Basic ICT access and reading achievement: First-level digital divide patterns among U.S. 15-year-olds in the PISA 2018

Nirmal  Ghimire; Kouider  Mokhtari

doi:10.59400/fes2937

Basic ICT access and reading achievement: First-level digital divide patterns among U.S. 15-year-olds in the PISA 2018

Nirmal Ghimire Watson College of Education, The University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC 28403, United States
Kouider Mokhtari College of Education and Psychology, The University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, TX 75799, United States

Article ID: 2937

Keywords: reading achievement; home computer ownership; home internet access; ICT devices; digital divide; academic outcomes; digital literacy

Abstract

The reading performance of U.S. 15-year-old students is influenced by multiple factors, yet prior research on first-level digital divide indicators, such as access to home computers, internet connectivity, and information and communication technology (ICT) devices, has yielded mixed results. This study investigates the relationship between home technology access and reading achievement among U.S. 15-year-olds using data from the 2018 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). After listwise deletion of missing ICT data, the analytic sample included 4565 students from 164 U.S. schools. Reading achievement was measured using ten plausible values reflecting students’ ability to locate, understand, and evaluate textual information. We employed survey-weighted regression with progressive model development, conducting ten separate analyses and synthesizing results using Rubin’s rules to account for measurement uncertainty. Findings revealed that basic technology access explained 10.6% of the variance in reading performance. Consistent computer access at home was associated with higher achievement. However, internet access presented nuanced effects: students with internet access but no reported use performed worse than those without access, while active users showed positive associations. ICT device quantity exhibited a curvilinear relationship with optimal reading performance linked to ownership of around 8–9 devices, declining thereafter. These results underscore that while first-level digital divide indicators are associated with reading outcomes, access alone is not sufficient. Engagement patterns and moderated device use are key to maximizing educational benefits.

Published

2025-06-27

How to Cite

Ghimire, N., & Mokhtari, K. (2025). Basic ICT access and reading achievement: First-level digital divide patterns among U.S. 15-year-olds in the PISA 2018. Forum for Education Studies, 3(3), 2937. https://doi.org/10.59400/fes2937

Download Citation

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 3 (2025)

Section

Article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

[1]OECD. Access to computers from home (indicator). Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 2012. doi: 10.1787/a70b8a9f-en

[2]International Telecommunications Union. Households with a computer, data for the world, by geographic regions. Available online: https://datahub.itu.int/data/?i=12046&e=701&c=701 (accessed on 9 December 2024).

[3]Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework. OECD Publishing, Paris; 2019. doi: 10.1787/b25efab8-en

[4]Espinosa LM, Laffey JM, Whittaker T, Sheng Y. Technology in the home and the achievement of young children: Findings from the early childhood longitudinal study. Early Childhood and Development. 2010; 17(3): 421–441. doi: 10.1207/s15566935eed1703_5

[5]Hu X, Gong Y, Lai C, et al. The relationship between ICT and student literacy in mathematics, reading, and science across 44 countries: A multilevel analysis. Computers & Education. 2018; 125: 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.021

[6]Rosén M, Gustafsson JE. Is computer availability at home causally related to reading achievement in grade 4? A longitudinal difference in differences approach to IEA data from 1991 to 2006. Large-scale Assessments in Education. 2016; 4(1). doi: 10.1186/s40536-016-0020-8

[7]Petko D, Cantieni A, Prasse D. Perceived Quality of Educational Technology Matters. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2016; 54(8): 1070–1091. doi: 10.1177/0735633116649373

[8]Vigdor JL, Ladd HF, Martinez E. Scaling the digital divide: home computer technology and student achievement. Economic Inquiry. 2014; 52(3): 1103–1119. doi: 10.1111/ecin.12089

[9]Lee YH, Wu JY. 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. 2012; 22(3): 336–342. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.01.007

[10]Gubbels J, Swart NM, Groen MA. Everything in moderation: ICT and reading performance of Dutch 15-year-olds. Large-scale Assessments in Education. 2020; 8(1). doi: 10.1186/s40536-020-0079-0

[11]Sanfo JBMB. Examining student ICT use and learning outcomes: Evidence from Japanese PISA data. Computers and Education Open. 2023; 4: 100141. doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100141

[12]Hu J, Yu R. The effects of ICT-based social media on adolescents’ digital reading performance: A longitudinal study of PISA 2009, PISA 2012, PISA 2015 and PISA 2018. Computers & Education. 2021; 175: 104342. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104342

[13]Li SC, Petersen KB. Does ICT matter? Unfolding the complex multilevel structural relationship between technology use and academic achievements in PISA 2015. Education Technology & Society. 2022; 25(4): 43–55.

[14]Delgado P, Vargas C, Ackerman R, et al. Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review. 2018; 25: 23–38. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003

[15]Kong Y, Seo YS, Zhai L. Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education. 2018; 123: 138–149. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.005

[16]Arpacı S, Mercan FÇ, Arıkan S. The differential relationships between PISA 2015 science performance and, ICT availability, ICT use and attitudes toward ICT across regions: evidence from 35 countries. Education and Information Technologies. 2021; 26(5): 6299–6318. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10576-2

[17]Huang S, Jiang Y, Yin H, et al. Does ICT use matter? The relationships between students’ ICT use, motivation, and science achievement in East Asia. Learning and Individual Differences. 2021; 86: 101957. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101957

[18]Agasisti T, Antequera G, Delprato M. Technological resources, ICT use and schools efficiency in Latin America – Insights from OECD PISA 2018. International Journal of Educational Development. 2023; 99: 102757. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102757

[19]Malamud O, Cueto S, Cristia J, et al. Do children benefit from internet access? Experimental evidence from Peru. Journal of Development Economics. 2019; 138: 41–56. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2018.11.005

[20]Erdogdu F. ICT, learning environment and student characteristics as potential cross-country predictors of academic achievement. Education and Information Technologies. 2022; 27(5): 7135–7159. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10848-x

[21]Borgonovi F, Pokropek M. The evolution of the association between ICT use and reading achievement in 28 countries. Computers and Education Open. 2021; 2: 100047. doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100047

[22]Calica MP. The effect of parental characteristics and home resources on reading performance of 15-year-old students in the Philippines. The New Educational Review. 2020; 62(4): 67–79. doi: 10.15804/tner.2020.62.4.06

[23]Daoud R, Starkey L, Eppel E, et al. The educational value of internet use in the home for school children: A systematic review of literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2020; 53(4): 353–374. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2020.1783402

[24]Ghimire N, Mokhtari K. Mapping Connections Across Layers: Interrelationships Between Key Factors and 15-Year-Old’s Reading Scores. Reading Psychology. 2024; 46(2): 195–227. doi: 10.1080/02702711.2024.2432882

[25]Ghimire N, Regmi S. ICT Access and Inequality in Global Reading Achievement: Cross-Level Interactions and Compensatory Effects in PISA 2018. Journal of Education and Training Studies. 2025; 13(3): 33. doi: 10.11114/jets.v13i3.7619

[26]Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing, Paris; 2019.

[27]Schleicher A. PISA 2018: Insights and interpretations. OECD Publishing; 2019.

[28]Little RJA. A Test of Missing Completely at Random for Multivariate Data with Missing Values. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1988; 83(404): 1198–1202. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722

[29]R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2025.

[30]Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 1988.

[31]Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.

Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Surapati Pramanik

Nandalal Ghosh B.T. College, India

eISSN

3029-2956

Publication Frequency

Quarterly

Indexing

Polish Scientific Bibliography

About the Publisher

Academic Publishing insists on taking academic exchange and publication as the main line, carrying out comprehensive management based on science and technology, and fully exploring excellent international publishing resources. Within 5 years, it will form a strategic framework and scale with science (S), technology (T), medicine (M), education (E), and humanities and arts (H) as the main publishing fields. Academic Publishing is headquartered in Singapore and based in Malaysia, with the United States and China providing the main scientific and academic resources. At the same time, it has established long-term good cooperative relations with other publishing companies, scientific research communities, and academic organizations in more than a dozen countries and regions. Academic Publishing uses English and Chinese as its main publishing languages, mainly publishing books, journals, and conference papers in print and online. The vast majority of publications follow the international open access policy, providing stable and long-term quality and professional publications. With the joint efforts of the expert team and our professional editorial team, our publications will gradually be indexed by international databases in stages to provide convenient and professional retrieval for various scholars. At the same time, manuscripts we accept will be subject to the peer review principle, and cutting-edge and innovative research articles will be preferentially accepted for peer reference and discussion. All kinds of our publications are welcome for peer to contribute, access, and download.

more

Volume Arrangement

2025

2024

2023

Featured Articles

Diachronic analysis of Spanish scientific production on teaching methodologies in Primary Education: A scientometric and conceptual perspective (2000–2023)

The evaluation of science is essential to ensuring the quality, validity, and reliability of scientific results. Science needs to undergo a review process to ensure the rigorousness of scientific output. This evaluation provides a solid basis for political and economic decisions related to the design and execution of research projects, the establishment of new lines of research, or the identification of areas of specialization. This paper analyses diachronically the Spanish scientific production related to the implementation and development of teaching methodologies in primary education and indexed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases during the period 2000–2023. This analysis is carried out on the one hand, from a scientometric perspective, based on the analysis of indicators such as diachronic production, the journals with the highest scientific productivity, and the most productive institutions, and, on the other hand, from a conceptual perspective, trying to define its relationship with other areas of education. The general results of this study reveal two clear stages: the first, up to 2010, with little scientific production; and the second, from 2011 onwards, characterised by a general growth. The relationship between this field and others such as initial teacher training, ICT, and didactics is also evident.

The relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and classroom management practices in secondary schools

This study explores the intricate relationship between teacher self-efficacy and classroom management practices in secondary schools in the Mansehra district of Pakistan. Teacher self-efficacy, defined as the belief in one’s ability to manage and influence classroom environments effectively, has been identified as a critical factor influencing both teaching performance and student outcomes. The research employed a mixed-method approach, gathering data from 62 teachers and 310 students using both online surveys (via Google Forms) and physical questionnaires to ensure a diverse and inclusive participant pool. Data analysis was conducted using two complementary tools: SPSS and Smart PLS. SPSS was used for descriptive statistics and inferential analyses, such as t-tests, chi-square tests, and measures of central tendency, to offer an overview of group differences and relationships between variables. Meanwhile, Smart PLS was employed for Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), a technique suited for complex models and smaller sample sizes. This method allowed for the analysis of both direct and indirect relationships between the study variables—teacher self-efficacy, teaching practices, and classroom management. The findings reveal a significant positive correlation between teacher self-efficacy and classroom management practices. Additionally, teaching practices were found to mediate this relationship, indicating that higher levels of self-efficacy not only directly improve classroom management but also enhance teaching performance, which in turn contributes to better-managed classrooms. These results suggest that interventions aimed at enhancing teacher self-efficacy can have far-reaching effects on educational outcomes. The study highlights the need for focused teacher development programs that foster self-efficacy, thereby improving classroom management, student engagement, and overall academic success.

Artificial Intelligence in education: A comprehensive study

This comprehensive study delves into the multifaceted role of AI in education, exploring its applications, benefits, challenges, and future implications. The purpose of the study is to show how AI in education helps educators identify gaps in student knowledge and provide targeted feedback to improve learning outcomes. As a methodology, the library method and the study and review of various documents have been used in this research. The study examines the diverse range of AI technologies employed in educational settings, including intelligent tutoring systems, personalized learning platforms, educational chatbots, and virtual reality simulations. Furthermore, the study delves into the numerous benefits that AI brings to education. It highlights how AI-powered analytics and data-driven insights enable educators to gain deeper insights into student learning patterns, identify areas for improvement, and tailor instructional strategies accordingly. Additionally, AI-driven tools promote inclusivity by providing personalized support to learners with diverse needs and learning styles. Despite its transformative potential, the study also acknowledges the challenges and ethical considerations associated with integrating AI into education. Data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the digital divide are examined in detail, emphasizing the importance of responsible AI deployment and ethical guidelines. Looking ahead, the study explores the future implications of AI in education and the evolving role of educators in AI-enabled classrooms. It discusses how AI technologies will continue to evolve, offering new opportunities for collaborative learning, skill development, and lifelong education. In conclusion, this comprehensive study underscores the profound impact of AI on education and the need for thoughtful implementation strategies that prioritize equity, inclusivity, and ethical considerations. By harnessing the potential of AI, education systems can better prepare learners for the challenges and opportunities of the future.

Enhancing adult learner success in higher education through decision tree models: A machine learning approach

This article explores the use of machine learning, specifically Classification and Regression Trees (CART), to address the unique challenges faced by adult learners in higher education. These learners confront socio-cultural, economic, and institutional hurdles, such as stereotypes, financial constraints, and systemic inefficiencies. The study utilizes decision tree models to evaluate their effectiveness in predicting graduation outcomes, which helps in formulating tailored educational strategies. The research analyzed a comprehensive dataset spanning the academic years 2013–2014 to 2021–2022, evaluating the predictive accuracy of CART models using precision, recall, and F1 score. Findings indicate that attendance, age, and Pell Grant eligibility are key predictors of academic success, demonstrating the strong capability of the model across various educational metrics. This highlights the potential of machine learning (ML) to improve data-driven decision-making in educational settings. The results affirm the effectiveness of Decision Tree (DT) models in meeting the educational needs of adult learners and underscore the need for institutions to adapt their strategies to provide more inclusive and supportive environments. This study advocates for a shift towards nuanced, data-driven approaches in higher education, emphasizing the development of strategies that address the distinct challenges of adult learners, aiming to enhance inclusivity and support within the sector.