Digital Divide in AI-Powered Education: Challenges and Solutions for Equitable Learning
Open accessAbstract
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education has transformed teaching methodologies, personalized learning experiences, and improved student engagement. However, this advancement has also exacerbated the digital divide, creating disparities in access to AI-powered educational tools. This review explores the challenges associated with the digital divide in AI-driven education, including technological infrastructure gaps, socio-economic barriers, digital literacy deficiencies, and policy constraints. It further examines the disproportionate impact on marginalized communities, rural populations, and underfunded educational institutions, limiting their ability to benefit from AI-enhanced learning. To address these inequities, various solutions are proposed, including increased investment in digital infrastructure, the development of affordable AI-based learning tools, and the implementation of inclusive policies that prioritize equitable access to technology. The role of public-private partnerships, government interventions, and AI-driven adaptive learning models in bridging this gap is also analyzed. Additionally, fostering digital literacy through teacher training programs and community initiatives is highlighted as a critical strategy to ensure inclusive adoption of AI in education. This paper emphasizes that while AI has the potential to revolutionize learning experiences, its benefits must be universally accessible. The study underscores the need for a multi-stakeholder approach involving policymakers, educators, technologists, and social organizations to create a more equitable AI-powered educational ecosystem. Future research directions are recommended to explore innovative frameworks that mitigate the digital divide, ensuring AI-driven education is inclusive and accessible to all learners, regardless of their socio-economic backgrounds.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Students from rural and low-income backgrounds encounter challenges such as restricted device availability and intermittent internet connectivity, while those from higher-income households and urban settings report better exposure to AI technologies and improved digital competencies.
“Students from rural and lowincome backgrounds encounter challenges such restricted device availability and intermittent internet connectivity, while those from higher-income households and urban settings report better exposure to AI technologies and improved digital competencies (Vesna, 2025).”
From <b>Beyond Access: Socioeconomic, Academic and Disciplinary Determinants of Generative AI Use in Higher Education</b> (2026) · cites this paper as Vesna, 2025
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zafar, S., Shaheen, F., & Khan, S. A. (2026) · Journal of Political Stability Archive · doi:10.63468/jpsa.4.2.17
- Authors
- Vesna, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Management
- Publisher
- Science Research Society
- Published
- 2025-03-14
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 21s
- Pages
- 300-308
- ISSN
- 2468-4376 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4408675485
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 46 · 2025: 24
- FWCI
- 44.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Information Systems Engineering & Management (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Innovations and Technology
- Social Sciences › Education › Education in Diverse Contexts
- Keywords
- digital divide, artificial intelligence in education, educational equity, access to AI tools, digital literacy, socioeconomic barriers, rural education, marginalized communities, digital infrastructure, public-private partnerships, adaptive learning, teacher professional development, inclusive education policy
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