Digital learning: distraction or default for the future

Pablo Rivera-Vargas, Cristóbal Cobo Romani


Today it is not easy to think in the society without the impact (and influence) of digital technologies. The relevance of digital devices and associated indicators are used as proxies to measure the development of societies today. In that context, both top-down and/or bottom-up technology in education initiatives seek to promote different forms of incorporating digital technologies in educational contexts. There are many successful experiences around the world to implement digital technologies in school contexts. However, it is critical to analyze the mismatch between the expectations and the reality but also to enquire how to provide better evidence and analysis to deepen and expand the knowledge in the field of education and technology from the Top-Down and Bottom-Up initiatives. Keeping that in mind, an international call for papers was launched that finally 14 contributions from 12 countries were included in this special issue. The articles shed light about two important aspects: (1) how good technical solutions cannot ignore the context in which these digital technologies are being used or adopted. (2) how the access to technologies can simply amplify the existing inequalities within a society (as well as between different societies) if additional (in most cases non-technical) components are not being carefully considered.


Digital learning; top-down initiatives; top-down initiatives; digital technologies; EDTECH

Full Text:



Allsop, Y. (2016, 1st Nov) Does technology improve learning – the value of constructivist approaches to technology-based learning? Retrieved from:

Andersson, A., Hatakka, M., Grönlund, A., & Wiklund, M. (2014). Reclaiming the Students–Coping with Social Media in 1: 1 Schools. Learning, Media and Technology 39 (1): 37–52.

Area M., Alonso, C., Correa-Gorospe, J. M., Moral Pérez, M. E. D., Pablos Pons, J. D., Paredes Labra, J., Peirats, J., Sanabria, A., San Martin, A. & Valverde, J. (2014). Las políticas educativas TIC en España después del Programa Escuela 2.0: las tendencias que emergen. RELATEC: Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa, 13 (2), 11-34.

Area, M. 2011. The Effects of the 1: 1 Model on Educational Change in Schools: Evidence and Challenges for Ibero-American Policies. Revista Ibero-Americana de Educação 56: 49–74.

Assaél, J., Cornejo, R; González, J., Redondo, J., Sánchez, R., Sobarzo, M. (2011). La empresa educativa Chilena. Educação & Sociedade, 32(115), 305-322.

Balanskat, A., Bannister, D., Hertz, B., Sigillò, E., & Vuorikari, R. (2013). Overview and Analysis of 1:1 Learning Initiatives in Europe. JRC Scientific and Policy Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from:

Biesta, G. (2015). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

CETIC (2018) Pesquisa sobre o uso das Tecnologias de Informação e Comunicação nas escolas brasileiras - TIC Educação 2017. Retrieved from:

Cobo, C. (2016). La Innovación Pendiente.: Reflexiones (y Provocaciones) sobre educación, tecnología y conocimiento. New Yorok: Penguin Random House.

Cobo, C. (2019). Acepto las condiciones: Usos y abusos de las tecnologías digitales. Madrid: Fundación Santillana.

Cobo, C., & Rivera-Vargas. P. (2018). Enhancing Social Inclusion Through Innovative Mobile Learning in Uruguay: Case Study by the UNESCO-Fazheng Project on Best Practices in Mobile Learning. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from:

Coll, C., y Rivera-Vargas, P. (2019). Repensar la educación escolar en la sociedad digital. En P. Rivera-Vargas, J. Muñoz, y R. Morales (coord,), Políticas Públicas para la Equidad Social V.2, (pp. 13-19). Colección Políticas Públicas, Universidad de Santiago de Chile.

EdTechXGlobal (2016, 25 May). Report analysis. Retrieved from:

Education Endowment Foundation (2019). Digital technology Moderate impact for moderate cost, based on extensive evidence. Retrieved from

Engeström, Y. (2016). Studies in expansive learning: Learning what is not yet there. Cambridge: University Press.

Erstad, O., Miño-Puigcercós, R., & Rivera-Vargas, P. (2020). Transformative agency and digital connectedness — expanding educational practices in three countries. Comunicar, 66. In press.

