C. Vilaplana-Prieto

University of Murcia (SPAIN)
In 2009, the Spanish Ministry of Education started the implementation of the Program School 2.0 in all public schools.

The objectives of this program were:
i) ease the access to technological equipment and internet to students
ii) further the use of information technologies through Tablet PCs.

This program was introduced in 5th and 6th grade of primary education and 1st and 2nd grade of secondary education. However, the degree of implementation of the program differed across Autonomous Communities. Seven Communities (Andalucía, Aragón, Castilla-León, Cataluña, Extremadura, Galicia, Rioja) introduced it in all schools/high-schools. Three Communities (Asturias, Baleares, Canarias) tested it in a certain fraction of schools/high-schools. Finally, nine Communities (Cantabria, Castilla La Mancha, C. Valenciana, Madrid, Murcia, Navarra, País Vasco, Ceuta, Melilla) did not in implemented it in any school/high-school.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the impact of the Program School 2.0 comparing the results of PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) among the three types of Communities. We acknowledge the Spanish Ministry of Education for bringing forward the Spanish data of PISA 2012. From an initial sample of 25,313 students we have dropped private and state-subsidised centres and students attending professional training. The final sample contains 14,430 students. We have classified students according to grade retention: REP(0)=10,276 students who did not repeat any grade; REP(1,0): 2,903 who repeated one year of primary education; REP(0,1)=911 who repeated on year of secondary education; REP(1,1)=1,023 who repeated one year of primary and another of secondary education and REP(0,2)=317 who repeated two years of secondary education.

The average achievement of Mathematics was 476.65 (std-dev: 87.87) for non-participants, 474.73 (std-dev: 86.39) for participants and 446.01 (std-dev: 83.51) for partial-participants. For the subsample REP(0) we appreciate significant differences among the three groups: 515.11, 507.97 and 490.42, respectively. The average achievement for REP(0), REP(0,1), REP(1,0) and REP(1,1) is higher for non-participants as compared to participants. However, for REP(0,2) the average achievement is higher for participants (414.01) vs. non-participants (388.92).

We have performed regression analysis for the achievement value in Mathematics (MATHS) using different groups of explanatory variables (student, family and centre), and additionally, variables related to the use of information technologies. Comparing participants and non-participants in the program we observe that: (1) having participated in the Program School 2.0 decreases MATHS by 16.20 points (t-student:3.37) for REP(0) and by 20.43 points (t: 3.55) for REP(1,1); (2) using the Tablet PC almost every day for doing homework decreases MATH by 42.34 points (t: 3.41) for REP(0,1).

Comparing non-participants with partial participants we ascertain that 1) having not participated increases MATHS by 22.29 points (t:1.98) for REP(1,0) and 40.58 points (t: 4.02) for REP(1,1); 2) the availability of a computer at home increases MATHS between 16 and 20 points for REP(0,1), REP(1,0) and REP(1,1).

Results indicate that the program School 2.0 has not been as successful as expected. However, we cannot discard an improvement in the future due to the effects of experiential learning.