View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Digital Equity and Accessibility in Higher Education: Reaching the Unreached

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Digital Equity and Accessibility in Higher Education: Reaching the Unreached
Language: English
Authors: Amjad Islam Amjad (ORCID 0000-0002-4250-7526), Sarfraz Aslam (ORCID 0000-0001-7414-7572), Umaira Tabassum (ORCID 0009-0000-5800-271X), Zahida Aziz Sial (ORCID 0000-0002-0470-3411), Faiza Shafqat (ORCID 0009-0007-5509-7136)
Source: European Journal of Education. 2024 59(4).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Access to Education, College Students, Disadvantaged, Power Structure, Access to Computers, Equal Education, Barriers, Student Attitudes, Universities, Low Income Students, Geographic Distribution, Educational Policy
DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12795
ISSN: 0141-8211
1465-3435
Abstract: Digital equity and accessibility for higher education (HE) students have become crucial since the early 21st century, especially for underserved, deprived, marginalised and oppressed students. The present study aimed mainly to reveal the barriers to digital access (BDA) faced by marginalised groups and to find effective strategies for promoting digital inclusion (DI). Another objective of the paper was to provide actionable policy insights (API) to improve DI in Pakistani universities. Participants (students from marginalised groups who face unique barriers to accessing digital education) were selected using a simple random sampling technique from the four provinces of Pakistan (Punjab, Sindh, KPK and Baluchistan). We used a cross-sectional research design to collect quantitative data from 590 students selected from 12 universities in Pakistan using a self-developed questionnaire via online platforms. The study's findings revealed a significant difference in digital access for marginalised groups, which contributes to educational inequalities for students in low-income areas and remote areas facing enormous challenges. We also identified practices to improve digital accessibility, including technology-based interventions and policy reforms to improve digital infrastructure. Based on preliminary findings, a combined effort toward digital equity can significantly improve educational outcomes for marginalised students, providing a roadmap for universities to bridge the digital divide. The present paper not only highlights the current state of digital equity and accessibility but also focuses on practical insights for policy and teachers and ensures that universities are inclusive and accessible to everyone.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1450691
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHpUemkJJ99gLi6YYtudrCkAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBDfnF_DBkge8Jt8_gIBEICBm1H27ZN7GNakMci4WolyByyvd_lVuUCm7W9arVW6ax-Lv8KQvg4XrdVuqI0rNI10Nw4YE7zhK6qCS3AqKi2irhZXQdeuGVUYkmdbZqdGTqldxDRC_E8gehDRjuLaI9PjT_ukya0WrBSyWA-8Lflc-RYKocwM2HZGiqmGbxmQZDS1AXyufffvDRg5fBbpmF1mNmhTxV06SJS_v-ey
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181057393;eje01dec.24;2024Nov26.04:09;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181057393-1">Digital Equity and Accessibility in Higher Education: Reaching the Unreached </title> <p>Digital equity and accessibility for higher education (HE) students have become crucial since the early 21st century, especially for underserved, deprived, marginalised and oppressed students. The present study aimed mainly to reveal the barriers to digital access (BDA) faced by marginalised groups and to find effective strategies for promoting digital inclusion (DI). Another objective of the paper was to provide actionable policy insights (API) to improve DI in Pakistani universities. Participants (students from marginalised groups who face unique barriers to accessing digital education) were selected using a simple random sampling technique from the four provinces of Pakistan (Punjab, Sindh, KPK and Baluchistan). We used a cross‐sectional research design to collect quantitative data from 590 students selected from 12 universities in Pakistan using a self‐developed questionnaire via online platforms. The study's findings revealed a significant difference in digital access for marginalised groups, which contributes to educational inequalities for students in low‐income areas and remote areas facing enormous challenges. We also identified practices to improve digital accessibility, including technology‐based interventions and policy reforms to improve digital infrastructure. Based on preliminary findings, a combined effort toward digital equity can significantly improve educational outcomes for marginalised students, providing a roadmap for universities to bridge the digital divide. The present paper not only highlights the current state of digital equity and accessibility but also focuses on practical insights for policy and teachers and ensures that universities are inclusive and accessible to everyone.</p> <p>Keywords: digital access; digital divide; higher education; inclusion; marginalised groups</p> <hd id="AN0181057393-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Higher education (HE) is one of the key stages for individuals' learning and contributes to their future success in their academic and professional careers (Bellare et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>]; Smith and Walker [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref2">60</reflink>]). After a university education, people typically enter their professional lives to serve their families, themselves and the nation's cause (Jackson and Tomlinson [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref3">34</reflink>]; Tomlinson and Jackson [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref4">62</reflink>]). Thus, tertiary education has a long‐lasting impact on their personal, social and community lives, allowing them to have better communication skills and technology sharing that is more acceptable to individuals and organisations (Schofer, Ramirez, and Meyer [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref5">57</reflink>]). We have found in the literature that students with the provision of equitable learning and a technologically driven environment are more successful in meeting the challenges of the 21st century than people who were taught with neomodern pedagogies (Hanna [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref6">29</reflink>]; Miles and Boltin [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref7">47</reflink>]; Sessoms [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref8">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Students' sustainable development is concerned with their social well‐being and accessibility to educational facilities (Li and Wang [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref9">44</reflink>]; Zenchanka et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref10">66</reflink>]). In recent years, information technology (IT) has developed as an opportunity for sharing collective knowledge and is a crucial catalyst for educational innovations (Lim, Kwan, and Poh [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref11">45</reflink>]; Tabira and Otieno [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref12">61</reflink>]). For example, the implementation of innovative technology‐enhanced learning tools, such as smartphones, smartboards, laptops, MOOCs, tablets, dynamic simulation visualisations and virtual classrooms, has significantly transformed the education system in recent years (Amjad, Aslam, and Tabassum [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref13">7</reflink>]; Haleem et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref14">28</reflink>]). This leads to a technologically driven era reinforcing students' strengths and potential (Chigbu, Ngwevu, and Jojo [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref15">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>The literature demonstrates that digital learning tools provide an instant and effective learning environment, rapid assessments and efficient class engagement compared to the traditional classroom (Aljawarneh [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref16">5</reflink>]; Kumar et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref17">42</reflink>]). It is also evident from the literature that digital tools outshine traditional pedagogies and provide a more student‐centred learning environment (Haleem et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref18">28</reflink>]). In HE, the role of such technologies becomes more crucial because after completing their university education, students tend to opt for professional fields to excel in their professions (Shafqat and Amjad [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref19">59</reflink>]). Thus, providing equitable technology to all individuals is necessary, particularly in developing countries like Pakistan (Ullah et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref20">64</reflink>]). Pakistan is a developing country in South Asia but has a poor literacy rate and economic position (Amin et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref21">6</reflink>]). It has abundant natural and human resources (Ahmed et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>]; Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref23">67</reflink>]). However, it cannot benefit from the potential of resources and youth due to challenges like poor literacy and lack of technological and computer skills (Jamil [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref24">35</reflink>]; Khan [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref25">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>Over the last 10 years, Pakistani universities and schools have focused on integrating technology into the learning environments (Akram et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref26">4</reflink>]). National professional standards for teachers also focus on technology integration skills (Asad et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref27">12</reflink>]). However, equitable digital access to students is still a challenge in Pakistan. In the present study, we focused on investigating digital access to university students across the country so that we may put some actionable implications for students, institutions and policy‐makers. Few studies have been carried out to investigate the role of ICT, challenges and potentials of technology in the COVID‐19 and post‐COVID‐19 era (Abid et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref28">1</reflink>]; Asad et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref29">12</reflink>]; Khan et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref30">41</reflink>]; Ullah et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref31">64</reflink>]). However, there is still a gap in investigating technology provision and challenges for marginalised students at the university level.</p> <p>In the present study, we used the term marginalised students for those who had any physical or psychological disorders, low socioeconomic background, belonged to ethnic and religious minority groups, vulnerable health status, deprived groups, gender orientation (Transgenders and women), remote geographical locations and had lesser facilities for digital accessibility. By covering students with marginalised backgrounds, the present study will fill the knowledge gaps and provide the foundation for academia interested in conducting studies on marginalised groups. Thus, the present study was designed to investigate the barriers to digital access (BDA) faced by marginalised groups, find effective strategies for promoting digital inclusion (DI) and provide actionable policy insights (API) to improve DI in Pakistani universities. The present study is significant in several ways. Firstly, it filled the knowledge gap as no previous study had been conducted in such a context. Secondly, it will guide students, teachers and HE institutions in promoting DI by addressing the identified challenges. Thirdly, it has provided APIs to promote DI in marginalised communities of disadvantaged and deprived areas.</p> <hd id="AN0181057393-3">Contextual Background</hd> <p>As part of the Education for All (EFA) movement, Pakistan strives hard to meet the goals of EFA and SDG‐4 for equitable education (Amjad, Iqbal, and Manzar‐Abbas [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref32">8</reflink>]; Amjad, Tabbasam, and Habib [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref33">10</reflink>]; Edwards, Asadullah, and Webb [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref34">24</reflink>]). Pakistan is a co‐signatory of several international conventions and declarations, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, Sustainable Development Goals 2015 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Person with Disabilities 2006, which bounds her to provide equal opportunities for quality education regardless of any socio‐economic or cultural differences (Amjad, Malik, and Tabassum [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>]; Hussain, Munir, and Ibrar [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref36">32</reflink>]). However, it faces issues such as poverty, lack of policy and planning and political instability in providing quality and digitally‐driven education to meet the needs of 21st‐century challenges. Halai and Durrani ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref37">27</reflink>]) mentioned several issues about access and education for marginalised groups, particularly girls. Chachar et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref38">18</reflink>]) conducted a study in remote areas of Balochistan. They found that students in far‐off areas face several issues, including a lack of infrastructure, gender disparities, sociocultural influences, poor teacher quality and limited funds for access to quality education. Aslam, Naveed, and Shabbir ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref39">13</reflink>]) argued that social and DI are necessary for inclusive growth, even in low‐economic countries. In a panel study, Warraich et al. ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref40">65</reflink>]) found that developing countries had challenges for DI. However, in the context of higher education in Pakistan, research was scarce on the case of DI in marginalised communities. Thus, we designed the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0181057393-4">Research Question</hd> <p>The current study was designed to answer the following questions.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are the barriers to digital access faced by marginalised groups?</item> <p></p> <item> How can digital inclusion be effectively fostered among marginalised communities?</item> <p></p> <item> What actionable policy insights are needed to improve digital inclusion in Pakistani universities?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0181057393-5">Literature Review</hd> <p>Marginalised communities involve, involve people with low income, health disparities and unemployment (Juntunen et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref41">36</reflink>]), stigmatised people, sexual orientation and gender identity (Ramasamy, Rillotta, and Alexander [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref42">52</reflink>]), poor socioeconomic condition, race, ethnicity, religious or political minority (Keddie [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref43">39</reflink>]). Marginalised students also involved students with lower grades, receiving inequitable institutional support and being distracted from the main business (Harrison and Atherton [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref44">30</reflink>]). It is argued in the literature that marginalised students are discriminated against because of weird behaviour like bullying, teasing and providing unequal facilities, which affect their success in HE and their personal and professional lives (Ahanger and Sofal [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref45">2</reflink>]; Danvers and Hinton‐Smith [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref46">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Technology usage to enhance students' learning in universities has been prevalent nowadays due to its capacity to reduce constraints associated with time and space in conventional learning settings. Rosli and Saleh ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref47">54</reflink>]) have examined the elements that impact the acceptance, persistence and utilisation of technology and its impact on educational achievements and student involvement. They found that technology effectively promotes students' engagement and success. Bawack and Kamdjoug ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref48">15</reflink>]) conducted a study to determine the optimal use of technology to engage students in meaningful and successful learning experiences despite challenges. The technology significantly affected students' satisfaction, performance and information sharing. In such a context, using technology for university students becomes necessary to promote engagement, satisfaction, information sharing and success.</p> <hd id="AN0181057393-6">Barriers to Digital Access</hd> <p>Digital access is paramount for university students, particularly in the post‐COVID‐19 era. Most of them prepare their assignments, quizzes, presentations and class‐related tasks using digital devices such as laptops and smartphones (Deng et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref49">23</reflink>]; Sage et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref50">55</reflink>]). Thus, digital access and the provision of gadgets are necessary for them. HE becomes miserable if students from marginalised communities face challenges such as digital access and usability in their academic tasks (Kaihlanen et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref51">37</reflink>]). It is evident from the literature that digital access to students is considered a technical challenge that needs to be addressed for social and DI (Botelho [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref52">17</reflink>]). According to Chodak et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>]), students had diverse perspectives on DI that may lead to an unsuccessful future for them in the current tech‐infused era.</p> <p>Since the advent of computer usage in education, marginalised students have faced challenges with technology integration (Heath and Segal [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref54">31</reflink>]). Although computers and other digital devices are now extensively used in education, students with diverse abilities still face the challenge of taking advantage of their potential (Schmidt and Tang [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref55">56</reflink>]). For example, students with lesser eye‐sightedness can still not access digital devices and their interfaces. Digital platforms are still challenging for marginalised people (Botelho [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref56">17</reflink>]). The 21st century is the century of technology and artificial intelligence, shifting traditional pedagogies and learning styles (Asad et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref57">11</reflink>]; Kaur, Tandon, and Matharou [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref58">38</reflink>]). As tertiary institutions for education, universities must incorporate digital technology to equip students to meet future challenges (Odinokaya et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref59">49</reflink>]). Supporting the above narrative, Núñez‐Canal, de Obesso, and Pérez‐Rivero ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref60">48</reflink>]) argued that providing digital facilities for university students is still a challenge for HE institutions, particularly vulnerable students.</p> <hd id="AN0181057393-7">Digital Inclusion</hd> <p>The actions required to ensure that all people and communities, particularly the marginalised ones, access and use ICT are collectively called DI (Reisdorf and Rhinesmith [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref61">53</reflink>]). This includes having consistent, fast internet connectivity, digital devices that suit their needs, technical support, training in digital skills and access to material, apps and tools that promote and enable involvement, self‐sufficiency and teamwork (Asmar, van Audenhove, and Mariën [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref62">14</reflink>]). DI focuses on policies that minimise the digital divide and promote digital literacy. While the digital divide refers to the gap between those who have and those who do not have internet access, digital literacy aims at the knowledge and skills needed once access is offered (Jamil [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref63">35</reflink>]; Reisdorf and Rhinesmith [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref64">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>DI has gained global attention from policymakers. People worldwide can stay home, work, attend school and reside remotely. COVID‐19 has brought attention to the issue of DI as a crucial element of inclusion (Esteban‐Navarro et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref65">25</reflink>]). Due to this desire for isolation, conversations about the long‐standing but now vividly apparent economic disparities and inequality have resurfaced. Various media houses have also discussed the issue and internet service companies offer free or affordable internet to students and low‐income communities (Reisdorf and Rhinesmith [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref66">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>Being technologically excluded also entails being excluded from society, as seen by the growing reliance on digital gadgets and dependable internet. The extent to which internet consumers can use their access varies depending on several factors, including their offline assets and sociodemographic background, the types of equipment they can purchase and maintain, where they get internet access (e.g., through internet service providers or mobile data plans) and other factors like digital skills or attitudes toward technology in general (Gangadharan [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref67">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181057393-8">Methods</hd> <p>The present study is an effort to explore the BDA and students' voices for APIs for DI for marginalised groups. The focus of the study was marginalised students in terms of physical or psychological disorders, low socio‐economic background, belonging to ethnic and religious minority groups, vulnerable health status, deprived groups, gender orientation, remote geographical locations and lesser facilities for digital accessibility. In the literature, we found that several researchers conducted such studies using quantitative research approaches (Choudrie, Pheeraphuttranghkoon, and Davari [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref68">21</reflink>]; Islam, Rafi, and Ahmad [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref69">33</reflink>]; Jamil [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref70">35</reflink>]; Qureshi et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref71">51</reflink>]; Reisdorf and Rhinesmith [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref72">53</reflink>]), while few of them used qualitative approaches (Asmar, van Audenhove, and Mariën [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref73">14</reflink>]; Tsatsou [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref74">63</reflink>]). Researchers used a quantitative lens to examine the nature of BDA at a broader level. Consequently, we followed a positivistic research philosophy and quantitative data collection and analysis methods. It was followed due to its various applicable attributes; it may help us collect the data from large sample sizes, leading to the study's generalisability for its findings and representativeness of vulnerable groups. It enabled us to generalise the results on a broader level. It also helped us to identify significant BDA and DI for these students. The positivist worldview suits the current study because it reduces subjectivity and biases, leading to more valid and reliable conclusions (Park, Konge, and Artino [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref75">50</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181057393-9">Research Design</hd> <p>In the current study, we followed a cross‐sectional survey research design to identify DI's BDA, API and perspectives. The data were collected using Google Forms to investigate the picture of the phenomenon under study at this particular time of the 21st century. A cross‐sectional survey design has the advantage of collecting data promptly and efficiently from a large sample of respondents.</p> <hd id="AN0181057393-10">Participants</hd> <p>The study participants were university students from the four provinces of Pakistan (Punjab, Sindh, KPK and Baluchistan) who faced discrimination in areas like digital access, poverty, psychological and physical disability, poor socio‐economic status and health. In the first stage of the study, we selected 12 universities from the four provinces. Overall, three universities were selected from each of the provinces.</p> <p>We set the criteria for selecting universities and students. For example, universities were chosen from remote districts of the provinces where people lacked resources. Due to the matter's sensitivity, we are not revealing the universities' names and locations. Then, in the second stage, the students were approached using WhatsApp groups. We randomly shared Google Form links with 5000 students. Meeting the criteria, 590 participants responded to the questionnaire. Their demographic information is provided in Table 1.</p> <p>1 TABLE Demographic details (N  = 590).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="center">Category</th><th align="center">Frequency</th><th align="center">Percentage (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Gender</td><td align="center">Male</td><td align="center">214</td><td align="center">36</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Female</td><td align="center">376</td><td align="center">64</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="center">18–22 years</td><td align="center">87</td><td align="center">15</td></tr><tr><td align="center">23–27 years</td><td align="center">360</td><td align="center">61</td></tr><tr><td align="center">28–32 years</td><td align="center">92</td><td align="center">16</td></tr><tr><td align="center">33–37 years</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="center">6</td></tr><tr><td align="center">38 and above</td><td align="center">15</td><td align="center">2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Province</td><td align="center">Punjab</td><td align="center">247</td><td align="center">42</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Sindh</td><td align="center">124</td><td align="center">21</td></tr><tr><td align="center">KPK</td><td align="center">120</td><td align="center">20</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Baluchistan</td><td align="center">99</td><td align="center">17</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Degree program</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">158</td><td align="center">27</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Master</td><td align="center">298</td><td align="center">50</td></tr><tr><td align="center">MPhil/PhD</td><td align="center">134</td><td align="center">23</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Field of study</td><td align="center">Natural sciences</td><td align="center">253</td><td align="center">43</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Social sciences</td><td align="center">337</td><td align="center">57</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Living area</td><td align="center">Urban</td><td align="center">333</td><td align="center">56</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Rural</td><td align="center">257</td><td align="center">44</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Household income in PKR (per month)</td><td align="center">Less than 20,000</td><td align="center">105</td><td align="center">18</td></tr><tr><td align="center">20,001–40,000</td><td align="center">164</td><td align="center">28</td></tr><tr><td align="center">40,001–60,000</td><td align="center">127</td><td align="center">21</td></tr><tr><td align="center">60,001–80,000</td><td align="center">63</td><td align="center">11</td></tr><tr><td align="center">More than 80,000</td><td align="center">131</td><td align="center">22</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Access to digital devices</td><td align="center">Yes, I own personal digital devices (laptop, smartphone)</td><td align="center">495</td><td align="center">84</td></tr><tr><td align="center">No, I do not own personal digital devices</td><td align="center">71</td><td align="center">12</td></tr><tr><td align="center">I share digital devices</td><td align="center">24</td><td align="center">4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Disability status</td><td align="center">Yes, I have a disability that affects my learning</td><td align="center">123</td><td align="center">21</td></tr><tr><td align="center">No, I do not have a disability</td><td align="center">467</td><td align="center">79</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 1 details the demographic and socio‐economic conditions of marginalised university students. Female students participated more in the current study, which may be due to their vulnerability status and gender identity. Students from the Punjab province participated more. It might be because Punjab had better resources than other provinces. On the other hand, students from Baluchistan (<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref76">99</reflink>) participated less, which might have happened due to the digital divide and BDA. A significant number of respondents (44%) were from rural areas, with fewer digital access facilities than those living in urban areas (56%). The financial condition of respondents also provides a poor case for their livelihood, whereas a significant majority had low incomes. Many (<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref77">71</reflink>) do not have digital devices like smartphones or laptops and few share these devices with their parents or siblings, which provides a poor picture of digital devices' accessibility. Overall, 123 respondents had a physical disability, which hindered their accessibility and learning process.</p> <hd id="AN0181057393-11">Measure and Data Collection</hd> <p>We developed a questionnaire to measure marginalised students' perspectives on BDA, DI and policy insights because none of the existing scales fulfilled the present study's context and purpose. To develop the questionnaire, we reviewed the extensive literature on digital access and barriers for marginalised students (Botelho [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref78">17</reflink>]; Chodak et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref79">20</reflink>]; Deng et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref80">23</reflink>]; Kaihlanen et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref81">37</reflink>]; Lee and Lee [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref82">43</reflink>]; Núñez‐Canal, de Obesso, and Pérez‐Rivero [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref83">48</reflink>]; Schmidt and Tang [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref84">56</reflink>]). We developed a pool of 34 statements fulfilling the purpose of the study, and then, as experts in the field, we revised these statements and finalised the questionnaire with 30 items. After a rigorous review, ten items for each research question were considered enough. The questionnaire had two parts, including demographic and scale sections and was named Questionnaire for Digital Equity and Accessibility in Higher Education (QDEAHE). We piloted QDEAHE and found it reliable with a Cronbach Alpha value of 0.79, which is considered satisfactory for the acceptance of the questionnaire (McCrae et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref85">46</reflink>]). The data were collected during April and May 2024. The QDEAHE was shared with representative students to respond to it. The first question of the QDEAHE was about consent and participation in the current study with the vulnerable nature of respondents. The research questions and their related reliability are presented in Table 2.</p> <p>2 TABLE QDEAHE statements and reliability.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Research question</th><th align="center">No of statements</th><th align="center">Cronbach's alpha</th><th align="center">McDonald's omega</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">RQ1</td><td align="center">10</td><td align="center">0.77</td><td align="center">0.80</td></tr><tr><td align="left">RQ2</td><td align="center">10</td><td align="center">0.93</td><td align="center">0.93</td></tr><tr><td align="left">RQ3</td><td align="center">10</td><td align="center">0.90</td><td align="center">0.90</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2 indicates Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's Omega values, which shows the questionnaire's adequacy for use in the current study. We also carried out the EFA and CFA, and model fit measures indicate the construct and convergent validity of the QDEAHE. Bartlett's test of Sphericity (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>) provided the value of 10,723 with 435 df and <emph>p</emph>‐values of 0.000, highlighting that the correlation matrix differs from the identity matrix for the appropriate factor analysis. Additionally, the KMO value of 0.909 indicates excellent adequacy for factor analysis. The individual MSA values for items range between 0.778 and 0.948, which is above the criteria of 0.5, indicating the suitability of the data for factor analysis.</p> <p>Furthermore, RMSEA is 0.073, with the 90% CI ranging from 0.068 to 0.079, highlighting the reasonable fit to the data. The TLI index is 0.913, which is above the criteria of 0.90, suggesting a good model fit. The BIC metric is −315, indicating a better fit.</p> <hd id="AN0181057393-12">Research Ethics</hd> <p>As the present study was conducted on the marginalised groups of the community, the researchers ensured that their sentiments, feelings and emotions were not hurt by avoiding questions related to their cultural, ethnic, political and religious elements. We collected data using online platforms, which nullified any potential harm to their physical involvement. Considering their vulnerability, we did not collect sensitive and personal information about names, locations or specific vulnerabilities to hide their identity. The data collected from them is only used for the current study. The respondents were given the right to withdraw from the data collection process, and we got 590 responses.</p> <hd id="AN0181057393-13">Results</hd> <p>The data were managed in an Excel sheet, and a screening check was made to find the missing values. Then, it was analysed using Jamovi software (Version 2.5.6). Before deploying statistics, we tested the data to ensure the assumptions of parametric statistics. We tested normality using Q–Q plots and histograms and through skewness and kurtosis values, indicating the data were normally distributed. Levene's test was deployed to assess the homogeneity of variance, and it was found to be equal in the groups being compared. We also tested the assumption of linearity with scatterplots indicating a linear relationship between variables. Moreover, no significant outliers were observed. The correlation of study variables is presented in Table 3.</p> <p>3 TABLE Correlation matrix.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variables</th><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">4</th><th align="center">5</th><th align="center">6</th><th align="center">7</th><th align="center">8</th><th align="center">9</th><th align="center">10</th><th align="center">11</th><th align="center">12</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center">SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">2.21</td><td align="center">0.86</td></tr><tr><td align="left">M/F</td><td align="center">−0.020</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">1.64</td><td align="center">0.48</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Province</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">−0.309<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">2.12</td><td align="center">1.13</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Degree</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.013</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">1.96</td><td align="center">0.70</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Field</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">−0.167<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">1.57</td><td align="center">0.50</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Living</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">−0.123<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">1.44</td><td align="center">0.50</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Income</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">−0.167<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">2.92</td><td align="center">1.41</td></tr><tr><td align="left">APDD</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">−0.208<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">1.20</td><td align="center">0.50</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PSIA</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.252<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">1.94</td><td align="center">0.92</td></tr><tr><td align="left">DS</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">−0.048</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">1.79</td><td align="center">0.41</td></tr><tr><td align="left">BDA</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.036</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">3.26</td><td align="center">0.62</td></tr><tr><td align="left">DI</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.332<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="center" /><td align="center">3.90</td><td align="center">0.71</td></tr><tr><td align="left">APIs</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.823<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="center">3.95</td><td align="center">0.664</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2‐tailed).</p> <p>Table 3 provides the correlation's nature, direction and magnitude among the current study variables. The analysis revealed that age (<emph>M</emph> = 2.21, SD = 0.86) shows a statistically insignificant relationship with gender. Gender (<emph>M</emph> = 1.64, SD = 0.48) had a negative but statistically significant correlation (<emph>r</emph> = −0.309, df = 588, <emph>p</emph> = 0.000) with the provinces. Degree Program (<emph>M</emph> = 1.96, SD = 0.70) had a statistically significant but negative correlation (<emph>r</emph> = −0.167, df = 588, <emph>p</emph> = 0.000) with the field of study. The field of study (<emph>M</emph> = 1.57, SD = 0.50) is negatively and significantly correlated (<emph>r</emph> = −0.123, df = 588, <emph>p</emph> = 0.000) with the living area. Living area (<emph>M</emph> = 1.44, SD = 0.50) had a negative and statistically significant effect on the household income (<emph>r</emph> = −0.167, df = 588, <emph>p</emph> = 0.000). It was also found that household income (<emph>M</emph> = 2.92, SD = 1.41) had a negative and statistically significant correlation (<emph>r</emph> = −0.208, df = 588, <emph>p</emph> = 0.000) with access to personal digital devices (APDD). APDD (<emph>M</emph> = 1.20, SD = 0.50) had a positive and statistically significant correlation (<emph>r</emph> = 0.252, df = 588, <emph>p</emph> = 0.000) with the primary source of internet access (PSIA). BDA (<emph>M</emph> = 3.26, SD = 0.62) had a positive and statistically significant correlation (<emph>r</emph> = 0.332, df = 588, <emph>p</emph> = 0.000) with the perspectives for DI. DI (<emph>M</emph> = 3.90, SD = 0.71) had a positive, strong and statistically significant correlation (<emph>r</emph> = 0.823, df = 588, <emph>p</emph> = 0.000) with the API. It shows that digital access and inclusion strongly correlate significantly in shaping the understanding of DI and policy insights. The graphical correlation among study variables is also depicted in Figure 1.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EJE/01dec24/ejed12795-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ejed12795-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Correlation plot." /> </p> <p></p> <p>To answer the first research question about exploring BDA, we deployed descriptive statistical analysis to identify the leading and significant barriers to DI. The results are presented in Table 4.</p> <p>4 TABLE Barriers to digital access (N  = 590).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Statements</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center">SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">I have reliable access to high‐speed internet at my home</td><td align="center">3.33</td><td align="center">1.58</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Financial constraints limit my ability to purchase necessary digital devices (e.g., laptop and smartphone)</td><td align="center">3.15</td><td align="center">1.08</td></tr><tr><td align="left">There is a lack of digital literacy resources available in my community</td><td align="center">3.19</td><td align="center">1.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I encounter difficulties understanding and using digital tools and platforms required for my studies</td><td align="center">2.98</td><td align="center">1.13</td></tr><tr><td align="left">My physical environment (e.g., lack of quiet study space) hinders my ability to engage in digital learning</td><td align="center">3.32</td><td align="center">1.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">My university offers insufficient technical support to deal with digital access issues</td><td align="center">3.41</td><td align="center">1.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">My university's infrastructure for digital integration is inadequate for my needs</td><td align="center">3.29</td><td align="center">1.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">I face cultural or language barriers that make it difficult to access digital resources</td><td align="center">3.07</td><td align="center">1.13</td></tr><tr><td align="left">The cost of internet data packages is a significant barrier for me</td><td align="center">3.41</td><td align="center">1.16</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Frequent power outages in my area disrupt my digital learning activities</td><td align="center">3.45</td><td align="center">1.02</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4 indicates that power outage (<emph>M</emph> = 3.45, SD = 1.02) is one of the leading barriers to DI faced by marginalised students. It was followed by inadequate technical support (<emph>M</emph> = 3.41, SD = 1.06) and the cost of internet data packages (<emph>M</emph> = 3.41, SD = 1.16), which is considered significant for poor students. In contrast, understanding the digital tools for study purposes was the barrier with the least weightage (<emph>M</emph> = 2.98, SD = 1.13), followed by the cultural and language barriers (<emph>M</emph> = 3.07, SD = 1.13).</p> <p>We designed the second research question to examine marginalised students' perceptions regarding DI. After collecting data using a questionnaire, it was analysed using mean and SD statistics, and the results are presented in Table 5.</p> <p>5 TABLE Perceptions for digital inclusion (N  = 590).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Statements</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center">SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Providing free or subsidised internet access would significantly improve my ability to engage in digital learning</td><td align="center">3.77</td><td align="center">0.97</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Providing affordable or accessible digital devices to students can enhance digital inclusion</td><td align="center">3.95</td><td align="center">0.88</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Introducing digital literacy programs in my community can overcome barriers to digital access</td><td align="center">3.90</td><td align="center">0.92</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Creating more online resources in multiple languages would facilitate better student access</td><td align="center">3.92</td><td align="center">0.93</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Implementing community‐based digital support centres would be beneficial</td><td align="center">3.81</td><td align="center">0.96</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ensuring a consistent and reliable electricity supply is crucial for effective digital learning</td><td align="center">3.94</td><td align="center">0.92</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Providing online technical support would help me resolve digital access issues more efficiently</td><td align="center">3.84</td><td align="center">0.88</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Increasing the availability of open educational resources (OERs) would improve digital learning</td><td align="center">3.99</td><td align="center">0.80</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Developing partnerships with tech companies to offer students discounts on devices and software would be beneficial</td><td align="center">3.99</td><td align="center">0.88</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Encouraging peer‐to‐peer support networks for digital learning would foster greater inclusion</td><td align="center">3.91</td><td align="center">0.85</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 5 depicts marginalised students' perspectives on digital integration to facilitate their learning. It was found that the availability of OERs (<emph>M</emph> = 3.99, SD = 0.80) and partnerships with tech companies to offer students discounts on devices and software (<emph>M</emph> = 3.99, SD = 0.88) can be very effective for DI. They also believed that providing affordable and digital devices to needy students (<emph>M</emph> = 3.95, SD = 0.88) could enhance the dream of DI.</p> <p>We developed the third research question to explore the API provided by marginalised students to improve DI. Usually, policies are made without considering the terminal users' voices; thus, we focused on including their responses to improve the policy framework for DI, particularly for marginalised groups of society. The results are provided in Table 6.</p> <p>6 TABLE Actionable policy insights (N  = 590).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Statements</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center">SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">My university needs to invest more in upgrading its digital infrastructure</td><td align="center">3.86</td><td align="center">0.92</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Policy‐makers need to prioritise funding for digital education initiatives in marginalised communities</td><td align="center">3.87</td><td align="center">0.91</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Implementing policies that mandate affordable internet for students is essential</td><td align="center">3.89</td><td align="center">0.84</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Universities should collaborate with private and government sectors to enhance digital accessibility</td><td align="center">3.95</td><td align="center">0.98</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Regularly updating digital literacy curricula in universities is necessary</td><td align="center">4.01</td><td align="center">0.88</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Providing training programs for teachers on digital education tools would improve teaching quality</td><td align="center">4.07</td><td align="center">0.87</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Establishing clear guidelines for digital inclusion policies would benefit marginalised students</td><td align="center">3.94</td><td align="center">0.86</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ensuring equitable distribution of digital resources across all regions is essential</td><td align="center">3.99</td><td align="center">0.83</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Developing comprehensive strategies to address digital inequity should be a top priority for educational policy‐makers</td><td align="center">3.94</td><td align="center">0.80</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Promoting awareness campaigns about digital inclusion would help garner support for necessary reforms</td><td align="center">4.02</td><td align="center">0.85</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 6 indicates that most of the respondents gave weight to items related to university initiatives for improving DI. For example, they believed that providing training programs for teachers on DI (<emph>M</emph> = 4.07, SD = 0.87) and promoting awareness campaigns about DI (<emph>M</emph> = 4.02, SD = 0.85) would help bring the necessary reforms. They also believed that regularly updating digital literacy programs (<emph>M</emph> = 4.01, SD = 0.88) is necessary for universities for DI. They also believed that policymakers should fund (<emph>M</emph> = 3.87, SD = 0.91) for DI.</p> <p>We also compared marginalised students' perspectives based on their gender, locality, disability, and field of study, and the results did not show any significant difference between BDA, DI and API. Thus, we did not present those results here to maintain the research integrity. Additionally, we examined the difference between BDA, DI and API based on respondents' age and household income by deploying one‐way ANOVA, and the results are presented in Table 7.</p> <p>7 TABLE ANOVA results.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Demographic</th><th align="center">Variables</th><th align="center">Group form</th><th align="center">Sum of squares</th><th align="center">df</th><th align="center">Mean square</th><th align="center"><italic>F</italic></th><th align="center">Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="center">Barriers to digital access</td><td align="center">Between groups</td><td align="center">14.555</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">3.639</td><td align="center">10.006</td><td align="center">0.000</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Within groups</td><td align="center">212.736</td><td align="center">585</td><td align="center">0.364</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="center">Total</td><td align="center">227.291</td><td align="center">589</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="center">Digital inclusion</td><td align="center">Between groups</td><td align="center">15.887</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">3.972</td><td align="center">8.390</td><td align="center">0.000</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Within groups</td><td align="center">276.950</td><td align="center">585</td><td align="center">0.473</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="center">Total</td><td align="center">292.838</td><td align="center">589</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="center">Actionable policy insights</td><td align="center">Between groups</td><td align="center">15.493</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">3.873</td><td align="center">10.179</td><td align="center">0.000</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Within groups</td><td align="center">222.612</td><td align="center">585</td><td align="center">0.381</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="center">Total</td><td align="center">238.105</td><td align="center">589</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Household income</td><td align="center">Barriers to digital access</td><td align="center">Between groups</td><td align="center">35.190</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">8.797</td><td align="center">26.787</td><td align="center">0.000</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Within groups</td><td align="center">192.104</td><td align="center">585</td><td align="center">0.328</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="center">Total</td><td align="center">227.291</td><td align="center">589</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="center">Digital inclusion</td><td align="center">Between groups</td><td align="center">10.521</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">2.630</td><td align="center">5.450</td><td align="center">0.000</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Within groups</td><td align="center">282.317</td><td align="center">585</td><td align="center">0.483</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="center">Total</td><td align="center">292.838</td><td align="center">589</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="center">Actionable policy insights</td><td align="center">Between groups</td><td align="center">7.187</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">1.797</td><td align="center">4.552</td><td align="center">0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Within groups</td><td align="center">230.918</td><td align="center">585</td><td align="center">0.395</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="center">Total</td><td align="center">238.105</td><td align="center">589</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 7 reveals that for BDA, there was a significant effect between groups [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref86">4</reflink>, 585) = 10.006, <emph>p</emph> = 0.000], indicating that the groups differ significantly in their perceived BDA. The total variance for BDA is 14.555, with a mean square of 3.639 between groups and 212.736 within groups. For DI, there was a significant effect of group on DI [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref87">4</reflink>, 585) = 8.390, <emph>p</emph> = 0.000], highlighting that DI varies significantly between groups. The between groups sum of squares is 15.887, with a mean square of 3.972, while within groups sum of squares was 276.95, with a mean square of 0.493. Similarly, for API, the researchers found a significant effect between groups [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref88">4</reflink>, 585) = 10.179, <emph>p</emph> = 0.001], suggesting that the groups differ significantly in their perceived API. The between groups sum of squares is 15.493, and the mean square is 3.873, while within groups, it was 222.612 with a mean square of 0.381. We concluded that there is a significant difference between respondents' BDA, DI and API based on their age.</p> <p>For the difference based on participants' household income, we found that BDA significantly affected groups [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref89">4</reflink>, 585) = 26.787, <emph>p</emph> = 0.000], highlighting that the groups differ significantly in their perceived BDA. The total variance explained by the model is 35.190, with a mean square of 8.797 between groups and 0.328 within groups. For DI, we also found a significant effect between groups [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref90">4</reflink>, 585) = 5.450, <emph>p</emph> = 0.000], indicating that the groups differ significantly in their perceived DI. The total variance for DI is 10.521, with a mean square of 2.630 between groups and 0.483 within groups. Similarly, for API, the analysis revealed a significant effect between groups [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref91">4</reflink>, 585) = 4.552, <emph>p</emph> = 0.001], highlighting that the groups differ significantly in their perceived API. The total variance explained by the model for API is 35.190, with a mean square of 7.187 between groups and 1.797 within groups. It shows that BDA, DI and API significantly differ based on the household incomes of marginalised students.</p> <hd id="AN0181057393-15">Discussion</hd> <p>The current quantitative study was planned to investigate the BDA faced by marginalised groups, explore practical strategies for promoting DI, and provide API to improve DI in Pakistani higher education. The first research question was designed to explore the leading barriers marginalised students face to digital access. After data analysis, we found a significant BDA faced by the marginalised students of 12 universities in Pakistan. Power outages, the prohibitive price of digital devices and internet packages, and inadequate university technical support were the leading BDA restraining marginalised students from DI. The present findings are consistent with the results of Botelho ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref92">17</reflink>]) and Núñez‐Canal, de Obesso, and Pérez‐Rivero ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref93">48</reflink>]), who argued about the critical importance of reliable institutional support and infrastructure for achieving DI. Institutional policies and infrastructural issues might be the reason for these challenges, which need to be addressed so that marginalised students effectively engage with the learning tools (Chodak et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref94">20</reflink>]). We found that understanding digital tools and platforms was among the least valued barriers, indicating that students could use and manage these technologies if they had access. It is a very encouraging finding that aligns with the potential effectiveness of digital literacy programs if the foundational challenges are sorted out (Heath and Segal [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref95">31</reflink>]). The language and cultural barriers indicate the need for linguistically inclusive and culturally more responsive support and resources, which has been the narrative of Kaihlanen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref96">37</reflink>]). These BDA indicate that HE needs to bridge the digital divide and promote more equitable learning opportunities in this tech‐infused era. Moreover, teachers' training and curricula must address language and cultural barriers.</p> <p>Our second research question explores practical ways to promote DI for marginalised communities. The analysis revealed that marginalised students strongly supported the provision of OERs and suggested developing partnerships with tech companies to provide easy access and discounts on software and devices. These research findings support the findings of Reisdorf and Rhinesmith ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref97">53</reflink>]), who emphasise the significance of accessible digital content and affordable technology as critical aspects for bridging the digital divide. The importance of digital gadgets further indicates the need for institutional support and guidelines for DI to overcome the financial barriers (Asmar, van Audenhove, and Mariën [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref98">14</reflink>]). We also found that marginalised students firmly believe in introducing digital literacy programs and developing multilingual online resources to enhance DI. This finding supports the findings of Jamil ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref99">35</reflink>]) and Gangadharan ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref100">26</reflink>]), who argued about the need for digital skills‐oriented training and culturally inclusive resources to ensure that marginalised students can enjoy the benefits of digital technologies.</p> <p>We designed the third research question to find practical API from marginalised students to improve DI in universities. We found perspective bias: typically, high‐ups make policies without knowing the grassroots‐level insights and facts, leading to their failure. The respondents strongly favoured upgrading the university's digital infrastructure and funding digital education initiatives. The marginalised students mentioned the need for cheaper and affordable internet packages and collaboration between universities and telecom companies to improve digital accessibility to overcome financial and infrastructural barriers. These research findings are consistent with the arguments of Asmar, van Audenhove, and Mariën ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref101">14</reflink>]), who mentioned the need for digital and financial support to overcome digital divides. We found no difference between respondents' perceptions based on gender, location and study field, indicating a consensus among respondents about BDA, DI and API. However, we found a significant difference in BDA, DI and API for their age and household income, highlighting that younger students and those with lower‐income households perceive BDA, DI and API. These results are consistent with the findings of Gangadharan ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref102">26</reflink>]) and Harrison and Atherton ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref103">30</reflink>]), who pointed out the diverse impact of digital equity across different demographic groups.</p> <hd id="AN0181057393-16">Conclusion</hd> <p>In the present study, we explored the perceptions of marginalised students from 12 universities in Pakistan's four provinces regarding BDA, DI and API. We found significant critical BDA, which include frequent power outages, prohibitive costs associated with digital devices and internet access, and inadequate technical support. These barriers emphasise the demand and need for infrastructural investment and financial support mechanisms to ensure equitable digital access. Teachers' support and curriculum integration for language and sociocultural inequalities need to be addressed at the inter and intra‐university levels. Students perceived that OERs and partnerships with tech companies are necessary for strategic collaboration and resource allocations to bridge the digital divide. Moreover, we found that respondents agreed with the need for continuous improvement in digital literacy programs, policy frameworks and teacher training that mandate affordable internet access and equitable distribution of digital resources. The significant differences in perspective BDA, DI and API based on their age and household income need to address the specific needs of diverse student demographics. Overall, we found that infrastructure upgradation, financial support, targeted educational initiatives, and comprehensive policy reforms are significant in enhancing DI and promoting equitable learning opportunities in HE. These insights and conclusions can help reduce DI inequalities among higher education institutions in Pakistan.</p> <hd id="AN0181057393-17">Study Limitations and Implications</hd> <p>The present study also had some limitations. One of them is the reliance on self‐reported answers, which may lead to biased responses, including social desirability and recall bias. Another limitation was that the sample was limited to marginalised students, which may not be true for typical students. Another methodological limitation was using the cross‐sectional research design, which may not reflect the true picture of the phenomenon for a more extended period.</p> <p>The current study had some very useful practical implications for universities. Based on the results, universities might upgrade their digital infrastructure to ensure reliable and better internet access for marginalised students. Moreover, universities are suggested to invest in implementing digital literacy programs and teachers' training to use digital tools effectively to improve digital education. These institutions are also suggested for developing peer‐to‐peer networks and support centres to foster a collaborative learning environment.</p> <p>We also made some policy recommendations based on the present study's results. We suggest that policymakers prioritise funding for DI, particularly for marginalised students. They should also develop and implement policies for affordable internet access and equitable distribution of digital resources across all regions. We also suggest enhanced collaboration between universities and other public and private sectors to enhance digital accessibility. Furthermore, we suggest an improved policy for DI.</p> <p>Considering the current study's findings, we suggest longitudinal studies be planned to examine the long‐term impact of DI initiatives and policy measures. Future researchers may also expand the sample size to replicate the study's results and generalisability. Qualitative data collection tools are also suggested to have context and regional‐based perspectives for a deeper and more detailed understanding of the phenomenon.</p> <hd id="AN0181057393-18">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Education Department, Kasur, Punjab ethical committee (Approval #PB/K/04‐2024).</p> <hd id="AN0181057393-19">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0181057393-20">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data supporting the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.</p> <ref id="AN0181057393-21"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref28" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0181057393-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abid, T., G. Zahid, N. Shahid, and M. Bukhari. 2021. " Online Teaching Experience During the COVID‐19 in Pakistan: Pedagogy–Technology Balance and Student Engagement." Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 14, no. 3 : 367 – 391. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40647‐021‐00325‐7/FIGURES/1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref45" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ahanger, W. A., and F. A. Sofal. 2023. " Casteism and Education: Institutional Experiences of Muslim Marginalised Students in the Higher Education Academia." Journal of Social Inclusion Studies 9, no. 2 : 200 – 217. https://doi.org/10.1177/23944811231185234.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref22" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ahmed, Z., M. M. Asghar, M. N. Malik, and K. Nawaz. 2020. " Moving Towards a Sustainable Environment: The Dynamic Linkage Between Natural Resources, Human Capital, Urbanization, Economic Growth, and Ecological Footprint in China." Resources Policy 67 : 101677. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESOURPOL.2020.101677.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref26" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Akram, H., Y. Yingxiu, A. S. Al‐Adwan, and A. Alkhalifah. 2021. " Technology Integration in Higher Education During COVID‐19: An Assessment of Online Teaching Competencies Through Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model." Frontiers in Psychology 12 : 736522. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2021.736522/BIBTEX.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref16" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Aljawarneh, S. A. 2020. " Reviewing and Exploring Innovative Ubiquitous Learning Tools in Higher Education." Journal of Computing in Higher Education 32, no. 1 : 57 – 73. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12528‐019‐09207‐0/METRICS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref21" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Amin, A., Y. Liu, J. Yu, et al. 2020. " How Does Energy Poverty Affect Economic Development? A Panel Data Analysis of South Asian Countries." Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27, no. 25 : 31623 – 31635. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11356‐020‐09173‐6/METRICS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref13" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Amjad, A. I., S. Aslam, and U. Tabassum. 2024. " Tech‐Infused Classrooms: A Comprehensive Study on the Interplay of Mobile Learning, ChatGPT and Social Media in Academic Attainment." European Journal of Education : e12625. https://doi.org/10.1111/EJED.12625.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref32" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Amjad, A. I., H. Iqbal, and S. S. Manzar‐Abbas. 2020. " Teachers' Awareness About Inclusive Education in Punjab: A Descriptive Enquiry." Journal of Inclusive Education 4, no. 1 : 161 – 178.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref35" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Amjad, A. I., M. A. Malik, and U. Tabassum. 2021. " Ready to Accept? Investigating Pakistani School teachers' Readiness for Inclusive Education." Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry 12, no. 9 : 7442 – 7456.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Amjad, A. I., U. Tabbasam, and M. Habib. 2023. " Uncovering teachers' Concerns and Multi‐Dimensional Attitude Towards Inclusive Education: Who's Included and who's Excluded." Journal of Contemporary Trends and Issues in Education 2, no. 3 : 1 – 22. https://doi.org/10.55628/JCTIE.V3I1.71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Asad, M. M., K. Aftab, F. Sherwani, P. Churi, A. J. Moreno‐Guerrero, and B. Pourshahian. 2021. " Techno‐Pedagogical Skills for 21st Century Digital Classrooms: An Extensive Literature Review." Education Research International 2021, no. 1 : 8160084. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8160084.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Asad, M. M., N. Hussain, M. Wadho, Z. H. Khand, and P. P. Churi. 2020. " Integration of e‐Learning Technologies for Interactive Teaching and Learning Process: An Empirical Study on Higher Education Institutes of Pakistan." Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 13, no. 3 : 649 – 663. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE‐04‐2020‐0103/FULL/XML.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Aslam, A., A. Naveed, and G. Shabbir. 2021. " Is It an Institution, Digital or Social Inclusion That Matters for Inclusive Growth? A Panel Data Analysis." Quality and Quantity 55, no. 1 : 333 – 355. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11135‐020‐01008‐3/TABLES/3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Asmar, A., L. van Audenhove, and I. Mariën. 2020. " Social Support for Digital Inclusion: Towards a Typology of Social Support Patterns." Social Inclusion 8, no. 2 : 138 – 150. https://doi.org/10.17645/SI.V8I2.2627.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bawack, R. E., and J. R. K. Kamdjoug. 2020. " The Role of Digital Information Use on Student Performance and Collaboration in Marginal Universities." International Journal of Information Management 54 : 102179. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJINFOMGT.2020.102179.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bellare, Y., A. Smith, K. Cochran, and S. G. Lopez. 2021. " Motivations and Barriers for Adult Learner Achievement: Recommendations for Institutions of Higher Education." Adult Learning 34, no. 1 : 30 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1177/10451595211059574.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Botelho, F. H. F. 2021. " Accessibility to Digital Technology: Virtual Barriers, Real Opportunities." Assistive Technology 33, no. sup1 : 27 – 34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2021.1945705.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chachar, Z. A., N. Ullah, S. Bachal, and U. Assistant. 2023. " Enhancing Access and Quality of Secondary Education in Balochistan: Identifying Challenges and Implementing Effective Solutions." Journal of Development and Social Sciences 4, no. 3 : 270 – 279. https://doi.org/10.47205/JDSS.2023(4‐III)27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chigbu, B. I., V. Ngwevu, and A. Jojo. 2023. " The Effectiveness of Innovative Pedagogy in the Industry 4.0: Educational Ecosystem Perspective." Social Sciences & Humanities Open 7, no. 1 : 100419. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SSAHO.2023.100419.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chodak, K., P. Ciesielski, D. Grysztar, et al. 2023. " Digital University: A Study of Students' Experiences and Expectations in the Post‐COVID Era." Education Sciences 13, no. 2 : 219. https://doi.org/10.3390/EDUCSCI13020219.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choudrie, J., S. Pheeraphuttranghkoon, and S. Davari. 2020. " The Digital Divide and Older Adult Population Adoption, Use and Diffusion of Mobile Phones: A Quantitative Study." Information Systems Frontiers 22, no. 3 : 673 – 695. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10796‐018‐9875‐2/METRICS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Danvers, E., and T. Hinton‐Smith. 2024. " Marginalisation and Mixed Feelings: Supporting Students of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Heritage Imagining Higher Education in the UK." Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 54, no. 3 : 518 – 535. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2022.2129959.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deng, L., Y. Liu, K. Y. L. Ku, and L. Lin. 2022. " In‐Class Multitasking With Smartphones and Laptops: Exploring Student Experiences and Perceptions." College Teaching 70, no. 4 : 443 – 451. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2021.1973947.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, D. B., M. N. Asadullah, and A. Webb. 2024. " Critical Perspectives at the Mid‐Point of Sustainable Development Goal 4: Quality Education for All—Progress, Persistent Gaps, Problematic Paradigms, and the Path to 2030." International Journal of Educational Development 107 : 103031. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJEDUDEV.2024.103031.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Esteban‐Navarro, M. Á., M. Á. García‐Madurga, T. Morte‐Nadal, and A. I. Nogales‐Bocio. 2020. " The Rural Digital Divide in the Face of the COVID‐19 Pandemic in Europe—Recommendations From a Scoping Review." Informatics 7, no. 4 : 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/INFORMATICS7040054.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gangadharan, S. P. 2015. " The Downside of Digital Inclusion: Expectations and Experiences of Privacy and Surveillance Among Marginal Internet Users." New Media & Society 19, no. 4 : 597 – 615. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815614053.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halai, A., and N. Durrani. 2021. " School Education System in Pakistan." In Handbook of Education Systems in South Asia, 665 – 693. Singapore : Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐981‐15‐0032‐9_17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haleem, A., M. Javaid, M. A. Qadri, and R. Suman. 2022. " Understanding the Role of Digital Technologies in Education: A Review." Sustainable Operations and Computers 3 : 275 – 285. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SUSOC.2022.05.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanna, N. K. 2024. " The Global, Technological, and Institutional Contexts." In Economic Development in the Digital Age, 1 – 18. Cham, Switzerland : Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐031‐54569‐6_1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrison, N., and G. Atherton. 2021. " Introduction: Marginalised Communities in Higher Education." In Marginalised Communities in Higher Education, 1 – 12. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429293399‐1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heath, M. K., and P. Segal. 2021. " What Pre‐Service Teacher Technology Integration Conceals and Reveals: "Colorblind" Technology in Schools." Computers & Education 170 : 104225. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2021.104225.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hussain, S., A. Munir, and M. Ibrar. 2020. " Children With Disability: Problems and Challenges in Pakistan." Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences 28, no. 1 : 87 – 99. <ulink href="http://ojs.uop.edu.pk/jhss/article/view/387">http://ojs.uop.edu.pk/jhss/article/view/387</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Islam, A. Y. M. A., M. Rafi, and K. Ahmad. 2024. " Analyzing the Impact of Technology Incentives on Community Digital Inclusion Using Structural Equation Modeling." Library Hi Tech 42, no. 3 : 826 – 848. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT‐07‐2021‐0226/FULL/XML.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, D., and M. Tomlinson. 2020. " Investigating the Relationship Between Career Planning, Proactivity and Employability Perceptions Among Higher Education Students in Uncertain Labour Market Conditions." Higher Education 80, no. 3 : 435 – 455. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10734‐019‐00490‐5/METRICS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jamil, S. 2021. " From Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion: Challenges for Wide‐Ranging Digitalization in Pakistan." Telecommunications Policy 45, no. 8 : 102206. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TELPOL.2021.102206.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juntunen, C. L., K. R. Pietrantonio, J. K. Hirsch, et al. 2021. " Guidelines for Psychological Practice for People With Low‐Income and Economic Marginalization: Executive Summary." American Psychologist 77, no. 2 : 291 – 303. https://doi.org/10.1037/AMP0000826.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaihlanen, A. M., L. Virtanen, U. Buchert, et al. 2022. " Towards Digital Health Equity—A Qualitative Study of the Challenges Experienced by Vulnerable Groups in Using Digital Health Services in the COVID‐19 Era." BMC Health Services Research 22, no. 1 : 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12913‐022‐07584‐4/FIGURES/1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaur, S., N. Tandon, and G. S. Matharou. 2020. " Contemporary Trends in Education Transformation Using Artificial Intelligence." In Transforming Management Using Artificial Intelligence Techniques, 89 – 103. Boca Raton, FL : CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003032410‐7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keddie, A. 2020. " Schooling and Social Justice Through the Lenses of Nancy Fraser." In Nancy Fraser, Social Justice and Education, 40 – 56. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429422461‐4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khan, A. 2020. " Digital Information Literacy Skills of Pakistani Librarians: Exploring Supply‐Demand Mismatches, Adoption Strategies and Acquisition Barriers." Digital Library Perspectives 36, no. 2 : 167 – 189. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP‐01‐2020‐0003/FULL/XML.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khan, M., G. S. Parvaiz, N. Bashir, S. Imtiaz, and J. Bae. 2022. " Students' Key Determinant Structure Towards Educational Technology Acceptance at Universities, During COVID 19 Lockdown: Pakistani Perspective." Cogent Education 9, no. 1 : 2039088. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2039088.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar, A., R. Krishnamurthi, S. Bhatia, et al. 2021. " Blended Learning Tools and Practices: A Comprehensive Analysis." IEEE Access 9 : 85151 – 85197. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3085844.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, S. M., and D. H. Lee. 2021. " Opportunities and Challenges for Contactless Healthcare Services in the Post‐COVID‐19 Era." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 167 : 120712. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2021.120712.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, J., and R. Wang. 2024. " Determining the Role of Innovative Teaching Practices, Sustainable Learning, and the Adoption of e‐Learning Tools in Leveraging Academic Motivation for Students' Mental Well‐Being." BMC Psychology 12, no. 1 : 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/S40359‐024‐01639‐3/TABLES/6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lim, F. V., Y. M. Kwan, and M. L. Poh. 2019. Spreading Educational Technology Innovations: Cultivating Communities, 65 – 83. Switzerland : Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐981‐13‐6330‐6_4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCrae, R. R., J. E. Kurtz, S. Yamagata, and A. Terracciano. 2011. " Internal Consistency, Retest Reliability, and Their Implications for Personality Scale Validity." Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc 15, no. 1 : 28 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310366253.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles, P., and K. Boltin. 