Socioeconomic differences in elementary students’ ICT beliefs and out-of-school experiences

Ioanna Vekiri

NOTICE: This is the author’s version of a work that was published in Computers & Education 54 (2010) 941–950. A definitive version of this work can be found at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131509002723

Permanent address for correspondence:

Ioanna Vekiri, P.O. Box 20103, Thessaloniki, GR 55101, Greece.

E-mail: ivekiri@uth.gr, ivekiri@otenet.gr

Ttitle: Socioeconomic differences in elementary students’ ICT beliefs and

out-of-school experiences

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to explore possible links between student

socioeconomic status (SES), beliefs about information and communication

technologies (ICTs), and out-of-school learning resources. Grade 5 and 6 students

(N=345) who were enrolled in one private and six public elementary schools in

Greece, located in areas with different demographic characteristics, responded to a

questionnaire addressing their ICT self-efficacy and value beliefs, out-of-school ICT

access and activities, perceived parental support and regulation of home ICT

activities, and access to sources of technological support beyond the family. Findings

showed that students from all SES family backgrounds tended to have positive views

about the value of ICTs, but students from low-SES families expressed lower

confidence in their ICT skills. Parents from all SES backgrounds appeared to view

equally favorably their children’s engagement with ICTs, and perceived parental

support correlated highly with students’ ICT value beliefs. However, students from

low-SES families appeared to have fewer opportunities to develop ICT competencies,

which may explain why they expressed less positive self-efficacy beliefs. Findings

stress the need for school ICT integration efforts to take into account student

differences in prior experiences and to be coordinated with students’ home computer

use.

Keywords: elementary education; pedagogical issues; country-specific developments.

1

Socioeconomic differences in elementary students’ ICT beliefs and out-of-school experiences

1. Introduction

The widespread diffusion of information and communication technologies

(ICTs) into the educational system of many countries has raised concerns that school

technology use may exacerbate existing social inequalities, by benefiting those

students who are economically privileged and have the opportunity to become

acquainted with technology outside school (Attewell & Battle, 1999; Warschauer,

2007). A large number of young students in many countries (Janssen Reinen &

Plomp, 1997) have nowadays home computer access from the elementary school

years and develop computer expertise before they begin using computers at school

(Mumtaz, 2001). Studies involving different age groups of students have shown that

home computer use is associated with positive computer attitudes and beliefs (Bovée,

Voogt, & Meelissen, 2007; Meelissen & Drent, 2008; Selwyn, 1998; van Braak,

2004), low computer anxiety (Bozionelos, 2004), and better utilization of school ICT

resources (Selwyn, 1998). Students from families of low socioeconomic status (SES)

are less likely to have access to a home computer (Becker, 2000; Bovée et al., 2007;

Livingstone, 2007; Vryzas & Tsitouridou, 2002a) and, therefore, have fewer

opportunities outside school to develop ICT skills and positive attitudes compared to

their peers from more economically privileged families. The above findings suggest

that, unless school ICT integration takes into account student differences in prior

experiences, attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs, students from low-income families

may not benefit equally from ICTs' learning potential at school. Also, findings have

stimulated research and discussion about the practices that schools and teachers can

adopt in order to minimize SES differences in students’ opportunities to develop ICT

competences (Warschauer, 2007).

Although research so far has documented SES differences in home computer

access, only a few studies have examined possible links between SES, the nature of

home computing, and student beliefs about ICTs (i.e. Meelissen & Drent, 2008;

Shashaani, 1994). As home computing becomes more widespread, it has become

acknowledged that the “digital divide” involves a set of social inequalities and

differences, which may interact with and influence one another (Gunkel, 2003;

2

Selwyn, 2004). Such inequalities and differences may concern not only access to

technologies but also the nature of computer and internet experiences (Attewell,

2001), access to people and social networks that can provide resources and learning

opportunities (Selwyn, 2004; Warschauer, 2003), as well as beliefs and motivation

that will lead to skill development, which in turn will affect future ICT adoption (De

Haan, 2004).

In this study I collected survey data from a socially diverse group of upper

elementary school students in Greece to explore relationships between family SES,

student beliefs about ICTs, home and out-of-school ICT access and activities,

perceived parental values and expectations, parental monitoring and guidance of

computer use, and access to people who can support students’ ICT use and skill

development. Although Greece has a low ranking in ICT adoption compared to other

European Union countries (Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development [OEDC], 2008), the rate of computer and internet use among young

people is approaching EU average rates (Observatory for the Greek Information

Society, 2008). Therefore I assumed that most students of this age group would have

enough ICT experiences to be able to respond to a questionnaire about ICTs and that

research findings would be relevant beyond the Greek context.

2. Literature Review

I focused on students’ self-efficacy and value beliefs, because these beliefs

have been found to affect student motivation, learning, and academic choices

(Bandura, 1993; Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). Self-efficacy

beliefs are students’ perceptions of their abilities in a particular domain (Bandura,

1993), and value beliefs are students’ views about the enjoyment they will get from

performing tasks of a particular domain, the importance of the tasks, the usefulness of

the tasks, and the cost of task performance (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Students are

likely to engage in academic tasks and activities that they consider interesting, useful,

important, and within their ability range (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000; Pintrich &

DeGroot, 1990). Research has shown that self-efficacy and value beliefs are

significant predictors of students’ intention to enrol in optional computer courses at

3

school (Dickhäuser & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2003) and to pursue studies in computer

related fields (Singh, Allen, Scheckler, & Darlington, 2007) .

Some studies (Meelissen & Drent, 2008; Shashaani, 1994; Todman & Dick,

1993) have shown that students from more privileged SES backgrounds tend to have

more positive computer attitudes than their less privileged peers. This may happen

because students from privileged families have more opportunities to use and to

experience success with computers, due to easy access and frequent use at home.

Previous studies found that home computer experience and frequency of use were

significantly related to computer attitudes in elementary (Bovée, Voogt, & Meelissen,

2007; Meelissen & Drent, 2008), secondary (Selwyn, 1998), and university students

(van Braak, 2004).

Sosioeconomic differences in ICT attitudes and beliefs may also be the result

of differences in parental practices and support for computer learning. Parents may

influence their children’s relationship with ICT not only by providing technological

resources but also by creating learning opportunities and by communicating their own

values and aspirations about their children’s ICT use. Research on the role of parental

beliefs and involvement (Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, & Holbein, 2005) shows that

when parents are involved in their children’s school-related and extra-curricular

activities, provide encouragement and praise, and express positive values and

expectations, children are more likely to have positive beliefs about their academic

abilities and intrinsic motivation for learning. Low-SES parents may place high value

on education and may have aspirations for their children, however, they do not always

have the educational experiences and the resources that would help them enact

parenting practices to foster their children’s motivation and learning (Spera, 2005).

Researchers (Linebarger, Royer, & Gherin, 2004; Vryzas & Tsitouridou,

2002b) have shown that, compared to parents from more privileged backgrounds, who

tend to view very favorably the educational applications of ICT, parents from low

SES backgrounds tend to be ambivalent about new technologies, possibly due to the

fact that many of them are not knowledgeable about and do not use computers

(Becker, 2000; Roe & Broos, 2005). Although they are skeptical about the educational

value of computers (Vryzas & Tsotouridou, 2002b), as many of them believe that

computers serve more of an entertainment purpose (Linebarger et al., 2004), low-SES

4

parents consider important that their children learn about computers (Clark, Demont-

Heinrich, & Webber, 2005; Linebarger et al., 2004; Livingstone, 2007). However,

given their lack of computer knowledge, they may not be able to assist their children’s

skill acquisition and exposure to a wide variety of ICT applications (Becker, 2000) or

they may not feel competent to oversee their children’s ICT use (Clark et al., 2005;

Livingstone & Helsper, 2008). In this study I attempted to examine three aspects of

parental involvement in children’s ICT use: a) the psychological support that

students’ perceived to have from their parents, as an expression of parental values and

expectations about students’ ICT use; b) the learning opportunities that parents

provided, measured in terms of students’ variety of ICT use outside school and access

to educational resources and technological assistance at home; and c) parental

regulation of students’ ICT activities.

Peer relationships may be another factor related to children’s use of ICTs,

especially for students from low-SES backgrounds. Home computing is often a social

activity and children use each other’s expertise in order to learn new things and deal

with computer problems (Facer, Sutherland, Furlong, & Furlong, 2001; Vekiri &

Chronaki, 2008). In low-SES students, access to peer and social networks may

compensate for possible low levels of parental guidance and provision of learning

opportunities. Vryzas and Tsitouridou (2002a) found that a higher percentage of low-

SES students learned how to use computers from their friends than from their parents,

compared to students from more privileged backgrounds who relied on their parents’

expertise. In this study I explored the role of peer and social networks and collected

data about students’ computer use at places other than their home as well as about

students’ access to technological expertise beyond the family.

In summary, the questions of this study were:

Are there SES differences in students’ ICT self-efficacy and value beliefs?

Are there SES differences in students’ home computer access and out-of-

school computer experiences (frequency of computer use, location of use, type and

variety of computer activities, parental support and guidance, and access to supportive

social networks) that could explain possible differences in students’ ICT beliefs?

5

3. Methods

3.1. Participants and Context of the Study

Participants were 345 fifth and sixth grade students (194 boys and 151 girls),

who were enrolled in one private and six public elementary schools during the

2008-09 school year. Schools were located in both urban and rural areas and served

students with different demographic characteristics1. Overall, students came from

diverse family backgrounds: 51.30% from upper-middle, 23.48% from middle and

25.22% from low SES families. I coded SES based on father’s and mothers’ education

and occupation, as follows: upper-middle-SES = professionals with higher education

degrees, middle-SES = white-color employees or merchants with secondary and

postsecondary degrees, and low-SES = blue-color employees with elementary and/or

secondary education. For each student I assigned the highest of two possible SES

levels.

Although all public schools of the study were equipped with computers,

located either in computer rooms or in the classrooms, at the year of data collection

only students in 2 of the 16 participating public school classes used computers during

their regular program. In the public schools some students (n = 25) used ICTs during

an optional afternoon program offered for working families. In this context,

computers were used in ICT skill development activities and not as tools for studying

specific school subjects. In the private school, students (n = 50) attended a computer

class that was offered once a week, beginning in grade 1. In this class students learned

about hardware and software, used applications for word processing, drawing, e-mail,

presentations, and multimedia development, and were introduced to programming

with Logo.

3.2. Materials

Students responded to a self-report questionnaire about their beliefs and out-

of-school computer activities. In this article I report results from students’ answers to

6

1 The private school and one of the public schools were located in a city with a population of about a million and served students from primarily upper-middle-SES family bakcgrounds. One public school was located in a city with a population of 17.000 residents and had students who came primarily from upper-middle- and middle-SES families. The remaining 4 public schools were located in the countryside and served students from primarily middle- and low-SES family backgrouds.

the following questions:

a) 5 multiple-choice questions about students' access to computer resources

and their computer activities outside school, which were drawn from Vekiri and

Chronaki (2008) and are provided in Appendix A2.

b) 5 multiple-choice questions addressing parental regulation of student ICT

use and student access to learning opportunities and educational resources, which

were developed for the purposes of the study (see Appendix B).

c) 16 Likert-type questions, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

agree), that addressed students’ ICT value beliefs (8 items about attainment, utility,

and intrinsic value) and perceived parental support for ICT use (8 items). Questions

were specific to ICT and were developed based on other instruments assessing task-

value beliefs (i.e. Eccles & Wigfield, 1995) and parental expectations and values (i.e.

Dickhäuser & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2003; Vekiri & Chronaki, 2008). Table 1 presents

scale items and Cronbach’s alphas.

d) 12 Likert-type questions assessing students’ ICT self-efficacy beliefs.

Students were asked to express their confidence in their ability to perform 12

computer tasks using a scale ranging from 1 (not at all confident) to 5 (very

confident). Questions were developed based on the scale of Kinzie, Delcourt, &

Powers (as cited in Albion, 2001), so as to correspond to elementary students’

computer knowledge level (see Table 1).

e) 2 multiple-choice questions asking whether students’ parents used

computers either at home or at work.

3.3. Procedure

Students completed the questionnaire in their regular classrooms in groups of

11 to 27. Sessions lasted approximately 40 minutes. In the beginning I provided

information about the content of the survey. I stressed that it was not a test, that there

were no right or wrong answers to the questions, and that all recorded information

would remain confidential. Then I gave instructions on how to complete the multiple

choice and Likert items and explained terms that I thought might be unfamiliar to

7

2 Some of the items in question 5 are different from those included in the original questionnaire.

some students (i.e. educational software). Instructions were given in steps, and

students completed one section of the questionnaire at a time, to ensure that they all

understood the questions. During the survey I addressed individual inquiries and

checked each questionnaire to ensure that students responded to all items.

4. Results4.1. Students’ out-of school ICT access and activities and ICT beliefs

Analysis of questionnaire responses showed that only 11 students (3.2%), who

came mainly from low-SES families (8 out of 11), did not use computers outside

school. These students were not included in further analysis. As Table 2 shows, only

9.0% of the remaining students did not have access to a computer at home but the

percentage was higher (25.5%) for those who had no internet access. Students

reported having access to a computer located either in a room other than their own

(40.2%), or in their own room (24.0%), or in both locations (26.7%).

It appears that computing has an important role in the out-of-school activities of

many children and that it is often a social activity. As Tables 3 and 4 show, students

reported using computers quite frequently and in a variety of places other than their

home, including their friends’ (43.2%) and relatives’ homes (31.5%) or internet cafes

(25.5%). Nearly half of the students (43.4%) used computers almost everyday and

26.6% about 2 to 3 times a week. Game playing was the most popular activity,

reported by 93.4% of students (see Table 5), followed by internet search (79.6%),

writing (58.4%), and drawing (54.8%). Fewer students used computers for drill and

practice (26.3%), learning (29.3%) and developing their own electronic materials

(38.0%) using presentation, image and video processing software, or programming

languages for children.

There were significant SES differences in home computer and internet access.

As Table 2 shows, students from upper-middle-SES families were more likely to have

a computer at home and to access the internet from home than students from middle-

and low-SES families. Also, more low- and middle-SES students used computers and

the internet at internet cafes (see Table 3). However, students from all SES

backgrounds were equally likely to have a computer and access to the internet in their

own room (see Table 3). Of interest are also the findings that low-SES students were

8

more likely that students from the other two SES groups to respond that the computer

that they used at home was located in their room, while the latter students were more

likely to respond that the computer that they used was located elsewhere in the house.

Significant SES differences were also found in the type and range of students’

computer use outside school. As Table 5 shows, the percentages of low-SES students

tended to be lower than the percentages of middle- and low-SES students for

educational or advanced computer activities, such as drill and practice, x2 (2, 334) =

10.21, p < .051, writing, x2 (2, 334) = 7,15, p < .05 and electronic material

development, x2 (2, 334) = 6.14, p < .05, as well as for activities requiring access to

the internet, such as internet search, x2 (2, 334) = 14.46, p < .001, and instant

messaging, listening to music , and watching videos found on the internet, which were

mentioned by students in the category “other”, x2 (2, 334) = 6.30, p < .05. In addition,

there was a significant SES difference in the range of students’ computer use outside

school. As Table 6 shows, low-SES students reported fewer computer activities than

middle- or upper-middle-SES students.

It appears that access to a home computer did not affect the frequency of

students’ computer use, as there were no significant differences in frequency by SES

level (see Table 4). This may be explained by the fact that students who did not have a

computer at home did use computers at other places, such as internet cafes, and

friends’ and relatives’ homes. Analysis showed that the percentages for computer use

at internet cafes were significantly higher for the students who did not have home

computer and internet access (46.7% and 43.5%), compared to the percentages of the

students who used a computer and the internet at home (23.4% and 21.0%,

respectively), x2 (1, 333) = 7.75, p <.05 and x2 (1, 333) = 16.45, p <.001. However, it

should be noted that access to a home computer (either in bedroom or elsewhere or in

both locations) was related to frequency of computer use, as it was found that 73.9%

of the students who had access to a home computer used computers more frequently

(at least 2-3 times a week) compared to only 30% of those with no home access, x2 (1,

333) = 25.15, p < .001.

Overall, students expressed positive ICT self-efficacy and value beliefs. On a

scale from 1 to 5, means (with standard deviations in parentheses) were 4.04 (.89) and

4.11 (.61), respectively, showing that students tended to agree with the questionnaire

9

items. However, low-SES students expressed significantly lower self-efficacy

compared to students from the other two SES groups (see Table 6). No SES

differences were found in students’ beliefs about the value of ICTs.

In summary, there were significant differences by SES level in students’ use

of computers and the internet outside school, in home computer and internet access,

as well as in the nature and variety of their computer activities, showing that students

from low-SES backgrounds were at a disadvantage compared to students from the

other SES groups. Given these differences in the opportunities to use computers and

develop ICT competences, it comes as no surprise that students from low-SES

families expressed less confidence in their ICT abilities. On the other hand, students

from all social groups had equally positive beliefs about the value of computers.

4.2. Parental support and monitoring of student ICT activities

Principal Axis Factor analysis was conducted for the 8 items that were

developed to assess student perceptions of parental expectations, values and support

for ICT use. The analysis yielded 1 factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0, which

accounted for 39.44% of the variance. All factor loadings were above .60 except for

one item with a factor loading lower than .30, which was dropped from the scale to

improve its internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha was .84.

Students from all SES backgrounds on average perceived high levels of

support from their parents to develop ICT skills (see Table 6). As Table 7 shows,

students who thought that their parents encouraged them to use computers and to

develop ICT skills had more positive views about the value of computer learning (r

= .677) and were more confident about their computer abilities (r = .333), although

the correlation between parental support and value beliefs was significantly higher

than the correlation between parental support and self-efficacy beliefs (z =.695, p < .

001). Students who had positive self-efficacy beliefs were also likely to think that

computer learning was valuable to them (r = .348). Finally, students who had positive

self-efficacy and value beliefs were also likely to use computers for a larger variety of

activities.

Although, based on student responses, parents tended on average to express

positive values and expectations regarding their children’s ICT learning, there were

10

significant SES differences in parental regulation and guidance of students’ ICT use at

home (see Table 8). Among the students who used a computer at home, low-SES

students were less likely to report that there were specific rules in their families

regarding when and for how long they could use the computer and/or the internet

(42.6%) or what they could do while using the computer and/or the internet (36.8%),

compared to students from middle-SES (51.4% and 41.9%) and upper-middle-SES

families (67.4% and 52.9%), x2 (2, 314) = 14.23, p < .001, and x2 (2, 314) = 6.04, p

< .05, respectively. Also, twice as many students from upper-middle families (65.7%)

compared to low SES students (30.4%) were able to provide a satisfactory example to

the question regarding safe internet use (i.e. “I do not provide personal data to people

I meet on the internet”, “I do not visit websites that are not intended for children”, “I

ask my parents what to do when a pop-up window appears”). Of interest is also the

finding that among the students who provided a satisfactory answer (n = 178), who

constituted only 53.3% of home computer users, low (41.7%) and middle SES

(46.2%) students were less likely than upper-middle SES students (76.5%) to respond

that they were informed about potential on-line risks by their parents, x2 (2, 178) =

18.58, p < .001.

Similarly, although parents appeared to be the most significant source of

technological expertise for upper-middle-SES students (70.7%), students from

middle- and low-SES families relied less on their parents (41.8% and 31.6%,

respectively), x2 (2, 332) = 40.20, p < .001, and turned to siblings, friends or other

people when they needed help or wanted to learn something new about computers.

This difference can be explained by the findings that (a) students were more likely to

ask their father (91.3%) or mother (84.0%) for help if their father or mother used

computers than if he (54.1%) or she (53.9%) did not, x2 (1, 311) = 48.65, p < .001,

and x2 (1, 311) = 25.54, p < .001, respectively, and (b) upper-middle-SES students

were more likely to have a father or a mother who used computers (see Table 8).

SES differences also emerged in parental provision of learning resources. As

Table 5 shows, the vast majority of students from all SES backgrounds reported that

they used computers for game playing. However, when asked whether they had

educational software at home, only 13.2% of low SES students responded positively

compared to 37.8% of middle- and 43.6% of upper-middle-SES students, x2 (2, 314)

11

= 19.79, p < .001. Also, among the students who did have educational software at

home (n = 112), upper-middle-SES students were more likely than students from the

other two social groups to obtain such software from their parents, x2 (2, 112) = 6.40,

p < .05 (see Table 8).

As can be seen in their responses (see Tables 3 and 8), students utilized several

other people apart from their family members, such as their teachers, friends,

relatives, and acquaintances, to get technological advice and access to material

resources (computer, internet, and software). I examined whether students from low-

SES families relied on peer and social networks to a greater extend than students from

the other social groups, due to lower technological access and support in their own

families. However, no significant SES differences emerged in students’ access to non-

family information and material sources (see Tables 3 and 8).

In summary, although on average parents appeared to express positive values

about the usefulness of ICT and to encourage their children’s ICT use and skill

development, they differed in the quality of their involvement in their children’s

activities. Based on students’ responses, only some parents regulated the time and the

content of their children’s ICT exposure or provided their children with educational

software, and these parents tended to be professionals with higher education degrees

who were computer users themselves. The importance of parental educational

background and profession emerged also in students’ responses to the other questions

examining parental guidance. Upper-middle-SES parents, who were more likely to be

ICT users than parents from the other social groups, were also more able to provide

their children with technological assistance and more likely to inform them about on-

line risks and proper internet use. Low-SES students, who reported less parental

involvement in their ICT activities, utilized the support provided by relatives and

acquaintances to develop technological literacy. However, access to non-family

information and material sources did not appear to equalize their learning

opportunities. These students were still less informed about internet safe use and were

exposed to a narrow range of ICT applications compared to students from more

privileged backgrounds.

12

5. Discussion

In this study I examined elementary students’ ICT beliefs and out-of-school ICT

experiences in order to explore possible links between student SES, motivation and

out-of-school learning resources. Findings showed that students from all SES

backgrounds tended to have high interest and positive views about the value of ICTs,

but students from low-SES families expressed lower confidence in their ICT skills.

These findings were associated and can be explained with data about students’ ICT

activities and access to learning resources at home.

Students’ ICT value beliefs correlated highly with perceived parental support

and, based on student reports, parents from all SES backgrounds appeared to view

equally favorably their children’s engagement with ICTs. The latter is consistent with

the finding that, although a higher percentage of upper-middle-SES students had

computer and internet access at home compared to middle- and low-SES students, the

percentages of students who had a computer in their bedroom or access to the internet

from their bedroom were not statistically different by SES. As Livingstone (2007)

found, in upper-middle-SES families the computer is intended for family use and is

usually located in places that permit communal access, while in low-SES households,

where parents are less likely to use computers, the computer is bought for the children

and is therefore more likely to be located in children’s bedroom. The findings of this

study showed that low-SES parents were less likely to use computers but considered

important to buy computers for their children.

However, students from low-SES families appeared to have fewer opportunities

to develop ICT competencies, which may explain why they expressed less positive

self-efficacy beliefs. Although they drew upon their social networks of extended

family, friends, and acquaintances to get access to ICTs and they reported using

computers as frequently as their peers from more privileged homes, they were less

likely to have computer and internet access at home, where they would have more

control and choices of use. More importantly, low-SES students appeared to use only

a narrow range of ICT applications and had limited access to family sources of

technological assistance and guidance.

The findings of this study are consistent with previous research (Kafai & Sutton,

1999; Linebarger et al., 2004), which has indicated that many parents do not know

13

how to guide their children’s home computer use in ways that facilitate ICT literacy

development. Although parents were keen for their children to learn about computers,

which was indicated by students’ perception of high parental support and the high

rates of home computer ownership, many parents did not seem to know how to create

contexts where computers were used as learning and design tools. Many students used

computers mainly or exclusively for recreational purposes (i.e. games, internet

surfing, instant messaging) and only a small percentage used ICTs for learning and for

creating their own products. Less than half of the students had educational software at

home. Of interest are also the facts that about 40% of the students, the vast majority

of whom were internet users, were not informed about possible on-line risks, and that

nearly half of the parents did not regulate their children’s computer activities.

Although the above percentages were based on self-reports and, therefore, on

students’ own interpretations of their experiences, they are indicative of the situation.

Schools need to play an important role in the development of students’

technological and information literacy. For a large number of young people, and

particularly for those coming from less privileged family backgrounds, school is the

only context where they could develop technological expertise and become

acquainted with sophisticated and creative uses of ICTs. Yet, schools are slow in ICT

integration and school computer use currently fails to respond to that need, not only in

Greece but also in other European Union countries with higher rates of ICT school

integration. For example, research in the UK (Mumtaz, 2001), Finland (Hakkarainen,

Ilomaki, Lipponen, Muukkonen, Rahikainen, Tuominen, Lakkala, & Lehtinen, 2000),

and The Netherlands (Meelissen & Drent, 2008), showed that school ICT use was not

fully integrated into the teaching of school subjects (Hakkarainen et al., 2000) and

was less varied and less challenging compared to average home ICT use (Meelissen &

Drent, 2008; Mumtaz, 2001).

Findings also stress the need for school ICT integration efforts to be coordinated

with students’ home computer use, as Kafai & Sutton (1999) recommended. Schools

can capitalize on parental interest in student ICT learning, to increase the quality of

parental involvement in students’ school and out-of-school activities. Through student

projects and homework assignments that utilize family resources and invite parental

participation, schools may increase parental awareness of the potential benefits and

14

risks of new technologies and help parents make informed decisions about their

children’s ICT activities at home.

15

References

Albion, P. R. (2001). Some factors in the development of self-efficacy beliefs for

computer use among teacher education students. Journal of Technology and

Teacher Education, 9(3), 321-347.

Attewell, P. (2001). The first and the second digital divides. Sociology of Education,

74(3), 252-259.

Attewell, P., Battle, J. (1999). Home computers and school performance. The

Information Society: An International Journal, 15(1), 1–10.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and

functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

Becker, H. J. (2000). Who’s wired and who’s not: Children’s access to and use of

computer technology. The Future of Children, 10(2), 44-75.

Bovée, C., Voogt, J., & Meelissen, M. (2007). Computer attitudes of primary and

secondary students in South Africa. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4),

1762-1776.

Bozionelos, N. (2004). Socio-economic background and computer use: the role of

computer anxiety and computer experience in their relationship. International

Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(5), 725–746.

Clark, L. S., Demont-Heinrich, C., & Webber, S. (2005). Parents, ICTs, and children’s

prospects for success: Interviews along the digital “access rainbow”. Critical

Studies in Media Communication, 22(5), 409-426.

De Haan, J. (2004). A multifaceted dynamic model of the digital divide. IT & Society,

1(7), 66-88.

Dickhäuser, O. & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2003). Gender differences in the choice of

computer courses: applying the expectancy-value model. Social Psychology of

Education, 6(3), 173-189

Eccles, J. S. & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of

adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 215-225.

16

Facer, K., Sutherland, R., Furlong, R., & Furlong, J. (2001). What’s the point of using

computers? The development of young people’s computer expertise in the home.

New Media and Society, 3(2), 199-219.

Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., Willems, P. P., & Holbein, M. F. D. (2005). Examining the

relationship between parental involvement and student motivation. Educational

Psychology Review, 17(2), 99-123.

Gunkel, D. J. (2003). Second thoughts: Toward a critique of the digital divide. New

Media and Society, 5(4), 499-522.

Hakkarainen, K., Ilömaki, L., Lipponen, L., Muukkonen, H., Rahikainen, M.,

Tuominen, T., Lakkala, M., & Lehtinen, E. (2000). Students’ skills and practices

of using ICT: results of a national assessment in Finland. Computers and

Education, 34(2), 103-117.

Janssen Reinen, I. J. & Plomp, T. (1997). Information technology and gender equality:

A contradiction in terminis? Computers and Education, 28(2), 65-78.

Kafai, Y. B. & Sutton, S. (1999). Elementary school students’ computer and internet

use at home: Current trends and issues. Journal of Educational Computing

Research, 21(3), 345-362.

Kinzie, M. B., Delcourt, M. A. B. and Powers, S. M. (1994). Computer technologies:

Attitudes and self-efficacy across undergraduate disciplines. Research in Higher

Education, 35(6), 745-768.

Linebarger, D. L., Royer, S., & Ghernin, A. R. (2004). Young children, parents,

computers, and the internet. IT & Society, 1(6), 68-86.

Livingstone, S. (2007). Strategies of parental regulation in the media-rich home.

Computers in Human Behavior, 23(2), 920-941.

Livingstone, S. & Helsper, E. J. (2008). Parental mediation of children’s internet use.

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 581-599.

Meelissen, M. R. M. & Drent, M. (2008). Gender differences in computer attitudes:

Does the school matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 969-985.

Mumtaz, S. (2001). Children’s enjoyment and perception of computer use in the home

and the school. Computers and Education, 36(4), 347-362.

17

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2008). OECD Statistical

profile of Greece 2008. Retrieved on August 23, 2008, from www.oecd.org/

country/0,3377,en_33873108_33873421_1_1_1_1_1,00.html.

Observatory for the Greek Information Society. (2008). Profile of Greek internet

users. Retrieved on August 23, 2008, from http://www.observatory.gr/Files/

press_releases/080604_DT_InternetUsers07.pdf.

Pintrich, P. R. & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning

components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.

Roe, K. & Broos, A. (2005). Marginality in the information age: The socio-

demographics of computer disquietude. A short research note. Communications,

30(1), 91-96.

Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital

divide. New Media and Society, 6(3), 341-362.

Selwyn, N. (1998). The effect of using a home computer on students’ educational use

of IT. Computers and Education, 31(2), 211-277.

Shashaani, L. (1994). Socioeconomic status, parents’ sex role stereotypes, and the

gender gap in computing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26

(4), 433-451.

Singh, K., Allen, K. R., Scheckler, R., Darlington, L. (2007). Women in computer-

related majors: a critical synthesis of research and theory from 1994 to 2005.

Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 500-533.

Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting

styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17

(2), 125-145.

Todman, J. & Dick, G. (1993). Primary children and teachers’ attitudes to computers.

Computers and Education, 20(2), 199-203.

Van Braak, J. P. (2004). Domains and determinants of university students’ self-

perceived computer competence. Computers and Education, 43(3), 299-312.

Vekiri, I. & Chronaki, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social

support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond

school. Computers and Education, 51(3), 1392-1404.

18

Vryzas, K. & Tsitouridou, M. (2002a). The home computer in children’s everyday

life: the case of Greece. Journal of Educational Media, 27(1-2), 9-17.

Vryzas, K. & Tsitouridou, M. (2002b). Children and computers: Greek parents’

expectations. Educational Media International, 39(3&4), 285-297.

Warschauer, M. (2007). A teacher’s place in the digital divide. National Society for

the Study of Education Annual Yearbook, 106(2), 147-166.

