how is technology solving problems in education

Image credit: Kristina Closs

Technology might be making education worse

Listen to the essay, as read by Antero Garcia, associate professor in the Graduate School of Education.

As a professor of education and a former public school teacher, I’ve seen digital tools change lives in schools.

I’ve documented the ways mobile technology like phones can transform student engagement in my own classroom.

I’ve explored how digital tools might network powerful civic learning and dialogue for classrooms across the country – elements of education that are crucial for sustaining our democracy today.

And, like everyone, I’ve witnessed digital technologies make schooling safer in the midst of a global pandemic. Zoom and Google Classroom, for instance, allowed many students to attend classrooms virtually during a period when it was not feasible to meet in person.

So I want to tell you that I think technologies are changing education for the better and that we need to invest more in them – but I just can’t.

Given the substantial amount of scholarly time I’ve invested in documenting the life-changing possibilities of digital technologies, it gives me no pleasure to suggest that these tools might be slowly poisoning us. Despite their purported and transformational value, I’ve been wondering if our investment in educational technology might in fact be making our schools worse.

Let me explain.

When I was a classroom teacher, I loved relying on the latest tools to create impressive and immersive experiences for my students. We would utilize technology to create class films, produce social media profiles for the Janie Crawfords, the Holden Caulfields, and other literary characters we studied, and find playful ways to digitally share our understanding of the ideas we studied in our classrooms.

As a teacher, technology was a way to build on students’ interests in pop culture and the world around them. This was exciting to me.

But I’ve continued to understand that the aspects of technology I loved weren’t actually about technology at all – they were about creating authentic learning experiences with young people. At the heart of these digital explorations were my relationships with students and the trust we built together.

“Part of why I’ve grown so skeptical about this current digital revolution is because of how these tools reshape students’ bodies and their relation to the world around them.”

I do see promise in the suite of digital tools that are available in classrooms today. But my research focus on platforms – digital spaces like Amazon, Netflix, and Google that reshape how users interact in online environments – suggests that when we focus on the trees of individual tools, we ignore the larger forest of social and cognitive challenges.

Most people encounter platforms every day in their online social lives. From the few online retail stores where we buy groceries to the small handful of sites that stream our favorite shows and media content, platforms have narrowed how we use the internet today to a small collection of Silicon Valley behemoths. Our social media activities, too, are limited to one or two sites where we check on the updates, photos, and looped videos of friends and loved ones.

These platforms restrict our online and offline lives to a relatively small number of companies and spaces – we communicate with a finite set of tools and consume a set of media that is often algorithmically suggested. This centralization of internet – a trend decades in the making – makes me very uneasy.

From willfully hiding the negative effects of social media use for vulnerable populations to creating tools that reinforce racial bias, today’s platforms are causing harm and sowing disinformation for young people and adults alike. The deluge of difficult ethical and pedagogical questions around these tools are not being broached in any meaningful way in schools – even adults aren’t sure how to manage their online lives.

You might ask, “What does this have to do with education?” Platforms are also a large part of how modern schools operate. From classroom management software to attendance tracking to the online tools that allowed students to meet safely during the pandemic, platforms guide nearly every student interaction in schools today. But districts are utilizing these tools without considering the wider spectrum of changes that they have incurred alongside them.

Antero Garcia, associate professor of education (Image credit: Courtesy Antero Garcia)

For example, it might seem helpful for a school to use a management tool like Classroom Dojo (a digital platform that can offer parents ways to interact with and receive updates from their family’s teacher) or software that tracks student reading and development like Accelerated Reader for day-to-day needs. However, these tools limit what assessment looks like and penalize students based on flawed interpretations of learning.

Another problem with platforms is that they, by necessity, amass large swaths of data. Myriad forms of educational technology exist – from virtual reality headsets to e-readers to the small sensors on student ID cards that can track when students enter schools. And all of this student data is being funneled out of schools and into the virtual black boxes of company databases.

Part of why I’ve grown so skeptical about this current digital revolution is because of how these tools reshape students’ bodies and their relation to the world around them. Young people are not viewed as complete human beings but as boxes checked for attendance, for meeting academic progress metrics, or for confirming their location within a school building. Nearly every action that students perform in schools – whether it’s logging onto devices, accessing buildings, or sharing content through their private online lives – is noticed and recorded. Children in schools have become disembodied from their minds and their hearts. Thus, one of the greatest and implicit lessons that kids learn in schools today is that they must sacrifice their privacy in order to participate in conventional, civic society.

The pandemic has only made the situation worse. At its beginnings, some schools relied on software to track students’ eye movements, ostensibly ensuring that kids were paying attention to the tasks at hand. Similarly, many schools required students to keep their cameras on during class time for similar purposes. These might be seen as in the best interests of students and their academic growth, but such practices are part of a larger (and usually more invisible) process of normalizing surveillance in the lives of youth today.

I am not suggesting that we completely reject all of the tools at our disposal – but I am urging for more caution. Even the seemingly benign resources we might use in our classrooms today come with tradeoffs. Every Wi-Fi-connected, “smart” device utilized in schools is an investment in time, money, and expertise in technology over teachers and the teaching profession.

Our focus on fixing or saving schools via digital tools assumes that the benefits and convenience that these invisible platforms offer are worth it.

But my ongoing exploration of how platforms reduce students to quantifiable data suggests that we are removing the innovation and imagination of students and teachers in the process.

Antero Garcia is associate professor of education in the Graduate School of Education .

In Their Own Words is a collaboration between the Stanford Public Humanities Initiative  and Stanford University Communications.

If you’re a Stanford faculty member (in any discipline or school) who is interested in writing an essay for this series, please reach out to Natalie Jabbar at [email protected] .

Become an Insider

Sign up today to receive premium content.

How Technology Can Help Solve Education’s Stickiest Problems

As Editor in Chief, Ryan works on developing editorial strategy and is always on the lookout for new writing talent and sharing great stories with the IT world. In his spare time, Ryan enjoys spending time with his family, biking and obsessively following Iowa Hawkeye sports and Cubs baseball.

Before K–12 students even step onto school grounds, they are supported by an invisible matrix of technologies that make learning possible . As they navigate the school day, those technologies continue to work on their behalf to seamlessly usher them from one experience to the next. But take away one or more of these tools, and teachers, school resource officers and even administrators would have a more difficult time supporting the student population.

Click the banner to unlock complimentary resources from CDW for your modern K–12 classroom.

What are the tools that undergird essential systems inside and outside of the classroom? And how are schools using them to solve their stickiest problems ?

Check out the stories below from the Fall 2023 issue of the magazine. For a preview of what’s inside this issue, watch this short video with Taashi Rowe, managing editor for  EdTech: Focus on K–12 .

READ KEY PIECES FROM THIS ISSUE:

These K–12 Schools Are Using Asset-Tracking Technology To Save Money and Reduce Risk

From the Bus to the Wilderness: How Hyperconnected Schools Expand Learning Opportunities

K–12 Schools Share Their Journeys to Freedom, Connection With Wi-Fi 6

As School Safety Concerns Grow, What Role Can Modern Cameras Play?

How Schools Make Sure Dead Devices Don’t Tank Learning

• Digital Transformation

Related Articles

Unlock white papers, personalized recommendations and other premium content for an in-depth look at evolving IT

Copyright © 2024 CDW LLC 200 N. Milwaukee Avenue , Vernon Hills, IL 60061 Do Not Sell My Personal Information

REALIZING THE PROMISE:

Leading up to the 75th anniversary of the UN General Assembly, this “Realizing the promise: How can education technology improve learning for all?” publication kicks off the Center for Universal Education’s first playbook in a series to help improve education around the world.

It is intended as an evidence-based tool for ministries of education, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, to adopt and more successfully invest in education technology.

While there is no single education initiative that will achieve the same results everywhere—as school systems differ in learners and educators, as well as in the availability and quality of materials and technologies—an important first step is understanding how technology is used given specific local contexts and needs.

The surveys in this playbook are designed to be adapted to collect this information from educators, learners, and school leaders and guide decisionmakers in expanding the use of technology.  

Introduction

While technology has disrupted most sectors of the economy and changed how we communicate, access information, work, and even play, its impact on schools, teaching, and learning has been much more limited. We believe that this limited impact is primarily due to technology being been used to replace analog tools, without much consideration given to playing to technology’s comparative advantages. These comparative advantages, relative to traditional “chalk-and-talk” classroom instruction, include helping to scale up standardized instruction, facilitate differentiated instruction, expand opportunities for practice, and increase student engagement. When schools use technology to enhance the work of educators and to improve the quality and quantity of educational content, learners will thrive.

Further, COVID-19 has laid bare that, in today’s environment where pandemics and the effects of climate change are likely to occur, schools cannot always provide in-person education—making the case for investing in education technology.

Here we argue for a simple yet surprisingly rare approach to education technology that seeks to:

• Understand the needs, infrastructure, and capacity of a school system—the diagnosis;
• Survey the best available evidence on interventions that match those conditions—the evidence; and
• Closely monitor the results of innovations before they are scaled up—the prognosis.

RELATED CONTENT

Podcast: How education technology can improve learning for all students

To make ed tech work, set clear goals, review the evidence, and pilot before you scale

The framework.

Our approach builds on a simple yet intuitive theoretical framework created two decades ago by two of the most prominent education researchers in the United States, David K. Cohen and Deborah Loewenberg Ball. They argue that what matters most to improve learning is the interactions among educators and learners around educational materials. We believe that the failed school-improvement efforts in the U.S. that motivated Cohen and Ball’s framework resemble the ed-tech reforms in much of the developing world to date in the lack of clarity improving the interactions between educators, learners, and the educational material. We build on their framework by adding parents as key agents that mediate the relationships between learners and educators and the material (Figure 1).

Figure 1: The instructional core

Adapted from Cohen and Ball (1999)

As the figure above suggests, ed-tech interventions can affect the instructional core in a myriad of ways. Yet, just because technology can do something, it does not mean it should. School systems in developing countries differ along many dimensions and each system is likely to have different needs for ed-tech interventions, as well as different infrastructure and capacity to enact such interventions.

The diagnosis:

How can school systems assess their needs and preparedness.

A useful first step for any school system to determine whether it should invest in education technology is to diagnose its:

• Specific needs to improve student learning (e.g., raising the average level of achievement, remediating gaps among low performers, and challenging high performers to develop higher-order skills);
• Infrastructure to adopt technology-enabled solutions (e.g., electricity connection, availability of space and outlets, stock of computers, and Internet connectivity at school and at learners’ homes); and
• Capacity to integrate technology in the instructional process (e.g., learners’ and educators’ level of familiarity and comfort with hardware and software, their beliefs about the level of usefulness of technology for learning purposes, and their current uses of such technology).

Before engaging in any new data collection exercise, school systems should take full advantage of existing administrative data that could shed light on these three main questions. This could be in the form of internal evaluations but also international learner assessments, such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and/or the Progress in International Literacy Study (PIRLS), and the Teaching and Learning International Study (TALIS). But if school systems lack information on their preparedness for ed-tech reforms or if they seek to complement existing data with a richer set of indicators, we developed a set of surveys for learners, educators, and school leaders. Download the full report to see how we map out the main aspects covered by these surveys, in hopes of highlighting how they could be used to inform decisions around the adoption of ed-tech interventions.

The evidence:

How can school systems identify promising ed-tech interventions.

There is no single “ed-tech” initiative that will achieve the same results everywhere, simply because school systems differ in learners and educators, as well as in the availability and quality of materials and technologies. Instead, to realize the potential of education technology to accelerate student learning, decisionmakers should focus on four potential uses of technology that play to its comparative advantages and complement the work of educators to accelerate student learning (Figure 2). These comparative advantages include:

• Scaling up quality instruction, such as through prerecorded quality lessons.
• Facilitating differentiated instruction, through, for example, computer-adaptive learning and live one-on-one tutoring.
• Expanding opportunities to practice.
• Increasing learner engagement through videos and games.

Figure 2: Comparative advantages of technology

Here we review the evidence on ed-tech interventions from 37 studies in 20 countries*, organizing them by comparative advantage. It’s important to note that ours is not the only way to classify these interventions (e.g., video tutorials could be considered as a strategy to scale up instruction or increase learner engagement), but we believe it may be useful to highlight the needs that they could address and why technology is well positioned to do so.

When discussing specific studies, we report the magnitude of the effects of interventions using standard deviations (SDs). SDs are a widely used metric in research to express the effect of a program or policy with respect to a business-as-usual condition (e.g., test scores). There are several ways to make sense of them. One is to categorize the magnitude of the effects based on the results of impact evaluations. In developing countries, effects below 0.1 SDs are considered to be small, effects between 0.1 and 0.2 SDs are medium, and those above 0.2 SDs are large (for reviews that estimate the average effect of groups of interventions, called “meta analyses,” see e.g., Conn, 2017; Kremer, Brannen, & Glennerster, 2013; McEwan, 2014; Snilstveit et al., 2015; Evans & Yuan, 2020.)

*In surveying the evidence, we began by compiling studies from prior general and ed-tech specific evidence reviews that some of us have written and from ed-tech reviews conducted by others. Then, we tracked the studies cited by the ones we had previously read and reviewed those, as well. In identifying studies for inclusion, we focused on experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations of education technology interventions from pre-school to secondary school in low- and middle-income countries that were released between 2000 and 2020. We only included interventions that sought to improve student learning directly (i.e., students’ interaction with the material), as opposed to interventions that have impacted achievement indirectly, by reducing teacher absence or increasing parental engagement. This process yielded 37 studies in 20 countries (see the full list of studies in Appendix B).

Scaling up standardized instruction

One of the ways in which technology may improve the quality of education is through its capacity to deliver standardized quality content at scale. This feature of technology may be particularly useful in three types of settings: (a) those in “hard-to-staff” schools (i.e., schools that struggle to recruit educators with the requisite training and experience—typically, in rural and/or remote areas) (see, e.g., Urquiola & Vegas, 2005); (b) those in which many educators are frequently absent from school (e.g., Chaudhury, Hammer, Kremer, Muralidharan, & Rogers, 2006; Muralidharan, Das, Holla, & Mohpal, 2017); and/or (c) those in which educators have low levels of pedagogical and subject matter expertise (e.g., Bietenbeck, Piopiunik, & Wiederhold, 2018; Bold et al., 2017; Metzler & Woessmann, 2012; Santibañez, 2006) and do not have opportunities to observe and receive feedback (e.g., Bruns, Costa, & Cunha, 2018; Cilliers, Fleisch, Prinsloo, & Taylor, 2018). Technology could address this problem by: (a) disseminating lessons delivered by qualified educators to a large number of learners (e.g., through prerecorded or live lessons); (b) enabling distance education (e.g., for learners in remote areas and/or during periods of school closures); and (c) distributing hardware preloaded with educational materials.

Prerecorded lessons

Technology seems to be well placed to amplify the impact of effective educators by disseminating their lessons. Evidence on the impact of prerecorded lessons is encouraging, but not conclusive. Some initiatives that have used short instructional videos to complement regular instruction, in conjunction with other learning materials, have raised student learning on independent assessments. For example, Beg et al. (2020) evaluated an initiative in Punjab, Pakistan in which grade 8 classrooms received an intervention that included short videos to substitute live instruction, quizzes for learners to practice the material from every lesson, tablets for educators to learn the material and follow the lesson, and LED screens to project the videos onto a classroom screen. After six months, the intervention improved the performance of learners on independent tests of math and science by 0.19 and 0.24 SDs, respectively but had no discernible effect on the math and science section of Punjab’s high-stakes exams.

One study suggests that approaches that are far less technologically sophisticated can also improve learning outcomes—especially, if the business-as-usual instruction is of low quality. For example, Naslund-Hadley, Parker, and Hernandez-Agramonte (2014) evaluated a preschool math program in Cordillera, Paraguay that used audio segments and written materials four days per week for an hour per day during the school day. After five months, the intervention improved math scores by 0.16 SDs, narrowing gaps between low- and high-achieving learners, and between those with and without educators with formal training in early childhood education.

Yet, the integration of prerecorded material into regular instruction has not always been successful. For example, de Barros (2020) evaluated an intervention that combined instructional videos for math and science with infrastructure upgrades (e.g., two “smart” classrooms, two TVs, and two tablets), printed workbooks for students, and in-service training for educators of learners in grades 9 and 10 in Haryana, India (all materials were mapped onto the official curriculum). After 11 months, the intervention negatively impacted math achievement (by 0.08 SDs) and had no effect on science (with respect to business as usual classes). It reduced the share of lesson time that educators devoted to instruction and negatively impacted an index of instructional quality. Likewise, Seo (2017) evaluated several combinations of infrastructure (solar lights and TVs) and prerecorded videos (in English and/or bilingual) for grade 11 students in northern Tanzania and found that none of the variants improved student learning, even when the videos were used. The study reports effects from the infrastructure component across variants, but as others have noted (Muralidharan, Romero, & Wüthrich, 2019), this approach to estimating impact is problematic.

A very similar intervention delivered after school hours, however, had sizeable effects on learners’ basic skills. Chiplunkar, Dhar, and Nagesh (2020) evaluated an initiative in Chennai (the capital city of the state of Tamil Nadu, India) delivered by the same organization as above that combined short videos that explained key concepts in math and science with worksheets, facilitator-led instruction, small groups for peer-to-peer learning, and occasional career counseling and guidance for grade 9 students. These lessons took place after school for one hour, five times a week. After 10 months, it had large effects on learners’ achievement as measured by tests of basic skills in math and reading, but no effect on a standardized high-stakes test in grade 10 or socio-emotional skills (e.g., teamwork, decisionmaking, and communication).

Drawing general lessons from this body of research is challenging for at least two reasons. First, all of the studies above have evaluated the impact of prerecorded lessons combined with several other components (e.g., hardware, print materials, or other activities). Therefore, it is possible that the effects found are due to these additional components, rather than to the recordings themselves, or to the interaction between the two (see Muralidharan, 2017 for a discussion of the challenges of interpreting “bundled” interventions). Second, while these studies evaluate some type of prerecorded lessons, none examines the content of such lessons. Thus, it seems entirely plausible that the direction and magnitude of the effects depends largely on the quality of the recordings (e.g., the expertise of the educator recording it, the amount of preparation that went into planning the recording, and its alignment with best teaching practices).

These studies also raise three important questions worth exploring in future research. One of them is why none of the interventions discussed above had effects on high-stakes exams, even if their materials are typically mapped onto the official curriculum. It is possible that the official curricula are simply too challenging for learners in these settings, who are several grade levels behind expectations and who often need to reinforce basic skills (see Pritchett & Beatty, 2015). Another question is whether these interventions have long-term effects on teaching practices. It seems plausible that, if these interventions are deployed in contexts with low teaching quality, educators may learn something from watching the videos or listening to the recordings with learners. Yet another question is whether these interventions make it easier for schools to deliver instruction to learners whose native language is other than the official medium of instruction.

Distance education

Technology can also allow learners living in remote areas to access education. The evidence on these initiatives is encouraging. For example, Johnston and Ksoll (2017) evaluated a program that broadcasted live instruction via satellite to rural primary school students in the Volta and Greater Accra regions of Ghana. For this purpose, the program also equipped classrooms with the technology needed to connect to a studio in Accra, including solar panels, a satellite modem, a projector, a webcam, microphones, and a computer with interactive software. After two years, the intervention improved the numeracy scores of students in grades 2 through 4, and some foundational literacy tasks, but it had no effect on attendance or classroom time devoted to instruction, as captured by school visits. The authors interpreted these results as suggesting that the gains in achievement may be due to improving the quality of instruction that children received (as opposed to increased instructional time). Naik, Chitre, Bhalla, and Rajan (2019) evaluated a similar program in the Indian state of Karnataka and also found positive effects on learning outcomes, but it is not clear whether those effects are due to the program or due to differences in the groups of students they compared to estimate the impact of the initiative.

In one context (Mexico), this type of distance education had positive long-term effects. Navarro-Sola (2019) took advantage of the staggered rollout of the telesecundarias (i.e., middle schools with lessons broadcasted through satellite TV) in 1968 to estimate its impact. The policy had short-term effects on students’ enrollment in school: For every telesecundaria per 50 children, 10 students enrolled in middle school and two pursued further education. It also had a long-term influence on the educational and employment trajectory of its graduates. Each additional year of education induced by the policy increased average income by nearly 18 percent. This effect was attributable to more graduates entering the labor force and shifting from agriculture and the informal sector. Similarly, Fabregas (2019) leveraged a later expansion of this policy in 1993 and found that each additional telesecundaria per 1,000 adolescents led to an average increase of 0.2 years of education, and a decline in fertility for women, but no conclusive evidence of long-term effects on labor market outcomes.

It is crucial to interpret these results keeping in mind the settings where the interventions were implemented. As we mention above, part of the reason why they have proven effective is that the “counterfactual” conditions for learning (i.e., what would have happened to learners in the absence of such programs) was either to not have access to schooling or to be exposed to low-quality instruction. School systems interested in taking up similar interventions should assess the extent to which their learners (or parts of their learner population) find themselves in similar conditions to the subjects of the studies above. This illustrates the importance of assessing the needs of a system before reviewing the evidence.

Preloaded hardware

Technology also seems well positioned to disseminate educational materials. Specifically, hardware (e.g., desktop computers, laptops, or tablets) could also help deliver educational software (e.g., word processing, reference texts, and/or games). In theory, these materials could not only undergo a quality assurance review (e.g., by curriculum specialists and educators), but also draw on the interactions with learners for adjustments (e.g., identifying areas needing reinforcement) and enable interactions between learners and educators.

In practice, however, most initiatives that have provided learners with free computers, laptops, and netbooks do not leverage any of the opportunities mentioned above. Instead, they install a standard set of educational materials and hope that learners find them helpful enough to take them up on their own. Students rarely do so, and instead use the laptops for recreational purposes—often, to the detriment of their learning (see, e.g., Malamud & Pop-Eleches, 2011). In fact, free netbook initiatives have not only consistently failed to improve academic achievement in math or language (e.g., Cristia et al., 2017), but they have had no impact on learners’ general computer skills (e.g., Beuermann et al., 2015). Some of these initiatives have had small impacts on cognitive skills, but the mechanisms through which those effects occurred remains unclear.

To our knowledge, the only successful deployment of a free laptop initiative was one in which a team of researchers equipped the computers with remedial software. Mo et al. (2013) evaluated a version of the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) program for grade 3 students in migrant schools in Beijing, China in which the laptops were loaded with a remedial software mapped onto the national curriculum for math (similar to the software products that we discuss under “practice exercises” below). After nine months, the program improved math achievement by 0.17 SDs and computer skills by 0.33 SDs. If a school system decides to invest in free laptops, this study suggests that the quality of the software on the laptops is crucial.

To date, however, the evidence suggests that children do not learn more from interacting with laptops than they do from textbooks. For example, Bando, Gallego, Gertler, and Romero (2016) compared the effect of free laptop and textbook provision in 271 elementary schools in disadvantaged areas of Honduras. After seven months, students in grades 3 and 6 who had received the laptops performed on par with those who had received the textbooks in math and language. Further, even if textbooks essentially become obsolete at the end of each school year, whereas laptops can be reloaded with new materials for each year, the costs of laptop provision (not just the hardware, but also the technical assistance, Internet, and training associated with it) are not yet low enough to make them a more cost-effective way of delivering content to learners.

Evidence on the provision of tablets equipped with software is encouraging but limited. For example, de Hoop et al. (2020) evaluated a composite intervention for first grade students in Zambia’s Eastern Province that combined infrastructure (electricity via solar power), hardware (projectors and tablets), and educational materials (lesson plans for educators and interactive lessons for learners, both loaded onto the tablets and mapped onto the official Zambian curriculum). After 14 months, the intervention had improved student early-grade reading by 0.4 SDs, oral vocabulary scores by 0.25 SDs, and early-grade math by 0.22 SDs. It also improved students’ achievement by 0.16 on a locally developed assessment. The multifaceted nature of the program, however, makes it challenging to identify the components that are driving the positive effects. Pitchford (2015) evaluated an intervention that provided tablets equipped with educational “apps,” to be used for 30 minutes per day for two months to develop early math skills among students in grades 1 through 3 in Lilongwe, Malawi. The evaluation found positive impacts in math achievement, but the main study limitation is that it was conducted in a single school.

Facilitating differentiated instruction

Another way in which technology may improve educational outcomes is by facilitating the delivery of differentiated or individualized instruction. Most developing countries massively expanded access to schooling in recent decades by building new schools and making education more affordable, both by defraying direct costs, as well as compensating for opportunity costs (Duflo, 2001; World Bank, 2018). These initiatives have not only rapidly increased the number of learners enrolled in school, but have also increased the variability in learner’ preparation for schooling. Consequently, a large number of learners perform well below grade-based curricular expectations (see, e.g., Duflo, Dupas, & Kremer, 2011; Pritchett & Beatty, 2015). These learners are unlikely to get much from “one-size-fits-all” instruction, in which a single educator delivers instruction deemed appropriate for the middle (or top) of the achievement distribution (Banerjee & Duflo, 2011). Technology could potentially help these learners by providing them with: (a) instruction and opportunities for practice that adjust to the level and pace of preparation of each individual (known as “computer-adaptive learning” (CAL)); or (b) live, one-on-one tutoring.

Computer-adaptive learning

One of the main comparative advantages of technology is its ability to diagnose students’ initial learning levels and assign students to instruction and exercises of appropriate difficulty. No individual educator—no matter how talented—can be expected to provide individualized instruction to all learners in his/her class simultaneously . In this respect, technology is uniquely positioned to complement traditional teaching. This use of technology could help learners master basic skills and help them get more out of schooling.

Although many software products evaluated in recent years have been categorized as CAL, many rely on a relatively coarse level of differentiation at an initial stage (e.g., a diagnostic test) without further differentiation. We discuss these initiatives under the category of “increasing opportunities for practice” below. CAL initiatives complement an initial diagnostic with dynamic adaptation (i.e., at each response or set of responses from learners) to adjust both the initial level of difficulty and rate at which it increases or decreases, depending on whether learners’ responses are correct or incorrect.

Existing evidence on this specific type of programs is highly promising. Most famously, Banerjee et al. (2007) evaluated CAL software in Vadodara, in the Indian state of Gujarat, in which grade 4 students were offered two hours of shared computer time per week before and after school, during which they played games that involved solving math problems. The level of difficulty of such problems adjusted based on students’ answers. This program improved math achievement by 0.35 and 0.47 SDs after one and two years of implementation, respectively. Consistent with the promise of personalized learning, the software improved achievement for all students. In fact, one year after the end of the program, students assigned to the program still performed 0.1 SDs better than those assigned to a business as usual condition. More recently, Muralidharan, et al. (2019) evaluated a “blended learning” initiative in which students in grades 4 through 9 in Delhi, India received 45 minutes of interaction with CAL software for math and language, and 45 minutes of small group instruction before or after going to school. After only 4.5 months, the program improved achievement by 0.37 SDs in math and 0.23 SDs in Hindi. While all learners benefited from the program in absolute terms, the lowest performing learners benefited the most in relative terms, since they were learning very little in school.

We see two important limitations from this body of research. First, to our knowledge, none of these initiatives has been evaluated when implemented during the school day. Therefore, it is not possible to distinguish the effect of the adaptive software from that of additional instructional time. Second, given that most of these programs were facilitated by local instructors, attempts to distinguish the effect of the software from that of the instructors has been mostly based on noncausal evidence. A frontier challenge in this body of research is to understand whether CAL software can increase the effectiveness of school-based instruction by substituting part of the regularly scheduled time for math and language instruction.

Live one-on-one tutoring

Recent improvements in the speed and quality of videoconferencing, as well as in the connectivity of remote areas, have enabled yet another way in which technology can help personalization: live (i.e., real-time) one-on-one tutoring. While the evidence on in-person tutoring is scarce in developing countries, existing studies suggest that this approach works best when it is used to personalize instruction (see, e.g., Banerjee et al., 2007; Banerji, Berry, & Shotland, 2015; Cabezas, Cuesta, & Gallego, 2011).

There are almost no studies on the impact of online tutoring—possibly, due to the lack of hardware and Internet connectivity in low- and middle-income countries. One exception is Chemin and Oledan (2020)’s recent evaluation of an online tutoring program for grade 6 students in Kianyaga, Kenya to learn English from volunteers from a Canadian university via Skype ( videoconferencing software) for one hour per week after school. After 10 months, program beneficiaries performed 0.22 SDs better in a test of oral comprehension, improved their comfort using technology for learning, and became more willing to engage in cross-cultural communication. Importantly, while the tutoring sessions used the official English textbooks and sought in part to help learners with their homework, tutors were trained on several strategies to teach to each learner’s individual level of preparation, focusing on basic skills if necessary. To our knowledge, similar initiatives within a country have not yet been rigorously evaluated.

Expanding opportunities for practice

A third way in which technology may improve the quality of education is by providing learners with additional opportunities for practice. In many developing countries, lesson time is primarily devoted to lectures, in which the educator explains the topic and the learners passively copy explanations from the blackboard. This setup leaves little time for in-class practice. Consequently, learners who did not understand the explanation of the material during lecture struggle when they have to solve homework assignments on their own. Technology could potentially address this problem by allowing learners to review topics at their own pace.

Practice exercises

Technology can help learners get more out of traditional instruction by providing them with opportunities to implement what they learn in class. This approach could, in theory, allow some learners to anchor their understanding of the material through trial and error (i.e., by realizing what they may not have understood correctly during lecture and by getting better acquainted with special cases not covered in-depth in class).

Existing evidence on practice exercises reflects both the promise and the limitations of this use of technology in developing countries. For example, Lai et al. (2013) evaluated a program in Shaanxi, China where students in grades 3 and 5 were required to attend two 40-minute remedial sessions per week in which they first watched videos that reviewed the material that had been introduced in their math lessons that week and then played games to practice the skills introduced in the video. After four months, the intervention improved math achievement by 0.12 SDs. Many other evaluations of comparable interventions have found similar small-to-moderate results (see, e.g., Lai, Luo, Zhang, Huang, & Rozelle, 2015; Lai et al., 2012; Mo et al., 2015; Pitchford, 2015). These effects, however, have been consistently smaller than those of initiatives that adjust the difficulty of the material based on students’ performance (e.g., Banerjee et al., 2007; Muralidharan, et al., 2019). We hypothesize that these programs do little for learners who perform several grade levels behind curricular expectations, and who would benefit more from a review of foundational concepts from earlier grades.

We see two important limitations from this research. First, most initiatives that have been evaluated thus far combine instructional videos with practice exercises, so it is hard to know whether their effects are driven by the former or the latter. In fact, the program in China described above allowed learners to ask their peers whenever they did not understand a difficult concept, so it potentially also captured the effect of peer-to-peer collaboration. To our knowledge, no studies have addressed this gap in the evidence.

Second, most of these programs are implemented before or after school, so we cannot distinguish the effect of additional instructional time from that of the actual opportunity for practice. The importance of this question was first highlighted by Linden (2008), who compared two delivery mechanisms for game-based remedial math software for students in grades 2 and 3 in a network of schools run by a nonprofit organization in Gujarat, India: one in which students interacted with the software during the school day and another one in which students interacted with the software before or after school (in both cases, for three hours per day). After a year, the first version of the program had negatively impacted students’ math achievement by 0.57 SDs and the second one had a null effect. This study suggested that computer-assisted learning is a poor substitute for regular instruction when it is of high quality, as was the case in this well-functioning private network of schools.

In recent years, several studies have sought to remedy this shortcoming. Mo et al. (2014) were among the first to evaluate practice exercises delivered during the school day. They evaluated an initiative in Shaanxi, China in which students in grades 3 and 5 were required to interact with the software similar to the one in Lai et al. (2013) for two 40-minute sessions per week. The main limitation of this study, however, is that the program was delivered during regularly scheduled computer lessons, so it could not determine the impact of substituting regular math instruction. Similarly, Mo et al. (2020) evaluated a self-paced and a teacher-directed version of a similar program for English for grade 5 students in Qinghai, China. Yet, the key shortcoming of this study is that the teacher-directed version added several components that may also influence achievement, such as increased opportunities for teachers to provide students with personalized assistance when they struggled with the material. Ma, Fairlie, Loyalka, and Rozelle (2020) compared the effectiveness of additional time-delivered remedial instruction for students in grades 4 to 6 in Shaanxi, China through either computer-assisted software or using workbooks. This study indicates whether additional instructional time is more effective when using technology, but it does not address the question of whether school systems may improve the productivity of instructional time during the school day by substituting educator-led with computer-assisted instruction.

Increasing learner engagement

Another way in which technology may improve education is by increasing learners’ engagement with the material. In many school systems, regular “chalk and talk” instruction prioritizes time for educators’ exposition over opportunities for learners to ask clarifying questions and/or contribute to class discussions. This, combined with the fact that many developing-country classrooms include a very large number of learners (see, e.g., Angrist & Lavy, 1999; Duflo, Dupas, & Kremer, 2015), may partially explain why the majority of those students are several grade levels behind curricular expectations (e.g., Muralidharan, et al., 2019; Muralidharan & Zieleniak, 2014; Pritchett & Beatty, 2015). Technology could potentially address these challenges by: (a) using video tutorials for self-paced learning and (b) presenting exercises as games and/or gamifying practice.

Video tutorials

Technology can potentially increase learner effort and understanding of the material by finding new and more engaging ways to deliver it. Video tutorials designed for self-paced learning—as opposed to videos for whole class instruction, which we discuss under the category of “prerecorded lessons” above—can increase learner effort in multiple ways, including: allowing learners to focus on topics with which they need more help, letting them correct errors and misconceptions on their own, and making the material appealing through visual aids. They can increase understanding by breaking the material into smaller units and tackling common misconceptions.

In spite of the popularity of instructional videos, there is relatively little evidence on their effectiveness. Yet, two recent evaluations of different versions of the Khan Academy portal, which mainly relies on instructional videos, offer some insight into their impact. First, Ferman, Finamor, and Lima (2019) evaluated an initiative in 157 public primary and middle schools in five cities in Brazil in which the teachers of students in grades 5 and 9 were taken to the computer lab to learn math from the platform for 50 minutes per week. The authors found that, while the intervention slightly improved learners’ attitudes toward math, these changes did not translate into better performance in this subject. The authors hypothesized that this could be due to the reduction of teacher-led math instruction.

More recently, Büchel, Jakob, Kühnhanss, Steffen, and Brunetti (2020) evaluated an after-school, offline delivery of the Khan Academy portal in grades 3 through 6 in 302 primary schools in Morazán, El Salvador. Students in this study received 90 minutes per week of additional math instruction (effectively nearly doubling total math instruction per week) through teacher-led regular lessons, teacher-assisted Khan Academy lessons, or similar lessons assisted by technical supervisors with no content expertise. (Importantly, the first group provided differentiated instruction, which is not the norm in Salvadorian schools). All three groups outperformed both schools without any additional lessons and classrooms without additional lessons in the same schools as the program. The teacher-assisted Khan Academy lessons performed 0.24 SDs better, the supervisor-led lessons 0.22 SDs better, and the teacher-led regular lessons 0.15 SDs better, but the authors could not determine whether the effects across versions were different.

Together, these studies suggest that instructional videos work best when provided as a complement to, rather than as a substitute for, regular instruction. Yet, the main limitation of these studies is the multifaceted nature of the Khan Academy portal, which also includes other components found to positively improve learner achievement, such as differentiated instruction by students’ learning levels. While the software does not provide the type of personalization discussed above, learners are asked to take a placement test and, based on their score, educators assign them different work. Therefore, it is not clear from these studies whether the effects from Khan Academy are driven by its instructional videos or to the software’s ability to provide differentiated activities when combined with placement tests.

Games and gamification

Technology can also increase learner engagement by presenting exercises as games and/or by encouraging learner to play and compete with others (e.g., using leaderboards and rewards)—an approach known as “gamification.” Both approaches can increase learner motivation and effort by presenting learners with entertaining opportunities for practice and by leveraging peers as commitment devices.

There are very few studies on the effects of games and gamification in low- and middle-income countries. Recently, Araya, Arias Ortiz, Bottan, and Cristia (2019) evaluated an initiative in which grade 4 students in Santiago, Chile were required to participate in two 90-minute sessions per week during the school day with instructional math software featuring individual and group competitions (e.g., tracking each learner’s standing in his/her class and tournaments between sections). After nine months, the program led to improvements of 0.27 SDs in the national student assessment in math (it had no spillover effects on reading). However, it had mixed effects on non-academic outcomes. Specifically, the program increased learners’ willingness to use computers to learn math, but, at the same time, increased their anxiety toward math and negatively impacted learners’ willingness to collaborate with peers. Finally, given that one of the weekly sessions replaced regular math instruction and the other one represented additional math instructional time, it is not clear whether the academic effects of the program are driven by the software or the additional time devoted to learning math.

The prognosis:

How can school systems adopt interventions that match their needs.

Here are five specific and sequential guidelines for decisionmakers to realize the potential of education technology to accelerate student learning.

1. Take stock of how your current schools, educators, and learners are engaging with technology .

Carry out a short in-school survey to understand the current practices and potential barriers to adoption of technology (we have included suggested survey instruments in the Appendices); use this information in your decisionmaking process. For example, we learned from conversations with current and former ministers of education from various developing regions that a common limitation to technology use is regulations that hold school leaders accountable for damages to or losses of devices. Another common barrier is lack of access to electricity and Internet, or even the availability of sufficient outlets for charging devices in classrooms. Understanding basic infrastructure and regulatory limitations to the use of education technology is a first necessary step. But addressing these limitations will not guarantee that introducing or expanding technology use will accelerate learning. The next steps are thus necessary.

“In Africa, the biggest limit is connectivity. Fiber is expensive, and we don’t have it everywhere. The continent is creating a digital divide between cities, where there is fiber, and the rural areas.  The [Ghanaian] administration put in schools offline/online technologies with books, assessment tools, and open source materials. In deploying this, we are finding that again, teachers are unfamiliar with it. And existing policies prohibit students to bring their own tablets or cell phones. The easiest way to do it would have been to let everyone bring their own device. But policies are against it.” H.E. Matthew Prempeh, Minister of Education of Ghana, on the need to understand the local context.

2. Consider how the introduction of technology may affect the interactions among learners, educators, and content .

Our review of the evidence indicates that technology may accelerate student learning when it is used to scale up access to quality content, facilitate differentiated instruction, increase opportunities for practice, or when it increases learner engagement. For example, will adding electronic whiteboards to classrooms facilitate access to more quality content or differentiated instruction? Or will these expensive boards be used in the same way as the old chalkboards? Will providing one device (laptop or tablet) to each learner facilitate access to more and better content, or offer students more opportunities to practice and learn? Solely introducing technology in classrooms without additional changes is unlikely to lead to improved learning and may be quite costly. If you cannot clearly identify how the interactions among the three key components of the instructional core (educators, learners, and content) may change after the introduction of technology, then it is probably not a good idea to make the investment. See Appendix A for guidance on the types of questions to ask.

3. Once decisionmakers have a clear idea of how education technology can help accelerate student learning in a specific context, it is important to define clear objectives and goals and establish ways to regularly assess progress and make course corrections in a timely manner .

For instance, is the education technology expected to ensure that learners in early grades excel in foundational skills—basic literacy and numeracy—by age 10? If so, will the technology provide quality reading and math materials, ample opportunities to practice, and engaging materials such as videos or games? Will educators be empowered to use these materials in new ways? And how will progress be measured and adjusted?

4. How this kind of reform is approached can matter immensely for its success.

It is easy to nod to issues of “implementation,” but that needs to be more than rhetorical. Keep in mind that good use of education technology requires thinking about how it will affect learners, educators, and parents. After all, giving learners digital devices will make no difference if they get broken, are stolen, or go unused. Classroom technologies only matter if educators feel comfortable putting them to work. Since good technology is generally about complementing or amplifying what educators and learners already do, it is almost always a mistake to mandate programs from on high. It is vital that technology be adopted with the input of educators and families and with attention to how it will be used. If technology goes unused or if educators use it ineffectually, the results will disappoint—no matter the virtuosity of the technology. Indeed, unused education technology can be an unnecessary expenditure for cash-strapped education systems. This is why surveying context, listening to voices in the field, examining how technology is used, and planning for course correction is essential.

5. It is essential to communicate with a range of stakeholders, including educators, school leaders, parents, and learners .

Technology can feel alien in schools, confuse parents and (especially) older educators, or become an alluring distraction. Good communication can help address all of these risks. Taking care to listen to educators and families can help ensure that programs are informed by their needs and concerns. At the same time, deliberately and consistently explaining what technology is and is not supposed to do, how it can be most effectively used, and the ways in which it can make it more likely that programs work as intended. For instance, if teachers fear that technology is intended to reduce the need for educators, they will tend to be hostile; if they believe that it is intended to assist them in their work, they will be more receptive. Absent effective communication, it is easy for programs to “fail” not because of the technology but because of how it was used. In short, past experience in rolling out education programs indicates that it is as important to have a strong intervention design as it is to have a solid plan to socialize it among stakeholders.

Beyond reopening: A leapfrog moment to transform education?

On September 14, the Center for Universal Education (CUE) will host a webinar to discuss strategies, including around the effective use of education technology, for ensuring resilient schools in the long term and to launch a new education technology playbook “Realizing the promise: How can education technology improve learning for all?”

file-pdf Full Playbook – Realizing the promise: How can education technology improve learning for all? file-pdf References file-pdf Appendix A – Instruments to assess availability and use of technology file-pdf Appendix B – List of reviewed studies file-pdf Appendix C – How may technology affect interactions among students, teachers, and content?

About the Authors

Alejandro j. ganimian, emiliana vegas, frederick m. hess.

• Media Relations
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy

How to Tackle Big Tech Problems in Schools: 3 Case Studies

• Share article

An overwhelming mix of IT challenges is hitting school districts hard. Three big ones: building tech equity into K-12 schools and sustaining it; training educators at all levels how to prevent and respond to rising numbers of cyberattacks; and dealing with IT staff shortages at a time when schools are using digital tools more widely than ever across all grade levels.

Education Week spoke to teachers, principals, and chief technology officers from around the country about how they are tackling these challenges and what their plans are for next school year. Here is a look at the strategies and tactics three school districts are using to improve digital equity, upgrade cybersecurity, and address staffing challenges.

Building digital equity into the system school by school: Wake County Schools, N.C.

One of the most effective and cost-saving strategies to improve digital equity challenges in the Wake County schools in North Carolina was getting school social workers involved.

“When COVID first hit, I would love to say we were ahead of the game, but we were not,” said Marlo Gaddis, the chief technology officer for the district. “We were not a 1-to-1 [computing] district. So we had some immediate work to do.”

The 160,000-student district purchased 50,000 Chromebooks in the spring of 2020. It also put in an order for 5,000 Wi-Fi hotspots, followed by an additional order to reach 16,000. Then it started rolling out the Chromebooks to all students (it is now a 1-to-1 district) and handed out hotspots to families who said they needed them. Those efforts were paid for through a 7-year strategic funding plan from the county.

“What we found out very quickly is the definition of need is very different for different people,” she said. In some cases, there was no technology at all available in the home; in others, there were five or six kids sharing one digital device and limited Wi-Fi bandwidth; and in others, there was not nearly as much need.

What we found out very quickly is the definition of need is very different for different people

Essentially, the problem was there was no gatekeeper to evaluate a family’s economic need for Wi-Fi hotspots.

The gatekeepers are now the social workers in each school. They determine if a family meets the threshold for receiving tech help. “The goal is to make sure our most-needy families get what they need,” said Gaddis.

Gaddis said an even bigger digital equity challenge for this school year and beyond will be around quality use of technology at home.

Daniel Simons, the principal of Buckhorn Creek Elementary School in the Wake County schools, agrees. “As we distance ourselves more from the pandemic, you’ll see that gap between families with sophisticated tech use versus those with less [sophisticated use].”

Kristen Schaible, a 2nd grade teacher at Buckhorn who taught an all-remote class of 20 students during the 2020-21 school year, said one way to address those quality use challenges at home is to not assign formal homework to students. That is a schoolwide policy at Buckhorn that was in place before the pandemic.

Getting everyone involved in preventing cyberattacks: Lakota Local Schools, Ohio

More than 50 new laws in 30 states were passed in 2021 that address cybersecurity issues for K-12 schools either directly or indirectly, according to a January report by the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) . The new laws made changes to rules and regulations around required incident reporting, state agency funding, and the protection of sensitive cybersecurity data.

But for district chief technology officers like Todd Wesley of the Lakota schools in Ohio, the real protections start at the school level with greater awareness of the threat of cyberattacks and training on how to prevent them.

In the 17,000-student district, all employees are required to complete an annual district cybersecurity professional development program in the fall or when they join as a new employee.

“Cybersecurity is everyone’s responsibility,” said Wesley in an email interview. “It’s no longer something that happens in the shadows of the ‘technology department.’ It’s not a one-off or a check box. It must be part of today’s norm for all staff.”

Cybersecurity is everyone’s responsibility. It’s no longer something that happens in the shadows of the ‘technology department.’

All employees are educated about email best practices for preventing cyberattacks, school data access/sharing requirements, and relevant understanding of federal laws and regulations such as the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). “Most of all,” Wesley emphasized, “each employee should know that if anything looks odd, wrong, or suspicious, no matter how small, to contact their administrator, technology department, or both.”

Krista Heidenreich, the district’s director of digital/professional learning and the administrator of the Virtual Learning Option, an online learning program, has not noticed an increase in attempted cyberattacks ( although national data shows the number of attacks is rising ). Even so, she recognizes that just one successful attack could disrupt learning in significant ways, especially since most schools are now using more digital learning tools than ever before. “Cybersecurity is a constant concern and something we all play a role in,” she said in an email.

Kim Carlson, an innovation specialist at Woodland Elementary in the Lakota schools, echoes that sentiment. “We are certainly applying digital tools more to student learning,” she said in an email. “Our goal is to keep that growth going.”

That is why the school district integrates cybersecurity best practices into its digital learning sessions for teachers, covering issues such as student account security, app security, and the importance of sharing digital documents only with those who are required to be working in those documents.

Addressing the cascading effects of IT staffing shortages: Wayne Township school district, Ind.

Pete Just, the chief operations and technology officer for the 16,000-student Wayne Township school district in Indiana, said most of the turnover in IT staff has been due to retirements, entry-level employees leaving, and increased stress. He has seen about a 50 percent turnover rate in entry-level positions, and he lost a new manager this year when the demands of the job “just became too overwhelming,” he said in an email.

What makes the situation more difficult is the increasing competition for IT talent from companies based in the area doing business in logistics, technology services, pharmaceuticals, and auto manufacturing. “Recruitment is harder today because there are so many options. We’ve found that continuing to push the K-12 sense of purpose and meaning through word of mouth has been effective. For our current team members, we’ve formed a social committee whose members are fun and creative people who are making even virtual get togethers more fun.”

But the staffing challenges are taking a toll. “It stresses the whole staff out much more. What used to be fixed in a day now can take several, and the talent to provide quick solutions may not be at the ready when principals need it. They have been very patient.”

What used to be fixed in a day now can take several, and the talent to provide quick solutions may not be at the ready when principals need it.

Sandra Squire, principal of Ben Davis High School in Wayne Township, said in an email that when her school is short on technology staff, “it impacts everything we do.”

The list of tech to-dos can sound exhausting: broken copying machines, AV systems not working, glitches in student and staff computers, troubles with the public announcement system, and phones not working. “Our tech team, even being down, still responds in a timely manner, but much of what is needed is instant, so teachers have to troubleshoot,” said Squire.

That need for quick troubleshooting is due in part to the fact that every student in the 3,000-student school has a school-issued Chromebook that they can use in school and at home.

“The most important [IT] task is to ensure students have access,” said Squire. “So much of what we do is online. If a student’s device is not working, or the Internet is down, it impacts whether a student can access the curriculum or not.”

Sign Up for EdWeek Tech Leader

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Meaningful Technology and Curriculum

Julia Green

Julia Green ( [email protected] ) York Region District School Board

Technology has been an integral part of education as teachers strive to prepare students for the twenty-first century. In order for education to be pertinent, productive, progressive and proficient, technology is an essential tool (Abbas, Lai-Mei, Ismail, 2013). Problem-based learning (PBL) is grounded in meaningful and experiential situations. In PBL, students learn by solving problems, becoming active learners, situated in real-world problems and allowing students to be responsible for their learning paths (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Modern-day educators require innovative teaching methods which promote skill acquisition and are problem-based, “Millennial students can benefit from this approach as they work collaboratively, construct integrated knowledge, develop problem-solving skills, experience self-directed learning, and become intrinsically motivated” (Matthews & Dworatzek, 2012, p.196). Technology can be defined in a wide variety of ways, and the multitude of methods in which technology can be used to support PBL is equally as diverse. (Brush & Saye, 2014). The purpose of this chapter is to discuss how technology can support the implementation of PBL in educational settings. The key characteristics of both technology and PBL are examined in order to guide educators to make informed decisions to support deep and authentic learning.

Keywords : collaboration, critical thinking, learner-centered, problem-based learning (PBL), real-world application, technology

Introduction

Problem-based learning has been in the realm of education for the past fifty years (Wood, 2008). Its implementation in educational settings has promoted collaboration, problem-solving and independent acquisition of new knowledge. With changes in education (for example; the flipped classroom, online courses and students in charge of their own learning journeys), there has been a natural move towards the utilization of technology. Twenty-first century learners are more adept at using technological tools than ever before. Students are accessing tech platforms to communicate with each other, research topics of interest to them and learn about world issues.

Technology refers to the designs and environments that engage learners (Abbas et al., 2013). The integration of technology in problem-based learning supports exploration, collaborative inquiry and the development of the skills required for students moving into the modern world. When done effectively, technology can support problem-based learning because of the wide range of tools available; the way in which technology naturally lends itself to collaboration, and its ability to help students explore problems. Problem-based learning’s scope has become even wider with the integration of tech in the classroom. The possibilities to promote the objectives of PBL (discussed later in this chapter) are flexible and ever-changing, allowing PBL to exist naturally in modern learning environments.

Background Information

Problem-based learning.

Developed in the late 1960s for primary use in medical schools, problem-based learning or PBL is grounded in the constructivist learning theory (Wood, 2008). This theory posits that learning is an active, constructive process. Constructivism states that learning takes place in contexts (Abbas et al., 2013). PBL was developed by Barrows and utilized at McMaster University in 1968 for the first time. Barrows proposed the following three objectives of PBL:

• Students acquire knowledge that is retrievable and usable.
• Students develop the cognitive skills appropriate for reasoning.
• Students extend and improve knowledge to remain current with new problems that may arise (self-directed learning skills), (Taylor & Miflin, 2008).

Other educational models emerged from this such as Bruner’s ‘discovery learning’ (Taylor & Miflin, 2008). PBL was innovative because of its shift in teaching strategies and outcomes. It was predicted that PBL created better learning environments, knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Wood, 2008). PBL focuses on meaningful tasks which are practical in their approach and experiential (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Theorists such as Dewey (1938) explained that learning was most authentic when done through experience. He believed that education and learning were a social and interactive process. Students should experience and interact with curriculum and take part in own learning (Talebi, 2015). Similarly, in PBL, students solve problems which are related to the real-world, construct knowledge and develop strategies for problem-solving (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). One of the defining features of the PBL approach is that students investigate and work collaboratively to find out what they need to know in order to solve the presented problem (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Today, PBL is a construct of previous research and practices. It has been adapted to modern learning environments, is flexible and dynamic.

The teacher’s role in PBL .

In problem-based learning, the teacher acts more as a facilitator to student learning than being in complete control. Facilitators progressively fade their scaffolding as students become more experienced with PBL until finally the learners adopt many of the facilitators’ roles (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). The teacher helps students acquire the skills necessary for problem-solving and collaboration (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Modern PBL approaches vary depending on norms, beliefs and values of PBL practitioners. Furthermore, PBL and its implementation also rely on the cost, the extent of influences, understanding and interpretation by the teacher and institution (Taylor & Miflin, 2008).

The modern teacher is one who recognizes, encourages, facilitates and stretches student learning. Teachers are considered partners with their students and no longer need to teach by telling. Teachers should foster creativity and real-life problem solving, purpose and passion (Fullan, 2013). Allowing students to demonstrate their knowledge of technology is a great way for teachers to work alongside students.

Considerations and applications for technology in PBL

Technology is an integral and supportive factor of learning in PBL. The following section delineates characteristics of problem-based learning in the twenty-first century learning environment, and how technology can best support them.

Learner-centered.

With students at the forefront of this style of learning, teachers are able to engage and motivate learners. In learner-centered environments, the focus on abilities and process of the learner are of priority. This strategy also centers on what the students already know which encourages motivation (Megwalu, 2014). Student skill-level and interests are considered in a PBL environment. Web 2.0 for example, allows users to browse topics and explore (Tambouris, Panopoulou, Tarabanis, Ryberg, Buus, Peristeras, Porwol, 2012). Students can use their own preferred technological tools to solve problems and show their understanding of topics. They may prefer to use their personal devices or engage in new tools.

With this in mind, the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the learners are considered. Preconceptions, cultural differences, comfort level in various group settings are crucial to creating a positive learning environment. Attention should be given to individual progress and material needs to present the right amount of challenge. In order to achieve this, teachers and schools need to understand student knowledge, skill levels and interests (Donovan, 2002). Tools such as online surveys, polls and collaborative online workspaces engage students and help teachers check in with student progress, better understand their interests and their position as a learner.

Collaborative.

It is important that a technological tool create a community of learners by broadening repertoires and personal resources (Conoley, 2010). Collaboration promotes engagement as well as positive well-being. Collaborative spaces have proven to positively impact well-being, “People with relationships to other individuals they trust and depend upon are healthier, more productive, and happier”, (Uchino, Cacipo, Kiecolt-Glasser, 1996 as cited in Conoley, 2010, p.77).

When technology tools are appropriately selected, they promote the collaborative production of knowledge through engaging with real-world problems or cases (Tambouris et al., 2012). The emergence and re-conceptualization of online systems supports collaboration between learners and teachers. It affords learners and facilitators access to external resources and resource persons. Donnelly (2010), suggests that the social processes of learning in PBL and through the enabling power of online asynchronous communication, actively engage students in their own learning. Current trends focus on virtual learning environments, but also a shift to personal online learning environments, which allow students to customize their learning journey (Tambouris et al., 2012). Additionally, there exist a plethora of collaborative online platforms from which to choose such as online classrooms, synchronous and asynchronous learning spaces as well as web-based software which allow multiple users to work, revise and comment simultaneously.

Real-life applications.

When students are able to make connections between new material and the real-world it creates for authentic learning environments, “Learning is stronger when it matters” (Brown et al., 2014, p.11). Repetition has not shown to remain in long-term memory, however, when connections are made to real-life problems, the learning is better retained (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Research has shown that rereading, for example, is a time-consuming learning strategy which does not result in lasting learning. On the other hand, students exploring real problems that exist in relation to the subject matter can deepen the learning. That being said, it is important for educators to take risks and allow students to connect with their communities and the world. Learners should apply new skills in context which can be facilitated through tools such as virtual reality, online forums, blogs and discussions and communication tools to connect via video chat across the world.

Optimal learning occurs with the development of norms and connections to the outside world. In these settings, intellectual camaraderie is promoted to build a sense of community. Students build upon each other’s knowledge, questioning, make suggestions and work collaboratively towards a common goal. Problem-solving, argumentation, a sense of comfort, an excitement of learning, and a sense of ownership are developed. Furthermore, classroom learning should be connected to aspects of students’ lives (Donovan, 2002). Educators play a key role in developing questions and creating tasks, “Real learning involves students immediately using what they learn to do something and/or change something in the world” (Prensky, 2010, p.20). Teachers set the learning goals and offer guidance and questions for students and then allow them the freedom to explore but also apply their learning in a real context. The notion of positioning learners as active and productive in real practices seems to correspond well with many of the ideas and ideals associated with Web 2.0 in learning (Tambouris et al., 2012).

Engages critical thinking.

In order to help students adapt to ever-changing situations and problems, critical thinking is an essential skill; “Higher level questioning requires students to further examine the concept(s) under study through the use of application, analysis, evaluation, and synthesis (Nappi, 2017, p.1). As questioning is an important teaching tool, questions which are simply recall of information are considered lower level questions and do not encourage higher order thinking (Nappi, 2017). Students can use the internet to research and seek solutions to complex problems.

Because of the influx of information available to them, students require questions which allow them to investigate rather than completing a simple search. The use of subject specific technological tools can enrich student experience and close gaps which were previously roadblocks in the problem-solving process. Such an example is explained by Taradi et al. (2005), “Virtual environments encourage students to explore a topic beyond the boundaries of given material, thus supporting the proactive and exploratory nature of learning that allows the student to become self-reliant” (p. 38).

Conclusions and Future Recommendations

The integration of technology and problem-based learning is complicated since individually they each demand that staff and students possess a complex array of different teaching and learning capabilities (Donnelly, 2010). Together they are complementary to learning. By combining PBL with collaborative technological tools, educators can create active, vibrant learning environments that enhance student learning (Taradi et al., 2005). Problem-based learning affords students the flexibility of exploring concepts and acquiring skills through the learning process and co-create problems and solutions. Student engagement increases as they are active participants in their own learning (Wirkala, Kuhn, 2011). PBL has a clear connection with the promotion of twenty-first century skills, it “offers an opportunity for moving beyond content acquisition to develop skills and dispositions needed for lifelong learning” (Taradi et al., 2005, p.35).

With student success in mind and preparing students for the world beyond the classroom, PBL encourages problem-solving and collaboration. Furthermore, it allows students to engage in critical thinking and make real-world connections. The advancement of technology has further supported the integration of PBL in learning environments. The wide array of available tools, the collaborative nature, and links to the outside world lend themselves suitably to PBL.

Due to the range of technological tools available, it is challenging to identify exactly which tools best promote PBL. Consideration should be given to whether the tool is enhancing the learning experience or if the same problem-solving strategy could be used without the technology? In fact, several questions should be considered when selecting the appropriate tool for PBL:

• Does the tool encourage a learner-centered environment?
• Will the tool allow for collaboration among students?
• Does the tool promote real-world application?
• Can the tool be used to facilitate investigation, problem-solving and inquiry?

Technology has an ability to increase the complexity with which students create and implement a multitude of roles. This can lead to specialization and promote in-depth investigation. Technology in PBL learning environments lends itself to authentic and challenging tasks which support communication with others and promotes active learning (Abbas et al., 2013). The blending of technology in PBL encourages students to become twenty-first century problem-solvers. While there are many factors which contribute to the effective implementation of tech in PBL, it is undeniable that there are positive correlations between the two.

Abbas, P. G., Lai-Mei, L., & Ismail, H. N. (2013). Teachers’ use of technology and constructivism. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 5 (4), 49-63. doi: http://dx.doi.org.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/10.5815/ijmecs.2013.04.07

Brown, P.C., Roedinger, H.L., McDaniel, M.A. (2014). Learning is misunderstood. Make it stick , pp.1-22.

Brush, T & Saye, J. (2014). Technology-supported Problem-based Learning in Teacher Education. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 8 (1). Available from differhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1480

Conoley, J. (2010). Why Does Collaboration Work? Linking Positive Psychology and Collaboration. Journal of educational and psychological consultation, 20 (1), 75-82. doi:10.1080/10474410903554902

Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based learning. Computers & Education, 54 , pp. 350–359. doi :10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.012

Donovan, M.S, Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J.W. (2002). How people learn: Bridging research & practice . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Fullan, M. (2013). Pedagogy and change: Essence as easy. Stratosphere, pp.17-32.

Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review. 16 (3), pp.235-266. https://doi-org.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3

Matthews, J. & Dworatzek, P. (2012). Millennial Graduate Students’ Use Of Technology And Problem-Based Learning To Enhance Higher-Level Cognition In Health Promotion Program Planning. American Journal of Health Science, 3 (3), p.195-200.

Megwalu, A. (2014). Practicing Learner-Centered Teaching. The Reference Librarian, 55 (3), 252-255, doi : 10.1080/02763877.2014.910438

Nappi, P. (2017). The Importance of Questioning in Developing Critical Thinking Skills. The Delta Kappa Gamma bulletin, 84 (1).

Prensky, M. (2010). Partnering. Teaching digital natives. Partnering for real learning . pp. 9-29.

Talebi, K. (2015). John Dewey – Philosopher and Educational Reformer. European Journal of Education Studies. 1 (1). Available from www.oapub.org/edu

Tambouris, E., Panopoulou, E., Tarabanis, K., Ryberg, T., Buus, L., Peristeras, V., Porwol, L. (2012). Enabling problem based learning through web 2.0 technologies: PBL 2.0. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15 (4), 238. Available from http://search.proquest.com.uproxy.library.dc-uoit.ca/docview/1287025375?accountid=14694

Taradi, S., Taradi, M., Radic, K. & Pokrajac, N. (2005). Blending problem-based learning with Web technology positively impacts student learning outcomes in acid-base physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 29 , pp. 35-39. doi :10.1152/advan.00026.2004.

Taylor, D. & Miflin, B. (2008). Problem-based learning: Where are we now? Medical Teacher, 30 , pp. 742–763. doi : 10.1080/01421590802217199

Wirkala, C & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-Based Learning in K-12 Education: Is it Effective and How Does it Achieve its Effects? American Educational Research Journal, 48 (5), pp. 1157-1186.

Wood, D. (2008). Problem Based Learning. British Medical Journal, 336 (7651), p.971.

Technology and the Curriculum: Summer 2018 Copyright © 2018 by Julia Green is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Enhancing the Teaching of Problem-Solving in Technology Education

• First Online: 29 January 2019

Cite this chapter

• Thomas Delahunty 7  

Part of the book series: Contemporary Issues in Technology Education ((CITE))

567 Accesses

2 Citations

Problem-solving skills are a critical element of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, and improving students’ capability is a contemporary focus. Traditional research in this area has emphasised processes and heuristic approaches to solving problems while neglecting the early stages such as problem conceptualisation. This chapter will discuss a research study aimed at addressing this knowledge gap in technology education using a novel approach adapted from the field of cognitive neuroscience. Findings are then discussed in the context of enhancing pedagogical practice around the framing of problem-solving tasks on the part of the teacher and the student. This chapter will be of interest to a wide audience of educators in STEM disciplines.

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

Access this chapter

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Arrowsmith-Young, B. (2012). The woman who changed her brain . London: Square Peg.

Google Scholar  

Byrnes, J. P., & Miller, D. C. (2007). The relative importance of predictors of math and science achievement: An opportunity-propensity analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32 (4), 599–629.

Article   Google Scholar  

Delahunty, T. (2014) Investigating conceptualisation and the approach taken to solving convergent problems: Implications for instructional task design. Unpublished thesis (Ph.D), University of Limerick.

Delahunty, T., Seery, N., & Lynch, R. (2018). Exploring the use of electroencephalography to gather objective evidence of cognitive processing during problem solving. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27 , 114–130.

Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience, 134 , 9–21.

Entwistle, N. J. (2000, November). Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: Conceptual frameworks and educational contexts . Teaching and learning research paper conference, Leicster, England.

Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4 (1), 6–16.

Hahn, U., & Chater, N. (1998). Similarity and rules: Distinct exhaustive empirically distinguishable? Cognition, 65 (2), 197–230.

Jakel, F., & Schreiber, C. (2013). Introspection in problem solving. Journal of Problem Solving, 6 (1), 20–33.

Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments . New York: Routledge.

Jonassen, D. H., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95 (2), 139–151.

Kalyuga, S., & Singh, A.-M. (2016). Rethinking the boundaries of cognitive load theory in complex learning. Educational Psychological Review, 28 , 831–852.

Kitchner, K. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. Human Development, 26 (4), 222–232.

Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education . Dordrecht: Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

McCormick, R., & Davidson, M. (2009). Problem solving and the tyranny of product outcomes. Journal of Design and Technology Education, 1 (3), 230–241.

O’Donoghue, J., & Kooij, H. V.-D. (2007). Assessing adults’ quantitative skills – The INULIS project (pp. 251–263). The 14th international conference of adult learning mathematics (ALM), Limerick.

Ohlsson, S. (2012). The problems with problem solving: Reflections on the rise, current status, and possible future of a cognitive research paradigm. The Journal of Problem Solving, 5 (1), 101–128.

Payne, T. C., Gallagher, K., Eck, J. E., & Frank, J. (2013). Problem framing in problem solving: A case study. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 36 (4), 670–682.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12 , 257–285.

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: Explorations in the learning sciences, instructional systems and performance technologies . New York: Springer.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Thomas Delahunty

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Delahunty .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Curtin University, Perth, Australia

P John Williams

University of Exeter Associate, Brighton, UK

David Barlex

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Delahunty, T. (2019). Enhancing the Teaching of Problem-Solving in Technology Education. In: Williams, P.J., Barlex, D. (eds) Explorations in Technology Education Research. Contemporary Issues in Technology Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3010-0_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3010-0_10

Published : 29 January 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-13-3009-4

Online ISBN : 978-981-13-3010-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

Jessica Grose

Every tech tool in the classroom should be ruthlessly evaluated.

By Jessica Grose

Opinion Writer

Educational technology in schools is sometimes described as a wicked problem — a term coined by a design and planning professor, Horst Rittel, in the 1960s , meaning a problem for which even defining the scope of the dilemma is a struggle, because it has so many interconnected parts that never stop moving.

When you have a wicked problem, solutions have to be holistic, flexible and developmentally appropriate. Which is to say that appropriate tech use for elementary schoolers in rural Oklahoma isn’t going to be the same as appropriate tech use in a Chicago high school.

I spent the past few weeks speaking with parents, teachers, public school administrators and academics who study educational technology. And while there are certainly benefits to using tech as a classroom tool, I’m convinced that when it comes to the proliferation of tech in K-12 education, we need “ a hard reset ,” as Julia Freeland Fisher of the Christensen Institute put it, concurring with Jonathan Haidt in his call for rolling back the “phone-based childhood.” When we recently spoke, Fisher stressed that when we weigh the benefits of ed tech, we’re often not asking, “What’s happening when it comes to connectedness and well-being?”

Well said. We need a complete rethink of the ways that we’re evaluating and using tech in classrooms; the overall change that I want to see is that tech use in schools — devices and apps — should be driven by educators, not tech companies.

In recent years, tech companies have provided their products to schools either free or cheap , and then schools have tried to figure out how to use those products. Wherever that dynamic exists, it should be reversed: Districts and individual schools should first figure out what tech would be most useful to their students, and their bar for “useful” should be set by available data and teacher experience. Only then should they acquire laptops, tablets and educational software.

As Mesut Duran — a professor of educational technology at the University of Michigan, Dearborn, and the author of “Learning Technologies: Research, Trends and Issues in the U.S. Education System” — told me, a lot of the technology that’s used in classrooms wasn’t developed with students in mind. “Most of the technologies are initially created for commercial purposes,” he said, “and then we decide how to use them in schools.”

In many cases, there’s little or no evidence that the products actually work, and “work” can have various meanings here: It’s not conclusive that tech, as opposed to hard-copy materials, improves educational outcomes. And sometimes devices or programs simply don’t function the way they’re supposed to. For example, artificial intelligence in education is all the rage, but then we get headlines like this one, in February, from The Wall Street Journal: “ We Tested an A.I. Tutor for Kids. It Struggled With Basic Math. ”

Alex Molnar, one of the directors of the National Educational Policy Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said that every school should be asking if the tech it’s using is both necessary and good. “The tech industry’s ethos is: If it’s doable, it is necessary. But for educators, that has to be an actual question: Is this necessary?” Even after you’ve cleared the bar of necessary, he said, educators should be asking, “Is doing it this way good, or could we do it another way that would be better? Better in the ethical sense and the pedagogical sense.”

With that necessary and good standard in mind, here are some specific recommendations that I’ve taken away from several discussions and a lot of reading. It’s unrealistic — and considering that we’re in a tech-saturated world, not ideal — to get rid of every last bit of educational technology. But we’re currently failing too many children by letting it run rampant.

At the State and Federal Levels: Privacy Protections and Better Evaluation

A complaint I heard from many public school parents who responded to my March 27 questionnaire and wanted a lower-tech environment for their kids is that they’re concerned about their children’s privacy. They couldn’t opt out of things like Google Classroom, they said, because in many cases, all of their children’s homework assignments were posted there. Molnar has a radical but elegant solution for this problem: “All data gathered must be destroyed after its intended purpose has been accomplished.” So if the intended purpose of a platform or application is grading, for example, the data would be destroyed at the end of the school year; it couldn’t be sold to a third party or used to further enhance the product or as a training ground for artificial intelligence.

Another recommendation — from a recent paper by the University of Edinburgh’s Ben Williamson, Molnar and the University of Colorado, Boulder’s Faith Boninger outlining the risks of A.I. in the classroom — is for the creation of an “independent government entity charged with ensuring the quality of digital educational products used in schools” that would evaluate tech before it is put into schools and “periodically thereafter.” Because the technology is always evolving, our oversight of it needs to be, as well.

At the District Level: Centralize the Tech-Vetting Process

Stephanie Sheron is the chief of strategic initiatives for the Montgomery County Public Schools, the largest district in Maryland, and all the district’s technology departments report to her. She likened the tech landscape, coming out of the Covid-19 pandemic remote school period, to the “Wild West.” School districts were flooded with different kinds of ed tech in an emergency situation in which teachers were desperately trying to engage their students, and a lot of relief money was pouring in from the federal government. When the dust settled, she said, the question was, “Now what do we do? How do we control this? How do we make sure that we’re in alignment with FERPA and COPPA and all of those other student data privacy components?”

To address this, Sheron said, her district has secured grant funding to hire a director of information security, who will function as the hub for all the educational technology vending and evaluate new tech. Part of the standardization that the district has been undergoing is a requirement that to be considered, curriculum vendors must offer both digital and hard-copy resources. She said her district tried to look at tech as a tool, adding: “A pencil is a tool for learning, but it’s not the only modality. Same thing with technology. We look at it as a tool, not as the main driver of the educational experience.”

At the Classroom Level: Ruthlessly Evaluate Every Tool

In my conversations with teachers, I’ve been struck by their descriptions of the cascade of tech use — that more tech is often offered as a solution to problems created by tech. For example, paid software like GoGuardian, which allows teachers to monitor every child’s screen, has been introduced to solve the problem of students goofing off on their laptops. But there’s a simple, free, low-tech solution to this problem that Doug Showley, a high school English teacher in Indiana I spoke to, employs: He makes all his students face their computer screens in his direction.

Every teacher who is concerned about tech use in his or her classroom should do a tech audit. There are several frameworks ; I like the worksheet created by Beth Pandolpho and Katie Cubano, the authors of “Choose Your Own Master Class: Urgent Ideas to Invigorate Your Professional Learning.” In the chapter “Balancing Technology Use in the Classroom,” they suggest that teachers list every tech tool they are using and evaluate its specific functions, asking, “Are these novel or duplicative?” They also encourage teachers to write out a defense of the tool and the frequency of use.

I like these questions because they make clear that the solutions are not going to be one size fits all.

Students Deserve Authentic Connection

As I close out this series, I want to return to what Fisher said about the importance of student connection and well-being. Of course academic outcomes matter. I want our kids to learn as much about as many different topics as they can. I care about falling test scores and think they’re an important piece of data.

But test scores are only one kind of information. A key lesson we should have learned from 2020 and ’21 is that school is about so much more than just academics. It’s about socialization, critical thinking, community and learning how to coexist with people who are different from you. I don’t know that all of these are things that can be tracked in a scientific way, which brings me back to the idea of tech in schools as a wicked problem: These aren’t easily measurable outcomes.

Jeff Frank, a professor of education at St. Lawrence University, expresses a sense that I’ve had very well in a paper , “Sounding the Call to Teach in a Social Media Age: Renewing the Importance of Philosophy in Teacher Education.” He says students are “hungry for experiences that make them feel alive and authentically connected to other people and to deeper sources of value. Though filtering and managing life through technologies offers safety, predictability and a sense of control, it also leads to life that can feel extremely small, constraining and lonely. Teaching can offer a powerful way to pierce this bubble.”

Ultimately, I believe the only way kids will be able to find that deeper meaning is through human relationships with their peers and teachers, no matter how shiny an A.I. tutor appears to be at first blush.

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

• Our Mission

Effective Technology Use in Math Class

Ensuring that the technology we bring into math classes fosters active engagement is key.

Incorporating technology in mathematics classrooms enables educators to craft powerful collaborative learning experiences that support problem solving and flexible thinking. With strategic integration of both content-specific and content-neutral technology, students and teachers can construct their learning together in authentic ways that elevate mathematics learning.

Until recently, one of educators’ primary concerns around educational technology was the lack of access that existed in many American schools. That gap has decreased, but a new digital divide has emerged: The updated 2017 National Education Technology Plan explains that in today’s classrooms many students are using technology as a tool for passive learning rather than engaging in active learning experiences that promote student agency.

The Importance of Content-Specific Pedagogy

In order to create technology-infused experiences that support active mathematics learning, educators must of course have pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)—an understanding of best practices specific to mathematics.

One method a teacher can use to analyze the effectiveness of technology integration is the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework. This tool supports careful educator reflection on pedagogy, content, and technology not only as separate entities but as overlapping and intersecting domains.

For example, when planning to integrate technology into a lesson, educators can take into account the technology knowledge the students will need, the mathematics content knowledge they’ll need, and the best practices for teaching both the technology and the math. This process is extremely important because without it, the technology may be integrated in a way that is pedagogically inappropriate for mathematics instruction.

Using PCK to Spot Unhealthy Apps and Websites

Teachers start from their understanding of PCK, or best practices for mathematics instruction, in choosing effective technology tools for the mathematics classroom. We know that mathematics should not be focused on speed or quick answer finding. And timed fact testing is a known trigger of math anxiety , which can lead to low mathematics achievement and mathematics avoidance. Yet math apps and websites that focus on speed and rote memorization are readily available and widely used.

This use of technology can promote fear and stress, and it also sends inaccurate messages about the purpose of mathematics. Math is about thinking deeply, discovering patterns, and making connections. Automaticity with math facts and math skills is critical, but how we get students to automaticity matters. A focus on memorization without understanding promotes a joyless, nonsensical form of mathematics that requires remembering a large amount of seemingly disconnected information.

In addition, technology that simply transfers a gradual release—the “I do, we do, you do” structure—to an online format is a form of passive learning that strips math of student agency and rigor. Although gradually releasing responsibility is an effective model in other content areas, in mathematics this model is best flipped to give students the agency to decide what strategies they want to use and how they might solve a problem.

That’s because students should productively struggle with math. We need them to problem solve rather than learn to repeat a specific list of procedures given by the teacher. Problem solving skills are more valuable than memorization, and they’re the true work of mathematicians. If we’re integrating technology into our classrooms to engage students in real-world experiences, our students must be given opportunities to do real mathematics.

Technology That Fosters Deep Mathematical Thinking

When used appropriately, both content-specific and content-neutral technology can be effective in the math classroom. Research indicates that content-specific apps and websites that focus on math learning with the use of virtual manipulatives are highly effective, and in some cases more efficient than physical manipulatives.

The Math Learning Center , for example, provides several manipulative options, such as rekenreks, geoboards, number lines, and number frames. Apps and websites that provide these types of virtual tools are easy to use, support students with conceptual understanding, and increase student access to math tools.

Content-neutral technology includes tools such as virtual whiteboards, handheld clickers, and student collaboration apps. Virtual whiteboard and websites, such as  Explain Everything , promote self reflection, enable students to make their learning visible and share and connect ideas, and have been linked with high-level student thinking and teacher questioning .

But content-neutral technology that promotes fast answering, such as handheld clickers, is associated with decreased cognitive demand, most likely due to the likelihood of being used with minimal student discourse.

Being a Critical Consumer of Technology

The educational technology market is flooded with new apps, tech tools, and gadgets, and in some instances, teachers are commended for increased technology use whether it supports healthy math learning or not. Technology can have a truly positive impact on student learning, but it should not replace teaching or ignore research-based best practices for math instruction.

If we believe that students of mathematics need opportunities for discussing math, creating and connecting visuals, analyzing models, discovering patterns, and making generalizations, the technology that we introduce into our classrooms should match those values.

There was a time when simply getting technology into the hands of our students was a goal, but the time has come to slow down and plan for technology integration that truly supports healthy and productive mathematics learning.

• Future Students
• Current Students
• Faculty/Staff

News and Media

• News & Media Home
• Research Stories
• School's In
• In the Media

You are here

How technology is reinventing education.

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

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

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

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

AI in the classroom

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

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

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

Immersive environments

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

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

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

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

Gamification

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

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

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

Data-gathering and analysis

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

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

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

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

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

More Stories

⟵ Go to all Research Stories

Get the Educator

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter.

Stanford Graduate School of Education

482 Galvez Mall Stanford, CA 94305-3096 Tel: (650) 723-2109

• Contact Admissions
• GSE Leadership
• Site Feedback
• Web Accessibility
• Career Resources
• Faculty Open Positions
• Explore Courses
• Academic Calendar
• Office of the Registrar
• Cubberley Library
• StanfordWho
• StanfordYou

Improving lives through learning

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

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

Stella timotheou.

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

Ourania Miliou

Yiannis dimitriadis.

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

Sara Villagrá Sobrino

Nikoleta giannoutsou, romina cachia.

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

Alejandra Martínez Monés

Andri ioannou, associated data.

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impacts of digital technologies on equality, inclusion and social integration

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

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

Impacts of digital technologies on teachers’ professional and teaching practices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factors that affect the integration of digital technologies

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

Digital competencies

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

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

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

Teachers’ personal characteristics, training approaches, and professional development

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

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

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

School leadership and management

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

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

Connectivity, infrastructure, and government and other support

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

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

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

Administration and digital data management

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

Students’ socioeconomic background and family support

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

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

Schools’ socioeconomic context and emergency situations

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

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

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

Factors that affect the impact of ICTs on education

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Study limitations and future directions

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

Data availability statement

Declarations.

Publisher's note

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

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

5 Problems in Education That Technology Will Soon Solve

Education has been stuck at a plateau for several years, plagued by several different issues that are seemingly unsolvable -- but technology has finally found ways around these problems.

Years ago, associate professor Kentaro Toyama wrote an influential article  and argued that the history of education in technology was "fraught with failures" and that technology could not address the individualized concerns that are necessary for good teaching.

And for a while, his criticisms seemed to hold a lot of water as EdTech ("education technology") never managed to revolutionize classrooms, even after years of investment and many broken promises. However, its time may  finally be here.

The Promise of EdTech

The idea that good teachers are an essential ingredient to good education isn't up for debate, but Toyama's harsh view of EdTech's potential needs addressing. Just because EdTech is "fraught with failures" doesn't mean we should abandon it outright.

In the past 100 years, most industries have evolved in spectacular ways, including in the ways we live our lives and in the ways we work. Yet somehow the classroom is still a century behind, still carving industrial workers in a post-industrial age. There is a sweet spot that can -- and must -- be reached.

The response here should be measured. Calling for a revolution in education might seem like the obvious course, but if it fails, we could end up damaging the lives of millions of children. Then again, the same could be said for leaving the education industry in its outdated state.

Instead, we need to speed up the evolution and adoption of EdTech so that our children can be better educated in the context of this hyper-connected digital era.

The 5 Problems Facing EdTech

Education expert Matthew Lynch once explained the reasons why the U.S. education system is failing , and not just the U.S. system but systems all over the world. As put forth by the article, the most pressing reasons are:

• Schools are overcrowded.
• School spending is stagnant.
• A lack of teacher innovation.
• A lack of involvement from parents.
• Technology has become synonymous with entertainment.

For decades now, technology has failed to solve these issues on a large scale, but the blame cannot rest solely with the EdTech industry. Some innovations may have been destined to fail, sure, but others could have exceeded our expectations.

Robert French believes that in these latter cases, the education system has actually failed the tech industry by remaining so hostile to change. After all, the EdTech industry has indeed made rapid advancements in recent years and there is evidence that each of these issues may soon be solved.

The main issue, then, is whether the education system will take advantage of this opportunity to grow. Let's explore what these issues are and how technology could actually solve them for good.

1. Overcrowded Classrooms

A 2009 University of London report stated that "once the class size passes a certain point, the teachers are bound to 'fail' because the demands on their time cannot be met". In essence, the root of this problem is not the number of children in a classroom but rather the inability for each child to receive adequate attention.

In 1984, Benjamin Bloom conducted research that undeniably showed that through combining his " mastery learning " techniques and 1:1 tuition, students could perform far beyond other students who were being taught in more conventional ways.

It's with this knowledge that EdTech company Matchbook Learning works with some of the worst performing, overcrowded schools in the U.S. You can see an overview of their approach, building on the research of Bloom, in the video below:

By combining  blended learning  (where face-to-face teaching is combined with online learning) with real-time data, we can get rapid feedback in classrooms and use that feedback to further enhance the quality of education.

As an example, consider a classroom of 30 students. Ten students with similar abilities may work closely with the teacher, another ten may work through lectures and online tasks using computer terminals, and the final ten may work together on a group project. In the next lesson, students are rotated so they can learn in different ways throughout the course.

This kind of approach enables the teacher to focus more closely on fewer children at once. The teacher can also tailor the learning approach for each student based on how well each one works for the individual. Meanwhile, the software on the computes is advanced enough to tailor the content to each student as well.

By collecting real-time feedback on each child's results, the course contents can be adapted per student and make it as if they were receiving a one-on-one tuition.

This approach allows each student to have their own learning path that's customized to their needs. By doing this, teachers can easily see which students are falling behind and offer more individualized teaching to those students. The results, as you can see below, have been fantastic. (Each 10% gain is equal to a year's worth of learning.)

If more schools were to adopt a similar approach, where some responsibilities could be handled by tech-aided learning methods, more of the teachers' time could be freed-up to give more attention where it's needed the most, even in larger classroom sizes.

2. Excessive Spending

Donors Choose is a "pioneering crowdfunding site" that allows regular people -- like you and me -- to fund teachers who want to run educational projects but lack the money to do so. Donors can find projects that inspire them and then choose to give however much money they want to the teacher.

It's basically Kickstarter for school projects where you can personally pitch in and help, such as by  funding the purchase of Chromebooks  or  funding the transport costs of a field trip . This tool has the potential to turn once-impossible ideas into an educational reality for kids across the country.

Since its founding in 2000, 69% of public schools in the U.S. have posted projects on the site and over two million citizens have donated well over $400 million, benefiting at least 18 million students.

This is more than a glimmer of hope for a system where lack of funding is one of its biggest problems. And with state education budgets still extremely tight, harnessing the power of the $30 billion crowdfunding industry is a promising way to loosen those purse-strings.

3. Teacher Innovation

In an article on creative teaching, author David Greene writes :

Academic creativity has been drained from degraded and overworked experienced teachers. Uniformity has sucked the life out of teaching and learning.

If teachers were given more freedom, as would likely happen if a blended learning model were introduced as mentioned above, innovation would rocket -- and an education system overhaul isn't exactly necessary to accomplish that.

After all, there are (and will always be) plenty of options open to teachers to introduce more creativity and innovation to their lessons. Some of these options would cost money, but as we've seen, Donors Choose could certainly help there.

Other options include  BlinkLearning , which allows teachers to create their own personalized, interactive courses from content provided by a range of publishers. Students can then access these courses on any device, while the app keeps a record of how they are progressing. If students are struggling, the course can quickly be altered.

A more lightweight option is to use Learnist to curate relevant content to guide students through courses.

If students struggle with boredom, game-based learning can be introduced with KinectEDucation. This is an education community where teachers can download and upload apps and resources for Microsoft Kinect , and learn from the experiences of other teachers. GameDesk is another company creating EdTech games for a variety of subjects.

The list goes on, from using social media to share ideas to using Google Hangouts to form a virtual bookclub. In the future, we'll even see virtual reality field trips , 3D printers in the classroom , and projects managed entirely in OneNote .

4. Parental Involvement

In an article on why technology has failed, Paul D. Fernhout explains that there are two types of learning: learning just in case , which is like the rote memorization approach taken by most schools, and learning on demand , where we acquire information as we need it (not as frequently practiced in schools).

Technology is already fantastic for on-demand education , and that technology is available to all of us at home by means of the Internet. So, this is where parents can currently take the mantle from time-stricken teachers and offer some fun on-demand knowledge to their children.

In the current schooling landscape, there just isn't time for large amounts of group projects and problem-solving exercises, but these are the kinds of exercises that children can be set with at home. When a child is given a problem exercise and the use of a smartphone, tablet, or computer, on-demand learning happens naturally.

Used in conjunction with the school curriculum, this can really help children to progress.

For example, if your child is learning about Excel spreadsheets at school, try setting them the challenge of creating a pocket-money calculator in Excel. Searching Google, watching YouTube videos, or studying  Excel templates  can offer real education in practical settings. There are tons of other educational projects you can try out, too.

5. Tech Is Not Just Entertainment

To finish, let's look at the issue of how technology has become synonymous with entertainment. The alleged problem here is that when children use technology, they enter an entertainment mode rather than a study mode.

And this is the moment where we need to ask ourselves: Why does education have to be seen as opposed to entertainment?

As neurologist Judy Willis once explained :

The truth is that when joy and comfort are scrubbed from the classroom and replaced with homogeneity, and when spontaneity is replaced with conformity, students' brains are distanced from effective information processing and long-term memory storage.

The highest-level executive thinking, making of connections, and "aha" moments are more likely to occur in an atmosphere of "exuberant discovery," where students of all ages retain that kindergarten enthusiasm of embracing each day with the joy of learning.

In other words, education does not (and should not) need to be a chore. Throughout this article, I've given a number of EdTech solutions that truly work and encourage entertainment in education, from gamifying the classroom and introducing fun projects  to funding more field trips and creating personalized, interactive courses.

In fact, we've already written about games becoming the future of education  and about how some old games could be used for teaching . As Dann Albright wrote in the former article:

From a psychological perspective, it makes perfect sense: teachers have been using games for ages. Did you ever play Jeopardy in biology class? A quiz game in English? Have a popsicle-stick bridge building competition in physics?

These games are challenging and motivational. But games -- or any other form of entertainment -- with a technological element can be so much more immersive, responsive, and effective, which thereby makes it so much more valuable as a learning aid. More so than lectures, board games, and dull rote tasks, anyway.

Consider the difference in impact between teaching the wonders of history through a lifeless textbook or through an immersive virtual reality tour. It's clear which one would be more effective, so whenever education  can be fun, then it  should  be fun.

Education + Technology = The Future

In a world where technology has the power to transform industries and offer entertainment to every dull moment we encounter, it's time for educators to more whole-heartedly adopt some of these innovations. Not for the sole purpose of improving grades or cutting costs, but to offer our children a more fulfilling educational experience.

And, perhaps more importantly, to empower teachers to more effectively help struggling children while introducing innovation back into the classroom.

Do you think it's time more schools introduced more technology into the classroom? Or do you think classrooms are ok as they are?

Image Credits:  elementary school by Syda Productions via Shutterstock, Classroom by Lead Beyond (Flickr), Next generation by zeitfaenger.at (Flickr), The poor man's VR headset by Kimubert (Flickr)

Problem Solving in Technology Education: A Taoist Perspective

Problem Solving in Technology Education: A Taoist Perspective Jim Flowers Problem solving and product design experiences can empower students by presenting unique learning opportunities. Although the problem solving method may have been important to technology education, as well as industrial arts, as far back as the 1920s (Foster, 1994 ), the movement to incorporate more problem solving and product design in technology education kept surfacing in the 1990s. For example, the Commonwealth of Virginia introduced a series of high school technology courses grouped together as Design and Technology (Virginia Department of Education, 1992 ); TIES Magazine's web site offered 70 video tapes "that will support the teaching of design, problem solving and technology" (Ties, 1998 ); the use of design briefs was emphasized (Ritz & Deal, 1992 ); the popularity of a textbook titled Design and Problem Solving in Technology (Hutchinson & Karsnitz, 1994 ) continued to grow; and smiling students and their technological inventions were featured in articles (Edwards, 1996 ), at fairs, and in promotional materials. In the newer approaches to technology education that center on design, students are often asked to design new products. They creatively invent products like: pizza cutters with built-in flashlights; roller skates that work in sand; hats with built-in fans for cooling; and yet another way to store compact discs. Subtly, the definition of technology education has evolved to reflect this movement, since "much technological activity is oriented toward designing and creating new products, technological systems, and environments" (International Technology Education Association, 1996, p.18 ). While there are many definitions of technology (Dyrenfurth, 1991 ), a number of them are oriented toward a product design and problem solving model. Some of these definitions of technology center on "control" over the "human-made and natural environment" to better meet "human needs and wants." For example, Wright and Lauda (1993>) include these elements in their definition of technology as "a body of knowledge and actions, used by people, to apply resources in designing, producing, and using products, structures and systems to extend the human potential for controlling and modifying the natural and human-made environment" ( pp. 3-5 ). This is a shift in meaning from the days of the pump handle lamp and other woodshop projects. Back then, the student often began with a project idea, not with a problem to solve. As this shift in approach occurs, one problem faced by today's teachers of product design is that students tend to subvert a prescribed design process. For example, a typical teacher may ask a student to engage in such a design process, beginning with the student identifying a problem to solve. Often this is a need or want. Next, the student may be asked to gather information and then to formulate many possible solutions to the problem, eventually choosing the best. In reality, some students approach the activity with the thought, "I want to get a CD rack out of this class," or some similar sentiment that begins with one particular solution. In order to satisfy the teacher's requirements, they then craft a need to fit this product idea. While most of their designs are fanciful and lack practical application, a few do, in fact, make sense. However, the entire approach of asking students to design yet another product to satisfy our needs and wants may be misguided, for two reasons. First, few, if any, of today's products are designed (by technology students or professional product designers) to meet actual needs. They are almost always designed to meet open markets, and then human wants can be engineered to meet the product availability. A common joke asks, "If necessity is the mother of invention, how come so many inventions are unnecessary?" The phrase, "The customer is always right," and its more cynical corollary, "Give the customers what they think they want," are not without merit, and have led to economic success for many capitalists. However, the result of product design activities for technology students is that these students learn materialism to an extreme. They are taught that just because something can be invented or produced, it should be. They are taught that creatively designing products is a good thing, regardless of the outcomes. The ultimate criterion for success is money. Second, problem solving and product design are not the same; the best result of a sound problem solving process is often something other than a new product. Maybe the solution to a problem would be a change in corporate policy, new legislation, a consumer education program, or changes in how a product is marketed. These are each examples of design, but it is a system, not a product, that is designed or redesigned. Maybe the best solution is non-action, and acceptance of the situation without change. There have been numerous examples of technological products or "fixes," such as DDT, that have backfired. We need a global citizenry that can entertain a wider variety of solutions than merely a new technological product. Yet if students are told (even tacitly) that their solution must be a physical product or model, then we are restricting their diversity of solutions, and thereby asking them to choose what may not be the best solution. Maybe that approach to problem solving is part of how teachers are taught. Boser ( 1993 ) compared problem solving educational specialists in two groups, technology teacher educators (TECH) and other researchers who were not technology teacher educators (EXT). "Members of the TECH panel tended to rate most highly those procedures practiced within the field, such as design-based problem solving, R & D experiences, and innovation activities. EXT panelists considered techniques such as simulation and case study, which are perhaps more widely used in content areas outside of technology education, as appropriate delivery vehicles for the recommended problem solving procedures," stated Boser. Some might point to a definition of technology and argue that the goal of technological acts is control over the environment to meet our needs and wants. But does technology really give control over the environment? Or is this just one western (or stereotypically male) approach? Surely technology education should accommodate people of different religions and belief systems. Yet, there may be a bias against certain belief systems because of the underlying and unquestioned assumptions inherent in a definition of technology and a rationale of technology education. A Taoist philosophy is summarized in the Tao Te Ching, translated here from Lao Tsu's words ( 1972 ) from 6th Century BC China. The numbers in parentheses correspond to the reference numbers in the actual document. Lao Tsu suggested that less and less should be done "until non-action is achieved. When nothing is done, nothing is left undone. The world is ruled by letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering" (#48). The philosophy of Taoism, like some other belief systems, does not put humans on an adversarial battleground with nature. Instead, a harmonious existence is thought to be a proper relationship. "Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it? I do not believe it can be done. The universe is sacred. You cannot improve it. If you try to change it, you will ruin it. If you try to hold it, you will lose it" (#29). It is difficult to delineate the separation between human and nature, and just as difficult to find the real difference between the human-made and natural environments. It is nearly impossible to name any terrestrial environment that is all human-made (without having been affected by the sun, for example), or one that has not been influenced by humans. These distinctions seem to isolate people from the world around them in an "unnatural" way. Yet, definitions of technology often attempt to make just such a distinction. From a Taoist perspective, some definitions of technology seem more like creeds about the nature and purpose of humans. A host of values dominant in much western culture are de-emphasized in Taoist texts, including materialism: "Having and not having arise together" (#2); "One gains by losing and loses by gaining" (#42); one "who knows that enough is enough will always have enough" (#46); and one "who is attached to things will suffer much" (#44). It is common for western students to strive to improve, to take pride in their work, and to expect and receive praise. Yet, Lao Tsu suggests, "Working, yet not taking credit. Work is done, then forgotten. Therefore it lasts forever" (#2), and "Not exalting the gifted prevents quarreling" (#3). Technology students are especially encouraged to be innovative, and to want to improve the current situation (or solve the problem): "Give up ingenuity, renounce profit, and bandits and thieves will disappear" (#19); "Without desire there is tranquility" (#37). It is especially difficult for educators to question the value of education itself, but Taoism does: "In the pursuit of learning every day something is acquired. In the pursuit of Tao, every day something is dropped" (#48); and "Give up learning and put an end to your troubles" (#20). While some Taoist doctrines may cause some to discount the entire philosophy, that would be a mistake. Instead, it would be better to see what questions are raised by such a stance. The emphasis on design in technology education may be related to the current abundance and diversity of technical artifacts. Would more artifacts be an improvement? While there are positive and negative outcomes of nearly any technological change, we should question the assumption that more is better. Does a major league pitcher concentrate on new baseball prototypes? No. The pitcher practices and experiments with the art of pitching, often hoping to achieve just a fraction of the skill enjoyed by some of the great pitchers in the history of the game. The aim is "the essence of pitching." However, technology is an important factor. As the clap-skate was introduced to Olympic speed skating competitions in 1998, the athletes altered their notion of "the essence of speed skating." As technology becomes more transparent to the end user, the user is required to know less technical information to use the technology. A few decades ago, computer programming was being pushed in the public schools. Now, the emphasis is more on the use of professionally prepared programs. Software is updated so often that it can be difficult to develop comfort with one particular version. This has let to some computer users feeling more comfortable with an older, and sometimes more reliable, version of a program. Their goal may not be to use the most advanced word processing program, but to write. Is the goal to achieve a sustainable future, or to keep accelerating? "There is no greater sin than desire, no greater curse than discontent, no greater misfortune than wanting something for oneself. Therefore [one] who knows that enough is enough will always have enough" (#46). Are there enough designs? Is there enough technology? Would it be possible to reconcile technology, technology education, and a Taoist perspective? Yes. But technology would not be the essence of human control over others and the environment. It would not be a master, but a tool. The goal would not be materialistic or technological, but to live life on a harmonious path. Will that entail problem solving and technology? Yes, but the goal of the problem solving activity may not be what it seems. Recommendations Therefore, I suggest a different approach to teaching problem solving in technology education. Students should be encouraged to concentrate not on whimsical wants or fanciful products. They should apply their considerable problem solving skills to improving the human condition, and the condition of non-humans, sometimes in spite of what some people want or think they want. They should be encouraged to find solutions from a broad range of technological and non-technological realms. Effective and responsible national leaders and corporate executives are those with enough backbone to do what they believe is best for the nation or corporation, in spite of mass opinion. They are not afraid to upset people, even friends, if these people had to be upset by the leader's pursuit of their course. While they may be mindful of the concerns of the workers, citizens, consumers, etc., they are willing to lose their job because they did what they thought was best, in spite of common opinion. The solutions (i.e., way) they choose are holistic, sometimes relying more on technology, other times involved with laws, communication, and other social arenas. They do not blindly accept the premise that their current product or service is the single best solution to a problem. They "know when enough is enough," and when the choice to not pursue a technological avenue is the wisest choice. If this is the type of person a technology teacher hopes their students will become, then specific educational experiences should be designed to empower students with those independent, risk-taking abilities where the goal is what is best, not necessarily only what the clients want or think they want. They must practice the skills involved in deciding when the best path may not be a new technological product. Teaching problem solving in technology education will continue to offer students invaluable learning experiences. The suggestion is that the focus and procedure be allowed to shift. This can be directed by how the teacher helps the student select a problem and frame the context of a problem. Here are four examples of situations a teacher may pose for students. In Costa Rica, some of the urban-dwellers move into the dwindling tropical rainforest, clear an area of trees, and try to live a better life than they had in the city. In Ghana, there is a shortage of skilled industrial workers, yet many of the students in Ghana's trade schools consider such jobs beneath their qualifications. In New York, a woman who played guitar and piano for many years has to give up these instruments because the guitar causes problems with her neck and back, and both instruments have resulted in carpal tunnel syndrome. In Delaware, a wife and husband in their seventies were given their first VCR, but the instructions sounded too intimidating for them to actually play or record a tape. In each example, there is a statement of a situation that might (or might not) be improved by a creative solution. Some solutions may be technological, but maybe the best solution is not technological. Students should examine such situations (both big and small, near and far, individual and societal) and use their creative problem solving abilities to try to plan what is best. This means weighing short-term gains and costs with long-term gains and costs. It means asking what is best: best for the individual, for the culture, for future generations, and for the environment. It means considering educational reform, personal lifestyle changes, new technology, and governmental action. The Japan External Trade Organization (1998) concluded that "a fundamental gap exists between the way Japanese companies and many of their overseas partners, especially in the West, view problems." Greater attention to both the diverse views of problem solving and to holistic approaches may improve the benefits of education in problem solving. Oddly, this more holistic approach to problem solving is contrary to popular belief and some research results: The tendency in education has been to employ the term "problem solving" generically to include such diverse activities as coping with marital problems and trouble-shooting electronic circuits. The results of this study suggest that such generalization may be inappropriate. Instead, problem solving should be viewed as nature specific. In other words, different types of problem situations (e.g., personal or technological) require different kinds and levels of knowledge and capability. This is substantiated by this study's findings that individuals manifest different style characteristics when addressing problems of different natures. (Wu, Custer, & Dyrenfurth, 1996, p.69) However, the best solution to a technological problem may be non- technological. Students who are practiced in considering this wider range of alternatives will be better prepared to face the demands of global citizenry than those who merely make yet another CD rack. A technology teacher can incorporate elements of a Taoist approach in subtle ways. These may include less emphasis on the product, less praise (from an external source), acceptance of some situations as they are, and an attitude of doing something because it needs to be done, and then moving on. There would certainly be less emphasis for some on solving problems by designing new products. Finally, it is critical for a technology teacher to revisit their definition and philosophy of technology, analyzing its assumptions and bias. That definition should be individually crafted by that teacher, so that it is honest and accurate, and accommodates a variety of belief systems. That definition can lay the path for a wondrous technological journey for the student and teacher. References Boser, R. (1993). The development of problem solving capabilities in pre-service technology teacher education. Journal of Technology Education, 4(2). Dyrenfurth, M. J. (1991) . Technological literacy synthesized. In M. J. Dyrenfurth & M. R. Kozak (Eds.), Technological literacy. 40th Yearbook, Council on Technology Teacher Education. Peoria, IL: Glencoe. Edwards, D. (1996). Design technology exhibit. The Technology Teacher, 55(8), 14-16. Foster, P. (1994). Technology education: AKA industrial arts. Journal of Technology Education , 5(2). Hutchinson, J., and Karsnitz, J. (1994). Design and problem solving in technology. Albany, NY: Delmar. International Technology Education Association. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. Japan External Trade Organization. (1998). Problem solving. Retrieved April 23, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.jetro.go.jp/ Negotiating/6.html Lao Tsu. (1972). Tao te ching (Gia-Fu Feng & J. English, Trans.). Westminster, MD: Random House. (Original work 6th Century BC) Ritz, J. R., & Deal, W. F. (1992). Design briefs: Writing dynamic learning activities. The Technology Teacher, 54(5), 33-34. TIES. (1998). Ties - The magazine of design and technology. Retrieved on February 12, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.TCNJ.EDU/ ~ties/ Virginia Department of Education. (1992). Design and technology: Teacher's guide for high school technology education. Richmond, VA: Author. Wright, R. T. , & Lauda, D. P. (1993). Technology education - A position statement. The Technology Teacher, 52(4), 3-5. Wu, T., Custer, R. L., & Dyrenfurth, M. J. (1996). Technological and personal problem solving styles: Is there a difference? Journal of Technology Education , 7(2), 55-71. Jim Flowers is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Industry and Technology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.

NC high school students compete in app building contest at Lenovo headquarters

M ORRISVILLE, N.C. (WNCN) — High school students from across the state showed off their design skills Friday as they participated in an app building contest at Lenovo’s headquarters. 

Olivia Mosca, Syd Giridharan and Maddy Chandler have been working on their app, ServeIT, for months. 

The app allows teen drivers to deliver donations to charities. 

“We use an AI constraint optimization solver to generate the most efficient routes for teens to go to donors’ houses, pick up donations, saving donors time and money and then deliver them to charitable organizations,” said Giridharan. 

They were just one of the groups that presented their app idea in front of judges at Lenovo’s headquarters.

The company partnered with the  North Carolina Business Committee for Education for the “Ready, Set, App!” competition.

“This is a competition for high school students across North Carolina to build an original mobile app to solve a problem in their school or community,” said Ciera Tucker with the NC Business Committee for Education. 

Ideas range from food insecurity to medical protocols. 

Pranathi Gorty is a Lenovo Intern. This year she has two teams she’s mentoring.

“One of them is called Skin Sense which is basically like a cancer detection melanoma app in a way. It’s really innovative. They use machine learning and all that kind of stuff,” said Gorty. “The other team is Bus Buddies which is basically about buses and routing and trying to help students so they don’t miss the bus and they get to school on time.

Students aren’t just learning how to build an app, but they’re also learning professional development and problem solving.

“Using ServeIt we can kind of crack down on those smaller issues in helping families in need with more specific needs,” said Olivia Mosca. 

The fifth year that Lenovo has done the competition. 

The top three teams will win both cash and technology prizes. 

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to CBS17.com.

• Colleges & Degrees
• Academic Calendar
• International Education
• Graduate Studies
• Accreditation
• Tuition and Fees
• Parking & Maps
• Careers with CSULB
• Alumni Home
• Alumni Volunteering
• Alumni Giving

Campus Life

• Centers & Organizations
• Commencement
• Student Life
• Office of the President
• Office of the Provost
• Administration & Finance
• Student Affairs
• University Relations & Development
• Information Technology
• Beach Shops
• Campus Directory
• Enrollment Services
• Financial Aid
• Schedule of Classes
• Student Records
• 49er Foundation
• Research Foundation

1250 BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90840 562.985.4111

David Teubner 2024 Distinguished Faculty Teaching Award Recipient

Associate Professor David Teubner is the 2024 recipient of the CSULB Distinguished Faculty Teaching Award. Dave has been an influential leader in the Design Department and a dedicated leader in the Industrial Design program. He is passionate about design and has worked in the field since 1980 in animation, film production, advertising, and industrial design. Dave instills design thinking and problem-solving in all his courses, the use of technology, and is now incorporating AI into his curriculum.  

The University Achievement Awards were held on Wednesday, April 24, 2024, at The Pointe on CSULB campus with Dr. Karyn Scissum Gunn, Provost & Senior Vice President; Simon Kim, AVP, Research and Development; and Pei-Fang Hung, Chair, Academic Senate presiding. Our sincere congratulations go to Associate Professor David Teubner on receiving the prestigious award. For the full story: https://www.csulb.edu/office-of-the-provost/university-achievement-awards  

More From Forbes

The story behind the fafsa failure.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

It used to be shocking when classmates passed away. But you can only be shocked so many times; serial shocks give way to sadness, then nostalgia and appreciation. I just learned of the passing of my college classmate Lou Marotti. I wasn’t close to Lou but remember him as a gentle giant who wanted to become a doctor. I knew his roommate better, another aspiring physician, who, after failing to gain admission to a U.S. medical school, headed off to Argentina where, rumor has it, his medical training consisted of giving heart attacks to dogs. (In retrospect, it's hard to fathom how that could be the standard of care for any condition, animal or human.) Lou got himself into a U.S. medical school and became a respected neurosurgeon who bestowed new life by untangling spinal nerves to relieve torturous back pain. Patients conveying condolences to his wife Jill and two young children describe him as an “angel on earth” and “God’s gift to so many people.”

What I learned from Lou’s obituary and the many ensuing tributes is that he seemed to enjoy his limited time. Lou loved racing – “from dirt bikes and Mustangs in his youth to Ducatis and Ferraris” – as well as the finer things in life: an “insane” watch collection, clothing made of “the finest Italian fabric,” wines, spirits, and steaks. “No one knew more about beef than Lou.” One friend recalls marveling as Lou finished a 2½ pound ribeye at Bill Clinton’s favorite steak house. Another writes of Lou’s parties where the menu began and ended with whole roasted pig. “After the kids were in bed,” the obit said, “you could find Lou in the jacuzzi with a cigar, sipping an Islay scotch.” You get the idea.

Lou was also a handsome man. Early in his medical career, his hospital nickname was “Hottie Marotti.” And that could explain this possible blemish. Following his untimely passing, the mother of Lou’s first wife posted the following on Facebook:

He married my daughter in a beautiful wedding… on September 17, 2004. However I am perplexed by the dates in this obituary that state “He met the love of his life, Jill, in 2005,” since he was married. Another passage states “Lou and his wife Jill loved music and rocked out to countless live concerts in their almost 20 years together.”

Really? It is 2024.

There are three takeaways from Lou’s obituary. One, if you want to make a huge difference in the lives of thousands of people, become a back surgeon. Two, if you do, you can make scotch-and-cigars-in-a-jacuzzi money. And three, timing matters: timing matters for both major life decisions and their post-mortem recounting.

Timing also matters for federal financial aid. As in getting financial aid offers in April to make enrollment decisions in May. And as in completing a three-year IT project on schedule so as not to risk the financial health of thousands of universities and the education of millions of students.

‘Challengers’ Reviews: Does Zendaya Tennis Movie Score With Critics?

‘baby reindeer’ star says real martha searches need to stop, patriots select north carolina quarterback drake maye with no 3 pick in nfl draft.

If you’ve been busy enjoying the finer things in life, here’s the state of play. Despite the best efforts of many good people, the Congressionally-mandated simplification of the U.S. Department of Education-administered free application for federal student aid (FAFSA) – reducing the number of questions from 108 to 46 (some applicants will get through with as few as 18 questions) – remains a work in progress. The first delay was access to the form: usually October 1, this year not until January. Since January, an enervating glitch-drip has made it impossible for millions of students to submit, including those whose parents lack Social Security numbers. And submitting is no guarantee of successful completion; up to 30% of submitted forms include calculation errors while 16% have student errors . Colleges can’t issue aid offers until these problems are fixed (up to last month, completion was no guarantee ED would even process applications and send student information to colleges). As of April 12 , submissions are down 25% YoY, completions are down 36%, and aid offers are likely down even more.

Houston, we have a problem

Under pressure from congressmen , senators , and pretty much anyone paying attention, the Department of Education (ED) declared last week a “Week of Action” for FAFSA completion, which echoed in my ears like Trump’s “Infrastructure Week” i.e., attempting to prove too much while not being nearly enough. Meanwhile the standard May 1 deposit deadline is next week, only 34% of colleges have even begun sending financial aid offers to students (54% say they haven’t even started), and Carnegie Mellon may be five months behind its regular process . Although schools like CMU won’t have any difficulty filling seats, the question is whether they’ll be filled with students who wouldn’t be there without financial aid. More important, will less selective schools serving the vast majority of low-income, underrepresented , and first-generation students be able to fill their classes and welcome back returning students? Or will college campuses this fall be even richer and whiter than normal? That would be an awful outcome in any circumstance, but especially cruel since the whole point of FAFSA simplification was to make financial aid more accessible for precisely these students e.g., students with parents without Social Security numbers. Adding insult to injury, FAFSA failure is an awful tech-bookend for a high school class that began its journey at a Zoom-school disadvantage.

The urgent task is to limit the damage and Lumina's Jamie Merisotis has provided a useful roadmap i.e., extending enrollment deadlines, allowing colleges to use earlier income data to set aid for returning students. But it’s also important to ask why it’s taken so long to modify an online form.

While most of the Sturm und Drang has blown around the continued leadership of Richard Cordray at Federal Student Aid (the Wall Street Journal asserts “if Mr. Cordray were a CEO, he’d have been sacked long ago” – a notable contrast with his official ED bio stating “since his appointment in May 2021, Cordray has overseen significant changes to the federal student aid program, including strong standards for performance, transparency, and accountability” – note: unlike FAFSA, Cordray’s ED bio page does work, but like FAFSA, it may not be error-free), it was only two weeks ago that someone first thought to question the contractor hired to do the work. That someone was Senator Warren , Cordray’s Miss Haversham-like benefactor, and the motive might have been to deflect attention rather than delve into the minutiae of federal contracting. So bear with me while I delve into the minutiae of federal contracting.

The contractor hired by ED is General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT), a systems integrator subsidiary of the $40B+ defense contractor. I suppose the logic is that if they can make Gulfstreams and nuclear subs , they can fix a website. And to be fair, the FAFSA form consisted of millions of lines of COBOL code written over 40 years ago. But FAFSA simplification’s transmogrification into a politically embarrassing 6+ month slow-motion train wreck that will eventually cost Cordray and Secretary Cardona their jobs while GDIT still hasn’t been sacked evinces a problem of contractor management.

The proximate cause of this problem is that government isn’t a hotbed of technology expertise. This explains, as Glenda Morgan put it in the On EdTech blog , ED’s litany of “positive sounding updates that bear little to no relation to [reality].” It also explains why managers are overly dependent on contractors to answer project questions from their superiors. The result is what one former federal official described to me as “extreme vendor preference”; government contractors almost never get replaced. Contractors who do public sector work are willing to trade some margin for much lower (and usually no) churn. But they probably don’t need to trade much; most government contracts are cost-plus, meaning contractors have little incentive to control time (or perhaps meet deadlines) and government rules require payment regardless of whether work is completed. So while Lou Marotti and the rest of us might worry about timing, federal contractors don’t.

To wit, GDIT has held the master services agreement for FAFSA since 2015 and the FAFSA simplification statement of work for over two years. A decade ago, in the midst of the Obamacare site launch disaster, the COO of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services – the office responsible for launching the site – said of the systems integrator contractor “if we could fire them, we would.” Replacing the contractor took a full-blown political crisis, a budget that had swollen from $292M to $2.1B, and more than three months from the site’s failure. Congresswoman Foxx, Chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, isn’t always on the mark , but is when she noted of FAFSA “this is not a funding issue. This is a management one.”

ED’s management problem is a talent problem. Healthcare.gov was ultimately fixed by Jeff Zients, now President Biden’s Chief of Staff. So at least one person in the Administration knows how to manage contractors for technology projects (but perhaps not many more than that, and certainly not enough). Government’s talent problem sheds some light on the higher education system FAFSA and federal student prop up; as Angel Perez, CEO of the National Association for College Admission Counseling told CNBC’s Squawk Box , “we are overly reliant on student loans to fund higher education.” The fact that the system isn't producing enough people with the skills to oversee tech projects and manage contractors, or graduating qualified tech workers for contractors – colleges may have a point on AI or cybersecurity, but can’t say they haven’t had time to produce COBOL talent – is a metonym for a larger problem.

Between the FAFSA kerfuffle about how to pay for increasingly unaffordable college degrees and the increasingly expensive loan forgiveness kerfuffle about whether students should be required to pay for increasingly unaffordable college degrees (that’s a lot of kerfuffling), we’ve lost sight of the big picture, which is that the market has begun to shift from degrees to faster + cheaper alternatives . The new 2022-23 report from National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) found bachelor and associate degrees awarded fell for the second year in a row (2.8% after a decline of 1.6%) while the number of certificates earned grew for the second year in a row (6.2% after rising 6.5% last year). Certificates awarded to 18-20-year-olds grew a remarkable 11.3% (outside of a pandemic, any double-digit enrollment change is worth attending to). What’s even more remarkable is that NSC only tracks certificates from colleges and universities eligible for Federal Student Aid, thereby excluding thousands of certificates such as the Global Association for Quality Management’s Certified Information Technology Manager program , CompTIA’s Project+ program , and even IBM’s Mainframe Developer Professional Certificate where you could have become proficient in COBOL and helped get FAFSA done.

The assumption underlying our preoccupation with FAFSA and loan forgiveness is that degrees warrant significant subsidies while – in relative terms – training is taxed; federal loans are currently only available for programs lasting at least 300 hours over 10+ weeks while Pell Grants are for programs of 600 hours over 15+ weeks. Despite widespread acknowledgement that we need more skills training, it still costs more to borrow for training than college. Most training programs are paid for with high-interest loans, unsecured credit card debt, or out of pocket. It’s the uncollege penalty.

While we’ve been mesmerized by FAFSA and loan forgiveness, we’ve missed big news in postsecondary education financing. Meritize is the largest lender to skills-training-seeking students, funding over 20,000 trainees at 6,000 different providers in tech, aviation, skilled trades, and high return-on-investment healthcare programs like PrepMD (cardiac device technicians and remote monitoring specialists) and Medical Sales College (orthopedic device sales). (Note: PrepMD and Medical Sales College are University Ventures portfolio companies.) Meritize doesn’t lend based on credit score entirely, but also on what it calls “grit score,” which forecasts likelihood of completion and employment outcome.

Meritize recently completed the first large-scale securitization of training debt. The $130M deal, managed by Goldman Sachs and rated by Morningstar, means Meritize was successful in selling rated pools of loans to investors and is now able to recycle that capital into more loans. It’s also the start of a new asset class that will open the door to far more investment into financing training. And it’s all happening without FAFSA, loan forgiveness, or any government involvement According to Meritize founder and CEO Chris Keaveney, “The signal this deal sends is the piece we’re most excited about. There are millions of good-paying and secure skills-based jobs available today in this country in fields like technology and healthcare. This securitization strengthens our ability to help people – many of whom have not been well-served by the current degree-centric model – to get access to the training they need to land jobs in roles and industries that are thriving and are in sharp demand. We view this as tremendous market validation that there are multiple pathways to a great career and economic stability that don’t involve the route of a traditional college degree.”

Meritize’s success leads one to suspect that by the time Congress finally gets around to passing short-term Pell , the market may have moved on, although even the most innovative financial product will have a hard time competing with free money.

The FAFSA failure demonstrates just how myopic and unsustainable our approach to postsecondary education has become. And while I don’t mean to litigate President Biden’s multi-pronged loan forgiveness efforts here (although perhaps the most brazenly political policy thrust of our lifetimes, it’s for a good and perhaps existential cause), if the purpose extends beyond saving democracy to doing something fruitful for postsecondary education – if we’re going to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt for this – there are more productive uses.

Degree programs may well provide some of the most important skills required to manage and deliver technology projects. And I’m not suggesting that a single < 300 hour training program could forestall FAFSA-like failure. But a degree shouldn’t be the only pathway to managing contractors for a federal agency or moving a 40-year-old COBOL form to the Cloud – and definitely not the only subsidized path – particularly when the whole of government has ostensibly embraced degree-free hiring . Specialized training programs that don’t require four years, six figures, and eye-watering student loan debt – and therefore allow graduates to serve the public on a government salary (because not everyone can become a back surgeon) – merit everyone’s support, including (especially) the Department of Education.

Lou Marotti may no longer be with us. But if we want to continue to enjoy the finer things in life like scotch, cigars, and online forms that work, it’s essential to recognize that timing matters. So while it’s imperative that we minimize near-term disruptions from this exogenous (but by no means unforeseeable) shock, the time for a FAFSA-loan-forgiveness-degree-only approach to postsecondary education has come and gone.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions