CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Contemporary gaps in research on digital divide in education: a literature review

Mirazchiyski, Plamen Vladkov·2025·Universal Access in the Information Society
DOI 10.1007/s10209-024-01166-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

While computer technology permeates all spheres of life in modern society, the outcomes of using technology are different for different groups. The “digital divide” is probably one of the most undefined terms in educational research. One of the most pressing challenges is the definition of digital divide itself. Many of the contemporary research papers still focus on the gaps in access/possession of technology while this issue is not as relevant as it used to be. Most contemporary research papers simply do not even provide a definition of the construct they investigate. Those who target higher levels of the digital divide do not define the strand they focus on or use different interchangeable terms to name it. This article reviews contemporary literature critically and clarifies basic terms related to the digital divide with a specific focus on computer and information literacy. It also provides a definition of the digital divide that shifts focus from the traditional understanding of its levels and focuses on computer and information literacy as its core, as this construct encompasses all “new literacies” and is crucial for functioning and achieving outcomes in the information society.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10209-024-01166-3

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Image 1
CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 81

  1. Burks, A.R., Burks, A.W.: The First Electronic Computer: The Atanasoff Story. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (1989)
  2. Hargittai, E., Hinnant, A.: Digital Inequality: Differences in young adults’ use of the internet. Communication Res. 35, 602–621 (2008) · DOI · Paper page
  3. Adhikari, J., Scogings, C., Mathrani, A., Sofat, I.: Evolving digital divides in information literacy and learning outcomes: A BYOD journey in a secondary school. IJILT. 34, 290–306 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-04-2017-0022 · DOI
  4. Talaee, E., Noroozi, O.: Re-conceptualization of Digital Divide among primary School children in an era of Saturated Access to Technology. Iejee. 12, 27–35 (2019). https://doi.org/10.26822/Iejee.2019155334 · DOI
  5. Hohlfeld, T., Ritzhaupt, A., Barron, A., Kemker, K.: Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Comput. Educ. 51, 1648–1663 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.04.002 · DOI
  6. van Dijk, J.: Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics. 34, 221–235 (2006) · DOI · Paper page
  7. Kucukaydin, I., Tisdell, E.J.: The discourse on the Digital divide: Are we being co-opted? InterActions. UCLA J. Educ. Inform. Stud. 4, 1–19 (2008)
  8. Mirazchiyski, P.: The Digital divide: The role of Socioeconomic Status across countries. Šolsko Polje. 3–4, 23–52 (2016)
  9. van Dijk, J., Hacker, K.: The Digital divide as a Complex and Dynamic Phenomenon. Inform. Soc. 19, 315 (2003) · DOI · Paper page
  10. Vehovar, V., Sicherl, P., Hüsing, T., Dolnicar, V.: Methodological Challenges of Digital divide measurements. Inform. Soc. 22, 279–290 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240600904076 · DOI
  11. Buzzetto-Hollywood, N.A., wang, C., Elobeid, H., Elobaid, M.: Addressing information literacy and the Digital Divide in Higher Education. IJELL. 14, 077–093 (2018). https://doi.org/10.28945/4029 · DOI
  12. Ercikan, K., Asil, M., Grover, R.: Digital divide: A critical context for digitally based assessments. epaa. 26, 1–24 (2018). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3817 · DOI
  13. Henderson, R.: Classroom pedagogies, digital literacies and the home-school digital divide. Int. J. Pedagogies Learn. 6, 152–161 (2011). https://doi.org/10.5172/ijpl.2011.152 · DOI
  14. Kaarakainen, M.T., Kivinen, O., Vainio, T.: Performance-based testing for ICT skills assessing: A case study of students and teachers’ ICT skills in Finnish schools. Univ. Access. Inf. Soc. 17, 349–360 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0553-9 · DOI
  15. Karpinski, Z., Biagi, F., Di Pietro, G.: Computational Thinking, Socioeconomic Gaps, and Policy Implications. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Amsterdam (2021)
  16. Lau, W.W.F., Yuen, A.H.K.: Factorial invariance across gender of a perceived ICT literacy scale. Learn. Individual Differences. 41, 79–85 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.06.001 · DOI
  17. Lu, J., Hao, Q.: What factors impact on primary school students’ online engagement for learning and entertainment at home. J. Comput. Educ. 1, 133–150 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0007-9 · DOI
  18. Weber, M., Becker, B.: Browsing the web for School: Social Inequality in adolescents’ School-Related Use of the internet. SAGE Open. 9, 215824401985995 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019859955 · DOI
  19. Berger, P.: Who needs teachers? Factors associated with learning ICT skills from teachers in a multilevel analysis of the ICILS data. MedienPädagogik. 35, 116–135 (2019). https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/35/2019.10.22.X · DOI
  20. Chen, B.: Exploring the Digital divide: The Use of Digital Technologies in Ontario Public Schools. CJLT / RCAT. 41 (2015). https://doi.org/10.21432/T2KP6F · DOI
  21. Mitra, S., Dangwal, R.: Acquisition of computer literacy skills through self-organizing systems of learning among children in Bhutan and India. Prospects. 47, 275–292 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-017-9409-6 · DOI
  22. Oblak Črnič, T.: Slovenians Offline: Class and Cultural aspects of Digital Exclusion. Czech Sociol. Rev. 49, 927–950 (2013). https://doi.org/10.13060/00380288.2013.49.6.03 · DOI
  23. Gerick, J., Eickelmann, B., Bos, W.: School-level predictors for the use of ICT in schools and students’ CIL in international comparison. Large-scale Assess. Educ. 5, 5 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-017-0037-7 · DOI
  24. Liu, I.F., Ko, H.W.: The Relationship among ICT Skills, Traditional Reading Skills and Online Reading Ability. Presented at the 13th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA), Mannheim (2016)
  25. Moreno-Morilla, C., Guzmán-Simón, F., García-Jiménez, E.: Digital and information literacy inside and outside Spanish primary education schools. Learn. Cult. Social Interact. 28, 100455 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100455 · DOI
  26. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F.: The relation between students’ socioeconomic status and ICT literacy: Findings from a meta-analysis. Comput. Educ. 138, 13–32 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.011 · DOI
  27. Bryant, L.: Emerging trends in social software for education. In: Emerging Technologies for Learning, pp. 9–18. Becta, Coventry (2007)
  28. Cruz-Jesus, F., Oliveira, T., Bacao, F.: Digital divide across the European Union. Inf. Manag. 49, 278–291 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2012.09.003 · DOI
  29. Mecinas Montiel, J.M., THE DIGITAL DIVIDE IN MEXICO: A MIRROR OF POVERTY: Mexican Law Rev. 9, 93–102 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mexlaw.2016.09.005 · DOI
  30. Epstein, D., Nisbet, E.C., Gillespie, T.: Who’s responsible for the Digital divide? Public perceptions and policy implications. Inform. Soc. 27, 92–104 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2011.548695 · DOI
  31. Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., Ainley, J.: International Computer and Information Literacy Study: Assessment Framework. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Amsterdam (2013)
  32. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Duckworth, D., Friedman, T.: IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018: Assessment Framework. (2019) · DOI
  33. Snyder, H.: Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 104, 333–339 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Kim, M.-C., Kim, J.-K.: Digital divide: Conceptual discussions and Prospect. In: Kim, W., Ling, T.-W., Lee, Y.-J., Park, S.-S. (eds.) The Human Society and the Internet Internet-Related Socio-Economic Issues, pp. 78–91. Springer-, Berlin (2001) · DOI
  35. Alkan, M., Meinck, S.: The relationship between students’ use of ICT for social communication and their computer and information literacy. Large-scale Assess. Educ. 4, 15 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-016-0029-z · DOI
  36. Ritzhaupt, A.D., Liu, F., Dawson, K., Barron, A.E.: Differences in Student Information and Communication Technology Literacy based on Socio-Economic Status, ethnicity, and gender: Evidence of a Digital divide in Florida schools. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 45, 291–307 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2013.10782607 · DOI
  37. Zhong, B., Zhu, F., Xia, L.: Is there a Digital divide between urban students and migrant students in China? SAGE Open. 11, 215824402110163 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211016387 · DOI
  38. Elena-Bucea, A., Cruz-Jesus, F., Oliveira, T., Coelho, P.S.: Assessing the role of age, Education, gender and income on the Digital divide: Evidence for the European Union. Inf. Syst. Front. 23, 1007–1021 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10012-9 · DOI
  39. Hollman, A.K., Obermier, T.R., Burger, P.R.: Rural measures: A quantitative study of the Rural Digital divide. J. Inform. Policy. 11, 176–201 (2021). https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.11.2021.0176 · DOI
  40. Liu, J.: Bridging Digital divide amidst Educational Change for socially inclusive learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. SAGE Open. 11, 1–8 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211060810 · DOI
