Practical Challenges and Implementation Pathways of Digital Technology for Educational Equity

Mingji Luo; Yiling Dai

doi:10.6918/IJOSSER.202601_9(1).0007

Authors

Mingji Luo
Yiling Dai

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6918/IJOSSER.202601_9(1).0007

Keywords:

Digital technology, Educational equity, Empowerment, Information silos

Abstract

The advancement of digital technology has significantly propelled progress in educational equity, partially resolving longstanding challenges in this domain. However, it has simultaneously introduced substantial practical challenges, chiefly encompassing regional development disparities, gaps in information literacy between urban and rural teachers and students, excessive reliance on visual imagery, disconnection between physical and mental perception due to technological overreach, and mismatched digital technology empowerment. Under the new era's circumstances, pathways to realise digital technology-empowered educational equity can be pursued through three dimensions: macro-level – robust top-level design and planning; meso-level – institutional reforms within the education sector; and micro-level – respect for students' individualised needs. This approach will enhance the flow of educational resources across different regions, narrow disparities in educational resources between areas, and maximise the realisation of educational equity.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Torsten Husen. Equality: The Goal of School and Social Policy [M]. R. J. Zhang, Trans. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press, 1998: 193-196.

[2] Tomoda, T. Educational Sociology [M]. M. S. Song, Trans. Taiwan: Shuiniu Publishing Co., Ltd., 1980: 282-285.

[3] ZHANG Nan, LIN Jia-bin, LI Jian-jun. Research on Inequality of Opportunity in Basic Education [J]. China Industrial Economics, 2020(8): 42-60.

[4] GOLLEY J, KONG S T. Inequality of opportunity in China's educational outcomes [J]. China economic review, 2018, 51:116-128.

[5] DEE T S. A teacher like me: does race, ethnicity, or gender matter? [J]. The American economic review, 2005, 95(2):158-165.

[6] CLANCY P. Higher education in the republic of Ireland: participation and performance [J]. Higher education quarterly, 1997, 51 (1): 86-106.

[7] WU Wei, FENG Li. The Intrinsic Logic, Practical Tensions and Optimization Paths of Artificial Intelligence Embedded in Education Governance [J]. Modern Education Management, 2025, (10): 44-54. DOI:10.16697/j.1674-5485. 2025. 10. 005.

[8] YU Yan. Idealistic and Realistic: the Practical Dilemma and Relief Path of Digital Governance of Postgraduate Education [J]. Academic Degrees & Graduate Education 2023, (06): 27-34.

[9] Zhuangyu Wei, Yueting Liao, Yanyong Chen. Can the Development of Digital Economy Promote Educational Equity? Empirical Analysis Based on Provincial Panel Data [J]. Education & Economy, 2022, 38(05): 58-66.

[10] Liu Baocun, Dai Zihui. Digital Divide Governance in Education: The Reality, Occurrence Mechanism, and Practical Approach [J]. China Educational Technology, 2025, (01): 72-81.

[11] WANG J X, TIGERELAAR D E H, ADMIRAAL W. Rural teachers’sharing of digital educational resources: from motivation to behavior [J]. Computers & education, 2021, 161: 1-17.

[12] Van Deursen A, Van Dijk J. The Digital Divide Shifts to Differences in Usage [J]. New Media & Society, 2013, 16(3): 507-526.

[13] Ye Haosheng. The Body and Learning: Embodied Cognition and Its Impact on Traditional View of Education [J]. Educational Research, 2015, 36(04): 104-114.

[14] Shen Junru, Guo Shaoqing, He Xiangchun, et al. Research on the Construction and Application of “Relay Type” Teaching-assistance Model of Normal Students Under the Condition of “Internet +” [J]. China Educational Technology, 2021, (09): 112-121.

[15] Sun Wu’an. Research on Improving the Teaching Quality of Ideological and Political Theory Courses in Colleges and Universities [M]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Gongshang University Press, 2022.