Technology and Equity in Education

  • Mark WarschauerEmail author
  • Ying XuEmail author
Reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)


The development and diffusion of information and communication technologies (ICT) is having a profound effect on contemporary education, which adds new elements to the long-standing issue of educational equity. This chapter aims to create a broad picture of the relationship between technology and equity in primary and secondary education by summarizing research literature on Socioeconomic Status (SES), racial/ethnic, and gender differences related to technology. We organize our review around the framework of technology access, use, and outcomes. Regarding access, it is clear that gaps in home and school technology access are narrowing but still persistent across SES and racial/ethnic groups. Regarding usage, youth groups differ in the manners and the extent digital technologies are used at schools and outside of schools. Since there is a wide range of technologies available and groups’ usage pattern varies among forms of technology, it is challenging to summarize a single trend of inequality of technology usage. Regarding outcomes, how the differences in access and usage affect the disparities in outcomes remains inconclusive. The challenge for the reader in consuming studies on outcomes of technology is that what is often reported as a result of using technology may in fact just be that two broad factors – technology and learning – are observed to go together but may not cause one another. The technology use may affect learning, or other factors, such as SES, may shape both learning and technology use.


Technology access Technology usage Achievement gap Twenty-first-century learning skills Educational equity 


  1. Anderson, M. (2015). Technology device ownership: 2015. Pew Research Center. Retreived from Pew Research Center website:
  2. Andrews, G. (2008). Gameplay, gender, and socioeconomic status in two American high schools. E-learning, 5(2), 199–213.Google Scholar
  3. Biagi, F., & Loi, M. (2013). Measuring ICT use and learning outcomes: Evidence from recent econometric studies. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blank, G. (2013). Who creates content? Stratification and content creation on the internet. Information Communication & Society, 16(4), 590–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Common Sense Media. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America 2013. San Francisco: Common Sense Media. Retrieved from: Scholar
  6. Common Sense Media. (2015). Media use by tweens and teens. San Francisco: Common Sense Media. Retrieved from: Scholar
  7. Connected Nation. (2013). Examining school and library broadband. Connectivity. A connected nation policy brief. Washington, DC: Connected Nation.Google Scholar
  8. Culley, L. (1988). Girls, boys and computers. Educational Studies, 14(1), 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, M. B., & Goldman, S. (2014). Using technology to support at-risk students’ learning. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Online
  10. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2001). From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. Social inequality. Russell Sage Foundation. Retrieved from:
  11. Dündar, H., & Akçayır, M. (2014). Implementing tablet PCs in schools: Students’ attitudes and opinions. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fairlie, R. W., & London, R. A. (2012). The effects of home computers on educational outcomes: Evidence from a field experiment with community college students. The Economic Journal, 122(561), 727–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fairlie, R. W., Beltran, D. O., & Das, K. K. (2010). Home computers and educational outcomes: Evidence from the NLSY97 and CPS. Economic Inquiry, 48(3), 771–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fields, D. A., Giang, M., & Kafai, Y. (2014). Programming in the wild: Trends in youth computational participation in the online scratch community. Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, USA, 2–11.Google Scholar
  15. File, T., & Ryan, C. (2014). Computer and internet use in the United States: 2013. In American community survey reports, ACS-28. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  16. Hargittai, E., & Jennrich, K. (2016). The online participation divide. In M. Lloyd & L. Friedland (Eds.), The communication crisis in America, and how to fix it (pp. 199–213). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1648–1663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Cody, R., Stephenson, B. H., Horst, H. A., … Pascoe, C. (2009). Hanging out, messing around, and Geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar
  19. Jackson, L. A., Von Eye, A., Biocca, F. A., Barbatsis, G., Zhao, Y., & Fitzgerald, H. E. (2006). Does home internet use influence the academic performance of low-income children? Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Junco, R. (2013). Inequalities in Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2328–2336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Khan, M. L., Wohn, D. Y., & Ellison, N. B. (2014). Actual friends matter: An internet skills perspective on teens’ informal academic collaboration on Facebook. Computers & Education, 79, 138–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kitchen, R., & Berk, S. (2016). Educational technology: An equity challenge to the Common Core. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47(1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee, T. L. (2013). Educational technology and equity: Students access to and use of computers in low-socioeconomic and middle-class socioeconomic schools (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest LLC.Google Scholar
  24. Li, J., Snow, C., & White, C. (2015). Urban adolescent students and technology: Access, use and interest in learning language and literacy. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lin, C. H., Liu, E. Z. F., & Huang, Y. Y. (2012). Exploring parents’ perceptions towards educational robots: Gender and socio-economic differences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E31–E34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Education Association. (2008). Access, adequacy, and equity in education technology. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Retrieved from:,Adequacy,andEquityinEdTech.pdf.Google Scholar
  27. OECD. (2010). Are the new millennium learners making the grade? Technology use and educational performance in PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  28. OECD. (2016). Are there differences in how advantaged and disadvantaged students use the Internet? Retrieved from OECD website:
  29. Ono, H., & Zavodny, M. (2008). Immigrants, English ability and the digital divide. Social Forces, 86(4), 1455–1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pew Research Center. (2005). Teen content creators and consumers. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from:
  31. Pew Research Center. (2015a). Teens, social media & technology overview 2015. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from:
  32. Pew Research Center. (2015b). Teens, technology & friendships. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from:
  33. Prensky, M. (2012). Eliminating the ‘app gap’. Educational Technology. Retrieved from
  34. Rachel, M. (2012). Wasting time is the new digital divide. New York Times. Retrieved from:
  35. Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.Google Scholar
  36. Ritzhaupt, A. D., Liu, F., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2013). Differences in student information and communication technology literacy based on socio-economic status, ethnicity, and gender: Evidence of a digital divide in Florida schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(4), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sadik, A. (2008). Digital storytelling: A meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged student learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2016). Digest of education statistics 2014 (NCES 2016-006). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from: Scholar
  39. U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Retrieved from LAUSD website:
  40. Vigdor, J. L., & Ladd, H. F. (2010). Scaling the digital divide: Home computer technology and student achievement. Economic Inquiry, 52(3), 1103–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  42. Warschauer, M. (2011). Learning in the cloud. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Warschauer, M., Cotten, S. R., & Ames, M. G. (2011). One laptop per child Birmingham: Case study of a radical experiment. International Journal of Learning and Media, 3(2), 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., Niiya, M., Cotten, S., & Farkas, G. (2014). Balancing the one-to-one equation: Equity and access in three laptop programs. Equity & Excellence in Education: University of Massachusetts School of Education Journal, 47(1), 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wenglinsky, H. (2005). Using technology wisely: The keys to success in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  48. White House Council of Economic Advisers Issue Brief. (2015). Mapping the digital divide. Washington, DC: White House.Google Scholar
  49. Williams, N. L., & Larwin, K. H. (2016). One-to-one computing and student achievement in Ohio High Schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wohn, D. Y., Ellison, N. B., Khan, M. L., Fewins-Bliss, R., & Gray, R. (2013). The role of social media in shaping first-generation high school students’ college aspirations: A social capital lens. Computers & Education, 63, 424–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., & Farkas, G. (2013). Digital writing and diversity: The effects of school laptop programs on literacy processes and outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(3), 267–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C.-H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86, 1052–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Section editors and affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations