Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(3)

Discussion 
The purpose of the current overview was to synthesise systematic reviews and provide an integrated view 
of existing knowledge that can be used to support TDC development in HE, including recommendations 
for practice and future research, given the current state of the evidence. Overall, a synthesised assessment 
emerged of an ever-expanding research field. Three clear settings were identified by synthesising evidence 
from 740 studies across 13 systematic reviews. The most frequent setting was general DC development, 
which took a broad view across different areas and levels of analysis (i.e., faculty, students, teaching and 
learning processes, governance and leadership) often concerned with identifying research trends or 
pedagogical aspects of DC development. A second setting was specifically concerned with TDC in HE, 
analysing the digital teaching competence of university teachers (Esteve-Mon et al., 2020) and proposing 
new DC conceptual models specifically for HE contexts. Research purposes here are concerned with 
revising concepts and models of TDC as well as pedagogical considerations, such as revising curricula, 
offering training proposals and developing TDC evaluation frameworks. A third setting focused on teacher 
training, relating most specifically to the faculty of education setting, a finding which is consistent with 
observations in the literature (Esteve-Mon et al., 2020; Krumsvik, 2014; Spante et al., 2018). 
In regard to RQ1, the evidence synthesis revealed a significant interest in TDC research in Spain, consistent 
with other findings in the literature (Reis et al., 2019; Spante et al., 2018). It is clear that in Spain and 
elsewhere, there is increased attention on DC research, predominantly conducted by researchers in the field 
of EdTech affiliated with faculties of education. Building diversity in terms of disciplinary perspectives 
and methodological approaches (i.e., beyond self-perception surveys) on TDC development, advancing 
new and innovative ideas at the boundaries of social science and other disciplines such as health sciences, 
as in the case of Cabero-Almenara, Guillén-Gámez, et al. (2021), computer science or engineering, could 
help advance more rigorous research and reimagine TDC research in new directions from a 
multidisciplinary perspective. 
Moving to the methodological characteristics of the synthesised reviews, there is a real concern about the 
quality of the conduct and reporting of research, a concern which has long been raised in the EdTech field 
(Bulfin et al., 2020; Castañeda et al., 2018), where basic forms of descriptive research continue to prevail 
(Hew et al., 2019). With regard to the types of studies included, the type of systematic review conducted, 
critical appraisal and the methods used to combine results of studies, there was a general sense of ambiguity 
when reporting, including significant underreporting, corresponding with the findings of Polanin et al. 
(2017). The methodological literature is clear regarding the critical importance of these reporting items to 
the value of systematic reviews and that “the conduct of a systematic review depends heavily on the scope 
and quality of included studies” (Moher et al., 2009, p. 2). In particular, the lack of critical appraisal in the 
majority of revisions leads to questions of validity and reliability of the results, including whether review 
authors conducted and reported their research to the highest possible standards (Pollock et al., 2021). TDC 
research could be more relevant and impactful if these methodological weaknesses are addressed. 
In relation to RQ2, several authors (Pettersson, 2018; Sánchez-Caballé et al., 2020; Spante et al., 2018) 
highlighted the necessity of establishing rigorous definitions of concepts to avoid mismatches and 
validation problems. Once these concepts are clarified, research could focus on developing models with 
dimensions and specific indicators relevant for TDC in HE (Duran et al., 2016). Established TDC models 
should enable the development of tests or task-based criteria to evaluate TDC in HE for certification 
purposes and, in particular, for designing teachers initial and ongoing training proposals (Duran et al., 2016; 
Fernández-Batanero et al., 2020; Palacios et al., 2020; Starkey, 2020). 
HE institutions need to be able to respond to the new demands of digital education, particularly as we move 
towards post-pandemic realities characterised by hybrid and blended models. In this sense, it is essential to 
increase TDC research across disciplines, subject matter and geographic realities (Perdomo et al., 2020; 
Pettersson, 2018; Zhao et al., 2021). TDC in HE research should be reoriented due to a lack of robust 
research that goes beyond descriptive research based on students or teacher self-perceptions. Increasing 
sample sizes and the use of qualitative or mixed methods (i.e., case-studies, ethnographies, or in-depth 
studies) are needed, including exploring the possibility of using meta-analysis techniques (Esteve-Mon et 

---

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(3). 
132 
al., 2020; Perdomo et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2021). Moreover, systematic reviews should be repeated 
regularly, and results applied to advance theory and practice (Pettersson, 2018). 
Finally, it is important to analyse the role that universities play in DC development to enhance links between 
policy, organisational infrastructures, strategic leadership and teachers and teaching practices (Pettersson, 
2018). In this sense, it is necessary to consider the connection between teaching competence and 
pedagogical leadership for educational innovation and the importance of digital teacher training for the 
development of student and institutional competencies (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2020). 
In relation to RQ3, a broad variability was observed when assessing methodological quality, organised into 
low, medium and high-quality clusters. Similar to results from Polanin et al. (2017), one of the most 
concerning findings from the current study is the quality reporting of the reviews, both in terms of 
methodological reporting and reporting of the included primary studies. There were omissions across a 
range of criteria, as reported in the results. These findings can again be explained by the broader consensus 
in the literature about methodological quality and relevance of EdTech research more generally (Bulfin et 
al., 2020; Castañeda et al., 2018; Hew et al., 2019) as well as a lack of clear guidelines for systematic 
reviews in educational research, where much of the methodological literature comes from the health 
sciences (Aromataris et al., 2015; Pollock et al., 2021). There may be several factors explaining these 
results, including discipline, as critical appraisal is primarily carried out in the health sciences, pragmatic 
concerns such as time constraints or the fear that many studies will be excluded, or the lack of familiarity 
with guidelines for conducting systematic reviews.