Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of the Impact of Educational Technology on Social Inequity in the United States

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Access to Media, Learning and Assistive Environments (HCII 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12769))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The desire to improve and modernize education through educational technology is met with a daunting wall, as educational technologies oftentimes reflect and exacerbate social inequities. This work explores the growth in United States’ educational inequity stemming from the interdependent relationships between education, the digital divide, and social inequities. Diving into three case studies, this paper addresses the privatization consequences that result from the disproportionate funding barriers that schools in marginalized communities face in purchasing Smart Boards, as well as the dangerous impacts of SMART Technologies’ techno-solutionist marketing in worsening educational inequities. In comparison, massive open online courses (MOOCs), which are designed with the goal of improving education equity, appear to circumvent the funding barriers that Smart Boards provide, but fail to address the more tailored educational needs of marginalized communities – ultimately landing at the same fate as that of Smart Boards in worsening educational inequities. Lastly, this paper investigates reading software related to improving education for students with reading issues and blind students. Massively popular and effective in helping these students be more engaged and independent in reading, reading software is overall successful in creating a positive push toward educational equity. However, individual reading software can easily fall to the same failures of Smart Boards and MOOCs in contributing to educational inequity.

Although improving educational equity requires a holistic approach, from a technology design standpoint, the following recommendations are made: (a) develop educational technology with the goals of improving education quality and equity, (b) circumvent as many barriers as possible to technology access through technology design, (c) work with marginalized communities to truly understand their needs and create a technology they will use, and (d) continue work toward equitable educational technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Tawfik, A.A., Reeves, T.D., Stich, A.: Intended and unintended consequences of educational technology on social inequality. TechTrends 60(6), 598–605 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0109-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Biddle, B., Berliner, D.: Unequal school funding in the United States. Educ. Leadersh. 59(8), 48–59 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Morgan, I., Amerikaner, A.: Funding gaps 2018: an analysis of school funding equity across the U.S. and within each state. The Education Trust, Funding Gaps, pp. 1–13 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cramer, L.: Inequities of intervention among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Penn GSE Perspect. Urban Educ. 12(1) (2015). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1056724. Accessed 05 Dec 2020

  5. Losen, D.J., Orfield, G.: Racial Inequity in Special Education. Harvard Education Publishing Group, Cambridge (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beratan, G.D.: Institutionalizing inequity: ableism, racism and IDEA 2004. Disabil. Stud. Q. 26(2), (2006). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v26i2.682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sciuchetti, M.B.: Addressing inequity in special education: an integrated framework for culturally responsive social emotional practice. Psychol. Sch. 54(10), 1245–1251 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., Stone, L.: Technology and equity in schooling: deconstructing the digital divide. Educ. Policy 18(4), 562–588 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904804266469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Selwyn, N.: Degrees of digital division: reconsidering digital inequalities and contemporary higher education. RUSC. Univ. Knowl. Soc. J. 7(1), (2010). https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v7i1.660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dimaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., Shafer, S.: Digital inequality: from unequal access to differentiated use. In: Social Inequality, pp. 355–400 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Buckenmeyer, J.A.: Beyond computers in the classroom: factors related to technology adoption to enhance teaching and learning. Contemp. Issues Educ. Res. (CIER) 3(4), 27 (2010). https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v3i4.194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. An, Y.-J., Reigeluth, C.: Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms. J. Digit. Learn. Teach. Educ. 28(2), 54–62 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2011.10784681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A.D., Dawson, K., Barron, A.E.: Explaining technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a multilevel path analysis model. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 65(4), 795–813 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9487-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Berger, M.J., Harriger, A.R., Dooley, A., Heck, C.: Obstacles to Alice adoption in the high school classroom. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Alice Symposium, New York, NY, USA, June 2009, pp. 1–5 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1878513.1878516

  15. Federmeier, J.A., Clift, R.T.: Personal, professional, technical, and institutional factors involved in developing a computer-intensive english curriculum. In: Technology and Education: Issues in Administration, Policy, and Applications in K12 Schools, pp. 271–286. Emerald (MCB UP ), Bingley (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3660(05)08018-2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Pierce, D.: School IT support: overworked...and understaffed. eCampus News (2009). https://www.ecampusnews.com/2009/03/02/school-it-support-overworked-and-understaffed/. Accessed 25 Nov 2020

  17. Science and Engineering Indicators 2018, p. 1060 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Akça, Y., Özer, G., Işık, A.D., Çelik, E.: The user characteristics effects to smart board usage on technology acceptance model variables: the sample of Bartin highschool teachers. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. (2017). https://doaj.org. Accessed 06 Dec 2020

  19. Cabus, S., Haelermans, C., Franken, S.: SMART in mathematics? Exploring the effects of in-class-level differentiation using SMARTboard on math proficiency. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 48(1), 145–161 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Çoklar, A., Tercan, I.: Opinions of teachers toward the use of smart boards. Element. Educ. Online 13, 48–61 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gürbüztürk, O.: Investigation of elementary education students attitudes towards the use of smart boards. Int. Electron. J. Element. Educ. 11(1), 55–61 (2018). https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2018143961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kirbas, A.: Student views on using smart boards in Turkish education. Univ. J. Educ. Res. 6(5), 1040–1049 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mun, S.H., et al.: Active learning using digital smart board to enhance primary school students’ learning. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 13(7), 4–16 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i07.10654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Korkmaz, O., Cakil, I.: Teachers’ difficulties about using smart boards. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 83, 595–599 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Parks, A.N.: Smart boards, money and the pedagogy of watching. In: Clough, M.P., Olson, J.K., Niederhauser, D.S. (eds.) The Nature of Technology: Implications for Learning and Teaching, pp. 201–216. SensePublishers, Rotterdam (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Replacement for broken SMART Board. The Spiceworks Community. https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2243820-replacement-for-broken-smart-board. Accessed 06 Dec 2020

  27. Smart Boards Fall Out of Favor—and Off the Budget—In Duluth, Minn., Schools. https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/Smart-Boards-Fall-Out-of-Favor-and-Off-the-Budget-In-Duluth-Minn-Schools.html. Accessed 06 Dec 2020

  28. Collaboration Software & Displays - SMART Technologies. https://www.smarttech.com/. Accessed 06 Dec 2020

  29. What keeps causing the SMART Boards to lose their ‘interactive’ability”. https://community.smarttech.com/s/question/0D50P00002sa7xBSAQ/what-keeps-causing-the-smart-boards-to-lose-their-interactiveability?language=en_US. Accessed 06 Dec 2020

  30. Mooc.org. Learn About MOOCs - Massive Open Online Courses|An edX Site.” https://www.mooc.org/about-moocs. Accessed 06 Dec 2020

  31. ASUx Free Online Courses from Arizona State University. edX. https://www.edx.org/school/asux. Accessed 06 Dec 2020

  32. van de Oudeweetering, K., Agirdag, O.: MOOCS as accelerators of social mobility? A systematic review. Educ. Technol. Soc. 21(1), 1–11 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pollack Ichou, R.: Can MOOCs reduce global inequality in education? Australas. Mark. J. (AMJ) 26(2), 116–120 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2018.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. van Dijk, J., Hacker, K.: The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. Inf. Soc. 19(4), 315–326 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240309487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Demographics of Internet and Home Broadband Usage in the United States. Pew Res. Center Internet Sci. Tech. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/. Accessed 07 Dec 2020

  36. Accessibility – Vision. Apple. https://www.apple.com/accessibility/vision/. Accessed 07 Dec 2020

  37. Microsoft Accessibility Features. Accessibility. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/accessibility/features. Accessed 07 Dec 2020

  38. Convert PDF and photo files to text - Computer - Google Drive Help. https://support.google.com/drive/answer/176692?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en. Accessed 07 Dec 2020

  39. Lewandowski, L., Wood, W., Miller, L.A.: Chapter 3 - technological applications for individuals with learning disabilities and ADHD. In: Luiselli, J.K., Fischer, A.J. (eds.) Computer-Assisted and Web-Based Innovations in Psychology, Special Education, and Health, pp. 61–93. Academic Press, San Diego (2016)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Schiavo, G., Buson, V.: Interactive e-Books to Support Reading Skills in Dyslexia, p. 4

    Google Scholar 

  41. Zabala, J.: How does optical character recognition help kids with reading issues? https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/assistive-technology/assistive-technologies-basics/how-does-optical-character-recognition-help-kids-with-reading-issues. Accessed 30 Nov 2020

  42. Screen Readers|American Foundation for the Blind. https://www.afb.org/blindness-and-low-vision/using-technology/assistive-technology-products/screen-readers. Accessed 07 Dec 2020

  43. Software Programs for Kids Who Struggle With Reading. https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/assistive-technology/finding-an-assistive-technology/software-programs-for-kids-with-reading-issues. Accessed 07 Dec 2020

  44. Resources: Educational Technology. Arizona Department of Education, 09 June 2016. https://www.azed.gov/standards-practices/k-12standards/educational-technology-resources. Accessed 07 Dec 2020

  45. Digital Divide: Connecting Portland during the COVID-19 Crisis. Smart City PDX. https://www.smartcitypdx.com/covid-19-digital-divide-response. Accessed 29 Dec 2020

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation (Grant No. 1828010).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Polytechnic School, Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ, 85212, USA

    Nicole Darmawaskita & Troy McDaniel

Authors
  1. Nicole Darmawaskita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Troy McDaniel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Troy McDaniel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Foundation for Research and Technology – Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    Margherita Antona

  2. University of Crete and Foundation for Research and Technology – Hellas (FORTH), Heraklion, Crete, Greece

    Constantine Stephanidis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Darmawaskita, N., McDaniel, T. (2021). Analysis of the Impact of Educational Technology on Social Inequity in the United States. In: Antona, M., Stephanidis, C. (eds) Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Access to Media, Learning and Assistive Environments. HCII 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12769. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78095-1_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78095-1_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78094-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78095-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation