The US education system has made considerable progress in expanding K-12 students’ access to technology. By 2019, over 99% of U.S. schools were connected to broadband internet (EducationSuperHighway, 2019), and by 2022, 94% of public schools provided digital devices to students, with nearly half offering free home internet access (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). Despite this progress, a digital use divide persists: As recently as 2018, students from racially, linguistically, and economically marginalized communities have been documented as more likely to engage with technology in drill-based or remedial ways, while their more privileged peers used technology to create, collaborate, and problem-solve (Hughes & Read, 2018; Rafalow, 2018; Reich & Ito, 2017). These continuing disparities limit opportunities for minoritized students to build the critical digital skills needed for 21st-century success.
Teacher preparation programs have been called upon to address this divide (Hiefield & Carter, 2021; U.S. Department of Education, 2016, 2024). While preservice teachers (PSTs) are often trained in technological pedagogical content knowledge (or technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge [TPACK]; Mishra & Koehler, 2006), less attention has been spent on their contextual knowledge (XK), or their awareness of how students’ diverse identities, abilities, and interests shape their engagement with technology.
Although XK has since been introduced as an additional TPACK domain that is integral in shaping teachers’ technology integration decisions (Mishra, 2019), PSTs’ capacity to apply XK remains underdeveloped (Brianza et al., 2024). Without strong contextual awareness, teachers risk defaulting to deficit perspectives that constrain minoritized students’ technology use, perpetuating inequities instead of challenging them (Cheah et al., 2023; Reich, 2019).
Strengthening PSTs’ XK offers a pathway toward educational equity by fostering asset-based, culturally responsive approaches to technology integration. This study investigated how PSTs enrolled in an asynchronous technology integration course applied XK in an online simulation where they designed technology-enhanced lessons informed by students’ diverse backgrounds, interests, and identities. This research was guided by the following question: How does learning about the digital use divide influence PSTs’ application of contextual knowledge (XK) to design more equitable technology-enhanced lessons?
Background/Theoretical Framing
The Digital Use Divide
The digital use divide refers to “the disparity between students who use technology to create, design, build, explore, and collaborate and those who are only invited to consume media passively” (U.S. Department of Education, 2024, p. 13). Hohlfeld et al. (2008) first documented this inequity, showing that even after infrastructure access issues were addressed, disparities remained in the ways students used technology for learning (second level divide) and for driving their own educational experiences (third level divide).
Subsequent studies have confirmed that economic and racial inequities reinforce the digital use divide. In schools serving higher concentrations of historically marginalized students, teachers often provide fewer opportunities for transformative digital learning, even when device access is comparable (Rafalow, 2014; Vega & Robb, 2019; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). Large-scale reports by the Center for American Progress and the Connected Learning Alliance also found that Black, Hispanic, and low-income students experience less frequent and lower quality digital learning opportunities than do White and higher income peers (Boser, 2013; Reich & Ito, 2017). Likewise, Hughes and Read’s (2018) comparative study revealed that racially diverse and economically disadvantaged students were disproportionately assigned rote, drill-based digital learning tasks.
The latest National Educational Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2024) critiqued such practices as digitized versions of traditional instruction (e.g., computerized worksheets and click-through assessments) that limit meaningful engagement. Instead, it called for “transformative, active, creative, critically thoughtful experiences supported by technology” (p. 10) and emphasized frameworks like Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to ensure student strengths, interests, and cultural contexts guide the learning process.
Central to this vision is cultivating students’ digital agency — the ability to use technology for self-directed learning, creative expression, and critical participation (Passey et al., 2018). Realizing these goals requires intentional teacher preparation (U.S. Department of Education, 2016, 2024). Yet research shows programs often emphasize tool proficiency over equity and sociocultural integration (Foulger et al., 2017; Weisberg & Dawson, 2023), leaving PSTs underprepared to design equitable, asset-based learning experiences (Weisberg & Dawson, 2024).
Why Contextual Knowledge (XK) Matters
To bridge the digital use divide, teacher preparation programs must move beyond technical skills and address the broader contexts that shape technology integration and student learning. This entails cultivating PSTs’ XK alongside other TPACK competencies. Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) original TPACK framework identified effective technology integration as the intersection of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. Although “context” was acknowledged, it was peripheral to the model. In response to critiques, Mishra (2019) elevated context to a central domain, XK, encircling the original three domains (see Figure 1). This revision highlights context as essential for equitable and effective teaching with technology.
Figure 1
Revised TPACK framework Featuring XK as a Central Domain.
Brianza et al. (2022, 2024) conceptualized XK at three levels: immediate (micro), proximal (meso), and distal (macro). Immediate knowledge involves classroom-level factors, such as student needs and identities. Proximal knowledge addresses school and community influences, while distal knowledge considers broader societal forces. Teachers have the most agency at the immediate level, where they can design instruction that responds to students’ diverse strengths and preferences. Research shows that systematic cultivation of XK through experience and reflection improves teachers’ pedagogy at both preservice and in-service levels (Bergeson & Beschorner, 2020; Bibi & Khan, 2017; Chai et al., 2020; Kapici & Akcay, 2023). However, PSTs’ XK remains underdeveloped (Brianza et al., 2024).
