1

The Impact of Computer Use on Reading Achievement of 15-year-olds

Patrick Bussière and

Tomasz GluszynskiChild, Youth and Social Development Studies

Applied Research Branch, HRDCThe 2002 PCERA Symposium

Montréal, April 30 - May 2, 2002

2

To analyse, compare, contrast, and evaluate

To think imaginatively

To apply knowledge in real-life situations

To communicate thoughts and ideas effectively

PISA Reading AchievementAbout the capacity of young adults to use

written information effectively

3

Reading, Mathematics, and Science

32

countries... ...10 provinces

Youth aged 15

Over 250,000 students...

...30,000 students from more than 1,000

schools

17 languages

English and French

2-hour direct skills assessment

20-minute contextual questionnaire to youth

School questionnaire

3-minute IT questionnaire

30-minute YITS

questionnaire to

youth

30-minute

interview

with

parents

Items added to school questionnaire

4

Mathematical literacy

Recognising, formulating and solving mathematical problems in everyday life. Analysing, reasoning and

communicating in mathematical terms

Reading Literacy

Using, interpreting

and reflecting on written

material

Scientific Literacy

Using scientific knowledge, identifying scientific questions, and drawing evidence-based conclusions to understand and make decisions about the natural world

5

Three dimensions of Reading Literacy

Retrieving information

Ability to locate information

in a text

Interpreting information

Ability to construct meaning and drawn inferences from written information

Reflecting and evaluation

Ability to relate text to their other

knowledge,ideas and experiences

6

Below Level 1These students may be able to read, but have not acquired the

skills to use reading for learning

Reading Literacy Level 1Recognise main theme on a familiar topic, make simple

connections

Above 625

408 to

480

335 to

407

Less

than 335

553 to

625

481 to

552

The 5 proficiency levels are separated by 72 points.

Reading Literacy Level 5Evaluating information and

building hypotheses, drawing on specialised

knowledge, accommodating concepts contrary to expectations

16.8/ 10

27.7/ 22

28.0/ 29

17.9/ 22

7.3/ 12

2.4/ 6

7

• Further work is based on the first results of PISA in Canada reported in the pan-Canadian report.

• For the purpose of this study, the data on Information and Communication Technology in PISA is analyzed.

8

Percentage of students reporting having a computer at home and percentage reporting having a link to the internet at home.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

OECD

NFLD.

P.E.I.

N.S.N.B

.

QUE.

ONT.

MAN.

SASK.

ALTA.B.C

.

CANADA

Computer Internet

Perc

enta

geA vast majority of 15-year-old

Canadian students have a computer at home and a link to the internet.

9

More than half of the Canadian students aged 15 used a computer daily at home, but

computers at school are used less often.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NFLD.

P.E.I.

N.S.

N.B.

QUE.

ONT.

MAN.

SASK.

ALTA.B.C

.

CANADA

Home daily Home never School daily School never

Percentage of Canadian youth aged 15 reporting daily or non-use of a computer at home and at school.

10

There is a positive relationship between the PISA reading scores and having a computer

or a link to the internet at home.

• Roughly half a reading proficiency level separated those with and without internet at home.

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

internet no internet

PIS

A R

eadi

ng S

core

s

Relationship between PISA reading scores and having a link to the internet at home

•Consistently, similar patterns were found for each of the three dimensions of reading. Therefore, results of analysis of the overall reading score are presented.

11

Relationship between PISA reading scores and number of computers at home

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

No computer One Two Three +

PIS

A R

eadi

ng S

core

s

There is a positive association with reading scores and home computer access, and it increases with the number

of computers present.

12

Higher reading scores are associated with: frequent use of computers at home and

Internet, as well as infrequent use of computers at school and computer games.

460

470

480

490

500

510

520

530

540

550

560

computer at home internet computer at school computer games

Every day Few times a week 1-4 times a month Less than once a month Never

PIS

A R

eadi

ng S

core

s

Relationship between PISA reading scores and frequency of usage of: computer at home, internet, computer at school and computer games.

13

Three Indices of computer familiarity.

Index of computer usage (COMUSE): derived from responses to questions related to the frequency with which they used computer for learning purposes.

Index of comfort with and perceived ability to use computer (COMAB): derived from responses to questions related to comfort when using computers for various tasks and perceived ability with computers compared to other youth.

Index of interest in computers (COMATT): derived from responses to various statements on how they felt about computers.

14

Multivariate Analysis

• Up to now, absolute effect (I.e. variable’s effect in the absence of other variables) of ICT variables on student achievement were presented.

• Next 3 tables show the relative effect (I.e. variable’s effect in the presence of other variables) of ICT variables

• Thresholds to judge the magnitude of the effect:– Trivial: Less than |0.10|– Small: Between |0.10| and |0.30|– Moderate: Between |0.30| and |0.50|– Large: Greater than |0.50|

• An effect size less than |0.10| indicates that less than 1% of the variance in achievement scores is explained by the variable and, as such, reflects a trivial impact.

15

Relative effect of individual and ICT factors on reading achievement scores.

Small positive Small negative Trivial Moderate positive

Variable CANADA NFLD. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. QUE. ONT. MAN. SASK. ALTA B.C.

