use of digital technology in education literature review

Influence of e-learning on the students’ of higher education in the digital era: A systematic literature review

• Published: 16 April 2024

Cite this article

• Rashmi Singh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9195-5301 1 ,
• Shailendra Kumar Singh 1 &
• Niraj Mishra 1  

81 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The integration of digital technologies into educational practices has reshaped traditional learning models, creating a dynamic and accessible global landscape for higher education. This paradigm shift transcends geographical boundaries, fostering a more interconnected and inclusive educational environment. This comprehensive literature analysis explores the impact of e-learning on higher education students in the digital era. A meticulous review of 53 studies, sourced from reputable databases including Web of Science, Taylor & Francis, Springer Link, ProQuest, Elsevier, and Scopus, was conducted. Employing the content analysis method, the selected studies spanning from November 2012 to April 2023 were systematically examined. Predominantly utilizing quantitative methods, the studies, largely originating from the United States, China, Malaysia, and India, focused on university students. Key variables such as student engagement, perception, and academic performance were consistently employed across diverse educational settings. The synthesis of findings revealed that e-learning technologies positively impacted academic achievement, student satisfaction, and collaborative efforts. Moreover, challenges associated with technology usage and internet access were identified, which impact e-learning implementation. The study proposes further investigation through a mixed-methods approach to explore students’ interactions with the educational environment while utilizing e-learning technology in institutions of higher education.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Meta-analysis of research in e-learning published in spanish journals.

Julio Cabero-Almenara, Verónica Marín-Díaz & Begoña E. Sampedro-Requena

Toward a new educational reality: A mapping review of the role of e-assessment in the new digital context

Alberto Ortiz-López, Susana Olmos-Migueláñez & José Carlos Sánchez-Prieto

Research trends in e-learning practices for postgraduate medical education: A systematic review

Sinan Hopcan, Elif Polat & Ebru Albayrak

Data availability

Not applicable.

Abdullah, S. I. N. W., Arokiyasamy, K., Goh, S. L., Culas, A. J., & Manaf, N. M. A. (2022). University students’ satisfaction and future outlook towards forced remote learning during a global pandemic. Smart Learning Environments , 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00197-8 .

Abu Talib, M., 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 (6), 6719–6746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10507-1 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Abuhassna, H., & Alnawajha, S. (2023a). The Transactional Distance Theory and Distance Learning Contexts: Theory Integration, Research Gaps, and Future Agenda. In Education Sciences (Vol. 13, Issue 2). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020112 .

Abuhassna, H., & Alnawajha, S. (2023b). Instructional Design Made Easy! Instructional Design Models, Categories, Frameworks, Educational Context, and Recommendations for Future Work. In European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education (Vol. 13, Issue 4, pp. 715–735). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13040054 .

Abuhassna, H., Yahaya, N., Zakaria, M. A. Z. M., Zaid, N. M., Samah, N. A., Awae, F., Nee, C. K., & Alsharif, A. H. (2023). Trends on using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) for online learning: A bibliometric and content analysis. International Journal of Information and Education Technology , 13 (1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.1.1788 .

Adarkwah, M. A. (2020). I ’ m not against online teaching, but what about us ? ICT in Ghana post Covid-19. 2.

Adeshola, I., & Agoyi, M. (2022). Examining factors influencing e-learning engagement among university students during covid-19 pandemic: A mediating role of learning persistence. Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2029493 .

Aharony, N., & Gazit, T. (2020). Students’ information literacy self-efficacy: An exploratory study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science , 52 (1), 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000618790312 .

Al-Nimer, M., & Alsheikh, G. (2022). Unleashing the role of e-learning in student engagement practices and accounting professional competencies. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education , 14 No (2), 829–851. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-10-2020-0377 .

Al-Rahmi, W. M., Alias, N., Othman, M. S., Marin, V. I., & Tur, G. (2018). A model of factors affecting learning performance through the use of social media in Malaysian higher education. Computers and Education , 121 , 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.010 .

Al-Teete, R., Hassan, I. I., Kadir, A., A., & AbuAlRub, R. (2023). Nursing lecturers’ perception toward E-learning approaches used in nursing colleges: Scoping review. In Journal of Professional Nursing (Vol. 46, pp. 102–110). W.B. Saunders. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.03.001 .

Alajmi, Q., Al-Sharafi, M. A., Alajmi, Q., & Abuali, A. (2020). Smart Learning Gateways for Omani HEIs Towards Educational Technology: Benefits, Challenges and solutions Cloud computing among HEIs in Oman View project 2nd International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Intelligent Systems (ICETIS) View project Smart Learning Gateways for Omani HEIs Towards Educational Technology: Benefits, Challenges and solutions. In International Journal of Information Technology and Language Studies (IJITLS) (Vol. 4, Issue 1). http://journals.sfu.ca/ijitls .

Alvi, I. (2021). College students’ reception of social networking tools for learning in India: An extended UTAUT model. Smart Learning Environments , 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00164-9 .

Alzahrani, N. M. (2020). Augmented reality: A systematic review of its benefits and challenges in e-learning contexts. In Applied Sciences (Switzerland) (Vol. 10, Issue 16). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10165660 .

Ansari, J. A. N., & Khan, N. A. (2020). Exploring the role of social media in collaborative learning the new domain of learning. Smart Learning Environments , 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00118-7 .

Birla Institue of Technology, (Dept of Management).

Bizami, N. A., Tasir, Z., & Kew, S. N. (2022). Innovative pedagogical principles and technological tools capabilities for immersive blended learning: A systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11243-w .

Bruguera, C., Guitert, M., & Romeu, T. (2022). Social media in the learning ecologies of communications students: Identifying profiles from students’ perspective. Education and Information Technologies , 27 (9), 13113–13129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11169-3 .

Cela, K. L., Sicilia, M., & Sánchez, S. (2015). Social Network Analysis in E-Learning Environments: A Preliminary Systematic Review. In Educational Psychology Review (Vol. 27, Issue 1, pp. 219–246). Springer New York LLC. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9276-0 .

Chawla, D., & Joshi, H. (2012). Management education through e-learning in India: An empirical study. Campus-Wide Information Systems , 29 (5), 380–393. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650741211275134 .

Clark, M. (2017). Imposed-inquiry information-seeking self-efficacy and performance of College students: A review of the literature. Journal of Academic Librarianship , 43 (5), 417–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.05.001 .

Cui, Y., Ma, Z., Wang, L., Yang, A., Liu, Q., Kong, S., & Wang, H. (2023). A survey on big data-enabled innovative online education systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge , 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100295 .

Damnjanovic, V., Jednak, S., & Mijatovic, I. (2015). Factors affecting the effectiveness and use of Moodle: Students’ perception. Interactive Learning Environments , 23 (4), 496–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.789062 .

de Goulão, M. F., & Menedez, R. C. (2015). Learner autonomy and self-regulation in eLearning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 174 , 1900–1907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.853 .

Eze, S. C., Chinedu-Eze, V. C., & Bello, A. O. (2018). The utilisation of e-learning facilities in the educational delivery system of Nigeria: A study of M-University. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 15 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0116-z .

Fehrmann, P., Foster, M., Fowler, S. A., Glanville, J., & Young, S. (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA Statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews , 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z .

Ferrer, J., Ringer, A., Saville, K., Parris, A., M., & Kashi, K. (2022). Students’ motivation and engagement in higher education: The importance of attitude to online learning. Higher Education , 83 (2), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00657-5 .

Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. Internet and Higher Education , 19 , 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002 .

Giray, G. (2021). An assessment of student satisfaction with e-learning: An empirical study with computer and software engineering undergraduate students in Turkey under pandemic conditions. Education and Information Technologies , 26 (6), 6651–6673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10454-x .

Han, H., Røkenes, F. M., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2023). Student teachers’ perceptions of flipped classroom in EFL teacher education. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11839-w .

Hanson, J. (2016). Surveying the experiences and perceptions of undergraduate nursing students of a flipped classroom approach to increase understanding of drug science and its application to clinical practice. Nurse Education in Practice , 16 (1), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2015.09.001 .

Horng, J. S., Liu, C. H., Chou, S. F., Yu, T. Y., Fang, Y. P., & Huang, Y. C. (2022). Student’s perceptions of sharing platforms and digital learning for sustainable behaviour and value changes. Journal of Hospitality Leisure Sport and Tourism Education , 31 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2022.100380 .

Hossain, S. F. A., Xi, Z., Nurunnabi, M., & Anwar, B. (2022). Sustainable academic performance in higher education: A mixed method approach. Interactive Learning Environments , 30 (4), 707–720. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1680392 .

Influence of e-learning on The students’ of higher education in the digital era: A systematic literature review.

Jarrah, H. Y. (2023). Global teaching style adaptations and curriculum adjustments for school students during COVID-19. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2186899 .

Kaliisa, R., Rienties, B., Mørch, A. I., & Kluge, A. (2022). Social learning analytics in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers and Education Open , 3 , 100073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100073 .

Kang, H. S., & Pak, Y. (2023). Student Engagement in Online Graduate Program in Education: A mixed-methods study. American Journal of Distance Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2023.2175560 .

Kim, H. J., Hong, A. J., & Song, H. D. (2019). The roles of academic engagement and digital readiness in students’ achievements in university e-learning environments. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 16 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0152-3 .

Koay, K. Y., & Poon, W. C. (2022). Understanding Students’ Cyberslacking Behaviour in e-Learning Environments: Is Student Engagement the Key? https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2080154

Koh, J. H. L., & Kan, R. Y. P. (2021). Students’ use of learning management systems and desired e-learning experiences: Are they ready for next generation digital learning environments? Higher Education Research and Development , 40 (5), 995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1799949 .

Kowalczyk, N. & Truluck, C. (2013). Literature reviews and systematic reviews: What is the difference? Radiologic Technology, 85 , 219–222.

Lai, Y., Saab, N., & Admiraal, W. (2022). University students’ use of mobile technology in self-directed language learning: Using the integrative model of behavior prediction. Computers and Education , 179 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104413 .

Lau, K. H., Lam, T., Kam, B. H., Nkhoma, M., Richardson, J., & Thomas, S. (2018). The role of textbook learning resources in e-learning: A taxonomic study. Computers and Education , 118 , 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.005 .

Lee, J., Song, H. D., & Hong, A. J. (2019). Exploring factors, and indicators for measuring students’ sustainable engagement in e-learning. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 11 (4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11040985 .

Lin, Y. N., Hsia, L. H., & Hwang, G. J. (2021). Promoting pre-class guidance and in-class reflection: A SQIRC-based mobile flipped learning approach to promoting students’ billiards skills, strategies, motivation and self-efficacy. Computers and Education , 160 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104035 .

Mamedova, L., Rukovich, A., Likhouzova, T., & Vorona-Slivinskaya, L. (2023). Online education of engineering students: Educational platforms and their influence on the level of academic performance. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11822-5 .

Mesra, Ranchi, (Jharkhand), India.

Müller, W., & Leyer, M. (2023). Understanding intention and use of digital elements in higher education teaching. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11798-2 .

Neier, S., & Zayer, L. T. (2015). Students’ perceptions and experiences of Social Media in Higher Education. Journal of Marketing Education , 37 (3), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475315583748 .

Noorbhai, H., & Ojo, T. A. (2023). mHealth and e-Learning in health sciences curricula: A South African study of health sciences staff perspectives on utilisation, constraints and future possibilities. BMC Medical Education , 23 (1), 189. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04132-4 .

Ouyang, F., Wu, M., Zhang, L., Xu, W., Zheng, L., & Cukurova, M. (2023). Making strides towards AI-supported regulation of learning in collaborative knowledge construction. Computers in Human Behavior , 142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107650 .

Palvia, S., Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R., & Sindhi, S. (2018). Online Education: Worldwide Status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of Global Information Technology Management (Vol , 21 (4), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262 . Taylor and Francis Inc.

Peng, Y., Wang, Y., & Hu, J. (2023). Examining ICT attitudes, use and support in blended learning settings for students’ reading performance: Approaches of artificial intelligence and multilevel model. Computers and Education , 203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104846 .

Pospíšilová, L., & Rohlíková, L. (2023). Reforming higher education with ePortfolio implementation, enhanced by learning analytics. Computers in Human Behavior , 138 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107449 .

Rawashdeh, A. (2021). Advantages and Disadvantages of Using e-Learning in University Education: Analyzing Students’ Perspectives. 19(2), 107–117. www.ejel.org.

Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., Koffel, J. B., Blunt, H., Brigham, T., Chang, S., Clark, J., Conway, A., Couban, R., de Kock, S., Farrah, K., Fehrmann, P., Foster, M., Fowler, S. A., Glanville, J., & Young, S. (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA Statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews , 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z .

Robinson P, Daly J. (2014). Producing the evidence we need and validating the evidence we have. Journal of Applied Arts and Health, 5 (2), 245–53.

Samsul, S. A., Yahaya, N., & Abuhassna, H. (2023). Education big data and learning analytics: A bibliometric analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications , 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02176-x .

Sarwar, B., Zulfiqar, S., Aziz, S., & Ejaz Chandia, K. (2019). Usage of Social Media Tools for collaborative learning: The Effect on Learning Success with the moderating role of Cyberbullying. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 57 (1), 246–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117748415 .

Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. The Academy of Management Review, 25 (1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/259262

Sewandono, R. E., Thoyib, A., Hadiwidjojo, D., & Rofiq, A. (2022). Performance expectancy of E-learning on higher institutions of education under uncertain conditions: Indonesia context. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11074-9 .

Shafiq, M., & Parveen, K. (2023). Social media usage: Analyzing its effect on academic performance and engagement of higher education students. International Journal of Educational Development , 98 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102738 .

Sobaih, A. E. E., Hasanein, A., & Elshaer, I. A. (2022). Higher education in and after COVID-19: The impact of using Social Network Applications for E-Learning on students’ academic performance. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 14 (9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095195 .

Söderlund, A., Blazeviciene, A., Elvén, M., Vaskelyte, A., Strods, R., Blese, I., Paakkonen, H., Fernandes, A., Cardoso, D., Kav, S., Baskici, C., & Wiktsröm-Grotell, C. (2023). Exploring the activities and outcomes of digital teaching and learning of practical skills in higher education for the social and health care professions: A scoping review. Discover Education , 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-022-00022-x .

Tandon, U., Mittal, A., Bhandari, H., & Bansal, K. (2022). E-learning adoption by undergraduate architecture students: Facilitators and inhibitors. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management , 29 (10), 4287–4312. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2021-0376 .

Taucean, I. M., & Tamasila, M. (2014). Research challenges for eLearning support in Engineering and Management Training. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 124 , 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.479 .

Thathsarani, H., Ariyananda, D. K., Jayakody, C., Manoharan, K., Munasinghe, A. A. S. N., & Rathnayake, N. (2023). How successful the online assessment techniques in distance learning have been, in contributing to academic achievements of management undergraduates? Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11715-7 .

Turan, Z., & Karabey, S. C. (2023). The use of immersive technologies in distance education: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11849-8 .

Turan, Z., Kucuk, S., & Cilligol Karabey, S. (2022). The university students’ self-regulated effort, flexibility and satisfaction in distance education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 19 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00342-w .

Wang, Q., Wen, Y., & Quek, C. L. (2022a). Engaging learners in synchronous online learning. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11393-x .

Wang, Y. M., Wei, C. L., Lin, H. H., Wang, S. C., & Wang, Y. S. (2022b). What drives students’ AI learning behavior: A perspective of AI anxiety. Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2153147 .

Wang, S., Sun, Z., & Chen, Y. (2023). Effects of higher education institutes’ artificial intelligence capability on students’ self-efficacy, creativity and learning. Education and Information Technologies , 28 (5), 4919–4939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11338-4 .

Watt-Watson, J., McGillion, M., Lax, L., Oskarsson, J., Hunter, J., MacLennan, C., Knickle, K., & Victor, C., J (2019). Evaluating an innovative elearning pain education interprofessional resource: A pre-post study. Pain Medicine (United States) , 20 (1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pny105 .

Wei, H. C., & Chou, C. (2020). Online learning performance and satisfaction: Do perceptions and readiness matter? Distance Education , 41 (1), 48–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1724768 .

Xiao, M., Tian, Z., & Xu, W. (2023). Impact of teacher-student interaction on students’ classroom well-being under online education environment. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11681-0 .

Yavuzalp, N., & Bahcivan, E. (2021). A structural equation modeling analysis of relationships among university students’ readiness for e-learning, self-regulation skills, satisfaction, and academic achievement. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning , 16 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-021-00162-y .

Zaidi, S. F. H., Kulakli, A., Osmanaj, V., & Zaidi, S. A. H. (2023). Students’ perceived M-Learning quality: An evaluation and directions to improve the quality for H-Learning. Education Sciences , 13 (6), 578. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060578 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Management, Birla Institue of Technology, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

Rashmi Singh, Shailendra Kumar Singh & Niraj Mishra

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rashmi Singh .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

There is no conflict of interest. The contributors declare that they do not have any kind of financial interest in the subject content or information covered in this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Singh, R., Singh, S.K. & Mishra, N. Influence of e-learning on the students’ of higher education in the digital era: A systematic literature review. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12604-3

Download citation

Received : 10 August 2023

Accepted : 26 February 2024

Published : 16 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12604-3

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

• Student engagement
• Higher education
• Teaching and learning
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 07 July 2023

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

• Silvia Farias-Gaytan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5858-5900 1 ,
• Ignacio Aguaded 2 &
• Maria-Soledad Ramirez-Montoya 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  386 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

6903 Accesses

7 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

The incessant changes in technology generate new products and services, presenting multiple opportunities for the complex educational environment. Consequently, higher education institutions must be attentive to these changes to ensure that students have the knowledge and skills necessary for the work environment. This research aimed to identify studies related to digital transformation and digital literacy in higher education institutions through a systematic study of literature. The search resulted in 830 articles published in the Scopus and Web of Science databases from 2015 to 2022. Quality questions, inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied where 202 articles were selected for the study. The results show (a) interest of educational institutions in empirical studies where technologies are incorporated for didactic purposes, (b) challenges of opportunity in training programs to develop digital competences of teachers and students, (c) little interest in the development of media literacy, (d) the methodological aspects of the studies allow exploring new perspectives of digital transformation in higher education. This article may be of interest to academics, decision-makers and trainers of future professionals to introduce educational technology into learning processes in line with the complex demands of the world of work and society.

Similar content being viewed by others

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

Chengliang Wang, Xiaojiao Chen, … Yuhui Jing

Exploring factors influencing pre-service teacher’s digital teaching competence and the mediating effects of data literacy: empirical evidence from China

Juan Chu, Ruyi Lin, … Junfeng Yang

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

Rui Shi & XiuLan Wan

Introduction

At the end of the twentieth century, the emergence of the internet led to organizations’ digital transformation from analogous to digital information (“digitization”), followed by the incorporation of information technologies into business processes (“digitalization”) (Verhoef et al., 2019 ). Several authors make no distinction between digitalization and digital transformation (Hess et al., 2016 ; Tratkowska, 2020 ; Xiao, 2020 ). Verhoef et al. (2021) propose that digital transformation goes further; its impact generates new business models and value creation. Organizations’ various areas are influenced and committed to change to remain relevant (Anderson and Ellerby, 2018 ). For this study, the term “digital transformation” (DT) was used.

Digital transformation goes beyond just incorporating technologies. An example of this is to consider that digital technologies and automation demand that the workforce develop digital skills and human-centered skills (Digital Transformation Expert Panel, 2021 ), which impacts aspects such as culture, processes, as well as the strategy of the organization (Fischer et al., 2020 ) consequently the organization must make the necessary adjustments for its effective implementation. These impacts reach all business lines including higher education.

Higher education institutions, in particular, must be attentive to the changes in the environment and society to ensure that students have the knowledge and skills demanded. Morin ( 2019 , 2020 ) invites us to think of complexity as a challenge of contemporary thinking, which requires a reform of our way of thinking, since classical scientific thinking was previously built on three foundations: order, separability and reason, but developments in science have undermined these foundations. In this sense, high-level competences such as reasoning for complexity become indispensable in the formation of critical, systemic, scientific and innovative thinking (Ramírez-Montoya et al., 2022 ; Vázquez-Parra et al., 2022 ). Complex environments require active (Patiño et al., 2023 ), collaborative (Romero-Rodríguez et al., 2022 ), open education (Suárez-Brito et al., 2022 ) and digital technology systems (George-Reyes et al., 2023 ; Ponce et al., 2022 ). Because of this, education systems around the world have made various efforts to address the influence of digital technologies and DT, such as UNESCO’s ‘Working Group on Education on Digital Skills and Work’ (UNESCO, 2017 ), the “Bologna Digital 2020” report in Europe (Rampelt et al., 2019 ), the “Outline of China’s National Plan for Medium and Long-term Educational Reform and Development (2010–2020)” of the Chinese government (Xiao, 2020 ), and the Digital Educational Agenda ADE.mx in Mexico (SEP, 2019 ). Likewise, this transformation has triggered the development of topics of interest that intertwine education with technology as proposed by González-Pérez et al. ( 2019 ) (Table 1 ):

Currently, skills performed in digital environments have been added to the basic skills performed in analog environments. Digital literacy involves mastering software and hardware, development, analysis, and interaction with digital content (Chetty et al., 2018 ). Skills such as problem-solving and applying technology were derived from digital technologies (UNESCO, 2017 ), and are considered essential for workers to adapt to digital transformation (Digital Transformation Expert Panel, 2021 ). As new technology becomes available to users, it demands from them continuous learning to remain relevant.

Due to the above, it is worthwhile to research the use and impact of technologies in the educational field on the delivery of content, pedagogical practices, and evaluation and management of learning (Williamson and Hogan, 2020 ), as well as its impact on users, teachers and students. Systematic studies of related literature are scarce, during this investigation, we found four reviews ranging from 2020 to 2021; they focused on the development of digital skills of students (Starkey, 2020 ), or university professors (Bilbao Aiastui et al., 2021 ), on digital competence assessment processes and methods in higher education (Sillat et al., 2021 ), and one focused on media literacy (Manca et al., 2021 ). This study contributes to the subject by integrating digital transformation practices in education, as well as studies on digital competencies of students and teachers, which are key roles of higher education institutions.

This article aims to identify recent studies (2015–2022) related to the issues of digital transformation and digital literacy in higher education institutions through a systematic study of literature. The study seeks to answer what educational trends higher education institutions are using, as well as what studies they have carried out in this regard, and the opportunities they have identified to advance in digital transformation and digital literacy. This study can serve as a basis for higher education institutions interested in exploring educational innovations to identify these implementations and their outcomes and seek inter-institutional collaborations with common interests.

Methodology

The study was conducted through a systematic literature review (SLR) based on the guidelines proposed by Kitchenham and Charters ( 2007 , p. 11), “a means to identify, evaluate and interpret relevant research on a particular topic". The phases to carry out the study were adapted from Kitchenham et al. ( 2010 ) and are described as follows:

Phase 1 Planning: The research starts from the objective of analyzing studies related to the topics of digital transformation and digital literacy in higher education institutions. A series of questions were defined to guide the review; these questions were derived from the integration of elements that would contribute to identify trends in digital transformation, research methods and instruments used in assessing such practices, as well as opportunities for future research; such findings would be useful to other researchers interested in the subject (Kitchenham and Charters, 2007 ) (Table 2 ).

Phase 2 Execution: The articles were selected using inclusion criteria such as the publication period between 2015 and 2022, studies in higher education institutions, focus on students and professors, and empirical research or mixed studies. Articles not arbitrated or published in languages other than Spanish and English were excluded (Table 3 ).

The search was conducted based on the above criteria in the Scopus and WoS databases (Table 4 ). 202 studies met the specified criteria (Fig. 1 ).

The flowchart presents the process of classifying the articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria and the resulting number of articles. The flowchart was adapted from Moher et al. ( 2009 ).

Phase 3 Results: The results of each research question were analyzed to determine the educational trends higher education institutions incorporate, the studies they have carried out in this regard, and the opportunities to advance in digital transformation.

Results are presented based on the research questions. For data analysis, Excel and Power BI were used. The database is available at the following link: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21972170.v2 .

RQ1 What are the trends and topics addressed in the articles?

The trends identified were determined based on the emerging themes of educational technology by González-Pérez et al. ( 2019 ), highlighting digital pedagogies (166 articles), which “link pedagogical and technological supports to adapt to each area of knowledge” (González-Pérez et al., 2019 , p. 189). Examples include implementing the “blended learning” strategy (Power and Kannara, 2016 ; Tang and Chaw, 2016 ; Wang et al., 2022 ) and studies on digital skills (Ting, 2015 ; Tømte et al., 2015 ; Torres-Gastelú et al., 2019 ) and media competencies (Koc and Barut, 2016 ; Jormand et al., 2022 ) Second place went to adaptive technologies (21 articles) that “introduce systems that adapt to the needs of society and encourage learning” (González-Pérez et al., 2019 , p. 189). Examples are the use of Web 2.0 tools (Sichel et al., 2019 ), e-portfolio (Carl and Strydom, 2017 ), e-Learning (Divya and Mohamed Haneefa, 2018 ; Feriady et al., 2020 ), adaptive systems (Murray and Pérez, 2015 ), and social networks (Amaro-Jiménez et al., 2016 ; Robles Moral and Fernández Díaz, 2021 ).

To a lesser extent, the rest of the trends were found in 6 articles on technological models (Andrew et al., 2018 ; Bond et al., 2018 ; Kör et al., 2017 ) and open technologies (Cronin, 2017 ; Paskevicius and Irvine, 2019 ; Spieler et al., 2020 ). Finally, there were articles on disruptive technologies that use extended reality resources (Astudillo Torres, 2019 ; Bucea-Manea-Ţoniş et al., 2020 ) and smart technologies for mobile learning (Pinto Molina et al., 2019 ) (Fig. 2 ).

The rectangles show the proportion and number of published articles classified according to specific emerging issues in the use of educational technology as proposed by González-Pérez et al. ( 2019 ).

The analysis of the author’s keywords highlighted the issue of digital competence and digital literacy (de Ovando Calderón and Jara, 2019 ; Liu et al., 2020 ; Oria, 2020 ) and, to a lesser extent, digital teaching and media literacy (Tetep and Suparman, 2019 ; Sánchez-Caballé and Esteve-Mon, 2022 ) Also notable were keywords regarding technology in these topics (Roa Banquez et al., 2021 ; Rodríguez-Hoyos et al., 2021 ) (Fig. 3 ).

Main keywords identified in the reviewed articles.

RQ2 What are the trends in research methods observed in the articles?

Studies on digital literacy and digital transformation increased in the last three years; in 2022, it rose 53% compared to the previous year. The most commonly used research method (56%) was quantitative (Guillén-Gámez and Peña, 2020 ; Kim et al., 2018 ; Miguel-Revilla et al., 2020 ). Qualitative methods were found in similar proportions (Kajee, 2018 ; Önger and Çetin, 2018 ), and mixed methods (Pozos Pérez and Tejada Fernández, 2018 ; Techataweewan and Prasertsin, 2018 ) (Fig. 4 ).

Number of published articles during 2015–2022 classified by research method, qualitative, quantitative or mixed method.

Also, the highest number of articles was found in Spain, which represents 32% of the total, and shows an interest in digital transformation and digital literacy issues in higher education institutions; followed by Turkey with ten, the United States with nine, and Chile, China and Mexico with seven research papers each (Fig. 5 ).

Proportion of published articles distributed by country.

RQ3 What are the main findings in digital transformation and digital literacy?

The principal findings center on studies on the level of digital skills, and use of educational technology (Fig. 6 ). The most significant number of articles (121) focuses on digital competency (Blayone, 2018 ; Hong and Kim, 2018 ; Torres-Coronas and Vidal-Blasco, 2015 ; Zhao et al., 2021 ). The use of educational technology involves 2.0 technologies (Novakovich, 2016 ), virtual communities (Robin Sullivan et al., 2018 ), online education, or e-Learning (Aznar Díaz et al., 2019 ; Hamutoğlu et al., 2019 ; Gumede and Badriparsad, 2022 ). Regarding media literacy, it was found in eight articles (Altamirano Galván, 2021 ; Brown et al., 2016 ; Koc and Barut, 2016 ; Jormand et al., 2022 ; Leier and Gruber, 2021 ; Olivia-Dumitrina et al., 2019 ; Reyna and Meier, 2018 ; Robles Moral and Fernández Díaz, 2021 ). Two additional issues identified were environmental protection (Amador-Alarcón et al., 2022 ) and educational process (Makarova et al., 2021 ) both of interest to today’s situation faced by higher education institutions.

Trends, topics and main findings from the reviewed articles.

RQ4 What are the authors’ recommendations for future studies? And RQ5 What are the opportunities identified in the studies?

By correlating these two questions, we identified four opportunities regarding digital literacy and digital transformation (Fig. 7 ); first, that higher education institutions have training programs for both students and teachers to help them develop digital skills (Igbo and Imo, 2020 ; Martzoukou et al., 2020 ; Sandí Delgado, 2020 ), media skills (López-Meneses et al., 2020 ; Reyna and Meier, 2018 ; Romero-Rodriguez et al., 2016 ), and critical thinking (Kocak et al., 2021 ; Nagel et al., 2022 ; Vetter and Sarraf, 2020 ). Second, that the development of skills requires to enhance learning design by incorporating new didactic strategies, and educational technologies in academic programs (Boulton, 2020 ; del Prete and Almenara, 2020 ; Foster, 2020 ; Liesa-Orús et al., 2020 ; McGrew et al., 2019 ), and that the impact of these changes improves learning (Castellanos et al., 2017 ; Dafonte-Gómez et al., 2018 ; Sosa Díaz and Palau Martín, 2018 ).

Frequency of recommendations and opportunities for future studies.

On the other hand, methodological recommendations for future studies included incorporating new instruments and variables to collect more information (Kamardeen and Samaratunga, 2020 ; Khalil and Srinivasan, 2019 ; Varga-Atkins, 2020 ; Vetter and Sarraf, 2020 ). Others pointed to increasing the sample size (Amhag et al., 2019 ; Kolodziejczyk et al., 2020 ; Munoz-Repiso and del Pozo, 2016 ; Pozo-Sánchez et al., 2020 ). To a lesser extent, longitudinal studies were recommended to test the models used (He et al., 2018 ; Johnston, 2020 ). In addition, we found that 28% of the studies did not include recommendations, and 31% did not include opportunities for future studies.

RQ6 What are the stated limitations in digital literacy studies involving digital transformation?

The limitations indicated in the studies refer primarily to the small sample size (45%) (Arango et al., 2020 ; Romero-Tena et al., 2020 ; Tugtekin and Koc, 2020 ). To a lesser extent, limitations were found with the instrument used to carry out the study (Heuling et al., 2021 ; Nikou and Aavakare, 2021 ; Sánchez-Caballé and Esteve-Mon, 2022 ). Problems with the technology used was another limitation highlighted in eight studies (Castellano, 2016 ; Pozo-Sánchez et al., 2020 ). Finally, seven studies reported limitation regarding its feasibility (Dafonte-Gómez et al., 2018 ; Fázik and Steinerová, 2020 ; Kerr et al., 2019 ) and one on the low response obtained (Myyry et al., 2022 ); 36% of the studies did not include limitations (Fig. 8 ).

Frequency of limitations found in the reviewed articles. The figure does not include data from articles that did not specify the limitations (36%).

Incorporating educational trends and new technologies in the educational environment has highlighted the need to continue developing skills that allow their adoption by teachers and students. The interest in digital pedagogies and the study of digital competencies were relevant trends among higher education institutions aiming to use adaptive, intelligent, open, or disruptive technologies and technological models (Fig. 2 ). The transition from the analog to the digital world in both processes and products of organizations is part of their journey towards digital transformation (Hess et al., 2016 ; Tratkowska, 2020 ). It also includes organizational and cultural changes among users and operators (Anderson and Ellerby, 2018 ). However, we must point out that technology is not the end in itself but should be a means to facilitate learning.

Therefore, studies employing the scientific method where the benefit can be determined are relevant, and those that examine areas of opportunity by adopting technologies in the learning process. In the last three years, empirical studies on incorporating educational innovations in teaching practice in higher education institutions increased, most applying mainly quantitative methods (Figs. 4 and 5 ). Spain is the country that stands out with the most studies (64). In some cases, the impetus for these efforts has come from the establishment of educational strategies at the national (SEP, 2019 ; Xiao, 2020 ) and regional level (Rampelt et al., 2019 ). These studies denote international interest in the influence of digital transformation, and digital literacy on the educational process.

Digital technology skills and knowledge are hallmarks of the twenty-first-century generations. Digital literacy and educational technology accounted for 95% of the study findings, and only 4% focused on media literacy. Required job competencies include software and hardware skills, critical thinking, information analysis, and the ability to create and communicate content (Chetty et al., 2018 ; Silva et al., 2021 ; UNESCO, 2017 ). “Workers who can combine ‘human’ skills like empathy, cooperation and negotiation with cognitive skills such as problem-solving, will thrive in an economy that increasingly relies on both types of skill” (Digital Transformation Expert Panel, 2021 ). As the work environment and education continue to evolve along new technologies.

In addition to the conceptual components, the methodological aspects of the studies allow exploring new perspectives of digital transformation in higher education. In the studies reviewed, 44% of the recommendations concerned using new instruments, and exploring new variables, while 56% were about sample size increase and longitudinal studies (Fig. 7 ). Although they have not been conceived or designed for the educational field, the technologies are embedded today in the learning process (González-Pérez et al., 2019 ). Studies on their adoption allow testing and validating methodologies and instruments to have reliable data for their implementation (García-Ruiz et al., 2014 ). Though used simultaneously by teachers and students, the adoption of technology may require the implementation of different strategies or approaches to meet the needs of each group.

The ability to learn and unlearn is being tested by constantly introducing technologies into human activities. The opportunities reported by the studies coincide with the need for institutions to have training programs to develop skills for larger groups (27%). In the case of students, other topics of interest are the use of technology, enriched learning experiences, and security and privacy issues (Fig. 7 ). Organizations’ digital transformation strategy must consider the training of their members and their users because the skills required for the job become increasingly specialized (Anderson and Ellerby, 2018 ; Hess et al., 2016 ; Verhoef et al., 2019 ). In order to get the best out of educational technology, users are required to have a minimum level of digital literacy (Kerr et al., 2019 ). Higher education institutions are a fertile place to continue studies on digital transformation and the development of digital literacy of their members.

Therefore, empirical studies on the experiences and challenges faced by higher education institutions in adopting technologies in the learning process and strategies implemented to train teachers and students are relevant. The limitations reported in the studies focused on methodological issues, with the sample size being the most crucial aspect to consider (45%). These studies were carried out in groups managed by the researcher, making it difficult to project the results. The systematic literature review methodology emphasizes the analysis of variables to answer research questions so that similarities and differences among studies can be identified (Kitchenham et al., 2010 ; Kitchenham and Charters, 2007 ). Inter-institutional collaboration can contribute to achieving results that help find joint strategies to promote the adoption of educational innovations and the development of competencies in both teachers and students.

Limitations

This study was limited to trends in higher education institutions in a specific period of time (2015–2022). Another limitation was the selection of two databases, Scopus and Web of Science, which although they include high-impact journals, articles from other databases were not considered; future research can continue the timeline and include other systems and databases.

Conclusions

The digital transformation of higher education institutions goes beyond its impact on administrative and operational processes. The study showed that teachers have incorporated educational trends, new pedagogies and technologies for didactic purposes, and this has highlighted the need to develop the level of digital literacy of both teachers and students. Higher education institutions, as trainers of future professionals, must acknowledge the need for digital transformation and act upon to develop strategies so students and teachers are prepared for the demands of the workplace.

The pandemic spurred the urgency of developing digital skills for both teachers and students. Technologies they used for socializing and leisure became necessary tools for study and work. Higher education institutions are conducting studies on their experiences of adopting educational technologies and the impact on their users. Although related empirical studies on media literacy were scarce, since it is linked to the use of technology, future studies have an opportunity to assess how it develops in the following years. These should examine teachers’ and students’ performance, their critical capacity as media users, and content creators.

The development of teachers’ digital competencies involves not only the mastery of technology but also the improvement of their teaching practice with the appropriate pedagogical use of technology to contribute to student learning. There are opportunities for higher education institutions in measuring digital competencies to find strengths and weaknesses to focus their training programs. The same applies to students, who should be provided with the relevant training for the development of digital skills and prevent the lack of these from becoming an obstacle to their performance in the classroom.

This study aimed to identify the state of digital transformation and digital literacy in higher education institutions and their impact on students and teachers. Digital transformation and new technologies are generating complex environments that demand the development of digital and high-level skills. Technological progress provides opportunities to enhance the learning process. Research must continue to assess the performance and students’ learning gains. This study can serve as a basis for higher education institutions interested in exploring educational innovations to identify these implementations and their outcomes and seek inter-institutional collaborations with common interests.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed in the current study are available in Figshare repository: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21972170 .

Altamirano Galván SG (2021) Perfil de alfabetización mediática de estudiantes y docentes de educación superior. CPU-e, Revista de Investigación Educativa 32:88–110. https://doi.org/10.25009/cpue.v0i32.2735

Article   Google Scholar  

Amador-Alarcón MP, Torres-Gastelú CA, Lagunes-Domínguez A, Medina-Cruz H, Argüello-Rosales CA (2022) Perceptions of environmental protection of university students: a look through digital competences in Mexico. Sustainability 14(18):11141. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811141

Amaro-Jiménez C, Hungerford-Kresser H, Pole K (2016) Teaching with a technological twist: exit tickets via Twitter in literacy classrooms. J Adolesc Adult Lit 60(3):305–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.572

Amhag L, Hellström L, Stigmar M (2019) Teacher educators’ use of digital tools and needs for digital competence in higher education. J Digit Learn Teach Educ 35(4):203–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1646169

Anderson C, Ellerby W (2018) Digital Maturity Model. Achieving digital maturity to drive growth. In: Deloitte (Issue February). https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Technology-Media-Telecommunications/deloitte-digital-maturity-model.pdf

Andrew M, Taylorson J, Langille DJ, Grange A, Williams N (2018) Student attitudes towards technology and their preferences for learning tools/devices at two universities in the UAE. J Inf Technol Educ Res 17:309–344. https://doi.org/10.28945/4111

Arango DAG, Fernández JEV, Carrillo JAO, Rojas ÓAC, Villa CFH (2020) Dimensions of digital competence in university teachers: Relational analysis based on components | Dimensiones de competencia digital en docentes universitarios: Análisis relacional basado en componentes. RISTI-Revista Iberica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informacao 2020(E28):945–960

Google Scholar  

Astudillo Torres MP (2019) Aplicación de la realidad aumentada en las prácticas educativas universitarias. RELATEC: Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa 18(2):203–218. https://doi.org/10.17398/1695-288X.18.2.203

Aznar Díaz I, Cáceres Reche MP, Romero Rodríguez JM (2019) Digital competence of an E-learning tutor: an emerging model of good teaching practices in ICT. Texto Livre 12(3):49–68. https://doi.org/10.17851/1983-3652.12.3.49-68

Bilbao Aiastui E, Arruti Gómez A, Carballedo Morillo R (2021) A systematic literature review about the level of digital competences defined by DigCompEdu in higher education. Aula Abierta 50(4):841–850. https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.50.4.2021.841-850

Blayone T (2018) Reexamining digital-learning readiness in higher education: Positioning digital competencies as key factors and a profile application as a readiness tool. Int J E-Learn Corp Gov Healthcare High Educ 17(4):425–451

Bond M, Marín VI, Dolch, Bedenlier S, Zawacki-Richter O (2018) Digital transformation in German higher education: student and teacher perceptions and usage of digital media. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0130-1

Boulton P (2020) Digitally proficient but disconnected from the outdoor world? A reflection on pedagogies used in an Early Years degree in higher education. J Appl Res High Educ 13(1):195–210. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-03-2019-0066

Brown C, Czerniewicz L, Noakes T (2016) Online content creation: looking at students’ social media practices through a Connected Learning lens. Learn Media Technol 41(1):140–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1107097

Bucea-Manea-Ţoniş R, Bucea-Manea-Ţoniş R, Simion VE, Ilic D, Braicu C, Manea N (2020) Sustainability in higher education: The relationship between work-life balance and XR e-learning facilities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145872

Carl A, Strydom S (2017) e-Portfolio as reflection tool during teaching practice: The interplay between contextual and dispositional variables. South Afr J Educ 37(1). https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v37n1a1250

Castellano J (2016) Advanced media english–a modern PrOCALL course. CALL-EJ 17(1):52–66

Castellanos A, Sánchez C, Calderero JF (2017) Nuevos modelos tecnopedagógicos. Competencia digital de los alumnos universitarios. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa 19(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.24320/redie.2017.19.1.1148

Chetty K, Qigui L, Gcora N, Josie J, Wenwei L, Fang C (2018). Bridging the digital divide: measuring digital literacy. Economics. https://doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2018-23

Cronin C (2017) Openness and praxis: exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education. Int Rev Res Open Dist Learn 18(5):15–34. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3096

Dafonte-Gómez A, García-Crespo O, Ramahi-García D (2018) ‘Flipped learning’ y competencia digital: diseño tecnopedagógico y percepción del alumnado universitario. Index Comunicación 8(2):275–294. http://plataformarevistascomunicacion.org/2018/11/articulo-flipped-learning-competencia-digital-diseno-tecnopedagogico-percepcion-del-alumnado-universitario/

de Ovando Calderón JS, Jara VJ (2019) Digital competence of health sciences teachers of a Chilean university Pixel-Bit, Revista de Medios y Educacion 56:193–211. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2019.i56.10

del Prete A, Almenara JC (2020) Use of the virtual learning environment among higher education teaching staff: a gender analysis | El uso del Ambiente Virtual de Aprendizaje entre el profesorado de educación superior: Un análisis de género. Revista de Educacion a Distancia, 20(62). https://doi.org/10.6018/RED.400061

