negative impact of internet on education essay

The opportunities and challenges of digital learning

Subscribe to the center for economic security and opportunity newsletter, brian a. jacob brian a. jacob walter h. annenberg professor of education policy; professor of economics, and professor of education - university of michigan, former brookings expert.

May 5, 2016

Twenty years ago this week, one of my very first writings on education policy appeared in print. [i] It was an opinion piece I wrote while teaching middle school in East Harlem, in which I described my school’s struggle to effectively use classroom computers. Two decades later, as a professor of economics and education policy, I am engaged in several research projects studying the use and impact of digital learning. [ii]

Much has changed since I taught middle school. I am struck by the extent to which recent technological innovations have created many new opportunities to better serve traditionally disadvantaged students.

First, increasing speed and availability of internet access can reduce many of the geographic constraints that disadvantage poor students. Schools serving higher-resourced families are often able to recruit better teachers and administrators—perhaps the most important school resources—even without additional funding.

Unlike teachers, however, technologies have no preferences for the schools in which they work. The resources available on the internet, for example, are equally available to all schools with the same internet access and internet access costs the same for all schools in the same area, regardless of the student population served. Students can now access online videos that provide instruction on a wide variety of topics at various skill levels, and participate in real-time video conferences with teachers or tutors located a state (or even a continent) away. [iii]

Second, the evolution of touch-screen technology has enabled very young children to engage in technology-aided instruction. Prior to tablets, it was difficult for pre-school, kindergarten and even early primary grade students to work with educational software because it required use of a mouse or keyboard. Now there are a hundreds of applications that can effectively expose children to early literacy and numeracy skills.

Third, advances in artificial intelligence technology now allow teachers to differentiate instruction, providing extra support and developmentally-appropriate material to students whose knowledge and skill is far below or above grade level norms. The latest “intelligent” tutoring systems are able to not only assess a student’s current weaknesses, but also diagnose why students are making specific errors. [iv] These technologies could enable teachers to better reach students who are further from the average within their classroom, potentially benefiting students with weaker academic preparation.

And these technologies scale easily so that innovations (or even good curriculum) can reach more students. Much like a well-written textbook, a well-designed educational software application or online lesson can reach students not just in a single classroom or school, but across the state or country.

While technologies such as virtual instruction and intelligent tutoring offer great promise, unless the challenges that are associated with implementing them are fully understood and addressed their failure is almost surely guaranteed. To date, there is little evidence that digital learning can be implemented at scale in a way that improves outcomes for disadvantaged students.

Hundreds of thousands of students attend full-time online schools, [v] but a study released last year found that students of online charter schools had significantly weaker academic performance in math and reading, compared with demographically similar students in conventional public schools. [vi] Computer-aided instruction has been studied extensively over the past twenty-five years and the findings have not been encouraging. Consistently, programs that are implemented widely and evaluated with rigorous methods have yielded little to no benefit for students on average. [vii]

What are the key challenges?

Let’s start with student motivation. If technologies can draw in otherwise disenfranchised students through the personalization of material to a student’s interest or through gaming technology, they could benefit disengaged, poorly performing students. However, these technologies often reduce oversight of students, which could be particularly detrimental for children who are less motivated or who receive less structured educational supports at home. It is also possible that these technologies will be less able to engage reluctant learners in the way a dynamic and charismatic teacher can.

Moreover, approaches that forgo direct interpersonal interaction completely are unlikely to be able to teach certain skills. Learning is an inherently social activity. While an intelligent tutor might be able to help a student master specific math concepts, it may not be able to teach students to critically analyze a work of literature or debate the ethics of new legislation.

The experience of Rocketship, a well-known charter school network, illustrates this concern. Developed in the Bay Area of California in 2006, Rocketship’s instructional model revolves around a blended learning approach in which students spend a considerable amount of each day engaged with computer-aided learning technologies. The network received early praise for its innovative approach to learning and, most importantly, for the high achievement scores posted by its mostly poor, nonwhite student population. In 2012, however, researchers and educators raised concerns about graduates from Rocketship elementary schools, noting that they had good basic skills but were struggling with the critical analysis required in middle school. [viii]

More broadly, it is important to realize that technologies can be either substitutes for or complements to resources already in the school. To the extent that they are substitutes, they are inherently equalizing forces. For example, well-designed and structured online content might provide critical support to a novice teacher who is too overwhelmed to produce the same coherent and engaging materials that some more experienced teachers can create.

However, in many cases it may be more appropriate to think of technologies as complements—e.g., when they require skilled teachers or students with strong prior skills to be implemented well. In these cases, technologies must be accompanied with additional resources in order for them to benefit traditionally underserved populations.

Perhaps most importantly, systems that blend computer-aided and face-to-face instruction are notoriously difficult to implement well. In recent studies of the popular Cognitive Tutor math programs, teachers reported trouble implementing the program’s instructional practices that revolve around collaborative work, making strong connections between computer-based activities and classroom instruction, and maintaining the expected learning pace with many students who lacked prior math and reading skills. [ix]

Finally, even with the best implementation, digital learning is likely to benefit students differently depending on their personal circumstances and those of their school. For instance, non-native English speakers might benefit from online instruction that allows them to pause and look up unfamiliar words. Likewise, we might expect an online course to be more advantageous for students attending a brick-and-mortar school with very low-quality teachers.

Indeed, some recent research finds exactly this type of heterogeneity. A large IES-funded evaluation of computer-aided instruction (CAI) released in 2007 found that students randomly assigned to teachers using the leading CAI products fared no better than students in control classrooms. Several years later, then graduate student Eric Taylor, decided to reanalyze the data from the study, focusing on whether the impacts of these technologies varied across classrooms. His analysis suggests that the introduction of computer-aided instruction had a positive impact on students in classrooms with less effective teachers and a negative impact on students in classrooms with more effective teachers. [x]

In recent years, the worlds of online learning and computer-aided instruction have converged to some extent, morphing into what is often referred to as blended- or personalized-learning models. There are a number of interesting projects underway across the country, including pilots supported by the Gates Foundation’s Next Generation Learning Challenge, and the emergence of charter networks with a goal to provide truly personalized learning for every student, such as Summit Public Schools in California and Washington. [xi]

In order for these new endeavors to be successful, they must overcome the challenges described above.

[i] http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/1996/05/01/08jacob.h07.html

[ii] In a recent publication, the International Association for K-12 Online Learning defined digital learning as “any instructional practice in or out of school that uses digital technology to strengthen a student’s learning experience and improve educational outcomes.”

[iii] This technology has even expanded opportunities for the long-distance professional development of teachers, enabling novice teachers to receive mentorship from master teachers regardless of distance.

[iv] http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4311503.aspx?tab=2

[v] http://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Keeping-Pace-2015-Report.pdf

[vi] https://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/Online%20Charter%20Study%20Final.pdf

[vii] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X13000031

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/105/4/970/?_ga=1.79079444.1486538874.1462278305

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/edu-a0037123.pdf

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/86/1/42.abstract

[viii] http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/01/21/19el-rotation.h33.html?qs=New+Model+Underscores+Rocketship%E2%80%99s+Growing+Pains

http://educationnext.org/future-schools/

[ix] http://epa.sagepub.com/content/36/2/127.abstract

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19345741003681189

[x] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=5LXmfylL6JAC

[xi] http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1365.html

Economic Studies

Center for Economic Security and Opportunity

Jing Liu, Cameron Conrad, David Blazar

May 1, 2024

Hannah C. Kistler, Shaun M. Dougherty

April 9, 2024

Natalie Evans, Jamie Jirout, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek

August 22, 2023

Education and the Internet/Positive and negative impact of educational technology

•Technology provides students an effective way to learn

•Technology in the classroom prepares students to use it in future careers (they won’t be intimidated by it)

•Technology allows more opportunity for differentiation - students can learn at their own pace and revisit tools

•Technology aligned with the lesson plans allows time to be saved, student engagement, and career readiness

1. Large Expenditures There is a high cost for training teachers, the implementation of new devices, and replacement for new devices. Some districts do district-wide refreshments of technology every couple of years.

2. Reliance on Technology Students become reliable on merely looking up information on Google. During class, students have the opportunity to play on different tabs due to feeling entitled to technology. Students can become inefficient learners this way.

3. Misguided/False Information Without being taught how to navigate the Internet and how to discern where to find accurate information for research. Students at the elementary school age are not taught citations through the Common Core curriculum, either. This can lead to the spread of false or inaccurate information among younger generations.

4. Eliminating the need for handwriting Handwriting notes is statistically proven to improve memorization and understanding. A common practice for studying is to hand write typed notes. However, with the dawn of educational technology in the classroom, typing and handwriting are now equally if not disparagingly used in the classroom, with partiality to typing.

5. Effect on Low-income groups Government programs aim to help low-income areas by subsidizing educational technology for those districts, and not high-income districts. However, educational technology as a whole widens the disparity between income groups because high-income students can digitally finish assignments while other students can wont be able to finish assignment

Sources for Findings

Blog- Five Positive Effects of Technology on Education

TED Talk- Redefining Learning and Teaching Using Technology

American Affairs Article- How Technology Corrupts Education

TED Talk- Why Technology Can't Fix Education

Examples of Educational Technology [ edit | edit source ]

There are many different types of technology used in the classroom. They all have positives and negatives. Therefore, let us look into one specific form of educational technology that has been on the rise. Augmented Reality (AR) allows students to see real environments with virtual information. Along with all educational technologies, AR has its positive attributes and its negative attributes.

Positive: [ edit | edit source ]

1. AR gives students a real-life experience of the content they are learning about. As the content is becoming alive right before their eyes, they are receiving information at the same time. 2. AR has shown to promote student critical thinking skills. 3. Students are able to have a deeper understanding of their content. 4. Students are engaged to further their learning outside the classroom walls.

Negative: [ edit | edit source ]

1. Although AR has some amazing positive attributes, the biggest challenge is money. These tools can be expensive for public schools to purchase. Some tools are less expensive than others but any additional cost will halt any school from trying new technology.

References: “Exploring possible applications of augmented reality in education” Gupta, N., & Rohil, M. (2017). Exploring possible applications of augmented reality in education. 2017 4th International Conference on Signal Processing and Integrated Networks (SPIN), 437-441. https://ieeexplore-ieee-org.csulb.idm.oclc.org/document/8049989

What Are the Pros and Cons of EdTech in the Classroom? Retrieved from https://www.thetechedvocate.org/pros-cons-edtech-classroom/

Laura Lemus

Positive and Negative Impact of Educational Technology

Positive Impact :

1. Maximizes teaching, what can be learned, the speed of use and opens new pathways to learning. Teachers have infinite ways to build in meaning, purpose, and connections.

2. Utilize different methods of teaching - bring exciting curricula outside the classroom that is based on real-world activities

3. Unlimited information

4. Retrieval of information is more straightforward readily available

5. Easy to publish updated information (King, 2019)

Negative Impact :

1. Diminishes creativity

2. Distraction. A study published in the Child Development journal demonstrates “heavy parent digital technology use has been associated with suboptimal parent-child interactions. Results suggest that technological interruptions are associated with child problem behaviors (McDaniel & Radesky, 2018).

3. Become dependent on the device: An online questionnaire was prepared and distributed among 100 IT employees. The questionnaire was given to them individually to keep away from false results. Each of them took 2–4 min to complete the survey. All data are composed and statistically analyzed. About 42% of them have a habit of using social media for a long time, especially during the night, 63% of them have a habit of checking social media very often. In that 63%, about 40% of IT employees feeling neglected if they do not get a message for a long time. The present study determined that “due to overexposure of screen time, 44% of them experiencing eyesight problems [Figure 2] and 46% of them facing lack of concentration, irritation, and headache. Due to increased screen time, their sleep-wake pattern also altered. Screen Dependency Disorder (SDD) is a screen-related addictive behavior. SDD is closely related to an internet addiction disorder, internet gaming disorder, some social network site addiction, and many other internet addictions” (Sarojini, Gayathri, & Priya, 2019).

4. Difficult navigation for some: learners must be supported in their diverse needs and capacities.

5. The expense to maintain and update devices

King, T. (2019). Positive negative impact. Retrieved from https://positivenegativeimpact.com/technology-on-education

McDaniel, B. T., & Radesky, J. S. (2018). Technoference: Parent Distraction With Technology and Associations With Child Behavior Problems. Child Development, 89(1), 100–109. https://doi-org.csulb.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/cdev.12822

Sarojini, K., Gayathri, R., & Priya, V. V. (2019). Awareness of screen dependency disorder among information technology professionals – A survey. Drug Invention Today, 12(3), 559–561.

• Educational technology

Navigation menu

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
• Published: 25 January 2021

Online education in the post-COVID era

• Barbara B. Lockee 1  

Nature Electronics volume  4 ,  pages 5–6 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

139k Accesses

207 Citations

337 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

The coronavirus pandemic has forced students and educators across all levels of education to rapidly adapt to online learning. The impact of this — and the developments required to make it work — could permanently change how education is delivered.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced the world to engage in the ubiquitous use of virtual learning. And while online and distance learning has been used before to maintain continuity in education, such as in the aftermath of earthquakes 1 , the scale of the current crisis is unprecedented. Speculation has now also begun about what the lasting effects of this will be and what education may look like in the post-COVID era. For some, an immediate retreat to the traditions of the physical classroom is required. But for others, the forced shift to online education is a moment of change and a time to reimagine how education could be delivered 2 .

Looking back

Online education has traditionally been viewed as an alternative pathway, one that is particularly well suited to adult learners seeking higher education opportunities. However, the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has required educators and students across all levels of education to adapt quickly to virtual courses. (The term ‘emergency remote teaching’ was coined in the early stages of the pandemic to describe the temporary nature of this transition 3 .) In some cases, instruction shifted online, then returned to the physical classroom, and then shifted back online due to further surges in the rate of infection. In other cases, instruction was offered using a combination of remote delivery and face-to-face: that is, students can attend online or in person (referred to as the HyFlex model 4 ). In either case, instructors just had to figure out how to make it work, considering the affordances and constraints of the specific learning environment to create learning experiences that were feasible and effective.

The use of varied delivery modes does, in fact, have a long history in education. Mechanical (and then later electronic) teaching machines have provided individualized learning programmes since the 1950s and the work of B. F. Skinner 5 , who proposed using technology to walk individual learners through carefully designed sequences of instruction with immediate feedback indicating the accuracy of their response. Skinner’s notions formed the first formalized representations of programmed learning, or ‘designed’ learning experiences. Then, in the 1960s, Fred Keller developed a personalized system of instruction 6 , in which students first read assigned course materials on their own, followed by one-on-one assessment sessions with a tutor, gaining permission to move ahead only after demonstrating mastery of the instructional material. Occasional class meetings were held to discuss concepts, answer questions and provide opportunities for social interaction. A personalized system of instruction was designed on the premise that initial engagement with content could be done independently, then discussed and applied in the social context of a classroom.

These predecessors to contemporary online education leveraged key principles of instructional design — the systematic process of applying psychological principles of human learning to the creation of effective instructional solutions — to consider which methods (and their corresponding learning environments) would effectively engage students to attain the targeted learning outcomes. In other words, they considered what choices about the planning and implementation of the learning experience can lead to student success. Such early educational innovations laid the groundwork for contemporary virtual learning, which itself incorporates a variety of instructional approaches and combinations of delivery modes.

