Abstract Background International large-scale assessments permit comparative examination of affective and behavioural correlates of achievement, but whether these associations are shared or system-dependent across selected East Asian education systems remains unclear. This study examined adjusted associations among two mathematics self-efficacy indices, math anxiety, mathematics-specific behavioural engagement, and mathematical literacy in six systems participating in PISA 2022. Methods Three survey-weighted regression models were estimated using 33,824–33,854 students from Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong (China), Japan, Korea, Macao (China), and Singapore, with the two mathematics self-efficacy indices included as focal predictors. Equal-system pooled models, in which each system contributed equal total weight, incorporated the final student weight and 80 BRR–Fay replicate weights. All 10 mathematics plausible values were analysed for quantities involving mathematical literacy. Interaction models assessed coefficient heterogeneity across systems, gender, and socioeconomic status, and regression coefficients were combined to estimate model-implied indirect associations under the hypothesised ordering. Results Both self-efficacy indices were associated with lower math anxiety and greater behavioural engagement. Self-efficacy for formal and applied mathematics showed the largest focal adjusted association with mathematical literacy: a one-standard-deviation contrast corresponded to approximately 49 PISA points, and the association was positive in all six systems. By contrast, the mutually adjusted association between reasoning-related self-efficacy and literacy was specification-sensitive. Math anxiety was negatively associated with behavioural engagement and literacy; its quadratic association with literacy was statistically detectable but substantively small (incremental R 2 ≈ 0.0012). Behavioural engagement had an approximately zero pooled association with literacy, although system-specific coefficients differed in direction. Several associations varied across systems, whereas evidence of gender- and socioeconomic-status-related heterogeneity was limited. Anxiety-related indirect associations were small, and engagement-related routes were not supported in the pooled analysis. Conclusions The findings indicate a mixture of comparatively consistent and system-dependent adjusted associations across the six systems. Formal and applied mathematics self-efficacy was the most substantial focal correlate of mathematical literacy, whereas other associations were smaller, specification-sensitive, or more system-dependent. Because the data were cross-sectional, the results describe adjusted associations rather than temporal or causal processes.
Abstract Second-level digital divides, often studied as the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and digital competence, remain a central concern in digital educational research. Whereas many countries have invested substantially in school digitalization, little is known about which school-level factors can mitigate SES-related disparities in digital competence. We addressed this gap using large-scale and representative data from the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) 2023. Employing a two-step meta-analytic approach, country-specific multilevel models were first estimated and subsequently synthesized to quantify average effects and cross-national variation. Results indicated a positive, moderate association between SES and digital competence (β = 17.73, SE = 0.93, 95% CI [15.84, 19.61]). Several digital classroom practices, including the use of general information and communication technology (ICT) applications, inquiry-based teaching, and teachers’ use of utility software were positively related to students’ digital competence. Crucially, the SES-digital competence association was not moderated by classroom practices or teacher- or school-level factors. Whereas digital media integration was linked to higher overall levels of digital competence, it did not systematically reduce socioeconomic disparities. These findings suggest that digital instructional practices function primarily as performance-enhancing rather than equity-enhancing mechanisms. For research in digital education, the results highlight the importance of distinguishing between average learning gains and distributional effects. If digital competence is to serve as a lever for educational equity, targeted and structural interventions may be required beyond general digitalization strategies.
Adolescents’ digital skill development is shaped not only by school environments but also by parental regulation of technology use. While Parental Mediation Theory distinguishes between restrictive and enabling strategies, empirical research has rarely differentiated between forms of restrictive mediation, particularly the distinction between strict (no exceptions) and flexible (homework-permitted) screen-time limits. Moreover, existing studies often rely on self-reports for gauging student achievement, lack comprehensive controls, or overlook how the flexibility of rules may matter. This study examines how different forms of parental screen-time limits are associated with Grade 8 students’ computer and information literacy (CIL) and computational thinking (CT), and whether these associations vary by socioeconomic status. We analyze data from the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) 2023 using three-level linear models (students nested within schools within countries). The analytic samples include 96,455 students (CIL; 4,609 schools; 29 countries) and 60,223 students (CT; 2,722 schools; 19 countries). Outcomes are CIL and CT plausible values. Key predictors distinguish strict and flexible parental screen-time limits (reference: no limits). Models adjust for gender, socioeconomic status (SES), immigration status, computer experience, ICT self-efficacy, and internet access, with covariates group-mean centered. Cross-level interactions test whether SES moderates associations between parental rules and outcomes. Within schools, strict screen-time limits are negatively associated with both outcomes (CIL: B = -14.94, p < .001; CT: B = -17.31, p < .001), whereas flexible limits are positively associated with performance, particularly for CT (CIL: B = 2.17, p < .001; CT: B = 8.34, p < .001). Similarly, at the between-school level, strict screen-time limits are negatively associated with both outcomes (CIL: B = -48.12, p < .001; CT: B = -47.22, p < .001), whereas flexible limits are positively associated with performance, particularly for CT (CIL: B = 9.74, p < .05; CT: B = 33.67, p < .001). Interaction models indicate no statistically significant moderation by SES for CIL. For CT, however, the positive interaction between flexible parental limits and SES (B = 3.82, p < .01) suggests that the association between flexible regulation and CT is stronger among higher-SES students, consistent with cumulative advantage. Not all restrictive parental strategies operate equivalently. While strict limitations appear to constrain opportunities for digital skill development, flexible rules that permit educational use are associated with higher performance, particularly among socioeconomically advantaged students for computational thinking. These findings extend Parental Mediation Theory by demonstrating that the structure and flexibility of rules—rather than restriction per se—are central to understanding digital skill acquisition. The results highlight the importance of context-sensitive parental guidance and suggest that policies should support parents in adopting balanced, education-oriented approaches to screen-time regulation.
