Volume – 05, Issue – 01, Page : 01-27

A Narrative Review of Educational Technology in Higher Education

Author/s

1. Jack Thompson

2. Olivia Harris

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.56106/ssc.2025.002

Date of Publication

28th March 2025

DOWNLOAD FULL TEXT
(PDF)

Abstract :
This narrative review critically examines the global evolution, integration, and future trajectory of educational technology in higher education. It foregrounds the pivotal role of digital innovation in transforming pedagogical paradigms, institutional strategies, and learner experiences across tertiary education systems. Tracing historical developments from early audiovisual media and computer-assisted instruction to the contemporary infusion of AI and adaptive learning systems, the review situates educational technology as both a catalyst and a consequence of systemic shifts in higher education. It delineates the foundational importance of digital literacy and information literacy as core competencies necessary for navigating increasingly complex learning environments, and assesses how generative AI tools such as ChatGPT are reconfiguring instructional design, assessment integrity, and academic labor. Further, the review explores the principles of digital pedagogy, emphasizing intentional instructional design, learning management systems, interactive tools, and active learning frameworks. It assesses the post-pandemic landscape, where hybrid and HyFlex modalities have become institutional norms, and examines how emergency remote learning has catalyzed structural reforms, pedagogical recalibrations, and policy innovation. The review also anticipates future directions, focusing on ethical governance, inclusive and accessible learning design, personalization through AI-driven adaptivity, and emerging regulatory frameworks. Emphasis is placed on the need for balanced, equity-focused EdTech integration that aligns with institutional missions and safeguards academic values. Synthesizing insights from multidisciplinary literature, global policy reports, and empirical studies, this review advances a comprehensive, densely-argued perspective tailored to academics, policy-makers, workforce development professionals, and digital learning technologists. It concludes that the promise of educational technology in higher education can only be realized through deliberate, ethically-grounded, and contextually-responsive strategies that prioritize pedagogy over product, and inclusion over acceleration.

Keywords :
Educational Technology, Digital Pedagogy, Generative AI, Digital Literacy, Hybrid Learning, Learning Management Systems, Adaptive Learning, Academic Integrity, EdTech Policy.

–

References :

  • Aavakare, M., & Nikou, S. (2020). Challenging the concept of digital Nativeness-through the assessment of information literacy and digital literacy. In international conference on well-being in the information society (pp. 211-225). Cham: Springer.
  • Abdelwahab, H. R., Rauf, A., & Chen, D. (2022). Business students’ perceptions of Dutch higher education institutions in preparing them for artificial intelligence work environments. Industry and Higher Education, 37(1), 22-34.
  • Abdool, P. S., Nirula, L., Bonato, S., Rajji, T. K., & Silver, I. L. (2017). Simulation in undergraduate psychiatry: Exploring the depth of learner engagement. Academic Psychiatry : the Journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry, 41(2), 251-261. 
  • Abu-Al-Aish, A., & Love, S. (2013). Factors influencing students’ acceptance of m-learning: An investigation in higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(5), 82-107.
  • Adiguzel, T., Kaya, M. H., & Cansu, F. K. (2023). Revolutionizing education with AI: Exploring the transformative potential of ChatGPT. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), ep429. 
  • Ahmad, F., Widén, G., & Huvila, I. (2020). The impact of workplace information literacy on organizational innovation: An empirical study. International Journal of Information Management, 51. 
  • Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. In action control (pp. 11-39). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
  • Ala-Mutka, K. (2011). Mapping digital competence: Towards a conceptual understanding European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, 1-60.
  • Alateyah, S., Crowder, R. M., & Wills, G. B. (2013). Factors affecting the citizen’s intention to adopt e-government in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Social, Human Science and Engineering, 7(9), 80-85.
  • Ali, R., & Gupta, S. (2019). Investigating information literacy in business majors. In proceedings of the 2019 AIS SIGED international conference on information systems education and research.
  • Alioon, Y., & Delialioğlu, Ö. (2017). The effect of authentic m-learning activities on student engagement and motivation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 121. 
  • Almaiah, M. A., Alamri, M. M., & Al-Rahmi, W. (2019). Applying the UTAUT model to explain the students’ acceptance of Mobile learning system in higher education. IEEE Access, 7, 174673-174686.
  • Alrasheedi, M., Capretz, L. F., & Raza, A. (2015). A systematic review of the critical factors for success of mobile learning in higher education (university students’ perspective). Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(2), 257-276. 
  • Al-Sakkaf, A., Omar, M., & Ahmad, M. (2019). A systematic literature review of student engagement in software visualization: A theoretical perspective. Computer Science Education, 29(2-3), 283-309. 
  • Andrew, L., Ewens, B., & Maslin-Prothero, S. (2015). Enhancing the online learning experience using virtual interactive classrooms. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 22-31.
  • Anthonysamy, L., Koo, A. C., & Hew, S. H. (2020). Self-regulated learning strategies in higher education: Fostering digital literacy for sustainable lifelong learning. Education and Information Technology, 25, 2393-2414. 
  • Antonenko, P. D. (2015). The instrumental value of conceptual frameworks in educational technology research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 53-71. 
  • Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386. 
  • Arnold, D., & Sangrà, A. (2018). Dawn or dusk of the 5th age of research in educational technology? A literature review on (e-)leadership for technology-enhanced learning in higher education (2013-2017). International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1-29. 
  • Arnold, N., & Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning: Appropriating, lurking, modeling and community building. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 188-196. 
  • Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 25(4), 297-308.
  • Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-529. 
  • Atlas, S. (2023). ChatGPT for higher education and professional development: A guide to conversational AI. 
  • Atmacasoy, A., & Aksu, M. (2018). Blended learning at pre-service teacher education in Turkey: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2399-2422. 
  • Avcı, Ü., & Ergün, E. (2019). Online students’ LMS activities and their effect on engagement, information literacy and academic performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-14. 
  • Azevedo, R. (2015). Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science: Conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 84-94. 
  • Baidoo-Anu, D., & Ansah, L. O. (2023). Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. 
  • Bailey, D., Southam, A., & Costley, J. (2021). Digital storytelling with chatbots: Mapping L2 participation and perception patterns. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 18(1), 85-103. 
  • Bali, M., Cronin, C., & Jhangiani, R. S. (2020). Framing open educational practices from a social justice perspective. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. 
  • Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
  • Barak, M. (2018). Are digital natives open to change? Examining flexible thinking and resistance to change. Computers & Education, 121, 115-123. 
  • Barak, M., & Levenberg, A. (2016). Flexible thinking in learning: An individual differences measure for learning in technology-enhanced environments. Computers & Education, 99, 39-52. 
  • Baron, P., & Corbin, L. (2012). Student engagement: Rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(6), 759-772. 
  • Bartolomé, A., Castañeda, L., & Adell, J. (2018). Personalisation in educational technology: The absence of underlying pedagogies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 
  • Baydas, O., Kucuk, S., Yilmaz, R. M., Aydemir, M., & Goktas, Y. (2015). Educational technology research trends from 2002 to 2014. Scientometrics, 105(1), 709-725. 
  • Bayrakdaroğlu, A., & Bayrakdaroğlu, F. (2017). A comparative analysis regarding the effects of financial literacy and digital literacy on internet entrepreneurship intention. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Development, 12(2), 27-38.
  • Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., Buntins, K., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020a). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology in higher education: A systematic review in the field of arts & humanities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 27-47. 
  • Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., Buntins, K., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020b). Learning by Doing? Reflections on Conducting a Systematic Review in the Field of Educational Technology. In O. Zawacki-Richter, M. Kerres, S. Bedenlier, M. Bond, & K. Buntins (Eds.), Systematic Reviews in Educational Research (Vol. 45, pp. 111-127). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. 
  • Ben-Eliyahu, A., Moore, D., Dorph, R., & Schunn, C. D. (2018). Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement across science activities and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53, 87-105. 
  • Betihavas, V., Bridgman, H., Kornhaber, R., & Cross, M. (2016). The evidence for ‘flipping out’: A systematic review of the flipped classroom in nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 38, 15-21. 
  • Bhattacharya, K., Bhattacharya, A. S., Bhattacharya, N., Yagnik, V. D., Garg, P., & Kumar, S. (2023). ChatGPT in surgical practice—A new kid on the block. Indian Journal of Surgery. 
  • Bigatel, P., & Williams, V. (2015). Measuring student engagement in an online program. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18(2), 9.
  • Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57-75.
  • Biggs, J. B. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
  • Bishop, M. J., Boling, E., Elen, J., & Svihla, V. (Eds.). (2020). Handbook of research in educational communications and technology. Springer.
  • Biswas, S. (2023). ChatGPT and the future of medical writing. Radiology, 307(2), e223312. 
  • Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2017). Digital competences and long-term ICT integration in school culture: The perspective of elementary school leaders. Education and Information Technologies, 22(3), 769-787.
  • Bodily, R., Leary, H., & West, R. E. (2019). Research trends in instructional design and technology journals. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 64-79. 
  • Boekaerts, M. (2016). Engagement as an inherent aspect of the learning process. Learning and Instruction, 43, 76-83. 
  • Bolden, B., & Nahachewsky, J. (2015). Podcast creation as transformative music engagement. Music Education Research, 17(1), 17-33. 
  • Bond, M. (2018). Helping doctoral students crack the publication code: An evaluation and content analysis of the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 168-183. 
  • Bond, M., & Bedenlier, S. (2019a). Facilitating Student Engagement Through Educational Technology: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2019(1), 1-14. 
  • Bond, M., Marín, V. I., Dolch, C., Bedenlier, S., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2018). Digital transformation in German higher education: Student and teacher perceptions and usage of digital media. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 
  • Bond, M., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Nichols, M. (2019b). Revisiting five decades of educational technology research: A content and authorship analysis of the British Journal of Educational Technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 12-63.
  • Bouta, H., Retalis, S., & Paraskeva, F. (2012). Utilising a collaborative macro-script to enhance student engagement: A mixed method study in a 3D virtual environment. Computers & Education, 58(1), 501-517. 
  • Bower, M. (2016). Deriving a typology of web 2.0 learning technologies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 763-777. 
  • Boyle, E. A., Connolly, T. M., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). Engagement in digital entertainment games: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 771-780. 
  • Boyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G., Earp, J., Ott, M., … Pereira, J. (2016). An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 94, 178-192. 
  • Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Education in normal, new normal, and next normal: Observations from the past, insights from the present and projections for the future. Asian Journal of Distance Education. 
  • Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1-13. 
  • Broadbent, J., Panadero, E., Lodge, J. M., & de Barba, P. (2020). Technologies to enhance self-regulated learning in online and computer-mediated learning environments. In M. J. Bishop, E. Boling, J. Elen, & V. Svihla (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational communications and technology (pp. 37-52). Springer.
  • Bruhn, E. (2016). Towards a framework for virtual internationalization. In European distance and e-learning network (EDEN) conference proceedings (No. 2, pp. 1-9). European Distance and E-Learning Network.
  • Brunton, G., Stansfield, C., & Thomas, J. (2012). Finding relevant studies. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews, (pp. 107-134). Los Angeles: Sage.
  • Bryman, A. (2007). The research question in social research: What is its role? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10(1), 5-20. 
  • Bulu, S. T., & Yildirim, Z. (2008). Communication behaviors and trust in collaborative online teams. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 132-147.
  • Bundick, M., Quaglia, R., Corso, M., & Haywood, D. (2014). Promoting student engagement in the classroom. Teachers College Record, 116(4).
  • Caniglia, G., John, B., Bellina, L., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Cohmer, S., & Laubichler, M. D. (2018). The glocal curriculum: A model for transnational collaboration in higher education for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 368-376. 
  • Carvalho, A., Areal, N., & Silva, J. (2011). Students’ perceptions of blackboard and Moodle in a Portuguese university. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 824-841.
  • Castañeda, L., & Selwyn, N. (2018). More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 
  • Castañeda, L., & Selwyn, N. (2018). More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digitizations of higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 211. 
  • Chan, C.K.Y. (2023b). A Comprehensive AI Policy Education Framework for University Teaching and Learning.
  • Chávez Herting, D., Cladellas Pros, R., & Castelló Tarrida, A. (2020). Habit and social influence as determinants of PowerPoint use in higher education: A study from a technology acceptance approach. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-17. 
  • Chen, J. L. (2011). The effects of education compatibility and technological expectancy on e-learning acceptance. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1501-1511.
  • Chen, J., Wang, M., Kirschner, P. A., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). The role of collaboration, computer use, learning environments, and supporting strategies in CSCL: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(6), 799-843.
  • Chen, P.-S. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1222-1232. 
  • Chen, Y., Jensen, S., Albert, L. J., Gupta, S., & Lee, T. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) student assistants in the classroom: Designing chatbots to support student success. Information Systems Frontiers, 25, 161-182. 
  • Cheston, C. C., Flickinger, T. E., & Chisolm, M. S. (2013). Social media use in medical education: A systematic review. Academic Medicine : Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 88(6), 893-901. 
  • Choi, M., Glassman, M., & Cristol, D. (2017). What it means to be a citizen in the internet age: Development of a reliable and valid digital citizenship scale. Computers & Education, 107, 100-112. 
  • Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121-141. 
  • Colwell, J., Hunt-Barron, S., & Reinking, D. (2013). Obstacles to developing digital literacy on the internet in middle school science instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(3), 295-324.
  • Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2), 661-686. 
  • Cook, M. P., & Bissonnette, J. D. (2016). Developing preservice teachers’ positionalities in 140 characters or less: Examining microblogging as dialogic space. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE Journal), 16(2), 82-109.
  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
  • Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 22. 
  • Crompton, H., Burke, D., Gregory, K. H., & Gräbe, C. (2016). The use of mobile learning in science: A systematic review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 149-160. 
  • Cronin, C. (2017). Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning: IRRODL, 18(5), 15-34. 
  • Crook, C. (2019). The “British” voice of educational technology research: 50th birthday reflection. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 485-489. 
  • Dahmash, A. B., Alabdulkareem, M., Alfutais, A., Kamel, A. M., Alkholaiwi, F., Alshehri, S., Zahrani, Y. A., & Almoaiqel, M. (2020). Artificial intelligence in radiology: Does it impact medical students preference for radiology as their future career? BJR Open, 2(1), 20200037. 