Online learning and the pandemic

Fast forward to 2020, and various further educational innovations have occurred to make the universal adoption of remote learning a possibility. One key challenge is access. Here, extensive problems remain, including the lack of Internet connectivity in some locations, especially rural ones, and the competing needs among family members for the use of home technology. However, creative solutions have emerged to provide students and families with the facilities and resources needed to engage in and successfully complete coursework 7 . For example, school buses have been used to provide mobile hotspots, and class packets have been sent by mail and instructional presentations aired on local public broadcasting stations. The year 2020 has also seen increased availability and adoption of electronic resources and activities that can now be integrated into online learning experiences. Synchronous online conferencing systems, such as Zoom and Google Meet, have allowed experts from anywhere in the world to join online classrooms 8 and have allowed presentations to be recorded for individual learners to watch at a time most convenient for them. Furthermore, the importance of hands-on, experiential learning has led to innovations such as virtual field trips and virtual labs 9 . A capacity to serve learners of all ages has thus now been effectively established, and the next generation of online education can move from an enterprise that largely serves adult learners and higher education to one that increasingly serves younger learners, in primary and secondary education and from ages 5 to 18.

The COVID-19 pandemic is also likely to have a lasting effect on lesson design. The constraints of the pandemic provided an opportunity for educators to consider new strategies to teach targeted concepts. Though rethinking of instructional approaches was forced and hurried, the experience has served as a rare chance to reconsider strategies that best facilitate learning within the affordances and constraints of the online context. In particular, greater variance in teaching and learning activities will continue to question the importance of ‘seat time’ as the standard on which educational credits are based 10 — lengthy Zoom sessions are seldom instructionally necessary and are not aligned with the psychological principles of how humans learn. Interaction is important for learning but forced interactions among students for the sake of interaction is neither motivating nor beneficial.

While the blurring of the lines between traditional and distance education has been noted for several decades 11 , the pandemic has quickly advanced the erasure of these boundaries. Less single mode, more multi-mode (and thus more educator choices) is becoming the norm due to enhanced infrastructure and developed skill sets that allow people to move across different delivery systems 12 . The well-established best practices of hybrid or blended teaching and learning 13 have served as a guide for new combinations of instructional delivery that have developed in response to the shift to virtual learning. The use of multiple delivery modes is likely to remain, and will be a feature employed with learners of all ages 14 , 15 . Future iterations of online education will no longer be bound to the traditions of single teaching modes, as educators can support pedagogical approaches from a menu of instructional delivery options, a mix that has been supported by previous generations of online educators 16 .

Also significant are the changes to how learning outcomes are determined in online settings. Many educators have altered the ways in which student achievement is measured, eliminating assignments and changing assessment strategies altogether 17 . Such alterations include determining learning through strategies that leverage the online delivery mode, such as interactive discussions, student-led teaching and the use of games to increase motivation and attention. Specific changes that are likely to continue include flexible or extended deadlines for assignment completion 18 , more student choice regarding measures of learning, and more authentic experiences that involve the meaningful application of newly learned skills and knowledge 19 , for example, team-based projects that involve multiple creative and social media tools in support of collaborative problem solving.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, technological and administrative systems for implementing online learning, and the infrastructure that supports its access and delivery, had to adapt quickly. While access remains a significant issue for many, extensive resources have been allocated and processes developed to connect learners with course activities and materials, to facilitate communication between instructors and students, and to manage the administration of online learning. Paths for greater access and opportunities to online education have now been forged, and there is a clear route for the next generation of adopters of online education.

Before the pandemic, the primary purpose of distance and online education was providing access to instruction for those otherwise unable to participate in a traditional, place-based academic programme. As its purpose has shifted to supporting continuity of instruction, its audience, as well as the wider learning ecosystem, has changed. It will be interesting to see which aspects of emergency remote teaching remain in the next generation of education, when the threat of COVID-19 is no longer a factor. But online education will undoubtedly find new audiences. And the flexibility and learning possibilities that have emerged from necessity are likely to shift the expectations of students and educators, diminishing further the line between classroom-based instruction and virtual learning.

Mackey, J., Gilmore, F., Dabner, N., Breeze, D. & Buckley, P. J. Online Learn. Teach. 8 , 35–48 (2012).

Google Scholar  

Sands, T. & Shushok, F. The COVID-19 higher education shove. Educause Review https://go.nature.com/3o2vHbX (16 October 2020).

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. & Bond, M. A. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review https://go.nature.com/38084Lh (27 March 2020).

Beatty, B. J. (ed.) Hybrid-Flexible Course Design Ch. 1.4 https://go.nature.com/3o6Sjb2 (EdTech Books, 2019).

Skinner, B. F. Science 128 , 969–977 (1958).

Article   Google Scholar  

Keller, F. S. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 1 , 79–89 (1968).

Darling-Hammond, L. et al. Restarting and Reinventing School: Learning in the Time of COVID and Beyond (Learning Policy Institute, 2020).

Fulton, C. Information Learn. Sci . 121 , 579–585 (2020).

Pennisi, E. Science 369 , 239–240 (2020).

Silva, E. & White, T. Change The Magazine Higher Learn. 47 , 68–72 (2015).

McIsaac, M. S. & Gunawardena, C. N. in Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (ed. Jonassen, D. H.) Ch. 13 (Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1996).

Irvine, V. The landscape of merging modalities. Educause Review https://go.nature.com/2MjiBc9 (26 October 2020).

Stein, J. & Graham, C. Essentials for Blended Learning Ch. 1 (Routledge, 2020).

Maloy, R. W., Trust, T. & Edwards, S. A. Variety is the spice of remote learning. Medium https://go.nature.com/34Y1NxI (24 August 2020).

Lockee, B. J. Appl. Instructional Des . https://go.nature.com/3b0ddoC (2020).

Dunlap, J. & Lowenthal, P. Open Praxis 10 , 79–89 (2018).

Johnson, N., Veletsianos, G. & Seaman, J. Online Learn. 24 , 6–21 (2020).

Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M. & Garrison, D. R. Assessment in Teaching in Blended Learning Environments: Creating and Sustaining Communities of Inquiry (Athabasca Univ. Press, 2013).

Conrad, D. & Openo, J. Assessment Strategies for Online Learning: Engagement and Authenticity (Athabasca Univ. Press, 2018).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

Barbara B. Lockee

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara B. Lockee .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lockee, B.B. Online education in the post-COVID era. Nat Electron 4 , 5–6 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-020-00534-0

Download citation

Published : 25 January 2021

Issue Date : January 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-020-00534-0

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 comparative study on the effectiveness of online and in-class team-based learning on student performance and perceptions in virtual simulation experiments.

BMC Medical Education (2024)

Leveraging privacy profiles to empower users in the digital society

• Davide Di Ruscio
• Paola Inverardi
• Phuong T. Nguyen

Automated Software Engineering (2024)

Growth mindset and social comparison effects in a peer virtual learning environment

• Pamela Sheffler
• Cecilia S. Cheung

Social Psychology of Education (2024)

Nursing students’ learning flow, self-efficacy and satisfaction in virtual clinical simulation and clinical case seminar

• Sunghee H. Tak

BMC Nursing (2023)

Online learning for WHO priority diseases with pandemic potential: evidence from existing courses and preparing for Disease X

• Heini Utunen
• Corentin Piroux

Archives of Public Health (2023)

Quick links

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

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Information: the Seed of Responsible Consumption (RC)

Teleworking, video conferences and plato’s cave, openmind books, scientific anniversaries, the eternal sound: from the phonograph to holophony, featured author, latest book, the internet and education, introduction.

In many ways, it is difficult to discuss any aspect of contemporary society without considering the Internet. Many people’s lives are saturated so thoroughly with digital technology that the once obvious distinction between either being  online  or  offline  now fails to do justice to a situation where the Internet is implicitly  always on . Indeed, it is often observed that younger generations are unable to talk about  the Internet  as a discrete entity. Instead, online practices have been part of young people’s lives since birth and, much like oxygen, water, or electricity, are assumed to be a basic condition of modern life. As Donald Tapscott (2009, 20) put it, “to them, technology is like the air.” Thus, in many ways, talking about  the Internet  and education simply means talking about contemporary  education . The Internet is already an integral element of education in (over)developed nations, and we can be certain that its worldwide educational significance will continue to increase throughout this decade.

That said, the educational impact of the Internet is not straightforward. At a rudimentary level, it is important to remember that well over half the world’s population has no direct experience of using  the Internet  at all. While this is likely to change with the global expansion of mobile telephony, the issue of unequal access to the most enabling and empowering forms of Internet use remains a major concern. Moreover—as the continued dominance of  traditional  forms of classroom instruction and paper-and-pencil examinations suggest—the educational changes being experienced in the Internet age are complex and often compromised. In addressing the topic of “the Internet and education” we therefore need to proceed with caution. As such, this chapter will consider the following questions:

• What are the potential implications of the Internet for education and learning?
• What dominant forms of Internet-based education have emerged over the past 20 years?
• How does the educational potential of the Internet relate to the realities of its use?
• Most importantly, how should we understand the potential gains and losses of what is being advanced?

The Internet as an Educational Tool

For many commentators, the Internet has always been an inherently educational tool. Indeed, many people would argue that the main characteristics of the Internet align closely with the core concerns of education. For instance, both the Internet  and  education are concerned with information exchange, communication, and the creation of knowledge.

The participatory, communal nature of many social Internet applications and activities is aligned closely with the fundamental qualities of how humans learn, not least the practices of creating, sharing, collaborating, and critiquing.

Thus, in light of the Internet’s capacity to allow these activities to take place on a vast and almost instantaneous scale, the educational implications of the Internet are understandably often described in grand terms. Take, for example, this recent pronouncement from Jeb Bush:

The Internet isn’t just a powerful tool for communication. It’s arguably the most potent force for learning and innovation since the printing press. And it’s at the center of what is possibly America’s mightiest struggle and greatest opportunity: How to reimagine education for a transformative era.

(Bush and Dawson 2013)

Beyond such hyperbole, the implications of the Internet for education and learning can be understood in at least four distinct ways. First, is the potential of the Internet to offer individual learners increased freedom from the physical limitations of the  real world . This is often expressed in terms of reducing constraints of place, space, time, and geography, with individuals able to access high-quality learning opportunities and educational provision regardless of local circumstances. The Internet is therefore portrayed as allowing education to take place on an  any time, any place, any pace  basis. Many commentators extend these  freedoms  into a transcendence of social and material disadvantage, with the Internet perceived as an inherently democratizing medium. The ability to support  freer  and  fairer educational interactions and experiences is seen to reflect the Internet’s underpinning qualities as “a radically democratic zone of infinite connectivity” (Murphy 2012, 122).

Secondly, the Internet is seen to support a  new culture of learning —i.e., learning that is based around  bottom-up  principles of collective exploration, play, and innovation rather than  top-down  individualized instruction (Thomas and Seely-Brown 2011). The Internet allows learning to take place on a  many-to-many  rather than  one-to-many  basis, thereby supporting  socio-constructivist  modes of learning and cognitive development that are profoundly social and cultural in nature. Many educators would consider learners to benefit from the socially rich environments that the Internet can support (see Luckin 2010). For example, it is often argued that the Internet offers individuals enhanced access to sources of knowledge and expertise that exist outside of their immediate environment. In this sense, there is now considerable interest in the ability of the Internet to support powerful forms of  situated learning  and digitally dispersed  communities of practice . The Internet is therefore seen as a powerful tool in supporting learning through  authentic  activities and interactions between people and extended social environments.

Thirdly, the capacity of the Internet to support a mass  connectivity  between people and information is felt to have radically altered the relationship between individuals and knowledge. It is sometimes argued that the Internet supports forms of knowledge creation and knowledge consumption that differ greatly from the epistemological presumptions of formal schooling and mass instruction. The networked relationships that Internet users have with online information have prompted wholesale reassessments of the nature of learning. Some educationalists are now beginning to advance ideas of  fluid intelligence  and  connectivism —reflecting the belief that learning via the Internet is contingent on the ability to access and use distributed information on a  just-in-time  basis. From this perspective,  learning  is understood as the ability to connect to specialized information nodes and sources as and when required. Thus being  knowledgeable  relates to the ability to nurture and maintain these connections (see Chatti, Jarke, and Quix 2010). As George Siemens (2004) puts it, learning can therefore be conceived in terms of the “capacity to know more” via the Internet rather than relating to the individual accumulation of prior knowledge in terms of “what is currently known.”

Fourthly, the Internet is seen to have dramatically  personalized  the ways in which people learn—thereby making education a far more individually determined process than was previously the case. The Internet is associated with an enhanced social autonomy and control, offering individuals increased choice over the nature and form of what they learn, as well as where, when, and how they learn it. Education is therefore a wholly controllable aspect of one’s personal life, with the Internet facilitating a  digital juggling  of educational engagement alongside daily activities and other commitments (Subrahmanyam and Šmahel 2011). Indeed, Internet users are often celebrated as benefiting from an enhanced capacity to self-organize and  curate  educational engagement for themselves, rather than relying on the norms and expectations of an education  system .

The Educational Implications of the Internet

All these various shifts and realignments clearly constitute a fundamental challenge to the  traditional  forms of educational provision and practice that were established throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, especially institutionalized modes of  formal  schooling and university education. For many commentators, therefore, the Internet contradicts the monopoly of state education systems and the vested interests of the professions that work within them. In all of the ways just outlined, the Internet would certainly seem to test established educational boundaries between  ex perts  and  novices , the production and consumption of knowledge, as well as the timing and location of learning. In terms of how education is provided, the Internet is associated with a range of radically different learning practices and altered social relations.

The Internet has certainly prompted ongoing debate and concern within the educational community. On one hand, many educationalists are busying themselves with rethinking and reimagining the notion of  the school  and  the university  in ways that respond to the demands of the Internet age. There have been various proposals over the past decade for the development of educational institutions that are better aligned with the characteristics of Internet-adept learners and online knowledge. As Collins and Halverson (2009, 129) put it, the task of reinventing schools and universities for the Internet age involves not only “rethinking what is important to learn” but also “rethinking learning.” This has seen modes of schooling being developed that are built around the communal creation (rather than individual consumption) of knowledge, in an attempt to imbue learning with a sense of play, expression, reflection, and exploration. The past ten years has seen a rash of ideas from enthusiastic educators proposing the development of new pedagogies and curricula built around social interaction, exploration,  gaming , and  making . All of these proposals for  school 2.0  reflect what Whitby (2013, 9–11) describes as  new models  of education provision based around “openness to learning and masterful tech-savvy.”

However, in contrast to these  re-schooling  proposals has been a countermovement to align the Internet with more radical forms of educational deinstitutionalization. These  de-schooling  arguments have proven popular with groups outside of the traditional  education establishment , framing the Internet as capable of usurping the need for educational institutions altogether. Key concepts here include self-determination, self-organization, self-regulation, and (in a neat twist on the notion of  do-it-yourself ) the idea of  do-it-ourselves . All these ideas align the Internet with a general rejection of institutionalized education—especially what has long been critiqued as the obsolete  banking model  of accumulating  knowledge content . Instead, Internet-based education is conceived along lines of open discussion, open debate, radical questioning, continuous experimentation, and the sharing of knowledge.

As with other aspects of digital activity, education is therefore imagined as something that is now open to reprogramming, modification, and hacking to better suit one’s individual needs.

As Dale Stephens (2013, 9) reasons:

The systems and institutions that we see around us—of schools, college, and work—are being systematically dismantled…. If you want to learn the skills required to navigate the world—the hustle, networking, and creativity—you’re going to have to hack your own education.

These are all highly contestable but highly seductive propositions. Indeed, whether one agrees with them or not, these arguments all highlight the fundamental challenge of the Internet to what was experienced throughout the past one hundred years or so as the dominant mode of education. It is therefore understandable that the Internet is now being discussed in terms of inevitable educational change, transformation, and the general  disruption  of twentieth-century models of education provision and practice. As the noted technology commentator Jeff Jarvis (2009, 210) concluded in an acclaimed overview of the Internet’s societal significance, “education is one of the institutions most deserving of disruption—and with the greatest opportunities to come of it.” Bold statements such as these are now being made with sufficient frequency and conviction that talk of an impending  digital disruption  of education is now rarely contested. Many people, therefore, see the prospect of the Internet completely reinventing education not as a matter of  if , but as a matter of  when .

Prominent Forms of Internet-Based Education

In the face of such forceful predictions of what  will  happen, it is perhaps sensible to take a step back and consider the realities of what has already happened with the Internet and education. As was suggested at the beginning of this chapter, amidst these grand claims of transformation and disruption, it is important to ask how the educational potential of the Internet is  actually  being realized in practice. In this sense, we should acknowledge that the Internet has been long used for educational purposes, and a number of prominent models of Internet-based education have emerged over the past 20 years. Perhaps the most established of these are various forms of what has come to be known as  e-learning —ranging from online courses through to virtual classrooms and even virtual schools. Many early forms of e-learning involved the predominantly one-way delivery of learning content, thereby replicating traditional  correspondence  forms of distance education. These programs (which continue to the present day) tend to rely on online content management systems, albeit supported by some form of interactivity in the form of e-mail, bulletin boards, and other communications systems. Alongside these forms of content delivery is the continued development of so-called virtual classrooms—usually spatial representations of classrooms or lecture theaters that can be  inhabited  by learners and teachers. Often these virtual spaces are designed to support synchronous forms of  live  instruction and feedback, with learners able to listen to lectures and view videos and visual presentations while also interacting with other learners via text and voice. Other asynchronous forms of virtual classroom exist in the form of digital spaces where resources can be accessed and shared—such as audio recordings and text transcripts of lectures, supplementary readings, and discussion forums. These forms of e-learning have continued to be developed since the 1990s, with entire  cyber schools  and online universities now well-established features of educational systems around the world.

While these examples of  e-learning  tend to replicate the basic structure and procedures of  bricks-and-mortar  schools and universities, a variety of other models of Internet-supported education have emerged over the past 20 years. One of the most familiar forms of Internet-based education is the collective  open  creation of information and knowledge, as exemplified by the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. Despite ongoing debates over its accuracy and coverage, the educational significance of Wikipedia is considerable. As well as being a vast information resource, the ability of users to contribute and refine content is seen to make  wiki  tools such as Wikipedia a significant educational tool. The belief now persists amongst many educators that mass user-driven applications such as Wikipedia allow individuals to engage in learning activities that are more personally meaningful and more publically significant than was ever possible before. As John Willinsky (2009, xiii) reasons:

Today a student who makes the slightest correction to a Wikipedia article is contributing more to the state of public knowledge, in a matter of minutes, than I was able to do over the course of my entire grade school education, such as it was.

These characteristics of wiki tools correspond with the wider  Open Educational Resource  movement which is concerned with making professionally developed educational materials available online for no cost. In this manner, it is reckoned that content from almost 80 percent of courses at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are available on this free-to-use basis. Similar commitments can be found in institutions ranging from world-class universities such as Yale and Oxford to local community colleges. In all these cases, course materials such as seminar notes, podcasts, and videos of lectures are shared online with a worldwide population of learners, most of whom could otherwise not attend. Crucially (as with Wikipedia), the emphasis of Open Educational Resources is not merely permitting individuals to use provided materials, but encouraging the alteration and amendment of these resources as required. For example, the UK Open University’s extensive OpenLearn project provides free online access to all of the institution’s curriculum materials with an invitation for individual users to adapt these resources as they wish.

Other forms of online content sharing involve the open distribution of educational content that has been created by individuals as well as institutions. For example, the YouTube EDU service offers access to millions of educational videos produced by individual educators and learners. Similarly, Apple Computers’ collection of educational media—the so-called iTunes U—is designed to allow learners to circumvent traditional educational lectures and classes in favor of on-demand free mobile learning (Çelik, Toptaş, and Karaca 2012). Describing itself as “possibly the world’s greatest collection of free educational media available to students, teachers, and lifelong learners,” iTunes U offers free access to hundreds of thousands of educational audio and video podcast files. Most recently, there has been considerable praise for the Khan Academy’s online provision of thousands of bespoke educational videos alongside interactive quizzes and assessments covering a range of subject areas and topics. The aim of Khan Academy is to support individuals to learn at their own pace and to revisit learning content on a repeated basis. This so-called flipped classroom model is intended to allow individuals to engage with instructional elements of learning  before  entering a formal classroom. Face-to-face classroom time can be then be devoted to the practical application of the knowledge through problem solving, discovery work, project-based learning, and experiments (Khan 2012).

Another notable  open  example of Internet-based education has been the development of  MOOCs  (Massively Open Online Courses) over the past five years or so. Now, most notably through successful large-scale ventures such as Coursera and Ed-X, MOOCs involve the online delivery of courses on a free-at-the-point-of-contact basis to mass audiences. At its heart, the MOOC model is based on the idea of individuals being encouraged to learn through their own choice of online tools—what has been termed  personal learning networks —the collective results of which can be aggregated by the course coordinators and shared with other learners. This focus on individually directed discovery learning has proved especially appropriate to college-level education. Now it is possible for individuals of all ages to participate in mass online courses run by professors from the likes of Stanford, MIT, and Harvard universities in subjects ranging from a Yale elective in Roman architecture to a Harvard course in the fundamentals of neuroscience.

Another radical application of the Internet to support self-directed, non-institutional learning are initiatives such as the  hole-in-the-wall  and  School in the Cloud initiatives. These programs are built around an ethos of  minimally invasive education  where children and young people can access digital technology at any time, and teach themselves how to use computers and the Internet on an individually paced basis. The guiding ethos for the original hole-in-the-wall program was to locate Internet access in what Arora (2010, 691) characterizes as “out-of-the-way, out-of-the-mind locations” rather than in formal settings such as schools or universities. Indeed, the program’s credo of minimally invasive education is an avowedly non-institutionalized one, with children expected to engage with the Internet as an educative tool “free of charge and free of any supervision” (Mitra 2010). This approach is seen to be especially applicable to locations such as slum communities in India and Cambodia where Internet access is otherwise lacking. The recent elaboration of the initiative into the School in the Cloud marks an attempt to use online communication tools to allow older community members in high-income countries to act as mentors and  friendly but knowledgeable  mediators to young autonomous learners in lower-income communities. The provision of such access and support is therefore seen to underpin what the project team term “self-organized learning environments” and “self-activated learning”—thus providing an alternative “for those denied formal schooling” in low-income countries (Arora 2010, 700).

These programs, projects, and initiatives are indicative of the variety of ways in which education and the Internet have coalesced over the past 20 years. Yet perhaps the most significant forms of Internet-based education are the completely  informal  instances of learning that occur in the course of everyday Internet use. In this sense the Internet’s implicit support of various forms of  informal learning  could be seen as its most substantial educational impact (see Ünlüsoy et al. 2014). As the cultural anthropologist Mimi Ito has described, there are various different genres of everyday Internet-based practice that can be said to involve elements of learning (see Ito et al. 2009). At a basic level is the popular practice of using the Internet to simply  hang out  with others. Often these forms of  hanging out  can spill over into more focused instances of what Ito terms  messing around —i.e., activities that are interest-driven and more centered on peer sociability, often involving fortuitous searching, experimentation, and playing with resources. This messing around can then sometimes lead to the more intense commitment of what Ito has described as geeking out . These are bouts of concentrated and intense participation within defined communities of like-minded and similarly interested individuals driven by common and often specialized interests. In supporting all these forms of  learning , everyday use of the Internet can be seen as an inherently educational activity.

The Reality of the Internet and Education

These examples—and many more like them—are now seen as proof of the Internet’s growing contribution to what it means to learn and be educated in the twenty-first century. Undoubtedly, developments such as MOOCs, flipped classrooms, and self-organized learning could well turn out to be educational  game changers (Oblinger 2012). Yet the history of educational technology over the past one hundred years or so warns us that change is rarely as instantaneous  or  as totalizing as many people would like to believe. Indeed, the history of  modern  educational technologies (starting with Thomas Edison’s championing of educational filmstrips in the 1910s) has usually been characterized by sets of complex mutually shaping relationships between education and technology (see Cuban 1986). In other words,  new technologies rarely—if ever—have a direct one-way  impact  or predictable  effect  on education. Rather, established cultures and traditions of education also have a profound reciprocal influence on technologies. As the historian Larry Cuban (1993, 185) observed succinctly of the remarkable resilience of schools to the waves of successive technological developments throughout the 1980s and 1990s, “computer meets classroom—classroom wins.” In asking how the Internet is shaping education in the 2010s, we therefore need to also ask the corresponding question of how education is shaping the Internet.

From this perspective, it is not surprising to see the most successful forms of Internet-based education and  e-learning  being those that reflect and even replicate  pre-Internet  forms of education such as classrooms, lectures, and books. It is also not surprising to see the long-established  grammar  of formal education and educational institutions having a strong bearing on emerging forms of Internet-based education (Tyack and Cuban 1995). Take, for instance, the persistence of familiar practices such as dividing knowledge into distinct subject areas, using graded individual assessments, or relying on  expert  teachers. While understandable, these continuities certainly belie claims of radical transformation and disruption of the educational status quo. Thus in contrast to the revolutionary zeal of some commentators, it could be observed that the Internet is having most  impact  on education where it is  not  causing radically new patterns of participation or practice. For instance, rather than extending educational opportunities to those who previously were excluded, the recent rise of the MOOC in countries such as the U.S. and UK appears primarily to be supporting well-resourced, highly motivated, and already well-educated individuals to engage in more education (thereby replicating a trend referred to by some social commentators as the  Matthew Effect ). This is not to say that MOOCs are an insignificant form of education—however, it does suggest that their main  impact  is that of increasing rather than widening educational participation. Indeed, this view does imply that some of the more  radical  claims of social transformation and change that surround MOOCs (and other forms of Internet-based education) require careful consideration.

This leaves any attempts to predict the likely influence of the Internet on future forms of education on uncertain ground. Of course, it is unwise to adapt an overtly cynical view that there is nothing  new  about Internet-based education at all—i.e., that the educational effects of the Internet are simply a case of  old wine in new bottles . Yet it is equally unwise to presume that any of the examples given so far in the chapter necessarily herald a fundamental shift in education. The Internet is certainly associated with educational changes—yet these changes are complex, contradictory, convoluted and decidedly  messy .

In this respect, perhaps the most significant issues that need to be considered about the Internet and education are sociological, rather than technical, in nature.

In this sense, the Internet prompts a range of ideological questions (rather than purely technical answers) about the nature of education in the near future. Thus, as this chapter draws to a close we should move away from the optimistic speculation that pervades most educational discussions of the Internet. Instead, there are a number of important but less often acknowledged social, cultural, and political implications that also merit attention:

1.The Internet and the increased individualization of education

First, then, is the way in which Internet-based education promotes an implicit individualization of practice and action. The Internet is celebrated by many educationalists as increasing the responsibility of individuals in terms of making choices with regards to education, as well as dealing with the consequences of their choice. All the forms of Internet education outlined in this chapter demand increased levels of self-dependence on the part of the individual, with educational success dependent primarily on the individual’s ability to self-direct their ongoing engagement with learning through various preferred means. Of course, this is usually assumed to work in favor of the individual and to the detriment of formal institutions. Yet the idea of the self-responsibilized, self-determining learner is based upon an unrealistic assumption that all individuals have a capacity to act in an agentic, empowered fashion throughout the course of their day-to-day lives. In Bauman’s (2001) terms, the successful online learner is someone able to act as an empowered individual  de facto  rather than an individual  de jure  (i.e., someone who simply has individualism  done to  them). Of course, only a privileged minority of people are able to act in a largely empowered fashion. As such this individualization of action leads to education becoming an area of increased risk as well as opportunity.

These issues raise a number of important questions. For instance, just how equal are individuals in being able to make the educational  choices  that the Internet actually offers? How are the apparent educational freedoms of the Internet resulting in enhanced  unfreedoms  (such as the intensification and extension of educational  work  into domestic settings)? To what extent are  personalized  forms of Internet education simply facilitating the  mass customization  of homogenous educational services and content? What is the nature of the collective forms of Internet-based education? How do  communities  of learners established through the Internet differ in terms of social diversity, obligation, or solidarity? Is the Internet undermining or even eroding notions of education as a public good?

2. The Internet and the growth of data-driven education

Another significant issue related to the increased educational significance of the Internet is the ways in which online data and information are now defining, as well as describing, social life. The Internet has certainly extended the significance of databases, data mining, analytics, and algorithms, with organizations and institutions functioning increasingly through the ongoing collection, aggregation, and (re)analysis of data. Crucially, the Internet allows this  data work  to take place on a mass, aggregated scale. We are now seen to be living in an era of  Big Data  where computerized systems are making available “massive quantities of information produced by and about people, things, and their interactions” (Boyd and Crawford 2012, 662).

The collection and analysis of online data is now a key aspect of how actions are structured and decisions are made in many areas of education. Now, for example, masses of online data are being generated, collected, and collated as a result of the Internet-based activities that take place within educational institutions—ranging from  in-house  monitoring of system conditions to the  public  collection of data at local, state, and federal levels. These data are used for a variety of purposes—including internal course administration, target setting, performance management, and student tracking. Similar processes and practices exist in terms of use of data  across  educational systems—from student databases to performance  league tables . There are, of course, many potential advantages to the heightened significance of online data. There has been much recent enthusiasm for the potential of  learning analytics —i.e., “the measurement, collection, analysis and reporting of data about learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimizing learning and the environments in which it occurs” (Siemens et al. 2011, 4). Similarly, there is growing discussion of  educational data mining  and  academic analytics . All of these uses of digital data are seen to lead to more efficient and transparent educational processes, as well as supporting individuals to self-monitor and  self-diagnose  their learning (Eynon 2013).

Yet, there is a clear need for caution amidst these potential advantages—not least how the increased prevalence of online data in education is implicated in the shaping of what people can and cannot do. For example, how are individuals and their learning being represented by data collected online? How does the Internet support the connection, aggregation, and use of these data in ways not before possible? To what extent are individuals’ educational engagements now being determined by  data profiles ? How are these online data being used in forms of  predictive surveillance  where educators and educational institutions use data relating to past performance and behavior to inform expectations of future behaviors? What aspects of educational engagement are  not  represented in the online data being collected and analyzed?

3. The Internet and the increased commercialization and privatization of education

Thirdly, is the need to recognize the role of commercial and private actors in the growth of Internet-based education. Indeed, the role of the private sector is integral to many of the forms of Internet-based education described in this chapter. For example, it is estimated that the global education/technology market is worth upwards of $7 trillion, with burgeoning levels of private capital investment in online education. A range of multinational commercial interests such as Pearson, Cengage, and McGraw-Hill are now involved heavily in the business of e-learning and online provision of teaching and training—competing with countless smaller commercial concerns and a range of nonprofit organizations. Clearly Internet-based education marks a distinct move away from a  planned economy  model where education provision is largely the preserve of state-run, public-sector institutions (see Picciano and Spring 2013).

Of course, the increased involvement of commercial interests in online education could be seen to have many potential benefits. The private sector is able to focus considerable technological resources and expertise on educational issues. It is often assumed that commercially provided education is more responsive to the demands of its  customers —be it the immediate preferences of learners or the longer-term workforce requirements of business and industry. Moreover, as Chubb and Moe (2012) reason, improvement can arise from market competition between private and public education providers: “in time, [for-profit institutions] may do amazing things with computerized instruction—imagine equivalents of Apple or Microsoft, with the right incentives to work in higher education—and they may give elite nonprofits some healthy competition in providing innovative, high-quality content.” Indeed, the appeal of many of the forms of Internet-based education described in this chapter is predicated upon bringing the innovation of the private sector to bear on the inefficiencies of public education. As Sebastian Thrun (the computer scientist credited with the popularization of the MOOC concept) argued recently: “Education is broken. Face it. It is so broken at so many ends, it requires a little bit of Silicon Valley magic” (Wolfson 2013).

Yet the possibilities for commercial innovation and  magic  notwithstanding, there are a number of reasons to challenge the growing influence of private interests in shaping education agendas in these ways. For example, how committed are IT producers and vendors to the public good of educational technology above and beyond matters of profit and market share? Given that education is an integral element in determining the life chances of the most vulnerable members of society, how appropriate is a Silicon Valley, venture-capitalist mindset of high-risk  start-ups  with expected high rates of failure? What are the moral and ethical implications of reshaping education along the lines of market forces and commercial values? Why should education correspond automatically with the needs of the digital economy?

4. The Internet and the changing values of education

Finally—and perhaps less tangibly—there is also a sense that the Internet might be altering the psychological, emotional, and spiritual bases of education. For example, many of the forms of online education discussed in this chapter imply an increased expansion of education into unfamiliar areas of society and social life—leading to an  always-on  state of potential educational engagement. Indeed, the  anytime, anyplace  nature of online education clearly involves the expansion of education and learning into domestic, work, and community settings where education and learning might previously have not been prominent. There are clear parallels here with what Basil Bernstein (2001) identified as the “total pedagogization of society”—i.e., a modern society that ensures that pedagogy is integrated into all possible spheres of life. This raises questions of what is perhaps lost when one is able to engage with education at all times of the day and in all contexts? Is there something to be said for being able to disconnect from the pressures of education? Is learning best suited to some contexts and circumstances than others?

Many of the forms of online education described in this chapter could also be said to frame learning (often inadvertently) as a competitive endeavor. Thus in contrast to allowing individuals to learn harmoniously alongside others, the Internet could be seen as placing individuals in “personal formative cycles, occupied in unison within individual feedback-action loops. They learn to become industrious self-improvers, accepting and implementing external goals” (Allen 2011, 378). Thus while a sense of achievement at the expense of others may not be immediately apparent, the Internet could be seen as a means of humanizing, disguising, and intensifying the competitive connotations of learning. Continuing this line of thinking, the partial, segmented, task-orientated, fragmented, and discontinuous nature of online education could perhaps even be seen as a form of  spiritual alienation —i.e., alienation at the level of meaning, where  conditions of good work  become detached from the  conditions of good character  (Sennett 2012).

All these points also relate to the correspondences between the Internet and the altered emotional aspects of educational engagement. In particular, many of the forms of Internet-based education described earlier in this chapter (such as the virtual school or the MOOC) could be said to involve learning being experienced on less immediate, less intimate, and perhaps more instrumental grounds. These points were explored in Jonathan Wolff’s (2013) recent reflections on what might be lost when a lecture takes place online as opposed to in a face-to-face lecture theater. While these diminishments are often difficult to pinpoint, Wolff suggested qualities such as the immediacy, the serendipity, and the  real-ness of the live experience  of learning alongside other people. Certainly, the remote, virtual sense of learning online is qualitatively different to the embodied sense of face-to-face learning—both in advantageous and disadvantageous ways.

Conclusions

Whether one agrees with any of these latter arguments or not, it is clear that the topic of “the Internet and education” needs to be approached in a circumspect manner. The predominantly optimistic rhetoric of transformation and change that currently surrounds the Internet and education distracts from a number of significant conflicts and tensions that need to be better acknowledged and addressed. This is not to say that we should adopt a wholly antagonistic  or  wholly pessimistic stance. Indeed, many of the  issues  just outlined should not be assumed automatically to be cause for concern. There are, after all, many people who will be advantaged by more individualized, elitist, competitive, market-driven, omnipresent, and de-emotionalized forms of educational engagement. The Internet clearly works for the millions of people who are learning online at this very moment.

Yet while it may well be that the Internet is helping  some  individuals to engage with education in more convenient, engaging, and useful ways, we would do well to acknowledge that this is unlikely to be the case for all. Any Internet-led changes in education are accompanied by a variety of unintended consequences,  second-order effects , and unforeseen implications. Perhaps the most important point to consider is the well-worn tendency of digital technology to reinforce existing patterns of educational engagement—helping already engaged individuals to participate further, but doing little to widen participation or reengage those who are previously disengaged. In particular, any discussion of the educational  potential  of the Internet needs to remain mindful of the limited usefulness of a  technical-fix  approach to understanding contemporary education. The Internet should not be seen as a ready  solution  to apparent inefficiencies of  twentieth-century  education institutions or practices—it will not lead automatically to more engaged or motivated learners, more highly skilled workforces, or rising levels of national intelligence and innovation. Instead, it is likely that many of the  problems  of contemporary education are primarily social and cultural in nature, and therefore require social and cultural responses.

As such, while there is plenty of scope for the increased use of the Internet within education, any claims for  change  and  improvement  should be seen as contentious and debatable matters, rather than inevitable trends that educators have no choice but to adapt to. To reiterate a key theme that has emerged throughout our discussion, underlying all of the issues raised in this chapter are questions of what sort of future education one believes in. As such, the role of the Internet in improving ,  transforming ,  or even disrupting  education is a deeply complex and ideologically loaded matter that goes well beyond technical issues of how to personalize the delivery of educational content, or support the production and consumption of online content. The future of education may well involve increased use of the Internet—but will not be determined by it.

Allen, Ansgar. “Michael Young’s  The Rise of the Meritocracy : A Philosophical Critique.”  British Journal of Educational Studies  59, no. 4 (2001): 367–82.

Arora, Payal. “Hope-in-the-Wall? A Digital Promise for Free Learning.”  British Journal of Educational Technology  41 (2010): 689–702.

Bauman, Zygmunt. The Individualized Society . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2001.

Bernstein, Basil. “From Pedagogies to Knowledges.” In Ana Morais, Isabel Neves, Brian Davies, and Harry Daniels, eds.,  Towards a Sociology of Pedagogy: The Contribution of Basil Bernstein to Research . New York: Peter Lang, 2001. 363–68.

Boyd, Danah, and Kate Crawford. “Critical Questions for Big Data.”  Information, Communication, & Society  15, no. 5 (2012): 662–79.

Bush, Jeb, and Rosario Dawson. “Internet Brings Historic Shift in Learning.”  Miami Herald , June 25, 2013.  http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/25/3470108/internet-brings-historic-shift.html#storylink=cpy  (accessed September 6, 2013).

Çelik, Serkan, Veli Toptaş, and Tuğçe Karaca. “iTunes University: Potentials and Applications.”  Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences  64 (2012): 412–16.

Chatti, Mohammed Amine, Matthias Jarke, and Christoph Quix. “Connectivism: The Network Metaphor of Learning.”  International Journal of Learning Technology  5, no. 1 (February 15, 2010): 80–99.

Chubb, John, and Terry Moe. “Higher education’s online revolution”  Wall Street Journal , May 30, 2012. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304019404577416631206583286.html  (accessed September 6, 2013).

Collins, Allan, and Richard Halverson. Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology . New York: Teachers College Press, 2009.

Cuban, Larry. Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920 . New York: Teachers College Press, 1986.

———. “Computer Meets Classroom: Classroom Wins”  Teachers College Record  95, no. 2 (1993): 185–210.

Eynon, Rebecca. “The Rise of Big Data: What Does It Mean for Education, Technology, and Media Research?”  Learning, Media and Technology  38, no. 3 (2013).

Ito, Mizuko, Sonja Baumer, Matteo Bittanti, Danah Boyd, Rachel Cody, Becky Herr-Stephenson, Heather A. Horst et al. Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009.

Jarvis, Jeff. What Would Google Do?  London: Collins, 2009.

Khan, Salman. The One World Schoolhouse . London: Hodder, 2012.

Luckin, Rosemary. Re-designing Learning Contexts: Technology-Rich, Learner-centred Ecologies . London: Routledge, 2010.

Mitra, Sugata. “Give Them a Laptop and a Group of Pupils Will Teach Themselves.”  Guardian , Educational Supplement, October 19, 2010.

Murphy, Douglas. The Architecture of Failure . Winchester, UK: Zero, 2012.

Oblinger, Diana G. Game Changers: Education and Information Technologies . Washington, D.C.: Educause, 2012.

Picciano, Anthony G., and Joel Spring. The Great American Education-Industrial Complex: Ideology, Technology and Profit . London: Routledge, 2013.

Sennett, Richard. Together: The Ritual, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation . London: Allen Lane, 2012.

Siemens, George. “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age,” eLearnSpace, December 12, 2004.  http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm  (accessed September 6, 2013).

Siemens, George, Dragan Gašević, Caroline Haythornthwaite, Shane Dawson, Simon Buckingham Shum, Rebecca Ferguson, Erik Duval, Katrien Verbert, and Ryan S. J. d. Baker. Open Learning Analytics . N.p.: Society for Learning Analytics Research, 2011.

Stephens, Dale J. Hacking Your Education . London: Penguin Press, 2013.

Subrahmanyam, Kaveri, and David Šmahel, Digital Youth: The Role of Media in Development . Berlin: Springer, 2011.

Tapscott, Don. Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World . New York: McGraw Hill, 2009.

Thomas, Douglas, and Seely Brown, John. A New Culture of Learning . Charleston, SC: Createspace, 2011.

Tyack, David, and Cuban, Larry. Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Ünlüsoy, Asli, Mariëtte de Haan, Kevin Leander, and Beate Volker. “Learning Potential in Youth’s Online Networks.”  Computers & Education  (forthcoming, 2014).

Whitby, Greg. Educating Gen Wi-Fi: How We Can Make Schools Relevant for 21st Century Leaders . Sydney: Harper Collins, 2013.

Willinsky, John. “Forward” in Charalambos Vrasidas, Michalinos Zembylas, and Gene V. Glass, eds.,  ICT for Education, Development and Social Justice . Charlotte, NC: Information Age, 2009. XI-XIV.

Wolff, Jonathan. “It’s Too Early to Write Off the Lecture.”  Guardian , June 25, 2013.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/jun/24/university-lecture-still-best-learning (accessed September 6, 2013).

Wolfson, Lisa. “Venture Capital Needed for ‘Broken’ US Education, Thrun Says.”  Bloomberg Businessweek , June 18, 2013.  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-06-18/venture-capital-needed-for-broken-u-dot-s-dot-education-thrun-says  (accessed September 6, 2013).

Related publications

• Futures of Education for Rapid Global-Societal Change
• The Internet Plays a Major Role within the Education System
• E-learning 2.0 for Higher Education: A Forward Perspective

Download Kindle

Download epub, download pdf, more publications related to this article, more about technology, artificial intelligence, digital world, visionaries, comments on this publication.

Morbi facilisis elit non mi lacinia lacinia. Nunc eleifend aliquet ipsum, nec blandit augue tincidunt nec. Donec scelerisque feugiat lectus nec congue. Quisque tristique tortor vitae turpis euismod, vitae aliquam dolor pretium. Donec luctus posuere ex sit amet scelerisque. Etiam sed neque magna. Mauris non scelerisque lectus. Ut rutrum ex porta, tristique mi vitae, volutpat urna.

Sed in semper tellus, eu efficitur ante. Quisque felis orci, fermentum quis arcu nec, elementum malesuada magna. Nulla vitae finibus ipsum. Aenean vel sapien a magna faucibus tristique ac et ligula. Sed auctor orci metus, vitae egestas libero lacinia quis. Nulla lacus sapien, efficitur mollis nisi tempor, gravida tincidunt sapien. In massa dui, varius vitae iaculis a, dignissim non felis. Ut sagittis pulvinar nisi, at tincidunt metus venenatis a. Ut aliquam scelerisque interdum. Mauris iaculis purus in nulla consequat, sed fermentum sapien condimentum. Aliquam rutrum erat lectus, nec placerat nisl mollis id. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.

Nam nisl nisi, efficitur et sem in, molestie vulputate libero. Quisque quis mattis lorem. Nunc quis convallis diam, id tincidunt risus. Donec nisl odio, convallis vel porttitor sit amet, lobortis a ante. Cras dapibus porta nulla, at laoreet quam euismod vitae. Fusce sollicitudin massa magna, eu dignissim magna cursus id. Quisque vel nisl tempus, lobortis nisl a, ornare lacus. Donec ac interdum massa. Curabitur id diam luctus, mollis augue vel, interdum risus. Nam vitae tortor erat. Proin quis tincidunt lorem.

How the Internet Has Changed Everyday Life

Do you want to stay up to date with our new publications.

Receive the OpenMind newsletter with all the latest contents published on our website

OpenMind Books

• The Search for Alternatives to Fossil Fuels
• View all books

About OpenMind

Connect with us.

• Keep up to date with our newsletter

Quote this content

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Information Science and Technology Negative Impact of Technology

The Negative Impact of Technology on Education: Balancing Learning

Table of contents, introduction, distraction and reduced focus, loss of face-to-face interaction, information overload, digital divide and inequity, reduced critical thinking and creativity, erosion of penmanship and writing skills, plagiarism and academic integrity, works cited.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Science
• Virtual Reality

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Home | About Us Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Positive and Negative Impacts of Internet on Students

The internet has become an integral part of modern life, and its impact on students is a topic of much debate.

While some argue that the internet has had a positive effect on students’ academic performance and social lives, others suggest that there are also negative effects of internet on students’ academic performance such as decreased attention span, addiction, and poor academic performance.

A 2015 study by Pew Research Center found that while people who have access to the internet are generally positive about its influence on education, they also recognize its potential negative effects.

In this article, we will explore the positive and negative impacts of internet on students.

Positive Impacts of Internet on Students

The internet has had a significant impact on education, and students have been among the primary beneficiaries. The internet has brought about many positive changes in the way students learn, research, and collaborate.

With the vast amount of information available online, students can easily access resources that were previously unavailable to them. In this regard, the internet has increased their research ability.

Additionally, it has enhanced collaboration among students and made online learning more accessible. The internet also provides more opportunities for students in various fields and supports their careers.

We will explore some of the positive impacts of the internet on students.

1. Easy to carry out a research

The internet has made it easy for students to carry out research on any topic, which can be crucial for their academic success.

According to a literature review, the internet has increased the research ability of students and enhanced collaboration.

The impact of internet usage on student’s academic performance has also been studied, with findings suggesting that the internet can positively impact students’ success in school.

2. Reliable Communication

The internet has made it easy for students to connect with their peers, teachers, and experts from around the world.

This connectivity has allowed for more collaboration and sharing of ideas, leading to a better understanding of different perspectives and cultures.

Additionally, the internet provides various communication tools such as email, video conferencing, and instant messaging that allow for reliable communication between students and teachers.

This has made it easier for students to get help with their studies or ask questions about assignments.

Overall, reliable communication through the internet has improved education by providing access to knowledge and encouraging interaction between students and educators

3. Online Education

The internet has increased the research ability of students, enhanced collaboration, and made online learning possible.

Studies have shown that the internet can increase academic performance and lead to better results.

Online education also allows students to attend classes from any location of their choice, which is an advantage over traditional classroom learning.

Additionally, online learning reduces energy consumption by 90% and produces fewer CO2 emissions per student than face-to-face training.

Overall, online education has had a positive impact on students by providing them with more flexibility and access to resources.

4. Career Development

The internet has had a positive impact on career development for students. With the help of the internet, students can search for jobs and apply online.

They can also access relevant information about different careers and industries, which can help them make informed decisions about their future career paths.

Online education is another way that the internet has helped with career development. Students can take courses and earn degrees online, which can be especially helpful for those who cannot attend traditional in-person classes due to various reasons.

5. Study Relevant Materials

Studying relevant materials is an important aspect of academic success, and the internet has made it easier for students to access these materials.

With just a few clicks, students can search for information on any topic they need to improve their knowledge and get the necessary study materials.

The internet also allows students to interact with each other and exchange ideas and information from different locations in real time.

A study explored the usage of the internet and its impact on the academic performance of senior high school students, finding that internet usage had a positive impact on their success.

Overall, the internet has had a positive impact on students by providing them with easy access to study relevant materials.

Negative Impacts of Internet on Students

While the internet can be a valuable tool for learning and research, it also has negative impacts on students. The negative effects of internet on students’ academic performance includes addiction, decreased motivation to study, exposure to harmful information, and psychological disorders.

We will explore these negative impacts of internet on students in more detail.

1. Lack Of Creativity

The internet can have a negative impact on students’ creativity. According to some sources, technology is slowly reducing human imagination and creativity.

Instant access to information via the internet may hinder creative potential. Technology can also destroy the creativity of students by encouraging them to copy and paste information from online sources instead of coming up with original ideas.

Some people worry that the internet has become stifling for creativity. Therefore, it is important for students to balance their use of technology with other activities that promote creativity, such as reading books or engaging in hands-on projects.

2. High cost of subscription and Self-Motivation

The high cost of subscription and self-motivation are two factors that negatively impact students’ use of the internet.

While online learning can be beneficial, it requires students to possess a high degree of self-motivation and time management skills.

The cost of internet subscriptions can also be a barrier for some students who may not have access to reliable internet services.

These factors can lead to reduced productivity, academic achievement, and addiction to constant media use.

Therefore, it is important for educators and institutions to provide support and resources to help students overcome these challenges and make the most out of their online learning experience.

3. Lack Of Face To Face Communication

Studies have shown that technology has a negative effect on both the quality and quantity of face-to-face communication.

The absence of negative interpersonal interaction in online communication can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Additionally, excessive internet use can negatively affect students’ academic performance. A study also found that teenagers who use the internet more frequently tend to have poorer interpersonal communication behavior.

Therefore, it is important for students to balance their online activities with in-person interactions to avoid the negative impacts of the internet on their social skills and academic performance.

4. Wastage Of Time

One of the negative impacts of the internet on students is that it can lead to a waste of time.

Students may spend excessive amounts of time browsing the internet, playing games, or using social media instead of focusing on their studies.

This can negatively impact their academic performance and lead to a lack of productivity. Additionally, excessive use of the internet can lead to addiction, which can cause psychological and social problems for students.

Therefore, it is important for students to be mindful of their internet usage and prioritize their studies over other online activities.

5. Distraction

Distraction is a significant negative impact of the internet on students. The use of laptops and cell phones in the classroom can affect students’ concentration and ability to learn.

Social media and other online activities can distract students from their homework, leading to poor academic performance.

A study found that high-frequency usage of Facebook or the internet is negatively associated with academic achievement.

Distractions caused by social media can have negative consequences, including reduced productivity and increased stress levels.

Conclusion on the Positive and Negative Impacts of Internet on Students

In conclusion, the internet has both positive and negative impacts on students. On the positive side, it has increased research abilities, enhanced collaboration, and made online learning more accessible.

It has also had positive impacts on social interactions and media.

However, there are also negative effects such as addiction, cyberbullying, and decreased face-to-face communication skills.

The internet can also negatively affect academic performance if not used properly.

Therefore, it is important for students to use the internet responsibly and in moderation to maximize its benefits while minimizing its negative impacts.

Relevant Resources:

• Positive and Negative Impacts of Technology on Marketing
• Positive and Negative Impacts of Technology on Organizations
• Positive and Negative Impacts of Technology on Human Life
• Positive and Negative Impacts of Technology on Youth
• Positive and Negative Impacts of Technology on Students

Ahmad Ali (Author)

Ahmad Ali has been a technology enthusiast and writer for the past 5 years having vast knowledge of technology.

Rehmat Ullah (Content Reviewer)

Rehmat Ullah is a software engineer and CEO of Softhat IT Solutions. He is an expert technologist, entrepreneur, and educationist.

9 thoughts on “Positive and Negative Impacts of Internet on Students”

Thanks for the write-up

This article was really helpful, shout out to the author

Thank you 🙂 Keep visiting.

I love this keep climbing the ladder of success.

Thank you for the appreciation.

Thanks so much

You’re welcome

Thanks guys for your cooperation for the precise information that I’ve swiped through

You’re welcome. Thank you for the appreciation. Keep visiting.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Advertisement

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

• Published: 21 November 2022
• Volume 28 , pages 6695–6726, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Stella Timotheou 1 ,
• Ourania Miliou 1 ,
• Yiannis Dimitriadis 2 ,
• Sara Villagrá Sobrino 2 ,
• Nikoleta Giannoutsou 2 ,
• Romina Cachia 3 ,
• Alejandra Martínez Monés 2 &
• Andri Ioannou   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3570-6578 1  

54k Accesses

41 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

Schools and the digital challenge: Evolution and perspectives

Digital technology and practices for school improvement: innovative digital school model

ICT and Digitization in the United States: Research, Trends, and Issues

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 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.

2 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 1 .

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.

3.1 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.

3.2 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.

3.3 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 ).

3.4 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 2 , we summarize the different impacts of digital technologies on school stakeholders based on the literature review, while in Table 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.

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 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.

3.5 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 ).

3.5.1 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 ).

3.5.2 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.

3.5.3 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).

3.5.4 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 ).

3.5.5 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 ).

3.5.6 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 ).

3.5.7 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

4 Discussion

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.

5 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.

6 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.

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Archer, K., Savage, R., Sanghera-Sidhu, S., Wood, E., Gottardo, A., & Chen, V. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of technology use in classrooms: A tertiary meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 78 , 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Aromatario, O., Van Hoye, A., Vuillemin, A., Foucaut, A. M., Pommier, J., & Cambon, L. (2019). 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, 19 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7828-4

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2022.2057732

Bado, N. (2022). Game-based learning pedagogy: A review of the literature. Interactive Learning Environments, 30 (5), 936–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1683587

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, R. S., Al-Samarraie, H., Moody, L., & Zaqout, F. (2022). Augmented reality and functional skills acquisition among individuals with special needs: A meta-analysis of group design studies. Journal of Special Education Technology, 37 (1), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643420910413

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, K. A. (2009). 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, 5 (3), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75275

Blaskó, Z., Costa, P. D., & Schnepf, S. V. (2022). Learning losses and educational inequalities in Europe: Mapping the potential consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of European Social Policy, 32 (4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287221091687

Bocconi, S., & Lightfoot, M. (2021). Scaling up and integrating the selfie tool for schools’ digital capacity in education and training systems: Methodology and lessons learnt. European Training Foundation . https://doi.org/10.2816/907029,JRC123936 . Accessed 30 June 2022.

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. (2022). The effects of computer simulations on students’ science process skills: Literature review. Canadian Journal of Educational and Social Studies, 2 (1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.53103/cjess.v2i1.17

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. (2017). A meta-analysis of the impact of technology on learning effectiveness of elementary students. Computers & Education, 105 , 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.005

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221082090

Chen, B., Wang, Y., & Wang, L. (2022b). The effects of virtual reality-assisted language learning: A meta-analysis. Sustainability, 14 (6), 3147. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063147

Cheok, M. L., & Wong, S. L. (2015). Predictors of e-learning satisfaction in teaching and learning for school teachers: A literature review. International Journal of Instruction, 8 (1), 75–90.

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. https://doi.org/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, https://doi.org/10.2760/462941

Costa, P., Castaño-Muñoz, J., & Kampylis, P. (2021). Capturing schools’ digital capacity: Psychometric analyses of the SELFIE self-reflection tool. Computers & Education, 162 , 104080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104080

Cussó-Calabuig, R., Farran, X. C., & Bosch-Capblanch, X. (2018). Effects of intensive use of computers in secondary school on gender differences in attitudes towards ICT: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 23 (5), 2111–2139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9706-6

Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49 (1), 91–96.

Delcker, J., & Ifenthaler, D. (2021). Teachers’ perspective on school development at German vocational schools during the Covid-19 pandemic. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30 (1), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1857826 . Accessed 30 June 2022.

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, M. J., Breuer, E., Lee, L., Asher, L., Chowdhary, N., Lund, C., & Patel, V. (2014). Theory of change: A theory-driven approach to enhance the Medical Research Council’s framework for complex interventions. Trials, 15 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-267

Di Pietro, G., Biagi, F., Costa, P., Karpiński, Z., & Mazza, J. (2020). The likely impact of COVID-19 on education: Reflections based on the existing literature and recent international datasets (Vol. 30275). Publications Office of the European Union.

Google Scholar  

Elkordy, A., & Lovinelli, J. (2020). Competencies, Culture, and Change: A Model for Digital Transformation in K12 Educational Contexts. In D. Ifenthaler, S. Hofhues, M. Egloffstein, & C. Helbig (Eds.), Digital Transformation of Learning Organizations (pp. 203–219). Springer.

Eng, T. S. (2005). The impact of ICT on learning: A review of research. International Education Journal, 6 (5), 635–650.

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. (2022). Effects of digital games on student motivation in mathematics: A meta-analysis in K-12. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38 (1), 304–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12618

Fernández-Gutiérrez, M., Gimenez, G., & Calero, J. (2020). Is the use of ICT in education leading to higher student outcomes? Analysis from the Spanish Autonomous Communities. Computers & Education, 157 , 103969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103969 . Accessed 30 June 2022.

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, J. S. (2013). ICT in education: A critical literature review and its implications. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 9 (1), 112–125.

Gaol, F. L., & Prasolova-Førland, E. (2022). Special section editorial: The frontiers of augmented and mixed reality in all levels of education. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (1), 611–623.

Garzón, J., & Acevedo, J. (2019). Meta-analysis of the impact of Augmented Reality on students’ learning gains. Educational Research Review, 27 , 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.04.001

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100334

Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25 (2), 165–198. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344013000013

Haßler, B., Major, L., & Hennessy, S. (2016). Tablet use in schools: A critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32 (2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12123

Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3 , 275–285.

Hardman, J. (2019). Towards a pedagogical model of teaching with ICTs for mathematics attainment in primary school: A review of studies 2008–2018. Heliyon, 5 (5), e01726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01726

Hattie, J., Rogers, H. J., & Swaminathan, H. (2014). The role of meta-analysis in educational research. In A. D. Reid, P. Hart, & M. A. Peters (Eds.), A companion to research in education (pp. 197–207). Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge . https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332

Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., & Katsipataki, M. (2012). The impact of digital technology on learning: A summary for the education endowment foundation . Education Endowment Foundation and Durham University.

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, S. I., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 153 (1038), 97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103897

Istenic Starcic, A., & Bagon, S. (2014). ICT-supported learning for inclusion of people with special needs: Review of seven educational technology journals, 1970–2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45 (2), 202–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12086 . Accessed 30 June 2022.

Jewitt, C., Clark, W., & Hadjithoma-Garstka, C. (2011). The use of learning platforms to organise learning in English primary and secondary schools. Learning, Media and Technology, 36 (4), 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.621955

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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2027458

Kao, C.-W. (2014). The effects of digital game-based learning task in English as a foreign language contexts: A meta-analysis. Education Journal, 42 (2), 113–141.

Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Devine, J. (2015). Promoting effective digital-age learning - a European framework for digitally competent educational organisations. JRC Technical Reports . https://doi.org/10.2791/54070

Kazu, I. Y., & Yalçin, C. K. (2022). Investigation of the effectiveness of hybrid learning on academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. International Journal of Progressive Education, 18 (1), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.426.14

Koh, C. (2022). 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, 69 (3), 919–950.

König, J., Jäger-Biela, D. J., & Glutsch, N. (2020). 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, 43 (4), 608–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650

Lawrence, J. E., & Tar, U. A. (2018). Factors that influence teachers’ adoption and integration of ICT in teaching/learning process. Educational Media International, 55 (1), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2018.1439712

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. https://doi.org/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 . https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211064543

Lei, H., Wang, C., Chiu, M. M., & Chen, S. (2022b). Do educational games affect students’ achievement emotions? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning., 38 (4), 946–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12664

Liao, Y. K. C., Chang, H. W., & Chen, Y. W. (2007). Effects of computer application on elementary school student’s achievement: A meta-analysis of students in Taiwan. Computers in the Schools, 24 (3–4), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1300/J025v24n03_04

Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22 (3), 215–243.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10981-1

Lu, Z., Chiu, M. M., Cui, Y., Mao, W., & Lei, H. (2022). Effects of game-based learning on students’ computational thinking: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221100740

Martinez, L., Gimenes, M., & Lambert, E. (2022). Entertainment video games for academic learning: A systematic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211053848

Mayne, J. (2015). Useful theory of change models. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30 (2), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.230

Moran, J., Ferdig, R. E., Pearson, P. D., Wardrop, J., & Blomeyer, R. L., Jr. (2008). Technology and reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy and practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 40 (1), 6–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960802070483

OECD. (2015). Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection . PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/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. (2022). A systematic review of the role of learning games in fostering mathematics education in K-12 settings. Educational Research Review, 36 , 100448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100448

Pettersson, F. (2021). Understanding digitalization and educational change in school by means of activity theory and the levels of learning concept. Education and Information Technologies, 26 (1), 187–204.

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, C. Y., & Ng, K. H. (2022). A systematic literature review on digital storytelling authoring tool in education: January 2010 to January 2020. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 38 (9), 851–867. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1972608

Ran, H., Kim, N. J., & Secada, W. G. (2022). 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, 38 (1), 258–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12611

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. (2022). 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, 38 (2), 526–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12623

Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Surkes, M. A., Wade, C. A., & Woods, J. (2014). The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education, 72 , 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.11.002

Schuele, C. M., & Justice, L. M. (2006). The importance of effect sizes in the interpretation of research: Primer on research: Part 3. The ASHA Leader, 11 (10), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR4.11102006.14

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2022.2070216

Sellar, S. (2015). Data infrastructure: a review of expanding accountability systems and large-scale assessments in education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36 (5), 765–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.931117

Stock, W. A. (1994). Systematic coding for research synthesis. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis, 236 (pp. 125–138). Russel Sage.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100065

Su, J., & Yang, W. (2022). Artificial intelligence in early childhood education: A scoping review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3 , 100049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100049

Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Liu, T. C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94 , 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008

Talan, T., Doğan, Y., & Batdı, V. (2020). Efficiency of digital and non-digital educational games: A comparative meta-analysis and a meta-thematic analysis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52 (4), 474–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1743798

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  https://doi.org/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. (2022). Improving student creativity through digital technology products: A literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 44 , 101032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101032

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. (2022). The effects of online education on academic success: A meta-analysis study. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (1), 429–450.

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 . https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3402035

Villena-Taranilla, R., Tirado-Olivares, S., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & González-Calero, J. A. (2022). Effects of virtual reality on learning outcomes in K-6 education: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 35 , 100434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100434

Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D., & ten Brummelhuis, A. (2013). Under which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A call to action. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29 (1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00453.x

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, L. H., Chen, B., Hwang, G. J., Guan, J. Q., & Wang, Y. Q. (2022). Effects of digital game-based STEM education on students’ learning achievement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 9 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00344-0

Wen, X., & Walters, S. M. (2022). The impact of technology on students’ writing performances in elementary classrooms: A meta-analysis. Computers and Education Open, 3 , 100082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100082

Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C. H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86 (4), 1052–1084. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316628645

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

CYENS Center of Excellence & Cyprus University of Technology (Cyprus Interaction Lab), Cyprus, CYENS Center of Excellence & Cyprus University of Technology, Nicosia-Limassol, Cyprus

Stella Timotheou, Ourania Miliou & Andri Ioannou

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

Yiannis Dimitriadis, Sara Villagrá Sobrino, Nikoleta Giannoutsou & Alejandra Martínez Monés

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

Romina Cachia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andri Ioannou .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest, additional information, publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Timotheou, S., Miliou, O., Dimitriadis, Y. et al. Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools' digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Educ Inf Technol 28 , 6695–6726 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8

Download citation

Received : 04 May 2022

Accepted : 27 October 2022

Published : 21 November 2022

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8

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 technologies
• Digital capacity
• Digital transformation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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:

• Stories From Experts About the Impact of Digital Life
• 3. Fifty-fifty anecdotes: How digital life has been both positive and negative

Table of Contents

• 1. The positives of digital life
• 2. The negatives of digital life
• About this canvassing of experts
• Acknowledgments

A number of these experts wrote about both sides of the story, taking the time to point out some of the ways in which digital life is a blessing and a curse. A selection of these mixed-response anecdotes follows.

James M. Hinton , an author, commented, “Having grown up in the pre-internet era, my childhood was spent in a substantial monoculture. There was a single shared set of values and beliefs that everyone was expected to conform to. As someone who did not fit into that set of shared expectations (and only grew further apart from them as I aged) this created a substantial sense of isolation and even oppression. The advent of internet technologies – and particularly the ability to communicate instantly, inexpensively, across the planet – has given me access to like-minded individuals who have eased that sense of isolation. This makes it sound as though my answer should have been that these technologies have created, and will continue to create, a substantial improvement for my well-being. However, the very technologies that have created these opportunities have exposed me to even more of the general hostility of the surrounding culture to those like myself. Rather than a small, local community isolating me, now there is sense that a substantial portion of the world, establishment and orthodox belief systems are actively opposed to my positions. Perhaps, to take things to a bit of an extreme, I could compare it to being sent to the Warsaw Ghetto. I am, at last, surrounded by a large number of people like myself, but with an impending sense of dread at what is waiting just beyond the fence to eventually come down and wipe us out.”

Technology improves the lives of people who can avoid being dominated by it and forced into debilitating addictions to it. Frank Kaufmann

Frank Kaufmann , a scholar, educator, innovator and activist based in North America, commented, “Technology improves the lives of people who can avoid being dominated by it and forced into debilitating addictions to it. Technology allows me to grow and benefit from loving relationships among friends and family who can now be close despite geographical distance. Tragically it prevents the addicted from growing and benefiting from the most exquisite types of encounter, namely being in the physical and personal presence of another.”

Eric Royer , a professor based in North America, said, “Digital technology has fundamentally reshaped higher education, to the point where lectures are being replaced with online courses and information is readily available at the click of fingertip. This means that knowledge is no longer the domain of the ‘Ivory Tower’; however, I hold concerns over the effect of the internet on actual learning and a love for education itself. As a consequence of digital technology, education has become a commodity, and students view it as a means to an end.”

Sasha Costanza-Chock , associate professor of civic media at MIT, said, “On the one hand, digital technology has been used by progressive social movements to rapidly organize an enormous mobilization wave after the election of Trump. We’ve seen digital media used as a key tool to turn out hundreds of thousands of people with very short notice to protest the Muslim ban, attacks on LGBTQ rights, immigrant rights, the Women’s March, #MeToo, continued #BlackLivesMatter mobilizations, and more. At the same time, digital media are also used to surveil social movement actors in increasingly sophisticated ways; to propagate well-funded disinformation campaigns; and they are also used by far right movements.”

Barry Chudakov , founder and principal of Sertain Research and Streamfuzion Corp., wrote, “As a researcher with colleagues in the communications sphere, I hear a recurring conversation about the new world realities of ‘Me, Inc.,’ made possible by ubiquitous digital technology. The good news is that concept-generation, creativity, programming, publishing or musical performance is no longer in the hands of indifferent gatekeepers – the greybeard editors of various industries who decided which voice and talent was worthy. But this coin has another side.

“Digital technology has, in many areas, hollowed out apprenticeship and expertise. Anyone with a tool (a digital camera or smartphone, editing software, some programming chops) can now be an expert and build an app or a reputation. Older communicators may marvel that newer digital tech tools enable fresh ideas, ingenious approaches and direct versus staged or canned presentations. On the other hand, in the ‘Here Comes Everybody’ world of digital tool mayhem, just having the tool is readily equated with expertise. Many people see in this the breakdown of ‘guild wisdom’ – learning a craft that took years of mentorship and trial and error, which results in reduced standards of excellence and quality. Often there simply are no standards. When there are no real experts, everyone can present her/himself as an expert.

“The impact on workers’ well-being is profound: from relying on buzz words to explain approaches that are highly conceptual but lack experience, to relying on data summations that cannot be clearly articulated as beneficial to outcomes but provide a cloud of information that appears to be relevant – I see a high degree of insecurity and a struggle for clarity and standards. Whether you call yourself a designer, a programmer, a social media expert, a storyteller, a data analyst, a market research professional – you can now go through any door that is near you to get a job or build a career. But the mentors, for many, are gone. You will come up with brilliant insights that were ho-hum years ago; you will propose fuzzy solutions that appear to you clearly superior but are hollow as a dead tree; you will eventually consider your career and brand far more important and worth spending time on than your client’s job – following the dictum that ‘Me, Inc.’ means Me First.

“My friends’ lives in regard to well-being feel permanently insecure. The framework of progression, succession and apprenticeship is gone. ‘Me, Inc.’ rules. It’s me and my software and my digital technology. But, of course, a new apprenticeship will likely appear and then gatekeepers and filter governors will once again be part of the scene, albeit in different form – probably algorithms. This is because newer digital tools enable cooperation and increased socialization, even if it happens through screens, platforms and crowds.”

[the beaten trail]

Seth Finkelstein , consulting programmer at Finkelstein Consulting, wrote, “When the Net was younger, many users of it were easily able to have *substantive* open forums where anyone could join. I very much enjoyed being able to have discussions with people who were at a status level far greater than I could have communicated with beforehand. On the other hand, that meant people at a correspondingly higher status level could be personally offended by what I wrote. In retrospect, for me, the trade-off was not worth it. This is now writ large in social media today. There’s much more of a potential for becoming internet-famous, which can be a blessing or a curse. But it’s possible that there are many more and powerful curses around than blessings.”

Christian Huitema , a technology developer/administrator based in North America, appreciates the internet but commented that being disconnected is still occasionally quite important, “We now have a new checklist item before going out to dinner: We make sure that none of us is carrying a phone.”

Our greatest strength can also be our greatest weakness, and our human relationship with technology is a classic testament to that. Andie Diemer

Andie Diemer , journalist and activist user, wrote, “I use technology in almost every aspect of my life, as everyone I know does. It helps me make quicker, more-informed decisions and it can connect me to anything or anyone at any given moment. However I’ve also noticed the compulsions that come along with having technology so engrained in my life; the dopamine hit when you see you are receiving likes, the soothing feeling that can come from looking at photos of baby animals. Technology can make us feel anything whenever we want – all we need to do is hit search. As much as it’s great to plug in and be connected and feel limitless, there is no real total opposite of that in our society anymore. There is no way to totally shut it off or opt out. Most jobs require you to be computer-literate or to have a cellphone that can be on your person at all times. Our greatest strength can also be our greatest weakness, and our human relationship with technology is a classic testament to that.”

Colin Tredoux , a professor of psychology at the University of Cape Town, commented, “The advantages of digital technology are clear, but there are also disadvantages. One memorable advantage was being able to track and keep in contact with my two young children, ages 12 and 7, when they were lost on a train in Germany. I was able to get them to approach passersby, and get them onto a train that would get them to a designated location even though I was in Cape Town at the time. However, I can also tell stories about how much the ubiquity of digital technology has made everybody feel unsafe – the slightest disappearance of children or friends or adults from instant communication makes everybody highly anxious, almost always for no good reason (last year my daughter, now 20, went offline in Paris, and we spent six hours fretting, worrying, etc.). In other words, we need to weigh up the cost of worrying versus the benefit of making safe. My sense is that the former occurs with 100-times-greater frequency than the latter, so then the important question is what weight to put to the two.”

Simeon Yates , professor of digital culture at the University of Liverpool, wrote, “Digital life can be dominated by email and time-management tools. Even using these well leads to a significant increase in workload. This is not matched by changes in organisational structure and management practice to address this workload. This has long-term health impacts. But digital life is also good. Nearly everything we do for enjoyment has been helped by tools and apps: Going climbing (using an app for route guidebook), reading (endless access to books), music (endless access to music), film (endless access to film and TV), keeping in touch with friends and family, organising time together. All of these are much easier.”

Daniel Schultz , senior creative technologist at the Internet Archive, commented, “This morning I rolled out of bed to see a note from a constituent on Twitter, an email from a public school think tank about the extreme need for more effective communication with parents, I logged onto Slack to catch up on notes from my coworkers and friends, and received a FaceTime from my daughter downstairs as a reminder that it was time to eat breakfast with her. The end of this story actually captures both the benefits and risks of technology. I was immediately drawn into my phone after waking up – I got information, some of it adding to my pile of tasks and increasing my stress, some of it enabling human connection, but it was also at the expense of spending my first moments with my family. My life would not exist in its current form without digital technology. I work from home, and as a result I am able to see my family any time of the day. My professional collaborations are coordinated and executed online. A large portion of my civic engagement and advocacy is done through the creation or use of technology to share a message or make a point.”

Leora Lawton , lecturer in demography and sociology and executive director of the Berkeley Population Center at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote, “In positive ways I have close friends that I met online through email lists, colleagues that I communicate with and the ease of doing business or personal matters no matter where I am in the world. I love being able to check things in Google on my iPhone as the thought occurs. I like apps on my phone. I get to listen (or watch) baseball and other sports anywhere. However, I dislike the continuing demise of radio and print newspapers. Online sources are a different experience. They have their pluses, but there’s a reason why people still like vinyl over CDs. I feel the same way about radio. I take 25 hours off each week from the digital world – sometimes more – for religious reasons. Without the religious imperative I’m not sure I would do it, but I’m so glad I do. It’s such a relief! My co-religionists all agree. Even the teens often agree (not always of course, but they are teens).”

Daniel Berleant , author of “The Human Race to the Future,” commented, “We all remember the days when any group was subject to interruptions as someone’s cellphone rang. Text messaging and email have made communication even easier, while alleviating the interruption factor imposed by a ringing phone. At the same time, it has presented a disadvantage: people often will not answer a phone call, especially young people. This has produced an adjustment problem in my own experience, whereby I would sometimes like to call a family member on the phone, but cannot get through because they prefer a text message that does not interrupt them. I, and others, need to adjust expectations and tactics to the realities of modern cellphone-based communication.”

Charles Ess , professor, department of media and communication at the University of Oslo, said, “An obvious example is the use of digital technologies to communicate with family and friends around the globe. On the one hand, all of this makes it wonderfully easy and convenient to stay in touch – including during critical life moments such as the birth of a new grandson, a sibling’s loss of a job, a serious illness or death, et cetera. At the same time – as someone who grew up writing letters, e.g., the ones I wrote to my parents while working and then traveling through Germany and Europe in 1971 – I’m acutely aware of what is NOT communicated through digital channels (researcher Sherry Turkle addresses this more eloquently). First of all, such a letter demanded extended attention and focus – and, as research over the past 10 years or so has confirmed, the process of handwriting slows one down so as to open up silences and spaces for reflection that we elide quickly over if only using a keyboard. There is also the materiality of the letter. To not only see the words – but to hold in one’s hand a piece of paper that existed with me and then with those close to me at a specific time and place decades ago – is utterly distinctive. I receive hundreds of emails a day and write 10 to 20 or more. My professional and personal life turn on them, along with many other digital and communication technologies, of course. But I strongly doubt that my children will be interested in or find much value in trawling through even just the emails sent to them after I am gone. While they have their own affordances – first of all, speed and convenience – they also suffer from a kind of immateriality and, usually, brevity. By contrast, I suspect they’ll find my physical letters to be far more valuable and precious. I don’t think this is just nostalgia. Rather, it resonates with the so-called ‘death online’ research, which – alongside evidence for the many benefits of grieving and mourning via social media, memorial sites, etc. – also documents how for some number of people, precisely young people, there is the discovery that grief requires embodied co-presence. This is ramified by the unpleasant sides of online grief, e.g., postings from ‘friends’ who ignore you the next day, etc. Again, there is some indication of not necessarily rejecting ‘the digital’ entirely in favor of ‘the analogue’ (with all the caveats those terms require) – but rather of attempting to find a better balance.”

Nathalie Coupet , an internet advocate based in North America, said, “My first thought in the morning, having just awaken, is: ‘Do I have any emails?’ The internet has taken over my life and made me a 24-hour-a-day-connected pod to its mother ship. Without my smartphone, I dare not venture in the Big World out there. What if someone was trying to contact me? Ironically, I still remember the day when, sitting comfortably in a tram in Zurich, I had vowed to never carry a cellphone with me. To jealously safeguard my independence. To daydream in peace and be deliciously idle. Not to be so engaged all the time in a stressful awareness of place and time, people and events. To be left alone. It has now become a goal.”

Craig J. Mathias , principal for the Farpoint Group, wrote, “I’ve benefitted from email, other messing services including voice and video communications, access to a wide array of information via the Web, and access to many services I use regularly, like banking and health care. All of these are good, but I do worry about security and privacy, which still receive far too little attention. Stronger penalties are required for those who compromise these vital requirements.”

Kathleen Hayes , a technology specialist based in North America, commented, “For the good, my 91-year-old mom checks emails and uses her tablet when she travels so she can stay connected. She uses the caller ID on her home phone to ward off robo calls. For the not-so-good, on her new car some of the controls were difficult for her to figure out. What used to be a knob is now a screen with a vague description of what it may or may not do.”

A professor at a major U.S. state university said, “I am able to share information with my family who live in other states more easily. We are able to see photos and share news to groups that would have taken longer in the past. I do often wonder if we really want photos of our children online, however. I feel concern about safety and well-being of children.”

Theodora Sutton , a Ph.D. candidate at the Oxford Internet Institute, wrote, “… Digital technology is interwoven into my daily life as it is with everyone I know. The first thing I do when I wake up is usually check my iPhone for messages and news or scroll through Twitter on my laptop to help wake myself up. I find it to be an extremely useful and relaxing way to see what’s happening in the world without necessarily engaging. I also often use resources online when I’m struggling to fall asleep, as there is a rich library of calming content and most of it is free. A problem that I have with my digital technology is the way that boundaries are blurred. For example, context collapse on social networking sites, which make posting content a minefield, and can cause unnecessary anxiety. Another way that similar boundaries are blurred is in the activities I use the laptop for – both working and relaxing can be provided by the same ‘portal’ of my laptop screen, which I find unhelpful, as when I’m working there is always a distraction available, and when I’m relaxing it’s always possible to quickly check my work email, both things which can hinder the task at hand.”

Richard Padilla , a retired system administrator, said, “Tech has changed the development of the lives of everyone. A need to refine its processes for better growth is now the requirement.”

Michele Walfred , a North American communications specialist, said, “I have witnessed family members unable to join conversations, sit at a table and not bring their phones with them, etc. Social media platforms have provided everyone with a forum to express views, but, as a whole, conversations are more polarized, tribal and hostile. With Facebook for instance, there has been a huge uptick in fake news, altered images, dangerous health claims and cures, and the proliferation of anti-science information. This is very distressing and disturbing. People are too willing to share without doing their due diligence and fact-checking first. People now get their news from sources that are only aligned with their belief systems or ‘tribe’ and freely shut out any information that they don’t like or agree with. On a positive note, if one is interested in diverse opinions and views, the ability to make informed opinion and decisions is at one’s fingertips. I learn something new on the internet every day. GPS, maps, navigation have transformed my personal transportation. It has changed the way I shop, source local materials, find out what is going on in my own community, or – when I travel – immediately connect me to inside information about a new town or city. I used to bring along a Rand McNally map. Now I use Google Maps and, while I miss looking at maps, the technology now is so accurate and convenient. I am an avid photographer, and the multitude of editing apps is astounding. I have 40 installed on my iPad and they have transformed my artistic efforts. My grandson lives three and a half hours away in a very large city – not a pleasant drive for me, so being able to FaceTime him is a development I treasure.”

Timothy Leffel , a research scientist at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, one of the largest independent social research organizations in the U.S., said, “I probably spend more waking hours looking at a screen than not. And this seems to be the new normal, which is a bit jarring. If you’d told me 10 years ago that this is what everyday life would be like today, I’m not sure what I’d think. I’m not sure what I think today, even. I have superficial knowledge of any topic at my fingertips, which is incredible. But with that knowledge comes a highly addictive and hidden reward system that probably leads me to overestimate the positive impact of computers on my life.”

Bouziane Zaid , an associate professor at Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane, Morocco, wrote, “Changes in quality of life, whether positive or negative, cannot be reduced to our uses of technology. It is a human tendency to idealize a past that probably was never as good as we think it was. Well-being is improved and lessened due to hyperconnectivity.”

Kathleen Harper , an editor for HollywoodLife.com, said, “GPS has changed my life – for the better. It sounds dramatic, but I honestly don’t know what I would do without it. I am what they call ‘directionally challenged,’ and I’d forever be lost without my handy-dandy smartphone (and my backup portable charger of course). Living in New York City can be intimidating, and it’s quite easy to get lost. Without step-by-step GPS and my subway app, I definitely wouldn’t be able to explore the city, attend events, and try new things as much as I do. Playing devil’s advocate though, maybe without it, I’d be forced to actually learn and/or memorize the city, which would in turn expand that part of my brain and make me a more well-rounded person.”

Mark Richmond , an internet pioneer and systems engineer for the U.S. government, wrote, “Twenty years ago my daughter met a man 8,000 miles away. Yes, it was via internet. They married and she has lived there ever since. Despite the distance we are able to stay in regular contact, including routine video chatting. My other children and grandchildren use social media either very little, or sometimes way too much. It helps to keep up with what everyone is doing, the joys and pains in their lives, but it also exacerbates things, especially for the younger ones. Every minor disagreement seems to be a major production, lived out on a stage. I am hopeful that as they learn, they will also learn moderation.”

I love meeting many new people from across the world through digital mediums. But I have noticed culturally a decrease in actual face-to-face human interaction or even a voice phone call with emotion and true connection, accuracy and depth. John Senall

John Senall , founder of Mobile First Media Group, said, “Digital technology has offered additional career opportunities and advancement to me. However, the type of career opportunities for me and countless others usually involve sitting at a computer screen, working more hours and being stuck to a smartphone. All have made communication more seamless and constant, but have, in part, played a role in decreasing my health quality. I love meeting many new people from across the world through digital mediums. But I have noticed culturally a decrease in actual face-to-face human interaction or even a voice phone call with emotion and true connection, accuracy and depth. I ponder what it all may mean for my young children and their friends and classmates, down the road when there will be deeper technology and more communication changes. The benefits of a hyperconnected life are amazing and rewarding. Yet, I think many of us yearn, at least occasionally, for a simpler, less digital time.”

William J. Ward , president of DR4WARD, said, “After spending a lot of time on digital I found my physical and mental health declining. I now spend much less time on digital and much greater time doing physical activity like yoga to counteract the damage to the body that spending too much screen time inevitably causes. I also invest more time in face-to-face and social activities and finding a balance where digital is helpful but does not distract from relationships.”

Cliff Zukin , a professor and survey researcher at Rutgers University, commented, “The only way I can reach my children is by texting; this is disjointed asynchronous communication, not conversation. However, I can walk out of the house not knowing how to get where I’m going or needing a map, which I love.”

Christopher Wilkinson , internet pioneer, wrote, “I do not agree with the epithet ‘hyperconnected.’ We are far from it. Life-changing events: 1) Word processor spell/grammar checkers in several languages. 2) Sending SMS by Skype (disgracefully discontinued by Microsoft). 3) Negative: Demise of the handwritten letter.”

A selection of anonymous responses

An internet activist from Europe said, “Great for keeping in touch across oceans, but across the city people’s tendencies to substitute text for voice is not always good. It is great to be able to look things up instantly, but this may lead to shallow understanding of answers.”

An internet pioneer and social and digital marketing consultant commented, “On one hand, I can be in close communication with my 12-year-old daughter and not have to wonder where she is as she goes about her day, and can remind her to bring things home from school. I can also be in contact with friends through social media, which helps as I live in a city where I don’t have many social outlets. On the other hand, I’ve found that too much time spent online, particularly on Facebook, can make me feel depressed. Either I catch myself comparing my life to the posts that others make, or I get overwhelmed by the toxic political atmosphere currently playing out.”

A senior lecturer in media studies wrote, “There are both positive and negative consequences from being always-on. Being always-on means that I can be in constant contact with my family who live on the other side of the world, but it also means that I receive work emails all throughout the day.”

A senior lecturer based in Southeast Asia said, “Time wasted on social media is negatively affecting well-being; positively, social media helps to bring people close, so that it helps to make a lively environment with intimate people. In education, it has been a good platform as well as a resource.”

A chief of staff for a nonprofit organization wrote, “FOMO (fear of missing out) is a problem, but digital life is also useful for communicating with loved ones far away.”

A retired professor and research scientist said, “Good impacts of digital life: Immediate and extensive answers and how-to advice; quick, easy access to books and movies. Bad impacts: Reduced conversations with wife, especially at mealtime – just Google it.”

A vice president at a major entertainment company in the United States commented, “Clearly, collective action (good or bad) happens with much more ease and speed. I marvel at the ease of organizing things that result in greater connectivity with my family – from renting a house in a far-away place for vacation to helping my children.”

A research scientist said, “On the one hand, I can communicate with friends who decades ago I would not be able to stay in touch with. On the other hand, we have a white supremacist in the White House.”

A professor of English wrote, “What has been positive is the ability to follow along with positive facets of others’ lives – birthdays, anniversaries, etc. This has been positive. Yet, again, a birthday card, a phone call, a conversation would be more meaningful.”

A futurist based in North America wrote, “Generally, very positive is the access to information. It is easier to do research, find out about current events, etc. Among the negatives are kids immersed in digital devices; staring at a screen as an acceptable activity.”

A professor from North America said, “I’ve cut off from lots of digital media. I realized it was consuming lots of my time. It didn’t make me feel good – what I was seeing and reading made me mostly angry and depressed. It was feeding negativity. I am happier without it. However, a friend who has a child with a chronic medical condition has monitoring so that medical personnel are notified when parameters are exceeded so interventions can occur rapidly. The child gets fast feedback, too, so they can change behavior or take action in a way that would not have been possible five years ago.”

An entrepreneur based in North America wrote, “I feel like technology has made our life better (instant access to information) and worse (instant access to entertainment).”

A professor based in Europe wrote, “When I replaced my mobile I gave the used, but still quite powerful one to my granddaughter aged 10. She made nice pictures with it, which I appreciated. But she also got obsessed with certain internet games, leading to conflicts.”

An assistant professor of political science at an Ivy League university wrote, “As a parent this is easy. My kids (ages 4 and 7) are steeped in technology. They have iPads in their classrooms (which help with engaging them and I think are a net good), but they also want to be on iPads at home (which may not be as good). They think every screen is a touch screen. Even at 4 years old, my son’s first instinct when he doesn’t know something bit of information is to Google it or ask Siri. My kids love to read books on Kindle (and much prefer it to paper books) so even the educational activity of reading is now deeply intertwined with technology. In some ways that is good, on Kindle they can highlight the words they don’t know as they read and – something that has proven very important for my 7-year-old – they cannot see how thick the book is, so they tend to read more without lamenting about length. At the same time, they have little interest in libraries and miss out on books that are not available via Kindle. They can FaceTime family who live far away, but sometimes they see that as a substitute for actual visits. In short, there is good and bad but there is little doubt that technology structures our daily life in profound ways.”

An executive director of a tech innovation firm said, “Looking at my kids; they’re connected and informed. And they spend too much time online.”

A director of technology based in North America wrote, “In a positive way it has allowed me to keep in touch more easily with friends that live far away. In a negative sense it has provided a distraction to what is happening in the moment.”

A professor based in Europe wrote, “My working days are longer! I wake up and check email and I am habituated like one of Pavlov’s dogs to check my email regularly throughout the day and into the evening. Even though my boss has banned us from sending work emails after 6 p.m., I still check my email. As a result, I never truly feel disconnected from work – even during vacations.”

A professor from North America said, “For me (in my 50s) digital life has been positive – a way to keep up with old friends. However, for my teens, it can create sadness and feelings of being/having less than peers.”

An associate professor at a U.S. university said, “My ability to stay connected to family and friends brings me great joy. And I’m able to connect to other academics when I am not on campus, which is more often than not. However my husband feels that I am too connected! In this regard it may be hurting our relationship. At times using technology can border on addiction. For me that is.”

A North American researcher wrote, “Technology has changed my life because I now work for a company in a different state. My contributions are made at my home, via telecommuting. This is both good and bad – on the good side, I’m able to help take care of my disabled son and to help my wife through a battle with cancer. But, on the down side – there’s no opportunity for the water cooler discussions that can speed up development work. There’s no opportunity for facetime with managers and VPs to get that all-important rapport with senior management. In other words, there are no opportunities to exercise and grow the ‘soft skills’ necessary to progress in the organization.”

An anonymous respondent wrote, “It has made work communication easier but often less thoughtful since constant connectivity fuels the expectation of an immediate response. It also has diminished the opportunities to disconnect from work for a proper break, but it does give me flexibility to not be tied to my office.”

A college student said, “I am not too proud to admit that I also suffer from the FOMO (fear of missing out) that comes from living a hyperconnected lifestyle. I hold lengthy Snapchat streaks with friends to bond with them, I check my social media accounts for approximately three to four hours daily. Daily I catch myself peering at my phone the moment I awake to learn about the events I may have missed while I slept. While my Snap streaks do provide a satisfying, quick dopamine hit each time I respond, overall, I cannot say that living a hyperconnected lifestyle has enhanced my life in any way. But I would also argue that it has not hurt my mental well-being either. While I am willing to admit I struggle in certain areas to balance my digital distractions with the important things in life; overall, I don’t think that it has had a negative effect on my life. I do think that some people are negatively impacted, but most will work to find a balance after some trial and error as new tools for digital life continue to appear and we adjust.”

A clinical assistant professor at a major U.S. university wrote, “I am old enough to see the effects that cellphones have had on family dinners. In a positive light, some arguments are resolved more quickly – Wikipedia can often provide resolution to many debatable points and repair faulty recollection, leading to much more productive conversations. More negatively, the interruptions caused by text messaging and email often divide the attention of those dining together and can sometimes diminish the quality of time spent together.”

In the negative, the ‘always-on’ capabilities are big triggers for my anxiety around perfectionism and performance. In the positive, when working with my therapist on ways to bring myself more forward in relationships, social media was a key tool. A teen library specialist

A teen library specialist wrote, “I have had both positive and negative impacts in my personal mental health courtesy of hyperconnection of digital connectivity. In the negative, the ‘always-on’ capabilities are big triggers for my anxiety around perfectionism and performance. In the positive, when working with my therapist on ways to bring myself more forward in relationships, social media was a key tool. She described Facebook (at the time that was the dominant tool) as disastrous for her work with narcissists but a dream for working with folks like me. I have grown more comfortable with expressing myself and I feel more visible in this format than in others within my communities. And I don’t mean that I have more friends online than I have in the real world. I mean my ‘real-world’ relationships are richer because I share with the people in my workplace or family or church via social media in a way I never before did and still rarely do face to face.”

An anonymous respondent commented, “We are able to keep in touch with family all around the globe. On the other hand, our family wouldn’t have been so spread out in the first place without the internet.”

An academic leader based in Australia wrote, “Digital technology has provided unthinkable access to information. Systems for doing business have enabled us to perform tasks and obtain and share information like never before. At the same time, digital transformation has meant each individual spends a lot more time navigating systems and doing work that previously would have been performed by other experts.”

[The good:]

There is so much pressure to publish research even when it’s greatly flawed… Moreover, in many ways our techniques and standards of rigor have improved over time, so I don’t want to sound completely hopeless about scientific progress in my field. A research scientist based in North America

A research scientist based in North America commented, “I’m 26, so the internet changed pretty much everything, right? It grew up with me, more or less. In fifth grade, I remember writing a research report about the gray whale. We had to go through all these crazy steps – finding books, writing down facts on notecards, putting them in those little clicky boxes that held notecards. Now, when was the last time you saw one of those? We were allowed to have internet sources, I think, but there were all these requirements about what constituted an appropriate source, as well as strict limits on how many internet sources could be used. The assumption was that somehow, finding information on the internet did not constitute real research, and this was our teacher’s way of preparing us for the research we would be doing in the future. Fast forward to now, where I’m finishing up my Ph.D., and I do research practically every day. Do you know how often I have to seek out resources that I can’t find online? It’s never. Literally never. My dissertation uses about two, neither of which I sought out – just some books my advisor just unceremoniously handed me one day. Admittedly, my academic field is quite young comparatively, and there may be fields with more emphasis on works that cannot be found online, but still, this is mostly a good thing for my well-being, as well as for the productivity of my field. However, there are also more insidious consequences of the increased volume and availability of research. The most prominent consequence I observe is that there is simply more research than we as a field are able to deal with. There is so much research that is redundant or contradictory, and our field doesn’t currently have the structure in place to reconcile it all. Hundreds of papers are published every day, and most of these will never be read, let alone cited (and that’s assuming people are actually reading what they cite – ha!). There is so much pressure to publish research even when it’s greatly flawed, as well as to frame every finding with a theoretical impact it cannot actually have. Instead of a gradual forward trajectory, we’re sitting on an unmanageable mound of contradictions. This research machine I live in is so unimaginably wasteful, with such deeply entrenched and utterly misguided incentives that I do not know how we will ever overcome it. This is not to suggest that this is entirely the fault of digital technology, although it certainly has enabled this trend. Moreover, in many ways our techniques and standards of rigor have improved over time, so I don’t want to sound completely hopeless about scientific progress in my field. I think to an outside observer my field is flourishing, and we have much to offer the world. However, if we do not find ways to restructure and rethink what progress looks like, we will be crushed by our own weight.”

A solutions consultant based in North America wrote, “Hyperconnection via text messaging has helped in a world where physical proximity and time constraints make it more difficult to connect. For me, a quick text, letting my husband know that I’m thinking about him or giving him a heads-up on something important – is amazingly positive, and helpful. And it does so without detracting from my day. Same when I communicate with my son, who spends 50% of his time at his father’s house, and 50% with me. It helps us stay in touch and positively connected. But we also do not overuse it – perhaps we are not as ‘hyperconnected’ as other users of technology, although, my mother, who is 80, says that the text messaging is ‘just too much!’ She believes that is hyperconnectivity.”

[Advanced Research Projects Agency Network]

An anonymous respondent wrote, “Twitter is the greatest time-sink ever but a great source of interesting news and entertainment. However, I waste too much time on it when I could be reading the newspaper or a book.”

A post-doctoral fellow at Stanford University commented, “My family and I use our smartphones to send photos, video chat and send text messages on a daily basis, allowing us to stay in contact more frequently we did back when letter writing and telephone calls were our ways to stay in touch. On the negative side, I look at headlines way too much as a form of stimulus any time I have a second to spare – even when I’m with my children. I’d say I’m less present, less able to focus on reading long form text, than I was before my smartphone came into my life.”

A series of scenarios tied to potential future concerns of digital life

Peter and Trudy Johnson-Lenz, owner-operators of Pathfinding Smarter Futures and participants in this canvassing, submitted in response to the request for anecdotes the following series of scenarios they wrote in 2005 in order to spark discussions of potential issues.

Auto Angel I: Your commute co-pilot

You’re yawning as you slowly merge into the through lane on the long ride home. Your comfy biofueled hybrid-electric car is programmed to keep you alert and relaxed. The new ATM (autonomous traffic management system) keeps everything flowing smoothly without slow-downs or jam-ups, but you still have miles to go before you sleep. The music seems to keep pace with the flow of traffic, and you slip into a kind of driving flow state. The ATM is intelligent, but not smart enough to have autonomous lanes to do the driving for humans, nor do most people want that. Crack! The burst of sound and light, and the gentle spray on your face, with the aroma of peppermint, eucalyptus, and rosemary, brings you back to full alertness. Damn! You’d nodded off again. Fortunately, it was only a second, thanks to Auto Angel, your co-pilot on the two-hour commute from the agile economy enterprise zone to the only affordable housing in the tri-county area. Too bad your insurance doesn’t cover that latest wakefulness drug that’s all the rage.Auto Angel advises you to pull over as soon as possible and take a short power nap. You can set Angel’s alarm so you won’t sleep longer than 20 minutes and get groggy. You start looking for a safe place to stop and rest.

Auto Angel II: The high price of Drowsiness

The e-alert from your doctor’s office is surprising.“We’re concerned. Please come in at your earliest convenience. Press star for an immediate appointment.” What could possibly be the matter? What do they know that you don’t?At the clinic, you’re confronted with a stark, unforgiving choice. Auto Angel has reported one too many instances of drowsiness for your automobile insurance company to allow you to continue to drive under your existing policy. Either you must get the much more expensive hazardous driver rider or be treated immediately for “driving drowsiness” (suspected narcolepsy or sleep apnea, now on your medical and insurance e-records).If you’re actually diagnosed with narcolepsy, your doctor must report it to the department of motor vehicles. You’ll be subject to random monitoring for treatment compliance.Your health insurance doesn’t fully cover this treatment because driving is now considered an elective activity. There are drugs available, but they’re not on your formulary list. You’re advised to take public transportation.Of course, some can still afford fully private transportation, just they can afford health care and higher insurance premiums. You’re not one of them. And the public transit system doesn’t extend all the way out to your community yet.

HealthGuardian

You’re in Mexico City on your way to your next business appointment. “Señor, amigo, come with us — NOW! You’re at risk for a heart attack. We’re from HealthGuardian. We’ll get you to the hospital pronto.” Your HealthGuardian biosensors are supposed to provide alerts of impending medical emergencies.Uniformed men with insistent voices grab you by both arms and hustle you toward an official-looking van. Are they really from your HealthGuardian monitoring service, or are they kidnappers? How can you verify their identity? Are you really in danger?!?Your heart races and your head spins. You feel pressure in your chest, and it’s hard to breathe. What’s going on?!?

Alexi, ever-faithful e-valet

Soft chimes announce his voice. “Sir?” Alexi, your e-valet, continues close to your ear. “May I suggest that you eat something soon? You’re moving into your danger zone.” His interruption irritates you as you walk briskly along the crowded sidewalk. “Sir, the bistro four doors up on the right fits your dining profile and has two very nice specials today. Or I can recommend the Thai restaurant around the next corner.” Your blood sugar level is dropping precipitously close to where even deciding to eat, let alone where, is becoming a chore. “Sir?” “OK, OK, Alexi,” you say to yourself. Your gait slows, you check the bistro menu in the window, and go inside. What ever would you do without Alexi’s constant and respectful attentiveness?

Your privacy – priceless!

[radio-frequency identification]

Scrambling your identity

At WuMart’s self-service checkout, you’re fuming. You’ve ducked into the store on your lunch hour to pick up a few essentials for this afternoon’s flight, and you’re in a real hurry. Nothing is scanning right. The dental care travel kit scans as reading glasses, vitamin C as laxatives, and deodorant as antacid. You call loudly for a supervisor. The young man sighs. “Yeah, it looks like somebody in the store hacked our RFID tags again and scrambled the data. It’ll get straightened out when the machines go through their data consistency and reliability power cycle in about 10 minutes. Sorry about that.” He puts an obviously used, dog-eared “Out of order – please try again later” sign on the scanner. “If you’ll just step through the electronic gate over there, we’ll have you on your way in no time.” You stride through the metal archway with your goods, and the human checker enters the products numbers to ring up your purchases. The finger touch system debits your account. Finally! You have just enough time to get back to the office. Later, when you try to enter the restricted area to get the data reports you need for your trip, you’re stopped cold. Your implanted VeriChip doesn’t properly authenticate your identify, and security forces are there in moments. Missing your flight will be the least of your problems.

The mall knows you better than you do

As you stroll through the environmentally controlled mall, your mobile flashes a steady stream of personalized messages from nearby merchants. “Jeans tops – 30% instant discount!” “Free skin-care consultation!” “Shakira CDs all on sale!”The automated ads have no way of knowing that the RFID-tagged jeans, derma-repair cream, and pop diva CD in your shopping bag are purchases for other members of your extended family. You’re not interested in more purchases like them or to go with them. You’re done.Nearby, the animated window display of dancing cookware catches your eye, and you linger a few moments, watching with great amusement. Flying frying pans? Flipping spatulas? Spinning plates? What were they thinking?!? The mall looks more like an amusement park every time you come here.But now the stream of messages is all for cookware, tableware, stemware, cooking schools, and related products and services. You’re beginning to feel you’re being stalked instead of enticed with great offers. How did they know what you were looking at? What else do they know about you? And how do they know it?!?This is creepy.

Who is responsible?

The distinctive ring on your mobile is your daughter’s. “Waaah! The bus didn’t come, and it’s our last practice before Saturday’s big match! You’ve gotta drive me NOW. Plueeease???” Just then the mobile beeps twice. “Just a sec, sweetie.” It’s an automated request for you to approve entry of your new drug prescription into the GVS Registry database. You’ll deal with that later. “OK, I’m back. I’ll try to get someone to cover for me. Pick you up in 15 minutes, OK?”The next evening in a heavy rainstorm, a drunk driver ploughs into your Viridian hybrid. As they stabilize you on the way to the Trauma Center, the EMTs read your implanted VeriChip to get your updated medical information.In the ER, your condition suddenly worsens in a most peculiar way, and the doctors suspect a bad drug interaction. But how could that have happened? Did the EMTs make a mistake? Were you taking something they didn’t know about?Right now they’ll save your life. What happened and who’s responsible will come later.

Shopper’s Revenge

“Undecided shopper’s discount! Pick up prod, put back 2x, RFID shelf reader -> instant 25% off coupon.” Intrigued by this alert from Shopper’s Revenge (“Don’t get mad – get bargains!”) on your mobile screen, you check for something you actually want, walk over to the right shelf, pick it up, and put it back. Rinse, repeat. Voila! This is too easy. … A month later, the store catches on and raises the bar. You still get the coupon if you pick up the product, wait for over a minute, and put it back three times. A little tedious, but worth it for some pricier items. That works for three more weeks. A few days later, your Shopper’s Revenge e-coach tells you to vary the pattern so you’ll look more “natural” – to fit the store’s learning agent’s evolving model of an undecided shopper. Thanks to Shopper’s Revenge, you’re saving money, outwitting the technology, and looking more and more like a very hesitant shopper every day.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Emerging Technology
• Future of the Internet (Project)
• Online Privacy & Security
• Platforms & Services
• Privacy Rights
• Religion & Social Values
• Social Media
• Technology Adoption

Many Americans think generative AI programs should credit the sources they rely on

Americans’ use of chatgpt is ticking up, but few trust its election information, q&a: how we used large language models to identify guests on popular podcasts, computer chips in human brains: how americans view the technology amid recent advances, striking findings from 2023, most popular, report materials.

• Shareable quotes from experts about the impact of digital life

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• 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 .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Positive And Negative Impacts That Ict On Education Education Essay20200112 48974 3b6o8o

Related Papers

sushil bilung

The Journal of Social Science Research

Garieth Omorobi

This study focused on digital divide and online instruction delivery readiness among universities in Nigeria. The descriptive survey research design was employed for the study. Six universities in South-South, Nigeria were selected for the study.

Rosy Yumnam

The use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education has increased manifold in the present times. The role and use of ICT as a tool for English Language Teaching (ELT) is increasingly explored by educators as they assist in creating collaborative and independent learning environment. ICT plays a pertinent role in enhancing motivation, creativity and critical thinking of the learners. In the study, the attitudes of the students and teachers of the secondary schools of Manipur, a state in northeast India towards using ICT in teaching and learning English language are investigated. The paper aims to make the teachers and learners aware of the use of ICT in English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom. Through the questionnaires administered to both teachers and learners, the importance and challenges in the pedagogy of ELT using ICT is identified and discussed. The findings of the survey indicate that most of the teachers and learners held positive approach towards in...

International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)

Hassan Naqeeb , Islam Asim Ismail

The Palestinian educational system has gone through hectic phases characterized by being restricted and governed by occupation starting from the British Mandate up to the Israeli Occupation. However, the Palestinians supported by determination and insistence to build up their state and infrastructure, they first started by developing and upholding the educational system. Thus, they jumped over all the challenges which could have stopped them forever, build up the Palestinian higher educational system, planning the future of education and put up the solid pillars and plans, adopted in new curricula based on research and updated the criteria needed to judge, assess, and fulfill achievements. Therefore, many achievements are now on the ground expanding the number of Palestinian universities, adopting new educational programs and curricula, high scores in IELTS and TOFEL exams, new MA and Ph.D. programs were launched and achieving high ranks in the international university scale of QS.

ICT plays a vital role in English language learning, since it boosts motivation (Schoepp & Erogul, 2001), learners' autonomy (Tri & Nguyen 2014), and learning skills (Galavis, 1998). This study aimed to examine the effects of ICT-based learning using wiki on learning of students' vocabulary mastery at the junior high school level. The design of the present study was quasi-experimental. The population of the study was seventh graders of a junior high school in Bandung. Experimental group and control group comprised of 25 students each. The instruments of the study were a pre-test and a post-test of vocabulary mastery and an online learning platform called wiki. The data were analyzed by SPSS 16.0 for the windows. The findings revealed that there were significant differences at .05 level between experimental group and control group (df= 49, t= 2.02). Furthermore, recommendations are proposed for the teachers whose teaching philosophy is twisted with ICT-based learning. For instance, they should provide an interesting topic on the wiki, let them chat while working online, assign them working at home, and well prepare the facilities used in the class before starting of the lesson.

Smita Paschal

India, like rest of the world is gearing itself for the different challenges posed by lockdown due to Covid 19 pandemic. Educational institutions across India are facing a lot of challenges. Collection of fees, providing salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff, digitalization of traditional classroom are few of the immediate challenges. Traditional classrooms have now shifted to many individual room spread across the country. Teachers play a vital role in imparting knowledge to the students. The National Policy on Education (1986 and 2020) accepts that no education system can rise above the quality of its teachers. Teaching job may be demanding and involves heavy work load and controlling of unruly students which may result in felling of frustration. Job satisfaction is a positive or pleasant emotional state resulting from a person's appreciation of his/her own job or experience. Unsatisfied teachers do not contribute wholeheartedly in the development of the students and c...

Journal of Interdisciplinary Cycle Research

Sunder Srinivasan

The Indian education sector has seen a drastic change in the 21st century especially with the use of ICT enabled technology. The hotel management institutes have also evolved using these new methods of teaching. These hotel management institutes have teachers who still believe that the conventional teaching methods are the best and are hesitant to move towards conceptual teaching methods. This study aims to find out about the preference of conventional and conceptual teaching methods by hotel management students. It further investigates on how effective these teaching methods are in the learning process. The students are aware of the conventional and conceptual teaching methods used in their institutes and have a strong preference for learning through the conceptual method of teaching. These students also prefer the hotel management institutes use a combination of conventional and conceptual teaching methods by their teachers in the teaching learning process.

Iconic Research and Engineering Journals

IRE Journals

The use of only traditional teaching methods in science class in this 21 st century of rapid development in ICT subject students to learn scientific concepts passively. This paper therefore, is an attempt to examine the teaching and learning of science using animation and simulation strategies and determined if there is any significant difference in the performance of students exposed to traditional method only and those exposed to animation and simulation strategies incorporated into traditional teaching methods. Empirical studies revealed successes in the use of animation and simulation all over the world with a lot of benefits as these strategies encourage active learning and sustains students' interest thereby enhancing their academic performances. With the availability of simulation courseware and software online, teaching and learning of science can now become active, enhance students' performance and interest in science. It is recommended that with the creation and availability of virtual laboratories, simulation courseware and software on internet, science teachers should direct students in the learning of science with animation and simulation strategies and conduct laboratory experiments online in a safe and interactive manner where they can observe, explore, recreate, and receive immediate feedback about real objects, phenomena, and processes that would otherwise be too complex, time-consuming, or dangerous.

Information & Security: An International Journal

Silvia Matern

The article presents an approach for addressing the human capital challenge given the high demand of businesses and international organisations for IT experts. The author reviews the requirements and the process of developing human capital, outlines the problems in IT education today and reviews existing sources for online IT education. The focus is on the architecture of an e-Platform the business model supporting human capital development and management in the complex environment of national and international IT organisations. The research findings suggest that a digital platform for collaboration and management of IT competencies could be a solution to the challenges in IT training experienced in the selection, development, employment and sustaining of key IT experts. A R T I C L E I N F O : RECEIVED: 21 Apr 2019 REVISED: 16 Dec 2019 ONLINE: 26 DEC 2019 K E Y W O R D S : human resource management, human capital development, manpower, recruitment, IT education, IT organisations, i...

Patrick Kihoza

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Information and Communication Science and Engineering of the Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology

RELATED PAPERS

International journal of education and development using information and communication technology

IP Indian Journal of Library Science and Information Technology

Adeyemi A Akinola

International Journal of Management and Humanities (IJMH)

Muhammad Muhammad Suleiman

Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International

Ahsan Bukhari

jamilu bawa

Grenze International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Special Issue

Bharati Kawade

Dave E Marcial

Journal of Education and Practice

Deborah T . A . Obafemi

Theoneste Nzabihimana

Sara Hennessy

wilbad ndelwa

Gavisiddappa R Angadi

Insantri Aulia

Ruth S Burkett

CDELT Occasional Papers in the Development of English Education

Hanan Sanad

Dr.Olukayode S O L O M O N Aboderin

robelyn pacumba

IOSR Journals

Dr. Kishore Mukhopadhyay

Victor King Anyanful

Jennifer Olson

Rosamund Sutherland

Sue Johnston-Wilder

DAMIAN K O F I MEREKU

International Journal of Advanced Research (IJAR)

IJAR Indexing

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development

Joseph Mwambo

Ayoub Kafyulilo

Jim Ridgway

Phillip Y Freiberg

Roni Herdianto

Shehu Abdullahi Ringim

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024