kom (2020) 0624 (forslag) - COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Digital Education action Plan 2021-2027 Resetting education and training for the digital age

Europaudvalget 2020
KOM (2020) 0624
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 30.9.2020

SWD(2020) 209 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying the document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the

European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions

Digital Education action Plan 2021-2027

Resetting education and training for the digital age

{COM(2020) 624 final}

kom (2020) 0624 (forslag) - COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Digital Education action Plan 2021-2027 Resetting education and training for the digital age

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4

2. Progress and achievements in the area of digital education to date ................................... 6

2.1 Impact of the 2018 Action Plan

...................................................................................... 11

2.2 Challenges in the implementation of the 2018 Action Plan

........................................... 12

3. Lessons from the COVID-19 crisis .................................................................................. 14

3.1 Challenges in managing remote emergency education

.................................................. 17

4. Priorities and direction for strategic action ...................................................................... 22

5. Supporting evidence ......................................................................................................... 24

5.1 Using digital technologies for teaching and learning ..................................................... 24

5.1.1 Infrastructure and connectivity

................................................................................... 26

5.1.2 Digital capacity in educational institutions across the EU

......................................... 29

5.1.3 Educators’ digital competence

.................................................................................... 33

5.1.4 Quality of digital education content

............................................................................ 36

5.2 Digital competence development ................................................................................... 39

5.2.1 Level of digital competence across the EU

................................................................. 41

5.2.2 Addressing the gender gap

.......................................................................................... 51

5.2.3 Advanced digital skills and emerging areas of digital competence

............................ 53

6. Implementation and monitoring ....................................................................................... 58

NNEX

1: P

ROCEDURAL

NFORMATION

................................................................................. 62

NNEX

2: S

TAKEHOLDER

ONSULTATION

YNOPSIS

EPORT

............................................... 65

NNEX

3: E

UROPEAN

IGITAL

OMPETENCE

RAMEWORKS

................................................ 90

NNEX

4: G

LOSSARY

............................................................................................................ 93

NNEX

5: L

ITERATURE AND SOURCES

................................................................................... 99

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This staff working document accompanies the Communication on the Digital Education Action

Plan 2021-2027 and provides

evidence and analysis

of the opportunities and challenges that the

digital transformation brings to education and training today.

The

EU’s first framework for digital education

was launched in 2018 through the Digital

Education Action Plan, with 11 actions focusing on the formal education sector. The 2018 Action

Plan contributed to an emerging policy dialogue and was welcomed by Member States, but its

short-term duration (2018-2020) and limited budget meant that the actions could not reach their

full potential and achieve the impact needed.

This staff working document outlines the lessons learnt from implementing the 2018 Action Plan

and discusses the latest developments in digital education. It explains why

stronger action at EU

level is needed,

taking into account early evidence from the COVID-19 crisis and the more

structural challenges faced by digital education in Europe. It is based on data, research and policy

documents published in the last two years and input received through extensive stakeholder

consultations with, among others, representatives of Member States and EFTA countries,

international and pan-European umbrella organisations, Members of the European Parliament and

the general public. The experiences and educational implications of the COVID-19 crisis were

the focus of a public consultation, which received 2,716 replies and more than 130 position

papers.

The

COVID-19 crisis

led to a sudden and large-scale use of digital learning practices. The range

of solutions put in place to ensure continuity of education and training was wide, including low-

and high-tech practices, with marked differences within and between countries. Higher levels of

digital capacity and experience with alternative and flexible forms of learning led to faster and

better responses. Evidence shows differences between levels and sectors of education and

training: in most cases, higher education institutions continued their lessons virtually, while many

schools and vocational and training (VET) providers lacked expertise and struggled to offer

distance and online learning opportunities to all their students. On average, 9% of 15-year-old

students do not have a quiet place to study in their homes, and there are significant gaps related to

availability of computers and connectivity, especially for children from low-income families,

disadvantaged backgrounds and remote areas. At present, there is not enough data on whether the

distance and online learning practices put in place in response to the COVID-19 crisis have

ensured effective and equitable access to quality learning opportunities. The rapid switch to

distance and online teaching and learning saw innovative practices emerge, but also significant

challenges for those educators lacking the competences and confidence to use digital technologies

in an effective way. Results of the public consultation show overwhelmed parents, educators

struggling to ensure a structured process while keeping students engaged, and learners lacking

interaction and unable to access suitable devices and reliable internet connection. Looking

beyond the crisis, the vast majority of consulted stakeholders considered that the switch to

distance and online learning would accelerate the transformation of education and training

systems and called for stronger support and guidance at EU level.

This staff working document supports the action plan outlined in the Communication on the

Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027. Evidence is presented in two main sections:



Using digital technologies for teaching and learning:

while most EU Member States have

developed strategies in the field of digital education, few undertake regular monitoring and

evaluation to review these strategies or update them to respond, for example, to developments

in technology and related learning needs. Using digital technologies effectively in teaching

and learning practices is a complex process and requires planning, ongoing monitoring, and a

strong focus on learner-driven pedagogy. Evidence confirms that providing students and

educators with appropriate infrastructure and connectivity is essential. However, the

proportion of students attending highly equipped and connected schools differs widely across

Europe, ranging from 35% to 52% or 72% depending on the level of education (ISCED

1,2,3), and is higher in the Nordic countries. Evidence confirms that the older the students, the

higher the likelihood that they attend a school with a fast internet connection, with large

differences between and within EU countries. Research clearly shows that investment and

development in infrastructure needs to be accompanied by systemic organisational change

underpinned by pedagogical values. This includes measures to reinforce educators’ digital

competences through flexible and sustained professional development opportunities, yet only

39% of teachers in the EU felt well or very well prepared to use digital technologies for

teaching. If properly designed and planned, online learning courses and Massive Open Online

Courses (MOOCs) can help meet the lifelong learning needs of an ever-growing population

of learners, and yet European countries are late adopters of such opportunities, with an offer

unevenly distributed across Member States and none of the EU MOOC platforms being

amongst the five leading global platforms. Structural challenges exacerbated by the COVID-

19 crisis and the sudden switch to digital education modes has confirmed the need to boost

the digital capacity of Europe’s education and training

systems and to work together to

support the development of a high performing digital education ecosystem.



Digital competence development:

well before the COVID-19 crisis, evidence was clear on

the need to support digital competence development of adults and young people in Europe.

Today more than ever, being digitally competent is both a necessity and a right. However,

digital skills levels across Europe remain unsatisfactorily low, with 44% of EU citizens

having an insufficient level of digital skills. In addition, digital divides related to gender,

socio-economic background and urban/rural areas persist. At present, more than a third of the

EU labour force lacks the basic digital skills required in most jobs across sectors, and over

half of EU companies report difficulties in filling vacancies for ICT specialists. The digital

skills level of European students is higher compared to that of the overall population and

labour force, but more than one third of 13-14 year olds who participated in the International

Computer and Information Literacy Study did not have a high proficiency level in digital

competence. At the same time, the availability of computing and informatics, as either

compulsory or elective subjects is not uniform across Europe and less than 5% of graduates

and students at higher education level are studying or have completed ICT-related

programmes. The COVID-19 crisis is likely to have an impact on the level and future demand

for digital skills. However, more research is needed to see whether the increased use of digital

technologies will lead to more critical, confident, and creative usage or to greater inequalities

and negative experiences with technology. To thrive in a technology-driven economy, Europe

needs a digitally competent workforce and a large pool of digital talent with basic and

advanced digital skills, including those related to emerging technologies such as Artificial

Intelligence.

This staff working document presents the challenges described above in detail and outlines how

the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 will be implemented and monitored.

Five annexes

provide: further information on how the initiative was prepared (Annex 1); views of the consulted

stakeholders (Annex 2); the European frameworks on digital competence (Annex 3); a glossary

of key terms (Annex 4); references and main sources (Annex 5).

1. Introduction

Digital technologies are changing the world at an incredible speed and are reshaping how people

in Europe live, work and study. Ongoing digital transformation impacts many parts of our daily

life, from the ever-increasing integration of digital technologies in all sectors of the economy to

the societal impact of emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI). Connected

devices and intelligent systems surround us and support activities in terms of access and

exchange of information, communication and collaboration, modes of work, business operations

and, finally yet critically, learning opportunities.

Like other sectors, education and training is undergoing a process of change. When properly

planned and designed, the use of digital technologies for teaching and learning offers many

opportunities, including the possibility to open up to a more diverse cohort of learners, increase

flexibility, personalisation and inclusion, and offer more interactive and engaging forms of

cooperation and communication. At the same time, it brings challenges: educators need to master

the digital environment to design high quality and engaging learning experiences and learners

also need to be technologically savvy

. Education and training systems have an essential role to

play in embracing digital technologies and enabling societies to reap the benefits of the digital

transformation, while avoiding the risks that may come from digital exclusion or inappropriate

use of technology.

In the context of the COVID-19 crisis, digital technologies are supporting individuals and

organisations in their daily tasks, allowing for business continuity, including in the field of

education and training. However, the sudden and large-scale use of digital technologies to ensure

continuity of teaching and learning has shown major discrepancies between and within Member

States and has brought to the fore the benefits and risks of digitalisation. Today more than ever,

ensuring inclusive and quality education and training that responds to the lifelong learning need

to develop the competences necessary for future life and employment requires that education and

training institutions use digital technologies in a critical, purposeful and effective way.

In this staff working document, digital education covers two different but interlinked

dimensions

: the pedagogical use of digital technologies to support and enhance teaching,

learning and assessment (including in face-to-face or blended practices

, but also for remote

education

), and the development of digital competence. Recognised as one of the key

competences for lifelong learning

, being digitally competent involves the confident, critical and

responsible use of and engagement with digital technologies for learning, work, and participation

in society

. It includes a set of knowledge, skills and attitudes essential for any learner at any

stage of their personal and professional life.

Paniagua A., Istance D. (2018). Teachers as Designers of Learning Environments: The Importance of Innovative Pedagogies.

Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing.

While developing the renewed Digital Education Action Plan, it became apparent that definitions pertaining to digital education

are being used fluidly, often changing depending on context and audience. Terms used to refer to a specific aspect of digital

education vary not only when comparing approaches but also because influenced by organisational policy, the recent proliferation

of sector guidance, or because of a dislike of other terms relating to the same concept. Definitions of terms used in this staff

working document are provided in a glossary in Annex 4.

Blended learning is a pedagogical approach mixing face-to-face and online learning, with some element of learner control over

time, place, path, and pace. See the glossary in Annex 4 for further information.

In this staff working document, remote education is used as a broad term which compromises, among others, the possibility to

organise and deliver teaching and learning activities at distance (e.g. by using radio, TV or electronic resources) or online (e.g.

requiring learners to use a connected device). See the glossary in Annex 4 for further information.

Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on Key Competences for Lifelong learning. 2018/C 189/01.

According to the DigComp Framework, digital competence includes information and data literacy, communication and

collaboration, media literacy, digital content creation, safety, intellectual property related questions, problem solving and critical

thinking. See Annex 3 for further details.

The Political Guidelines of the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen

underlined the

need for Europe to lead the green and digital transitions

and announced the

update of the Digital Education Action Plan

as a key initiative to help unlock the potential of

digital technologies for education and to address a widening digital skills gap

. Education and

training is called upon to contribute to a European society powered by digital solutions that are

strongly rooted in our common values and respond to the lifelong needs of people and

organisations

. In this context, the crisis period has shown the essential role of technology for

educational continuity and the need to work together to make education and training systems

resilient and future-ready. Boosting the level of digital competences and capabilities to support

the effective and pedagogical use of digital technologies is a key enabling factor in improving the

quality, inclusivity and effectiveness of education and training

The EU framework for digital education was set in 2018 with the first

Digital Education Action

Plan

, an integral part of the European Education Area

. While limited in scope and duration to

assess its overall impact, the 2018 Action Plan has received strong support, including from the

European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions. Considering its achievements and the

COVID-19 disruptions, stakeholders and Member States are now seeking a more ambitious

approach to addressing challenges and harnessing opportunities for the future. Consequently, the

Communication on repairing and preparing for the next generation

announced the adoption of a

renewed Digital Education Action Plan in the context of the recovery plan. The aim is to address

and support the increased responsibility of Europe’s education and training systems in managing

the aftermath of COVID-19, in parallel with the ongoing digital transformation.

In recent years, digital education policies have evolved at both European and national level.

Almost all Member States now have national and/or regional strategies for digital education

Examples include the ‘INcoDe.2030

National Digital Competences Initiative’ in Portugal, the

‘Pacte pour un Enseignement d’Excellence’ in the French Community of Belgium, and the

‘DigitalPakt Schule’ in Germany. In some cases, digital

competence is part of broader strategies

on lifelong learning, as in Estonia, or sustainable development, as in Poland

. Many countries are

currently in the process of updating their digital strategies, and the disruptions caused by the

COVID-19 pandemic will undoubtedly lead to a deeper reflection on the role digital technologies

can play in supporting teaching and learning to make sure that no one is left behind.

President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, A Union that strives for more. My agenda for Europe. Political

Guidelines for the next European Commission 2019-2024, available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-

political/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en.pdf.

Commission’s Communication on the European Green Deal (COM/2019/640 final) and the new Skills Agenda (COM(2020)441

final/2) recognise the links between the green and digital transitions and the need to exploit synergies between them.

Mission Letter to Mariya Gabriel, Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth, available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2019-2024/gabriel_en.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions on Shaping Europe's digital future. COM(2020) 67 final.

Efforts under the Digital Education Action Plan and those under the new sSkills Agenda (COM(2020)441 final/2) and the

accompanying proposal for a Council Recommendation on VET (COM (2020) 275) will all contribute to the overall objective set

out in the Skills Agenda, to ensure that 70% of 16 to 74 year olds have at least basic digital skills by 2025.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions on the Digital Education Action Plan. COM(2018) 22 final.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions on Strengthening European Identity through Education and Culture. COM(2017) 673 final.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions - Europe's moment: Repair and Prepare for the Next Generation. COM/2020/456 final.

In 2019, only six countries did not have a strategy on digital education. European Commission (2019). Digital Education at

School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office.

A full list of strategies for digital education is available in Annex 4 of European Commission (2019). Digital Education at

School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office.

Stakeholders consulted in the preparation of this initiative, through both a public consultation and

targeted consultations, highlighted that the European Commission can play an important role in

advancing these discussions and setting a common vision by leveraging good practices and

linking European and national initiatives that promote innovation in teaching, learning and

assessment

Stronger support and guidance at EU level

is needed to learn from the experiences so far,

including more recently from the COVID-19 crisis, and to boost the level of preparedness for the

future. Common efforts and a comprehensive approach are needed to harness digital technologies

for effective and inclusive education and training and to enable Europeans of all ages and

backgrounds to live and thrive in the digital age.

This staff working document accompanies the Communication on the renewed Digital Education

Action Plan 2021-2027. It provides analysis and evidence that supports its priorities and actions

and addresses the challenges arising from the COVID-19 crisis and the wider digital

transformation. The renewed Action Plan presents a long-term vision for digital education and

covers formal (primary, secondary, tertiary, and adult education, including VET), non-formal and

informal education (youth work, community-based organisations, libraries, cultural and creative

spaces, etc.). It takes a lifelong learning perspective, addressing the needs of children, young

people and adults, learners as well as education and training staff.

2. Progress and achievements in the area of digital education to date

As part of the European Education Area

, in January 2018, the European Commission adopted

the first Digital Education Action Plan

. It set out 11 actions for the 2018-2020 period, aiming to

help Member States meet the challenges and opportunities stemming from the use of digital

technologies in education and training.

The 2018 Action Plan focused on formal education (i.e. primary and secondary schools, VET,

and higher education) and covered three priority areas:



Making better use of digital technology for teaching and learning;

Developing digital competences and skills;

Improving education through better data analysis and foresight.

The first priority aimed to support the use of digital technology in education, fostering its full

potential as a tool for teaching and learning. The second priority addressed the development of

digital competence as a ‘life skill’, crucial for playing an active role in society, engaging in

further education and training, and accessing the labour market. The third priority focused on

foresight, and how improving the use of data in education can support policymaking.

Welcomed by Member States, the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions, and

stakeholders at large, the 2018 Action Plan contributed to an emerging policy dialogue and

confirmed the EU's added value in this field. The implementation of its actions is ongoing until

the end of 2020. The table below provides an overview of the state of implementation of each

action to date.

See Annex 2 for further details.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions on Strengthening European Identity through Education and Culture. COM(2017) 673 final.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions on the Digital Education Action Plan. COM(2018) 22 final.

Priority 1: Making better use of digital technology for teaching and learning

1. Connectivity

in Schools

Scope: high-speed internet for schools.

Objective: support connectivity in schools through voucher schemes.

Achievements: three calls of Wifi4EU (Free Wi-Fi for Europeans) were

launched under the Connecting Europe Facility Programme

. So far, 7,980

municipalities have received vouchers to install free Wi-Fi access points in

public spaces, including schools. A series of newsletters and webinars helped

raise awareness of the opportunities under this action.

Next steps: the final call of Wifi4EU was launched in June 2020.

Lessons learnt: Wifi4EU was designed for municipalities, with schools being

only indirect beneficiaries. Nevertheless, experience has shown that a

significant proportion of municipalities made use of the Wifi4EU funding to

install free Wi-Fi access points in schools. In fact, 37.5% of all access points

installed as a result of the first three Wifi4EU calls were installed in schools.

Scope: online tool to help schools (upper primary, secondary and VET) to

review how they use digital technologies for teaching and learning and to plan

for improvements.

Objective: reach one million teachers, trainers and learners and promote peer

learning through a mentoring scheme for innovation in schools.

Achievements: released in October 2018, the SELFIE tool is available in 32

languages and has been extended to countries beyond the EU (notably the

Western Balkans). So far used by more than 650,000 students, teachers and

school leaders, SELFIE has received extensive support and interest from

Ministries of Education. A call for a mentoring scheme for innovation in

schools was published in November 2019 and its evaluation is currently

ongoing.

Next steps: the SELFIE tool is regularly updated with new features, based on

user feedback. The latest release included questions related to remote

education. Support material to help schools use their results from SELFIE are

being developed. A pilot project to extend SELFIE for work-based learning

systems in VET is currently taking place. The projects funded through the

mentoring scheme will start between November 2020 and January 2021.

Lessons learnt: implementation has been highly successful, which shows that

the action meets a direct need for schools (primary and secondary, including

VET) to reflect on technology use, support teachers and plan for

organisational change. Feedback from stakeholders highlights the need to

further support the development of digital capacity of schools by providing

more support materials. Anonymised and aggregated data from the tool could

be used to support policymaking.

Scope: digital authentication of qualifications.

Objective: create a framework for digitally-signed credentials, i.e. proof of

individual learning achievement.

2. SELFIE

3. Digitally

signed

credentials

The WiFi4EU initiative aims to provide free public Wi-Fi connectivity for citizens and visitor networks in 6,000-8,000

communities across the EU by the end of 2020. Its funding comes from the Connecting Europe Facility, a funding instrument to

promote growth, jobs and competitiveness through targeted infrastructure investments at EU level.

Achievements: the technical framework is under development and piloted by

18 Member States in 2020.

Next steps: the final version of the framework will be released after the pilot

and published though Europass

and the certifying institutions.

Lessons learnt: the action addresses the lack of digital solutions for storing and

validating credentials, diplomas and certificates. Interest from Member States

is high but, as the pilot is ongoing, it is too early to draw conclusions,

especially regarding uptake by end users.

Priority 2: Developing digital competences and skills

4 Higher

Education Hub

Scope:

higher education institutions’ use of digital technologies.

Objective: create a Europe-wide platform for digital higher education.

Achievements: the OpenU project (Online Pedagogical resources for European

Universities) is funded through Erasmus+ and started in April 2019. It is

implemented by a consortium of 20 partners from 11 countries.

Next steps: by the end of 2021, a European hub for online and blended

learning, virtual mobility and exchange of best practices will be created.

Lessons learnt: the action is based on one Erasmus+ project, which limits the

scale of the potential outcomes to the capacity of the consortium to deliver on

the objectives of the call.

Scope: open science skills.

Objective: training for students and staff on open science skills.

Achievements: a call to support open science skills development was

published through Erasmus+. Three proposals were received but none satisfied

the minimum quality criteria. In 2020, the open science skills training will

therefore be delivered through European University alliances.

Next steps: the development of course material and training modules for

students and staff is ongoing, supported by several European University

alliances, which have committed to sharing resources, training and best

practice on the effective implementation of open science.

Lessons learnt: lack of demand for this action.

Scope: coding and digital creativity.

Objective:

increase schools’ participation in EU Code Week, a grassroots

initiative promoting computational thinking, coding and the creative and

critical use of digital technologies.

Achievements: there have been two editions, with 116,000 coding activities in

more than 80 countries, involving 6.9 million people, mainly from schools

(48% of participants were female). It is estimated that 10% of EU schools

were involved. The action is supported by teacher training and other activities

that help and support organisers.

Next steps: the 2020 edition of EU Code Week will take place between 10 and

25 October 2020, combined with a European Parliament pilot project in six

countries (LV, ES, IT, IE, RO, SI) and a closing event in Brussels (BE) in

5 Open Science

Skills

6 EU Code

Week in

schools

Europass (https://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/) is a service helping individuals to communicate their skills and qualifications

effectively by using standardised document templates.

2021.

Lessons learnt: implementation has been successful, contributing to the

development of teachers' and young people’s digital skills through activities

planned in cooperation with a wide range of stakeholders from different

Member States.

7 Cybersecurity

in Education

Scope: online safety, cyber hygiene and media literacy.

Objective: an awareness campaign and a blended course for 6,000 secondary

school teachers.

Achievements: #SaferInternet4EU, a campaign combining actions from

different stakeholders at EU and national level to improve awareness of digital

challenges/opportunities for children, involved 30 million people in 2018 and

33 million people in 2019. In 2020, the EU-funded network of Safer Internet

Centres in Member States carried out a Better Internet for Kids (BIK)

mini-

campaign in response to COVID-19; this included educational resources.

Next steps: a blended learning course for teachers on cybersecurity has been

piloted and will be rolled out in the second half of 2020.

Lessons learnt: #SaferInternet4EU continues to reach a growing audience,

which shows the clear need to deepen efforts to foster online safety. The

design, implementation and delivery of the blended learning course on

cybersecurity, however, has seen delays and required mitigation measures to

achieve the expected results.

Scope: overcoming the digital gender gap.

Objective: workshops on digital and entrepreneurship skills for 20,000 female

students (aged 12-18).

Achievements: a series of workshops were organised and reached 4,104 girls

in 16 countries (10 Member States, 6 candidate and other European countries).

Next steps: additional workshops will take place for 12,275 girls in 2020-

2021.

Lessons learnt: the objective of this action remains highly relevant; however,

the delivery mechanisms of the workshops were not efficient due to public

procurement rules and needed mitigation measures to achieve the expected

results.

8 Training for

girls

Priority 3: Improving education through better data analysis and foresight

9 Studies on

ICT in

education

Scope: use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in schools.

Objective:

publish a study on the use of ICT in schools, revise the OECD’s

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) questionnaire on use

of ICT and explore the feasibility of benchmarks on digital and

entrepreneurship competences.

Achievements: a report on the use of ICT in schools was published in March

2019

. Two technical notes explaining the feasibility of new benchmarks on

digital and entrepreneurship competences were also published.

Next steps: the new optional PISA questionnaire on ICT use is in a pilot phase

Better Internet for Kids: betterinternetforkids.eu portal

European Commission (2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools.

Luxembourg: EU Publications Office.

and will be included in PISA 2022

Lessons learnt: the publication of studies providing recent data on digital

education and competence was a good initial step, but more efforts are needed

to improve the availability of comparable, cross-national data and ensure

continuous monitoring of the level of digital competence across the EU.

10 Artificial

Intelligence and

analytics

Scope: artificial intelligence and learning analytics in education.

Objective: launch artificial intelligence and analytics pilot projects to predict

future skills and skills shortages.

Achievements: two pilots took place: the first focused on a skills gap analysis

in the energy storage sector and resulted in an online system to match people

with jobs and available courses or training

. The other led to the development

of two proofs of concept to predict future skills shortages.

Next steps: both pilot projects will be further tested and developed in late 2020

and recommendations on how to use them in the future will be produced.

Lessons learnt: the action was limited to two pilot projects with limited scope;

these are still ongoing and so it is too early to draw conclusions.

Scope: exploring trends in digital education.

Objective: publish foresight papers, launch an education hackathon.

Achievements: a foresight paper on AI in education was published in 2018

; a

second on makerspaces was published in 2019

and a third one on teachers in

the digital age is under development

. The Digital Education Hackathon was

piloted in November 2019; 1,700 people from 21 countries joined the event,

identifying and presenting solutions to 60 challenges in 24 hours. The event

gathered 130 solutions in total and resulted in 33 winners at local level, 10

finalists and three global winners who each received a 5,000-euro award to

implement their ideas.

Next steps: the third foresight paper on teachers in the digital age will be

published in autumn 2020, along with a report on future assessment in primary

and secondary education. The second edition of the Digital Education

Hackathon will take place in November 2020

Lessons learnt: the foresight papers helped increase the body of prospective

work available in Europe. Further work on the topic is needed and should be

better communicated, disseminated and discussed with practitioners. The

Digital Education Hackathon was highly successful. Feedback from

stakeholders highlighted the need to continue and expand this initiative.

Table 1: State of play of the 2018 Digital Education Action Plan

11 Strategic

foresight

OECD (2019). Upgrading the ICT questionnaire items in PISA 2021. OECD Education Working Paper No. 202

The beta version of the ‘SkillCharge’ system developed in the framework of

action 10 of the 2018 Action Plan is available at

https://skillcharge.innoenergy.com

Joint Research Centre (2018). The impact of Artificial Intelligence on Learning, Teaching and Education. Policies for the

future. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Joint Research Centre (2019), Makerspaces for Education and Training. Exploring future implications for Europe. Luxembourg:

Publications Office of the European Union.

Joint Research Centre (upcoming). Emerging technologies and the teaching profession. Ethical and pedagogical considerations

based on near-future scenarios. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU.

More information is available at: https://digieduhack.com/en/

As Table 1 shows, a full evaluation of the outcomes of the 2018 Action Plan will only be possible

in early 2021. To date, most actions have been delivered as planned. Six calls for funding were

published, as well as two reports and one study. In terms of outreach, SELFIE, EU Code Week,

and the #SaferInternet4EU campaign have reached more than 37.5 million students, teachers and

parents in Europe.

2.1 Impact of the 2018 Action Plan

The 2018 Action Plan was the European Commission's first policy initiative on digital education

since the 2013 Communication on Opening up Education

. It played an important role in

bringing together existing and new EU initiatives within one framework and coordinating the

overall approach to technology in education and digital competence development. The 2018

Action Plan had an impact beyond its 11 actions as it triggered discussion and influenced policy

more widely across Europe.

Its implementation

boosted cooperation and dialogue on digital education.

Several high-level

events brought education stakeholders and policy makers together to discuss innovative teaching

and learning practices, including the Bulgarian and Romanian Presidency events organised in

2018 and 2019. Additional activities were carried out in response to stakeholder requests and

feedback, as for instance, the development of a new dimension on digital transformation and

capability in the HEInnovate framework

. The 2018 Action Plan also influenced national

policies and initiatives on digital education in a number of Member States, including Belgium,

Bulgaria and France

The Erasmus+ programme supports a wide range of projects focusing on different topics

connected to innovative teaching and learning practices and the effective use of digital

technologies. The 2018 Action Plan adoption gave more recognition and prominence to the topic

of digital education in various Erasmus+ calls for proposals, giving it greater visibility during its

implementation period. For instance, in the 2019 Erasmus+ call for policy experimentation in the

field of education and training led by high-level public authorities, digital education and

competence was the first priority area

Overall, the number of projects on digital education funded annually has tripled since the

adoption of the 2018 Action Plan. For instance, in 2018-2019, only considering the Erasmus+

centralised actions

, more than 35 projects addressing the development of digital competence

and the use of digital technologies for teaching and learning have been funded. These projects are

cross-sectoral and involve organisations from all fields of education and training in more than 50

different countries. Those with the highest evaluation score focused on the use of digital

technologies as a means to build innovative practices (e.g. in teacher professional development,

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions on Opening up Education: Innovative teaching and learning for all through new Technologies

and Open Educational Resources. COM/2013/0654 final.

HEInnovate, a guiding framework to support higher education institutions and systems to develop their innovative and

entrepreneurial potential:

https://heinnovate.eu/en

The 2018

Action Plan influenced the ‘Education for Tomorrow’ programme in BG and the digital education strategy of BE-FR.

In FR, a number of national initiatives were inspired by the 2018 Action Plan, which also triggered inclusion of digital

competence across the curricula, development of a digital competence framework, reinforced support on science, technology,

engineering and mathematics. Furthermore, the 2018 Action Plan inspired a Hungarian request for structural reform support

(under the SRSS) on the digital transformation of the Hungarian higher education sector. See Annex 2 for further details.

More information is available at: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-plus/funding/european-policy-experimentations-in-the-

fields-of-education-and-training-led-by-high-level-public-authorities-2020_en

The Erasmus + programme is divided into centralised and decentralised actions. The centralised actions are managed at a

European level by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) located in Brussels, Belgium. The

decentralised actions are managed in each programme country by National Agencies that are appointed by their national

authorities. More information is available at: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-plus/actions_en

work-based learning, assessment, etc.) and increase the digital capacity of schools, initial and

continuing VET, or higher education. In almost all projects, the focus was on using digital

technologies to make education more inclusive and to respond to changing labour market needs.

Digital education and related topics have also been included in the work of online platforms and

communities, including eTwinning

, the School Education Gateway

, EPALE

and the

Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange

. These bring together educational stakeholders to exchange views

and discuss the use of digital education content and practice.

The European Commission published an additional report on the status of digital education in

schools in Europe in 2019, providing updated and comparative information on strategic

approaches to digital education and policies supporting schools, school curricula and teachers’

professional development, students' digital competences evaluation and the use of technology for

assessment

2.2 Challenges in the implementation of the 2018 Action Plan

Systemic results in education and training take time and require sustained efforts at different

levels

. Consequently, the main challenges in implementing the 2018 Action Plan relate to its

short-term duration and the subsequent sustainability of its actions

in the longer term

Even though the 2018 Action Plan should be seen in complementarity with policies and

initiatives developed at the national level in line with the principle of subsidiarity, stakeholders

consulted to prepare this initiative highlighted the importance of more guidance, cooperation and

funding at the EU level

Feedback from consulted stakeholders highlighted that the Action Plan's outreach activities and

international dimension could be strengthened to increase visibility

. More specifically,

opportunities and challenges for digital education should be better explained to build a common

understanding of key problems and how to address them. In general, consulted stakeholders

highlighted the need to further support education and training to adapt to the digital

transformation, including a more inclusive approach to digital competence development and

looking

beyond formal education in a lifelong learning perspective.

Experience gathered over the last two years and input received from stakeholders show that the

renewed Action Plan needs to ensure

stronger cooperation and closer collaboration

with other

European Institutions, Member States and related stakeholders

. Results of the public

consultation confirm that the COVID-19 crisis has increased the need for a more coordinated and

structured EU-level approach to digital education, based on continuous dialogue and exchange

eTwinning, a community for schools in Europe and beyond:

www.etwinning.net/en/pub/index.htm

School Education Gateway, Europe's online platform for school education:

www.schooleducationgateway.eu/en/pub/index.htm

EPALE, an Electronic Platform for Adult Learning in Europe:

https://epale.ec.europa.eu/en

Erasmus+ Virtual Exchange, a platform enabling youth to engage in meaningful intercultural experiences online as part of their

formal or non-formal education:

https://europa.eu/youth/erasmusvirtual

European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office.

Joint Research Centre (2017). Digital Education Policies in Europe and Beyond. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office.

The duration of the 2018 Action Plan was determined, among others, by the EU Multiannual Financial Framework.

Respondents to the public consultation used the last open question of the questionnaire to provide comments on the role that the

European Commission can play in supporting digital education in Europe and to call for more cooperation among stakeholders. In

the targeted stakeholder consultations, stakeholders identified the funding opportunities of the 2018 Action Plan as insufficient

and called for reinforced funding and specific guidance. See Annex 2 for further details.

Most of the consulted stakeholders, especially from Member States, considered the visibility of the 2018 Action Plan as not

satisfactory and called for further efforts in this direction. See Annex 2 for further details.

For instance, the European Training Foundation has played a key role in implementing the 2018 Action Plan, as a member of

the ET2020 Working Group on Digital Education, as well as in disseminating the European Frameworks for digital competence

(see Annex 3) and in extending some of the actions to accession and candidate countries.

See Annex 2 for more details.

Box 1: cooperation and stakeholder engagement during the 2018 Action Plan

During the implementation of the 2018 Action Plan, cooperation and stakeholder engagement

were supported mainly through two initiatives: the Education and Training 2020 (ET2020)

Working Group on Digital Education and the Digital Education Hackathon.

The

ET2020 Working Group on Digital Education (2018-2020)

is a dynamic forum for

exchange of views and experiences on using technology in education and training and digital

competence development. The group brings together public authorities (mainly digital education

experts from Ministries of Education), social partners and civil society working on formal and

non-formal education.

Through regular online and face-to-face meetings, the group explores how digital technology can

and is impacting on teaching, learning and assessment and shares good practice from systems

which are using these tools to implement real change. Experts and guest speakers take part in the

meetings and members share their own perspectives and experiences. The group has provided

Member States with a platform that gathers information that can feed into their strategic

approaches to digital education and digital competence development across all sectors of society.

Over the years, the group has worked in synergy with other ET2020 working groups

and has

been highly effective, including in supporting the implementation of the 2018 Action Plan with

regular discussions and progress reports on its 11 actions, in particular the SELFIE tool for

schools. The group produced key policy messages from their discussions, for example on AI in

education, teacher professional development, game-based learning and digital content and

resources. Feedback from meetings has been highly positive

and the many peer-learning

activities hosted by Member States highlighted the willingness to deepen discussions and engage

with a wider group of stakeholders.

The

Digital Education Hackathon

is a 24-hour contest that engages organisations working in

education and training in the EU and globally to identify challenges and co-create solutions for

the future of education in the digital age

. Piloted in the framework of the 2018 Action Plan and

implemented by the EIT Climate-KIC

and Aalto University, the Digital Education Hackathon

proved to be a highly successful concept for user-driven innovation and collaboration. The first

edition involved 1,700 people from 21 countries globally (Figure 1); the second will take place in

November 2020.

ET2020 Working Groups

are set up as part of the EU’s policy cooperation process in education and training supporting

common policy objectives. Members of the Working Groups are government officials appointed by EU Member States and other

participating countries, plus a number of representatives from stakeholder organisations and social partners. The ET2020 working

groups are organised around seven different themes, including Digital Education: Learning, Teaching and Assessment. More

information is available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/european-policy-cooperation/et2020-working-groups_en

The ET2020 Working Group on Innovation and Digitalisation in VET (2018-2020) has also served as a forum for exchange and

discussion on how to use innovation and digitalisation to boost high-quality VET, including higher VET. In this context, for

instance, the expansion of SELFIE to work-based learning has also been extensively discussed and prepared.

Surveys taken in a regular way showed that members found the meetings relevant and useful mutual learning opportunities.

Digital Education Hackathon:

https://digieduhack.com/en/

Using participatory methods in education and training, including through digital tools, is a new approach that is slowly gaining

ground in Europe to crowdsource ideas and stimulate user-driven innovation. Educational hackathons, which have proliferated in

the last years, are a good example of involving educators and learners in a forward-looking reflection and co-creation process. In

education and training, they are often organised around

a ‘challenge’ to solve in a limited period of time and focus on building

solutions for today's education problems by bringing up creative ideas, sometimes in the form of a prototype . The challenge can

be formulated, for example, by learners, educators, school or university boards, regional and national authorities or even set in

collaboration with EdTech sector in order to ensure that technology products meet the needs of education and training today.

EIT Climate-KIC is one of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities of the European Institute of Innovation and

Technology (EIT). More information available at: https://www.climate-kic.org/

Figure 1: The first edition of the Digital Education Hackathon in numbers

Source: DigiEduHack (2019)

Feedback from stakeholders was highly positive: participants perceived their involvement in the

first Digital Education Hackathon very useful (94%) and confirmed their intention to take part in

the next edition (77%); more than half of the hosting organisations (54%) expressed their

willingness to further work on implementing the most innovative ideas. The Hackathon generated

policy and technical solutions to problems identified by educational stakeholders on the ground.

During the implementation of the 2018 Action Plan, the

EU Code Week

was also a successful

action boosting cooperation. The initiative is supported by the European Commission and

Ministries of Education in EU and Western Balkan countries. At the heart of EU Code Week is

the community of volunteer activity organisers who are teachers, mentors, coding clubs, libraries,

private companies, parents and non-governmental organisations. They dedicate their time, energy

and skills to bring computational thinking, coding, robotics, tinkering with hardware, computer

science and digital skills at large to as many people as possible in Europe and around the world.

In 2019, more than 4.2 million people participated in over 80 countries around the world.

Overall, these very different examples highlight the

potential to work together and engage with

a wide range of stakeholders

on the opportunities and challenges of digital education.

3. Lessons from the COVID-19 crisis

In 2020, the world was hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Like other parts of the world, Europe

faced an unprecedented crisis and urgent need to respond to immediate public health challenges

and consequent economic and social issues. In March 2020

, most EU countries restricted or

prohibited access to buildings and campuses of schools, universities and other centres of

education and training, as part of their measures to slow down the spread of the virus (Figure 2)

EU Code Week:

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/eu-code-week.

In IT, the European country hit first by the pandemic, schools and universities closed on 5 March 2020. This decision was

followed by AL, EL, CZ and RO. Most European education systems closed their education and training

institutions’ buildings by

16 March 2020. The last country to announce such measures was the UK, where schools and universities closed their doors by 20-

23 March 2020. Only few countries in Europe decided not to close their education and training institutions and rely upon stricter

social distancing and hygiene measures.

EURYDICE (2020). Impact of Covid-19: closure of education systems in Europe.

Figure 2: Schools and higher education closure in Europe in April 2020

Source: EURYDICE (2020)

Within weeks, the global education landscape was upended, affecting 100 million pupils and

students in the EU and over 1.3 billion children around the world

. Some education systems

announced exceptional ‘holiday’ periods at the beginning of the closure to better prepare their

response, but within a short period of time, learning started to take place through experiences of

remote emergency education

in most parts of Europe

. Results of the public consultation

show that a large part of those respondents reporting not to have used distance and online

learning before the crisis, but they actually did so during the lockdown period

. The range of

solutions put in place to ensure continuity of education and training was wide. They included

low- and high-tech practices (e.g. using digital platforms, radio and TV channels, or other

electronic resources) and varied from country to country, and within countries, depending on the

level and sector of education and training .

Experiences during the period of lockdown showed that a higher level of pre-existing digital

capacity led to faster and better responses. Where this was not the case, the efficiency and quality

of the measures suffered: for instance a study in Germany from June 2020 showed that the

amount of time children devoted to school activities halved during the COVID-19 crisis, falling

from 7.4 hours to 3.6 hours daily

. Research shows that closure of education and training

institutions, even if temporary, can have significant consequences for learners. Reduction in

instructional time can impact negatively on learning outcomes

. They can increase existing

Figures based on UNESCO Institute for Statistics data and related to the number of learners affected by the school and

university closures around Mid-April and enrolled at pre-primary, primary, lower-secondary, upper-secondary (ISCED 0-3) and

tertiary education levels (ISCED 5-8).

Hodges C., Moore S., Lockee B., Trust T., Bond A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online

learning. Educase Review.

Results of the public consultation show that, during the lockdown, learning and teaching activities continued from home, using

digital tools and internet, for the large majority or respondents. See Annex 2 for further details.

The emergency situation forced and in some cases encouraged many individuals and organisations that had no previous

experience in using distance and online learning to get at least some exposure to it. On the other hand, practically all respondents

already using distance and online learning before the crisis have continued to do so during the lockdown. See Annex 2 for further

details.

A recent study from DE shows that more than half of the students (57%) had online lessons less than once a week, only 6%

daily. 38% of the students declare they dedicated a maximum of two hours and 74% a maximum of four hours a day to school

activities. For further information: IFO Institut (2020): Bildung in der Coronakrise: Wie haben die Schulkinder die Zeit der

Schulschließungen verbracht, und welche Bildungsmaßnahmen befürworten die Deutschen?

Joint Research Centre (2020). The likely impact of COVID-19 on education: Reflections based on the existing literature and

recent international datasets. Luxembourg: Publication of the European Union.

inequalities, with economically advantaged families having more resources to fill learning gaps

and provide stimulating activities to their children

Across Member States, having already in place options for alternative and flexible forms of

learning, interaction and communication allowed a faster and more efficient response, with the

emergence of some good examples of innovation

. However, access to and quality of the

learning experience varied a lot depending on the availability of infrastructure and devices, the

presence of digitally competent educators, including capacity to adapt pedagogical methods, and

the existence or not of usable and accessible digital content, tools, services and platforms. All

these elements, at national or local level, helped create the conditions for learning to continue.

For instance, higher education institutions were somewhat better prepared than other education

sectors, due to their prior experience with providing blended learning options and online digital

content in their courses and programmes

. In most cases, their lessons continued virtually

through streaming and use of existing learning management systems

but this happened with a

wide degree of quality regarding the learning design. On the other end, schools and VET

providers had to pivot rapidly, under similarly difficult circumstances and in most cases for the

first time, to remote emergency education

In this rushed and unplanned situation, the production of new online learning content was rarely

an option, especially because of time constraints. Most educators and students were confined in

their homes at short notice and, as long as they had internet access and digital devices, in most

cases a synchronous technology-mediated virtual classroom was considered the most practical

and feasible approach

. This is confirmed by the results of the public consultation where it is

possible to observe an increase in

the use of distance and online learning both ‘in real time’ (e.g.

live online classes) and ‘in own time’ (e.g. watching videos of recorded lectures, consulting

online learning materials, etc.); however, according to respondents, the former increased more

than the latter. Due to unexpected closure of education and training institutions, most educators

replaced face to face teaching and learning with synchronous online classes and this happened

despite the use of distance and online learning ‘in own time’ done

before the crisis was higher

than the one ‘in real time’

. Innovative instructional approaches, which stimulate learner

autonomy, motivation and engagement were lacking. As practice and research on the topic

shows, high-quality and inclusive digital education requires time, skills and appropriate resources

for planning and design

UNESCO (2020). 290 million students out of school due to COVID-19: UNESCO releases first global numbers and mobilizes

response.

Ferdig, R. E., Baumgartner, E., Hartshorne, R., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., & Mouza, C. (2020). Teaching, Technology, and Teacher

Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Stories from the Field. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

European University Association (2018). Trends 2018. Learning and teaching in the European Higher Education Area.

The Erasmus Student Network conducted a survey on student higher education exchange (https://esn.org/covidimpact-report)

whose findings show that a great majority of students (85%) moved to some kind of online classes and that mobility continued in

the majority of cases (65%). However, one of the biggest challenges for the higher education sector is connected to the selection

and admission process of new students and potentially to the disruption of their calendar for next year.

OECD (2020). Education responses to Covid-19: Embracing digital learning and online collaboration.

For further details see

‘synchronous vs asynchronous digital teaching and learning’ in the glossary of Annex 4.

It is important to note that to reduce possible exclusion, public authorities and education and training institutions provided

learners with digital devices to study or work from home. As for the future, respondents are planning to continue to use such

measures to a lower extent compared to during the COVID-19 crisis but to a greater extent compared to the pre-COVID-19 crisis.

See Annex 2 for further details.

When time and resources are available, the range of possible distance or online teaching and learning approaches is very wide.

It includes synchronous video-conferencing, as done in some cases during COVID-19, ranging all the way to the delivery of self-

directed online courses offering asynchronous collaboration.

3.1 Challenges in managing remote emergency education

Results from the public consultation confirm the manifold challenges in managing the sudden and

large-scale shift to distance and online teaching and learning. Institutions and educators in Europe

and around the world showed creativity and resilience, but many struggled to adapt to the needs

and context of the learners, including their access, or not, to devices and connectivity. Individual

perceptions of the solutions put in place varied considerably, with education and training staff

having more positive views than learners and their parents

Overall, stakeholders highlighted that, in most cases, the transition to distance and online

teaching and learning happened in a rush and unplanned manner. For younger students and

pupils, education and training institutions relied heavily on parents and carers’ collaboration.

Many publishers and technology providers opened up their resources and platforms. In a number

of countries, new public-private partnerships were quickly established to expand national and

local capacities in deploying distance and online learning solutions

. The transition was also

supported by rapidly developed television and radio programmes and by many educators who

shared resources and practices to help colleagues, particularly those less experienced with online

instructions.

Although remote education has been present in education and training for many decades, the

situation generated by the COVID-19 crisis saw a

shift at an unprecedented scale,

with millions

of learners and educators moving simultaneously to distance and online teaching and learning.

Given the emergency context, re-organising courses and lessons online was not the result of a

well-planned instructional design process inspired by the opportunities offered by digital

education and rooted in a thorough needs analysis.

Evidence from the OECD’s Programme in International Student Assessment

(PISA) in 2018

showed that education systems were unprepared for this shift online. On average, 9% of 15-year-

old students did not have a quiet place to study in their homes and access to computers and

connectivity was a concern

. Evidence confirms that the availability and use of digital solutions

to enhance teaching and learning depends largely on national and local policies and practices. For

instance a study from 2018 shows that the availability of Virtual Learning Environments (VLE)

varies across Member States, with primary schools using them less than lower and upper

secondary schools (37%, 50% and 59% respectively)

. Platforms for school-home

communication are less available than VLEs and educators use of technology for providing

feedback and creating digital resources are even less prevalent than for other activities

. For

remote education to work, devices and internet access are vital but in addition, effective

communication with learners is crucial

to ensure engagement and prevent online learning from

becoming passive and a matter of reading materials

Results from the public consultation show a different perception among target groups regarding the effectiveness of the

measures taken to ensure continuity of education and training: learners and parents tend to be sceptical while education and

training staff are more positive. The level of satisfaction appears to be higher in higher education compared to other educational

levels and especially to early childhood education and care and primary education. See Annex 2 for further details.

In the public consultation, 50% of respondents from public authorities state that their organization supplied digital tools for

teaching and learning and 40% of respondents from digital technology providers that their company provided certain tools and

services for free for education and training. See Annex 2 for further details.

OECD (2020). A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020.

European Commission (2019). Second Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in

schools. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Fraillon, J. Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Duckworth, D. (2019). Preparing for Life in a Digital World: International

Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report. Amsterdam: IEA.

Organisational communication is part of area 1 of the Digital Competence Framework for Educators (see Annex 3).

OECD (2020). How can teachers and school systems respond to the COVID-19 pandemic? Some lessons from TALIS - OECD

Education and Skills Today.

During the COVID-19 crisis, many people experienced for the first time how technology could

be used to teach, learn and assess in new and innovative ways. Results of the different

consultation activities, including the open consultation, shows that, in some cases, this generated

a positive reaction, with educators feeling comfortable with remote teaching and learners being

happier to have a more personalised dialogue with their teachers

. Educators who were lacking

the confidence and competence to use digital technologies effectively faced immense challenges

to adapt to learners’ social, learning and technological needs. Results of the public consultation

confirm that adapting to this new working environment sometimes meant an increased workload,

thus affecting educators’ own work-life

balance

. Given differences between face-to-face and

distance or online teaching and learning, educators need to be supported on a practical,

pedagogical and technical level, feel competent to adapt their methods and confident to use

digital means to communicate, assess, and provide feedback. Students, in turn, need to be guided

to stay motivated and engaged, as there is a risk of being excluded if they lack resources,

connectivity, skills or motivation.

Emerging evidence confirms that, in the circumstances caused by the COVID-19 crisis, educators

and learners were not always in a position to harness the potential of distance and online teaching

and learning nor were they able to deal with its limitations. An analysis of the experiences across

Member States also shows that educational institutions with pre-existing digital capacity did not

use distance and online learning extensively and sistematically until they had to. In this regard,

exchange of best practice’ and professional learning and collaboration, both within and across

educational institutions, emerges as a strategy for resilience

Many Ministries of Education across Member States (such as Italy

, the first European country

struck by the COVID-19 pandemic) quickly published guidelines to provide educators with easy

access to video-conferencing applications, open educational platforms or online resources, and

collaboration tools, allowing synchronous and asynchronous teaching and learning. In some

cases, they also prepared or collected materials to bridge the length of a temporary school

closure

and quickly put in place training courses for teachers on how to design lessons for

remote education

. Surveys and feedback show that finding an appropriate response was not

easy, especially for certain sectors such as VET

Assessment of learners’ achievements, re-

organisation of final exams as well as testing to determine entry requirements for higher

education were highlighted as major challenges

. Urgent support was also needed from

For instance, this came out very strongly during the citizen dialogue in Copenhagen organised as part of the consultation

activities in preparation to the renewed Digital Education Action Plan. See Annex 2 for further details.

Results of the public consultation shows for instance that educators would have welcomed more training and guidance on how

to adapt classroom material and the teaching methodology to distance and online learning. See Annex 2 for further details.

UNESCO (2020). Education in a post-COVID world: nine ideas for public action. OECD (2020). Policy responses to COVID-

19.

Italian Ministry of Education guidance:

https://www.istruzione.it/coronavirus/didattica-a-distanza.html

Examples include, among others, AT, EL, FI FR, IT, PL

This happened for instance in BG, ES, RO.

VET providers pointed out the difficulty to find learning resources specific for VET and appropriate for work-based learning

with consequences on the ability to cover the more practical part of their curriculum via remote learning formats (EU VET

Survey:

https://ec.europa.eu/social/vocational-skills-week/fight-againt-covid-19_en).

In most cases, work-based learning and

apprenticeship were suspended, with exception of few sectors such as healthcare, food and construction. On the topic, see

CEDEFOP (2020). How are European countries managing apprenticeships to respond to the COVID-19 crisis? - ILO online

survey for TVET providers, policy-makers and social partners on addressing the COVID-19 pandemic

(https://www.ilo.org/skills/Whatsnew/WCMS_742817/lang--en/index.htm) - UNESCO on TVET peer support

(https://unevoc.unesco.org/home/COVID-19+disruptions).

On VET see also results of the open consultation of the renewed

Digital Education Action Plan in Annex 2.

Council of the European Union (2020). Council conclusions on countering the COVID-19 crisis in education and training.

Available at:

https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8610-2020-INIT/en/pdf

authorities on how to validate and recognise qualifications

. Organisations, including OECD

UNESCO

and the European Commission

pooled expertise and resources to facilitate

exchange between countries, rapidly collect and analyse information on education responses, and

support efforts to design workable solutions. Despite differences in education structures and

curricula, international collaboration helped countries to share and exchange resources and learn

from each other’s contingency plans.

However, significant differences between and within countries in terms of digital capacity and

competences as well as learners’ connectivity and access to devices, meant that entire groups of

learners, including those from remote areas, migrant and refugee children and other learners from

disadvantaged backgrounds, risked being excluded from distance and online teaching and

learning

Education and training institutions are first and foremost a place of social interaction and the

psychological consequences of facing the pandemic and related disruptions, while being away

from their educators and peers, have been manifold for all learners. Students in upper secondary

and tertiary education may have had already acquired skills to work independently, while

younger learners were particularly challenged in this regard. Younger pupils needed additional

support and guidance from parents and carers, including limiting their exposure to ‘screen time’

and passive usage of devices. Challenges were greater for families where parents had lower levels

of education and no or low-level of digital skills (Figure 3)

Figure 3: Level of digital skills in EU households with children

Source: Eurostat (2019) - Percentage of individuals (16-24) living in households with children (0-

16) by digital skills level, country and EU level

See the results of the survey on recognition during the COVID-19 crisis among the members of the network of Academic

Recognition Information Centres (ENIC-NARIC), available at

https://www.coe.int/en/web/education/recognition-of-

qualifications-in-this-time-of-coronavirus.

The OECD coronavirus (COVID-19) policy hub:

http://oecd.org/coronavirus/en/

UNESCO Global Education Coalition:

https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/globalcoalition

The European Commission launched the Virtual Distance Learning Networks at school and higher education levels and

published a page with available online learning resources in response to the COVID-19 crisis

(https://ec.europa.eu/education/resources-and-tools/coronavirus-online-learning-resources_en).

Beaunoyer E., Dupéeré S., Guitton M.J. (2020). COVID-19 and digital inequalities: Reciprocal impacts and mitigation

strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 111, 106424.

In the EU equal to 36% of the total number of individuals living in households with children (see Figure 3).

Ensuring learners’ well-being

and addressing the risks of increasing inequalities required targeted

support, including to students with disabilities

, special needs and the most vulnerable, who,

may, for example, be entitled to free school meals

. By forcing learners to a different routine

with restricted social connections and increased academic stressors, the COVID-19 crisis has

placed an unprecedented mental health burden on learners, which may require further

intervention

. For instance, a recent study shows that approximately 25% of learners experienced

anxiety symptoms, which were positively correlated with concerns about academic disruption and

delays, economic effects of the pandemic, and impacts on daily life

. This is confirmed by the

results of the

public consultation where learners indicated ‘support for mental health’ as

something they were lacking as well as ‘interaction, clear instructions and guidance from

educators’ and ‘regular interaction and communication with other learners’

. Specific support as

well as further research and investigation on the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on mental health

of individuals and young people may be needed in the future

Even though research efforts are underway, at present, robust data is missing on whether and how

the distance and online teaching and learning practices put in place in response to the COVID-19

crisis ensured

effective and equitable access to quality learning opportunities for all.

Emerging evidence suggests that while delivering educational activities remotely ensured some

degree of continuity of learning for many learners, low motivation levels, stress, absenteeism and

disengagement were not uncommon

. Without considering the consequences that this could have

on dropout rates in the long term, the crisis has affected learners across the board and in particular

those needing additional pedagogical and psychological support and those lacking reliable

internet access and suitable devices for remote education

Flexible learning might be needed in emergencies, such as public health crises or natural

disasters, but also in other situations where learners cannot access education and training

buildings (e.g. to reach geographically isolated regions, to support students with long-term

illness, to offer learning opportunities to working students, supplemental teaching or fill

curriculum gaps). Overall flexible learning can help enrich and extend education and training,

making it more inclusive and responsive to learners’ needs.

The use of digital technologies for educational purposes can also support blended formats,

combining face-to-face and online

, which is one of the approaches considered by Member

States in education and training institutions re-opening. However, it needs to be planned properly

with sufficient support, resources and guidance, otherwise it risks becoming a negative

experience for educators and learners alike

. It is important to note that online learning can be

This group of students was particularly affected by limited accessibility of digital content and assistive technology. These are

elements of particular importance in order to address the needs of educators and learners with disabilities.

Council of the European Union (2020). Council conclusions on countering the COVID-19 crisis in education and training.

Available at:

https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8610-2020-INIT/en/pdf

Grubic N., Badovinac S., Johri A.M. (2020). Student mental health in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic: A call for further

research and immediate solutions. International Journal of Social Psychiatry.

Cao W., Fang Z., Hou G., Han M., Xu X., Dong J., Zheng J. (2020). The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on

college students in China. Psychiatry Research, 287, Article 112984.

Similar concerns were are highlighted by parents, who also stated that they missed assistance on how the could support their

children for online and distance learning and overall well-being. See Annex 2 for further details.

For instance, the Commission has set up a special space within the EU Health Policy Platform to boost discussions about public

health concerns, share knowledge and best practices. A space under this platform is designed for all interested organisations to

come together to discuss and share information on COVID19-related mental health issues. The aim is to develop into a central

place for sharing resources and develop guidance that can help tackle the psychological burden of the pandemic.

UNESCO (2020). Webinars on COVID-19 education response:

https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/webinars

Doyle O. (2020). COVID-19. Exacerbating Educational Inequalities? PUBLIC POLICY.IE

On the topic, see the guidelines published by the European Commission in consultation with representatives of different

Ministries of Education on blended learning in school education. Available at:

https://www.schooleducationgateway.eu/en/pub/resources/publications/blended-learning-guidelines.htm

On the topic (e.g. advantages/disadvantages of online and blended learning) see results of the public consultation in Annex 2.

perceived as being of lower quality than face-to-face instruction, despite research showing

otherwise

100

. As with other instructional approaches, its effectiveness is a matter of who is

learning, who is teaching and how teaching and learning are accomplished and assessed. Suitable

platforms and tools are of course vital but many other considerations are required

101

. Teaching

and learning online, whether in crisis or routine contexts, requires a fundamentally different

approach to designing learning and engaging students

102

Emerging evidence on the educational impact of the crisis confirms that more systemic research

on the future of education and training is needed. This needs to be based on a

thorough and

critical reflection on the positive and negative experiences generated by the COVID-19

crisis

across Member States

103

. However, in Europe, there is a relatively small body of

prospective research

104

focussed on what may happen to education over the medium or long

term

105

. Considering the megatrends shaping the future of education and training, including

emerging technologies for teaching and learning, efforts are needed for more future-oriented,

data-driven research and development in education and training. As widely confirmed by

stakeholders, this will help ensure that in the future digital technologies enhance teaching and

learning in an effective and sustainable way, while addressing concerns related to data use and

protection, privacy and ethics

106

Box 2: Big data in education

Global investments in educational technology reached US$18.66 billion in 2019, a stark increase

over previous years

107

. Yet, during the crisis, education and training institutions used, even within

the same institution, a wide range of different online platforms and tools, sometimes provided for

free or at reduced cost by the private sector and often not known by educators and learners. In

many cases, there was a shortage of online content and other digital resources linked to national

curricula. Solutions were often implemented as ‘quick fixes’

108

and generated concerns about the

hasty adoption of commercial digital learning solutions whose design might be driven by

business models that leverage user data for profitmaking, rather than meaningful pedagogical

practices

109

Hodges C., Moore S., Lockee B., Trust T., Bond A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online

learning. Educase Review.

101

Barbour M. K. (2013). The landscape of K-12 online learning: Examining what is known. In M. G. Moore (Eds.), Handbook of

distance education (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

102

Bacsich P., Bristow S.F., Camilleri A., Op de Beeck I.; Pepler G., Phillips B., Virtual schools and colleges. Providing

alternatives for successful learning. Volume 2. Belgium: Roosbeek.

103

Member States and organisations from the ET2020 Working Group on Digital Education called for additional evidence and

stressed the need to map and research national responses and make sure that the positive examples and lessons learnt from the

crisis are analysed, shared with practitioners and discussed at political level. See Annex 2 for further details.

104

See for instance EDUCAUSE Briefs and New Horizon Report series (https://www.educause.edu/)

105

Some improvements have been made in the framework of the 2018 Action Plan with the publication of three foresight papers

presenting the state of play and providing evidence on the impacts of a given technology (e.g. AI) or approach (e.g. makerspaces).

106

Outcomes of the researchers’ participatory workshop organised in the framework of the public consultation of the renewed

Action Plan confirm the need of further research looking into the future and investigating the possible gains of the experiences of

remote emergency education. Experts highlighted that analysing the challenges is important but more evidence on practices that

work would help to progress. They also called for strengthened cooperation, including better links between research and

policy, as a key element to achieve systemic impact and identify sustainable solutions, which could support education and training

in the long term. See Annex 2 for further details.

107

World Economic Forum (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education forever. This is how. Available at:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-covid19-online-digital-learning/

108

Selwyn N. (2020). Digital education in the aftermath of Covid-19: Critial concerns and hopes. TECHLASH (1), 6-10.

Williamson B., Hogan, A. (2020). The EdTech pandemic shock.

109

Teräs M., Suoranta J., Teräs H., Curcher M. (2020). Post-Covid-19

Education and Education Technology ‘Solutionism’: a

Seller’sMarket. Postdigital Science and Education.

100

The digitalisation of education and training is increasingly generating data that has the potential

to be used to improve educational performance, personalise learning, reduce dropouts and

increase the efficiency of teaching and learning provision

110

. However, apart from a small

number of successful pilot deployments

111

, the use of predictive or learning analytics in Europe is

not used to its full potential

112

. Many countries have not yet established guidelines governing

the

ethical use of data in research or education. Education

and training providers and policy-makers

lack an overall vision and strategies on how to use technologies with regard to data

113

. On the

other side, the EdTech sector is currently offering a number of products and tools that make use

of data-driven solutions

114

. However, in these cases, data use and protection, ethics and privacy

are not always taken in account

115

. This is a critical moment, therefore, to reflect on what is

needed to ensure that the choices and decisions educational institutions are current making impact

positively on the future of education and training.

In this context, quality assurance and trust play a crucial role: the former to promote a shared

understanding of key quality standards for digital education; the latter to ensure respect of key

principles regarding data use, ethics and privacy. These two elements, besides boosting the level

of digital preparedness of Europe’s education and training institutions, can increase the

cooperation between the public and private sector (beyond the crisis period) and improve the

overall quality of the digital solutions available.

4. Priorities and direction for strategic action

Results of the public consultation confirm that, during the lockdown, learning in confinement and

without proper support raised

questions around the effective use of technology for teaching

and learning.

Even though practice and research show that digital technologies can enrich and

extend face-to-face education, its full potential remains unexploited.

For the majority of respondents (95%), the COVID-19

crisis is a ‘turning point’ for digital

education. They consider that the forced shift to distance and online learning would have a

longer-term impact on education and training

116

. Respondents said that effective provision of

digital education, both in its online or blended format

117

, would require educators’ digital

competence development, the existence of a vision or a strategy on integrating digital

technologies in education and training, and high quality digital resources and materials. In the

view of education and training staff and parents, addressing socioeconomic inequalities between

learners also requires investments in connectivity and infrastructure. Stakeholders also

Williamson B. (2017). Big data in education. The digital future of learning, policy, and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

The Nottingham Trent University (NTU), for instance, deploys predictive analytics on a student dashboard that measures

learners’ engagement.

The institution-wide rollout of the NTU Student Dashboard to facilitate dialogue between students, their

tutors and support staff has seen widespread uptake, positive impacts on student engagement, and a change in organisational

culture towards a more data driven approach across the University. More information available at:

https://analytics.jiscinvolve.org/wp/files/2016/04/CASE-STUDY-I-Nottingham-Trent-University.pdf

112

Hilbig R., Renz A., Schildhauer T. (2019). Data Analytics: The Future of Innovative Teaching and Learning

113

Nouri J. et al. (2019). Efforts in Europe for Data-Driven Improvement of Education. A Review of Learning Analytics Research

in Seven Countries. International Journal of Learning Analytics and Artificial Intelligence for Education, 1(1), 8-27.

114

Renz A., Krishnaraja S., Gronau E. (2020). Demystification of Artificial Intelligence in Education. How much AI is really in

the Educational Technology? International Journal of Learning Analytics and Artificial Intelligence for Education, 2(1).

115

Joint Research Centre (upcoming). Emerging technologies and the teaching profession. Ethical and pedagogical considerations

based on near-future scenarios. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU.

116

Respondents agree on the statement either fully (67%) or to a certain extent (28%). See Annex 2 for further details.

117

Views on blended learning are different among respondents of the public consultation. A positive opinion is expressed by all

target groups considered separately, and particularly by education and training staff, private sector, digital technology’s providers,

and others as an organisation. Moreover, there is a large support for blended learning across respondents from non-formal

education, higher education, adult education and VET. See Annex 2.

111

110

highlighted the key role that the European Commission can play in supporting national efforts, to

promote networking and practice exchange and to build on lessons learnt during the COVID-19

crisis

118

. The new Digital Education Action Plan takes on this challenge and sets out principles,

vision and a series of measures to support high quality and inclusive digital education.

Considering the debate that the use of technology for remote learning that the COVID-19 crisis

has generated

119

, the Action Plan addresses the challenges and opportunities for digital education

in different learning environments (formal, non-formal and informal) and extends its scope to

lifelong learning

120

. The renewed Action Plan also has a longer duration, covering the next

Multiannual Financial Framework (2021-2027), with a review foreseen in 2024.

As confirmed by stakeholders, the priorities of the 2018 Action Plan remain relevant

121

, but they

are updated to reflect its longer duration and better address the challenges for education and

training raised and, in some cases increased, by the COVID-19 crisis. In more details, the

renewed Action Plan is based on two priorities, each accompanied by a limited number of

targeted actions (see Table 2):

Priority Area

Fostering the

development a

high performing

digital education

ecosystem

Short description

Effective use of digital

technologies for quality and

inclusive education and

training needs to be planned

in a sustainable way, with

sufficient support, resources

and guidance. Providing

infrastructure and digital

devices is fundamental, but a

critical and purposeful use of

digital technologies for

teaching and learning needs

to be underpinned by strong

digital capacity. Actions

under this priority promote

closer collaboration and

exchange in digital education

among all parts of society.

Today, the lack of digital

competences is a societal

challenge for adults and

young people alike. The

COVID-19 crisis has

Objectives

Boosting peer

learning and

policy

cooperation

Investing in

infrastructure

and

connectivity

Fostering

digital

capacity

building in

educational

institutions

Supporting

high-quality

digital

education

Fostering the

development

of digital

competence

Promoting

Actions

Enabling factors for

successful digital education

Online and Distance

Learning for Primary and

Secondary Education

European Digital Education

Content Framework and

European Exchange

Platform

Support for connectivity

and digital equipment for

education

Digital transformation

plans and digital pedagogy

and expertise

Ethical guidelines on AI for

educators

Tackling disinformation

and promoting digital

literacy through education

and training

Digital Competence

Enhancing digital

skills and

competences for

the digital

transformation

118

119

See details on stakeholder vision on digital education and the role of the EU in Annex 2.

Public debate about how educational institutions used digital technologies to deal with the emergency has proliferated in the

media with diverse outcomes. On one side, there are negative considerations on the fact that distance and online teaching and

learning cannot replace face-to-face

practices; on the other, the experience generated optimistic expectations that this ‘great online

learning experiment’ would naturally lead to an increased readiness for online and blended learning. For details see: Hodges

C.,

Moore S., Lockee B., Trust T., Bond A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning or

Zimmerman J. (2020). Coronavirus and the Great Online-Learning Experiment. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

120

Extending the scope of the renewed Action Plan is seen as essential by all consulted groups. They call for the renewed Action

Plan to be comprehensive and address all age groups and socio-economic backgrounds, with attention to inclusion especially in

the context of the COVID-19 crisis. See Annex 2 for further details.

121

During the targeted consultations, digital competence development (priority 2 of the 2018 Action Plan) has received the

highest score in terms of relevance among the consulted organisations, followed by the use of digital technologies for teaching

and learning (priority 1 of the 2018 Action Plan), rated respectively very relevant by 85% and 78% of respondents. Views on the

third priority area, on data analysis and foresight, are less strong. See Annex 2 for further details.

reinforced the need to

promote a sound

understanding of the digital

world and support the

development of digital

competence of citizens and

learners of all ages. Actions

under this priority look at

both basic and advanced

digital skills with the aim of

fostering digital citizenship

and inclusion.

digital literacy

for informed

choices as

citizens

Boosting the

development

of advanced

digital skills

Framework update

European Digital Skills

Certificate

Improving the provision of

digital skills in education

and training

Digital competence

benchmark

Digital Opportunity

Traineeship

Women’s participation in

STEM;

Table 2: Priorities, objectives and actions of the renewed Action Plan

5. Supporting evidence

This section of the staff working document provides evidence supporting the actions of the

renewed Digital Education Action Plan. It examines key opportunities and challenges regarding

the pedagogical use of digital technologies for teaching and learning and the development of

digital competence.

5.1 Using digital technologies for teaching and learning

Digital technologies have the potential to improve education and training and increase its

accessibility and quality, but for this to happen proper planning and instructional design play a

key role. Evidence on the effects

of digital technologies on learners’ academic performance

122

including the development of transversal competences (e.g. problem solving, creativity, etc.) and

basic skills (e.g. reading, mathematics and science), is positive but mixed

123

Even though education and training systems are evolving and increasingly making use of digital

technologies to stimulate innovation, there is limited evidence of the extent to which educational

institutions have made progress in

adapting their leadership, culture and delivery models

124

As outlined in section 3

125

, the sudden and large-scale shift to distance and online learning during

the COVID-19 outbreak has been far from simple. Despite being a positive experience for some

institutions with high levels of digital capacity, it raised significant challenges in terms of equity

and quality. These ranged from the unprecedented need for distance and online teaching and

learning to be offered to all, the risk of increasing existing learning, social and digital inequalities

and the pressure on educators to suddenly change their practices.

The COVID-19 crisis has clearly shown that quality of access and infrastructure are crucial for

ensuring equity in education and training

126

. However, availability of digital technologies is not

enough to have quality outcomes and improve the student experience. A positive relationship

122

Falck O., Mang C., Woessmann L. (2018). Virtually no effect? Different use of classroom computers and their effect on

student achievement. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 1-38.

123

Escueta et al. (2017). Education technology review: an evidence based review. NBER Working paper.

124

OECD (2016). Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation. The Power of Digital Technologies and Skills. Paris:

OECD Publishing.

125

See section ‘3. Lessons from the COVID-19 crisis’ for further

details.

126

Staff Working Document accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the

Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Digital Education Action Plan.

SWD(2018) 12 final.

between the use of digital technologies and learning outcomes depends on a number of contextual

and process-related variables.

First,

educators play a key role

in adopting and using digital technologies for teaching, learning

and student assessment in an effective way, fully online, remotely, or in a blended format.

Educators themselves need to have an appropriate level of digital competence and be able to

recognise their potential for educational purposes. The effectiveness of digital technologies for

teaching and learning hinges on teacher practice and on how they integrate these tools into their

teaching process

127

. Educators’ perception of technologies as a learning tool are, in turn,

influenced by the organisational culture

128

, which allows for different levels of autonomy or

agency and shapes the way digital technologies are implemented and used for teaching and

learning in a specific context.

Another factor linked to this, is the

extent to which technology is deployed in purposeful and

targeted ways.

A recent study using data from the Trends in International Mathematics and

Science Study (TIMSS) shows that, while using computers to look for information positively

affects student achievement, the opposite occurs when computers replace face-to-face instruction

time to practice skills

129

. An analysis of data from the OECD's Programme for International

Student Assessment (PISA) finds that there is a positive relationship between students’

achievements and the use of digital technologies for certain purposes

130

. There is also evidence

that low-intensity users may see their learning achievements increase from additional use and that

high-intensity users would benefit from a more moderate use

131

In addition, the location of the use of digital technologies matters. Their use at home for learning

can be beneficial, but the presence of a space conducive to learning, parental monitoring for

young people and general guidance for adults makes usage more effective

132

. Literature suggests

that the effect of the use of digital technologies on learning outcomes may also vary according to

student age and socio-economic status as well as attitudinal factors

133

However, digital technologies are part of our everyday life and also need to be part of our

learning experience, especially in a lifelong learning perspective. Their uptake and use for

teaching and learning requires a

critical approach and a holistic perspective.

Embedding

digital technologies in teaching and learning processes does not mean simply replicating or

transposing face-to-face practices or traditional approaches online. It is a complex process, which

requires robust digital capacity, including planning for organisational change, ongoing

monitoring and adaptation, and a strong focus on learning driven pedagogy. As confirmed by the

results of the public consultation, other relevant factors include leadership, professional

development, and a shared understanding and approach to using technology to support and

enhance teaching and learning

134

127

Comi S.L., Argentin L., Gui M. Origo F., Pagabi L. (2017). Is it the way they use it? Teachers, ICT and student achievement,

Economics of Education Review, 56(1), 24-39.

128

Ayub A. F. M., Bakar K. A., Ismail R. (2015). Factors predicting

teachers’ attitudes towards the use of ICT in teaching and

learning. In Mohamed I., How L.T., Mui A.C.Y., Bin W.K. (Eds.). AIP Conference Proceedings. Melville, NY: AIP Publishing.

129

Falck O., Mang C., Woessmann L. (2018). Virtually no effect? Different use of classroom computers and their effect on

student achievement, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 1-38.

130

Biagi F., Rodrigues M. (2017). Digital technologies and learning outcomes of students from low socio-economic background:

An analysis of PISA 2015. JRC Science for Policy Report.

131

Rodrigues M. (2018). Can digital technologies help reduce the immigrant-native educational achievement gap? Luxembourg:

Publications Office of the European Union.

132

Vigdor J. L., Ladd H. F., Martinez E. (2014). Scaling the digital divide: Home computer technology and student achievement.

Economic Inquiry, 52(3), 1103–1119.

133

European Commission. (2017). Digital technologies and learning outcomes of students from low socio-economic background:

An Analysis of PISA 2015. JRC Science for Policy Report.

134

See Annex 2 for further details.

5.1.1 Infrastructure and connectivity

Early policies and strategies in digital education were largely infrastructure-led

135

, looking at

access (in terms of both connectivity and availability of devices). The digital divide was initially

focused on those who could and could not access technology.

136

. Over the years, investments at

EU, national, regional and local level have been made, and connectivity and access have

improved. In the 2009 OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), about

15% of students on average reported that they did not have access to internet at home. By 2018,

that number shrunk to less than 5% across all levels of education

137

(Figure 4).

Figure 4: Students' access to internet at home

Source: OECD (2018, 2015, 2012 and 2006)

138

Nowadays the vast majority of people in the EU use internet in their everyday lives and 90% of

households have internet access, with a connectivity rate between 98% (NL) and 75% (BG).

These figures are very similar to the ones registered for households with dependent children: in

this case 87% have access to internet, with a connectivity rate between 98% (NL) and 70% (BG).

Furthermore, data reveal that access to internet is significantly higher for high-income households

(98%, with income in the fourth quartile) compared to low-income households (77%, with

income in the first quartile)

139

. The growth in access to online services is likely to be even

steeper than suggested by these figures, which do not show improvements in the quality of

internet services and the explosion of mobile internet access over the past decade

140

. According to

the 2020 Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), internet access at home is provided mainly

by fixed technologies (97%), while high speed broadband covers 86% of homes in the EU, up

from 83% a year earlier. Over a period of five years, more and more people have taken up

broadband services of at least 100 Mbps, with the current level of 26% of households, five times

higher than five years ago. Even though little progress has been registered on the 5G networks

141

4G mobile coverage is today almost universal (99%).

135

European Commission (2017). Digital Education Policies in Europe and Beyond. Key Design Principles for More Effective

Policies. JRC Science for Policy Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

136

Staff Working Document accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the

Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Digital Education Action Plan.

SWD(2018) 12 final.

137

EU-27 average is equal to 98%. OECD (2018). Getting ready for the digital world, PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations.

Paris: OECD Publishing.

138

Reading notes: data by Member States not available for PISA 2009. Data not available for CY in 2006, 2012 and 2015 and for

MT in 2006 and 2012. The original name of the variable according to OECD terminology is: "A link to the internet".

139

Eurostat (2019). Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals.

140

OECD (2018). Getting ready for the digital world, PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations.

141

European Commission (2020). Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI)

–

EU-28 values (including UK).

Nonetheless, as the COVID-19 crisis has shown,

important infrastructure gaps still exist in

Europe:

broadband availability and adoption of digital equipment are not spreading at the same

speed in rural and urban areas and between Member States

142

For instance, the EU-27 connectivity rate of households is at 86% in rural areas

143

, with great

disparities between countries

144

, and broadband coverage continues to be lower than national

coverage

145

. Rural fixed coverage improved marginally from 88% in 2019 to 90% in 2020, while

high-speed broadband increased from 52% to 59% compared to the year before. Still, 10% of

households in rural areas are not covered by any fixed network and 41% by any fast broadband

technology

146

. Mobile coverage went up slightly compared to last year but it is still mainly used

as a complementary technology.

When it comes to equipment at home, latest figures from Eurostat show that, in 2017, 94% of

households with dependent children had access, via one of its members, to at least one computer

(i.e. 6% of EU households with dependent children did not have access to at least one

computer)

147

. These findings are in line with 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in education showing

that most students have access to computers at home (e.g. 92% at primary, 96% at lower

secondary and 97% at upper secondary education)

148

. These figures however do not provide

information regarding how many computers are available per individual household, and whether

students can have access to a computer at any time

149

. Data on the topic shows that the share of

students who use own digital equipment for learning purposes remains relatively stable compared

to 2011/2012. In this case, the own equipment most used for learning purposes is a smartphone,

while the use of laptops owned by students is quite low across Europe and depends largely on

family’s income

150

. Similarly to connectivity, disadvantaged learners such as those from low-

income or migrant backgrounds have less access to computers at home

151

and start using digital

devices later in life and with a lower frequency compared to their more advantaged peers

152

Overall, education and income of parents appear to be positively correlated

with young people’s

access to digital technologies

153

With gaps in access to digital technologies,

education institutions, and schools in particular,

act as a key socio-economic driver

and play an important role in preventing digital exclusion.

Accessibility and quality of connectivity at school provide many advantages, including having

access to resources and material in multiple formats, using platforms for collaboration, accessing

tools for inquiry-based pedagogies and sophisticated online software, using applications for video

conferencing or streaming.

142

In this regard, data from the public consultation show that while equipment and connectivity is increasing, there are still

pockets of limited availability that need to be addressed. See Annex 2 for further details.

143

Eurostat (2019). Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals.

144

Across Member States internet access ranges from 99% to 62% and internet use from 99% to 58%.

145

European Commission (2018). Broadband Coverage in Europe 2018.

146

European Commission (2020). Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI)

–

EU-28 values (including UK).

147

Eurostat (2019). Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals.

148

European Commission (2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education.

Objective 2: Model for a ‘highly equipped and

connected classroom’. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office.

149

In the context of the COVID-19 crisis, it is important to note that young people often needed to share one computer for their

remote education tasks with other siblings or the parents, who were working from home at the same time.

150

European Commission (2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Objective 2: Model for a ‘highly equipped and

connected classroom’. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office.

151

OECD (2018). Getting ready for the digital world, PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. Paris: OECD Publishing.

152

Biagi F., Rodrigues M. (2017). Digital technologies and learning outcomes of students from low socio-economic background:

An analysis of PISA 2015. JRC Science for Policy Report.

153

For instance data from Eurostat shows that while the average EU proportion of households with a broadband internet

connection in the lowest income quartile is approximately 74%, the corresponding figure for those in the highest income quartile

is about 97%.

Infrastructure for educational purposes can be rich, varied and differentiated. It can go from

minimum and essential components to highly equipped and connected classrooms with, for

instance, ultra-fast broadband and one device per student

154

. However, wired internet

connections

155

are still the norm in many European schools. The results of the 2nd Survey of

Schools: ICT in education

156

show that the share of students attending highly digitally equipped

and connected schools differs widely: it ranges from 35% to 52% to 72% depending on the level

of education (ISCED 1,2,3). The EU average suggests that the older the students, the higher the

likelihood that they attend a school with a fast internet connection: on average in the EU, 11%,

17% and 18% of students are in schools that have an internet speed above 100 mbps at ISCED

levels 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Moreover, as in the case of connectivity at home, large differences

between and within EU countries exist: whereas Nordic countries are frontrunners regarding the

deployment of high-speed access to internet in schools, other countries and schools located in

villages or smaller cities are lagging behind (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Internet speed according to location of schools

Source: 2nd Survey of Schools (2019)

–

Percentage of students, all ISCED levels, EU level

EU broadband targets foresee that by 2025 all schools should have access to Gigabit internet

connectivity

157

. These findings therefore highlight the need to further support school access to

high-speed

internet, as already recognised in the Communication on Shaping Europe’s Digital

Future

158

. While Member States have the primary role in tackling infrastructure provision and

connectivity , the EU is actively supporting efforts to fulfil this goal. For instance, the European

Regional Development Fund (ERDF) invests in education infrastructure and equipment and

creates incentives for educational reforms in the Member States. Nearly EUR 7 billion of ERDF

resources have been invested in education and training in the 2014-2020 programming period.

This means that almost 7 million young people will be able to use new or improved educational

facilities across different Member States. The need to support the roll-out of higher-capacity

broadband in schools was included in the 2018 Action Plan, with an initiative aiming at raising

awareness on the funding opportunities provided by the EU for connectivity. The first three

Wifi4EU calls led to 7,980 municipalities, including schools, received vouchers for Wi-Fi

European Commission (2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Objective 2: Model for a ‘highly equipped and

connected classroom’. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office.

155

A network that provides access to internet by being hard wired to the provider (e.g. cable, DSL, etc.).

156

European Commission (2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools.

Luxembourg: EU Publications Office.

157

Gigabit internet connectivity is a broadband service with up to gigabit-per-second download speeds. It is typically delivered

over fiber optic lines and provides speeds of 1,000Mbps, which is also referred to as 1 Gbps or Gigabit internet.

158

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions on Shaping Europe's digital future. COM(2020) 67 final.

154

hotspots. Analysis of this action and input from stakeholders

159

indicated that stronger support for

school infrastructure and equipment would help achieve more systemic results.

5.1.2 Digital capacity in educational institutions across the EU

While availability and access to technologies is an important and necessary pre-condition for

digital education, improvements in education and training can only come through

systemic

organisational change underpinned by pedagogical principles and values

160

. Research on the

topic shows that infrastructure and connectivity need to be accompanied by a range of measures,

including digital leadership and vision and teacher professional development, and that digital

education should be firmly embedded across education and innovation policies

161

To date, most Member States have developed digital strategies to support educational

organisations in using digital technologies to enhance learning

162

, but very few undertake regular

monitoring or evaluation to review and update them on the basis of new developments in

technology and related learning needs

163

. In countries with less advanced digital economies

164

investments continue to be directed towards improving digital infrastructure, but increasingly

policy interventions are more holistic in focus, and include digital leadership and educator

competences as key drivers to encourage and sustain innovation

165

During the COVID-19 crisis, the need to provide teaching and learning remotely led to examples

of educational innovation at scale but also to suboptimal practices due to the lack of experience

and digital capacity of institutions at all levels of education. Indeed, several national studies

166

confirm that the effectiveness of the response was linked to levels of preparedness. This included

factors such as availability of infrastructure, connectivity and devices; access to online content

aligned with national curricula and programmes; confidence and skills of educators to design and

facilitate distance and online learning; levels of interaction and support for learners; capacity to

monitor access; track the learning process and assess learning outcomes. In drawing lessons for

the future, it is important to build digital capacity and preparedness to avoid replicating the

experience of the past months, which saw widening gaps, inequalities and learning losses

167

. As

159

Promoting inclusion in access and use of technologies is a horizontal aspect emerging from both the public consultation and

the targeted stakeholder consultations. See Annex 2 for further details.

160

Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,

the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Digital Education Action

Plan. SWD/2018/012 final.

161

European Commission (2017). Digital Education Policies in Europe and Beyond. Key Design Principles for More Effective

Policies. JRC Science for Policy Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

162

In 2019, only six countries did not have a strategy on digital education. European Commission (2019). Digital Education at

School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office.

163

European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of

the European Union.

164

The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), a composite indicator on Europe's digital performance, includes six

dimensions: connectivity, human capital, use of internet services, integration of digital technology, digital public services, and

research and development ICT. In 2020, according to this index, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark, followed by

Malta, Ireland and Estonia have the most advanced digital economies among the EU member states. Conversely, Bulgaria,

Greece, Romania, Italy and Cyprus score lowest. For further information see European Commission (2020). Digital Economy and

Society Index (DESI)

–

EU-28 values (including UK).

165

Cachia R. et al. (2010). Creative Learning and Innovative Teaching: Final Report on the Study on creativity and Innovation in

Education in the EU Member States. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

166

See for instance Giovannela C., Passarelli M., Persico D., Measuring the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the Italian

Learning Ecosystems at the steady

state: a school teachers’ perspective in Italy.

Vgl. Vodafone-Stiftung (2020). Schule auf

Distanz or Vgl. Robert Bosch Stiftung (2020). Das Deutsche Schulbarometer 2020: Coronakrise zeigt Nachholbedarf bei digitalen

Lernformaten in Germany.

167

Doucet A., Netolicky D., Timmers K., Tuscano F.J. (2020). Thinking about Pedagogy in an Unfolding Pandemic - An

Independent Report on Approaches to Distance Learning During COVID19 School Closures.

confirmed by the public consultation, education and training institutions can learn and build upon

the experience by enhancing their digital capacity

168

A strategic and planned approach for technology use and digital competence development can

help ensure learning continuity in situations where on-site attendance is not possible. This

includes emergencies such as with COVID-19, but also other circumstances, for example offering

learning opportunities to a diversified cohort of students, reaching geographically isolated

regions, offering supplementary teaching, etc.

At school level,

recent research shows that teachers working in institutions with an organised and

collaborative approach to technology are more likely to use digital technologies in their teaching

and value the importance of students’ digital competence

169

. However, a planned and systematic

approach to integrating technology in school activities is currently the exception rather than the

norm.For instance, the 2nd Survey of Schools on ICT in Education found that only around one

third of students attended schools that had written statements on the use of digital technologies

for pedagogical purposes

170

. In cases where schools are required to development such a plan,

digital competence and innovative teaching and learning methods become central to school

development as part of a whole school approach

171

Effective use and integration of digital technologies in teaching and learning require

careful

planning for pedagogical, technological and organisational change.

Defining the starting

point of an education and training institution regarding the use of technologies in their teaching

and learning activities is key to initiate this process. Assessing the current situation, sharing

experiences and discussing why and how technology can be used are key drivers for learning

how to use technology in a meaningful way,

while better understanding the institution’s learning

culture and wider system-level barriers

172

. For this reason, the 2018 Digital Education Action

Plan included actions to support educational institutions in assessing their digital capacity and

planning for organisational change.

At school level,

SELFIE

173

, launched in October 2018, is a free, customisable self-reflection

tool, which allows school plan for technology use

174

. By gathering (anonymised) views and

perspectives from students, teachers and school leaders, results can be used to kick-start an

internal debate and develop concrete actions for improving technology use and digital

competence development. Feedback from end-users was highly positive and the tool was singled

out as a best practice example of a practical and useful tool to help school and support policy

goals

175

. SELFIE has been used by over 650,000 users (32 language versions available) and from

the outset has received extensive support and interest from Ministries of Education in Member

States

176

and partner countries

177

. The SELFIE tool is continuously improved based on feedback

from schools: in August 2020, a new release of SELFIE has been published to include questions

In this staff working document, digital capacity is defined as the ability to integrate, optimise and transform digital

technologies in their teaching, learning and assessment activities. See the glossary in Annex 4 for further details.

169

Fraillon, J. Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Duckworth, D. (2019). Preparing for Life in a Digital World: International

Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report. Amsterdam: IEA.

170

European Commission (2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

171

European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office.

172

Ilomäki, L. & Lakkal, M. (2018). Digital technology and practices for school improvement: innovative digital school model.

Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(1), 25.

173

SELFIE Tool:

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcomporg/selfie-tool

174

SELFIE covers the following key areas: leadership and governance, collaboration and networking, infrastructure and

equipment, continuing professional development, pedagogy, assessment practices, student digital competence.

175

Beblav�½, M., Baiocco, S., Kilhoffer, Z., Akgüç, M., & Jacquot, M. (2019). Index of readiness for digital lifelong learning:

changing how Europeans upgrade their skills. Final Report 2019.

176

Including BE, BG, CY, ES, IT, MT, PT

177

Including AL, GE, IS, Kosovo, ME, North Macedonia, MD, RS, TR. The European Training Foundation is highly active

supporting the roll-out and use of SELFIE in many of these countries.

168

on online and blended learning

178

to help schools reflect on and learn from the period of school

closure and disruption. Following a feasibility study, a version of the tool for work-based learning

(e.g. students on apprenticeships programmes) is also being piloted

179

. The activities carried out

so far indicate that the inclusive and flexible design of SELFIE provides schools with valuable

information to harness the potential of technology in all aspects of education, but more support is

needed to help schools use their results to develop digital learning plans and increase their digital

capacity

180

Similarly, the response of the

higher education sector

to digital transformation is uneven: higher

education institutions vary widely in their levels of digital capacity and there is a substantial

knowledge and experience gap, both within and across institutions. Emerging evidence from the

COVID-19 crisis indicate a general higher level of preparedness

181

, with many courses and

programmes continuing online through asynchronous and synchronous instruction and by scaling

up of existing learning management systems. Challenges were many including assessment,

administration of exams, and selection and admission of new students

182

as well as learner

engagement and adapting instructional design to online learning

183

Although many higher education institutions are spearheading new approaches and good practice

examples can be found throughout the sector, the system-wide take-up of effective digital

education practices remains slow. A number of surveys are underway to investigate the level of

digital preparedness and the response of higher education to the COVID-19 crisis

184

, but overall

scarcity of data and detailed information on the adoption and impact of digitalisation at university

level hinders the effective use of policy measures to stimulate, monitor and assess institutional

practices

185

During the implementation of the 2018 Action Plan, debate on how to support further universities

to modernise and drive organisational change led to a further development of

HEInnovate

186

, a

guiding framework to support higher education institutions and systems to develop their

innovative and entrepreneurial potential. A new set of statements on ‘digital transformation and

capability’ were added, covering areas such as organisational culture and vision for digital

learning, fit-for-purpose digital infrastructure, and the development of digital competences of

staff and learners. Since its launch in June 2018, around 1300 institutional self-assessments have

used this new dimension.

187

The HEInnovate community has particularly welcomed the new

178

They include questions supporting schools in assessing the needs of the students regarding access to equipment at home and

focus on online and blended learning strategies, which support autonomy in learning as well as student resilience.

179

Joint Reserach Centre (2020). Adapting the SELFIE tool for work-based learning systems in Vocational Education and

Training. Publications Office of the European Union.

180

Castano-Munoz, J., Costa, P., Hippe, R., & Kampylis, P. (2018). Within-school differences in the views on the use of digital

technologies in Europe: evidence from the SELFIE tool. In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.).

Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies. Spain: IATED.

Costa, P., Castano-Munoz, J., & Kampylis, P. (submitted). Capturing schools' digital capacity: psychometric analyses of the

SELFIE self-reflection tool. Computers & Education.

181

OECD (2020). Education responses to Covid-19: Embracing digital learning and online collaboration.

182

Council of the European Union (2020). Council of the European Union (2020). Council conclusions on countering the

COVID-19 crisis in education and training. Available at:

https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8610-2020-

INIT/en/pdf

183

Content creation, skill development and practical subjects are also areas of challenge. JISC (2020). Learning and teaching

reimagined. Change and challenge for students, staff and leaders.

184

For instance, the International Association of Universities launched a survey on the impact of COVID-19 on the higher

education sector; the European University Association (EUA) mapped the situation regarding digitally enhanced teaching and

learning across Europe, and the U-Multirank survey investigated the digital preparedness of universities from the student

perspective and how they handled the crisis.

185

Rampelt F., Orr D., Knoth A. (2020). Bologna Digital 2020: White Paper on Digitalisation in the European HE Area.

186

European Commission (2013). HEInnovate Tool:

https://heinnovate.eu/en

187

The HEInnovate framework covers the following areas: leadership and governance; organisational capacity: funding, people

and incentives; entrepreneurial teaching and learning; pathways for entrepreneurs; digital transformation and capability;

knowledge exchange and collaboration; the internationalised institution, impact measurement. More than 1,200 universities across

focus on the digital transformation underlining that it addresses a clear demand coming from

universities.

Higher education’s interest in the topic has been also confirmed by the active

participation in the HEInnovate Webinar Series launched in Spring 2020 during the lockdown

period. The objective of these webinars was to leverage the expertise of the HEInnovate

community to discuss the current challenges facing higher education institutions, share

approaches and solutions, and discuss how educational practices are being adapted to meet the

requirements of the digital world

188

As for other levels of education, the COVID-19 crisis has forced higher education institutions to

radically change how they operate and deliver their educational offer. This has significantly

accelerated the digital transformation that some institutions were preparing for or undergoing

prior to the crisis

189

Higher education in the EU is evolving with a growing demand for short-term learning

opportunities, the need for more flexible provision for degree programmes and demand from

adult learners and professionals looking to re-skill or upskill

190

. In this context, the use of digital

technologies has the potential to open up higher education to a wider audience, offering certain

economies of scale and providing learning that is more inclusive and flexible. Before the

COVID-19 crisis, there was a clear trend towards integrating blended learning in formal

educational offers (e.g. using digital learning mainly in face-to-face degree programmes), as

programme managers and educators consider this type of learning the most effective one

191

However, establishing high quality digital content requires careful instructional design and

planning to ensure that learning, teaching and assessment methods are suited to online and

blended modes

192

Recently, a new impetus for creating and sharing digital content for students, staff, researchers

and citizens was given through the European Universities initiative

193

, which supports

transnational alliances of higher education institutions. Online and blended learning support the

goal of the European Universities to increase mobility of their students and staff; offer more

flexible learning pathways and increase transdisciplinary approaches to link students and staff

with the public and private sector. In addition, the Erasmus+ OpenU project under the 2018

Action Plan aims at fostering policy dialogue between higher education institutions and national

high-level authorities on the use of digital technologies for teaching and learning

194

The entry point for digital transformation in higher education institutions is often connected to

online or blended teaching and learning, however digitalisation covers much more than the online

delivery of content. The uptake of digital technologies in higher education should be based on

80 countries have used the HEInnovate self-assessment tool. Moreover, country reviews are regularly organised to support higher

education systems. These reviews assess the current situation regarding entrepreneurial higher education in the Member States and

provide recommendations for change and improvement where needed. So far 9 country reviews have been undertaken (AT, BU,

HU, HR, IE, IT, NL, PL, RO) and 4 more are planned for 2020.

188

Five online seminars were held between April and June 2020 by high-level speakers, mainly representatives of higher

education institutions from Europe and abroad, to discuss topics connected to how the higher education sector responded to the

challenges created by the Covid19 crisis. Those include online teaching and learning, MOOCs, assessing skills and exams, policy

approaches to digital transformation. The HEInnovate webinar series will continue after the Summer break.

189

EDUCAUSE (2019). EDUCAUSE Horizon Report - 2019 Higher Education Edition.

190

European University Association (2018). Trends 2018. Learning and teaching in the European Higher Education Area.

191

Castaño-Muñoz J., Punie Y., Inamorato dos Santos A., Mitic N., Morais, R. (2016). How are Higher Education Institutions

Dealing with Openness? A Survey of Practices, Beliefs, and Strategies in 5 European Countries. JRC Science for Policy Report.

192

Means B., Bakia M., Murphy R. (2014). Learning Online: What Research Tells Us about Whether, When and How. New

York: Routledge.

193

European Universities Initiative: https://ec.europa.eu/education/education-in-the-eu/european-education-area/european-

universities-initiative_en

194

The project will focus in the first phase on those institutions participating in the European Universities initiatives. The expected

outcomes include the creation of a hub, i.e. an integrated single point of access for innovative courses, best practices exchange,

networking and curriculum collaboration. See table 1 for further details.

strong leadership and a holistic, well-designed and integrated strategy

that consider

technologies as a key enabler for all institutional processes and activities

195

. It is in this context

that the concept of

digital-first thinking

has been developed to indicate a shift in organisational

culture, which embraces the opportunities offered by digital technologies and shapes activities

and practices accordingly. Evidence shows that higher education institutions play a key role in

supporting central and local authorities in developing and implementing their digital agenda

196

Supporting these efforts by promoting best practices exchange and capacity building may have a

multiplier effect on higher education practices but also on society and the economy.

5.1.3 Educators’ digital competence

In a rapidly changing world, teaching, learning and assessment face new challenges and demands.

Teaching professionals in all sectors of education, from early years to adult learning, are at the

fore of this change, and need to be equipped with the confidence and competence to use

technology effectively

197

In the context of the COVID-19 crisis, stakeholders pointed to the importance of boosting digital

competence of education and training staff as a way to ensure effective and pedagogically driven

use of digital technologies for teaching, learning and assessment. Providing support, training and

guidance for educators was indicated by half of the respondents of the public consultation as the

most important area in which the EU can add value

198.

Emerging evidence confirms that, during the period of education and training institutions’

closure, many educators struggled with the situation and lacked the knowledge and experience on

how to plan, develop and deliver teaching through digital means, including identifying platforms

and tools that were effective, easy to use, viable and secure. A number of national studies show

that educators faced a heavy increase in workload and felt tremendous pressure

199

, not least due

to having to quickly design and organise remote and online learning

200

. In some cases, they lost

daily contact with their students

201

and many adopted strategies which attempted to reproduce

standard classroom approaches and timetabling online

202

. In this regard, educational institutions

which had experience in organising teaching, learning and assessment as a team activity and

taking organisation-wide approaches were able to transition more readily to remote education.

203

Kane G.C. et al. (2015). Strategy, Not Technology, Drives Digital Transformation: Becoming a Digitally Mature Enterprise.

MITSloan Management Review.

196

OECD/EU (2019). Supporting Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Higher Education in Italy. OECD Skills Studies. Paris:

OECD Publishing.

197

Caena, F., & Redecker, C. (2019). Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the

European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (Digcompedu). European Journal of Education, 54(3), 356-369.

198

This finding was also supported by the consulted stakeholders, including the ET2020 Working group on Digital Education,

who underline that improving educators’

digital competences is a prerequisite for efficient, successful and purposeful integration

of digital technologies in the education and training process. Such competences should be developed in a sustainable manner,

starting from initial teacher training and ensuring continuous professional development. DE and FR suggested promoting

exchange of practices and reinforced cross-border

collaboration as a way to boost educators’ digital competences. See Annex 2 for

further details.

199

Burke J., Dempsey M. (2020). Covid-19 Practice in Primary Schools in Ireland Report. Available at:

https://www.into.ie/app/uploads/2020/04/Covid-19-Practice-in-Primary-Schools-Report-1.pdf

200

Survey by the Centre for Teacher Education at the University of Vienna. Available at:

https://oesterreich.orf.at/stories/3048783/

201

Vodafone-Stiftung (2020). Schule auf Distanz. Available at:

https://www.vodafone-stiftung.de/umfrage-coronakrise-lehrer/

202

Giovannela C., Passarelli M., Persico D. (2020). Measuring the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the Italian Learning

Ecosystems at the steady state: a school teachers’ perspective in Italy. Available at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343127257_Measuring_the_effect_of_the_Covid-

19_pandemic_on_the_Italian_Learning_Ecosystems_at_the_steady_state_a_school_teachers'_perspective

203

Jenavs E., Strods J. (2020). Managing a school system through shutdown: lessons for school leaders. Edurio, Latvian Ministry

of Education and Science. Available at :

https://home.edurio.com/report-shutdown-lessons

195

In Europe, three out of four education systems recognise digital competence as an essential

element that educators must have for teaching, but this is reflected in recommendations for initial

teacher training in only half of European education

systems’

204

The vast majority of teachers and school leaders who participated in the 2018 OECD’s Teaching

and Learning International Survey (TALIS) say that their schools are open to innovative practices

and have the capacity to adopt them

205

. The frequency with which teachers have students use

digital technologies for projects or class work has risen in almost all Member States since 2013,

and this is reflected in increased participation rates in teachers’ formal education and training

including digital skills for teaching. However, prior to the COVID-19 crisis, when asked about

their level of preparedness,

only 39% of teachers in the EU felt well or very well prepared to

use digital technologies for teaching,

with significant differences across EU countries

206

. More

than half of the teachers had participated in professional development activities that covered the

use of digital technologies for teaching and learning, but, on average, 16% of teachers still

reported a strong need for professional development in the area of digital competences (Figure 6).

Figure 6:

Teachers’ need for professional development

Source: OECD (2018) - Percentage of teachers reporting their need for professional development

(EU-23)

Results from the public consultation show that educators and education and training staff are the

target groups with the highest share of respondents declaring that they have improved their digital

skills during the COVID-19 crisis and that they plan to take up new initiatives and courses to

further improve their digital competences in the future

207

204

205

European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office.

OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS. Paris: OECD

Publishing.

206

European Commission (2019). Primary and secondary education in the digital age. Education and Training

–

Monitor 2019.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

207

In particular, digital content creation appear to be one of the most important digital competence educators and education and

training staff would like to improve in the future to be able to develop their own material for online learning. See Annex 2 for

further details.

There is also evidence that current forms of teacher professional development are not necessarily

meeting teachers’ needs

208

. In particular, teachers’

professional learning opportunities need to

move from acquiring skills to master certain tools or technological competencies to finding ways

to tailor technology to specific subjects, objectives and activities

209

. The emergence of new

technologies such as AI, virtual or augmented reality and social robotics, challenge educators and

requires them to take a more active role in the design and implementation of these tools to ensure

their use is effective, desirable and inclusive

210

. In addition, there is a growing interest in more

flexible, innovative and sustained models of professional development, in particular where

educators learn from their peers. Despite the interest, these models of professional development

activities are not as widespread as other more traditional approaches (Figure 7)

211

Figure 7: Type of professional development attended by teachers

Source: OECD (2018) - Percentage of teachers who participated in the various professional

development activities (EU-23 average)

Exchanges between teachers and educators using digital tools in teaching and learning are taking

place though a number of platforms for peer learning and professional development, but efforts

are needed to further recognise and reward their use

212

. For instance eTwinning, one of the largest

and most dynamic educational networks in Europe, has involved 760,000 teachers from 200,000

schools since its creation 15 years ago. More than 100,000 projects have been run using

eTwinning, involving students at all educational levels from 44 participating countries (36

European countries and 8 neighbouring countries)

213

. The Evaluate Erasmus+ policy

experimentation project

214

has examined the impact of virtual exchanges on students and teachers

in initial teacher education across Europe and its findings offer clear evidence of the benefits that

activities, such as eTwinning, can bring to initial teacher education. Virtual exchange activities

help teachers to step away from their accustomed learning and teaching approaches and develop

208

Joint Research Centre (2019). Innovating Professional Development in Compulsory Education. Luxembourg: Publication of

the European Union. Joint Research Centre (2019). Innovating Professional Development in Higher Education. Luxembourg:

Publication of the European Union.

209

OECD (2019). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I). Paris: OECD Publishing.

210

Joint Research Centre (upcoming). Emerging technologies and the teaching profession. Ethical and pedagogical considerations

based on near-future scenarios. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU.

211

Joint Research Centre (2019). Innovating Professional Development in Compulsory Education. Luxembourg: Publication of

the European Union. Joint Research Centre (2019). Innovating Professional Development in Higher Education. Luxembourg:

Publication of the European Union.

212

European Commission(2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

213

Pateraki, I. (2018). Measuring the impact of eTwinning activities on teachers’ practice and competence development

Monitoring eTwinning Practice Framework. Central Support Service of eTwinning - European Schoolnet, Brussels.

214

Evaluate Project - Evaluating and upscaling telecollaborative initial teacher training:

www.evaluateproject.eu.

new skills to engage in linguistic, intercultural, and digital learning experiences, which they may

not be confronted with in their day-to-day practice

215

As the COVID-19 crisis has shown, the

level of preparedness of educators is key to enable

innovation

216

: boosting educators’ digital competence and recognising the use of (digital)

networks such as eTwinning can help improve the effectiveness of educators’ practices and

related professional development activities as well as the overall pedagogical use of digital

technologies in Europe’s education and training institutions.

5.1.4 Quality of digital education content

High-quality digital education is crucial to boost the attractiveness, quality and inclusiveness of

European education and training at all levels. Options for part-time studies and online courses are

especially suitable for working people, students with family commitments in need of flexibility

and adult learners

–

all categories which are on the rise in EU higher education systems

217

According to a recent study, recognised online courses in higher education do not act as a

substitute for face-to-face programmes but create new demand from people that would otherwise

not have participated

218

The Eurostat Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals

219

shows that in 2019, an

average of 10% of European citizens aged between 16 and 74 reported taking an online course in

the previous three months for educational, professional or private purposes. Already before the

COVID-19 crisis, the growth rate across EU-27 was accelerating and this happens also for the use

of internet to access online learning material other than an online course (e.g. audio-visual,

electronic textbooks, learning apps, etc.).

Beyond the use of digital learning for degree programmes, higher education institutions can

benefit from the integration of online learning opportunities in non-degree programmes to

complement their educational offer and respond to the growing need for upskilling and

reskilling

220

. Online learning can also provide small and medium enterprises, which typically

have more difficulty in organising and delivering training, with easily accessible and tested

content and training material for their staff. In this regard, results from the public consultation

confirm that the use of online learning is expected to be the most popular format that will be used

for improving staff’s digital competences, followed by a mix of online and face-to-face

training

221

The latest results from the EU labour force survey show that adult participation in education and

training is limited (11%, vs the target of at least 15% of adults participating in lifelong learning

by 2020) and that people with little or no qualifications

–

those most in need of access to learning

–

are the least likely to benefit from it

222

. Considering the potential of online learning for the

(direct or indirect) acquisition of digital skills and more efficient use of educators/learners’

The EVALUATE Group (2019). Evaluating the impact of virtual exchange on initial teacher education: a European policy

experiment. Research-publishing.net.

216

Council of the European Union (2020). Council conclusions on European teachers and trainers for the future. Available at:

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/44115/st08269-en20.pdf

217

Currently, 51% of students in Europe work during the whole lecture period, or from time to time, and 50% of them would not

be able to afford to study without a paid job. For further details: Eurostudent (2019). Motives and benefits of working while

studying. Eurostudent intelligence brief.

218

Goodman J., Melkers J., Pallais A. (2016). Can online delivery increase access to education? Harvard Kennedy School Faculty

Research Working Paper Series.

219

Eurostat (2019). Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals.

220

Gonzalez Vazquez I. et al (2019). The changing nature of work and skills in the digital age. EU Publications Office.

221

Face-to-face training options (including short versions of it) appear to have less consensus among respondents. See Annex 2

for further details.

222

European Commission (2019). Education and Training Monitor EU analysis. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office.

215

time

223

, digital learning can form part of the response to the challenge of boosting adult

participation in education and training.

For example,

Massive Open Online Courses

(MOOCs), one of the more widespread forms of

online learning, are recognised by job seekers and workers as an effective tool for acquiring the

skills needed in the labour market and for keeping them updated

224

(Figure 8).

Figure 8:

Workers’ benefits from taking MOOCs (1-5

scale)

225

Source: JRC MOOC Survey (2019)

Over the last few years, MOOCs have continued to expand in terms of courses and number of

learners

226

. Despite this,

EU countries can be considered late adopters

compared to the US and

highly dependent on non-EU countries for the provision of MOOCs

227

Data on the main global platforms, provided by Class Central Inc

228

, highlights that MOOCs

production is twice as prevalent [in the US in comparison to the EU. Three out of the five main

MOOC platforms are US-based and together attract 73% of all MOOC learners

229

None of the

EU-based MOOC platforms are amongst the five leading ones

230

. Available data show not

only that EU higher education institutions are less intensive MOOC producers than US ones

231

but also that the offer of MOOCs in the EU is unevenly distributed across Member States, with

France, Spain and Italy being the leaders in absolute numbers.

Online education and MOOCs were seen originally as a way of opening up and democratising

education

232

, but current evidence shows that not all individuals benefit on equal footing

233

. In

Element usually recognised among the most important advantages of digital content. For further details see Castaño-Muñoz, J.,

Punie; Y., Inamorato dos Santos, A., Mitic, N., & Morais, R. (2016). How are Higher Education Institutions Dealing with

Openness? A Survey of Practices, Beliefs, and Strategies in Five European Countries. JRC Science for Policy Report.

224

González-Vázquez et al (2019). The changing nature of work and skills in the digital age.Luxembourg:EU Publications Office.

225

Scale of usefulness from 1 (not useful) to 5 (very useful). Average values. N=268.

226

Nuffic (2018). Oops a MOOC! Policy paper.

227

Goglio V. (2019). The Landscape of MOOCs and Higher Education in Europe and the USA. Proceedings of EMOOCs 2019:

Work in Progress Papers of the Research, Experience and Business Tracks.

228

No comprehensive data source for MOOCs. Classcentral aggregates data from 45 course providers.

229

Shah D (2019). By The Numbers: MOOCs in 2019.

230

At EU level, the European MOOC Consortium (https://emc.eadtu.eu/partners), co-funded by Erasmus+, brings together the

five major MOOC platforms and partnerships in Europe (Future Learn, FUN, MiriadaX, EduOpen and OpenupEd) and has been

working on boosting MOOC collaboration in a network of 400 higher education institutions and companies.

231

In the EU, 250 institutions have offered 2232 MOOCs (8.9 per institution on average) whereas, in the US, 273 institutions have

offered 4302 MOOCs (15.8 per institution on average). An EU example of excellence in the field is the TU Delft University,

which has been listed at the top of a new global university ranking based on MOOC performance. For further details see

MoocLab's World University Rankings:

https://www.mooclab.club/pages/WURMP-top-100/

232

Carver L., Harrison L.M. (2013). MOOCs and Democratic Education. Liveral Education, Vol. 99, No. 4.

223

their current form, MOOCs reach people with more qualifications and higher levels of

organisational, self-regulation and digital skills

234

. In order to make MOOCs more inclusive and

truly useful tools for acquiring and updating the skills needed in the labour market, the offer

needs to be more diverse in terms of content and language and include quality instructional

designs and pedagogies

235

According to stakeholders, further support at EU level is needed to boost expertise and provide

the conditions to deliver

high quality multilingual online (and blended) learning content,

along with promoting interoperability and synergies between different national and European

online platforms

236

. A number of Ministries of Education (NL, DE, NO) called for a pan-

European approach towards flexible learning pathways, based on quality assurance and secure

infrastructure. Additionally, higher education institutions and the private sector are particularly in

favour of measures to support the recognition of online and blended learning in order to stimulate

lifelong learning and upskilling

237

However, this can be achieved only if online learning courses and micro-credentials are

recognised for employment and further study

238

- a goal that is limited by several factors. First,

MOOCs and other forms of online learning courses often fall outside the scope of existing quality

assurance processes and mechanisms

239

. Second, the lack of a shared definition and common

approach makes in some cases employers feel unsure about what micro-credentials are and which

ones to trust. Recognition of prior learning is the most relevant method currently to recognise

micro-credentials for further studies. However, practices vary among higher education systems

and institutions in the Member States and there are doubts about whether the current procedures

could cope with a potentially growing numbers of micro-credentials. Another set of barriers

concerns the lack of digital solutions for storage and validation, and the impact it may have on

portability and scaling.

Within the 2018 Action Plan, the European Commission piloted a framework for digitally-signed

credentials (e.g. statements that provide a proof of individual learning achievement) to be

deployed within the new Europass

240

. Free tools will be offered to institutions across the EU to

issue credentials, diplomas and certificates in a digital format with automatic verification of their

authenticity. The framework is built on a single data model, which can describe all forms of

learning achievement, including micro-credentials, and provide a basis for storing credentials

accumulated over time. In addition, the ongoing European Student Card Initiative aims to help

students move more easily between campuses, both for physical mobility and when participating

233

Lambert S.R. (2020). Do MOOCs contribute to student equity and social inclusion? A systematic review 2014-2018.

Computers & Education 145.

234

Castaño-Muñoz J., Kreijns K., Kalz M., Punie Y. (2017). Does digital competence and occupational setting influence MOOC

participation? Evidence from cross-course survey. Journal of Computing in Higher Education.

235

Margaryan A., Bianco M., Littlejohn A. (2015). Instructional quality of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Computers

& Education, 80, 77–83.

236

Education and training institutions, public authorities, and others as an organisation consider interactivity and user-friendliness

of online content a key characteristic. In each of these three target groups, at least one third of respondents state that it is important

for online learning content to be available in their own language. In addition the need for scalable and interoperable platforms is

mentioned by one fourth of the respondents. See Annex 2 for further details.

237

See Annex 2 for further information.

238

There are two approaches used to deploy micro-credentials in education and training: (1) complementing the existing

credentialing systems, which involves adding skill-based modules that require learners additional efforts in order to earn a micro-

credential, (2) the total integration of micro-credentials as part of formal credentials that learners have to earn on top of traditional

credentials. Ideally both approaches should be enabled by the micro-credential creator or issuing institution, giving learners the

flexibility to choose. However, newly created micro-credentials get increasingly embedded only within degree programs, while

MOOC platforms experiment to find a sustainable business model and to respond to trends and learners’ feedback.

239

Sometimes this is the result of legal restrictions, especially in the case of quality assurance taking place at the level of study

programmes rather than institutional level, and when the online course is offered as a stand-alone learning unit. For further details,

see Nuffic (2019). Academic recognition of e-learning. Recommendations for online learning providers.

240

Europass:

https://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/

in online learning

241

. However, available data highlights the need to further

support the

creation, use and sharing of high-quality digital education content.

Stakeholders consulted in

preparation of this initiative confirmed a strong interest in this and stressed the need to build upon

ongoing activities. They highlighted in particular the need to pay attention to instructional design

principles, multilingualism, accessibility

242

, and recognition as well as to consider

interoperability, certification, verification and transferability of such content

243

5.2 Digital competence development

Europe’s digital transformation is accelerating rapidly in part due to the expanded application and

use of AI, mixed reality, robotics, and blockchain

244

. The level of digital competitiveness

245

, in all

its subdomains

246

, is becoming an increasingly important condition for modern economies to

innovate and thrive. This requires the recognition of digital competence as a key component for

individual and societal development and for labour market inclusion

247

Today more than ever,

being digitally competent is both a necessity and a right.

Participating

actively, continuously and responsibly in society at all levels (political, economic, social, cultural

and intercultural) means being able to harness the benefits and opportunities of the online world,

while building resilience to potential risks

248

. The pervasive use of digital technologies for social

and democratic participation requires the ability to engage positively, critically and competently

in the digital environment. Skills are needed to access, select and interpret information, to

communicate effectively and create content in a way, which is respectful of human rights and

dignity and uses technology in a responsible way. However, levels of digital competences across

Europe remain on average low, with 44% of citizens lacking basic digital skills

249

The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the importance of basic and advanced digital skills for

sustaining our economies and societies. The need for a sound understanding of the digital world

has increased to ensure business continuity and to counter the growing rise of false information,

disinformation and cybersecurity threats.

250

While the challenges of digital transformation are

changing rapidly, impacted by technologies such as AI, young people and adults need to develop

their digital skills on an ongoing basis, in a perspective of lifelong learning. Over the coming

years, the digital economy is likely to play a leading role in Europe’s recovery and demand for

The initiative aims at facilitating online enrolment processes in line with the vision for an EU-wide digital Once-Only Principle

by digitalising and streamlining administrative processes related to student mobility and rolling out a European Student eID,

through the EU Student eCard initiative supported under the

Connecting Europe Facility programme.

242

Including the need to provide access to students with disabilities on equal basis with others. In this regard, full participation of

children and young people with disabilities is recognised as essential to succeed in the green and digital transitions.

243

See Annex 2 for further details.

244

EDUCUASE (2019). EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: 2019. Higher Education Edition. Louisville: EDUCAUSE.

245

The IMD World Competitiveness Centre, for instance, defines digital competitiveness as the capacity of an economy to adopt

and explore digital technologies leading to the transformation in government practices, business models and society in general. Its

Digital Competitiveness Ranking encompasses organizational, institutional and structural elements captured through: knowledge,

technology and future readiness. For further information: IMD World Competitiveness Centre (2020). World Digital

Competitiveness Ranking 2019 results.

246

The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) is a composite index tracking Member States’ evolution in digital

competitiveness by considering the following dimensions: connectivity, human capital, use of internet services, integration of

digital technology, digital public services. European Commission (2020). Digital Economy and Society Index.

247

Joint Research Centre (2017). DigComp 2.1 - The digital competence framework for citizens with eight proficiency levels and

examples of use. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. See Annex 3 for further details.

248

Council of Europe (2018). Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture.

249

European Commission (2020). Digital Economy and Society Index - EU-28 values (including UK).

250

Martens B., Aguiar L., Gomez-Herrera E., Mueller-Langer F. (2018). The digital transformation of news media and the rise of

disinformation and fake news - An economic perspective. Digital Economy Working Paper.

241

digital skills will grow. New specialist digital skills are emerging

251

and greater efforts are needed

to address the current shortage of ICT professionals in Europe

252

Results from the public consultation confirm the growing importance of digital competences,

shows that the use of technologies done during the crisis can lead to a perceived increased level

of digital skills and shows individuals’ willingness to further improve them in the future

253

All phases and stages of education and training play a key role in enabling learners to acquire and

develop on an ongoing basis the digital competences they need to live, work and learn

254

. There

are also concerns connected to the effects of technology on young people’s well-being

255

and the

potential impact of ‘screen time’ on children’s socio-emotional,

cognitive and physical

development

256

. International trends are pointing to increased access to and use of technology by

younger age groups

257

, and, despite evidence on the topic being relatively sparse

258

, attention is

required on the possible links

between technology use and children’s development. Considering

that effects of technology may depend on many factors, including the type of technology being

used and its purpose

259

, evidence-based guidelines and effective practices are needed to

encourage healthy and meaningful uses of digital technology from an early age.

Efforts cannot stop at the borders of formal education with youth work, non-formal education and

lifelong learning being an integral part of the education and training systems in a digital age. The

cultural and creative sectors also play a key role. They can provide learning materials, help reach

a wider group of people, and support activities promoting both artistic and technological skills

260

including creativity - one of the most important competences for innovation and employability

261

All levels and sectors of education and training have a key role in addressing digital skills gaps

and emerging competence requirements by recognising the growing importance and supporting

the development of digital competence for individual participation

in society and for Europe’s

innovation and competitiveness. Beyond digital skills and in line with the Recommendation on

Key Competences for Lifelong Learning

262

, Europe’s society and digital economy also require

complementary transversal skills such as adaptability, communication and collaboration skills,

problem-solving, critical thinking, creativity, entrepreneurship, and readiness to learn.

International Telecommunications Union (2019). Digital Skills Insight.

CEEDEFOP (2018) Insights into skills shortages and skill mismatch. Learning from Cedefop’s European skills and jobs

survey. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

253

The vast majority of respondents (74.5%) believe that, after the crisis, digital skills will be more important in the labour

market. 62% of respondents declare that they have improved their digital skills during the crisis and more than 50% of

respondents declare they want to further improve them in the future. See Annex 2 for further details.

254

Council of Europe (2019). Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on developing and promoting

digital citizenship education. CM/Rec(2019)10.

255

Stiglic N., Viner R.M. (2019). Effects of screen time on the health and well-being of children and adolescents: a systematic

review of reviews. BMJ Open 2019.

256

Many groups concerned with children’s health, including governments and medical societies, advocate for partially or fully

limiting screen time for children and adolescents. For example, the American Association of Paediatrics, a prominent international

voice in child health, published guidelines for screen time in children, the most recent of which were made available in 2016.

Similar guidelines suggesting limits on screen time and good practices for parents and families exist across many countries.

257

Graafland H.J. (2018), New technologies and 21st century children: recent trends and outcomes. OECD Education Working

Papers, No. 179. Paris: OECD Publishing.

258

OECD (2019). Impact of technology use on children: exploring literature on the brain, cognition and well-being. OECD

Education Working Paper No. 195. Paris: OECD Publishing.

259

Bavelier D., Green C., Dye M. (2010). Children, Wired: For Better and for Worse. Neuron, Vol. 67/5.

260

European Parliamentary Research Service (2019). The relationship between artistic and digital technology development.

261

Council of Europe (2016). European Council Resolution 2123 on culture and democracy.

252

251

5.2.1 Level of digital competence across the EU

The human capital dimension of the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI)

263

, which

provides comparative data on digital skills in Member States, shows that

44% of EU citizens still

have an insufficient level of digital skills.

The digital skills index, a composite indicator based on the Digital Competence Framework for

Citizens

264

and calculated on the basis of self-reported data

265

, show that digital skills levels are

increasingly slightly over time. However, major disparities still exist between Member States: the

share of people with basic or above basic digital skills ranges from 29% in Bulgaria and 31% in

Romania (despite noticeable progress in both countries) to 80% in the Netherlands and 76% in

Finland (Figure 9).

Figure 9: EU population digital skills

Source: Eurostat (2019)

–

Percentage of individuals, by digital skills level

266

Figure 10 shows that the number of people not using the internet in the three months prior to the

survey fell in almost all countries between 2015 and 2019.Some Member States registered

important improvements such us Romania (18 percentage points - pps decrease in people not

using the internet); Cyprus (14 pps); Spain and Poland (12 pps); Bulgaria and Lithuania (11 pps);

Italy, Ireland, and Slovenia (10 pss)

267

European Commission (2020). Digital Economy and Society Index

–

EU-28 values (including UK).

See Annex 3 for further details.

265

The human capital dimension of DESI provides an overview of digital skills, calculated as the weighted average of two sub-

dimensions, ‘internet user skills’ and ‘advanced skills and development’, each made up by three indicators, whose data come from

the Eurostat Community Survey on ICT usage by households and individuals and the Labour Force Survey.

266

In the EU-27, 56% of individuals have basic or above digital skills (25% and 31%) and 29% low digital skills. The rest is

divided between those not having digital skills (1%) and those individuals for whom the digital skills could not be assessed (e.g.

individuals that have not used the internet in the last 3 months

–

equal to 14%). Eurostat (2019). Survey on ICT usage in

households and by individuals.

267

This positive trend is registered also for the overall percentage of individuals who never used internet (10%), which went down

8 percentage points compared to 2015. Eurostat (2019). Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals.

263

264

Figure 10: Decrease of individuals not using internet

Source: Eurostat (2019)

–

Percentage of individuals not using internet in the last 3 months

Across Europe there is an encouraging trend with the percentage of individuals living in

households with income in the two lower quartiles (out of four) who did not access internet

decreasing over time, in both quartiles by 12 percentage points between 2015 and 2019 (see

yellow line in Figure 11). However, having an internet connection is not sufficient and the level

of digital skills remains strongly linked to higher income households (see black line in Figure 11).

Figure 11: Level of digital skills in the EU by household income

Source: Eurostat (2019)

–

Individual level of digital skills by household income

268

On average, the

level of digital skills among the labour force

is higher than that of the

population as a whole. However, slightly more than a third of the labour force in the EU,

including employed people and those seeking employment, are lacking basic digital skills, even

though such skills are now required in most jobs, including in sectors not traditionally related to

digitisation (e.g. farming, health care, construction, etc.)

269

. This trend is confirmed by the

OECD’s Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), which shows that on more than 50% of the adult

268

269

Chart based on aggregate data for EU27. Data is available for all Member States, except for Denmark and Sweden in 2015.

Cedefop (2018). Insights into skills shortages and skill mismatch.

population in the EU can carry out only the simplest set of computer-based tasks (e.g. writing an

email or browsing the web), or have no digital skills. This means that many workers use ICT

every day at work without having the skills to do so effectively

270

, an element considered to have

a negative effect on workplace performance

271

. This is confirmed by a recent publication

examining which workers were best positioned to work from home during the COVID-19

lockdown (equal to around 28,5% in the EU

272

). The study shows that the likelihood of working

from home decreases for workers without tertiary education and with lower levels of skills. These

findings raises important questions on the extent to which the pandemic could exacerbate existing

labour market inequalities, and whether these inequalities could worsen with intensified adoption

of technology in the aftermath of the crisis

273

On the one hand, a growing number of employers are declaring their intention to incorporate

telework on a more systematic basis; on the other, the greater capacity for data collection,

processing and analytics, paired with machine learning and AI, means that tasks requiring more

analytical and digital skills are likely to grow

274

. Indeed, recent data from Eurostat

275

show that in

2018, the job tasks of 15% of employed internet users (e.g. people who use internet in their work)

in the EU had changed due to new software or computerised equipment in the twelve months

prior to the survey. In the same period, 27% had to learn how to use new software or equipment

for their job. As recognised in the new Skills Agenda

276

, these findings call for renewed and

focused action to develop the digital skills of the workforce

277

through, for instance, initiatives

boosting the level of adults digital competences and acknowledging the role of employers and the

private sector in promoting and providing specific training and on-the-job-learning of digital

skills.

Digital competence has become

crucial for employability and for participation in society:

the

need for all citizens to develop digital skills to thrive in today's world is increasingly evident. The

more knowledge technology allows to search and access, the more important the capacity to filter

and better understand information becomes

278

. As technological breakthroughs rapidly change the

way people live, work and study, Europe needs digitally competent citizens and workers to be

able to use technologies in a critical way. Individual digital skills across Europe are insufficient to

meet the needs of the economy and the society, as suggested by aggregate statistics both from the

supply side (measured as individual digital skills) and the from the demand side (measured as the

level of skills required for worker occupation). In spite of its policy relevance, evidence on this

topic is insufficient, also because of the lack of clarity given by the different definitions of digital

competence and related measurement methods. However, any action on competence development

requires a thorough and recognised assessment of the individual level of digital competence:

defining the starting point is crucial to identify what learning opportunities can be offered to

specific target groups in a lifelong learning perspective.

270

271

OECD (2016). Skills for a Digital World. Policy Brief on the Future of Work.

European Commission (2017). ICT for Work: Digital Skills in the Workplace.

272

Eurofound (2020), Work, teleworking and COVID-19. Available at:

https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/fr/data/covid-

19/working-teleworking.

273

Espinoza R., Reznikova L. (2020). Who can log in? The importance of skills for the feasibility of teleworking arrangements

across OECD countries. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 242, OECD Publishing: Paris.

274

Arregui Pabollet E. et al. (2019).

The changing nature of work and skills in the digital age.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of

the European Union.

275

Eurostat (2019). Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals.

276

European Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience. COM(2020)441 final/2.

277

Several studies report that although it remains crucial to develop digital skills that empower workers to thrive in a changing

digital economy, comprehensive skills strategies should embed these within a broader set of transversal skills. Concretely,

research findings point to a) the increasing labour market needs for transversal, soft or non-cognitive skills; b) that these are

required in combination with digital skills; and c) their development mutually reinforce each other.

278

OECD (2018). Getting ready for the digital world. PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations.

Box 3: digital literacy for informed choices as citizens

Low levels of digital skills pose risks to our democracies and act as a barrier to social inclusion.

Citizens’ exposure to large-scale

disinformation,

including misleading or false information, is

a major challenge for Europe

279

and it has become even more evident with the COVID-19 crisis.

The virus outbreak dominated the media and it has been accompanied by an ‘infodemic’, a term

indicating a massive amount of information that has made it hard for people to find trustworthy

sources and reliable guidance

280

. The need for all citizens to have a critical understanding of and

interaction with the media and digital environments, to become resilient to disinformation and

improve their participation in democratic processes has never been as vital as it is in today's

digital world

281

The 2019 Reuters Institute Digital News Report revealed that 55% of respondents across 38

countries globally remain concerned about their ability to distinguish between what is real and

what is fake on the internet. Concerns about disinformation remain high and the average level of

trust in the media is down to 42% (Figure 12)

282

. Daily, 37% of Europeans come across news

that they believe misrepresent reality or are even false, while 31% say it happens at least once a

week. More than eight in ten respondents think that the existence of fake news is a problem in

their country (85%) and for democracy in general (83%)

283

Figure 12: Percentage of trust in the news

Source: Reuters Institute (2019)

During the COVID-19 outbreak, worries about the reliability of information available on the

virus were even higher

284

. The situation was exacerbated by the use of social media to find

information (especially amongst young adults) and the overall increase in time children spent

online, with possible consequences on the likelihood of being exposed to disinformation,

inappropriate content and more general negative experiences

285

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions on tackling online disinformation: a European approach. COM(2018)236 final.

280

World Health Organization (2020). Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Situation Report.

281

Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the European Council; the Council, the European and Social Committee and

the Committee of the Regions - Action Plan against Disinformation. JOIN(2018) 36 final.

282

Reuters Institute (2019). Digital News Report 2019.

283

Flash Eurobarometer 464 - Fake news and disinformation online. Available at:

https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2183_464_ENG.

284

Edelman Trust Barometer (2020). Special Report: Trust and the Coronavirus.

285

Hasebrink U. (2019). Young European's online environments: a typology of user in Eds Livingstone S., Haddon L., Gorzig A.

(2019). Children, Risk and Safety on the Internet: Research and Policy Challenges in comparative perspective.

279

The evolution of digital technologies has radically changed the way information and news are

produced, consumed and communicated; new risks affecting both adults and children have

emerged from ubiquitous access to the internet. Given that end-users play a critical role not only

in accessing and selecting but also in reproducing and disseminating information, an analysis of

disinformation in relation to the functioning of our democracies is crucial. For example, some

research suggests that the sharing of fake news or incorrect information by young people may be

related to their need for self-expression and socialisation

286

. Another study shows that even if the

majority of students might be fluent in social media, they are not equally knowledgeable when it

comes to understanding the property and status of material they find and reproduce

287

. In this

sense,

being able to check quality and accuracy of information,

in addition to understanding

the values and ethics of those involved in the process of generating this information, are key

aspects in addressing the phenomenon

288

. Results of the public consultation confirm the

importance of finding, filtering and managing information. Evidence on the different target

groups shows that information and knowledge management and identification of fake news are

among the most important competences selected by all respondents, while protection of personal

data rank high among learners and parents

289

Prior to the COVID-19 crisis

290

, different measures had been taken at EU level to minimise the

risks of fake news and online disinformation and foster digital literacy, but further action tailored

to the needs of the different age groups is needed. As highlighted by the European Commission’s

High-Level Expert Group on fake news and online disinformation, promoting digital literacy in

teacher training, curricula reforms and with targeted educational interventions can help users

navigate the digital environment

291

. However, a survey released in March 2019 illustrates that

42% of young people think that critical thinking, media and democracy are not taught sufficiently

in school

292

. The challenge is particularly relevant for younger students as virtually go online

every day, for education, entertainment and social contact

293

. There is a pressing need for a

responsible and safe use of digital technologies through improving digital literacy skills, further

developing critical thinking, and raising awareness of individual rights and obligations while

online, especially among young people and minors.

Dealing with disinformation, harmful speech and online threats is a key competence that

everybody needs to develop, whether it is in formal or non-formal education settings or in the

context of lifelong learning. In recent years, a number of initiatives have been put in place to

address the challenges. The DigComp framework

294

, for instance, aims to foster confident,

critical and responsible digital citizens; while the UNESCO’s Media and Information Literacy

framework

295

focuses on the role and functions of media in democratic societies. However,

despite these efforts, the ability of young people to access and critically evaluate information and

286

Chen X., Sin S.C. J., Theng Y.L., Lee C.S. (2015). Why Students Share Misinformation on Social Media: Motivation, Gender,

and Study-level Differences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(5), 583-592.

287

Stanford History Education Group (2019). Evaluating information the corner stone of civic online reasoning.

288

Ireton C., Poseti J. (2018). Journalism, Fake news and Disinformation. Handbook for Journalism education and Training.

289

See Annex 2 for further details on responses given by the different target groups.

290

During the COVID-19 outbreak, independent fact-checkers moved quickly to respond to the growing amount of false or

inaccurate information around the virus and the scale of the problem led public authorities and institutions to initiatives tracking

and responding to myths and rumours and supporting citizens to find reliable and factual information.

291

European Commission (2018). A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation. Report of the independent

High level Group on fake news and online disinformation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

292

Flash Eurobarometer 478. How do we build a stronger, more united Europe? The views of young people, available at

https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2224_478_ENG.

293

Smahel D., Machackova H., Mascheroni G., Dedkova L., Staksrud E., Ólafsson K., Livingstone S., Hasebrink U. (2020). EU

Kids Online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries. EU Kids Online.

294

See Annex 3 for further information.

295

Unesco’s Media and Information

Literacy framework:

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/media-

development/media-literacy/mil-as-composite-concept/

its sources in digital environments remains low, indicating for example difficulties differentiating

between paid and non-paid search results returned by a search engine

296

The 2018 Action Plan included an action focused on cyber culture. Its objective was raising

awareness on the risks faced when being online (including disinformation) and promoting the

skills necessary to act in a safe and responsible way. The #SaferInternet4EU campaign targeting

educators, parents and learners with a wide range of activities and supporting materials (e.g.

awards, online courses for teachers, Back2School campaign, etc.) was part of this action.

Participation in the initiative grew consistently reaching 63 million EU citizens by 2019 through

the Safer Internet Centres

297

. This showed a strong interest in strengthening efforts to foster a safe

and responsible use of digital technologies by young people through activities in formal and

informal education. However, as highlighted by all consulted groups

298

, boosting the skills

needed to safely navigate today’s digital world is an area where further efforts at EU level are

needed, especially in reinforcing the ability of all levels and sectors of education and training to

promote a critical understanding and interaction with the media.

The

level of digital skills of European students

(i.e. individuals above 16 whose employment

status is ‘student’) is higher compared to the overall population and labour force, with 66% of

them having above basic digital skills (Figure 13).

Figure 13:

EU students’ digital skills

Source: Eurostat (2019) - Percentage of students, by digital skills level

However, more than one third of 13-14 year olds who participated in the International Computer

and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) in 2018 were working below the lowest proficiency level

of digital skills

299

and evidence shows that there is a digital divide increasingly related to

socioeconomic status and years of experience of using devices (beyond simple access)

300

296

Fraillon, J. Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Duckworth, D. (2019). Preparing for Life in a Digital World: International

Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report. Amsterdam: IEA.

297

During COVID-19 crisis, the Safer Internet Centres (https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/web/portal/saferinternet4eu) were

very active in supporting pupils, teachers and parents through dedicated resources and a mini-campaign to respond to the

challenges of the lockdown. For further information see

betterinternetforkids.eu portal.

298

Including Member States, educational stakeholders, and Members of the European Parliament. See Annex 2 for further details.

299

Fraillon, J. Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Duckworth, D. (2019). Preparing for Life in a Digital World: International

Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report. Amsterdam: IEA.

300

Smahel D., Machackova H., Mascheroni G., Dedkova L., Staksrud E., Ólafsson K., Livingstone S., Hasebrink U. (2020). EU

Kids Online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries. EU Kids Online.

High-level demand for digital skills and ICT professionals is likely to increase in the aftermath of

the COVID-19 crisis, which highlights the need to address the development of digital talent

before higher education, as. Europe cannot grow a critical mass of top talent if we disregard the

initial stages of education.

Box 4: Computing and informatics education as a tool to boost digital competence

Computing and informatics education in school allows young people to gain a critical and hands-

on understanding of the digital world. If taught from the early stages, it can complement digital

literacy interventions

301

. The benefits are societal (young people should be creators not just

passive users of technology), economic (digital skills are needed in sectors of the economy to

drive growth and innovation) and pedagogical (computing, informatics and technology education

is a vehicle for learning not just technical skills but key skills such as critical thinking, problem

solving, collaboration and creativity).

Computational thinking and related concepts (e.g. coding, programming, algorithmic thinking)

have a long history in education. Although coding and programming are an important part of

computational thinking, the latter entails other core elements such as problem analysis and

decomposition

302

. Computational thinking represents a way of approaching problems which are

relevant for many areas of education and is an essential skill for a growing number of jobs

303

Evidence shows that computational thinking activities, in both formal and non-formal settings,

help learners develop critical transversal skills (e.g. creativity or critical thinking)

304

and, together

with digital literacy, can equip students with the complementary skills to become active, critical

and creative users of digital technologies

305

. Introducing all pupils to computing and informatics

education from an early age can also help foster interest in digital studies and future careers. Yet,

many young people in Europe leave school without any exposure to computing and

informatics education

306

In 2019, half of the European education systems were reforming their curricula related to digital

competence, for example, introducing new components, including computational thinking, or

making the subject area more prominent. Some reforms (for instance in BG, IE, EL, CY, LT, PL,

307

), were broadly in line with reforms in jurisdictions outside Europe (e.g. US

308

, Australia,

China, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea). Despite these changes, provision in

computing and informatics education in Europe remains uneven.

Figure 14 shows the level of education at which EU students experience their first contact with

informatics and related concepts

309

. This happens rarely in primary education (only in six cases in

Figure 14), most likely because more than half of the European education systems include digital

competence as a more general cross-curricular theme. Teaching digital competence as a separate

and specific subject, like computing and informatics education, is more common at lower and

301

302

Committee on European Computing Education (2017). Informatics Education in Europe: Are we all in the same boat?

European Commission. (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education - Implications for policy and

practice. JRC Science for Policy Report.

303

Balanskat A., K. Engelhardt (2015), Computing Our Future. Computer Programming and Coding. Priorities, School Curricula

and Initiatives across Europe.

304

OECD. (2019). OECD Skills Outlook 2019: Thriving in a Digital World. Paris: OECD Publishing.

305

Gretter, S., & Yadav, A. (2016). Computational Thinking and Media & Information Literacy: An Integrated Approach to

Teaching Twenty-First Century Skills. TechTrends, 60(5), 1–7.

306

Committee on European Computing Education (2017). Informatics Education in Europe: Are we all in the same boat?

307

Curriculum approaches and related reforms available in Annex 1a-b of European Commission (2019). Digital Education at

School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

308

In the US, Code.org, the Hour of Code movement and the Computer Science for All initiative launched by President Obama

are working to provide high quality computing education for all students.

309

Committee on European Computing Education (2017). Informatics Education in Europe: Are we all in the same boat?

An interactive view of the map is available at: http://cece-map.informatics-europe.org/map/informatics_first_contact/pt

especially upper secondary education

310

(in the former case mostly as a compulsory subject and

in the latter mostly as optional)

311

Figure 14: First contact with informatics

Source: Committee on European Computing Education (2017)

However, as Figure 15 shows, there is a high percentage of students at lower and upper secondary

level (76 and 79% respectively) who never or almost never undertake coding and programming

activities. This is a practice done on a daily basis only by 3% of students in lower and 6% of

students in upper secondary education

312

Figure 15: Students frequency in coding/programming during lessons

Source: Second Survey of Schools (2019) - Percentage of students, country and EU level

310

Croatia, Slovenia, Ukraine, and all UK regions (6

–

12%) include it at primary level. After primary school, there is a split

between places introducing informatics at lower secondary level (27 out of 53 countries/regions; 50%) and those introducing it at

higher secondary level (20 out of 53 countries/regions; 38%).

311

European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of

the European Union.

312

European Commission (2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

In Europe, the availability of computing and informatics education, as a compulsory or at least

elective subject

313

, is not uniform, with opportunities for young people to study this subject

varying widely

314

. Where it does exist, uptake can be low and gender imbalance is a major

problem

315

. Recent research assessing students’ computational thinking shows that achievements

tend to be higher among male students, and that socio-economic status, access to and experience

with computers are associated with higher scores. Even though a small number of Member States

participated in the study (seven in total), it reveals that students’ computational thinking

varies a

lot within countries and that there is a large proportion of students who are able to complete only

the most basic computational thinking-related tasks

316

In recent years, a number of initiatives addressing computational thinking in both formal and

non-formal settings have been organised, both at national and international level, to complement

the lack of provision in computing and informatics education

317

. For instance EU Code Week

318

promoted in the framework of the 2018 Action Plan, brought coding activities to many schools

across Europe, reaching 4.2 million participants in 2019

319

Stakeholders consulted for the preparation of this initiative highlighted the importance of

supporting students’ computational thinking from an early age as a way to

promote a better

understanding of the digital world and to do this with age-appropriate teaching methods

320

. In

particular, Member States and organisations participating in the ET2020 Working Group on

Digital Education called for EU support on a number of shared challenges (e.g. how to teach and

assess computational thinking in an age-appropriate way, how to recruit and train teachers, how

to ensure gender balance and equity).

The COVID-19 crisis is likely have an impact on the demand for digital skills of EU citizens,

especially for learners and the labour force, considering that many schools, universities and VET

providers shifted to distance and online learning, and companies and organisations to telework.

Results from the public consultation confirm that this can lead to more experiences with digital

technologies, but being digitally competent entails more than being able to use them

321

Monitoring will be essential to see if a more critical, confident, and creative use of digital

technologies for learning purposes and for participation in society will arise as a consequence of

the situation or if the COVID-19 crisis will contribute to widening gaps, new inequalities and

negative experiences in using digital devices.

313

22 out of 50 countries/regions in Europe offer computing and informatics education; however, in 10 out of 50

countries/regions, the possibility is available only to a subset of students.

314

Committee on European Computing Education (2017). Informatics Education in Europe: Are we all in the same boat?

315

European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of

the European Union.

316

Fraillon, J. Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Duckworth, D. (2019). Preparing for Life in a Digital World: International

Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report. Amsterdam: IEA.

317

European Commission (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education - Implications for policy and

practice. JRC Science for Policy Report.

Balanskat, A. & Engelhardt, K. (2015 & 2016). Computing, our Future. Brussels. European Schoolnet.

318

EU Code Week: https://codeweek.eu/

319

In 2019 more than 72,000 activities took place globally - 92% of them was at school level. For more information on EU Code

Week see Table 1.

320

40% of the consulted organisations position computing and informatics education in their top five areas of focus.

Representatives of the private sector, in particular, strongly advocate for integrating the subject across curricula, as a way to lay

the foundation for advanced digital skills. See Annex 2 for further details.

321

See Annex 2 for more details on respondents’’ views on digital competence.

Box 5: Availability of cross-national data on the level of digital competence in the EU

Digital competence acquisition is an important priority, but the

availability of cross-national

data on the current level of digital skills in the EU is limited.

Major data sources include:



The International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS)

322

, a performance test

measuring international differences in computer and information literacy

323

and

computational thinking

324

of students in their eighth year of schooling

325

The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI)

326

, a composite index that summarises

relevant indicators on Europe’s digital performance

327

, including an area on human capital,

which provides an overview of citizens’ digital skills

328

However,

both ICILS and DESI have certain constraints.

While scientifically sound, ICILS

has so far had limited geographical coverage: only 14 EU Member States combined (nine and

seven respectively) participated in its two first cycles

329

. DESI’s methodology relies on self-

reported data largely based on respondents’ replies

to a set of questions on their internet use

rather than a direct measurement of actual digital competence

330

. These are recurring issues in

studies and surveys focusing on digital skills, as they provide indirect approximations and limit

the ability to analyse and assess digital competence development and tendencies.

Under the 2018 Action Plan, studies were undertaken to measure progress in the use of digital

technologies in school education, resulting in three key achievements:



The 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in education (ESSIE2)

331

, published in March 2019,

provided 1) an overview of the progress made in mainstreaming technology use in primary

and secondary education, and 2) guidance on features and costs of a highly connected

classroom (entry, advanced and cutting-edge level).

A new version of the ICT questionnaire of the OECD's Programme for International Student

Assessment (PISA),

used in 2018 to gather information on students’ perceptions on their use

of ICT for learning purposes, was also developed. The new version of the questionnaire will

be deployed in the next round of PISA in 2022. It relies on students’ self-reported

attitudes

and self-efficacy and can provide valuable insights into how pupils access and use digital

resources in and outside of school, in addition to identifying how teachers and schools

integrate them into pedagogical practices and learning environments.



322

323

ICILS:

https://www.iea.nl/studies/iea/icils

The definition of computer and information literacy is very close to the one of the DigComp framework (see Annex 3) and

focuses on students’ ability to use computers to investigate, create, and communicate in order to participate effectively at

home, at

school, in the workplace, and in the community.

324

Computational thinking, defined

as an individual’s ability to recognize aspects of real-world

problems which are appropriate

for computational formulation and to evaluate and develop algorithmic solutions to those problems so that the solutions could be

operationalized with a computer, is an optional component of the ICILS survey.

325

On average between 13 and 15 year old students, depending on the country.

326

DESI :

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi

327

At high level, DESI addresses five interconnected policy areas for a digital economy and society (connectivity, human capital,

use of internet services, integration of digital technology, digital public services). DESI data collection is annual and allows

tracking the evolution of Member States in digital competitiveness.

328

The area on human capital provides an overview of digital inclusion and skills, calculated as the weighted average of two sub-

dimensions, ‘internet user skills’ and ‘advanced skills and development’, each made up by three indicators (‘At least basic

digital

skills’, ‘Above basic digital skills’, ‘At least basic software skills’ for the sub-dimension ‘internet user skills’; ‘ICT specialists’,

‘Female ICT specialists’ and ‘ICT graduates’ for the sub-dimension ‘Advanced skills and development’), whose data come

from

the Eurostat Community Survey on ICT usage by households and individuals and the Labour Force Survey.

329

Two ICILS reports have been published (in 2013 and 2018) and the next data collection cycle will take place in 2023.

330

On the other hand ICILS measures students digital skills in a computer-based assessment where they complete a range of tasks,

including skills-based tasks using software tools and web content, based on real-world scenarios and problems.

331

European Commission (2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.



Discussions have also been held with Member States on how to better track progress in

entrepreneurship and digital competences, and possibly setting EU targets in these areas. With

regard to entrepreneurship, existing data collections do not have the required level of

international comparability to support the monitoring of an EU target. This is, however,

possible for digital competence, using ICILS, which provides a solid base for direct

assessment of digital competence.

Stakeholders consulted in preparation of the renewed Action Plan recognise the benefits of cross-

national, comparative and longitudinal studies to inform education and training and call for

reinforced efforts with a view to improve the understanding of digital competence development

across Member States and at EU level

332

5.2.2 Addressing the gender gap

There is a

significant gender gap in digital skills.

There are proportionally more men than

women with at least basic digital skills and the difference increases with age and level of digital

skills

333

. At a young age, girls outperform boys in Information and Computer Literacy

334

and in

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)

335

, but the context changes as they

progress through their educational and professional lives

336

Women constitute just over half of tertiary students

337

(54%) and they are particularly

underrepresented in the digital fields where men still account for more than 80% of the

workforce. Despite large differences between countries

338

, women on average hold only 17% of

tech sector jobs

339

, a participation rate that occurs at all levels of the digital economy but also in

women’s numbers as employees, corporate leaders and entrepreneurs

340

. The pace of change is

not promising

341

and the low share of women in AI (22%)

342

shows that, without intervention, the

gap in Europe will widen

343

According to the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), boys and

girls are almost equally likely to expect to work in a science-related field

344

. Yet, data from

Eurostat shows that only one in three STEM graduates is a woman

345

. With age and at higher

332

When asked about the type of data that would be useful at EU level, Member States and consulted organisations indicated the

need to gather comparative and longitudinal data related to effective teaching and learning, efficient online learning, and digital

competence development. Member States in ET2020 Working group on Digital Education support this statement, especially in

view of the need of data on COVID-19 and its implications for education and training. See Annex 2 for further details.

333

European Commission (2020). Digital Economy and Society Index - EU-28 values (including UK).

334

Fraillon, J. Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Duckworth, D. (2019). Preparing for Life in a Digital World: International

Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report. Amsterdam: IEA.

335

OECD (2019). Why don’t more girls choose to pursue a science career? PISA in Focus,

n° 93.

336

STEM fields and the digital sectors are among the employment domains where gender bias prevails.

337

Eurostat (2019). Tertiary education statistics.

338

For instance in Bulgaria and Eastern Europe women occupy nearly half of the high-tech jobs.

339

The percentage of women in ICT careers still remains below 2% of women's total share in the European labour market See

European Parliament (2020). Education and employment of women in science, technology and the digital economy, including AI

and its influence on gender equality. Luxembourg: Publication office of the European Union.

340

European Commission (2018). Women in the Digital Age. Luxembourg: Publication office of the European Union.

341

0.5% increase in the number of women in ICT jobs between 2012 and 2016. EIGE (2018). Women and men in ICT: a chance

for better work-life balance. Luxembourg: Publications Oﬃce of the European Union.

342

World Economic Forum (2019). Assessing Gender Gaps in Artificial Intelligence. On the topic, see also LinkedIn (2019). AI

Talent in the European Labour Market.

343

Another digital domain where the gender gap is particularly strong is cybersecurity. See European Parliament (2020).

Education and employment of women in science, technology and the digital economy, including AI and its influence on gender

equality. Luxembourg: Publication office of the European Union.

344

OECD (2017). What kind of careers in science do 15-year-old boys and girls expect for themselves? PISA in focus. Paris:

OECD publishing.

345

Eurostat (2019). Women in science and technology.

levels of education, girls tend to steer away from STEM and ICT subjects and this is reflected in

their lower participation in related higher education studies

346

Research shows that young women are more likely to choose careers in the biological sciences,

social sciences, environmental sciences and medicine over the mathematically based sciences

because they perceive the latter to be less people-oriented and to have less value to society

347

Inherent biases and sociocultural norms limit

women and girls’ ability to benefit from the

opportunities offered by the digital transformation

348

. In addition, girls’ lower enrolment in

disciplines linked to the digital sector could lead to widening gaps and greater inequality

349

Addressing the underlying causes of gender disparities in the digital and STEM fields requires

targeted interventions

early on, to raise awareness and interest

350

, tackle gender stereotypes,

provide role models and, more generally, enable enhanced, safer and more affordable access to

digital tools

351

Many initiatives, such as the Ministerial declaration of commitment on women in digital

352

and

WeGate

353

, are ongoing in the EU to promote women’s participation in ICT or STEM but the

complexity surrounding gender equality requires stronger and more concerted efforts. Greater

inclusion of women in the digital economy and diversity in the labour market can bring social and

economic value for Europe’s competitiveness, growth and innovation

354

The need to address the gender gap was recognised in the 2018 Action Plan with an action

promoting workshops on digital and entrepreneurial skills for girls in primary and secondary

education, organised across Europe and particularly in those countries and regions that belong to

the so-called

‘modest and moderate innovators’

355

. The action was partially successful due to

constraints in its implementation modalities. However, the positive feedback from participating

female students

356

and the evidence on the level of digital skills and labour market participation

of women show the need to scale-up measures fostering gender equality in the STEM sector. The

urgency to reinforce efforts in this direction was clearly recognised in the consultations informing

the renewed Action Plan

357

A recent study shows that the period for consolidating STEM interest for students is confined to lower secondary education,

within a period when girls are less likely than boys to maintain STEM interest or maintain positive self-concept of computer

ability. See European Parliament (2020). Education and employment of women in science, technology and the digital economy,

including AI and its influence on gender equality. Luxembourg: Publication office of the European Union.

347

Eccles J.S., Wang M.T. (2016). What motivates females and males to pursue careers in mathematics and science? Int. J. Behav.

Dev. 40, 100–106.

348

OECD (2018). Bridging the Digital Gender Divide. Include, Upskill, Innovate.

349

EQUALS (2019).

I’d blush If I could. Closing gender divides in digital skills through education.

350

Wang M.T., Degol J.L. (2017). Gender gap in STEM: current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future

directions. Educational psychology review, 29(1), pp.119-140. Wang M.T., Degol J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM

career choices: using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields.

Developmental Review, Volume 33, Issue 4.

351

European Parliament (2018). The underlying causes of the digital gender gap and possible solutions for enhanced digital

inclusion of women and girls.

352

Women in digital:

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/women-ict

and https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-

market/en/news/eu-countries-commit-boost-participation-women-digital

353

WEGate, the European gateway for women entrepreneurship:

https://wegate.eu/

354

Gender parity affects GDP, levels of employment, and productivity. For instance, a strong correlation is found between the

Women in Digital Index and the Digital Economy and Society Index: Member States who lead in digital competitiveness are also

leaders in women in digital.

355

The European Innovation Scoreboard provides a comparative assessment of research and innovation performance across the

EU. Analysed countries are divided in innovation leaders

–

performing well above the EU average; strong innovators

–

performing slightly above or close to the EU average; moderate innovators

–

performing below the EU average; modest

innovators

–

perform well below the EU average.

356

The large majority of the students who participated in the workshops had a positive experience developing their interest in

becoming entrepreneurs (92%) and/or work in the ICT sector (87%). Data shows that the workshops boosted students’ self-

confidence and allowed them to develop transversal skills such as teamwork and communications, which are two highly sought-

after skills by today’s employers.

357

Closing the gender digital skills gap is considered a priority area of focus by a quarter of the consulted stakeholder

organisations, predominantly coming from education employers and non-formal sector. See Annex 2 for further details.

346

5.2.3 Advanced digital skills and emerging areas of digital competence

As technological breakthroughs rapidly shift the boundary between tasks performed by people

and those performed by machines, global labour markets are undergoing major

transformations

358

. Rapid advances in AI, cloud computing, robotics, and other emerging

technologies are happening in short cycles, quickly changing the nature of existing jobs or

creating new ones, and strongly impacting the skills required in both existing and new

occupations. Demand for specialist digital skills

359

, including technology design and

programming, is growing along with non-cognitive skills that computers cannot master, such as

creative thinking and problem-solving

360

While the COVID-19 crisis has massively affected all working environments and sectors of the

economy, the ICT sector proved to be critical for business continuity and recovery. Extensive

efforts were made to reinforce the digital infrastructure of governments, hospitals, and education

and training institutions; development of tools and apps using emerging technologies to fight and

contain the virus; services and packages to help workers and enterprises address the business

challenges arising from the crisis and online learning solutions and donation of equipment and

connectivity to students

361

. The crisis demonstrated the extreme importance of an ICT sector,

which can cope with unexpected challenges. This makes the need to attract young people to ICT

studies and, more generally, equip post-secondary students and graduates with digital skills, more

urgent than ever. As a result, the crisis also demonstrated the extreme importance of continued

training and education for healthcare professionals in the area of digital skills in order to

successfully implement new digital technologies to ensure that our healthcare systems become

more resilient, accessible and effective in providing quality care to European citizens.

In Europe and beyond,

mismatches exist between skills available and those needed for the

digital transformation of the economy.

ICT specialists, people who deal with developing,

operating and maintaining information technology systems, are employed across all sectors of the

economy, with a different percentage depending on the size of the organisation

362

. As Figure 16

shows, in 2019, over half of both large and small and medium enterprises in all Member States

(58%) who recruited or tried to recruit ICT specialists reported difficulties in filling these

vacancies.

363

World Economic Forum (2018). The Future of Jobs Report.

The Commission proposal for a Digital Europe Programme (COM/2018/434 final) defined advanced digital skills as

‘specialized skills,

i.e. skills in designing, developing, mana

360

Research Centre (2019). The changing nature of work and skills in the digital age. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the

European Union.

361

This was a positive effort but raised concerns among some of the stakeholders, especially Ministries of Education, on the

storage and use of personal data of educators and learners. See Annex 2 for further details.

362

The percentage of large enterprises employing ICT specialists (75%) is more than 4 times higher than that for small and

medium sized enterprises (18 %). Eurostat (2018). ICT specialists - statistics on hard-to-fill vacancies.

363

66 % for large enterprises and 57 % for small and medium enterprises.

359

358

Figure 16: Hard-to-fill vacancies for ICT specialists

Source: Eurostat (2019) - Percentage of enterprises that recruited or tried to recruit ICT

specialists, without financial sector

These skill shortages are connected to a shortage of supply of digital skills in the EU labour force

but they are also affected by firms’ ability to adopt a competitive recruitment strategy. Recent

research shows that ‘genuine’ skill shortages, defined as instances where employers cannot fill a

job vacancy because job applicants do not possess the required skills, even though a competitive

job offer is made, are more likely to arise in high-innovative and international sectors and

occupations

364

In 2018, there were around 7.4 million ICT specialists in employment across the EU, the highest

number of which were employed in Germany (1.7 million) and France (1,1 million). In general,

the number of ICT specialists employed in the EU grew by 47.9% from 2011 to 2018, eight times

as much as the increase (5.9 %) for total employment. Less than two thirds (62.2%) of employed

ICT specialists in the EU have a tertiary level of education

365

, which shows the importance of

increasing the number of ICT graduates from upper-secondary and higher education

366

especially considering that in these disciplines entry requirements and dropout rates are high, and

female participation is low.

On the supply side, approximately 3.9 million students graduated from tertiary education in the

EU in 2017. ICT makes up less than 5% of the total number of enrolled students and graduates

(4.9% and 3.8%)

367

, even though it is most commonly associated with technological progress and

high employability

368

. On average in the EU and across OECD countries, only 4% of tertiary-

educated adults hold a qualification in this field and the proportion across countries varies much

less than for other fields of study. It reaches 7% in Costa Rica and Luxembourg or 6% in Finland,

Hungary, Mexico and Spain and 1% or less in Russia and Turkey

369

. In 2015 India was the

country with the highest share of ICT graduates (almost 600,000), five times as many as the

United States

370

CEDEFOP (2018) Insights into skills shortages and skill mismatch. Learning from Cedefop’s European skills and jobs survey.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

365

Eurobase database (data extracted on 11/09/2020) for the following sources: employed ICT specialists - total, employed ICT

specialists by sex, employed specialists by educational attainment level and employment by sex, age and citizenship.

366

The share of ICT specialists in employment with a tertiary level of educational attainment rose by 7.2 percentage points

between 2011 and 2018.

367

For other STEM fields, engineering, construction and manufacturing makes up 15.2% of the total number of graduates and

15.8% of enrolled students; while natural science, mathematics and statistics 6,4% of graduates and 7.2% of enrolled students.

368

Eurostat (2019). Tertiary education statistics.

369

OECD (2019). Education at glance. Paris: OECD Publishing.

370

OECD (2017). Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2017. Paris: OECD publishing.

364

The low number of ICT graduates and the growing number of ICT vacancies

371

suggest that the

gap between the demand and supply of ICT specialists may be widening. To lead digital

transformation, Europe needs excellent higher education institutions, which can attract and retain

students in ICT and related fields by offering high quality education, including in forward-

looking ICT-related fields.

In this respect the European Universities initiative, which supports transnational alliances of

higher education institutions, will work to boost higher education capacity, mobility and

cooperation in the design and development of flexible, innovative and challenge-based

approaches, which foster basic and advanced digital competences. Moreover, the Digital Europe

Programme will support the development of advanced digital skills mainly through specialised

education programmes, such as master courses. As the COVID-19 crisis has shown, having ICT

specialists and a digitally competent workforce is a crucial element for an inclusive and

competitive digital economy and society. Several actions at

both EU and Member States’ level

aim to tackle the digital skills mismatch

372

, but, as highlighted by consulted stakeholders

373

renewed support is needed especially considering that the digital economy is likely to play a

leading role in Europe’s recovery.

Digitally-enabled automation and AI

are set to become the primary drivers of the next

technological revolution

374

. They permeate all spheres of life (from machine translation, to image

recognition and music generation) and bring significant benefits, including increased productivity

and societal wellbeing, but also challenges connected to the need to manage a socially

responsible transition by carefully addressing socio-economic, legal and ethical impacts

375

, as

well as cybersecurity, safety, and data protection risks

376

. Its use also entails opaque decision-

making and risks of gender-based or other kinds of discrimination.

Being at the forefront of the technological revolution is crucial to ensure competitiveness and

shape the conditions for its development and use

377

. EU investment and efforts to analyse the

current implications and future impact of AI have increased over time with various research and

policy initiatives, including ‘AI Watch’, which monitors the development, uptake and impact of

AI in Europe

378

However, as highlighted in the White Paper on AI

379

, companies all over Europe struggle to find

qualified workers who are able to develop and deploy AI

380

. On the other hand, citizens (more

than 6 in 10) tend to be positive regarding the impact of AI on the economy and society, but their

371

For instance in the EU in 2017 there were approximately 496,000 unfilled positions in the area of big data and analytics.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions on a European strategy for data. COM/2020/66 final.

372

Among the actions at EU level, in 2018, the European Commission piloted a new scheme, the Digital Opportunity

Traineeships, which allowed higher education students to participate in temporary work placements and improve their digital

skills, in fields like cybersecurity, big data, quantum technology and machine learning, or in business areas like web design,

digital marketing, and software development. The initiative showed mutual benefits, for the participating students, who gained

hands-on experience, and for the hosting companies, who had the opportunity to train the future European workforce. The pilot

took place in 2018-2020 with more than 12.000 work placements in enterprises and companies, involving 53% female and 47%

male students, including 10% from disadvantaged backgrounds.

373

Closing the gender digital skills gap was widely supported during exchanges with Member States and Members of the

European Parliament and seen as a priority area of focus by a quarter of consulted groups. See Annex 2 for further details.

374

McKinsey& Google (2020). Future of Work in Europe.

375

Joint Research Centre (2018).

Artificial Intelligence. A European perspective. Luxembourg: EU Publications Office.

376

Joint Reserach Centre (2020). Robustness and Explainability of Artificial Intelligence - From technical to policy solutions.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

377

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Artificial Intelligence for Europe. COM(2018)237.

378

AI Watch:

https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/ai-watch/about_en

379

White Paper on Artificial Intelligence: a European approach to excellence and trust. COM(2020) 65 final.

380

Joint Research Centre (2019). Academic offer and demand for advanced profiles in the EU

–

Artificial intelligence, High

Performance Computing and Cybersecurity.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU.

opinion and concerns depend strongly on their level of information and knowledge on the topic

381

(Figure 17).

Figure 17: Views on robots and AI among citizens

Source: Eurobarometer (2017)

As AI systems rapidly evolve, with applications in many different areas, there is a growing and

pressing need not only for professionals but also for citizens to have basic understanding of AI to

engage positively, critically and ethically with this increasingly pervasive technology

382

Box 6: Impact of AI on education and training

The impact of AI on education and training could potentially be transformative but, given the

data needed by AI systems to operate, it also comes with major risks connected to fundamental

rights such as the right to non-discrimination, including gender equality

383

, as well as ethical, data

protection and privacy concerns,. A recent report

384

shows that many EU-funded research

projects in recent years have been focusing on technology-enabled learning by using AI-driven

technologies to build intelligent tutoring systems or agents and personalised learning

environments that take advantage of adaptive user models. So far, they have had limited impact

in actual educational settings but recent technical developments connected to improvements in

algorithms and the exponential growth in the volume and variety of digital data suggest that the

situation may be changing rapidly.

The number of technological devices and tools that generate detailed data about young people is

unprecedented

385

. As with all surveillance mechanisms, questions arise as to who collects,

controls, selects, interprets and uses the data

386

. At times, schools and teachers, or learners and

381

Eurobarometer 460 - Attitudes towards the impact of digitisation and automation, available at

https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2160_87_1_460_ENG.

382

For instance the translation of Elements of AI (https://www.elementsofai.com), the online course published in 2018 by Reaktor

and the University of Helsinki, will allow citizens acquire basic understanding of AI. For more information:

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/elements-artificial-intelligence-course-gives-basic-introduction-ai

383

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions. COM/2020/152 final.

384

Joint Research Centre (2018). The impact of Artificial Intelligence on Learning, Teaching and Education. Policies for the

future. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

385

Lupton, D., & Williamson, B. (2017). The datafied child: The dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New

Media & Society, 19(5), 780-794.

386

Bradbury, A., & Roberts-Holmes, G. (2017). The Datafication of Early Years of Primary Education: Playing with Numbers.

Abingdon: Routledge.

parents themselves, can be providing such data without properly understanding the ramifications

of disclosing such data

387

While education and training institutions have progressively started experimenting with the use of

emerging technologies, there is very little systematic analysis and monitoring, including early

experimentations involving educational stakeholders (e.g. living labs ideas) and small-scale

qualitative research (e.g. case studies), that would allow to assess their impact on the educational

process.

Moreover, the impact of emerging technologies on students’ performance and overall

learning experience has not been systematically studied with, for instance, large-scale pilots (e.g.

by comparing educational settings with vs without digital intervention) and specific attention to

data collection and use.

Overall, there is a need to develop and test new pedagogies, also by investigating how emerging

technologies can be smoothly integrated in existing teaching and learning practices and how

respect of data protection legislation can be ensured. On the other end, flexibility and

affordability of digital technologies in education and training remain an issue as their use in

teaching and learning needs to be carefully designed, tailored and assessed against European

values and norms, especially when targeting children

388

. Finally, challenges regarding the

involvement of end-users, accessibility, inclusion and equity, as well as ethics, data protection

and privacy and security considerations need to be duly addressed.

As indicated by stakeholders

389

, better collaboration between the AI education technology

industry and educators is vital to support the testing, growth and adoption of the most promising

AI tools for education. Research shows that AI-driven education technology needs to be informed

by pedagogy, with a focus on user-centred design, ensuring that teachers and students are

empowered rather than marginalised by technology

390

. Moreover, a recent study shows that any

educational application of AI needs careful consideration as to how, where and when human

intervention and interpretation is needed

391

Against this backdrop, initiatives are also needed to

increase the awareness and understanding

of AI at all levels of education

in order to prepare citizens for informed decisions that will be

increasingly affected by AI. The development of new skills will be crucial for both educators and

learners to understand the applications and implications of AI and related data, and harness its

potential for innovative teaching and learning. In the longer term, the development of AI and

data-related skills from an early age, and with particular attention to the principle of non-

discrimination and gender equality, can have a positive effect on the pipeline of professionals in

the industry.

Consulted stakeholders have called for the EU to address this specific skills gap by providing

guiding frameworks on knowledge, skills and attitudes related to AI for different ages and stages

of education and training. Considering the transformative power of this technology, there is a

growing need to understand the skills required to use and deploy its applications in a responsible

way and help their development with different levels of proficiency and in a lifelong learning

perspective. In particular, there is a shared view about the support required for the development

387

Manolev, J., Sullivan, A., & Slee, R. (2019). The datafication of discipline: ClassDojo, surveillance and a performative

classroom culture. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(1), 36-51.

388

UNICEF (2014). Childrens’ rights in the Digital Age.

389

Consulted stakeholders, especially Member States and education and training institutions, strongly underlined the importance

of an ethical approach and focus on data protection and privacy in relation to emerging technologies, such as AI. ET2020

Working Group on Digital Education widely supports this view, being one of the key results of a dedicated peer-learning activity

on AI in education. See Annex 2 for further details.

390

Selwyn N. (2019). Should Robots Replace Teachers? AI and the Future of Education. Oxford: Policy Press.

391

Joint Research Centre (2020). Emerging technologies and the teaching profession. Ethical and pedagogical considerations

based on near-future scenarios Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

of a diverse set of competences: from understanding everyday and educational uses of AI to

advanced skills for the labour market and teacher training.

The topic was addressed in the 2018 Action Plan with pilot projects using AI and learning

analytics to predict future skills shortages and the publication of a foresight paper on the impact

of AI on learning, teaching and education

392

. The pilot projects are limited in scale and ongoing,

thus making it difficult to draw conclusions. The foresight paper confirms that educators and

learners have to better understand the potential of AI for teaching and learning.

6. Implementation and monitoring

The renewed Digital Education Action Plan builds on the lessons learnt from the 2018 Action

Plan and on feedback from extensive consultations with stakeholder

393

. It sets out a co-ordinated

policy approach at EU level with actions and support measures designed to have greater impact

than isolated initiatives at the level of Member States. The Action Plan will be implemented in

the context of the European Education Area enabling framework and will involve working groups

and players at various levels (EU, national, regional, local). It will run over the full duration of

the next EU financial programming period (2021-2027). This longer timeline will allow for more

forward-looking planning, piloting, proper assessment and scaling up, thus generating greater and

more structural impact.

All actions of the renewed Action Plan require

reinforced coordination and collaboration at

the EU level

in order to:



Promote digital education as a strategic EU policy response to the COVID-19 crisis and to

transform Europe’s education and training systems in a lifelong learning perspective for the

digital age;

Share knowledge, good practices and experience across the education and training sectors,

and amongst the diverse stakeholders in the digital education ecosystem, in order to cross-

fertilise, exploit synergies and encourage new collaboration and partnerships;

Address key issues that would benefit from reflection and action across levels and sectors of

education and training and on the basis of a common European approach (e.g. AI in

education, quality of online content, ethical use of big data, etc.);

Analyse data, monitor results, report on progress and offer strategic foresight and research on

digital education in order to feed policy making, strategies and decisions at regional, national

and EU level;

Experiment with new and innovative co-creation methods, support agile development and

trials, and ensure early involvement of educators and learners with innovative learning tools,

practices and processes;

Provide easy access to European online learning tools, content and learning support that is

multilingual, of high quality and respectful of European values, legislation and standards, for

instance, regarding accessibility and equity, data use and protection, privacy and ethics.



392

Joint Research Centre (2018). The impact of Artificial Intelligence on Learning, Teaching and Education. Policies for the

future. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

393

See Annex 2 for an overview.

Given the need to increase the impact, coherence and effectiveness of EU efforts in digital

education a

European Digital Education Hub

will be established. The Hub will serve to boost

cooperation and stakeholder engagement while working on the implementation of the measures

of the new Action Plan. In line with input and ideas received during the consultation, the Hub

will support Member States’ efforts by scaling

up ongoing activities

394

, linking relevant

initiatives

395

, monitoring developments, promoting peer learning and good practices exchange,

and acting as think-and do-tank for agile development of digital education across Europe

396

Successful implementation goes hand-in-hand with proper funding, which needs to both

responsive to policy priorities and flexible. Depending on the outcomes of the inter-institutional

negotiation process on the future EU programmes, the renewed Action Plan will be implemented

with the support of and in close synergy with a number of EU programmes and

instruments.

These include Erasmus+, Digital Europe, Horizon Europe, the European Social

Funds, the European Regional Development Fund and smart specialisation policies, and the

resources made available by the Next Generation EU. Technical support for national policy

reforms will be offered also through the Technical Support Instrument

397

As requested by stakeholders, this would include clear communication on the funding

opportunities within each specific action (Table 3).

Priority Area

Fostering the

development of a

high performing

digital education

ecosystem

Actions

Enabling factors for successful digital

education

Online and Distance Learning for

Primary and Secondary Education

European Digital Education Content

Framework and European Exchange

Platform

Support for connectivity and digital

equipment for education

Relevant Funding Programme

EU and national funding

programmes

Erasmus+

Enhancing digital

skills and

competences for the

digital transformation

Digital transformation plans and digital

pedagogy and expertise

Ethical guidelines on AI for educators

Tackling disinformation and promoting

digital literacy through education and

training

Digital Competence Framework update

European Digital Skills Certificate

Improving the provision of digital skills

in education and training

Connected Europe Facility 2

RRF

InvestEU

ERDF

ESIF

Erasmus+

Horizon Europe

Erasmus+

ESIF

Erasmus+

394

As for instance, the Digital Education Hackathon piloted during the 2018 Action Plan.

Including existing online tools and platforms (e.g. eTwinning, School Education gateway, EPALE , or Erasmus+ Virtual

Exchange ), which bring together educational stakeholders to exchange best practice.

396

All consulted stakeholders, including those who participated in the public consultation, called for reinforced cooperation at EU

level as a way to support efforts promoting a sustainable approach to digital education in the long term. For instance, experts

involved in the researchers’ participatory workshop, organised in the framework of the public consultation, called for the setup

a facility focusing on peer-learning and networking, so that dispersed stakeholders and communities could be brought together,

and the analysis of existing policies and practices could be shared in a more systematic way. See Annex 2.

397

Former Structural Reform Support Programmes - COM(2020) 409 final.

395

Digital competence benchmark

Digital Opportunity Traineeship

Women’s participation in STEM

Erasmus+

COSME

Horizon Europe (EIT, KIC)

Table 3: Funding programmes supporting the implementation of the renewed Action Plan

The future Erasmus+ programme should play an essential role in supporting efforts towards a

more resilient, green and digital Europe. Its impact will be measured against its capacity to

address major policy priorities in the field, including those set by the new EU framework for

digital education. To this end,

all key actions of the future Erasmus+ programme

will offer

more targeted support to the implementation of the renewed Digital Education Action Plan.

Erasmus+ has been instrumental for the implementation of the 2018 Action Plan by making

digital education and competence development a more prominent feature of the projects

funded

398

. However, considering the short and longer-term implications of the COVID-19 crisis

and the need for Europe to be a leader in digital transformation, Erasmus+ support to mainstream

digital education practices and boost digital competences should be be reinforced to better

support education and training institutions and local/national ecosystems across all sectors of

education and training. This should be done in close synergy with other EU funding programmes.

For instance, the

Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)

allows Member States to fund and

commit to important investments and reforms, such as to make education and training buildings

and infrastructure digital and green, provide devices or digital and open educational resources,

help institutions provide digital and online learning, train education and training staff, or to

update and reform curricula, regulations and the structure of education and training systems.

Citizens’ engagement

will be ensured by reinforced efforts to communicate the policy objectives

and funding opportunities of the renewed Action Plan. This will be done, among others, through

communication factsheets providing information on each action and by publishing detailed

information on the renewed Action Plan and related opportunities on Commission websites and

social media channels.

The Commission will also organise a biennial outreach event,

a stakeholder forum,

with the aim

of increasing participation

–

and creating a sense of ownership

–

by a wide range of stakeholders.

By bringing together Member States, EU institutions, and education stakeholders (including

teacher and parent organisations, local authorities, civil society groups, and businesses

–

including companies committed to the digital education agenda) the event will further promote

exchange of best practice and discussions on emerging challenges and opportunities thus raising

the visibility of digital education and the renewed Digital Education Action Plan.

Stronger international outreach

to partner countries will underpin the renewed Action Plan.

Exchanges with other international organisations and fora, including OECD, UNESCO, G7, G20

and the ASEM education process will be intensified to address prominent issues related to

digitalisation in education and training. This will allow for exchange, peer-learning and joint

initiatives. The EU framework for digital education and the examples of innovative and good

practice in Europe will serve to promote stronger cooperation in a global context, and specifically

with priority regions for the EU, including Western Balkans, Africa, East and South neighbouring

countries. The renewed Action Plan will support the implementation of education and youth

cooperation strategies, developed in the context of regional and bilateral cooperation frameworks

398

See section ‘2.1 Impact of the 2018 Action Plan’ for further details.

and policy dialogues. The aim will be to support these regions in their effort to enhance the

competitiveness of their ICT sectors, while promoting the development of digital competence

both in formal and non-formal education settings together with teacher professional development,

youth employability and entrepreneurship. This will be achieved mainly by expanding the use of

specific actions, tools and frameworks on digital competence that have proved to be successful in

the EU context

399

The monitoring and evaluation

of the Action Plan will take place in the context of the European

Education Area enabling framework. To ensure transparency and accountability, Key

Performance Indicators (KPIs) will be developed for each action to help monitor and assess

progress. A more general set of KPIs will be proposed to measure overall impact of the renewed

Digital Education Action Plan. The European Commission will undertake a comprehensive

review in 2024 in order to assess outreach and impact of the Action Plan and propose adjustments

or additional measures where needed.

Effective implementation, active engagement of stakeholders, and efficient monitoring and

evaluation will be key to address the challenges of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and to support

the longer-term transition of education and training systems to the digital age. This is a unique

opportunity to learn from the past, step up efforts and be more efficient in our response to future

challenges. Collaboration across sectors and strategic and concerted action at EU, national,

regional and local level are key to making high quality, inclusive digital education a reality for

all.

399

The list, not exhaustive, includes initiatives such as eTwinning, EU Code Week, SELFIE, HEInnovate, Digital Education

Hackathon, and the different European Frameworks on Digital Competence (see Annex 3 for further details).

NNEX

1: P

ROCEDURAL

NFORMATION

The Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 is a collegial work led by Directorate-General for

Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC) with the contribution of six other Directorates-

General (CNECT, EMPL, GROW, JRC, REGIO, RTD), and of the European Institute of

Innovation and Technology (EIT) and its Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs).

This Annex presents the procedural information concerning the preparation of the

Communication and the supporting staff working document on the renewed Digital Education

Action Plan:

Leading Directorate General:

DG EAC

Work Programme/Decide references:

In the Communication ‘A Union that strives for more’

presenting the Commission Work Programme for 2020 (COM(2020) 37 final), the update of the

Digital Education Action Plan is presented as a non-legislative initiative foreseen in Q2 2020

under the headline ‘A Europe fit for the digital age’. Following the COVID-19

crisis, the

Communication ‘Europe's moment: Repair and Prepare for the Next Generation’

(COM/2020/456 final) announced the adoption of the update of the Digital Education Action

Plan in the context of the Recovery Plan, scheduled for Q3 2020 in the adjusted Commission

Work Programme for 2020 (COM(2020) 440 final). The Decide Planning reference is

PLAN/2019/6206.

Organisation and timing:

The preparation of the initiative started in January 2020 with the setup

of a cross-DG project team within DG EAC. Considering digital education as a cross-cutting

issue, the project team saw the participation of relevant Directorates in DG EAC.

The inter-service group accompanying the initiative was led by the Secretariat General (SG) and

included representatives of the following 10 DGs: CLIMA, CNECT, ECFIN, EMPL, GROW,

HOME, JRC, JUST, REGIO, RTD

400

Three inter-service meetings took place chaired by SG:



The first one, on 25 February 2020, had the objective to present and discuss the vision and

objectives of the new Digital Education Action Plan on the basis of the lessons learned

from the first edition, the political guidance and priorities of the new Commission, and

taking into consideration developments in the area over the last two years. Eight different

DGs participated in the meeting. Following the meeting, DGs were invited to provide

their contributions by 9 March 2020. In response, 27 proposals for actions were received:

10 from EAC, 9 from CNECT, 2 from EMPL, 2 from GROW, 2 from JRC, 2 from RTD.

The second inter-service meeting took place on 30 March 2020 with the objective to

discuss in detail the overall vision and scope of the new Digital Education Action Plan,

present a tentative list of actions to be included and the main points to be addressed in the

Communication. Prior to the meeting, a scoping paper was disseminated to the services,

framing the discussion. The meeting was attend by ten DGs. The inter-service group

agreed on the need to adapt the objectives of the initiative to the challenges posed by the

COVID-19 crisis to education and training systems. Following the meeting, DGs were

invited to send written comments by 1 April 2020. Specific comments on the scoping

paper were received from five DGs: CNECT, EMPL, HOME, JUST, RTD.



400

DG REFORM and Legal Services (SJ) were invited to the first meeting of the inter-service group but they did not attend.



The third inter-service meeting took place on 22 April 2020 with the objective to discuss

the draft Communication text. Nine DGs participated in the meeting. The inter-service

group welcomed the draft Communication and especially its quick adaptation to the

COVID-19 implications. Following the meeting, DGs were invited to send written

comments on the Communication text by 24 April 2020. Contributions were received

from eight DGs (CNECT, GROW, EMPL, HOME, JRC, JUST, NEAR, RTD ).

Following the Communication

‘Europe's moment: Repair and Prepare for the Next Generation’

(COM/2020/456 final) and the adjusted Commission Work Programme for 2020 (COM(2020)

440 final), the Communication and the supporting staff working document on the renewed Digital

Education Action Plan were revised to better address the COVID-19 crisis and related disruptions

in education and training. This was done, among others, on the basis of a Open Public

Consultation (18 June 2020- 4 September 2020) targeting parents and carers, employers and

companies, students and citizens, besides stakeholders from education and training (see Annex 2

for further details).

The final draft of the Communication and its supporting staff working document were scrutinised

in a fast-track inter-service consultation, which took place from 9 until 14 September 2020.

Positive opinion was given by all services, with written comments from 18 DGs (BUDG,

CLIMA, CNECT, DEVCO, ECFIN, EMPL, ENV, ESTAT, GROW, HOME, JRC, JUST, NEAR,

REFORM, REGIO, SANTE, SG, SJ). Positive opinion without written comments was given by

COMP.

The fourth and last inter-service meeting took place on 14 September 2020 with the objective to

discuss the final text of the Communication and related staff working document and mark the end

of the inter-service consultation. The meeting was chaired by SG and 14 DGs participated in the

meeting (CLIMA, CNECT, COMP, ECFIN, EMPL, GROW, HOME, JRC, JUST, NEAR,

REFORM, REGIO, SANTE, SJ). The received feedback was positive, with a number of

comments from services. Those comments included the need to reinforce the link between the

renewed Digital Education Action Plan and other relevant existing EU policy initiatives and

funding mechanisms (CNECT, EMPL, REFORM, REGIO, ECFIN), to underline the lifelong

learning aspect of digital learning (EMPL) and make a stronger reference to inclusion,

accessibility and existing socio-economic inequalities (HOME, JUST, SG).

All comments during the meeting were addressed through a protocol, which kept track of DG’s

comments per sections of the draft Communication and staff working document.

Evidence, sources and quality

Evidence presented in this staff working document covered:



Research reports, policy documents and academic literature published in the last two

years, since the adoption of the 2018 Digital Education Action Plan.

Specific data from DESI, EURYDICE, EUROSTAT, ICILS, PIAAC, PISA, TALIS.

Key messages of the ET2020 Working Group on Digital Education: teaching, learning

and assessment.

Recent articles, opinion posts, guidelines, official documents and national research on the

lessons learnt and likely impact of the COVID-19 crisis on education and training. Those

were identified and discussed, among others, through a participatory workshop, gathering

researchers from different Member States.



Input received in the stakeholder consultations run in preparation of the initiative,

including an open public consultation, targeted meetings and workshops, input papers and

bilateral meetings with stakeholders and organisations with a stake in the domain.

The staff working socument has been written in close cooperation with the

Unit B4 (Human

Capital and Employment) of the Joint Research Center,

which provided ad hoc contributions

with analysis and evidence on the several topics, including, among others, the use of online

learning and MOOCs; the impact of digital technologies on learning outcomes; the use of self-

reflection tools for organisational change; digital competence frameworks. Unit B4 of the Joint

Research Center supported the quantitative analysis of the open public consultation and the

organisation of one of its outreach events, targeting the research and innovation community.

A detailed description of the stakeholder consultation activities is provided in Annex 2. Literature

and main sources are described in Annex 5.

NNEX

2: S

TAKEHOLDER

ONSULTATION

YNOPSIS

EPORT

This synopsis report describes all stakeholder consultation activities conducted in preparation of

the Digital Education Action Plan (2021-2027),

which allowed collecting stakeholders’ views on:



The 2018 Digital Education Action Plan and its implementation;

The COVID-19 crisis and its implications for digital education;

Areas to be addressed in the renewed Action Plan.

1. Consultation activities, context and consultation methodology

The consultations of the new Digital Education Action Plan included two main strands:



Targeted stakeholder consultations (February-September 2020);

Open public consultation and accompanying activities (Roadmap feedback, live chat and

OPC closing event) (June-September 2020).

Table 1 provides an overview of the stakeholder groups, the respective format and the number of

participants in each consultation activity.

Table 1: Overview of the consultation activities and groups

Stakeholders

Members of ET2020 WG DELTA:

Ministries of Education from EU

Member States, EFTA countries,

candidate countries and education

organisations.

Format

Webinar

Online

workshop

Time period

21 February

202024 March

2020

Number of

participants

Webinar: 28

participants (13

Member States, 1

Member of EFTA, 6

organisations)

401

Online workshop: 30

participants (14

Member States, 2

EFTA countries, 2

candidate countries, 6

organisations)

402

Education and youth attaché(e)s

from Member States and EFTA

countries

International and pan-European

umbrella organisations

Online

workshop and

follow-up

Online

questionnaire

Online

401

Targeted consultation activities

13 March 2020

24 representatives (14

EU Member States, 1

EFTA country and

EFTA secretariat)

403

Questionnaire: 41

valid responses

404

Online workshop: 40

2 February

2020

3 March 2020

BG, BE-FR, DE, DK, ES, FR, HR, HU, LT, MT, NL, PT, RO, NO, All Digital, European Distance and E-learning Network

(EDEN), European Training Foundation (ETF), European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL), European Trade Union

Committee for Education (ETUCE), European Federation of Education Employers (EFEE).

402

AT, BE-FR, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, LU, LT, NL, RO, SI, NO, CH, RS, TU, Council of Europe, EDEN, The Lifelong-

Learning Platform, ECDL, ETUCE, EFEE.

403

BG, BE, CY, DE, DK, ET, FI, FR, LU, LV, NL, SE, SK, SI, NO, EFTA. Written contributions/Non-papers: BG; CY; DE, FI,

FR, NL, SI, SK, NO.

404

The majority of the respondents came from civil society, non-governmental organisations and the voluntary sector (41%),

followed by education and training institutions

(10%) and employers’ associations (7%). Youth and youth work organisations,

trade unions and public authorities were represented to a lesser extent (5% each). A large share of the respondents identified

themselves as ‘other’ (24%), nevertheless, when asked

to clarify, they declared to be mostly civil society/NGOs or representing

specific groups in education (students’ associations, departments of informatics, etc.).

workshop

participants from 35

organisations

Submitted input

papers: 18 from 16

organisations.

eTwinning National Support

Services in Member States

General public in personal capacity

through social media

Online

questionnaire

Social media

survey using

Twitter,

Facebook and

Instagram

accounts of

the European

Commission

(Erasmus+,

European

Youth and

European

Digital

Education)

Video

conference

25 February -

13 March 2020

27 February-

30 March 2020

5 replies

405

555 replies

406

Members of the European

Parliament (Committee on Culture

and Education, and Committee on

Industry, Research and Energy)

The European Institute of

Innovation and Technology (EIT)

and its community

31 March 2020

10 Members of the

European Parliament

(MEPs), coming from

5 Member States and

5 political groups

407

The EIT and the 8

thematic Knowledge

and Innovation

Communities

(KICs)

409

17 organisations

Video

conference

408

3 April 2020

Non-governmental organisations in

the area of employment, social

affairs and inclusion

Members of the Committee of the

Regions (Social Policy, Education,

Strategic

dialogue video

conference

Video

conference

8 July 2020

16 July 2020

10 Members, coming

from 8 Member States

405

406

HR, CY, LT, LV and SI.

From 62 countries globally, 71% coming from the EU. The majority of the respondents were students (29.6%), teachers

(19.1%) and higher education staff (13.5%), followed by researchers (7.4%), youth workers (6.8%), experts in the field of

educational technology (6.3%), volunteers (3%), parents (2%), private sector representatives (3.8%) and 8.5% identified as

‘other’.

407

The list of Members of the European Parliament: Sabine VERHEYEN (DE/EPP), Dace MELBARDE (LV/ECR), Lina

GALVEZ MUNOZ (ES/S&D), Michaela ŠOJDROVA (CZ/EPP), Petra KAMMEREVERT (DE/S&D), Laurence FARRENG

(FR/Renew), Salima YENBOU (FR/Greens), Ilana CICUREL (FR/Renew), Niklas NIENASS (DE/Greens), Iban GARCIA DEL

BLANCO (ES/S&D).

408

The EIT and the KICs were also among the 72 organisations invited to fill in the online questionnaire for umbrella

organisations and attend the follow-up workshop.

409

EIT Climate KIC, EIT Digital, EIT Food, EIT Health, EIT InnoEnergy, EIT Manufacturing, EIT Raw Materials, EIT Urban

Mobility.

Employment and Culture

Commission - SEDEC)

Secondary students and teachers

from Ørestad Gymnasium, upper

secondary school in Copenhagen,

Denmark

Researchers

Citizen

dialogue

17 August

2020

and 4 political

groups

410

c.45 secondary

students and teachers

Online

participatory

workshop

Video

conference

25 August

2020

7 September

17 researchers

Teachers, headmasters and

students

411

12 representatives of

the teachers, school

leaders and students

communities

16 representatives of

the higher education

community

Higher Education Institutions

Rectors

412

, students and

representatives of the higher

education community

Individual organisations

Video

conference

21 September

Bilateral

meetings and

submission of

position

papers on ad-

hoc basis

Open public

consultation

(OPC)

February-

September

2020

21 organisations

(public and private

sector)

413

Wide public in personal or

organisational capacity

Open public consultation and

accompanying activities

18 June 2020-4

September

2020

2716 replies

136 written

contributions

Roadmap

feedback

17 June 2020-

15 July 2020

59 replies

Live chat

14 July 2020

c.35 questions

received via social

media

The list of Members of the Committee of the Regions: Anne KARJALAINEN (FI/PES), Matteo Luigi BIANCHI (IT/ECR),

Jacint HORVATH (HU/PES), Csaba BORBOLY (RO/EPP), Kieran MCCARTHY (IE/EA), Yoomi RENSTRÖM (SE/PES),

Markku MARKKULA (FI/EPP), Emil BOC (RO/EPP), Mikel Irujo AMEZAGA (ES/EA), Jan TREI (EE/EPP).

411

The consultation sought feedback jointly on European Education Area and the new Digital Education Action Plan was led by

the Vice-President for our European Way of Life, Margaritis Schinas.

412

The consultation sought feedback jointly on European Education Area and the new Digital Education Action Plan Plan was led

by the Vice-President for our European Way of Life, Margaritis Schinas.

413

Eurofound, Coursera, Class Central, EdX, Reaktor, Google, Federica Web learning, Informatics for all, Digital Europe,

Council of European Professional Informatics Societies (CEPIS), Federation of European Publishers, Hochschulforum

Digitalisierung, European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD), Lifelong learning Platform, Wiley Education

Services, Berkman Klein Centre, Harvard, German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), AI Campus, iMOOX, SURF, France

Université Numérique.

410

OPC closing

event

9 September

20 participants from

different

backgrounds

414

, and

c.20 questions from

social media

1.1. Targeted stakeholder consultations

As a first step of the targeted stakeholder consultations, a stakeholder mapping was conducted to

identify the different groups with a stake in the discussion of digital education, taking into

account geographical and sectorial coverage. The final list of consulted groups included:



Members of the ET2020 Working group on digital education (ET2020 WG DELTA);



Education and youth attaché(e)s of Member States and EFTA countries;



International and pan-European umbrella organisations;



eTwinning National Support Services (NSS);



Members of the European Parliament;



Members of the Committee of the Regions;



Researchers working on the implication of the COVID-19 crisis on education;



The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) and its community;



Non-governmental organisations working in the area of employment, social affairs and

inclusion;



The general public in personal capacity through social media;



Secondary students and teachers at a schools in Copenhagen, Denmark (citizen dialogue);



Teachers, head masters and students;



Higher education rectors.

Online questionnaires hosted on EUSurvey

415

, video conferences and participatory workshops

were the main consultation methods used. Meetings scheduled until the end of March were

originally planned to take place face-to-face, but were later moved online due to the COVID-19

pandemic and related social distancing guideline. All following meetings were online, with the

exception of the citizen dialogue with students and teachers in Copenhagen, which took place in

the school premises, fully respecting national COVID-19 guidelines.

The targeted consultations activities took place in English, with the exception of the citizen

dialogue in Copenhagen, which was in Danish. The consultations covered similar topics

416

collecting feedback on the 2018 Action Plan (relevance of the policy, extent of addressing

different groups’ needs, funding and communication opportunities), assessing the relevance of

the three priority areas of the 2018 Action Plan and aspects that needed to be covered under each

of them.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the meetings in March were readjusted to also include questions

on the implications of the crisis for education and training systems and how the European

Commission could address these in the renewed Action Plan. This was possible for discussions

with the attaché(e)s, ET2020 WG DELTA and umbrella organisations, but not for the online

questionnaires, as the respective surveys had been already launched or closed by the time the

414

Members of the European Parliament, Members of the Committee of the Regions, The German Presidency of the EU,

stakeholder organisations representing learners, educators, education and training institutions, parents, advocated for digital

education and private sector.

415

EU Survey:

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/

416

Adjustments were made to address the specificities of each group, for example, some aspects of the social media survey were

simplified or shortened to be better fit for purpose.

pandemic reached Europe. All meetings after April included stronger focus on the COVID-19

crisis and asked for reflection on the experiences during the lockdown and how the renewed

Action Plan can support digital education in Europe in the long term. The

researchers’

participatory workshop specifically focused on evidence on the lessons learnt and the likely

impact of COVID-19

on education and training, besides gathering experts’ feedback on the

Roadmap of the new Digital Education Action Plan.

Quantitative and qualitative methods were deployed to analyse the collected information. In the

questionnaires, where the results were analysed quantitatively, data was anonymised and, where

relevant, disaggregated to consider characteristics such as organisation type, level of education,

or respondents’ background. The written contributions and the meetings’ discussions were

analysed in a qualitative way.

1.2. Open public consultation and accompanying activities

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the increased relevance of digital education across sectors

and levels of education and more widely for the society, the Commission launched an

Open

Public Consultation (OPC).

Its goal was to ensure that the new Action Plan draws lessons from

experiences during COVID-19 crisis and supports education and training through the long-term

digital transformation

The OPC was published on the Have your say portal

417

and it was open between 18 June and 4

September. It was open to all citizens and organisations interested to share their view on the

topic. In particular, it sought the views of learners

418

, educators, education and training staff,

parents/carers/family members of learners, representatives of education and training institutions,

along with governmental and non-governmental organisations, representatives from the public

sector and industry and others. In order to grasp the variety of experiences of the respondents, the

questionnaire was adapted to the characteristics to the different profiles, while inquiring about the

same topics.

The OPC was available in 23 official languages

419

and included four sections, reflecting largely

the COVID-19 crisis and its implications for education and training:



Information on respondents’ background;

Questions on education and training experience during the COVID-19 crisis and

expectations for the recovery period;

Questions on the vision for digital education in Europe;

Submission of a position paper (optional).

Quantitative and qualitative methods, including the DORIS tool

420

, were deployed to analyse the

collected data. Quantitative questions were analysed using descriptive statistics reporting absolute

frequencies or percentages. In cases where respondents could select more than one option, in such

cases (as opposed to those with only one answer option) percentages do not add up to 100%. In

cases where, a 5-point Likert scale was applied, answers are therefore distributed on five different

categories (2 negative, 2 positive and 1 neutral). It is important to note that the data represents the

417

Have your Say page on the renewed Action Plan:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-

say/initiatives/12453-Digital-Education-Action-Plan

418

Individuals under 18 years of age were asked not to respond to the consultation themselves, but to refer to a parent/carer/adult

family member to respond and reflect their experience.

419

As of 9 July, the consultation was available in the following languages: BG, CS, DA, DE, EE, EL, EN, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT,

LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SI, SE.

420

DORIS (Data Oriented Services) is a European Commission-tool created to analyse the qualitative data of public consultations

by providing data analytics services. The tool features a Sentiment box which divides the responses into ‘positive’, ‘neutral’ and

‘negative’ sentiment with 81% accuracy. It also identifies key words, based on frequency.

views of those that responded. The respondents are self-selecting and are not a statistical sample

of the EU population. The detailed analysis

of the OPC can be found on the ‘Have your say’ page

of the Digital Education Action Plan

421

The OPC registered 2,716 replies, with 136 input papers submitted in addition to the

questionnaire or separately. Respondents came from 60 countries, with the top 10 countries being

Romania (58.03%), Portugal (9.61%), Spain (4.82%), Belgium (4.16%), Italy (3.98%), Germany

(3.65%), Bulgaria (2.03%), the Netherlands (1.33%), France (1.51%) and Greece (0.96%).

When accounting for categories and subcategories, representation varies widely, showing good

coverage of the different respondents groups across different countries. In particular, the top 8

countries replying on behalf of an organisation were Romania (17.31%), Belgium (14.42),

Portugal (13.22%), Germany (9.86%), Spain (6.49%), Italy (5.05%), Netherlands (4.57%) and

Bulgaria (3.61%). When it came to respondents in personal capacity, the most represented

countries were Romania (65.39%), Portugal (8.96%), Spain (4.52%), Italy (3.78%), Germany

(2.52%), Belgium (2.30%), Bulgaria (1.74%) and France (1.22%). Further details are presented in

Table 2.

In total, 84.68 % of respondents replied in personal capacity, while 15.32 % on behalf of an

institution. Among those in personal capacity, the majority were parents/carers/family of learners

(44.4%), followed by educators (38.1%), learners (6.7%) education and training staff (5.8%),

researchers (2%) and employers (0.7%). Among those in organisational capacity, the most

numerous group were education and training institutions (44.4%), society/NGOs

(17.6%), providers of digital tools (5.8%), trade unions (5.6%), international/national or regional

public authorities (5.3%), academic organisations (5.1%), followed by employers’ associations

(4.3%), private sector (2.7), organisations representing providers of digital tools (2.2%) and

youth and youth organisations (1.9%).

There was a good representation

422

of the different sectors of education, reflecting all levels of

education- from early childhood education and care to adult education and non-formal. Most of

them represented secondary education (37.5%), followed by primary (27%), higher education

(23.2%) and vocational education and training (15.3%). The least represented sector was the non-

formal one (8.6%).

Table 2: Details on respondents of the open public consultation - Top 5 country distribution

Respondents in organisational

capacity

Education and training

institutions

Civil society/NGO’s

Providers of digital

tools for teaching and

learning/organisations

representing providers

Academic research

organisation

(31.52%)

(42.47%)

(15.15%)

(19.05%)

(27.72%)

(12.33%),

(15.15%)

(14.92%)

(5.98%),

(8.22%)

(12.12%)

(14.29%)

(5.43%)

(5.48%),

(12.12%)

(9.52%),

(5.43%);

(4.11%)

FR; DE

(9.09%)

(9.52%)

421

422

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12453-Digital-Education-Action-Plan.

On the basis of the following target groups: educators, education and training staff, educational and training institutions

representatives, but also private sector, public authorities and others who indicated education and training was their main area of

activity).

Private

sector/employers

association/trade

unions

Public authorities

(local, regional,

national, international)

Respondents in personal capacity

Learners

Parents/carers/family

of learner/s

Educators

Education and training

staff

Researchers

(25.85%)

(16.67%)

(64.47%)

(85.9%)

(52.63%)

(25.56%)

(21.74%)

(17.31%)

(8.33%)

(5.92%)

(2.27%)

(20.6%)

(15.04%)

(13.04%)

(15.38%)

(8.33%)

(5.92%)

(2.37%)

(5.52%)

(15.04%)

(10.87%)

(5.77%)

(8.33%)

(4.61%)

(1.97%)

(3.22%)

(7.52%)

(8.7%)

(5.77%)

(8.33%)

(3.29%)

(1.18%)

(2.07%)

BE; PT

(6.77%)

CY; ES

(6.52%)

Source: Open public consultation on the new Digital Education Action Plan (2020)

The Romanian overrepresentation in specific subcategories is likely to be a result of significant

media coverage of the OPC on national television and radio, reinforced efforts from the Ministry

of Education and strong promotion on social media. In order to achieve a more geographically

balanced response, the Commission reinforced the communication campaign on the OPC in the

other Member States, mainly through its Representations, social media channels and other

relevant networks. This led a better coverage across the Union; nevertheless Romania remained

the country of origin of most respondents. Still, within the different respondents groups there is a

good representation of other countries, as visible in Table 2.

To observe differences in the replies and verify whether the results are overly driven by

Romanian respondents, two analyses were conducted for all questions: one including all results

(2,716 observations in total-sample

‘All countries’) and the other tackling the group without the

respondents from Romania (1,140 observations in total-

sample ‘Without RO’). To report

transparently the findings, in all instances where a similar trend between the two samples was

observed, the percentage included in the text refers to the sample ‘All countries’.

In cases where

the trend in Romanian respondents is significantly different from the overall trend, a more limited

sample without Romania is included in the text, and the differences are explained in a

corresponding footnote

423

Additionally, the

Roadmap

of the renewed Action Plan, outlining the main aims of the initiative,

was published for four weeks on the Have your say portal for the feedback of citizens and

organisations. The Roadmap was available in English and submission of feedback was open in all

EU official languages. In total, 59 responses from 14 countries were received - 32 from

organisations and 27 by individuals

424

. The Roadmap attracted responses from various

backgrounds NGOs working on digital skills and education, informatics societies, trade unions,

423

The OPC analysis observed a generally more negative trend in the level of satisfaction about the experience of online teaching

and learning during the COVID-19

crisis, in the sample ‘All countries’ in comparison to the sample “Without RO”.

424

Anonymously and non-anonymously.

higher education institutions, local public authorities, representatives of the private sector. The

analysis was done in a qualitative way, identifying key trends and patterns.

As part of the outreach of the OPC, the Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture,

Education and Youth, Mariya Gabriel hosted an online

live chat,

addressing questions on the

renewed Action Plan from citizens. The OPC closing was marked by a

high-level online event,

hosted by the Executive Vice-President for a Europe fit for the Digital Age, Margarethe Vestager,

which brought around 20 stakeholders, including representatives of the European Parliament, the

Committee of the Regions and the German Presidency of the EU, for a discussion and collected

questions and reflections online.

All conclusions from the stakeholder consultations are reflected in the summary below.

2. Summary of the consultation results

2.1. Overall relevance of the 2018 Action Plan and the new Action Plan

The consulted groups unanimously welcomed the idea of a new Action Plan and recognised it as

particularly timely, especially in the context of COVID-19 related disruptions for the education

and training systems and the increased use of digital tools

The relevance of the 2018 Action Plan to the needs of stakeholders remained high and a few

Member States in the meeting with attaché(e)s stated that it was particularly adequate to their

national context and inspired national initiatives (BE-FR, BG, FR). On the other hand, some

Ministries (NL, DE) pointed out that the 2018 Action Plan had a limited impact at national level,

attributed to low visibility or the short implementation period (FI). The majority (86%) of the

consulted international and pan-European organisations indicated that the 2018 Action Plan

addressed their needs either ‘fully’ or ‘to a certain extent’ (20% and 66% respectively). The

relevance of the Action Plan was highly recognised by stakeholders representing school

education (headmasters, school networks and learners) - 57% indicated that the 2018 Action Plan

completely addressed their needs, while 42% stated that to a certain extent. On the opposite end,

the groups that did not find the 2018 Action Plan relevant to their needs, not surprisingly, came

from youth, the non-formal

learning sector and publishers’ associations, underlining that their

respective areas of operation were not within the scope of the first Action Plan.

Similarly, during the OPC closing event, the MEPs, Committee of the Regions and the DE

Presidency placed an emphasis on the timeliness of the renewed Action Plan, especially in the

context of COVID-19 and the need to support the adaptation and resilience of education and

training to the digital transformation in times of crisis and in the longer term. The provided

feedback on the Roadmap was also highly positive regarding of the need to renew the Action

Plan and the relevance of the proposed way ahead, in particular in view of addressing the crisis

and the increased need to boost digital education across the EU in a comprehensive way.

2.2. Scope of the new Action Plan

Extending the scope of the Action Plan beyond formal education to

non-formal, informal and

lifelong learning

was strongly requested by all consulted groups in the targeted stakeholder

activities, as well as in the open public consultation (submitted papers as part of the OPC, live

chat and closing event).

In particular, some Member States (NL, BG, FI, SI, DE, CZ) considered the scope of the 2018

Action Plan as a main limitation that should be addressed by

expanding towards non-formal and

youth sectors

and covering digital education in a lifelong learning perspective. Supporting these

views, SK pointed out the need to reinforce efforts to promote digital competence upskilling and

reskilling of the labour force. In the umbrella organisations’ questionnaire, 75% of the

respondents recognised the need to go beyond formal education. Position papers submitted by

business, NGOs working on life-long learning and adult education also asked for expanded

scope, reflecting the concept of learning through life. Additionally, organisations in the OPC

closing event, but also in the Strategic dialogue, emphasised that the new Action Plan should

adopt

a more inclusive approach,

being particularly sensitive to supporting disadvantaged

groups and such with disabilities or special educational needs. The EIT Community indicated that

an expanded scope would be an opportunity to promote continuous professional development.

Member States and MEPs, along with stakeholders working in the field of digital education also

welcomed extending the scope and strongly called for a

lifelong learning approach, including

adults and parents,

as specific groups directly affected by COVID-19 and the switch to distance

learning and working.

When it comes to extending the scope to

youth and youth workers

specifically, the youth and

your work community vocalised strongly this need, as a way to further promote inclusion and

better address the specific needs of the field. Organisations representing the sector and 57% of the

youth workers in the social media survey called on the Commission to promote digital

competences and skills in the youth sector, an argument reiterated in the Strategic dialogue.

Vocational education and training

is a sector already supported in the 2018 Action Plan, but

some Member States (DE, NL) and stakeholder organisations from the field, as well as from

industry, underlined that the support in this sector should be strengthened.

Lastly, the topics of the

three priorities of the 2018 Action Plan

remained relevant for the

consulted stakeholders from different backgrounds. In particular, in the questionnaire, umbrella

organisations strongly highlighted the relevance of the areas, pointing to developing digital

competences and skills as the most relevant one, followed very closely by making better use of

digital technologies for teaching and learning (seen as very or quite relevant by 95% and 93% of

the respondents respectively). The third priority- harnessing data and foresight- was still seen as

relevant but to a lesser extent, having been seen as very or quite relevant by 88% of the

respondents.

2.3. Lessons from the COVID-19 crisis and implications for education and training

The COVID-19 crisis gave the new Digital Education Action Plan a sharper focus, where certain

issues such as the digital readiness of education and training institutions, teachers’ digital

competences and the design and implementation of online learning, the creation of a digital

education ecosystem were increasingly identified as pressing to be tackled at European level.

The results of the OPC contributed to contextualising the extent of digital technologies use for

education and training during the crisis. The majority (66.6%) of consulted groups

425

reported

that the

use of distance and online learning had increased during the crisis

(Figure 1). This

trend was observed for all levels of education and training and was most prominent for early

childhood education and care and primary and secondary education. It was also seen in terms of

online learning ‘in real time’,

which increased from 10.8% to 87.3%,

and ‘in own time’

426

- from

31.3% to 76.9%. A large proportion of the respondents having reported no prior use of distance

and online learning before the crisis did so during (56.9%). Additionally, the vast majority of the

respondents indicated they would continue using distance and online learning after the crisis

period (31% reported ‘yes’ and 40.8% to a ‘certain extent’), a view especially common view

425

The question was asked to educators, education and training staff, representatives of education and training institutions and

public authorities.

426

Online learning in own time refers to watching videos of recorded lectures, consulting online learning materials and Massive

Open Online Courses and others.

among education and training staff (48.9%). The citizen dialogue with students and teachers in

Copenhagen identified a greatly positive view of the students admitting to have had a more

personalised dialogue with their teachers during online learning. The private sector and providers

of digital education tools reconfirmed the increase in the use of their services for teaching and

learning during the crisis- 40% shared a significant increase, while 46.7% - such to a certain

extent.

Figure 1: Use of distance and online learning before, during and after the COVID-19 crisis

Source: Open public consultation on the new Digital Education Action Plan (2020)

When it came to the success of the measures to ensure continuity of education and training during

the crisis, most respondents identified the measures taken in their community as

predominantly

successful

(59.4%).

427

Education and training staff, educators, and representatives of education

and training institutions were the most satisfied with the measures taken to ensure the continuity

of education during the COVID-19 crisis (83.5%, 73.6%, and 83.7%). Learners and especially

parents appeared to be less positive about the success of the measures - 40.8% and 63.3% saw

them unsuccessful respectively. In the sample ‘Without RO’ the trends for parents were inversed

- 65.3% of saw the measures successful, in comparison to 34.7% who defined them as

unsuccessful. Representatives from the higher education sector showed highest level of

satisfaction

–

85.6%, compared to those from early childhood and care, which proved to be the

least satisfied - 69%.

The respondents in personal capacity had the opportunity to reflect on the experience of online

and distance learning during the crisis. They reported

most positive experience

with the

availability of digital equipment (64.6%), and the ability to connect to the internet (62.3%), while

the most negative experiences

were related to examination and assessment (41%) and motivation

to learn (48.1%)

428

Educators and education and training staff were those reporting the most

positive feedback

in relation to their experience- in line with the general trend, this was

particularly pronounced in view of the ability to connect to internet (67.3% and 84.2%), the

availability of digital equipment (65.6%, and 73.7%) and the interaction/communication with

learners (60.4% and 66.9%). On the other hand,

parents appeared to be the most dissatisfied

427

It should be noted that there was a significant difference between the two samples, even though the trend was the same- in the

sample ‘Without RO’, the satisfaction went to 83.5%. In general, there was an

overall more negative trend in the level of

satisfaction about the experience of online teaching and learning during the COVID-19

crisis in the sample ‘All countries’, in

comparison to ‘Without RO’.

428

The presented trends are for the sample ‘All countries’, in the sample ‘Without RO’, the trends are similar but overall more

positive- examination and feedback was seen as the most negative experience but still predominantly positive (only 24.6% saw it

as negative) and was followed by the motivation to learn ( seen as negative by 21% of the respondents).

group,

reporting low satisfaction with the motivation to learn of their children (66.6%),

examination/assessment and feedback (52.3%), quality of online learning content (49.1%),

interaction/communication with learners/peers and availability of online resources (46.2%

each).

429

. Similar trends were confirmed in the follow-up open question, where parents shared that

they were overwhelmed with the workload of supporting children’s education, especially those of

young age. Learners, predominantly positive group in the closed questions, shared that the lack of

face-to-face interaction led to difficulties to focus. Educators admitted having struggled to ensure

continuation of the education and training process due to the limited of digital readiness in their

institution, but also low infrastructure and digital equipment in the families of some learners.

The results of the question where the OPC respondents were asked to identify

what they needed

that was not available to them

during the crisis show certain discrepancies. As visible in Table 3

below, the needs of the different groups were diverse, reflecting the specificities of their

experience. Nevertheless, issues around

connectivity, digital equipment

were seen as particularly

problematic, especially by educators, education and training staff and representatives of

education and training institutions, while the two first groups indicated positive experience with

these during the crisis. Partially aligned with above, was seen the need for

better interaction and

guidance from educators, management or public authorities,

which was in top three of the

unsatisfied needs of most groups, along with guidance on how to adapt the learning material was

missing to educators. Guidance on

support for mental health

was particularly sought by learners,

parents and education and training staff.

Funding and financial support

would have been

appreciated by public authorities and education and training institutions, while the private sector

would have liked

more cooperation with public authorities and education and training

institutions.

Table 3: Top three unsatisfied needs during the COVID-19 crisis per respondent category

Target group

Learners

Most unsatisfied needs



Regular interaction and clear

instruction by educators

(53.3%).

Other unsatisfied needs



Educators



High-speed and stable

connection at home (38.4%).



Regular communication with other

learners (40.1%);

Regular and clear communication

from the management of the education

institution (35.5%)

Support for mental health (33.6%)

430

Training and guidance to adapt the

class material and the teaching

methodology to distance and online

learning (36.1%);

More regular clear communication,

guidance and support from public

authorities and lack of digital devices



The presented trends are for the sample ‘All countries’. In the sample ‘Without RO’, the responses were slightly more positive,

but with minor changes in the listing of most negative experiences. They ranked the following way: examination/assessment and

feedback (47.6%), interaction with teachers/management (43.5%), motivation to learn came third (41.5%), followed by interaction

and peer-learning with learners and availability of online learning resources (35.4% each) and quality of online learning content

(34.7%).

430

The presented trends are for the sample ‘All countries’. In the sample ‘Without RO’, regular interaction, clear instruction and

guidance from teachers/educators/trainers was again the most vastly supported need, regular communication with other learners,

such with the management of the education institution and support for mental health, which were seen as equally important

(40.7% each.)

429

suitable for distance and online

learning (34.3% each).

431

Education and

training staff



Lack of a high speed and stable

internet connection at home for

learners and teachers (44.4%).



More regular interaction,

instruction and guidance from

teachers/trainers/educators

(57.4%).



Lack of digital devices suitable

for distance and online learning

(58.2%).



Parents

Education and

training institutions



Private sector and

digital technology

providers

Public authorities



More cooperation with public

authorities during the COVID-19



crisis (47.7%)



Financial support to address the

immediate challenges of the

COVID-19 crisis (36.4%)



Lack of digital devices suitable for

distance and online learning (33.8%);

Financial support at national or

regional level (33.1%).

More regular and clear

communication, guidance and support

from the educational institutions of

their child(ren) (45.6%);

Easy to use platforms (32%)

432

High speed and stable internet

connection (49.5%);

Guidance how to support the mental

health and well-being of staff and

learners (38.6%).

More cooperation with education and

training institutions (31.8%);

Opportunities to scale existing

business (29.5%).

Easy to use platforms, digital devices

that can be used for online and

distance learning and high-speed and

stable internet connection (27.3%

each).

Source: Open public consultation on the new Digital Education Action Plan (2020)

The targeted stakeholder consultations were aligned with the findings above underlining that the

crisis served as an accelerator of existing inequalities and challenges, but also created new ones.

In these consultations, educators were often referenced to be in a

particularly vulnerable

position,

often having to find the best way to implement new ways of learning considering the

needs of their learners and without specific support and guidance. Additionally, educators

responding to the OPC shared in the open question fields that they felt

they had limited digital

competences and experience with digital tools prior to COVID-19.

Aligned with this, ET2020

WG DELTA and MEPs pointed out that the crisis showed very prominently the need

to further

support the digital competences of educators

to use digital learning. In addition, ET2020 WG

DELTA members highlighted the value of

practical guidelines

at European level for ministries

and education and training institutions on how to implement distance and online learning,

including how to address particularly challenging aspects such as assessment and adapting the

learning content to online environments. Organisations providing feedback on the Roadmap

requested this issue to be addressed in a

comprehensive and ambitious way,

learning from the

experience during the crisis.

The presented trends are for the limited sample ‘Without RO’. In the sample ‘All countries’, the most important unsatisfied

need were more regular clear communication, guidance and support from public authorities (53.3%)’, followed by

lack of high-

speed internet connection at home (36.1%) and equally the lack of training and guidance on how to adapt the class material and

the teaching methodology to distance and online learning (36.1%). They were then followed by the lack of digital devices suitable

for distance and online learning (34.3%).

432

This trend is for the sample ‘Without RO’. In the sample ‘All countries’,

the third most significant need was the guidance on

how to support the mental health and wellbeing of my child(ren)’, supported by 35.9% of the respondents. The first two needs

were the same for the two samples; therefore, the presented data above is for all countries.

431

Also, consulted MEPs and stakeholders in the OPC closing event raised their concerns that the

COVID-19 crisis would

deepen already existing inequalities and create new ones.

They

suggested leveraging EU funding programmes to support

infrastructure and access to digital

technologies

across Member States for both formal and non-formal settings. This resonated to

great extent with the OPC results in terms of unsatisfied needs, as most of the respondents groups

referred to disparities infrastructure and digital tools as needs that were not met during the crisis

(Table 3). The consulted members of the Committee of the Regions strongly referred to the need

for

digital cohesion

across regions, especially when it came to groups of lower socio-economic

background and remote areas. The respondents providing feedback to the Roadmap and

participants in the Strategic dialogue, also saw the crisis

deepening already existing inequalities

in terms of access to connectivity and equipment of disadvantaged groups and minorities, but also

the accessibility of groups with disabilities.

Linked to that, the discussions during the researchers’ workshop resonated with the trends from

the OPC- the participants shared that the crisis has prominently showed the

overall limited

capacity of the education and training institutions

to implement online and distance learning.

Such low readiness was visible at individual and organisational level and was particularly

prominent in terms of methodologies used, the quality of the infrastructure and the overall

planning. They shared the observation that institutions, which used a strategic plan and open

education policies,

were better prepared for the switch to online learning and performed in a

more efficient way.

The challenging times to social distancing also asked for reinforced effort in supporting

mental

health and well-being.

As visible in Table 3, this was a need identified by many parents, but also

education and training institutions saw it as unmet during the crisis times and asked for additional

support on how to address it. In the open questions, parents, especially from RO, expressed worry

that the crisis could negatively affect pupils’ mental well-being.

Closely related to that, the

participants in the researchers’ workshop pointed out the need to address

digital well-being

and

not overlook the psychological impact of the crisis, which should be a subject of further research.

Ministries, both in the workshops with the attaché(e)s and in the ET2020 WG DELTA, pointed

out the need to

map and research

how the crisis was addressed at national level and identify

strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches. Sharing the same view with stakeholders

representing digitalisation in higher education, Ministries called for a

space for exchange of

practices and communication,

which would provide guidance and support in times of crisis and

during the recovery period. In line with that, DE proposed the creation of a

dedicated entity at

European level,

which would help Member States to deal with the implications of the situation

and promote digital readiness of educations systems and institutions in the longer-term. Similar

views were observed in the researchers workshop, where some participants also put forward the

idea of

a European Observatory,

which would lead the research and adopt a future-oriented

approach towards digital education , focusing on peer-learning and networking, bringing

communities together and studying existing research and studies.

Lastly, referring to the results of the OPC,

the lack of precedency of the situation

and its impact

on digital education in the longer term was widely recognised and led to changes in the views

towards digital education. More than 90% respondents, with negligible differences between the

groups, agreed fully (67%) or to a certain extent (28%) with the statement that

the crisis will have

a long-term impact on the education and training.

In the open follow-up question, some

educators identified the crisis as an

opportunity to explore new approaches of teaching and

learning,

as well as positive experience with distance learning, which can lead to further

opportunities

for cooperation and establishing networks.

The private sector, including providers

of digital tools and technologies for education defined the situation as

a ‘point

of no return’,

where the initial resistance of the education and training community had been already overcome.

Nevertheless, not all saw the transformation as positive- aligned with the already identified trend

above, the sentiment distribution of the qualitative analysis indicated a more negative trend in the

responses of Romanian respondents- only 23% of the replies were positive, compared to 47.8%

for the other countries.

The experience during the crisis also

led to changes in the views towards digital education

of a

great group of the respondents (45.9%)

433

- education and training staff, educational and training

institutions, educators, respondents from the private sector and from public authorities all

significantly improved their view (74.4%, 67.4%, 57.1%, 63.6% and 72.2% respectively). In

comparison, fewer learners and parents improved their views

–

55.6% and 57.8% respectively.

434

As main advantages of digital education were seen flexibility, learning/teaching at own pace

(41.7%) and innovative and engaging ways of learning/teaching (37.1%) On the other hand, as

particularly significant drawbacks were seen the lack of face-to-face interaction and

communication (60.5%) and the need for connectivity equipment at home (46.1%).

2.4 Using digital technologies for teaching and learning

The need for actions in this area was widely supported by different consulted stakeholders, both

in the targeted stakeholder consultation, but also in the open public consultation. The importance

of addressing the issue also progressively increased during the consultations with the roll out of

the COVID-19 crisis.

Firstly, using digital technologies for better teaching and learning was recognised as the second

most important topical priority of the 2018 Action Plan by the umbrella organisations (see

section

2.2),

but it was also recognised as particularly pressing to address by Member States and MEPs in

the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the switch to online and distance learning. In

particular, FR even identified it as the most important area of action, which should be tackled

with priority in the renewed Action Plan.

Within this area of action, all groups in the targeted consultation considered

supporting

pedagogies for teaching and learning

and

the development of

educators’ digital competences,

as an essential area for action. More than half of the respondents in the stakeholder questionnaires

recognised these among their top five aspects in using technologies for better teaching and

learning, with particular strong support from teachers (70.8% and 71.7% respectively) and higher

education staff (56% and 64%) in the social media survey. The OPC respondents also strongly

identified the need for reinforced efforts in this area: endowment of educators and teachers with

relevant digital competences was seen as the

most important element for the provision of digital

education

(61.7%; Figure 2), while at the same time teacher training and guidance remained one

the greatest challenges for digital education.

The latter gained the support of by 41.5% of the

respondents

435

, especially by learners and parents (48% and 42.9%). Not unexpectedly, teacher

training and support also appeared to be the

aspect of digital education where the EU could add

value the most-

51.5% of the respondents identified it as leading area of support (Figure 3),

especially those representing education and training institutions (58.7%), learners (53.9%) and

education and training staff (57.9%). Educators also recognised it as an important point to be

addressed, but positioned it second (52.6%), after support for connectivity and infrastructure

(53%). MEPs and respondents giving feedback on the Roadmap strongly underlined that

improving educators’ digital competences is a prerequisite for efficient, successful and purposeful

433

434

This percentage went up to

67.2% in the sample ‘Without RO’.

The percentage presented is for the sample ‘Without RO’. In the sample ‘All countries’, the trends for

parents and learners

were much less positive and also reinverted- - 52.8% of the parents indicated that their view became more negative, in the sample

‘Without RO’ the rate went down to 22.4%. For learners the difference was equally significant-

42.1% and 14.8% respectively.

435

Positioned at third place among the challenges for digital education, preceded only by socio-economic inequalities (45.5%) and

insufficient infrastructure and internet at school/campus and outside (42.4%).

integration of digital technologies in the education process, asking for a stronger focus on this

topic in comparison to the 2018 Action Plan.

The support in the other stakeholder consultations was also prominent- the eTwinning NSS urged

for a reflection of using digital technologies in cases where they could support the teacher and

improve the education process. ET2020 WG DELTA members stressed the need to equip

educators more broadly with the skills and knowledge to design and implement digital and online

learning, a view supported

by students’ organisations in their position paper. The participants in

the researchers’ workshop asked for stronger focus on the pedagogical design competence,

including also assessment and evaluation. A unified European approach in teacher training on

digital competences, combined with reinforced funding in this direction, was seen as an enabler

for digital readiness in the longer term- an argument supported by MEPs and the Committee of

the Regions. Additionally, Ministries and MEPs highlighted this area as crucial in the context of

emerging technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence, entering the education process, while

students’ organisations proposed reinforced teacher training in digital literacy.

Figure 2: Essential elements of education and training institutions for the provision of

digital education (all target groups together)

436

Source: Open public consultation on the new Digital Education Action Plan (2020)

Promoting inclusion in access and use of digital technologies for teaching and learning

was

another topic that was of central relevance during the stakeholder consultations. It received a

wide support by all groups in the targeted consultation- the general public (41%), umbrella

organisations (39.2%), along with Member States and MEPs. FR pointed out that inclusion

should be a leading priority in the new Action Plan, especially in the context of

infrastructure

and connectivity divides

between urban and rural areas. The OPC results reinforced this message,

especially as respondents saw addressing

socioeconomic inequalities and insufficient

infrastructure as the two greatest challenges for digital education in Europe,

supported by the

vast majority (45.5% and 42.4% respectively), recognised strongly by education and training

institutions (58.2% and 53.3%) and educators (52.8% and 51.4%). Public authorities also saw

socio-economic inequalities as a top challenge (68.2%), but ranked infrastructure as a less

relevant challenge- 36.4%. Parents however recognised supporting inclusion as challenge of

second highest relevance (37.7%), right after teacher training and guidance (42.9%). It should be

noted that the issue of infrastructure was reported slightly more important than addressing socio-

436

Respondents could select all relevant.

economic inequalities by the respondents from the VET sector (55.1% and 54.4% respectively).

Similarly to teacher training, these trends corresponded to

where the EU could add value,

with

connectivity and infrastructure and inclusion being second and fourth most popular areas,

supported by 42.6% and 40.5% of the respondents respectively, especially among educators and

education and training institutions. Aligned with all these findings, infrastructure and

connectivity were among the

essential elements in the provision of digital education,

supported

by 42.6% respondents, again from education and training institutions (58.7%), but this time also

by the private sector (81.8%). Nevertheless, infrastructure was a point of concern of very few

umbrella organisations in the targeted stakeholder survey- only 17%.

A very strong message to tackle connectivity and equipment inequalities came from MEPs in

encouraging synergies between different funding programmes

to support Member States in

formal, non-formal and informal settings of education. Position papers submitted with the OPC,

coming from NGOs, but also private sector, additionally reinforced the message of deepened

inequalities and

‘digital poverty’

and need for support in connectivity and

digital equipment to

address those disparities.

The importance of supporting the

digital capacity of education and training institutions and

systems

became particularly strong with the COVID-19 crisis. Opinions on the importance of this

aspect were present before the crisis, usually coming from organisations focusing particular on

digital education and capacity in the beginning of the consultation period, but with the

development of the crisis, they became more prominent in the consultations. For example,

institutional leadership and culture

was seen as important by 37% of the umbrella organisations

and 28% of the respondents in the social media survey. Participants in the researchers’ workshop

shared that the crisis boosted the need to address

digital strategies and capacity building-

and

asked the Commission to prioritise them, especially in view of developing leadership and

supporting institutional change, beyond infrastructure and tools. The OPC results resonated with

this urgency-

supporting education and training institutions to develop digital education

strategies

was seen as the third most popular area

where the EU could add value.

It was

supported 42% of respondents (Figure 3), especially those representing providers of digital tools

and technologies for education (60.6%) and education and training staff (45.1 %) and to a lesser

extent by educators (42.6%) who positioned in fifth in their ranking. In broader terms, the

lack of

planning and vision for integrating digital technologies

was the fourth most popular challenge

for digital education in Europe, supported by 37.9% of the respondents, mainly from the private

sector (54.5%), but also by education and training staff (48.9%), providers of digital tools

(42.4%) and lesser extent education and training institutions (37.5%). The closely linked

vision

and strategy for using digital technologies in the education process,

was seen as the second

most important element of providing digital education (52.7%; Figure 2). It had the support of the

same

respondents’ categories but in a slightly different order-

digital technology providers-

81.8%, private sector- 75%, education and training staff- 66.2%, but this time, also the prominent

support of learners (52.6%) as the second most important element. During the researchers

workshop, participants reiterated the need to develop human

capacity and strategy,

not on

technology, and should address groups like school leaders in the process. Self-reflection tools like

the

SELFIE tool

were given as examples by Ministries of education and researchers as

particularly useful ones in supporting planning and strategies.

In the researchers workshop digital leadership and capacity were linked not only to implementing

digital education, but also to ensuring

effective hybrid solutions between online and on-site

delivery, also referred to as blended learning.

In view of this, more support was requested to

help systems and institutions to ensure a

fluid and organic continuum between online and

offline education.

Members of the Committee of the Regions also pointed out that blended

learning would be increasingly used in future; therefore boosting the capacities in this direction is

needed. However, the views of across the stakeholder groups towards blended learning varied-

for example, students’ organisations (both at school level and higher education) emphasised that

the digital tools should not dominate over the physical aspects, ensuring that face-to-face contact

remains central in the education and training process.

The respondents in the OPC also shared

divergent views-

in the sample ‘All countries’, less than half of the replies were positive

- 49.5%

(in comparison the negative views were 41.7%), however, this was not the case in the sample

‘Without RO’, where the vast

majority of the replies was positive, reaching 76.2%. The positive

opinion was consistent across the different target groups, while parents, learners and respondents

from the group other in personal capacity were on the more sceptical side (25.2%, 16.7% and

19.5%)

437

. As benefits of mixing face-to-face and online learning were outlined flexibility and

learning at own pace (70.2%), face-to-face communication and interaction (63.5%), integration of

innovative practices (58.2%), along with the opportunity to better support learners from

disadvantaged groups (58.1%)

438

, greatly resonating with the replies to the follow-up questions,

defining physical presence as ‘unreplaceable’. It should be noted that the

support for blended

learning across respondents from non-formal education, higher education, adult education

and VET was the most significant

(79.%, 75.6%, 79.9% and 69.8% respectively). In comparison,

when it came to the barriers the main ones were the difficulty for parents or carers to combine

work with supporting

their children’s learning (72.9%), and exclusion of learners without access

to suitable technology (70.6%). It is interesting to observe that one of the most recognised

advantages of blended learning- face-to-face communication and interaction actually addresses

the previously discussed highest ranked disadvantage of digital education as a whole- the lack of

face-to-face interaction and communication

(see section 2.3).

Figure 3: Where could the EU add value when it comes to digital education

Source: Open public consultation on the new Digital Education Action Plan (2020)

The need to

support online learning and high-quality online content

also became even more

prominent and urgent under the COVID-19 crisis and was perceived as an area for EU

intervention. Particularly strong was the support from students in the social media survey with

75.6% of them asking for this area to be tackled in the renewed Action Plan. Although not

The presented findings are for the sample ‘Without RO’. The sample ‘All countries’ was much more sceptical towards blended

learning - parents expressed predominantly negative opinion (63.4%), along with other in personal capacity (36.8%) and learners

(38.3%.)

438

Resonating with the previous question, there was also significant difference between the two samples. In the sample ‘All

countries’, there the most highly ranked benefits are linked to the physical interaction- ‘face-to-face

communication between

teachers and learners’ (57.5%), followed by ‘opportunity to better support learners from disadvantaged groups’ (49.6%) and ‘less

time spent in front of the computer and more time for physical activities’ (49.3%) and ‘face-to-face

communication

with peers’

(49.2%).

437

recognised as among the top challenges for education in the digital age by the respondents in the

OPC, the

availability of EU high-quality online learning content

and

easy to use platforms

were

seen as important challenges for digital education by 24.5% and 13% of the respondents

respectively, with consistent trends across all target groups. Nevertheless, high-quality online

learning resources (platforms and content) were seen as the

fifth most popular area where the

EU could bring value,

supported by 37.3% of respondents, specially by public authorities,

learners and parents (64.5%, 37.5%

439

and 34.3% respectively), in comparison the group that

ranked them as a particularly low area of interest was the private sector (18.2%). Ultimately, the

existence of

digital resources and materials and digital platforms and tools remained an

essential part in the provision of digital education,

ranked at third and fourth place by all

respondents (49% and 47.2%), with groups like education and training staff and parents keeping

with this trends. However, the former was seen in top two from the educators (55%

440

) and the

latter was seen as a leading element for the vast majority of providers (84.8%). In comparison, a

fourth of the respondents from the private sector and digital services providers identified the

importance for platforms to be scalable. In addition, the views of the various umbrella

organisations resonated with the trend: 43% of them identified promoting high-quality online

learning as one of the five aspects under this priority area. More precisely, stakeholders from

higher education institutions and student organisations and Member States asked the Commission

to provide

guidance for quality standards of online learning and content.

Researchers pointed

that most learning materials were conservative and many times replicated of traditional learning

sources, asking for adapting the content and methods to online learning. Interoperability and

synergies between existing national and European online platforms, was considered as a valuable

contribution to be made at EU level, by DE and FI, and researchers in the workshop. Member

States advised the Commission to promote cross-linking and orchestrating socio-technical

ecosystems and data spaces of existing platforms. Additionally, the members of the Committee of

the Regions and in particular the SEDEC Chair Anne Karjalainen underlined the importance of

creating a

European digital ecosystem,

promoting European content, platforms and tools, a view

supported by Member States (BE-FL). ET2020 WG DELTA and MEPs highlighted the potential

of online platforms and content to promote lifelong learning, upskilling and reskilling. As a way

to achieve better access to online content, some Member States attaché(e)s (NL, FI) and

researchers in the workshop argued in favour of expanding open access and Open Education

Resources (OER). Educators in the video-conference on the European Education Area also

supported this view, asking for open and free access to quality materials for all teachers and

students.

The OPC responses provided an extra level of depth of what makes digital content useful- most

respondent suggest as a leading characteristic

interactivity and user friendliness

(50.4%),

followed by

content developing skills needed on the labour market

(39.5%) and

recognition by

national authorities

(37.5%). The aspect of

multilingualism

ranked fourth- supported by more

than a third of the respondents in the OPC (30.5%). In addition, in position papers and during the

Strategic dialogue, the need to ensure

accessible digital learning environments

with adapted

materials for learners with disabilities was underlined continuously.

In line with that,

recognition of online and blended learning

was seen by Member States and

international organisations as closely linked to the provision of online learning and high-quality

The presented figure for the sample ‘All countries’. It should be noted that there was a significant difference in the sample ‘All

countries’ and ‘Without RO’-

in the latter it was supported by 50% becoming one of the three most popular areas where the EU

can add value ( alongside teacher training and connectivity, each supported by 50% in this sample).

440

The presented figure is for the sample ‘All countries’. In the sample ‘Without RO’ digital resources and materials are also

seen

as very important by 49.8%, but rank a little bit lower- at four place. Importantly, they rank a little bit lower than infrastructure

(55.3%), which is not the case in the sample ‘All countries’.

439

content. This was an area particularly highlighted by the non-formal and youth sector, and by

higher education institutions. Private sector representatives particularly encouraged the

Commission to support recognition of alternative learning pathways and promote short-term

programmes for upskilling and reskilling, providing job-ready skills. The support for flexible

learning paths and the recognition of new forms of learning was underlined by certain Ministries

(NL, DE, NO) who argued for the benefit of a pan-European approach in order to support lifelong

learning, upskilling and reskilling. They were in favour of building on actions such as the

Digitally Signed Credentials of the 2018 Action Plan and asked for quality assurance as well as a

secure and transparent infrastructure for credentials.

The opportunities that digital technologies offer to

gather data, inform and improve education

were widely recognised by the different groups, including Member States, umbrella organisations

and researchers. 88% of the umbrella organisations survey recognised

data and foresight

as an

important topic to be addressed. In comparison, the area was considered a low priority among the

social media survey respondents (10%). More specifically, stakeholders asked for

comparative

longitudinal data on effective teaching and learning on European level,

looking at different

aspects of digital education. Organisations working on digital skills, as well as parents and private

sector, asked

for better data and measurement on the levels of digital competence

across the

EU, going beyond self-assessment. Researchers in the workshop called for a

framework for

exchange of data,

along with

education policy indicators,

which could be mapped to research

constructs and data points. They pointed out as a specific policy measure of high importance the

need to look into the

future of education,

rather than tackle current data that focuses on the past

and the COVID-19 crisis. The OPC questionnaire addressed this topic to a lesser extent, while the

Roadmap feedback referred to the need to increase

research in designing and evaluating

teaching methods and content.

Despite a positive attitude towards data usage to inform and improve education, concerns on

privacy

and

ethical

implications of data gathering, and in particular of technologies such as AI,

were voiced strongly by Member States (DK, DE, FI, FR, NL) and education and training

institutions. Organisations that represented students and educators asked for informed data

gathering and usage. Private sector representatives pointed in their position papers the importance

to create a

safe and secure online environment for pupils and students of all levels.

Supporting

this view, Ministries of Education suggested training and awareness raising among educators on

the use of AI and data in education to ensure they have the knowledge and confidence to leverage

these technologies for enhanced learning and teaching experience, while keeping full control of

the education process. Additionally, the researchers in the workshop asked for EU level

framework to address learning analytics research and related trust and privacy issues. Both

Member States and organisations working on digital learning or skills asked for specific attention

to raising awareness of digital footprint among young people and adults.

2.5. Digital competences development

The need to

enhance digital competences for the digital transformation

was recognised as

particularly important throughout the whole stakeholder consultation process, both in terms of

targeted and the OPC and its accompanying activities.

Apart from being seen as a topic of leading relevance from the 2018 Action Plan

(see section

2.2),

Ministries of Education in ET2020 WG DELTA strongly recognised boosting digital skills

and competences as a

fundamental area of work for ensuring high-quality digital education

and

underlined the value of the European Framework for Digital Competences for Citizens

(DigComp)

441

. Many stakeholders stated that the crisis additionally deepened the need to support

the development of digital skills, in terms of use in everyday life but also on the labour market. In

position papers, coming from private sector, NGOs, but also Ministries, the Commission was

asked to work towards boosting basic digital skills, along with advanced ones in order to support

the European recovery effort.

This view was confirmed by the results in the OPC, where the vast majority of the respondents -

74.5% of those in personal capacity and 85.1% of those organisational capacity shared the view

that the switch online learning and working

had increased the importance of digital skills and

competences on the labour market.

Representatives of the private sector during the targeted

stakeholder consultations and the OPC closing event also reiterated their expectations for such

trends on the labour market.

When it came to their experience during the crisis, in the OPC, more than two thirds (62%) of the

respondents in personal capacity reported that they had

improved their skills

during the crisis and

63.7%

took specific steps to do so.

Additionally, more than a half (55.4%) planned to take steps

and improve their digital skills and competences in future

442

. Among the target groups, those with

most positive attitude towards these three questions were educators and education and training

staff (84.7%, 86.2% and 78.9%, along with 86.5%, 86.5% and 83.5% respectively). Parents

shared less positive views- only 58.5% shared they had improved their skills and 46.3% planned

to take any steps to enhance their digital skills

443

. Among the groups replying in organisational

capacity, the vast majority shared that their organisation or institution had taken steps to improve

the skills of their staff (74.2%) and that the digital skills of the staff had improved during the

crisis (81.5%). In line with the findings in individual capacity, a great part of the respondents

from this group (71.3%) shared that their organisation planned to improve the skills of the staff in

future and identified

online learning as the most preferred method for upskilling

(56.9%),

followed by

blended learning

(42.5%).

A number of respondents across the groups self-assessed their skills or those of theirs staff

sufficient to implement digital learning/working or support their children

in that (around 84%

in both). Still, the need of digital skills and competences during the crisis was seen as unmet by

around a fifth of the respondents (18.8%) and seen as an area where the EU could add value by

more than a fifth of the respondents (21%).

441

442

See Annex 3 for further details.

The reported

figure is for the sample ‘All countries’. These trends were even higher in the sample ‘Without RO’, reaching

respectively 80.5% of respondents who self-reported improvement in their skills and competences, 79.4% who took steps to

improve then and 74.9% who had such plans in future.

443

These trends present the sample ‘Without RO’, as there were significant differences in the views when looking at all

respondents. In this case, only 40.7% of the parents they had improved their skills (54.7% said they did not) and the majority

(59.6%) did not plan to take any steps to improve their digital skills in future (in comparison only 33.4% shared plans to do so).

Figure 4: Most important digital skills and competences for living and working in the 21

century

444

Source: Open public consultation on the new Digital Education Action Plan (2020)

When looking into the different types of digital skills and competences,

digital literacy,

including media literacy, fighting disinformation, hate speech and online threats

received the

strongest support from all consulted groups. In particular, it was identified as a priority for EU

support by 78% of the umbrella organisations and 68% of the social media respondents and by

three of the five eTwinning NSS. Different stakeholder groups noted that information and media

literacy were already well-used concepts and digital literacy should build on them, establishing a

clear link with the concept of digital citizenship, in order to ensure coherence and

comprehensiveness in the approach of the new Action Plan. Ministries of Education and the

MEPs stressed the need to address this issue in a strong life-long learning and inclusive

perspective, equipping young people and adults with the skills to engage with information

critically. The results in the OPC were similar- when asked to indicate top five important digital

skills and competences for living and working in 21 century, respondents positioned

identifying

facts from fake information and content online the highest

(39.6%), which was preceded only

managing the overload of information and knowledge

(43.1%), an aspect that could be also

be seen as part of digital literacy (Figure 4). The former was particularly supported by learners

(43.4%) and digital technology providers (42.4%), while the majority of the other consulted

groups positioned the latter as most important

445

. Aligned with that, when asked on the

digital

skills and competences they would like to improve in future,

respondents positioned managing

overload of information as the second most wanted skill (supported by 30.4%), but identifying

facts from fake information and content online was seen as far less appealing- at seventh place

(supported by 19.4%)

446

. Nevertheless, the support of learners remained high, but also from

parents, especially in regards to managing overload of information (supported by 31.6%), which

was the second most popular skills they wanted to develop. Trade unions representing educators

444

445

Respondents could select up to 5 digital skills and competences.

Managing large amount of information was the most highly supported type of digital skills by educators- 45.7%; education

and training staff: 45.9%; parents- 41.9%; other in personal capacity- 42.1%, education and training institutions- 45.1% and public

authorities

–

52.4%.

446

The presented figures and order is for the sample ‘All countries. When looking at the sample ‘Without RO’, navigating safely

online remained second most wanted digital skill (26.8%), but identifying fact from fake information was positioned eight,

gaining the support of far 12.2% of the respondents.

in Member States, but also Member States participating in the OPC (CZ, BE-FL) asked for

targeted action in boosting media and digital literacy.

Secondly,

ethics and privacy

was another field where European support was particularly needed,

especially in the context of drastically increased use of digital technologies during the COVID-19

crisis. During the meeting of ET2020 WG DELTA, a number of Ministries raised the issue of

private companies opening their platforms free to use during the crisis, without always revealing

how personal data was used and stored. This showed a clear demand for enhancing knowledge

and understanding of privacy and ethics implications of digital technologies use. This area came

as the second most supported by the umbrella organisations under this priority (51%) and in the

social media survey (49%). It was also particularly requested by the teachers and students in the

outreach event on the new Action Plan and European Education Area. The OPC results

positioned

navigating safely online-protecting personal data and privacy

as the third most

important type of skill for 21 century, supported by 34.1% of the respondents

447

and especially

strongly supported by 50% of the respondents from private sector

448

. It was a skill that many

wanted to improve the future, especially learners and parents (respectively 33.3%

449

and 32%),

who positioned it in their top three; when it came to respondents in organisational capacity, it

ranked fourth (36%). The related digital skills of

protecting devices and content

received lower

recognition for 21 century, having positioned at seventh place by the respondents (18.4%

450

), and

ranking slightly higher when it came to the interest of respondents in personal capacity to develop

it in future- at fourth place (23.3%

451

) and organisational- at sixth (27.7%). In the exchange with

education and youth attaché(e)s, the topic was discussed in the context of increased pervasiveness

of emerging technologies, such as AI. Member States (FR, NL, DE, DK, SI and SK) perceived

the

role of the Action Plan as central for European efforts to reinforce knowledge on ethics

and privacy among young people.

In their position papers, international organisations providing

humanitarian aid for children also called for reinforced European efforts in the area of

cybersecurity and saw the role of parents, but especially teachers as a key in the process.

Closely linked to the theme above, was the need to work towards a

better knowledge and

understanding of AI and related data

in education processes and in society. This was viewed as

a pressing area to be addressed in the new Action Plan, both in the umbrella organisations

questionnaire (41% positioned it among the top five areas for action) and during the consultations

with Member States and position papers submitted on ad-hoc basis or as part of the OPC (NL,

CZ). ET2020 WG DELTA highlighted that AI called for a differentiation of the type of skills-

understanding and knowledge of everyday and educational use and advanced level skills for the

labour market. The Commission was encouraged to address them in an age-appropriate way,

while promoting good understanding on all levels of education. Additionally, Ministries asked for

regular updates of digital competences frameworks (DigComp, DigCompEdu and

DigCompOrg)

452

with respect to associated new skills. Stakeholder organisations working on

This figure is for the sample ‘All countries’. In the sample ‘Without RO’, this aspect was at fourth place of importance

(34.7%), preceded by interacting, collaborating and communicating through digital technologies (35.7%), which positioned third.

448

Navigating safely online-protecting personal data and privacy was seen as the most important digital skill for 21 century for the

sample ‘Without Romania’, while when considering the Romanian

respondents, the most popular skills for the private sector is

collaborating and communicating through digital technologies -

54.5% compared to 37.5% ‘Without RO’.

449

The figure is presented is for the sample ‘Without Romania’. The learners in the sample ‘All countries’ position navigating

safely online at first place (34.2%), followed by being able to manage the overload of information (31.6%) and creating digital

content (30.3%). In the sample ‘Without RO’, navigating safely fell to third place (33.3%),

after creation of digital content

(42.8%) and managing overload of information and knowledge (38.9%).

450

The figure presented is for the sample ‘All countries’. In the sample ‘Without RO’, the relevance to protecting devices and

content for 21 century was recognised as much lower- at ninth place, supported only by 13.9% of the respondents and preceding

only understanding and knowledge of emerging digital technologies.

451

These figure and order are for the sample ‘All countries’. In the sample ‘Without RO’, protecting devices and content was

recognised again of low relevance- at seventh place- having gained the support of 18.3%.

452

See Annex 3 for further details.

447

digitalisation in higher education pointed out that existing national initiatives should be

leveraged, and exchange of practices promoted through funding mechanisms and better

conditions for collaboration. Consulted MEPs placed a stronger emphasis on better teacher

training and continuous professional development, especially in the context of AI and data. With

respect to the social media survey, AI was not identified as a priority for support, recognised as

such only by a fifth of the respondents. Similar was the trend in the OPC- the closely related

aspect of

understanding new and emerging technologies

was supported by only 10.4% of the

respondents. When looking at the different categories, this one predominantly supported by the

private sector and the providers of digital tools for education, which selected it among their five

most important skills- supported by 27.3% and 36.7% respectively. These skills were also not the

front-runners when it came to the digital skills and competences respondents wanted to develop

in future- they positioned at sixth place (supported by 26.3%

453

) and by organisations- seventh

(18%).

High-quality

computing, informatics and technology education

as a way to promote better

understanding of the digital world was another focus area of action at European level, especially

by stakeholder organisations, eTwinning NSS and citizens. Strengthened efforts in this area were

requested by 40% of the umbrella organisations in the questionnaire, coming from different levels

of education as well as the private sector. During the workshop and in ad-hoc meetings, higher

education institutions and research centres on informatics as well as organisations representing IT

professionals, asked for integrating the subject across curricula at all levels and identifying a

respective framework of high-quality informatics. The need for a common language resonated in

the views of the Ministries of education participating in ET2020 WG DELTA. During the

meeting in March, the Chair of the CULT Committee, Sabine Verheyen, expressed particular

support for integrating informatics and technology education across all levels of education, as an

important component of ensuring young people had a good understanding of the digital world.

Additionally, computing, informatics and technology education was often linked

to creative use

of digital technologies,

an aspect that received a particularly strong support by the general public

(44%) and the consulted umbrella organisations (41%). In contrast, the majority of the

respondents in the OPC did not consider the related skill of

understanding the digital systems

and world as key for 21 century,

having gained the support of only 16% of all respondents, but

still well recognised by the private sector (27.3%) and respondents in organisational capacity

from the group ‘other’ (23.5%). Another computer science related skill-

creating digital content-

was also not identified as particularly important in 21 century (supported by only 14.7% of the

respondents, mainly educators, private sector representatives, education and training staff).

Nevertheless, it turned out to be the

digital competence that most respondents wanted to

improve in the future-

35%- especially educators (more than 60%) and education and training

staff (46%).

Lastly, European guidance and support on

assessment and recognition of digital skills

was

prominently called for during the consultations with umbrella organisations, visible in the

questionnaire (41% supported it), position papers and in the workshop. This was a point coming

from civil society but also trade unions and parents and Ministries of Education asking for

guidance on assessing and certifying digital competences and skills, going beyond self-

assessment. Some Member States, such as FR, asked for unified EU approach towards

assessment and recognition of digital competences. In addition, respondents in the social media

survey had moderate support for this area (36.7%), especially those representing higher education

staff. Organisations representing the IT and private sector suggested to link the assessment of

453

The provided

figure and order is for the sample ‘Without RO’. In the sample ‘All countries’, these skills were positioned at

eight place, gaining the support of 16.7% of the respondents.

such skills in secondary level to DigComp 2.0

454

framework and to then promote it across

Member States, a trend observed in the Roadmap feedback and the Position papers submitted.

The researches in the workshop also reiterated the need to focus on validation and certification

and to also explore the options

blockchain certificates

offer. The OPC results also reflect

evaluation and certification of skills as important area where the EU could bring value, but to a

lesser extent - 13.7% of the respondents supported this statement

455

Bridging the

gender digital skills gap

was considered as going hand in hand with promoting

digital competences. The issue was strongly highlighted during the exchange with Members

States attaché(e)s and MEPs, and identified as a priority area by a quarter of the consulted

umbrella organisations, mostly education employers, non-formal sector and business. In

particular, private sector called for measures to attract more women in STEM studies and careers

through synergies with the EU STEM Coalition. Reinforced activities, engaging both formal and

non-formal sector, together with dedicated cross-country exchanges to promote exchange of

practices were seen as valuable by some Ministries (FR). During the live chat with Commissioner

Gabriel, the relevance in the topic was reconfirmed by questions on how the Commission would

address this issue; even though the recognition of this as a challenge for digital education was

very low in the OPC (less than 2% of the respondents saw it as such).

2.6 Cooperation and exchange

The need for reinforced cooperation and dialogue between different stakeholders in the area of

digital education was identified in all stakeholder consultations in different contexts. The

COVID-19 crisis also impacted this area, by underlining the fragmentation of national policies

and experience. Stakeholders pointed out to the need for the new Action Plan to

enhance

cooperation as a key element to achieve systemic impact and identify sustainable solutions,

supporting education and training in the long term.

During the consultations with MEPs and Members of the Committee of the Regions, it was

underlined at different occasions that in order to have a strong and impactful digital education

strategy in Europe, it would be necessary to mobilise all levels

–

local, regional, national as well

as European and engage a broad variety of stakeholders in the discussion.

The DE Presidency

also reiterated this message in the OPC closing event by underlining that

cooperation would lay

at the core of making Europe the global leader in digital education.

During the researchers workshop, experts underlined unanimously the

important role of

collaboration and cooperation between different parties,

in particular between research,

international organisations and policy makers. They underlined the role that the Commission

could play in supporting such exchange through instruments, such as an

EU Observatory

as a

space to bringing voices of distinct stakeholders together at a European level. In line with this

idea, in their non-paper, DE advocated for the creation of a dedicated entity to promote the

exchange of knowledge, good practices and data,

especially in view of the COVID-19 crisis. A

follow-up position paper supported by 6 organisations from 4 Member States (AT, DE, FR, NL)

underlined the need for orchestrated cross-sectoral exchange, discourses and actions in the field

of digital education, along with strategic collaboration and co-creation at different levels and

across stakeholders. Very closely aligned to this was the proposal of other Member States (NL)

for stronger European cooperation, creating policy scenarios, supporting national policies and

exchange of good practices between Member States, along with promoting

national networks

and agencies in the area of digital education to cooperate further.

454

455

See Annex 3 for further details.

The percentage in the sample without Romania was slightly higher-20.9% but it is still ranked at 8 place among all areas where

the EU can add value.

Additionally, a number of papers submitted as part of the OPC, coming from a variety of

stakeholders- employers, NGOs, private sector, social partners, also Member States,

called for

the enhanced cooperation between stakeholders and establishment platforms,

which would

bring the community together in a structured dialogue on digital education. The quantitative

questions of the OPC resonated with these views to a great extent- 41.6% of the respondents

saw

exchange of good practices and peer-learning as an area where the EU could add value

456

Notably, in questions referring specifically to

cooperation between public authorities, education

and training institutions and private sector,

there seemed slightly less support. In the question

on the EU added value, the cooperation between education institutions and private sector was

seen as of limited value, supported by 15.1% of the respondents, mainly from the private sector

who saw it missing during the crisis (Table 3)

457

. In contrast, public authorities recognised it as a

low value action, supported by only c.30%, of them, but still higher than education and training

institutions, where only 13% identified it as an area of EU added value.

2.7. Funding

There was an overall agreement that the new Action Plan could offer reinforced funding

opportunities.

The consulted MEPs called for the strong

mobilisation of different funding programmes

Erasmus+, Horizon Europe, Digital Europe Programme, Cohesion funds, the Recovery and

Resilience Facility, InvestEU to support the ambitious long-term objectives of the new Action

Plan and address the implications of the COVID-19 crisis. Aligned with that, Member States also

called for the new Action Plan to leverage a broad range of funding programmes- paying special

attention to integrating the objectives of digital education in their yearly and multi-yearly

planning cycles (NL) but also share information and good practices of the use of European

Structural and Investment Funds, for example (BE-FL).

Members of the ET2020 WG DELTA also pointed that funding for the development of digital

competences

should be reinforced in programmes

such as Erasmus+ and the Digital Europe

Programme. They suggested

mapping different funding opportunities

for development of basic

to advanced skills as a way to support beneficiaries. Social partners participating in the OPC

asked for increased funding from ESF+ and ESIF to further support adult learning and digital

skills development. Aligned with these views, in the umbrella stakeholders’ questionnaire, more

than a fifth of the organisations did not consider that the 2018 Action Plan had provided enough

funding opportunities. In view of the new Action Plan, they asked for funding in particular for

digital competences and skills (for educators and learners); high-quality online content and

community-learning networks.

2.8. Communication opportunities

The majority of stakeholders suggested that there is room for improvement of the communication

of the new Action Plan. This was a strong message from the consultations with the Member

States attaché(e)s (BG, NL, SK, DE) which explained that the visibility on a national level was

often not satisfactory, with disparities between the communication of the different actions. As

three preferred ways to learn about the Action Plan, they identified newsletters, events and

webpages.

The presented figure is for the sample ‘Without RO’. In the sample ‘All countries’, the peer-learning

and exchange of practices

was still strongly supported but to a bit lesser extent by 33.3% of the respondents.

457

It was also very strongly advocated for in the position papers submitted with the OPC, where private sector called for stronger

cooperation in terms of infrastructure and digital tools.

456

NNEX

3: E

UROPEAN

IGITAL

OMPETENCE

RAMEWORKS

With the aim of establishing a shared understanding for tackling digital skills challenges, the

European Commission has developed

three digital competence frameworks:

DigComp,

DigCompEdu and DigCompOrg. A competence framework defines and describes the most

important competences in a given area, usually accompanied by detailed descriptors, proficiency

levels and/or learning outcomes. Competences are defined as the combination of knowledge,

skills and attitudes, following the 2006 European Recommendation on key competences for

lifelong learning (updated in 2018)

458

The competence frameworks are widely used within Europe and beyond for developing policy

initiatives, educational planning and reform, training courses and curricula, self-reflection and/or

self-assessment and certification, amongst others. In the EU use is voluntary, fully respecting the

principle of subsidiarity. Reference frameworks serve the purpose of the Open Method of

Coordination because they provide a common language.

1. The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (DigComp)

The DigComp framework describes the most important competences people need to have to

participate in the digital world. As Figure 1 shows, it consists of five competence areas, 21

competences, examples of use and detailed proficiency levels. DigComp was first published by

the Joint Research Center in 2013 and updated in June 2016 (DigComp 2.0) and May 2017

(DigComp 2.1), the latter focussing on detailed proficiency levels.

Figure 1: The five competence areas of the DigComp framework

‘DigComp into action’, a guide for stakeholders presenting 38 inspiring examples of DigComp

adoption and use from all over Europe, was released in May 2018.

DigComp is taken up in more than 16 Member States, for curricula review, student assessment,

employability and digital skills strategies and policies. The European Training Foundation works

with DigComp in the EU neighbouring and developing countries. DigComp also formed the

conceptual basis for the calculation of the digital skills part of the European Digital Economy and

Society Index (DESI), a composite index that summarises relevant indicators on Europe’s digital

performance and tracks the evolution of EU Member States in digital competitiveness

459

458

Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong

learning (2006/962/EC)

–

Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning (2018/C 189/01).

459

European Commission (2020). Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI)

–

EU-28 values (including UK).

At the global level, UNESCO and the International Telecommunication Union are considering

DigComp for the development of a Global Digital Literacy framework as a contribution to the

Sustainable Development Goals (4.4.2 - measuring digital literacy skills)

460

More than 70 projects in Europe are using DigComp as an implementation tool for digital

education/skilling, assessment/certification and/or defining digital professional profiles. So far at

least 335,000 DigComp based training courses have been developed and 500.000 DigComp based

certificates have been provided by external stakeholders. In addition, the Joint Research Centre

just released ‘DigComp at Work’ report

461

and ‘DigComp at Work Implementation

Guidelines’

462

, focused on labour market intermediaries and the development of digital

competences for employability and in employments contexts.

Further work will concentrate on developing an approach to combine DigComp with other related

frameworks such as EntreComp

463

, and on finalising a reliable and validated self-assessment

instrument for DigComp (end 2020). Finally, an updated version, i.e. DigComp 2.2 is foreseen

for end 2020/early 2021, with new examples covering emerging trends (e.g. fake news) and

technologies (e.g. AI), amongst others. External stakeholders have in the meantime also launched

a DigComp Community of Practice to bring DigComp users together and learn from each

other

464

More information available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/digcomp/

2. Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu)

DigCompEdu was published in 2017 describing what it means for educators to be digitally

competent. It is directed at educators at all educational levels, from pre-primary to vocational,

higher and adult education. It provides a general reference framework to support the development

of educator-specific digital competences in Europe. It details 22 educator-specific competences

for teaching in a digital society along six competence areas (Figure 2).

Figure 2: The six competence areas of the DigiCompEdu framework

Subsequent to the publication of the framework an online community has been set up, inviting

stakeholders interested in using and implementing the DigCompEdu framework to exchange

experiences and training materials. The community has around 200 members and brings together

460

UNESCO - Measuring digital literacy skills: SDG indicator 4.4.2:

http://gaml.uis.unesco.org/wp-

content/uploads/sites/2/2019/08/GAML6-WD-3-Measuring-4.4.2-proposal.pdf

461

DigComp at Work: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/digcomp-work

462

DiComp at Work Implementation Guide : https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/digcomp-work-implementation-guide

463

Entrepreneurship Competence framework:

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/entrecomp

464

DigComp Community of Practice:

https://all-digital.org/invitation-to-digcomp-community-of-practice-cop/

all those interested in educators’ digital competence at national and regional agencies,

researchers, training providers and educators.

Based on the framework, the Joint Research Center is currently piloting a self-reflection

questionnaire (DigCompEdu Check-in

465

) for educators from primary, secondary, vocational and

higher education. The self-reflection exercise has already been completed by almost 35,400

educators, allowing them to reflect on their digital practices, test their practical knowledge and

guide them in further developing their skills. Based on psychometric analysis of the pilot results,

the instrument will be further revised and piloted again, specifically for school education

teachers. A revised version of the self-reflection tool is foreseen for 2021: SELFIE for teachers.

More information available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/digcompedu

3. Digital Competence framework for educational organisations (DigCompOrg) and a self-

reflection tool for schools digital capacity (SELFIE)

DigCompOrg is a comprehensive and generic conceptual framework that reflects all aspects of

the process of systematically integrating digital learning in educational organisations from all

education sectors. The conceptual model was published by the Joint Research Center in 2015. It

contains 8 key areas and 74 specific descriptors on digital age learning. While DigCompOrg is

for all educational organisations, a specific tool for schools was developed on its basis: SELFIE.

Officially launched as part of the 2018 Digital Education

Action Plan, SELFIE

466

is an online, free and customisable

application that schools in EU and beyond can use to self-

reflect on their level of digital capacity. Several Member

States and partner countries are integrating SELFIE in their

digital education strategies. With the support of the

European Training Foundation, the tool has been extended

to the countries in the Western Balkans and other partner

countries such as Turkey, Georgia and Moldova. In

collaboration with UNESCO´s Institute for Information

Technology in Education the tool has been tested by

Russian schools. Selfie is available in 32 languages and it

has more than 650.000 users (students, teachers and school leaders) in 57 countries.

A feasibility study to adapt the SELFIE tool for work-based learning systems in Europe has just

been published

467

. The study finds that there is a large potential for the SELFIE tool to be applied

widely in work-based learning, especially to bring Vocational Education and Training (VET)

institutions and companies closer in discussing how they jointly embed digital technology in their

education and training provisions. The development of a full version of SELFIE for work-based

learning in VET is foreseen for 2020-2021.

Further analysis of SELFIE data is also undertaken, such as on the psychometric reliability and

construct validity of SELFIE core items; a random sampling of schools to get representative

agregated data; and qualitative case studies on the impact of SELFIE in schools and on how the

tool and its impact can be further improved.

More information available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/digcomporg

465

466

DigCompEdu Check-in:

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcompedu/self-assessment

SELFIE:

https://ec.europa.eu/education/schools-go-digital_en

467

Report available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/adapting-selfie-tool-work-based-learning-systems-vocational-

education-and-training

NNEX

4: G

LOSSARY

ERM

Artificial Intelligence

(AI)

EFINITION

AI refers to IT systems that display intelligent behaviour by analysing

their environment and taking actions - with some degree of autonomy -

to achieve specific goals. AI-based systems can be purely software-

based, acting in the virtual world (e.g. voice assistants, search engines,

speech and face recognition systems, etc.), or embedded in hardware

devices (e.g. advanced robots, autonomous cars, drones, etc.)

468

Major digital transformations such as artificial intelligence, machine

learning or big data are changing labour market’s skills requirements

and, in turn, affecting skills development for the digital economy.

All individuals should understand how digital technologies can support

communication, creativity and innovation, and be aware of their

opportunities, limitations, effects and risks. Basic digital skills allow a

basic ability to use of digital devices and online applications (for

instance to access, filter and manage information, create and share

content, communicate and collaborate), and are widely considered a

critical component of a new set of literacy skills in the digital era, with

reading, writing, and numeracy skills

469

At the advanced end of the spectrum of digital skills are the higher-

level abilities that allow individuals to make use of digital technologies

in empowering and transformative ways, such as professions in ICT

470

Advanced digital skills are specialized skills, i.e. skills in designing,

developing, managing and deploying technologies such as high

performance computing, artificial intelligence and cybersecurity at

ISCED level 4 and above

471

Quantitative indicators are used to measure and compare progress in

the EU as part of the open method of coordination in education and

training. Under the strategic framework for cooperation in education

and training (ET2020)

472

, EU Member States agreed on a limited

number of targets to be reached by the EU as a whole before 2020.

These targets are referred to as ‘EU benchmarks’ and aim to increase

tertiary educational attainment; reduce early leaving from education

and training; increase participation in early childhood education and

care; reduce underachievement in basic skills (maths, science and

reading); increase adult learning; increase employment rate of recent

graduates; increase learning mobility. A new cooperation framework in

education and training, equipped with a revised set of EU targets, is in

preparation.

Basic and advanced

digital skills

Benchmark(s) in

education and

training

468

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Artificial Intelligence for Europe. COM(2018) 237 final.

469

Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning. 2018/C 189/01.

470

UNESCO (2018). Digital skills critical for jobs and social inclusion.

471

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Digital Europe programme for the

period 2021-2027. COM/2018/434 final - 2018/0227.

472

Council of the European Union (2020). Council Conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European

cooperation in education and training (ET 2020). (2009/C 119/02).

Big data

(including

digital traces)

Blended learning

Broadband

Cyber security

Computational

thinking

(including

programming and

coding)

Computing and

informatics education

(including computer

science)

Digital capacity or

readiness

Digital citizenship

Big data refers to large amounts of different types of data produced

with high velocity from a high number of various types of sources

473

. A

key construct in big data is the concept of digital traces. These are in

essence records of human

–

or human like

–

online, digital activity

captured and stored by online information systems

474

Blended learning is a pedagogical approach mixing face-to-face and

online learning, with some element of learner control over time, place,

path, and pace. An example of blended learning is the flipped

classroom model, in which students view lecture material prior to class,

then spend class time engaging in exercises under the supervision of

the teacher

475

Broadband refers to high-speed telecommunications systems, i.e. those

capable of simultaneously supporting multiple information formats

such as voice, high-speed data services and video services on

demand

476

Cyber security refers to all the measures adopted to defend information

systems from external unauthorized access as well as user actions that

compromise or support the confidentiality, integrity and availability of

both information and systems

477

Computational thinking, programming and coding are often used in an

interchangeable way in education settings, but they are distinct

activities. Programming refers to the activity of analysing a problem,

designing a solution and implementing it. Coding means implementing

solutions in a particular programming language. Computational

thinking, shorthand for ‘thinking as a computer scientist’, refers to the

ability to understand the underlying notions and mechanisms of digital

technologies to formulate and solve problems

478

Computing and informatics education, also known as computer science

in many countries, is a distinct scientific discipline, characterised by its

own concepts, methods, body of knowledge, and open issues. It covers

the foundations of computational structures, processes, artefacts and

systems, and their software designs, their applications, and their impact

on society

479

Digital capacity or readiness is the ability to integrate, optimise and

transform digital technologies in different processes and activities. It

can be measured by variety of indicators on different levels.

Digital citizenship is a set of values, skills, attitudes, knowledge and

critical understanding citizens need in the digital era. A digital citizen

knows how to use technologies and is able to engage competently and

473

Berendt B., Littlejohn A., Kern P., Mitros P., Shacklock X., Blakemore M. (2017). Big data for monitoring educational

systems. Luxembourg: Publications Oﬃce of the European Union.

474

Howison J., Wiggins A., Crowston K. (2011). Validity Issues in the Use of Social Network Analysis with Digital Trace Data.

Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(12).

475

Lifelong Learning Platform (2019). Lexicon, avaiable at http://lllplatform.eu/resources/lexicon/.

476

Shaping Europe’s digital future: Broadband Glossary, available at

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/broadband-

glossary.

477

ENISA (2018). Cybersecurity culture guidelines: behavioral aspects of cybersecurity.

478

European Commission (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education. Implications for policy and

practice. JRC Science for Policy Report.

479

CECE (2017). Informatics Education in Europe: Are we all in the Same Boat?

Digital competence

Digital education

Digital literacy

Digital transition/

transformation

Disinformation

EdTech

(as industry

and scientific field)

positively with them. He/she participates actively and responsibly in

both on and offline communities (local, national, global) at all levels

(political, economic, social, cultural and intercultural)

480

Digital competence is recognised as one of the key competences for

lifelong learning

481

. Being digitally competent involves the confident,

critical and responsible use of, and engagement with, digital

technologies for learning, work, and participation in society

482

. The

European Digital Competence Framework (Annex 3) has identified the

key components of digital competence in five areas: information and

data literacy; communication and collaboration; digital content

creation; safety; and problem solving

483

Digital education comprises two different but complementary

perspectives: the pedagogical use of digital technologies to support and

enhance teaching, learning and assessment and the development of

digital competences by learners and education and training staff

484

Digital literacy is defined by the Digital Competence framework

(Annex 3) as the ability to articulate information needs; to locate and

retrieve digital data, information and content; to judge the relevance of

the source and its content; and to store, manage, and organise digital

data, information and content. It is the first of the five competence

areas of digital competence (i.e. being digitally literate is part of being

digitally competent)

485.

Digital transition (digitisation) refers specifically to the conversion of

information or data from analogue to digital format. Digital

transformation (digitalisation), by contrast, refers to the adoption or

increase in use of digital technology by an organisation, an industry, or

a country and therefore describes more generally the way digitisation is

affecting economy and society

486

False or misleading information that is created, presented and

disseminated for economic gain or to intentionally deceive the public

and may cause public harm

487

EdTech, short for educational technology, indicates the industry that

combines education and technological advances as well as the

scientific field which involves the interdisciplinary knowledge

informing the use of technological tools and devices, processes and

procedures, resources and strategies to improve learning experiences in

a variety of learning settings

488

480

481

Council of Europe (2019). Digital Citizenship Education Handbook.

In this framework, competences are defined as a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Key competences are those

individuals needed for personal fulfilment and development, active citizenship, social inclusion and employment.

482

Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on Key Competences for Lifelong learning. (2018/C 189/01).

483

Joint Research Centre (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels

and examples of use. Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union.

484

European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of

the European Union.

485

Joint Research Centre (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels

and examples of use. Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union.

486

OECD (2017). Going Digital: Making the Transformation Work for Growth and Well-Being. Paris: OECD publishing.

487

Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European and Social Committee and

the Committee of the Regions - Action Plan against Disinformation. JOIN(2018) 36 final.

488

Huang R., Spector J.M., Yang J. (2019). Introduction to Educational Technology. In R. Huang J.M. Spector, J. Yang (Eds.),

Educational Technology: A Primer for the 21st Century. Singapore: Springer.

Formal, non-formal

and informal

education

Information and

Communication

Technology (ICT)

Instructional design

ISCED 1,2,3

Lifelong learning

Learning

Management System

(LMS)

Formal education is intentional, organised and structured. It is usually

provided in schools, colleges, universities and other formal education

and training institutions, and leads to recognised diplomas and

qualifications. Non-formal education takes place through planned

activities (in terms of learning objectives and learning time) where

some form of learning support is present, but which is not part of the

formal education and training system. Informal education results from

daily activities related to work, family or leisure which is not organised

or structured in terms of objectives, time or learning support

489

Diverse set of technological tools and resources used to transmit, store,

create, share or exchange information. These technological tools and

resources include computers, the internet, live broadcasting

technologies, recorded broadcasting technologies and telephony

490

The theory and practice of designing, developing, using, managing and

evaluating processes and resources for learning

491

. The instructional

design process goes beyond simply creating teaching and learning

materials and it is based on carefully analysing how students learn and

what content, methods and tools will most effectively help them

achieve a specific set of learning outcomes. It consists of determining

the needs of the learners, defining the learning outcomes and objectives

of instruction, organising and planning assessment tasks, and designing

teaching and learning activities to ensure the quality of instruction

492

The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) is a

statistical framework for organizing information on education. It has

nine levels: ISCED 0 refers to early childhood education, ISCED 1 to

primary education, ISCED 2 to lower secondary education, ISCED 3 to

upper secondary education, ISCED 4 to post-secondary non-tertiary

education, ISCED 5 to short-cycle tertiary education, ISCED 6 to

bachelor’s or equivalent level, ISCED 7 to master’s or equivalent level,

ISCED 8 to doctoral or equivalent level

493

Lifelong learning includes all activities undertaken throughout life,

with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competences for

personal, civic, social and/or professional reasons.

494

It covers

education and training across all ages and in all areas of life - be it

formal, non-formal or informal

495

LMS is a web-based software platform made for delivering, tracking

and managing online and blended learning. The main features of an

LMS (e.g.

course management, learners’ enrolment, online activity

tracking, etc.) allow handling all aspects of the learning process beyond

content delivery

496

489

490

Erasmus + Programme Guide (2020). Annex III- Glossary of terms.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2020). Glossary.

491

Seels B.B., Richey R.C. (1994). Instructional technology: the definition and domains of the field. Washington DC: Association

for Educational Communications and Technology.

492

Educational Technology (2017). Definitions of instructional design.

493

UNESCO (2011). International Standard Classification of Education. ISCED 2011.

494

CEDEFOP (2003). Quality in education and training. Glossary. Paris: OECD publishing.

495

Lifelong Learning Platform (2019). Lexicon (http://lllplatform.eu/resources/lexicon/).

496

Watson W., Watson S. L. (2007). An Argument for clarity: what are learning management systems, what are they not and what

should they become. TechTrends, 51(2), 28–34.

Learning outcomes

(including learning

objectives)

Makerspace

Massive Open Online

Course (MOOC)

Learning outcomes are statements of what a learner knows,

understands and is able to do on completion of a learning process in

formal, non-formal or informal education. Learning outcomes indicate

actual attainment levels, while learning objectives define the

competences to be developed in general terms

497

A makerspace refers to any generic space that promotes active

participation, knowledge sharing and collaboration among individuals

through open exploration and creative use of tools and technology. Its

focus is on having a publicly accessible creative space that explores the

maker mind-set and tinkering-practices

498

MOOCs are a subpart of the existing online learning offer. The term

refers to online courses designed for a large number of learners,

accessible by anyone anywhere, as long as they have an internet

connection. Access and participation are free of charge, although extra

services and certificates may require payment

499

Micro-credentials, micro-degree, nanodegree, digital badge or

alternative digital credential, often used interchangeably, refer to any

credential that covers more than a single course but is less than a full

degree

500

NGA refers to wired access networks, which consist wholly or in part

of optical elements and which are capable of delivering broadband

access services with enhanced characteristics. The term fixed networks

is used to describe the traditional wired networks, which have lower

sustained bandwidths and are characterised by lack of mobility

501

Online learning is a methodology involving the use of information and

communication technologies (ICTs) to support both teaching and

learning. The term may refer to the use of various technologies and

tools to support learning in different contexts, including face-to-face

settings and distance learning, separately or in combination, in which

case is usually called blended learning. There are many terms used to

describe online learning including ICT-based learning, distance

learning, virtual learning and e-learning

502

Method of delivery, which involves teaching and learning activities

where educators and learners are not physically present in one location

at the same time. In this case, learning happens away from the physical

site of an educational provider with educators and learners using

different means to connect and engage with a programme, course or

educational activity

503

. In this staff working document, remote

Micro-credentials

Next Generation

Access (NGA) vs

Fixed Networks

Online learning

Remote education

497

European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of

the European Union.

498

Joint Research Centre (2019). Makerspaces for Education and Training. Exploring future implications for Europe.

Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union.

499

Eurydice (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.

500

CORSHIP (2019). Result 1.1c. Micro-credentials in EU and Global.

501

Communication from the Commission. EU Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment

of broadband networks. (2013/C 25/01).

502

Lifelong Learning Platform (2019). Lexicon (http://lllplatform.eu/resources/lexicon/).

503

QAA Guidance (2020). Building a Taxonomy for Digital Learning. Available at:

https://www.qaa.ac.uk/news-

events/news/qaa-publishes-building-a-taxonomy-for-digital-learning

Synchronous vs

asynchronous digital

teaching and learning

Upskilling/reskilling

User-driven

innovation

Virtual Learning

Environment (VLE)

Virtual Reality (VR)

/Augmented reality

(AR)

education is used as a broad term which compromises, among others,

the possibility to organise and deliver teaching and learning activities at

distance (e.g. by using radio, TV or electronic resources) or online (e.g.

requiring learners to use a connected device).

There are two kinds of digital teaching and learning: synchronous,

(happening collaboratively and at the same time with a group of online

learners and usually an educator) and asynchronous (happening at any

time, individually or in group, with interaction and communication

spanning across time)

504

. Synchronous vs asynchronous digital

teaching and learning are differentiated in terms of the time of the

online presence, but also available tools, instructional practices,

number of people involved and social mode of communication

505

Upskilling refers to short-term targeted training typically provided

following initial education or training, and aimed at supplementing,

improving or updating knowledge, skills and/or competences acquired

during previous training. Reskilling enables individuals to acquire new

skills giving access either to a new occupation or to new professional

activities

506

From a business point of view, user-driven innovation means placing

the final user of a particular product or service at the core of the

innovation process in a more systematic way.

507

User-driven

innovation can also be applied to education and training by engaging

educators, learners and staff in the analysis of a specific educational

problem and the design of possible solutions for it.

In the most general case VLE refers to a learning situation that is

supported by Internet-enabled technologies to provide tools for

students to learn specific content, communicate and submit work, while

providing components for an instructor to manage the learning process,

collect input, and provide feedback to students. The concept is called

virtual because students use computer programs and tools while

working from remote locations to accomplish activities that would

otherwise be done in real locations such as a school or classroom

508

VR involves the use of a computer to visually simulate an artificial

environment within which a user can interact with objects and be fully

immersed. AR refers to the real-time digital overlay of information

over physical elements. A user’s real, visible environment

is the

predominant element, with extra information intended to augment the

actual environment a user sees on an ad hoc basis, rather than fully

replacing it

509

International Baccalaureate Organization (2020). Online learning, teaching and education continuity planning for schools.

Spector J. M. (2015). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. SAGE Publications.

506

CEDEFOP (2008). Terminology of European education and training policy. A selection of 100 key terms.

507

Joseph W., Deryckere T., Martens L. (2010). User-driven innovation? Challenges of user involvement in future technology

analysis. Science and Public Policy. 37.

508

Spector J. M. (2015). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. SAGE Publications.

509

Digital Transformation Monitor. Augmented and Virtual Reality, available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-

databases/dem/monitor/category/augmented-and-virtual-reality.

505

504

NNEX

5: L

ITERATURE AND SOURCES

The present Annex presents recent research reports and literature on digital education and related

topics. The full list of resources used to write the staff working document is provided in the

document’s footnotes.

Beblav�½ M., Baiocco, S., Kilhoffer, Z., Akgüç, M., & Jacquot, M. (2019). Index of readiness for

digital lifelong learning: changing how Europeans upgrade their skills. Final Report 2019.

CEDEFOP (2018). Insights into skill shortages and skill mismatch: Learning from Cedefop’s

European skills and jobs survey. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Committee on European Computing Education (2017). Informatics Education in Europe: Are we

all in the same boat?

EDUCUASE (2019). Horizon Report: 2019. Higher Education. Louisville: EDUCAUSE.

EENEE (2019). Education outcomes enhanced by the use of digital technology. Reimagining the

school learning ecology. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Ehlers U.D., Kellermann S.A. (2019). Future Skills - The Future of Learning and Higher

education. Results of the International Future Skills Delphi Survey. Karlsruhe.

EIGE (2018), Women and men in ICT: a chance for better work–life balance. Research Note.

Luxembourg: Publications Oﬃce of the European Union.

EQUALS (2019). I’d blush If I could. Closing gender divides in digital skills

through education.

European Commission (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

European Commission (2019). 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Luxembourg:

Publications Office of the European Union.

European Commission (2018). The 2018 International Computer and Information Literacy Study

(ICILS). Main findings and implications for education policies in Europe. Luxembourg:

Publications Office of the European Union.

European Commission (2019). PISA 2018 and the EU - Striving for social fairness through

education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

European Commission (2019). Education and Training Monitor EU analysis. Luxembourg:

Publications Office of the European Union.

European Commission (2018). Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth

participation and youth work (Final report). Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European

Union.

European Commission (2018). Women in the Digital Age. Luxembourg: Publication office of the

European Union.

European Parliament (2020). Education and employment of women in science, technology and

the digital economy, including AI and its influence on gender equality. Luxembourg: Publication

office of the European Union.

European Parliament (2018). The underlying causes of the digital gender gap and possible

solutions for enhanced digital inclusion of women and girls. Luxembourg: Publication office of

the European Union.

Fraillon, J. Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., Duckworth, D. (2019). Preparing for Life in a

Digital World: International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 International Report.

Amsterdam: IEA.

Hodges C., Moore S., Lockee B., Trust T., Bond A. (2020). The difference between emergency

remote teaching and online learning. Educase Review.

Huang, R.H., Liu, D.J., Tlili, A., Yang, J.F., Wang, H.H., et al. (2020). Handbook on Facilitating

Flexible Learning During Educational Disruption: The Chinese Experience in Maintaining

Undisrupted Learning in COVID-19 Outbreak. Beijing: Smart Learning Institute of Beijing

Normal University.

IFO Institut (2020), Bildung in der Coronakrise: Wie haben die Schulkinder die Zeit der

Schulschließungen verbracht, und welche Bildungsmaßnahmen befürworten die Deutschen?

Joint Research Center (upcoming). Emerging technologies and the teaching profession. Ethical

and pedagogical considerations based on near-future scenarios. Luxembourg: Publications Office

of the EU.

Joint Research Center (2020). The likely impact of COVID-19 on education: Reflections based

on the existing literature and recent international datasets. Luxembourg: Publication of the

European Union.

Joint Research Center (2019), Makerspaces for Education and Training. Exploring future

implications for Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. JRC117481.

Joint Research Center (2019). Innovating Professional Development in Compulsory Education.

Luxembourg: Publication of the European Union.

Joint Research Center (2019). Innovating Professional Development in Higher Education.

Luxembourg: Publication of the European Union.

Joint Research Centre (2019). The changing nature of work and skills in the digital age.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Joint Research Centre (2019). Evidence of Innovative Assessment: Literature Review and Case

Studies. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Joint Research Center (2018). The impact of Artificial Intelligence on Learning, Teaching and

Education. Policies for the future. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Joint Research Center (2018). Artificial Intelligence: A European perspective. Luxembourg:

Publications Office of the European Union.

Joint Research Center (2017). Digital Education Policies in Europe and beyond: key principles

for most effective policies. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Joint Research Centre (2017). DigComp 2.1 - The digital competence framework for citizens

with eight proficiency levels and examples of use, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the

European Union.

Joint Research Centre (2017). European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators

(DigCompEdu), Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Joint Research Centre (2015). Promoting effective digital-age learning. A European framework

for digitally-competent educational organisations. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the

European Union.

Joynes C., Gibbs E., Sims K. (2020). An overview of emerging country-level responses to

providing educational continuity under COVID-19:

what’s working? What isn’t? Report for

EdTechHub.

100

Livingstone S., Haddon L., Gorzig A. (2019). Children, Risk and Safety on the Internet: Research

and Policy Challenges in comparative perspective.

NESET (2020). The effects of digital technology use on children´s empathy and attention

capacity. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

NESET (2020). Mapping and analysis of student-centred learning and teaching practices: usable

knowledge to support a more inclusive high-quality higher education. Luxembourg: Publications

Office of the European Union

NESET (2018). Teaching media literacy in Europe: evidence of effective school practices in

primary and secondary education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

NESTA (2020). Education for all: Making the case for a fairer adult learning system.

NESTA (2020). What motivates adults to learn: A rapid evidence review of what drives learning

new skills in the workplace.

OECD (2018). Getting ready for the digital world. PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. Paris:

OECD Publishing.

OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong

Learners. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2020). How can teachers and school systems respond to the COVID-19 pandemic? Some

lessons from TALIS - OECD Education and Skills Today.

OECD (2020). A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020.

OECD (2019). Skills Matter: Additional Results from the Survey of Adult Skills. OECD Skills

Studies. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2019). Education at glance. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2019). Skills Outlook 2019. Thriving in a digital world. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2018). Bridging the Digital Gender Divide. Include, Upskill, Innovate.

Paniagua A., Istance D. (2018). Teachers as Designers of Learning Environments: The

Importance of Innovative Pedagogies. Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD

Publishing.

Rampelt F., Orr D., Knoth A. (2019). Bologna Digital 2020: White Paper on Digitalisation in the

European Higher Education Area.

Selwyn N. (2019). Should Robots Replace Teachers? AI and the Future of Education. Policy

Press. Oxford, United Kingdom.

Selwyn N., Hillman T., Eynon R., Ferreira G., Knox J., Macgilchrist F., Sancho-Gil J.M. (2019).

What’s next for Ed-Tech?

Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s. Learning, Media and

Technology.

Smahel D., Machackova H., Mascheroni G., Dedkova L., Staksrud E., Ólafsson K., Livingstone

S., Hasebrink U. (2020). EU Kids Online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries. EU Kids

Online.

Southgate, E., Blackmore, K., Pieschl, S., Grimes, S., McGuire, J. & Smithers, K. (2018).

Artificial intelligence and emerging technologies (virtual, augmented and mixed reality) in

schools: A research report. Newcastle: University of Newcastle.

Williamson B. (2020). New pandemic edtech power networks. Code acts in education.

101

Williamson B. (2019). Big Data in Education: The digital future of learning, policy and

practice. 1st Edition.

World Economic Forum (2020). Schools of the Future Defining New Models of Education for

the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

World Economic Forum (2019). Assessing Gender Gaps in Artificial Intelligence.

World Economic Forum (2018). The Future of Jobs Report.

102