CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Digital Education and SocietyEducational Innovations and TechnologyEducation in Diverse Contexts

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

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

Darmawaskita, Nicole, McDaniel, Troy·2021·Lecture Notes in Computer Science
DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-78095-1_4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-030-78095-1_4

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  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 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Biddle, B., Berliner, D.: Unequal school funding in the United States. Educ. Leadersh. 59(8), 48–59 (2002)
  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)
  4. Losen, D.J., Orfield, G.: Racial Inequity in Special Education. Harvard Education Publishing Group, Cambridge (2002)
  5. Beratan, G.D.: Institutionalizing inequity: ableism, racism and IDEA 2004. Disabil. Stud. Q. 26(2), (2006). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v26i2.682 · DOI
  6. 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 · DOI
  7. 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 · DOI
  8. 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 · DOI
  9. Dimaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., Shafer, S.: Digital inequality: from unequal access to differentiated use. In: Social Inequality, pp. 355–400 (2004)
  10. 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 · DOI
  11. 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 · DOI
  12. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 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 · DOI
  14. 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 · DOI
  15. 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
  16. 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 · DOI
  17. Çoklar, A., Tercan, I.: Opinions of teachers toward the use of smart boards. Element. Educ. Online 13, 48–61 (2014)
  18. 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 · DOI
  19. Kirbas, A.: Student views on using smart boards in Turkish education. Univ. J. Educ. Res. 6(5), 1040–1049 (2018) · DOI
  20. 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 · DOI
  21. 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 · DOI
  22. 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) · DOI
  23. van de Oudeweetering, K., Agirdag, O.: MOOCS as accelerators of social mobility? A systematic review. Educ. Technol. Soc. 21(1), 1–11 (2018)
  24. 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 · DOI
  25. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 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) · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Darmawaskita, N., & McDaniel, T.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
McDaniel, Troy
ORCID
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2021
Pages
41-51
ISSN
  • 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-3349
DOI
10.1007/978-3-030-78095-1_4
OpenAlex
W3186981557
Cited by
5
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.04
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Digital Education and Society
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Innovations and Technology
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education in Diverse Contexts
Keywords
educational technology, educational inequity, digital divide, interactive whiteboards, smart technologies, MOOCs, reading software, marginalized communities, school funding disparities, access to technology, techno-solutionism, inclusive technology design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review