Advancing Equity Through Educational Technology: Promising Practices for Adoption, Integration, and Use in K-12

  • Molly B. ZielezinskiEmail author
  • Linda Darling-Hammond
Reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)


School technology access has become an issue of international priority. With increased access to technology on the horizon, educators stand at a crossroads. Do they continue with the status quo or attempt to use the rising technology levels to support those students who need it the most? The work in this chapter aims to contribute to this dialogue in two ways. First, it introduces the Digital Learning Ecosystem as an empirically grounded framework that provides a holistic perspective of the mutually interdependent variables shaping a technology-enabled learning environment. In addition to proposing the Digital Learning Ecosystem, this chapter continues the tradition of identifying and sharing promising research-based practices that are empirically linked to improved learning outcomes by underserved students.


Influence of technology Technology uses in education Technology integration Elementary education Secondary education Disadvantaged youth 


  1. Alloway, T. (2012). Can interactive working memory training improve learning? Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 23(3), 197–207. Retrieved from
  2. Bakia, M., Shear, L., Toyama, Y., & Lasseter, A. (2012). Understanding the implications of online learning for educational productivity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. Retrieved from
  3. Barley, Z., Lauer, P. A., Arens, S. A., Apthorp, H. A., Englert, K. S., Snow, D., & Akiba, M. (2002). Helping at-risk students meet standards: A synthesis of evidence-based classroom practices.Google Scholar
  4. Barron, B., Walter, S. E., Martin, C. K., & Schatz, C. (2010). Predictors of creative computing participation and profiles of experience in two Silicon Valley middle schools. Computers & Education, 54(1), 178–189.
  5. Beltran, D., Das, K., & Fairlie, R. W. (2006). Do home computers improve educational outcomes? Evidence from matched current population surveys and the national longitudinal survey of youth 1997. IZA Discussion Papers. Retrieved from
  6. Borman, G. D., Benson, J. G., & Overman, L. (2009). A randomized field trial of the fast for word language computer-based training program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(1), 82–106. Retrieved from
  7. Bos, B. (2007). The effect of the Texas instrument interactive instructional environment on the mathematical achievement of eleventh grade low achieving students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(4), 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bottge, B., Rueda, E., & Skivington, M. (2006). Situating math instruction in rich problem-solving contexts: Effects on adolescents with challenging behaviors. Behavioral Disorders, 31(4), 394–407. Retrieved from
  9. Callow, J., & Zammit, K. (2012). “Where lies your text?”(twelfth night Act I, Scene V): Engaging high school students from low socioeconomic backgrounds in reading multimodal texts. English in Australia, 47(2), 69–77.Google Scholar
  10. Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing reading achievement for K–12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Best Evidence Encyclopedia. Retrieved from
  11. Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K–12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88–113. Retrieved from
  12. Cohen, C. J., Kahne, J., Bowyer, B., Middaugh, E., & Rogowski, J. (2012). Participatory politics: New media and youth political action. Oakland: Youth and Participatory Politics Survey Project. Retrieved from
  13. Cornwell, W. R., & Cornwell, J. R. (2006). Connected learning: A framework of observation, research and development to guide the reform of education [White paper]. Center for Internet Research. Retrieved from
  14. Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, M. B., & Goldman, S. (2014). Using technology to support at-risk students’ learning. Stanford: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Online Https://edpolicy. Stanford. edu/publications/pubs/1241. Retrieved from
  15. DeGennaro, D. (2008). The dialectics informing identity in an urban youth digital storytelling workshop. E-Learning and Digital Media, 5(4), 429–444. Scholar
  16. Denavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Lee, C. H. (2006). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2005. Current population reports (P60–231). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from Scholar
  17. DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J. C. (2013). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2012. Current population reports (P60-245). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from Scholar
  18. Edmonds, K., & Li, Q. (2005, April). Teaching at-risk students with technology: Teachers’ beliefs, experiences, and strategies for success. Presented at American Educational Research Association 2005 Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec. Retrieved from
  19. Elam, M. E., Donham, B. L., & Soloman, S. R. (2012). An engineering summer program for underrepresented students from rural school districts. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(2), 35–44. Retrieved from[]=1619.
  20. Figg, C., & McCartney, R. (2010). Impacting academic achievement with student learners teaching digital storytelling to others: The ATTTCSE digital video project. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 38–79. Scholar
  21. Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010a). Educational technology in U.S. public schools: Fall 2008 (NCES 2010-034). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from Scholar
  22. Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010b). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from Scholar
  23. Grimes, S. M., & Fields, D. A. (2012). Kids online: A new research agenda for understanding social networking forums. New York: Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. Retrieved from
  24. Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305–332. Retrieved from Scholar
  25. Hall, D. T., & Damico, J. (2007). Black youth employ African American vernacular English in creating digital texts. The Journal of Negro Education, 76(1), 80–88. Retrieved from
  26. Hannafin, R. D., & Foshay, W. R. (2008). Computer-based instruction’s (CBI) rediscovered role in K–12: An evaluation case study of one high school’s use of CBI to improve pass rates on high-stakes tests. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 147–160. Scholar
  27. Harness, H., & Drossman, H. (2011). The environmental education through filmmaking project. Environmental Education Research, 17(6), 829–849. Scholar
  28. Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, Salen, K., Schor, J., Sefton-Green, S., & Watkins, S. C. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Irvine: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.Google Scholar
  29. Kahne, J., Lee, N., & Feezell, J. T. (2012). Digital media literacy education and online civic and political participation. International Journal of Communication, 6, 1–24. Retrieved from
  30. Kim, J., & Lee, W. (2011). Assistance and possibilities: Analysis of learning-related factors affecting the online learning satisfaction of underprivileged students. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2395–2405.
  31. Lang, J. M., Waterman, J., & Baker, B. L. (2009). Computeen: A randomized trial of a preventive computer and psychosocial skills curriculum for at-risk adolescents. Journal of Primary Prevention, 30(5), 587–603. Scholar
  32. Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 215–243. Scholar
  33. Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., & Gasser, U. (2013). Teens and technology 2013. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
  34. Maninger, R. M. (2006). Successful technology integration: Student test scores improved in an English literature course through the use of supportive devices. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 50(5), 37–45. Scholar
  35. Marino, M. T. (2009). Understanding how adolescents with reading difficulties utilize technology-based tools. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 17(2), 88–102. Scholar
  36. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. Retrieved from Scholar
  37. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Bakia, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47. Retrieved from
  38. Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). How teachers are using technology at home and in their classrooms. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from
  39. Ringstaff, C., & Kelley, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology investment: A review of findings from research. San Francisco: WestEd. Retrieved from
  40. Ritzhaupt, A., Higgins, H., & Allred, B. (2010). Teacher experiences on the integration of modern educational games in the middle school mathematics classroom. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(2), 189–216.Google Scholar
  41. Ritzhaupt, A., Higgins, H., & Allred, B. (2011). Effects of modern educational game play on attitudes towards mathematics, mathematics self-efficacy, and mathematics achievement. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 22(2), 277–297. Retrieved from
  42. Samsonov, P., Pedersen, S., & Hill, C. L. (2006). Using problem-based learning software with at-risk students: A case study. Computers in the Schools, 23(1–2), 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2009). Evaluation of the Texas technology immersion pilot: Final outcomes for a four-year study (2004–2005 to 2007–2008). Austin: Texas Center for Educational Research. Retrieved from Scholar
  44. Shear, L., Gallagher, L., & Patel, D. (2011). Innovative teaching and learning research: 2011 findings and implications. ITL Research. Retrieved from 76(1), 57–67. Retrieved from
  45. 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. Scholar
  46. Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562–588. Scholar
  47. Watson, S. L., & Watson, W. R. (2011). The role of technology and computer-based instruction in a disadvantaged alternative school’s culture of learning. Computers in the Schools, 28(1), 39–55. Scholar
  48. Wenglinsky, H. (2005). Using technology wisely: The keys to success in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  49. Zielezinski, M. B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Promising practices: A literature review of technology use by underserved students. Stanford: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Section editors and affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations