What's School Got to Do with It? Cautionary Tales about Correlations between Student Computer Use and Academic Achievement.
Jason Ravitz, John R. Mergendoller, Wayne Rush
Abstract
Jason Ravitz, John R. Mergendoller, Wayne Rush
Abstract
This paper explores questions about whether there is a positive or negative relationship between student computer use and achievement, and whether results vary by the amount of school or home computer use. We find that generally there is an inverse relationship between in-school computer use and student achievement. However, there is a positive overall relationship between student achievement and computer proficiency, i.e., reported capability with a variety of software. Importantly, the student software capability is related to use both at school and at home. Because of the differing interpretations that are possible and the importance of the topic, caution is urged. Researchers and policy makers must think carefully when interpreting correlational results between achievement and student technology use measures, regardless of whether the direction of the proposed relationship is positive or negative. PURPOSE In today’s climate of educational accountability, considerable attention is focused on students’ academic achievement and the school environment necessary to develop and support achievement. An up-to-date technological infrastructure is generally considered a key part of an effective school environment. Special attention has been focused on the “digital divide” separating disadvantaged urban and rural students from more advantaged suburban students. Government funding has been focused on urban and rural schools in order to infuse technology in these schools and provide disadvantaged students with technological opportunities equal to those found in suburban schools. Such an approach assumes that it is computer use at school that is associated with academic achievement. Our analyses have led us to question, however, whether this is indeed the case. The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationships between student computer use at school, computer use at home, and academic achievement. A few studies have indicated that there are achievement advantages for computer using students, particularly those who have access to home computing opportunities. For example, Green (1998) reported greater achievement gains in language arts, reading and mathematics among 8 th and 11 th grade students who were more competent and frequent computer users. Most studies, however, have not distinguished the separate relationship home and school computer use may have with academic achievement. An exception is Weglinsky (1998), who found that home computer use was positively related to academic achievement, while an emphasis on in-school use was negatively related to academic achievement. This last finding, in conjunction with other research (Becker & Ravitz, 1998; Becker, Ravitz & Wong, 1999) suggests that there may be a “pedagogical divide”
OpenAlex reports 25 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This paper explores questions about whether there is a positive or negative relationship between student computer use and achievement, and whether results vary by the amount of school or home computer use. We find that generally there is an inverse relationship between in-school computer use and student achievement. However, there is a positive overall relationship between student achievement and computer proficiency, i.e., reported capability with a variety of software. Importantly, the student software capability is related to use both at school and at home. Because of the differing interpretations that are possible and the importance of the topic, caution is urged. Researchers and policy makers must think carefully when interpreting correlational results between achievement and student technology use measures, regardless of whether the direction of the proposed relationship is positive or negative. PURPOSE In today’s climate of educational accountability, considerable attention is focused on students’ academic achievement and the school environment necessary to develop and support achievement. An up-to-date technological infrastructure is generally considered a key part of an effective school environment. Special attention has been focused on the “digital divide” separating disadvantaged urban and rural students from more advantaged suburban students. Government funding has been focused on urban and rural schools in order to infuse technology in these schools and provide disadvantaged students with technological opportunities equal to those found in suburban schools. Such an approach assumes that it is computer use at school that is associated with academic achievement. Our analyses have led us to question, however, whether this is indeed the case. The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationships between student computer use at school, computer use at home, and academic achievement. A few studies have indicated that there are achievement advantages for computer using students, particularly those who have access to home computing opportunities. For example, Green (1998) reported greater achievement gains in language arts, reading and mathematics among 8 th and 11 th grade students who were more competent and frequent computer users. Most studies, however, have not distinguished the separate relationship home and school computer use may have with academic achievement. An exception is Weglinsky (1998), who found that home computer use was positively related to academic achievement, while an emphasis on in-school use was negatively related to academic achievement. This last finding, in conjunction with other research (Becker & Ravitz, 1998; Becker, Ravitz & Wong, 1999) suggests that there may be a “pedagogical divide”
Key concepts: Disadvantaged, Academic achievement, Mathematics education, Government (linguistics), Accountability, Digital divide, Variety (cybernetics), Psychology