Digital Transformation Expert Panel. (2021) The Learning Country. Digital Transformation Skills Strategy. https://www.digitalskillsformation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Digital-Transformation-Skills-Strategy-010521.pdf?v=2

Divya P, Mohamed Haneefa K (2018) Digital reading competency of students: A study in universities in Kerala. DESIDOC J Libr Inf Technol 38(2):88–94. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.38.2.12233

Fázik J, Steinerová J (2020) Technologies, knowledge and truth: the three dimensions of information literacy of university students in Slovakia. J Doc https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2020-0086

Feriady M, Nurkhin A, Mahmud N, Setiani R, Astuti DP (2020) Influence of organizational suport and digital literacy on lecturer acceptance of e-learning in indonesia: a modification of technologi acceptance model. Int J Sci Technol Res 9(1):2229–2233

Fischer M, Imgrund F, Janiesch C, Winkelmann A (2020) Strategy archetypes for digital transformation: defining meta objectives using business process management. Inf Manage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103262

Foster B (2020) Information literacy beyond librarians: a data/methods triangulation approach to investigating disciplinary IL teaching practices. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract 15(1):20–37. https://doi.org/10.18438/EBLIP29635

García-Ruiz R, Ramírez-García A, Rodríguez-Rosell M (2014) Educación en alfabetización mediática para una nueva ciudadanía prosumidora. Comunicar XXII(43):15–23. https://doi.org/10.3916/C43-2014-01

George-Reyes CE, Ramírez-Montoya MS, López-Caudana EO (2023) Imbrication of the Metaverse in the complexity of education 4.0: Approach from an analysis of the literatura [Imbricación del Metaverso en la complejidad de la educación 4.0: Aproximación desde un análisis de la literatura]. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación 66:199–237. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.97337

González-Pérez LI, Ramírez-Montoya MS, García-Peñalvo FJ (2019) Innovación educativa en estudios sobre el desarrollo y uso de la tecnología: un mapeo sistemático. In: Ramírez Montoya MS, & Valenzuela González JR (eds.), Innovación educativa: tendencias globales de investigación e implicaciones prácticas (Primera, pp. 137–160). Ediciones OCTAEDRO, S. L. https://octaedro.com/libro/innovacion-educativa-tendencias-globales-de-investigacion-e-implicaciones-practicas/

Guillén-Gámez FD, Peña MP (2020) Univariate analysis of digital competence in physical education: an empirical study | Análisis Univariante de la Competencia Digital en Educación Física: Un estudio empírico. Retos 37:326–332

Gumede L, Badriparsad N (2022) Online teaching and learning through the students’ eyes –Uncertainty through the COVID-19 lockdown: a qualitative case study in Gauteng province, South Africa. Radiography 28(1):193–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2021.10.018

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hamutoğlu NB, Savaşçı M, Sezen-Gültekin G (2019) Digital literacy skills and attitudes towards e-learning. J Educ Fut, August, 93–107. https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.509293

He T, Zhu C, Questier F (2018) Predicting digital informal learning: an empirical study among Chinese University students. Asia Pac Educ Rev 19(1):79–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9517-x

Hess T, Matt C, Benlian A, Wiesböck F (2016) Options for formulating a digital transformation strategy. MIS Q Executive 15(2):103–119. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291349362

Heuling LS, Wild S, Vest A (2021) Digital competences of prospective engineers and science teachers: a latent profile and correspondence analysis. Int J Educ Math Sci Technol 9(4):760–782. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.1831

Hong AJ, Kim HJ (2018) College students’ Digital Readiness for Academic Engagement (DRAE) Scale: scale development and validation. Asia-Pac Educ Res 27(4):303–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0387-0

Igbo HU, Imo NT (2020) Digital libraries and access to information in Nigerian Federal Universities: The impact of technology variables. J Inf Knowl Manage 19(2). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649220500136

Johnston N (2020) The shift towards digital literacy in Australian University libraries: developing a digital literacy framework. J Aust Libr Inf Asso 69(1):93–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2020.1712638

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Jormand H, Bashirian S, Barati M, Rezapur-Shahkolai F, Babamiri M (2022) Evaluation of a web-based randomized controlled trial educational intervention based on media literacy on preventing substance abuse among college students, applying the integrated social marketing approach: a study protocol. Trials 23(1):1006. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06913-6

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kajee L (2018) Teacher education students engaging with digital identity narratives. S Afr J Educ 38(2). https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v38n2a1501

Kamardeen I, Samaratunga M (2020) Digiexplanation driven assignments for personalising learning in construction education. Constr Econ Build 20(3):103–123. https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v20i3.7000

Kerr J, Dale VH, Gyurko F (2019) Evaluation of a MOOC Design Mapping Framework (MDMF): Experiences of academics and learning technologists. Electron J E-Learn 17(1):38–51. http://www.ejel.org/volume17/issue1/p38

Khalil R, Srinivasan V (2019) Massive open online courses/ MOOCS: a gateway to enrich e-learning in management education. Int J Innov Creat Change 7(5):112–124

Kim HJ, Hong AJ, Song H-D (2018) The relationships of family, perceived digital competence and attitude, and learning agility in sustainable student engagement in higher education. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124635

Kitchenham B, Pretorius R, Budgen D, Brereton OP, Turner M, Niazi M, Linkman S (2010) Systematic literature reviews in software engineering-a tertiary study. Inf Softw Technol 52(8):792–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.03.006

Kitchenham B, Charters S (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500

Koc M, Barut E (2016) Development and validation of New Media Literacy Scale (NMLS) for university students. Comput Hum Behav 63:834–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.035

Kocak O, Coban M, Aydin A, Cakmak N (2021) The mediating role of critical thinking and cooperativity in the 21st century skills of higher education students. Think Ski Creat 42:100967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100967

Kolodziejczyk I, Gibbs P, Nembou C, Sagrista MR (2020) Digital skills at divine word university, Papua New Guinea. IAFOR J Educ 8(2):107–124. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.8.2.06

Kör H, Erbay H, Engin M, Dünder E (2017) An examination of the correlation between science and technology attitudes scale, frequency of smartphone usage scale and lifelong learning scale scores using the structural equation model. J Baltic Sci Educ 16(1):86–99

Leier V, Gruber A (2021) Team New Zealand-Sweden-Germany: a joint venture exploring language learning in digital spaces. JALT CALL J 17(3):298–324. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v17n3.410

Liesa-Orús M, Latorre-Cosculluela C, Vázquez-Toledo S, Sierra-Sánchez V (2020) The technological challenge facing higher education professors: perceptions of ICT tools for developing 21st Century skills. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135339

Liu ZJ, Tretyakova N, Fedorov V, Kharakhordina M (2020) Digital literacy and digital didactics as the basis for new learning models development. Int J Emerg Technol Learn 15(14):4–18. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i14.14669

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

López-Meneses E, Sirignano FM, Vázquez-Cano E, Ramírez-Hurtado JM (2020) University students’ digital competence in three areas of the DigCom 2.1 model: a comparative study at three European universities. Australas J Educ Technol 36(3):69–88. https://doi.org/10.14742/AJET.5583

Makarova O, Ldokova G, Egorova R (2021) Analysis of students’ views of the quality of pedagogical education in Russia. Int J Educ Math Sci Technol 9(3):462–481. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.1624

Manca S, Bocconi S, Gleason B (2021) “Think globally, act locally”: a glocal approach to the development of social media literacy. Comput Educ 160:104025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104025

Martzoukou K, Fulton C, Kostagiolas P, Lavranos C (2020) A study of higher education students’ self-perceived digital competences for learning and everyday life online participation. J Doc 76(6):1413–1458. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2020-0041

McGrew S, Smith M, Breakstone J, Ortega T, Wineburg S (2019) Improving university students’ web savvy: an intervention study. Br J Educ Psychol 89(3):485–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12279

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Miguel-Revilla D, Martínez-Ferreira JM, Sánchez-Agustí M (2020) Assessing the digital competence of educators in social studies: an analysis in initial teacher training using the TPACK-21 model. Australas J Educ Technol 36(2):1–12. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5281

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Morin E (2019) Pensar la Complejidad. Crisis ymetamorfosis. Universitat de Valencia

Morin E (2020) Cambiemos de Via. Lecciones de la pandemia. Paidos

Munoz-Repiso A, del Pozo M (2016) Analysis of the digital competences of graduates of university degrees to be a teacher. Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnologia Educativa-RELATEC 15(2):155–168. https://doi.org/10.17398/1695-288X.15.2.155

Murray MC, Pérez J (2015) Informing and performing: a study comparing adaptive learning to traditional learning. Inform Sci 18(1):111–125. https://doi.org/10.28945/2165

Myyry L, Kallunki V, Katajavuori N, Repo S, Tuononen T, Anttila H, Kinnunen P, Haarala-Muhonen A, Pyörälä E (2022) COVID-19 accelerating academic teachers’ digital competence in distance teaching. Front Educ 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.770094

Nagel M-T, Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia O, Fischer J (2022) Validation of newly developed tasks for the assessment of generic Critical Online Reasoning (COR) of university students and graduates. Front Educ 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.914857

Nikou S, Aavakare M (2021) An assessment of the interplay between literacy and digital technology in higher education. Educ Inf Technol 26(4):3893–3915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10451-0

Novakovich J (2016) Fostering critical thinking and reflection through blog-mediated peer feedback. J Comput Assist Learn 32(1):16–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12114

Olivia-Dumitrina N, Casanovas M, Capdevila Y (2019) Academic writing and the internet: Cyber-plagiarism amongst university students. J New Approach Educ Res 8(2):112–125. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2019.7.407

Önger S, Çetin T (2018) An investigation into digital literacy views of social studies preservice teachers in the context of authentic learning. Rev Int Geogr Educ Online 8(1):109–124

Oria B (2020) Edmodo como herramienta de aprendizaje telecolaborativo online en el aula de inglés. Encuentro. 28:49–70

Paskevicius M, Irvine V (2019) Open education and learning design: Open pedagogy in praxis. J Interact Media Educ 2019(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.512

Patiño A, Ramírez-Montoya MS, Buenestado-Fernández M (2023) Active learning and education 4.0 for complex thinking training: analysis of two case studies in open education. Smart Learn Environ 10(8). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00229-x

Pinto Molina M, Gómez-Hernández J-A, Sales D, Cuevas-Cerveró A, Fernández Pascual R, Caballero Mariscal D, Guerrero-Quesada DJ, Navalón C (2019) Aprender y enseñar competencias digitales en un entorno móvil: avances de una investigación aplicada a profesorado y alumnado universitario de Ciencias Sociales. Revista Ibero-Americana de Ciencia Da Informacao 12(2):585–596. https://doi.org/10.26512/10.26512/rici.v

Ponce P, Ramirez R, Ramirez-Montoya MS, Molina A, MacCleery B, Ascanio M (2022) From understanding a simple DC motor to developing an electric vehicle AI controller rapid prototype using MATLAB-Simulink, real-time simulation and complex thinking. Front Educ 7:941972. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.941972

Power J, Kannara V (2016) Best-practice model for technology enhanced learning in the creative arts. Res Learn Technol 24. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v24.30231

Pozos Pérez KV, Tejada Fernández J (2018) Competencias digitales en docentes de educación superior: niveles de dominio y necesidades formativas. Revista Digital de Investigación En Docencia Universitaria 12(2):59–87. https://doi.org/10.19083/ridu.2018.712

Pozo-Sánchez S, López-Belmonte J, Fuentes-Cabrera A, Moreno-Guerrero A-J (2020) Incidence of retro-innovation in higher education. Radio and television as complementary tools when using the educational model known as flipped learning. Form Univ 13(3):139–146. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-50062020000300139

Ramírez-Montoya MS, Castillo-Martínez IM, Sanabria-Zepeda JC, Miranda J (2022) Complex thinking in the framework of education 4.0 and open innovation—a systematic literature review. J Open Innov Technol Market Complex 8(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010004

Rampelt F, Orr D, Knoth A (2019) Bologna Digital 2020–White Paper on Digitalisation in the European Higher Education Area. Publisher: Geschäftsstelle Hochschulforum Digitalisierung beim Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft e.V

Reyna J, Meier P (2018). Using the Learner-Generated Digital Media (LGDM) framework in tertiary science education: a pilot study. Educ Sci 8(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030106

Roa Banquez K, Viviana Rojas Torres CG, González Rincón LJ, Ortiz Ortiz EG (2021) El docente en la era 4.0: una propuesta de formación digital que fortalezca el proceso de enseñanza y aprendizaje. Revista Virtual Universidad Católica Del Norte 63:126–160. https://doi.org/10.35575/rvucn.n63a6

Robin Sullivan R, Neu V, Yang F (2018) Faculty development to promote effective instructional technology integration: a qualitative examination of reflections in an online community. Online Learn J 22(4):341–359. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1373

Robles Moral FJ, Fernández Díaz M (2021) Future primary school teachers’ digital competence in teaching science through the use of social media. Sustainability 13(5):2816. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052816

Rodríguez-Hoyos C, Fueyo Gutiérrez A, Hevia Artime I (2021) Competencias digitales del profesorado para innovar en la docencia universitaria. Analizando el uso de los dispositivos móviles. Pixel-Bit, Revista de Medios y Educación 61:71–97. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.86305

Romero-Rodriguez L, Torres-Toukoumidis D, Pérez-Rodríguez M, Aguaded I (2016) Analfanauts and fourth screen: lack of infodiets and media and information literacy in Latin American University Students. Fonseca-J Commun 12:11–25. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/60674744.pdf

Romero-Rodríguez JM, Ramirez-Montoya, MS, Glasserman-Morales LD, Ramos Navas-Parejo M (2022) Collaborative online international learning between Spain and Mexico: a microlearning experience to enhance creativity in complexity. Educ+Train. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-07-2022-0259

Romero-Tena R, Barragán-Sánchez R, Llorente-Cejudo C, Palacios-Rodríguez A (2020) The challenge of initial training for early childhood teachers. A cross sectional study of their digital competences. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114782

