Department of Education, National Taiwan Normal University

Purpose

This study explores the formation mechanism of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) self-efficacy among Taiwanese adolescents using PISA 2022 data. It aims to build a locally grounded model to explain how school and home environments influence ICT capabilities. The findings are intended to evaluate the effectiveness of Taiwan’s ICT education policies and provide a foundation for future improvements. 

Main Theories or Conceptual Frameworks

This study investigates the structural relationships among family socioeconomic status, school resources, the frequency of ICT tool usage, and students’ ICT selfefficacy. Additionally, the role of gender is examined to determine whether significant differences exist in students’ ICT competence, as well as the direction and magnitude of those differences. This analysis also aims to explain discrepancies observed across different studies.

Research Design/Methods/Participants

This study employs structural equation modeling (SEM) to analyze Taiwan’s PISA 2022 data, systematically examining the relationships among socioeconomic background (ESCS), school ICT resources, ICT usage frequency, and ICT self-efficacy, while also exploring gender differences. This investigation addresses the critical impact of ICT self-efficacy on student development in the digital era. The sample comprises 5,857 students (3,005 boys and 2,852 girls) from 182 schools. Maximum likelihood (ML) estimation is utilized to validate the theoretical framework, analyze relationships among observed variables, and assess model fit.

Research Findings or Conclusions

In evaluating the effectiveness of Taiwan’s digital education policies, the influence of students’ socioeconomic backgrounds on their schools’ digital resources has been mitigated through the implementation of the Digital Learning Enhancement Program for Primary and Secondary Schools. This initiative has helped balance the distribution of equipment and resources across schools, reducing inequalities traditionally caused by disparities in resource allocation and thereby promoting digital equity. Furthermore, the integration of the Technology Domain into the 12-Year Curriculum Guidelines (108 Curriculum) has also played a crucial role in increasing students’ frequency of technology use, which in turn serves as a key factor influencing their ICT self-efficacy. Further gender-based analysis revealed notable differences in the developmental trajectory of ICT self-efficacy. Male students tend to rely more on structured support provided by schools, whereas female students are more inclined to develop confidence in using technology through autonomous exploration and hands-on experience. This divergence reflects gendered characteristics in the process of converting resources into ICT competence, indicating that under identical resource conditions, students of different genders may perceive, receive, and apply resources in different ways. Future instructional design should therefore pay greater attention to differentiated needs based on gender. Overall, differences in students’ digital competence no longer stem from the schools themselves, but rather from their family socioeconomic backgrounds. This study confirms that family socioeconomic status promotes the frequency of digital tool use, which in turn influences students’ ICT self-efficacy. When students regularly engage in learning activities through digital tools– such as searching for learning resources, participating in online courses, or using learning platforms to track their progress– they not only enhance their practical operational skills but also develop greater familiarity and control over digital tools, ultimately cultivating higher digital confidence. This indicates that everyday digital experiences are not merely the foundation for skill development, but also an important source shaping learning beliefs.

Theoretical or Practical Insights/Contributions/Recommendations

From a practical perspective, the findings respond to the concerns raised by the OECD regarding digital equity. The results suggest that schools should actively integrate home school resources, design practice-oriented curricula to strengthen handson digital experiences, and develop gender-sensitive strategies to accommodate the differing self-efficacy pathways of male and female students. From an academic perspective, future Taiwan PISA teams should link student data with administrative records to enhance the value of the dataset. Future studies should distinguish among digital-use contexts to investigate their specific effects on self-efficacy. Additionally, incorporating psychological variables, such as learning motivation and anxiety, may support a comprehensive model, advancing our understanding of the interactions among students’ abilities, beliefs, and behaviors in digital environments.

研究目的

本研究旨在探討臺灣青少年數位自我效能的形成機制，儘管已有大量研究關注數位能力本身，但對青少年族群中「ICT自我效能」（Information and Communication Technology [ICT] self-efficacy）形成機制的理解仍顯不足。PISA 2022加入ICT素養測驗後，讓學界有機會建立具本土脈絡的理論模型，以說明學生在學校與家庭環境中透過資源與學習經驗建構數位自我效能。本研究試圖辨識影響青少年數位能力發展的關鍵因素，期能填補目前臺灣在青少年數位能力發展機制間的研究落差，並進一步提供實務改善與政策制定的理論依據。

主要理論或概念架構

本研究主要探討家庭社經背景、學校資源、數位能力使用頻率與學生ICT自我效能間之結構關係，另亦對性別背景變項在學生數位能力表現中的角色進行探討，分析兩者是否存在顯著差異、差異的方向與強度，解釋不同研究之間的觀察落差。

研究設計／方法／對象

本研究運用PISA 2022臺灣樣本資料進行分析，系統性檢視社會經濟背景（Economic, Social and Cultural Status, ESCS）、學校數位資源、數位能力使用頻率與數位自我效能之間的關係，並深入探討不同性別學生在此過程中的差異樣貌。隨著全球教育數位化加速，學生是否具備足夠的數位自我效能，已成為影響其學習成效與未來發展的重要因素。本研究採次級資料分析，分析資料為PISA 2022。此評量對象為15歲學生。正式樣本共182所學校，5,857名學生（男生3,005人，女生2,852人）。分析方法採結構方程模式（Structural Equation Modeling, SEM）最大概似法（Maximumlikelihood, ML）進行估計，藉以驗證研究架構，分析觀察變數之間的相互關係，用來評估理論假設模型與資料的配適程度。

