essay on digital study

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.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools' digital capacity and transformation: A literature review

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

Ourania Miliou

Yiannis dimitriadis.

2 Universidad de Valladolid (UVA), Spain, Valladolid, Spain

Sara Villagrá Sobrino

Nikoleta giannoutsou, romina cachia.

3 JRC - Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Seville, Spain

Alejandra Martínez Monés

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.

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 & 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.

Methodology

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

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.

Impacts of digital technologies on students’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, and emotions

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.

Impacts of digital technologies on equality, inclusion and social integration

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.

Impacts of digital technologies on teachers’ professional and teaching practices

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 ).

Impacts of digital technologies on other school-related aspects and stakeholders

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

Tools/platforms and practices/policies addressed in the meta-analyses, literature reviews, EU reports, and international bodies included in the manuscript

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.

Factors that affect the integration of digital technologies

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 ).

Digital competencies

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, training approaches, and professional development

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.

School leadership and management

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).

Connectivity, infrastructure, and government and other support

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 ).

Administration and digital data management

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 ).

Students’ socioeconomic background and family support

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 ).

Schools’ socioeconomic context and emergency situations

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.

Conclusions

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.

Study limitations and future directions

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.

Acknowledgements

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.

Data availability statement

Declarations.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Archer K, Savage R, Sanghera-Sidhu S, Wood E, Gottardo A, Chen V. Examining the effectiveness of technology use in classrooms: A tertiary meta-analysis. Computers & Education. 2014; 78 :140–149. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aromatario O, Van Hoye A, Vuillemin A, Foucaut AM, Pommier J, Cambon L. Using theory of change to develop an intervention theory for designing and evaluating behavior change SDApps for healthy eating and physical exercise: The OCAPREV theory. BMC Public Health. 2019; 19 (1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7828-4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arztmann, M., Hornstra, L., Jeuring, J., & Kester, L. (2022). Effects of games in STEM education: A meta-analysis on the moderating role of student background characteristics. Studies in Science Education , 1-37. 10.1080/03057267.2022.2057732
• Bado N. Game-based learning pedagogy: A review of the literature. Interactive Learning Environments. 2022; 30 (5):936–948. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2019.1683587. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Balanskat, A. (2009). Study of the impact of technology in primary schools – Synthesis Report. Empirica and European Schoolnet. Retrieved 30 June 2022 from: https://erte.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/Recursos/Estudos/synthesis_report_steps_en.pdf
• Balanskat, A. (2006). The ICT Impact Report: A review of studies of ICT impact on schools in Europe, European Schoolnet. Retrieved 30 June 2022 from:  https://en.unesco.org/icted/content/ict-impact-report-review-studies-ict-impact-schools-europe
• Balanskat, A., Blamire, R., & Kefala, S. (2006). The ICT impact report.  European Schoolnet . Retrieved from: http://colccti.colfinder.org/sites/default/files/ict_impact_report_0.pdf
• Balyer, A., & Öz, Ö. (2018). Academicians’ views on digital transformation in education. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 5 (4), 809–830. Retrieved 30 June 2022 from  http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/441/295
• Baragash RS, Al-Samarraie H, Moody L, Zaqout F. Augmented reality and functional skills acquisition among individuals with special needs: A meta-analysis of group design studies. Journal of Special Education Technology. 2022; 37 (1):74–81. doi: 10.1177/0162643420910413. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning . Open Educational Resources Collection . 6. Retrieved 30 June 2022 from: https://irl.umsl.edu/oer/6
• Bingimlas KA. Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2009; 5 (3):235–245. doi: 10.12973/ejmste/75275. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blaskó Z, Costa PD, Schnepf SV. Learning losses and educational inequalities in Europe: Mapping the potential consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of European Social Policy. 2022; 32 (4):361–375. doi: 10.1177/09589287221091687. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bocconi S, Lightfoot M. Scaling up and integrating the selfie tool for schools' digital capacity in education and training systems: Methodology and lessons learnt. European Training Foundation. 2021 doi: 10.2816/907029,JRC123936. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brooks, D. C., & McCormack, M. (2020). Driving Digital Transformation in Higher Education . Retrieved 30 June 2022 from: https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2020/6/dx2020.pdf?la=en&hash=28FB8C377B59AFB1855C225BBA8E3CFBB0A271DA
• Cachia, R., Chaudron, S., Di Gioia, R., Velicu, A., & Vuorikari, R. (2021). Emergency remote schooling during COVID-19, a closer look at European families. Retrieved 30 June 2022 from  https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC125787
• Çelik B. The effects of computer simulations on students’ science process skills: Literature review. Canadian Journal of Educational and Social Studies. 2022; 2 (1):16–28. doi: 10.53103/cjess.v2i1.17. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chapman, C., & Sammons, P. (2013). School Self-Evaluation for School Improvement: What Works and Why? . CfBT Education Trust. 60 Queens Road, Reading, RG1 4BS, England.
• Chauhan S. A meta-analysis of the impact of technology on learning effectiveness of elementary students. Computers & Education. 2017; 105 :14–30. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, Q., Chan, K. L., Guo, S., Chen, M., Lo, C. K. M., & Ip, P. (2022a). Effectiveness of digital health interventions in reducing bullying and cyberbullying: a meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 15248380221082090. 10.1177/15248380221082090 [ PubMed ]
• Chen B, Wang Y, Wang L. The effects of virtual reality-assisted language learning: A meta-analysis. Sustainability. 2022; 14 (6):3147. doi: 10.3390/su14063147. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheok ML, Wong SL. Predictors of e-learning satisfaction in teaching and learning for school teachers: A literature review. International Journal of Instruction. 2015; 8 (1):75–90. doi: 10.12973/iji.2015.816a. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2011). The Effectiveness of Education Technology for Enhancing Reading Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Center for Research and reform in Education .
• Coban, M., Bolat, Y. I., & Goksu, I. (2022). The potential of immersive virtual reality to enhance learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review , 100452. 10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100452
• Condie, R., & Munro, R. K. (2007). The impact of ICT in schools-a landscape review. Retrieved 30 June 2022 from: https://oei.org.ar/ibertic/evaluacion/sites/default/files/biblioteca/33_impact_ict_in_schools.pdf
• Conrads, J., Rasmussen, M., Winters, N., Geniet, A., Langer, L., (2017). Digital Education Policies in Europe and Beyond: Key Design Principles for More Effective Policies. Redecker, C., P. Kampylis, M. Bacigalupo, Y. Punie (ed.), EUR 29000 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 10.2760/462941
• Costa P, Castaño-Muñoz J, Kampylis P. Capturing schools’ digital capacity: Psychometric analyses of the SELFIE self-reflection tool. Computers & Education. 2021; 162 :104080. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104080. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cussó-Calabuig R, Farran XC, Bosch-Capblanch X. Effects of intensive use of computers in secondary school on gender differences in attitudes towards ICT: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies. 2018; 23 (5):2111–2139. doi: 10.1007/s10639-018-9706-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daniel SJ. Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects. 2020; 49 (1):91–96. doi: 10.1007/s11125-020-09464-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Delcker J, Ifenthaler D. Teachers’ perspective on school development at German vocational schools during the Covid-19 pandemic. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. 2021; 30 (1):125–139. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2020.1857826. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Delgado, A., Wardlow, L., O’Malley, K., & McKnight, K. (2015). Educational technology: A review of the integration, resources, and effectiveness of technology in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Information Technology Education Research , 14, 397. Retrieved 30 June 2022 from  http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol14/JITEv14ResearchP397-416Delgado1829.pdf
• De Silva MJ, Breuer E, Lee L, Asher L, Chowdhary N, Lund C, Patel V. Theory of change: A theory-driven approach to enhance the Medical Research Council's framework for complex interventions. Trials. 2014; 15 (1):1–13. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-267. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Di Pietro G, Biagi F, Costa P, Karpiński Z, Mazza J. The likely impact of COVID-19 on education: Reflections based on the existing literature and recent international datasets. Publications Office of the European Union; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elkordy A, Lovinelli J. Competencies, Culture, and Change: A Model for Digital Transformation in K12 Educational Contexts. In: Ifenthaler D, Hofhues S, Egloffstein M, Helbig C, editors. Digital Transformation of Learning Organizations. Springer; 2020. pp. 203–219. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eng TS. The impact of ICT on learning: A review of research. International Education Journal. 2005; 6 (5):635–650. [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission. (2020). Digital Education Action Plan 2021 – 2027. Resetting education and training for the digital age. Retrieved 30 June 2022 from  https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/default/files/document-library-docs/deap-communication-sept2020_en.pdf
• European Commission. (2019). 2 nd survey of schools: ICT in education. Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools . Retrieved 30 June 2022 from: https://data.europa.eu/euodp/data/storage/f/2019-03-19T084831/FinalreportObjective1-BenchmarkprogressinICTinschools.pdf
• Eurydice. (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe , Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved 30 June 2022 from: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/digital-education-school-europe_en
• Escueta, M., Quan, V., Nickow, A. J., & Oreopoulos, P. (2017). Education technology: An evidence-based review. Retrieved 30 June 2022 from  https://ssrn.com/abstract=3031695
• Fadda D, Pellegrini M, Vivanet G, Zandonella Callegher C. Effects of digital games on student motivation in mathematics: A meta-analysis in K-12. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2022; 38 (1):304–325. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12618. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernández-Gutiérrez M, Gimenez G, Calero J. Is the use of ICT in education leading to higher student outcomes? Analysis from the Spanish Autonomous Communities. Computers & Education. 2020; 157 :103969. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103969. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2011). Educational change through technology: A challenge for obligatory schooling in Europe. Lecture Notes in Computer Science , 6964 , 97–110. Retrieved 30 June 2022  https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-23985-4.pdf
• Fielding, K., & Murcia, K. (2022). Research linking digital technologies to young children’s creativity: An interpretive framework and systematic review. Issues in Educational Research , 32 (1), 105–125. Retrieved 30 June 2022 from  http://www.iier.org.au/iier32/fielding-abs.html
• Friedel, H., Bos, B., Lee, K., & Smith, S. (2013). The impact of mobile handheld digital devices on student learning: A literature review with meta-analysis. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3708–3717). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
• Fu JS. ICT in education: A critical literature review and its implications. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT) 2013; 9 (1):112–125. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaol FL, Prasolova-Førland E. Special section editorial: The frontiers of augmented and mixed reality in all levels of education. Education and Information Technologies. 2022; 27 (1):611–623. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10746-2. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garzón J, Acevedo J. Meta-analysis of the impact of Augmented Reality on students’ learning gains. Educational Research Review. 2019; 27 :244–260. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.04.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garzón, J., Baldiris, S., Gutiérrez, J., & Pavón, J. (2020). How do pedagogical approaches affect the impact of augmented reality on education? A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Educational Research Review , 100334. 10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100334
• Grgurović M, Chapelle CA, Shelley MC. A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL. 2013; 25 (2):165–198. doi: 10.1017/S0958344013000013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haßler B, Major L, Hennessy S. Tablet use in schools: A critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2016; 32 (2):139–156. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12123. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haleem A, Javaid M, Qadri MA, Suman R. Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers. 2022; 3 :275–285. doi: 10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hardman J. Towards a pedagogical model of teaching with ICTs for mathematics attainment in primary school: A review of studies 2008–2018. Heliyon. 2019; 5 (5):e01726. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01726. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hattie J, Rogers HJ, Swaminathan H. The role of meta-analysis in educational research. In: Reid AD, Hart P, Peters MA, editors. A companion to research in education. Springer; 2014. pp. 197–207. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hattie J. Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. 2008 doi: 10.4324/9780203887332. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins S, Xiao Z, Katsipataki M. The impact of digital technology on learning: A summary for the education endowment foundation. Education Endowment Foundation and Durham University; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins, K., Huscroft-D’Angelo, J., & Crawford, L. (2019). Effects of technology in mathematics on achievement, motivation, and attitude: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 57(2), 283-319.
• Hillmayr D, Ziernwald L, Reinhold F, Hofer SI, Reiss KM. The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis. Computers & Education. 2020; 153 (1038):97. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103897. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Istenic Starcic A, Bagon S. ICT-supported learning for inclusion of people with special needs: Review of seven educational technology journals, 1970–2011. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2014; 45 (2):202–230. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12086. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jewitt C, Clark W, Hadjithoma-Garstka C. The use of learning platforms to organise learning in English primary and secondary schools. Learning, Media and Technology. 2011; 36 (4):335–348. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2011.621955. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• JISC. (2020). What is digital transformation?.  Retrieved 30 June 2022 from: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/digital-strategy-framework-for-university-leaders/what-is-digital-transformation
• Kalati, A. T., & Kim, M. S. (2022). What is the effect of touchscreen technology on young children’s learning?: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies , 1-19. 10.1007/s10639-021-10816-5
• Kalemkuş, J., & Kalemkuş, F. (2022). Effect of the use of augmented reality applications on academic achievement of student in science education: Meta-analysis review. Interactive Learning Environments , 1-18. 10.1080/10494820.2022.2027458
• Kao C-W. The effects of digital game-based learning task in English as a foreign language contexts: A meta-analysis. Education Journal. 2014; 42 (2):113–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kampylis P, Punie Y, Devine J. Promoting effective digital-age learning - a European framework for digitally competent educational organisations. JRC Technical Reports. 2015 doi: 10.2791/54070. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kazu IY, Yalçin CK. Investigation of the effectiveness of hybrid learning on academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. International Journal of Progressive Education. 2022; 18 (1):249–265. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2022.426.14. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koh C. A qualitative meta-analysis on the use of serious games to support learners with intellectual and developmental disabilities: What we know, what we need to know and what we can do. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. 2022; 69 (3):919–950. doi: 10.1080/1034912X.2020.1746245. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• König J, Jäger-Biela DJ, Glutsch N. Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: Teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2020; 43 (4):608–622. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lawrence JE, Tar UA. Factors that influence teachers’ adoption and integration of ICT in teaching/learning process. Educational Media International. 2018; 55 (1):79–105. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2018.1439712. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, S., Kuo, L. J., Xu, Z., & Hu, X. (2020). The effects of technology-integrated classroom instruction on K-12 English language learners’ literacy development: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 1-32. 10.1080/09588221.2020.1774612
• Lei, H., Chiu, M. M., Wang, D., Wang, C., & Xie, T. (2022a). Effects of game-based learning on students’ achievement in science: a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research . 10.1177/07356331211064543
• Lei H, Wang C, Chiu MM, Chen S. Do educational games affect students' achievement emotions? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2022; 38 (4):946–959. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12664. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liao YKC, Chang HW, Chen YW. Effects of computer application on elementary school student's achievement: A meta-analysis of students in Taiwan. Computers in the Schools. 2007; 24 (3–4):43–64. doi: 10.1300/J025v24n03_04. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li Q, Ma X. A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review. 2010; 22 (3):215–243. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9125-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, M., Pang, W., Guo, J., & Zhang, Y. (2022). A meta-analysis of the effect of multimedia technology on creative performance. Education and Information Technologies , 1-28. 10.1007/s10639-022-10981-1
• Lu Z, Chiu MM, Cui Y, Mao W, Lei H. Effects of game-based learning on students’ computational thinking: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2022 doi: 10.1177/07356331221100740. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martinez L, Gimenes M, Lambert E. Entertainment video games for academic learning: A systematic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2022 doi: 10.1177/07356331211053848. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayne J. Useful theory of change models. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. 2015; 30 (2):119–142. doi: 10.3138/cjpe.230. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moran J, Ferdig RE, Pearson PD, Wardrop J, Blomeyer RL., Jr Technology and reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy and practice. Journal of Literacy Research. 2008; 40 (1):6–58. doi: 10.1080/10862960802070483. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD. (2015). Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection . PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from: 10.1787/9789264239555-en
• OECD. (2021). OECD Digital Education Outlook 2021: Pushing the Frontiers with Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/oecd-digital-education-outlook-2021_589b283f-en
• Pan Y, Ke F, Xu X. A systematic review of the role of learning games in fostering mathematics education in K-12 settings. Educational Research Review. 2022; 36 :100448. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100448. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pettersson F. Understanding digitalization and educational change in school by means of activity theory and the levels of learning concept. Education and Information Technologies. 2021; 26 (1):187–204. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10239-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pihir, I., Tomičić-Pupek, K., & Furjan, M. T. (2018). Digital transformation insights and trends. In Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems (pp. 141–149). Faculty of Organization and Informatics Varazdin. Retrieved 30 June 2022 from https://www.proquest.com/conference-papers-proceedings/digital-transformation-insights-trends/docview/2125639934/se-2
• Punie, Y., Zinnbauer, D., & Cabrera, M. (2006). A review of the impact of ICT on learning. Working Paper prepared for DG EAC. Retrieved 30 June 2022 from: http://www.eurosfaire.prd.fr/7pc/doc/1224678677_jrc47246n.pdf
• Quah CY, Ng KH. A systematic literature review on digital storytelling authoring tool in education: January 2010 to January 2020. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2022; 38 (9):851–867. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2021.1972608. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ran H, Kim NJ, Secada WG. A meta-analysis on the effects of technology's functions and roles on students' mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms. Journal of computer assisted learning. 2022; 38 (1):258–284. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12611. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ređep, N. B. (2021). Comparative overview of the digital preparedness of education systems in selected CEE countries. Center for Policy Studies. CEU Democracy Institute .
• Rott, B., & Marouane, C. (2018). Digitalization in schools–organization, collaboration and communication. In Digital Marketplaces Unleashed (pp. 113–124). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• Savva M, Higgins S, Beckmann N. Meta-analysis examining the effects of electronic storybooks on language and literacy outcomes for children in grades Pre-K to grade 2. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2022; 38 (2):526–564. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12623. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmid RF, Bernard RM, Borokhovski E, Tamim RM, Abrami PC, Surkes MA, Wade CA, Woods J. The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education. 2014; 72 :271–291. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.11.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schuele CM, Justice LM. The importance of effect sizes in the interpretation of research: Primer on research: Part 3. The ASHA Leader. 2006; 11 (10):14–27. doi: 10.1044/leader.FTR4.11102006.14. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwabe, A., Lind, F., Kosch, L., & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2022). No negative effects of reading on screen on comprehension of narrative texts compared to print: A meta-analysis. Media Psychology , 1-18. 10.1080/15213269.2022.2070216
• Sellar S. Data infrastructure: a review of expanding accountability systems and large-scale assessments in education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. 2015; 36 (5):765–777. doi: 10.1080/01596306.2014.931117. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stock WA. Systematic coding for research synthesis. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The handbook of research synthesis, 236. Russel Sage; 1994. pp. 125–138. [ Google Scholar ]
• Su, J., Zhong, Y., & Ng, D. T. K. (2022). A meta-review of literature on educational approaches for teaching AI at the K-12 levels in the Asia-Pacific region. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 100065. 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100065
• Su J, Yang W. Artificial intelligence in early childhood education: A scoping review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 2022; 3 :100049. doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100049. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sung YT, Chang KE, Liu TC. The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students' learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education. 2016; 94 :252–275. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Talan T, Doğan Y, Batdı V. Efficiency of digital and non-digital educational games: A comparative meta-analysis and a meta-thematic analysis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2020; 52 (4):474–514. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2020.1743798. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational research, 81 (1), 4–28. Retrieved 30 June 2022 from 10.3102/0034654310393361
• Tamim, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Pickup, D., Bernard, R. M., & El Saadi, L. (2015). Tablets for teaching and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved from: http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/handle/11599/1012/2015_Tamim-et-al_Tablets-for-Teaching-and-Learning.pdf
• Tang C, Mao S, Xing Z, Naumann S. Improving student creativity through digital technology products: A literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2022; 44 :101032. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101032. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tolani-Brown, N., McCormac, M., & Zimmermann, R. (2011). An analysis of the research and impact of ICT in education in developing country contexts. In ICTs and sustainable solutions for the digital divide: Theory and perspectives (pp. 218–242). IGI Global.
• Trucano, M. (2005). Knowledge Maps: ICTs in Education. Washington, DC: info Dev / World Bank. Retrieved 30 June 2022 from  https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496513.pdf
• Ulum H. The effects of online education on academic success: A meta-analysis study. Education and Information Technologies. 2022; 27 (1):429–450. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10740-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Underwood, J. D. (2009). The impact of digital technology: A review of the evidence of the impact of digital technologies on formal education. Retrieved 30 June 2022 from: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/10491
• Verschaffel, L., Depaepe, F., & Mevarech, Z. (2019). Learning Mathematics in metacognitively oriented ICT-Based learning environments: A systematic review of the literature. Education Research International , 2019 . 10.1155/2019/3402035
• Villena-Taranilla R, Tirado-Olivares S, Cózar-Gutiérrez R, González-Calero JA. Effects of virtual reality on learning outcomes in K-6 education: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review. 2022; 35 :100434. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100434. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Voogt J, Knezek G, Cox M, Knezek D, ten Brummelhuis A. Under which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A call to action. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2013; 29 (1):4–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00453.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vuorikari, R., Punie, Y., & Cabrera, M. (2020). Emerging technologies and the teaching profession: Ethical and pedagogical considerations based on near-future scenarios  (No. JRC120183). Joint Research Centre. Retrieved 30 June 2022 from: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC120183
• Wang LH, Chen B, Hwang GJ, Guan JQ, Wang YQ. Effects of digital game-based STEM education on students’ learning achievement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education. 2022; 9 (1):1–13. doi: 10.1186/s40594-022-00344-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wen X, Walters SM. The impact of technology on students’ writing performances in elementary classrooms: A meta-analysis. Computers and Education Open. 2022; 3 :100082. doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100082. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zheng B, Warschauer M, Lin CH, Chang C. Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research. 2016; 86 (4):1052–1084. doi: 10.3102/0034654316628645. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 12 February 2024

Education reform and change driven by digital technology: a bibliometric study from a global perspective

• Chengliang Wang 1 ,
• Xiaojiao Chen 1 ,
• Teng Yu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5198-7261 2 , 3 ,
• Yidan Liu 1 , 4 &
• Yuhui Jing 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  256 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

11 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Development studies
• Science, technology and society

Amidst the global digital transformation of educational institutions, digital technology has emerged as a significant area of interest among scholars. Such technologies have played an instrumental role in enhancing learner performance and improving the effectiveness of teaching and learning. These digital technologies also ensure the sustainability and stability of education during the epidemic. Despite this, a dearth of systematic reviews exists regarding the current state of digital technology application in education. To address this gap, this study utilized the Web of Science Core Collection as a data source (specifically selecting the high-quality SSCI and SCIE) and implemented a topic search by setting keywords, yielding 1849 initial publications. Furthermore, following the PRISMA guidelines, we refined the selection to 588 high-quality articles. Using software tools such as CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Charticulator, we reviewed these 588 publications to identify core authors (such as Selwyn, Henderson, Edwards), highly productive countries/regions (England, Australia, USA), key institutions (Monash University, Australian Catholic University), and crucial journals in the field ( Education and Information Technologies , Computers & Education , British Journal of Educational Technology ). Evolutionary analysis reveals four developmental periods in the research field of digital technology education application: the embryonic period, the preliminary development period, the key exploration, and the acceleration period of change. The study highlights the dual influence of technological factors and historical context on the research topic. Technology is a key factor in enabling education to transform and upgrade, and the context of the times is an important driving force in promoting the adoption of new technologies in the education system and the transformation and upgrading of education. Additionally, the study identifies three frontier hotspots in the field: physical education, digital transformation, and professional development under the promotion of digital technology. This study presents a clear framework for digital technology application in education, which can serve as a valuable reference for researchers and educational practitioners concerned with digital technology education application in theory and practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

A bibliometric analysis of knowledge mapping in Chinese education digitalization research from 2012 to 2022

Digital transformation and digital literacy in the context of complexity within higher education institutions: a systematic literature review

Education big data and learning analytics: a bibliometric analysis

Introduction.

Digital technology has become an essential component of modern education, facilitating the extension of temporal and spatial boundaries and enriching the pedagogical contexts (Selwyn and Facer, 2014 ). The advent of mobile communication technology has enabled learning through social media platforms (Szeto et al. 2015 ; Pires et al. 2022 ), while the advancement of augmented reality technology has disrupted traditional conceptions of learning environments and spaces (Perez-Sanagustin et al., 2014 ; Kyza and Georgiou, 2018 ). A wide range of digital technologies has enabled learning to become a norm in various settings, including the workplace (Sjöberg and Holmgren, 2021 ), home (Nazare et al. 2022 ), and online communities (Tang and Lam, 2014 ). Education is no longer limited to fixed locations and schedules, but has permeated all aspects of life, allowing learning to continue at any time and any place (Camilleri and Camilleri, 2016 ; Selwyn and Facer, 2014 ).

The advent of digital technology has led to the creation of several informal learning environments (Greenhow and Lewin, 2015 ) that exhibit divergent form, function, features, and patterns in comparison to conventional learning environments (Nygren et al. 2019 ). Consequently, the associated teaching and learning processes, as well as the strategies for the creation, dissemination, and acquisition of learning resources, have undergone a complete overhaul. The ensuing transformations have posed a myriad of novel issues, such as the optimal structuring of teaching methods by instructors and the adoption of appropriate learning strategies by students in the new digital technology environment. Consequently, an examination of the principles that underpin effective teaching and learning in this environment is a topic of significant interest to numerous scholars engaged in digital technology education research.

Over the course of the last two decades, digital technology has made significant strides in the field of education, notably in extending education time and space and creating novel educational contexts with sustainability. Despite research attempts to consolidate the application of digital technology in education, previous studies have only focused on specific aspects of digital technology, such as Pinto and Leite’s ( 2020 ) investigation into digital technology in higher education and Mustapha et al.’s ( 2021 ) examination of the role and value of digital technology in education during the pandemic. While these studies have provided valuable insights into the practical applications of digital technology in particular educational domains, they have not comprehensively explored the macro-mechanisms and internal logic of digital technology implementation in education. Additionally, these studies were conducted over a relatively brief period, making it challenging to gain a comprehensive understanding of the macro-dynamics and evolutionary process of digital technology in education. Some studies have provided an overview of digital education from an educational perspective but lack a precise understanding of technological advancement and change (Yang et al. 2022 ). Therefore, this study seeks to employ a systematic scientific approach to collate relevant research from 2000 to 2022, comprehend the internal logic and development trends of digital technology in education, and grasp the outstanding contribution of digital technology in promoting the sustainability of education in time and space. In summary, this study aims to address the following questions:

RQ1: Since the turn of the century, what is the productivity distribution of the field of digital technology education application research in terms of authorship, country/region, institutional and journal level?

RQ2: What is the development trend of research on the application of digital technology in education in the past two decades?

RQ3: What are the current frontiers of research on the application of digital technology in education?

Literature review

Although the term “digital technology” has become ubiquitous, a unified definition has yet to be agreed upon by scholars. Because the meaning of the word digital technology is closely related to the specific context. Within the educational research domain, Selwyn’s ( 2016 ) definition is widely favored by scholars (Pinto and Leite, 2020 ). Selwyn ( 2016 ) provides a comprehensive view of various concrete digital technologies and their applications in education through ten specific cases, such as immediate feedback in classes, orchestrating teaching, and community learning. Through these specific application scenarios, Selwyn ( 2016 ) argues that digital technology encompasses technologies associated with digital devices, including but not limited to tablets, smartphones, computers, and social media platforms (such as Facebook and YouTube). Furthermore, Further, the behavior of accessing the internet at any location through portable devices can be taken as an extension of the behavior of applying digital technology.

The evolving nature of digital technology has significant implications in the field of education. In the 1890s, the focus of digital technology in education was on comprehending the nuances of digital space, digital culture, and educational methodologies, with its connotations aligned more towards the idea of e-learning. The advent and subsequent widespread usage of mobile devices since the dawn of the new millennium have been instrumental in the rapid expansion of the concept of digital technology. Notably, mobile learning devices such as smartphones and tablets, along with social media platforms, have become integral components of digital technology (Conole and Alevizou, 2010 ; Batista et al. 2016 ). In recent times, the burgeoning application of AI technology in the education sector has played a vital role in enriching the digital technology lexicon (Banerjee et al. 2021 ). ChatGPT, for instance, is identified as a novel educational technology that has immense potential to revolutionize future education (Rospigliosi, 2023 ; Arif, Munaf and Ul-Haque, 2023 ).

Pinto and Leite ( 2020 ) conducted a comprehensive macroscopic survey of the use of digital technologies in the education sector and identified three distinct categories, namely technologies for assessment and feedback, mobile technologies, and Information Communication Technologies (ICT). This classification criterion is both macroscopic and highly condensed. In light of the established concept definitions of digital technology in the educational research literature, this study has adopted the characterizations of digital technology proposed by Selwyn ( 2016 ) and Pinto and Leite ( 2020 ) as crucial criteria for analysis and research inclusion. Specifically, this criterion encompasses several distinct types of digital technologies, including Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), Mobile tools, eXtended Reality (XR) Technologies, Assessment and Feedback systems, Learning Management Systems (LMS), Publish and Share tools, Collaborative systems, Social media, Interpersonal Communication tools, and Content Aggregation tools.

Methodology and materials

Research method: bibliometric.

The research on econometric properties has been present in various aspects of human production and life, yet systematic scientific theoretical guidance has been lacking, resulting in disorganization. In 1969, British scholar Pritchard ( 1969 ) proposed “bibliometrics,” which subsequently emerged as an independent discipline in scientific quantification research. Initially, Pritchard defined bibliometrics as “the application of mathematical and statistical methods to books and other media of communication,” however, the definition was not entirely rigorous. To remedy this, Hawkins ( 2001 ) expanded Pritchard’s definition to “the quantitative analysis of the bibliographic features of a body of literature.” De Bellis further clarified the objectives of bibliometrics, stating that it aims to analyze and identify patterns in literature, such as the most productive authors, institutions, countries, and journals in scientific disciplines, trends in literary production over time, and collaboration networks (De Bellis, 2009 ). According to Garfield ( 2006 ), bibliometric research enables the examination of the history and structure of a field, the flow of information within the field, the impact of journals, and the citation status of publications over a longer time scale. All of these definitions illustrate the unique role of bibliometrics as a research method for evaluating specific research fields.

This study uses CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Charticulator to analyze data and create visualizations. Each of these three tools has its own strengths and can complement each other. CiteSpace and VOSviewer use set theory and probability theory to provide various visualization views in fields such as keywords, co-occurrence, and co-authors. They are easy to use and produce visually appealing graphics (Chen, 2006 ; van Eck and Waltman, 2009 ) and are currently the two most widely used bibliometric tools in the field of visualization (Pan et al. 2018 ). In this study, VOSviewer provided the data necessary for the Performance Analysis; Charticulator was then used to redraw using the tabular data exported from VOSviewer (for creating the chord diagram of country collaboration); this was to complement the mapping process, while CiteSpace was primarily utilized to generate keyword maps and conduct burst word analysis.

Data retrieval

This study selected documents from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) in the Web of Science Core Collection as the data source, for the following reasons:

(1) The Web of Science Core Collection, as a high-quality digital literature resource database, has been widely accepted by many researchers and is currently considered the most suitable database for bibliometric analysis (Jing et al. 2023a ). Compared to other databases, Web of Science provides more comprehensive data information (Chen et al. 2022a ), and also provides data formats suitable for analysis using VOSviewer and CiteSpace (Gaviria-Marin et al. 2019 ).

(2) The application of digital technology in the field of education is an interdisciplinary research topic, involving technical knowledge literature belonging to the natural sciences and education-related literature belonging to the social sciences. Therefore, it is necessary to select Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) as the sources of research data, ensuring the comprehensiveness of data while ensuring the reliability and persuasiveness of bibliometric research (Hwang and Tsai, 2011 ; Wang et al. 2022 ).

After establishing the source of research data, it is necessary to determine a retrieval strategy (Jing et al. 2023b ). The choice of a retrieval strategy should consider a balance between the breadth and precision of the search formula. That is to say, it should encompass all the literature pertaining to the research topic while excluding irrelevant documents as much as possible. In light of this, this study has set a retrieval strategy informed by multiple related papers (Mustapha et al. 2021 ; Luo et al. 2021 ). The research by Mustapha et al. ( 2021 ) guided us in selecting keywords (“digital” AND “technolog*”) to target digital technology, while Luo et al. ( 2021 ) informed the selection of terms (such as “instruct*,” “teach*,” and “education”) to establish links with the field of education. Then, based on the current application of digital technology in the educational domain and the scope of selection criteria, we constructed the final retrieval strategy. Following the general patterns of past research (Jing et al. 2023a , 2023b ), we conducted a specific screening using the topic search (Topics, TS) function in Web of Science. For the specific criteria used in the screening for this study, please refer to Table 1 .

Literature screening

Literature acquired through keyword searches may contain ostensibly related yet actually unrelated works. Therefore, to ensure the close relevance of literature included in the analysis to the research topic, it is often necessary to perform a manual screening process to identify the final literature to be analyzed, subsequent to completing the initial literature search.

The manual screening process consists of two steps. Initially, irrelevant literature is weeded out based on the title and abstract, with two members of the research team involved in this phase. This stage lasted about one week, resulting in 1106 articles being retained. Subsequently, a comprehensive review of the full text is conducted to accurately identify the literature required for the study. To carry out the second phase of manual screening effectively and scientifically, and to minimize the potential for researcher bias, the research team established the inclusion criteria presented in Table 2 . Three members were engaged in this phase, which took approximately 2 weeks, culminating in the retention of 588 articles after meticulous screening. The entire screening process is depicted in Fig. 1 , adhering to the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al. 2021 ).

The process of obtaining and filtering the necessary literature data for research.

Data standardization

Nguyen and Hallinger ( 2020 ) pointed out that raw data extracted from scientific databases often contains multiple expressions of the same term, and not addressing these synonymous expressions could affect research results in bibliometric analysis. For instance, in the original data, the author list may include “Tsai, C. C.” and “Tsai, C.-C.”, while the keyword list may include “professional-development” and “professional development,” which often require merging. Therefore, before analyzing the selected literature, a data disambiguation process is necessary to standardize the data (Strotmann and Zhao, 2012 ; Van Eck and Waltman, 2019 ). This study adopted the data standardization process proposed by Taskin and Al ( 2019 ), mainly including the following standardization operations:

Firstly, the author and source fields in the data are corrected and standardized to differentiate authors with similar names.

Secondly, the study checks whether the journals to which the literature belongs have been renamed in the past over 20 years, so as to avoid the influence of periodical name change on the analysis results.

Finally, the keyword field is standardized by unifying parts of speech and singular/plural forms of keywords, which can help eliminate redundant entries in the knowledge graph.

Performance analysis (RQ1)

This section offers a thorough and detailed analysis of the state of research in the field of digital technology education. By utilizing descriptive statistics and visual maps, it provides a comprehensive overview of the development trends, authors, countries, institutions, and journal distribution within the field. The insights presented in this section are of great significance in advancing our understanding of the current state of research in this field and identifying areas for further investigation. The use of visual aids to display inter-country cooperation and the evolution of the field adds to the clarity and coherence of the analysis.

Time trend of the publications

To understand a research field, it is first necessary to understand the most basic quantitative information, among which the change in the number of publications per year best reflects the development trend of a research field. Figure 2 shows the distribution of publication dates.

Time trend of the publications on application of digital technology in education.

From the Fig. 2 , it can be seen that the development of this field over the past over 20 years can be roughly divided into three stages. The first stage was from 2000 to 2007, during which the number of publications was relatively low. Due to various factors such as technological maturity, the academic community did not pay widespread attention to the role of digital technology in expanding the scope of teaching and learning. The second stage was from 2008 to 2019, during which the overall number of publications showed an upward trend, and the development of the field entered an accelerated period, attracting more and more scholars’ attention. The third stage was from 2020 to 2022, during which the number of publications stabilized at around 100. During this period, the impact of the pandemic led to a large number of scholars focusing on the role of digital technology in education during the pandemic, and research on the application of digital technology in education became a core topic in social science research.

Analysis of authors

An analysis of the author’s publication volume provides information about the representative scholars and core research strengths of a research area. Table 3 presents information on the core authors in adaptive learning research, including name, publication number, and average number of citations per article (based on the analysis and statistics from VOSviewer).

Variations in research foci among scholars abound. Within the field of digital technology education application research over the past two decades, Neil Selwyn stands as the most productive author, having published 15 papers garnering a total of 1027 citations, resulting in an average of 68.47 citations per paper. As a Professor at the Faculty of Education at Monash University, Selwyn concentrates on exploring the application of digital technology in higher education contexts (Selwyn et al. 2021 ), as well as related products in higher education such as Coursera, edX, and Udacity MOOC platforms (Bulfin et al. 2014 ). Selwyn’s contributions to the educational sociology perspective include extensive research on the impact of digital technology on education, highlighting the spatiotemporal extension of educational processes and practices through technological means as the greatest value of educational technology (Selwyn, 2012 ; Selwyn and Facer, 2014 ). In addition, he provides a blueprint for the development of future schools in 2030 based on the present impact of digital technology on education (Selwyn et al. 2019 ). The second most productive author in this field, Henderson, also offers significant contributions to the understanding of the important value of digital technology in education, specifically in the higher education setting, with a focus on the impact of the pandemic (Henderson et al. 2015 ; Cohen et al. 2022 ). In contrast, Edwards’ research interests focus on early childhood education, particularly the application of digital technology in this context (Edwards, 2013 ; Bird and Edwards, 2015 ). Additionally, on the technical level, Edwards also mainly prefers digital game technology, because it is a digital technology that children are relatively easy to accept (Edwards, 2015 ).

Analysis of countries/regions and organization

The present study aimed to ascertain the leading countries in digital technology education application research by analyzing 75 countries related to 558 works of literature. Table 4 depicts the top ten countries that have contributed significantly to this field in terms of publication count (based on the analysis and statistics from VOSviewer). Our analysis of Table 4 data shows that England emerged as the most influential country/region, with 92 published papers and 2401 citations. Australia and the United States secured the second and third ranks, respectively, with 90 papers (2187 citations) and 70 papers (1331 citations) published. Geographically, most of the countries featured in the top ten publication volumes are situated in Australia, North America, and Europe, with China being the only exception. Notably, all these countries, except China, belong to the group of developed nations, suggesting that economic strength is a prerequisite for fostering research in the digital technology education application field.

This study presents a visual representation of the publication output and cooperation relationships among different countries in the field of digital technology education application research. Specifically, a chord diagram is employed to display the top 30 countries in terms of publication output, as depicted in Fig. 3 . The chord diagram is composed of nodes and chords, where the nodes are positioned as scattered points along the circumference, and the length of each node corresponds to the publication output, with longer lengths indicating higher publication output. The chords, on the other hand, represent the cooperation relationships between any two countries, and are weighted based on the degree of closeness of the cooperation, with wider chords indicating closer cooperation. Through the analysis of the cooperation relationships, the findings suggest that the main publishing countries in this field are engaged in cooperative relationships with each other, indicating a relatively high level of international academic exchange and research internationalization.

In the diagram, nodes are scattered along the circumference of a circle, with the length of each node representing the volume of publications. The weighted arcs connecting any two points on the circle are known as chords, representing the collaborative relationship between the two, with the width of the arc indicating the closeness of the collaboration.

Further analyzing Fig. 3 , we can extract more valuable information, enabling a deeper understanding of the connections between countries in the research field of digital technology in educational applications. It is evident that certain countries, such as the United States, China, and England, display thicker connections, indicating robust collaborative relationships in terms of productivity. These thicker lines signify substantial mutual contributions and shared objectives in certain sectors or fields, highlighting the interconnectedness and global integration in these areas. By delving deeper, we can also explore potential future collaboration opportunities through the chord diagram, identifying possible partners to propel research and development in this field. In essence, the chord diagram successfully encapsulates and conveys the multi-dimensionality of global productivity and cooperation, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the intricate inter-country relationships and networks in a global context, providing valuable guidance and insights for future research and collaborations.

An in-depth examination of the publishing institutions is provided in Table 5 , showcasing the foremost 10 institutions ranked by their publication volume. Notably, Monash University and Australian Catholic University, situated in Australia, have recorded the most prolific publications within the digital technology education application realm, with 22 and 10 publications respectively. Moreover, the University of Oslo from Norway is featured among the top 10 publishing institutions, with an impressive average citation count of 64 per publication. It is worth highlighting that six institutions based in the United Kingdom were also ranked within the top 10 publishing institutions, signifying their leading position in this area of research.

Analysis of journals

Journals are the main carriers for publishing high-quality papers. Some scholars point out that the two key factors to measure the influence of journals in the specified field are the number of articles published and the number of citations. The more papers published in a magazine and the more citations, the greater its influence (Dzikowski, 2018 ). Therefore, this study utilized VOSviewer to statistically analyze the top 10 journals with the most publications in the field of digital technology in education and calculated the average citations per article (see Table 6 ).

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), Computers & Education (34 articles), and British Journal of Educational Technology (32 articles), indicating a higher article output compared to other journals. This underscores the fact that these three journals concentrate more on the application of digital technology in education. Furthermore, several other journals, such as Technology Pedagogy and Education and Sustainability, have published more than 15 articles in this domain. Sustainability represents the open access movement, which has notably facilitated research progress in this field, indicating that the development of open access journals in recent years has had a significant impact. Although there is still considerable disagreement among scholars on the optimal approach to achieve open access, the notion that research outcomes should be accessible to all is widely recognized (Huang et al. 2020 ). On further analysis of the research fields to which these journals belong, except for Sustainability, it is evident that they all pertain to educational technology, thus providing a qualitative definition of the research area of digital technology education from the perspective of journals.

Temporal keyword analysis: thematic evolution (RQ2)

The evolution of research themes is a dynamic process, and previous studies have attempted to present the developmental trajectory of fields by drawing keyword networks in phases (Kumar et al. 2021 ; Chen et al. 2022b ). To understand the shifts in research topics across different periods, this study follows past research and, based on the significant changes in the research field and corresponding technological advancements during the outlined periods, divides the timeline into four stages (the first stage from January 2000 to December 2005, the second stage from January 2006 to December 2011, the third stage from January 2012 to December 2017; and the fourth stage from January 2018 to December 2022). The division into these four stages was determined through a combination of bibliometric analysis and literature review, which presented a clear trajectory of the field’s development. The research analyzes the keyword networks for each time period (as there are only three articles in the first stage, it was not possible to generate an appropriate keyword co-occurrence map, hence only the keyword co-occurrence maps from the second to the fourth stages are provided), to understand the evolutionary track of the digital technology education application research field over time.

2000.1–2005.12: germination period

From January 2000 to December 2005, digital technology education application research was in its infancy. Only three studies focused on digital technology, all of which were related to computers. Due to the popularity of computers, the home became a new learning environment, highlighting the important role of digital technology in expanding the scope of learning spaces (Sutherland et al. 2000 ). In specific disciplines and contexts, digital technology was first favored in medical clinical practice, becoming an important tool for supporting the learning of clinical knowledge and practice (Tegtmeyer et al. 2001 ; Durfee et al. 2003 ).

2006.1–2011.12: initial development period

Between January 2006 and December 2011, it was the initial development period of digital technology education research. Significant growth was observed in research related to digital technology, and discussions and theoretical analyses about “digital natives” emerged. During this phase, scholars focused on the debate about “how to use digital technology reasonably” and “whether current educational models and school curriculum design need to be adjusted on a large scale” (Bennett and Maton, 2010 ; Selwyn, 2009 ; Margaryan et al. 2011 ). These theoretical and speculative arguments provided a unique perspective on the impact of cognitive digital technology on education and teaching. As can be seen from the vocabulary such as “rethinking”, “disruptive pedagogy”, and “attitude” in Fig. 4 , many scholars joined the calm reflection and analysis under the trend of digital technology (Laurillard, 2008 ; Vratulis et al. 2011 ). During this phase, technology was still undergoing dramatic changes. The development of mobile technology had already caught the attention of many scholars (Wong et al. 2011 ), but digital technology represented by computers was still very active (Selwyn et al. 2011 ). The change in technological form would inevitably lead to educational transformation. Collins and Halverson ( 2010 ) summarized the prospects and challenges of using digital technology for learning and educational practices, believing that digital technology would bring a disruptive revolution to the education field and bring about a new educational system. In addition, the term “teacher education” in Fig. 4 reflects the impact of digital technology development on teachers. The rapid development of technology has widened the generation gap between teachers and students. To ensure smooth communication between teachers and students, teachers must keep up with the trend of technological development and establish a lifelong learning concept (Donnison, 2009 ).

In the diagram, each node represents a keyword, with the size of the node indicating the frequency of occurrence of the keyword. The connections represent the co-occurrence relationships between keywords, with a higher frequency of co-occurrence resulting in tighter connections.

2012.1–2017.12: critical exploration period

During the period spanning January 2012 to December 2017, the application of digital technology in education research underwent a significant exploration phase. As can be seen from Fig. 5 , different from the previous stage, the specific elements of specific digital technology have started to increase significantly, including the enrichment of technological contexts, the greater variety of research methods, and the diversification of learning modes. Moreover, the temporal and spatial dimensions of the learning environment were further de-emphasized, as noted in previous literature (Za et al. 2014 ). Given the rapidly accelerating pace of technological development, the education system in the digital era is in urgent need of collaborative evolution and reconstruction, as argued by Davis, Eickelmann, and Zaka ( 2013 ).

In the domain of digital technology, social media has garnered substantial scholarly attention as a promising avenue for learning, as noted by Pasquini and Evangelopoulos ( 2016 ). The implementation of social media in education presents several benefits, including the liberation of education from the restrictions of physical distance and time, as well as the erasure of conventional educational boundaries. The user-generated content (UGC) model in social media has emerged as a crucial source for knowledge creation and distribution, with the widespread adoption of mobile devices. Moreover, social networks have become an integral component of ubiquitous learning environments (Hwang et al. 2013 ). The utilization of social media allows individuals to function as both knowledge producers and recipients, which leads to a blurring of the conventional roles of learners and teachers. On mobile platforms, the roles of learners and teachers are not fixed, but instead interchangeable.

In terms of research methodology, the prevalence of empirical studies with survey designs in the field of educational technology during this period is evident from the vocabulary used, such as “achievement,” “acceptance,” “attitude,” and “ict.” in Fig. 5 . These studies aim to understand learners’ willingness to adopt and attitudes towards new technologies, and some seek to investigate the impact of digital technologies on learning outcomes through quasi-experimental designs (Domínguez et al. 2013 ). Among these empirical studies, mobile learning emerged as a hot topic, and this is not surprising. First, the advantages of mobile learning environments over traditional ones have been empirically demonstrated (Hwang et al. 2013 ). Second, learners born around the turn of the century have been heavily influenced by digital technologies and have developed their own learning styles that are more open to mobile devices as a means of learning. Consequently, analyzing mobile learning as a relatively novel mode of learning has become an important issue for scholars in the field of educational technology.

The intervention of technology has led to the emergence of several novel learning modes, with the blended learning model being the most representative one in the current phase. Blended learning, a novel concept introduced in the information age, emphasizes the integration of the benefits of traditional learning methods and online learning. This learning mode not only highlights the prominent role of teachers in guiding, inspiring, and monitoring the learning process but also underlines the importance of learners’ initiative, enthusiasm, and creativity in the learning process. Despite being an early conceptualization, blended learning’s meaning has been expanded by the widespread use of mobile technology and social media in education. The implementation of new technologies, particularly mobile devices, has resulted in the transformation of curriculum design and increased flexibility and autonomy in students’ learning processes (Trujillo Maza et al. 2016 ), rekindling scholarly attention to this learning mode. However, some scholars have raised concerns about the potential drawbacks of the blended learning model, such as its significant impact on the traditional teaching system, the lack of systematic coping strategies and relevant policies in several schools and regions (Moskal et al. 2013 ).

2018.1–2022.12: accelerated transformation period

The period spanning from January 2018 to December 2022 witnessed a rapid transformation in the application of digital technology in education research. The field of digital technology education research reached a peak period of publication, largely influenced by factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Yu et al. 2023 ). Research during this period was built upon the achievements, attitudes, and social media of the previous phase, and included more elements that reflect the characteristics of this research field, such as digital literacy, digital competence, and professional development, as depicted in Fig. 6 . Alongside this, scholars’ expectations for the value of digital technology have expanded, and the pursuit of improving learning efficiency and performance is no longer the sole focus. Some research now aims to cultivate learners’ motivation and enhance their self-efficacy by applying digital technology in a reasonable manner, as demonstrated by recent studies (Beardsley et al. 2021 ; Creely et al. 2021 ).

The COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as a crucial backdrop for the digital technology’s role in sustaining global education, as highlighted by recent scholarly research (Zhou et al. 2022 ; Pan and Zhang, 2020 ; Mo et al. 2022 ). The online learning environment, which is supported by digital technology, has become the primary battleground for global education (Yu, 2022 ). This social context has led to various studies being conducted, with some scholars positing that the pandemic has impacted the traditional teaching order while also expanding learning possibilities in terms of patterns and forms (Alabdulaziz, 2021 ). Furthermore, the pandemic has acted as a catalyst for teacher teaching and technological innovation, and this viewpoint has been empirically substantiated (Moorhouse and Wong, 2021 ). Additionally, some scholars believe that the pandemic’s push is a crucial driving force for the digital transformation of the education system, serving as an essential mechanism for overcoming the system’s inertia (Romero et al. 2021 ).

The rapid outbreak of the pandemic posed a challenge to the large-scale implementation of digital technologies, which was influenced by a complex interplay of subjective and objective factors. Objective constraints included the lack of infrastructure in some regions to support digital technologies, while subjective obstacles included psychological resistance among certain students and teachers (Moorhouse, 2021 ). These factors greatly impacted the progress of online learning during the pandemic. Additionally, Timotheou et al. ( 2023 ) conducted a comprehensive systematic review of existing research on digital technology use during the pandemic, highlighting the critical role played by various factors such as learners’ and teachers’ digital skills, teachers’ personal attributes and professional development, school leadership and management, and administration in facilitating the digitalization and transformation of schools.

The current stage of research is characterized by the pivotal term “digital literacy,” denoting a growing interest in learners’ attitudes and adoption of emerging technologies. Initially, the term “literacy” was restricted to fundamental abilities and knowledge associated with books and print materials (McMillan, 1996 ). However, with the swift advancement of computers and digital technology, there have been various attempts to broaden the scope of literacy beyond its traditional meaning, including game literacy (Buckingham and Burn, 2007 ), information literacy (Eisenberg, 2008 ), and media literacy (Turin and Friesem, 2020 ). Similarly, digital literacy has emerged as a crucial concept, and Gilster and Glister ( 1997 ) were the first to introduce this concept, referring to the proficiency in utilizing technology and processing digital information in academic, professional, and daily life settings. In practical educational settings, learners who possess higher digital literacy often exhibit an aptitude for quickly mastering digital devices and applying them intelligently to education and teaching (Yu, 2022 ).

The utilization of digital technology in education has undergone significant changes over the past two decades, and has been a crucial driver of educational reform with each new technological revolution. The impact of these changes on the underlying logic of digital technology education applications has been noticeable. From computer technology to more recent developments such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and artificial intelligence (AI), the acceleration in digital technology development has been ongoing. Educational reforms spurred by digital technology development continue to be dynamic, as each new digital innovation presents new possibilities and models for teaching practice. This is especially relevant in the post-pandemic era, where the importance of technological progress in supporting teaching cannot be overstated (Mughal et al. 2022 ). Existing digital technologies have already greatly expanded the dimensions of education in both time and space, while future digital technologies aim to expand learners’ perceptions. Researchers have highlighted the potential of integrated technology and immersive technology in the development of the educational metaverse, which is highly anticipated to create a new dimension for the teaching and learning environment, foster a new value system for the discipline of educational technology, and more effectively and efficiently achieve the grand educational blueprint of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (Zhang et al. 2022 ; Li and Yu, 2023 ).

Hotspot evolution analysis (RQ3)

The examination of keyword evolution reveals a consistent trend in the advancement of digital technology education application research. The emergence and transformation of keywords serve as indicators of the varying research interests in this field. Thus, the utilization of the burst detection function available in CiteSpace allowed for the identification of the top 10 burst words that exhibited a high level of burst strength. This outcome is illustrated in Table 7 .

According to the results presented in Table 7 , the explosive terminology within the realm of digital technology education research has exhibited a concentration mainly between the years 2018 and 2022. Prior to this time frame, the emerging keywords were limited to “information technology” and “computer”. Notably, among them, computer, as an emergent keyword, has always had a high explosive intensity from 2008 to 2018, which reflects the important position of computer in digital technology and is the main carrier of many digital technologies such as Learning Management Systems (LMS) and Assessment and Feedback systems (Barlovits et al. 2022 ).

Since 2018, an increasing number of research studies have focused on evaluating the capabilities of learners to accept, apply, and comprehend digital technologies. As indicated by the use of terms such as “digital literacy” and “digital skill,” the assessment of learners’ digital literacy has become a critical task. Scholarly efforts have been directed towards the development of literacy assessment tools and the implementation of empirical assessments. Furthermore, enhancing the digital literacy of both learners and educators has garnered significant attention. (Nagle, 2018 ; Yu, 2022 ). Simultaneously, given the widespread use of various digital technologies in different formal and informal learning settings, promoting learners’ digital skills has become a crucial objective for contemporary schools (Nygren et al. 2019 ; Forde and OBrien, 2022 ).

Since 2020, the field of applied research on digital technology education has witnessed the emergence of three new hotspots, all of which have been affected to some extent by the pandemic. Firstly, digital technology has been widely applied in physical education, which is one of the subjects that has been severely affected by the pandemic (Parris et al. 2022 ; Jiang and Ning, 2022 ). Secondly, digital transformation has become an important measure for most schools, especially higher education institutions, to cope with the impact of the pandemic globally (García-Morales et al. 2021 ). Although the concept of digital transformation was proposed earlier, the COVID-19 pandemic has greatly accelerated this transformation process. Educational institutions must carefully redesign their educational products to face this new situation, providing timely digital learning methods, environments, tools, and support systems that have far-reaching impacts on modern society (Krishnamurthy, 2020 ; Salas-Pilco et al. 2022 ). Moreover, the professional development of teachers has become a key mission of educational institutions in the post-pandemic era. Teachers need to have a certain level of digital literacy and be familiar with the tools and online teaching resources used in online teaching, which has become a research hotspot today. Organizing digital skills training for teachers to cope with the application of emerging technologies in education is an important issue for teacher professional development and lifelong learning (Garzón-Artacho et al. 2021 ). As the main organizers and practitioners of emergency remote teaching (ERT) during the pandemic, teachers must put cognitive effort into their professional development to ensure effective implementation of ERT (Romero-Hall and Jaramillo Cherrez, 2022 ).

The burst word “digital transformation” reveals that we are in the midst of an ongoing digital technology revolution. With the emergence of innovative digital technologies such as ChatGPT and Microsoft 365 Copilot, technology trends will continue to evolve, albeit unpredictably. While the impact of these advancements on school education remains uncertain, it is anticipated that the widespread integration of technology will significantly affect the current education system. Rejecting emerging technologies without careful consideration is unwise. Like any revolution, the technological revolution in the education field has both positive and negative aspects. Detractors argue that digital technology disrupts learning and memory (Baron, 2021 ) or causes learners to become addicted and distracted from learning (Selwyn and Aagaard, 2020 ). On the other hand, the prudent use of digital technology in education offers a glimpse of a golden age of open learning. Educational leaders and practitioners have the opportunity to leverage cutting-edge digital technologies to address current educational challenges and develop a rational path for the sustainable and healthy growth of education.

Discussion on performance analysis (RQ1)

The field of digital technology education application research has experienced substantial growth since the turn of the century, a phenomenon that is quantifiably apparent through an analysis of authorship, country/region contributions, and institutional engagement. This expansion reflects the increased integration of digital technologies in educational settings and the heightened scholarly interest in understanding and optimizing their use.

Discussion on authorship productivity in digital technology education research

The authorship distribution within digital technology education research is indicative of the field’s intellectual structure and depth. A primary figure in this domain is Neil Selwyn, whose substantial citation rate underscores the profound impact of his work. His focus on the implications of digital technology in higher education and educational sociology has proven to be seminal. Selwyn’s research trajectory, especially the exploration of spatiotemporal extensions of education through technology, provides valuable insights into the multifaceted role of digital tools in learning processes (Selwyn et al. 2019 ).

Other notable contributors, like Henderson and Edwards, present diversified research interests, such as the impact of digital technologies during the pandemic and their application in early childhood education, respectively. Their varied focuses highlight the breadth of digital technology education research, encompassing pedagogical innovation, technological adaptation, and policy development.

Discussion on country/region-level productivity and collaboration

At the country/region level, the United Kingdom, specifically England, emerges as a leading contributor with 92 published papers and a significant citation count. This is closely followed by Australia and the United States, indicating a strong English-speaking research axis. Such geographical concentration of scholarly output often correlates with investment in research and development, technological infrastructure, and the prevalence of higher education institutions engaging in cutting-edge research.

China’s notable inclusion as the only non-Western country among the top contributors to the field suggests a growing research capacity and interest in digital technology in education. However, the lower average citation per paper for China could reflect emerging engagement or different research focuses that may not yet have achieved the same international recognition as Western counterparts.

The chord diagram analysis furthers this understanding, revealing dense interconnections between countries like the United States, China, and England, which indicates robust collaborations. Such collaborations are fundamental in addressing global educational challenges and shaping international research agendas.

Discussion on institutional-level contributions to digital technology education

Institutional productivity in digital technology education research reveals a constellation of universities driving the field forward. Monash University and the Australian Catholic University have the highest publication output, signaling Australia’s significant role in advancing digital education research. The University of Oslo’s remarkable average citation count per publication indicates influential research contributions, potentially reflecting high-quality studies that resonate with the broader academic community.

The strong showing of UK institutions, including the University of London, The Open University, and the University of Cambridge, reinforces the UK’s prominence in this research field. Such institutions are often at the forefront of pedagogical innovation, benefiting from established research cultures and funding mechanisms that support sustained inquiry into digital education.

Discussion on journal publication analysis

An examination of journal outputs offers a lens into the communicative channels of the field’s knowledge base. Journals such as Education and Information Technologies , Computers & Education , and the British Journal of Educational Technology not only serve as the primary disseminators of research findings but also as indicators of research quality and relevance. The impact factor (IF) serves as a proxy for the quality and influence of these journals within the academic community.

The high citation counts for articles published in Computers & Education suggest that research disseminated through this medium has a wide-reaching impact and is of particular interest to the field. This is further evidenced by its significant IF of 11.182, indicating that the journal is a pivotal platform for seminal work in the application of digital technology in education.

The authorship, regional, and institutional productivity in the field of digital technology education application research collectively narrate the evolution of this domain since the turn of the century. The prominence of certain authors and countries underscores the importance of socioeconomic factors and existing academic infrastructure in fostering research productivity. Meanwhile, the centrality of specific journals as outlets for high-impact research emphasizes the role of academic publishing in shaping the research landscape.

As the field continues to grow, future research may benefit from leveraging the collaborative networks that have been elucidated through this analysis, perhaps focusing on underrepresented regions to broaden the scope and diversity of research. Furthermore, the stabilization of publication numbers in recent years invites a deeper exploration into potential plateaus in research trends or saturation in certain sub-fields, signaling an opportunity for novel inquiries and methodological innovations.

Discussion on the evolutionary trends (RQ2)

The evolution of the research field concerning the application of digital technology in education over the past two decades is a story of convergence, diversification, and transformation, shaped by rapid technological advancements and shifting educational paradigms.

At the turn of the century, the inception of digital technology in education was largely exploratory, with a focus on how emerging computer technologies could be harnessed to enhance traditional learning environments. Research from this early period was primarily descriptive, reflecting on the potential and challenges of incorporating digital tools into the educational setting. This phase was critical in establishing the fundamental discourse that would guide subsequent research, as it set the stage for understanding the scope and impact of digital technology in learning spaces (Wang et al. 2023 ).

As the first decade progressed, the narrative expanded to encompass the pedagogical implications of digital technologies. This was a period of conceptual debates, where terms like “digital natives” and “disruptive pedagogy” entered the academic lexicon, underscoring the growing acknowledgment of digital technology as a transformative force within education (Bennett and Maton, 2010 ). During this time, the research began to reflect a more nuanced understanding of the integration of technology, considering not only its potential to change where and how learning occurred but also its implications for educational equity and access.

In the second decade, with the maturation of internet connectivity and mobile technology, the focus of research shifted from theoretical speculations to empirical investigations. The proliferation of digital devices and the ubiquity of social media influenced how learners interacted with information and each other, prompting a surge in studies that sought to measure the impact of these tools on learning outcomes. The digital divide and issues related to digital literacy became central concerns, as scholars explored the varying capacities of students and educators to engage with technology effectively.

Throughout this period, there was an increasing emphasis on the individualization of learning experiences, facilitated by adaptive technologies that could cater to the unique needs and pacing of learners (Jing et al. 2023a ). This individualization was coupled with a growing recognition of the importance of collaborative learning, both online and offline, and the role of digital tools in supporting these processes. Blended learning models, which combined face-to-face instruction with online resources, emerged as a significant trend, advocating for a balance between traditional pedagogies and innovative digital strategies.

The later years, particularly marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, accelerated the necessity for digital technology in education, transforming it from a supplementary tool to an essential platform for delivering education globally (Mo et al. 2022 ; Mustapha et al. 2021 ). This era brought about an unprecedented focus on online learning environments, distance education, and virtual classrooms. Research became more granular, examining not just the pedagogical effectiveness of digital tools, but also their role in maintaining continuity of education during crises, their impact on teacher and student well-being, and their implications for the future of educational policy and infrastructure.

Across these two decades, the research field has seen a shift from examining digital technology as an external addition to the educational process, to viewing it as an integral component of curriculum design, instructional strategies, and even assessment methods. The emergent themes have broadened from a narrow focus on specific tools or platforms to include wider considerations such as data privacy, ethical use of technology, and the environmental impact of digital tools.

Moreover, the field has moved from considering the application of digital technology in education as a primarily cognitive endeavor to recognizing its role in facilitating socio-emotional learning, digital citizenship, and global competencies. Researchers have increasingly turned their attention to the ways in which technology can support collaborative skills, cultural understanding, and ethical reasoning within diverse student populations.

In summary, the past over twenty years in the research field of digital technology applications in education have been characterized by a progression from foundational inquiries to complex analyses of digital integration. This evolution has mirrored the trajectory of technology itself, from a facilitative tool to a pervasive ecosystem defining contemporary educational experiences. As we look to the future, the field is poised to delve into the implications of emerging technologies like AI, AR, and VR, and their potential to redefine the educational landscape even further. This ongoing metamorphosis suggests that the application of digital technology in education will continue to be a rich area of inquiry, demanding continual adaptation and forward-thinking from educators and researchers alike.

Discussion on the study of research hotspots (RQ3)

The analysis of keyword evolution in digital technology education application research elucidates the current frontiers in the field, reflecting a trajectory that is in tandem with the rapidly advancing digital age. This landscape is sculpted by emergent technological innovations and shaped by the demands of an increasingly digital society.

Interdisciplinary integration and pedagogical transformation

One of the frontiers identified from recent keyword bursts includes the integration of digital technology into diverse educational contexts, particularly noted with the keyword “physical education.” The digitalization of disciplines traditionally characterized by physical presence illustrates the pervasive reach of technology and signifies a push towards interdisciplinary integration where technology is not only a facilitator but also a transformative agent. This integration challenges educators to reconceptualize curriculum delivery to accommodate digital tools that can enhance or simulate the physical aspects of learning.

Digital literacy and skills acquisition

Another pivotal frontier is the focus on “digital literacy” and “digital skill”, which has intensified in recent years. This suggests a shift from mere access to technology towards a comprehensive understanding and utilization of digital tools. In this realm, the emphasis is not only on the ability to use technology but also on critical thinking, problem-solving, and the ethical use of digital resources (Yu, 2022 ). The acquisition of digital literacy is no longer an additive skill but a fundamental aspect of modern education, essential for navigating and contributing to the digital world.

Educational digital transformation

The keyword “digital transformation” marks a significant research frontier, emphasizing the systemic changes that education institutions must undergo to align with the digital era (Romero et al. 2021 ). This transformation includes the redesigning of learning environments, pedagogical strategies, and assessment methods to harness digital technology’s full potential. Research in this area explores the complexity of institutional change, addressing the infrastructural, cultural, and policy adjustments needed for a seamless digital transition.

Engagement and participation

Further exploration into “engagement” and “participation” underscores the importance of student-centered learning environments that are mediated by technology. The current frontiers examine how digital platforms can foster collaboration, inclusivity, and active learning, potentially leading to more meaningful and personalized educational experiences. Here, the use of technology seeks to support the emotional and cognitive aspects of learning, moving beyond the transactional view of education to one that is relational and interactive.

Professional development and teacher readiness

As the field evolves, “professional development” emerges as a crucial area, particularly in light of the pandemic which necessitated emergency remote teaching. The need for teacher readiness in a digital age is a pressing frontier, with research focusing on the competencies required for educators to effectively integrate technology into their teaching practices. This includes familiarity with digital tools, pedagogical innovation, and an ongoing commitment to personal and professional growth in the digital domain.

Pandemic as a catalyst

The recent pandemic has acted as a catalyst for accelerated research and application in this field, particularly in the domains of “digital transformation,” “professional development,” and “physical education.” This period has been a litmus test for the resilience and adaptability of educational systems to continue their operations in an emergency. Research has thus been directed at understanding how digital technologies can support not only continuity but also enhance the quality and reach of education in such contexts.

Ethical and societal considerations

The frontier of digital technology in education is also expanding to consider broader ethical and societal implications. This includes issues of digital equity, data privacy, and the sociocultural impact of technology on learning communities. The research explores how educational technology can be leveraged to address inequities and create more equitable learning opportunities for all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

Innovation and emerging technologies

Looking forward, the frontiers are set to be influenced by ongoing and future technological innovations, such as artificial intelligence (AI) (Wu and Yu, 2023 ; Chen et al. 2022a ). The exploration into how these technologies can be integrated into educational practices to create immersive and adaptive learning experiences represents a bold new chapter for the field.

In conclusion, the current frontiers of research on the application of digital technology in education are multifaceted and dynamic. They reflect an overarching movement towards deeper integration of technology in educational systems and pedagogical practices, where the goals are not only to facilitate learning but to redefine it. As these frontiers continue to expand and evolve, they will shape the educational landscape, requiring a concerted effort from researchers, educators, policymakers, and technologists to navigate the challenges and harness the opportunities presented by the digital revolution in education.

Conclusions and future research

Conclusions.

The utilization of digital technology in education is a research area that cuts across multiple technical and educational domains and continues to experience dynamic growth due to the continuous progress of technology. In this study, a systematic review of this field was conducted through bibliometric techniques to examine its development trajectory. The primary focus of the review was to investigate the leading contributors, productive national institutions, significant publications, and evolving development patterns. The study’s quantitative analysis resulted in several key conclusions that shed light on this research field’s current state and future prospects.

(1) The research field of digital technology education applications has entered a stage of rapid development, particularly in recent years due to the impact of the pandemic, resulting in a peak of publications. Within this field, several key authors (Selwyn, Henderson, Edwards, etc.) and countries/regions (England, Australia, USA, etc.) have emerged, who have made significant contributions. International exchanges in this field have become frequent, with a high degree of internationalization in academic research. Higher education institutions in the UK and Australia are the core productive forces in this field at the institutional level.

(2) Education and Information Technologies , Computers & Education , and the British Journal of Educational Technology are notable journals that publish research related to digital technology education applications. These journals are affiliated with the research field of educational technology and provide effective communication platforms for sharing digital technology education applications.

(3) Over the past two decades, research on digital technology education applications has progressed from its early stages of budding, initial development, and critical exploration to accelerated transformation, and it is currently approaching maturity. Technological progress and changes in the times have been key driving forces for educational transformation and innovation, and both have played important roles in promoting the continuous development of education.

(4) Influenced by the pandemic, three emerging frontiers have emerged in current research on digital technology education applications, which are physical education, digital transformation, and professional development under the promotion of digital technology. These frontier research hotspots reflect the core issues that the education system faces when encountering new technologies. The evolution of research hotspots shows that technology breakthroughs in education’s original boundaries of time and space create new challenges. The continuous self-renewal of education is achieved by solving one hotspot problem after another.

The present study offers significant practical implications for scholars and practitioners in the field of digital technology education applications. Firstly, it presents a well-defined framework of the existing research in this area, serving as a comprehensive guide for new entrants to the field and shedding light on the developmental trajectory of this research domain. Secondly, the study identifies several contemporary research hotspots, thus offering a valuable decision-making resource for scholars aiming to explore potential research directions. Thirdly, the study undertakes an exhaustive analysis of published literature to identify core journals in the field of digital technology education applications, with Sustainability being identified as a promising open access journal that publishes extensively on this topic. This finding can potentially facilitate scholars in selecting appropriate journals for their research outputs.

Limitation and future research

Influenced by some objective factors, this study also has some limitations. First of all, the bibliometrics analysis software has high standards for data. In order to ensure the quality and integrity of the collected data, the research only selects the periodical papers in SCIE and SSCI indexes, which are the core collection of Web of Science database, and excludes other databases, conference papers, editorials and other publications, which may ignore some scientific research and original opinions in the field of digital technology education and application research. In addition, although this study used professional software to carry out bibliometric analysis and obtained more objective quantitative data, the analysis and interpretation of data will inevitably have a certain subjective color, and the influence of subjectivity on data analysis cannot be completely avoided. As such, future research endeavors will broaden the scope of literature screening and proactively engage scholars in the field to gain objective and state-of-the-art insights, while minimizing the adverse impact of personal subjectivity on research analysis.

Data availability

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available in the Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/F9QMHY

Alabdulaziz MS (2021) COVID-19 and the use of digital technology in mathematics education. Educ Inf Technol 26(6):7609–7633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10602-3

Arif TB, Munaf U, Ul-Haque I (2023) The future of medical education and research: is ChatGPT a blessing or blight in disguise? Med Educ Online 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2181052

Banerjee M, Chiew D, Patel KT, Johns I, Chappell D, Linton N, Cole GD, Francis DP, Szram J, Ross J, Zaman S (2021) The impact of artificial intelligence on clinical education: perceptions of postgraduate trainee doctors in London (UK) and recommendations for trainers. BMC Med Educ 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02870-x

Barlovits S, Caldeira A, Fesakis G, Jablonski S, Koutsomanoli Filippaki D, Lázaro C, Ludwig M, Mammana MF, Moura A, Oehler DXK, Recio T, Taranto E, Volika S(2022) Adaptive, synchronous, and mobile online education: developing the ASYMPTOTE learning environment. Mathematics 10:1628. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10101628

Article   Google Scholar  

Baron NS(2021) Know what? How digital technologies undermine learning and remembering J Pragmat 175:27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.011

Batista J, Morais NS, Ramos F (2016) Researching the use of communication technologies in higher education institutions in Portugal. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0571-6.ch057

Beardsley M, Albó L, Aragón P, Hernández-Leo D (2021) Emergency education effects on teacher abilities and motivation to use digital technologies. Br J Educ Technol 52. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13101

Bennett S, Maton K(2010) Beyond the “digital natives” debate: towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences J Comput Assist Learn 26:321–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x

Buckingham D, Burn A (2007) Game literacy in theory and practice 16:323–349

Google Scholar  

Bulfin S, Pangrazio L, Selwyn N (2014) Making “MOOCs”: the construction of a new digital higher education within news media discourse. In: The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 15. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1856

Camilleri MA, Camilleri AC(2016) Digital learning resources and ubiquitous technologies in education Technol Knowl Learn 22:65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-016-9287-7

Chen C(2006) CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57:359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317

Chen J, Dai J, Zhu K, Xu L(2022) Effects of extended reality on language learning: a meta-analysis Front Psychol 13:1016519. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1016519

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chen J, Wang CL, Tang Y (2022b) Knowledge mapping of volunteer motivation: a bibliometric analysis and cross-cultural comparative study. Front Psychol 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.883150

Cohen A, Soffer T, Henderson M(2022) Students’ use of technology and their perceptions of its usefulness in higher education: International comparison J Comput Assist Learn 38(5):1321–1331. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12678

Collins A, Halverson R(2010) The second educational revolution: rethinking education in the age of technology J Comput Assist Learn 26:18–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00339.x

Conole G, Alevizou P (2010) A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in higher education. Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK: the Open University, retrieved 17 February

Creely E, Henriksen D, Crawford R, Henderson M(2021) Exploring creative risk-taking and productive failure in classroom practice. A case study of the perceived self-efficacy and agency of teachers at one school Think Ski Creat 42:100951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100951

Davis N, Eickelmann B, Zaka P(2013) Restructuring of educational systems in the digital age from a co-evolutionary perspective J Comput Assist Learn 29:438–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12032

De Belli N (2009) Bibliometrics and citation analysis: from the science citation index to cybermetrics, Scarecrow Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12032

Domínguez A, Saenz-de-Navarrete J, de-Marcos L, Fernández-Sanz L, Pagés C, Martínez-Herráiz JJ(2013) Gamifying learning experiences: practical implications and outcomes Comput Educ 63:380–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020

Donnison S (2009) Discourses in conflict: the relationship between Gen Y pre-service teachers, digital technologies and lifelong learning. Australasian J Educ Technol 25. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1138

Durfee SM, Jain S, Shaffer K (2003) Incorporating electronic media into medical student education. Acad Radiol 10:205–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80046-6

Dzikowski P(2018) A bibliometric analysis of born global firms J Bus Res 85:281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.054

van Eck NJ, Waltman L(2009) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping Scientometrics 84:523–538 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Edwards S(2013) Digital play in the early years: a contextual response to the problem of integrating technologies and play-based pedagogies in the early childhood curriculum Eur Early Child Educ Res J 21:199–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2013.789190

Edwards S(2015) New concepts of play and the problem of technology, digital media and popular-culture integration with play-based learning in early childhood education Technol Pedagogy Educ 25:513–532 https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2015.1108929

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Eisenberg MB(2008) Information literacy: essential skills for the information age DESIDOC J Libr Inf Technol 28:39–47. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.28.2.166

Forde C, OBrien A (2022) A literature review of barriers and opportunities presented by digitally enhanced practical skill teaching and learning in health science education. Med Educ Online 27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2022.2068210

García-Morales VJ, Garrido-Moreno A, Martín-Rojas R (2021) The transformation of higher education after the COVID disruption: emerging challenges in an online learning scenario. Front Psychol 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.616059

Garfield E(2006) The history and meaning of the journal impact factor JAMA 295:90. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Garzón-Artacho E, Sola-Martínez T, Romero-Rodríguez JM, Gómez-García G(2021) Teachers’ perceptions of digital competence at the lifelong learning stage Heliyon 7:e07513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07513

Gaviria-Marin M, Merigó JM, Baier-Fuentes H(2019) Knowledge management: a global examination based on bibliometric analysis Technol Forecast Soc Change 140:194–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.006

Gilster P, Glister P (1997) Digital literacy. Wiley Computer Pub, New York

Greenhow C, Lewin C(2015) Social media and education: reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning Learn Media Technol 41:6–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1064954

Hawkins DT(2001) Bibliometrics of electronic journals in information science Infor Res 7(1):7–1. http://informationr.net/ir/7-1/paper120.html

Henderson M, Selwyn N, Finger G, Aston R(2015) Students’ everyday engagement with digital technology in university: exploring patterns of use and “usefulness J High Educ Policy Manag 37:308–319 https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2015.1034424

Huang CK, Neylon C, Hosking R, Montgomery L, Wilson KS, Ozaygen A, Brookes-Kenworthy C (2020) Evaluating the impact of open access policies on research institutions. eLife 9. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.57067

Hwang GJ, Tsai CC(2011) Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: a review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010 Br J Educ Technol 42:E65–E70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01183.x

Hwang GJ, Wu PH, Zhuang YY, Huang YM(2013) Effects of the inquiry-based mobile learning model on the cognitive load and learning achievement of students Interact Learn Environ 21:338–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2011.575789

Jiang S, Ning CF (2022) Interactive communication in the process of physical education: are social media contributing to the improvement of physical training performance. Universal Access Inf Soc, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00911-w

Jing Y, Zhao L, Zhu KK, Wang H, Wang CL, Xia Q(2023) Research landscape of adaptive learning in education: a bibliometric study on research publications from 2000 to 2022 Sustainability 15:3115–3115. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043115

Jing Y, Wang CL, Chen Y, Wang H, Yu T, Shadiev R (2023b) Bibliometric mapping techniques in educational technology research: a systematic literature review. Educ Inf Technol 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12178-6

Krishnamurthy S (2020) The future of business education: a commentary in the shadow of the Covid-19 pandemic. J Bus Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.034

Kumar S, Lim WM, Pandey N, Christopher Westland J (2021) 20 years of electronic commerce research. Electron Commer Res 21:1–40

Kyza EA, Georgiou Y(2018) Scaffolding augmented reality inquiry learning: the design and investigation of the TraceReaders location-based, augmented reality platform Interact Learn Environ 27:211–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1458039

Laurillard D(2008) Technology enhanced learning as a tool for pedagogical innovation J Philos Educ 42:521–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00658.x

Li M, Yu Z (2023) A systematic review on the metaverse-based blended English learning. Front Psychol 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1087508

Luo H, Li G, Feng Q, Yang Y, Zuo M (2021) Virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: a systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2019. J Comput Assist Learn. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12538

Margaryan A, Littlejohn A, Vojt G(2011) Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies Comput Educ 56:429–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004

McMillan S(1996) Literacy and computer literacy: definitions and comparisons Comput Educ 27:161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1315(96)00026-7

Mo CY, Wang CL, Dai J, Jin P (2022) Video playback speed influence on learning effect from the perspective of personalized adaptive learning: a study based on cognitive load theory. Front Psychology 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.839982

Moorhouse BL (2021) Beginning teaching during COVID-19: newly qualified Hong Kong teachers’ preparedness for online teaching. Educ Stud 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.1964939

Moorhouse BL, Wong KM (2021) The COVID-19 Pandemic as a catalyst for teacher pedagogical and technological innovation and development: teachers’ perspectives. Asia Pac J Educ 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1988511

Moskal P, Dziuban C, Hartman J (2013) Blended learning: a dangerous idea? Internet High Educ 18:15–23

Mughal MY, Andleeb N, Khurram AFA, Ali MY, Aslam MS, Saleem MN (2022) Perceptions of teaching-learning force about Metaverse for education: a qualitative study. J. Positive School Psychol 6:1738–1745

Mustapha I, Thuy Van N, Shahverdi M, Qureshi MI, Khan N (2021) Effectiveness of digital technology in education during COVID-19 pandemic. a bibliometric analysis. Int J Interact Mob Technol 15:136

Nagle J (2018) Twitter, cyber-violence, and the need for a critical social media literacy in teacher education: a review of the literature. Teach Teach Education 76:86–94

Nazare J, Woolf A, Sysoev I, Ballinger S, Saveski M, Walker M, Roy D (2022) Technology-assisted coaching can increase engagement with learning technology at home and caregivers’ awareness of it. Comput Educ 188:104565

Nguyen UP, Hallinger P (2020) Assessing the distinctive contributions of simulation & gaming to the literature, 1970-2019: a bibliometric review. Simul Gaming 104687812094156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878120941569

Nygren H, Nissinen K, Hämäläinen R, Wever B(2019) Lifelong learning: formal, non-formal and informal learning in the context of the use of problem-solving skills in technology-rich environments Br J Educ Technol 50:1759–1770. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12807

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg 88:105906

Pan SL, Zhang S(2020) From fighting COVID-19 pandemic to tackling sustainable development goals: an opportunity for responsible information systems research Int J Inf Manage 55:102196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102196

Pan X, Yan E, Cui M, Hua W(2018) Examining the usage, citation, and diffusion patterns of bibliometric mapping software: a comparative study of three tools J Informetr 12:481–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.005

Parris Z, Cale L, Harris J, Casey A (2022) Physical activity for health, covid-19 and social media: what, where and why?. Movimento, 28. https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8918.122533

Pasquini LA, Evangelopoulos N (2016) Sociotechnical stewardship in higher education: a field study of social media policy documents. J Comput High Educ 29:218–239

Pérez-Sanagustín M, Hernández-Leo D, Santos P, Delgado Kloos C, Blat J(2014) Augmenting reality and formality of informal and non-formal settings to enhance blended learning IEEE Trans Learn Technol 7:118–131. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2014.2312719

Pinto M, Leite C (2020) Digital technologies in support of students learning in Higher Education: literature review. Digital Education Review 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2020.37.343-360

Pires F, Masanet MJ, Tomasena JM, Scolari CA(2022) Learning with YouTube: beyond formal and informal through new actors, strategies and affordances Convergence 28(3):838–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856521102054

Pritchard A (1969) Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics 25:348

Romero M, Romeu T, Guitert M, Baztán P (2021) Digital transformation in higher education: the UOC case. In ICERI2021 Proceedings (pp. 6695–6703). IATED https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2021.1512

Romero-Hall E, Jaramillo Cherrez N (2022) Teaching in times of disruption: faculty digital literacy in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2030782

Rospigliosi PA(2023) Artificial intelligence in teaching and learning: what questions should we ask of ChatGPT? Interactive Learning Environments 31:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2180191

Salas-Pilco SZ, Yang Y, Zhang Z(2022) Student engagement in online learning in Latin American higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Br J Educ Technol 53(3):593–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13190

Selwyn N(2009) The digital native-myth and reality In Aslib proceedings 61(4):364–379. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910973776

Selwyn N(2012) Making sense of young people, education and digital technology: the role of sociological theory Oxford Review of Education 38:81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.577949

Selwyn N, Facer K(2014) The sociology of education and digital technology: past, present and future Oxford Rev Educ 40:482–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2014.933005

Selwyn N, Banaji S, Hadjithoma-Garstka C, Clark W(2011) Providing a platform for parents? Exploring the nature of parental engagement with school Learning Platforms J Comput Assist Learn 27:314–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00428.x

Selwyn N, Aagaard J (2020) Banning mobile phones from classrooms-an opportunity to advance understandings of technology addiction, distraction and cyberbullying. Br J Educ Technol 52. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12943

Selwyn N, O’Neill C, Smith G, Andrejevic M, Gu X (2021) A necessary evil? The rise of online exam proctoring in Australian universities. Media Int Austr 1329878X2110058. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x211005862

Selwyn N, Pangrazio L, Nemorin S, Perrotta C (2019) What might the school of 2030 be like? An exercise in social science fiction. Learn, Media Technol 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1694944

Selwyn, N (2016) What works and why?* Understanding successful technology enabled learning within institutional contexts 2016 Final report Appendices (Part B). Monash University Griffith University

Sjöberg D, Holmgren R (2021) Informal workplace learning in swedish police education-a teacher perspective. Vocations and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-021-09267-3

Strotmann A, Zhao D (2012) Author name disambiguation: what difference does it make in author-based citation analysis? J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 63:1820–1833

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Sutherland R, Facer K, Furlong R, Furlong J(2000) A new environment for education? The computer in the home. Comput Educ 34:195–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1315(99)00045-7

Szeto E, Cheng AY-N, Hong J-C(2015) Learning with social media: how do preservice teachers integrate YouTube and Social Media in teaching? Asia-Pac Educ Res 25:35–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0230-9

Tang E, Lam C(2014) Building an effective online learning community (OLC) in blog-based teaching portfolios Int High Educ 20:79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.002

Taskin Z, Al U(2019) Natural language processing applications in library and information science Online Inf Rev 43:676–690. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-07-2018-0217

Tegtmeyer K, Ibsen L, Goldstein B(2001) Computer-assisted learning in critical care: from ENIAC to HAL Crit Care Med 29:N177–N182. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200108001-00006

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Timotheou S, Miliou O, Dimitriadis Y, Sobrino SV, Giannoutsou N, Cachia R, Moné AM, Ioannou A(2023) Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools' digital capacity and transformation: a literature review. Educ Inf Technol 28(6):6695–6726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8

Trujillo Maza EM, Gómez Lozano MT, Cardozo Alarcón AC, Moreno Zuluaga L, Gamba Fadul M (2016) Blended learning supported by digital technology and competency-based medical education: a case study of the social medicine course at the Universidad de los Andes, Colombia. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0027-9

Turin O, Friesem Y(2020) Is that media literacy?: Israeli and US media scholars’ perceptions of the field J Media Lit Educ 12:132–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2019) VOSviewer manual. Universiteit Leiden

Vratulis V, Clarke T, Hoban G, Erickson G(2011) Additive and disruptive pedagogies: the use of slowmation as an example of digital technology implementation Teach Teach Educ 27:1179–1188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.06.004

Wang CL, Dai J, Xu LJ (2022) Big data and data mining in education: a bibliometrics study from 2010 to 2022. In 2022 7th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data Analytics ( ICCCBDA ) (pp. 507-512). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icccbda55098.2022.9778874

Wang CL, Dai J, Zhu KK, Yu T, Gu XQ (2023) Understanding the continuance intention of college students toward new E-learning spaces based on an integrated model of the TAM and TTF. Int J Hum-Comput Int 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2291609

Wong L-H, Boticki I, Sun J, Looi C-K(2011) Improving the scaffolds of a mobile-assisted Chinese character forming game via a design-based research cycle Comput Hum Behav 27:1783–1793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.03.005

Wu R, Yu Z (2023) Do AI chatbots improve students learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Br J Educ Technol. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13334

Yang D, Zhou J, Shi D, Pan Q, Wang D, Chen X, Liu J (2022) Research status, hotspots, and evolutionary trends of global digital education via knowledge graph analysis. Sustainability 14:15157–15157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215157

Yu T, Dai J, Wang CL (2023) Adoption of blended learning: Chinese university students’ perspectives. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:390. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215157

Yu Z (2022) Sustaining student roles, digital literacy, learning achievements, and motivation in online learning environments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability 14:4388. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084388

Za S, Spagnoletti P, North-Samardzic A(2014) Organisational learning as an emerging process: the generative role of digital tools in informal learning practices Br J Educ Technol 45:1023–1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12211

Zhang X, Chen Y, Hu L, Wang Y (2022) The metaverse in education: definition, framework, features, potential applications, challenges, and future research topics. Front Psychol 13:1016300. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1016300

Zhou M, Dzingirai C, Hove K, Chitata T, Mugandani R (2022) Adoption, use and enhancement of virtual learning during COVID-19. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10985-x

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Social Science Planning Project, “Mechanisms and Pathways for Empowering Classroom Teaching through Learning Spaces under the Strategy of High-Quality Education Development”, the 2022 National Social Science Foundation Education Youth Project “Research on the Strategy of Creating Learning Space Value and Empowering Classroom Teaching under the background of ‘Double Reduction’” (Grant No. CCA220319) and the National College Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program of China (Grant No. 202310337023).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Educational Science and Technology, Zhejiang University of Technology, Zhejiang, China

Chengliang Wang, Xiaojiao Chen, Yidan Liu & Yuhui Jing

Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden, Malaysia

Department of Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Beihang University, Beijing, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: Y.J., C.W.; methodology, C.W.; software, C.W., Y.L.; writing-original draft preparation, C.W., Y.L.; writing-review and editing, T.Y., Y.L., C.W.; supervision, X.C., T.Y.; project administration, Y.J.; funding acquisition, X.C., Y.L. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors have read and approved the re-submission of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuhui Jing .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wang, C., Chen, X., Yu, T. et al. Education reform and change driven by digital technology: a bibliometric study from a global perspective. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 256 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02717-y

Download citation

Received : 11 July 2023

Accepted : 17 January 2024

Published : 12 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02717-y

Share this article

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

This article is cited by

A meta-analysis of learners’ continuance intention toward online education platforms.

• Chengliang Wang

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Technology for Learning: Digital Students Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Features that distinguish digital students from the previous generation ones.

• Why digital students are different from the previous generation of students

The digitalization of nearly every aspect of life, which started in the last quarter of the twentieth century, has had an impact on nearly every aspect of normal human life. The world today is on the verge of technology, and nearly all processes are being digitalized. For example, people are now using online banking, online booking of rooms and air tickets, online dating, and so forth.

The education sector has not been left behind since it is in this era that we have the online application of degree courses, e-learning facilities, and online studies, among other digitalized education services. Digitalization in the education fields has created a new class of learners known as digital students. With the increased use of technology in delivering educational services, most students in this era and age fall within this new breed of learners. This paper defines who the digital students are and outline the differences that exist between them and previous-generation counterparts.

Digital students can be defined as young adults who have been raised up in an environment where they enjoy active participation in technology as an everyday aspect of their lives (Shelly, Gunter, & Gunter, 2010, p. 15). The technology they are exposed to includes the daily use of computers in their studies and daily use of the internet and mobile phones. This paper defines digital students and explains why they are different from their previous generation colleagues.

This technology, in which these students are exposed to, is firmly embedded in their lives in that they cannot function normally without it. It forms part of their academic life as well as their social life, and most of them are well-versed in computer competency (Johnson & Maddux, 2003, p. 34). These students are known for taking advantage of the availability of email services, instant messaging, and text messaging and making use of the unlimited online resources in their studies (Daugherty & Russo, 2007, p. 105).

Digital students possess a strong desire for instantaneity and a strong will to control their environment and to channel their social aspect of life through the extensive use of technology. Exposure to technology makes them treat the internet and mobile phones as daily life tools (Jones & Madden, 2002, p. 34). Digital students normally use technology in communication, and this has led to the asynchronous form of communication that incorporates technology devices. These students also have a need and a strong desire to control their online and e-learning environments (Livingstone & Bovill, 2001, p. 43). This great desire to gain control is attributed to their high use of technology.

Why Digital Students are Different From the Previous Generation of Students

The major reasons why digital students are different from the previous generation ones are;

• Most of the digital students were born after 1980 when the digital world was more present and pervasive. Due to this fact, they grew up in an environment that was exposed to technology. The earlier generations lacked this privilege and did not have great technology savvy like their digital counterparts.
• Digital students are not only quick to learn, but also technology-dependent, and this makes them different from earlier generations. Their frequent use of technology makes them different, in terms of technological skills, from previous generations who are less likely to use technology and are therefore less digitally experienced.
• Digital students are able to use many digital technologies in their every day lives. In addition to this use, they have ready access to web-enabled personal computers and other personal digital devices like mobile phones. The previous generation lacked this use since, at such a time, technological inventions were not as advanced as they are nowadays.
• The previous generation students also tend to shun away from the use of these technological devices for fear of being perceived as outdated by the techno-savvy generation. This fear and lack of the desire to learn makes them different from the digital students, who are always open to learning and are ready to compete to be knowledgeable in terms of the latest technology.
• Being technology-dependent, digital students have higher access to new forms of technologically based educational materials (Pour, 2006, p. 713). They are quick in technology-related issues and will not hesitate to try out new ideas. The previous generations of students are not so, but on the contrary, they are more reserved.
• However, digital students include the generation of children who grew up with a mouse in their hand and a screen in front of their faces. Unfortunately, this generation lacked much experience in playing fields with fellow children. This lack denied them good socializing skills.

In conclusion, digital students are becoming the predominant type of learners in this era and age. The previous generation of students are either forced to embrace technology and teach themselves the required skills since the world is becoming more digitalized every day.

Daugherty, A., & Russo, M. F. (2007). Information literacy programs in the digital age: Educating College and University students online. New York, NY: Association of College & Research Libraries. Web.

Johnson, D. L., & Maddux, C. D. (2003). Technology in Education: A twenty-Year Retrospective. New York, NY: The Haworth Press. Web.

Jones, S,. & Madden, M. (2002). The internet goes to College: How students are living in the future with today’s technology. Web.

Livingstone, S., & Bovill, M. (2001). Children and their changing media environment: A European comparative study. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Web.

Pour, M. K. (2006). Emerging trends and challenges in information technology management. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Web.

Shelly, B., Gunter, G., & Gunter, R. (2010). Teachers discovering computers: Integrating technology and digital media in the classroom (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Web.

• Laptops of UAE Students: Preferred Brands
• Texting Effects on Students Academic Performance
• Digitalization of E-Commerce in Bank of Ireland
• Traditional Learning and E-Learning Differences
• Knowledge Management in e-Learning
• Digital Library and Mobile Learning
• IPads and Tablets vs. Books in English Learning
• Computer Architecture for a College Student
• Using Mobile Phones in Learning
• The Effect of Twitter on College Students
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, June 22). Technology for Learning: Digital Students. https://ivypanda.com/essays/technology-for-learning-digital-students/

"Technology for Learning: Digital Students." IvyPanda , 22 June 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/technology-for-learning-digital-students/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Technology for Learning: Digital Students'. 22 June.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Technology for Learning: Digital Students." June 22, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/technology-for-learning-digital-students/.

1. IvyPanda . "Technology for Learning: Digital Students." June 22, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/technology-for-learning-digital-students/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Technology for Learning: Digital Students." June 22, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/technology-for-learning-digital-students/.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• The Impact of Digital Tools on Student Writing and How Writing is Taught in Schools

Table of Contents

• Part I: Introduction
• Part II: How Much, and What, do Today’s Middle and High School Students Write?
• Part III: Teachers See Digital Tools Affecting Student Writing in Myriad Ways
• Part IV: Teachers Assess Students on Specific Writing Skills
• Part V: Teaching Writing in the Digital Age

A survey of 2,462 Advanced Placement (AP) and National Writing Project (NWP) teachers finds that digital technologies are shaping student writing in myriad ways and have also become helpful tools for teaching writing to middle and high school students.  These teachers see the internet and digital technologies such as social networking sites, cell phones and texting, generally facilitating teens’ personal expression and creativity, broadening the audience for their written material, and encouraging teens to write more often in more formats than may have been the case in prior generations.  At the same time, they describe the unique challenges of teaching writing in the digital age, including the “creep” of informal style into formal writing assignments and the need to better educate students about issues such as plagiarism and fair use.

The AP and NWP teachers surveyed see today’s digital tools having tangible, beneficial impacts on student writing

Overall, these AP and NWP teachers see digital technologies benefitting student writing in several ways:

• 96% agree (including 52% who strongly agree) that digital technologies “allow students to share their work with a wider and more varied audience”
• 79% agree (23% strongly agree) that these tools “encourage greater collaboration among students”
• 78% agree (26% strongly agree) that digital technologies “encourage student creativity and personal expression”

The combined effect of these impacts, according to this group of AP and NWP teachers, is a greater investment among students in what they write and greater engagement in the writing process.

At the same time, they worry that students’ use of digital tools is having some undesirable effects on their writing, including the “creep” of informal language and style into formal writing

In focus groups, these AP and NWP teachers shared some concerns and challenges they face teaching writing in today’s digital environment.  Among them are:

• an increasingly ambiguous line between “formal” and “informal” writing and the tendency of some students to use informal language and style in formal writing assignments
• the increasing need to educate students about writing for different audiences using different “voices” and “registers”
• the general cultural emphasis on truncated forms of expression, which some feel are hindering students willingness and ability to write longer texts and to think critically about complicated topics
• disparate access to and skill with digital tools among their students
• challenging the “digital tool as toy” approach many students develop in their introduction to digital tools as young children

Survey results reflect many of these concerns, though teachers are sometimes divided on the role digital tools play in these trends.  Specifically:

• 68% say that digital tools make students more likely—as opposed to less likely or having no impact—to take shortcuts and not put effort into their writing
• 46% say these tools make students more likely to “write too fast and be careless”
• Yet, while 40% say today’s digital technologies make students more likely to “use poor spelling and grammar” another 38% say they make students LESS likely to do this

Overall, these AP and NWP teachers give their students’ writing skills modest marks, and see areas that need attention

Asked to assess their students’ performance on nine specific writing skills, AP and NWP tended to rate their students “good” or “fair” as opposed to “excellent” or “very good.”  Students were given the best ratings on their ability to “effectively organize and structure writing assignments” with 24% of teachers describing their students as “excellent” or “very good” in this area. Students received similar ratings on their ability to “understand and consider multiple viewpoints on a particular topic or issue.”  But ratings were less positive for synthesizing material into a cohesive piece of work, using appropriate tone and style, and constructing a strong argument.

These AP and NWP teachers gave students the lowest ratings when it comes to “navigating issues of fair use and copyright in composition” and “reading and digesting long or complicated texts.”  On both measures, more than two-thirds of these teachers rated students “fair” or “poor.”

Majorities of these teachers incorporate lessons about fair use, copyright, plagiarism, and citation in their teaching to address students’ deficiencies in these areas

In addition to giving students low ratings on their understanding of fair use and copyright, a majority of AP and NWP teachers also say students are not performing well when it comes to “appropriately citing and/or referencing content” in their work.  This is fairly common concern among the teachers in the study, who note how easy it is for students today to copy and paste others’ work into their own and how difficult it often is to determine the actual source of much of the content they find online.  Reflecting how critical these teachers view these skills:

• 88% (across all subjects) spend class time “discussing with students the concepts of citation and plagiarism”
• 75% (across all subjects) spend class time “discussing with students the concepts of fair use and copyright”

A plurality of AP and NWP teachers across all subjects say digital tools make teaching writing easier

Despite some challenges, 50% of these teachers (across all subjects) say the internet and digital tools make it easier for them to teach writing, while just 18% say digital technologies make teaching writing more difficult.  The remaining 31% see no real impact.

Positive perceptions of the potential for digital tools to aid educators in teaching writing are reflected in practice:

• 52% of AP and NWP teachers say they or their students use interactive whiteboards in their classes
• 40% have students share their work on wikis, websites or blogs
• 36% have students edit or revise their own work and 29% have students edit others’ work using collaborative web-based tools such as GoogleDocs

In focus groups, teachers gave a multitude of examples of the value of these collaborative tools, not only in teaching more technical aspects of writing but also in being able to “see their students thinking” and work alongside students in the writing process.  Moreover, 56% say digital tools make their students more likely to write well because they can revise their work easily.

These middle and high school teachers continue to place tremendous value on “formal writing”

While they see writing forms and styles expanding in the digital world, AP and NWP teachers continue to place tremendous value on “formal writing” and try to use digital tools to impart fundamental writing skills they feel students need.  Nine in ten (92%) describe formal writing assignments as an ��essential” part of the learning process, and 91% say that “writing effectively” is an “essential” skill students need for future success.

More than half (58%) have students write short essays or responses on a weekly basis, and 77% assigned at least one research paper during the 2011-2012 academic year.  In addition, 41% of AP and NWP teachers have students write weekly journal entries, and 78% had their students create a multimedia or mixed media piece in the academic year prior to the survey.

Almost all AP and NWP teachers surveyed (94%) encourage students to do some of their writing by hand

Alongside the use of digital tools to promote better writing, almost all AP and NWP teachers surveyed say they encourage their students to do at least some writing by hand.  Their reasons are varied, but many teachers noted that because students are required to write by hand on standardized tests, it is a critical skill for them to have.  This is particularly true for AP teachers, who must prepare students to take AP exams with pencil and paper.  Other teachers say they feel students do more active thinking, synthesizing, and editing when writing by hand, and writing by hand discourages any temptation to copy and paste others’ work.

About this Study

The basics of the survey.

These are among the main findings of an online survey of a non-probability sample of 2,462 middle and high school teachers currently teaching in the U.S., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, conducted between March 7 and April 23, 2012.  Some 1,750 of the teachers are drawn from a sample of advanced placement (AP) high school teachers, while the remaining 712 are from a sample of National Writing Project teachers.  Survey findings are complemented by insights from a series of online and in-person focus groups with middle and high school teachers and students in grades 9-12, conducted between November, 2011 and February, 2012.

This particular sample is quite diverse geographically, by subject matter taught, and by school size and community characteristics.  But it skews towards educators who teach some of the most academically successful students in the country. Thus, the findings reported here reflect the realities of their special place in American education, and are not necessarily representative of all teachers in all schools. At the same time, these findings are especially powerful given that these teachers’ observations and judgments emerge from some of the nation’s most advanced classrooms.

In addition to the survey, Pew Internet conducted a series of online and offline focus groups with middle and high school teachers and some of their students and their voices are included in this report.

The study was designed to explore teachers’ views of the ways today’s digital environment is shaping the research and writing habits of middle and high school students, as well as teachers’ own technology use and their efforts to incorporate new digital tools into their classrooms.

About the data collection

Data collection was conducted in two phases.  In phase one, Pew Internet conducted two online and one in-person focus group with middle and high school teachers; focus group participants included Advanced Placement (AP) teachers, teachers who had participated in the National Writing Project’s Summer Institute (NWP), as well as teachers at a College Board school in the Northeast U.S.  Two in-person focus groups were also conducted with students in grades 9-12 from the same College Board school.   The goal of these discussions was to hear teachers and students talk about, in their own words, the different ways they feel digital technologies such as the internet, search engines, social media, and cell phones are shaping students’ research and writing habits and skills.  Teachers were asked to speak in depth about teaching research and writing to middle and high school students today, the challenges they encounter, and how they incorporate digital technologies into their classrooms and assignments.

Focus group discussions were instrumental in developing a 30-minute online survey, which was administered in phase two of the research to a national sample of middle and high school teachers.  The survey results reported here are based on a non-probability sample of 2,462 middle and high school teachers currently teaching in the U.S., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  Of these 2,462 teachers, 2,067 completed the entire survey; all percentages reported are based on those answering each question.  The sample is not a probability sample of all teachers because it was not practical to assemble a sampling frame of this population. Instead, two large lists of teachers were assembled: one included 42,879 AP teachers who had agreed to allow the College Board to contact them (about one-third of all AP teachers), while the other was a list of 5,869 teachers who participated in the National Writing Project’s Summer Institute during 2007-2011 and who were not already part of the AP sample. A stratified random sample of 16,721 AP teachers was drawn from the AP teacher list, based on subject taught, state, and grade level, while all members of the NWP list were included in the final sample.

The online survey was conducted from March 7–April 23, 2012.  More details on how the survey and focus groups were conducted are included in the Methodology section at the end of this report, along with focus group discussion guides and the survey instrument.

There are several important ways the teachers who participated in the survey are unique, which should be considered when interpreting the results reported here.  First, 95% of the teachers who participated in the survey teach in public schools, thus the findings reported here reflect that environment almost exclusively.  In addition, almost one-third of the sample (NWP Summer Institute teachers) has received extensive training in how to effectively teach writing in today’s digital environment.  The National Writing Project’s mission is to provide professional development, resources and support to teachers to improve the teaching of writing in today’s schools.   The NWP teachers included here are what the organization terms “teacher-consultants” who have attended the Summer Institute and provide local leadership to other teachers.  Research has shown significant gains in the writing performance of students who are taught by these teachers. 1

Moreover, the majority of teachers participating in the survey (56%) currently teach AP, honors, and/or accelerated courses, thus the population of middle and high school students they work with skews heavily toward the highest achievers.  These teachers and their students may have resources and support available to them—particularly in terms of specialized training and access to digital tools—that are not available in all educational settings.  Thus, the population of teachers participating in this research might best be considered “leading edge teachers” who are actively involved with the College Board and/or the National Writing Project and are therefore beneficiaries of resources and training not common to all teachers.  It is likely that teachers in this study are developing some of the more innovative pedagogical approaches to teaching research and writing in today’s digital environment, and are incorporating classroom technology in ways that are not typical of the entire population of middle and high school teachers in the U.S.  Survey findings represent the attitudes and behaviors of this particular group of teachers only, and are not representative of the entire population of U.S. middle and high school teachers.

Every effort was made to administer the survey to as broad a group of educators as possible from the sample files being used.  As a group, the 2,462 teachers participating in the survey comprise a wide range of subject areas, experience levels, geographic regions, school type and socioeconomic level, and community type (detailed sample characteristics are available in the Methods section of this report).  The sample includes teachers from all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  All teachers who participated in the survey teach in physical schools and classrooms, as opposed to teaching online or virtual courses.

English/language arts teachers make up a significant portion of the sample (36%), reflecting the intentional design of the study, but history, social science, math, science, foreign language, art, and music teachers are also represented.  About one in ten teachers participating in the survey are middle school teachers, while 91% currently teach grades 9-12.  There is wide distribution across school size and students’ socioeconomic status, though half of the teachers participating in the survey report teaching in a small city or suburb.  There is also a wide distribution in the age and experience levels of participating teachers.  The survey sample is 71% female.

About the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project

The Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project is one of seven projects that make up the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit “fact tank” that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. The Project produces reports exploring the impact of the internet on families, communities, work and home, daily life, education, health care, and civic and political life. The Pew Internet Project takes no positions on policy issues related to the internet or other communications technologies. It does not endorse technologies, industry sectors, companies, nonprofit organizations, or individuals. While we thank our research partners for their helpful guidance, the Pew Internet Project had full control over the design, implementation, analysis and writing of this survey and report.

About the National Writing Project

The National Writing Project (NWP) is a nationwide network of educators working together to improve the teaching of writing in the nation’s schools and in other settings. NWP provides high-quality professional development programs to teachers in a variety of disciplines and at all levels, from early childhood through university. Through its nearly 200 university-based sites serving all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, NWP develops the leadership, programs and research needed for teachers to help students become successful writers and learners. For more information, visit www.nwp.org .

• More specific information on this population of teachers, the training they receive, and the outcomes of their students are available at the National Writing Project website at www.nwp.org . ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Age & Generations
• Digital Divide
• Education & Learning Online
• Online Search
• Platforms & Services
• Teens & Tech
• Teens & Youth

U.S. adults under 30 have different foreign policy priorities than older adults

Across asia, respect for elders is seen as necessary to be ‘truly’ buddhist, teens and video games today, as biden and trump seek reelection, who are the oldest – and youngest – current world leaders, how teens and parents approach screen time, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Student Writing in the Digital Age

Essays filled with “LOL” and emojis? College student writing today actually is longer and contains no more errors than it did in 1917.

“Kids these days” laments are nothing new, but the substance of the lament changes. Lately, it has become fashionable to worry that “kids these days” will be unable to write complex, lengthy essays. After all, the logic goes, social media and text messaging reward short, abbreviated expression. Student writing will be similarly staccato, rushed, or even—horror of horrors—filled with LOL abbreviations and emojis.

In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. Students in first-year composition classes are, on average, writing longer essays (from an average of 162 words in 1917, to 422 words in 1986, to 1,038 words in 2006), using more complex rhetorical techniques, and making no more errors than those committed by freshman in 1917. That’s according to a longitudinal study of student writing by Andrea A. Lunsford and Karen J. Lunsford, “ Mistakes Are a Fact of Life: A National Comparative Study. ”

In 2006, two rhetoric and composition professors, Lunsford and Lunsford, decided, in reaction to government studies worrying that students’ literacy levels were declining, to crunch the numbers and determine if students were making more errors in the digital age.

They began by replicating previous studies of American college student errors. There were four similar studies over the past century. In 1917, a professor analyzed the errors in 198 college student papers; in 1930, researchers completed similar studies of 170 and 20,000 papers, respectively. In 1986, Robert Connors and Andrea Lunsford (of the 2006 study) decided to see if contemporary students were making more or fewer errors than those earlier studies showed, and analyzed 3,000 student papers from 1984. The 2006 study (published in 2008) follows the process of these earlier studies and was based on 877 papers (one of the most interesting sections of “Mistakes Are a Fact of Life” discusses how new IRB regulations forced researchers to work with far fewer papers than they had before.

Remarkably, the number of errors students made in their papers stayed consistent over the past 100 years. Students in 2006 committed roughly the same number of errors as students did in 1917. The average has stayed at about 2 errors per 100 words.

What has changed are the kinds of errors students make. The four 20th-century studies show that, when it came to making mistakes, spelling tripped up students the most. Spelling was by far the most common error in 1986 and 1917, “the most frequent student mistake by some 300 percent.” Going down the list of “top 10 errors,” the patterns shifted: Capitalization was the second most frequent error 1917; in 1986, that spot went to “no comma after introductory element.”

In 2006, spelling lost its prominence, dropping down the list of errors to number five.  Spell-check and similar word-processing tools are the undeniable cause. But spell-check creates new errors, too: The new number-one error in student writing is now “wrong word.” Spell-check, as most of us know, sometimes corrects spelling to a different word than intended; if the writing is not later proof-read, this computer-created error goes unnoticed. The second most common error in 2006 was “incomplete or missing documentation,” a result, the authors theorize, of a shift in college assignments toward research papers and away from personal essays.

Additionally, capitalization errors have increased, perhaps, as Lunsford and Lunsford note, because of neologisms like eBay and iPod. But students have also become much better at punctuation and apostrophes, which were the third and fifth most common errors in 1917. These had dropped off the top 10 list by 2006.

The study found no evidence for claims that kids are increasingly using “text speak” or emojis in their papers. Lunsford and Lunsford did not find a single such instance of this digital-era error. Ironically, they did find such text speak and emoticons in teachers’ comments to students. (Teachers these days?)

The most startling discovery Lunsford and Lunsford made had nothing to do with errors or emojis. They found that college students are writing much more and submitting much longer papers than ever. The average college essay in 2006 was more than double the length of the average 1986 paper, which was itself much longer than the average length of papers written earlier in the century. In 1917, student papers averaged 162 words; in 1930, the average was 231 words. By 1986, the average grew to 422 words. And just 20 years later, in 2006, it jumped to 1,038 words.

Why are 21st-century college students writing so much more? Computers allow students to write faster. (Other advances in writing technology may explain the upticks between 1917, 1930, and 1986. Ballpoint pens and manual and electric typewriters allowed students to write faster than inkwells or fountain pens.) The internet helps, too: Research shows that computers connected to the internet lead K-12 students to “conduct more background research for their writing; they write, revise, and publish more; they get more feedback on their writing; they write in a wider variety of genres and formats; and they produce higher quality writing.”

The digital revolution has been largely text-based. Over the course of an average day, Americans in 2006 wrote more than they did in 1986 (and in 2015 they wrote more than in 2006). New forms of written communication—texting, social media, and email—are often used instead of spoken ones—phone calls, meetings, and face-to-face discussions. With each text and Facebook update, students become more familiar with and adept at written expression. Today’s students have more experience with writing, and they practice it more than any group of college students in history.

Get Our Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

Privacy Policy   Contact Us You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking on the provided link on any marketing message.

In shifting from texting to writing their English papers, college students must become adept at code-switching, using one form of writing for certain purposes (gossiping with friends) and another for others (summarizing plots). As Kristen Hawley Turner writes in “ Flipping the Switch: Code-Switching from Text Speak to Standard English ,” students do know how to shift from informal to formal discourse, changing their writing as occasions demand. Just as we might speak differently to a supervisor than to a child, so too do students know that they should probably not use “conversely” in a text to a friend or “LOL” in their Shakespeare paper. “As digital natives who have had access to computer technology all of their lives, they often demonstrate in theses arenas proficiencies that the adults in their lives lack,” Turner writes. Instructors should “teach them to negotiate the technology-driven discourse within the confines of school language.”

Responses to Lunsford and Lunsford’s study focused on what the results revealed about mistakes in writing: Error is often in the eye of the beholder . Teachers mark some errors and neglect to mention (or find) others. And, as a pioneering scholar of this field wrote in the 1970s, context is key when analyzing error: Students who make mistakes are not “indifferent…or incapable” but “beginners and must, like all beginners, learn by making mistakes.”

College students are making mistakes, of course, and they have much to learn about writing. But they are not making more mistakes than did their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents. Since they now use writing to communicate with friends and family, they are more comfortable expressing themselves in words. Plus, most have access to technology that allows them to write faster than ever. If Lunsford and Lunsford’s findings about the average length of student papers stays true, today’s college students will graduate with more pages of completed prose to their name than any other generation.

If we want to worry about college student writing, then perhaps what we should attend to is not clipped, abbreviated writing, but overly verbose, rambling writing. It might be that editing skills—deciding what not to say, and what to delete—may be what most ails the kids these days.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

More Stories

• Astronomers Have Warned against Colonial Practices in the Space Industry

• Japanese Tourists at the Dancehall

Back to School

The Sovereignty of the Latter-day Saints

Recent posts.

• “Protecting Kids” from Gay Marriage
• Seeing Cannibals in the Enlightenment
• Like, It’s a History of Air Guitar, Dudes!

Support JSTOR Daily

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

April 11, 2013

15 min read

The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens

E-readers and tablets are becoming more popular as such technologies improve, but research suggests that reading on paper still boasts unique advantages

By Ferris Jabr

Getty Images

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

In a viral YouTube video from October 2011 a one-year-old girl sweeps her fingers across an iPad's touchscreen, shuffling groups of icons. In the following scenes she appears to pinch, swipe and prod the pages of paper magazines as though they too were screens. When nothing happens, she pushes against her leg, confirming that her finger works just fine—or so a title card would have us believe. The girl's father, Jean-Louis Constanza , presents "A Magazine Is an iPad That Does Not Work" as naturalistic observation—a Jane Goodall among the chimps moment—that reveals a generational transition. "Technology codes our minds," he writes in the video's description. "Magazines are now useless and impossible to understand, for digital natives"—that is, for people who have been interacting with digital technologies from a very early age. Perhaps his daughter really did expect the paper magazines to respond the same way an iPad would. Or maybe she had no expectations at all—maybe she just wanted to touch the magazines. Babies touch everything . Young children who have never seen a tablet like the iPad or an e-reader like the Kindle will still reach out and run their fingers across the pages of a paper book; they will jab at an illustration they like; heck, they will even taste the corner of a book. Today's so-called digital natives still interact with a mix of paper magazines and books, as well as tablets, smartphones and e-readers; using one kind of technology does not preclude them from understanding another. Nevertheless, the video brings into focus an important question: How exactly does the technology we use to read change the way we read? How reading on screens differs from reading on paper is relevant not just to the youngest among us , but to just about everyone who reads—to anyone who routinely switches between working long hours in front of a computer at the office and leisurely reading paper magazines and books at home; to people who have embraced e-readers for their convenience and portability, but admit that for some reason they still prefer reading on paper; and to those who have already vowed to forgo tree pulp entirely. As digital texts and technologies become more prevalent, we gain new and more mobile ways of reading—but are we still reading as attentively and thoroughly? How do our brains respond differently to onscreen text than to words on paper? Should we be worried about dividing our attention between pixels and ink or is the validity of such concerns paper-thin? Since at least the 1980s researchers in many different fields—including psychology, computer engineering, and library and information science—have investigated such questions in more than one hundred published studies. The matter is by no means settled. Before 1992 most studies concluded that people read slower, less accurately and less comprehensively on screens than on paper. Studies published since the early 1990s , however, have produced more inconsistent results: a slight majority has confirmed earlier conclusions, but almost as many have found few significant differences in reading speed or comprehension between paper and screens. And recent surveys suggest that although most people still prefer paper—especially when reading intensively—attitudes are changing as tablets and e-reading technology improve and reading digital books for facts and fun becomes more common. In the U.S., e-books currently make up between 15 and 20 percent of all trade book sales. Even so, evidence from laboratory experiments , polls and consumer reports indicates that modern screens and e-readers fail to adequately recreate certain tactile experiences of reading on paper that many people miss and, more importantly, prevent people from navigating long texts in an intuitive and satisfying way. In turn, such navigational difficulties may subtly inhibit reading comprehension. Compared with paper, screens may also drain more of our mental resources while we are reading and make it a little harder to remember what we read when we are done. A parallel line of research focuses on people's attitudes toward different kinds of media. Whether they realize it or not, many people approach computers and tablets with a state of mind less conducive to learning than the one they bring to paper.

"There is physicality in reading," says developmental psychologist and cognitive scientist Maryanne Wolf of Tufts University, "maybe even more than we want to think about as we lurch into digital reading—as we move forward perhaps with too little reflection. I would like to preserve the absolute best of older forms, but know when to use the new." Navigating textual landscapes Understanding how reading on paper is different from reading on screens requires some explanation of how the brain interprets written language. We often think of reading as a cerebral activity concerned with the abstract—with thoughts and ideas, tone and themes, metaphors and motifs. As far as our brains are concerned, however, text is a tangible part of the physical world we inhabit. In fact, the brain essentially regards letters as physical objects because it does not really have another way of understanding them. As Wolf explains in her book Proust and the Squid , we are not born with brain circuits dedicated to reading. After all, we did not invent writing until relatively recently in our evolutionary history, around the fourth millennium B.C. So the human brain improvises a brand-new circuit for reading by weaving together various regions of neural tissue devoted to other abilities, such as spoken language, motor coordination and vision. Some of these repurposed brain regions are specialized for object recognition —they are networks of neurons that help us instantly distinguish an apple from an orange, for example, yet classify both as fruit. Just as we learn that certain features—roundness, a twiggy stem, smooth skin—characterize an apple, we learn to recognize each letter by its particular arrangement of lines, curves and hollow spaces. Some of the earliest forms of writing, such as Sumerian cuneiform , began as characters shaped like the objects they represented —a person's head, an ear of barley, a fish. Some researchers see traces of these origins in modern alphabets: C as crescent moon, S as snake. Especially intricate characters—such as Chinese hanzi and Japanese kanji —activate motor regions in the brain involved in forming those characters on paper: The brain literally goes through the motions of writing when reading, even if the hands are empty. Researchers recently discovered that the same thing happens in a milder way when some people read cursive. Beyond treating individual letters as physical objects, the human brain may also perceive a text in its entirety as a kind of physical landscape. When we read, we construct a mental representation of the text in which meaning is anchored to structure. The exact nature of such representations remains unclear, but they are likely similar to the mental maps we create of terrain—such as mountains and trails—and of man-made physical spaces, such as apartments and offices. Both anecdotally and in published studies , people report that when trying to locate a particular piece of written information they often remember where in the text it appeared. We might recall that we passed the red farmhouse near the start of the trail before we started climbing uphill through the forest; in a similar way, we remember that we read about Mr. Darcy rebuffing Elizabeth Bennett on the bottom of the left-hand page in one of the earlier chapters. In most cases, paper books have more obvious topography than onscreen text. An open paperback presents a reader with two clearly defined domains—the left and right pages—and a total of eight corners with which to orient oneself. A reader can focus on a single page of a paper book without losing sight of the whole text: one can see where the book begins and ends and where one page is in relation to those borders. One can even feel the thickness of the pages read in one hand and pages to be read in the other. Turning the pages of a paper book is like leaving one footprint after another on the trail—there's a rhythm to it and a visible record of how far one has traveled. All these features not only make text in a paper book easily navigable, they also make it easier to form a coherent mental map of the text. In contrast, most screens, e-readers, smartphones and tablets interfere with intuitive navigation of a text and inhibit people from mapping the journey in their minds. A reader of digital text might scroll through a seamless stream of words, tap forward one page at a time or use the search function to immediately locate a particular phrase—but it is difficult to see any one passage in the context of the entire text. As an analogy, imagine if Google Maps allowed people to navigate street by individual street, as well as to teleport to any specific address, but prevented them from zooming out to see a neighborhood, state or country. Although e-readers like the Kindle and tablets like the iPad re-create pagination—sometimes complete with page numbers, headers and illustrations—the screen only displays a single virtual page: it is there and then it is gone. Instead of hiking the trail yourself, the trees, rocks and moss move past you in flashes with no trace of what came before and no way to see what lies ahead. "The implicit feel of where you are in a physical book turns out to be more important than we realized," says Abigail Sellen of Microsoft Research Cambridge in England and co-author of The Myth of the Paperless Office . "Only when you get an e-book do you start to miss it. I don't think e-book manufacturers have thought enough about how you might visualize where you are in a book." At least a few studies suggest that by limiting the way people navigate texts, screens impair comprehension. In a study published in January 2013 Anne Mangen of the University of Stavanger in Norway and her colleagues asked 72 10th-grade students of similar reading ability to study one narrative and one expository text, each about 1,500 words in length. Half the students read the texts on paper and half read them in pdf files on computers with 15-inch liquid-crystal display (LCD) monitors. Afterward, students completed reading-comprehension tests consisting of multiple-choice and short-answer questions, during which they had access to the texts. Students who read the texts on computers performed a little worse than students who read on paper. Based on observations during the study, Mangen thinks that students reading pdf files had a more difficult time finding particular information when referencing the texts. Volunteers on computers could only scroll or click through the pdfs one section at a time, whereas students reading on paper could hold the text in its entirety in their hands and quickly switch between different pages. Because of their easy navigability, paper books and documents may be better suited to absorption in a text. "The ease with which you can find out the beginning, end and everything inbetween and the constant connection to your path, your progress in the text, might be some way of making it less taxing cognitively, so you have more free capacity for comprehension," Mangen says. Supporting this research, surveys indicate that screens and e-readers interfere with two other important aspects of navigating texts: serendipity and a sense of control. People report that they enjoy flipping to a previous section of a paper book when a sentence surfaces a memory of something they read earlier, for example, or quickly scanning ahead on a whim. People also like to have as much control over a text as possible—to highlight with chemical ink, easily write notes to themselves in the margins as well as deform the paper however they choose. Because of these preferences—and because getting away from multipurpose screens improves concentration—people consistently say that when they really want to dive into a text, they read it on paper. In a 2011 survey of graduate students at National Taiwan University, the majority reported browsing a few paragraphs online before printing out the whole text for more in-depth reading. A 2008 survey of millennials (people born between 1980 and the early 2000s) at Salve Regina University in Rhode Island concluded that, "when it comes to reading a book, even they prefer good, old-fashioned print". And in a 2003 study conducted at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, nearly 80 percent of 687 surveyed students preferred to read text on paper as opposed to on a screen in order to "understand it with clarity". Surveys and consumer reports also suggest that the sensory experiences typically associated with reading—especially tactile experiences—matter to people more than one might assume. Text on a computer, an e-reader and—somewhat ironically—on any touch-screen device is far more intangible than text on paper. Whereas a paper book is made from pages of printed letters fixed in a particular arrangement, the text that appears on a screen is not part of the device's hardware—it is an ephemeral image. When reading a paper book, one can feel the paper and ink and smooth or fold a page with one's fingers; the pages make a distinctive sound when turned; and underlining or highlighting a sentence with ink permanently alters the paper's chemistry. So far, digital texts have not satisfyingly replicated this kind of tactility (although some companies are innovating, at least with keyboards ). Paper books also have an immediately discernible size, shape and weight. We might refer to a hardcover edition of War and Peace as a hefty tome or a paperback Heart of Darkness as a slim volume. In contrast, although a digital text has a length—which is sometimes represented with a scroll or progress bar—it has no obvious shape or thickness. An e-reader always weighs the same, regardless of whether you are reading Proust's magnum opus or one of Hemingway's short stories. Some researchers have found that these discrepancies create enough " haptic dissonance " to dissuade some people from using e-readers. People expect books to look, feel and even smell a certain way; when they do not, reading sometimes becomes less enjoyable or even unpleasant. For others, the convenience of a slim portable e-reader outweighs any attachment they might have to the feel of paper books. Exhaustive reading Although many old and recent studies conclude that people understand what they read on paper more thoroughly than what they read on screens, the differences are often small. Some experiments, however, suggest that researchers should look not just at immediate reading comprehension, but also at long-term memory. In a 2003 study Kate Garland of the University of Leicester and her colleagues asked 50 British college students to read study material from an introductory economics course either on a computer monitor or in a spiral-bound booklet. After 20 minutes of reading Garland and her colleagues quizzed the students with multiple-choice questions. Students scored equally well regardless of the medium, but differed in how they remembered the information. Psychologists distinguish between remembering something—which is to recall a piece of information along with contextual details, such as where, when and how one learned it—and knowing something, which is feeling that something is true without remembering how one learned the information. Generally, remembering is a weaker form of memory that is likely to fade unless it is converted into more stable, long-term memory that is "known" from then on. When taking the quiz, volunteers who had read study material on a monitor relied much more on remembering than on knowing, whereas students who read on paper depended equally on remembering and knowing. Garland and her colleagues think that students who read on paper learned the study material more thoroughly more quickly; they did not have to spend a lot of time searching their minds for information from the text, trying to trigger the right memory—they often just knew the answers. Other researchers have suggested that people comprehend less when they read on a screen because screen-based reading is more physically and mentally taxing than reading on paper. E-ink is easy on the eyes because it reflects ambient light just like a paper book, but computer screens, smartphones and tablets like the iPad shine light directly into people's faces. Depending on the model of the device, glare, pixilation and flickers can also tire the eyes. LCDs are certainly gentler on eyes than their predecessor, cathode-ray tubes (CRT), but prolonged reading on glossy self-illuminated screens can cause eyestrain, headaches and blurred vision. Such symptoms are so common among people who read on screens—affecting around 70 percent of people who work long hours in front of computers—that the American Optometric Association officially recognizes computer vision syndrome . Erik Wästlund of Karlstad University in Sweden has conducted some particularly rigorous research on whether paper or screens demand more physical and cognitive resources. In one of his experiments 72 volunteers completed the Higher Education Entrance Examination READ test—a 30-minute, Swedish-language reading-comprehension exam consisting of multiple-choice questions about five texts averaging 1,000 words each. People who took the test on a computer scored lower and reported higher levels of stress and tiredness than people who completed it on paper. In another set of experiments 82 volunteers completed the READ test on computers, either as a paginated document or as a continuous piece of text. Afterward researchers assessed the students' attention and working memory, which is a collection of mental talents that allow people to temporarily store and manipulate information in their minds. Volunteers had to quickly close a series of pop-up windows, for example, sort virtual cards or remember digits that flashed on a screen. Like many cognitive abilities, working memory is a finite resource that diminishes with exertion. Although people in both groups performed equally well on the READ test, those who had to scroll through the continuous text did not do as well on the attention and working-memory tests. Wästlund thinks that scrolling—which requires a reader to consciously focus on both the text and how they are moving it—drains more mental resources than turning or clicking a page, which are simpler and more automatic gestures. A 2004 study conducted at the University of Central Florida reached similar conclusions. Attitude adjustments An emerging collection of studies emphasizes that in addition to screens possibly taxing people's attention more than paper, people do not always bring as much mental effort to screens in the first place. Subconsciously, many people may think of reading on a computer or tablet as a less serious affair than reading on paper. Based on a detailed 2005 survey of 113 people in northern California, Ziming Liu of San Jose State University concluded that people reading on screens take a lot of shortcuts—they spend more time browsing, scanning and hunting for keywords compared with people reading on paper, and are more likely to read a document once, and only once. When reading on screens, people seem less inclined to engage in what psychologists call metacognitive learning regulation—strategies such as setting specific goals, rereading difficult sections and checking how much one has understood along the way. In a 2011 experiment at the Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, college students took multiple-choice exams about expository texts either on computers or on paper. Researchers limited half the volunteers to a meager seven minutes of study time; the other half could review the text for as long as they liked. When under pressure to read quickly, students using computers and paper performed equally well. When managing their own study time, however, volunteers using paper scored about 10 percentage points higher. Presumably, students using paper approached the exam with a more studious frame of mind than their screen-reading peers, and more effectively directed their attention and working memory. Perhaps, then, any discrepancies in reading comprehension between paper and screens will shrink as people's attitudes continue to change. The star of "A Magazine Is an iPad That Does Not Work" is three-and-a-half years old today and no longer interacts with paper magazines as though they were touchscreens, her father says. Perhaps she and her peers will grow up without the subtle bias against screens that seems to lurk in the minds of older generations. In current research for Microsoft, Sellen has learned that many people do not feel much ownership of e-books because of their impermanence and intangibility: "They think of using an e-book, not owning an e-book," she says. Participants in her studies say that when they really like an electronic book, they go out and get the paper version. This reminds Sellen of people's early opinions of digital music, which she has also studied. Despite initial resistance, people love curating, organizing and sharing digital music today. Attitudes toward e-books may transition in a similar way, especially if e-readers and tablets allow more sharing and social interaction than they currently do. Books on the Kindle can only be loaned once , for example. To date, many engineers, designers and user-interface experts have worked hard to make reading on an e-reader or tablet as close to reading on paper as possible. E-ink resembles chemical ink and the simple layout of the Kindle's screen looks like a page in a paperback. Likewise, Apple's iBooks attempts to simulate the overall aesthetic of paper books, including somewhat realistic page-turning. Jaejeung Kim of KAIST Institute of Information Technology Convergence in South Korea and his colleagues have designed an innovative and unreleased interface that makes iBooks seem primitive. When using their interface, one can see the many individual pages one has read on the left side of the tablet and all the unread pages on the right side, as if holding a paperback in one's hands. A reader can also flip bundles of pages at a time with a flick of a finger. But why, one could ask, are we working so hard to make reading with new technologies like tablets and e-readers so similar to the experience of reading on the very ancient technology that is paper? Why not keep paper and evolve screen-based reading into something else entirely? Screens obviously offer readers experiences that paper cannot. Scrolling may not be the ideal way to navigate a text as long and dense as Moby Dick , but the New York Times , Washington Post , ESPN and other media outlets have created beautiful, highly visual articles that depend entirely on scrolling and could not appear in print in the same way. Some Web comics and infographics turn scrolling into a strength rather than a weakness. Similarly, Robin Sloan has pioneered the tap essay for mobile devices. The immensely popular interactive Scale of the Universe tool could not have been made on paper in any practical way. New e-publishing companies like Atavist offer tablet readers long-form journalism with embedded interactive graphics, maps, timelines, animations and sound tracks. And some writers are pairing up with computer programmers to produce ever more sophisticated interactive fiction and nonfiction in which one's choices determine what one reads, hears and sees next. When it comes to intensively reading long pieces of plain text, paper and ink may still have the advantage. But text is not the only way to read.

Development of a digital literacy measurement tool for middle and high school students in the context of scientific practice

• Open access
• Published: 31 August 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Mihyun Son   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0093-305X 1 &
• Minsu Ha   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3087-3833 2  

Digital literacy is essential for scientific literacy in a digital world. Although the NGSS Practices include many activities that require digital literacy, most studies have examined digital literacy from a generic perspective rather than a curricular context. This study aimed to develop a self-report tool to measure elements of digital literacy among middle and high school students in the context of science practice. Using Messick's validity framework, Rasch analysis was conducted to ensure the tool's validity. Initial items were developed from the NGSS, KSES, and other countries' curricula and related research literature. The final 38 items were expertly reviewed by scientists and applied to 1194 students for statistical analysis. The results indicated that the tool could be divided into five dimensions of digital literacy in the context of science practice: collecting and recording data, analyzing and interpreting (statistics), analyzing and interpreting (tools), generating conclusions, and sharing and presenting. Item fit and reliability were analyzed. The study found that most items did not show significant gender or school level differences, but scores increased with grade level. Boys tended to perform better than girls, and this difference did not change with grade level. Analysis and Interpretation (Tools) showed the largest differences across school levels. The developed measurement tool suggests that digital literacy in the context of science practice is distinct from generic digital literacy, requiring a multi-contextual approach to teaching. Furthermore, the gender gap was evident in all areas and did not decrease with higher school levels, particularly in STEM-related items like math and computational languages, indicating a need for focused education for girls. The tool developed in this study can serve as a baseline for teachers to identify students' levels and for students to set learning goals. It provides information on how digital literacy can be taught within a curricular context.

Similar content being viewed by others

Development and validation of an instrument for assessing scientific literacy from junior to senior high school

Understanding science data literacy: a conceptual framework and assessment tool for college students majoring in STEM

Digital Literacy Among Students of Pedagogical Faculties in Poland—A Systematic Literature Analysis

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Fostering scientific literacy is one of the most important goals of science education, and scientific literacy has been defined in various ways. Scientific literacy is sometimes described as the ability to use evidence and data to evaluate the quality of scientific information and claims presented by scientists and the media (NRC, 1996 ), or as the ability to understand and make decisions about changes in the world by drawing evidence-based conclusions using scientific knowledge (AAAS, 1993 ). The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which can be considered a representative guideline for the direction of science education in the United States, also mentions scientific literacy in terms of students' understanding of scientific concepts, evaluation of scientific claims based on evidence, and participation in scientific practices (NRC, 2013 ). In this way, scientific literacy is the most fundamental competency for understanding the world and for continuous scientific engagement. In this context, digital literacy is essential for fostering scientific literacy in the digital world (Demirbag & Bahcivan, 2021 ; Mason et al., 2010 ; Walraven et al., 2009 ).

Korean science education research also emphasizes digital literacy in the context of scientific practices. The Korean Science Education Standards (KSES) divides scientific literacy into three dimensions: competences dimension, knowledge dimension, and participation & action dimension. Among these, the competences dimension includes scientific inquiry ability, scientific thinking ability, communication and collaboration ability, information processing and decision-making ability, and lifelong learning ability in a hyper-connected society (MOE et al. 2019 ). These five areas encompass both the skills traditionally emphasized in science education and those anticipated to be necessary in the future society characterized by the digital revolution. For instance, within the scientific inquiry ability, there are skills such as data transformation, engineering design and creation, and explanation generation and argumentation. Additionally, scientific thinking ability includes mathematical and computational thinking, while communication and collaboration ability includes the ability to express ideas. The 'information processing and decision-making ability' within the competences dimension involves the ability to search for, select, produce, and evaluate information and data. The emphasis on the importance of digital literacy and its integration with subject education can also be found in the curricula of various countries such as Singapore and Europe, as well as in reports from organizations like the OECD (Ei & Soon, 2021 ; Erstad et al., 2021 ; Polizzi, 2020 ).

The trend of science education reform is calling for changes in the relationship between scientific knowledge and scientific methods in science learning (Kawasaki & Sandoval, 2020 ). First, when students handle actual data, learning experiences related to data utilization skills can occur, ultimately aiming to cultivate scientific thinking and problem-solving abilities. The actual data used by students can take various forms, such as data collected by students in inquiry projects, searches in online data repositories, illustrations and tables in textbooks, or scientific publications (Hug & McNeill, 2008 ; Kerlin et al., 2010 ). Students need to select appropriate data from these sources, classify it according to their objectives, and develop skills in collecting, storing, representing, and sharing data. In this process, they should be able to engage in activities such as data analysis and interpretation, utilizing mathematical and computational thinking, and participating in evidence-based arguments (NGSS Lead States, 2013 ; NRC, 2013 ).

Additionally, basic computational thinking is necessary to understand and solve socio-scientific issues related to real life. This requires the ability to use algorithmic thinking, data analysis and representation for modeling thinking, and simulation tools (Rodríguez-Becerra et al., 2020 ). The importance of computers in scientific inquiry has grown due to advancements in artificial intelligence, software platforms, and sensors. While there have been limitations in science education due to the lack of various data sets, the proliferation of sensors has made personalized data collection possible, facilitating the collection of data relevant to scientific inquiry contexts. Furthermore, the establishment of platforms for data sharing and environments that facilitate data analysis and visualization have made computer and digital-based scientific inquiry representative activities of scientific practice.

Digital literacy refers not only to the basic skills related to using digital devices but also to the complex skills that support learners by enhancing learning outcomes in digital environments. These skills include cognitive, social, and emotional skills (Eshet-Alkalai & Soffer, 2012 ). The meaning of digital literacy has expanded to include communication and content production using information and communication technology (ICT) (Mason et al., 2018 ), information retrieval and processing through new technologies (Siddiq et al., 2016 ), and communication with communities (da Silva & Heaton, 2017 ). Various countries and research organizations have presented diverse aspects of data literacy, which commonly include three main elements: 1) information and data, 2) communication and collaboration, and 3) technical skills (Bravo et al., 2021 ). These three elements commonly included in digital literacy largely overlap with the components of scientific literacy, indicating that digital literacy can be integrated with subject-specific digital competence education (Kotzebue et al., 2021 ).

Based on the relationship between these two literacies, many scholars have continued efforts to understand scientific literacy through digital literacy (Bliss, 2019 ; Da Silva & Heaton, 2017 ; Holincheck et al., 2022 ; Mardiani et al., 2024 ). They have introduced terms such as digital scientific literacy (Holincheck et al., 2022 ), aimed to develop critical evaluation skills for digital scientific materials (Bliss, 2019 ; Holincheck et al., 2022 ), engaged in inquiry activities using digital scientific materials (Mardiani et al., 2024 ), and examined the impact of information or data sharing—a component of digital literacy—on students' construction of scientific knowledge (Dewi et al., 2021 ; Mardiani et al., 2024 ). However, the evaluation tools used to assess the effectiveness of education have mostly focused on separately verifying digital literacy and subject content. Given that digital literacy includes both generic and subject-specific aspects (D-EDK, 2014 ; Kotzebue et al., 2021 ), most measurements have emphasized the generic part of digital literacy.

Studies aimed at developing digital literacy assessment tools have also emphasized the cross-curricular aspects of digital literacy, often constructing items in the form of exam questions (ACARA, 2018 ; Chetty et al., 2018 ; Covello & Lei, 2010 ; Jin et al., 2020 ), which makes it difficult for students to develop metacognitive understanding of the level of digital literacy they need to attain. Additionally, most tools are designed for use at a specific school level or age group (Cote & Milliner, 2016 ; Jin et al., 2020 ; Oh et al., 2021 ), making it challenging to longitudinally track changes in students' literacy levels.

Another aspect of this study is the evaluation tools for scientific literacy (or skills), which face challenges in finding forms that are applicable in the digital age. While traditional scientific literacy competencies have emphasized data analysis, representation, and sharing, there are difficulties in adapting these tools for the digital era. For instance, in the study by Gormally et al. ( 2012 ) on developing scientific literacy assessment tools, it is noted that students should have the basic scientific literacy to approach scientific phenomena quantitatively and possess various skills to apply this to problem-solving in everyday life (NRC, 2003 ). However, traditional tools derived from scientific inquiry and scientific methods carry inherent limitations. These tools often fail to accurately explain what is important in science, seem to perform inquiries only to explain theories (Osborne, 2014 ), and do not focus on activities (Ford, 2015 ). Consequently, to solve everyday problems in the digital world, there is a need for a new term that can encompass a broader meaning and have a sustained and widespread impact on our lives (Da Silva & Heaton, 2017 ).

Thus, the term 'Practice' is being used in place of scientific method or inquiry to represent the educational goal of teaching students how to reason and act scientifically in an integrated digital world (Osborne, 2014 ; Ford, 2015 ). Based on this discussion, we aim to develop a self-report measurement tool that can be utilized in classrooms, grounded in the important elements of digital literacy within the context of scientific practice. The specific research questions of this study are as follows:

RQ1. What is the content validity of the digital literacy assessment tool in the context of scientific practice?

RQ2. What validity evidence is identified in the statistical tests using evaluation data for the digital literacy assessment tool in the context of scientific practice?

RQ3. Are there significant gender and school level differences in the scores of the digital literacy assessment tool in the context of scientific practice?

2 Research method

The central research question of this study is to develop a digital literacy assessment tool based on strong validity evidence. Our RQ1 concerns the content validity of the developed assessment tool. Additionally, RQ2 involves collecting validity evidence through statistical methods using actual student data. Furthermore, RQ3 is a study on the application of the developed assessment tool. To verify the validity of the assessment tool developed in this study, Messick's ( 1995 ) validity framework was used. Messick ( 1995 ) defined validity as "an integrated judgment of the degree to which theoretical and empirical evidence supports the adequacy and appropriateness of interpretations and actions based on test scores." He proposed six aspects of validity: content, substantive, structural, generalizability, external, and consequential (Messick, 1995 ). In this study, among Messick's six validity frames, content-based validity and substantive validity were verified using qualitative methods through the evaluation of scientists and the analysis of the student survey process during the item development process. The sections 'Initial Development through Literature Review' and 'Completion through Surveys with Scientists' pertain to content validity and correspond to RQ1. Subsequently, the sections 'Participants, Data Collection, and Analysis' correspond to RQ2 and RQ3.

2.1 Initial development through literature review

This study develops self-report items that measure digital literacy related to the scientific practice process. The goal is to present the functional objectives of digital-related scientific inquiry and develop items to identify the current level of students. Since this study defines the necessary skills for middle and high school students according to the 'inquiry process,' it uses the 'science and engineering practices standards' from NGSS and Korea's KSES as the basic framework. Additionally, it incorporates the difficulties and required student skills identified in various studies that combine scientific inquiry contexts with digital literacy. The digital-related inquiry process centers on activities beginning with data collection and analysis, followed by constructing and sharing conclusions. Ultimately, the items were developed in a four-stage structure: data collection, data analysis, drawing conclusions, and sharing. To emphasize the social practice of science learning in the digital age, the process of sharing was included, replacing the term 'communication' from NGSS's Practice with 'sharing (communication)' to reflect the importance of information sharing in the digital era (Elliott & McKaughan, 2014 ).

When examining the eight practices of the NGSS in the United States, terms that did not appear in the general scientific inquiry process are directly mentioned (NRC, 2013 ). Terms such as “Developing and using models,” “Using mathematics and computational thinking,” and “Constructing explanations and designing solutions” highlight the need to focus on these functions in scientific inquiry as science, engineering, and technology become increasingly integrated. Similarly, South Korea has developed and announced science education standards for future generations from 2014 to 2019. The KSES includes not only traditional scientific competencies and skills but also those anticipated to be necessary in a future society characterized by the digital revolution (Song et al., 2019 ). Additionally, the data literacy presented in the OECD 2030 report served as an important basis for item development (OECD, 2019 ). Many countries have recently set data literacy and digital literacy as goals within their educational curricula, and related research has been utilized in item development (Ei & Soon, 2021 ; Erstad et al., 2021 ; Polizzi, 2020 ). Therefore, by referencing research articles on scientific inquiry published between 2018 and 2022 that implemented programs related to cultivating competencies in data literacy or digital literacy or presented specific inquiry processes, the necessary skills were added (Aksit & Wiebe, 2020 ; Arastoopour Irgens et al., 2020 ; Chen et al., 2022 ; Clark et al., 2019 ; Gibson & Mourad, 2018 ; Kjelvik & Schultheis, 2019 ; Lichti et al., 2021 ; Son et al., 2018 ; Tsybulsky & Sinai, 2022 ; Wolff et al., 2019 ).

The tool developed in this study is a self-report measurement tool. Self-report tools in competency assessment can have limitations due to biases such as overconfidence (Moore & Healy, 2008 ). However, this tool is not intended to quantify abilities but rather to be used for learning assessments, allowing students to evaluate their own state and goals and reflect metacognitively. Our goal is for the developed assessment tool to be widely used in digital-based science classes conducted in schools. Therefore, the assessment tool was developed to include a Likert scale for self-reporting. Through this tool, students can evaluate their practical competencies in reflecting on themselves, as well as acquiring skills and knowledge (Demirbag & Bahçivan, 2021 ). It is about identifying their position in the learning goal achievement process and their ability to investigate and integrate additional information (Bråten et al., 2011 ). A self-report assessment tool can help students identify their current position and independently set future learning goals.

2.2 Completion through surveys with scientists

The 48 items completed through the literature review were sent to seven scientists researching advanced digital-based scientific fields to confirm the content validity of the items. Digital literacy in science is an essential scientific inquiry skill for students who will live in future societies and a necessary inquiry skill for high school students who plan to advance to STEM universities. However, as science and technology rapidly develop, the content and methods of education change accordingly, creating a time lag between the development of science and the development of science education. Therefore, to bridge this gap, it is necessary to review the opinions of scientists currently conducting research in relevant fields. A total of seven scientists reviewed these items, each with more than 10 years of research experience and actively engaged in recent research activities (see Table  1 ). The scientists confirmed the content validity of each item and, when modifications were necessary, described the reasons and directions for the revisions.

After undergoing content validity evaluation, the final 48 items were administered to 43 middle school students to verify substantive aspect of construct validity. This process aimed to confirm whether students could understand the content of the items and respond as intended. It was checked if the terms were appropriate for the students' cognitive level and whether the questions were understood as intended. During this process, some students had difficulty interpreting certain items, so examples were added, or the items were revised into language easier for students to understand. The survey took approximately 30 min, and it was confirmed that students were able to focus better on the survey when guided by a supervising teacher. The final revised items were confirmed, and a large amount of data was collected from middle and high school students for statistical validity verification.

2.3 Participants, data collection and analysis

To verify statistical validity, the finalized items were administered to over a thousand students. A total of 1,194 students participated, including 651 middle school students and 543 high school students. The survey was conducted in five schools: one middle school and one high school located in a major city, and one middle school and two high schools located in a small city. Regarding the gender of the participants, there were 537 male students (331 middle school students) and 657 female students (320 middle school students). To minimize data bias related to educational level and gender, participants were recruited considering various regions and a balanced gender ratio. This study involved minors as vulnerable participants, and the entire process was conducted with approval from the IRB of the relevant research institution before the study commenced.

Using data from over a thousand students, statistical tests were conducted to confirm item fit, reliability, differential item functioning, criterion-related validity, and structural validity. The statistical tests were performed using item response theory-based analyses, such as Rasch analysis, suitable for Messick's validity framework (Wolfe & Smith, 2007 ). In the Rasch analysis, item fit was checked using Infit MNSQ and Outfit MNSQ, with the criterion value set between 0.5 and 1.5 (Boone et al., 2014 ). Person reliability and item reliability were verified using Rasch analysis. To confirm construct validity based on internal structure, dimensionality was tested in Rasch analysis to satisfy unidimensionality (Boone et al., 2014 ). For external validity, five additional self-report items measuring core competencies in Korean science subjects were included in the field test alongside the developed items. These self-report items for measuring core competencies in science subjects had been previously field-tested on more than 2000 Korean adolescents and were known for their high validity and reliability (Ha et al., 2018 ). Additionally, since these core competency items included some scientific inquiry skills such as information processing, data transformation, and analysis, they were appropriate for securing external validity. Lastly, group score comparisons were conducted to identify any gender or school level differences in the scores of the developed tool. Rasch analysis was performed using Winsteps 4.1.0, and all other statistics were analyzed using SPSS 26.

3 Research results

3.1 rq1: content validity of items as judged by scientists.

These are the results of the scientist evaluation to verify the internal validity of the developed items. The scientists agreed that, while science inquiry education in schools is generally well-conducted, there is a need for changes in its approach. The scientists reviewed the items and assessed the content validity regarding whether each skill was necessary for middle and high school students. We analyzed the Content Validity Index (CVI) using their evaluations. The acceptability of the CVI value depends on the number of panelists; since there were seven scientists in this study, a CVI of 0.83 or higher is required for acceptability (Lynn, 1986 ). Most items had values of 0.86 or higher, but a few items had lower values. The seven items out of the total 48 that did not meet the acceptable range are as follows (Table  2 ).

Generally, the items included in the analysis and interpretation process had lower content validity, whereas items related to data collection, recording, drawing conclusions, and sharing processes had overall high content validity. Analyzing the items with low content validity reveals two main points. First, students showed negative opinions regarding expressing scientific discovery results using mathematical models or formulas. Second, while understanding and utilizing pre-developed or pre-written computer programs or code is considered a necessary skill, students did not see the need for a deep understanding required to develop or debug programs themselves.

The scientists mentioned that the reason they did not consider these functions important is that there should be a distinction between students who will major in science in university and those who need general scientific literacy. They thought it unnecessary to practice creating mathematical models in general science education, as it might not be important or possible depending on the type of scientific inquiry. Furthermore, they were concerned that overly generalizing results to fit into mathematical models at the students' level of mathematics might lead to misconceptions. Regarding learning computer programming skills, they were apprehensive about the potential focus on programming languages themselves. Since programming languages and software continually evolve, they believed there was no need to become familiar with the grammar of computer languages. Instead, they emphasized the importance of analyzing how to process problems and predicting the outcomes of those processes. Based on expert review, six items deemed more appropriate for university-level science majors were deleted from the study. Additionally, four items with overlapping content were combined into more comprehensive questions, resulting in a final set of 38 items.

3.2 RQ2: Validity evaluation based on statistics

The final set of items was administered to 1,199 students, and the collected data was analyzed to verify validity through various methods. The first analysis conducted was dimensionality analysis. We categorized the digital competencies in the context of scientific practice into four dimensions: data collection and recording, analysis and interpretation, conclusion generation, and sharing and presentation. We composed various items for each factor. Each item was intended to contribute to measuring its respective construct, and each factor was assumed to be unidimensional. If multiple items for a specific construct do not assume unidimensionality and are instead divided into multiple components internally, they are not valid from a measurement perspective.

We performed PCA analysis using residuals from Rasch analysis for this evaluation (Table  3 ). If there are consistent patterns in the parts of the data that do not align with the Rasch measurement values, it suggests the presence of an unexpected dimension. According to Bond et al. ( 2020 ), if the Eigenvalue of the unexplained variance exceeds 2, there is a possibility of another dimension, while if it is below 2, the construct can be assumed to be unidimensional. As shown in Table  3 , the first unexplained variance for data collection and recording, conclusion generation, and sharing and presentation does not exceed 2. However, for the analysis and interpretation items, the first unexplained variance is 2.555, which significantly exceeds 2. We further conducted an exploratory factor analysis for this construct and found that splitting it into two dimensions—items 1 to 8 and items 9 to 12—meets the unidimensionality assumption. Upon close examination, we discovered that items 1 to 8 pertain to the analysis and interpretation of statistical data and graphs, while items 9 to 12 pertain to the use of analytical tools, indicating a difference in content (see Appendix). Therefore, we concluded that it is more valid to separate this part into two dimensions. Consequently, the valid use of this assessment tool is determined to be the analysis of five categories: data collection and recording, analysis and interpretation 1 (statistics), analysis and interpretation 2 (analytical tools), conclusion generation, and sharing and presentation.

Item fit refers to information about whether there are any unusual respondent reactions to specific items. For example, if a significantly higher number of respondents agree or disagree with a particular item compared to other items, the item fit decreases. In Rasch analysis, item fit is checked using Mean Square (MNSQ). Rasch analysis also allows for checking various types of reliability. Person reliability (PR) checks how reliably items measure the respondent's abilities, while item reliability (IR) checks how appropriate the respondent's abilities are for verifying the quality of the items. Additionally, internal consistency reliability is verified using Cronbach's alpha (CA). To see if a specific item supports or hinders the internal consistency of the construct, the Cronbach alpha if the item is deleted (Alpha if item deleted, AIC) is also checked. We recorded all these results in a single table. The comprehensive information in the table reveals the following (Table  4 ).

Overall, all items have adequate fit. The person reliability and item reliability identified in the Rasch analysis both exceeded or approached 0.8 or 0.9, indicating very high reliability. The internal consistency reliability of the items also exceeded 0.8, showing excellent reliability. Additionally, no items were found to significantly affect internal consistency reliability. Based on item fit and reliability information, we can conclude that there are no particular issues that need to be addressed in the developed items.

The following validity evidence pertains to generalizability validity (Table  5 ). Using the measurement values related to digital competence, score comparisons were conducted across various groups such as gender and grade levels. The premise for comparing scores between groups is that the measurement tool functions equally across different groups. Evidence regarding generalizability validity can be confirmed through differential item functioning (DIF) analysis. In Rasch analysis, DIF is checked using the difference in DIF values (DIF C), Rasch-Welch t-test, and Mantel chi-square test. The table presents DIF C (DIF contrast), the significance of the Rasch-Welch t-test (RW p), and the significance of the Mantel chi-square test (MC p).

Regarding the interpretation of DIF differences, a value between 0.43 and 0.64 indicates a moderate level of DIF difference, while a value exceeding 0.64 indicates a large DIF difference (Zwick et al., 1999 ). Although there were no items exceeding 0.64, one item showed a DIF difference exceeding 0.43 for gender, and one item showed a similar difference for grade levels. When using the significance values of the Rasch-Welch t-test and Mantel chi-square test, more items were found to have a p -value of 0.00. For gender, five items showed a p -value of 0.00, and for grade levels, about eight items showed similar results. We concluded that some items in the digital competence tool exhibit differential item functioning. This may be due to the inconsistent application of various elements within the items across groups. For example, the ability to understand graphs and tables in item 7 of the analysis and interpretation section showed DIF for both gender and grade level, indicating that this item functions differently across these groups. Nonetheless, considering that the overall DIF differences are not large and that experiences related to digital competence may vary significantly by gender and grade level, it can be interpreted that no severe DIF was found in the items.

We also examined criterion-related validity. The scores for science-related digital competence are closely related to core science competencies and interest in science or information and computer subjects (Table 6 ). Therefore, the scores of our developed science digital competence should show significant correlations with general science core competency scores and interest in science and computer subjects. To verify this, we conducted a correlation analysis. We selected five items developed by Ha et al. ( 2018 ) to generate scores for science core competencies. We also collected Likert scale scores for the items "Do you like science?" and "Do you like computer or information subjects?". The correlations between the five variables we developed and the three external criteria (science core competencies, interest in science subjects, and interest in computer/information subjects) are presented in Table 6 . Since interest in subjects was collected using single Likert scale items, Spearman's rho correlation coefficients were used for analysis, while Pearson's correlation coefficients were used for the others.

Science digital competence showed a high correlation with science core competency scores. All correlations were significant at the 0.001 level, with r values exceeding 0.7, indicating a very strong correlation. There were also significant correlations at the 0.001 level with interest in science subjects and computer/information subjects. These results confirm that our developed science digital competence assessment tool is related to other similar indicators and operates as a valid measurement tool.

3.3 RQ3: Gender and school level differences in the scores of the digital literacy assessment tool

Our final statistical analysis concerns whether there are score differences in the assessment tool we developed based on gender and grade level. As discussed in the introduction, it is known that both science and digital competence have gender effects, with males generally showing higher competence or interest (Divya & Haneefa, 2018 ; Esteve-Mon et al., 2020 ; Gebhardt et al., 2019 ). Additionally, as students progress to higher school grades, their learning in science digital competence is expected to improve, resulting in higher competence scores. To confirm if our data exhibited these trends, we conducted a two-way ANOVA and presented the results in graphs and tables (Fig.  1 and Table  7 ). The graphs show the mean scores and standard errors for each group to provide an intuitive comparison of overall scores. The key statistical results of the two-way ANOVA, including F -values, significance levels, and effect sizes, are summarized in a Table  7 .

Mean and standard error of scores by gender and school level

Examining the scores for the five items across four groups divided by gender and grade level, we observed consistent trends across all areas. For the five items of science digital competence, male students scored higher than female students, and high school students scored higher than middle school students. Notably, the most significant gender effect size was observed in the analysis and interpretation 2 category. Unlike analysis and interpretation 1, analysis and interpretation 2 involves the use of mathematical tools, computer coding, and programming languages like Python. This suggests that male students had significantly more experience and learning related to these areas compared to female students.

4 Discussions

4.1 rq1. the content validity of the digital literacy assessment tool in the context of scientific practice.

The purpose of this study was to develop a valid assessment tool to evaluate the level of digital literacy in the context of scientific practice for middle and high school students and to establish indicators of digital literacy in scientific practice. To this end, we developed the initial items through literature review and expert Delphi surveys, applied them to middle and high school students to verify statistical validity, and investigated whether the items could be applied regardless of gender and school level to finalize the items. Through this process, we identified a consensus on the elements and levels of digital literacy required in the context of scientific practice among scientists, national curricula, and empirical experiences in classroom settings. Additionally, considering that digital literacy is not merely the ability to use technology but also complements the enhancement of students' learning abilities in the context of science education (Yasa et al., 2023 ), we can propose specific directions for 'learning by doing' in science classes by providing empirical indicators of scientific practice and digital literacy.

Based on research from various countries and major institutions on specific scientific inquiry activities related to digital literacy, we initially developed 48 items. We then had scientists review whether each item was necessary for science majors or for general middle and high school students through two rounds of validation. Through this process and refinement, we finalized a total of 38 items. This process revealed differences between the digital literacy levels scientists believe students should have and the level of digital literacy needed for scientific inquiry performed in classroom settings. Scientists did not consider the criteria emphasizing complex skills, tool usage, or programming languages to be particularly important. They also expressed concerns that generalizations through formulas without sufficient theoretical background might lead to misconceptions. This indicates that the primary goal of science education, which is to develop students' thinking and problem-solving skills, remains unchanged. It also suggests the need for more detailed standards and application plans to avoid instrumentalism and ensure that the purpose of digital literacy aligns with the level students need to learn.

Digital competence in the context of scientific practice was divided into four dimensions: data collection and recording, analysis and interpretation, conclusion generation, and sharing and presentation, and dimensionality analysis was conducted. The dimensionality analysis revealed that the 'analysis and interpretation' part did not form a single dimension. An exploratory factor analysis showed that it split into statistical processing and the use of analytical tools. Thus, digital competence in the context of scientific practice was confirmed to be divided into five dimensions: data collection and recording, analysis and interpretation (statistics), analysis and interpretation (analytical tools), conclusion generation, and sharing and presentation.

Generally, digital literacy is theoretically composed of several dimensions, but empirical measurements of digital literacy often result in a single dimension or show strong correlations between elements (Aesaert et al., 2014 ; Demirbag and Bahcivan, 2021 ; Fraillon et al., 2019 ). While existing digital literacy developments encompass universal content, this study constructed elements within the context of scientific practice.

This indicates that when digital literacy education is conducted within the context of specific subjects, it is more likely that only certain elements, tailored to the characteristics of the subject, will be learned rather than all elements of digital literacy. So, it implies that digital literacy training tailored to specific subjects can facilitate the smooth operation of classes when teaching subjects that require digital literacy.

Furthermore, this implies that general digital literacy and digital literacy within specific subject contexts may differ. In the case of data literacy, which is similar to digital literacy, research has emphasized competencies within particular subject contexts, leading to the development of terms, definitions, and measurement tools such as scientific data literacy (Son & Jeong, 2020 ; Qiao et al., 2024 ; Qin and D’ignazio, 2010 ). However, there has been limited research on digital literacy within specific subject contexts. This study may serve as practical evidence supporting the argument that universal literacies, such as digital literacy and data literacy, require a different perspective on definition and measurement when learned within the context of specific subjects.

4.2 RQ2. Validity evidence identified in the statistical tests

The analysis of item fit and reliability showed that the item fit was generally appropriate across all items. The reliability of the items was measured using person reliability (PR), item reliability (IR), and Cronbach's alpha (CA), all of which were found to be above 0.8, indicating very high reliability. In addition to the content validity of the developed items, we examined criterion-related validity to confirm additional validity. Since the developed items pertain to digital competence in the context of scientific practice, it was assumed that scientific competence and interest in computers would be closely related to the results of these items. Therefore, additional survey questions on scientific competence and interest in computers and information were analyzed. The results showed significant correlations at the 0.001 level with both interest in science subjects and interest in computer/information subjects. Thus, we confirmed that the tool developed in this study operates validly.

Since we developed digital literacy items in the context of scientific practice for middle and high school students, it is necessary to confirm the generalizability across both school levels and between genders. We conducted DIF analysis to compare scores between groups, assuming that the measurement tool performs equally across different groups. The analysis showed that one item had a moderate difference by school level, and one item had a moderate difference by gender. Using the significance levels of the Rasch-Welch t-test and Mantel chi-square test, we found differences in five items by gender and eight items by school level. Gender differences were evenly distributed across factors, while school level differences mostly occurred in the analysis and interpretation factors.

These items were related to mathematical knowledge and the use of computer languages, indicating that these competencies may vary as students' mathematical concepts and computer language skills increase (Fraillon et al., 2019 ). Lazonder et al. ( 2020 ) found that digital skills are influenced more by early exposure to digital tools than by age. However, higher-order thinking skills such as analysis and interpretation require not only early exposure but also cognitive level and understanding of subjects like mathematics, science, and computer science.

4.3 RQ3. Gender and school level differences in the scores of the digital literacy assessment tool

We conducted a two-way ANOVA to explore the differences by gender and grade level more deeply, confirming that digital and scientific literacy increase with higher grade levels. This trend has been confirmed by various studies (ACARA, 2018 ; Kim et al., 2019 ). When examining gender differences, we found that male students scored higher than female students across all items, with the most significant differences observed in items related to computer coding and software. The effect size was greater for male students, contrasting with the general trend where female students often score higher in science concept learning (Fraillon et al., 2019 ).

In our study, more items focused on functional aspects rather than conceptual ones, possibly giving male students an advantage in technical tasks (Divya & Haneefa, 2018 ; Esteve-Mon et al., 2020 ; Gebhardt et al., 2019 ). Additionally, many items were related to computers and mathematics, where male students tend to exhibit higher overconfidence (Adamecz-Völgy et al., 2023 ). The self-report nature of the survey may also have contributed to these results, as female students might underreport their abilities and confidence in STEM fields compared to their actual capabilities (Hand et al., 2017 ; Sobieraj & Krämer, 2019 ).

Consequently, students believe that their digital literacy within the context of scientific practices increases with age, and male students tend to rate themselves higher than female students across all categories. This suggests that male students find technical tasks easier and have reached a higher level, particularly in areas where mathematics and computer coding are integrated into scientific practices, compared to female students. Although this study is based on self-reported assessments, it can be inferred that there are actual differences in ability, not just in interest or confidence, among middle and high school students who have some understanding of their capabilities. These findings are consistent with previous research indicating that female students lag behind male students in STEM-related skills (Divya & Haneefa, 2018 ; Esteve-Mon et al., 2020 ; Fraillon et al., 2019 ; Gebhardt et al., 2019 ). Therefore, it is necessary to develop instructional strategies in science education to cultivate these competencies.

5 Conclusion and direction of future studies

In this study, we developed a measurement tool for digital literacy in the context of scientific practice for middle and high school students. Based on a literature review and a Delphi study with scientists, an initial draft was created and then applied to Korean middle and high school students. Through a statistical validation process, the tool was finalized. Assuming that digital competence should combine both general and subject-specific digital competencies, we aimed to establish specific criteria for digital literacy integrated with scientific practice. The developed items are applicable in both middle and high schools, with only a few items showing gender-related differences, which are not significant enough to limit their use.

Since the developed measurement tool consists of self-report items, it is important to consider the potential issues of overconfidence bias and the tendency to measure higher actual performance in digital literacy compared to conceptual understanding (Porat et al., 2018 ). However, this study is significant in that it approached digital literacy in a subject-specific context and presented an assessment tool with concrete and practical science lessons in mind to enhance digital competence. It can be universally used in various science subjects, providing guidance for teachers and students on the objectives of their participation in science classes. Understanding the characteristics of the various elements of digital literacy in the context of scientific practice can lead to the development of specific teaching and learning methods to enhance the corresponding competencies. This suggests that digital literacy, within the context of specific subjects, requires a different perspective in terms of its definition and measurement.

The items developed in this study are designed to be used in both middle and high schools, making them suitable for longitudinal research by other researchers. Given the technical changes and software developments, some items may need to be modified, and future related studies are expected to adapt these items accordingly. Additionally, it is necessary to more closely examine the reasons why female students have lower digital literacy, particularly in STEM-related fields, within the context of scientific practices compared to male students, and to explore strategies to reduce this gap.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Adamecz-Völgyi, A., Jerrim, J., Pingault, J. B., & Shure, D. (2023). Overconfident boys: The gender gap in mathematics self-assessment. IZA Discussion Paper No. 16180. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4464593

Aesaert, K., Van Nijlen, D., Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2014). Direct measures of digital information processing and communication skills in primary education: Using item response theory for the development and validation of an ICT competence scale. Computers & Education, 76 , 168–181.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aksit, O., & Wiebe, E. N. (2020). Exploring force and motion concepts in middle grades using computational modeling: A classroom intervention study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29 (1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09800-z

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press.

Arastoopour Irgens, G., Dabholkar, S., Bain, C., Woods, P., Hall, K., Swanson, H., Horn, M., & Wilensky, U. (2020). Modeling and measuring high school students’ computational thinking practices in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29 (1), 137–161.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2018). National Assessment Program –ICT literacy years 6 & 10 2017 report. Sydney, NSW: ACARA. Retreived from: https://www.nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-documentlibrary/2017napictlreport_final.pdf?sfvrsn=2 .

Bliss, A. C. (2019). Adult science-based learning: The intersection of digital, science, and information literacies. Adult Learning, 30 (3), 128–137.

Bond, T., Yan, Z., & Heene, M. (2020). Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences(4th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Boone, W., Staver, J., & Yale, M. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences . Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J. F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46 (1), 48–70.

Bravo, M. C. M., Chalezquer, C. S., & Serrano-Puche, J. (2021). Meta-framework of digital literacy: A comparative analysis of 21st-century skills frameworks. Revista Latina De Comunicacion Social, 79 , 76–109.

Google Scholar  

Chen, C. M., Li, M. C., & Chen, Y. T. (2022). The effects of web-based inquiry learning mode with the support of collaborative digital reading annotation system on information literacy instruction. Computers & Education, 179 , 104428.

Chetty, K., Qigui, L., Gcora, N., Josie, J., Wenwei, L., & Fang, C. (2018). Bridging the digital divide: Measuring digital literacy. Economics, 12 (1), 20180023.

Clark, J., Falkner, W., Balaji Kuruvadi, S., Bruce, D., Zummo, W., & Yelamarthi, K. (2019). Development and implementation of real-time wireless sensor networks for data literacy education. In Proceedings of the 2019 ASEE North Central Section Conference, Morgan Town, WV, USA (pp. 22–23).

Cote, T., & Milliner, B. (2016). Japanese university students’ self-assessment and digital literacy test results. CALL Communities and Culture–Short Papers from EUROCALL, 125–131.

Covello, S., & Lei, J. (2010). A review of digital literacy assessment instruments. Syracuse University, 1 , 31.

Demirbag, M., & Bahcivan, E. (2021). Comprehensive exploration of digital literacy: Embedded with self-regulation and epistemological beliefs. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30 (3), 448–459.

Deutschschweizer Erziehungsdirektoren-Konferenz (D-EDK) (2014). Lehrplan21 – Rahmen-informationen. Luzern: D-EDK Geschäftsstelle.

Dewi, C., Pahriah, P., & Purmadi, A. (2021). The urgency of digital literacy for generation Z students in chemistry learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 16 (11), 88–103.

Da Silva, P. D., & Heaton, L. (2017). Fostering digital and scientific literacy: Learning through practice. First Monday.

Divya, P., & Haneefa, M. (2018). Digital reading competency of students: A study in universities in Kerala. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 38 (2), 88–94.

Ei, C. H., & Soon, C. (2021). Towards a unified framework for digital literacy in Singapore. IPS Work. Pap, 39.

Elliott, K. C., & McKaughan, D. J. (2014). Nonepistemic values and the multiple goals of science. Philosophy of Science, 81 (1), 1–21.

Erstad, O., Kjällander, S., & Järvelä, S. (2021). Facing the challenges of ‘digital competence’ a Nordic agenda for curriculum development for the 21st century. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 16 (2), 77–87.

Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Soffer, O. (2012). Guest editorial–Navigating in the digital era: Digital literacy: Socio-cultural and educational aspects. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (2), 1–2.

Esteve-Mon, F., Llopis, M., & Adell-Segura, J. (2020). Digital competence and computational thinking of student teachers. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15 (2), 29–41.

Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation science standards. Science Education., 99 (6), 1041–1048.

Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Duckworth, D., & Friedman, T. (2019). IEA international computer and information literacy study 2018 assessment framework (p. 74). Springer Nature.

Gebhardt, E., Thomson, S., Ainley, J., & Hillman, K. (2019). Gender differences in computer and information literacy: An in-depth analysis of data from ICILS (p. 73). Springer nature.

Gibson, P., & Mourad, T. (2018). The growing importance of data literacy in life science education. American Journal of Botany, 105 (12), 1953–1956.

Gormally, C., Brickman, P., & Lutz, M. (2012). Developing a test of scientific literacy skills (TOSLS): Measuring undergraduates’ evaluation of scientific information and arguments. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 364–377.

Ha, M., Park, H., Kim, Y. J., Kang, N. H., Oh, P. S., Kim, M. J., & Son, M. H. (2018). Developing and applying the questionnaire to measure science core competencies based on the 2015 revised national science curriculum. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38 (4), 495–504.

Hand, S., Rice, L., & Greenlee, E. (2017). Exploring teachers’ and students’ gender role bias and students’ confidence in STEM fields. Social Psychology of Education, 20 , 929–945.

Holincheck, N., Galanti, T. M., & Trefil, J. (2022). Assessing the development of digital scientific literacy with a computational evidence-based reasoning tool. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60 (7), 1796–1817.

Hug, B., & McNeill, K. L. (2008). Use of first-hand and second-hand data in science: Does data type influence classroom conversations? International Journal of Science Education, 30 (13), 1725–1751.

Jin, K. Y., Reichert, F., Cagasan, L. P., Jr., de La Torre, J., & Law, N. (2020). Measuring digital literacy across three age cohorts: Exploring test dimensionality and performance differences. Computers & Education, 157 , 103968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103968

Kawasaki, J., & Sandoval, W. A. (2020). Examining teachers’ classroom strategies to understand their goals for student learning around the science practices in the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31 (4), 384–400.

Kerlin, C. K., McDonald, S. P., & Kelly, G. J. (2010). Complexity of Secondary Scientific Data Sources and Students’ Argumentative Discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (9), 1207–1225.

Kim, H. S., Ahn, S. H., & Kim, C. M. (2019). A new IChT literacy test for elementary and middle school students in republic of Korea. Te Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28 , 203–212.

Kjelvik, M. K., & Schultheis, E. H. (2019). Getting messy with authentic data: Exploring the potential of using data from scientific research to support student data literacy. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18(2), es2.

Kotzebue, L. V., Meier, M., Finger, A., Kremser, E., Huwer, J., Thoms, L. J., & Thyssen, C. (2021). The framework DiKoLAN (Digital competencies for teaching in science education) as basis for the self-assessment tool DiKoLAN-Grid. Education Sciences, 11 (12), 775. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11120775

Lazonder, A. W., Walraven, A., Gijlers, H., & Janssen, N. (2020). Longitudinal assessment of digital literacy in children: Findings from a large Dutch single-school study. Computers & Education, 143 , 103681.

Lichti, D., Mosley, P., & Callis-Duehl, K. (2021). Learning from the trees: Using project budburst to enhance data literacy and scientific writing skills in an introductory biology laboratory during remote learning. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 6 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5334/CSTP.432

Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35 (6), 382–385.

Mardiani, E., Mokodenseho, S., Matiala, T. F., Limbalo, S. S. A., & Mokodompit, N. Y. (2024). Implementation of Digital Science and Literacy Teaching in Developing Science Literacy in Middle School Students in Indonesia. The Eastasouth Journal of Learning and Educations, 2 (01), 63–74.

Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Epistemic metacognition in context: Evaluating and learning online information. Metacognition and Learning, 5 (1), 67–90.

Mason, L., Scrimin, S., Tornatora, M. C., Suitner, C., & Moè, A. (2018). Internet source evaluation: The role of implicit associations and psychophysiological self-regulation. Computers & Education, 119 , 59–75.

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50 (9), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741

Ministry of Education (MOE), Ministry of Science and ICT (MSICT), & Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity (KOFAC). (2019). Scientific literacy for all Koreans: Korean science education standards for the next generation. Seoul: KOFAC.

Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review, 115 (2), 502–517.

National Research Council, Division of Behavioral, Board on Science Education, & National Committee on Science Education Standards. (1996). National science education standards. National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2003). BIO 2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists . National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States . The National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press.

OECD. (2019). An OECD Learning Framework 2030. The Future of Education and Labor, 23–35.

Oh, S. S., Kim, K. A., Kim, M., Oh, J., Chu, S. H., & Choi, J. (2021). Measurement of digital literacy among older adults: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23 (2), e26145.

Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25 (2), 177–196.

Polizzi, G. (2020). Digital literacy and the national curriculum for England: Learning from how the experts engage with and evaluate online content. Computers & Education, 152 , 103859.

Porat, E., Blau, I., & Barak, A. (2018). Measuring digital literacies: Junior high-school students’ perceived competencies versus actual performance. Computers & Education, 126 , 23–36.

Qiao, C., Chen, Y., Guo, Q., & Yu, Y. (2024). Understanding science data literacy: A conceptual framework and assessment tool for college students majoring in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 11 (1), 1–21.

Qin, J., & D’ignazio, J. (2010). The central role of metadata in a science data literacy course. Journal of Library Metadata, 10 (2–3), 188–204.

Rodríguez-Becerra, J., Cáceres-Jensen, L., Diaz, T., Druker, S., Padilla, V. B., Pernaa, J., & Aksela, M. (2020). Developing technological pedagogical science knowledge through educational computational chemistry: A case study of pre-service chemistry teachers’ perceptions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21 (2), 638–654.

Siddiq, F., Hatlevik, O. E., Olsen, R. V., Throndsen, I., & Scherer, R. (2016). Taking a future perspective by learning from the past–A systematic review of assessment instruments that aim to measure primary and secondary school students’ ICT literacy. Educational Research Review, 19 , 58–84.

Sobieraj, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2019). The impacts of gender and subject on experience of competence and autonomy in STEM. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 , 1432.

Son, M., & Jeong, D. (2020). Exploring the direction of science inquiry education in knowledge-information based society. School Science Journal, 14 (3), 401–414.

Son, M., Jeong, D., & Son, J. (2018). Analysis of middle school students’ difficulties in science inquiry activity in view of knowledge and information processing competence. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38 (3), 441–449.

Song, J., Kang, S. J., Kwak, Y., Kim, D., Kim, S., Na, J., & Joung, Y. J. (2019). Contents and features of “Korean Science Education Standards (KSES)” for the next generation. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 39 (3), 465–478.

Tsybulsky, D., & Sinai, E. (2022). IoT in project-based biology learning: Students’ experiences and skill development. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31 (4), 542–553.

Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2009). How students evaluate information and sources when searching the World Wide Web for information. Computers & Education, 52 (1), 234–246.

Wolfe, E. W., & Smith, E. V., Jr. (2007). Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: Part I-instrument development tools. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8 (1), 97–123.

Wolff, A., Wermelinger, M., & Petre, M. (2019). Exploring design principles for data literacy activities to support children’s inquiries from complex data. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 129 , 41–54.

Yasa, A. D., & Rahayu, S. (2023). A survey of elementary school students’ digital literacy skills in science learning. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2569, No. 1). AIP Publishing.

Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Lewis, C. (1999). An empirical Bayes approach to Mantel-Haenszel DIF analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36 (1), 1–28.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (Grant Number NRF-700-20230072) and the 4th BK21 Infosphere Science Education Research Center granted by Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Seoul National University. This research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (Grant Number NRF-700–20230072) and the 4th BK21 Infosphere Science Education Research Center granted by Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Future Innovation Institute, Seoul National University, 173 Seouldaehak-Ro, Siheung, Gyeonggi-Do, Republic of Korea

Department of Science Education, Seoul National University, 1, Gwanak-Ro, Gwanak-Gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Mihyun Son was responsible for the design of this study, data collection, data analysis, and writing the paper. Minsu Ha was responsible for data analysis and writing the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Minsu Ha .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Data collection and recording

Analysis and interpretation 1 (statistics)

Analysis and interpretation 2 (analytical tools)

Conclusion generation

Sharing and presentation

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Son, M., Ha, M. Development of a digital literacy measurement tool for middle and high school students in the context of scientific practice. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12999-z

Download citation

Received : 16 June 2024

Accepted : 12 August 2024

Published : 31 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12999-z

Share this article

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

• Digital literacy
• Scientific practice
• Measurement tool
• Middle and high school students
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Digital India for Students: 150, 250 and 500 Words

• Updated on  
• Mar 4, 2024

Essay on Digital India: Digital India is a flagship program launched by the government of India on 1st July 2015. This programme aims to transform India into a digitally empowered society. To do this, the government has launched several initiatives and regional sub-schemes, such as the Digital India Mobile App, Digital India Portal, e-Governance, etc. Today, we will discuss some essay on digital India in 150, 250 and 500 words.

Master the art of essay writing with our blog on How to Write an Essay in English .

Table of Contents

• 1 Essay on Digital India in 150 Words
• 2.1 About the Digital India Scheme
• 2.2 Aim of Digital India
• 3.1 Objectives of the Digital India Scheme
• 3.2 Key Vision Areas
• 3.3 9 Pillars of Digital India
• 3.4 Digital India Advantages

Essay on Digital India in 150 Words

Digital India is a central-government-backed scheme, launched in 2015. Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched this scheme to transform India into a digitally empowered nation. This scheme will bring digital revolution to the entire country by providing easy access to digital services in remote and rural areas. 

The government launched several sub-schemes to support the digital revolution, such as the Digital India Portal, the National Optical Fibre Network, the National e-Governance Plan, etc. The Digital India scheme encompasses three key vision areas: 

• Digital infrastructure is a core utility to every citizen.
• Governance and services on demand.
• Digital empowerment of citizens.

All the focused areas will benefit the consumer as well as the service providers. With the sub-schemes launched, the government will also provide access to WiFi connectivity in public places and government schools. This will make e-learning and online education accessible to everyone.

Also Read: Essay on Peer Pressure in 100, 200 and 350 Words

Essay on Digital India in 250 Words

The government of India launched the Digital India scheme in 2015 to transform the country into a digitally empowered and economically advanced nation. This flagship scheme was launched at the Indira Gandhi Indoor Stadium, Delhi. The country’s top industrialists, such as Cyrus Mistry (Former Chairman of Tata Group), Mukesh Ambani (Chairman and Managing Director of Reliance India Ltd.), Wipro’s Chairman Azim Premji, and others were present. 

About the Digital India Scheme

The government of India conducted a meeting of top-level industrialists and government officials to discuss the digital transformation of the country. The purpose of the meeting was the bring a digital revolution in India by making government services accessible to the remotest areas of the country. 

The government has invited private organisations to invest in the Digital India scheme. The execution cost of this flagship project was 1 lac crore rupees. This money was invested to develop government services and digital platforms so that people living in rural areas can have easy access.

Aim of Digital India

The aim of Digital India is simple; digital transformation of the national economy. However, to support this national-level scheme, the government has launched several parallel projects or sub-schemes. These schemes are:

• National e-Governance Plan
• Digital India Mobile App
• Digital India Portal

All these sub-schemes will benefit the rural population, who have no access to the internet and government services. With its online learning and e-health platforms, the government has provided people with educational platforms, where people, especially rural people, can learn and benefit from government schemes.

Also Read: Essay on the Importance of Internet 

Essay on Digital India in 500 Words

On 1st July 2015, the government of India launched a massive nationwide scheme called the Digital India scheme. This meeting was attended by top government officials and India’s top industrialists, including Mr Mukesh Ambani, Cyprus Mistry (Former Chairman of Tata Group), and others. The Prime Minister declared the objective of this scheme; to make India a digitally advanced and self-reliant nation. 

Objectives of the Digital India Scheme

One of the primary objectives of this scheme is to provide digital access to all government services and online education. People will be able to connect with the government and understand the latest technological developments in the country. 

People living in rural areas will be provided with adequate infrastructure, where they can have access to government services like education, healthcare, banking, etc.

Digital India also aims to facilitate cultural innovation and entrepreneurship. Through the Make in India and Made in India initiatives, the government is creating a start-up-friendly environment. Entrepreneurs and young innovators are provided with loan facilities, subsidies and tax benefits. 

Key Vision Areas

The Digital India scheme has three key vision areas:

9 Pillars of Digital India

The digital India scheme rests on its 9 pillars. These pillars will help India achieve desirable growth in all sectors. e-Governance and the Digital India Programme were the major sub-schemes launched under the Digital India programme. These 9 pillars are:

• e-Governance – Reforming Government through Technology
• e-Kranti – Electronic delivery of services
• Universal Access to Mobile Connectivity
• Electronics Manufacturing
• Broadband Highways
• Global Information
• Public Interest Access Programme
• Early Harvest Programmes
• IT for Jobs

The success of the entire programme relies on these 9 pillars and the participation of the people of India. The government will provide every necessary resource and tool to educate and empower its people. The government has aimed to cover 60 million rural households through the Digital Literacy mission.

Digital India Advantages

The Digital India scheme will provide easy access to the government through online platforms. It means people in rural areas won’t have to travel for hours to access government services. 

• The e-Vidya scheme will give access to quality education in rural areas. Students can access free study materials and video lectures at domestic ease.
• People will have easy access to healthcare services in government and private hospitals through the e-health platforms. People can easily have medical appointments and health check-ups, especially for elders with physical illnesses. 
• Government services are also made accessible first-hand. Government services, such as Aadhar cards, voter ID cards and PAN cards can be easily accessed and linked through government websites.
• Students can access social media platforms, such as X (Twitter), Facebook, WhatsApp, etc. where they can connect with different people and stay updated on the latest news and trends.

Digital India has the potential to transform the entire Indian society into a global economy. Everyone in the country must learn about this flagship programme to understand its objectives, impact and benefits. It will not only transform the Indian economy but will also have a positive impact on their future.

Also Read: Essay on Contribution of Technology in Education for School Students

Ans: Digital India is a central-government-backed scheme, launched in 2015. Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched this scheme to transform India into a digitally empowered nation. This scheme will bring digital revolution to the entire country by providing easy access to digital services in remote and rural areas.

Ans: The Digital India scheme was launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 1st July 2015.

Ans: The Digital India scheme will provide easy access to e-learning and e-health services to students. Students living in rural areas can have access to online classes, study materials and video lectures. Students can access internet services and social media platforms, which will help them connect with the rest of the world and learn about new trends. 

Related Articles

For more information on such informative articles for your school, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu .

Shiva Tyagi

With an experience of over a year, I've developed a passion for writing blogs on wide range of topics. I am mostly inspired from topics related to social and environmental fields, where you come up with a positive outcome.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

• DSpace@MIT Home
• MIT Libraries
• Doctoral Theses

Essays on digital economy

Other Contributors

Terms of use, description, date issued, collections.

Show Statistical Information

Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences , 2024, 7(8); doi: 10.25236/AJHSS.2024.070834 .

Study on the Transportation Investment Effect of the "Belt and Road" Initiative on China and ASEAN Countries

School of Economics, Guangxi University, Nanning, China 

• Full-Text HTML
• Full-Text XML
• Full-Text Epub
• Download PDF
• Download: 1

This article mainly studies the impact of the "Belt and Road" initiative on transportation investment in China and ASEAN countries. Using the DID model to verify the "Belt and Road” initiative on transportation investment, through a fixed effect model to verify the relationship between transportation investment and economic growth, and at the same time, a subregional regression of ASEAN countries is carried out to study the impact of transportation investment on countries with different infrastructures. The research results show that the "Belt and Road" initiative has significantly promoted China's transportation investment in ASEAN countries. The implementation of the "Belt and Road" initiative should be continued to promote transportation investment, thereby promoting economic growth. Only when investment in areas with insufficient transportation infrastructure can promote economic growth. On the contrary, investment in areas with complete transportation infrastructure it may also restrain economic growth. In addition, the country's urbanization level, institutional environment, openness level and education expenditure also promote economic growth.

One Belt One Road; transportation investment; ASEAN; DID; economic growth

Cite This Paper

Li Qiuni. Study on the Transportation Investment Effect of the "Belt and Road" Initiative on China and ASEAN Countries. Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences (2024) Vol. 7, Issue 8: 214-226. https://doi.org/10.25236/AJHSS.2024.070834.

[1] Du J, Zhang Y. Does one belt one road initiative promote Chinese overseas direct investment? [J]. China Economic Review, 2018, 47: 189-205.

[2] Li J, Liu B, Qian G. The belt and road initiative, cultural friction and ethnicity: Their effects on the export performance of SMEs in China[J]. Journal of World Business, 2019, 54(4): 350-359.

[3] Herranz-Loncán A. Infrastructure investment and Spanish economic growth, 1850–1935[J]. Explorations in Economic History, 2007, 44(3): 452-468.

[4] Pradhan R P, Norman N R, Badir Y, et al. Transport infrastructure, foreign direct investment and economic growth interactions in India: the ARDL bounds testing approach[J]. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 2013, 104: 914-921.

[5] Song L, van Geenhuizen M. Port infrastructure investment and regional economic growth in China: Panel evidence in port regions and provinces[J]. Transport Policy, 2014, 36: 173-183.

[6] Banister D, Berechman Y. Transport investment and the promotion of economic growth[J]. Journal of transport geography, 2001, 9(3): 209-218.

[7] Bougheas S, Demetriades P O, Mamuneas T P. Infrastructure, specialization, and economic growth [J]. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, 2000, 33(2): 506-522.

[8] Fedderke J W, Perkins P, Luiz J M. Infrastructural investment in long-run economic growth: South Africa 1875–2001[J]. World development, 2006, 34(6): 1037-1059.

[9] Maparu T S, Mazumder T N. Transport infrastructure, economic development and urbanization in India (1990–2011): Is there any causal relationship?[J]. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 2017, 100: 319-336. 

• Presentations
• Advanced Photonics
• Advanced Photonics Nexus
• Biophotonics Discovery
• Journal of Applied Remote Sensing
• Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems
• Journal of Biomedical Optics
• Journal of Electronic Imaging
• Journal of Medical Imaging
• Journal of Micro/Nanopatterning, Materials, and Metrology
• Journal of Nanophotonics
• Journal of Optical Microsystems
• Journal of Photonics for Energy
• Neurophotonics
• Optical Engineering
• Photonics Insights
• DOWNLOAD PAPER SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

Show All Keywords

Keywords/phrases, publication years.