Indicator 21: International Comparisons of Reading Literacy Scores by Student Computer Use and Internet Access at Home

In the United States and all other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, 15-year-old students who had internet access at home had higher reading literacy scores than those who did not have internet access at home, according to the 2015 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). For example, in the United States, 15-year-old students who had internet access at home had an average reading score of 503, while those who did not had an average score of 431.

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), coordinated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), has measured the performance of 15-year-old students in mathematics, science, and reading literacy every 3 years since 2000. In addition to these assessments, PISA 2015 included a student questionnaire to provide context for student performance. The questionnaire included questions on whether the student's home had a computer that could be used for schoolwork and whether the home had internet access. PISA 2015 was administered on a computer. PISA results are reported by average scale score (from 0 to 1,000), with the scale center point set at 500 and the standard deviation set at 100.

Earlier indicators in this chapter use international data from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) to explore associations between home computer and internet access and student performance in mathematics and science in eighth grade. This indicator uses 2015 PISA data to explore associations between 15-year-old students' home computer and internet access and their performance in reading literacy. Achievement gaps between those who reported using a computer at home/having access to the Internet at home and those who did not could be influenced by other factors, including socioeconomic background characteristics such as parents' educational attainment and family income.¹ In PISA 2015, reading literacy is defined as "an individual's capacity to understand, use, reflect on and engage with written texts, in order to achieve one's goals, to develop one's knowledge and potential, and to participate in society" (OECD 2016b, p. 13). In 2015, about 87 percent of 15-year-old students in the United States had a computer in their home that could be used for schoolwork, and 94 percent had access to the Internet at home.² The corresponding OECD averages were 91 percent and 95 percent, respectively.

---

Figure 21.1. Average scores of 15-year-old students on the PISA reading literacy scale, by country and whether they had a computer to use at home for schoolwork: 2015

▲ The size of the difference in reading literacy scores between those who did and did not have a computer to use at home for schoolwork is greater than in the United States.
▼ The size of the difference in reading literacy scores between those who did and did not have a computer to use at home for schoolwork is smaller than in the United States.
◊ The size of the difference in reading literacy scores between those who did and did not have a computer to use at home for schoolwork is not measurably different from the corresponding difference in the United States.
¹ Refers to the mean of the data values for all reporting Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries and subnational education systems, to which each country or subnational education system reporting data contributes equally.
NOTE: Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2015. See Digest of Education Statistics 2016, table 602.45.

---

On the PISA 2015 reading literacy assessment, 15-year-old students in the United States who had a computer to use at home for schoolwork had higher average scores than those who did not. The average reading literary score was 505 for 15-year-olds who had a computer to use at home for schoolwork, compared with 454 for those who did not. This pattern was observed for nearly all OECD countries. For example, in Canada, the average reading literacy score was 532 for 15-year-old students who had a computer to use at home for schoolwork, compared with 464 for those who did not. The one exception was Estonia, where average reading literacy scores were not measurably different between students who had a computer to use at home for schoolwork and those who did not.

Although 15-year-olds who had a computer to use at home for schoolwork scored higher on the PISA 2015 reading literacy assessment than those who did not in nearly all OECD countries, the size of the difference in average reading literacy scores between those who did and did not have a computer to use at home varied by country: The reading literacy score difference between those who did and did not have a computer to use at home ranged from no measurable difference in Estonia to 114 points in the Slovak Republic. In the United States, the score difference was 51 points—a difference that was not measurably different from the OECD average difference (63 points). However, 12 OECD countries had score differences that were greater than the U.S. score difference. Conversely, one country (Japan) had score differences that were smaller than the U.S. score difference. The remaining 20 countries had reading literacy score differences that were not measurably different from the U.S. score difference.

In addition to the 35 OECD countries that participated in PISA 2015, Massachusetts and North Carolina also participated in PISA 2015 as separate education systems. These two educational systems opted to have separate samples of public school students in order to obtain results separately from the nation. In Massachusetts and North Carolina, 15-year-old students who had a computer to use at home for schoolwork had higher average reading literary scores than those without a computer. The score differences in Massachusetts (75 points) and North Carolina (64 points) were not measurably different from the U.S. (51 points) and OECD average (63 points) score differences.

---

Figure 21.2. Average reading scores of 15-year-old students in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, by country and whether they had access to the Internet at home: 2015

▲ The size of the difference in reading literacy scores between those who did and did not have internet access at home is greater than in the United States.
▼ The size of the difference in reading literacy scores between those who did and did not have internet access at home is smaller than in the United States.
◊ The size of the difference in reading literacy scores between those who did and did not have internet access at home is not measurably different from the corresponding difference in the United States.
¹ Refers to the mean of the data values for all reporting Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries and subnational education systems, to which each country or subnational education system reporting data contributes equally.
NOTE: Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000. Iceland is excluded from this figure because reliable data were not available for all categories.
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2015. See Digest of Education Statistics 2016, table 602.45.

---

On the PISA 2015 reading assessment, 15-year-old students in the United States who had internet access at home had higher average scores in reading literacy than those who did not. The average reading literary score was 503 for 15-year-olds who had internet access at home, compared with 431 for those who did not. This pattern was observed for nearly all OECD countries.³ For example, in Canada, the average reading literacy score was 530 for 15-year-old students who had internet access at home, compared with 455 for those who did not. 

Although 15-year-old students who had internet access at home scored higher on the PISA 2015 reading literacy assessment than those who did not in nearly all OCED countries, the size of the difference in average reading literacy scores between those who did and did not have internet access at home varied by country: The reading literacy score difference between those who did and did not have internet access at home ranged from 41 points in Mexico to 175 points in Finland. In the United States, the score difference was 72 points—a difference that was not measurably different from the OCED average difference (82 points). However, eight OECD countries had score differences that were greater than the U.S. score difference. Conversely, three countries (Chile, Turkey, and Mexico) had score differences that were smaller than the U.S. score difference. The remaining 22 OECD countries had reading literacy score differences that were not measurably different from the U.S. score difference.

Similarly, in Massachusetts and North Carolina, 15-year-old students who had internet access at home had higher average reading literary scores than those without internet access. North Carolina's score difference (51 points) was smaller than the OECD average score difference, but not measurably different from the U.S. score difference. The score difference in Massachusetts (71 points) was not measurably different from the U.S. (72 points) and OECD average (82 points) score differences.

---

¹ Associations between socioeconomic characteristics and DLR access are presented in Section 1 of this report.
² These estimates are available through the OECD PISA International Data Explorer: http://piaacdataexplorer.oecd.org/ide/idepisa/report.aspx?p=1-RMS-1-20153-PVREAD-ST013506-IN3,USA-RP_RP-Y_J-0-0-5&Lang=1033 (home internet access) and http://piaacdataexplorer.oecd.org/ide/idepisa/report.aspx?p=1-RMS-1-20153-PVREAD-ST013504-IN3,USA-RP_RP-Y_J-0-0-5&Lang=1033 (access to a home computer for schoolwork).
³ Iceland is excluded from this analysis because reliable data were not available for this category.

---