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

Research questions and purpose 
Although there is an abundance of systematic reviews on DC in educational contexts with increased 
attention on TDC, these reviews cover a range of perspectives and levels of analysis, often showing one 
piece of the larger DC landscape in HE. Much of the previous work on TDC focuses on teacher education 
and teacher preparation programs (Krumsvik, 2014; Spante et al., 2018) or is centred on the pre-university 
level of teaching (Esteve-Mon et al., 2020). It is clear that the post-pandemic university will continue to 
shift towards emerging and intensified models of hybrid and blended forms of digital learning. In this 
regard, from a transdisciplinary perspective, TDC will be increasingly critical for carrying out core teaching 
and learning activities across institutions. Despite a recent upsurge in TDC research, much of the existing 
literature on integrating digital technologies in HE emphasises student learning rather than focusing on the 
development of faculty teaching (Esteve-Mon et al., 2020; Guri-Rosenblit, 2018). 
We aim to build upon previous reviews by providing an integrated synthesis of existing knowledge on 
TDC. Our research team represents a diverse group of university professors and researchers with a multi-
disciplinary and international focus, from a fully online university in Barcelona, Spain, where TDC is a 
fundamental aspect of professional life. The current study stems from our interest in faculty professional 
development through a TDC framework, an interest in understanding how research has been conducted in 
this field and how it can be improved. We hope to inform future teacher education and continuous faculty 
professional development by identifying future lines of inquiry in this field, guided by the following 
research questions: 
•
RQ1: What are the characteristics of published systematic reviews in relation to TDC research in 
HE?
•
RQ2: What are the implications for practice for TDC development in HE suggested in these 
reviews?
•
RQ3: What is the quality of these reviews? 
Methodology 
We carried out an overview of systematic reviews following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic 
Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines (see Appendix A) 
(Moher et al., 2009) and the procedures described by Polanin et al. (2017). Identifying, appraising and 
synthesising published reviews on a given topic using an overview approach is especially suited when 
facing an abundance of research. Although overviews are performed in many similar ways to traditional 
systematic reviews, one of their most significant distinctions is the need for researchers to consider multiple 
levels of analysis (i.e., the overview, review and primary study levels) (Polanin et al., 2017).