JOYREAD 0.39 0.40 0.39 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.41 0.44 0.44 0.38 0.45

TIMEREAD -0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.04 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.02 -0.05

DIVREAD 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.03 0.04 0.04 -0.01 0.04

FREQBOR -0.07 -0.14 -0.08 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 -0.10 -0.09 -0.05 -0.05 -0.08

HMWKTIME 0.08 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.12 0.02 0.14 0.05

BELONG 0.00 0.02 0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02

GENDER -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 -0.07 -0.02 -0.03 -0.06 -0.04 -0.05 -0.05

FUTCAREER 0.19 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.21 0.23 0.19 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.17

COMAB 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.11 0.17 0.16

COMUSE -0.20 -0.16 -0.13 -0.15 -0.09 -0.16 -0.21 -0.21 -0.15 -0.16 -0.20

COMATT -0.08 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 -0.11 -0.07 -0.06 -0.16 -0.08 -0.10 -0.07

FREQCOMH 0.14 0.21 0.09 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.16

FREQCOMS 0.01 -0.02 0.00 -0.03 0.01 -0.02 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.01

FREQGAMES -0.02 -0.12 -0.06 -0.07 0.00 -0.04 0.00 -0.01 -0.05 -0.02 -0.02

Note: R² = 0.235 without ICT variables and R² = 0,280 with ICT variables (for Canada)

16

Relative effect of family and ICT factors on reading achievement scores.

Small positive Small negative Trivial

Variable CANADA NFLD. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. QUE. ONT. MAN. SASK. ALTA. B.C.

FAMSTRUC -0.02 -0.01 0.01 -0.04 0.00 -0.03 -0.02 -0.02 -0.05 0.00 -0.02

NUMSIBLING -0.05 -0.02 -0.04 -0.03 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.06 -0.03 -0.06 -0.06

HIGHSES 0.15 0.18 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.09 0.06 0.14 0.12

WEALTH -0.05 -0.09 -0.07 -0.06 -0.07 -0.08 -0.04 -0.08 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08

BOOKSHOME 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.16 0.15 0.09 0.20 0.14 0.10 0.14

HEDRES 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06

CULTPOSS 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.04

CULTACTV 0.14 0.18 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.14

FAMEDSUP -0.18 -0.17 -0.20 -0.19 -0.17 -0.21 -0.17 -0.15 -0.18 -0.16 -0.17

PARACADINT 0.12 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.13

PARSOCINT 0.06 0.07 0.14 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.03

LANGHOME -0.10 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 -0.14 -0.08 -0.14 -0.09 -0.04 -0.13

COMAB 0.12 0.18 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.14

COMUSE -0.14 -0.15 -0.08 -0.13 -0.06 -0.08 -0.16 -0.13 -0.12 -0.13 -0.14

COMATT -0.04 0.02 -0.01 0.00 -0.04 -0.02 -0.03 -0.09 -0.04 -0.08 -0.04

FREQCOMPH 0.14 0.16 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.18 0.11 0.17 0.13 0.15 0.15

FREQCOMPS 0.01 -0.06 0.03 -0.03 0.03 -0.02 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.00

FREQGAMES -0.08 -0.13 -0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.13 -0.07 -0.09 -0.11 -0.08 -0.06

Note: R² = 0.208 without ICT variables and R² = 0,237 with ICT variables (for Canada)

17

Relative effect of individual, family and ICT factors on reading achievement

scores.

Small positive Small negative Trivial Moderate positive

Variable CANADA NFLD. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. QUE. ONT. MAN. SASK. ALTA. B.C.

GENDER -0.06 -0.05 -0.05 -0.03 -0.08 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 -0.07 -0.06 -0.06

JOYREAD 0.32 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.31 0.32 0.38 0.35 0.31 0.35

FREQBOR -0.04 -0.12 -0.07 -0.01 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 -0.08 -0.04 -0.03 -0.06

FUTCAREER 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.14 0.17 0.19 0.16

HIGHSES 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.06 0.07 0.14 0.10

BOOKSHOME 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.08 0.07 0.10

CULTACTV 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.08

FAMEDSUP -0.14 -0.13 -0.14 -0.14 -0.13 -0.17 -0.13 -0.11 -0.14 -0.13 -0.15

PARACADINT 0.09 0.08 0.13 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.08

FREQCOMH 0.10 0.14 0.03 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.08 0.15 0.13 0.10 0.12

FREQCOMS 0.02 -0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.02

FREQGAMES -0.01 -0.09 -0.03 -0.04 0.02 -0.03 0.00 -0.01 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01

COMAB 0.12 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.09 0.15 0.14

COMUSE -0.17 -0.15 -0.12 -0.13 -0.09 -0.13 -0.17 -0.18 -0.16 -0.14 -0.18

COMATT -0.04 -0.01 -0.03 -0.02 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 -0.13 -0.06 -0.09 -0.05

Note: R² = 0,3318 (for Canada)

18

Key findings

• Most 15-year-old Canadians have a computer and internet access at home, and they use them often.

• Having a computer at home is important, but using it is the key.

• Over and above individual and family factors, multivariate analyses show:– positive effect on reading achievement scores for:

• frequent use of a computer at home• comfort & perceived ability of computer use

– negative effect on reading achievement scores for :• computer use for learning purposes.

• However, enjoyment of reading has the greatest effect on reading achievement scores.

19

Policy Implications

• The new economy relies on knowledge workers with both good reading and computer skills.

• Chances of improving reading scores through the provision of computers alone are not high.

• Since computers are widely available to students, policy should be directed to encouraging their use.