House 2007 Computers and Reading Achievement

House, J. (2007). Relationships between computer use and reading achievement of elementary-school students: Results from the PIRLS 2001. International Journal of Instructional Media, vol. 34 (4).

PIRLS is the Progress in International Reading Study conducted  in 2001. House has published a series of articles analyzing data from the PIRLS. This article examines statistical relationships between a student's use of computers and performance on the PIRLS reading comprehension test.

My first question is about the PIRLS test itself. There isn't enough detail in this article to know how valid and reliable the PIRLS is, but I want to know how they defined reading comprehension and how they constructed the instrument used to measure the students. What were the reading passages and where did they come from? House mentions the selection process for the schools and classrooms, but I wonder if different regions of the country were represented. I don't know that it would make a difference in the results, but I am curious if it was a consideration.

So, the reading comprehension of 3,385 students was assessed using a test booklet containing two reading blocks, and, presumably, questions about the text. The students were also asked where and how much they use computers. House used several statistical procedures (most of which are currently way beyond me) to compare the data.

The results were mixed. Students who use computers more frequently at home also scored higher on the test. However, students who used the computer for writing, scored lower on the test. House notes several studies with results that are consistent with his and several studies with results that are inconsistent with his results.

I think that these studies are likely measuring different things. There are a number of factors that differentiate the quality of computer use that are not considered in this study. The statements about computer use on the assessment were: "I use the computer at home."; "I use the computer at school."; "I use the computer in some other place." That doesn't give a meaningful level of information about what is happening. "Using a computer" is far too general an activity to be meaningful for research. If I use an oven for three hours and you use an oven for three hours, we're not necessarily going to end up with the same cake.

My second concern is about a presumption of causation. House didn't go there, but others easily could. "Oh, using a computer more at home improves reading ability. So to help kids read, they should use the computer at home." No, no, no, no. What if that correlation is just that? Maybe a higher level of home computer use just signifies a more affluent home, and a more affluent home means more access to early text experiences, or a higher level of parental academic achievement, and one of those things causes the reading comprehension gains. If that's the case, just increasing home computer use won't help reading achievement at all. It would just cost a lot of money and could end up depleting resources that could be used to impact reading ability.