digital literacy in education essay

Essay on Digital Literacy

Students are often asked to write an essay on Digital Literacy in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Digital Literacy

Understanding digital literacy.

Digital Literacy is knowing how to use digital devices like computers, tablets, and smartphones. It’s about understanding the internet and social media. It’s important because we live in a digital world. We use digital tools for school, work, and fun.

Why is Digital Literacy Important?

Digital Literacy helps us learn and communicate. It helps us find information quickly and easily. It can also keep us safe online. We need to know how to protect our personal information and avoid dangerous sites.

How Can We Improve Digital Literacy?

We can improve Digital Literacy by learning. Schools and libraries often have classes. We can also learn from friends or family. Practice is important too. The more we use digital tools, the better we get.

Challenges of Digital Literacy

Sometimes, Digital Literacy can be hard. Not everyone has access to digital tools. Some people might find them difficult to use. But with time and patience, we can overcome these challenges.

In conclusion, Digital Literacy is a vital skill in today’s world. It helps us learn, communicate, and stay safe online. Despite challenges, we can improve our skills with learning and practice.

250 Words Essay on Digital Literacy

What is digital literacy.

Digital literacy is the ability to use digital devices like computers, smartphones, and tablets. It’s about knowing how to search for information online, use social media, send emails, and protect your personal information. It’s a bit like learning to read and write, but with technology.

In today’s world, technology is everywhere. We use it for school, work, and even fun. Being digitally literate helps you do all these things easily. It also helps you stay safe online. For example, knowing how to spot a scam email can protect you from losing money or personal information.

Parts of Digital Literacy

Digital literacy has many parts. One part is technical skills, like knowing how to use a keyboard or mouse. Another part is understanding how to find and use information online. This could mean using a search engine, reading a blog post, or watching a video tutorial.

Learning Digital Literacy

You can learn digital literacy at school, at home, or even by yourself. Many schools teach students how to use technology safely and effectively. Parents can also help by showing their kids how to use devices and the internet responsibly.

The Future of Digital Literacy

As technology keeps changing, digital literacy will also change. It will be more important than ever to keep learning new skills. This will help us keep up with the digital world and make the most of the opportunities it offers.

In conclusion, digital literacy is a key skill for the modern world. It helps us use technology safely and effectively, and it will only become more important in the future.

500 Words Essay on Digital Literacy

Digital literacy is the ability to use digital technology, such as computers, smartphones, and the internet. It includes knowing how to find information online, how to use social media, and how to stay safe on the internet. Just like we need to know how to read and write in school, we also need to learn digital literacy in today’s world.

Digital literacy is important because we use technology every day. We use it for schoolwork, to talk to our friends, and even for fun. If we do not know how to use technology safely and effectively, we could get into trouble. For example, we might accidentally share personal information online, which can be dangerous. Or we might have trouble completing school assignments if we do not know how to use the internet for research.

Digital literacy is not just about knowing how to use a computer. It has many parts. Here are a few:

1. Technical skills: This includes knowing how to use different devices, like laptops, tablets, and smartphones. It also includes knowing how to use different types of software, like word processors and web browsers.

2. Information skills: This involves knowing how to find and evaluate information online. Not everything on the internet is true, so it is important to know how to tell the difference between reliable and unreliable sources.

3. Safety skills: This includes knowing how to protect yourself online. This means understanding how to create strong passwords, how to avoid scams, and how to protect your personal information.

Improving Digital Literacy

There are many ways to improve digital literacy. Schools often teach students how to use technology and the internet. There are also many online resources that can help. These include tutorials, videos, and websites that explain how to use different technologies. It is important to practice these skills regularly, just like any other skill.

In conclusion, digital literacy is a vital skill in today’s world. It involves understanding how to use technology, how to find and evaluate information online, and how to stay safe on the internet. By improving our digital literacy, we can become more confident and capable users of technology.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Inclusivity and Plurality are the Hallmarks of a Peaceful Society
• Essay on Discipline in College
• Essay on Who is a Good Citizen

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Open access
• Published: 08 June 2022

A systematic review on digital literacy

• Hasan Tinmaz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4310-0848 1 ,
• Yoo-Taek Lee   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1913-9059 2 ,
• Mina Fanea-Ivanovici   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2921-2990 3 &
• Hasnan Baber   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8951-3501 4  

Smart Learning Environments volume  9 , Article number:  21 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

43k Accesses

35 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

The purpose of this study is to discover the main themes and categories of the research studies regarding digital literacy. To serve this purpose, the databases of WoS/Clarivate Analytics, Proquest Central, Emerald Management Journals, Jstor Business College Collections and Scopus/Elsevier were searched with four keyword-combinations and final forty-three articles were included in the dataset. The researchers applied a systematic literature review method to the dataset. The preliminary findings demonstrated that there is a growing prevalence of digital literacy articles starting from the year 2013. The dominant research methodology of the reviewed articles is qualitative. The four major themes revealed from the qualitative content analysis are: digital literacy, digital competencies, digital skills and digital thinking. Under each theme, the categories and their frequencies are analysed. Recommendations for further research and for real life implementations are generated.

Introduction

The extant literature on digital literacy, skills and competencies is rich in definitions and classifications, but there is still no consensus on the larger themes and subsumed themes categories. (Heitin, 2016 ). To exemplify, existing inventories of Internet skills suffer from ‘incompleteness and over-simplification, conceptual ambiguity’ (van Deursen et al., 2015 ), and Internet skills are only a part of digital skills. While there is already a plethora of research in this field, this research paper hereby aims to provide a general framework of digital areas and themes that can best describe digital (cap)abilities in the novel context of Industry 4.0 and the accelerated pandemic-triggered digitalisation. The areas and themes can represent the starting point for drafting a contemporary digital literacy framework.

Sousa and Rocha ( 2019 ) explained that there is a stake of digital skills for disruptive digital business, and they connect it to the latest developments, such as the Internet of Things (IoT), cloud technology, big data, artificial intelligence, and robotics. The topic is even more important given the large disparities in digital literacy across regions (Tinmaz et al., 2022 ). More precisely, digital inequalities encompass skills, along with access, usage and self-perceptions. These inequalities need to be addressed, as they are credited with a ‘potential to shape life chances in multiple ways’ (Robinson et al., 2015 ), e.g., academic performance, labour market competitiveness, health, civic and political participation. Steps have been successfully taken to address physical access gaps, but skills gaps are still looming (Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2010a ). Moreover, digital inequalities have grown larger due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and they influenced the very state of health of the most vulnerable categories of population or their employability in a time when digital skills are required (Baber et al., 2022 ; Beaunoyer, Dupéré & Guitton, 2020 ).

The systematic review the researchers propose is a useful updated instrument of classification and inventory for digital literacy. Considering the latest developments in the economy and in line with current digitalisation needs, digitally literate population may assist policymakers in various fields, e.g., education, administration, healthcare system, and managers of companies and other concerned organisations that need to stay competitive and to employ competitive workforce. Therefore, it is indispensably vital to comprehend the big picture of digital literacy related research.

Literature review

Since the advent of Digital Literacy, scholars have been concerned with identifying and classifying the various (cap)abilities related to its operation. Using the most cited academic papers in this stream of research, several classifications of digital-related literacies, competencies, and skills emerged.

Digital literacies

Digital literacy, which is one of the challenges of integration of technology in academic courses (Blau, Shamir-Inbal & Avdiel, 2020 ), has been defined in the current literature as the competencies and skills required for navigating a fragmented and complex information ecosystem (Eshet, 2004 ). A ‘Digital Literacy Framework’ was designed by Eshet-Alkalai ( 2012 ), comprising six categories: (a) photo-visual thinking (understanding and using visual information); (b) real-time thinking (simultaneously processing a variety of stimuli); (c) information thinking (evaluating and combining information from multiple digital sources); (d) branching thinking (navigating in non-linear hyper-media environments); (e) reproduction thinking (creating outcomes using technological tools by designing new content or remixing existing digital content); (f) social-emotional thinking (understanding and applying cyberspace rules). According to Heitin ( 2016 ), digital literacy groups the following clusters: (a) finding and consuming digital content; (b) creating digital content; (c) communicating or sharing digital content. Hence, the literature describes the digital literacy in many ways by associating a set of various technical and non-technical elements.

• Digital competencies

The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (DigComp 2.1.), the most recent framework proposed by the European Union, which is currently under review and undergoing an updating process, contains five competency areas: (a) information and data literacy, (b) communication and collaboration, (c) digital content creation, (d) safety, and (e) problem solving (Carretero, Vuorikari & Punie, 2017 ). Digital competency had previously been described in a technical fashion by Ferrari ( 2012 ) as a set comprising information skills, communication skills, content creation skills, safety skills, and problem-solving skills, which later outlined the areas of competence in DigComp 2.1, too.

• Digital skills

Ng ( 2012 ) pointed out the following three categories of digital skills: (a) technological (using technological tools); (b) cognitive (thinking critically when managing information); (c) social (communicating and socialising). A set of Internet skill was suggested by Van Deursen and Van Dijk ( 2009 , 2010b ), which contains: (a) operational skills (basic skills in using internet technology), (b) formal Internet skills (navigation and orientation skills); (c) information Internet skills (fulfilling information needs), and (d) strategic Internet skills (using the internet to reach goals). In 2014, the same authors added communication and content creation skills to the initial framework (van Dijk & van Deursen). Similarly, Helsper and Eynon ( 2013 ) put forward a set of four digital skills: technical, social, critical, and creative skills. Furthermore, van Deursen et al. ( 2015 ) built a set of items and factors to measure Internet skills: operational, information navigation, social, creative, mobile. More recent literature (vaan Laar et al., 2017 ) divides digital skills into seven core categories: technical, information management, communication, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving.

It is worth mentioning that the various methodologies used to classify digital literacy are overlapping or non-exhaustive, which confirms the conceptual ambiguity mentioned by van Deursen et al. ( 2015 ).

• Digital thinking

Thinking skills (along with digital skills) have been acknowledged to be a significant element of digital literacy in the educational process context (Ferrari, 2012 ). In fact, critical thinking, creativity, and innovation are at the very core of DigComp. Information and Communication Technology as a support for thinking is a learning objective in any school curriculum. In the same vein, analytical thinking and interdisciplinary thinking, which help solve problems, are yet other concerns of educators in the Industry 4.0 (Ozkan-Ozen & Kazancoglu, 2021 ).

However, we have recently witnessed a shift of focus from learning how to use information and communication technologies to using it while staying safe in the cyber-environment and being aware of alternative facts. Digital thinking would encompass identifying fake news, misinformation, and echo chambers (Sulzer, 2018 ). Not least important, concern about cybersecurity has grown especially in times of political, social or economic turmoil, such as the elections or the Covid-19 crisis (Sulzer, 2018 ; Puig, Blanco-Anaya & Perez-Maceira, 2021 ).

Ultimately, this systematic review paper focuses on the following major research questions as follows:

Research question 1: What is the yearly distribution of digital literacy related papers?

Research question 2: What are the research methods for digital literacy related papers?

Research question 3: What are the main themes in digital literacy related papers?

Research question 4: What are the concentrated categories (under revealed main themes) in digital literacy related papers?

This study employed the systematic review method where the authors scrutinized the existing literature around the major research question of digital literacy. As Uman ( 2011 ) pointed, in systematic literature review, the findings of the earlier research are examined for the identification of consistent and repetitive themes. The systematic review method differs from literature review with its well managed and highly organized qualitative scrutiny processes where researchers tend to cover less materials from fewer number of databases to write their literature review (Kowalczyk & Truluck, 2013 ; Robinson & Lowe, 2015 ).

Data collection

To address major research objectives, the following five important databases are selected due to their digital literacy focused research dominance: 1. WoS/Clarivate Analytics, 2. Proquest Central; 3. Emerald Management Journals; 4. Jstor Business College Collections; 5. Scopus/Elsevier.

The search was made in the second half of June 2021, in abstract and key words written in English language. We only kept research articles and book chapters (herein referred to as papers). Our purpose was to identify a set of digital literacy areas, or an inventory of such areas and topics. To serve that purpose, systematic review was utilized with the following synonym key words for the search: ‘digital literacy’, ‘digital skills’, ‘digital competence’ and ‘digital fluency’, to find the mainstream literature dealing with the topic. These key words were unfolded as a result of the consultation with the subject matter experts (two board members from Korean Digital Literacy Association and two professors from technology studies department). Below are the four key word combinations used in the search: “Digital literacy AND systematic review”, “Digital skills AND systematic review”, “Digital competence AND systematic review”, and “Digital fluency AND systematic review”.

A sequential systematic search was made in the five databases mentioned above. Thus, from one database to another, duplicate papers were manually excluded in a cascade manner to extract only unique results and to make the research smoother to conduct. At this stage, we kept 47 papers. Further exclusion criteria were applied. Thus, only full-text items written in English were selected, and in doing so, three papers were excluded (no full text available), and one other paper was excluded because it was not written in English, but in Spanish. Therefore, we investigated a total number of 43 papers, as shown in Table 1 . “ Appendix A ” shows the list of these papers with full references.

Data analysis

The 43 papers selected after the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, respectively, were reviewed the materials independently by two researchers who were from two different countries. The researchers identified all topics pertaining to digital literacy, as they appeared in the papers. Next, a third researcher independently analysed these findings by excluded duplicates A qualitative content analysis was manually performed by calculating the frequency of major themes in all papers, where the raw data was compared and contrasted (Fraenkel et al., 2012 ). All three reviewers independently list the words and how the context in which they appeared and then the three reviewers collectively decided for how it should be categorized. Lastly, it is vital to remind that literature review of this article was written after the identification of the themes appeared as a result of our qualitative analyses. Therefore, the authors decided to shape the literature review structure based on the themes.

As an answer to the first research question (the yearly distribution of digital literacy related papers), Fig.  1 demonstrates the yearly distribution of digital literacy related papers. It is seen that there is an increasing trend about the digital literacy papers.

Yearly distribution of digital literacy related papers

Research question number two (The research methods for digital literacy related papers) concentrates on what research methods are employed for these digital literacy related papers. As Fig.  2 shows, most of the papers were using the qualitative method. Not stated refers to book chapters.

Research methods used in the reviewed articles

When forty-three articles were analysed for the main themes as in research question number three (The main themes in digital literacy related papers), the overall findings were categorized around four major themes: (i) literacies, (ii) competencies, (iii) skills, and (iv) thinking. Under every major theme, the categories were listed and explained as in research question number four (The concentrated categories (under revealed main themes) in digital literacy related papers).

The authors utilized an overt categorization for the depiction of these major themes. For example, when the ‘creativity’ was labelled as a skill, the authors also categorized it under the ‘skills’ theme. Similarly, when ‘creativity’ was mentioned as a competency, the authors listed it under the ‘competencies’ theme. Therefore, it is possible to recognize the same finding under different major themes.

Major theme 1: literacies

Digital literacy being the major concern of this paper was observed to be blatantly mentioned in five papers out forty-three. One of these articles described digital literacy as the human proficiencies to live, learn and work in the current digital society. In addition to these five articles, two additional papers used the same term as ‘critical digital literacy’ by describing it as a person’s or a society’s accessibility and assessment level interaction with digital technologies to utilize and/or create information. Table 2 summarizes the major categories under ‘Literacies’ major theme.

Computer literacy, media literacy and cultural literacy were the second most common literacy (n = 5). One of the article branches computer literacy as tool (detailing with software and hardware uses) and resource (focusing on information processing capacity of a computer) literacies. Cultural literacy was emphasized as a vital element for functioning in an intercultural team on a digital project.

Disciplinary literacy (n = 4) was referring to utilizing different computer programs (n = 2) or technical gadgets (n = 2) with a specific emphasis on required cognitive, affective and psychomotor skills to be able to work in any digital context (n = 3), serving for the using (n = 2), creating and applying (n = 2) digital literacy in real life.

Data literacy, technology literacy and multiliteracy were the third frequent categories (n = 3). The ‘multiliteracy’ was referring to the innate nature of digital technologies, which have been infused into many aspects of human lives.

Last but not least, Internet literacy, mobile literacy, web literacy, new literacy, personal literacy and research literacy were discussed in forty-three article findings. Web literacy was focusing on being able to connect with people on the web (n = 2), discover the web content (especially the navigation on a hyper-textual platform), and learn web related skills through practical web experiences. Personal literacy was highlighting digital identity management. Research literacy was not only concentrating on conducting scientific research ability but also finding available scholarship online.

Twenty-four other categories are unfolded from the results sections of forty-three articles. Table 3 presents the list of these other literacies where the authors sorted the categories in an ascending alphabetical order without any other sorting criterion. Primarily, search, tagging, filtering and attention literacies were mainly underlining their roles in information processing. Furthermore, social-structural literacy was indicated as the recognition of the social circumstances and generation of information. Another information-related literacy was pointed as publishing literacy, which is the ability to disseminate information via different digital channels.

While above listed personal literacy was referring to digital identity management, network literacy was explained as someone’s social networking ability to manage the digital relationship with other people. Additionally, participatory literacy was defined as the necessary abilities to join an online team working on online content production.

Emerging technology literacy was stipulated as an essential ability to recognize and appreciate the most recent and innovative technologies in along with smart choices related to these technologies. Additionally, the critical literacy was added as an ability to make smart judgements on the cost benefit analysis of these recent technologies.

Last of all, basic, intermediate, and advanced digital assessment literacies were specified for educational institutions that are planning to integrate various digital tools to conduct instructional assessments in their bodies.

Major theme 2: competencies

The second major theme was revealed as competencies. The authors directly categorized the findings that are specified with the word of competency. Table 4 summarizes the entire category set for the competencies major theme.

The most common category was the ‘digital competence’ (n = 14) where one of the articles points to that category as ‘generic digital competence’ referring to someone’s creativity for multimedia development (video editing was emphasized). Under this broad category, the following sub-categories were associated:

Problem solving (n = 10)

Safety (n = 7)

Information processing (n = 5)

Content creation (n = 5)

Communication (n = 2)

Digital rights (n = 1)

Digital emotional intelligence (n = 1)

Digital teamwork (n = 1)

Big data utilization (n = 1)

Artificial Intelligence utilization (n = 1)

Virtual leadership (n = 1)

Self-disruption (in along with the pace of digitalization) (n = 1)

Like ‘digital competency’, five additional articles especially coined the term as ‘digital competence as a life skill’. Deeper analysis demonstrated the following points: social competences (n = 4), communication in mother tongue (n = 3) and foreign language (n = 2), entrepreneurship (n = 3), civic competence (n = 2), fundamental science (n = 1), technology (n = 1) and mathematics (n = 1) competences, learning to learn (n = 1) and self-initiative (n = 1).

Moreover, competencies were linked to workplace digital competencies in three articles and highlighted as significant for employability (n = 3) and ‘economic engagement’ (n = 3). Digital competencies were also detailed for leisure (n = 2) and communication (n = 2). Furthermore, two articles pointed digital competencies as an inter-cultural competency and one as a cross-cultural competency. Lastly, the ‘digital nativity’ (n = 1) was clarified as someone’s innate competency of being able to feel contented and satisfied with digital technologies.

Major theme 3: skills

The third major observed theme was ‘skills’, which was dominantly gathered around information literacy skills (n = 19) and information and communication technologies skills (n = 18). Table 5 demonstrates the categories with more than one occurrence.

Table 6 summarizes the sub-categories of the two most frequent categories of ‘skills’ major theme. The information literacy skills noticeably concentrate on the steps of information processing; evaluation (n = 6), utilization (n = 4), finding (n = 3), locating (n = 2) information. Moreover, the importance of trial/error process, being a lifelong learner, feeling a need for information and so forth were evidently listed under this sub-category. On the other hand, ICT skills were grouped around cognitive and affective domains. For instance, while technical skills in general and use of social media, coding, multimedia, chat or emailing in specific were reported in cognitive domain, attitude, intention, and belief towards ICT were mentioned as the elements of affective domain.

Communication skills (n = 9) were multi-dimensional for different societies, cultures, and globalized contexts, requiring linguistic skills. Collaboration skills (n = 9) are also recurrently cited with an explicit emphasis for virtual platforms.

‘Ethics for digital environment’ encapsulated ethical use of information (n = 4) and different technologies (n = 2), knowing digital laws (n = 2) and responsibilities (n = 2) in along with digital rights and obligations (n = 1), having digital awareness (n = 1), following digital etiquettes (n = 1), treating other people with respect (n = 1) including no cyber-bullying (n = 1) and no stealing or damaging other people (n = 1).

‘Digital fluency’ involved digital access (n = 2) by using different software and hardware (n = 2) in online platforms (n = 1) or communication tools (n = 1) or within programming environments (n = 1). Digital fluency also underlined following recent technological advancements (n = 1) and knowledge (n = 1) including digital health and wellness (n = 1) dimension.

‘Social intelligence’ related to understanding digital culture (n = 1), the concept of digital exclusion (n = 1) and digital divide (n = 3). ‘Research skills’ were detailed with searching academic information (n = 3) on databases such as Web of Science and Scopus (n = 2) and their citation, summarization, and quotation (n = 2).

‘Digital teaching’ was described as a skill (n = 2) in Table 4 whereas it was also labelled as a competence (n = 1) as shown in Table 3 . Similarly, while learning to learn (n = 1) was coined under competencies in Table 3 , digital learning (n = 2, Table 4 ) and life-long learning (n = 1, Table 5 ) were stated as learning related skills. Moreover, learning was used with the following three terms: learning readiness (n = 1), self-paced learning (n = 1) and learning flexibility (n = 1).

Table 7 shows other categories listed below the ‘skills’ major theme. The list covers not only the software such as GIS, text mining, mapping, or bibliometric analysis programs but also the conceptual skills such as the fourth industrial revolution and information management.

Major theme 4: thinking

The last identified major theme was the different types of ‘thinking’. As Table 8 shows, ‘critical thinking’ was the most frequent thinking category (n = 4). Except computational thinking, the other categories were not detailed.

Computational thinking (n = 3) was associated with the general logic of how a computer works and sub-categorized into the following steps; construction of the problem (n = 3), abstraction (n = 1), disintegration of the problem (n = 2), data collection, (n = 2), data analysis (n = 2), algorithmic design (n = 2), parallelization & iteration (n = 1), automation (n = 1), generalization (n = 1), and evaluation (n = 2).

A transversal analysis of digital literacy categories reveals the following fields of digital literacy application:

Technological advancement (IT, ICT, Industry 4.0, IoT, text mining, GIS, bibliometric analysis, mapping data, technology, AI, big data)

Networking (Internet, web, connectivity, network, safety)

Information (media, news, communication)

Creative-cultural industries (culture, publishing, film, TV, leisure, content creation)

Academia (research, documentation, library)

Citizenship (participation, society, social intelligence, awareness, politics, rights, legal use, ethics)

Education (life skills, problem solving, teaching, learning, education, lifelong learning)

Professional life (work, teamwork, collaboration, economy, commerce, leadership, decision making)

Personal level (critical thinking, evaluation, analytical thinking, innovative thinking)

This systematic review on digital literacy concentrated on forty-three articles from the databases of WoS/Clarivate Analytics, Proquest Central, Emerald Management Journals, Jstor Business College Collections and Scopus/Elsevier. The initial results revealed that there is an increasing trend on digital literacy focused academic papers. Research work in digital literacy is critical in a context of disruptive digital business, and more recently, the pandemic-triggered accelerated digitalisation (Beaunoyer, Dupéré & Guitton, 2020 ; Sousa & Rocha 2019 ). Moreover, most of these papers were employing qualitative research methods. The raw data of these articles were analysed qualitatively using systematic literature review to reveal major themes and categories. Four major themes that appeared are: digital literacy, digital competencies, digital skills and thinking.

Whereas the mainstream literature describes digital literacy as a set of photo-visual, real-time, information, branching, reproduction and social-emotional thinking (Eshet-Alkalai, 2012 ) or as a set of precise specific operations, i.e., finding, consuming, creating, communicating and sharing digital content (Heitin, 2016 ), this study reveals that digital literacy revolves around and is in connection with the concepts of computer literacy, media literacy, cultural literacy or disciplinary literacy. In other words, the present systematic review indicates that digital literacy is far broader than specific tasks, englobing the entire sphere of computer operation and media use in a cultural context.

The digital competence yardstick, DigComp (Carretero, Vuorikari & Punie, 2017 ) suggests that the main digital competencies cover information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content creation, safety, and problem solving. Similarly, the findings of this research place digital competencies in relation to problem solving, safety, information processing, content creation and communication. Therefore, the findings of the systematic literature review are, to a large extent, in line with the existing framework used in the European Union.

The investigation of the main keywords associated with digital skills has revealed that information literacy, ICT, communication, collaboration, digital content creation, research and decision-making skill are the most representative. In a structured way, the existing literature groups these skills in technological, cognitive, and social (Ng, 2012 ) or, more extensively, into operational, formal, information Internet, strategic, communication and content creation (van Dijk & van Deursen, 2014 ). In time, the literature has become richer in frameworks, and prolific authors have improved their results. As such, more recent research (vaan Laar et al., 2017 ) use the following categories: technical, information management, communication, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving.

Whereas digital thinking was observed to be mostly related with critical thinking and computational thinking, DigComp connects it with critical thinking, creativity, and innovation, on the one hand, and researchers highlight fake news, misinformation, cybersecurity, and echo chambers as exponents of digital thinking, on the other hand (Sulzer, 2018 ; Puig, Blanco-Anaya & Perez-Maceira, 2021 ).

This systematic review research study looks ahead to offer an initial step and guideline for the development of a more contemporary digital literacy framework including digital literacy major themes and factors. The researchers provide the following recommendations for both researchers and practitioners.

Recommendations for prospective research

By considering the major qualitative research trend, it seems apparent that more quantitative research-oriented studies are needed. Although it requires more effort and time, mixed method studies will help understand digital literacy holistically.

As digital literacy is an umbrella term for many different technologies, specific case studies need be designed, such as digital literacy for artificial intelligence or digital literacy for drones’ usage.

Digital literacy affects different areas of human lives, such as education, business, health, governance, and so forth. Therefore, different case studies could be carried out for each of these unique dimensions of our lives. For instance, it is worth investigating the role of digital literacy on lifelong learning in particular, and on education in general, as well as the digital upskilling effects on the labour market flexibility.

Further experimental studies on digital literacy are necessary to realize how certain variables (for instance, age, gender, socioeconomic status, cognitive abilities, etc.) affect this concept overtly or covertly. Moreover, the digital divide issue needs to be analysed through the lens of its main determinants.

New bibliometric analysis method can be implemented on digital literacy documents to reveal more information on how these works are related or centred on what major topic. This visual approach will assist to realize the big picture within the digital literacy framework.

Recommendations for practitioners

The digital literacy stakeholders, policymakers in education and managers in private organizations, need to be aware that there are many dimensions and variables regarding the implementation of digital literacy. In that case, stakeholders must comprehend their beneficiaries or the participants more deeply to increase the effect of digital literacy related activities. For example, critical thinking and problem-solving skills and abilities are mentioned to affect digital literacy. Hence, stakeholders have to initially understand whether the participants have enough entry level critical thinking and problem solving.

Development of digital literacy for different groups of people requires more energy, since each group might require a different set of skills, abilities, or competencies. Hence, different subject matter experts, such as technologists, instructional designers, content experts, should join the team.

It is indispensably vital to develop different digital frameworks for different technologies (basic or advanced) or different contexts (different levels of schooling or various industries).

These frameworks should be updated regularly as digital fields are evolving rapidly. Every year, committees should gather around to understand new technological trends and decide whether they should address the changes into their frameworks.

Understanding digital literacy in a thorough manner can enable decision makers to correctly implement and apply policies addressing the digital divide that is reflected onto various aspects of life, e.g., health, employment, education, especially in turbulent times such as the COVID-19 pandemic is.

Lastly, it is also essential to state the study limitations. This study is limited to the analysis of a certain number of papers, obtained from using the selected keywords and databases. Therefore, an extension can be made by adding other keywords and searching other databases.

Availability of data and materials

The authors present the articles used for the study in “ Appendix A ”.

Baber, H., Fanea-Ivanovici, M., Lee, Y. T., & Tinmaz, H. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of digital literacy research and emerging themes pre-during COVID-19 pandemic. Information and Learning Sciences . https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-10-2021-0090 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Beaunoyer, E., Dupéré, S., & Guitton, M. J. (2020). COVID-19 and digital inequalities: Reciprocal impacts and mitigation strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 111 , 10642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106424

Blau, I., Shamir-Inbal, T., & Avdiel, O. (2020). How does the pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced collaborative academic course promote digital literacies, self-regulation, and perceived learning of students? The Internet and Higher Education, 45 , 100722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100722

Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use (No. JRC106281). Joint Research Centre, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC106281

Eshet, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia , 13 (1), 93–106, https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/4793/

Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2012). Thinking in the digital era: A revised model for digital literacy. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 9 (2), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.28945/1621

Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. JCR IPTS, Sevilla. https://ifap.ru/library/book522.pdf

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). Mc Graw Hill.

Google Scholar  

Heitin, L. (2016). What is digital literacy? Education Week, https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/what-is-digital-literacy/2016/11

Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2013). Distinct skill pathways to digital engagement. European Journal of Communication, 28 (6), 696–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323113499113

Kowalczyk, N., & Truluck, C. (2013). Literature reviews and systematic reviews: What is the difference ? . Radiologic Technology, 85 (2), 219–222.

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

Ozkan-Ozen, Y. D., & Kazancoglu, Y. (2021). Analysing workforce development challenges in the Industry 4.0. International Journal of Manpower . https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-03-2021-0167

Puig, B., Blanco-Anaya, P., & Perez-Maceira, J. J. (2021). “Fake News” or Real Science? Critical thinking to assess information on COVID-19. Frontiers in Education, 6 , 646909. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.646909

Robinson, L., Cotten, S. R., Ono, H., Quan-Haase, A., Mesch, G., Chen, W., Schulz, J., Hale, T. M., & Stern, M. J. (2015). Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society, 18 (5), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532

Robinson, P., & Lowe, J. (2015). Literature reviews vs systematic reviews. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 39 (2), 103. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12393

Sousa, M. J., & Rocha, A. (2019). Skills for disruptive digital business. Journal of Business Research, 94 , 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.051

Sulzer, A. (2018). (Re)conceptualizing digital literacies before and after the election of Trump. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 17 (2), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-06-2017-0098

Tinmaz, H., Fanea-Ivanovici, M., & Baber, H. (2022). A snapshot of digital literacy. Library Hi Tech News , (ahead-of-print).

Uman, L. S. (2011). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20 (1), 57–59.

Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2015). Development and validation of the Internet Skills Scale (ISS). Information, Communication & Society, 19 (6), 804–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1078834

Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2009). Using the internet: Skills related problems in users’ online behaviour. Interacting with Computers, 21 , 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2009.06.005

Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2010a). Measuring internet skills. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26 (10), 891–916. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2010.496338

Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2010b). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 13 (6), 893–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810386774

van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & Van Deursen, A. J. A. M. (2014). Digital skills, unlocking the information society . Palgrave MacMillan.

van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computer in Human Behavior, 72 , 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010

Download references

This research is funded by Woosong University Academic Research in 2022.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

AI & Big Data Department, Endicott College of International Studies, Woosong University, Daejeon, South Korea

Hasan Tinmaz

Endicott College of International Studies, Woosong University, Daejeon, South Korea

Yoo-Taek Lee

Department of Economics and Economic Policies, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania

Mina Fanea-Ivanovici

Abu Dhabi School of Management, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Hasnan Baber

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors worked together on the manuscript equally. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hasnan Baber .

Ethics declarations

Competing of interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Tinmaz, H., Lee, YT., Fanea-Ivanovici, M. et al. A systematic review on digital literacy. Smart Learn. Environ. 9 , 21 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00204-y

Download citation

Received : 23 February 2022

Accepted : 01 June 2022

Published : 08 June 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00204-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

• Digital literacy
• Systematic review
• Qualitative research

Advertisement

Teachers’ role in digitalizing education: an umbrella review

• Research Article
• Open access
• Published: 31 October 2022
• Volume 71 , pages 339–365, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Olivia Wohlfart   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5020-6590 1 &
• Ingo Wagner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3915-6793 1  

7755 Accesses

9 Citations

18 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Digital Literacy in Teacher Education: Transforming Pedagogy for the Modern Era

From Tinkering Around the Edges to Reconceptualizing Courses: Literacy/English Teacher Educators’ Views and Use of Digital Technology

Digitization in teacher education—quality enhancement, status quo, and professionalization approaches

Charlott Rubach & Iris Backfisch

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

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

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

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

What is the (main) research focus of previous reviews concerning teachers’ role in the digitalization of school education?

What is the current state of research on the digital literacy of teachers?

What is the current state of research on the role of teachers in technology integration?

What are the future directions for research focusing on the role of teachers in the digitalization of school education?

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

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

Inclusion criteria

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

Search procedure

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

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

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

Study selection

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

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

Context  the study examined digitization in the context of teaching and learning.

Teacher sample  the study targeted pre- or in-service teachers in primary or secondary education.

Methodological quality  the study was a systematic review or meta-study.

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

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

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

Data analysis

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

Quantitative results

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

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

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

Qualitative findings

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

Research focus of previous reviews

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

Digital Literacy,

Teacher Preparation (Programs),

Role of Teachers,

Institutional Environment,

Technology Integration, and.

Technology as Tools.

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

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

• Digital literacy

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

Concept of digital literacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Approaches to developing teachers’ digital literacy

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

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

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

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

Requirements for developing teachers’ digital literacy

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

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

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

• Technology integration

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

Strategies, requirements, and barriers to technology integration

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

Technology acceptance

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

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

Future research

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

Understanding context  To further develop the understanding of teaching and learning in diverse (digital) contexts, future research should go beyond the mere identification of contextual factors and critically examine how and why these factors (may) influence teachers’ digital literacy and/or willingness to integrate digital tools (Chai et al., 2013 ; Rokenes & Krumsvik, 2014 ; Rosenberg & Koehler, 2015 ; Scherer & Teo, 2019 ; Sherman et al., 2010 ; Starkey, 2020 ; Tondeur et al., 2017 ; van den Beemt et al., 2020 ; Voogt et al., 2013 ). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are highlighted, with the reviews repeatedly encouraging future research to take this personal factor into consideration (Carrillo & Flores, 2020 ; Pettersson, 2018 ; Tondeur et al., 2017 ).

Process and outcome  Several reviews describe a lack of critical reflection in the included studies concerning the processes and specific outcomes of strategies and interventions related to teachers’ role in digitalization (Abbitt, 2011 ; Carrillo & Flores, 2020 ; Sherman et al., 2010 ; Tseng et al., 2020 ; van den Beemt et al., 2020 ). In this context, presenting and discussing best-practice strategies and focusing on practical learning areas, such as learning design, are suggested to benefit future research.

Variety in methods  The reviews also demand (more) diversity in the methodological approaches to examining teachers’ digital literacy. More specifically, the results highlight the need for more case studies, interventional or experimental designs (Aydın & Gürol, 2019 ; Kay, 2006 ), research using mixed methods (Aydın & Gürol, 2019 ; Chai et al., 2013 ; Tondeur et al., 2017 ; van den Beemt et al., 2020 ; Wang et al., 2018 ; Willermark, 2018 ), and research employing longitudinal designs (Scherer & Teo, 2019 ; Tondeur et al., 2017 ; Wilson et al., 2020 ).

Holistic perspective  Next in importance to teachers’ role in the process of digitalization, the reviews call for further research based on a more holistic examination of education. In this context, the reviews call for studies that consider the perspectives and effects of students (Aydın & Gürol, 2019 ; Chai et al., 2013 ) and school leadership (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2020 ; Pettersson, 2018 ).

Clarifying concepts  Several authors also lament the lack of clear definitions and conceptualizations of specific terms or concepts (e.g., digital literacy, TK). This is discussed in conjunction with a call for improvement and agreement within the scientific community in future research (Kay, 2006 ; Voogt et al., 2013 ; Willermark, 2018 ).

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

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

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

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

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

Implications

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

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

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

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

Limitations and recommendations for future research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. References

Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 43 (4), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782573

Article   Google Scholar  

Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C., Holly, C., Kahlil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence Based Healthcare , 13 (3), 132–140

Aydın, M. K., & Gürol, M. (2019). A systematic review of critical factors regarding ICT use in teaching and learning. International Journal of Progressive Education , 15 (4), 108–129. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.203.9

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bridwell-Mitchell, E. N. (2015). Theorizing teacher agency and reform. Sociology of Education , 88 (2), 140–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040715575559

Carrillo, C., & Flores, M. A. (2020). COVID-19 and teacher education: A literature review of online teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education , 43 (4), 466–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1821184

Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Technology & Society , 16 (2), 31–51

Google Scholar  

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st -century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education , 57 (3), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962

Davis, F. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B., Schaumburg, H., & Labusch, A. (2019). Nutzung digitaler Medien und Prädiktoren aus der Perspektive der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer im internationalen Vergleich [Use of digital media and predictors from the perspective of teachers in an international comparison]. In B. Eickelmann, W. Bos, & J. Gerick (Eds.), ICILS 2018 #Deutschland [#Germany]: Computer- und informationsbezogene Kompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern im zweiten internationalen Vergleich und Kompetenzen im Bereich Computational Thinking [Computer and information-related competencies of students in the second international comparison and competencies in computational thinking] (pp. 205–240). Waxmann

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 42 (3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551

European Commission (2020). SELFIE (Self-reflection on Effective Learning by Fostering the use of Innovative Educational technologies): About SELFIE . Retrieved from  https://ec.europa.eu/education/schools-go-digital/about-selfie_en

Fernández-Batanero, J. M., Montenegro-Rueda, M., Fernández-Cerero, J., & García-Martínez, I. (2020). Digital competences for teacher professional development. Systematic review. European Journal of Teacher Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1827389

Ferrari, A. (2013). DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe . Berlin: Publications Office of the European Union.

Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education , 2 (2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

Gessler, M., & Siemer, C. (2020). Umbrella review: Methodological review of reviews published in peer-reviewed journals with a substantial focus on vocational education and training research. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training , 7 (1), 91–125. https://doi.org/10.13152/IJRVET.7.1.5

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

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal , 26 (2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Happe, L., Buhnova, B., Koziolek, A., & Wagner, I. (2021). Effective measures to foster girls’ interest in secondary computer science education. Education and Information Technologies , 26 , 2811–2829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10379-x

Harper, B. (2018). Technology and teacher-student interactions: A review of empirical research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 50 (3), 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2018.1450690

Hopfenbeck, T. N., Flórez Petour, M. T., & Tolo, A. (2015). Balancing tensions in educational policy reforms: Large-scale implementation of assessment for learning in Norway. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy & Practice, 22 (1), 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.996524

IEA. (2019). ICILS 2018: Results infographic presentation . https://bit.ly/3FiJG6c

Kay, R. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 38 (4), 385–410

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Technology and Innovation (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–29). Springer

Lockton, M., & Fargason, S. (2019). Disrupting the status quo: How teachers grapple with reforms that compete with long-standing educational views. Journal of Educational Change , 20 (4), 469–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09351-5

McKnight, K., O’Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J. J., & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 48 (3), 194–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record , 108 (6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine , 6 (7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Mullins, M. M., DeLuca, J. B., Crepaz, N., & Lyles, C. M. (2014). Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000–2010): Are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible? Research Synthesis Methods , 5 (2), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1098

Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education , 21 (5), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006

Pettersson, F. (2018). On the issues of digital competence in educational contexts—A review of literature. Education & Information Technologies , 23 (3), 1005–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9649-3

Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education , 33 (4), 413–430

Porras-Hernández, L. H., & Salinas-Amescua, B. (2013). Strengthening TPACK: A broader notion of context and the use of teacher’s narratives to reveal knowledge construction. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 48 (2), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.2190/ec.48.2.f

Rokenes, F. M., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Development of student teachers’ digital competence in teacher education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy , 9 (4), 250–280

Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 47 (3), 186–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1052663

Sailer, M., Murböck, J., & Fischer, F. (2021). Digital learning in schools: What does it take beyond digital technology? Teaching and Teacher Education , 103 , 103346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103346

Scherer, R., & Teo, T. (2019). Unpacking teachers’ intentions to integrate technology: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review , 27 , 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.03.001

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 42 (2), 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544

Sherman, T. M., Sanders, M., & Kwon, H. (2010). Teaching in middle school technology education: A review of recent practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education , 20 (4), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-009-9090-z

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher , 15 (2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004

Spiteri, M., & Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2020). Literature review on the factors affecting primary teachers’ use of digital technology. Technology Knowledge & Learning , 25 (1), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9376-x

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

Tienken, C., & Starr, J. P. (2020). Cracking the code of education reform: Creative compliance and ethical leadership . Corwin.

Book   Google Scholar  

Tolo, A., Chan, J., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2018). A systematic review on teachers’ implementation of technology-enhanced formative assessment: Insights and implications. AERA Online Paper Repository . 10.302/1301578

Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research & Development , 65 (3), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2

Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education , 59 (1), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009

Tseng, J. J., Chai, C. S., Tan, L., & Park, M. (2020). A critical review of research on technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in language teaching. Computer Assisted Language Learning . https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1868531

van den Beemt, A., Thurlings, M., & Willems, M. (2020). Towards an understanding of social media use in the classroom: A literature review. Technology Pedagogy & Education , 29 (1), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1695657

Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge—A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 29 (2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x

Wang, W., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Jin, Y. (2018). Preservice teachers’ TPACK development: A review of literature. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education , 34 (4), 234–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2018.1498039

Willermark, S. (2018). Technological pedagogical and content knowledge: A review of empirical studies published from 2011 to 2016. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 56 (3), 315–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117713114

Wilson, M. L., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Cheng, L. (2020). The impact of teacher education courses for technology integration on pre-service teacher knowledge: A meta-analysis study. Computers & Education , 156 , 103941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103941

Wohlfart, O., Trumler, T., & Wagner, I. (2021). The unique effects of Covid-19 - A qualitative study of the factors that influence teachers’ acceptance and usage of digital tools. Education & Information Technologies , 26 , 7359–7379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10574-4

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Olivia Wohlfart & Ingo Wagner

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivia Wohlfart .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

They further declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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

Human and animal rights

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

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wohlfart, O., Wagner, I. Teachers’ role in digitalizing education: an umbrella review. Education Tech Research Dev 71 , 339–365 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10166-0

Download citation

Accepted : 13 October 2022

Published : 31 October 2022

Issue Date : April 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10166-0

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

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Digital Literacy in the Classroom: Benefits, Challenges, and Impact on Learning

The need to promote digital literacy in the classroom may not seem immediately obvious. Approximately 90 percent of US households have a computer, and many children know how to use digital devices better than their parents. However, digital literacy isn’t limited to computer literacy or technical know-how—digital literacy also addresses online information, social interactions, and the evolving ways that students engage with the world.

Educators need to stay ahead of the curve in today’s rapidly evolving digital landscape, honing their teaching methods and expertise in programs like American University’s Online Master of Arts in Teaching and Online Master of Education Policy and Leadership .

What Is Digital Literacy?

Digital literacy is the ability to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information on digital platforms, including computers and mobile devices. Digital literacy doesn’t replace traditional ideas of literacy, but rather builds upon them to address competency related to computers and other digital devices, the internet, and social media.

For teachers, digital literacy has implications for both curriculum and teaching methods. The use of computers in the classroom, educational software integration, and expanding access to school materials via the internet are part of digital literacy, as is students’ mastery of foundational computer skills, such as manipulating input and output devices, navigating and managing file systems, and using search and navigation tools. Teaching students skills and practices related to digital information—verifying the credibility of online information, using digital resources ethically, protecting online privacy—is also part of digital literacy.

Benefits of Digital Literacy in the Classroom

Digital literacy addresses the growing need for critical analysis of digital content, teaching students to assess its source, credibility, and quality. Digital literacy instruction engages students’ cognitive abilities, asking them to apply critical thinking skills to their actions, behavior, and social engagement on digital platforms. Social media’s explosive growth has made information literacy and digital citizenship increasingly important components of digital literacy.

Analysis of online news and advertising teaches critical thinking skills and prepares students to identify credible information sources. Lessons in responsible digital communication and ethical use of digital resources (proper citations, treatment of copyrighted material) better equip them for their academic and professional careers. Privacy and security are also components of digital literacy. Teaching students to understand their digital footprints—personal information actively and inadvertently shared online—makes them less likely to fall victim to criminal behavior, such as cyberbullying and identity theft.

Bridging the Gap in the Digital Divide

Among the challenges facing students and teachers is the digital divide. Disparities remain among various populations regarding access to digital technology, be it hardware, software, or basic internet access. Although most young people in the United States have access to the internet, the quality and ease of their access vary. In the United States, 97 percent of urban dwellers have access to high-speed fixed broadband service, while in rural areas only 65 percent have access and on tribal lands only 60 percent have access.

Nearly 30 million Americans face this discrepancy, according to the Federal Communications Commission. Such disparities have been highlighted by the coronavirus outbreak, which was declared a public health emergency in the United States in early 2020. School districts ordering students to stay home and access coursework online have faced the reality that some will be disadvantaged by limited internet access.

For teachers, the growing expectation that school curriculums will address digital literacy sometimes outpaces resources and training. In its 2020 survey on literacy trends, the International Literacy Association received mixed results regarding the focus put on digital literacy, with roughly equal numbers of respondents reporting that the topic receives too much or not enough attention. However, when respondents were asked to identify professional development needs, digital literacy ranked first; nearly half of respondents expressed that they want more professional development in the area of using digital resources to support literacy instruction.

Preparing to Promote Digital Literacy in the Classroom

Educators interested in digital literacy education can explore American University’s School of Education , which offers degree programs, including an Online Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) and an Online Master of Education (MEd) in Education Policy and Leadership. Preparing teachers and policymakers to excel in the digital age, American University’s School of Education emphasizes the need to transform the education system to benefit all learners.

How to Be a Better Teacher: Reaching Students in the 21st Century

MEd vs. MAT: Developing Leadership Styles in Education

Virtual Reality in Education: Benefits, Tools, and Resources

Federal Communications Commission, Bridging the Digital Divide for All Americans

Forbes, “Why 2020 Is a Critical Global Tipping Point for Social Media”

International Literacy Association, What’s Hot in Literacy: 2020 Report

National Conference of State Legislatures, “Promoting Digital Literacy and Citizenship in School”

TeachHUB, “Technology in the Classroom: What Is Digital Literacy?”

The Associated Press, “Facebook Takedowns Reveal Sophistication of Russian Trolls”

U.S. News & World Report, “Coronavirus School Closings Expose Digital Divide”

Request Information

What Is Digital Literacy?

• Share article

While the word “literacy” alone generally refers to reading and writing skills, when you tack on the word “digital” before it, the term encompasses much, much more.

Sure, reading and writing are still very much at the heart of digital literacy. But given the new and ever-changing ways we use technology to receive and communicate information, digital literacy also encompasses a broader range of skills—everything from reading on a Kindle to gauging the validity of a website or creating and sharing YouTube videos.

The term is so broad that some experts even stay away from it, preferring to speak more specifically about particular skills at the intersection of technology and literacy.

The American Library Association’s digital-literacy task force offers this definition: “Digital literacy is the ability to use information and communication technologies to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information, requiring both cognitive and technical skills.”

More simply, Hiller Spires, a professor of literacy and technology at North Carolina State University, views digital literacy as having three buckets: 1) finding and consuming digital content; 2) creating digital content; and 3) communicating or sharing it.

Finding and Consuming

In some formats, “consuming” digital content looks pretty much the same as reading print. Reading a novel on a basic e-reader requires knowing how to turn the device on and flip pages back and forth, but other than that, it isn’t so different from reading a book. A PDF of a New York Times article looks a lot like the page of a print newspaper, except that it appears on a screen.

Donald Leu, an education professor at the University of Connecticut and a recognized authority on literacy and technology, describes this sort of digital reading as “offline reading.”

“It’s not interactive, ... there’s one screen, and you just have to read it,” he explained. “It’s the same as reading a [paper] page.”

The added skills needed for this kind of reading take just a few minutes to teach.

In comparison, what Leu calls “online reading,” in which a digital text is read through the internet, requires a host of additional skills. For instance, a New York Times piece viewed on the web may contain hyperlinks, videos, audio clips, images, interactive graphics, share buttons, or a comments section—features that force the reader to stop and make decisions rather than simply reading from top to bottom.

“The text is designed so that no two readers experience it in the exact same way,” said Troy Hicks, a professor of literacy and technology at Central Michigan University.

The reader determines, among other things, when to click on videos or hyperlinks, how long to stray from the initial text, and whether and how to pass the information along to others.

The process of finding digital content to read also necessitates different skills than finding print texts. In seeking print materials, students might flip through magazines or head to the library and search through stacks of books. They learn to use a table of contents and an index to locate information within a book.

But part of digital literacy is learning to search for content in an online space. Students have to query a search engine using keywords and navigate those results, including assessing the reliability of particular authors and websites.

Creating Content

Digital literacy also refers to content creation. That includes writing in digital formats such as email, blogs, and Tweets, as well as creating other forms of media, such as videos and podcasts.

Renee Hobbs, a professor of communication studies at the University of Rhode Island, talks about digital authorship as “a form of social power.” At a weeklong professional-development institute on digital literacy held at URI this past summer, she showed examples of student activists sharing their messages about the Black Lives Matter movement through YouTube videos.

Creating digital content is a “creative and collaborative process that involves experimentation and risk-taking,” she said. There’s more risk-taking than in print writing because digital writing is so often meant to be shared.

Sharing and Communicating

While traditional writing can be a personal endeavor, digital writing is generally intended to be communicated with others. And digital-writing tools are designed to make that easy to do.

As North Carolina State’s Spires and her co-author, Melissa Bartlett, wrote in a 2012 white paper about digital literacy and learning, “Web 2.0 tools are social, participatory, collaborative, easy to use, and are facilitative in creating online communities.”

That makes digital writing a potentially powerful lever for social good, allowing students to “actively participate in civic society and contribute to a vibrant, informed, and engaged community,” as the ALA notes.

It also makes digital writing a potentially dangerous tool—decisions about when and what to share online can have repercussions for a student’s safety, privacy, and reputation.

For that reason, learning about appropriate internet behavior is also a part of digital literacy, many say.

“We need to help kids see they can use digital tools to create things and put things out into the world, but there’s responsibility that comes with that,” said Lisa Maucione, who attended the URI institute and who is a reading specialist for the Dartmouth public schools in Massachusetts.

Evolving Technology

Because the term “digital literacy” is so wide-ranging, it can cause confusion. What exactly is someone talking about when he or she refers to digital literacy? Is it the consumption, creation, or communication of digital material? Or is that person discussing a particular digital tool? Do technology skills like computer coding fall under the digital-literacy umbrella as well?

Some experts prefer the term “digital literacies,” to convey the many facets of what reading and writing in the modern era entails.

“The concept should instead be considered plural—digital literacies—because the term implies multiple opportunities to leverage digital texts, tools, and multimodal representations for design, creation, play, and problem solving,” Jill Castek, a research assistant professor with the Literacy, Language, and Technology Research Group at Portland State University, wrote in an email.

Leu of UConn avoids the term altogether.

“Is someone who is ‘digitally literate’ equally literate when searching for information, when critically evaluating information, when using Snapchat, when using email, when using text messaging, when using Facebook, or when using any one of many different technologies for literacy and learning?” asked Leu in an email. “I think not.”

He prefers the term “new literacies,” which he said better conveys how rapidly technology is changing. Other experts have used terms like “literacy and technology,” “multiliteracies,” and “21st century literacies.”

But for now, digital literacy seems to be the prevailing term among educators. “I understand this is the term that is popular today,” Leu said, “just as I understand a newer term will appear in the future that will replace it.”

Education Issues, Explained

A version of this article appeared in the November 09, 2016 edition of Education Week as Digital Literacy: Forging Agreement on a Definition

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

7 Digital literacies and the skills of the digital age

Cathy L. Green, Oklahoma State University

Oklahoma State University

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

Introduction

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

Moving from Literacy to Digital Literacy

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

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

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

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

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

Literacy in the Digital Age

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

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

Reviewing Existing Frameworks for Digital Literacy/ies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding

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

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

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

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

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

Communicating

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

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

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

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

Parting thoughts.

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

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

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

Learning Activities.

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

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

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

References.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share This Book

25 Digital Literacy Examples

Digital literacy refers to the ability to find, evaluate, utilize, share, and create content using information technologies and the internet. It encompasses a range of skills from basic computer usage to navigating online environments and understanding digital safety and ethics.

Being digitally literate is extremely important in the 21st Century. We need to use digital technologies for everything from information gathering to banking. As a result, digital literacy has become a central concern within school curricula, as well as among governments who are concerned about nefarious actors online who may use people’s data without their consent.

Digital Literacy Definition

The original definition of digital literacy comes from Gilster (1997), who defined it as:

“…the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of sources when it is presented via computers” (p. 1)

Since, a range of definitions that paraphrased, modernized, and expand upon the original definition have emerged; but, perhaps more usefully, scholars have create categories that help us understand the concept.

For example, according to Heitin (2016), there are three categories of digital literacy:

• Finding and consuming digital content: for example, conducting web searches or accessing information via browse features on social media
• Creating digital content: uploading content onto a digital platform, such as creating YouTube videos or blog posts
• Communicating or sharing digital content: this occurs when we don’t create the content, but we re-share it, such as when people re-post viral memes.

In each category, we face issues related to ethics, critical thinking, and analysis of the origins of information. Without the stringent gatekeepers of traditional media such as newspapers, we need to know how to navigate online spaces safely and with a critical eye.

Digital Litearcy Examples

1. Basic Computer Skills: Mastery of basic computer skills is one of the essentials of digital literacy. They include the ability to operate a computer and navigate an operating system. Basic skills also encompass the use of software applications such as word processors and spreadsheets.

2. Internet Browsing: Acquiring knowledge on how to efficiently navigate the internet is a critical aspect of digital literacy. To illustrate, this includes the ability to use search engines effectively, understanding how hyperlinks work, and navigating multiple tabs and windows concurrently. Identifying safe and reliable websites also falls under this category.

3. Media Literacy: Central to digital literacy is media literacy , a concept that refers to the ability to ascertain who the author of a text is, what their biases are, how authoritative the information may be, and so on. This is essential for us to ensure we’re not misled online. It’s so important, which is why I’ve written a whole guide on media literacy skills .

4. Email Management: As email remains one of the primary methods for electronic communication, the ability to send, receive, organize, and delete emails is essential in this digital age. Importantly, you need to know email etiquette – far too many of my students send me emails as if it’s a text message, and often phrased as a rude demand rather than a polite request!

5. Social Media Savviness: Social media platforms are ubiquitous in our lives, and understanding them is part of being digitally literate. This entails knowledge about creating a profile, managing privacy settings, knowing taboos around creating posts, and discerning between real and fake news on such platforms (Facebook, for example).

6. Digital Etiquette: Also known as ‘ netiquette ,’ digital etiquette involves behaving responsibly and respectfully online. It includes understanding the possible impacts of language, tone, and behavior in online communication platforms like Zoom meetings or online forums.

7. Online Safety and Privacy: This involves understanding how to protect oneself from the potential dangers of the digital world. This is a key concern for elderly people, who are often targeted by nefarious actors, and who might not have the digital literacy skills necessary.

8. Digital Content Creation: Mastering digital content creation forms part of advanced digital literacy. It involves the ability to create infographics, videos, podcasts, and blogs (for example, making a video tutorial on YouTube). It enables you to actively contribute to the digital world, rather than just consuming content passively.

9. Cloud Storage Navigation: We need to know how to access, save, share, and manage documents in clouds. One important consideration is knowing how to maintain control over who has access to the documents, seeing as they’re theoretically available from any internet-connected device.

10. Smartphone Usage: The use of smartphones is now nearly universal. This form of digital literacy encompasses downloading and using apps, browsing the internet, and protecting personal information on numerous smartphone-based platforms like WhatsApp or Instagram. We need to know how and when to use them, as well as how and when to put them down!

11. Digital Empathy: Understanding the perspectives and feelings of others online is an important part of being digitally literate. For instance, an empathetic response to a sensitive status update on a friend’s Facebook timeline is a real-world example of digital empathy.

12. Understanding Big Data: Big data refers to large data sets that can be analyzed for patterns, insights, and trends. It’s an integral part of our digital world today, with applications in fields ranging from marketing to healthcare. Grasping the basics of big data — such as knowing what cookies do on a website — constitutes a part of advanced digital literacy.

13. Digital Marketing Knowledge: This involves understanding how online advertising and marketing work. Whether it is through search engine optimization (SEO), using Google Analytics, or understanding the algorithms that affect what content appears in a digital media news feed , digital marketing knowledge has become increasingly crucial.

14. Digital Rights and Responsibilities: Comprehending one’s rights and responsibilities in a digital space is a prominent component of digital literacy. For instance, this includes understanding copyright law (like obtaining proper licensing for stock images) and respecting the digital works and privacy of others.

15. Gaming Literacy: With video games becoming increasingly interactive and connected, familiarizing oneself with the norms and practices of these virtual landscapes are crucial. It covers understanding how to navigate game settings, interface with others online, and comprehend the narrative and mechanics of a game (as you would in a game like Minecraft).

16. Digital Problem Solving : This includes troubleshooting issues and solving problems in a digital context. Imagine, for instance, that an app on your smartphone constantly crashes. Understanding how to solve these issues — by checking for updates, for example — is a practical example of digital problem-solving.

17. Use of Advanced Software: Utilizing specialized software tools, for instance, Adobe Photoshop for image editing or AutoCAD for building design, is a key component of specialized digital literacy. Understanding these tools and their functions can greatly contribute to one’s digital skills set.

18. Blogging Skills: Possessing the ability to write, post, and maintain a blog is an essential facet of digital literacy. This also includes understanding how to embed images and videos, hyperlink to external content, and moderate and respond to any comments on the platform like WordPress.

19. Online Research Skills: The ability to conduct online research effectively and responsibly is vital to digital literacy. This involves knowing how to use search engines, databases, and online libraries, as well as how to assess the credibility of the information discovered (like using the ‘Google Scholar’ search for scholarly publications).

20. Podcasting Know-how: Podcasts have become a popular form of digital content. Digital literacy in this case is demonstrated by knowing how to listen to podcasts, subscribe to them, and even create them. Examples include using apps like SoundCloud or Apple Podcasts to consume content and software like GarageBand or Audacity to create your own podcasts.

21. Cybersecurity Skills: Understanding basic cybersecurity practices, such as backing up your data, updating your antivirus software, and using secure networks, is crucial. Digital literacy in this area helps protect you from data breaches and cyberattacks.

22. Use of Assistive Technologies : Digital literacy often implies the proficient use of assistive technologies for those with disabilities. For example, being able to customize voice-over settings on an iPhone for visually impaired users or using speech-to-text software for individuals with mobility challenges.

23. Data Visualization Ability: The capability to interpret and create data visualizations is increasingly important. This skill involves comprehending and creating graphs, charts, and diagrams to represent data or complex ideas (like in tools such as Excel or Tableau).

24. Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Networking: P2P networks allow computers to share resources without a central server. Understanding the basics of P2P sharing and its potential risks and benefits (e.g., sharing documents via BitTorrent) is also part of digital literacy.

25. Understanding Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: Being aware of the basics of AI and machine learning is becoming part of digital literacy. This includes understanding concepts like algorithms, neural networks, and data training, as well as their applications and implications in society (for example, the use of AI in self-driving cars).

26. E-commerce Literacy: Knowing how to safely and effectively shop online represents digital literacy. This includes understanding aspects like secure payment options, reading product reviews, and assessing the reliability of e-commerce sites (Amazon is a prime example).

27. Video Editing Skills: The capability to shoot and edit videos digitally is increasingly important. From software like iMovie or Adobe Premiere Pro, the process of editing involves cutting and rearranging footage, adding special effects, correcting color, and more.

28. Livestream Literacy: Being able to navigate, engage with, and even host live streaming events is a valued digital skill. It involves understanding how to use platforms such as Twitch for gaming, Instagram for live chats, or Facebook for events and seminars.

29. Mobile Payment Familiarity: With money increasingly being moved digitally, understanding how to use mobile payment systems is essential. Mobile payments encompass making purchases via platforms like Apple Pay, Google Wallet, or Venmo.

30. Digital Collaboration Skills: As remote work becomes more prevalent, the ability to collaborate on digital platforms has become necessary. These skills involve using project management tools (like Asana or Trello), document collaboration software (such as Google Docs or Microsoft Teams), and understanding how to work effectively in these virtual environments.

31. Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) Understanding: Familiarity with AR and VR technologies is becoming increasingly important in the digital world. This involves the ability to use devices like VR headsets and understanding how to interact with AR applications (like Snapchat filters or interactive learning environments).

32. Geo-tagging Awareness: Understanding what geo-tagging is, how it is used, and the privacy ramifications it involves forms part of digital literacy. For instance, posting a photo on Instagram and attaching the location is a simple and common act of Geo-tagging.

33. Making online Bookings: With the digital enhancement of many services, being able to book and manage bookings online, be it for airlines, hotel reservations, or event tickets, is a part of being digitally literate. Consider the use of apps like Expedia or Airbnb for this task.

34. Understanding Coding Basics: While not needing to be a full-fledged developer, having a basic grasp of the logic and functionality behind coding is part of digital competence. This can include understanding elements like HTML (used in website creation) or Python (used in a myriad of applications, including data analysis).

35. Digital Health Management: Digital health literacy involves knowing how to navigate and use digital tools for health purposes. This spans knowing how to set and track goals on a fitness app like MyFitnessPal, booking a doctor’s appointment online, or using a telehealth service.

Digital Natives vs Digital Immigrants

The terms digital native and digital immigrant were coined by educator Marc Prensky in 2001 to describe the difference in technology knowledge between those born during or after the introduction of digital technology (digital natives) and those born before its inception (digital immigrants).

• Digital natives are people who grew up with internet technology as part of their everyday lives. As a child or teenager, you may have been introduced to personal computers, smartphones, or social media platforms, which typically results in a more intuitive understanding and use of technology. For instance, digital natives are supposedly be more comfortable multitasking in a digital environment, such as juggling different online communication platforms simultaneously or quickly learning a new app or software.
• Digital immigrants are those people who were introduced to digital technology as adults. They had to adapt and learn to use these new tools, often experiencing a somewhat less seamless encounter compared to their younger counterparts. For instance, a digital immigrant might prefer a face-to-face meeting over a virtual one or choose to read from a physical book over an e-book.

However, the dichotomy between digital natives and digital immigrants does not directly equate to an individual’s digital literacy. Digital literacy requires not just familiarity with technology but also a critical understanding of how to use it effectively, safely, and responsibly. A digitally literate person can navigate, understand, and create information using digital technology, regardless of when they were introduced to it.

If an older worker remains engaged and up to date with advancements in technology, they may even become as digitally literate, if not more, as a millennial Internet guru. In turn, a digital native might be comfortable using technology but lack awareness of privacy settings, copyright laws, or the assessment of online information credibility.

Digital literacy is a prerequisite for operating in today’s progressively digital world. It spans a broad spectrum of activities, from fundamental computer skills to understanding AI and machine learning. It impacts nearly all aspects of modern life, work, and communication. Overall, advancing one’s digital literacy is not just desirable but a “survival skill” (Eshet, 2004) in the digital age.

Eshet, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era.  Journal of educational multimedia and hypermedia ,  13 (1), 93-106.

Gilster, P., & Glister, P. (1997).  Digital literacy  (p. 1). New York: Wiley Computer Pub..

Heitin, L. (2016). What is digital literacy?  Education Week,  https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/what-is-digital-literacy/2016/11

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently?.  On the horizon ,  9 (6), 1-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843

Tinmaz, H., Lee, Y. T., Fanea-Ivanovici, M., & Baber, H. (2022). A systematic review on digital literacy.  Smart Learning Environments ,  9 (1), 1-18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00204-y

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Media Literacy Education and AI

• Posted April 3, 2024
• By News editor
• Online Education
• Teachers and Teaching
• Technology and Media

How can educators help students think critically and evaluate all types of communication including digital platforms? In this edition of Education Now, panelists discuss the skills needed to navigate a world increasingly influenced by artificial intelligence, misinformation, and fake news.

• Merve Lapus , vice president, Education Outreach & Engagement, Common Sense Education 
• Sarah Newman , director of art and education, metaLAB (at) Harvard, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
• Faith Rogow , author, Media Literacy for Young Children: Teaching Beyond the Screen Time Debates

Uche Amaechi , Lecturer on Education, HGSE

Key Takeaways:

• It is never too soon and never too late to empower students to think critically and creatively, not cynically, about generative AI and all media. An inquiry mindset is a good entry point.
• Teach students the habit of asking inquiry-based critical thinking questions and remind them that all media are created and what is included and excluded influences the messages that are conveyed. 
• Don’t give AI too much power. Everyone, including educators, should actively question the role they want new technologies to have in our lives, including our schools, colleges, and universities.

Additional Resources:

• The State of Media Literacy Education in the U.S.
• AI Literacy Lessons for Grades 6-12 - CommonSense.org
• Resources - DemocracyReadyNY
• Media Literacy Handouts - Project Look Sharp
• Media Literacy Education Musings - Faith Rogow
• Media Literacy for Young Children: Teaching Beyond the Screen Time Debates
• AI Guide - The AI Pedagogy Project
• Assignments - The AI Pedagogy Project
• Gram and Gran Save the Summer - A Whimsical Adventure in Media Literacy
• From Digital Native to Digital Expert - Usable Knowledge

Education Now

A webinar and newsletter series to shape new approaches to challenges in education

Related Articles

Sal Khan on Innovations in the Classroom

Embracing Artificial Intelligence in the Classroom

Generative AI tools can reflect our failure of imagination and that is when the real learning starts

Get on Board with AI

Anant Agarwal discusses how and why educators need to embrace AI

Chapter 1: Introduction to Digital Literacy

Cheryl Brown

In this chapter, you will be introduced to the concept of digital literacy  and what new skills are needed in order to engage with the digital world responsibly and effectively. Drawing on your own digital experiences you will think about your digital literacy and digital footprint, developing positive strategies to proactively take control of your own digital identity.

Chapter Topics

Introduction.

• Taking Stock of Your Digital self

What is Digital Literacy?

Why is digital literacy important, improving your digital literacy: becoming a digital citizen.

Learning Objectives

After completing this chapter you should be able to:

• Describe the ways you use technology in your personal life and for learning
• Compare the different ways digital literacy has been referred to by scholars
• Examine how digital literacy differs between people based on the context in which they live and learn and the way they use technology
• Use a basic framework to assess your own digital literacy
• Reflect on your digital footprint
• Develop strategies to control your own digital identity

As digital technology has become more common, affordable, and portable, more and more people from all parts of society are starting to increase their online and digital participation. Understanding the new opportunities, rules, and potential pitfalls of the digital world doesn’t necessarily come automatically with long-term use. Not everyone using digital technology knows how to handle the range of available tools to their best extent, and even experienced digital technology users can fall prey to hackers, lose control of how they are represented online, or otherwise fail to maintain their digital identity in an optimal manner.

Digital literacy is a relatively new concept that emerged in the 1990s during the era of the Internet revolution. Before that, people talked more about “computer literacy.” But in 1997, Paul Gilster, a historian and educator first coined the term “digital literacy,” arguing that digital literacy went beyond just skills in using technology. He said it is about “mastering ideas, not [computer] keystrokes” (Gilster, 1997, p. 1).

Gilster (1997) further defined digital literacy as “the ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of sources when it is presented via computers” (p. 1). For him, digital literacy involves the ability to critically evaluate information (presented in different formats) and make decisions about how to use this information in different real-life contexts.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to define the concept of digital literacy and its many different components, reflect on your own digital literacy, engage with the digital world responsibly, and be empowered as a digital citizen capable of helping others learn and develop their role in the digital world.

Taking Stock of Your Digital Self

You probably already use a range of technologies and digital tools in different aspects of your life. You might use mobile technologies, like a phone or tablet, to download materials or information from the Internet, or you may use them to communicate with friends and family. You may use information and communication technologies (ICT) mainly for work or for learning, or you might use it primarily for entertainment. In reality, people often use different technologies and tools for a mixture of purposes.

Activity 1.1: Thinking About Your Digital Self

Think about all the ways you use technology in your personal life (e.g. for entertainment, shopping, sharing photos, communicating with people, etc). Who do you interact with digitally, and how do you do this (i.e., what applications/websites do you use and for which purpose)? Now think about yourself as a student and the ways you use technology for learning?

Make a list or draw a diagram of your activities, noting the groups or networks you interact with digitally and thinking about how you use digital technology in the various spheres of your life.

You might like to try doing this digitally using this editable mind map about digital footprints on creatly.com or by making a drawing of your digital self on paper.

The Concept of Literacy

Let’s first start with “What is literacy?” Dictionaries define literacy as the ability to read and write. Within education, literacy is understood as the ability to read, write, and use arithmetic; the emphasis is on proficiency with language and numeracy.

It is important to pause and note that the term literacy has always held a degree of status. Globally, countries are often ranked in terms of literacy rates, compared by what percent of the adult population can read and write, for example. There is more complexity to the terms literate or illiterate, however, and a lot depends on context. “New literacy studies” view literacy as a situated practice; as in it all depends on where you come from and what your purpose is.

Activity 1.2: How is literacy depicted on the Internet?

Use a common search engine like Google and type the term “literacy” into the search bar. Select the option to view the results as images and scroll through the visual depictions of literacy. What do these images depict about the concept of literacy?

Much of what you find in your search will probably suggest a relationship between literacy and words. This may be attributed to the fact that the concept has traditionally been associated with language—i.e., alphabetic literacy. In popular use, the word literacy has increasingly become a synonym for skill, competence, and proficiency—for example, emotional literacy and spiritual literacy, etc.

Whatever your view of the word literacy, what is less questioned is the relationship between literacy and technology. Until quite recently, literacy has, for the most part, been associated with print technology. The increasingly important role that digital technology has taken in shaping our world has led to another defining moment in the evolution of literacy.

The Concept of Digital

So what is digital? When you thought about your digital self  in Activity 1.1, you probably thought about the digital tools and technologies that are available to you. For example: “Oh, I use text messaging on my cell phone to communicate with friends.” Or: “I use email at university on my laptop or in the computer lab to communicate with faculty.” But the digital part (just like literacy) depends on context. The technology that you use and may even take for granted is not the same technology that your grandparents use or that students in another country use. This is why the concept of digital literacy is more often now referred to as digital literacies as a plural, acknowledging the variability of what is both available and relevant.

Digital Literacy

Since the pioneering introduction of computers into education in the 1960s , four key concepts that have dominated the literature on literacies related to digital technology include: information literacy, media literacy, computer literacy, and digital literacy (Brown, Czerniewicz, Huang & Mayisela, 2016). These four literacies are not competing, but in fact are necessary components of what it means to be literate in the twenty-first century. The table below presents an outline of the different terms and how they intersect:

The concept of digital literacy only started to gain attention in the last decade. Initially digital literacy was viewed primarily as the functional skills and competencies that people needed in order to use computers and the Internet. However in the last decade this has been expanded to consider the broader capacity needed to participate in a digital environment. UNESCO (2011) views digital literacy as a life skill that not only increases employability, but serves as a catalyst that “enables the acquisition of other important life skills” (p. 1).

The view of digital literacy offered by Jisc (2015) is even more comprehensive, defining digital literacy as “the capabilities which fit someone for living, learning and working in a digital society” (para. 3).  The capabilities outlined by Jisc :

• information, media, data literacy (critical use);
• digital creation, scholarship and innovation (creative production);
• digital communication, collaboration and participation (participating);
• digital learning and personal/professional development (learning); and
• digital identity and wellbeing (self-actualising).

(JISC, 2015)

Beyond functional and critical skills, the definitions and digital capabilities  identified here propose a particular mindset, a way of being. In particular, the last three capabilities outlined—the abilities to engage in participatory culture, to be a lifelong learner, and to manage a professional digital identity—render digital literacy remarkably different from the initial views of digital literacy simply as mastery of technical skills.

You might be familiar with the concept of a “ digital native ” or the “ net generation .” These terms refer to the idea that a person who has been born or brought up during the age of digital technology will be familiar with computers and the Internet from an early age.

Activity 1.3: Generational View of Digital Natives

There are many cartoons online that comment on the amusing side of this concept. Do a search on Google (or your favourite search engine) for “digital native” a cartoon. You might see images of kids looking at a book with shock and asking each other, “Where is the ‘on’ button?” Or you might see a child returning home from school walking right past their parent exclaiming, “How do you think it was? They didn’t even have Wi-Fi!”

In fact, this generational desire to be constantly connected has even been inserted into Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as the ultimate foundation of basic human needs. This psychological model is depicted as a pyramid with people’s basic survival needs as its foundation which need to be satisfied before people can realise their full potential (Figure 1.3).

However, there has been a lot of criticism about the concept of the digital native because it assumes many things, not least that somehow all young people have access to technology, that older people don’t have the same level of digital literacy as younger people, and that having access to technology automatically means you know how to use it.

So if young people are so adept at using digital technologies, why do they (and perhaps you for that matter) need to improve their digital literacy?

There are many answers, and hopefully this introduction has already hinted at some of them. One is that it’s not enough in this globally connected world to just be able to use technology. You need to be able to develop socially responsible digital practices and also to contribute to digital practices in your own personal, work, and learning lives.

One way of visualizing this is Sharpe and Beetham’s (2010) digital literacy development model (see Figure 1.4).

The pyramid represents a cyclical process for developing digital literacy skills. At the base of the pyramid is awareness of technology and access to it. However, just because you have a piece of hardware or software doesn’t mean you have the ability to use it effectively. As you spend more time using technology, you become more confident in your technical, information, communication, and learning skills. You can then begin to apply those skills to make informed decisions and choices about how to use different technologies. As you move through the cycle, your experiences and practices contribute to the formation of your digital identity, while your identity informs your practices and drives the creative and appropriate use of technology.

This book is aimed at helping you develop your digital literacy in a range of areas in order to become a digital citizen.

Activity 1.4: How digitally literate are you?

Why not take stock of where you are right now. How digitally literate are you, and do you know what that means?

Download this model of the digital literacy development framework and complete it while thinking about your access, skills, practices and identities. This will help you take stock of where you are now and help you focus on where you want to develop.

Explore Your Digital Identity

Digital identity refers to your “online self,” the side of you that people see on the Internet. We all have different identities in different contexts and one of the things about being a digital citizen is the ability to control the representation of yourself in the online environment.

Activity 1.5: How do others see you online?

Search for references to yourself on the Internet by looking up your name using your preferred search engine. What do you have to type in to find the “real you” and not either someone else with the same name or a one-dimensional representation of you? Is this an accurate representation of who you are, what your interests are, what you find interesting, and what you share with others online?

Once you’ve reviewed your search results, have a look at this TedX talk “ What Do Your Digital Footprints Say About You? ” by digital education and social media expert Nicola Osbourne.

Were you happy with the results of the search in Activity 1.5? Is there something you would like to change? One of the problems with information online is that once it is there, it is often very difficult to delete. Being aware of what you share online is a very important digital skill.

Using the image below (Figure 1.5), reflect on your digital footprint . Decide on some SMART goals (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound), and identify how you want the virtual “you” to look to the various people who might see you online: friends, family (including your grandmother!), teachers and professors, coaches, neighbours, potential employers, potential dates, or complete strangers.

This book is aimed at helping you develop your digital literacy in a range of areas in order to become a better digital citizen. By the end of this book, you will be able to more effectively and responsibly:

• Engage in digital practices.
• Critically evaluate information, online interactions, and online tools.
• Manage and communicate information.
• Collaborate and share digital content.

Brown, C., Czerniewicz., L., Huang, C-W., & Mayisela., T. (2016). Curriculum for digital education leadership: A concept paper. Burnaby, BC: Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved from http://oasis.col.org/handle/ 11599/2442

European Commission (2007). A European approach to media literacy in the digital environment. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM%3A2007%3A0833%3AFIN%3AEN%3APDF

Gilster, P. (1997). Digital Literacy . New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

JISC. (2015). Developing students’ digital literacy. Retrieved from https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/developing-students-digital-literacy

Sharpe, R. & Beetham, H. (2010) Understanding students’ uses of technology for learning: Towards creative appropriation. In R. Sharpe, H. Beetham and S. de Freitas (Eds.) Rethinking learning for a digital age: how learners shape their experiences , (pp. 85-99). Routledge Falmer, London and New York. Retrieved from   https://radar.brookes.ac.uk/ radar/items/4887c90b-adc6- db4f-397f-ea61e53739e0/1/

UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education. (2011, May). Digital literacy in education policy brief . Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002144/214485e.pdf

Media Attributions

• Chapter 1 header image © Kaitlyn Baker
• Figure 1.3 © Duncan Hull is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Figure 1.4 © Rhona Sharpe & Helen Beetham
• Figure 1.5 © Nicola Pallitt is licensed under a CC BY-SA (Attribution ShareAlike) license

The ability to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of sources when it is presented via computers

The way you use the range of technologies and digital tools you use in different aspects of your life

Those capabilities which fit an individual for living, learning and working in a digital society

The idea that a person who has been born or brought up during the age of digital technology will be familiar with computers and the Internet from an early age.

Refers to your “online self”, the electronic representation of who you are.

The trail of ‘electronic breadcrumbs’ you leave behind you as you use the internet both intentionally but also unintentionally.

Goals that are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-bound.

Digital Citizenship Toolkit Copyright © by Cheryl Brown is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

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

Stella timotheou.

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

Ourania Miliou

Yiannis dimitriadis.

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

Sara Villagrá Sobrino

Nikoleta giannoutsou, romina cachia.

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

Alejandra Martínez Monés

Andri ioannou, associated data.

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impacts of digital technologies on equality, inclusion and social integration

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

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

Impacts of digital technologies on teachers’ professional and teaching practices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factors that affect the integration of digital technologies

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

Digital competencies

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

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

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

Teachers’ personal characteristics, training approaches, and professional development

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

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

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

School leadership and management

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

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

Connectivity, infrastructure, and government and other support

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

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

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

Administration and digital data management

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

Students’ socioeconomic background and family support

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

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

Schools’ socioeconomic context and emergency situations

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

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

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

Factors that affect the impact of ICTs on education

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Study limitations and future directions

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

Data availability statement

Declarations.

Publisher's note

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

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