ICT for Children of Immigrants: Indirect and Total Effects via Self-Efficacy on Math Performance

Abstract

This study compared the direct, indirect, and total effects of information, communication, and technology (ICT) variables on math achievement for second-generation immigrant, first-generation immigrant, and nonimmigrant students. A path model was used to analyze U.S. nationally representative data from the Program for International Student Assessment to examine the effects of ICT access and computer use for schoolwork practice and for programming, with self-efficacy as a mediator. The results indicate that second-generation students with two foreign-born parents demonstrated significantly lower mathematics performance than nonimmigrant students. However, the first-generation students did not show any difference from nonimmigrant students. ICT access had significantly positive effects for all three groups, while computer use for schoolwork practice showed overall negative effects. Importantly, computer use for programming showed a differential effect across the three groups, with positive indirect and total effects for second-generation students but overall negative effects for the first-generation and nonimmigrant students.

Keywords

information communication and technology access computer uses immigrant students math performance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Almerich

Orellana

Suárez-Rodríguez

Díaz-García

(2016) Teachers’ information and communication technology competences: A structural approach. Computers & Education 100: 110–125. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.002.

Aud

Hussar

Johnson

Kena

Roth

Manning

Zhang

(2012) The Condition of Education 2012 (NCES 2012-045), Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education StatisticsRetrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Bandura

(1986) The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 4(3): 359–373.

Banerjee

A. V.

Cole

Duflo

Linden

(2007) Remedying education: Evidence from two randomized experiments in India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(3): 1235–1264.

Boz

Yerdelen-Damar

Aydemir

(2016) Investigating the relationships among students’ self-efficacy beliefs, their perceptions of classroom learning environment, gender, and chemistry achievement through structural equation modeling. Research in Science & Technological Education 34: 1–18. doi:10.1080/02635143.2016.1174931.

Byrne

B. M.

(2013) Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, New York, NY: Routledge.

Carrasco

M. R.

Torrecilla

F. J. M.

(2012) Learning environments with technological resources: A look at their contribution to student performance in Latin American elementary schools. Educational Technology Research and Development 60(6): 1107–1128. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9262-5.

Chang

Choi

Kim

(2015) School involvement of parents of linguistic and racial minorities and their children’s mathematics performance. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice 21(3): 209–231. doi:10.1080/13803611.2015.1034283.

Chang

Kim

(2009) Computer access and computer use for science performance of ethnic and linguistic minority student. Journal of Educational Computing Research 40(4): 457–489. doi:10.2190/EC.40.4.e.

10.

Chen

J. C.

(2016) The crossroads of English language learners, task-based instruction, and 3D multi-user virtual learning in Second Life. Computers & Education 102: 152–171. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.08.004.

11.

Chen

S. Y.

Tzeng

J. Y.

(2010) College female and male heavy internet users' profiles of practices and their academic grades and psychosocial adjustment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 13(3): 257–262. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0023.

12.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling 9(2): 233–255.

13.

Child Trends. (2014). Immigrant children. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=immigrant-children.

14.

Cohen, J. (2005). AM Statistical Software (Version 0.06.00) [Computer Software]. Washington, DC: The American Institute for Research.

15.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards.

16.

Crosnoe

Fuligni

A. J.

(2012) Children from immigrant families: Introduction to the special section. Child development 83(5): 1471–1476. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01785.

17.

de Cohen, C., Deterding, N., & Clewell, B. C. (2005). Who's left behind? Immigrant children in high and low LEP schools. Policy Report produced by the Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411231_whos_left_behind.pdf.

18.

De Witte

Rogge

(2014) Does ICT matter for effectiveness and efficiency in mathematics education? Computers & Education 75: 173–184. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.012.

19.

Bulut

(2011) The relationship between students' exposure to technology and their achievement in science and math. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 10(3): 311–317.

20.

Dillon

Wang

Tearle

(2007) Cultural disconnection in virtual education. Pedagogy, Culture and Society 15(2): 153–174. doi:10.1080/14681360701403565.

