Educational Statistics

In the Era of Deepening Digitalization: The Interrelation Between the Digital Divide and the Educational Gap

Author: Nam Shin-dong (Researcher, KEDI)

 

With the COVID-19 pandemic as a turning point, efforts for the digital transformation of school education in Korea have been actively pursued. In this context, the Digital Education Norms established last year (Ministry of Education, July 2024) placed considerable emphasis on Chapter 3 of the Norms (Ensuring the Public Nature of Digital Education and Reducing Gaps) in realizing the “values and principles that education in the era of deepening digitalization should pursue.” In this article, we examine how the new form of social inequality emerging in the digital transformation era–the digital divide–is connected to the issue of the educational gap, drawing on both domestic and international survey data.

 

■ A New Form of Social Inequality Created by Technological Development: The Gap in Digital Access and Use (Digital Divide)

According to the Digital Information Gap Survey by the National Information Society Agency of Korea, while the level of digital access for socially vulnerable groups has recently reached almost the same level as the general public (96.5%), their digital information utilization capability still remains at 65.1% of the general public’s level. As of 2023, the digital access level (99.6%) and utilization level (93.0%) of low-income groups were relatively high compared to other vulnerable groups. In contrast, the elderly’s digital utilization level was only 55.3%.

 

 

 

■ Status of Korean Students’ Access to and Use of Digital Resources in International Comparison

 

below summarizes the results of the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA 2022), focusing on access to and use of digital resources among Korean secondary school students. Korean students’ ‘self-efficacy in digital literacy’ (0.170) was higher than the OECD average (0.00). This may reflect the relatively abundant opportunities to use digital resources in Korea, both inside and outside schools (opportunities to use digital resources within and outside school, and the quality level of the school digital resources environment), as well as the relatively high quality of the school digital resources environment. Notably, the mean score for ‘opportunities to use digital resources outside of school’ (0.206) ranked first among all participating countries.

 

 

However, it is noteworthy that ‘self-efficacy in digital literacy,’ and ‘access to digital resources’ do not necessarily guarantee ‘instructional use of digital resources.’ The three sub-indicators of instructional use of digital resources - ‘use of digital resources in inquiry-based learning,’ ‘use for instructional support or feedback,’ and ‘use of digital resources during class’ - all fell below the OECD average. In particular, the average score for ‘use of digital resources during class’ (-0.279) was significantly lower than the OECD average, ranking 43rd among participating countries.

 

 

 

Given this coexistence of the ‘highest’ (access) and the ‘lowest’ (use) in the current process of digital transformation in education, how is the issue of educational gap implicated?

 

 

■ Differences in Digital Literacy Levels and Educational Experiences Among Students

From the perspective of educational gaps, digital divide in schools more pronounced in the ‘process’ stage (learning use of digital resources) than in the ‘input’ stage (access to digital resources). In this latter aspect, several recent findings show how digital literacy levels and digital education experiences vary among primary and secondary students.

 

First, analysis of public education monitoring data (KEMS 2023) collected by Park Seong-ho et al. (2023) reveals similar patterns to those in

, showing that disparities emerge as early as the elementary school stage. As shown in , while the average for ‘use and management of digital technologies’ (4.04) was relatively high, averages for learning-related uses – such as ‘use of digital materials’ (3.31), ‘searching and storing digital materials’ (3.68), and ‘digital-based interaction’ (3.84) - were relatively low, with higher standard deviations. This indicates that differences in digital literacy among elementary students are particularly pronounced in the academic use aspects.

 

 

 

Second, as shown in

, what deserves attention is that the gap in digital literacy levels among elementary school students does not stem solely from individual psychological or intrinsic characteristics. A latent profile analysis (LPA) conducted to identify interrelationships among the various sub-factors of digital literacy revealed four clearly distinct stratified groups (excellent, general, potentially vulnerable, and vulnerable). The ‘excellent’ group scored consistently high across all sub-factors, while the ‘vulnerable’ group scored consistently low across all sub-factors. This indicates that the sub-factors of digital literacy do not operate independently but are interconnected, rising or falling together. This raises the question: what is the centripetal force that binds these sub-factors into a single, homogeneous learning competency, and where does it originate?

 

 

Third, underlying the differences in students’ digital literacy levels are significant influences from the characteristics of the groups to which individuals belong (household income level and regional size). As shown in

, all seven sub-factors of digital literacy reflect patterns of social inequality according to household income (high > medium> low) and regional size (metropolitan cities > mid-sized cities > rural areas).

 

 

Finally, the current differences in academic use competencies and the quality of experiences with digital resources are clearly intertwined with academic achievement gaps, like two sides of the same coin. In recent FGIs (focus group interviews) on the digital education gap, all 39 participating teachers consistently noted that ‘students who perform well academically also have higher digital competencies’ (Nam Shin-dong et al., 2024). This observation is also cross-confirmed in the analysis of PISA 2022 data summarized in [Figure 1]. Among Korean secondary school students, those with higher levels of academic achievement (reading, mathematics, and sciences) were found to make greater use of digital resources for learning.

 

 

The foregoing aspects demonstrate that the digital literacy gap extends beyond mere individual differences in competency and can arise from ascriptive factors, such as socioeconomic background, etc. They also reflect that, within the current process of digital transformation, the traditional points of occurrence and cyclical structures of educational inequality continue to persist. Therefore, it is imperative to pursue educational practices aimed at narrowing the digital divide, such as reducing disparities in digital education environments across schools and regions, enhancing the digital literacy of teachers and students, and providing individualized, tailored digital learning support. Furthermore, beyond the micro-level approach of digital innovation in classroom instruction, there is also a need to boldly pursue macro-level and structural transformations. These include the traditional curriculum (content, form, and assessment), school systems and entrance examination systems, and the complexly intertwined socioeconomic and cultural background factors that sustain the current ‘rich-get-richer, poor-get-poorer’ cycle of educational inequality.