2.1 case study student technology

2.1 Case Study 2022

• Information Systems

Case Study: Student Technology in School Improvement | Analyzing

• Information Systems

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Effect of Digital Device Usage on Student Academic Performance: A Case Study

Citation: Limniou, M.(2021) The Effect of Digital Device Usage on Student Academic Performance: A Case Study. Education Sciences, 11 (3). 121 - 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030121

Related Papers

Jerome Deiparine

For the gain of mankind, technology has always seem to grow and flourished. The countless achievements of technology have left everyone in every part of the world today enjoying the comforts and easiness provided by technology.

Dr. Ghulam Murtaza Rafique

This study aims to determine the impact of using personal digital devices (PDDs) on university students’ academic performance. A survey-based questionnaire was developed and used to collect data from 240 Masters students of final semester (16-years of education) enrolled in the Faculty of Economics and Management Sciences, University of the Punjab, Lahore selected by proportional stratified sampling technique. The study concluded that the smart phones, mobile phones, laptops were frequently used PDDs by the students for the academic purposes. Students used PDDs for using social networks like Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, etc. in order to stay in touch with their classmates regarding their academic needs. It was found that using PDDs helped them improve their English language skills and PDDs also helped in their learning process hence improving their classroom performance. However, the use of PDDs also would divert students’ attention in classroom. The use of PDDs facilitated students...

John Lester Lloyd Valenzuela

Topic: This paper discusses about the Technology Use and its positive effects to Academic Performance of College Students. It will overlook the aids in terms of using Technology and its effects to Academic Performance of College Students. This paper will provide an action which can be used to know and learn the effects of Technology Use. With the formulated plan of action, the benefits will be maximized. This will be helpful for the readers on how to take an action and solve the involved problem Introduction:

International Online Journal of Education and Teaching

Kıvanç Bozkuş

This research aims to find how the infrastructure of digital devices within the school and teachers’ capacity using digital devices affect student achievement defined as PISA 2018 reading, math, and science scores. The ex post facto co-relational causal research design was employed. The data were obtained from the school questionnaire administered to school principals who participated in PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) 2018. A scale was developed from the PISA 2018 data available on OECD PISA website. To correlate factor means with PISA 2018 scores, a matrix was constructed by the researcher. To predict PISA 2018 scores with factor means, linear regression analyses were done. The results showed that the infrastructure of digital devices within the school affected PISA 2018 reading, math and science scores more than teachers’ capacity using digital devices. It was also revealed that there was a strong relationship between the infrastructure of digital devices within the school and teachers’ capacity using digital devices, and developing the infrastructure of digital technologies could provide practical benefits for students.

Tridha Scholars Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Thandar Soe Sumaiyah Jamaludin

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Analysis

mildred lozano

Technology has always flourished for the gain of mankind. Broadly speaking, all cellular phones, laptops and computers belong to technological devices. Thus, students used these devices for learning. This quantitative inquiry investigated the use of technological devices of students and its relationship to their academic performance. Hence, a researcher-made questionnaire was utilized to answer the descriptive and inferential questions. It was found out that there is no significant difference between the use of technological devices and the academic performance of students. But there was a significant relationship found between the two variables. A recommendation on the use of both traditional method and use of technological devices was made to augment and improve the learning needs of the students.

Dondie Labajo

Technological advancements in 21st century are obvious like the advent of smartphones that are considered "mini-computers," where most of the 21st century learners are most exposed to. This study is about smartphones on the academic performance of Grade 12 students of Cansojong National High School. Intensive literature review was done and found out various findings, both advantages and disadvantages brought by smartphones in academic field. A total of 20 students having smartphones were surveyed regarding on how they use their smartphones and how long do they use it and how does it impact to their academic performance. Data collected after survey was computed manually and then percentage analysis was done to find the factors that affect academic performance. Findings showed that 100% of the respondents have access to smartphones be it personal, parents or friends. Then, 85% use their smartphones for Social Networking Sites like Facebook and 50% spend 1-3 hours using smartphones per day for about more than a year. Consequently, 40% of them got a grade 85-89 while 30% got grade above 90 and the rest got 84 below. Furthermore, it showed that smartphones positively impacted students’ academic performance as shown on their high final General Percentage Average (GPA).

Douglas Duncan

A recent increase in contemporary students’ use of digital devices (e.g., laptops, iPads, smart phones) has generated concern by faculty and staff about how technologies may affect student performance. This study, a multi-year project by an interdisciplinary research team, presents the first quantitative evidence of how students’ in-class use of digital devices affects learning. Specifically, the research focuses on the nexus between technologies designed to engage (e.g., clickers) and others that can result in disengagement (e.g., cell phones). Should we be asking students and colleagues to turn off their phones?

Md. Moyazzem Hossain

As cell phone technology continues its rapid development, the device appears capable of contributing to student learning and improved academic performance. The recent rapid increase in cell phones has influenced multiple aspects of our daily lives, particularly those of Students. Therefore, the aims of the current study is to determine the influence of the mobile phone usage on academic performance among male and female students of Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh. A face to face survey was conducted among 274 students which include 159 male students and 115 female students ranging from second year to fourth year from different departments of Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh. Results depicts that gender, age and relationship with opposite sex have the significant positive effect on students’ academic performance. However, marital status, spending time on mobile phone, negative effect of mobile phone and application usage while studying has the negative effect on students’ ac...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Mujeeb O L A N R E W A J U Akinwale

Elmee Eurekka Villas

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal

Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology

Ng Siew Foen (Phd)

Julie Joy Lacificar

Robin Okuthe

Sadri Alija

Fazeenah Hameed

Gervas Mgaya

Mark Salvation

New Media & Society

Sunčica Vujić

Utamax : Journal of Ultimate Research and Trends in Education

Jayson A . Dela Fuente

International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM)

Hani Ramadhan

Journal of Computers in Education

Lawrence Aziale

International Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2019, 6(2):54-62

Mamunor Rashid , Belal Hossain

IJLHSS Journal

Francisco Luis Fernández Soriano

Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research

Beatriz Peña Acuña

Pia Daisery Damalerio

Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal

Psychology and Education , Tracey Gayle V. Palma , Kristine Jade F. Lopez

Eduardo Edu C . Cornillez Jr. , Jessie Richie De los Santos , Vicente D. Carillo, Jr

International Journal of Computational Intelligence in Control

Muhammad Irfan

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Advertisement

Emerging Digital Practices Supporting Student-Centered Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Review of Literature and Lessons Learned from the Covid-19 Pandemic

• Open access
• Published: 20 May 2023
• Volume 29 , pages 1673–1696, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Sofie Otto 1 ,
• Lykke Brogaard Bertel 1 ,
• Niels Erik Ruan Lyngdorf 1 ,
• Anna Overgaard Markman 1 ,
• Thomas Andersen 1 &
• Thomas Ryberg 1  

3560 Accesses

4 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The aim of this paper is two-fold: firstly, to provide an overview of emerging digital practices that support collaborative learning, competency development, and digital literacy for student-centered learning environments in higher education during the rapid digital transition caused by pandemic-related lockdowns across the world, and secondly, to analyze and discuss how systematic reviews of generalized themes and trends can be combined with contextualized experiences and the lessons learned from the Covid-19 crisis to inform the digital transformation of higher education, with a particular focus on bridging the gap between campus-based teaching and online learning and on the identification of the digital competencies that teachers and students must acquire during the continuing shift into a ‘new normal’ for post-pandemic educational practices. This study was motivated by questions and findings emerging from an early reactive case study conducted by three of this paper’s co-authors (Lyngdorf et al., 2021a ). By reviewing the full texts of 18 articles, this study provides a systematic literature review which maps the general landscape of the online, hybrid, and blended digital practices applied in existing student-centered learning environments in higher education since the onset of the pandemic. Furthermore, this mapping is used to revisit data and findings from the earlier reactive study of emerging digital practices in a specific problem- and project-based learning (PBL) environment. This study’s findings highlight critical factors and barriers related to emerging practices which support students’ interactions with teachers, content, and each other, as well as the emerging competencies that these practices will require. The paper concludes with a discussion of the main findings and their implications for further research and practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

Navigating Digital Environments One Step at a Time During COVID-19

Reimagining Education Systems: How Research on Digital Learning Can Inform Pedagogical Practice

Changes, Longings, and Potentials for Future Pedagogical Practices: Investigating University Teachers’ Experiences During the Spring 2020 Lockdown

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic substantially disrupted established campus-based teaching and learning practices in higher education around the world. Almost overnight, institutions were forced to rapidly adapt to new modes of delivering online and hybrid teaching in order to ensure educational consistency while complying with governmental restrictions. In the past few years, educational systems have undergone various different iterations of both full and partial lockdowns and re-openings, and thus different variations of online, hybrid, and blended modes of teaching. Although the concept of distance learning (DL) is not new (Valentin, 2002 ; Bayne et al., 2014 ), the pace and urgency of the transition from face-to-face learning to exclusively online environments has been unprecedented. As such, the phenomena of emergency remote teaching (ERT) (Hodges et al., 2020 ) has emerged in preliminary reports and research covering digital practices during the pandemic to encompass the improvised, often technology-driven, arrangements that were quickly developed to ensure the delivery of teaching. Inevitably, the crisis has also afforded new digital practices and necessary pedagogical innovations, reigniting an ongoing conversation about quality in education and the need to rethink higher education and teaching in order to integrate tools and methods that foster more active, flexible, and meaningful learning (Rapanta et al., 2021 ).

To ensure the documentation of contextualized knowledge and experiences from the pervasive digital transformation, we, along with many others, conducted a localized empirical study in the early stages of the first lockdowns in order to explore experiences of student-centered and competency-focused learning environments transitioning into exclusively online teaching (Lyngdorf et al., 2021a , b ). This study thus takes as its point of departure a case study situated in a systemic problem-based learning (PBL) environment with a long tradition of practicing PBL at the curriculum level, rooted in pedagogical principles such as group-based and collaborative learning, exemplarity, and authentic problems as the starting point of the learning process (Kolmos & Graaff, 2003 ). Key aspects of this model have been found to be particularly useful for supporting the development of students’ competencies to allow them to handle disruptive changes in their learning environments as well as in their daily lives.

Subsequent case studies and literature reviews have discussed the numerous new practices and technologies adopted in early reactive studies (Bond et al., 2021 ; Khan, 2021 ). Many of these papers have emphasized the need for attention towards aspects inherent to student-centered learning environments, such as student motivation, interaction, engagement, and self-efficacy (Crawford et al., 2020 ; Hodges et al., 2020 ; Aguilera-Hermida, 2020 ) and teacher readiness (Scherer et al., 2021 ). However, research has yet to provide a systematic review and mapping of these emerging digital practices in student-centered, collaborative, and competency-focused learning environments.

Thus, the aim of this paper is two-fold. The first aim is to provide an overview of emerging digital practices that support collaborative learning, competency development, and digital literacy in student-centered learning environments in higher education during the rapid digital transition caused by lockdowns across the world. The second is to analyze and discuss systematic reviews of generalized themes and trends that can be combined with contextualized experiences and lessons learned from the crisis to inform the digital transformation of higher education, with a particular focus on bridging the gap between campus-based teaching and online learning and on identifying the digital competencies required by teachers and students during the continuing shift into a ‘new normal’ for post-pandemic educational practices.

In the following section, we will introduce the early reactive case study and discuss its research methods and main findings as the basis for the research questions which guide the systematic literature review and scope of the present study. Section  3 will then outline the methodological approach of the systematic review and elaborate on the connections between the literature review and the revisited case study. Section  4 presents findings from the review and the subsequent revisiting of the case study from the perspective of the themes emerging from these findings. Finally, Sect.  5 discusses the implications of these findings as well as the potential and challenges of conducting research in a field undergoing accelerating transformation. Section 6 concludes this paper and provides suggestions for future work.

2 Background: conducting exploratory research in a time of crisis

At the onset of the pandemic and during the subsequent lockdowns, many educational researchers across the globe began to conduct ongoing research gathering knowledge of and experiences with ERT in different educational contexts, including K12 and higher education, to continuously inform and develop both research and practice (Jandríc et al., 2020 , 2021 , 2022 ; Graham 2022 ; Georgsen, 2021 ). One such study was an extensive qualitative case study on digital practices and ERT in a specific student-centered learning environment with problem- and project-based learning as the curriculum model at its core across all faculties and departments. In this particular context, students generally spend half their time each semester (15 out of 30 ECTS) in semester-long group-based project work, and each group (usually consisting of 4–7 students) is assigned a supervisor. Thus, most teachers spend a significant amount of their teaching time supervising students. The case study sought to explore experiences and practices related to these new online and hybrid modes of teaching and learning in an otherwise mostly campus-based, student-centered learning environment. It is important to note that restrictions varied throughout the Covid-19 pandemic: the nation-wide lockdown in the spring of 2020 was significantly eased in the summer of 2020, and students were allowed to be physically present on campus in their group rooms and workspaces as well as in larger clusters without social distancing during lectures for most of the fall of 2020. However, in December of 2020 the number of Covid-19 cases increased significantly, and a campus-wide lockdown was once again implemented to prevent the spread of the virus. This meant students and teachers worked from home during the winter and for the entirety of the 2021 spring semester. Thus, students’ experiences of interacting with teachers/supervisors, fellow students, and digital content varied significantly between 2020 and 2022 depending on the specific lockdown rules in place at the time. Naturally, this is reflected in the data collected from August 2020 to November 2020.

2.1 Case study approach and findings

The case study applied an inductive and qualitative approach to data collection in order to ensure the collection of in-depth and nuanced student and teacher perspectives on their experiences with digitally supported PBL during the first lockdown in the spring of 2020, and into the re-opening with restrictions in the fall of 2020. In the study, 22 focus group interviews were conducted with 60 teachers and 35 students (15 interviews with four teachers each, and seven interviews with five students each) representing 16 departments across all faculties. Particular attention was paid to ensuring representation across educational levels, national and international student and staff backgrounds, and different conditions for participation in online learning (e.g., whether or not the student or teacher had children living at home). Each interview lasted one hour and was conducted online (using MS Teams) or in-person when restrictions allowed for this. The interviews were then transcribed and coded systematically and iteratively in NVivo using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ) to apply an inductive approach to the patterns and themes emerging from the dataset. Through the initial thematic analysis, 34 codes were identified, revised, and condensed into a final total of 31 codes. These codes were related to themes such as digitally supported teaching and active learning, project collaboration and supervision, as well as organizational matters, such as organizational barriers and management issues, teachers’ workloads and work-life balance, and digital content rights, among other issues.

Findings from the case study showed, that both teachers and students, being accustomed to a learning environment characterized by on-campus, active, problem-based and collaborative learning in a systemic PBL educational model, were largely dissatisfied with the transition to ERT that dominated the first lockdown. Despite this, ERT was still widespread among teachers and was in some cases preferred to more active and demanding learning approaches such as flipped classroom by some students in the fall of 2020 when restrictions were lifted temporarily (Lyngdorf et al., 2021a , b ). This was explained by a lack of digital competence among both groups and limited organizational resources and investments to properly develop, facilitate, and support new digital/hybrid and active learning experiences.

However, the study also found that some of the core elements of the PBL university model did prove agile and resistant to many of the challenges presented by the lockdown. Students were able to sustain a viable level of social interaction supporting the general well-being of students as well as socio-cultural learning processes. Furthermore, the student-centered educational culture of PBL meant that students were still highly self-directed and took responsibility for their own learning by identifying and adapting to the new situation supported by their supervisors, who made an extra effort to make themselves available to students as needed. This allowed for highly contextualized and contemporary project work addressing complex and authentic discipline-specific problems imposed by the pandemic. Whereas both students and teachers reported challenges related to communication, conflict management, and the increasing individualization of the otherwise collaborative learning process, the supervisors were generally quite impressed with students’ ability to adapt to this new norm. Students in later semesters seemed particularly resilient and well-equipped to adjust to the problems they were addressing, their data collection methods, and their collaboration practices, while also inventing new ways to support each other.

Whereas the study highlighted the issues, potential, and barriers involved in digitally transforming PBL during a time of crisis and restrictions, the study was naturally highly contextualized and exploratory. Thus, the findings are not necessarily generalizable or comparable across other student-centered learning environments. Consequently, the purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic overview of research on emerging digital practices that support collaborative learning, competency development, and digital literacy in student-centered learning environments in higher education as reported during the rapid digital transition caused by the global lockdowns, and to revisit the case study in light of the themes emerging from the review.

3 Methodology

This paper builds upon two main methodologies: (1) analysis of the case study presented in Sect.  2 ; and (2) a systematic literature review guided by the research questions raised on the basis of the case study. Figure  1 visualizes the connections between these two methods. Findings from the systematic literature review and case study will be combined in a joint analysis and discussion, highlighting critical factors and barriers as well as implications for post-pandemic student-centered educational practices in the continuous shift into a ‘new normal.’

Visualization of methodological approach

3.1 Systematic literature review

A systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2021 ). A search string was built around three blocks focusing on the following: (1) student-centered learning models and approaches; (2) variations of digital practices and technologies; and (3) literacy and competencies. In each block, we attempted to include as many keywords as possible to cover the relatively broad fields, especially in relation to block 1 and 2, and as a result the search terms shown in Table  1 were included in each block.

The search for relevant records was conducted in August 2022 in the scientific databases ERIC and Scopus, which were selected due to their focus on education research and broad interdisciplinary coverage, respectively. Due to the scope of the review, only peer-reviewed studies published in English between 2020 and 2022 were included in the search. Querying the selected databases resulted in a total of 1809 records, from which 72 duplicates and two retracted items were removed. The remaining 1735 records were then subjected to a screening process conducted by four researchers in which first the abstracts then the full texts of the papers were assessed. The four researchers ensured that the sorting processes were aligned through two initiatives: (1) the assessments were initiated by collaboratively assessing a number of articles, (2) another researcher went through papers that were marked with doubt by the researchers in order to make decisions about whether these papers should be included. Each study was assessed according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) the study must include empirical data collected between 2020 and 2022; (2) the study must focus on higher education; (3) the learning environment must have been characterized as student-centered prior to the pandemic; (4) the digital practices described must focus on the facilitation of the learning process (as opposed to other processes or content not related to the learning process). If a study did not meet the specified criteria, it was excluded from the review. However, if the necessary information was not clearly stated in the abstract, the researchers assessed the keywords and metadata during abstract screening, or searched the full text, to identify whether data was collected prior to the pandemic. In total, 1642 and 75 records were excluded based on the abstract and full text assessments, respectively. This resulted in a final pool of 18 studies eligible for inclusion in the review. Figure  2 displays the process of identifying and screening the record pool.

Flow chart of the identification and screening process

3.2 Revisiting codes from case study

As mentioned above, the themes and questions emerging from our case study motivated a systematic literature review to explore whether these patterns have emerged in similar contexts across student-centered and collaborative learning environments, and to what degree. The findings from the literature review were used as a basis for revisiting the themes identified in the case study in order to explore the similarities, differences and nuances of emerging digital practices and competencies, and to contextualize these findings within a broader perspective. This process was systematized through qualitative tabulation, in which the themes and codes from the literature review constituted the structure and point of departure for revisiting the processed data from the case study using NVivo software. Each code from the review represented a row, and a corresponding column was dedicated to the case study data. We revisited the codes from the case study and inserted relevant inputs into the table in order to obtain a comparative overview of the data. The findings were then synthesized in the joint analysis presented in Sect.  3.2 .

The final pool of eligible records was subjected to a mapping process in order to extract relevant information regarding authorship, year, country, research design, participants, learning model, activities, technologies, and competencies targeted by the learning design. Table  2 presents key information extracted from the 18 studies included in the review.

4.1 Narrative synthesis

Following the mapping, the team of researchers conducted an inductive thematic analysis by coding the findings and topics of discussion of each study, resulting in 10 individual codes. These were condensed into four overall themes relating to the effects digital practices have on students’ interaction with teachers, other students, and content, as well as the competencies these types of interactions require and/or incite according to the study. Table  3 displays an overview of these codes and themes. The following section presents a narrative synthesis of key insights related to each theme.

4.1.1 Student-teacher interactions

The interactions between teachers/instructors and students emerged as a prevalent theme in nine of the 18 studies included in the review, which highlighted critical factors in and barriers to plenary interaction during lectures, as well as the provision of feedback from teachers and supervisors during group work. Some studies addressed overall classroom interaction in relation to synchronous and plenary online modalities, such as open discussion during live streaming sessions, with which the students in one study reported an average level of satisfaction (Alkhowailed et al., 2020 ). In other studies, students reported positive experiences with the online environment, the professors’ performance, and the provision of opportunities to express opinions during class, as well as a high degree of individual interactions between instructors and students when answering questions (Barbalho et al., 2021 ; Garay-Rondero et al., 2021 ; Cho & Kim, 2021 ).

Furthermore, teachers attempted to maintain connectivity and belonging in their classes by using tools which support video conferencing as well as synchronous and asynchronous communication between lectures, while adapting further practices, such as personalizing their communications, to add empathy and behavioral engagement in an effort to build social presence (Logemann et al., 2022 ). Nevertheless, an exclusively online environment affords less room for informal feedback, while a face-to-face presence can stimulate the students to ask more questions (Kalmar et al., 2022 ). The preliminary results of one study highlight the absence of a shared process between groups and lecturers when conducting synchronous collaborative sessions using breakout rooms: teachers lack easy access to group conversations online, while in face-to-face settings aspects of improvement can potentially be identified by simply walking into the room and listening to conversations among students (Sá & Cruz, 2021 ). However, in Morsi & Assem’s ( 2021 ) study instructors emphasized that answering questions for each group in collaborative group projects with large numbers of students can be difficult and time consuming in face-to-face settings, whereas asynchronous online provision of feedback provides an opportunity for detailed and documented feedback and allows problematic areas in the project report to be formatively highlighted.

In student-centered learning environments, the role of the instructor becomes that of a facilitator and advisor, and it has been demonstrated that this can be more efficiently achieved in face-to-face settings (Cho & Kim, 2021 ). One study suggests that during the rapid transition to an exclusively online environment and emergency remote teaching this role was further expanded to encompass the roles of coach and mentor, providing compassion to students as well as flexibility, understanding, and empathy (Logemann et al., 2022 ). However, as pointed out by Ota and Murakami-Suzuki ( 2022 ), online modes of instruction demand that teachers and instructors pay more attention to the individual student than is necessary when using face-to-face modes, and digital means of reaching students should thus be carefully considered.

4.1.2 Student-student interactions

Common for the studies included in the review is seeing interactions between students as a fundamental pillar of active and collaborative student-centered approaches. These interactions have received substantial attention from 10 studies, of which several have reported successful experiences with collaborative learning during the pandemic (Hauck & Melle, 2021 ; Jaiswal et al., 2021 ; Kalmar et al., 2022 ; Rachman et al., 2022 ; Rook & McManus 2020 ). The results demonstrate various benefits of online collaborative learning: it significantly enhances student participation (Rook & McManus, 2020 ); helps shy and introvert students participate more actively (Cho & Kim, 2021 ; Rachman et al., 2022 ); increases transversal competencies including communication, cooperation, and empathy (Kalmar et al., 2022 ); and improves team effectiveness and bonding (Jaiswal et al., 2021 ).

During the transition to fully online environments, collaboration and communication between students was commonly encouraged through the use of tools supporting both synchronous and asynchronous communication, file sharing, and learning management systems (LMSs), as well as video conferencing (used in 16 out of 18 studies in the review). In one study, breakout rooms, polling, and annotation features were emphasized to create an inclusive setting in which isolated students could work collaboratively (Ramachandran et al., 2021 ). Online collaboration tools were used to build a sense of togetherness and co-presence, and to compensate for the lack of in-person interactions (Logemann et al., 2022 ; Jaiswal et al., 2021 ). Furthermore, one study reports that online tools enabled better and more efficient collaboration compared to face-to-face settings, indicating that online tools may have caused students to be more diligent in their communication. However, improved efficiency in this regard cannot definitively be ascribed to the online mode of instruction (Jaiswal et al., 2021 ).

On the other hand, other findings suggest that motivation and team productivity was impeded in the online environment due to the lack of informal interactions and discussions among group members, ultimately resulting in a shift toward cooperation rather than collaboration (Kalmar et al., 2022 ). The absence of informal interactions is also addressed by Ota and Murakami-Suzuki ( 2022 ), who suggest that it is difficult for students to share moments prior to or after the formal online class, as they would in a conventional offline class. In addition, it can be challenging in online environments for group members to make the initial connections which allow them to establish relationships and trust. Furthermore, the limited presence of non-verbal communication online, especially in relation to asynchronous communication, has been found to afford more miscommunication in team meetings, ultimately making socio-emotional communication more challenging (Kalmar et al., 2022 ).

Although social and emotional connection may be difficult in an exclusively online environment, some studies indicate that the extent of the problem may be related to certain factors linked to the dynamics and demographics of the group. For instance, Logemann et al. ( 2022 ) found that teams with a high level of belonging reported more positive experiences with building co-presence on an online collaboration platform, reflecting positive relationships and solidarity in relation to their team dynamics. In addition, some studies emphasize that teams benefited from face-to-face meetings and interactions prior to the shift to exclusively online collaboration (Jaiswal et al., 2021 ), and groups which had existed before the lockdown had greater potential to succeed when working in an exclusively online environment than newly-formed teams did (Kalmar et al., 2022 ). Another key factor in the success of online teamwork may relate to students’ previous experiences with teamwork and the stage of education that they have reached. As Jaiswal et al. ( 2021 ) point out, teamwork skills develop over time, and team effectiveness has therefore been found to improve as students spend more time with one another over the semester. Consequently, remote learning might impede effective teamwork when this skill is yet to be developed by students (Conde et al., 2021 ).

4.1.3 Student-content interactions

Student interactions with learning content such as materials and learning activities were identified as a recurrent theme in 13 studies included in the review, indicating a broad variety of different modalities and emerging digital practices. Findings indicate that a student-centered and self-paced learning approach offers increased flexibility (Sá & Cruz, 2021 ) and enables students to work at their own pace and control their progress through the affordances provided by, for example, interactive videos and quizzes (Hauck & Melle, 2021 ). The asynchronous delivery of learning content allows students to view videos at any time; one study suggests that this can result in fewer requests for teacher support (Ripoll et al., 2021 ). In addition, synchronous activities may also yield benefits in online environments, as findings from one study suggest that working online may improve student motivation and focus by alleviating distractions such as side-chats (Morsi & Assem, 2021 ). However, distractions in online environments, such as games, YouTube videos, or other content that pops up on students’ screens, may also impact student concentration (Cho & Kim, 2021 ). This issue can be accommodated through interactive elements that keep students engaged, minimizing the risk of them zoning out (Hauck & Melle, 2021 ).

Despite several benefits, interactions with learning materials and the environment have not been seamlessly integrated into the emergency online teaching prompted by the Covid-19 crisis, and some of the studies address the challenge of transferring certain activities and learning experiences to online modes; one example is hands-on training in practical and clinical settings (Alkhowailed et al., 2020 ). In addition, several studies emphasize technology-related limitations, such as overloaded learning management systems, software-related constraints, frustration with technology among students, along with technical issues including sound failures, problems with memory availability, and unstable internet connections (Alkhowailed et al., 2020 ; Hauck & Melle, 2021 ; Kalmar et al., 2022 ; Rachman et al., 2022 ; Ripoll et al., 2021 ), which ultimately disrupt the learning process.

4.1.4 Student competencies in the ‘new normal’

As mentioned earlier, we were particularly interested in how emerging digital practices are guiding the shift into a ‘new normal’ and what competencies this shift requires and/or incites according to the studies. Thus, all the studies included in the review address competency development in varying degrees, with a substantial focus on literacy as a prevalent theme throughout the thematic analysis. Figure  3 displays a visual representation of the frequency of competencies explicitly targeted by the online learning interventions among the studies included in the review.

Explicitly targeted competencies across studies included in the review

A notable pattern across the studies is the aim of supporting students in the development of transversal skills, such as teamwork and collaboration, which was identified in a total of seven studies. Another prevalent social skill is communication, which was identified in a total of five studies, of which one study specifically targets digital communication (Logemann et al., 2022 ). In general, social and transversal skills have received extensive attention among the studies, whereas other examples include cooperation, intercultural competence, multicultural communication and citizenship.

Despite the challenges presented by the pandemic, online collaborative learning has been found to help students acquire key competencies and autonomy (Ripoll et al., 2021 ), while the acquisition of transversal skills related to emotional connections and empathy has been found to help students combat the negative effects of social distancing during the pandemic (Logemann et al., 2022 ). The teaching and practice of social skills is central to the future development of online courses based on collaborative learning (Kalmar et al., 2022 ). As such, lessons learned from the pandemic, which will gain further relevance in the emerging hybrid workplace, should increase the attention to the development of social and transversal skills in higher education (Kalmar et al., 2022 ; Logemann et al., 2022 ).

Several studies also addressed the potential of blended, hybrid, or inverted learning approaches in a post-pandemic era (Latorre-Cosculluela et al., 2021 ; Ota & Murakami-Suzuki, 2022 ; Kalmar et al., 2022 ). These approaches may support students in developing skills such as creativity, critical thinking, communication and collaboration, and improve their self-efficacy by developing their self-directed learning and self-learning skills (Latorre-Cosculluela et al., 2021 ; Cho & Kim, 2021 ; Velaora et al., 2022 ). The online component of the blended learning experience can provide readily available and personalized online teaching materials and learning trajectories while facilitating collaboration, problem-solving, and reflection. Beyond the online components of blended learning, the planning of physical on-campus sessions may strengthen the sense of community and increase unplanned socio-emotional interactions and peer feedback (Kalmar et al., 2022 ). Furthermore, knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing can be supported by a combination of asynchronous and synchronous online learning activities (Ota & Murakami-Suzuki, 2022 ).

4.2 Joint analysis: Revisiting the case study through the lens of the literature

In the following sub-sections, the findings from the literature review will be used as the basis for analysis of the empirical data collected in the early reactive case study and comparison of findings related to the identified themes, highlighting similarities, differences and nuances that might further inform the transition into online, hybrid, and blended modes of student-centered learning. In this analysis, we group findings into two overarching themes based on the four themes identified in the literature review: (1) emerging digital practices, i.e. student interactions with teachers and supervisors, content, and each other; and (2) emerging digital literacy, i.e. the development of competencies among students and teachers that are relevant to this ‘new normal’ in higher education.

4.2.1 Emerging digital practices: interactions revisited

The literature review above has emphasized the emergence of new digital practices supporting student interactions with teachers, content, and one another during ERT in student-centered learning environments. Prior to the pandemic, these interactions mainly took place in classrooms and lecture halls, in group rooms and collaborative workspaces, as well as in individual settings, which have all been substantially disrupted due to the alternating confinement measures imposed by the pandemic. Despite these measures, studies in the review indicate that teachers have supported student-teacher interactions by experimenting with digital practices supporting connectivity, belonging, social presence (Logemann et al., 2022 ), by situating the interactions in distributed online spaces supported by means of existing technologies. The emergence of these practices has similarly been observed in the case study, in which teachers experimented with video conferencing platforms and both synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in and between lectures, along with online collaborative whiteboards, class timing and duration, quizzes and polls, class sizes, the combination and mixing of classes, online seminars, chat communication, and learning analytics for differentiation based on the needs of learners. Thus, in spite of lockdowns and restrictions, teachers in the case study managed to maintain a certain level of social interaction and student engagement in the digital space.

Experimental and reactive digital practices have similarly been adapted to support interactions between students and build togetherness and co-presence, as well as to compensate for the lack of in-person interactions (Logemann et al., 2022 ; Jaiswal et al., 2021 ) through online collaboration tools. However, as with other studies in the literature review (Kalmar et al., 2022 ; Ota & Murakami-Suzuki, 2022 ), teachers and students in the case study both emphasized the absence of informal learning and situated knowledge-sharing both among students and groups and between students and teachers that would usually take place spontaneously in-between lectures or meetings in a physical setting. As such, the overall experience with these reactive practices is mixed; while they inevitably contribute to a reduction of issues related to social well-being and isolation due to physical restrictions, new issues have emerged in relation to the quality of social interactions being affected by the absence of, for example, non-verbal cues, informal discussions, and socio-emotional communication (Ota & Murakami-Suzuki, 2022 ; Kalmar et al., 2022 ), which serve a critical role in collaborative student-centered environments.

However, as outlined in the literature review, the extent of these issues may be relative to certain group dynamics and demographics, such as the level of belonging felt by the students and the balance between face-to-face and exclusively online forms of collaboration, or whether the group existed prior to lockdowns (Logemann et al., 2022 ; Kalmar et al., 2022 ; Jaiswal et al., 2021 ). This is confirmed by data from the case study: supervisors reported more difficulties in groups in earlier semesters compared to later semesters, suggesting that this was due to smaller groups and more developed collaboration skills in the later semesters. This variation in students’ ability to collaborate was highlighted both in the review and in interviews with teachers, who argued that while project work ensured a certain level of both social and academic interaction between students during lockdowns, the quality of collaboration varied greatly according to the degree to which the students had advanced in their education. According to the teachers, students in their first year and groups that were formed after lockdown demonstrated noticeably more individualized patterns and more instances of miscommunication and conflict, while groups in later semesters did not exhibit these issues to the same degree. As one teacher stated:

My experience supervising was that it [project work] was one of the things that worked well. But it should be noted that I supervised Bachelors students [6th semester] and Masters students [10th semester] in the spring, and those students obviously had the ‘social putty’ already (FOC1/TE2)

Students in larger groups also noted that interactions were significantly impeded in online meetings with many participants, while meetings with fewer participants or one-to-one meetings conversely supported interaction during lockdowns. During group work, short online meetings were also used to supplement face-to-face meetings when students worked in distributed locations. Different phases of project work required different modes; when starting or finishing a project, face-to-face meetings were preferred for brainstorming ideas, social bonding, and discussion (collaborative work), while writing and simple tasks could be completed with mainly online meetings (cooperative work). One student noted that:

Idea generation works best if you are face-to-face, because then you have the possibility to interrupt each other. The writing process works fine online. The final phase with revisions, etc., works better if you sit together in real life (FOC5/ST1)

Kalmar et al. ( 2022 ) observed that exclusively online teamwork shifted toward a cooperative distribution of the workload rather than students collaboratively solving problems together, which may explain why students felt that online teamwork was less effective. Thus, as pointed out by the student quoted above, project- and problem-based teamwork can beneficially be distributed through a blend of online and physical spaces, as certain stages involving collaborative activities may profit from face-to-face meetings, which can be supplemented by individual and cooperative activities online.

In a similar vein, both students and teachers in the case study agreed that a 1:1 transfer of analogue face-to-face pedagogy to an online setting was generally unsatisfactory, and preferred flipped or blended approaches to teaching . For teachers, the lack of social and emotional response (affect) from students can contribute to an experience of lack of control and insight into the students’ learning process. Similarly, Sá and Cruz ( 2021 ) highlighted the absence of a shared process between groups and lectures in synchronous collaborative sessions. In flipped and blended approaches, which mainly included preparatory work such as watching pre-recorded lectures, short video lectures, and doing exercises, teachers in the case study experienced increased interaction with students during class. However, it was noted that students struggled with transitioning to a flipped classroom and preferred synchronous online lectures, which they were somewhat accustomed to:

(…) I think they need training to accept this [flipped classroom] teaching form. That preparation is required … is the principle of flipped classroom; that they have prepared before we meet. And I think they find that hard to swallow and it will likely be a long haul (FOC7/TE4).

However, preparatory work consisting of different digital teaching resources offers valuable repositories for students to revisit in the periods leading up to exams, thus making student interactions with content more flexible, continuous, and integrated into the entire learning process, including exams. Similarly, data on video views in Hauck and Melle ( 2021 ) indicated that many students returned to the interactive videos to work on them a second time when preparing for exams toward the end of the semester.

4.2.2 Emerging digital literacy: student and teacher competencies revisited

As described in the previous sections, student-centered learning environments have taken new forms for both teachers and students during the pandemic and the various lockdowns. Under the pressure of changing conditions, new digital practices have emerged at all levels of education and for all roles, from individual student work to group work, from simple course activities to the structuring of semesters.

For teachers in the case study, a transition from ERT was initiated at the very beginning of the pandemic, when teachers simply uploaded slideshows with voiceovers or conducted lectures through online video conference calls, and led to further experimentation, with models such as flipped classrooms and blended learning emerging as the most common models. At the student level, problem-based project work has afforded experimentation with different forms of group work, i.e. distributed vs. face-to-face, synchronous vs. asynchronous, cooperative vs. collaborative modes, and innovative combinations of all of the above, affording new not only digital but also transversal competencies:

All the students [in a robotic sailing project] were working from home and part of the project then became to produce a technical solution that would allow them all to work on this boat, and the computing side of the boat remotely. So, they had to completely change their project because there’s only one person who had access to the boat and she was kind of being remote controlled by the others to do all the tests on it. They were telling her what to do and so on. And then they actually created this new thing. So, I think we should take the opportunity to increase our skills and our knowledge about how to deal with these situations and attack those problems, too. And they can be the topics of interesting projects, actually (FOC13/TE3).

This reflects competencies among teachers and students alike to better integrate multi-modal forms of working. These options were also available prior the pandemic, but were not experimented with to the same extent as they were during the lockdowns. In traditional educational settings, when classrooms and labs were not accessible during ERT, students’ experience of motivation, self-efficacy, and cognitive engagement decreased ( Aguilera-Hermida 2020 ), whereas in this case study teachers and students alike experienced high levels of student agency and self-efficacy:

I was quite impressed with the creativity they showed with regard to finding [project] themes, that were trending right now. In that moment, I was happy and a little proud to be working at a university that actually forces the students to think in and with time. And it became exemplary learning in the way, that they went out and did something in the world, for the world, while it was happening (FOC8/TE1).

In a systemic PBL environment, students have considerable responsibility to set goals, organize their own time and learning activities, and be reflective about these processes. As such, teachers and supervisors reported big differences in students’ self-efficacy levels, with younger and academically weaker students still learning the skills necessary to perform project work, struggling when facing new challenges, and requiring more pedagogical supervision and support from their supervisor. On the other hand, experienced and capable students in the higher semesters exhibited excellent adaptability in recontextualizing project ideas and plans, given the ongoing crisis. However, the supervisors’ competence (and time) to facilitate and assist this transition was instrumental to its success:

In my study program, we couldn’t do the lab work we had planned to do. Instead, some groups were allowed to make their project results in a theoretical form, but my group was lucky to have a flexible supervisor, who gave us the option to write about corona. We saw this as an opportunity to learn a lot in a new way (…) It was a good supervisor, who was flexible, replied to our emails and was easy to contact (FOC3/ST4).

Supervisors also reported that more extroverted and socially-oriented learners struggled to maintain motivation and discipline, whereas more introverted and individually cognitive-oriented learners seemed to experience more positive effects from online participation, and exhibited a higher degree of self-efficacy. Similarly, studies in the literature review report that online collaborative learning led shy and introvert students to become more active participants (Cho & Kim, 2021 ; Rachman et al., 2022 ). In the case study, students that were technically adept and had experience in participating in online communities adapted to the situation by creating new project-related online groups and networks: in this case, digital competence helped support transversal and collaborative competencies, and vice versa.

5 Discussion

The analysis above highlights the emerging practices adapted in a crisis-prompted state to ensure continuity of education in student-centered learning environments. The following section will discuss the main findings in light of contemporary research and literature, and will address the implications for research and practice which qualifies and informs the ongoing transition into a ‘new normal’ for student-centered higher education.

Many studies, both in student-centered and traditional learning environments, emphasize the need to distinguish between emergency remote teaching/learning experiences instituted during the pandemic and established online teaching and learning (OTL) practices (Aguilera-Hermida, 2020 ; Rapanta et al., 2021 ; Hodges et al., 2020 ; Lee et al., 2022 ). The latter practices originate from careful consideration of instructional design and planning and are often associated with flexibility of teaching in time and space (Hodges et al., 2020 ), paying particular attention to teachers’ readiness for the transition to OTL (Scherer et al., 2021 ), and which digital spaces are compatible with and integrated into students’ daily lives (Conde et al., 2021 ). Thus, it is likely that the most prevalent issues encountered during ERT in student-centered environments would have taken different forms if the teachers had time to carefully consider the learning design in accordance with the alternating modalities of the pandemic period. More organizational focus and support in the ‘new normal’ will support the development of OTL and avoid many pitfalls and barriers experienced during ERT. These experiences, along with emerging digital practices, will feed into and further inform the ‘new normal’ in higher educational practices.

As indicated in our empirical study, one-to-one transfer of face-to-face pedagogy in online classrooms is unsatisfying for both students and teachers. Nevertheless, this transfer has often been a default strategy in the temporary and crisis-prompted shift into ERT, leaving instructors with little time to prepare alternative delivery modes to remote solutions that would otherwise have been delivered face-to-face (Hodges et al., 2020 ; Lee et al., 2022 ); this results in mostly synchronous modalities as well as teacher-centered knowledge transmission (Lee et al., 2022 ; Crawford et al., 2020 ). Although the contextual factors surrounding the studies included in the review and in our own empirical study are inherently student-centered, the pattern of teacher-centered synchronous modalities has also been observed in relation to ERT during online lectures and plenary activities. Some of these unsatisfactory experiences, as shown in the literature review and case study, will most likely not translate into the ‘new normal’ for higher educational practices.

However, these activities have been supplemented with a high degree of student-centered, collaborative activities, which were experienced as a fundamental strength during periods of confinement. While students and teachers still generally prefer face-to-face classroom settings, the systematic review and case study suggest that student-centered learning models such as PBL were generally considered strengths during the early and rapid transitions to online learning during the pandemic, and in combination with new digital practices and teachers’ facilitation of the development of student competencies and digital literacy.

The lessons learned from crisis-prompted adaption of student-centered education to online and blended modalities have three main implications for research and practice. First, while the critical factors and barriers to social interaction have received extensive attention in the studies included in the review, these studies also center the aim of supporting students in developing primarily social and transversal skills and competence in digital environments, emphasizing a need for the further development of digital literacy in online student-centered environments among students and teachers alike. However, further research is required to develop methods to reconstruct and increase socio-emotional interactions among teachers and students in these settings (Kalmar et al., 2022 ; Cho & Kim, 2021 ; Latorre-Cosculluela et al., 2021 ), as well as on teacher professional development (Englund et al., 2017 ; Kalmar et al., 2022 ).

Second, the prerequisites for maximizing the benefits of online collaborative learning include adequate digital infrastructure, open access to computer equipment, stable internet connections, and the training of both teachers and students in the use of targeted collaborative platforms (Morsi & Assem, 2021 ; Rachman et al., 2022 ; Latorre-Cosculluela et al., 2021 ). These implications serve as an important reminder in the design of exclusively online environments. Third, as we transition ‘back’ into a post-pandemic world without physical restrictions, it has become crucial to consider how to continuously facilitate the necessary pedagogical innovations and emerging digital practices introduced in a crisis-prompted state of emergency. It is important to conduct longitudinal and cross-contextual studies to generate insights into the long-term impacts of digital transformation on student learning and digital literacy in order to further a qualified and informed transition ‘forward’ into a ‘new normal’ of post-pandemic higher education that supports student-centered learning and competency development.

As the world shifts into a post-pandemic state with other escalating global challenges, the potential of inverted, flipped, blended, and hybrid modalities has been emphasized in the studies included in the review, as well as in our empirical study, indicating a future pattern of a mixture between online and campus-based face-to-face teaching and learning practices in student-centered learning environments. In a similar vein, the binary distinction between exclusively online and exclusively face-to-face learning activities has been challenged in recent years, as scholars argue for a post-digital perspective that sees learning situations as complex entanglements of people, spaces, activities, and material, in which the digital and non-digital are intrinsically and inextricably interconnected (Networked Learning Editorial Collective (NLEC), 2021 ; Green et al., 2020 ; Bayne et al., 2014 ). Thus, while online, blended, and hybrid learning might be used as terms to differentiate between design scenarios, this distinction might not capture the complexity and intricate connectedness of students’ interactions with each other and with learning tasks, teachers, and content co-present in multiple spaces (Jandrić & Boras, 2015 ; Fawns 2019 ; Networked Learning Editorial Collective (NLEC, 2021 ).

6 Conclusion

This paper has investigated the emerging digital practices which have been adapted to support student-centered learning environments in higher education since the beginning of the pandemic. This investigation has also explored the emerging digital literacy that these new practices will require and incite. Motivated by the findings of our own reactive study signifying emerging digital practices and the relevance and prevalence of certain transversal competencies in relation to student resilience, adaptability, self-directed learning, and interpersonal competencies, our aim was to explore whether and to what degree these patterns have emerged in similar contexts characterized by student-centered educational approaches.

By synthesizing the experiences disseminated in 18 early reactive empirical studies, our findings highlight emerging practices supporting students’ interaction with teachers, content, and one another during ERT in student-centered learning environments. In general, these interactions have been situated in distributed online spaces supported by existing technologies, and both teachers and students have demonstrated a high level of adaptability and creativity by experimenting with modalities to support core learning activities. Although central social and collaborative aspects of student-centered learning environments have been highlighted as a particular strength during periods of lockdown and social confinement, new issues have emerged in relation to the quality of mainly student-student interactions and collaboration in exclusively online environments, resulting in individualization of project work, especially for younger students and newly formed groups, although project groups were generally found to be open to, and successful in, experimenting with emerging digital practices for collaboration.

Thus, in spite of critical factors and barriers to social interactions highlighted in both the case study and the literature review, the aim of supporting students in the development of social transversal competencies in digital environments has been brought to the fore, emphasizing the need for the further development of digital literacy in online student-centered environments in the future—among students and teachers alike.

Although this study offers a snapshot into the complex landscape of a practice characterized by rapid and constant transformation, these findings may be considered indicative of existing patterns that have been further accelerated and amplified through the experience of the pandemic. However, the main limitation of this research is that both our empirical case study and the early reactive studies included in the review were conducted in a crisis situation, in which practitioners had little time to carefully prepare for the disruptive and rapid shift in modalities and instructional designs. As such, if this study were to be replicated for more established OTL practices, it is likely that the results would be different. Furthermore, the literature review only included studies published between 2020 and August 2022. With the world shifting in and out of lockdowns and social restrictions, it is likely that a future review including studies published in the coming years will be characterized by more nuanced experiences with online and blended approaches to supporting student-centered learning environments and competency development.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Aguilera-Hermida, A., P (2020). College Students’ Use and Acceptance of Emergency Online Learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open , 1 , 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Alkhowailed, M. S., Rasheed, Z., Shariq, A., Elzainy, A., El Sadik, A., Alkhamiss, A., Alsolai, A. M., Alduraibi, S. K., Alduraibi, A., Alamro, A., Alhomaidan, H. T., & Abdulmonem, A., W (2020). Digitalization plan in Medical Education during COVID-19 Lockdown. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked , 20 , 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imu.2020.100432 .

Barbalho, S., Duarte, C. M., A., H., & Luz, K., S. (2021). Active Learning in Project Management: The Life Cycle of a Virtual Scientific Colloquium and Its Impact on Students’ Performance. International Conference on Active Learning in Engineering Education (PAEE/ALE) , 398–406. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.5098338

Bayne, S., Gallagher, M. S., & Lamb, J. (2014). Being ‘at’ University: The Social Topologies of Distance Students. Higher Education , 67 (5), 569–583.

Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V. I., & Händel, M. (2021). Emergency remote teaching in Higher Education: Mapping the First Global Online Semester. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 18 (1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x .

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa .

Cho, M. K., & Kim, M. Y. (2021). Factors affecting learning satisfaction in Face-to-face and Non-Face-to-Face flipped learning among nursing students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18 (16), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168641 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Conde, M., Rodríguez-Sedano, F. J., Hernández-García, Á., Gutiérrez-Fernández, A., & Guerrero-Higueras, Á. M. (2021). Your teammate just sent you a New Message! The Effects of using Telegram on Individual Acquisition of Teamwork competence. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence , 6 (6), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2021.05.007 .

Crawford, J. K., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., Malkawi, B., Glowatz, M., Burton, R., Magni, P. A., & Lam, S. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education Intra-Period Digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Teaching and Learning (JALT) , 3 (1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7 .

Englund, C., Olofsson, A. D., & Price, L. (2017). Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Understanding conceptual change and development in practice. Higher Education Research & Development , 36 (1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1171300 .

Fawns, T. (2019). Postdigital Education in Design and Practice. Postdigital Science and Education , 1 (1), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0021-8 .

Garay-Rondero, C. L., Thierry-Aguilera, R., Schneider, A. K., Bourguet-Diaz, R. E., Salinas, M. L., & Zavala, G. (2021). Designing a Cyber-Physical-Systems and Human Factors Engineering Course for Industry 4.0 . Future of Educational Innovation Workshop Series - Machine Learning-Driven Digital Technologies for Educational Innovation Workshop 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEECONF53024.2021.9733753

Georgsen, M. (2021). Experiences of online teaching at 9 institutions of higher education in Spring 2020. Summary . Danish University Colleges.

Graham, R. (2022). Crisis and Catalyst: The impact of COVID-19 on global practice in Engineering Education . Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Green, J. K., Burrow, M. S., & Carvalho, L. (2020). Designing for Transition: Supporting teachers and students cope with emergency Remote Education. Postdigital Science and Education , 2 , 906–922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00185-6 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hauck, D. J., & Melle, I. (2021). Molecular Orbital Theory—Teaching a difficult Chemistry Topic using a CSCL Approach in a First-Year University Course. Education Sciences , 11 (9), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090485 .

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause review , 27 , 1–12.

Google Scholar  

Jaiswal, A., Thomas, P. J., Karabiyik, T., Perera, V., & Magana, A. J. (2021). Assessing the Impact of Transition from Face-to-Face to Online Instruction on Team Cooperation 2021 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, Online. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85124527015&partnerID=40&md5=9d6ef44bbe82a57c64ff5da2f3813b93

Jandrić, P., & Boras, D. (Eds.). (2015). Critical learning in digital networks . Springer International Publishing.

Jandrić, P., Hayes, D., Truelove, I., Levinson, P., Mayo, P., Ryberg, T., Monzó, L. D., Allen, Q., Stewart, P. A., Carr, P. R., Jackson, L., Bridges, S., Escaño, C., Grauslund, D., Mañero, J., Lukoko, H. O., Bryant, P., Fuentes-Martinez, A., Gibbons, A., & Hayes, S. (2020). Teaching in the age of Covid-19. Postdigital Science and Education , 2 , 1069–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00169-6 .

Jandrić, P., Hayes, D., Levinson, P., Christensen, L. L., Lukoko, H. O., Kihwele, J. E., Truelove, I., Mayo, P., Ryberg, T., Monzó, L. D., Allen, Q., Stewart, P. A., Carr, P. R., Jackson, L., Bridges, S., Escaño, C., Grauslund, D., Mañero, J., Bryant, P., & Hayes, S. (2021). Teaching in the age of Covid-19–1 year later. Postdigital Science and Education , 3 , 1073–1223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00243-7 .

Jandrić, P., Martinez, A. F., Reitz, C., Jackson, L., Grauslund, D., Hayes, D., Lukoko, H. O., Hogan, M., Mozelius, P., Arantes, J. A., Levinson, P., Ozoliņš, J. J., Kirylo, J. D., Carr, P. R., Hood, N., Tesar, M., Sturm, S., Abegglen, S., Burns, T., & Hayes, S. (2022). Teaching in the age of Covid-19—The New Normal. Postdigital Science and Education , 4 (4), 877–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00332-1 .

Kalmar, E., Aarts, T., Bosman, E., Ford, C., de Kluijver, L., Beets, J., Veldkamp, L., Timmers, P., Besseling, D., Koopman, J., Fan, C., Berrevoets, E., Trotsenburg, M., Maton, L., van Remundt, J., Sari, E., Omar, L. W., Beinema, E., Winkel, R., & van der Sanden, M. (2022). The COVID-19 Paradox of Online Collaborative Education: When you cannot physically meet, you need more social interactions. Heliyon , 8 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08823 .

Khan, M. A. (2021). COVID-19’s impact on higher education: A Rapid Review of early reactive literature. Education Sciences , 11 (8), 421, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080421 .

Article   MathSciNet   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kolmos, A., & Graaff, E. D. (2003). Characteristics of problem-based learning. International Journal of Engineering Education , 19 (5), 657–662.

Latorre-Cosculluela, C., Suárez, C., Quiroga, S., Sobradiel-Sierra, N., Lozano-Blasco, R., & Rodríguez-Martínez, A. (2021). Flipped Classroom Model before and during COVID-19: Using Technology to develop 21st Century Skills. Interactive Technology and Smart Education , 18 (2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-08-2020-0137 .

Lee, K., Fanguy, M., Bligh, B., & Lu, X. S. (2022). Adoption of online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic analysis of changes in University Teaching Activity. Educational Review , 74 (3), 460–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1978401 .

Logemann, M., Aritz, J., Cardon, P., Swartz, S., Elhaddaoui, T., Getchell, K., Fleischmann, C., Helens-Hart, R., Li, X., Palmer-Silveira, J., Ruiz-Garrido, M., Springer, S., & Stapp, J. (2022). Standing Strong Amid a Pandemic: How a Global Online Team Project Stands up to the Public Health Crisis. British Journal of Educational Technology , 53 (3), 577–592. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13189

Lyngdorf, N. E. R., Bertel, B. L., Andersen, T., & Ryberg, T. (2021a). Problem-baseret læring under en pandemi:: Erfaringer med digitalt understøttede læringsaktiviteter i en nedlukningstid. Tidsskriftet Læring Og Medier (LOM) , 14(24), 24. https://doi.org/10.7146/lom.v14i24.125686

Lyngdorf, N. E. R., Bertel, L. B., & Andersen, T. (2021b). Evaluering af Digitalt Understøttet Læring på Aalborg Universitet i 2020: Underviser- og studenterperspektiver på universitetets nedlukning som følge af Covid-19. https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/441101526/Afrapportering_final.pdf

Morsi, W. K., & Assem, H. M. (2021). Online versus face-to-face collaborative learning: Perceptions of students and instructors of technical writing for engineers. 2021 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) , 1571–1581. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON46332.2021.9454106

Ota, E., & Murakami-Suzuki, R. (2022). Effects of Online Problem-Based learning to increase global competencies for first-year undergraduate students majoring in Science and Engineering in Japan. Sustainability: Technology-Enhanced Learning and Innovative Practices in Engineering Education , 14 (5), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052988 .

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An updated Guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021 , 8284 , n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 .

Rachman, D., Margana, & Priyanto (2022). The application of Mobile-Enhanced collaborative learning models on oral presentation competence in rural area during Covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research , 21 (3), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.26803/IJLTER.21.3.5 .

Ramachandran, R., Bernier, N. A., Mavilian, C. M., Izad, T., Thomas, L., & Spokoyny, A. M. (2021). Imparting scientific literacy through an online materials Chemistry General Education Course. Journal of Chemical Education , 98 (5), 1594–1601. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00138 .

Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2021). Balancing Technology, Pedagogy and the New Normal: Post-pandemic Challenges for Higher Education. Postdigital Science and Education , 3 (3), 715–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00249-1 .

Ripoll, V., Godino-Ojer, M., & Calzada, J. (2021). Teaching Chemical Engineering to Biotechnology students in the Time of COVID-19: Assessment of the adaptation to digitalization. Education for Chemical Engineers , 34 , 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2020.11.001 .

Rook, L., & McManus, L. (2020). Responding to COVID-19: Enriching students’ responsible Leadership through an online work-integrated Learning Project. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning , 21 (5), 601–616.

Sá, S., & Cruz, M. L. (2021). Using a Valid Game-Based Learning Activity to Practice Communication Competencies Online. 2021 4th International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE) . Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1109/CISPEE47794.2021.9507223

Scherer, R., Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F. (2021). Profiling teachers’ readiness for Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Who’s Ready? Computers in human behavior , 118 , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106675 .

Valentine, D. (2002). Distance learning: Promises, problems, and possibilities. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration , 5 (3), 1–11.

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Velaora, C., Dimos, I., Tsagiopoulou, S., & Kakarountas, A. (2022). A game-based Learning Approach in Digital Design Course to Enhance Students’ competency. Information (Switzerland) , 13 (4), https://doi.org/10.3390/info13040177.Scopus .

Networked Learning Editorial Collective (NLEC). (2021). Networked learning: Inviting redefinition. Postdigital Science and Education , 3 (2), 312–325.

Download references

Open access funding provided by Royal Danish Library.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

Sofie Otto, Lykke Brogaard Bertel, Niels Erik Ruan Lyngdorf, Anna Overgaard Markman, Thomas Andersen & Thomas Ryberg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sofie Otto , Lykke Brogaard Bertel , Niels Erik Ruan Lyngdorf , Anna Overgaard Markman , Thomas Andersen or Thomas Ryberg .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Otto, S., Bertel, L.B., Lyngdorf, N.E.R. et al. Emerging Digital Practices Supporting Student-Centered Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Review of Literature and Lessons Learned from the Covid-19 Pandemic. Educ Inf Technol 29 , 1673–1696 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11789-3

Download citation

Received : 17 October 2022

Accepted : 04 April 2023

Published : 20 May 2023

Issue Date : February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11789-3

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Digital practices
• Covid-19/post-pandemic
• Student-centered learning
• Systematic literature review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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

Digital technology and practices for school improvement: innovative digital school model

Liisa ilomäki.

Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 9, 00014 Helsinki, Finland

Minna Lakkala

Associated data.

The data is available in the University of Helsinki from the authors.

The aim of this study was to create a model which describes the main elements for improving schools with digital technology and helps to reveal differences between schools and identify their best practices and challenges. The innovative digital school model (IDI school) offers a framework for research but also a research-based model for schools to examine their own practices with digital technologies. The model combines previous research on school improvement, creation of innovations, and digital technology in education as a special case of innovations and learning as knowledge creation to define six main elements describing an innovative, digital school: visions of the school, leadership, practices of the teaching community, pedagogical practices, school-level knowledge practices and digital resources. The model was applied to investigate three basic education schools. The results indicate that the model worked: we found essential differences between the schools and their best practices and challenges for improvement. It worked particularly well for those elements, which are mainly the responsibility for leadership inside a school. The differences of various elements between schools were not based on socioeconomic background but on the school-level practices. As a conclusion, we suggest that to improve schools with digital technology, all elements of the model should be included in the evaluation and development process.

Introduction

In today’s world, education is facing major challenges: it is expected to provide children and teenagers with competencies they will need in the future, to consider informal ways of learning, and to apply digital technologies and modern pedagogical methods to answer these challenges (EU, 2010 ). However, schools have not managed to meet all these challenges: e.g. digital technology has not yet been applied much in education, although it is widely in use elsewhere in the society and in work life (EU 2013 ; Livingstone 2012 ); students do not acquire sufficient competence at school to undertake university studies (such as collaboration, planning, independent learning, digital competence or working with knowledge) (Hautamäki et al. 2012 ; Kiili 2012 ; Lundahl et al. 2010 ); and there are major differences between countries and schools in reaching these skill levels (such as problem-solving skills, OECD 2014 , 2017 ). There have been promising results that some pedagogical practices related to student centredness, real-life activities and group work have increased at schools between 2001 and 2011. Such pedagogical practices are often linked to the use of digital technology (OECD 2014 ).

There is a large body of research about using digital technology in schools, in classrooms and among teachers and students, but often these studies concentrate on only one or two phenomena of education and technology (e.g. classroom cases, or technical competence of teachers and students), thus isolating the object of study from the broader context of a school. Unless a more comprehensive view is adopted in the efforts of developing a school, there is little chance of innovation programmes having any lasting effect (Wikeley et al. 2005 ). Wong and Li ( 2011 ) investigated the connection between information and communication technology (ICT) implementation and pedagogical change. They concluded that organisational interventions and pedagogical interventions interacted with each other in effecting changes in student learning. Korhonen et al. ( 2014 ) introduced an innovative school community model, which addresses the development of four elements: students’ learning and learning environments, teachers’ professionalism, leadership and partnerships, as central to the advancement of educational innovation related to versatile use of digital technology. The model is generic, which leaves considerable room for interpretation in examining how current practices in a school should be evaluated and improved.

To investigate schools, we followed the sociocultural approach to learning (John-Steiner and Mann 1996 ; Packer and Goicoechea 2000 ): a school is an environment of collaborative, social activities of teachers, pupils and other participants; and their activities shape and transform its culture, values, practices and other specific characteristics. This approach also has an impact on our methodological choices: we mainly investigated practices rather than beliefs or thoughts .

The interest in the present study is in exploring the critical elements to be considered and the development processes needed in schools for reforming school education. Our specific focus is on the use of digital technology: how new digital technology has been applied and how it could be used to improve pedagogical and knowledge practices.

School is a complicated object to study: it consists of various administrative levels , from the national policy level to classrooms; various actors , such as school staff and pupils inside a school as well as parents and local school administrators outside a school; contradictory aims , such as aiming to ensure relevant competence levels for pupils in the future, but simultaneously, carrying on the traditions and history of society. For the complexity of a school as a research object, the theoretical background for the present study is multifaceted: research about school improvement, research about innovation, research about pedagogical practices (especially the collaborative knowledge creation traditions) and studies about digital technologies in education.

The connection to societal goals is essential for a school; it forms the external structure and resources for schools—which certainly have a strong impact (e.g. Ranson et al. 2005 )—but the responsibility for improving an individual school from the inside rests with the principal and the teachers. For this reason, the focus in the present study is on the elements and practices inside individual schools, bearing in mind the external factors and stakeholders. The reason for leaving the external administration outside the approach of the study is pragmatic: we want to create a model for schools for their own use, to reflect and improve those practices that they are able to change themselves. An individual school can seldom affect upper-level administrative decisions, but schools always possess some autonomy to make changes in the work of teachers and pupils. As Lemke ( 2001 ) emphasised, educational researchers should be explicit about the level of phenomena and the primary unit of analysis that the investigation is focusing on, but also be aware of the influence of the phenomena at upper and lower levels (e.g. municipal-level administrative decisions or individual teachers’ personal motives). Leclerc et al. ( 2012 ) investigated individual principals and teachers and made school-level conclusions based on these data. This was similar to work by Peck et al. ( 2009 ) when they were investigating innovations in schools. The present study focuses on classroom and school-level practices by interviewing individuals (teachers and principals), observing teaching practices and by conducting surveys for teachers and pupils. We presuppose that there is a strong and essential interaction between the different levels; this is a major starting point of our study.

In the following section, we first describe how the study relates to previous research approaches and then introduce the innovative digital school (IDI school) model: its basic elements and their connection with previous research. The framework has been applied in our study to examine schools. In the empirical section, the application of the model has been examined through case studies from three comprehensive schools.

Review of relevant previous research approaches for developing the model

Research on school improvement and change.

School improvement is aimed at improving student outcomes, wherever the change takes place (Creemers and Reezigt 2005 ). The large body of research about school improvement is one of the cornerstones of understanding the structures and practices of schools, such as leadership practices, teachers’ professional collaboration or pedagogical practices. Studies about school improvement have indicated how schools have benefited from restructuring their common practices, such as teachers’ tasks, activities and learning practices, leadership practices and the ways pedagogical methods are organised, in order to meet the developmental challenges (Crook et al. 2010 ; Harris 2002b ; OECD 2015 ). The elements of consensus about the vision (in vision of the school) and shared leadership (in leadership) are based on the studies presented here.

The school improvement movement and related research are strongly connected to educational systems and the policy-based and societal goals of education. Countries differ in their goals and views about school improvement, and the means for improving education can even be contradictory—leading also to quite different results (Hargreaves 2011 ; OECD 2014 2015 ). In countries such as the UK, the approach has been hierarchical top-down, whereas in the Nordic countries, the emphasis is on democracy, meaning the goal is to give schools and teachers responsibility for the improvement (Sahlberg 2011 ; Wrigley 2003 ). The elements of practices of the teaching society are based on the approach of teachers’ responsibility for the school improvement.

Researchers have defined some necessary characteristics for a school as a learning organisation (Senge et al. 1994 ). These are mutual trust and willingness to engage in open communication by the participants (Creemers and Reezigt 2005 ; Harris 2002b ; Leclerc et al. 2012 ; Senge et al. 1994 ); teachers’ shared values and visions, which focus on student learning (Leclerc et al. 2012 ); and collaborative knowledge-sharing as a tool for continuous growth of both teachers and schools. Knowledge sharing is a fundamental transformation of the teaching profession itself and is a route for creating collaborative cultures (Fullan 2001 ; Leclerc et al. 2012 ; Pedder and MacBeath 2008 ). Furthermore, staff members have opportunities to influence the school’s activities and policies (Harris 2002b ; Newmann et al. 2000 ), teacher collaboration is further supported by practical arrangements such as allocating time for teacher collaboration and teachers assume collective responsibility for attaining goals (Creemers and Reezigt 2005 ; Leclerc et al. 2012 ; Newmann et al. 2000 ). The elements of practices of the teaching community and school-level knowledge practices are based on the studies presented here.

For school improvement, the role of the school principal is essential. The principal manages the processes, motivates, organises and involves the staff in improvement, shares values for creating and supporting common visions (DuFour and Mattos 2013 ; Harris 2002a ) and understands teachers’ learning as a vehicle for the school’s continuous improvement (Earley 2010 ). Leadership affects the atmosphere for collaboration and experimentation (Wong and Li 2011 ). School leadership is best understood as a distributed practice, stretched over the school’s social and situational contexts, which is also beneficial for teachers (Facer 2012 ; OECD 2015 ; Spillane et al. 2004 ). It is an interactive process to build social capacity and trust, and to support networking (Harris 2002a ; Leclerc et al. 2012 ; Resnick and Spillane 2006 ). A challenge for a principal as an educational leader is the requirement for networking with other principals, administrators and other external stakeholders, which provides new perspectives and promotes the creation of effective and sustainable improvement (Hargreaves and Fink 2003 ; Harris 2010 ). The elements of leadership are based on the studies presented here.

In addition to research on school improvement, the research on knowledge work gives essential inspiration on how to view schools as organisations. Brown and Duguid ( 2001 ) emphasised practices and their travelling within an organisation and through sub-cultures. This sharing and collaborative creation of knowledge and practices is realised via boundary objects, such as common ways of working or shared objects to be developed. Brown and Duguid were investigating business firms, but schools are also knowledge work organisations. The elements of development practices (in practices of the teaching community) and common knowledge practices with technology (in school-level knowledge practices) are based on the ideas of Brown and Duguid.

Research on innovation applied in school context

Research concerning innovation provides essential added value to understanding the improvement of pedagogical practices. There are various definitions of innovation, differing between the level of focus and the novelty of the innovation (OECD 2010 , 2014 ). Some definitions regard only fundamentally new change as innovation, some also accept inclusion of issues that are novel in the context of the users. Messmann and Mulder ( 2011 ) defined an innovation as follows: ‘products or processes that are new and applicable for a certain individual, group or organisation and that are useful for the same or a different individual, group or organization’ (p. 66). This definition is close to the approach adopted in the present study. The emergence, acceptance and distribution of innovations that focus on the connection between individuals and organisations are especially important when answering the question about how educational innovations are adopted and what are the conditions for their dissemination.

An educational innovation succeeds or fails with the teachers who shape it (Lieberman and Pointer Mace 2008 ). In every significant change, the locus of innovations in practice could be traced to insights and initiatives of individuals, and collective negotiations and actions through which the changes have been achieved (Peck et al. 2009 ). Messmann and Mulder ( 2011 ) found in their study that the most powerful processes of learning and innovation took place in informal professional and personal relationships and in teachers’ communities. Teachers were motivated to work for change, and their positive individual image was framed by the experience of social support by colleagues and the supervisor as well as a stimulating climate for innovation. This also created a social norm that innovative work was appreciated. Several matters facilitated innovative work behaviour: competence, impact, responsibility for change, motivation for change, supervisor’s support, participative safety, supportive atmosphere and job complexity (see also Kunnari and Ilomäki 2016 ). Furthermore, in studies of teachers’ learning in innovation projects, experiments in practice and teacher learning go hand in hand (Bakkenes et al. 2010 ; Ilomäki et al. 2017 ). According to Bakkenes et al. ( 2010 ), informal learning brought fewer positive results than organised learning, especially reciprocal working with a peer or in a collaborative project team. Pedder and MacBeath ( 2008 ) argued that for schools (in the UK), the challenge appears to be in reasserting the values of learning, risk-taking, critical introspection, experimentation and innovation at all levels of the school organisation, and putting these into practice. Preconditions for innovation in organisations resemble the characteristics of learning communities: supporting teachers’ competence, autonomy and collegiality motivate teachers to change their teaching approaches (Lam et al. 2010 ; OECD 2015 ).

The elements of vision of the school and pedagogical collaboration and sharing of expertise and development practices (in practices of the teaching community) are based on the studies presented here.

Technology adoption as an innovation in school

The expectations about rapid acceptance and implementation of digital technology into educational practices have not been fulfilled (EU 2013 ), although some promising results indicate the connection between new pedagogical practices (= less teacher-centred) and the use of digital technology (Donnelly et al. 2011 ; Overbay et al. 2010 ; OECD 2014 ). In schools, technology is often still used for prevailing teaching methods, such as information sharing, or doing simple exercises, rather than for promoting collaborative or creative activities, solving complex problems or improving students’ digital competence (Livingstone 2012 ; OECD 2010 ).

Two alternative explanations for transforming educational practices associated with ICT have been suggested (Cuban et al. 2001 ; Twining et al. 2013 ): The first is a ‘slow revolution’ and support for existing practices, in which small changes accumulate over time and create a slow-motion transformation towards new ways of working. Only routines are replaced, and no changes are made in learning content or pedagogical practices. This explanation is anchored to the notion of a time lag between the invention of new technology, the adoption of innovations and the slow spread of its virtues through the general population. According to this explanation, the adoption of technology is an inevitable result which will come about anyway. The second explanation, ‘active transformation’ tries to account for the sustaining of teacher-centred practices: teachers and school make plans and decide how technology should be implemented in how best to answer to the specific challenges the school has. The curriculum content and/or processes will be changed, and these are changes that could not have taken place without digital technology.

There is a large body of studies about how digital technology has been implemented in education; e.g. what resources schools, teachers and students have; how much digital technology is used in classrooms; and what practices digital technology is used for (OECD 2010 , 2011 , 2014 , 2015 ). First, it is essential that teachers and students have the opportunity to learn to use digital technology, and second, that they have meaningful and necessary resources to use it. Teachers’ digital competence, related to pedagogical understanding of using technology in education, is the corner stone of supporting students’ digital competence (Hakkarainen et al. 2000 , 2001 ). The elements of pedagogical practices and digital resources are based on the studies presented here.

Research on learning as knowledge creation

Those theoretical approaches emphasising learning as collaborative knowledge creation (Bereiter 2002 ; Paavola and Hakkarainen 2005 ; Hong and Sullivan 2009 ) have strongly influenced our views concerning the pedagogical development in schools through digital technologies. According to these approaches, teaching should primarily promote knowledge innovation and collective advancement of shared knowledge products (Scardamalia and Bereiter 2006 ; Hong and Sullivan 2009 ). Arguments for these approaches are the requirement to promote adaptive expertise, collaboration skills and capabilities to work creatively with knowledge, which are the competencies needed in education, working life and society in general. Recent discussions concerning the learning of ‘21st Century Skills’ have similarities with these ideas: school learning should focus more on supporting the development of the relevant competencies that are needed to cope with the challenges of the unknown future, instead of concentrating on content learning and routine tasks (Ananiadou and Claro 2009 ; Bell 2010 ).

Features of pedagogical practices representing the collaborative knowledge creation approach include learners’ engagement, goal-oriented production of knowledge objects for relevant purpose, collective efforts and resources and versatile use of modern technologies (Robin 2008 ; Bell 2010 ; Scardamalia and Bereiter 2006 ; Tan and McWilliam 2009 ). The role of technological applications in such practices is often to provide flexible tools for communication and networking, co-authoring of shared knowledge products and managing joint working processes (Lakkala et al. 2009 ). The elements of pedagogical practices are based on the studies presented in the two previous chapters.

Scardamalia and Bereiter ( 1999 ) suggested that to help students to succeed in the knowledge society, schools should become knowledge-building organisations, in which students are members, not clients. Their suggestions are in line with the ideas of learning as knowledge creation (in which tradition they have a profound contribution). The element of pupils’ involvement (in school-level knowledge practices) is based on the this approach.

The elements of innovative digital school

Based on previous research approaches reviewed above and our own studies (Ilomäki and Lakkala 2011 ; Lakkala and Ilomäki 2013 ), we created the innovative digital school (IDI school) model for investigating whether schools use digital technology in an innovative way to improve pedagogical and working practices. In developing the model, we have emphasised leaning on relevant previous research approaches to avoid criticisms about creating a model based on occasional empirical findings, which leads to a quasi-theoretical model (Wikeley et al. 2005 ). However, we have also used a data-driven approach with extensive data from everyday practices of schools in order to avoid the gap between the theoretical model and ordinary practices in the field. Such data-driven elements, also acknowledged somewhat by research, are especially elements in school-level practices: physical premises (Cleveland and Fisher 2014 ; Gislason 2010 ) and pupils’ involvement in school level activities (Katsenou et al. 2015 ; Svanbjörnsdóttir et al. 2016 ). Table  1 presents the relationship between the elements of IDI School model with relevant research approaches, the main conclusions of previous studies related to the elements of our model and the main references.

Elements of the IDI school model and their relationship with previous research approaches

The elements are presented in visual form in Fig.  1 .

The innovative digital school model: elements of a school regarded as relevant for developing schools through digital technology

Aims and research questions of the study

The reason for developing the IDI school model was to offer a framework for research but also to provide a research-based model for schools to reflect on, understand and improve their own practices to achieve sustainable pedagogical improvements with the help of digital technologies. There is a need for research-based, practice-oriented methods that help schools and teachers themselves reflect and investigate their own practices and thus improve them (Angelides et al. 2004 ). The aim of the present study was to examine how the model can be used to evaluate the existing practices of the schools used as examples and to make recommendations for improving the practices. The following research questions were constructed:

• How does the innovative digital school model help to identify good practices and points for improvement in using digital technology for school change in the example schools?
• How does the model reveal the essential differences in using digital technology for school change between the example schools?

The study is an explanatory multiple case study for explaining how the theoretical model used supports the description of the cases and how the cases differed from each other (Yin 2014 ). The purpose is to increase understanding of the cases (Merriam 1998 ) and to create analytic generalisations for other cases and situations (Yin 2014 ). The study relies on holistic data collection strategies, following the mixed methods approach (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004 ). The use of several approaches and methods leads to better understanding of the objects of investigation and mixing various methods gives a more accurate picture of what is going on, while different methods help to answer slightly different questions (Todd et al. 2004 ). They provide an opportunity to present a greater diversity of views (Teddle and Tashakkori 2003 ) and help us to understand complex phenomena (Newmann et al. 2000 ). In the study, the mixed methods followed the triangulation design model, the variant of multilevel research (Creswell and Plano Clark 2007 ) in which different methods are used to address different levels within the system (school) and the findings are merged into one overall interpretation.

Three basic education schools (grades 1–9) participated in the study. They all are located in the metropolitan area of Helsinki. The city’s education department is the local organiser of education and in principle; all schools have equal access to resources. The local administration organises the technical resources (network connections, computers and other digital tools, the virtual learning environment and other applications). The city has also provided good opportunities for in-service training about digital technology. However, the schools also have some capacity to acquire resources of their own choice, such as by participating in national development projects, or in voluntary teacher training events. All teachers have a university degree and they are qualified teachers.

All the schools are located in suburbs.

School A is located in a residential area of single-family houses. In the area, the unemployment rate was 4.8%, the proportion of inhabitants with a higher education background was 24.5% of the total, the number of inhabitants with a foreign background was 3.6% and the income per residence was €87,645 (Tikkanen and Selander 2014 ). The curriculum of the school emphasises environmental education and sustainable development. It is also the member of a programme which aims to reduce bullying. There were 360 pupils at school A in 2015.

School B is located in an area of small houses and blocks of flats. In the area, the unemployment rate was 7.1%, the number of inhabitants with a higher education background was 11.9%, the number of inhabitants with a foreign background was 9.9% and the income per residence was €57,335 (Tikkanen and Selander 2014 ). The school has no emphasis on any one subject; it aims to be a safe local school. There were 640 pupils at school B in 2015.

School C is located in an area of mainly blocks of flats. In the area, the unemployment rate was 15.1%, the number of inhabitants with a higher education background was 3.2%, the number of inhabitants with a foreign background was 23% and the income per residence was €32,182 (Tikkanen and Selander 2014 ). The school emphasises creativity and handicrafts, and it has two special classes emphasising digital technology from 3rd to 9th grade. The school has several special education classes, and it has organised preparatory teaching for immigrant pupils. There were 375 pupils in the school in 2015.

Participants

Participants of the study were principals (one from each school), teachers with permanent positions and 9th grade pupils. Principals and teachers were not asked for their age; the mean of pupils’ age varied from 15.3 to 15.6 between schools. Table  2 shows the number of participants and their gender.

The number of participants and their gender

The response rates to the survey of teachers and students at each school varied as described in Table ​ Table1. 1 . Schools and their principals, teachers and pupils participated voluntarily in the study. Permission to participate in the study was sought from parents of the pupils concerning surveys and the videotaping of lessons.

Measures and data collection

From each school, the following data were collected:

Lesson observations

Five subject teachers using digital technology in teaching were recruited from each school for classroom observations and interviews. The lessons in which digital technology was somehow used by the teacher or pupils were chosen for observation. A pre-planned observation sheet of phenomena to be observed was used; the focus was on classroom practices, such as the nature of assignments, pupils’ activities in completing the assignments, the use of digital technology, pupils’ and teachers’ interaction regarding the assignment and technology as well as the focus of the teacher’s guidance. The teachers of the lessons that were observed were interviewed briefly before and after each lesson, concerning their observation about the goals and practices of the lesson. The lessons and the short interviews were videotaped; the videos were used to complement written observation notes. In Table  3 is a list of the lessons observed.

The subjects and grade levels of the observed lessons

The principal and five teachers at each the school were interviewed using a semi-structured interview. The interviews focussed on the following themes: the use of digital technology in teaching, the school’s vision, the principal’s professional competence and its development, teachers’ collaboration practices and school community and the role of the principal. The principal was also asked about leadership issues. The interviews lasted about 1 h.

Data about the use of digital technologies were collected through questionnaires from pupils and teachers. Both questionnaires were based on questionnaires developed in previous studies (Hakkarainen et al. 2000 ; Hakkarainen et al. 2001 ), and for this study, they were modified to take into account recent technological development (e.g. questions about the use of Internet were added).

The teacher questionnaire was sent to all teachers with permanent positions at the schools. It consisted of questions concerning the following topics:

• Digital competence: 17 Likert-type statements (1 = not at all, 5 = very well); e.g. How well do you manage spread sheet applications , e.g. Excel
• The use of digital technology: 41 statements concerning the use at school and at home, the use of various Internet services, the use of various digital applications with pupils (answer options were not at all—seldom—monthly—weekly—daily)
• The need for support and training in using technology: Four Likert-type statements (1 = completely inadequate, 7 = completely adequate)
• The usefulness of digital technology in some pedagogical practices: 20 Likert-type statements (1 = totally useless, 7 = totally useful); e.g. Small - scale project works , e.g. information search for understanding a topic .

The pupil questionnaire was sent to 9th grade pupils. The questionnaire consisted of questions concerning the following topics:

• Digital competence: 17 Likert-type statements (1 = not at all, 5 = very well)
• The use of digital technology: 33 statements concerning the use at school and at home, the use of various Internet services, the use of various digital applications at school (answer options were not at all—seldom—monthly—weekly—daily)
• In which subjects is ICT used at school, also the frequency: Seven statements concerning school subjects (answer options were not at all—seldom—monthly—weekly—daily)

Data analysis

Each type of data was first analysed separately as described below.

Observation notes and related short interviews were used to categorise the pedagogical approach of each lesson. The classification was created by the researchers through abductive use of theory-informed and data-grounded analysis on the data (Timmermans and Tavory 2012 ). The pedagogical infrastructure framework (Lakkala and Ilomäki 2015 ) was applied to define the elements examined in the practices: technical structures (role and organisation of technology use), social structures (role and nature of collaboration), epistemic structures (practices of using and creating knowledge) and cognitive structures (cognitive challenge of tasks, support for pupils’ self-regulation and metaskills). Three categories were created for defining the prevailing pedagogical approach of each lesson:

• Structured content learning : Technology was used for teacher presentations or structured practicing (e.g. drill-and-practice tasks), individual tasks, focus on learning factual and declarative knowledge, low cognitive challenge and no explicit attention to metacognitive aspects of working
• Learner - centred activating tasks : Technology was used for information seeking or minor authoring tasks (e.g. short essays), mainly individual tasks but some sharing between pupils, small-scale knowledge production, mid-level cognitive challenge, but no explicit attention to metacognitive aspects of working
• Collaborative knowledge creation : Versatile use of technical applications for knowledge creation (e.g. reports), working mainly based on pair or group work, open-ended task lasting more than one lesson, high cognitive challenge and modelling of working strategies

The interviews were transcribed verbatim and then analysed following a theory-driven content analysis, using Atlas.ti software (version 7.1.5). The elements of the IDI school model (see Fig. ​ Fig.1) 1 ) were used as categories to define which sections in each interview described which phenomenon of the school practices. The interview questions were designed to address the elements of the model, but in the analysis, we also considered that an answer referring to any of the elements might emerge under any question. In constructing the case descriptions of schools, the coding in Atlas.ti was used to extract all interview excerpts from an individual school concerning a certain school model element, in order to make the judgement and description of the nature and level of practices in that school.

Teacher and pupil surveys

The data were analysed with IBM SPSS 22. The means of items were compared using one-way ANOVA and Tamhane’s T2 post hoc tests.

Integration of the results from individual data sources

The dimensions and levels of each sub-element were constructed descriptively by combining the analysis results of separate data sets. The analysis was of iterative explanation building (Yin 2014 ): The analysis criteria, based on the IDI school model and described above, were first compared with the empirical evidence from the first case, and then revised and compared with the evidence from the other cases.

The dimensions of each phenomenon (elements of the IDI school model; see Fig. ​ Fig.1) 1 ) and the data produced information about each element. Each element was scored in the following way: 1 (low level), 2 (average level) and 3 (high level). The scores were based on the analysis of all data sources, and the researchers together decided the scoring. In addition, the scores of the main elements were constructed as the means of the sub-elements. In Appendix , the analysis framework of the phenomena and the data is presented.

The results are first presented in the order of data and data analysis; the integration of the results is presented after that.

Practices at each school, according to the interviews and classroom observations

The practices are presented following the order of the elements of the IDI School model in Table ​ Table3 3 .

Visions concerning digital technology related mainly to technical skills and resources. The visions were emerging; most teachers shared them, but the visions were not fully clear in teachers’ minds. The school had several common development projects going on and the importance of development activities was emphasised in the interviews.

Shared leadership came true in systematically organised teacher teams, which included all teachers, and the active role of the executive team. The principal’s networking included basic collaboration inside school and with municipal school administrators and parents. The principal acted as an enabler of teachers’ development efforts (e.g., organising resources for training), but also as the promoter of new development initiatives.

Teachers had various established collaboration practices, such as pedagogical workshops, co-teaching between teachers or sharing of teaching plans and materials through virtual forums. The school had multiple development practices, e.g. national and international projects, or periodic joint reflection of teaching. The teachers interviewed actively collaborated with colleagues at the same school, but they did not do much networking outside the school.

Teachers’ perceptions of digital technology in education focussed on aspects related to motivation, increased variability in methods or increased student-centredness and learning effectiveness, but there were few mentions about collaborative or creative activities. The usage of digital tools in teaching included a range of methods, from drill-and-practice tasks to challenging long-term project work. Three of the five lessons observed represented collaborative knowledge creation practices; some teachers appeared to use advanced pedagogical methods with digital technology.

Plans for developing common school-level practices, e.g. about media usage and study practices, had been started. A joint Media Week was organised annually. A virtual learning platform was established as an information channel for teachers, and its usage with pupils was actively promoted. Teachers’ experience of the school premises was that they were quite flexible, but some teachers mentioned the lack of a computer laboratory and the distribution of computers as problems. Pupils were involved in school-level activities in various ways; e.g. the pupils’ media team was responsible for documenting school events, and a training event in which pupils guided teachers to use social media had been organised. School-level networking was based on the activity of some teachers and their classes participated in national and international projects.

Most interviewees thought that too few computers were available for teaching, and that login in the laptops took too much time in lessons. The teachers had common plans about which digital skills to teach to pupils in each subject and grade. Digitally more-competent teachers had organised training sessions for less-competent colleagues about the central applications, and teachers were encouraged to participate in in-service courses organised by the city.

Most of the teachers interviewed shared the opinion that there was no explicit vision in the school about digital technology. Some interviewees mentioned ensuring that pupils had good basic digital skills, whilst others emphasised the improvement in teachers’ digital competence, or flexible digital resources. Attitudes towards development efforts were positive, and some projects with other schools were going on, and there were plans for developing the school’s practices. However, the development interests appeared to be dependent on the motivation of individual teachers.

The teachers were divided into three administrative teams, each of which was allocated tasks based on needs; the teams had some responsibility of their own. The principal had established collaboration with the vice principals, the executive team and the principals of nearby schools, but there were no other explicit networks. The principal was described positively: the creator of a positive atmosphere, a pedagogical leader and a provider of resources for professional development.

Pedagogical collaboration included team discussions, some co-teaching practices, sharing of materials and informal discussions; it was mainly based on subject-specific groups and spontaneous and voluntary participation. The school had one common development programme (about learning to learn skills), but otherwise, development efforts included participation in training events and projects depended on the teachers’ own initiative. Two teachers mentioned an external organisation as a point of contact, but otherwise, networking included conventional partners: the city’s teacher training unit, teachers’ friends or parents. One teacher had no collaborators outside school.

Teachers’ pedagogical perceptions about digital technology included benefits concerning increased motivation, usage as a presentation tool, variation in methods and a useful writing tool. None of the teachers explicitly mentioned more challenging project- or inquiry-based methods or collaborative learning, but two of the lessons that were observed represented such practices.

Communication and sharing of materials among teachers was organised through web-applications, but otherwise no common knowledge practices were mentioned at the school, nor between teachers or pupils. Also, ICT courses for pupils were voluntary. Some teachers mentioned old-fashioned, inflexible premises and computer laboratories as a weakness; the problem was visible also in the lesson observations. One teacher had used older pupils as guides for younger pupils in technology use; otherwise, nobody described any practices for involving pupils in school-level activities. The interviews did not reveal any established school-level networks besides neighbouring schools participating in a common project.

Concerning the utility of digital resources, the teachers were not satisfied with the fixed computer laboratories and the shortage of equipment, especially mobile tools (like tablets). They were satisfied with the technical support but did not mention any examples of pedagogical support.

Digital visions appeared not to be shared visions; the teachers interviewed mentioned basic digital skills, increasing technology use and more versatile practices, or explicitly said that they were unaware what the vision is. The experience of the atmosphere was as supportive of development efforts, and the school participated in various national and international projects.

Leadership was shared through subject-based and task-based teams, and some teachers had taken the responsibility for development projects. The principal had active collaboration with local institutions at various educational levels, and she had taken an active role in renewing common practices.

The teachers had many collaboration practices: working in teams or projects, informal discussions, sharing of ideas and materials and interdisciplinary co-teaching. The interviewees mentioned development practices such as projects and training sessions, but participation in them happened only occasionally and participation was voluntary, depending on the teacher. The teachers had networks with various stakeholders in institutions related to their subject, e.g. the church, music college or police.

Teachers’ perceptions about technology in education included conventional issues, such as individualised teaching, up-to-date information sources or useful tools for pupils’ work, but in general, teachers’ opinions were very positive. The pedagogical practices that were mentioned with technology were versatile but not very innovative, like individual knowledge production or rehearsal of content. None of the lessons that were observed included challenging collaborative knowledge creation activities.

The teachers had made common plans about the teaching of ICT and media communication to different grades of students, and web-applications were used for information sharing between teachers. Other common knowledge practices were not mentioned in the interviews. Some teachers experienced old, inflexible school premises as a challenge for advancing digitalisation, but a new room for project learning was under construction. Pupils’ involvement in school-level responsibilities and activities was not mentioned. The school had collaboration arrangements with external organisations through multiple national and international development projects.

The utility of technical resources was experienced as being at quite a good level, but the heterogeneity of teachers’ digital competence was mentioned as a challenge. Teachers had good opportunities to participate in courses organised by the city, and there had been some internal training events, but the emphasis had been on technical skills, not on pedagogical issues.

Results of questionnaires with teachers and pupils

The results are presented in the order of the elements of the IDI school model shown in Table ​ Table3 3 .

Results of the teacher questionnaire

Perceptions of using digital technology in education.

Teachers were asked about the usefulness of digital technology in various pedagogical assignments. Table  4 shows the means, standard deviations (SDs) of teachers’ perceptions and the p value of statistical differences.

Teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness of digital technology in various pedagogical assignments and statistical differences

There were statistically significant differences in the following perceptions of the usefulness of digital technology: At school A, teachers’ evaluation scores were statistically significantly lower than the scores of teachers at the other schools in the following pedagogical practices: small-scale project work F (2,54) = 12.841, p  = .000; practicing skills F (2,54) = 10,866, p  = .000; small-scale products (like writings during one lesson) F (2,54) = 12.256, p  = .000; net discussions related to the topic F (2,54) = 6.412, p  = .003; and presenting information and support for illustration F (2,54) = 12.148, p  = .000. Tamhane’s T2 post-hoc comparisons were used to calculate the differences between the schools.

Pedagogical practices with digital technology

Teachers were asked about the use of various digital applications and Internet services in their own teaching; there were no statistically significant differences between schools in how much they reported using various applications and the Internet.

Teachers were also asked about using digital technology in various pedagogical practices. In Table  5 , the means and SDs of all practices are presented. There were a few statistically significant differences in the reported use of digital technology.

The means and SDs of pedagogical practices with digital technology and statistical differences

The statistically significant differences were found in the following items: small-scale projects F (2,54) = 13.233, practicing skills, F (2,54) = 10.988, p  = .000; small-scale products (like writings) F (2,54) = 9.084, p  = .000; and information presenting and support for illustration F (2,54) = 5.934, p  = .005. Tamhane’s T2 post-hoc comparisons were used for calculating the differences between the schools.

Teachers’ digital competence

The results showed, first, that there were no statistically significant differences between schools in teachers’ self-evaluated digital competence, and that teachers evaluated their competence in basic digital application as being quite high (scale 1–5), such as using email (mean 4.7), searching for information on the Internet (mean 4.7), word processing (mean 4.4), loading files from the Internet (mean 4.2) and using the digital learning environment (mean 3.8). These formed a group of basic digital competence. The second group of applications were using spreadsheets (mean 3.2), digital image processing (mean 3.1), graphics (mean 2.9) and social forums (mean 2.9). The lowest means were in virtual meeting tools (mean 2.3), creating www-pages (mean 2.3), publishing tools (mean 2.2), writing a blog (mean 2.2), publishing www-pages (mean 2.0), producing information to wiki (mean 1.9), voice and music (mean 1.9) and programming (mean 1.4).

Pedagogical and technological training and support

Figure  2 shows the means of teachers’ need for support and training for using digital technology.

Teachers’ need for support and training of digital technology

The evaluation of teachers at school A was that they needed both technical and pedagogical training less than teachers at the two other schools, and there was a statistically significant difference between schools A and B in need for technical training: F (2,54) = 9.993, p  = .000; and in need for pedagogical training: F (2,54) = 12.719, p  = .000, indicated with * in Fig.  2 .

Results of the pupil questionnaire

Pupils were asked which applications they use at school. In Table  6 , the means and SDs of those applications in which there were statistically significant differences between the schools are described.

Means, SDs and statistical differences of digital applications and pedagogical practices used

The statistical significance of differences in means between the pupils of schools was analysed by using one-way ANOVA. The analysis indicated statistically significant differences in the means in the following items: using word processing: F (2,172) = 18.909, p  = .000; using spreadsheets: F (2,172) = 16.686, p  = .000; using email: F (2,172) = 38.490, p  = .000; using social forums: F (2,172) = 9.940, p  = .000; publishing in a web blog: F (2,172) = 22.253, p  = .000; using learning environments: F (2,172) = 17.316, p  = .000; publish pictures, texts or reports: F (2,172) = 5.811, p  = .004; develop my thoughts about the topic in a collaborative discussion: F (2,172) = 14.735, p  = .000; teacher guidance through the net for independent learning: F (2,172) = 9.678, p  = .000; freedom to surf in the Internet when assignments are done: F (2,172) = 15.361, p  = .000; and contact with pupils in other schools via email or the Internet: F (2,172) = 8.367, p  = .000; information search from the Internet: F (2,172) = 22.464, p  = .000; publishing in the Internet: F (2,172) = 7.281, p  = .001. Tamhane’s T2 post-hoc comparisons were used for calculating the differences between the schools.

There was also a difference in the statement about the use of ICT during leisure time for school work, in which pupils at school A had higher scores than pupils at the other schools. The statistically significant differences were between school A ( M  = 3.7, SD = .553) and schools B ( M  = 2.3, SD = .833) and C ( M  = 2.2, SD .956) ( F (2,172) = 55.259, p  = .000).

Pupils’ digital competence

Pupils at all three schools liked to use ICT at school, and there were no statistically significant differences concerning the statements measuring this: the use of ICT is easy ( M  = 4.2, SD = 1.034), the use of ICT makes learning more interesting ( M  = 3.9, SD = 1.111) and pupils would like to use ICT more at school ( M  = 3.8, SD = 1.192). Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences in the use of technology at home and during leisure time.

Pupils also evaluated their competence in using various digital applications. The statistically significant differences in means and SDs between the pupils from the three schools are described in Table  7 .

Pupils’ self-evaluated digital competence in some applications (means, SDs and statistical differences)

The differences were analysed by using one-way ANOVA. No differences were found in applications which tend to be less used in schools, such as digital image processing, publishing tools, voice and music applications or programming. The analysis indicated statistically significant differences in means between pupils of participating schools in the following items: word processing F (2,172) = 13.287, p  = .000; spreadsheets F (2,172) = 15.092, p  = .000; email F (2,172) = 10.002, p  = .000; information search from the Internet F (2,172) = 6.492, p  = .002; writing a web blog, F (2,172) = 9.441, p  = .000; and using virtual learning environments F (2,172) = 9.042, p  = .000. Tamhane’s T2 post-hoc comparisons were used for calculating the differences between the schools.

Overview of the level of practices in the schools

In Table  8 , the results of the separate data sets have been integrated and scored for each school.

Evaluated level of practices in each school

The scores show differences between schools: schools A and C are ‘strong’ schools in several major elements. At school A, digital resources are at an especially high level, and in general, school-level working practices are at a high level. At school C, leadership practices and teaching community practices are at a high level. School B has the lowest scores in every major element. In the ‘ Discussion ’ section, we will discuss about the differences more in detail.

In the study, we investigated the practices at three schools based on six elements defined in the innovative digital school model. We aimed to find out, first, if those elements could help in defining good practices and suggestions for improvement for developing the schools with digital technology; and second, if the model revealed essential differences between the schools.

Good practices and points for improvement in the example schools

In order to answer the first research question about how the IDI school model helps to identify good practices and points to be improved in using digital technology for school change, we describe the practices of each school separately.

Among the characteristics of school A were advanced and established practices in shared leadership, practices of the teaching community, advanced pedagogical practices with technology and school-level knowledge practices, including involvement of pupils and systematic promotion of their digital competence through pedagogical activities. However, shared visions about digital technology were only emerging, teachers’ digital competence was only average and the perceptions in the pedagogical usage of technology had considerable variety between teachers, although there were examples of inspiring pedagogical methods. Teachers did not report needing support for using technology which probably indicates both quite a good level of digital competence and well-organised support practices in the school. Pupils’ self-reported digital competence was at a high level especially concerning basic applications. Pupils reported using technology quite often during leisure time for school-related activities, and at school for various basic activities, but also for collaboration and networking. Based on the results, the following suggestions for improvements can be made for school A: (1) the teaching staff should focus on crystallising and sharing the school’s visions in using digital technology as the basis for further development (elements A1 and A2); (2) teachers should share their pedagogical ideas and experiments, e.g. in organised meetings and workshops (elements C1 and C2); and (3) teachers should develop their digital competence, such as by making use of the training resources made available by the city and by organising school-level small-scale training (elements F2 and F4).

School B had some shared leadership practices and the principal was appreciated, but otherwise the school was not very advanced in any of the measures. Attitudes towards development efforts were positive, but established practices were lacking. There were teachers who collaborated with each other, participated in development projects and used digital technology in teaching in advanced ways, but activity was based on teachers’ own initiative and voluntariness. Especially at the school level, knowledge practices were minimal, both concerning the promotion of pupils’ involvement and digital competence, and school-level networking. Teachers at the school reported needing both technical and pedagogical support in using digital technology. For school B, based on the results, the following suggestions for improvements can be made: (1) it is important to create a common vision for developing the use of digital technology (element A1) and promote development orientation among teachers (element A3). (2) The principal and the management team should create and organise systematic common practices to carry out improvements in all developmental areas (elements in C). (3) The digital resources should be evaluated and developed (all elements in F) and especially teachers’ digital competence should be improved (elements F3 and F4).

School C represents a school with high-level leadership practices, and a strong collaboration culture both inside the school and in the active external networking of both the principal, teachers and the whole school. The school had a strong development orientation in general, but it had not yet become true in the school-level knowledge practices, digital resources or advanced practices of using technology in teaching. School C has much potential for improvement, and based on the results, the following suggestions for improvements can be made: (1) the usage of digital technology for school improvement should be more deliberate through agreements of shared visions (elements A1 and A2); (2) the school should create systematic development of pedagogical and knowledge practices (elements D and E); and (3) all pupils’ and teachers’ digital competence should be improved, both with pedagogical practices (element D2) and training and support (elements F2, F3 and F4).

Differences between the schools investigated

To answer the second research question about how the model reveals essential differences in digital technology for school change, we compared the practices of schools by summarising the results of data analyses.

The results of the study indicate that there were some clear differences between the schools, although they also had a lot in common, especially in the principal’s role and teachers’ digital competence; common characteristics might be a result of common policies and practices of the city in these issues. Such elements, which are strongly dependent on school-level decisions, differed between the schools. Included here are teachers’ pedagogical practices and school community’s practices, including sharing of vision-level decisions. According to previous studies (Vieluf et al. 2012 ; OECD 2014 ), shared community-level practices are central to sustainable school improvement, but currently they represent practices which are not yet widespread in schools and require extending the teachers’ professional role beyond only taking responsibility for their own teaching in classrooms.

A clear difference between the three schools was in the presence or absence of practices involving pupils in school-level activities. Only at school A had shared, established practices for pupil engagement at school-level been developed, such as responsible pupil teams (e.g. media and environment teams) or pupils as guides in using digital technology. Various participatory practices presume seeing pupils in an active role in the classroom or at school, not only as objects of teaching during lessons (Facer 2012 ; Kehoe 2015 ; Pereira et al. 2014 ).

Also, the nature of pedagogical practices with digital technology differed between schools. At school A, pupils reported using digital technology more than pupils at the other two schools, both in the classroom and at home for school-related activities. The use focused on general applications and pedagogically ‘advanced’ practices, such as using a virtual learning environment and collaborating via the web. These practices probably helped to improve pupils’ basic digital competence: the regular use of digital tools was an essential condition for competence learning (see also OECD 2011 ; Aesaert et al. 2015 ). Furthermore, classroom practices were most advanced at school A and a comparisons of the teachers’ survey answers between the schools indicated that teachers at school A used and believed less in teacher-centred practices with digital technology than teachers at school C.

The innovative digital school model was not developed primarily for detailed comparisons of differences between schools. A more useful approach is to examine school profiles: the shape of the profile demonstrates the emphasis on the practices inside a school, and the level of the profile elements helps each school to position its strengths and development needs compared with reference schools. Figure  3 presents the results of Table  9 in a visual form illustrating the profiles of the three schools investigated.

A summary of the scores of the three schools in the elements of the IDI school model

The analysis framework of the phenomena and the data

a The data sources are listed in the order of importance

The profiles demonstrate the differences between the schools: school A has quite advanced practices in all elements; school C is high in school-level practices involving teachers and the principal, but only average in practices directly affecting pupils; and school B is least-developed in all elements, but highest-developed in leadership and digital resources. We propose that one reason for the differences between schools is the level of vision and how well it is shared among teacher community. Schools A and C had remarkably higher scores in the elements of goals and the vision compared with school B (although even schools A and C could improve on this). These results are in line with previous research according to which an explicated and shared vision is a key element in school improvement and change (see, e.g. Senge et al. 1994 ; Antinluoma et al. 2018). At school B, the vision and goals, pedagogical practices with digital technology and school-level knowledge practices were all at a low level, although the digital resources are almost the same as at school C. For benefitting from digital technology in improving pedagogy, collaborative visions and efforts especially focusing on that are needed (Laurillard 2008 ); technology does not change pedagogical practices per se, which describes the situation at school B. At both schools A and C, the elements related to vision, leadership and teacher community received good or even high scores, but school A was more advanced in pedagogical practices with technology. It seems that to develop high-level pedagogical practices with technology, deliberate effort is needed.

Conclusions

Validity of the innovative digital school model.

The two aims of the IDI school model, to reveal good practices and points for development, as well as to expose differences, were fulfilled, from which we interpret that analytic generalisation (Yin 2014 ) from the model is possible. With qualitative data (classroom observations and interviews), we were able to identify new and innovative practices in the school context, developed in the schools for their individual needs. The quantitative data supported the findings based on qualitative data. Innovative practices were found, especially at the school which was evaluated as being the most advanced in all elements. One of the schools was least-developed in all the measures investigated, and the third school was in between: it had a strong development culture generally, but the focus of the development work had not been on using digital technology as a vehicle for change. In the latter two schools, digital technology was taken into use by individual teachers and often without integrating pedagogy and technology.

The IDI school model as a framework for investigating differences worked particularly well for those elements which are mainly the responsibility for leadership inside a school (visions of the school, practices of teaching community and school-level knowledge practices); there were clear differences in these between the schools, especially according to the qualitative data. The three schools had differences even though they each follow the same curriculum, and the same detailed legislation. The teachers’ educational background is homogeneous, and the schools are located in the same city, which is responsible for providing the resources for all the city’s schools. The role of the city probably explains why there were no statistically significant differences between teachers’ self-estimated digital competence and the use of digital technology in general.

Results of the qualitative and quantitative data were somewhat contradictory in the use of digital technology in classrooms. In the teacher surveys, there were no statistically significant differences between schools, but there were in the pupil surveys. Our explanation is that pupils use technology in some lessons so much that it affects the overall experience, and that pupils in 9th grade use technology more than pupils in lower grades.

Another contradictory issue in the surveys was the result of pedagogical practices. The teachers participating in the observations and interviews were probably more interested in digital technology and their practices were more advanced than the practices reported in the survey by many more teachers. As Kivinen et al. ( 2016 ) suggested, the technology use of the majority of teachers might represent the use of technology per se, which leads to a pragmatic solution in which technology does not support a knowledge creation approach in learning but is used for practical experiments and learner-centred activities.

The schools that were examined are located in areas of different socioeconomic backgrounds. The results do not show differences based on the background, which probably indicates the homogeneity of Finnish schools. All schools receive the same resources from the city, and parents do not make financial contributions for the education. The school from the area of lowest socioeconomic status has participated in various projects during years, and this has promoted the capacity of the teaching staff. Teachers’ development orientation has supported the school to develop advanced practices regardless of challenging socioeconomic background of the pupils.

The results of the study proved that mixed methods are needed when investigating the practices of a whole school. Using only the survey data would not have revealed some of the central differences between the schools and would have given a quite narrow view of the situation at each school. For the qualitative data, it would not have informed about the use of digital technology and the competence in using it. Collecting qualitative data requires more resources than using only surveys. However, we experienced that our data collection model (five teacher interviews and lesson observations, a principal interview and a survey of teachers and highest grade of pupils) was a reasonably inexpensive and valid way to examine the practices of a school.

Practical implications

The IDI school model is an attempt to address the need for practice-oriented methods that help schools and teachers to reflect on their own practices and improve them (Angelides et al. 2004 ), and to narrow the gap between empirical research and practical school work (Wikeley et al. 2005 ), especially related to the change processes of implementing new digital technologies in education.

The IDI school model can be used in schools as a shared conceptual framework for collective reflection, discussion and strategy planning. We have already had some promising experiences about using it in the in-service training of teachers and principals. The model can also be applied to collect best-practice examples from different schools and disseminate them to other schools, or to make school visits and benchmarking of practices more systematic.

At the municipal and national level, educational administrators may have an interest in evaluating the status of using digital technology in schools. As our study witnessed, quantitative data have limitations in describing collaborative pedagogical and working practices. Qualitative methods are important, but there is a need for accessible methods for collecting data widely about the current state of art in schools. The methods, experiences and results of the present study can work as a starting point for developing scalable methods.

As a policy-level implication, we suggest that local and national school administration focus on schools as knowledge work organisations when aiming to improvements, such as to increase the quality of pedagogical and knowledge practices with digital technology in schools. We suggest that all elements of the innovative digital school model be considered, and that the start should be committing the staff to change, by creating shared visions and aims about pedagogical development through digital technology, and by supporting school-level practices including both pupils and teachers.

Future research

In the present study, we used data from three schools to examine the applicability and validity of the IDI school model for evaluating the development of schools through digital technology. All three schools were in the same city and had similar municipal resources for digital technology and in-service teacher training, which allowed differences to be revealed, especially in those practices that schools can influence individually in that context. In future research, it would be important to test the model with a larger collection of schools from different contexts (size, location, socioeconomic background, etc.) and from different countries and cultures, thus also confirming the validation of the model.

Another interesting line of research would be to conduct studies in which the development of the same schools was followed longitudinally. Such studies could include interventional aspects: the investigated schools would get feedback and support from researchers to develop their practices further, and new data would be collected after some period for evaluating the influence of deliberate development efforts.

In the future, schools will face even more challenges and requirements that the school community will have to answer. The best and most effective schools reflect their practices and constantly improve their ways of working. We believe that the innovative digital school model offers a tool for schools and for researchers involved in this work.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Jari Lipsanen for the help and guidance of the statistical analyses, to Ian Dobson who has, with patience and excellent comments, checked the language and to anonymous reviewers, whose comments helped to improve and clarify the article.

This work was supported by Tekes—the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation [grant number 40233/09] and by City of Helsinki, Media Center.

Availability of data and materials

Authors’ contributions.

Both authors contributed in the study equally, on the design, data collection and analysis as well as writing the article.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

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

Contributor Information

Liisa Ilomäki, Email: [email protected] .

Minna Lakkala, Email: [email protected] .

• Aesaert K, Van Nijlen D, Vanderlinde R, Tondeur J, Devlieger I, van Braak J. The contribution of pupil, classroom and school level characteristics to primary school pupils’ ICT competences: a performance-based approach. Computers & Education. 2015; 87 :55–69. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ananiadou K, Claro M. 21st Century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing. 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Angelides P, Leigh J, Gibbs P. Analyzing practice for improving schools: the study of vignettes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2004; 15 (3–4):467–485. doi: 10.1080/09243450512331383282. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakkenes I, Vermunt J, Wubbels T. Teacher learning in the context of educational innovation: learning activities and learning outcomes of experienced teachers. Learning and Instruction. 2010; 20 :533–548. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.09.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bell S. Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House. 2010; 83 (2):39–43. doi: 10.1080/00098650903505415. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bereiter C. Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown JS, Duguid P. Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective. Organization Science. 2001; 12 (2):198–213. doi: 10.1287/orsc.12.2.198.10116. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chapman C. Towards a framework for school-to-school networking in challenging circumstances. Educational Research. 2008; 50 (4):403–420. doi: 10.1080/00131880802499894. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cleveland B, Fisher K. The evaluation of physical learning environments: a critical review of the literature. Learning Environments Research. 2014; 17 (1):1–28. doi: 10.1007/s10984-013-9149-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creemers B, Reezigt G. Linking school effectiveness and school improvement: the background and outline of the project. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2005; 16 (3):359–371. doi: 10.1080/09243450500234484. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J, Plano Clark V. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crook, C., Harrison, C., Farrington-Flint, L., Tomás, C., & Underwood, J. (2010). The impact of technology: Value-added classroom practice . Becta http://oro.open.ac.uk/34523/ .
• Cuban L, Kirkpatrick H, Peck C. High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal. 2001; 38 :813–834. doi: 10.3102/00028312038004813. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donnelly D, McGarr O, O’Reilly J. A framework for teachers’ integration of ICT into their classroom practice. Computers & Education. 2011; 57 :1469–1483. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DuFour R, Mattos M. How do principals really improve schools? Educational Leadership. 2013; 70 (7):34–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Earley P. State of the nation’: a discussion of some of the project’s key findings. The Curriculum Journal. 2010; 21 :473–483. doi: 10.1080/09585176.2010.529699. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• EU. (2010). 2010 joint progress report of the council and the commission on the implementation of the ‘education and training 2010 work programme’. Official Journal of the European Union, C, 117 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:117:0001:0007:EN:PDF .
• EU. (2013). Survey of schools: ICT in education. Final study report. Benchmarking access, use and attitudes to technology in Europe’s schools . European Commission 10.2759/94499.
• Facer K. Taking the 21st century seriously: young people, education and socio-technical futures. Oxford Review of Education. 2012; 38 (1):97–113. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2011.577951. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fullan M. The new meaning of educational change (3. ed.) London: Routledge Falmer; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gislason N. Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research. Learning Environments Research. 2010; 13 (2):127–145. doi: 10.1007/s10984-010-9071-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hakkarainen K, Ilomäki L, Lipponen L, Muukkonen H, Rahikainen M, Tuominen T, Lakkala M, Lehtinen E. Students’ skills and practices of using ICT: results of a national assessment in Finland. Computers and Education. 2000; 34 :103–117. doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00007-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hakkarainen K, Muukkonen H, Lipponen L, Ilomäki L, Rahikainen M, Lehtinen E. Teachers information and communication technology (ICT) skills and practices of using ICT and their pedagogical thinking. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 2001; 9 (2):181–197. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hargreaves A. Foreword. In: Sahlberg P, editor. Finnish Lessons. Can the world learn from the educational change in Finland? New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hargreaves A, Fink D. Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan. 2003; 84 :693–700. doi: 10.1177/003172170308400910. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris A. Effective leadership in schools facing challenging contexts. School Leadership and Management. 2002; 22 :15–26. doi: 10.1080/13632430220143024a. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris A. School improvement. What’s in it for schools? Great Britain: RoutledgeFalmer; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris A. Leading system transformation. School Leadership and Management. 2010; 30 :197–207. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2010.494080. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hautamäki J, Säkkinen T, Tenhunen M-L, Ursin J, Vuorinen J, Kamppi P, Knubb-Manninen G. Lukion tuottamat jatkokoulutusvalmiudet korkeakoulutuksen näkökulmasta. Jyväskylä: Koulutuksen arviointineuvosto; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong HY, Sullivan FR. An idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2009; 57 (5):613–627. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9122-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ilomäki, L., & Lakkala, M. (2011). Koulu, digitaalinen teknologia ja toimivat käytännöt. [School, digital technology and meaningful practices]. In M. Kankaanranta & S. Vahtivuori-Hänninen (Eds.), Opetusteknologia koulun arjessa II [Educational Technology at School’s Everyday Life] (pp. 47–67). Jyväskylä: Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos, Jyväskylän yliopisto. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-4616-6
• Ilomäki L, Lakkala M, Toom A, Muukkonen H. Teacher learning within a multinational project in an upper secondary school. Education Research International. 2017; 2017 :1614262. doi: 10.1155/2017/1614262. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson B, Onwuegbuzie A. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher. 2004; 33 :14–26. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033007014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• John-Steiner V, Mann H. Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: a Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist. 1996; 31 :191–206. doi: 10.1080/00461520.1996.9653266. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Katsenou C, Flogaitis E, Liarakou G. Action research to encourage pupils’ active participation in the sustainable school. Applied Environmental Education & Communication. 2015; 14 (1):14–22. doi: 10.1080/1533015X.2014.994820. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kehoe I. The cost of performance? Students’ learning about acting as change agents in their schools Discourse. Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. 2015; 36 (1):106–119. doi: 10.1080/01596306.2013.841356. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kiili C. Online reading as an individual and social practice. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Printing House; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kivinen O, Piiroinen T, Saikkonen L. Two viewpoints on the challenges of ICT in education: knowledge-building theory vs. a pragmatist conception of learning in social action. Oxford Review of Education. 2016; 42 (4):377–390. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2016.1194263. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Korhonen T, Lavonen J, Kukkonen M, Sormunen K, Juuti K. The innovative school as an environment for the design of educational innovations. In: Niemi H, Multisilta J, Lipponen L, Vivitsou M, editors. Finnish innovations and technologies in schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers; 2014. pp. 99–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kunnari, I., & Ilomäki, L. (2016). Reframing teachers’ work for educational innovation. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(2), 167–178. 10.1080/14703297.2014.978351.
• Lakkala, M., Paavola, S., Kosonen, K., Muukkonen, H., Bauters, M., & Markkanen, H. (2009). Main functionalities of the Knowledge Practices Environment (KPE) affording knowledge creation practices in education. In C. O'Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings. (pp. 297–306). Rhodes, Creek: International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS).
• Lakkala,M. & Ilomäki, L. (2013). Lukioiden valmiudet siirtyä sähköiseen ylioppilastutkintoon: kahden lukion tapaustutkimus [The readiness of high schools to the electronic matriculation examination: A case study of two high schools]. Vantaa: Vantaan sivistystoimi. https://www.vantaa.fi/instancedata/prime_product_julkaisu/vantaa/embeds/vantaawwwstructure/122594_Lukioiden_valmiudet_siirtya_sahkoiseen_ylioppilastutkintoon_kahden_lukion_tapaustutkimus.pdf .
• Lakkala, M. & Ilomäki, L. (2015). A case study of developing ICT-supported pedagogy through a collegial practice transfer process. Computers & Education, 90, 1–12. 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.001.
• Lam S, Cheng R, Choy H. School support and teacher motivation to implement project-based learning. Learning and Instruction. 2010; 20 :487–497. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.07.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laurillard D. Technology enhanced learning as a tool for pedagogical innovation. Journal of Philosophy in Education. 2008; 42 (3–4):521–533. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00658.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leclerc M, Moreau AC, Dumouchel C, Sallafranque-st-Louis F. Factors that promote progression in schools functioning as professional learning community. International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership. 2012; 7 (7):1–14. doi: 10.22230/ijepl.2012v7n7a417. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lemke JL. The long and the short of it: comments on multiple timescale studies of human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2001; 10 :17–26. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS10-1-2_3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lieberman A, Pointer Mace D. Teacher learning: the key to educational reform. Journal of Teacher Education. 2008; 59 (3):226–234. doi: 10.1177/0022487108317020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Livingstone S. Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford Review of Education. 2012; 38 (1):9–24. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2011.577938. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lundahl L, Erixon Arreman I, Lundström U, Rönnberg L. Setting things right? Swedish upper secondary school reform in a 40-year perspective. European Journal of Education. 2010; 45 (1):46–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3435.2009.01414.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Merriam S. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Messmann G, Mulder R. Innovative work behaviour in vocational colleges: understanding how and why innovations are developed. Vocations and Learning. 2011; 4 :63–84. doi: 10.1007/s12186-010-9049-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newmann FM, King MB, Youngs P. Professional development that addresses school capacity: lessons from urban primary schools. American Journal of Education. 2000; 108 :259–299. doi: 10.1086/444249. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . Educational research and innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2010. Inspired by technology, driven by pedagogy. A systemic approach to technology-based school innovations. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . PISA 2009 results: students on line: digital technologies and performance (volume VI) Paris: OECD Publishing; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . PISA 2012 Results: creative problem solving: students’ skills in tackling real-life problems (volume V) Paris: OECD Publishing; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . Schools for 21st-Century learners: strong leaders, confident teachers, innovative approaches. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2015. Building responsive schools for 21st-century learners. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . Summary in English: collaborative problem solving. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2017. PISA 2015 Results. [ Google Scholar ]
• Overbay A, Patterson A, Vasu E, Grable L. Constructivism and technology: findings from the IMPACTing leadership project. Educational Media International. 2010; 47 (2):103–120. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2010.492675. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paavola S, Hakkarainen K. The knowledge creation metaphor—an emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science & Education. 2005; 14 :535–557. doi: 10.1007/s11191-004-5157-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Packer MJ, Goicoechea J. Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist. 2000; 35 (4):227–241. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3504_02. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peck C, Gallucci C, Sloan T, Lippincott A. Organizational learning and program renewal in teacher education: a socio-cultural theory of learning, innovation and change. Educational Research Review. 2009; 4 :1–25. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2008.06.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pedder D, MacBeath J. Organisational learning approaches to school leadership and management: teachers’ values and perceptions of practice. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2008; 19 (2):207–224. doi: 10.1080/09243450802047899. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pereira F, Mouraz A, Figueiredo C. Student participation in school life: the “student voice” and mitigated democracy. Croatian Journal of Education. 2014; 16 (4):935–975. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ranson S, Farrell C, Peim N, Smith P. Does governance matter for school improvement? School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2005; 16 (3):305–325. doi: 10.1080/09243450500114108. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Resnick L, Spillane J. From individual learning to organizational designs for learning. In: Verschaffel L, Dochy F, Boekaerts M, Vosniadou S, editors. Instructional psychology: past, present and future trends. Sixteen essays in honor of Erik De Corte. Oxford: Pergamon; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Robin BR. Digital storytelling: a powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory Into Practice. 2008; 47 (3):220–228. doi: 10.1080/00405840802153916. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sahlberg P. Finnish lessons. Can the world learn from the educational change in Finland? New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scardamalia M, Bereiter C. Schools as knowledge building organizations. In: Keating D, Hertzman C, editors. Today’schildren, tomorrow’s society: the developmental health and wealth of nations. New York: Guilford; 1999. pp. 274–289. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scardamalia M, Bereiter C. Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. In: Sawyer K, editor. Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2006. pp. 97–118. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scimeca S, Dumitru P, Durando M, Gilleran A, Joyce A, Vuorikari R. European schoolnet: enabling school networking. European Journal of Education. 2009; 44 (4):475–492. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3435.2009.01407.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Senge P, Kleiner A, Roberts C, Ross RB, Smith B. The fifth discipline fieldbook: strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spillane JP, Halverson R, Diamond J. Towards a theory of leadership practice: a distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2004; 36 (1):3–34. doi: 10.1080/0022027032000106726. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Svanbjörnsdóttir BM, Macdonald A, Frímannsson GH. Views of learning and a sense of community among students, paraprofessionals and parents in developing a school culture towards a professional learning community. Professional Development in Education. 2016; 42 (4):589–609. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2015.1047037. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tan JP, McWilliam E. From literacy to multiliteracies: diverse learners and pedagogical practice. Pedagogies. 2009; 4 (3):213–225. doi: 10.1080/15544800903076119. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Teddle, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral studies. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddle (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Tikkanen T, Selander P, editors. Helsinki by District 2013. City of Helsinki urban facts: Helsinki. 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Timmermans S, Tavory I. Theory construction in qualitative research: from grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory. 2012; 30 (3):167–186. doi: 10.1177/0735275112457914. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Todd Z, Nerlich B, McKeown S. Introduction. In: Todd Z, Nerlich B, McKeown S, Clarke D, editors. Mixing methods in psychology. The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice. USA, NT: Psychology Press; 2004. pp. 3–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Twining P, Raffaghelli J, Albion P, Knezek D. Moving education into the digital age: the contribution of teachers’ professional development. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2013; 29 :426–437. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12031. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vieluf S, Kaplan D, Klieme E, Bayer S. Teaching practices and pedagogical innovation: evidence from TALIS. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wikeley F, Stoll L, Murillo J. Evaluating effective school improvement: case studies of programmes in eight European countries and their contribution to the effective school improvement model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2005; 16 (4):387–405. doi: 10.1080/09243450500234617. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong, E. M. L., & Li, S. C. (2011). Framing ICT implementation in a context of educational change: a structural equation modelling analysis. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27 (2), 361–379 https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/download/975/249 .
• Wrigley T. Is ‘School Effectiveness’ Anti‐Democratic? British Journal of Educational Studies. 2003; 51 (2):89–112. doi: 10.1111/1467-8527.t01-4-00228. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin RK. Case study research. Design and methods. Fifth Edition. USA: Sage; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]

Search form

• About Faculty Development and Support
• Programs and Funding Opportunities

Consultations, Observations, and Services

• Strategic Resources & Digital Publications
• Canvas @ Yale Support
• Learning Environments @ Yale
• Teaching Workshops
• Teaching Consultations and Classroom Observations
• Teaching Programs
• Spring Teaching Forum
• Written and Oral Communication Workshops and Panels
• Writing Resources & Tutorials
• About the Graduate Writing Laboratory
• Writing and Public Speaking Consultations
• Writing Workshops and Panels
• Writing Peer-Review Groups
• Writing Retreats and All Writes
• Online Writing Resources for Graduate Students
• About Teaching Development for Graduate and Professional School Students
• Teaching Programs and Grants
• Teaching Forums
• Resources for Graduate Student Teachers
• About Undergraduate Writing and Tutoring
• Academic Strategies Program
• The Writing Center
• STEM Tutoring & Programs
• Humanities & Social Sciences
• Center for Language Study
• Online Course Catalog
• Antiracist Pedagogy
• NECQL 2019: NorthEast Consortium for Quantitative Literacy XXII Meeting
• STEMinar Series
• Teaching in Context: Troubling Times
• Helmsley Postdoctoral Teaching Scholars
• Pedagogical Partners
• Instructional Materials
• Evaluation & Research
• STEM Education Job Opportunities
• Yale Connect
• Online Education Legal Statements

You are here

Case-based learning.

Case-based learning (CBL) is an established approach used across disciplines where students apply their knowledge to real-world scenarios, promoting higher levels of cognition (see Bloom’s Taxonomy ). In CBL classrooms, students typically work in groups on case studies, stories involving one or more characters and/or scenarios.  The cases present a disciplinary problem or problems for which students devise solutions under the guidance of the instructor. CBL has a strong history of successful implementation in medical, law, and business schools, and is increasingly used within undergraduate education, particularly within pre-professional majors and the sciences (Herreid, 1994). This method involves guided inquiry and is grounded in constructivism whereby students form new meanings by interacting with their knowledge and the environment (Lee, 2012).

There are a number of benefits to using CBL in the classroom. In a review of the literature, Williams (2005) describes how CBL: utilizes collaborative learning, facilitates the integration of learning, develops students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to learn, encourages learner self-reflection and critical reflection, allows for scientific inquiry, integrates knowledge and practice, and supports the development of a variety of learning skills.

CBL has several defining characteristics, including versatility, storytelling power, and efficient self-guided learning.  In a systematic analysis of 104 articles in health professions education, CBL was found to be utilized in courses with less than 50 to over 1000 students (Thistlethwaite et al., 2012). In these classrooms, group sizes ranged from 1 to 30, with most consisting of 2 to 15 students.  Instructors varied in the proportion of time they implemented CBL in the classroom, ranging from one case spanning two hours of classroom time, to year-long case-based courses. These findings demonstrate that instructors use CBL in a variety of ways in their classrooms.

The stories that comprise the framework of case studies are also a key component to CBL’s effectiveness. Jonassen and Hernandez-Serrano (2002, p.66) describe how storytelling:

Is a method of negotiating and renegotiating meanings that allows us to enter into other’s realms of meaning through messages they utter in their stories,

Helps us find our place in a culture,

Allows us to explicate and to interpret, and

Facilitates the attainment of vicarious experience by helping us to distinguish the positive models to emulate from the negative model.

Neurochemically, listening to stories can activate oxytocin, a hormone that increases one’s sensitivity to social cues, resulting in more empathy, generosity, compassion and trustworthiness (Zak, 2013; Kosfeld et al., 2005). The stories within case studies serve as a means by which learners form new understandings through characters and/or scenarios.

CBL is often described in conjunction or in comparison with problem-based learning (PBL). While the lines are often confusingly blurred within the literature, in the most conservative of definitions, the features distinguishing the two approaches include that PBL involves open rather than guided inquiry, is less structured, and the instructor plays a more passive role. In PBL multiple solutions to the problem may exit, but the problem is often initially not well-defined. PBL also has a stronger emphasis on developing self-directed learning. The choice between implementing CBL versus PBL is highly dependent on the goals and context of the instruction.  For example, in a comparison of PBL and CBL approaches during a curricular shift at two medical schools, students and faculty preferred CBL to PBL (Srinivasan et al., 2007). Students perceived CBL to be a more efficient process and more clinically applicable. However, in another context, PBL might be the favored approach.

In a review of the effectiveness of CBL in health profession education, Thistlethwaite et al. (2012), found several benefits:

Students enjoyed the method and thought it enhanced their learning,

Instructors liked how CBL engaged students in learning,

CBL seemed to facilitate small group learning, but the authors could not distinguish between whether it was the case itself or the small group learning that occurred as facilitated by the case.

Other studies have also reported on the effectiveness of CBL in achieving learning outcomes (Bonney, 2015; Breslin, 2008; Herreid, 2013; Krain, 2016). These findings suggest that CBL is a vehicle of engagement for instruction, and facilitates an environment whereby students can construct knowledge.

Science – Students are given a scenario to which they apply their basic science knowledge and problem-solving skills to help them solve the case. One example within the biological sciences is two brothers who have a family history of a genetic illness. They each have mutations within a particular sequence in their DNA. Students work through the case and draw conclusions about the biological impacts of these mutations using basic science. Sample cases: You are Not the Mother of Your Children ; Organic Chemisty and Your Cellphone: Organic Light-Emitting Diodes ;   A Light on Physics: F-Number and Exposure Time

Medicine – Medical or pre-health students read about a patient presenting with specific symptoms. Students decide which questions are important to ask the patient in their medical history, how long they have experienced such symptoms, etc. The case unfolds and students use clinical reasoning, propose relevant tests, develop a differential diagnoses and a plan of treatment. Sample cases: The Case of the Crying Baby: Surgical vs. Medical Management ; The Plan: Ethics and Physician Assisted Suicide ; The Haemophilus Vaccine: A Victory for Immunologic Engineering

Public Health – A case study describes a pandemic of a deadly infectious disease. Students work through the case to identify Patient Zero, the person who was the first to spread the disease, and how that individual became infected.  Sample cases: The Protective Parent ; The Elusive Tuberculosis Case: The CDC and Andrew Speaker ; Credible Voice: WHO-Beijing and the SARS Crisis

Law – A case study presents a legal dilemma for which students use problem solving to decide the best way to advise and defend a client. Students are presented information that changes during the case.  Sample cases: Mortgage Crisis Call (abstract) ; The Case of the Unpaid Interns (abstract) ; Police-Community Dialogue (abstract)

Business – Students work on a case study that presents the history of a business success or failure. They apply business principles learned in the classroom and assess why the venture was successful or not. Sample cases: SELCO-Determining a path forward ; Project Masiluleke: Texting and Testing to Fight HIV/AIDS in South Africa ; Mayo Clinic: Design Thinking in Healthcare

Humanities - Students consider a case that presents a theater facing financial and management difficulties. They apply business and theater principles learned in the classroom to the case, working together to create solutions for the theater. Sample cases: David Geffen School of Drama

Recommendations

Finding and Writing Cases

Consider utilizing or adapting open access cases - The availability of open resources and databases containing cases that instructors can download makes this approach even more accessible in the classroom. Two examples of open databases are the Case Center on Public Leadership and Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Case Program , which focus on government, leadership and public policy case studies.

• Consider writing original cases - In the event that an instructor is unable to find open access cases relevant to their course learning objectives, they may choose to write their own. See the following resources on case writing: Cooking with Betty Crocker: A Recipe for Case Writing ; The Way of Flesch: The Art of Writing Readable Cases ;   Twixt Fact and Fiction: A Case Writer’s Dilemma ; And All That Jazz: An Essay Extolling the Virtues of Writing Case Teaching Notes .

Implementing Cases

Take baby steps if new to CBL - While entire courses and curricula may involve case-based learning, instructors who desire to implement on a smaller-scale can integrate a single case into their class, and increase the number of cases utilized over time as desired.

Use cases in classes that are small, medium or large - Cases can be scaled to any course size. In large classes with stadium seating, students can work with peers nearby, while in small classes with more flexible seating arrangements, teams can move their chairs closer together. CBL can introduce more noise (and energy) in the classroom to which an instructor often quickly becomes accustomed. Further, students can be asked to work on cases outside of class, and wrap up discussion during the next class meeting.

Encourage collaborative work - Cases present an opportunity for students to work together to solve cases which the historical literature supports as beneficial to student learning (Bruffee, 1993). Allow students to work in groups to answer case questions.

Form diverse teams as feasible - When students work within diverse teams they can be exposed to a variety of perspectives that can help them solve the case. Depending on the context of the course, priorities, and the background information gathered about the students enrolled in the class, instructors may choose to organize student groups to allow for diversity in factors such as current course grades, gender, race/ethnicity, personality, among other items.  

Use stable teams as appropriate - If CBL is a large component of the course, a research-supported practice is to keep teams together long enough to go through the stages of group development: forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning (Tuckman, 1965).

Walk around to guide groups - In CBL instructors serve as facilitators of student learning. Walking around allows the instructor to monitor student progress as well as identify and support any groups that may be struggling. Teaching assistants can also play a valuable role in supporting groups.

Interrupt strategically - Only every so often, for conversation in large group discussion of the case, especially when students appear confused on key concepts. An effective practice to help students meet case learning goals is to guide them as a whole group when the class is ready. This may include selecting a few student groups to present answers to discussion questions to the entire class, asking the class a question relevant to the case using polling software, and/or performing a mini-lesson on an area that appears to be confusing among students.  

Assess student learning in multiple ways - Students can be assessed informally by asking groups to report back answers to various case questions. This practice also helps students stay on task, and keeps them accountable. Cases can also be included on exams using related scenarios where students are asked to apply their knowledge.

Barrows HS. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: a brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, 3-12.  

Bonney KM. (2015). Case Study Teaching Method Improves Student Performance and Perceptions of Learning Gains. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 16(1): 21-28.

Breslin M, Buchanan, R. (2008) On the Case Study Method of Research and Teaching in Design.  Design Issues, 24(1), 36-40.

Bruffee KS. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and authority of knowledge. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Herreid CF. (2013). Start with a Story: The Case Study Method of Teaching College Science, edited by Clyde Freeman Herreid. Originally published in 2006 by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA); reprinted by the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (NCCSTS) in 2013.

Herreid CH. (1994). Case studies in science: A novel method of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(4), 221–229.

Jonassen DH and Hernandez-Serrano J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 50(2), 65-77.  

Kosfeld M, Heinrichs M, Zak PJ, Fischbacher U, Fehr E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435, 673-676.

Krain M. (2016) Putting the learning in case learning? The effects of case-based approaches on student knowledge, attitudes, and engagement. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 27(2), 131-153.

Lee V. (2012). What is Inquiry-Guided Learning?  New Directions for Learning, 129:5-14.

Nkhoma M, Sriratanaviriyakul N. (2017). Using case method to enrich students’ learning outcomes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(1):37-50.

Srinivasan et al. (2007). Comparing problem-based learning with case-based learning: Effects of a major curricular shift at two institutions. Academic Medicine, 82(1): 74-82.

Thistlethwaite JE et al. (2012). The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 23.  Medical Teacher, 34, e421-e444.

Tuckman B. (1965). Development sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-99.

Williams B. (2005). Case-based learning - a review of the literature: is there scope for this educational paradigm in prehospital education? Emerg Med, 22, 577-581.

Zak, PJ (2013). How Stories Change the Brain. Retrieved from: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_stories_change_brain

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Instructional Enhancement Fund

The Instructional Enhancement Fund (IEF) awards grants of up to $500 to support the timely integration of new learning activities into an existing undergraduate or graduate course. All Yale instructors of record, including tenured and tenure-track faculty, clinical instructional faculty, lecturers, lectors, and part-time acting instructors (PTAIs), are eligible to apply. Award decisions are typically provided within two weeks to help instructors implement ideas for the current semester.

The Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning routinely supports members of the Yale community with individual instructional consultations and classroom observations.

Reserve a Room

The Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning partners with departments and groups on-campus throughout the year to share its space. Please review the reservation form and submit a request.