Guided from a digital justice perspective [15]^[1], this investigation examines how K-12 content teachers responded to the new challenges posed by emergency remote teaching [ERT] for emergent bilingual learners [EBLs] using interview data on the challenges and strategies that they dealt with during the COVID-19 pandemic. While highlighting the efforts of teachers and school districts to meet the needs of their EBLs, this investigation also calls attention to the long-standing inequities made salient during ERT [15,16,17]^[1][2][3]. Although each district took steps to ameliorate digital inequities, the participants found many of their EBLs were ill-prepared to meet the demands of virtual education which aligned with similar research [14,18,19]^[4][5][6]. Their insufficient preparation largely stemmed from two issues: the first was a lack of access to digital devices; and the second was a lack of digital literacy skills required for full participation in ERT. Resulting from what some have referred to as the digital divide [20^[7][8][9],21,22], teachers and school districts were tasked with providing adequate tools and developing digital literacies for EBLs and their families to fully participate in ERT.

2. Digital Justice and the Digital Divide

This investigation is guided by the framework of digital justice. The foundation of digital justice stems from the notion of the digital divide [16]^[2]. Originally, the “digital divide” referred to the binary condition of possessing or lacking digital resources [22]^[9]. However, over time the term, “digital divide”, evolved and now it includes a variety of aspects such as the differences between user skills and knowledge as well as the “social inequalities” (gender, race, disability, income, etc.) that are seen as precursors to or even causes of the digital divide” [16]^[2] (p. 767). The reality of the 21st century is that “those who function better in the digital realm and participate more fully in digitally mediated social life enjoy advantages over their digitally disadvantaged counterparts” [24]^[10] (p. 570). As the world becomes more digitized, EBLs should have equal or more opportunities to develop the skills which allow them to take part in this increasingly technological society. Nevertheless, as van Deursen and colleagues contend, “Those who are marginalized in important domains are likely to also be marginalized in their digital skills and uses of technology, creating a vicious cycle where historically marginalized groups are further marginalized by technology” [17]^[3] (p. 470). As an example, Heeks demonstrates how digital inequities abound in what he labels “adverse digital incorporation” [16]^[2] (p. 768), which he characterizes as dominant groups exploiting others through the design, implementation, and use of digital resources.

3. Digital Justice

Striving to overcome the negative repercussions of the digital divide brings us to the concept of digital justice. As a social justice movement, digital justice seeks to provide EBLs with the digital resources, literacies, and skills required for learning [15]^[1]. Given the demand that EBLs develop digital 21st-century skills [25]^[11], and given recent experiences with ERT, the urgency of digital justice cannot be ignored. It is essential that all students, “regardless of socioeconomic status, physical disability, language, race, gender, or any other characteristics that have been linked with unequal treatment” [15]^[1] (p. 383), receive the benefits of a digitally just education. However, as will be reiterated throughout this study, digital justice demands more than providing technology and resources to EBLs with the hope that they will intuitively know how to effectively use those tools. EBLs must be taught how to do more than access a shared file or link; they need to be taught how to find answers, evaluate information, and even engage in online communities. A digitally just education demands that EBLs be given an opportunity to develop the digital literacies necessary for success through the purposeful and meaningful integration of technology in educational settings. Such a move would require schools to design a curriculum that could sustain the ongoing need for EBLs to acquire the digital literacies necessary for future careers in our technologically adept society. The current investigation explored how content teachers strove to provide digitally just educational experiences for EBLs during ERT using the interview data, which might contribute to increased awareness of practicing equity when preparing and implementing content teaching for EBLs during the pandemic.

4. Emergency Remote Teaching

The pursuit of digital justice requires teachers to actively combat the inequities faced by marginalized populations [15,17,26]^[1][3][12]. Ideally, this would be a choice; however, for many teachers and students alike, agency was taken away when COVID-19 safety protocols forced schools to shift towards ERT [4,6]^[13][14]. ERT occurs when social and political strife, natural disasters, or health crises create situations where traditional face-to-face learning cannot safely continue [4]^[13]. Hodges and colleagues argue that there are major differences between intentionally planned online instruction and ERT [4]^[13]. One of the primary differences is the time and resources educational institutions devote to high-quality online course development and facilitation [27]^[15]. This contrasts with the more reactionary ERT, where there is little time to prepare and transfer in-person courses to a temporary virtual format [4,9]^[13][16]. While researchers have championed online learning as an effective pedagogical practice [5^[17][18],7], many teachers during the pandemic found they were unprepared for the challenges that accompany virtual, and in this case, ERT [5,6,7]^[14][17][18].

5. Inequality and Emergency Remote Teaching

Combined with the difficulties of transitioning to a virtual format, teachers of EBLs also had to contend with societal inequities; moreover, a shift towards virtual education did not remedy the marginalizing impact of race, language, socioeconomic status, and culture [20,28]^[7][19]. Efforts have been made to address longstanding inequities, yet EBLs continue to be disproportionately impacted when it comes to access and use of educational technology and resources [14]^[4]—inequities that became more evident and exacerbated as schools were forced to implement ERT [29]^[20].

6. Teachers’ Choice

Where teachers previously chose the degree of technology integration for their instruction, the pandemic forced their hands [5]^[17]. On top of the added stress from living during uncertain times, virtual learning was no longer an option only for the teachers who were comfortable with technology nor was it a choice for families who could not afford the necessary equipment and internet connections; COVID forced virtual learning on underprepared teachers and communities [4,5,6,7,8]^{[13][14][17][18][21]}. When ERT dictated that teachers incorporate technology into their instruction, the reality of digital inequities could no longer be ignored. The remainder of this literature review looks more closely at the related issues of the digital divide and digital literacies as obstacles countering the implementation of a digitally equitable education during the pandemic. 

7. Digital Divide

While the notion of the digital divide is not new, it has for many people been considered a challenge of the past; with the emergence of mobile technologies, it had been assumed that all US students had readily accessible technology [30]^[22]. This perception was shattered when the pandemic forced schools to move to ERT. Overlooked yet preexisting inequities became more visible between students who had and those who did not have access to digital resources [31]^[23]. As these inequities became perceptible worldwide, education agencies responded as best as they could; some utilized radio, some provided DVDs, and others utilized television programs [32]^[24]. Within the US, however, schools increasingly relied upon the internet for continued education, which required students to have access to both internet-capable devices and stable internet connections, something not all students had [31]^[23]. Access, or lack thereof, to educational technology is not a new phenomenon; rather it has gained greater attention during the pandemic. For example, before the pandemic, rural communities had limited or no internet access; after gaining access to the internet, consumers expressed their concerns about limited bandwidth as community internet use might diminish their ability to fully participate in online school or work activities [31]^[23]. The pandemic-imposed shift toward virtual learning brought with it a greater awareness of the digital divide as many students had limited access to the necessary digital resources to participate in remote learning [31]^[23].

8. The Digital Divide and Equity

Regardless of the reason for the digital divide, EBLs must be given opportunities to utilize digital resources and develop digital literacies necessary for success in the 21st century. Ruben, Estrada, and Honigsfel argue that action must be taken to better understand and close the digital divide as a means of providing equity for EBLs [35]^[25]. Until this divide is addressed, EBLs with limited access to technology will continue to be marginalized and ill-prepared for future careers, opportunities, and demands [30,36]^[22][26]. Nevertheless, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the disparity between students who had access to technology and those who did not became more apparent; there grew a gap that teachers and districts were required to address to ensure equitable educational opportunities for EBLs.

9. ERT and Digital Literacy

It is generally accepted that teachers were unprepared for the unprecedented shift to ERT [31]^[23]. Many educators had received little training about virtual teaching and learning before the pandemic, so they lacked the necessary knowledge and experience to fluidly transition from in-person to virtual settings [5,7,8,20,31]^{[7][17][18][21][23]}. ERT left them to develop new lessons and materials that could be delivered online, but relatively few teachers examined EBLs’ needs and skills such as digital literacy; moreover, they focused on developing “new” lessons for virtual learning [10]^[27]. There were social programs and community organizations that provided resources and opportunities, “to help disadvantaged people become more digitally included by providing free computer and Internet access, as well as basic digital skills trainings” [37]^[28] (p. 92). There is, however, a difference between possessing a basic understanding of educational technology and utilizing the technology to the fullest extent for learning [4,38]^[13][29].

10. Longstanding Call for Digital Literacy Development

When the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was ratified into law, there came a strong emphasis on preparing students for 21st-century careers, which inevitably necessitated technology skills [25]^[11]. While NCLB reiterated the importance of digital literacies for all students, DelliCarpini stressed that “developing technological literacy skills for [EBLs] is critical to equitable access and participation in the types of 21st Century language skills that are a requirement in our increasingly technological society” [25]^[11] (p. 20). Similar calls have been made by researchers attending specifically to the needs of EBLs and their teachers alike to be well-versed in digital literacy to meet the demands of technologically adept societies [21,28,39]^[8][19][30].

11. Defining Digital Literacy

Never has the importance of digital literacies been more visible than during the pandemic. Determining which digital literacies EBLs should develop, however, is complex, as the term “digital literacy” has become somewhat ambiguous with varying definitions [40]^[31]. Descriptions of digital literacy range from a more literal interpretation that equates digital literacy to print literacy, meaning it is a mere transfer of one’s print literacy (reading/writing) skills to digital environments [41,42]^[32][33]. Other definitions of digital literacy are more complex, incorporating the skillset required to make and interpret meaning in digital environments, which include but are not limited to the interpretation and production of print, audio, and video materials [43]^[34]. The definition of digital literacy as adopted for the current investigation is derived from Mantiri, Hibbert, and Jacobs, who characterize a digitally literate person as one who:

Can use technology strategically to discover and evaluate information, connect and collaborate with others, produce and share original content, and use the internet and technology tools to achieve many academic, professional, and personal goals [44]^[35] (p. 1301).

Mantiri and colleagues’ description of a digitally literate individual reflects the demands EBLs were faced with as they engaged in online learning [44]^[35]. EBLs had to navigate the online world to acquire new learning, communicate with their peers, and engage with their instructors, all of which require greater skills than simply reading and responding to content posted in online classrooms.

12. Digital Literacy and EBLs

Before the pandemic, the development of EBLs’ digital literacy had been investigated [25^[11][30][33],39,42], although with somewhat mixed results. Gilbert [39]^[30], working with adult EBLs at a private language school, examined reading strategies while working through digital texts. He found that interacting with a digital text requires different cognitive processes than print texts. Gilbert’s participants also commented on the difficulty of focusing on the main idea of their reading when presented with a series of distracting hyperlinks and external resources. Notable from this investigation is that the hyperlinks, supposedly included to clarify confusing ideas, served as an additional source of confusion [39]^[30]. Interestingly, whereas Gilbert’s investigation demonstrated frustrations associated with hyperlinks, Kasper [42]^[33] touts hyperlinks as a resource that permits EBLs to, “benefit from increased opportunities to process linguistic and content information” [42]^[33] (p. 96). Kasper, working with university-level EBLs, found that technology-mediated reading significantly increased EBLs’ reading comprehension. These two studies were selected as exemplars because although Gilbert and Kasper have differing perspectives on hyperlinks, they both argue—as do others [45]^[36]—that EBLs must be taught how to effectively utilize the digital resources they have been provided, or, “students may become lost in a sea of information” [46]^[37] (p. 111). It is not enough to merely provide EBLs with technology-mediated resources if educators do not explicitly teach them how to effectively use those resources [28]^[19]. As mentioned above, this would require teachers to reexamine their curricula to find ways to purposefully integrate the sustainable development of digital literacies into their instruction. Nevertheless, as will be demonstrated below, EBLs’ digital literacy development is an area where schools needed to improve and sustain it as part of their curricular and instructional guide.