Digital divide and economic strain undermine college success for first-gen students after pandemic

A new study has found that financial stress significantly moderates the relationship between technology access and academic performance, underscoring a critical disparity between first-generation and continuing-generation college students in post-pandemic higher education. Titled "Technology Access and Financial Stress: Post-COVID-19 Academic Outcomes for First-Generation and Continuing-Generation College Students" and published in Education Sciences, the study examines these disparities.

The findings expose how deeply structural inequalities, particularly around digital access and economic pressures, continue to shape academic outcomes in the wake of COVID-19. Through survey data from 430 undergraduate students enrolled in Fall 2020, the study captures the persistent academic disadvantages experienced by first-generation college students (FGCS) as compared to their continuing-generation peers (CGCS).

Technology gaps and financial burdens divide student experience

The shift to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the fault lines of socioeconomic disparity in higher education. According to the study, first-generation college students faced considerably more obstacles in accessing essential technological tools required for successful academic engagement. These students were more likely to report difficulties such as unreliable internet, limited device access, and higher dependence on shared technology within their households. The research confirmed that FGCS reported lower overall technology access scores than CGCS, despite institutional requirements mandating minimum technological standards.

Financial burdens were another pronounced difference. Nearly half of FGCS respondents reported annual family incomes below $50,000, while a significant portion of CGCS came from families earning over $100,000. FGCS also reported much higher levels of financial stress, including concerns about paying tuition and heightened anxiety about their financial circumstances due to the pandemic. This elevated financial stress coexisted with academic responsibilities, creating a dual burden that was largely absent in the experiences of their continuing-generation counterparts.

The compounding of limited technological access and high financial strain created a challenging environment for FGCS. Many had to manage additional caregiving responsibilities, study in crowded or unsuitable spaces, and often had to purchase new devices to participate in remote learning. These realities severely affected their ability to keep pace with academic demands, as the online learning infrastructure disproportionately favored students with stable financial and digital resources.

Academic outcomes tied to technology and financial pressures

The study examined how academic performance, measured through self-reported grade point averages (GPAs), was linked to both technology access and financial stress. For first-generation students, better technology access was positively associated with higher academic performance. This was not the case for continuing-generation students, whose academic outcomes appeared unaffected by their level of technology access. The researchers suggest that CGCS may already have a stronger academic foundation or access to more robust institutional and familial support systems, making them less reliant on technological factors for success.

However, once financial stress was included in the regression model, the positive effect of technology access on academic performance for FGCS disappeared. This indicates that financial stress is a more powerful predictor of academic success, effectively nullifying the benefits of digital access. For FGCS, financial strain appears to overshadow the advantages provided by improved technology access, limiting its efficacy as a tool for academic equity.

These findings suggest a cascading effect where financial hardship impairs a student’s ability to utilize technology effectively, which in turn undermines academic performance. This dynamic is especially relevant in the context of increasing reliance on virtual learning platforms, even beyond the pandemic. As higher education continues to integrate hybrid and remote models, these disparities are likely to persist and potentially widen unless targeted interventions are adopted.

Financial stress as a moderator of technology’s impact

The study’s most compelling insight is the moderating role of financial stress in shaping the relationship between technology access and academic performance. At average levels of financial stress, technology access had little impact on academic outcomes. However, under conditions of high financial stress, access to digital tools became a critical resource. Conversely, when financial stress was low, technology access had no meaningful effect or even a slight negative association with academic performance.

This nuanced relationship suggests that digital tools serve as an academic lifeline primarily when students are under intense economic pressure. For financially stressed students, reliable technology may provide the minimum infrastructure needed to keep up with coursework, submit assignments on time, and attend virtual lectures. The marginal effect size observed in the study, while small, has far-reaching implications when applied across large and vulnerable student populations.

Given the persistent association between financial stress and mental health outcomes in higher education, the authors argue for a more integrated policy response. They recommend that universities address both digital and financial barriers simultaneously. Simply providing laptops or Wi-Fi is not enough; these tools must be accompanied by financial relief, counseling services, and outreach programs that help students navigate both academic and non-academic challenges.

Rethinking support systems in higher education

The study states that higher education institutions must adopt comprehensive support systems tailored to the unique needs of first-generation students. Financial aid programs, mentoring initiatives, and technology grants should be designed with attention to the overlapping burdens these students face. Programs that merely offer resources without structured guidance or targeted outreach risk being underutilized or ineffective.

The authors highlight the need for proactive engagement strategies such as financial literacy workshops, personalized academic advising, and culturally responsive mentorship. These efforts could empower FGCS to make better use of existing resources and reduce the psychological toll associated with navigating higher education independently.

The research also underscores the importance of contingency planning in higher education. The pandemic revealed how unprepared many institutions were to support marginalized students during emergencies. Future preparedness must include digital infrastructure investment, emergency financial support, and flexible academic policies that ensure continuity and inclusivity during disruptions like natural disasters or public health crises.

While the study’s scope is limited to one U.S. university and relies on self-reported data, it offers vital insights into the systemic barriers that continue to shape educational outcomes. Longitudinal research following students across multiple semesters would provide deeper understanding into how these stressors evolve and whether they ultimately hinder or cultivate long-term resilience and professional success.