Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2008-6
The Impact of Technology Use on Hispanic Students' Mathematics Achievement Within Family and School Contexts: Subgroup Analysis between English- and Non-English-Speaking Students
This study tested a theoretical model explaining the relationship between technology, family context, and school context variables as predictors of mathematics achievement across two language groups: English-speaking and non-English-speaking Hispanic students. It used data from the base year and first follow-up of the Education Longitudinal Study (ELS: 2002/2004). The multigroup analysis of the path model was used to analyze the data. The findings continue to indicate the importance of individual technology usage as a predictor of mathematics performance among non-English-speaking Hispanic students. The study also found that Hispanic parents' direct involvement in their children's schooling has a significant negative effect on their academic achievement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArbuckleJ. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In MarcoulidesG. A. & SchumackerR. E. (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 243–277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2.
BaH.TallyB., & TsikalasK. (2002). Children's emerging digital literacies: Investigating home computing in low- and middle-income families. CCT reports.New York: Center for Children & Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 477 716.)
3.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.New York: Freeman.
4.
BempechatJ.NakkulaM. J.WuJ. T., & GinsburgH. P. (1996). Attributions as predictors of mathematics achievement: A comparative study. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 29(2), 53–59.
5.
BielefeldtT. (2005). Computers and student learning: Interpreting the multivariate analysis of PISA 2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 339–347.
6.
BosterF. J.MeyerG. S.RobertoA. J.IngeC., & StromR. (2006). Some effects of videostreaming on educational achievement. Communication Education, 55(1), 46–62.
7.
ByrneB. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8.
CeballoR. (2004). From barrios to Yale: The role of parenting strategies in Latino families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26(2), 171–186.
9.
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 Studies, 4(2), 21–39.
10.
FanH., & OreyM. (2001). Multimedia in the classroom: Its effect on student writing ability. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33(5), 1–13.
HagertyG., & SmithS. (2005). Using the Web-based interactive software ALEKS to enhance college algebra. Mathematics and Computer Education, 39(3), 183–194.
13.
JacksonL. A.von EyeA.BioccaF.BarbatsisG.ZhaoY., & FitzgeraldH. (2005). How low-income children use the Internet at home. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(3), 259–271.
14.
KleinsmithS. L. (1997). Technology in the schools, so what? Responding to the common questions about computers in the classroom. School Administrator, 54(4), 8–11.
15.
KmittaD., & DavisJ. (2004). Why PT3? An analysis of the impact of educational technology [Electronic version]. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(3), 323–344.
16.
LehrC. A. (2004). Increasing school completion: Learning from research-based practices that work. Research to Practice Brief, 3(3). Retrieved April 30, 2007, from the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition site: http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1646/
17.
ManingerR. M. (2006). Successful technology integration: Student test scores improved in an English literature course through the use of supportive devices. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practices to Improve Learning, 50(5), 37–45.
18.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2005, October). 2005 assessment results. Retrieved April 30, 2007, from the National Center for Educational Statistics site: http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math.2005/
19.
PapanastasiouE. C., & FerdigR. 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.
20.
ParkH.QuinnC., & JiangY. (2007, April). The impact of computer usage on language-minority student's academic achievement: A comparison between Asian and Hispanic students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.
21.
PlunkettS. W., & Bamaca-GomezM. Y. (2003). The relationship between parenting, acculturation, and adolescent academics in Mexican-origin immigrant families in Los Angeles. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science, 25(2), 222–239.
22.
ProtheroeN. (2005). Technology and student achievement. Principal, 85(2), 46–48.
23.
RobinsonD. H.LevinJ. R.ThomasG. D.PituchK. A., & VaughnS. (2007). The incidence of “causal” statements in teaching-and-learning research journals. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 400–413.
24.
SchacterJ. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say.Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430 537.)
25.
SternbergB. J.KaplanK. A., & BorckJ. E. (2007). Enhancing adolescent literacy achievement through integration of technology in the classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(3), 416–420.
26.
StevensT.OlivárezA., & HammanD. (2006). The role of cognition, motivation, and emotion in explaining the mathematics achievement gap between Hispanic and White students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28(2), 161–186.
27.
TsikalasK., & GrossE. F. (2002). Home computer use among low-income, minority urban adolescents: Fulfillment of basic needs and impact on personal and academic development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 466 685.)
28.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). New No Child Left Behind provisions give schools new flexibility and ensure accountability for limited English proficient students.Washington, DC: Author.
29.
WaxmanH. C.LinM., & MichkoG. M. (2003, December). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Retrieved March 2, 2007, from http://www.ncrel.org/tech/effects2/waxman.pdf
