Abstract
The term “digital divide” is used to describe unequal access to digital technology and information. Simple binary constructions of access, whether of devices or the Internet, have evolved to cover more complicated and nuanced discussions of device density, Internet speed, and even relevant skills and social support. Current concerns about the digital divide no longer simply relate to access to a device or the Internet but rather to people’s ability to make use of the device and Internet to engage in meaningful social practices. As such, rather than being understood as a binary concept, in actuality, the “digital divide” is full of gradations and types of divides. With the rapid growth of the Internet as a medium for both economic and social transactions, being part of this network has become essential for inclusion and participation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aleven, V., Beal, C. R., & Graesser, A. C. (2013). Introduction to the special issue on advanced learning technologies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 929–931.
Attewell, J., & Battle, P. (1999). Home computers and school performance. The Information Society, 15(1), 1–10.
Becker, H. J. (2000). Who’s wired and who's not: Children’s access to and use of computer technology. The future of children, 44–75.
Baker, R., & Siemens, G. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., & KewalRamani, A. (2011). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the United States: 1972–2009. Compendium Report. NCES 2012–006. National Center for Education Statistics.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Graham, C., Culatta, R., Pratt, M., & West, R. (2004). Redesigning the teacher education technology course to emphasize integration. Computers in the Schools, 21(1–2), 127–148.
Hashey, A. I., & Stahl, S. (2014). Making online learning accessible for students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(5), 70–78.
Hassler, B., Major, L., & Hennessy, S. (2015). Tablet use in schools: A review of the evidence for learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jcal
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Washington, DC: PEW Internet & American Life Projects.
Means, B. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development website, http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/index.html
Means, B., Bakia, M., & Murphy, R. (2014). Learning online: What research tells us about whether, when and how. New York: Routledge.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield: CAST Professional Publishing. Online at http://udltheorypractice.cast.org
Mitra, S. (1999). Virtual institutions in the Indian subcontinent. The Development of Virtual Education: a Global Perspective. A Study of Current Trends in the Virtual Delivery of Education. GM Farrelll.
Murphy, R., Snow, E., Mislevy, J., Gallagher, L., Krumm, A., & Wei, X. (2014). Blended learning report. Michael & Susan Dell Foundation. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy316/full
OECD. (2016). Innovating education and educating for innovation: The power of digital technologies and skills. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264265097-en.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S. G., Lim, S., Lapinski, S., Robinson, K. H., & Johnson, M. (2013). Universal Design for Learning and elementary school science: Exploring the efficacy, use, and perceptions of a web-based science notebook. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1210.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schofield, J. W., & Davidson, A. L. (2004). Achieving equality of student Internet access within schools: Theory, application, and practice. In A. H. Eagly, R. M. Baron, & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), The social psychology of group identity and social conflict (pp. 97–109). Washington, DC: APA Books.
Schradie, J. (2011). The digital production gap: The digital divide and Web 2.0 collide. Poetics, 39, 145–168.
Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. San Mateo.: Innosight Institute.
Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online gaming. The Modern Language Journal, 93(s1), 802–821.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. Public Schools: 2009 (NCES 2010–040). Retrieved August 27, 2015, https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=46
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Digest of Educational Statistics: 2013 (NCES 2015–011). Retrieved August 27, 2015, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/ch_7.asp
Walkington, C. A. (2013). Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 932.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Warschauer, M. (2011). Learning in the cloud: How (and why) to transform schools with digital media. New York: Teachers College Press.
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225.
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Fredricks, J. A., Simpkins, S., Roeser, R. W., & Schiefele, U. (2015). Development of achievement motivation and engagement. In Handbook of child psychology and developmental science. doi:10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy316
Witte, J. C., & Mannon, S. E. (2010). The Internet and social inequalities. New York: Routledge.
Zillien, N., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Digital distinction: Status-specific types of Internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 274–291. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00617.x.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Tate, T., Warschauer, M. (2017). The Digital Divide in Language and Literacy Education. In: Thorne, S., May, S. (eds) Language, Education and Technology. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02237-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02237-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02236-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02237-6
eBook Packages: EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education