  • Davies, M. (2014). Using the apple iPad to facilitate student-led group work and seminar presentation. Nurse Education in Practice, 14(4), 363-367. 
  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. 
  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
  • Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills (pp. 51-76). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
  • Delialioglu, O. (2012). Student engagement in blended learning environments with lecture-based and problem-based instructional approaches. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 310-322.
  • DePaolo, C. A., & Wilkinson, K. (2014). Recurrent online quizzes: Ubiquitous tools for promoting student presence, participation and performance. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 10, 75-91.
  • Desjardins, F., & Van Oostveen, R. (2015). Faculty and student use of digital technology in a ‘laptop’ university. In S. Carliner, C. Fulford, & N. Ostashewski (Eds.), EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2015 (pp. 990-996). Montreal: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  • Desjardins, R. (2001). The effects of learning on economic and social well-being: A comparative analysis. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(3-4), 222-246.
  • Diep, N. A., Cocquyt, C., Zhu, C., & Vanwing, T. (2016). Predicting adult learners’ online participation: Effects of altruism, performance expectancy, and social capital. Computers & Education, 101, 84-101.
  • Doherty, K., & Doherty, G. (2018). Engagement in HCI. ACM Computing Surveys, 51(5), 1-39. 
  • Dohn, N. B., Markauskaite, L., & Hachmann, R. (2020). Enhancing knowledge transfer. In M. J. Bishop, E. Boling, J. Elen, & V. Svihla (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational communications and technology (pp. 73-96). Springer.
  • Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching crowds: Learning and social media. Athabasca University Press.
  • Dunn, K. (2002). Assessing information literacy skills in the California State University: A progress report. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(1-2), 26-35.
  • Eccles, J. (2016). Engagement: Where to next? Learning and Instruction, 43, 71-75. 
  • Eccles, J., & Wang, M.-T. (2012). Part I commentary: So what is student engagement anyway? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement, (pp. 133-145). Boston: Springer US.
  • Eggmann, F., Weiger, R., Zitzmann, N. U., & Blatz, M. B. (2023). Implications of large language models such as ChatGPT for dental medicine. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 
  • Eisenberg, M. B. (2008). Information literacy: Essential skills for the information age. DESIDOC journal of library & information technology, 28(2), 39-47.
  • Englund, C., Olofsson, A. D., & Price, L. (2017). Teaching with technology in higher education: Understanding conceptual change and development in practice. Higher Education Research and Development, 36(1), 73-87. 
  • Englund, C., Olofsson, A. D., & Price, L. (2017). Teaching with technology in higher education: Understanding conceptual change and development in practice. Higher Education Research and Development, 36(1), 73-87. 
  • Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of educational multimedia and hypermedia, 13(1), 93-106.
  • Essel, H. B., Vlachopoulos, D., Tachie-Menson, A., Johnson, E. E., & Baah, P. K. (2022). The impact of a virtual teaching assistant (chatbot) on students’ learning in Ghanaian higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19, 57. 
  • Fabian, K., Topping, K. J., & Barron, I. G. (2016). Mobile technology and mathematics: Effects on students’ attitudes, engagement, and achievement. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(1), 77-104. 
  • Filsecker, M., & Kerres, M. (2014). Engagement as a volitional construct. Simulation & Gaming, 45(4-5), 450-470. 
  • Finn, J. (2006). The adult lives of at-risk students: The roles of attainment and engagement in high school (NCES 2006-328). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
  • Finn, J., & Zimmer, K. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement, (pp. 97-131). Boston: Springer US. 
  • Fischer, G., Lundin, J., & Lindberg, J. O. J. (2020). Rethinking and reinventing learning, education and collaboration in the digital age—from creating technologies to transforming cultures. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 37(5), 241-252. 
  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Foo, S., Majid, S., Azura Mokhtar, I., Zhang, X., Chang, Y.-K., Luyt, B., & Theng, Y. L. (2014). Information literacy skills of secondary school students in Singapore. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(1), 54-76. 
  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. 
  • Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1-4. 
  • Fredricks, J. A., Wang, M.-T., Schall Linn, J., Hofkens, T. L., Sung, H., Parr, A., & Allerton, J. (2016). Using qualitative methods to develop a survey measure of math and science engagement. Learning and Instruction, 43, 5-15. 
  • Fukuzawa, S., & Boyd, C. (2016). Student engagement in a large classroom: Using technology to generate a hybridized problem-based learning experience in a large first year undergraduate class. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(1). 
  • Garcia, A., & Lee, C. H. (2020). Equity-centered approaches to educational technology. In M. J. Bishop, E. Boling, J. Elen, & V. Svihla (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational communications and technology (pp. 247-261). Springer.
  • Gayed, J. M., Carlon, M. K. J., Oriola, A. M., & Cross, J. S. (2022). Exploring an AI-based writing assistant’s impact on English language learners. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100055.
  • Georgina, D. A., & Hosford, C. C. (2009). Higher education faculty perceptions on technology integration and training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 690-696.
  • Ghalandari, K. (2012). The effect of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions on acceptance of e-banking services in Iran: The moderating role of age and gender. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 12(6), 801-807.
  • Gherhes, V., & Obrad, C. (2018). Technical and humanities students’ perspectives on the development and sustainability of artificial intelligence (AI). Sustainability, 10(9), 3066. 
  • Ghotbi, N., Ho, M. T., & Mantello, P. (2022). Attitude of college students towards ethical issues of artificial intelligence in an international university in Japan. AI & Society, 37, 283-290. 
  • Gillissen, A., Kochanek, T., Zupanic, M., & Ehlers, J. (2022). Medical students’ perceptions towards digitalization and artificial intelligence: A mixed-methods study. Healthcare, 10(4), 723. 
  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
  • Gleason, J. (2012). Using technology-assisted instruction and assessment to reduce the effect of class size on student outcomes in undergraduate mathematics courses. College Teaching, 60(3), 87-94.
  • Gong, B., Nugent, J. P., Guest, W., Parker, W., Chang, P. J., Khosa, F., & Nicolaou, S. (2019). Influence of artificial intelligence on Canadian medical students’ preference for radiology specialty: A national survey study. Academic Radiology, 26(4), 566-577.
  • Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews. Los Angeles: Sage.
  • Granberg, C. (2010). Social software for reflective dialogue: Questions about reflection and dialogue in student Teachers’ blogs. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(3), 345-360. 
  • Greenwood, L., & Kelly, C. (2019). A systematic literature review to explore how staff in schools describe how a sense of belonging is created for their pupils. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 24(1), 3-19. 
  • Gross, M., & Latham, D. (2012). What’s skill got to do with it? Information literacy skills and self-views of ability among first-year college students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 574-583.
  • Gullikson, S. (2006). Faculty perceptions of ACRL’s information literacy competency standards for higher education. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(6), 583-592.
  • Gupta, M. L. (2009). Using emerging technologies to promote student engagement and learning in agricultural mathematics. International Journal of Learning, 16(10), 497-508. 
  • Gupta, R., Seetharaman, A., & Maddulety, K. (2020). Critical success factors influencing the adoption of digitalisation for teaching and learning by business schools. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 1-22. 
  • Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage publications.
  • Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
  • Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24.
  • Harden, A., & Gough, D. (2012). Quality and relevance appraisal. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews, (pp. 153-178). London: Sage.
  • Harrer, S. (2023). Attention is not all you need: The complicated case of ethically using large language models in healthcare and medicine. eBioMedicine, 90, 104512.
  • Hatzipanagos, S., & Code, J. (2016). Open badges in online learning environments: Peer feedback and formative assessment as an engagement intervention for promoting agency. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 25(2), 127-142.
  • Heflin, H., Shewmaker, J., & Nguyen, J. (2017). Impact of mobile technology on student attitudes, engagement, and learning. Computers & Education, 107, 91-99. 
  • Heider, K. (2009). Information literacy: The missing link in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(6), 513-518.
  • Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2017). What works and why? Student perceptions of ‘useful’ digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1567-1579. 
  • Hennessy, S., Girvan, C., Mavrikis, M., Price, S., & Winters, N. (2018). Editorial. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(1), 3-5. 
  • Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36-53. 
  • Hess, J., & Singer, E. (1995). The role of respondent debriefing questions in questionnaire development. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of American Association for Public Opinion Research (pp 1075-1080). Fort Lauderdale, FL: AAPOR.
  • Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2013). Use of web 2.0 technologies in K-12 and higher education: The search for evidence-based practice. Educational Research Review, 9, 47-64. 
  • Hew, K. F., Huang, W., Du, J., & Jia, C. (2023). Using chatbots to support student goal setting and social presence in fully online activities: Learner engagement and perceptions. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 35, 40-68.
  • Hew, K. F., Lan, M., Tang, Y., Jia, C., & Lo, C. K. (2019). Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology research? British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 956-971. 
  • Howard, S. K., Ma, J., & Yang, J. (2016). Student rules: Exploring patterns of students’ computer-efficacy and engagement with digital technologies in learning. Computers & Education, 101, 29-42. 
  • Hromalik, C. D., & Koszalka, T. A. (2018). Self-regulation of the use of digital resources in an online language learning course improves learning outcomes. Distance Education, 39(4), 528-547. 
  • Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43(5), 555-575. 
  • Hunsu, N. J., Adesope, O., & Bayly, D. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of audience response systems (clicker-based technologies) on cognition and affect. Computers & Education, 94, 102-119. 
  • Ikpeze, C. (2007). Small group collaboration in peer-led electronic discourse: An analysis of group dynamics and interactions involving Preservice and Inservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 383-407.
  • Ivala, E., & Gachago, D. (2012). Social media for enhancing student engagement: The use of Facebook and blogs at a university of technology. South African Journal of Higher Education, 26(1), 152-167.
  • Jacobs, G. E. (2006). Fast times and digital literacy: Participation roles and portfolio construction within instant messaging. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(2), 171-196.
  • Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Isohätälä, J., & Sobocinski, M. (2016). How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement? Learning and Instruction, 43, 39-51. 
  • Jeffrey, L., Hegarty, B., Kelly, O., Penman, M., Coburn, D., & McDonald, J. (2011). Developing digital information literacy in higher education: Obstacles and supports. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 10(1), 383-413.
  • Jeffrey, T. (2020). Understanding college student perceptions of artificial intelligence. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 18(2), 8-13. 
  • Jha, N., Shankar, P. R., Al-Betar, M. A., Mukhia, R., Hada, K., & Palaian, S. (2022). Undergraduate medical students’ and interns’ knowledge and perception of artificial intelligence in medicine. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 13, 927-937. 
  • Johnston, B., & Webber, S. (2003). Information literacy in higher education: A review and case study. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 335-352.
  • Joksimović, S., Poquet, O., Kovanović, V., Dowell, N., Mills, C., Gašević, D., … Brooks, C. (2018). How do we model learning at scale? A systematic review of research on MOOCs. Review of Educational Research, 88(1), 43-86. 
  • Jones, B. D. (2020). Motivating and engaging students using educational technologies. In M. J. Bishop, E. Boling, J. Elen, & V. Svihla (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational communications and technology (pp. 9-35). Springer.
  • Jou, M., Lin, Y.-T., & Tsai, H.-C. (2016). Mobile APP for motivation to learning: An engineering case. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(8), 2048-2057. 
  • Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162-171. 
  • Júnior, C. A. H., & Finardi, K. R. (2018). Internationalization and virtual collaboration: Insights from COIL experiences. Ensino Em Foco, 1(2), 19-33.
  • Kahn, P. (2014). Theorising student engagement in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 1005-1018. 
  • Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758-773. 
  • Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research and Development, 37(1), 58-71. 
  • Kaliisa, R., & Picard, M. (2017). A systematic review on mobile learning in higher education: The African perspective. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1).
  • Kanniainen, L., Kiili, C., Tolvanen, A., Aro, M., & Leppänen, P. H. (2019). Literacy skills and online research and comprehension: Struggling readers face difficulties online. Reading and Writing, 32(9), 2201-2222.
  • Kara, H. (2017). Research and evaluation for busy students and practitioners: A time-saving guide, (2nd ed.). Bristol: Policy Press.
  • Karabulut-Ilgu, A., Jaramillo Cherrez, N., & Jahren, C. T. (2018). A systematic review of research on the flipped learning method in engineering education: Flipped learning in engineering education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 398-411. 
  • Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819-827. 
  • Keefe, E. B., & Copeland, S. R. (2011). What is literacy? The power of a definition. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(3-4), 92-99.
  • Keiller, L., & Inglis-Jassiem, G. (2015). A lesson in listening: Is the student voice heard in the rush to incorporate technology into health professions education? African Journal of Health Professions Education, 7(1), 47-50. 
  • Kirkwood, A. (2009). E-learning: You don’t always get what you hope for. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(2), 107-121. 
  • Kitamura, F. C. (2023). ChatGPT is shaping the future of medical writing but still requires human judgment. Radiology, 307(2), e230171.
  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: Guilford Press.
  • Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13-19.
  • Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.
  • Kong, J., Deng, S., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Research on influencing factors of college students’ intention of online health information behaviour based on social cognitive theory. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1213(2), 022017. 
  • Krause, K.-L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493-505. 
  • Kucuk, S., Aydemir, M., Yildirim, G., Arpacik, O., & Goktas, Y. (2013). Educational technology research trends in Turkey from 1990 to 2011. Computers & Education, 68, 42-50. 
  • Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683-706. 
  • Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540-563.
  • Kuh, G. D., J. Kinzie, J. A. Buckley, B. K. Bridges, & J. C. Hayek. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.
  • Kumar, A. H. S. (2023). Analysis of ChatGPT tool to assess the potential of its utility for academic writing in biomedical domain. BEMS Reports, 9(1), 24-30.
  • Kupper, L. L., & Hafner, K. B. (1989). How appropriate are popular sample size formulas? The American Statistician, 43(2), 101-105.
  • Kurbanoglu, S. S., Akkoyunlu, B., & Umay, A. (2006). Developing the information literacy self-efficacy scale. Journal of Documentation, 62(6), 730-743.
  • Lai, J. W. M., & Bower, M. (2019). How is the use of technology in education evaluated? A systematic review. Computers & Education, 133, 27-42. 
  • Landauer, T. K. (2003). Automatic essay assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(3), 295-308. 
  • Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5-20. 
  • Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432-479. 
  • Lazar, I. M., Panisoara, G., & Panisoara, I. O. (2020). Digital technology adoption scale in the blended learning context in higher education: Development, validation and testing of a specific tool. PLoS One, 15(7), e0235957.
  • Lea, M. R., & Jones, S. (2011). Digital literacies in higher education: Exploring textual and technological practice. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 377-393.
  • Leach, L., & Zepke, N. (2011). Engaging students in learning: A review of a conceptual organiser. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(2), 193-204.
  • Leahy, D., & Dolan, D. (2010). Digital literacy: A vital competence for 2010? In IFIP international conference on key competencies in the knowledge society (pp. 210-221). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
  • Leask, B. (2013). Internationalizing the curriculum in the disciplines—Imagining new possibilities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(2), 103-118. 
  • Lee, Y.-F., Hwang, G.-J., & Chen, P.-Y. (2022). Impacts of an AI-based chabot on college students’ after-class review, academic performance, self-efficacy, learning attitude, and motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70, 1843-1865. 
  • Lewin, C., & McNicol, S. (2015). Supporting the development of 21st century skills through ICT. In T. Brinda, N. Reynolds, R. Romeike, & A. Schwill (Eds.), KEYCIT 2014: Key competencies in informatics and ICT (pp. 98-181). Potsdam, Germany: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
  • Li, J., van der Spek, E. D., Feijs, L., Wang, F., & Hu, J. (2017). Augmented reality games for learning: A literature review. In N. Streitz, & P. Markopoulos (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Distributed, Ambient and Pervasive Interactions, (vol. 10291, pp. 612-626). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  • Lim, C. (2004). Engaging learners in online learning environments. TechTrends, 48(4), 16-23
  • Lindberg, O., & Olofsson, A. (2012). Sustaining a professional dimension in the use of educational technology in European higher educational practices. Educational Technology, 52(2), 34-38.
  • Liu, Q., Geertshuis, S., & Grainger, R. (2020). Understanding academics’ adoption of learning technologies: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 151, 103857. 
  • Lloyd, A. (2006). Information literacy landscapes: An emerging picture. Journal of Documentation, 62(5), 570-583.
  • Lodge, J. M., Kennedy, G., & Lockyer, L. (2019). Digital learning environments, the science of learning and the relationship between the teacher and the learner. In A. Carroll, R. Cunnington, & A. Nugent (Eds.), Learning under the lens: Applying findings from the science of learning to the classroom. Abingdon: CRC Press.
  • Lowenthal, J. N. (2010). Using mobile learning: Determinates impacting behavioural intention. The American Journal of Distance Education, 24(4), 195-206.
  • Lu, K., Yang, H. H., Shi, Y., & Wang, X. (2021). Examining the key influencing factors on college students’ higher-order thinking skills in the smart classroom environment. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, 1.
  • Lubowitz, J. H. (2023). ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence chatbot, is impacting medical literature. Arthroscopy, 39(5), 1121-1122. 
  • Lundin, M., Bergviken Rensfeldt, A., Hillman, T., Lantz-Andersson, A., & Peterson, L. (2018). Higher education dominance and siloed knowledge: A systematic review of flipped classroom research. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1. 
  • Ma, J., Han, X., Yang, J., & Cheng, J. (2015). Examining the necessary condition for engagement in an online learning environment based on learning analytics approach: The role of the instructor. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 26-34. 
  • Maerten, A.-S., & Soydaner, D. (2023). From paintbrush to pixel: A review of deep neural networks in AI-generated art. 
  • Mahatmya, D., Lohman, B. J., Matjasko, J. L., & Farb, A. F. (2012). Engagement across developmental periods. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement, (pp. 45-63). Boston: Springer US.
  • Major, L., Warwick, P., Rasmussen, I., Ludvigsen, S., & Cook, V. (2018). Classroom dialogue and digital technologies: A scoping review. Education and Information Technologies, 23(5), 1995-2028.
  • Mansouri, A. S., & Piki, A. (2016). An exploration into the impact of blogs on students’ learning: Case studies in postgraduate business education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(3), 260-273. 
  • Martin, A. (2006). A European framework for digital literacy. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 1(02), 151-161.
  • Martin, A. J. (2012). Motivation and engagement: Conceptual, operational, and empirical clarity. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement, (pp. 303-311). Boston: Springer US. 
  • McCutcheon, K., Lohan, M., Traynor, M., & Martin, D. (2015). A systematic review evaluating the impact of online or blended learning vs. face-to-face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(2), 255-270. 
  • Mercader, C. (2020). Explanatory model of barriers to integration of digital technologies in higher education institutions. Education and Information Technology, 25, 5133-5147. 
  • Mertala, P. (2020). Paradoxes of participation in the digitalization of education: A narrative account. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(2), 179-192. 
  • Meyers, E. M., Erickson, I., & Small, R. V. (2013). Digital literacy and informal learning environments: An introduction. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(4), 355-367.
  • Miake-Lye, I. M., Hempel, S., Shanman, R., & Shekelle, P. G. (2016). What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Systematic Reviews, 5, 28. 
  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
  • Mizumoto, A., & Eguchi, M. (2023). Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automoated essay scoring. 
  • Mohammadyari, S., & Singh, H. (2015). Understanding the effect of e-learning on individual performance: The role of digital literacy. Computers & Education, 82, 11-25.
  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 339, b2535. 
  • Mokmin, N. A. M., & Ibrahim, N. A. (2021). The evaluation of chatbot as a tool for health literacy education among undergraduate students. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 6033-6049. 
  • Nassuora, A. B. (2012). Students’ acceptance of mobile learning for higher education in Saudi Arabia. American Academic & Scholarly Research Journal, 4(2), 24-30.
  • Nelson Laird, T. F., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). Student experiences with information technology and their relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 211-233. 
  • Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065-1078.
  • Nguyen, L., Barton, S. M., & Nguyen, L. T. (2015). iPads in higher education-hype and hope. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(1), 190-203. 
  • Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H. R., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., … Levine, K. (2015). Peer review: Still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing, 28(1), 15-21. 
  • Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2018). Mobile-based assessment: A literature review of publications in major referred journals from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 125, 101-119. 
  • Nikou, S., Brännback, M., & Widén, G. (2018). The impact of multidimensionality of literacy on the use of digital technology: Digital immigrants and digital natives. In international conference on well-being in the information society (pp. 117-133). Cham: Springer.
  • Nikou, S., Brännback, M., & Widén, G. (2019). The impact of digitalization on literacy: Digital immigrants vs. digital natives. In proceedings of the 27th European conference on information systems (ECIS), Stockholm & Uppsala, Sweden, June 8-14. 
  • Nikou, S., Molinari, A., & Widén, G. (2020). The interplay between literacy and digital technology: A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis approach. Information Research, 25(4), paper isic2016.
  • Norris, L., & Coutas, P. (2014). Cinderella’s coach or just another pumpkin? Information communication technologies and the continuing marginalisation of languages in Australian schools. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 43-61
  • O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85-95. 
  • O’Gorman, E., Salmon, N., & Murphy, C.-A. (2016). Schools as sanctuaries: A systematic review of contextual factors which contribute to student retention in alternative education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(5), 536-551. 
  • O’Mara-Eves, A., Brunton, G., McDaid, D., Kavanagh, J., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2014). Techniques for identifying cross-disciplinary and ‘hard-to-detect’ evidence for systematic review. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(1), 50-59. 
  • Oliver, B., & de St Jorre, Trina, J. (2018). Graduate attributes for 2020 and beyond: recommendations for Australian higher education providers. Higher Education Research and Development, 1-16. 
  • Park, C. J., Yi, P. H., & Siegel, E. L. (2020). Medical student perspectives on the impact of artificial intelligence on the practice of medicine. Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology, 50(5), 614-619. 
  • Pastore, S., & Andrade, H. L. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: A three-dimensional model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 84, 128-138.
  • Payne, L. (2017). Student engagement: Three models for its investigation. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 3(2), 1-17. 
  • Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement, (pp. 259-282). Boston: Springer US.
  • Peres, R., Shreier, M., Schweidel, D., & Sorescu, A. (2023). On ChatGPT and beyond: How generative artificial intelligence may affect research, teaching, and practice. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 
  • Popenici, S. (2013). Towards a new vision for university governance, pedagogies and student engagement. In E. Dunne, & D. Owen (Eds.), The student engagement handbook: Practice in higher education, (1st ed., pp. 23-42). Bingley: Emerald.
  • Price, L., Richardson, J. T., & Jelfs, A. (2007). Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in distance education. Studies in Higher Education, 32(1), 1-20.
  • Quin, D. (2017). Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher-student relationships and student engagement. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 345-387. 
  • Rabah, J. (2015). Benefits and challenges of information and communication technologies (ICT) integration in Québec English schools. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 14(2), 24-31.
  • Rachmadtullah, R., Marianus Subandowo, R., Humaira, M. A., Aliyyah, R. R., Samsudin, A., & Nurtanto, M. (2020). Use of blended learning with Moodle: Study effectiveness in elementary school teacher education students during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(7), 3272-3277.
  • Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604-612. 
  • Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators. Luxembourg: Office of the European Union.
  • Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1). 
  • Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement, (pp. 149-172). Boston: Springer US.
  • Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257-267. 
  • Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement, (pp. 3-19). Boston: Springer US.
  • Ritzhaupt, A. D., Cheng, L., Luo, W., & Hohlfeld, T. N. (2020). The digital divide in formal educational settings: The past, present, and future relevance. In M. J. Bishop, E. Boling, J. Elen, & V. Svihla (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational communications and technology (pp. 483-504). Springer.
  • Rosman, T., Peter, J., Mayer, A. K., & Krampen, G. (2018). Conceptions of scientific knowledge influence learning of academic skills: Epistemic beliefs and the efficacy of information literacy instruction. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 96-113.
  • Salaber, J. (2014). Facilitating student engagement and collaboration in a large postgraduate course using wiki-based activities. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(2), 115-126. 
  • Saldaña, J. (2003). Longitudinal qualitative research: Analyzing change through time. AltaMira Press.
  • Sancho-Gil, J. M., Rivera-Vargas, P., & Miño-Puigcercós, R. (2020). Moving beyond the predictable failure of Ed-Tech initiatives. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), 61-75.
  • Santos, A. I., & Serpa, S. (2017). The importance of promoting digital literacy in higher education. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 5(6), 90-93. 
  • Sarrab, M., Al-Shihi, H., & Rehman, O. M. H. (2013). Exploring major challenges and benefits of m-learning adoption. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 3(4), 826-839.
  • Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017). Computer-based technology and student engagement: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 253. 
  • Selwyn, N. (2015). Minding our language: Why education and technology is full of bullshit … and what might be done about it. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(3), 437-443. 
  • Selwyn, N. (2016). Digital downsides: Exploring university students’ negative engagements with digital technology. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(8), 1006-1021. 
  • Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education? Wiley.
  • Shields, R., & Chugh, R. (2018). Preparing Australian high school learners with 21st century skills. Paper presented at the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE) (pp. 1101-1106). New York, NY: IEEE.
  • Shonfeld, M., & Ronen, I. (2015). Online learning for students from diverse backgrounds: Learning disability students, excellent students and average students. IAFOR Journal of Education, 3(2), 13-29.
  • Silber-Varod, V., Eshet-Alkalai, Y., & Geri, N. (2019). Tracing research trends of 21st-century learning skills. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3099-3118.
  • Sit, C., Srinivasan, R., Amlani, A., Muthuswamy, K., Azam, A., Monzon, L., & Poon, D. S. (2020). Attitudes and perceptions of UK medical students towards artificial intelligence and radiology: A mutilcentre survey. Insights into Imaging. 
  • Skinner, E., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement, (pp. 21-44). Boston: Springer US.
  • Skulmowski, A., Rey, G., & D. (2020). COVID-19 as an accelerator for digitalization at a German university: Establishing hybrid campuses in times of crisis. Human Behaviour and Emerging Technologies, 2(3), 212-216.
  • Smidt, E., Bunk, J., McGrory, B., Li, R., & Gatenby, T. (2014). Student attitudes about distance education: Focusing on context and effective practices. IAFOR Journal of Education, 2(1), 40-64.
  • Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178-182.
  • Smith, T., & Lambert, R. (2014). A systematic review investigating the use of twitter and Facebook in university-based healthcare education. Health Education, 114(5), 347-366. 
  • Solomonides, I. (2013). A relational and multidimensional model of student engagement. In E. Dunne, & D. Owen (Eds.), The student engagement handbook: Practice in higher education, (1st ed., pp. 43-58). Bingley: Emerald.
  • Sosa Neira, E. A., Salinas, J., & de Benito, B. (2017). Emerging technologies (ETs) in education: A systematic review of the literature published between 2006 and 2016. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 12(05), 128. 
  • Sullivan, M., & Longnecker, N. (2014). Class blogs as a teaching tool to promote writing and student interaction. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 390-401. 
  • Sumakul, D. T. Y. G., Hamied, F. A., & Sukyadi, D. (2020). Students’ perceptions of the use of AI in a writing class. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 624. 52-57. 
  • Sun, J. C.-Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191-204.
  • Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183-1202. 
  • Szabo, Z., & Schwartz, J. (2011). Learning methods for teacher education: The use of online discussions to improve critical thinking. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 79-94. 
  • Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4-28. 
  • Tang, C. M., & Chaw, L. Y. (2016). Digital literacy: A prerequisite for effective learning in a blended learning environment? Electronic Journal of E-learning, 14(1), 54-65.
  • Teo, T. S. H., Srivastava, S. C., & Jiang, L. (2008). Trust and electronic government success: An empirical study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(3), 99-132.
  • Terblanche, N., Molyn, J., Williams, K., & Maritz, J. (2022). Performance matters: Students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence coach adoption factors. Coaching an International Journal of Theory Research and Practice, 16(1), 100-114. 
  • Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J. (2019). Learning management systems: An overview. In A. Tatnall (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education and information technologies. Cham: Springer. 
  • van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023). ChatGPT: Five priorities for research. Nature, 614, 224-226. 
  • Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A. J., Van Dijk, J. A., & De Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st -century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behaviour, 72, 577-588.
  • Van Oostveen, R., & Desjardins, F. (2013). Developing and implementing a new online bachelor program: Formal adoption of videoconferencing and social networking as a step towards m-Learning. In M. B. Nunes & M. McPherson (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on e-Learning (pp. 223-230). Prague, Czech Republic, Jul 23-26, 2013: International Association for Development of the Information Society.
  • Van Rooij, E., Brouwer, J., Fokkens-Bruinsma, M., Jansen, E., Donche, V., & Noyens, D. (2017). A systematic review of factors related to first-year students’ success in Dutch and Flemish higher education. Pedagogische Studien, 94(5), 360-405.
  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
  • Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178.
  • von Loh, S. G., & Henkel, M. (2014). Information and media literacy in kindergarten. In European conference on information literacy (pp. 253-262). Cham: Springer.
  • Vural, O. F. (2013). The impact of a question-embedded video-based learning tool on E-learning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 1315-1323.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2015). Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course. Computers & Education, 88, 354-369. 
  • Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press.
  • Webb, L., Clough, J., O’Reilly, D., Wilmott, D., & Witham, G. (2017). The utility and impact of information communication technology (ICT) for pre-registration nurse education: A narrative synthesis systematic review. Nurse Education Today, 48, 160-171. 
  • Wekullo, C. S. (2019). International undergraduate student engagement: Implications for higher education administrators. Journal of International Students, 9(1), 320-337. 
  • Wimpenny, K., & Savin-Baden, M. (2013). Alienation, agency and authenticity: A synthesis of the literature on student engagement. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 311-326. 
  • Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17-37. 
  • Yildiz Durak, H. (2023). Conversational agent-based guidance: Examining the effect of chatbot usage frequency and satisfaction on visual design self-efficacy, engagement, satisfaction, and learner autonomy. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 471-488. 
  • Yüzbaşioğlu, E. (2021). Attitudes and perceptions of dental students towards artificial intelligence. Journal of Dental Education, 85(1), 60-68. 
  • Záhorec, J., Hašková, A., & Munk, M. (2019). Teachers’ professional digital literacy skills and their upgrade. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 8(2), 378-393.
  • Zepke, N. (2014). Student engagement research in higher education: Questioning an academic orthodoxy. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), 697-708. 
  • Zepke, N. (2018). Student engagement in neo-liberal times: What is missing? Higher Education Research and Development, 37(2), 433-446. 
  • Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 167-177. 
  • Zhang, A., & Aasheim, C. (2011). Academic success factors: An IT student perspective. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 10, 309-331. 
  • Zheng, Y., Wang, J., Doll, W., Deng, X., & Williams, M. (2018). The impact of organisational support, technical support, and self-efficacy on faculty perceived benefits of using learning management system. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(4), 311-319.

–

WEB – PAGE COUNTER