  41. van Deursen, A., van Dijk, J.: The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New. Media Soc. 21, 354–375 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818797082 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Pozas, M., Letzel, V.: Do you think you have what it takes? – exploring predictors of Pre-service teachers’ prospective ICT use. Tech. Know Learn. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09551-0 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Aesaert, K., Van Nijlen, D., Vanderlinde, R., Tondeur, J., Devlieger, I., van Braak, J.: The contribution of pupil, classroom and school level characteristics to primary school pupils’ ICT competences: A performance-based approach. Comput. Educ. 87, 55–69 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.014 · DOI
  44. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Duckworth, D.: Preparing for Life in a Digital World: IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Amsterdam (2020) · DOI
  45. Hatlevik, O.E., Christophersen, K.A.: Digital competence at the beginning of upper secondary school: Identifying factors explaining digital inclusion. Comput. Educ. 63, 240–247 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.015 · DOI
  46. Punter, R.A., Meelissen, M.R.M., Glas, C.A.W.: Gender differences in computer and information literacy: An exploration of the performances of girls and boys in ICILS 2013. Eur. Educational Res. J. 16, 762–780 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116672468 · DOI
  47. Rambousek, V., Štípek, J., Wildová, R.: ICT competencies and their development in primary and lower-secondary schools in the Czech Republic. Procedia - Social Behav. Sci. 171, 535–542 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.158 · DOI
  48. Bundsgaard, J., Gerick, J.: Patterns of students’ computer use and relations to their computer and information literacy: Results of a latent class analysis and implications for teaching and learning. Large-scale Assess. Educ. 5, 16 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-017-0052-8 · DOI
  49. Wu, T.F., Chen, C.M., Lo, H.S., Yeh, Y.M., Chen, M.C.: Factors related to ICT competencies for students with Learning Disabilities. Educational Technol. Soc. 21, 76–88 (2018)
  50. Alghamdi, J., Holland, C.: A comparative analysis of policies, strategies and programmes for information and communication technology integration in education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the republic of Ireland. In: Education and Information Technologies. pp. 4721–4745 (2020) · DOI
  51. Dincer, S.: A study of the relationship between pupils and parents’ computer literacy level and use. Procedia - Social Behav. Sci. 46, 484–489 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.146 · DOI
  52. Hatlevik, O.E., Scherer, R., Christophersen, K.A.: Moving beyond the study of gender differences: An analysis of measurement invariance and differential item functioning of an ICT literacy scale. Comput. Educ. 113, 280–293 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.003 · DOI
  53. Kim, H.S., Kil, H.J., Shin, A.: An analysis of variables affecting the ICT literacy level of Korean elementary school students. Comput. Educ. 77, 29–38 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.009 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Buabeng-Andoh, C., Issifu, Y.: Implementation of ICT in learning: A study of students in Ghanaian secondary schools. Procedia - Social Behav. Sci. 191, 1282–1287 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.555 · DOI
  55. Sanders, C.K., Scanlon, E.: The Digital divide is a Human rights Issue: Advancing social inclusion through Social Work Advocacy. J. Hum. Rights Soc. Work. 6, 130–143 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-020-00147-9 · DOI
  56. Bach, A., Shaffer, G., Wolfson, T.: Digital Human Capital: Developing a Framework for understanding the Economic Impact of Digital Exclusion in Low-Income communities. J. Inform. Policy. 3, 247 (2013). https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.3.2013.0247 · DOI
  57. Wang, P.Y.: Examining the Digital divide between rural and urban schools: Technology availability, teachers’ integration level and students’ perception. JCT. 2, 127–139 (2013). https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v2n2p127 · DOI
  58. Kormos, E., Wisdom, K.: Rural schools and the Digital divide: Technology in the Learning experience. tpre. 11 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2021.v11n1p25-39 · DOI
  59. Sun, J.C.Y., Metros, S.E.: The Digital divide and its impact on academic performance. US-China Educ. Rev. A. 2, 153–161 (2011)
  60. Aydin, M.: Does the digital divide matter? Factors and conditions that promote ICT literacy. Telematics Inform. 58, 101536 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101536 · DOI
  61. Wei, K.K., Teo, H.H., Chan, H.C., Tan, B.C.Y.: Conceptualizing and testing a Social Cognitive Model of the Digital divide. Inform. Syst. Res. 22, 170–187 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0273 · DOI
  62. de Leew, E.D., Hox, J.J., Dillman, D.A.: The cornerstones of Survey Research. In: de Leew, E.D., Hox, J.J., Dillman, D.A. (eds.) International Handbook on Survey Methodology, pp. 1–17. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Taylor & Francis Group, New York (2008)
  63. Perez-Paredes, P., Sanchez-Tornel, M.: Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context. In: de Cassia Veiga Marriott, R. and Lupion Torres, P. (eds.) Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition. pp. 1–21. IGI Global (2009) · DOI
  64. Schneider, K.: What does competence Mean? PSYCH. 10, 1938–1958 (2019). https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2019.1014125 · DOI
  65. Pilgrim, J., Martinez, E.E.: Defining literacy in the 21st Century: A guide to terminology and skills. Tex. J. Lit. Educ. 1, 60–69 (2013)
  66. Aydin, M.: A multilevel modeling approach to investigating factors impacting computer and information literacy: ICILS Korea and Finland sample. Educ. Inf. Technol. 27, 1675–1703 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10690-1 · DOI
  67. Marsh, H.W.: Sport Motivation orientations: Beware of Jingle-Jangle fallacies. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 16, 365–380 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.16.4.365 · DOI
  68. Pekrun, R.: The murky distinction between curiosity and interest: State of the art and future prospects. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 31, 905–914 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09512-1 · DOI
  69. Marsh, H.W., Craven, R.G., Hinkley, J.W., Debus, R.L.: Evaluation of the big-two-factor theory of academic motivation orientations: An evaluation of Jingle-Jangle fallacies. Multivar. Behav. Res. 38, 189–224 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3802_3 · DOI
  70. Gunkel, D.J.: Second thoughts: Toward a critique of the digital divide. New. Media Soc. 5, 499–522 (2003) · DOI
  71. Livingstone, S.: Children’s use of the internet: Reflections on the Emerging Research Agenda. New. Media Soc. 5, 147–166 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444803005002001 · DOI
  72. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Gebhardt, E.: School Environments for Teaching and Learning Computer and Information Literacy. In: Preparing for Life in a Digital Age, pp. 167–193. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2014) · DOI
  73. Radaelli, C.M., Pasquier, R.: Conceptual issues. In: Graziano, P., Vink, M.P. (eds.) Europeanization, pp. 35–45. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London (2008) · DOI
  74. Clements, E.: A conceptual framework for digital civics pedagogy informed by the philosophy of information. JD. 76, 571–585 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-07-2019-0139 · DOI
  75. Clements, E.: Exploring Digital Civics: A Framework of Key concepts to Guide Digital Civics initiatives. Philos. Technol. 36, 1–27 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00614-x · DOI
  76. Clements, E.: Asking Dorian Gray for a Digital Civics Education. J. Lit. Technol. 23, 124–156 (2022)
  77. Clements, E.: Digital Civics and Nomos: Response to Digital Civics and Algorithmic Citizenship in a global scenario. Philos. Technol. 36, 46 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00649-0 · DOI
  78. Clements, E.: Theuth, Thamus, and digital civics: Plato’s formulation of memory and its lessons for civic life in the digital age. Memory Stud. 15, 767–783 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1177/17506980221094516 · DOI
  79. Floridi, L.: Information ethics: An environmental approach to the digital divide. Philos. Contemp. World. 9, 39–45 (2002) · DOI
  80. Floridi, L.: A look into the future impact of ICT on our lives. Inform. Soc. 23, 59–64 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240601059094 · DOI
  81. Floridi, L.: The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design. Oxford University Press, Oxford New York (N.Y.) (2019) · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 26

Metadata

Authors
Mirazchiyski, P. V.
ORCID
Mirazchiyski, Plamen Vladkov
Venue
Universal Access in the Information Society
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-10-26
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
991-1008
ISSN
  • 1615-5289
  • 1615-5297
DOI
10.1007/s10209-024-01166-3
Cited by
26
References
6
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Javna agencija za znanstvenoraziskovalno in inovacijsko dejavnost Republike Slovenije (J5-2553)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Contemporary gaps in research on digital divide in education: a literature review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10209-024-01166-3
The paper
Mirazchiyski, P. V. (2025). Contemporary gaps in research on digital divide in education: a literature review. Universal Access in the Information Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-024-01166-3