Embedded Files
Research Team
Research Team
Hayoung Cho
Hayoung Cho
Primary Education
Lena Lee
Lena Lee
Teaching, Curriculum, and Educational Inquiry
Abstract/Introduction
Abstract/Introduction
Digital technology has become essential across education, the economy, and society in the 21st century. The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed the importance of digital access while also revealing persistent social and educational inequalities. As a result, digital equity has emerged as a major issue connected to both social justice and educational opportunity.
This study compares digital equity policies in South Korea and the United States, two countries that have taken different policy approaches despite their high level of technological development. South Korea has pursued systematic government-led ICT strategies, while the United States has relied more on market-based and federal-local approaches. Although both countries have expanded digital access, disadvantaged students in each context continue to experience unequal opportunities in digitally mediated learning.
The purpose of this study is to examine post-pandemic education policies related to digital equity, identify the major strategies each country uses to support disadvantaged K–12 students, and offer implications for educators seeking more equitable uses of digital tools in education.
Research Questions
Research Questions
How do South Korea and the United States define and address digital equity for disadvantaged K–12 students?
In what ways do the digital equity policies of South Korea and the United States differ across access, digital skills, and educational outcomes?
What strengths and limitations appear in each country’s policy approach to reducing the digital divide?
What implications do these policy differences have for teachers and teacher education programs?
Methods
Methods
This study uses a qualitative comparative design to analyze digital equity policies in South Korea and the United States. The research focuses on policy documents related to digital access and educational support for disadvantaged K–12 students in both countries.
The analysis is based on content analysis and uses two related frameworks. First, the study examines how policy texts define digital equity and identify target populations. Second, the study applies the three levels of the digital divide: access, skills, and outcomes. These levels help explain not only whether students have access to technology, but also whether they can use it effectively and whether they experience meaningful educational benefits from it.
The documents analyzed include major national plans and programs from both countries, such as South Korea’s Digital Education Innovation Plan, Digital Inclusion Promotion Plan, and Digital Bill of Rights, as well as U.S. policies including the Digital Equity Act, Emergency Connectivity Fund, Affordable Connectivity Program, and Lifeline Program.
Results/Findings and Discussion
Results/Findings and Discussion
The findings show that both South Korea and the United States responded strongly to the first level of the digital divide, which is access. South Korea expanded school Wi-Fi, device distribution, and internet subsidies through direct government provision, while the United States used programs such as the Digital Equity Act, Emergency Connectivity Fund, Affordable Connectivity Program, and Lifeline to improve access for low-income populations. Although both countries demonstrated strong commitment in this area, their policy styles differed: South Korea emphasized centralized universal provision, whereas the United States relied more on federal-state cooperation and explicit low-income targeting.
At the second level, digital skills, both countries showed moderate but incomplete responses. South Korea developed more systematic structures, including teacher training, digital tutors, and AI textbooks, but its policies focused more on institutional preparation than on direct student skill development. The United States relied more on community partnerships, schools, libraries, and nonprofits, which allowed for flexibility but also created major regional disparities depending on local capacity and resources.
The weakest area in both countries was the third level of the digital divide, educational outcomes. South Korea mainly monitored rates of technology adoption and appeared to assume that providing digital tools would naturally improve learning outcomes. The United States more explicitly discussed participation and equity, but its implementation still remained centered on access rather than verified educational results. In both cases, policies did not sufficiently measure whether disadvantaged students were actually benefiting in meaningful academic ways.
Overall, the comparison suggests that South Korea’s approach is more centralized, efficient, and universal, while the United States’ approach is more decentralized, targeted, and equity-oriented in language. However, both countries share the same underlying limitation: they tend to assume that technology provision leads to educational equity without fully addressing pedagogy, home environment, family support, or the quality of student learning.
Conclusions and Future Study
Conclusions and Future Study
This study reveals that South Korea and the United States take fundamentally different approaches to digital equity policies, yet ultimately face a similar limitation.
South Korea adopts a centralized and efficiency-driven model that enables rapid and universal implementation of digital infrastructure and resources. This approach ensures widespread access but tends to overlook differences among student groups and does not sufficiently examine who actually benefits from these policies.
In contrast, the United States takes a decentralized and targeted approach that emphasizes social justice, civil rights, and support for specific disadvantaged populations. While this allows for more explicit recognition of inequality, it also results in inconsistencies across regions and challenges in sustaining large-scale programs.
Despite these differences, both countries share a critical gap: their policies focus heavily on access and infrastructure while failing to adequately measure meaningful educational outcomes for disadvantaged students. Both systems tend to assume that providing technology will naturally lead to improved learning, without fully addressing factors such as pedagogy, home environment, and student support systems.
Future research should move beyond access and examine how digital policies influence actual learning experiences and outcomes in classrooms. It is necessary to explore how teachers implement digital tools, how students engage with technology in different contexts, and which policy strategies lead to measurable improvements in equity. Additionally, future studies should incorporate classroom-level data and student perspectives to better understand the real impact of digital equity policies.
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my research advisor, Dr. Lena Lee, for her guidance, support, and valuable feedback throughout this study.
I also appreciate the support from the Undergraduate Research Award (URA) program, which made this research possible.
Finally, I am thankful to Miami University for providing an academic environment that encouraged my research and growth.