21.

Havard

Adams

(2004) The impact of technology use on low income and minority students’ academic achievement: Educational longitudinal study of 2002. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies 4(2): 21–38.

22.

Duong

M. T.

Badaly

Liu

F. F.

Schwartz

McCarty

C. A.

(2016) Generational differences in academic achievement among immigrant youths: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research 86(1): 3–41. doi:10.3102/0034654315577680.

23.

Erdogdu

(2015) The impact of access to ICT, student background and school/home environment on academic success of students in Turkey: An international comparative analysis. Computers & Education 82: 26–49. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.023.

24.

Every Student Succeeds Act: A Progress Report on Elementary and Secondary Education. (2015, December). Executive Office of the President. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ESSA_Progress_Report.pdf.

25.

Fast

L. A.

Lewis

J. L.

Bryant

M. J.

Bocian

K. A.

Cardullo

R. A.

Rettig

Hammond

K. A.

(2010) Does math self-efficacy mediate the effect of the perceived classroom environment on standardized math test performance? Journal of Educational Psychology 102(3): 729–740. doi:10.1037/a0018863.

26.

Freeman

(2012) Using digital technologies to redress inequities for English language learners in the English speaking mathematics classroom. Computers & Education 59(1): 50–62. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.003.

27.

Ganesh

Middleton

(2006) Challenges in linguistically and culturally diverse elementary settings with math instruction using learning technologies. The Urban Review 38(2): 101–143. doi:10.1007/s11256-006-0025-7.

28.

Garcia-Coll

Magnuson

(1997) The psychological experience of immigration: A developmental perspective. In: Booth

Crouter

A. C.

Landale

(eds) Immigration and the family: Research and policy on U.S. immigrants, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 91–132.

29.

Hillmert

(2013) Links between immigration and social inequality in education: A comparison among five European countries. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 32: 7–23. doi:10.1016/j.rssm.2013.02.002.

30.

Hunley

S. A.

Evans

J. H.

Delgado-Hachey

Krise

(2005) Adolescent computer use and academic achievement. Adolescence 40(158): 307–318.

31.

Isiksal

Askar

(2005) The effect of spreadsheet and dynamic geometry software on the achievement and self-efficacy of 7th-grade students. Educational Research 47(3): 333–350. doi:10.1080/00131880500287815.

32.

Janzen

(2008) Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of Educational Research 78(4): 1010–1038. doi:10.3102/0034654308325580.

33.

Jonassen

D. H.

(2000) Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environments. In: Jonassen

D. H.

Land

S. M.

(eds) Theoretical foundations of learning environments, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 89–121.

34.

Jöreskog

K. G.

Sörbom

(1988) LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications, Chicago, IL: SPSS.

35.

Jöreskog

K. G.

Sörbom

(2013) LISREL 9.10 for Windows [Computer Software] , Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

36.

Kao

Tienda

(1995) Optimism and achievement: The educational performance of immigrant youth. Social Science Quarterly 76: 1–19.

37.

Kastberg, D., Roey, S., Lemanski, N., Chan, J. Y., & Murray, G. (2014). Technical report and user guide for the program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (NCES 2014-025). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

38.

Kena, G., Hussar, W., McFarland, J., de Brey, C., Musu-Gillette, L., Wang, X., Dunlop Velez, E. (2016). The Condition of Education 2016 (NCES 2016-144). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

39.

Kenny

D. A.

McCoach

D. B.

(2003) Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling 10: 333–351.

40.

Kim

Chang

(2010) Does computer use promote the mathematical proficiency of ELL students? Journal of Educational Computing Research 42(3): 285–305. doi:10.2190/EC.42.3.c.

41.

Kim

Chang

Choi

Park

Kim

(2016) The direct and indirect effects of computer uses on student success in math. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology, and Learning (IJCBPL) 6(3): 48–64. doi:10.4018/IJCBPL.2016070104.

