research trends in educational technology

Trends and Topics in Educational Technology, 2022 Edition

• Column: Guest Editorial
• Published: 23 February 2022
• Volume 66 , pages 134–140, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Royce Kimmons 1 &
• Joshua M. Rosenberg 2  

9928 Accesses

11 Citations

9 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

This editorial continues our annual effort to identify and catalog trends and popular topics in the field of educational technology. Continuing our approach from previous years (Kimmons, 2020 ; Kimmons et al., 2021 ), we use public internet data mining methods (Kimmons & Veletsianos, 2018 ) to extract and analyze data from three large data sources: the Scopus research article database, the Twitter #edtech affinity group, and school and school district Facebook pages. Such data sources can provide valuable insights into what is happening and what is of interest in the field as educators, researchers, and students grapple with crises and the rapidly evolving uses of educational technologies (e.g., Kimmons et al., 2020 ; Trust et al., 2020 ; Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2020 ). Through this analysis, we provide a brief snapshot of what the educational technology field looked like in 2021 via each of these lenses and attempt to triangulate an overall state of our field and vision for what may be coming next.

What Were Trending Topics in Educational Technology Journals in 2021?

Educational technology research topics for 2021 were very similar to previous years, with a few exceptions. In total, we collected titles for 2368 articles via Scopus published in top educational technology journals as identified by Google Scholar. We then analyzed keyword and bigram (two words found together) frequencies in titles to determine the most commonly referenced terms. To assist in making sense of results, we also manually grouped together keywords and bigrams into four information types: contexts, methods, modalities, and topics. Contexts included terms referring to the research setting, such as “COVID-19” or “higher education.” Methods included terms referring to research methods involved in the article, such as “systematic review” or “meta-analysis.” Modalities included terms referring to the technical modality through which the study was occurring, such as “virtual reality” or “online learning.” Last, Topics included terms referring to the intervention, objective, or theoretical goal of the study, such as “computational thinking,” “learning environment,” or “language learning.” The most common bigrams and keywords for each type may be found in Table  1 ; a few items of interest follow.

Bigrams generally provide more specificity for interpreting meaning than do keywords, simply because keywords might have greater variety in usage (e.g., “school” might be used in the context of “primary school,” “secondary school,” “school teacher,” and so forth). So, when interpreting Table 1 , the bigram column is generally more useful for identifying trending topics, though the keyword column may at times be helpful as a clarifying supplement.

“Computational thinking” and “learning environments” were the two most-researched topical bigrams in 2021, and “virtual reality” and “online learning” were the most-researched modality bigrams. Most-referenced methods included “systematic review” and “meta-analysis,” which is noteworthy because such methods are used to conduct secondary analyses on existing studies, and their dominance may suggest an interest in the field to identify what works and to synthesize findings across various contexts within a sea of articles that is ever-increasing in size.

Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, this contextual term was regularly mentioned in many article titles (5.4%). “Pandemic” (3.4%), “emergency” (1.2%), and “shift to” (e.g., digital, online, blended; 0.9%) were also commonly referenced. This suggests that as the world continues to grapple with this multifaceted crisis, educational technology researchers are heavily engaged in addressing educational concerns associated with it (and remote teaching, particularly).

Grade level references in titles further suggested that educational technology research is being conducted at all levels but that it is most prominent at the higher education or post-secondary level and reduces in frequency as grade levels go down, with high school or secondary terms being more prominent than elementary or primary terms, with “higher education” (3.5%) being referenced twice as frequently as “K-12” (1.7%). This is noteworthy as it suggests that research findings associated with educational technology are currently mainly focused on older (and even adult) students and that if results are applied to understanding learners generally, then the needs of adolescents and younger children may currently be relatively underrepresented.

What Were Trending #Edtech Topics and Tools on Twitter in 2021?

Twitter is a valuable source of information about trends in a field because it allows researchers and practitioners to share relevant resources, studies, and musings and categorize posts via descriptive hashtags. The #edtech hashtag continued to be very popular during 2021, and we collected all original tweets (ignoring retweets) that included the #edtech hashtag for the year. This included 433,078 original tweets posted by 40,767 users, averaging 36,090 tweets per month ( SD  = 2974).

Because users can include multiple hashtags on a tweet, we aggregated the frequencies of additional (co-occurring) hashtags to determine the intended audiences (e.g., #teachers, #k12) and content topics (e.g., #elearning, #ai) of tweets. Some of the most popular additional hashtags of each type are presented in Table  2 . To better understand results, we also calculated the representation of each additional hashtag in the overall dataset (e.g., 2% of all #edtech tweets also included the #teachers hashtag) and the diversity of authorship (i.e., the number of users divided by the number of tweets). This diversity score was helpful for understanding how some hashtags were used by relatively few accounts for purposes such as product promotion. For example, the #byjus hashtag, which refers to an educational technology company founded in India, was tweeted 19,546 times. Still, the diversity score was only 3%, revealing that though this was a very popular hashtag in terms of tweet counts, it was being included by relatively few accounts at very high frequencies, such as via focused marketing campaigns.

Notably, several community or affinity space hashtags (Carpenter & Krutka, 2014 ; Rosenberg et al., 2016 ) were among the most common included with #edtech, such as #edchat, #edutwitter, and #teachertwitter. In particular, 13.9% of #edtech tweets also were tagged as #educhat, and 25.7% of #educhat tweets were also tagged as #edtech, revealing relatively high synchronicity between these two spaces. Furthermore, regarding institutional level, #k12 ( n  = 1712) and #highered ( n  = 1770) exhibited similar user counts, as did #school ( n  = 1284) and #highereducation ( n  = 1161), but, interestingly, the #k12 and #school hashtags exhibited nearly twice as many tweets as their #highered and #highereducation counterparts. This suggests that although the communities tweeting about topics for each group may be of similar size, the K-12 community was much more active than the higher education community.

Regarding topics, #elearning, #onlinelearning, #remotelearning, #distancelearning, #virtuallearning, and #blendedlearning were represented at a relatively high rate (in 16.1% of tweets), perhaps reflecting ongoing interest associated with #covid19. Other prominent topical hashtags included emerging technologies, such as #ai ( n  = 2112), #vr ( n  = 917), #ar ( n  = 679), and #blockchain ( n  = 545), as well as subject areas (e.g., #stem) and general descriptors (e.g., #innovation).

Furthermore, one of the primary reasons for tweeting is to share resources or media items. An analysis of these #edtech tweets revealed that 94.4% included either a link to an external site or an embedded media resource, such as an image or video. Regarding external links, prominent domains included (a) news sites, such as edsurge.com , edtechmagazine.com , or edutopia.org , (b) other social media, such as linkedin.com , instagram.com , or facebook.com , (c) multimedia resources, such as youtube.com , anchor.fm, or podcasts.apple.com , and (d) productivity and management tools, such as docs.google.com , forms.gle, or eventbrite.com (cf., Table  3 ).

Twitter communications in 2021 regarding #edtech included chatter about a variety of topics and resources. Shadows of #COVID-19 might be detected in the prevalence of this hashtag with others, like #remotelearning and #onlinelearning, but in many ways it seems that conversations continued to focus on issues of #education and #learning, as well as emerging topics like #ai, #vr, and #cybersecurity, suggesting some level of imperviousness to the pandemic.

What Were Trending Topics among Schools and School Districts on Facebook in 2021?

To examine trending educational technology topics on Facebook, we studied the posts by 14,481 schools and school districts on their public pages. First, one aspect of this analysis concerned the number of posts shared. In our last report, we documented how schools and districts posted more posts than in any other month during March, April, and May 2020—during the earliest and perhaps most tumultuous months of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting the importance of communication during this crisis period, as others have documented with Twitter data (Michela et al., 2022 ). Notably, in 2021, those months remained the most active; apart from those months, the numbers of posts by schools and districts in 2021 were roughly comparable to the numbers in 2019 and 2020 (see Fig.  1 ).

The Number of Posts on Facebook by Schools and School Districts

To understand which technologies were shared on these Facebook pages, we examined the domain names for all of the hyperlinks that were posted. Despite the myriad social and other changes experienced by schools from 2019 to 2021, link domains shared on Facebook exhibited remarkable consistency: Youtube, Google Docs, Google, and Google Drive—Google or tools created by Google—were the four most frequently shared for each of these years (Table  4 ). Note that the n represents the number of schools or districts sharing one or more links to these domains (of the 14,481 total school and school district pages). Thus, the 8278 indicates that 57.2% of schools and districts posted one or more links to YouTube over the 2021 year. These were followed by Zoom, which was also widely shared in 2020 (though not in 2019), and then Google Sites (which was shared frequently in 2020). The CDC and 2020 Census’s websites dropped from the list of the top ten most frequently shared domains in 2021, despite having been widely shared in 2020. Otherwise, the results are largely comparable between 2019, 2020, and 2021, indicating that schools and districts continued to use a core set of productivity tools despite the many disruptions and changes over this period.

We also examined the contents of the messages of schools’ and school districts’ posts. To do so, we considered the technologies identified by Weller ( 2020 ) in his history of the past 25 years of educational technology, as in our report for last year. Specifically, we searched the contents of the messages posted by schools and districts for the inclusion of the terms that correspond to technologies Weller identified as being representative of a particular year. While the domains shared by schools and districts demonstrated remarkable consistency, the contents of the messages posted by schools and districts varied substantially, especially when considering the changes from 2019 to 2020 and from 2020 to 2021. To illustrate, consider mentions of “e-learning,” which Weller identified as the focal point of 1999. In 2019, 834 messages that mentioned “e-learning” were posted by schools and districts, but in 2020, the number increased around ten-fold to 8326 mentions. Though it may have been expected for mentions of “e-learning” to remain somewhat constant during 2021, instead we saw a marked downturn to 1899 (or a 78% drop). This trend—a sizable increase in how often certain technologies were mentioned in 2020 relative to 2019 that was not sustained in 2021—was also found for mentions of “learning management systems,” “video,” and “Second Life and virtual worlds,” among others. Indeed, the only noteworthy increase in mentions of these technologies from 2020 to 2021 was for “artificial intelligence”.

Summary and Discussion

By triangulating the 2021 snapshots of each of these three data sources—Scopus, Twitter, and Facebook—we can begin to see a state of the educational technology field pressing into the future. Results on specific terms or topics may be useful for individual researchers and practitioners to see the representation of their areas of interest. Still, some common takeaways that emerge from all three sources include the following.

First, we found an emphasis on “e-learning”—particularly in Twitter and Facebook posts—as well as “blended learning” (Twitter) and “online learning” (journal articles). Notably, COVID-19 (and related terms) were also frequently mentioned. These findings align with how mentions of “e-learning” spiked during the 2020 year when the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on education were especially disruptive, but their ongoing presence also suggests that interest in these topics will likely extend outside and beyond the context of the pandemic.

Second, we note a keen interest in emergent technologies like artificial intelligence and virtual reality, particularly on the part of researchers (as evidenced by how frequently these terms were mentioned in journal articles published in 2021). At the same time, we note that this interest has not yet crystallized into the sustained adoption and use of these emergent technologies—a point bolstered by the relatively limited mention of these technologies in the Facebook posts of schools and school districts. Thus, we think we as a field must wait and see whether interest in these technologies is lasting or transient.

Last, we found an ever-increasing reliance on several corporate entities for productivity and sharing. This was especially the case for Google and tools created by Google: YouTube, Google Docs, and Google Drive, in particular. Indeed, such tools are such an established part of our work (and educational) context that we might hardly think of them as tools. Furthermore, tools created by Google and several other corporations—including social media platforms themselves—were also prevalent in the content of the tweets we analyzed. While we do not believe it is a bad decision on the part of individuals or educational institutions to use these and other tools, there are also some potential downsides to their use that we think invite critical questions (Burchfield et al., 2021; Krutka et al., 2021 ).

As a result of these common takeaways, we will now conclude with three questions for educational technology researchers and practitioners to consider.

Pandemic Bump Vs. Ubiquity

First, many have wondered whether changes in educational technology catalyzed by the pandemic will yield sustained, ubiquitous changes to the field, or if adjustments represent only a short-term bump of interest—as may be the case with emergency remote teaching tools and strategies used in the early days of the pandemic (Hodges et al., 2020 ). One of the takeaways from our Facebook analysis was that while some productivity technologies appeared to have remained consistently used on the basis of our domain analysis (e.g., Google Docs), mentions of many specific technologies in the messages of the posts by schools and districts appeared to have been more transitory in nature, such as in the cases of “e-learning” and “learning management systems.” This suggests at least two possible interpretations. One is that these technologies were used in transient response to an unprecedented period of emergency remote instruction—though tools associated with remote teaching and learning continue to be used, their use was primarily a temporary, emergency measure. Another is that these tools were mentioned less because they have become a more ubiquitous but less visible tool used by teachers and learners. Learning management systems may still, of course, be widely used, but schools and districts may be sharing about their role less through their public social media platforms because they may already be familiar to students and their parents. While we cannot say why there was a dramatic increase followed by a decrease in the use of many educational technologies over the period from 2019 through 2021, our analysis indicates that many tools are, at least, being communicated about much less over the past year than in the preceding year when the pandemic began in the U.S.

Technocentrism Vs. Focusing on Learners and Improving Educational Systems

Second, though emerging technologies are obviously an essential component of our field, one of the perennial challenges we must grapple with is our relationship to these technologies. Are we technocentric, as Papert ( 1987 , 1990 ) warned, or do we focus on learning and improvement? In our results, we notice that technologies such as artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and augmented reality were very frequently referenced in comparison to most other modalities or topics of research. As processing and graphical rendering capabilities continue to become more compact and inexpensive via headsets, smartphones, and haptic devices, we would expect these technologies to continue to receive ongoing attention. Though there are certainly valuable learning improvement opportunities associated with such technologies (Glaser & Schmidt, 2021 ), we might also justifiably wonder whether the volume of attention that these technologies are currently receiving in the literature is concomitant to their actual (or even hypothetical) large-scale learning benefits—or whether current fascination with such technologies represents a repeat of other historical emphases that may not have panned out in the form of systemic educational improvement, such as in the case of MUVEs (cf., Nelson & Ketelhut, 2007 ).

Limited Broader Impacts on Larger Social Issues

Finally, to reiterate our critiques from previous years (Kimmons, 2020 ; Kimmons et al., 2021 ), we continued to see a dearth of references to important social issues in scholarly article titles, including references to social matters upon which educational technology should be expected to have a strong voice. For instance, terms relating to universal design ( n  = 0), accessibility ( n  = 4), privacy ( n  = 8), ethics ( n  = 12), security ( n  = 8), equity ( n  = 6), justice ( n  = 1), and (digital and participatory) divides ( n  = 1) were all very uncommon. Though “ethics” was the most common of these terms, it only was represented in 1-in-200 article titles, and though current “practices with student data represent cause for concern, as student behaviors are increasingly tracked, analyzed, and studied to draw conclusions about learning, attitudes, and future behaviors” (Kimmons, 2021 , para. 2; cf., Rosenberg et al., 2021 ) and proctoring software becomes increasingly ubiquitous (Kimmons & Veletsianos, 2021 ), “privacy” was only mentioned in 1-in-333 article titles and “proctor*” was only in 1-in-600 titles. In our current pandemic context, we have often heard educational technologists lament the fact that decision-makers and those in power may not seek our guidance in addressing issues related to the pandemic that would clearly benefit from our expertise. And yet, the absence of other socially-relevant topics from our research suggests that we may be challenged to leverage our work toward addressing matters of larger social or educational importance ourselves. A focus on the social matters and the social context around educational technology use, then, remains an opportunity for research and development by the educational technology community in the years ahead. This seems especially salient as our data suggests that the field is heavily influenced by big technology corporations like Google and Facebook that historically have been critiqued for violating ethical expectations of privacy and failing to support social good. As educational technology researchers and practitioners, we are primed with the position and expertise necessary to shape the future of ethical technology use in education. Hopefully, we can step up to this challenge.

Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2014). How and why educators use twitter: A survey of the field. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46 (4), 414–434.

Article   Google Scholar  

Glaser, N., & Schmidt, M. (2021). Systematic literature review of virtual reality intervention design patterns for B with autism Spectrum disorders. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction , 1–36.

Hodges, C.B., Moore, S., Lockee, B.B., Trust, T., & Bond, M. A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning

Kimmons, R. (2020). Current trends (and missing links) in educational technology research and practice. TechTrends, 64(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00549-6 .

Kimmons, R. (2021). Safeguarding student privacy in an age of analytics. Educational Technology Research & Development, 69 , 343–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09950-1

Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2018). Public internet data mining methods in instructional design, educational technology, and online learning research. TechTrends, 62 (5), 492–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0307-4

Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2021). Proctoring software in higher ed: Prevalence and patterns. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2021/2/proctoring-software-in-higher-ed-prevalence-and-patterns

Kimmons, R., Veletsianos, G., & VanLeeuwen, C. (2020). What (some) faculty are saying about the shift to remote teaching and learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2020/5/what-some-faculty-are-saying-about-the-shift-to-remote-teaching-and-learning

Kimmons, R., Rosenberg, J., & Allman, B. (2021). Trends in educational technology: What Facebook, twitter, and Scopus can tell us about current research and practice. TechTrends, 65 , 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00589-6

Krutka, D. G., Smits, R. M., & Willhelm, T. A. (2021). Don’t be evil: Should we use Google in schools? TechTrends, 65 (4), 421–431.

Michela, E., Rosenberg, J. M., Kimmons, R., Sultana, O., Burchfield, M. A., & Thomas, T. (2022). “We are trying to communicate the best we can”: Understanding districts’ communication on Twitter during the COVID-19 pandemic. AERA Open . https://osf.io/qpu8v/

Nelson, B. C., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2007). Scientific inquiry in educational multi-user virtual environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19 (3), 265–283.

Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16 (1), 22–30.

Google Scholar  

Papert, S. (1990). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future. MIT Epistemology and Learning Memo No. 2. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Laboratory.

Rosenberg, J. M., Greenhalgh, S. P., Koehler, M. J., Hamilton, E. R., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). An investigation of state educational twitter hashtags (SETHs) as affinity spaces. E-learning and Digital Media, 13 (1–2), 24–44.

Rosenberg, J. M., Burchfield, M., Borchers, C., Gibbons, B., Anderson, D., & Fischer, C. (2021). Social media and students’ privacy: What schools and districts should know. Phi Delta Kappan, 103 (2), 49–53.

Trust, T., Carpenter, J., Krutka, D. G., & Kimmons, R. (2020). #RemoteTeaching & #RemoteLearning: Educator tweeting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28 (2), 151–159.

Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2020). What (some) students are saying about the switch to remote teaching and learning. EDUCAUSE Review . https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2020/4/what-some-students-are-saying-about-the-switch-to-remote-teaching-and-learning

Weller, M. (2020). 25 years of ed tech . Athabasca University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

Royce Kimmons

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA

Joshua M. Rosenberg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Royce Kimmons .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kimmons, R., Rosenberg, J.M. Trends and Topics in Educational Technology, 2022 Edition. TechTrends 66 , 134–140 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00713-0

Download citation

Published : 23 February 2022

Issue Date : March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00713-0

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 12 February 2024

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

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

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

5578 Accesses

1 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Development studies
• Science, technology and society

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

Similar content being viewed by others

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

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

Education big data and learning analytics: a bibliometric analysis

Introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review

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

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

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

Methodology and materials

Research method: bibliometric.

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

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

Data retrieval

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

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

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

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

Literature screening

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

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

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

Data standardization

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

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

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

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

Performance analysis (RQ1)

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

Time trend of the publications

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

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

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

Analysis of authors

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

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

Analysis of countries/regions and organization

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of journals

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

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

Temporal keyword analysis: thematic evolution (RQ2)

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

2000.1–2005.12: germination period

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

2006.1–2011.12: initial development period

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

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

2012.1–2017.12: critical exploration period

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

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

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

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

2018.1–2022.12: accelerated transformation period

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

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

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

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

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

Hotspot evolution analysis (RQ3)

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on performance analysis (RQ1)

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

Discussion on authorship productivity in digital technology education research

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

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

Discussion on country/region-level productivity and collaboration

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

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

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

Discussion on institutional-level contributions to digital technology education

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

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

Discussion on journal publication analysis

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

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

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

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

Discussion on the evolutionary trends (RQ2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on the study of research hotspots (RQ3)

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

Interdisciplinary integration and pedagogical transformation

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

Digital literacy and skills acquisition

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

Educational digital transformation

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

Engagement and participation

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

Professional development and teacher readiness

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

Pandemic as a catalyst

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

Ethical and societal considerations

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

Innovation and emerging technologies

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

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

Conclusions and future research

Conclusions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitation and future research

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

Data availability

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Chengliang Wang, Xiaojiao Chen, Yidan Liu & Yuhui Jing

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

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

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuhui Jing .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

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

Informed consent

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

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 11 July 2023

Accepted : 17 January 2024

Published : 12 February 2024

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

A meta-analysis of learners’ continuance intention toward online education platforms.

• Chengliang Wang

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Executive Summary
• Methodology
• Teaching and Teacher Education

Educational Technology

• Educational Psychology
• Higher Education
• Research Impact Metrics
• About this Book
• Acknowledgements
• Author List
• Journal List
• Topical Index
• Translations

Choose a Sign-in Option

Tools and Settings

Questions and Tasks

Citation and Embed Code

Educational technology gradually changed from clay tablets to chalkboards and eventually to Chromebooks. Somewhere in that timeline, the study of educational technology became a formal field of research. Of the 13 journals used in this study, the earliest volume was published in 1953 (though for the 13 journals, the mean first publication year was 1986). This indicates that the field of educational technology research as we know it is less than a century old. Our goal in this chapter is to sketch much of the history of this field by exploring 50 years of educational technology research, from 1970 to 2020.

We have identified the prominent research themes of each decade and discussed how the field has progressed over a 50 year period. To capture a snapshot of each decade, we examined the 20 most cited articles from each ten-year period in order to discover what research made a significant impact through citation counts in each decade. The articles were sourced from 13 educational technology journals. We used bibliometrics to identify these journals and select articles from each. After identifying the 20 articles for each decade, we manually coded and compared the articles in order to understand research trends. Once each decade was individually coded to reveal the prominent themes, all of our findings were then synthesized to show the overarching patterns and trends in educational technology research over a 50-year period.

Details about our methodology can be found in the “Methodology” chapter of this book. More information about the 13 journals we pulled articles from can be found in the appendix of this chapter.

Literature Review

Many bibliometric studies have been done in the field of educational technology. Most of these studies synthesize research over a short period of time and on a narrow subset of educational technology research. However, our study is not unique in its attempt to analyze research trends over a span of 50 years.

One paper that could be compared to ours is by Bond et al. (2019) in which they analyzed 1,777 articles published in the British Journal of Educational Technology (BJET). Bond et al. also considered 50 years of educational technology research, used a combination of computer analysis and human analysis, analyzed research trends, and organized findings by decade. The study was limited in the following three ways: (a) it considered only articles published in BJET, (b) it did not consider the impact factor of individual articles, and (c) its content analysis favored some decades (especially recent decades) more than others (see Table 1).

Publications per Decade in BJET

In light of these limitations, our study is needed because (a) it considers a much wider range of journals, (b) it considers only highly cited articles, and (c) it gives equal weight to each decade. Our study produces a holistic picture of how educational technology research has progressed from decade to decade.

In another study similar to ours, Chen et al. (2020) gave a bibliometric review of the topical trends of every article published in BJET during its 50 year lifetime. Our review is, coincidentally, different in ways that were recommended by Chen et al. They suggested that “further investigations may consider extending the analysis and including comparable journals such as Computers & Education in the research area" (Chen et al., 2020). We included 13 journals from the field of educational technology, including Computers & Education. Chen et al. (2020) also recommended that in order to achieve the depth possible through manual coding, future researchers should “survey representative papers, from a qualitative perspective, so as to provide more profound and fine-grained understanding of the domain of educational technology" (Chen et al., 2020, p. 707). We used bibliometrics to select the most cited articles, and then we did qualitative analyses of those articles.

Our findings corroborate many of Chen et al.’s (2020) findings. For instance, a table compiling the most common keywords in the articles Chen et al. analyzed showed a growing diversity in research vocabulary. This was noticeable in our study as well, with the later decades using new keywords and terminology related to emerging technology and advancing theories. Another overlap is visible in the topics that became more popular over time. Blended learning, mobile learning, and game-based learning were common topics in our findings and Chen et al.’s.

These studies demonstrate the work that has been performed in educational technology research, which supports and overlaps in some instances with our current study. However, we also see gaps that were not previously addressed in these studies, such as analyzing a wide range of journals, focusing on highly cited articles, and equally examining every decade of research. It is our purpose to account for the previous limitations by presenting a broad, encompassing analysis of 50 years in research.

1970s: The Introduction of Visual Communication Media

Many of the technologies taken for granted today were in their infancy in the 1970s. During that time, researchers strove to understand the efficacy and uses of technologies like television and similar visual communication media (graphic displays, picture books, etc.). Research surrounding different instructional methods and theories also abounded as researchers sought to establish the best paradigms to use for education practitioners. The field of educational technology was young but rapidly growing.

Visual Communication Media

The majority of research throughout the 1970s sought to understand the role and appropriate uses of visual communication media in education. Researchers recognized the potential of visual communication media to supplement, support, or possibly replace written and oral presentation of information. Haring et al. (1979) examined how pictures affect childrens’ comprehension of written text and found that pictures aiding written text do help with recall of main themes in the written text. Haring et al.’s findings were consistent with Levin et al.’s (1978) major literature review, which emphatically supported the general use of visual communication media to improve learning in children. However, Salomon et al.’s (1972) work was ambiguous about the potential beneficial effect of visual communication media on learning.

While most of the research of the decade supported the use of visual communication media, the need to distinguish which types of visual communication media were most effective for which purposes remained. The research of Hsia et al. (1971) was pivotal in establishing that different types of media affect learners in different ways:

The central nervous system capacity is much less than the sum of [audio] and [visual] modality capacity; therefore, its saturation can be reached by either . . . modality. The very fact that information loss . . . occurs even in an ideal communication situation can be partly explained by the disparity between the capacities of the central nervous system and multimodality (p. 65).

The essence of this comment is that not all information can be absorbed. This is due in part to humans’ limited capacity to process information and, in this case, information presented through visual communication media when combined with an auditory stimulus. In a similar vein, Allen et al.’s (1975) work highlighted the reality that more cognitively capable students were able to process more information through visual communication media and suggested that the media used in education be adapted to the cognitive capacities of individual students. Holliday et al. (1976) worked on finding more practical applications for practitioners seeking to use visual communication media effectively.

Through experimenting with multiple modes of visual communication media, Holliday and his colleagues (1976) found that single flow diagrams, or diagrams characterized by their linear and relatively simple flow were more effective than textual description alone, as well as more effective than a combination of diagram and text. He also found presenting big picture information in logical chains using picture word diagrams (PWD) and block word diagrams (BWD), rather than as separate unconnected ideas without diagrams, to be most effective. Dwyer et al. supported a similar idea that “the more realistic a presentation, the more effective the transmission of the desired message” (1970, p. 1). Taken together, these findings prepared the way for future practitioners and researchers alike. Though the role and appropriate use of visual communication media was still unfolding to researchers, the question of how to use them effectively remained for decades.

Closely related to the research of visual communication was the research surrounding television. The research of the decade on this topic was frequent and intense but not entirely concordant. Television and film were widely accepted as useful tools for transferring information, but researchers were eager to know if these technologies could be used for more substantial learning. For example, Salomon et al. (1972) explored television use in learning by attempting to use filming techniques to replace or supplant more traditional forms of communicating ideas, but their results were inconclusive. Other researchers were interested in whether some of the properties of television were damaging to young children, and they were reluctant to implement it in educational settings. However, Anderson et al. (1977) claimed in their work that there was no evidence that television was harmful to the attention spans of little children. On the contrary, researchers produced evidence that television was actually more effective for instruction than pictures aiding text alone (Spangenberg, 1973) and that some television programs were even effective in teaching children general cooperation and rule following skills (Paulson, 1974). While these findings seemed promising, there was a growing number of researchers who would claim that the positive effects of television and other media forms were not inherent to the technological tools but were actually benefits of the instructional philosophies behind the technological tools which were used in delivering the instruction. This debate grew in the years that followed.

Emerging Theories and Adaptation

Not all of the research of the 1970s was focused on the emerging technologies of the time. Researchers were also spending their efforts advancing their preferred educational theories and philosophies. While some educational theories had already taken root in many institutions, there were still many challenges to these established theories by the research of the time. Merrill et al. (1975) argued that current curriculum development models, though honorable improvements from the past, were insufficient and that curriculum development needed to be more adaptable to the needs of individual learners. Merrill and his colleagues also heavily criticized Cronbach and Snow’s Aptitude Treatment Interaction (ATI) method, claiming that it “stops far short of desirable and possible procedures for adapting instruction to individual differences” (p. 4). At the heart of Merrill’s alternative was the freedom and ability for learners to make decisions about their own learning so that their needs would be best met. This theoretical debate was one of many at the time. Mangan et al. (1978) urged practitioners to adapt their teaching to be more culturally aware of their learners, and Ausburn et al. (1978) presented evidence of the existence of at least 11 different learning styles. They claimed that while these learning styles did not determine aptitude, the styles should point the way to personalizing and adapting instruction to the needs of specific learners.

1980s: New Technologies and Old Debates

In the 1980s, research in the largely independent fields of education, technology, and psychology began to intersect. The rising interaction between these fields brought many challenges as the paradigms, theories, and interests of the researchers were often inharmonious. However, these challenges also proved useful by bringing attention and refinement to the field of educational technology.

Many new technologies emerged in the 1980s. Several of the developments at the time were new audiovisual materials, such as television and illustrative aids, but most notable among these technologies were the Walkman, the videocassette recorder, video game consoles, and the personal computer. Each of these unique technologies had been used by the U.S. military and other government organizations for educational purposes in decades past, and with the radical general change characteristic of the 1980s, these technologies were rapidly becoming more accessible to the private and education sectors. This availability meant more developments were on the horizon for the field of educational technology. Researchers began avidly testing the utility of these potential learning tools and sought to give guidance for how they might best be used in learning across various institutions (Gagnon, 1985; Levie, 1982).

Determining the Role of Technology in Education

Of the many emerging technologies, researchers and practitioners were particularly eager to understand the possible role of computers in providing and assisting with classroom instruction. Consequently, this led to a surge in empirical studies examining the efficacy of computer assisted instruction or CAI (also often referred to as computer based instruction or CBI; Clark, 1985). What in years previous was a congenial discourse about the role of computers in education was becoming a much more heated debate as research findings boomed in support of and against the role and efficacy of CAI. This debate was certainly strengthened in part by one major literature review, which claimed that nearly all of the CAI-related empirical studies of the past, many of which attributed student achievement to CAI, were confounded for not controlling for instructional methods (Clark, 1985). The literature review made the claim that instructional methods, not the implementation of CAI, were responsible for disparities in student achievement (Clark, 1985). Similarly, Dalton et al. (1987) found that students receiving CAI underperformed when compared to their peers who received no CAI but worked in pairs.

Despite such claims against CAI, many of the researchers of the decade produced empirical evidence showing the significant benefits of CAI. Kinzie et al. found “a strong positive effect of computers on continuing motivation” (1989 p. 12), while Tennyson et al. (1980) showed how computers can aid and empower learners in taking control of meeting their own learning needs. This was similar to Dalton et al. (1987), who claimed that computers aid instructors and practitioners in providing personalized learning experiences to students. Yet the research of the decade continued to be rife with conflicting opinions as researchers sought to understand and define the role of technology, specifically computers, in education.

Applying Technology Through Behaviorism and Cognitivism

Behaviorism was a dominant theory used in instructional design models during the 1980s. Because of this, researchers noticed some of the drawbacks of the behaviorists’ theoretical approach and called for more methodologies to be applied to instructional design, namely cognitivism (Clark 1985). Hannafin et al. (1989) were adamant about the benefits of allowing room for multiple psychological theories to guide instructional designers in meeting the needs of students and stated the following:

The differences between behavioral and cognitive strategies involve more than mere semantics. Considerable research exists suggesting qualitative and quantitative differences in learning might result from each. The issue is not which models are best, but which design decisions are most appropriate given the demands of the learning tasks (p. 98).

Studies from the decade show that researchers began designing to test the uses of cognitive theory in educational technology (Butterfield, 1989; Clark, 1985). Clark et al.’s (1985) article showed that instructional designs using a behaviorist approach were most effective in promoting short term memory of declarative or factual information as well as procedural tasks, while instruction designed using a cognitivist approach was more effective in promoting long term memory and the ability to creatively apply learned concepts in multiple new contexts. Butterfield et al. (1989) were also strong proponents of using cognitive theory to improve instructional methods and outcomes. These findings precisely supported the work and comments from Hannafin et al. and advanced the ongoing discussion about how differing psychological theories could be applied in educational technology.

Naturalism Versus Rationalism

Throughout the decade, researchers also questioned the utility of different paradigms and modes of inquiry for research in the field of education and technology. At the forefront of this debate were the naturalistic and rational modes of inquiry. Rationalistic inquiry, often referred to as rationalistic research or scientific inquiry, is a mode of inquiry that relies heavily on reason and experimentation as the path to a true understanding of the world. It also claims that all events in the world have a cause and effect or that the world is deterministic. Rationalistic inquiry is almost always carried out with quantitative research methods, and it had been the dominant mode of scientific research for the past century and a half (Guba, 1982). In contrast, naturalistic inquiry, often referred to as naturalistic observation, is a mode of inquiry that relies primarily on observation of the natural world without any attempt to manipulate that which is being observed. Naturalistic inquiry is most often associated with qualitative methods of research.

Despite the dominance of rationalistic inquiry, researchers of the decade had little trouble finding fault with this mode of inquiry. For example, much of the criticism was reflected by Guba et al.’s (1982) statements about how “the rationalistic model is difficult to apply and results [are] used infrequently” as well as how “practitioners lack the insight and creativity to see how research results can be applied” (p. 235). These types of obstacles were particularly emphasized by proponents of naturalist inquiry who were hoping to broaden the field’s tools of inquiry. Proponents of naturalistic inquiry were quick to defend the unique insights that this type of inquiry could produce, especially in light of rationalism’s shortcomings, but the true challenge with accepting naturalism lay with its lack of clear, trustworthy criteria by which the findings from this mode of inquiry could be generalized to larger populations (Guba, 1981).

1990s: Technology and Theory

In the 1990s, the internet became a global, public network and grew from one site in 1991 to over three million sites in 1999. Yahoo, Amazon, and Google were founded. Web browsers, PalmPilots, and SMS text messaging were invented. Digital cameras and CDs became affordable. Notwithstanding these technological advancements, the 20 most cited articles of this decade were mainly concerned with deepening the theoretical foundations of the field rather than exploring new technology.

Of the 20 most cited articles from the 1990s, 17 were theoretical. The overrepresentation of theoretical papers in the 1990s may have been a response to the debates and conflicting findings of research from the 1980s. Some authors wrote about problems with existing theoretical frameworks and proposed new frameworks. Other authors explained and defended their theoretical bases in order to make more compelling arguments about the proper use, development, or evaluation of educational technology. The most cited article of the decade (Garrison et al., 1999) did both. Garrison et al. (1999) proposed a theoretical framework and argued that it was a proper template for evaluating the educational merits of computer conferencing.

Even though theory was making the biggest impact on the field, there were plenty of practical discussions about the use of technology in classrooms. Some of the articles indicated that not enough was being done to use and integrate technology in the classroom. For example, Ertmer (1999) stated that schools had done little to change in response to the affordability of computing power. However, other authors cautioned against over-enthusiasm for technology.

One of the major debates over technology during the 1990s occurred between Kozma and Clark. Their debate centered on the role of technology in fundamentally changing education. The debate also discussed whether changes in technology had a transformative effect on education or if changes in technology were merely improvements in efficiency. Kozma (1994) claimed there was an urgent need to understand the relationship between technology and learning to facilitate the integration of emerging technologies. He argued technology had the potential to significantly impact how students learn and construct knowledge. In contrast, Clark’s (1994) response was while media is necessary to deliver instruction and can decrease the cost of doing so, media is never directly responsible for learning. He critiqued the emergence of unrestrained support for technology in the field, claiming technology does not fundamentally change learning. Clark also warned that researchers who indicate media is responsible for learning are likely misinterpreting their findings and are possibly laying a groundwork for inadvisable investments. This debate over the role of technology in education opened a discussion on technology integration that even affected other fields in education research.

Kozma and Clark’s debate impacted other researchers as well. In an earlier article supporting Clark’s argument, Johnstone (1991) argued that teachers’ enthusiasm for new technologies for classroom demonstration (like ticker tapes and the Wilson Cloud Chamber) were partly to blame for why science is difficult for students to learn. In support of Kozma’s position, Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy (1999) claim technology allowed us to accomplish innovations in areas like instructional design that would not have been possible without technology. This debate continued in succeeding research, it and posed questions that impacted the field of educational technology for many years.

Aside from debating the integration of technology in the classroom, researchers also discussed different types of commonly used technology. Computer technology was the most common, and video technology was the second most common. Authors would either talk about technology in broad terms (“computer technology,” “media,” etc.) or be very specific (“ASK Jasper,” “GeometryTutor,” etc.), rather than talking about established categories of technologies. Researchers in the 1990s employed a less stratified vocabulary for technology than we have today.

Constructivism gained popularity in this decade. Prior to the 1990s, instructional systems technology (IST) scholars had been actively rejecting the behaviorist foundation of IST (Jonassen, 1991) and the field of instructional technology had become increasingly accepting of the constructivist philosophy of learning (Rieber, 1996). During the 1990s, activity theory was being used to realize constructivist practices (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999).

Among the articles we considered for this decade, there were 40 distinct keywords or key phrases, including “paradigm shift,” “media theory,” “theoretical underpinnings,” “conceptual framework,” and “early discussion.” These key phrases point at the overrepresentation of theory in the 20 articles from the 1990s. Only three of the 20 articles in this decade were experimental (Mayer et al., 1995; Hill & Hannafin, 1997; and Byrne et al., 1999), and two of these were the least cited of the 20 (Mayer et al., 1995 and Byrne et al., 1999). Perhaps these three articles were early indicators of a shift to empirical research in the 2000s.

The 1990s were a formative time for educational technology research. Regarding the 1960s, Johnstone (1991) wrote “[they] made us stand back and ask serious questions about science, its concepts, its overarching theories and insights, its consequences, its issues and its place in education and in society in general" (p. 75). Something similar happened in the 1990s. During this time, researchers pondered the place of computer technology in education, what insights it could provide, and what theories could or should drive its development.

2000s: Students and Technology

At the beginning of the 21st century, expanding uses for technology were paralleled by a dramatic increase in access to technology. These twin advancements brought with them several research questions concerning learners of this new age—learners who had been surrounded by technology since childhood. New debates arose about this upcoming computer-literate generation (often referred to as “digital natives”), and a dialogue ensued concerning the needs of these new students, the technological advancements and proper ways to integrate unfamiliar resources in the classroom (Hew & Brush, 2006; Ertmer, 2005), and the underlying strategies to best help learners and teachers with emerging educational materials.

While the ’90s gave us much research focused on the theoretical implications of educational technology, the 2000s showed a major jump to empirical studies and tests related to these questions. Several controlled experiments and randomized survey-based studies were at the forefront of the research. Of the top 20 articles analyzed for this period, 13 were empirical studies. The first seven articles of the decade—which span from 2000 to 2007—were either theoretical papers or literature reviews. The remainder of the articles—spanning only from 2008 to 2009—were all reports on empirical studies. This shows a major shift in the most common research strategies as well as a shift in which articles were most likely to be cited.

Looking at the common themes researchers of this decade focused on helped us identify the issues researchers were most concerned with and the state of technology in education during the 2000s. The most common research topic during the 2000s was “e-learning” with three articles using the term e-learning directly in the titles and five articles listing the term as a keyword (Sun et al., 2008; Liaw, 2008; Park, 2009; Motiwalla, 2007; So & Brush, 2008). Other important topics researched in the 2000s were (a) blended learning, (b) mobile learning, gamification, and Facebook, and (c) pedagogy.

The first publication on e-learning we analyzed in this decade was a general analysis of e-learning participants and their course satisfaction (Sun et al., 2008). Those authors conducted an empirical study to discuss what created a satisfying e-learning environment and what influences contribute most to a learner’s experience. The results of the study concluded that “learner anxiety toward technology is one of the biggest influencers in a learner’s satisfaction” (2008, p. 1194).

The second article concerning e-learning similarly analyzed the overall learner satisfaction in online courses, but it also focused on the effectiveness of the course layout using the software Blackboard as an empirical case study (Liaw, 2008). In the third e-learning article, the discussion was more narrowed, focusing on the use of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) within an e-learning design (Park, 2009). TAM is a theoretical model used to explain user behavior in technology by analyzing the perceived usefulness and perceived ease-of-use, which are believed to directly influence how the technology will then be used.

Blended Learning

Blended learning was another repeated topic. In 2004, Garrison and Hanuka defined blended learning as “thoughtful integration of classroom face-to-face learning experiences with online learning experiences,” and argued that, "blended learning is consistent with the values of traditional higher education institutions and has the proven potential to enhance both the effectiveness and efficiency of meaningful learning experiences" (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004, p. 95).

Four years later, So and Brush (2008) investigated a more focused aspect of the topic: student interactions and relationships in a blended learning environment. In their study, they analyzed empirical research supporting the claim that student perceptions of collaborative learning have statistically positive relationships with perceptions of social presence and satisfaction.

Mobile Learning, Gamification, and Facebook

Three other topics that were repeated in the early 2000s were mobile learning, educational gaming, and Facebook. Two mobile learning articles were published in 2007 and 2009, the first presenting an evaluation of mobile learning in general (Motiwalla, 2007) and the second focusing on gender and age differences in mobile learning (Wang & Wu, 2009).

Gaming in education was addressed in two articles in this decade. Kiili’s (2005) article, “Digital Game-Based Learning: Towards an Experiential Gaming Model,” presented the “flow” theory model (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) and argued that game learning creates an engaging environment for students to experience flow (e.g., highly absorbed or focused interest). Papastergiou’s (2009) article, “Digital Game-Based Learning in High School Computer Science Education: Impact on Educational Effectiveness and Student Motivation,” also centered on the effects of gaming in education. She analyzed the comparisons of students participating in game-based curricula as opposed to those who were not and found that the students in game-based learning exceeded the performance of those in the original format.

The last of these three topics, Facebook, was discussed in two separate articles that were both published in the same journal (Learning, Media and Technology) and on the same day in 2009. Selwyn’s piece, “Faceworking: Exploring Students' Education‐Related Use of Facebook,” analyzed the use of Facebook among university students to determine if it was an asset or hindrance in education. The other article explored the social aspect of the platform to see how university students shared informal information related to their classes in an effort to connect socially with other students (Madge et al., 2009).

The remainder of the articles in this decade dealt with pedagogical-related topics broadly in connection with technology. “Toward a Design Theory of Problem Solving” (Jonassen, 2000) articulated the need for a problem-based learning design in our school systems and only briefly mentioned technological devices students may encounter. As opposed to advocating for one learning model, Merrill (2002) presented several different models and discussed the underlying principles of pedagogy design that connected and supported them all. Ertmer (2005), as mentioned earlier, was concerned with the pedagogical beliefs of teachers in relation to their classroom practices, and she presented research which suggested many teachers have learning beliefs that are not carried out in practice. Two other articles explored the principles of learning design in a digital environment and discussed ways to enhance teaching with technology (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Wang & Hannafin, 2005). Lastly, the ‘Digital Natives’ debate was discussed by Bennett et al. (2008) and Kennedy et al. (2008) as a means of addressing the learners of this generation. Both articles questioned the reality of this “new breed” of learners and argued that while learners of the generation were exposed to technology more than previous generations, they were not automatically experts and did not have different pedagogical needs than previous generations.

Reviewing the topics holistically, we see the themes of e-learning, blended learning, gaming, mobile learning, Facebook, and pedagogy leading the research of this decade. With many of the above examples, we can also notice a trend of initial research being more broad and encompassing in its scope, and later studies on the same topic being more narrow, focusing on a targeted aspect of the subject. For instance, the first e-learning article that was analyzed provided a broad study on e-learning satisfaction, while the later articles focused on specific software or a particular aspect of e-learning interaction.

Both of the articles discussing Facebook conducted surveys and analyzed a large collection of Facebook posts to provide data for their research (Madge et al., 2009; Selwyn, 2009), while the mobile learning articles used similar methods of data collection (Motiwalla, 2007, & Wang & Wu, 2009). Several of the e-learning, blended learning, and pedagogy with technology articles were heavily based on surveys but also included face-to-face interviews (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004; So & Brush, 2008; Merrill, 2002; Park, 2009).

Research in the 2000s focused on advances in technology such as e-learning, Facebook, blended learning, digital native, learner satisfaction, TAM, environment, and technology integration. We can see that with growing technology, the diversity of models and platforms for how technology could be used in education rapidly expanded. The research of this decade rose to meet the developing questions by addressing these new and various topics, conducting empirical studies to assess tangible implications, and presenting ideas to help educators and researchers moving forward.

2010s: Mobility, Connectivity, and Flexibility

The already brisk pace of technological advances in the 2000s accelerated during the 2010s. At the beginning of the decade, only 20% of mobile phone users were on smartphones, or phones that could access the internet, but by 2019 that percentage had grown to 70% (Kremer, 2019). People grew comfortable using their mobile phones not only for entertainment but also for shopping, banking, social networking, and education. This integration of mobile technology into everyday life had an immense impact on educational technology.

More people using smartphones meant more people were playing mobile games, and this sector of the gaming industry grew rapidly. Educators and researchers began examining how incorporating game elements (i.e., gamification) into educational situations could impact learning. Along with gamification, educators were also interested in how to harness social networking and augmented reality to bolster learning. Besides being interested in educational technology itself, researchers were also curious about the ways technology could be utilized to improve the traditional classroom experience.

Out of the 20 most cited articles from this decade, 13 were literature reviews. The other main direction of inquiry during this decade was learning how specific technologies or interventions impacted education. Besides the 13 literature reviews, the remaining seven articles analyzed for this section were empirical studies focused on the impacts of specific technology-driven educational interventions.

Mobile Devices in Learning

As mobile devices became more widely used by the general populace, research involving mobile devices grew in popularity as well. Gikas and Grant (2013) examined the perspectives of these “new, 21st century” students regarding mobile devices and social media. They collected data by conducting focus groups of university students in the attempt to answer the question, “What are students’ experiences when mobile computing devices are integrated into higher education courses?” (p. 18). They found that students’ mobile device use often allowed them to access course content anywhere and empowered them to “captur[e] information outside of the learning environment and mak[e] connections with the material” (p. 24). This finding that “learning happens regardless of location” is one of the main findings of Gikas and Grant’s study (p. 25).

Sung et al. also examined mobile technology’s impact on learning in their 2016 article. They examined 110 journal articles that addressed the use of mobile devices in teaching and learning. Of the 110 articles, about 73% examined hand-held devices while approximately 22% studied laptop usage. The most popular learning stage to study was higher education (43 studies), followed by elementary schools (38 studies; p. 258). While the portability of hand-held devices may encourage their use in nontraditional settings, the classroom setting was the most studied with half of the examined studies focusing on it.

Social Media

In 2011, Junco et al. examined the effect of Twitter on the grades and learner engagement of college students. They found that “using Twitter in educationally relevant ways had a positive effect on student engagement” and a positive effect on grades (p. 128). The following year (2012), Junco published another paper on student engagement, this one focusing on how it was impacted by Facebook. Junco’s Facebook study found that time spent on Facebook or engaged in Facebook activities yielded mixed results depending on the specific variable being considered (p. 170). Other researchers were also interested in Facebook’s influence. Roblyer et al. (2010) surveyed both college students and faculty to compare usage and attitudes regarding Facebook and found that faculty and students did not use Facebook much for educational purposes (p. 138).

Another article we analyzed examined how social media can empower learners to customize their Personal Learning Environments (PLEs). In their 2012 article, Dabbagh and Kitsantas described how social media had enabled learners to “create, organize, and share content” by creating their own PLEs, which allowed them to curate and share content as they saw fit (p. 4). They cautioned that not all students possess the “knowledge management and the self-regulatory skills” needed to create the PLE they desire for their learning experience and advocated “teaching students to become effective self-regulated learners” so they will have the skills needed for “creating, managing, and sustaining PLEs using a variety of social media” (p. 7).

Understanding Teacher Attitudes

With social media and technology evolving so rapidly during the 2010s, Ertmer et al. (2012) sought to analyze the beliefs and practices of teachers as they related to technology and student-centered learning. They found that “in general, teachers were able to enact technology integration practices that closely aligned with their beliefs” (p. 432), which they saw as a change from Fang’s 1996 research finding that while “teachers could articulate their beliefs, practices were influenced by ‘classroom realities’” (p. 432). Ertmer et al. gave some possible reasons for teachers’ new ability to align their technology practices with their beliefs: (a) increased student access to computers and online learning resources (i.e., Web 2.0), (b) increased teacher understanding of the “new, 21st century student,” and (c) increased changes in curricular emphases (p. 432).

Others were also interested in teachers’ adoption of technology in their classrooms. In their 2019 paper, Schere et al. attempted to use the TAM to explain and model teachers’ adoption of digital technology. This interest in the TAM is a continuation from scholars’ interest in the 2000s. Schere et al. explain the continued interest in the TAM thusly:

The TAM has gained considerable prominence, particularly due to its transferability to various contexts and samples, its potential to explain variance in the intention to use or the use of technology, and its simplicity of specification within structural equation modeling frameworks (p. 14).

Gamification

Along with mobile learning, another aspect of online learning that students grew more familiar with during the 2010s was gamification. Educators sought to harness their students’ enthusiasm and familiarity with gaming by incorporating elements such as “the use of narratives to change the context around a typical activity, the creation of social competition, and the incentivizing of behavior through badge and reward systems” (Hanus & Fox, 2015, p. 152). During the 2010s, schools began to embrace elements of gamification, but clear evidence of which gamification elements had the most beneficial impact was lacking.

The obstacles to distilling learners’ experiences into empirical data are reflected by the details of Connolly et al.’s (2012) systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Connolly et al. gathered 7,392 papers using key words such as “computer game,” “video game,” and “games-based learning.” However, after applying criteria requiring papers to include “empirical evidence relating to the impacts and outcomes of playing games” they narrowed the list to 70 papers, less than 1% of the original list (p. 666). This meant less than 1% of the papers they initially gathered met their requirement for high quality empirical evidence.

In Connolly et al.’s opinion, “The most notable point about the current review was the diversity of research on positive impacts and outcomes associated with playing” (2012, p. 672). The 2010s saw a wider acceptance from the public of using games to improve learning outcomes. While puzzles and simulations were the most common types of games used in learning, Connelly et al. sought to “develop a better understanding of the tasks, activities, skills and operations that different kinds of games can offer and examine how these might match desired learning outcomes” (p. 672). According to our research, Connolly et al.’s review was the most cited article from the 2010s, with 1,270 total citations, and has become a touchstone for gamification research.

Acknowledging the continued interest in digital games, Boyle et al. revisited the topic in 2015 and updated Connolly et al.’s systematic literature review. Three of the scholars from the original Connolly et al. paper also contributed to the Boyle et al. update. For their updated review, they coded the reviewed papers by geographical location, and the wide distribution of papers showed that research on games was being conducted worldwide: United States (53), Europe (45), Asia (26), South America (5), and Australia (5; p. 181).

In their 2015 mapping study, Dicheva et al. searched the research for papers presenting empirical studies regarding gamification as used in education. According to them, “the most used gamification design principles in educational context are visual status, social engagement, freedom of choice, freedom to fail, and rapid feedback” (p. 79). Within the papers they analyzed, the most popular game mechanisms cited were points, badges, and leaderboards (p. 80).

This emphasis on elements designed to set learners apart from one another may be one of the most common elements of gamification within education. However, according to Hanus and Fox (2015), it may cause harm to learning outcomes (p. 159). Hanus and Fox’s longitudinal study of student outcomes from a gamified course compared to a traditional course found that students in the gamified course decreased in satisfaction, motivation, and empowerment relative to the non-gamified course (p. 159). They suggested that “giving rewards in the form of badges and coins, as well as encouraging competition and social comparison via a digital leaderboard, harms motivation” (p. 159). Since their studied class was an elective, they assumed that students who took the class did so because they were at least somewhat interested in the material and suggested that “when a reward system is imposed on top of a class students already find interesting, it may feel constraining and forced” (p. 159).

While Hanus and Fox attributed negative impacts on motivation to certain gamification elements when the learner was already interested in the subject, they proposed that incentives could increase intrinsic motivation for boring tasks and so they viewed gamification as “a double-edged sword” (p. 160). Gamification could possibly help motivate learners regarding tasks they viewed as boring, but it also appeared to smother existing intrinsic motivation learners had for subjects that already interested them. Domìnguez et al. (2012) designed gamified alternatives to exercises in an existing course and students had the option of doing the traditional exercises or the gamified versions. They found that some students had mixed feelings about games, citing a “dislike and uneasiness created by the leaderboard and the feeling of competition among students” (p. 390). These findings supported the existing thought that while gamification could be a benefit in the classroom, there were certain significant drawbacks to its use.

Flipped Classrooms

Access to mobile devices or computers is essential for students to participate in “flipped classrooms,” a model which grew in popularity during the 2010s. With flipped classrooms, what was “previously class content (teacher led instruction)” is replaced with “what was previously homework (assigned activities to complete) now taking place within the class” (O’Flaherty & Phillips, 2015, p. 85). This method of instruction emerged in the 2010s in response to increased access to technology and understanding of its benefits.

In their systematic review of literature pertaining to flipped classrooms, Akçayır and Akçayır (2018) found that the number of articles published on the topic steadily increased from one paper in 2012 to 32 papers in 2016, reflecting increased interest in the model by scholars (p. 337). One reason for this interest that O’Flaherty and Phillips (2015) suggested was “The flipped classroom foster[ed] student ownership of learning through the completion of preparatory work and being more interactive during actual class time” (p. 85).

Besides student ownership, other benefits of flipped classrooms scholars have found include “enhanced learning motivation and students’ positive attitudes” (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018, p. 343). However, questions remained about whether these benefits were due to active learning rather than the flipped model itself. As Akçayır and Akçayır (2018) asked, “if a researcher use[d] active learning strategies in a traditional course instead of flipping the classroom, would s/he gain the same positive academic outcomes?” (p. 343). They went on to posit that “if the answer is ‘yes,’ then maybe there is no need to devote considerable time to designing and implementing the flipped classroom (developing video lectures, quizzes, etc.) or to subjecting students to large changes in their instructional format” (p. 341). This study called into question the need for the widespread implementation of flipped classrooms and provided suggestions for research on active learning instead.

The term MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses) was described as “the educational buzzword of 2012” (Liyanagunawardena et al., 2013, p. 203). MOOCs are online courses that typically offer free enrollment. Jordan (2014) reported that a survey in February 2013 suggested that the average MOOC enrollment was 33,000 students with an average of 7.5% completing the course (p. 134). In her paper, Jordan gathered enrollment numbers and completion rates as they were available from public sources online.

According to Jordan’s data, total enrollment in MOOCs decreased over time from October 2011 to July 2013 (p. 145). She also found a trend that enrollment in a MOOC increased as the course length in weeks increased (p. 146). However, as course length grew, a smaller proportion of students completed the longer courses (p. 148).

Augmented and Virtual Reality

In the 2010s, advances in augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technology led to increased research interest in how AR and VR could be used in education. Wua et al. (2013) conducted a literature review which gathered and analyzed 54 articles dealing with AR in education. They argued that “viewing AR as a concept rather than a type of technology would be more fruitful for educators, researchers, and designers” (p. 42). While viewing AR as a concept, Wua et al. explored different ways AR could be used in instruction and issues that possibly impact such usage.

In a similar fashion, Dalgarno and Lee (2010) examined the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments (VE). They suggested that “because 3-D technologies can provide levels of visual or sensory realism and interactivity consistent with the real world, ideas learnt within a 3-D VE should be more readily recalled and applied within the corresponding real environment” (p. 21). This was supported by Merchant et al.’s (2014) finding that “the effectiveness of games was the same whether students were assessed immediately or after the passage of time,” which indicated to them that “students learning in games have retention level beyond short-term learning” (p. 36).

The 2010s brought dramatic technological changes to societies and classrooms worldwide. The terrain of educational technology was shifting rapidly and many researchers sought to understand the new realities of classrooms on the ground. Researchers also sought to find their bearings and map which specific aspects of education technology had already been studied by their colleagues by conducting literature reviews. The 20 most cited articles from this decade revealed that researchers were especially interested in how learners were impacted by mobile learning, social media, gamification, MOOCs, and augmented and virtual reality. The articles analyzed for this section were primarily concerned with the following questions: (a) “How does the integration of mobile technology into everyday life impact educational technology?”, (b) “In general, how can educational technology improve learning?”, and (c) “How do specific technologies impact learning?” The rise of mobile devices and wider adoption of online learning enabled teachers and learners to experience new models of learning such as flipped classrooms and to envision more flexible learning environments.

2020 and Beyond

There are intrinsic constraints with discussing a decade while it is still in its infancy. We would argue that the period of scholarly discourse in educational technology that began in 2010 ends, not on December 31, 2019, but once the ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 became apparent. Many of these articles were written before the pandemic reached global proportions and they explored similar themes as those articles analyzed from the 2010s: (a) the use of gamification in education (Troussas et al., 2020; Zainuddin et al., 2020), (b) the impact of the flipped classroom model on students (Turan & Akdag-Cimen, 2020; Lo & Hew, 2020; Bond, 2020), (c) the application of virtual reality in education (Radianti et al., 2020), and (d) the adoption of new learning technologies (Liu et al, 2020). However, three of the articles from 2020 focused on the pandemic and its impact on the field of educational technology.

The abrupt shift to remote learning related to the COVID-19 pandemic strained the capacities of educators, schools, students, and families worldwide. Two of the articles in this section discuss impacts of the COVID-19 virus. The article by Almaiah et al. (2020) asked how regional e-learning systems were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and discussed the main challenges and factors that led to successful usage of those systems. The researchers’ list of critical factors that need to be addressed for successful usage included the following: (a) technological factors, (b) e-learning system quality factors, (c) trust factors, (d) self-efficacy factors, and (e) cultural aspects (p. 5273). We anticipate that many other scholars will examine the impact of COVID-19 with similar papers in the months and years to come.

Rather than analyze the effects of the pandemic on specific learning environments in their editorial, Williamson et al. (2020) explored the macro view of how the pandemic will shape pedagogy going forward.

A distinctive approach to pedagogy has emerged as a global norm in the opening months of 2020. Distance education, remote teaching, and online instruction are not new approaches to pedagogy or curriculum design, but they have taken on renewed salience (p. 108).

Williamson et al. urged caution regarding the “educational platformization” and decentralization of public schooling necessitated by the pandemic (p. 108). They speculated the following:

The current state of ‘pandemic pedagogy’, in other words, may not be seen by some businesses as simply an emergency response to a public health and political crisis, but as a rapid prototype of education as a private service and an opportunity to recentralize decentralized systems through platforms (p. 109).

This concern that Williamson et al. have of public education morphing into a decentralized system enabled by the use of private platforms called for critical studies of these “changes in the broader political economy of the COVID-19 pandemic, its antecedents, and long-term consequences” (p. 109).

A major concern Williamson et al. address in their editorial is the inequality among students, especially the lack of access many students had at home to distance learning (p. 110). They cautioned that such inequality could not simply be solved by giving students laptops for home use and that as the pandemic continued inequalities in society were likely to widen (p. 110). Williamson et al. urged us to “see this time as an important moment to support, regulate and design an inclusive digital future for us all, that is part of a society that is more socially just” (p. 111).

At the beginning of the 2020s, educational technology research was still concerned with understanding the effects of technology on pedagogy in both general and in specific instances. However, the dependence on distance education necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the inequalities that existed in many educational systems and highlighted many questions about “politics, pedagogies, and practices” (Williamson et al.) that will need to be answered in the future.

Synthesis of 50 Years

In this section, we will discuss or summarize the themes common to every decade, important themes unique to particular decades, the evolution of educational technology, and the probable future trajectory of educational technology research.

Core Question

As we look back over 50 years of research and try to sketch a holistic picture of the field of educational technology, we note a few significant themes. The main theme that was common in every decade was research that questioned the effectiveness of specific educational technologies. For this reason, it seems a fair assessment to say that the core question of educational technology research is—or has been for 50 years—whether a particular educational technology is effective. While this is a simple question, educational technology research has remained dynamic and complex for over 50 years. This, of course, is due to the constant innovations in educational technology that allow that core question to be asked again and again, always of a new technology (and sometimes before anyone is fully done studying the old technology). If technology were static, then educational technology would very likely become a closed question.

Technological developments have frequently altered the relevance of research topics. In the ’70s, audiovisual aids in learning were the most technologically relevant. By the 2000s, e-learning was the most relevant discussion. During the 2010s, gamification was used in the hopes of increasing learner engagement. Increased access to tech and mobility led to experimenting with flipped classrooms, MOOCs, and how social media could be used to increase engagement. The increasingly rapid pace of technological advances has outstripped researchers’ ability to compete with the new information. As this chapter illustrates, educational technology research does not always focus on the newest available educational technology. Instead, researchers typically study new technology after it has made its way to the classroom (Kimmons et al., 2021). In the field of educational technology, the efforts of practitioners and researchers are closely intertwined, with researchers often considering which innovations practitioners are making in their classrooms as they consider which questions to study. It is a different model than, for example, the medical field, where research is carried out before adoption by practitioners. This symbiosis with practitioners creating innovations and researchers then mapping and verifying them increases the relevance of research to real life classrooms at the same time it necessitates a lag between the release of new technologies and research concerning them.

Important Trends

Continuing from the 1970s through the 1990s, theoretical analyses appeared in—and eventually even dominated—the highly cited research of each decade. However, from the 2000s onward, theory was no longer the focus of the most cited articles. Theoretical trends during the first three decades should be expected because the field was quite young in the 1970s, troubled by conflicting paradigms in the 1980s, and still grappling with those conflicts even as the internet exploded onto the scene in the 1990s. Even with the introduction of the internet, the most cited articles from the 1990s do not directly concern technology, instead focusing on conflicting theories and models.

What were these theoretical difficulties and disagreements that concerned educational technology research previous to the dawn of the internet age? In the 1970s, new technology created or exposed insufficiencies in established theories and models. In response, researchers challenged those theories and models. In the 1980s, much of the dialogue of educational technology centered on the behaviorism/cognitivism debate. In the 1990s, both Ertmer (1999) and Kozma (1994) urged faster implementation of technology while Clark (1994) and Johnstone (1991) warned against overenthusiasm for technology. Clark (1994) and Kozma (1994) also disagreed about the role of media in learning.

Based on the 20 most cited articles from the 1990s, there is no reason to believe that every practitioner and researcher in the field of educational technology achieved intellectual harmony regarding these debates. However, enough theoretical foundation had been built by 2000 that researchers could at least clearly communicate about their theoretical differences. Perhaps this explains why research began to trend away from theoretical papers. Beginning with papers published in 2000, we saw a trend of researchers asking whether practitioner beliefs are aligned with practice. For instance, Ertmer (2005) investigated whether there was a gap between teacher practice and the theoretical framework (like constructivism) that the teachers aligned themselves with. It appears that by the 2000s, the theoretical roots of the field had matured enough to accommodate new types of discussions.

Future Trajectory and Conclusions

In the 1980s, the knitting together of previously disparate fields created theoretical tension that had a major impact on the field of educational technology that lasted for at least 20 years. Perhaps this indicates that if cross-disciplinary discussions once again becomes central to educational technology research, then the theoretical foundations of the field may undergo another seismic shift. Or perhaps cross-disciplinary research would instead result in the formation of sub-fields. It may be that only a dramatic evolution of technology on par with the invention of the internet would result in a similarly dramatic evolution of the field of educational technology.

It seems that a natural course for educational technology research is for researchers to (a) solidify their theoretical base, (b) determine the affordances of a technology, and (c) investigate pedagogical strategies related to that technology. In 2020, many of the studies that used familiar technology were focused on pedagogy. However, the AR/VR research was meant to determine the affordances of AR/VR. Once it is clear what the affordances of AR/VR are, we would expect to see pedagogy-related research in this area.

We have speculated about why, starting in the 2000s, theoretical papers stopped having such an impact on the field, but we recommend a more thorough investigation of this topic. We also recommend continued bibliometric studies similar to ours that synthesize decades of educational technology research into a holistic picture of the field (perhaps from 2020 to 2070). As research continues, we anticipate further expansion in the field of educational technology.

Allen, W. H. (1975). Intellectual abilities and instructional media design. AV Communication Review, 139–170. https://edtechbooks.org/-qiaY

Anderson, D. R., Levin, S. R., & Lorch, E. P. (1977). The effects of TV program pacing on the behavior of preschool children. AV Communication Review, 25(2), 159–166. https://edtechbooks.org/-kqBY

Ausburn, L. J., & Ausburn, F. B. (1978). Cognitive styles: Some information and implications for instructional design. ECTJ, 26(4), 337–354. https://edtechbooks.org/-tDT

Campeau, P. L. (1974). Selective review of the results of research on the use of audiovisual media to teach adults. AV Communication Review, 22(1), 5–40. https://edtechbooks.org/-oBXY

Clark, R. E., & Snow, R. E. (1975). Alternative designs for instructional technology research. AV Communication Review, 23(4), 373–394. https://edtechbooks.org/-caZ

Costin, F. (1972). Lecturing versus other methods of teaching: A review of research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1), 4–31. https://edtechbooks.org/-aRIV

Dwyer, F. M. (1970). Exploratory studies in the effectiveness of visual illustrations. AV Communication Review, 18, 235–249. https://edtechbooks.org/-piYv

Haring, M. J., & Fry, M. A. (1979). Effect of pictures on children’s comprehension of written text. ECTJ, 27(3), 185–190. https://edtechbooks.org/-jQkI

Havelock, R. G. (1971). The Utilisation of educational research and development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2(2), 84–98. https://edtechbooks.org/-BEVm

Holliday, W. G. (1976). Teaching verbal chains using flow diagrams and texts. AV Communication Review, 24(1), 63–78. https://edtechbooks.org/-nmg

Hsia, H. J. (1971). The information processing capacity of modality and channel performance. AV Communication Review, 19(1), 51–75. https://edtechbooks.org/-YGne

Katzman, N., & Nyenhuis, J. (1972). Color vs. black-and-white effects on learning, opinion, and attention. AV Communication Review, 20(1), 16–28. https://edtechbooks.org/-drPW

Levin, J. R., & Lesgold, A. M. (1978). On pictures in prose. ECTJ, 26(3), 233–243. https://edtechbooks.org/-VUB

Levin, J. R., Bender, B. G., & Lesgold, A. M. (1976). Pictures, repetition, and young children’s oral prose learning. AV Communication Review, 24(4), 367–380. https://edtechbooks.org/-NLA

Macdonald-Ross, M. (1977). How numbers are shown. AV Communication Review, 25(4), 359–409. https://edtechbooks.org/-FZQE

Mangan, J. (1978). Cultural conventions of pictorial representation: Iconic literacy and education. ECTJ, 26(3), 245–267. https://edtechbooks.org/-pQLZm

Merrill, M. D. (1975). Learner control: Beyond aptitude-treatment interactions. AV Communication Review, 23(2), 217–226. https://edtechbooks.org/-PcEF

Paulson, F. L. (1974). Teaching cooperation on television. AV Communication Review, 22(3), 229–246. https://edtechbooks.org/-WiGU

Salomon, G. (1972). Can we affect cognitive skills through visual media? An hypothesis and initial findings. AV Communication Review, 20(4), 401–422. https://edtechbooks.org/-EDeL

Spangenberg, R. W. (1973). The motion variable in procedural learning. AV Communication Review, 21(4), 419–436. https://edtechbooks.org/-Mxmh

Bliss, J., & Ogborn, J. (1989). Tools for exploratory learning: A research programme. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 5(1), 37–50. https://edtechbooks.org/-PYZY

Butterfield, E. C., & Nelson, G. D. (1989). Theory and practice of teaching for transfer. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(3), 5–38. https://edtechbooks.org/-MbJ

Clark, R. E. (1985). Evidence for confounding in computer-based instruction studies: Analyzing the meta-analyses. ECTJ, 33(4), 249–262. https://edtechbooks.org/-iVvz

Clark, R. E., & Voogel, A. (1985). Transfer of training principles for instructional design. ECTJ, 33(2), 113–123. https://edtechbooks.org/-ahm

Cohen, P. A., Ebeling, B. J., & Kulik, J. A. (1981). A meta-analysis of outcome studies of visual-based instruction. ECTJ, 29(1), 26–36. https://edtechbooks.org/-eRQm

Dalton, D. W., Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. (1989). Effects of individual and cooperative computer-assisted instruction on student performance and attitudes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 15–24. https://edtechbooks.org/-WBMF

Faidhi, J. A., & Robinson, S. K. (1987). An empirical approach for detecting program similarity and plagiarism within a university programming environment. Computers & Education, 11(1), 11–19. https://edtechbooks.org/-Tob

Ford, N. (1985). Learning styles and strategies of postgraduate students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 65–77. https://edtechbooks.org/-DcFk

Friend, C. L., & Cole, C. L. (1980). Learner control in computer-based instruction: A current literature review. Educational Technology, 30(11), 47–49. https://edtechbooks.org/-UTBq

Gagnon, D. (1985). Videogames and spatial skills: An exploratory study. ECTJ, 33(4), 263–275. https://edtechbooks.org/-cxa

Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ECTJ, 29(2), 75–91. https://edtechbooks.org/-zSxv

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. ECTJ, 30(4), 233–252. https://edtechbooks.org/-rnJG

Hannafin, M. J., & Rieber, L. P. (1989). Psychological foundations of instructional design for emerging computer-based instructional technologies: Part I. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 102–114. https://edtechbooks.org/-Nmq

Harper, G., & Kember, D. (1986). Approaches to study of distance education students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 17(3), 212–222. https://edtechbooks.org/-MKVL

Heinich, R. (1984). The proper study of instructional technology. ECTJ, 32(2), 67–88. https://edtechbooks.org/-rDpQ

Jackson, A., Fletcher, B., & Messer, D. J. (1986). A survey of microcomputer use and provision in primary schools. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2(1), 45–55. https://edtechbooks.org/-ZAhx

Kinzie, M. B., & Sullivan, H. J. (1989). Continuing motivation, learner control, and CAI. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 5–14. https://edtechbooks.org/-FoMK

Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. ECTJ, 30(4), 195–232. https://edtechbooks.org/-Vnw

Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1989). In search of a happy medium in instructional technology research: Issues concerning external validity, media replications, and learner control. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 19–33. https://edtechbooks.org/-xevR

Tennyson, R. D., & Buttrey, T. (1980). Advisement and management strategies as design variables in computer-assisted instruction. ECTJ, 28(3), 169–176. https://edtechbooks.org/-uRh

Byrne, M. D., Catrambone, R., & Stasko, J. T. (1999). Evaluating animations as student aids in learning computer algorithms. Computers & Education, 33(4), 253–278. https://edtechbooks.org/-YsSi

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29. https://edtechbooks.org/-Dqov

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. EducatIonal Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. https://edtechbooks.org/-PIN

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://edtechbooks.org/-prL

Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the World Wide Web. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(4), 37–64. https://edtechbooks.org/-JsqS

Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75–83. https://edtechbooks.org/-ImKI

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14. https://edtechbooks.org/-yWdv

Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79. https://edtechbooks.org/-Gfxm

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19. https://edtechbooks.org/-yjN

Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 31–41. https://edtechbooks.org/-vsYc

Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), 43–58. https://edtechbooks.org/-CdYM

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168. https://edtechbooks.org/-LcRL

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39. https://edtechbooks.org/-nEwf

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://edtechbooks.org/-unph

Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K–12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. https://edtechbooks.org/-jRIj

Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. L. (2008). First year students' experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1). https://edtechbooks.org/-qcX

Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 13–24. https://edtechbooks.org/-hLnU

Liaw, S. S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864–873. https://edtechbooks.org/-UqqE

Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: ‘It is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work.’ Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141–155. https://edtechbooks.org/-WPr

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59. https://edtechbooks.org/-jwSq

Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49(3), 581–596. https://edtechbooks.org/-kNK

Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1–12. https://edtechbooks.org/-xCi

Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students' behavioral intention to use e-learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.12.3.150

Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students' education‐related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 157–174. https://edtechbooks.org/-bXcH

So, H. -J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336. https://edtechbooks.org/-pzih

Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202. https://edtechbooks.org/-zeo

Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. https://edtechbooks.org/-cRrs

Wang, Y. S., Wu, M. C., & Wang, H. Y. (2009). Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 92–118. https://edtechbooks.org/-rnmw

Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334–345. https://edtechbooks.org/-IIrp

Boyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G., Earp, J., Ott, M., Lim, T., Ninaus, M., Ribeiro, C., & Pereira, J. (2016). An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 94, 178–192. https://edtechbooks.org/-ASH

Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2), 661–686. https://edtechbooks.org/-AKev

Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8. https://edtechbooks.org/-fMIq

Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3‐D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32. https://edtechbooks.org/-cUrQ

Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 75–88. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.18.3.75

Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-Herráiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380–392. https://edtechbooks.org/-YcMJ

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. https://edtechbooks.org/-nGZC

Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18–26. https://edtechbooks.org/-dLQi

Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152–161. https://edtechbooks.org/-qvGff

Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1), 133–160. https://edtechbooks.org/-MtBr

Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162–171. https://edtechbooks.org/-SWKe

Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119–132. https://edtechbooks.org/-ALh

Kremer, A. (2019, December 31). The 2010s: The golden decade of the mobile internet. China Tech Blog. https://www.chinatechblog.org/blog/the-2010s-the-golden-decade-of-the-mobile-internet

Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008–2012. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 202–227. https://edtechbooks.org/-voPR

Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students' learning outcomes in K–12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40. https://edtechbooks.org/-LKwT

O'Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85–95. https://edtechbooks.org/-QhLd

Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 134–140. https://edtechbooks.org/-zaZS

Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35. https://edtechbooks.org/-BZmB

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

Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41–49. https://edtechbooks.org/-TsCY

Almaiah, M. A., Al-Khasawneh, A., & Althunibat, A. (2020). Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 5261–5280. https://edtechbooks.org/-NsnS

Bond, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through the flipped learning approach in  K–12 : A systematic review. Computers & Education, 151, 103819. https://edtechbooks.org/-QfWsm

Liu, Q., Geertshuis, S., & Grainger, R. (2020). Understanding academics' adoption of learning technologies: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 151, 103857. https://edtechbooks.org/-DBa

Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2020). A comparison of flipped learning with gamification, traditional learning, and online independent study: The effects on students’ mathematics achievement and cognitive engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(4), 464–481. https://edtechbooks.org/-Yumk

Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, 103778. https://edtechbooks.org/-nihN

Troussas, C., Krouska, A., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2020). Collaboration and fuzzy-modeled personalization for mobile game-based learning in higher education. Computers & Education, 144, 103698. https://edtechbooks.org/-Mvi

Turan, Z., & Akdag-Cimen, B. (2020). Flipped classroom in English language teaching: A systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(5-6), 590–606. https://edtechbooks.org/-YyJN

Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: Digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. https://edtechbooks.org/-BtYR

Zainuddin, Z., Shujahat, M., Haruna, H., & Chu, S. K. W. (2020). The role of gamified e-quizzes on student learning and engagement: An interactive gamification solution for a formative assessment system. Computers & Education, 145, 103729. https://edtechbooks.org/-QDh

Kimmons, R., Rosenberg, J., & Allman, B. (2021). Trends in educational technology: What Facebook, Twitter, and Scopus can tell us about current research and practice. TechTrends, 65, 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00589-6

Literature Review Articles

Bond, M., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Nichols, M. (2019). Revisiting five decades of educational technology research: A content and authorship analysis of the British Journal of Educational Technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 12–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12730

Chen, X., Zou, D., & Xie, H. (2020). Fifty years of British Journal of Educational Technology: A topic modeling based bibliometric perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(3), 692–708. https://edtechbooks.org/-VEYh

Brigham Young University

This content is provided to you freely by EdTech Books.

Access it online or download it at https://edtechbooks.org/50_years/educational_technology .

Global education trends and research to follow in 2022

Subscribe to the center for universal education bulletin, emily gustafsson-wright , emily gustafsson-wright senior fellow - global economy and development , center for universal education @egwbrookings helen shwe hadani , helen shwe hadani former brookings expert @helenshadani kathy hirsh-pasek , kathy hirsh-pasek senior fellow - global economy and development , center for universal education @kathyandro1 maysa jalbout , maysa jalbout nonresident fellow - global economy and development , center for universal education @maysajalbout elizabeth m. king , elizabeth m. king nonresident senior fellow - global economy and development , center for universal education jennifer l. o’donoghue , jennifer l. o’donoghue deputy director - center for universal education , senior fellow - global economy and development @jennodjod brad olsen , brad olsen senior fellow - global economy and development , center for universal education @bradolsen_dc jordan shapiro , jordan shapiro nonresident fellow - global economy and development , center for universal education @jordosh emiliana vegas , and emiliana vegas former co-director - center for universal education , former senior fellow - global economy and development @emivegasv rebecca winthrop rebecca winthrop director - center for universal education , senior fellow - global economy and development @rebeccawinthrop.

January 24, 2022

• 12 min read

As the third calendar year of the pandemic begins, 2022 promises to be an important one—especially for education. Around the world, education systems have had to contend with sporadic closures, inequitable access to education technology and other distance learning tools, and deep challenges in maintaining both students’ and teachers’ physical and emotional health. At the same time, not all of the sudden changes precipitated by the pandemic have been bad—with some promising new innovations, allies, and increased attention on the field of global education emerging over the past three years. The key question is whether 2022 and the years ahead will lead to education transformation or will students, teachers, and families suffer long-lasting setbacks?

In the Center for Universal Education, our scholars take stock of the trends, policies, practices, and research that they’ll be closely keeping an eye on this year and likely in the many to come.

More than ever, in 2022 it will be critical to focus on strengthening the fabric of our global education system in order to achieve positive outcomes—particularly through an increased focus on data-informed decisionmaking. We have seen a renewed focus on different forms of data that are critical to enhanced education outcomes, such as real-time performance data, which allow teachers and other decisionmakers to course-adjust to the needs of learners to better support their educational journeys. Additionally, high-quality program cost data are needed for decisionmakers to plan, budget, and choose the most cost-effective interventions.

One way we are seeing these areas strengthened is through innovative financing for education, such as impact bonds , which require data to operate at full potential. This year, pooled funding through outcomes funds—a scaled version of impact bonds—should make a particularly big splash. The Education Outcomes Fund organization is slated to launch programs in Ghana and Sierra Leone, and we also expect to see the launch of country-specific outcomes funds for education such as OFFER (Outcome Fund For Education Results) in Colombia, the Back-to-School Outcomes Fund in India, and another fund in Chile. At the Center for Universal Education, we will be following these innovations closely and look forward to the insights that they will bring to the education sector.

As we look ahead to 2022, one continued challenge for many families is navigating the uncharted territory of supporting children’s learning with a growing number of school closures . But while the pandemic forced an abrupt slowdown in modern life, it also provided an opportunity to reexamine how we can prioritize learning and healthy development both in and out of school. Moreover, the cascading effects of the pandemic are disproportionally affecting families living in communities challenged by decades of discrimination and disinvestment—and are very likely to widen already existing educational inequities in worrisome ways.

One innovative approach to providing enriching learning opportunities beyond school walls that address the inequities in our current systems is Playful Learning Landscapes (PLL) —installations and programming that promote children and families’ learning through play in the public realm. A current focus for PLL at Brookings is measuring the impact of these spaces to show that PLL works and to garner greater investment in them. To that end, Brookings and its partners developed a framework and an initial set of indicators from both the learning science and placemaking perspectives to help assess the positive effects of PLL on learning outcomes , as well as its potential to enhance social interaction and public life in revitalized spaces. The framework will continue to evolve as we learn from communities that are testing the expansion and adaptation of PLL—this important work is just beginning.

The pandemic highlighted several trends in education that promise to be the focus of future policy and practice in 2022 and beyond: the importance of skills that supplement the learning of content, systemic inequities in education systems, and the role of digital technology in the education of the future. It has become increasingly clear that the memorization of content alone will not prepare children for the jobs and society of the future. As noted in a Brookings report “ A new path for education reform, ” in an automated world, manufacturing jobs and even preliminary medical diagnoses or legal contracts can be performed by computers and robots. Students who can work collaboratively—with strong communication skills, critical thinking, and creative innovation—will be highly valued. Mission statements from around the globe are starting to promote a “whole child” approach to education that will encourage the learning of a breadth of skills better aligning the education sector with needs from the business sector.

The past year also demonstrated weaknesses and inequalities inherent in remote learning that I’ll be closely tracking in the years to come. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested that virtual learning presents risks to social-emotional learning . Further, research suggests that academic progress during the pandemic slowed such that students demonstrated only 35 to 50 percent of the gains they normally achieve in mathematics and 60 to 68 percent in reading. The losses are not experienced uniformly , with children from underresourced environments falling behind their more resourced peers.

The failure of remote learning also raises questions about the place of digital learning in the classroom. Learning will become more and more hybrid over time, and keeping an eye on advances in technology—especially regarding augmented reality and the metaverse—will be particularly important, as both have real consequences for the classrooms.

In 2022, I’ll be focusing on one group of children in particular–refugees–who are among those children who have historically had the least access to preprimary education. The pandemic has affected them disproportionally , as it pushed them and their families into poverty and deprived them from most forms of education during the school closures.

While much more investment in early childhood education research and evaluation is needed to improve evidence and channel scarce resources effectively, there are a few important efforts to watch. A report commissioned by Theirworld last year provided an overview of the sector and focused on a critical gap and opportunity to address the inequity of access to early childhood education in refugee settings by better supporting teachers and community workers. This year, Theirworld and partners will pursue two of the report’s recommendations–making the science of early childhood brain development widely accessible in refugee communities and building the evidence base on what works in supporting early childhood education teachers and the young refugee children they teach.

The report was informed by existing initiatives including Ahlan Simsim, which in 2017 received the largest known grant to early education in a humanitarian context. While the evaluation of Ahlan Simsim will not be complete until two more years, the Global Ties for Children research center, Sesame Workshop, and the International Rescue Committee will share critical insights into their learning to date in a forthcoming episode of the podcast the Impact Room .

This coming year I’ll be focused on how education systems can prepare for future disruptions, whatever the cause, with more deliberateness. The past two years of the COVID pandemic have seen education systems throughout the globe struggle to find ways to continue schooling. Additionally, there have been other public health crises, natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, and severe storms, and wars and terrorism in different parts of the world that have gravely tested school systems’ ability to minimize the cost of catastrophes on students and teachers. Finding safer temporary learning places outside the school and using technologies such as radio, TV broadcasts, and online learning tools have helped, but quick fixes with little preparation are not effective approaches for sustaining and advancing learning gains.

In the age of broadcast and digital technologies, there are many more ways to meet the challenges of future emergency situations, but life- and education-saving solutions must be part of the way school systems operate—built into their structures, their staffing, their budgets, and their curricula. By preparing for the emergencies that are likely to happen, we can persevere to reach learning goals for all children.

By the close of 2021, a number of studies began to document the impact of COVID-19 on girls’ educational trajectories across the Global South. These studies point to promising trends –lower than expected dropout rates and reenrollment rates similar to (if not greater than) those of boys–while still highlighting the particular challenges faced by adolescent girls and girls living in poverty , conflict, and crisis .

In 2022, it will be critical to continue to generate more nuanced evidence—carefully considering questions such as “for which girls,” “where,” “when,” and “why.” And then we must put this knowledge to use to protect and promote girls’ and young women’s rights not just to education, but to participate and thrive in the world around them. Ensuring that marginalized girls and young women become transformative agents in improving their lives and livelihoods—as well as those of their families and communities—requires us to develop new strategies for learning and acting together.

At the Center for Universal Education, this means strengthening our work with local leaders in girls’ education: promoting gender-transformative research through the Echidna Global Scholars Program ; expanding the collective impact of our 33 Echidna alumni; and co-constructing a learning and action community to explore together how to improve beliefs, practices, programs, and policies so that marginalized adolescent girls’ can develop and exercise agency in pursuing their own pathways.

Going into year three of COVID-19, in 2022 I’m interested to see whether countries will transform their education systems or largely leave them the way they are. Will leaders of education systems tinker around the edges of change but mostly attempt a return to a prepandemic “normal,” or will they take advantage of this global rupture in the status quo to replace antiquated educational institutions and approaches with significant structural improvement?

In relation to this, one topic I’ll be watching in particular is how countries treat their teachers. How will policymakers, the media, parent councils, and others frame teachers’ work in 2022? In which locations will teachers be diminished versus where will they be defended as invaluable assets? How will countries learn from implications of out-of-school children (including social isolation and child care needs)? Will teachers remain appreciated in their communities but treated poorly in the material and political conditions of their work? Or will countries hold them dear—demanding accountability while supporting and rewarding them for quality work?

I’m interested in learning more about how pandemic lockdowns have impacted students. So far, we’ve only gotten very general data dealing with questions that are, in my opinion, too simple to be worthwhile. It’s all been about good and bad, positive and negative, learning loss and achievement. But I’ll be watching for more nuanced studies, which ask about specific ways increased time away from school has impacted social-emotional development. How do those results differ between gender, race, socioeconomic status, and geographic location? I suspect we’re going to learn some things about the relationship between home environment and school environment that will challenge a lot of our taken-for-granted assumptions.

In 2022, I’ll be tracking emerging evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 school closures on children and youth. Several researchers, including my co-authors and me , have provided estimates of the school closures’ impact on student learning losses, unemployment, future earnings, and productivity globally. But only recently are researchers analyzing actual evidence of learning losses , and an early systematic review finds that “Although robust and empirical research on COVID-19-related student learning loss is limited, learning loss itself may not be.”

Likewise, there is little rigorous reviews of remote learning tools’ and platforms’ impact on student learning during the school closures. After the pandemic, it is almost certain that remote and hybrid learning will continue—at a minimum occasionally and often periodically—in primary, secondary, and post-secondary education. It is urgent that we build the evidence base to help education decisionmakers and practitioners provide effective, tailored learning experiences for all students.

Finally, a key issue for education is how to redesign curricula so that this generation (and future generations) of students gain a key set of skills and competencies required for technologically-advancing labor markets and societies. While foundational literacy and numeracy skills continue to be essential for learning, a strong foundational knowledge of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics is ever more important in the 21st century, and I look forward to contributing research this year to help make the case for curricula redesign efforts.

I will be interested to see how parent-teacher relationships progress after the pandemic has (hopefully) faded into the background. COVID-19 has had an inescapable impact on the way we deliver education globally, but none more so than on how education leaders and teachers interact with students and their families.

For the past three years, I have been studying family-school collaboration. Together with my colleagues and partners, we have surveyed nearly 25,000 parents and 6,000 teachers in 10 countries around the world and found that the vast majority of teachers, parents, and caregivers want to work together more closely. Quality family-school collaboration has the potential to significantly improve educational outcomes, spur important discussions on the overall purpose of school, and smooth the path for schools and families to navigate change together. From community schools in New Mexico  to text message updates from teachers in India , new innovations are popping up every day—in every corner of the world. I’m excited to see what the future holds for family-school collaboration!

Education Technology Global Education

Global Economy and Development

Center for Universal Education

Thinley Choden

May 3, 2024

Ghulam Omar Qargha, Rachel Dyl, Sreehari Ravindranath, Nariman Moustafa, Erika Faz de la Paz

Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, Rebecca Winthrop, Sweta Shah

May 2, 2024

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Image credit: Claire Scully

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

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

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

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

AI in the classroom

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

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

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

Immersive environments

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

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

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

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

Gamification

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

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

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

Data-gathering and analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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
• PMC10075169

Trends and Topics in Educational Technology, 2023 Edition

Bohdana allman.

1 Brigham Young University, Provo, UT USA

Royce Kimmons

Joshua rosenberg.

2 University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA

Monalisa Dash

3 Brajrajnagar College, Sambalpur University, Burla, India

Introduction

In this editorial, we present trends and popular topics in educational technology for the year 2022. We used a similar public internet data mining approach (Kimmons & Veletsianos, 2018 ) to previous years (Kimmons, 2020 ; Kimmons et al., 2021 ; Kimmons & Rosenberg, 2022 ), extracting and analyzing data from three large data sources: the Scopus research article database, the Twitter #EdTech affinity group, and K-12 school and district Facebook pages. This year, we also added information related to Open Educational Resources (OER), specifically data from an edtech-focused open publishing platform, EdTech Books. Our analysis provides a snapshot of educational technology trends in 2022 from four different perspectives, affording insights into what is of interest in the field as institutions, educators, learners, and researchers adjust to the post-pandemic ‘normal’ and adopt educational technologies, resources, and practices at a more mature level.

What Were Trending Topics in EdTech Journals in 2022?

Research topics in the field of educational technology in 2022 were, with a few exceptions, noticeably consistent with those of previous years (see Table  1 ; Kimmons et al., 2021 ; Kimmons & Rosenberg, 2022 ). We compiled the titles of 2699 articles from top educational technology journals ( n  = 16) identified by Google Scholar and retrieved their abstracts from Scopus. Following this, we looked at the number of times each keyword and bigram (two-word phrase) appeared in the titles and abstracts of the papers to see which words were most frequently referenced. Generic word stems like “learn,” “student,” “education,” and “teach,” modalities like “online” and “digital,” and methods-related terms like “study” and “review” were the most frequently occurring words in titles. Analysis of bigrams showed recurring references to (a) educational settings, like “higher education,” (b) specific modalities like “online learning,” “virtual reality,” and “augmented reality,” and (c) methods, like “systematic review,” “meta-analysis,” and “case study.” Moreover, references to “COVID-19” understandably dropped from 2021 to 2022, while references to “online learning” continued to grow. This may imply that interest in online learning has continued and even grown beyond the pandemic. Appearance of “during+COVID” in the top 15 bigrams in EdTech article titles in 2022 suggested that researchers and practitioners were still reporting on educational practices during the pandemic.

Educational Technology Journal Article Titles: Top 15 Keywords and Bigrams by Year

To aid in making sense of the results, we further manually categorized keywords and bigrams into the four information types suggested by the data (contexts, methods, modalities, and topics). Context included terms related to the research settings. Methods included terms referring to research methods in the article. Modalities included terms referring to the technical modality featured in the study. Topics included terms referring to the intervention, objective, or theoretical goal of the study. The most common keywords and bigrams for each type may be found in Table  2 . Contextual bigrams like “higher education” (3.9%) and “COVID-19” (3.6%) were among the most popular bigrams used in educational technology journal article titles in 2022. When we looked specifically at the educational level, we found that references to “higher+education” (3.9%) continued to be considerably higher than to “K-12” (1.2%). The abstract analysis of context bigrams paralleled the title bigram analysis.

EdTech Journal Article Titles: Contexts, Methods, Modalities, and Topics Keywords and Bigrams

A closer analysis of methods mentioned in the titles suggested that the terms “systematic review” (3.1%), “case study” (2.2%), and “meta-analysis” (2%) remained the top three methods mentioned in the journal article titles, just like in previous years., followed by “literature review” (1.5%) and “systematic literature” (1.1%; see Table ​ Table2 2 for details). Rather than assuming that these methods were more prevalent, we recognized that researchers commonly mention these particular methods in their titles, whereas other methods are generally mentioned only in the abstract or in the body of an article. Bigram analyses of abstracts confirmed this notion, suggesting a broader coverage of distinct research approaches, such as “mixed method,” “quasi-experimental,” “randomly assigned,” “pre-post,” “systematic review,” and “meta-analysis.” Amongst the methods, bigrams “mixed method” and “quasi-experimental” occupied the leading position in journal abstracts, each carrying an equal percentage of 4.6%, whereas “systematic review” and “meta-analysis” scored 2.3% and 1.8%, respectively. These results suggested that in 2022 EdTech articles with primary data sources were published more frequently than articles using secondary data sources, although secondary data methods were more frequently mentioned in the article titles. Moreover, quantitative components (e.g., “test,” “experiment,” and “survey”) were found more frequently than qualitative components (e.g., “interview” and “qualitative”) in the 2022 EdTech journal article abstracts. Finally, several specific methods that frequently appeared in the article abstracts included “structure equation,” “thematic analysis,” “equation modeling,” “network analysis,” “data mining,” and “cluster analysis.”

When we looked at modality types, we saw that, similarly to 2021, “online learning” (3.5%) and “virtual reality” (2.7%) were the most referenced modalities mentioned in EdTech journal titles (Table ​ (Table2). 2 ). In abstracts, the occurrence of “virtual reality,” “online learning,” and “online courses” were far more common than “emergency remote” learning, clearly indicating a post-pandemic adoption of online technologies and an end of pandemic-related emergency remote learning research. Finally, the analysis of topics revealed that “computational thinking” (2.8%) and “learning environments” (2.8%) were the most-referenced bigrams in journal titles (Table ​ (Table2). 2 ). In the abstracts, the keyword “science” was used 33.9% and “language” 14.6% implying research focus in these content areas. Another noteworthy trend in the topic analysis of article abstracts was the popularity of terms related to Open Educational Resources (OER), specifically, the frequent use of terms such as “creative commons” and “cc license.”

What Were the Trending #EdTech Topics and Tools on Twitter in 2022?

We also continued to analyze trending #EdTech topics on Twitter (cf., Kimmons et al., 2021 ; Kimmons & Rosenberg, 2022 ). In 2022, #EdTech continued to be popular, and its analysis provided a window into relevant conversations, resources, and ideas that researchers and practitioners shared. We collected all English-language original tweets using the hashtag #EdTech for 2022. This included 478,269 original tweets (ignoring retweets) posted by 35,789 authors, which was 39,856 average monthly tweets. This indicated a 10.43% growth in #edtech original tweets (45,191) and average tweets (3766) from 2021, whereas the number of authors declined by 12.21% (4978; cf. Table  3 ).

Changes in #EdTech Tweet Frequencies Across Years

The increase in total tweets indicated continuous popularity of the #edtech affinity space in general. The growth in tweets despite declining authorship suggested that the loyal authors increased their activity. Decreases in authorship could be connected to the general Twitter struggle to keep its most active users (Dang, 2022 ), but it could also be connected to uncertainties brought on by changes in Twitter ownership. Some users might have become more hesitant tweeters, fearing and anticipating changes in the platform’s nature and culture. Others may have abandoned the platform completely for more deeply-rooted reasons (Sweney, 2022 ). In the future, changes in Twitter ownership may even impact this report. Shifts in the platform’s business model may make data collection less feasible and analyzed information may become less useful.

We also looked at the most popular #EdTech co-occurring hashtags in two categories: audience and topics (see Table  4 ). #edchat remained the most popular co-occurring hashtag in the audience category. Other top hashtags from 2021 representing audience, such as #edutwitter, #teachers, #edtechchat, #students, #highered, and #k12, remained in the top 10 but slightly changed ranking. Interestingly, many top co-occurring hashtags (#edchat, #highered, #k12, #school, #highereducation) experienced at least a 15% reduction in the number of tweets and at least a 20% decrease in authorship. Another noteworthy trend is the appearance of more specialized, audience-related hashtags, such as #homeschool, #homeschooling, #suptchat, and #iste, in the top 50. Such differentiation in hashtag usage may reflect evolving users’ needs and desires (Kimmons & Veletsianos, 2016 ; Veletsianos, 2017 ).

Most Popular Additional Hashtags in #EdTech Tweets in 2022 by Type

The most popular topic by number of tweets in 2022 was #byjus, a hashtag associated with an educational technology company from India. In spite of its popularity (108,794 or 22.75% of all #edtech tweets), the low diversity score (0.62%) indicated that this hashtag was used by relatively few accounts at high frequencies, likely a result of focused marketing campaigns. This points to the fact that the Twitter space, and #edtech space in particular, can be unduly influenced by corporate influences and marketing. To keep these outliers from our dataset, we determined popularity first through sorting by number of users, then we sorted the top 200 by number of tweets.

We saw similar trends in co-occurring topics. The top ten topics slightly changed order but remained popular overall. The top two hashtags, #education and #learning, remained top ranking, but both experienced a significant loss of total tweets and number of authors. Other top hashtags, such as #technology, #stem, #teaching, and #innovation, had both fewer tweets and fewer authors. The exception was #ai, which had 2908 (25.7%) more tweets despite 484 (22.9%) fewer authors. This may not be a surprising trend as #ai has been gaining popularity in recent years. Other hashtags, such as #artificialintelligence, #machinelearning, #ML, and #mlearning, also appeared in the list. We can probably anticipate a sharp rise in this subgroup’s activity, including #chatGTP and related hashtags, in the #EdTech space in 2023.

As with the audience co-occurring hashtags, there was a clear pattern of emerging specialized topic-related hashtags that modified previously popular ones. For example, the popular term #stem evolved to include #steam, #stemeducation, #stemed, and #womeninstem appearing in the top 100. This differentiation and increased related hashtag usage could be one reason for decreased tweet count for top hashtags in 2022: greater specialization yields lower numbers in the general tags. Users gravitated to related, more specialized hashtags to create more focused dialogic spaces. Additionally, looking at the overall trends in both the audience and topic co-occurring hashtags, we noticed that diversity (#dei, #inclusion, #diversity, #quality, #equity), women (#womenintech, #womeninstem, #womenempowerment), and English language learning (#esl, #tefl, #efl, #elt, #tesol) became increasingly important in the #EdTech space. This specific type of differentiation may reflect the rising importance of these issues to the audience.

Another important trend in the #EdTech space this year was related to COVID-19 hashtags. In 2020, the most popular co-occurring hashtags after #education and #edchat were #remotelearning, #onlinelearning, #elearning, and #distancelearning, making up 11.47% (15,114 tweets by 4600 authors). These hashtags remained very popular in 2021, and together with #virtuallearning, #blendedlearning, #onlineeducation, and #digitallearning made up 16.10% (69,737 tweets by 10,611 authors) of #EdTech, while dropping to a mere 9% (43,034 tweets by 5910 authors) in 2022 (see Fig.  1 ). Clearly, conversations on Twitter paralleled a shift in perspective as we transitioned from the pandemic years. Of note, #elearning and #onlinelearning remained relatively popular (31,029 tweets or 72.1% of the 2022 subset). These two hashtags are more general and may represent the post-pandemic transition into accepting online learning environments and digital courseware (Seaman & Seaman, 2022a ). On the other hand, #remotelearning and #distancelearning, hashtags closely tied to COVID-19 emergency learning, significantly decreased in usage (76.6% and 69.2%, respectively) in 2022.

COVID-19 Related Tweets in the #EdTech Affinity Space

Our #EdTech tweet analysis also examined attached external links. We found that 454,258 (95.0%) tweets included either an external link or an embedded media item (e.g., an image). Similarly, as in the past, prominent external links included news sites ( edsurge.com , edtechmagazine.com , eschoolnews.com ), specifically those connected to India ( timesofindia.indiatimes.com , financialexpress.com , and indiaeducationadiary.com ). Multimedia resources ( youtube.com ), file-sharing platforms ( drive.google.com ), and other social media ( linkedin.com ) links were also among the most common external links. Noteworthy among the top shared external links is the increased popularity of links to learning resource sites, such as oodlu.org , shakeuplearning.com , ilearn2.co.uk , and freetech4teachers.com .

What Were Trending Topics among School and School District Facebook Groups in 2022?

To understand which technologies were shared on school and district Facebook pages, we examined the domain names for all the hyperlinks posted by 16,309 publicly accessible pages. To carry out this analysis, we searched the homepages of all of the schools and school districts in the U.S. for links to Facebook pages. We then uploaded the links to Facebook pages we found to the CrowdTangle platform 1 to access publicly available posts for 2020–2022 and identified the domains of websites linked within schools’ and districts’ posts; more information on the data collection approach is provided in Rosenberg et al. ( 2022 ). The ten most-shared domains broken down by year (2020, 2021, and 2022) are presented in Table  5 . The n represents the number of schools or districts sharing one or more links to these domains, and the percentage is the proportion of pages sharing one or more links that year. Thus, 9705 is the frequency with which links to YouTube were shared in 2020, and the percentage indicates that 60% of schools and districts with publicly accessible Facebook pages posted one or more links to YouTube over the year.

Domains for Hyperlinks Shared on School and School District Facebook Pages

Looking across the years, we found that domains shared were largely consistent, with Google services—YouTube, Google Docs, and Google Drive—being the most shared in 2020, 2021, and 2022. We note that a greater proportion of districts shared links to YouTube in 2020 than in 2021 and 2022, possibly due to fewer activities being recorded and shared during the months following the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically, late 2019 and early 2020. After Google services, links to Zoom were commonly shared the fourth-most across all three years, though the number of districts sharing Zoom links decreased from 26% in 2020 and 21% in 2021 to 11% in 2022—like fewer links to YouTube, a suggestion that districts were carrying out fewer activities remotely. Links to the CDC were the eighth-most shared in 2020, but such links were not in the top ten in 2021 and 2022. Apart from these, the domains shared were similar in makeup and frequency across years, showing the importance of tools for carrying out digital work and productivity as well as tools to facilitate event sign-ups (SignUpGenius), school-parent communication (Smore), and book and sports ticket sales (Scholastic and GoFan).

What Were Trends in EdTech Open Educational Resources (OER) in 2022?

In addition to Scopus and social media trends, we also examined an EdTech-focused Open Educational Resource (OER) platform EdTech Books ( https://edtechbooks.org ). OER are “teaching, learning, and research materials that reside in the public domain or have been released under an open license that permits their free use and re-purposing by others” (Creative Commons, 2020 ). OER can take various forms and sizes, including textbooks, lessons, courses, learning activities, assessments, technologies, syllabi, images, presentations, videos, and graphics. Being ‘open’ means that OER are freely accessible to anyone with internet access and can be retained, reused, redistributed, revised, and remixed as needed (Wiley, n.d. ), providing significant opportunities for improving “the quality and affordability of education for learners everywhere” (Wiley & Hilton, 2018 , p. 144). Research has repeatedly shown that OER quality is comparable to commercial resources (Clinton & Khan, 2019 ; Kimmons, 2015 ), and their adoption does not negatively impact student learning (Hilton, 2016 ; Hilton, 2019 ) while saving students money (Clinton, 2018 ; Hilton, 2016 ; Ikahihifo et al., 2017 ) and providing a variety of other benefits (Kimmons, 2016 ).

Though a shift to OER over the years has been slower than many would like (Seaman & Seaman, 2022b ), and research on adoption patterns is problematized by an absence of central controlling agencies and systems, the field of educational technology may be somewhat ahead of the curve when compared to many other fields (cf., Rosenberg, 2023 ). The emergence of OER platforms like EdTech Books, Pressbooks, and LibreTexts supports this notion. For this year’s OER analysis, we selected EdTech Books as the authors are most familiar with this platform and have ready access to data. We believe that as an EdTech-focused platform, EdTech Books analytics may provide valuable insights into user behavior and how OER are developed, adopted, and used in our field.

In 2022, ETB provided free OER to more than 1.4 million users worldwide. A perusal of the most popular books or journal issues (Table  6 ), chapters (Table  7 ), and search terms revealed that readers seemed to be drawn to these resources when they were seeking information on broad theoretical aspects of educational technology (e.g., cognitivism, constructivism, sociocultural theory), technology-specific guidance (e.g., how to use Blooket, MySQL, or Photopea), or research and evaluation materials (e.g., sampling procedures or survey design), and analysis of end-of-chapter quality assurance ratings (similar to e-commerce five-star reviews) revealed that readers generally found the provided OER to be “High Quality” (3.0 = “Moderate Quality,” 4.0 = “High Quality,” 5.0 = “Very High Quality”).

Most Popular OER Books or Journal Issues on ETB for 2022

Most Popular OER Book Chapters on ETB for 2022

Some of these works were peer-reviewed, while others were not. Some chapters and books were authored by professional scholars, while others were authored by students as part of open pedagogical learning projects (cf. Casey et al., 2023 ). Notably, some of the most-used and highest-quality OER in EdTech Books were authored by students or were published without peer review. This trend suggests the need to rethink peer reviews as a sole indicator of quality (Woodward et al., 2017 ; Kimmons, 2015 ), potentially including triangulation of data points, such as quality assurance ratings, citations and dissemination rates, times remixed, accessibility, usefulness, and prestige of adopting organizations.

Additionally, one of the stated goals of EdTech Books (and OER more broadly) is to improve access to learning opportunities for people all over the world. Analysis of readers’ country of origin and device type (Fig. ​ (Fig.2) 2 ) revealed that EdTech Books resources were heavily used throughout the world and accessed on a variety of devices. The top users of the site were the United States (33.8%), the Philippines (16.6%), and India (6.7%), with each other country accounting for 2.7% or less of total traffic. Moreover, more than one-third of users accessed resources on mobile devices, underscoring the importance of mobile-first design when creating OER because, in many countries, mobile devices with limited internet access are the norm for online-enabled learning.

Most Common Countries and Device Types of ETB Users for 2022

Summary and Discussion

The analysis of 2022 edtech-related data from Scopus, Twitter, Facebook, and EdTech Books provided triangulated snapshots of the state of the educational technology field in 2022. Additionally, comparisons of the 2022 data trends to trends from previous years afforded additional insights into developments, directions, and shifts as the EdTech field responds to past and current events. We observed several noteworthy patterns, such as the general stability of trends in the field, specific post-pandemic shifts, the maturation of specialized topics, and emerging areas of interest. We hope that researchers and practitioners find the overall trends useful and those focusing on specific areas find the more detailed analyses of topics and terms helpful.

First, we found that the overall patterns across the platforms remained similar to previous years. The emphasis remained on “e-learning” and “online learning” in Scopus and on Twitter and Facebook. We continued to see a keen interest in emergent technologies, such as artificial intelligence and virtual/augmented reality, in Scopus data and on Twitter. It is possible that these topics are not as frequently mentioned on school and district Facebook pages because they serve a different communication function than Twitter and Scopus (schools-to-families vs. scholars-to-scholars). Rather than exchanging the latest technology ideas and tips among researchers and practitioners, school and district Facebook pages serve as a day-to-day communication tool and an information hub between schools (teachers and administrators) and families (students and parents). As in previous years, the school and school district Facebook page analysis and the Twitter external link analysis highlighted the continuous predominance of digital services by a single tech company: Google. Indeed, tools such as YouTube, Google Docs, and Google Drive have been widely adopted and have become intrinsic to any technology-related activities.

Second, not surprisingly, the analysis revealed a strong post-pandemic shift across the data on all three platforms: Scopus, Twitter, and Facebook. The Twitter data analysis suggested a sharp decline in COVID-19-related terms usage, including technology terms like “remote teaching.” Facebook data clearly indicated a shift from remote learning (a decline in remote technology use) to in-person activities (an increase in sports and events). Despite this shift, we saw increased references to online and hybrid learning across all three platforms, suggesting more ubiquitous use of these technologies and practices within existing educational systems as a supplement rather than a wholesale replacement (e.g., Seaman & Seaman, 2022a , b ). Additionally, the appearance of “COVID-19,” “online learning,” and “during COVID” bigrams in Scopus data suggested that researchers are still reporting on EdTech activities during the pandemic.

Third, among other trends, Twitter data analysis suggested the maturation and specialization of topics reflective of evolving users’ needs and desires. Many popular hashtags remained at the top in 2022. However, the number of their tweets dropped, and new, yet related hashtags noticeably appeared at the top. For example, #stem evolved to include #steam, #stemeducation, #stemed, and #womeninstem. Such development suggests users’ understanding of hashtag functionality and responsiveness to the dynamic social media landscape. As hashtags become popular and mature, they may lose their differentiating power, and users start coining related hashtags to create more specialized spaces. As a related trend, we saw the emergence of diversity, women, and English language learning hashtags on Twitter this year, possibly suggesting that these issues are becoming increasingly important to the EdTech community.

In response to the commentaries from previous editorials, this year’s analysis indicates that many technology-related changes initiated during the pandemic may influence longer-term shifts, such as the increased interest in and normalization of online and blended learning. In addition, our OER analysis suggests that there is an appetite for resources to support both theoretical and practical work in educational technology and that the quality of resources available to professionals at all levels may be indicated by a variety of emergent methods beyond historic reliance on peer review and expertise (e.g., consider the widespread use and perceived quality of student-generated OER). As educational technology professionals grapple with this new reality in a world that increasingly requires focused guidance for our professionals worldwide, we should continue to move the field in directions that are responsive to the needs of a global educational technology community, in terms of topics, resources, contexts, formats, and accessibility.

1 https://crowdtangle.com

Publisher’s Note

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

Contributor Information

Bohdana Allman, Email: moc.liamg@TDLnamllaanadhob .

Royce Kimmons, Email: ude.uyb@snommikecyor .

Joshua Rosenberg, Email: ude.ktu@8bnesorj .

Monalisa Dash, Email: [email protected] .

• Casey, C. C., Goodsett, M., Hoover, J. K., Robertson, S., & Whitchurch, M. (2023). Open Pedagogy. EdTechnica: The Open Encyclopedia of Educational Technology . https://edtechbooks.org/encyclopedia/open_pedagogy
• Clinton V. Savings without sacrifices: A case study of open-source textbook adoption. Open Learning: The Journal of Distance and Open Learning. 2018; 33 (3):177–189. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2018.1486184. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clinton V, Khan S. Efficacy of open textbook adoption on learning performance and course withdrawal rates: A meta-analysis. AERA Open. 2019; 5 (3):1–20. doi: 10.1177/2332858419872212. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creative Commons (2020). Open education. https://creativecommons.org/about/program-areas/education-oer
• Dang, S. (2022, October 26). Exclusive: Twitter is losing its most active users, internal documents show. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-where-did-tweeters-go-twitter-is-losing-its-most-active-users-internal-2022-10-25/
• Hilton J. Open educational resources and college textbook choices: A review of research on efficacy and perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2016; 64 (4):573–590. doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9434-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hilton, J. (2019). Open educational resources, student efficacy, and user perceptions: A synthesis of research published between 2015-2018. Educational Technology Research and development. 10.1007/s11423-019-09700-4
• Ikahihifo, T. K., Spring, K. J., Rosecrans, J., & Watson, J. (2017). Assessing the savings from open educational resources on student academic goals. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 18 (7). 10.19173/irrodl.v18i7.2754
• Kimmons, R. (2015). OER quality and adaptation in K-12: Comparing teacher evaluations of copyright-restricted, open, and open/adapted textbooks. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16 (5).
• Kimmons, R. (2016). Expansive openness in teacher practice. Teachers College Record, 118 (9).
• Kimmons R. Current trends (and missing links) in educational technology research and practice. TechTrends. 2020; 64 (6):803–809. doi: 10.1007/s11528-020-00549-6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kimmons R, Rosenberg JM. Trends and topics in educational technology, 2022 edition. TechTrends. 2022; 66 (2):134–140. doi: 10.1007/s11528-022-00713-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kimmons R, Veletsianos G. Education scholars’ evolving uses of twitter as a conference backchannel and social commentary platform. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2016; 47 (3):445–464. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12428. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kimmons R, Veletsianos G. Public internet data mining methods in instructional design, educational technology, and online learning research. TechTrends. 2018; 62 (5):492–500. doi: 10.1007/s11528-018-0307-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kimmons R, Rosenberg J, Allman B. Trends in educational technology: What Facebook, twitter, and Scopus can tell us about current research and practice. TechTrends. 2021; 65 :125–136. doi: 10.1007/s11528-021-00589-6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenberg, J. M. (2023). Open and useful? An exploration of the science education resources on OER Commons. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education.
• Rosenberg, J. M., Borchers, C., Stegenga, S. M., Burchfield, M. A., Anderson, D., & Fischer, C. (2022). How educational institutions reveal students’ personally identifiable information on Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–17. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439884.2022.2140672
• Seaman, J. E. & Seaman, J. (2022a). Coming back together: Educational resources in U.S. K-12 education, 2022 . https://www.bayviewanalytics.com/reports/k-12_oer_comingbacktogether.pdf
• Seaman, J. E. & Seaman, J. (2022b). Turning point for digital curricula: Educational resources in U.S. higher education, 2022. https://www.bayviewanalytics.com/reports/turningpointdigitalcurricula.pdf
• Sweney, M. (2022, December 13). Twitter ‘to lose 32m users in two years after Elon Musk takeover.’ The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/13/twitter-lose-users-elon-musk-takeover-hate-speech
• Veletsianos G. Three cases of hashtags used as learning and professional development environments. TechTrends. 2017; 61 :284–292. doi: 10.1007/s11528-016-0143-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiley, D. (n.d.). Defining the “open” in open content and open educational resources.  Retrieved from http://opencontent.org/definition/ . Accessed 1 Feb 2023.
• Wiley, D., & Hilton, J. L., III. (2018). Defining OER-enabled pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19 (4). 10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3601
• Woodward, S., Lloyd, A., & Kimmons, R. (2017). Student voice in textbook evaluation: Comparing open and restricted textbooks. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18 (6). 10.19173/irrodl.v18i6.3170

5 Edtech Research Trends & Needs For The Future

Equitable edtech, individualized learning, and innovation will be among the focuses of a new collaborative at the University of California, Irvine formed to research technology's potential in childhood learning.

The Jacobs Foundation recently awarded a five-year, nearly $11 million grant to the University of California, Irvine to create a collaborative network of educators and researchers to help design digital technologies for children. 

The Connecting the EdTech Research EcoSystem (CERES) brings together experts in computer science, psychology, neuroscience, and education, to better utilize education technology’s potential. 

CERES will be headed by Candice Odgers, UCI professor of psychological science, and Gillian Hayes, UCI vice provost for graduate education and dean of the Graduate Division. The duo recently discussed the trends they see in edtech research and the questions they hope to pursue answers for with CERES. 

1. More Equitable Edtech  

“When new technologies come around, they tend to amplify inequalities, in a rich-get-richer way,” Odgers says. For example, many edtech companies have contracts with schools that only allow students to access apps within the school day. “If the kids are going to do follow-up work at home, parents have to buy a secondary license. And to me, this is problematic. We need to give our kids access anytime, particularly in a world in which we might be pulling them out for a week at a time because we need to shut down a classroom for a quarantine,” Odgers says. 

Getting those with disabilities equal access to technology is also vital. Technology has empowered so many kids and kept them learning through the pandemic, Hayes says. “But we also saw that for kids with disabilities, they missed out on a lot of the really important services that they are normally able to get.” 

Helping to ensure tech innovations support equitable learning solutions for all students, rather than exasperating existing inequalities is one of the key goals of CERES, say Odgers and Hayes. 

2. Bringing More Evidence to Edtech  

The edtech field is large and full of options, for educators, students, and parents, but there often isn’t enough evidence for which tech-based tools have been proven helpful for children. 

Tech & Learning Newsletter

Tools and ideas to transform education. Sign up below.

“There are tons of people in the space who have really good intentions with programs to help kids,” Odgers says. 

Good intentions don’t always lead to positive results, however, and determining what actually works and for whom is key for edtech going forward, as is understanding that for each child that formula might be different. “It's less about the effectiveness of a specific app or a platform, and more about understanding the basic fundamental principles of how children develop and learn in this new digital world and how we can design better technologies that take advantage of the strengths that communities and children have,” Odgers says. 

Researchers increasingly have new data to work with. In 2018, The General Data Protection Regulation went into effect in Europe, and its requirements include the need for companies that operate in the EU to allow users to download the data an app gathers about them. 

Thanks to this and similar requirements in several U.S. states, most edtech companies allow users access to their own data. “That allows families and students to make a choice to be engaged in some of the research that we're doing if they want to understand their individual developmental track. Or they want to be part of a larger study,” Odgers says. 

3. Using Edtech to Support Individualized Learning  

Technology has advanced enough to provide individualized feedback, so now it’s a matter of making sure that it actually helps students learn. “The software and the platforms are capable of doing it, but it's going to take a lot of smart people in the classroom, understanding the dynamics of how to make that all work together,” Odgers says. “It’s an area that's just going to explode in the next 5 to 10 years.” 

CERES is positioned to help with that development by connecting AI programmers with the world’s leading learning science experts. “For example, Daniel Ansari is part of our network,” Odgers says. “There's probably nobody on the planet that understands how children learn early mathematics and mathematical concepts better.” 

She adds having an expert such as Ansari work with programmers could help lead to richer AI programs that do more than just prompt new questions based on what a student answered correctly or incorrectly.

4. More User-Friendly Edtech

Educational technology is dominated by “enterprise applications,” which are products people are required to use, such as the learning management system each school has. These contrast with consumer-grade apps that people choose.

“Enterprise software is entirely built to be marketed to decision makers, not end users,” Hayes says. “So it tends to be a hodgepodge of features that some decision maker somewhere wants to say, ‘Can I check this box that it can do these things?’ Which is very different from, ‘We want a joyful and excellent and seamless experience,’ [like] what you're going to get from a consumer application. I think this is one of the real tensions that we see in educational software.” 

It makes sense for educational app purchases to go through schools, Hayes adds, but perhaps research can help encourage more evidence-based app use that also keeps enjoyment and ease for end users in mind. “This is a case where by bringing together the groups that we're bringing together in this network, we can start to engage with those kinds of really thorny things that people haven't had the right mix of folks to look at before,” she says. 

5.  Building On a New Spirit of Innovation  

“The pandemic has had a transformative effect on the way we think about modality of learning,” Hayes says. Prior to the pandemic, there was a clear dividing line between in-person and online education that has been shattered, she says. “We're starting to mix modes, we're bringing people in via telepresence robots and laptops. We're doing flipped classrooms. And we're doing all of these things that were sort of lurking in the background for a while.” And this renewed openness to innovation is something Hayes has witnessed at all education levels.

Harnessing the willingness of educators to try new things means there is more potential than there might have been in the past for new technology to be adopted and for new research to be applied. To foster that, CERES will be working closely with schools and front-line educators. 

“Sometimes we see the scholars at the universities coming and shoving an intervention down the throats of the K-12 educators -- that is not the case with this group,” she says. “Bringing schools as first-order partners, along with libraries, along with community partners, along with industry, and this broad range of academics, is to me what's going to make this center different than anything else that has happened before.” 

• Study: Productive Failure a Success in Education
• Why Traditional Lectures Won’t End Anytime Soon in Higher Ed Despite Better Approaches Being Available

Erik Ofgang is a Tech & Learning contributor. A journalist,  author  and educator, his work has appeared in The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Smithsonian, The Atlantic, and Associated Press. He currently teaches at Western Connecticut State University’s MFA program. While a staff writer at Connecticut Magazine he won a Society of Professional Journalism Award for his education reporting. He is interested in how humans learn and how technology can make that more effective. 

3 Ways to Address AI in Teacher Education Programs

How Schools Should Reassess Cybersecurity Due to AI

Best Summer Learning Apps & Sites

Most Popular

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

How Technology Is Changing the Future of Higher Education

Labs test artificial intelligence, virtual reality and other innovations that could improve learning and lower costs for Generation Z and beyond.

By Jon Marcus

This article is part of our latest Learning special report . We’re focusing on Generation Z, which is facing challenges from changing curriculums and new technology to financial aid gaps and homelessness.

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Cruising to class in her driverless car, a student crams from notes projected on the inside of the windshield while she gestures with her hands to shape a 3-D holographic model of her architecture project.

It looks like science fiction, an impression reinforced by the fact that it is being demonstrated in virtual reality in an ultramodern space with overstuffed pillows for seats. But this scenario is based on technology already in development.

The setting is the Sandbox ColLABorative, the innovation arm of Southern New Hampshire University, on the fifth floor of a downtown building with panoramic views of the sprawling red brick mills that date from this city’s 19th-century industrial heyday.

It is one of a small but growing number of places where experts are testing new ideas that will shape the future of a college education, using everything from blockchain networks to computer simulations to artificial intelligence, or A.I.

Theirs is not a future of falling enrollment, financial challenges and closing campuses. It’s a brighter world in which students subscribe to rather than enroll in college, learn languages in virtual reality foreign streetscapes with avatars for conversation partners, have their questions answered day or night by A.I. teaching assistants and control their own digital transcripts that record every life achievement.

The possibilities for advances such as these are vast. The structure of higher education as it is still largely practiced in America is as old as those Manchester mills, based on a calendar that dates from a time when students had to go home to help with the harvest, and divided into academic disciplines on physical campuses for 18- to 24-year-olds.

Universities may be at the cutting edge of research into almost every other field, said Gordon Jones, founding dean of the Boise State University College of Innovation and Design. But when it comes to reconsidering the structure of their own, he said, “they’ve been very risk-averse.”

Now, however, squeezed by the demands of employers and students — especially the up and coming Generation Z — and the need to attract new customers, some schools, such as Boise State and Southern New Hampshire University, are starting labs to come up with improvements to help people learn more effectively, match their skills with jobs and lower their costs.

More than 200 have added senior executives whose titles include the words “digital” or “innovation,” the consulting firm Entangled Solutions found; many were recruited from the corporate and tech sectors. M.I.T. has set up a multimillion-dollar fund to pay for faculty to experiment with teaching innovations .

Some colleges and universities are collaborating on such ideas in groups including the University Innovation Alliance and the Marvel Universe-worthy HAIL Storm — it stands for Harvesting Academic Innovation for Learners — a coalition of academic innovation labs.

If history is a guide, the flashiest notions being developed in workshops in these places won’t get far. University campuses are like archaeological digs of innovations that didn’t fulfill their promises. Even though the biggest leap forward of the last few decades, for example — delivering courses online — appears to have lowered costs , the graduation rates of online higher education remain much lower than those of programs taught in person .

“One of the most important things we do here is disprove and dismantle ideas,” said William Zemp, chief strategy and innovation officer at Southern New Hampshire University.

“There’s so much white noise out there, you have to be sort of a myth buster.”

But some ambitious concepts are already being tested.

College by Subscription

One of these would transform the way students pay for higher education. Instead of enrolling, for example, they might subscribe to college; for a monthly fee, they could take whatever courses they want, when they want, with long-term access to advising and career help.

The Georgia Institute of Technology is one of the places mulling a subscription model, said Richard DeMillo, director of its Center for 21st Century Universities. It would include access to a worldwide network of mentors and advisers and “whatever someone needs to do to improve their professional situation or acquire a new skill or get feedback on how things are going.”

Boise State is already piloting this concept. Its Passport to Education costs $425 a month for six credit hours or $525 for nine in either of two online bachelor’s degree programs. That’s 30 percent cheaper than the in-state, in-person tuition.

Paying by the month encourages students to move faster through their educations, and most are projected to graduate in 18 months, Mr. Jones said. The subscription model has attracted 47 students so far, he said, with another 94 in the application process.

However they pay for it, future students could find other drastic changes in the way their educations are delivered.

Your Teacher Is a Robot

Georgia Tech has been experimenting with a virtual teaching assistant named Jill Watson, built on the Jeopardy-winning IBM Watson supercomputer platform. This A.I. answers questions in a discussion forum alongside human teaching assistants; students often can’t distinguish among them, their professor says. More Jill Watsons could help students get over hurdles they encounter in large or online courses. The university is working next on developing virtual tutors, which it says could be viable in two to five years .

S.N.H.U., in a collaboration with the education company Pearson, is testing A.I. grading. Barnes & Noble Education already has an A.I. writing tool called bartleby write , named for the clerk in the Herman Melville short story, that corrects grammar, punctuation and spelling, searches for plagiarism and helps create citations.

At Arizona State University, A.I. is being used to watch for signs that A.S.U. Online students might be struggling, and to alert their academic advisers.

“If we could catch early signals, we could go to them much earlier and say, ‘Hey you’re still in the window’ ” to pass, said Donna Kidwell, chief technology officer of the university’s digital teaching and learning lab, EdPlus.

Another harbinger of things to come sits on a hillside near the Hudson River in upstate New York, where an immersion lab with 15-foot walls and a 360-degree projection system transports Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute language students to China , virtually.

The students learn Mandarin Chinese by conversing with A.I. avatars that can recognize not only what they say but their gestures and expressions, all against a computer-generated backdrop of Chinese street markets, restaurants and other scenes.

Julian Wong, a mechanical engineering major in the first group of students to go through the program, “thought it would be cheesy.” In fact, he said, “It’s definitely more engaging, because you’re actively involved with what’s going on.”

Students in the immersion lab mastered Mandarin about twice as fast as their counterparts in conventional classrooms, said Shirley Ann Jackson, the president of Rensselaer.

Dr. Jackson, a physicist, was not surprised. The students enrolling in college now “grew up in a digital environment,” she said. “Why not use that to actually engage them?”

Slightly less sophisticated simulations are being used in schools of education, where trainee teachers practice coping with simulated schoolchildren. Engineering students at the University of Michigan use an augmented-reality track to test autonomous vehicles in simulated traffic.

A Transcript for Life

The way these kinds of learning get documented is also about to change. A race is underway to create a lifelong transcript.

Most academic transcripts omit work or military histories, internships, apprenticeships and other relevant experience. And course names such as Biology 301 or Business 102 reveal little about what students have actually learned.

“The learner, the learning provider and the employer all are speaking different languages that don’t interconnect,” said Michelle Weise, chief innovation officer at the Strada Institute for the Future of Work.

A proposed solution: the “interoperable learning record,” or I.L.R. (proof that, even in the future, higher education will be rife with acronyms and jargon).

The I.L.R. would list the specific skills that people have learned — customer service, say, or project management — as opposed to which courses they passed and majors they declared. And it would include other life experiences they accumulated.

This “digital trail” would remain in the learner’s control to share with prospective employers and make it easier for a student to transfer academic credits earned at one institution to another.

American universities, colleges and work force training programs are now awarding at least 738,428 unique credentials , according to a September analysis by a nonprofit organization called Credential Engine, which has taken on the task of translating these into a standardized registry of skills.

Unlike transcripts, I.L.R.s could work in two directions. Not only could prospective employees use them to look for jobs requiring the skills they have; employers could comb through them to find prospective hires with the skills they need.

“We’re trying to live inside this whole preindustrial design and figure out how we interface with technology to take it further,” said Dr. Kidwell of Arizona State. “Everybody is wrangling with trying to figure out which of these experiments are really going to work.”

This story was produced in collaboration with The Hechinger Report , a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education.

Five trends to watch in the edtech industry

Over the past couple of years, we’ve seen rapid growth in the education-to-employment segment of the edtech sector that serves adult learners. Valuations for these education-to-employment edtech firms have had a roller-coaster ride, as existing companies attract a huge influx of capital, thousands of new players enter the field, and investors question what scalable and profitable business models look like in the space. There are now dozens of edtech “unicorn” start-ups with valuations of more than $1 billion.

Here are five things we see happening in edtech that sector players may want to consider as they plan their next moves:

1. Capital inflows are higher than ever

Thanks to rapid technological change and enterprise digitization, many companies are looking to continuously upskill their workforce. At the same time, broadband access has become more affordable, and distance-education technologies have become more advanced. These developments have helped the edtech sector boom; venture capitalists (VCs) invested $20.8 billion in the edtech sector globally in 2021. 1 “Global EdTech venture capital report - full year 2021,” HolonIQ, January 2, 2022. That’s more than 40 times the amount they invested in 2010.

While public valuations have recently cooled, private companies are still raising capital at double-digit revenue multiples. VCs continue to flock to edtech because professors, administrators, students, and employees have grown more comfortable with education technology during the pandemic. We believe these habits are here to stay and that online education is becoming the new normal.

2. Edtech players are merging and partnering to achieve scale and efficiency

Edtech companies want the lifetime value of their customers to exceed the cost of acquiring them. Financial statements show that sales and marketing costs at several of the largest edtech firms have ranged from 20 to 60 percent of revenue in recent years. 2 From the 10-K filings of 2U, Coursera, and Grand Canyon Education.

As they seek sustainable ways to drive down the industry-wide problem with high customer acquisition costs (CAC), some edtech firms are turning to M&A in hopes of reaching economies of scale. In June 2021, 2U announced an $800 million acquisition of edX, a nonprofit run by Harvard and MIT. This acquisition gives 2U access to a strong customer-facing brand, approximately 40 million registered users, and hundreds of university partners. These assets give 2U a significant presence in growth markets outside the United States and could help reduce CAC while it builds out its free-to-degree model.

There have been other recent major mergers and acquisitions in the edtech sector. For example, Anthology and Blackboard agreed to a $3 billion merger. All these mergers and acquisitions have been enabled by plentiful capital. But once companies have signed the contract, they face the challenge of integrating their respective operations to realize the promised benefits.

3. Large firms view employee reskilling and upskilling as a necessity

With a near-record number of US jobs going begging, thanks to a tight labor market, attracting and retaining talent has become a core challenge for many firms. Large employers like Amazon, Walmart, Target, and Google have announced major investments in workforce education and development programs to decrease churn and fill talent gaps. Some, like Walmart, are dovetailing these programs into their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. 3 Patti Constantakis, “Walmart.org Center for Racial Equity update: Creating career pathways through education,” Walmart, October 21, 2021.

To meet the demand for upskilling and reskilling, online-education companies are expanding and emphasizing their enterprise offerings. Among the 15 adult-education companies that received the most funding in 2021, all but one have an enterprise offering (Exhibit 1). Even companies like Coursera, which initially focused on consumers, have drama­tically increased their revenues from enterprise clients in recent years.

To succeed in the enterprise space, edtech firms could offer features such as comprehensive workforce analytics that appeal to both HR departments and employees. For instance, apps could identify skill gaps in the workforce, offer educational content to fill those gaps, and provide coaching and career navigation services to match newly upskilled graduates with positions where they can add the most value.

4. India becomes a leader in the edtech race with global aspirations

In 2010, the United States attracted nearly three-quarters of global edtech VC funding. A decade later, investors turned their attention to India (Exhibit 2).

With increasing regulatory headwinds buffeting the Chinese edtech industry, prominent edtech players—including Udacity, Coursera, and edX—have turned their investment focus to the enormous Indian market. While the Chinese market accounted for 63 percent of edtech funding in 2020, that dropped to less than 13 percent in 2021. In India, edtech funding has grown from $0.2 billion five years ago to $3.8 billion and 18 percent of global investments in 2021. Since English is widely spoken in India, international edtech firms may be able to achieve rapid success there even without translating much of their content.

At the same time, locally grown Indian edtech players like Emeritus have reached billion-dollar valuations and begun acquiring companies in the US market.

To thrive amid global competition, edtech firms can tailor a growth strategy for each target country while protecting their home market.

5. Edtech leaders are focusing on supporting career progression

In 2021, McKinsey surveyed more than 3,500 edtech students. We found that many were motivated by the prospect of jumpstarting their careers and were seeking a sense of community.

New modalities, such as virtual and augmented realities, web3, AI, and machine learning, are making their way into education. However, our findings suggest that edtech providers cannot rely too heavily on technology and content. Learners want value-added services such as personalized mentoring, preparation for interviews, and support in getting a job.

To deliver more holistic user experiences, some edtech players are building their internal capabilities and making acquisitions. In India, for example, upGrad acquired a recruiting and staffing agency to help its students advance in their careers. In the United States, On Deck built a business model to give students access to a community rather than sell them courses. Arizona State University offers free counseling, mentoring, and crisis intervention support to online- and hybrid-learning students.

Despite a dip in 2019, global investments in edtech have registered an average 45 percent CAGR for the past five years and still grew 30 percent from 2020 to 2021. It’s an exciting sector to be in, but players may want to keep a close eye on how it develops.

Saurabh Sanghvi is a partner in McKinsey’s Bay Area office, and Marius Westhoff is a consultant in the New Jersey office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

How technology is shaping learning in higher education

Demand for online education is growing. Are providers ready?

Using machine learning to improve student success in higher education

Billions are spent on educational technology, but we don’t know if it works

Professor of Reading and Children’s Development, The Open University

Disclosure statement

Natalia Kucirkova receives funding from the Norwegian Research Council and The Jacobs Foundation. She works in WiKIT AS, which is a university spin-off concerned with EdTech evidence. She is affiliated with the University of Stavanger, The Open University and University College London.

The Open University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

During the COVID lockdowns, schools and universities worldwide relied on education technology – edtech – to keep students learning. They used online platforms to give lessons, mark work and send feedback, used apps to teach and introduced students to programs that let them work together on projects.

In the aftermath of school closures, the market for edtech has kept on growing. The value of the sector is projected to rise to US$132.4 billion globally by 2032 (£106 billion).

The problem is that we don’t know very much about how effective many edtech apps or programs are – or if they are effective at all .

And some effects may be negative. Some of the so-called educational apps advertised to families show many adverts to children. They may use manipulative features to keep children on screens without teaching them anything new.

This technology is here to stay and will remain a significant part of how children learn – so knowing whether it works is imperative.

Assessing and addressing the quality of edtech is a significant task, especially when it is already so widely used. For edtech under development, a valuable option is to foster closer collaboration between tech developers and scientists who study learning to embed existing research and knowledge into the design.

Research consultancy firms can carry out swift assessments to provide edtech developers with information on how well what they are offering works. Transparency and integrity in the research process is vital, though, to prevent bias. Ways of ensuring this include pre-registration : reporting that a study is going to take place before it happens.

Partnerships with schools could also provide valuable feedback . However, minimum standards of quality and ethical considerations would need to be assured before technologies are sent to schools.

Setting a standard

When it comes to edtech that is already available, what is really needed is some kind of standardised metric to assess how well it works.

But establishing minimum standards for the effect of edtech is easier said than done. There is, historically, a lack of standardised metrics for assessing educational impact within impact economics – the study of how businesses create financial returns while ensuring positive social or environmental outcomes.

Without standardisation, there are too many ways to assess edtech. A review commissioned by the UK government of evaluation criteria and standards for edtech analysed 74 methods for assessing their quality.

Similarly, I carried out a research study with colleagues on available criteria to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of edtech produced specifically for schools. We found 65 different frameworks for evaluating whether these school-specific offerings work.

The abundance of evaluation possibilities can be confusing for edtech businesses. The multitude of options makes it difficult to ascertain the quality of their products. It is confusing to investors too, especially those who want to prioritise not only edtech’s return on investment but also a return on education and community.

Read more: Schools are using research to try to improve children's learning – but it's not working

A yardstick that establishes the minimum quality requirements for a edtech product to be used in schools is crucial to ensure technology does more good and no harm. The creation of a yardstick needs to take into account both the product quality and the process of using the technology – whether it works for diverse populations and diverse learning environments.

The independent verification of evidence is vital , considering that any company can simply “generate” a study with the data they daily collect on users. In my research work with colleagues, I have argued for a focus on the rigour and validity of various research types.

New initiatives, such as the International Certification of Evidence of Impact in Education , have begun to consolidate the different research approaches, standards and certifications related to evidence of edtech impact globally. Ultimately, the goal is to make it easier for schools and parents to navigate the thousands of educational apps and online platforms available.

Whether individual countries will create the legal and institutional frameworks to enforce any of the standards remains to be seen. Countries will need to select standards that suit both their economic and educational agendas. An important shift is needed so that schools can strategically select edtech they know will help children’s learning.

• Young people
• educational apps
• Keep me on trend

Research Fellow (Cultural Landscape Design)

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Billions are spent on educational technology, but we don't know if it works

D uring the COVID lockdowns, schools and universities worldwide relied on education technology—edtech—to keep students learning. They used online platforms to give lessons, mark work and send feedback, used apps to teach and introduced students to programs that let them work together on projects.

In the aftermath of school closures, the market for edtech has kept on growing. The value of the sector is projected to rise to US$132.4 billion globally by 2032 .

The problem is that we don't know very much about how effective many edtech apps or programs are—or if they are effective at all .

And some effects may be negative. Some of the so-called educational apps advertised to families show many adverts to children. They may use manipulative features to keep children on screens without teaching them anything new.

This technology is here to stay and will remain a significant part of how children learn—so knowing whether it works is imperative.

Assessing and addressing the quality of edtech is a significant task, especially when it is already so widely used. For edtech under development, a valuable option is to foster closer collaboration between tech developers and scientists who study learning to embed existing research and knowledge into the design.

Research consultancy firms can carry out swift assessments to provide edtech developers with information on how well what they are offering works. Transparency and integrity in the research process is vital, though, to prevent bias. Ways of ensuring this include pre-registration : reporting that a study is going to take place before it happens.

Partnerships with schools could also provide valuable feedback . However, minimum standards of quality and ethical considerations would need to be assured before technologies are sent to schools.

Setting a standard

When it comes to edtech that is already available, what is really needed is some kind of standardized metric to assess how well it works.

But establishing minimum standards for the effect of edtech is easier said than done. There is, historically, a lack of standardized metrics for assessing educational impact within impact economics —the study of how businesses create financial returns while ensuring positive social or environmental outcomes.

Without standardization, there are too many ways to assess edtech. A review commissioned by the UK government of evaluation criteria and standards for edtech analyzed 74 methods for assessing their quality.

Similarly, I carried out a research study with colleagues on available criteria to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of edtech produced specifically for schools. We found 65 different frameworks for evaluating whether these school-specific offerings work.

The abundance of evaluation possibilities can be confusing for edtech businesses. The multitude of options makes it difficult to ascertain the quality of their products. It is confusing to investors too, especially those who want to prioritize not only edtech's return on investment but also a return on education and community.

A yardstick that establishes the minimum quality requirements for a edtech product to be used in schools is crucial to ensure technology does more good and no harm. The creation of a yardstick needs to take into account both the product quality and the process of using the technology— whether it works for diverse populations and diverse learning environments.

The independent verification of evidence is vital , considering that any company can simply "generate" a study with the data they daily collect on users. In my research work with colleagues, I have argued for a focus on the rigor and validity of various research types.

New initiatives, such as the International Certification of Evidence of Impact in Education , have begun to consolidate the different research approaches, standards and certifications related to evidence of edtech impact globally. Ultimately, the goal is to make it easier for schools and parents to navigate the thousands of educational apps and online platforms available.

Whether individual countries will create the legal and institutional frameworks to enforce any of the standards remains to be seen. Countries will need to select standards that suit both their economic and educational agendas. An important shift is needed so that schools can strategically select edtech they know will help children's learning.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Provided by The Conversation