Sánchez-Caballé A, Esteve-Mon FM (2022) Digital teaching competence of university teachers: a comparative study at two European universities. Australas J Educ Technol 50–61. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7408

Sandí Delgado JC (2020) Desarrollo de competencias digitales en el profesorado a través de juegos serios: un estudio de caso aplicado en la Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR). E-Ciencias de La Información. https://doi.org/10.15517/eci.v10i2.38946

SEP (2019) Agenda Digital Educativa ADE.mx. In: Secretaría de Educación Pública. https://infosen.senado.gob.mx/sgsp/gaceta/64/2/2020-02-05-1/assets/documentos/Agenda_Digital_Educacion.pdf

Sichel CE, Javdani S, Ueberall S, Liggett R (2019) Leveraging youths’ digital literacies: the E-Responder social media violence interruption model and pilot evaluation. J Prevent Intervent Community 47(2):76–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2019.1582145

Sillat LH, Tammets K, Laanpere M (2021) Digital competence assessment methods in higher education: a systematic literature review. Educ Scie 11(8):402. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080402

Silva MB, Borges G, Fantin M, Almeida M, Aguaded I (2021) Media competence in children aged 9 to 12 in Brazilian settings. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Da Comunicação 44(1):21–45. http://portcom.intercom.org.br/revistas/index.php/revistaintercom/article/view/3487/2499

Sosa Díaz MJ, Palau Martín RF (2018) Flipped classroom para adquirir la competencia digital docente: una experiencia didáctica en la Educación Superior. Pixel-Bit Revista de Medios y Educación 52:37–54. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2018.i52.03

Spieler B, Grandl M, Ebner M, Slany W (2020) Bridging the gap: a computer science Pre-MOOC for first semester students making with kids view project. Electron J E-Learn. https://doi.org/10.34190/EJEL.20.18.3.004

Starkey L (2020) A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Camb J Educ 50(1):37–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2019.1625867

Suárez-Brito P, López-Caudana EO, Baena-Rojas JJ, Ramírez-Montoya MS (2022) Eliciting complex thinking through open educational resource projects. J Soc Stud Educ Res 13(4):56–77. https://jsser.org/index.php/jsser/article/view/4472

Tang CM, Chaw LY (2016) Digital literacy: A prerequisite for effective learning in a blended learning environment? Electron J E-Learn 14(1):54–65

Techataweewan W, Prasertsin U (2018) Development of digital literacy indicators for Thai undergraduate students using mixed method research. Kasetsart J Soc Sci 39(2):215–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2017.07.001

Tetep, Suparman A (2019) Students’ digital media literacy: effects on social character. Int J Recent Technol Eng 8(2 Special Issue 9):394–399. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.B1091.0982S919

Ting Y-L (2015) Tapping into students’ digital literacy and designing negotiated learning to promote learner autonomy. Internet High Educ 26:25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.004

Tømte C, Enochsson A-B, Buskqvist U, Kårstein A (2015) Educating online student teachers to master professional digital competence: The TPACK-framework goes online. Comput Educat 84:26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.01.005

Torres-Coronas T, Vidal-Blasco M-A (2015) Students and employers perception about the development of digital skills in higher education | Percepción de estudiantes y empleadores sobre el desarrollo de competencias digitales en la educación superior. Revista de Educacion 367:63–89. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2015-367-283

Torres-Gastelú CA, Cordero-Guzmán DM, Soto-Ortíz JL, Mory-Alvarado A (2019) Influence of factors about the manifestation of digital citizenship. Prisma Soc 26:27–49

Tratkowska K (2020) Digital transformation: theoretical backgrounds of digital change. Manage Sci 24(4):32–37. https://doi.org/10.15611/ms.2019.4.05

Tugtekin EB, Koc M (2020) Understanding the relationship between new media literacy, communication skills, and democratic tendency: Model development and testing. New Media Soc 22(10):1922–1941. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819887705

UNESCO (2017) Working group on education: Digital skills for life and work. In: Broadband commission for sustainable development

Varga-Atkins T (2020) Beyond description: In search of disciplinary digital capabilities through signature pedagogies. Res Learn Technol 28:1–19. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v28.2467

Vázquez-Parra JC, Cruz-Sandoval M, Carlos-Arroyo M (2022) Social entrepreneurship and complex thinking: a bibliometric study. Sustainability 14(20). https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013187

Verhoef PC, Broekhuizen T, Bart Y, Bhattacharya A, Qi Dong J, Fabian N, Haenlein M (2019) Digital transformation: a multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. J Bus Res https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022

Vetter MA, Sarraf KS (2020) Assessing the Art + feminism Edit-a-thon for Wikipedia literacy, learning outcomes, and critical thinking. Interact Learn Environ https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1805772

Wang HL, Almeida S, Frino B, Wijayawardena K, Rauf A, Hardie G (2022) Dialogue matters a lot: autoethnographic reflections of an Australian teaching team managing first-year undergraduate students. Int J Manage Educ 20(3):100699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100699

Williamson B, Hogan A (2020). Commercialisation and privatisation in / of education in the context of Covid-19. In: Educ Int Res (Issue July). Education International. https://codeactsineducation.wordpress.com/2020/07/14/evolution-global-education-industry-during-pandemic/

Xiao J (2020) Digital transformation in higher education: critiquing the five-year development plans (2016-2020) of 75 Chinese Universities. Dist Educ 40(4):515–533

Zhao Y, Sánchez Gómez MC, Pinto Llorente AM, Zhao L (2021) Digital competence in higher education: students’ perception and personal factors. Sustainability 13(21):12184. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112184

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the support from Tecnologico de Monterrey through the “Challenge-Based Research Funding Program 2022”. Project ID # I003-IFE001-C2-T3–T. Also, academic support from Writing Lab, Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, México.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico

Silvia Farias-Gaytan & Maria-Soledad Ramirez-Montoya

University of Huelva, Huelva, Spain

Ignacio Aguaded

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Three authors contributed to the content of the article, conceptualizing the approach: IA, M-SR-M; supporting the study theoretically and methodologically: SF-G, M-SR-M; and discussing the data: SF-G, IA.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia Farias-Gaytan .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license 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 license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Farias-Gaytan, S., Aguaded, I. & Ramirez-Montoya, MS. Digital transformation and digital literacy in the context of complexity within higher education institutions: a systematic literature review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 386 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01875-9

Download citation

Received : 31 August 2022

Accepted : 20 June 2023

Published : 07 July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01875-9

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

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

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Teachers’ role in digitalizing education: an umbrella review

Olivia wohlfart.

Institute for School Pedagogy and Didactics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Kaiserstraße 12, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany

Ingo Wagner

As teachers are central to digitalizing education, we summarize 40 years of research on their role in that process within a systematic umbrella review that includes 23 systematic reviews with a total of 1062 primary studies focusing technology integration and aspects of digital literacy. Our findings highlight the international acceptance of the TPACK framework as well as the need for a clear concept of digital literacy. It is unique that we identify and discuss parallels in developing teachers’ digital literacy and integrating digital technologies in the teaching profession as well as barriers to those goals. We conclude by suggesting future directions for research and describing the implications for schools, teacher education, and institutions providing professional development to in-service teachers.Kindly check and confirm whether the corresponding author is correctly identified.Olivia Wohlfart is correctly identified as corresponding author.

Introduction

A variety of stakeholders must be mutually committed to creating digitally competent schools (Pettersson, 2018 ; Sailer et al., 2021 ), and teachers are seen as crucial to this process of digitalization (Bridwell-Mitchell, 2015 ; Lockton & Fargason, 2019 ). Moreover, the role of teachers in digitalizing education must be recognized as a complex, holistic phenomenon (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010 ). Teachers can be a driving force of digitalization, but the COVID-19 pandemic and associated distance teaching/learning have also made teachers prisoners of the rapid digitalization of society and of the associated expectations for education as they are forced to use digital technologies (Wohlfart et al., 2021 ). Before 2020, some institutions were still discussing data protection guidelines while others were already trying to “crack the code of education reform” (Tienken & Starr, 2020 ). By 2021, this situation had changed entirely, and distance learning and digitalization became inescapable, yet only 41% of teachers internationally reported having learned how to integrate digital technologies into teaching (Drossel et al., 2019 ; IEA, 2019 ). While policy and organizational infrastructure are pivotal in successfully promoting the digitalization of education, research has shown that teachers’ digital literacy is more important in that process than rich access to digital technologies (Pettersson, 2018 ).

Previous research on the role of teachers in this process has often focused either on their (perceived) digital literacy or on their willingness and ability to integrate technology (e.g., Granić & Marangunić,  2019 ; McKnight et al., 2016 ). Various models have been developed to examine the digital literacy of teachers and teacher educators, the most prominent being the Technological-Pedagogical-Content-Knowledge (TPACK) model (Koehler & Mishra, 2008 ; Mishra & Koehler, 2006 ), which acknowledges the complexity of teaching by differentiating seven knowledge domains in the interplay of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. Since the model’s first publication in the mid-2000s, the international scientific community has directed much attention and encouragement but also criticism toward it. To date, the original article by Mishra and Koehler ( 2006 ) has been cited over 10,000 times (Google Scholar).

Due to global trends of digitalization, the literature on digitalization in education has flourished in recent decades, occasioning a number of literature reviews in this crowded field. As the number of publications per year relentlessly increases, it has become difficult to stay abreast of current findings, but literature reviews have the advantage of systematically structuring and summarizing the previous literature on a specific topic (Mullins et al., 2014 ). Because teachers are central to implementing digitalization, this second-order review study aims to examine the (main) research focus of previous reviews related to teachers’ perspectives on the digitalization of school education and to identify future directions for research on the role of teachers in this process. Due to varying theoretical approaches and research questions, timeframes and sample groups, previous reviews on teachers’ role on the digital transformation often focus very specific aspects of these. It is unique to this approach, that we are able to identify parallels and connections between overarching themes which have been examined independently in the past. With this holistic overview of research on the digitalization of education from a teachers’ perspective, we aim to answer the following research questions:

To answer these research questions, literature reviews and meta-analyses with a focus on teachers and digitalization were examined by means of a systematic umbrella review.

An abundance of research on teachers and the digitization of education has been conducted in the past decades. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses offer context-specific overviews and critical reviews of these studies and add to our knowledge base. Our goal is to refine this knowledge base by combining these reviews “under one umbrella.” Instead of repeating searches, assessing the study eligibility of included articles, etc., we provide a systematic overview and critical review of research on a complex topic, following the protocol recommended for umbrella reviews by the Joanna Briggs Institute (Aromataris et al., 2015 ). Furthermore, we analyze whether, and discuss how, independently derived conclusions and discussions of these reviews align.

Inclusion criteria

In our umbrella review, we refer to syntheses of research evidence, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on pre- and in-service teachers’ digital literacy as well as their application of technology-based education in primary and secondary education. Due to the emerging nature of our research topic, we include all available review types and articles (Grant & Booth, 2009 ).

Search procedure

The search was conducted using the search engine EBSCOhost and included the databases Education Resource Complete, Academic Search Complete, and Education Resources Information Center. To ensure the quality of the syntheses, only articles and reviews published in peer-reviewed journals were included. For better reproducibility, we opted for articles in English language as the lingua franca in the global, scientific community. The selected search terms were determined by means of an exploratory literature analysis of scientific and educational policy documents as well as the authors’ expertise.

In a first search attempt, we used various synonyms of the terms “digital literacy” and “digital competence” as well as “technology integration” and “educational technology,” with the addition of “teachers” and various “review” methods. As this yielded over 20,000 results, we refined the search string to focus on teachers’ digital literacy and integration of technology. This resulted in the following Boolean search phrase: (“digital literac*” OR “digital competenc*” OR “ICT skill*” OR “digital skill*” OR “computer skill*” OR “technological skill*” OR “e-literac*” OR “multi-modal skill*” OR (“technology” AND (“implementation” OR “integration” OR “application”)) AND teacher* AND (review OR synthesis OR meta-analysis). A total of 9,080 results were identified in the search (date of last search: May 6, 2021). To further reduce the number of articles to a manageable amount, we adapted our search string to consider only studies including “review,” “synthesis,” or “meta-analysis” in the title, which yielded a total of 683 results across the three databases. After duplicates were removed, 542 studies were submitted for further title and abstract screening. Figure  1 summarizes the search (identification) and eligibility steps (screening and checking).

Flow diagram of the literature search and selection of eligible reviews (adapted from the PRISMA Statement; Moher et al., 2009 )

Study selection

All the identified articles were examined by two researchers through an initial screening of titles and abstracts based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This resulted in the exclusion of 498 publications. We excluded articles that did not conduct a systematic review or meta-study as well as those lacking an educational, digital, or teacher-centered focus. Articles focusing on studies of early childhood or higher education were also excluded from further analysis.

Of the selected 44 articles, we were not able to access one paper and received no positive response after reaching out to the authors via email. Furthermore, we conducted hand searches of pertinent academic journals in the field and of the reference lists of the identified articles and extracted two additional papers: Rokenes and Krumsvik ( 2014 ) and Wang et al. ( 2018 ). In summary, 45 articles were read in full text and assessed for eligibility based on the a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria:

• Context  the study examined digitization in the context of teaching and learning.
• Teacher sample  the study targeted pre- or in-service teachers in primary or secondary education.
• Methodological quality  the study was a systematic review or meta-study.

The decision to exclude full-text articles was made by the first author in discussion with the second author. Upon reading the full texts, 11 articles were excluded due to the context or sample of the study.

Next, the methodological quality of the remaining 34 articles was assessed with an appraisal checklist based on the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses (Aromataris et al., 2015 ; Moher et al., 2009 ) as well as Gessler and Siemer ( 2020 ). Only articles that at least partially met all the appraisal criteria were included in the subsequent qualitative synthesis of our umbrella review. Eleven articles did not meet the minimum requirements and were excluded from further analysis.

In total, we included 23 articles in our qualitative synthesis based on extensive screening and assessment of the identified records (Fig.  1 ). Except for two meta-analyses, the conducted studies are categorized as systematic reviews with narrative overviews of the state of research on the given topic.

Data analysis

To answer the research questions, we conducted a quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the 23 systematic reviews. For the quantitative analysis, a protocol was developed for categorizing the general characteristics (publication site, research design, included studies, research objective(s)/questions). This was followed by a content-based thematic analysis of the 23 articles to identify latent patterns, themes, and subthemes through an iterative reading and coding process (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ) supported by MAXQDA software. The identified themes were discussed by the team of authors and then recoded by the first author. Finally, 16 categories (with varying numbers of subcategories) were identified from 1780 coded posts.

Quantitative results

The umbrella review included 23 research articles from 18 scientific journals, published between 2006 and 2020. Without regard to possible duplicates, we found 1321 studies within the reviews. 1 We identified the overlapping studies among the reviews and determined that this umbrella review includes 1062 studies.

The reviews included studies published between 1980 and 2020 (Fig.  2 ). We found that several authors were mentioned and included repeatedly: Chai, Koh, Koehler, Mishra, Polly, and Tondeur. We also found overlap for several publications; e.g., the study by Niess ( 2005 ) was included in seven of the reviews, six studies were included in five reviews, and a further 14 studies appeared in four reviews. Notwithstanding, 84% of the studies (890) were included in only one review.

Publication development of articles included in the selected reviews (n = 23)

Qualitative findings

The qualitative analysis was guided by the formulated research questions. In " Research focus of previous reviews " section, we provide an overview of the main research foci of the included reviews (RQ 1). Next, we describe the current state of research on teachers’ digital literacy (" Digital literacy " section RQ 2) and their (supposed) role in the integration of technology (" Technology integration "section RQ 3). Finally, in " Future research " section, we identify relevant areas for future research, focusing on the role of teachers and their digital literacy in the digitalization of school education (RQ 4).

Research focus of previous reviews

In regard to RQ 1, we identified six themes as main research foci of previous reviews on the digitalization of school education from the perspective of teachers:

• Digital Literacy,
• Teacher Preparation (Programs),
• Role of Teachers,
• Institutional Environment,
• Technology Integration, and.
• Technology as Tools.

The most prominent theme, which was included in over half of the reviews, concerned teachers’ digital literacy (n = 14). Within these reviews, methods and instruments which assessed and discussed digital literacy of teachers were analyzed (e.g. Rosenberg and Koehler ( 2015 ) critically reflect how context is considered in TPACK research). The role and responsibilities of teacher preparation (programs) was addressed in eleven of the reviews, often in combination with a demand for a better preparation concerning digital literacy (e.g. Rokenes & Krumsvik,  2014 ). Several reviews also focused the critical role of teachers (n = 11) and/or the institutional environment (n = 9) in the process of digital transformation within the education system, highlighting the need for a holistic analysis on digitalization of school education and reliance on further stakeholders (e.g. Pettersson,  2018 ). Critical factors and requirements for successful technology integration were included and discussed in seven of the reviews. Finally, we identified a sixth theme which examined (specific) technologies as tools which influence and support student learning as well as interaction between teachers and students (Harper, 2018 ). Table  1 offers an overview of the main research focus of all 23 reviews as well as the identified themes included within these.

Overview and research focus of selected reviews on teachers’ role in the digitalization of education (n = 23)

To better understand and classify the diverse foci of the reviews, we examined the theoretical frameworks as applied or recognized by the author(s). In 11 reviews, no specific theoretical framework was applied (cf. Table  1 ). Eight reviews based their work specifically on the TPACK framework. Three further frameworks were applied in individual studies; Carrillo and Flores ( 2020 ) used the Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison et al., 1999 ) as an analytical tool, Scherer and Teo ( 2019 ) analyzed and discussed the variables of the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1986 ) in their meta-analysis, and Tolo et al. ( 2018 ) considered aspects of classroom assessment practices under their own theoretical framework, “Assessment for Learning” (Hopfenbeck et al., 2015 ).

Digital literacy

To answer RQ2, we analyzed how teachers’ digital literacy was approached in the reviews and considered their main findings. This topic was a thematic focus of 14 of the 23 systematic reviews, including 10 reviews that applied the TPACK framework. We present the findings of our qualitative analysis related to the individual and the assumed concept of digital literacy (4.2.1), TPACK (4.2.2), approaches to developing teachers’ digital literacy (4.2.3), and prevalent requirements (4.2.4).

Concept of digital literacy

The reviews offer a variety of definitions of digital literacy from policy papers and scientific studies alike. Rokenes and Krumsvik ( 2014 , p. 252) follow a definition of digital literacy from Scandinavian studies on ICT in education and include “skills, knowledge, creativity and attitudes” in respect to digital media. Spiteri and Chang Rundgren ( 2020 ) include areas of digital literacy as proposed by the European Commission’s framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe (Ferrari, 2013 ; Starkey, 2020 ) differentiates three types of digital competency for teachers: generic digital competency, digital teaching competency, and professional digital competency. The reviews focusing on TPACK, meanwhile, present the original concept of the framework as introduced by Mishra and Koehler ( 2006 ).

Eight reviews specifically focus on the TPACK framework and examine various aspects of previous research, including publication development, the distinction between TPACK knowledge domains, the measurement of TPACK, the interplay between context and TPACK, and model development and TPACK development (Table  2 ).

Thematic overview of research on TPACK (n = 8)

The reviews report (in broad agreement) on the emergence and publication development of the TPACK model based on the original contribution of Shulman ( 1986 ) and the contributions of Mishra and Koehler (Koehler & Mishra, 2008 ; Mishra & Koehler, 2006 ). In addition, the studies of Pierson ( 2001 ) and Niess ( 2005 ) play a special role. These emerged shortly before and concurrently with the TPACK model, respectively, and refer to TPCK as “technology-enhanced” PCK.

Concerning the distinction of knowledge domains, four reviews specifically acknowledge that a clear definition and delineation of individual knowledge domains is rare and nearly impossible. They also concur that clear definitions and operationalization of knowledge domains would be helpful in (further) developing both the theoretical model and individual survey instruments. The reviews often report TPACK as an overarching knowledge domain. Nevertheless, individual reviews refer to specific knowledge domains, with technical knowledge (TK) taking a special role, as it strongly correlates with the development of TPACK (Wang et al., 2018 ). TK was defined in various ways and aligned with specific technologies (both analog and digital) or types of knowledge (Voogt et al., 2013 ), which points to challenges in distinguishing domain-specific from domain-unspecific technologies (Chai et al., 2013 ) as well as their dynamic and changeable nature over time (Abbitt, 2011 ; Voogt et al., 2013 ; Wang et al., 2018 ).

The most prominent topic discussed in the TPACK reviews is how to measure teachers’ TPACK. Five of the reviews present approaches and instruments for identifying and measuring TPACK, distinguishing between self-assessment and performance assessment, the former being applied in the large majority of studies. The survey instrument developed and validated by Schmidt et al. ( 2009 ) to measure self-perceived TPACK is explicitly highlighted in five of the eight reviews. In addition to quantified surveys, these studies also mention interviews, open-ended questions (mostly in the context of student teaching), interventions (with pre/post survey designs), reflective questionnaires, and document analyses as possible data collection methods. In addition to self-assessment, the reviews acknowledge that performance assessment by experts or peers plays an important role in measuring TPACK; such assessment applies either quantitative or qualitative content analysis (or both) to evaluate observations, reflection sheets, interviews, and classroom materials.

Overall, although they agree on the importance of context in connection with TPACK, the reviews treat this topic rather marginally as a limitation or area for further research and thus refer predominantly to school types, subject areas, pedagogical approaches, and the characteristics and beliefs of teachers. An exception is Rosenberg and Koehler’ ( 2015 ) context-specific review, which discusses the meaning and presence of context in TPACK research based on Porras-Hernández and Salinas-Amescua’s ( 2013 ) conceptual framework for context at three levels (micro, meso, and macro) and among two groups of actors (teachers and students). The authors conclude that context is often missing from research on TPACK and, when included, differs greatly in definition. Additionally, Chai et al. ( 2013 ) propose the “Technological Learning Content Knowledge” (TLCK) framework as a revision of the TPACK framework to include the learner perspective, addressing criticism of the examined studies and contributing to the further development of the model. Analogously, Willermark ( 2018 ) introduces the category of “TPACK as knowledge” versus “TPACK as competence” and examines the extent to which prior studies interpreted TPACK. Based on the results of her review (finding that most previous studies adopted the former perspective), she recommends adopting a changed perspective that understands and examines TPACK as a competence that can be developed and transferred (Willermark, 2018 ).

Approaches to developing teachers’ digital literacy

Ten of the reviews highlight best-practice examples of developing teachers’ digital literacy/TPACK within teacher preparation programs and professional development programs. The most promising approach to developing digital literacy appears to be (role) modelling (in 7 reviews). Rokenes and Krumsvik ( 2014 ) describe this approach as involving “teacher educators, in-service teachers, mentors, and peers promoting particular practices and views of learning through intentionally displaying certain teaching behavior, which could play an important role in shaping student teachers’ professional learning” (p. 262). A significant advantage for preservice teachers is the transferability of this approach to authentic classroom situations (Kay, 2006 ). The role of teacher educators and their training is also highlighted in this context (Tondeur et al., 2012 ), as poor modelling on the part of teacher educators may negatively impact preservice teachers’ TPACK development (Wang et al., 2018 ).

In addition to modelling, collaboration is considered to be important in developing teachers’ digital literacy and enhancing it in various formats; this was examined among preservice teachers, preservice teachers and teacher educators, in-service teachers, and in-service teachers and their students. In this context, the social dimensions of knowledge creation are repeatedly highlighted as important elements in increasing digital literacy.

Authentic learning situations are also highlighted as fruitful elements in developing teachers’ digital literacy (in 5 reviews). In discussing TPACK, Willermark ( 2018 ) argues that the authenticity of learning situations is decisive in the development of (theoretical) knowledge vs. (practical) competence and strongly recommends applying authentic approaches in learning situations to empower teachers both to be digitally literate and to have the skills to apply specific tools in their teaching.

Further strategies to develop teachers’ digital literacy include metacognition as reflection on action, bridging the theory/practice gap, learning by doing, implementing diverse assessment strategies, and blended learning. While the reviews present a variety of strategies, the success or effectiveness of these measures in developing teachers’ digital literacy is seldom reported.

Requirements for developing teachers’ digital literacy

Several reviews critically reflect on the requirements for developing teachers’ digital literacy, highlighting the importance of teacher preparation, the institutional environment, and the role of teachers. The reviews strongly agree on the need to integrate approaches to develope digital literacy in both teacher education (n = 6) and teacher professional development (n = 6) to prepare teachers for digitalized schools. In light of this, digitally literate teacher educators are indispensable in teacher preparation. Tondeur et al. ( 2012 ) recommend the development and maintenance of a technology plan for teacher education that considers both technical and instructional circumstances, with the ultimate goal of empowering end users.

Furthermore, the reviews report that institutional environment significantly affects success in developing digital literacy in various arenas, including leadership (n = 5), the policy debate (n = 4), and school culture (n = 2). Pettersson ( 2018 ) concludes that school leaders are pivotal in translating policies on digital literacy into specific goals and support actions at schools and contends that a failure to do so is the “main barrier for transforming ICT-policies into system-wide professional development and educational change” (p. 1013). A supportive policy debate at the local and national level is also reported as a requirement for enabling the development of preservice teachers’ digital literacy in the context of their teacher preparation (Wilson et al., 2020 ) as well as that of in-service teachers in the context of teacher professional development (Sherman et al., 2010 ). Analogously, a supportive school culture is described as a requirement, especially in further developing in-service teachers’ digital literacy (Spiteri & Chang Rundgren, 2020 ).

A final identified factor in developing digital literacy is the teachers’ role in the process. In the reviews, we identified four areas that directly impact digital literacy and its development: pedagogical beliefs (n = 11), personal characteristics (n = 7), interaction with students (n = 6), and experience with technology (n = 3). While not all these items can be directly influenced, the results highlight two main findings: (1) the evidence shows no differences in developing digital literacy between in-service and pre-service teachers (dispelling the myth of digital natives); (2) introducing and promoting a student-centered, constructivist pedagogical approach in teacher education positively influences the development of digital literacy.

Technology integration

To answer the third research question, we examined whether and how the reviews discussed the integration and application of technology from the teachers’ perspective. We identified seven reviews which focus aspects of technology integration. The qualitative analysis highlights the relevance of specific strategies, requirements, and barriers to technology integration (4.3.1) as well as various facets of technology acceptance (4.3.2).

Strategies, requirements, and barriers to technology integration

The strategies and requirements for technology integration often mirror approaches to developing digital literacy. According to the qualitative findings, technology integration is influenced by the availability of technical support and facilitation, access to resources, paths to professional development, accurate pedagogical approaches, teachers’ digital literacy, possibilities of collaboration, leadership, and teacher educators. The review authors consent that integrating technology for the first time or integrating new technology requires knowledge of and access to these tools and, furthermore, time to explore them. Wilson et al. ( 2020 ) examine knowledge as key to a better integration of technology and highlight the relevance of specific teacher education courses for technology integration. In this sense, Spiteri and Chang Rundgren ( 2020 ) also underline the time allocated to training and teachers’ perceived support from school as two of the most influential factors in integrating technology. After access and time constraints, teachers’ attitudes or personal fears are repeatedly depicted as negatively affecting technology integration. Additionally, teachers’ fears pertaining to a perceived lack or loss of control is described (e.g. Carrillo & Flores 2020 ). Concerning the integration of social media, van den Beemt et al. ( 2020 , p. 43) report additional barriers related to privacy, security, cyberbullying, and ethics. In conclusion, rather than offering a systematic approach towards technology integration, the reviews highlighted the need to take a closer look at the context of teaching and consider the interdependency of a variety of factors. A broad consensus exists that technology integration is promoted by external support via professional development measures as well as by supportive school environments.

