digital educational environment

What you need to know about digital learning and transformation of education

Why does unesco consider digital innovation in education important.

Digital technology has become a social necessity to ensure education as a basic human right, especially in a world experiencing more frequent crises and conflicts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, countries without sufficient ICT infrastructure and well-resourced digital learning systems suffered the greatest education disruptions and learning losses. This situation left as many as one third of students around the world without access to learning during the school closures for more than a year. The COVID-19 education disruption clearly revealed the urgent need to ally technologies and human resources to transform schooling models and to build inclusive, open and resilient learning systems. UNESCO supports the use of digital innovation in expanding access to educational opportunities and advancing inclusion, enhancing the relevance and quality of learning, building ICT-enhanced lifelong learning pathways, strengthening education and learning management systems, and monitoring learning processes. To achieve these goals, UNESCO works to develop digital literacy and digital competencies with a focus on teachers and students.

What is UNESCO’s approach to this work?

UNESCO takes a humanistic approach to ensure that technology will be designed to serve people in accordance with internationally agreed human rights frameworks, and that digital technologies will be leveraged as a common good to support the achievement of SDG 4 – Education 2030 and to build shared futures of education beyond 2030. UNESCO promotes digital inclusion to centre most marginalized groups including females, low-income groups, people with disabilities as well as linguistic and cultural minority communities. UNESCO guides international efforts to help countries understand the role that technology can play to accelerate progress toward the education goal, Sustainable Development Goal 4 , as envisioned in the 2015 Qingdao Declaration and the 2017 Qingdao Statement , 2019 Recommendation on Open Educational Resources , 2019 Beijing Consensus on AI and Education , and 2021 UNESCO Strategy on Technological Innovation in Education (2022 - 2025). UNESCO supports its Member States to design, integrate and implement effective national policies and masterplans on digital learning making sure activities on the ground answer the needs of each country and community with a special focus on disadvantaged populations.

The Organization strengthens its observatory function of emergent technological transformations and their implications for education through producing and disseminating knowledge and recognized frameworks, such as Guidelines for ICT in Education Policies and Masterplans , Artificial Intelligence and Education: Guidance for Policy-makers , Guidelines on the Development of Open Educational Resource Policies , the UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers (ICT-CFT) , K-12 AI curricula: A mapping of government-endorsed AI curricula , and the UNESCO Guidance for teachers on distance learning . It also promote grass-rooted best practices through the UNESCO King Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa Prize for the use of ICT in Education , best practices on OER , best practices in mobile learning and on AI and education . Finally, UNESCO organizes international conferences including Mobile Learning Week and the International Forum on AI and education .

What are Open Educational Resources?

Open Educational Resources (OERs) are teaching, learning or research materials that are freely accessible to everyone. UNESCO supports their development and use, and undertakes work to develop indicators to monitor and evaluate their use and impact, facilitating the creation of national OER policies. UNESCO developed and adopted international consensuses and instruments including The Paris OER Declaration 2012 and UNESCO Recommendation on OER , as well as provides guidelines on the development of OER policies , and provides technical support for Member States to develop strategies on adopting OER . The Organization also cooperates with partners on providing openly available and high-quality reading resources to children in the language they speak at home through the Global Digital Library and Translate a Story campaign .

What is the role of Artificial Intelligence in education and how does UNESCO support it?

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to address many big challenges in education as well as bringing innovation to teaching and learning practices. At the same time, the application of these technologies must be guided by the principles of inclusion and equity. UNESCO supports Member States to harness the potential of AI to achieve the Education 2030 Agenda while using a human-centred approach. It focuses on AI’s role addressing inequalities regarding access to knowledge, research and diversity of cultural expressions to ensure it does not widen technological divides within and between countries. In line with the 2019 Beijing Consensus on Artificial Intelligence and Education and the 2019 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Education, UNESCO has developed Artificial Intelligence and Education: Guidance for Policy-makers for practitioners and professionals in policy-making and education communities currently available in the six UN languages.

How does UNESCO work to ensure women and girls are better represented in digital disciplines?

Gender inequalities in access to new technologies impacts the competencies and future professional development of women and girls in digital disciplines, which also leads to gender bias in the development of AI and technological tools. Indeed, women and girls are underrepresented in ICT disciplines, in the ICT sector, and in AI development with 80 per cent of software development created by male-only teams. UNESCO leverages partnerships such as the UNESCO-Huawei Technology Enabled Open Schools for All project to help expose girls to technology early on at the school level, train them for the technological sector and support their studies in AI and new technologies.

Why is technology so important in times of crises like COVID-19?

UNESCO has been working to mitigate the impact of education disruption and school closures. Effective distance learning solutions have allowed teachers and policy-makers to continue with the national lesson plans using the digital and technological resources at hand. In this regard, UNESCO has developed several tools which offer best practices, innovative ideas and recommendations with Guidance on distance learning and Distance learning solutions .

Beyond the response to the current crisis, the efforts to deploy distance learning at scale across all levels of education provides valuable lessons and may lay the foundation for longer-term goals of building more open, inclusive and flexible education systems after the COVID-19 pandemic has subsided.

What is a DLE?

What is the uw system dle.

Our DLE is not a learning management system (LMS). Rather, our DLE is a federated, online environment that includes services and tools purposefully brought together to support the needs of teaching and learning in all modes (i.e., face-to-face, blended/hybrid, and fully-online). Our DLE challenges the traditional role of a Learning Management System (LMS) as “the” platform for managing course documents, quizzes, videos, and the like. By shifting our perspective from an LMS-based content platform, to a “digital environment” that creates information we can act upon, UW System can then realize the many benefits of an interoperable suite of services and tools that allow us to maximize student access and success.

Based on the work of Brown, Dehoney and Millichap, in their 2015 EDUCAUSE whitepaper on the Next Generation Digital Learning Environment (NGDLE) , 1 the five key characteristics of the UW System DLE (UWS DLE) are:

Accessibility and the principles of universal design are fundamental, so that all students, regardless of ability and learning preference, can succeed in all instructional modes.
Provides a platform to support learning and administrative analytics , readiness and learning assessment, progress mapping, advising, and “early alerts” to trigger interventions to ensure student success.
Collaboration is expected, encouraged, and supported among those within and outside the institution.
Components are interoperable ; meaning they are standards-based and work together seamlessly, not stapled together to sit side-by-side.
The environment is student-centered, and allows for a personalized experience for the student with regard to both content and pathways.

These five characteristics emerged as drivers to the design of the UWS DLE. The results of the needs analysis and requirements gathering projects conducted in 2015-2016 by UW System aligned well with the concept of a NGLDE. UW System research work uncovered that students sought a standardized way to access the tools and services they need for completing their coursework, as well as being able to move from course to course easily – regardless of which institution offered the course. Instructors reported that tools were becoming too complicated and cumbersome, and that they require easier ways to interact with students online, and provide feedback in various forms. Administrators were frustrated by the lack of usable data to help inform their work.

The UW System DLE (UWS DLE) is designed upon a fixed/flexible framework that provides fixed, consistent processes, student experience, and data management. The UWS DLE allows flexibility to enable pedagogy (rather than technology) to drive the adoption of technology to support institutional needs for teaching and learning. The fixed/flexible framework applies to all tools and services within the UWS DLE, and provides a means for reducing technology and access barriers among institutions and supports the ability to enrich and further develop cross-institution concepts.

DLE fosters the following improvements for our three stakeholder groups:

Instructors – increased collaboration and sharing of expertise and resources among instructors, thereby reducing redundancy and spurring innovation
Students – a “one-stop” resource environment alleviates the disparate nature of accessing teaching and learning tools and services, thereby increasing retention rates and improving student learning outcomes
Administration – reduces and standardizes infrastructure, improves support, and provides cross-institution opportunities for common practices, thereby freeing up resources for innovations in teaching and learning

The UWS DLE enables us to provide our stakeholders – students, instructors, and administration – the environment needed to thrive in any future that may evolve. WE, not providers of “siloed” products and services or exclusive groups, are the “architects” proactively designing and building the UWS DLE and planning its future. Read “ Designing a Digital Learning Environment for the University of Wisconsin System ” to learn more.

_________________________________

1 Brown, Malcolm, et al. “The Next Generation Digital Learning Environment: A Report on Research.” Next Generation Digital Learning Environment Initiative, EDUCAUSE, Apr. 2015, https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2015/4/eli3035-pdf .

The opportunities and challenges of digital learning

Subscribe to the center for economic security and opportunity newsletter, brian a. jacob brian a. jacob walter h. annenberg professor of education policy; professor of economics, and professor of education - university of michigan, former brookings expert.

May 5, 2016

Twenty years ago this week, one of my very first writings on education policy appeared in print. [i] It was an opinion piece I wrote while teaching middle school in East Harlem, in which I described my school’s struggle to effectively use classroom computers. Two decades later, as a professor of economics and education policy, I am engaged in several research projects studying the use and impact of digital learning. [ii]

Much has changed since I taught middle school. I am struck by the extent to which recent technological innovations have created many new opportunities to better serve traditionally disadvantaged students.

First, increasing speed and availability of internet access can reduce many of the geographic constraints that disadvantage poor students. Schools serving higher-resourced families are often able to recruit better teachers and administrators—perhaps the most important school resources—even without additional funding.

Unlike teachers, however, technologies have no preferences for the schools in which they work. The resources available on the internet, for example, are equally available to all schools with the same internet access and internet access costs the same for all schools in the same area, regardless of the student population served. Students can now access online videos that provide instruction on a wide variety of topics at various skill levels, and participate in real-time video conferences with teachers or tutors located a state (or even a continent) away. [iii]

Second, the evolution of touch-screen technology has enabled very young children to engage in technology-aided instruction. Prior to tablets, it was difficult for pre-school, kindergarten and even early primary grade students to work with educational software because it required use of a mouse or keyboard. Now there are a hundreds of applications that can effectively expose children to early literacy and numeracy skills.

Third, advances in artificial intelligence technology now allow teachers to differentiate instruction, providing extra support and developmentally-appropriate material to students whose knowledge and skill is far below or above grade level norms. The latest “intelligent” tutoring systems are able to not only assess a student’s current weaknesses, but also diagnose why students are making specific errors. [iv] These technologies could enable teachers to better reach students who are further from the average within their classroom, potentially benefiting students with weaker academic preparation.

And these technologies scale easily so that innovations (or even good curriculum) can reach more students. Much like a well-written textbook, a well-designed educational software application or online lesson can reach students not just in a single classroom or school, but across the state or country.

While technologies such as virtual instruction and intelligent tutoring offer great promise, unless the challenges that are associated with implementing them are fully understood and addressed their failure is almost surely guaranteed. To date, there is little evidence that digital learning can be implemented at scale in a way that improves outcomes for disadvantaged students.

Hundreds of thousands of students attend full-time online schools, [v] but a study released last year found that students of online charter schools had significantly weaker academic performance in math and reading, compared with demographically similar students in conventional public schools. [vi] Computer-aided instruction has been studied extensively over the past twenty-five years and the findings have not been encouraging. Consistently, programs that are implemented widely and evaluated with rigorous methods have yielded little to no benefit for students on average. [vii]

What are the key challenges?

