4.7 Article

The digital divide in online learning in China during the COVID-19 pandemic

期刊

TECHNOLOGY IN SOCIETY
卷 71, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102122

关键词

Online learning; Covid-19; China; Digital divide

资金

  1. Center for Data Science, Peking Uni-versity [2020ZDB02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, online learning has gained increasing attention in the education sector. There is an ongoing debate about whether online learning reduces or widens the equity gap. This study investigated equity issues in online learning in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings revealed the existence of a digital divide, primarily characterized by differences in equipment quantity, network quality, and students' adaptability to online teaching. The study emphasizes that the development of online learning alone cannot eliminate achievement gaps, and efforts from various stakeholders and targeted interventions are necessary to promote educational equity.
In recent years, online learning in the education sector has increasingly become prominent. While many believe that online learning has the potential to reduce inequity, the debate on whether it bridges the gap or widens it continues to persist. This study examined equity issues in online learning in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study used data from the Online Learning Survey of High School Students in China to analyze the influencing factors of the first, second, and third-level digital divide. The study found that the digital divide existed in online learning during the pandemic. It was primarily presented as differences in equipment quantity and network quality, students' adaptability to online teaching, and their offline learning outcomes. These findings suggest that the development of online learning alone cannot eliminate achievement gaps. The promotion of education equity requires efforts from various stakeholders and interventions specifically targeting disadvantaged students.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据