As a doctorate student in the Department of Education: Curriculum and Instruction, my primary area of focus is within Instructional Technology. As a primary school teacher, I am intrinsically motivated to working for kids and finding the best means to meeting my students at their current level of understanding, with regard to best instructional practices and theory. At the completion of my program of study, I hope to continue working at the district level, as a teacher trainer, helping educators implement the best use of technology in their instruction. With technology education on the forefront, it is imperative educators have a solid understanding of the effects of computer use on student achievement. This article will look at two studies completed on the effects home computer use has on student achievement. I will highlight the definitions of home computer use, as defined by Paul Attewell’s 1999 study of Home Computers and School Performance, and the Year 2000 Study by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). I will briefly explain the purpose of the two studies, their hypotheses, and theories; provide the empirical research and results of the studies, and their practical significance to education. Lastly, I will provide my recommendations for future studies on the effects home computer use has on student achievement.
DEFINITION
According to Attewell’s study, student home computer use defines a population of students with “access to a home computer, or who have a home computer and internet access” (Attewell, 1990, p2). Use of the home computer is to “supplement or reinforce school learning” (Attewell, 1999, p3). Home computer use may develop skills by gaming, such as by use of reading, math, or science games. Home computer use also involves computing through word processing, spreadsheets, and by playing, various educational and multimedia software (Attewell, 1999, p6).
The 2000 study by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) defined home computer use as “high to low…use of computers and the Internet at home” (Bielefeldt, 2005, p1). Computer use by students may fall anywhere on an ordinal scale between high, frequent, moderate, and low usage.
Student Achievement, as defined by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, for Washington State is: mastery of the basic skills needed for life in the twenty-first century, which are the knowledge acquired under the state learning goals set by educators, parents, business and community leaders, and many other citizens during the past decade (Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2004).
PURPOSE / THEORY
With personal computer usage rapidly growing over the last twenty years, a growing educational concern has been that those who lack access to home computers become disadvantaged primarily in terms of “information haves compared to information have-nots” (Attewell, 1999, p2). The primary concern with regard to educational theory is that children, who do not have access to computers and Internet, may lack the skills necessary for survival in the twenty first century (student achievement).
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Paul Attewell, in his year 1999, stratified random cluster sample, studied the effects home computers had on the academic achievement of 18,000 middle school students. His study found that “having a home computer is associated with higher family income and greater parental education and a higher occupational attainment…girls were less likely to have computers than boys and minorities were less likely to have computers than whites” (Attewell, 1999, p13).
With regard to home computer use and its effects on student achievement, his findings correlated moderately with a higher academic performance. “On average, those with home computers scored 6 points higher on reading and 5 points higher on math than those without computers” (Attewell, 1999, p14). These raw scores compute to approximately 3%-5% higher average percentage scores. The study also found that students with a higher socioeconomic status benefited greater than students with a lower SES. The study also concluded that boys benefited more greatly than girls did, and minorities benefited less than whites did.
PURPOSE / THEORY
Similar with the Attewell study, the year 2000 PISA study, conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), aimed to assess the effect home computer use had on student academic performance in math, reading, and science. The purpose of this study stemmed from a growing educational concern that those who lack access to home computers become disadvantaged, similar to the concern that prompted the Attewell study. With regard to student achievement, the PISA study was particularly interested in time students spend on home PCs, since computer and Internet use is necessary for many future job performances (Bielefeldt, 2004, p1).
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Thomas Fuchs and Lundger Woessmann published the Year 2000 Study from the Programme for International Student Achievement, which analyzed data collected from thirty-one countries. More than 367,000 fifteen-year-old students tested in math, reading, and science (Bielefeldt, 2004, p1). The study found that there was “a negative effect on achievement for computer access at home; a positive effect for internet use and educational software at home” (Bielefeldt, 2004, p1). The negative effect on achievement for computer use at home credits low and high usage. There was a moderate correlation for medium frequencies of computer use at home.
PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
In theory, there should be a higher academic achievement among students using computer and the Internet at home. An increased academic achievement due to computer use attributes to an increased potential in learning and organizational resources. However, there is also a disparity among children entering school, due to home computer use. According to Attewell’s study of home computer use, children from homes with computers are associated with a higher socioeconomic status, a higher family income, and a greater parental occupational attainment and education. This is mainly what has sparked a recent interest in the study of academic achievement due to home computer use.
While the research findings on the positive effects of home computer use on academic achievement are inconsistent, the practical significance of computers acknowledged in educational theory, is through the cognitive perspective of information processing. Wide use of “computers in learning has led to a gradual shift [in] educational settings…and the ways that learners organize knowledge” (Gredler, 2005, p196). Educational theorists recognize that the current generations of learners have brains wired differently for learning, due to growing up with cell phones, personal digital assistants, handheld gaming devices, and PCs. The learning-processing theory suggests the use of advanced, graphic organizers as “an umbrella into which students can fit more detailed information” (Gredler, 2005, p215). The use of computer organizers can organize main points of information, through focusing on vivid details. The same vividness for details is consistent among visual learners. A key concept in Piagetian Theory, is to “provide opportunities for children to exercise logic in action.” Computer programs offer symbol-picture-logic. With software programs’ high use of graphics, children can make discoveries represented by symbols, complete symbol-logic statements, and develop insight into logical necessity.
On the opposing end of the spectrum, Bandura’s social-cognitive theory suggests the detrimental effects technology has on academic achievement. Bandura’s theory suggests that the students’ interaction with the environment is most important to successful learning. Teacher-to-student interaction, student-to-student communication, and student-subject-matter interactions are the keys to successful learning. With computer learning models, “the structure of information, the nature of questioning, and the nature of information feedback are all questionable in technological learning” (Gredler, 2005, p424). While it is unclear, in the PISA study why a high and low at home computer usage correlates with lower academic achievement, a high use of computers for simulations and non-educational games may be inconsistent with conventional instructional models of teaching. Even when its use seems beneficial, computer-instruction “has the disadvantage of not allowing for incidental learning as might occur when a teacher or student mentions in class, an anecdote related to the material being studied” (Schunk, 2004, p280).
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
With inconsistent findings from both the Attewell and PISA study, it is unclear whether home computer use and the Internet correlate with a high academic achievement in math, reading, and science. Since these two studies included data on fourteen and fifteen-year-old subjects, it would be beneficial to complete a similar stratified random cluster sample of elementary aged subjects. It is also unclear to what degree variables such as gender, socioeconomic status, and race had on this experimental study. In naturally occurring, primary and/or secondary elementary classrooms, researchers could conduct an experimental study using stratified random classroom clusters from districts with similar SES and racial make-ups. Recommended also is that use of the home computers be consistent among subjects, with regard to software and programming use. This variable is controllable by providing subjects with laptop PCs, granted research funds are available.
CONCLUSION
As educators, we should all be concerned with finding the best means to meeting our students at their current level of understanding, with regard to best instructional practices and theory. Specific to implementation of technology in instruction, it is imperative educators have a solid understanding of the effects of computer use on student achievement. Presented were two studies on the effects home computer use had on student achievement. In both studies, the empirical research on the usage of home computers and the Internet yielded correlations that were moderate or negative with a higher academic performance. With regard to instructional theories, the results of using a home computer and the Internet have their practical significance to education, yet leave many unanswered questions, especially, in regard with a lack of social learning. As educators, we can continue adding to the knowledge of education by continuing using the recommendations for future studies on the effects home computer use has on student achievement. Furthermore, we can develop our professional competence within education by analyzing the current research on computer usage and academic achievement from the standpoint of its practical significance in education, with relation to the empirical data we do have.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
1. Attewell, Paul. “Home Computers and School Performance,” Information Society 15 (January 1999).
2. Bielefeldt, Talbot. “Computers and Student Learning: Interpreting the Multivariate Analysis of PISA 2000,” Research on Technology in Education 37 (summer 2005).
3. Gredler, Margaret E. Learning and Instruction: Theory into Practice, 5th ed. Columbus, Ohio: Pearson, 2005.
4. Schunk, Dale H. Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective, 4th ed. Columbus, Ohio: Pearson, 2004.
