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.
AlmerichG.OrellanaN.Suárez-RodríguezJ.Díaz-GarcíaI. (2016) Teachers’ information and communication technology competences: A structural approach. Computers & Education100: 110–125. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.002.
2.
AudS.HussarW.JohnsonF.KenaG.RothE.ManningE.ZhangJ. (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.
3.
BanduraA. (1986) The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology4(3): 359–373.
4.
BanerjeeA. V.ColeS.DufloE.LindenL. (2007) Remedying education: Evidence from two randomized experiments in India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics122(3): 1235–1264.
5.
BozY.Yerdelen-DamarS.AydemirN.AydemirM. (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 Education34: 1–18. doi:10.1080/02635143.2016.1174931.
6.
ByrneB. M. (2013) Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
CarrascoM. R.TorrecillaF. 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 Development60(6): 1107–1128. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9262-5.
8.
ChangM.ChoiN.KimS. (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 Practice21(3): 209–231. doi:10.1080/13803611.2015.1034283.
9.
ChangM.KimS. (2009) Computer access and computer use for science performance of ethnic and linguistic minority student. Journal of Educational Computing Research40(4): 457–489. doi:10.2190/EC.40.4.e.
10.
ChenJ. C. (2016) The crossroads of English language learners, task-based instruction, and 3D multi-user virtual learning in Second Life. Computers & Education102: 152–171. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.08.004.
11.
ChenS. Y.TzengJ. Y. (2010) College female and male heavy internet users' profiles of practices and their academic grades and psychosocial adjustment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking13(3): 257–262. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0023.
12.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling9(2): 233–255.
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.
CrosnoeR.FuligniA. J. (2012) Children from immigrant families: Introduction to the special section. Child development83(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 WitteK.RoggeN. (2014) Does ICT matter for effectiveness and efficiency in mathematics education?Computers & Education75: 173–184. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.012.
19.
DelenE.BulutO. (2011) The relationship between students' exposure to technology and their achievement in science and math. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology10(3): 311–317.
20.
DillonP.WangR.TearleP. (2007) Cultural disconnection in virtual education. Pedagogy, Culture and Society15(2): 153–174. doi:10.1080/14681360701403565.
21.
DuJ.HavardB.YuC.AdamsJ. (2004) The impact of technology use on low income and minority students’ academic achievement: Educational longitudinal study of 2002. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies4(2): 21–38.
22.
DuongM. T.BadalyD.LiuF. F.SchwartzD.McCartyC. A. (2016) Generational differences in academic achievement among immigrant youths: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research86(1): 3–41. doi:10.3102/0034654315577680.
23.
ErdogduF.ErdogduE. (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 & Education82: 26–49. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.023.
FastL. A.LewisJ. L.BryantM. J.BocianK. A.CardulloR. A.RettigM.HammondK. A. (2010) Does math self-efficacy mediate the effect of the perceived classroom environment on standardized math test performance?Journal of Educational Psychology102(3): 729–740. doi:10.1037/a0018863.
26.
FreemanB. (2012) Using digital technologies to redress inequities for English language learners in the English speaking mathematics classroom. Computers & Education59(1): 50–62. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.003.
27.
GaneshT.MiddletonJ. (2006) Challenges in linguistically and culturally diverse elementary settings with math instruction using learning technologies. The Urban Review38(2): 101–143. doi:10.1007/s11256-006-0025-7.
28.
Garcia-CollC.MagnusonK. (1997) The psychological experience of immigration: A developmental perspective. In: BoothA.CrouterA. C.LandaleN. (eds) Immigration and the family: Research and policy on U.S. immigrants, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 91–132.
29.
HillmertS. (2013) Links between immigration and social inequality in education: A comparison among five European countries. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility32: 7–23. doi:10.1016/j.rssm.2013.02.002.
30.
HunleyS. A.EvansJ. H.Delgado-HacheyM.KriseJ. (2005) Adolescent computer use and academic achievement. Adolescence40(158): 307–318.
31.
IsiksalM.AskarP. (2005) The effect of spreadsheet and dynamic geometry software on the achievement and self-efficacy of 7th-grade students. Educational Research47(3): 333–350. doi:10.1080/00131880500287815.
32.
JanzenJ. (2008) Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of Educational Research78(4): 1010–1038. doi:10.3102/0034654308325580.
33.
JonassenD. H. (2000) Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environments. In: JonassenD. H.LandS. M. (eds) Theoretical foundations of learning environments, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 89–121.
34.
JöreskogK. G.SörbomD. (1988) LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications, Chicago, IL: SPSS.
KaoG.TiendaM. (1995) Optimism and achievement: The educational performance of immigrant youth. Social Science Quarterly76: 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.
KennyD. A.McCoachD. B. (2003) Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling10: 333–351.
40.
KimS.ChangM. (2010) Does computer use promote the mathematical proficiency of ELL students?Journal of Educational Computing Research42(3): 285–305. doi:10.2190/EC.42.3.c.
41.
KimS.ChangM.ChoiN.ParkJ.KimH. (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.
KimS.ChangM.SinghK.AllenK. (2015) Patterns and factors of high school dropout risks of racial and linguistic groups. The Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk20(4): 1–16. doi:10.1080/10824669.2015.1047019.
43.
KlineR. B. (2015) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, New York, NY: Guilford publications.
44.
LazarowitzR.HuppertJ. (1993) Science process skills of 10th-grade biology students in a computer-assisted learning setting. Journal of Research on Computing in Education25(3): 366–382. doi:10.1080/08886504.1993.10782057.
45.
LeeY. H.WuJ. 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 Differences22(3): 336–342. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.01.007.
46.
LeiJ. (2010) Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship between technology use and student outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology41(3): 455–472.
47.
LeiJ.ZhaoY. (2007) Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers & Education49(2): 284–296.
48.
LiuM.ChoY.SchallertD. L. (2006) Middle school students' self-efficacy, attitudes, and achievement in a computer-enhanced problem-based learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research17(3): 225.
49.
LoehlinJ. C. (1987) Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
LoehlinJ. C. (2004) Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis, Florence, KY: Psychology Press.
51.
Mac IverD. J.BalfanzR.PlankS. 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 Quarterly22(2): 1–23.
52.
MarshH. W.HauK. T.WenZ. (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 Modeling11(3): 320–341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2.
53.
MeyersL. S.GamstG.GuarinoA. J. (2006) Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54.
NiederhauserD. S.StoddartT. (2001) Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education17(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.
OrfieldG.EatonS. E. (1997) Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education, New York, NY: The New Press.
60.
PapanastasiouE. C.ZembylasM.VrasidasC. (2005) An examination of the PISA database to explore the relationship between computer use and science achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation11(6): 529–543. doi:10.1080/13803610500254824.
61.
PapanastasiouE. C.FerdigR. E. (2006) Computer use and mathematical literacy: An analysis of existing and potential relationships. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching25(4): 361–371.
62.
PetkoD.CantieniA.PrasseD. (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 Research54: 1070–1091. doi:10.1177/0735633116649373.
63.
PongS. L.HaoL. (2007) Neighborhood and school factors in the school performance of immigrants’ children. International Migration Review41(1): 206–241. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7379.2007.00062.x.
64.
PongS. L.HaoL.GardnerE. (2005) The roles of parenting styles and social capital in the school performance of immigrant Asian and Hispanic adolescents. Social Science Quarterly86(4): 928–950. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00364.x.
65.
PottsD. (2005) Pedagogy, purpose, and the second language learner in on-line communities. Canadian Modern Language Review62(1): 137–160. doi:10.3138/cmlr.62.1.137.
66.
RandhawaB. S. (1993) Role of mathematics self-efficacy in the structural model of mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology85(1): 41–48. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.1.41.
67.
RashidT.AsgharH. M. (2016) Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior63: 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.
SchleicherA. (2006) Where immigrant students succeed: A comparative review of performance and engagement in PISA 2003. Intercultural Education17(5): 507–516.
70.
SchumackerR. E.LomaxR. 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.
SeijtsG. H.LathamG. 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 Performance24: 189–204. doi:10.1080/08959285.2011.580807.
73.
SnyderT. D.de BreyC.DillowS. 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.
SonnleitnerP.BrunnerM.KellerU.MartinR. (2014) Differential relations between facets of complex problem solving and students’ immigration background. Journal of Educational Psychology106(3): 681–695. doi:10.1037/a0035506.
75.
SquiresD. (1999) Educational software for constructivist learning environments: Subversive use and volatile design. Educational Technology39(3): 48–54.
76.
SmeetsE. (2005) Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education?Computers & Education44(3): 343–355. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.04.003.
77.
Suarez-OrozcoC.PimentelA.MartinM. (2009) The significance of relationships: Academic engagement and achievement among newcomer immigrant youth. Teachers College record111(3): 712–749.
78.
TamimR. M.BernardR. M.BorokhovskiE.AbramiP. C.SchmidR. 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 Research81(1): 4–28. doi:10.3102/0034654310393361.
79.
TondeurJ.ValckeM.van BraakJ. (2008) A multidimensional approach to determinants of computer use in primary education: Teacher and school characteristics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning24(6): 494–506.
80.
TopcuA. (2011) Effects of using spreadsheets on secondary school students’ self-efficacy for algebra. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology42(5): 605–613. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2011.562311.
81.
TorlakovicE.DeugoD. (2004) Application of a CALL system in the acquisition of adverbs in English. Computer Assisted Language Learning17(2): 203–235. doi:10.1080/0958822042000334244.
WaightN.Abd-El-KhalickF. (2007) The impact of technology on the enactment of “inquiry” in a technology enthusiast's sixth grade science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching44(1): 154–182. doi:10.1002/tea.20158.
84.
WainerJ.VieiraP.MelguizoT. (2015) The association between having access to computers and Internet and educational achievement for primary students in Brazil. Computers & Education80: 68–76. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.007.
85.
WarschauerM.GrantD.RealG. D.RousseauM. (2004) Promoting academic literacy with technology: Successful laptop programs in K-12 schools. System32(4): 525–537. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.09.010.
86.
WenglinskyH. (1998) Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
87.
WeissI.BanilowerE.McMahonK.SmithP. (2001) Report of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education, Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon.
88.
WilsonK.NarayanA. (2016) Relationships among individual task self-efficacy, self-regulated learning strategy use and academic performance in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Educational Psychology36(2): 236–253. doi:10.1080/01443410.2014.926312.
89.
WittwerJ.SenkbeilM. (2008) Is students’ computer use at home related to their mathematical performance at school?Computers & Education50(4): 1558–1571. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.03.001.
90.
YailaghM. S.LloydJ.WalshJ. (2009) The causal relationships between attribution styles, mathematics self-efficacy beliefs, gender differences, goal setting, and math achievement of school children. Journal of Education & Psychology3(2): 95–114.
91.
ZhangW. (2015) Learning variables, in-class laptop multitasking and academic performance: A path analysis. Computers & Education81: 82–88. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.09.012.
92.
ZhouM.KimS. (2006) Community forces, social capital, and educational achievement: The case of supplementary education in the Chinese and Korean immigrant communities. Harvard Educational Review76(1): 1–29. doi:10.17763/haer.76.1.u08t548554882477.