42.

Kim

Chang

Singh

Allen

(2015) Patterns and factors of high school dropout risks of racial and linguistic groups. The Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 20(4): 1–16. doi:10.1080/10824669.2015.1047019.

43.

Kline

R. B.

(2015) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, New York, NY: Guilford publications.

44.

Lazarowitz

Huppert

(1993) Science process skills of 10th-grade biology students in a computer-assisted learning setting. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 25(3): 366–382. doi:10.1080/08886504.1993.10782057.

45.

Lee

Y. H.

J. Y.

(2012) The effect of individual differences in the inner and outer states of ICT on engagement in online reading activities and PISA 2009 reading literacy: Exploring the relationship between the old and new reading literacy. Learning and Individual Differences 22(3): 336–342. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.01.007.

46.

Lei

(2010) Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship between technology use and student outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology 41(3): 455–472.

47.

Lei

Zhao

(2007) Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers & Education 49(2): 284–296.

48.

Liu

Cho

Schallert

D. L.

(2006) Middle school students' self-efficacy, attitudes, and achievement in a computer-enhanced problem-based learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 17(3): 225.

49.

Loehlin

J. C.

(1987) Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

50.

Loehlin

J. C.

(2004) Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis, Florence, KY: Psychology Press.

51.

Mac Iver

D. J.

Balfanz

Plank

S. B.

(1998) An “elective replacement” approach to providing extra help in math: The talent development middle schools' computer-and team-assisted mathematics acceleration (catama) program. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly 22(2): 1–23.

52.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K. T.

Wen

(2004) In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling 11(3): 320–341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2.

53.

Meyers

L. S.

Gamst

Guarino

A. J.

(2006) Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

54.

Niederhauser

D. S.

Stoddart

(2001) Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education 17(1): 15–31. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00036-6.

55.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010) Are the new millennium learners making the grade? Technology use and educational performance in PISA, Paris, France: Author.

56.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2014) PISA 2012 technical report, Paris, France: Author.

57.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2006) Where immigrant students succeed, Paris, France: Author.

58.

Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind: The false promise of technology in the classroom, and how learning can be saved (p. 512). New York, NY: Random House.

59.

Orfield

Eaton

S. E.

(1997) Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education, New York, NY: The New Press.

60.

Papanastasiou

E. C.

Zembylas

Vrasidas

(2005) An examination of the PISA database to explore the relationship between computer use and science achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation 11(6): 529–543. doi:10.1080/13803610500254824.

61.

Papanastasiou

E. C.

Ferdig

R. E.

(2006) Computer use and mathematical literacy: An analysis of existing and potential relationships. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 25(4): 361–371.

62.

Petko

Cantieni

Prasse

(2016) Perceived quality of educational technology matters: A secondary analysis of students' ICT use, ICT-related attitudes, and PISA 2012 test scores. Journal of Educational Computing Research 54: 1070–1091. doi:10.1177/0735633116649373.

63.

Pong

S. L.

Hao

(2007) Neighborhood and school factors in the school performance of immigrants’ children. International Migration Review 41(1): 206–241. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7379.2007.00062.x.

64.

Pong

S. L.

Hao

Gardner

(2005) The roles of parenting styles and social capital in the school performance of immigrant Asian and Hispanic adolescents. Social Science Quarterly 86(4): 928–950. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00364.x.

65.

Potts

(2005) Pedagogy, purpose, and the second language learner in on-line communities. Canadian Modern Language Review 62(1): 137–160. doi:10.3138/cmlr.62.1.137.

66.

Randhawa

B. S.

(1993) Role of mathematics self-efficacy in the structural model of mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology 85(1): 41–48. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.1.41.

67.

Rashid

Asghar

H. M.

(2016) Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior 63: 604–612. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.084.

68.

Rumbaut R. G. (2014, November). Using NCES surveys to understand the experiences of immigrant-origin students. Paper presented at the National Academy of Education’s Workshop to Examine Current and Potential Uses of NCES Longitudinal Surveys by the Education Research Community, Washington, DC.

