The relationship between students' exposure to technology and their achievement in science and math

Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 311-317

  Delen, Erhan ^a   Bulut, Okan ^b  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Achievement; Hierarchical modeling; ICT; PISA; Technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960095231     PISSN: None     EISSN: 13036521     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Askar, P. and Olkun, S. (2005). The use of ICT in schools based on PISA 2003 Data. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 19, 15-34.
2. Aypay, A. (2010). Information and communication technology (ICT) usage and achievement of Turkish students in PISA 2006. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 116-124.
3. Attewell, P., & Battle, J. (1999). Home computers and school performance. Information Society, 15(1), 1-10.
4. Bates, D., Maechler, M. & Bolker, B. (2007). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-39. (http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4)
5. Becker, H. J. (2000). Who's wired and who's not: Children's access to and use of computer technology. The Future of Children, 10(2), 44-75.
6. Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick (Ed.), Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
7. Dumais, S. A. (2009). Cohort and gender differences in extracurricular participation: The relationship between activities, math achievement, and college expectations. Sociological Spectrum, 29(1), 72-100.
8. Durkin, K., & Barber, B. (2002). Not so doomed: Computer game play and positive adolescent development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23(4), 373-392.
9. Eskil, M., Ozgan, H., & Balkar, B. (2010). Students' opinions on using classroom technology in science and technology lessons - A case study for Turkey (Kilis City). TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(1), 165-175.
10. Hamlen, K. R. (2011). Children's choices and strategies in video games. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 532-539.
11. Kim, S., & Chang, M. (2010). Does computer use promote the mathematical proficiency of ELL students? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 285-305.
12. Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 1-14.
13. 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(3), 523-543.
14. Lauman, D. J. (2000). Student home computer use: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 196-203.
15. Lee, S. M., Brescia, W., & Kissinger, D. (2009). Computer use and academic development in secondary schools. Computers in the Schools, 26(3), 224-235.
16. Li, X., & Atkins, M. S. (2004). Early childhood computer experience and cognitive and motor development. Pediatrics, 113(6), 1715-1722.
17. National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES] (2001). The nation's report card: Science 2000. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
18. Notten, N., & Kraaykamp, G. (2009). Home media and science performance: A cross-national study. Educational Research & Evaluation, 15(4), 367-384.
19. Ortiz, R. W., Green, T., & Lim, H. (2011). Families and home computer use: Exploring parent perceptions of the importance of current technology. Urban Education, 46(2), 202-215.
20. Ozgun-Koca, A. & Sen, A. I. (2002). Evaluation of the Results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study for Turkey. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eǧitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 43, 145-154.
21. Papanastasiou, E. C., Zembylas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2003). Can computer use hurt science achievement? The USA results from PISA. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 12(3), 325-332.
22. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
23. Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., Rideout, V. J., & Brodie, M. (1999). Kids and media at the new millennium: A comprehensive national analysis of children's media use. A Kaiser Family Foundation Report, Menlo Park, CA.
24. Sahin, I. (2010). Curriculum Assessment: Constructivist Primary Mathematics Curriculum in Turkey. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 51-72.
25. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph, No. 17.
26. Stock, E., & Fisman, R. (2010). The not-so-simple debate on home computers and achievement. Education Week, 30(7), 24-26.
27. Subrahmanyam, K. (2001). The impact of computer use on children's and adolescents' development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22(1), 7-30.
28. Turow, J. (1999, May 4). The Internet and the family: The view from the parents, the view from the press (ReportNo. 27). Philadelphia, PA: Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Available at: http://www.appcpenn.org/internet/. (Retrieved from the Word Wide Web, April 15, 2011).
29. Ziya, E., Dogan, N., & Kelecioglu, H. (2010). What is the predict level of which computer using skills measured in PISA for achievement in mathematics. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(4), 185-191.