Warschauer, M. (2003). Social capital and access. Universal Access in the Information

Society, 2(4), 315-330.

Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement

motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(11), 68-81.

19

APPENDIX

A. Multiple-choice questionnaire items assessing student access to computer resources and their computer activities outside school_____________________________________________________________________

1. Do you use a computer outside school? Circle the right answer. YES NO If you answered NO, skip questions 2-5

2. Where is the computer that you use? Circle everything that applies to you.

In my room At home At my friends’ home At my relatives’ home

At internet cafes Elsewhere (where?) ………..

3. Where do you have access to the internet outside school? Circle everything that ap-

plies to you.

Nowhere In my room At home At my friends’ home

At my relatives’ home At internet cafes Elsewhere (where?) …………

4.How often do you use computers outside school? Circle one answer.

Almost everyday About 2-3 times a week About once a week

1-2 times a month Rarely

5. What kinds of things do you do with the computer? Put an X to everything that ap-

plies to you.

!I draw

!I write

!I play games

!I search for information on the internet

!I use educational programs for drill and practice

!I use educational programs to learn new things

!I develop my own things (i.e. using PowerPoint, programming languages such

as Logo, software for multimedia development)

!I use e-mail

!Else: …………………………………

20

B. Multiple-choice questions assessing parental regulation of ICT use and provision of learning opportunities and resources._____________________________________________________________________

1. Are there any rules in your family regarding when or for how long you can use the

computer and/or the internet? YES NO

If YES, provide an example.

2. Are there any rules in your family regarding what you can or can’t do on the

computer and/or the internet? YES NO

If YES, provide an example

3. Do you know what you have to be careful about in order to make safe use of the

internet? YES NO

If YES, provide an example.

Who has informed you about this?

My parents My brother/sister My friends My teacher Another person:....

4. Do you have educational software at home? YES NO

If YES, provide the title or a brief description of such as a software:.............................

If YES, whom did you get them from?

My parents My brother/sister My friends My cousin(s)

My ant/uncle Another person: ..............

5.Whom can you ask if you need help or want to learn something new about

computers and the internet?

My father My mother My brother My sister A friend

A relative My teacher Another person: .........................

21

Table Legends

Table 1. Items of the Self-Efficacy, Value Beliefs, and Parental Support Scales

Table 2. Student Home Access to a Computer and the Internet by Location and SES

Table 3. Student Access to Computers and the Internet Outside School by Type of Ac-

cess and SES

Table 4. Frequency of Students’ Computer Use Outside School by SES

Table 5. Students’ Computer Activities Outside School by SES

Table 6. SES Differences in Students’ ICT Self-efficacy and Value Beliefs, Perceived

Parental Support and Range of ICT Activities

Table 7. Correlations Between Self-Efficacy and Value Beliefs, Perceived Parental

Support and Range of ICT Activities

Table 8. Responses to the Multiple-choice Questions Assessing Parental Regulation of

Student ICT Use and Provision of Learning Opportunities

22

Table 1

Items of the Self-Efficacy, Value Beliefs, and Parental Support Scales

Scale Alpha ItemsSelf-efficacy 0.90 How confident are you that you can do each of the following

computer tasks:

Save a file

Write a small text

Delete, modify, or add words to text

Format the size and the appearance of text

Draw a simple picture

Destroy a file that you do not need

Send a message via e-mail

Send a file via e-mail

Find a specific website if you know its address

Download files (i.e. music, pictures) and save them on your

computer

Search on the internet for information about a topic of your

interest

Know what to do so as to be able to relocate a specific site on the

internet Value Beliefs 0.76 I want to discover new things about computers and the internet.

It is important to me to be good at computers.

I want to improve my computer knowledge and skills.

Almost any profession I might have in the future will require

computer and internet skills.

It is useful to me to have computer and internet skills.

The things that I learn now about computers will be useful to me

when I grow up.

I enjoy so much doing things with the computer that sometimes it is

difficult for me to stop.

I always have a good time when I am on the computer.

Table 1 (continued)

Items of the Self-Efficacy, Value Beliefs, and Parental Support Scales

Scale Alpha ItemsPerceived Parental Support

0.84 My parents think that it is important for my future to have computer

skills.

My parents feel happy when I learn new things about computers.

My parents think that it is good for me to know about computers.

My parents encourage me to learn new things about computers.

My parents think that I can easily learn new things about computers

and the internet.

My parents think that I am good at computers.

My parents think that I can get along with computers.

My parents are interested in what I do on the computer.*

* This item was dropped from the scale.

Table 2

Student Home Access to a Computer and the Internet by Location and SES

Computer access by SES (%)Computer access by SES (%)Computer access by SES (%)Computer access by SES (%) Internet access by SES (%)Internet access by SES (%)Internet access by SES (%)Internet access by SES (%)

Computer locationUpper-middle

Middle Low AllUpper-middle

Middle Low All

Only in own room 17.2 b 27.5 b 35.4 b 24.0 11.5 18.8 21.5 15.6

Only elsewhere at

home48.9a 37.5a 24.1a 40.2 50.0a 27.5a 22.8a 38.1

Both in own room and elsewhere 31.0 26.3 17.7 26.7 25.9 b 18.8 b 11.4 b 20.7

Nowhere at home 2.9a 8.8a 22.8a 9.0 12.6a 35.0a 44.3a 25.5

Note: Analysis was performed only for those students (n = 334) who used computers outside school. a p < .001, b p < .01.

