Are digital learning opportunities equitably distributed among students?

• In Event: Digital Equity, Access, and Educational Opportunity

Proposal

Research has long shown that educational opportunities vary according to students’ socioeconomic backgrounds. Here, substantive educational opportunities—opportunities that go beyond mere access to schooling and enable meaningful learning outcomes (Sen, 1992)—include the quality of teaching, learning environments, and available resources. Inequalities in such opportunities contribute to persistent achievement gaps, keeping this issue central in debates on educational equity.
The rapid expansion of digital technologies, accelerated by the pandemic, has elevated EdTech-based learning as a central strategy for reducing educational gaps (OECD, 2023; Resta & Laferrière, 2015). Governments have responded with major investments in digital infrastructure and quality improvement (OECD, 2023; Strietholt et al., 2021; UNESCO et al., 2021). Yet, whether meaningful digital learning opportunities are equitably provided to all students remains unclear.
A key concept in addressing this issue is digital readiness, widely regarded as a prerequisite for implementing digital education. Prior research conceptualizes readiness across three dimensions: school, teacher, and student (Alipio & Mark, 2020; Petko, Prasse, & Cantieni, 2018; Roffi, Ranieri, & Bruni, 2020; van de Werfhorst et al., 2022; Wu, Yang, Rifenbark, & Wu, 2022).
School readiness encompasses infrastructure and software resources; teacher readiness relates to ICT-focused professional development and self-efficacy; and student readiness is typically defined in terms of computer and information literacy (CIL). However, a crucial element often overlooked in these definitions is students’ home ICT access. Because digital learning extends into homework, self-directed study, and online collaboration, home ICT access is an essential condition for realizing substantive digital learning opportunities.
Importantly, students’ home ICT access—often overlooked in these definitions—must be recognized as a crucial factor. Because digital learning extends into homework, self-directed study, and online collaboration, home ICT access is essential to realizing substantive learning opportunities. When either access or competence is insufficient, technology-based instruction often fails to result in actual learning.
While public investment can enhance institutional and teacher readiness, student readiness remains strongly shaped by socioeconomic status (SES). Low-SES students often face limited ICT access and digital skills, restricting their ability to benefit from digital education. Existing studies highlight SES-related gaps in home ICT access and CIL (Aesaert et al., 2015; González-Betancor, López-Puig, & Cardenal, 2021; Zhong, 2011), while others examine student competence as a driver of teachers’ ICT use (Gómez-Fernández & Mediavilla, 2020) or school readiness by student background (Kim, Yi, & Hong, 2021; van de Werfhorst, Kessenich, & Geven, 2022). Few, however, extend the inquiry to substantive digital learning opportunities or assess how national-level investments moderate inequalities in the post-pandemic era.
This study asks: (1) Do school digital readiness and digital learning opportunities differ by student SES and school location? (2) Are between-school gaps smaller in higher-income contexts, specifically OECD versus non-OECD countries?
The analysis shows clear patterns in digital education readiness and its relation to learning opportunities. First, school-level readiness differed by student SES and location. Higher-SES schools had greater software availability and fewer students below CIL Level 1. Urban schools also provided better home ICT access and higher average CIL, though they tended to have fewer devices per student, likely reflecting larger enrollments.
Second, digital learning opportunities were shaped by readiness. Teachers’ ICT use increased with greater software resources, higher ICT self-efficacy, participation in professional development, and better student home ICT access. Students’ ICT use in class rose with device availability in school, teacher readiness, and stronger home access, as well as with longer ICT experience and higher CIL. Interestingly, students’ prior ICT experience alone showed no direct association with teachers’ ICT integration.
Third, cross-national analyses revealed important differences. In OECD countries, SES-related gaps persisted in both school software resources and student CIL. In non-OECD countries, disparities appeared primarily in student CIL. Interaction analyses showed that SES-related gaps in digital competency were significantly smaller in OECD countries, suggesting that economic development can moderate inequities. Similarly, location-based disparities in CIL were reduced in OECD contexts.
Fourth, in both OECD and non-OECD settings, teachers’ ICT use was consistently linked to their ICT self-efficacy, students’ home ICT access, and students’ CIL. At the student level, ICT utilization in instruction was strongly associated with readiness factors such as home ICT resources and CIL. However, in OECD countries, broader institutional readiness—hardware sufficiency, software resources, and teacher professional development—also shaped ICT integration. By contrast, in non-OECD countries, student-level readiness exerted the dominant influence, underscoring the uneven role of systemic support across contexts.
Overall, our findings indicate that substantive digital learning opportunities remain unequally distributed by student SES and school location. While school hardware and teacher readiness showed fewer gaps, software resources and especially student CIL varied significantly across contexts. Student-level readiness thus plays a crucial role in realizing the potential of digital education.
Importantly, while higher-income OECD countries exhibited reduced inequities, schools serving disadvantaged students still lagged in teacher competence, home ICT access, and student CIL. These results highlight that national-level investment, while necessary, is insufficient for ensuring equity. Policy efforts must therefore move beyond aggregate readiness indicators to address within-country disparities, ensuring that digital education fulfills its promise of reducing rather than reinforcing inequality.

Authors

• Heewon Moon, Seoul National University

• Hannah Kim, Seoul National University

• Dong Wook Jeong, Seoul National University