Educational and Digital Equity in the Digital Age
Matthew F. Hitchner
School of Education, Liberty University
Educational and Digital Equity in the Digital Age
In the digital world we live in, educational and digital equity is a social justice that has
been brought to light more recently. With current issues education is facing regarding remote
and virtual learning, some educational leaders are advocating for the gaps in this social justice
issue to be reduced in order to improve the educational learning experiences for all leaners.
Moreover, it is an injustice to those who are affected by this issue the most. The
underrepresented populations in urban and rural communities do not have the access of digital
tools or the knowledge of how to utilize the technology they are given. Those in the education
fields are seeing this divide, but as a society, this is a justice issue that continues to grow. Each
February, activists around the world celebrate World Day of Social Justice. Fittingly enough, the
theme of 2021 emphasizes and examines “Social justice in the digital economy” (Meckelberg,
2021).
The gap in accessibility to the digital world has failed to diminish in recent years affecting
the educational world at an increasing rate. Even though educational institutions from
preschool to universities are continuously looking to address the technological shortfalls within
each program, this social justice continues to be an issue. Lack of agreement on equity versus
equality, demographic factors, and lack of technological and professional resources are still at
the root of the problem. In a world becoming more technological every nanosecond, the
bridging the gap in the digital divide is necessary to decrease the educational divide among the
learners who are continuing to suffer.
Equity and Equality in the Digital Divide
The debate, at times, has also been between the terms equity and equality of resources
when it relates to digital resources. When describing equity, everyone has the same access and
exposure to an event or items, such as various technologies. However, equality would be
described as having the same items and equal amounts (Brown, 2020). In recent years, the
terminology is where the debate begins and caused the digital divide to widen instead of close.
Some researchers note digital equity in education is having the same availability to various
technologies, services necessary to increase digital familiarity, and professional training
(Willems, 2019). Willems (2019) further notes digital equity should also include the expertise of
how to carry out the knowledge in a technological means. Other researchers point out equity is
not relevant if the professionals who are educating today’s students are not knowledgeable and
therefore cannot allow the students to use the technology to its fullest capacity (Meckelberg,
2021). Essentially, Willems (2019) and Meckelberg (2021) explains it is not just enough to have
equal availability to technology and the internet, but there should be more increasing the
capabilities of the local area networks (LAN), internet speeds, and the knowledge about how to
best utilize these technologies. While it is necessary to have the equality of digital resources, it
is just as important, if not more, to have the equity of resources beyond the physical computers,
tablets, and hardware to bring everyone up to a level playing field.
Factors Affecting the Digital Divide
To determine the equity and equality, or lack thereof, in our instructional communities,
one must further examine the research revolving around the factors leading to the digital,
pedagogical, and resource divides in education. Traditionally, the digital divide has been used to
describe the lack of access to various technologies, such as computers, the internet, and smart
technologies (Barzilai-Nahon, 2016). Consequently, educators place blame of academic
limitations to the lack of availability, or equity, on this divide. However, research has indicated
that the digital divide is affected by many factors, such as geographic location, gender, and
socioeconomic status to name just a few. Even though urban learners are provided more access
to technology via the internet, their suburban and rural counterparts continue to show more
academic growth (Barzilai-Nahon, 2016). van Deursen and van Dijk (2019) note the reason for
this growing difference is the effect the lack of technological equity has on the differentiated
academic success of the urban and suburban educational systems. The combination of
geographic location and socioeconomic status plays a role in this divide. They further note this is
a clear reason why education should focus on digital equity more than equality.
Further examination of the gap in the digital divide reveals the lack of academic success
among the underrepresented populations, socially and emotionally disadvantaged learners, and
the economic disparaged is a social injustice affecting more than the academics of various
learners. The lack of resources among these groups has had an effect on learners both in and
out of school (Drossel et al., 2020). Educators have debated for years the reasons for the digital
divide. Until recently, the main factor in the growing digital divide has been technology itself.
However, in more recent surveys, resources, professional training, and internet accessibility
have become more of a factor in the social justice issue (Drossel et al., 2020).
While researchers are in agreement that the lack of physical resources plays an integral
part in academic shortcomings, there is further evidence that the digital divide has been caused
by issues other than the physical, technological resources. (Willems, 2019). The lack of
professional staff in the socially and economically challenged schools has also proven to hinder
the closing of the digital divide. While the digital equity continues to be become more of a
reality, urban and minority school districts are not attracting the professional technology staff
needed to utilize the resources they have attained (Willems, 2019). These underprivileged
communities are working hard to make sure the digital equity is continuing to be maintained;
however, the learning experience the students are being provided with is substandard due to
the lack of professional training.
Another influence that has a deep impact is the pedagogical divide on technology. There
is a widely held belief in the digital educational world that pedagogy must readily be available at
its highest levels before technology can be used effectively. So many educational institutions,
from basic elementary programs to higher education, provide learners with various high-tech
tools which they are unable to use effectively. Furthermore, the training provided to the
educators lacks the in-depth, detailed pedagogy needed to help learners excel (Wilson, 2020).
This is extremely evident in the urban school districts. These districts are provided with
additional funding for the sole purpose of bringing digital equality to schools in need, however
once these digital tools are placed in the hands of the excited learners, they are ill-prepared by
the educators who are required to use these digital materials (Wilson, 2020).
The pedagogical divide is unable to narrow for several reasons. Researchers point to lack
of professional development and training with digital tools that helps create a pedagogical
divide with digital tools (Johnson, 2020). Even though physical resources, such as computers,
tablets, and other hardware, are being increasingly added to most districts’ annual budgets, the
level of necessary training and professional resources are disproportionate being reduced
(Johnson, 2020). Johnson (2020) further notes educational institutions are quick to get the
digital tools in the hands of students, however, only provide the teachers the limited training
provided by the initial purchase of the tools. Moreover, this lack of training has a direct impact
on the effective use of the technology. Furthermore, (Lewin & Lundie, 2016) points out creating
a lackluster digital pedagogy only allows learners to utilize high-tech tools to minimal
effectiveness. In turn, learners cannot fully achieve the academic successes that would be
possible if teachers were properly trained.
Throughout literature regarding technology and education today, researchers have
pointed at various elements causing the divide. Addressing the digital, pedagogical, and
resource divides separately will not solve the problem (Schrum & Sumerfield, 2018) . There
must be a collaboration of efforts among educationalists and researchers to pinpoint a path for
digital success among all learners.
Statistical Data and the Digital Divide
When addressing the social justice issue of the digital divide, one must examine where
our technological divide has come from and how it is being dealt with in hopes to further
narrow this gap. According to an analysis of the digital divide by Equipteam (2020), there four
levels of digital divide which have taken part in the digital divide we are currently witnessing.
The first level to examine is the access and connectivity of digital tools. Within schools
themselves, the level of access and connectivity has increased tremendously. When the digital
divide was first termed and examined in the 1990s, reports found the ration of students to
computers was 24:1.
Nearly three decades later, educators in schools report over 50% now have a 1:1 ratio
(Equipteam, 2020). Similarly, level of connectivity has grown. Equipteam’s same survey noted
the rate of connectivity increased from 14% in 1997 to 99% in K-12 school districts. Therefore,
the gap in access and connectivity is narrowing within the schools. However, the gap is not
narrowing outside of the school walls, specially within certain categories. Huffman (2018) notes
minorities and low socioeconomic families have the lowest access and connectivity rates further
explaining this lack of equity is definitely a social justice issue.
Digital readiness and digital usage are other levels of the digital divide researchers have
examined. Lack of training and education are factors leading to the unpreparedness of modern
digital tools (Huffman, 2018). Again, minority and low socioeconomic families are noted to have
the least education and readiness skills to properly use current technology. Equipteam (2020)
notes only 42% of students have moderately good levels of digital skills, while 70 million are not
“digitally ready” to successfully operate the internet. These statistics demonstrates a lack of
readiness. Moreover, the lack of readiness leads into the third level of the digital divide: digital
use. Technology in the classroom is in fact on the rise. However, the equity of use of these
digital tools is creating a further digital divide still today. A study by Connected Learning Alliance
discovered students in higher socioeconomic school districts used technology for higher order
thinking skills and collaborative work, while their disadvantaged counterparts use the
technology for rote, basic skills (Equipteam, 2020). While the equality of resources appears to
be evident, the equity of resources is still faltering.