Technology acceptance

Technology integration and application are closely linked with technology acceptance (Davis, 1986 ). In their meta-analysis, Scherer and Teo ( 2019 ) examine teachers’ technology acceptance in light of the theoretical implications of the TAM. Several other reviews also refer to and discuss individual or multiple assumptions of this framework to explain teachers’ intentions to integrate technology or their actual use of it. In relation to the model, researchers report that a number of factors directly influence technology integration, including perceived usefulness (PU; n = 3), perceived ease of use (PEOU; n = 2), and, most prominently, attitude towards technology (ATT; n = 8). In their meta-analysis, Scherer and Teo ( 2019 ) conclude that all relations within the TAM exhibit statistical significance, and they note the validity of PU, PEOU, and ATT in predicting technology integration.

Additionally, researchers have identified a variety of moderator variables that affect teachers’ acceptance and integration of technology. Scherer and Teo ( 2019 ) differentiate these variables as “organizational factors,” “technological factors,” and “individual factors” (p. 92). Among organizational factors, the studies highlight three contextual areas that affect teachers’ technology acceptance and integration: school type and culture, grade level, and subject area. These areas as well as their interdependency are reported to directly affect technology acceptance and, via this, technology integration (Spiteri & Chang Rundgren, 2020 ; Carrillo & Flores, 2020 ) focus on teaching and learning practices and highlight the need to differentiate various organizational situations, such as online teaching. Regarding technological factors, Scherer and Teo’s ( 2019 ) meta-analysis offers no statistical explanation of the effect of technology in general vs. specific technologies on the structural parameters of the TAM. Their meta-analysis, however, did not examine differences between specific technologies. Tondeur et al. ( 2012 ), meanwhile, discuss the advantages of specific technology education courses in transferring and implementing specific digital tools in future classrooms. Finally, teachers’ individual factors (i.e., gender, age, cultural background, intellectual capabilities, experience, subjective norms, and pedagogical beliefs) feature prominently in the results of several reviews. For example, Spiteri and Chang Rundgren ( 2020 ) report that technology acceptance/integration was influenced not by a teacher’s age but rather by teaching experience. In summary, while an abundance of variables on various levels is presented, previous reviews most often focused the influence of teachers’ personal attitudes towards technology in understanding technology acceptance in teaching.

Future research

To answer our last research question, we examined the calls for future research in the individual reviews and identified the following five areas:

• Understanding context  To further develop the understanding of teaching and learning in diverse (digital) contexts, future research should go beyond the mere identification of contextual factors and critically examine how and why these factors (may) influence teachers’ digital literacy and/or willingness to integrate digital tools (Chai et al., 2013 ; Rokenes & Krumsvik, 2014 ; Rosenberg & Koehler, 2015 ; Scherer & Teo, 2019 ; Sherman et al., 2010 ; Starkey, 2020 ; Tondeur et al., 2017 ; van den Beemt et al., 2020 ; Voogt et al., 2013 ). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are highlighted, with the reviews repeatedly encouraging future research to take this personal factor into consideration (Carrillo & Flores, 2020 ; Pettersson, 2018 ; Tondeur et al., 2017 ).
• Process and outcome  Several reviews describe a lack of critical reflection in the included studies concerning the processes and specific outcomes of strategies and interventions related to teachers’ role in digitalization (Abbitt, 2011 ; Carrillo & Flores, 2020 ; Sherman et al., 2010 ; Tseng et al., 2020 ; van den Beemt et al., 2020 ). In this context, presenting and discussing best-practice strategies and focusing on practical learning areas, such as learning design, are suggested to benefit future research.
• Variety in methods  The reviews also demand (more) diversity in the methodological approaches to examining teachers’ digital literacy. More specifically, the results highlight the need for more case studies, interventional or experimental designs (Aydın & Gürol, 2019 ; Kay, 2006 ), research using mixed methods (Aydın & Gürol, 2019 ; Chai et al., 2013 ; Tondeur et al., 2017 ; van den Beemt et al., 2020 ; Wang et al., 2018 ; Willermark, 2018 ), and research employing longitudinal designs (Scherer & Teo, 2019 ; Tondeur et al., 2017 ; Wilson et al., 2020 ).
• Holistic perspective  Next in importance to teachers’ role in the process of digitalization, the reviews call for further research based on a more holistic examination of education. In this context, the reviews call for studies that consider the perspectives and effects of students (Aydın & Gürol, 2019 ; Chai et al., 2013 ) and school leadership (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2020 ; Pettersson, 2018 ).
• Clarifying concepts  Several authors also lament the lack of clear definitions and conceptualizations of specific terms or concepts (e.g., digital literacy, TK). This is discussed in conjunction with a call for improvement and agreement within the scientific community in future research (Kay, 2006 ; Voogt et al., 2013 ; Willermark, 2018 ).

In synthesizing the 23 selected reviews, we found an abundance of evidence highlighting the importance of research on teachers’ role in the process of digitalization. Our goal was to refine this knowledge base by combining these reviews “under one umbrella.” Instead of repeating searches, assessing the study eligibility of included articles, etc., we have distilled the findings of at least 1062 studies over the past 40 years that examine specific aspects of teachers and their role in the digitalization of education, offering an exclusive overview of past research on a meta-level, enabling a critical discussion thereof and proposing steps to pursue in upcoming years.

The holistic approach of our umbrella review examining digitalization of education from a teachers’ perspective offers the unique opportunity to discuss parallels and links between diverse theoretical approaches. As a result of this inclusive approach, we found that the requirements and strategies proposed for developing digital literacy and the integration of digital technologies into teaching appear to be strikingly similar (see Chaps. 4.2.3, 4.2.4, & 4.3.1). Although previous research has shown that digital literacy correlates positively with the integration of technology in teaching (McKnight et al., 2016 ; Starkey, 2020 ), we highlight that research so far put a sole focus on one of the two. Examining and better understanding the connection and dependences between these two areas could help clear up ambiguities.

We further found that the reviews highlight the necessity of discussing and reflecting on (existing) approaches and requirements for developing digital literacy as well as integrating technology into classes. The reviews identify and present an abundance of strategies for “developing” digital literacy and “supporting” technology integration (see Chaps. 4.2.3 & 4.3.1) but provide no evidence of the actual impact of these strategies. Based on the findings of our umbrella review, we recommend a critical discussion, application, and evaluation of these strategies in practice as a holistic approach involving the scientific community, schools, and policy representatives. In this sense, several reviews often lacked a clear theoretical background which could support their respective research focus.

This appears to be the case for the successful integration of technology in teaching. While an abundance of moderator variables for technology acceptance are mentioned in the reviews (Chap. 4.3.2), the reviews lack a discussion of the results and associated implications. In addition, as the findings show that multiple concepts are used to define digital literacy and that the TPACK model lacks clear definitions of the individual knowledge domains (Chaps. 4.2.1 & 4.2.2), we believe it is essential to more clearly define the concepts applied in the analysis of digitalization in education. The (further) development of the TPACK framework as proposed by Willermark ( 2018 ) represents a first step in this direction. In particular, a shift from TPACK as knowledge to TPACK as competence may offer the potential to better understand the appropriate applications in practical teaching.

Because education relies on a large, complex network of involved stakeholders (e.g., teachers, students, leadership, parents, policy makers), future research should consider multiple perspectives. For example, Tondeur et al. ( 2012 ) suggest the collaborative development of a technology plan for teacher education programs. Standardized self-evaluation tools, such as SELFIE, 2 enable looking from multiple perspectives at schools’ status quo in examining the proficiency of students, teachers, and leadership in applying digital tools (European Commission, 2020 ).

Implications

Our review’s findings have practical implications for schools, teacher education, and institutions offering professional development services to in-service teachers. In addition, we highlight implications for the research community in critically reflecting independent research on digital literacy and technology integration. First, the findings concerning schools highlight the pivotal role (and responsibility) of school leaders in translating the potential of digitalization into specific goals (Chap. 4.2.4). In line with McKnight et al. ( 2016 ), we encourage school leaders to proactively support teachers in further developing their digital literacy and integrating technology into classes. Rather than implementing general regulations and measures across school types or districts, our results underline the need for school leaders to consider the particular organizational, technological and individual factors of their school and staff (Chap. 4.3.2). This can be a starting point in taking a holistic approach to the creation of digitally competent schools, with leadership as key stakeholders in this complex system of education (Pettersson, 2018 ; Sailer et al., 2021 ).

A second key implication is that institutions of teacher education must act to adequately prepare preservice teachers for the 21st -century classroom. Responsible persons in teacher education programs need to embrace their status as role models, as our findings underline the importance of leading by example (Chap. 4.2.3). Integrating digital technologies into preservice teachers’ instruction both increases their digital literacy and prospectively motivates them to integrate technology into their future teaching.

Third, teacher professional development should be seen as an important resource for developing in-service teachers’ digital literacy (Chap. 4.2.4) as well as showcasing and teaching best practices for the integration of digital technology into classes (Chap. 4.3.1). According to the findings, both general formats for developing TK and subject-specific (TCK) and pedagogical formats (TPK) need to be addressed. Finally, we encourage dedicated sessions for school leaders to support them in the individual and complex process of digitalizing their schools.

Finally, we strengthen the need for the research community to critically reflect the current status of as well as the approach towards research on the teachers’ role in digitalizing education. While the reviews did a good job in synthesizing the abundance of specific studies, the current findings offer little practical support for schools, teacher education programs and institutions offering professional development measures. Rather than repeatedly examining the status of digital literacy or technology integration of a specific cohort of teachers, this review implies the critical role of the research community in actively supporting and shaping digital transformation processes. The identified areas for future research (Chap. 4.4) mark a starting point for the next phase of research.

Limitations and recommendations for future research

Applying an umbrella review allowed us to synthesize the current state of research in an efficient and pragmatic manner. With this method, we can assess whether reviews aligning in topic independently reflect similar results and arrive at comparable conclusions (Aromataris et al., 2015 ). We acknowledge, however, that this approach also bears some risks. While the systematically selected reviews might align in topic, the reviews potentially examine a variety of different research questions, include different target groups, and differ in their timeline coverage and hence, might not be fully exhaustive (Happe et al., 2021 ). This could explain why 890 of the primary studies appear in only one of the selected reviews. Furthermore, as is the case for other variants of systematic reviews of research, the limitations of this umbrella review relate to subjective decisions of the authors concerning (a) the inclusion and exclusion of articles and (b) the inductive, thematic analysis of the included reviews. In the case of the former, the authors followed a strict, transparent protocol with appropriate quality appraisal to ensure the inclusion of all available reviews in the field (Aromataris et al., 2015 ). The thematic analysis, meanwhile, followed an iterative deductive and inductive coding process based on the existing literature, the specific research questions, and frequent discussions between the authors to ensure rigor (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ).

For future research, we highlight the need to adopt holistic perspectives and to consider context at all levels. We believe that research focused on the integration of specific types of technology (as proposed by Scherer & Teo 2019 ) or on the differences in types of participation (active vs. passive) (as suggested by Sailer et al., 2021 ) will increase our knowledge and understanding of the challenges and strategies related to integrating digital technology in education.

In addition, recommend that future studies draw upon and apply specific theoretical frameworks in their research. In our umbrella review, 11 reviews did not link their research to a specific theoretical framework (see Table  1 ). In line with Darling-Hammond ( 2006 ), we argue that theory must be applied to strengthen the field’s legitimacy to inform future policy development in education. In this light, we also recommend that researchers follow and report transparent research methods to (better) establish the applicability and transferability of results.

As our findings reveal a strong link between digital literacy and technology integration, we challenge future studies to further analyze this assumption by comparing and triangulating data of these two constructs. This could lead to further refining the usefulness of theory in understanding processes and the interaction of teachers’ digital literacy and technology integration.

Teachers are central to the process of digitalizing education, so this umbrella review summarizes 40 years of research on their role in that process. The 1062 studies included in the 23 examined reviews make possible a sweeping overview of previous research as well as an outlook for future studies. We found broad variation in the conceptualization of digital literacy and described various approaches to successfully developing digital literacy and integrating digital technologies as well as parallels between these two distinct research areas. Finally, we examined and synthesized the calls for future research in five areas: understanding context, (critically) reflecting on processes and outcomes, variety in methodological approaches, diversity of perspectives, and clarifying concepts.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Maximillian Neller for his support in the selection process of this review. The writing of this article and the underlying study were supported, in part, by the Vector Foundation as well as through the funding of the project “digiMINT,” which is a part of the Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung, a joint initiative of the Federal Government and the Länder that aims to improve the quality of teacher training. The program is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The authors are responsible for the content of this publication.

Biographies

is a research associate at the Center for Teacher Education at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. There she conducts research on digital competencies, digitalization processes in education, and school development.

heads the division “Interdisciplinary Didactics” at the Center for Teacher Education at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. His research interest include digitalization processes in teacher education and aspects of heterogeneity and diversity in education for STEM subjects and physical education.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The writing of this article and the underlying study were supported, in part, by the Vector Foundation as well as through the funding of the project “digiMINT,” which is a part of the Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung, a joint initiative of the Federal Government and the Länder that aims to improve the quality of teacher training. The program is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The authors are responsible for the content of this publication.

Declarations

They further declare that they have no conflict of interest.

The authors declare that all principles of ethical and professional conduct have been followed.

There were no human participants and/or animals involved in the study.

1 We thank the authors who, upon request, sent us their complete lists of studies included in their analyses.

2 Self-reflection on Effective Learning by Fostering the use of Innovative Educational Technologies.

Publisher’s Note

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

Contributor Information

Olivia Wohlfart, Email: [email protected] .

Ingo Wagner, Email: [email protected] .

