learning in the digital era 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

Digital learning and transformation of education

Digital technologies have evolved from stand-alone projects to networks of tools and programmes that connect people and things across the world, and help address personal and global challenges. Digital innovation has demonstrated powers to complement, enrich and transform education, and has the potential to speed up progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) for education and transform modes of provision of universal access to learning. It can enhance the quality and relevance of learning, strengthen inclusion, and improve education administration and governance. In times of crises, distance learning can mitigate the effects of education disruption and school closures.

What you need to know about digital learning and transformation of education

2-5 September 2024, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, France

Digital competencies of teachers

in Member States of the Group of 77 and China

Best practices

The call for applications and nominations for the 2023 edition is open until 21 February 2024

Upcoming events

Open educational resources

A translation campaign to facilitate home-based early age reading

or 63%of the world’s population, were using the Internet in 2021

do not have a household computer and 43% of learners do not have household Internet.

to access information because they are not covered by mobile networks

in sub-Saharan Africa have received minimum training

• Greek (modern)

Contact us at  [email protected]

Learning in the Digital Age

(3 reviews)

Tutaleni Asino, Oklahoma State University

Rebecca Bayeck

Wilmon Brown

Raymond W. Francis

Tammi Kolski

Kathy Essmiller

Cathy L. Green

Sarah L. Lewis

Corrine McCabe

Josephine Shikongo

Jose Fulgencio

Copyright Year: 2020

Publisher: Oklahoma State University

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Brenda Williams, Part-time Faculty, Lane Community College on 2/1/22

It covers a variety of topics but did not include a index or glossary. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

It covers a variety of topics but did not include a index or glossary.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

THe content is accurate.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

It is up to date and should be easy to update again if needed

Clarity rating: 4

The abstracts are helpful at the beginning of each chapter

Consistency rating: 4

The layout and the header styles are consistent.

Modularity rating: 3

Some of the chapters are much longer than others but there is consistent use of headers. There wasn't much use of pictures or graphs.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 3

The book could do a better job of grouping chapters together.

Interface rating: 5

There weren't any major issues. I did notice the navigation was only at the top so I always had to scroll back to the top.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

I didn't see any insensitivities.

Reviewed by Asashia Martin, Adjunct Professor, American University on 12/22/21

There are a variety of topics to consider regarding learning within a digital age and this textbook does a thorough job elevating topics. The lack of comprehensiveness for this textbook happens because you will find that the author of an included... read more

There are a variety of topics to consider regarding learning within a digital age and this textbook does a thorough job elevating topics. The lack of comprehensiveness for this textbook happens because you will find that the author of an included essay will either stay at a surface level explanation or will move through theory, definition, and application within the essay.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

Due to the variety of topics that emerge as educators navigate learning within a digital age, the reader has a first-hand glimpse of what to expect and possible next steps. From elevating play, to financial literacy development, to digital literacy, the authors share both research and anecdotes for consideration when facilitating learning in a digital age.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

The impact of a digital world is ever-present within today's classrooms. As the author states, we are presented with an opportunity to refine and elevate how we are impacted by the digital age as well as how we navigate it systematically to deepen learning.

Clarity rating: 5

There is a good balance between theoretical and practical language for both content and application strategies.

Some essays dive deeper into theory and application than others. Depending on the subject that the reader may feel most drawn to, they may not have a full learning experience themselves if they got a surface level essay in one area versus another.

Modularity rating: 5

Easy to read, content is accessible, essays can function as supplements to larger bodies of work around the essay topic.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The essays elevated within the text are varied and the feel is that you are jumping from topic to topic with a lack of connection between topics.

text is clear, easy to read, graphics are supportive and easy to understand

No grammatical errors found

Cultural Relevance rating: 2

Texts reads as "race-neutral," with lack of acknowledgment of the impact of navigating digital literacies across race and culture. The board game chapter speaks of "Africa" as if it's just one country, not an entire continent made up of multiple and nuanced societies. The podcasting chapter references Maslow, who stole his framework from the Blackfoot Nation. Navigating the digital age could be an equalizer within culturally responsive classrooms but this text lacks what is needed to support educators to do so.

Reviewed by Youxin Zhang, Instructional Designer, Kapiolani Community College on 11/2/21

It might be helpful to include one chapter focusing on learning theories (e.g., Cognitive Development, Behaviorism, Constructivism) and another one on learner styles/preferences/characteristics if the vision of this textbook is to understand... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

It might be helpful to include one chapter focusing on learning theories (e.g., Cognitive Development, Behaviorism, Constructivism) and another one on learner styles/preferences/characteristics if the vision of this textbook is to understand learning and help learners/stakeholders learn how to learn in the digital age. What is covered in the textbook now seems too broad to be used as an intact piece for an instructional purpose. No index/glossary was provided. It might be helpful to add one.

Most of the content is accurate.

Content is recent. With the current setup, it should work well for the author to update the content when needed.

Clarity rating: 3

The abstract of each chapter is helpful to get a snap judgment of what the author attempted to deliver. But not every chapter has it following a consistent format within the same textbook. The text is easy to understand and follow. As a whole, the target audience is not clearly stated since it’s a textbook for people to use in the class.

Consistency rating: 2

The internal consistency within each chapter looks good. But the improvements could be made on the internal consistency between chapters. Learning in the digital age is a broad subject. Now, the textbook seems like a potluck containing different contributing pieces. The correlation between chapters is not explicit to tell. As a reader, I have to go to each chapter and read the abstract to do jigsaw puzzles on my own rather than reviewing the chapter names at a glance from the table of contents to draw a quick picture as a whole.

Some chapters have a fairly long length (e.g., 25 pages, single-space), the others do not. It might be helpful to reach a balance between chapters by informing the chapter authors about the word limit when calling out for book chapter proposals. The headings used in each chapter are helpful for navigation.

Definitely, some work can be done to improve the organization of this textbook. Since this textbook is a work-in-progress product, the organization of all chapters can be reconsidered when more chapters are coming in. For example, some chapters (e.g., Chapter 2) focused on K-12 settings, others related to higher education. It might be helpful to regroup these chapters based on some parameters (e.g., institution type).

Interface rating: 3

Navigation is good within this textbook. Just want to point out that some chapters contained content that is not ADA compliant. For example, a URL link is NOT descriptive and is used as hyperlinked text directly. Additionally, the images used in the chapters are not attributed to the original author in a proper manner and follow the same format.

The grammar looks good.

Not detect anything.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Board Games and Learning: Why Care in the Digital Age?

Effective Instruction in Blended Learning Environments

Podcasting as a Mode of Motivation in Online and Blended Learning

Virtual Proctoring and Academic Integrity

Personal Learning Networks: Defining and Building a PLN

Digital Learners in the Workplace

Digital Literacies and the Skills of the Digital Age

Playful Approaches to Learning

The Digital Divide

Ignored Conversations: Higher Education Funding in the Digital Age

Literacy in the Digital Age: From Traditional to Digital to Mobile Digital Literacies

The Digital Divide and the Lack of Financial Literacy Among First Generation 

Ancillary Material

About the book.

This book is designed to serve as a textbook for classes exploring the nature of learning in the digital age. The genesis of this book is a desire to use OERs in all my teachings, coupled with the realization that the resources that I was looking for were not available and as such I needed to contribute in creating them. It is thus a small attempt to contribute to the vast repository of Open Educational Resources. When discussing learning in the digital age, most focus on the technology first. However, the emphasis made in this book is that it’s about the learner not just the technology. One of the things that is easy to lose track of when talking about learning in the digital age is the learner. Technology is important and it has significant impact but it is still about the person who is using the technology. Many people conflate learning in the digital age with technology in today’s age. This important misconception is common and results from our failure to examine our understanding of what “learning” really is. Of course, Most of this depends on a person’s epistemology. There are numerous definitions of what learning is and often they come to how a person sees the world. Some argue that learning is about a change in behavior due to experiences, others state simply that learning is being able to do something new that you were not able to do before. Regardless of what side you choose, to understand what learning in the digital age is, one has to understand what learning itself is. I am immensely thankful to the authors for sharing their ideas freely and for the reviewers who volunteered their time to give feedback.

About the Contributors

Dr. Tutaleni Asino is an Associate Professor at Oklahoma State University. His areas of research revolve around diffusion of innovations in teaching and learning, mobile learning, design for mobile devices, indigenous knowledge, comparative international education, and the role of culture in the development and evaluation of learning technologies.

Contribute to this Page

The challenge for the digital age: making learning a part of life

International Journal of Information and Learning Technology

ISSN : 2056-4880

Article publication date: 19 September 2022

Issue publication date: 11 January 2023

The main argument behind this paper is learning in the digital age should not be restricted to creating digital infrastructures for supporting current forms of learning nor taking schools in their current form as God-given, natural entities, but changing current forms of education by developing new frameworks and socio-technical environments for making learning an integral part of life. The authors provide a framework for this argumentation as well as a call-to-action for research on the co-evolution of learning, media, and learning organizations.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper theoretically and argumentatively explores the core assumption that the digitalization of society results in challenges and opportunities for learning and education based on fundamental transformations (Collins and Halverson, 2009; Fischer et al. , 2020).

The digital age greatly enhances the opportunities and supports the necessity for “making learning a part of life”. But while the growth of technology is certain, the inevitability of any particular future is not. The impact of schooling goes beyond that new information about computers, the Internet, and social media are integrated into the schools of today. The transformation of schools needs to be informed by an understanding of the impact of mindset formation that will determine people's approach to learning for the rest of their lives. The authors’ framework is focused on moving “beyond gift-wrapping” by not only fixing and existing systems but to change them and not only reforming but transforming them.

Originality/value

It is the authors’ hope that this article will be of interest to many stakeholders (including learners, teachers, curriculum designers, technology experts, parents, and politicians) and provide a foundation for an ongoing debate and informed actions for “Making Learning a Part of Life” in the digital age.

Fischer, G. , Lundin, J. and Lindberg, O.J. (2023), "The challenge for the digital age: making learning a part of life", International Journal of Information and Learning Technology , Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-04-2022-0079

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Gerhard Fischer, Johan Lundin and Ola J. Lindberg

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

This paper explores the core assumption that the digitalization of society results in challenges and opportunities for learning and education based on fundamental transformations ( Collins and Halverson, 2009 ; Fischer et al. , 2020 ). The ongoing digitalization processes in society creates a situation in which not only students but citizens at large need competences for handling everyday life that differ from those in predigital time. Digital technologies cannot merely be understood as tools providing access to new resources for learning, interacting, and knowing, but rather as providing new opportunities to improve the quality of life by supporting innovative dimensions of activity. We argue that research on learning and information technology, in the broadest way of defining this field, often falls short of embracing the multidimensional transformational aspects of these drastic changes. And that it also lacks visionary narratives of what education can and should be, in these transformations.

In the digital age more and more knowledge will be acquired well past the age of formal schooling and increasingly through educational processes that do not center on the traditional school. Making Learning a Part of Life will not be an option but a necessity representing a fundamental challenge to the world in which change is the norm rather than the exception. At the same time, the performance of schools and the basic values of schools should be of increasing concern to society as a whole, rather than being considered professional matters that can safely be left to “educators” or school politicians.

Addressing learning in the digital age should not be restricted to creating digital infrastructures for supporting current forms of learning nor taking schools in their current form as God-given, natural entities but changing current forms of education by developing new frameworks and socio-technical environments for making learning an integral part of life. Outside of educational institutions information technology is rapidly transforming many practices, leading to a growing gap between the role digital technologies play in education and the world at large. Technology alone does not determine social structure nor does it change human behavior: it creates feasibility spaces for new social practices and it can persuade and motivate changes at the individual and social level ( Benkler, 2006 ), whether this is the intention of the designers and developers or not.

The paper is structured as followed: Chapter 2 will briefly characterize two global frameworks for “making learning a part of life”: (1) cultural transformations for which technological developments are necessary but not sufficient; and (2) lifelong learning as an indispensable activity complementing and transcending school learning by extending learning throughout life. Chapter 3 represents a set of specific objectives to move beyond current conceptualizations of learning. Chapter 4 articulates some conclusions resulting from the transformations indicated in Chapter 3.

Rethinking school from cultural transformations and lifelong learning perspectives

Cultural transformations.

Studying the emergence and establishing of cultural transformations are necessary for understanding how learning, interacting, and knowing with digital technology plays a part of everyday life ( Fischer et al. , 2020 ; Thomas and Brown, 2011 ). But viewing the digitalization of society in such terms calls for additional research to describe, analyze, understand, and explain learning in a digitalized world, including a focus on lifelong learning ( Livingstone et al. , 2018 ). show that as the Internet becomes ever more embedded into children's lives, studies must explore the internet-mediated engagements of children with the world. Research must therefore not be limited to concerns of how children relate to the Internet, but rather embrace how children's life is reconfigured in the digital world as a consequence of being internet-mediated. In a review of social media in relation to education ( Dennen et al. , 2020 ), note that dominant themes of research on social media within education differ from dominant themes on research outside of education, suggesting that researchers and practitioners would benefit from research originating from different disciplines and research areas. For instance, social media platforms as resources for teaching and learning are more present in educational research, while negative behaviors, health issues, and identity development and expression are dominant themes outside of education. Issues of digital citizenship and social relationships were also more frequent outside of education.

Exploring the future of learning from a transformational perspective, one impact of digitalization is that we need to understand and decide on what tasks should be reserved for educated human minds and the collaboration among different human minds, and what tasks can and should be taken over or aided by technological artifacts. When some activities are delegated to machines and some tasks are done by humans this have a number of consequences in relation to what can be understood as relevant knowledge to teach and learn, but also to the agency of humans in such activities. The human part of these practices is adaptable by the persons involved ( Lundin et al. , 2015 ), and then also provides space for agency for the involved persons. In relation to educational practices, we see an increased use of data-driven decision support and such efforts where student or learner data are exploited calls for a critical discussion on who benefits from the analysis of digital educational activities ( Dignum, 2021 ). It is necessary to engage in driving transformations in desired directions, or in terms of digital systems adaptivity, to what degree do our systems adapt education to students in relation to gradually adapting students to educational systems ( Hillman et al. , 2020 ).

Taking this stance has consequences for the conceptualization of technology. Perspectives on technology as tools or resources supporting current practices limit the potential to understand and analyze transformational change. Or in the words of ( Bayne, 2015 ) “By casting technology as being simply about ‘enhancement’ of existing practices < … > we execute < … > an elision of a ‘fuller understanding of technologies as social objects’” . Understanding the relationship of technologies with knowing and learning as cultural transformations will allow the formulation and exploration of more radical ideas and changes, opening up for formulating visions of future educational practices.

Educational systems of today are surprisingly dependent on traditional ideas of how to organize school, and to distant from how out of school learning is taking place in a digitalized society ( Collins and Halverson, 2009 ; Resnick, 1987 ). Schooling as such has long traditions and implications ( Hamilton, 2015 ), which brings with them certain already fixed ways of describing and understanding learning and what learning might be ( Tanner, 2013 ). The organization of activities for learning in these settings is often defined by premade notions of content, often placing a curriculum of the future within a context of a curriculum of the past ( Young, 1999 ; Young, 2003 ) limiting the possibilities of including a workable notion of what the future might bring ( Levine, 2002 ). A curriculum of the future in a digital world has been described as centrifugal ( Williamson, 2013 ), in which content cannot be altogether predefined relying more on dynamic sources of a more open character. Defining competence for the digital world is not a new or easy task. Early versions such as being fluent with technology ( National-Research-Council, 1999 ) can today be complemented with ideas of a digital competence ( Erstad et al. , 2021 ) leading to the fundamental challenge framed by the question: “What should be taught and learned in school curricula in the 21st century” ( Collins, 2017 ; Erstad and Voogt, 2018 ). The process of technological innovation is not solely about the design and development of new products or services, but rather is central to the very process that creates cultural change. Such a perspective also echoes Papert's view that computers can be the carrier of “seeds whose intellectual products will not need technological support once they take root in an actively growing mind” ( Papert, 1980 ).

