Digital Skills and Science Achievement: Analyzing Socio-Economic Factors and Learning Views

Background/purpose. Science education has gained more prominence as a means of educating students for the demands of a technologically evolved world. Understanding the variables influencing students' science achievement is vital for educational policymakers and practitioners.

Materials/methods. The study used a hierarchical multiple regression analysis method to study data from the 2019 iteration of TIMSS, in which 5728 eighth-grade students from Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) participated. It examined the links between socioeconomic status (SES), computer self-efficacy, conceptions of learning science (like learning science, instructional clarity in science lessons, confidence in science, and valuing science), and science achievement.

Results. It was found that the associations between student age, socioeconomic status, computer self-efficacy, conceptions of learning science, and science achievement are significant.

Conclusion. Policymakers and educators should adopt effective strategies to reduce socioeconomic disparity amongst students, enhance conceptions of learning science, and improve students' computer self-efficacy.

Keywords: Digital Skills and Science Achievement: Analyzing Socio-Economic Factors and Learning Views

References

Abdullah, Z. D., & Mustafa, K. I. (2019). The underlying factors of computer self-efficacy and the relationship with students' academic achievement. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 5(1), 346–354.

Aboderin, O. S., & Laleye, A. M. (2019). The relationship between online interaction and academic performance of distance E-learners in a Nigerian university. American International Journal of Education and Linguistics Research, 2(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.46545/aijelr.v2i1.72

Abu Khurma, O., Al Darayseh, A., & Alramamneh, Y. (2022). A framework for incorporating the “learning how to learn” approach in teaching STEM education. Education Sciences, 13(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010001 ‌

Areepattamannil, S. (2024, December). Building a knowledge economy: higher education as a catalyst for the United Arab Emirates' visionary growth. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 9, p. 1510421). Frontiers Media SA.

Awang, H., Hashim, F., Haji Salleh, A. L., & Tan, L. Y. (2021). The influence of mathematics score and student factors on science achievement using TIMSS data. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(6), Article em1976. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10931

Balfaqeeh, A., Mansour, N., & Forawi, S. (2022). Factors influencing students’ achievements in the content and cognitive domains in TIMSS 4th grade science and mathematics in the United Arab Emirates. Education Sciences, 12(9), Article 618. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12090618

Berger, N., Mackenzie, E., & Holmes, K. (2020). Positive attitudes towards mathematics and science are mutually beneficial for student achievement: A latent profile analysis of TIMSS 2015. The Australian Educational Researcher, 47(3), 409–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-020-00379-8

Brockhouse, A. (2019). Class Matters: School Affluence and Other Predictors of Attainment for Wealthy and Poor Students. CUNY Academic Works. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/3417

Broer, M., Bai, Y., & Fonseca, F. (2019a). A review of the literature on socioeconomic status and educational achievement. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11991-1_2

Broer, M., Bai, Y., & Fonseca, F. (2019b). Socioeconomic inequality and educational outcomes: An introduction. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11991-1_1

Burroughs, N., Gardner, J., Lee, Y., Guo, S., Touitou, I., Jansen, K., & Schmidt, W. (2019). Teacher effectiveness and educational equity. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16151-4_7

Cai, S., Liu, E., Yang, Y., & Liang, J. (2018). Tablet‐based AR technology: Impacts on students’ conceptions and approaches to learning mathematics according to their self‐efficacy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 248–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12718

Chen, M., & Hastedt, D. (2022). The paradoxical relationship between students’ non-cognitive factors and mathematics and science achievement using TIMSS 2015 dataset. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 73, 101145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101145

Chen, X., & Lu, L. (2022). How do classroom management and instructional clarity relate to students' academic emotions in Hong Kong and England? A multi-group analysis based on the control-value theory. Learning and Individual Differences, 98, 102183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102183

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2020). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1781210

Evans, G. W., Li, D., & Whipple, S. S. (2020). Cumulative risk and child development. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 273-308. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000220

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2021). IBM SPSS statistics 27 step by step. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003205333