7. References

• Abbitt JT. Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2011; 43 (4):281–300. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2011.10782573. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey C, Holly C, Kahlil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence Based Healthcare. 2015; 13 (3):132–140. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aydın MK, Gürol M. A systematic review of critical factors regarding ICT use in teaching and learning. International Journal of Progressive Education. 2019; 15 (4):108–129. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2019.203.9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3 (2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bridwell-Mitchell EN. Theorizing teacher agency and reform. Sociology of Education. 2015; 88 (2):140–159. doi: 10.1177/0038040715575559. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carrillo C, Flores MA. COVID-19 and teacher education: A literature review of online teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2020; 43 (4):466–487. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1821184. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chai CS, Koh JHL, Tsai CC. A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Technology & Society. 2013; 16 (2):31–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Darling-Hammond L. Constructing 21st -century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education. 2006; 57 (3):300–314. doi: 10.1177/0022487105285962. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis, F. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B., Schaumburg, H., & Labusch, A. (2019). Nutzung digitaler Medien und Prädiktoren aus der Perspektive der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer im internationalen Vergleich [Use of digital media and predictors from the perspective of teachers in an international comparison]. In B. Eickelmann, W. Bos, & J. Gerick (Eds.), ICILS 2018 #Deutschland [#Germany]: Computer- und informationsbezogene Kompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern im zweiten internationalen Vergleich und Kompetenzen im Bereich Computational Thinking [Computer and information-related competencies of students in the second international comparison and competencies in computational thinking] (pp. 205–240). Waxmann
• Ertmer PA, Ottenbreit-Leftwich AT. Teacher technology change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2010; 42 (3):255–284. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission (2020). SELFIE (Self-reflection on Effective Learning by Fostering the use of Innovative Educational technologies): About SELFIE . Retrieved from  https://ec.europa.eu/education/schools-go-digital/about-selfie_en
• Fernández-Batanero JM, Montenegro-Rueda M, Fernández-Cerero J, García-Martínez I. Digital competences for teacher professional development. Systematic review. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2020 doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1827389. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferrari A. DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. Berlin: Publications Office of the European Union; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garrison D, Anderson T, Archer W. Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education. 1999; 2 (2–3):87–105. doi: 10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gessler M, Siemer C. Umbrella review: Methodological review of reviews published in peer-reviewed journals with a substantial focus on vocational education and training research. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training. 2020; 7 (1):91–125. doi: 10.13152/IJRVET.7.1.5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Granić A, Marangunić N. Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2019; 50 (5):2572–2593. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12864. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal. 2009; 26 (2):91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Happe L, Buhnova B, Koziolek A, Wagner I. Effective measures to foster girls’ interest in secondary computer science education. Education and Information Technologies. 2021; 26 :2811–2829. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10379-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harper B. Technology and teacher-student interactions: A review of empirical research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2018; 50 (3):214–225. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2018.1450690. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hopfenbeck TN, Flórez Petour MT, Tolo A. Balancing tensions in educational policy reforms: Large-scale implementation of assessment for learning in Norway. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy & Practice. 2015; 22 (1):44–60. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.996524. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• IEA. (2019). ICILS 2018: Results infographic presentation . https://bit.ly/3FiJG6c
• Kay R. Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2006; 38 (4):385–410. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2006.10782466. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Technology and Innovation (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–29). Springer
• Lockton M, Fargason S. Disrupting the status quo: How teachers grapple with reforms that compete with long-standing educational views. Journal of Educational Change. 2019; 20 (4):469–494. doi: 10.1007/s10833-019-09351-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKnight K, O’Malley K, Ruzic R, Horsley MK, Franey JJ, Bassett K. Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2016; 48 (3):194–211. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishra P, Koehler MJ. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 2006; 108 (6):1017–1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mullins MM, DeLuca JB, Crepaz N, Lyles CM. Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000–2010): Are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible? Research Synthesis Methods. 2014; 5 (2):116–130. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1098. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Niess ML. Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2005; 21 (5):509–523. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pettersson F. On the issues of digital competence in educational contexts—A review of literature. Education & Information Technologies. 2018; 23 (3):1005–1021. doi: 10.1007/s10639-017-9649-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pierson ME. Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education. 2001; 33 (4):413–430. doi: 10.1080/08886504.2001.10782325. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Porras-Hernández LH, Salinas-Amescua B. Strengthening TPACK: A broader notion of context and the use of teacher’s narratives to reveal knowledge construction. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2013; 48 (2):223–244. doi: 10.2190/ec.48.2.f. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rokenes FM, Krumsvik RJ. Development of student teachers’ digital competence in teacher education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy. 2014; 9 (4):250–280. doi: 10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2014-04-03. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenberg JM, Koehler MJ. Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2015; 47 (3):186–210. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2015.1052663. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sailer M, Murböck J, Fischer F. Digital learning in schools: What does it take beyond digital technology? Teaching and Teacher Education. 2021; 103 :103346. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103346. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scherer R, Teo T. Unpacking teachers’ intentions to integrate technology: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review. 2019; 27 :90–109. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.03.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmidt DA, Baran E, Thompson AD, Mishra P, Koehler MJ, Shin TS. Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2009; 42 (2):123–149. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman TM, Sanders M, Kwon H. Teaching in middle school technology education: A review of recent practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2010; 20 (4):367–379. doi: 10.1007/s10798-009-9090-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shulman L. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher. 1986; 15 (2):4–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015002004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spiteri M, Chang Rundgren SN. Literature review on the factors affecting primary teachers’ use of digital technology. Technology Knowledge & Learning. 2020; 25 (1):115–128. doi: 10.1007/s10758-018-9376-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Starkey L. A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Cambridge Journal of Education. 2020; 50 (1):37–56. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2019.1625867. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tienken C, Starr JP. Cracking the code of education reform: Creative compliance and ethical leadership. Corwin; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tolo, A., Chan, J., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2018). A systematic review on teachers’ implementation of technology-enhanced formative assessment: Insights and implications. AERA Online Paper Repository . 10.302/1301578
• Tondeur J, van Braak J, Ertmer PA, Ottenbreit-Leftwich A. Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research & Development. 2017; 65 (3):555–575. doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tondeur J, van Braak J, Sang G, Voogt J, Fisser P, Ottenbreit-Leftwich A. Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education. 2012; 59 (1):134–144. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tseng JJ, Chai CS, Tan L, Park M. A critical review of research on technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in language teaching. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2020 doi: 10.1080/09588221.2020.1868531. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van den Beemt A, Thurlings M, Willems M. Towards an understanding of social media use in the classroom: A literature review. Technology Pedagogy & Education. 2020; 29 (1):35–55. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2019.1695657. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Voogt J, Fisser P, Pareja Roblin N, Tondeur J, van Braak J. Technological pedagogical content knowledge—A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2013; 29 (2):109–121. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang W, Schmidt-Crawford D, Jin Y. Preservice teachers’ TPACK development: A review of literature. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. 2018; 34 (4):234–258. doi: 10.1080/21532974.2018.1498039. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Willermark S. Technological pedagogical and content knowledge: A review of empirical studies published from 2011 to 2016. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2018; 56 (3):315–343. doi: 10.1177/0735633117713114. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson ML, Ritzhaupt AD, Cheng L. The impact of teacher education courses for technology integration on pre-service teacher knowledge: A meta-analysis study. Computers & Education. 2020; 156 :103941. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103941. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wohlfart O, Trumler T, Wagner I. The unique effects of Covid-19—A qualitative study of the factors that influence teachers’ acceptance and usage of digital tools. Education & Information Technologies. 2021; 26 :7359–7379. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10574-4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

20.500.12592/3tx9bt4

Unpacking the impact of digital technologies in education :Literature review and assessment framework

30 Jan 2024

Joint Research Centre , European Commission , Giannoutsou, Nikoleta , Ioannou, Andri , Timotheou, Stella , Miliou, Ourania , Dimitriadis, Yannis , Cachia, Romina , Villagrá-Sobrino, Sara , Martínez-Monés, Alejandra

Related Topics

Share artifact.

Or copy link:

If your institution is a member, please log into Policy Commons from a link provided by your institution. This typically involves logging in via a menu managed by your library.

Accessing this content requires a membership

Add to list

You have no lists yet

Create your first list:

1 ? 's' : ''}`" >

Full-page Screenshot

• Skip to main content
• Accessibility help

Information

We use cookies to collect anonymous data to help us improve your site browsing experience.

Click 'Accept all cookies' to agree to all cookies that collect anonymous data. To only allow the cookies that make the site work, click 'Use essential cookies only.' Visit 'Set cookie preferences' to control specific cookies.

Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Literature Review on the Impact of Digital Technology on Learning and Teaching

This literature review was commissioned by the Scottish Government to explore how the use of digital technology for learning and teaching can support teachers, parents, children and young people in improving outcomes and achieving our ambitions for education in Scotland

Executive Summary

This literature review was commissioned by the Scottish Government to explore how the use of digital technology for learning and teaching can support teachers, parents, children and young people in improving outcomes and achieving our ambitions for education in Scotland.

This study is designed to help inform the development of a strategy for digital learning and teaching by providing evidence of how and why digital learning and teaching can benefit learners, teachers and schools. It also aims to identify the conditions that lead to its successful implementation and any differences between primary and secondary settings. In particular it focuses on how digital technologies can support and contribute to five specific educational priorities: raising attainment, tackling inequalities and promoting inclusion, improving transitions into employment, enhancing parental engagement, and improving the efficiency of the education system.

A literature search was undertaken, collecting nearly 1,000 items from academic, governmental and professional sources. These were reviewed to determine their thematic relevance and the strength of the evidence they presented. The most useful were then collated and assessed to:

• Identify evidence of relationships between digital learning and teaching activities and the expected outputs, outcomes and impacts;
• Show the relationships that exist between the digital learning and teaching activities and the outputs, outcomes and impacts for different beneficiaries (learners, parents, teachers, and the school); and
• Identify which outcomes are immediate, medium-term and long-term.

Key findings

The key findings of the research are presented below, separated into the key thematic areas which were examined during the review. In the cases where studies of similar digital equipment, tools and resources have been systematically reviewed or where there is a large body of evidence from different studies which have measured change (from quantitative studies using counterfactuals and testing learners before and after), it is possible to state there is conclusive evidence. In other cases where the evidence base is weaker (mainly qualitative studies drawing on relatively small samples of learners and schools), it is only possible to state that there is indicative evidence or (where few cases) promising evidence.

Raising children and young people's attainment

There is conclusive evidence that digital equipment, tools and resources can, where effectively used, raise the speed and depth of learning in science and mathematics for primary and secondary age learners. There is indicative evidence that the same can be said for some aspects of literacy, especially writing and comprehension. Digital technologies appear to be appropriate means to improve basic literacy and numeracy skills, especially in primary settings.

The level of impact is generally similar to other changes to pedagogies which are effective in raising attainment although the use of digital learning has other benefits. Additionally, the extent of the effect may be influenced by the level of capability of teachers to use digital learning tools and resources effectively to achieve improved learning outcomes.

More effective use of digital teaching to raise attainment happens when teachers are able to identify how digital tools and resources can be used to achieve improved learning outcomes, as well as having knowledge and understanding of the technology. This applies in all schools.

Where learners use digital learning at home as well as school for formal and non-formal learning activities these have positive effects on their attainment. This is due to the extension of their learning time. This is particularly important for secondary age learners.

Reducing inequalities and promoting inclusion

There is indicative evidence that the use of digital tools and resources can help to reduce gaps in subject attainment when they are effectively implemented. There is promising evidence that the use of digital equipment and resources can help learners with additional support needs to improve their skills and competences in literacy and numeracy.

Teachers' skills and competences in recognising how to use digital tools and resources and applying them effectively are critical to achieving positive results for learners with additional support needs or who are disdvantaged in other ways.

Improving transitions into employment

There is promising evidence that digital tools can, where effectively used, build skills in interactivity and collaboration, critical thinking and leadership for secondary age learners. These are considered to be vital skills by employers. There is promising evidence too that for secondary age learners, digital resources coupled with digital tools can increase knowledge and understanding of career pathways, applying for work, and working environments. These resources can make it easier for employers to provide help and support to learners.

In addition to the skills that teachers require to harness digital tools and resources to build learners' employability skills, it is evident that they need to be prepared to develop learner-centred learning approaches. Support for learners to access digital equipment outside the classroom is also important.

Enhancing parental engagement

There is promising evidence that using digital equipment and tools for direct communication with parents can improve learners' and parents' cooperation with requests from teachers about attendance, behaviour and support for learning.

Teachers are more likely to do this once they are more competent in using digital equipment and tools, and once schools use digital tools such as virtual learning environments to facilitate communication with parents.

Improving the efficiency of the education system

There is promising evidence that teachers' efficiency can be increased by using digital equipment and resources to prepare for teaching. There is similarly some qualitative evidence that digital tools and resources enable teachers to do their job better in relation to teaching, assessment and their own on-the-job learning and development.

Primary and secondary settings

While many studies clearly focus on specific learners in terms of age, settings (primary, secondary, special education) and domestic circumstances, none make any comparisons between the impact of digital technologies on educational priorities for different age groups. As a consequence, it has not been possible to identify any differences in the use and impact of digital technology in primary and secondary school settings. However, it is generally the case that the impacts found apply relatively equally to primary and secondary school learners.

Conclusions

Successful utilisation of digital technology depends not just upon sufficient access to equipment, tools and resources, but also on the availability of sufficient training, and knowledge and support networks for teachers. Providing teachers with this support will allow them to understand the benefits and applications of digital technologies and enable them to use digital technologies effectively.

If these needs are met, then the literature provides strong evidence that use of digital technologies can aid learning and teaching, as well as enhance the ability of some children to learn effectively. In particular, there is:

• Conclusive evidence that digital technologies can support educational attainment in general (and in maths and science particularly);
• Indicative evidence that it can support educational attainment in literacy and help close the gap in attainment between groups of learners; and
• Promising evidence that digital technologies can provide assistance to overcoming the challenges faced by some learners; improvements in employability skills and knowledge of career pathways; improved communications with parents; and time efficiencies for teachers.

The literature also identifies the factors that bring about more effective implementation of digital learning and teaching. These include:

• Training and support - not only to use equipment but to exploit digital tools and resources for teaching;
• Overcoming teachers' anxieties about digital teaching, not just about the use of the technology but also the use of different learner-centred pedagogies;
• Allowing teachers to experiment with technology;
• Networking with other teachers and schools;
• Maintaining and upgrading equipment and using tools that are compatible across many systems.

As a consequence, successful implementation of digital learning and teaching requires support to teachers in the form of opportunities to learn (both formally and informally), embedding digital learning in continuing professional development and initial teacher training, direction and leadership within a school, functioning digital equipment and tools, and an environment that gives teachers the flexibility to introduce and use digital learning.

Email: Catriona Rooke

There is a problem

Thanks for your feedback

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.