2024. " Creation and Use of SBS's the Boat; Principles for the Co‐Creation of Online Interactive Learning Environments for Innovative Digital Pedagogy." Pedagogies: An International Journal 20 : 1 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2024.2329059.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Núñez‐Canal, M., M. d. l. M. de Obesso, and C. A. Pérez‐Rivero. 2022. " New Challenges in Higher Education: A Study of the Digital Competence of Educators in Covid Times." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 174 : 121270. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2021.121270.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Odinokaya, M., E. Tsimerman, M. Akour, and M. Alenezi. 2022. " Higher Education Future in the Era of Digital Transformation." Education Sciences 12, no. 11 : 784. https://doi.org/10.3390/EDUCSCI12110784.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, Y. S., L. Konge, and A. R. Artino. 2020. " The Positivism Paradigm of Research." Academic Medicine 95, no. 5 : 690 – 694. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003093.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qureshi, S., B. Oladokun, K. Tekale, and K. Nadendla. 2024. Digital Inclusion and Human Development: Is Digital Inclusion a Social Determinant of Health That Matters? 46 – 57. Cham, Switzerland : Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐031‐66986‐6_4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramasamy, V., F. Rillotta, and J. Alexander. 2021. " Experiences of Adults With Intellectual Disabilities Who Identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender Within Mainstream Community: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies." JBI Evidence Synthesis 19, no. 1 : 59 – 154. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES‐20‐00032.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reisdorf, B., and C. Rhinesmith. 2020. " Digital Inclusion as a Core Component of Social Inclusion." Social Inclusion 8, no. 2 : 132 – 137. https://doi.org/10.17645/SI.V8I2.3184.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosli, M. S., and N. S. Saleh. 2023. " Technology Enhanced Learning Acceptance Among University Students During Covid‐19: Integrating the Full Spectrum of Self‐Determination Theory and Self‐Efficacy Into the Technology Acceptance Model." Current Psychology 42, no. 21 : 18212 – 18231. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12144‐022‐02996‐1/TABLES/7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sage, K., S. Jackson, L. Mauer, and K. Stockdale. 2022. " Equal in Effectiveness but Not Yet Perception: Smartphones and Laptops for Completing Brief Academic Tasks." Educational Media International 59, no. 2 : 112 – 130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2022.2101203.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt, J. T., and M. Tang. 2020. " Digitalization in Education: Challenges, Trends and Transformative Potential." In Führen und Managen in Der Digitalen Transformation, 287 – 312. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐658‐28670‐5_16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schofer, E., F. O. Ramirez, and J. W. Meyer. 2020. " The Societal Consequences of Higher Education." Sociology of Education 94, no. 1 : 1 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040720942912.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sessoms, D. 2023. " Content‐Neutral Technologies as a Pedagogical Response in High‐Needs Schools and Communities: Design Thinking, Making, and Learning." In Digital Learning in High‐Needs Schools, 99 – 117. New York, NY : Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003274537‐11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shafqat, F., and A. I. Amjad. 2024. " Examining Students' Perceptions, Experiences, and Ethical Concerns About Using ChatGPT for Academic Support: A Phenomenological Study." Pakistan Social Sciences Review 8, no. 2 : 443 – 455. https://doi.org/10.35484/PSSR.2024(8‐II)36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, S., and D. Walker. 2024. " Scholarship and Academic Capitals: The Boundaried Nature of Education‐Focused Career Tracks." Teaching in Higher Education 29, no. 1 : 111 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1965570.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tabira, Y., and F. X. Otieno. 2017. " Integration and Implementation of Sustainable ICT‐Based Education in Developing Countries: Low‐Cost, en Masse Methodology in Kenya." Sustainability Science 12, no. 2 : 221 – 234. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11625‐017‐0422‐8/METRICS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tomlinson, M., and D. Jackson. 2021. " Professional Identity Formation in Contemporary Higher Education Students." Studies in Higher Education 46, no. 4 : 885 – 900. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1659763.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsatsou, P. 2020. " Digital Inclusion of People With Disabilities: A Qualitative Study of Intra‐Disability Diversity in the Digital Realm." Behaviour & Information Technology 39, no. 9 : 995 – 1010. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1636136.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ullah, A., C. Pinglu, S. Ullah, H. S. M. Abbas, and S. Khan. 2021. " The Role of E‐Governance in Combating COVID‐19 and Promoting Sustainable Development: A Comparative Study of China and Pakistan." Chinese Political Science Review 6, no. 1 : 86 – 118. https://doi.org/10.1007/S41111‐020‐00167‐W/FIGURES/13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warraich, N., N. Caidi, B. Mehra, C. Ekmekcioglu, and I. Ali. 2023. " Digital Inequalities to Digital Inclusion in Online Learning: Viewpoints of LIS Educators Seeking to Bridge the Disparities." Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 60, no. 1 : 850 – 852. https://doi.org/10.1002/PRA2.876.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zenchanka, S., N. Gorbatchev, I. Zagoumennov, and F. Frankenberger. 2022. " Sustainability of University Campus and SDG 2030: Social Aspects." In World Sustainability Series, 337 – 352. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐031‐04764‐0_19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, L., D. I. Godil, M. Bibi, M. K. Khan, S. Sarwat, and M. K. Anser. 2021. " Caring for the Environment: How Human Capital, Natural Resources, and Economic Growth Interact With Environmental Degradation in Pakistan? A Dynamic ARDL Approach." Science of the Total Environment 774 : 145553. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.145553.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Amjad Islam Amjad; Sarfraz Aslam; Umaira Tabassum; Zahida Aziz Sial and Faiza Shafqat</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref85"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1450691
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Digital Equity and Accessibility in Higher Education: Reaching the Unreached
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Amjad+Islam+Amjad%22">Amjad Islam Amjad</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4250-7526">0000-0002-4250-7526</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sarfraz+Aslam%22">Sarfraz Aslam</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7414-7572">0000-0001-7414-7572</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Umaira+Tabassum%22">Umaira Tabassum</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5800-271X">0009-0000-5800-271X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zahida+Aziz+Sial%22">Zahida Aziz Sial</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0470-3411">0000-0002-0470-3411</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Faiza+Shafqat%22">Faiza Shafqat</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5509-7136">0009-0007-5509-7136</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>European Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 59(4).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Education%22">Access to Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disadvantaged%22">Disadvantaged</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Power+Structure%22">Power Structure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Computers%22">Access to Computers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Low+Income+Students%22">Low Income Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Geographic+Distribution%22">Geographic Distribution</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ejed.12795
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-8211<br />1465-3435
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Digital equity and accessibility for higher education (HE) students have become crucial since the early 21st century, especially for underserved, deprived, marginalised and oppressed students. The present study aimed mainly to reveal the barriers to digital access (BDA) faced by marginalised groups and to find effective strategies for promoting digital inclusion (DI). Another objective of the paper was to provide actionable policy insights (API) to improve DI in Pakistani universities. Participants (students from marginalised groups who face unique barriers to accessing digital education) were selected using a simple random sampling technique from the four provinces of Pakistan (Punjab, Sindh, KPK and Baluchistan). We used a cross-sectional research design to collect quantitative data from 590 students selected from 12 universities in Pakistan using a self-developed questionnaire via online platforms. The study's findings revealed a significant difference in digital access for marginalised groups, which contributes to educational inequalities for students in low-income areas and remote areas facing enormous challenges. We also identified practices to improve digital accessibility, including technology-based interventions and policy reforms to improve digital infrastructure. Based on preliminary findings, a combined effort toward digital equity can significantly improve educational outcomes for marginalised students, providing a roadmap for universities to bridge the digital divide. The present paper not only highlights the current state of digital equity and accessibility but also focuses on practical insights for policy and teachers and ensures that universities are inclusive and accessible to everyone.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1450691
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1450691
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ejed.12795
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Access to Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disadvantaged
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Power Structure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Computers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Low Income Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Geographic Distribution
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Policy
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Digital Equity and Accessibility in Higher Education: Reaching the Unreached
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Amjad Islam Amjad
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sarfraz Aslam
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Umaira Tabassum
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zahida Aziz Sial
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Faiza Shafqat
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-8211
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3435
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 59
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1