Han, F., & Ellis, R. A. (2019). Identifying consistent patterns of quality learning discussions in blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 40, 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.09.002

Harju-Luukkainen, H., Vettenranta, J., Wang, J., & Garvis, S. (2020). Family related variables effect on later educational outcome: A further geospatial analysis on TIMSS 2015 finland?. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-020-00081-2

Hatlevik, O. E., Throndsen, I., Loi, M., & Gudmundsdottir, G. B. (2018). Students’ ICT self-efficacy and computer and information literacy: Determinants and relationships. Computers & Education, 118, 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.011

Jufrida, J., Basuki, F. R., Kurniawan, W., Pangestu, M. D., & Fitaloka, O. (2019a). Scientific literacy and science learning achievement at junior high school. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 8(4), 630. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v8i4.20312

Jufrida, J., Kurniawan, W., Astalini, A., Darmaji, D., Kurniawan, D. A., & Maya, W. A. (2019b). Students’ attitude and motivation in mathematical physics. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 8(3), 401. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v8i3.20253

Kabaila, P., Farchione, D., Alhelli, S., & Bragg, N. (2020). The effect of a Durbin–Watson pretest on confidence intervals in regression. Statistica Neerlandica, 75(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/stan.12222

‌KHDA - Resources on education in dubai. (2022). Khda.gov.ae. https://web.khda.gov.ae/en/Resources/Publications/International-Assessments/Dubai-TIMSS-2019

‌Khurma, O. A., Ali, N., & Hourani, R. B. (2023). The effect of the web-quest inquiry learning model in enhancing critical thinking and motivation for grade eight science students. In Handbook of Research on Facilitating Collaborative Learning Through Digital Content and Learning Technologies (pp. 238-260). IGI Global.

Kolil, V. K., Muthupalani, S., & Achuthan, K. (2020). Virtual experimental platforms in chemistry laboratory education and its impact on experimental self-efficacy. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1)https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00204-3

Liu, J., Peng, P., & Luo, L. (2020). The relation between family socioeconomic status and academic achievement in china: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09494-0

Martin, M. O., & Mullis, I. V. S. (2019). TIMSS 2015: Illustrating advancements in large-scale international assessments. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 44(6), 752–781. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998619882030

Nguyen, U., & Riegle-Crumb, C. (2021). Who is a scientist? The relationship between counter-stereotypical beliefs about scientists and the STEM major intentions of Black and Latinx male and female students. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00288-x

Peciuliauskiene, P. (2022). School students’ motivation for learning physics: How does instructional clarity in physics lessons engage? Society.Integration.Education. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, 1, 486–496. https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2022vol1.6815

OECD. (2021). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en

Reardon, S. F. (2016). School segregation and racial academic achievement gaps. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(5), 34–57. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2016.2.5.03

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.

Teig, N., & Nilsen, T. (2022). Profiles of instructional quality in primary and secondary education: Patterns, predictors, and relations to student achievement and motivation in science. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 74, 101170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101170

Torres, C., Correia, J., Compeau, D., & Carter, M. (2022). Computer self efficacy: A replication after thirty years. AIS Transactions on Replication Research, 8https://doi.org/10.17705/1atrr.00076

Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2021). Motivation and social-emotional learning: Theory, research, and practice. Educational Psychologist, 56(1), 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1884907

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (2023). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Taylor & Francis.

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

Velayutham, S., & Aldridge, J. M. (2012). Influence of psychosocial classroom environment on students’ motivation and self-regulation in science learning: A structural equation modeling approach. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9273-y

Wang, M., & Zheng, X. (2020). Using game-based learning to support learning science: A study with middle school students. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30(2), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-020-00523-z

Wiberg, M. (2019). The relationship between TIMSS mathematics achievements, grades, and national test scores. Education Inquiry, 10(4), 328–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2019.1579626

Yagan, S. A. (2021). The relationships between instructional clarity, classroom management and mathematics achievement: Mediator role of attitudes towards mathematics. In W. B. James, C. Cobanoglu, & M. Cavusoglu (Eds.), Advances in global education and research (Vol. 4, pp. 1–11). USF M3 Publishing. https://www.doi.org/10.5038/9781955833042

Yin, L., Bezirhan, U., Fishbein, B., & Foy, P. (2023). Implementing the PIRLS 2021 achievement scaling methodology. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. https://doi.org/10.6017/lse.tpisc.tr2103.kb3067 http://dx.doi.org/10.6017/lse.tpisc.tr2103.kb3067

Zhang, F., & Bae, C. L. (2020). Motivational factors that influence student science achievement: A systematic literature review of TIMSS studies. International Journal of Science Education, 42(17), 2921–2944. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1843083

Announcement

EDUPIJ Citation Metrics

EDUPIJ News!

ANNOUNCEMENT

Message from the Editor-in-Chief,

We would like to inform our authors, reviewers, and stakeholders that EDUPIJ has entered Scopus’s re-evaluation process, as officially communicated (dated 2025-12-09). This assessment is a standard quality assurance practice applied to indexed journals and aims to ensure sustained editorial quality, ethical integrity, and alignment with Scopus’s evolving evaluation framework.

EDUPIJ welcomes this process and views it as an opportunity to further consolidate its editorial governance, strengthen publication ethics, and enhance peer-review rigor.

Strengthening Editorial and Ethical Standards

To ensure full compliance with international best practices and to proactively address Scopus evaluation criteria, the following measures have been formally implemented:

1. Selective Acceptance Policy for 2026 and Beyond

In response to increased submission volume in 2025 (see Journal Metrics: https://edupij.com/index/sayfa/18/journal-metrics), EDUPIJ will adopt a more selective acceptance policy starting in 2026 and continuing in the years ahead. In doing so, the geographic distribution of authors will also be taken into account to ensure that editorial decisions are informed by transparent, year-to-year submission and authorship patterns. Acceptance rates will be carefully aligned with editorial capacity to ensure a rigorous double-blind peer review process supported by active reviewer engagement and uncompromised editorial oversight. This policy reflects our commitment to quality-driven growth rather than volume-based expansion, and it directly addresses observations that the geographic spread of authors has changed significantly during the same period by ensuring that any such shifts are systematically monitored and considered within our quality assurance framework.

In line with this approach, we have adopted a Publication Volume Policy, enacted on 2025-12-07, which establishes clear upper limits on annual publication volume and defines a framework for maintaining EDUPIJ’s output at sustainable, long-term levels, comparable to pre-2025 volumes under normal conditions. This policy is also publicly available at https://edupij.com/index/sayfa/41/publication-volume-journal-metrics-policy.

From 2026 onwards, our objective is to maintain a moderate and stable annual volume, prioritising quality and selectivity rather than growth.

2. Enhanced Author and Manuscript Integrity Screening

All submissions now undergo mandatory integrity checks, including automated screening for retraction history and potential ethical risks prior to peer review. These procedures are designed to safeguard originality, research integrity, and transparency at every stage of the editorial process.

3. Establishment of a Publication Ethics Review Committee

A dedicated Publication Ethics Review Committee has been constituted to evaluate high-risk submissions, oversee ethical investigations when necessary, and ensure consistent adherence to COPE guidelines and internationally recognized publishing standards. All ethical decisions are documented and managed through a structured, transparent process.

Ongoing Commitment:

EDUPIJ remains firmly committed to rigorous double-blind peer review, transparent editorial policies, responsible scholarly communication, and the advancement of high-quality educational research at an international level.

Our journal continues to demonstrate steady progress in terms of international visibility, indexing coverage, and citation performance. We are confident that the Scopus re-evaluation process will further support the journal’s long-term sustainability and academic impact.

We sincerely thank our authors, reviewers, and the broader scholarly community for their continued trust and contribution to EDUPIJ.

Sincerely,
Prof. Turgut Karaköse, Editor-in-Chief

Posted: 2025-12-09