Introduction

Digital citizenship, a burgeoning concept involving a set of practices, is inextricably associated with the exponential growth of digital technologies in modern society (Chen et al. 2021). The concept highlights “norms of appropriate, responsible behavior with regard to technology use” (Ribble and Bailey 2007, p. 10) that individuals need to become digitally competent. It also emphasizes active participation in society through digital means, which is premised on equitable access to digital infrastructure and skills (Mossberger et al. 2007). Despite the importance of digital citizenship, there is evidence of a digital divide between students (Jara et al. 2015; Selwyn 2009). Indeed, many scholars argue that it is insufficient to ensure equal access to digital infrastructure and equipment (the first level of the digital divide) because students differ in their usage of digital technologies (the second level of the digital divide) (Claro et al. 2015; Micheli 2016; Zhang 2015). Specifically, the second level of the digital divide refers to the gap between students who can effectively use information and communications technology (ICT) and those who cannot (OECD 2010). This gap limits students’ ability to engage with ICT and meaningfully participate in today’s rapidly evolving society (Noakes et al. 2018; Talaee and Noroozi 2019).

The transition from focusing on only the first level to including the second level of the digital divide reflects a demand for an evolving understanding of this concept, aligned with the fast development and adoption of digital technologies in society. Warschauer (2002) argued that the original concept of the digital divide attached overriding importance to the accessibility of digital technologies, ignored a wide spectrum of degrees of physical accessibility and digital competencies, and indicated an incomplete perspective in understanding the impact of digital technologies on peoples’ lives. It is critical to recognize that the digital divide is a complex problem that not only covers the disparities in individuals’ ICT usage and competence, but it is also deeply associated with cultural and social factors at the individual, group, and societal levels (Warschauer 2003; Van Dijk and Hacker, 2003). The sociocultural context of technology usage, such as family and school socioeconomic status, affects the accessibility of digital infrastructure and the methods and outcomes of digital technology usage (Warschauer et al. 2004; Harris et al. 2017). Differences in the outcomes from digital technology usage are regarded as the third-level digital divide, which is still under-examined in the literature (Scheerder et al. 2017). In the present society, the wide accessibility and intuitive user-interface design of digital technologies facilitates the basic use of digital devices. The study by Rizk and Davies (2021) suggested that the disparities in students’ engagement with digital technologies have been reduced. However, the authors also commented that this does not necessarily narrow the gaps in students’ achievement and attainment. Knowing how to use digital technologies is no longer a sufficient criterion for ascertaining students’ digital competence. The focus on the digital divide should be extended from whether or not students can use digital technologies to how students use these digital technologies and how this usage can be a form of capital for enhancing their life prospects.

Based on Bourdieu’s theory of social reproduction (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977), some scholars have argued that differences in ICT usage can be attributed to non-material aspects of people’s digital cultural and social capital (Cortoni and Perovic 2020; van Deursen and Helsper 2015). Cultural capital represents the material and symbolic assets used and invested by individuals to reproduce or promote their social status and mobility in a stratified society (Bourdieu 1986; Lin 1999). Social capital refers to resources invested and mobilized through social relations in pursuit of benefits for individual actors or the groups to which they belong (Lin 1999). In the context of education, cultural and social capital theory provides a useful lens for examining the effects of inherited and acquired individual and social resources on student development (Acar 2011; Tan 2017; Lareau and Weininger 2003; Feng et al. 2021). Traditionally, students’ cultural and social capital have been viewed as heavily dependent on the resources of their families and offline social circles (Huang 2009; Katsillis and Rubinson 1990). However, in the last two decades, the increasingly widespread use of digital technologies has offered a myriad of opportunities for students to access, accumulate, and mobilize resources in digital environments. Given the prevalent usage of digital technologies and promotion of digital literacy in schools (Kimbell-Lopez et al. 2016), it is critical to revisit cultural and social capital in digital contexts. The differences in students’ ability to develop, maintain, and mobilize cultural and social capital in digital contexts could lead to a new level of ‘digital divide’. This paradigm shift requires a new conceptualization of the new forms of cultural and social capital on student learning in digital contexts in order to understand the roots of the digital divide and their effects on students’ learning outcomes.

The existing literature has not clarified the characteristics of digital cultural and social capital or elucidated how these forms of capital are distributed among students. Scholarship on the digital divide has not explored how students may benefit from having more digital cultural and social capital. To address these knowledge gaps, the present study comprises a systematic review of studies examining the association between G1-12 students’ digital cultural and social capital and their learning outcomes. The significance of this study lies in three aspects. First, there is a compelling need to understand the nature of the digital divide from a digital cultural and social capital perspective given the salience of digital citizenship to meaningful participation in knowledge-intensive societies and the continuing presence of the digital divide despite prevalence of digital infrastructure and equipment. Second, it is imperative to have a clear theoretical understanding of digital cultural and social capital to support the development of empirical investigation and quantitative measurements in this area. Third, we need to understand the effects of digital cultural and social capital on student learning to fully appreciate the significance of these new forms of capital in educational contexts and design effective measures to address the deeper causes of the digital divide.

Literature review

Cultural and social capital

Bourdieu’s family investment model postulates that students can benefit from different configurations of three forms of capital, namely cultural, social, and economic capital (Weininger 2005; Tan 2020). Configurations of these forms of capital vary in terms of the total volume and composition of the different forms and the stability of changes in their volume and composition. Families can use a specific form of capital or a combination of different types of capital, including cultural and social capital, to support student learning (Waithaka 2014).

The understanding of cultural capital has undergone three generations of evolution since Bourdieu’s initial conception (Davies and Rizk 2018). The first generation adheres to Bourdieu’s core ideas published in the 1960s–1970s. Cultural capital comprises highbrow tastes, dispositions, and practices associated with individuals from dominant social backgrounds (e.g., higher socioeconomic status) that are arbitrarily rewarded by schools, thereby perpetuating social reproduction. Schools hide this class bias by framing evaluation standards as being meritocratic. The second generation of educational research (1980s–2000s) situates cultural capital in a status attainment framework (Collins 2008; DiMaggio 1982; DiMaggio and Mohr 1985; Lareau and Weininger 2003). Individuals can achieve educational success and social mobility if they acquire the cultural capital of the dominant social class (e.g., familiarity and consumption of highbrow culture). The third generation of educational research (2000-present) builds on, expands, and even integrates the previous generations of cultural capital scholarship (e.g., Evans et al. 2014; Roose 2015). A close examination of the three generations of cultural capital scholarship indicates that despite the proliferation of understandings and applications, scholars in the field have demonstrated a fidelity to the notion of cultural capital as individuals’ familiarity with the high-brow culture within a society (Bourdieu 1979); this culture of the dominant social class is reinforced and arbitrarily rewarded by gatekeepers in the education system. This is also the definition of cultural capital that will inform the present study.

Cultural capital can exist in three states: objectified, embodied, and institutionalized (Bourdieu 1986). Objectified cultural capital refers to physical resources in students’ homes that facilitate the development of the dispositions, values, perceptions, knowledge, and skills that teachers value. Embodied cultural capital represents the incorporation of the principles of social fields into individuals’ predispositions, propensities, and physical features (including body language, intonation, and lifestyle). Examples include pro-learning values, attitudes, tastes, preferences, and academic competencies and skills. Institutionalized cultural capital is developed when embodied cultural capital is publicly recognized as a marker of social distinction, such as when an individual acquires a doctoral degree or other academic or professional qualification (Tan 2020).

Social capital can be conceptualized from a resource or normative perspective (Putnam, Coleman, & Haifan; Fulkerson and Thompson 2008). Social capital theory is complex due to the multifaceted nature of social capital, which is captured through social connections and that can benefit both the individual and the collective. As a resource, Bourdieu (1986, p. 248) defined social capital as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.” From the normative perspective, social capital is associated with structural features such as norms, values, trust, generalized reciprocity, and civic engagement networks that promote solidarity and democracy. For example, Coleman (1988) conceptualized social capital as existing in three forms, namely level of trust (e.g., obligations, expectations), information channels, and norms and traditions valuing the common good over self-interest. Despite differences in researchers’ conceptualization of social capital (e.g., Coleman 1988; Bourdieu 1986; Putnam 1993; Lin 1999), it is generally agreed that both social relations and social structures matter, and that the resources (e.g. information, influence) available to individuals through their social relations help them to achieve their goals (Lin 2002).

Previous Reviews

Previous reviews have clarified the concepts of cultural and social capital and the relationships between these forms of capital and students’ offline learning. Regarding cultural capital, Davies and Rizk’s (2018) systematic review documented the evolution of cultural capital research in the U.S. across three generations. Tan (2017) reviewed the themes of conceptual diversity, moderators, and theoretical issues in quantitative studies based on cultural capital theory. A meta-analysis by Tan, Peng, and Lyu (2019) examined how the association between cultural capital and students’ academic achievement varied with grade levels. Regarding social capital, Dika and Singh’s (2002) comprehensive review traced the import of social capital to education; ascertained the conceptualization, methods, and outcomes in the extant literature; and clarified associations between social capital and educational and psychosocial outcomes. Fulkerson and Thompson’s (2008) meta-analysis of social capital definitions provided conceptual clarity by unraveling six social capital dimensions related to resources and norms. Huang, van den Brink, and Groot (2009) provided meta-analytic evidence of education’s impact on social participation and of reciprocal relationships between social trust and social participation. Focusing on the influence of social capital on student outcomes, Ferguson (2006) reviewed the literature on social capital and the individual and collective well-being of children and young people. Mouw’s (2006) reviewed the literature to ascertain the causal effect of social capital. Notwithstanding these theoretical advances, there is a dearth of reviews that take stock of the burgeoning research on digital cultural and social capital to provide conceptual clarity on these forms of capital in online contexts.

Some reviews have explored student outcomes associated with specific aspects of digital cultural and social capital. For example, Korkeila’s (2021) scoping review examined the use of the concept of social capital in video-game studies, and Scherer and Siddiq’s (2019) meta-analysis investigated how ICT literacy varied among students with different socioeconomic backgrounds. However, no reviews have examined predictors of aspects of students’ cultural and social capital other than their ICT literacy or across different online contexts beyond video-gaming. A few reviews have investigated the influence of social media and technology on student outcomes. Allen, Ryan, Gray, McInerney, and Waters (2014) reviewed the literature on how social media use influenced adolescents’ sense of belonging, psychosocial well-being, and identity development and processes. Dredge and Schreurs (2020) synthesized findings on the influence of social media use on young people’s offline interpersonal outcomes (relationship quality, individual attributes, group-based behavior). Best, Manktelow, and Taylor (2014) summarized findings on the beneficial and harmful psychosocial effects of young people’s use of online communication and social media technologies. Williams’ (2019) systematic review focused on answering the question of whether online social networking sites cultivated and nurtured individuals’ bonding capital. In contrast with studies focusing on psychosocial outcomes, there is a dearth of reviews examining the theoretical characteristics and related factors of digital cultural and social capital in relation to students’ learning outcomes.

The present study

The present study addresses the knowledge gaps discussed above. It presents a systematic review of studies published between 2000 and 2021, examining the association between G1-12 students’ digital cultural and social capital and their learning outcomes. There are four specific research objectives. First, the study identifies the characteristics of digital cultural and social capital. Second, it clarifies the characteristics of students who are equipped with these forms of capital. Third, it ascertains how students’ learning outcomes benefit from having these forms of capital. Fourth, it elucidates the roles of digital cultural and social capital in understanding the nature of the digital divide. Based on the findings, the study proposes a new theorization of digital cultural and social capital and a conceptual framework illustrating the reproduction of inequalities by digital cultural and social capital.

Methodology

The review process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) procedure (Moher et al. 2009) to ensure the quality of the review process and minimize bias. Twenty-one articles were included in the final dataset for the review analysis after rigorous identification, screening, and analysis. A four-phase flow diagram presenting the search protocol is shown in Fig. 1. The details of the processes are provided below.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of literature search processes.

Full size image

Search terms and search strategy

The overarching goal of the study was to review and synthesize studies exploring the characteristics of new digital forms of cultural and social capital and their impact on students’ learning and educational (in)equality in digital contexts for G1-12 students in research published from 2000 onwards. Therefore, search terms in titles, abstracts and keywords were selected to clearly reflect the objectives of the study, which was critical to the precision and recall rate of the search results (Powers 2011). The query used for searching academic databases was “((“social capital” AND “cultural capital”) OR (“social and cultural capital”) OR (“cultural and social capital”)) AND (“digital” OR “online”) AND (“learning” OR “education” OR “equity” OR “inequality”)”.

In view of the rapid development and adaptation of digital technologies in schools and throughout society in the last two decades (Watson 2006), the publication period of interest in this review was from January 2000 to April 2021, when the search was conducted. To ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant articles, we first retrieved articles published during the period from multiple academic databases, including Academic Search Complete, ERIC, PsycINFO, PsycArticles, British Education Index, and Scopus, using the above search query. We also searched for relevant articles in educational journals covering social or digital aspects of education, such as Sociology of Education, the British Journal of Sociology of Education, and the American Educational Research Journal.

Eligibility criteria and study selection

The types of eligible studies included journal articles, conference proceedings, dissertations and theses, book chapters, and reports. The first author and two research assistants independently reviewed the abstracts and full texts of the studies identified. Discussions based on the following criteria informed decisions on whether the studies identified should be included in the systematic review.

Studies were included if

  • they examined the characteristics of students’ cultural and social capital in digital contexts

  • they involved G1-12 students or G1-12 learning contexts

  • they were published between January 2000 and April 2021; and

  • they were written in English.

All relevant studies adhering to the selective criteria were included, covering studies contextualized across various regions. (the participants’ profile of the included articles can be found in the supplementary material). Studies were excluded if:

  • they did not explicitly invoke cultural or social capital in their conceptualization;

  • they did not examine cultural or social capital in the context of digital settings;

  • they examined kindergarteners or college students and above; or

  • the study context was not G1-12 schools

After removing items for which full-text articles were not available or were not published between January 2000 and April 2021, we screened the abstracts and full texts of the remaining studies. Those included in the final dataset needed to address both social and cultural capital related to G1-12 students in digital contexts. Studies relevant to kindergarteners or adults over age 18 were excluded based on the criterion “not in population” (n = 262). Studies that did not address social and cultural capital in the context of digital settings or G1-12 school settings were excluded from the dataset based on the criterion “not in context” (n = 65). Finally, studies lacking an explicit focus on cultural or social capital in their conceptualization were also excluded, based on the criterion “inadequate relevance” (n = 20).

Next, the authors independently read each study in the final dataset and then jointly developed a coding scheme with three categories to summarize the findings of the studies; all differences of opinion regarding the coding scheme were resolved in the discussion. The coding scheme consisted of the following:

  • study identification (author(s), publication year)

  • research objectives

  • key relevant findings (conceptualization, predictors, and/or impact of digital cultural and social capital on student learning)

The six-phase thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2020) was performed to analyse the studies. In the first phase, the studies were read and initial ideas were noted. Second, they were analysed to generate initial codes. Third, potential themes were identified from the codes. After that, the themes were further developed and reviewed to ensure that they elucidated (i) characteristics of students’ digital cultural and social capital; (ii) factors related to students’ digital cultural and social capital; (iii) the impact of students’ digital and cultural capital on their learning; and (iv) the roles of digital cultural and social capital in the digital divide. In the fifth phase, the themes were refined, defined, and named. Last, the themes were reported in this article (the studies are summarized in Supplementary Material 1).

Limitations

The results of the present review should be read with some limitations in mind. First, the studies reviewed did not examine other forms of digital capital apart from digital cultural and social capital. Second, they did not investigate how students’ digital cultural and social capital affected aspects of their well-being beyond their learning. Last, the results did not apply to kindergarteners or college students who may have different patterns of engagement with technology compared with G1-12 students. Lastly, the studies are limited to those written in English, so future studies may consider international collaborations involving researchers competent in accessing the extant literature written in multiple languages besides English.

Results

Characteristics of digital cultural and social capital

The studies included in the review belonged to three categories. The first category of studies differentiated between digital cultural and social capital in the analyses (Claro et al. 2012; Cortoni and Perovic 2020; Kamin and Meister 2016; Micheli 2016; Stranger-Johannessen and Norton 2017; Talaee and Noroozi 2019; Thibaut and Carvalh 2021; Vickery 2014; Zhang 2015). The second category of studies referred to a more general form of digital capital comprising cultural and social capital (Brader et al. 2014; Chen 2012; Jamaludin et al. 2012; Lam 2014; Mathis 2010; Noakes et al. 2018; Shin and Seger 2016). In the third category of studies, digital cultural and/or social capital were not explicitly referred to but they could be alluded from the conceptualization framing the studies (Claro et al. 2015; Farina et al. 2015; Jara et al. 2015; Sanchez and Salinas 2008; Unlusoy et al. 2010). In this review, we referred to the key concepts of Bourdieu’s cultural and social capital theory (including the three states of cultural capital and social networks) addressed in the reviewed articles, and synthesized the characteristics of digital cultural capital and digital social capital in order to propose operational definitions of digital cultural and social capital in the discussion section.

Characteristics of digital cultural capital

Variation in teenagers’ practices in using digital technologies in different spaces and the ramifications of their usage preferences can be explained using Bourdieu’s notion of habitus (Noakes et al. 2018; Kamin and Meister 2016). Habitus stresses that various accumulated types of capital (including cultural and social apital) connect with individuals’ social status and the perceptions of their social influence in a stratified society (Bourdieu 1977). Habitus also determines individuals’ acquisition and exercise of digital competencies (Kamin and Meister 2016). Students may have distinct tastes and judgments related to their perceived positions in the social space. Their informal online characters could be considered as emerging digital cultural capital that is associated with the usage of ICT and video games (Noakes et al. 2018; Prieur and Savage 2013).

Digital cultural capital highlights the need for students to develop different digital literacies (embodied cultural capital) to leverage technology for academic learning that is consistent with the values of gatekeepers in the education system. This digital cultural capital perspective contrasts with the human capital perspective emphasizing students developing any digital skills that can contribute to their work capacity. Kingston (2001) clarified that all evaluative criteria are arbitrary to some extent with respect to economic productivity, and what is key is whether the arbitrary criteria are relevant to the biases of a particular society. There are various digital usages by students; however, not every usage is equally rewarded in school systems. For example, students with digital cultural capital are characterized by their digital literacies in searching for information from specific websites that are deemed by schools to be more credible than others (e.g., BBC versus Wikipedia), in presenting information online in academic formats valued in schools (eg, Word or PowerPoint versus video), and in using ICT to support the learning of academic subjects assessed in schools (versus entertainment or general well-being).

Embodied digital cultural capital includes diverse forms of understanding, strategies, competencies, and skills related to online learning. Jara and colleagues’ (2015) studied the digital skills of Chilean 10-graders and revealed that the embodied digital cultural capital rewarded by schools includes the cognitive and organizational strategies of Internet usage. The cognitive strategies included filtering information on the Internet when searching for, selecting, and evaluating websites; evaluating website quality; and comparing multiple sources. The organizational strategies included summarizing the information they found online when using the Internet to support their learning. Referring to the status attainment view of cultural capital (DiMaggio and Mohr 1985), school rewards for these usage were seen in students’ digital skill test scores. Information retrieval and production were also seen to be the rewarded digital skills. Claro and colleagues (2012) studied 15-year-old Chilean students and found that although most students were able to complete digital tasks (e.g., searching for and organizing information), very few were able to produce digital information (e.g., developing ideas, refining, and presenting information in digital environments). Digital cultural capital valued by schools also includes digital literacies for educational purposes, and understanding of technology at the procedural (e.g., editing content online), conceptual, or safety levels (e.g., grasping the effects of their digital footprint on their lives) (Ünlüsoy et al. 2010; Thibaut and Carvalh 2021).

The accessibility of digital technologies is critical for developing the digital skills and competences that are valued by teachers, which forms students’ objectified forms of digital cultural capital. However this alone is not sufficient for supporting students’ learning outcomes. Kamin and Meister (2016) reported the evaluation of the Paderborn recycling PC project which aimed to enhance the digital participation of students from the families with limited digital access. They found that the provision of digital accessibility together with pedagogical media training was very helpful for students with primary-educated parents who wished to improve their social standing. However, there was a dissipation of the effects and practices of the trained digital skills (e.g. using computers for learning) after the project ended. Family socialization was still key to enabling students to internalize embodied digital cultural capital.

Characteristics of digital social capital

Students’ digital social capital is associated with the usage of digital technologies for social purposes and acquisition of new information and social support for achieving their goals through online social connections. This involves students using social networks to coordinate with other students, complete homework, exchange school resources, and extend social connections beyond their offline circles (Jara et al. 2015; Micheli 2016). In one example, Jamaludin et al. (2012) studied four young World of Warcraft players and found that in order to achieve their goals in the complex game terrain, each player needed to learn to mobilize the resources embedded in their social connections with other players, including negotiating with other players to secure resources (which they lacked).

However, gaining digital social capital requires students to engage in productive social interactions to achieve their personal or academic goals; this implies students having to regulate their use of the socialization functions of social media to avoid being distracted in the process (Jara et al. 2015; Micheli 2016). Students’ digital social capital is affected by their skills in effective online communication (including online collaborations and virtual interactions) and making ethical/social impact (evaluating responsible use and social impact of ICT) (Claro et al. 2012). In addition, students’ attitudes towards digital technologies, including whether they felt a sense of attachment to or detachment from technology, also affect their usage of digital technologies for developing digital social capital. For example, Micheli’s (2016) study of Italian teenagers’ perceptions and usage of Facebook identified two distinct sets of attitudes toward the platform. Some teenagers adopted a detached, critical attitude. They used Facebook for academic purposes and to communicate with classmates about academic matters. In contrast, another group of teenagers displayed a sense of attachment and emotional involvement. They valued Facebook’s social features more than its knowledge-sharing features. They used it to access the Internet and reported that they made new friends through Facebook. They used it to share their feelings, obtain support, relieve stress in their daily lives and position themselves as “digital natives”. The development of students’ digital social capital is not limited to academic usage (Jamaludin et al. 2012). More importantly, it lies in the ability to use digital technologies to extend social connections, acquire social support, and mobilize resources embedded in these social connections for achieving their academic and personal goals.

Factors related to students’ digital cultural and social capital

Students’ levels of digital cultural and social capital varied with student characteristics, familial resources, access to knowledgeable and dedicated teachers, and access to curricular affordances.

Student characteristics

First, students’ demographics, motivation, attitudes, and familiarity with computers were associated with their levels of digital cultural and social capital. Thibaut and Carvalh’s (2021) case study of a challenging school (high poverty and students’ risk of failing or withdrawing from school) in Chile found that students were less proficient in two aspects of digital cultural capital. In particular they had difficulty using technology to represent meanings differently (e.g., copying from PowerPoint) and they were passive consumers of information on social media (e.g., Facebook). Farina and colleagues’ (2015) analysis of the 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data for 15-year-old students in Chile, Uruguay, Spain, and Portugal found that the pattern of relationships between students’ computer use for reading, an aspect of digital cultural capital, and their reading achievement differed when endogeneity was controlled for by including variables such as students’ online reading. Students’ online reading, in turn, was related to their self-confidence in performing computer tasks, attitudes toward computers, and computer use for homework.

Ünlüsoy and colleagues (2010) conducted a study of the out-of-school literacy activities of seventh graders in the lowest academic stream in the Netherlands who were educationally at risk. They found that girls outperformed boys in digital cultural capital with respect to their digital literacy practices (computer and Internet-based). Furthermore, girls had a more balanced engagement profile for traditional and digital literacy practices, whereas boys were more engaged with digital literacy practices. Lastly, compared with boys, girls participated in digital literacy practices more often for educational purposes.

Jara and colleagues (2015) showed that Chilean 10th-graders adept at using the Internet for educational purposes (e.g., for school assignments) were more digitally proficient in locating and communicating information online and in understanding and addressing ethical dilemmas and the personal/social impact associated with new technologies; these digital literacies were indicative of digital cultural capital rewarded by schools. These students found it relatively easy to search for information online and to create or edit documents. Furthermore, they scored higher in language tests, enjoyed more autonomy in online learning, and had more experience of using ICT. In contrast, students who used the Internet for entertainment purposes (chatting daily and downloading music, programs, or games online) were less proficient in the digital literacies examined. However, these students were able to develop their digital social capital via collaborating online with other students, which provided an opportunity for receiving information and solving problems for assignments.

Zhang (2015) analyzed the associations between students’ demographic information and their online search interest at the state level in US and found that the Internet users in the states with more highly educated adults (with a Bachelor’s degree or higher) and a lower percentage of black students were more likely to use the Internet to access Khan Academy (educational) and less likely to access CartoonNetwork (entertainment). Zhang argued that using the Internet for educational purposes increased students’ capital, including digital cultural and social capital.

Familial resources

Second, students’ familial resources, including their parental education levels, familial socioeconomic resources, and parents’ digital competence and attitudes toward technology, play an important role in affecting their digital cultural and social capital. With regards to parental education and familial resources, Claro et al. (2015) found in a study of Chilean students that parental education (among different indicators measuring family economic, social, and cultural resources) best predicted students’ ICT skills in solving information and communication problems, as well as ethical dilemmas in a digital context; these digital skills were rewarded in their school systems and students who were more proficient in these skills had higher test scores. Additionally, the relationship between parental education and students’ ICT skills was stronger than the relationships between parental education and students’ mathematics and language levels.

Claro and colleagues’ (2012) study involving 15-year-old Chilean students suggested that students from homes with fewer resources (cellular phones, televisions, showers, personal computers) were unable to produce digital information (beyond completing digital tasks) that were valued by schools, because of their lower levels of ICT information fluency, poorer communication, and weaker ethical/social impact skills. Micheli’s (2016) study found that Italian teenagers’ attitudes toward and usage of Facebook were associated with familial SES. Specifically, the results showed that teenagers who had a detached and critical attitude toward Facebook came from higher-SES families, whereas peers who were attached to and emotionally involved with Facebook came from lower-SES families.

However, digital technologies also provide valuable opportunities for students from families with limited digital access to develop their digital cultural and social capital. Noakes et al. (2018) reported a case study of a South African high school boy who aspired to become a fashion and design entrepreneur. The student came from a home with limited Internet access and he attended a state (not private) school. It was difficult for the boy to realize his ambitions and promote his creative works on popular online fashion platforms because of limited Internet access. The boy circumvented the problem by teaching himself fashion design, launching a clothing brand, and promoting his works on his social networks. The mentoring from family and elsewhere, interactions with known and unknown audiences, and social networking from the digital space enabled the boy to develop his digital social capital.

As for parents’ digital competence and attitudes, Shin and Seger’s (2016) study of second-grade students’ learning English using a teacher-created class blog found that parents who were more exposed to digital technologies and who had higher levels of English proficiency were more involved in their children’s online learning that were valued and encouraged by the school. Furthermore, the children developed digital social capital when their parents used blogging to expand the audiences for the children’s writing and give authenticity to the children’s writing.

Talaee and Noroozi (2019) argued for the importance of a supportive “social envelope” to reinforce an approach to students’ ICT usage that capitalized on the opportunities afforded by technology and managed the risks associated with technology. This social envelope included certain prerequisites, including positive parental attitudes toward technology use (encouragement, support and engagement in using home computers/the Internet for educational purposes) in addition to physical access to computers/the Internet at home, opportunities and resources to use home computers, and the skills needed for effective computer use (technological, information, multimedia, technology-mediated communication, and functional literacies). Families with more types of capital (economic, cultural, social) were better equipped to provide these prerequisites.

Knowledgeable and dedicated teachers

The third factor related to students’ digital cultural and social capital was teachers’ knowledge and dedication. This includes teachers’ pedagogical capacity as evident in Sanchez and Salinas’s (2008) study underscoring the problem of teachers’ lack of knowledge of teaching content and pedagogy. Teachers’ ICT knowledge was critical to the integration of information technology into the curriculum in Chile’s national Enlaces initiative, which was designed to prepare teachers and equip learners with digital cultural and social capital for the knowledge society.

Chen’s (2012) case study demonstrated the importance of dedicated teachers who performed compensatory work by supporting the implementation of an initiative that leveraged social relationships. The initiative equipped students from a remote school catering to Aboriginal students in Taiwan with laptops, facilitating the development of digital cultural capital in the students and reducing digital inequality. Stranger-Johannessen and Norton (2017) provided an ethnographic account of how teachers experienced shifts of identity as story-readers, writers, and teachers when they were engaged in the African Storybook digital initiative that provided open-access children’s stories in multiple African and non-African languages. The teachers perceived themselves as agents of change and acquired digital cultural capital (when they learned to engage with ICT) and digital social capital (when they enhanced their social networks).

Cortoni and Perovic’s (2020) ecological analysis of the use of digital technologies in classrooms and the digital competencies of teachers in Montenegro identified macro, meso-social, and micro perspectives of teachers’ digital literacy that impacted students’ online learning. First, a macro analysis found that beyond improving schools’ technological infrastructure and resource availability, teachers’ digital competencies, an aspect of their digital cultural capital, needed to be increased. Second, the meso-social perspective showed that teachers made limited use of the Internet in school and did not adequately mediate students’ Internet use to develop the latter’s digital literacy. Third, from a micro perspective, the study found that teachers did not have the high levels of competencies needed. For example, they exhibited higher levels of social and operational competencies than creative competencies.

Curricular affordances

The last factor related to students’ digital cultural and social capital pertained to school curricula. To illustrate, Thibaut and Carvalh’s (2021) case study of a school with high student poverty and failure/withdrawal rates in Chile showed how a teacher leveraging the design elements of the Activity-Centered Analysis and Design (ACAD) framework was able to equip her students with digital cultural and social capital that supported students’ agency and creativity. Specifically, the teacher developed students’ digital cultural capital by carefully sequencing information and incorporating it into customized tasks for students to carry out in the epistemic design of the learning activity. The teacher also enabled students to mobilize social capital by organizing them to work collaboratively with each other in the social design of the learning activity. Students were also able to build on digital social capital when more knowledgeable peers became tutors and were assigned by the teacher to supervise the group work.

In another study, Vickery (2014) found that high school students benefited from taking part in after-school digital media clubs. These students built up their digital cultural capital when they learned digital literacies and when they pursued their out-of-school interests in an informal setting through autonomous, trial-and-error learning. They developed their digital social capital when they learned collaboratively and connected with the local community and local film clubs.

Influence of digital cultural and social capital on student outcomes

Our review indicates that students’ levels of digital cultural and social capital were related to their learning and educational and career trajectories.

Impact on learning

Shin and Seger (2016) discussed the benefits of digital cultural and social capital facilitated by parental involvement on second graders who were learning English via teacher-created class blogs. First, the blogs enabled students to develop their digital social capital by connecting to a larger audience for their work using technology for learning, which enhanced the social aspects of students’ learning. Second, the involvement of parents led students to draw on their cultural backgrounds more often in their digital writing production, and facilitated the validation of students’ funds of knowledge. Third, the social interactions between parents and children while parents commenting on their children’s writing motivated and inspired confidence in the students.

In another study, Lam (2014) demonstrated how two young Chinese immigrants in the U.S. used instant messaging and other online communication media (digital literacy) to construct and represent meanings, in the process of producing new knowledge using technology. One youngster, Kaiyee, cultivated transnational social networks to nurture relationships with peers of varying expertise, collect information and material artifacts, and participate in critical discussions of design work, thereby enhancing her learning in the field of digital art design. The other young person, Suying, renewed her cultural connections with peers in China and envisaged educational and career pathways for herself. Given the instrumental value of online communication with peers and other individuals, Kaiyee and Suying’s online engagement arguably helped them to develop a sense of attachment to technology.

Informal learning in out-of-school spaces

Digital technologies also provided an informal setting for students to engage in learning in out-of-school spaces, which not only enhanced students’ cognitive development but also supported them in developing and reflecting on their social skills and sense of agency. Jamaludin et al. (2012) studied the intertwined relationships between learning and concepts of play in online interactive games. They found that by assisting others, mentoring new players, and solving problems collectively, students developed digital social capital. They also constructed and negotiated their sense of self and identity. Online game environments did not simply provide realms of fantasy and entertainment; they also afforded opportunities for young people to learn in an embodied sense that was aligned with what they felt passionate about, thereby developing their digital cultural capital. The study also highlighted that digital cultural capital and online social ties that were developed through shared values had a bearing on the meaningfulness and sustainability of learning in the digital space, and were a critical supplement to formal learning in school.

A study by Vickery (2014) also stressed the role of digital media in facilitating students’ informal learning in out-of-school spaces. After-school digital media clubs offered opportunities for students to engage in interest-driven learning networks and leveraged the development of their digital social capital. These informal learning environments empowered students to use digital technologies in their preferred manner, over and above the ways in which technology was used in formal education. They helped students develop their media literacy and introduce knowledge relevant to filmmaking, which particularly benefited young people from low-income families. However, the study was also critical of the limitations imposed by schools’ media practices and management, which restricted access to social media and online sharing sites, limiting students’ opportunities to develop network literacy and social connections beyond their offline networks. The study advised schools to come up with better solutions to avoid the problematic use of social media instead of simply blocking access.

Impact on educational and occupational trajectories

Two studies illustrate how students’ digital cultural and social capital was related to their higher education (navigating college enrollment) and occupational (accumulation of institutionalized capital) trajectories. First, Mathis (2010) explained how schools serving students from families with less cultural and social capital designed and used online games in their college counseling activities. These online games employed a multimodal gaming environment (incorporating visual and audio worlds and allowing players to manipulate their virtual characters), effective learning principles (empowerment, problem-solving, understanding), experiential learning (e.g., via problem-based learning), and narratives (enabling players to construct their own meaning through the use of plot devices). These games were designed to enable students to leverage the educational capability of technology to learn how to navigate the college enrollment process. In another study, Brader et al. (2014) reported the use of an online assessment tool principled in developing students’ cultural and social capital that supported the disengaged Australian youngsters to return to education via flexible learning centers.

Roles of digital cultural and social capital in the digital divide

Digital technologies provide a myriad of benefits for students’ learning and personal development on the one hand, while complicating the issues of educational inequity on the other. Disparity in access to technology and Internet connectivity represented the first generation of the digital divide, which was closely related to family socioeconomic backgrounds (Selwyn 2004). With the increasing availability of ICT at home and at school in past decades, together with the diversity and complexity of online activities that digital technologies allow, new forms of the digital divide have emerged. The second level of the digital divide stresses the ability to engage with and take advantage of digital technologies (Hargittai 2001), and the third level involves the translation of digital skills into other aspects of people’s lives, such as civic participation and job opportunities (Van Deursen and Helsper 2015). The second and third levels of the digital divide have been found to be heavily influenced by students’ cultural and social capital, and differences in digital technology use and outcomes can also stratify students’ digital cultural and social capital (Talaee and Noroozi 2019).

The three levels of the digital divide are connected but the relationships are nonlinear. Thibaut and Carvalho (2021) studied new literacies of students in Chile, and found that access to digital technologies was not a concern among students from vulnerable schools (considering conditions of poverty and students’ dropout risk). However, students’ digital cultural capital varied regarding the uptake of digital technologies and its tangible outcomes. Zhang (2015) found that students with a higher sociodemographic status made more active use of the Internet for school learning whereas students from lower sociodemographic backgrounds tended to use the Internet more for entertainment. Similar results were found in Micheli’s study (2016). Students’ socioeconomic backgrounds were found to be associated with their modes of engagement with social networking sites. Students from higher-income families had a more detached attitude toward social networking sites and they engaged in more activities such as exchanging information and conducting business to strengthen their cultural capital. This pattern of engagement contrasted with that of teenagers from lower-income families who were more interested in the communication and relational features of these sites. Digital technologies were considered as a more valuable resources for students from lower-income families to develop their digital social capital through making new friends, seeking social support, and developing new connections outside their current social circles (Micheli 2016). These findings indicated that the difference in access to digital technologies between students from various social backgrounds has narrowed (Micheli 2016; Thibaut and Carvalho, 2021; Vickery 2014). In contrast, the issues caused by the second and third levels of the digital divide have become more pressing, and this divide is contingent on factors including students’ socioeconomic backgrounds, parents’ educational level, and students’ social connections with mentors at schools (Micheli 2016; Claro et al. 2015; Mathis 2010; Shin and Seger 2016; Noakes et al. 2018; Talaee and Noroozi 2019). In particular, Kamin and Meister, (2016) found that cultural capital had a major influence on the development of digital media competencies. Limited cultural capital within a family weakened the effects of pedagogical media training on digital media competencies (Kamin and Meister 2016). Disparities in the usage of and engagement with digital technologies due to variations in digital cultural and social capital might further widen the achievement gaps and educational inequalities (Claro et al. 2015; Vickery 2014; Talaee and Noroozi 2019; Zhang 2015). Digital technologies do not necessarily provide students with equal opportunities to develop their digital cultural and social capital. Instead, the accumulation and development of digital skills through school training and familial influences have a significant impact on the development of students’ digital cultural and social capital.

Discussion

A summary of the key findings of this systematic review is provided in Table 1. In this section, we critically analyze and interpret the findings based on the analysis results, to (1) discuss the operational definition of digital cultural and social capital, based on the analysis results in Section “Characteristics of Digital Cultural and Social Capital” and “Factors Related to Students’ Digital Cultural and Social Capital”, and (2) provide an in-depth discussion of underlying mechanisms and the reinforcement loop between digital social and cultural capital and inequalities, built on the results in Section “Factors Related to Students’ Digital Cultural and Social Capital”, “Influence of Digital Cultural and Social Capital on Student Outcomes” and “Roles of Digital Cultural and Social Capital in the Digital Divide”. Suggestions on leveraging a collective effort of the various identified stakeholders are provided accordingly for enhancing the development of students’ digital cultural and social capital.

Table 1 A summary of the research results.
Full size table

A new theorization of digital cultural capital and social capital

Digital technologies deepen the complexity of social structures with regards to the understanding of individuals’ practice of utilizing and mobilizing online resources and the interplay between structural forces and individual agency in the digital space. Bourdieu’s concept of habitus highlights the reflexive relationships between internalized and embodied social structures, which enable the production of particular perceptions, thoughts, and actions within socially situated milieus (Bourdieu and Waquant, 1992). Digital habitus can be viewed as new forms of internalized, embodied structural forces that serve as a set of guidelines that drive students’ actions, expressions, and perceptions as they engage in diverse tasks in digital milieus. It provides a theoretical perspective for defining and explaining the new form of cultural and social capital in digital contexts.

While traditional cultural and social capital depend heavily on students’ family backgrounds and offline social networks, digital cultural and social capital must be developed through technologies that can impact Students’ learning beyond their offline networks (Talaee and Noroozi 2019). Although digital technologies seem to provide equal opportunities for students regardless of their family backgrounds, students from non-dominant social classes are still likely to be vulnerable in their development and mobilization of cultural and social resources facilitated by digital technologies (Jara et al. 2015). Through this review, we found that the impact of cultural and social capital in digital contexts had been discussed in the literature, but the studies examined lacked an in-depth understanding of the emerging characteristics and impacts of digital cultural and social capital. It is critical to refine the theorization of social and cultural capital in digital contexts to provide an important theoretical lens for explaining how and why digital literacy can affect students’ development and why the digital divide matters. A definition acknowledging the new characteristics of cultural and social capital in digital contexts is required to inform the quantitative measurement of digital cultural and social capital and to study its causes and effects empirically.

The definition of digital cultural and social capital

Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital acknowledges individuals’ investment in social assets that reinforce or promote their social mobility (Bourdieu and Richardson, 1986). The three types of cultural capital, including objectified, embodied and institutionalized cultural capital, highlight the different resources that can be owned by individuals in reproducing social structure and conferring social status (Tan 2017). In digital contexts, the digital infrastructure and resources possessed by students and their families can be considered as the objectified form of cultural capital. The embodied form of digital cultural capital stresses the digital skills, knowledge, and attitudes toward digital technology usage, and digital literacies. The institutionalized form of digital cultural capital is reflected in the credentials and qualifications that demonstrate students’ digital skills and knowledge, and which can be obtained through institutional training. DiMaggio and Mohr (1985) operationalized cultural capital as individuals’ exposure to cultural forms, which are largely provided by their families and shown to be arbitrarily rewarded in their school achievements. Previously, the cultural forms mainly include a range of offline resources and activities engaged in by the upper classes, such as arts, museums, and literatures. Digital technologies spawned new cultural valuations. School rewards for certain digital skills could be seen in students’ test scores (Jara et al. 2015), and students from higher SES backgrounds were found to be more likely to engage in the rewarded usage (e.g. educational usage) and have higher academic performance in schools (Jara et al. 2015; Zhang 2015). The connection between social privilege and the rewarded digital usage in schools is still evident (Micheli 2016). Lareau and Weininger (2003) stressed the cumulative advantages of families from the dominant class by leveraging home practices to mirror educational activities in schools. The family influence is also seen in digital cultural capital (Claro et al. 2015; Micheli 2016). In this review, we found that familial socioeconomic resources, and parents’ digital competence and attitudes toward technology, play an important role in affecting the development of students’ digital skills and performance that are rewarded by schools. Based on the results of the present review, we propose an operational definition of digital cultural capital as “cultural resources that students employ in the digital domain to produce legitimate knowledge and enhance learning that is arbitrarily rewarded by gatekeepers in the education system”. The operational definition of students’ digital cultural capital can inform the measurement of this construct in research designs. For example, quantitative researchers may need to develop survey items that measure cultural resources (as opposed to economic or social resources), emphasize the digital domain (as opposed to the traditional domain), perceived legitimate knowledge that is rewarded by gatekeepers in an education system, and students’ learning gains from their engagement with digital technology. Digital cultural capital is about whether individuals have the right digital skills, literacy, and values that are rewarded by school systems. Students who understand digital cultural capital and can develop some of them would be more likely to thrive and succeed in school systems. Digital cultural capital plays a role in the stratifying processes, however, this time, the role seems to be more dynamic, as individuals have more choices and autonomy in the digital world than offline situations. However, it is noteworthy that schools should adjust their cultural valuations informed by the development of digital technologies to reward the multifaceted usage of digital technologies through curricula and pedagogical changes. This adaptation is critical for promoting cultural mobility and supporting students’ personalized development in the digital era, which is critical for preparing students to adapt to the rapidly evolving digital landscape and embrace continuous learning throughout their lives (Bernacki et al. 2021).

Lin (1999) highlighted that social capital in cyberspace transcends the geographical boundaries of social connections and that its impacts should be examined in a global context. Digital technologies offer new opportunities for students to maintain and extend their social connections beyond offline circles and to access information globally through online connections and channels. Based on the operational definition of social capital given by Lin (1999) and the analysis of the results of this study, we propose an operational definition of digital social capital as “the resources embedded in social relations accessed and used by individuals through digital technologies in intended actions.” The operational definition of students’ digital social capital can inform the measurement of this construct in research designs. For example, researchers of digital social capital may need to identify the different types of social relations between students and other individuals in the digital domain. After that, they need to collect data on the different types of resources that students can access and use from these social relations and data on the different aims informing students’ engagement with digital technology. Digital social capital has a particular emphasis on the awareness, accessibility, and usage of digital resources to establish connections and receive resources that are beneficial to students’ educational and personal development. Compared with cultural and social capital in offline contexts, developing digital cultural and social capital relies on the use of digital technologies, as well as on the ability to translate digital connections and resources into enhancements of individuals’ life chances.

The interconnections between digital cultural capital and digital social capital

Bourdieu’s theory of capital suggests that social, cultural, and economic capital are transferable, and that cultural and social capital are more closely related to each other. Therefore, transfers between these two forms of capital can occur more readily (Bourdieu 1986; Swartz 2012). The cultural capital accumulated by individuals provides a basis for accessing social resources and developing social connections based on shared values, skills, and practices (Swartz 2012). In return, the exchange of social resources through established social connections can enhance the individual’s embodied, objectified, and institutionalized cultural capital (Sutherland and Burton 2011).

The interconnection and conversion between cultural and social capital is also applicable in digital contexts. Digital cultural capital can be considered an essential condition for the development of digital social capital as objectified and embodied cultural capital is critical for students to engage in capital-enhancing activities in the digital space (Zhang 2015; Micheli 2016). The social connections and collective identities developed through the beneficial use of digital technologies can help students to accumulate the cultural resources needed to engage in capital-enhancing activities and develop healthy values and attitudes toward digital technologies and digital skills. Digital cultural and social capital not only affects the outcomes of using digital technologies but also provides the theoretical underpinnings for exploring how to mobilize resources and social assets across online and offline spaces to enhance students life chances and their academic success.

Digital social and cultural capital can lead to the reproduction of inequalities

Students’ cultural and social capital heavily depend on family-based parental endowments and support (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990). In this review, we found that students from lower socioeconomic families are more likely to use digital technologies for entertainment and to experience limited digital cultural capital (Zhang 2015; Micheli 2016). Entertainment (vis-a-vis academic) outcomes may not be deemed to be legitimate in the dominant culture and hence, they are not reinforced or rewarded by educational gatekeepers (Zhang 2015). The lack of digital cultural capital intersects with the limited development of digital social capital, which affects students’ skills in mobilizing resources and connections, and unwittingly reinforces social and educational inequalities.

Whether the Internet provides opportunities to alleviate or exacerbate existing social stratifications has long been a topic of theoretical debate between cyber-optimists and cyber-pessimists (Norris 2001; Talaee and Noroozi 2019). Students’ cultural and social capital largely reflects their socioeconomic backgrounds (Tan 2017). With digital technologies, students have the autonomy and agency to develop and navigate online resources, and to develop their digital cultural and social capital alongside the capital inherited from their families. However, the issue here is that students’ ability to use digital technologies to enhance their own capital is largely affected by their socioeconomic backgrounds (Claro et al. 2012; Noakes et al. 2018; Zhang 2015), even though the gap in engagement with digital technologies is found to have narrowed along SES lines in recent studies (Rizk 2020). van Deursen and Helsper (2015) found that individuals with higher social status continued to obtain more benefits from the Internet and make better use of digital environments, potentially exacerbating existing offline inequalities. The interactions and reinforcements among students’ socioeconomic backgrounds, their digital cultural capital, and the development of digital social capital form a feedback loop (see Fig. 2 below); digital use is both the precursor and outcomes of students’ digital cultural and social capital. This conceptual framework reveals the critical role of digital technologies in social inequalities, as well as the deep causes and consequences of the digital divide.

Fig. 2
figure 2

A conceptual framework of the feedback loop among digital cultural and social capital and social inequalities.

Full size image

Based on our review of relevant studies and discussion of the definitions and characteristics of digital cultural and social capital, we suggest that the Internet and digital technologies do not determine inequalities; rather, digital social and cultural capital, which are governed by the accessibility and use of digital technologies, represent the key principles perpetuating or reproducing social and educational inequalities.

It is important to note that the understanding of the feedback loop among students’ socioeconomic backgrounds and their digital cultural and social capital should be grounded in a critical acknowledgement of the role of student funds of knowledge and agency. The concept of funds of knowledge emphasizes the importance of learning about students’ lives and diverse resources for gaining knowledge (e.g., from home, peer groups, and community membership) instead of simply attributing students’ school underachievement to the perceived deficiencies related to their socioeconomic backgrounds (González et al. 2005). Therefore, while interpreting the feedback loop, it is critical to take the diverse funds of knowledge of students from non-dominant backgrounds (e.g., low socioeconomic status families) into consideration (Barton and Tan 2009). It is also important to appreciate how these funds of knowledge lead to different everyday practice involving digital technologies and different levels of digital cultural and social capital. The culturally and socially situated agency of students also enables them to actively incorporate the digital space as a non-traditional fund of knowledge to enrich and broaden the boundaries associated with their inherited family and social backgrounds (Barton and Tan 2009, 2010; Rizk and Hillier 2021). Student agency is salient in mobilizing their digital cultural and social capital to attain their goals. The development of students’ digital cultural and social capital is centered on the alignment of digital technology usage with individual’s educational and personal development, and so these forms of capital should not be judged referring to assumptions and stereotypes about digital technology usage by certain social groups (e.g. the so-called “WEIRD” people) (Henrich et al. 2010; Clancy and Davis 2019). Additionally, given the benefits that diverse forms of engagement with digital technologies can provide to students (Granic et al. 2014; Wang et al, 2018), the beneficial usage of digital technologies should also be considered in a multifaceted way as opposed to promoting certain types of usage (e.g., for school sanctioned educational uses only) and for achieving certain types of outcomes (e.g., academic achievement vis-a-vis socioemotional well-being). These considerations need to be accounted for in order to inform effective student-centered approaches for positive reinforcement between digital technology usage and digital cultural and social capital development.

Strategies for enhancing students’ digital cultural and social capital

The results of the review showed that students’ levels of digital cultural and social capital have been found to vary with student characteristics, familial resources, access to knowledgeable and dedicated teachers, and access to curricular affordances. It is important to facilitate the development of students’ digital cultural and social capital through hybrid space that coalesces their diverse funds of knowledge grounded in their experiences and networks of relationships in both in- and out-of-school settings (Barton and Tan 2009), with various stakeholders in educational systems, including teachers, schools, peers and parents, making a collective effort.

Schools play a key role in enabling development of students’ digital social and cultural capital. In this review, we found that simply distributing and allocating computing resources at schools cannot truly help students to improve their digital skills and increase their digital cultural capital (Jewitt 2013). Explicit teaching, using well-developed designs for learning, is required to help students master digital technologies at operational, conceptual, and safety levels (Thibaut and Carvalho 2021). This requires the full integration of digital technologies into learning processes, going beyond the use of digital tools in the display of basic information, to engaging students’ interactions and collaborations through digital technologies, and generating novel and creative products (Thibaut and Carvalho 2021; Claro et al. 2012). Pedagogical approaches that encourage the healthy, deliberative and creative use of digital technologies at the school level are needed to make the shift from information consumers to information producers through those technologies (Thibaut and Carvalho 2021). Teachers play a pivotal role in achieving this goal. First of all, it is important for teachers to be aware of and understand the importance of digital cultural and social capital, as well as incorporate pedagogical practices that link student funds of knowledge to support the active development of their digital cultural and social capital in daily digital technology usage. Students should be encouraged to view technologies as socially shaped artefacts that can be utilized to support their development in action-oriented ways (Scott and Garcia 2016; Scott 2021). Secondly, it is vital to invest in training teachers in digital competencies and media pedagogical knowledge (Cortoni and Perovic, 2020). This training will enable teachers to provide effective instruction, integrating digital technologies into their teaching and learning activities, as well as providing timely coaching to help students establish a positive and healthy attitude toward the use of digital technologies.

With increasing access to digital technologies at home, ICT-related activities at school are important but have a limited impact on individual differences in digital cultural capital (Claro et al. 2012). The heavy use of digital tools after school makes the use of digital technologies outside of school critical for students in developing their digital cultural and social capital. In contrast to school formal education, students tend to get involved in more interest-driven online activities outside school. Parental involvement and social ties with peers play an important role in enhancing students’ digital cultural and social capital in informal settings (Jamaludin et al. 2012; Shin and Seger 2016; Kamin and Meister 2016). Developing a sense of agency and detached attitudes toward social media applications helps students engage in more capital-enhancing activities online (Micheli 2016; Jamaludin et al. 2012). However, it deserves reiterating that whether such engagement is deemed to contribute to capital formation is shaped by educational gatekeepers. Active parental involvement and a strong interest in students’ leisure time can make a difference to students’ attitudes toward social media applications (Clark 2009). Social ties and affinities developed through online interactions with peers also contribute to the sustainability and meaningfulness of engaging in online learning processes in informal settings (Jamaludin et al. 2012).

The use of digital technologies in school settings should not be viewed as being in conflict with or separate from the use of such technologies out of school. A coherent strategy supported by teachers, schools, parents, and peers should be developed to help students navigate digital technology through formal and informal learning. The use of digital technologies at schools should be designed to provide a more open environment and guide students to learn and develop self-regulation and responsibility while using digital technologies, rather than limiting access to online resources (Vickery 2014). A lack of training and limited access to online resources, may lead to more problematic use in out-of-school settings and hamper the ability to use social media applications creatively. School- family ties are essential in influencing students’ digital technology usage (Rizk and Hillier 2021). A good balance in the use of digital entertainment and educational technologies at school and at home can help students develop positive and healthy attitudes toward the use of digital technologies. These attitudes further benefit the development of digital social and cultural capital.

Conclusion

In line with the substantial mainstream scholarship on social reproduction, we have leveraged the conceptual apparatus of Bourdieu’s theory of cultural and social capital (and also habitus) to inform our analysis. Indeed, we recognize that the involvement of digital technology in students’ lives complicates issues of educational equity (notably as articulated in the digital divide literature) (Selwyn, 2004). Students from lower social classes are particularly disadvantaged (Jara et al. 2015). One of the key contributions of the present study is to determine the role of digital cultural and social capital in contributing to the digital divide in student learning.

However, we caution against a naïve application of Bourdieu’s theory to understand the relationship between digital cultural and social capital, student learning, and the digital divide. Importantly, we recognize that dominant groups of society who serve as gatekeepers in the education system may apply arbitrary criteria that reward students (Kingston 2001) for a particular use of digital technology (e.g., accessing BBC versus Wikipedia for research) or for a particular purpose (e.g., using the Internet for academic learning versus online gaming). There is also evidence that students from lower social classes may exercise agency to actively incorporate the digital space as an additional resource into their traditional funds of knowledge such as their cultural beliefs, priorities, and practices (Barton and Tan 2009, 2010; Rizk and Hillier 2021). This agency enables students to benefit maximally from digital technology in achieving a comprehensive set of life outcomes including academic achievement and socioemotional well-being. Different stakeholders in the educational system, including teachers, schools, students, and parents, have a part to play to build constructive networks of relationships to coalesce the diverse funds of knowledge to benefit different groups of students, including those from lower social classes.

This study contributes to the theoretical development of ideas about cultural and social capital in digital contexts, particularly with regards to a new, much-needed theorization of digital cultural and social capital. It provides a theoretical framework to understand the influence of digital technologies on student learning and development, as well as the reproduction of social inequalities in the digital era. While access to digital technologies is no longer the primary concern, differences in the effects of digital technologies on student development are heavily dependent on the development of digital cultural and social capital. Digital cultural and social capital provide a theoretical lens for understanding the effects of the digital divide on student development, as well as playing a determining role in the integration and transfer of resources across online and offline spaces.

Two important implications for policy and practice arise from the study. First, notwithstanding the relative importance of the family, there is still a role for schools as sites of secondary socialization to equip students with digital cultural and social capital. Indeed, our study shows that students can benefit from the “methodological inculcation” of digital cultural and social capital in “explicit pedagogy” (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977, p. 47) via dedicated and knowledgeable schoolteachers and the school curriculum. The second implication is that equipping students with digital cultural and social capital is a complex endeavor. Specifically, beyond providing access to physical equipment and infrastructure, educators need to sensitize students to the different ways that technology can be used, equip students with the various literacies that they need to leverage technology for learning, and imbue in them the required attitudes toward online learning. Additionally, educators need to recognize that digital cultural and social capital influences students’ learning in both formal (e.g., in school) and informal (e.g., out-of-school) learning spaces. This implies that they need to teach students the life skills needed to take advantage of learning opportunities outside the curriculum while mitigating online learning risks (e.g., cyberbullying).

Future research can take the field forward in the following directions. First, the new paradigm of digital cultural capital and social capital needs further research and this research must address new digital technology developments (e.g. artificial intelligence techniques, virtual reality). Future studies are recommended to further elucidate the relationships of students’ digital cultural and social capital and the three-levels of digital divides respectively. Second, most of the studies reviewed used a cross-sectional design; longitudinal studies can be conducted to ascertain the long-term impact of equipping students with digital cultural and social capital. Third researchers can examine how digital cultural and social capital interact with each other to impact student learning, given the nomological relationships between these variables in Bourdieu’s theory (Tan 2020; Waithaka 2014; Weininger 2005). The final area for researchers to explore is the development of valid and reliable instruments to measure digital cultural and social capital in quantitative studies.