article use of technology in education

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Image credit: Claire Scully

New advances in technology are upending education, from the recent debut of new artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots like ChatGPT to the growing accessibility of virtual-reality tools that expand the boundaries of the classroom. For educators, at the heart of it all is the hope that every learner gets an equal chance to develop the skills they need to succeed. But that promise is not without its pitfalls.

“Technology is a game-changer for education – it offers the prospect of universal access to high-quality learning experiences, and it creates fundamentally new ways of teaching,” said Dan Schwartz, dean of Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE), who is also a professor of educational technology at the GSE and faculty director of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning . “But there are a lot of ways we teach that aren’t great, and a big fear with AI in particular is that we just get more efficient at teaching badly. This is a moment to pay attention, to do things differently.”

For K-12 schools, this year also marks the end of the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funding program, which has provided pandemic recovery funds that many districts used to invest in educational software and systems. With these funds running out in September 2024, schools are trying to determine their best use of technology as they face the prospect of diminishing resources.

Here, Schwartz and other Stanford education scholars weigh in on some of the technology trends taking center stage in the classroom this year.

AI in the classroom

In 2023, the big story in technology and education was generative AI, following the introduction of ChatGPT and other chatbots that produce text seemingly written by a human in response to a question or prompt. Educators immediately worried that students would use the chatbot to cheat by trying to pass its writing off as their own. As schools move to adopt policies around students’ use of the tool, many are also beginning to explore potential opportunities – for example, to generate reading assignments or coach students during the writing process.

AI can also help automate tasks like grading and lesson planning, freeing teachers to do the human work that drew them into the profession in the first place, said Victor Lee, an associate professor at the GSE and faculty lead for the AI + Education initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. “I’m heartened to see some movement toward creating AI tools that make teachers’ lives better – not to replace them, but to give them the time to do the work that only teachers are able to do,” he said. “I hope to see more on that front.”

He also emphasized the need to teach students now to begin questioning and critiquing the development and use of AI. “AI is not going away,” said Lee, who is also director of CRAFT (Classroom-Ready Resources about AI for Teaching), which provides free resources to help teach AI literacy to high school students across subject areas. “We need to teach students how to understand and think critically about this technology.”

Immersive environments

The use of immersive technologies like augmented reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality is also expected to surge in the classroom, especially as new high-profile devices integrating these realities hit the marketplace in 2024.

The educational possibilities now go beyond putting on a headset and experiencing life in a distant location. With new technologies, students can create their own local interactive 360-degree scenarios, using just a cell phone or inexpensive camera and simple online tools.

“This is an area that’s really going to explode over the next couple of years,” said Kristen Pilner Blair, director of research for the Digital Learning initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, which runs a program exploring the use of virtual field trips to promote learning. “Students can learn about the effects of climate change, say, by virtually experiencing the impact on a particular environment. But they can also become creators, documenting and sharing immersive media that shows the effects where they live.”

Integrating AI into virtual simulations could also soon take the experience to another level, Schwartz said. “If your VR experience brings me to a redwood tree, you could have a window pop up that allows me to ask questions about the tree, and AI can deliver the answers.”

Gamification

Another trend expected to intensify this year is the gamification of learning activities, often featuring dynamic videos with interactive elements to engage and hold students’ attention.

“Gamification is a good motivator, because one key aspect is reward, which is very powerful,” said Schwartz. The downside? Rewards are specific to the activity at hand, which may not extend to learning more generally. “If I get rewarded for doing math in a space-age video game, it doesn’t mean I’m going to be motivated to do math anywhere else.”

Gamification sometimes tries to make “chocolate-covered broccoli,” Schwartz said, by adding art and rewards to make speeded response tasks involving single-answer, factual questions more fun. He hopes to see more creative play patterns that give students points for rethinking an approach or adapting their strategy, rather than only rewarding them for quickly producing a correct response.

Data-gathering and analysis

The growing use of technology in schools is producing massive amounts of data on students’ activities in the classroom and online. “We’re now able to capture moment-to-moment data, every keystroke a kid makes,” said Schwartz – data that can reveal areas of struggle and different learning opportunities, from solving a math problem to approaching a writing assignment.

But outside of research settings, he said, that type of granular data – now owned by tech companies – is more likely used to refine the design of the software than to provide teachers with actionable information.

The promise of personalized learning is being able to generate content aligned with students’ interests and skill levels, and making lessons more accessible for multilingual learners and students with disabilities. Realizing that promise requires that educators can make sense of the data that’s being collected, said Schwartz – and while advances in AI are making it easier to identify patterns and findings, the data also needs to be in a system and form educators can access and analyze for decision-making. Developing a usable infrastructure for that data, Schwartz said, is an important next step.

With the accumulation of student data comes privacy concerns: How is the data being collected? Are there regulations or guidelines around its use in decision-making? What steps are being taken to prevent unauthorized access? In 2023 K-12 schools experienced a rise in cyberattacks, underscoring the need to implement strong systems to safeguard student data.

Technology is “requiring people to check their assumptions about education,” said Schwartz, noting that AI in particular is very efficient at replicating biases and automating the way things have been done in the past, including poor models of instruction. “But it’s also opening up new possibilities for students producing material, and for being able to identify children who are not average so we can customize toward them. It’s an opportunity to think of entirely new ways of teaching – this is the path I hope to see.”

REALIZING THE PROMISE:

Leading up to the 75th anniversary of the UN General Assembly, this “Realizing the promise: How can education technology improve learning for all?” publication kicks off the Center for Universal Education’s first playbook in a series to help improve education around the world.

It is intended as an evidence-based tool for ministries of education, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, to adopt and more successfully invest in education technology.

While there is no single education initiative that will achieve the same results everywhere—as school systems differ in learners and educators, as well as in the availability and quality of materials and technologies—an important first step is understanding how technology is used given specific local contexts and needs.

The surveys in this playbook are designed to be adapted to collect this information from educators, learners, and school leaders and guide decisionmakers in expanding the use of technology.  

Introduction

While technology has disrupted most sectors of the economy and changed how we communicate, access information, work, and even play, its impact on schools, teaching, and learning has been much more limited. We believe that this limited impact is primarily due to technology being been used to replace analog tools, without much consideration given to playing to technology’s comparative advantages. These comparative advantages, relative to traditional “chalk-and-talk” classroom instruction, include helping to scale up standardized instruction, facilitate differentiated instruction, expand opportunities for practice, and increase student engagement. When schools use technology to enhance the work of educators and to improve the quality and quantity of educational content, learners will thrive.

Further, COVID-19 has laid bare that, in today’s environment where pandemics and the effects of climate change are likely to occur, schools cannot always provide in-person education—making the case for investing in education technology.

Here we argue for a simple yet surprisingly rare approach to education technology that seeks to:

• Understand the needs, infrastructure, and capacity of a school system—the diagnosis;
• Survey the best available evidence on interventions that match those conditions—the evidence; and
• Closely monitor the results of innovations before they are scaled up—the prognosis.

RELATED CONTENT

Podcast: How education technology can improve learning for all students

To make ed tech work, set clear goals, review the evidence, and pilot before you scale

The framework.

Our approach builds on a simple yet intuitive theoretical framework created two decades ago by two of the most prominent education researchers in the United States, David K. Cohen and Deborah Loewenberg Ball. They argue that what matters most to improve learning is the interactions among educators and learners around educational materials. We believe that the failed school-improvement efforts in the U.S. that motivated Cohen and Ball’s framework resemble the ed-tech reforms in much of the developing world to date in the lack of clarity improving the interactions between educators, learners, and the educational material. We build on their framework by adding parents as key agents that mediate the relationships between learners and educators and the material (Figure 1).

Figure 1: The instructional core

Adapted from Cohen and Ball (1999)

As the figure above suggests, ed-tech interventions can affect the instructional core in a myriad of ways. Yet, just because technology can do something, it does not mean it should. School systems in developing countries differ along many dimensions and each system is likely to have different needs for ed-tech interventions, as well as different infrastructure and capacity to enact such interventions.

The diagnosis:

How can school systems assess their needs and preparedness.

A useful first step for any school system to determine whether it should invest in education technology is to diagnose its:

• Specific needs to improve student learning (e.g., raising the average level of achievement, remediating gaps among low performers, and challenging high performers to develop higher-order skills);
• Infrastructure to adopt technology-enabled solutions (e.g., electricity connection, availability of space and outlets, stock of computers, and Internet connectivity at school and at learners’ homes); and
• Capacity to integrate technology in the instructional process (e.g., learners’ and educators’ level of familiarity and comfort with hardware and software, their beliefs about the level of usefulness of technology for learning purposes, and their current uses of such technology).

Before engaging in any new data collection exercise, school systems should take full advantage of existing administrative data that could shed light on these three main questions. This could be in the form of internal evaluations but also international learner assessments, such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and/or the Progress in International Literacy Study (PIRLS), and the Teaching and Learning International Study (TALIS). But if school systems lack information on their preparedness for ed-tech reforms or if they seek to complement existing data with a richer set of indicators, we developed a set of surveys for learners, educators, and school leaders. Download the full report to see how we map out the main aspects covered by these surveys, in hopes of highlighting how they could be used to inform decisions around the adoption of ed-tech interventions.

The evidence:

How can school systems identify promising ed-tech interventions.

There is no single “ed-tech” initiative that will achieve the same results everywhere, simply because school systems differ in learners and educators, as well as in the availability and quality of materials and technologies. Instead, to realize the potential of education technology to accelerate student learning, decisionmakers should focus on four potential uses of technology that play to its comparative advantages and complement the work of educators to accelerate student learning (Figure 2). These comparative advantages include:

• Scaling up quality instruction, such as through prerecorded quality lessons.
• Facilitating differentiated instruction, through, for example, computer-adaptive learning and live one-on-one tutoring.
• Expanding opportunities to practice.
• Increasing learner engagement through videos and games.

Figure 2: Comparative advantages of technology

Here we review the evidence on ed-tech interventions from 37 studies in 20 countries*, organizing them by comparative advantage. It’s important to note that ours is not the only way to classify these interventions (e.g., video tutorials could be considered as a strategy to scale up instruction or increase learner engagement), but we believe it may be useful to highlight the needs that they could address and why technology is well positioned to do so.

When discussing specific studies, we report the magnitude of the effects of interventions using standard deviations (SDs). SDs are a widely used metric in research to express the effect of a program or policy with respect to a business-as-usual condition (e.g., test scores). There are several ways to make sense of them. One is to categorize the magnitude of the effects based on the results of impact evaluations. In developing countries, effects below 0.1 SDs are considered to be small, effects between 0.1 and 0.2 SDs are medium, and those above 0.2 SDs are large (for reviews that estimate the average effect of groups of interventions, called “meta analyses,” see e.g., Conn, 2017; Kremer, Brannen, & Glennerster, 2013; McEwan, 2014; Snilstveit et al., 2015; Evans & Yuan, 2020.)

*In surveying the evidence, we began by compiling studies from prior general and ed-tech specific evidence reviews that some of us have written and from ed-tech reviews conducted by others. Then, we tracked the studies cited by the ones we had previously read and reviewed those, as well. In identifying studies for inclusion, we focused on experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations of education technology interventions from pre-school to secondary school in low- and middle-income countries that were released between 2000 and 2020. We only included interventions that sought to improve student learning directly (i.e., students’ interaction with the material), as opposed to interventions that have impacted achievement indirectly, by reducing teacher absence or increasing parental engagement. This process yielded 37 studies in 20 countries (see the full list of studies in Appendix B).

Scaling up standardized instruction

One of the ways in which technology may improve the quality of education is through its capacity to deliver standardized quality content at scale. This feature of technology may be particularly useful in three types of settings: (a) those in “hard-to-staff” schools (i.e., schools that struggle to recruit educators with the requisite training and experience—typically, in rural and/or remote areas) (see, e.g., Urquiola & Vegas, 2005); (b) those in which many educators are frequently absent from school (e.g., Chaudhury, Hammer, Kremer, Muralidharan, & Rogers, 2006; Muralidharan, Das, Holla, & Mohpal, 2017); and/or (c) those in which educators have low levels of pedagogical and subject matter expertise (e.g., Bietenbeck, Piopiunik, & Wiederhold, 2018; Bold et al., 2017; Metzler & Woessmann, 2012; Santibañez, 2006) and do not have opportunities to observe and receive feedback (e.g., Bruns, Costa, & Cunha, 2018; Cilliers, Fleisch, Prinsloo, & Taylor, 2018). Technology could address this problem by: (a) disseminating lessons delivered by qualified educators to a large number of learners (e.g., through prerecorded or live lessons); (b) enabling distance education (e.g., for learners in remote areas and/or during periods of school closures); and (c) distributing hardware preloaded with educational materials.

Prerecorded lessons

Technology seems to be well placed to amplify the impact of effective educators by disseminating their lessons. Evidence on the impact of prerecorded lessons is encouraging, but not conclusive. Some initiatives that have used short instructional videos to complement regular instruction, in conjunction with other learning materials, have raised student learning on independent assessments. For example, Beg et al. (2020) evaluated an initiative in Punjab, Pakistan in which grade 8 classrooms received an intervention that included short videos to substitute live instruction, quizzes for learners to practice the material from every lesson, tablets for educators to learn the material and follow the lesson, and LED screens to project the videos onto a classroom screen. After six months, the intervention improved the performance of learners on independent tests of math and science by 0.19 and 0.24 SDs, respectively but had no discernible effect on the math and science section of Punjab’s high-stakes exams.

One study suggests that approaches that are far less technologically sophisticated can also improve learning outcomes—especially, if the business-as-usual instruction is of low quality. For example, Naslund-Hadley, Parker, and Hernandez-Agramonte (2014) evaluated a preschool math program in Cordillera, Paraguay that used audio segments and written materials four days per week for an hour per day during the school day. After five months, the intervention improved math scores by 0.16 SDs, narrowing gaps between low- and high-achieving learners, and between those with and without educators with formal training in early childhood education.

Yet, the integration of prerecorded material into regular instruction has not always been successful. For example, de Barros (2020) evaluated an intervention that combined instructional videos for math and science with infrastructure upgrades (e.g., two “smart” classrooms, two TVs, and two tablets), printed workbooks for students, and in-service training for educators of learners in grades 9 and 10 in Haryana, India (all materials were mapped onto the official curriculum). After 11 months, the intervention negatively impacted math achievement (by 0.08 SDs) and had no effect on science (with respect to business as usual classes). It reduced the share of lesson time that educators devoted to instruction and negatively impacted an index of instructional quality. Likewise, Seo (2017) evaluated several combinations of infrastructure (solar lights and TVs) and prerecorded videos (in English and/or bilingual) for grade 11 students in northern Tanzania and found that none of the variants improved student learning, even when the videos were used. The study reports effects from the infrastructure component across variants, but as others have noted (Muralidharan, Romero, & Wüthrich, 2019), this approach to estimating impact is problematic.

A very similar intervention delivered after school hours, however, had sizeable effects on learners’ basic skills. Chiplunkar, Dhar, and Nagesh (2020) evaluated an initiative in Chennai (the capital city of the state of Tamil Nadu, India) delivered by the same organization as above that combined short videos that explained key concepts in math and science with worksheets, facilitator-led instruction, small groups for peer-to-peer learning, and occasional career counseling and guidance for grade 9 students. These lessons took place after school for one hour, five times a week. After 10 months, it had large effects on learners’ achievement as measured by tests of basic skills in math and reading, but no effect on a standardized high-stakes test in grade 10 or socio-emotional skills (e.g., teamwork, decisionmaking, and communication).

Drawing general lessons from this body of research is challenging for at least two reasons. First, all of the studies above have evaluated the impact of prerecorded lessons combined with several other components (e.g., hardware, print materials, or other activities). Therefore, it is possible that the effects found are due to these additional components, rather than to the recordings themselves, or to the interaction between the two (see Muralidharan, 2017 for a discussion of the challenges of interpreting “bundled” interventions). Second, while these studies evaluate some type of prerecorded lessons, none examines the content of such lessons. Thus, it seems entirely plausible that the direction and magnitude of the effects depends largely on the quality of the recordings (e.g., the expertise of the educator recording it, the amount of preparation that went into planning the recording, and its alignment with best teaching practices).

These studies also raise three important questions worth exploring in future research. One of them is why none of the interventions discussed above had effects on high-stakes exams, even if their materials are typically mapped onto the official curriculum. It is possible that the official curricula are simply too challenging for learners in these settings, who are several grade levels behind expectations and who often need to reinforce basic skills (see Pritchett & Beatty, 2015). Another question is whether these interventions have long-term effects on teaching practices. It seems plausible that, if these interventions are deployed in contexts with low teaching quality, educators may learn something from watching the videos or listening to the recordings with learners. Yet another question is whether these interventions make it easier for schools to deliver instruction to learners whose native language is other than the official medium of instruction.

Distance education

Technology can also allow learners living in remote areas to access education. The evidence on these initiatives is encouraging. For example, Johnston and Ksoll (2017) evaluated a program that broadcasted live instruction via satellite to rural primary school students in the Volta and Greater Accra regions of Ghana. For this purpose, the program also equipped classrooms with the technology needed to connect to a studio in Accra, including solar panels, a satellite modem, a projector, a webcam, microphones, and a computer with interactive software. After two years, the intervention improved the numeracy scores of students in grades 2 through 4, and some foundational literacy tasks, but it had no effect on attendance or classroom time devoted to instruction, as captured by school visits. The authors interpreted these results as suggesting that the gains in achievement may be due to improving the quality of instruction that children received (as opposed to increased instructional time). Naik, Chitre, Bhalla, and Rajan (2019) evaluated a similar program in the Indian state of Karnataka and also found positive effects on learning outcomes, but it is not clear whether those effects are due to the program or due to differences in the groups of students they compared to estimate the impact of the initiative.

In one context (Mexico), this type of distance education had positive long-term effects. Navarro-Sola (2019) took advantage of the staggered rollout of the telesecundarias (i.e., middle schools with lessons broadcasted through satellite TV) in 1968 to estimate its impact. The policy had short-term effects on students’ enrollment in school: For every telesecundaria per 50 children, 10 students enrolled in middle school and two pursued further education. It also had a long-term influence on the educational and employment trajectory of its graduates. Each additional year of education induced by the policy increased average income by nearly 18 percent. This effect was attributable to more graduates entering the labor force and shifting from agriculture and the informal sector. Similarly, Fabregas (2019) leveraged a later expansion of this policy in 1993 and found that each additional telesecundaria per 1,000 adolescents led to an average increase of 0.2 years of education, and a decline in fertility for women, but no conclusive evidence of long-term effects on labor market outcomes.

It is crucial to interpret these results keeping in mind the settings where the interventions were implemented. As we mention above, part of the reason why they have proven effective is that the “counterfactual” conditions for learning (i.e., what would have happened to learners in the absence of such programs) was either to not have access to schooling or to be exposed to low-quality instruction. School systems interested in taking up similar interventions should assess the extent to which their learners (or parts of their learner population) find themselves in similar conditions to the subjects of the studies above. This illustrates the importance of assessing the needs of a system before reviewing the evidence.

Preloaded hardware

Technology also seems well positioned to disseminate educational materials. Specifically, hardware (e.g., desktop computers, laptops, or tablets) could also help deliver educational software (e.g., word processing, reference texts, and/or games). In theory, these materials could not only undergo a quality assurance review (e.g., by curriculum specialists and educators), but also draw on the interactions with learners for adjustments (e.g., identifying areas needing reinforcement) and enable interactions between learners and educators.

In practice, however, most initiatives that have provided learners with free computers, laptops, and netbooks do not leverage any of the opportunities mentioned above. Instead, they install a standard set of educational materials and hope that learners find them helpful enough to take them up on their own. Students rarely do so, and instead use the laptops for recreational purposes—often, to the detriment of their learning (see, e.g., Malamud & Pop-Eleches, 2011). In fact, free netbook initiatives have not only consistently failed to improve academic achievement in math or language (e.g., Cristia et al., 2017), but they have had no impact on learners’ general computer skills (e.g., Beuermann et al., 2015). Some of these initiatives have had small impacts on cognitive skills, but the mechanisms through which those effects occurred remains unclear.

To our knowledge, the only successful deployment of a free laptop initiative was one in which a team of researchers equipped the computers with remedial software. Mo et al. (2013) evaluated a version of the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) program for grade 3 students in migrant schools in Beijing, China in which the laptops were loaded with a remedial software mapped onto the national curriculum for math (similar to the software products that we discuss under “practice exercises” below). After nine months, the program improved math achievement by 0.17 SDs and computer skills by 0.33 SDs. If a school system decides to invest in free laptops, this study suggests that the quality of the software on the laptops is crucial.

To date, however, the evidence suggests that children do not learn more from interacting with laptops than they do from textbooks. For example, Bando, Gallego, Gertler, and Romero (2016) compared the effect of free laptop and textbook provision in 271 elementary schools in disadvantaged areas of Honduras. After seven months, students in grades 3 and 6 who had received the laptops performed on par with those who had received the textbooks in math and language. Further, even if textbooks essentially become obsolete at the end of each school year, whereas laptops can be reloaded with new materials for each year, the costs of laptop provision (not just the hardware, but also the technical assistance, Internet, and training associated with it) are not yet low enough to make them a more cost-effective way of delivering content to learners.

Evidence on the provision of tablets equipped with software is encouraging but limited. For example, de Hoop et al. (2020) evaluated a composite intervention for first grade students in Zambia’s Eastern Province that combined infrastructure (electricity via solar power), hardware (projectors and tablets), and educational materials (lesson plans for educators and interactive lessons for learners, both loaded onto the tablets and mapped onto the official Zambian curriculum). After 14 months, the intervention had improved student early-grade reading by 0.4 SDs, oral vocabulary scores by 0.25 SDs, and early-grade math by 0.22 SDs. It also improved students’ achievement by 0.16 on a locally developed assessment. The multifaceted nature of the program, however, makes it challenging to identify the components that are driving the positive effects. Pitchford (2015) evaluated an intervention that provided tablets equipped with educational “apps,” to be used for 30 minutes per day for two months to develop early math skills among students in grades 1 through 3 in Lilongwe, Malawi. The evaluation found positive impacts in math achievement, but the main study limitation is that it was conducted in a single school.

Facilitating differentiated instruction

Another way in which technology may improve educational outcomes is by facilitating the delivery of differentiated or individualized instruction. Most developing countries massively expanded access to schooling in recent decades by building new schools and making education more affordable, both by defraying direct costs, as well as compensating for opportunity costs (Duflo, 2001; World Bank, 2018). These initiatives have not only rapidly increased the number of learners enrolled in school, but have also increased the variability in learner’ preparation for schooling. Consequently, a large number of learners perform well below grade-based curricular expectations (see, e.g., Duflo, Dupas, & Kremer, 2011; Pritchett & Beatty, 2015). These learners are unlikely to get much from “one-size-fits-all” instruction, in which a single educator delivers instruction deemed appropriate for the middle (or top) of the achievement distribution (Banerjee & Duflo, 2011). Technology could potentially help these learners by providing them with: (a) instruction and opportunities for practice that adjust to the level and pace of preparation of each individual (known as “computer-adaptive learning” (CAL)); or (b) live, one-on-one tutoring.

Computer-adaptive learning

One of the main comparative advantages of technology is its ability to diagnose students’ initial learning levels and assign students to instruction and exercises of appropriate difficulty. No individual educator—no matter how talented—can be expected to provide individualized instruction to all learners in his/her class simultaneously . In this respect, technology is uniquely positioned to complement traditional teaching. This use of technology could help learners master basic skills and help them get more out of schooling.

Although many software products evaluated in recent years have been categorized as CAL, many rely on a relatively coarse level of differentiation at an initial stage (e.g., a diagnostic test) without further differentiation. We discuss these initiatives under the category of “increasing opportunities for practice” below. CAL initiatives complement an initial diagnostic with dynamic adaptation (i.e., at each response or set of responses from learners) to adjust both the initial level of difficulty and rate at which it increases or decreases, depending on whether learners’ responses are correct or incorrect.

Existing evidence on this specific type of programs is highly promising. Most famously, Banerjee et al. (2007) evaluated CAL software in Vadodara, in the Indian state of Gujarat, in which grade 4 students were offered two hours of shared computer time per week before and after school, during which they played games that involved solving math problems. The level of difficulty of such problems adjusted based on students’ answers. This program improved math achievement by 0.35 and 0.47 SDs after one and two years of implementation, respectively. Consistent with the promise of personalized learning, the software improved achievement for all students. In fact, one year after the end of the program, students assigned to the program still performed 0.1 SDs better than those assigned to a business as usual condition. More recently, Muralidharan, et al. (2019) evaluated a “blended learning” initiative in which students in grades 4 through 9 in Delhi, India received 45 minutes of interaction with CAL software for math and language, and 45 minutes of small group instruction before or after going to school. After only 4.5 months, the program improved achievement by 0.37 SDs in math and 0.23 SDs in Hindi. While all learners benefited from the program in absolute terms, the lowest performing learners benefited the most in relative terms, since they were learning very little in school.

We see two important limitations from this body of research. First, to our knowledge, none of these initiatives has been evaluated when implemented during the school day. Therefore, it is not possible to distinguish the effect of the adaptive software from that of additional instructional time. Second, given that most of these programs were facilitated by local instructors, attempts to distinguish the effect of the software from that of the instructors has been mostly based on noncausal evidence. A frontier challenge in this body of research is to understand whether CAL software can increase the effectiveness of school-based instruction by substituting part of the regularly scheduled time for math and language instruction.

Live one-on-one tutoring

Recent improvements in the speed and quality of videoconferencing, as well as in the connectivity of remote areas, have enabled yet another way in which technology can help personalization: live (i.e., real-time) one-on-one tutoring. While the evidence on in-person tutoring is scarce in developing countries, existing studies suggest that this approach works best when it is used to personalize instruction (see, e.g., Banerjee et al., 2007; Banerji, Berry, & Shotland, 2015; Cabezas, Cuesta, & Gallego, 2011).

There are almost no studies on the impact of online tutoring—possibly, due to the lack of hardware and Internet connectivity in low- and middle-income countries. One exception is Chemin and Oledan (2020)’s recent evaluation of an online tutoring program for grade 6 students in Kianyaga, Kenya to learn English from volunteers from a Canadian university via Skype ( videoconferencing software) for one hour per week after school. After 10 months, program beneficiaries performed 0.22 SDs better in a test of oral comprehension, improved their comfort using technology for learning, and became more willing to engage in cross-cultural communication. Importantly, while the tutoring sessions used the official English textbooks and sought in part to help learners with their homework, tutors were trained on several strategies to teach to each learner’s individual level of preparation, focusing on basic skills if necessary. To our knowledge, similar initiatives within a country have not yet been rigorously evaluated.

Expanding opportunities for practice

A third way in which technology may improve the quality of education is by providing learners with additional opportunities for practice. In many developing countries, lesson time is primarily devoted to lectures, in which the educator explains the topic and the learners passively copy explanations from the blackboard. This setup leaves little time for in-class practice. Consequently, learners who did not understand the explanation of the material during lecture struggle when they have to solve homework assignments on their own. Technology could potentially address this problem by allowing learners to review topics at their own pace.

Practice exercises

Technology can help learners get more out of traditional instruction by providing them with opportunities to implement what they learn in class. This approach could, in theory, allow some learners to anchor their understanding of the material through trial and error (i.e., by realizing what they may not have understood correctly during lecture and by getting better acquainted with special cases not covered in-depth in class).

Existing evidence on practice exercises reflects both the promise and the limitations of this use of technology in developing countries. For example, Lai et al. (2013) evaluated a program in Shaanxi, China where students in grades 3 and 5 were required to attend two 40-minute remedial sessions per week in which they first watched videos that reviewed the material that had been introduced in their math lessons that week and then played games to practice the skills introduced in the video. After four months, the intervention improved math achievement by 0.12 SDs. Many other evaluations of comparable interventions have found similar small-to-moderate results (see, e.g., Lai, Luo, Zhang, Huang, & Rozelle, 2015; Lai et al., 2012; Mo et al., 2015; Pitchford, 2015). These effects, however, have been consistently smaller than those of initiatives that adjust the difficulty of the material based on students’ performance (e.g., Banerjee et al., 2007; Muralidharan, et al., 2019). We hypothesize that these programs do little for learners who perform several grade levels behind curricular expectations, and who would benefit more from a review of foundational concepts from earlier grades.

We see two important limitations from this research. First, most initiatives that have been evaluated thus far combine instructional videos with practice exercises, so it is hard to know whether their effects are driven by the former or the latter. In fact, the program in China described above allowed learners to ask their peers whenever they did not understand a difficult concept, so it potentially also captured the effect of peer-to-peer collaboration. To our knowledge, no studies have addressed this gap in the evidence.

Second, most of these programs are implemented before or after school, so we cannot distinguish the effect of additional instructional time from that of the actual opportunity for practice. The importance of this question was first highlighted by Linden (2008), who compared two delivery mechanisms for game-based remedial math software for students in grades 2 and 3 in a network of schools run by a nonprofit organization in Gujarat, India: one in which students interacted with the software during the school day and another one in which students interacted with the software before or after school (in both cases, for three hours per day). After a year, the first version of the program had negatively impacted students’ math achievement by 0.57 SDs and the second one had a null effect. This study suggested that computer-assisted learning is a poor substitute for regular instruction when it is of high quality, as was the case in this well-functioning private network of schools.

In recent years, several studies have sought to remedy this shortcoming. Mo et al. (2014) were among the first to evaluate practice exercises delivered during the school day. They evaluated an initiative in Shaanxi, China in which students in grades 3 and 5 were required to interact with the software similar to the one in Lai et al. (2013) for two 40-minute sessions per week. The main limitation of this study, however, is that the program was delivered during regularly scheduled computer lessons, so it could not determine the impact of substituting regular math instruction. Similarly, Mo et al. (2020) evaluated a self-paced and a teacher-directed version of a similar program for English for grade 5 students in Qinghai, China. Yet, the key shortcoming of this study is that the teacher-directed version added several components that may also influence achievement, such as increased opportunities for teachers to provide students with personalized assistance when they struggled with the material. Ma, Fairlie, Loyalka, and Rozelle (2020) compared the effectiveness of additional time-delivered remedial instruction for students in grades 4 to 6 in Shaanxi, China through either computer-assisted software or using workbooks. This study indicates whether additional instructional time is more effective when using technology, but it does not address the question of whether school systems may improve the productivity of instructional time during the school day by substituting educator-led with computer-assisted instruction.

Increasing learner engagement

Another way in which technology may improve education is by increasing learners’ engagement with the material. In many school systems, regular “chalk and talk” instruction prioritizes time for educators’ exposition over opportunities for learners to ask clarifying questions and/or contribute to class discussions. This, combined with the fact that many developing-country classrooms include a very large number of learners (see, e.g., Angrist & Lavy, 1999; Duflo, Dupas, & Kremer, 2015), may partially explain why the majority of those students are several grade levels behind curricular expectations (e.g., Muralidharan, et al., 2019; Muralidharan & Zieleniak, 2014; Pritchett & Beatty, 2015). Technology could potentially address these challenges by: (a) using video tutorials for self-paced learning and (b) presenting exercises as games and/or gamifying practice.

Video tutorials

Technology can potentially increase learner effort and understanding of the material by finding new and more engaging ways to deliver it. Video tutorials designed for self-paced learning—as opposed to videos for whole class instruction, which we discuss under the category of “prerecorded lessons” above—can increase learner effort in multiple ways, including: allowing learners to focus on topics with which they need more help, letting them correct errors and misconceptions on their own, and making the material appealing through visual aids. They can increase understanding by breaking the material into smaller units and tackling common misconceptions.

In spite of the popularity of instructional videos, there is relatively little evidence on their effectiveness. Yet, two recent evaluations of different versions of the Khan Academy portal, which mainly relies on instructional videos, offer some insight into their impact. First, Ferman, Finamor, and Lima (2019) evaluated an initiative in 157 public primary and middle schools in five cities in Brazil in which the teachers of students in grades 5 and 9 were taken to the computer lab to learn math from the platform for 50 minutes per week. The authors found that, while the intervention slightly improved learners’ attitudes toward math, these changes did not translate into better performance in this subject. The authors hypothesized that this could be due to the reduction of teacher-led math instruction.

More recently, Büchel, Jakob, Kühnhanss, Steffen, and Brunetti (2020) evaluated an after-school, offline delivery of the Khan Academy portal in grades 3 through 6 in 302 primary schools in Morazán, El Salvador. Students in this study received 90 minutes per week of additional math instruction (effectively nearly doubling total math instruction per week) through teacher-led regular lessons, teacher-assisted Khan Academy lessons, or similar lessons assisted by technical supervisors with no content expertise. (Importantly, the first group provided differentiated instruction, which is not the norm in Salvadorian schools). All three groups outperformed both schools without any additional lessons and classrooms without additional lessons in the same schools as the program. The teacher-assisted Khan Academy lessons performed 0.24 SDs better, the supervisor-led lessons 0.22 SDs better, and the teacher-led regular lessons 0.15 SDs better, but the authors could not determine whether the effects across versions were different.

Together, these studies suggest that instructional videos work best when provided as a complement to, rather than as a substitute for, regular instruction. Yet, the main limitation of these studies is the multifaceted nature of the Khan Academy portal, which also includes other components found to positively improve learner achievement, such as differentiated instruction by students’ learning levels. While the software does not provide the type of personalization discussed above, learners are asked to take a placement test and, based on their score, educators assign them different work. Therefore, it is not clear from these studies whether the effects from Khan Academy are driven by its instructional videos or to the software’s ability to provide differentiated activities when combined with placement tests.

Games and gamification

Technology can also increase learner engagement by presenting exercises as games and/or by encouraging learner to play and compete with others (e.g., using leaderboards and rewards)—an approach known as “gamification.” Both approaches can increase learner motivation and effort by presenting learners with entertaining opportunities for practice and by leveraging peers as commitment devices.

There are very few studies on the effects of games and gamification in low- and middle-income countries. Recently, Araya, Arias Ortiz, Bottan, and Cristia (2019) evaluated an initiative in which grade 4 students in Santiago, Chile were required to participate in two 90-minute sessions per week during the school day with instructional math software featuring individual and group competitions (e.g., tracking each learner’s standing in his/her class and tournaments between sections). After nine months, the program led to improvements of 0.27 SDs in the national student assessment in math (it had no spillover effects on reading). However, it had mixed effects on non-academic outcomes. Specifically, the program increased learners’ willingness to use computers to learn math, but, at the same time, increased their anxiety toward math and negatively impacted learners’ willingness to collaborate with peers. Finally, given that one of the weekly sessions replaced regular math instruction and the other one represented additional math instructional time, it is not clear whether the academic effects of the program are driven by the software or the additional time devoted to learning math.

The prognosis:

How can school systems adopt interventions that match their needs.

Here are five specific and sequential guidelines for decisionmakers to realize the potential of education technology to accelerate student learning.

1. Take stock of how your current schools, educators, and learners are engaging with technology .

Carry out a short in-school survey to understand the current practices and potential barriers to adoption of technology (we have included suggested survey instruments in the Appendices); use this information in your decisionmaking process. For example, we learned from conversations with current and former ministers of education from various developing regions that a common limitation to technology use is regulations that hold school leaders accountable for damages to or losses of devices. Another common barrier is lack of access to electricity and Internet, or even the availability of sufficient outlets for charging devices in classrooms. Understanding basic infrastructure and regulatory limitations to the use of education technology is a first necessary step. But addressing these limitations will not guarantee that introducing or expanding technology use will accelerate learning. The next steps are thus necessary.

“In Africa, the biggest limit is connectivity. Fiber is expensive, and we don’t have it everywhere. The continent is creating a digital divide between cities, where there is fiber, and the rural areas.  The [Ghanaian] administration put in schools offline/online technologies with books, assessment tools, and open source materials. In deploying this, we are finding that again, teachers are unfamiliar with it. And existing policies prohibit students to bring their own tablets or cell phones. The easiest way to do it would have been to let everyone bring their own device. But policies are against it.” H.E. Matthew Prempeh, Minister of Education of Ghana, on the need to understand the local context.

2. Consider how the introduction of technology may affect the interactions among learners, educators, and content .

Our review of the evidence indicates that technology may accelerate student learning when it is used to scale up access to quality content, facilitate differentiated instruction, increase opportunities for practice, or when it increases learner engagement. For example, will adding electronic whiteboards to classrooms facilitate access to more quality content or differentiated instruction? Or will these expensive boards be used in the same way as the old chalkboards? Will providing one device (laptop or tablet) to each learner facilitate access to more and better content, or offer students more opportunities to practice and learn? Solely introducing technology in classrooms without additional changes is unlikely to lead to improved learning and may be quite costly. If you cannot clearly identify how the interactions among the three key components of the instructional core (educators, learners, and content) may change after the introduction of technology, then it is probably not a good idea to make the investment. See Appendix A for guidance on the types of questions to ask.

3. Once decisionmakers have a clear idea of how education technology can help accelerate student learning in a specific context, it is important to define clear objectives and goals and establish ways to regularly assess progress and make course corrections in a timely manner .

For instance, is the education technology expected to ensure that learners in early grades excel in foundational skills—basic literacy and numeracy—by age 10? If so, will the technology provide quality reading and math materials, ample opportunities to practice, and engaging materials such as videos or games? Will educators be empowered to use these materials in new ways? And how will progress be measured and adjusted?

4. How this kind of reform is approached can matter immensely for its success.

It is easy to nod to issues of “implementation,” but that needs to be more than rhetorical. Keep in mind that good use of education technology requires thinking about how it will affect learners, educators, and parents. After all, giving learners digital devices will make no difference if they get broken, are stolen, or go unused. Classroom technologies only matter if educators feel comfortable putting them to work. Since good technology is generally about complementing or amplifying what educators and learners already do, it is almost always a mistake to mandate programs from on high. It is vital that technology be adopted with the input of educators and families and with attention to how it will be used. If technology goes unused or if educators use it ineffectually, the results will disappoint—no matter the virtuosity of the technology. Indeed, unused education technology can be an unnecessary expenditure for cash-strapped education systems. This is why surveying context, listening to voices in the field, examining how technology is used, and planning for course correction is essential.

5. It is essential to communicate with a range of stakeholders, including educators, school leaders, parents, and learners .

Technology can feel alien in schools, confuse parents and (especially) older educators, or become an alluring distraction. Good communication can help address all of these risks. Taking care to listen to educators and families can help ensure that programs are informed by their needs and concerns. At the same time, deliberately and consistently explaining what technology is and is not supposed to do, how it can be most effectively used, and the ways in which it can make it more likely that programs work as intended. For instance, if teachers fear that technology is intended to reduce the need for educators, they will tend to be hostile; if they believe that it is intended to assist them in their work, they will be more receptive. Absent effective communication, it is easy for programs to “fail” not because of the technology but because of how it was used. In short, past experience in rolling out education programs indicates that it is as important to have a strong intervention design as it is to have a solid plan to socialize it among stakeholders.

Beyond reopening: A leapfrog moment to transform education?

On September 14, the Center for Universal Education (CUE) will host a webinar to discuss strategies, including around the effective use of education technology, for ensuring resilient schools in the long term and to launch a new education technology playbook “Realizing the promise: How can education technology improve learning for all?”

file-pdf Full Playbook – Realizing the promise: How can education technology improve learning for all? file-pdf References file-pdf Appendix A – Instruments to assess availability and use of technology file-pdf Appendix B – List of reviewed studies file-pdf Appendix C – How may technology affect interactions among students, teachers, and content?

About the Authors

Alejandro j. ganimian, emiliana vegas, frederick m. hess.

• Media Relations
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

How Technology Is Changing the Future of Higher Education

Labs test artificial intelligence, virtual reality and other innovations that could improve learning and lower costs for Generation Z and beyond.

By Jon Marcus

This article is part of our latest Learning special report . We’re focusing on Generation Z, which is facing challenges from changing curriculums and new technology to financial aid gaps and homelessness.

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Cruising to class in her driverless car, a student crams from notes projected on the inside of the windshield while she gestures with her hands to shape a 3-D holographic model of her architecture project.

It looks like science fiction, an impression reinforced by the fact that it is being demonstrated in virtual reality in an ultramodern space with overstuffed pillows for seats. But this scenario is based on technology already in development.

The setting is the Sandbox ColLABorative, the innovation arm of Southern New Hampshire University, on the fifth floor of a downtown building with panoramic views of the sprawling red brick mills that date from this city’s 19th-century industrial heyday.

It is one of a small but growing number of places where experts are testing new ideas that will shape the future of a college education, using everything from blockchain networks to computer simulations to artificial intelligence, or A.I.

Theirs is not a future of falling enrollment, financial challenges and closing campuses. It’s a brighter world in which students subscribe to rather than enroll in college, learn languages in virtual reality foreign streetscapes with avatars for conversation partners, have their questions answered day or night by A.I. teaching assistants and control their own digital transcripts that record every life achievement.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

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

10 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

Global Education Monitoring Report

• 2023 GEM REPORT

Technology in education

• Recommendations
• 2023 Webpage
• Press Release
• RELATED PUBLICATIONS
• Background papers
• 2021/2 GEM Report
• 2020 Report
• 2019 Report
• 2017/8 Report
• 2016 Report

A tool on whose terms?

Ismael Martínez Sánchez/ProFuturo

• Monitoring SDG 4
• 2023 webpage

Major advances in technology, especially digital technology, are rapidly transforming the world. Information and communication technology (ICT) has been applied for 100 years in education, ever since the popularization of radio in the 1920s. But it is the use of digital technology over the past 40 years that has the most significant potential to transform education. An education technology industry has emerged and focused, in turn, on the development and distribution of education content, learning management systems, language applications, augmented and virtual reality, personalized tutoring, and testing. Most recently, breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (AI), methods have increased the power of education technology tools, leading to speculation that technology could even supplant human interaction in education.

In the past 20 years, learners, educators and institutions have widely adopted digital technology tools. The number of students in MOOCs increased from 0 in 2012 to at least 220 million in 2021. The language learning application Duolingo had 20 million daily active users in 2023, and Wikipedia had 244 million page views per day in 2021. The 2018 PISA found that 65% of 15-year-old students in OECD countries were in schools whose principals agreed that teachers had the technical and pedagogical skills to integrate digital devices in instruction and 54% in schools where an effective online learning support platform was available; these shares are believed to have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Globally, the percentage of internet users rose from 16% in 2005 to 66% in 2022. About 50% of the world’s lower secondary schools were connected to the internet for pedagogical purposes in 2022.

The adoption of digital technology has resulted in many changes in education and learning. The set of basic skills that young people are expected to learn in school, at least in richer countries, has expanded to include a broad range of new ones to navigate the digital world. In many classrooms, paper has been replaced by screens and pens by keyboards. COVID-19 can be seen as a natural experiment where learning switched online for entire education systems virtually overnight. Higher education is the subsector with the highest rate of digital technology adoption, with online management platforms replacing campuses. The use of data analytics has grown in education management. Technology has made a wide range of informal learning opportunities accessible.

Yet the extent to which technology has transformed education needs to be debated. Change resulting from the use of digital technology is incremental, uneven and bigger in some contexts than others. The application of digital technology varies by community and socioeconomic level, by teacher willingness and preparedness, by education level, and by country income. Except in the most technologically advanced countries, computers and devices are not used in classrooms on a large scale. Technology use is not universal and will not become so any time soon. Moreover, evidence is mixed on its impact: Some types of technology seem to be effective in improving some kinds of learning. The short- and long-term costs of using digital technology appear to be significantly underestimated. The most disadvantaged are typically denied the opportunity to benefit from this technology.

Too much attention on technology in education usually comes at a high cost. Resources spent on technology, rather than on classrooms, teachers and textbooks for all children in low- and lower-middle-income countries lacking access to these resources are likely to lead to the world being further away from achieving the global education goal, SDG 4. Some of the world’s richest countries ensured universal secondary schooling and minimum learning competencies before the advent of digital technology. Children can learn without it.

However, their education is unlikely to be as relevant without digital technology. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines the purpose of education as promoting the ‘full development of the human personality’, strengthening ‘respect for … fundamental freedoms’ and promoting ‘understanding, tolerance and friendship’. This notion needs to move with the times. An expanded definition of the right to education could include effective support by technology for all learners to fulfil their potential, regardless of context or circumstance.

Clear objectives and principles are needed to ensure that technology use is of benefit and avoids harm. The negative and harmful aspects in the use of digital technology in education and society include risk of distraction and lack of human contact. Unregulated technology even poses threats to democracy and human rights, for instance through invasion of privacy and stoking of hatred. Education systems need to be better prepared to teach about and through digital technology, a tool that must serve the best interests of all learners, teachers and administrators. Impartial evidence showing that technology is being used in some places to improve education, and good examples of such use, need to be shared more widely so that the optimal mode of delivery can be assured for each context.

CAN TECHNOLOGY HELP SOLVE THE MOST IMPORTANT CHALLENGES IN EDUCATION?

Discussions about education technology are focused on technology rather than education. The first question should be: What are the most important challenges in education? As a basis for discussion, consider the following three challenges:

• Equity and inclusion: Is fulfilment of the right to choose the education one wants and to realize one’s full potential through education compatible with the goal of equality? If not, how can education become the great equalizer?
• Quality: Do education’s content and delivery support societies in achieving sustainable development objectives? If not, how can education help learners to not only acquire knowledge but also be agents of change?
• Efficiency: Does the current institutional arrangement of teaching learners in classrooms support the achievement of equity and quality? If not, how can education balance individualized instruction and socialization needs?

How best can digital technology be included in a strategy to tackle these challenges, and under what conditions? Digital technology packages and transmits information on an unprecedented scale at high speed and low cost. Information storage has revolutionized the volume of accessible knowledge. Information processing enables learners to receive immediate feedback and, through interaction with machines, adapt their learning pace and trajectory: Learners can organize the sequence of what they learn to suit their background and characteristics. Information sharing lowers the cost of interaction and communication. But while such technology has tremendous potential, many tools have not been designed for application to education. Not enough attention has been given to how they are applied in education and even less to how they should be applied in different education contexts.

On the question of equity and inclusion , ICT – and digital technology in particular – helps lower the education access cost for some disadvantaged groups: Those who live in remote areas are displaced, face learning difficulties, lack time or have missed out on past education opportunities. But while access to digital technology has expanded rapidly, there are deep divides in access. Disadvantaged groups own fewer devices, are less connected to the internet (Figure 1) and have fewer resources at home. The cost of much technology is falling rapidly but is still too high for some. Households that are better off can buy technology earlier, giving them more advantages and compounding disparity. Inequality in access to technology exacerbates existing inequality in access to education, a weakness exposed during the COVID-19 school closures.

Figure 1: Internet connectivity is highly unequal

Percentage of 3- to 17-year-olds with internet connection at home, by wealth quintile, selected countries, 2017–19 Source: UNICEF database.

Education quality is a multifaceted concept. It encompasses adequate inputs (e.g. availability of technology infrastructure), prepared teachers (e.g. teacher standards for technology use in classrooms), relevant content (e.g. integration of digital literacy in the curriculum) and individual learning outcomes (e.g. minimum levels of proficiency in reading and mathematics). But education quality should also encompass social outcomes. It is not enough for students to be vessels receiving knowledge; they need to be able to use it to help achieve sustainable development in social, economic and environmental terms.

There are a variety of views on the extent to which digital technologies can enhance education quality. Some argue that, in principle, digital technology creates engaging learning environments, enlivens student experiences, simulates situations, facilitates collaboration and expands connections. But others say digital technology tends to support an individualized approach to education, reducing learners’ opportunities to socialize and learn by observing each other in real-life settings. Moreover, just as new technology overcomes some constraints, it brings its own problems. Increased screen time has been associated with adverse impact on physical and mental health. Insufficient regulation has led to unauthorized use of personal data for commercial purposes. Digital technology has also helped spread misinformation and hate speech, including through education.

Improvements to efficiency may be the most promising way for digital technology to make a difference in education. Technology is touted as being able to reduce the time students and teachers spend on menial tasks, time that can be used in other, educationally more meaningful activities. However, there are conflicting views on what is meaningful. The way that education technology is used is more complex than just a substitution of resources. Technology may be one-to-many, one-to-one or peer-to-peer technology. It may require students to learn alone or with others, online or offline, independently or networked. It delivers content, creates learner communities and connects teachers with students. It provides access to information. It may be used for formal or informal learning and can assess what has been learned. It is used as a tool for productivity, creativity, communication, collaboration, design and data management. It may be professionally produced or have user-generated content. It may be specific to schools and place-based or transcend time and place. As in any complex system, each technology tool involves distinct infrastructure, design, content and pedagogy, and each may promote different types of learning.

Technology is evolving too fast to permit evaluation that could inform decisions on legislation, policy and regulation. Research on technology in education is as complex as technology itself. Studies evaluate experiences of learners of various ages using various methodologies applied in contexts as different as self-study, classrooms and schools of diverse sizes and features, non-school settings, and at system level. Findings that apply in some contexts are not always replicable elsewhere. Some conclusions can be drawn from long-term studies as technologies mature but there is an endless stream of new products. Meanwhile, not all impact can be easily measured, given technology’s ubiquity, complexity, utility and heterogeneity. In brief, while there is much general research on education technology, the amount of research for specific applications and contexts is insufficient, making it difficult to prove that a particular technology enhances a particular kind of learning.

Why is there often the perception nevertheless that technology can address major education challenges? To understand the discourse around education technology, it is necessary to look behind the language being used to promote it, and the interests it serves. Who frames the problems technology should address? What are the consequences of such framing for education? Who promotes education technology as a precondition for education transformation? How credible are such claims? What criteria and standards need to be set to evaluate digital technology’s current and potential future contribution to education so as to separate hype from substance? Can evaluation go beyond short-term assessments of impact on learning and capture potential far-reaching consequences of the generalized use of digital technology in education?

Exaggerated claims about technology go hand in hand with exaggerated estimates of its global market size. In 2022, business intelligence providers’ estimates ranged from USD 123 billion to USD 300 billion. These accounts are almost always projected forward, predicting optimistic expansion, yet they fail to give historic trends and verify whether past projections proved true. Such reporting routinely characterizes education technology as essential and technology companies as enablers and disruptors. If optimistic projections are not fulfilled, responsibility is implicitly placed on governments as a way of maintaining indirect pressure on them to increase procurement. Education is criticized as being slow to change, stuck in the past and a laggard when it comes to innovation. Such coverage plays on users’ fascination with novelty but also their fear of being left behind.

The sections below further explore the three challenges this report addresses: equity and inclusion (in terms of access to education for disadvantaged groups and access to content), quality (in terms of teaching through and about digital technology) and efficiency (in terms of education management). After identifying technology’s potential to tackle these challenges, it discusses three conditions that need to be met for that potential to be fulfilled: equitable access, appropriate governance and regulation, and sufficient teacher capacity.

EQUITY AND INCLUSION: ACCESS FOR DISADVANTAGED GROUPS

A wide range of technology brings education to hard-to-reach learners. Technology has historically opened up education to learners facing significant obstacles in access to schools or well-trained teachers. Interactive radio instruction is used in nearly 40 countries. In Nigeria, radio instruction combined with print and audiovisual materials has been used since the 1990s, reaching nearly 80% of nomads and increasing their literacy, numeracy and life skills. Television has helped educate marginalized groups, notably in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Telesecundaria programme in Mexico, combining televised lessons with in-class support and extensive teacher training, increased secondary school enrolment by 21%. Mobile learning devices, often the only type of device accessible to disadvantaged learners, have been used in hard-to-reach areas and emergencies to share educational materials; complement in-person or remote channels; and foster interactions between students, teachers and parents, notably during COVID-19. Adults have been the main target of online distance learning, with open universities having increased participation for both working and disadvantaged adults.

Inclusive technology supports accessibility and personalization for learners with disabilities. Assistive technology removes learning and communication barriers, with numerous studies reporting a significant positive impact on academic engagement, social participation and the well-being of learners with disabilities. However, such devices remain inaccessible and unaffordable in many countries, and teachers often lack specialized training to use them effectively in learning environments. While people with disabilities used to rely exclusively on specialized devices to gain access to education, technology platforms and devices are increasingly incorporating accessibility features, which support inclusive, personalized learning for all students.

Technology supports learning continuity in emergencies. Mapping of 101 distance education projects in crisis contexts in 2020 showed that 70% used radio, television and basic mobile phones. During the Boko Haram crisis in Nigeria, the Technology Enhanced Learning for All programme used mobile phones and radios to support the learning continuity of 22,000 disadvantaged children, with recorded improvement in literacy and numeracy skills. However, there are significant gaps in terms of rigorous evaluation of education technology in emergencies, despite some limited recorded impact. Meanwhile, most projects are led by non-state actors as short-term crisis responses, raising sustainability concerns; education ministries implemented only 12% of the 101 projects.

Technology supported learning during COVID-19, but millions were left out. During school closures, 95% of education ministries carried out some form of distance learning, potentially reaching over 1 billion students globally. Many of the resources used during the pandemic were first developed in response to previous emergencies or rural education, with some countries building on decades of experience with remote learning. Sierra Leone revived the Radio Teaching Programme, developed during the Ebola crisis, one week after schools closed. Mexico expanded content from its Telesecundaria programme to all levels of education. However, at least half a billion, or 31% of students worldwide – mostly the poorest (72%) and those in rural areas (70%) – could not be reached by remote learning. Although 91% of countries used online learning platforms to deliver distance learning during school closures, the platforms only reached a quarter of students globally. For the rest, low-tech interventions such as radio and television were largely used, in combination with paper-based materials and mobile phones for increased interactivity.

Some countries are expanding existing platforms to reach marginalized groups. Less than half of all countries developed long-term strategies for increasing their resilience and the sustainability of interventions as part of their COVID-19 response plans. Many have abandoned distance learning platforms developed during COVID-19, while others are repurposing them to reach marginalized learners. The digital platform set up in Ukraine during the pandemic was expanded once the war broke out in 2022, allowing 85% of schools to complete the academic year.

EQUITY AND INCLUSION: ACCESS TO CONTENT

Technology facilitates content creation and adaptation. Open educational resources (OERs) encourage the reuse and repurposing of materials to cut development time, avoid duplication of work and make materials more context-specific or relevant to learners. They also significantly reduce the cost of access to content. In the US state of North Dakota, an initial investment of USD 110,000 to shift to OERs led to savings of over USD 1 million in student costs. Social media increases access to user-generated content. YouTube, a major player in both formal and informal learning, is used by about 80% of the world’s top 113 universities. Moreover, collaborative digital tools can improve the diversity and quality of content creation. In South Africa, the Siyavule initiative supported tutor collaboration on the creation of primary and secondary education textbooks.

Digitization of educational content simplifies access and distribution. Many countries, including Bhutan and Rwanda, have created static digital versions of traditional textbooks to increase availability. Others, including India and Sweden, have produced digital textbooks that encourage interactivity and multimodal learning. Digital libraries and educational content repositories such as the National Academic Digital Library of Ethiopia, National Digital Library of India and Teachers Portal in Bangladesh help teachers and learners find relevant materials. Learning management platforms, which have become a key part of the contemporary learning environment, help organize content by integrating digital resources into course structures.

Open access resources help overcome barriers. Open universities and MOOCs can eliminate time, location and cost barriers to access. In Indonesia, where low participation in tertiary education is largely attributed to geographical challenges, MOOCs play an important role in expanding access to post-secondary learning. During COVID-19, MOOC enrolment surged, with the top three providers adding as many users in April 2020 as in all of 2019. Technology can also remove language barriers. Translation tools help connect teachers and learners from various countries and increase the accessibility of courses by non-native students.

Ensuring and assessing the quality of digital content is difficult. The sheer quantity of content and its decentralized production pose logistical challenges for evaluation. Several strategies have been implemented to address this. China established specific quality criteria for MOOCs to be nationally recognized. The European Union developed its OpenupED quality label. India strengthened the link between non-formal and formal education. Micro-credentials are increasingly used to ensure that institution and learner both meet minimum standards. Some platforms aim to improve quality by recentralizing content production. YouTube, for example, has been funnelling financing and resources to a few trusted providers and partnering with well-established education institutions.

Technology may reinforce existing inequality in both access to and production of content. Privileged groups still produce most content. A study of higher-education repositories with OER collections found that nearly 90% were created in Europe or North America; 92% of the material in the OER Commons global library is in English. This influences who has access to digital content. MOOCs, for example, mainly benefit educated learners – studies have shown around 80% of participants on major platforms already have a tertiary degree – and those from richer countries. The disparity is due to divides in digital skills, internet access, language and course design. Regional MOOCs cater to local needs and languages but can also worsen inequality.

TEACHING AND LEARNING

Technology has been used to support teaching and learning in multiple ways. Digital technology offers two broad types of opportunities. First, it can improve instruction by addressing quality gaps, increasing opportunities to practise, increasing available time and personalizing instruction. Second, it can engage learners by varying how content is represented, stimulating interaction and prompting collaboration. Systematic reviews over the past two decades on technology’s impact on learning find small to medium-sized positive effects compared to traditional instruction. However, evaluations do not always isolate technology’s impact in an intervention, making it difficult to attribute positive effects to technology alone rather than to other factors, such as added instruction time, resources or teacher support. Technology companies can have disproportionate influence on evidence production. For example, Pearson funded studies contesting independent analysis that showed its products had no impact.

The prevalence of ICT use in classrooms is not high, even in the world’s richest countries. The 2018 PISA found that only about 10% of 15-year-old students in over 50 participating education systems used digital devices for more than an hour a week in mathematics and science lessons, on average (Figure 2) . The 2018 International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) showed that in the 12 participating education systems, simulation and modelling software in classrooms was available to just over one third of students, with country levels ranging from 8% in Italy to 91% in Finland.

Figure 2: Even in upper-middle- and high-income countries, technology use in mathematics and science classrooms is limited

Percentage of 15-year-old students who used digital devices for at least one hour per week in mathematics or science classroom lessons, selected upper-middle- and high-income countries, 2018 Source: 2018 PISA database.

Recorded lessons can address teacher quality gaps and improve teacher time allocation. In China, lesson recordings from high-quality urban teachers were delivered to 100 million rural students. An impact evaluation showed improvements in Chinese skills by 32% and a 38% long-term reduction in the rural–urban earning gap. However, just delivering materials without contextualizing and providing support is insufficient. In Peru, the One Laptop Per Child programme distributed over 1 million laptops loaded with content, but no positive impact on learning resulted, partly due to the focus on provision of devices instead of the quality of pedagogical integration.

Enhancing technology-aided instruction with personalization can improve some types of learning. Personalized adaptive software generates analytics that can help teachers track student progress, identify error patterns, provide differentiated feedback and reduce workload on routine tasks. Evaluations of the use of a personalized adaptive software in India documented learning gains in after-school settings and for low-performing students. However, not all widely used software interventions have strong evidence of positive effects compared to teacher-led instruction. A meta-analysis of studies on an AI learning and assessment system that has been used by over 25 million students in the United States found it was no better than traditional classroom teaching in improving outcomes.

Varied interaction and visual representation can enhance student engagement. A meta-analysis of 43 studies published from 2008 to 2019 found that digital games improved cognitive and behavioural outcomes in mathematics. Interactive whiteboards can support teaching and learning if well integrated in pedagogy; but in the United Kingdom, despite large-scale adoption, they were mostly used to replace blackboards. Augmented, mixed or virtual reality used as an experiential learning tool for repeated practice in life-like conditions in technical, vocational and scientific subjects is not always as effective as real-life training but may be superior to other digital methods, such as video demonstrations.

Technology offers teachers low-cost and convenient ways to communicate with parents. The Colombian Institute of Family Welfare’s distance education initiative, which targeted 1.7 million disadvantaged children, relied on social media platforms to relay guidance to caregivers on pedagogical activities at home. However, uptake and effectiveness of behavioural interventions targeting caregivers are limited by parental education levels, as well as lack of time and material resources.

Student use of technology in classrooms and at home can be distracting, disrupting learning. A meta-analysis of research on student mobile phone use and its impact on education outcomes, covering students from pre-primary to higher education in 14 countries, found a small negative effect, and a larger one at the university level. Studies using PISA data indicate a negative association between ICT use and student performance beyond a threshold of moderate use. Teachers perceive tablet and phone use as hampering classroom management. More than one in three teachers in seven countries participating in the 2018 ICILS agreed that ICT use in classrooms distracted students. Online learning relies on student ability to self-regulate and may put low-performing and younger learners at increased risk of disengagement.

DIGITAL SKILLS

The definition of digital skills has been evolving along with digital technology. An analysis for this report shows that 54% of countries have identified digital skills standards for learners. The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (DigComp), developed on behalf of the European Commission, has five competence areas: information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content creation, safety, and problem-solving. Some countries have adopted digital skills frameworks developed by non-state, mostly commercial, actors. The International Computer Driving Licence (ICDL) has been promoted as a ‘digital skills standard’ but is associated mainly with Microsoft applications. Kenya and Thailand have endorsed the ICDL as the digital literacy standard for use in schools.

Digital skills are unequally distributed. In the 27 European Union (EU) countries, 54% of adults had at least basic digital skills in 2021. In Brazil, 31% of adults had at least basic skills, but the level was twice as high in urban as in rural areas, three times as high among those in the labour force as among those outside it, and nine times as high in the top socioeconomic group as in the two bottom groups. The overall gender gap in digital skills is small, but wider in specific skills. In 50 countries, 6.5% of males and 3.2% of females could write a computer program. In Belgium, Hungary and Switzerland, no more than 2 women for every 10 men could program; in Albania, Malaysia and Palestine, 9 women for every 10 men could do so. According to the 2018 PISA, 5% of 15-year-olds with the strongest reading skills but 24% of those with the weakest ones were at risk of being misled by a typical phishing email.

Formal skills training may not be the main way of acquiring digital skills. About one quarter of adults in EU countries, ranging from 16% in Italy to 40% in Sweden, had acquired skills through a ‘formalised educational institution’. Informal learning, such as self-study and informal assistance from colleagues, relatives and friends, was used by twice as many. Still, formal education is important: In 2018, those with tertiary education in Europe were twice as likely (18%) as those with upper secondary education (9%) to engage in free online training or self-study to improve their computer, software or application use. Solid mastery of literacy and numeracy skills is positively associated with mastery of at least some digital skills.

A curriculum content mapping of 16 education systems showed that Greece and Portugal dedicated less than 10% of the curriculum to data and media literacy while Estonia and the Republic of Korea embedded both in half their curricula. In some countries, media literacy in curricula is explicitly connected to critical thinking in subject disciplines, as under Georgia’s New School Model. Asia is characterized by a protectionist approach to media literacy that prioritizes information control over education. But in the Philippines, the Association for Media and Information Literacy successfully advocated for incorporation of media and information literacy in the curriculum, and it is now a core subject in grades 11 and 12.

Digital skills in communication and collaboration matter in hybrid learning arrangements. Argentina promoted teamwork skills as part of a platform for programming and robotics competitions in primary and secondary education. Mexico offers teachers and students digital education resources and tools for remote collaboration, peer learning and knowledge sharing. Ethical digital behaviour includes rules, conventions and standards to be learned, understood and practised by digital users when using digital spaces. Digital communication’s anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity and minimization of authority can make it difficult for individuals to understand its complexities.

Competences in digital content creation include selecting appropriate delivery formats and creating copy, audio, video and visual assets; integrating digital content; and respecting copyright and licences. The ubiquitous use of social media has turned content creation into a skill with direct application in electronic commerce. In Indonesia, the Siberkreasi platform counts collaborative engagement among its core activities. The Kenya Copyright Board collaborates closely with universities to provide copyright education and conducts frequent training sessions for students in the visual arts and ICT.

Education systems need to strengthen preventive measures and respond to many safety challenges, from passwords to permissions, helping learners understand the implications of their online presence and digital footprint. In Brazil, 29% of schools have conducted debates or lectures on privacy and data protection. In New Zealand, the Te Mana Tūhono (Power of Connectivity) programme delivers digital protection and security services to almost 2,500 state and state-integrated schools. A systematic review of interventions in Australia, Italy, Spain and the United States estimated that the average programme had a 76% chance of reducing cyberbullying perpetration. In Wales, United Kingdom, the government has advised schools how to prepare for and respond to harmful viral online content and hoaxes.

The definition of problem-solving skills varies widely among education systems. Many countries perceive them in terms of coding and programming and as part of a computer science curriculum that includes computational thinking, algorithm use and automation. A global review estimated that 43% of students in high-income countries, 62% in upper-middle-income, 5% in lower-middle-income but no students in low-income countries take computer science as compulsory in primary and/or secondary education. Only 20% of education systems require schools to offer computer science as an elective or core course. Non-state actors often support coding and programming skills. In Chile, Code.org has partnered with the government to provide educational resources in computer science.

EDUCATION MANAGEMENT

Education management information systems focus on efficiency and effectiveness. Education reforms have been characterized by increased school autonomy, target setting and results-based performance, all of which require more data. By one measure, since the 1990s, the number of policies making reference to data, statistics and information has increased by 13 times in high-income, 9 times in upper-middle-income, and 5 times in low- and lower-middle-income countries. But only 54% of countries globally – and as low as 22% in sub-Saharan Africa – have unique student identification mechanisms.

Geospatial data can support education management. Geographical information systems help address equity and efficiency in infrastructure and resource distribution in education systems. School mapping has been used to foster diversity and reduce inequality of opportunity. Ireland links three databases to decide in which of its 314 planning areas to build new schools. Geospatial data can identify areas where children live too far from the nearest school. For instance, it has been estimated that 5% of the population in Guatemala and 41% in the United Republic of Tanzania live more than 3 kilometres away from the nearest primary school.

Education management information systems struggle with data integration. In 2017, Malaysia introduced the Education Data Repository as part of its 2019–23 ICT Transformation Plan to progressively integrate its 350 education data systems and applications scattered across institutions. By 2019, it had integrated 12 of its main data systems, aiming for full integration through a single data platform by the end of 2023. In New Zealand, schools had been procuring student management systems independently and lack of interoperability between them was preventing authorities from tracking student progress. In 2019, the government began setting up the National Learner Repository and Data Exchange to be hosted in cloud data centres, but deployment was paused in 2021 due to cybersecurity concerns. European countries have been addressing interoperability concerns collectively to facilitate data sharing between countries and across multiple applications used in higher-education management through the EMREX project.

Computer-based assessments and computer adaptive testing have been replacing many paper-based assessments. They reduce test administration costs, improve measurement quality and provide rapid scoring. As more examinations shift online, the need for online cheating detection and proctoring tools has also increased. While these can reduce cheating, their effectiveness should be weighed against fairness and psychological effects. Evidence on the quality and usefulness of technology-based assessments has started to emerge, but much less is known about cost efficiency. Among 34 papers on technology-based assessments reviewed for this report, transparent data on cost were lacking.

Learning analytics can increase formative feedback and enable early detection systems. In China, learning analytics has been used to identify learners’ difficulties, predict learning trajectories and manage teacher resources. In the United States, Course Signals is a system used to flag the likelihood of a student not passing a course; educators can then target them for additional support. However, learning analytics requires all actors to have sufficient data literacy. Successful education systems typically have absorptive capacity, including strong school leaders and confident teachers willing to innovate. Yet often seemingly trivial issues, such as maintenance and repair, are ignored or underestimated.

ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY: EQUITY, EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY

Access to electricity and devices is highly unequal between and within countries. In 2021, almost 9% of the global population – and more than 70% of people in rural sub-Saharan Africa – lacked access to electricity. Globally, one in four primary schools do not have electricity. A 2018 study in Cambodia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Myanmar, Nepal and Niger found that 31% of public schools were on grid and 9% were off grid, with only 16% enjoying uninterrupted power supply. Globally, 46% of households had a computer at home in 2020; the share of schools with computers for pedagogical purposes was 47% in primary, 62% in lower secondary and 76% in upper secondary education. There were at most 10 computers per 100 students in Brazil and Morocco but 160 computers per 100 students in Luxembourg, according to the 2018 PISA.

Internet access, a vital enabler of economic, social and cultural rights, is also unequal. In 2022, two in three people globally used the internet. In late 2021, 55% of the world’s population had mobile broadband access. In low- and middle-income countries, 16% less women than men used mobile internet in 2021. An estimated 3.2 billion people do not use mobile internet services despite being covered by a mobile broadband network. Globally, 40% of primary, 50% of lower secondary and 65% of upper secondary schools are connected to the internet. In India, 53% of private unaided and 44% of private aided schools are connected, compared with only 14% of government schools.

Various policies are used to improve access to devices. Some one in five countries have policies granting subsidies or deductions to buy devices. One-to-one technology programmes were established in 30% of countries at one time; currently only 15% of countries pursue such programmes. A number of upper-middle- and high-income countries are shifting from providing devices to allowing students to use their own devices in school. Jamaica adopted a Bring Your Own Device policy framework in 2020 to aim for sustainability.

Some countries champion free and open source software. Education institutions with complex ICT infrastructure, such as universities, can benefit from open source software to add new solutions or functionalities. By contrast, proprietary software does not permit sharing and has vendor locks that hinder interoperability, exchange and updates. In India, the National e-Governance Plan makes it mandatory for all software applications and services used in government to be built on open source software to achieve efficiency, transparency, reliability and affordability.

Countries are committed to universal internet provision at home and in school. About 85% of countries have policies to improve school or learner connectivity and 38% have laws on universal internet provision. A review of 72 low- and middle-income countries found that 29 had used universal service funds to reduce costs for underserved groups. In Kyrgyzstan, renegotiated contracts helped cut prices by nearly half and almost doubled internet speed. In Costa Rica, the Hogares Conectados (Connected Households) programme, which provided an internet cost subsidy to the poorest 60% of households with school-age children, helped reduce the share of unconnected households from 41% in 2016 to 13% in 2019. Zero-rating, or providing free internet access for education or other purposes, has been used, especially during COVID-19, but is not without problems, as it violates the net neutrality principle.

Education technology is often underutilized. In the United States, an average of 67% of education software licences were unused and 98% were not used intensively. According to the EdTech Genome Project, 85% of some 7,000 pedagogical tools, which cost USD 13 billion, were ‘either a poor fit or implemented incorrectly’. Less than one in five of the top 100 education technology tools used in classrooms met the requirements of the US Every Student Succeeds Act. Research had been published for 39% of these tools but the research was aligned with the act in only 26% of cases.

Evidence needs to drive education technology decisions. A review in the United Kingdom found that only 7% of education technology companies had conducted randomized controlled trials, 12% had used third-party certification and 18% had engaged in academic studies. An online survey of teachers and administrators in 17 US states showed that only 11% requested peer-reviewed evidence prior to adopting education technology. Recommendations influence purchase decisions, yet ratings can be manipulated through fake reviews disseminated on social media. Few governments try to fill the evidence gap, so demand has grown for independent reviews. Edtech Tulna, a partnership between a private think tank and a public university in India, offers quality standards, an evaluation toolkit and publicly available expert reviews.

Education technology procurement decisions need to take economic, social and environmental sustainability into account. With respect to economic considerations, it is estimated that initial investment in education technology accounts for just 25% or less of the eventual total cost. Regarding social concerns, procurement processes need to address equity, accessibility, local ownership and appropriation. In France, the Territoires Numériques Educatifs (Digital Educational Territories) initiative was criticized because not all subsidized equipment met local needs, and local governments were left out of the decisions on which equipment to purchase. Both issues have since been addressed. Concerning environmental considerations, it has been estimated that extending the lifespan of all laptops in the European Union by a year would save the equivalent of taking almost 1 million cars off the road in terms of CO2 emissions.

Regulation needs to address risks in education technology procurement. Public procurement is vulnerable to collusion and corruption. In 2019, Brazil’s Comptroller General of the Union found irregularities in the electronic bidding process for the purchase of 1.3 million computers, laptops and notebooks for state and municipal public schools. Decentralizing public procurement to local governments is one way to balance some of the risks. Indonesia has used its SIPLah e-commerce platform to support school-level procurement processes. However, decentralization is vulnerable to weak organizational capacity. A survey of administrators in 54 US school districts found that they had rarely carried out needs assessments.

GOVERNANCE AND REGULATION

Governance of the education technology system is fragmented. A department or an agency responsible for education technology has been identified in 82% of countries. Placing education ministries in charge of education technology strategies and plans could help ensure that decisions are primarily based on pedagogical principles. However, this is the case in just 58% of countries. In Kenya, the 2019 National Information, Communications and Technology Policy led the Ministry of Information, Communications and Technology to integrate ICT at all levels of education.

Participation is often limited in the development of education technology strategies and plans. Nepal established a Steering and a Coordination Committee under the 2013–17 ICT in Education Master Plan for intersectoral and inter-agency coordination and cooperation in its implementation. Including administrators, teachers and students can help bridge the knowledge gap with decision makers to ensure that education technology choices are appropriate. In 2022, only 41% of US education sector leaders agreed that they were regularly included in planning and strategic conversations about technology.

The private sector’s commercial interests can clash with government equity, quality and efficiency goals. In India, the government alerted families about the hidden costs of free online content. Other risks relate to data use and protection, privacy, interoperability and lock-in effects, whereby students and teachers are compelled to use specific software or platforms. Google, Apple and Microsoft produce education platforms tied to particular hardware and operating systems.

Privacy risks to children make their learning environment unsafe. One analysis found that 89% of 163 education technology products recommended for children’s learning during the COVID-19 pandemic could or did watch children outside school hours or education settings. In addition, 39 of 42 governments providing online education during the pandemic fostered uses that ‘risked or infringed’ upon children’s rights. Data used for predictive algorithms can bias predictions and decisions and lead to discrimination, privacy violations and exclusion of disadvantaged groups. The Cyberspace Administration of China and the Ministry of Education introduced regulations in 2019 requiring parental consent before devices powered by AI, such as cameras and headbands, could be used with students in schools and required data to be encrypted.

Children’s exposure to screen time has increased. A survey of screen time of parents of 3- to 8-year-olds in Australia, China, Italy, Sweden and the United States found that their children’s screen exposure increased by 50 minutes during the pandemic for both education and leisure. Extended screen time can negatively affect self-control and emotional stability, increasing anxiety and depression. Few countries have strict regulations on screen time. In China, the Ministry of Education limited the use of digital devices as teaching tools to 30% of overall teaching time. Less than one in four countries are banning the use of smartphones in schools. Italy and the United States have banned the use of specific tools or social media from schools. Cyberbullying and online abuse are rarely defined as offences but can fall under existing laws, such as stalking laws as in Australia and harassment laws in Indonesia.

Monitoring of data protection law implementation is needed. Only 16% of countries explicitly guarantee data privacy in education by law and 29% have a relevant policy, mainly in Europe and Northern America. The number of cyberattacks in education is rising. Such attacks increase exposure to theft of identity and other personal data, but capacity and funds to address the issue are often insufficient. Globally, 5% of all ransomware attacks targeted the education sector in 2022, accounting for more than 30% of cybersecurity breaches. Regulations on sharing children’s personal information are rare but are starting to emerge under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. China and Japan have binding instruments on protecting children’s data and information.

Technology has an impact on the teaching profession. Technology allows teachers to choose, modify and generate educational materials. Personalized learning platforms offer teachers customized learning paths and insights based on student data. During the COVID-19 pandemic, France facilitated access to 17 online teaching resource banks mapped against the national curriculum. The Republic of Korea temporarily eased copyright restrictions for teachers. Online teacher-student collaboration platforms provide access to support services, facilitate work team creation, allow participation in virtual sessions and promote sharing of learning materials.

Obstacles to integrating technology in education prevent teachers from fully embracing it. Inadequate digital infrastructure and lack of devices hinder teachers’ ability to integrate technology in their practice. A survey in 165 countries during the pandemic found that two in five teachers used their own devices, and almost one third of schools had only one device for education use. Some teachers lack training to use digital devices effectively. Older teachers may struggle to keep up with rapidly changing technology. The 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) found that older teachers in 48 education systems had weaker skills and lower self-efficacy in using ICT. Some teachers may lack confidence. Only 43% of lower secondary school teachers in the 2018 TALIS said they felt prepared to use technology for teaching after training, and 78% of teachers in the 2018 ICILS were not confident in using technology for assessment.

Education systems support teachers in developing technology-related professional competencies. About half of education systems worldwide have ICT standards for teachers in a competency framework, teacher training framework, development plan or strategy. Education systems set up annual digital education days for teachers, promote OER, support the exchange of experiences and resources between teachers, and offer training. One quarter of education systems have legislation to ensure teachers are trained in technology, either through initial or in-service training. Some 84% of education systems have strategies for in-service teacher professional development, compared with 72% for pre-service teacher education in technology. Teachers can identify their development needs using digital self-assessment tools such as that provided by the Centre for Innovation in Brazilian Education.

Technology is changing teacher training. Technology is used to create flexible learning environments, engage teachers in collaborative learning, support coaching and mentoring, increase reflective practice, and improve subject or pedagogical knowledge. Distance education programmes have promoted teacher learning in South Africa and even equalled the impact of in-person training in Ghana. Virtual communities have emerged, primarily through social networks, for communication and resource sharing. About 80% of teachers surveyed in the Caribbean belonged to professional WhatsApp groups and 44% used instant messaging to collaborate at least once a week. In Senegal, the Reading for All programme used in-person and online coaching. Teachers considered face-to-face coaching more useful, but online coaching cost 83% less and still achieved a significant, albeit small, improvement in how teachers guided students’ reading practice. In Flanders, Belgium, KlasCement, a teacher community network created by a non-profit and now run by the Ministry of Education, expanded access to digital education and provided a platform for discussions on distance education during the pandemic.

Many actors support teacher professional development in ICT. Universities, teacher training institutions and research institutes provide specialized training, research opportunities and partnerships with schools for professional development in ICT. In Rwanda, universities collaborated with teachers and the government to develop the ICT Essentials for Teachers course. Teacher unions also advocate for policies that support teachers. The Confederation of Education Workers of the Argentine Republic established the right of teachers to disconnect. Civil society organizations, including the Carey Institute for Global Good, offer support through initiatives such as providing OER and online courses for refugee teachers in Chad, Kenya, Lebanon and Niger.

How Important Is Technology in Education? Benefits, Challenges, and Impact on Students

Many of today’s high-demand jobs were created in the last decade, according to the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). As advances in technology drive globalization and digital transformation, teachers can help students acquire the necessary skills to succeed in the careers of the future.

How important is technology in education? The COVID-19 pandemic is quickly demonstrating why online education should be a vital part of teaching and learning. By integrating technology into existing curricula, as opposed to using it solely as a crisis-management tool, teachers can harness online learning as a powerful educational tool.

The effective use of digital learning tools in classrooms can increase student engagement, help teachers improve their lesson plans, and facilitate personalized learning. It also helps students build essential 21st-century skills.

Virtual classrooms, video, augmented reality (AR), robots, and other technology tools can not only make class more lively, they can also create more inclusive learning environments that foster collaboration and inquisitiveness and enable teachers to collect data on student performance.

Still, it’s important to note that technology is a tool used in education and not an end in itself. The promise of educational technology lies in what educators do with it and how it is used to best support their students’ needs.

Educational Technology Challenges

BuiltIn reports that 92 percent of teachers understand the impact of technology in education. According to Project Tomorrow, 59 percent of middle school students say digital educational tools have helped them with their grades and test scores. These tools have become so popular that the educational technology market is projected to expand to $342 billion by 2025, according to the World Economic Forum.

However, educational technology has its challenges, particularly when it comes to implementation and use. For example, despite growing interest in the use of AR, artificial intelligence, and other emerging technology, less than 10 percent of schools report having these tools in their classrooms, according to Project Tomorrow. Additional concerns include excessive screen time, the effectiveness of teachers using the technology, and worries about technology equity.

Prominently rising from the COVID-19 crisis is the issue of content. Educators need to be able to develop and weigh in on online educational content, especially to encourage students to consider a topic from different perspectives. The urgent actions taken during this crisis did not provide sufficient time for this. Access is an added concern — for example, not every school district has resources to provide students with a laptop, and internet connectivity can be unreliable in homes.

Additionally, while some students thrive in online education settings, others lag for various factors, including support resources. For example, a student who already struggled in face-to-face environments may struggle even more in the current situation. These students may have relied on resources that they no longer have in their homes.

Still, most students typically demonstrate confidence in using online education when they have the resources, as studies have suggested. However, online education may pose challenges for teachers, especially in places where it has not been the norm.

Despite the challenges and concerns, it’s important to note the benefits of technology in education, including increased collaboration and communication, improved quality of education, and engaging lessons that help spark imagination and a search for knowledge in students.

The Benefits of Technology in Education

Teachers want to improve student performance, and technology can help them accomplish this aim. To mitigate the challenges, administrators should help teachers gain the competencies needed to enhance learning for students through technology. Additionally, technology in the classroom should make teachers’ jobs easier without adding extra time to their day.

Technology provides students with easy-to-access information, accelerated learning, and fun opportunities to practice what they learn. It enables students to explore new subjects and deepen their understanding of difficult concepts, particularly in STEM. Through the use of technology inside and outside the classroom, students can gain 21st-century technical skills necessary for future occupations.

Still, children learn more effectively with direction. The World Economic Forum reports that while technology can help young students learn and acquire knowledge through play, for example, evidence suggests that learning is more effective through guidance from an adult, such as a teacher.

Leaders and administrators should take stock of where their faculty are in terms of their understanding of online spaces. From lessons learned during this disruptive time, they can implement solutions now for the future. For example, administrators could give teachers a week or two to think carefully about how to teach courses not previously online. In addition to an exploration of solutions, flexibility during these trying times is of paramount importance.

Below are examples of how important technology is in education and the benefits it offers to students and teachers.

Increased Collaboration and Communication

Educational technology can foster collaboration. Not only can teachers engage with students during lessons, but students can also communicate with each other. Through online lessons and learning games, students get to work together to solve problems. In collaborative activities, students can share their thoughts and ideas and support each other. At the same time, technology enables one-on-one interaction with teachers. Students can ask classroom-related questions and seek additional help on difficult-to-understand subject matter. At home, students can upload their homework, and teachers can access and view completed assignments using their laptops.

Personalized Learning Opportunities

Technology allows 24/7 access to educational resources. Classes can take place entirely online via the use of a laptop or mobile device. Hybrid versions of learning combine the use of technology from anywhere with regular in-person classroom sessions. In both scenarios, the use of technology to tailor learning plans for each student is possible. Teachers can create lessons based on student interests and strengths. An added benefit is that students can learn at their own pace. When they need to review class material to get a better understanding of essential concepts, students can review videos in the lesson plan. The data generated through these online activities enable teachers to see which students struggled with certain subjects and offer additional assistance and support.

Curiosity Driven by Engaging Content

Through engaging and educational content, teachers can spark inquisitiveness in children and boost their curiosity, which research says has ties to academic success. Curiosity helps students get a better understanding of math and reading concepts. Creating engaging content can involve the use of AR, videos, or podcasts. For example, when submitting assignments, students can include videos or interact with students from across the globe.

Improved Teacher Productivity and Efficiency

Teachers can leverage technology to achieve new levels of productivity, implement useful digital tools to expand learning opportunities for students, and increase student support and engagement. It also enables teachers to improve their instruction methods and personalize learning. Schools can benefit from technology by reducing the costs of physical instructional materials, enhancing educational program efficiency, and making the best use of teacher time.

Become a Leader in Enriching Classrooms through Technology

Educators unfamiliar with some of the technology used in education may not have been exposed to the tools as they prepared for their careers or as part of their professional development. Teachers looking to make the transition and acquire the skills to incorporate technology in education can take advantage of learning opportunities to advance their competencies. For individuals looking to help transform the education system through technology, American University’s School of Education online offers a Master of Arts in Teaching and a Master of Arts in Education Policy and Leadership to prepare educators with essential tools to become leaders. Courses such as Education Program and Policy Implementation and Teaching Science in Elementary School equip graduate students with critical competencies to incorporate technology into educational settings effectively.

Learn more about American University’s School of Education online and its master’s degree programs.

Virtual Reality in Education: Benefits, Tools, and Resources

Data-Driven Decision Making in Education: 11 Tips for Teachers & Administration

Helping Girls Succeed in STEM

BuiltIn, “Edtech 101”

EdTech, “Teaching Teachers to Put Tech Tools to Work”

International Society for Technology in Education, “Preparing Students for Jobs That Don’t Exist”

The Journal, “How Teachers Use Technology to Enrich Learning Experiences”

Pediatric Research, “Early Childhood Curiosity and Kindergarten Reading and Math Academic Achievement”

Project Tomorrow, “Digital Learning: Peril or Promise for Our K-12 Students”

World Economic Forum, “The Future of Jobs Report 2018”

World Economic Forum, “Learning through Play: How Schools Can Educate Students through Technology”

Request Information

AU Program Helper

This AI chatbot provides automated responses, which may not always be accurate. By continuing with this conversation, you agree that the contents of this chat session may be transcribed and retained. You also consent that this chat session and your interactions, including cookie usage, are subject to our  privacy policy .

• Review article
• Open access
• Published: 14 December 2022

The use of technology in higher education teaching by academics during the COVID-19 emergency remote teaching period: a systematic review

• McQueen Sum   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7763-1105 1 &
• Alis Oancea 1  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  19 , Article number:  59 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

13k Accesses

19 Citations

6 Altmetric

Metrics details

This paper presents a systematic review of scholarly efforts that uniquely emerged at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and focused primarily on higher education teachers’ perspectives on technology use and on associated changes in the relationship between teachers and students amidst the transition to emergency remote teaching worldwide. Our narrative synthesis of 32 studies, the majority of which come from lower-and middle-income countries/regions, suggests that numerous factors interact to shape academics’ technology use in emergency remote teaching across higher education contexts. We report strong findings of teachers’ resilience and resourcefulness in their self-exploration of various technologies and teaching strategies in response to the continued severity of the pandemic. Ultimately, this review suggests directions for further research on engaging educational leaders and faculty in reimagining teaching as not only a core academic function of higher education, but also, and importantly, a humanising experience shaped by an ethics of care.

Review of literature and research questions

Since the continued devastating spread of COVID-19 across continents from early 2020, the coronavirus pandemic has led to massive numbers of hospitalisations and deaths around the world, abruptly upending public health and many other domains of life. As the disaster has unfolded, a multitude of sweeping challenges have continued to reshape the global higher education (‘HE’) landscape. With HE institutions (‘HEIs’) worldwide closing their campuses in Spring 2020, teachers were forced to make a hasty transition from typically in-person teaching configured in physically proximate space to alternative teaching approaches in response to the COVID-19 emergency (Crawford et al., 2020 ).

The term ‘emergency remote teaching’ (‘ERT’) is used by Hodges et al. ( 2020 ) and subsequent literature to denote the rapid and putatively ephemeral shift to remote teaching to continue teaching and learning during emergencies. Although ‘ERT’ and ‘online teaching’ may be two domains with considerable overlaps, ‘online teaching’ is importantly distinguished from ‘ERT’ as it includes teaching and learning arising from a prolonged collective effort in curriculum planning and instructional design from a wide range of stakeholders pre-launching (Hodges et al., 2020 ).

Despite the growing literature on ERT, few efforts had been made to review this body of research systematically at the time of conducting this review (see Table 1 for a few exceptions). Since there have been abundant discussions on the perspectives of students at the HE level during COVID-19 [see, for example, Chakraborty et al. ( 2021 ) on Indian students’ opinions on various aspects of ERT; Mok et al. ( 2021 ) on Hong Kong students’ evaluation of their learning experiences during ERT; Resch et al. ( 2022 ) on social and academic integration of Austrian students; and Salas-Pilco et al. ( 2022 ) for a systematic review focusing on student engagement in Latin American HE], our review focuses systematically on synthesising the body of worldwide literature on teachers’ perspectives on technology use during the period of ERT. Moreover, much attention has been devoted to medical education (Rajab et al., 2020 ; see also Table 1 ) and STEM education since the coronavirus outbreak (Amunga, 2021 ; Bond et al., 2021 ; Gaur et al., 2020 ; Singh-Pillay & Naidoo, 2020 ). Our review focuses on the less explored perspectives of humanities, arts, and social sciences (HASS) teachers—whose perceived difficulties of using digital technologies in teaching were reportedly distinct from those of their counterparts in other disciplines, both before (Mercader & Gairín, 2020 ) and during the COVID-19 outbreak (Wu et al., 2020 ).

Prior to COVID-19, a respectable amount of scholarly work was devoted to the development and adaptation of theoretical models to identify, explain, and even predict factors that influenced technology use in educational contexts (Granić & Marangunić, 2019 ). But Lee and Jung ( 2021 ) argue that ‘in higher education contexts, crisis-driven changes may happen differently from pre-planned, voluntary change, and that factors influencing crisis-driven changes are different from those influencing voluntary changes; as reported in previous studies based on technology acceptance theories and models’ (p. 16). Given the novelty of COVID-19, few studies have been conducted to explicate the factors shaping HE teachers’ decisions about, and experiences of, technology use in the unique context of the global pandemic [see Mittal et al. ( 2021 ) for an exception that studies faculty members in Northern India and Lee and Jung ( 2021 ) for another study on South Korean university educators]. Therefore, the first question that this review aims to answer is: How have different potential factors, as identified by teachers in the included studies, shaped teachers’ technology use across various higher education contexts during the COVID-19 emergency remote teaching period?

Existing scholarly efforts that aim to provide an overview of the literature focus predominantly on a bifurcated discussion of the opportunities and challenges, or advantages and disadvantages pertinent to using technologies in teaching during the COVID-19 crisis (Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020 ; Dhawan, 2020 ; Pokhrel & Chhetri, 2021 ; Stewart, 2021 ). We therefore frame the second research question in a way that circumvents a binary pros-and-cons discussion of the implications of technology use in times of the COVID pandemic, as already well-documented in the literature. Hence, our second question is: What are the implications of technology use in COVID-19 emergency remote teaching from the perspectives of higher education teachers?

The broader term ‘technology’ (in the singular form) used in the review questions includes the socio-cultural contexts of the educational settings in which technology use is situated. The discussion of ‘context’ is of particular importance (Selwyn, 2022 ). Although pre-COVID studies (such as Broadbent & Poon, 2015 ; Liu et al., 2020 ) offered valuable insights into technology use in HE teaching, the pandemic brought about starkly and often perilously different contexts for research as well as for teaching and learning (Stewart, 2021 ; Williamson et al., 2020 ).

We use the term ‘technologies’ in its plural form throughout this review, in a narrower sense, meaning specifically the wide range of digital tools and systems and other technical resources that are used for pedagogical purposes. These can include but are not limited to electronic hardware devices, software systems, online services, and social media. We note, however, that the meanings attached to the term ‘technologies’ may be substantively different across contexts. Some of the studies included in this review, as we will show below, extend it to other-than-digital forms of technologies, leading to results beyond our initial scope of research. As a result, the use of (digital) technologies is understood in this review as an often necessary but not sufficient condition for ERT—a novel concept to many teachers who had been using various ‘technologies’ in other ways in facilitating their teaching for years before the COVID-19 outbreak.

Methodology

Characterised by the principles of replicability and transparency, a systematic review aims to ‘review ... existing research using explicit, accountable rigorous research methods’ (Gough et al., 2017 , p. 4). This methodology is used because it helps elucidate the current understanding and available evidence of the above research questions, clarify any replication of existing research findings, and inform future research and policy directions in HE teaching in a systematic and trustworthy manner. Below is a detailed, transparent report of the processes involved in conducting this systematic review.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

Our review is restricted to peer-reviewed journal articles that report original empirical studies written in English and/or simplified Chinese. Papers written in these two languages account for a high volume of worldwide literature published at the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak. Also, Chinese studies are particularly valuable for this review, for mainland China was the first region affected by COVID-19 and its HE system was amongst the first to respond to the challenges ensuing from the spread of coronavirus.

Since the review seeks to capture a ‘snapshot’ of perspectives on technology use by teachers during the immediate COVID-19 outbreak, only articles published in 2020 (including those published online ahead of print that year) were eligible for review. Included publications may cover any country/region worldwide but should systematically gather data from teachers other than the authors themselves and focus primarily on the perspectives of HASS teachers on matters pertaining to technology use in ERT in HE settings. Opinion pieces, editorials, reflection articles on one’s own practice, conference papers, and books are not within the purview of this review (see Appendix 1  for detailed inclusion/exclusion criteria).

Search strategy

Prior to conducting the database search, we piloted and modified the search strings several times. Our final search strategy is a combination of Boolean operators and variations of four key terms: ‘higher education’, ‘technology’, ‘teaching’, and ‘COVID-19’ (see Appendix 2  for detailed search terms).

Screening and selection

On 13 January 2021, a targeted search returned 4204 records indexed in fourteen databases including Scopus, Web of Science, and three Chinese databases (see Appendix 3  for PRISMA flow diagram and the complete list of databases). From these, we extracted 20 different papers at random to screen by title and abstract independently by applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, and with the intention to repeat the process until unanimous agreement was reached. Having achieved full inter-reviewer agreement in our first attempt and after a further calibration session, we then proceeded to de-duplication and title-and-abstract screening, after which only 129 papers remained for full-text retrieval and further screening. Meanwhile, 16 relevant publications from various other sources were also identified and passed the initial screening. We then examined the full text of the resulting total of 145 articles and excluded any that did not fulfil the inclusion criteria, leading to a set of 40 studies to be considered for review.

Quality and relevance assessment and content extraction

To assess the 40 papers’ quality and relevance to this review, we adapted the assessment rubric from Oancea et al. ( 2021 ) (see Appendix 4 ). In parallel with the quality assessment, we developed a grid for content extraction by piloting on three papers, after which multiple revisions of the extraction grid were made. Then both authors used the updated extraction grid (see Appendix 5 ) and extracted content from two full papers independently to check for inter-reviewer agreement. In subsequent communications, discrepancies of our extraction were reconciled and the final quality thresholds for inclusion were agreed upon. As of May 2021, after excluding 8 papers of low quality, the final corpus for review comprised 32 articles.

Analysis and synthesis

We developed an initial coding scheme with broad theme boundaries based on the research questions, and resolved any conflicting views. We coded line-by-line the extracted data both deductively and inductively: we first applied the pre-configured coding scheme to the full set of data, and then updated and re-applied the coding scheme to include further themes identified through inductive coding. For example, we realised that the category of ‘ethical use of technology’ spanned the themes of ‘pedagogical implications’ and ‘work-related implications’. As a result we categorised it under a separate theme titled ‘cross-cutting implications’. After multiple rounds of scheme refinement and iterative coding which started in June 2021, the process of synthesis concluded in late December 2021.

The research synthesis is presented narratively; note that we integrated quantitative findings (for example, from surveys) descriptively into the narrative analysis, as in most cases the samples were not representative, the analysis was largely descriptive and findings from qualitative answers to open questions were presented in detail.

Limitations

Our review did not include insights from reflection pieces (such as Czerniewicz et al., 2020 ; Jandrić et al., 2020 ; Joseph & Trinick, 2021 ) and reports not published in peer-reviewed journals (such as Ferdig et al., 2020 ); these exclusions are not a judgment on either the quality or the level of insight of such pieces, nor on the modes of research and scholarship that they embody. This decision, as well as the focus on studies published in English and Chinese, limit the extent to which this review covers the experiences of ERT technology use by teacher populations across the world.

Due to our international remit, another limitation is the integration of findings grounded in different local contexts and HE environments. We overcome this partially by extracting from each paper the context in which teachers’ technology use is situated and taking such information into account when narratively integrating data across studies and presenting our review findings (see Appendix 5 ). However, the inconsistent terminology used to allude to the notions of ‘technology’ and ‘emergency remote teaching’ in the reviewed articles poses a major challenge to our cross-context comparison [see discussion on the jingle-jangle fallacy in Sum and Oancea ( 2021 )]. Another review conducted by Bond et al. ( 2021 ) also found at least ten different terms used for ‘online teaching’ (including ‘emergency remote teaching’) in their selected papers.

Although uniformly agreed-upon definitions of these terms are absent (Singh & Thurman, 2019 ), the nuances of concepts underlying them have not been given due consideration in the majority of the studies reviewed (see “ Description of included articles ” section). Further terminological complexity arises from the imperfect overlap between Chinese and English vocabularies. Whilst we tried to overcome this by extracting information on each study’s conceptualisation of ‘technology’ and ‘ERT’ (see Appendix 5 ) and accompanying translations with original Chinese terms (for example, the phrase ‘线上教学’ in Chinese can be sometimes translated into ‘online teaching and learning’), we acknowledge that terminological and translation gaps remain in our cross-context synthesis of the selected literature.

Description of included articles

Included in our final synthesis are 32 empirical research studies covering 71 countries and reporting perspectives from 4725 HE teachers altogether. Of these, the largest proportion focuses on the HE context in Asia (n = 15), followed by Europe (n = 7) and Africa (n = 6) (see Table 2 ). Given our inclusion of articles indexed in Chinese databases, Mainland China alone is the focal context of n = 5 studies. A wide range of subject areas in HASS disciplines are covered (see Table 3 ). Studies using qualitative data are most common (n = 14) (see Table 4 ), and a sample size of fewer than 50 teachers is often reported (n = 21) (see Table 5 ). Appendix 6 presents a summary of the characteristics of included studies.

Exactly half of the studies (n = 16) have a local remit (see Table 6 ), amongst which many recruited fellow academics from the authors’ institutions (n = 14). As noted by several researchers in their papers, the public health emergency and its concomitant restrictions had in various ways altered the methods for research and data collection, including shifting to a local focus whilst access to other settings was limited.

Authors of three quarters of the reviewed studies (n = 24) obtained data from participants remotely, either by phone or online. Much empirical data were collected in a space that was relatively new and unfamiliar to the researcher and the researched during a time when both individuals were coping with not only the expected expeditious embrace of various technologies for ERT but also, amongst other things, the physical and psychological burden posed by the coronavirus pandemic. Hence, this review integrates, in a systematic and holistic fashion, data from the discrete, often inevitably limited, yet valiant research initiatives undertaken in different countries during the periods of drastic increases in infections and deaths at the incipient phase of the COVID-19 outbreak.

In terms of substantive focus, whilst most of the included studies describe ‘what’ and/or ‘how’ technologies were being used by teachers during ERT (n = 14) and offer a dichotomous pros-or-cons narrative of technology use for ERT (n = 21), often vis-à-vis in-person teaching prior to COVID-19, some (n = 7) also examine the wider implications for teachers and HE at large.

Due partly to the novelty of COVID-19 and the haste with which research was conducted, the conceptualisation of technology and its relation with remote teaching in times of COVID-19 is either weak or largely absent in the majority of the reviewed studies. Technologically deterministic views seem prevalent in the literature reviewed. Many studies place ‘technology’ as the centre of inquiry and underscore the palpable ‘impact’ that various technical objects impose on teaching. For example, the attribution of recent pedagogical innovations and educational developments to technological advancements features prominently in the introductory paragraphs of numerous papers. Some assert that the emergence of social networking sites has begun to direct all walks of life including the ways in which teaching has been carried out since before the pandemic. Additionally, the discussion of ‘technology-enabled’ and ‘technology-enhanced’ teaching used in some articles implies that ‘technology’ plays an almost indispensable role in teaching and that teaching would be seriously disrupted without it. In contrast, there was little awareness in many of these papers of the extent to which technologies may carry political or commercial agendas or may be underpinned by complex ideologies and social structures (Selwyn et al., 2020 ). This echoes the conclusions of pre-COVID research by An and Oliver ( 2021 ) and Costa et al. ( 2019 ) that theoretical understanding of ‘technology’ in educational research is under-developed.

A brief narrative of ERT experiences from teachers’ perspectives

An eclectic range of technological artefacts and their uses during ERT across HE settings is reported in the studies. Cases of initial technology use range widely from straightforward approaches such as uploading teaching materials online to (mis)uses such as creating excessive recorded lectures and assignments. What is common, however, across reports in most studies is the acutely negative sentiments of intimidation, angst, confusion, and even despair of ERT amongst teachers at the outset of the transitioning period. It gave teachers great shock and pain to make a forced, often slapdash migration to ERT—a terrain that many of them were unfamiliar with and uncertain of—whilst juggling with their home and other work responsibilities during the distressing period. In addition to the psychological burden, teachers were worried about the well-being of their students, particularly those from underprivileged backgrounds and in vulnerable environments. Across HE settings worldwide, teachers had on average less than a week’s preparation time, leaving them feeling woefully unprepared. Hence, it is unsurprising that the majority of teachers in the studies reviewed found the immediate phase of migration to ERT burdensome and emotionally exhausting. Yet, some sought a silver lining and considered ERT as a creative challenge and an opportunity for a long-needed meaningful reflection and overhaul of HE teaching practices.

We mapped each included article’s findings about teachers’ overall attitudes towards ERT using the World Bank’s classification of country development (2020) (see Table 7 ). For studies not examining teachers’ attitudes directly, we inferred negative attitudes from teachers’ reports of dissatisfaction and frustrations over the challenges in ERT, and any indication of concern and anxiety; positive attitudes were inferred from teachers’ expressions of satisfaction and awareness of benefits brought by ERT, and any indication of optimism and hope.

Reports by teachers from higher-income countries/regions were more positive whilst those from lower-and middle-income countries/regions tended to be more negative, though with a few exceptions (for example, teachers in mainland China had relatively positive emotional responses and teachers of hearing-impaired students in high-income Saudi Arabia reported overwhelmingly negative emotional responses during the ERT period). In propitious circumstances, teachers’ emotional responses could change substantially over time from apprehension, frustration, and pessimism to relief, affirmation, and an eventual sense of achievement. Sometimes, as teachers gradually became conversant with various technological artefacts and encountered a suitable way of teaching, either serendipitously or after multiple experimentation, they eventually saw ERT as a humbling and rewarding experience. Some teachers evaluated the pedagogical revisions they made during ERT positively and even expressed the intention to keep part of their teaching online or expected to continue to use the technologies employed for ERT in the future.

Factors shaping technology use by teachers in ERT across HE contexts

The 32 papers reviewed include results on qualitative and quantitative factors identified by teacher participants that potentially shape teachers’ technology use in ERT. Note that these are not always empirically validated, nor explicitly identified as ‘factors’ in the included articles (particularly in qualitative accounts they may be described as reasons, drivers, challenges, barriers, and conditions). Thus, we adopted an open and inclusive definition of factors based on the implied or explicit direction of influence on ERT, and we grouped them thematically. Summary accounts of these thematic groupings based on the data presented in the review corpus are discussed below in descending order of the respective strength of evidence in the reviewed studies (see full references in Table 8 ).

Social-technological factors

Whilst Tartavulea et al. ( 2020 ) note that the transition to ERT can be facilitated by having online platforms and facilities, they also found that access to electronic devices and internet connection can be a luxury. Frequently reported technical concerns by teachers include the unreliability of network conditions, lack of devices and equipment, and limitations of digital infrastructure. These issues are not only powerful barriers to technology use in emergency teaching but they also disproportionately affect teachers and students in lower-income countries/regions. Note, however, that even in the context of an affluent country like the United States, teachers and students may report inequitable access to the necessities of ERT from home (Cutri et al., 2020 ; Sales et al., 2020 ).

Beneath the surface of these technical difficulties are the imbalanced allocation of resources and entrenched socio-economic problems which most commonly beset lower-and middle-income countries and regions (Tanga et al., 2020 ). Whilst the issues teachers face are highly contextualised, a considerable number of students come from underprivileged backgrounds. Even before the pandemic hit, these students had been confronting different challenges such as, particularly in lower-income countries, frequent commute of several miles from rural areas to the city for internet connection. Even if internet access were provided at home, these students would still need to overcome problems of intermittent or no power supply in their localities. In addition, during lockdowns they may shoulder more home-care responsibilities, sometimes in overcrowded or even abusive home environments.

Some teachers were also amongst vulnerable groups and had limited access to the internet at home, for example due to the sharing of cellular data with household members, and therefore exposed themselves to greater health risks by visiting commercial establishments such as cafés with free internet provision in order to teach remotely. Compounding this predicament is that HE teachers reported that they often had little information about students’ backgrounds, which hindered their efforts to address students’ educational and psychological needs and any equity issues pertinent to their studies (Cutri et al., 2020 ). These technical complications are situated in specific social contexts and have been a major hindrance to technology use in ERT.

Institutional factors

In most of the studies reviewed, the migration to ERT was described as mandatory, and teachers’ use of certain applications was often resultant from policies imposed by their institutions—whose regulations on teaching could be heavily influenced by government decisions, for example in universities in Mainland China (Tang et al., 2020 ). To ensure continuity and safety of teaching and learning in times of upheaval and uncertainty, some HEIs exercised greater control over the ways in which technologies were used in teaching, such as mandating the use of certain Learning Management Systems (LMS) in teaching (Khoza & Mpungose, 2020 ) or prohibiting asynchronous methods of teaching (Cutri et al., 2020 ). Whilst some teachers felt that their creative freedoms to use different technologies in their teaching were constrained by institutional policies , others sought detailed guidance and perceived the lack of clear institutional protocols as a significant barrier to technology use in this emergency (Sobaih et al., 2020 ).

Aside from policy, different forms of institutional support (such as the provision of digital infrastructure and training for both teachers and students) could also be of value to teachers in ERT, although the level of support felt by teachers could vary by discipline (Watermeyer et al., 2021 ). However, the value of technical assistance might be undermined when technology specialists were just as confused as teachers about teaching remotely in emergency times (Gyampoh et al., 2020 ; Tanga et al., 2020 ). Another gap in institutional support pointed out by some studies is the lack of recognising teachers’ hardship and efforts in teaching in the form of pecuniary (such as support for procurement of equipment) and non-pecuniary rewards (such as teaching awards) (Joshi et al., 2020 ).

Individual factors

Sometimes teachers resisted institutional policies and employed instead other technologies of their own preference. Individual factors therefore play an important role in shaping teachers’ technology use. Despite the challenges posed by the pandemic, some teachers were tolerant of uncertainties, valiantly departing from their previous pedagogical praxis and forging ahead with ‘pedagogical agility’ (Kidd & Murray, 2020 )—the flexibility of adapting to the new teaching conditions in rapid yet meaningful ways. Resilient and adaptive, these teachers ‘rolled up their sleeves’ and worked around the clock to seek teaching solutions and countermeasures through constant, active self-exploration (Sales et al., 2020 ). Some music teachers, for instance, would make immediate remedies for the connection disruptions to synchronous lessons by providing students with recordings of their playing as examples (Akyürek, 2020 ). In an Israeli college, teacher educators incorporated topics like ‘distance learning’ into the teacher training curriculum to reflect the new circumstances of teaching (Hadar et al., 2021 ). One teacher educator even painted a wall at home with special paint to make it into a ‘blackboard’ where his writings were presented and screened to students (Hadar et al., 2021 ). These are just a few of the many manifestations of teachers’ agentic creativity and ongoing inventiveness in innovating their own use of technologies and resources despite the presence of severe constraints in ERT times.

In terms of readiness, despite receiving considerable institutional support in some cases, teachers often felt ill-prepared for ERT and doubtful of their abilities in using various technologies to teach (Scherer et al., 2021 ), and only a minority felt rather ready for ERT (Alqabbani et al., 2020 ). The studies reviewed discussed the variation in teachers’ readiness for ERT in relation to gender, academic discipline, and country context (Scherer et al., 2021 ). For example, in predominantly high-income economies teachers moved from a customary integration of technologies in pre-COVID teaching to fully-online ERT (Mideros, 2020 ; Sales et al., 2020 ). But not all teachers and students had had the opportunities to familiarise themselves with various technologies (including otherwise widely used applications like Word processing) prior to COVID-19 (Gyampoh et al., 2020 ). Whilst experienced online teachers felt more prepared and expected themselves to employ more frequently a wide array of technologies in teaching, across HE contexts many teachers had seriously limited prior experience in ‘online teaching’ and were apprehensive about using technologies for teaching purposes (Bailey & Lee, 2020 ). Besides, being experienced in ‘online teaching’ does not necessarily translate to successful handling of ERT, given the limited time frame and the stressful and even traumatising circumstances at the outset of the crisis.

Pedagogical factors

Across HE settings, teachers considered how to connect and engage dislocated groups of students through technologies, how to empower students to explore beyond the curriculum as students gained more control over what and how they study in the shifting context of teaching and learning (Mideros, 2020 ), and how to reconfigure spaces in ways that provide students with a nourishing, inter-connected intellectual environment despite being physically apart during the ERT period (Kidd & Murray, 2020 ). In Australia, teachers were especially concerned about first-year students, as the southern hemisphere’s Autumn 2020 was their very first term at the university. In addition to providing students with considered feedback, these teachers employed strategies such as the online polls and hand-raising functions on various EdTech platforms (Zeng, 2020 ), or made students the host of Blackboard Collaborate in order for teaching to be more engaging (Marshalsey & Sclater, 2020 ).

As coronavirus infections spread, teachers also attended to students’ emotional and educational well-being. Some teacher educators in the United Kingdom offered one-on-one tutorials online to establish personal connections with student teachers and monitor their progress (Kidd & Murray, 2020 ). A teacher in Pakistan went the extra mile to care for the students living in far-flung areas without internet access by sending them CD recordings of their lectures (Said et al., 2021 ). In Saudi Arabia, teachers of hard-of-hearing students used a special configuration of multiple spaces to enable the inclusion of synchronous sign-language translation in their online lectures (Alsadoon & Turkestani, 2020 ). In cases where the discrepancy between technology use by teachers and students was significant, teachers would often bridge the gap by adapting and adopting technologies (such as social media) that they were not always conversant with, but which were most used and preferred by students. As a teacher participant put it, teachers have ‘to go where [students] are, and not wait for [students] to come to where [they] are’ (Sales et al., 2020 , p. 13).

Often teachers would consider the compatibility of certain technologies with their teaching philosophies and practices within their disciplines. Teacher educators in Israel, for example, might feel additional pressure from the expectation that their pedagogical use of technologies has to set examples for their student teachers (Hadar et al., 2021 ). As another example, teaching translation/interpretation in Mainland China was especially challenging during the ERT period since teachers have to demonstrate to students the operation of simultaneous interpretation equipment and the use of dual-track recording function—which is not commonly found in existing online applications (Ren, 2020 ).

Peer factors

Teachers reported that they saw their colleagues as not only sources of inspiration for technology use, but also remedies for stress and uncertainty during the ERT period (Ren, 2020 ). Unlike in prior ‘online teaching’ where they could still meet in person to discuss technology use, many teachers struggled with technological learning-by-doing in relative isolation during the COVID-19 lockdown period (Cutri et al., 2020 ). In view of the absence of physical spaces for colleagues to informally exchange professional practices and channel their emotionality and empathy for one another (Cutri et al., 2020 ; Scherer et al., 2021 ), some teachers put in deliberate effort into organising new networking spaces to bring the academic community together online. In an attempt to alleviate the uncertainties brought by ERT and their adverse impact on psychological well-being, teachers worked together remotely as a team to explore solutions and share useful insights about technology use in teaching. They felt empowered by the constant encouragement and motivational texts from their peers (Ren, 2020 ). Teachers thrived on establishing connections with technology-proficient colleagues whose technical expertise and guidance were relied upon (Bailey & Lee, 2020 ; Mouchantaf, 2020 ) and whose ingenious engagement with technologies inspired and were even assimilated into their own teaching practices. As a mitigation strategy to ease teachers’ hasty migration into ERT, mutual empowerment through facilitated discussions amongst colleagues meaningfully shaped the ways technologies were used by teachers in ERT.

Interplay of factors

Whilst we have delineated potential factors shaping technology use in ERT in a linear, point-by-point fashion, this list of non-exhaustive items should not be conceived as separate, stand-alone factors since they interact in a complex and nuanced way across various contexts. For instance, having little institutional support and no access to LMS or students’ information, some teachers in public HEIs in Egypt resorted to reaching students through popular social media. Teachers then explored on their own the ways in which they could continue teaching activities via these platforms which were new to them (Sobaih et al., 2020 ). As for teachers in an Israeli college, upon realising some Arabic female students refused to appear online due to their cultural values, they made allowance for students’ decisions to keep their cameras off (Hadar et al., 2021 ). But the inability to read students’ expressions during class added to the teaching challenges during ERT and demanded additional flexibility and pedagogical adjustments from teachers. Therefore, technology use is influenced by the combined factors of students’ socio-cultural backgrounds and teachers’ resources and adaptability to changes. In addition to the complex interplay of these factors, these examples demonstrate that teachers’ technology use in ERT is heavily contextualised across HE settings and should therefore be understood in its wider cultural embedding and socio-economic contexts.

Implications of technology use in ERT for teachers

As for our second research question, the studies reviewed indicate that the implications of technology use in ERT for teachers are manifold. These findings are categorised into pedagogical, work-related, and cross-cutting implications, discussed below (see Table 9 for a summary table).

Pedagogical implications

With the paradoxical amalgam of being ‘together but (physically) apart’ (Marshalsey & Sclater, 2020 ) in the new COVID-19 context of teaching, the notions of space and time, as well as the dynamics of the classroom and teacher-student relationship, have undergone less palpable yet important changes.

Spatiality-wise, teachers realised the loss of important physical spaces and the erosion of values traditionally attached to these spaces during the transition to ERT. Marshalsey and Sclater ( 2020 ), for example, reason how a physical art and design studio embodies a distinctive set of values, resources, and the signature experiential hands-on pedagogical practice of their discipline. But when artworks are presented online, their materiality, colours, and texture may be diminished.

Temporality-wise, some teachers felt a strongly contorted notion of time which rendered futile any discussion on the ordinary longitudinal perception of ‘being ready for teaching’ (Cutri et al., 2020 ). Not only was the migration to ERT perceived as rushed and disorganised but teachers also felt time as short, discrete intervals when many changes could occur. Some even found it difficult to find ‘a point of reference for their sense of self as experienced professionals’ (Cutri et al., 2020 , p. 533). This new sense of temporality is perhaps most concisely summarised by a comment made by a teacher during ERT: ‘I always plan a month ahead. Now I live from one day to the next’ (Hadar et al., 2021 , p. 454).

Within this new spatial–temporal context, teachers often felt that student engagement in remote teaching and learning activities was superficial and unequally distributed (Joshi et al., 2020 ; Kidd & Murray, 2020 ). Deprived of in-person interaction, teachers can neither hear the voices nor see the expressions of all students, and find the classroom discourse to be dominated by students who are generally more confident in sharing their ideas in front of the whole class (Hadar et al., 2021 ; Marshalsey & Sclater, 2020 ). With the loss of informal physical spaces where students used to ask questions and interact further with teachers before and after class (Cutri et al., 2020 ), some teachers commented that both teachers and students were more likely to stay in their ‘echo chambers’ during the pandemic (Eringfeld, 2021 ).

Teachers adopted different strategies to navigate being outside the comfort zone of the physical classroom. Some attempted to retain or increase control over interactions in the remote ‘classroom’ (Mideros, 2020 ) such as by only letting students speak when allowed (Gyampoh et al., 2020 ) and shifting to a predominantly teacher-centric, didactic approach of lecturing because of the perceived difficulty of implementing hands-on training in an exclusively remote teaching environment (Cutri et al., 2020 ). The students, too, adopted their own strategies, often distinct from their teachers’ (Callo & Yazon, 2020 ; Sobaih et al., 2020 ). As some students generally adapted to ERT with relative ease (Mideros, 2020 ; Ren, 2020 ), sometimes they even used technology as a defensive wall to exclude teachers (who were in some cases less tech-savvy than their students) from being involved in their studies during the pandemic (Sales et al., 2020 ). Many teachers in the studies reviewed reported that the mandated use of various technologies in ERT puts a strain on pedagogy, the major implications of which may include an elevated feeling of detachment from the class, a heightened distance from students (Kidd & Murray, 2020 ), and a more pronounced gap in teacher-student interactions (Callo & Yazon, 2020 ; Sales et al., 2020 ).

Moreover, ERT is thought to have precipitated the collapse of ‘yishigan’ (仪式感)—a Chinese expression which, when applied to this context, refers to the sense that teaching is a special, ritualised occasion (Lu, 2020 ; Ren, 2020 ). As ‘yishigan’ abates in the context of ERT, so does the sense of formality and immediacy felt by teachers and students, both of whom may no longer view teaching and learning as a serious, formalised routine of life in the same way as before; some of the studies reviewed note that motivation and classroom engagement are lowered as a result of this change in perception (see examples in Joshi et al., 2020 ; Lu, 2020 ; Marshalsey & Sclater, 2020 ).

In contrast with the sense of limitation, hierarchy, and loss illustrated by the accounts summarised above, other teachers reported a sense of the ‘intimacy of distance’ and a less visible teacher-student hierarchy as a combined result of emergency technology use during the pandemic. Such teachers valued the creation of spaces for more student-oriented and student-empowering pedagogy. In Mainland China, for example, the classroom atmosphere was livened up as students were encouraged by teachers to engage in class via alternative forms of interaction online such as sending emojis, raising ‘hands’, and taking polls (Gao & Zhang, 2020 ; Zeng, 2020 ). In other contexts, teachers felt an idiosyncratic sense of closeness as they shared a screen and read the same text with students on their devices (Eringfeld, 2021 ). They also reported a better understanding of students’ personal circumstances, home environment, and even household responsibilities as students turned on their cameras in class (Hadar et al., 2021 ; Kidd & Murray, 2020 ). In many ways, teachers observed their students being more relaxed in class, which enabled teachers to build personal relationships with their students in ways that they had never envisioned before (Marshalsey & Sclater, 2020 ).

Because of the collapse of ‘yishigan’ and the resultant casual and more relaxed classroom dynamics in the new spatiality, some teachers adapt to the ‘online etiquette’ by using emojis and GIFs when communicating with students (Marshalsey & Sclater, 2020 ). Also, the fact that students may be more technology-competent than teachers meaningfully shifts the dynamic of the teacher-student relationship in the ERT classroom (Kidd & Murray, 2020 ), for teachers often solicited help from students on questions regarding technology use, and during this process teachers increasingly saw students as their partners in teaching rather than subordinates to themselves (Cutri et al., 2020 ). As Cutri et al. ( 2020 ) remark, ‘the negative connotations of risk-taking and making mistakes while learning to teach online seem to have been mitigated by a combination of affective factors such as humility, empathy, and even optimism’ (p. 523). As an experience of vulnerability, ERT has grounded and humbled teachers, allowing them to develop both more appreciation for self-care (Eringfeld, 2021 ), and more empathy for students (Khoza & Mpungose, 2020 ; Kidd & Murray, 2020 ).

Teachers realised the salience of exercising care for students and themselves and considering the emotionality of students, especially those in vulnerable states (Alqabbani et al., 2020 ; Sales et al., 2020 ). Pastoral care took priority during particularly distressing periods when students were most in need of emotional support (Sobaih et al., 2020 ; Tejedor et al., 2020 ). All these examples suggest that under the new spatial–temporal reorientation an intricate web of human relations has evolved and, to varying degrees, been revitalised.