Abstract Background Principal questionnaires in international large-scale assessments provide school-level information about perceived attendance problems, but their interpretation depends on distinguishing broad contextual characteristics from measures that are conceptually close to the outcome and reported by the same respondent. This study examined principal-reported student absenteeism in Morocco and assessed how the evidence changed when a same-principal teacher-attendance indicator was added to a contextual school specification. Methods We analysed the official Moroccan Grade 8 school file from TIMSS 2023. Of 250 schools, 243 had valid absenteeism responses and 232 formed the common complete-case sample. Population-oriented estimates used the TIMSS school weight and 150 full jackknife repeated-replication estimates. Survey-weighted logistic regression evaluated five contextual school indicators, followed by a specification that additionally included a two-item principal report of teacher lateness and absenteeism. Out-of-sample discrimination was assessed with 10 repetitions of nested, zone-grouped cross-validation using Elastic Net regularization. Results The weighted proportion of schools whose principals rated student absenteeism as a serious problem was 43.1% (JRR 95% CI 29.2–57.0%). No contextual indicator remained significant after false-discovery-rate correction. After the teacher-attendance indicator was added, principal-reported teacher-attendance problems (OR = 8.24, 95% CI 3.60–18.83) and economic disadvantage (OR = 2.91, 95% CI 1.25–6.79) remained associated with the outcome. Out-of-sample discrimination was near chance for the contextual specification (balanced accuracy = 0.511; ROC AUC = 0.499) and was higher for the specification including teacher attendance (balanced accuracy = 0.728; ROC AUC = 0.774). Conclusions Broad contextual indicators alone contained little information for discriminating the contemporaneous principal-reported absenteeism outcome. The large increment associated with the same-respondent teacher-attendance measure may reflect shared organizational attendance conditions, common-source measurement covariance, or both. The findings concern cross-sectional association and internal out-of-sample discrimination; they do not establish prospective forecasting or criterion validity.
Abstract Background: Parents often limit adolescents’ screen time, and research usually records only whether a limit exists, not what it counts. In the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) 2023, students reported whether their parents’ school-day limit included schoolwork, exempted it, or whether there was no limit. We examined how these rule types relate to assessed computer and information literacy and computational thinking, and which explanations the data support. Methods: We analyzed 98,127 grade 8 students in the 28 education systems that administered the item and contribute to the ICILS 2023 international average. Within each system, we regressed each outcome on rule type, adjusting for socioeconomic background, gender, home language, and immigrant background, using plausible values, sampling weights, and replicate weights. System estimates were pooled by random-effects meta-analysis. We profiled students by rule type, compared learning reported outside and at school, and tested sensitivity to added covariates, within-school comparison, and unmeasured confounding. Results A median of 14.8% of students reported a limit that included schoolwork. They scored 24.7 points lower in computer and information literacy than students whose limit exempted schoolwork (95% CI −28.1 to −21.4; 0.30 within-system standard deviations), in all 28 systems, and 32.9 points lower in computational thinking, in all 19 systems that assessed it. Students with no limit scored like students with exempt limits in computer and information literacy (−0.6 points; equivalent at the pooled level) but 7.1 points lower in computational thinking. Students with inclusive limits reported less learning of internet tasks outside school but not at school, and no less digital schoolwork at home. The gap was larger where inclusive limits were rarer and was 21 to 22 points after within-school comparison or controls for age and educational expectations. Conclusions Differences in digital competence were tied more to what a limit counts than to whether a limit exists. Inclusive limits appear to mark students and families who differ in ways the data capture only partly, and they may also reflect fewer informal learning opportunities. Cross-sectional data cannot separate these explanations. Surveys of parental mediation should record whether limits count schoolwork.
