The pursuit of digital justice requires teachers to actively combat the inequities faced by marginalized populations [15,17,26]. 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]. ERT occurs when social and political strife, natural disasters, or health crises create situations where traditional face-to-face learning cannot safely continue [4].

Hodges and colleagues argue that there are major differences between intentionally planned online instruction and ERT [4]. One of the primary differences is the time and resources educational institutions devote to high-quality online course development and facilitation [27]. 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]. While researchers have championed online learning as an effective pedagogical practice [5,7], many teachers during the pandemic found they were unprepared for the challenges that accompany virtual, and in this case, ERT [5,6,7].

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]. 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]—inequities that became more evident and exacerbated as schools were forced to implement ERT [29].

Where teachers previously chose the degree of technology integration for their instruction, the pandemic forced their hands [5]. 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]. 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. 

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]. 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].

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]. 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]. 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].

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].

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]. 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]. 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.

It is generally accepted that teachers were unprepared for the unprecedented shift to ERT [31]. 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]. 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]. 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] (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].

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]. 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] (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].

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]. 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]. 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].

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:

Mantiri and colleagues’ description of a digitally literate individual reflects the demands EBLs were faced with as they engaged in online learning [44]. 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.

Before the pandemic, the development of EBLs’ digital literacy had been investigated [25,39,42], although with somewhat mixed results. Gilbert [39], 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].

Interestingly, whereas Gilbert’s investigation demonstrated frustrations associated with hyperlinks, Kasper [42] touts hyperlinks as a resource that permits EBLs to, “benefit from increased opportunities to process linguistic and content information” [42] (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]—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] (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]. 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.