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

Search strategy 
To identify potentially relevant documents, Scopus, Web of Science and Dialnet were searched from 
inception to January 2021. Scopus and Web of Science were selected because they are among the most 
relevant in international multidisciplinary literature (Aghaei Chadegani et al., 2013), while Dialnet offers 
the most relevant bibliometric information in Spanish. The search terms used – reported in Table 1 – were 
initially developed by the research team and further refined with an information scientist working at the 
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. The search was carried out in January 2021. To ensure complete coverage, 
a complementary search was also carried out in Google Scholar. In total, 1608 records were identified 
through the search strategy, shown in Figure 1. 
Table 1 
Search terms
Concept
Search terms (in title, abstract, or keywords)
TDC
“digital competenc*” OR “teach* digital competenc*” OR (teach* AND “digital 
competenc*) OR “digital literac*” OR “teach AND “digital literac*”
Systematic review or meta-analysis “systematic review*” OR “meta-analys*”

---

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, 38(3). 
125 
Inclusion criteria 
Publications that reported a systematic literature review of empirical research on TDC development in HE 
were included. Publications reporting bibliometric studies were also included. Systematic reviews had to 
synthesise studies that had been totally or primarily carried out in HE settings and focused all or part of 
their research questions on TDC or DC development in HE. Only publications in English or Spanish were 
included. 
Study selection 
The study selection was conducted in two phases. First, after duplicates were removed, the first three 
authors acted as reviewers, screening publications by title and abstract. To iteratively establish a common 
understanding and application of the inclusion criteria, the screening was performed in four cycles of 100 
publications each. The remaining documents were then screened, and any disagreements between the 
reviewers 
were 
discussed 
and 
reconciled 
using 
EPPI 
Reviewer 
software 
(
https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?alias=eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/er4
). In the second phase, the same three 
reviewers assessed the eligibility of the remaining publications using a full text assessment. Reasons for 
exclusion were documented. Any disagreements between the reviewers were also resolved through 
consensus.