2004
Volume 96, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0025-9454
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2816

Abstract

Abstract

This study utilized data from the 2016 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study to examine the effect of the frequency of tablet usage in school on children’s reading achievements. It further addressed the gender gap in achievements by exploring whether gender moderates the relationship between tablet use and achievements. The sample consisted of 3504 fourth grade students from Dutch primary schools. A multilevel model was conducted in which both student- and school-level predictors were included. Contrary to the positive effect of tablet use on reading achievements found by most previous studies, the findings suggested no relationship between tablet use and achievements. There was also no evidence found that gender moderates this relationship. Results are critically discussed and recommendations for future research are being made.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2021.1.003.WAFE
2021-03-01
2021-06-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/00259454/96/1/03_MEM2021.1_WAFE.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2021.1.003.WAFE&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ackermann, E.(2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 438.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Beblavý, M., Baiocco, S., Kilhoffer, Z., Akgüç, M., & Jacquot, M.(2019). Index of Readiness for Digital Lifelong Learning: Changing how Europeans upgrade their skills. Centre for European Policy Studies, (No. 25419).
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bellefeuille, G. L.(2006). Rethinking reflective practice education in social work education: A blended constructivist and objectivist instructional design strategy for a webbased child welfare practice course. Journal of Social Work Education, 42 (1), 85-103.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Burden, K., Hopkins, P., Male, T., Martin, S., Trala, C.(2012). iPad Scotland Evaluation. Hull: University of Hull.
  5. Carrier, S. J.(2009). Environmental education in the schoolyard: Learning styles and gender. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(3), 2-12.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Churchill, D., Fox, R. M. K., & King, M.(2012). Study of affordances of iPads and teacher's private theories. International Journal of Information and Education Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Comi, S. L., Argentin, G., Gui, M., Origo, F., & Pagani, L.(2017). Is it the way they use it? Teachers, ICT and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 56, 24-39.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Corcoran, S. M.(2018). The effect of digital tablet’s applications on reading achievement of first graders in two private schools [Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University]. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/1807
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Druin, A., & Solomon, C.(1996). Designing Multimedia Environments for Children: Computers, Creativity, and Kids. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  10. Dundar, H., & Akcayir, M.(2012). Tablet vs. Paper: The Effect on Learners’ Reading Performance. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(3), 441-450.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Eagleton, M.B., & Dobler, E.(2007). Reading the web: Strategies for Internet inquiry. New York: Guilford.
  12. Faber, J. M., & Visscher, A. J.(2016). De effecten van Snappet. Effecten van een adaptief onderwijsplatform op leerresultaten en motivatie van leerlingen. Enschede: Universiteit Twente.
  13. Flewitt, R., Messer, D., & Kucirkova, N.(2015). New directions for early literacy in a digital age: The iPad. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 15(3), 289-310.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Foulger, T. S., Graziano, K. J., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Slykhuis, D. A.(2017). Teacher educator technology competencies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(4), 413-448.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Furió, D., González-Gancedo, S., Juan, M., Seguí, I., Costa, M., & others.(2013). The effects of the size and weight of a mobile device on an educational game. Computers & Education, 64, 24-41.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gasparini, A. A., & Culén, A. L.(2012). Tablet PCs – An assistive technology for students with reading difficulties. In ACHI 2012: The Fifth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions (pp. 28-34).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gil-Flores, J., Rodríguez-Santero, J., & Torres-Gordillo, J. J.(2017). Factors that explain the use of ICT in secondary-education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 441-449.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Genlott, A. A., & Grönlund, Å.(2016). Closing the gaps – Improving literacy and mathematics by ict-enhanced collaboration. Computers & Education, 99, 68-80.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gubbels, J., Netten, A., & Verhoeven, L.(2017). Vijftien jaar leesprestaties in Nederland: PIRLS-2016. Nijmegen: Expertisecentrum Nederland, Radboud Universiteit.
  20. Harmon, J.(2011). Research study finds iPad bolsters student reading and writing skills. AASL Hotlinks, 10(7), 1-6.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Haßler, B., Major, L., & Hennessy, S.(2016). Tablet use in schools: A critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(2), 139-156.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hornstra, L., van der Veen, I., Peetsma, T., & Volman, M.(2015). Innovative learning and developments in motivation and achievement in upper primary school. Educational Psychology, 35(5), 598-633.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hox, J. J.(2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New York: Routledge.
  24. Huang, Y.-M., Liang, T.-H., Su, Y.-N., & Chen, N.-S.(2012). Empowering personalized learning with an interactive e-book learning system for elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 703-722.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D.(2012). Exploring the Use of the iPad for Literacy Learning. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15-23.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Irwin, B. & Jones, N.(2011). Pack your Laptop, We’re off to School. The New Zealand Herald. Geraadpleegd van: www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11191631
  27. Jones, N.(2014). School Gives an iPad to Every Pupil. The New Zealand Herald. Geraadpleegd van: www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id =1&objectid=11196246
  28. King, K., & Gurian, M.(2006). Teaching to the Minds of Boys. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 56-61.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Koch, S. C., Müller, S. M., & Sieverding, M.(2008). Women and computers. Effects of stereotype threat on attribution of failure. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1795-1803.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Korat, O.(2010). Reading electronic books as a support for vocabulary, story comprehension and word reading in kindergarten and first grade. Computers & Education, 55(1), 24-31.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J.(2008). A multilevel study of predictors of student perceptions of school climate: The effect of classroom-level factors. Journal of educational psychology, 100(1), 96-104.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Krumsvik, R. J., Berrum, E., & Jones, L. Ø.(2018). Everyday Digital Schooling implementing tablets in Norwegian primary school. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 13(03), 152-176.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. LaRoche, S., Joncas, M., & Foy, P.(2016). Sample design in PIRLS 2016. Methods and procedures in PIRLS, 3-1.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Larson, L.C.(2010). Digital readers: The next chapter in e-book reading and response. The Reading Teacher, 64(1), 15-22.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lemke, J. L.(2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 296-316.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lim, C. S., Tang, K. N., & Kor, L. K.(2012). Drill and practice in learning (and beyond). Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, 1040-1043.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Luke, D.(2004). Multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  38. Lynn, R., & Mikk, J.(2009). Sex differences in reading achievement. TRAMES: A Journal of the Humanities & Social Sciences, 13(1), 3-13.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. McConney, A., & Perry, L. B.(2010). Science and mathematics achievement in Australia: The role of school socioeconomic composition in educational equity and effectiveness. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 429-452.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. McFarlane, A., Triggs, P. & Wan, Y.(2008). Researching Mobile Learning – Interim Report to BECTA Period: April – December 2007, Bristol.
  41. McPhee, I., Marks, L., & Marks, D.(2013). Examining the impact of the apple “iPad” on male and female classroom engagement in a primary school in Scotland. ICICTE 2013 Proceedings, 443-451.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Melhuish, K. & Falloon, G.(2010). Looking to the future: M-learning with the iPad. Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Leading, Technology, 22(3), 1-16.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Michel, N., Cater III, J. J., & Varela, O.(2009). Active versus passive teaching styles: An empirical study of student learning outcomes. Human resource development quarterly, 20(4), 397-418.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Mol, S., & Bus, A.(2011). Lezen loont een leven lang: De rol van vrijetijdslezen in de taal-en leesontwikkeling van kinderen en jongeren. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 12(3), 3-15.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Molenaar, I., van Campen, C. A. N., & Gorp, K. V.(2016). Rapportage Kennisnet. Onderzoek naar Snappet; gebruik en effectiviteit. Geraadpleegd van: https://www.kennisnet.nl/artikel/leerlingen-presteren-beter-dankzij-slimme-tablet
  46. Nouri, J.(2016). The flipped classroom: for active, effective and increased learning especially for low achievers. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 33.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. NRC
    NRC(2019). Laat de leraar niet buitenspel zetten door reken-app. Geraadpleegd van: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/04/09/laat-de-leraar-niet-buitenspel-zetten-door reken-app-a3956276
  48. OECD
    OECD(2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework: Mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Paris: OECD.
  49. OECD
    OECD(2005). Are students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell us. Paris: OECD.
  50. Onderwijsinspectie
    Onderwijsinspectie(2019). Rapport De Staat van het Onderwijs 2019 | Onderwijsverslagover 2017/2018. Geraadpleegd van: https://www.onderwijsinspectie .nl /documenten /rapporten/2019/04/10/rapport-de-staat-van-het-onderwijs-2019
  51. Outhwaite, L. A., Gulliford, A., & Pitchford, N. J.(2017). Closing the gap: efficacy of a tablet intervention to support the development of early mathematical skills in UK primary school children. Computers & Education, 108, 43-58.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N.(2016). Comparing tablets and PCs in teaching mathematics: An attempt to improve mathematics competence in early childhood education. Preschool and Primary Education, 4(2), 241-253.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. PIRLS
  54. PIRLS
    PIRLS(2018). PIRLS 2016 Guide for the International Database. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
  55. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S.(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). CA: Sage.
  56. Saifi, S., & Mehmood, T.(2011). Effects of socio-economic status on students achievement. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 1(2), 119-128.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Sanders, J.(2005). Gender and technology in education: A research review. In C.Skelton, B.Francis, & L.Smulyan (Eds.), Handbook of gender and education. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Schneeweis, N., & Zweimüller, M.(2014). Early tracking and the misfortune of being young. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 116, 394-428.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Scholten, L., & Wolbers, M. H.(2019). Onderwijs van hoge kwaliteit. Mens en maatschappij, 93(4), 375-406.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G.(2010). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen (pp. 87-99). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Sheppard, D.(2011). Reading with iPads – the difference makes a difference. Education Today, 11(3), 12-17.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Sieben, S., & Lechner, C. M.(2019). Measuring cultural capital through the number of books in the household. Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences, 2(1), 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Smith, J. L., Morgan, C., & White, P. H.(2005). Investigating a measure of computer technology domain identification: A tool for understanding gender differences and stereotypes. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(2), 336-355.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T.(2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122-124.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Steele, C. M.(1997). A threat in the air. How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J.(1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Strommen, E. F., & Lincoln, B.(1992). Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom learning. Education and urban society, 24(4), 466-476.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Liu, T. C.(2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students' learning performance: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 94, 252-275.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Sutherland, P. A.(1992). Cognitive development today: Piaget and his critics. London: SAGE.
  70. Tangdhanakanond, K., Pitiyanuwat, S., & Archwamety, T.(2006). A Development of Portfolio for Learning Assessment of Students Taught by Full-Scale Constructionism Approach at Darunsikklialai School. Research in the Schools,13, 24-36.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Taylor, D., & Lorimer, M.(2003). Helping Boys Succeed. Educational Leadership, 60(4), 68-70.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Timmermann, P.(2010). Is my iPad in my backpack?Journal of Digital research & publishing. University of Sydney.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Torppa, M., Eklund, K., Sulkunen, S., Niemi, P., & Ahonen, T.(2018). Why do boys and girls perform differently on PISA Reading in Finland? The effects of reading fluency, achievement behaviour, leisure reading and homework activity. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(1), 122-139.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Van De Bogart, W.(2012). Child development issues related to Thailand’s tablet computer policy within the ASEAN Community.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Van de Gaer, E. V., Pustjens, H., Damme, J. V., & Munter, A. D.(2007). Impact of attitudes of peers on language achievement: Gender differences. The journal of educational research, 101(2), 78-90.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Van der Meij, J., Kemps, J., Hoogland, I., & Rutten, N.(2015). Tablets in het basisonderwijs. Een pilotonderzoek naar de verwachtingen van leerkrachten en de inzet van tablets in de lespraktijk. Enschede: Universiteit van Twente.
  77. Vekiri, I., & Chronaki, A.(2008). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers & education, 51(3), 1392-1404.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Vosniadou, S.(2001). How children learn. Educational practices series, 7. Geneva, Switzerland: The International Academy of Education (IAE) and the International Bureau of Education.
  79. Woessmann, L.(2016). The importance of school systems: Evidence from international differences in student achievement. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3), 3-32.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Yang, Y.(2003). Dimensions of socio-economic status and their relationship to mathematics and science achievement at individual and collective levels. Scandinavian journal of educational research, 47(1), 21-41.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2021.1.003.WAFE
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2021.1.003.WAFE
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): gender; multilevel model; PIRLS; primary school; reading achievements; tablets

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error