Table 3

Student Access to Computers and the Internet Outside School by Type of Access and SES

Computer access by SES (%)Computer access by SES (%)Computer access by SES (%)Computer access by SES (%) Internet access by SES (%)Internet access by SES (%)Internet access by SES (%)Internet access by SES (%)

Type of accessUpper-middle

Middle Low AllUpper-middle

Middle Low All

Own room 48.3 53.8 53.2 50.8 37.4 37.5 32.9 36.3

At home 79.9 a 63.8 a 41.8 a 67.0 75.9 a 46.3 a 34.2 a 58.9

A friends’ home 42.5 43.8 44.3 43.2 35.6 32.5 40.5 36.0

At relatives’ home 28.7 37.5 31.6 31.5 23.0 32.5 26.6 26.1

At internet cafes 19.5 c 35 c 29.1 c 25.5 19.5 b 38.8 b 30.4 b 26.7

Elsewhere 9.2 13.8 6.3 9.6 10.9 10.0 6.3 9.6

Nowhere 4.6 c 5.0 c 12.7 c 6.6

Note: Analysis was performed only for those students (n = 334) who used computers outside school a p < .001, b p < .005, c p < .05.

Table 4

Frequency of Students’ Computer Use Outside School by SES

SES (%)

Frequency of Com-puter Use

Upper-middle Middle Low All

Almost everyday 42.3 43.8 45.6 43.4

2-3 times a week 26.3 27.5 26.6 26.6

About once a week 12.0 11.3 13.9 12.3

1-2 times a month 8.6 6.3 6.3 7.5

Rarely 9.1 10.0 7.6 9.0

Table 5

Students’ Computer Activities Outside School by SES

SES (%)SES (%)SES (%)SES (%)SES (%)

Computer activity Upper-middle Middle Low All

Drawing 50.3 58.8 60.8 54.8

Writing 59.4 c 67.5 c 46.8 c 58.4

Game playing 92.6 92.5 96.2 93.4

Internet search 87.4 a 73.8 a 68.4 a 79.6

Drill and practice 29.7 b 32.5 b 12.7 b 26.3

Learn new things 30.3 36.3 20.3 29.3

Develop materials 42.9 c 38.8 c 26.6 c 38.0

E-mail 46.9 42.5 32.9 42.5

Other 25.7 c 17.5 c 12.7 c 20.7

a p < .001, b p < .01, c p < .05.

Table 6

SES Differences in Students’ ICT Self-efficacy and Value Beliefs, Perceived Parental Support

and Range of ICT Activities

Beliefs, support, & activities

M (SD)M (SD)M (SD) F & p values

Upper middle

n = 175

Middle

n = 80

Low

n = 79

All

(n = 334)

Self-efficacy * 4.18 (.78) 4.14 (.83) 3.63 (1.07) 4.04 (.89)F = 11.527,

p <.001

Value beliefs * 4.07 (.59) 4.20 (.65) 4.09 (.59) 4.11 (.61)F = 1.236,

p = .292

Parental support * 3.92 (.64) 4.11 (.78) 3.89 (.69) 3.96 (.69)F = 2. 621,

p = .074

Range of ICT ac-tivities**

4.65 (1.69) 4.60 (1.99) 3.77 (1.84) 4.43 (1.83)F = 6.941,

p <.001

* Values could range from 1 to 5, ** values could range from 1 to 9.

Table 7

Correlations Between Self-Efficacy, Value Beliefs, Perceived Parental Support and Range of

ICT Activities

1 2 3 4

1 Self-Efficacy -

2. ICT Value 0.348* -

3. Parental Support 0.333* 0.677* -

4. Range of ICT Use 0.415* 0.333* 0.329* -

* Significance at the 0.01 level

Table 8

Responses to the Multiple-choice Questions Assessing Parental Regulation of Student ICT

Use and Provision of Learning Opportunities

SES (%)SES (%)SES (%)

Questions Upper-middle Middle Low All (%)

Family rules about the time the student can use computer & internet

67.4a 51.4a 42.6a 58.3

Family rules about what the student can do on computer & internet

52.9b 41.9b 36.8b 46.8

Student knows about safe internet use 65.7a 48.8a 30.4a 53.3

from: parentsbrother/sisterfriendsteacheranother person

76.5a

24.38.737.49.6

46.2a

41.012.828.212.8

41.7a

29.220.837.516.7

65.228.711.235.411.2

Student has home access to educational software 43.6a 37.8a 13.2a 35.7

Educational software were provided by parentsby siblings by friendsby relatives by other(s)

78.7b

14.714.737.310.7

53.6b

25.021.452.917.9

66.7b

44.411.155.511.1

71.419.616.140.212.5

Student can ask for help: father and/or motherbrother and/or sistera teachera frienda relativeanother person

70.7a

33.920.723.623.01.7

41.8a

46.820.330.429.13.8

31.6a

38.020.331.625.31.3

54.538.020.527.125.02.1

Student’s father uses a computer 82.7a 61.6a 48.0a 69.6

Student’s mother uses a computer 73.7a 56.8a 46.7a 63.3

a p < .001, b p < .05.