69.

Schleicher

(2006) Where immigrant students succeed: A comparative review of performance and engagement in PISA 2003. Intercultural Education 17(5): 507–516.

70.

Schumacker

R. E.

Lomax

R. G.

(2004) A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

71.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

72.

Seijts

G. H.

Latham

G. P.

(2011) The effect of commitment to a learning goal, self-efficacy, and the interaction between learning goal difficulty and commitment on performance in a business simulation. Human Performance 24: 189–204. doi:10.1080/08959285.2011.580807.

73.

Snyder

T. D.

de Brey

Dillow

S. A.

(2016) Digest of education statistics 2014 (NCES 2016-006), Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

74.

Sonnleitner

Brunner

Keller

Martin

(2014) Differential relations between facets of complex problem solving and students’ immigration background. Journal of Educational Psychology 106(3): 681–695. doi:10.1037/a0035506.

75.

Squires

(1999) Educational software for constructivist learning environments: Subversive use and volatile design. Educational Technology 39(3): 48–54.

76.

Smeets

(2005) Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education? Computers & Education 44(3): 343–355. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.04.003.

77.

Suarez-Orozco

Pimentel

Martin

(2009) The significance of relationships: Academic engagement and achievement among newcomer immigrant youth. Teachers College record 111(3): 712–749.

78.

Tamim

R. M.

Bernard

R. M.

Borokhovski

Abrami

P. C.

Schmid

R. F.

(2011) What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning a second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research 81(1): 4–28. doi:10.3102/0034654310393361.

79.

Tondeur

Valcke

van Braak

(2008) A multidimensional approach to determinants of computer use in primary education: Teacher and school characteristics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24(6): 494–506.

80.

Topcu

(2011) Effects of using spreadsheets on secondary school students’ self-efficacy for algebra. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 42(5): 605–613. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2011.562311.

81.

Torlakovic

Deugo

(2004) Application of a CALL system in the acquisition of adverbs in English. Computer Assisted Language Learning 17(2): 203–235. doi:10.1080/0958822042000334244.

82.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). American FactFinder. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t.

83.

Waight

Abd-El-Khalick

(2007) The impact of technology on the enactment of “inquiry” in a technology enthusiast's sixth grade science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44(1): 154–182. doi:10.1002/tea.20158.

84.

Wainer

Vieira

Melguizo

(2015) The association between having access to computers and Internet and educational achievement for primary students in Brazil. Computers & Education 80: 68–76. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.007.

85.

Warschauer

Grant

Real

G. D.

Rousseau

(2004) Promoting academic literacy with technology: Successful laptop programs in K-12 schools. System 32(4): 525–537. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.09.010.

86.

Wenglinsky

(1998) Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

87.

Weiss

Banilower

McMahon

Smith

(2001) Report of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education, Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon.

88.

Wilson

Narayan

(2016) Relationships among individual task self-efficacy, self-regulated learning strategy use and academic performance in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Educational Psychology 36(2): 236–253. doi:10.1080/01443410.2014.926312.

89.

Wittwer

Senkbeil

(2008) Is students’ computer use at home related to their mathematical performance at school? Computers & Education 50(4): 1558–1571. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.03.001.

90.

Yailagh

M. S.

Lloyd

Walsh

(2009) The causal relationships between attribution styles, mathematics self-efficacy beliefs, gender differences, goal setting, and math achievement of school children. Journal of Education & Psychology 3(2): 95–114.

91.

Zhang

(2015) Learning variables, in-class laptop multitasking and academic performance: A path analysis. Computers & Education 81: 82–88. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.09.012.

92.

Zhou

Kim

(2006) Community forces, social capital, and educational achievement: The case of supplementary education in the Chinese and Korean immigrant communities. Harvard Educational Review 76(1): 1–29. doi:10.17763/haer.76.1.u08t548554882477.