Lifelong learning

Lifelong learning ( Fischer, 2000 ) is an essential challenge for inventing the future of our societies; it is a necessity rather than a possibility or a luxury to be considered. Lifelong learning is more than adult education and/or training – it is a mindset, a skillset and acquired tools, and a habit for people to acquire. It creates the challenge to understand, explore, and support new essential dimensions of learning and it requires new media and innovative technologies to be adequately supported. The major dimensions of our framework for lifelong learning are described and discussed in section 3 of the paper.

A theory of lifelong learning must investigate new frameworks to learning required by the profound and accelerating changes in the nature of work, education and life outside of work and school. If the world of working and living relies on collaboration, creativity, definition and framing of problems and if it requires dealing with uncertainty, change, and intelligence that is distributed across minds, cultures, disciplines, and tools – then education should foster competencies that prepare students for having meaningful and productive lives in such a world. Schools, however, have in many cases moved in the opposite direction. Even as computers become more ubiquitous in schools, curriculum standards and mandated assessments (based on frameworks such as cultural literacy ( Hirsch, 1996 )) have exercised a conservative force against the proliferation of idiosyncratic interests and passion, by emphasizing that everyone should learn the same thing at the same time, as measured by the same standards. Similarly, the education establishment has tried to control what people learn by defining the curriculum in schools. The dramatically increasing amount of non-“institutionally sanctioned” knowledge indicates a gap between the world we live in and our formal education, where the latter focuses mainly on a predefined and limited amount of knowledge. In an information-rich world, the ability comes not only from more information, but from information that is personally meaningful, relevant to people's concerns and relevant to the task at hand.

Moving away from a conception of learning as something uniquely related to schools, gives way to understand learning in different settings. The seeds of a new education system can be seen in the explosive growth of workplace learning, adult education, open, online learning environments (e.g. courses such as Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCS) ( DeCorte et al. , 2016 ), resources such as Wikipedia ( Pirolli et al. , 2009 ), and programming communities such as Scratch ( Resnick et al. , 2009 )), and a variety of design spaces for learning (e.g.: museums, science centers, and digital fabrication laboratories (FabLabs) ( Walter-Herrmann and Büching, 2014 )).

Research on everyday cognition demonstrates that the formal learning in schools and the informal learning in practical settings have important differences ( National-Research-Council, 2009 ). What we discover about learning in schools is insufficient for a theory of human learning: schools are often focused on individual cognition, on memorization and on learning general facts whereas learning in the world at large need to rely on shared resources, the use of powerful tools and external information sources, and situation-specific knowing. Consequently, insufficient theorization of learning means insufficient possibilities for informing the organization of education.

Learner-directed and supportive: the choice of tasks and goals (including the learning opportunities offered) must be under the control of the learner and support for contextualization to users' tasks must be provided.

Contextualized presentation and personalization: information presented should be maximally relevant to the learner's chosen project or task.

Breakdowns as opportunities for learning: provide means for allowing learners to understand, extricate themselves from, discuss, and learn from breakdowns – turning breakdowns into opportunities rather than failures.

End-user development: support significant modification, extension, and evolution by learners.

Supporting a range of expertise: accommodate learners at progressively different levels of expertise.

Promoting collaboration: include means for collaboration between learners.

Components of a framework for “making learning a part of life”

Beyond current schools: not being god-given natural entities but social constructs.

In the scientific debate on education and the learning science, schools are often perceived as a part of nature, not as artifacts produced in a specific cultural, political, and historical context ( Simon, 1996 ). Illich ( Illich, 1971 ) envisioned fifty years ago (before computers and the internet became part of our everyday lives) alternative visions of schools for increased possibilities for learning: “The inverse of school is possible: that we can depend on self-motivated learning instead of employing teachers to bribe or compel the student to find the time and the will to learn; that we can provide the learner with new links to the world instead of continuing to funnel all educational programs through the teacher” . However, the idea of such an “ inverse school ” is dependent on further exploration and explanation, and maybe also provocation of thinking and debate.

Table 1 provides a comparison between major characteristics resulting in differentiations between school and lifelong learning.

Beyond the individual human mind: complementing renaissance scholars with renaissance communities

Historically the emphasis of education has been to educate and support individual “Renaissance scholars”. In today's world, most of the significant problems are systemic problems that transcend not only the individual human mind but cannot be addressed by any one specialty discipline. To cope with these problems requires not only “Renaissance Scholars” but “Renaissance Communities” ( Fischer, 2013 ) in which stakeholders coming from different disciplines collaborate to create new knowledge.

Based on the constraints on human abilities to learn during a lifetime, we cannot expect individuals to maintain the prerequisite knowledge in their technological discipline, and at the same time to have the needed competence in the social sciences and in domain-specific application domains (e.g. a computer scientist knowing about a variety of tools and at the same time understanding relevant issues in cognitive science, sociology, anthropology and having acquired substantial knowledge in specific domains). While being a “Renaissance Scholar” (such as Leonardo da Vinci, who was equally adept in the arts and the sciences ( Shneiderman, 2002 )) was a realistic possibility in the 15th century, the objective of learning and education in the 21st century should be focused on “Renaissance Communities”. Although humans can delegate some functionality to more or less intelligent machines, such systems are highly dependent on providing support for solving already known problem-solution pairs.

Despite the current rhetoric to avoid a primary focus on the Renaissance scholar in education, the dominant form of school learning and performance is understood as individual. Although group activities of various kinds occur in school, students ultimately are judged on what they can do, know, and solve by themselves. Furthermore, a major part of the core activity of schooling is designed as individual homework. Collaboration is often stigmatized as cheating ( Norman, 2001 ). Students are framed to succeed or fail at a task independently of what other students do. In contrast, much activity outside school is socially shared ( Resnick, 1987 ). Work, personal life, and recreation take place within social systems of interdependence, and each person's ability to function successfully depends how this functionality relates to what others do.

Beyond the unaided human mind: distributed cognition

In many educational approaches, human cognition has been seen as existing solely “inside” a person's head, and studies on cognition have often disregarded the physical and social surroundings in which cognition takes place. Distributed cognition ( Hollan et al. , 2001 ; Salomon, 1993 ) provides an effective theoretical framework for understanding what humans can achieve and how artifacts, tools, and socio-technical environments can be designed and evaluated to empower human beings and to change tasks.

Tools for living (such as eyeglasses) are grounded in a distributed cognition perspective, in which intelligence is mediated by tools for achieving activities that would be error prone, challenging, or impossible to achieve.

Tools for learning (such as training wheels) are grounded in a “scaffolding with fading” perspective in which the ultimate goal is autonomous performance by people without tools.

This distinction raises the fundamental question concerning what it means to learn in the 21st century in which powerful tools are available “anywhere, at any time, for anyone” for many intellectual activities – allowing people to have instant access to facts, assisting people in spelling, doing arithmetic, memorizing experiences, making sense of a large amount of information, connecting, and collaborating with others, and performing numerous other intellectual activities. There is also a possibility of extending educational activities outside of the educational institutions, allowing for example for microlearning educational activities embedded in our everyday lives ( Jahnke et al. , 2020 ). These tools' ubiquitous availability provides numerous benefits but potential pitfalls (e.g. overreliance caused by the fact that tools for living need to be present and accessible when stakeholders are confronted with problems) need to be taken into account.

Beyond instructionist environments: learning when the answer is not known

New discourses are required, because one of the major roles for new media and new technologies is not to deliver predigested information to individuals, but to provide the opportunity and resources for social debate and discussion. One of the most impoverished paradigms of education is a setting in which “a single, all-knowing teacher tells or shows presumably unknowing learners something they presumably know nothing about” ( Bruner, 1996 ). Despite the fact that significant efforts are under way to change the nature of school discourse to make it more of a collective inquiry, this traditional model of education is still widely practiced in our educational institutions, leading critics such as Illich (1971 ) to claim that our schools and universities are the “reproductive organs of a consumer society” and that “people who are hooked on teaching are conditioned to be customers for everything else”.

Many problems (specifically design problems) are wicked ( Rittel and Webber, 1984 ) and the knowledge to address them is not “out there”, but require contributions, innovative ideas, and new forms of activity from all involved stakeholders. Learners in such settings must be active contributors rather than passive consumers ( Fischer, 2002 ) and the learning environments and organizations must foster and support mindsets, tools, and skills that help learners become empowered and willing to actively contribute ( Jenkins, 2006 ; von Hippel, 2005 ). Our argument here is not that it is meaningless to teach what is already know in schools, this is necessary and deserves the greatest care and effort, but schools must also increasingly prepare students for skillfully involving themselves in collaborative knowledge construction.

Beyond supply models of knowledge: learning on demand

Learning in schools is based on a supply-push model. Based on curricula students are taught in different disciplines that are supposed to be relevant and of value in their later life and work. In today's world this approach encounters major obstacles because change is inevitable, complete coverage is impossible, and over a life-time obsolescence is unavoidable. Given the explosion of knowledge, people simply cannot learn in school all or even most of what they will need to know in later life ( Sloman and Fernbach, 2017 ).

Learning on demand ( Fischer, 1991 ) is a promising approach for addressing these problems because: (1) it contextualizes learning by allowing it to be integrated into work rather than relegating it to a separate phase, (2) it lets learners see for themselves the usefulness of new knowledge for actual problem situations, thereby increasing the motivation for learning new things, and (3) it makes new information relevant to the task at hand, thereby leading to more informed decision making, better products, and improved performance.

While learning on demand is an indispensable component of lifelong learning, the following limitations need to addressed: (1) the acquisition of certain essential skills should not be deferred until they are needed, because the time to learn them may be not available or the environment may be too dangerous for safe learning processes; (2) learning on demand is task driven and therefore may be limited to exposing users to isolated pieces of knowledge providing only limited support for learning essential principles; (3) users may encounter difficulties in decontextualizing knowledge so that it can be used in new settings, and (4) whereas learning on demand may be well suited for evolutionary extensions of a knowledge base, it may not support substantial restructuring because the additional features learned occur only in the neighborhood of what learners already know; (5) it is dependent on the ability to formulate a problem in a way that resonates with available knowledge.

Beyond curriculum and cultural literacy: interest-driven and long tail learning

The phrase “ The Long Tail” was coined by Chris Anderson ( Anderson, 2006 ) to describe how our culture and economy is increasingly shifting away from a focus on a relatively small number of “hits” (mainstream products and markets) at the head of the demand curve toward a huge number of niches in the tail (as exemplified by companies such as Amazon or Netflix, that sell a large number of unique items in relatively small quantities).

Envisioning long-tail learning inspired by Anderson's model represents a fundamentally different objective compared to cultural literacy ( Hirsch, 1996 ). The web gives children and adults the ability to pursue topics they are particularly interested and feel passionate about.

How can we envision a productive synergy between the head and the tail and create mechanisms to support and exploit this synergy? How can the passion associated with topics from the tail be integrated with important basic knowledge and skills from the head that they successfully complement each other?

Do we want to keep requiring everyone to learn the same thing in school rather than pursuing their deep interests?

Do we want to keep extending the years of schooling to encompass the expanding knowledge base?

Do we want to support kids to pursue more deeply the topics of interest to them — and if so, where can we find that space for kids to pursue and how can it be supported?

How does access to tools and learning resources influence long tail learning?

Additional differentiations are summarized in Table 2 .

Beyond the fallacy of the “Big Switch”: creating mindsets in support of lifelong learning

Young people growing up in our societies spend a substantial number of years in educational institutions. In addition to learning about a variety of subjects, they will form mindsets what learning is all about which will have consequences for the rest of their lives. Instruction, access to existing information, solving given problems, individual performance, and tool-free environments are themes that determine many “school cultures” in today's world. The components of these mindsets are different from what citizens are confronted with in their lives after school that require problem framing, active participation, collaboration, and learning on demand in support of interest-driven learning. A one-sided focus of schools on tools for learning will leave students unprepared for a world in which tools for living are of critical importance (see section 3.3 ).

Figure 1 illustrates the consequences of this approach assuming that after years of exposure to current school-based practices, students miraculously at some point of time will acquire and practice learning behaviors as required for the demands of lifelong learning in the digital age. Having taught many courses at universities and interacted with many students at the undergraduate and graduate level provided us with overwhelming evidence that the “Big Switch” model represents a fallacy.

Figure 2 characterizes an approach that avoids the “Big Switch” fallacy by engaging students incrementally starting at an early age in interest-drive learning activities. While it is self-evident that students in elementary schools will have less knowledge to contribute than graduate students, they can and should be exposed to (1) skills and processes that support learning as a lifetime activity ( Gardner, 1991 ), (2) that teachers do not always know the answers and that they should actively contribute to the framing and solving of problems ( Bruner, 1996 ), and (3) that collaboration with others should not be considered as “cheating” ( Norman, 2001 ). One way of avoiding the fallacy of the Big Switch model is to develop models that bridge the gap between education in institutions and less formalized settings for learning. Allowing learners to “learn whenever they are curious and seamlessly switching between different contexts” ( Wong and Looi, 2019 ).

Beyond learning analytics: measuring what we value

Learning analytics research and approaches have enhanced learning in many different ways – particularly in online environments in which the interactions of learners can be easily tracked, analyzed, visualized and potentially also predicted. Learning analytics ( Larusson and White, 2014 ) examines the data captured about learners by looking for patterns and correlations that can provide insight how to improve the learning process. Collecting data is important for providing evidence instead of relying on beliefs, misconceptions, assumptions, and unsupported claims. But there are also pitfalls associated with current approaches in learning analytics ( Muller, 2018 ) leading often to unintended, unnoticed, and undesirable side-effects, including (1) influencing our behavior (e.g.: in curriculum design narrowing of what is taught to those things that can be easily measured with objective tests), (2) creating a potentially misleading impression of being “scientific” (by comparing numbers), (3) an obsession with data assuming that data is the best overall measure of any given situation, and (4) that data always produces valuable results.

A fundamental challenge facing learning analytics research is to develop methodologies whose main focus is to move from “value what we measure” to “measure what we value”. To do so will avoid a tyranny of potentially irrelevant metrics that threatens the quality of learning by ignoring that much that is measurable is unimportant and not everything that is important is measurable. Examples for the “value what we measure” approach are (1) the International “Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)” and (2) the USA Program “No Child Left Behind (NCLB)” which both rely heavily on student performance on standardized tests. These movements favor quantifiable approaches (e.g.: instruction of facts and skills) rather than projects, discovery learning, creativity, and imaginative play ( Resnick, 2017 ). Most assessment technologies, that are employed in evaluating students, use multiple-choice, short answers to provide objective scoring. This form of testing requires that all students learn the same thing thereby suppressing approaches such as creativity, customization, and interest-driven learning. The argument here is not that we should not measure individual performance, but a sole focus on individual knowing, will regardless of intention, downplay the importance of creative and collective learning, to teachers but maybe most problematic also to students. Besides aspects of measuring what we value, the very idea of continuous measurement has been critically discussed as it risks emphasizing completion of tests rather than developing critical thinking among students, and that it might create a sense of constant surveillance ( Cerratto-Pargman and McGrath, 2021 ).

The “right kind” (not all of them) of data are of critical importance to understand “how things are” . A challenge of equal (if not more) importance is: how can data driven approaches provide insights and foundations for envisioning new educational designs (as indicated by the different “Beyond” themes of this article) to explore “how things could or should be?” ( Robinson and Aronica, 2015 ). There is new educational designs are not only influenced by data but also by problems, ideas, visions, and inspirational prototypes. The role of the teacher is also central to realize effective use of data for guiding instruction ( Utterberg Modén et al. , 2021 ). Teachers are responsible for teaching in their classroom and if systems are part of creating unfair or unwanted conditions they are in many cases and should be able to choose not to include the systems. However, this is dependent on a certain level of transparency of the systems, allowing teachers to understand the foundation of suggestions that system makes. Given the difference between different classrooms it is unlikely that general predictions and algorithm-driven advice would create a fair and fruitful learning situation to all students, pointing to the importance of allowing humans in the loop not only in design, but also in design-in-use of such systems.