Let’s start with student motivation. If technologies can draw in otherwise disenfranchised students through the personalization of material to a student’s interest or through gaming technology, they could benefit disengaged, poorly performing students. However, these technologies often reduce oversight of students, which could be particularly detrimental for children who are less motivated or who receive less structured educational supports at home. It is also possible that these technologies will be less able to engage reluctant learners in the way a dynamic and charismatic teacher can.

Moreover, approaches that forgo direct interpersonal interaction completely are unlikely to be able to teach certain skills. Learning is an inherently social activity. While an intelligent tutor might be able to help a student master specific math concepts, it may not be able to teach students to critically analyze a work of literature or debate the ethics of new legislation.

The experience of Rocketship, a well-known charter school network, illustrates this concern. Developed in the Bay Area of California in 2006, Rocketship’s instructional model revolves around a blended learning approach in which students spend a considerable amount of each day engaged with computer-aided learning technologies. The network received early praise for its innovative approach to learning and, most importantly, for the high achievement scores posted by its mostly poor, nonwhite student population. In 2012, however, researchers and educators raised concerns about graduates from Rocketship elementary schools, noting that they had good basic skills but were struggling with the critical analysis required in middle school. [viii]

More broadly, it is important to realize that technologies can be either substitutes for or complements to resources already in the school. To the extent that they are substitutes, they are inherently equalizing forces. For example, well-designed and structured online content might provide critical support to a novice teacher who is too overwhelmed to produce the same coherent and engaging materials that some more experienced teachers can create.

However, in many cases it may be more appropriate to think of technologies as complements—e.g., when they require skilled teachers or students with strong prior skills to be implemented well. In these cases, technologies must be accompanied with additional resources in order for them to benefit traditionally underserved populations.

Perhaps most importantly, systems that blend computer-aided and face-to-face instruction are notoriously difficult to implement well. In recent studies of the popular Cognitive Tutor math programs, teachers reported trouble implementing the program’s instructional practices that revolve around collaborative work, making strong connections between computer-based activities and classroom instruction, and maintaining the expected learning pace with many students who lacked prior math and reading skills. [ix]

Finally, even with the best implementation, digital learning is likely to benefit students differently depending on their personal circumstances and those of their school. For instance, non-native English speakers might benefit from online instruction that allows them to pause and look up unfamiliar words. Likewise, we might expect an online course to be more advantageous for students attending a brick-and-mortar school with very low-quality teachers.

Indeed, some recent research finds exactly this type of heterogeneity. A large IES-funded evaluation of computer-aided instruction (CAI) released in 2007 found that students randomly assigned to teachers using the leading CAI products fared no better than students in control classrooms. Several years later, then graduate student Eric Taylor, decided to reanalyze the data from the study, focusing on whether the impacts of these technologies varied across classrooms. His analysis suggests that the introduction of computer-aided instruction had a positive impact on students in classrooms with less effective teachers and a negative impact on students in classrooms with more effective teachers. [x]

In recent years, the worlds of online learning and computer-aided instruction have converged to some extent, morphing into what is often referred to as blended- or personalized-learning models. There are a number of interesting projects underway across the country, including pilots supported by the Gates Foundation’s Next Generation Learning Challenge, and the emergence of charter networks with a goal to provide truly personalized learning for every student, such as Summit Public Schools in California and Washington. [xi]

In order for these new endeavors to be successful, they must overcome the challenges described above.

[i] http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/1996/05/01/08jacob.h07.html

[ii] In a recent publication, the International Association for K-12 Online Learning defined digital learning as “any instructional practice in or out of school that uses digital technology to strengthen a student’s learning experience and improve educational outcomes.”

[iii] This technology has even expanded opportunities for the long-distance professional development of teachers, enabling novice teachers to receive mentorship from master teachers regardless of distance.

[iv] http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4311503.aspx?tab=2

[v] http://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Keeping-Pace-2015-Report.pdf

[vi] https://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/Online%20Charter%20Study%20Final.pdf

[vii] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X13000031

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/105/4/970/?_ga=1.79079444.1486538874.1462278305

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/edu-a0037123.pdf

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/86/1/42.abstract

[viii] http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/01/21/19el-rotation.h33.html?qs=New+Model+Underscores+Rocketship%E2%80%99s+Growing+Pains

http://educationnext.org/future-schools/

[ix] http://epa.sagepub.com/content/36/2/127.abstract

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19345741003681189

[x] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=5LXmfylL6JAC

[xi] http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1365.html

Economic Studies

Center for Economic Security and Opportunity

Nicol Turner Lee

March 28, 2024

Cameron F. Kerry

March 27, 2024

Jacob Larson, James S. Denford, Gregory S. Dawson, Kevin C. Desouza

March 26, 2024

In the Digital Learning Environment

Digital Citizenship Guide for K – 8 Educators

What is a Digital Learning Environment (DLE)?

The digital learning environment (DLE) includes tools, software, applications, websites and platforms that are used to support educator instruction, collaboration, communication and learning. The DLE affords many functions and features to tailor the learning environment to the needs of the educators. It may include curation tools, social media networks, learning management systems, filtering and organisation structures. Educators as learners create their DLE by accessing learning through research, collaboration, remixing content to create new knowledge to develop and share using Web 2.0. Blogs, wikis and social media programs are mediums for learning exchange, these tools are included in one’s DLE ( Richardson, 2008 ).

When educators are engaging in the DLE, the priority is to achieve meaningful and impactful learning experiences. Educators need to create a knowledge-centred environment that enables them as learners and teachers to gain knowledge through creation, communication and collaboration. Educators’ learning is positively impacted through feedback and reflection, the DLE must maintain an assessment-centred approach that fosters a feedback cycle from administrators, educators and students. Finally, the DLE is a community-centred approach to learning in the social context of the educators learning environment and needs. Conditions for transformational learning experiences can occur within one’s DLE.

All school boards within Ontario have access to Ontario’s Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) , a learning management system that can be tailored to meet the needs of educators and students. The VLE is a web-based platform that provides educators with the opportunity to create their own digital portfolio, participate in professional development opportunities facilitated through the Ministry of Education, collaborate with colleagues, post assignments and communicates with students and parents.

Ontario’s Virtual Learning Environment Retrieved from http://sncdsb.elearningontario.ca

An educator’s DLE includes social media platforms where educators can learn from one another, collaborate, enhancing pedagogical practices. Learning is social, the constructivist learning theory suggests that learning is improved through engagement with others, exploration and choice. Educators as students will take their learning where their interest lies, it may be an inquiry, a passion or a hobby. Using digital tools for collaboration and communication educators can construct learning together in a digital space ( Veletsianos, 2016 ). Tools such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Youtube are popular spaces and tools for sharing and learning.

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

Published: 21 November 2022
Volume 28 , pages 6695–6726, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

Stella Timotheou 1 ,
Ourania Miliou 1 ,
Yiannis Dimitriadis 2 ,
Sara Villagrá Sobrino 2 ,
Nikoleta Giannoutsou 2 ,
Romina Cachia 3 ,
Alejandra Martínez Monés 2 &
Andri Ioannou ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3570-6578 1

43k Accesses

36 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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.

A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning

Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan

Inclusive education: Developments and challenges in South Africa

Petra Engelbrecht

Key factors in digital literacy in learning and education: a systematic literature review using text mining

Catherine Audrin & Bertrand Audrin

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 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.

2 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 1 .

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.

3.1 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.

3.2 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.

3.3 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 ).

3.4 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 2 , we summarize the different impacts of digital technologies on school stakeholders based on the literature review, while in Table 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.

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 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.

3.5 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 ).

3.5.1 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 ).

3.5.2 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.

3.5.3 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).

3.5.4 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 ).

3.5.5 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 ).

3.5.6 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 ).

3.5.7 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

4 Discussion

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.

5 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.

6 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.

Data availability statement

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

Archer, K., Savage, R., Sanghera-Sidhu, S., Wood, E., Gottardo, A., & Chen, V. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of technology use in classrooms: A tertiary meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 78 , 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.001

Article Google Scholar

Aromatario, O., Van Hoye, A., Vuillemin, A., Foucaut, A. M., Pommier, J., & Cambon, L. (2019). 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, 19 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7828-4

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2022.2057732

Bado, N. (2022). Game-based learning pedagogy: A review of the literature. Interactive Learning Environments, 30 (5), 936–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1683587

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, R. S., Al-Samarraie, H., Moody, L., & Zaqout, F. (2022). Augmented reality and functional skills acquisition among individuals with special needs: A meta-analysis of group design studies. Journal of Special Education Technology, 37 (1), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643420910413

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, K. A. (2009). 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, 5 (3), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75275

Blaskó, Z., Costa, P. D., & Schnepf, S. V. (2022). Learning losses and educational inequalities in Europe: Mapping the potential consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of European Social Policy, 32 (4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287221091687

Bocconi, S., & Lightfoot, M. (2021). Scaling up and integrating the selfie tool for schools’ digital capacity in education and training systems: Methodology and lessons learnt. European Training Foundation . https://doi.org/10.2816/907029,JRC123936 . Accessed 30 June 2022.

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. (2022). The effects of computer simulations on students’ science process skills: Literature review. Canadian Journal of Educational and Social Studies, 2 (1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.53103/cjess.v2i1.17

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. (2017). A meta-analysis of the impact of technology on learning effectiveness of elementary students. Computers & Education, 105 , 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.005

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221082090

Chen, B., Wang, Y., & Wang, L. (2022b). The effects of virtual reality-assisted language learning: A meta-analysis. Sustainability, 14 (6), 3147. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063147

Cheok, M. L., & Wong, S. L. (2015). Predictors of e-learning satisfaction in teaching and learning for school teachers: A literature review. International Journal of Instruction, 8 (1), 75–90.

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. https://doi.org/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, https://doi.org/10.2760/462941

Costa, P., Castaño-Muñoz, J., & Kampylis, P. (2021). Capturing schools’ digital capacity: Psychometric analyses of the SELFIE self-reflection tool. Computers & Education, 162 , 104080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104080

Cussó-Calabuig, R., Farran, X. C., & Bosch-Capblanch, X. (2018). Effects of intensive use of computers in secondary school on gender differences in attitudes towards ICT: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 23 (5), 2111–2139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9706-6

Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49 (1), 91–96.

Delcker, J., & Ifenthaler, D. (2021). Teachers’ perspective on school development at German vocational schools during the Covid-19 pandemic. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30 (1), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1857826 . Accessed 30 June 2022.

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, M. J., Breuer, E., Lee, L., Asher, L., Chowdhary, N., Lund, C., & Patel, V. (2014). Theory of change: A theory-driven approach to enhance the Medical Research Council’s framework for complex interventions. Trials, 15 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-267

Di Pietro, G., Biagi, F., Costa, P., Karpiński, Z., & Mazza, J. (2020). The likely impact of COVID-19 on education: Reflections based on the existing literature and recent international datasets (Vol. 30275). Publications Office of the European Union.

Google Scholar

Elkordy, A., & Lovinelli, J. (2020). Competencies, Culture, and Change: A Model for Digital Transformation in K12 Educational Contexts. In D. Ifenthaler, S. Hofhues, M. Egloffstein, & C. Helbig (Eds.), Digital Transformation of Learning Organizations (pp. 203–219). Springer.

Eng, T. S. (2005). The impact of ICT on learning: A review of research. International Education Journal, 6 (5), 635–650.

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. (2022). Effects of digital games on student motivation in mathematics: A meta-analysis in K-12. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38 (1), 304–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12618

Fernández-Gutiérrez, M., Gimenez, G., & Calero, J. (2020). Is the use of ICT in education leading to higher student outcomes? Analysis from the Spanish Autonomous Communities. Computers & Education, 157 , 103969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103969 . Accessed 30 June 2022.

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, J. S. (2013). ICT in education: A critical literature review and its implications. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 9 (1), 112–125.

Gaol, F. L., & Prasolova-Førland, E. (2022). Special section editorial: The frontiers of augmented and mixed reality in all levels of education. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (1), 611–623.

Garzón, J., & Acevedo, J. (2019). Meta-analysis of the impact of Augmented Reality on students’ learning gains. Educational Research Review, 27 , 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.04.001

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100334

Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25 (2), 165–198. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344013000013

Haßler, B., Major, L., & Hennessy, S. (2016). Tablet use in schools: A critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32 (2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12123

Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3 , 275–285.

Hardman, J. (2019). Towards a pedagogical model of teaching with ICTs for mathematics attainment in primary school: A review of studies 2008–2018. Heliyon, 5 (5), e01726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01726

Hattie, J., Rogers, H. J., & Swaminathan, H. (2014). The role of meta-analysis in educational research. In A. D. Reid, P. Hart, & M. A. Peters (Eds.), A companion to research in education (pp. 197–207). Springer.

Chapter Google Scholar

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge . https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332

Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., & Katsipataki, M. (2012). The impact of digital technology on learning: A summary for the education endowment foundation . Education Endowment Foundation and Durham University.

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, S. I., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 153 (1038), 97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103897

Istenic Starcic, A., & Bagon, S. (2014). ICT-supported learning for inclusion of people with special needs: Review of seven educational technology journals, 1970–2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45 (2), 202–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12086 . Accessed 30 June 2022.

Jewitt, C., Clark, W., & Hadjithoma-Garstka, C. (2011). The use of learning platforms to organise learning in English primary and secondary schools. Learning, Media and Technology, 36 (4), 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.621955

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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2027458

Kao, C.-W. (2014). The effects of digital game-based learning task in English as a foreign language contexts: A meta-analysis. Education Journal, 42 (2), 113–141.

Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Devine, J. (2015). Promoting effective digital-age learning - a European framework for digitally competent educational organisations. JRC Technical Reports . https://doi.org/10.2791/54070

Kazu, I. Y., & Yalçin, C. K. (2022). Investigation of the effectiveness of hybrid learning on academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. International Journal of Progressive Education, 18 (1), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.426.14

Koh, C. (2022). 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, 69 (3), 919–950.

König, J., Jäger-Biela, D. J., & Glutsch, N. (2020). 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, 43 (4), 608–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650

Lawrence, J. E., & Tar, U. A. (2018). Factors that influence teachers’ adoption and integration of ICT in teaching/learning process. Educational Media International, 55 (1), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2018.1439712

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. https://doi.org/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 . https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211064543

Lei, H., Wang, C., Chiu, M. M., & Chen, S. (2022b). Do educational games affect students’ achievement emotions? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning., 38 (4), 946–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12664

Liao, Y. K. C., Chang, H. W., & Chen, Y. W. (2007). Effects of computer application on elementary school student’s achievement: A meta-analysis of students in Taiwan. Computers in the Schools, 24 (3–4), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1300/J025v24n03_04

Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22 (3), 215–243.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10981-1

Lu, Z., Chiu, M. M., Cui, Y., Mao, W., & Lei, H. (2022). Effects of game-based learning on students’ computational thinking: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221100740

Martinez, L., Gimenes, M., & Lambert, E. (2022). Entertainment video games for academic learning: A systematic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211053848

Mayne, J. (2015). Useful theory of change models. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30 (2), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.230

Moran, J., Ferdig, R. E., Pearson, P. D., Wardrop, J., & Blomeyer, R. L., Jr. (2008). Technology and reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy and practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 40 (1), 6–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960802070483

OECD. (2015). Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection . PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/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. (2022). A systematic review of the role of learning games in fostering mathematics education in K-12 settings. Educational Research Review, 36 , 100448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100448

Pettersson, F. (2021). Understanding digitalization and educational change in school by means of activity theory and the levels of learning concept. Education and Information Technologies, 26 (1), 187–204.

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, C. Y., & Ng, K. H. (2022). A systematic literature review on digital storytelling authoring tool in education: January 2010 to January 2020. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 38 (9), 851–867. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1972608

Ran, H., Kim, N. J., & Secada, W. G. (2022). 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, 38 (1), 258–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12611

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. (2022). 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, 38 (2), 526–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12623

Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Surkes, M. A., Wade, C. A., & Woods, J. (2014). The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education, 72 , 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.11.002

Schuele, C. M., & Justice, L. M. (2006). The importance of effect sizes in the interpretation of research: Primer on research: Part 3. The ASHA Leader, 11 (10), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR4.11102006.14

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2022.2070216

Sellar, S. (2015). Data infrastructure: a review of expanding accountability systems and large-scale assessments in education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36 (5), 765–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.931117

Stock, W. A. (1994). Systematic coding for research synthesis. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis, 236 (pp. 125–138). Russel Sage.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100065

Su, J., & Yang, W. (2022). Artificial intelligence in early childhood education: A scoping review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3 , 100049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100049

Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Liu, T. C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94 , 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008

Talan, T., Doğan, Y., & Batdı, V. (2020). Efficiency of digital and non-digital educational games: A comparative meta-analysis and a meta-thematic analysis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52 (4), 474–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1743798

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 https://doi.org/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. (2022). Improving student creativity through digital technology products: A literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 44 , 101032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101032

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. (2022). The effects of online education on academic success: A meta-analysis study. Education and Information Technologies, 27 (1), 429–450.

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 . https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3402035

Villena-Taranilla, R., Tirado-Olivares, S., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & González-Calero, J. A. (2022). Effects of virtual reality on learning outcomes in K-6 education: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 35 , 100434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100434

Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D., & ten Brummelhuis, A. (2013). Under which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A call to action. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29 (1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00453.x

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, L. H., Chen, B., Hwang, G. J., Guan, J. Q., & Wang, Y. Q. (2022). Effects of digital game-based STEM education on students’ learning achievement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 9 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00344-0

Wen, X., & Walters, S. M. (2022). The impact of technology on students’ writing performances in elementary classrooms: A meta-analysis. Computers and Education Open, 3 , 100082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100082

Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C. H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86 (4), 1052–1084. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316628645

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Stella Timotheou, Ourania Miliou & Andri Ioannou

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

Yiannis Dimitriadis, Sara Villagrá Sobrino, Nikoleta Giannoutsou & Alejandra Martínez Monés

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

Romina Cachia

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andri Ioannou .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest, additional information, publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Timotheou, S., Miliou, O., Dimitriadis, Y. et al. Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools' digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Educ Inf Technol 28 , 6695–6726 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8

Download citation

Received : 04 May 2022

Accepted : 27 October 2022

Published : 21 November 2022

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11431-8

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 technologies
Digital capacity
Digital transformation
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Digital Learning Environment

The goal of this learning unit is to develop a generic IT infrastructure for digital learning environments relevant to your discipline or content area:

2 Target Group
3 Learner Data
4 Learning Tasks
5 Digital contextualization of extracurricular learning places
6.1 Learner Profiles
6.2 Privacy
6.3 help systems
6.4 Dynamic Document Generation
7 Crowd Sourcing and Citizen Sciences
8 Client-side / server-side learner profiles:
10 See also
11 References

Version [ edit | edit source ]

alpha version - Brainstorming possible sub-aspects that could be covered in the learning module - collected some key questions

Target Group [ edit | edit source ]

Teachers who want to engage in the design of Digital Learning Environments
Researchers who want to analyze learning processes with digital learning environments.

Learner Data [ edit | edit source ]

Explore the following aspects for learner data:

Learner Analytics and Learner Support
Content Level
Technical Level
Institutional Level

Learning Tasks [ edit | edit source ]

What are possible options and your way-forward to collect data about the learning process?
How would a generic IT implementation of learning environment look like?
AudioSlides4Web ,
Wiki2Reveal ,
Screencasting
( Screencasting ) Explore the concept of Screencasting and explain how screencast can be used in learning environments. Imagine the learning task for learner is to create a screencast for a certain topic. What do the learner learn from creating their own screencast (include not only technical skills but also instructional design of the video and the embedding in a learning environment).
( Real World Lab ) Explore the concept of a Real World Lab and explain why tailored Open Educational Resources are required to support multiple different Real World Labs in different regions that need to adapt the learning resources to the location of learning environment?
( Operating System of Educational Environments ) Analyze setting up an OpenSource client server infrastructure for a learning enviroment. What are the basic requirements and components that you need for hosting e.g. a learning management system? How would you design a Linux distribution that has all the required IT service pre-installed on the Linux distribution? What are the benefits and drawbacks of such an approach?
( Open Source ) Identify the requirements and constraints for the use of Open Source software in digital learning environments. What are the drivers for adaptation of the software to the local IT infrastructure and educational requirements?

Digital contextualization of extracurricular learning places [ edit | edit source ]

Digital Contextualization can be viewed in extracurricular learning settings (e.g., VR , Aframe , AR.js, ...) Basically Mixare ( https://www.mixare.org ) with Learning elements in the camera image. Mixare, however, is no longer maintained and refactoring in HTML5 application in a corresponding Framework would be useful.

Extracurricular learning sites: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Real_World_Lab

3D Mountain View in Browser
3D Museum Tour with Audio Background Noise
AR.js : Create 3D Models Using AR.js and location based Augmented Reality
MixARe : https://www.mixare.org (not maintained anymore - use AR.js/GeoAR instead)
TrackingJS : https://trackingjs.com/ - see also Markerless Tracking

Libraries like TrackingJS https://trackingjs.com/ - would be for me too from the side of the informatical implementation of particle tracking as also interesting from the spatial geometry. But here is yes Once generic elements of learning environments are involved, such would be Subject-specific not so relevant. Rather, it would be about it to interact with gestures with digital learning environments non-digital and digital elements relate to a learning environment geoJSON is also suitable for spatial contexts as format.

Adaptive help systems and individualized task generation [ edit | edit source ]

Learner profiles [ edit | edit source ].

In order for digital learning environments to adapt to learners' individual learning needs, a learning profile is needed on the basis of which individual tasks and resources can be offered. [2] [3] .

Privacy [ edit | edit source ]

Hoel, T., Griffiths, D., & Chen, W. (2017, March). The influence of privacy protection and privacy frameworks on the design of learning analytics systems. In Proceedings of the seventh international learning analytics & knowledge conference (pp. 243-252). ACM. </ref> Transfer data from the learner's device to a server and analyze it and, if necessary, log on the basis of a larger data set Analysis of error patterns, selection of tasks and help. In the sense of the data protection of the learner data this is not absolutely necessary. Ideally, learner data remains on the user's device by default. Only the explicit sending of tasks to the school server or to servers in a research project, this client-server communication can be explicitly approved for a fixed period by the owner. Otherwise, help systems are only parameterized on the client side or on the end device (laptop, tablet, PC, smartphone)

help systems [ edit | edit source ]

Adaptive help systems e.g. Using weak-AI methods, learner data analysis is used to tailor the digital learning environment to users' needs and learning requirements. So, in a generic approach, consider the components of a digital learning environment that require adaptive feedback, help, and task selection. Aspects from the Known Areas of the Intelligent Tutorial Systems (ITS) [4] are implemented on the server in a kind of plugin concept (e.g., R-statistic software). The statistical software R serves in this context to use existing methods for the control of the digital learning environment. Through such an approach, large parts of the implementation (eg of clustering, associative networks, ...) by the use of existing statistical analysis of the save aggregated and anonymous learner data.

Dynamic Document Generation [ edit | edit source ]

Used tools will be the following application:

KnitR as R/RStudio package
Statistic Numeric Packages in R for use with Learner Analytics ( Machine Learning )
Shiny WebApps - result of Learner Analytics, but also to control help system and calculate a principle of minimal help (ie what help is minimal for the learner, which help actually "helps")
AppLSAC : WebApps with client-side learner profile,
Web-based presentations: DZSlides, Reveal, ....
(Libre) Office Documents (Application of the [Open Community Approach|Open Community Approach]])
e-Books: Tailored to learners' learning requirements
wtf_wikipedia Tools for downloading collaborative learning units in offline learning environments with adaptive help systems support learners.
Paper output of individualized tasks and help based on task processing with mobile devices, which can be parameterized and filtered by a task pool
Geo-Tailored Questionnaires: [5]

Crowd Sourcing and Citizen Sciences [ edit | edit source ]

Data Collection Using the Open Data Kit allows collaborative data collection [6] in a learning group that provides insights into a student's research question in an aggregated state. Crowd Sourcing will be such a component of training and learning of data and methods that can be solved as collaboratively by data collection and evaluation problem [7] :

'(Problem-oriented access)' How many vehicles drive certain roads in our city? How loud it is at different times (see NoiseTube ) George Drosatos, Pavlos S. Efraimidis, Ioannis N. Athanasiadis, Matthias Stevens and Ellie D'Hondt Privacy Preserving Computation of Participatory Noise Maps in the Cloud, Journal of Systems and Software, February 2014. Note, DOI: 10.1016 / j.jss.2014.01.035 </ref>)? If traffic calming is e.g. possible in the school environment? Where were frequent road accidents in the past and why is this place so dangerous for pedestrians / cyclists?
'(Spatial data evaluation)' Are there patterns in the collected data? What is the cause of the found pattern? Can the type of data collection have led to the pattern, or is there actually an increased occurrence of events, noise levels, ... at a particular location?

Overall, digital learning environments are integrated into the spatial context, and personalized data analysis, along with the client-side learning profile, provides bidirectional data transport. In the Citizen Science concept, data is collected from the learners and at the same time they gain insights into the aggregated data of all users and thus also see the state of the current collaborative data collection. Furthermore, one can also identify missing areas that had not been edited by a user before.

Client-side / server-side learner profiles: [ edit | edit source ]

In the course of the data protection discussion, client-side storage of learner profiles should also be considered, whereby the client-side learner profile adapts to the learning prerequisites of the learners, but no user data is collected, aggregated and evaluated on the servers. In the case of research projects with a digital learning environment, of course, then the learner data must be encrypted and only then transferred to a RestfulAPI as backend. In essence, this point is about deciding on the client-side or server-side storage of learner data and an abstraction on generic software components for digital learning environments, which may be made available with virtualization as a backend for schools.

Tasks [ edit | edit source ]

Search for existing open source software packages that you would like to use for your digital learning environment!
First try to determine at subject-didactic level whether and which learner data should be collected about the learning process and analyze whether the existing software offers this possibility!
Learning Environments can produce data about the learner that can be processed for learner analytics. Look at your digital learning environments and identify options for adaptation of learning environment to the requirements and constraints of the learner.

References [ edit | edit source ]

↑ UN-Guidelines for Use of SDG logo and the 17 SDG icons (2016/10) - http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/UN-Guidelines-for-Use-of-SDG-logo-and-17-icons.October-2016.pdf
↑ Alexopoulou, T., Michel, M., Murakami, A., & Meurers, D. (2017). Task effects on linguistic complexity and accuracy: A large-scale learner corpus analysis employing natural language processing techniques. Language Learning, 67 (S1), 180-208.
↑ Pistilli, M.D. (2017). Learner Analytics and Student Success Interventions. New Directions for Higher Education, 2017 (179), 43-52.
↑ Lester, J., Taylor, R., Sawyer, R., Culbertson, K., & Roberts, C. (2018). MetaMentor: A System Designed to Study, Teach, Train, and Foster Self-regulated Learning for Students and Experts Using Their Multimodal Data Visualizations. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems (page 411). Springer.
↑ Herselman, M., Niehaus, E., Ruxwana, N., D'Souza-Niehaus, N., Heyne, N., Platz, M., & Wagner, R. (2010). Geo-referenced learning resources can be offered via the GPS sensors of mobile devices depending on the location of the learners.
↑ Brabham, D.C. (2010). Moving the crowd at Threadless: Motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application. Information, Communication & Society, 13 (8), 1122-1145.
↑ Skaržauskaitė, M. (2012). The application of crowd sourcing in educational activities. Social Technologies, 2 (1), 67-76.

Learning Analytics

The Impact of Remote Learning on College Student Engagement and Academic Performance

In recent years, remote learning has emerged as a pivotal aspect of higher education, fundamentally altering the landscape of student engagement and academic performance. As institutions and students alike navigate this digital terrain, the importance of comprehensive support systems has never been more evident. Students, in particular, are finding it essential to seek out additional resources to bolster their learning experiences. Among these resources, many find dissertation writing service from this list of academic aids crucial for their scholarly projects, signifying a shift in how educational outcomes are supported and achieved in a virtual setting.

Understanding Remote Learning’s Reach

Remote learning, primarily fueled by advances in technology and the pressing need for educational continuity during global challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, has transcended geographical barriers. It offers a flexibility unseen in traditional campus settings, but not without its hurdles. The shift from physical classrooms to digital platforms has prompted a reevaluation of teaching methods, student engagement strategies, and the measurement of academic success.

Engagement in the Digital Classroom

Student engagement in remote learning environments is multifaceted, encompassing both the participation in coursework and the interaction with instructors and peers. The lack of physical presence in classrooms poses unique challenges to fostering a sense of community and connection among students. However, innovative digital tools and platforms have emerged, enabling real-time collaboration, discussions, and feedback, thereby simulating a classroom vibe. The effectiveness of these tools, however, is largely dependent on the digital literacy of both students and educators, as well as the quality of the digital infrastructure available to them.

Academic Performance: A New Yardstick

Evaluating academic performance in a remote learning context requires a nuanced approach. Traditional metrics of success, such as exam scores and grade point averages, remain relevant but are now complemented by new indicators of learning engagement and digital competencies. The ability to navigate online research tools, participate in virtual group projects, and effectively manage time in an unstructured environment are becoming key components of academic excellence. In this ecosystem, services like a “ cover letter writing service ” become invaluable, aiding students in presenting their newfound skills and competencies effectively in the job market.

The Double-Edged Sword of Flexibility

The flexibility of remote learning is both its greatest strength and its most significant challenge. On one hand, it allows students to tailor their educational experiences to fit their personal and professional lives, potentially enhancing learning outcomes. On the other, this same flexibility can lead to procrastination and a lack of structure, negatively impacting student engagement and performance. Successful remote learners often develop strong self-discipline and time-management skills, traits that are beneficial both academically and professionally.

Support Systems and Resources

The transition to remote learning has underscored the importance of accessible support systems for students. Academic resources, such as dissertation writing services, tutoring, and advising, have become vital components of the remote learning ecosystem. Additionally, mental health support and community-building activities facilitated through digital platforms play a crucial role in maintaining student engagement and well-being.

The impact of remote learning on college student engagement and academic performance is complex and multifaceted. While it presents challenges in maintaining engagement and measuring performance, it also offers opportunities for innovation in educational delivery and support. As the landscape of higher education continues to evolve, the focus must remain on enhancing digital literacy, expanding support systems, and fostering a sense of community among remote learners. Only then can the full potential of remote learning be realized, ensuring that students not only adapt but thrive in this new academic environment.

Author Profile

Nicole Hardy is renowned for her insightful and meticulous journalism in education and the arts, particularly noted for her coverage of performing arts education. With a career spanning over a decade, Hardy has established herself as a respected authority in the field. Her work is characterized by deep analysis and an engaging narrative style. She holds a Master’s in Journalism from the University of Arts, specializing in arts and culture reporting.

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.

Introduction

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

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

Methodology

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

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

Impacts of digital technologies on equality, inclusion and social integration

Impacts of digital technologies on teachers’ professional and teaching practices

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

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

Digital competencies

Teachers’ personal characteristics, training approaches, and professional development

School leadership and management

Connectivity, infrastructure, and government and other support

Administration and digital data management

Students’ socioeconomic background and family support

Schools’ socioeconomic context and emergency situations

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10639_2022_11431_Fig1_HTML.jpg

Factors that affect the impact of ICTs on education

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10639_2022_11431_Fig2_HTML.jpg

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

Conclusions

Study limitations and future directions

Acknowledgements

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 ]

Current Weather

Partly Cloudy

Latest Weathercast

Interactive Radar

'Gamified education'; Tulsa-based learning platform improves academic outcomes nationwide

by Mckenzie Richmond, KTUL Staff

TULSA, Okla. (KTUL) — A Tulsa based digital learning platform has gone national.

With over 6 million sign ups and 10 thousand more joining per day, parents and teachers are seeing the service improve academic outcomes and inspire learning.

Boddle is a gamified educational platform to improve academic outcomes and inspire students.

This is a one-of-a-kind platform, but the concept is familiar.

SEE ALSO: OAIRE and Tulsa first responders highlight drone and robotic dog use in disaster relief

For years food companies have tried to hide vegetables in your kid’s favorite foods like pizza or chicken nuggets to promote healthy eating.

Now, a Tulsa couple is embedding math and English lessons into an interactive game to promote learning.

The learning platform, Boddle, aims to address learning gaps through adaptive, interactive games. Some of the games even mirror the popular iPhone app Candy Crush. But unlike Candy Crush, on Boddle, math and English lessons are embedded into each level.

“Kids are so engaged with their entertainment games and go home and dive into those, so we want to build something that’s just as fun for them but embed that learning content so it’s something that’s meaningful and going help them with their education,” Edna Martinson, co-founder of Boddle learning, said.

Since their launch in 2020, feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.

SEE ALSO: A New Leaf calls on State Capitol to boost resources for developmental disabilities

Green country teachers say students who are normally uninterested in standard math and English lessons are engaged in the gamified learning platform just as they would be on Fortnite or Minecraft, but screentime on Boddle has educational benefits.

The platform meets students where they are at and adapts to their needs. It’s helping students catch up to their grade level or even get ahead.

Teachers have even noticed standardized test scores improve since using the platform.

With two studies supporting Boddle’s ability to improve academic outcomes, teachers across the country are now embedding the Tulsa-based platform into their lessons and assigning it as homework.

Right now, the game can only accommodate one-player or two-player mode, however, in a matter of weeks they are launching a mode that can engage with an entire classroom.

You can access Boddle online or in the app store.

Open supplemental data
Reference Manager
Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Brief research report article, game-based learning experiences in primary mathematics education.

Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Social Science, Partium Christian University, Oradea, Romania

Using game-based learning (GBL), especially digital game-based learning (DGBL), as a teaching and learning environment can be a pedagogical resource and a good strategy in the classroom to support mathematical learning. Effective manipulatives and games play a crucial role in promoting mathematical understanding. They support students in building, reinforcing and connecting varied representations of mathematical concepts. High-quality games are particularly valuable for learners as they provide them with control and adaptability. These games have properties that are adapted to cognitive and mathematical structures, facilitating the development of connections between different pieces and forms of knowledge. Digital games can help to achieve the same effects. In this paper, we conduct a quasi-experiment using games developed for this purpose. Our aim is to investigate whether non-digital games vs. digital games yield different results. Our results indicate that while students enjoyed themselves and found the task-solving enjoyable during both types of game-based learning, the use of non-digital games vs. digital games can sometimes lead to different outcomes.

1 Introduction

According to Rosli et al. (2015) prekindergarten, kindergarten, and elementary school teachers use both tangible and virtual manipulatives as instructional aides to facilitate student understanding of concepts in numbers, operations, geometry, algebra, measurements, data analysis, and probability. Tangible manipulatives assist students in constructing, reinforcing, and linking diverse mathematical concepts. From literature, engaging in concrete activities serves as a beneficial mental exercise ( Clements, 1989 ; Kamii, 1989 ). Clements (1999) found that for teachers to actively engage children's thinking, manipulatives must be integrated into educational tasks to provide meaningful context and support, alone they are not enough. “Games are effective not because of what they are, but because of what they embody and what learners are doing as they play a game” ( Van Eck, 2006 , p. 18). According to Russo and Russo (2018) and Russo et al. (2023) , the six principles of educationally rich mathematical games in the literature are: 1. Students are engaged; 2. There is a balance of skill and luck. 3. Mathematics is central. 4. Flexibility in learning and teaching. 5. Promotes home-school connections. 6. Games into studies. The educational value of a game depends on the extent to which teachers perceive that a game is appropriately challenging, engaging, enjoyable, adaptable to support different learners, and adaptable to inquiry or broader mathematical investigations. Likewise, perceived levels of student enjoyment and engagement, as well as the potential of a game leads to rich mathematical inquiry, were important features in assessing how likely a teacher would be using a particular game with students in the future if given the opportunity, as was the game's ability to support mathematical discussion. Research by Bordás (2016) shows that in order to motivate students and adapt to their individual needs, teachers at both lower and upper secondary level consider it important to use interactive methods, game-based teaching and the use of the internet and digital tools.

In practice, primary school teachers tend to use non-digital mathematical games to support maths learning (board, dice, and card games). According to Russo and Russo (2020) and Russo et al. (2021) almost all the primary teachers admitted playing mathematical games in their classrooms a minimum of once a week, they view games as highly effective for developing all four proficiencies highlighted in the Mathematics Curriculum: fluency, understanding, problem-solving, and reasoning. According to Dienes (2015) , activities, games and concrete experiences should be the base of learning mathematics, that could be a joyful experience with the use of tools that enhance efficiency. In primary school, children establish connections between abstract concepts and practical experiences in a more tangible manner, experiencing them through games. Manipulatives are “objects designed to represent explicitly and concretely mathematical ideas that are abstract” ( Moyer, 2001 , p. 176). Rosli et al. (2015) said that manipulatives help students to see the connections between concepts and improve their knowledge in problem solving and problem posing, even in the case of real-life problems. The incorporation of games serves as a compelling tool in the process of learning mathematics. Di Sia (2017) found that the association with games stimulates children's imagination, providing an enjoyable approach to mathematics, that is perceived as a helpful and enjoyable discipline. Students enjoy the tasks, where they have to invest mental effort in the use of games, didactic materials ( Yung and Paas, 2015 ).

The virtual tool does not seem suitable for this. Öztop (2022) examining the impact of using games in primary school mathematics education on learning outcomes and comparing effect sizes by game type finds that the effect of digital games is small (0.436) and that of non-digital games is large (1.032). The results show that non-digital games are much more effective on learning outcomes than digital games in primary school mathematics education.

According to the literature, there is a contrast between the frequency that teachers prefer to use non-digital games with students vis-a-vis the tendency in the literature to focus on digital games, where the majority of research focused on game-based learning in mathematics, specifically tend to explicitly focus on digital games, rather than non-digital games ( Hainey et al., 2016 ; Hussein et al., 2022 ). The large scale of quantitative studies involving non-digital games are comparatively rare, with most studies into games occurring within a single school context, generally involving students from a limited range of specific grade levels.

Guiding the pedagogical practice of teacher trainees as their supervisor, we created our own development games and we implemented together with the students in classrooms where they teach, and then we examined the experiences and results together. Our question is: whether non-digital games vs. digital games are different?

2 Digital games, digital game-based learning and achievements in learning of mathematics

According to the literature, numerous studies have identified positive impacts associated with the use of games in learning mathematics ( Suh et al., 2005 ; Steen et al., 2006 ; Moyer-Packenham et al., 2008 ). Such activities are typically interactive, motivating, and practical, contributing to maintaining students' interest and enhancing their understanding of mathematical concepts. The aim is to integrate games into the educational environment to enhance students' mathematical learning, expanding the use of games based on higher-order thinking can diversify the educational benefits of games and serve a wider range of learning objectives. Kailani et al. (2019) found that the games, by themselves, do not automatically imply positive impact. One must consider the diverse factors that work in tandem with game-based learning. Such factors include the technical aptitude and attitudes of the people—classroom teachers, faculty members, parents, and researchers—implementing the technology. Not only should there be an effective implementation plan that is well-executed, but the content of that execution needs to be well-designed with thorough curricula relevance.

Game-based learning means the use of games for educative purposes and aimed to improve the user knowledge and experience. The main benefit of these educational games is they focus on improving children's life-essential abilities such as problem solving and critical thinking. GBL aimed to improve the user's knowledge and experience.

Digital game-based learning (DGBL) is learning by using certain computer games for educational purposes. It is a type of game-based learning (GBL; Prensky, 2001 ). Computer games can be used as a “learning tool” ( Ke, 2008 , p. 1609) that “simulate real-life social networks” ( Neville et al., 2009 , p. 410; Ferguson, 2014 ) and motivational situations such as the use of real-world and computer-generated data to perform math operations.

The contemporary epistemological and pedagogical viewpoints in mathematical education highlight the importance of incorporating realistic mathematical practices and sense-making experiences. Problem solving is a major component of “thinking mathematically” ( Schoenfeld, 2020 ). A DGBL activity engages students in the process of problem solving or knowledge acquisition when facing the challenges presented by the game ( Huang et al., 2010 ). Literature suggests that DGBL stands out as a promising approach for enhancing students' learning motivation and achievement in mathematics. The computer games in terms of being interactive, based on a set of agreed rules and constraints, and directed toward a clear goal and constantly provide feedback, either as a score, toenable players to monitor their progress toward the goal ( Clark et al., 2016 ) DGBL demonstrates positive impacts on learning across diverse subjects and for various types of learners. Its motivational aspect significantly engages and captivates learners. Additionally, DGBL actively supports, reinforces, and expedites the learning process, contributing to the development of higher-order cognitive skills ( Hong et al., 2009 ). “The game playing process therefore supports the learning process by allowing players to acquire learning experiences in games, encouraging interactions between learners and the game system, and situating learners in complex learning environments” ( Huang, 2011 , p. 694). Twigg (2011) emphasized the essential integration of technology into mathematics curriculum, asserting its necessity for student learning in contemporary society. Accordingly, the utilization of interactive software and computers emerges as crucial tools in facilitating math learning through practical engagement. Ferguson (2014) found that DGBL can offer students the opportunity to enhance their current knowledge when teachers provide the right DGBL environment relevant to the curriculum being learned. Hung et al. (2014) stated that supplying practice opportunities along with immediate feedback through the use of computer and information technologies proves to be effective in encouraging students to enhance their understanding of mathematics.

Teed (2012) asserts that DGBL or GBL unfolds within a virtual environment enriched with fantasy elements, involving participants in educational activities through the utilization of technological tools like computers. DGBL specifically employs digital games to instigate competition, captivate learners, and provide challenges, ultimately serving as a motivational and engaging medium for learning.

Trybus (2015) claims that GBL has many advantages. It offers cost-effectiveness, minimal physical risk or liability to learners, standardized assessments for facilitating student-to-student comparisons, high levels of engagement, a learning pace customized to individual student needs, immediate feedback responses to errors, seamless transfer of learning to real-world scenarios, and an overall engaging experience for the learner.

Gillispie et al. (2010) observed that students exhibited an average increase of 17% in math achievement when 500 middle school students were examined regarding their achievement and attitudes while using problem-based digital games that incorporated concepts in prealgebra and algebra. The study found that students were not only receptive to repeating GBL missions but were also willing to engage in them to enhance their scores on the computer.

In a quantitative study ( Roschelle et al., 2010 ) the aim was to assess whether the utilization of computer software led to increased student engagement in mathematics class and enhanced learning for fourth-grade students. The results indicated that students in the experimental group, those exposed to the computer software, achieved higher scores on the post-test compared to students in the control group. In a mixed-methods study, Sardone and Devlin-Scherer (2010) involving 25 undergraduate students in teacher education to identify twenty-first-century skills utilized in educational games. The participants evaluated 50 games based on specific criteria such as motivation, critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, and communication. The findings revealed that digital games inherently incorporate many of these twenty-first-century skills. Ke (2008) identified that game design plays a crucial role in shaping students' interaction with the game.

In their meta-analysis, Li and Ma (2010) explored the impact of computer technology on the learning of mathematics in kindergarten through 12th grade students. Their findings revealed a generally positive correlation between students' academic achievement and the utilization of GBL, particularly among special needs students, elementary students, and those in a constructivism classroom setting.

Several studies have examined the effects of GBL teaching method on students' achievements, emphasizing the significance of its effects on the development of students' affective domain, which is closely linked to the subject and its instruction. A systematic review by Divjak and Tomic (2011) of 27 studies identified from the years 1995 to 2010, focusing on game-based learning (GBL) in mathematics education. Their findings indicated that math learning games not only facilitated the achievement of specific learning objectives but also enhanced students' motivation and fostered positive attitudes toward learning mathematics.

In a one-shot case study ( Khan and Chishti, 2011 ) the objective was to examine the impact of students' active participation on math achievement. Employing a posttest-only design, the study revealed a significant correlation, indicating that students' active engagement in math class had a considerable influence on their math achievement. In his study Ferguson (2014) presented statistical significance for the use of traditional mathematics teaching methods over the use of DGBL in combination with traditional mathematics teaching methods.

Wouters et al. (2013) found that serious games were more effective than conventional instruction in terms of learning and retention, but found no evidence that they were more motivating.

Clark et al. (2016) suggests that game environments support overall improvements in intrapersonal learning outcomes compared to non-game educational environments, and that game designers and educational researchers should collaborate on designs to keep game graphics, environments, and narratives optimally aligned with assessed learning objectives. In an action research study ( White and McCoy, 2019 ) which explored game-based learning as fifth grade mathematics students utilizing game-based lessons, results revealed that student attitudes improved both toward the lessons and toward math in general. Indriani et al. (2019) aimed to describe the quality of problem based learning assisted by Monopoly games on students critical thinking skill for seventh grade students shows that implementation PBL assisted by Monopoly game improve the students' mathematical critical thinking skills.

The results of a systematic review ( Vankúš, 2021 ) with the use of 57 journals, indicate that 54% of the articles consider the affective domain in the measurement of the effects of game-based learning in mathematics education. These articles report mostly (84%) the positive influences of game-based learning on students' motivation, engagement, attitudes, enjoyment, and state of flow.

Manzano-León et al. (2021) in their systematic review in three multidisciplinary databases, on quantitative experimental studies that explore the impact of educational gamification on student motivation and academic performance in the last 5 years (40 studies), most of them report gamification as a valid learning strategy and the results support the conclusion that educational games have a potential impact on the academic performance, commitment, and motivation of students.

Erşen and Ergül (2022) analyzed 80 research studies conducted between 2017 and 2021 on games and mathematical teaching using qualitative methods. As a result, studies aimed at determining effect gained importance, and in the methodological context, quantitative studies were frequently preferred and experimental designs were used accordingly. It was also found that secondary school students were preferred as participants, that the most common type of game used was digital computer games, that the games were mostly associated with the learning area of “numbers and operations,” and that the research studies had mostly positive results for the use of games in mathematics education.

According to Pan et al. (2022) , in the recent decade, over 20 major literature reviews have explored the effects of learning games on students' performances, only six of these reviews focused on mathematical education. Mathematics educators generally agree that teaching and learning mathematics requires different skills compared to other subject matters. As such, games designed and employed for mathematics education can differ from those for other subject matters.

In a quantitative meta-analysis review of 24 studies, Tokac et al. (2019) investigated the effects of learning video games on mathematics achievement of PreK-12th grade students compared to traditional classroom methods. Results showed heterogeneity among effect sizes, both in magnitude and direction and suggested that mathematics video games contributed to higher learning gains as compared to traditional instructional methods.

Kailani et al. (2019) in a sistematic review of the literature found that in 12 out of the 14 studies had participants from the age group of 6–14, while two studies had a sample population of undergraduate students between the ages of 17–20. The focus of research on games is mainly in the early years of primary school, as games are rarely used in secondary school mathematics and with university students.

3 Research methodology

Our aim is to investigate whether non-digital games vs. digital games yield different results. Our research was based on three mathematical games. Random sampling was used: a group of students used non-digital (card-based) games, the other group used a DGBL test on computers in the informatics lab. All participants worked an hour and were supervised during the test by us. Participation in the experiment was voluntary. For the elementary school students, the teacher requested parental consent, and all of them agreed.

3.1 Participants

The data was collected in 2022 and 103 individuals, 9–11-year-old elementary school students participated from three schools in Western Region of Romania. Distribution of elementary students according to methods: 49 students (47.57%) used DGBL and 54 (52.42%) used non-digital games.

3.2 Instrument

In the literature we found that majority of teachers prefer arithmetic operations with numbers focused games in their classes. Therefore, we wanted to choose a less used area (e.g., measurement and logic).

The games designed by us could be classified to different mathematical content areas: 1st problem: focuses on numbers, logic, strategy; 2nd problem: geometry, strategy, and measurement, 3rd problem: propositional logic and reasoning.

The universal online platform that was used for the DGBL test was created within JavaScript, PHP, HTML, and CSS, which made screenshots of the final solutions. As non-digital games we used different paper cards. For assessment we analyzed the screenshots. The maximum points the participants could reach was 100 for each problem. Once students clicked the “Completed” button, the solution was saved in the database as screenshots. Participants also had the option to use the “Start “gain” button.

Our research tool included the following tasks:

1. The hexagon problem ( Figure 1 ). Place the small hexagons into the large shape so that adjacent triangles contain the same number (triangles are considered adjacent if they share a side). The hexagons cannot be rotated ( Marchis, 2013 , p. 64).

2. The cake problem ( Figure 2 ). The figure represents a lattice cake consisting of 20 equal- size squares. Five friends wish to share the cake in such manner that each of them gets a differently shaped four-square piece. Could you help them out? ( Matlap, 2018a , p. 308).

3. The house problem ( Figure 3 ). There are five houses in five different colors. Each house is inhabited by a person of a different nationality. Each owner prefers a certain beverage, has a different hobby and keeps a certain pet. No owner drinks the same beverage, has the same pet, or has the same hobby as their neighbor. What we know is:

1. The British lives in a red house.

2. The Swedish has a dog.

3. The Danish drinks tea.

4. The German plays the piano.

5. The Norwegian lives in the first house.

6. The green house's owner drinks coffee.

7. The owner who plays golf likes juice.

8. The owner of the yellow house plays football in his free time.

9. The owner who dances has a parrot.

10. The man who lives in the middle house drinks tea.

11. The owner who plays board games lives next to the one that has a cat.

12. The man who has a horse, lives next to the one who plays football.

13. The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.

14. The owner who plays board games is the neighbor of the one who drinks water.

15. The green house is next to the white house, on the left.

Figure 1 . The hexagon problem.

Figure 2 . The correct solution of the cake problem ( Matlap, 2018b , p. 384).

Figure 3 . The solution for the house problem.

Who owns the fish? ( Székely, 2012 , p. 53). The problems and their solutions can be found in the Supplementary file .

3.3 Hypotheses

The research questions of the study is: whether non-digital games vs. digital games are different? The assigned null hypothesis was as follows: H0: There will be no statistically significant difference in student achievement between students assessed with non-digital games and students assessed with digital games.

4.1 Results of the first problem

The first task was to arrange seven hexagon-shaped pieces in accordance with specific rules. Various strategies can be employed to solve this problem; participants may attempt to locate the middle piece, initiate the arrangement from the sides, or employ trial-and-error methods. Despite placing significant emphasis on carefully reading and following the rules, many students, including undergraduates, failed to adhere to the instructions (e.g., they want to rotate pieces).

Majority of participants, 61 individuals (59.22%), successfully solved the problem, while 42 participants (40.77%) did not.

Among the elementary school students who worked with cards (54 students), 18 students (33.33%) successfully solved the problem, while two-thirds (36 students, 66.66%), were unsuccessful. On the other hand, of the elementary school students engaged in DGBL, a substantial majority (43 students, 87.76%), solved the problem, only six students (12.24%) failed. There was a significant difference in achievement between digital games and cards for elementary school students, as indicated by the statistical analysis [ t (103) = 6.67, p < 0.05].

The Table 1 shows the results.

Table 1 . Results of the first problem.

4.2 Results of the second problem

The second problem serves as a prime example of manipulating plane shapes, with only one correct solution. Nearly all participants correctly interpreted the problem, but the challenge lay in finding the perfect solution. The task required participants to put five different shapes into the grid, essentially cutting the “cake” into five pieces. Consequently, the maximum score was 5, which was transformed into a percentage. For instance, achieving 5/5 corresponded to 100%, 4/5 to 80%, and so forth. The detailed results are presented in Table 2 , revealing that the majority (76 students, 73.78%) achieved scores between 60 and 80%.

Table 2 . Results of the second problem.

Table 2 also indicates that perfect results were attained by six elementary students: five working with non- digital games (9.25%) and one student with DGBL (2.04%). In comparison of the averages presented in Table 2 , with F -tests and t -tests applied, the results achieved by the two groups of elementary school students are significantly different: DGBL solvers outperformed non-digital solvers, as indicated by t (103) = 2.08, p < 0.05.

4.3 Results of the third problem

The final task involved a logic puzzle that measured propositional logic thinking. There are five houses of different colors next to each other and houses have to arranged in a particular order. Only two participants (1.94%) successfully solved the problem, while 6 (5.82%) either failed or gave up. The remaining students demonstrated varying degrees of success in solving the problem. Some students who use non-digital game, employed interesting problem-solving methods, such as placing cards in a chart, while others used the floor space, stating the need for more room to process the task.

Table 3 provides detailed data on the results obtained by the groups of participants, revealing that 89.32% of them (92 students) achieved < 50%.

Table 3 . Results of the third problem.

5 Discussion

In our experiment two different groups was tested: a group of students used non-digital (card-based) games, the other group used a DGBL test. The large scale quantitative studies involving non-digital games are comparatively rare, in our case majority, 54 participants use non-digital games (52.42% of students involved).

The games designed by us could be classified to different content areas: numbers, geometry, strategy and measurement, propositional logic, and reasoning. These tasks are problem-type, hence more challenging, from a topic that is encountered less frequently and can be solved by elementary school students. However, when designing the games, it was possible to represent them in a plane, which is why we chose these.

The hypothesis: there will be no statistically significant difference in student achievement between students assessed with non-digital games and students assessed with digital games.

In case of the first problem: elementary school students demonstrated better results with DGBL, 43 students (87.76%) solved the problem. With non-digital games 18 elementary students (33.33%) solved the problem. There is a significant difference in achievement between digital and non-digital games for elementary school students, as indicated by the statistical analysis [ t (103) = 6.67, p < 0.05]. In their case, for this problem the digital game resulted in better solutions.

In case of the second problem, perfect results were attained by six elementary students: five working with non- digital games (9.25%) and one student with DGBL (2.04%). The average of elementary students who worked with non-digital games was 60.74, while for those who used digital games, the average was 68.98. There is a significant difference in the averages of the two groups of elementary school students: DGBL solvers outperformed non-digital solvers. In their case, the DGBL was the best game to resolve the problem.

In case of the third problem: two participants (1.94%) solved the problem, 89.32% (92 students) achieved < 50%, while 6 (5.82%) either failed or gave up. The average of elementary students who worked with non-digital games was 32.15, while for those who used digital games, the average was 25.96. F -tests and t -tests were conducted on the achievements of the two groups of elementary students, revealing no significant difference: t (103) = 1.62, p < 0.05 between their achievements.

When solving the third problem, we observed the following about the way of thinking: young schoolchildren treated logical statements more rigidly (they considered them in sequence, one after the other, if they encountered an obstacle, they did not overturn their previous assumptions). We observed that young schoolchildren were not flexible; they thought strictly in sequence, not preferring any particular statements, and did not pair statements. Some students who use non-digital game, employed interesting problem-solving methods.

Consequently, it can be concluded that the hypothesis is not confirmed for the 1st and 2nd problem, in case of elementary students for these problems the digital games were more effective. In case of the 3rd problem the null hypothesis was confirmed, is no statistically significant difference in student achievement between students assessed with non-digital games and students assessed with digital games.

During the experiment, we noticed that most of the participants enjoyed working both with the cards and with the digital games. The games were useful in engaging students in solving tasks. We conclude that can be a difference between the performance of students using non-digital games vs. students assessed digital games, there are tasks for which digital games help the learner, enabling them to solve them more successfully. Our results indicate that while students enjoyed themselves and found the task-solving enjoyable during both types of game-based learning, the use of non-digital games vs. digital games can sometimes lead to different outcomes.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval was not required for the study involving humans in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in the study was not required from the participants and/or their legal guardians/next of kin in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author contributions

ED: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

The content of this manuscript has been presented in part at the 8th International Scientific Colloquium Mathematics and Children, Osijek, Croatia, May 28–29, 2021 ( Debrenti and Back, 2022 ). Visualization in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, 8th International Scientific Colloquium Mathematics and Children 2021, Osijek, Croatia, 28–29 May . The author would like to thank her student, Annamaria Back, who helped her in developing the research instrument and for her valuable support in the research.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2024.1331312/full#supplementary-material

Bordás, A. (2016). A szituatív tanulás szerepe partiumi magyar pedagógusok szakmai fejlődésében. [The role of situational learning in the professional development of Hungarian teachers in Partium]. REGIO 24, 211–239. doi: 10.17355/rkkpt.v24i4.143

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., and Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 79–122. doi: 10.3102/0034654315582065

Clements, D. H. (1989). Computers in Elementary Mathematics Education . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Google Scholar

Clements, D. H. (1999). “Concrete” manipulatives, concrete ideas. Contempor. Iss. Early Childh . 1:45. doi: 10.2304/ciec.2000.1.1.7

Debrenti, E., and Back, A. (2022). “Visualization in the teaching and learning of mathematics,” in Advances in Research on Teaching Mathematics , eds Z. Kolar-Begovic, R. Kolar-Super, and A. Katalenic (Zagreb), 72–89.

Di Sia, P. (2017). Learning mathematics through games in primary school: an applicative path. Edutainment 1, 127–132. doi: 10.15503/edut.2016.1.127.133

Dienes, Z. P. (2015). Építsük fel a matematikát! (Budapest: Gondolat), 47.

Divjak, B., and Tomic, D. (2011). The impact of game-based learning on the achievement of learning goals and motivation for learning mathematics-literature review. J. Inform. Org. Sci . 35, 15–30.

Erşen, Z. B., and Ergül, E. (2022). Trends of game-based learning in mathematics education: a systematic review. Int. J. Contempor. Educ. Res. 9, 603–623. doi: 10.33200/ijcer.1109501

Ferguson, T. (2014). Mathematics Achievement with Digital Game-Based Learning in High School Algebra 1 Classes. Doctoral Dissertations and Projects , 794. Available online at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/794 (accessed January 14, 2024).

Gillispie, L., Martin, F., and Parker, M. A. (2010). Effects of a 3-D video game on middle school student achievement and attitude in mathematics. Electr. J. Math. Technol . 4, 68–79.

Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., Wilson, A., and Razak, A. (2016). A systematic literature review of games-based learning empirical evidence in primary education. Comput. Educ . 102, 202–223. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.001

Hong, J. C., Cheng, C. L., Hwang, M. Y., Lee, C. K., and Change, H. Y. (2009). Assessing the educational values of digital games. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 25, 423–437. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00319.x

Huang, W. H. (2011). Evaluating learners' motivational and cognitive processing in an online game-based learning environment. Comput. Hum. Behav . 27, 694–704. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.021

Huang, W. H., Huang, W. Y., and Tschopp, J. (2010). Sustaining iterative game playing processes in DGBL: the relationship between motivational processing and outcome processing. Comput. Educ . 55, 789–797. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.011

Hung, C. M., Huang, I., and Hwang, G. J. (2014). Effects of digital game-based learning on students' self-efficacy, motivation, anxiety, and achievements in learning mathematics. J. Comput. Educ . 1, 151–166. doi: 10.1007/s40692-014-0008-8

Hussein, M. H., Ow, S. H., Elaish, M. M., and Jensen, E. O. (2022). Digital game-based learning in K-12 mathematics education: a systematic literature review. Educ. Inform. Technol . 27, 2859–2891. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10721-x

Indriani, M. N., Isnarto, I., and Mariani, S. (2019). The implementation of PBL (problem based learning) model assisted by monopoly game media in improving critical thinking ability and self confidence. J. Prim. Educ . 8, 200–208. doi: 10.15294/jpe.v8i2.25991

Kailani, S., Newton, R., and Pedersen, S. (2019). “Game-based learning and problem-solving skills: a systematic review of the literature,” in Conference Paper: EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2019 . Amsterdam.

Kamii, C. K. (1989). Young Children Continue to Reinvent Arithmetic: 2nd Grade. Implications of Piaget's Theory . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Ke, F. (2008). A case study of computer gaming for math: engaged learning from gameplay? Comput. Educ . 51, 1609–1620. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.03.003

Khan, S. B., and Chishti, S. H. (2011). Learners' errors: supporting learners for participating in mathematics classroom. Int. J. Acad. Res . 3, 656–659.

Li, Q., and Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students' mathematics learning. Educ. Psychol. Rev . 22, 215–243. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9125-8

Manzano-León, A., Camacho-Lazarraga, P., Guerrero, M. A., Guerrero-Puerta, L., Aguilar-Parra, J. M., Trigueros, R., et al. (2021). Between level up and game over: a systematic literature review of gamification in education. Sustainability 13:2247. doi: 10.3390/su13042247

Marchis, J. (2013). Matematika óvó- és tanítóképzős hallgatóknak [Mathematics for Kindergarten- and Elementary School Teachers] . Kolozsvár: Galaxia Guttenberg Press.

Matlap (2018a). XXII (8), Radó Ferenc Matematikamuvelo Társaság (Kolozsvár: Matlap), 308.

Matlap (2018b). XXII (10), Radó Ferenc Matematikamuvelo Társaság (Kolozsvár: Matlap), 384.

Moyer, P. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educ. Stud. Math . 47, 175–197. doi: 10.1023/A:1014596316942

Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Salkind, G., and Bolyard, J. J. (2008). Virtual manipulatives used by K-8 teachers for mathematics instruction: considering mathematical, cognitive, and pedagogical fidelity. Contempor. Iss. Technol. Teach. Educ . 8, 202–218.

Neville, D. O., Shelton, B. E., and McInnis, B. (2009). Cybertext redux: using digital game-based learning to teach L2 vocabulary, reading, and culture. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn . 22, 409–424. doi: 10.1080/09588220903345168

Öztop, F. (2022). Effectiveness of using digital and non-digital games in primary mathematics teaching: a meta-analysis study. Int. Prim. Educ. Res. J . 6, 65–80. doi: 10.31235/osf.io/bc7er

Pan, Y., Ke, F., and Xu, X. (2022). A systematic review of the role of learning games in fostering mathematics education in K-12 settings. Educ. Res. Rev . 36:100448. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100448

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On The Horizon 9, 1–6. doi: 10.1108/10748120110424816

Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R., Estrella, G., Penuel, B., Nussbaum, M., et al. (2010). Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld technology: impact on students' mathematics learning. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev . 58, 399–419. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9142-9

Rosli, R., Goldsby, D., and Capraro, M. M. (2015). Using manipulatives in solving and posing mathematical problems. Creat. Educ . 6, 1718–1725. doi: 10.4236/ce.2015.616173

Russo, J., Bragg, L., and Russo, T. (2021). How primary teachers use games to support their teaching of mathematics. Int. Electr. J. Element. Educ . 13, 407–419. doi: 10.26822/iejee.2021.200

Russo, J., Bragg, L., Russo, T., and Minas, M. (2023). Identifying the characteristics of non-digital mathematical games most valued by educators. Educ. Sci . 13:30. doi: 10.3390/educsci13010030

Russo, J., and Russo, T. (2018). “What makes a 'good' mathematical game?,” in Proceedings of the 55th annual conference of the Mathematics Association of Victoria . Bundoora; Melbourne.

Russo, J., and Russo, T. (2020). Transforming mathematical games into investigations. Austr. Prim. Math. Classr . 25, 14–19. doi: 10.3316/aeipt.229363

Sardone, N. B., and Devlin-Scherer, R. (2010). Teacher candidate responses to digital games: 21st-century skills development. J. Res. Technol. Educ . 42, 409–425. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2010.10782558

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2020). Mathematical practices, in theory and practice. ZDM Math. Educ. 52, 1163–1175. doi: 10.1007/s11858-020-01162-w

Steen, K., Brooks, D., and Lyon, T. (2006). The impact of virtual manipulatives on first grade geometry instruction and learning. J. Comput. Math. Sci. Teach . 25, 373–391.

Suh, J., Moyer, P. S., and Heo, H. J. (2005). Examining technology uses in the classroom: developing fraction sense using virtual manipulative concept tutorials. J. Interact. Onl. Learn . 3, 1–20.

Székely, Z. (2012). Eszezo, agypörgeto feladványok [Mind Games -Brain Teasers] (Déva: Corvin Kiadó), 53.

Teed, R. (2012). Game-Based Learning . Carleton College. Available online at: http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/games/index.html (accessed January 18, 2024).

Tokac, U., Novak, E., and Thompson, C. G. (2019), Effects of game-based learning on students' mathematics achievement: a meta-analysis. J. Comput. Assist. Learn . 2019, 1–14. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12347

Trybus, J. (2015). Game-Based Learning: What It Is, Why It Works, and Where It's Going (Miami: New Media Institute). Available online at: https://www.google.com/search?client=safariandrls=enandq=Retrieved+from+http%3A%2F%2F%2F+game-based-learning–what-it-is-why-it-works-and-where-its-going.html&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 (accessed January 24, 2024).

Twigg, C. A. (2011). The Math Emporium: Higher Education's Silver Bullet. Change Magazine Higher Learn. 43, 25–34.

Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: it's not just the digital natives who are restless. Educause Rev . 41, 16–30.

Vankúš, P. (2021). Influence of game-based learning in mathematics education on students' affective domain: a systematic review. Mathematics 9:986. doi: 10.3390/math9090986

White, K., and McCoy, L. P. (2019). Effects of game-based learning on attitude and achievement in elementary mathematics. Networks 21, 1–20. doi: 10.4148/2470-6353.1259

Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., and van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. J. Educ. Psychol . 105, 249–265. doi: 10.1037/a0031311

Yung, H. I., and Paas, F. (2015). Effects of computer-based visual representation on mathematics learning and cognitive load. Educ. Technol. Soc . 18, 70–77.

Keywords: game-based learning, digital game-based learning, digital games, non-digital games, STEM, manipulatives, concrete, virtual

Citation: Debrenti E (2024) Game-Based Learning experiences in primary mathematics education. Front. Educ. 9:1331312. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1331312

Received: 31 October 2023; Accepted: 26 February 2024; Published: 08 March 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Debrenti. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Edith Debrenti, debrenti.edit@partium.ro

This article is part of the Research Topic

STEM: Innovation on Teaching and Learning

Enter your search term

*Limited to most recent 250 articles Use advanced search to set an earlier date range

IMAGES

EduGorilla
Digital Learning Environment Toolkit Infographic
How are our students using digital tools for learning?
5 Ways Technology Is Impacting Modern Education
Classroom Design for an Optimized Learning Space
Virtual Reality learning: the ‘go-to’ immersive learning technology

VIDEO

The use of digital educational technologies and online applications
students class activity @MUZAFFARPURJANTAKIAWAAZ @school @cbse @VidyaWiseofficial @CBSEGuidance
Why Solar Panels on ENTIRE Sahara Desert a bad idea🤯 #shorts
6th Std, Science, Ch 4, Disaster Management, English medium, Maharashtra Board, updated syllabus
Properties of Educational Media
Comprehensive digital ecosystem

COMMENTS

What you need to know about digital learning and ...
Digital technology has become a social necessity to ensure education as a basic human right, especially in a world experiencing more frequent crises and conflicts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, countries without sufficient ICT infrastructure and well-resourced digital learning systems suffered the greatest education disruptions and learning losses.
School Leader Digital Learning Guide
Digital learning is defined as "any instructional practice that effectively uses technology to strengthen a student's learning experience and encompasses a wide spectrum of tools and practices." 1. This "School Leader Digital Learning Guide" is a resource to help you consider, plan, fund, implement, maintain, and adapt learning ...
Teacher Digital Learning Guide
Self-assess readiness for teaching in a digital learning environment. An example for self-evaluation includes this Teacher Readiness rubric or, for a more comprehensive resource, the National Standards for Quality Online Teaching is a benchmark for quality online instruction. Consider these six promising practices for remote digital environments.
4. Improving student engagement in and with digital learning
Designing digital learning experiences that promote both engagement and deep conceptual learning is a challenging task because it requires bridging the gap between learning and liking, which are often at odds. ... Gobert, Baker and Wixon (2015[82]) developed an AAA-based measure for Inq-ITS, a computer-based learning environment with ...
What is a DLE?
Rather, our DLE is a federated, online environment that includes services and tools purposefully brought together to support the needs of teaching and learning in all modes (i.e., face-to-face, blended/hybrid, and fully-online). Our DLE challenges the traditional role of a Learning Management System (LMS) as "the" platform for managing ...
Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review
In the upcoming days, these technologies will successfully be implemented in education to enhance the students' digital learning environment and performance. Modern technologies have been instrumental in complicated data analysis and management to make long-term decisions in areas such as climate change, air and water security, biodiversity ...
Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and
The rapidly improving capabilities of Artificial Intelligence (AI) also bring new focus to the role of education policy in preparing learners for an AI-driven future. This report seeks to guide governments in shaping digital education. Offering a range of perspectives for governments and education stakeholders, it analyses enabling factors that ...
Digital Transformation in Higher Education: 7 Areas for Enhancing
Digital Learning Technologies. Dx is grounded in digital technologies, which play a crucial role in digital teaching and learning. ... In a digital learning environment, students might be separated by distance, and they need to be able to reach out when they need help. Assistance could be provided by a technology help desk or an instructor.
Digital Pedagogy: Opportunities and Challenges of Learning in the
3.1 Digital Competencies. In this study, we consider the digital learning environment as a set of several subsystems: instrumental, information and technology, methodological, organizational and functional, providing digital learning infrastructure and contributing to the optimization of the educational process (Fig. 1).CLC promotes online and blended or hybrid learning.
The opportunities and challenges of digital learning
Finally, even with the best implementation, digital learning is likely to benefit students differently depending on their personal circumstances and those of their school. For instance, non-native ...
Learning in digital environments: a model for cross-cultural alignment
In this article, we propose digital learning as an educational experience, where in addition to the digital environment serving as a bridge across cultures and connecting all partners, it might create a more efficient environment for cross-cultural alignment. A conceptual model was used to ensure the success and sustainability of such projects.
What is a Digital Learning Environment (DLE)?
The digital learning environment (DLE) includes tools, software, applications, websites and platforms that are used to support educator instruction, collaboration, communication and learning. The DLE affords many functions and features to tailor the learning environment to the needs of the educators. It may include curation tools, social media networks, learning management systems, filtering ...
Digital learning ecosystem at educational institutions: A content
This revolution in digital learning raised the effectiveness of educational organizations by improving students' learning performance and faculty members' capacity and enhancing the quality of teaching, administration, and the working environment (Abdulrahim & Mabrouk, Citation 2020).
Digital learning environments, the science of learning and the
The relationship between teachers and their students is being increasingly mediated via educational technologies. This increased use of technologies has implications for all levels of education ...
11 Digital Education Tools For Teachers And Students
Here we present 11 of the most popular. 1. Edmodo. Edmodo is an educational tool that connects teachers and students, and is assimilated into a social network. In this one, teachers can create online collaborative groups, administer and provide educational materials, measure student performance, and communicate with parents, among other functions.
Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing
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 ...
Creation and Development of the Digital Learning Environment in
The modern digital learning environment of educational institutions should be flexible and personalized, meet the needs, requirements and wishes of teachers, students and the educational institution. Education with the use of digital tools has become relevant today in the quarantine of COVID-19. The educational process takes place regardless of ...
Digital Learning Environment
Adaptive help systems e.g. Using weak-AI methods, learner data analysis is used to tailor the digital learning environment to users' needs and learning requirements. So, in a generic approach, consider the components of a digital learning environment that require adaptive feedback, help, and task selection.
How teachers manage their classroom in the digital learning environment
1. Introduction. Technology-enhanced learning environment yielded benefits in changing pedagogical styles and applying new teaching strategies, organizing and managing the learning and accessing the useful information sources (Casanova et al., 2020; Fayez et al., 2021; Mei and May, 2018).With the development of modern technology, it is useful to create a smart learning environment that ...
Digital Educational Environment of a Modern University: Theory
Digital educational environment: using the power of self-competence education to improve the effectiveness of bachelor's degree in management and administration. In I Conference on professional development of specialists in the digitized society: current trends (PDSDig-2020). Scientific and practical conference with international ...
Learning behavior, digital platforms for learning and its impact on
Web conferencing in education helps both educators and students achieve their critical goals of creating the ideal learning environment for kids and balancing life and teaching tasks for educators. ... Rocha A. (2018). " Digital learning in an open education platform for higher education students**," in Proceedings of the EDULEARN18 ...
The Impact of Remote Learning on College Student Engagement and
As the landscape of higher education continues to evolve, the focus must remain on enhancing digital literacy, expanding support systems, and fostering a sense of community among remote learners. Only then can the full potential of remote learning be realized, ensuring that students not only adapt but thrive in this new academic environment.
Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing
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 ...
Tulsa-based digital learning platform improves academic outcomes nationwide
A Tulsa based digital learning platform has gone national.With over 6 million sign ups and 10 thousand more joining per day, parents and teachers are seeing the
One in six school-aged children experiences cyberbullying, finds new
Notably, this reflects an increase from 2018, with boys up from 11% and girls from 7%. Being cyberbullied. 15% of adolescents (around 1 in 6) have experienced cyberbullying, with the rates closely aligned between boys (15%) and girls (16%). This represents an increase from 2018, from 12% to 15% for boys and 13% to 16% for girls.
Game-Based Learning experiences in primary mathematics education
Using game-based learning (GBL), especially digital game-based learning (DGBL), as a teaching and learning environment can be a pedagogical resource and a good strategy in the classroom to support mathematical learning. Effective manipulatives and games play a crucial role in promoting mathematical understanding. They support students in building, reinforcing and connecting varied ...
Global Digital Education Market Set to Achieve Significant Growth
The Global Digital Education Market estimated at USD 14.88 Billion in 2023, is expected to reach USD 22.49 Billion by 2028 growing at a CAGR of 8.61%. Key Market Dynamics Drivers
Coal miner uplifts schools to improve learning environment
Diversified miner Glencore's South African coal mining division demonstrated its commitment to helping progress school learners through donations of key digital equipment. These donations ...

What you need to know about digital learning and transformation of education

What is UNESCO’s approach to this work?

What are Open Educational Resources?

What is the role of Artificial Intelligence in education and how does UNESCO support it?

How does UNESCO work to ensure women and girls are better represented in digital disciplines?

Why is technology so important in times of crises like COVID-19?

Related items

What is a DLE?

The opportunities and challenges of digital learning

What is a Digital Learning Environment (DLE)?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Cite this article

Similar content being viewed by others

A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning

Inclusive education: Developments and challenges in South Africa

Key factors in digital literacy in learning and education: a systematic literature review using text mining

1 Introduction

2 Methodology

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

3.2 Impacts of digital technologies on equality, inclusion and social integration

3.3 Impacts of digital technologies on teachers’ professional and teaching practices

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

3.5 Factors that affect the integration of digital technologies

3.5.1 Digital competencies

3.5.2 Teachers’ personal characteristics, training approaches, and professional development

3.5.3 School leadership and management

3.5.4 Connectivity, infrastructure, and government and other support

3.5.5 Administration and digital data management

3.5.6 Students’ socioeconomic background and family support

3.5.7 Schools’ socioeconomic context and emergency situations

4 Discussion

5 Conclusions

6 Study limitations and future directions

Data availability statement

Acknowledgements

Author information

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Digital Learning Environment

Version [ edit | edit source ]

Target Group [ edit | edit source ]

Learner Data [ edit | edit source ]

Learning Tasks [ edit | edit source ]

Digital contextualization of extracurricular learning places [ edit | edit source ]

Adaptive help systems and individualized task generation [ edit | edit source ]

Privacy [ edit | edit source ]

help systems [ edit | edit source ]

Dynamic Document Generation [ edit | edit source ]

Crowd Sourcing and Citizen Sciences [ edit | edit source ]

Client-side / server-side learner profiles: [ edit | edit source ]

Tasks [ edit | edit source ]

See also [ edit | edit source ]

References [ edit | edit source ]

Navigation menu

The Impact of Remote Learning on College Student Engagement and Academic Performance

Understanding Remote Learning’s Reach

Engagement in the Digital Classroom

Academic Performance: A New Yardstick

The Double-Edged Sword of Flexibility

Support Systems and Resources

Author Profile

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

Ourania Miliou

Sara Villagrá Sobrino

Alejandra Martínez Monés

Introduction

Methodology

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

Impacts of digital technologies on equality, inclusion and social integration

Impacts of digital technologies on teachers’ professional and teaching practices

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

Factors that affect the integration of digital technologies

Digital competencies

Teachers’ personal characteristics, training approaches, and professional development

School leadership and management

Connectivity, infrastructure, and government and other support