Work-related implications

The task of transitioning teaching to an alternative mode is only one of the many challenges teachers face in the larger contexts of academia during the pandemic period (Cutri et al., 2020 ). Although the extra time seemingly freed up by, say, the lack of commutes is highly valued for student support, self-care or family care (Eringfeld, 2021 ; Kidd & Murray, 2020 ; Tejedor et al., 2020 ), there has also been an excessive intensification of workload in preparation for ERT (Khan et al., 2020 ; Lu, 2020 ; Mouchantaf, 2020 ; Said et al., 2021 ), and this is expected to last for a few years into the post-ERT era (Watermeyer et al., 2021 ). When working from home, teachers received as many as hundreds of students’ inquiries throughout the day via various applications (Alsadoon & Turkestani, 2020 ; Sobaih et al., 2020 ). Coupled with the pressure to prove that work has been conducted remotely (Kidd & Murray, 2020 ; Marshalsey & Sclater, 2020 ), some teachers report feeling compelled to be present online around the clock. The ‘timelessness’ of working remotely in a home setting has been succinctly summarised by a teacher: ‘it is too easy to “just send one more email”’ (Watermeyer et al., 2021 ). The praxis and boundaries of academic work were shifted and reconstructed in ways many perceived as intrusive into the personal life sphere and deteriorative to work-life balance and also teachers’ well-being and occupational welfare (Watermeyer et al., 2021 ).

In addition, with looming financial challenges to the HE sector, casualised and untenured staff reported an elevated feeling of job precarity because their extra commitment to teaching cuts into time for other academic work, such as publishing research—which they perceived as often prioritised over teaching efforts in HE career progression (Cutri et al., 2020 ). Some reported that these teachers’ vulnerability was compounded by the management’s misperception that teaching remotely during emergency lightens teachers’ workload, and by their misinterpretation that low scores given by students on evaluations of ERT are a marker of ‘teacher quality’ rather than a way for students to express disinclination towards ERT in general (Watermeyer et al., 2021 ).

Technology use in ERT was further complicated by the need for swift re-coordination of private routines and domestic spaces to make room for professional work. A teacher, for example, asked all household members to disconnect from the Wi-Fi when teaching (Kidd & Murray, 2020 ). Having a separate, free-of-disturbance workspace at home is a luxury that not many teachers could afford (Gyampoh et al., 2020 ; Joshi et al., 2020 ) especially in contexts like Pakistan where joint families may live together in a crowded household (Said et al., 2021 ). Due to the non-separation of home/workspaces, customary parameters between the private and public domains were being reconstituted, and the boundaries between teachers’ personal and professional identities became blurry (Khoza & Mpungose, 2020 ). Consequently, female academics with caring responsibilities were disproportionately affected, and increasingly teachers found themselves struggling to perform either role well (Watermeyer et al., 2021 ).

In the larger context of HE, teachers were also worried about the ‘placelessness’ of HE during lockdowns and that the role of HE as an embodied, communal space for teaching and learning, self-formation, and socialisation was being undermined (Eringfeld, 2021 ). In two studies based in the UK (Eringfeld, 2021 ; Watermeyer et al., 2021 ), the accounts of their teacher participants add up to a strong ‘dystopian’ rhetoric, reflecting their fears that the ERT migration epitomises the beginning of a prolonged contraction of HE as an on-campus experience and monetisation of part of the HE experience driven largely by massification but not quality, thereby undermining the core academic values and humanising aims of HE.

Not all studies reviewed painted a consistently gloomy picture of the work-related implications of ERT and technology use. Some studies note that the compulsory, emergency move to remote teaching may have offered multiple opportunities. For example, in some propitious circumstances, teachers were able to constitute their networking spaces online to channel mutual support and facilitate exchanges on technology use. There are also reports that more trust was placed on technology specialists, technicians, and younger faculty who were often seen as more technologically adept and relied upon during ERT (Watermeyer et al., 2021 ). Moreover, the infrastructural divisions that used to separate departments on a physical campus are largely dismantled with the migration to ERT, enabling possibilities of various forms of inter-departmental communication and cross-disciplinary collaboration (Tejedor et al., 2020 ) and thereby making HE a flatter-structured and less hierarchically-organised workplace for teachers (Eringfeld, 2021 ).

Cross-cutting implications

Some of the teachers in the studies reviewed commented on the potential of ERT to undermine the ethos of the academic profession and imperil the work of academics. They noted that ERT could be pedagogically regressive, as teachers’ role may be reduced to merely technical functions, such as uploading materials online. This challenged their beliefs about what good teaching entails and compromised their often long-established pedagogical practices (Watermeyer et al., 2021 ). Other teachers struggled with balancing depth in their teaching with what they saw as their students’ preference for over-simplified yet visually appealing inputs such as bite-sized explanations shared on TikTok and other social media (Sales et al., 2020 ). Some anticipate worrying trends of ‘dumbing down’ of HE if teaching continues to be impersonal, disembodied and mediated predominantly by digital technologies in the post-ERT era (Watermeyer et al., 2021 ).

We have discussed so far the changes to HE teaching due to the relocation to newly formed spaces, as reported in the studies reviewed. Yet, some principles and values that teachers apply to guide their teaching practices remained unchanged amidst the ongoing crisis. These include the upholding of integrity, academic transparency, privacy, and other ethical principles in teaching (Mouchantaf, 2020 ). For example, teachers were concerned about the potential collection of students’ data for third-party use without prior informed consent (Diningrat et al., 2020 ; Joshi et al., 2020 ). Others also recognise the importance for students of using technology responsibly (Gyampoh et al., 2020 ) and being equipped with critical and reflective thinking capacity to evaluate the accuracy and relevance of information online (Sales et al., 2020 ; Tejedor et al., 2020 ), including resisting the temptation to reuse others’ ideas as their own work (Dampson et al., 2020 ) and refraining from using improper language on social media (Ghounane, 2020 ; Sobaih et al., 2020 ). This was especially relevant during the absence of teacher’s in-person monitoring, when the responsibility to access and study educational materials was partially shifted to students (Gyampoh et al., 2020 ), many of whom were inclined to explore topics of interest on their own (Marshalsey & Sclater, 2020 ; Mideros, 2020 ; Sales et al., 2020 ).

For teachers themselves, their practical wisdom and professional deliberation to ‘consider when, why, and how to use technology properly’ (Diningrat et al., 2020 , p. 706) were put to the test during the emergency contexts of teaching. A teacher participant in the study by Cutri et al. ( 2020 ) shared his belated reflection on an inadvertent, frivolous ridicule he had made about a student’s slow internet speed in front of the entire class online. This anecdote alludes to two problems looming in the wider context of HE teaching: (1) the largely absent code of conduct that delineates appropriate practices and roles of teachers and students in the new spatiality (and this can be due partly to the short time horizon in ERT); and (2) the difficulty for teachers to create supportive yet private spaces to address equity issues and attend to students’ emotionality in strict confidence when being online (Cutri et al., 2020 ).

Teachers participating in the studies reviewed in this paper indicated a multiplicity of factors that interacted to shape their technology use during the ERT period. In line with Liu et al. ( 2020 )’s pre-pandemic work, we find strong evidence that technology use in teaching is a context-sensitive, socially-embedded topic of study and hence should be understood in the socio-political, cultural and material context in which academics and students are situated (Selwyn et al., 2020 ). For example, the label ‘technical issues’ could encompass a wide range of contextualised problems, from power outages to long commutes for Internet access, from material shortages to widespread hunger, from trenchant poverty to deep-seated structured inequalities, which afflict disproportionately relatively poor, underserved communities and the most disadvantaged segments of populations (Chan et al., 2022 ) but are also palpable within higher-income countries/regions [see, for example, Cullinan et al. ( 2021 ) for a study on broadband access disparities in Ireland].

The narrative account we constructed is indicative of the resourcefulness and resilience of teachers to continue teaching during the crisis, even those in marginalised communities where resources are limited. This view is also shared by Padilla Rodríguez et al. ( 2021 ) who study the changes teachers in rural Mexico have made to their teaching practice in response to the suspension of in-person classes without receiving much external support during the pandemic. Around the world, teachers forayed into ERT during times of uncertainty by seeking to empower themselves and exploring various technological artefacts in teaching on their own, on the one hand; and by endorsing mutual empowerment and drawing inspiration from amongst their peers, on the other. Their collective efforts in supporting one another in the wake of crisis created what Matthewman and Uekusa ( 2021 ) call ‘disaster communitas’, which temporarily served to support teachers when adapting to the hasty conversion to ERT. We concur with Hickling et al. ( 2021 ) that the creation of a supportive space and environment for HE teachers to commiserate, discuss experiences, and share insights and resources with colleagues helps advance teaching practices with technology.

In answering the second research question, we have discussed at length the implications of a more encompassing use of technology in ERT and how evolving notions of space and time combined to reconstitute teacher-student relationships and the nature of academics’ work (Williamson et al., 2020 ). The studies reviewed indicate that the rushed transition to ERT has affected the sense of professional identity of academics as HE teachers (Littlejohn et al., 2021 ) in ways that are as yet only partly explored. Echoing the findings of Ramlo ( 2021 ), we believe that teachers’ negotiation of the blurring home-workspace boundaries (Blumsztajn et al., 2022 ; Littlejohn et al., 2021 ) and attempts to rebalance their professional work and personal life have important implications for future HE teaching and merit further investigation (Gourlay et al., 2021 ).

As COVID-19 continues to take a toll on people’s lives, we draw on the studies reviewed to emphasise the importance of re-prioritising the value of social and emotional connections in HE teaching, as well as the overall well-being of both teachers and students (Baker et al., 2022 ; Yeung & Yau, 2021 ). ‘Networks of care’ between teachers and students as well as amongst teachers themselves may be constructed to ameliorate uncertainties brought by the pandemic (Czerniewicz et al., 2020 ; Joseph & Trinick, 2021 ). Elements of care can be developed by simple acts of kindness (Murray et al., 2020 ) and gestures to communicate approachability (Glantz et al., 2021 ), all of which contribute to constructing more supportive and less hierarchical teacher-student relationships in the digital context. We note, however, that evidence scattered across the studies reviewed indicates that academic recognition and reward systems have not accounted well for the creative efforts that academics (including casualised and untenured staff) have put into teaching and maintaining relationships with their colleagues and students in response to the ongoing challenges ensuing from the coronavirus crisis. This is another priority for HEIs and leadership teams. On a final note, future research may explore further, innovative ways in which HE teaching can be reconstituted in the presence and context of technology without undermining teachers’ professional identity or compromising the revitalisation of teaching as an embodied, communal, and humanising experience as campuses around the world re-open, in full or in part, for in-person activities in post-pandemic times.

Appendix 1. A detailed version of inclusion/exclusion criteria

Appendix 2. Search terms in English and Chinese (note that the search strategy varied slightly across databases due to the different limits they set on the length of search input)

Appendix 3. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for systematic review (Page et al., 2021 )

Appendix 4. Quality and relevance assessment rubric and the average scores of the 32 included studies (adapted from Oancea et al., 2021 )

• a Score description: 4—criterion fully met; 3—criterion mostly met, though with some weaknesses; 2—criterion only partly met, with several or serious weaknesses; 1—criterion largely not met

Appendix 5. Data extraction grid

Appendix 6. Summary of characteristics of 32 reviewed studies

• a The references of four articles show the publication year of 2021. These four articles were published online ahead of print in 2020 and hence are included in this study

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180

Article   Google Scholar  

Akyürek, R. (2020). The views of lecturers about distance music education process in the pandemic period. International Journal of Education Technology and Scientific Researches, 5 (13), 1790–1833. https://doi.org/10.35826/ijetsar.262

Alqabbani, S., Almuwais, A., Benajiba, N., & Almoayad, F. (2020). Readiness towards emergency shifting to remote learning during COVID-19 pandemic among university instructors. E-Learning and Digital Media, 18 (5), 460–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753020981651

Alsadoon, E., & Turkestani, M. (2020). Virtual classrooms for hearing-impaired students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Romanian Journal for Multidimensional Education, 12 (1, Sup. 2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/12.1sup2/240

Amunga, J. (2021). Leveraging technology to enhance STEM education amidst the Covid-19 pandemic: An overview of pertinent concerns. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 18 (1), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v18i1.3044

An, T., & Oliver, M. (2021). What in the world is educational technology? Rethinking the field from the perspective of the philosophy of technology. Learning, Media and Technology, 46 (1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1810066

Bailey, D. R., & Lee, A. R. (2020). Learning from experience in the midst of covid-19: Benefits, challenges, and strategies in online teaching. Computer-Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 21 (2), 176–196.

Google Scholar  

Baker, S., Anderson, J., Burke, R., De Fazio, T., Due, C., Hartley, L., Molla, T., Morison, C., Mude, W., Naidoo, L., & Sidhu, R. (2022). Equitable teaching for cultural and linguistic diversity: Exploring the possibilities for engaged pedagogy in post-COVID-19 higher education. Educational Review . https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.2015293

Blumsztajn, A., Koopal, W., Rojahn, P., Schildermans, H., Thoilliez, B., Vlieghe, J., & Wortmann, K. (2022). Offline memos for online teaching: A collective response to The manifesto for teaching online (Bayne et al. 2020). Postdigital Science and Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00286-4

Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V. I., & Händel, M. (2021). Emergency remote teaching in higher education: Mapping the first global online semester. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18 , 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x

Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27 , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007

Callo, E. C., & Yazon, A. D. (2020). Exploring the factors influencing the readiness of faculty and students on online teaching and learning as an alternative delivery mode for the new normal. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8 (8), 3509–3518. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080826

Chakraborty, P., Mittal, P., Gupta, M. S., Yadav, S., & Arora, A. (2021). Opinion of students on online education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3 (3), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.240

Chan, R. Y., Bista, K., & Allen, R. M. (Eds.). (2022). Online teaching and learning in higher education during COVID-19: International perspectives and experiences . Routledge.

Costa, C., Hammond, M., & Younie, S. (2019). Theorising technology in education: An introduction. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28 (4), 395–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1660089

Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., Malkawi, B., Glowatz, M., Burton, R., Magni, P. A., & Lam, S. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 3 (1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7

Cullinan, J., Flannery, D., Harold, J., Lyons, S., & Palcic, D. (2021). The disconnected: COVID-19 and disparities in access to quality broadband for higher education students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18 , 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00262-1

Cutri, R. M., Mena, J., & Whiting, E. F. (2020). Faculty readiness for online crisis teaching: Transitioning to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (4), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1815702

Czerniewicz, L., Agherdien, N., Badenhorst, J., Belluigi, D., Chambers, T., Chili, M., de Villiers, M., Felix, A., Gachago, D., Gokhale, C., Ivala, E., Kramm, N., Madiba, M., Mistri, G., Mgqwashu, E., Pallitt, N., Prinsloo, P., Solomon, K., Strydom, S., … Wissing, G. (2020). A wake-up call: Equity, inequality and Covid-19 emergency remote teaching and learning. Postdigital Science and Education, 2 (3), 946–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00187-4

Dampson, D. G., Addai-Mununkum, R., Apau, S. K., & Bentil, J. (2020). COVID-19 and online learning: A SWOT analysis of users’ perspectives on learning management system of University of Education, Winneba, Ghana. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19 (9), 382–401. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.9.20

Dedeilia, A., Sotiropoulos, M. G., Hanrahan, J. G., Janga, D., Dedeilias, P., & Sideris, M. (2020). Medical and surgical education challenges and innovations in the COVID-19 era: A systematic review. In Vivo, 34 (3 suppl), 1603–1611. https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.11950

Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49 (1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018

Diningrat, S., Nindya, M., & Salwa, S. (2020). Emergency online teaching: Early childhood education lecturers’ perception of barrier and pedagogical competency. Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan, 39 (3), 705–719. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v39i3.32304

Eringfeld, S. (2021). Higher education and its post-coronial future: Utopian hopes and dystopian fears at Cambridge University during Covid-19. Studies in Higher Education, 46 (1), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1859681

Ferdig, R. E., Baumgartner, E., Hartshorne, R., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., & Mouza, C. (Eds.). (2020). Teaching, technology, and teacher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Stories from the field . Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Gao, L. X., & Zhang, L. J. (2020). Teacher learning in difficult times: Examining foreign language teachers’ cognitions about online teaching to tide over COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 , 549653. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.549653

Gaur, U., Majumder, M. A. A., Sa, B., Sarkar, S., Williams, A., & Singh, K. (2020). Challenges and opportunities of preclinical medical education: COVID-19 crisis and beyond. SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine, 2 (11), 1992–1997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-020-00528-1

Ghounane, N. (2020). Moodle or social networks: What alternative refuge is appropriate to Algerian EFL students to learn during COVID-19 pandemic. Arab World English Journal, 11 (3), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no3.2

Glantz, E., Gamrat, C., Lenze, L., & Bardzell, J. (2021). Improved student engagement in higher education’s next normal. EDUCAUSE Review . https://er.educause.edu/articles/2021/3/improved-student-engagement-in-higher-educations-next-normal

Gordon, M., Patricio, M., Horne, L., Muston, A., Alston, S. R., Pammi, M., Thammasitboon, S., Park, S., Pawlikowska, T., Rees, E. L., Doyle, A. J., & Daniel, M. (2020). Developments in medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 63. Medical Teacher, 42 (11), 1202–1215. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1807484

Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). Introducing systematic reviews. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed., pp. 1–18). Sage.

Gourlay, L., Littlejohn, A., Oliver, M., & Potter, J. (2021). Lockdown literacies and semiotic assemblages: Academic boundary work in the Covid-19 crisis. Learning, Media and Technology, 46 (4), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1900242

Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (5), 2572–2593. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12864

Gyampoh, A. O., Ayitey, H. K., Fosu-Ayarkwah, C., Ntow, S. A., Akossah, J., Gavor, M., & Vlachopoulos, D. (2020). Tutor perception on personal and institutional preparedness for online teaching-learning during the COVID-19 crisis: The case of Ghanaian Colleges of Education. African Educational Research Journal, 8 (3), 511–518. https://doi.org/10.30918/AERJ.83.20.088

Hadar, L. L., Alpert, B., & Ariav, T. (2021). The response of clinical practice curriculum in teacher education to the Covid-19 breakout: A case study from Israel. Prospects, 51 , 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09516-8

Hickling, S., Bhatti, A., Arena, G., Kite, J., Denny, J., Spencer, N. L., & Bowles, D. C. (2021). Adapting to teaching during a pandemic: Pedagogical adjustments for the next semester of teaching during COVID-19 and future online learning. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 7 (2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/2373379920987264

Higher Education Statistical Agency. (n.d.). The higher education classification of subjects (HECoS) . Retrieved from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/support/documentation/hecos

Hodges, C. B., Moore, S., Lockee, B. B., Trust, T., & Bond, M. A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review . https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning

Jandrić, P., Hayes, D., Truelove, I., Levinson, P., Mayo, P., Ryberg, T., Monzó, L. D., Allen, Q., Stewart, P. A., Carr, P. R., Jackson, L., Bridges, B., Escaño, C., Grauslund, D., Mañero, J., Lukoko, H. O., Bryant, P., Fuentes-Martinez, A., Gibbons, A., & Hayes, S. (2020). Teaching in the age of Covid-19—1 year later. Postdigital Science and Education, 3 (3), 1073–1223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00243-7

Joseph, D., & Trinick, R. (2021). ‘Staying apart yet keeping together’: Challenges and opportunities of teaching during COVID-19 across the Tasman. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 56 (2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-021-00211-6

Joshi, A., Vinay, M., & Bhaskar, P. (2020). Impact of coronavirus pandemic on the Indian education sector: Perspectives of teachers on online teaching and assessments. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 18 (2), 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-06-2020-0087

Khan, R., Bashir, A., Basu, B. L., & Uddin, M. E. (2020). Emergency online instruction at higher education in Bangladesh during COVID-19: Challenges and suggestions. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 17 (4), 1497–1506. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.4.26.1497

Khoza, S. B., & Mpungose, C. B. (2020). Digitalised curriculum to the rescue of a higher education institution. African Identities . https://doi.org/10.1080/14725843.2020.1815517

Kidd, W., & Murray, J. (2020). The Covid-19 pandemic and its effects on teacher education in England: How teacher educators moved practicum learning online. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (4), 542–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1820480

Lee, J., & Jung, I. (2021). Instructional changes instigated by university faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic: The effect of individual, course and institutional factors. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18 , 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00286-7

Littlejohn, A., Gourlay, L., Kennedy, E., Logan, K., Neumann, T., Oliver, M., Potter, J., & Rode, J. A. (2021). Moving teaching online: Cultural barriers experienced by university teachers during Covid-19. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1 (7), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.631

Liu, Q., Geertshuis, S., & Grainger, R. (2020). Understanding academics’ adoption of learning technologies: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 151 , 103857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103857

Lu, X. C. (2020). Jiyu shiping huiyi pingtai de yuancheng tongbu kouyi jiaoxue: Yi beiwai gaofan tongsheng chuanyi kecheng wei li [Distance teaching of interpreting: Delivering simultaneous interpreting courses via video conferencing at Graduate School of Translation and Interpretation, Beijing Foreign Studies University]. Zhongguo Fanyi, 42 (4), 76–84.

Marshalsey, L., & Sclater, M. (2020). Together but apart: Creating and supporting online learning communities in an era of distributed studio education. International Journal of Art & Design, 39 (4), 826–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12331

Matthewman, S., & Uekusa, S. (2021). Theorizing disaster communitas. Theory and Society, 50 (6), 965–984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-021-09442-4

Mercader, C., & Gairín, J. (2020). University teachers’ perception of barriers to the use of digital technologies: The importance of the academic discipline. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17 , 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0182-x

Mideros, D. (2020). Out-of-class learning of Spanish during COVID-19: A case study in Trinidad and Tobago. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 11 (3), 119–219. https://doi.org/10.37237/110308

Mittal, A., Mantri, A., Tandon, U., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). A unified perspective on the adoption of online teaching in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Information Discovery and Delivery . https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-09-2020-0114

Mok, K. H., Xiong, W., & Bin Aedy Rahman, H. N. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic’s disruption on university teaching and learning and competence cultivation: Student evaluation of online learning experiences in Hong Kong. International Journal of Chinese Education . https://doi.org/10.1177/22125868211007011

Mouchantaf, M. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges faced and lessons learned regarding distance learning in Lebanese higher education institutions. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10 (10), 1259–1266. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1010.11

Murray, C., Heinz, M., Munday, I., Keane, E., Flynn, N., Connolly, C., Hall, T., & MacRuairc, G. (2020). Reconceptualising relatedness in education in ‘distanced’ times. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (4), 488–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1806820

Na, S., & Jung, H. (2021). Exploring university instructors’ challenges in online teaching and design opportunities during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20 (9), 308–327. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.9.18

Oancea, A., McDermott, T., Robson, J., Scutt, C., Xu, X., Mun, O., Nuseibeh, N. & Voss, M. (2021). The landscape of educational research in the UK. Report to the Royal Society and British Academy joint enquiry on educational research. London: Royal Society and British Academy.

Padilla Rodríguez, B. C., Armellini, A., & Traxler, J. (2021). The forgotten ones: How rural teachers in Mexico are facing the COVID-19 pandemic. Online Learning, 25 (1), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i1.2453

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372 (71), n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Pokhrel, S., & Chhetri, R. (2021). A literature review on impact of COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning. Higher Education for the Future, 8 (1), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631120983481

Rajab, M. H., Gazal, A. M., & Alkattan, K. (2020). Challenges to online medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cureus, 12 (7), e8966. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8966

Ramlo, S. (2021). The coronavirus and higher education: Faculty viewpoints about universities moving online during a worldwide pandemic. Innovative Higher Education, 46 (3), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09532-8

Ren, W. (2020). Yiqing he hou yiqing shidai de kouyi jiaoxue: Jiyu jiaoshi shijiao de anli fenxi yu fansi [Interpretation studies in the pandemic and post-pandemic times: A case analysis and reflections based on teachers’ perspectives]. Zhongguo Fanyi, 42 (6), 69–74.

Resch, K., Alnahdi, G., & Schwab, S. (2022). Exploring the effects of the COVID-19 emergency remote education on students’ social and academic integration in higher education in Austria. Higher Education Research & Development . https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022.2040446

Said, F., Ali, I., & Javed, T. (2021). An interpretative phenomenological analysis of challenges faced by the university teachers in Pakistan amid Covid-19. International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 15 , 260–272. https://doi.org/10.46661/ijeri.5256

Salas‐Pilco, S. Z., Yang, Y., Zhang, Z. (2022). Student engagement in online learning in Latin American higher education during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A systematic review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53 (3), 593–619.

Sales, D., Cuevas-Cerveró, A., & Gómez-Hernández, J. A. (2020). Perspectives on the information and digital competence of social sciences students and faculty before and during lockdown due to Covid-19. Profesional De La Información, 29 (4), e290423. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.jul.23

Scherer, R., Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F. (2021). Profiling teachers’ readiness for online teaching and learning in higher education: Who’s ready? Computers in Human Behavior, 118 , 106675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106675

Selwyn, N. (2022). Education and technology: Key issues and debates . Bloomsbury Publishing.

Book   Google Scholar  

Selwyn, N., Hillman, T., Eynon, R., Ferreira, G., Knox, J., Macgilchrist, F., & Sancho-Gil, J. M. (2020). What’s next for Ed-Tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s. Learning, Media and Technology, 45 (1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1694945

Singh, V., & Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988–2018). American Journal of Distance Education, 33 (4), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1663082

Singh-Pillay, A., & Naidoo, J. (2020). Context matters: Science, technology and mathematics education lecturers’ reflections on online teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19 (6A), 1125–1136. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.1125

Sobaih, A. E. E., Hasanein, A. M., & Abu Elnasr, A. E. (2020). Responses to COVID-19 in higher education: Social media usage for sustaining formal academic communication in developing countries. Sustainability, 12 (16), 6520. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166520

Stewart, W. H. (2021). A global crash-course in teaching and learning online: A thematic review of empirical emergency remote teaching (ERT) studies in higher education during year 1 of COVID-19. Open Praxis, 13 (1), 89–102.

Sum, M., & Oancea, A. (2021). Higher education teachers’ perspectives on technology use in emergency remote teaching during the global pandemic: A systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the Yidan Prize Doctoral Conference (pp. 103-124). Department of Education, University of Oxford. https://yidanprize.org/files/Proceedings-of-the-2021-Yidan-Prize-Doctoral-Conference.pdf .

Talib, M. A., Bettayeb, A. M., & Omer, R. I. (2021). Analytical study on the impact of technology in higher education during the age of COVID-19: Systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 26 , 6719–6746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10507-1

Tang, C., Zhou, X. Y., & Qian, X. H. (2020). Yiqing fangkong qijian difang gaoxiao zaixian jiaoxue de shijian yu sikao – yi Chengdu shifan xueyuan ‘1-3-5-4’ fang’an weili [The path and practice of promoting online teaching in local undergraduate universities during the epidemic prevention and control period—Taking Chengdu Normal University ‘1-3-5-4’ scheme as an example]. Xiandai Jiaoyu Jishu, 27 (8), 120–126.

Tanga, P., Ndhlovu, G. N., & Tanga, M. (2020). Emergency remote teaching and learning during Covid-19: A recipe for disaster for social work education in the Eastern Cape of South Africa? African Journal of Social Work, 10 (3), 17–24.

Tartavulea, C. V., Albu, C. N., Albu, N., Dieaconescu, R. I., & Petre, S. (2020). Online teaching practices and the effectiveness of the educational process in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Amfiteatru Economic, 22 (55), 920–936. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2020/55/920

Tejedor, S., Cervi, L., Tusa, F., & Parola, A. (2020). Education in times of pandemic: Reflections of students and teachers on virtual university education in Spain, Italy, and Ecuador. Latin Journal of Social Communication, 78 , 19–40. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2020-1466

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2012). International standard classification of education: ISCE, 2011. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf

Watermeyer, R., Crick, T., Knight, C., & Goodall, J. (2021). COVID-19 and digital disruption in UK universities: Afflictions and affordances of emergency online migration. Higher Education, 81 (3), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00561-y

Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: Digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology, 45 (2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641

World Bank. (June 2020). List of economies (with classification of country development) [Database]. https://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/site-content/CLASS.xls

Wu, W., Yao, R., & Xie, Z. (2020). Gaoxiao jiaoshi zaixian jiaoxue jingli dui ziwo jiaoxue pingjia de yingxiang - jiyu quanguo 334 suo gaoxiao zaixian jiaoxue de diaocha fenxi [The influence of university teachers’ online teaching experience on their self-evaluation of teaching: A survey in 334 universities]. Gaodeng Jiaoyu Yanjiu, 41 (8), 63–72.

Yeung, M. W., & Yau, A. H. (2021). A thematic analysis of higher education students’ perceptions of online learning in Hong Kong under COVID-19: Challenges, strategies and support. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10656-3

Zeng, L. W. (2020). Yiqing fangkong beijing xia xianshang jiaoxue shishi xiaoguo ji yingxiang yinsu fenxi – jiyu Guangdong sheng gaoxiao de diaocha [Analysis of the effectiveness and influencing factors of online teaching in the context of pandemic prevention and control—A survey based on universities in Guangdong province]. Gaoxiao Tansuo, 27 (7), 85–91.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The corresponding author gave a presentation on the preliminary findings of this systematic review at the 1st International Yidan Prize Doctoral Conference (online) organized by the University of Oxford on 27 May 2021. The insightful questions raised by the audience are gratefully acknowledged. We would like to thank Dr. Victoria Elliott, Ms. Renyu Jiang, Ms. Abbey Palmer, and Ms. Catherine Scutt who have directly and indirectly provided their support for this research project.

