essay on changing role of teachers in digital era

The changing role of teachers and technologies amidst the COVID 19 pandemic: key findings from a cross-country study

Maria barron, cristóbal cobo, alberto munoz-najar, inaki sanchez ciarrusta.

“Whoever teaches learns in the act of teaching and whoever learns teaches in the act of learning" wrote the Brazilian pedagogue Paulo Freire in his famous book “Pedagogy of Freedom” (1996). 

Despite the overwhelming consequences of the pandemic, this global crisis has also been an extraordinary time for learning. We are learning how adaptable and resilient educational systems, policy makers, teachers, students and families can be. In this blog (which is part of a series highlighting key lessons learned from a study to understand the perceived effectiveness of remote learning solutions, forthcoming) we summarize lessons learned in different countries, with special focus on teachers and how they had to quickly reimagine human connections and interactions to facilitate learning. The role of teachers is rapidly evolving becoming in many ways more difficult than when learning took place only in person. 

How has the pandemic changed the role of teachers?

Two crucial factors have shifted due to the pandemic. First, pedagogical adaptations have proven to be pivotal as the traditional lecturing in-person models do not translate to a remote learning environment. No matter the type of channel used (radio, TV, mobile, online platforms, etc.) teachers need to adapt their practices and be creative to keep students engaged as every household has become a classroom - more often than not - without an environment that supports learning. Some countries are supporting teachers with this. In Sierra Leone , where the main remote learning channel is radio, a ‘live’ and toll-free phone line is open for students to call teachers with questions and schedules of radio lessons allow time for children to help their families with daily chores.

Second, the pandemic has recalibrated how teachers divide their time between teaching, engaging with students, and administrative tasks. In Brazil according to a survey conducted by Instituto Peninsula, 83% of teachers did not consider being prepared to teach remotely, 67% were anxious, 38% felt tired, and less than 10% were happy or satisfied. The pandemic has highlighted the need for flexibility and more time for student-teacher interactions. For example, in Estonia teachers were given autonomy to adjust the curriculum, lesson plans, and their time allocation. 

How systems have supported teachers in their new role?

Almost 90% of countries that responded to the survey of Ministries of Education on National Responses to COVID-19 conducted by UNESCO, UNICEF, and the World Bank (2020) supported teachers by sharing guidelines stressing the importance of: providing feedback to students, maintaining constant communication with caregivers, and reporting to local education units to keep track of learning. Fewer governments took a different approach: Costa Rica developed a digital toolbox with pedagogical resources such as a guide for autonomous work, the state of São Paulo in Brazil organized frequent two-hour conversations between Secretary Rossieli Soares and teachers  through the mobile application developed by the state. These conversations and tools allowed governments to have an open line of communication with teachers to better understand their concerns and adjust remote learning programs.

As teachers started to implement these guidelines and recommendations, they found themselves balancing educating and providing feedback to students remotely, filling administrative reports, and taking care of their families. Some governments recognized early-on that their well-intentioned teacher support systems ended up generating burnout. Peru’s Ministry of Education was open to receive feedback and reacted rapidly by changing the guidelines to reduce teacher’s administrative workload. The state of Minas Gerais in Brazil developed the mobile application ‘Conexao Escola’ to encourage teacher-student interaction during designated time after each class, avoiding a situation in which students contacted teachers through WhatsApp or text message throughout the day. In Uruguay, teachers were expected to fill administrative information, but instead of requesting new information from them, the government decided to use GURI, a digital platform that has been used by Uruguayan teachers for over 10 years to report information such as student attendance and grades.

Beyond providing guidelines and tools, some governments have leveraged existing professional development programs that worked before the pandemic. The state of Edo in Nigeria trained all 11 thousand primary school teachers who are part of the Edo-BEST program in the past two years to effectively use digital technologies in the classroom; during the pandemic, this in-service teacher training program transitioned from in-person to remote training. Similarly, in Uruguay, The Institute for in-Service Teacher Training took an existing coaching program online to provide remote pedagogical support and Ceibal strengthened its teacher training program and Open Educational Resources repository. While over 90% of Uruguayan teachers were satisfied with the remote training received during the pandemic, some expressed the need for further training.

What impact have technologies generated in this changing role?  

Faced with the pandemic, countries have combined high-tech and low-tech approaches to help teachers better support student learning . In Cambodia, for example, education leaders designed a strategy that combines SMS, printed handouts, and continuous teacher feedback , taking advantage of the high mobile phone penetration in the country. The approach goes beyond providing low-tech materials: it gives information on how to access learning programs, ensures students access paper-based learning materials, and includes home visits to monitor distance learning activities. Teachers are also expected to provide weekly paper-based resources to students and meet them weekly to provide their marked worksheets and issue new ones for the week ahead.  

Technology has also enhanced government-teacher support , adapting existing coaching programs to be delivered remotely (as the mentioned cases of Nigeria and Uruguay), creating spaces for peer support programs (for example the Virtual EdCamps initiative, created to facilitate peer-to-peer learning among teachers) or establishing EdTech hotlines for teachers (like in Estonia, where the HITSA – the Information Technology Foundation for Education - opened an educational technology information line to solve any technological question teachers might have).

Technology interventions should enhance teacher engagement with students , through improved access to content, data and networks, helping teachers better support student learning, as laid out in the World Bank’s Platform for Successful Teachers , where effective use of technology is one of the key principles to ensure cadres of effective teachers. 

How policymakers can support teachers during the reopening of schools?

In order to build back stronger education systems, countries will need to apply those teaching initiatives that have proved to be effective during the remote learning phase and integrate them into the regular education system. It is critical to empower teachers , investing in the necessary skills development and capacity building to exploit the full potential of remote and blended learning. 

Equally important is to free teachers’ time from administrative tasks (as Brazil, Peru and Uruguay did), focus on what is pedagogically effective, and provide socio-emotional support for teachers.  The pandemic and the extended school closures have changed the role of teachers and most of them were not prepared for such change; a comprehensive strategy is required for socio-emotional monitoring and psychosocial support to ensure teacher wellbeing and avoid burnout.

• COVID-19 (coronavirus)

Get updates from Education for Global Development

Thank you for choosing to be part of the Education for Global Development community!

Your subscription is now active. The latest blog posts and blog-related announcements will be delivered directly to your email inbox. You may unsubscribe at any time.

Research Analyst and Co-lead of the World Bank EdTech team

Senior Education Specialist

Consultant, World Bank Group

Analyst, EdTech

Join the Conversation

• Share on mail
• comments added

• DOI: 10.25215/0303.101
• Corpus ID: 231144112

Redefining the Role of Teachers in the Digital Era

• Published 25 June 2016
• Education, Computer Science

47 Citations

The concept of teacher in the qur`an and its relevance to his function in the digital era, transprofessional competences of school teachers in the digital environment: education employers’ perspective.

• Highly Influenced

ICT INTEGRATED EDUCATION: SHIFTING ROLE OF TEACHERS

Teachers’ views on the digital divide in greece: a qualitative approach, the role of the literature and the philosophy education in the digital world and the validation of the cultural identity through the means of distance learning platforms, digitalization of education and students' ability to learn post covid 19 pandemics, teachers' perspectives on the adoption of a chatbot in the teaching and learning process, teachers' perspective of 21st century learning skills in malaysian esl classrooms, e-book of metacognitive learning strategies: design and implementation to activate student’s self-regulation, issues in the implementation of 21st century learning skills in malaysian esl classrooms, 8 references, digital resilience in higher education, the impact of ict on student performance in higher education: direct effects, indirect effects and organisational change, fostering individual transfer and knowledge convergence in text-based computer-mediated communication, teacher roles and adoption of educational technology in the chinese context, exploring factors associated with wireless internet via mobile technology acceptance in mainland china, the importance of the tutor in open and distance learning.

• Highly Influential

TEACHERS' ROLE IN THE TECHNOLOGICAL ERA OF THE 21ST CENTURY

Related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Redefining the Role of Teachers in the Digital Era

Chat with paper, understanding students' and teachers' approaches to tablet use in turkish secondary schools: a model based approach, integrating ict into the teaching practice of academics at a university, technique in teaching writing used by the teacher at sman 4 malang, indonesian in service teacher’s production of directive speech acts and students’ responses, e-book of metacognitive learning strategies: design and implementation to activate student’s self-regulation, the impact of ict on student performance in higher education: direct effects, indirect effects and organisational change, exploring factors associated with wireless internet via mobile technology acceptance in mainland china, the importance of the tutor in open and distance learning, teachers' role in the technological era of the 21st century, teacher roles and adoption of educational technology in the chinese context, related papers (5), the learner centered high school: prescription for adolescents' success, active and receptive behaviours of trainee teachers and students during teaching-learning process in classrooms, fundamental principle of learning english, policies that support professional development in an era of reform; policies must keep pace with new ideas about what, when, and how teachers learn and must focus on developing schools' and teachers' capacities to be responsible for student learning, adapting to or changing our students millennials‟ learning behaviour and its implications on educational management.

Digital Learning and the Changing Role of the Teacher

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2018
• Cite this reference work entry

• Hamish Macleod 2 &
• Christine Sinclair 2  

171 Accesses

3 Citations

Introduction

Even though educational institutions have been key to the development of digital practices, teachers are sometimes regarded as late adopters, often with good reason (Cuban and Jandric 2015 ). At the start of the twenty-first century, there was little direct use of digital technology for teaching in schools or universities. However, teachers worked within cultures and societies already becoming reliant on digital technologies and increasingly defined by them.

Contemporary writing traces shifting relationships across teaching practices, digital mediation, and the influence of globalization. There are debates about the resulting impact on who teachers are, and what they (are able to) do, in the era of digital learning. The emergence of newer forms of technology to support and mediate the processes of teaching and learning has also led to a reexamination of the theoretical underpinnings of those practices – educational purposes, values, and structures – and the forms of...

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. (1991). Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Google Scholar  

Cuban, L., & Jandric, P. (2015). The dubious promise of educational technologies: Historical patterns and future challenges. E-Learning and Digital Media, 12 (3–4), 425–439.

Article   Google Scholar  

Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century . London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Gibbs, G. (2014). Students do not necessarily know what is good for them. 53 powerful ideas all teachers should know about: Staff and Educational Development Association. Retrieved from http://www.seda.ac.uk/resources/files/publications_156_11%20Students%20do%20not%20necessarily%20know%20what%20is%20good%20for%20them.pdf

King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41 (1), 30–35.

Ong, W. (2012/1982). Orality and literacy: 30th anniversary edition . Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Pettit, T. (2012). Media dynamics and the lessons of history: The “Gutenberg parenthesis” as restoration topos. In J. Hartley, J. Burgess, & A. Bruns (Eds.), A companion to new media dynamics . Malden/Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Siemens, G. (2012). MOOCs are really a platform. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a-platform/

Sinclair, C., & Macleod, H. (2015). Literally virtual: The reality of the online teacher. In P. Jandric & D. Boras (Eds.), Critical learning in dinital Networks . New York: Springer.

Wegerif, R. (2013). Dialogic: Education for the internet age . London: Routledge.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Hamish Macleod & Christine Sinclair

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamish Macleod .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

Michael A. Peters

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Macleod, H., Sinclair, C. (2017). Digital Learning and the Changing Role of the Teacher. In: Peters, M.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-588-4_126

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-588-4_126

Published : 08 March 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-287-587-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-287-588-4

eBook Packages : Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

Share this entry

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

How Has Technology Changed Education?

Technology has impacted almost every aspect of life today, and education is no exception. Or is it? In some ways, education seems much the same as it has been for many years. A 14th century illustration by Laurentius de Voltolina depicts a university lecture in medieval Italy. The scene is easily recognizable because of its parallels to the modern day. The teacher lectures from a podium at the front of the room while the students sit in rows and listen. Some of the students have books open in front of them and appear to be following along. A few look bored. Some are talking to their neighbors. One appears to be sleeping. Classrooms today do not look much different, though you might find modern students looking at their laptops, tablets, or smart phones instead of books (though probably open to Facebook). A cynic would say that technology has done nothing to change education.

However, in many ways, technology has profoundly changed education. For one, technology has greatly expanded access to education. In medieval times, books were rare and only an elite few had access to educational opportunities. Individuals had to travel to centers of learning to get an education. Today, massive amounts of information (books, audio, images, videos) are available at one’s fingertips through the Internet, and opportunities for formal learning are available online worldwide through the Khan Academy, MOOCs, podcasts, traditional online degree programs, and more. Access to learning opportunities today is unprecedented in scope thanks to technology.

Opportunities for communication and collaboration have also been expanded by technology. Traditionally, classrooms have been relatively isolated, and collaboration has been limited to other students in the same classroom or building. Today, technology enables forms of communication and collaboration undreamt of in the past. Students in a classroom in the rural U.S., for example, can learn about the Arctic by following the expedition of a team of scientists in the region, read scientists’ blog posting, view photos, e-mail questions to the scientists, and even talk live with the scientists via a videoconference. Students can share what they are learning with students in other classrooms in other states who are tracking the same expedition. Students can collaborate on group projects using technology-based tools such as wikis and Google docs. The walls of the classrooms are no longer a barrier as technology enables new ways of learning, communicating, and working collaboratively.

Technology has also begun to change the roles of teachers and learners. In the traditional classroom, such as what we see depicted in de Voltolina’s illustration, the teacher is the primary source of information, and the learners passively receive it. This model of the teacher as the “sage on the stage” has been in education for a long time, and it is still very much in evidence today. However, because of the access to information and educational opportunity that technology has enabled, in many classrooms today we see the teacher’s role shifting to the “guide on the side” as students take more responsibility for their own learning using technology to gather relevant information. Schools and universities across the country are beginning to redesign learning spaces to enable this new model of education, foster more interaction and small group work, and use technology as an enabler.

Technology is a powerful tool that can support and transform education in many ways, from making it easier for teachers to create instructional materials to enabling new ways for people to learn and work together. With the worldwide reach of the Internet and the ubiquity of smart devices that can connect to it, a new age of anytime anywhere education is dawning. It will be up to instructional designers and educational technologies to make the most of the opportunities provided by technology to change education so that effective and efficient education is available to everyone everywhere.

You can help shape the influence of technology in education with an Online Master of Science in Education in Learning Design and Technology from Purdue University Online. This accredited program offers studies in exciting new technologies that are shaping education and offers students the opportunity to take part in the future of innovation.

Learn more about the online MSEd in Learning Design and Technology at Purdue University today and help redefine the way in which individuals learn. Call (877) 497-5851 to speak with an admissions advisor or to request more information.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

Teachers’ role in digitalizing education: an umbrella review

Olivia wohlfart.

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

Ingo Wagner

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Inclusion criteria

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

Search procedure

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

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

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

Study selection

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

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

• Context  the study examined digitization in the context of teaching and learning.
• Teacher sample  the study targeted pre- or in-service teachers in primary or secondary education.
• Methodological quality  the study was a systematic review or meta-study.

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

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

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

Data analysis

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

Quantitative results

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

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

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

Qualitative findings

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

Research focus of previous reviews

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

• Digital Literacy,
• Teacher Preparation (Programs),
• Role of Teachers,
• Institutional Environment,
• Technology Integration, and.
• Technology as Tools.

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

Overview and research focus of selected reviews on teachers’ role in the digitalization of education (n = 23)

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

Digital literacy

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

Concept of digital literacy

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

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

Thematic overview of research on TPACK (n = 8)

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

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

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

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

Approaches to developing teachers’ digital literacy

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

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

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

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

Requirements for developing teachers’ digital literacy

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

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

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

Technology integration

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

Strategies, requirements, and barriers to technology integration

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

Technology acceptance

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

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

Future research

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

• Understanding context  To further develop the understanding of teaching and learning in diverse (digital) contexts, future research should go beyond the mere identification of contextual factors and critically examine how and why these factors (may) influence teachers’ digital literacy and/or willingness to integrate digital tools (Chai et al., 2013 ; Rokenes & Krumsvik, 2014 ; Rosenberg & Koehler, 2015 ; Scherer & Teo, 2019 ; Sherman et al., 2010 ; Starkey, 2020 ; Tondeur et al., 2017 ; van den Beemt et al., 2020 ; Voogt et al., 2013 ). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are highlighted, with the reviews repeatedly encouraging future research to take this personal factor into consideration (Carrillo & Flores, 2020 ; Pettersson, 2018 ; Tondeur et al., 2017 ).
• Process and outcome  Several reviews describe a lack of critical reflection in the included studies concerning the processes and specific outcomes of strategies and interventions related to teachers’ role in digitalization (Abbitt, 2011 ; Carrillo & Flores, 2020 ; Sherman et al., 2010 ; Tseng et al., 2020 ; van den Beemt et al., 2020 ). In this context, presenting and discussing best-practice strategies and focusing on practical learning areas, such as learning design, are suggested to benefit future research.
• Variety in methods  The reviews also demand (more) diversity in the methodological approaches to examining teachers’ digital literacy. More specifically, the results highlight the need for more case studies, interventional or experimental designs (Aydın & Gürol, 2019 ; Kay, 2006 ), research using mixed methods (Aydın & Gürol, 2019 ; Chai et al., 2013 ; Tondeur et al., 2017 ; van den Beemt et al., 2020 ; Wang et al., 2018 ; Willermark, 2018 ), and research employing longitudinal designs (Scherer & Teo, 2019 ; Tondeur et al., 2017 ; Wilson et al., 2020 ).
• Holistic perspective  Next in importance to teachers’ role in the process of digitalization, the reviews call for further research based on a more holistic examination of education. In this context, the reviews call for studies that consider the perspectives and effects of students (Aydın & Gürol, 2019 ; Chai et al., 2013 ) and school leadership (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2020 ; Pettersson, 2018 ).
• Clarifying concepts  Several authors also lament the lack of clear definitions and conceptualizations of specific terms or concepts (e.g., digital literacy, TK). This is discussed in conjunction with a call for improvement and agreement within the scientific community in future research (Kay, 2006 ; Voogt et al., 2013 ; Willermark, 2018 ).

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

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

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

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

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

Implications

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

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

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

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

Limitations and recommendations for future research

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

Biographies

is a research associate at the Center for Teacher Education at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. There she conducts research on digital competencies, digitalization processes in education, and school development.

heads the division “Interdisciplinary Didactics” at the Center for Teacher Education at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. His research interest include digitalization processes in teacher education and aspects of heterogeneity and diversity in education for STEM subjects and physical education.

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

Declarations

They further declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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

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

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

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

Publisher’s Note

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

Contributor Information

Olivia Wohlfart, Email: [email protected] .

Ingo Wagner, Email: [email protected] .

7. References

• Abbitt JT. Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2011; 43 (4):281–300. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2011.10782573. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey C, Holly C, Kahlil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence Based Healthcare. 2015; 13 (3):132–140. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aydın MK, Gürol M. A systematic review of critical factors regarding ICT use in teaching and learning. International Journal of Progressive Education. 2019; 15 (4):108–129. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2019.203.9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3 (2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bridwell-Mitchell EN. Theorizing teacher agency and reform. Sociology of Education. 2015; 88 (2):140–159. doi: 10.1177/0038040715575559. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carrillo C, Flores MA. COVID-19 and teacher education: A literature review of online teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2020; 43 (4):466–487. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1821184. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chai CS, Koh JHL, Tsai CC. A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Technology & Society. 2013; 16 (2):31–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Darling-Hammond L. Constructing 21st -century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education. 2006; 57 (3):300–314. doi: 10.1177/0022487105285962. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis, F. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B., Schaumburg, H., & Labusch, A. (2019). Nutzung digitaler Medien und Prädiktoren aus der Perspektive der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer im internationalen Vergleich [Use of digital media and predictors from the perspective of teachers in an international comparison]. In B. Eickelmann, W. Bos, & J. Gerick (Eds.), ICILS 2018 #Deutschland [#Germany]: Computer- und informationsbezogene Kompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern im zweiten internationalen Vergleich und Kompetenzen im Bereich Computational Thinking [Computer and information-related competencies of students in the second international comparison and competencies in computational thinking] (pp. 205–240). Waxmann
• Ertmer PA, Ottenbreit-Leftwich AT. Teacher technology change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2010; 42 (3):255–284. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission (2020). SELFIE (Self-reflection on Effective Learning by Fostering the use of Innovative Educational technologies): About SELFIE . Retrieved from  https://ec.europa.eu/education/schools-go-digital/about-selfie_en
• Fernández-Batanero JM, Montenegro-Rueda M, Fernández-Cerero J, García-Martínez I. Digital competences for teacher professional development. Systematic review. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2020 doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1827389. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferrari A. DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. Berlin: Publications Office of the European Union; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garrison D, Anderson T, Archer W. Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education. 1999; 2 (2–3):87–105. doi: 10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gessler M, Siemer C. Umbrella review: Methodological review of reviews published in peer-reviewed journals with a substantial focus on vocational education and training research. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training. 2020; 7 (1):91–125. doi: 10.13152/IJRVET.7.1.5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Granić A, Marangunić N. Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2019; 50 (5):2572–2593. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12864. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal. 2009; 26 (2):91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Happe L, Buhnova B, Koziolek A, Wagner I. Effective measures to foster girls’ interest in secondary computer science education. Education and Information Technologies. 2021; 26 :2811–2829. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10379-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harper B. Technology and teacher-student interactions: A review of empirical research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2018; 50 (3):214–225. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2018.1450690. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hopfenbeck TN, Flórez Petour MT, Tolo A. Balancing tensions in educational policy reforms: Large-scale implementation of assessment for learning in Norway. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy & Practice. 2015; 22 (1):44–60. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.996524. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• IEA. (2019). ICILS 2018: Results infographic presentation . https://bit.ly/3FiJG6c
• Kay R. Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2006; 38 (4):385–410. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2006.10782466. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Technology and Innovation (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–29). Springer
• Lockton M, Fargason S. Disrupting the status quo: How teachers grapple with reforms that compete with long-standing educational views. Journal of Educational Change. 2019; 20 (4):469–494. doi: 10.1007/s10833-019-09351-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKnight K, O’Malley K, Ruzic R, Horsley MK, Franey JJ, Bassett K. Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2016; 48 (3):194–211. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishra P, Koehler MJ. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 2006; 108 (6):1017–1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mullins MM, DeLuca JB, Crepaz N, Lyles CM. Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000–2010): Are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible? Research Synthesis Methods. 2014; 5 (2):116–130. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1098. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Niess ML. Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2005; 21 (5):509–523. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pettersson F. On the issues of digital competence in educational contexts—A review of literature. Education & Information Technologies. 2018; 23 (3):1005–1021. doi: 10.1007/s10639-017-9649-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pierson ME. Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education. 2001; 33 (4):413–430. doi: 10.1080/08886504.2001.10782325. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Porras-Hernández LH, Salinas-Amescua B. Strengthening TPACK: A broader notion of context and the use of teacher’s narratives to reveal knowledge construction. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2013; 48 (2):223–244. doi: 10.2190/ec.48.2.f. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rokenes FM, Krumsvik RJ. Development of student teachers’ digital competence in teacher education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy. 2014; 9 (4):250–280. doi: 10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2014-04-03. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenberg JM, Koehler MJ. Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2015; 47 (3):186–210. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2015.1052663. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sailer M, Murböck J, Fischer F. Digital learning in schools: What does it take beyond digital technology? Teaching and Teacher Education. 2021; 103 :103346. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103346. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scherer R, Teo T. Unpacking teachers’ intentions to integrate technology: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review. 2019; 27 :90–109. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.03.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmidt DA, Baran E, Thompson AD, Mishra P, Koehler MJ, Shin TS. Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2009; 42 (2):123–149. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman TM, Sanders M, Kwon H. Teaching in middle school technology education: A review of recent practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2010; 20 (4):367–379. doi: 10.1007/s10798-009-9090-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shulman L. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher. 1986; 15 (2):4–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015002004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spiteri M, Chang Rundgren SN. Literature review on the factors affecting primary teachers’ use of digital technology. Technology Knowledge & Learning. 2020; 25 (1):115–128. doi: 10.1007/s10758-018-9376-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Starkey L. A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Cambridge Journal of Education. 2020; 50 (1):37–56. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2019.1625867. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tienken C, Starr JP. Cracking the code of education reform: Creative compliance and ethical leadership. Corwin; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tolo, A., Chan, J., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2018). A systematic review on teachers’ implementation of technology-enhanced formative assessment: Insights and implications. AERA Online Paper Repository . 10.302/1301578
• Tondeur J, van Braak J, Ertmer PA, Ottenbreit-Leftwich A. Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research & Development. 2017; 65 (3):555–575. doi: 10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tondeur J, van Braak J, Sang G, Voogt J, Fisser P, Ottenbreit-Leftwich A. Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education. 2012; 59 (1):134–144. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tseng JJ, Chai CS, Tan L, Park M. A critical review of research on technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in language teaching. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2020 doi: 10.1080/09588221.2020.1868531. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van den Beemt A, Thurlings M, Willems M. Towards an understanding of social media use in the classroom: A literature review. Technology Pedagogy & Education. 2020; 29 (1):35–55. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2019.1695657. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Voogt J, Fisser P, Pareja Roblin N, Tondeur J, van Braak J. Technological pedagogical content knowledge—A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2013; 29 (2):109–121. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang W, Schmidt-Crawford D, Jin Y. Preservice teachers’ TPACK development: A review of literature. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. 2018; 34 (4):234–258. doi: 10.1080/21532974.2018.1498039. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Willermark S. Technological pedagogical and content knowledge: A review of empirical studies published from 2011 to 2016. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2018; 56 (3):315–343. doi: 10.1177/0735633117713114. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson ML, Ritzhaupt AD, Cheng L. The impact of teacher education courses for technology integration on pre-service teacher knowledge: A meta-analysis study. Computers & Education. 2020; 156 :103941. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103941. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wohlfart O, Trumler T, Wagner I. The unique effects of Covid-19—A qualitative study of the factors that influence teachers’ acceptance and usage of digital tools. Education & Information Technologies. 2021; 26 :7359–7379. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10574-4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Globalization, digital technology, and teacher education in the united states.

• Jared Keengwe Jared Keengwe University of North Dakota
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.366
• Published online: 24 October 2018

Generally, as a result of the need for many schools to compete on a global level, the use of digital technologies has increased in teacher education programs as well as in U.S. public schools. The dynamics of globalization and digital technologies also continue to influence teacher preparation programs, with multiple implications for educational policies and practices in U.S. public schools. Rapidly emerging developments in technologies and the digital nature of 21st-century learning environments have shaped and transformed the ways learners access, process, and interpret both the general pedagogical content knowledge and discipline-specific content in teaching and learning. Ultimately, the roles of students and teachers in digital learning environments must change to adapt to the dynamic global marketplace. In practice, these changes reiterate the need for teacher educators to prepare skilled teachers who are able to provide social and academic opportunities for building a bridge from a monocultural pedagogical framework to a globally competent learning framework, which is critical to addressing the realities of 21st-century classroom experiences. Specifically, there is a need to equip teacher candidates with cultural competency and digital skills to effectively prepare learners for a digital and global workplace. The lack of cultural competency skills, knowledge, attitudes, and dispositions implies potential social and academic challenges that include xenophobia, hegemony, and classroom management issues. The development of 21st-century learning skills is also central to the preparation of digital and global citizens. The 21st-century globalization skills include communication skills, technological literacy and fluency, negotiations skills, knowledge on geography, cultural and social competency, and multiculturalism. To be relevant in the era of globalization, teacher education programs should take the lead on providing learners with knowledge that promotes global awareness and the 21st-century learning skills required to become responsible global and digital citizens.

• competency skills
• digital citizenship
• digital technologies
• globalization
• global citizens
• global competencies
• global teachers
• 21st-century learning skills
• teacher education

Introduction

Globalization is “the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa” (Burbules & Torres, 2000 , p. 29). Globalization impacts education policy development and trends around the world. In particular, teacher education programs have a pivotal role to play in preparing learners to acquire 21st-century skills that will enable them to function in a digital and global society. This is critical as education plays a significant role in responding to, promoting, and enhancing globalization.

To be able to prepare graduates to succeed in a global world requires teacher educators to develop knowledge and understanding of similarities and differences between cultures. As classrooms in U.S. public schools continue to grow more diverse, it is necessary for the teaching force not only to make pedagogical adjustments but also to understand and explore strategies to work with diverse groups of culture, religion, ethnicity, and language that these learners represent in the classroom. Establishing sound pedagogy rooted in cultural understanding of the learners is also critical given that racial, cultural, and linguistic integration has the potential to increase academic success for all learners (Smith, 2004 ).

Teachers have a significant role in preparing learners to live in a society that encourages and values personal and cultural differences. To achieve this role, teachers need to be aware of their own biases, strive to learn about students’ cultural backgrounds, and find ways to bring students’ backgrounds into the classroom. Further, they need to find ways to create a link between home and school, and set high expectations for all students. The central argument here is that teacher educators should strive to manage the challenges and maximize the opportunities for globalization though the integration of culturally relevant pedagogy that is innovative and learner-centered. Additionally, a balanced coexistence between globalization and teacher education involves deliberate efforts among stakeholders to enhance and promote global awareness and digital citizenship in schools.

Generally, as a result of the need for many schools to compete on a global level, the use of digital technologies and applications has increased in teacher education and public schools. The dynamics of globalization and digital technologies also continue to influence teacher preparation programs with multiple implications for educational policies and practices in U.S. public schools. Rapidly emerging developments in technologies and the digital nature of 21st-century learning environments have shaped and transformed the ways learners access, process, and interpret the general and discipline-specific pedagogical content in teaching and learning. Ultimately, the roles of students and teachers in digital learning environments must change to adapt to the dynamic global marketplace. In practice, these changes reiterate the need to prepare global teachers who can effectively prepare digital learners to live and work globally—global citizens.

As U.S. public education continues to evolve, favoring transformative digital content and more learner-centered pedagogies, teacher educators need to focus not only on best practices and innovative pedagogies to engage digital learners but also on the acquisition of global and cultural competencies that positively affect and improve student learning. Instructors have a responsibility to provide positive and safe learning environments that meet the needs of culturally diverse learners. They also need to use digital and interactive media to empower and support 21st-century learners to collaborate with others and become engaged as global citizens. Considine, Horton, and Moorman ( 2009 ) suggest that teachers should “help all students to analyze and evaluate each media message for text, context, and impact to produce more knowledgeable, creative, and cooperative citizens for the Global Village” (p. 10).

Effects of Globalization on Teacher Education

The development of the teaching profession is tied to the process of translating global trends to teacher preparation (Kim, 2007 ). Globalization impacts our lives, including the world economies, societies, people, cultures, and education (Frost, 2011 ; Pineau, 2008 ). In response to the need for teachers to prepare learners for a global economy (García, Arias, Murri, & Serna, 2010 ), it is imperative for teachers to cultivate and enhance the intercultural competence, digital competence, global awareness, and digital citizenship that are critical for graduates to live and work in a globalized and multicultural 21st-century economy. Teacher education programs should help teachers develop the ability to initiate changes in their culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms using critical personal and professional knowledge alongside the knowledge gained from their students (Ball, 2009 ). Teacher education programs also need to align teacher candidates’ teaching and learning experiences with their students’ backgrounds, schools, communities, and families (García et al., 2010 ).

To provide a competitive advantage in the 21st-century workplace, teacher education programs must prepare graduates to have the right knowledge, skills, and values to transfer to learners, including the teaching of science, mathematics, and technological literacy; multilingual oral, reading, and communication competence; and the ability to understand different cultures and use such understandings to work with different individuals (Longview Foundation, 2008 ). The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards (International Society for Technology Education, 2017 ) formerly known as the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS), provide benchmarks for the use of technology in teaching and learning. The revised seven ISTE standards for students include:

Empowered Learner : As “empowered learners” students leverage technology to take an active role in choosing, achieving, and demonstrating competency in their learning goals, informed by the learning sciences.

Digital Citizen : As “digital citizens” students recognize the rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of living, learning, and working in an interconnected digital world, and they act and model in ways that are safe, legal, and ethical.

Knowledge Constructor : As “knowledge constructors” students critically curate a variety of resources using digital tools to construct knowledge, produce creative artifacts, and make meaningful learning experiences for themselves and others.

Innovative Designer : As “innovative designers” students use a variety of technologies within a design process to identify and solve problems by creating new, useful, or imaginative solutions.

Computational Thinker : As “computational thinkers” students develop and employ strategies for understanding and solving problems in ways that leverage the power of technological methods to develop and test solutions.

Creative Communicator : As “creative communicators,” students communicate clearly and express themselves creatively for a variety of purposes using the platforms, tools, styles, formats, and digital media appropriate to their goals.

Global Collaborator : As “global collaborators” students use digital tools to broaden their perspectives and enrich their learning by collaborating with others and working effectively in teams locally and globally, (International Society for Technology Education, 2017 )

Townsend ( 2011 ) suggests some implications at the policy level for school and classroom practice and consequently for the training of both teachers and school leaders. He advocates for the need to change classroom practice in the directions of “thinking globally,” “acting locally,” and “thinking and acting both locally and globally.” For example, thinking globally means, for curriculum, “Recognition that in the international market, students need to have high levels of education in order to be successfully employed”; and for assessment, “Recognition that being internationally competitive involves understanding how well students are learning in comparison to others, both locally and globally” (p. 122).

Diversity in U.S. Public Schools

The population demographic in American public schools is constantly changing. The number of immigrants, for instance, has increased, contributing to the growth of the resident population of the United States and the nation’s student diversity. However, preservice teachers report lacking adequate sociocultural knowledge and competence to work with students from diverse backgrounds, and it is challenging for them to obtain comprehensive support and training from teacher preparation programs prior to their student practices (Morales, 2016 ). Therefore, “a diverse learning community in teacher education programs is critical to our ability to prepare teachers for diverse schools” (Zeichner, 2010 , p. 19). In addition, teachers need appropriate dispositions to become culturally responsive educators (Villegas & Lucas, 2002 ).

The 2015–2016 survey by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) estimates that about 77% of public school teachers are female—up slightly from 76% in 2012 . In elementary schools, nearly nine in 10 teachers are female (NCES, 2017 ). There has been remarkable progress in terms of preparing teacher candidates for the diversity they will encounter in their future classrooms (Liggett & Finley, 2009 ). However, many schools still remain separate and unequal (Cook, 2015 ). Further, the elementary and secondary school teacher workforce is still not as racially diverse as the population at large or the students.

The United States is home to immigrant learners from across the globe, many of whom speak a language other than English. Most of the immigrant learners are English language learners (ELLs). ELLs represent the fastest growing subgroup of students in America’s public school classrooms, with current projections that by the year 2025 , one in four students in mainstream classrooms will be classified as an ELL (Ferlazzo & Sypnieski, 2012 ). The number of ELL students also increased by 60% in the last decade, as compared with 7% growth among the general student population (Grantmakers for Education, 2013 ). While some ELL students are immigrants and refugees, 85% of pre-kindergarten to fifth grade ELL students and 62% of sixth to 12th grade ELL students were born in the United States (Zong & Batalova, 2015 ).

The continued growth of the ELL student population will require teacher preparation programs to equip teachers with the cross-cultural knowledge and skills needed to address this group of students (DelliCarpini, 2008 ). Teacher education programs need to identify and implement effective strategies to support and engage ELL students, such as creating positive and inclusive learning environments. Public schools, on their part, should focus on ways to deliver high-quality instruction as well as foster a positive climate that enhances the potential of ELL students to successfully attain language proficiency and high academic achievement while valuing their native languages and cultural backgrounds. Although multiple studies have acknowledged the rapid increase of ELLs in U.S. public school classrooms, “teacher education and professional development has not yet caught up with the demographic shift” (Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy, 2008 , p. 10).

Some programs, such as bilingual projects, have demonstrated that student learning can improve remarkably when students are not required to renounce their cultural heritage (Nieto & Bode, 2012 ). As a result, ELL teachers should strive to create classroom environments where all students (including ELLs) feel valued and safe to engage in learning and developing their communication skills. This requires an increased awareness and understanding of the diversity and unique needs of all learners and best practices for differentiating instruction to target the unique needs of individual learners. However, due to lack of funding from U.S. states to sustain the few programs that support diversity (Nieto & Bode, 2012 ), effective instruction that is focused on the unique identities of every learner still remains a big challenge in many public schools.

The majority of U.S. public school teachers report a lack of confidence to adequately meet the needs of diverse classrooms (Hollins & Torres-Guzman, 2005 ), especially those with backgrounds different from that of the teachers (Helfrich & Bean, 2011 ). Although diversity is an important element in public education, many teacher education programs continue to teach as if diversity were either nonexistent or a problem to be overcome (Beykont, 2002 ). Additionally, many public school teachers struggle to teach students with backgrounds different from their own (Sadker & Zittleman, 2013 ). Thus, when teachers ignore or reject different cultural expressions of development that are normal and adequate and on which school skills and knowledge can be built, conflicts can occur that may lead to student failure (Nieto & Bode, 2012 ).

A teacher’s understanding of the cultural context of children’s behavior and the explicit teaching of classroom rules such as respect for other cultures and people allows a child who is culturally diverse a successful transition from home to school culture. In practice, teachers should go beyond the cultural mismatch theory (Sowers, 2004 ) to ensure high expectations for all learners as well as ensure that those expectations are realized. Teachers from less diverse backgrounds should also acknowledge that they have their own racial background that affects their perspective of the learning process (Burt et al., 2009 ). To ensure that teachers have an appropriate understanding of their children:

Teacher training should include training in different minority studies so that teachers of European ancestry would be less likely to misinterpret behavior and be more likely to expect academic success from not only their white students but their culturally diverse students as well. (Burt et al., 2009 )

Teaching a culturally and linguistically diverse group of students requires a multifaceted approach; there is more than one approach to responding to cultural diversity in the classroom. Irrespective of the approach used, teachers should attempt to “even the playing field” so that the languages and cultures of individual students are perceived as equally valued and powerful. Gay ( 2002 ) explains, “There are several recurrent trends in how formal school curricula deal with ethnic diversity that culturally responsive teachers need to correct. Among them are avoiding controversial issues such as racism, historical atrocities, powerlessness, and hegemony” (p. 108).

Embracing cultural diversity means that all children have equal opportunities to learn in a safe and conducive environment (Keengwe, 2010 ). Further, for students to apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that foster cross-cultural competence, it is imperative for teachers to model the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of culturally competent professionals. As the nation’s population becomes more culturally diverse, public schools should reflect that diversity and prepare students to live and work in a global society by creating and supporting learning environments where all students understand and value cultural differences. In the context of globalization, cutting-edge public schools are those that embrace cultural diversity and incorporate pedagogical practices that view diversity as an asset in all the processes of teaching and learning.

Global Competencies and Citizenship

Cultural competence is defined as the ability to successfully approach and educate students who come from diverse backgrounds, and it is associated with the development of personal and interpersonal awareness and sensitivity, knowledge of sociocultural appreciation, and skills that underline intercultural teaching and learning (Moule, 2011 ). To enhance quality teaching in diverse learning environments, teacher candidates need to possess cultural competence and strong skills to understand responsive pedagogies, and integrate sociocultural awareness into their practices (Milner, 2013 ; Sleeter & Milner, 2011 ). Culturally responsive teaching is recommended when dealing with controversial concepts and integrates curriculum with diverse ethnic groups while also discussing issues of race, class, ethnicity, and gender from multiple perspectives (Gay, 2002 ). There is strong evidence of “instructional techniques that increase both the academic and human relations benefits of interracial schooling” (Orfield, 2001 , p. 9).

To better prepare 21st-century teachers, teacher education programs need to model teacher educator global competencies. A globally competent teacher is one who possesses the competencies, attitudes, and habits of mind necessary for successful cross-cultural engagement at home and abroad (Global Teacher Education, 2013 ). Further, globally competent teachers demonstrate the following characteristics and guide their students to do the same: (a) investigate the world beyond their immediate environment, framing significant problems and conducting well-crafted and age-appropriate research; (b) recognize perspectives, others’ and their own, articulating and explaining such perspectives thoughtfully and respectfully; (c) communicate ideas effectively with diverse audiences, bridging geographic, linguistic, ideological, and cultural barriers; and (d) take action to improve conditions, viewing themselves as players in the world and participating reflectively.

The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) also describes global competencies as a set of dispositions, knowledge, and skills needed to live and work in a global society. These competencies include attitudes that embrace an openness, respect, and appreciation for diversity, valuing of multiple perspectives, empathy, and social responsibility; knowledge of global issues and current events, global interdependence, world history, culture, and geography; and the ability to communicate across cultural and linguistic boundaries, collaborate with people from diverse backgrounds, think critically and analytically, problem-solve, and take action on issues of global importance.

Scott, Sheridan, and Clark ( 2014 ) developed a pedagogical framework that incorporates global competencies and may increase achievement of students from marginalized groups. The framework, known as Culturally Responsive Computing (CRC), consists of five tenets, based on examples from their prior professional experiences: (a) all students are capable of digital innovation; (b) the learning context supports transformational use of technology; (c) learning about oneself along various intersecting sociocultural lines allows for technical innovation; (d) technology should be a vehicle by which students reflect and demonstrate understanding of their intersectional identities; and (e) barometers for technological success should consider who creates, for whom, and to what ends rather than who endures a socially and culturally irrelevant curriculum (pp. 9–10).

The framework is also intended to bridge the digital divide and promote globalization in teacher education. Based on their framework, they recommend researchers “construct new methods for determining more nuanced outcomes,” suggest the study of diverse groups with a multi-intersectionality approach, and “encourage practitioners to revise curriculum in more culturally responsive ways.” They envisage a transdisciplinary team of “community leaders, computer scientists, social justice activists, and culturally responsive teachers” (pp. 19, 20).

Berdan and Berdan ( 2013 ) suggest a variety of activities for teachers to promote a global classroom: (a) encourage creative representations of the world; (b) avoid stereotypes when selecting international images; (c) create games using maps and globes; (d) play music from a variety of cultures and take time to reflect on and discuss it; (e) create a global bookshelf, including books written in other languages, to show how books are physically read in other countries; (f) post and refer to the alphabets of other world languages; (g) introduce world languages through online sources, such as the one used by the Peace Corps; (h) incorporate toys/items from around the world in teaching both a subject and cultural similarities and differences; and (i) post and frequently use a variety of maps.

Integrating various components of global education into teacher education programs would also enhance understanding of global competencies. Merryfield et al. ( 2008 ) identify five components of effective global education programs: knowledge of global interconnectedness; inquiry into global issues; skills in perspective consciousness; open-mindedness; and cross-cultural experiences.

Knowledge of global interconnectedness : A major focus of global education is to help students learn about how they are connected to world events and activities. Global education helps them understand how decisions made by actors in other nations affect their local communities, and how their decisions, in turn, can have effects around the world.

Inquiry into global issues : Teachers integrate global issues into mandated course content by asking issue-centered questions on topics including global warming, weapons of mass destruction, global health and HIV/AIDS, terrorism, human rights, poverty and development, and more. Although some of these issues may be controversial, they affect people across the world and therefore serve as excellent topics for promoting global perspectives.

Skills in perspective consciousness : Helping students understand that they have views of the world that are not universally shared, and that others may have extremely different worldviews, is another essential component of global education and raises students’ perspective consciousness—“an appreciation of how one’s cultural beliefs, values and norms of behavior shape perception and interpretation of events or issues.”

Open-mindedness : Global education involves the cultivation of respect for cultural differences and can help combat xenophobia and ethnocentrism by increasing exposure to differing cultures, particularly through visuals and cooperative learning activities. In turn, this allows students to recognize and combat bias, stereotypes, and misinformation.

Cross-cultural experiences : Cross-cultural experiences put students in direct contact with different cultures, peoples, and customs. Presentations, foreign language education, study abroad trips, collaborative projects, videos, and images are some of the ways that students increase their cultural awareness and cross-cultural collaboration.

Saavedra and Opfer ( 2012 , p. 1) suggest nine principles for teaching the 21st-century skills and competencies needed to help students navigate the complex social, academic, and economic workforce, including:

Make learning relevant to the “big picture” : Making learning relevant to students’ lives fosters motivation that leads to increased learning.

Teach through the disciplines : Learning through disciplines entails learning not only the knowledge of the discipline but also the skills associated with the production of knowledge within the discipline that incorporates the use of multiple 21st-century skills and leads to increased student learning.

Develop lower- and higher-order thinking skills to encourage understanding in different contexts : Fostering both lower- and higher-order thinking skills is an important educational goal that leads to increased student learning.

Encourage transfer of learning : Students need to apply the skills and knowledge they gain in one discipline to another as well as apply what they learn in school to other areas of their lives, which leads to increased learning.

Teach how to “learn to learn” or metacognition : Helping students to acquire skills, attitudes, and dispositions for the 21st century requires teaching them how to learn on their own, specifically helping them to develop metacognitive skills, positive mental models about how they learn, the limits of such learning, and indications of failure.

Address misunderstandings directly : To overcome misconceptions, learners need to actively construct new understandings. In addition, topics must be taught deeply in order to give students time and space to familiarize themselves with ideas that contradict their intuitive misconceptions.

Promote teamwork : Teamwork helps students to collaborate and learn from their peers as well as challenge their own understandings that promote learning.

Exploit technology to support learning : Technology holds great promise for education and has the potential to help students to develop higher-order thinking skills, collaborate with peers, and foster new understanding that leads to increased learning.

Foster students’ creativity : Teaching concepts that are relevant to students’ lives motivates them to learn and use their newfound knowledge and understanding creatively. Motivation fosters creativity that leads to increased learning.

Digital Citizenship

Digital citizenship refers to the norms of appropriate, responsible technology use. Twenty-first-century learners are exposed to digital technology in many aspects of their day-to-day existence, which has a profound impact on their dispositions, including their attitudes and approach to learning. Generally, digital natives are more adaptable and quicker to adapt to emerging technologies—the tools are part of their lifestyles. As a result of their upbringing and experiences with technology, digital natives have particular learning preferences or styles that differ from earlier generations of students (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008 ). This generation of students in the United States is the most racially and ethnically diverse group in history, and they are “fully accepting of diversity and typically do not perceive the same divides as earlier generations. In general, they are extremely independent, due to a combination of day care, single parenting, divorced, and working parents” (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008 , p. 1).

As technology advances, educators need to recognize the changing learning patterns of their learners and the potential of digital technology to improve the dynamics of learning (Solis, 2014 ). The digital natives, for instance, prefer quick results and find that it is easier to learn by using various search engines at their disposal rather than a dictionary. Teachers should encourage this “hands on” approach, also called constructivism. The constructivist pedagogy is founded on the premise of creating knowledge in learning environments supported by active learning, reflective learning, creation of authentic tasks, contextual learning, and collaborative learning (Novak, 1998 ). In the constructivist classroom, the focus tends to shift from the teacher to the students. In the constructivist model, the students are urged to be actively involved in their own process of learning.

Bringing constructivism into the classroom means that instructors will have to embrace a new way of thinking about how digital natives learn. Constructivist teachers view learning as an active, group-oriented process in which learners construct an understanding of knowledge that could be used in problem-solving situations. As guides, constructivist teachers incorporate mediation, modeling, and coaching while providing rich environments and experiences for collaborative learning (Sharp, 2006 ). Constructivist teachers ask questions, oversee activities, and mediate class discussions; they also use scaffolding, which involves asking questions and providing clues linking previous knowledge to the new experience (Sadker, Sadker, & Zittleman, 2008 ).

Digital technologies offer many potential ways to foster global awareness in the classroom. Through infusion of both global education and technology in social studies teaching and learning, teachers can foster students’ understandings of the interrelationships of peoples worldwide, thereby preparing students to participate meaningfully as global citizens (Crawford & Karby, 2008 ). Cultural competence and foreign languages could also be learned through cultural virtual field trips (Ntuli & Nyarambi, 2015 ). However, technology is not a substitute for good instruction. Instructors who are successful in teaching, such as constructivist-oriented teachers, “will be more likely to help their students learn with technology if the teachers can draw on their own experiences in learning with technology” (p. 4).

Applications such as Google Docs and Padlet allow users to collaborate on documents well beyond the confines of the classroom and the school schedule. Digital technology offers opportunities for students to use their creativity to show what they know. Applications such as Skype and Google Hangouts allow students to connect with their peers across the globe. Although instructors play a significant role when teaching with technology, the primary concern in technology integration is for teachers to go beyond technical competence to provide students with pedagogical uses and critically analyze their effective use in various contexts (Bush, 2003 ). Specifically, instructors must place their technical competence within broad educational goals or desired pedagogical frameworks. Bush argues that critical instructional technologies should be considered when considering infusing technology into the classroom that include increasing students’ knowledge of the subject concepts and pedagogy, creating opportunities for professional and pedagogical practice, and developing critical strategies to support students in their professional practice and in the use of educational digital technologies.

A digital passport is an excellent way to engage students and teach them about digital citizenship. Digital passports are an interactive and engaging way to teach and test the basics of digital safety, etiquette, and citizenship especially in upper elementary grades. Teachers can create and add student groups to assign, monitor, and customize assignments for students. Students learn foundational skills from online games and videos, while deepening their learning through collaborative offline activities. The digital passport “uses video and games to teach students about cyberbullying, privacy, safety and security, responsible cell phone use, and copyright. Students earn badges for successfully completing each phase of the Digital Passport program” (Common Sense Media, 2013–2016 ).

Teacher education programs should strive to provide training on digital information literacy, for instance, the consumption of “fake news” by teachers and students who have limited digital information literacy skills. Students should be guided to acquire skills and improve on their ability to locate, evaluate, and use information from online sources. Harris ( 2000 ) observes that technology will be a significant tool to redesign learning in the 21st century . However, educators will need to experience a paradigm shift in their vision for technology in education. Further, they need to change their beliefs in learning processes. Harris ( 2000 ) acknowledges that “the tremendous technology potential will only be realized if we can create a new vision of how technology will change the way we define teaching and how we believe learning can take place” (p. 1).

There are multiple considerations and implications of globalization on teacher education. First, teachers should strive to prepare students to live and work in a global society. Second, it should be noted that 21st-century teacher candidates are no longer just competing for career opportunities locally but globally—they face a global job market. Thus, the graduates will need to possess the right skills and adequate knowledge required in the global workforce. Additionally, diversity in the workplace as a result of the global job market implies that education should be grounded in the understanding and appreciation of cultural diversity and differences. Specifically, having cross-cultural communication skills has become essential for all workers and professionals in the global workforce. The teaching of these essential global workforce skills must be integrated in the curriculum.

The fact that most U.S. public schools do not offer foreign language instruction until high school suggests that many students may not be prepared to compete and lead in a competitive global workplace. Even so, helping students to acquire the global competencies needed in the 21st-century workplace will offer them an economic and intellectual advantage. In other words, a global mindset is a major competitive advantage for young adults entering the 21st-century workforce. As global citizens, students will adopt a global view in their thinking about the world as well as strive to develop a sense of global citizenship that helps them to relate better with others, understand global issues, respect and affirm cultural diversity, and be responsible members of the global society.

Globalization presents both promise and challenges for educators. For instance, globalization provides opportunities for students to learn about different experiences, languages, and cultures for life in the 21st century and global society. On the other hand, the challenges include academic achievement inequities between students of diverse backgrounds; racial segregation in public schools; gender inequalities and sex discrimination; educating students with disabilities; and digital inequities based on class or income. Consequently, it is imperative for teachers to develop cultural and global competencies to improve the academic achievement of their students as well as to prepare their learners to become global citizens.

Using technology to teach preservice teachers about technology adds a useful dimension to a practical approach that is theoretically based (Clifford, Friesen, & Lock, 2004 ). Further, thinking about teaching and instruction focuses on meeting the specific needs of learners, allowing teacher educators to progress from a singular perspective to a multifaceted perspective in teaching with technology. As a result, preservice teachers must focus on developing thought processes about student learning that will enable them to think through the integration process of various technology tools available to them in the classroom.

Teachers must also develop a pedagogical model that potentially creates a stronger link between theory and practice (Kelly, 2003 ). If used appropriately, technology tools have great potential to enhance classroom instruction (Keengwe, 2007 ). Further, the power of digital technology to support learning is not so much in the technology, as in what teachers do with the available technologies. Oblinger ( 2012 ) labels information technology and effective learning experiences as a game changer. There is a synergy behind these two truths; digital technologies bring together convenient and collaborative tools to engage students in authentic, quality learning experiences that are critical in 21st-century learning environments.

Twenty-first-century learners are different from the ones the current educational system was designed to teach. To respond to globalization and to provide for digital learners, educators will have to tap the strengths offered by emerging technologies such as mobile learning platforms—portability, context sensitivity, connectivity, and ubiquity—in order prepare graduates to meet the demands of a global workplace. A seamless integration of digital technologies into teacher education has the potential to improve and support the achievement of diverse learners. As teachers become knowledgable and more comfortable in the use of innovative digital technologies, it is hoped that their pedagogical practices will also improve, and that the integration of digital technology and cultural diversity into classroom instruction will become an integral part of all their school curricula.

Recommendations

Globalization brings multiple challenges and opportunities. To enhance global awareness of how to deal with the negative and positive effects of globalization requires innovative teacher education that prepares students to become global citizens. Innovative teacher education programs integrate the mastery of the subject matter and the acquisition of appropriate pedagogical skills and knowledge to train teacher candidates to effectively prepare graduates for the 21st-century workforce. For instance, the focus on integrating digital technologies into social studies learning offers the potential to promote cross-cultural understandings and awareness in areas such as equity, diversity, and discrimination among both students and teachers (Merryfield, 2000 ). Additionally, early exposure to different languages and cultures prepares young individuals for the dynamic workplace (Berdan & Berdan, 2013 ).

Digital literacy is no longer a luxury (Hicks & Turner, 2013 ), and therefore teacher education programs need to incorporate relevant digital technology tools and applications and provide digital literacy to all students to close the digital divide and promote the global digital equity that is necessary to become global digital citizens. Training in the use and integration of technology in teacher education programs (Kazakoff & Bers, 2012 ; Vu & Fadde, 2014 ) is also recommended. Additionally, transforming teacher education and literacy objectives using performance assessments can help bridge the digital divide (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010 ). The assumption here is that with proper preparation and support, teachers will find more success early in their careers and be more able to cope with the technological and pedagogical skills that are necessary to enhance effective teaching and learning in 21st-century classrooms.

Due to the influence of globalization in education, U.S. public school teachers need a broad repertoire of pedagogical strategies to grapple with the challenges they face in diverse 21st-century classrooms. Teacher educators need to be knowledgable about economics, so the traditional teacher education courses will have to be revised to incorporate aspects of economics and finance in the curriculum. It will be important for them to pass this knowledge to their future students in the era of globalization. Globalization implies the need to improve the quality of teacher education through the creation of educational standards and benchmarks that incorporate global education (global issues and cultures).

It is recommended that teacher education programs also explore ways to promote and enhance the teacher education community through global education collaborations and cross-cultural projects that incorporate international standards and benchmarks. Additionally, curricula for teacher education programs need to be reconstructed according to the changing aspects and needs of the global society.

It is recommended that public schools be encouraged to develop school learning and teaching plans to increase their capacity to: manage use of social media tools for learning and teaching; support students’ learning of 21st-century skills; support innovative student-centered pedagogical practices that incorporate transformative digital content and learning technologies; and provide professional development opportunities for teachers in the access, use, and implementation of digital resources. The need to address the diversity of the teaching force is also a crucial and critical issue that requires different comprehensive strategies for addressing each educational, social, economic, cultural, and political aspect (Villegas & Irvine, 2010 ).

It is also recommended that teacher candidates receive appropriate training on diversity and culturally responsive pedagogical practices to enhance their experiences interacting with students from other cultures and to start thinking about effective strategies to teach culturally diverse learners. Misreading behaviors or communication patterns of culturally and linguistically diverse learners, for instance, could lead teachers who are unprepared to meet the educational needs of these students to see them as having an academic or behavioral disability (Voltz, Brazil, & Scott, 2003 ).

Finally, there is a need for instructors to assess the needs of 21st-century learners to enhance their learning. For instance, instructors will need to provide more flexibility in their curriculum as well as integrate digital media, online collaborations, and virtual learning communities into their teaching. Such approaches could result in an interactive and open-ended authentic type of learning that could benefit the learners and prepare them to be successful in the digital and global workplace.

• Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development . (2017). Globally Competent Learning Continuum .
• Ball, A. F. (2009). Toward a theory of generative change in culturally and linguistically complex classrooms. American Educational Research Journal , 46 (1), 45–72.
• Ballantyne, K. G. , Sanderman, A. R. , & Levy, J. (2008). Educating English language learners: Building teacher capacity (Roundtable Report). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs.
• 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.
• Berdan, S. N. , & Berdan, M. S. (2013). Raising global children: Ways parents can help our children grow up ready to succeed in a multicultural global economy . Alexandria, VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
• Beykont, A. (2002). The power of culture: Teaching across language difference . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing.
• Burbules, N. C. , & Torres, C. A. (2000): An introduction to globalization and education. In N. C. Burbules & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and education: Critical perspectives (pp. 1–26). London, U.K.: Routledge.
• Burt, J. L. , Ortlieb, E. T. , & Cheek Jr., E. H. (2009). An investigation of the impact of racially diverse teachers on the reading skills of fourth-grade students in a one race school. Reading Improvement , 46 (1), 35–45.
• Bush, J. (2003). Beyond technical competence: Technologies in English language arts teacher education (A Response to Pope and Golub) . Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education , 2 (4).
• Clifford, P. , Friesen, S. , & Lock, J. (2004). Coming to teach in the 21st century: A research study conducted by the Galileo network for Alberta Learning .
• Common Sense Media . (2013–2016). Digital Passports .
• Considine, D. , Horton, J. , & Moorman, G. (2009). Teaching and reading the millennial generation through media literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 52 (6), 471–481.
• Cook, L. (2015). U.S. education: Still separate and unequal. US News & World Report .
• Cradler, J. , Freeman, M. , Cradler, R. , & McNabb, M. (2002). Research implications for preparing teachers to use technology. Learning & Leading with Technology , 30 (1), 50–54.
• Crawford, E. O. & Karby, M. M. (2008). Fostering students’ global awareness: Technology applications in social studies teaching and learning. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction , 2 (1), 56–73.
• DelliCarpini, M. (2008). Success with ELLs: Working with English language learners: Looking back, moving forward. English Journal , 98 (1), 98–101.
• Ferlazzo, L. , & Sypnieski, K. H. (2012). The ESL/ELL teacher’s survival guide: Ready-to-use strategies, tools, and activities for teaching English language learners of all levels . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• Frost, R. A. (2011). One college, one world: A small town community college and the impact of globalization. Community College Journal of Research and Practice , 35 , 710–723.
• García, E. , Arias, M. B. , Murri, N. J. H. , & Serna, C. (2010). Developing responsive teachers: A challenge for a demographic reality. Journal of Teacher Education , 61 (1–2), 132–142.
• Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education , 53 (2), 106–116.
• Global Digital Citizen Foundation . (n.d.). Global Digital Citizen .
• Global Teacher Education . (2013). What is global competence? .
• Grabe, M. & Grabe, C. (2008). Integrating technology for meaningful learning (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
• Grantmakers for Education . (2013). Educating English language learners: Grantmaking strategies for closing America’s other achievement gap .
• Greiner, C. , & Smith, B. (2009). Analysis of selected specific variables and teacher attrition. Education , 129 (4), 579–583.
• Harris, P. (2000). Using technology to create a new paradigm for a learner-centered educational experience . Technos Quarterly , 9 (2).
• Helfrich, S. , & Bean, R. (2011). Beginning teachers reflect on their experiences being prepared to teach literacy. Teacher Education and Practice , 24 (2), 201–222.
• Hicks, T. , & Turner, K. H. (2013). No longer a luxury: Digital literacy can’t wait. English Journal , 102 (6), 58–65.
• Hollins. E. R. , & Torres-Guzman, M. A. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: A report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 477–548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• International Society for Technology Education (ISTE) . (2017). The National Educational Technology Standards for Students .
• Jonassen, D. H. , Peck, K. L. , & Wilson, B. G. (1999) Learning with technology: A constructive perspective . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Kazakoff, E. , & Bers, M. (2012). Programming in a robotics context in the kindergarten classroom: The impact on sequencing skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia , 21 (4), 371–391.
• Keengwe, J. (2007). Faculty integration of technology into instruction and students’ perceptions of computer technology to improve student learning. Journal of Information Technology Education , 6 , 169–180.
• Keengwe, J. (2010). Fostering cross cultural competence in preservice teachers through multicultural education experiences. Early Childhood Education Journal , 38 (3), 197–204.
• Kelly, A. E. (Ed.). (2003). Theme issue: The role of design in educational research. Educational Researcher , 32 (1).
• Kim, T. (2007). Old borrowings and new models of the university in East Asia. Globalization, Societies and Education , 5 (1), 39–52.
• Liggett, T. , & Finley, S. (2009). Upsetting the apple cart: Issues of diversity in preservice teacher education. Multicultural Education , 16 (4), 33–38.
• Longview Foundation . (2008). Preparation for the global age: The imperative for change . Silver Spring, MD: Author.
• Merryfield, M. M. (2000). Using electronic technologies to promote equity and cultural diversity in social studies and global education. Theory and Research in Social Education , 28 (4), 502–526.
• Merryfield, M. M. , Lo, J. T. , Po, S. C. , & Kasai, M. (2008). Worldmindedness: Taking off the blinders. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction , 2 (1), 6–20.
• Milner, H. R. (2013). A talk to teachers about Black male students. In M. C. Brown , T. E. Dancy , & J. E. Davis (Eds.), Educating African American males: Contexts for consideration, possibilities for practice (pp. 67–85). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Moule, J. (2011). Cultural competence: A primer for educators . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Morales, Y. A. (2016). Unveiling pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward teaching: The role of pedagogical practicums . Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development , 18 (2), 47–61.
• National Center for Education Statistics (2017). Documentation for the 2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey .
• Nieto, S. , & Bode, P. (2012). Affirming diversity: The sociopoligical context of multicultural education (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pierson.
• Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Ntuli, E. , & Nyarambi, A. (2015). Learning in a global context: Education diplomacy in primary grade content preparation. Childhood Education , 91 (2), 111–116.
• Oblinger, D. G. (2012). IT as a game changer. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Game Changers: Education and information technologies . EDUCAUSE.
• Orfield, G. (2001). Schools more separate: Consequences of a decade of resegregation .
• Pineau, P. (2008). Education and globalization: A Latin American perspective. History of Education , 37 (6), 743–755.
• Saavedra, A. , & Opfer, V. (2012). Teaching and learning 21st century skills: Lessons from the learning sciences .
• Sadker, D. M. , Sadker, M. P. , & Zittleman, K. R. (2008). Teachers, schools, and society (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Sadker, M. , & Zittleman, K. (2013). Teachers, schools, and society (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Scott, K. A. , Sheridan, K. M. , & Clark, K. (2014). Culturally responsive computing: A theory revisited . Learning, Media & Technology , 40 (4), 412–436.
• Sharp, V. (2006). Computer education for teachers: Integrating technology into classroom teaching (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Sleeter, C. E. , & Milner, H. R. (2011). Researching successful efforts in teacher education to diversify teachers. In A. F. Ball & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 81–103). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Smith, P. (2004). Speaking out on assessment of multicultural competences and outcomes: Some cautions . Keynote address, National Conference of Multicultural/Diversity Outcomes, April 2, Kansas City, Kansas.
• Solis, B. (2014). The future of learning is stuck in the past: Why education is less about technology and more about behavior .
• Sowers, J. (2004). Creating a community of learners: Solving the puzzle of classroom management . Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
• Townsend, T. (2011). Thinking and acting both locally and globally: New issues for teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching , 37 (2), 121–137.
• Villegas, A. M. , & Irvine, J. J. (2010). Diversifying the teaching force: An examination of major arguments. Urban Review , 42 , 175–192.
• Villegas, A. M. , & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education , 3 (1), 20–22.
• Voltz, D. , Brazil, N. , & Scott, R. (2003). Professional development for culturally responsive instruction: A promising practice for addressing the disproportionate representation of students of color in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education , 26 (1), 63–73.
• Vu, P. , & Fadde, P. (2014). A snapshot of technology integration training in teacher education programs. International Journal of Psychology , 14 (1), 139–150.
• Warschauer, M. , & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes . Review of Research in Education , 34 (1), 179–225.
• Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education , 61 (1–2), 89–99.
• Zong, J. , & Batalova, J. (2015). The limited English proficient population in the United States . Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Related Articles

• Digital Literacies in Early Childhood
• Teachers’ Knowledge for the Digital Age
• Social Media and School Leadership Efficiency
• Using Technology to Prepare 21st-Century Educators

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 12 September 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [81.177.182.159]
• 81.177.182.159

Character limit 500 /500