Foudation Kennisnet (2015). Four in balance monitor 2015: use and benefits of ICT in education. Retrieved from:

Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Duckworth, D., & Friedman, T. (2018). Preparing for life in a digital age: IEA international computer and information literacy study 2018 international report. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA): website. Retrieved from:

Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic learning environments. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 401-412). Springer, New York, NY.

IADB (2012). Technology and Child Development: Evidence from the One Laptop per Child Program. Retrieved from:

Lipman, P. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race, and the right to the city. New York: Routledge.

McKay, J. (2016). New Mobile Technologies in a Rural, Alternate School: A Case Study (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.

Mercader, C., & Gairín, J. (2020). University teachers' perception of barriers to the use of digital technologies: the importance of the academic discipline. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1-14.

Mora, T., Escardíbul, J., & Di Pietro, G. (2018). Computers and Students’ Achievement: An Analysis of the One Laptop per Child Program in Catalonia. International Journal of Educational Research 92: 145–157.

OECD (2015).Students, Computers and Learning. Retrieved from:,

OCDE (2019). TALIS Report. Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD. Retrieved from:

Omidyar Network (2019) Scaling Access & Impact: Realizing the Power of EdTech. Retrieved from:

Pamuk, S., Cakir, R., Ergun, M., Yilmaz, H. B., & Ayas, C. (2013). The Use of Tablet PC and Interactive Board from the Perspectives of Teachers and Students: Evaluation of the FATİH Project. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(3), 1815–1822.

Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. JRC Science for policy report. Retrieved from:

Rivera-Vargas, P., & Cobo Romaní, C. (2019). La universidad en la sociedad digital: entre la herencia analógica y la socialización del conocimiento. REDU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 17(1), 17-32.

Rivera-Vargas, P., & Lindín, C. (2019). Blockchain in the university: a digital technology to design, implement and manage global learning itineraries. Digital Education Review, 35, 130-150.

Rivera-Vargas, P., Sancho-Gil, J. M., & Sánchez, J. A. (2017). Los límites de la disrupción en el orden académico. La cultura DIY en la universidad. Páginas de Educación, 10(2), 127-142.

Sancho-Gil, J. M., Rivera-Vargas, P., & Miño-Puigcercós, R. (2020). Moving beyond the predictable failure of Ed-Tech initiatives. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), 61-75.

Sancho, J. M. (2010). Del sentido de la investigación educativa y la dificultad de que se considere para guiar las políticas y las prácticas. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 8(2), 34-46.

Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65–73.

Selwyn, N. (2012). Ten suggestions for improving academic research in education and technology. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(3), 213-219

Selwyn, N. (2013). Empowering the world’s poorest children? A critical examination of One Laptop per Child. In N. Selwyn & K. Facer. The politics of education and technology (pp. 101-125). New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education? New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Sisto, V. y Fardella, C. (2014). El eclipse del profesionalismo en la era de la rendición de cuentas – modelando docentes en el contexto del nuevo management público. Cuadernos de Educaçao, 14, 3-23.

Skinner, B. F. (1960). Teaching machines. The review of economics and statistics. 42, 189-191.

Stetsenko, A. (2019). Radical-Transformative Agency: Continuities and Contrasts with Relational Agency and Implications for Education. Frontiers in Education, 4, 148-164.

Stornaiuolo, A., Smith, A., & Phillips, N. (2017). Developing a transliteracies framework for a connected world. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(1), 68-91.

Stringer, E., Lewin, C., & Coleman, R. (2019). Using digital technology to improve learning: Guidance report. Retrieved from:

UNESCO-FAZHENG (2019). Best Practices in Mobile Learning Project. Retrieved from

Vegas, E., Ziegler, L., & Zerbino, N. (2019) How ed-tech can help leapfrog progress in education. The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from:

Venegas, J. I., & Westermann, W. (2019). Effectiveness of OER Use in First-Year Higher Education Students’ Mathematical Course Performance: A Case Study. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(2).

Warschauer, M., & M. Ames. 2010. Can One Laptop per Child Save the World's Poor? Journal of International Affairs 64 (1): 33–51

World Bank (2018). Learning to realize education`s promise. Retrieved from:


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Licencia Creative Commons

ISSN 2013-9144


RCUB Avís Legal RCUB Universitat de Barcelona