technology in education journal articles

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: 12 February 2024

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

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

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

2948 Accesses

1 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Development studies
• Science, technology and society

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

Similar content being viewed by others

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

Rui Shi & XiuLan Wan

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

Silvia Farias-Gaytan, Ignacio Aguaded & Maria-Soledad Ramirez-Montoya

Education big data and learning analytics: a bibliometric analysis

Shaza Arissa Samsul, Noraffandy Yahaya & Hassan Abuhassna

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review

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

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

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

Methodology and materials

Research method: bibliometric.

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

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

Data retrieval

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

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

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

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

Literature screening

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

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

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

Data standardization

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

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

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

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

Performance analysis (RQ1)

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

Time trend of the publications

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

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

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

Analysis of authors

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

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

Analysis of countries/regions and organization

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of journals

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

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

Temporal keyword analysis: thematic evolution (RQ2)

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

2000.1–2005.12: germination period

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

2006.1–2011.12: initial development period

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

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

2012.1–2017.12: critical exploration period

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

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

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

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

2018.1–2022.12: accelerated transformation period

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

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

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

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

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

Hotspot evolution analysis (RQ3)

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on performance analysis (RQ1)

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

Discussion on authorship productivity in digital technology education research

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

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

Discussion on country/region-level productivity and collaboration

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

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

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

Discussion on institutional-level contributions to digital technology education

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

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

Discussion on journal publication analysis

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

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

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

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

Discussion on the evolutionary trends (RQ2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on the study of research hotspots (RQ3)

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

Interdisciplinary integration and pedagogical transformation

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

Digital literacy and skills acquisition

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

Educational digital transformation

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

Engagement and participation

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

Professional development and teacher readiness

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

Pandemic as a catalyst

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

Ethical and societal considerations

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

Innovation and emerging technologies

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

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

Conclusions and future research

Conclusions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitation and future research

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

Data availability

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Chengliang Wang, Xiaojiao Chen, Yidan Liu & Yuhui Jing

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

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

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuhui Jing .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

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

Informed consent

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

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 11 July 2023

Accepted : 17 January 2024

Published : 12 February 2024

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

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

Stella timotheou.

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

Ourania Miliou

Yiannis dimitriadis.

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

Sara Villagrá Sobrino

Nikoleta giannoutsou, romina cachia.

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

Alejandra Martínez Monés

Andri ioannou, associated data.

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

Digital technologies have brought changes to the nature and scope of education and led education systems worldwide to adopt strategies and policies for ICT integration. The latter brought about issues regarding the quality of teaching and learning with ICTs, especially concerning the understanding, adaptation, and design of the education systems in accordance with current technological trends. These issues were emphasized during the recent COVID-19 pandemic that accelerated the use of digital technologies in education, generating questions regarding digitalization in schools. Specifically, many schools demonstrated a lack of experience and low digital capacity, which resulted in widening gaps, inequalities, and learning losses. Such results have engendered the need for schools to learn and build upon the experience to enhance their digital capacity and preparedness, increase their digitalization levels, and achieve a successful digital transformation. Given that the integration of digital technologies is a complex and continuous process that impacts different actors within the school ecosystem, there is a need to show how these impacts are interconnected and identify the factors that can encourage an effective and efficient change in the school environments. For this purpose, we conducted a non-systematic literature review. The results of the literature review were organized thematically based on the evidence presented about the impact of digital technology on education and the factors that affect the schools’ digital capacity and digital transformation. The findings suggest that ICT integration in schools impacts more than just students’ performance; it affects several other school-related aspects and stakeholders, too. Furthermore, various factors affect the impact of digital technologies on education. These factors are interconnected and play a vital role in the digital transformation process. The study results shed light on how ICTs can positively contribute to the digital transformation of schools and which factors should be considered for schools to achieve effective and efficient change.

Introduction

Digital technologies have brought changes to the nature and scope of education. Versatile and disruptive technological innovations, such as smart devices, the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), blockchain, and software applications have opened up new opportunities for advancing teaching and learning (Gaol & Prasolova-Førland, 2021 ; OECD, 2021 ). Hence, in recent years, education systems worldwide have increased their investment in the integration of information and communication technology (ICT) (Fernández-Gutiérrez et al., 2020 ; Lawrence & Tar, 2018 ) and prioritized their educational agendas to adapt strategies or policies around ICT integration (European Commission, 2019 ). The latter brought about issues regarding the quality of teaching and learning with ICTs (Bates, 2015 ), especially concerning the understanding, adaptation, and design of education systems in accordance with current technological trends (Balyer & Öz, 2018 ). Studies have shown that despite the investment made in the integration of technology in schools, the results have not been promising, and the intended outcomes have not yet been achieved (Delgado et al., 2015 ; Lawrence & Tar, 2018 ). These issues were exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced teaching across education levels to move online (Daniel, 2020 ). Online teaching accelerated the use of digital technologies generating questions regarding the process, the nature, the extent, and the effectiveness of digitalization in schools (Cachia et al., 2021 ; König et al., 2020 ). Specifically, many schools demonstrated a lack of experience and low digital capacity, which resulted in widening gaps, inequalities, and learning losses (Blaskó et al., 2021 ; Di Pietro et al, 2020 ). Such results have engendered the need for schools to learn and build upon the experience in order to enhance their digital capacity (European Commission, 2020 ) and increase their digitalization levels (Costa et al., 2021 ). Digitalization offers possibilities for fundamental improvement in schools (OECD, 2021 ; Rott & Marouane, 2018 ) and touches many aspects of a school’s development (Delcker & Ifenthaler, 2021 ) . However, it is a complex process that requires large-scale transformative changes beyond the technical aspects of technology and infrastructure (Pettersson, 2021 ). Namely, digitalization refers to “ a series of deep and coordinated culture, workforce, and technology shifts and operating models ” (Brooks & McCormack, 2020 , p. 3) that brings cultural, organizational, and operational change through the integration of digital technologies (JISC, 2020 ). A successful digital transformation requires that schools increase their digital capacity levels, establishing the necessary “ culture, policies, infrastructure as well as digital competence of students and staff to support the effective integration of technology in teaching and learning practices ” (Costa et al, 2021 , p.163).

Given that the integration of digital technologies is a complex and continuous process that impacts different actors within the school ecosystem (Eng, 2005 ), there is a need to show how the different elements of the impact are interconnected and to identify the factors that can encourage an effective and efficient change in the school environment. To address the issues outlined above, we formulated the following research questions:

a) What is the impact of digital technologies on education?

b) Which factors might affect a school’s digital capacity and transformation?

In the present investigation, we conducted a non-systematic literature review of publications pertaining to the impact of digital technologies on education and the factors that affect a school’s digital capacity and transformation. The results of the literature review were organized thematically based on the evidence presented about the impact of digital technology on education and the factors which affect the schools’ digital capacity and digital transformation.

Methodology

The non-systematic literature review presented herein covers the main theories and research published over the past 17 years on the topic. It is based on meta-analyses and review papers found in scholarly, peer-reviewed content databases and other key studies and reports related to the concepts studied (e.g., digitalization, digital capacity) from professional and international bodies (e.g., the OECD). We searched the Scopus database, which indexes various online journals in the education sector with an international scope, to collect peer-reviewed academic papers. Furthermore, we used an all-inclusive Google Scholar search to include relevant key terms or to include studies found in the reference list of the peer-reviewed papers, and other key studies and reports related to the concepts studied by professional and international bodies. Lastly, we gathered sources from the Publications Office of the European Union ( https://op.europa.eu/en/home ); namely, documents that refer to policies related to digital transformation in education.

Regarding search terms, we first searched resources on the impact of digital technologies on education by performing the following search queries: “impact” OR “effects” AND “digital technologies” AND “education”, “impact” OR “effects” AND “ICT” AND “education”. We further refined our results by adding the terms “meta-analysis” and “review” or by adjusting the search options based on the features of each database to avoid collecting individual studies that would provide limited contributions to a particular domain. We relied on meta-analyses and review studies as these consider the findings of multiple studies to offer a more comprehensive view of the research in a given area (Schuele & Justice, 2006 ). Specifically, meta-analysis studies provided quantitative evidence based on statistically verifiable results regarding the impact of educational interventions that integrate digital technologies in school classrooms (Higgins et al., 2012 ; Tolani-Brown et al., 2011 ).

However, quantitative data does not offer explanations for the challenges or difficulties experienced during ICT integration in learning and teaching (Tolani-Brown et al., 2011 ). To fill this gap, we analyzed literature reviews and gathered in-depth qualitative evidence of the benefits and implications of technology integration in schools. In the analysis presented herein, we also included policy documents and reports from professional and international bodies and governmental reports, which offered useful explanations of the key concepts of this study and provided recent evidence on digital capacity and transformation in education along with policy recommendations. The inclusion and exclusion criteria that were considered in this study are presented in Table ​ Table1 1 .

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of resources on the impact of digital technologies on education

To ensure a reliable extraction of information from each study and assist the research synthesis we selected the study characteristics of interest (impact) and constructed coding forms. First, an overview of the synthesis was provided by the principal investigator who described the processes of coding, data entry, and data management. The coders followed the same set of instructions but worked independently. To ensure a common understanding of the process between coders, a sample of ten studies was tested. The results were compared, and the discrepancies were identified and resolved. Additionally, to ensure an efficient coding process, all coders participated in group meetings to discuss additions, deletions, and modifications (Stock, 1994 ). Due to the methodological diversity of the studied documents we began to synthesize the literature review findings based on similar study designs. Specifically, most of the meta-analysis studies were grouped in one category due to the quantitative nature of the measured impact. These studies tended to refer to student achievement (Hattie et al., 2014 ). Then, we organized the themes of the qualitative studies in several impact categories. Lastly, we synthesized both review and meta-analysis data across the categories. In order to establish a collective understanding of the concept of impact, we referred to a previous impact study by Balanskat ( 2009 ) which investigated the impact of technology in primary schools. In this context, the impact had a more specific ICT-related meaning and was described as “ a significant influence or effect of ICT on the measured or perceived quality of (parts of) education ” (Balanskat, 2009 , p. 9). In the study presented herein, the main impacts are in relation to learning and learners, teaching, and teachers, as well as other key stakeholders who are directly or indirectly connected to the school unit.

The study’s results identified multiple dimensions of the impact of digital technologies on students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes; on equality, inclusion, and social integration; on teachers’ professional and teaching practices; and on other school-related aspects and stakeholders. The data analysis indicated various factors that might affect the schools’ digital capacity and transformation, such as digital competencies, the teachers’ personal characteristics and professional development, as well as the school’s leadership and management, administration, infrastructure, etc. The impacts and factors found in the literature review are presented below.

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

The impact of ICT use on students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes has been investigated early in the literature. Eng ( 2005 ) found a small positive effect between ICT use and students' learning. Specifically, the author reported that access to computer-assisted instruction (CAI) programs in simulation or tutorial modes—used to supplement rather than substitute instruction – could enhance student learning. The author reported studies showing that teachers acknowledged the benefits of ICT on pupils with special educational needs; however, the impact of ICT on students' attainment was unclear. Balanskat et al. ( 2006 ) found a statistically significant positive association between ICT use and higher student achievement in primary and secondary education. The authors also reported improvements in the performance of low-achieving pupils. The use of ICT resulted in further positive gains for students, namely increased attention, engagement, motivation, communication and process skills, teamwork, and gains related to their behaviour towards learning. Evidence from qualitative studies showed that teachers, students, and parents recognized the positive impact of ICT on students' learning regardless of their competence level (strong/weak students). Punie et al. ( 2006 ) documented studies that showed positive results of ICT-based learning for supporting low-achieving pupils and young people with complex lives outside the education system. Liao et al. ( 2007 ) reported moderate positive effects of computer application instruction (CAI, computer simulations, and web-based learning) over traditional instruction on primary school student's achievement. Similarly, Tamim et al. ( 2011 ) reported small to moderate positive effects between the use of computer technology (CAI, ICT, simulations, computer-based instruction, digital and hypermedia) and student achievement in formal face-to-face classrooms compared to classrooms that did not use technology. Jewitt et al., ( 2011 ) found that the use of learning platforms (LPs) (virtual learning environments, management information systems, communication technologies, and information- and resource-sharing technologies) in schools allowed primary and secondary students to access a wider variety of quality learning resources, engage in independent and personalized learning, and conduct self- and peer-review; LPs also provide opportunities for teacher assessment and feedback. Similar findings were reported by Fu ( 2013 ), who documented a list of benefits and opportunities of ICT use. According to the author, the use of ICTs helps students access digital information and course content effectively and efficiently, supports student-centered and self-directed learning, as well as the development of a creative learning environment where more opportunities for critical thinking skills are offered, and promotes collaborative learning in a distance-learning environment. Higgins et al. ( 2012 ) found consistent but small positive associations between the use of technology and learning outcomes of school-age learners (5–18-year-olds) in studies linking the provision and use of technology with attainment. Additionally, Chauhan ( 2017 ) reported a medium positive effect of technology on the learning effectiveness of primary school students compared to students who followed traditional learning instruction.

The rise of mobile technologies and hardware devices instigated investigations into their impact on teaching and learning. Sung et al. ( 2016 ) reported a moderate effect on students' performance from the use of mobile devices in the classroom compared to the use of desktop computers or the non-use of mobile devices. Schmid et al. ( 2014 ) reported medium–low to low positive effects of technology integration (e.g., CAI, ICTs) in the classroom on students' achievement and attitude compared to not using technology or using technology to varying degrees. Tamim et al. ( 2015 ) found a low statistically significant effect of the use of tablets and other smart devices in educational contexts on students' achievement outcomes. The authors suggested that tablets offered additional advantages to students; namely, they reported improvements in students’ notetaking, organizational and communication skills, and creativity. Zheng et al. ( 2016 ) reported a small positive effect of one-to-one laptop programs on students’ academic achievement across subject areas. Additional reported benefits included student-centered, individualized, and project-based learning enhanced learner engagement and enthusiasm. Additionally, the authors found that students using one-to-one laptop programs tended to use technology more frequently than in non-laptop classrooms, and as a result, they developed a range of skills (e.g., information skills, media skills, technology skills, organizational skills). Haßler et al. ( 2016 ) found that most interventions that included the use of tablets across the curriculum reported positive learning outcomes. However, from 23 studies, five reported no differences, and two reported a negative effect on students' learning outcomes. Similar results were indicated by Kalati and Kim ( 2022 ) who investigated the effect of touchscreen technologies on young students’ learning. Specifically, from 53 studies, 34 advocated positive effects of touchscreen devices on children’s learning, 17 obtained mixed findings and two studies reported negative effects.

More recently, approaches that refer to the impact of gamification with the use of digital technologies on teaching and learning were also explored. A review by Pan et al. ( 2022 ) that examined the role of learning games in fostering mathematics education in K-12 settings, reported that gameplay improved students’ performance. Integration of digital games in teaching was also found as a promising pedagogical practice in STEM education that could lead to increased learning gains (Martinez et al., 2022 ; Wang et al., 2022 ). However, although Talan et al. ( 2020 ) reported a medium effect of the use of educational games (both digital and non-digital) on academic achievement, the effect of non-digital games was higher.

Over the last two years, the effects of more advanced technologies on teaching and learning were also investigated. Garzón and Acevedo ( 2019 ) found that AR applications had a medium effect on students' learning outcomes compared to traditional lectures. Similarly, Garzón et al. ( 2020 ) showed that AR had a medium impact on students' learning gains. VR applications integrated into various subjects were also found to have a moderate effect on students’ learning compared to control conditions (traditional classes, e.g., lectures, textbooks, and multimedia use, e.g., images, videos, animation, CAI) (Chen et al., 2022b ). Villena-Taranilla et al. ( 2022 ) noted the moderate effect of VR technologies on students’ learning when these were applied in STEM disciplines. In the same meta-analysis, Villena-Taranilla et al. ( 2022 ) highlighted the role of immersive VR, since its effect on students’ learning was greater (at a high level) across educational levels (K-6) compared to semi-immersive and non-immersive integrations. In another meta-analysis study, the effect size of the immersive VR was small and significantly differentiated across educational levels (Coban et al., 2022 ). The impact of AI on education was investigated by Su and Yang ( 2022 ) and Su et al. ( 2022 ), who showed that this technology significantly improved students’ understanding of AI computer science and machine learning concepts.

It is worth noting that the vast majority of studies referred to learning gains in specific subjects. Specifically, several studies examined the impact of digital technologies on students’ literacy skills and reported positive effects on language learning (Balanskat et al., 2006 ; Grgurović et al., 2013 ; Friedel et al., 2013 ; Zheng et al., 2016 ; Chen et al., 2022b ; Savva et al., 2022 ). Also, several studies documented positive effects on specific language learning areas, namely foreign language learning (Kao, 2014 ), writing (Higgins et al., 2012 ; Wen & Walters, 2022 ; Zheng et al., 2016 ), as well as reading and comprehension (Cheung & Slavin, 2011 ; Liao et al., 2007 ; Schwabe et al., 2022 ). ICTs were also found to have a positive impact on students' performance in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) disciplines (Arztmann et al., 2022 ; Bado, 2022 ; Villena-Taranilla et al., 2022 ; Wang et al., 2022 ). Specifically, a number of studies reported positive impacts on students’ achievement in mathematics (Balanskat et al., 2006 ; Hillmayr et al., 2020 ; Li & Ma, 2010 ; Pan et al., 2022 ; Ran et al., 2022 ; Verschaffel et al., 2019 ; Zheng et al., 2016 ). Furthermore, studies documented positive effects of ICTs on science learning (Balanskat et al., 2006 ; Liao et al., 2007 ; Zheng et al., 2016 ; Hillmayr et al., 2020 ; Kalemkuş & Kalemkuş, 2022 ; Lei et al., 2022a ). Çelik ( 2022 ) also noted that computer simulations can help students understand learning concepts related to science. Furthermore, some studies documented that the use of ICTs had a positive impact on students’ achievement in other subjects, such as geography, history, music, and arts (Chauhan, 2017 ; Condie & Munro, 2007 ), and design and technology (Balanskat et al., 2006 ).

More specific positive learning gains were reported in a number of skills, e.g., problem-solving skills and pattern exploration skills (Higgins et al., 2012 ), metacognitive learning outcomes (Verschaffel et al., 2019 ), literacy skills, computational thinking skills, emotion control skills, and collaborative inquiry skills (Lu et al., 2022 ; Su & Yang, 2022 ; Su et al., 2022 ). Additionally, several investigations have reported benefits from the use of ICT on students’ creativity (Fielding & Murcia, 2022 ; Liu et al., 2022 ; Quah & Ng, 2022 ). Lastly, digital technologies were also found to be beneficial for enhancing students’ lifelong learning skills (Haleem et al., 2022 ).

Apart from gaining knowledge and skills, studies also reported improvement in motivation and interest in mathematics (Higgins et. al., 2019 ; Fadda et al., 2022 ) and increased positive achievement emotions towards several subjects during interventions using educational games (Lei et al., 2022a ). Chen et al. ( 2022a ) also reported a small but positive effect of digital health approaches in bullying and cyberbullying interventions with K-12 students, demonstrating that technology-based approaches can help reduce bullying and related consequences by providing emotional support, empowerment, and change of attitude. In their meta-review study, Su et al. ( 2022 ) also documented that AI technologies effectively strengthened students’ attitudes towards learning. In another meta-analysis, Arztmann et al. ( 2022 ) reported positive effects of digital games on motivation and behaviour towards STEM subjects.

Impacts of digital technologies on equality, inclusion and social integration

Although most of the reviewed studies focused on the impact of ICTs on students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes, reports were also made on other aspects in the school context, such as equality, inclusion, and social integration. Condie and Munro ( 2007 ) documented research interventions investigating how ICT can support pupils with additional or special educational needs. While those interventions were relatively small scale and mostly based on qualitative data, their findings indicated that the use of ICTs enabled the development of communication, participation, and self-esteem. A recent meta-analysis (Baragash et al., 2022 ) with 119 participants with different disabilities, reported a significant overall effect size of AR on their functional skills acquisition. Koh’s meta-analysis ( 2022 ) also revealed that students with intellectual and developmental disabilities improved their competence and performance when they used digital games in the lessons.

Istenic Starcic and Bagon ( 2014 ) found that the role of ICT in inclusion and the design of pedagogical and technological interventions was not sufficiently explored in educational interventions with people with special needs; however, some benefits of ICT use were found in students’ social integration. The issue of gender and technology use was mentioned in a small number of studies. Zheng et al. ( 2016 ) reported a statistically significant positive interaction between one-to-one laptop programs and gender. Specifically, the results showed that girls and boys alike benefitted from the laptop program, but the effect on girls’ achievement was smaller than that on boys’. Along the same lines, Arztmann et al. ( 2022 ) reported no difference in the impact of game-based learning between boys and girls, arguing that boys and girls equally benefited from game-based interventions in STEM domains. However, results from a systematic review by Cussó-Calabuig et al. ( 2018 ) found limited and low-quality evidence on the effects of intensive use of computers on gender differences in computer anxiety, self-efficacy, and self-confidence. Based on their view, intensive use of computers can reduce gender differences in some areas and not in others, depending on contextual and implementation factors.

Impacts of digital technologies on teachers’ professional and teaching practices

Various research studies have explored the impact of ICT on teachers’ instructional practices and student assessment. Friedel et al. ( 2013 ) found that the use of mobile devices by students enabled teachers to successfully deliver content (e.g., mobile serious games), provide scaffolding, and facilitate synchronous collaborative learning. The integration of digital games in teaching and learning activities also gave teachers the opportunity to study and apply various pedagogical practices (Bado, 2022 ). Specifically, Bado ( 2022 ) found that teachers who implemented instructional activities in three stages (pre-game, game, and post-game) maximized students’ learning outcomes and engagement. For instance, during the pre-game stage, teachers focused on lectures and gameplay training, at the game stage teachers provided scaffolding on content, addressed technical issues, and managed the classroom activities. During the post-game stage, teachers organized activities for debriefing to ensure that the gameplay had indeed enhanced students’ learning outcomes.

Furthermore, ICT can increase efficiency in lesson planning and preparation by offering possibilities for a more collaborative approach among teachers. The sharing of curriculum plans and the analysis of students’ data led to clearer target settings and improvements in reporting to parents (Balanskat et al., 2006 ).

Additionally, the use and application of digital technologies in teaching and learning were found to enhance teachers’ digital competence. Balanskat et al. ( 2006 ) documented studies that revealed that the use of digital technologies in education had a positive effect on teachers’ basic ICT skills. The greatest impact was found on teachers with enough experience in integrating ICTs in their teaching and/or who had recently participated in development courses for the pedagogical use of technologies in teaching. Punie et al. ( 2006 ) reported that the provision of fully equipped multimedia portable computers and the development of online teacher communities had positive impacts on teachers’ confidence and competence in the use of ICTs.

Moreover, online assessment via ICTs benefits instruction. In particular, online assessments support the digitalization of students’ work and related logistics, allow teachers to gather immediate feedback and readjust to new objectives, and support the improvement of the technical quality of tests by providing more accurate results. Additionally, the capabilities of ICTs (e.g., interactive media, simulations) create new potential methods of testing specific skills, such as problem-solving and problem-processing skills, meta-cognitive skills, creativity and communication skills, and the ability to work productively in groups (Punie et al., 2006 ).

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

There is evidence that the effective use of ICTs and the data transmission offered by broadband connections help improve administration (Balanskat et al., 2006 ). Specifically, ICTs have been found to provide better management systems to schools that have data gathering procedures in place. Condie and Munro ( 2007 ) reported impacts from the use of ICTs in schools in the following areas: attendance monitoring, assessment records, reporting to parents, financial management, creation of repositories for learning resources, and sharing of information amongst staff. Such data can be used strategically for self-evaluation and monitoring purposes which in turn can result in school improvements. Additionally, they reported that online access to other people with similar roles helped to reduce headteachers’ isolation by offering them opportunities to share insights into the use of ICT in learning and teaching and how it could be used to support school improvement. Furthermore, ICTs provided more efficient and successful examination management procedures, namely less time-consuming reporting processes compared to paper-based examinations and smooth communications between schools and examination authorities through electronic data exchange (Punie et al., 2006 ).

Zheng et al. ( 2016 ) reported that the use of ICTs improved home-school relationships. Additionally, Escueta et al. ( 2017 ) reported several ICT programs that had improved the flow of information from the school to parents. Particularly, they documented that the use of ICTs (learning management systems, emails, dedicated websites, mobile phones) allowed for personalized and customized information exchange between schools and parents, such as attendance records, upcoming class assignments, school events, and students’ grades, which generated positive results on students’ learning outcomes and attainment. Such information exchange between schools and families prompted parents to encourage their children to put more effort into their schoolwork.

The above findings suggest that the impact of ICT integration in schools goes beyond students’ performance in school subjects. Specifically, it affects a number of school-related aspects, such as equality and social integration, professional and teaching practices, and diverse stakeholders. In Table ​ Table2, 2 , we summarize the different impacts of digital technologies on school stakeholders based on the literature review, while in Table ​ Table3 3 we organized the tools/platforms and practices/policies addressed in the meta-analyses, literature reviews, EU reports, and international bodies included in the manuscript.

The impact of digital technologies on schools’ stakeholders based on the literature review

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

Additionally, based on the results of the literature review, there are many types of digital technologies with different affordances (see, for example, studies on VR vs Immersive VR), which evolve over time (e.g. starting from CAIs in 2005 to Augmented and Virtual reality 2020). Furthermore, these technologies are linked to different pedagogies and policy initiatives, which are critical factors in the study of impact. Table ​ Table3 3 summarizes the different tools and practices that have been used to examine the impact of digital technologies on education since 2005 based on the review results.

Factors that affect the integration of digital technologies

Although the analysis of the literature review demonstrated different impacts of the use of digital technology on education, several authors highlighted the importance of various factors, besides the technology itself, that affect this impact. For example, Liao et al. ( 2007 ) suggested that future studies should carefully investigate which factors contribute to positive outcomes by clarifying the exact relationship between computer applications and learning. Additionally, Haßler et al., ( 2016 ) suggested that the neutral findings regarding the impact of tablets on students learning outcomes in some of the studies included in their review should encourage educators, school leaders, and school officials to further investigate the potential of such devices in teaching and learning. Several other researchers suggested that a number of variables play a significant role in the impact of ICTs on students’ learning that could be attributed to the school context, teaching practices and professional development, the curriculum, and learners’ characteristics (Underwood, 2009 ; Tamim et al., 2011 ; Higgins et al., 2012 ; Archer et al., 2014 ; Sung et al., 2016 ; Haßler et al., 2016 ; Chauhan, 2017 ; Lee et al., 2020 ; Tang et al., 2022 ).

Digital competencies

One of the most common challenges reported in studies that utilized digital tools in the classroom was the lack of students’ skills on how to use them. Fu ( 2013 ) found that students’ lack of technical skills is a barrier to the effective use of ICT in the classroom. Tamim et al. ( 2015 ) reported that students faced challenges when using tablets and smart mobile devices, associated with the technical issues or expertise needed for their use and the distracting nature of the devices and highlighted the need for teachers’ professional development. Higgins et al. ( 2012 ) reported that skills training about the use of digital technologies is essential for learners to fully exploit the benefits of instruction.

Delgado et al. ( 2015 ), meanwhile, reported studies that showed a strong positive association between teachers’ computer skills and students’ use of computers. Teachers’ lack of ICT skills and familiarization with technologies can become a constraint to the effective use of technology in the classroom (Balanskat et al., 2006 ; Delgado et al., 2015 ).

It is worth noting that the way teachers are introduced to ICTs affects the impact of digital technologies on education. Previous studies have shown that teachers may avoid using digital technologies due to limited digital skills (Balanskat, 2006 ), or they prefer applying “safe” technologies, namely technologies that their own teachers used and with which they are familiar (Condie & Munro, 2007 ). In this regard, the provision of digital skills training and exposure to new digital tools might encourage teachers to apply various technologies in their lessons (Condie & Munro, 2007 ). Apart from digital competence, technical support in the school setting has also been shown to affect teachers’ use of technology in their classrooms (Delgado et al., 2015 ). Ferrari et al. ( 2011 ) found that while teachers’ use of ICT is high, 75% stated that they needed more institutional support and a shift in the mindset of educational actors to achieve more innovative teaching practices. The provision of support can reduce time and effort as well as cognitive constraints, which could cause limited ICT integration in the school lessons by teachers (Escueta et al., 2017 ).

Teachers’ personal characteristics, training approaches, and professional development

Teachers’ personal characteristics and professional development affect the impact of digital technologies on education. Specifically, Cheok and Wong ( 2015 ) found that teachers’ personal characteristics (e.g., anxiety, self-efficacy) are associated with their satisfaction and engagement with technology. Bingimlas ( 2009 ) reported that lack of confidence, resistance to change, and negative attitudes in using new technologies in teaching are significant determinants of teachers’ levels of engagement in ICT. The same author reported that the provision of technical support, motivation support (e.g., awards, sufficient time for planning), and training on how technologies can benefit teaching and learning can eliminate the above barriers to ICT integration. Archer et al. ( 2014 ) found that comfort levels in using technology are an important predictor of technology integration and argued that it is essential to provide teachers with appropriate training and ongoing support until they are comfortable with using ICTs in the classroom. Hillmayr et al. ( 2020 ) documented that training teachers on ICT had an important effecton students’ learning.

According to Balanskat et al. ( 2006 ), the impact of ICTs on students’ learning is highly dependent on the teachers’ capacity to efficiently exploit their application for pedagogical purposes. Results obtained from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) (OECD, 2021 ) revealed that although schools are open to innovative practices and have the capacity to adopt them, only 39% of teachers in the European Union reported that they are well or very well prepared to use digital technologies for teaching. Li and Ma ( 2010 ) and Hardman ( 2019 ) showed that the positive effect of technology on students’ achievement depends on the pedagogical practices used by teachers. Schmid et al. ( 2014 ) reported that learning was best supported when students were engaged in active, meaningful activities with the use of technological tools that provided cognitive support. Tamim et al. ( 2015 ) compared two different pedagogical uses of tablets and found a significant moderate effect when the devices were used in a student-centered context and approach rather than within teacher-led environments. Similarly, Garzón and Acevedo ( 2019 ) and Garzón et al. ( 2020 ) reported that the positive results from the integration of AR applications could be attributed to the existence of different variables which could influence AR interventions (e.g., pedagogical approach, learning environment, and duration of the intervention). Additionally, Garzón et al. ( 2020 ) suggested that the pedagogical resources that teachers used to complement their lectures and the pedagogical approaches they applied were crucial to the effective integration of AR on students’ learning gains. Garzón and Acevedo ( 2019 ) also emphasized that the success of a technology-enhanced intervention is based on both the technology per se and its characteristics and on the pedagogical strategies teachers choose to implement. For instance, their results indicated that the collaborative learning approach had the highest impact on students’ learning gains among other approaches (e.g., inquiry-based learning, situated learning, or project-based learning). Ran et al. ( 2022 ) also found that the use of technology to design collaborative and communicative environments showed the largest moderator effects among the other approaches.

Hattie ( 2008 ) reported that the effective use of computers is associated with training teachers in using computers as a teaching and learning tool. Zheng et al. ( 2016 ) noted that in addition to the strategies teachers adopt in teaching, ongoing professional development is also vital in ensuring the success of technology implementation programs. Sung et al. ( 2016 ) found that research on the use of mobile devices to support learning tends to report that the insufficient preparation of teachers is a major obstacle in implementing effective mobile learning programs in schools. Friedel et al. ( 2013 ) found that providing training and support to teachers increased the positive impact of the interventions on students’ learning gains. Trucano ( 2005 ) argued that positive impacts occur when digital technologies are used to enhance teachers’ existing pedagogical philosophies. Higgins et al. ( 2012 ) found that the types of technologies used and how they are used could also affect students’ learning. The authors suggested that training and professional development of teachers that focuses on the effective pedagogical use of technology to support teaching and learning is an important component of successful instructional approaches (Higgins et al., 2012 ). Archer et al. ( 2014 ) found that studies that reported ICT interventions during which teachers received training and support had moderate positive effects on students’ learning outcomes, which were significantly higher than studies where little or no detail about training and support was mentioned. Fu ( 2013 ) reported that the lack of teachers’ knowledge and skills on the technical and instructional aspects of ICT use in the classroom, in-service training, pedagogy support, technical and financial support, as well as the lack of teachers’ motivation and encouragement to integrate ICT on their teaching were significant barriers to the integration of ICT in education.

School leadership and management

Management and leadership are important cornerstones in the digital transformation process (Pihir et al., 2018 ). Zheng et al. ( 2016 ) documented leadership among the factors positively affecting the successful implementation of technology integration in schools. Strong leadership, strategic planning, and systematic integration of digital technologies are prerequisites for the digital transformation of education systems (Ređep, 2021 ). Management and leadership play a significant role in formulating policies that are translated into practice and ensure that developments in ICT become embedded into the life of the school and in the experiences of staff and pupils (Condie & Munro, 2007 ). Policy support and leadership must include the provision of an overall vision for the use of digital technologies in education, guidance for students and parents, logistical support, as well as teacher training (Conrads et al., 2017 ). Unless there is a commitment throughout the school, with accountability for progress at key points, it is unlikely for ICT integration to be sustained or become part of the culture (Condie & Munro, 2007 ). To achieve this, principals need to adopt and promote a whole-institution strategy and build a strong mutual support system that enables the school’s technological maturity (European Commission, 2019 ). In this context, school culture plays an essential role in shaping the mindsets and beliefs of school actors towards successful technology integration. Condie and Munro ( 2007 ) emphasized the importance of the principal’s enthusiasm and work as a source of inspiration for the school staff and the students to cultivate a culture of innovation and establish sustainable digital change. Specifically, school leaders need to create conditions in which the school staff is empowered to experiment and take risks with technology (Elkordy & Lovinelli, 2020 ).

In order for leaders to achieve the above, it is important to develop capacities for learning and leading, advocating professional learning, and creating support systems and structures (European Commission, 2019 ). Digital technology integration in education systems can be challenging and leadership needs guidance to achieve it. Such guidance can be introduced through the adoption of new methods and techniques in strategic planning for the integration of digital technologies (Ređep, 2021 ). Even though the role of leaders is vital, the relevant training offered to them has so far been inadequate. Specifically, only a third of the education systems in Europe have put in place national strategies that explicitly refer to the training of school principals (European Commission, 2019 , p. 16).

Connectivity, infrastructure, and government and other support

The effective integration of digital technologies across levels of education presupposes the development of infrastructure, the provision of digital content, and the selection of proper resources (Voogt et al., 2013 ). Particularly, a high-quality broadband connection in the school increases the quality and quantity of educational activities. There is evidence that ICT increases and formalizes cooperative planning between teachers and cooperation with managers, which in turn has a positive impact on teaching practices (Balanskat et al., 2006 ). Additionally, ICT resources, including software and hardware, increase the likelihood of teachers integrating technology into the curriculum to enhance their teaching practices (Delgado et al., 2015 ). For example, Zheng et al. ( 2016 ) found that the use of one-on-one laptop programs resulted in positive changes in teaching and learning, which would not have been accomplished without the infrastructure and technical support provided to teachers. Delgado et al. ( 2015 ) reported that limited access to technology (insufficient computers, peripherals, and software) and lack of technical support are important barriers to ICT integration. Access to infrastructure refers not only to the availability of technology in a school but also to the provision of a proper amount and the right types of technology in locations where teachers and students can use them. Effective technical support is a central element of the whole-school strategy for ICT (Underwood, 2009 ). Bingimlas ( 2009 ) reported that lack of technical support in the classroom and whole-school resources (e.g., failing to connect to the Internet, printers not printing, malfunctioning computers, and working on old computers) are significant barriers that discourage the use of ICT by teachers. Moreover, poor quality and inadequate hardware maintenance, and unsuitable educational software may discourage teachers from using ICTs (Balanskat et al., 2006 ; Bingimlas, 2009 ).

Government support can also impact the integration of ICTs in teaching. Specifically, Balanskat et al. ( 2006 ) reported that government interventions and training programs increased teachers’ enthusiasm and positive attitudes towards ICT and led to the routine use of embedded ICT.

Lastly, another important factor affecting digital transformation is the development and quality assurance of digital learning resources. Such resources can be support textbooks and related materials or resources that focus on specific subjects or parts of the curriculum. Policies on the provision of digital learning resources are essential for schools and can be achieved through various actions. For example, some countries are financing web portals that become repositories, enabling teachers to share resources or create their own. Additionally, they may offer e-learning opportunities or other services linked to digital education. In other cases, specific agencies of projects have also been set up to develop digital resources (Eurydice, 2019 ).

Administration and digital data management

The digital transformation of schools involves organizational improvements at the level of internal workflows, communication between the different stakeholders, and potential for collaboration. Vuorikari et al. ( 2020 ) presented evidence that digital technologies supported the automation of administrative practices in schools and reduced the administration’s workload. There is evidence that digital data affects the production of knowledge about schools and has the power to transform how schooling takes place. Specifically, Sellar ( 2015 ) reported that data infrastructure in education is developing due to the demand for “ information about student outcomes, teacher quality, school performance, and adult skills, associated with policy efforts to increase human capital and productivity practices ” (p. 771). In this regard, practices, such as datafication which refers to the “ translation of information about all kinds of things and processes into quantified formats” have become essential for decision-making based on accountability reports about the school’s quality. The data could be turned into deep insights about education or training incorporating ICTs. For example, measuring students’ online engagement with the learning material and drawing meaningful conclusions can allow teachers to improve their educational interventions (Vuorikari et al., 2020 ).

Students’ socioeconomic background and family support

Research show that the active engagement of parents in the school and their support for the school’s work can make a difference to their children’s attitudes towards learning and, as a result, their achievement (Hattie, 2008 ). In recent years, digital technologies have been used for more effective communication between school and family (Escueta et al., 2017 ). The European Commission ( 2020 ) presented data from a Eurostat survey regarding the use of computers by students during the pandemic. The data showed that younger pupils needed additional support and guidance from parents and the challenges were greater for families in which parents had lower levels of education and little to no digital skills.

In this regard, the socio-economic background of the learners and their socio-cultural environment also affect educational achievements (Punie et al., 2006 ). Trucano documented that the use of computers at home positively influenced students’ confidence and resulted in more frequent use at school, compared to students who had no home access (Trucano, 2005 ). In this sense, the socio-economic background affects the access to computers at home (OECD, 2015 ) which in turn influences the experience of ICT, an important factor for school achievement (Punie et al., 2006 ; Underwood, 2009 ). Furthermore, parents from different socio-economic backgrounds may have different abilities and availability to support their children in their learning process (Di Pietro et al., 2020 ).

Schools’ socioeconomic context and emergency situations

The socio-economic context of the school is closely related to a school’s digital transformation. For example, schools in disadvantaged, rural, or deprived areas are likely to lack the digital capacity and infrastructure required to adapt to the use of digital technologies during emergency periods, such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Di Pietro et al., 2020 ). Data collected from school principals confirmed that in several countries, there is a rural/urban divide in connectivity (OECD, 2015 ).

Emergency periods also affect the digitalization of schools. The COVID-19 pandemic led to the closure of schools and forced them to seek appropriate and connective ways to keep working on the curriculum (Di Pietro et al., 2020 ). The sudden large-scale shift to distance and online teaching and learning also presented challenges around quality and equity in education, such as the risk of increased inequalities in learning, digital, and social, as well as teachers facing difficulties coping with this demanding situation (European Commission, 2020 ).

Looking at the findings of the above studies, we can conclude that the impact of digital technologies on education is influenced by various actors and touches many aspects of the school ecosystem. Figure  1 summarizes the factors affecting the digital technologies’ impact on school stakeholders based on the findings from the literature review.

Factors that affect the impact of ICTs on education

The findings revealed that the use of digital technologies in education affects a variety of actors within a school’s ecosystem. First, we observed that as technologies evolve, so does the interest of the research community to apply them to school settings. Figure  2 summarizes the trends identified in current research around the impact of digital technologies on schools’ digital capacity and transformation as found in the present study. Starting as early as 2005, when computers, simulations, and interactive boards were the most commonly applied tools in school interventions (e.g., Eng, 2005 ; Liao et al., 2007 ; Moran et al., 2008 ; Tamim et al., 2011 ), moving towards the use of learning platforms (Jewitt et al., 2011 ), then to the use of mobile devices and digital games (e.g., Tamim et al., 2015 ; Sung et al., 2016 ; Talan et al., 2020 ), as well as e-books (e.g., Savva et al., 2022 ), to the more recent advanced technologies, such as AR and VR applications (e.g., Garzón & Acevedo, 2019 ; Garzón et al., 2020 ; Kalemkuş & Kalemkuş, 2022 ), or robotics and AI (e.g., Su & Yang, 2022 ; Su et al., 2022 ). As this evolution shows, digital technologies are a concept in flux with different affordances and characteristics. Additionally, from an instructional perspective, there has been a growing interest in different modes and models of content delivery such as online, blended, and hybrid modes (e.g., Cheok & Wong, 2015 ; Kazu & Yalçin, 2022 ; Ulum, 2022 ). This is an indication that the value of technologies to support teaching and learning as well as other school-related practices is increasingly recognized by the research and school community. The impact results from the literature review indicate that ICT integration on students’ learning outcomes has effects that are small (Coban et al., 2022 ; Eng, 2005 ; Higgins et al., 2012 ; Schmid et al., 2014 ; Tamim et al., 2015 ; Zheng et al., 2016 ) to moderate (Garzón & Acevedo, 2019 ; Garzón et al., 2020 ; Liao et al., 2007 ; Sung et al., 2016 ; Talan et al., 2020 ; Wen & Walters, 2022 ). That said, a number of recent studies have reported high effect sizes (e.g., Kazu & Yalçin, 2022 ).

Current work and trends in the study of the impact of digital technologies on schools’ digital capacity

Based on these findings, several authors have suggested that the impact of technology on education depends on several variables and not on the technology per se (Tamim et al., 2011 ; Higgins et al., 2012 ; Archer et al., 2014 ; Sung et al., 2016 ; Haßler et al., 2016 ; Chauhan, 2017 ; Lee et al., 2020 ; Lei et al., 2022a ). While the impact of ICTs on student achievement has been thoroughly investigated by researchers, other aspects related to school life that are also affected by ICTs, such as equality, inclusion, and social integration have received less attention. Further analysis of the literature review has revealed a greater investment in ICT interventions to support learning and teaching in the core subjects of literacy and STEM disciplines, especially mathematics, and science. These were the most common subjects studied in the reviewed papers often drawing on national testing results, while studies that investigated other subject areas, such as social studies, were limited (Chauhan, 2017 ; Condie & Munro, 2007 ). As such, research is still lacking impact studies that focus on the effects of ICTs on a range of curriculum subjects.

The qualitative research provided additional information about the impact of digital technologies on education, documenting positive effects and giving more details about implications, recommendations, and future research directions. Specifically, the findings regarding the role of ICTs in supporting learning highlight the importance of teachers’ instructional practice and the learning context in the use of technologies and consequently their impact on instruction (Çelik, 2022 ; Schmid et al., 2014 ; Tamim et al., 2015 ). The review also provided useful insights regarding the various factors that affect the impact of digital technologies on education. These factors are interconnected and play a vital role in the transformation process. Specifically, these factors include a) digital competencies; b) teachers’ personal characteristics and professional development; c) school leadership and management; d) connectivity, infrastructure, and government support; e) administration and data management practices; f) students’ socio-economic background and family support and g) the socioeconomic context of the school and emergency situations. It is worth noting that we observed factors that affect the integration of ICTs in education but may also be affected by it. For example, the frequent use of ICTs and the use of laptops by students for instructional purposes positively affect the development of digital competencies (Zheng et al., 2016 ) and at the same time, the digital competencies affect the use of ICTs (Fu, 2013 ; Higgins et al., 2012 ). As a result, the impact of digital technologies should be explored more as an enabler of desirable and new practices and not merely as a catalyst that improves the output of the education process i.e. namely student attainment.

Conclusions

Digital technologies offer immense potential for fundamental improvement in schools. However, investment in ICT infrastructure and professional development to improve school education are yet to provide fruitful results. Digital transformation is a complex process that requires large-scale transformative changes that presuppose digital capacity and preparedness. To achieve such changes, all actors within the school’s ecosystem need to share a common vision regarding the integration of ICTs in education and work towards achieving this goal. Our literature review, which synthesized quantitative and qualitative data from a list of meta-analyses and review studies, provided useful insights into the impact of ICTs on different school stakeholders and showed that the impact of digital technologies touches upon many different aspects of school life, which are often overlooked when the focus is on student achievement as the final output of education. Furthermore, the concept of digital technologies is a concept in flux as technologies are not only different among them calling for different uses in the educational practice but they also change through time. Additionally, we opened a forum for discussion regarding the factors that affect a school’s digital capacity and transformation. We hope that our study will inform policy, practice, and research and result in a paradigm shift towards more holistic approaches in impact and assessment studies.

Study limitations and future directions

We presented a review of the study of digital technologies' impact on education and factors influencing schools’ digital capacity and transformation. The study results were based on a non-systematic literature review grounded on the acquisition of documentation in specific databases. Future studies should investigate more databases to corroborate and enhance our results. Moreover, search queries could be enhanced with key terms that could provide additional insights about the integration of ICTs in education, such as “policies and strategies for ICT integration in education”. Also, the study drew information from meta-analyses and literature reviews to acquire evidence about the effects of ICT integration in schools. Such evidence was mostly based on the general conclusions of the studies. It is worth mentioning that, we located individual studies which showed different, such as negative or neutral results. Thus, further insights are needed about the impact of ICTs on education and the factors influencing the impact. Furthermore, the nature of the studies included in meta-analyses and reviews is different as they are based on different research methodologies and data gathering processes. For instance, in a meta-analysis, the impact among the studies investigated is measured in a particular way, depending on policy or research targets (e.g., results from national examinations, pre-/post-tests). Meanwhile, in literature reviews, qualitative studies offer additional insights and detail based on self-reports and research opinions on several different aspects and stakeholders who could affect and be affected by ICT integration. As a result, it was challenging to draw causal relationships between so many interrelating variables.

Despite the challenges mentioned above, this study envisaged examining school units as ecosystems that consist of several actors by bringing together several variables from different research epistemologies to provide an understanding of the integration of ICTs. However, the use of other tools and methodologies and models for evaluation of the impact of digital technologies on education could give more detailed data and more accurate results. For instance, self-reflection tools, like SELFIE—developed on the DigCompOrg framework- (Kampylis et al., 2015 ; Bocconi & Lightfoot, 2021 ) can help capture a school’s digital capacity and better assess the impact of ICTs on education. Furthermore, the development of a theory of change could be a good approach for documenting the impact of digital technologies on education. Specifically, theories of change are models used for the evaluation of interventions and their impact; they are developed to describe how interventions will work and give the desired outcomes (Mayne, 2015 ). Theory of change as a methodological approach has also been used by researchers to develop models for evaluation in the field of education (e.g., Aromatario et al., 2019 ; Chapman & Sammons, 2013 ; De Silva et al., 2014 ).

We also propose that future studies aim at similar investigations by applying more holistic approaches for impact assessment that can provide in-depth data about the impact of digital technologies on education. For instance, future studies could focus on different research questions about the technologies that are used during the interventions or the way the implementation takes place (e.g., What methodologies are used for documenting impact? How are experimental studies implemented? How can teachers be taken into account and trained on the technology and its functions? What are the elements of an appropriate and successful implementation? How is the whole intervention designed? On which learning theories is the technology implementation based?).

Future research could also focus on assessing the impact of digital technologies on various other subjects since there is a scarcity of research related to particular subjects, such as geography, history, arts, music, and design and technology. More research should also be done about the impact of ICTs on skills, emotions, and attitudes, and on equality, inclusion, social interaction, and special needs education. There is also a need for more research about the impact of ICTs on administration, management, digitalization, and home-school relationships. Additionally, although new forms of teaching and learning with the use of ICTs (e.g., blended, hybrid, and online learning) have initiated several investigations in mainstream classrooms, only a few studies have measured their impact on students’ learning. Additionally, our review did not document any study about the impact of flipped classrooms on K-12 education. Regarding teaching and learning approaches, it is worth noting that studies referred to STEM or STEAM did not investigate the impact of STEM/STEAM as an interdisciplinary approach to learning but only investigated the impact of ICTs on learning in each domain as a separate subject (science, technology, engineering, arts, mathematics). Hence, we propose future research to also investigate the impact of the STEM/STEAM approach on education. The impact of emerging technologies on education, such as AR, VR, robotics, and AI has also been investigated recently, but more work needs to be done.

Finally, we propose that future studies could focus on the way in which specific factors, e.g., infrastructure and government support, school leadership and management, students’ and teachers’ digital competencies, approaches teachers utilize in the teaching and learning (e.g., blended, online and hybrid learning, flipped classrooms, STEM/STEAM approach, project-based learning, inquiry-based learning), affect the impact of digital technologies on education. We hope that future studies will give detailed insights into the concept of schools’ digital transformation through further investigation of impacts and factors which influence digital capacity and transformation based on the results and the recommendations of the present study.

Acknowledgements

This project has received funding under Grant Agreement No Ref Ares (2021) 339036 7483039 as well as funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under Grant Agreement No 739578 and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus through the Deputy Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digital Policy. The UVa co-authors would like also to acknowledge funding from the European Regional Development Fund and the National Research Agency of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, under project grant PID2020-112584RB-C32.

Data availability statement

Declarations.

Publisher's note

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

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

How Has Technology Changed Education?

Technology has impacted almost every aspect of life today, and education is no exception. Or is it? In some ways, education seems much the same as it has been for many years. A 14th century illustration by Laurentius de Voltolina depicts a university lecture in medieval Italy. The scene is easily recognizable because of its parallels to the modern day. The teacher lectures from a podium at the front of the room while the students sit in rows and listen. Some of the students have books open in front of them and appear to be following along. A few look bored. Some are talking to their neighbors. One appears to be sleeping. Classrooms today do not look much different, though you might find modern students looking at their laptops, tablets, or smart phones instead of books (though probably open to Facebook). A cynic would say that technology has done nothing to change education.

However, in many ways, technology has profoundly changed education. For one, technology has greatly expanded access to education. In medieval times, books were rare and only an elite few had access to educational opportunities. Individuals had to travel to centers of learning to get an education. Today, massive amounts of information (books, audio, images, videos) are available at one’s fingertips through the Internet, and opportunities for formal learning are available online worldwide through the Khan Academy, MOOCs, podcasts, traditional online degree programs, and more. Access to learning opportunities today is unprecedented in scope thanks to technology.

Opportunities for communication and collaboration have also been expanded by technology. Traditionally, classrooms have been relatively isolated, and collaboration has been limited to other students in the same classroom or building. Today, technology enables forms of communication and collaboration undreamt of in the past. Students in a classroom in the rural U.S., for example, can learn about the Arctic by following the expedition of a team of scientists in the region, read scientists’ blog posting, view photos, e-mail questions to the scientists, and even talk live with the scientists via a videoconference. Students can share what they are learning with students in other classrooms in other states who are tracking the same expedition. Students can collaborate on group projects using technology-based tools such as wikis and Google docs. The walls of the classrooms are no longer a barrier as technology enables new ways of learning, communicating, and working collaboratively.

Technology has also begun to change the roles of teachers and learners. In the traditional classroom, such as what we see depicted in de Voltolina’s illustration, the teacher is the primary source of information, and the learners passively receive it. This model of the teacher as the “sage on the stage” has been in education for a long time, and it is still very much in evidence today. However, because of the access to information and educational opportunity that technology has enabled, in many classrooms today we see the teacher’s role shifting to the “guide on the side” as students take more responsibility for their own learning using technology to gather relevant information. Schools and universities across the country are beginning to redesign learning spaces to enable this new model of education, foster more interaction and small group work, and use technology as an enabler.

Technology is a powerful tool that can support and transform education in many ways, from making it easier for teachers to create instructional materials to enabling new ways for people to learn and work together. With the worldwide reach of the Internet and the ubiquity of smart devices that can connect to it, a new age of anytime anywhere education is dawning. It will be up to instructional designers and educational technologies to make the most of the opportunities provided by technology to change education so that effective and efficient education is available to everyone everywhere.

You can help shape the influence of technology in education with an Online Master of Science in Education in Learning Design and Technology from Purdue University Online. This accredited program offers studies in exciting new technologies that are shaping education and offers students the opportunity to take part in the future of innovation.

Learn more about the online MSEd in Learning Design and Technology at Purdue University today and help redefine the way in which individuals learn. Call (877) 497-5851 to speak with an admissions advisor or to request more information.

The effect of a STEM integrated curriculum on design thinking dispositions in middle school students

• Published: 13 April 2024

Cite this article

• Dina Thomason   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4275-7912 1 &
• Pei-Ling Hsu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1870-5717 1  

STEM, the integration of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics subjects is a popular topic as schools grapple with how to best prepare students for an ever-evolving society. As societal and technological challenges emerge, design thinking has been lauded as a method to enable people to help tackle those challenges. The steps of the design thinking process, empathize, define, ideate, prototype and test align with engineering design and can be used as a problem-solving method in classrooms to help promote creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration. The purpose of this explanatory sequential mixed methods study was to better understand if a STEM integrated curriculum helps promote design thinking in middle schoolers. The study compared two middle school groups, one that uses an integrated STEM curriculum and one that does not. Quantitative data was collected using the design thinking disposition survey through pre and post testing. Qualitative data was collected through free response questions and student and teacher interviews. There was no difference found in the change of design thinking dispositions between students at the two schools, however both groups scored lowest on the design thinking disposition of prototype. Free response questions showed that students at the STEM integrated school perceived an increased ability to design solutions to problems. Student and teacher interviews highlighted benefits of using a STEM integrated curriculum including providing collaborative opportunities to solve hands-on, open-ended problems. How a STEM integrated curriculum can develop design thinking should continue to be examined.

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

Adams, E. L. (2021). The effect of a middle grades STEM initiative on students’ cognitive and noncognitive outcomes. Studies in Educational Evaluation , 68 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100983 .

Aldemir, J., & Kermani, H. (2017). Integrated STEM curriculum: Improving educational outcomes for Head Start children. Early Childhood Development and Care , 187 (11), 1694–1706. https://doi.org/10.1080.03004430.2016.1185102.

Article   Google Scholar  

Amir, N. (2020). Strengthening the science-D&T interaction through simple maker centered projects in a Singapore classroom. Physics Education , 55 (4). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ab9212 .

Arık, M., & Topçu, M. S. (2022). Implementation of engineering design process in the K-12 science classrooms: Trends and issues. Research in Science Education , 52 , 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09912-x .

Avcu, Y. E., & Er, K. O. (2020). Developing an instructional design for the field of ict and software for gifted and talented students. International Journal of Educational Methodology , 6 (1), 161–183. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.6.1.161 .

Awad, N. (2023). Exploring STEM integration: Assessing the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary informal program in fostering students’ performance and inspiration. Research in Science & Technological Education , 41 (2), 679–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1931832 .

Baran, E., Bilici, S. C., Mesutoglu, C., & Ocak, C. (2019). The impact of an out-of-school STEM education program on students’ attitudes toward STEM and STEM careers. School Science and Mathematics , 119 , 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1111.ssm.12330.

Bartholomew, S. R., & Strimel, G. J. (2018). Factors influencing student success on open-ended design problems. International Journal of Technology and Design Education , 28 , 753–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9415-2 .

Bond, L. (2007). My child doesn’t test well. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED498967.pdf .

Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing likert data. The Journal of Extension , 50 (2). https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.50.02.48 . Article 48.

Brown, T. J. (2008). June). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review , 86 , 84–92. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI.

Google Scholar  

Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation . HarperCollins.

Chan, H., Choi, H., Hailu, M. F., Whitford, M., & Duplechain DeRouen, S. (2020). Participation in structured STEM-focused out‐of‐school time programs in secondary school: Linkage to postsecondary STEM aspiration and major. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 57 (8), 1250–1280. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21629 .

Chin, C., & Chia, L. G. (2006). Problem-based learning: Using ill-structured problems in biology project work. Science Education , 90 (1), 44–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20097 .

Chiu, M. H., & Krajcik, J. (2020). Reflections on Integrated approaches to STEM Education: An International Perspective. In J. Anderson, & Y. Li (Eds.), Integrated approaches to STEM education. Advances in STEM education . Springer. https://doi-org.utep.idm https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52229-2_29 .

Christensen, K. S., Hjorth, M., Iversen, O. S., & Smith, R. C. (2019). Understanding design literacy in middle-school education: Assessing students’ stances towards inquiry. International Journal of Technology and Design Education , 29 , 633–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9459-y .

Crawford, B. A., Krajcik, J. S., & Marx, R. W. (1999). Elements of a community of learners in a middle school science classroom. Science Education , 83 , 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199911)83:6<701::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-2 .

Cresswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6th ed.). Pearson.

Cresswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd Edition. SAGE.

Dare, E. A., Keratithamkul, K., Hiwatig, B. M., & Li, F. (2021). Beyond content: The role of STEM disciplines, real-world problems, 21st century skills, and STEM careers within science teachers’ conceptions of integrated STEM education. Education Sciences , 11 , 737. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110737 .

Davey, J. W., Gugiu, P. C., & Coryn, C. L. S. (2010). Quantitative methods for estimating the reliability of qualitative data. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation , 6 (13), 140–162. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v6i13.266 .

Dewey, J. (2007). Experience and education . Free.

Dosi, C., Rosati, F., & Vignoli, M. (2018). Measuring design thinking mindset. International Design Conference-2018 . https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0493 .

English, L. D., & King, D. T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: Fourth grade students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal in STEM Education , 2 (14). https://doi.org/10.1186/240594-015-0027-7 .

Ericson, J. D. (2021). Mapping the relationship between critical thinking and design thinking. Journal of the Knowledge Economy . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00733-w .

Falco, L. (2020). An intervention to support mathematics self-efficacy in middle school. In L. M. Harrison, E. Hurd, & K. Brinegar (Eds.), Integrative and interdisciplinary curriculum in the middle school: Integrated approaches in teacher preparation and practice (pp. 37–67). Routledge.

Fan, S-C., Yu, K-C., & Lou, S-J. (2018). Why do students present different design objectives in engineering design projects? International Journal of Technology and Design Education , 28 (4), 1039–1060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9420-5 .

Forbes, A., Falloon, G., Stevenson, M., Hatzigianni, M., & Bower, M. (2021). An analysis of the nature of young students’ STEM learning in 3D technology-enhanced makerspaces. Early Education and Development , 32 (1), 172–187.

Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2010). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science & Mathematics , 105 (3), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18047.x .

Furner, J. M., & Kumar, D. D. (2007). The mathematics and science integration argument: A stand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal for Mathematics Science and Technology Education , 3 (3), 185–189. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75397 .

Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Walden Faculty and Staff Publications 455. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/facpubs/455 .

Goldman, S., & Kabayadondo, Z. (Eds.). (2017). Taking design thinking to school . Routledge.

Goldman, S., Zielezinski, M. B., Vea, T., Bachas-Daunert, S., & Kabayadondo, Z. (2017). Capturing middle school students’ understandings of design thinking. In S. Goldman & Z. Kabayadondo (Eds.) Taking Design Thinking to School (pp. 94–111). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781317327585-14 .

Goldstein, M. H. (2018). Characterizing trade-off decisions in student designers (Order No. 10840585). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2102578313). https://utep.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/characterizing-trade-off-decisions-student/docview/2102578313/se-2 .

Guzey, S. S., & Li, W. (2023). Engagement and science achievement in the context of integrated STEM education: A longitudinal study. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 32 (2), 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10023-y .

Gwangwava, N. (2021). Learning design thinking through a hands-on learning model. International Journal of Innovative Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (IJITLHE) , 2 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJITLHE.20210101.oa4 .

Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2017). The origins of children’s growth and fixed mindsets: New Research and a new proposal. Child Development , 88 (6), 1849–1859. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12955 .

Hallström, J., & Ankiewicz, P. (2023). Design as the basis for integrated STEM education: A philosophical framework. Frontiers in Education (Lausanne) , 8 . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1078313 .

Hayes, J. C., & Kraemer, D. J. M. (2017). Grounded understanding of abstract concepts: The case of STEM learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications , 2 , 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0046-z .

He, X., Li, T., Turel, O., Kuang, Y., Zhao, H., & He, Q. (2021). The impact of STEM education on mathematical development in children aged 5–6 years. International Journal of Education Research , 109 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101795 .

Hiğde, E., & Aktamış, H. (2022). The effects of STEM activities on students’ STEM career interests, motivation, science process skills, science achievement and views. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101000 .

Holthius, N., Deutscher, R., Schultz, S. E., & Jamshidi, A. (2018). The New NGSS classroom: A curriculum framework for project-based science learning. American Educator , 42 (2), 23–27. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A543900497/OVIC?u=txshracd2603 &sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=215b1271.

Hou, H. I., & Lien, W. C. (2022). Students’ critical thinking skills in an interactive EMI learning context: Combining experiential learning and reflective practices. ICFAI Journal of English Studies , 17 (2), 60–72.

Hung, W., Jonassen, D. H., & Liu, R. (2007). Problem-based learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, van J. Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology 1 (pp. 485–506). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

IDEO (2023). Design thinking for educators. https://designthinking.ideo.com/resources/design-thinking-for-educators .

International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. https://www.iteea.org/STEL.aspx .

Isabell, T., & Mentzer, N. (2022). Three tools for teaching design in your classroom: Monday morning ready. The Technology Teacher , 82 (1), 18–21.

Kang, H., Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., Simpkins, S. D., Rhee, H., & Turner, C. (2019). How do middle school girls of color develop STEM identities? Middle school girls’ participation in science activities and identification with STEM careers. Science Education , 103 , 418–439. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21492 .

Kelley, T. R., & Sung, E. (2017). Sketching by design: Teaching sketching to young learners. International Journal of Technology and Design Education , 27 , 363–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9354-3 .

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H. Y. (2015). Design thinking and education. Design thinking for education: Conceptions and application in teaching and learning . Springer.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of Learning and Development . Prentice Hall.

Kress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2018). Collective knowledge construction. In International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (1st Ed., pp. 137–146). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315617572-14 .

Ladachart, L., Cholsin, J., Kwanpet, S., Teerapanpong, R., Dessi, A., Phuangsuwan, L., & Phothong, W. (2022). Ninth-grade students’ perceptions on the design-thinking mindset in the context of reverse engineering. International Journal of Technology and Design Education , 32 (5), 2445–2465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09701-6 .

Lee, H., & Blanchard, M. R. (2019). Why teach with PBL? Motivational factors underlying middle and high school teachers’ use of problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning , 13 (1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1719 .

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly , 22 (4), 557–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.22.4.557 .

Lester, J. N., Cho, Y., & Lochmiller, C. R. (2020). Learning to do qualitative data analysis: A starting point. Human Resource Development Review , 19 (1), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320903890 .

Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2019). Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research , 2 (2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00020-z .

Liedtka, J. (2014). Innovative ways companies are using design thinking. Strategy & Leadership , 42 (2), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-01-2014-0004 .

Lin, L., Shadiev, R., Hwang, W. Y., & Shen, S. (2020). From knowledge and skills to digital works: An application of design thinking in the information technology course. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 36 , 100646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100646 .

Loes, C. N., & Pascarella, E. T. (2017). Collaborative learning and critical thinking: Testing the link. The Journal of Higher Education , 88 (5), 726–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2017.1291257 .

Lofgran, B. B., Smith, L. K., & Whiting, E. F. (2015). Science self-efficacy and school transitions. School Science and Mathematics , 115 , 366–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12139 .

Lord, K. C. (2019). Flexible learning: The design thinking process as a K-12 educational tool. Journal of Higher Education Thinking and Practice , 19 (7), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v19i7.2531 .

Luchs, M. G. (2015). A brief introduction to design thinking. In Design Thinking (eds M.G. Luchs, K.S. Swan and A. Griffin). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119154273.ch1 .

Maiorca, C., Roberts, T., Jackson, C., et al. (2021). Informal learning environments and impact on interest in STEM careers. International Journal of Science and Math Education , 19 , 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10038-9 .

Marks, J. (2017). The impact of a brief design thinking intervention on students’ design knowledge, iterative dispositions, and attitudes towards failure . ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Marks, J., & Chase, C. C. (2019). Impact of a prototyping intervention on middle school students’ iterative practices and reactions to failure. Journal of Engineering , Education108 (4), 547–573. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20294 .

Marra, R., Jonassen, D. H., Palmer, B., & Luft, S. (2014). Why problem-based learning works: Theoretical foundations. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching , 25 (3&4), 221–238.

Marsden, E., & Torgerson, C. J. (2012). Single group, pre- and post-test research designs: Some methodological concerns. Oxford Review of Education , 38 (5), 583–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.731208 .

McCurdy, R. P., Nickels, M., & Bush, S. B. (2020). Problem-based design thinking tasks: Engaging student empathy in STEM. Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education , 24 (2), 22–55.

McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica , 22 (3), 276–282.

Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-School science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education , 97 (1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00955.x .

Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Jackson, C., Miller, M., Walcott, B., Little, D. L., Speler, L., Schooler, W., & Schroeder, D. C. (2014). Developing Middle School Students’ interests in STEM via Summer Learning experiences: See Blue STEM Camp. School Science and Mathematics , 114 (6), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12079 .

Morris, T. H. (2020). Experiential learning - a systematic review and revision of Kolb’s model. Interactive Learning Environments , 28 (8), 1064–1077. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1570279 .

Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. The Journal of Educational Research , 110 (3), 221–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1289775 .

National Research Council, et al (2014). STEM integration in K-12 Education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research , edited by Heidi Schweingruber, et al., National Academies Press. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utep/detail.action?docID=3379257 .

Ng, W., & Fergusson, J. (2020). Engaging high school girls in interdisciplinary STEAM. Science Education International , 31 (3), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v31.i3.7 .

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

Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review (27) , 645–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9312-8 .

Ortiz-Revilla, J., Adúriz-Bravo, A., & Greca, I. M. (2020). A framework for epistemological discussion on integrated STEM education. Science & Education , 29 , 857–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00131-9 .

Pappas, I. O., Mora, S., Jaccheri, L., & Mikalef, P. (2018, April). Empowering social innovators through collaborative and experiential learning. In 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) , pp. 1080–1088. IEEE, 2018.

Pattison, N. P. (2021). Powerful partnerships: An exploration of the benefits of school and industry partnerships for STEM education. Teachers and Curriculum , 21 (2), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.15663/tandc.v21i0.367 .

Razzouk, R. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research , 82 (3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/003454312457429 .

Rehmat, A. P., & Hartley, K. (2020). Building engineering awareness: Problem based learning approach for STEM integration. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning , 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijpbl.v14i1.28636 .

Reynante, B. M., Selbach-Allen, M. E., & Pimentel, D. R. (2020). Exploring the promises and perils of integrated STEM through disciplinary practices and epistemologies. Science & Education , 29 , 785–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00121-x .

Roehrig, G. H., Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E., et al. (2021). Understanding coherence and integration in integrated STEM curriculum. International Journal for STEM Education , 8 (2). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00259-8 .

Saldaňa, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage.

Salzman, H., Kuehn, D., & Lowell, L. (2013). Guestworkers in the high-skill U.S. labor market: An analysis of supply, employment and wage trends (pp. 1–35). Economic Policy Institute. Briefing Paper no359 https://doi.org/10.7282/T379469D .

Santos, L. F. (2017). The role of critical thinking in science education. Journal of Education and Practice , 8 (20), 160–173.

Shanks, M. (2012). An introduction to design thinking: process guide [PDF] Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford https://web.stanford.edu/~mshanks/MichaelShanks/files/509554.pdf .

Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education , 4 (1), 13–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1 .

Sikka, A. (1991). The effect of creativity training methods on the creative thinking of fourth, fifth, and sixth-grade minority students (Order No. 9312052). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (303924270). Retrieved from https://utep.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/effect-creativity-training-methods-on-creative/docview/303924270/se-2 .

Siverling, E. A., Suazo-Flores, E., Mathis, C. A., & Moore, T. J. (2019). Students’ use of STEM content in design justifications during engineering design‐based STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics , 119 (8), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12373 .

Solodikhina, A., & Solodikhina, M. (2022). Developing an innovator’s thinking in engineering education. Education and Information Technologies , 27 , 2569–2584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10709-7 .

Stanford d.school (2023). Tools for taking action. https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources .

Stohlmann, M. (2022). Growth mindset in K-8 STEM education: A review of the literature since 2007. Journal of Pedagogical Research , 6 (2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202213029 .

Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research , 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653 . Article 4.

Struyf, A., De Loof, H., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2019). Students’ engagement in different STEM learning environments: Integrated STEM education as promising practice? International Journal of Science Education , 41 (10), 1387–1407. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1607983 .

Tan, A-L., Ong, Y. S., Ng, Y. S., & Tan, J. H. J. (2023). STEM problem solving: Inquiry, concepts, and reasoning. Science & Education, 32 , 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00310-2

Trochim, W. M., & Donnelly, J. P. (2001). Research methods knowledge base (Vol. 2). Macmillan Publishing Company, Atomic Dog Pub.

Tsai, M. J., & Wang, C. Y. (2021). Assessing young students’ design thinking disposition and its relationship with computer programming self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 59 (3), 410–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120967326 .

Vasquez, J., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3–8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics . Heinemann.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Harvard University Press.

Wan, Z. H., Jiang, Y., & Zhan, Y. (2021). STEM education in early childhood: A review of empirical studies. Early Education and Development , 32 (7), 940–962. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.1814986 .

Wingard, A., Kijima, R., Yang-Yoshihara, M., & Sun, K. (2022). A design thinking approach to developing girls’ creative self-efficacy in STEM. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 46. https://doi.org/10.10169/j.tsc.2022.101140 .

Zhou, N., Pereira, N. L., George, T. T., Alperovich, J., Booth, J., Chandrasegaran, S., Tew, J. D., Kulkarni, D. M., & Ramani, K. (2017). The influence of toy design activities on middle school students’ understanding of the engineering design processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 26 (5), 481–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9693-1 .

Download references

The authors did not receive funding from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Teacher Education, College of Education, University of Texas at El Paso, Room 813, Education Building, 500 W. University Avenue El Paso, El Paso, TX, 79968, USA

Dina Thomason & Pei-Ling Hsu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dina Thomason .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

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

Thomason, D., Hsu, PL. The effect of a STEM integrated curriculum on design thinking dispositions in middle school students. Int J Technol Des Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09894-6

Download citation

Accepted : 03 April 2024

Published : 13 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09894-6

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

• Design thinking
• STEM education
• Middle school
• Engineering design
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

Jessica Grose

Get tech out of the classroom before it’s too late.

By Jessica Grose

Opinion Writer

Jaime Lewis noticed that her eighth-grade son’s grades were slipping several months ago. She suspected it was because he was watching YouTube during class on his school-issued laptop, and her suspicions were validated. “I heard this from two of his teachers and confirmed with my son: Yes, he watches YouTube during class, and no, he doesn’t think he can stop. In fact, he opted out of retaking a math test he’d failed, just so he could watch YouTube,” she said.

She decided to do something about it. Lewis told me that she got together with other parents who were concerned about the unfettered use of school-sanctioned technology in San Luis Coastal Unified School District, their district in San Luis Obispo, Calif. Because they knew that it wasn’t realistic to ask for the removal of the laptops entirely, they went for what they saw as an achievable win: blocking YouTube from students’ devices. A few weeks ago, they had a meeting with the district superintendent and several other administrators, including the tech director.

To bolster their case, Lewis and her allies put together a video compilation of clips that elementary and middle school children had gotten past the district’s content filters.

Their video opens on images of nooses being fitted around the necks of the terrified women in the TV adaptation of “The Handmaid’s Tale.” It ends with the notoriously violent “Singin’ in the Rain” sequence from “A Clockwork Orange.” (Several versions of this scene are available on YouTube. The one she pointed me to included “rape scene” in the title.) Their video was part of a PowerPoint presentation filled with statements from other parents and school staff members, including one from a middle school assistant principal, who said, “I don’t know how often teachers are using YouTube in their curriculum.”

That acknowledgment gets to the heart of the problem with screens in schools. I heard from many parents who said that even when they asked district leaders how much time kids were spending on their screens, they couldn’t get straight answers; no one seemed to know, and no one seemed to be keeping track.

Eric Prater, the superintendent of the San Luis Coastal Unified School District, told me that he didn’t realize how much was getting through the schools’ content filters until Lewis and her fellow parents raised concerns. “Our tech department, as I found out from the meeting, spends quite a lot of time blocking certain websites,” he said. “It’s a quite time-consuming situation that I personally was not aware of.” He added that he’s grateful this was brought to his attention.

I don’t think educators are the bad guys here. Neither does Lewis. In general, educators want the best for students. The bad guys, as I see it, are tech companies.

One way or another, we’ve allowed Big Tech’s tentacles into absolutely every aspect of our children’s education, with very little oversight and no real proof that their devices or programs improve educational outcomes. Last year Collin Binkley at The Associated Press analyzed public records and found that “many of the largest school systems spent tens of millions of dollars in pandemic money on software and services from tech companies, including licenses for apps, games and tutoring websites.” However, he continued, schools “have little or no evidence the programs helped students.”

It’s not just waste, very likely, of taxpayer money that’s at issue. After reading many of the over 900 responses from parents and educators to my questionnaire about tech in schools and from the many conversations I had over the past few weeks with readers, I’m convinced that the downsides of tech in schools far outweigh the benefits.

Though tech’s incursion into America’s public schools — particularly our overreliance on devices — hyperaccelerated in 2020, it started well before the Covid-19 pandemic. Google, which provides the operating system for lower-cost Chromebooks and is owned by the same parent company as YouTube, is a big player in the school laptop space, though I also heard from many parents and teachers whose schools supply students with other types and brands of devices.

As my newsroom colleague Natasha Singer reported in 2017 (by which point “half the nation’s primary- and secondary-school students” were, according to Google, using its education apps), “Google makes $30 per device by selling management services for the millions of Chromebooks that ship to schools. But by habituating students to its offerings at a young age, Google obtains something much more valuable”: potential lifetime customers.

The issue goes beyond access to age-inappropriate clips or general distraction during school hours. Several parents related stories of even kindergartners reading almost exclusively on iPads because their school districts had phased out hard-copy books and writing materials after shifting to digital-only curriculums. There’s evidence that this is harmful: A 2019 analysis of the literature concluded that “readers may be more efficient and aware of their performance when reading from paper compared to screens.”

“It seems to be a constant battle between fighting for the students’ active attention (because their brains are now hard-wired for the instant gratification of TikTok and YouTube videos) and making sure they aren’t going to sites outside of the dozens they should be,” Nicole Post, who teaches at a public elementary school in Missouri, wrote to me. “It took months for students to listen to me tell a story or engage in a read-aloud. I’m distressed at the level of technology we’ve socialized them to believe is normal. I would give anything for a math or social studies textbook.”

I’ve heard about kids disregarding teachers who tried to limit tech use, fine motor skills atrophying because students rarely used pencils and children whose learning was ultimately stymied by the tech that initially helped them — for example, students learning English as a second language becoming too reliant on translation apps rather than becoming fluent.

Some teachers said they have programs that block certain sites and games, but those programs can be cumbersome. Some said they have software, like GoGuardian, that allows them to see the screens of all the students in their classes at once. But classroom time is zero sum: Teachers are either teaching or acting like prison wardens; they can’t do both at the same time.

Resources are finite. Software costs money . Replacing defunct or outdated laptops costs money . When it comes to I.T., many schools are understaffed . More of the money being spent on tech and the maintenance and training around the use of that tech could be spent on other things, like actual books. And badly monitored and used tech has the most potential for harm.

I’ve considered the counterarguments: Kids who’d be distracted by tech would find something else to distract them; K-12 students need to gain familiarity with tech to instill some vague work force readiness.

But on the first point, I think other forms of distraction — like talking to friends, doodling and daydreaming — are better than playing video games or watching YouTube because they at least involve children engaging with other children or their own minds. And there’s research that suggests laptops are uniquely distracting . One 2013 study found that even being next to a student who is multitasking on a computer can hurt a student’s test scores.

On the second point, you can have designated classes to teach children how to keyboard, code or use software that don’t require them to have laptops in their hands throughout the school day. And considering that various tech companies are developing artificial intelligence that, we’re meant to understand, will upend work as we know it , whatever tech skills we’re currently teaching will probably be obsolete by the time students enter the work force anyway. By then, it’ll be too late to claw back the brain space of our nation’s children that we’ve already ceded. And for what? So today’s grade schoolers can be really, really good at making PowerPoint presentations like the ones they might one day make as white-collar adults?

That’s the part that I can’t shake: We’ve let tech companies and their products set the terms of the argument about what education should be, and too many people, myself included, didn’t initially realize it. Companies never had to prove that devices or software, broadly speaking, helped students learn before those devices had wormed their way into America’s public schools. And now the onus is on parents to marshal arguments about the detriments of tech in schools.

Holly Coleman, a parent of two who lives in Kansas and is a substitute teacher in her district, describes what students are losing:

They can type quickly but struggle to write legibly. They can find info about any topic on the internet but can’t discuss that topic using recall, creativity or critical thinking. They can make a beautiful PowerPoint or Keynote in 20 minutes but can’t write a three-page paper or hand-make a poster board. Their textbooks are all online, which is great for the seams on their backpack, but tangible pages under your fingers literally connect you to the material you’re reading and learning. These kids do not know how to move through their day without a device in their hand and under their fingertips. They never even get the chance to disconnect from their tech and reconnect with one another through eye contact and conversation.

Jonathan Haidt’s new book, “The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness,” prescribes phone-free schools as a way to remedy some of the challenges facing America’s children. I agree that there’s no place for smartphones on a K-12 campus. But if you take away the phones and the kids still have near-constant internet connectivity on devices they have with them in every class, the problem won’t go away.

When Covid hit and screens became the only way for millions of kids to “attend” school, not having a personal device became an equity issue. But we’re getting to a point where the opposite may be true. According to the responses to my questionnaire, during the remote-school era, private schools seemed to rely far less on screens than public schools, and many educators said that they deliberately chose lower-tech school environments for their own children — much the same way that some tech workers intentionally send their kids to screen-free schools.

We need to reframe the entire conversation around tech in schools because it’s far from clear that we’re getting the results we want as a society and because parents are in a defensive crouch, afraid to appear anti-progress or unwilling to prepare the next generation for the future. “I feel like a baby boomer attacking like this,” said Lewis.

But the drawbacks of constant screen time in schools go beyond data privacy, job security and whether a specific app increases math performance by a standard deviation. As Lewis put it, using tech in the classroom makes students “so passive, and it requires so little agency and initiative.” She added, “I’m very concerned about the species’ ability to survive and the ability to think critically and the importance of critical thinking outside of getting a job.”

If we don’t hit pause now and try to roll back some of the excesses, we’ll be doing our children — and society — a profound disservice.

The good news is that sometimes when the stakes become clear, educators respond: In May, Dr. Prater said, “we’re going to remove access to YouTube from our district devices for students.” He added that teachers will still be able to get access to YouTube if they want to show instructional videos. The district is also rethinking its phone policy to cut down on personal device use in the classroom. “For me,” he said, “it’s all about how do you find the common-sense approach, going forward, and match that up with good old-fashioned hands-on learning?” He knows technology can cause “a great deal of harm if we’re not careful.”

Jessica Grose is an Opinion writer for The Times, covering family, religion, education, culture and the way we live now.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 12 April 2024

Feedback sources in essay writing: peer-generated or AI-generated feedback?

• Seyyed Kazem Banihashem 1 , 2 ,
• Nafiseh Taghizadeh Kerman 3 ,
• Omid Noroozi 2 ,
• Jewoong Moon 4 &
• Hendrik Drachsler 1 , 5  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  21 , Article number:  23 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

245 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Peer feedback is introduced as an effective learning strategy, especially in large-size classes where teachers face high workloads. However, for complex tasks such as writing an argumentative essay, without support peers may not provide high-quality feedback since it requires a high level of cognitive processing, critical thinking skills, and a deep understanding of the subject. With the promising developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly after the emergence of ChatGPT, there is a global argument that whether AI tools can be seen as a new source of feedback or not for complex tasks. The answer to this question is not completely clear yet as there are limited studies and our understanding remains constrained. In this study, we used ChatGPT as a source of feedback for students’ argumentative essay writing tasks and we compared the quality of ChatGPT-generated feedback with peer feedback. The participant pool consisted of 74 graduate students from a Dutch university. The study unfolded in two phases: firstly, students’ essay data were collected as they composed essays on one of the given topics; subsequently, peer feedback and ChatGPT-generated feedback data were collected through engaging peers in a feedback process and using ChatGPT as a feedback source. Two coding schemes including coding schemes for essay analysis and coding schemes for feedback analysis were used to measure the quality of essays and feedback. Then, a MANOVA analysis was employed to determine any distinctions between the feedback generated by peers and ChatGPT. Additionally, Spearman’s correlation was utilized to explore potential links between the essay quality and the feedback generated by peers and ChatGPT. The results showed a significant difference between feedback generated by ChatGPT and peers. While ChatGPT provided more descriptive feedback including information about how the essay is written, peers provided feedback including information about identification of the problem in the essay. The overarching look at the results suggests a potential complementary role for ChatGPT and students in the feedback process. Regarding the relationship between the quality of essays and the quality of the feedback provided by ChatGPT and peers, we found no overall significant relationship. These findings imply that the quality of the essays does not impact both ChatGPT and peer feedback quality. The implications of this study are valuable, shedding light on the prospective use of ChatGPT as a feedback source, particularly for complex tasks like argumentative essay writing. We discussed the findings and delved into the implications for future research and practical applications in educational contexts.

Introduction

Feedback is acknowledged as one of the most crucial tools for enhancing learning (Banihashem et al., 2022 ). The general and well-accepted definition of feedback conceptualizes it as information provided by an agent (e.g., teacher, peer, self, AI, technology) regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding (e.g., Hattie & Timplerely, 2007 ). Feedback serves to heighten students’ self-awareness concerning their strengths and areas warranting improvement, through providing actionable steps required to enhance performance (Ramson, 2003 ). The literature abounds with numerous studies that illuminate the positive impact of feedback on diverse dimensions of students’ learning journey including increasing motivation (Amiryousefi & Geld, 2021 ), fostering active engagement (Zhang & Hyland, 2022 ), promoting self-regulation and metacognitive skills (Callender et al., 2016 ; Labuhn et al., 2010 ), and enriching the depth of learning outcomes (Gan et al., 2021 ).

Normally, teachers have primarily assumed the role of delivering feedback, providing insights into students’ performance on specific tasks or their grasp of particular subjects (Konold et al., 2004 ). This responsibility has naturally fallen upon teachers owing to their expertise in the subject matter and their competence to offer constructive input (Diezmann & Watters, 2015 ; Holt-Reynolds, 1999 ; Valero Haro et al., 2023 ). However, teachers’ role as feedback providers has been challenged in recent years as we have witnessed a growth in class sizes due to the rapid advances in technology and the widespread use of digital technologies that resulted in flexible and accessible education (Shi et al., 2019 ). The growth in class sizes has translated into an increased workload for teachers, leading to a pertinent predicament. This situation has directly impacted their capacity to provide personalized and timely feedback to each student, a capability that has encountered limitations (Er et al., 2021 ).

In response to this challenge, various solutions have emerged, among which peer feedback has arisen as a promising alternative instructional approach (Er et al., 2021 ; Gao et al., 2024 ; Noroozi et al., 2023 ; Kerman et al., 2024 ). Peer feedback entails a process wherein students assume the role of feedback providers instead of teachers (Liu & Carless, 2006 ). Involving students in feedback can add value to education in several ways. First and foremost, research indicates that students delve into deeper and more effective learning when they take on the role of assessors, critically evaluating and analyzing their peers’ assignments (Gielen & De Wever, 2015 ; Li et al., 2010 ). Moreover, involving students in the feedback process can augment their self-regulatory awareness, active engagement, and motivation for learning (e.g., Arguedas et al., 2016 ). Lastly, the incorporation of peer feedback not only holds the potential to significantly alleviate teachers’ workload by shifting their responsibilities from feedback provision to the facilitation of peer feedback processes but also nurtures a dynamic learning environment wherein students are actively immersed in the learning journey (e.g., Valero Haro et al., 2023 ).

Despite the advantages of peer feedback, furnishing high-quality feedback to peers remains a challenge. Several factors contribute to this challenge. Primarily, generating effective feedback necessitates a solid understanding of feedback principles, an element that peers often lack (Latifi et al., 2023 ; Noroozi et al., 2016 ). Moreover, offering high-quality feedback is inherently a complex task, demanding substantial cognitive processing to meticulously evaluate peers’ assignments, identify issues, and propose constructive remedies (King, 2002 ; Noroozi et al., 2022 ). Furthermore, the provision of valuable feedback calls for a significant level of domain-specific expertise, which is not consistently possessed by students (Alqassab et al., 2018 ; Kerman et al., 2022 ).

In recent times, advancements in technology, coupled with the emergence of fields like Learning Analytics (LA), have presented promising avenues to elevate feedback practices through the facilitation of scalable, timely, and personalized feedback (Banihashem et al., 2023 ; Deeva et al., 2021 ; Drachsler, 2023 ; Drachsler & Kalz, 2016 ; Pardo et al., 2019 ; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019 ; Rüdian et al., 2020 ). Yet, a striking stride forward in the field of educational technology has been the advent of a novel Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool known as “ChatGPT,” which has sparked a global discourse on its potential to significantly impact the current education system (Ray, 2023 ). This tool’s introduction has initiated discussions on the considerable ways AI can support educational endeavors (Bond et al., 2024 ; Darvishi et al., 2024 ).

In the context of feedback, AI-powered ChatGPT introduces what is referred to as AI-generated feedback (Farrokhnia et al., 2023 ). While the literature suggests that ChatGPT has the potential to facilitate feedback practices (Dai et al., 2023 ; Katz et al., 2023 ), this literature is very limited and mostly not empirical leading us to realize that our current comprehension of its capabilities in this regard is quite restricted. Therefore, we lack a comprehensive understanding of how ChatGPT can effectively support feedback practices and to what degree it can improve the timeliness, impact, and personalization of feedback, which remains notably limited at this time.

More importantly, considering the challenges we raised for peer feedback, the question is whether AI-generated feedback and more specifically feedback provided by ChatGPT has the potential to provide quality feedback. Taking this into account, there is a scarcity of knowledge and research gaps regarding the extent to which AI tools, specifically ChatGPT, can effectively enhance feedback quality compared to traditional peer feedback. Hence, our research aims to investigate the quality of feedback generated by ChatGPT within the context of essay writing and to juxtapose its quality with that of feedback generated by students.

This study carries the potential to make a substantial contribution to the existing body of recent literature on the potential of AI and in particular ChatGPT in education. It can cast a spotlight on the quality of AI-generated feedback in contrast to peer-generated feedback, while also showcasing the viability of AI tools like ChatGPT as effective automated feedback mechanisms. Furthermore, the outcomes of this study could offer insights into mitigating the feedback-related workload experienced by teachers through the intelligent utilization of AI tools (e.g., Banihashem et al., 2022 ; Er et al., 2021 ; Pardo et al., 2019 ).

However, there might be an argument regarding the rationale for conducting this study within the specific context of essay writing. Addressing this potential query, it is crucial to highlight that essay writing stands as one of the most prevalent yet complex tasks for students (Liunokas, 2020 ). This task is not without its challenges, as evidenced by the extensive body of literature that indicates students often struggle to meet desired standards in their essay composition (e.g., Bulqiyah et al., 2021 ; Noroozi et al., 2016 ;, 2022 ; Latifi et al., 2023 ).

Furthermore, teachers frequently express dissatisfaction with the depth and overall quality of students’ essay writing (Latifi et al., 2023 ). Often, these teachers lament that their feedback on essays remains superficial due to the substantial time and effort required for critical assessment and individualized feedback provision (Noroozi et al., 2016 ;, 2022 ). Regrettably, these constraints prevent them from delving deeper into the evaluation process (Kerman et al., 2022 ).

Hence, directing attention towards the comparison of peer-generated feedback quality and AI-generated feedback quality within the realm of essay writing bestows substantial value upon both research and practical application. This study enriches the academic discourse and informs practical approaches by delivering insights into the adequacy of feedback quality offered by both peers and AI for the domain of essay writing. This investigation serves as a critical step in determining whether the feedback imparted by peers and AI holds the necessary caliber to enhance the craft of essay writing.

The ramifications of addressing this query are noteworthy. Firstly, it stands to significantly alleviate the workload carried by teachers in the process of essay evaluation. By ascertaining the viability of feedback from peers and AI, teachers can potentially reduce the time and effort expended in reviewing essays. Furthermore, this study has the potential to advance the quality of essay compositions. The collaboration between students providing feedback to peers and the integration of AI-powered feedback tools can foster an environment where essays are not only better evaluated but also refined in their content and structure.With this in mind, we aim to tackle the following key questions within the scope of this study:

RQ1. To what extent does the quality of peer-generated and ChatGPT-generated feedback differ in the context of essay writing?

Rq2. does a relationship exist between the quality of essay writing performance and the quality of feedback generated by peers and chatgpt, context and participant.

This study was conducted in the academic year of 2022–2023 at a Dutch university specializing in life sciences. In total, 74 graduate students from food sciences participated in this study in which 77% of students were female ( N  = 57) and 23% were male ( N  = 17).

Study design and procedure

This empirical study has an exploratory nature and it was conducted in two phases. An online module called “ Argumentative Essay Writing ” (AEW) was designed to be followed by students within the Brightspace platform. The purpose of the AEW module was to improve students’ essay writing skills by engaging them in a peer learning process where students were invited to provide feedback on each other’s essays. After designing the module, the study was implemented in two weeks and followed in two phases.

In week one (phase one), students were asked to write an essay on given topics. The topics for the essay were controversial and included “ Scientists with affiliations to the food industry should abstain from participating in risk assessment processes ”, “ powdered infant formula must adhere to strict sterility standards ”, and “ safe food consumption is the responsibility of the consumer ”. The given controversial topics were directly related to the course content and students’ area of study. Students had time for one week to write their essays individually and submit them to the Brightspace platform.

In week two (phase two), students were randomly invited to provide two sets of written/asynchronous feedback on their peers’ submitted essays. We gave a prompt to students to be used for giving feedback ( Please provide feedback to your peer and explain the extent to which she/he has presented/elaborated/justified various elements of an argumentative essay. What are the problems and what are your suggestions to improve each element of the essay? Your feedback must be between 250 and 350 words ). To be able to engage students in the online peer feedback activity, we used the FeedbackFruits app embedded in the Brightspace platform. FeedbackFruits functions as an external educational technology tool seamlessly integrated into Brightspace, aimed at enhancing student engagement via diverse peer collaboration approaches. Among its features are peer feedback, assignment evaluation, skill assessment, automated feedback, interactive videos, dynamic documents, discussion tasks, and engaging presentations (Noroozi et al., 2022 ). In this research, our focus was on the peer feedback feature of the FeedbackFruits app, which empowers teachers to design tasks that enable students to offer feedback to their peers.

In addition, we used ChatGPT as another feedback source on peers’ essays. To be consistent with the criteria for peer feedback, we gave the same feedback prompt question with a minor modification to ChatGPT and asked it to give feedback on the peers’ essays ( Please read and provide feedback on the following essay and explain the extent to which she/he has presented/elaborated/justified various elements of an argumentative essay. What are the problems and what are your suggestions to improve each element of the essay? Your feedback must be between 250 and 350 words ).

Following this design, we were able to collect students’ essay data, peer feedback data, and feedback data generated by ChatGPT. In the next step, we used two coding schemes to analyze the quality of the essays and feedback generated by peers and ChatGPT.

Measurements

Coding scheme to assess the quality of essay writing.

In this study, a coding scheme proposed by Noroozi et al. ( 2016 ) was employed to assess students’ essay quality. This coding system was constructed based on the key components of high-quality essay composition, encompassing eight elements: introduction pertaining to the subject, taking a clear stance on the subject, presenting arguments in favor of the chosen position, providing justifications for the arguments supporting the position, counter-arguments, justifications for counter-arguments, responses to counter-arguments, and concluding with implications. Each element in the coding system is assigned a score ranging from zero (indicating the lowest quality level) to three (representing the highest quality level). The cumulative scores across all these elements were aggregated to determine the overall quality score of the student’s written essays. Two experienced coders in the field of education collaborated to assess the quality of the written essays, and their agreement level was measured at 75% (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.75 [95% confidence interval: 0.70–0.81]; z = 25.05; p  < 0.001), signifying a significant level of consensus between the coders.

Coding scheme to assess the quality of feedback generated by peers and ChatGPT

To assess the quality of feedback provided by both peers and ChatGPT, we employed a coding scheme developed by Noroozi et al. ( 2022 ). This coding framework dissects the characteristics of feedback, encompassing three key elements: the affective component, which considers the inclusion of emotional elements such as positive sentiments like praise or compliments, as well as negative emotions such as anger or disappointment; the cognitive component, which includes description (a concise summary of the essay), identification (pinpointing and specifying issues within the essay), and justification (providing explanations and justifications for the identified issues); and the constructive component, which involves offering recommendations, albeit not detailed action plans for further enhancements. Ratings within this coding framework range from zero, indicating poor quality, to two, signifying good quality. The cumulative scores were tallied to determine the overall quality of the feedback provided to the students. In this research, as each essay received feedback from both peers and ChatGPT, we calculated the average score from the two sets of feedback to establish the overall quality score for the feedback received, whether from peers or ChatGPT. The same two evaluators were involved in the assessment. The inter-rater reliability between the evaluators was determined to be 75% (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.75 [95% confidence interval: 0.66–0.84]; z = 17.52; p  < 0.001), showing a significant level of agreement between them.

The logic behind choosing these coding schemes was as follows: Firstly, from a theoretical standpoint, both coding schemes were developed based on robust and well-established theories. The coding scheme for evaluating essay quality draws on Toulmin’s argumentation model ( 1958 ), a respected framework for essay writing. It encompasses all elements essential for high-quality essay composition and aligns well with the structure of essays assigned in the chosen course for this study. Similarly, the feedback coding scheme is grounded in prominent works on identifying feedback features (e.g., Nelson & Schunn, 2009 ; Patchan et al., 2016 ; Wu & Schunn, 2020 ), enabling the identification of key features of high-quality feedback (Noroozi et al., 2022 ). Secondly, from a methodological perspective, both coding schemes feature a transparent scoring method, mitigating coder bias and bolstering the tool’s credibility.

To ensure the data’s validity and reliability for statistical analysis, two tests were implemented. Initially, the Levene test assessed group homogeneity, followed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to evaluate data normality. The results confirmed both group homogeneity and data normality. For the first research question, gender was considered as a control variable, and the MANCOVA test was employed to compare the variations in feedback quality between peer feedback and ChatGPT-generated feedback. Addressing the second research question involved using Spearman’s correlation to examine the relationships among original argumentative essays, peer feedback, and ChatGPT-generated feedback.

The results showed a significant difference in feedback quality between peer feedback and ChatGPT-generated feedback. Peers provided feedback of higher quality compared to ChatGPT. This difference was mainly due to the descriptive and identification of the problem features of feedback. ChatGPT tended to produce more extensive descriptive feedback including a summary statement such as the description of the essay or taken action, while students performed better in pinpointing and identifying the issues in the feedback provided (see Table  1 ).

A comprehensive list featuring selected examples of feedback generated by peers and ChatGPT is presented in Fig  1 . This table additionally outlines examples of how the generated feedback was coded based on the coding scheme to assess the quality of feedback.

A comparative list of selected examples of peer-generated and ChatGPT-generated feedback

Overall, the results indicated that there was no significant relationship between the quality of essay writing and the feedback generated by peers and ChatGPT. However, a positive correlation was observed between the quality of the essay and the affective feature of feedback generated by ChatGPT, while a negative relationship was observed between the quality of the essay and the affective feature of feedback generated by peers. This finding means that as the quality of the essay improves, ChatGPT tends to provide more affective feedback, while peers tend to provide less affective feedback (see Table  2 ).

This study was an initial effort to explore the potential of ChatGPT as a feedback source in the context of essay writing and to compare the extent to which the quality of feedback generated by ChatGPT differs from the feedback provided by peers. Below we discuss our findings for each research question.

Discussion on the results of RQ1

For the first research question, the results revealed a disparity in feedback quality when comparing peer-generated feedback to feedback generated by ChatGPT. Peer feedback demonstrated higher quality compared to ChatGPT-generated feedback. This discrepancy is attributed primarily to variations in the descriptive and problem-identification features of the feedback.

ChatGPT tended to provide more descriptive feedback, often including elements such as summarizing the content of the essay. This inclination towards descriptive feedback could be related to ChatGPT’s capacity to analyze and synthesize textual information effectively. Research on ChatGPT further supports this notion, demonstrating the AI tool’s capacity to offer a comprehensive overview of the provided content, therefore potentially providing insights and a holistic perspective on the content (Farrokhnia et al., 2023 ; Ray, 2023 ).

ChatGPT’s proficiency in providing extensive descriptive feedback could be seen as a strength. It might be particularly valuable for summarizing complex arguments or providing comprehensive overviews, which could aid students in understanding the overall structure and coherence of their essays.

In contrast, students’ feedback content entailed high quality regarding identifying specific issues and areas for improvement. Peers outperformance compared to ChatGPT in identifying problems within the essays could be related to humans’ potential in cognitive skills, critical thinking abilities, and contextual understanding (e.g., Korteling et al., 2021 ; Lamb et al., 2019 ). This means that students, with their contextual knowledge and critical thinking skills, may be better equipped to identify issues within the essays that ChatGPT may overlook.

Furthermore, a detailed look at the findings of the first research question discloses that the feedback generated by ChatGPT comprehensively encompassed all essential components characterizing high-quality feedback, including affective, cognitive, and constructive dimensions (Kerman et al., 2022 ; Patchan et al., 2016 ). This comprehensive observation could be an indication of the fact that ChatGPT-generated feedback could potentially serve as a viable source of feedback. This observation is supported by previous studies where a positive role for AI-generated feedback and automated feedback in enhancing educational outcomes has been recognized (e.g., Bellhäuser et al., 2023 ; Gombert et al., 2024 ; Huang et al., 2023 ; Xia et al., 2022 ).

Finally, an overarching look at the results of the first research question suggests a potential complementary role for ChatGPT and students in the feedback process. This means that using these two feedback sources together creates a synergistic relationship that could result in better feedback outcomes.

Discussion on the results of RQ2

Results for the second research question revealed no observations of a significant correlation between the quality of the essays and the quality of the feedback generated by both peers and ChatGPT. These findings carry a consequential implication, suggesting that the inherent quality of the essays under scrutiny exerts negligible influence over the quality of feedback furnished by both students and the ChatGPT.

In essence, these results point to a notable degree of independence between the writing prowess exhibited in the essays and the efficacy of the feedback received from either source. This disassociation implies that the ability to produce high-quality essays does not inherently translate into a corresponding ability to provide equally insightful feedback, neither for peers nor for ChatGPT. This decoupling of essay quality from feedback quality highlighted the multifaceted nature of these evaluative processes, where proficiency in constructing a coherent essay does not necessarily guarantee an equally adept capacity for evaluating and articulating constructive commentary on peers’ work.

The implications of these findings are both intriguing and defy conventional expectations, as they deviate somewhat from the prevailing literature’s stance. The existing body of scholarly work generally posits a direct relationship between the quality of an essay and the subsequent quality of generated feedback (Noroozi et al., 2016 ;, 2022 ; Kerman et al., 2022 ; Vale Haro et al., 2023 ). This line of thought contends that essays of inferior quality might serve as a catalyst for more pronounced error detection among students, encompassing grammatical intricacies, depth of content, clarity, and coherence, as well as the application of evidence and support. Conversely, when essays are skillfully crafted, the act of pinpointing areas for enhancement becomes a more complex task, potentially necessitating a heightened level of subject comprehension and nuanced evaluation.

However, the present study’s findings challenge this conventional wisdom. The observed decoupling of essay quality from feedback quality suggests a more nuanced interplay between the two facets of assessment. Rather than adhering to the anticipated pattern, wherein weaker essays prompt clearer identification of deficiencies, and superior essays potentially render the feedback process more challenging, the study suggests that the process might be more complex than previously thought. It hints at a dynamic in which the act of evaluating essays and providing constructive feedback transcends a simple linear connection with essay quality.

These findings, while potentially unexpected, are an indication of the complex nature of essay assignments and feedback provision highlighting the complexity of cognitive processes that underlie both tasks, and suggesting that the relationship between essay quality and feedback quality is not purely linear but influenced by a multitude of factors, including the evaluator’s cognitive framework, familiarity with the subject matter, and critical analysis skills.

Despite this general observation, a closer examination of the affective features within the feedback reveals a different pattern. The positive correlation between essay quality and the affective features present in ChatGPT-generated feedback could be related to ChatGPT’s capacity to recognize and appreciate students’ good work. As the quality of the essay increases, ChatGPT might be programmed to offer more positive and motivational feedback to acknowledge students’ progress (e.g., Farrokhnia et al., 2023 ; Ray, 2023 ). In contrast, the negative relationship between essay quality and the affective features in peer feedback may be attributed to the evolving nature of feedback from peers (e.g., Patchan et al., 2016 ). This suggests that as students witness improvements in their peers’ essay-writing skills and knowledge, their feedback priorities may naturally evolve. For instance, students may transition from emphasizing emotional and affective comments to focusing on cognitive and constructive feedback, with the goal of further enhancing the overall quality of the essays.

Limitations and implications for future research and practice

We acknowledge the limitations of this study. Primarily, the data underpinning this investigation was drawn exclusively from a singular institution and a solitary course, featuring a relatively modest participant pool. This confined scope inevitably introduces certain constraints that need to be taken into consideration when interpreting the study’s outcomes and generalizing them to broader educational contexts. Under this constrained sampling, the findings might exhibit a degree of contextual specificity, potentially limiting their applicability to diverse institutional settings and courses with distinct curricular foci. The diverse array of academic environments, student demographics, and subject matter variations existing across educational institutions could potentially yield divergent patterns of results. Therefore, while the current study’s outcomes provide insights within the confines of the studied institution and course, they should be interpreted and generalized with prudence. Recognizing these limitations, for future studies, we recommend considering a large-scale participant pool with a diverse range of variables, including individuals from various programs and demographics. This approach would enrich the depth and breadth of understanding in this domain, fostering a more comprehensive comprehension of the complex dynamics at play.

In addition, this study omitted an exploration into the degree to which students utilize feedback provided by peers and ChatGPT. That is to say that we did not investigate the effects of such feedback on essay enhancements in the revision phase. This omission inherently introduces a dimension of uncertainty and places a constraint on the study’s holistic understanding of the feedback loop. By not addressing these aspects, the study’s insights are somewhat partial, limiting the comprehensive grasp of the potential influences that these varied feedback sources wield on students’ writing enhancement processes. An analysis of the feedback assimilation patterns and their subsequent effects on essay refinement would have unveiled insights into the practical utility and impact of the feedback generated by peers and ChatGPT.

To address this limitation, future investigations could be structured to encompass a more thorough examination of students’ feedback utilization strategies and the resulting implications for the essay revision process. By shedding light on the complex interconnection between feedback reception, its integration into the revision process, and the ultimate outcomes in terms of essay improvement, a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics involved could be attained.

Furthermore, in this study, we employed identical question prompts for both peers and ChatGPT. However, there is evidence indicating that ChatGPT is sensitive to how prompts are presented to it (e.g., Cao et al., 2023 ; White et al., 2023 ; Zuccon & Koopman, 2023 ). This suggests that variations in the wording, structure, or context of prompts might influence the responses generated by ChatGPT, potentially impacting the comparability of its outputs with those of peers. Therefore, it is essential to carefully consider and control for prompt-related factors in future research when assessing ChatGPT’s performance and capabilities in various tasks and contexts.

In addition, We acknowledge that ChatGPT can potentially generate inaccurate results. Nevertheless, in the context of this study, our examination of the results generated by ChatGPT did not reveal a significant inaccuracies that would warrant inclusion in our findings.

From a methodological perspective, we reported the interrater reliability between the coders to be 75%. While this level of agreement was statistically significant, signifying the reliability of our coders’ analyses, it did not reach the desired level of precision. We acknowledge this as a limitation of the study and suggest enhancing interrater reliability through additional coder training.

In addition, it is worth noting that the advancement of Generative AI like ChatGPT, opens new avenues in educational feedback mechanisms. Beyond just generating feedback, these AI models have the potential to redefine how feedback is presented and assimilated. In the realm of research on adaptive learning systems, the findings of this study also echo the importance of adaptive learning support empowered by AI and ChatGPT (Rummel et al., 2016 ). It can pave the way for tailored educational experiences that respond dynamically to individual student needs. This is not just about the feedback’s content but its delivery, timing, and adaptability. Further exploratory data analyses, such as sequential analysis and data mining, may offer insights into the nuanced ways different adaptive learning supports can foster student discussions (Papamitsiou & Economides, 2014 ). This involves dissecting the feedback dynamics, understanding how varied feedback types stimulate discourse, and identifying patterns that lead to enhanced student engagement.

Ensuring the reliability and validity of AI-empowered feedback is also crucial. The goal is to ascertain that technology-empowered learning support genuinely enhances students’ learning process in a consistent and unbiased manner. Given ChatGPT’s complex nature of generating varied responses based on myriad prompts, the call for enhancing methodological rigor through future validation studies becomes both timely and essential. For example, in-depth prompt validation and blind feedback assessment studies could be employed to meticulously probe the consistency and quality of ChatGPT’s responses. Also, comparative analysis with different AI models can be useful.

From an educational standpoint, our research findings advocate for the integration of ChatGPT as a feedback resource with peer feedback within higher education environments for essay writing tasks since there is a complementary role potential for pee-generated and ChatGPT-generated feedback. This approach holds the potential to alleviate the workload burden on teachers, particularly in the context of online courses with a significant number of students.

This study contributes to and adds value to the young existing but rapidly growing literature in two distinct ways. From a research perspective, this study addresses a significant void in the current literature by responding to the lack of research on AI-generated feedback for complex tasks like essay writing in higher education. The research bridges this gap by analyzing the effectiveness of ChatGPT-generated feedback compared to peer-generated feedback, thereby establishing a foundation for further exploration in this field. From a practical perspective of higher education, the study’s findings offer insights into the potential integration of ChatGPT as a feedback source within higher education contexts. The discovery that ChatGPT’s feedback quality could potentially complement peer feedback highlights its applicability for enhancing feedback practices in higher education. This holds particular promise for courses with substantial enrolments and essay-writing components, providing teachers with a feasible alternative for delivering constructive feedback to a larger number of students.

Data availability

The data is available upon a reasonable request.

Alqassab, M., Strijbos, J. W., & Ufer, S. (2018). Training peer-feedback skills on geometric construction tasks: Role of domain knowledge and peer-feedback levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education , 33 (1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0342-0 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Amiryousefi, M., & Geld, R. (2021). The role of redressing teachers’ instructional feedback interventions in EFL learners’ motivation and achievement in distance education. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching , 15 (1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1654482 .

Arguedas, M., Daradoumis, A., & Xhafa Xhafa, F. (2016). Analyzing how emotion awareness influences students’ motivation, engagement, self-regulation and learning outcome. Educational Technology and Society , 19 (2), 87–103. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.2.87 .

Google Scholar  

Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., van Ginkel, S., Macfadyen, L. P., & Biemans, H. J. (2022). A systematic review of the role of learning analytics in enhancing feedback practices in higher education. Educational Research Review , 100489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100489 .

Banihashem, S. K., Dehghanzadeh, H., Clark, D., Noroozi, O., & Biemans, H. J. (2023). Learning analytics for online game-based learning: A systematic literature review. Behaviour & Information Technology , 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2023.2255301 .

Bellhäuser, H., Dignath, C., & Theobald, M. (2023). Daily automated feedback enhances self-regulated learning: A longitudinal randomized field experiment. Frontiers in Psychology , 14 , 1125873. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1125873 .

Bond, M., Khosravi, H., De Laat, M., Bergdahl, N., Negrea, V., Oxley, E., & Siemens, G. (2024). A meta systematic review of artificial intelligence in higher education: A call for increased ethics, collaboration, and rigour. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 21 (4), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00436-z .

Bulqiyah, S., Mahbub, M., & Nugraheni, D. A. (2021). Investigating writing difficulties in Essay writing: Tertiary Students’ perspectives. English Language Teaching Educational Journal , 4 (1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v4i1.2371 .

Callender, A. A., Franco-Watkins, A. M., & Roberts, A. S. (2016). Improving metacognition in the classroom through instruction, training, and feedback. Metacognition and Learning , 11 (2), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9142-6 .

Cao, J., Li, M., Wen, M., & Cheung, S. C. (2023). A study on prompt design, advantages and limitations of chatgpt for deep learning program repair. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2304 08191 . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.08191 .

Dai, W., Lin, J., Jin, F., Li, T., Tsai, Y. S., Gasevic, D., & Chen, G. (2023). Can large language models provide feedback to students? A case study on ChatGPT. https://doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/hcgzj .

Darvishi, A., Khosravi, H., Sadiq, S., Gašević, D., & Siemens, G. (2024). Impact of AI assistance on student agency. Computers & Education , 210 , 104967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104967 .

Deeva, G., Bogdanova, D., Serral, E., Snoeck, M., & De Weerdt, J. (2021). A review of automated feedback systems for learners: Classification framework, challenges and opportunities. Computers & Education , 162 , 104094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104094 .

Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2015). The knowledge base of subject matter experts in teaching: A case study of a professional scientist as a beginning teacher. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 13 , 1517–1537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9561-x .

Drachsler, H. (2023). Towards highly informative learning analytics . Open Universiteit. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:26787 .

Drachsler, H., & Kalz, M. (2016). The MOOC and learning analytics innovation cycle (MOLAC): A reflective summary of ongoing research and its challenges. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 32 (3), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12135 .

Er, E., Dimitriadis, Y., & Gašević, D. (2021). Collaborative peer feedback and learning analytics: Theory-oriented design for supporting class-wide interventions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 46 (2), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1764490 .

Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Wals, A. (2023). A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846 .

Gan, Z., An, Z., & Liu, F. (2021). Teacher feedback practices, student feedback motivation, and feedback behavior: How are they associated with learning outcomes? Frontiers in Psychology , 12 , 697045. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.697045 .

Gao, X., Noroozi, O., Gulikers, J. T. M., Biemans, H. J., & Banihashem, S. K. (2024). A systematic review of the key components of online peer feedback practices in higher education. Educational Research Review , 100588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100588 .

Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a wiki environment: Impact on peer feedback quality and product improvement. Computers & Education , 88 , 370–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.012 .

Gombert, S., Fink, A., Giorgashvili, T., Jivet, I., Di Mitri, D., Yau, J., & Drachsler, H. (2024). From the Automated Assessment of Student Essay Content to highly informative feedback: A case study. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00387-6 .

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research , 77 (1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 .

Holt-Reynolds, D. (1999). Good readers, good teachers? Subject matter expertise as a challenge in learning to teach. Harvard Educational Review , 69 (1), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.69.1.pl5m5083286l77t2 .

Huang, A. Y., Lu, O. H., & Yang, S. J. (2023). Effects of artificial intelligence–enabled personalized recommendations on learners’ learning engagement, motivation, and outcomes in a flipped classroom. Computers & Education , 194 , 104684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104684 .

Katz, A., Wei, S., Nanda, G., Brinton, C., & Ohland, M. (2023). Exploring the efficacy of ChatGPT in analyzing Student Teamwork Feedback with an existing taxonomy. arXiv Preprint arXiv . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.11882 .

Kerman, N. T., Noroozi, O., Banihashem, S. K., Karami, M., & Biemans, H. J. (2022). Online peer feedback patterns of success and failure in argumentative essay writing. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2093914 .

Kerman, N. T., Banihashem, S. K., Karami, M., Er, E., Van Ginkel, S., & Noroozi, O. (2024). Online peer feedback in higher education: A synthesis of the literature. Education and Information Technologies , 29 (1), 763–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12273-8 .

King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory into Practice , 41 (1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4101_6 .

Konold, K. E., Miller, S. P., & Konold, K. B. (2004). Using teacher feedback to enhance student learning. Teaching Exceptional Children , 36 (6), 64–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990403600608 .

Korteling, J. H., van de Boer-Visschedijk, G. C., Blankendaal, R. A., Boonekamp, R. C., & Eikelboom, A. R. (2021). Human-versus artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence , 4 , 622364. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2021.622364 .

Labuhn, A. S., Zimmerman, B. J., & Hasselhorn, M. (2010). Enhancing students’ self-regulation and mathematics performance: The influence of feedback and self-evaluative standards. Metacognition and Learning , 5 , 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9056-2 .

Lamb, R., Firestone, J., Schmitter-Edgecombe, M., & Hand, B. (2019). A computational model of student cognitive processes while solving a critical thinking problem in science. The Journal of Educational Research , 112 (2), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1514357 .

Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E. (2023). Worked example or scripting? Fostering students’ online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing and learning. Interactive Learning Environments , 31 (2), 655–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1799032 .

Li, L., & Liu, X. (2010). Steckelberg. Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology , 41 (3), 525–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00968.x .

Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education , 11 (3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582 .

Liunokas, Y. (2020). Assessing students’ ability in writing argumentative essay at an Indonesian senior high school. IDEAS: Journal on English language teaching and learning. Linguistics and Literature , 8 (1), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v8i1.1344 .

Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science , 37 , 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x .

Noroozi, O., Banihashem, S. K., Taghizadeh Kerman, N., Parvaneh Akhteh Khaneh, M., Babayi, M., Ashrafi, H., & Biemans, H. J. (2022). Gender differences in students’ argumentative essay writing, peer review performance and uptake in online learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2034887 .

Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2016). Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay. The Internet and Higher Education , 31, 20-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.002

Noroozi, O., Banihashem, S. K., Biemans, H. J., Smits, M., Vervoort, M. T., & Verbaan, C. L. (2023). Design, implementation, and evaluation of an online supported peer feedback module to enhance students’ argumentative essay quality. Education and Information Technologies , 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11683-y .

Papamitsiou, Z., & Economides, A. A. (2014). Learning analytics and educational data mining in practice: A systematic literature review of empirical evidence. Journal of Educational Technology & Society , 17 (4), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.17.4.49 . https://www.jstor.org/stable/ .

Pardo, A., Jovanovic, J., Dawson, S., Gašević, D., & Mirriahi, N. (2019). Using learning analytics to scale the provision of personalised feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology , 50 (1), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12592 .

Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. J. (2016). The nature of feedback: How peer feedback features affect students’ implementation rate and quality of revisions. Journal of Educational Psychology , 108 (8), 1098. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000103 .

Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education . Routledge.

Ray, P. P. (2023). ChatGPT: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems , 3 , 121–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003 .

Rüdian, S., Heuts, A., & Pinkwart, N. (2020). Educational Text Summarizer: Which sentences are worth asking for? In DELFI 2020 - The 18th Conference on Educational Technologies of the German Informatics Society (pp. 277–288). Bonn, Germany.

Rummel, N., Walker, E., & Aleven, V. (2016). Different futures of adaptive collaborative learning support. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , 26 , 784–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0102-3 .

Shi, M. (2019). The effects of class size and instructional technology on student learning performance. The International Journal of Management Education , 17 (1), 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.01.004 .

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument . Cambridge University Press.

Valero Haro, A., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Banihashem, S. K. (2023). How does the type of online peer feedback influence feedback quality, argumentative essay writing quality, and domain-specific learning? Interactive Learning Environments , 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2215822 .

White, J., Fu, Q., Hays, S., Sandborn, M., Olea, C., Gilbert, H., & Schmidt, D. C. (2023). A prompt pattern catalog to enhance prompt engineering with chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11382 . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.11382 .

Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2020). From feedback to revisions: Effects of feedback features and perceptions. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 60 , 101826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101826 .

Xia, Q., Chiu, T. K., Zhou, X., Chai, C. S., & Cheng, M. (2022). Systematic literature review on opportunities, challenges, and future research recommendations of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 100118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100118 .

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 16 (1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 .

Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K. (2022). Fostering student engagement with feedback: An integrated approach. Assessing Writing , 51 , 100586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100586 .

Zuccon, G., & Koopman, B. (2023). Dr ChatGPT, tell me what I want to hear: How prompt knowledge impacts health answer correctness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302 .13793. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.13793 .

Download references

No funding has been received for this research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Open Universiteit, Heerlen, The Netherlands

Seyyed Kazem Banihashem & Hendrik Drachsler

Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Seyyed Kazem Banihashem & Omid Noroozi

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

Nafiseh Taghizadeh Kerman

The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA

Jewoong Moon

DIPE Leibniz Institute, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany

Hendrik Drachsler

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

S. K. Banihashem led this research experiment. N. T. Kerman contributed to the data analysis and writing. O. Noroozi contributed to the designing, writing, and reviewing the manuscript. J. Moon contributed to the writing and revising the manuscript. H. Drachsler contributed to the writing and revising the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seyyed Kazem Banihashem .

Ethics declarations

Declaration of ai-assisted technologies in the writing process.

The authors used generative AI for language editing and took full responsibility.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Banihashem, S.K., Kerman, N.T., Noroozi, O. et al. Feedback sources in essay writing: peer-generated or AI-generated feedback?. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 21 , 23 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00455-4

Download citation

Received : 20 November 2023

Accepted : 18 March 2024

Published : 12 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00455-4

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• AI-generated feedback
• Essay writing
• Feedback sources
• Higher education
• Peer feedback

Off the page, into the water: UC alum and seventh-grade teacher teaches through canoe building

The delhi middle school teacher initiated a special learning program in her middle school classroom..

Emily Hohlefelder knows the importance of digital platforms in today’s learning environments. A seventh-grade teacher at Delhi Middle School, Hohlefelder has experienced the impact of digital connectivity on education both in the classroom and during her own time as a student at the University of Cincinnati.

“There are so many platforms!” says Hohlefelder, pointing to the lasting impact COVID-19 and remote learning had on teaching and learning. “So many different ones, all asking students to present their information in different ways: recording themselves, recording just their voice or having to create some sort of digital image.”

Students in Emily Hohlefelder's seventh-grade class work on the frame of the skin-on frame canoe. Photo/provided

None of this is news to the 2023 graduate of the College of Education, Criminal Justice, Human Services, and Information Technology, who was introduced to future-forward teaching tools during her first year as an undergraduate in the  Middle Childhood Education program . Specifically, it was an educational technology class with School of Education professor Sarah Schroeder that opened Hohlefelder’s eyes to the possibilities of instruction and learning in a hyper-connected, always-on world.

She also honed in on how platforms, especially interfaces for creative student work, can cause anxiety in some students, leading Hohlefelder to complete and submit a project on reducing student anxiety around technology use. Schroeder was impressed with Hohlefelder’s insights and invited the first-year student to present her research at the Ohio Undergraduate Technology conference in Columbus. 

“I was like, ‘Sure, I’ll go with you!’” laughs Hohlefelder, who went on to become dual-licensed in middle childhood and special education with a certificate in digital learning design. “I felt pretty underqualified – I was 19 and in my first year, but she took a chance on me.” Schroeder subsequently helped Hohlefelder publish her work as well, co-authoring a paper titled  “Reducing Student Anxiety About Creative Digital Work”  for publication in  Edutopia , an online outlet for educational news and insight.

“I ended up doing a grant-funded project on reducing student anxiety with technology while I was an undergrad. It fueled a lot of great new information, especially coming out of COVID, on how technology can cause a lot of anxiety when it comes to different methods of learning for students.”     

Building Life Skills (and a Canoe)

Proven expertise with technology and insight into digital platforms might make Hohlefelder an unlikely champion for hands-on, nature-focused learning. But for a person with a lifelong ambition to help all learners reach their potential, she works to stay alert to opportunities that expand her ability to reach pupils – which is how she ended up bringing a canoe-building project into her classroom.

“The director of the program is one of my good friends,” says Hohlefleder. “I had watched him go into schools for the past three years, so why wouldn’t I want to bring this into my own school?” The Urban Wilderness Program , she goes on to explain, is a Cincinnati-based non-profit that delivers wilderness experiences to schools with kids who, demographically, don’t enjoy easy access to outdoor enrichment.

“A lot of my students had not been in a canoe before. They had not been on a body of water.”

Emily Hohlefelder, Seventh-grade teacher at Delhi Middle School

Seventh-grade Delhi Middle School students shape parts for the classroom canoe build. Photo/provided

The STEM-based project saw students construct a skin-on frame canoe as part of their daily classwork, which Hohlefelder was able to tie into traditional areas of study such as math and science, as well as social studies and language arts. “At the same time, they were able to learn teamwork, critical thinking skills and how to work together to pursue a common goal,” she says. “And it always helps students, especially in middle school, when that goal is tangible. So fostering that kind of community was truly the goal we were looking for here at Delhi with the canoe build.”

Another significant benefit of the classroom canoe project? The collaborative build provided a holistic means to reach students who sometimes struggled to engage with learning material. “It was fun to see kids who were usually reserved or not interested in the academic setting of the classroom really come out of their shell when it came to getting to use their hands for something,” explains Hohlefelder. “The build takes about two weeks, so it becomes routine for them. A lot of them really enjoyed it.”

A Risk Worth the Reward

The canoe-build project was, admittedly, a big swing – especially for a teacher so early in their career (this is, in fact, Hohlefelder’s first year teaching at Delhi Middle School). But that same spirit she found during her first year, when she said yes to the conference opportunity in Columbus despite feeling underqualified, spurred her to take the chance.

 “As teachers, we already have a million things going on,” she says. “And trying something for the first time? I’m like, this could fail – this could go very badly. But it’s worth taking the risk if it’s going to benefit the students.”

A student connects planking to one of the ribs on the canoe frame. Photo/provided

The canoe is currently on display (alongside a pair of oars carved as part of the program) in the school, but Hohlefelder envisions this canoe build as an annual seventh-grade project that, in time, populates a nearby pond with a fleet for public use.  And though the students didn’t know it when they initially built the canoe, there is a part two to this project they recently learned about – a May field trip in which they themselves will take the canoe out for some freshwater fun.

“We have to teach them, at the end of the day, that it’s not about the tests,” says Hohlefelder. “It’s not about the data. It’s really about what kind of people we are teaching here. How are we teaching them to serve the community when they’re older?

“Projects like these are the ones that I know they’ll remember past middle school.”

Featured image at top: Emily Hohlefelder stands next to completed skin-on frame canoe built as a seventh-grade classroom project. Photo/provided. 

• Next Lives Here

CECH’s School of Education is highly regarded for preparing the next generation of educators. The program is led by a team of experienced and qualified faculty who are dedicated to teaching students to meet the demands of modern classrooms and address the educational needs of diverse student populations. The program offers a variety of courses and experiences that will help students develop their understanding of child development, instructional methods, and classroom management.

For more information about the School of Education,  please visit the school’s website.

Contact the College of Education, Criminal Justice, Human Services, and Information Technology . 

• School of Education
• Alumni Association
• College of Education, Criminal Justice, & Human Services

Related Stories

April 11, 2024

Emily Hohlefelder, a 7th-grade teacher at Delhi Middle School, applied lessons she learned as a UC education student in the College of Education, Criminal Justice, Human Services, and Information Technology (CECH) to initiate a special learning program in the classroom. The result? A canoe-building project that proved both educational and uniquely engaging.

Amid shift to remote learning, UC students emerge ed tech leaders

July 10, 2020

When area schools scrambled to move instruction online due to the COVID-19 pandemic, UC education students stepped up to help teachers adapt their lesson plans online.

Journal-News: UC education expert weighs in on ‘new normal’ for schools

August 17, 2020

More than 70,000 area K-12 students will soon resume their school lives in Butler County amid a very different school atmosphere, reports the Journal-News. In examining how COVID-19 will affect the lives of Butler County students, it turned to Laura Dell, associate dean for the University of Cincinnati’s School of Education.