Addressing this gap requires not only exposing PSTs to contextual factors but also intentionally bridging theory with practice through equity-driven applications. Fieldwork placements are the most common approach, but they often fall short in fostering deep contextual awareness (Brianza et al., 2024). In contrast, teaching simulations show promise for linking equity theory to practice, offering PSTs structured opportunities to experiment with and reflect on technology-rich, equitable lesson design (Buttimer et al., 2022; Self & Stengel, 2020).
Building XK With Teaching Simulations
Simulations are structured role-play activities, where PSTs navigate the intricacies of teaching in settings of reduced complexity that align with programmatic goals and objectives (Cohen et al., 2020; Dotger, 2013; Grossman, Hammerness, et al., 2009). By immersing PSTs in delicate or sensitive situations where no harm can be inflicted upon actual students, simulations provide opportunities for PSTs to “pilot the waters [of teaching] under easier conditions” (Grossman, Compton et al., 2009, p. 2076) than they would likely encounter in the traditional practicum. Online simulations, in particular, are gaining traction in teacher education for their ability to immerse novices in authentic scenarios within controlled and replicable environments (Dalinger et al., 2020). These simulations aim to reproduce the complexities of an actual classroom while offering a more predictable environment for teaching practice.
Popular online simulation tools have included web-based applications like simSchool, where users choose from predetermined lists of related teaching actions, and mixed-reality applications like Mursion, where users teach minilessons to digital student avatars controlled by remote human actors. However, despite research supporting these tools’ efficacy and authenticity (e.g., Christensen et al., 2022; Dalinger et al., 2020), their high subscription costs, lack of customizability, and limited utility in remote and online instructional settings has prevented their widespread adoption in teacher preparation programs (Reich, 2022; Thompson et al., 2019). Alternatively, low-cost, customizable simulation platforms and open-source tools are emerging that offer greater flexibility for designing context-specific scenarios that align with teacher educators’ instructional goals.
One such tool is Teacher Moments, developed by MIT’s Teaching Systems Lab to help novice teachers break down the “complex assemblages” of teaching into their “constituent parts” (Reich, 2022, p. 221). Teacher Moments is free of cost, allowing teacher educators easily to create linear or branched scenarios with text, images, and videos. These scenarios are responsive to users’ decision-making and can be flexibly designed and adapted to suit a variety of instructional contexts (Borneman et al., 2020). Early research supporting the efficacy of Teacher Moments centers on four scenarios developed for an online course about anti-racist teaching (Buttimer et al., 2022; Littenberg-Tobias et al., 2021; Thompson et al., 2019). Modeled after Self and Stengel’s (2020) critical incident simulations, these scenarios aim to develop novice teachers’ equity and social justice-focused practices.
One scenario called Layers foregrounds the importance of contextual awareness to one’s pedagogy by helping novices “practice building connections between classroom material and the whole student” (Littenberg-Tobias et al., 2021, p. 5). In this scenario, users are tasked with designing and modifying a lesson based on information they receive about their students and are given opportunities to modify their lesson as further details emerge. Layers was designed to shift teachers’ practice in the Context-neutral vs. Context-specific dimension of Filback and Green’s (2013) Framework of Educator Mindsets and Consequences, which identifies contrasting “dimensions of equity” along a continuum (e.g., Deficit vs. Asset to Equality vs. Equity).
Adapted from Richard Milner’s (2010, 2012) theory of opportunity-centered teaching, this framework suggests that well-intentioned educators may unintentionally reinforce systemic barriers to learning if they fail to grasp the complexities of their students’ lived experiences and the broader sociocultural and economic contexts shaping their lives. Teachers with a Context-neutral mindset often overlook the significance of students’ identities and experiences in their instruction, whereas teachers with a Context-specific mindset intentionally center this knowledge to improve their pedagogy. By emphasizing this critical dimension of equity — focused on “seeing students as individuals and charting their lives, backgrounds, needs, and ambitions” (Reich, 2022, p. 224) — Layers offers a potentially powerful vehicle for cultivating and examining PSTs’ development of XK, making it well-suited for adaptation in the present study.
Adapted Layers Scenario
To align with this study’s goals, the Layers simulation was adapted to focus on PSTs’ equitable design of technology-enhanced instruction. PSTs were positioned as classroom teachers in a fictional, racially and socioeconomically diverse school district modeled after national demographic averages for US public schools (ACT, 2020; Losen & Whitaker, 2018). Their task was to design a lesson for the subject area and grade level of their choice in which technology supported equitable learning for four diverse focal students on their roster.
Lesson designs included the following:
- The subject-specific content to be taught.
- How technology would be integrated (i.e., tools/programs, users, and purposes).
- The lesson timespan and setting (in class, at home, or both).
- How the lesson supported equitable learning.
For the initial design of their lessons, PSTs received general information about their focal students on Layer 1 (gender, race, nationality, and academic performance). They were then asked to revise their lesson twice, with each revision informed by new layers of contextual information: students’ technology access, digital literacy, and learning needs (Layer 2); and students’ interests, cultural assets, and future goals (Layer 3). The scenario concluded with a simulated meeting with an administrator, where PSTs described their lessons and identified the student information most critical to their lesson design and modification decisions.
Figure 2 illustrates the appearance of the simulation. For brevity, portions of the original scenario have been cropped out to highlight the most relevant content. Figure 3 provides examples of the focal student profiles that PSTs encountered during the simulation. The profiles were modified from the original Layers design to reflect the nuanced, context-specific barriers to technology usage that historically marginalized students may face, rather than presenting binary categories of technology access or proficiency.
Figure 2
Adapted Layers Scenario
Figure 3
Examples of Focal Student Profiles PSTs Received in the Adapted Layers Simulation
For example, a focal student named Siobhan has unreliable internet access, yet she actively uses digital devices for peer communication and social media. Another focal student named Rosa uses an older computer, while a student named Paris shares a device with siblings, but neither situation prevents meaningful digital learning. Similarly, students’ self-described lack of technology experience was not framed as exclusion or inability; rather, it suggested areas where proficiency could grow with time and support. These depictions align with national statistics (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022), reinforcing that barriers to technology access and proficiency are often varied and complex, but rarely absolute.
Method
Study Context and Participants
This study occurred in an asynchronous technology integration course during the spring semester of 2024 at a predominantly White public institution in the southeastern US. Of 30 PSTs enrolled in the course, 26 PSTs consented to participate in the study. A majority of participants were White women, which is consistent with demographic averages for university-based teacher preparation programs (TNTP, 2020). Although the course was interdisciplinary, most PSTs expressed interest in teaching secondary-level English language arts or social studies, while others’ subject area and grade level interests varied widely.
A primary objective of the course was to cultivate PSTs’ XK as a foundational component for shaping their equitable technology integration practices. Central to this effort was positioning student strengths, cultural assets, and lived experiences at the heart of technology-enhanced lesson design, with an explicit focus on narrowing the digital use divide. Table 1 outlines course content and activities aligned with this goal, including participating in the Layers simulation, which was intended to bridge this theory-to-practice connection. PSTs participated in two sessions of the simulation: one at the start of the semester, prior to engaging with equity-focused course content (“precourse” simulation), and one at the end of the semester (“postcourse” simulation). To avoid redundancy and prompt deeper contextual awareness in PSTs’ lesson-planning, the second session introduced new student profiles and required PSTs to design a different lesson idea from the first session. The appendix features online links to both versions of Layers used in this study.
Table 1
Example of Equity-Focused Technology Integration Course Content and Activities
| Learning Objectives | Related Activities |
|---|---|
| Analyze the impact of the digital use divide on K-12 student learning outcomes, particularly in relation to contextual factors like race and SES | - Read and discuss Justin Reich’s “Teaching our way to digital equity” and parts of the 2024 NETP. - Learn how an urban high school in Detroit successfully implemented a school-wide flipped classroom model during a time when most students lacked access to technology at home. |
| Evaluate the potential of digital tools, resources, and teaching strategies to amplify student voice and engagement and develop 21st-century skills | - Apply tech implementation models such as SAMR and PICRAT to the design of instruction. - Create digital artifacts using free Web 2.0 tools (e.g., infographics, virtual tours, digital breakout games). - Discuss the ethical implications of technology in the curriculum and society (e.g., biased AI algorithms, rapid spread of online misinformation). |
| Critically examine personal beliefs and assumptions about how students’ diverse contexts impact their potential to learn with technology | - Discuss how misapplication of information about students may inadvertently lead teachers to limit high-quality digital learning opportunities. - Create a digital story about how your views on teaching with technology have been impacted by your unique experiences and perspectives. |
| Apply knowledge about students’ diverse contexts to design technology-rich instruction that increases students’ participation in transformative digital learning | - Craft a lesson plan that engages all students in high-quality uses of digital tools, guided by inclusive frameworks like UDL. - Participate in an online teaching simulation to practice applying contextual knowledge about a diverse group of students to the design of an equitable technology-enhanced lesson. |
Throughout the simulation, PSTs encountered reflective prompts aimed at fostering their critical awareness (Littenberg-Tobias et al., 2021) by reinforcing the importance of recognizing and responding to the diverse contexts in which they might teach. These prompts included, “How did you integrate technology to make learning more equitable in your lesson?” and “What information about students did you consider important when designing your lesson?” Following each session of the simulation, PSTs participated in a structured debrief activity in the course discussion forum that served as a critical space for reflecting, sharing, and connecting new learning to potential changes in practice. The debrief activities included prompts such as, “What challenges did you experience building digital equity in the simulation?” and “In what ways did the simulation impact your understanding of equitable technology integration?”
Data Collection and Analysis
The following data sources were collected to examine how learning about the digital use divide influenced PSTs’ application of XK in designing equitable, technology-enhanced lessons: (a) PSTs’ responses from the pre- and postcourse simulation sessions, and (b) their debrief reflections posted in the course discussion forum.
A multiphased qualitative analysis was employed to capture not only which contextual factors PSTs considered during the simulations, but also how effectively they translated that awareness into lesson design. First, I analyzed PSTs’ reflective responses to identify patterns in how they interpreted and applied knowledge about their focal students’ backgrounds, learning needs, interests, and experiences with technology throughout the simulations. This stage of the analysis followed the principles of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021), which emphasize an iterative process of coding, theme development, and refinement.
Next, I examined PSTs’ initial lesson designs (52) using content analysis (Krippendorff, 2018), which provided a systematic way to categorize lesson designs according to their potential to address the digital use divide. The coding frame, developed deductively from prior scholarship on technology integration and equity (Weisberg & Dawson, 2024), guided the classification of lessons into three equity-focused categories:
- Minimally effective: Technology use was limited or surface-level, positioning students as passive recipients of knowledge (e.g., digital worksheets or didactic slide lectures). Lessons emphasized uniform approaches with little adaptation to students’ diverse contexts.
- Somewhat effective: Technology extended beyond passive use but was still constrained to structured, teacher-directed activities (e.g., guided research or game-based assessments like Kahoot!).
- Highly effective: Technology enabled dynamic, creative, or student-driven learning (e.g., self-directed inquiry, investigating personal interests, or producing multimedia or web-based content), positioning students as digital creators and collaborators.
Finally, I conducted a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021) on PSTs’ lesson modifications across simulation rounds. This analysis focused on the nature of changes, the contextual factors informing them, and how those adjustments influenced the lessons’ potential to bridge the digital use divide. To enhance the credibility of the findings, I engaged in ongoing reflexivity throughout the research process (Coburn & Gormally, 2017). This involved critically examining how my own positionality as a White, middle-class, cisgendered woman shaped my assumptions, interpretations, and decisions during the study (Merriam, 2009), maintaining analytic memos to document these reflections, and remaining attentive to potential bias in coding and theme development.
In addition, I incorporated peer debriefing (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), regularly sharing preliminary findings with colleagues in teacher education and educational technology who served as critical friends. These discussions provided external perspectives that helped interrogate and refine the interpretations, thereby strengthening the trustworthiness of the study.
Findings
The findings revealed a meaningful shift in PSTs’ capacity to apply XK in their lesson planning after learning about the digital use divide related equity-focused topics. In the precourse simulation, PSTs primarily focused on contextual barriers related to students’ technology access (or perceived lack thereof), unintentionally reinforcing digital usage inequities by limiting the scope and ambition of their lessons. By contrast, the postcourse simulation reflected a broader and more nuanced application of XK, resulting in lessons that proactively bridged the digital use divide by fostering students’ digital literacy and agency. The following sections detail how this shift emerged.
Precourse Findings
In the precourse simulation, PSTs collectively applied XK about their students in limited ways, primarily driven by concerns about gaps in students’ access to digital devices and the internet. Of the 26 PSTs who participated, 15 equated equitable technology integration with ensuring that all students had access to digital tools. As one PST explained, “Building digital equity means giving equal access to technology regardless of external factors such as socioeconomic class.” Reflecting this perspective, 20 PSTs prioritized learning about their students’ technology access above other contextual information in the precourse simulation, framing it as essential for determining, as one PST described, “if it is even feasible to implement technology.”
Additionally, a majority of PSTs identified their students’ inconsistent technology access as the primary challenge they faced in the precourse simulation, sharing sentiments such as, “I found it quite difficult to create a lesson plan that effectively integrates technology and also accommodates students with limited access to the internet or devices.”
This narrow focus on access frequently shaped lesson designs that unintentionally reinforced digital usage inequities. For instance, 12 of the 26 initial lessons in the precourse simulation were categorized as “minimally effective,” limiting students’ engagement with technology to passive or surface-level tasks and emphasizing completion and uniformity over creativity, problem-solving, and exploration. For example, in a high school social studies lesson, students learned about an ancient civilization by using school computers to complete digital worksheets. The PST who designed the lesson reasoned that it promoted equitable learning because “students do not have to worry about needing the technology at home as this will be an in-class assignment.” This lesson, like many others, positioned technology as a supplemental tool for content delivery rather than a vehicle for facilitating deeper learning.
A similar pattern was reflected in a high school psychology lesson, where students engaged with teacher-curated online resources to research positive and negative reinforcement and then summarized their findings in Microsoft Word. Like the previous example, this PST framed equitable learning around addressing gaps in technology access by ensuring that “students solely work on the assignment in class,” where computers were readily available. Although this lesson was more effective at situating students as active learners, technology’s role was limited to facilitating information retrieval and replication, missing opportunities for extending learning, providing differentiated pathways for engagement, or cultivating crucial 21st-century skills.
Six of the 26 initial lessons were categorized as “somewhat effective” at bridging the digital use divide. In one example, students in a high school language arts class explored JSTOR — a digital library of scholarly works — to gather evidence for a literary analysis paper. To support a focal student who was a nonnative English speaker, the PST incorporated digital translation software, demonstrating an awareness of how certain contextual factors, such as a student’s diverse linguistic background, could impact their engagement with technology. However, once again, the PST’s priority for achieving equity was ensuring all students could use school-issued laptops, limiting opportunities to leverage technology to facilitate deeper, more personalized learning. For instance, the lesson did not encourage students to explore online resources that aligned with their interests or express their ideas through alternative digital formats like multimedia presentations, podcasts, or digital storytelling.
Only seven of 26 initial lessons in the precourse simulation were categorized as “highly effective” at bridging the digital use divide. While these lessons reflected PSTs’ more thoughtful consideration of diverse contextual factors, further modifications shaped by a narrow focus on providing access to technology often limited its role in the learning process. For instance, in an elementary language arts lesson, students initially used multimedia tools to create digital character analyses, encouraging creative exploration and self-expression. However, in an effort to accommodate focal students’ contextual barriers to technology access, the participant allowed those students to complete the project on paper instead, while another student, hesitant about their technological and creative abilities, was permitted to use premade digital content instead of developing original work.
Similarly, a high school social studies lesson initially involved creating digital infographics and multimedia presentations to analyze historical documents. However, the PST modified the activity to allow for nondigital alternatives, such as posters or trifold boards, explaining, “I would not want to try and add technology to my instruction or lesson plans if students have no experience with it.”
In total, 11 of 26 PSTs modified their precourse simulation lessons in ways that reduced students’ opportunities for transformative digital learning. While these decisions reflected an effort to address contextual barriers indicating students’ limited exposure to or confidence with digital tools, they often restricted opportunities for students to engage more deeply and creatively with technology.
Notably, 16 of 26 PSTs made modifications to their lessons that reflected an emerging awareness of how technology can enhance engagement and make learning more authentic when students’ broader contexts are considered, such as their interests and identities. However, these efforts were often surface level or limited in scope. For instance, one PST modified her lesson for high school language arts by shifting the assigned essay topic to reflect students’ personal interests, but the core structure of the lesson remained unchanged — students still relied on teacher-curated resources for low-level digital tasks like word processing. The PST’s rationale that digital equity had been achieved because “all students have [access to] a computer and internet” suggests that her narrow focus on technology access limited her capacity to leverage broader insights about students’ contexts in her lesson. Notably, five PSTs decided against making modifications to increase their lessons’ relevance, providing rationales such as, “The interests of my students are not directly related to tech use, save for the varying levels of access.”
Collectively, these patterns highlight how PSTs’ limited XK shaped their decision-making in the precourse simulation, leading them to inadvertently restrict technology’s potential to foster more equitable and transformative learning experiences.
Postcourse Findings
In the postcourse simulation, PSTs demonstrated a notable increase in XK, moving beyond a narrow focus on students’ access to technology and incorporating a more holistic understanding of students’ broader contexts in their lessons. This shift reflected an increased commitment to fostering students’ digital literacy and agency, with 22 PSTs equating equitable technology integration with providing all students “an opportunity in becoming digitally informed,” and seeking to elevate students with less technology experience to “the level of their more tech-aligned peers.” Although 21 PSTs still acknowledged the value of understanding contextual barriers to technology access, they sought to apply this knowledge to cultivate students’ digital skills and confidence, rather than attempt to even the playing field by limiting their use of technology. One PST explained, “ensuring students know how to use [the technology] is key to ensuring a lesson or assignment is maximized for their benefit,” while another planned on using this knowledge to “adapt my lesson to support the students who need a little more time getting used to using technology, while not taking away from more advanced users.”
PSTs also reported feeling more capable in their lesson designs, encountering fewer challenges compared to the precourse simulation, where logistical concerns about technology access often dominated their experiences. Only two PSTs cited access-related challenges to lesson-planning in the postcourse simulation, while a majority expressed greater confidence in equitably addressing students’ diverse contexts in their lesson designs.
This shift in focus contributed to 24 of 26 lessons that were “highly effective” at bridging the digital use divide (the remaining two lessons were categorized as “somewhat effective”). For example, one high school social studies lesson had students apply their learning about the evolution of religion in Europe — specifically Monasticism and the Catholic Church — by designing their own monastic order and creating multimedia presentations in small groups to describe details such as their order’s daily routines and governing rules. Students were encouraged to incorporate digital images, videos, avatars, and an interactive 3D tour of their order’s location in Google Earth.
With several dedicated weeks of class time and the flexibility to continue working outside of school, the lesson leveraged technology for creative expression, collaboration, and deeper engagement with historical content, empowering students to personalize their understanding and construct new interpretations of historical narratives. Similarly, in a high school language arts lesson, students explored and analyzed different cultural perspectives in literary texts. They explored examples in CommonLit (an online literary resource), participated in virtual field trips to locations in the texts, and connected with global experts via Skype to gain insights into the cultural contexts behind certain texts.
Students were encouraged to present their findings in a digital format of their choice, such as a video, multimedia presentation, or podcast. The lesson also included guided digital templates and graphic organizers to support learner variability and provided flexible, online options for students to engage with the material at their own pace. These examples highlight a recurring trend in the postcourse simulation, where PSTs sought to create engaging and transformative learning experiences with technology that promoted equitable learning beyond addressing gaps in digital access.
In contrast to the precourse simulation, nearly every lesson in the postcourse simulation was intentionally and thoughtfully designed to center students’ diverse contexts from the outset, minimizing the need for excessive modifications. As one PST explained, “By having already considered the role of the digital use divide and how to address different levels of experience [with technology], my lesson was [initially] built to support all learners.” Lessons frequently featured flexible options for expression that naturally incorporated students’ identities, interests, and perspectives. One PST emphasized, “The [lesson] is open enough that students can choose their own topic that aligns with their interests,” while another reasoned, “This is a creative assignment, and students’ individual passions will undoubtedly find their way into [their] designs.”
In select instances where modifications were made, PSTs demonstrated a refined ability to leverage technology for equitable learning in ways that reflected students’ broader contexts. For example, one PST transformed a high school language arts lesson from a traditional book review into a video project, encouraging students to explore and express their cultural heritage and personal experiences. This approach positioned technology as a bridge between academic content and students’ lived realities, amplifying their voices through creative self-expression. Similarly, another PST redesigned an AP World History lesson from a teacher-centered lecture with slides and videos into a collaborative project, in which students used multimedia storytelling to connect historical content with their interests and identities.
Collectively, these patterns highlight how PSTs’ enhanced contextual awareness in the postcourse simulation empowered them to design technology-rich learning experiences with the potential to foster students’ digital literacy and support their agency by creating opportunities for engagement on their own terms.
Discussion
This study addresses a gap in understanding how PSTs apply contextual knowledge (XK) in their technology integration practices at various stages of their preparation. While PSTs in this study attempted to draw on diverse contextual information about their students to design equitable technology-enhanced lessons in the precourse simulation, their application of XK overwhelmingly revolved around addressing perceived deficits in students’ access to and proficiency with technology. This tendency constrained PSTs’ potential to integrate technology in more asset-based ways that centered students’ interests and identities, thereby making the instruction more engaging and meaningful.
Alternatively, PSTs frequently reduced the role of technology in their lessons, opting for simpler, low-tech approaches in their misguided attempts to maintain a level digital playing field. While well-intentioned, these approaches reinforced deficit-oriented narratives and overlooked opportunities to cultivate students’ digital literacy and agency — critical components for bridging the digital use divide. These findings resonate with Filback and Green’s (2013) framework of educator mindsets, reflecting a less equitable “Context-neutral” orientation, in which teachers overlook the role of students’ identities and experiences in their pedagogy.
These patterns align with prior research suggesting that PSTs frequently conflate equitable technology integration with providing basic access to devices and the internet, neglecting disparities in how technology is used for learning (Weisberg & Dawson, 2024). This protectionist stance often leads to pedagogical choices that limit students’ engagement with transformative, technology-rich experiences, inadvertently perpetuating digital use divide (Rafalow, 2014; Reich, 2019). Although the focal students’ profiles were designed to contain nuanced contextual information detailing diverse levels of technology access and experiences, PSTs tended to adopt surface-level interventions with technology and limit its application in their precourse simulation lessons.
The postcourse simulation findings demonstrated a significant shift in PSTs’ approaches to applying XK. Guided by a newfound understanding of the digital use divide and related perspectives and applications, PSTs moved beyond access-oriented solutions to using technology to cultivate students’ digital literacy and agency. Rather than perceiving students’ diverse contexts as barriers to overcome, PSTs increasingly viewed them as assets that could inform and enrich their lesson designs. When students lacked consistent access to and experience with technology, PSTs prioritized securing devices for students and incorporating additional supports in their lessons, rather than limiting their use of technology. This transition illustrates a movement from Context-neutral to Context-specific orientations (Filback & Green, 2013) and reflects growth at Brianza et al.’s (2024) immediate level of XK, where teachers exercise the greatest agency to adapt instruction for their students’ needs and strengths.
Another key finding from the postcourse simulation was the deliberate effort PSTs made to incorporate flexibility and personalization into their initial lesson plans. By designing open-ended prompts and assignments, PSTs created meaningful opportunities for students to integrate their interests, cultural identities, and personal experiences into the learning process. This proactive design reduced the need for later modifications and ensured that lessons were inherently inclusive and responsive to students’ diverse contexts. In this way, PSTs demonstrated an expanded understanding of TPACK+XK, where XK not only surrounds but actively informs technology integration decisions, complementing equity-oriented frameworks such as UDL (CAST, 2018).
Implications for Teacher Educators
For most PSTs in this study, the equity-focused technology integration course represented their first — and likely their only — exposure to the digital use divide and related topics during their program studies. Despite policy initiatives like the National Educational Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2017, 2024) emphasizing the need to address the digital use divide in teacher preparation programs, this study adds to growing evidence that such priorities are not consistently reflected in the curriculum (Weisberg & Dawson, 2023, 2024). To meaningfully address this gap, there is a pressing need to embed digital equity and justice-oriented content, such as developing PSTs’ XK, across the teacher education curriculum. This approach aligns with Zeichner’s (2012) call for cultivating educators’ “broad professional vision” (p. 379), which emphasizes the importance of deeply understanding students’ cultural and social contexts. Additionally, incorporating practice-based opportunities that mirror real classroom complexities, such as structured online simulations, can support PSTs in bridging the gap between equitable technology integration theory and practice.
Teacher educators also play a critical role as models of equitable technology integration. Research indicates that PSTs’ digital pedagogies are heavily influenced by the practices and beliefs of their instructors (Ebersole, 2019; Vu & Fadde, 2014). By demonstrating asset-based, contextually aware approaches to technology integration — where students’ identities and interests are central to the design of transformative digital learning experiences — teacher educators can provide powerful exemplars for PSTs to emulate. In addition, they should provide constructive feedback and guidance to PSTs during the lesson planning process, emphasizing the importance of contextual awareness and critical application.
However, because persistent gaps in teacher educators’ technological proficiency have been documented (Carpenter et al., 2020), teacher educators may require additional support through targeted professional learning to achieve these objectives. Professional learning communities where teacher educators across disciplines can share strategies and codevelop resources with technology integration specialists may offer potential pathways for building this capacity.
Importantly, this study does not claim that the simulation alone caused changes in PSTs’ thinking. Rather, the pre/post analysis provided a lens for observing how novice teachers applied XK before and after engaging with course content on equitable technology integration. Within this broader context, the simulation functioned as a supportive tool, offering PSTs a structured opportunity to practice and reflect on equitable lesson design while applying what they were learning about the digital use divide. Teacher educators should consider leveraging simulations in this manner — as intentional practice environments that complement coursework and provide a safe space for PSTs to grapple with complex issues of equity before entering their own classrooms.
Future Directions
While this study provides valuable insight into the role of XK in PSTs’ technology integration practices, several areas warrant further exploration. The participant sample, composed primarily of white women pursuing secondary language arts and social studies certification, may limit the transferability of the findings. Future research should examine how PSTs across diverse subject areas and grade levels apply XK in their technology integration practices, as well as how PSTs from varied racial, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds engage with equity-focused technology integration content.
Moreover, this study primarily explored PSTs’ application of XK at the immediate level, focused on understanding students’ contexts, within the confines of a structured online simulation. While the simulation offered valuable opportunities for practice and reflection, it did not involve actual K–12 students. As such, the lesson designs identified as highly effective should be understood as potentially capable of bridging the digital use divide, rather than demonstrably doing so. Future research should, therefore, investigate how PSTs’ equity-oriented lesson designs translate into practice when enacted in real classroom settings with students.
Finally, further exploration is needed into how teacher preparation programs can effectively support PSTs’ learning about equitable technology integration beyond isolated coursework. More research is necessary to identify best practices for preparing PSTs to integrate technology through an equity lens and to examine how these strategies hold up as novices transition into full-time teaching roles. Longitudinal studies that track PSTs’ evolving practices could provide valuable insights into the factors that contribute to the sustained application of XK in ways that promote digital equity.
Conclusion
This study underscores the importance of cultivating PSTs’ ability to equitably apply XK in their technology integration practices. By equipping PSTs with the skills to design asset-based, technology-rich learning experiences that reflect students’ identities and lived experiences, teacher educators can help bridge the digital use divide and foster more inclusive, empowering learning environments. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, ensuring that PSTs are prepared to navigate these complexities with equity-minded contextual awareness is essential for fostering transformative digital learning opportunities for all students.
References
ACT. (2020, April 20). Inequities in technological devices and internet connection persist during the Coronavirus. ACT Newsroom & Blog. https://leadershipblog.act.org/2020/04/inequities-in-tech-coronavirus.html
Bergeson, K., & Beschorner, B. (2020). Modeling and scaffolding the technology integration planning cycle for pre-service teachers: A case study. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 8(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.v8i4.1031
Bibi, S., & Khan, S. H. (2017). TPACK in action: A study of a teacher educator’s thoughts when planning to use ICT. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3071
Borneman, E., Littenberg-Tobias, J., & Reich, J. (2020). Developing digital clinical simulations for large-scale settings on diversity, equity, and inclusion: Design considerations for effective implementation at scale. Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 373–376). https://doi.org/10.1145/3386527.3405947
Boser, U. (2013). Are schools getting a big enough bang for their education technology buck? Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/reports/2013/06/14/66485/are-schools-getting-a-big-enough-bang-for-their-education-technology-buck/
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide (1st ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Brianza, E., Schmid, Mi., Tondeur, J., & Petko, D. (2022). Situating TPACK: A systematic literature review of context as a domain of knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 22(4), 707–753. https://citejournal.org/volume-22/issue-4-22/general/situating-tpack-a-systematic-literature-review-of-context-as-a-domain-of-knowledge
Brianza, E., Schmid, M., Tondeur, J., & Petko, D. (2024). Is contextual knowledge a key component of expertise for teaching with technology? A systematic literature review. Computers and Education Open, 7, 100201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100201
Buttimer, C. J., Littenberg-Tobias, J., & Reich, J. (2022). Designing online professional learning to support educators to teach for equity during COVID and Black Lives Matter. AERA Open, 8, 23328584211067789. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211067789
Carpenter, J. P., Rosenberg, J. M., Dousay, T. A., Romero-Hall, E., Trust, T., Kessler, A., Phillips, M., Morrison, S. A., Fischer, C., & Krutka, D. G. (2020). What should teacher educators know about technology? Perspectives and self-assessments. Teaching and Teacher Education, 95, 103124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103124
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
Chai, C. S., Rahmawati, Y., & Jong, M. S.-Y. (2020). Indonesian science, mathematics, and engineering preservice teachers’ experiences in STEM-TPACK design-based learning. Sustainability, 12(21), Article 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219050
Cheah, Y. H., Oliveri, A. R., & Hughes, J. E. (2023). Unpacking K-12 teachers’ technology-supported, equitable practices: A mixed-methods systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 125, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103984
Christensen, R., Knezek, G., & Kelley, J. (2022, June 20-23). Using reflection and feedback in a simulated teaching environment to improve instruction for differentiated learners [Paper presentation]. EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2022, New York City, NY, United States. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10346327
Coburn, A., & Gormally, S. (2017). Critical reflexivity. Counterpoints, 483, 111–126.
Cohen, J., Wong, V., Krishnamachari, A., & Berlin, R. (2020). Teacher coaching in a simulated environment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(2), 208–231. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373720906217
Dalinger, T., Thomas, K. B., Stansberry, S., & Xiu, Y. (2020). A mixed reality simulation offers strategic practice for pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 144, 103696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103696
Dotger, B. H. (2013). I had no idea: Clinical simulations for teacher development. IAP.
Ebersole, L. (2019). Preservice teacher experience with technology integration: How the preservice teacher’s efficacy in technology integration is impacted by the context of the preservice teacher education program. International Dialogues on Education: Past and Present, 6(2), 124–138.
EducationSuperHighway. (2019). 2019 State of the states: The classroom connectivity gap is closed. https://www.educationsuperhighway.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-State-of-the-States-Full-Report-EducationSuperHighway-1.pdf
Filback, R., & Green, A. (2013). A framework of educator mindsets and consequences. https://openlearninglibrary.mit.edu/assets/courseware/v1/26b3fbb31759ed21ad82307a92e433c9/asset-v1:MITx+0.503x+T2020+type@asset+block/ContextCenteredMindsetTable.pdf
Foulger, T. S., Graziano, K. J., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Slykhuis, D. A. (2017). Teacher educator technology competencies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(4), 413–448.
Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. W. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055–2100. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100905
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re‐imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340
Hiefield, M., & Carter, N. (2021, September 26). There is more to digital equity than devices and bandwidth. International Society of Technology in Education. https://www.iste.org/explore/education-leadership/there-more-digital-equity-devices-and-bandwidth
Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1648–1663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.04.002
Hughes, J. E., & Read, M. F. (2018). Student experiences of technology integration in school subjects: A comparison across four middle schools. Middle Grades Review, 4(1), 1–31.
Kapici, H. O., & Akcay, H. (2023). Improving student teachers’ TPACK self-efficacy through lesson planning practice in the virtual platform. Educational Studies, 49(1), 76–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1835610
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Littenberg-Tobias, J., Borneman, E., & Reich, J. (2021). Measuring equity-promoting behaviors in digital teaching simulations: A topic modeling approach. AERA Open, 7, 23328584211045685. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211045685
Losen, D. J., & Whitaker, A. (2018). 11 million days lost: Race, discipline, and safety at U.S. public schools (Part 1). https://www.aclu.org/publications/11-million-days-lost-race-discipline-and-safety-us-public-schools-part-1
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Milner, H. R. (2010). Start where you are, but don’t stay there: Understanding diversity, opportunity gaps, and teaching in today’s classrooms. Harvard Education Press.
Milner, H. R. (2012). Beyond a test score: Explaining opportunity gaps in educational practice. Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 693–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934712442539
Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022, September 27). Too few candidates applying for teaching jobs the primary hiring challenge for more than two-thirds of public schools entering the 2022-23 school year. https://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/press_releases/09_27_2022.asp
Passey, D., Shonfeld, M., Appleby, L., Judge, M., Saito, T., & Smits, A. (2018). Digital agency: Empowering equity in and through education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 425–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9384-x
Rafalow, M. H. (2014). The digital divide in classroom technology use: A comparison of three schools. International Journal of Sociology of Education, 3(1), 67–100. https://doi.org/10.4471/rise.2014.04
Rafalow, M. H. (2018). Disciplining play: Digital youth culture as capital at school. American Journal of Sociology, 123(5), 1416–1452. https://doi.org/10.1086/695766
Reich, J. (2019). Teaching our way to digital equity. Educational Leadership, 76(5), 30–35.
Reich, J. (2022). Teaching drills: Advancing practice-based teacher education through short, low-stakes, high-frequency practice. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 30(2), 217–228.
Reich, J., & Ito, M. (2017). From good intentions to real outcomes: Equity by design in learning technologies. Digital Media + Learning Research Hub. https://clalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/GIROreport_1031.pdf
Self, E. A., & Stengel, B. S. (2020). Toward anti-oppressive teaching: Designing and using simulated encounters. Harvard Education Press.
Thompson, M., Owho-Ovuakporie, K., Robinson, K., Kim, Y. J., Slama, R., & Reich, J. (2019). Teacher moments: A digital simulation for preservice teachers to approximate parent–teacher conversations. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(3), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1587727
TNTP. (2020). A broken pipeline: Teacher preparation’s diversity problem. https://tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTP_BrokenPipeline_FINAL.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Advancing educational technology in teacher preparation [Policy brief]. U.S. Department of Education. https://tech.ed.gov/teacherprep/
U.S. Department of Education. (2024). A call to action for closing the digital access, design, and use divides: 2024 National Educational Technology Plan [Policy brief]. U.S. Department of Education. https://portal.ct.gov/das/-/media/das/ctedtech/publications/2025/2025-used-oet-archive/netp24.pdf?rev=6a346ecac18a438eb4db63b724e2df9f
Vega, V., & Robb, M. B. (2019). The Common Sense census: Inside the 21st-century classroom. Common Sense Media.
Vu, P., & Fadde, P. (2014). A snapshot of technology integration training in teacher education programs. International Journal of Psychology, 14, 139–150. https://doi.org/10.7220/2345-024X.14.7
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X09349791
Weisberg, L., & Dawson, K. (2023). The intersection of equity pedagogy and technology integration in preservice teacher education: A scoping review. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871231182129
Weisberg, L., & Dawson, K. (2024). Picturing digital equity in the curriculum: Cultivating preservice teachers’ digital equity mindsets in a technology integration course. Computers & Education, 211, 104988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.104988
Zeichner, K. (2012). The turn once again toward practice-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 376–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112445789
Appendix
Links to Teacher Moments Scenarios Used in the Study
Precourse version of Layers: https://teachermoments.mit.edu/run/b55a78d804/slide/0
Postcourse version of Layers: https://teachermoments.mit.edu/run/dd6e0d78de/slide/0
