Advertisement

Issues and Challenges Related to Digital Equity: An Overview

  • Paul Resta
  • Thérèse Laferrière
  • Robert McLaughlin
  • Assetou Kouraogo
Reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)

Abstract

The chapter addresses two main concerns: Digital equity for social inclusion and digital equity in education. Five dimensions of digital equity are identified: (1) access to hardware, software, and connectivity to the Internet; (2) access to meaningful, high quality, and culturally relevant content in local languages; (3) access to creating, sharing, and exchanging digital content; (4) access to educators who know how to use digital tools and resources; and (5) access to high-quality research on the application of digital technologies to enhance learning. Issues, challenges, and informed strategies are pinpointed on the basis of what digital-divide and digital-equity research says.

Keywords

Social inclusion Digital divide Access Digital tools and resources Knowledge divide 

References

  1. Archer, K., Savage, R., Sanghera-Sidhu, S., Wood, E. E., Gottardo, A., & Chen, V. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of technology use in classrooms: A tertiary meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 78, 140–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attewell, P. (2001). The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74(3), 252–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banoğlu, K., Vanderlinde, R., & Çetin, M. (2016). Investigation of principals’ technology leadership profiles in the context of schools’ learning organization culture and ICT infrastructure: F@tih project schools vs. the others. Education & Science/Egitim Ve Bilim, 41(188), 83–98.  https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.6618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  5. Broadband Commission for Digital Development ITU & UNESCO. (2013). Technology, broadband, and education (report by the broadband commission working group on education). Paris: UNESCO. Availablee at http://www.broadbandcommission.org/documents/publications/bd_bbcomm-education_2013.pdfGoogle Scholar
  6. Bucher, E., & Fieseler, C. (2016). The flow of digital labour. New Media & Society, 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816644566.
  7. Campbell, D. (2001). Can the digital divide be contained? International Labour Review, 140(2), 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charania, A., & Davis, N. E. (2016). A smart partnership: Integrating educational technology for underserved children in India. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 99–109.Google Scholar
  9. Cleary, P. F., Pierce, G., & Trauth, E. M. (2006). Closing the digital divide: Understanding racial, ethnic, social class, gender and geographic disparities in internet use among school age children in the United States. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4, 345–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins, A., & Pea, R. (2011). The advantages of alternative certifications for students. Education Week, 31(8), 22–23.Google Scholar
  11. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Commonwealth of Learning & UNESCO. (2015). A basic guide to open educational resources (OER). Paris: Commonwealth of Learning and UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002158/215804e.pdfGoogle Scholar
  13. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. De Neve, D., & Devos, G. (2017). How do professional learning communities aid and hamper professional learning of beginning teachers related to differentiated instruction? Teachers & Teaching, 23(3), 262–283.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1206524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dexter, S. (2008). Leadership for IT in schools. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 543–554). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. EducationSuperHighway. (2017). 2016 State of the States (EducationSuperHighway’s second annual report on the state of broadband connectivity in America’s public schools). Available at https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/esh-sots-pdfs/2016_national_report_K12_broadband.pdf
  17. Gonzales-Perez, A. (2014). Characterization of inclusive practices in schools with education technology. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 132, 357–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gorski, P. C. (2005). Education equity and the digital divide. AACE Journal, 13(1), 3–45.Google Scholar
  19. Gorski, P. C. (2009). Insisting on digital equity: Reframing the dominant discourse on multicultural education and technology. Urban Education, 44(3), 348–364.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085908318712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffin, P., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2015). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Hall, V. J. (2017). Exploring teacher–student interactions: Communities of practice, ecological learning systems – Or something else? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(2), 120–132.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1070395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4). Available at http://firstmonday.org/article/view/942/864
  23. International Telecommunications Union (ITU). (2003). World telecommunication development report: Access indicators for the information society. Geneva, Switzerland: World Summit on the Information Society. Available at http://www.itu.int/pub/D-IND-WTDR-2003/eGoogle Scholar
  24. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2009). National Educational Technology Standards (NETS•A) and Performance Indicators for Administrators. Available at https://www.kelloggllc.com/tpc/netsy15.pdf
  25. Johal, S., & Thirgood, J. (2016). Working without a net: Rethinking Canada’s social policy in the age of work. Toronto: Mowat Center, School of Public Policy & Governance, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  26. Katz, V. S., & Levine, M. H. (2015). Connecting to learn: Promoting digital equity among America’s Hispanic families, The Joan Ganz Cooney center at sesame workshop. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Street. Available at http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/publication/connecting-to-learn-promoting-digital-equity-for-americas-hispanic-families/Google Scholar
  27. Kumar, D., & Mishra, R. (2015). Deep web performance enhance on search engine. In 2015 international conference on soft computing techniques and implementations (ICSCTI) (pp. 137–140). Faridabad: IEEE.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSCTI.2015.7489619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laferrière, T., Breuleux, A., Allaire, S., Hamel, C., Law, N., Montané, M., et al. (2015). The knowledge building international project (KBIP): Scaling up professional development for effective uses of collaborative technologies. In C.-K. Looi & L. W. Teh (Eds.), Scaling educational innovations, Springer, education innovation series (pp. 255–276). Singapore: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-537-2_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lating, P. O. (2006). Hybrid e-learning for rural secondary schools in Uganda. Karlskrona: Blekinge Institute of Technology. Available at: http://www.bth.se/tks/teknovet.nsf/(WebFiles)/A6622DE57A0668A5C1257225004AAE33/$FILE/lating_lic.pdfGoogle Scholar
  30. Light, J. (2001). Rethinking the digital divide. Harvard Educational Review, 71(4), 709–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Looi, C.-K., Lim, W.-Y., & Chen, W. (2008). Communities of practice for continuing professional development in the 21st century. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 489–506). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Looker, E. D. (2008). Gender and information technology. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 779–788). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. OECD. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection, Programme for international student assessment. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at http://www.oecd.org/publications/students-computers-and-learning-9789264239555-en.htmCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Passey, D., Laferrière, T., Ahmad, M., Bhowmik, M., Gross, D., Price, J., et al. (2016). Educational digital technologies in developing countries challenge third party providers. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 121–133. Available at http://www.ifets.info/journals/19_3/12.pdfGoogle Scholar
  36. Pirkkalainen, H., Pawlowski, J. M., & Pappa, D. (2017). Educators’ open educational collaboration online: The dilemma of emotional ownership. Computers & Education, 106, 119–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pittman, J., McLaughlin, R. T., & Bracey-Sutton, B. (2008). Critical success factors in moving towards digital equity. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 803–818). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Resta, P., Christal, M., & Roy, L. (2004). Digital technology to empower indigenous culture and education. In N. E. Davis & A. Brown (Eds.), The world yearbook of education 2004: Digital technology, communities and education (pp. 179–195). London: Kogan Page.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robles Morales, J. M., Mirko, A., De Marco, S., & Lobera, J. A. (2016). The new frontier of digital inequality. The participatory divide. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 156, 97–116.Google Scholar
  40. Ronchi, A. M. (2009). eCulture: Cultural content in the digital age. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  42. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Selwyn, N. (2013). Education in a digital world. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Solomon, G., Allen, N., & Resta, P. (2003). Toward digital equity: Bridging the divide in education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  45. Stewart, A. (2000). Social inclusion: An introduction. In P. Askonas & A. Stewart (Eds.), Social inclusion: Possibilities and tensions (pp. 1–16). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. Terry, C. A., Mishra, P., & Roseth, C. J. (2016). Preference for multitasking, technological dependency, student metacognition, & pervasive technology use: An experimental intervention. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 241–251.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Treviranus, J., & Roberts, V. (2008). Disability, special education and IT. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 789–802). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Túrcsányi-Szábo, M. (2008). Online professional development for teachers. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 747–762). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. UNESCO. (2001). The Geneva declaration of principles and plan of action. Geneva, Switzerland: World Summit on the Information Society. Available at http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=fr&id=1532|1191Google Scholar
  50. UNESCO. (2011). UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers. Paris, France: UNESCO. Available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002134/213475e.pdfGoogle Scholar
  51. United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2016, 2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: National education technology plan update. Available at https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf
  52. Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Helsper, E. J. (2015). The third–level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? In L. Robinson, S. R. Cotten, J. Schulz, T. M. Hale, & A. Williams (Eds.), Communication and information technologies annual, Studies in media and communications (Vol. 10, pp. 29–52). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Helsper, E. J. (2017). Collateral benefits of internet use: Explaining the diverse outcomes of engaging with the internet. New Media & Society, 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817715282.
  54. Vuorikari, R., Kampylis, P., Scimeca, S., & Punie, Y. (2015). Scaling up teacher networks across and within European schools: The case of eTwinning. In C.-K. Looi & L. W. Teh (Eds.), Scaling educational innovation (pp. 227–254). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. WSIS. (2003). Declaration of principles. World summit on the information society, Geneva 2003. Available at http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html
  57. WSIS. (2005). Tunis commitment. World summit on the information society, Tunisia 2005. Available at http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/7.html
  58. 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/s40299-016-0276-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Resta
    • 1
  • Thérèse Laferrière
    • 2
  • Robert McLaughlin
    • 3
    • 5
  • Assetou Kouraogo
    • 4
  1. 1.University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Laval UniversityQCCanada
  3. 3.Educational Development ConsortiumWalthamUSA
  4. 4.Ministry of EducationOuagadougouBurkina Faso
  5. 5.New England CollegeHennikerUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Therese Laferrière
    • 1
  • Paul Resta
    • 2
  1. 1.Université LavalQuebec CityCanada
  2. 2.University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations