang, Y., Yin, H., & Jong, M.S.-Y. (2021). Does ICT use matter? The relationships between students’ ICT use, motivation, and science achievement in East Asia. Learning and Individual Differences, 86, Article 101957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101957
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). (n.d.). IDB Analyzer. https://www.iea.nl/data-tools/tools
Juhaňák, L., Zounek, J., Záleská, K., Bárta, O., & Vlčková, K. (2018). The Relationship between students’ ICT use and their school performance: Evidence from PISA 2015 in the Czech Republic. Orbis Scholae, 12(2), 37–64. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2018.292
Kaya, V. H., & İnci, S. (2021). How does information and communications technology influence Turkish students’ science achievement? Journal of Computer and Education Research, 9(18), 754–770. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.900695
Kilis, S., & Balbay, S. (2020). The dance of Clark and Kozma: Perspectives of the ICT teacher candidates. In Ş. Orakcı (Ed.), Paradigm shifts in 21st century teaching and learning (pp. 218–229). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-3146-4.ch014
Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban Legends in Education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.804395
Looi, C.-K., & Hung, W. L. D. (2004). ICT-in-education policies and implementation in Singapore and other Asian countries. In A. Aviram & J. Richardson (Eds.), Upon What Does the Turtle Stand? (pp. 27–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2799-0_2
Ma, Y., & Qin, X. (2021). Measurement invariance of information, communication and technology (ICT) engagement and its relationship with student academic literacy: Evidence from PISA 2018. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 68, Article 100982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100982
Machin, S., McNally, S., & Silva, O. (2007). New technology in schools: Is there a payoff? The Economic Journal, 117(522), 1145–1167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02070.x
Malhi, P., Bharti, B., & Sidhu, M. (2016). Use of electronic media and its relationship with academic achievement among school going adolescents. Psychological Studies, 61(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-015-0346-2
Meggiolaro, S. (2018). Information and communication technologies use, gender and mathematics achievement: Evidence from Italy. Social Psychology of Education, 21(2), 497–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9425-7
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, 50(6), 3233–3251. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12729
Odell, B., Cutumisu, M., & Gierl, M. (2020a). A scoping review of the relationship between students’ ICT and performance in mathematics and science in the PISA data. Social Psychology of Education, 23, 1449–1481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09591-x
Odell, B., Galovan, A. M., & Cutumisu, M. (2020). The relation between ICT and science in PISA 2015 for Bulgarian and Finnish students. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(6), em1846. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/7805
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (n.d.a). PISA 2018 Database. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (n.d.b). Scaling procedures and construct validation of context questionnaire data. In PISA 2018 Technical report (Chapter 16). https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/pisa2018technicalreport/PISA2018_Technical-Report-Chapter-16-Background-Questionnaires.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). PISA 2009 Technical Report. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264167872-en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015a). Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015b). The ABC of gender equality in education: Aptitude, behaviour, confidence. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264229945-en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). PISA 2015 Technical Report. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2015-technical-report/PISA2015_TechRep_Final.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). PISA 2015 results in focus. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019a). Country note: Results from PISA 2018. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_TUR.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019b). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
Özberk, E. H., Kabasakal, K. A., & Öztürk, N. B. (2017). Investigating the factors affecting Turkish students’ PISA 2012 mathematics achievement using hierarchical linear modeling PISA 2012. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 32(3), 544–559. http://www.openaccess.hacettepe.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11655/20341/1.pdf?sequence=2
Özkan, B., & Tekeli, F. N. (2021). The effects of information and communication technology engagement factors on science performance between Singapore and Turkey using multi-group structural equation modeling. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(4), 639–650. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.639
Özkan, U. B. (2022). Predictors of mathematics achievement of students in Turkey: An analysis of the variables of information and communication technologies familiarity. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 54, 272–296. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.845834
Park, S., & Weng, W. (2020). The relationship between ICT-related factors and student academic achievement and the moderating effect of country economic index across 39 countries. Educational Technology & Society, 23(3), 1–15.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116649373
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants’ part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.084
Rutkowski, L., Gonzalez, E., Joncas, M., & von Davier, M. (2010). International large-scale assessment data: Issues in secondary analysis and reporting. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10363170
Skryabin, M., Zhang, 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
South Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2011). Adapting Education to the Information Age: The White Paper for ICT in Education of Korea. http://www.keris.or.kr/english/whitepaper/WhitePaper_eng_2011_wpap.pdf
Srijamdee, K., & Pholphirul, P. (2020). Does ICT familiarity always help promote educational outcomes? Empirical evidence from PISA-Thailand. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 2933–2970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10089-z
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
Topuz, A. C., & Göktaş, Y. (2015). Türk eğitim sisteminde teknolojinin etkin kullanımı için yapılan projeler: 1984–2013 dönemi [Projects for effective technology use in Turkish education system: Period of 1984–2013]. International Journal of Informatics Technologies, 8(2), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.17671/btd.43357
Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2020). Hanehalkı Bilişim Teknolojileri Kullanım Araştırması [Information and Communication Technology (ICT) usage survey on households and individuals]. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Hanehalki-Bilisim-Teknolojileri-(BT)-Kullanim-Arastirmasi-2020-33679
Uzun, A. M., & Kilis, S. (2019). Does persistent involvement in media and technology lead to lower academic performance? Evaluating media and technology use in relation to multitasking, self-regulation and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.045
Willms, J. D., & Smith, T. (2005). A manual for conducting analyses with data from TIMSS and PISA. Report prepared for UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
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, Article 01646. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01646
Yang, Z., Barnard-Brak, L., & Siwatu, K. (2019). How does the availability of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) resources mediate the relationship between socioeconomic status and achievement? Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 4(3), 262–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-018-0079-x
Yurttas Kumlu, G. D., & Doğan, N. (2020). How does the ICT access and sage influence student achievement in PISA 2009 and 2012? Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 11(3), 219–242. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.581379
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 and Technology Education, 12(9), 2431–2449. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1297a
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for releasing the PISA datasets freely available to the public and academics, and also for the valuable technical guides for the methodological issues of addressing the data and the procedure.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ünal, E., Uzun, A.M. & Kilis, S. Does ICT involvement really matter? An investigation of Turkey’s case in PISA 2018. Educ Inf Technol 27, 11443–11465 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11067-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11067-8