研究發現或結論

臺灣學生社經背景與其所處學校的數位資源透過中小學數位學習精進方案的影響，使得各校在設備與資源配置上趨於平衡，降低了傳統資源落差帶來的不平等現象，進而促進數位公平；再者，108課綱科技領域融入課程，也是促進使用頻率達成影響ICT自我效能的重要關鍵。進一步的性別分析顯示，數位自我效能的發展歷程存在差異。男學生的自我效能較倚賴學校提供的結構性支持，而女學生則較傾向透過自主探索與實作經驗來建構科技操作的自信心。此一差異反映了資源轉化過程中的性別特徵，顯示在相同資源條件下，不同性別學生對於資源的接收與應思方式有所不同，未來教學設計應更重視性別面向的差異化需求。整體而言，學生的數位能力差異不在學校本身，而是在家庭社經個體。本研究確認家庭社經背景促進數位能力使用頻率，進而影響數位自我效能。所以，學生若能經常透過數位工具進行學習活動，例如搜尋學習資源、參與率、上課程、使用學習平台追蹤進度等，不僅可提升實務操作能力，也有助於增強對數位工具的熟悉感與掌控力，進而養成更高的數位自信。這顯示，日常生活中的數位經驗，不只是技能養成的基礎，更是形塑學習信念的重要來源。

理論或實務創見／貢獻／建議

實務層面中，本研究結果回應經濟合作暨發展組織（Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD）對於「數位公平」與「學習機會均等」的高度關注。建議學校與教育機構應積極整合家校資源，設計實作導向課程，強化學生操作經驗，同時發展具有性別敏感度教學策略，因應男女學生在學習風格與自我效能建構路徑上的不同。在學術層面，建議後續臺灣執行PISA計畫團隊，可進一步將學生資料與校務資料連結，延伸學術與政策評估之價值。在學界部分，可進一步區分不同類型的數位使用情境，以探討其對數位自我效能之差異性影響。同時，亦可納入學習動機、科技焦慮、態度傾向等心理變項，建構更為完整的理論模型，進一步解釋在數位環境中學生能力、信念與行為之間的交互作用。

國家發展委員會（2021）。110年國家數位發展研究報告。數位發展部。[National Development Council-Bilingual Nation Policy. (2021). 2021 national digital development research report. Ministry of Digital Affairs.]

盧志浩（2020，10月20日）。啟動數位力系列5：新冠時代企業數位化能力的因應之道。 PwC Taiwan專題探討。https://www.pwc.tw/zh/topics/trends/industry-trends-20201015.html [Lu, J.-H. (2022, October 20). Initiating digital power series 5: Strategies for enhancing corporate digitalization capabilities in the COVID-19 era. PwC Taiwan Special Report. https://www.pwc.tw/zh/topics/trends/industry-trends-20201015.html]
 

Aesaert, K., & Van Braak, J. (2015). Gender and socioeconomic related differences in performance based ICT competences. Computers & Education, 84, 8-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.017

Attewell, P. (2001). The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74(3), 252-259. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673277

Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 16, 74-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Beech, R., & Roberts, D. (2008). Assistive technology and older people. Social Care Institute of Excellence.

Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. Brown (Ed.), Knowledge, education, and cultural change (pp. 71-112). Tavistock.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood.

Bure, C. (2005). Digital inclusion without social inclusion: the consumption of information and communication technologies (ICTs) within homeless subculture in Scotland. The Journal of Community Informatics, 1(2), 116-133. https://doi.org/10.15353/joci.v2i2.2078

Calvani, A., Fini, A., Ranieri, M., & Picci, P. (2012). Are young generations in secondary school digitally competent? A study on Italian teenagers. Computers & Education, 58(2), 797-807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.004

Campos, D. G., & Scherer, R. (2023). Digital gender gaps in students’ knowledge, attitudes and skills: An integrative data analysis across 32 countries. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12272-9

Chzhen, Y., & Leesch, J. (2023). Why does school socio economic composition matter to adolescents’ academic performance? Role of classroom climate and school resources. British Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1291-1311. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3898

Clayton, J., & Macdonald, S. J. (2013). The limits of technology: Social class, occupation and digital inclusion in the city of Sunderland, England. Information, Communication & Society, 16(6), 945-966. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.748817

Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. United States Department of Education.

Crang, M., Graham, S., & Crosbie, T. (2006). Variable geometries of connection: urban digital divides and the uses of information technology. Urban Studies, 43(13), 2551-2570. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980600970664

DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (2003). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organization fields. In F. Dobbin (Ed.), The new economic sociology (pp. 111-134). Sage. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691229270-005

Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75-146). W. H. Freeman.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

Fox, M. L. (2011, December 9). Digital by default: The way forward. Cabinet Office, Governmen Digital Service.

Gou, H., & Dezuanni, M. (2018). Towards understanding young children’s digital lives in China and Australia. Comunicar, 26(57), 81-90. https://doi.org/10.3916/c57-2018-08

Gui, M., & Argentin, G. (2011). Digital skills of internet natives: Different forms of digital literacy in a random sample of northern Italian high school students. New media & society, 13(6), 963-980. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810389751

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hampton, K., & Wellman, B. (2003). Neighboring in Netville: How the internet supports community and social capital in a wired suburb. City and Community, 2(3), 277-311. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1535-6841.2003.00057.x

Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2017). School resources and student achievement: A review of cross-country economic research. In M. Rosén, K. Yang Hansen, & U. Wolff (Eds.), Cognitive abilities and educational outcomes. Methodology of educational measurement and assessment (pp. 149-171). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43473-5_8

Hashemi, A., Si Na, K., Noori, A. Q., & Orfan, S. N. (2022). Gender differences on the acceptance and barriers of ICT use in English language learning: Students’ perspectives. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 9(1), 2085381. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2022.2085381

Hatlevik, O. E., & Knut-Andreas, C. (2013). Digital competence at the beginning of upper secondary school: Identifying factors explaining digital inclusion. Computers & Education, 63, 240-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.015

Hwang, D., & Coley, R. L. (2024). Examining how school resources contribute to income achievement disparities across race and ethnicity. Urban Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859241244770

Jackson, L. A., Zhao, Y., Kolenic III, A., Fitzgerald, H. E., Harold, R., & Von Eye, A. (2008). Race, gender, and information technology use: The new digital divide. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 437-442. http://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0157

Kachaturoff, M., & Caboral-Stevens, M. (2023). Digital experience among faculty and students in one Midwest university. Education Journal, 12(3), 92-28. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20231203.12

Kim, S. W., Cho, H., & Kim, L. Y. (2019). Socioeconomic status and academic outcomes in developing countries: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 89(6), 875-916. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465431987715

Kobul, M. K. (2022). Socioeconomic status influences Turkish digital natives’ internet use habitus. Behaviour & Information Technology, 42, 624-642. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2034970

Martzoukou, K., Fulton, C., Kostagiolas, P., & Lavranos, C. (2020). A study of higher education students’ self-perceived digital competences for learning and everyday life online participation. Journal of Documentation, 76(6), 1413-1458. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-03- 2020-0041

McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53(2), 185-204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.185

McQuaid, R. W., Lindsay, C., & Greig, M. (2004). “Reconnecting” the unemployed: Information and communication technology and services for jobseekers in rural areas. Information, Communication & Society, 7(3), 364-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118042000284605

Morris, E. (2009). Independent review of ICT user skills. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Organistation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). Empowering young children in the digital age. https://www.oecd.org/education/ empowering-young-childrenin-the-digital-age-50967622-en.htm

Organistation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). PISA 2022 technical report. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/03/pisa-2022-technical-report_599753f0/01820d6d-en.pdf

Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., Pachler, N., Cook, J., & Kress, G. (2010). Mobile learning (pp. 155-171). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0585-7

Pamuk, S., & Peker, D. (2009). Turkish pre-service science and mathematics teachers’ computer related self-efficacies, attitudes, and the relationship between these variables. Computers & Education, 53(2), 454-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.004

Ritzhaupt, A. D., Liu, F., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2013). Differences in student information and communication technology literacy based on socio-economic status, ethnicity, and gender: Evidence of a digital divide in Florida schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(4), 291-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2013.10782607

Sawaya, Y., Sano, A., Nakamura, T., & Isohara, T. (2022, September 7-9). Analysis of trust factors in children’s abilities to use digital device [Paper presentation]. Conference on Information Technology for Social Good, New York, NY, United States. https://doi.org/10.1145/3524458.3547241

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422-445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422

Silva-Quiroz, J., & Morales-Morgado, E. M. (2022). Assessing digital competence and its relationship with the socioeconomic level of Chilean university students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00346-6

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417

Smith, M. (2011). Which in and out of school factors explain variations in learning across different socio economic groups? Findings from South Africa. Comparative Education, 47(1), 79-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2011.541678

Summersett-Ringgold, F., Li, K., Haynie, D. L., & Iannotti, R. J. (2015). Do school resources influence the relationship between Adolescent financial background and their school perceptions. Journal of School Health, 85(7), 413-422. https://doi.org/10.1111/JOSH.12267

Tyers-Chowdhury, A., & Binder, G. (2021). What we know about the gender digital divide for girls. UNICEF.

van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229812

Webb, S. (2006). Can ICT reduce social exclusion? The case of an adults’ English language learning programme. British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 481-507. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920600635478

Yuen, A. H. K., Lau, W. W. F., Park, J. H., Lau, G. K. K., & Chan, A. K. M. (2016). Digital equity and students’ home computing: A Hong Kong study. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(4), 509-518. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40299-016-0276-3