References
References
1. Policy & Government Documents
Digital Equity Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117–58, §§ 60301–60307, 135 Stat. 429 (2021).
Federal Communications Commission. (1985). Lifeline program. https://www.fcc.gov/lifeline
Federal Communications Commission. (2020). Emergency Connectivity Fund. https://www.fcc.gov/emergency-connectivity-fund
Federal Communications Commission. (2021). Affordable Connectivity Program. https://www.fcc.gov/acp
Ministry of Education. (2023). Digital education innovation plan [디지털 기반 교육혁신 방안]. Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Science and ICT. (2020). Digital inclusion promotion plan [디지털 포용 추진계획]. Ministry of Science and ICT.
Ministry of Science and ICT. (2023). Digital bill of rights [디지털 권리장전]. Ministry of Science and ICT.
Statistics Korea. (2021). Korean social trends 2021. Statistics Korea.
2. International & Institutional Reports
Gye, B. K., Kim, H. S., Lee, Y. S., Kim, S. W., Son, J. E., & Baik, S. I. (2020). Analysis of elementary and secondary school remote education experiences and perceptions in response to COVID-19. Korea Education and Research Information Service (KERIS).
Lee, J. Y., Park, M. H., So, M. Y., & Ahn, S. H. (2020). COVID-19 and education: Focusing on the life and perceptions of school members. Gyeonggi Institute of Education.
Seo, J. (2023). Digital transformation of education – The case of South Korea. UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report.
World Economic Forum, & INSEAD. (2012). The global information technology report 2012: Living in a hyperconnected world. World Economic Forum.
Johnson, A. (2023). Restoring US leadership on digital policy. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
3. Empirical Studies on Digital Divide
Blank, G., & Lutz, C. (2016). Benefits and harms from internet use: A differentiated analysis of Great Britain. New Media & Society, 20(2), 618–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816667135
Choi, S.-J., & Kim, K. (2024). Examining factors affecting the digital divide of low-income students. Korean Association for Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 24(1), 789–797. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2024.24.1.789
Eastin, M. S., Cicchirillo, V., & Mabry, A. (2015). Extending the digital divide conversation: Examining the knowledge gap through media expectancies. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(3), 416–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1054994
Golden, A. R., Srisarajivakul, E. N., Hasselle, A. J., Pfund, R. A., & Knox, J. (2023). What was a gap is now a chasm: Remote schooling, the digital divide, and educational inequities. Current Opinion in Psychology, 52, 101632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101632
Graham, M. (2011). Time machines and virtual portals. Progress in Development Studies, 11(3), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/146499341001100303
Ko, J., Kang, W., & Lee, J. (2021). Research trend analysis of digital divide in South Korea. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 52(4).
Schachner, J. N., Marwell, N. P., de la Torre, M., Gwynne, J. A., & Allensworth, E. (2025). Heterogeneous effects of closing the digital divide during COVID-19 on student engagement and achievement. EdWorkingPaper No. 25-1153. https://doi.org/10.26300/vcts-8q53
Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 6(3), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804042519
Zillien, N., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Digital distinction: Status-specific types of internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00617.x
4. Foundational Digital Divide Theory
Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2020). The digital divide. Polity Press.
Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v7i4.942
Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality. Communication Research, 35(5), 602–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208321782
Hargittai, E., & Walejko, G. (2008). The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society, 11(2), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180801946150
Lutz, C. (2019). Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.140
Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4–5), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004
5. Third-Level & Outcome-Based Digital Divide Research
Van Deursen, A. J., & Helsper, E. J. (2017). Collateral benefits of internet use: Explaining diverse outcomes. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2333–2351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817715282
Van Deursen, Alexander J., & Helsper, E. J. (2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? Communication and Information Technologies Annual, 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/s2050-206020150000010002
Van Deursen, Alexander J., & Mossberger, K. (2018). Anything for anyone? A new digital divide in IoT skills. Policy & Internet, 10(2), 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.171
Van Deursen, Alexander JAM, & Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2018). The first-level digital divide shifts from physical access to material access. New Media & Society, 21(2), 354–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818797082
Wei, K.-K., Teo, H.-H., Chan, H. C., & Tan, B. C. (2011). Social cognitive model of the digital divide. Information Systems Research, 22(1), 170–170. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0273
NACE Career Readiness Competencies
NACE Career Readiness Competencies
I have developed several key career readiness competencies through my research experience, particularly critical thinking, communication, teamwork, and career and self-development.
First, I strengthened my critical thinking skills by analyzing and comparing digital equity policies from South Korea and the United States. This required me to interpret complex policy documents, identify patterns, and evaluate strengths and limitations across different national contexts.
Second, my communication skills improved as I translated my research findings into clear written and visual formats, such as research papers and poster presentations. Presenting my work at an academic conference also helped me explain complex ideas in a concise and engaging way.
Third, I developed teamwork skills by collaborating with my research advisor and engaging in discussions to refine my research direction and arguments. This process required me to be open to feedback and actively incorporate suggestions into my work.
Finally, my research experience enhanced my career and self-development by helping me clarify my academic interests and future goals. Through this process, I became more proactive in seeking opportunities, managing long-term projects, and reflecting on my growth as a learner and researcher.
Research Compliance Protocols
Research Compliance Protocols
This study did not involve human participants and was based solely on publicly available policy documents. Therefore, it was exempt from Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval.
Page updated
Report abuse