Calls to action: support co-evolution and identify design trade-offs

Co-evolution of learning, media, and learning organizations.

The core argument of this paper is that learning in the digital age should not be envisioned as learning limited by how it is understood and practiced today, and merely enriched or enhanced by digital technologies, but instead our focus should rather be on supporting the co-evolution between learning, new media, and new ways of organizing learning by exploring opportunities for radically new conceptualizations and practices. Technological developments are necessary, but they are not sufficient (e.g. distance learning supported by modern communication technologies should not be restricted to “classroom learning at a distance” but explore new opportunities for collaboration supported by modern communication technologies). Many current uses of technology to support life-long learning and distance learning are restricted to a “gift wrapping” approach ( Fischer, 1998 ): they are used as an add-on to existing practices rather than a catalyst for fundamentally rethinking what education and learning should be about in the next century. This problem is visible in many comparative studies of the use of new technologies for learning. Here face-to-face is often used as baseline, restricting such studies from including tasks including functions that are only available in digital settings (e.g.: comparing memorization between students use pen or computer to take notes). Many digital educational tools, and digital tools in general have functionalities that have no comparable counterpart in face-to-face, or pen-and-paper activity.

Established frameworks, such as instructionism, fixed curriculum, memorization, decontextualized learning, etc., are not sustained or transformed by technology itself. This is true whether we use computer-based training, intelligent tutoring systems, multimedia presentations, or distance education approaches.

Co-evolution (grounded in the different “beyond” arguments of this paper) is grounded in descriptive and prescriptive goals such as: (1) learning should take place in the context of authentic, complex problems (because learners will refuse to quietly listen to someone else's answers to someone else's questions); (2) learning should be embedded in the pursuit of intrinsically rewarding activities; (3) learning-on-demand needs to be supported because change is inevitable, complete coverage is impossible, and obsolescence is unavoidable; (4) organizational and collaborative learning must be supported because the individual human mind is limited; and (5) skills and processes that support learning as a lifetime habit must be developed.

Identifying the best possible mixes with design trade-offs

Design is choice ( Simon, 1996 ). To gain a deep understanding of the potential and the transformations of innovative socio-technical environment for making learning a part of life requires a careful analysis of design trade-offs ( Fischer, 2018 ) associated with different approaches. Because optimal solutions and simple “right” or “wrong” answers do not exist, identifying the best possible mixes represents a desirable objective and should contribute to the formation of mindsets.

customizing education to the particular needs and abilities of individual learners will reduce information overload with context-awareness by providing the “right information, at the right time, in the right place, in the right way, to the right person”;

supporting interest-driven learning by presenting and engaging people with topics that they want to learn rather then that they have to learn thereby allowing them to take responsibility for their own learning;

providing feedback to learners about their own activities and problem-solving activities (e.g. with critiquing components).

it prohibits learners from being exposed to different views on issues thereby promoting group-think ( Janis, 1972 );

it encapsulates learners in filter bubbles ( Pariser, 2021 ) limiting learners to particular world views, never seeing things outside of them;

it limits serendipitous encounters (e.g. encountering interesting ideas, things, events, and people by chance and volunteering information to learners that they consider relevant without asking) ( Roberts, 1989 );

it provides the foundation for privacy intrusions ( Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier, 2013 ).

will distributed cognition ( section 3.3 ) support the unaided human mind or will it lead to an overreliance on external tools thereby suppressing the acquisition of basic knowledge and skills (e.g.: navigation systems may have a negative impact on geographical knowledge);

will approaches to long tail learning ( section 3.6 ) facilitate interest-driven learning or will it lead to insufficient exposure to basic skills;

will communication tools increase and widen the collaboration with other learners, or will it increase social isolation because individuals will be sitting at home in front of a computer and interacting less with other people;

will digital technologies widen the “digital divide ” or reduce it by making educational opportunities available to many more learners in all parts of the world (e.g. with Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCS) ( DeCorte et al. , 2016 )).

The best possible mixes need to be situated and explored in specific settings. The revolution in education we see happening will have large effects on society. As with any innovation, the associated design trade-offs need to be analyzed to identify gains and losses Some pessimists see people becoming subservient to their technologies and many people being left behind as technology comes to dominate our lives. Some optimists see a golden age of learning opening before us, where people will be able to find resources to pursue any education they may want.

Conclusions

Universal schooling has formed the basis for our societies today. With the arguments articulated in this paper we do not want to deemphasize the values of schools but rather entice a discussion on reconceptualizing them from a lifelong learning perspective. Many aspects of traditional schools such as students (1) being supposed to sit still and passively listen to the talk of teachers, (2) memorize the information given them to by teachers or found in books, and (3) regurgitate that information back on tests (see section 4.8) worked relatively well in a world where change was not constant, where coverage of important topics was a feasible objective, and skills learned could be applied for a lifetime. Our argument is not that such activities are meaningless, but that we are lacking exploration, debate and investigation on whether they are sufficient.

The digital age greatly enhances the opportunities and supports the necessity for “making learning a part of life”. But while the growth of technology is certain, the inevitability of any particular future is not. The impact of schooling goes beyond that new information about computers, the Internet, and social media are integrated into the schools of today. The transformation of schools needs to be informed by an understanding of the impact of mindset formation that will determine people's approach to learning for the rest of their lives. Our framework is focused on moving “beyond gift-wrapping” by not only fixing and existing systems but to change them and not only reforming but transforming them. We need creative practices to explore frameworks for technological imagination not only grounded in understanding new media and technologies in terms of productivity, efficiency, reliability, and from economic perspectives, but also in exploring innovative sociotechnical environments that contribute to human creativity, gratification, enjoyment, and quality of life.

It is our hope that this article will be of interest to many stakeholders (including learners, teachers, curriculum designers, technology experts, parents, and politicians) and provide a foundation for an ongoing debate and informed actions for “Making Learning a Part of Life” in the digital age.

The fallacy of the “Big Switch” model

Creating mindsets for lifelong learning

A comparison of different conceptualizations of school and lifelong learning

Design trade-off: curriculum-driven versus interest-driven learning

Anderson , C. ( 2006 ), The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More , Hyperion , New York, NY .

Bayne , S. ( 2015 ), “ What's the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning ”, Learning, Media and Technology , Vol.  40 No.  1 , pp.  5 - 20 .

Benkler , Y. ( 2006 ), The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom , Yale University Press , New Haven .

Brown , J.S. and Adler , R.P. ( 2008 ), “ Minds on fire: open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0 ”, available at: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0811.pdf .

Bruner , J. ( 1996 ), The Culture of Education , Harvard University Press , Cambridge, MA .

Cerratto-Pargman , T. and McGrath , C. ( 2021 ), “ Be careful what you wish for! Learning analytics and the emergence of data-driven practices in higher education ”, in Petersson , S. (Ed.), In Digital Human Sciences: New Objects —New Approaches , Stockholm University Press , Stockholm , pp.  203 - 226 .

Collins , A. and Halverson , R. ( 2009 ), Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology — the Digital Revolution and Schooling in America , Teachers College Press , New York, NY .

Collins , A. , Fischer , G. , Barron , B. , Liu , C. and Spada , H. ( 2009 ), “ Long-tail learning: a unique opportunity for CSCL? ”, Proceedings (Vol 2) of CSCL 2009: 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning , Rhodes, Greece , University of the Aegean , pp.  22 - 24 .

Collins , A. ( 2017 ), What's Worth Teaching: Rethinking Curriculum in the Age of Technology , Teachers College Press , New York .

DeCorte , E. , Engwall , L. and Teichler , U. (Eds), ( 2016 ), “ From books to MOOCs? Emerging models of learning and teaching in higher education ”, Wenner-Gren International Series , Vol.  88 , Portland Press , London .

Dennen , V.P. , Choi , H. and Word , K. ( 2020 ), “ Social media, teenagers, and the school context: a scoping review of research in education and related fields ”, Educational Technology Research Development , Vol.  68 , pp.  1635 - 1658 .

Dignum , V. ( 2021 ), “ The role and challenges of education for responsible Ai ”, London Review of Education , Vol.  19 No.  1 , pp. 1 - 11 , doi: 10.14324/LRE.19.1.01 .

Erstad , O. and Voogt , J. ( 2018 ), “ The twenty-first century curriculum: issues and challenges ”, in Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Christensen, R. and Lai, K.W. (Eds) , Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education , Springer , Cham , doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-53803-7_1-2 .

Erstad , O. , Kjällander , S. and Järvelä , S. ( 2021 ), “ Facing the challenges of ‘digital competence’ - a Nordic agenda for curriculum development for the 21st century ”, Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy , Vol.  16 No.  2 , pp.  77 - 87 .

Fischer , G. and Konomi , S. ( 2007 ), “ Innovative media in support of distributed intelligence and lifelong learning ”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , Vol.  23 No.  4 , pp.  338 - 350 , Mobile Learning .

Fischer , G. , Lundin , J. and Lindberg , J.O. ( 2020 ), “ Rethinking and reinventing learning, education and collaboration in the digital age—from creating technologies to transforming cultures ”, The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology , Vol.  37 No.  5 , pp. 241 - 252 .

Fischer , G. ( 1991 ), “ Supporting learning on demand with design environments ”, in Birnbaum , L. (Ed.), International Conference on the Learning Sciences , Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education , Evanston, IL , pp.  165 - 172 .

Fischer , G. ( 1998 ), “ Making learning a part of life—beyond the ‘gift-wrapping' approach of technology ”, in Alheit , P. and Kammler , E. (Eds), Lifelong Learning and its Impact on Social and Regional Development , Donat Verlag , Bremen , pp.  435 - 462 .

Fischer , G. ( 2000 ), “ Lifelong learning - more than training ”, in Mizoguchi , R. and Kommers , P.A.M. (Eds), Journal of Interactive Learning Research, Special Issue on Intelligent Systems/Tools in Training and Life-Long Learning , Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) , Waynesville, NC , Vol.  11 , pp. 265 - 294 .

Fischer , G. ( 2002 ), “ Beyond 'couch potatoes': from consumers to designers and active contributors ”, Firstmonday (Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Internet), available at: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1010/931 .

Fischer , G. ( 2013 ), “ From renaissance scholars to renaissance communities: learning and education in the 21st century ”, in Smari , W. and Fox , G. (Eds), International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems , IEEE , San Diego , pp.  13 - 21 .

Fischer , G. ( 2018 ), “ Design trade-offs for quality of life ”, ACM Interactions , Vol.  25 No.  1 , pp.  26 - 33 .

Gardner , H. ( 1991 ), The Unschooled Mind , Basic Books , New York .

Hamilton , D. ( 2015 ), “ The beginning of schooling-as we know it? ”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , Vol.  47 No.  5 , pp.  577 - 593 .

Hillman , T. , Rensfeldt , A.B. and Ivarsson , J. ( 2020 ), “ Brave new platforms: a possible platform future for highly decentralised schooling ”, Learning, Media and Technology , Vol.  45 No.  1 , pp.  7 - 16 .

Hirsch , E.D. ( 1996 ), The Schools We Need and Why We Don't Have Them , Doubleday , New York .

Hollan , J. , Hutchins , E. and Kirsch , D. ( 2001 ), “ Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research ”, in Carroll , J.M. (Ed.), Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millennium , ACM Press , New York , pp.  75 - 94 .

Illich , I. ( 1971 ), Deschooling Society , Harper and Row , New York .

Jahnke , I. , Lee , Y.M. , Pham , M. , He , H. and Austin , L. ( 2020 ), “ Unpacking the inherent design principles of mobile microlearning ”, Technology, Knowledge and Learning , Vol.  25 No.  3 , pp.  585 - 619 .

Janis , I. ( 1972 ), Victims of Groupthink , Houghton Mifflin , Boston .

Jenkins , H. ( 2006 ), “ Confronting the challenges of participatory cultures: media education for the 21st century ”, available at: http://www.henryjenkins.org/2006/10/confrontingthechallengesof.html .

Larusson , J.A. and White , B. (Eds) ( 2014 ), Learning Analytics , Springer , New York, NY .

Levine , T. ( 2002 ), “ Stability and change in curriculum evaluation ”, Studies in Educational Evaluation , Vol.  28 No.  1 , pp.  1 - 33 .

Livingstone , S. , Mascheroni , G. and Staksrud , E. ( 2018 ), “ European research on children's internet use: assessing the past and anticipating the future ”, New Media and Society , Vol.  20 No.  3 , pp.  1103 - 1122 .

Lundin , J. , Svensson , L. and Lundh Snis , U. ( 2015 ), “ The illusion of structure: about harmonization and variation in competence management system practices in a public healthcare organization ”, ECIS 2015 Complete Research Papers , Paper 126 .

Mayer-Schönberger , V. and Cukier , K. ( 2013 ), Big Data , Houghton Mifflin Harcourt , New York, NY .

Muller , J.Z. ( 2018 ), The Tyranny of Metrics , Princeton University Press , Princeton .

National-Research-Council ( 1999 ), Being Fluent with Information Technology , National Academy Press , Washington, DC .

National-Research-Council ( 2009 ), Learning Science in Informal Environments — People, Places, and Pursuits , National Academy Press , Washington, DC .

Norman , D. ( 2001 ), “ In defense of cheating ”, available at: http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/indefenseofcheati.html .

Papert , S. ( 1980 ), Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas , Basic Books , New York .

Pariser , E. ( 2021 ), The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing what We Read and How We Think , Penguin , New York .

Pirolli , P. , Wollny , E. and Suh , B. ( 2009 ), “ So you know you're getting the best possible information: a tool that increases Wikipedia credibility ”, Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , Boston, MA , ACM , pp.  1505 - 1508 .

Resnick , M. , Maloney , J. , Monroy-Hernández , A. , Rusk , N. , Eastmond , E. , Brennan , K. , Millner , A. , Rosenbaum , E. , Silver , J. , Silverman , B. and Kafai , Y. ( 2009 ), “ Scratch: programming for all ”, Communications of the ACM , Vol.  52 No.  11 , pp.  60 - 67 .

Resnick , L.B. ( 1987 ), “ Learning in school and out ”, Educational Researcher , Vol.  16 No.  9 , pp.  13 - 20 .

Resnick , M. ( 2017 ), Lifelong Kindergarten — Cultivating Creativity through Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play , MIT Press , Cambridge, MA .

Rittel , H. and Webber , M.M. ( 1984 ), “ Planning problems are wicked problems ”, in Cross , N. (Ed.), Developments in Design Methodology , John Wiley & Sons , New York , pp.  135 - 144 .

Roberts , R.M. ( 1989 ), Serendipity: Accidental Discoveries in Science , John Wiley & Sons , New York .

Robinson , K. and Aronica , L. ( 2015 ), Creative Schools — the Grassroots Revolution That's Transforming Education , Penguin Books , New York, NY .

Salomon , G. (Ed.) ( 1993 ), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations , Cambridge University Press , Cambridge .

Shneiderman , B. ( 2002 ), Leonardo's Laptop — Human Needs and the New Computing Technologies , MIT Press , Cambridge, MA .

Simon , H.A. ( 1996 ), The Sciences of the Artificial , 3rd ed. , The MIT Press , Cambridge, MA .

Sloman , S. and Fernbach , P. ( 2017 ), The Knowledge Illusion — Why We Never Think Alone , Riverhead Books , New York .

Tanner , D. ( 2013 ), “ Race to the top and leave the children behind ”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , Vol.  45 No.  1 , pp.  4 - 15 .

Thomas , D. and Brown , J.S. ( 2011 ), A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant Change , CreateSpace , Lexington, KY .

Utterberg Modén , M. , Tallvid , M. , Lundin , J. and Lindström , B. ( 2021 ), “ Intelligent tutoring systems: why teachers abandoned a technology aimed at automating teaching processes ”, Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences , p. 1538 .

von Hippel , E. ( 2005 ), Democratizing Innovation , MIT Press , Cambridge, MA .

Walter-Herrmann , J. and Büching , C. (Eds) ( 2014 ), FabLab: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors , Transcript , Bielefeld .

Williamson , B. ( 2013 ), The Future of the Curriculum: School Knowledge in the Digital Age , MIT Press , Cambridge, MA .

Wong , L.H. and Looi , C.K. ( 2019 ), “ The conceptual niche of seamless learning: an invitation to dialogue ”, Seamless Learning , Springer , Singapore , pp.  3 - 27 .

Young , M. ( 1999 ), “ Knowledge, learning and the curriculum of the future ”, British Educational Research Journal , Vol.  25 No.  4 , pp.  463 - 477 .

Young , M. ( 2003 ), “ Curriculum studies and the problem of knowledge: updating the enlightenment? ”, Policy Futures in Education , Vol.  1 No.  3 , pp.  553 - 564 .

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the participants of the Symposium “Learning in the Digital World” which take place in Östersund from April 20–22, 2022 and was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Grant no. 2021-00532, for insightful comments in a discussion session about the paper. Ben Shneiderman provided valuable feedback to an earlier draft of the paper. The first author was supported during the writing of the book by a fellowship from the Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg Institute for Advanced Study at Delmenhorst, Germany (HWK; https://hanse-ias.de/en/ ).

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

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

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

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

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

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

12k Accesses

7 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Development studies
• Science, technology and society

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

Similar content being viewed by others

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

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

Education big data and learning analytics: a bibliometric analysis

Introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review

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

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

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

Methodology and materials

Research method: bibliometric.

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

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

Data retrieval

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

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

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

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

Literature screening

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

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

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

Data standardization

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

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

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

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

Performance analysis (RQ1)

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

Time trend of the publications

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

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

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

Analysis of authors

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

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

Analysis of countries/regions and organization

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of journals

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

Based on Table 6 , it is apparent that the highest number of articles in the domain of digital technology in education research were published in Education and Information Technologies (47 articles), Computers & Education (34 articles), and British Journal of Educational Technology (32 articles), indicating a higher article output compared to other journals. This underscores the fact that these three journals concentrate more on the application of digital technology in education. Furthermore, several other journals, such as Technology Pedagogy and Education and Sustainability, have published more than 15 articles in this domain. Sustainability represents the open access movement, which has notably facilitated research progress in this field, indicating that the development of open access journals in recent years has had a significant impact. Although there is still considerable disagreement among scholars on the optimal approach to achieve open access, the notion that research outcomes should be accessible to all is widely recognized (Huang et al. 2020 ). On further analysis of the research fields to which these journals belong, except for Sustainability, it is evident that they all pertain to educational technology, thus providing a qualitative definition of the research area of digital technology education from the perspective of journals.

Temporal keyword analysis: thematic evolution (RQ2)

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

2000.1–2005.12: germination period

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

2006.1–2011.12: initial development period

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

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

2012.1–2017.12: critical exploration period

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

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

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

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

2018.1–2022.12: accelerated transformation period

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

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

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

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

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

Hotspot evolution analysis (RQ3)

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on performance analysis (RQ1)

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

Discussion on authorship productivity in digital technology education research

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

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

Discussion on country/region-level productivity and collaboration

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

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

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

Discussion on institutional-level contributions to digital technology education

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

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

Discussion on journal publication analysis

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

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

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

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

Discussion on the evolutionary trends (RQ2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on the study of research hotspots (RQ3)

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

Interdisciplinary integration and pedagogical transformation

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

Digital literacy and skills acquisition

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

Educational digital transformation

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

Engagement and participation

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

Professional development and teacher readiness

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

Pandemic as a catalyst

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

Ethical and societal considerations

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

Innovation and emerging technologies

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

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

Conclusions and future research

Conclusions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitation and future research

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

Data availability

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Chengliang Wang, Xiaojiao Chen, Yidan Liu & Yuhui Jing

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

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

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuhui Jing .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

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

Informed consent

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

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 11 July 2023

Accepted : 17 January 2024

Published : 12 February 2024

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

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

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

• Chengliang Wang

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

Quick links

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

7 Digital literacies and the skills of the digital age

Cathy L. Green, Oklahoma State University

Oklahoma State University

Abstract – This chapter is intended to provide a framework and understanding of digital literacy, what it is and why it is important. The following pages explore the roots of digital literacy, its relationship to language literacy and its role in 21 st century life.

Introduction

Unlike previous generations, learning in the digital age is marked by the use of rapidly evolving technology, a deluge of information and a highly networked global community (Dede, 2010). In such a dynamic environment, learners need skills beyond the basic cognitive ability to consume and process language. In other words: To understand what the characteristics of the digital age, and of digital learners, means for how people learn in this new and changing landscape, one may turn to the evolving discussion of literacy or, as one might say now, of digital literacy. The history of literacy contextualizes digital literacy and illustrates changes in literacy over time. By looking at literacy as a historical phenomenon, the characteristics of which have evolved over time, we can glean the fundamental characteristics of the digital age. Those characteristics in turn illuminate the skills needed in order to take advantage of digital environments. The following discussion is an overview of digital literacy, its essential components and why it is important for learning in a digital age.

Moving from Literacy to Digital Literacy

Literacy refers to the ability of people to read and write (UNESCO, 2017). Reading and writing then, is about encoding and decoding information between written symbols and sound (Resnick, 1983; Tyner, 1998). More specifically, literacy is the ability to understand the relationship between sounds and written words such that one may read, say and understand them (UNESCO, 2004; Vlieghe, 2015). Literacy is often considered a skill or competency and is often referred to as such. Children and adults alike can spend years developing the appropriate skills for encoding and decoding information.

Over the course of thousands of years, literacy has become much more common and widespread with a global literacy rate ranging from 81% to 90% depending on age and gender (UNESCO, 2016). From a time when literacy was the domain of an elite few, it has grown to include huge swaths of the global population. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which are some of the advantages the written word can provide. Kaestle, (1985) tells us that “literacy makes it possible to preserve information as a snapshot in time, allows for recording, tracking and remembering information, and sharing information more easily across distances among others” (p. 16). In short, literacy led “to the replacement of myth by history and the replacement of magic by skepticism and science. Writing allowed bureaucracy, accounting, and legal systems with universal rules and has replaced face-to-face governance with depersonalized administration” (Kaestle, 1985, p. 16). This is not to place a value judgement on the characteristics of literacy but rather to explain some of the many reasons why it spread.

There are, however, other reasons for the spread of literacy. In England, throughout the middle ages literacy grew in part, because people who acquired literacy skills were able to parlay those skills into work with more pay and social advantages (Clanchy, 1983). The great revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries also relied on leaders who could write and compatriots who could read as a way to spread new ideas beyond the street corners and public gatherings of Paris, Berlin, and Vienna. Literacy was perceived as necessary for spreading information to large numbers of people. In the 1970’s Paulo Freire insisted that literacy was vital for people to participate in their own governance and civic life (Tyner, 1998). His classic “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” begins from the premise that bringing the traditional illiterate and uneducated into learning situations as partners with their teachers awakens the critical conscience necessary as a foundation for action to foment change (Freire, 1973). UNESCO (2004) also acknowledges the role that literacy plays in enabling populations to effect change and achieve social justice aims. They speak even more broadly, moving beyond the conditions necessary for revolution, contending that literacy is a fundamental right of every human being, providing employment opportunities, and the fundamental skills necessary to accrue greater wealth and improve one’s quality of life.

Although the benefits of literacy were a driving force in its spread, technological advances also enabled the spread of literacy to greater and greater numbers of people. From stamped tokens, tally sticks and clay tablets, to ancient scrolls, handwritten volumes, the printing press, typewriters, and finally computers, technology is largely responsible for driving the evolution of literacy into the particular forms of encoding and decoding information associated with the digital age. Technology has made it possible for literacy to move from the hands of the few to the hands of the masses and to morph into a digital environment with characteristics extending far beyond anything that has been seen before.

Not only did computers and electronic technology deliver literacy into the hands of many but also created an environment that made it possible to store vast amounts of information. Books and libraries led the way to making information easily available to the public, but within the age of computers and the internet the volume of accessible information is larger than ever, more readily available than ever, and changing more quickly than ever before. In the early 21st century, technology continues to develop more quickly than at any time in the past creating an environment that is constantly changing. These changes contribute to the need for different skills beyond traditional literacy skills also called new media literacy (Jenkins, 2018). For a short video on the reasons why digital literacy is important visit “ The New Media Literacies ” located on YouTube.com and created by the research team at Project New Media Literacies.

Literacy in the Digital Age

If literacy involves the skills of reading and writing, digital literacy requires the ability to extend those skills in order to effectively take advantage of the digital world (ALA, 2013). More general definitions express digital literacy as the ability to read and understand information from digital sources as well as to create information in various digital formats (Bawden, 2008; Gilster, 1997; Tyner, 1998; UNESCO, 2004). Developing digital skills allows digital learners to manage a vast array of rapidly changing information and is key to both learning and working in an evolving digital landscape (Dede, 2010; Koltay, 2011; Mohammadyari & Singh, 2015). As such, it is important for people to develop certain competencies specifically for handling digital content.

People who adapt well to the digital world exhibit characteristics enabling them to develop and maintain digital literacy skills. Lifelong learning is a key characteristic necessary for handling rapid changes in technology and information and thus, critical to digital literacy. Successful digital learners have a high level of self-motivation, a desire for active modes of learning and they exercise the ability to learn how to learn. Maintaining and learning new technical skills also benefits learners in the digital age and an attitude of exploration and play will help learners stay engaged and energized in a world where speed of change and volume of information could otherwise become overwhelming (Dede, 2010; Jenkins, 2018; Visser, 2012). A final characteristic of a digital learner includes the ability to engage in a global network with a greater awareness of one’s place and audience in that network. Together, these characteristics of the digital age guide us in understanding what traits a learner will require to be successful in the digital environment. The following section will help understand what lies at the intersection of digital skills and traits of successful digital learners by reviewing existing digital literacy frameworks.

Reviewing Existing Frameworks for Digital Literacy/ies

Digital literacy is alternately described as complicated, confusing, too broad to be meaningful and always changing (Heitin, 2016; Pangrazio, 2014; Tyner, 1998; Williams, 2006). Due to this confusion, some feel it best to completely avoid the term digital literacy altogether and instead opt for the terms such as digital competencies (Buckingham, 2006), 21st century skills (Williamson, 2011) or digital skills (Heitin, 2016). Another way to sort out the confusion is to look at digital literacy as multiple literacies (Buckingham, 2006; Lankshear & Knobel, 2008; UNESCO, 2004)

Here, I take the latter approach and look at digital literacy as a collection of literacies each of which play a significant role in learning in a digital world. Ng (2012), operationalizes digital literacy as a framework of multiple, specific competencies which, when combined, form a cohesive collection of skills. By taking this approach, we link the characteristics of the digital environment as well as those of the digital learner not to a single digital skill but rather a set of digital literacy practices. In this way, we can consider the various skills needed to navigate the digital world in an organized and consistent manner.

Ng (2012) proposes a three-part schema for discussing the overlapping functional characteristics of a digitally competent person: technical, cognitive, and social (see Figure 1).

Technical literacy, also referred to as operational literacy, refers to the mastery of technical skills and tasks required to access and work with digital technology such as how to operate a computer; use a mouse and keyboard; open software; cut, copy and paste data and files, acquire an internet connection and so on (Lankshear & Knobel, 2008). The cognitive area of digital literacy focuses on activities such as critical thinking, problem solving and decision making (Williamson, 2011) and includes the ability to “evaluate and apply new knowledge gained from digital environments”(Jones-Kavalier & Flannigan, 2006, p. 5). The third of Ng’s three categories – social literacies – covers a wide range of activities which together constitute the ability to communicate in a digital environment both socially and professionally, understand cyber security, follow “netiquette” protocols, and navigate discussions with care so as not to misrepresent or create misunderstandings (Ng, 2012). Of particular note, Ng captures the essence of digital literacy by showing how digital literacy exists at the intersection of the technical, cognitive and social aspects of literacy which are referred to as dimensions. Ng’s framework is not, however, a digital literacy framework itself. Instead it provides a vehicle for exploring the various components of digital literacy at a conceptual level while remaining clear that the individual skills are at all times connected to and dependent upon each other.

There are a number of organizations that publish their own framework for digital literacies including the International Society for Technology in Education ICT Skills (ISTE), the American Association of College and Universities (AACU), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the American Library Association (ALA), and the Partnership for 21st Century Skills among others (Dede, 2010). The digital frameworks exhibit many similarities, and a few differences. There are some differences in the terminology and organization of these frameworks, but they all include similar skills. What follows is a brief overview of the different digital frameworks. See Figure 2 for a composite of these frameworks.

Figure 2. Major Frameworks for 21st Century Skills (American Library Association, 2013; Dede, 2010; SCONUL, 2016; Vockley & Lang, 2008)

Each of the frameworks come from a slightly different angle and will at times reflect the background from which they come. The American Library Association (ALA) framework evolved out of the information literacy tradition of libraries, while the American Association of College and Universities (AACU) and the Society of College and University Libraries (SOCNUL) evolved from higher education perspective, the Partnership for 21st century learning addresses K-12 education, and the ISTE is steeped in a more technical tradition. Even with these different areas of focus the components of each framework are strikingly similar although some in more detail than others. Three of the six specifically address the skills necessary for accessing, searching and finding information in a digital environment while the other three have broader categories in which one might expect to find these skills including, research and information fluency, intellectual skills, and ICT literacy. Cognitive skills required for digital literacy are also covered by all of the frameworks in varying degrees of specificity. Among them one will find references to evaluating, understanding, creating, integrating, synthesizing, creativity and innovation. Finally, four of the six digital frameworks pay homage to the necessity of solid communication skills. They are in turn, referred to as life skills, personal and social responsibility, communication, collaboration, digital citizenship and collective intelligence.

What seems oddly missing from this list of skills is the technical component which only appears explicitly in the ISTE list of skills. The partnership for 21st century learning uses ICT literacy as a designation for the ability to use technology and the ALA, in discussing its framework, makes it clear that technical proficiency is a foundational requirement for digital literacy skills. Even with these references to technical skills the digital literacy frameworks are overwhelmingly partial to the cognitive and social focus of digital skills and technical proficiency tends to be glossed over compared to the other dimensions. Even though technical skills receive relatively little attention by comparison we will assume for this discussion, technical skills are a prerequisite to the other digital skills, and we will look more carefully at each of them in the next section.

To fully understand the many digital literacies, we will use the ALA framework as a point of reference for further discussion using the other frameworks and other materials to further elucidate each skill area. The ALA framework is laid out in terms of basic functions with enough specificity to make it easy to understand and remember but broad enough to cover a wide range of skills. The ALA framework includes the following areas:

• Understanding,
• Evaluating,
• Creating, and
• Communicating (American Library Association, 2013).

Finding information in a digital environment represents a significant departure from the way human beings have searched for information for centuries. The learner must abandon older linear or sequential approaches to finding information such as reading a book, using a card catalog, index or table of contents and instead use lateral approaches like natural language searches, hypermedia text, keywords, search engines, online databases and so on (Dede, 2010; Eshet, 2002). The shift from sequential to lateral involves developing the ability to construct meaningful search parameters (SCONUL, 2016) whereas before, finding the information would have meant simply looking up page numbers based on an index or sorting through a card catalog. Although finding information may depend to some degree on the search tool being used (library, internet search engine, online database, etc.) the search results also depend on how well a person is able to generate appropriate keywords and construct useful Boolean searches. Failure in these two areas could easily return too many results to be helpful, vague or generic results, or potentially no useful results at all (Hangen, 2015).

Not immediately obvious, but part of the challenge of finding information is the ability to manage the results. Because there is so much data, changing so quickly, in so many different formats it can be challenging to organize and store it in such a way as to be useful. SCONUL (2016) talks about this as the ability to organize, store, manage and cite digital resources while the Educational Testing Service also specifically mentions the skills to access and manage information. Some ways to accomplish these tasks is through the use of social bookmarking tools such as Diigo, clipping and organizing software such as Evernote and OneNote, and bibliographic software. Many sites, such as YouTube allow individuals with an account to bookmark videos as well as create channels or collections of videos for specific topics or uses. Other websites have similar features.

Understanding

Understanding in the context of digital literacy perhaps most closely resembles traditional literacy in so much as it too, is the ability to read and interpret text (Jones-Kavalier & Flannigan, 2006). In the digital age, however, the ability to read and understand extends much further than text alone. For example, searches may return results with any combination of text, video, sound, and audio as well as still and moving pictures. As the internet has evolved, there have evolved a whole host of visual languages such as moving images, emoticons, icons, data visualizations, videos and combinations of all of the above. Lankshear & Knoble, (2008) refer to these modes of communication as “post typographic textual practice”. Understanding the variety of modes of digital material may also be referred to as multimedia literacy (Jones-Kavalier & Flannigan, 2006), visual literacy (Tyner, 1998), and digital literacy (Buckingham, 2006).

Evaluating digital media requires competencies ranging from evaluating the importance of a piece of information to determine its accuracy and its source. Evaluating information is not new to the digital age, but the nature of digital information can make it more difficult to understand who the source of information is and whether it can be trusted (Jenkins, 2018). When there is abundant and rapidly changing data across heavily populated networks, anyone with access can generate information online, making decisions about its authenticity, trustworthiness, relevance, and significance daunting. Learning evaluative digital skills means learning to ask questions about who is writing the information, why they are writing it, and who the intended audience is (Buckingham, 2006). Developing critical thinking skills is part of the literacy of evaluating and assessing the suitability for the use of a specific piece of information (SCONUL, 2016).

Looking for secondary sources of information can help confirm the authenticity and accuracy of online data and researching the credentials and affiliations of the author is another way to find out more about whether an article is trustworthy or valid. One may find other places the author has been published and verify they are legitimate. Sometimes one may be able to review affiliated organizations to attest to the expertise of the author such finding out where an employee works if they are a member of a professional organization or a leading researcher in a given field. All of these provide essential clues for use in evaluating information online.

Creating in the digital world makes explicit the production of knowledge and ideas in digital formats. While writing is a critical component of traditional literacy, it is not the only creative tool in the digital toolbox. Other tools are available and include creative activities such as podcasting, making audio-visual presentations, building data visualizations, 3D printing, writing blogs and new tools that haven’t even been thought of yet. In short, all formats in which digital information may be consumed, a digitally literate individual will also want to be able to use in the creation of a product. A key component of creating with digital tools is understanding what constitutes fair use and what is considered plagiarism. While this is not new to the digital age, it may be more challenging to find the line between copying and extending someone else’s work.

In part, the reason for the increased difficulty of finding the line between plagiarism and new work is the “cut and paste culture” of the internet referred to as “reproduction literacy” (Eshet 2002, p.4) also referred to as appropriation in Jenkins’ New Media Literacies (Jenkins, 2018). The question is, what can one change and how much can one change work without being considered copying? This skill requires the ability to think critically, evaluate a work and make appropriate decisions. There are tools and information to help understand and find those answers such as the creative commons. Learning about these resources and learning how to use them is part of this digital literacy.

Communicating

Communicating is the final category of digital skills in the ALA digital framework. The capacity to connect with individuals all over the world creates unique opportunities for learning and sharing information for which developing digital communication skills is vital. Some of the skills required for communicating in a digital environment include digital citizenship, collaboration, and cultural awareness. This is not to say that one does not need to develop communication skills outside of the digital environment but that the skills required for digital communication go beyond what is required in a non-digital environment. Most of us are adept at personal, face to face communication but digital communication needs the ability to engage in asynchronous environments such as email, online forums, blogs and social media platforms where what we say can’t always be deleted but can be easily misinterpreted. Add that to an environment where people number in the millions and the opportunities for misunderstandings and cultural miscues are much more likely.

The communication category of digital literacies covers an extensive array of skills above and beyond what one might need for face to face interactions. It includes competencies around ethical and moral behavior, responsible communication for engagement in social and civic activities (Adam Becker et al., 2017), an awareness of audience and an ability to evaluate the potential impact of one’s actions online. It also includes skills for handling privacy and security in online environments. These activities fall into two main categories of activity including digital citizenship and collaboration.

Digital citizenship refers to one’s ability to interact effectively in the digital world. Part of this skill is good manners, often referred to as “netiquette. There is a level of context which is often missing in digital communication due to physical distance, lack of personal familiarity with people online and the sheer volume of people who may come in contact with our words. People who know us well may understand exactly what we mean when we say something sarcastic or ironic, but those and other vocal and facial cues are missing in most digital communication making it more likely we will be misunderstood. Also, we are also more likely to misunderstand or be misunderstood if we remain unaware of cultural differences amongst people online. So, digital citizenship includes an awareness of who we are, what we intend to say and how it might be perceived by other people we do not know (Buckingham, 2006). It is also a process of learning to communicate clearly and in ways that help others understand what we mean.

Another key digital skill is collaboration, and it is essential for effective participation in digital projects via the internet. The internet allows people to engage with others we may never see in person and work towards common goals be they social, civic or business oriented. Creating a community and working together requires a degree of trust and familiarity that can be difficult to build given the physical distance between participants. Greater awareness must be paid to inclusive behavior, and more explicit efforts need to be made to make up for perceived or actual distance and disconnectedness. So, while the promise of digital technology to connect people is impressive it is not necessarily an automatic transition, and it requires new skills.

Parting thoughts.

It is clear from our previous discussion of digital literacy that technology and technical skills underpin every other digital skill. A failure to understand hardware, software, the nature of the internet, cloud-based technologies and an inability to learn new concepts and tools going forward handicaps one’s ability to engage with the cognitive and social literacies. While there are sometimes tacit references to technical skills and ability, extant digital literacy frameworks tend to focus more on the cognitive and social aspects of digital environments. There is an implied sense that once technical skills are learned, we the digitally literate person can forget about them and move on to the other skills. Given the rapid pace of technological change in the last 40 years, however, anyone working in a digital environment would be well advised to keep in mind that technical concepts and tools continue to develop. It does not seem likely that we will ever reach a point where people can simply take technological skills for granted and to do so would undermine our ability to address the other digital skills.

Another way to think of this is to recognize that no matter what the skill, none of them operate independently of one another. Whether searching, creating, evaluating, understanding or communicating, it is a combination of skills (or literacies) that allow us to accomplish our goals. Thinking critically, and evaluating information and sources leads to sound decision-making. Understanding and synthesizing information is necessary for creating and again the technical tools are necessary for completing the product. Finding information is of little use if one is unable to analyze its usefulness and creating a great video or podcast will not mean much if one is unable to navigate social and professional networks to communicate those works to others. If only understood in isolation, digital literacies have little meaning and can be of little use in approaching digital environments.

Ng’s (2012) conceptual framework reminds us that digital literacy is that space where technical, cognitive and social literacies overlap. A digital skill is not the same thing as digital literacy but the two are fully intwined. Acquiring digital skills is only the beginning of a study of digital literacies, however, and it would be a mistake to stop here. Furthermore, digital literacies span multiple areas including both the cognitive and the social. The real value of digital literacy lies in understanding the synergistic effect of individual digital literacy skills integrated with sets of competencies that enable one to work effectively in the digital world.

Learning Activities.

Literacy Narratives are stories about reading and composing in any form or context. They often include poignant memories that involve a personal experience with literacy. Digital literacy narratives can sometimes be categorized as narratives that focus on how the writer came to understand the importance of technology in his/her life or teaching pedagogy. More often, they are simply narratives that use a medium beyond the print-based essay to tell the story.

Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 20(1), available at http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/20.1/praxis/bourelle-et-al

• Combining both aspects of the genre, write a piece based on your technological literacy, choosing a medium you feel best conveys the message you want to share with your audience.
• Find and read 2-4 literacy narratives online that emphasize the use of technology and write a short reflection that discusses the main digital literacies used, summarizes the main points made and describes the elements you felt were most important. Also, describe any digital literacy skills you utilized to complete the assignment.
• Create your literacy narrative that tells the story of a significant experience of your own with digital literacy. Use a multi-modal tool that includes audio and images or video. Share with your classmates and discuss the most important ideas you noticed in others’ narratives.
• Compare two of the literacy frameworks in Figure 2. How are they alike? How are they different? Do you like one better than the other? Why or Why not?
• Digital Literacy and why it matters – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2k3C-iB88w
• The essential elements of digital literacies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yQPoTcZ78
• What is a Literacy Narrative? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mhl2j-cpZo
• Benji Bissman’s computer literacy narrative – http://daln.osu.edu/handle/2374.DALN/2327 [site can’t be reached, KE 6.12.24]  
• Global Digital Literacy Council [page not found, KE 6.12.24]
• International Society for Technology in Education
• Information and Communication Technologies [site can’t be reached, KE 6.12.24]
• Education Development Center, Inc.
• International Visual Literacy Association
• http://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy-fundamentals/digital-literacy-fundamentals
• https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/digitalliteracy/overview.aspx [page not found, KE 6.12.24]
• . http://info.learning.com/hubfs/Corp_Site/Sales%20Tools/12EssentialSkills_Brochure_Apr16.pdf [page not found, KE 6.12.24]
• http://www. digitalliteracy.us
• https://k12.thoughtfullearning.com/FAQ/what-are-literacy-skills

References.

Adam Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Gieseinger, C., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. NMC Horizon Report. https://doi.org/ISBN 978-0-9977215-7-7

Association, A. L. (2013). Digital literacy, libraries, and public policy (January). Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.districtdispatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2012_OITP_digilitreport_1_22_13.pdf

Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.) (pp. 17–32).

Buckingham, D. (2006). Defining digital literacy. District Dispatch, 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92133-4_4

Clanchy, M. (1983). Looking back from the invention of printing. Resnick (Ed.), Literacy in historical perspective (pp. 7–22). Library of Congress.

Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. 21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn, 51–76.

Eshet, Y. (2002). Digital literacy: A new terminology framework and its application to the design of meaningful technology-based learning environments. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 1–7.

Gilster, P. (1997). Digital Literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Pub.

Hangen, T. (2015). Historical digital literacy, one classroom at a time. Journal of American History. https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jav062

Heitin, L. (2016). Digital Literacy: Forging agreement on a definition. Retrieved from www.edweek.org/go/changing-literacy

Jenkins, H. (2018). This page has a content security policy that prevents it from being loaded in this way . Retrieved from http://www.newmedialiteracies.org/

Jones-Kavalier, B. B. R., & Flannigan, S. L. (2006). Connecting the digital dots : Literacy of the 21st century. Workforce, 29(2), 8–10. https://doi.org/Article

Kaestle, C. F. (1985). Review of Research in Education. The History of Literacy and the History of Readers, 12(1985), 11–53. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167145

Koltay, T. (2011). The media and the literacies: Media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy. Media, Culture & Society, 33(2), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443710393382

Lankshear, Colin & Knobel, M. (2008). Introduction. In C. & K. M. Lankshear (Ed.), Digital Literacies: Concepts, policies and practices. https://doi.org/9781433101694

Mohammadyari, S., & Singh, H. (2015). Understanding the effect of e-learning on individual performance: The role of digital literacy. Computers and Education, 82, 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.025

Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers and Education, 59(3), 1065–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016

Pangrazio, L. (2014). Reconceptualising critical digital literacy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.942836

Reynolds, R. (2016). Defining, designing for, and measuring social constructivist digital literacy development in learners: a proposed framework. Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9423-4

SCONUL. (2016). The SCONUL7 pillars of information literacy through a digital literacy “ lens .” Retrieved from https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Digital_Lens.pdf

Tyner, K. (1998). Tyner, Kathleen. Literacy in a digital world: Teaching and learning in the age of information (Kindle). Routledge.

UNESCO. (2004) The plurality of literacy. UNESCO, (The plurality of literacy and its Implications for Policies and Programmes UNESCO Education Sector Position Paper). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Visser, M. (2012). Digital literacy definition. Retrieved from http://connect.ala.org/node/181197

Vlieghe, J. (2015). Traditional and digital literacy. The literacy hypothesis, technologies of reading and writing, and the “grammatized” body. Ethics and Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2015.1039288

Vockley, M., & Lang, V. (2008). 21st century skills , education & competitiveness. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_century_skills_education_and_competitiveness_guide.pdf

Williams, B. T. (2006). Girl power in a digital world: Considering the complexity of gender, literacy, and technology. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(4), 300–307. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.50.4.6

Williamson, R. (2011). Digital literacy. EPI Education Partnerships, inc. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/aspx

This resource is no cost at https://open.library.okstate.edu/learninginthedigitalage/

Links checked 6.12.24 KE

Learning in the Digital Age Copyright © 2020 by Cathy L. Green, Oklahoma State University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Aligning Digital Educational Policies with the New Realities of Schooling

• Original research
• Open access
• Published: 24 August 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Deirdre Butler   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7166-3707 1 ,
• Margaret Leahy 1 ,
• Amina Charania 2 ,
• Peiris Meda Gedara 3 ,
• Therese Keane 4 ,
• Thérèse Laferrière 5 ,
• Kohei Nakamura 6 ,
• Hiroshi Ueda 7 &
• Stefania Bocconi 8  

To make sense of the changes provoked by the Covid-19 pandemic and its immediate aftermath, this paper critically examines digital education policy responses in the context of the ‘new realities’ faced by schooling. Based on seven case studies contributed by authors from Australia, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Canada, Sri Lanka, two key questions are addressed: (1) What are the ‘new realities’ of schooling post Covid-19? and (2) How have digital educational policies changed in response to the new realities of schooling? Findings highlight the complexity of the problem of aligning digital education policies at the macro level to the realities experienced at the meso and micro levels of schooling systems. The paper concludes with discussion of the need for, and challenges of, agile policy making at all levels (macro, meso and micro) that are necessary for schooling systems to meet the challenges and realities of a complex changing world.

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

A digital transition in education has been underway for decades and many countries had published digital education policies in the decade or so before the Covid-19 pandemic (OECD, 2023 . However, the pandemic was perceived by organisations such as the European Union, the World Bank and the OECD as the ‘turning point’ for digital education, highlighting both the potential of the use of digital technologies in schools and the need to be ready for digital education (EC, 2020 ; OECD, 2021 , World Bank, 2020 ). Many countries published additional policies or guidelines when education systems shifted to emergency remote learning during the Covid-19 pandemic (OECD, 2023 ) and both the EU and the OECD prioritised digital education policies as part of the recovery from the pandemic and as the way forward in education (EC, 2020 ; OECD, 2020 ).

Four years since the onset the Covid-19 pandemic, it remains unclear if the pandemic was ‘a turning point’ for digital education. Instead, as the fallout from the pandemic becomes increasingly more evident, we know the prolonged disruption of schooling has exposed and amplified the persistent inequalities and shortcomings of current education systems (Betthäuser et al., 2023 ; Byrant, Child & Dorn, 2022 ; OECD, 2020 ). Post-pandemic, the disruption of society and education has continued as the world lurches from crisis to crisis. Political instability, social unrest, mass migration, war and severe weather events threaten global stability, putting tremendous pressure on all systems including education to cope with the challenges these bring. Alongside this, the pace of digital innovation has further accelerated. Most recently, the explosion of generative AI has raised the awareness of policy makers of the disruptive nature of advanced technology and of its imminent impact on our societies. These challenges faced by education systems can be considered the new realities of schooling and it is likely other realities will emerge. However, it cannot be expected education systems experience the same realities or do so in the same way. Neither can it be expected that the long-term policy responses to digital education are the same across countries. Thus, to make sense of the changes provoked by Covid-19 and its immediate aftermath, we need to consider digital education policy responses in the context of the realities faced by education systems and reflect if these policies align with these realities. This was the focus of Thematic Working Group 6 (TWG6) at EDUsummIT 2023. Representing Australia, Canada (Quebec), India, Ireland, Italy Japan and Sri-Lanka, the group was concerned with two key questions:

Post Covid-19, what are the new realities of schooling?

How have digital educational policies changed in response to the new realities of schooling?

This paper seeks to answer these questions, extending the discussions at EDUsummIT 2023 and applying a theoretical lens that enhances and deepens the discussion. Beginning by outlining the challenges of policy creation and enactment in education, it then examines the types of policy change that can be brought about by crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic. Following an account of the research methods, the findings critically review the new realities of schooling post-Covid-19 as identified across the seven countries/jurisdictions before examining both the evolution of digital education policies across the countries/jurisdictions and how digital policy has responded to the new realities. The final section discusses the implications for policymaking post-Covid-19.

2 Policy Change and Enactment in Education

Effective and durable policy change is a complex process requiring political commitment, technical expertise, and significant funding (Dellagnelo, 2023 ). Moreover, processes of change cannot be enacted or understood in isolation, they must be considered in the context of the entire education system (Fullan, 2013 ; Kozma, 2005 , 2008 , 2011 ) (See Fig.  1 ). Butler et al., ( 2018 ) explored the issue of alignment in education systems, noting that this requires coherence of purpose, policy, and practice at three levels (macro/national, meso/school, and micro/teacher). Moreover, desired outcomes (i.e. the purpose of schooling) must be explicitly stated, and these outcomes must be built into policies and programmes designed to implement them (Kozma, 2005 ).

The relationship between purpose of education and policy at each level

In terms of policy design , systemic alignment or coherence across national policies and strategies is essential for policy effectiveness and effective change (Kozma, 2011 ). It entails not only aligning the messages offered by policy texts but thinking about how these policy texts might be designed to support schools in their ongoing efforts to construct coherence (Spillane, 2022 ). A lack of policy coherence leads to fragmentation and the perception of policies as a set of separate elements (Mallows, 2015 ) resulting in disconnects as policies are interpreted and put into practice across the various levels of the system.

Policy enactment is as important as the policy design and key to policy success in reaching schools and classrooms (Golden, 2020 ). Enactment is a complex, evolving, and multidirectional process that involves many stakeholders across the various levels of a system as policy is put into practice (Viennet & Pont, 2017 ).

Governance structures are also crucial to ensure coordination and alignment within government departments and with other stakeholders (EC, 2023 ; OCED, 2023 ). Among the key findings of Conrads et al., ( 2017 ) are that specific governance structures can help in formalising stakeholder involvement, promoting uptake and delivering results. They also found digital education policies are more sustainable if governance structures are responsive to implementing necessary changes while ensuring continuity over time.

Understanding the critical role of context and the significant variability that exists among educational systems and structures cannot be underestimated and it is important to locate policy within a wider context. Those presenting policy may interpret its content differently to those receiving policy– a single policy may be better understood therefore as a “plurality of policies” that emerge and develop as the policy process moves from design to enactment (Bell & Stevenson, 2006 , p.23). Consequently, the key to successful enactment is the development of a shared understanding among stakeholders as well as inclusive stakeholder engagement. Tensions are inevitable, between a teacher’s judgement of good practice and emotional commitment to care for and meet the needs of students on the one hand, and the requirements of different agents and agencies on the other (Ball, 2003 ). Stumbling blocks may also arise where stakeholders such as school leadership and teachers are not conversant with the purpose of policy directives, are guided by their own beliefs and norms, and/or where there is not a conducive environment (Golden, 2020 ; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003 ). Enactment of policy also depends substantially on contextual factors including the provision of digital infrastructure in schools, the production and distribution of digital materials, teachers’ attitudes and pedagogical competences, teacher professional learning as well as professional learning opportunities and ongoing supports for school leadership (Conrads et al., 2017 ; Dellagnelo, 2023 ). According to Kennisnet (Schouwenburg & Kappert, 2019 ), the effectiveness of digital educational policies depends on a balanced execution of these activities. These activities often require different expertise than those traditionally available at ministries (Dellagnelo, 2023 ).

2.1 Crisis and Policy Change in Education

Many policies emerge as a response to a public problem or a crisis that requires a solution. Although the role of crises as catalysts for policy change is well documented (O’Connor, 2014 ), it is still unclear as to what type of policy change a crisis, such as that generated by Covid-19, may evoke in the education sector (Hogan et al., 2022 ; Zancajo et al.,; 2022 ).

At a general level, policy change means the replacement of existing policies. Zancajo et al. ( 2022 ) outline (a) the way types of policy change can be classified and (b) patterns of policy change. Drawing on the work of Beland and Powell ( 2016 ), Zancajo et al. ( 2022 ) classify policy change as (i) the absence of meaningful change, (ii) incremental change, and (iii) radical change. Ranging from higher to lower intensity, radical change refers to a fundamental change in the strategic direction of a policy. It occurs at the level of policy goals and implies a significant change or overhaul of policy. Incremental change involves gradual improvements or innovations related to the adoption of new policy guidelines or strategies. However, the overall goals of the policy remain constant. At the lowest intensity, absence of meaningful change consists of tinkering with existing policies, without replacing them or the goals they aim to achieve (Beland & Powell, 2016 ). Incremental changes can cumulate into significant institutional transformation. Also, incremental changes which follow each other can rapidly lead to a radical change of the existing status quo sooner than big, but irregular changes (Sinko, 2016 ).

Referring to Mahoney and Thelen ( 2009 ), Zancajo et al. ( 2022 ) similarly identify four patterns of policy change:

Displacement: occurs when the introduction of new policy guidelines/strategies result in the substitution of previous ones

Layering: governments adopt new policy guidelines/strategies in addition to those in existence

Drift: existing policy guidelines/strategies have a different impact due to changes in the environment

Conversion: existing policy guidelines/strategies are intentionally deployed and enacted differently.

A review of the extant literature by Hogan et al., ( 2022 ) found that most crises tend not to lead to radical change but are instead followed by policy continuity or incremental change. However, they stress that it is difficult to anticipate in such a short period, which policy changes will sustain post-Covid-19 and how; and which will revert to pre-pandemic status. This paper thus contributes to understanding policy change post-Covid-19.

3 Research Methodology

A multi-layered approach was adopted to answering the research questions and centred on extensive research by the authors prior to and after EDUsummIT 2023. The work began as the world was still emerging from the Covid-19 pandemic and as education systems were grappling to recover from the disruption it caused. Initial discussions revealed that although experiences of schooling during the Covid-19 pandemic were well documented across our respective countries/jurisdictions, little had been documented about digital education policy and enactment in the aftermath of the pandemic. Thus, as a starting point, group members constructed case studies of their respective countries/jurisdictions in which they addressed questions relating to digital education at three different time intervals:

Pre-2020: Before the Covid-19 pandemic

2020–2021: During the emergency response period of the Covid-19 pandemic

2022-date: Since the full-time return to schools after the Covid-19 pandemic (See Table  1 )

Seven case studies representing the seven countries/jurisdictions of the group members were completed, providing a ‘snapshot’ of the evolution of digital education policy and policy context within each of the countries/jurisdictions. The case studies formed the basis for discussion at EDUsummIT 2023. During the three-day EDUsummIT, discussions centred on the (i) identification of emerging trends and challenges in education systems, which although varying across regions and contexts, were considered the new realities of schooling (See Fig.  2 ), and (ii) analysis of digital education policy developments in response to these new realities.

New Realities of schooling as identified by TWG6

Post EDUsummIT 2023, group members refined and further developed their case studies to reflect and build on the work of the meeting. These were completed by December 2023 and a cross-case analysis of the seven studies was subsequently carried out by the lead authors. This led to a set of overarching themes that were deemed to explicate how digital educational policies are aligned with the new realities of schooling in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic. The findings are presented in the sections that follow. Drawing on contextual knowledge of the group members and supported by the literature, the first presents the new realities of schooling post-Covid-19 as identified across the seven countries/jurisdictions. The second section presents the findings from the cross-case analysis highlighting the evolution of digital education policies across countries/jurisdictions.

4 Digital Educational Policies and the New Realities of Schooling

4.1 the new realities of schooling.

Discussion identified that while some new realities had emerged (e.g. teacher shortages, greater acceptance and use of digital technologies in teaching, focus on well-being), the ‘new realities’ were for the most part an exacerbation of the realities and inequities that existed prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. These included access to devices and connectivity, but also the digital competence of teachers, learners, and the wider community. While these realities varied across regions and contexts, the common themes that emerged (c.f. Fig. 2 above) are discussed below.

4.1.1 Exacerbation of Existing Inequalities

The pandemic brought heightened awareness of the equity issues and challenges across school systems. The rapid shift to the digital during school closures not only highlighted major differences in access to digital technologies across countries and across social groups within countries but it exacerbated effects of the digital divide, and amplified the social divide (Bryant, Child & Dorn, 2022 ; Stone, 2023 ). The cumulative effect on students’ academic achievement has been significant, directly impacting learning losses and widening existing achievement gaps—students from poorer countries and low socioeconomic backgrounds have experienced the largest learning losses (Betthäuser et al., 2023 ; Di Pietro, 2023 ; UNESCO, 2023 ). Economic and racial educational inequalities have also been amplified while broader social and emotional impacts include rising mental-health concerns, reports of violence against children, rising obesity, and rising levels of chronic absenteeism and dropouts (Byrant, Child & Dorn, 2022 ).

Not surprisingly, the need to deal with the learning loss experienced during school closures was prioritised in most countries/jurisdictions. This has given rise to a “let’s get back to basics attitude” (i.e. students have missed so much time at school, they need to make up for lost ground). Consequently, this has led some education authorities to fund additional targeted programmes to help children catch-up on learning lost during the pandemic (e.g., Australia/Victoria, Ireland, Canada/Quebec). A survey conducted by UNESCO, UNICEF and World Bank (UNESCO, 2021 ) found initiatives such as remedial learning programmes and/or the adjustment of the academic calendar to either accelerate or postpone education progress for students to be the main course of action implemented in 50% of South Asian countries. Some recent reports question the effectiveness of such extra-tutoring programmes e.g. two Australian reports indicate no significant impact on students' learning results compared to similar non-tutored students Footnote 1 . Footnote 2

4.1.2 Student Well-being

Beyond learning, the group stressed increasing concern relating to the adverse impact of the Covid-19 crisis upon student well-being and mental health. While evidence suggests increased levels of childhood depression, loneliness, and anxiety had already been identified before the pandemic (Sellers et al., 2019 ), the pandemic led to a worldwide increase in mental health problems, including widespread depression and anxiety (WHO, 2022 ). In efforts to address these problems, some countries/regions introduced initiatives to support student wellbeing in the immediate aftermath of schools reopening. For example, 75% of countries in South Asia reported small-scale or significant additional measures for student wellbeing (UNICEF, 2023 ). While we don’t yet know the long-term impact of Covid-19 related policies (e.g. school closure) on young people’s mental health and well-being (Duan et al., 2024 ), early indications are concerning. Reports such as EUniWell (Vallance & Millars, 2023 ) call for policies to prioritise the well-being of young people in the post-pandemic recovery.

The impact of social media on the mental health of young people is also garnering attention. In particular, the rhetoric around causal relationships between increased social media usage and mental health issues such as anxiety and depressive symptoms is widely publicised (Lee et al., 2022 ). In 2023, the American Surgeon General released the health authority’s strongest advisory yet about the risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of young people by social media. He called for “urgent action”, stating that we need to “gain a better understanding of the full impact of social media use” to “minimise the harms of social media platforms, and create safer, healthier online environments to protect children” (The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory, 2023).

4.1.3 Rebalancing of Approaches to Education

As educational ecosystems readjust post-Covid-19, there has been increased uptake of digital teaching practices in some countries (India, Italy, Australia) whereas others have reverted to pre-pandemic practices or have adopted ‘back to basics’ practices (e.g., Canada, Ireland). Tensions between the use of active pedagogies and didactic teaching as a quick fix’ for learning loss have also emerged. In addition, and contrary to what may have been anticipated (i.e. increased blended / hybrid learning), all group members reported that K-12 mainstream schools in their countries/jurisdictions had reverted to full onsite face-to-face teaching post-Covid-19. However, some exceptions were noted. Online provision continues to be available in exceptional cases in Quebec and there has been increased interest and continuing demand from some students to continue to engage with schooling online in Australia. For example, enrolments in Virtual Schooling in Australia increased by 20% in 2021 (Heffernan, 2022 ). Online provision has also expanded in Ireland providing access to a wider range of curricula for secondary school students in remote areas. The Gaeltacht eHub Footnote 3 provides students in Gaelic speaking areas with the opportunity to access curricula online, that otherwise would not be available to them (e.g. physics).

4.1.4 Changing Face of Teaching Profession

Most countries/jurisdictions have witnessed evidence of teacher burnout and shortages in tandem with the changing approaches to initial teacher education, including:

Reductionist (shorter) programmes of Initial Teacher Education (ITE)

Deprofessionalisation of profession (teacher as technician).

While the group highlighted teacher burnout as an emerging issue, the work of Grant-Rankin ( 2022 ) signals teacher burnout as a prevailing issue even before the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. Drawing on studies by Doghonadze ( 2021 ) and Diliberti, Schwartz, & Grant ( 2021 ), Grant-Rankin reports that teachers surveyed around the world during the pandemic cited educational (for example, excessive work volume and overstimulation), environmental, student, technological, and administrative reasons for burnout—just as they did prior to 2020. However, other studies in which teachers were surveyed specifically about burnout in spring 2020 (Hamilton et al., 2020 ), autumn 2020, and spring 2021 (Kaufman et al., 2021 ), indicated teachers were significantly more likely to experience burnout by spring 2021 than they were one year previously.

Teacher burnout exacerbates the existing problem experienced in many jurisdictions of teacher retention within the profession beyond five years (Darling-Hammond et al., 2019 ). Government response to the issue of teacher shortages is generally to reduce the requirements for entry. For example, Canada introduced shorter teacher education programmes for certification. While this may seem to solve the problem in the short term, arguably it does so at the expense of teacher quality and the problem of continuous upskilling is ever present. Such reductionist policy is both an erosion of the teaching profession and a de-professionalisation of the teacher. It presents a need for competitive compensation, professional learning opportunities, and a supportive work environment to address the challenge.

4.1.5 Teacher Digital Competence

While the pandemic brought a renewed focus on the use of digital technologies in schools, and there was considerable investment in infrastructure (devices, connectivity, management software and platforms) and content development in all countries/jurisdictions, less attention was accorded to developing teacher digital competence. There was strong agreement in the group that while the development of teacher digital competence had been a systemic need long before the Covid-19 crisis, the pandemic had brought the issue into sharper focus. During Covid-19, the shift to digital learning was challenging for many teachers, particularly for those who felt they did not have the skills required.

At policy level, there is increasing emphasis in developing student digital competence and teachers are identified as the key agents to support this development (OECD, 2023 ). For example, as stated in DEAP 2021–2027, the development of teacher competence is vital to support the effective and pedagogical use of digital technologies in ways that ensure quality, equitable, inclusive education for all students (EC, 2020 , p.5). However, although some countries have professional standards with respect to digital competences (e.g. Australia Footnote 4 , Canada Footnote 5 ), group consensus mirrored the findings of the OECD ( 2023 ) report which found such standards tend to “remain broad and high-level, leaving significant room for interpretation on how systems understand, develop and evaluate these skills in practice” (OECD, 2023 , p.4). Not surprisingly, the need for ongoing investment in professional learning programmes that enable teachers and school leaders to develop the necessary digital competences in practice was recommended by the group.

4.1.6 Wider Societal and Economic Conditions

In the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, societal, economic, climate and political developments across the world have impacted and displaced many people. The impact of climate change has caused devastating fires, floods and droughts across the globe. Political instability is a feature in many jurisdictions e.g., Sri Lanka. In Europe, the war in Ukraine has led to a refugee emergency and significant disruption in supplies and costs of energy, food, and other materials to Europe, Middle Eastern and African countries. The effects are profound and ultimately disruptive to schooling.

4.1.7 Emerging Technologies

Group members shared a belief that schooling is at a watershed moment in relation to the use of digital technologies in schools, especially, in relation to the use of AI and specifically, generative AI. Given the rate of development of AI, it was not surprising to find policy making regarding the use of AI in education in many countries is in a state of flux. In some countries such as Japan, AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT) are being introduced to schools in a controlled manner, with guidelines to ensure ethical use and awareness of the technology’s limitations and potential risks Footnote 6 . This approach is thought to be a balanced view of embracing technological advancements while being mindful of their impact on traditional learning and critical thinking skills Footnote 7 . Despite an initial ban on the use of AI in schools in Australia Footnote 8 , a national framework has been developed to provide guidance and support in using AI safely and ethically (Australian Government, 2023 ). Most other countries have not yet developed policies or guidelines. Although AI is mentioned at national level policy in India and Ireland, there have been no other developments to date. In the absence of policy, the Asian Development Bank in Sri Lanka has funded ‘smart classrooms’ in many urban schools to enable teachers and student to experience using AI and Chat GPT.

4.2 Digital Education Policy: Before Covid-19, During Covid-19 and Post Covid-19

As schools grapple with new realities, there is a need to explore if and how current policies align with these realities. Findings from the analysis of the digital education policy developments in the seven case studies are outlined below at three stages: Before Covid-19 pandemic; During Covid-19 pandemic, and Post Covid-19 pandemic. Serendipitously, an OECD report published in December 2023, reflects on the lessons learned from the Covid-19 pandemic and provides an overview of countries’ digital education strategies and the changes in these strategies since 2019 across OECD member states. The report thus provided a useful backdrop against which to consider and discuss our findings.

4.2.1 Before Covid-19

Before-Covid-19, digital education policies existed in five of the authors’ countries (Ireland, Italy, Japan, Australia, Canada). In India, a draft National Education Policy was published in 2019 while in Sri Lanka, although digital technologies had been introduced to schools to enhance digital literacy, this happened without a supporting digital education policy. As was the case with the OECD countries (OECD, 2023 ) the EduSummIT countries’ digital education policies were mostly part of broader national digital innovation strategies, seeking both to leverage the power of digital technologies to solve “quality, equity and efficiency issues in educational systems” (van der Vlies, 2020 , p1) and to equip the future generation with digital skills and tools to prepare for the fast-paced digital society. To varying degrees, these policies were structured around “big topic ideas” (OECD, 2023 , p. 39) and share common foci on physical infrastructure (connectivity and devices), school management systems, the use of digital technologies for teaching, learning and assessment, the provision of digital content, teacher professional learning and the development of digital competence of teachers and students.

Countries such as Australia have had successive and developmental policies for almost three decades (e.g. Australia: MCEETYA, 1999; MCEETYA, 2008; Mparntwe, 2019) whereas for others, digital education policies were more recent developments or had re-emerged after a significant time lag. The Digital Strategy for Schools in Ireland (DES, 2015) represented the first digital strategy since 2001 and The National Education Policy (2020) in India was the first since 1986.

Across countries/jurisdictions, policies can be differentiated by the availability of supporting implementation plans and the allocation of funding. In Japan, the Global and Innovation Gateway for All (GIGA) funded the provision of a device (tablet or laptop) to all students in primary and lower secondary schools (FY2019: 231.8 billion JPY; FY2020: 0.5 billion JPY). A computer-based testing system, MEXCBT, has also been introduced nationally. Similarly, the Digital Education Revolution (DER) in Australia in 2008 was supported by $2.4 AUD billion in total with $1.4 AUD billion allocated for ICT equipment and $40 AUD million to teacher professional learning (Parliament of Australia, 2011). In contrast, funding for digital education was not prioritised across Sri Lanka and India.

Varying degrees of autonomy are similarly evident across countries regarding formulation and implementation of digital education policy. Canada and Japan have a decentralised digital education policy. Provincial and territorial governments in Canada devise their own policy and approaches. For example, although the Digital Action Plan for Education has been published in Quebec, decisions relating to infrastructure are made at regional level (prefectures & municipalities). Directives in India are made at national and state level while in other countries (Sri Lanka), directives are made centrally by government. However, even within centralised systems there can be a high degree of variability. Schools in Ireland for example, have a high degree of autonomy regarding centrally provided funding with guidance provided by the national education ministry.

In line with the findings of the OECD ( 2023 ), very few countries/jurisdictions monitored and evaluated their investments/policy implementation in digital education. Ireland had begun some process of evaluation in the form of a three-year longitudinal study of the implementation of its digital strategy (DES, 2017a; 2017b).

4.2.2 During Covid-19

During the periods of school closure that occurred between 2020 and 2022, a ‘war-like response’ (Shapiro, 2021 ) was implemented across most countries/jurisdictions and the uptake of digital technologies for teaching and learning was accelerated. During the pandemic, all governments (even those who had not previously prioritised digital learning) focused on facilitating accessible remote learning and allocated additional funding towards the provision of remote and online learning. Across countries, this primarily entailed the procurement of digital resources to support this type of teaching and learning and typically included digital learning platforms, TV channels and digital content.

In Sri Lanka, the Ministry of Education, in partnership with internet service providers, activated its web-based learning platform, e-thaksalawa (e-school). This provided a range of content for grades 1 to 13—textbooks, syllabi, teacher instruction manuals, subject-related educational software, revision question papers and supplementary reading material. Access was free and available in Sinhala, Tamil and English Footnote 9 . In addition, two public television networks aired educational programmes (Rupavahini and ITN (Independent Television Network)) and several private TV channels also provided TV lessons based on the school curriculum.

In India, an online learning platform, DIKSHA, was centrally funded through the Prime Minister’s e-Vidhya (e-education) initiative and designed to promote the continuation of teaching for 250 million school-going children. It hosted textbooks for students of grades 1–12, multi-lingual resources and MOOC courses for teachers and students. A television channel for each grade called SWAYAM PRABHA was also released. The use of community radio together with podcasts were organised especially for rural and low-connectivity area.

Countries such as Australia, Ireland and Japan also accelerated efforts to get devices to all students. In Japan, there were hastened efforts to ensure devices for each student and access to a high-speed network (based on the GIGA School Programme). Extra resources were provided to support home learning for low-income households. For example, special additional payments were made to help cover communication costs using existing subsidy programs (14.7 billion JPY/ $93,600.000, USD). MEXT also provided extra funding (229.2 billion JPY/ $1,500 billion, USD) as well as creating content and providing information on the importance of distance learning and specific examples of use. Building on its tradition of online education, Canada further developed existing supports. The Université TÉLUQ developed and offered, with Ministry of Education funding, distance learning professional development to teachers. In Ireland, government funding was provided on two occasions (late 2021 & May 2022) as part of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan to enable schools support those learners at risk of education disadvantage.

Despite ministerial focus to provide accessible remote learning, remote access to learning was unequal across all countries/jurisdictions. Efforts exposed the relative scarcity and basic nature of most digital resources and tools used in education in many countries (OECD, 2021 ; Vincent-Lancrin, 2022 ). Those school systems in countries (e.g. Australia, Ireland, Japan) that already had existing and comprehensive digital education policies along with infrastructure, curriculum and professional learning plans in place were better at navigating this space. However, even in these countries, not all schools were able to move seamlessly to remote online provision. In Australia, most independent schools already had 1:1 programmes, robust digital infrastructure and procedures with teachers confident in using digital technologies. These schools were generally satisfied with how they adjusted to the disruption of lockdown and the move to online learning (Independents Schools, 2021). However, independent schools comprise less than one third of Australian schools and those schools who were already disadvantaged continued to be disadvantaged (Wade et al., 2023 ).

From a policy perspective, four countries/jurisdictions in this study created new strategies or guidelines and one expanded an existing strategy. In three countries, the guidelines were published independently of existing policy which they displaced for the duration of the pandemic while in Canada the guidelines represented incremental improvement to existing policy:

Ireland: the Department of Education published guidelines for schools to provide support during school closures. Schools were mandated to develop and implement a plan to support remote teaching and learning and were advised of the supports available to assist them in this process.

India: Guidelines for digital education, “Pragyata” (MHRD, 2020), were centrally disseminated and further guidelines were issued by individual states. These guidelines aimed to support teachers, principals, and parents and included tips for online and blended teaching. For example, how to plan classes to accommodate diversity, use of flipped classroom and cyber security in online teaching and learning, and use of radio, TV and phones when learners did not have devices and/or online access.

Italy: During the two-year period, each school was required to develop an action plan called “School Plan for Digital Integrated Learning” detailing the approach and strategy to ensure teaching continuity and capitalise on the experience in distance and hybrid learning gained during the lockdown.

In Canada, the Quebec Ministry of Education published a pedagogical guide and a development continuum to facilitate the implementation of its Digital Reference Framework Footnote 10 and provide more support to teachers. The Pedagogical Guide was written to better inform all education and higher education stakeholders and assist them in their undertaking of pedagogical planning or educational projects with the aim of developing digital competency.

4.2.3 Post Covid-19

As the threat from the pandemic subsided and school systems fully reopened, many of the digital and online initiatives adopted during the Covid-19 pandemic were discontinued. Contrary to what had been anticipated, there was little evidence of a “turning point” (EC, 2020 ; OECD, 2021 ) for digital education. Instead, there was ‘rebalancing’ across many education systems as they confronted a range of emergent realities (e.g. the drive to go back to basics, learning loss, wider societal and political developments).

In the immediate aftermath of schools reopening, digital education slowed considerably or stopped in many jurisdictions. In Quebec, online learning was used in exceptional cases Footnote 11 only. In Ireland Footnote 12 , there was a full return to in person teaching with negligible use of blended or hybrid modes for most students and while a greater acceptance of digital education was reported in India, little use was made of digital technologies for teaching and learning in schools. There was also evidence of policy displacement in some countries as ministries issued policy directives reversing the focus of online teaching. In Autumn 2022, the Italian minister stopped the Integrated Digital Education plan. Consequently, schools were not permitted to organise activities that included a distance education mode.

Policy development in relation to digital education has also slowed and while there is some evidence of implementation of the digital education policies launched prior to or during the pandemic across some countries/jurisdictions, for the most part, there is an absence of any meaningful change. Instead, the emphasis still tends to be on developing infrastructure:

The “Digital School 2022–2026” Footnote 13 strategy launched as part of the Recovery and Resilience Plan in Italy continued the focus on infrastructure-in June 2022, the Minister of Education adopted the “School Plan 4.0” Footnote 14 (Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan—FUTURA) to invest €2.1 billion to transform 100,000 traditional classrooms into what they have termed “innovative learning environments”.

Ireland launched a successor to the 2015 strategy (DES, 2015) in February 2022, the Digital Strategy for Schools to 2027 (DE, 2022). Two years later, an implementation plan had not been issued. Funding for broadband in schools continued but direct funding had not been released to schools.

India continued to focus funding efforts on infrastructure, but the digital divide remains a perennial challenge.

The exceptions to this are Sri Lanka and Japan. The National Policy for Digital Transformation of Education Footnote 15 was published in Sri Lanka in 2022 and although an implementation plan has yet to be formulated, funding has been set aside for equipping schools and developing teachers’ digital competence. In Japan, there is evidence of policy continuity or incremental change. Following substantial investment in infrastructure, the focus has switched to education data collection and analytics. A roadmap has been published which outlines how educational data can be utilised, focusing on scope, quality and combination of data and outlining short-, mid- and long-term goals Footnote 16 .

Finally, a lack of policy in relation to emerging technologies and specifically AI was identified in six of the seven countries/jurisdictions. While group members acknowledged the use of generative AI is already widespread, Australia is the only country to have issued non-binding guidance on the use of AI in education (Australian Dept. of Education, 2023).

5 Discussion and Conclusions

It is not surprising digital education and digital education policy was high on the agenda of governments across the world during the Covid-19 pandemic. The sudden switch to emergency remote education resulted in the development or layering of policy with directives and guidelines characterised by substantial funding for infrastructure, devices and connectivity. However, these changes were made very quickly to address the urgent need of continuing schooling and while laudable in the short-term, for the most part were not sustained. Instead, mirroring patterns observed to date, the crisis was followed by policy continuity or incremental change in most countries/jurisdictions (Hogan et al., 2022 ). For the most part, there has been no meaningful change in digital education post Covid-19. Rather, there has been “a tinkering at the edges” and not a fundamental change in policy whereby digital technologies are used to “reshape teaching methodologies, learning processes, and the educational ecosystem at large, to make it more effective” (OECD, 2023 , p.3).

Mahoney and Thelen ( 2009 ) warn of policy drift which occurs when existing strategies have a different impact due to changes in the environment. Although the pandemic brought a renewed focus on the use of digital technologies in schools, it also exposed and amplified persistent inequalities and shortcomings of current systems. As documented, learning losses and widening achievement gaps experienced by the most vulnerable sectors of society is a stark legacy of the pandemic. Additionally, concerns about the mental health and well-being of young people as well as teacher burnout, teacher shortage and teacher de-professionalisation are among the new realities or changes to school environments post-Covid-19 which schools are struggling to cope with.

The struggle to meet the demands of the new realities of schooling draws attention to the complexity of the system. Digital technologies are just one part of a complex network of actors and cannot be considered in isolation. The mere introduction of digital technologies will not enable systemic change or resolve inequities and shortcomings (Butler et al., 2018 ; Selwyn, 2023 ). In other words, digital policies designed at the Macro level and that focus on just one aspect of the system (e.g. funding hardware) will not address the realities encountered within and across the entire system (Meso level). Long-term change in education requires a clear vision and strategy on how the potential of digital technologies can purposefully and strategically serve the shared purpose of education (Twining et al., 2021 ). Thus, if policy is to be aligned with the realities of schooling, radical change is required. Policy makers need to acknowledge and understand the realities of schooling and also adopt a coherent approach to policy development. To support radical change, it is crucial that all parts of the system work together (Butler et al., 2018 ) as policy without coherence will not be effective or have any lasting impact.

Articulating the shared purpose across the macro, meso and micro levels of the system will inform the design, implementation and governance of policy at each level. A clear implementation plan at each level will not only lead to coherence between policy and action but also coherence between macro, meso and micro levels. However, coherent alignment has always been problematic. It is compounded by time lags between the realities encountered on the ground, the fast pace of societal change and the generally slow pace of policy development particularly at national (macro) level. It is also important to acknowledge policy alignment as an ongoing dynamic process (Honig & Hatch, 2004 ), that entails supporting schools to interpret and implement policy decisions. This requires both infrastructure in schools, ongoing teacher professional learning (Dellagnelo, 2023 ) and supports for school leadership. As a multidirectional process involving many stakeholders, the need for a coherent process of design and implementation of policies which are in turn monitored and evaluated with strong governance is also crucial. In short, what is needed is robust agile policy characterised by iterative cycles informed by the lived contextual realities of schooling and which mirror the shared purposes of education as determined by all stakeholders. In addition, policy should respect diversity and lead to equality of opportunity and equity, enabling agency and building competence to enact this agency. Only then will digital education policy align with the realities of schooling and transition from tinkering to transformation.

Data availability

The data (case studies) generated during this study are available from the authors upon reasonable request.

Victorian Auditor-General's Office, (2024). Effectiveness of the tutor learning system: Independent assurance report to parliament. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/49dc74/globalassets/tabled-paper-documents/tabled-paper-8283/20240619_effectiveness-of-the-tutor-learning-initiative.pdf

https://educationhq.com/news/nsw-tutoring-program-had-no-measurable-impact-on-academic-achievement-report-166778/

gov—Minister Foley welcomes positive evaluation of Gaeltacht e-Hub Pilot Project ( www.gov.ie ).

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/standards

https://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/site_web/documents/ministere/continuum-cadre-reference-PAN-en.pdf

MEXT(2023).初等中等教育段階における生成 AI の利用に関する暫定的なガイドライン」の 作成について (通知) [Regarding the creation of "Temporary Guidelines for the Utilization of Generative AI at the Elementary and Secondary Education Level" (Notice)].

Japan publishes guidelines allowing limited use of AI in schools (kyodonews.net).

The Educator Online (2023). Why the ChatGPT ban in public schools is being reversed. https://www.theeducatoronline.com/k12/news/why-the-chatgpt-ban-in-public-schools-is-being-reversed/282834

https://www.e-thaksalawa.moe.gov.lk/En/

Pedagogical guide digital competency framework. Ministère de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement Supérieur, ( 2020 ) https://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/site_web/documents/ministere/guide-cadre-reference-PAN-en.pdf

Quebec Virtual Academy: Online school set to launch in September—Montreal | Globalnews.ca.

gov—COVID-19 Index of all publications issued by Department of Education ( www.gov.ie ).

Updated Covid-19 Guidance to Schools following the mid-term break 2022 www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/216964/9449b63b-28c0-4f3e-93be-d6ec86c97a27.pdf#page=null

https://serviziomarconi.istruzioneer.gov.it/programma-scuola-digitale-2022-2026/

https://www.italiadomani.gov.it/content/sogei-ng/it/en/Interventi/investimenti/scuola-4-0-scuole-innovative-nuove-aule-didattiche-e-laboratori.html

Information and Communication Technology Agency (ICTA) of Sri Lanka – Policy for Digital Transformation https://www.icta.lk/icta-assets/uploads/2022/04/Policy-for-Digital-Transformation-of-Education-English-1.pdf

Roadmap on the Utilization of Data in Education (digital.go.jp).

Australian Government, Dept of Education (2023) Australian framework for generative AI in schools. https://www.education.gov.au/schooling/resources/australian-framework-generative-artificial-intelligence-ai-schools

Ball, S. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18 (2), 215–228.

Article   Google Scholar  

Beland, D., & Powell, M. (2016). Continuity and change in social policy. Social Policy & Administration, 50 (2), 129–147.

Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Education policy: Process, themes and impact . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Betthäuser, B. A., Bach-Mortensen, A. M., & Engzell, P. (2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Human Behaviour, 7 , 375–385.

Bryant, J., Child, F., & Dorn, E (2022). How COVID-19 caused a global learning crisis. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/ourinsights/how-covid-19-caused-a-global-learning-crisis

Butler, D., Leahy, M., Twining, P., Akoh, B., Chtouki, Y., Farshadnia, S., Moore, K., Nikolov, R., Pascual, C., Sherman, B., & Valtonen, T. (2018). Education systems in the digital age: The need for alignment. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23 (3), 473–494.

Conrads, J., Rasmussen, M., Winters, N., Geniets, A., & Langer, L. (2017).  Digital education policies in Europe and beyond: Key design principles for more effective policies . Publications Office of the European Union.

Darling-Hammond, L., Saunders, R., Podolsky, A., Kini, T., Espinoza, D., Hyler, M., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2019). Best practices to recruit and retain well-prepared teachers in all classrooms . Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute . https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Leandro_Best_Practices_Recruit_Retain_REPORT.pdf

Dellagnelo, L. (2023). The role of support organisations in implementing digital education policies. OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem , OECD Publishing, Paris,

Diliberti, M., Schwartz, H. L., & Grant, D. M. (2021). Stress topped the reasons why public-school teachers quit, even before COVID-19 . Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Google Scholar  

Di Pietro, G. (2023). The impact of Covid-19 on student achievement: Evidence from a recent meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 39 , 1005304.

Doghonadze, N. (2021). Teacher burnout and COVID-19 pandemic. IRCEELT-, 2021 , 250.

Duan, C., Liu, L., Wang, T., Wang, G., Jiang, Z., Li, H., Zhang, G., Ye, L., Li, C., & Cao, Y. (2024). Evidence linking COVID-19 and the health/well-being of children and adolescents: An umbrella review. BMC Medicine, 22 (1), 116.

EC (European Commission). (2020). Commission staff working document, {COM(2020) 624 final}…Resetting education and training for the digital age . https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020SC0209&rid=3

European Commission, D. (2023), Digital education content in the EU – State of play and policy options – Final report, https://doi.org/10.2766/682645

Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge . Canada: Pearson.

Golden, G. (2020). Education policy evaluation: Surveying the OECD landscape . Paris: OECD Publishing.

Grant-Rankin, J (2022). How Covid increased teacher burnout: Preventing burnout in the Covid era . Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/much-more-than-common-core/202210/how-covid-increased-teacher-burnout

Hamilton L. S., Kaufman J. H., & Diliberti M. (2020). Teaching and leading through a pandemic: Key findings from the American educator panels spring 2020 COVID-19 surveys. RAND. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA100/RRA168-2/RAND_RRA168-2.pdf

Hogan, J., Howlett, M., & Murphy, M. (2022). Re-thinking the coronavirus pandemic as a policy punctuation: COVID-19 as a path-clearing policy accelerator. Policy and Society, 41 (1), 40.

Heffernan, M. (2022). We can fit education into our lives’: More kids learning at home. The Age, https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/we-can-fit-education-into-our-lives-more-kids-learning-at-home-20220819-p5bb4k.html

Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33 (8), 16–30.

Kaufman, J, Diliberti, M., Hunter, G., Snoke, J., Grant, D., Setodji, C., Young, C. (2021). COVID-19 and the state of K–12 schools: Results and technical documentation from the Spring 2021 American educator panels COVID-19 surveys . Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation1. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA168-7.html

Kozma, R. B. (2005). National policies that connect ICT-based education reform to economic and social development.  Human technology: An interdisciplinary journal on humans in ICT environments .

Kozma, R. (2008). Comparative analyses of policies for ICT in education. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp. 10883–11096). Springer Science.

Kozma, R. (2011). Transforming education: The power of ICT policies . UNESCO.

Lee, Y., Jeon, Y. J., Kang, S., Shin, J. I., Jung, Y.-C., & Jung, S. J. (2022). Social media use and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in young adults: A meta-analysis of 14 cross-sectional studies. BMC Public Health, 22 , 995.

Mallows, D., & Carpentieri, J. D. (2015). Policy coherence. In: EBSN Annual Collaborative Workshop .

Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2009). Explaining institutional change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2003). Cops, teachers, counsellors: Stories from the front line of public service . University of Michigan Press.

O’Connor, T. (2014). Working Paper Series, Department of Government, UCC.

OECD. (2020). Education responses to COVID-19: Embracing digital learning and online collaboration. Paris : OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/education-responses-to-covid-19 - embracing-digital-learning-and-online-collaboration-d75eb0e8/.

OECD. (2021). The stare of school education: One year into the Covid pandemic . OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2023). OECD digital education outlook 2023: Towards an effective digital education ecosystem . OECD Publishing.

Ministère de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement Supérieur, (2020) Pedagogical guide digital competency framework. https://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/site_web/documents/ministere/guide-cadre-reference-PAN-en.pdf

Schouwenburg, F., & Kappert, J. (2019).  Educational Innovation with technology: An international view. Kennisnet.

Sellers, R., Warne, N., Pickles, A., Maughan, B., Thapar, A., & Collishaw, S. (2019). Cross-cohort change in adolescent outcomes for children with mental health problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 60 (7), 813–821.

Selwyn, N. (2023). Lessons to be learnt? Education, techno-solutionism, and sustainable development. Technology and Sustainable Development, 71 , 83.

Shapiro, L (2021) The unprecedented pace of change. Forbes Newsletter. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/02/25/the-unprecedented-pace-of-change/?sh=23e93be440ed

Šinko, M. (2016). Policy change–Review of classification, measurement and factors. Teorija in PRAKSA, 53 (1), 228–247.

Spillane, 2022. Personal communication

Stone, T. E. (2023). UNESCO. Technology in education: A tool on whose terms. Global Education Monitoring Report, 18 , 1–433.

The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory. (2023). Social media and youth mental health . https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/sg-youth-mental-health-social-media-advisory.pdf

Twining, P., Butler, D., Fisser, P., Leahy, M., Shelton, C., Forget-Dubois, N., & Lacasse, M. (2021). Developing a quality curriculum in a technological era. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69 , 2285–2308.

UNESCO. (2023).  Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in education-A tool on whose terms? UN. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385723

UNESCO, A. (2021). Pacific Regional Bureau for Education. School closures and regional policies to mitigate learning loss due to COVID-19: A focus on the Asia-Pacific [Internet]. Montreal.

UNICEF (2023) Education in a Post-COVID World: Towards a RAPID Transformation.  UNICEF .

Vallance, P. & Millars, R. (2023) Young people, well-being and the COVID-19 pandemic: Learning for the future. Policy Commission 2022–2023 Final Report . https://www.euniwell.eu/news-events/article/euniwell-policy-commission-publishes-final-report

van der Vlies, R. (2020), Digital strategies in education across OECD countries: Exploring education policies on digital technologies,  OECD Education Working Papers , No. 226, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Vincent-Lancrin, S., Cobo Romaní, C., & Reimers, F. (2022). How learning continued during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Global lessons from initiatives to support learners and teachers. [Paris]: OCDE;[Washington]: The World Bank, 2022.

Viennet, R., & Pont, B. (2017). Education Policy Implementation: A Literature Review and Proposed Framework. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 162. OECD Publishing.

Wade, A., Walstab, A., Doecke, E., & Tham, M. (2023). Review of remote and online learning experiences during COVID-19. https://www.edresearch.edu.au/sites/default/files/2023-03/review-remote-online-learning-aa-ff.pdf

World Bank. (2020). Guidance note: Remote learning & COVID-19 . Washington, DC: Author. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/3358

World Health Organization. (2022). Mental health and COVID-19: early evidence of the pandemic’s impact: scientific brief, 2 March 2022 (No. WHO/2019-nCoV/Sci_Brief/Mental_health/2022.1). World Health Organization.

Zancajo, A., Verger, A., & Bolea, P. (2022). Digitalization and beyond: The effects of Covid-19 on post-pandemic educational policy and delivery in Europe. Policy and Society, 41 (1), 111–128.

Download references

Open Access funding provided by the IReL Consortium.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Education, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

Deirdre Butler & Margaret Leahy

Centre of Excellence in Teacher Education, India Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, India

Amina Charania

Visiting Academic of the Open University of Sri Lanka, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Peiris Meda Gedara

School of Education, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

Therese Keane

Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada

Thérèse Laferrière

Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

Kohei Nakamura

Hosei University, Tokyo, Japan

Hiroshi Ueda

Institute for Educational Technology, National Research Council of Italy, Rome, Italy

Stefania Bocconi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deirdre Butler .

Ethics declarations

Competing interest.

The authors have not disclosed any competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Butler, D., Leahy, M., Charania, A. et al. Aligning Digital Educational Policies with the New Realities of Schooling. Tech Know Learn (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09776-9

Download citation

Accepted : 06 August 2024

Published : 24 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09776-9

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 education
• Policy alignment
• Realities of schooling
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Student Writing in the Digital Age

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get Our Newsletter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Stories

• Hi, Jai Alai

Endangered: North American Cricket

Monastic Chant: Praising God Out Loud

The Complex History of American Dating

Recent posts.

• Writing Online Fiction in China
• Biking While Black in DC
• When French Citrus Colonized Algeria
• How Jazz Albums Visualized a Changing America

Support JSTOR Daily

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• African Literatures
• Asian Literatures
• British and Irish Literatures
• Latin American and Caribbean Literatures
• North American Literatures
• Oceanic Literatures
• Slavic and Eastern European Literatures
• West Asian Literatures, including Middle East
• Western European Literatures
• Ancient Literatures (before 500)
• Middle Ages and Renaissance (500-1600)
• Enlightenment and Early Modern (1600-1800)
• 19th Century (1800-1900)
• 20th and 21st Century (1900-present)
• Children’s Literature
• Cultural Studies
• Film, TV, and Media
• Literary Theory
• Non-Fiction and Life Writing
• Print Culture and Digital Humanities
• Theater and Drama
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Reading in the digital era.

• Lutz Koepnick Lutz Koepnick Department of German, Russian and East European Studies, Vanderbilt University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.2
• Published online: 31 August 2016

Digital reading has been an object of fervent scholarly and public debates since the mid-1990s. Often digital reading has been associated solely with what may happen between readers and screens, and in dominant approaches digital reading devices have been seen as producing radically different readers than printed books produce.

Far from merely reducing digital reading to a mere matter of what e-books might do to the attention spans of individual readers, however, contemporary critiques emphasize how digital computing affects and is being affected by neurological, sensory, kinetic, and apparatical processes. The future of reading has too many different aspects to be discussed by scholars of one discipline or field of study alone. Digital reading is as much a matter for neurologists as for literary scholars, for engineers as much as ergonomicians, for psychologists, physiologists, media historians, art critics, critical theorists, and many others. Scholars of literature will need to consult many fields to elaborate a future poetics of digital reading and examine how literary texts in all their different forms are and will be met by 21st-century readers.

• digital culture
• electronic literature
• screen studies
• digital humanities

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Literature. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 25 August 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.80.149.115]
• 185.80.149.115

Character limit 500 /500

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

LEARNING ENGLISH IN THE DIGITAL ERA

2018, UNNES Press

In today's digital era, technology is a modern product that can be used in all aspects of life such as education and teaching. Technology with its products in the forms of Web 2.0 are highly demanded by the language users in the current era so that this book will give benefits not only for the students but also teachers. This book will enable the students to be effective, interactive and communicative in utilizing technology. This book is different from other books because this book presents the introduction of digital era and some products of Web 2.0 as the learning media for English language learning. On this occasion the authors also would like to thank all those who have helped to produce this book for their contributions in the form of ideas and technical guidelines for the use of Web 2.0 media products in the world of education and teaching. Hopefully this book will make the students recognize, create and apply Web 2.0 media in teaching activities when they enter the world of teaching at schools.

RELATED TOPICS

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

Reinforcement Learning-Based Network Slicing Scheme for Optimized UE-QoS in Future Networks

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, view options, recommendations, efficient ue mobility in multi-rat cellular networks using sdn.

Though, Software Defined Networking (SDN) started with the wired networks, several architectural solutions have been proposed to incorporate SDN in the wireless domain, to improve the overall performance of the network. However, analyses of specific use ...

On design of a route-optimised and seamless HCoP-B scheme for nested mobile networks

In this paper, we first apply the hierarchical concept to the care-of prefix (CoP) scheme as HCoP and enhance HCoP with a novel binding update tree (BUT) structure as HCoP-B for network mobility (NEMO) management of the nested mobile network. Second, we ...

Network-Based UE Mobility Estimation in Mobile Networks

The co-existence of small cells and macro cells is a key feature of 4G and future networks. This heterogeneity, together with the increased mobility of user devices can generate a high handover frequency that could lead to unreasonably high call drop ...

Information

Published in, publication history.

• Research-article

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 0 Total Citations
• 0 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

View options

Login options.

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Share this publication link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.