Educational level currently teaching
Community college | 2 |
University level | 15 |
Graduate level | 10 |
Other | 15 |
Total responses | 42 |
Subject or field currently teaching
Technology | 14 |
Instructional design | 6 |
Content area: English, French, Science, Special Education, Library Science, History | 13 |
Research, graduate level | 4 |
Other: retired, real estate, not teaching, program evaluation, communications | 5 |
Total responses | 42 |
Age range of participants
21–35 years | 6 |
36–45 | 15 |
46–55 | 7 |
56 and over | 14 |
Total responses | 42 |
Adamson , M.A. , Chen , H. , Kackley , R. and Michael , A. ( 2018 ), “ For the love of the game: game- versus lecture-based learning with Generation z patients ”, Journal of Psychological Nursing and Mental Health Services , Vol. 56 No. 2 , pp. 29 - 36 , available at: http://dx.doi.org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.3928/02793695-20171027-03
Alenezi , A. ( 2017 ), “ Obstacles for teachers to integrate technology with instruction ”, Education and Information Technologies , Vol. 22 No. 4 , pp. 1797 - 1816 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1145944&site=eds-live&scope=site
Alshammari , S.H. , Ali , M.B. and Rosli , M.S. ( 2016 ), “ The influences of technical support, self efficacy and instructional design on the usage and acceptance of LMS: a comprehensive review ”, Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET , Vol. 15 No. 2 , pp. 116 - 125 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1096463&site=eds-live&scope=site
Azzaro , G. ( 2014 ), “ Human drive and humanistic technologies in ELT training ”, Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication , No. 27 , pp. 287 - 312 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=ufh&AN=94592418&site=eds-live&scope=site
Bandura , A. ( 1986 ), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognition Theory , Prentice-Hall , Upper Saddle River, NJ .
Bhatiasevi , V. and Naglis , M. ( 2016 ), “ Investigating the structural relationship for the determinants of cloud computing adoption in education ”, Education and Information Technologies , Vol. 21 No. 5 , pp. 1197 - 1223 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1109546&site=eds-live&scope=site
Cheung , G. , Wan , K. and Chan , K. ( 2018 ), “ Efficient use of clickers: a mixed-method inquiry with university teachers ”, Education Sciences , Vol. 8 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1174987&site=eds-live&scope=site
Croasmun , J.T. and Ostrom , L. ( 2011 ), “ Using Likert-type scales in the social sciences ”, Journal of Adult Education , Vol. 40 No. 1 , pp. 19 - 22 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ961998&site=eds-live&scope=site
Demirbağ , M. and Kılınç , A. ( 2018 ), “ Preservice teachers’ risk perceptions and willingness to use educational technologies: a belief system approach ”, Journal of Education and Future , No. 14 , pp. 15 - 30 , available at: https://search-proquest-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/docview/2122479666?accountid=35812
Dominici , P. ( 2018 ), “ For an inclusive innovation. Healing the fracture between the human and the technological in the hypercomplex society ”, European Journal of Futures Research , Vol. 6 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 10 .
Dress , A. ( 2016 ), “ Adopting a growth mindset ”, Exchange , Vol. 228 , pp. 12 - 15 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eue&AN=115865494&site=eds-live&scope=site
El Fadil , B. ( 2015 ), “ High school technology design process – goals and challenges ”, International Journal of Arts & Sciences , Vol. 8 No. 6 , pp. 109 - 116 , available at: https://search-proquest-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/docview/1764688920?accountid=35812
Fedorenko , S. ( 2018 ), “ Humanistic foundations of foreign language education: theory and practice ”, Advanced Education , Vol. 5 No. 10 , pp. 27 - 31 .
Ferdig , R. and Kennedy , K. ( 2014 ), Handbook of Research on K-12 Online and Blended Learning , Library of Congress, ETC Press , Pittsburgh, PA .
Finfgeld-Connett , D. ( 2013 ), “ Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews ”, Qualitative Research , Vol. 14 No. 3 , pp. 341 - 352 , doi: 10.1177/1468794113481790 .
Genota , L. ( 2018 ), “ Why Generation Z learners prefer YouTube lessons over printed books; video learning outranks printed books in survey ”, Education Week , No. 1, available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=edsgov&AN=edsgcl.555427761&site=eds-live&scope=site
Global Research and Insights ( 2018 ), “ Beyond millennials: the next generation of learners ”, available at: www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/news/news-annoucements/2018/The-Next-Generation-of-Learners_final.pdf (accessed October 21, 2018 ).
Harrison , H. , Birks , M. , Franklin , R. and Mills , J. ( 2007 ), “ Case study research: foundations and methodological orientations ”, Forum: Qualitative Social Research , No. 1 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=edsdoj&AN=edsdoj.2959900b435b4c988812267188f7b1f8&site=eds-live&scope=site
Hseih , H.F. and Shannon , S.E. ( 2005 ), “ Three approaches to qualitative content analysis ”, Qualitative Health Research , Vol. 15 No. 9 , pp. 1277 - 1288 , doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687 .
Huh , Y. and Reigeluth , C.M. ( 2018 ), “ Online K-12 teachers’ perceptions and practices of supporting self-regulated learning ”, Journal of Educational Computing Research , Vol. 55 No. 8 , pp. 1129 - 1153 , doi: 10.1177/0735633117699231 .
Hussain , M. ( 2012 ), “ Descriptive statistics – presenting your results I ”, The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association , Vol. 62 No. 7 , p. 741 .
Kilinc , A. , Demiral , U. and Kartal , T. ( 2017 ), “ Resistance to dialogic discourse in SSI teaching: the effects of an argumentation-based workshop, teaching practicum, and induction on a preservice science teacher ”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching , Vol. 54 No. 6 , pp. 764 - 789 , available at: https://doi-org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.1002/tea.21385
Lambert , V.A. and Lambert , C.E. ( 2012 ), “ Editorial: qualitative descriptive research: an acceptable design ”, Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research , Vol. 16 No. 4 , pp. 255 - 256 .
Merriam , S.B. ( 2009 ), Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .
Miles , M.B. and Huberman , A.M. ( 1994 ), Qualitative Data Analysis , 2nd ed. , Sage Publications , Thousand Oaks, CA .
Nicol , A.A. , Owens , S.M. , Le Coze , S.S.L. , MacIntyre , A. and Eastwood , C. ( 2018 ), “ Comparison of high-technology active learning and low-technology active learning classrooms ”, Active Learning in Higher Education , Vol. 19 No. 3 , pp. 253 - 265 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417731176
Office of Educational Technology, Department of Education ( 2017 ), “ Higher education supplement to the National Education Technology Plan ”, available at: https://tech.ed.gov/higherednetp/ (accessed August 12, 2018 ).
Patterson , R. ( 1999 ), “ The web’s future? Ask the man who invented it ”, Canadian Medical Association Journal , Vol. 160 No. 1 , p. 95 , available at: https://search-proquest-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/docview/204826444?accountid=35812
Porter , W.W. and Graham , C.R. ( 2016 ), “ Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of blended learning in higher education ”, British Journal of Educational Technology , Vol. 47 No. 4 , pp. 748 - 762 , available at: https://doi.org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.1111/bjet.12269
Reid , P. ( 2014 ), “ Categories for barriers to adoption of instructional technologies ”, Education and Information Technologies , Vol. 19 No. 2 , pp. 383 - 407 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1053119&site=eds-live&scope=site
Reid , P. ( 2017 ), “ Supporting instructors in overcoming self-efficacy and background barriers to adoption ”, Education and Information Technologies , Vol. 22 No. 1 , pp. 369 - 382 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1125291&site=eds-live&scope=site
Salkind , N.J. ( 2009 ), Exploring Research , 7th ed. , Pearson Prentice Hall , Upper Saddle River, NJ .
Seemiller , C. and Grace , M. ( 2016 ), Generation Z Goes to College , Josey Bass , San Francisco, CA .
Seemiller , C. and Grace , M. ( 2017 ), “ Generation Z: educating and engaging the next generation of students ”, About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience , Vol. 22 No. 3 , pp. 21 - 26 , doi: 10.1002/abc.21293 .
Serdyukov , P. ( 2017 ), “ Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? ”, Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning , Vol. 10 No. 1 , pp. 4 - 33 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007
Shatto , B. and Erwin , K. ( 2017 ), “ Teaching millennials and Generation Z: bridging the generational divide ”, Creative Nursing , Vol. 23 No. 1 , pp. 24 - 28 , available at: http://dx.doi.org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.1891/1078-4535.23.1.24
Somera , S.L. ( 2018 ), “ Educator experiences transitioning to blended learning environment in K-6 public schools ”, Order No. 10746266, No. 2019657254, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, Ann Arbor, MI, available at: https://search-proquest-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/docview/2019657254?accountid=134061
Steele , P. , Johnston , E. , Lawlor , A. , Smith , C. and Lamppa , S. ( 2019 ), “ Arts-Based instructional and curricular strategies for working with virtual educational applications ”, Journal for Educational Technology Systems , Vol. 47 No. 3 , pp. 411 - 432 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239518803286
Swanzen , R. ( 2018 ), “ Facing the generation chasm: the parenting and teaching of generations Y and Z ”, International Journal of Child, Youth & Family Studies , Vol. 9 No. 2 , p. 125 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=edb&AN=129900585&site=eds-live&scope=site
Utami , I.S. ( 2018 ), “ The effect of blended learning model on senior high school students’ achievement ”, SHS Web of Conferences , Vol. 42 , pp. 1 - 6 , doi: 10.1051/shsconf/20184200027 .
Vaismoradi , M. , Turunen , H. and Bondas , T. ( 2013 ), “ Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study ”, Nursing and Health Sciences , Vol. 15 No. 3 , pp. 398 - 405 , available at: http://dx.doi.org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.1111/nhs.12048
Vercellotti , M.L. ( 2018 ), “ Do interactive learning spaces increase student achievement? A comparison of classroom context ”, Active Learning in Higher Education , Vol. 19 No. 3 , pp. 197 - 210 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417735606
White , M.D. and Marsh , E.E. ( 2006 ), “ Content analysis: a flexible methodology ”, Library Trends , Vol. 55 No. 1 , pp. 22 - 45 , doi: 10.1353/lib.2006.0053 .
Yin , R.K. ( 2013 ), Case Study Research: Design and Methods , Applied Social Research Methods , 5th ed. , Sage , Los Angeles, CA .
Zainal , Z. ( 2007 ), “ Case study as a research method ”, Jurnal Kemausiaan , Vol. 9 , pp. 1 - 6 , available at: http://psyking.net/htmlobj-3837/case_study_as_a_research_method.pdf
The authors acknowledge the support of Dr Mansureh Kebritchi research chair of the Center of Educational and Instruction Technology Research of the University of Phoenix.
Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….
Report bugs here
Please share your general feedback
Platform update page.
Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates
Answers to the most commonly asked questions here
June 3, 2024 | victorialynn | Harvard Educational Review Contributors , Voices in Education
By Jacob Pleasants, Daniel G. Krutka, and T. Philip Nichols
New technologies are rapidly transforming our societies, our relationships, and our schools. Look no further than the intense — and often panicked — discourse around generative AI , the metaverse , and the creep of digital media into all facets of civic and social life . How are schools preparing students to think about and respond to these changes?
In various ways, students are taught how to use technologies in school. Most schools teach basic computing skills and many offer elective vocational-technical classes. But outside of occasional conversations around digital citizenship, students rarely wrestle with deeper questions about the effects of technologies on individuals and society.
Decades ago, Neil Postman (1995) argued for a different form of technology education focused on teaching students to critically examine technologies and their psychological and social effects. While Postman’s ideas have arguably never been more relevant, his suggestion to add technology education as a separate subject to a crowded curriculum gained little traction. Alternatively, we argue that technology education could be an interdisciplinary endeavor that occurs across core subject areas. Technology is already a part of English Language Arts (ELA), Science, and Social Studies instruction. What is missing is a coherent vision and common set of practices and principles that educators can use to align their efforts.
To provide a coherent vision, in our recent HER article , we propose “technoskepticism” as an organizing goal for teaching about technology. We define technoskepticism as a critical disposition and practice of investigating the complex relationships between technologies and societies. A technoskeptical person is not necessarily anti-technology, but rather one who deeply examines technological issues from multiple dimensions and perspectives akin to an art critic.
We created the Technoskepticism Iceberg as a framework to support teachers and students in conducting technological inquiries. The metaphor of an iceberg conveys how many important influences of technology lie beneath our conscious awareness. People often perceive technologies as tools (the “visible” layer of the iceberg), but technoskepticism requires that they be seen as parts of systems (with interactions that produce many unintended effects) and embedded with values about what is good and desirable (and for whom). The framework also identifies three dimensions of technology that students can examine. The technical dimension concerns the design and functions of a technology, including how it may work differently for different people. The psychosocial dimension addresses how technologies change our individual cognition and our larger societies. The political dimension considers who makes decisions concerning the terms, rules, or laws that govern technologies.
To illustrate these ideas, how might we use the Technoskeptical Iceberg to interrogate generative AI such as ChatGPT in the core subject areas?
A science/STEM classroom might focus on the technical dimension by investigating how generative AI works and demystifying its ostensibly “intelligent” capabilities. Students could then examine the infrastructures involved in AI systems , such as immense computing power and specialized hardware that in turn have profound environmental consequences. A teacher could ask students to use their values to weigh the costs and potential benefits of ChatGPT.
A social studies class could investigate the psychosocial dimension through the longer histories of informational technologies (e.g., the printing press, telegraph, internet, and now AI) to consider how they shifted people’s lives. They could also explore political questions about what rules or regulations governments should impose on informational systems that include people’s data and intellectual property.
In an ELA classroom, students might begin by investigating the psychosocial dimensions of reading and writing, and the values associated with different literacy practices. Students could consider how the concept of “authorship” shifts when one writes by hand, with word processing software, or using ChatGPT. Or how we are to engage with AI-generated essays, stories, and poetry differently than their human-produced counterparts. Such conversations would highlight how literary values are mediated by technological systems .
Students who use technoskepticism to explore generative AI technologies should be better equipped to act as citizens seeking to advance just futures in and out of schools. Our questions are, what might it take to establish technoskepticism as an educational goal in schools? What support will educators need? And what might students teach us through technoskeptical inquiries?
Postman, N. (1995). The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. Vintage Books.
Jacob Pleasants is an assistant professor of science education at the University of Oklahoma. Through his teaching and research, he works to humanize STEM education by helping students engage with issues at the intersection of STEM and society.
Daniel G. Krutka is a dachshund enthusiast, former high school social studies teacher, and associate professor of social studies education at the University of North Texas. His research concerns technology, democracy, and education, and he is the cofounder of the Civics of Technology project ( www.civicsoftechnology.org ).
T. Philip Nichols is an associate professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Baylor University. He studies the digitalization of public education and the ways science and technology condition the ways we practice, teach, and talk about literacy.
They are the authors of “ What Relationships Do We Want with Technology? Toward Technoskepticism in Schools ” in the Winter 2023 issue of Harvard Educational Review .
for Education
Gemini for google workspace is here., products that power education.
Google for Education tools work together to transform teaching and learning so every student and educator can pursue their personal potential.
Support learning with google workspace for education’s simple, secure, and flexible tools.
Help your institution collaborate easily, streamline instruction, and keep the learning environment safer with tools designed for students and teachers.
Provide an easy way for educators to connect with their students and manage their classes with an all-in-one place for teaching and learning.
Equip your school with versatile, intuitive, and secure devices designed for next-generation teaching and learning.
Unlock the full potential of Google Workspace by using tools together.
Create, collaborate, and edit with others in Docs, Sheets, Forms, Slides, and more.
Enable teachers, students, and admins to work together from anywhere.
Set policies, control access, monitor data, and quickly respond to threats.
Create assignments, quizzes, and lesson content for your students.
Monitor progress and gain visibility with a holistic view of student achievement.
Easily switch between Stream, Classwork, People, and Grades—even when you are offline.
Choose powerfully simple devices for everyone in your school.
Keep your devices secure with updates that happen in the background.
Customize learning experiences with select-to-speak, Chromevox, magnifiers and more.
Monitor your institution's domain with full visibility and control.
Education leaders.
DELL LATITUDE 7410 CHROMEBOOK ENTERPRISE
Spend less time on administrative tasks and more time making an impact on student education. Equip your teachers with tools, resources, and professional development so they can focus on their students.
ASUS CHROMEBOOK FLIP CX5
Get diverse tools in the hands of students and educators with minimal effort. Maintain all of your institution’s tech from one place. Monitor info-sec, control access, and quickly make changes across your network using the centralized admin console.
HP CHROMEBOOK X360 14B
Streamline class management while providing every student with individualized learning experiences. Create, customize, and collaborate on lessons to help learners grow their skills. Use virtual classrooms to promote learning any time, anywhere. Keep meetings, documents, and reports all within reach.
Choose a product to learn more
Get more out of google’s education tools with education navigator, new chromebook plus for educators, powered by ai, four new ways we’re partnering with the disability community, more ways to connect:.
Learn more about our products, find a purchase partner, and get specific answers from our support team any time.
For content more relevant to your region, we suggest:
Sign up here for updates, insights, resources, and more.
How "sesame street" cracked the code of holistic evidence-building..
Posted June 17, 2024 | Reviewed by Devon Frye
There's a widely accepted research consensus that educational technology, or ed-tech, can lead to positive learning outcomes—but only when the technology design and use are of high quality.
Achieving this quality poses challenges due to the many factors influencing a child’s education . These include the learner background knowledge acquired at home, the teachers' skills in effectively integrating technology into their teaching, and a close alignment between an ed-tech tool and the unique learning paths of each student. Finding agreement on how to achieve ed-tech quality requires addressing these multifaceted educational dynamics.
It might sound challenging, but it is achievable: Technologies developed through both inclusive approaches that include teachers and children through participatory research as well as efficacy trials that require controlled testing conditions, have the highest likelihood to positively impact learners long-term. A holistic approach to gathering evidence is the secret to thriving in a market crowded with thousands of apps and learning platforms.
What does such an approach look like in practice? "Sesame Street" media are a good example of how technology companies can approach evidence.
"Sesame Street," created by the nonprofit Sesame Workshop, is known for its iconic characters and engaging storylines that capture children's imaginations while nurturing their cognitive and emotional development. What sets it apart from many other children's television shows is its rigorous research approach, which spans multiple countries and focuses not only on efficacy but also on cost-effectiveness and its broader impact on learning and social outcomes. It is this comprehensive approach that has underscored its effectiveness across various contexts and its sustained relevance over time.
For example, a recent study evaluated an 11-week remote early learning program (RELP) delivered through WhatsApp to families in Lebanon, including Syrian refugees and vulnerable Lebanese families. Created by Sesame Workshop and the International Rescue Committee in response to COVID-19 , the program aimed to provide early education where access to preschool is limited.
The evaluation study looked at two groups: one receiving only RELP and another with RELP plus remote parenting support. Both were compared to a group that waited for RELP. Researchers analyzed how these programs affected child development , parenting, and caregiver well-being.
The researchers found that remote early childhood education programs are effective in promoting early childhood development in regions where traditional schooling is hard to access. The RELP intervention had significant positive effects on key areas of early learning, such as emergent literacy, numeracy skills, motor development, and social-emotional growth.
Certainly, while efficacy studies provide solid evidence of impact, they don't encompass the full gold standard , especially not in interventions that involve education and technology. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) research has often been portrayed either as championing or condemning technology in the pursuit of equity.
However, it's more productive to view RCTs as one part of a broader spectrum of research methods available to educational researchers. These researchers span various disciplines, including cognitive psychology, learning sciences, qualitative studies, and ethnography, which often uncover intricate learning processes and areas that are challenging to quantify.
From this perspective, the critical question extends beyond whether tools are effective to understanding for whom, when, and why they are effective, addressing the diversity of students and contexts.
While literacy and numeracy outcomes can be readily tested, life skills such as curiosity and perseverance are more complex to measure. These socio-emotional skills are crucial for understanding how a technology tool aligns with diverse children's profiles in the learning process. While life skills may not be easily reduced to standardized tests, qualitative methods provide valuable insights into their impact.
To find out the impact of "Sesame Street" on these other skills, the team engaged in inclusive research and development, with testbed and sandbox methods , where researchers with practitioners or children jointly explore what might work best. For example, in the qualitative studies in Syria and Northern Ireland, the content was refined and developed with the local teachers and parents to improve its cultural relevance and contextual appropriateness.
Once finalized, the content was disseminated through various media platforms, including WhatsApp, to reach the parents impacted by conflict and war and support the social-emotional learning needs of their young children.
This integration of efficacy trials and a testbed approach illustrates the transformative potential of technology to both entertain and educate children . Whether categorized as children’s media or "ed-tech," well-crafted technologies can positively impact young learners' lives.
This approach underscores the critical importance of comprehensive research that considers both content and format, embracing ongoing inquiry rather than one-time studies. By embracing the rich diversity of educational research disciplines, both cognitive and non-cognitive, "Sesame Street" exemplifies a commitment to advancing educational practices aligned with the science of learning and inclusive educational principles. This holistic approach not only supports continuous improvement but also exemplifies a robust approach to evidence.
Mares, M. L., & Pan, Z. (2013). Effects of Sesame Street: A meta-analysis of children's learning in 15 countries. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 34 (3), 140-151.
Schwartz, K., Michael, D., Torossian, L., Hajal, D., Yoshikawa, H., Abdulrazzak, S., & Behrman, J. (2024). Leveraging Caregivers to Provide Remote Early Childhood Education in Hard-to-Access Settings in Lebanon: Impacts From a Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 1-31.
Natalia Kucirkova, Ph.D. , is Professor at the University of Stavanger, Norway and The Open University, UK.
At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Stella timotheou.
1 CYENS Center of Excellence & Cyprus University of Technology (Cyprus Interaction Lab), Cyprus, CYENS Center of Excellence & Cyprus University of Technology, Nicosia-Limassol, Cyprus
Yiannis dimitriadis.
2 Universidad de Valladolid (UVA), Spain, Valladolid, Spain
Nikoleta giannoutsou, romina cachia.
3 JRC - Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Seville, Spain
Andri ioannou, associated data.
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Digital technologies have brought changes to the nature and scope of education and led education systems worldwide to adopt strategies and policies for ICT integration. The latter brought about issues regarding the quality of teaching and learning with ICTs, especially concerning the understanding, adaptation, and design of the education systems in accordance with current technological trends. These issues were emphasized during the recent COVID-19 pandemic that accelerated the use of digital technologies in education, generating questions regarding digitalization in schools. Specifically, many schools demonstrated a lack of experience and low digital capacity, which resulted in widening gaps, inequalities, and learning losses. Such results have engendered the need for schools to learn and build upon the experience to enhance their digital capacity and preparedness, increase their digitalization levels, and achieve a successful digital transformation. Given that the integration of digital technologies is a complex and continuous process that impacts different actors within the school ecosystem, there is a need to show how these impacts are interconnected and identify the factors that can encourage an effective and efficient change in the school environments. For this purpose, we conducted a non-systematic literature review. The results of the literature review were organized thematically based on the evidence presented about the impact of digital technology on education and the factors that affect the schools’ digital capacity and digital transformation. The findings suggest that ICT integration in schools impacts more than just students’ performance; it affects several other school-related aspects and stakeholders, too. Furthermore, various factors affect the impact of digital technologies on education. These factors are interconnected and play a vital role in the digital transformation process. The study results shed light on how ICTs can positively contribute to the digital transformation of schools and which factors should be considered for schools to achieve effective and efficient change.
Digital technologies have brought changes to the nature and scope of education. Versatile and disruptive technological innovations, such as smart devices, the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), blockchain, and software applications have opened up new opportunities for advancing teaching and learning (Gaol & Prasolova-Førland, 2021 ; OECD, 2021 ). Hence, in recent years, education systems worldwide have increased their investment in the integration of information and communication technology (ICT) (Fernández-Gutiérrez et al., 2020 ; Lawrence & Tar, 2018 ) and prioritized their educational agendas to adapt strategies or policies around ICT integration (European Commission, 2019 ). The latter brought about issues regarding the quality of teaching and learning with ICTs (Bates, 2015 ), especially concerning the understanding, adaptation, and design of education systems in accordance with current technological trends (Balyer & Öz, 2018 ). Studies have shown that despite the investment made in the integration of technology in schools, the results have not been promising, and the intended outcomes have not yet been achieved (Delgado et al., 2015 ; Lawrence & Tar, 2018 ). These issues were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced teaching across education levels to move online (Daniel, 2020 ). Online teaching accelerated the use of digital technologies generating questions regarding the process, the nature, the extent, and the effectiveness of digitalization in schools (Cachia et al., 2021 ; König et al., 2020 ). Specifically, many schools demonstrated a lack of experience and low digital capacity, which resulted in widening gaps, inequalities, and learning losses (Blaskó et al., 2021 ; Di Pietro et al, 2020 ). Such results have engendered the need for schools to learn and build upon the experience in order to enhance their digital capacity (European Commission, 2020 ) and increase their digitalization levels (Costa et al., 2021 ). Digitalization offers possibilities for fundamental improvement in schools (OECD, 2021 ; Rott & Marouane, 2018 ) and touches many aspects of a school’s development (Delcker & Ifenthaler, 2021 ) . However, it is a complex process that requires large-scale transformative changes beyond the technical aspects of technology and infrastructure (Pettersson, 2021 ). Namely, digitalization refers to “ a series of deep and coordinated culture, workforce, and technology shifts and operating models ” (Brooks & McCormack, 2020 , p. 3) that brings cultural, organizational, and operational change through the integration of digital technologies (JISC, 2020 ). A successful digital transformation requires that schools increase their digital capacity levels, establishing the necessary “ culture, policies, infrastructure as well as digital competence of students and staff to support the effective integration of technology in teaching and learning practices ” (Costa et al, 2021 , p.163).
Given that the integration of digital technologies is a complex and continuous process that impacts different actors within the school ecosystem (Eng, 2005 ), there is a need to show how the different elements of the impact are interconnected and to identify the factors that can encourage an effective and efficient change in the school environment. To address the issues outlined above, we formulated the following research questions:
a) What is the impact of digital technologies on education?
b) Which factors might affect a school’s digital capacity and transformation?
In the present investigation, we conducted a non-systematic literature review of publications pertaining to the impact of digital technologies on education and the factors that affect a school’s digital capacity and transformation. The results of the literature review were organized thematically based on the evidence presented about the impact of digital technology on education and the factors which affect the schools’ digital capacity and digital transformation.
The non-systematic literature review presented herein covers the main theories and research published over the past 17 years on the topic. It is based on meta-analyses and review papers found in scholarly, peer-reviewed content databases and other key studies and reports related to the concepts studied (e.g., digitalization, digital capacity) from professional and international bodies (e.g., the OECD). We searched the Scopus database, which indexes various online journals in the education sector with an international scope, to collect peer-reviewed academic papers. Furthermore, we used an all-inclusive Google Scholar search to include relevant key terms or to include studies found in the reference list of the peer-reviewed papers, and other key studies and reports related to the concepts studied by professional and international bodies. Lastly, we gathered sources from the Publications Office of the European Union ( https://op.europa.eu/en/home ); namely, documents that refer to policies related to digital transformation in education.
Regarding search terms, we first searched resources on the impact of digital technologies on education by performing the following search queries: “impact” OR “effects” AND “digital technologies” AND “education”, “impact” OR “effects” AND “ICT” AND “education”. We further refined our results by adding the terms “meta-analysis” and “review” or by adjusting the search options based on the features of each database to avoid collecting individual studies that would provide limited contributions to a particular domain. We relied on meta-analyses and review studies as these consider the findings of multiple studies to offer a more comprehensive view of the research in a given area (Schuele & Justice, 2006 ). Specifically, meta-analysis studies provided quantitative evidence based on statistically verifiable results regarding the impact of educational interventions that integrate digital technologies in school classrooms (Higgins et al., 2012 ; Tolani-Brown et al., 2011 ).
However, quantitative data does not offer explanations for the challenges or difficulties experienced during ICT integration in learning and teaching (Tolani-Brown et al., 2011 ). To fill this gap, we analyzed literature reviews and gathered in-depth qualitative evidence of the benefits and implications of technology integration in schools. In the analysis presented herein, we also included policy documents and reports from professional and international bodies and governmental reports, which offered useful explanations of the key concepts of this study and provided recent evidence on digital capacity and transformation in education along with policy recommendations. The inclusion and exclusion criteria that were considered in this study are presented in Table Table1 1 .
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of resources on the impact of digital technologies on education
Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
---|---|
• Published in 2005 or later • Review and meta-analysis studies • Formal education K-12 • Peer-reviewed articles • Articles in English • Reports from professional/international bodies • Governmental reports • Book chapters | • Ph.D. dissertations and theses • Conference poster papers • Conference papers without proceedings • Resources on higher education • Resources on pre-school education • Individual studies |
To ensure a reliable extraction of information from each study and assist the research synthesis we selected the study characteristics of interest (impact) and constructed coding forms. First, an overview of the synthesis was provided by the principal investigator who described the processes of coding, data entry, and data management. The coders followed the same set of instructions but worked independently. To ensure a common understanding of the process between coders, a sample of ten studies was tested. The results were compared, and the discrepancies were identified and resolved. Additionally, to ensure an efficient coding process, all coders participated in group meetings to discuss additions, deletions, and modifications (Stock, 1994 ). Due to the methodological diversity of the studied documents we began to synthesize the literature review findings based on similar study designs. Specifically, most of the meta-analysis studies were grouped in one category due to the quantitative nature of the measured impact. These studies tended to refer to student achievement (Hattie et al., 2014 ). Then, we organized the themes of the qualitative studies in several impact categories. Lastly, we synthesized both review and meta-analysis data across the categories. In order to establish a collective understanding of the concept of impact, we referred to a previous impact study by Balanskat ( 2009 ) which investigated the impact of technology in primary schools. In this context, the impact had a more specific ICT-related meaning and was described as “ a significant influence or effect of ICT on the measured or perceived quality of (parts of) education ” (Balanskat, 2009 , p. 9). In the study presented herein, the main impacts are in relation to learning and learners, teaching, and teachers, as well as other key stakeholders who are directly or indirectly connected to the school unit.
The study’s results identified multiple dimensions of the impact of digital technologies on students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes; on equality, inclusion, and social integration; on teachers’ professional and teaching practices; and on other school-related aspects and stakeholders. The data analysis indicated various factors that might affect the schools’ digital capacity and transformation, such as digital competencies, the teachers’ personal characteristics and professional development, as well as the school’s leadership and management, administration, infrastructure, etc. The impacts and factors found in the literature review are presented below.
The impact of ICT use on students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes has been investigated early in the literature. Eng ( 2005 ) found a small positive effect between ICT use and students' learning. Specifically, the author reported that access to computer-assisted instruction (CAI) programs in simulation or tutorial modes—used to supplement rather than substitute instruction – could enhance student learning. The author reported studies showing that teachers acknowledged the benefits of ICT on pupils with special educational needs; however, the impact of ICT on students' attainment was unclear. Balanskat et al. ( 2006 ) found a statistically significant positive association between ICT use and higher student achievement in primary and secondary education. The authors also reported improvements in the performance of low-achieving pupils. The use of ICT resulted in further positive gains for students, namely increased attention, engagement, motivation, communication and process skills, teamwork, and gains related to their behaviour towards learning. Evidence from qualitative studies showed that teachers, students, and parents recognized the positive impact of ICT on students' learning regardless of their competence level (strong/weak students). Punie et al. ( 2006 ) documented studies that showed positive results of ICT-based learning for supporting low-achieving pupils and young people with complex lives outside the education system. Liao et al. ( 2007 ) reported moderate positive effects of computer application instruction (CAI, computer simulations, and web-based learning) over traditional instruction on primary school student's achievement. Similarly, Tamim et al. ( 2011 ) reported small to moderate positive effects between the use of computer technology (CAI, ICT, simulations, computer-based instruction, digital and hypermedia) and student achievement in formal face-to-face classrooms compared to classrooms that did not use technology. Jewitt et al., ( 2011 ) found that the use of learning platforms (LPs) (virtual learning environments, management information systems, communication technologies, and information- and resource-sharing technologies) in schools allowed primary and secondary students to access a wider variety of quality learning resources, engage in independent and personalized learning, and conduct self- and peer-review; LPs also provide opportunities for teacher assessment and feedback. Similar findings were reported by Fu ( 2013 ), who documented a list of benefits and opportunities of ICT use. According to the author, the use of ICTs helps students access digital information and course content effectively and efficiently, supports student-centered and self-directed learning, as well as the development of a creative learning environment where more opportunities for critical thinking skills are offered, and promotes collaborative learning in a distance-learning environment. Higgins et al. ( 2012 ) found consistent but small positive associations between the use of technology and learning outcomes of school-age learners (5–18-year-olds) in studies linking the provision and use of technology with attainment. Additionally, Chauhan ( 2017 ) reported a medium positive effect of technology on the learning effectiveness of primary school students compared to students who followed traditional learning instruction.
The rise of mobile technologies and hardware devices instigated investigations into their impact on teaching and learning. Sung et al. ( 2016 ) reported a moderate effect on students' performance from the use of mobile devices in the classroom compared to the use of desktop computers or the non-use of mobile devices. Schmid et al. ( 2014 ) reported medium–low to low positive effects of technology integration (e.g., CAI, ICTs) in the classroom on students' achievement and attitude compared to not using technology or using technology to varying degrees. Tamim et al. ( 2015 ) found a low statistically significant effect of the use of tablets and other smart devices in educational contexts on students' achievement outcomes. The authors suggested that tablets offered additional advantages to students; namely, they reported improvements in students’ notetaking, organizational and communication skills, and creativity. Zheng et al. ( 2016 ) reported a small positive effect of one-to-one laptop programs on students’ academic achievement across subject areas. Additional reported benefits included student-centered, individualized, and project-based learning enhanced learner engagement and enthusiasm. Additionally, the authors found that students using one-to-one laptop programs tended to use technology more frequently than in non-laptop classrooms, and as a result, they developed a range of skills (e.g., information skills, media skills, technology skills, organizational skills). Haßler et al. ( 2016 ) found that most interventions that included the use of tablets across the curriculum reported positive learning outcomes. However, from 23 studies, five reported no differences, and two reported a negative effect on students' learning outcomes. Similar results were indicated by Kalati and Kim ( 2022 ) who investigated the effect of touchscreen technologies on young students’ learning. Specifically, from 53 studies, 34 advocated positive effects of touchscreen devices on children’s learning, 17 obtained mixed findings and two studies reported negative effects.
More recently, approaches that refer to the impact of gamification with the use of digital technologies on teaching and learning were also explored. A review by Pan et al. ( 2022 ) that examined the role of learning games in fostering mathematics education in K-12 settings, reported that gameplay improved students’ performance. Integration of digital games in teaching was also found as a promising pedagogical practice in STEM education that could lead to increased learning gains (Martinez et al., 2022 ; Wang et al., 2022 ). However, although Talan et al. ( 2020 ) reported a medium effect of the use of educational games (both digital and non-digital) on academic achievement, the effect of non-digital games was higher.
Over the last two years, the effects of more advanced technologies on teaching and learning were also investigated. Garzón and Acevedo ( 2019 ) found that AR applications had a medium effect on students' learning outcomes compared to traditional lectures. Similarly, Garzón et al. ( 2020 ) showed that AR had a medium impact on students' learning gains. VR applications integrated into various subjects were also found to have a moderate effect on students’ learning compared to control conditions (traditional classes, e.g., lectures, textbooks, and multimedia use, e.g., images, videos, animation, CAI) (Chen et al., 2022b ). Villena-Taranilla et al. ( 2022 ) noted the moderate effect of VR technologies on students’ learning when these were applied in STEM disciplines. In the same meta-analysis, Villena-Taranilla et al. ( 2022 ) highlighted the role of immersive VR, since its effect on students’ learning was greater (at a high level) across educational levels (K-6) compared to semi-immersive and non-immersive integrations. In another meta-analysis study, the effect size of the immersive VR was small and significantly differentiated across educational levels (Coban et al., 2022 ). The impact of AI on education was investigated by Su and Yang ( 2022 ) and Su et al. ( 2022 ), who showed that this technology significantly improved students’ understanding of AI computer science and machine learning concepts.
It is worth noting that the vast majority of studies referred to learning gains in specific subjects. Specifically, several studies examined the impact of digital technologies on students’ literacy skills and reported positive effects on language learning (Balanskat et al., 2006 ; Grgurović et al., 2013 ; Friedel et al., 2013 ; Zheng et al., 2016 ; Chen et al., 2022b ; Savva et al., 2022 ). Also, several studies documented positive effects on specific language learning areas, namely foreign language learning (Kao, 2014 ), writing (Higgins et al., 2012 ; Wen & Walters, 2022 ; Zheng et al., 2016 ), as well as reading and comprehension (Cheung & Slavin, 2011 ; Liao et al., 2007 ; Schwabe et al., 2022 ). ICTs were also found to have a positive impact on students' performance in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) disciplines (Arztmann et al., 2022 ; Bado, 2022 ; Villena-Taranilla et al., 2022 ; Wang et al., 2022 ). Specifically, a number of studies reported positive impacts on students’ achievement in mathematics (Balanskat et al., 2006 ; Hillmayr et al., 2020 ; Li & Ma, 2010 ; Pan et al., 2022 ; Ran et al., 2022 ; Verschaffel et al., 2019 ; Zheng et al., 2016 ). Furthermore, studies documented positive effects of ICTs on science learning (Balanskat et al., 2006 ; Liao et al., 2007 ; Zheng et al., 2016 ; Hillmayr et al., 2020 ; Kalemkuş & Kalemkuş, 2022 ; Lei et al., 2022a ). Çelik ( 2022 ) also noted that computer simulations can help students understand learning concepts related to science. Furthermore, some studies documented that the use of ICTs had a positive impact on students’ achievement in other subjects, such as geography, history, music, and arts (Chauhan, 2017 ; Condie & Munro, 2007 ), and design and technology (Balanskat et al., 2006 ).
More specific positive learning gains were reported in a number of skills, e.g., problem-solving skills and pattern exploration skills (Higgins et al., 2012 ), metacognitive learning outcomes (Verschaffel et al., 2019 ), literacy skills, computational thinking skills, emotion control skills, and collaborative inquiry skills (Lu et al., 2022 ; Su & Yang, 2022 ; Su et al., 2022 ). Additionally, several investigations have reported benefits from the use of ICT on students’ creativity (Fielding & Murcia, 2022 ; Liu et al., 2022 ; Quah & Ng, 2022 ). Lastly, digital technologies were also found to be beneficial for enhancing students’ lifelong learning skills (Haleem et al., 2022 ).
Apart from gaining knowledge and skills, studies also reported improvement in motivation and interest in mathematics (Higgins et. al., 2019 ; Fadda et al., 2022 ) and increased positive achievement emotions towards several subjects during interventions using educational games (Lei et al., 2022a ). Chen et al. ( 2022a ) also reported a small but positive effect of digital health approaches in bullying and cyberbullying interventions with K-12 students, demonstrating that technology-based approaches can help reduce bullying and related consequences by providing emotional support, empowerment, and change of attitude. In their meta-review study, Su et al. ( 2022 ) also documented that AI technologies effectively strengthened students’ attitudes towards learning. In another meta-analysis, Arztmann et al. ( 2022 ) reported positive effects of digital games on motivation and behaviour towards STEM subjects.
Although most of the reviewed studies focused on the impact of ICTs on students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes, reports were also made on other aspects in the school context, such as equality, inclusion, and social integration. Condie and Munro ( 2007 ) documented research interventions investigating how ICT can support pupils with additional or special educational needs. While those interventions were relatively small scale and mostly based on qualitative data, their findings indicated that the use of ICTs enabled the development of communication, participation, and self-esteem. A recent meta-analysis (Baragash et al., 2022 ) with 119 participants with different disabilities, reported a significant overall effect size of AR on their functional skills acquisition. Koh’s meta-analysis ( 2022 ) also revealed that students with intellectual and developmental disabilities improved their competence and performance when they used digital games in the lessons.
Istenic Starcic and Bagon ( 2014 ) found that the role of ICT in inclusion and the design of pedagogical and technological interventions was not sufficiently explored in educational interventions with people with special needs; however, some benefits of ICT use were found in students’ social integration. The issue of gender and technology use was mentioned in a small number of studies. Zheng et al. ( 2016 ) reported a statistically significant positive interaction between one-to-one laptop programs and gender. Specifically, the results showed that girls and boys alike benefitted from the laptop program, but the effect on girls’ achievement was smaller than that on boys’. Along the same lines, Arztmann et al. ( 2022 ) reported no difference in the impact of game-based learning between boys and girls, arguing that boys and girls equally benefited from game-based interventions in STEM domains. However, results from a systematic review by Cussó-Calabuig et al. ( 2018 ) found limited and low-quality evidence on the effects of intensive use of computers on gender differences in computer anxiety, self-efficacy, and self-confidence. Based on their view, intensive use of computers can reduce gender differences in some areas and not in others, depending on contextual and implementation factors.
Various research studies have explored the impact of ICT on teachers’ instructional practices and student assessment. Friedel et al. ( 2013 ) found that the use of mobile devices by students enabled teachers to successfully deliver content (e.g., mobile serious games), provide scaffolding, and facilitate synchronous collaborative learning. The integration of digital games in teaching and learning activities also gave teachers the opportunity to study and apply various pedagogical practices (Bado, 2022 ). Specifically, Bado ( 2022 ) found that teachers who implemented instructional activities in three stages (pre-game, game, and post-game) maximized students’ learning outcomes and engagement. For instance, during the pre-game stage, teachers focused on lectures and gameplay training, at the game stage teachers provided scaffolding on content, addressed technical issues, and managed the classroom activities. During the post-game stage, teachers organized activities for debriefing to ensure that the gameplay had indeed enhanced students’ learning outcomes.
Furthermore, ICT can increase efficiency in lesson planning and preparation by offering possibilities for a more collaborative approach among teachers. The sharing of curriculum plans and the analysis of students’ data led to clearer target settings and improvements in reporting to parents (Balanskat et al., 2006 ).
Additionally, the use and application of digital technologies in teaching and learning were found to enhance teachers’ digital competence. Balanskat et al. ( 2006 ) documented studies that revealed that the use of digital technologies in education had a positive effect on teachers’ basic ICT skills. The greatest impact was found on teachers with enough experience in integrating ICTs in their teaching and/or who had recently participated in development courses for the pedagogical use of technologies in teaching. Punie et al. ( 2006 ) reported that the provision of fully equipped multimedia portable computers and the development of online teacher communities had positive impacts on teachers’ confidence and competence in the use of ICTs.
Moreover, online assessment via ICTs benefits instruction. In particular, online assessments support the digitalization of students’ work and related logistics, allow teachers to gather immediate feedback and readjust to new objectives, and support the improvement of the technical quality of tests by providing more accurate results. Additionally, the capabilities of ICTs (e.g., interactive media, simulations) create new potential methods of testing specific skills, such as problem-solving and problem-processing skills, meta-cognitive skills, creativity and communication skills, and the ability to work productively in groups (Punie et al., 2006 ).
There is evidence that the effective use of ICTs and the data transmission offered by broadband connections help improve administration (Balanskat et al., 2006 ). Specifically, ICTs have been found to provide better management systems to schools that have data gathering procedures in place. Condie and Munro ( 2007 ) reported impacts from the use of ICTs in schools in the following areas: attendance monitoring, assessment records, reporting to parents, financial management, creation of repositories for learning resources, and sharing of information amongst staff. Such data can be used strategically for self-evaluation and monitoring purposes which in turn can result in school improvements. Additionally, they reported that online access to other people with similar roles helped to reduce headteachers’ isolation by offering them opportunities to share insights into the use of ICT in learning and teaching and how it could be used to support school improvement. Furthermore, ICTs provided more efficient and successful examination management procedures, namely less time-consuming reporting processes compared to paper-based examinations and smooth communications between schools and examination authorities through electronic data exchange (Punie et al., 2006 ).
Zheng et al. ( 2016 ) reported that the use of ICTs improved home-school relationships. Additionally, Escueta et al. ( 2017 ) reported several ICT programs that had improved the flow of information from the school to parents. Particularly, they documented that the use of ICTs (learning management systems, emails, dedicated websites, mobile phones) allowed for personalized and customized information exchange between schools and parents, such as attendance records, upcoming class assignments, school events, and students’ grades, which generated positive results on students’ learning outcomes and attainment. Such information exchange between schools and families prompted parents to encourage their children to put more effort into their schoolwork.
The above findings suggest that the impact of ICT integration in schools goes beyond students’ performance in school subjects. Specifically, it affects a number of school-related aspects, such as equality and social integration, professional and teaching practices, and diverse stakeholders. In Table Table2, 2 , we summarize the different impacts of digital technologies on school stakeholders based on the literature review, while in Table Table3 3 we organized the tools/platforms and practices/policies addressed in the meta-analyses, literature reviews, EU reports, and international bodies included in the manuscript.
The impact of digital technologies on schools’ stakeholders based on the literature review
Impacts | References |
---|---|
Students | |
Knowledge, skills, attitudes, and emotions | |
• Learning gains from the use of ICTs across the curriculum | Eng, ; Balanskat et al., ; Liao et al., ; Tamim et al., ; Higgins et al., ; Chauhan, ; Sung et al., ; Schmid et al., ; Tamim et al., ; Zheng et al., ; Haßler et al., ; Kalati & Kim, ; Martinez et al., ; Talan et al., ; Panet al., ; Garzón & Acevedo, ; Garzón et al., ; Villena-Taranilla, et al., ; Coban et al., |
• Positive learning gains from the use of ICTs in specific school subjects (e.g., mathematics, literacy, language, science) | Arztmann et al., ; Villena-Taranilla, et al., ; Chen et al., ; Balanskat et al., ; Grgurović, et al., ; Friedel et al., ; Zheng et al., ; Savva et al., ; Kao, ; Higgins et al., ; Wen & Walters, ; Liao et al., ; Cheung & Slavin, ; Schwabe et al., ; Li & Ma, ; Verschaffel et al., ; Ran et al., ; Liao et al., ; Hillmayr et al., ; Kalemkuş & Kalemkuş, ; Lei et al., ; Condie & Munro, ; Chauhan, ; Bado, ; Wang et al., ; Pan et al., |
• Positive learning gains for special needs students and low-achieving students | Eng, ; Balanskat et al., ; Punie et al., ; Koh, |
• Oportunities to develop a range of skills (e.g., subject-related skills, communication skills, negotiation skills, emotion control skills, organizational skills, critical thinking skills, creativity, metacognitive skills, life, and career skills) | Balanskat et al., ; Fu, ; Tamim et al., ; Zheng et al., ; Higgins et al., ; Verschaffel et al., ; Su & Yang, ; Su et al., ; Lu et al., ; Liu et al., ; Quah & Ng, ; Fielding & Murcia, ; Tang et al., ; Haleem et al., |
• Oportunities to develop digital skills (e.g., information skills, media skills, ICT skills) | Zheng et al., ; Su & Yang, ; Lu et al., ; Su et al., |
• Positive attitudes and behaviours towards ICTs, positive emotions (e.g., increased interest, motivation, attention, engagement, confidence, reduced anxiety, positive achievement emotions, reduction in bullying and cyberbullying) | Balanskat et al., ; Schmid et al., ; Zheng et al., ; Fadda et al., ; Higgins et al., ; Chen et al., ; Lei et al., ; Arztmann et al., ; Su et al., |
Learning experience | |
• Enhance access to resources | Jewitt et al., ; Fu, |
• Opportunities to experience various learning practices (e.g., active learning, learner-centred learning, independent and personalized learning, collaborative learning, self-directed learning, self- and peer-review) | Jewitt et al., ; Fu, |
• Improved access to teacher assessment and feedback | Jewitt et al., |
Equality, inclusion, and social integration | |
• Improved communication, functional skills, participation, self-esteem, and engagement of special needs students | Condie & Munro, ; Baragash et al., ; Koh, |
• Enhanced social interaction for students in general and for students with learning difficulties | Istenic Starcic & Bagon, |
• Benefits for both girls and boys | Zheng et al., ; Arztmann et al., |
Teachers | |
Professional practice | |
• Development of digital competence | Balanskat et al., |
• Positive attitudes and behaviours towards ICTs (e.g., increased confidence) | Punie et al., , |
• Formalized collaborative planning between teachers | Balanskat et al., |
• Improved reporting to parents | Balanskat et al., |
Teaching practice | |
• Efficiency in lesson planning and preparation | Balanskat et al., |
• Facilitate assessment through the provision of immediate feedback | Punie et al., |
• Improvements in the technical quality of tests | Punie et al., |
• New methods of testing specific skills (e.g., problem-solving skills, meta-cognitive skills) | Punie et al., |
• Successful content delivery and lessons | Friedel et al., |
• Application of different instructional practices (e.g., scaffolding, synchronous collaborative learning, online learning, blended learning, hybrid learning) | Friedel et al., ; Bado, ; Kazu & Yalçin, ; Ulum, |
Administrators | |
Data-based decision-making | |
• Improved data-gathering processes | Balanskat et al., |
• Support monitoring and evaluation processes (e.g., attendance monitoring, financial management, assessment records) | Condie & Munro, |
Organizational processes | |
• Access to learning resources via the creation of repositories | Condie & Munro, |
• Information sharing between school staff | Condie & Munro, |
• Smooth communications with external authorities (e.g., examination results) | Punie et al., |
• Efficient and successful examination management procedures | Punie et al., |
Home-school communication | |
• Support reporting to parents | Condie & Munro, |
• Improved flow of communication between the school and parents (e.g., customized and personalized communications) | Escueta et al., |
School leaders | |
Professional practice | |
• Reduced headteacher isolation | Condie & Munro, |
• Improved access to insights about practices for school improvement | Condie & Munro, |
Parents | |
Home-school relationships | |
• Improved home-school relationships | Zheng et al., |
• Increased parental involvement in children’s school life | Escueta et al., |
Tools/platforms and practices/policies addressed in the meta-analyses, literature reviews, EU reports, and international bodies included in the manuscript
Technologies/tools/practices/policies | References |
---|---|
ICT general – various types of technologies | Eng, (review) Moran et al., (meta-analysis) Balanskat et al., (report) Punie et al., (review) Fu, (review) Higgins et al., (report) Chauhan, (meta-analysis) Schmid et al., (meta-analysis) Grgurović et al., (meta-analysis) Higgins et al., (meta-analysis) Wen & Walters, (meta-analysis) Cheung & Slavin, (meta-analysis) Li & Ma, (meta-analysis) Hillmayr et al., (meta-analysis) Verschaffel et al., (systematic review) Ran et al., (meta-analysis) Fielding & Murcia, (systematic review) Tang et al., (review) Haleem et al., (review) Condie & Munro, (review) Underwood, (review) Istenic Starcic & Bagon, (review) Cussó-Calabuig et al., (systematic review) Escueta et al. ( ) (review) Archer et al., (meta-analysis) Lee et al., (meta-analysis) Delgado et al., (review) Di Pietro et al., (report) |
Practices/policies on schools’ digital transformation | Bingimlas, (review) Hardman, (review) Hattie, (synthesis of multiple meta-analysis) Trucano, (book-Knowledge maps) Ređep, (policy study) Conrads et al, (report) European Commission, (EU report) Elkordy & Lovinelli, (book chapter) Eurydice, (EU report) Vuorikari et al., (JRC paper) Sellar, (review) European Commission, (EU report) OECD, (international paper) |
Computer-assisted instruction, computer simulations, activeboards, and web-based learning | Liao et al., (meta-analysis) Tamim et al., (meta-analysis) Çelik, (review) Moran et al., (meta-analysis) Eng, (review) |
Learning platforms (LPs) (virtual learning environments, management information systems, communication technologies and information and resource sharing technologies) | Jewitt et al., (report) |
Mobile devices—touch screens (smart devices, tablets, laptops) | Sung et al., (meta-analysis and research synthesis) Tamim et al., (meta-analysis) Tamim et al., (systematic review and meta-analysis) Zheng et al., (meta-analysis and research synthesis) Haßler et al., (review) Kalati & Kim, (systematic review) Friedel et al., (meta-analysis and review) Chen et al., (meta-analysis) Schwabe et al., (meta-analysis) Punie et al., (review) |
Digital games (various types e.g., adventure, serious; various domains e.g., history, science) | Wang et al., (meta-analysis) Arztmann et al., (meta-analysis) Martinez et al., (systematic review) Talan et al., (meta-analysis) Pan et al., (systematic review) Chen et al., (meta-analysis) Kao, (meta-analysis) Fadda et al., (meta-analysis) Lu et al., (meta-analysis) Lei et al., (meta-analysis) Koh, (meta-analysis) Bado, (review) |
Augmented reality (AR) | Garzón & Acevedo, (meta-analysis) Garzón et al., (meta-analysis and research synthesis) Kalemkuş & Kalemkuş, (meta-analysis) Baragash et al., (meta-analysis) |
Virtual reality (VR) Immersive virtual reality (IVR) | Villena-Taranilla et al., (meta-analysis) Chen et al., (meta-analysis) Coban et al., (meta-analysis) |
Artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics | Su & Yang, (review) Su et al., (meta review) |
Online learning/elearning | Ulum, (meta-analysis) Cheok & Wong, (review) |
Blended learning | Grgurović et al., (meta-analysis) |
Synchronous parallel participation | Friedel et al., (meta-analysis and review) |
Electronic books/digital storytelling | Savva et al., (meta-analysis) Quah & Ng, (systematic review) |
Multimedia technology | Liu et al., (meta-analysis) |
Hybrid learning | Kazu & Yalçin, (meta-analysis) |
Additionally, based on the results of the literature review, there are many types of digital technologies with different affordances (see, for example, studies on VR vs Immersive VR), which evolve over time (e.g. starting from CAIs in 2005 to Augmented and Virtual reality 2020). Furthermore, these technologies are linked to different pedagogies and policy initiatives, which are critical factors in the study of impact. Table Table3 3 summarizes the different tools and practices that have been used to examine the impact of digital technologies on education since 2005 based on the review results.
Although the analysis of the literature review demonstrated different impacts of the use of digital technology on education, several authors highlighted the importance of various factors, besides the technology itself, that affect this impact. For example, Liao et al. ( 2007 ) suggested that future studies should carefully investigate which factors contribute to positive outcomes by clarifying the exact relationship between computer applications and learning. Additionally, Haßler et al., ( 2016 ) suggested that the neutral findings regarding the impact of tablets on students learning outcomes in some of the studies included in their review should encourage educators, school leaders, and school officials to further investigate the potential of such devices in teaching and learning. Several other researchers suggested that a number of variables play a significant role in the impact of ICTs on students’ learning that could be attributed to the school context, teaching practices and professional development, the curriculum, and learners’ characteristics (Underwood, 2009 ; Tamim et al., 2011 ; Higgins et al., 2012 ; Archer et al., 2014 ; Sung et al., 2016 ; Haßler et al., 2016 ; Chauhan, 2017 ; Lee et al., 2020 ; Tang et al., 2022 ).
One of the most common challenges reported in studies that utilized digital tools in the classroom was the lack of students’ skills on how to use them. Fu ( 2013 ) found that students’ lack of technical skills is a barrier to the effective use of ICT in the classroom. Tamim et al. ( 2015 ) reported that students faced challenges when using tablets and smart mobile devices, associated with the technical issues or expertise needed for their use and the distracting nature of the devices and highlighted the need for teachers’ professional development. Higgins et al. ( 2012 ) reported that skills training about the use of digital technologies is essential for learners to fully exploit the benefits of instruction.
Delgado et al. ( 2015 ), meanwhile, reported studies that showed a strong positive association between teachers’ computer skills and students’ use of computers. Teachers’ lack of ICT skills and familiarization with technologies can become a constraint to the effective use of technology in the classroom (Balanskat et al., 2006 ; Delgado et al., 2015 ).
It is worth noting that the way teachers are introduced to ICTs affects the impact of digital technologies on education. Previous studies have shown that teachers may avoid using digital technologies due to limited digital skills (Balanskat, 2006 ), or they prefer applying “safe” technologies, namely technologies that their own teachers used and with which they are familiar (Condie & Munro, 2007 ). In this regard, the provision of digital skills training and exposure to new digital tools might encourage teachers to apply various technologies in their lessons (Condie & Munro, 2007 ). Apart from digital competence, technical support in the school setting has also been shown to affect teachers’ use of technology in their classrooms (Delgado et al., 2015 ). Ferrari et al. ( 2011 ) found that while teachers’ use of ICT is high, 75% stated that they needed more institutional support and a shift in the mindset of educational actors to achieve more innovative teaching practices. The provision of support can reduce time and effort as well as cognitive constraints, which could cause limited ICT integration in the school lessons by teachers (Escueta et al., 2017 ).
Teachers’ personal characteristics and professional development affect the impact of digital technologies on education. Specifically, Cheok and Wong ( 2015 ) found that teachers’ personal characteristics (e.g., anxiety, self-efficacy) are associated with their satisfaction and engagement with technology. Bingimlas ( 2009 ) reported that lack of confidence, resistance to change, and negative attitudes in using new technologies in teaching are significant determinants of teachers’ levels of engagement in ICT. The same author reported that the provision of technical support, motivation support (e.g., awards, sufficient time for planning), and training on how technologies can benefit teaching and learning can eliminate the above barriers to ICT integration. Archer et al. ( 2014 ) found that comfort levels in using technology are an important predictor of technology integration and argued that it is essential to provide teachers with appropriate training and ongoing support until they are comfortable with using ICTs in the classroom. Hillmayr et al. ( 2020 ) documented that training teachers on ICT had an important effecton students’ learning.
According to Balanskat et al. ( 2006 ), the impact of ICTs on students’ learning is highly dependent on the teachers’ capacity to efficiently exploit their application for pedagogical purposes. Results obtained from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) (OECD, 2021 ) revealed that although schools are open to innovative practices and have the capacity to adopt them, only 39% of teachers in the European Union reported that they are well or very well prepared to use digital technologies for teaching. Li and Ma ( 2010 ) and Hardman ( 2019 ) showed that the positive effect of technology on students’ achievement depends on the pedagogical practices used by teachers. Schmid et al. ( 2014 ) reported that learning was best supported when students were engaged in active, meaningful activities with the use of technological tools that provided cognitive support. Tamim et al. ( 2015 ) compared two different pedagogical uses of tablets and found a significant moderate effect when the devices were used in a student-centered context and approach rather than within teacher-led environments. Similarly, Garzón and Acevedo ( 2019 ) and Garzón et al. ( 2020 ) reported that the positive results from the integration of AR applications could be attributed to the existence of different variables which could influence AR interventions (e.g., pedagogical approach, learning environment, and duration of the intervention). Additionally, Garzón et al. ( 2020 ) suggested that the pedagogical resources that teachers used to complement their lectures and the pedagogical approaches they applied were crucial to the effective integration of AR on students’ learning gains. Garzón and Acevedo ( 2019 ) also emphasized that the success of a technology-enhanced intervention is based on both the technology per se and its characteristics and on the pedagogical strategies teachers choose to implement. For instance, their results indicated that the collaborative learning approach had the highest impact on students’ learning gains among other approaches (e.g., inquiry-based learning, situated learning, or project-based learning). Ran et al. ( 2022 ) also found that the use of technology to design collaborative and communicative environments showed the largest moderator effects among the other approaches.
Hattie ( 2008 ) reported that the effective use of computers is associated with training teachers in using computers as a teaching and learning tool. Zheng et al. ( 2016 ) noted that in addition to the strategies teachers adopt in teaching, ongoing professional development is also vital in ensuring the success of technology implementation programs. Sung et al. ( 2016 ) found that research on the use of mobile devices to support learning tends to report that the insufficient preparation of teachers is a major obstacle in implementing effective mobile learning programs in schools. Friedel et al. ( 2013 ) found that providing training and support to teachers increased the positive impact of the interventions on students’ learning gains. Trucano ( 2005 ) argued that positive impacts occur when digital technologies are used to enhance teachers’ existing pedagogical philosophies. Higgins et al. ( 2012 ) found that the types of technologies used and how they are used could also affect students’ learning. The authors suggested that training and professional development of teachers that focuses on the effective pedagogical use of technology to support teaching and learning is an important component of successful instructional approaches (Higgins et al., 2012 ). Archer et al. ( 2014 ) found that studies that reported ICT interventions during which teachers received training and support had moderate positive effects on students’ learning outcomes, which were significantly higher than studies where little or no detail about training and support was mentioned. Fu ( 2013 ) reported that the lack of teachers’ knowledge and skills on the technical and instructional aspects of ICT use in the classroom, in-service training, pedagogy support, technical and financial support, as well as the lack of teachers’ motivation and encouragement to integrate ICT on their teaching were significant barriers to the integration of ICT in education.
Management and leadership are important cornerstones in the digital transformation process (Pihir et al., 2018 ). Zheng et al. ( 2016 ) documented leadership among the factors positively affecting the successful implementation of technology integration in schools. Strong leadership, strategic planning, and systematic integration of digital technologies are prerequisites for the digital transformation of education systems (Ređep, 2021 ). Management and leadership play a significant role in formulating policies that are translated into practice and ensure that developments in ICT become embedded into the life of the school and in the experiences of staff and pupils (Condie & Munro, 2007 ). Policy support and leadership must include the provision of an overall vision for the use of digital technologies in education, guidance for students and parents, logistical support, as well as teacher training (Conrads et al., 2017 ). Unless there is a commitment throughout the school, with accountability for progress at key points, it is unlikely for ICT integration to be sustained or become part of the culture (Condie & Munro, 2007 ). To achieve this, principals need to adopt and promote a whole-institution strategy and build a strong mutual support system that enables the school’s technological maturity (European Commission, 2019 ). In this context, school culture plays an essential role in shaping the mindsets and beliefs of school actors towards successful technology integration. Condie and Munro ( 2007 ) emphasized the importance of the principal’s enthusiasm and work as a source of inspiration for the school staff and the students to cultivate a culture of innovation and establish sustainable digital change. Specifically, school leaders need to create conditions in which the school staff is empowered to experiment and take risks with technology (Elkordy & Lovinelli, 2020 ).
In order for leaders to achieve the above, it is important to develop capacities for learning and leading, advocating professional learning, and creating support systems and structures (European Commission, 2019 ). Digital technology integration in education systems can be challenging and leadership needs guidance to achieve it. Such guidance can be introduced through the adoption of new methods and techniques in strategic planning for the integration of digital technologies (Ređep, 2021 ). Even though the role of leaders is vital, the relevant training offered to them has so far been inadequate. Specifically, only a third of the education systems in Europe have put in place national strategies that explicitly refer to the training of school principals (European Commission, 2019 , p. 16).
The effective integration of digital technologies across levels of education presupposes the development of infrastructure, the provision of digital content, and the selection of proper resources (Voogt et al., 2013 ). Particularly, a high-quality broadband connection in the school increases the quality and quantity of educational activities. There is evidence that ICT increases and formalizes cooperative planning between teachers and cooperation with managers, which in turn has a positive impact on teaching practices (Balanskat et al., 2006 ). Additionally, ICT resources, including software and hardware, increase the likelihood of teachers integrating technology into the curriculum to enhance their teaching practices (Delgado et al., 2015 ). For example, Zheng et al. ( 2016 ) found that the use of one-on-one laptop programs resulted in positive changes in teaching and learning, which would not have been accomplished without the infrastructure and technical support provided to teachers. Delgado et al. ( 2015 ) reported that limited access to technology (insufficient computers, peripherals, and software) and lack of technical support are important barriers to ICT integration. Access to infrastructure refers not only to the availability of technology in a school but also to the provision of a proper amount and the right types of technology in locations where teachers and students can use them. Effective technical support is a central element of the whole-school strategy for ICT (Underwood, 2009 ). Bingimlas ( 2009 ) reported that lack of technical support in the classroom and whole-school resources (e.g., failing to connect to the Internet, printers not printing, malfunctioning computers, and working on old computers) are significant barriers that discourage the use of ICT by teachers. Moreover, poor quality and inadequate hardware maintenance, and unsuitable educational software may discourage teachers from using ICTs (Balanskat et al., 2006 ; Bingimlas, 2009 ).
Government support can also impact the integration of ICTs in teaching. Specifically, Balanskat et al. ( 2006 ) reported that government interventions and training programs increased teachers’ enthusiasm and positive attitudes towards ICT and led to the routine use of embedded ICT.
Lastly, another important factor affecting digital transformation is the development and quality assurance of digital learning resources. Such resources can be support textbooks and related materials or resources that focus on specific subjects or parts of the curriculum. Policies on the provision of digital learning resources are essential for schools and can be achieved through various actions. For example, some countries are financing web portals that become repositories, enabling teachers to share resources or create their own. Additionally, they may offer e-learning opportunities or other services linked to digital education. In other cases, specific agencies of projects have also been set up to develop digital resources (Eurydice, 2019 ).
The digital transformation of schools involves organizational improvements at the level of internal workflows, communication between the different stakeholders, and potential for collaboration. Vuorikari et al. ( 2020 ) presented evidence that digital technologies supported the automation of administrative practices in schools and reduced the administration’s workload. There is evidence that digital data affects the production of knowledge about schools and has the power to transform how schooling takes place. Specifically, Sellar ( 2015 ) reported that data infrastructure in education is developing due to the demand for “ information about student outcomes, teacher quality, school performance, and adult skills, associated with policy efforts to increase human capital and productivity practices ” (p. 771). In this regard, practices, such as datafication which refers to the “ translation of information about all kinds of things and processes into quantified formats” have become essential for decision-making based on accountability reports about the school’s quality. The data could be turned into deep insights about education or training incorporating ICTs. For example, measuring students’ online engagement with the learning material and drawing meaningful conclusions can allow teachers to improve their educational interventions (Vuorikari et al., 2020 ).
Research show that the active engagement of parents in the school and their support for the school’s work can make a difference to their children’s attitudes towards learning and, as a result, their achievement (Hattie, 2008 ). In recent years, digital technologies have been used for more effective communication between school and family (Escueta et al., 2017 ). The European Commission ( 2020 ) presented data from a Eurostat survey regarding the use of computers by students during the pandemic. The data showed that younger pupils needed additional support and guidance from parents and the challenges were greater for families in which parents had lower levels of education and little to no digital skills.
In this regard, the socio-economic background of the learners and their socio-cultural environment also affect educational achievements (Punie et al., 2006 ). Trucano documented that the use of computers at home positively influenced students’ confidence and resulted in more frequent use at school, compared to students who had no home access (Trucano, 2005 ). In this sense, the socio-economic background affects the access to computers at home (OECD, 2015 ) which in turn influences the experience of ICT, an important factor for school achievement (Punie et al., 2006 ; Underwood, 2009 ). Furthermore, parents from different socio-economic backgrounds may have different abilities and availability to support their children in their learning process (Di Pietro et al., 2020 ).
The socio-economic context of the school is closely related to a school’s digital transformation. For example, schools in disadvantaged, rural, or deprived areas are likely to lack the digital capacity and infrastructure required to adapt to the use of digital technologies during emergency periods, such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Di Pietro et al., 2020 ). Data collected from school principals confirmed that in several countries, there is a rural/urban divide in connectivity (OECD, 2015 ).
Emergency periods also affect the digitalization of schools. The COVID-19 pandemic led to the closure of schools and forced them to seek appropriate and connective ways to keep working on the curriculum (Di Pietro et al., 2020 ). The sudden large-scale shift to distance and online teaching and learning also presented challenges around quality and equity in education, such as the risk of increased inequalities in learning, digital, and social, as well as teachers facing difficulties coping with this demanding situation (European Commission, 2020 ).
Looking at the findings of the above studies, we can conclude that the impact of digital technologies on education is influenced by various actors and touches many aspects of the school ecosystem. Figure 1 summarizes the factors affecting the digital technologies’ impact on school stakeholders based on the findings from the literature review.
Factors that affect the impact of ICTs on education
The findings revealed that the use of digital technologies in education affects a variety of actors within a school’s ecosystem. First, we observed that as technologies evolve, so does the interest of the research community to apply them to school settings. Figure 2 summarizes the trends identified in current research around the impact of digital technologies on schools’ digital capacity and transformation as found in the present study. Starting as early as 2005, when computers, simulations, and interactive boards were the most commonly applied tools in school interventions (e.g., Eng, 2005 ; Liao et al., 2007 ; Moran et al., 2008 ; Tamim et al., 2011 ), moving towards the use of learning platforms (Jewitt et al., 2011 ), then to the use of mobile devices and digital games (e.g., Tamim et al., 2015 ; Sung et al., 2016 ; Talan et al., 2020 ), as well as e-books (e.g., Savva et al., 2022 ), to the more recent advanced technologies, such as AR and VR applications (e.g., Garzón & Acevedo, 2019 ; Garzón et al., 2020 ; Kalemkuş & Kalemkuş, 2022 ), or robotics and AI (e.g., Su & Yang, 2022 ; Su et al., 2022 ). As this evolution shows, digital technologies are a concept in flux with different affordances and characteristics. Additionally, from an instructional perspective, there has been a growing interest in different modes and models of content delivery such as online, blended, and hybrid modes (e.g., Cheok & Wong, 2015 ; Kazu & Yalçin, 2022 ; Ulum, 2022 ). This is an indication that the value of technologies to support teaching and learning as well as other school-related practices is increasingly recognized by the research and school community. The impact results from the literature review indicate that ICT integration on students’ learning outcomes has effects that are small (Coban et al., 2022 ; Eng, 2005 ; Higgins et al., 2012 ; Schmid et al., 2014 ; Tamim et al., 2015 ; Zheng et al., 2016 ) to moderate (Garzón & Acevedo, 2019 ; Garzón et al., 2020 ; Liao et al., 2007 ; Sung et al., 2016 ; Talan et al., 2020 ; Wen & Walters, 2022 ). That said, a number of recent studies have reported high effect sizes (e.g., Kazu & Yalçin, 2022 ).
Current work and trends in the study of the impact of digital technologies on schools’ digital capacity
Based on these findings, several authors have suggested that the impact of technology on education depends on several variables and not on the technology per se (Tamim et al., 2011 ; Higgins et al., 2012 ; Archer et al., 2014 ; Sung et al., 2016 ; Haßler et al., 2016 ; Chauhan, 2017 ; Lee et al., 2020 ; Lei et al., 2022a ). While the impact of ICTs on student achievement has been thoroughly investigated by researchers, other aspects related to school life that are also affected by ICTs, such as equality, inclusion, and social integration have received less attention. Further analysis of the literature review has revealed a greater investment in ICT interventions to support learning and teaching in the core subjects of literacy and STEM disciplines, especially mathematics, and science. These were the most common subjects studied in the reviewed papers often drawing on national testing results, while studies that investigated other subject areas, such as social studies, were limited (Chauhan, 2017 ; Condie & Munro, 2007 ). As such, research is still lacking impact studies that focus on the effects of ICTs on a range of curriculum subjects.
The qualitative research provided additional information about the impact of digital technologies on education, documenting positive effects and giving more details about implications, recommendations, and future research directions. Specifically, the findings regarding the role of ICTs in supporting learning highlight the importance of teachers’ instructional practice and the learning context in the use of technologies and consequently their impact on instruction (Çelik, 2022 ; Schmid et al., 2014 ; Tamim et al., 2015 ). The review also provided useful insights regarding the various factors that affect the impact of digital technologies on education. These factors are interconnected and play a vital role in the transformation process. Specifically, these factors include a) digital competencies; b) teachers’ personal characteristics and professional development; c) school leadership and management; d) connectivity, infrastructure, and government support; e) administration and data management practices; f) students’ socio-economic background and family support and g) the socioeconomic context of the school and emergency situations. It is worth noting that we observed factors that affect the integration of ICTs in education but may also be affected by it. For example, the frequent use of ICTs and the use of laptops by students for instructional purposes positively affect the development of digital competencies (Zheng et al., 2016 ) and at the same time, the digital competencies affect the use of ICTs (Fu, 2013 ; Higgins et al., 2012 ). As a result, the impact of digital technologies should be explored more as an enabler of desirable and new practices and not merely as a catalyst that improves the output of the education process i.e. namely student attainment.
Digital technologies offer immense potential for fundamental improvement in schools. However, investment in ICT infrastructure and professional development to improve school education are yet to provide fruitful results. Digital transformation is a complex process that requires large-scale transformative changes that presuppose digital capacity and preparedness. To achieve such changes, all actors within the school’s ecosystem need to share a common vision regarding the integration of ICTs in education and work towards achieving this goal. Our literature review, which synthesized quantitative and qualitative data from a list of meta-analyses and review studies, provided useful insights into the impact of ICTs on different school stakeholders and showed that the impact of digital technologies touches upon many different aspects of school life, which are often overlooked when the focus is on student achievement as the final output of education. Furthermore, the concept of digital technologies is a concept in flux as technologies are not only different among them calling for different uses in the educational practice but they also change through time. Additionally, we opened a forum for discussion regarding the factors that affect a school’s digital capacity and transformation. We hope that our study will inform policy, practice, and research and result in a paradigm shift towards more holistic approaches in impact and assessment studies.
We presented a review of the study of digital technologies' impact on education and factors influencing schools’ digital capacity and transformation. The study results were based on a non-systematic literature review grounded on the acquisition of documentation in specific databases. Future studies should investigate more databases to corroborate and enhance our results. Moreover, search queries could be enhanced with key terms that could provide additional insights about the integration of ICTs in education, such as “policies and strategies for ICT integration in education”. Also, the study drew information from meta-analyses and literature reviews to acquire evidence about the effects of ICT integration in schools. Such evidence was mostly based on the general conclusions of the studies. It is worth mentioning that, we located individual studies which showed different, such as negative or neutral results. Thus, further insights are needed about the impact of ICTs on education and the factors influencing the impact. Furthermore, the nature of the studies included in meta-analyses and reviews is different as they are based on different research methodologies and data gathering processes. For instance, in a meta-analysis, the impact among the studies investigated is measured in a particular way, depending on policy or research targets (e.g., results from national examinations, pre-/post-tests). Meanwhile, in literature reviews, qualitative studies offer additional insights and detail based on self-reports and research opinions on several different aspects and stakeholders who could affect and be affected by ICT integration. As a result, it was challenging to draw causal relationships between so many interrelating variables.
Despite the challenges mentioned above, this study envisaged examining school units as ecosystems that consist of several actors by bringing together several variables from different research epistemologies to provide an understanding of the integration of ICTs. However, the use of other tools and methodologies and models for evaluation of the impact of digital technologies on education could give more detailed data and more accurate results. For instance, self-reflection tools, like SELFIE—developed on the DigCompOrg framework- (Kampylis et al., 2015 ; Bocconi & Lightfoot, 2021 ) can help capture a school’s digital capacity and better assess the impact of ICTs on education. Furthermore, the development of a theory of change could be a good approach for documenting the impact of digital technologies on education. Specifically, theories of change are models used for the evaluation of interventions and their impact; they are developed to describe how interventions will work and give the desired outcomes (Mayne, 2015 ). Theory of change as a methodological approach has also been used by researchers to develop models for evaluation in the field of education (e.g., Aromatario et al., 2019 ; Chapman & Sammons, 2013 ; De Silva et al., 2014 ).
We also propose that future studies aim at similar investigations by applying more holistic approaches for impact assessment that can provide in-depth data about the impact of digital technologies on education. For instance, future studies could focus on different research questions about the technologies that are used during the interventions or the way the implementation takes place (e.g., What methodologies are used for documenting impact? How are experimental studies implemented? How can teachers be taken into account and trained on the technology and its functions? What are the elements of an appropriate and successful implementation? How is the whole intervention designed? On which learning theories is the technology implementation based?).
Future research could also focus on assessing the impact of digital technologies on various other subjects since there is a scarcity of research related to particular subjects, such as geography, history, arts, music, and design and technology. More research should also be done about the impact of ICTs on skills, emotions, and attitudes, and on equality, inclusion, social interaction, and special needs education. There is also a need for more research about the impact of ICTs on administration, management, digitalization, and home-school relationships. Additionally, although new forms of teaching and learning with the use of ICTs (e.g., blended, hybrid, and online learning) have initiated several investigations in mainstream classrooms, only a few studies have measured their impact on students’ learning. Additionally, our review did not document any study about the impact of flipped classrooms on K-12 education. Regarding teaching and learning approaches, it is worth noting that studies referred to STEM or STEAM did not investigate the impact of STEM/STEAM as an interdisciplinary approach to learning but only investigated the impact of ICTs on learning in each domain as a separate subject (science, technology, engineering, arts, mathematics). Hence, we propose future research to also investigate the impact of the STEM/STEAM approach on education. The impact of emerging technologies on education, such as AR, VR, robotics, and AI has also been investigated recently, but more work needs to be done.
Finally, we propose that future studies could focus on the way in which specific factors, e.g., infrastructure and government support, school leadership and management, students’ and teachers’ digital competencies, approaches teachers utilize in the teaching and learning (e.g., blended, online and hybrid learning, flipped classrooms, STEM/STEAM approach, project-based learning, inquiry-based learning), affect the impact of digital technologies on education. We hope that future studies will give detailed insights into the concept of schools’ digital transformation through further investigation of impacts and factors which influence digital capacity and transformation based on the results and the recommendations of the present study.
This project has received funding under Grant Agreement No Ref Ares (2021) 339036 7483039 as well as funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under Grant Agreement No 739578 and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus through the Deputy Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digital Policy. The UVa co-authors would like also to acknowledge funding from the European Regional Development Fund and the National Research Agency of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, under project grant PID2020-112584RB-C32.
Declarations.
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
2122 Accesses
Explore all metrics
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
This editorial continues to landscape the trends and popular educational technology topics for 2023. We used the public internet data mining approach from previous years (Allman et al., 2023b ; Kimmons, 2020 ; Kimmons & Rosenberg, 2022 ; Kimmons et al., 2021 ). This year, we extracted and analyzed data from the Scopus research article database, K-12 school and district Facebook pages, and the open publishing platform EdTech Books. We also looked closer at two key terms—“artificial intelligence” and “OER”—using Google Custom Search API to examine patterns in the higher education context and the description of resources from the Teachers Pay Teachers (TPT) website for insights in the K-12 context. This year, we no longer utilized the X (formerly Twitter) #EdTech affinity group as a data source because of the changes to the platform/accessibility of the data. Our analysis represents snapshots of 2023 trends in educational technology from these dataset angles, furthering our understanding of current EdTech community’s attitudes, behaviors, and leanings and underpinning a predictive vision of future trends in the field.
For insight into which research topics were trending in the field in 2023, we analyzed article titles published in the top educational technology journals during the year. We utilized a similar methodology as in previous years (Kimmons et al., 2021 ; Kimmons & Rosenberg, 2022 ; Allman et al., 2023b ) and compiled a list of 3,355 articles published in 2023 from the top educational technology journals (n = 18) as identified by Google Scholar and retrieved via the Scopus API. See Table 1 for the list of journals included in the analysis. Following this, we looked at the frequencies of each keyword and n-gram (multi-word phrase) appearing in the titles to identify potential trends.
We then manually categorized top keywords and n-grams into three information types suggested by the data: “Contexts,” “Methods,” and a broader category of “Topics, Tools, and Modalities” (see Table 2 ). Contexts included terms related to the research settings, such as “high school” or “university.” Methods included descriptors of the research methods, such as “systematic review” or “case study.” Topics, Tools, and Modalities included a more comprehensive array of terms, such as “online,” “learning analytics,” and “virtual reality.” Notably, in previous years, we had separated modalities into their own section, but this separation seemed to become increasingly arbitrary and unnecessary (e.g., is VR a topic or a modality?). So, we combined modalities and topics into a common category. We included all relevant n-grams above 0.5% and their comparatively ranked keywords in the table.
Table 2 suggests several noteworthy findings. Regarding contexts, higher education was far more common as a setting for educational technology studies than K-12, and secondary schools were more represented than elementary schools. This suggests an inverted pyramid representation of EdTech research being done at different educational levels, a trend that we saw in previous analyses (Allman et al., 2023b ). Referenced physical locations also focused on school settings, suggesting an emphasis on formal (rather than informal or non-formal) learning. As expected, references to COVID-19 declined from the previous year (3.6% to 2.4%). Relatively high on the list were also references to language learning. Specifically, search terms “language” (n = 169, 5.0%) and “EFL” (n = 95; 2.8%) and related n-grams “language learning” (n = 54; 1.6%), “EFL learner” (n = 37; 1.1%), and “foreign language” (n = 28, 0.8%). Additionally, references to “support” (n = 124, 3.7%), “professional,” and “preservice” (both n = 64; 1.9%) and n-grams “preservice teacher” (n = 49, 1.9%) and “professional development” (n = 22, 0.7%) might be worth noticing as important context keywords for studies carried out in 2023.
The most commonly referenced n-grams related to research methods mentioned in 2023 titles were secondary data analysis methods, specifically “systematic OR scoping OR literature reviews” (n = 194, 5.8%) and “meta-analyses” (n = 49, 1.9%). The most common primary data analysis method n-grams included “machine learning” (n = 43, 1.3%), “case study” (n = 43, 1.3%), “network analysis” (n = 23, 0.7%), and “mixed methods” (n = 24, 0.7%). Additionally, several keywords related to measuring educational success in the titles of 2023 journal articles are noteworthy. Specifically, search terms “effect” (n = 202, 6.0%), “performance” (n = 193, 5.8%), “impact” (n = 148, 4.4%), “evaluation” (n = 82, 2.4%), “effectiveness” and “achievement” (both n = 77, 2.3%), and “outcome” (n = 68, 2.0%).
Regarding modality, the dominant term continues to be “online” (n = 469, 14%) and the n-gram “online teaching OR online learning” (n = 150, 4.5%), outnumbering the next-highest n-gram, “blended learning” (n = 31, 0.9%), at a rate of 5-to-1. Although, from closer investigation of the titles, it appears that “online,” “distance,” “blended,” “remote,” and a variety of other terms are sometimes used interchangeably to describe a broad spectrum of internet-mediated synchronous or asynchronous learning situations. Immersive environments, in the form of “virtual,” “augmented,” and “mixed reality,” in that order, were also of interest. Specifically, the search term “virtual” appeared 188 times (5.6%), and n-grams “virtual reality” were seen 110 times (3.3%), “augmented reality” 63 times (1.9%), and “immersive virtual” 22 times (0.7%). Notably, references to “artificial intelligence” more than doubled from the previous year (n = 91, increase from 1.4% to 2.7%), and “learning analytics” also saw increased attention (n = 72, 1.6% to 2.1%).
The comprehensive analysis of hyperlinks shared on school and district Facebook pages revealed significant trends in technology adoption and usage within K-12 educational settings. Table 3 showcases the top fifteen domains by their prevalence and highlights the evolving landscape of digital tools in education from 2021 to 2023.
To identify the technologies shared on school and district Facebook pages, we scrutinized the domain names of all hyperlinks posted across 16,309 publicly accessible pages, totaling 10,597,076 posts. Executing this analysis involved exploring the homepages of all schools and school districts in the U.S. for links to Facebook pages. Subsequently, we uploaded the identified links to Facebook pages onto the CrowdTangle platform to access publicly available posts for the years 2021–2023 and identified the domains of websites linked within schools' and districts' posts. Additional details on the data collection approach can be found in Rosenberg et al. ( 2022 ). The top fifteen most-shared domains, delineated by year (2021, 2022, and 2023), are presented in Table 3 . The following explanation may help the reader interpret the table. For instance, in 2023, 7049, or 43% of schools or districts with publicly accessible Facebook pages, shared one or more links to docs.google.com , and the domain was shared on average 5.3 times.
Upon reviewing the years 2021 to 2023, we observed the continued dominance of Google services, with Google Docs maintaining its position as the most shared domain for three consecutive years, as highlighted in prior research (Allman et al., 2023b ). YouTube follows closely behind, indicating the sustained prevalence of Google services in the mainstream usage of schools and school districts, underscoring the stability of these technologies within educational institutions. Simultaneously, we noted a significant decline in the percentage of YouTube links from 44% in 2021 and 41% in 2022 to 33% in 2023. This shift might reflect a broader trend towards prioritizing the digital privacy and security of students within the educational community, influencing how schools and districts curate and share content on social media platforms. The trend in Zoom links continues to decline, with the proportion of districts sharing Zoom links decreasing from 21% in 2021 to 11% in 2022 and further dropping to 7% in 2023. This decline aligns with the reduced engagement in remote activities across various schools and school districts. Additionally, tools facilitating event sign-ups, exemplified by SignUpGenius and gofan.co , experienced steady increases, indicating a surge in posts promoting event registrations post-COVID-19 pandemic. Other domains, such as bookfairs.scholastic.com , smore.com , eventbrite.com , and surveymonkey.com , have consistently maintained their presence in the top ten over the past three years. Their similar frequency suggests the sustained importance of tools for school-parent communication, book sales, event management, and survey services within K-12 schools and districts.
In addition to Scopus and social media trends, we also examined an EdTech-focused Open Educational Resource (OER) platform EdTech Books ( https://edtechbooks.org ). OER are “teaching, learning, and research materials that reside in the public domain or have been released under an open license that permits their free use and re-purposing by others” (Creative Commons, 2020 ). OER can take various forms and sizes, including textbooks, lessons, courses, learning activities, assessments, technologies, syllabi, images, presentations, videos, and graphics. Being ‘open’ means that OER is freely accessible to anyone with internet access and can be retained, reused, redistributed, revised, and remixed as needed (Wiley, n.d. ), providing significant opportunities for improving “the quality and affordability of education for learners everywhere” (Wiley & Hilton, 2018 , p. 144). Research has repeatedly shown that OER quality is comparable to commercial resources (Clinton & Khan, 2019 ; Kimmons, 2015 ), and their adoption does not negatively impact student learning (Hilton, 2016 , 2019 ) while saving students money (Clinton, 2018 ; Hilton, 2016 ; Ikahihifo et al., 2017 ) and providing a variety of other benefits (Kimmons, 2016 ). In 2023, almost two-thirds (64%) of U.S. higher education faculty are aware of OER, and 29% of faculty require OER in their courses (Seaman & Seaman, 2023b ).
For this year’s OER analysis, we again selected EdTech Books as the authors are most familiar with this platform and have ready access to data. In 2023, ETB provided free OER to more than 1.5 million users worldwide. We believe that as an EdTech-focused platform, EdTech Books analytics may provide valuable insights into user behavior and how OER are developed, adopted, and used in our field.
A perusal of the most popular books (Table 4 ) and chapters (Table 5 ) revealed that readers seemed to be drawn to these resources when they were seeking information on broad theoretical aspects of educational technology (e.g., behaviorism, constructivism, socioculturalism), technology-specific guidance (e.g., how to use a specific tool), or research and evaluation guidelines (e.g., mixed methods or sampling procedures). This is consistent with our findings from last year (Allman et al., 2023b ).
A closer analysis of the most popular books and chapters suggested that the top trending chapters are most influenced by organic traffic via search engines rather than direct links (such as from a course). This underscores the importance of indexing and optimizing OER resources to increase exposure and impact. On the other hand, EdTech books that were most accessed may have been influenced by OER adoption behaviors and instructors’ pedagogical decisions as part of formal access to instructional resources. For example, students might have been instructed to read carefully, which could mean accessing longer chapters several times or downloading them as PDF for annotation or later retrieval. Another instructor may encourage the use of social annotation tools, such as Hypothesis, to complete collaborative classroom assignments, encouraging students to return to a chapter several times and thus increasing overall book views. Additionally, ease of access or anticipation of fees to access may also explain why some books have higher PDF downloads than expected. For example, West’s Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology (highest PDF downloads) is often sought out with search terms like “instructional design pdf,” which suggests that learners are intentionally seeking local copies of these particular resources.
We found that the United States (29.7%), the Philippines (14.1%), and India (6.2%) were again the heaviest users of the platform, with overall use of the platform becoming less centralized to the U.S. We also found an increase in overall mobile device access to the platform, with 39.7% of users accessing on a phone as opposed to 59% on a desktop or laptop. This reveals an increasing trend of globalization of educational-technology-related OER and the need to be attentive to their accessibility with various device configurations and bandwidth limitations.
Further exploring how large public data sources might help us identify patterns in the field, we used the Google Custom Search API to scrape data from university websites (cf., such as Kimmons & Veletsianos, 2021 and Veletsianos et al., 2023 ) and descriptions of resources uploaded to the popular curricular sharing site Teachers Pay Teachers (TPT) to understand the frequencies and nature of references to two key terms of particular interest to the authors: “artificial intelligence” and “OER”.
In considering Google indexing results of university websites, it is necessary to limit analyses to a few sets of interesting a priori terms. So, for this analysis, we limited our considerations to AI, given its current interest in the larger social context, and OER, given its attention in educational technology and the topic’s relationship to university missions as public caretakers of knowledge. Results showed that 66.4% of universities mentioned “generative artificial intelligence,” “generative AI,” or “ChatGPT,” and 47.7% referenced “open educational resource” or “open textbook,” with references to generative AI outnumbering references to OER at a rate of nearly 5-to-1 (see Table 6 ). In both cases, politically blue states (Democratic according to the most recent U.S. presidential election) were more likely to reference these technologies than were politically red (Republican) states. However, urban states were more likely to reference “AI,” and rural states were more likely to reference “OER.” Rhode Island, Utah, and Idaho were among the most likely to mention both, and Wyoming was the least likely to mention either. Interestingly, Hawaii was the most likely to mention artificial intelligence but was among the least likely to mention OER. This pattern suggests sociopolitical and economic differences in how educators pay attention to these technologies. Also, it suggests that universities may be more actively playing into the hype of new technologies (e.g., “AI”) in their communication efforts than serving as public distributors of valuable knowledge to their communities (e.g., “OER”).
In a similar vein, data extracted from the TPT website spanning from 2021 to 2023, encompassing 3,936,779 entries, were explored. Specific details regarding the data collection method can be found in (Shelton et al., 2022 ). The analysis revealed a total of 3,303 instances referencing AI-related keywords, including "generative artificial intelligence," "generative AI," "artificial intelligence," "DALL-E," and "ChatGPT." In contrast, mentions of "open educational resource" or "open textbook" numbered 4,285 (see Table 7 for details).
The analysis of the data suggested a growing trend of references to AI-related educational resources on the TPT platform from 2021 to 2023. Notably, despite the proportion of AI-related resources being low before 2023, there has been a remarkable uptick in interest. The number of AI-related resources in 2021 and 2022 were less than 0.05%. Specifically, in 2021, only 521 out of 1,060,241 or 0.049% of total resources and 528 out of 1,268,771 (0.042%) resources in 2022 were related to AI. In 2023, the mentions of AI surged to 2,254 out of 1,607,767 or 0.14% resources, representing almost a threefold increase from the 2022 figures, indicating a burgeoning interest in AI within K-12 educational resources. This surge aligns with the rising interest and integration of AI in educational settings, particularly following the release of generative artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT in November 2022, reflecting educators' growing curiosity and the pressing need to incorporate AI into their teaching resources.
Compared to the mentions of Open Educational Resources (OER), AI references are fewer in number. However, the ratio of nearly 1-to-1.3 (AI to OER) suggests that AI is also becoming a topic of significant interest within educational resources in the K-12 setting. This is particularly noteworthy given that OERs have been a mainstay in educational discussions for a longer period, emphasizing the rapid ascension of AI as a key area of focus. The increasing mention of specific AI tools like "DALL-E" and "ChatGPT" possibly indicates a shift in the educational resource landscape, where innovative AI tools are starting to play a central role in creating and disseminating educational content. This shift could be attributed to the capabilities of generative AI, offering novel approaches to personalized learning, automated content generation, and interactive learning experiences. The disparity between the growth of AI vs. OER references could also reflect the evolving nature of educational technology, where there is a move from traditional open resources to more dynamic, adaptive, and personalized learning experiences AI offers. Integrating AI in educational resources can represent a transformative step in educational technology, potentially reshaping how educational content is created, distributed, and consumed. However, as AI online educational resources rapidly expand, concerns like academic fraud, information bias, and ethical dilemmas arise and deserve closer attention. Recommendations from educational technology experts are especially relevant and needed since markets often lack the motivation to regulate content under platform capitalism (Rodríguez et al., 2020 ).
The analyses of the data from Scopus, Facebook, and EdTech Books, as well as the examination of AI and OER-related terms using Google Custom Search API and Teachers Pay Teachers, represent snapshots from different angles and offer valuable insights into the current state of the educational technology field. Moreover, by comparing some of the 2023 results to previous years, we observed several developmental directions and trends that may guide educational researchers and practitioners for future work.
The Scopus data suggested that studies published in the top EdTech journals in 2023 were predominantly conducted in higher education contexts, and among K-12 studies, secondary contexts were more common than elementary. Not surprisingly, references to COVID-19 declined from previous years. Interestingly, although COVID-19 was less referenced, the terms “online teaching” and “online learning” were frequently mentioned, remaining a dominant learning modality. Secondary data analysis methods, such as literature reviews and meta-analyses, were the most common research methods. However, it is important to mention that this year’s analysis included only titles, not abstracts, as was done in previous years, which may typically include fewer references to primary research methods. Keywords related to emerging technologies, including virtual reality, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, and learning analytics, were also frequently mentioned in the titles.
Through analyzing the hyperlinks on school and school district Facebook pages, we observed that Google-provided services, such as Google Docs, YouTube, and Google search engine, were the most included external links, which seems to be consistent with our findings from previous years (Allman et al., 2023b ; Kimmons et al., 2021 ; Kimmons & Rosenberg, 2022 ). A trend worth mentioning is the consistent decline of Zoom links and increased links to school event planning and registration sites between 2021 and 2023. This suggests a return to in-person learning and an increased school social event activity post-COVID-19.
The analysis of EdTechBooks data as a proxy for OER behavior in the field of educational technology revealed that, similar to last year’s findings, readers continue seeking resources related to theory, educational technology topics, and research and evaluation methods. Closer analysis suggested that chapter access might be more influenced by the organic traffic from search engines. In contrast, book access may be more tied to OER adoption and formal educational setting behaviors, such as course instructional material choices and instructor pedagogical decisions. The increase in global and mobile OER access further emphasizes the importance of technical and design decisions related to accessibility, flexibility, and social justice issues during OER design and development (Allman et al., 2023a ).
Finally, the results of further examining AI and OER-related terms on university websites and Teachers Pay Teachers were intriguing. One interesting finding was that universities in politically blue states were more likely to refer to both technologies than universities in politically red states. Additionally, universities in urban states typically referenced AI more often, while rural state universities more likely referenced OER. This suggests that EdTech attention may be associated with social, political, and economic factors, such as available capital and resources. The analysis of resources on the Teachers Pay Teachers platform emphasized a rising interest in AI in K-12 educational resources while the interest in OER resources remained steady. Among the AI tools, references to generative AI tools such as ChatGPT increased the most, suggesting interest in applying these tools in education and educational content creation.
This year’s analyses indicated that the field of educational technology continues to be influenced by the past pandemic as well as emerging technologies. Even though COVID-19 has gradually faded out in people’s lives, online learning has become a widely accepted way of learning, and technology-mediated instruction has become a norm in all educational settings. Digital educational resources replaced, for the most part, traditional print materials both in higher education and K-12 settings (Seaman & Seaman, 2023a , 2023b ). Mobile and digital learning platforms make learning more accessible and facilitate collaboration through cloud-based services across modalities. OER remain an interest in K-12 and higher ed, particularly in rural states. Immersive technologies continue transforming the EdTech landscape, integrating VR, AR, and gamification elements into learning environments for more engaging experiences. We found that AI and generative AI, in particular, are topics that are notably raising interest in the educational technology field. Utilizing generative AI to produce content and instructional resources, provide adaptive and personalized learning experiences, and automate assessment and evaluation are only a few potential applications that could transform the field of educational technology in the near future. Although the inclusion of AI is relevant at the university and K-12 level, social, political, and economic influences and implications need to be considered. Recognizing that many across educational sectors feel unprepared for AI-related changes (Cengage, 2023 ), we should embrace these new technologies with optimistic caution, carefully considering potentials balanced against security, privacy, and other concerns.
Data is available upon request.
Allman, B., Bozkurt, A., Dickson-Deane, C., Kimmons, R., Stefaniak, J., & Warr, M. C. (2023a, October 15–19). EdTechnica: Open educational resource and open educational practice [Panel discussion]. AECT International Convention. Retrieved January 15, 2024, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GB0V1CGvZY
Allman, B., Kimmons, R., Rosenberg, J., & Dash, M. (2023b). Trends and topics in educational technology, 2023 edition. TechTrends, 67 , 583–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00840-2
Article Google Scholar
Cengage. (2023). Examining higher ed’s digital future: Infographic of 2023–2024 digital learning pulse survey. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://www.bayviewanalytics.com/reports/pulse/infographic-fall2023.pdf
Clinton, V. (2018). Savings without sacrifices: A case study of open-source textbook adoption. Open Learning: The Journal of Distance and Open Learning, 33 (3), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2018.1486184
Clinton, V., & Khan, S. (2019). Efficacy of open textbook adoption on learning performance and course withdrawal rates: A meta-analysis. AERA Open, 5 (3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419872212
Creative Commons. (2020). Open education. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://creativecommons.org/about/program-areas/education-oer
Hilton, J. (2016). Open educational resources and college textbook choices: A review of research on efficacy and perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64 (4), 573–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9434-9
Hilton, J. (2019). Open educational resources, student efficacy, and user perceptions: A synthesis of research published between 2015–2018. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68 (3), 853–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09700-4
Ikahihifo, T. K., Spring, K. J., Rosecrans, J., & Watson, J. (2017). Assessing the savings from open educational resources on student academic goals. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 18 (7). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i7.2754
Kimmons, R. (2020). Current trends (and missing links) in educational technology research and practice. TechTrends, 64 (6), 803–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00549-6
Kimmons, R., & Rosenberg, J. M. (2022). Trends and topics in educational technology, 2022 edition. TechTrends, 66 (2), 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00713-0
Kimmons, R., Rosenberg, J., & Allman, B. (2021). Trends in educational technology: What Facebook, twitter, and Scopus can tell us about current research and practice. TechTrends, 65 (2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00589-6
Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2021). Proctoring software in higher ed: Prevalence and patterns. Educause Review . Retrieved December 8, 2023, from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2021/2/proctoring-software-in-higher-ed-prevalence-and-patterns
Kimmons, R. (2015). OER quality and adaptation in K-12: Comparing teacher evaluations of copyright-restricted, open, and open/adapted textbooks. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16 (5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i5.2341
Kimmons, R. (2016). Expansive openness in teacher practice. Teachers College Record, 118 (9). https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811611800901
Rodríguez, N., Brown, M., & Vickery, A. (2020). Pinning for profit? Examining elementary preservice teachers’ critical analysis of online social studies resources about Black history. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20 (3), 497–528. Retrieved January 5, 2024, from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/216743/
Rosenberg, J. M., Borchers, C., Stegenga, S. M., Burchfield, M. A., Anderson, D., & Fischer, C. (2022). How educational institutions reveal students’ personally identifiable information on Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2140672
Seaman, J.E., & Seaman J. (2023a). Curricula of many sources: Educational resources in U.S. K-12 education, 2023 . Bay View Analytics. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://www.bayviewanalytics.com/reports/curricula-of-many-sources-2023.pdf
Seaman, J.E., & Seaman, J. (2023b). Digitally established: Educational resources in U.S. higher education, 2023 . Bay View Analytics. Retrieved February 8, 2024, from https://www.bayviewanalytics.com/reports/digitallyestablished-2023.pdf
Shelton, C. C., Koehler, M. J., Greenhalgh, S. P., & Carpenter, J. P. (2022). Lifting the veil on TeachersPayTeachers.com: an investigation of educational marketplace offerings and downloads. Learning, Media and Technology , 22(2), 268–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1961148
Veletsianos, G., Kimmons, R., & Bondah, F. (2023). ChatGPT and higher education: Initial prevalence and areas of interest. Educause Review . Retrieved February 12, 2024, from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2023/3/chatgpt-and-higher-education-initial-prevalence-and-areas-of-interest
Wiley, D. (n.d.). Defining the “open” in open content and open educational resources. Retrieved February 10, 2024, from https://opencontent.org/definition/
Wiley, D., & Hilton, J. L., III. (2018). Defining OER-enabled pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19 (4). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3601
Download references
Authors and affiliations.
Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA
Bohdana Allman & Royce Kimmons
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
Wei Wang, Hanhui Bao & Joshua M. Rosenberg
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Matthew J. Koehler
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Bohdana Allman .
Publisher's note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Reprints and permissions
Allman, B., Kimmons, R., Wang, W. et al. Trends and Topics in Educational Technology, 2024 Edition. TechTrends 68 , 402–410 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-00950-5
Download citation
Published : 21 March 2024
Issue Date : May 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-00950-5
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Educational technology businesses are continually attempting to create novel solutions to expand access to education for individuals who cannot obtain adequate educational facilities. Social media as a learning tool has come a long way. ... Educational Technology Research and Development, 69 (2) (2021), pp. 515-532. CrossRef View in Scopus ...
The non-systematic literature review presented herein covers the main theories and research published over the past 17 years on the topic. It is based on meta-analyses and review papers found in scholarly, peer-reviewed content databases and other key studies and reports related to the concepts studied (e.g., digitalization, digital capacity) from professional and international bodies (e.g ...
Topics, author profiles, and collaboration networks in the Journal of Research on Technology in Education: A bibliometric analysis of 20 years of research. Matthew L. Wilson. Pages: 291-313. Published online: 28 Oct 2022.
Grade level references in titles further suggested that educational technology research is being conducted at all levels but that it is most prominent at the higher education or post-secondary level and reduces in frequency as grade levels go down, with high school or secondary terms being more prominent than elementary or primary terms, with ...
The Journal of Research on Technology in Education (JRTE) is a premier source for high-quality, peer-reviewed research that defines the state of the art, and future horizons, of teaching and learning with technology. The terms "education" and "technology" are broadly defined. Education is inclusive of formal educational environments ranging ...
Overview. Educational Technology Research and Development is a scholarly journal focusing on research and development in educational technology. Publishes rigorous original quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods studies on topics relating to applications of technology or instructional design in educational settings.
slightly below average educational interventions, although the effect sizes ranged from -0.03 to 1.05. However, the landscape is complex. The heterogeneity of the research conducted to date makes it "difficult to identify clear and specific implications for educational practice in schools" (Higgins et al., 2012, p3).
In the new millennium, education is rapidly changing due to the more and more pervasive use of technology to support teaching and learning. New Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), such as internet, wikis, blogs, search engines, emails and instant messaging require new literacy frameworks and new contexts for learning and life. A digital approach to education implies pursuing new ...
Based on Table 6, it is apparent that the highest number of articles in the domain of digital technology in education research were published in Education and Information Technologies (47 articles ...
A similar relationship between length of treatment and study outcome has been reported in previous meta-analyses. Kulik et al. (1983), for example, reported an effect size of 0.56 for 4 weeks or less, 0.30 for 5-8 weeks, and 0.20 for more than 8 weeks.
Weller (2020) outlined the history of educational technology from 1994 by indicating one peak educational technology for each year. The 25 technologies on the list illustrate the coevolution of learning practices and technology, such as computer-mediated communication, constructivism, LMS, WEB 2.0, and MOOCs.
Like research titles, abstracts could provide data on the trends of research over time and the gaps in the field of study. The VOSviewer application identified 26,524 terms with 1041 meeting the threshold of terms occurring at least 10 times in the abstracts of the publications. ... Educational Technology Research & Development, 65, 555-575 ...
technology was introduced. One of the key findings in the literature on technology implementation is the power of. technology to engage students in relevant learning, in that the use of technology increases. student motivation and engagement (Godzicki, Godzicki, Krofel, & Michaels, 2013).
As a result, robust evidence regarding the added value of digital technology in educational settings is in short supply. A recently released UNESCO report on technology's use in education highlights the fact that educational technology products change every three years, on average. The lack of research is further evident in the report, which ...
This study set out to determine whether one to one technology (1:1 will be used hereafter) truly impacts and effects the academic achievement of students. This study's second goal was to determine whether 1:1 Technology also effects student motivation to learn. Data was gathered from students participating in this study through the Pearson ...
The impact of poverty on education. The use of student data to inform instruction. The role of parental involvement in education. The effects of mindfulness practices in the classroom. The use of technology in the classroom. The role of critical thinking in education.
The educational technology may be meaningful, but the resistance prevents them from exploring further opportunities for using the technology. ... The informational age is moving education from teacher centered to learner-centered supported with the integration of technology. Research exists on the success of specific technology platforms and on ...
In this editorial, we present trends and popular topics in educational technology for the year 2022. We used a similar public internet data mining approach (Kimmons & Veletsianos, 2018) to previous years (Kimmons, 2020; Kimmons et al., 2021; Kimmons & Rosenberg, 2022), extracting and analyzing data from three large data sources: the Scopus research article database, the Twitter #EdTech ...
Importance of technolog y in education. The role of technology in the field of education is four-. fold: it is included as a part of the curriculum, as an. instructional delivery system, as a ...
The U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology's new policy report, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning: Insights and Recommendations, addresses the clear need for sharing knowledge, engaging educators, and refining technology plans and policies for artificial intelligence (AI) use in education.The report describes AI as a rapidly-advancing set ...
Daniel G. Krutka is a dachshund enthusiast, former high school social studies teacher, and associate professor of social studies education at the University of North Texas. His research concerns technology, democracy, and education, and he is the cofounder of the Civics of Technology project (www.civicsoftechnology.org).
Get diverse tools in the hands of students and educators with minimal effort. Maintain all of your institution's tech from one place. Monitor info-sec, control access, and quickly make changes across your network using the centralized admin console.
Get Ready for the Next Great Education Technology at Tulane . Technology has transformed classrooms in 2024, from AI-driven music software to virtual reality, content-creation tools, and intelligent tutoring systems. ... demand well-trained educators who can expertly weigh their pros and cons and assess their efficacy based on available research.
2.1. Self-efficacy model. In the 21 st century technology integration signifies the importance in education for effective teaching and learning (Mtebe & Raphael, Citation 2018; Wright & Akgunduz, Citation 2018).One of the theories adopted in this paper is the extension of Social Cognitive Theory that is Bandura's Self-Efficacy Theory.
There's a widely accepted research consensus that educational technology, or ed-tech, can lead to positive learning outcomes—but only when the technology design and use are of high quality.
Introduction. Digital technologies have brought changes to the nature and scope of education. Versatile and disruptive technological innovations, such as smart devices, the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), blockchain, and software applications have opened up new opportunities for advancing teaching and learning (Gaol ...
The research results will be presented at the 2024 IEEE Symposium on VLSI Technology & Circuits, June 16-20 in Honolulu, USA. Okada remarks, "Notably, the world's highest wireless transmission rate of 640 Gbps is achieved using low-cost CMOS technology."
Professor Yi-Zhe Song, Co-director of the Institute for People-Centred AI, and SketchX lead, said: "This research is a prime example of how AI can enhance fundamental human activities like sketching.
This editorial continues to landscape the trends and popular educational technology topics for 2023. We used the public internet data mining approach from previous years (Allman et al., 2023b; Kimmons, 2020; Kimmons & Rosenberg, 2022; Kimmons et al., 2021).This year, we extracted and analyzed data from the Scopus research article database, K-12 school and district Facebook pages, and the open ...
Early School Success Dear Colleague Letter. In February 2024, the Department released the Early School Success Dear Colleague Letter, which provides details about how states and local leaders can ensure opportunities for all young learners to support early school success for all learners.The letter includes information about Title I, Title III, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Part ...