research on emerging technologies for teaching and learning

Information

Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

Active Journals
Find a Journal
Proceedings Series
For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Librarians
For Publishers
For Societies
For Conference Organizers
Open Access Policy
Institutional Open Access Program
Special Issues Guidelines
Editorial Process
Research and Publication Ethics
Article Processing Charges
Testimonials
Preprints.org
SciProfiles
Encyclopedia

Article Menu

Subscribe SciFeed
Recommended Articles
Google Scholar
on Google Scholar
Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Promising emerging technologies for teaching and learning: recent developments and future challenges.

1. Introduction

What are the promising emerging technologies for teaching and learning?
What are their educational benefits, as reported in eligible research publications?
What are the most recent advancements in emerging technologies for education, and what obstacles lie ahead?

2. Theoretical Concept

3. research methodology, 3.1. database selection, 3.2. selection of keywords, 3.3. articles filtering.

Emerging technologies in teaching and learning environments must be the subject of research. Thus, published research on cutting-edge technology in non-educational settings such as engineering, the consumer market, healthcare systems, and others was disregarded.
Research must consist of empirical research with data. Articles that were primarily based on narratives or personal opinions were disqualified.
Research must examine how emerging technologies affect education by presenting pertinent qualitative data. Papers that offered no proof of learning were disqualified.
Additional papers for complete analyses included theoretical, conceptual, and literature reviews. These papers were carefully read to improve our background knowledge and to broaden the theoretical groundwork for constructing a general understanding of emerging technologies in teaching and learning.

3.4. Methods of Data Collection and Analysis

4. emerging technologies for teaching and learning, 4.1. virtual reality, 4.1.1. recent developments, 4.1.2. open challenges, 4.2. augmented reality, 4.2.1. recent developments, 4.2.2. open challenges, 4.3. artificial intelligence, 4.3.1. recent developments, 4.3.2. open challenges.

Precision education and personalized learning are gradually replacing the one-size-fits-all model of education.
The current concentration of AI research in education is on a particular field of intelligent computing technology.
Machine-generated data should be carefully developed in terms of structure, intent, and meaning.
Traditional formal education institutions are going through significant changes, possibly even a paradigm shift, in digitally driven knowledge economies.
Creation of frameworks or models for AI-based learning.
Analyzing how well students performed and how they found using current AI technologies.
We are examining from many angles the efficacy of AI-based learning systems.
Redefining and reexamining current conceptions of education in light of various uses of AI in the classroom.
Advising on cutting-edge AI-supported learning or evaluating techniques.
They are reevaluating and rethinking how to use the existing learning tools in learning content aided by AI.
They are creating massive learning platforms, ethical guidelines, and best practices for using AI in educational settings.
Cooperation between applications and AI.

4.4. Internet of Things (IoT)

4.4.1. recent developments, 4.4.2. open challenges, 4.5. cloud computing, 4.5.1. recent developments, 4.5.2. open challenges, 5. conclusions and future works, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

Burbules, N.C.; Fan, G.; Repp, P. Five trends of education and technology in a sustainable future. Geogr. Sustain. 2020 , 1 , 93–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Almufarreh, A.; Arshad, M.; Mohammed, S.H. An efficient utilization of blackboard ally in higher education institution. Intell. Autom. Soft Comput. 2021 , 29 , 73–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Barret, P.; Treves, A.; Shmis, T.; Ambasz, D.; Ustinova, M. The Impact of School Infrastructure on Learning ; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
Riina, V.; Yves, P.; Cabrera, M. Emerging Technologies and the Teaching Profession ; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020.
Klimova, B.; Pikhart, M.; Polakova, P.; Cerna, M.; Yayilgan, S.Y.; Shaikh, S. A Systematic Review on the Use of Emerging Technologies in Teaching English as an Applied Language at the University Level. Systems 2023 , 11 , 42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Grimus, M. Emerging technologies: Impacting learning, pedagogy and curriculum development. In Emerging Technologies and Pedagogies in the Curriculum ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 127–151. [ Google Scholar ]
Montoro, M.A.; Colón, A.M.O.; Moreno, J.R.; Steffens, K. Emerging technologies. Analysis and current perspectives. Digit. Educ. Rev. 2019 , 35 , 186–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Li, Y.; Kim, M.; Palkar, J. Using emerging technologies to promote creativity in education: A systematic review. Int. J. Educ. Res. Open 2022 , 3 , 100177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Yalcinalp, S.; Avci, Ü. Creativity and emerging digital educational technologies: A systematic review. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol.-TOJET 2019 , 18 , 25–45. [ Google Scholar ]
de Vries, P. The Ethical Dimension of Emerging Technologies in Engineering Education. Educ. Sci. 2022 , 12 , 754. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Jin, L.; Forrest, K. Fostering creativity via technoself enhanced learning with emerging technologies. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, 1–3 July 2019; IATED: Valencia, Spain, 2019; pp. 3247–3254. [ Google Scholar ]
Oliveira, A.; Feyzi Behnagh, R.; Ni, L.; Mohsinah, A.A.; Burgess, K.J.; Guo, L. Emerging technologies as pedagogical tools for teaching and learning science: A literature review. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2019 , 1 , 149–160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Abdulrahaman, M.D.; Faruk, N.; Oloyede, A.A.; Surajudeen-Bakinde, N.T.; Olawoyin, L.A.; Mejabi, O.V.; Imam-Fulani, Y.O.; Fahm, A.O.; Azeez, A.L. Multimedia tools in the teaching and learning processes: A systematic review. Heliyon 2020 , 6 , e05312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Limani, Y.; Hajrizi, E.; Stapleton, L.; Retkoceri, M. Digital transformation readiness in higher education institutions (HEI): The case of Kosovo. IFAC-Pap. 2019 , 52 , 52–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery ; Routledge: London, UK, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
Bozalek, V.; Ng’ambi, D.; Gachago, D. Transforming teaching with emerging technologies: Implications for higher education institutions. S. Afr. J. High. Educ. 2013 , 27 , 419–436. [ Google Scholar ]
Cukurova, M.; Luckin, R. Measuring the Impact of Emerging Technologies in Education: A Pragmatic Approach ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
Greenfield, P.M. Multilevel theory of emerging technologies: Implications of historical transformation for human development. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2020 , 2 , 325–335. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Newman, M.; Gough, D. Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. In Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 3–22. [ Google Scholar ]
Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 2003 , 14 , 207–222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gusenbauer, M. Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases. Scientometrics 2019 , 118 , 177–214. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Al-Khoury, A.; Hussein, S.A.; Abdulwhab, M.; Aljuboori, Z.M.; Haddad, H.; Ali, M.A.; Abed, I.A.; Flayyih, H.H. Intellectual Capital History and Trends: A Bibliometric Analysis Using Scopus Database. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 11615. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Banks, D. Thoughts on publishing the research article over the centuries. Publications 2018 , 6 , 10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zhang, K.; Aslan, A.B. AI technologies for education: Recent research & future directions. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2021 , 2 , 100025. [ Google Scholar ]
Mora, H.; Signes-Pont, M.T.; Fuster-Guilló, A.; Pertegal-Felices, M.L. A collaborative working model for enhancing the learning process of science & engineering students. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020 , 103 , 140–150. [ Google Scholar ]
Sumadi, S.; Ismanto, B. Improving the Ability of Teachers to Arrange Knowledge Aspect Assessment Instruments Through Collaborative Academic Supervision. JMSP J. Manaj. Dan Supervisi Pendidik. 2021 , 5 , 101–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Fairley, N.; Fernandez, V.; Richard-Plouet, M.; Guillot-Deudon, C.; Walton, J.; Smith, E.; Flahaut, D.; Greiner, M.; Biesinger, M.; Tougaard, S.; et al. Systematic and collaborative approach to problem solving using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Appl. Surf. Sci. Adv. 2021 , 5 , 100112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bates, A.W.; Sangra, A. Managing Technology in Higher Education: Strategies for Transforming Teaching and Learning ; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
Sun, R.; Wu, Y.J.; Cai, Q. The effect of a virtual reality learning environment on learners’ spatial ability. Virtual Real. 2019 , 23 , 385–398. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Smutny, P. Learning with virtual reality: A market analysis of educational and training applications. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2022 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bourhim, E.M.; Cherkaoui, A. Efficacy of virtual reality for studying people’s Pre-evacuation behavior under fire. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2020 , 142 , 15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Morélot, S.; Garrigou, A.; Dedieu, J.; N’Kaoua, B. Virtual reality for fire safety training: Influence of immersion and sense of presence on conceptual and procedural acquisition. Comput. Educ. 2021 , 166 , 13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Craddock, I.M. Immersive Virtual Reality, Google Expeditions, and English Language Learning. Libr. Technol. Rep. 2018 , 54 , 7–9. [ Google Scholar ]
Oigara, J. Explorations of Google Cardboard 3D Virtual Reality as Geospatial Technology for Education. In Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 26 March 2018; pp. 1296–1300. [ Google Scholar ]
Caporusso, N.; Biasi, L.; Cinquepalmi, G.; Bevilacqua, V. An Immersive Environment for Experiential Training and Remote Control in Hazardous Industrial Tasks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Orlando, FL, USA, 21–25 July 2018; pp. 88–97. [ Google Scholar ]
Lei, X.; Zhang, A.; Wang, B.; Rau, P.L.P. Can Virtual Reality Help Children Learn Mathematics Better? The Application of VR Headset in Children’s Discipline Education. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Cross-Cultural Design, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 15–20 July 2018; pp. 60–69. [ Google Scholar ]
Leung, A.L.S.; Yeung, C.; Chu, S.; Wong, A.W.Y.; Yu, O.Y.; Chu, C.H. Use of Computer Simulation in Dental Training with Special Reference to Simodont. Dent. J. 2021 , 9 , 125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Parkinson, A.; Kitchen, R.; Tudor, A.D.; Minocha, S.; Tilling, S. Role of smartphone-driven virtual reality field trips in inquiry-based learning. In Proceedings of the Geographical Association Annual Conference, Guildford, UK, 20–22 April 2017; pp. 1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
Dinis, F.M.; Guimarães, A.S.; Carvalho, B.R.; Martins, J.P.P. Development of virtual reality game-based interfaces for civil engineering education. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Athens, Greece, 25–28 April 2017; pp. 1195–1202. [ Google Scholar ]
Alfalah, S.F.; Falah, J.F.; Alfalah, T.; Elfalah, M.; Muhaidat, N.; Falah, O. A comparative study between a virtual reality heart anatomy system and traditional medical teaching modalities. Virtual Real. 2019 , 23 , 229–234. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zhao, G.; Fan, M.; Yuan, Y.; Zhao, F.; Huang, H. The comparison of teaching efficiency between virtual reality and traditional education in medical education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Transl. Med. 2021 , 9 , 252. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Park, S.M.; Kim, Y.G. A metaverse: Taxonomy, components, applications, and open challenges. IEEE Access 2022 , 10 , 4209–4251. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Garzón, J.; Pavón, J.; Baldiris, S. Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmented reality in educational settings. Virtual Real. 2019 , 23 , 447–459. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kamińska, D.; Sapiński, T.; Wiak, S.; Tikk, T.; Haamer, R.E.; Avots, E.; Helmi, A.; Ozcinar, C.; Anbarjafari, G. Virtual reality and its applications in education: Survey. Information 2019 , 10 , 318. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Terrier, L. Virtual Reality: The Future of Education? 2019. Available online: https://hospitalityinsights.ehl.edu/virtual-reality-future-of-education (accessed on 11 May 2019).
Lozano, J.-C. 5 Emerging Technology Trends Influencing Learning and Development [online]. 2018. Available online: https://elearningindustry.com/trends-influencing-learning-and-development-emerging-technology (accessed on 4 September 2018).
Tzima, S.; Styliaras, G.; Bassounas, A. Augmented reality applications in education: Teachers point of view. Educ. Sci. 2019 , 9 , 99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Osadchyi, V.V.; Valko, N.V.; Kuzmich, L.V. Using augmented reality technologies for STEM education organization. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021 , 1840 , 012027. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Jiang, S.; Moyle, B.; Yung, R.; Tao, L.; Scott, N. Augmented reality and the enhancement of memorable tourism experiences at heritage sites. Curr. Issues Tour. 2023 , 26 , 242–257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Akçayır, M.; Akçayır, G. Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educ. Res. Rev. 2017 , 20 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Radosavljevic, S.; Radosavljevic, V.; Grgurovic, B. The potential of implementing augmented reality into vocational higher education through mobile learning. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2018 , 28 , 404–418. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Yildiz, E.P. Augmented reality research and applications in education. In Augmented Reality and Its Application ; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
Dhar, P.; Rocks, T.; Samarasinghe, R.M.; Stephenson, G.; Smith, C. Augmented reality in medical education: Students’ experiences and learning outcomes. Med. Educ. Online 2021 , 26 , 1953953. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Balak, M.V.; Murat, K. Investigation of the effects of augmented reality technology on technical drawing education. Harran Univ. J. Eng. 2016 , 1 , 17–26. [ Google Scholar ]
Quintero, J.; Baldiris, S.; Rubira, R.; Cerón, J.; Velez, G. Augmented reality in educational inclusion. A systematic review on the last decade. Front. Psychol. 2019 , 10 , 1835. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Roopa, D.; Prabha, R.; Senthil, G.A. Revolutionizing education system with interactive augmented reality for quality education. Mater. Today Proc. 2021 , 46 , 3860–3863. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Garzón, J. An overview of twenty-five years of augmented reality in education. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2021 , 5 , 37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Doshi-Velez, F.; Kim, B. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv 2017 , arXiv:1702.08608. [ Google Scholar ]
Holmes, W.; Bialik, M.; Fadel, C. Artificial Intelligence in Education ; Center for Curriculum Redesign: Boston, MA, USA, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
Edwards, B.I.; Cheok, A.D. Why not robot teachers: Artificial intelligence for addressing teacher shortage. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2018 , 32 , 345–360. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gulz, A.; Londos, L.; Haake, M. Preschoolers’ understanding of a teachable agent-based game in early mathematics as reflected in their gaze behaviors—An experimental study. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 2020 , 30 , 38–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Wei, Y.; Yang, Q.; Chen, J.; Hu, J. The exploration of a machine learning approach for the assessment of learning styles changes. Mechatron. Syst. Control Former. Control Intell. Syst. 2018 , 46 , 121–126. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Arpaci, I. A hybrid modeling approach for predicting the educational use of mobile cloud computing services in higher education. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019 , 90 , 181–187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Pedro, F.; Subosa, M.; Rivas, A.; Valverde, P. Artificial Intelligence in Education: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development ; UNESCO Education Sector: Paris, France, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
Fryer, L.K.; Ainley, M.; Thompson, A.; Gibson, A.; Sherlock, Z. Stimulating and sustaining interest in a language course: An experimental comparison of Chatbot and Human task partners. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017 , 75 , 461–468. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hwang, G.; Sung, H.; Chang, S.; Huang, X. A fuzzy expert system-based adaptive learning approach to improving students’ learning performances by considering affective and cognitive factors. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2020 , 1 , 100003. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Walkington, C.; Bernacki, M.L. Personalizing algebra to students’ individual interests in an intelligent tutoring system: Moderators of impact. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 2019 , 29 , 58–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chen, X.; Xie, H.; Zou, D.; Hwang, G.J. Application and theory gaps during the rise of artificial intelligence in education. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2020 , 1 , 100002. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hinojo-Lucena, F.J.; Aznar-Díaz, I.; Cáceres-Reche, M.P.; Romero-Rodríguez, J.M. Artificial intelligence in higher education: A bibliometric study on its impact in the scientific literature. Educ. Sci. 2019 , 9 , 51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zawacki-Richter, O.; Marín, V.I.; Bond, M.; Gouverneur, F. Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators? Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2019 , 16 , 1–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Al-Emran, M.; Malik, S.I.; Al-Kabi, M.N. A survey of Internet of Things (IoT) in education: Opportunities and challenges. In Toward Social Internet of Things (SIoT): Enabling Technologies, Architectures and Applications ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 197–209. [ Google Scholar ]
Gul, S.; Asif, M.; Ahmad, S.; Yasir, M.; Majid, M.; Malik, M.S.A.; Arshad, S. A survey on role of internet of things in education. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Netw. Secur. 2017 , 17 , 159–165. [ Google Scholar ]
Abed, S.; Alyahya, N.; Altameem, A. IoT in education: Its impacts and its future in saudi universities and educational environments. In First International Conference on Sustainable Technologies for Computational Intelligence ; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 47–62. [ Google Scholar ]
Shrestha, S.K.; Furqan, F. November. IoT for Smart Learning/Education. In Proceedings of the 2020 5th International Conference on Innovative Technologies in Intelligent Systems and Industrial Applications (CITISIA), Sydney, Australia, 25–27 November 2020; IEEE: Toulouse, France, 2020; pp. 1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
Henseler, H. IoT Forensic Lab: Exploring the Connected World at HSD Campus, the Hague Security Delta. Available online: https://www.thehaguesecuritydelta.com/cyber-security/innovation-projects/project/95-iot-forensic-lab-exploring-the-connected-world-hsd (accessed on 18 January 2019).
Kamal, N.; Saad, M.H.M.; Kok, C.S.; Hussain, A. Towards revolutionizing stem education via IoT and blockchain technology. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2018 , 7 , 189–192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Majeed, A.; Ali, M. How Internet-of-Things (IoT) making the university campuses smart? QA higher education (QAHE) perspective. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 8th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 8–10 January 2018; IEEE: Toulouse, France, 2018; pp. 646–648. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Siripongdee, K.; Pimdee, P.; Tuntiwongwanich, S. A blended learning model with IoT-based technology: Effectively used when the COVID-19 pandemic? J. Educ. Gift. Young Sci. 2020 , 8 , 905–917. [ Google Scholar ]
Maksimovic, M. Green internet of things (IoT) at engineering education institution: The classroom of tomorrow. Infotech-Jahorina 2017 , 16 , 270–273. [ Google Scholar ]
Miao, R.; Dong, Q.; Weng, W.Y.; Yu, X.Y. The application model of wearable devices in physical education. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Blended Learning, Osaka, Japan, 31 July–2 August 2018; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 311–322. [ Google Scholar ]
Ramlowat, D.D.; Pattanayak, B.K. Exploring the internet of things (IoT) in education: A review. Advanc. Intell. Syst. Comput. 2019 , 19 , 245–255. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Qasem, Y.A.; Abdullah, R.; Jusoh, Y.Y.; Atan, R.; Asadi, S. Cloud computing adoption in higher education institutions: A systematic review. IEEE Access 2019 , 7 , 63722–63744. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Margianti, E.S.; Mutiara, A.B. Application of Cloud Computing in Education. In Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference Indonesia-Malaysia-Bangladesh-Ireland (IJCIMBI), Banda Aceh, Indonesia, 27–28 April 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
Zhang, H.; Zhang, J.; Yin, X.; Zhou, K.; Pan, Z. Cloud-to-end rendering and storage management for virtual reality in experimental education. Virtual Real. Intell. Hardw. 2020 , 2 , 368–380. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Morschheuser, B.; Hamari, J. The gamification of work: Lessons from crowdsourcing. J. Manag. Inq. 2019 , 28 , 145–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hakak, S.; Noor, N.F.M.; Ayub, M.N.; Affal, H.; Hussin, N.; Imran, M. Cloud-assisted gamification for education and learning–Recent advances and challenges. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2019 , 74 , 22–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Lew, S.L.; Lau, S.H.; Leow, M.C. Usability factors predicting continuance of intention to use cloud e-learning application. Heliyon 2019 , 5 , e01788. [ Google Scholar ]
Alghabban, W.G.; Salama, R.M.; Altalhi, A.H. Mobile cloud computing: An effective multimodal interface tool for students with dyslexia. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017 , 75 , 160–166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ali, M.B.; Wood-Harper, T.; Mohamad, M. Benefits and challenges of cloud computing adoption and usage in higher education: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst. IJEIS 2018 , 14 , 64–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kobusińska, A.; Leung, C.; Hsu, C.H.; Raghavendra, S.; Chang, V. Emerging trends, issues and challenges in Internet of Things, Big Data and cloud computing. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018 , 87 , 416–419. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Jaleel, H.Q. Using of Cloud Computing in Education. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 2018 , 18934. [ Google Scholar ]
El Mhouti, A.; Erradi, M.; Nasseh, A. Using cloud computing services in e-learning process: Benefits and challenges. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2018 , 23 , 893–909. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Duffin, E. E-learning and digital education—Statistics & Facts, Statista. 2020. Available online: https://www.statista.com/topics/3115/e-learning-and-digital-education/#topicOverview (accessed on 6 February 2020).
Benitez, C. The Ultimate List of eLearning Statistics for 2023. 2023. Available online: https://findstack.com/resources/elearning-statistics/ (accessed on 18 February 2023).
Baruffati, A. Technology in Education Statistics: 2023 Trends. 2023. Available online: https://blog.gitnux.com/technology-in-education-statistics/ (accessed on 20 March 2023).

Click here to enlarge figure

No.	Levels
1	What effects may we anticipate from the new technology?
2	What are the emerging technology’s intermediate results?
3	What are the anticipated emerging technology implementation activities?
4	What further tools or involvement are required to bring about change?
5	How will this change be planned for by the users?

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

Almufarreh, A.; Arshad, M. Promising Emerging Technologies for Teaching and Learning: Recent Developments and Future Challenges. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 6917. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086917

Almufarreh A, Arshad M. Promising Emerging Technologies for Teaching and Learning: Recent Developments and Future Challenges. Sustainability . 2023; 15(8):6917. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086917

Almufarreh, Ahmad, and Muhammad Arshad. 2023. "Promising Emerging Technologies for Teaching and Learning: Recent Developments and Future Challenges" Sustainability 15, no. 8: 6917. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086917

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

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
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Psychological foundations of emerging technologies for teaching and learning in higher education

Affiliations.

1 Old Dominion University, Old Dominion University, United States. Electronic address: [email protected].
2 Old Dominion University, Old Dominion University, United States.
PMID: 32604064
DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.04.011

As the research on the use of educational technologies increases, greater focus is being placed on the psychological processes underlying teaching and learning with these tools. In this research review, we examine six contemporary technologies identified in the 2020 edition of the Horizon Report through the lens of educational psychology theory. Specifically, we highlight the educational, cognitive, and social psychological processes that unfold during teaching and learning with each technology and illustrate how considering these processes can inform study and use of educational technologies and subsequent learning outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

Elsevier Science

Research Materials

NCI CPTC Antibody Characterization Program
Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Research article
Open access
Published: 15 February 2018

Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies

Charles Dziuban 1 ,
Charles R. Graham 2 ,
Patsy D. Moskal ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6376-839X 1 ,
Anders Norberg 3 &
Nicole Sicilia 1

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume 15 , Article number: 3 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

557k Accesses

389 Citations

117 Altmetric

Metrics details

This study addressed several outcomes, implications, and possible future directions for blended learning (BL) in higher education in a world where information communication technologies (ICTs) increasingly communicate with each other. In considering effectiveness, the authors contend that BL coalesces around access, success, and students’ perception of their learning environments. Success and withdrawal rates for face-to-face and online courses are compared to those for BL as they interact with minority status. Investigation of student perception about course excellence revealed the existence of robust if-then decision rules for determining how students evaluate their educational experiences. Those rules were independent of course modality, perceived content relevance, and expected grade. The authors conclude that although blended learning preceded modern instructional technologies, its evolution will be inextricably bound to contemporary information communication technologies that are approximating some aspects of human thought processes.

Introduction

Blended learning and research issues.

Blended learning (BL), or the integration of face-to-face and online instruction (Graham 2013 ), is widely adopted across higher education with some scholars referring to it as the “new traditional model” (Ross and Gage 2006 , p. 167) or the “new normal” in course delivery (Norberg et al. 2011 , p. 207). However, tracking the accurate extent of its growth has been challenging because of definitional ambiguity (Oliver and Trigwell 2005 ), combined with institutions’ inability to track an innovative practice, that in many instances has emerged organically. One early nationwide study sponsored by the Sloan Consortium (now the Online Learning Consortium) found that 65.2% of participating institutions of higher education (IHEs) offered blended (also termed hybrid ) courses (Allen and Seaman 2003 ). A 2008 study, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education to explore distance education in the U.S., defined BL as “a combination of online and in-class instruction with reduced in-class seat time for students ” (Lewis and Parsad 2008 , p. 1, emphasis added). Using this definition, the study found that 35% of higher education institutions offered blended courses, and that 12% of the 12.2 million documented distance education enrollments were in blended courses.

The 2017 New Media Consortium Horizon Report found that blended learning designs were one of the short term forces driving technology adoption in higher education in the next 1–2 years (Adams Becker et al. 2017 ). Also, blended learning is one of the key issues in teaching and learning in the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative’s 2017 annual survey of higher education (EDUCAUSE 2017 ). As institutions begin to examine BL instruction, there is a growing research interest in exploring the implications for both faculty and students. This modality is creating a community of practice built on a singular and pervasive research question, “How is blended learning impacting the teaching and learning environment?” That question continues to gain traction as investigators study the complexities of how BL interacts with cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of student behavior, and examine its transformation potential for the academy. Those issues are so compelling that several volumes have been dedicated to assembling the research on how blended learning can be better understood (Dziuban et al. 2016 ; Picciano et al. 2014 ; Picciano and Dziuban 2007 ; Bonk and Graham 2007 ; Kitchenham 2011 ; Jean-François 2013 ; Garrison and Vaughan 2013 ) and at least one organization, the Online Learning Consortium, sponsored an annual conference solely dedicated to blended learning at all levels of education and training (2004–2015). These initiatives address blended learning in a wide variety of situations. For instance, the contexts range over K-12 education, industrial and military training, conceptual frameworks, transformational potential, authentic assessment, and new research models. Further, many of these resources address students’ access, success, withdrawal, and perception of the degree to which blended learning provides an effective learning environment.

Currently the United States faces a widening educational gap between our underserved student population and those communities with greater financial and technological resources (Williams 2016 ). Equal access to education is a critical need, one that is particularly important for those in our underserved communities. Can blended learning help increase access thereby alleviating some of the issues faced by our lower income students while resulting in improved educational equality? Although most indicators suggest “yes” (Dziuban et al. 2004 ), it seems that, at the moment, the answer is still “to be determined.” Quality education presents a challenge, evidenced by many definitions of what constitutes its fundamental components (Pirsig 1974 ; Arum et al. 2016 ). Although progress has been made by initiatives, such as, Quality Matters ( 2016 ), the OLC OSCQR Course Design Review Scorecard developed by Open SUNY (Open SUNY n.d. ), the Quality Scorecard for Blended Learning Programs (Online Learning Consortium n.d. ), and SERVQUAL (Alhabeeb 2015 ), the issue is by no means resolved. Generally, we still make quality education a perceptual phenomenon where we ascribe that attribute to a course, educational program, or idea, but struggle with precisely why we reached that decision. Searle ( 2015 ), summarizes the problem concisely arguing that quality does not exist independently, but is entirely observer dependent. Pirsig ( 1974 ) in his iconic volume on the nature of quality frames the context this way,

“There is such thing as Quality, but that as soon as you try to define it, something goes haywire. You can’t do it” (p. 91).

Therefore, attempting to formulate a semantic definition of quality education with syntax-based metrics results in what O’Neil (O'Neil 2017 ) terms surrogate models that are rough approximations and oversimplified. Further, the derived metrics tend to morph into goals or benchmarks, losing their original measurement properties (Goodhart 1975 ).

Information communication technologies in society and education

Blended learning forces us to consider the characteristics of digital technology, in general, and information communication technologies (ICTs), more specifically. Floridi ( 2014 ) suggests an answer proffered by Alan Turing: that digital ICTs can process information on their own, in some sense just as humans and other biological life. ICTs can also communicate information to each other, without human intervention, but as linked processes designed by humans. We have evolved to the point where humans are not always “in the loop” of technology, but should be “on the loop” (Floridi 2014 , p. 30), designing and adapting the process. We perceive our world more and more in informational terms, and not primarily as physical entities (Floridi 2008 ). Increasingly, the educational world is dominated by information and our economies rest primarily on that asset. So our world is also blended, and it is blended so much that we hardly see the individual components of the blend any longer. Floridi ( 2014 ) argues that the world has become an “infosphere” (like biosphere) where we live as “inforgs.” What is real for us is shifting from the physical and unchangeable to those things with which we can interact.

Floridi also helps us to identify the next blend in education, involving ICTs, or specialized artificial intelligence (Floridi 2014 , 25; Norberg 2017 , 65). Learning analytics, adaptive learning, calibrated peer review, and automated essay scoring (Balfour 2013 ) are advanced processes that, provided they are good interfaces, can work well with the teacher— allowing him or her to concentrate on human attributes such as being caring, creative, and engaging in problem-solving. This can, of course, as with all technical advancements, be used to save resources and augment the role of the teacher. For instance, if artificial intelligence can be used to work along with teachers, allowing them more time for personal feedback and mentoring with students, then, we will have made a transformational breakthrough. The Edinburg University manifesto for teaching online says bravely, “Automation need not impoverish education – we welcome our robot colleagues” (Bayne et al. 2016 ). If used wisely, they will teach us more about ourselves, and about what is truly human in education. This emerging blend will also affect curricular and policy questions, such as the what? and what for? The new normal for education will be in perpetual flux. Floridi’s ( 2014 ) philosophy offers us tools to understand and be in control and not just sit by and watch what happens. In many respects, he has addressed the new normal for blended learning.

Literature of blended learning

A number of investigators have assembled a comprehensive agenda of transformative and innovative research issues for blended learning that have the potential to enhance effectiveness (Garrison and Kanuka 2004 ; Picciano 2009 ). Generally, research has found that BL results in improvement in student success and satisfaction, (Dziuban and Moskal 2011 ; Dziuban et al. 2011 ; Means et al. 2013 ) as well as an improvement in students’ sense of community (Rovai and Jordan 2004 ) when compared with face-to-face courses. Those who have been most successful at blended learning initiatives stress the importance of institutional support for course redesign and planning (Moskal et al. 2013 ; Dringus and Seagull 2015 ; Picciano 2009 ; Tynan et al. 2015 ). The evolving research questions found in the literature are long and demanding, with varied definitions of what constitutes “blended learning,” facilitating the need for continued and in-depth research on instructional models and support needed to maximize achievement and success (Dringus and Seagull 2015 ; Bloemer and Swan 2015 ).

Educational access

The lack of access to educational technologies and innovations (sometimes termed the digital divide) continues to be a challenge with novel educational technologies (Fairlie 2004 ; Jones et al. 2009 ). One of the promises of online technologies is that they can increase access to nontraditional and underserved students by bringing a host of educational resources and experiences to those who may have limited access to on-campus-only higher education. A 2010 U.S. report shows that students with low socioeconomic status are less likely to obtain higher levels of postsecondary education (Aud et al. 2010 ). However, the increasing availability of distance education has provided educational opportunities to millions (Lewis and Parsad 2008 ; Allen et al. 2016 ). Additionally, an emphasis on open educational resources (OER) in recent years has resulted in significant cost reductions without diminishing student performance outcomes (Robinson et al. 2014 ; Fischer et al. 2015 ; Hilton et al. 2016 ).

Unfortunately, the benefits of access may not be experienced evenly across demographic groups. A 2015 study found that Hispanic and Black STEM majors were significantly less likely to take online courses even when controlling for academic preparation, socioeconomic status (SES), citizenship, and English as a second language (ESL) status (Wladis et al. 2015 ). Also, questions have been raised about whether the additional access afforded by online technologies has actually resulted in improved outcomes for underserved populations. A distance education report in California found that all ethnic minorities (except Asian/Pacific Islanders) completed distance education courses at a lower rate than the ethnic majority (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office 2013 ). Shea and Bidjerano ( 2014 , 2016 ) found that African American community college students who took distance education courses completed degrees at significantly lower rates than those who did not take distance education courses. On the other hand, a study of success factors in K-12 online learning found that for ethnic minorities, only 1 out of 15 courses had significant gaps in student test scores (Liu and Cavanaugh 2011 ). More research needs to be conducted, examining access and success rates for different populations, when it comes to learning in different modalities, including fully online and blended learning environments.

Framing a treatment effect

Over the last decade, there have been at least five meta-analyses that have addressed the impact of blended learning environments and its relationship to learning effectiveness (Zhao et al. 2005 ; Sitzmann et al. 2006 ; Bernard et al. 2009 ; Means et al. 2010 , 2013 ; Bernard et al. 2014 ). Each of these studies has found small to moderate positive effect sizes in favor of blended learning when compared to fully online or traditional face-to-face environments. However, there are several considerations inherent in these studies that impact our understanding the generalizability of outcomes.

Dziuban and colleagues (Dziuban et al. 2015 ) analyzed the meta-analyses conducted by Means and her colleagues (Means et al. 2013 ; Means et al. 2010 ), concluding that their methods were impressive as evidenced by exhaustive study inclusion criteria and the use of scale-free effect size indices. The conclusion, in both papers, was that there was a modest difference in multiple outcome measures for courses featuring online modalities—in particular, blended courses. However, with blended learning especially, there are some concerns with these kinds of studies. First, the effect sizes are based on the linear hypothesis testing model with the underlying assumption that the treatment and the error terms are uncorrelated, indicating that there is nothing else going on in the blending that might confound the results. Although the blended learning articles (Means et al. 2010 ) were carefully vetted, the assumption of independence is tenuous at best so that these meta-analysis studies must be interpreted with extreme caution.

There is an additional concern with blended learning as well. Blends are not equivalent because of the manner on which they are configured. For instance, a careful reading of the sources used in the Means, et al. papers will identify, at minimum, the following blending techniques: laboratory assessments, online instruction, e-mail, class web sites, computer laboratories, mapping and scaffolding tools, computer clusters, interactive presentations and e-mail, handwriting capture, evidence-based practice, electronic portfolios, learning management systems, and virtual apparatuses. These are not equivalent ways in which to configure courses, and such nonequivalence constitutes the confounding we describe. We argue here that, in actuality, blended learning is a general construct in the form of a boundary object (Star and Griesemer 1989 ) rather than a treatment effect in the statistical sense. That is, an idea or concept that can support a community of practice, but is weakly defined fostering disagreement in the general group. Conversely, it is stronger in individual constituencies. For instance, content disciplines (i.e. education, rhetoric, optics, mathematics, and philosophy) formulate a more precise definition because of commonly embraced teaching and learning principles. Quite simply, the situation is more complicated than that, as Leonard Smith ( 2007 ) says after Tolstoy,

“All linear models resemble each other, each non nonlinear system is unique in its own way” (p. 33).

This by no means invalidates these studies, but effect size associated with blended learning should be interpreted with caution where the impact is evaluated within a particular learning context.

Study objectives

This study addressed student access by examining success and withdrawal rates in the blended learning courses by comparing them to face-to-face and online modalities over an extended time period at the University of Central Florida. Further, the investigators sought to assess the differences in those success and withdrawal rates with the minority status of students. Secondly, the investigators examined the student end-of-course ratings of blended learning and other modalities by attempting to develop robust if-then decision rules about what characteristics of classes and instructors lead students to assign an “excellent” value to their educational experience. Because of the high stakes nature of these student ratings toward faculty promotion, awards, and tenure, they act as a surrogate measure for instructional quality. Next, the investigators determined the conditional probabilities for students conforming to the identified rule cross-referenced by expected grade, the degree to which they desired to take the course, and course modality.

Student grades by course modality were recoded into a binary variable with C or higher assigned a value of 1, and remaining values a 0. This was a declassification process that sacrificed some specificity but compensated for confirmation bias associated with disparate departmental policies regarding grade assignment. At the measurement level this was an “on track to graduation index” for students. Withdrawal was similarly coded by the presence or absence of its occurrence. In each case, the percentage of students succeeding or withdrawing from blended, online or face-to-face courses was calculated by minority and non-minority status for the fall 2014 through fall 2015 semesters.

Next, a classification and regression tree (CART) analysis (Brieman et al. 1984 ) was performed on the student end-of-course evaluation protocol ( Appendix 1 ). The dependent measure was a binary variable indicating whether or not a student assigned an overall rating of excellent to his or her course experience. The independent measures in the study were: the remaining eight rating items on the protocol, college membership, and course level (lower undergraduate, upper undergraduate, and graduate). Decision trees are efficient procedures for achieving effective solutions in studies such as this because with missing values imputation may be avoided with procedures such as floating methods and the surrogate formation (Brieman et al. 1984 , Olshen et al. 1995 ). For example, a logistic regression method cannot efficiently handle all variables under consideration. There are 10 independent variables involved here; one variable has three levels, another has nine, and eight have five levels each. This means the logistic regression model must incorporate more than 50 dummy variables and an excessively large number of two-way interactions. However, the decision-tree method can perform this analysis very efficiently, permitting the investigator to consider higher order interactions. Even more importantly, decision trees represent appropriate methods in this situation because many of the variables are ordinally scaled. Although numerical values can be assigned to each category, those values are not unique. However, decision trees incorporate the ordinal component of the variables to obtain a solution. The rules derived from decision trees have an if-then structure that is readily understandable. The accuracy of these rules can be assessed with percentages of correct classification or odds-ratios that are easily understood. The procedure produces tree-like rule structures that predict outcomes.

The model-building procedure for predicting overall instructor rating

For this study, the investigators used the CART method (Brieman et al. 1984 ) executed with SPSS 23 (IBM Corp 2015 ). Because of its strong variance-sharing tendencies with the other variables, the dependent measure for the analysis was the rating on the item Overall Rating of the Instructor , with the previously mentioned indicator variables (college, course level, and the remaining 8 questions) on the instrument. Tree methods are recursive, and bisect data into subgroups called nodes or leaves. CART analysis bases itself on: data splitting, pruning, and homogeneous assessment.

Splitting the data into two (binary) subsets comprises the first stage of the process. CART continues to split the data until the frequencies in each subset are either very small or all observations in a subset belong to one category (e.g., all observations in a subset have the same rating). Usually the growing stage results in too many terminate nodes for the model to be useful. CART solves this problem using pruning methods that reduce the dimensionality of the system.

The final stage of the analysis involves assessing homogeneousness in growing and pruning the tree. One way to accomplish this is to compute the misclassification rates. For example, a rule that produces a .95 probability that an instructor will receive an excellent rating has an associated error of 5.0%.

Implications for using decision trees

Although decision-tree techniques are effective for analyzing datasets such as this, the reader should be aware of certain limitations. For example, since trees use ranks to analyze both ordinal and interval variables, information can be lost. However, the most serious weakness of decision tree analysis is that the results can be unstable because small initial variations can lead to substantially different solutions.

For this study model, these problems were addressed with the k-fold cross-validation process. Initially the dataset was partitioned randomly into 10 subsets with an approximately equal number of records in each subset. Each cohort is used as a test partition, and the remaining subsets are combined to complete the function. This produces 10 models that are all trained on different subsets of the original dataset and where each has been used as the test partition one time only.

Although computationally dense, CART was selected as the analysis model for a number of reasons— primarily because it provides easily interpretable rules that readers will be able evaluate in their particular contexts. Unlike many other multivariate procedures that are even more sensitive to initial estimates and require a good deal of statistical sophistication for interpretation, CART has an intuitive resonance with researcher consumers. The overriding objective of our choice of analysis methods was to facilitate readers’ concentration on our outcomes rather than having to rely on our interpretation of the results.

Institution-level evaluation: Success and withdrawal

The University of Central Florida (UCF) began a longitudinal impact study of their online and blended courses at the start of the distributed learning initiative in 1996. The collection of similar data across multiple semesters and academic years has allowed UCF to monitor trends, assess any issues that may arise, and provide continual support for both faculty and students across varying demographics. Table 1 illustrates the overall success rates in blended, online and face-to-face courses, while also reporting their variability across minority and non-minority demographics.

While success (A, B, or C grade) is not a direct reflection of learning outcomes, this overview does provide an institutional level indication of progress and possible issues of concern. BL has a slight advantage when looking at overall success and withdrawal rates. This varies by discipline and course, but generally UCF’s blended modality has evolved to be the best of both worlds, providing an opportunity for optimizing face-to-face instruction through the effective use of online components. These gains hold true across minority status. Reducing on-ground time also addresses issues that impact both students and faculty such as parking and time to reach class. In addition, UCF requires faculty to go through faculty development tailored to teaching in either blended or online modalities. This 8-week faculty development course is designed to model blended learning, encouraging faculty to redesign their course and not merely consider blended learning as a means to move face-to-face instructional modules online (Cobb et al. 2012 ; Lowe 2013 ).

Withdrawal (Table 2 ) from classes impedes students’ success and retention and can result in delayed time to degree, incurred excess credit hour fees, or lost scholarships and financial aid. Although grades are only a surrogate measure for learning, they are a strong predictor of college completion. Therefore, the impact of any new innovation on students’ grades should be a component of any evaluation. Once again, the blended modality is competitive and in some cases results in lower overall withdrawal rates than either fully online or face-to-face courses.

The students’ perceptions of their learning environments

Other potentially high-stakes indicators can be measured to determine the impact of an innovation such as blended learning on the academy. For instance, student satisfaction and attitudes can be measured through data collection protocols, including common student ratings, or student perception of instruction instruments. Given that those ratings often impact faculty evaluation, any negative reflection can derail the successful implementation and scaling of an innovation by disenfranchised instructors. In fact, early online and blended courses created a request by the UCF faculty senate to investigate their impact on faculty ratings as compared to face-to-face sections. The UCF Student Perception of Instruction form is released automatically online through the campus web portal near the end of each semester. Students receive a splash page with a link to each course’s form. Faculty receive a scripted email that they can send to students indicating the time period that the ratings form will be available. The forms close at the beginning of finals week. Faculty receive a summary of their results following the semester end.

The instrument used for this study was developed over a ten year period by the faculty senate of the University of Central Florida, recognizing the evolution of multiple course modalities including blended learning. The process involved input from several constituencies on campus (students, faculty, administrators, instructional designers, and others), in attempt to provide useful formative and summative instructional information to the university community. The final instrument was approved by resolution of the senate and, currently, is used across the university. Students’ rating of their classes and instructors comes with considerable controversy and disagreement with researchers aligning themselves on both sides of the issue. Recently, there have been a number of studies criticizing the process (Uttl et al. 2016 ; Boring et al. 2016 ; & Stark and Freishtat 2014 ). In spite of this discussion, a viable alternative has yet to emerge in higher education. So in the foreseeable future, the process is likely to continue. Therefore, with an implied faculty senate mandate this study was initiated by this team of researchers.

Prior to any analysis of the item responses collected in this campus-wide student sample, the psychometric quality (domain sampling) of the information yielded by the instrument was assessed. Initially, the reliability (internal consistency) was derived using coefficient alpha (Cronbach 1951 ). In addition, Guttman ( 1953 ) developed a theorem about item properties that leads to evidence about the quality of one’s data, demonstrating that as the domain sampling properties of items improve, the inverse of the correlation matrix among items will approach a diagonal. Subsequently, Kaiser and Rice ( 1974 ) developed the measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) that is a function of the Guttman Theorem. The index has an upper bound of one with Kaiser offering some decision rules for interpreting the value of MSA. If the value of the index is in the .80 to .99 range, the investigator has evidence of an excellent domain sample. Values in the .70s signal an acceptable result, and those in the .60s indicate data that are unacceptable. Customarily, the MSA has been used for data assessment prior to the application of any dimensionality assessments. Computation of the MSA value gave the investigators a benchmark for the construct validity of the items in this study. This procedure has been recommended by Dziuban and Shirkey ( 1974 ) prior to any latent dimension analysis and was used with the data obtained for this study. The MSA for the current instrument was .98 suggesting excellent domain sampling properties with an associated alpha reliability coefficient of .97 suggesting superior internal consistency. The psychometric properties of the instrument were excellent with both measures.

The online student ratings form presents an electronic data set each semester. These can be merged across time to create a larger data set of completed ratings for every course across each semester. In addition, captured data includes course identification variables including prefix, number, section and semester, department, college, faculty, and class size. The overall rating of effectiveness is used most heavily by departments and faculty in comparing across courses and modalities (Table 3 ).

The finally derived tree (decision rules) included only three variables—survey items that asked students to rate the instructor’s effectiveness at:

Helping students achieve course objectives,

Creating an environment that helps students learn, and

Communicating ideas and information.

None of the demographic variables associated with the courses contributed to the final model. The final rule specifies that if a student assigns an excellent rating to those three items, irrespective of their status on any other condition, the probability is .99 that an instructor will receive an overall rating of excellent. The converse is true as well. A poor rating on all three of those items will lead to a 99% chance of an instructor receiving an overall rating of poor.

Tables 4 , 5 and 6 present a demonstration of the robustness of the CART rule for variables on which it was not developed: expected course grade, desire to take the course and modality.

In each case, irrespective of the marginal probabilities, those students conforming to the rule have a virtually 100% chance of seeing the course as excellent. For instance, 27% of all students expecting to fail assigned an excellent rating to their courses, but when they conformed to the rule the percentage rose to 97%. The same finding is true when students were asked about their desire to take the course with those who strongly disagreed assigning excellent ratings to their courses 26% of the time. However, for those conforming to the rule, that category rose to 92%. When course modality is considered in the marginal sense, blended learning is rated as the preferred choice. However, from Table 6 we can observe that the rule equates student assessment of their learning experiences. If they conform to the rule, they will see excellence.

This study addressed increasingly important issues of student success, withdrawal and perception of the learning environment across multiple course modalities. Arguably these components form the crux of how we will make more effective decisions about how blended learning configures itself in the new normal. The results reported here indicate that blending maintains or increases access for most student cohorts and produces improved success rates for minority and non-minority students alike. In addition, when students express their beliefs about the effectiveness of their learning environments, blended learning enjoys the number one rank. However, upon more thorough analysis of key elements students view as important in their learning, external and demographic variables have minimal impact on those decisions. For example college (i.e. discipline) membership, course level or modality, expected grade or desire to take a particular course have little to do with their course ratings. The characteristics they view as important relate to clear establishment and progress toward course objectives, creating an effective learning environment and the instructors’ effective communication. If in their view those three elements of a course are satisfied they are virtually guaranteed to evaluate their educational experience as excellent irrespective of most other considerations. While end of course rating protocols are summative the three components have clear formative characteristics in that each one is directly related to effective pedagogy and is responsive to faculty development through units such as the faculty center for teaching and learning. We view these results as encouraging because they offer potential for improving the teaching and learning process in an educational environment that increases the pressure to become more responsive to contemporary student lifestyles.

Clearly, in this study we are dealing with complex adaptive systems that feature the emergent property. That is, their primary agents and their interactions comprise an environment that is more than the linear combination of their individual elements. Blending learning, by interacting with almost every aspect of higher education, provides opportunities and challenges that we are not able to fully anticipate.

This pedagogy alters many assumptions about the most effective way to support the educational environment. For instance, blending, like its counterpart active learning, is a personal and individual phenomenon experienced by students. Therefore, it should not be surprising that much of what we have called blended learning is, in reality, blended teaching that reflects pedagogical arrangements. Actually, the best we can do for assessing impact is to use surrogate measures such as success, grades, results of assessment protocols, and student testimony about their learning experiences. Whether or not such devices are valid indicators remains to be determined. We may be well served, however, by changing our mode of inquiry to blended teaching.

Additionally, as Norberg ( 2017 ) points out, blended learning is not new. The modality dates back, at least, to the medieval period when the technology of textbooks was introduced into the classroom where, traditionally, the professor read to the students from the only existing manuscript. Certainly, like modern technologies, books were disruptive because they altered the teaching and learning paradigm. Blended learning might be considered what Johnson describes as a slow hunch (2010). That is, an idea that evolved over a long period of time, achieving what Kaufmann ( 2000 ) describes as the adjacent possible – a realistic next step occurring in many iterations.

The search for a definition for blended learning has been productive, challenging, and, at times, daunting. The definitional continuum is constrained by Oliver and Trigwell ( 2005 ) castigation of the concept for its imprecise vagueness to Sharpe et al.’s ( 2006 ) notion that its definitional latitude enhances contextual relevance. Both extremes alter boundaries such as time, place, presence, learning hierarchies, and space. The disagreement leads us to conclude that Lakoff’s ( 2012 ) idealized cognitive models i.e. arbitrarily derived concepts (of which blended learning might be one) are necessary if we are to function effectively. However, the strong possibility exists that blended learning, like quality, is observer dependent and may not exist outside of our perceptions of the concept. This, of course, circles back to the problem of assuming that blending is a treatment effect for point hypothesis testing and meta-analysis.

Ultimately, in this article, we have tried to consider theoretical concepts and empirical findings about blended learning and their relationship to the new normal as it evolves. Unfortunately, like unresolved chaotic solutions, we cannot be sure that there is an attractor or that it will be the new normal. That being said, it seems clear that blended learning is the harbinger of substantial change in higher education and will become equally impactful in K-12 schooling and industrial training. Blended learning, because of its flexibility, allows us to maximize many positive education functions. If Floridi ( 2014 ) is correct and we are about to live in an environment where we are on the communication loop rather than in it, our educational future is about to change. However, if our results are correct and not over fit to the University of Central Florida and our theoretical speculations have some validity, the future of blended learning should encourage us about the coming changes.

Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Giesinger, C., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC horizon report: 2017 higher Education Edition . Austin: The New Media Consortium.

Google Scholar

Alhabeeb, A. M. (2015). The quality assessment of the services offered to the students of the College of Education at King Saud University using (SERVQUAL) method. Journal of Education and Practice , 6 (30), 82–93.

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530060.pdf

Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States, 1–4. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf

Arum, R., Roksa, J., & Cook, A. (2016). Improving quality in American higher education: Learning outcomes and assessments for the 21st century . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Planty, M., Snyder, T., Bianco, K., Fox, M. A., & Drake, L. (2010). The condition of education - 2010. Education, 4–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/e492172006-019

Balfour, S. P. (2013). Assessing writing in MOOCs: Automated essay scoring and calibrated peer review. Research and Practice in Assessment , 2013 (8), 40–48.

Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R.,Knox, J., Lamb, J., McLeod, H., O’Shea, C., Ross, J., Sheail, P. & Sinclair, C, (2016) Manifesto for teaching online. Digital Education at Edinburg University. Retrieved from https://onlineteachingmanifesto.wordpress.com/the-text/

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research , 79 (3), 1243–1289. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844 .

Article Google Scholar

Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education , 26 (1), 87–122.

Bloemer, W., & Swan, K. (2015). Investigating informal blending at the University of Illinois Springfield. In A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives , (vol. 2, pp. 52–69). New York: Routledge.

Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2007). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs . San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Boring, A., Ottoboni, K., & Stark, P.B. (2016). Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness. EGERA.

Brieman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1984). Classification and regression trees . New York: Chapman & Hall.

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2013). Distance education report.

Cobb, C., deNoyelles, A., & Lowe, D. (2012). Influence of reduced seat time on satisfaction and perception of course development goals: A case study in faculty development. The Journal of Asynchronous Learning , 16 (2), 85–98.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika , 16 (3), 297–334 Retrieved from http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/courses/psyc5112/readings/alpha_cronbach.pdf .

Article MATH Google Scholar

Dringus, L. P., and A. B. Seagull. 2015. A five-year study of sustaining blended learning initiatives to enhance academic engagement in computer and information sciences campus courses. In Blended learning: Research perspectives. Vol. 2. Edited by A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, and C. R. Graham, 122-140. New York: Routledge.

Dziuban, C. D., & Shirkey, E. C. (1974). When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychological Bulletin , 81(6), 358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036316 .

Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Cavanagh, T., & Moskal, P. (2011). Blended courses as drivers of institutional transformation. In A. Kitchenham (Ed.), Blended learning across disciplines: Models for implementation , (pp. 17–37). Hershey: IGI Global.

Chapter Google Scholar

Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2011). A course is a course is a course: Factor invariance in student evaluation of online, blended and face-to-face learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education , 14 (4), 236–241.

Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., Hermsdorfer, A., DeCantis, G., Norberg, A., & Bradford, G., (2015) A deconstruction of blended learning. Presented at the 11 th annual Sloan-C blended learning conference and workshop

Dziuban, C., Picciano, A. G., Graham, C. R., & Moskal, P. D. (2016). Conducting research in online and blended learning environments: New pedagogical frontiers . New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended learning. EDUCAUSE Research Bulletin , 7 , 1–12.

EDUCAUSE. (2017) 2017 key issues in teaching & learning. Retrieved from https://www.EDUCAUSE.edu/eli/initiatives/key-issues-in-teaching-and-learning

Fairlie, R. (2004). Race and the digital divide. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy , 3 (1). https://doi.org/10.2202/1538-0645.1263 .

Fischer, L., Hilton, J., Robinson, T. J., & Wiley, D. (2015). A Multi-institutional Study of the Impact of Open Textbook Adoption on the Learning Outcomes of Post-secondary Students . Journal of Computing in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9101-x .

Floridi, L. (2008). A defence of informational structural realism. Synthese , 161 (2), 219–253.

Article MathSciNet Google Scholar

Floridi, L. (2014). The 4th revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2013). Blended learning in higher education , (1st ed., ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Print.

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

Goodhart, C.A.E. (1975). “Problems of monetary management: The U.K. experience.” Papers in Monetary Economics. Reserve Bank of Australia. I.

Graham, C. R. (2013). Emerging practice and research in blended learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education , (3rd ed., pp. 333–350). New York: Routledge.

Guttman, L. (1953). Image theory for the structure of quantitative variates. Psychometrika , 18 , 277–296.

Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar

Hilton, J., Fischer, L., Wiley, D., & Williams, L. (2016). Maintaining momentum toward graduation: OER and the course throughput rate. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning , 17 (6) https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i6.2686 .

IBM Corp. Released (2015). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 23.0 . Armonk: IBM Corp.

Jean-François, E. (2013). Transcultural blended learning and teaching in postsecondary education . Hershey: Information Science Reference.

Book Google Scholar

Jones, S., Johnson-Yale, C., Millermaier, S., & Pérez, F. S. (2009). U.S. college students’ internet use: Race, gender and digital divides. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 14 (2), 244–264 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01439.x .

Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Journal of Educational and Psychological Measurement , 34(1), 111–117.

Kaufmann, S. (2000). Investigations . New York: Oxford University Press.

Kitchenham, A. (2011). Blended learning across disciplines: Models for implementation . Hershey: Information Science Reference.

Lakoff, G. (2012). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lewis, L., & Parsad, B. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions : 2006–07 (NCES 2009–044) . Washington: Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009044.pdf .

Liu, F., & Cavanaugh, C. (2011). High enrollment course success factors in virtual school: Factors influencing student academic achievement. International Journal on E-Learning , 10 (4), 393–418.

Lowe, D. (2013). Roadmap of a blended learning model for online faculty development. Invited feature article in Distance Education Report , 17 (6), 1–7.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record , 115 (3), 1–47.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Kaia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning . Washington: US Department of Education.

Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher Education , 18 , 15–23.

Norberg, A. (2017). From blended learning to learning onlife: ICTs, time and access in higher education (Doctoral dissertation, Umeå University).

Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D., & Moskal, P. D. (2011). A time-based blended learning model. On the Horizon , 19 (3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748121111163913 .

Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’ be redeemed? e-Learning , 2 (1), 17–25.

Olshen, Stone , Steinberg , and Colla (1995). CART classification and regression trees. Tree-structured nonparametric data analysis. Statistical algorithms. Salford systems interface and documentation. Salford Systems .

O'Neil, C. (2017). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy . Broadway Books.

Online Learning Consortium. The OLC quality scorecard for blended learning programs. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/consult/olc-quality-scorecard-blended-learning-programs/

Open SUNY. The OSCQR course design review scorecard. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/consult/oscqr-course-design-review/

Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks , 13 (1), 7–18.

Picciano, A. G., Dziuban, C., & Graham, C. R. (2014). Blended learning: Research perspectives , (vol. 2). New York: Routledge.

Picciano, A. G., & Dziuban, C. D. (2007). Blended learning: Research perspectives . Needham: The Sloan Consortium.

Pirsig, R. M. (1974). Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance: An inquiry into values . New York: Morrow.

Quality Matters. (2016). About Quality Matters. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/research

Robinson, T. J., Fischer, L., Wiley, D. A., & Hilton, J. (2014). The Impact of Open Textbooks on Secondary Science Learning Outcomes . Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14550275 .

Ross, B., & Gage, K. (2006). Global perspectives on blended learning: Insight from WebCT and our customers in higher education. In C. J. Bonk, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs , (pp. 155–168). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning , 5 (2), 1–13.

Searle, J. R. (2015). Seeing things as they are: A theory of perception . Chicago: Oxford University Press.

Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended learning: A review of UK literature and research. The Higher Education Academy, (October 2006).

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2014). Does online learning impede degree completion? A national study of community college students. Computers and Education , 75 , 103–111 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.009 .

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2016). A National Study of differences between distance and non-distance community college students in time to first associate degree attainment, transfer, and dropout. Online Learning , 20 (3), 14–15.

Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology , 59 (3), 623–664.

Smith, L. A. (2007). Chaos: a very short introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: Amatuers and professionals in Berkely’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science , 19 (3), 387–420.

Stark, P. & Freishtat, R. (2014). An evaluation of course evaluations. ScienceOpen. Retrieved from https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/evaluations14.pdf .

Tynan, B., Ryan, Y., & Lamont-Mills, A. (2015). Examining workload models in online and blended teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology , 46 (1), 5–15.

Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. W. (2016). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation , 54 , 22–42.

Williams, J. (2016). College and the new class divide. Inside Higher Ed July 11, 2016.

Wladis, C., Hachey, A. C., & Conway, K. (2015). Which STEM majors enroll in online courses, and why should we care? The impact of ethnicity, gender, and non-traditional student characteristics. Computers and Education , 87 , 285–308 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.06.010 .

Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record , 107 (8), 1836–1884. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00544.x .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contributions of several investigators and course developers from the Center for Distributed Learning at the University of Central Florida, the McKay School of Education at Brigham Young University, and Scholars at Umea University, Sweden. These professionals contributed theoretical and practical ideas to this research project and carefully reviewed earlier versions of this manuscript. The Authors gratefully acknowledge their support and assistance.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA

Charles Dziuban, Patsy D. Moskal & Nicole Sicilia

Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA

Charles R. Graham

Campus Skellefteå, Skellefteå, Sweden

Anders Norberg

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The Authors of this article are listed in alphabetical order indicating equal contribution to this article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patsy D. Moskal .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

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

Student Perception of Instruction

Instructions: Please answer each question based on your current class experience. You can provide additional information where indicated.

All responses are anonymous. Responses to these questions are important to help improve the course and how it is taught. Results may be used in personnel decisions. The results will be shared with the instructor after the semester is over.

Please rate the instructor’s effectiveness in the following areas:

Organizing the course:

Excellent b) Very Good c) Good d) Fair e) Poor

Explaining course requirements, grading criteria, and expectations:

Communicating ideas and/or information:

Showing respect and concern for students:

Stimulating interest in the course:

Creating an environment that helps students learn:

Giving useful feedback on course performance:

Helping students achieve course objectives:

Overall, the effectiveness of the instructor in this course was:

What did you like best about the course and/or how the instructor taught it?

What suggestions do you have for improving the course and/or how the instructor taught it?

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Dziuban, C., Graham, C.R., Moskal, P.D. et al. Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 15 , 3 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5

Download citation

Received : 09 October 2017

Accepted : 20 December 2017

Published : 15 February 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0087-5

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

Blended learning
Higher education
Student success
Student perception of instruction

Emerging Technologies to Enhance Teaching and Enable Active Learning

Key takeaways.

Providing dedicated space to engage faculty and students with emerging educational technologies while encouraging their exploration of the possibilities brings about new opportunities in teaching and learning.
Being intentional and innovative in the design of informal learning spaces captures attention and promotes awareness of new ideas, empowering faculty and students.
Tracking and exploring new technologies while monitoring trends in teaching practices helps a campus respond to faculty needs in teaching and students' desires for the optimal learning experience .

Eric Kunnen, Associate Director of eLearning and Emerging Technologies, Information Technology, Grand Valley State University

What will the classroom of the future look like? What technologies will a student's backpack include in the next five years? Will students need a backpack? How will faculty and students interact, collaborate, and leverage technology in the next generation of education? These questions, among many others, often permeate campus conversations, conferences, and discussions around the faculty "water cooler." Through collaboration and the intentional infusing of technology into informal learning spaces, we can invent the future of teaching and learning.

Importance of Informal Learning Spaces

Never underestimate the importance of informal learning spaces and the time students have between classes. While classroom time is highly valued, equally important is the environment that faculty and students use while they reflect, study, and actively engage with content and collaborate with others outside of the "formal" classroom and scheduled class time.

Perhaps too often, more energy and thought go into designing classrooms where students spend limited time, whereas the rest of the spaces across campus where students and faculty spend the most time are not as carefully thought through. Without intentionally designing these informal learning spaces, campuses lose opportunities for encouraging students to collaborate, study, and personalize their learning. The between-class informal learning spaces are crucial in students' overall educational experience. Diana Oblinger underscores the importance of informal learning spaces: "Good learning space design can support each institution's mission of enabling student learning. In fact, the convergence of technology, pedagogy, and space can lead to exciting new models of campus interaction." 1 This notion is where the new library at Grand Valley State University and the Atomic Object Technology Showcase is squarely focused.

One of the newest buildings on the Grand Valley State University (GVSU) campus, the Mary Idema Pew Library Learning and Information Commons (figure 1), maximizes informal learning spaces. In the design of the new library, one of the goals was to inspire, energize, and engage students — and to draw them into a high-quality and dynamic informal learning space. Dean of University Libraries Lee Van Orsdel describes the new library at the university as a "radically student-centered" design and a new learning commons concept that supports serendipitous learning. The $65 million library and intellectual hub of campus opened in June 2013. The library proved instrumental in the creation of the Atomic Object Technology Showcase, which is one of its dedicated and deliberate spaces providing unexpected learning opportunities, encouraging student engagement, and generating awareness — specifically around educational technology. The showcase intentionally infuses technology into the new library and learning commons as an informal learning opportunity.

Photo courtesy of James Haefner, Stantec Architectural Services Figure 1. Mary Idema Pew Library at Grand Valley State University

Engaging Students and Faculty in the Atomic Object Technology Showcase

The Atomic Object Technology Showcase at GVSU is a collaborative initiative of the information technology department and university libraries that embeds technology into a dedicated space. The showcase aims to deliver an immersive and engaging environment for faculty, staff, and students to interact, discover, learn, and share how innovative emerging technologies can enhance teaching and improve student learning. The underlying goal is to elevate and accelerate the conversation about instructional technologies at GVSU and how they can transform education: "To spark new ideas and inspire innovation."

The key experiences targeted for visitors of the showcase include the ability to:

Interact with innovative and emerging technologies
Discover new tools and techniques for teaching
Learn how to leverage and apply technology for learning
Share new ideas that promote student success

Essentially, the showcase is a drop-in space meant to increase student engagement and spark new ideas around using emerging technologies in and out of the classroom. It's a safe place to become aware, to experiment with technology through hands-on use, to tinker, and to try new things. See figure 2.

Photo courtesy of Eric Kunnen, GVSU Figure 2. Atomic Object Technology Showcase

The showcase's objectives include the following:

Investigate, acquire, test, prototype, pilot, research, and evaluate cutting-edge emerging technologies that have the potential to transform education, enhance teaching, and improve student learning.
Leverage innovative technologies to improve course quality, enhance faculty effectiveness, and increase student success and retention.
Partner with leading faculty, staff, students, and vendors to showcase, advocate, and increase awareness of the application of innovative emerging technologies in education.
Accelerate the application and evaluation of technologies and dynamic learning environments by assisting, equipping, and empowering faculty and students.
Build institutional capacity to integrate and implement technologies into teaching and learning practice, and to scale their deployment across the institution.

By researching and monitoring trends, showcase staff focus on identifying emerging and innovative technologies that have potential application across campus. Where do we find our ideas? Some come from faculty, some from students, and we also watch closely what is happening in educational technology through resources such as the New Media Consortium Horizon Project and report, the EDUCAUSE Top 10 IT Issues list, and the Top 10 Strategic Technologies assembled by the EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research.

Highlighting these emerging technologies produces opportunity and encouragement for faculty to think differently about technology and its role in teaching. Students are also challenged to investigate new options for learning. In addition, hands-on time allows faculty and students to explore and use new technology as they dream about ways it can help them solve instructional problems.

Transforming Teaching and Learning with Technology

The showcase is a frequent stop for campus tours ranging from new student orientations to K–12 parents, students, and teachers to a wide variety of higher ed visitors (figure 3). Further, with over two million library visitors in the past two years, the showcase has enabled a collaborative ed tech conversation and a shared experience across the university.

Campus tour of the Atomic Object Technology Showcase

Photo courtesy of Eric Kunnen, GVSU Figure 4. "Space to Create" with 3D printers

One of the most exciting aspects of the showcase has been the reception by students and faculty. Students frequently enter the showcase to try out a variety of technology as they explore the library, finish up a group study session, take a study break, or stop in on their way back from lunch. Faculty have also begun to hold classes in the showcase or create assignments around the technologies deployed there.

"The GVSU technology showcase offers faculty, students, and community members opportunities to learn about and 'play' with new and emerging technologies. This is an incredible resource, as it provides hands-on learning and experiences. I value sharing this resource with my students and using it to grow my own learning too!" —Erica R. Hamilton, Assistant Professor, Literacy Studies, College of Education, Grand Valley State University

"Each semester GVSU students in the Introduction to Computing course have the opportunity to explore and interact with cutting-edge technology at the Atomic Object Technology Showcase. Instead of just talking about technology in the classroom, students have the opportunity to experience it; jump off a cliff in a hang glider using Oculus Rift virtual reality, gesture to dissect a skull with Leap Motion, create an object with the 3Doodler Pen, and use their brainwaves to operate a remote control helicopter are just a few examples. The hands-on experience is invaluable for learning about technology. Students have so much fun, they forget they're learning!" — Cheryl Kautz, Affiliate Instructor, School of Computing and Information Systems, Grand Valley State University

"I enjoy learning about new technology and the showcase is a great place to go in the library to relax and relieve stress. In the showcase I can try out a variety innovative technologies and it's fun to explore. It is a really unique way of learning." — Nicole Fizell, Student, Grand Valley State University

The ongoing effort to transform teaching and learning with technology attempts to identify an emerging technology for successful deployment in the classroom. This effort came to fruition recently when faculty discovered a technology called Swivl in the showcase, which they actively deployed and implemented as remote video capture solution for GVSU's Graduate Teacher Certification Program.

Showcase staff don't just wait for faculty and students to visit — we also actively reach out to the classroom. For example, showcase staff became involved in re-envisioning a chemistry classroom, working to research, pilot, evaluate, and implement 3D projection technology that provides a new way to visualize and understand highly complex molecules. It provides faculty with a new opportunity to create an immersive experience for their students and demonstrates moving forward and implementing technology to help improve student success.

Makerspaces and Exploring New Technology

The showcase aims to encourage "knowledge creation" as much as "knowledge consumption." Our exploration into making and makerspaces includes 3D printing (figure 4), allowing students to build, rapid prototype, and learn about this emerging field of technology.

In addition to 3D printing, the showcase highlights over 20 different technologies throughout the year (see figures 5–7). Currently students, faculty, and staff can stop in to learn about, to try, and to experience virtual reality with Oculus Rift, wearable computing with Google Glass, a teleprescence-based robot from Double Robotics, gesture computing with Leap Motion, and mobile devices such as the Epic Laser Projection Keyboard and the Swivl personal video capture solution. In the future we also plan to bring in new technologies and to change the exhibits on display every quarter.

Photo courtesy of Eric Kunnen, GVSU Figure 5. Educational game technology in the showcase

Photo courtesy of Eric Kunnen, GVSU Figure 6. Wearable gesture control technology in the showcase

Photo courtesy of Eric Kunnen, GVSU Figure 7. Wearable smart technology in the showcase

Lessons Learned

Over the past two years of taking the showcase from conception to reality, we learned the following lessons along the way.

It Takes a Village

While technology initiatives benefit from having an advocate and coordinator, good project management strategies rely heavily on collaboration. The showcase vision became reality through the collaborative work of the library and IT department. Showcase staff reaching out to the bookstore, Faculty Teaching and Learning Center, and a variety of academic departments has enabled the number of events and participation in the showcase to grow. Connecting to existing campus events such as super science Saturdays, science Olympiads (figure 8), or other technology-based activities has generated a lot of excitement as well.

Photo courtesy of Eric Kunnen, GVSU Figure 8. Science Olympiad participants in the showcase

As part of the eLearning and Emerging Technologies group, instructional designers, instructional technology specialists, our Blackboard team, and our digital media developer help identify new technologies and work to integrate them into the classroom where possible to solve an instructional problem.

Through the showcase, we are reaching out beyond the walls and working with a wide variety of campus constituencies to envision the future of teaching and learning at Grand Valley State University.

If You Build It

Do not just create space and insert technology; engage with the campus community and students. For example, working with a variety of clubs and student organizations and reaching out to innovative professors helps us embed the showcase into the campus ecosystem.

The User Experience

Think about the user experience as faculty and students walk by or enter the space. Creating an inviting and exciting room includes open doors and visibility into the space. The more glass, the better. Positioning the space near other activities or a major thoroughfare is also helpful in creating exposure to the cool things happening in the space.

In the Future

Because learning is in large part social and informal, deliberately expand the time between classes and leverage it. The showcase aims to surprise and engage students in discovery and serendipitous learning. Engaged students are successful students, and the showcase encourages a unique experience, captures attention, and taps into the students' interests. Among faculty, the wealth of new technologies generates an overall awareness of educational technologies and their potential use in teaching as they work to envision the future of education.

As we work together to reimagine learning spaces and to press in on the future of the classroom, to discover new ways of teaching, or even to think through what the students' backpack of the future might look like, we do so by creating an environment for exploration. We are building the future together, one with tremendous opportunities to explore as we enhance teaching and learning at our institutions.

Diana Oblinger, " Leading the Transition from Classrooms to Learning Spaces ," EDUCAUSE Review , January 1, 2005.

The University of the West Indies, Global

Research Trends in Teaching and Learning with Emerging Technologies

This course prepares doctoral students to critically examine contemporary issues in online and distance education, current research, and emerging trends in technology-enabled education. It involves the investigation of historical use of technology in education, the impact of emerging technologies on teaching and learning, and strategies for making informed decisions concerning the use of technology in the curriculum. Topics such as instructional systems design, application of teaching and learning theories in technology-enabled environments, emerging technologies, equity and access, and mobile learning are explored and evaluated for consideration as research project topics.

The primary deliverable of this course is the identification of the proposed research topic, potential research questions to be explored, and a preliminary literature review with annotated bibliography

The University of the West Indies Global Campus Bridgetown, St. Michael Barbados

Information About

Admissions & Aid
Administration
Academic Calendar
Campus Life

Information For

Future Students
Current Students
Undergraduates
Faculty & Staff
Media Centre

Emergency Contacts | --> Campus Contacts | Campus Map | CATS Helpdesk

Our Mission

7 Research Findings About Technology and Education

Here’s what research shows about the effectiveness of technology for learning and when less tech can be more productive.

Photo of elementary teacher and students on ipads in classroom

Do students perform better on digital or paper assessments? Does the amount of time spent on an app correlate to learning growth? How much valid and reliable research is typically behind an educational application? These are questions that busy educators often wonder about, yet they may not have an easy way to find answers. Fortunately, there is research on education apps and devices as well as learning growth and outcomes in the research journals. Below are seven things that educators should know about the research on the effectiveness of technology for learning—note that research findings can evolve over time, and the points below are not definitively settled.

Advantages and disadvantages of Tech

1. When screens are present but not being used for learning, students tend to learn less. Whether it’s a laptop or a smartphone , studies have found that the mere presence of these devices reduces available cognitive capacity in college students. Long-term recall and retention of information decreases when students at the university level have screens present during direct instructional time . Just having a laptop screen open or a cell phone next to a student (but not being used) is enough to distract their brain from fully focusing on the class activities.

Further, studies found that students in college who send off-task text or IM messages during class or engage with social media on their devices typically take lower-quality notes, and their overall academic performance is worse than that of those who didn’t engage in those activities during class. It’s important to note that when a student doesn’t have a device but is near another student who is using a device during class, both students’ grades will likely be negatively affected.

2. Literacy applications often have little valid and reliable research associated with them. A number of applications in the app stores (such as Google Play) do not have much, if any, valid and reliable research associated with them. According to a study looking at the top-rated early literacy applications , 77 percent of the applications have zero reliable research behind them. And the few apps that did have research only considered the look and feel of the application (such as ease of navigation or visual appeal), rather than if the child was likely to learn foundational literacy skills from the app.

There are apps that are effective , but finding them in the sea of all available apps—many of them poorly designed, with inadequate backing evidence—is a daunting task.

3. Neither the amount of time spent on an app nor the number of sessions in an app correlates with effectiveness. A recent study found that the “dosage” of the app, such as the number of sessions, time spent per session, and duration of the study, did not predict effectiveness of the app . Thus, learning outcomes did not change if a student spent more or less time in an application. The quality of the application matters more in determining learning growth or outcomes than the amount of time or number of times an application is used.

4. Students who read online tend to comprehend less than those who read via paper. Studies have shown that when it comes to comprehension and reading online versus on paper , the type of text matters. One study discovered that when it comes to leisure reading , the more complex the text, the more likely students will comprehend the content better when reading on paper.

Print reading over a long period of time could boost comprehension skills by six to eight times more than digital reading. The same study found that younger children (ages 6–12) seem to benefit the most from print reading over online. Further, another recent study found that university students tend to annotate more when reading on paper versus digital text, though this does not improve their subsequent memory of the text.

5. Students tend to perform worse when testing online compared with those who test on paper. While many standardized tests have moved online, there’s research that doesn’t support this as the best medium for optimal outcomes. A 2018 study determined that students tend to score worse when testing online versus paper in both math and English language arts. In particular, English language learners, children from lower-income homes, and students on individualized education programs perform worse online than on paper.

Some studies are finding that the use of computers in formal assessments creates an obstacle for students who need special accommodations like text-to-speech readers or language translators. For example, students with visual impairments tended to perform worse on computer-based tests that provided a digital reader, compared with similar students who took paper tests with a human reader.

6. Online classes are best for students who can self-regulate and are independent learners. The Brookings Institution’s Executive Summary on online learning finds that online learning is best suited for students who are high achievers and self-motivated. The research they reviewed found that academically strong students can benefit from fully online courses, while students who are not academically strong tend to do worse in online courses than they would in in-person classes.

One example is the Back on Track study, which looked at ninth-grade students taking credit recovery algebra. The study compared students in a fully online algebra credit recovery course with students in an in-person credit recovery algebra course; the fully online students had worse overall academic outcomes and were less likely to recover credit. Additionally, students in fully online courses with no face-to-face instructor interaction typically fared worse than students in face-to-face classes. The good news is that students in blended courses (part online and part in-person) appear to do about the same as those in fully in-person classes.

7. The type of device matters. While schools often shop for the least expensive option for student devices, it is important to note that a recent study looking at remote learning found that the type and quality of student devices matters in learning outcomes. Students who used devices that were older and had slower processors had a worse quality of learning experiences than those who had newer devices with stronger specifications.

These are some highlights from recent studies that can inform teachers and school districts when it comes to decision-making with purchasing technology, creating policies, or devising alternative academic offerings. It is important to understand the evidence behind any edtech-related decisions that could impact many students.

Categories, themes and research evolution of the study of digital literacy: a bibliometric analysis

Published: 07 September 2024

Cite this article

Dongping Wu ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0000-8049-4431 1 ,
Sheiladevi Sukumaran 2 ,
Xiaomin Zhi ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0006-1249-3457 3 ,
Wenjing Zhou ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0001-4845-6790 3 ,
Lihua Li ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0000-0912-5561 3 &
Hongnan You ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0003-8024-7256 2 , 3

With the emerging forces of online and digital products, scholars keenly captured digital literacy and have new research dimensions. The purpose of this study is to present a bibliometric analysis of digital literacy using CiteSpace and to explore the categories, themes and research evolution in digital literacy. A total of 9042 bibliographic records were retrieved from the WoS Core Collection between 1990 and 2024. With CiteSpace, this paper conducted keywords co-occurrence analysis, reference co-citation analysis, categories co-occurring analysis, landscape view, timeline view, etc. to identify the themes, hotspots, and research evolution of digital literacy research. The results demonstrates that education & educational research, health care sciences & services, and public, environmental & occupational health are the top 3 research categories to which the research of digital literacy belongs. By combining the main clusters and their respective keywords, eight prominent themes were generated. In the timeline view, clusters such as health literacy , digital literacy and digital storytellin g are with strong professional vitality and good sustainability, especially cluster digital literacy . The timeline visualization reveals three periods of development of digital literacy research. This study can serve as a fundamental and important support, provide directional guide in the study of digital literacy and contribute to researchers and educators who want to study digital teaching and learning or educational technology for future research in this field.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

Artificial Intelligence
Digital Education and Educational Technology

Data availability

Data will be made available upon request.

Ahmadvand, A., Kavanagh, D., Clark, M., Drennan, J., & Nissen, L. (2019). Trends and visibility of digital health as a keyword in articles by JMIR publications in the new millennium: Bibliographic-bibliometric analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 21 (12), e10477. https://doi.org/10.2196/10477

Article Google Scholar

Arcury, T. A., Sandberg, J. C., Melius, K. P., Quandt, S. A., Leng, X., Latulipe, C., & Bertoni, A. G. (2020). Older adult internet use and eHealth literacy. Journal of Applied Gerontology , 39 (2), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464818807468

Baker, D. W., Parker, R. M., Williams, M. V., & Clark, W. S. (1998). Health literacy and the risk of hospital admission. Journal of General Internal Medicine , 13 (12), 791–798. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00242.x

Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. Digital Literacies: Concepts Policies and Practices , 30 (2008), 17–32.

Google Scholar

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

Bin Naeem, S., & Kamel Boulos, M. N. (2021). COVID-19 misinformation online and health literacy: A brief overview. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18 (15), 8091. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158091

Buchholz, B. A., DeHart, J., & Moorman, G. (2020). Digital citizenship during a global pandemic: Moving beyond digital literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 64 (1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1076

Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The digital competence framework for citizens. https://doi.org/10.2760/38842

Cetindamar Kozanoglu, D., & Abedin, B. (2021). Understanding the role of employees in digital transformation: Conceptualization of digital literacy of employees as a multi-dimensional organizational affordance. Journal of Enterprise Information Management , 34 (6), 1649–1672. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2020-0010

Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpaceII: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 57 (3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi

Chen, C. (2017). Science mapping: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of data and Information Science , 2 (2), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1515/jdis-2017-0006

Article MathSciNet Google Scholar

Chen, C., & Song, M. (2019). Visualizing a field of research: A methodology of systematic scientometric reviews. PloS One , 14 (10), e0223994. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223994

Chen, C., Hu, Z., Liu, S., & Tseng, H. (2012). Emerging trends in regenerative medicine: A scientometric analysis in CiteSpace. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy , 12 (5), 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1517/14712598.2012.674507

Choi, N. G., & DiNitto, D. M. (2013). The digital divide among low-income homebound older adults: Internet use patterns, eHealth literacy, and attitudes toward computer/Internet use. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 15 (5), e93. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2645

Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (2014). Handbook of research on new literacies . Routledge.

Collins, J. (1995). Literacy and literacies. Annual Review of Anthropology , 24 (1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.24.100195.000451

Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology , 1 (1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y

Eldred, J. C., & Mortensen, P. (1992). Reading literacy narratives. College English , 54 (5), 512–539. https://doi.org/10.2307/378153

Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development , 68 , 2449–2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4

García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2023). The perception of Artificial Intelligence in educational contexts after the launch of ChatGPT: Disruption or panic? Education in the Knowledge Society , 24 . https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.31279 . Article e31279.

García-Peñalvo, F. J., Largo, L., F., & Vidal, J. (2023). The new reality of education in the face of advances in generative artificial intelligence. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.27.1.37716

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

Goyal, K., & Kumar, S. (2021). Financial literacy: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Consumer Studies , 45 (1), 80–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12605

Guess, A. M., Lerner, M., Lyons, B., Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Sircar, N. (2020). A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117 (27), 15536–15545. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.192049811

Guo, Y., Hao, Z., Zhao, S., Gong, J., & Yang, F. (2020). Artificial intelligence in health care: Bibliometric analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 22 (7), e18228. https://doi.org/10.2196/18228

Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital na (t) ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the net generation. Sociological Inquiry , 80 (1), 92–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.x

Hatlevik, O. E., Throndsen, I., Loi, M., & Gudmundsdottir, G. B. (2018). Students’ ICT self-efficacy and computer and information literacy: Determinants and relationships. Computers & Education , 118 , 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.011

Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher , 66 (1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01090

Ito, M. (2013). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media . MIT Press.

Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality, literacy and school English. The Routledge international handbook of English, language and literacy teaching (pp. 342–352). Routledge.

Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2020). Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 21 (3), 103–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/152910062094670

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning . McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Leander, K., & Boldt, G. (2013). Rereading a pedagogy of multiliteracies bodies, texts, and emergence. Journal of Literacy Research , 45 (1), 22–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X12468587

Lee, C. D. (1992). Literacy, cultural diversiiy, and instruction. Education and Urban Society , 24 (2), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124592024002008

Lee, T., Lee, B. K., & Lee-Geiller, S. (2020). The effects of information literacy on trust in government websites: Evidence from an online experiment. International Journal of Information Management , 52 , 102098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102098

Leu, D. J., Coiro, J., Castek, J., Hartman, D. K., Henry, L. A., & Reinking, D. (2008). Research on instruction and assessment in the new literacies of online reading comprehension. Comprehension Instruction: Research-based best Practices , 2 , 321–346.

Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Burlingame, C., Kulikowich, J., Sedransk, N., Coiro, J., & Kennedy, C. (2013). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Assessing and preparing students for the 21st century with Common Core State standards. Quality Reading Instruction in the age of Common Core Standards , 219 , 236. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0865.pub2

Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly , 50 (1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.85

Marín, V. I., & Castaneda, L. (2023). Developing digital literacy for teaching and learning. In Handbook of open, distance and digital education (pp. 1089–1108). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0351-9_64-1

Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences , 5 (4), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2006.05040249

Martins Van Jaarsveld, G. (2020). The effects of COVID-19 among the elderly population: A case for closing the digital divide. Frontiers in Psychiatry , 11 , 577427. https://doi.org/10.3389/psyt.2020.577427

Miller, P. J., Wiley, A. R., Fung, H., & Liang, C. H. (1997). Personal storytelling as a medium of socialization in Chinese and American families. Child Development , 68 (3), 557–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb01958.x

Neter, E., & Brainin, E. (2012). eHealth literacy: Extending the digital divide to the realm of health information. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 14 (1), e19. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1619

Pangrazio, L. (2016). Reconceptualising critical digital literacy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education , 37 (2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.942836

Patil, U., Kostareva, U., Hadley, M., Manganello, J. A., Okan, O., Dadaczynski, K., & Sentell, T. (2021). Health literacy, digital health literacy, and COVID-19 pandemic attitudes and behaviors in US college students: Implications for interventions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18 (6), 3301. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063301

Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021). The psychology of fake news. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 25 (5), 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007

Pettersson, F. (2020). Understanding digitalization and educational change in school by means of activity theory and the levels of learning concept. Education and Information Technologies , 26 (1), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10239-8

Pool, C. R. (1997). A new digital literacy a conversation with Paul Gilster. Educational Leadership , 55 , 6–11.

Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation , 25 , 348.

Reddy, P., Sharma, B., & Chaudhary, K. (2020). Digital literacy: A review of literature. International Journal of Technoethics (IJT) , 11 (2), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJT.20200701.oa1

Scheerder, A., Van Deursen, A., & Van Dijk, J. (2017). Determinants of internet skills, uses and outcomes. A systematic review of the second-and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics , 34 (8), 1607–1624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.007

Spante, M., Hashemi, S. S., Lundin, M., & Algers, A. (2018). Digital competence and digital literacy in higher education research: Systematic review of concept use. Cogent Education , 5 (1), 1519143. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1519143

Takacs, Z. K., Swart, E. K., & Bus, A. G. (2015). Benefits and pitfalls of multimedia and interactive features in technology-enhanced storybooks: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research , 85 (4), 698–739. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314566989

Valverde-Berrocoso, J., Garrido-Arroyo, M. C., Burgos-Videla, C., & Morales-Cevallos, M. B. (2020). Trends in educational research about e-learning: A systematic literature review (2009–2018). Sustainability , 12 (12), 5153. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125153

Van Der Vaart, R., & Drossaert, C. (2017). Development of the digital health literacy instrument: Measuring a broad spectrum of health 1.0 and health 2.0 skills. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 19 (1), e27. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6709

van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Helsper, E., & Eynon, R. (2014). Measuring digital skills: From digital skills to tangible outcomes project report . The London School of Economics and Political Science.

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

Yang, K., Hu, Y., & Qi, H. (2022). Digital health literacy: Bibliometric analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 24 (7), e35816. https://doi.org/10.2196/35816

Download references

Acknowledgements

The researchers would like to thank SEGI University Malaysia.

This study is funded by the provincial humanities and social science project of Jiangxi Provincial Department of Education of China Research on the Construction and Development of Teachers’ Digitalization Teaching Ability in the Post-pandemic Times (No: JY20104). This is the phased research result.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Chemistry and Materials, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China

Dongping Wu

Faculty of Education, Language, Psychology, and Music, SEGI University, Kota Damansara, Selangor, Malaysia

Sheiladevi Sukumaran & Hongnan You

School of Foreign Languages, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, 330045, China

Xiaomin Zhi, Wenjing Zhou, Lihua Li & Hongnan You

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Hongnan You : Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Dongping Wu : Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Sheiladevi Sukumaran : Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Methodology, Conceptualization. Xiaomin Zhi : Writing – review & editing. Wenjing Zhou : Writing – review & editing. Lihua Li : Writing – review & editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hongnan You .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

There is no conflict of interest for any of the participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wu, D., Sukumaran, S., Zhi, X. et al. Categories, themes and research evolution of the study of digital literacy: a bibliometric analysis. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12955-x

Download citation

Received : 30 April 2024

Accepted : 06 August 2024

Published : 07 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12955-x

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

Research evolution
Digital literacy
Bibliometric analysis
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Abstract collage of science-related imagery

Experiential Learning for Emerging and Novel Technologies (ExLENT)

Status: waiting for new publication, important information about nsf’s implementation of the revised 2 cfr.

NSF Financial Assistance awards (grants and cooperative agreements) made on or after October 1, 2024, will be subject to the applicable set of award conditions, dated October 1, 2024, available on the NSF website . These terms and conditions are consistent with the revised guidance specified in the OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2024.

Important information for proposers

All proposals must be submitted in accordance with the requirements specified in this funding opportunity and in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets these requirements. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Supports inclusive experiential learning opportunities that provide cohorts of diverse learners with the skills needed to succeed in emerging technology fields.

Through this new initiative, the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) and the newly established Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP) seek to support experiential learning opportunities for individuals from diverse professional and educational backgrounds that will increase access to, and interest in, career pathways in emerging technology fields (e.g., advanced manufacturing, advanced wireless, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum information science, semiconductors, and microelectronics). As NSF seeks to support the development of technologies in such fields, similar support will be needed to foster and grow a diverse science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce to contribute to such innovation. Large scale societal challenges like climate change and clean energy also require a STEM workforce that brings varied perspectives and expertise to further accelerate the translation of science and engineering discoveries into large-scale solutions. Moreover, as current and new emerging technologies continue to evolve, unforeseen issues around security, safety and privacy will impact the preparation of the workforce. Emerging technologies are also dynamic and rapidly changing, with career entry and advancement often requiring "learning-by-doing" experience, even for those with some STEM education. Therefore, NSF recognizes that a competitive emerging technology workforce must include individuals from traditional and nontraditional education pathways as well as those individuals who may have “stopped” out of traditional educational pathways.

The ExLENT program will support inclusive experiential learning opportunities designed to provide cohorts of diverse learners with the crucial skills needed to succeed in emerging technology fields and prepare them to enter the workforce ready to solve our Nation’s most pressing scientific and societal challenges. Furthermore, the ExLENT program will directly support NSF’s priority to build a diverse workforce 1 in emerging technologies to assure the Nation’s competitiveness in STEM.

Key goals of the program are to (1) expand access to career-enhancing experiential learning opportunities for a broader, more diverse population, including adult learners interested in re-skilling and/or upskilling (e.g., those who face or who have faced significant barriers to accessing a formal STEM education); (2) promote cross sector partnerships between organizations in emerging technology fields and those with expertise in workforce development; and (3) develop a workforce aligned with regional economies based on emerging technologies across the Nation, in alignment with the mission of the TIP Directorate.

Updates and announcements

Update about the experiential learning in emerging and novel technologies funding opportunity, nsf invests more than $30m to enable experiential learning in key technologies, program contacts.

(703) 292-5111
	(703) 292-7403	TIP/ITE
	(703) 292-4697	TIP/ITE
	(703) 292-5188	TIP/ITE

Program events

June 12, 2023 - Office Hours: Experiential Learning for Emerging and Novel…
June 6, 2023 - Virtual Q&A: Experiential Learning for Emerging and Novel…
January 27, 2023 - Office Hours: Experiential Learning for Emerging and Novel…
January 24, 2023 - Office Hours: Experiential Learning for Emerging and Novel…
January 20, 2023 - Office Hours: Experiential Learning for Emerging and Novel…
January 10, 2023 - ExLENT Technical Webinar
December 12, 2022 - ExLENT Q&A Webinar
November 1, 2022 - ExLENT Introduction Webinar

Awards made through this program

Organization(s).

Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP)
Division of Innovation and Technology Ecosystems (TIP/ITE)
Directorate for STEM Education (EDU)
Division of Graduate Education (EDU/DGE)
Division of Equity for Excellence in STEM (EDU/EES)
Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (EDU/DRL)
Division of Undergraduate Education (EDU/DUE)

Research on the Design and Educational Application of Library Management System Based on SSM and MySQL Technology

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, index terms.

Applied computing

Computers in other domains

Digital libraries and archives

Human-centered computing

Visualization

Information systems

Data management systems

Query languages

Information systems applications

Decision support systems

Data analytics

Theory of computation

Theory and algorithms for application domains

Recommendations

Library leaders on digital libraries and the future of the research library: a panel discussion.

This panel presents perspectives from a group of research library leaders on the evolving relationships between the body of systems, services and technologies associated with digital libraries and the institution of the research library. Four panelists ...

VR Application for Technology Education in a Public Library

In this video paper we report on our experiences of deploying a VR point at a public library for the purpose of educating library patrons on VR technology. The primary application offered at the VR point is called Virtual Library, a VR application ...

Creating an educational digital library: GROW a national civil engineering education resource library

The GROW (Geotechnical, Rock and Water Engineering) project (http://www.grow.arizona.edu) is the first iteration of a National Civil Engineering Education Resource Library (NCERL). This educational digital library uses precise coding and metadata to ...

Information

Published in.

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Permissions, check for updates, author tags.

Database application data 3
Library management system 2
Village school 5
database design 1
Research-article
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Sichuan Education Development Research Center Project Exploration of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education Model for Local Teachers Majors

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

0 Total Citations
0 Total Downloads
Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

View Options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

View options.

View or Download as a PDF file.

View online with eReader .

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Share this Publication link

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
Download citation
Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

COMMENTS

Research on Emerging Technologies for Teaching and Learning (RETTL)
The goal of the Research on Emerging Technologies for Teaching and Learning program is to support transformative research on advanced technologies for teaching and learning to educate a new generation of students, teachers, educators, and mentors to excel in highly technological and collaborative environments of the future. The scope of the ...
Research on Emerging Technologies for Teaching and Learning (RITEL)
The purpose of the Research on Emerging Technologies for Teaching and Learning (RETTL) program is to fund exploratory and synergistic research in emerging technologies (to include, but not limited to, artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, and immersive or augmenting technologies) for teaching and learning in the future.The program accepts proposals that focus on learning, teaching, or a ...
Promising Emerging Technologies for Teaching and Learning: Recent
Promising Emerging Technologies for Teaching and ...
Promising Emerging Technologies for Teaching and Learning: Recent
Emerging technologies are changing more quickly than ever, and it is important to start building skills early in education by using the right examples to teach and learn about digital citizenship.
Emerging technologies as pedagogical tools for teaching and learning
In a recent call for papers in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Neumann and Waight highlight the rapid advancements in instructional technologies in the past decade, as well as the pressing need for science educators to research how "21st century cutting-edge technologies" have been/can be applied to the teaching and learning of ...
Emerging Technologies as Pedagogical Tools for Teaching and Learning
ABMs have been shown to be effective pedagogical tools in learning about emergent phenomena in multiple domains. Rates et al. (2016) studied the effectiveness of using an agent-based model in improving high school students' understandings of complex systems components (e.g., the Chesa-peake Bay watershed).
How do emerging technologies CRAFT our education? Current state and
Care. The current studies focus on human-centered education by caring about the benefits and risks of emerging technologies. The technologies can benefit education by delivering more personalized, interactive, and immersive learning content, feedback, automated grading, and predictive analyzes (e.g., Büyüközkan & Mukul, Citation 2024; Hong, Citation 2023).
Using emerging technologies to promote creativity in education: A
Results. The 32 identified studies that focused on integrating emerging technologies in learning to support creativity were published between 2010 and 2020. Half of the studies (n=16) were conducted in Asia, including Indonesia, Turkey, Thailand, Taiwan, Malaysia, and China.
Examining the Use of Emerging Technologies in Schools: a Review of
While justifications have been made for emerging technologies' transformative potential in STEM education, the roadmap for their eventual implementation in schools is underexplored. To this end, we review research works in artificial intelligence (AI) and immersive technologies which have been applied to facilitate STEM learning. Through a systematic literature search, we identified 82 ...
Psychological foundations of emerging technologies for teaching and
Introduction. As research on educational technologies increases in volume and rigor, greater focus is being placed on the psychological processes underlying teaching and learning with these tools [1, 2 ••, 3].Features of technologies that are designed to promote more effective learning typically aim to scaffold psychological processes known to be critical to learning and that have been ...
PDF Promising Emerging Technologies for Teaching and Learning: Recent
Emerging technologies in teaching and learning environments must be the subject of research. Thus, published research on cutting-edge technology in non-educational settings such as engineering ...
Emerging Technologies: Impacting Learning, Pedagogy and Curriculum
Learning in a world of emerging technologies challenges theories of teaching and learning. The move from instructor- to learner-based education is a major paradigm shift, both fueled and supported by advances in technology. ... are teaching: learning and research materials in any medium (digital or otherwise) that reside in the public domain or ...
Psychological foundations of emerging technologies for teaching and
Introduction. As research on educational technologies increases in volume and rigor, greater focus is being placed on the psychological processes underlying teaching and learning with these tools [1,2 ••,3].Features of technologies that are designed to promote more effective learning typically aim to scaffold psychological processes known to be critical to learning and that have been shown ...
Emerging Technologies for Teaching and Learning in Teacher Education
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING IN TEACHER EDUCATION. August 2023. DOI: 10.25215/9189764323. In book: Teaching, Education and New Learning Technologies (pp.20-28) Publisher: RED ...
Psychological foundations of emerging technologies for teaching and
As the research on the use of educational technologies increases, greater focus is being placed on the psychological processes underlying teaching and learning with these tools. In this research review, we examine six contemporary technologies identified in the 2020 edition of the Horizon Report through the lens of educational psychology theory. Specifically, we highlight the educational ...
PDF Emerging Technologies for Research and Learning: Interviews with Experts
Artificial Intelligence4 and Data-Intensive Science and Society. Two suites of emerging technologies and practices were consistently identified by interviewees as strategically critical for research and learning: data and its management technologies, and artificial intelligence (AI) applications powered by data.
Future language learning with emerging technologies
Journal of Computers in Education - The purpose of this special issue is to involve scholars, practitioners, and researchers to share and exchange their research findings in exploring the potential that cutting-edge technologies can provide for language pedagogical practices in terms of AI-supported language learning, personalized/adaptive learning, digital game-based learning, technology ...
Psychological foundations of emerging technologies for teaching and
Abstract. As the research on the use of educational technologies increases, greater focus is being placed on the psychological processes underlying teaching and learning with these tools. In this research review, we examine six contemporary technologies identified in the 2020 edition of the Horizon Report through the lens of educational ...
Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies
Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies
Emerging Technologies to Enhance Teaching and Enable Active Learning
The showcase's objectives include the following: Investigate, acquire, test, prototype, pilot, research, and evaluate cutting-edge emerging technologies that have the potential to transform education, enhance teaching, and improve student learning. Leverage innovative technologies to improve course quality, enhance faculty effectiveness, and ...
Research Trends in Teaching and Learning with Emerging Technologies
This course prepares doctoral students to critically examine contemporary issues in online and distance education, current research, and emerging trends in technology-enabled education. It involves the investigation of historical use of technology in education, the impact of emerging technologies on teaching and learning, and strategies for ...
Research on Innovative Technologies for Enhanced Learning (RITEL)
Research on Innovative Technologies for Enhanced ...
Lessons learned from remote, early-literacy instruction
The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly shifted primary-grade literacy instruction which had rarely been implemented online before the pandemic. Remote early literacy instruction is thus an emerging field of research, and research is needed to understand the affordances and limitations of this crisis-driven instruction and how it may inform early literacy instruction moving forward, both in remote and ...
(PDF) Emerging Technologies: Impacting Learning, Pedagogy and
Impacting Learning, Pedagogy and Curriculum Development
7 Research Findings About Technology and Education
Fortunately, there is research on education apps and devices as well as learning growth and outcomes in the research journals. Below are seven things that educators should know about the research on the effectiveness of technology for learning—note that research findings can evolve over time, and the points below are not definitively settled.
Categories, themes and research evolution of the study of digital
As the rapid spread of digitalization in global economy, digital educational technologies have swept through schools like waves and our society has witnessed its speedy development (Pettersson, 2020).With the emergence of new forces such as new media, online teaching and learning, digital products, some scholars began to be engaged with another kind of literacy, digital literacy (DL), and have ...
Emerging technologies as pedagogical tools for teaching and learning
This paper reviews the literature on emergent technologies from the field of science education. In an effort to summarize the current state of research, and identify specific types of technologies ...
NSF Invests More than $30M to Enable Experiential Learning in Key
The U.S. National Science Foundation announced the latest Experiential Learning for Emerging and Novel Technologies (ExLENT) investment of over $30 million, including the inaugural awards in a track designed to provide opportunities to workers with no prior STEM experience, to nearly 40 awardees at U.S. institutions of higher education and ...
Experiential Learning for Emerging and Novel Technologies (ExLENT)
Through this new initiative, the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) and the newly established Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP) seek to support experiential learning opportunities for individuals from diverse professional and educational backgrounds that will increase access to, and interest in, career pathways in emerging technology fields (e.g ...
Research on the Design and Educational Application of Library
VR Application for Technology Education in a Public Library MUM '18: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia In this video paper we report on our experiences of deploying a VR point at a public library for the purpose of educating library patrons on VR technology.

Information

Initiatives

Article Menu

JSmol Viewer

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical Concept

3.4. Methods of Data Collection and Analysis

4.4. Internet of Things (IoT)

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Psychological foundations of emerging technologies for teaching and learning in higher education

Similar articles

Publication types

Related information

Research Materials

Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies

Introduction

Information communication technologies in society and education

Literature of blended learning

Educational access

Framing a treatment effect

Study objectives

The model-building procedure for predicting overall instructor rating

Implications for using decision trees

Institution-level evaluation: Success and withdrawal

The students’ perceptions of their learning environments

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Publisher’s Note

Student Perception of Instruction

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Emerging Technologies to Enhance Teaching and Enable Active Learning

Importance of Informal Learning Spaces

Engaging Students and Faculty in the Atomic Object Technology Showcase

Transforming Teaching and Learning with Technology

Makerspaces and Exploring New Technology

Lessons Learned

It Takes a Village

If You Build It

The User Experience

In the Future

Research Trends in Teaching and Learning with Emerging Technologies

7 Research Findings About Technology and Education

Advantages and disadvantages of Tech

Categories, themes and research evolution of the study of digital literacy: a bibliometric analysis

Cite this article

Access this article

Explore related subjects

Data availability

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Material 1

About this article

Share this article

Experiential Learning for Emerging and Novel Technologies (ExLENT)

Important information for proposers

Updates and announcements

Program events

Awards made through this program

Research on the Design and Educational Application of Library Management System Based on SSM and MySQL Technology

New Citation Alert!

Information & Contributors

Recommendations

VR Application for Technology Education in a Public Library

Creating an educational digital library: GROW a national civil engineering education resource library

Information

Publication History

Funding Sources