Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11488-5

Digital divide and teaching modality: It’s role in technology

and instructional strategies

Erik Kormos1 · Kendra Wisdom2

Received: 2 February 2022 / Accepted: 28 November 2022 / Published online: 19 January 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
2023

Abstract
This quantitative study aimed to better understand how teachers implement
technology in a variety of teaching modalities to enhance content delivery and
student engagement. More specifically, it aimed to investigate the digital divide
of technology usage based upon school setting and usage frequency. Responses
were collected using a random sampling method of full-time K-12 public school
teachers in a Mid-Atlantic state. The instrument was developed from prior
research and examined educator usage frequency of instructional technology in
urban, rural, and suburban schools dependent upon teaching modality. A total of
423 participants responded to the researcher-created questionnaire and yielded
practical implementations for further study. The findings uncovered significant
differences in usage frequency of rural, urban, and suburban teachers utilizing
technology dependent upon modality (ex. cooperative learning, small group
instruction, student-led research, problem-solving). Results of this investiga-
tion contribute to the field through an attempt to foster a discussion of dispari-
ties between the integration of technology and school setting. The purpose of
this discussion is to identify gaps in the digital divide, apply frameworks geared
toward equity, and create professional development opportunities for all educa-
tors to differentiate technology usage across multiple teaching modalities.

Keywords Urban schools · Rural schools · Digital divide · Educational technology ·

Teaching modality

* Erik Kormos
[email protected]
Kendra Wisdom
[email protected]
1
Ashland University, 226 Schar, Ashland, OH, USA
2
Ashland University, 214 Schar, Ashland, OH, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
9986 Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003

1 Introduction

It is not easy to overstate the prevalence of technology in 21st century culture, as it

has transformed the social, political, and economic environment in which students
and teachers teach and learn. The United Nations declared access to the internet a
fundamental right (Reglitz, 2020) because it “enables…a range of…human rights”
(p. 314), such as “economic, social and cultural rights. Additionally, according to
the UN (Reglitz, 2020) internet access is an integral part of securing basic human
rights, including “the right to education and the right to take part in cultural life
to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, as well as civil and
political rights, such as the rights to freedom of association and assembly” (p. 317).
The UN argues internet access “should be a priority for all States” (p. 319) to level
the playing field of social and economic inclusion and mitigate negative effects of
socioeconomic barriers.
Although computer and internet access appears to be widely available in schools
across the United States, some school buildings may have too many computers while
others have few or none. In many cities and school districts, the level of disparity
between access to technology and adequate knowledge on utilizing technology is
very high (Lynch, 2017). Rather than pertaining to only the relationships between
technology’s role in education in developed or developing countries or urban or
rural communities, the digital divide exists between schools in the same district
that are a few miles away or the next neighborhood over (Huffman, 2018). In large
part, because of the economic and human resources some schools have and other
schools are lacking, more than ever before, a student’s childhood street address can
have a substantial impact on educational and professional achievement later in life
(Madathil, 2019). Schools with adequate facilities, including computer labs, laptops,
and padlets, can help to reduce the digital divide as many students can utilize tech-
nology and the internet only at school.
At home, elementary learners frequently lack an electronic device or internet
connection compared to older students. As prior research found, academic achieve-
ment is correlated with access to computers at school and home, demonstrating this
inconsistency in success is a cause for concern (Judge et al., 2006). For internet-
dependent assignments which require work outside of the classroom, a number of
students lack the tools necessary to perform and complete their tasks. This dispar-
ity leads to a number of inequities between learners (McLaughlin, 2016). In these
inequitable circumstances, rather than enhance education, technology can actually
hinder effective education for disadvantaged populations of students (MIT News,
2019). This recognition of a digital divide should demonstrate the importance of
modifying expected learning or teaching modes based upon technology, and having
equitable access to information and communication technology for learning.
This quantitative study aimed to better understand the digital divide in K-12
schools related to technology usage based upon expected student learning mode in
American public schools. This manuscript seeks—from the perspective of teaching
and learning—to describe and discuss specific teaching strategies in which teach-
ers employ technology. Specifically, the investigation sought to better understand

13
Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003 9987

teacher usage frequencies of technology dependent upon teaching modality and

rural, urban, and suburban schools. Participants identified how often they incorpo-
rated technology dependent upon teaching modalities (cooperative learning, indi-
vidual instruction, small group instruction,) and interaction with learners (student
research tool, problem-solving tool, communication tool),
This manuscript hopes to further the literature around the digital divide and
teacher technology use and training by providing the reader insight about these top-
ics in an attempt to close the pervasive gap. While previous studies analyzed the
digital divide based on teacher perceptions and usage frequencies, little can be found
in the literature focused on teaching modality. In a 2020 study of 268 teachers, sig-
nificant differences were found between urban, rural, and suburban K-12 educa-
tors related to perceptions of technology effectiveness, with both urban and rural
respondents significantly lower than their suburban peers (Murphy, 2020). Further,
educators in rural and urban communities utilized technology less frequently and
faced larger barriers to implementation than suburban teachers (Kormos, 2021; Kor-
mos & Wisdom, 2021).

2 Literature review

2.1 K‑12 students as digital natives

Technology is now commonplace to fill a variety of communication and educa-

tional purposes to the point where they see devices as an integral element of daily
life (Bennett, 2012). As an example, Pew Research Center (2019a, b) found 81% of
Americans stated they would be disoriented if their smartphone had been misplaced.
This is especially true for urban learners where students are most likely to be smart-
phone-dependent and not have a wide range of technology available at home. Smart-
phones feature internet browsing, voice typing, video recording, and keyboards, and
other capabilities found on computers. This statistic illustrates the necessity for fair
and equitable access to technology. Furthermore, Cram et al. (2011) believed tech-
nology integration encompasses the capacity to serve as a disruptive innovation:
“These combinations of innovations and technologies enable alternative ways
of learning about the world that no longer require the industrial organization
of the classroom wherein learning and teaching activities and processes are
achieved through the teacher-centric control of pedagogy, knowledge and tech-
nologies.” (Cram et al., 2011, p.2)
The evolving digital nature of society has led to a new model of students. In
conversations related to educational innovation, especially related to the usage of
instructional technologies or the need for more effective pedagogies, the term digital
native (Prensky, 2006) can be found. Surrounded by smartphones, computers, tab-
lets, etc., today’s learners “think and process information fundamentally differently
from their predecessor” and are “native speakers” of the digital language (Prensky,
2001, p. 14). According to Prensky, those born after 1984 comprise an ever-growing

13
9988 Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003

group of children, adolescents, and young adults who have been immersed in digi-
tal technologies their entire life. For those born before 1984, they are referred to
as digital immigrants. As a result, he argues, this exposure to digital technologies
has given these people specific and unique characteristics that make its population
unlike previous generations. It is thought digital natives inherently possess advanced
digital abilities and learning preferences not commonly employed in the traditional
education system, which is viewed as unprepared and incapable.
Presky was not the only researcher who assumed children understood what they
were doing with technology based upon observation of them using devices effec-
tively and efficiently, which could lead to learning that allows them to take advan-
tage of their inherent skills. Veen and Vrakking (2006) introduced the term homo
zappiëns in reference to a generation of learners which has developed and refined—
despite little guidance or instruction from others—metacognitive skills necessary for
experiential or collaborative learning, along with self-organization, self-regulation,
and explicit knowledge. Other labels include Net generation (Oblinger & Oblinger,
2005), iGeneration (Rosen, 2007), and Google generation (Rowlands et al., 2008).
There may be validity to this labeling, as a large number of young adults, adoles-
cents and children actively support adult technology usage (Correa, 2014).
Previous research found digital native students, all born after 1984, do not have
a breadth of knowledge of technology, and what is known is generally contained
to the capabilities and use of word processing or presentation software, email, text
messaging, social media, and searching the world wide web. Margaryan et al. (2011)
found that although digital native students do actively use digital technologies, those
employed for learning and socialization are minimal. According to Bullen et al.,
2008), these students lacked understanding of the enhanced functionality of their
technologies and the capabilities of various applications. As a result, additional
training in effective technology use for learning and problem-solving is required.
When digital native students did use technology for learning, it was largely com-
posed of unengaged acquisition of information or viewing an instructor-recorded
presentation. To effectively engage students, today’s educators need to be prepared
to adopt a diverse set of educational strategies.

2.2 Teachers as digital immigrants

Many teachers and administrators today are digital immigrants who were born
before 1984 but have adapted and implemented many aspects of technology. How-
ever, teachers that are digital immigrants often retain a large percentage of their
pre-digital mindset. As a result, traditional preservice educator training needs to be
adapted to incorporate innovative technologies in the learning process (Kirschner &
Bruyckere, 2017). The diversity of technology skills within digital native and digi-
tal immigrant generations highlight the need for implementation to maximize edu-
cational outcomes. Doll et al. (2021) questioned the value of the steady effort to
categorize users in sweeping terms and prioritize the benefit in examining variables
besides age that can shape technology usage. Other variables such as access issues,

13
Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003 9989

gender, socioeconomic status, cultural background, home stability, and student inter-
est or teacher interest are correlated with technology use (Camera, 2020).
Like many relationships between teachers and students, it features a co-created
learning community where technology is effectively integrated. It is important edu-
cators also realize that some learners born in 1985 or later may need time to develop
the necessary technological skills for a 21st-century classroom. Specifically, educa-
tors need to structure the learning process to build skills and allow for hands-on
application (Creighton, 2018). With the ubiquitous presence of technology via mul-
tiple hardwares such as computers, tablets, and smartphones, educators can integrate
technologies they and their students utilize outside of the classroom. Prior research
found learners do not expect the implementation of technologies that educators and
schools cannot employ effectively (Angeli et al., 2017). Further, students and faculty
can perceive technologies from the perspective of learners or educators, instead of
simply age-related differences (Doll et al., 2021). This is not necessarily true, espe-
cially considering the growing numbers of educators born and educated after 1984
who are now veteran educators (Valtonen et al., 2011).
Outside the classification of digital native and immigrant, White and Le Cornu
(2011) pointed to a continuum ranging from visitor to resident. Visitor/resident does
not infer a negative connotation related to greater technical skills of either popula-
tion. Rather, the continuum is not concrete and fluctuates depending upon personal
needs and objectives. Users of technology take upon different rules based on need,
knowledge, and familiarity. A resident can become a visitor, while a visitor can
become a resident. A move away from the digital native/immigrants binary encour-
ages teachers and students to reflect upon their movement within the continuum,
interacting and helping one another without preconceived notions. Since today’s
students are digital natives, they likely utilize at least one technology hardware for
personal or educational use on a consistent basis (Diemer et al., 2012). This hyper-
connectedness of students of all ages is a paradigm shift from prior generations and
requires innovative pedagogy and strategies in the classroom.

2.3 Digital divide in schools

A 1996 the U.S. Department of Commerce report first coined the term digital divide
first appeared in and was centered on the disparity between the “haves” and the
“have nots”, those who did or did not own a computer (Dolan, 2017). When initially
mentioned, the term applied technology access. However, this definition has evolved
to include multiple characteristics of computer access, specifically inequality in soft-
ware, hardware, internet connection, demographics, and gender. Instead of reduc-
ing the digital divide for K-12 learners, prior research indicated it continues to be
complicated and growing (Dolan, 2016). While the previous two decades featured
advances in overall access to the internet and technology, it remains students from
low socio-economic backgrounds who would benefit from it most, although they are
least likely to have access. Even when the internet and technology are accessible,
users do not always have the pertinent knowledge to use them appropriately and
effectively (Huffman, 2018).

13
9990 Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003

Creighton (2018) mentioned it will be a challenge for educators to reduce gaps

in digital equity until all learners are provided either a stable internet connection
with a local provider or hotspot to logon outside of the classroom. Despite meas-
ures and policies to close the digital divide, deficiencies continue to exist related to
learners and their at-home internet access. A NCES (2018) study revealed learners
with an internet connection at home averaged higher performance levels than those
lacking reliable access. The study also found learner demographics were a predictor
of home internet access. Results from the NCES study (2018a) indicated elevated
household parental education and income level increased the likelihood of access. In
2017, nearly 90% of homes in the U.S. had access to a computer at home, while 77%
of respondents stated they had stable internet connection. Nearly 80% of respondent
households had high-speed internet service and 68% of children accessed the internet
outside of the school day via a mobile internet service or data plan (NCES, 2018b).
Increased technology usage in the teaching and learning process produces learners
with the abilities to increase confidence related to 21st century skills (Rowsell et al.,
2017). However, if student usage inside and outside of the school building are corre-
lated to academic achievement, any disparities should raise red flags (Bach et al., 2018).
Relationships between socioeconomic status, access to digital learning resources, and
student achievement also persist. In 2017, the National Assessment of Educational Pro-
gress (NAEP) found lower mean reading scores for eighth graders who did not use a
computer at home compared to their peers who reported consistent usage. Furthermore,
eighth graders with home internet access received higher scores than those who did
not (NCES, 2018b). For students who find success at school, their technology capabili-
ties can be well developed and creative. However, for those who struggle, a scarcity of
opportunities to employ technology worsens educational outcomes (Dolan, 2017).
Learners from low socioeconomic households are less likely to own hardwares
essential to academic achievement and provide families a communication medium
(McLaughlin, 2016). Insufficient or nonexistent home internet access can negatively
impact learners. Without it, students are unable to connect with teachers and class-
mates, conduct research, or access learning management systems for materials and
work. A lack of home internet service does not only impact students. For parents,
families, and caregivers, a lack of internet access removes a line of communication
with the district as a whole, individual school buildings, administrators, and teachers
that can result in unawareness of important information such as a school closing or
student work in a particular classroom (Lynch, 2017).
While some may think in a world with constant access to technology and the inter-
net, this is not true for many, specifically young learners, adolescents, and young adults
(Roswell et al., 2017). The NCES (2018b) found learners 5 to 17 years of age and liv-
ing below the federal poverty line were significantly less likely to have home internet
access than learners in a household between 180 and 185% of as well as from 185% or
higher from the poverty line (2018b). A 2015 Pew Research study revealed low-income
homes are most susceptible. According to the study, 31% of households with yearly
income under $50,000 lack internet access at home. In contrast, only 8% of learners
from households with an annual income of over $50,000 did not (Lynch, 2017). The
physical location in which a learner resides may hinder home internet access. Those in

13
Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003 9991

remote rural communities were less likely to have adequate infrastructure for internet
providers than their peers who lived in suburban urban environments (NCES, 2018b).
The NCES study also revealed gaps in access dependent upon the ethnicity of
learners. Specifically, American Indian/Alaska native, Black, and Hispanic learners
were less likely to have internet access at home compared to learners who identified
as White, Asian, or two or more races (NCES, 2018b). Ninety-two percent of Asian
and 88 percent of White households with students in grades K-12 contained high-
speed internet access. Meanwhile, for Black and Hispanic households, only 72% of
households were connected (Lynch, 2017). This group also includes students who
may lack access at home to essential technology resources. The United States Depart-
ment of Education found approximately 9.4 million learners, or 14% of children ages
3–18, lack home internet access. Some internet advocacy groups advocate the popu-
lation of learners without internet access may actually be 12 million (Camera, 2020).
Even if students have access to the internet, they may not have the ability to utilize
essential technologies. According to a 2019 Pew Research poll, 89% of grades 9–12
learners and 73% of middle learners use smartphones. For all respondents, only 66%
reported they had access to laptops. For learners in grade 3–5, a slight majority of stu-
dents owned smartphones, 62% utilized laptops, and 58% worked on tablets. Further-
more, 21% of K-2 learners used smartphones and nearly half utilized laptops and/or tab-
lets. The effects caused by lack of access at home particularly affect students of color
leading them to be at a disadvantage and susceptible to potential struggle or barriers to
their education. Despite the usage of technology by young learners, they are less likely to
have their own device with internet capability compared to those in the middle grades or
high school. Even when this learner population does live in a household with an internet
connection, the needs of an older brother or sister, as well as a parent or guardian, may
take precedence. In this case, young learners would need to wait to use a specific device.

2.4 Theoretical framework

Media Dependency Theory is seen as relevant to serve as a guidance related to

usage of educational technology by teachers dependent upon teaching modality.
More specifically, it helps researchers organize and understand how educators uti-
lize technology in the communication process, including dissemination of content
and collaboration. First presented by Ball-Rokeach and DeFleur (1976), the frame-
work suggested the principle of media dependency and reflection on the interactions
between the elements of multiple networks. Further, the theory also examines how
various social structures (economic, geographical, and educational) and the societal
context contribute to a school’s knowledge system (Carillo et al., 2017).
The theory can serve as a guidance in an educational technology study because
it suggests people become more dependent on media, which will influence user per-
ceptions and impact behaviors. MDT utilizes an interactive relationship of three var-
iables based on a reciprocal relationship dependent upon each other (Ball-Rokeach
& De Fluer, 1976). First, a social system which is dependent on the stability of the
social structure. The second component is technology usage that serves as the main
source of information and interaction. Lastly, the audience is dependent upon edu-
cational technology as the primary source of information. When done correctly,

13
9992 Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003

interaction between each of the variables fosters effective communication, including

cognitive, affective and behavioral domains (Madianou & Miller, 2013).
Emerging developments in educational technology allow for a more diverse
student- content relationship. Typically, digital platforms rely upon an established
school structure supported by existing social and economic systems (Ball-Rokeach,
1998). MSD, which has expanded its conception of a media system to meet the
changing landscape in today’s digital era of education and remains useful and
highlighting the intertwined relationship between teaching, learning, and technol-
ogy. MSD’s sensitivity to interactions between technology end learners is directly
impacted by an individual learner’s cognitive, behavioral, and effective needs to best
deliver content and promote interaction between students, teachers, and other stake-
holders such as parents and administrators (Zhang & Zhong, 2020).

3 Methodology

3.1 Participants (Table 1)

Table 1  Participant Variables Total

characteristics (N = 423)

Age in years
Mean ± SD 43.26 ± 7.5
Min–Max 23–71
Years as a Full-Time Educator
Mean ± SD 12.09
Min–Max 1–49
Gender
Female 276
Male 87
No Reply 2
Grade(s) Taught
Grades K-4 170
Grades 5–8 190
Grades 9–12 146
Content Areas
English/Language Arts 112
Math 180
Social Studies 89
Science 86
Special Education 71
School Setting
Rural 110
Suburban 199
Urban 104

13
Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003 9993

3.2 Survey instrument

This quantitative study utilized survey research methodology to explore public

school teaching modalities intended by the use of integrated technology. A sur-
vey was employed due to the ability to collect and interpret cultural, psychologi-
cal, economic, social, technical and other categories of data (Fowler, 2013). The
survey included statements from prior studies and survey instruments (Bach et al.,
2018; Ritzhaupt et al., 2012), specifically items related to modality and teacher per-
ceptions. The initial part of the survey included 11 intended purposes of learning
through the use of technology. The final portion contained demographic questions
such as age, gender, years of full-time teaching experience, grade level(s), subjects
taught for middle grades and high school teachers, geographic setting, class size,
and school building socioeconomic status. The survey consisted of multiple question
types related to teaching modality with technology. Respondents rated their agree-
ment to specific questions related to the study with items on a five-point ordinal
category scale (1 = ‘Not at all’ and 5 = everyday).
For the purpose of this study, respondents self-identified the location of their
school building. The National Center for Education Statistics (2014) provided oper-
ational definitions for the urban, rural, and suburban school response options. The
NCES defined urban schools as situated inside a city, containing at least a 20% con-
centration of minority students, and at least one in five students receiving free or
reduced lunch. Suburban schools were described as those in an urban locality sur-
rounding a city, but not in a rural zone. These schools featured a student population
with under 20% diversity related to socioeconomic status and ethnic background.
The NCES characterized rural schools as found in a municipality or agricultural
zone containing a population of under 25,000 people.

3.3 Data gathering

A publicly available State Department of Education email list provided contact

information for each public school principal. Participants were selected via simple
random sampling of K-12 public school teachers.The researcher utilized Survey
Monkey as the survey platform. Principals were contacted via an email from the
researcher’s work email address and requested to forward the hyperlinked survey to
their faculty. The informed consent, description of purpose, and a hyperlink to the
survey were included in the email. Two weeks after the initial email, a follow up
was sent to each provided email with a message to please forward the survey as a
reminder to participate. The survey remained open for a total of four weeks.
Quantitative data was collected to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: Is there a significant difference between urban, rural and suburban teacher
usage of technology based on teaching modality?
RQ2: Is there a significant difference between urban, rural and suburban teacher
usage of technology based on teaching modality and interaction with learners?

13
9994 Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003

4 Statistical analysis

Data were formatted and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
26.0. After descriptive statistics and frequency tables were generated for demo-
graphic variables, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each subscale to determine
the internal consistency of items and gauge their reliability. The results show the
instrument reaches an acceptable level of reliability for both elements including the
teaching modality (α = 0.77) and interaction with learners (α = 0.89).
Objective one investigated technology implementation during small group
instruction based upon school setting. A one-way ANOVA yielded a significant rela-
tionship between groups [F, (2, 358) = 5.650, p = 0.004). A Tukey HSD test found
significantly lower mean scores for urban teachers (M = 263; SD = 1.47) than sub-
urban teachers (M = 3.15; SD = 1.38) with a difference of -0.521 and a p value of
0.013, and rural teachers (M = 3.28; SD = 1.42) with a difference of -0.648 and p
value of 0.006. Overall, teachers indicated satisfaction with technology access in
their school building (M = 3.80; SD = 1.05). Taken together, responses suggest edu-
cators in urban schools were significantly less likely to employ technology within
small groups than their peers (Table 2).
Objective two investigated teacher usage of technology for individual instruction
(Table 3). A one-way ANOVA found no significant effect between the variables [F,
(2, 358) = 2.903, p = 0.056.
The third objective explored the use of technology as a cooperative learning tool.
A one-way analysis of variance found a significant relationship between variables (F
(2, 358) = 4.028, p < 0.019). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test sug-
gested the mean score differences of urban teachers (M = 2.75; SD = 1.24) were sig-
nificantly lower than educators in a suburban school (M = 3.38; SD = 1.20) with a dif-
ference of -0.477 and a p value of 0.017. Rural teachers did not significantly differ
from either group (Table 4).
Objective four examined differences in school setting and the use of technology
as a reward (Table 5). A one-way ANOVA uncovered no significant relationship
between school settings [F, (2, 354) = 1.291, p = 0.276.
The fifth objective measured differences in the use of technology during inde-
pendent learning. A one-way ANOVA suggested no significant effect brought upon
by school setting at the p < 0.05 level [F, (2, 355) = 1.482, p = 0.484 (Table 6).
Objective six investigated technology integration as a classroom presentation
tool. Data analysis revealed no significant relationship (Table 7).

Table 2  Small group instruction N M SD

Overall group 361 3.06 1.43

Rural 96 3.28 1.42
Suburban 175 3.15 1.38
Urban 90 2.63 1.47

1 = not at all, 2 = once a month or less, 3 = once a week, 4 = several

times a week, 5 = everyday

13
Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003 9995

Table 3  Individual instruction N M SD

Overall group 359 3.27 1.44

Rural 95 3.47 1.46
Suburban 175 3.31 1.42
Urban 89 2.98 1.43

1 = not at all, 2 = once a month or less, 3 = once a week, 4 = several

times a week, 5 = everyday

Table 4  Cooperative learning N M SD

Overall group 361 2.74 1.36

Rural 96 2.82 1.33
Suburban 174 2.87 1.33
Urban 91 2.40 1.38

1 = not at all, 2 = once a month or less, 3 = once a week, 4 = several

times a week, 5 = everyday

Table 5  As a reward N M SD

Overall group 357 2.36 1.42

Rural 95 2.40 1.44
Suburban 171 2.24 1.39
Urban 200 2.75 1.24

1 = not at all, 2 = once a month or less, 3 = once a week, 4 = several

times a week, 5 = everyday

Table 6  Independent learning N M SD

Overall group 358 3.30 1.43

Rural 95 3.26 1.45
Suburban 173 3.39 1.41
Urban 90 3.18 1.43

1 = not at all, 2 = once a month or less, 3 = once a week, 4 = several

times a week, 5 = everyday

The seventh objective explored how frequently teachers employed technology to promote
student-centered learning. A one-way ANOVA was conducted and found no statistically
significant relationship between school setting [F, (2, 354) = 0.233, p = 0.885 (Table 8).
For objective eight, an analysis of variance showed no effect of school setting on
teacher usage of technology as a student research tool [F, (2, 356) = 2.274, p = 0.290
(Table 9).
The ninth objective measured technology and problem-solving. A one-way ANOVA
revealed significant disparities [F(2, 356) = 5.306, p = 0.042)] associated with school

13
9996 Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003

setting. Post-hoc comparisons using Tukey’s HSD revealed the difference of means
for urban teachers (M = 2.61; SD = 1.42) was significantly lower than suburban teach-
ers (M = 2.98; SD = 1.37) with a difference of -0.236 and a p value of 0.048. However,
usage did not differ significantly between rural teachers and their peers (Table 10).
Objective ten investigated technology as a way to improve student productivity.
Data analysis revealed no significant relationship between school settings (Table 11).
In the final objective, a Levene’s test revealed an inequality of variances
(F = 5.145, p = 0.006). To further investigate, a Welch’s F test [F(2, 191.78) = 4.791,
p = 009)], found school setting was statistically significant. For post hoc compari-
sons, the Games-Howell procedure indicated the mean responses for urban teach-
ers (M = 3.18; SD = 1.69) was significantly different from suburban educators
(M = 3.78; SD = 1.50) with a difference of -0.604 and a p value of 0.013. A signifi-
cant effect between urban and rural teachers (M = 3.28; SD = 1.42) was also found,
with a difference of -0.641 and p value of 0.018. No Post hoc comparisons revealed
a significant effect between rural and suburban teachers (Table 12).

Table 7  As a classroom N M SD

presentation tool
Overall group 357 3.45 1.45
Rural 94 3.39 1.45
Suburban 174 3.60 1.41
Urban 88 3.22 1.52

1 = not at all, 2 = once a month or less, 3 = once a week, 4 = several

times a week, 5 = everyday

Table 8  To promote student- N M SD

centered learning
Overall group 357 3.33 1.38
Rural 94 3.28 1.45
Suburban 174 3.36 1.35
Urban 89 3.31 1.37

1 = not at all, 2 = once a month or less, 3 = once a week, 4 = several

times a week, 5 = everyday

Table 9  As a student research N M SD

tool
Overall group 359 2.95 1.35
Rural 94 3.04 1.31
Suburban 175 2.99 1.35
Urban 90 2.76 1.40

1 = not at all, 2 = once a month or less, 3 = once a week, 4 = several

times a week, 5 = everyday

13
Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003 9997

Table 10  As a problem-solving N M SD

tool
Overall group 359 2.91 1.37
Rural 94 3.04 1.31
Suburban 175 2.98 1.37
Urban 90 2.61 1.42

1 = not at all, 2 = once a month or less, 3 = once a week, 4 = several

times a week, 5 = everyday

Table 11  As a productivity tool N M SD

Overall group 357 2.57 1.43

Rural 94 2.63 1.35
Suburban 174 2.62 1.45
Urban 89 2.40 1.47

1 = not at all, 2 = once a month or less, 3 = once a week, 4 = several

times a week, 5 = everyday

Table 12  As a classroom N M SD

communication tool
Overall group 358 3.64 1.58
Rural 94 3.82 1.45
Suburban 174 3.78 1.50
Urban 90 3.18 1.69

1 = not at all, 2 = once a month or less, 3 = once a week, 4 = several

times a week, 5 = everyday

5 Conclusion, discussion and implication

This study sought to investigate the relationship between school settings (urban,
suburban, and rural) and the use of technology in K-12 education and how both
components contributed to and displayed the digital divide in classrooms across
the United States. This study surveyed teachers in urban, suburban, and rural
school districts on the technology in their teaching and learning practices in the
following outcomes: enhancing small group instruction; strengthening individual
instruction; increasing cooperative learning; promoting compliance through inclu-
sion in a reward structure; supporting independent learning; augmenting class-
room presentation; promoting student-centered learning; supplementing student
research; aiding problem-solving; improving student productivity; and boosting
classroom communication. Teachers were asked to report on the level of technol-
ogy use as it applied to each type of learning outcome; answers ranged from zero
usage to using technology every day. The type of school setting was not found to
matter to any significant degree in seven out of the 11 educational technology out-
comes surveyed. Careful analysis of teacher responses showed that there were not

13
9998 Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003

any statistically significant differences between urban, rural and suburban teaching
using technology as part of a reward system, as a classroom presentation tool, as a
student research tool, to improve student productivity, to promote student-centered
learning, to cultivate independent learning, and augment individual instruction.
The study did find that school settings did make a statistically significant difference in
how technology was used in K-12 classrooms as a communication tool, as an aid in prob-
lem-solving exercises, as a cooperative learning tool and within small-group instruction.
The results showed urban teachers were likely to use technology as a classroom commu-
nication tool as compared to those in a suburban or rural school building. No statistically
significant difference was found between how suburban and rural teachers used technol-
ogy to enhance classroom communication. Results also showed that urban teachers used
technology as a problem-solving aid far less than suburban teachers did; additionally, urban
teacher technology usage frequency during cooperative learning was significantly less than
suburban teachers, although the rate of usage by rural teachers was not significantly differ-
ent for either group. Finally, the results indicated that urban teachers were much less likely
to use technology within small groups than teachers in rural and suburban districts.
Although significant differences between technology use and school settings were
only found in 4 out of 11 of the objectives surveyed, it is worth noting that in all 4
cases with statistically significant differences, urban teachers reported using technol-
ogy less frequently than suburban and rural teachers. There may be several different
factors that contribute to this phenomenon, including lack of training for teachers on
how to effectively and appropriately use technology in the classroom, and lack of
student access at home and at school to technology and the internet.
Prior research has shown that providing teachers with more than just knowledge
about basic internet usage (email, search engines, etc.) is arguably more important in
urban school districts than in other types of communities because disadvantaged stu-
dents need to be technologically proficient to succeed in an ever-increasingly tech-
nologically dependent work force (Mouza, 2011). Although teachers are required to
engage in a certain number of professional development sessions per year (hours vary
by state), many times the professional development sessions which focus on technol-
ogy training do not go past basic information or delve into “knowledge integration or
flexible application of technology” (Mouza, 2011, p. 1). In short, teachers often learn
the logistics of technological systems but not how they could be innovative and employ
those technologies in their teaching and learning practices to better serve their students.
Additionally, previous research has shown direct links between a student’s access to
the internet, and socioeconomic status to academic performance and, later in life, earning
potential (Bach et al., 2018). Families in lower socioeconomic brackets are more likely to
not provide computer and internet access. Prior research has shown that school-age chil-
dren in urban areas were over 50% as likely to be living under the poverty line as subur-
ban children, and 25% more likely to live in impoverished conditions than children in rural
communities or places with a low population density (NCES, 1996). Without access to the
internet at home, many students would be at an obvious disadvantage if earning high grades
was predicated on using the internet to complete group work, day-to-day homework, or
independent research projects. Urban teachers familiar with their student population may
hesitate to use technology in their instruction because they are aware of the discrepancy
between those who have access to technology and those who do not. By not incorporating

13
Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003 9999

technology into classroom instruction as often as their rural and suburban peers, they may
be attempting to mitigate the negative effects of the digital divide and not make it harder on
an already disadvantaged population to succeed in the K-12 school system.

5.1 Moving forward

Given the overwhelming role technology plays in the daily lives of most Americans in
the ­21st century, it is clear that students who are technologically proficient will have a
better chance of succeeding in educational and professional settings. It is more impor-
tant than ever to breach the digital divide between students who have access to technol-
ogy and the internet, and those who do not have either any access, inconsistent access,
or insufficient access. Since the outbreak of Covid-19, many schools across the world
and in the United States have had to shift to a hybrid or completely online teaching and
learning model. As such, the digital divide and its potentially disastrous effects were
revealed to the general public and have generated greater interest in closing the gap
between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’. According to a 2018 from Common Sense
Media and Boston Consulting Group study, 15 million American school-age children
did not have access to the internet or a device with which to access it; 10 million lacked
both the internet and a device. Additionally, 300,000 K-12 teachers in the United States
did not have sufficiently stable high-speed internet access to teach school from their
homes (Cookson & Edgerton, 2020). Additionally, the PEW Research Center (2020)
reported that almost 60% of parents with K-12 age children in lower economic brackets
feared their child might fall behind in their schoolwork because of the lack of high-
speed internet and or a computer or tablet.
One recommendation for future research is to replicate this study to see how K-12
teachers would report technology usage in their classrooms in the mid- or post-pan-
demic phases to see if technology plays a more important role in education now that
many K-12 schools across the country have been forced to provide hybrid and online
instruction. Additionally, a study to investigate if school districts have reallocated
funds to provide internet access and computers to students in need could potentially
provide some insight as to a way forward to providing high-speed internet access
and computers to all K-12 students in the United States.

5.2 Limitations

Only K-12 public schools educators employed in a single Midwestern state submit-
ted responses. A further limitation occurred as survey dissemination depended on
school principals to forward a survey hyperlink and purpose of study to their faculty
which did permit the researcher to directly contact potential respondents. A further
limitation resulted from a limited sample of urban and rural respondents compared
to suburban teachers. Though smaller sample populations, these insights provided
understanding into educator usage frequencies of technology in a variety of roles.

13
10000 Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003

Appendix 1

ANOVA results

13
Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003 10001

Data availability The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available
from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations
Conflict of interests The author has no conflicts of interest to declare or financial interest to report. The
author also has seen and agreed with the contents of the manuscript. The author certifies that the submis-
sion is original work and is not under review at any other publication.

References
Angeli, C., Howard, S. K., Ma, J., Yang, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Data mining in educational tech-
nology classroom research: Can it make a contribution? Computers and Education, 113, 226–242.
Bach, A. J., Wolfson, T., & Crowell, J. K. (2018). Poverty, literacy, and social transformation: An inter-
disciplinary exploration of the digital divide. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 10(1), 22–41.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1998). A theory of media power and a theory of media use: Different stories, ques-
tions, and ways of thinking. Mass Communication and Society, 1(1–2), 5–40. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​15205​436.​1998.​96763​98
Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & DeFleur, M. L. (1976). A dependency model of mass-media effects. Communica-
tion Research, 3(1), 3–21.
Bennett, S. (2012). Digital natives. In Encyclopedia of cyber behavior (pp. 212-219). IGI Global.
Bullen, M., Morgan, T., Belfer, K., & Qayyum, A. (2008). The digital learner at BCIT and implications
for an e-strategy. Paper presented at the 2008 Research Workshop of the European Distance Educa-
tion Network (EDEN), Researching and promoting access to education and training: The role of
distance education and e-learning in technology-enhanced environments. Retrieved from: https://​
app.​box.​com/​shared/​fxqyu​tottt
Camera, L. (2020). Disconnected and disadvantaged: Schools race to give students access. U.S. News
and World Report. Retrieved from: https://​www.​usnews.​com/​news/​educa​tion-​news/​artic​les/​2020-​
04-​01/​schoo​ls-​r ush-​to-​get-​stude​nts-​inter​net-​access-​during-​coron​avirus-​pande​mic
Carillo, K., Scornavacca, E., & Za, S. (2017). The role of media dependency in predicting continuance
intention to use ubiquitous media systems. Information and Management, 54(3), 317–335. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​im.​2016.​09.​002
Cookson, P., Edgerton, A. (2020). Closing the digital divide: The critical role of the federal government.
Retrieved from https://​learn​ingpo​licyi​nstit​ute.​org/​blog/​covid-​closi​ng-​digit​al-​divide-​feder​al-​gover​
nment
Correa, T. (2014). Bottom up technology transmission within families: Exploring how youths influ-
ence their parents’ digital media use with dyadic data. Journal of Communication, 64(1), 103e124.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jcom.​12067
Cram, A., Hedberg, J. G., Gosper, M., & Dick, G. (2011). Situated, embodied and social problem-solving
in virtual worlds. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3).
Creighton, T. B. (2018). Digital natives, digital immigrants, digital learners: An international empirical
integrative review of the literature. Education Leadership Review, 19(1), 132–140.
Diemer, T. T., Fernandez, E., & Streepey, J. W. (2012). Student perceptions of classroom engagement and
learning using iPads. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 1(2), 13–25.
Dolan, J. (2016). Splicing the divide: A review of research on the evolving digital divide among k-12
students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(1), 16–37. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
15391​523.​2015.​11031​4736
Dolan, J. (2017). Withering opportunity: Technology implementation in K-12 schools, the opportunity
gap, and the evolving digital divide. In C. Landers (Ed.), The digital divide: Issues, recommenda-
tions and research (pp. 25–56). Nova Science Publishers Inc.
Doll, K., Ragan, M., Calnin, G., Mason, S., & House, K. (2021). Adapting and enduring: Lessons learned
from international school educators during covid-19. Journal of Research in International Educa-
tion, 20(2), 114–133.
Fowler, F. J. (2013). Survey research methods. Sage publications.

13
10002 Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003

Huffman, S. (2018). The digital divide revisited: What is next? Education 128(3). 239–246. Retrieved
from https://0-​web-a-​ebsco​hostc​om.​libra​ry.​acaweb.​org/​ehost/​pdfvi​ewer/​pdfvi​ewer?​vid=​4&​sid=​
b4fe1​121-​ea0e4​a50-​8348-​c589e​ce6ac​53%​40ses​sionm​gr4009
Judge, S., Puckett, K., & Bell, S. M. (2006). Closing the digital divide: Update from the early childhood
longitudinal study. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 52–60.
Kirschner, P., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). Do digital natives have an advantage over previous generations of
students when it comes to learning? Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135e142.
Kormos, E., & Wisdom, K. (2021). Rural schools and the digital divide: Technology in the learning expe-
rience. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 11(1).
Kormos, E. (2021). Technology as a facilitator in the learning process in urban high-needs schools: chal-
lenges and opportunities. Education and Urban Society, 00131245211004555.
Lynch, M. (2017). The absence of internet at home is a problem for some students. [Web log post].
Retrieved from https://​www.​theed​advoc​ate.​org/​the-​absen​ce-​of-​inter​net-​at-​home-​is-a-​probl​em-​for-​
some-​stude​nts/
Madathil, V. (2019). Technology’s role in educational equality. [Web log post].Retrieved from https://​
medium.​com/@​madat​hilvi​sakh
Madianou, M., & Miller, D. (2013). Migration and new media: Transnational families and polymedia.
Routledge.
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University stu-
dents’ use of digital technologies. Computers and Education, 56(2), 429–440.
McLaughlin, C. (2016). The homework gap: The cruelest part of the digital divide. [Web log post].
Retrieved from http://​neato​day.​org/​2016/​04/​20/​the-​homew​ork-​gap/
MIT News. (2019). What 126 studies say about education technology. Retrieved from https://​news.​mit.​
edu/​2019/​mit-​jpal-​what-​126-​studi​es-​tell-​us-​about-​educa​tion-​techn​ology-​impact-​0226
Mouza, C. (2011). Promoting urban teachers’ understanding of technology, content, and pedagogy in the
context of case development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(1), 1–29.
Murphy, S. (2020). Participation and achievement in technology education: The impact of school location
and socioeconomic status on senior secondary technology studies. International Journal of Technol-
ogy and Design Education, 30(2), 349–366.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Urban schools: The challenge of location andpoverty:
Executive summary. Retrieved from https://​nces.​ed.​gov/​pubs/​web/​96184​ex.​asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). “Urban/Rural” classification of schools and local educa-
tion agencies. Retrieved from: http://​www.​papar​tners​hips.​org/​pdfs/​metho​dology.​pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2018). The condition of education 2018.
Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the net generation [e-book]. Available at: http://​
www.​educa​use.​edu/​educa​tingt​henet​gen/​5989
Pew Research Center. (2019a). Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet. Retrieved from: https://​www.​pewre​search.​
org/​inter​net/​fact-​sheet/​inter​net-​broad​band/
Pew Research Center. (2019b). Mobile Fact Sheet. Retrieved from: https://​www.​pewre​search.​org/​inter​net/​
fact-​sheet/​mobile/
Pew Research Center. (2020). 59% of U.S. parents with lower incomes say their child may face digital
obstacles in schoolwork. Retrieved from https://​www.​pewre​search.​org/​fact-​tank/​2020/​09/​10/​59-​
of-u-​s-​paren​ts-​with-​lower-​incom​es-​say-​their-​child-​may-​face-​digit​al-​obsta​cles-​in-​schoo​lwork/
Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me, mom, I’m learning!: How computer and video games are preparing
your kids for 21st century success and how you can help! Paragon House.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives digital immigrants. On the Horizon NCB University Press,9(5), 1–6.
Available at: http://​www.​marcp​rensky.​com/​writi​ng/​Prens​ky%​20-%​20Dig​ital%​20Nat​ives,%​20Dig​
ital%​20Imm​igran​ts%​20-%​20Par​t1.​pdf
Reglitz, M. (2020). The human right to free internet access. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 37(2),
314–331.
Ritzhaupt, A., Dawson, K., & Cavanaugh, C. (2012). An investigation of factors influencing student use
of technology in K-12 classrooms using path analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
46(3), 229–254.
Rosen, L. D. (2007). Me, MySpace, and I: Parenting the net generation. Palgrave Macmillan.
Roswell, J., Morrell, E., & Alvermann, D. (2017). Confronting the digital divide: Debunking thebrave
new world discourses. Reading Teacher, 71(2), 157–165. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​trtr.​1603

13
Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:9985–10003 10003

Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., et al. (2008). The
Google generation: The information behaviour of the researcher of the future. Aslib Proceedings:
New Information Perspectives, 60, 290e310. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​00012​53081​08879​53
Rowsell, J., Morrell, E., & Alvermann, D. E. (2017). Confronting the digital divide: Debunking brave
new world discourses. The Reading Teacher, 71(2), 157–165. Chicago.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2018a). The condition of educa-
tion: Children’s access to and use of the internet. Retrieved from https://​nces.​ed.​gov/​progr​ams/​coe/​
pdf/​coe_​cch.​pdf 39
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2018b). Student access to digi-
tal learning resources outside of the classroom. Retrieved from https://​nces.​ed.​gov/​pubs2​017/​20170​
98/​index.​asp
Valtonen, T., Pontinen, S., Kukkonen, J., Dillon, P., Vaisanen, P., & Hacklin, S. (2011). Confronting the
technological pedagogical knowledge of Finnish Net Generation studentteachers. Technology, Peda-
gogy and Education, 20, 3e18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14759​39X.​2010.​534867
Veen, W., & Vrakking, B. (2006). Homo Zappiens: Growing up in a digital age. Network Continuum
Education.
White, D., & Le Cornu, A. (2011). Visitors and residents: A new typology for online engagement. First
Monday, 16(9). https://​doi.​org/​10.​5210/​fm.​v16i9
Zhang, X., & Zhong, Z. J. (2020). Extending media system dependency theory to informational media
use and environmentalism: A cross-national study. Telematics and Informatics, 50. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​tele.​2020.​101378

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and
applicable law.

13