Additional information

The corresponding author is a doctoral candidate reading Education. This paper is an original work, conducted by the corresponding author in parallel to the preparation for submission of a thesis for a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) degree under the supervision of the second author. Preliminary findings of this systematic review have been published in the Proceedings of the Yidan Prize Doctoral Conference under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) (see Sum & Oancea, 2021 ).

This work was generously supported by a scholarship jointly awarded by the Clarendon Fund and New College of the University of Oxford (2020–2023).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Education, University of Oxford, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford, OX2 6PY, UK

McQueen Sum & Alis Oancea

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Under the guidance and supervision of AO, MS performed all stages of the systematic review, from conceptualising the review project to writing the manuscript. Both authors worked collaboratively from late 2020 to mid 2022 on this project. MS and AO independently coded and analysed a selection of data excerpts at various stages to check for inter-rater reliability as mentioned in ‘ Methodology ’ section. The rubric for quality assessment was based on past work by AO. Communications between the authors were maintained throughout the research process. MS worked on drafting this paper, which was subsequently revised by the AO. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to McQueen Sum .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

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

Cite this article.

Sum, M., Oancea, A. The use of technology in higher education teaching by academics during the COVID-19 emergency remote teaching period: a systematic review. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 19 , 59 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00364-4

Download citation

Received : 27 June 2022

Accepted : 04 September 2022

Published : 14 December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00364-4

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

• Systematic review
• Higher education
• Technology use
• Emergency remote teaching

Press release

UNESCO issues urgent call for appropriate use of technology in education

The digital revolution holds immeasurable potential but, just as warnings have been voiced for how it should be regulated in society, similar attention must be paid to the way it is used in education. Its use must be for enhanced learning experiences and for the well-being of students and teachers, not to their detriment. Keep the needs of the learner first and support teachers. Online connections are no substitute for human interaction.

Entitled “ Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? ” , the 2023 Global Education Monitoring Report is being launched today at an event in Montevideo, Uruguay, hosted by UNESCO, the Ministry of Education and Culture of Uruguay and Ceibal Foundation with 15 ministers of education from around the world. It proposes four questions that policy makers and educational stakeholders should reflect upon as technology is being deployed in education:

• Is it appropriate?

Using technology can improve some types of learning in some contexts. The report cites evidence showing that learning benefits disappear if technology is used in excess or in the absence of a qualified teacher. For example, distributing computers to students does not improve learning if teachers are not involved in the pedagogical experience. Smartphones in schools have also proven to be a distraction to learning, yet fewer than a quarter of countries ban their use in schools.

We need to learn about our past mistakes when using technology in education so that we do not repeat them in the future. We need to teach children to live both with and without technology; to take what they need from the abundance of information, but to ignore what is not necessary; to let technology support, but never supplant human interactions in teaching and learning.

Learning inequities between students widen when instruction is exclusively remote and online content is not always context appropriate. A study of open educational resource collections found that nearly 90% of higher education online repositories were created either in Europe or in North America; 92% of the material in the Open Educational Resources Commons global library is in English.

1. Is it equitable?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid shift to online learning left out at least half a billion students worldwide, mostly affecting the poorest and those in rural areas. The report underlines that the right to education is increasingly synonymous with the right to meaningful connectivity, yet one in four primary schools do not have electricity. It calls for all countries to set benchmarks for connecting schools to the internet between now and 2030 and for the focus to remain on the most marginalized.

2. Is it scalable?

Sound, rigorous and impartial evidence of technology’s added value in learning is needed more than ever, but is lacking. Most evidence comes from the United States, where the What Works Clearinghouse pointed out that less than 2% of education interventions assessed had ‘strong or moderate evidence of effectiveness’. When the evidence only comes from the technology companies themselves, there is a risk it may be biased.

Many countries ignore the long-term costs of technology purchases and the EdTech market is expanding while basic education needs remain unmet. The cost of moving to basic digital learning in low-income countries and connecting all schools to the internet in lower-middle-income countries would add 50% to their current financing gap for achieving national SDG 4 targets. A full digital transformation of education with internet connectivity in schools and homes would cost over a billion per day just to operate.

3.Is it sustainable?

The fast pace of change in technology is putting strain on education systems to adapt. Digital literacy and critical thinking are increasingly important, particularly with the growth of generative AI. Additional data attached to the report show that this adaptation movement has begun: 54% of surveyed countries have defined the skills they want to develop for the future. But only 11 out of 51 governments surveyed have curricula for AI.

In addition to these skills, basic literacy should not be overlooked, as it is critical for digital application too: students with better reading skills are far less likely to be duped by phishing emails.

Moreover, teachers also need appropriate training yet only half of countries currently have standards for developing their ICT skills. Few teacher training programmes cover cybersecurity even though 5% of ransomware attacks target education.

Sustainability also requires better guaranteeing the rights of technology users. Today, only 16% of countries guarantee data privacy in education by law. One analysis found that 89% of 163 education technology products could survey children. Further, 39 of 42 governments providing online education during the pandemic fostered uses that ‘risked or infringed’ on children’s rights.

Press contacts 

Clare O’Hagan: [email protected] +33 (0) 1 45 68 17 29

Elsa Weill: [email protected] +33 630 62 18 75

Notes to editors:

The Global Education Monitoring Report: Established in 2002, the GEM Report is an editorially independent report, hosted and published by UNESCO. At the 2015 World Education Forum, it received a mandate from 160 governments to monitor and report on progress on education in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with particular reference to the SDG 4 monitoring framework, and the implementation of national and international strategies to help hold all relevant partners to account for their commitments.

Related items

• Information and communication
• UN ＆ International cooperation
• Topics: Display
• UNESCO Office in Montevideo and Regional Bureau for Science
• UNESCO Office in Santiago and Regional Bureau for Education
• UNESCO Office in New Delhi
• See more add

More on this subject

Other recent press releases

Become an Insider

Sign up today to receive premium content.

The Evolution of Technology in K–12 Classrooms: 1659 to Today

Alexander Huls is a Toronto-based writer whose work has appeared in  The New York Times ,  Popular Mechanics ,  Esquire ,  The Atlantic  and elsewhere.

In the 21st century, it can feel like advanced technology is changing the K–12 classroom in ways we’ve never seen before. But the truth is, technology and education have a long history of evolving together to dramatically change how students learn.

With more innovations surely headed our way, why not look back at how we got to where we are today, while looking forward to how educators can continue to integrate new technologies into their learning?

DISCOVER:  Special education departments explore advanced tech in their classrooms.

Using Technology in the K–12 Classroom: A History

1659: magic lantern.

• Inventor:  Christiaan Huygens
• A Brief History:  An ancestor of the slide projector, the magic lantern projected glass slides with light from oil lamps or candles. In the 1680s, the technology was brought to the education space to show detailed anatomical illustrations, which were difficult to sketch on a chalkboard.
• Interesting Fact:  Huygens initially regretted his creation, thinking it was too frivolous.

1795: Pencil

• Inventor:  Nicolas-Jacques Conté
• A Brief History : Versions of the pencil can be traced back hundreds of years, but what’s considered the modern pencil is credited to Conté, a scientist in Napoleon Bonaparte’s army. It made its impact on the classroom, however, when it began to be mass produced in the 1900s.
• Interesting Fact:  The Aztecs used a form of graphite pencil in the 13th century.

1801: Chalkboard

• Inventor:  James Pillans
• A Brief History:  Pillans — a headmaster at a high school in Edinburgh, Scotland — created the first front-of-class chalkboard, or “blackboard,” to better teach his students geography with large maps. Prior to his creation, educators worked with students on smaller, individual pieces of wood or slate. In the 1960s, the creation was upgraded to a green board, which became a familiar fixture in every classroom.
• Interesting Fact:  Before chalkboards were commercially manufactured, some were made do-it-yourself-style with ingredients like pine board, egg whites and charred potatoes.

1888: Ballpoint Pen

• Inventory:  John L. Loud
• A Brief History:  John L. Loud invented and patented the first ballpoint pen after seeking to create a tool that could write on leather. It was not a commercial success. Fifty years later, following the lapse of Loud’s patent, Hungarian journalist László Bíró invented a pen with a quick-drying special ink that wouldn’t smear thanks to a rolling ball in its nib.
• Interesting Fact:  When ballpoint pens debuted in the U.S., they were so popular that Gimbels, the department store selling them, made $81 million in today’s money within six months.

LEARN MORE:  Logitech Pen works with Chromebooks to combine digital and physical learning.

1950s: Overhead Projector

• Inventor:  Roger Appeldorn
• A Brief History:  Overhead projects were used during World War II for mission briefings. However, 3M employee Appeldorn is credited with creating not only a projectable transparent film, but also the overhead projectors that would find a home in classrooms for decades.
• Interesting Fact:  Appeldorn’s creation is the predecessor to today’s  bright and efficient laser projectors .

1959: Photocopier

• Inventor:  Chester Carlson
• A Brief History:  Because of his arthritis, patent attorney and inventor Carlson wanted to create a less painful alternative to making carbon copies. Between 1938 and 1947, working with The Haloid Photographic Company, Carlson perfected the process of electrophotography, which led to development of the first photocopy machines.
• Interesting Fact:  Haloid and Carlson named their photocopying process xerography, which means “dry writing” in Greek. Eventually, Haloid renamed its company (and its flagship product line) Xerox .

1967: Handheld Calculator

• Inventor:   Texas Instruments
• A Brief History:  As recounted in our  history of the calculator , Texas Instruments made calculators portable with a device that weighed 45 ounces and featured a small keyboard with 18 keys and a visual display of 12 decimal digits.
• Interesting Fact:  The original 1967 prototype of the device can be found in the Smithsonian Institution’s  National Museum of American History .

1981: The Osborne 1 Laptop

• Inventor:  Adam Osborne, Lee Felsenstein
• A Brief History:  Osborne, a computer book author, teamed up with computer engineer Felsenstein to create a portable computer that would appeal to general consumers. In the process, they provided the technological foundation that made modern one-to-one devices — like Chromebooks — a classroom staple.
• Interesting Fact:  At 24.5 pounds, the Osborne 1 was about as big and heavy as a sewing machine, earning it the current classification of a “luggable” computer, rather than a laptop.

1990: World Wide Web

• Inventor:  Tim Berners-Lee
• A Brief History:  In the late 1980s, British scientist Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web to enable information sharing between scientists and academics. It wasn’t long before the Web could connect anyone, anywhere to a wealth of information, and it was soon on its way to powering the modern classroom.
• Interesting Fact:  The first web server Berners-Lee created was so new, he had to put a sign on the computer that read, “This machine is a server. DO NOT POWER IT DOWN!”

Click the banner  to access customized K–12 technology content when you sign up as an Insider.

What Technology Is Used in Today’s K–12 Classrooms?

Technology has come so far that modern classrooms are more technologically advanced than many science labs were two decades ago. Students have access to digital textbooks,  personal devices , collaborative  cloud-based tools , and  interactive whiteboards . Emerging technologies now being introduced to K–12 classrooms include voice assistants, virtual reality devices and 3D printers.

Perhaps the most important thing about ed tech in K–12 isn’t what the technology is, but how it’s used.

How to Integrate Technology into K–12 Classrooms

The first step to integrating technology into the K–12 classroom is  figuring out which solution to integrate , given the large variety of tools available to educators. That variety comes with benefits — like the ability to align tech with district objectives and grade level — but also brings challenges.

“It’s difficult to know how to choose the appropriate digital tool or resource,” says Judi Harris, professor and Pavey Family Chair in Educational Technology at the William & Mary School of Education. “Teachers need some familiarity with the tools so that they understand the potential advantages and disadvantages.”

Judi Harris Professor and Pavey Family Chair in Educational Technology, William and Mary School of Education

K–12 IT leaders should also be careful not to focus too much on technology implementation at the expense of curriculum-based learning needs. “What districts need to ask themselves is not only whether they’re going to adopt a technology, but how they’re going to adopt it,” says Royce Kimmons, associate professor of instructional psychology and technology at Brigham Young University.

In other words, while emerging technologies may be exciting, acquiring them without proper consideration of their role in improving classroom learning will likely result in mixed student outcomes. For effective integration, educators should ask themselves, in what ways would the tech increase or support a student’s productivity and learning outcomes? How will it improve engagement?

Integrating ed tech also requires some practical know-how. “Teachers need to be comfortable and confident with the tools they ask students to use,” says Harris.

Professional development for new technologies is crucial, as are supportive IT teams, tech providers with generous onboarding programs and technology integration specialists. Harris also points to initiatives like YES: Youth and Educators Succeeding, a nonprofit organization that prepares students to act as resident experts and classroom IT support.

KEEP READING:  What is the continued importance of professional development in K–12 education?

But as educational technology is rolled out and integrated, it’s important to keep academic goals in sight. “We should never stop focusing on how to best understand and help the learner to achieve those learning objectives,” says Harris.

That should continue to be the case as the technology timeline unfolds, something Harris has witnessed firsthand during her four decades in the field. “It’s been an incredible thing to watch and to participate in,” she notes. “The great majority of teachers are extremely eager to learn and to do anything that will help their students learn better.”

• Professional Development

Related Articles

CDW Education Events

Find out what's happening in your area.

Copyright © 2024 CDW LLC 200 N. Milwaukee Avenue , Vernon Hills, IL 60061 Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Technology in Education: An Overview

• Share article

Technology is everywhere in education: Public schools in the United States now provide at least one computer for every five students. They spend more than $3 billion per year on digital content. Led by the federal government, the country is in the midst of a massive effort to make affordable high-speed Internet and free online teaching resources available to even the most rural and remote schools. And in 2015-16, for the first time, more state standardized tests for the elementary and middle grades will be administered via technology than by paper and pencil.

To keep up with what’s changing (and what isn’t), observers must know where to look.

There’s the booming ed-tech industry, with corporate titans and small startups alike vying for a slice of an $8 billion-plus yearly market for hardware and software. Much attention is also paid to the “early adopters”—those districts, schools, and teachers who are making the most ingenious and effective uses of the new tools at their disposal.

But a significant body of research has also made clear that most teachers have been slow to transform the ways they teach, despite the influx of new technology into their classrooms. There remains limited evidence to show that technology and online learning are improving learning outcomes for most students. And academics and parents alike have expressed concerns about digital distractions, ways in which unequal access to and use of technology might widen achievement gaps, and more.

State and federal lawmakers, meanwhile, have wrestled in recent years with the reality that new technologies also present new challenges. The rise of “big data,” for example, has led to new concerns about how schools can keep sensitive student information private and secure.

What follows is an overview of the big trends, opportunities, and concerns associated with classroom technology. Links to additional resources are included in each section for those who would like to dig deeper.

What Is Personalized Learning?

Many in the ed-tech field see new technologies as powerful tools to help schools meet the needs of ever-more-diverse student populations. The idea is that digital devices, software, and learning platforms offer a once-unimaginable array of options for tailoring education to each individual student’s academic strengths and weaknesses, interests and motivations, personal preferences, and optimal pace of learning.

In recent years, a group of organizations including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, and EDUCAUSE have crafted a definition of “personalized learning” that rests on four pillars:

• Each student should have a “learner profile” that documents his or her strengths, weaknesses, preferences, and goals;
• Each student should pursue an individualized learning path that encourages him or her to set and manage personal academic goals;
• Students should follow a “competency-based progression” that focuses on their ability to demonstrate mastery of a topic, rather than seat time; and,
• Students’ learning environments should be flexible and structured in ways that support their individual goals.

How does technology support that vision?

In many schools, students are given district-owned computing devices or allowed to bring their own devices from home. The idea is that this allows for “24-7” learning at the time and location of the student’s choosing.

Learning management systems, student information systems, and other software are also used to distribute assignments, manage schedules and communications, and track student progress.

And educational software and applications have grown more “adaptive,” relying on technology and algorithms to determine not only what a student knows, but what his or her learning process is, and even his or her emotional state.

For all the technological progress, though, implementation remains a major challenge. Schools and educators across the country continue to wrestle with the changing role of teachers, how to balance flexible and “personalized” models with the state and federal accountability requirements they still must meet, and the deeper cultural challenge of changing educators’ long-standing habits and routines.

Despite the massive investments that many school systems are making, the evidence that digital personalized learning can improve student outcomes or narrow achievement gaps at scale remains scattered, at best.

Additional resources:

• Taking Stock of Personalized Learning (Education Week special report)
• A Working Definition of Personalized Learning
• Why Ed Tech Is Not Transforming How Teachers Teach

What Is 1-to-1 Computing?

Increasingly, schools are moving to provide students with their own laptop computer, netbook, or digital tablet. Schools purchased more than 23 million devices for classroom use in 2013 and 2014 alone. In recent years, iPads and then Chromebooks (inexpensive Web-based laptops) have emerged as the devices of choice for many schools.

Video: Creating a Digital Culture

The two biggest factors spurring the rise in 1-to-1 student computing have been new mandates that state standardized tests be delivered online and the widespread adoption of the Common Core State Standards.

Generally, the hope is that putting devices in the hands of students will help with some or all of the following goals:

• Allowing teachers and software to deliver more personalized content and lessons to students, while allowing students to learn at their own pace and ability level;
• Helping students to become technologically skilled and literate and thus better prepared for modern workplaces;
• Empowering students to do more complex and creative work by allowing them to use digital and online applications and tools;
• Improving the administration and management of schools and classrooms by making it easier to gather information on what students know and have done;
• Improving communications among students, teachers, and parents.

Despite the potential benefits, however, many districts have run into trouble when attempting to implement 1-to-1 computing initiatives. Paying for the devices can be a challenge, especially as the strategy of issuing long-term bonds for short-term technology purchases has come into question. Many districts have also run into problems with infrastructure (not enough bandwidth to support all students accessing the Internet at the same time) and deployment (poor planning in distributing and managing thousands of devices.)

The most significant problem for schools trying to go 1-to-1, though, has been a lack of educational vision. Without a clear picture of how teaching and learning is expected to change, experts say, going 1-to-1 often amounts to a “spray and pray” approach of distributing many devices and hoping for the best.

Some critics of educational technology also point to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which found that countries where 15-year old students use computers most in the classroom scored the worst on international reading and math tests.

• Learn More About 1-to-1 Computing
• Hard Lessons Learned in Ambitious L.A. iPad Initiative
• Chromebooks Gaining Popularity in School Districts

What Is Blended Learning?

In its simplest terms, blended learning combines traditional, teacher-to-student lessons with technology-based instruction.

Many schools and districts use a “rotation” model, which is often viewed as an effective means of providing students with more personalized instruction and smaller group experiences. In some cases, saving money (through larger overall class sizes, for example) is also a goal. The basic premise involves students rotating between online and in-person stations for different parts of the day. There are many versions of this approach, however: Do students stay in the classroom or go to a computer lab?

Does online instruction cover core content, or is it primarily for remediation? Are all students doing the same thing online, or do different students have different software and learning experiences?

Video: At Blended Learning School, Students on Flexible Schedules

One big trend for schools involves trying to make sure that what happens online is connected with what happens during face-to-face interactions with teachers. That could involve giving teachers a say in selecting the software that students use, for example, or making a concerted effort to ensure online programs provide teachers with data that is useful in making timely instructional decisions.

Another trend involves boosting students’ access to the Internet outside of school. Robust blended learning programs involve “anytime, anywhere” access to learning content for students—a major challenge in many communities.

Perhaps the biggest hurdle confronting educators interested in blended learning, though, is the lack of a solid research base. As of now, there is still no definitive evidence that blended learning works (or doesn’t.) While some studies have found encouraging results with specific programs or under certain circumstances, the question of whether blended learning positively impacts student learning still has a mostly unsatisfactory answer: “It depends.”

• Blended Learning: Breaking Down Barriers (Education Week special report)
• Blended Learning Research: The 7 Studies You Need to Know
• Learn More About Blended Learning

What Is the Status of Tech Infrastructure and the E-Rate?

The promise of technology in the classroom is almost entirely dependent on reliable infrastructure. But in many parts of the country, schools still struggle to get affordable access to high-speed Internet and/or robust wireless connectivity.

A typical school district network involves multiple components. In 2014, the Federal Communications Commission established connectivity targets for some of the pieces:

• A connection to the broader Internet provided by an outside service provider to the district office (or another central district hub). Target: 100 megabits per second per 1,000 students in the short-term, and 1 Gigabit per second per 1,000 students in the long-term.
• A “Wide Area Network” that provides network connections between the district’s central hub and all of its campuses, office buildings, and other facilities. Target: Connections capable of delivering 10 Gigabits per second per 1,000 students.
• “Local Area Networks” that provide connections within a school, including the equipment necessary to provide Wi-Fi service inside classrooms. Target: The FCC recommended a survey to determine a suitable measure. Many school-technology advocates call for internal connections that support 1-to-1 computing.

To support schools (and libraries) in building and paying for these networks, the FCC in 1996 established a program known as the E-rate. Fees on consumers’ phone bills fund the program, which has paid out more than $30 billion since its inception.

In 2014, the commission overhauled the E-rate, raising the program’s annual spending cap from $2.4 billion to $3.9 billion and prioritizing support for broadband service and wireless networks. The changes were already being felt as of Fall 2015; after steadily declining for years, the number of schools and libraries applying for E-rate funds for wireless network equipment skyrocketed, with nearly all of the applicants expected to receive a portion of the $1.6 billion in overall wireless-related requests.

As part of the E-rate overhaul, the FCC also approved a series of regulatory changes aimed at leveling the playing field for rural and remote schools, which often face two big struggles: accessing the fiber-optic cables that experts say are essential to meeting the FCC’s long-term goals, and finding affordable rates.

Infrastructure in some contexts can also be taken to include learning devices, digital content, and the policies and guidelines that govern how they are expected to be used in schools (such as “responsible use policies” and “digital citizenship” programs aimed to ensure that students and staff are using technology appropriately and in support of learning goals.)

Another big—and often overlooked—aspect of infrastructure is what’s known as interoperability. Essentially, the term refers to common standards and protocols for formatting and handling data so that information can be shared between software programs. A number of frameworks outline data interoperability standards for different purposes. Many hope to see the field settle on common standards in the coming years.

Additional Resources:

• The Typical School Network (EducationSuperHighway)
• The E-rate Overhaul in 4 Easy Charts
• Reversing a Raw Deal: Rural Schools Still Struggle to Access Affordable High Speed Internet (Education Week special series)

How Is Online Testing Evolving?

The biggest development on this front has been states’ adoption of online exams aligned with the Common Core State Standards. During the 2014-15 school year, 10 states (plus the District of Columbia) used exams from the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), and 18 states used exams from the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, all of which were delivered primarily online. Many of the other states also used online assessments.

The 2015-16 school year will be the first in which more state-required summative assessments in U.S. middle and elementary schools will be delivered via technology rather than paper and pencil, according to a recent analysis by EdTech Strategies, an educational technology consulting firm.

Beyond meeting legislative mandates, perceived benefits include cost savings, ease of administration and analysis, and the potential to employ complex performance tasks.

But some states—including Florida, Minnesota, Montana, and Wisconsin—have experienced big problems with online tests, ranging from cyber attacks to log-in problems to technical errors. And there is growing evidence that students who take the paper-and-pencil version of some important tests perform better than peers who take the same exams online, at least in the short term.

Nevertheless, it appears likely that online testing will continue to grow—and not just for state summative assessments. The U.S. Department of Education, for example, is among those pushing for a greater use of technologically enhanced formative assessments that can be used to diagnose students’ abilities in close to real time. In the department’s 2016 National Education Technology Plan, for example, it calls for states and districts to “design, develop, and implement learning dashboards, response systems, and communication pathways that give students, educators, families, and other stakeholders timely and actionable feedback about student learning to improve achievement and instructional practices.”

• PARCC Scores Lower for Students Who Took Exams on Computers
• Map: The National K-12 Testing Landscape
• Pencils Down: The Shift to Online and Computer-Based Testing (EdTech Strategies)
• Online Testing Glitches Causing Distrust in Technology
• U.S. Ed-Tech Plan Calls Attention to ‘Digital-Use Divide’

How Are Digital Materials Used in Classrooms?

Digital instructional content is the largest slice of the (non-hardware) K-12 educational technology market, with annual sales of more then $3 billion. That includes digital lessons in math, English/language arts, and science, as well as “specialty” subjects such as business and fine arts. The market is still dominated by giant publishers such as Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and Pearson, who have been scrambling to transition from their print-centric legacy products to more digital offerings.

But newcomers with one-off products or specific areas of expertise have made inroads, and some apps and online services have also gained huge traction inside of schools.

As a result, many schools use a mix of digital resources, touting potential benefits such as greater ability to personalize, higher engagement among students, enhanced ability to keep content updated and current, and greater interactivity and adaptivity (or responsiveness to individual learners).

Still, though, the transition to digital instructional materials is happening slowly, for reasons that range from the financial (for districts that haven’t been able to purchase devices for all students, for example) to the technical (districts that lack the infrastructure to support every student being online together.) Print still accounts for about 70 percent of pre-K-12 instructional materials sales in the United States.

• Learn More About Digital Curriculum
• Digital Content Providers Ride Wave of Rising Revenues
• K-12 Print Needs Persist Despite Digital Growth

What Are Open Educational Resources?

Rather than buying digital instructional content, some states and districts prefer using “open” digital education resources that are licensed in such a way that they can be freely used, revised, and shared. The trend appears likely to accelerate: The U.S. Department of Education, for example, is now formally encouraging districts to move away from textbooks and towards greater adoption of OER.

New York and Utah have led the way in developing open educational resources and encouraging their use by schools. The K-12 OER Collaborative, which includes 12 states and several nonprofit organizations, is working to develop OER materials as well.

Proponents argue that OER offer greater bang for the buck, while also giving students better access to a wider array of digital materials and teachers more flexibility to customize instructional content for individual classrooms and students. Some also believe OER use encourages collaboration among teachers. Concerns from industry and others generally focus on the quality of open materials, as well as the challenges that educators face in sifting through voluminous one-off resources to find the right material for every lesson.

• What is OER? (Creative Commons)
• Districts Put Open Educational Resources to Work
• Calculating the Return on Open Educational Resources

How Are Virtual Education and Distance Learning Doing?

One technology trend that has come under increasing scrutiny involves full-time online schools, particularly cyber charters. About 200,000 students are enrolled in about 200 publicly funded, independently managed online charter schools across 26 states.

But such schools were found to have an “overwhelming negative impact” on student learning in a comprehensive set of studies released in 2015 by a group of research organizations, including Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University.

That research did not cover the more than two dozen full-time online schools that are state-run, however, nor did it cover the dozens more that are run by individual school districts. Thousands upon thousands of students who are enrolled in traditional brick-and-mortar schools also take individual courses online. Five states—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, and Virginia—now require students to have some online learning to graduate. Other states, such as Utah, have passed laws encouraging such options for students.

For many students, especially those in rural and remote areas, online and distance learning can offer access to courses, subjects, and teachers they might otherwise never be able to find. Such opportunities can also benefit advanced and highly motivated students and those with unusual schedules and travel requirements, and be a useful tool to keep schools running during snow days.

But so far, achieving positive academic outcomes at scale via online learning has proven difficult, and many observers have expressed concerns about the lack of accountability in the sector, especially as relates to for-profit managers of online options.

• Learn More About Remote/Virtual Learning
• Cyber Charters Have ‘Overwhelming Negative Impact’

Education Issues, Explained

How to Cite This Article Herold, B. (2016, February 5). Technology in Education An Overview. Education Week. Retrieved Month Day, Year from https://www.edweek.org/technology/technology-in-education-an-overview/2016/02

Sign Up for EdWeek Tech Leader

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

• Our Mission

Effective Uses of Technology in Elementary School

Minimizing screen time and maximizing student interactions are worthwhile, but there are still good uses of technology in the elementary grades.

Following months of virtual schooling and tuning in to a device for synchronous and asynchronous learning, many teachers and students have been happy this year to move away from digital experiences and return to analog learning activities.

Many elementary school activities engage children in hands-on, dynamic activities that do not require the use of technology, limiting how much time students spend in front of a screen. However, there are ways that technology can develop and sustain unique learning opportunities in schools.

As an educational technologist, I collaborate with teachers to implement technologies that improve student learning. I’ll talk about and share examples of how teachers can use technology in the classroom to provide instructional guidance and support, encourage students’ self-reflection, and spark creativity.

Using Technology as an Instructional Tool

Teachers can create short audio or video clips to supplement and extend classroom instruction. Many teachers have discovered how simple it is to create a short video that students can use to review a concept or reread a set of instructions while participating in remote learning.

You can create detailed instructions or give information to guide students through a series of exercises for a lesson or project. Plan a class activity in which students, for example, rotate among different stations (individually or in small groups) to complete a series of independent tasks.

Each station could have its own device, such as an iPad or a Chromebook, where students can review prerecorded instructions or rewatch brief presentations while doing activities at that station. You might create a screencast  as a tutorial or explain the steps to completing a math review worksheet .

Students Using Technology to Self-Reflect on Their Learning and Progress

Students can use technology to keep track of their progress. They can use images or a short video to document special classroom moments, activities, projects, or presentations, and then create a presentation that highlights their learning from these snapshots.

For example, a third-grade student learning about the composition of a cell could create a presentation that included a photo of a cell diagram, descriptions of why certain parts of a cell were included, explanations of what materials were used to create the cell model, and a written reflection of what they learned about the parts of a cell. For a framework of how to write a self-reflection, you can provide students with protocols such as Project Zero’s thinking routine “ I Used to Think… Now I Think .” John Spencer’s blog post about digital portfolios is another resource you can use to prompt students’ self-reflection.

To help students develop their metacognitive skills, you can combine learning snapshots with opportunities for their self-reflection. During a large or small group presentation, students can present a slide show with voice-overs or explain what they were doing and what they learned at the moment. They can respond to questions such as “Did this learning experience make you feel successful?” and “What would you do differently next time?” Students can revisit these reflections later in the year to assess and celebrate their progress.

In one upper elementary classroom I visited, for example, students were trying out different study strategies to see which ones worked best for them. After they completed a formative assessment activity, the teacher asked them to reflect on whether they had felt successful throughout the assessment activity because of using study strategies.