A final level of the digital divide researchers have examined is representation. Current
research has identified a lack of representation within several groups socioeconomic groups
that have attributed to lack of contraction of the digital divide (Aydin, 2021). In the past,
socioeconomic variables, such as age, school location, and income levels, were often a
contributor towards the lack of accessibility of digital tools. Currently that trend is narrowing,
however, the equity of digital tools and resources is still a problem (Schrum, 2018). For example,
while research shows students in urban, low socioeconomic school districts have a digital device
to student ratio of 2:1, only 57% of the educators felt adequately trained enough to
demonstrate effective use of the tools to their students (Quaicoe & Pata, 2016). Furthermore,
curriculums are less robust, and some researchers note “watered-down,” in the urban school
districts because of lack of professional training (Drossel, et al., 2020). This trend ultimately has
an impact on society moving forward. Students who are ill-prepared through elementary and
high school technology curriculums are less like to seek careers in the computer science field.
This further widens the representation factor in the digital world today. Digital research and
productivity completed by wealthier, suburban, male minds will produce tools less user-friendly
towards the lower socioeconomic groups (Equipteam, 2020). In order for the digital divide to
further narrow, all aspects need to be further examined.
Reducing the Gaps in the Digital and Educational Divide
Over the past decade, the digital divide has continued to narrow, however technology
and education specialists agree there is more than can be done to bring equity and equality
closer. One factor that has helped create this divide of technology is the accessibility of digital
tools, however cost is the roadblock that school districts come across hindering the purchasing
of these resources (van Deursen & van Dijk, 2019). While urban districts receive more funding
and suburban districts often have budgets capable of purchasing the needed tools, rural school
districts are often left struggling to find the financing necessary to keep up with the changing
technology. Furthermore, urban districts have narrowed the accessibility factor down to a 2:1
student to device ratio, however those districts often do not have a strong enough
infrastructure
to support the heavy technological use (van Deursen & van Dijk, 2019). Creating an equity of
financial resources for school districts in need or setting up partnerships with technology
corporations is a method this aspect of the digital divide could begin to be narrowed (Hall et al.,
2020).
As aforementioned, within the digital divide in education there are pedagogical and
resource divides. With different grants and funding opportunities some school districts receive,
they often purchase a vast array of high-tech digital tools to utilize within the classrooms.
However, the training that is provided with the purchasing of these tools is minimal (Herold,
2017). For example, a school district purchases Smartboard technology for each classroom in
the school, however the training is not presented in-depth and does not allow the teachers to
master the usage of the device. This lack of professional development creates a missed
opportunity for the students to utilize interactive technology that can spark a true educational
learning experience (Herold, 2017). One way to help narrow the pedagogical divide is to provide
educators with more in-depth professional development of the digital tools they are expected
to use in the classroom. Researchers have found when teachers feel competency with the
resources they are using, the students become much more engaged in the learning (Rizk &
Davies, 2021). Another method to help bridge the gap in the pedagogical divide is to have a
highly trained technology expert within the district, especially the districts represented by lower
socioeconomic populations. This will provide a “go to” person on site to help with digital
technology and aid in the empowerment of the educators. (Rizk & Davies, 2021).
Bridging the gap in the digital divide also means correctly the resource gap in education.
Teachers, as well as students, are provided with a plethora of resources that are not always
accommodating. Technology access is usually very reliable while in school, however, urban and
rural school districts lack the resources outside of school to maintain a continuous flow of
education. Goedhart et al., (2019) notes students from urban and rural school districts often
come from families that are undertrained in the current technologies to assist with schoolwork
that is brought home. Furthermore, the resource of consistent connectivity often poses a
problem for students in the same demographics (Goedhart et al., 2019). Internet service
providers have helped in this area. During the COVID-19 pandemic, various providers have
helped to narrow this divide by providing free service for students and school districts in need
to maintain a consistent flow of education (Lai & Widmar, 2020). Another way to help narrow
the digital divide when it comes to resource availability is for school districts to provide training
for families in need of technological literacy assistance. This would allow families with a low
technology literacy level to learn the basics necessary to help improve the support of students
at home (Lai & Widmar, 2020).
Conclusion
The technological world of today is on a roller coaster ride with many loops and twists.
It can be a thrilling ride, but also comes with various risks. The digital divide has come a long
was and there have been numerous advances in the bridging the gaps. However, there is still a
distance to go. As the debate continues between the equity and equality of resources and tools,
there needs to be an understanding that getting every teacher in every school on the same page
will only benefit the students’ educational paths and the future success of our society. Common
ground must be found to provide lower socioeconomic educational communities with the
proper tools to thoroughly educate today’s learners. Furthermore, teachers must be provided
with the necessary training to promote higher order thinking with the newer technology
resources they are provided. Not until educators, government officials, and big technology
corporations can have this same unique vision will the gap in the digital divide narrow
substantially.
References
Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2016) Gaps and Bits: Conceptualizing Measurements for Digital Divide/s,
The Information Society, 22:5, 269-278, https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240600903953
Brown, J. (2020). Equity. In E.M. Sanchez (Ed.), Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Merriam-
Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equity
Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B., & Vennemann, M. (2020). Schools overcoming the digital divide: In
depth analyses towards organizational resilience in the computer and information
literacy domain. Large Scale Assessments in Education, 8(9). 1-19.
Equipteam. (2020, October 7). The Digital Divide Statistics You Need to Know. Equip.
https://equip.learning.com/digital-divide-statistics.
Goedhart, N., Broese, J., Kattouw R., & Dedding, C. (2019). ‘Just having a computer doesn’t
make sense’: The digital divide from the perspective of mothers with a
lowsocioeconomic position. News Media & Society, 21. 2347-2365.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819846059
Hall, J., Roman, C., Jovel-Aria, C., & Young C. Pre-service teachers examine digital equity admist
schools’ COVID-19 responses. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2). 435-
442.
Herold, B. (2017). Poor students face digital divide in how teachers learn to use tech. The
Education Digest, 83(3). 16-23.
Johnson, M. (2020). Digital equity: 1:1 technology and associated pedagogy. Handbook on
Promoting Social Justice in Education, 16(39). 242-245.
Lai, J., & Widmar, N. (2020). Revisiting the digital divide in the COVID-19 era. Applied
Economic Perspectives and Policy, 43(1). 458-464. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp/13104
Lewie, D., & Lundie, D. (2016). Philosophies of digital pedagogy. Studies in Philosophy and
Education, 35. 235-350. https://doi.org/10.1007s11217-016-9514-7
Meckelberg, Y. (2021, February 20). Why the digital divide is a threat to social justice? Arab
News. https://www.arabnews.com/node/1812821.
Rizk, J., & Davies, S. (2021). Can digital technology bridge the classroom engagement gap?
Findings from a qualitative study of K-8 classrooms in 10 Ontario school boards. Social
Sciences, 10(1). 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10010012
Schrum, L., & Sumerfield, S. (2018). Effort towards bridging the digital divide. In Learning
supercharged: digital age strategies and insights from the edtech frontier (pp. 127–149).
essay, International Society for Technology in Education.
van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2019). The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in
physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society, 21(2). 354–375.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818797082
Williems, J. (2019). Digital equity: Considering the needs of staff as a social justice. Australian
Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6). 150-160. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5503
Wilson, N. (2020). Sociotechnical and pedagogical barriers to technology integration. In I.
Management Association (Eds.), Wealth Creation and Poverty Reduction:
Breakthroughs in Research and Practice (pp. 80-98). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-
79981207-
4.ch005.
