free research papers on impact of technology on education

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

2656 Accesses

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

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

Knowledge mapping of vocational education and training research (2004–2020): a visual analysis based on CiteSpace

Yumi Tian, Jiayun Liu, … Xueshi Wu

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

Analytical study on the impact of technology in higher education during the age of COVID-19: Systematic literature review

Manar abu talib.

University of Sharjah, P. O. Box: 27272, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Anissa M. Bettayeb

Razan i. omer, associated data.

The data is available to anyone for review.

Not applicable.

With the advent of COVID-19 arose the need for social distancing measures, including the imposition of far-reaching lockdowns in many countries. The lockdown has wreaked havoc on many aspects of daily life, but education has been particularly hard hit by this unprecedented situation. The closure of educational institutions brought along many changes, including the transition to more technology-based education. This is a systematic literature review that seeks to explore the transition, in the context of the pandemic, from traditional education that involves face-to-face interaction in physical classrooms to online distance education. It examines the ways in which this transition has impacted academia and students and looks at the potential long-term consequences it may have caused. It also presents some of the suggestions made by the studies included in the paper, which may help alleviate the negative impact of lockdown on education and promote a smoother transition to online learning.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10639-021-10507-1.

Introduction

Severe acute respiratory syndrome, also known as COVID-19, is a contagious respiratory disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which was first identified in a seafood market in Wuhan in late December 2019 (Huang, 2020 ).

The disease is airborne and mainly spreads through physical proximity with infected people. Clinical analysis results of the virus showed person-to-person transmission (Li et al., 2020 ). Broadly speaking, there are two modes of transmission—direct and indirect. The direct mode involves droplet and air transmission, while indirect transmission may occur via contaminated surfaces (Karia, 2020 ).

Due to its highly contagious nature, the COVID-19 virus swept the globe in the matter of weeks. Between December 2019 and October 2020, more than 45 million cases of COVID-19 were reported, including over a million deaths. (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, 2020 ). By March 2020, the epidemic was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2020 ).

The call for social distancing and limiting face-to-face contact outside the immediate family has never been louder. Social distancing is a deliberate increase in the physical gap between individuals to minimize the spread of disease (Red Cross, 2020 ).

Many facets of everyday life have been devastated by the pandemic. It prompted counties around the world to adopt a sequence of emergency response systems (Zhang et al., 2020 ). Authorities worldwide issued stay-at-home orders, imposing prolonged periods of lockdown, which led to a disruption in educational activities globally. This was done to curb infection rates and flatten the incidence curve in an effort to prevent healthcare systems from being overwhelmed.

In many parts of the world, this meant a temporary shutdown of educational institutions. These nationwide closures impacted millions of students and their families, particularly those from underprivileged communities (UNESCO, 2020 ).

Some of the educational institutions that faced closure progressively re-opened and started operating under online learning models in order to continue the academic progress of students, while simultaneously observing measures to reduce the impact of the current health crisis.

Previous outbreaks of infectious diseases such as swine flu have prompted significant school closures worldwide, with varying degrees of effectiveness (Barnum, 2020 ). If school closures happen late during a pandemic, they are less effective and may have little impact at all (Zumla et al., 2010 ). Educational institutions have been compelled to make an immediate transition to remote methods of learning that rely heavily on technology. The immediate transition to online learning has not made it possible for many to be adequately prepared for the challenges ahead (Hodges et al., 2020 ). This migration to remote learning had to be implemented as quickly as possible, and for many learning institutions, it happened several months into the academic year, leaving both staff and students with little time to plan, adjust and adapt.

This shed the light on various underlying economic and social issues. According to UNESCO, more than a billion learners worldwide have been affected at some point by the school closures that were initiated in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As of November 2020, over 300 million learners spread across over 30 countries, which constitute approximately 18% of total enrolled learners, have been kept out of schools due to lockdown (UNESCO, 2020 ).

While the disruption in learning caused by COVID-19 is unprecedented, important insights can be gained about its far-reaching implications through an examination of relevant existing studies and data.

This paper is a systematic literature review that looks at the existing literature and discusses the crisis-response migration methods to technology-based online learning done by mainly higher learning institutions in terms of their impact on instructional delivery, students and faculty, and education as a whole. Firstly, it categorizes the studies in terms of which facet of education the impact of COVID-19 in was explored. Then, it performs a SWOT analysis on the digital transformation to online learning. In other words, it looks at the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Lastly, it attempts to collect and summarize student and faculty feedback on online education and then outlines some of the recommendations made by either the students and faculty or the authors of the selected studies for improving the system.

The rest of the paper is divided into six sections. Section 2 discusses some of the related works, while Section 3 presents the methodology used in this study, including the selected research questions, search strategy, study selection process, quality assessment rules and data extraction strategy. It also presents some statistics about the selected papers. Section 4 presents the findings of the study and discusses them in detail, while Section 5 concludes with a summary of the research outcomes and possible future work. Section 6 constitutes an acknowledgement of various contributions to the creation of this paper.

Related work

In response to COVID-19, a lot of countries were faced with pressure to contain the spread of this highly contagious disease. To many educational institutions, this meant either partial or complete closure. Others transitioned to technology-based distance learning.

A systematic review was conducted by Viner et al. ( 2020 ) examines existing knowledge to identify the effects of school closures and other social distancing measures during outbreaks on infection rates and virus transmission. It suggested that school closures play a relatively small role in the control of disease transmission, and that the insignificant benefits such closures bring to transmission reduction could be easily outweighed by their profound negative economic and social consequences (Viner et al., 2020 ).

There is no strong evidence to support the effectiveness of full closure in controlling the pandemic. If anything, there are significant economic downfalls to such a response, not to mention the academic delay incurred by students. That is why a lot of academic institutions opted for the less drastic measure of transitioning to online distance education (ODE).

ODE is the use of the internet and certain other significant technology for the production of educational content, instructional delivery and program management (Fry, 2001 ). ODE can be delivered in two main formats: synchronous and asynchronous. As the name suggests, synchronous distance education (SDE) involves live, real-time interaction between teachers and students. It aims to simulate the communication model of a traditional classroom. Examples of SDE would include live webinars or virtual classrooms. Asynchronous education, on the other hand, introduces temporal flexibility. It does not require real-time interaction; instead, the educational material is available online for students to access at their own convenience. Examples of asynchronous education would be video recordings and emails (The Florida Center for Instructional Technology, n.d. ).

A systematic review and meta-analysis provided on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted by papers released between January 2000 and March 2020 on the effectiveness and acceptance of SDE in health sciences as compared to more traditional educational methods measured the knowledge of students, their skills (using objective assessments) and their overall satisfaction (using subjective evaluations). It found there to be no significant difference between traditional education and synchronous distance education in terms of effectiveness and objective assessments. However, in subjective evaluations, SDE resulted in a higher satisfaction rating, indicating that it was preferred to some extent by students, despite being neither better nor worse in the earlier two measures (He et al., 2020 ).

Additionally, Carrillo & Flores ( 2020 ) conducted a review of the literature between January 2000 and April 2020 on online teaching and learning practices in teacher education to explore how and why online teaching and learning in teacher education occur, and also discussing its implications in the context of the pandemic. The review highlighted the complex nature of the model, discussing such factors as social, cognitive and teaching issues and the need for a comprehensive view of the pedagogy of online technology-based education used to support teaching and learning (Carrillo & Flores, 2020 ).

Daoud et al. ( 2020 ) conducted a systematic review focused on the issue of equity regarding home internet access by evaluating the educational value of having internet at home for school-aged children. It found a range of correlations that were mostly positive between access to home internet and educational value across three functions: qualification (academic knowledge and skills), subjectification (strengthening individuality) and socialization (of future citizens). However, the correlation was not straightforward, nor did it imply causation. The educational value in home internet use is influenced by variables regarding the nature of online activities such as how the technology is being used and socio-economic status (Daoud et al., 2020 ).

Di Pietro et al. ( 2020 ) produced a paper that attempts to explore the direct and indirect ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic may impact education. Based on the existing literature and pre-COVID-19 data, it made predictions about the impact on and future of education. The paper drew four main conclusions: 1) learning is expected to suffer a setback on average; 2) the effect on academic performance is likely to vary with socio-economic status; 3) inequality in socio-economic status may manifest in an emotional response, as those from less privileged backgrounds may be under more environmental stress; 4) the widening social gap may persist and have long-term implications (Di Pietro et al., 2020 ).

Some online emergency learning approaches are criticized for not adhering to sound pedagogical norms, best practices and prior studies (Hodges et al., 2020 ). Some have noted the potential negative effects of educational technology fixes being implemented quickly without balancing their effect (Selwyn et al., 2020 ; St. Amour, 2020 ). In addition, leaping into online education and online learning platforms has also raised concerns regarding surveillance and privacy and its impact on the lives of students (Harwell, 2020 ).

A study that aims to map the scientific literature in the areas of education and management in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic suggests the existence of three distinct groups or research flows in the published literature. These main themes were identified as: 1) education based on online constructs and distance learning; 2) the impact of COVID-19 from a management perspective; and 3) studies with a particular focus on Canada. The studies chosen for the analysis were found to be of various typologies, the most relevant of which was qualitative. The analysis revealed that research on the disruption in education and scientific production caused by the pandemic is rather scarce, which might be the result of the lack of empirical data (Rodrigues et al., 2020 ).

Since this phenomenon is still relatively recent, there is a lack of research that discusses the direct effect of the digital transformation in higher education caused by the pandemic, its pros, cons and future implications. This systematic literature review is different from those described above, as it provides an extensive review on the research done on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on formal education. Specifically, this study explores the ways in which the transition from traditional in-person educational models that involve face-to-face interaction and classroom teaching to ODE has impacted academia and students, and the consequences it might have had on student performance and the well-being of all involved.

The pandemic might have set in motion changes that are to last millennia in the way education is conducted across the globe. It is therefore imperative to study the direct impact of the pandemic on the education sector and understand the role it played in revolutionizing the way we think about education in order to make informed pedagogical choices in the future and ensure a smooth transition into more flexible but effective online teaching methods. As a result, our research paper has the following important contributions:

• Explore the kind of changes the shift to online education has caused
• Discuss the impact of these changes on students and teachers
• Provide an insight into the current state of education and how the pandemic could affect its future

Table  1 summarizes the literature reviews discussed in this section as well as this study’s objective.

Literature review summary

Methodology

This study is a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) based on the guidelines for performing such reviews laid out in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (Moher et al., 2015 ), which are comprised of three main stages: search, eligibility and data collection and extraction. For example:

• Search defines the search strategy in terms of what keywords and search engines or libraries will be used.
• Eligibility is concerned with setting up inclusion and exclusion criteria aligned with the research objectives to specify the study and reporting standards, and then applying them to the collected papers.
• Data collection and extraction is the process of obtaining eligible reports and extracting data from them in order to investigate the posed research questions.

This study tackles the topic of education during the COVID-19 pandemic and the accompanying shift to remote learning. The review process is composed of six stages. The first stage was coming up with research questions that reflect the aim of the study. The second involved collecting papers relevant to the topic. In the third stage, exclusion and inclusion criteria were defined and applied to the collected papers. The fourth stage involved extracting answers to the research questions from papers that made it through the final round of exclusion. The fifth and final stage was the synthesis of data obtained through this information extraction process to reach meaningful conclusions.

Figure  1 below illustrates this process.

Research methodology

Research questions

This systematic literature review aims to examine and summarize the impact COVID-19 had on education through the shift to online learning it caused in early 2020. The following five research questions were posed:

• What are the aspects and impacts of COVID-19 on education?

RQ1 aims to identify the underlying theme or lens through which the impact of COVID-19 on education was explored in the papers. In other words, on what aspect of education or the educational system is the paper attempting to shed light on the impact of COVID-19?

• RQ2: What are the limitations of online education?

RQ2 examines the implemented online teaching models critically and identifies their flaws as defined in the research papers. This is the first phase of a SWOT analysis, which stands for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. It considers the weakness and threats of online education.

• RQ3: What are the advantages & opportunities laid out by this digital transformation in higher education?

The aim of RQ3 is to recognize the benefits and opportunities presented by this unprecedented move toward digital-based learning in higher education institutions. This is the second phase of the SWOT analysis and it focuses on the digital transformation’s strengths and opportunities.

• RQ4: What was the feedback of students and teachers?

RQ4 collects and summarizes the responses of students and teachers to this transformation and how it impacted their experience.

• RQ5: What recommendations were made?

RQ5 attempts to summarize the recommendations put forward by either the authors of the studies or the people who participated in them.

Search strategy

The research questions were used as a guideline to roughly identify the main search keywords. Terms synonymous or highly related to the main search keywords were included in the search. Google Scholar was used for the search, which employed variations of the following search keywords: “COVID-19” “effects” “impact” “education” “higher education” “academia” “university” “online learning” “students” “teaching” “e-learning”.

The number of results varied by combination of keywords, but on average between 200 and 300 results showed up per search, a number increasing by the day given the current relevance of the topics at hand. The majority of papers came from journals.

Study selection

All papers based on the search keywords mentioned above that seemed, if only tenuously, relevant to the topic of education during COVID-19 were collected. Only papers that were published later than 2019 were retained. Papers that did not belong to high-quality, prestigious journals were excluded.

To ensure the quality of the selected papers and they do not belong to predatory journals, we first checked them against Elsevier’s abstract and citation database, Scopus. We also made sure they belonged to either the first quartile (Q1) or second quartile (Q2) according to the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). SJR indicates the scientific influence of scholarly journals. Moreover, the journals were reviewed against Beall’s List, which is a list of predatory open-access publishers that did not perform proper peer review and they publish any article as long as the authors paid the open-access fee. This brought the number of papers selected for the purpose of this study down dramatically to 47—less than half of all papers collected initially.

As mentioned earlier, the search based on the selected keywords yielded somewhere between 100 and 300 results. Over 100 papers seemed relevant and were downloaded to serve as a starting point. Moving on, we filtered the papers based on their compliance with our inclusion criteria. The process can be summarized as follows:

• Step 1: download papers that showed up in the search results
• Step 2: delete any duplicates
• Step 3: apply the inclusion and exclusion criteria to get rid of any irrelevant papers
• Step 4: set aside survey and review papers
• Step 5: extract answers to the research questions from the selected papers while applying the quality assessment rules stated in section 3.4 that were designed to include only qualified papers.

Table  2 summarizes the applied inclusion and exclusion criteria of study papers.

Inclusion & exclusion criteria

Quality assessment rules (QARs)

This final step is to determine the quality of the collected research papers. To measure the quality of the papers included in the study and confirm their pertinence to our research objectives, ten Quality Assessment Rules (QARs) were set. Marks out of 10 were given to each paper based on its compliance with the established QARs. The QARs were formulated based on our understanding of the current state of research in this field and the research gap this paper is attempting to fill. The papers were scored for their ability to meet high research standards while adequately addressing our research question. For each of the ten questions, a paper is given a score as follows: “fully answered” = 1, “above average” = 0.75, “average” = 0.5, “below average” = 0.25, “not answered” = 0. The summation of the marks achieved for the 10 QARs is the paper’s ranking. Papers that score 5 or higher are accepted, while the remaining are excluded.

• Are the study objectives clearly defined?
• Is the impact of COVID-19 on education well-defined?
• Is the specific context and usage (themes) clearly defined?
• Is the study method well-designed and justifiable?
• Is the scope of the study large enough?
• Are the advantages and opportunities of the proposed teaching/technology methods well-explained?
• Are the weaknesses and limitations of the proposed teaching/technology methods well-explained?
• Are student/teacher evaluations reported?
• Are the recommendations of the proposed methods suitable?
• Overall, does the study enrich the academic community or industry?

Data extraction strategy

In this step, the final list of papers was analyzed to answer the research questions and extract any pertinent information.

The following information was extracted from each paper: Paper title, Publisher, Journal, month of publication, description of the paper’s objective, the answers to RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, RQ4 and RQ5.

Due to the indistinct terminology used within some papers and the relative narrowness of our research questions in comparison to the questions posed by the collected papers, there were gaps in the answer extraction as reflected in Fig.  4 .

Frequency of answers for each research question

In some cases, the authors had to infer answers that weren’t explicity expressed in the papers. This meant that some of the answers extracted were personal intrepretations of the findings done by the authors.

Statistics about the selected papers

As can be seen from Fig. ​ Fig.2, 2 , Elsevier & IJWIL journals held the 2nd and 3rd positions, coming in at 19% and 17% respectively. Other publishers, including Springer, Routledge & MDPI, contributed similar amounts of papers and came at 13% of the total paper count or less.

Publishers of the selected papers by frequency

However, 32% of the papers were put out by miscellaneous publishers. These publishers include: The BMJ, ACS Publication, Science Press, Wiley, Taylor and Francis Ltd., Primrose Hall Publishing Group, Scientific Research Publishing, Academy of Science of South Africa, Association for Learning Technology, Association for Social Studies Educators, Modestum and Kathmandu University.

Figure  3 shows the months of publication of the selected papers. It is noteworthy that the largest number of papers relevant to this review were produced in July, three to four months after many lockdowns were implemented and distance learning was put in effect. The number of papers selected for this review subsequently declined. For 13 of the selected papers, the month of publication was either not explicitly specified or couldn’t be identified by the authors.

Frequency of selected papers by month

As can be seen from Fig. ​ Fig.4, 4 , all research questions were answered by more than 70% of the papers, which speaks to their broadness and generality. The only exception was RQ5, which had a 61.70% answer rate, mostly from papers discussing the topic of “student experience”, as will be shown in the following section.

Results and discussion

The majority of educational institutions in the chosen studies migrated to distance learning. While not all papers specified the particular methods or platforms employed, video conferencing, E-portals, webinars, websites, video recordings, simulations and online quizzes were frequently listed as the primary means of conducting classes and evaluating student performance.

A total of 47 studies were compiled using the quality criteria mentioned in section 3.4 . A list of these studies is included in Table  7 in Appendix A. Here in section 4 , we present the findings of this literature review. The outcomes of each research question are explored in detail in each of the following five sections.

Selected research articles

Area of focus

In this section, the first research question (RQ1) is addressed, which aims to identify the underlying theme or lens through which the impact of COVID-19 on education was explored in the papers. There were four main identifiable themes:

• Impact on Education : explores the transition from traditional classroom teaching methods to more technology-based learning, and the impact of that transition.
• Student Experience : explores the impact the lockdown had on students either academically or personally and their experience with ODE as well as their academic performance using remote learning methods.
• Proposal : proposes and/or experiments with a remote teaching method or platform.
• Policy : explores the responses to the pandemic and the role of policymaking in leveling the playfield in education.
• Equality : discusses the disparity observed between different social groups during the pandemic and the impact it had on accessibility and equity.

In this review, 25 papers discussed the impact of COVID-19 on education, namely the digital transformation driven by it, its advantages and disadvantages, and what this could mean going forward.

Eighteen papers included discussions about the experience of students and staff with ODE, as well as the participants’ views on its potential upsides and downsides. Most of the answers given for RQ5 came from this group.

Four papers proposed solutions for remote learning or experimented with a particular platform to analyze its efficacy.

Three papers looked at the current academic situation through a political lens, discussing education-related policy in light of the pandemic.

Two papers discussed how the lockdown and the accompanying transition to technology-based learning further exacerbated differences in educational progress between the children of lower income families with limited access to Wi-Fi and digital devices or services and those of higher income families that do not share the same struggles.

Figure  5 highlights the differences in the frequency of the discussed areas. It is worth noting that these percentages add up to more than 100% because there is overlap between the papers in terms of the areas chosen for discussion.

Topics discussed in selected papers

Disadvantages & limitations

This section addresses research question 2 (RQ2), which takes a critical view of the implemented teaching models and identifies their shortcomings as described in the papers that studied or mentioned them.

The key disadvantages can be summarized in the following points:

• Inequality & inaccessibility : there is a gap in student access to this type of education, which is usually related to family income.. Transitioning to online learning exacerbated differences between privileged and underprivileged students. Students from less prosperous regions have limited or no access to digital devices and Wi-Fi. They also have lower technical abilities., granting more privileged students an unfair academic advantage. This disparity extends to educational institutions in rural areas or deprived parts of the world that may be less well-equipped than those in urban areas.
• Inadequacy : while technology can be a great aid to the learning experience, it cannot act as a complete substitute, particularly for STEM fields that require hands-on training in laboratories or operation rooms. This is especially true for health care sciences. 34% of the chosen studies focused on medical education specifically, looking at nursing or residency programs in particular. These papers tended to emphasize the value of practical training and how indirect knowledge gained from simulations or demonstration videos alone cannot act as a substitute.
• Communication quality : building and sustaining relationships and developing rapport between students, their peers, and their teachers became more difficult due to the devaluation or lack of face-to-face contact, as well as the inherent ambiguity of written interactions.. Clarifying instructions and gauging student response, engagement and participation, or lack thereof, becomes more difficult for teachers and instructors in the absence of direct contact and the ability to monitor students face-to-face.
• Technical difficulties : poor internet reception or Wi-Fi, connection stability, glitches and other technical failures can interfere with the flow of communication.
• Stress, workload and morale : the forced and rapid transition to online learning affected mental health among students. Many experienced lockdown-related anxieties about financial stability and socializing that indirectly affected their performance. Academic staff had to deal with an increased or even doubled workload. Also, lack of face-to-face social interaction for extended periods of time can have a detrimental effect on mental health.
• Technological literacy : due to the sudden and forced nature of this digital transition, a lot of educational institutions were caught off-guard, allowing them little to no time to prepare their academic staff. This left non-tech savvy teachers and instructors underprepared and/or underequipped to handle sophisticated computer and internet related tasks. Instructors’ lack of technological competence and previous training in or familiarity with utilizing online tools posed an obstacle. The inability of academic staff to use technology negatively impacted the success of ODE in many cases.
• Student engagement, participation and motivation : student engagement was sometimes lacking due to factors such as reliance on recorded lectures, a lack of motivation or interest, stress and boredom, as well as the distraction caused by using electronic devices. Added to this was fatigue induced by prolonged staring at screens and feelings of isolation and depression from lack of personal contact.
• Student performance assessment : due to the difficulties associated with bringing students to campus to administer tests, academic staff were faced with the challenge of redesigning evaluations in a way that fairly and reliably captured student performance. This was particularly challenging in practical courses.
• Work-life balance : ODE allows great flexibility in time and location. While this flexibility may be convenient, it’s a double-edged sword that could also blur the boundaries between academic and personal life. Whereas in conventional educational models lectures are strictly bound by fixed times and physical locations.
• Privacy concerns : concerns about breach of privacy, data protection and anonymous misconduct.

Table  3 lists the research articles that mentioned disadvantages and limitations of distance education based on the aforementioned points.

Disadvantages & limitations discussed among articles

Advantages & opportunities

This section addresses research question 3 (RQ3), which aims to identify the advantages and opportunities laid by this digital transformation in education.

There are several main identifiable key advantages and opportunities. They can be summarized as follows:

• Remote learning : ODE transcends the borders of time and geographical location. It allows students the flexibility to tune in into their lectures from the comfort of their own homes or any other location. It also allows students to self-regulate their learning and proceed at their own pace thanks to the temporal flexibility of online learning, which is made possible by features such as lecture recording.
• Discussion & Communication : online learning facilitates a modern and convenient mode of communication. Important discussions can be raised during lectures and participating students can benefit from these discussions by listening or by engaging through chat. It is also an effective means of communication as participants do not have to meet in person or face the discomfort that can accompany speaking in front of a live audience, thereby further encouraging discussion. Online learning also helps parents of young children to be more involved in their children’s education.
• Impetus for change : this forced digital transformation in education exposed problems within the system and pushed educators to contemplate and review current and previous models of education, providing a window into what a technology-based education and work environment might be like, thereby stimulating pedagogical innovations and accelerating change. It is hastening progress and can be viewed as an impetus for the reform of curriculum and teaching approaches.
• Equally effective : the implementation of online learning and the use of simulations and other methods for didactic purposes were perceived as useful and adequate, if not complete, substitutes for traditional learning. It accomplished its goal of continuing the delivery of education amidst the pandemic, while also helping students meet the requirements expected from them.
• Efficient : contributed to or improved knowledge dissemination, with cost-effectiveness, flexibility and overall efficiency as added benefits.
• Exposure to tech : incorporating technology into education exposes students to modern and relevant technologies. This helps both students and academic staff close the technological literacy gap while also fostering expertise in online and digital media, thereby preparing students for the job market in an increasingly technology-reliant world of digitization and automation.
• Decreased costs : the shift to online education can be credited for the decrease in educational costs. It provides students with a comparable learning experience without the need for expensive infrastructure, not to mention a reduction in other hidden costs such as travel expenses.

Table  4 lists the research articles that mentioned advantages and opportunities of distance education based on the aforementioned points.

Advantages & Opportunities discussed among Articles

Student and teacher feedback

This section addresses the fourth research question (RQ4), which aims to gauge the response of students and teachers to this transformation and how it impacted their experience.

The papers that explored the topic of student experience provided the main insights to this question, which can be summarized as follows:

• Satisfactory or beneficial : ODE was regarded as a good learning experience and helpful in the sense that it assisted in cultivating knowledge in a unique and efficient manner.
• Adequate and effective : ODE was deemed satisfactory in achieving its objective of continuing education. In some cases, it was thought to have had no significant impact on studies. And in other cases it was thought to boost productivity.
• Expressed doubts or concern : participants expressed doubts about the efficacy of ODE, uncertainty about the future, and concern over the long-term consequences of the digital transformation on health, security and equity..
• Overwhelming : some staff had difficulty adjusting given how abrupt the transition was. Many had to devise new student performance assessment methods to compensate for the inability to directly monitor students in exams and quizzes. In some cases, the transition led to an increase in workload.
• Potential : some participants thought ODE could support their teaching or studies, recommended it for future use or viewed it as a catalyst for revision of existing norms.
• Appreciation for staff or peers : participants expressed appreciation and gratitude towards others within the institution for their efforts in coping with the situation, providing assistance and being responsive.
• Improvement in performance : ODE was thought to enhance efficiency, performance and attention, as well as help in the learning process.
• Preferred to traditional : although students expressed sentiments of missing peer-to-peer interaction, the majority were open to and some even favoured ODE to conventional learning that requires physical attendance and is restricted to classrooms. This may be due to the flexibility, convenience and low cost of online learning.
• Anxiety inducing : some participants reported feelings of stress or anxiety in trying to grapple with the current pandemic situation while adapting to the new learning scheme.

Table  5 lists the research articles that described feedback received on distance education based on the aforementioned points.

Received feedback discussed among articles

Study recommendations

This section addresses research question 5 (RQ5), which attempts to summarize the recommendations put forward by either the authors of the selected studies or the people who participated in them.

The following are the key recommendations made:

• Support for students : boosting and maintaining motivation of students to improve morale and help combat any lockdown-induced stress or anxiety.
• High-quality tools : providing accessible, user-friendly, error-free and high-quality E-learning portals and other types of online platforms.
• Providing & receiving feedback : providing and receiving feedback to and from students to improve the quality of online education.
• Investigating efficacy : exploring the outcomes of ODE and reflecting on the differences between it and traditional education in order to ascertain which aspects of it are viable and meet the demands sets by the pandemic situation. This is also to assist teachers in employing effective teaching techniques and to enable researchers and institutions to continue the development of online educational tools.
• Stating objectives : students need to feel the relevance of the study material to the real world, as well as understand the course requirements. To that end, teachers must spell out expectations and clarify course objectives as well as the importance of the syllabus. They also need to delineate their roles and responsibilities as lecturers and mentors early on in the academic year.
• Policymaking : policymakers should seek to understand and mitigate any risks or inequalities created by this rapid transition to online learning, which may be caused by income or workload disparities.
• Redesign : the revisiting and rethinking of pedagogical strategies and the development of orienting principles to guide the transition to online education, as well as making the necessary adjustments to infrastructure.
• Training of staff & students : providing students and teachers with adaptability training to familiarize them with technology, increase their competence and prepare them to deal with technical issues that can occur during online lectures. This will also help in the smart application of technology to realize its potential in the realm of online education.
• Diversifying : maximizing efficiency by avoiding reliance on a single method or platform and instead using a variety of online learning resources. For example, a course could use both video conferencing and text messaging.
• Broadening accessibility : this could mean providing underequipped students with the equipment necessary to partake in online activities, such as electronic devices and stable internet connection.

Table  6 lists the research articles that made recommendations based on the points listed above.

Recommendations discussed among articles

Conclusion and future work

It goes with without saying that the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound impacts on society and on the way humans organize themselves in the real world. It has exposed systematic issues within institutions and brought about long overdue changes. The educational system was no exception to this.

This review aimed to look at and evaluate the impact these changes have had on education, with a particular focus on the digital transformation and the shift to online learning caused by the pandemic. To do so, we took a look at more than 40 papers from high impact journals that touched on the topic of education during the times of COVID-19.

Many institutions and governments were underprepared for this abrupt migration to technology-based working and learning. This resulted in issues of inequality, lack of access and lack of skills to facilitate this type of learning. There are limitations inherent to ODE that prevent it from acting as a full substitute to traditional education. This is particularly true in fields where hands-on training is an absolute necessity to meet learning requirements.

On the plus side, the new forced dependence on technology in education may hasten some already underway changes. On the negative side, requiring children to continue their studies at home may worsen educational disparities caused by inequalities.

From the viewpoint of learners and educators, there are a range of difficulties in switching from offline to online learning modes. Another stumbling block in the acceptance of online teaching is involving students and indulging them in teaching-learning progression. It takes an hour to create content that not only covers the curriculum, but also inspires learners.

We found that some of the key disadvantages of ODE that were cited in the collected papers were inequality of access, inadequacy of online teaching, poor communication quality, technical difficulties, increased workload and stress, low technological literacy, difficulty in assessment of student engagement and performance, bad work-life balance and some privacy concerns.

Whereas the main advantages of ODE according to the papers were flexibility and convenience, discussion & communication, effectiveness as a didactic tool, efficiency, decreased costs, increased exposure to technology and that it was seen as an impetus for change.

The papers that explored the topic of student experience aimed to gauge the response of students and teachers to this transformation and how it impacted their experience and we found that the main feedback point given was that online education was satisfactory, beneficial and effective. However, some expressed doubts over the efficacy of remote learning, uncertainty about the future, and concern over the long-term consequences on health, security and access due to this digital transformation. Others found it to be overwhelming or anxiety inducing. However, some observed an improvement in performance and expressed more appreciation towards their peers and faculty members.

Although the adoption of online teaching during COVID-19 is commendable, the quality of teaching and courses offered online must also be developed and strengthened. Some of the advice that has been put forward to help in that regard includes supporting students by improving morale, providing high-quality e-learning tools, giving and receiving feedback from students, investigating the outcomes of ODE, clarifying course objectives and expectations to students, providing training for students and teachers to familiarize them with technology, diversfying instructional delivery methods, broadening accessibility to online learning, soliciting policymakers to make necessary changes and the revisiting and redesigning of pedagogical strategies.

The flexibilty and convenience ODE offers and the much-needed push for change it has inspired cannot be denied. However, its efficiency in terms of student outcome as compared to traditional education is still a point of dispute. It is therefore imperative to continue investigating online education. Policymakers should take the findings of research on education seriously in order to bridge whatever gaps may be present.

Future research could draw from a broader diversity of sources to reach wider conclusions.

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank University of Sharjah and OpenUAE Research and Development Group for funding this research study. We are also grateful to our research assistants who helped in collecting, summarizing, and analyzing the research articles for this SLR study.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. The tasks of literature search, data analysis and manuscript drafting and revision were split between the authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

This research paper was funded by the University of Sharjah (for OpenUAE Research and Development Group).

Data availability

Code availability, declarations.

The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

Publisher’s note

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

Contributor Information

Manar Abu Talib, Email: ea.ca.hajrahs@bilatm .

Anissa M. Bettayeb, Email: ea.ca.hajrahs@assina .

Razan I. Omer, Email: ea.ca.hajrahs@49150151U .

• Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–13. 10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180.
• Agarwal S, Dewan J. An Analysis of the Effectiveness of Online Learning in Colleges of Uttar Pradesh during the COVID 19 Lockdown Page No : 2957. Journal of Xi’an University of Architecture & Technology. 2020; XII (V):2957–2963. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al Lily AE, Ismail AF, Abunasser FM, Alhajhoj Alqahtani RH. Distance education as a response to pandemics: Coronavirus and Arab culture. Technology in Society. 2020; 63 (July):101317. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101317. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ali KAG, Khalil HEM, El-Sharkawy FM. Impacts of online remote education on the learning process among nursing students. Open Journal of Nursing. 2020; 10 (09):810–830. doi: 10.4236/ojn.2020.109057. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Almarzooq ZI, Lopes M, Kochar A. Virtual learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A disruptive Technology in Graduate Medical Education. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2020; 75 (20):2635–2638. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.015. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Taweel, D., Al-Haqan, A., Bajis, D., Al-Bader, J., Al-Taweel, A. R. M., Al-Awadhi, A., & Al-Awadhi, F. (2020). Multidisciplinary academic perspectives during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Health Planning and Management , July, 1–7. 10.1002/hpm.3032. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Alvi M, Gupta M. Learning in times of lockdown: How Covid-19 is affecting education and food security in India. Food Security. 2020; 12 (4):793–796. doi: 10.1007/s12571-020-01065-4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnum, M. (2020). Should schools close due to coronavirus? Here's what research says. Chalkbeat. Retrieved March 2021, from https://www.chalkbeat.org/2020/3/9/21178727/to-close-or-not-to-close-as-schools-weigh-tradeoffs-in-light-of-coronavirus-here-s-what-research-say .
• Batholmeus, P. N. (n.d.). Using simulations to improve skills needed for work- integrated learning before and during COVID-19 in Namibia.
• Briant, S. (2020). Reimagining internships through online experiences: Multi- disciplinary engagement for creative industries students.
• Carmody, C., Brown, L., & Fabbro, L. D. E. L. (2020). Preparing for work-integrated learning during COVID-19: How a new virtual orientation tool facilitated access for all .
• Carrillo, C., & Flores, M. A. (2020). COVID-19 and teacher education: A literature review of online teaching and learning practices. 10.1080/02619768.2020.1821184.
• Chatziralli, I., Ventura, C. V., Touhami, S., Reynolds, R., Nassisi, M., Weinberg, T., Pakzad-Vaezi, K., Anaya, D., Mustapha, M., Plant, A., Yuan, M., & Loewenstein, A. (2020). Transforming ophthalmic education into virtual learning during COVID-19 pandemic: A global perspective. Eye (Basingstoke). 10.1038/s41433-020-1080-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Chick RC, Clifton GT, Peace KM, Propper BW, Hale DF, Alseidi AA, Vreeland TJ. Using technology to maintain the education of residents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Surgical Education. 2020; 77 (4):729–732. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.03.018. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daoud R, Starkey L, Eppel E, Vo TD, Sylvester A. The educational value of internet use in the home for school children: A systematic review of literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2020; 0 (0):1–22. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2020.1783402. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Darras, K. E., Spouge, R. J., de Bruin, A. B. H., Sedlic, A., Hague, C., & Forster, B. B. (2020). Undergraduate radiology education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A review of teaching and learning strategies. Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal . 10.1177/0846537120944821. [ PubMed ]
• Di Pietro, G., Biagi, F., Costa, P., Karpiński, Z., & Mazza, J. (2020). The likely impact of COVID-19 on education: Reflections based on the existing literature and recent international datasets. In publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg: Vol. EUR, 30275 (Issue JRC121071). 10.2760/126686.
• Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, D. L., Coombs, C., Constantiou, I., Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., Gupta, B., Lal, B., Misra, S., Prashant, P., Raman, R., Rana, N. P., Sharma, S. K., & Upadhyay, N. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on information management research and practice: Transforming education, work and life. International Journal of Information Management , 102211. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102211.
• Ehrlich H, McKenney M, Elkbuli A. We asked the experts: Virtual learning in surgical education during the COVID-19 pandemic—Shaping the future of surgical education and training. World Journal of Surgery. 2020; 44 (7):2053–2055. doi: 10.1007/s00268-020-05574-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (2020). COVID-19 situation update worldwide, as of 9 November 2020 . Retrieved November 9 2020, from https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographical-distribution-2019-ncov-cases .
• Fry K. E-learning markets and providers: Some issues and prospects. Education+Training. 2001; 43 (4/5):233–239. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005484. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harfouche AL, Nakhle F. Creating bioethics distance learning through virtual reality. Trends in Biotechnology. 2020; 38 (11):1187–1192. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.05.005. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harwell, D. (2020). Mass school closures in the wake of the coronavirus are driving a new wave of student surveillance. Washington Post. Retrieved March 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/01/online-proctoring-college-exams-coronavirus/ .
• Hasan N, Bao Y. Impact of “e-learning crack-up” perception on psychological distress among college students during COVID-19 pandemic: A mediating role of “fear of academic year loss” Children and Youth Services Review. 2020; 118 (July):105355. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105355. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• He, L., Yang, N., Xu, L., Ping, F., Li, W., Sun, Q., & Li, Y. (2020). Synchronous distance education vs traditional education for health science students : A systematic review and meta-analysis . July , 1–16. 10.1111/medu.14364. [ PubMed ]
• Hedding DW, Greve M, Breetzke GD, Nel W, van Vuuren BJ. COVID-19 and the academe in South Africa: Not business as usual. South African Journal of Science. 2020; 116 (8):8–10. doi: 10.17159/sajs.2020/8298. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Retrieved March 2021, from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning .
• Huang J. Successes and Challenges: Online Teaching and Learning of Chemistry in Higher Education in China in the Time of COVID-19. Journal of Chemical Education. 2020; 97 (9):2810–2814. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00671. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hudson, L., Engel-Hills, P., & Winberg, C. (2020). The potential of a simulated workplace environment for emergency remote teaching. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21 (5), 559–572.
• Ibraheem M, Ahmed A, Hassan M. University education in KSA in COVID times : Status. Challenges and Prospects. 2020; 14 (3):971–984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jes, A., Leal-costa, C., & Moral-garc, E. (2020). Experiences of nursing students during the abrupt change from face-to-face to e-learning education during the first month of confinement due to COVID-19 in Spain. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Kara N, Çubukçuoğlu B, Elçi A. Using social media to support teaching and learning in higher education: An analysis of personal narratives. Research in Learning Technology. 2020; 28 (1063519):1–16. doi: 10.25304/rlt.v28.2410. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karia R. 1798–1801. 2020. COVID-19 and its modes of transmission. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khalaf, K., El-Kishawi, M., Moufti, M. A., & Al Kawas, S. (2020). Introducing a comprehensive high-stake online exam to final-year dental students during the COVID-19 pandemic and evaluation of its effectiveness. Medical Education Online, 25 (1). 10.1080/10872981.2020.1826861. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Kidd W, Murray J. The Covid-19 pandemic and its effects on teacher education in England: How teacher educators moved practicum learning online. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2020; 43 (4):542–558. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1820480. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim J. Learning and teaching online during Covid-19: Experiences of student teachers in an early childhood education Practicum. International Journal of Early Childhood. 2020; 52 (2):145–158. doi: 10.1007/s13158-020-00272-6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levkoe CZ, Knezevic I, Appavoo D, Moraes A, Scott S. Serving up food studies online: Teaching about “food from somewhere” from nowhere. Food, Culture . Society. 2020; 23 (3):434–453. doi: 10.1080/15528014.2020.1754041. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, Q., Guan, X., Wu, P., Wang, X., Zhou, L., Tong, Y., Ren, R., Leung, K., Lau, E., Wong, J., Xing, X., Xiang, N., Wu, Y., Li, C., Chen, Q., Li, D., Liu, T., Zhao, J., Liu, M., . . . Feng, Z. (2020). Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of novel coronavirus–infected pneumonia. New England Journal of Medicine, 382 (13), 1199–1207. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Matters, M. E., Brightman, A. O., Buzzanell, P. M., & Zoltowski, C. B. (2020). Inclusive teaching in isolating situations: Impact of COVID-19 on efforts toward increasing diversity in BME. Biomedical Engineering Education. 10.1007/s43683-020-00012-1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• McRoy C, Patel L, Gaddam DS, Rothenberg S, Herring A, Hamm J, Chelala L, Weinstein J, Smith E, Awan O. Radiology education in the time of COVID-19: A novel distance learning workstation experience for residents. Academic Radiology. 2020; 27 (10):1467–1474. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2020.08.001. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews. 2015; 4 (1):1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mulenga, E. M., & Marbán, J. M. (2020). Prospective teachers’ online learning mathematics activities in the age of COVID-19: A cluster analysis approach. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16 (9). 10.29333/EJMSTE/8345.
• Murray C, Heinz M, Munday I, Keane E, Flynn N, Connolly C, Hall T, MacRuairc G. Reconceptualising relatedness in education in ‘distanced’ times. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2020; 43 (4):488–502. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1806820. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Novikov P. Impact of COVID-19 emergency transition to on-line learning on international students’ perceptions of educational process at Russian University. Journal of Social Studies Education Research. 2020; 11 (3):270–302. [ Google Scholar ]
• Papouli E, Chatzifotiou S, Tsairidis C. The use of digital technology at home during the COVID-19 outbreak: Views of social work students in Greece. Social Work Education. 2020; 00 (00):1–9. doi: 10.1080/02615479.2020.1807496. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patel, N. M., Khajuria, A., & Khajuria, A. (2020). Utility of a webinar to educate trainees on UK core surgical training (CST) selection – A cross sectional study and future implications amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 59(August), 35–40. 10.1016/j.amsu.2020.08.054 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Pather N, Blyth P, Chapman JA, Dayal MR, Flack NAMS, Fogg QA, Green RA, Hulme AK, Johnson IP, Meyer AJ, Morley JW, Shortland PJ, Štrkalj G, Štrkalj M, Valter K, Webb AL, Woodley SJ, Lazarus MD. Forced disruption of anatomy education in Australia and New Zealand: An acute response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Anatomical Sciences Education. 2020; 13 (3):284–300. doi: 10.1002/ase.1968. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Practicum, T. (2020). Preservice teachers use of WhatsApp to explain subject content to school children during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Rasalam, R. O. Y. (2020). Virtual WIL clinics in medicine : Overcoming the COVID-19 challenge.
• Red Cross. (2020). What social distancing means. Retrieved February 2021, from https://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-events/news/2020/coronavirus-what-social-distancing-means.html .
• Rizun, M., & Strzelecki, A. (2020). Students ’ acceptance of the COVID-19 impact on shifting higher education to distance learning in Poland. 1–19. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Rodrigues, M., Franco, M., & Silva, R. (2020). COVID-19 and disruption in management and education academics: Bibliometric mapping and analysis. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12 (18). 10.3390/SU12187362.
• Rodriguez-segura, L., Zamora-antuñano, M. A., & Rodríguez-reséndiz, J. (2020). Teaching challenges in COVID-19 scenery: Teams platform-based student satisfaction approach. 1–29. 10.3390/su12187514
• Salter C. Working remotely : Innovative allied health placements in response to COVID-19. 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandi-Urena S. Experimentation skills away from the chemistry laboratory: Emergency remote teaching of multimodal laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education. 2020; 97 (9):3011–3017. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00803. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Selwyn N, Hillman T, Eynon R, Ferreira G, Knox J, Macgilchrist F, Sancho-Gil JM. What’s next for Ed-tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s. Learning, Media and Technology. 2020; 45 (1):1–6. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2020.1694945. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahzad, A., Hassan, R., Aremu, A. Y., Hussain, A., & Lodhi, R. N. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 in E-learning on higher education institution students: the group comparison between male and female. Quality and Quantity , 0123456789. 10.1007/s11135-020-01028-z. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Sharma K, Deo G, Timalsina S, Joshi A, Shrestha N, Neupane HC. Online learning in the face of COVID-19 pandemic: Assessment of students’ satisfaction at Chitwan medical college of Nepal. Kathmandu University Medical Journal. 2020; 18 (19 70COVID-Special Issue):38–45. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• St. Amour, M. (2020). Privacy and the online pivot. Inside higher Ed. Retrieved March 2021, from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/03/25/pivot-onlineraises-concerns-ferpa-surveillance .
• The Florida Center for Instructional Technology. (n.d.). A Teacher's Guide to Distance Learning. Retrieved November 9 2020, from https://fcit.usf.edu/distance/chap1.htm#:~:text=Distance%20Learning%20can%20be%20roughly,live%22%20video%20of%20an%20instructor .
• Thomas MSC, Rogers C. Education, the science of learning, and the COVID-19 crisis. Prospects. 2020; 49 (1–2):87–90. doi: 10.1007/s11125-020-09468-z. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2020). Education: From disruption to recovery. Retrieved November 9 2020, from https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse .
• Viner RM, Russell SJ, Croker H, Packer J, Ward J, Stansfield C, Mytton O, Bonell C, Booy R. Review School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19 : a rapid systematic review. The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health. 2020; 2019 (20):1–8. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30095-X. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• WHO (2020). WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 11 March 2020. Retrieved November 9 2020, from https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19%2D%2D-11-march-2020#:~:text=We%20have%20therefore%20made%20the,to%20unnecessary%20suffering%20and%20death .
• Wyres, M., & Taylor, N. (2020). Covid-19: Using simulation and technology-enhanced learning to negotiate and adapt to the ongoing challenges in UK healthcare education. BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning , 1–3. 10.1136/bmjstel-2020-000642. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Zegwaard, K. E., & Rowe, A. D. (2020). Responding to an international crisis : The adaptability of the practice of work-integrated learning.
• Zhang, W., Wang, Y., Yang, L., & Wang, C. (2020) Suspending classes without stopping learning: China’s education emergency management policy in the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13 (3), 55.
• Zumla, A., Yew, W. W., & Hui, D. S. (2010). Emerging respiratory infections in the 21st century: An issue of infectious disease clinics-E-B. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]

How technology is reinventing education

Stanford Graduate School of Education Dean Dan Schwartz and other education scholars weigh in on what's next for some of the technology trends taking center stage in the classroom.

Image credit: Claire Scully

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

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

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

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

AI in the classroom

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

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

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

Immersive environments

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

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

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

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

Gamification

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

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

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

Data-gathering and analysis

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

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

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

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

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

International Working Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT

TDIT 2023: Transfer, Diffusion and Adoption of Next-Generation Digital Technologies pp 126–136 Cite as

The Impact of Virtual Reality in Education: A Comprehensive Research Study

• Shivani Vats 20 &
• Raman Joshi 20  
• Conference paper
• First Online: 13 December 2023

292 Accesses

Part of the book series: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology ((IFIPAICT,volume 699))

In recent years, virtual reality (VR) technologies have made significant advancements and are now being explored for their potential applications in various fields, including education. This exciting development has sparked a growing interest in investigating the use of VR technologies to enhance learning experiences. VR offers a unique opportunity to create immersive and interactive environments that can transport students to places they may never have the chance to visit otherwise. By simulating real-world scenarios, VR can provide students with hands-on experiences and facilitate active learning. From exploring historical landmarks to conducting complex scientific experiments, the possibilities are endless.

This research paper aims to investigate the use of VR technologies in the field of education, exploring their potential benefits, challenges, and implications. Through a comprehensive literature review and analysis, this study provides insights into the current state of VR in education, its applications, and its impact on learning outcomes. One of the key advantages of using VR in education is its ability to engage students on a deeper level. Traditional teaching methods often struggle to capture and maintain students’ attention, but VR has the potential to captivate learners by making education more interactive and enjoyable. The findings reveal that VR technologies have the potential to enhance student engagement, facilitate immersive learning experiences, and improve knowledge retention. However, challenges such as cost, accessibility, and technological limitations must be addressed to ensure widespread adoption and integration of VR in educational settings. Furthermore, By creating an environment where students can actively participate in their learning process, VR helps foster curiosity, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills.. The research concludes by highlighting the future prospects of VR in education and suggesting areas for further research.

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

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Rojas-Sánchez, M.A., Palos-Sánchez, P.R., Folgado-Fernández, J.A.: Systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis on virtual reality and education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 28 (1), 155–192 (2023)

Article   Google Scholar  

Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T.A., Fromm, J., Wohlgenannt, I.: A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Comput. Educ.. Educ. 147 , 103778 (2020)

Fonseca, D., Sanchez-Sepulveda, M., Necchi, S., Peña, E., Marti, N., Villagrasa, S., Redondo, E., Franquesa, J., Navarro, I.: 2020, October. What is happening in the process of engaging Architectural Students and Teachers for Including Virtual and Interactive Systems in the Projects Developments? In: Eighth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, pp. 775–783

Google Scholar  

Su, Y.S., Cheng, H.W., Lai, C.F.: Study of virtual reality immersive technology enhanced mathematics geometry learning. Front. Psychol. 13 , 760418 (2022)

Liu, Y., Tan, W., Chen, C., Liu, C., Yang, J., Zhang, Y.: A review of the application of virtual reality technology in the diagnosis and treatment of cognitive impairment. Front. Aging Neurosci. 11 , 280 (2019)

Marougkas, A., Troussas, C., Krouska, A., Sgouropoulou, C.: Virtual reality in education: a review of learning theories, approaches and methodologies for the last decade. Electronics 12 (13), 2832 (2023)

Elmqaddem, N.: Augmented reality and virtual reality in education. Myth or reality? International journal of emerging technologies in learning, 14(3) (2019)

Pellas, N., Kazanidis, I., Palaigeorgiou, G.: A systematic literature review of mixed reality environments in K-12 education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 25 (4), 2481–2520 (2020)

Akçayır, M., Akçayır, G.: Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: a systematic review of the literature. Educ. Res. Rev. 20 , 1–11 (2017)

Zhang, H., et al.: Investigating high school students’ perceptions and presences under VR learning environment. Interact. Learn. Environ. 28 (5), 635–655 (2020)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Information Technology, Jagannath Institute of Management Sciences, Rohini, New Delhi, India

Shivani Vats & Raman Joshi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raman Joshi .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

IIM Nagpur, Nagpur, India

Sujeet K. Sharma

Swansea University, Swansea, UK

Yogesh K. Dwivedi

Bhimaraya Metri

University of Bradford, Bradford, UK

Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, UK

Amany Elbanna

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Vats, S., Joshi, R. (2024). The Impact of Virtual Reality in Education: A Comprehensive Research Study. In: Sharma, S.K., Dwivedi, Y.K., Metri, B., Lal, B., Elbanna, A. (eds) Transfer, Diffusion and Adoption of Next-Generation Digital Technologies. TDIT 2023. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 699. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50204-0_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50204-0_11

Published : 13 December 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-50203-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-50204-0

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this paper

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

• Find a journal
• Track your research