The teacher asked students to identify which strategies they used and whether they thought the strategies were effective in helping them explore new content and ideas. One student described how using flash cards and rereading a chapter helped her prepare for and pass a science quiz.

You can allow students to reflect with fewer specific prompts as they become accustomed to considering their work and feel comfortable exploring how they think throughout a learning experience.

Using Technology to Provide Choice and Spark Students’ Creativity

You can design projects that allow students to choose how they want to use technology. Students can create digital art by using various websites and tools. They can create original artwork or learning resources such as math manipulatives using classroom art supplies and then record a brief video explaining or displaying their work.

Comic strips, slide shows, green screen images, infographics, timelines, digital posters, videos, podcasts, mini-portfolios, and video book talks are other forms of digital student creation. When students combine these various modalities, they have even more opportunities for creativity and self-expression.

With the help of technology, sharing digital creations like these is simple. Google’s share settings can publish Google Slideshows or documents. Google Sites is also an excellent tool for students to keep track of their assignments. Students can include video, images, Google Drive files, PDF files, and much more on a Google Site. Microsoft Office 365 tools, Flipgrid, and Padlet are some of the other platforms for creating, curating, and sharing student work.

When using technology in the elementary classroom, be judicious and intentional. Before implementing it, consider your goals for using it and whether it provides a functional improvement to a learning task. Documenting student learning, providing extra student support via audio or video, and enhancing student creation capabilities are all excellent ways for technology to improve the teaching and learning process.

This site belongs to UNESCO's International Institute for Educational Planning

IIEP Learning Portal

Search form

• issue briefs
• Improve learning

Information and communication technology (ICT) in education

Information and communications technology (ict) can impact student learning when teachers are digitally literate and understand how to integrate it into curriculum..

Schools use a diverse set of ICT tools to communicate, create, disseminate, store, and manage information.(6) In some contexts, ICT has also become integral to the teaching-learning interaction, through such approaches as replacing chalkboards with interactive digital whiteboards, using students’ own smartphones or other devices for learning during class time, and the “flipped classroom” model where students watch lectures at home on the computer and use classroom time for more interactive exercises.

When teachers are digitally literate and trained to use ICT, these approaches can lead to higher order thinking skills, provide creative and individualized options for students to express their understandings, and leave students better prepared to deal with ongoing technological change in society and the workplace.(18)

ICT issues planners must consider include: considering the total cost-benefit equation, supplying and maintaining the requisite infrastructure, and ensuring investments are matched with teacher support and other policies aimed at effective ICT use.(16)

Issues and Discussion

Digital culture and digital literacy: Computer technologies and other aspects of digital culture have changed the ways people live, work, play, and learn, impacting the construction and distribution of knowledge and power around the world.(14) Graduates who are less familiar with digital culture are increasingly at a disadvantage in the national and global economy. Digital literacy—the skills of searching for, discerning, and producing information, as well as the critical use of new media for full participation in society—has thus become an important consideration for curriculum frameworks.(8)

In many countries, digital literacy is being built through the incorporation of information and communication technology (ICT) into schools. Some common educational applications of ICT include:

• One laptop per child: Less expensive laptops have been designed for use in school on a 1:1 basis with features like lower power consumption, a low cost operating system, and special re-programming and mesh network functions.(42) Despite efforts to reduce costs, however, providing one laptop per child may be too costly for some developing countries.(41)
• Tablets: Tablets are small personal computers with a touch screen, allowing input without a keyboard or mouse. Inexpensive learning software (“apps”) can be downloaded onto tablets, making them a versatile tool for learning.(7)(25) The most effective apps develop higher order thinking skills and provide creative and individualized options for students to express their understandings.(18)
• Interactive White Boards or Smart Boards : Interactive white boards allow projected computer images to be displayed, manipulated, dragged, clicked, or copied.(3) Simultaneously, handwritten notes can be taken on the board and saved for later use. Interactive white boards are associated with whole-class instruction rather than student-centred activities.(38) Student engagement is generally higher when ICT is available for student use throughout the classroom.(4)
• E-readers : E-readers are electronic devices that can hold hundreds of books in digital form, and they are increasingly utilized in the delivery of reading material.(19) Students—both skilled readers and reluctant readers—have had positive responses to the use of e-readers for independent reading.(22) Features of e-readers that can contribute to positive use include their portability and long battery life, response to text, and the ability to define unknown words.(22) Additionally, many classic book titles are available for free in e-book form.
• Flipped Classrooms: The flipped classroom model, involving lecture and practice at home via computer-guided instruction and interactive learning activities in class, can allow for an expanded curriculum. There is little investigation on the student learning outcomes of flipped classrooms.(5) Student perceptions about flipped classrooms are mixed, but generally positive, as they prefer the cooperative learning activities in class over lecture.(5)(35)

ICT and Teacher Professional Development: Teachers need specific professional development opportunities in order to increase their ability to use ICT for formative learning assessments, individualized instruction, accessing online resources, and for fostering student interaction and collaboration.(15) Such training in ICT should positively impact teachers’ general attitudes towards ICT in the classroom, but it should also provide specific guidance on ICT teaching and learning within each discipline. Without this support, teachers tend to use ICT for skill-based applications, limiting student academic thinking.(32) To sup­port teachers as they change their teaching, it is also essential for education managers, supervisors, teacher educators, and decision makers to be trained in ICT use.(11)

Ensuring benefits of ICT investments: To ensure the investments made in ICT benefit students, additional conditions must be met. School policies need to provide schools with the minimum acceptable infrastructure for ICT, including stable and affordable internet connectivity and security measures such as filters and site blockers. Teacher policies need to target basic ICT literacy skills, ICT use in pedagogical settings, and discipline-specific uses. (21) Successful imple­mentation of ICT requires integration of ICT in the curriculum. Finally, digital content needs to be developed in local languages and reflect local culture. (40) Ongoing technical, human, and organizational supports on all of these issues are needed to ensure access and effective use of ICT. (21)

Resource Constrained Contexts: The total cost of ICT ownership is considerable: training of teachers and administrators, connectivity, technical support, and software, amongst others. (42) When bringing ICT into classrooms, policies should use an incremental pathway, establishing infrastructure and bringing in sustainable and easily upgradable ICT. (16) Schools in some countries have begun allowing students to bring their own mobile technology (such as laptop, tablet, or smartphone) into class rather than providing such tools to all students—an approach called Bring Your Own Device. (1)(27)(34) However, not all families can afford devices or service plans for their children. (30) Schools must ensure all students have equitable access to ICT devices for learning.

Inclusiveness Considerations

Digital Divide: The digital divide refers to disparities of digital media and internet access both within and across countries, as well as the gap between people with and without the digital literacy and skills to utilize media and internet.(23)(26)(31) The digital divide both creates and reinforces socio-economic inequalities of the world’s poorest people. Policies need to intentionally bridge this divide to bring media, internet, and digital literacy to all students, not just those who are easiest to reach.

Minority language groups: Students whose mother tongue is different from the official language of instruction are less likely to have computers and internet connections at home than students from the majority. There is also less material available to them online in their own language, putting them at a disadvantage in comparison to their majority peers who gather information, prepare talks and papers, and communicate more using ICT. (39) Yet ICT tools can also help improve the skills of minority language students—especially in learning the official language of instruction—through features such as automatic speech recognition, the availability of authentic audio-visual materials, and chat functions. (2)(17)

Students with different styles of learning: ICT can provide diverse options for taking in and processing information, making sense of ideas, and expressing learning. Over 87% of students learn best through visual and tactile modalities, and ICT can help these students ‘experience’ the information instead of just reading and hearing it. (20)(37) Mobile devices can also offer programmes (“apps”) that provide extra support to students with special needs, with features such as simplified screens and instructions, consistent placement of menus and control features, graphics combined with text, audio feedback, ability to set pace and level of difficulty, appropriate and unambiguous feedback, and easy error correction. (24)(29)

Plans and policies

• India [ PDF ]
• Detroit, USA [ PDF ]
• Finland [ PDF ]
• Alberta Education. 2012. Bring your own device: A guide for schools . Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/admin/technology/research.aspx
• Alsied, S.M. and Pathan, M.M. 2015. ‘The use of computer technology in EFL classroom: Advantages and implications.’ International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies . 1 (1).
• BBC. N.D. ‘What is an interactive whiteboard?’ Retrieved from http://www.bbcactive.com/BBCActiveIdeasandResources/Whatisaninteractivewhiteboard.aspx
• Beilefeldt, T. 2012. ‘Guidance for technology decisions from classroom observation.’ Journal of Research on Technology in Education . 44 (3).
• Bishop, J.L. and Verleger, M.A. 2013. ‘The flipped classroom: A survey of the research.’ Presented at the 120th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Atlanta, Georgia.
• Blurton, C. 2000. New Directions of ICT-Use in Education . United National Education Science and Culture Organization (UNESCO).
• Bryant, B.R., Ok, M., Kang, E.Y., Kim, M.K., Lang, R., Bryant, D.P. and Pfannestiel, K. 2015. ‘Performance of fourth-grade students with learning disabilities on multiplication facts comparing teacher-mediated and technology-mediated interventions: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Behavioral Education. 24.
• Buckingham, D. 2005. Educación en medios. Alfabetización, aprendizaje y cultura contemporánea, Barcelona, Paidós.
• Buckingham, D., Sefton-Green, J., and Scanlon, M. 2001. 'Selling the Digital Dream: Marketing Education Technologies to Teachers and Parents.'  ICT, Pedagogy, and the Curriculum: Subject to Change . London: Routledge.
• "Burk, R. 2001. 'E-book devices and the marketplace: In search of customers.' Library Hi Tech 19 (4)."
• Chapman, D., and Mählck, L. (Eds). 2004. Adapting technology for school improvement: a global perspective. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.
• Cheung, A.C.K and Slavin, R.E. 2012. ‘How features of educational technology applications affect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis.’ Educational Research Review . 7.
• Cheung, A.C.K and Slavin, R.E. 2013. ‘The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis.’ Educational Research Review . 9.
• Deuze, M. 2006. 'Participation Remediation Bricolage - Considering Principal Components of a Digital Culture.' The Information Society . 22 .
• Dunleavy, M., Dextert, S. and Heinecke, W.F. 2007. ‘What added value does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning?’ Journal of Computer Assisted Learning . 23.
• Enyedy, N. 2014. Personalized Instruction: New Interest, Old Rhetoric, Limited Results, and the Need for a New Direction for Computer-Mediated Learning . Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
• Golonka, E.M., Bowles, A.R., Frank, V.M., Richardson, D.L. and Freynik, S. 2014. ‘Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness.’ Computer Assisted Language Learning . 27 (1).
• Goodwin, K. 2012. Use of Tablet Technology in the Classroom . Strathfield, New South Wales: NSW Curriculum and Learning Innovation Centre.
• Jung, J., Chan-Olmsted, S., Park, B., and Kim, Y. 2011. 'Factors affecting e-book reader awareness, interest, and intention to use.' New Media & Society . 14 (2)
• Kenney, L. 2011. ‘Elementary education, there’s an app for that. Communication technology in the elementary school classroom.’ The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications . 2 (1).
• Kopcha, T.J. 2012. ‘Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development.’ Computers and Education . 59.
• Miranda, T., Williams-Rossi, D., Johnson, K., and McKenzie, N. 2011. "Reluctant readers in middle school: Successful engagement with text using the e-reader.' International journal of applied science and technology . 1 (6).
• Moyo, L. 2009. 'The digital divide: scarcity, inequality and conflict.' Digital Cultures . New York: Open University Press.
• Newton, D.A. and Dell, A.G. 2011. ‘Mobile devices and students with disabilities: What do best practices tell us?’ Journal of Special Education Technology . 26 (3).
• Nirvi, S. (2011). ‘Special education pupils find learning tool in iPad applications.’ Education Week . 30 .
• Norris, P. 2001. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide . Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press.
• Project Tomorrow. 2012. Learning in the 21st century: Mobile devices + social media = personalized learning . Washington, D.C.: Blackboard K-12.
• Riasati, M.J., Allahyar, N. and Tan, K.E. 2012. ‘Technology in language education: Benefits and barriers.’ Journal of Education and Practice . 3 (5).
• Rodriquez, C.D., Strnadova, I. and Cumming, T. 2013. ‘Using iPads with students with disabilities: Lessons learned from students, teachers, and parents.’ Intervention in School and Clinic . 49 (4).
• Sangani, K. 2013. 'BYOD to the classroom.' Engineering & Technology . 3 (8).
• Servon, L. 2002. Redefining the Digital Divide: Technology, Community and Public Policy . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
• Smeets, E. 2005. ‘Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education?’ Computers and Education. 44 .
• Smith, G.E. and Thorne, S. 2007. Differentiating Instruction with Technology in K-5 Classrooms . Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
• Song, Y. 2014. '"Bring your own device (BYOD)" for seamless science inquiry in a primary school.' Computers & Education. 74 .
• Strayer, J.F. 2012. ‘How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation.’ Learning Environment Research. 15.
• Tamim, R.M., Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P.C. and Schmid, R.F. 2011. ‘What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research. 81 (1).
• Tileston, D.W. 2003. What Every Teacher Should Know about Media and Technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Turel, Y.K. and Johnson, T.E. 2012. ‘Teachers’ belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning.’ Educational Technology and Society . 15(1).
• Volman, M., van Eck, E., Heemskerk, I. and Kuiper, E. 2005. ‘New technologies, new differences. Gender and ethnic differences in pupils’ use of ICT in primary and secondary education.’ Computers and Education. 45 .
• Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D. and ten Brummelhuis, A. 2013. ‘Under which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A call to action.’ Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 29 (1).
• Warschauer, M. and Ames, M. 2010. ‘Can one laptop per child save the world’s poor?’ Journal of International Affairs. 64 (1).
• Zuker, A.A. and Light, D. 2009. ‘Laptop programs for students.’ Science. 323 (5910).

Related information

• Information and communication technologies (ICT)

The future of educational technology

Dan Schwartz is a cognitive psychologist and dean of the Stanford Graduate School of Education.

He says that artificial intelligence is a different beast, but he is optimistic about its future in education. “It’s going to change stuff. It’s really an exciting time,” he says. Schwartz imagines a world not where AI is the teacher, but where human students learn by teaching AI chatbots key concepts. It’s called the Protégé Effect, Schwartz says, providing host Russ Altman a glimpse of the future of education on this episode of Stanford Engineering’s The Future of Everything podcast.

Listen on your favorite podcast platform:

Related : Dan Schwartz , professor of educational technology

[00:00:00] Dan Schwartz: You know, the tough question for me is, should you let the kid use ChatGPT during the test? Right? And we had this argument over calculators, right? And finally they came up with ways to ask questions where it was okay if the kids had calculators. Because the calculator was doing the routine stuff and that's not really what you cared about. What you cared about was, could the kid be innovative? Could they take another, a second approach to solve a problem? Things like that.

[00:00:33] Russ Altman: This is Stanford Engineering's The Future of Everything, and I'm your host, Russ Altman. If you're enjoying The Future of Everything podcast, please hit the follow button in the app that you're listening to now. This will guarantee that you never miss an episode. 

[00:00:46] Today, Dan Schwartz will tell us how AI is impacting education. He studies educational technology and he finds that there's a lot of promise and a lot of worries about how we're going to use AI in the classroom. It's the future of educational technology. Before we get started, please remember to follow the show in the app that you listen to. You'll be alerted to all of our episodes and it'll make sure that you never miss the future of anything.

[00:01:16] You know, the rise of AI has been on people's minds ever since the release of ChatGPT. Especially the powerful one that started to do things that were scary good. We've seen people using it in business, in sports, in entertainment, and definitely in education. When it comes to education, there are some fundamental questions, however, are we teaching students how to use AI? Or are we teaching students? How do we assess them? Can teachers grade papers with AI? Can students write papers with AI? Why is anybody doing anything? Why don't we just have the AI talk to itself all day? These are real questions that come up in AI. 

[00:01:55] Fortunately, we're going to be talking to Dan Schwartz, who's a professor of education and a dean of the School of Education at Stanford University about how AI is impacting education.

[00:02:06] Dan, the release of ChatGPT has had an impact all over the world, people are using it in all kinds of ways. And clearly one of the areas that AI, especially generative AI has made impact is in education. Students are clearly using it, teachers are thinking about using it or using it. You're the Dean of Education at Stanford. What's your take on the situation right now for AI in education? 

[00:02:33] Dan Schwartz: Okay, so lots of answers to that, but, but, you know, the thing I've enjoyed the most is, uh, showing it to people and watching their reaction. So I'm a cognitive psychologist. I study creativity, learning, what it means to understand. And you show this to people and you just see them go, oh my lord.

[00:02:53] And then the next thing you see is they begin to say, uh, what's left for humans? Like what's left? And then they sort of say, wait a minute, will there be any jobs? And then finally they sort of say. Oh my goodness, education needs to change. And as a dean who raises money for a school, this is the best thing to ever happen. No, whether it's good or bad, it doesn't matter. Everybody realizes it's going to change stuff. And so it's really an exciting time. 

[00:03:22] Russ Altman: So that is really good news. I have to say going into this and I have to reveal a bias. I have often wondered if technology has any place in a classroom. And I think it's because I was, uh, I was injured as a youth.

[00:03:37] This is in the 1970s when some teachers tried to put a computer program in front of me and I was a pretty motivated student and I worked with this computer for about six minutes, and I should say, I'm not an anti-computer person. I literally spent all my time writing algorithms and doing computation work. But I just felt as a youth that I wanted to have a teacher in front of me, a human telling me things. Uh, and so that is clearly not the direction, I hear you laughing. So talk to me about the appropriate way to think about computers. Because I really have a big negative reaction to the idea of anything standing between me and a teacher.

[00:04:18] Dan Schwartz: You must have had very good teachers. 

[00:04:19] Russ Altman: I might have. 

[00:04:19] Dan Schwartz: So Russ, you sound like someone who doesn't play video games. 

[00:04:23] Russ Altman: I do not play video games. 

[00:04:24] Dan Schwartz: So there's this world out there where people can experience things they could never experience, uh, directly. And no teacher can deliver this immersive experience of you in the Amazon searching for anthropological artifacts. There's also something called social media that people use. 

[00:04:43] Russ Altman: I've heard about this. 

[00:04:43] Dan Schwartz: Yeah. Yeah. 

[00:04:44] Russ Altman: I think we disseminate the show using it. 

[00:04:46] Dan Schwartz: So back in the day. 

[00:04:47] Russ Altman: Okay. So I'm a dinosaur. 

[00:04:49] Dan Schwartz: Uh, back in the day, you got the Apple 2 maybe, and it's about 64 K, maybe. It's got a big floppy drive and it takes all its CPU power to draw a picture of a two plus two on the screen. So I think things have changed a little bit Russ. But I appreciate your desire to be connected to teachers. I don't think we're replacing them. 

[00:05:14] Russ Altman: I'm not going to give you a lecture about teaching. But I will say this one sentence that was reverberating through my brain when I was getting ready for our interview, which was when I'm in a classroom, and this has been since I've been in third grade. I am watching the teacher trying to understand, how they think about the information and how they struggle with it to like understand it and then try to relay it to me.

[00:05:34] And so it is, that's where I'm learning. I'm, it's not even what they're saying. It's they're painting a picture for their cognitive model of what they're talking about. And that's what I'm trying to pull out to this day. And so that's why I have such a negative reaction to anything standing between me and this other human who has a model that is more advanced than mine about the material that we're struggling with and I just, I'm trying to download that model. 

[00:06:01] Dan Schwartz: Wow. You're, you are a cognitive psychologist, Russ? 

[00:06:03] Russ Altman: I don't know. 

[00:06:05] Dan Schwartz: Like I had a buddy who sort of became a Nobel laureate. And he talked about how he loved take apart cars, and I'd say I love to watch you take apart cars, just to figure out what you're doing. No, so I think, let's separate this. There's the part where you think the interaction with the teacher is important. I don't know that you need it eight hours a day. You know, that's an awful lot of interaction. I'm not sure I want to be with my mom and dad for eight hours a day trying to figure out their thinking. So you don't need it all the time.

[00:06:34] On the other side, you know, we can do creative things with the computers. So for example, I wrote a program where students learn by teaching a computer agent. And so they're trying to figure out how to get the agent to think the way it should in the domain. Turns out it's highly motivating. The kids learn a lot. The problem was the technology quickly became obsolete. Because after kids used it for a couple of days, they no longer needed it, 'cause they'd figured out sort of how to do the kind of reasoning that we wanted them to teach the agent to do for reasoning. 

[00:07:06] Russ Altman: That's exactly what I was talking about before, about my relationship with my teacher. And you just flipped it, but it's the same idea, which is that there's a cognitive model that you're trying to transfer. And by doing that transfer, you get in, you introspect on it and you understand what it is that you're thinking about. 

[00:07:22] Dan Schwartz: I think that's right. You know, so the concern is the computer does all the work, right? And so I'm just sitting there pressing a button that isn't relevant to the domain I'm trying to learn. But you know, uh, one of the things computers are really good at, like as good as casinos, is motivation. So some computer programs, they gamify it. I'm not sure that's a great use of it. Because you, you know, you try and you learn to just beat the game for the reward. 

[00:07:49] Russ Altman: Right.

[00:07:49] Dan Schwartz: As opposed to learn the content. But things like having, teaching an intelligent agent how to think. There's something called the protege effect, which is you'll try harder to learn the content to teach your agent than you will to prepare for a test. Right? So we can make the computer pretty social. 

[00:08:08] Russ Altman: Okay. So you are clearly a technology optimist in education. And in addition to the amazing fundraising and like, there's so many questions to be answered. What I think a lot of people are worried about is, are we at risk of losing a gen. We've already lost a few generations of students, some people argue, because of the pandemic and the terrible impact it had, especially on, uh, on people who weren't privileged in society and in their education.

[00:08:34] Are we about to enter yet another shock to the system where, because of the ease of having essays written and having, and grading papers, that we really don't serve a generation of students well? Or do you think that's a overhyped, unlikely to happen thing? 

[00:08:51] Dan Schwartz: No, it's a good question. You know, that part of this is people's view about cheating, you know? And so it's too easy for students to do certain things. But there's another response that I want to hang on to. I want to ask you, Russ, are you using, you teach. 

[00:09:07] Russ Altman: Yeah. 

[00:09:07] Dan Schwartz: Are you like putting in all sorts of rules to prevent students from cheating, or are you saying, use it, do whatever you can. I'm going to outsmart your technique anyway.

[00:09:17] Russ Altman: It's a little bit more on the latter. So we, uh, I teach an ethics class, which is a writing class. And we allow ChatGPT because the, my fellow instructor and I decided, and this was the quote, we want to be part of the future, not part of the past. So we said to the students, 

[00:09:33] Dan Schwartz: Sorry, The Future of Everything, Russ.

[00:09:34] Russ Altman: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And thanks for the plug. So, uh, we allow it. We asked them to tell us what prompt they used and to show us the initial output that they got from that prompt. And then we, of course, have them hand in the final thing. And we instruct the TAs and ourselves, when we grade that we're grading the final product with or without a declaration of whether ChatGPT is used.

[00:09:56] We do have engineers as TAs, which means that they did a careful analysis. Students who used ChatGPT, and I don't think this is a surprise, got slightly lower grades, but spend substantially less time on the assignment. So if you're a busy student, you might say, I will make that trade off because the grades weren't a ton worse. It was like two points out of a hundred, like from a ninety to an eighty-eight, and they completed it in like half the time. 

[00:10:25] Dan Schwartz: Uh, do you think they learned less? 

[00:10:28] Russ Altman: So we don't know. We don't know. And, uh, the evaluation of learning is something that I'm looking to you, Dan. Uh, how do I tell? So, um, so we do try to use it. But we are stressed out. We have seen cases where people say they used ChatGPT, but tried to mislead us in how they use it. They said, I only used it for copy editing, but it was clear that they did more than copy editing with it. And so there's at the edges, there are some challenges. But in the end, we said motivated students who want to learn will use it as a tool and we'll learn. And the students who we have failed to motivate, and it is our failure, you could argue. They're just going to do whatever they do, and we're not going to be able to really impact that trajectory very much. 

[00:11:12] Dan Schwartz: Yeah, you know, you sort of see the same thing with video, video-based lectures. So I'm online. I've got this lecture. Do I really want to sit and listen to the whole thing? Not really. I'm going to skim forward to find the information. I skim back. I'm probably going to end up doing the minimum amount if it's not a great lecture. 

[00:11:29] Russ Altman: Yeah.

[00:11:29] Dan Schwartz: So I'm not sure this is a ChatGPT phenomenon. It's just, it's sort of an enabler. I think the challenge is thinking of the right assignment. So like, you can grade things on novel and appropriateness. So, are they novel? You know, if they use ChatGPT like everybody else, they won't be novel. They'll all produce the same thing. 

[00:11:48] Russ Altman: It's incredibly, yes. It, so it is, um, there's the most common type of, uh, moral theory is called common morality. And it turns out that ChatGPT does pretty well at that one because there's so many examples that it has seen. And it's terrible at Kant. Deontology, it really can't do. Okay, so let me. 

[00:12:07] Dan Schwartz: So let me get back to your question. 

[00:12:09] Russ Altman: Yeah. 

[00:12:09] Dan Schwartz: So here's what I see going on right now. There, there are like, uh, big industry conferences. Because they're going to, they're producing the technology that schools can adopt. Right? And there's a lot of money there. And twenty years ago, there were zero unicorns, and about, uh, I think last year, fifty-four billion dollar valuation companies in ed tech. So this is a big change. So what are they doing? They're basically creating things to do stuff to students, right? 

[00:12:42] So maybe they're marketing to the teachers, but it's, you know, it's, I'll make a tutor that, uh, is more efficient at delivering information to the students. Or, I will make a program that can correct their math very quickly. And so what's happening is the industry is sort of using the AI in the way that nobody else uses it.

[00:13:04] Because everybody who's got this tool wants to create stuff, right? Like, uh, my brother. It's my birthday, what does he do? He has ChatGPT to write me a poem about Dan Schwartz at Stanford. What he doesn't know is that there's a lot of Dan Schwartz's and so evidently I wear colorful ties, but this is what everybody wants to do. They want to create with it. Meanwhile, the field is trying to push towards efficiency. Can we get the kids done faster? Can we get them through the curriculum faster? Can we correct them faster? In which case the kids are going to optimize for being really efficient, right? As opposed to just trying to be creative, innovative, use it for deeper kinds of things. So this is my big fear. 

[00:13:42] Russ Altman: And so you're watching these companies and I'm guessing that they don't always ask your opinion about what's, what would you tell, so let's say a, one of these unicorn billion dollar or more companies comes to you and says, we want to do this right. We want to use the best educational research to create AI that can bring education to people who might otherwise not have quality education. What would you tell them? 

[00:14:04] Dan Schwartz: So this is a challenge, right? This is something we're actively trying to solve. So we've created a Stanford accelerator for learning to kind of figure out how to do this. 'Cause I've been in this ed tech position for quite a while. And the companies come in and they say, we really want your opinion. And then they present what they're doing. And I go, uh, have you ever thought of, and they go, wait, let me finish. And this goes on for fifty-five minutes. Where they're telling me what they want to do. And I'm trying to say, you know, if you just did this. And the way it ends is I say to them, look, you, if you do these three things, I'll consider being an advisor.

[00:14:42] Russ Altman: Right.

[00:14:42] Dan Schwartz: They never come back. 

[00:14:45] Russ Altman: So the message you're sending them is just not in their worldview. 

[00:14:50] Dan Schwartz: It's because they have a vision. Everybody wants to start their own school. 

[00:14:53] Russ Altman: Yeah. 

[00:14:53] Dan Schwartz: They have their vision of what it should be and they're urgent to get it done. And you know, it's a startup mentality. So trying to figure out how can we educate them? You know, I think we know a lot about how people learn that, uh, that we didn't know twenty years ago when they went to school. And the AI, you know, one of the things it can do is implement some of these theories of learning in ways that don't exist in textbooks and things like that.

[00:15:17] So that's the big hope. And the question is, how can you take advantage of industry? You know, education is a public good, but they still buy all their products. And so going through those companies is one way to sort of bring a positive revolution. But again, I'm a little worried that the companies are, and they're sort of optimizing for local minima.

[00:15:41] Russ Altman: Yeah. 

[00:15:41] Dan Schwartz: You know, to accommodate the current schools and things like that. 

[00:15:44] Russ Altman: Should we take, so what, should we take solace in the teachers? So many of us are fans of teachers, grammar school teachers, middle school teachers, high school teachers, but many of these folks are incredibly dedicated. Will they be a final, um, uh, a final filter that looks at these, uh, educational technologies and says, absolutely not. Or yeah, we'll use that, but we're going to use that in a way that makes sense for my way of teaching. Or are they not in a position to make those kinds of, what you could call courageous decisions, about kind of modifying the use of these tools to make them as good as possible in, uh, on the ground? 

[00:16:21] Dan Schwartz: So it's pretty interesting. The surveys I've seen, uh, sort of over the last year, the different groups do different surveys. It, it sort of, if I take the average, about sixty percent of K 12 teachers are using GenAI, right? And about thirty percent of the kids. If I go to the college level, about thirty percent of the faculty are using GenAI in teaching and about eighty percent of the kids are using it. So I do think in the pre K to 12 space, the teachers are making decisions. They do a lot of curriculum. There are, so a great application is, um, project-based learning. So project-based learning is a lot of fun. Kids learn a lot. They sort of develop a passion, a certain depth. As opposed to just mastering sort of the requirements, but it's really hard to manage. You know, when I was a high school teacher, I had a hundred and thirty kids, right?

[00:17:11] If all of them have a separate project, I have to help plan them and make them goal, you know, learning goal appropriate. So the GenAI can help me do that. It can help me, uh, have the kids sort of help use it to help them design a successful project. Uh, it can help me with a dashboard that helps manage them, hitting their milestones, things like that.

[00:17:31] And there, you know, it's, it, the, teacher is like, I can do something I just couldn't do before. 

[00:17:35] Russ Altman: Yeah. Yeah. 

[00:17:36] Dan Schwartz: It's different than the model where you put the kids in the back of the room who finished early and say, go use the computer. I think, you know, most schools, kids are carrying computers in classes. So it's a little different. It's more integrated than it used to be. 

[00:17:52] Russ Altman: This is the Future of Everything with Russ Altman. More with Dan Schwartz, next.

[00:18:06] Welcome back to The Future of Everything. I'm Russ Altman and I'm speaking with Dan Schwartz, professor of education at Stanford University. 

[00:18:12] In the last segment, Dan told us about AI, education, some of the promises and some of the pitfalls that he's looking at on the ground, thinking about how to educate the next generation.

[00:18:23] In this segment, I'm going to ask him about assessment, grading. How do we do that with AI and how do we make sure it goes well? Also going to ask him about physical activity, which turns out physical ness is an important part of learning. 

[00:18:39] I want to get a little bit more detailed, Dan, in this next segment, and I want to start off with assessment, grading. I know you've thought about this a lot. People are worried that um, AI is going to start to doing, be doing all the grading. Everybody knows that a high school teacher with a big, couple of big classes can spend their entire weekend grading essays. It is so tempting just to feed that into ChatGPT and say, hey, how good is this essay? How should we think about, maybe worry about, but maybe just think about, assessment in education in the future? 

[00:19:11] Dan Schwartz: Yeah, this was, uh, you remember the MOOCs? 

[00:19:14] Russ Altman: Yes. 

[00:19:14] Dan Schwartz: Massively online, open courses. And, uh, you're hoping you have ten thousand students, and then you gotta grade the papers for ten thousand students. So what do you do? You give a multiple-choice tests, which can be machine coded, right? So, so I think that's always there. I'm going to take it a slightly different direction, which is, uh, I'm interacting with a computer system and while I'm interacting with it, it's, it can be constantly assessing in real time, right?

[00:19:41] And so there's a field that's sometimes called educational data mining or learning analytics. And there's thousands of people who are working on, how do I get informative signal out of students interactions. Like, are they trying to game the system? Are they reflecting? And so forth. So this is something the computer can do pretty well, right?

[00:20:02] It can sort of track what students are doing, assess, and then ideally deliver the right piece of instruction at the moment. So yours, you could use the assessments to give people a grade, but really the more important thing is, can you use the assessments to make instructional decisions? So I think this is a big area of advancement, but here's my concern.

[00:20:25] We've gotten very good at assessing things that are objectively right and wrong. Like did you remember the right word? Did you get two plus two correctly? For most of the things we care about now, they're like strategic and heuristic, which means it's not a guaranteed right answer. And so what you really want to do is assess students choices for what to do. So for example, uh, creativity, it's just for the most part, it's a large set of strategies. Right? There's a bunch of strategies that help you be creative. The question is, do the students choose to do that or do they take the safe route? 'Cause creativity is a risk, right? 'Cause you're not sure.

[00:21:02] So I think this is where the field needs to go. Is being willing to say that certain kinds of choices about learning are better than others. Uh, and it's a, it becomes more of an ethical question now. Instead of saying two plus two equals four, there's no ethics to it. 

[00:21:16] Russ Altman: Are you going to be able to convince non educators who hold purse strings, let's call them the government, that these kinds of assessments are important and need to be included? Because my sense is that when it filters up to boards of education or elected leaders, a lot of that stuff goes out of the window. And they just want to know how good are they at reading comprehensive and can they do enough math to be competitive with, you know, country X? 

[00:21:43] Dan Schwartz: Yeah. Yeah. So different assessments serve different purposes. Like the big year end tests that kids take, those aren't to inform the instruction of that child. They're not even for that teacher. They're for school districts to decide are our policies working. And so it's really a different kind of assessment than me as a teacher trying to decide what should I give the kid next. So I think it's going to vary. You know, the tough question for me is should you let the kid use ChatGPT during the test? Right?

[00:22:14] And we had this argument over calculators, right? And finally they came up with ways to ask questions where it was okay if the kids had calculators. Because the calculator was doing the routine stuff. And that's not really what you cared about. What you cared about was, could the kid be innovative? Could they take a, another, a second approach to solve a problem? 

[00:22:34] Russ Altman: Yeah. 

[00:22:34] Dan Schwartz: Things like that. 

[00:22:34] Russ Altman: We, so I teach another class where it's a programming class, the students write programs, and we have switched, um, and we've actually downgraded the value. So as you know, very well, just as background, there is now an amazing, ChatGPT can also write computer code essentially. And so a lot of coding now is kind of done for you and you don't need to do it. We are trying to make sure that they understand the algorithms that we ask them to code. And so what we're doing is we're downgrading the amount of points you get for working code.

[00:23:04] You still get some, but we're upgrading the quiz about how the algorithm works. Do you understand exactly why this happened the way it did? Why is this data structure a good choice or a bad choice? And so it's forcing us, and you could have argued that we should have done this twenty years ago in the same class, but this is making it a more urgent issue, because if we don't, people can just get an automatic piece of code. They can run it. It'll work. They have no understanding of what happened. And so it's really a positive. It's putting more of a burden on us to figure out why the heck did we have them write this code in the first place? 

[00:23:39] Dan Schwartz: No, this was my point. It makes you sort of rethink what is valuable to learn. And you stop doing what was easy to grade. So I have an interesting one. This is a little nerdy. 

[00:23:51] Russ Altman: Okay. I love it. I love it. 

[00:23:52] Dan Schwartz: I teach the intro PhD statistics course in education. And lots of students say, I took statistics, right? And I'm sort of like, well, that's great. Let me ask you one question. And I say, I'm going to email you a question and you'll have five minutes to respond. You let me know when you're ready for it. And I ask them, uh, this is just for you, Russ. But why is the tail of the T distribution fat in small sample sizes? And I, what I get back usually is because they're small sample sizes.

[00:24:24] Russ Altman: Right. Or because it's the T distribution. 

[00:24:27] Dan Schwartz: Or it's, yes, even better. And then I come back and I sort of say, well, have you ever heard of the standard error? And I begin to get at the conceptual stuff, right? And, uh, I suspect if I gave it, uh, so there are ways to get conceptual questions that are really important. But you know, being able to prompt or write R code, you know, that's a good thing. You want them to learn the skills as well. 

[00:24:50] Russ Altman: Exactly. 

[00:24:51] Dan Schwartz: So I don't know, you know, when the calculator showed up, there's a big debate, right? What should students learn? Can they use the calculator? The apocryphal solution was you had to learn the regular math and the calculator now. You just had to learn twice as much. And so maybe that's what it's going to be. 

[00:25:08] Russ Altman: And that's a very likely transitional strategy and then we'll see where we end up. Okay. In the final few minutes, I, this seems like it's unrelated to AI, but I bet it's not. You've done a lot of work on physical activity and learning. You've even been on a paper recently where you talk about having a walk during a teaching session and whether you get better outcomes than if you were just standing or sitting. So tell me about that interest and tell me if it has anything to do with today's topic. 

[00:25:37] Dan Schwartz: I can make the bridge. I can do it, Russ. Right. So we did some studies. Um, I've done a lot of it. It's called embodiment where, yeah, there was, I got clued into this where, uh, I was asking people about why, about gears. And I say, you know, you have three gears in a line, and you turn the gear on the left clockwise. What does the gear on the right do? Far right. And I'd watch them, and they'd go like this with their hands. They'd model with their hands. And then I was sort of like, well, what's the basis of this? And I'd say well why? And they say because this one's turning that way that one, I go but why. And in the end, they just bottom out. They just show me their hands. They didn't say things like one molecule displaces another. 

[00:26:20] Russ Altman: Right. 

[00:26:21] Dan Schwartz: So that sort of clued me in. 

[00:26:22] Russ Altman: This pinky is going up and this other pinky is going down. 

[00:26:26] Dan Schwartz: Yes. 

[00:26:26] Russ Altman: What don't you understand about that? 

[00:26:28] Dan Schwartz: Pretty much. Well, it was nonverbal. 

[00:26:31] Russ Altman: Yeah. 

[00:26:31] Dan Schwartz: So we went on, you know, we discovered that the basis for negative numbers, right? Is actually perceptual symmetry. And we did some neuro stuff. And so the question is sort of how does this perceptual apparatus, which some people, we're just loaded with perception, right? The brain's just one giant perceiving. So how do you get that going? So part of the embodiment is my ability to take action, right? And so this is where we started, right? Right now, the AI feels very verbal, very abstract. Even the video generation, it's amazing, but it's pretty passive for me. So enter virtual worlds, they're still working on the form factor where I can move my hand in space. 

[00:27:16] Russ Altman: Yeah. 

[00:27:17] Dan Schwartz: And something will happen in the environment in response to that. You know, I think medicine is, you know, really been working on haptics so surgeons can practice. Uh, there was a great guy who made a virtual world for different heart congenital defects, and you could go in and practice surgery and see what would happen to the blood flow. So I think, uh, that embodiment where you get to bring all your senses to bear, it's not just words, but it's everything, can really do a lot for learning, for engagement, uh, not just physical skills. 

[00:27:49] Russ Altman: So that's a challenge to, I'm hearing a challenge to AI, which is as an educator, you know that this physicality can be an critical part of learning. And by the way, would this be a surprise? I mean, we're, we've been on earth evolving for several hundred million years. And, uh, you would be surprised if our ability to manipulate and look at three dimensional situations wasn't critical to learning, and yet that's not what AI is doing right now. So this is a clear challenge to AI among other things. 

[00:28:17] Dan Schwartz: Right. So, uh, I have a colleague, Renate Fruchter. And, uh, she teaches architecture, and she has students make a blueprint for the building, right? And then she feeds the blueprint to a CAD system that creates the building. She then takes the building and puts it into a physics engine, it can basically render the building and make walls so you can't move through them, and it has gravity and things like that.

[00:28:42] She then puts the, uh, original student who designed the building in a wheelchair and has them try to navigate through that environment. At which point they sort of understand, oh this is why you need so much space so they can turn around, so they can navigate near the door. I am sure that is an incredibly compelling experience that allows them to be generative about all their future designs.

[00:29:03] So yeah, this is a challenge and part of the co-mingling of the AI and the virtual worlds, I think this is a big challenge. It's computationally very heavy, but it will open the door for lots of ways of teaching that you just couldn't do before. 

[00:29:17] Russ Altman: Thanks to Dan Schwartz. That was the future of educational technology.

[00:29:21] You've been listening to The Future of Everything and I'm Russ Altman. You know what? We have an archive with more than 250 back episodes of The Future of Everything. So you have instant access to a wide array of discussions that can keep you entertained and informed. Also, remember to rate, review, and follow. I care deeply about that request. 

[00:29:41] And also, if you want to follow me, you can follow me on X @ @RBAltman, and you can follow Stanford Engineering @ StanfordENG.

The future of Russia and Ukraine

Turning carbon pollution into ethanol

New gels could protect buildings during wildfires

Impact of modern technology in education

• Journal of Applied and Advanced Research 3(S1):33
• CC BY-NC 4.0
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Mariyam Shuima
• Thivilojana Perinpasingam
• Mariyam Aneela

• LAT AM J PHARM

• Temitope Oluwafunmilayo
• Temitope Oluwafunmilayo Adetunji
• Savaş Yılmaz
• Yusuf Cerit
• Victoria Olubola Adeyele

• J.D. Bransford
• R. R. Cocking
• BRIT J EDUC TECHNOL

• Chad Galloway
• FUTURE CHILD
• J Roschelle
• H Wenglinski
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Navigating the Educational Landscape: The Transformative Power of Smart Classroom Technology

• Published: 02 September 2024

Cite this article

In the rapidly evolving landscape of education, integrating smart classroom technology (SCT) is a transformative force, reshaping traditional paradigms and redefining the dynamics of teaching and learning. The study aims to investigate the transformative impact of SCT on educational practices, focusing on its effectiveness in enhancing student engagement, learning outcomes, and overall educational experience. The study analyzes the implementation of a smart classroom (SMR) system to enhance overall satisfaction and foster positive perceptions among students and faculty concerning the learning environment. The study employed a quantitative methodology and utilized the random sampling technique. The data were collected from 420 college students at different levels from junior level to senior category who received SMR education. The collected data were analyzed by using SPSS software. The findings indicate that incorporation of SCT systems positively impacts student engagement and participation levels in academic activities. The result underscores the role of SCT in fostering a dynamic learning environment that promotes active learning and knowledge retention among students, highlighting its outstanding academic significance in transforming traditional educational practices. The study contributes by examining the transformative potential of SMR systems in education, focusing on enhanced student engagement, collaboration, and digital literacy. Its novelty lies in revealing the positive impact on satisfaction and perceptions, heralding a new era of personalized learning experiences. Practical values of SMR technology include providing data for tailored instruction and enabling personalized learning through interactive whiteboards and digital textbooks. Academically, it enhances understanding and retention with multimedia resources that cater to diverse learning styles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Trade Union, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lu Xu .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

This article does not contain any studies with human participants.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Human and animal rights.

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

A.) Sample of Questionnaire Distributed to College Students

Section 1: demographic information:.

Name (Optional):

18—20 years

21—22 years

23 and above

College Year:

Others (please specify)

College/University:

Nankai University

Yangzhou University

Shihezi University

Nanchang University

Chongqing Technology and Business University

Section 2: SMR Perception:

How familiar are you with the concept of an SMR system?

Very familiar

Somewhat familiar

Somewhat unfamiliar

Very unfamiliar

To what extent do you believe the implementation of an SMR system can positively impact AP?

Strong Disagree

Do you think utilizing advanced technology in classrooms will enhance students’ EP in academic activities?

In your opinion, will the integration of SMR tools lead to improved CC among students and faculty members?

Probably not

Do you believe students exposed to an SMR environment will demonstrate increased proficiency in DLS compared to those in traditional classrooms?

Strongly Believe

Do Not Believe

Strongly Do Not Believe

To what extent do you agree that the adoption of an SMR system will contribute to a more PAL experience for students, catering to diverse learning?

How do you think the implementation of an SMR system will impact overall satisfaction and perceptions among students and faculty regarding the learning environment?

Very positively

Very Negatively

How often do you engage in the SMR learning activity?

Do you think the use of SMR increased your AP?

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Do you believe SMR-based learning will help prepare you for future job opportunities?

Does SMR-based learning develop collaboration between students and teachers?

SMR education stimulates students to actively engage and participate in academic activities. Do you agree with this statement?

Is the SMR helpful for collecting worldwide data apart from your curriculum?

Does visualized learning develop your memory retention and develop your classroom discussion?

Does the SMR environment stimulate students to engage in the learning activities effectively?

SMR learning stimulated diverse learning styles among students. Do you agree with this statement?

Does SMR learning bring satisfaction to your learning experiences?

Do you think SMR has the potential to improve the academic outcomes of slow-learning students?

Does SMR develop communication among teachers and students?

Do you believe SMR is useful for accessing various resources for gathering details apart from the textbook content?

Which one would you feel is better for the learning process: traditional classroom or SMR learning?

Traditional class

Smart class

Please provide any additional comments or feedback regarding the implementation of an SMR system or any other factors you think are relevant to this study.

Thank you for participating in this survey! Your input is valuable for this research.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Xu, L. Navigating the Educational Landscape: The Transformative Power of Smart Classroom Technology. J Knowl Econ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02233-z

Download citation

Received : 30 January 2024

Accepted : 24 July 2024

Published : 02 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02233-z

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Smart classroom education
• Advanced technology
• Academic performances
• Learning experiences
• Digital literacy
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Center for Educational Effectiveness

Educational technology, planning instruction & learning activities ( read full series ), what is it.

One definition of educational technology includes practical elements of the discipline, such as “the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Reid, 2018). A critical aspect of educational technology (ed tech) are the technological tools which course designers, instructors, and instructional designers draw from to enhance their teaching and to support students’ learning. 

Student success is largely linked to the integration of technology for teaching and learning purposes. Research suggests that technology use in the classroom can help boost student engagement and academic success (Schlosser et al., 2022). McClean and Crowe (2017) showed an increase in overall student engagement and an improvement with student learning outcomes through facilitating interactive activities throughout a lecture-based course. Research also shows that when implemented effectively, technological tools can also positively impact students’ cognitive abilities and higher order thinking (Schlosser, 2022).

• 90% of surveyed university administrators agreed that more time will be devoted to using educational technology in future classrooms ( Coffey, 2024 ).

Teaching Strategies

• Ed tech tools can be integrated for a variety of purposes:
• Active learning.  Incorporate anonymous polling and Q&A, and foster interactive large classes with platforms such as  PollEverywhere ,  Mentimeter , and  Slido . 
• Effective feedback.  Use  Canvas or  Aggie Video to create brief recorded video feedback. Canvas also supports  embedding videos from AggieVideo or YouTube. 
• Grading and assessment.  Embed rubrics directly into  Canvas assignments to provide clarity to students regarding expectations, as well as to make for more efficient and transparent grading. 
• Inclusive teaching.  Anonymously survey your students so you can learn what your students might need to be successful in your course (e.g.,  Canvas ,  Google Forms , or  Qualtrics ). 
• Reflection and metacognition. Ask students to complete quick Exit Tickets via  Canvas or  Google Forms at the end of class or at the end of the week (e.g., Minute Paper or Muddiest Point).
• Knowledge organization.  Use concept map platforms, such as  Miro ,  MindMeister ,  Jamboard , and  Padlet .

CLICK FOR HANDOUT

Students say ...

• “In one class, the instructor used google forms, mentimeter, and polls to break up the lecture. This made the class more interesting.”
• “The professor set up google doc folders for each group. This really helped with organization and communication. She also used them to leave us feedback, which really helped us improve our project."
• Consider the situational context of your course. Format of your class (i.e., blended, hybrid, or fully remote)? Teaching in a flipped classroom? Student level? Physical setup of the classroom? Characteristics of the students? How many students? Length and frequency of class meetings?
• For effective tool integration, how do you answer the following: What teaching challenge are you trying to solve? What tools can support this? How can you best implement the tool?

IEEE Account

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

• Academics & Research
• Administration
• Student Government
• Student Life
• Bloomington
• Business & Economy
• Crime & Courts
• Investigations
• National News
• Men's Basketball
• Women's Basketball
• Men's Soccer
• Women's Soccer
• Swimming & Diving
• Community Events
• IU Auditorium
• Jacobs School of Music
• Local Music
• Perspectives
• Black Voices
• Classifieds
• IDS Religious
• Press Releases

OPINION: Technology and its relationship with our education.

From notebooks to laptops, and from pencils to keyboards, technology has completely changed our methods of learning. Our education barely resembles what it did a couple of years ago. Gone are the days of a classroom within four walls and the confinement of education within it. The education world has seen a dramatic upheaval, with the implementation of technology spanning every department and every school.   

With the COVID-19 pandemic unexpectedly falling upon us in March 2020, technology played a crucial role in not just connecting us with each other as we stayed confined to our houses but also ensuring there were the least possible number of disruptions when it came to our learning as students.   

Technology has been extremely beneficial for the growth of educational systems around the world, as it provides a wide array of opportunities and different resources. Today, technology provides us with a range of resources for flexible learning, including educational apps, online quizzes and flashcards, which has become a huge driver in modern education systems. Additionally, various softwares programs, including Zoom and Google Docs, support students both inside and outside of the classroom, as they choose what learning method works for them best. With most of these resources being free and available in a single internet search, students can investigate a whole new style of learning, one that can be tailored to suit their individual needs.  

As a student who went to school before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, I have first-hand experience when it comes to seeing how rapidly technology and its relationship to our education has developed. From working through my notebooks to joining Zoom calls from the comfort of my bedroom, I have experienced both the pros and cons of technology. I have always been extremely grateful for such a resource that gave me the opportunity to engage in my education at such a crucial time. However, I, like many other students, have become a victim of the cons associated with technology, whether it is my attention span deteriorating or being unable to keep focus on something as simple as an open tab on my laptop. Often the TikTok app on my phone acts as the biggest distraction.  

The growing use of technology comes with its drawbacks, with the worst of the impacts being on the actual students it seems to benefit. Being unable to interact with their professors in person and having to study in an environment that students tend to use for non-academic purposes on a day-to-day basis has led to a global loss in attention span over all ages, making working more difficult and learning more challenging. Moreover, the constant use of devices brings forth the idea of temptation and misuse, with students occasionally being caught playing games or browsing social media, disrupting valuable learning time. Kim I. Mill, a senior director of strategic external communications and public affairs for the American Psychological Association , said on their podcast with psychologist Gloria Mark that, “when (students are) distracted, it takes them longer to get back and focus again on that thing that they were distracted from.   

“So, I worry that when young children are spending so much time on the screen, it acculturates them to think that this is normal behavior to be on a screen,” psychologist Gloria Mark said on the podcast.  

Additionally, having devices around students has led them to use platforms such as ChatGPT to complete assignments that they are not willing to work on themselves. About one-third of college students reported using ChatGPT for academic work in the past year, and 46% said they frequently used the tool to do their homework. Additionally, about three in four users are likely to recommend ChatGPT to another student. The loss of this control on the quality of work has severely impacted teachers’ style of teaching and ability to have a long-lasting educational impact, a worrying sign for the future of technology in education.  

Overall, the introduction of technology into our day-to-day education has been a mixed bag. It has changed the way students are taught but also the way we learn with it, becoming a staple in our newest generation.   

Nonetheless, although technology comes with many benefits, its drawbacks must be kept in mind to ensure that students are not being influenced in a negative manner. This can be done by simply controlling how much technology is involved in a student's day-to-day life and in their daily learning. It is up to those who are involved in students’ academic and social lives to initiate changes that can develop how they learn whether that is encouraging them to draft an essay on paper or read a hard-copy book to make up for the time spent scrolling on their devices. Working with technology and its relationship with our education is extremely essential for the overall learning and growth of students around the world, as it not just develops their skills and knowledge, but also prevents them from the damage that technology has had on students in recent years.

Ayzah Khan (she/her) is a sophomore studying journalism and marketing.

Featured Local Savings

Band in a Hat’s showcase premiered seven new bands

Indiana football expects injured receiver Donaven McCulley back ‘soon’

Indiana football’s Cignetti, players call out fans for early exit: ‘Great until halftime’

Indiana football announces 4 players out for season with injuries

‘it’s not clear’: 2 of over 40 vigil attendees receive iu conduct violation referrals, series of batteries reported during welcome week, kelley student arrested on charges of sexual abuse, forcible touching in new york, aclu, iu community members file lawsuit against expressive activity policy, get the ids in your inbox.

The Daily Rundown is published Monday through Friday and gives you a quick look at the day's top stories.

Friday's weekly recap will let you catch up on the most important and most popular stories of the week.

Find out what the IDS is saying about IU basketball. The Monday edition, distributed during the IU basketball season, includes links to articles, columns, podcasts and more.

See the top stories every weekday

The Anticipated Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Higher Education

• Nicole Johnson
• Jeff Seaman
• Julia Seaman

Since the rise of generative AI (GenAI) in late 2022, many scholars and thought leaders have wondered about its impact on higher education. This study used a survey methodology (three multiple choice questions and one open-ended question) to explore the perspectives of a nationally representative sample of 1327 US administrators and faculty, asking questions to understand how much change they anticipate as a result of advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) technology, how prepared their institution is for such change, and what aspects of higher education they expect to change. The researchers used Kranzberg’s laws of technology as a lens to interpret the findings and guide the subsequent discussion about how AI might impact higher education. The findings showed that the vast majority of participants expect that AI will change their institution over the next five years and that the majority of participants do not feel that their institution is ready for change. The comments left in response to the open-ended questions fell into one of four themes: concerns about academic integrity and rigor, issues related to AI integration (e.g., anticipated benefits, practices in teaching and learning, issues related to preparedness, and the expected scope of change), the feeling that the current AI discourse is merely hype, and feelings of uncertainty. Ultimately, AI has the potential to be both advantageous and disadvantageous to teaching and learning, with the benefits and challenges of its use varying by context.

Copyright (c) 2024 Nicole Johnson, Jeff Seaman, Julia Seaman

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.

Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions

The DOAJ Seal is awarded to journals that demonstrate best practice in open access publishing

OLC Membership

OLC Research Center

Information

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Sustainability
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

First AI + Education Summit is an international push for “AI fluency”

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

This summer, 350 participants came to MIT to dive into a question that is, so far, outpacing answers: How can education still create opportunities for all when digital literacy is no longer enough — a world in which students now need to have AI fluency?

The  AI + Education Summit was hosted by the  MIT RAISE Initiative (Responsible AI for Social Empowerment and Education) in Cambridge, Massachusetts, with speakers from the App Inventor Foundation, the Mayor’s Office of the City of Boston, the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust, and more. Highlights included an onsite “Hack the Climate” hackathon, where teams of beginner and experienced MIT App Inventor users had a single day to develop an app for fighting climate change.

In opening remarks , RAISE principal investigators Eric Klopfer, Hal Abelson, and Cynthia Breazeal emphasized what new goals for AI fluency look like. “Education is not just about learning facts,” Klopfer said. “Education is a whole developmental process. And we need to think about how we support teachers in being more effective. Teachers must be part of the AI conversation.” Abelson highlighted the empowerment aspect of computational action, namely its immediate impact, that “what’s different than in the decades of people teaching about computers [is] what kids can do right now.” And Breazeal, director of the RAISE Initiative, touched upon AI-supported learning, including the imperative to use technology like classroom robot companions as something supplementary to what students and teachers can do together, not as a replacement for one another. Or as  Breazeal underlined in her talk : “We really want people to understand, in an appropriate way, how AI works and how to design it responsibly. We want to make sure that people have an informed voice of how AI should be integrated into society. And we want to empower all kinds of people around the world to be able to use AI, harness AI, to solve the important problems of their communities.”

The summit featured the invited winners of the  Global AI Hackathon . Prizes were awarded for apps in two tracks: climate and sustainability, and health and wellness. Winning projects addressed issues like  sign-language-to-audio translation , moving object detection for the vision impaired, empathy practice using interactions with AI characters, and personal health checks using tongue images. Attendees also participated in hands-on demos for MIT App Inventor, a “playground” for the  Personal Robots Group ’s social robots, and an educator professional development session on responsible AI.

By convening people of so many ages, professional backgrounds, and geographies, organizers were able to foreground a unique mix of ideas for participants to take back home. Conference papers included real-world case studies of implementing AI in school settings, such as extracurricular clubs, considerations for student data security, and large-scale experiments in the United Arab Emirates and India. And plenary speakers tackled  funding AI in education , state government’s role in supporting its adoption, and — in the  summit’s keynote speech by Microsoft’s principal director of AI and machine learning engineering Francesca Lazzeri — the opportunities and challenges of the use of generative AI in education. Lazzeri discussed the development of tool kits that enact safeguards around principles like fairness, security, and transparency. “I truly believe that learning generative AI is not just about computer science students,” Lazzeri said. “It’s about all of us.”

Trailblazing AI education from MIT

Critical to early AI education has been the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust, a longtime collaborator that helped MIT deploy  computational action and project-based learning years before AI was even a widespread pedagogical challenge. A summit panel discussed the history of its CoolThink project , which brought such learning to grades 4-6 in 32 Hong Kong schools in an initial pilot and then met the ambitious goal of bringing it to over 200 Hong Kong schools. On the panel, CoolThink director Daniel Lai said that the trust, MIT, Education University of Hong Kong, and the City University of Hong Kong did not want to add a burden to teachers and students of another curriculum outside of school. Instead, they wanted “to mainstream it into our educational system so that every child would have equal opportunity to access these skills and knowledge.”

MIT worked as a collaborator from CoolThink’s start in 2016. Professor and App Inventor founder Hal Abelson helped Lai get the project off the ground. Several summit attendees and former MIT research staff members were leaders in the project development. Educational technologist Josh Sheldon directed the MIT team’s work on the CoolThink curriculum and teacher professional development. Karen Lang, then App Inventor’s education and business development manager, was the main curriculum developer for the initial phase of CoolThink, writing the lessons and accompanying tutorials and worksheets for the three levels in the curriculum, with editing assistance from the Hong Kong education team. And Mike Tissenbaum, now a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, led the development of the project’s research design and theoretical grounding. Among other key tasks, they ran the initial teacher training for the first two cohorts of Hong Kong teachers, consisting of sessions totaling 40 hours with about 40 teachers each.

The ethical demands of today’s AI “funhouse mirror”

Daniel Huttenlocher, dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing,  delivered the closing keynote . He described the current state of AI as a “funhouse mirror” that “distorts the world around us” and framed it as yet another technology that has presented humans with ethical demands to find its positive, empowering uses that complement our intelligence but also to mitigate its risks. 

“One of the areas I’m most excited about personally,” Huttenlocher said, “is people learning from AI,” with AI discovering solutions that people had not yet come upon on their own. As so much of the summit demonstrated, AI and education is something that must happen in collaboration. “[AI] is not human intellect. This is not human judgment. This is something different.”

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Video playlist: MIT AI + Education Summit 2024
• AI + Education Summit
• MIT RAISE Initiative
• MIT Open Learning

Related Topics

• Special events and guest speakers
• Artificial intelligence
• Education, teaching, academics
• Technology and society
• Human-computer interaction
• School of Architecture and Planning
• School of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences

Related Articles

The power of App Inventor: Democratizing possibilities for mobile applications

At Mass STEM Week kickoff, MIT RAISE announces Day of AI

Teaching Hong Kong students to embrace computational thinking

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Study: Transparency is often lacking in datasets used to train large language models

Read full story →

How MIT’s online resources provide a “highly motivating, even transformative experience”

Students learn theater design through the power of play

A framework for solving parabolic partial differential equations

Designing better delivery for medical therapies

Making a measurable economic impact

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram